ORIGINAL: quiksilver

Okay, so we've got questions 1 & 5 answered. Regarding #5, I definitely see your point, Matt. There isn't much point reinvesting tens of thousands into marketing a bow that has already been marketed. Everybody knows about the Ally. I guess my viewpoint was that, until I checked their website, I thought the Allegiance had actually been discontinued in lieu of the General, Commander and Airbornes.

Thanks Matt - good response.
__________________________________________________ ___

That leaves 2, 3, 4 and 6 still open. #3 was "sorta" answered, but I'm not satisfied with "over 100,000 adult bows."

Bowtech Shooter: One thing that you said kinda makes me wonder... "Matt pretty much nailed everything, even the things he knows NOT to disclose..." (Emphasis Added).

I must ask - why the secrecy? Is there something to hide? Wouldn't it be fair to the consumers to have all this information available, so that prospective buyers can know exactly what they're getting for their hard-earned dollars? I mean, it's largely the SAME for everybody. I'm sure Mathews is forking out roughly the same amount on the roller guard patentas Bowtech. Same thing with the camo patterns. Everybody has to buy their camo patterns from its proprietary owner. It's definitely not something that is specific to Bowtech.

Please note that I also understand that there may be volume or "sweetheart" discounts... I don't care about all that. I just want a "ballpark" figure.

Also, like Swampcollie noted: asking about sales volume isn't something that I would consider "Top Secret." I mean, come on.

I won't push the envelope any further, b/c I don't want to get anyone upset. But, seeing as how I like to consider myself a consumer advocate - I feel like these are questions that are legitimate, and not beyond the bounds of corporate privilege. Believe me, I understand that certain information will always be played close to the vest, as it should. But I don't think any of my questions are over that line.

Furthermore, is it really worth having "corporate staff" if you're going to put tape over their collective mouths and filter the information disseminated to the public?