I have always loved the history of the marketing MTBs, of the ad hoc amateur brand building and the establishment of the sport. It's so rare that such a large pastime is borne within our lifetime - golf, road cycling, tennis, football all have heritage and momentum that goes way back. I'm always tempted to roll out my snowboarding and skiing analogy when thinking about these early days. I think it's relevant in the sense that the early adopters (and you may be one of those) came at it all with a fresh angle and little traditional cycling baggage or allegiance, yet some umbilical cord existed, a relationship that had the added spice of rebellion, unconformity, differentiation.
Ironically those early sport/frame builders probably had a lot of 'road' in their bones and it'd be interesting to hear those leap of faith stories and battles of 'conversion'. Those first small steps by builders, presumably led by some sort of customer demand, could hardly be funded or backed with serious marketing campaigns as we know them today. Those early adopter tyre-kickers are rarely the target profile of marketers, being too well informed (or opinionated) and expensive to crack.
Of course there were maverick marketing success stories that went with intriguing products - Fat Chance had an anti-establishment approach that stands the brand in good stead even today; Klein hit gold with their last chance roll of the up-market dice (enabling them to sell their brand). But broader, sustained success would always fall to those with a balance of consistency and marketing budget enabling them to reach the second wave, the mass market where real money could be made. Good finances afforded text book building of mass market brands through repetitive advertising exposure, race teams and victories, personalities, media manipulation, shop promotions etc.
The ultimate goal of a brand is surely 'loyalty' - customers coming back for more or evangelising and converting others - here at least, the product has to stand up and be counted. How many of us bought the same brand of bike more than once?
Thinking back, in 1991/2 I remember I struggled to choose between Cannondale, GT and Kona - at the time, Kona had the marketing image I believed in; Cannondale had the glossy showroom appeal but I bought the Zaskar not because I related to the Long Beach, sun-kissed image but because of its ball-burnished rawness. It looked mountain-tough. It looked like it would last forever. Orange and PACE were on the radar but seemed too boutique and too cliquey - hard to buy into for a first bike.
Another point of discussion is brands that disappoint - where the hype just didn't deliver...!