The Rubicon tops out well north of $50K with the bits and bobs most want on it, and the Gladiator touches $60K, more with tax and title in many places. They're lifestyle vehicles, and that's fine. Interestingly, in 2013, FCA said the average household income of a Wrangler Rubicon buyer was $110,000. You're not making $110,000 fresh out of college, on average.
Land Rover has always prided itself as an aspirational brand, never mind its roots in post-WWII Britain. You start out with a used Jeep, but you always want that Defender. You start out in a Honda, but damn if you wouldn't give your left nut for a Porsche. Turns out men buy a Wrangler today because it's a midlife crisis car - the average buyer is 48 years old. I think if a Defender was available even for a little bit more, a significant percentage of those in their prime earnings years would opt for it instead of a Wrangler, especially if it can do everything a Wrangler can right off the lot, especially if there is more luxury for that money. There's a lot more money in the economy than there was in the mid- to late-1990s.
Hope you are right. JLR needs the volume ( there is little volume with G-Wagons ) and profitability or their financials will find them with new owners and a new 'direction' that is a reset to 'aspirational'. Recent automotive articles note high cost of SUV's is beginning to be a detriment as the next generation 2 income families can't afford those price points. The feel of debt deflation is intruding into the conversation. The talk at auto shows is consolidation. Maybe enough will migrate to LR's but by today's model volumes that is the crossover segment which for LR is $45K.
Defender as competition to the Rubicon needs to be $50K, not $70K+. If they really wanted to make a statement the entry point of the Defender would be $45K.