Okay, I'm going to give a serious response now. I'm even going to use italics and bold letters to show how serious I'm being.
From a marketing and psychological perspective, I think FMIC has, or had, consumers right where they wanted them, and it's all about tapping into our aspirations. I think the whole Fender thing is about creating, shaping, and meeting those aspirations. In fact, the whole marketing thing is about that.
This is exactly why auto dealers have a boutique model right in the middle of the showroom, or have a boutique model in production full-stop - it's there to excite and direct our aspirations. The brand can be boutique, and so it's worth associating ourselves with. We can't afford the top model, but we can afford something a bit cheaper. And maybe one day we hope we can afford something a bit nicer. Think about the Ford Mustang line.
For years, the 'common wisdom' in bass/guitar world has been that, for instance, MIA beats MIM beats Squier. When we bought our first Squier (perhaps conveniently packed in a starter's pack), we then aspired to a 'real' Fender. When we couldn't buy an American Fender, we bought a Mexican Fender. Close enough, right? Well, for some, yes. But there was still a decent chunk of us who still aspired to an American Fender. At the MIA level, a big segment gets off the train happy, but a few stay on, aspiring for a CS or a fancy RI - something that's just a bit more different from everyone else's MIA, just a little bit more boutique (and, importantly, recognizably so).
At some point, Fender probably realised that they were losing too many people at the slightly lower rungs (MIM), and decided to create products we could continue to aspire to owning, but could realistically do so. Enter Roadworn, Classic 50s/70s, etc. These are all just a little bit more 'boutique' than a MIM Standard - The RW, IMO, is pure genius - how many people aspire to have a beaten up Fender with mojo? Probably a lot. It might not be 'real', but it looks real enough from a distance. Vain creatures we are.
But what about the people who still couldn't afford anything with 'Fender' on the headstock, and so went on to a different brand after their Affinity had served its purpose? Well, the CV and VM line were created to fill that gap. They're clearly different from the Affinity line, and only a small step up in price - and they're selling truckloads. Was it part of the Fender plan to let so many customers off at the CV/VM level? I don't know, but the new Squier models have certainly got people questioning whether it's worth it (for them) to continue to aspire to a 'real' Fender. And there's enough of us gushing about Squiers on TB to help us feel satisfied with the basses.
Now, these basses might have measurable differences in quality, but that's mostly moot from the business perspective - the important thing is that enough people perceive and believe that the difference in price is justified, and therefore aspire to the 'higher' models. And let's not beat around the bush: when it comes to Fender there is a huge segment of musicians who are very self-conscious about the perceived status of their instrument - they feel better having an MIA Fender than they do 'just' having a Chinese Squier.
I think the reason these discussions get so heated is this issue of aspirations - guys who enjoy playing basses that happen to cost less don't like to be told their aspirations are stunted or misguided, while guys who like to play basses that happen to cost more don't like to be told their aspirations (and achievements) are actually hollow. When we have a made a choice to play certain basses and pay a certain amount, there's a lot of emotional investment going on as well. Whether we like it or not, what and how we consume forms a big part of the way we relate to one another and present ourselves to the world. Being told our modes of consumption are bonkers is a personal attack, and most of us won't like being attacked for who we are.
