Another side of the argument would be to consider that because Cube and Scott are such large companies, they often have very good R&D facilities, so you have a good chance of getting a very balanced (cutting edge even), up to date package in terms of components and geometry.
Plus, a large percentage of the total cost of the bike is made up of the components, which have to be bought in. So they are able to negotiate a significant discount from the likes of Shimano or Sram.
So yes, I'm sure you do pay somewhat for the marketing etc, but I suspect you are clawing that back to some extent - although I have a feeling that depends on the company - Specialized for example always seem to offer very low 'value for money' when doing a like for like comparison, and don't get me wrong, I do REALLY like a lot of their bikes, but they do seem to milk their brand image, and most of the general public are fairly clueless. They see the name 'Specialized' and just assume it means its better than most other brands.
Its made me chuckle a number of times when I'm out cycling with the other half and kids look at her bike, see the name on the frame, and cry out with admiration "Whoa ... its a TREK!!"
Guess marketing works
(but regardless ... all the Trek bikes I've owned or ridden have also been VERY nice bikes !)