and no, it isn't an undiscovered product. It had been roled out and is in commercial us on a fairly widespread basis, but there are a lot of reasons why this won't be obvious.
In my experience many businesses and organisations do not want the overhead of having their own site/intranet managed by their own staff. Some do, but most (that I deal with) seem not to, even when the option is offered. Oddly, when a browser based Content Management System is offered, this often finds more favour than Contribute.
1. Software licensing/purchase
2. Staff training
3. Designer/developer still has to create template based site and assign editable regions
4. Major changes still require designer/developer input
5. Most larger sites that would benefit from Contribute are data driven, which effectively robs you of Contribute's power to a large extent
Where one or two people will be regularly updating largely static content over a reasonably large site of, say, around 100 or 200 pages or so, Contribute can really come into its own. Most businesses that require updates on a less frequent basis or that use a data driven site can find that Contribute is a less than optinmal solution and, in the case of data driven sites, it can be very counterproductive.
One of my clients use it on their site and it serves them well and saves a lot of designer/developer fees. They update at least once per week, the site is quite large but it is all static content. They do want to keep it fresh and up to date and some of the news and product pages really need to have a finger on the pulse approach.
It's all about matching Contribute to its most suitable environment. When you do that it really is superb. It is not an ideal solution in many cases though, and often its benefits are outweighed by its limitations.
Could I be any more ambiguous ?