[hugothefrog]

Instinctively, I disagree with you. But you might be right. I may even agree with you, intellectually.

What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

Alienation is a very powerful emotional force, used by all sorts of parties to all sorts of ends. Are there 'positive' forms of alienation?

Is there not a middle path that can be taken that doesn't alienate, but also doesn't bore?

[m0th87]

If a comedian worried about offending people, s/he wouldn't be funny. If Apple worried about alienating large swaths of the marketplace, it wouldn't have a rabid following.

If there weren't a "positive" effect of alienation, people wouldn't consciously cause it. Maybe it's a side-effect of good marketing. Or maybe it props up the sort of us vs. them mentality associated with cult followings. Or maybe I'm getting too philosophical, and everything I'm saying is bullshit.

[hugothefrog]

Hah - I didn't intend to end 3/4 of my post with question marks. Or did I? ..ahem.

My comment was really a rhetorical question about the moral (not necessarily commercial - I'm not arguing that) appropriateness of taking (as you described) an alienating path.

I've read quite a few descriptions of marketing as being successful by causing unknown wants and needs. None of those descriptions really talk about 'us and them' as a concept.

[edit-minor typo]