When Everyone Likes You, Nobody Loves You

I have been thinking about something that bothers me when I look at hotel marketing. There seems to be this underlying fear of excluding anyone, as though having a strong point of view might cost them potential bookings. The result feels like watching someone try to be likeable at a party by agreeing with everyone and saying nothing memorable.

This reminds me of what happened to brands like Lacoste. Once a symbol of understated luxury, the crocodile logo gradually lost its meaning as the brand stretched to accommodate broader audiences. Not through dramatic price cuts necessarily, but through a slow erosion of what made it distinctive in the first place. The brand became accessible to everyone and meaningful to no one in particular.

The Mathematics of Mediocrity

The logic appears sound on the surface. Cast a wider net, attract more customers, generate more revenue. The assumption suggests that offending fewer people automatically translates to attracting more people. But I suspect this thinking misunderstands how emotional connection actually works, especially in luxury markets.

When hotels create generic social media content that could apply to any property anywhere, they may indeed avoid alienating potential guests. They also avoid creating any compelling reason for someone to choose them over alternatives. The safe approach eliminates both negative reactions and passionate advocacy.

I notice this particularly in hotel captions that describe beautiful spaces without revealing anything about the institutional character behind those spaces. The content functions as visual wallpaper rather than brand expression. Pleasant, inoffensive, and immediately forgettable.

The Personality Paradox

Having a distinctive voice inevitably creates division. Some people will resonate with your approach while others will find it unappealing. This feels risky, particularly when you need bookings and revenue. The temptation to soften edges and broaden appeal becomes almost irresistible.

But I wonder if this safety actually costs more than it protects. When a hotel has no discernible personality, guests have no emotional hook to remember or recommend it by. They might enjoy their stay without developing any particular loyalty or enthusiasm that would drive return visits or referrals.

The hotels that stick in my memory all had some quality that felt distinctly theirs. Sometimes this meant certain aspects did not appeal to me personally, but I could still recognize and respect their clarity of vision. That recognition creates a different type of value than broad acceptability.

The Instagram Blandness Problem

I see this universal appeal strategy playing out most clearly on social media, where hotels post beautiful images accompanied by captions that say essentially nothing. The photography might be exceptional, but the voice behind it feels absent or artificial.

The pattern suggests an underlying uncertainty about what the property actually stands for beyond looking attractive. When you strip away distinctive perspective, cultural context, and institutional character, what remains feels like luxury cosplay rather than authentic brand expression.

This creates a strange dynamic where properties with genuinely interesting stories, unique cultural positions, or distinctive service philosophies present themselves as generically as their unremarkable competitors. The leveling effect serves no one particularly well.

The Revenue Question

The financial logic behind broad appeal strategies assumes that attracting larger audiences automatically generates better business outcomes. But I suspect this overlooks the quality difference between customers who choose you for specific reasons versus those who choose you because you seem acceptable.

Guests who connect with your actual brand positioning tend to become advocates rather than just customers. They return more frequently, spend more during visits, and recommend you to others who share similar values. These behaviors create higher lifetime value than one-time visitors who booked primarily for convenience or price.

Meanwhile, trying to serve everyone often means serving no one particularly well. The operational challenges of accommodating vastly different guest expectations can actually diminish the experience quality for everyone involved.

The Love Versus Like Dynamic

The phrase keeps returning to me: if everyone likes you, nobody loves you. This feels particularly relevant for luxury hospitality, where emotional connection drives booking decisions more than rational comparison shopping.

Love requires specificity. People develop strong preferences for brands that reflect their values, aesthetic sensibilities, or aspirational identities. This connection cannot exist without some element of exclusivity or distinction that makes the preference feel meaningful.

When hotels eliminate everything that might create division, they also eliminate the possibility of passionate connection. Guests may find their stay pleasant without developing any particular attachment to the property or eagerness to return.

Strategic Implications

I find myself wondering whether the safer path actually represents the riskier long-term strategy. Broad appeal might generate consistent moderate performance while distinctive positioning creates the possibility of both failure and exceptional success.

The properties that seem to thrive long-term often have clear points of view that attract specific audiences intensely rather than general audiences casually. This creates sustainable competitive advantages that generic positioning cannot match.

Perhaps the real risk lies not in potentially alienating some potential guests, but in failing to create compelling reasons for anyone to choose your property over alternatives or remember it afterward.