My hypothesis is that in order to build a cult following, you sort of have to alienate others. Maybe it's crude, but it's part of the equation. The alternative is to take the "corporate" route and build a boring, conservative 404 that could not possibly offend anyone, but would not possibly entertain anyone either.
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.
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.
