The cost of speaking to everyone

A recent conversation about inclusive communication prompted me to write this post. The drive towards what is termed "inclusive" communication is a noble aspiration, often guided by the best of intentions: to expand market horizons, connect with broader social threads, and, above all, ensure that no potential customer feels excluded. This desire for openness is commendable, but the clinical observation of the market and the analysis of corporate systems reveal an inconvenient pattern: when the goal becomes to include every single voice, the message risks becoming so diluted and generalised that it loses all power of resonance. Effectiveness—the true measure of success in business—is dispersed, and this approach, seemingly progressive, can prove less productive and sometimes more damaging than a focused, traditional strategy.

This is where the fundamental confusion lies, which is not ethical, but purely structural. The strategic error is confusing equality with equity. Equality, in communication, means delivering the exact same message to all people, regardless of their background or history. Equity, conversely, means giving each person the right message—one they can decode, understand, and feel viscerally connected to, using the language and symbols that resonate with their specific experience. When we blindly apply equality to communication without a deep diagnosis of the audience, we are inevitably creating a generic message, destined by definition for mediocrity.

when communication masks structural problems

Often, the frantic adoption of "inclusive" communication appears in companies facing serious structural challenges: obsolete products, high operating costs, or a steady loss of market share to leaner, more innovative competitors. Instead of tackling the complex and painful internal restructuring that would demand heavy investment and unpopular choices, executives may be tempted to find a "quick fix" in marketing, by embracing a social cause or an inclusivity theme.

This move is understandable because it is cheaper and easier in the short term. However, it is a clear example of displacement activity: substituting the structural problem with a communication one, hoping a change in narrative will resolve product or service flaws. The empirical lesson, painfully demonstrated by recent global brand failures (such as the case of Gillette or the more extreme example of Bud Light), is clear: communication, no matter how well-intentioned or virtuous, does not possess the magical power to save a product that is no longer competitive, or a business model that fails to resonate with the real needs, values, or symbolic desires of the market. For inclusivity to have a positive impact on the balance sheet, it must be the logical consequence of a strong, focused product, not its sole survival strategy.

the fallacy of the monolith

The failure of many universal campaigns stems from a basic error we call the demographic aggregation fallacy. This is the strategic illusion that a large statistical grouping, whether defined by age ("the youth"), gender ("women"), or general orientation, acts as a single, homogenous bloc in its purchasing behaviour.

If we take, for example, the market you are referring to, a successful female entrepreneur in Milan, a housewife managing family finances in a small southern town, and an activist student basing her choices on environmental ethics, while sharing the same demographic variable, actually have:

• Lifestyles that are completely divergent;

• Financial values and spending priorities that contrast;

• Different reasons for choosing a traditional bank versus a fintech.

Attempting to speak to all these people simultaneously with a single, universal message inevitably creates what we might call the "fresh water" effect: a communication so diluted and flavourless that it becomes harmless, completely lacking the specificity required to touch the emotional and decisive chords of any single individual.

the rejection effect and strategic alienation

The most dangerous consequence of this forced universality is the alienation of the Profitable Core Segment. Human beings are tribal creatures. Unconsciously, we seek messages that feel like they are "speaking about me and for me." When a brand blatantly attempts to include everyone, the loyal, historical customer can perceive a signal of strangeness, decoding the message as: "this communication is no longer dedicated to my tribe; it's no longer for me." This creates a phenomenon of rejection that translates into a collapse in sales, as happened in the automotive sector with brands like JLR, which alienated its traditional base in an attempt to intercept a progressive market not yet ready to economically sustain the purchase.

These are not errors of creative marketing, but the empirical demonstration that in a competitive market, indifference is strategic death. It is far better to be loved and revered by 20% of the market than to be tepidly tolerated by 60%. Universality, in the attempt to offend no one, ends up inspiring no one.

the architect's path: from benevolence to analytical precision

The only systemic answer to this paradox, therefore, is not an opposition to inclusivity, but its elevation to targeted strategy. We must abandon the idea of generic inclusion and move towards inclusion based on choice and the courage of focus.

The right path has three clear steps, and your role is fundamental in this sequence. My support, as a Systems Architect, is to design the antifragile methodology that makes your vision the only possible one for success:

the diagnostic sequence: facing reality (data and behaviours)

The first essential step is to move beyond superficial labels. It is not enough to stop at basic demographic data. It is crucial to map the behaviours and real needs of the public. We must understand not just who they are, but how they behave, which problems they are trying to solve (the famous Job-to-be-Done), and why they make their decisions in a financial context. This requires investing in uncomfortable analytical honesty: collecting sociological data that maps values, fears, and aspirations, irrespective of gender. Only then can we identify clusters of people with similar financial needs that extend far beyond the simple distinction between male and female.

the surgical choice that pays off: strategic focus

The analysis of the data inevitably leads us to the moment of courageous choice. We must identify that specific segment where the company, with its current or future assets, can truly win, surpassing the competition. This is the politically most difficult part: it means saying an explicit No to other segments which, currently, are unattainable or too expensive to serve. However, this choice is the only path to antifragility: concentrating resources and communication to generate maximum impact and create a system that, thanks to its focus, can improve and adapt even when things become complicated.

the portfolio approach: testing and learning continuously

Targeted communication, at this point, is no longer a cost, but a set of strategic experiments. It must be managed as a portfolio approach, where every campaign is a learning engine. This involves launching extremely strong and clear messages towards the selected segments, measuring the results not based on generic "likeability," but on concrete metrics (new accounts opened, conversion rate). Every failed or successful campaign generates valuable data that is immediately applied to refine and optimise the subsequent message. This continuous cycle is the opposite of the single, risky "big bet."

the value of clarity in systems architecture

The truth, stripped of all ideology and based on decades of experience, is that strategic competence requires the courage to exclude in order to excel.

True inclusivity is not the equality of the universal message, but cognitive equity: providing each segment with the specific message they can decode and feel is truly for them.

My role as your Systems Architect is to ensure that your commendable communication project (the tactic) is supported by this necessary analytical structure (the data, the segmentation, the ruthless focus). Influence, results, and success are achieved not just with good intentions, but through the methodological design that transforms intention into measurable and lasting success.