Does martial arts success require sacrificing combat effectiveness?

It seems that the commercial success of a martial art is not necessarily proportional to its combat effectiveness.
To run a dojo targeting the general public, many seem to compromise on combat effectiveness to some extent.
​Kyokushin Karate: In its early days during the 'Daesan Dojo' era, it taught facial strikes, eye gouging (thumbing), and Judo-style joint locks/grappling.
However, as injuries became frequent and dropout rates rose, they removed facial strikes and grappling, successfully popularizing the brand as 'Kyokushin Karate.'
​Ishihara Karate: Ishihara, which emerged criticizing Kyokushin's lack of combat effectiveness, also struggled commercially;
ultimately, they pivoted toward a more mainstream direction by adding forms (poomsae), meditation, and Ki training.
​Catch Wrestling: In the 19th century, it was the strongest combat art, mixing striking, submissions, and wrestling, but it declined due to high injury risks, being pushed aside by modern Judo, Freestyle Wrestling, and Greco-Roman Wrestling.
​Muay Thai / Kickboxing: These successfully popularized as sports after removing dangerous techniques like headbutts, groin strikes, and eye gouging from the rules.
​Kongquan Yusul: It initially emerged criticizing the lack of combat effectiveness in Hapkido, but survived by transforming into a leisure-oriented lifestyle sport after facing management difficulties.
​Ultimately, for a dojo to thrive commercially, it seems that 'motivation (martial arts hype)'—allowing practitioners to enjoy training safely and funly—is a more important factor than dangerous combat effectiveness.