Agree with Ian's broader perspective, but also add this - someone really did ask if CC should just change their style for the sake of change and freshness. While I am not sure of the answer, its a valid question to any designer.
I recall seeing Fleetwood Mac. They introduced "Tusk" by recalling the record company wasn't too happy, because the formula in rock is to crank out similar style albums until sales drop. But as artists, they wanted a different sound (you might recall Tusk featured the USC marching band).
I long said I didn't want to reach the age I am now and have people say "oh, that's a Brauer course" as has happened to so many architects. Always consciously looking to change my style. IMHO, a style can be put on (nearly) any site, while still designing in principle for those who are likely to play, as its two separate issues. Obviously, we think some styles fit some sites better, a la, style gets more rugged on rugged, more refined in subdivisions, etc.
I have heard many say that CC are getting a bit too stylistically predictable, but I wonder why they should be any different than RTJ, JN, Fazio or Dye before them? They get hired to do what they did before, no? They will change when they are no longer getting the prime jobs, IMHO. Or rely on fewer commissions and stick to their guns, which they may be ready to do anyway.
Similarly, the problem with deciding whether their style still sells at SV, is that the Keiser concept, away from the ocean, may actually not be as good a business model, so cash register success may not equal design quality success.
All in all, a valid, but tricky question.