Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Swiggmeister's avatar

So, no disagreement with the main point of your article, but curious to hear your reaction to the idea Cracker Barrel changed the logo purposely to generate outrage and attention? This is the theory of Rohit Bhargava (of the Non-obvious podcast and newsletter). It has some points in its favor. The new logo is so dumb and bland it seems impossible someone thought that was better. And when has Cracker Barrel ever been in vogue? So maybe? They are still associated with a disgraceful heritage but maybe their PR team was in on the joke.

Michael Taylor's avatar

I've never understood why the CEO of a successful brand would decide to change that brand absent compelling evidence that the Old Way no longer works and is thus pummeling the bottom line.

Do none of these MBA geniuses remember "New Coke"?

One would think the Powers That Be of a down-home establishment like Cracker Barrel -- and "Oh my," as George Takei might say, "What a marvelously perfect name that is." -- would have heard the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" at some point.

I dunno ... maybe they just got bored counting their bonuses and stock options and decided it was time to shake things up. Sort of like tRump appointing RFK Jr. to run the US Department of Ill Health.

Personally -- never having seen or been in a Cracker Barrel (no, I don't get out much...) -- it's hard to imagine why the marketing minions of the Mother Ship would trade an established and inoffensive brand label for one so colorless, featureless, boring, and ostensibly anodyne ... but even harder to wrap my head around the spittle-flecked, hair-trigger, launch-on-warning, Defcon One response by the MAGAt zombies.

I guess it's just MAGA being MAGA.

Sigh...

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?