On strategic rebranding
Digby commented the other day that “woke” is losing its steam as a culture war force. Woke is so tired that Christopher Rufo declared a jihad against Cracker Barrel over its CEO (a woman) removing the man leaning against a barrel from the restaurant’s updated logo.
A Facebook commentary about the rebrand from digital warrior Rachel Hurley popped up in my feed. I was only partway through before, speaking of “time capsules,” the political implications struck me:
If you think Cracker Barrel made a mistake by changing their logo and redecorating their restaurants – you really don’t understand marketing at all.
While Donald Trump Jr. is having a meltdown on social media and conservative pundits are calling it “brand suicide,” CEO Julie Masino is probably sitting in her office with a smirk, watching her $700 million strategy unfold exactly as planned. The pearl-clutching over a minimalist logo redesign tells you everything you need to know about why Cracker Barrel was dying a slow death in the first place.
Let’s get real about what was actually happening at Cracker Barrel before Masino showed up. Traffic was down 16% year-to-date. The brand ranked “middle of the pack” against competitors in food, experience, value, and convenience. They were hemorrhaging market share, particularly at dinner. Their average customer was getting older and their relevance was disappearing faster than white sausage gravy on a hot biscuit.
The people screaming about tradition seem to have conveniently forgotten that tradition doesn’t pay the bills when your target demographic is literally dying off. Cracker Barrel’s core customer base has been aging out for years, and the brand’s stubborn refusal to evolve was killing them softly. You can’t run a restaurant chain on nostalgia alone – just ask Howard Johnson’s how that worked out.
Masino didn’t stumble into this job yesterday. She spent over five years as president at Taco Bell, where she helped grow one of the most successful fast-casual brands in America. Before that, she cut her teeth at Starbucks, Mattel, and a handful of other companies that actually understand how to stay relevant in a changing marketplace. This isn’t some corporate suit making random changes – this is a seasoned executive with 30 years of experience executing a calculated turnaround strategy.
The logo change isn’t just about aesthetics. It’s a signal. When you strip away the man sitting by the barrel and go with clean, modern typography, you’re telling potential customers that this isn’t your grandfather’s restaurant anymore. You’re opening the aperture to younger families, millennials with kids, and Gen Z diners who might have written off Cracker Barrel as a place for road trip pit stops and, well, old crackers.
The restaurant industry is brutal. Casual dining chains are fighting tooth and nail for every customer, and the ones that refuse to adapt get left behind. Remember when Applebee’s was struggling a few years back? They didn’t save themselves by doubling down on their 1990s aesthetic – they modernized their menu, updated their restaurants, and started targeting younger demographics with late-night specials and delivery options. I mean, their food still sucks – but at least people don’t feel like they’re eating in a 90s time capsule. Believe it or not, new and clean trumps old and dirty every time!
The irony of the conservative backlash is that it’s exactly the kind of free publicity Masino probably couldn’t have bought. Every angry tweet and Facebook rant is amplifying Cracker Barrel’s rebrand to millions of people who might not have noticed otherwise. The controversy is getting them more media coverage than their marketing budget could have purchased, and most of that coverage is reaching exactly the demographics they’re trying to attract.
Meanwhile, the people threatening boycotts are the same customers who were already eating there less frequently anyway. You think a 70-year-old is going to stop going to Cracker Barrel because they changed their logo? They’re still serving the same biscuits and gravy. The gift shop still has the same tchotchkes. The rocking chairs are still on the porch. The only thing that changed was they got new tables and chairs, and stuff on the walls – and a graphic design element that most people probably couldn’t have described accurately before this week.
Smart brands understand that evolution isn’t betrayal – it’s survival. Coca-Cola has changed its logo multiple times. McDonald’s went from red and yellow to muted browns and greens. Even Starbucks dropped the word “coffee” from their logo when they wanted to expand beyond beverages. These companies didn’t abandon their core identity – they refined it for contemporary audiences.
The real test isn’t whether some angry customers complain on social media. The real test is whether Cracker Barrel can attract new customers while keeping enough of their existing base to grow revenue. And given that their average check is $15 compared to the industry average of $27, they have plenty of room to experiment with their customer mix.
Masino is betting that the future of Cracker Barrel lies with customers who care more about good food and value than whether there’s a cartoon character in the logo. Given her track record and the alternative of slow decline, that seems like a pretty smart bet. But hey, if you want to start your own restaurant chain that never changes anything, feel free to open up a time capsule diner and see how that works out for you.
The Democrats could learn a lot from this move.
the brand’s stubborn refusal to evolve was killing them softly
Smart brands understand that evolution isn’t betrayal – it’s survival
In response to last week’s New York Times article about Democrats’ alleged “voter registration crisis” (gift link), I published my own FB commentary:
This NYT article on Democrats’ “voter registration crisis” is causing a lot of consternation, but I believe it misrepresents what’s going on.
Based largely on new registrations, this NYT article portrays Republicans as gaining in registration on Democrats. In NC that’s not so. Democrats are losing registrations to independents (unaffiliated in our terminology).
At the beginning of 2004, our NC electorate was D: 48%, R: 35%, and UNA: 18%.
Presently it is D: 31%, R: 30%, UNA: 38%
Both Dems and Republicans have lost ground to independents in NC. The D to R gap has narrowed significantly, but that’s not Rs gaining on Dems. Granted, Dems have lost far more ground to Indys than Rs. There are many reasons for this, including a cultural shift among young voters against “joining” stuffy orgs like political parties. They keep their options open and also vote far less than people over 45.
In NC, UNAs vote against Dems statewide. But the Dem split of that vote improved from only 42% voting D in 2020 to 46% voting D in 2024.
If I could get people in Raleigh to listen, I could A) identify 100s of precincts where UNAs vote heavily blue but turn out far less than Dems, and B) demonstrate how they might use that data to focus their voter registration efforts in precincts where eligible but unregistered persons (EBUs) are highly likely to vote D.
But Dems’ voter registration approach remains Stone Age. We send volunteers out to farmers’ markets, street corners, and festivals with registration clipboards to accost random passersby. They don’t target their efforts on likely unregistered persons in friendly neighborhoods. They might but don’t.
Note: a cultural shift among young voters against “joining” stuffy orgs like political parties.
Democrats need a rebrand. You know it. I know it. How many state and D.C. electeds hanging on past their “Best by” dates know it?
I’m guessing that the DNC can’t match Julie Masino’s $6.7m in total compensation. What a shame.
Adapt or die.
(h/t LLF)
* * * * *
Have you fought dicktatorship today?
50501 – Labor Day events
May Day Strong Labor Day Events
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink – Search on Labor Day events near you
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense