Cracker Barrel’s Brand Gone Bland

What happens when you try to change something that customers know and love? Cracker Barrel had something unique to offer its customers. Established in 1969 and filled with vintage Americana, the “Old Country Store” offered customers a warm and cozy atmosphere to gather with family and friends. Now, over 50 years later, Cracker Barrel has decided it is time for a rebrand. From a logo refresh to restaurant revamps, Cracker Barrel is taking on a modern look and feel. Join Mark and Lorraine for this week's episode of the Brand Shorthand podcast as they dive into Cracker Barrel's rebranding journey.  

Join Mark and Lorraine for 30-ish as they discuss all things marketing, advertising, and of course … positioning!

Transcript

Mark Vandegrift 
Welcome back to another episode of the Brand Shorthand Podcast. I'm your host, Mark Vandegrift, and with me today is our brains of branding, Lorraine Kessler. Lorraine, we're gonna talk about the recent buzz surrounding Cracker Barrel's rebrand. I know you really wanna talk about another huge brand misstep, but it actually was, it fits in perfectly with an article I wrote with something that Lindsey saw on a recent Twitter post. I still can't say X, so. But it was about it was about the homogenization of storefronts and how they've gone from very distinct looking storefronts. Like you could take the logo off and you knew what brand it was to what today looks like almost a cookie cutter storefront for all of these different barrels, different brands. So from that standpoint, give me your thoughts Lorraine. Lindsey's gonna put a graphic up on the screen here and it just like hits you how everything's homogenized.

Lorraine Kessler
Right. Well, for all the aesthetic modernization, these storefronts have sacrificed something of great value, distinctiveness and differentiation, right? Because it's as if the need to be modern and on trend now becomes the priority over the differentiation that really uniquely distinguish these stores. And many of these storefronts remind me of the Coke bottle, right? That beautiful shape that is distinctive as part of the brand. And now that's all gone. It's kind of washed away in favor of some sort of aesthetic that makes everything closer together. So it's anti-positioning, anti-differentiation at the end. So the $700 million change of the physical restaurant and cracker barrel is probably one of the most poorly spent investments that the brand could spend, in my opinion.

Mark Vandegrift 
Yeah, yeah. And let's get into that. So I wrote an article for a local paper here, just an op-ed on why I felt like every brand was just moving closer and closer together. All the fonts seem the same on, you know, these big retail brands. They're all thick and chunky and I don't know, just stale. You know, you look at Cracker Barrel. It was founded in 1969 and it's really built a strong, well-positioned identity for itself. I don't think it would have survived otherwise. So Lorraine, give us that history. Start off by explaining how Cracker Barrel's position has resonated through the years and they were able to own that idea for such a long time.

Lorraine Kessler
Right. Well, first of all, I wanted people to know that you did write the article. It was published in the Canton Repository. It was a very good article, Mark. I think people would benefit from reading it. And you talked about how they were a true definition of Americana. I would nuance that a little bit by saying they're a particular romantic, nostalgic slice of a certain ideal of Americana, kind of Mayberry-ish. Right? Not the Americana that I grew up with in New Jersey. Okay. But that kind of Americana country store in food and folk. I mean, that really is what the idea was of the owner, co-founder Dan Evins talks about that. That he wanted to recreate the nostalgic experience of rural American country stores. looks like a country store and people would sit around and talk around. I didn't even know this was what this thing is called, but it is called a cracker barrel. And so he saw it and it's kind of interesting. He saw 1969 as kind of the juxtaposition to interstates that were growing, where people were losing that connection to rural values, food and folk that made them feel comfortable and important and wanted. So he started off with an anti-modernization idea. So now for the new CEO, doesn't know anything about this and sad to say she went to the Miami of the university here in Ohio, to come out with this anti-rural country store look is just like 180 from where the brand started. So from a positioning standpoint, it's not adapting, it's not repositioning the brand for new audiences in a way that would attract those audiences who care a lot about that fit or theme of America. It was really about a revolution that has nothing to do with the origins of the chain and what it stood for in people's minds.

Mark Vandegrift 
Yeah. Well, and what's interesting about that is that was 56 years ago. There was an anti-modernization movement. And today that would have been even a better move is to say, we're doubling down on our anti-modernization, you know, from the standpoint of something they could have done differently in the store that just elevated that. And instead they went to where everybody else is going and frankly, their product's not good enough to just jump into the pool with everybody else.

Lorraine Kessler
Right, and if people do Google this and they'll see an interview with Dan Evins, who to this day at 90 is still brilliant in his understanding of, again, we talked about authenticity, what this concept was all about. And he made the point, and I think very, very well, that people have this connection to the brand and what it its start was about and you can't it branding isn't just what you see but what you're made to feel and he called this logo i think kind of pitiful the logo and and it is pitiful when you erase all the sensory clues or cues rather that connect to people's emotions about a brand right we hold emotions about brands not just rational thinking. And I think you mentioned this in your article, the wood floors, the smells, the environmental. When you erase all those to anesthetize the brand into some sort of modernistic vision, you are literally disconnecting people, customers from the brand. And he called the brand not only pitiful, but a bland nothing. I think that was really really astute of him to make that. Now, what could they have done? What could they have done? What I would do is exactly what you said. would pour it on, I'd double down, and I might look at C and D markets or markets that are off the skew but now are easily accessible by interstates and highways. And that would be what I would do instead of being in the urban suburbs of a big urban center like Cleveland, I might be in South Cleveland near Wadsworth, Canton, Ohio, still accessible by interstates, but places that still where people live and want these family ties and that kind of value nurtured.

Mark Vandegrift 
Yeah, it's interesting because everyone reacted to the logo, right? And I think from the standpoint of like the whole brand, it's like you changed your glasses, right? You have glasses on and if you change them, some people might notice whatever. When in fact, what they spent at 700 million was changing the whole person. You know, it's like, I expect you to be on the podcast today and all of sudden say Scott Edwards shows up and I'm like Lorraine, you look little different today. I think that what we miss in today's, I guess, social media age, we all react to something that in the end is relatively minor in terms of changing a look and feel but it's emblematic of the entire change. And so, you know, when you think about what we talked about in that article that I wrote, and then also you mentioned architecturally we're changing things, what do you think is going on with the CMOs of today's age where they feel like they need to jump in the same pool with bland logos,the same architectural style, making everything look like a clean room or modernizing things. Something's gotta be going on. Are we just switching CMOs? They're going from big brand to big brand and so they all had a big meeting and said, hey, let's all look alike. What's going on?

Lorraine Kessler
Well, think it's hubris of these people, many of whom are Ivy Leaguers and are extremely privileged and they swim in a certain pool of thought. And it's a total disrespect of who is the core customer. Who is the customer and a misunderstanding of what marketing's job is. Marketing's job is to speak to, and particularly positioning, a distinctive customer who psychologically has a certain set of needs and wants and attitudes and beliefs. And not my beliefs, not my as the CMO, not what I want to force on them, not my indoctrination that I got from all the schools I went to out east or out in the west or whatever, not the pool I swim in in my million dollar house or multi-mansions that I live in in the Hamptons or. Greenwich Village. No, this is about who is that customer and what do they value and how can and the fit of this product to those to that customer. So I think there's this enormous hubris and this blinds these C level and they get they also get overly focused on well we got to bring in new audiences we got to bring in the younger people they get overly focused on demographics and not psychographics. As if all demons, all Gen Zs think one way, all millennials think one way. That is so disastrous in marketing. can't tell you how segmentation has fueled some of the dumbest decisions ever. What you need to do is find these psychological traits, these needs, these wants, these expressed needs or unexpressed needs, and they will transcend generations. And yeah, it might bubble up a little bit more with Gen Zs than millennials or whatever, but they're in every demo. And who is that person and how do we cater to them because our product fits what they value the most. So it's what the core customer values, not what I value. And I think when marketers start putting their own, you know, they've swam in this, they all have swum in one fish tank and they're drinking that Kool-Aid and now they want to indoctrinate their customer to believe what they believe. I think that's a disastrous mistake and I think we've seen a number of these things. Like we saw it with the Tropicana packaging, right? Right? And they had to change that immediately. When they took the orange with the straw off the package and made it look simple. I love when we want to simplify. Why? What strategic value is there to simplify a logo or brand to it now is generic. And the other thing that's going on in this is we are undervaluing the urge to copy. We as humans love to copy. So if the trend is like your house, everything in your house should be white from the kitchen to the living room, no color anywhere. Wow, is that is the opposite of differentiation. It's a big problem.

Mark Vandegrift 
What pops into my head is the difference between the Jaguar ad with what I would call androgynous individuals on the Sweeney ad that we talked about a week ago with American Eagle. One celebrates sameness and don't even look different from your body type or anything between a man and a woman all that, and then you have Sweeney celebrating kind of the sexiness that she is that I would never have. So that's what pops into my mind. It's like, even though Cracker Barrel isn't dealing with this sexuality thing, it feels like they went to this androgynous zone of, well, you won't be able to tell me apart from any other brands because androgyny is our sole goal in all of this. Am I going down the wrong path there or do you think there's something to that?

Lorraine Kessler
Well, first of all, you saying that you're not as sexy as Sweeney is an admission that I think our audience will love to hear. So tune in. 

Mark Vandegrift 
Lindsey's rolling on the floor laughing right now. She can't, she got an image in her head. So that was good.

Lorraine Kessler
Oh my God. I think the word you used was homogenization. And I think that more than sex is what this is about. It's this homogenization of brands is, and as I said, I think the urge to copy segmentation, this idea that this desperation that we have to appeal to a new generation is the problem. Rather than saying, how do we, who in the new generation cares a lot about, what do they care a lot about that we fit? And how do we just kind of adapt rather than,completely throw out everything and start over. And the owner, the founder, Dan Evins, did say, he said, work on the food. he's absolutely right. What the new generations have is they want a little bit changes in the food, in the menu, a little bit upscale, maybe better quality. I heard some things about the quality of the food has gone down. So, you know, it's again majoring in the minors instead of majoring in the majors.

Mark Vandegrift 
Yeah, someone posted, an employee posted that like for the meatloaf, which you would think is the most iconic of homemade foods, Meat and potatoes, right? So mashed potatoes and meatloaf. They basically take it out of the freezer, stick it in the microwave and they hope that it delivers to the table as a warm meatloaf. So, I mean, that just maxed what you said.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah, there's so many opportunities for them to stay within their genre and to improve their food and even the gifts they sell and also marketing. Every county fair, every truck pull, rodeo, they should be sponsoring that stuff like crazy because that's their audience. And guess what? There's a whole bunch of young people who attend all these events. I mean, I was just at one of the Manistee County Fair and I couldn't believe the young people who were there. I was shocked. So you have a captive audience who cares a lot about this type of food, cares a lot about small community, rural community, country, folk. Go where they are. Don't try and bring in people using a broad social platform to attract people who will never be their customer. I will never be a cracker barrel customer, but I would be a great CMO for them because I would never try to make people believe what I believe or like what I like.

Mark Vandegrift 
Yep. Well, you mentioned the timeline earlier, so let's look at the timeline. August 19th, Cracker Barrel revealed its new logo. And of course, that sparked immediate attention across social media. And then to respond to the backlash, Cracker Barrel stated, our values haven't changed. The heart and soul of Cracker Barrel hasn't changed. But by August 22nd, three days later, Cracker Barrel lost nearly $100 million in market value after their stocks fell. And I think it's around 143 million by August 26th. Then on that night of the 26th, just a week later, Cracker Barrel announced that the new logo is out and the old logo is here to stay. So, you know, as fast as things go viral, it's interesting that brands in only a week can make such a big mistake and retract it. So what do you think is going to result from this. If they said, yeah, we'll stick with the old logo, you think they're going to take it all the way and double down on what that interior looks like, et cetera?

Lorraine Kessler
I mean they should and the damage is done. I don't think anything less than finding a whole new CEO and CMO staff really get the brand. I think they'd have to make some substantial PR moves like I would bring Dan Evins back in as a consultant and hire a whole new team. I think they need to make some really substantial concrete moves that get publicity to counter this. 
I don't think you can do this in advertising and they can't change all these stores like that. But they can signal that we have made a big mistake and we have reclaimed who we are. We're bringing the founder back in. We have a new team who understands what our brand is about and then sponsor something like I said, like NASCAR or county fairs and that could even be regional and really pour it on where people go and receive your message rather than trying to know top down bring them in. That's kind of what I would do.

Mark Vandegrift 
Yeah. Well, I look at what Bud Light's done and I mean, they've tried to recapture things and I think they're doing a pretty good job. But it was interesting because John Rich, you know who he is, he's kind of like, he's a country singer. He's kind of the prototypical urban cowboy, very much politically oriented. So he may, he comments a lot on politics. But he went to a Cracker Barrel just to take a picture of the parking lot and there was one car in the parking lot. Now, I don't know how much that was staged or whatever, but to me, it's getting guys like that back in the fold and getting their trust so that then they can convey to the customers, hey, you can go back now. They really righted their ship and I feel like what you expect from Cracker Barrel is back. To me, that's one of the main ways they could do it because with social media, these influencers, someone like that, who really does represent their core customer, I think that's the way you're going to get back a customer base.

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah. Now this isn't new. We saw TGI Friday had the same problem. They modernized their stores. They completely lost their vibe and their coolness and their hipness and their core customer. And we've seen it with Bob Evans, like the Bob Evans restaurants, which was more country, farm kind of same problem. So, you know, the problem I think goes to something we've talked about. One, these chains investor pressure forces these chains to try to appeal to everyone instead of the core customer that they best serve. So greed and you just expand beyond your ability to hold on to what you already have. So it's kind of this idea that you know what they should be doing and saying a bird in hand is work too in a bush. This is the customer I own I'm going to find where more of them are. I'm not going to keep trying to chase other birds in the bush. So I think we have to blame investors as part of the problem.

Mark Vandegrift 
Well, I think you had a recent trout quote that you brought up before our session today. People don't like to change their minds. What's that quote that you had? You want to say that again?

Lorraine Kessler
Yeah. He said, yeah, he wrote that the single most wasteful thing you can do in marketing is to try and change a mind. And then he added, good luck. So he added that when we spoke with him. Yeah, you have to adapt, but you can't completely change a mind. You know so you. And people will argue with that well. Yes, you can brands have done that well You can't change it unless you connect with what's already in the mind of the customer You already intimately understand what's in their mind if it's my mind, and I want you to believe it that isn't gonna work.

Mark Vandegrift 
Good. Well, let's bring this episode to a close. I want to thank you for joining the Brand Shorthand podcast again, Lorraine, and for all of our listeners, thank you for listening. And if you haven't liked, subscribed, shared, told a friend, please do. And until next episode, have an amazing day.