The fact is, I’ve had a lot of stories and commentaries lately that have veered into the political realm – not because I wanted to write about politics, but because politicians keep saying and doing things that impinge on my turf. Such a case was when I took note of an Axios report that the White House “has created a scorecard that rates 553 companies and trade associations on how hard they worked to support and promote President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’.”
I commented, in part:
I do think that the public nature of this list has the potential of putting retailers and suppliers in a tough place. Conceivably, they could be forced to choose between what they perceive as the best interests of their bottom lines, shareholders, customers and long-term prospects for their companies, and the short-term policy goals of the White House. And CEOs – who often have to choose between their customers’ interests and their shareholders’, while factoring in their long-term, job prospects into the equation – now could have a fourth constituency to consider.
The ability – and, quite frankly, the willingness – of this White House to go public with criticisms of anyone or anything that seems to be in opposition to its goals, means that these disputes could be playing out in social media, and eventually magnified when issues go viral.
If you, as a retailer or supplier, decide that you think tariffs are not good for your business, you now have to think twice about whether you go public with an explanation of your reservations. If you decide you want to retain a commitment to diversity hiring because you think it is good for business, you have to be careful not to be caught on the wrong side of a political cudgel. If you are a supplier that believes that it does not make economic sense to sell a version of your flagship drink with cane sugar, as opposed to the high fructose corn syrup you traditionally have used, you may no longer have that option. If you run a trade association representing the food business, you now may find yourself in the uncomfortable position of not lobbying for or against certain bills or policies, because you cannot afford to be caught crosswise with the people in power.
One MNB reader responded with this email:
Your continued progression into more and more political coverage and with a greater exposure of your leanings will lose you readers.
I know I run that risk. I struggle with it – as I’ve said, I’d rather not do these stories. I am very careful only to venture into this area when I think it is a legitimate business story relevant to my readership. My goal on MNB, starting almost 24 years ago, has been to a) as often as possible include stories in the mix that my nominal competition never will do, and b) be willing to take positions with which a percentage, even a majority, of my audience might disagree. All in the name of creating respectful conversation. And sometimes just awareness.
I would not be doing my job if I did not do this story, and did not comment honestly about it – I cannot imagine why anyone in my audience would not be concerned about this public policy shift.
I think, after 24 years, I have earned the credibility and license to allow me to do these stories. If we now live in a world where I lose readers because of it, I’m not happy, but I’ll have to live with it. Because the alternative would be intellectual dishonesty and not doing my job, and then this isn’t worth doing.
In this case, there may be 500+ companies and trade associations making decisions for what I think are the wrong reasons. I’m not going to be one of them, I am willing to take the associated risks, and I think the vast majority of the MNB community – a largely enlightened group, I’ve found over the years – will respect me for it even if they disagree.
I do appreciate your concern and advice,.
On Tuesday, I spent some time commenting about Cracker Barrel’s recent travails – it announced a rebranding that would include the changing of its logo from the name of the chain accompanied by an elderly man known as “Uncle Herschel” sitting next to a barrel. Now, the logo would only carry the name “Cracker Barrel,” and the words “Old Country Store” would be eliminated from the graphic.
This is a continuation of a broader rebranding effort, which has had the company streamlining the decor to make it more modern and less dependent on antiques, as well as refreshing, to some degree, its traditional eggs-bacon-gravy-and-fried food menu.
However, within a week, faced with enormous backlash largely driven by conservative media that seemed to believe that the redesign was “woke,” Cracker Barrel’s management changed its mind and announced that it would not update its logo after all.
I commented, in part:
This may be one of the dumbest cultural controversies imaginable, but it is not a dumb business controversy. It is, in fact, the kind of branding decision that many companies face during their existence, especially one that is 56 years old.
It seems clear that Cracker Barrel has seen better days, and the new CEO was brought in by a board that recognized that some sort of reinvention was necessary. Or, Cracker Barrel could end up occupying the same graveyard as formerly prominent restaurant brands as Howard Johnson’s, Chi-Chi’s, Horn & Hardart, and Hot Shoppes, not to mention retailers that include Sears, A&P, Tower Records, Blockbuster, and EJ Korvette.
This can be a tough balancing act. Management has to figure out a way to bring in new customers without disenfranchising existing customers. In the case of Cracker Barrel, I am guessing, there were two challenges. First, they had to make the menu more appealing to a younger clientele. Second, they had to create an atmosphere that would not be off-putting to those prospective customers.
I’d also guess that before the company made this decision, it employed more than a few analysts, designers, brand experts, and pollsters. The move was not made in a vacuum – if Cracker Barrel is like many companies, it almost certainly researched the crap out of this move before making it. And management probably figured it didn’t have any choice, lest Uncle Herschel occupy a cemetery plot next to Howard Johnson.
When you pull all this together, it defines the complicated business problem that Cracker Barrel faced. It had to modernize many of the identifying characteristics of a legacy brand, without alienating legacy customers – and had to do in a way that also would minimize any negative impacts on the investor class.
A set of problems that faces many businesses.
That’s hard to do in the best of circumstances.
These were not the best of circumstances.
Social media makes it hard enough. Social media driven by politics makes it even harder, if not impossible, to navigate.
It is hard for me to imagine how or why Cracker Barrel’s branding decisions could or should be defined in a political and/or cultural context. Unless, of course, it was less about Cracker Barrel and more about some people feeling the need to generate outrage because it was good for them, having nothing to do with an aging restaurant chain facing decline and potential obsolescence.
It is a pretty good bet that the loudest agitators are people who rarely, if ever, go to a Cracker Barrel. All the incendiary rhetoric achieved was to make it difficult for the chain to survive long-term – and the people who engineered the outrage ought to be ashamed of themselves.
And every business leader out to be concerned about the new challenges that they face in a marketplace – where people and movements that have no idea what your business is, are clueless about what goes into operating and succeeding in your business, and ignorant about what it takes to maneuver in a demanding and often onerous business, economic, cultural and political landscape – start to weigh in, make demands, and require obeisance.
But that’s where we are.
Essentially, my argument was that all the political posturing did almost nothing other than put Cracker Barrel in a position where management actually has fewer options, and may find it much harder to make the company successful.
So much for being a pro-business party.
Got a lot of email about this.
MNB reader Rich Heiland wrote:
Very detailed and thoughtful analysis of Cracker Barrel. Part of my consulting over the years has been around brand. My approach is simple. You want your brand to speak for you. You want it to recognized absent anything else. I think that is especially true for “highway” businesses.
In that sense, Cracker Barrel’s brand was a classic, for those who already were in the fold. When Cracker Barrel says the change was to broaden its appeal, well, that really is nonsense from where I sit. If the menu is the same, right up to a 4,000 calorie lunch, and you still have to walk through the gift shop, then nothing has changed but a logo.
If you go back to its days of controversy over alleged anti-gay practices, add in its Bubba image it’s no surprise that a big chunk of the market is not going to be switching to Cracker Barrel. To think that a bland logo changes that is silly.
But, a lot of the argument either way when the politics gets injected is silly, too. I am a 79-year-old guy who has eaten at Cracker Barrel from time to time. I will again and most likely for breakfast where I will get an omelet or eggs/bacon that won’t differ much from Denny’s or IHop.
Of course, if you follow the “any publicity is good publicity” adage, then Cracker Barrel just got a ton of publicity it otherwise would not have had, and if anyone is curious and wants to try it, that will probably draw in more folks than a logo change.
Another reader chimed in:
I’ve been thinking about Cracker Barrel’s recent logo modernization attempt and subsequent reversal, and I can’t shake the feeling that this whole saga might have generated some unexpectedly(?) positive outcomes.
Consider this: when was the last time Cracker Barrel was part of mainstream conversation, especially among Gen Z and Millennial consumers? The brand has largely lived in the background for younger demographics: familiar to some, but hardly top-of-mind.
Now, suddenly, they’ve managed to inject themselves into the cultural zeitgeist. Whether intentional or not, this logo controversy has:
• Put Cracker Barrel front and center in social media discussions
• Signaled to younger consumers that the brand is actively trying to evolve and modernize
• Generated widespread media coverage across multiple platforms
• Sparked conversations about the brand’s identity and future direction
The beauty of their reversal strategy is that it allowed them to have it both ways – they showed willingness to innovate while ultimately respecting their traditional customer base.
Sure, whether this translates into actual foot traffic from new demographics remains to be seen. But they’ve undoubtedly introduced themselves to an entire generation who might have previously overlooked them entirely.
As the old adage goes, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”; Cracker Barrel just earned themselves weeks of free marketing and brand awareness that would have cost millions in traditional advertising.
Smart strategy or happy accident? Either way, it’s fascinating to watch unfold.
I’m not sure that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” works anymore. What appeals to some folks is just going to irritate, even disenfranchise others. Sure, there was a lot of conversation – but I think the general impression left about Cracker Barrel was negative.
MNB reader Benjamin Brill wrote:
I was immediately struck that, while “research showed consumers thought the brand fell short of competitors in essential ways, from the quality of the food to value and convenience,” a Rebrand does zip zilch nada to address any of those essential consumer expectations. Start digging that plot.
From another MNB reader:
You hit the nail right on the head with your comments below on the ill-fated Cracker Barrel logo change:
And every business leader out to be concerned about the new challenges that they face in a marketplace – where people and movements that have no idea what your business is, are clueless about what goes into operating and succeeding in your business, and ignorant about what it takes to maneuver in a demanding and often onerous business, economic, cultural and political landscape – start to weigh in, make demands, and require obeisance.
These days it’s virtually impossible not to offend one segment of the populace. Even the best of companies sometimes paralyze themselves with inaction trying to maintain a Switzerland posture.
In the case of Cracker Barrel, of course there’s no hard data for this but I wouldn’t be surprised if you were also right on about the loudest social media complainers never having set foot in one of those restaurants.
The trouble is the feedback they were getting was ostensibly representative of their core customer. If the feedback was more centered around their lack of avocado toast or a bagel with smoked salmon they would probably be safe in ignoring it.
That said, they may have been better off focusing on creating and marketing a brand improvement, such as an updated menu that adds fresher ingredients or healthier options, but still maintains their most popular heart attack on a plate dishes, rather than stepping out with a far less distinctive logo change.
From another:
To “I’d also guess that before the company made this decision, it employed more than a few analysts, designers, brand experts, and pollsters. The move was not made in a vacuum – if Cracker Barrel is like many companies, it almost certainly researched the crap out of this move before making it.”…
Did they though? Caving to pressure a week later suggests they didn’t, either at all or not nearly thoroughly enough. For a brand that seems to over-index in conservative customers, they should have known this was going to generate at least a fair amount of pushback.
To “It is a pretty good bet that the loudest agitators are people who rarely, if ever, go to a Cracker Barrel. All the incendiary rhetoric achieved was to make it difficult for the chain to survive long-term – and the people who engineered the outrage ought to be ashamed of themselves” … Spot on that the loudest voices often don’t have any direct skin in the game. They just know what they like and don’t like, and today’s media platforms give them plenty of room to shout it to those audiences. Ashamed of themselves though? There’s not a lot of humility within the agitator crowd. They’ll just ignore you and move on to the next flashpoint to shout about.
I said “ought to be ashamed.” Shame, these days, is in short supply these days.
And one more:
I can see why their core customers were upset. They literally removed the Cracker and the Barrel from the logo.
Not a joke I could get away with, being someone sometimes described by MNB readers as a New England liberal elitist. (Not necessarily an assessment with which I would agree, but that’s beside the point.)
The post Your Views: Not The Best Of Circumstances appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
