But instead of a shine, the new logo caused an blast.
After a week of social media attacks, news coverage and even attention from the White House, Cracker Barrel supported, returning to its original logo.
The episode accompanies an increasingly common nightmare for traders: when your new Rebrand or Advertising Campaign runs a face first in a serious online reaction.
Today’s polarized culture, coupled with the tendency of social media to reward rage with involvement, can cause a small spark of controversy to spread like a fire. From Bud Light’s campaign with Trans Influencer Dylan Mulvaney on American Eagle Outfitters campaign with actress Sydney Sweeney, marketing initiatives can quickly become matches in Culture War.
But careful planning before starting a new brand or advertising campaign can help companies avoid worse, limit damage or even turn a reaction into a positive impulse. Kellogg’s Timothy CalkinsA clinical professor of marketing, explains how, in an interview with Insight kelogg.
INSIGHT: Before The controversy was kicking, the Cracker Barrel looked like it was trying a simple renewal of the brand, right? What were they trying to do?
Scarf: To understand the status of the Cracker barrel, you must return to the way the company is performed. The company has done badly. His profits are dramatically reduced. In the last five years, the stock price has fallen and clearly the Cracker barrel has not done well. They did not bring people as they needed, and the consumer base is getting older. So they said: “We need to inform our stores to make sure they feel that they are hospitable and relevant places that people want to go.
So they put an entire program with three big elements. The first part was the renovations of the stores, where they changed the interior appearance and the feel of the restaurants. They also proceeded and informed the menu and brought some more common dishes. They then informed the logo.
They have gradually renovated the stores and unfold the new appearance and there was a bit of moaning on the road. But everything was blasted when the news of the logo came out.
INSIGHT: Thus, as long as Deciding to renew their brand, did Cracker Barrel follow the standard marketing strategy?
Calkins: Companies do this all the time. They usually update their product offers, their images and their communication. So I think it was a hundred percent reasonable for Cracker Barrel to try to do that. I don’t think you can criticize Cracker Barrel for what they were trying to do. You can somehow discuss how they did it, but there is no outrageous behavior. This brand did not change dramatically. This is the case of a brand that does the logical thing and tries to remain relevant.
INSIGHT: So is it fair to say that the reaction came as a surprise to both Crackers Barrel and Marketing Experts?
Calkins: Yes, I don’t think anyone expected that this would blow up the way he did it and blasted so quickly and with such a level of emotional tension. It was amazing. Go to Tiktok, and your entire food is full of people who are complaining about the reconstruction of the Cracker barrel.
As a brand, this is really a problem. We are in such a broken world where people get degraded for things. And this is, in a way, almost scary, because you get people who are so intense about what they are doing. It’s a business issue, but it goes beyond that. There is a problem for your employees, your partners, your suppliers. Everyone associated with this brand now looks over their shoulder a little.
I think it’s a really interesting momentum. This is just a logo change, they do not dramatically change the logo, and yet people are accusing that this is the end of the world. It’s amazing how he played. And then to overcome it all, the president jumps on it, and this is a completely different milestone.
So now you have a world where the President of the United States is willing to express views on the logo of a restaurant chain. This is a new time for traders.
INSIGHT: Was there something that the Cracker barrel could do before announcing the renewal that would help manage the dispute?
Calkins: The problem as a trader foresees this reaction, because you cannot be sure whether or not it is going to happen, and you do not know where it will come from. You do not know what could hit a subject of the influenced one day and activate another influence, and then suddenly we are in the races.
As a trader, all you can do is be very careful about what you do and then be very clear about how to answer. What do traders do is to think about whether this program, this plan, this change do Go a big controversy, what are we going to do? How do we respond to this? And if you think that before time, you can be ready to move quickly because speed is all in situations like this.
INSIGHT: What can a company do to reduce the likelihood of reaction?
Calkins: I think you want to be very careful about anything you do that could be taken with a political rotation. And that’s difficult. Most companies do not want to be either democratic or democratic by their nature, so they are trying to stay in the middle. So one thing is to be just super thoughtful about what you do, especially now.
It is especially true if you work with virtual brands that have a long history, because there is a much greater risk of blowing up things, because people have these feelings for these brands that are very powerful. Reflects the way we communicate now. Reflects the way these platforms work. This is different now. It is a little more difficult for companies to be straight under the waist, and creates great complexity.
INSIGHT: Can a slow or gradual growth in limited markets help companies avoid negative attention?
Calkins: Sure, this can help. One of the nice things is that it is less target, because when someone makes a change in a part of the country, most people do not see the change. It’s not part of it, so it’s not interesting for them. So, in a way, you have taken the story from many critics.
But that doesn’t mean you can necessarily guarantee your safety, because in this case, the Cracker barrel had already begun to renovate the stores, but just flames when the logo changed.
INSIGHT: What about catering groups? Is there something different companies do they have to do as part of this process to try to predict a reaction?
Calkins: I think you have to be careful with the catering groups because I think you can make bad decisions if you rely on them too much. You would think it would be the opposite: we need to do more focus groups, more consumer tests. Given the world we are in, I think it may be the opposite. And the reason is: Focusing groups, if done well, give you a good reading about how people feel today, but that tells you nothing about how they will feel tomorrow.
In the case of the Cracker Barrel, I suspect that they had many catering teams. And people said, it’s okay, it’s a change, but it looks nice, and the restaurants look great and the logo is okay. Nothing polarized there. It’s all right.
But then you get out of the catering team and listening to someone in Tiktok who explains why this is so terrible and the destruction of our heritage and the history of society. Then you say, no, that is Extravagant, isn’t it? I am hacked away. This is terrible.
I think this is a way in the way that catering and market research can really limit you. Yes, you should always talk to your customers. But you cannot assume that it will give you coverage or to ensure that you will not face a dispute. Because in the world of influence marketing, it is not really a majority matter. It’s a matter of some people.
These online creators need something to talk about and love things that will make people launch – things that are timely and interesting, exciting. And this barrel story is completely. It’s a story that never had to attract the attention it made.
INSIGHT:Let’s talk more about those influences, who played such a big role in the Cracker barrel dispute. How can companies tour this new marketing era?
Calkins:One of the things I believe that companies have to do is be really careful about how they deal with influences. There people spend their time and attention, and this is also where people place their trust.
The thing Cracker Barrel didn’t have all this is the people who support the plan. You want to have 5,000 influences out there who love Cracker Barrel, which says: “We love the fact that the investment of this company in this brand and the defining things and investing for the future.” If you are a brand, you really have to be in touch with your supporters and you have to be out there encouraging them to say good things about you.
Real supporters provide inputs but also become real brand champions. You are based on these people to get out of the content for you, and then you get this content and you can enhance it. You can get this content created by creators and use this content, which has a level of authenticity that is real, to promote your brand in a way that is not found as a corporate speech. Faces the real honest feedback.
Companies must be very preventive in managing influences. Be very careful and clean a group of people to support your brand. It’s all about how you become part of the conversation, because advertising doesn’t do it now.
INSIGHT:Do you think there is some silver lining for a barrel barrel, as this dispute dies down? To put it in another way, is there really “no such thing as bad publicity” in today’s environment?
Calkins:There is nothing in the movement of the Cracker barrel that suggests that the company hopes for this kind of reaction. But they could end up coming out of it much better than one would expect.
People think a lot about Cracker Barrel and we live in a attention economy where people think of your brand is not so easy. The company responded by supporting the change of logo and I think it is doing a good thing because people now say, “They were heard, they replied, we were right and now we feel much better about the Cracker barrel.”
Then people could say, “Wow, I think we may have to stop there and see what it looks like.” So when everything is said and done, this may happen in the case where the stock of the Cracker barrel gets a hit, but the company eventually returns and blooms.
The controversy can work in a positive way depending on how a company can deal with it. I don’t think the dispute is necessarily bad. It is bad depending on what it is and is bad depending on how the company responds.
