Tennessee-based restaurant chain Cracker Barrel is known for their homey, old-timey ambience. In recent weeks it has been under fire after rebranding itself with an updated logo. The store’s new design kicks Uncle Herschel, the once-popular brand mascot that used to feature on the company’s logo. This rebranding decision has sparked outrage in conservative circles, with figures like Donald Trump Jr. leading the charge against the rebranding. This debate isn’t just about design taste. It resonates profoundly with the company’s troubled history of race and discrimination.
Originating in 1969, today Cracker Barrel has over 600 restaurants spanning the United States. It’s real special dining, with rocking chairs on the porch, a big fire on the hearth, and peg games on the tables. The company projects an appealing sense of nostalgia that wins over most potential customers. For over a century, it has served as a bastion of the classic American ideal. This picture was recently forced to the test as that same image is currently undergoing severe criticism for its recent logo swap.
The old logo with Uncle Herschel, a stereotypical character that embodied the brand’s old-fashioned values. Though architecturally impressive, Cracker Barrel’s new design has become a lightning rod for this state’s culture war. The removal of this contentious figure has thrust the restaurant into the national limelight. Donald Trump Jr. let everyone know how strongly he felt about the amendment going away. His TWEET went viral as he shouted out, “WTF is wrong with Cracker Barrel?!” His words reflect a broader concern among the right. They view the rebranding as a capitulation to what they feel is an overly PC world.
The firestorm against Cracker Barrel is further confused by its long history of racism against Black customers and staffers. Over the years, the chain has faced multiple allegations of racial discrimination, including instances of denial of service and segregation of Black diners. In 1991, Cracker Barrel famously announced their dedication to “traditional American values,” something that critics have posited led to widespread discriminatory practices. The company settled claims of racist treatment for $8.7 million in 2004, signaling ongoing issues with discrimination within its establishments.
Cracker Barrel’s history is dotted with landmark moments in the fight for LGBTQ+ equality. In 1991, the company infamously fired 11 LGBTQ+ employees, prompting protests and calls for accountability. In 2002, the company became the first Fortune 500 company to add sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination policy. Despite some progress, its history still casts a long shadow over its current branding efforts.
Public figures such as Trump Jr. are far from the only ones chiming in. Other bloggers and commentators have weighed in on the broader implications of Cracker Barrel’s logo change. Bill Pearce on why the company needed to hold the line. If they were really that confident in their new design to begin with, they never should have bowed to the pressure. “If they retrenched so quickly, well, that’s an indication that they didn’t believe in the design and probably shouldn’t have gone ahead in the first place,” he stated.
Jarvis Sam of the National Association of City Transportation Officials offered an interesting perspective on the whiplash. He told me that nostalgia plays a huge role in customers’ branding attachment to Cracker Barrel, but it produces a strong aversion to change. “Because people feel so connected and entrenched with the nostalgia of some of these experiences, it leads to backlash when there is change,” he explained.
As a result, that fallout from the change in logo has apparently hit Cracker Barrel in the pocket book too. Needless to say, some segments of the customer base were up in arms. As a direct outcome, the company’s value has plummeted by almost $100 million. This financial consequence further highlights how inseparable a corporate identity from a public image can be today under today’s socio-political conditions.
Cracker Barrel’s response was to own up, admit they had failed to communicate a lost direction around their brand’s evolution. A company representative stated, “We could’ve done a better job sharing who we are and who we’ll always be.” This public understanding indicates an awareness of the nuances at play in cultural shifts against rebranding attempts in today’s polarized culture war landscape.