Should we rebrand? Why the answer is almost always no

Note: Less than 48 hours after finishing my first draft of this post, Cracker Barrel reversed its decision to launch a new logo, an outcome which (I believe) only strengthens every point you'll read below!

Creating new names, logos and refreshed brand identities. It all sounds like so much fun! It’s not. It serious business with high costs and high stakes. Just ask the folks over at Cracker Barrel. We'll get to that in a moment. First, a little context.

I’ve consulted on naming, logo creation and brand refreshes numerous times during my career. I’ve even helped execute a few. Yet, more often than not, I’ve advised leaders against taking action. And almost every time I did that, it wasn’t because the organizations involved had perfect, modern brands. In most cases, a brand refresh on the aesthetic terms alone was more than warranted.

So, why do I almost always say no when asked about rebranding? I say no because the expense is nearly impossible to justify versus the ROI you will get back. Even for small organizations, replacing a logo on every building, website, and piece of collateral is expensive and time consuming. For big organizations, costs can run well into the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

OK. Enough preamble. Let’s get into the Cracker Barrel brouhaha* to show how risky a rebrand can be for even the biggest, most well-resourced organizations.

A billion dollar rebranding mistake?

In case you missed the debacle, congratulations and here’s what happened as reported by Forbes:

Cracker Barrel has simplified its logo, erasing the iconic “Uncle Herschel” and his barrel. Now, Cracker Barrel is represented by a simple yellow shape that barely resembles a barrel.

Cracker Barrel is far from unique in doing this—modern minimalist trends see many corporations wipe the personality from their logos, often leaving only their name, written in simple font.

Pretty mundane so far, right?

Most of the backlash against Cracker Barrel’s new look came from reactionary culture warriors who labelled the new logo as “woke.” Many right-wing accounts banded together to protest the change, viewing the corporate rebrand through a political lens.

The brand account behind Steak 'n Shake also got involved in the backlash, posting a picture of Cracker Barrel’s new logo, edited to read “fire the CEO.”

A few commentators clarified that they were against the rebrand, but not because of politics.

That’s all ridiculous, but the reaction had serious impacts on the company’s stock price.

Cracker Barrel shed almost $100 million in market value after its stock plunged following the release of the new logo. The stock had dipped to a low of $50.27 earlier on that day, representing a loss of almost $200 million in its capitalization.

That’s on top of the reported $700 million expense for what the brand will cost to implement. And we probably have to figure in a few million to address this PR crisis. So, all in we’re getting pretty close to $1 billion.

That’s going to take a lot of chicken and dumplings to cover the cost!

Did Cracker Barrel need to do it? Maybe. Some people commented that the brand needed to be more modern to attract new customers. Will it work in the long run? I don’t know, but it’s highly questionable that they will make back the losses and expenses, AND repair some of the collateral PR damage.

Did you forget about this logo fail? I did!

Update: A total collapse of the case for rebranding

Before I could even publish this post, news broke about a change in direction:

Cracker Barrel said Tuesday it will be going back to its old logo, amid a public backlash to the restaurant and country store's recent logo change and redesign.

The announcement comes after mounting controversy surrounding the new logo, which had foregone the illustration of Uncle Hershel in favor of a simplified text-only logo.

Wow. That was fast! Maybe the fastest rebrand retraction ever? One comparable situation comes to mind. Back in 2010, after a disastrous logo refresh the Gap pulled back its decision in about seven days. I clock the Cracker Barrel pull back at six days!

I know it's subjective, but I think that Gap logo revision is far worse than what Cracker Barrel did. The old (and current) Gap logo is just perfect. Simple and elegant. Why mess with a good thing?

Back to why I (almost always) say no to rebranding

Look, it would be misleading to say that the brouhaha* in response to Cracker Barrel’s logo is anywhere near normal for most organizations rolling out a new logo or name. Yet, clearly a social media firestorm is now a possibility that could happen depending on how large your organization's public profile is.

In more common scenarios, it’s just going to cost a lot of money and time to implement. And in most cases, the impact versus ROI simply isn't worth it.

For example, I’ve consulted with a few non-profit organizations that have legacy names that really don’t capture everything they do and brand identities that are a bit tired. Yet when you have to balance those issues with diverting money from providing services, paying staff, etc., the choice to stand pat is easy to make.

A brief aside on naming. Do you wonder why so many company names are just plain strange nowadays? It’s because there are really no great - or even good - new names available for companies. Every halfway intelligible name has already been taken and trademarked. So, you end up choosing a made up word or riffing off the existing name. Most often, shortening it. It's hard to be inspiring.

When I do advise making a change

There are times when you should go forward with a new logo or full name refresh. Here are a few instances I’ve encountered or observed:

• Mergers and acquisitions: When two organizations are coming together it’s either find a new name or combine under one of the legacy names. Rebranding is a necessity and a cost that you can’t really escape.

• Outdated terminology: Sometimes a name will cause active confusion for customers, which in turn might be resulting in lost business, difficulties in recruiting staff, securing grants, etc. This isn’t a common scenario, but it’s one that requires careful examination before action.

• Epic PR disasters: Another scenario that is super rare, but has happened. The downside here is that in today’s environment it’s hard to pull this strategy off. And it takes years before you stop being associated with the legacy brand. Just look at X. How many people still call it Twitter? I know I do.

The bottom line

This has been an epic few years of rebrand disasters. HBO, Twitter/X, Cracker Barrel, etc. Big brand refreshes have NOT been going well.

After years of (almost always) saying no when asked about the need to rebrand, my conviction that “no” is usually the right answer is now stronger than ever. There are certainly going to be times when it has to happen, but you better be darn sure of what you’re doing, why and what it could cost in terms of money and reputation management.

---

*Brouhaha – the word we need for 2025!

Brouhaha was the “word of the year” way back in 2011. A simpler time, but isn’t it the perfect word for 2025?

Definition refresher:

A brouhaha is an uproar, a noisy commotion, or a period of confused public excitement and discussion, often over something trivial.

The term describes a situation with a lot of noise and activity that seems to be much larger than the actual cause deserves.

The word itself suggests loud, confused sounds, like an uproar or a fuss.

Usage example:

The unveiling of Cracker Barrel’s new logo last week sparked a major brouhaha on social media. Life carried on as normal a few days later.

There are so many things that DO warrant getting worked up about today. And so, so many situations that DO NOT.

I think brouhaha really needs a usage revival in 2025.

I’m personally going to start using it more often. I'm certain we won't have any shortage of events that meet the criteria for use!