Growth Newsletter #274

It’s getting a little too predictable.

A company updates their logo and branding with a stripped-down, “simplified” version.

The public reacts negatively and gets worked up.

Then the news cycle changes, people move on with their lives, and everyone gets used to the new brand identity over time.

Last week’s unlucky headliner was Cracker Barrel, the southern roadside staple known for its nostalgic appeal, rustic country store, beloved peg game, and healthy portions of unhealthy food.

Their rebrand went viral with a few key visuals making the rounds: namely before-and-after comparisons of the logo and interior.

The memes poured in. Their already-weak stock took a tumble. And the comments sections were flooded with rip-roaring rage, like these comments screenshotted from Food52’s post.

Obviously, this sweeping rebrand includes interior updates, new menus, a new tagline of “All The More” and plenty more, but the logo has been the lightning rod at the center of the PR storm.

On the contrary, there were also some well-argued takes from people explaining why the update made sense to them.

Medium published a short-and-sweet article titled, “Why Cracker Barrel’s New Logo Actually Hit The Mark.”

“The old logo…does not work well on anything other than a big sign. It doesn’t shrink down well, it doesn’t look good on the web, and it doesn’t look good on a phone. It has no real brandable elements to it except the wordmark.” — Brad Thomas, Medium

Graphic Design publication The Dieline ran an article titled, ”Cracker Barrel’s Perfectly Fine Brand Refresh Courts Controversy," and you can practically hear the exhausted “here we go again” eyeroll in the headline.

Another take from digital designer Peter Laudermilch on LinkedIn made a fair point about the runaway narrative:

“When a new identity gets flattened into a static screenshot for social commentary, of course it looks bland. You’re seeing it stripped of motion, context, and personality—the visual equivalent of an out-of-context soundbite.”

To that point, when you look at more of these new brand elements together below (even without motion), the new Cracker Barrel brand ecosystem starts to come to life.

Cracker Barrel clearly felt it was time to signal a big change with their rebrand, even if they stood to catch some initial heat for it. Let’s look at what might have forced their hand.

Even Nostalgia Needs Modernizing Sometimes

For all the people commenting various versions of, “They didn’t need to change anything!” Let's look at some numbers that suggest otherwise.

I’m not saying this exact execution was the exact right answer to their problems, but we all know the definition of insanity. And when business is down for a few years, you can’t keep doing the same thing, expecting different results.

For one, their stock has generally been on the slide since 2021. And a topical Forbes article from Monday suggests Cracker Barrel exhibits weak growth, very weak profitability, and very weak downturn resilience.

To add insult to injury, transactions across the foodservice sector declined 7% year-over-year during the first quarter of 2025, signaling a tough time for the industry in general.

In the least surprising news ever, Cracker Barrel has trouble attracting younger customers. They cater to an older crowd who is aging out and dining out less. 2023 company data showed 43% of guests are at least 55 years old. For reference, around 80% of Applebee's customers in 2023 were under the age of 60.

The Cracker Barrel CEO, Julie Felss Masino, added a little more context when she was interviewed on Good Morning America, citing tariff costs and managers pleading for remodels as additional reasons to reexamine the brand at this time.

"Cracker Barrel needs to feel like the Cracker Barrel for today and for tomorrow.” — Julie Felss Masino, CEO, Cracker Barrel

Their rationale for a major change likely stemmed from a convergence of harsh Cracker Barrel business realities, mounting restaurant industry headwinds, an aging customer base, and a brand that visually harkens back to the pre-smartphone era.

“Phone Eats First”

This trend of visual simplification largely stems from brands needing to flex across a thousand dynamic use cases, because logos don’t just hang on creaky signs above front porches anymore.

In addition to high-touch dynamic pieces, think about favicons, YouTube thumbnails, App Store icons, and other pixel-pinching needs that require maximum clarity.

This simplification is more about survival than a pure stylistic choice. What I’m saying is: minimalism is becoming more necessary, because you’re increasingly likely to meet brands through a small screen than through a fully-fledged physical experience.

Without ever seeing firsthand proof of Cracker Barrel’s existence, you might:

• See a paid social ad for Cracker Barrel
• Search for a nearby location
• Check the hours
• Browse the menu
• Order online
• Get your food delivered

…all through your phone.

If it feels like logos are looking more and more similar, it’s probably because we’re looking at our phones more (and consequently driving more traffic through phones than desktops as of 2018).

These clear-at-a-glance logos are the answer to a seismic societal shift where the default digital spaces are getting smaller.

​

A brand is bigger than a logo, but a logo is an important visual anchor and symbol. If your logo is chock-full of tiny details and elements that are nightmarish at small sizes or quick glances (like Cracker Barrel’s old logo) you might need to rip the proverbial Band-Aid off, absorb a little expected backlash, and lean into other things that can breathe more life into a modern brand: UX, product, content, community, etc.

Traits of a Modernized Logo

While not present in every single example, below are five common attributes of simplified, modern logos designed to withstand digital pressures. Logos are notoriously subjective, but these characteristics generally ensure more appropriate digital applications.

• Colors reduced: From complex palettes to a hue or two
• Flat design: 3D bevels and shadows stripped away
• Wordmark: Brand names/abbreviations prioritized over symbols
• Serifs removed: Cleaner, more legible, more neutral
• Increased spacing: For breathability on small screens

And it’s not just companies with a strong physical presence (restaurants, cars, CPG, etc.) that have needed some digital honing over time. Take a look at some of these digital-first companies whose old logos look zany and unrefined compared to their restrained appearance today.

Take a peek at Uber’s journey. Throughout the years, they’ve simplified their name, embraced a max-contrast color scheme, and eventually re-embraced their wordmark. They’ve been a phone-first company since their founding, and they’ve still seen plenty of sweeping visual changes throughout 15 years.

And now, Cracker Barrel. Whose evolution doesn’t seem quite as crazy, given the context of these previous examples. Even though I do feel like the wordmark could be about 20% bigger inside the barrel.

The Takeaway: Today’s Great Logos Do No Harm.

While founders and marketers love a genius, gorgeous, eye-catching logo, that’s not necessarily what users need, even if they think they do. Instead of going for the single prettiest mark, look for a resilient one that stays strong across platforms and is easy to remember.

A strong logo can’t carry a business like an amazing user experience or product, but a weak logo can chip away at it, especially on small screens and fast-moving videos. In that sense, your logo’s job isn’t to impress (like it might have been in the past). Its job is to anchor your brand without tripping anyone up.

Right now, everyone’s got something to say about Cracker Barrel’s logo. And there’s certainly a chance this runaway narrative harms the brand long-term. But if this new mark eventually blends in, helps elevate the brand’s everyday experience, and never distracts customers (at least for a second time), it will be a win.

​Gil Templeton​
Demand Curve Staff Writer