My Ph.D. research is focused on consumer response to logos and visual identity, so as you can imagine, I’ve talked about Cracker Barrel¹ a lot over the last few weeks. Everyone has an opinion and is eager to share it. I held off writing this because the social media chatter was just chaotic, but now that things have calmed down, I wanted to share some quick thoughts based on my research.

People care about logos.

In my forthcoming study on logo attitudes with a sample of 1,000 American consumers², over 60% of respondents agreed that if their favorite brand changed their logo, they’d want to know why. Cracker Barrel did a really poor job of explaining why they were changing their logo. It seemed to consumers like change for the sake of change and when challenged by consumers (plus a really strange political sideshow), they had no story to tell. And with no official rationale, people concocted their own narratives.

Context matters

When I saw the news of the Cracker Barrel rebranding, I only saw a picture of the logo on a white background. When news outlets ran their stories, the only picture they used was of the front of a Cracker Barrel with the old logo. After Cracker Barrel had announced they were going back to the old mark, I saw examples of the new logo in action, and you know what, it looks nice. I can see what they were going for.

My study published in the Journal of Product & Brand Management found that viewers reacted more favorably when the logo was shown with additional context — examples of the new logo in use, behind-the-scenes sketches, and implementation details.

Cracker Barrel provided none of these images at launch. All consumers had to go on was the logo on a white square. And in general, people dislike new logos without context.

Armchair quarterbacks are everywhere

Everyone seemed to have a solution to Cracker Barrel’s problem. I lost track of how many hot takes I saw on social media. Young designers quickly providing their versions like it was a design school exercise. Branding consultants rushing to talk about how Cracker Barrel had abandoned their loyal fans. And most of these people weren’t fans of Cracker Barrel, they just wanted to capitalize on the attention.

This is the reality of design criticism these days. It comes from everywhere. I’ve been digging into the literature on deprofessionalization and the democratization of design for my dissertation and it’s clear that some of this criticism is rooted in a skeptical view of the design profession.

This level of criticism is going to accompany any major rebranding and companies like Cracker Barrel need to expect and prepare for the inevitable criticism.

The launch is critical

Cracker Barrel seemed surprised and unprepared for obvious criticism. With no story and no context, they weren’t able to respond to critics effectively. This has nothing to do with whether the logo was “good” or “bad.” Instead, it shows how critically important the launch is for any rebranding. People will always have opinions. Logos are the tangible representation of a brand’s relationship with their consumers.

A good launch can go a long way to softening criticism, but a bad launch might completely sidetrack your branding strategy.

Bob Wertz is a type designer, Ph.D. student and researcher living in Columbia, South Carolina. He’s been blogging since 2008.