Did Cracker Barrel Just Serve Us New Coke?

For those of you who remember the 1980s, the Coca-Cola Company replaced the original formula of Coke with a new formula they dubbed, “New Coke.” This was met with almost immediate negative feedback from consumers. After 79 days, the Coca Cola Company ended up offering the original Coke as “Coke Classic” and offered the “New Coke” which became known as Coke II until 2002.

Recently, Cracker Barrel, a well-known restaurant in the southern continental United States announced they would be updating their brand and revealed the new logo. Incredibly, the onslaught of critical social media posts bashing the company’s decision to make a change was immediate and cutting. Unlike Coca-Cola, Cracker Barrel only took seven days to announce they reversed their decision to rebrand. Once again, the outcry from friends and fiends alike were critical for different reasons, making this one of the most noteworthy mistakes pertaining to consumer image and branding in recent times… but was it a mistake?

After the Coca-Cola foley in 1985, many started to believe it was a deeply held, secret strategy by Coca-Cola to re-capture market share away from competitors such as Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and Royal Crown (RC) Cola. Still unconfirmed by the Atlanta-based soft drink giant, the events seemed striking to me. I thought it warranted a bit more research to compare the two companies, their financial and market share prior to the shifts and after the shifts and during the reversal of their decisions to change product or change brand.

Both the recent rebrand of Cracker Barrel restaurants and the launch of New Coke by Coca-Cola in the 1980s share notable similarities, especially in how iconic brands tried to modernize their image but generated intense public backlash and swiftly reversed course due to consumer attachment to legacy branding.

Brand Change Motivations

• Both companies were motivated by a desire to attract new customers and stay relevant amid declining sales and increased competition. Cracker Barrel sought to modernize decor and logo, while Coca-Cola reformulated its drink to combat Pepsi’s growing popularity.

• Each believed the rebrand would resonate with evolving market tastes, relying on internal research before proceeding.

Public Backlash

• Loyal customers felt deep emotional attachment to each brand’s traditional look or flavor, leading to strong opposition. Cracker Barrel patrons described the updated logo as “soulless” with a loss of coziness, while New Coke faced nationwide protests and thousands of complaints.

• Both situations saw customers claim the changes diluted the brands’ roots and identity, sparking a sense of betrayal.

Market Impact

• After the initial rollout, each company suffered notable damage—Cracker Barrel experienced a sharp drop in stock price, and Coca-Cola saw New Coke's sales falter, with many switching to competitors.

• The problems quickly went viral, amplified by social media, traditional media coverage and political commentary in Cracker Barrel’s case, and grassroots protests for Coke.

Prompt Reversal

• Both brands restored beloved original elements within weeks or months—Cracker Barrel returned to the “Old Timer” logo and classic decor, while Coca-Cola brought back its traditional formula as “Coca-Cola Classic,” each action meeting widespread public approval.

• The reversals served as lessons about the risks of abruptly changing legacy branding without considering the emotional connections of core customers.

Lasting Lessons

• The rebrands are now used in marketing and business education as cautionary tales about the importance of customer sentiment and heritage in brand identity.

• Both cases demonstrate that modernization efforts can backfire if they disregard loyal consumers’ values and nostalgia.

Overall, the Cracker Barrel rebrand and New Coke share striking similarities in motivation, backlash, market impact, reversal and ongoing significance as classic branding missteps.