Lemonade Stand Podcast Ep. 026

Episode Title: Ranking the Top 10 Worst Rebrands of All Time
Release Date: August 27, 2025
Hosts: Aiden, Atrioc, DougDoug

Episode Overview

In this lively episode, Aiden, Atrioc, and DougDoug tackle the thorny world of corporate rebrands, spurred by Cracker Barrel’s controversial 2025 logo and store redesign. Each host brings their picks for the worst rebrands in history, ranking and dissecting what went wrong, and comparing them to the current Cracker Barrel saga. Alongside sharp business insights and real laughs, the trio explores the public’s reaction to change, the rarity of a successful pivot, and the power of nostalgia in branding. The conversation later branches into the impact of business incentives using Twitch viewbotting and government involvement in tech (Intel), before returning for a positive spin: notable rebrand successes.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Cracker Barrel's “Woke” Rebrand Backlash

[00:00–13:23]

• Cracker Barrel’s 2025 Redesign: The hosts launch straight into the episode by jokingly “rebranding” their own show as the “Cracker Stand” -- a riff on Cracker Barrel’s abrupt brand refresh that sparked outcry.
• Logo & Store Changes: Visual breakdown of old vs. new logos, comparing the shift to other recent rebrands (Burberry, Burger King, PayPal). The consensus: the new look is “modern, millennial, and bland,” sparking a massive negative, politicized reaction.
• Nostalgia & Demographics: Host 3 (Atrioc) details the core audience (“average age is 65+”) and describes Cracker Barrel’s unique atmosphere—part restaurant, part “knickknack” country store.
• Conservative Response: Social media and right-wing pundits frame the rebrand as “woke” (06:01), with mockery of how any change is now labeled political.
  • Memorable Quote: “What isn’t a symptom of woke?” – Host 2, [06:01]
• Business Realities vs. “Woke” Discourse: Beneath the culture-war narrative, discuss how declining sales are the actual driver:
  • "People weren't going. The thing is the store was having declining sales year over year. People remember it more fondly than they actually go." – Atrioc [09:22]
• Steak 'n Shake Callout: Steak ‘n Shake capitalized on the backlash with their own nostalgic marketing, despite having undergone a similar “blandification” and private equity drama.
• Immediate Outcome: Cracker Barrel reversed its rebrand minutes after this episode was recorded, reflecting the power and speed of public backlash.

2. The Worst Rebrands—Ranked and Debated

[13:23–55:46]

Each host proposes notorious rebrands, discusses rationale, and ranks their disastrousness. The conversation is peppered with strong opinions, personal stories, and keen brand analysis.

The Board – Top-Tier Fails:

• Johnson & Johnson (2023: Script logo → Arial text)
  • Insight: Loss of 135 years of history; “People can't read fucking cursive anymore.” – Host 2 [16:30]
  • Rank: C/D (middling bad, largely unnoticed outside branding circles)
• Ayds Diet Candy (1980s: refused to change the "Ayds" brand amid the AIDS epidemic)
  • Quote: “They were in a shit position… but the obvious thing is you changed your name from the debilitating disease that is killing people.” – Host 1 [21:15]
  • Rank: A (catastrophic, brand destroyed)
• Tropicana (2009: ditched iconic “orange with straw” for generic carton)
  • Details: Sales dropped 20% overnight; $30M ad spend, $50M sales loss in a month.
  • Personal moment: Host 2 laments being unable to find juice post-rebrand as a kid.
  • Rank: S (the “gold standard” of how not to do it)
• Gap (2010: switched to generic Google Docs vibe, botched rollout, changed back in a week)
  • Host roast: “Five minutes before it was due.” – [28:57]
  • Rank: B (bad, but quickly reversed)
• Radio Shack (“The Shack”) (2009: desperate, confusing “nickname” that didn’t save them)
  • Consensus: D (already doomed, minimal impact, attempts at modernity came off phony)
• HBO / Max
  • Detail: Name shifted from HBO to HBO Go, to HBO Now, to HBO Max, then “Max.”
  • Insight: Brand confusion, sub loss, recent reversal to HBO Max.
  • Quote: “You have one of the greatest media properties of all time and your first big decision is, ‘What if we got rid of it?’” – Host 3 [38:20]
  • Rank: A
• Jaguar (2025: Rebranded without showing cars, focused on high-luxury EV future)
  • Insight: Sales drop is partly due to ceasing production ahead of new strategy.
  • Consensus: C (possibly necessary, ambiguous outcome pending actual product)
• US Department of War → Department of Defense (1949)
  • Debate: Whether this was truly a “bad” rebrand or a successful “spin.”
  • Quote: “I would say this is not a successful rebrand. I would go in B or A…” – Host 1 [47:17]
  • Counterpoint: More effective persuasion/personnel, so rated D—actually smart.
• Twitter → X (2023)
  • Rationale: Disastrous loss of brand equity (“tweet” as verb akin to “Google”), widespread user rejection, even Elon Musk can’t enforce the change.
  • Quote: “I still call it Twitter… I haven’t changed one iota.” – Host 3 [49:13]
  • Rank: S (top of the list for “most pointless, costly, universally rejected” rebrand)

Rebrand Back to Cracker Barrel

• Final consensus: The Cracker Barrel rebrand is a major flop, but not quite as bad as Tropicana or Twitter/X. Tiered “A”—up there with HBO Max and Ayds, but not the all-time worst.

  “Cracker Barrel, not the worst rebrand of all time, but you are slightly less woke than x.com.”
  – Host 1 [55:24]

3. The Nature of Rebrand Failure

Major Themes Throughout:

• Consultant Culture: Satirical lament of companies spending “millions for Arial font” [17:03], and the repeating pattern of costly, pointless “modernizations.”
• Psychology of Rebrands:
  • People hate every rebrand—until it sticks (or doesn’t).
  • Nostalgia is a differentiator; loss of personality, history or emotional connection is fatal.
  • Brand confusion (like HBO to “Max,” Tropicana’s indistinct cartons, or “X”) alienates loyal customers.
• Social/Political Overlay:
  • Modern rebrands are instantly politicized, often regardless of intent.
  • “Woke” is now so overused as to be meaningless; the goalposts have shifted.

4. Bright Spots & Actually Good Rebrands

[55:50–59:32]

• Spotify: From illegible childlike green logo to sleek, icon app branding.

• The Netherlands: Nationwide rebrand from “Holland” to “The Netherlands” for clarity.

• Instagram: Rounded icon was hated at launch, now an indispensable recognizable brand.

  “We make fun of these rebrands…but a truth of it is every rebrand ever is hated when it first happens. If it's better, it'll stick around.” – Host 3 [59:08]

5. Viewbotting and Phantom Audiences on Twitch

[59:54–71:56]

• Twitch’s ecosystem incentivizes abnormally high viewership counts (sometimes bought/botted), distorting advertising/sponsorship rates.
• Crackdown on viewbotting saw a “site-wide” 5–20% dip (up to 24%) in viewership—quickly reversed, possibly because of business realities.
• Insight: When everyone is incentivized to maintain high “numbers,” there's little will to address fraud—emphasizing the disconnect between short-term business incentives and long-term trust/sustainability.

6. Government as Tech Investor—The Intel Case

[72:53–94:58]

• Backdrop: The US government now owns 10% of Intel, the last major US chipmaker (after mobile and AI booms left Intel behind).
• Context:
  • Most advanced chips made in Taiwan (TSMC); US wants “made in America” AI/defense chips for security.
  • Intel faltered in mobile/AI and is losing ground to Nvidia, AMD, and ARM.
  • Government investment is intended to keep manufacturing capability domestic; “choosing winners” is controversial.
• Debate: Is nationalization anti-market (“picking winners”) or simply necessary in this sector for national security?
• China Comparison: China fosters competition through broad subsidies, keeping heavy-handed control as a lever, contrasted with the US “pick one (Intel) and bet the farm” approach.
• Hosts' Take: Reluctant acceptance that desperate measures may be needed, but skeptical of the long-term consequences and “slippery slope” to “state-owned failures.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “What isn’t a symptom of woke?” – Host 2 [06:01]
• “They spent $35 million on the rebrand. Then they lost $50 million in sales immediately.” – Host 3, on Tropicana [23:33]
• “People can't read fucking cursive anymore. That’s why they changed it.” – Host 2, on Johnson & Johnson [16:30]
• “You’re just being played. This guy does not care about America.” – Host 3, on Steak ‘n Shake's faux-patriotism [11:44]
• “The word tweet…became so…like the phrase googling something.” – Host 2 [53:14]
• “I think it's a terrible branding choice. I want to put it in S.” – Host 3, on Twitter → X [53:28]
• “Cracker Barrel, not the worst rebrand of all time, but you are slightly less woke than x.com.”
  – Host 1 [55:24]
• “You have to have balls to be the advertising intern who's like, this is 103 year old brand. It's time for me to change.” – Host 3 [38:58]

Timestamps by Topic

• 00:00–04:08: Cracker Barrel rebrand setup & logo breakdown
• 04:08–13:23: “Woke” backlash & business context, comparison to other brands
• 13:23–55:46: Top 10 worst rebrands—pitches, debate, and ranking
• 55:46–59:32: Actually good rebrands—Spotify, Netherlands, Instagram
• 59:54–71:56: Twitch viewbotting, incentives, and the real scale of fraud in media metrics
• 72:53–94:58: Deep dive—Intel, US nationalization, and China/EV industrial policy parallels

Episode Tone

Playful, irreverent, but astute. Punctuated by real business analysis shrouded in wit and sarcasm. The hosts riff on their own nostalgia, occasionally take villain’s advocate positions (“villain share”), and aren’t afraid to lampoon consultants, brands, or the media circus that engulfs every rebrand.

For Listeners—Takeaways

• Even legacy brands can (and do) fumble rebrands, often spectacularly.
• Losing what makes your brand special or trying to “modernize” into blandness rarely ends well.
• Public “woke” backlashes are often more about politics and media incentives than actual design.
• When business incentives and short-term profit take precedence over authenticity or audience, problems arise—whether in branding, media, or tech.
• Sometimes, “sticking with what’s worked for 135 years” is the right call—a lesson ignored at every company’s peril.

Curious where your favorite (or least favorite) rebrand falls? Listen in for sharp insight, cathartic venting, and surprisingly relevant lessons for anyone who’s ever worked in, or simply loved, brands.