How To Avoid Status Quo And Controversy

The recent wave of brand change made me think about one that still stings. Years ago, I was heartbroken when Trader Vic’s closed in Scottsdale, Arizona. It was one of my favorite places. The tiki rooms, the Polynesian décor, and the mysterious glow of the torches had a kind of magic that made you feel like you were on vacation, even if you were just out for dinner. When it reopened years later, I couldn’t wait to see it. But instead of that warm, tropical feel, it looked more like something Frank Lloyd Wright might have designed. I respected the architecture, but it wasn’t the Trader Vic’s I loved. What made it special was gone.

Each generation has its own ideas of what’s cool, and brands must evolve to stay relevant. I often tell companies that sticking with the status quo is dangerous. That approach destroyed Kodak and Blockbuster. But not every brand change works. With the recent rebranding mess at Cracker Barrel, the viral debates around American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney campaign, and the firestorm over Bud Light’s collaboration with Dylan Mulvaney, there are some issues to consider. It’s worth asking if all publicity is really good publicity.

Why Brand Change Often Goes Wrong

Brand change gets messy when companies stop being curious. Real curiosity means asking why something resonates before deciding how to modernize it. Cracker Barrel’s decision to drop its familiar “Old Timer” image and rustic look was meant to signal progress. Instead, it upset the very people who loved the brand’s homestyle personality. Trader Vic’s tried to move away from tiki nostalgia and ended up losing its charm. These companies knew that change was necessary but didn’t ask the right questions first. Staying curious before taking action could have preserved what customers loved most while still allowing evolution.

When brand change is driven by panic or pressure, it feels forced. When it’s guided by curiosity, it becomes growth. There’s a difference between asking what’s trendy right now and asking what still makes people smile about your brand. The difference is whether you want to build loyalty or regret.

When Brand Change Turns Into Controversy

Some companies don’t want to play it safe and push boundaries just to get people talking. The 1973 Noxzema ad with Farrah Fawcett and Joe Namath is a great reminder that controversy isn’t new. It was flirty, funny, and maybe a little edgy, but people smiled. It was tied to the product, not a political statement. Many companies aren’t trying to make political statements, but by not testing their ideas, they can find themselves in a firestorm instead of creating the impact they intended.

Consider Gillette’s “The Best Men Can Be” ad, which challenged toxic masculinity and became a global debate. Bud Light’s partnership with Dylan Mulvaney sparked boycotts and massive attention. American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney “Great Jeans” ad went viral for a double meaning that some found clever and others interpreted as racially insensitive. The one thing these brands all gained was visibility, but that doesn’t always equal success.

In today’s world, audiences are more sensitive to what a brand represents. Social media has changed the speed at which people share both excitement and outrage. What worked decades ago now plays out instantly and globally. The question is whether brands are ready for the kind of attention they’re inviting. Leaders need to stay curious and ask what reaction they actually want and what happens next. Perhaps the Sweeney ad will eventually put American Eagle back on the map. It certainly got attention. The lesson is that society interprets things differently, and the real trick is to anticipate how a message might be received.

What Successful Brand Change Really Looks Like

Brand change done well starts with listening. LEGO nearly lost its way in the early 2000s after chasing too many side projects. When leaders got curious about how kids actually played, they realized their strength was imagination, not endless new product lines. Netflix did the same when it shifted from DVDs to streaming. It didn’t just change the platform; it studied how people wanted to watch.

Trader Vic’s could have used that same curiosity. Instead of turning tiki into a modern scene, it could have tried other ways to build its customer base. Perhaps younger generations would have liked a hidden speakeasy behind the bar, in that same tiki tone, or a rotating drink board where customers voted on the next featured cocktail, or some kind of mixology night. The idea isn’t to live in the past, but to bring the past forward in a new way.

Cracker Barrel could do something similar. Its customers love the nostalgia, so instead of modernizing the walls, it could make the nostalgia personal. Community walls showing photos of guests or menu items named through fan polls would make people feel part of the story rather than watching it disappear.

Why Some Brand Change Backfires

The New Coke story is still one of the best reminders that even good research can lead to bad decisions. Coca-Cola reformulated its drink after blind taste tests showed people preferred Pepsi in small sips. The problem was that those tests only measured first impressions. Sweetness wins in one sip, but over a full can or over time, people wanted the familiar taste they grew up with. The change ignored habit, emotion, and memory. These are the things that make brands powerful. When the backlash hit, Coke listened, brought back the original formula, and turned a mistake into one of the biggest comeback stories in marketing.

Brand change without curiosity makes leaders act on surface data. Brand change with curiosity digs deeper to understand the why behind what people say they like.

How Curiosity Protects Brand Change From Failure

Curiosity makes brand change pause long enough to test ideas before betting everything on them. It encourages small experiments instead of sweeping overhauls. It asks customers what they love and what they’d like to see evolve. The best brands keep the parts people feel connected to and innovate around them. LEGO and Netflix did that. Trader Vic’s and Cracker Barrel could have done it. The goal is to make sure to involve curiosity in the change. For companies considering a major brand change, it’s important to anticipate how people might respond, question whether all publicity is good publicity, and have a plan ready if things don’t go as expected.