That investor was 100% right, by the way.

I've seen this mistake time and time again.

Something is struggling and failing to retain the popularity it once had. Sometimes it's a restaurant, sometimes it's a website, sometimes it's a TV show, sometimes it's a car brand... it could be anything.

The powers in charge invent a reason in their head why it's failing, and then invent a solution, usually with no market research.

A major change is implemented, and it's assumed that it will breathe life into the failing product/service/show, as a change means people will look at it as something fresh and new, right?

Everyone hates the change. The loyalists to the brand are turned off by the changes, yet at the same time, it doesn't bring in anyone new, as rebrands do not significantly change longtime reputations.

This would be the equivalent of me upgrading PFA to vBulletin version 6 (the newest one), and rebranding this site as a poker strategy forum. Almost all of the existing users would leave, yet I'd hardly get anyone new, because PFA already has a reputation for what it is currently.

That's basically what Cracker Barrel did.

On the woke end, they were forging "LGBTQ+ community partnerships" and other unnecessary shit which was just likely to piss off the customer base, and otherwise derive little benefit. That's where the wokeness comes in, as the CEO felt that these hollow gestures would somehow bring in the Sloppy Joes and JimmyG_415s of the world, while not alienating the desertrunners.

You need to understand your brand and your appeal, and stay in that lane. And if you attempt to expand from that lane, do so VERY cautiously.

Why do they hire morons like this?