Fresh content sold here

This week on LinkedIn, someone posted a picture of a sign for a store urging customers to place holiday orders now. The poster said she would cut out some of the words. That reminded me of an old joke. How old is it? I looked it up and discovered that it was printed as early as 1890. Here's how it goes:

A man opened a fish store and put up sign, “Fresh Fish Sold Here.” A friend told him there is no need to say here. The owner took out that word, leaving “Fresh Fish Sold.” Another friend said there's no need to say “fresh”—no one expects to be sold old fish. The owner took out that word, making the new sign, “Fish Sold.” Another friend said there's no need to say “sold”—no one expects him to give it away. That left just “Fish.” But another friend said it was not necessary to say that because it could be seen and smelled. The owner took out that word and the new sign was blank.

The punchline of the original story was that the business failed due to lack of advertising. But I would suggest two key takeaways.

One is that whenever you seek to satisfy everyone, you end up satisfying no one. Those of us who have had to satisfy committees with copy know all-too-well how true that is. One wants a more playful tone, while the other insists on something that's all business. One wants simple language, while another mistakes jargon for proof of expertise. Satisfying them all renders the final copy bland and forgettable.

The other is that while cutting out unnecessary words is the essence of editing, you have to really know what you're doing. Otherwise, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater -- or should we say fish with the saltwater in this case?

To illustrate this post, I found that life truly does imitate life and that you can purchase a sign inspired by this story on Amazon for as little as $9.99.

This blog's CTA

While it's possible to eliminate a word or two from your statements, knowing which ones to keep in order to capture the attention of your target audience is the key. That's what people who take the time to learn about your business and who buys from you have to know.  

That level of tailored insight instead of a forced one-size-fits-all mold is what I deliver for my customers and clients. It's why they find the content I produce for them continues to draw people in -- even a decade after it was produced.

The here for me is not a physical store but digital contact. Check out my site: WriteWayPro.weebly.com

Related:

Step out of the spotlight
What Edison can teach us about SEO
7 Habits of Highly Effective Content Marketers
Think Marathon Rather Than Sprint When Planning Content Marketing
Most Memorable Brand Slogans

Logo updates are not always improvements

 

Banners outside the New York Historical showing off the rebranded name and logo

I know this is not new, it's just been a while since I have visited the museum formerly known as The New-York Historical Society that now has dropped the hyphen and the last word while adopting a color scheme it considers significant but that is all-too-common in the digital world. And that H just screams modern hospital and not historical to me. 

The above summarizes my point and is a more accurate TL;DR than you're likely to get from an AI overview. Now we'll get more in the context and details associated with why I consider the logo such a disaster. It's not just a question of personal taste but of what the organization and Lippincott (likely a very expensive design agency) claimed they were aiming for with this design and why it fails.

Considering colors and unnecessary hyphens

In their own words, this is what they were after with the colors and the design of the H:

Stemming from the hyphen in “New-York”, the centerpiece of the evolved identity is a bold “H” symbol that reflects the institution’s historical authority and its role in fostering dialogue between different ideas, eras, and individuals. The symbol is paired with a classical name style and historical colors. The orange in the palette is a nod to the state’s origins as a Dutch colony, while the blue references the union of the American flag.

As someone who knows that before New York was named for a place in England, it was called New Amsterdam and that orange was the color associated with the royal family and the House of Orange, I got the color reference even without the explanation. However, it's a bit of stretch to claim the blue as a reference to the American flag, which everyone always refers to as red, white, and blue -- not just blue.

Why drop the red? Obviously, it doesn't go well with orange, which is serving as the warm contrasting color in that color palette -- one you see a lot on websites that seek to convey the combination of blue calmness and dependability with the energy associated with the orange. The colors, however, are the least of their problems.

 The real problem here is the idea of both dropping the hyphen and then claiming to enshrine it in the H by making it stand out in a modern design. That's a contradiction if I ever heard one. There is no reason to memorialize the hyphen in that way. Just let it disappear just like the word "Society." Is there an S to remember that? No, and there shouldn't be. If you rebrand, there's no point in saying we're putting in this feature to remember there used to be a hyphen. That is utterly pointless. 

What the logo should do

Given that the rebrand was about shortening the name to be more inclusive, the logo should have encapsulated that with the new abbreviation of NYH for New York Historical. That would be intuitive and to-the-point. Instead, they opted to the H alone, which with its modern, clean look would be much better-suited to stand for a hospital than a place devoted to recording and exhibiting history. The triple letters would also better match the concept they claim the rebrand is about -- the triple identity of the state as a Native-American then Dutch and then British colony. All that is lost in attempting to convey the brand in a single letter. 

I'm sure many millions of dollars were shelled out for this design and that all the emperor's yes-men had to sing the praises of his new clothes. As the museum draws very small crowds, many of which do not come repeatedly the way I do, they are not likely to face the same kind of backlash retailers like Gap do when their customers really dislike a logo update or the backlash that Cracker Barrel came to experience in August 2025.

Losing the Heart of the Logo and Customers

Marketers often make the mistake of assuming that any modernization of a brand has to be an improvement. There may be some truth to that if your brand is about being innovative. But when your brand is meant to harken back to tradition and nostalgia, you may want to rethink a strategy that may be throwing out the very thing your customers value most.

So how do you know if you've made the right decision? Stock prices plunges are a pretty good indication that you have not, and even with the rate of inflation today, a drop of $94 million in a single day is a significant hit for a business.

Instead of just getting all the yes-men on your marketing and design team to agree that it looks great because it is cleaner and more modern, you need to do research ahead of time about which part of the logo is most appealing to your customers. While I can't claim to be a Cracker Barrel customers myself, my guess is that the picture part that shows the man and the barrel that really represents the "old country store" concept resonates more strongly with them than the color yellow and the name itself.

At least Cracker Barrel finally admitted its mistake. This is what it posted on X on Aug. 26, 2025:

We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away and our “Old Timer” will remain.

At Cracker Barrel, it’s always been – and always will be – about serving up delicious food, warm welcomes, and the kind of country hospitality that feels like family. As a proud American institution, our 70,000 hardworking employees look forward to welcoming you to our table soon.

 

You don't win trust by fudging numbers

 

Dear Vanguard,
I've been an investor in your mutual funds for over 25 years now. But, to be honest, the ads you're sending me to via email undermine the trust you've held.
Allow me to explain. When I see the click-bait style attention-grabbing trick of putting in huge numbers, I'm already on guard. I instantly think, "Where do they get this number from?" and I look for the fine print of your footnote on it.

There I discover that -- as I suspected -- you fudged the number. This is the clear text of that footnote on the claim that  Americans are leaving $1,747,849,487,729 in low-interest savings accounts.

"1Estimate for illustrative purposes only. Total dollars held by Americans in savings accounts is extrapolated based on results of Vanguard Savings Study, March 2025. For more information see vang‍uard.‍com/‍cashpl‍us."

In plain English, what "estimate for illustrative purposes only" means is that this strangely specific number that ends with a 29 and doesn't even round up to 30 is not transcribed from a true total at all.

As I am relentless in pursuing data sources, I tracked down the fine print on the cashplus page of the Vanguard site. This is what it says:
"The online study identified the percentage of respondents who maintain a savings account and the average value of assets in those accounts based on a representative sample of 10,002 consumers that reflects the composition of the U.S. population across key demographics. Study results were then applied to the number of U.S. adults 18 years of age or older as of March 31, 2025 to extrapolate an estimate of total dollars held by Americans in savings accounts. The study was conducted by Reputation Leaders Ltd., which is not affiliated with Vanguard."

Ahah, so you found a study of how much 10,002 random adults kept in savings accounts and then decided you are free to multiply that by the number that brings it up to the total population of the United States and then present that product as if it the true number.

This is misleading.
Frankly, I find it troubling that I have entrusted my investment with a business that does this. I know it's for marketing, but you can market without resorting to lying with numbers.

Related 

How to increase traffic 16,500%: clickbait vs. reality

Why you always need the original source

What Megan Farina and Andrew Adam Newman Get Wrong About Consumer Behavior

by Ariella Brown

There's a certain irony in that the very article that foretold doom about Target as punishment for its dropping DEI is the one that alerted me to the Kate Spade items available there that appear to have nearly all sold out in just a couple of weeks. Once again, theory is vanquished by reality and the bottom line as measured in sales and revenue.

This kind of article is what feeds into the negative impression so many people have about journalists like Andrew Adam Newman who cherry-pick things to fit their narrative frame rather than allowing the story to emerge from data. Instead of reaching out to the general public to more accurately predict what impact this particular collaboration between a famous designer and popular retailer will be, they shoehorn it into their own predetermined story that Target has dug its own grave by dropping DEI programs.

Newman has been using his platform at Retail Brew to harm on his anticipated demis of Target. One can only guess that he had some bad experience with the retailer and is now having his revenge in digital print.

What prompted me to write this blog was Newman's recent screed, Could the Kate Spade collab reverse the Target DEI doldrums? with the subtitle "Kate Spade remains pro-DEI, but is taking its lumps online for partnering with Target." Most of the article is made up of video snippets and quotes drawn from TikToks  posted by women like Megan Farina (Honestly, never heard of her before reading this article) who said: 

“Friendly reminder that we are still 100% boycotting Target ...You get rid of DEI, you think we’re gonna come back for Kate Spade?...No, but remember, stand strong. You don’t need the bag.”

Dear Megan, Andrew, and the rest of you who virtue-signal by dumping on Target: 

Of course, you don't need the bag. No one needs the bag. No one needs the earrings or the cutesy home decor and party accessories  either.  

I understand that, which is one reason why I'm not buying any of that Kate Spade stuff (particularly not the designer trash bags). While you may wish to find comfort in that, Megan, I have to assure you that  it's not because I'm boycotting the store from which I except to get my shipment of Cheerios and Good & Gather peanut butter soon.

 The thing is that even if I wanted to buy the Kate Spade skirt, which I was seriously considering due to its reasonable price point and positive reviews, I can't. That's because it  -- like quite a number of the Kate Space items offered for sales just this month -- is  completely sold out. 

That is what tells me your little boycott is a big failure, Megan. I know you are in denial about this, so allow me to clue you in Megan:  

The overwhelming majority of people who shop at stores like Target care more about value than "values" that marketers, writers of agenda-driven reports,  and self-styled influencers have claimed matters to consumers in advising brands how to position themselves. In other words, if they feel they're getting a bargain by purchasing an affordable bit of Kate Spade stuff, they'll grab it. The proof is in the sold-out status. 

The proof of what is working and what isn't for a retailer is not something an influencer can determine by projecting what people should care about. It's found in the choices real  people make with their wallets and what ends up in their real and virtual shopping carts. 

One thing that bears a mention here is that quite a large number of people are now avoiding shopping at Target for a completely different reason than the one that Newman advances in his repeated articles. They don't like shopping in a store for things that are in locked cases and having to find someone who can open the case for them so that they can put the item in their real shopping carts. 

A number of people have declared they're done shopping in stores that have locked up items. It's really not the fault of the stores, though. Shoplifting rates have skyrocketed, and stores have their hands tied when it comes to apprehending the culprits. that is really due to the political sway of certain states and cities that blame the police and store managers more than the criminals.  Consequently, retailers now  either elect to close stores altogether in such locations, or they lock up the items most often stolen. The latter seems to serve communities better than the former. 

Here's one more layer of irony for you, Megan and Andrew. What will likely hurt Target far more than your boycott ever could is the tariff on imports that Trump seeks to impose. 

Again it's because people want to treat themselves by buying stuff with low prices. American-made goods have generally been more expensive than things made cheaply abroad. While supporting domestic products is always good in terms of national well-being, that abstract value is not what really motivates most purchases any more than the idea of supporting a brand that pays lip service to the "values" du jour does. 

P.S. added on April 28. I see that Retail Brew is still pushing its spin on Target suffering losses due to dropping DEI, posting this on April 25: Exclusive: Percentage who’d recommend Target dropped 11 points after it caved on DEI. Sounds dramatic, no? 

But when you see the actual numbers which offer absolutely no context about the demographic polled or even how many people answered the question, you'd find the analysis a lot less credible, never mind impressive.  The only link to the data that Retail Brew offers is to a Google doc that I copied below.

. 

I strongly suspect that those number represent the total number of answers, which indicates to me that at most 100 people were polled, hardly a fitting sample size for a retailer with hundreds of millions of customers across the United States. 

What's even more ironic here is that Retail Brew is desperately trying to claim that Caliber's data proves it is correct that moving away from DEI hurts a business reputation and its profitability. In fact, that is contrary to the findings that Caliber published this year in its report Do Changes to DEI Policies Affect Corporate Reputation in the US?

 It includes the graph below, which shows that the impact of shifts in DEI policies do not necessarily hurt brands and sometimes may even have a positive impact on as far as consumer perception goes in the US. 

Focusing on the US impact, Caliber finds: 

Takeaways

• Trump’s position on DEI has not significantly converted opposition but has strengthened 
• pre-existing views.
• A significant portion of Americans (37%) became more supportive of DEI following 
• Trump’s policy changes, while only 12% moved in the opposite direction. 

• Q3. Impact on Consumer Behavior

  We asked whether a company’s decision to reduce its DEI initiatives impacted 

  • Americans demonstrate the strongest response, with 35% more likely to buy from such companies—compared with 26% of British respondents and 20% of Germans. 
  • The polarization from earlier questions extends to consumer behavior, as 24% of Americans would reduce purchases from these companies.  

So, yes, some people declared they would buy less from such brands, but the math of 35% saying they'd buy more vs. 24% saying they'd reduce makes it clear that there is net benefit of 11% to the businesses who drop DEI -- quite the opposite of what Retail Brew is trying to insinuate about Target.

Related

The aftermath of the February 28th retail boycott

Everybody lies with visualizations