Brands use disparaging humor on social media, yet consumer engagement with a funny post may not improve brand evaluations. Using schema congruity theory, this paper examines whether brand posts that direct disparaging humor inward at the brand itself rather than outward at a competitor preserve the entertainment value while improving downstream outcomes.
Three experiments compare consumer responses to self-disparaging and competitor-disparaging brand posts. Study 1 tests post liking, brand evaluation, perceived meanness and brand personality fit. Study 2 adds a regular-post baseline and tests moderation by brand personality types. Study 3 uses a fictitious brand to test market status and attribute importance as alternative explanations.
Self-disparaging (inward-directed) brand posts generate more favorable brand evaluations than competitor-disparaging (outward-directed) posts. They are perceived as less mean, partly because they fit better with the brand's personality. Competitor-disparaging humor increases post liking compared to regular non-humorous posts without improving brand evaluation. Self-disparaging humor improves both, and this advantage is amplified for sincere and competent brands.
This paper advances an interactive marketing perspective on brand humor by showing that humorous social media posts act as relational brand behavior. The target of disparaging humor changes the social role consumers assign to the brand: competitor-disparaging humor positions the brand as an aggressor toward another market actor, whereas self-disparaging humor positions the brand as self-aware and socially secure. This helps explain why post engagement can mask brand-level relational costs.
