Is Your Brand Using Slang? New Research Shows It’s Probably Backfiring.
In the relentless pursuit of cultural relevance, brand leaders are increasingly making a high-stakes bet on slang—and new data suggests the odds are not in their favor. Scroll through any social media feed, and you'll see it: major brands trying to connect with younger audiences by adopting their language. McDonald's talks about having "rizz," Wendy's calls its breakfast "bae," and Peloton encourages riders to get "hella swole." It’s a common tactic in the modern marketer's playbook, an attempt to seem relatable and relevant.
But does it actually work? Or does it trigger a collective cringe?
A recent study in the Journal of Marketing Research digs into this exact question, revealing some surprising and counter-intuitive insights for brand leaders. The findings suggest that, in many cases, trying to "vibe" with customers by using slang can do more harm than good. This post will break down the top takeaways from the research.
Takeaway 1: Slang Triggers an Authenticity Penalty
The study's core finding is that when a brand's personality is unknown or unclear, using slang in its communications leads to less favorable brand attitudes.
This happens because of a psychological phenomenon called an "expectancy violation." Consumers have a baseline expectation for how brands, as commercial entities, should communicate. Slang, which is inherently social and created within specific groups to signal identity and rapport, violates these expectations. When a brand uses slang, it can feel like a calculated attempt to be something it's not—a genuine member of a social group. Consumers are keenly aware of the brand's commercial motives, so this attempt to mimic peer-to-peer intimacy feels disingenuous and triggers the perception of inauthenticity.
As one consumer in a focus group put it:
"And I just feel like these brands are, you know, they’re trying so hard to just relate to me and stuff. And I think in reality, they really don’t relate to me, but they’re trying to act as if they do."
Takeaway 2: Brand Personality Is the Ultimate Moderator
The negative effect of slang is not universal; it depends heavily on a brand's established personality in the mind of the consumer. The research identifies two key brand types that have very different outcomes.
The "Sincere" Brand Trap
Sincere brands are those perceived as wholesome, family-oriented, and honest. For these brands, using slang is particularly damaging. The casual, rebellious nature of slang is highly incongruent with their established character, leading to stronger expectancy violations and more negative brand attitudes.
The research's analysis of real-world Twitter data provides a stark example. For Arizona Iced Tea, a brand perceived as "sincere," using slang was linked to a 59.67% reduction in total engagement on its posts.
The "Exciting" Brand Exception
In contrast, exciting brands are seen as daring, trendy, and up-to-date. For these brands, the negative effect of slang disappears. Slang is perceived as more congruent with an edgy, playful identity and is therefore seen as less inauthentic.
The Twitter analysis found that while slang use still resulted in a drop in engagement for "exciting" brand Monster Energy, the penalty was far less severe. Compared to the nearly 60% drop for sincere Arizona Iced Tea, Monster Energy saw a much milder 20.94% decrease in total engagement.
The strategic imperative, therefore, is not to forbid slang, but to ground its use in a rigorously honest assessment of your brand's perceived personality. As one brand manager interviewed for the study noted:
"I think we generally avoided it on other brands is because there has to be that natural affinity and association. And if it isn’t that, it just feels very forced and a little bit like 'okay boomery.'"
Takeaway 3: Influencers Provide a Critical Authenticity Shield
The third key finding reveals a powerful workaround: the negative effects of slang are significantly reduced, or even reversed, when an influencer posts the message on behalf of the brand.
The reason is simple. Influencers are perceived first and foremost as consumers themselves. Their use of social language like slang aligns with what consumers expect from peer-to-peer communication. It feels more natural and less like a violation of communication norms.
The data backs this up decisively. An analysis of posts related to the fitness brand Peloton found that slang in influencer posts significantly boosted engagement, with total engagement expected to increase by over 550%.
Synthesizing the previous takeaway, the research also revealed that because Peloton is perceived as an "exciting" brand, it had a permission structure that most brands lack. Even on its own official posts, slang use was linked to a positive lift in engagement (+6.81% in total engagement and +13.55% in likes). While this effect is dwarfed by the massive gains from influencer posts, it underscores that an "exciting" personality provides a foundational advantage. The actionable insight is clear: if using slang is part of your strategy, routing that communication through influencer partners is a much safer—and potentially exponentially more effective—approach than posting it from your official brand account.
Conclusion: Beyond "Cool" to "Congruent"
The decision to use slang is not a creative whim; it's a strategic stress test of your brand's identity. The operative question is one of congruence, filtered through three lenses:
Personality: Is our brand identity fundamentally "exciting" or "sincere"? Slang is congruent with the former but creates a damaging violation for the latter.
Source: Who is delivering the message—the corporate "we" or a relatable "I"? Influencers, as peers, have an authenticity shield that brands do not.
Expectations: Does this language align with what our audience expects from a commercial entity in our category? A mismatch here is the primary driver of the authenticity penalty.
Before your next social media post, the question to ask isn't "Will this make us sound cool?" but rather, "Does this sound true to who we are?"
SOURCE: Pyrah, B. (2025). The slang paradox: Connecting or disconnecting with consumers? Journal of Marketing Research, 62(5), 776–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437251322453