Executive Summary

A small number of institutions achieve consistently entertaining social media presence over long periods of time. This paper examines why this is rare, using James Madison Dukes and Wendy’s as representative case studies.

The central finding is that entertaining social media is not primarily a function of talent, youth, or edginess. It is the downstream consequence of institutional trust structures, voice coherence, and risk allocation.

Most organizations attempt to copy surface-level outputs (tone, memes, snark) while leaving intact the governance systems that make those outputs impossible to sustain. As a result, they oscillate between forced humor and risk-averse silence.

This paper proposes a structural model explaining why some organizations can perform culturally in public while others cannot — and why this gap is widening rather than narrowing.

1. The Problem Statement: Why Consistency Is the Exception

Many institutions occasionally “go viral.” Very few are reliably entertaining.

Most organizations experience:

A handful of successful posts Followed by reversion to safe, generic messaging Followed by internal tightening of controls Followed by loss of voice

Consistency fails because humor, timing, and cultural relevance require ongoing discretionary judgment, which most institutions are structurally designed to suppress.

The question, therefore, is not why some social media teams are funny, but:

Why are certain institutions capable of sustaining discretionary public judgment without collapse?

2. Social Media as Institutional Performance (Not Marketing)

The first structural distinction is ontological.

Most Institutions Treat Social Media As:

A marketing channel A compliance surface A reputational risk vector

Successful Accounts Treat Social Media As:

A performance space A character An ongoing improvisational act

Performance requires:

Timing Commitment Risk tolerance Internal coherence of voice

Marketing requires:

Approval Predictability Message control

Institutions built for the latter cannot accidentally succeed at the former.

3. The Role of Singular Voice

Consistently entertaining accounts exhibit a unitary voice — not in authorship, but in authority.

Key characteristics:

The audience can recognize the account’s “personality” Tone remains stable across events, emotions, and outcomes Posts do not feel like they passed through a committee

This is not about having one person running the account, but about:

Clear delegation Trust in judgment Post-hoc correction rather than pre-hoc censorship

Most institutions distribute responsibility without distributing authority, resulting in flattened language and tonal incoherence.

4. Risk Allocation and the Economics of Embarrassment

A critical insight: entertaining social media converts embarrassment into engagement.

Successful institutions:

Accept small, frequent risks Allow minor misfires Normalize being lightly mocked

Unsuccessful institutions:

Treat embarrassment as catastrophic Centralize approval to avoid screenshots Prefer silence to uncertainty

This creates an inverse outcome:

Risk-avoidant institutions appear stiff, distant, and irrelevant Risk-tolerant institutions appear confident, human, and relatable

The ability to absorb embarrassment is a luxury good produced by institutional confidence.

5. Underdog Positioning and Moral Asymmetry

Both James Madison and Wendy’s benefit from punching-up asymmetry.

Structural advantages include:

No expectation of solemnity Freedom from legacy-brand decorum Cultural permission to be playful or irreverent

Underdog institutions:

Are allowed to experiment Are forgiven faster Are perceived as authentic rather than arrogant

Legacy institutions often mistake status for authority and are punished more harshly for the same behavior.

6. Governance Structures That Enable Humor

Consistent entertainment requires specific internal conditions:

Enabling Structures

Clear delegation of posting authority Leadership alignment on tone and risk Fast decision cycles Cultural literacy at supervisory levels

Disabling Structures

Multi-layer approvals Legal pre-clearance Reputation management framing Leadership unfamiliar with online culture

Importantly, institutions cannot “borrow” humor without borrowing governance.

7. Shareability vs. Universal Approval

Most organizations optimize for:

“Will anyone object?”

Successful accounts optimize for:

“Will someone care enough to share?”

This reframing accepts:

Polarization Strong reactions Partial audience alienation

Entertainment is inherently selective. Institutions that demand universal comfort eliminate the conditions for delight.

8. Why Imitation Fails

Attempts to replicate Wendy’s or JMU-style social media usually fail because institutions copy:

Syntax Tone Meme formats

But refuse to copy:

Authority delegation Risk tolerance Cultural humility Acceptance of embarrassment

This creates uncanny-valley posting: jokes without conviction, humor without courage.

9. Implications for Institutions

Cultural Implications

Voice coherence is a form of legitimacy Humor signals internal confidence Silence signals fear more than professionalism

Operational Implications

Social media teams need trust, not just skill Governance reform matters more than hiring Entertainment capacity reflects institutional health

Strategic Implications

Public performance is now inseparable from identity Institutions unable to perform culturally will lose narrative ground The gap between expressive and non-expressive institutions will widen

10. Conclusion: Entertainment as a Diagnostic Signal

Consistently entertaining social media is not a gimmick.

It is a diagnostic indicator of institutional trust, confidence, and coherence.

James Madison’s social media success is not about being funny.

Wendy’s success is not about being snarky.

Both are about institutions that:

Know who they are Trust those who speak for them Accept the cost of being human in public

Most institutions cannot do this — not because they lack creativity, but because they lack trust.