Duolingo didn’t just win social media — it rewrote the rules for a system already primed to reward chaos over coherence. The brand built a chaotic, hyper-self-aware online persona, collaborating with Scrub Daddy, Netflix, and riding trends like Squid Games memes and BBL jokes. Its social presence redefined what a brand account could be: funny, fast, and fully embedded in internet culture.
By the end of 2024, Duolingo had $748 million in earnings, up 41 percent from the previous year. Product innovations like gamification and A/B testing helped, but what really set it apart was the social strategy. Duolingo didn’t just build an audience, it built loyalty — or something that looked a lot like it.
But what happens when that carefully curated loyalty turns? What does it mean for brands when the golden status built on social capital is threatened by scandal and the rising panic around AI?
Duolingo didn’t just succeed on social media. It redefined brand presence. Its strategy was less about language learning and more about pure internet virality. From fake funerals to collaborations with Scrub Daddy, the goal wasn’t just to market a product — it was to market a personality.
This was intentional. Duolingo was one of the first brands to spotlight the people behind its accounts. Enter Zaria Parvez, the strategist who developed Duolingo’s now-famous voice. She scaled the brand’s presence, turned Duo the owl into a chaotic mascot, and pioneered a writers' room approach to content creation.
Parvez’s work didn’t go unnoticed. She made Forbes’ 30 Under 30 list in 2023, and Duolingo set a new gold standard for brand virality. But the success came with a side effect. Duolingo’s followers weren’t just entertained; they were emotionally invested. They weren’t just consumers, they were fans — and those fans projected values onto the brand.
Duolingo had built a parasocial relationship, something brands had rarely achieved at scale. That made what happened next inevitable.
In late April, Duolingo posted on LinkedIn announcing it would become an AI-first company, sharing an internal email from CEO Luis von Ahn. The email detailed plans to lean into AI across operations, including hiring. Teams would only receive additional headcount if the work couldn’t be automated by AI.
The announcement sparked immediate backlash. Despite assurances that employees wouldn’t be replaced, the language prioritizing automation touched a nerve. In a climate of growing AI anxiety, particularly around job security, Duolingo’s memo landed poorly. How does a company built on language misjudge the weight of its own words? Words about work and value are never neutral.
The irony wasn’t lost. A company built on teaching language was now aligning itself with language models — systems designed to replicate speech patterns while optimizing for efficiency, not nuance.
In less than a week, Duolingo became the face of anti-AI job replacement fears. Social media users, particularly sensitive to corporate overreach and job automation, responded swiftly. Per data from Socialblade, over 300,000 followers unfollowed Duolingo’s TikTok account.
Rumors compounded the problem. Some speculated, incorrectly, that Zaria Parvez had left the company over the AI decision. Whether or not the claims were true did not matter. Duolingo’s public image shifted overnight.
And so, what does all this mean for Duolingo? Probably a lot of billable hours with a crisis comms firm, if they’re smart.
But the fallout wasn’t just about a badly worded memo. It signaled something deeper. By tying future headcount to automation, Duolingo wasn’t just flirting with job cuts — it was narrowing the path for growth. Junior employees, the ones most likely to be automated out, are also the ones who push teams forward, challenge outdated processes, and build future leadership. If automation closes off those entry points, it doesn’t just shrink headcount. It shrinks what a company can become.
Parasocial relationships — one-sided emotional attachments — have been around since Horton and Wohl coined the term in 1956. We are used to seeing them between fans and creators on platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Twitch. Followers feel a connection to someone they have never met. They imprint everything onto them: political beliefs, social values, class, and, in this case, ideas about AI.
For brands, though, this kind of attachment is newer. Yes, cult brands have commanded loyalty before. Playboy defined a vision of masculinity. Ralph Lauren sold aspirational wealth in America. Thrasher built a subculture around rebellion. Baby Phat was the sign of hotness. Apple wrapped its products in the language of creative elitism. Brands didn’t just sell — they shaped identity.
Duolingo did something different. It built a fully parasocial brand relationship at scale — and it did it in the age of social media. Followers didn’t just enjoy the brand’s presence; they assigned values to it. They believed they knew what Duolingo stood for.
That’s the risk. The more intimate a brand becomes with its audience, the more devastating it is when that illusion fractures. AI, particularly the fear of AI-induced job loss, isn’t just a technological development — it’s an emotional trigger. Duolingo, once the lovable rogue of brand social media, became the villain overnight.
Good social media hides the work. It looks off-the-cuff, effortless, a little chaotic. But behind every owl costume and viral post is a team of strategists plotting every move.
In response to the backlash, Luis von Ahn issued a clarifying statement:
“To be clear: I do not see AI as replacing what our employees do (we are in fact continuing to hire at the same speed as before). I see it as a tool to accelerate what we do, at the same or better level of quality. And the sooner we learn how to use it, and use it responsibly, the better off we will be in the long run.”
It wasn’t enough.
Adding fuel to the fire, users resurfaced reports that Duolingo had laid off 10 percent of its contractors earlier in 2024 to focus on AI-generated content. In the public eye, Duolingo had pivoted from a beloved, chaotic brand to a corporate villain embracing automation.
Even Duolingo’s social strategy couldn’t stop the slide. New TikToks — staged skits, desperate owl jokes — felt forced and performative. The self-aware humor that once felt effortless now looked like crisis PR cosplay.
This collapse reveals a deeper truth about branding. The more emotionally connected an audience feels to a brand, the faster that trust can collapse. When the betrayal taps into broader societal anxieties like AI and job security, the fallout is immediate and brutal.
But instead of pulling back, brands are doubling down — not on virality, but on intimacy. Rare Beauty recently launched a Substack, offering not just product promotions but makeup tutorials, mental health advice, and community spotlights. Others are investing in Discord servers and newsletters, shifting from viral hits toward curated, closer communities — or at least the appearance of them. Parasociality isn’t a byproduct. It’s part of the strategy.
Because the real lesson is this: tech moves fast. Cultural trust moves faster. Even the brands that once ruled social media are only a badly worded memo away from collapse. No clever video, no desperate skit, no owl costume can rebuild that trust once it is gone. Behind every viral moment is a room full of strategists, plotting whatever the social media version of Cerulean is — careful, calculated, and anything but accidental.
Like what I have to say? Subscribe to my email newsletter.
