Abstract Should firms struggling with a brand crisis use scapegoating, the assignment of blame to another entity? Across three studies, we offer evidence of the value of scapegoating. We show that when firms use scapegoating, they reduce consumers' attributions of a firm's crisis responsibility, controllability, and stability. Compared to other strategies, including no response, denial, apology, and justification, scapegoating is most effective at reducing these attributions. However, attributions of crisis controllability seem more influential in reducing a firm's crisis responsibility. Scapegoating also increases consumers' word‐of‐mouth (WOM) intentions more than the no response strategy, but not more than denial, apology, and justification. The effect of scapegoating, however, depends on the scapegoat type. Whereas using an underdog scapegoat such as a regular company employee or a small partner firm can backfire and result in negative WOM intentions, the use of topdog scapegoats seems to have more positive effects. When firms use topdog scapegoats, such as the top management of a large firm, negative WOM intentions likely decrease. This type of effect seems to occur due to a reduction in the firm's crisis responsibility that scapegoating engenders.