Brands Bail After Shock Clip

radio

Major brands cut ties with a progressive podcast after the hosts laughed at a meme about “digging up” Charlie Kirk, drawing a clear red line against anything that sounds like violence toward political opponents.

Story Highlights

  • Cash App, Chewy, Zenni Optical, and others ended support after the viral clip.
  • Companies said they reject violence and the podcast no longer fits their values.
  • The hosts apologized, calling their reaction to the joke “insensitive”.
  • Brand safety concerns drove quick action amid online backlash.

Sponsors Announce Exit After Viral Clip

Cash App wrote that it does not condone violence and is no longer a sponsor of the “I’ve Had It” podcast after a clip circulated showing the hosts laughing at a meme about “digging up” Charlie Kirk and “doing it again”. Chewy stated it does not support the show and condemned violence in all forms, saying the hosts’ comments do not reflect its values. Mediaite reported Zenni Optical canceled advertising, citing the same anti-violence stance. NOBL Travel also said it ended its deal and rejected promotion of violence.

Boll & Branch clarified that it does not currently advertise with the show and will not do so going forward, signaling a clean break from any future association. The combined moves show how fast brands act when political talk crosses a line that can be read as violent. Companies framed their decisions around basic standards: do not endorse or appear to normalize threats. That framing resonates with many consumers who expect brands to avoid anything that looks like cheering harm.

Podcast Hosts Issue Apology After Backlash

Hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie “Pumps” Sullivan apologized on Instagram. They said they laughed at a joke about Charlie Kirk, called it “insensitive,” and said they regret it. Their statement aligns with how sponsors described the moment. The apology admits poor judgment without claiming they wanted violence. The clip’s spread on social media put the worst look front and center. The hosts’ correction came after advertisers and viewers reacted to the short segment.

Reports describe the clip as a tight excerpt from a longer episode, which is common in online storms. Even so, sponsors did not wait for a full-context debate. They chose clear distance. In brand terms, the question is not legal intent. It is whether normal customers will see the ad next to that moment and think the company stands with it. That is why the “we do not condone violence” line appeared in multiple statements.

Brand Safety Rules Drive Rapid Decisions

Marketers have learned that online firestorms can punish delay. During past digital boycotts, hundreds of brands paused ads to avoid being tied to “unsafe” content, even when the rules were not black and white. The lesson is simple: a fast, firm response limits damage. That is what happened here. Sponsors chose to end or exclude the show and restated their values. The show’s future ad prospects now face tougher screening by risk-averse brands.

For conservatives, this episode underscores a basic point. Laughing at a line about “digging up” a named political figure is not politics as usual. It is ugly, and sponsors said so. The response also shows that public pressure cuts both ways. For years, activists on the left pushed brands to drop voices they disliked. Now, companies are hearing from the right when a line is crossed. The standard should be even and simple: reject rhetoric that hints at harm, no matter who is targeted.

Sources:

mediaite.com, thewrap.com, hollywoodreporter.com, news.meaww.com, huffpost.com, podcasts.apple.com, threads.com