Major brands cut ties with a progressive podcast after the hosts laughed at a joke about harming Charlie Kirk, citing zero tolerance for violence.
Story Highlights
- Cash App, Chewy, Zenni Optical, NOBL Travel, and Boll & Branch distanced from the show.
- Companies said they do not condone violence and ended or refused sponsorships.
- The hosts apologized, calling their reaction to the joke “insensitive”.
- The episode clip spread quickly on social media, spurring advertiser action.
Sponsors Respond To Violent Joke About Charlie Kirk
Cash App stated it does not condone violence and is no longer a sponsor of the I’ve Had It podcast after a clip showed the hosts laughing at a line about “digging up” Charlie Kirk and “doing it again”. Chewy said it does not sponsor or support the show and condemned violence in all forms, saying the hosts’ comments do not reflect the company’s values. Mediaite reported Zenni Optical canceled advertising, also rejecting violence in any form.
NOBL Travel replied publicly that it ended its deal with the show and does not condone violence or its promotion in any form. Boll & Branch said it does not advertise with the podcast and will not in the future. The companies used different wording, but each pointed to opposition to violence or a values conflict as the reason to distance from the program. These moves came soon after the clip spread on social media and drew backlash.
Podcast Hosts Issue Apology After Backlash
Hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie “Pumps” Sullivan posted an apology on Instagram. They said they laughed at a joke about Charlie Kirk, called it “insensitive,” and said they should not have laughed. Their statement aligned with sponsor claims that the conduct conflicted with anti-violence standards, even as it stopped short of endorsing any intent to promote harm. The apology came after advertisers publicly cut ties and as critics highlighted the clip on social platforms.
Reports describe the controversy as driven by a short clip that went viral and drew quick reactions from brands and audiences. Coverage from multiple outlets documented the sponsor announcements and the hosts’ apology. Some companies clarified they were not current sponsors while also pledging not to advertise with the show going forward. The record does not include contract details or policy clauses, so the exact business status before the incident varies by company description.
Why Advertisers Move Fast In Online Firestorms
Brand managers often act quickly when content seems to cross red lines on violence. Research on digital advertising boycotts shows many companies pause or pull ads during heated controversies to protect brand image, even when the legal line is not at issue. The commercial question often centers on alignment with stated values and customer expectations. In this case, companies emphasized zero tolerance for violence and chose to exit or avoid the podcast association.
Audience pressure can raise the stakes for brands that wait. Studies of boycotts suggest that public outrage can outweigh any gains from standing pat, pushing firms toward visible action. That pattern helps explain coordinated-looking responses across different industries when a provocative clip spreads fast. Here, the message from several companies was clear and consistent: no association with content that can be read as celebrating violence, especially when directed at a known conservative figure.
Sources:
mediaite.com, thewrap.com, huffpost.com, podcasts.apple.com, threads.com, foxnews.com
