.png)
Charlie Kirk’s Assassination: How Business Wins and Blunders Shaped the Fallout
- JVS DIgital
- Sep 18
- 3 min read
The assassination of Charlie Kirk has shaken not only the political world but also the business community. What unfolded in Utah did not remain confined to American politics. Its impact rippled into South African advertising, U.S. boardrooms, and global brands already nervous about the landmines of cultural warfare.
The Kiffness and the Price of Integrity
South African musician David Scott, better known as The Kiffness, lost a R500,000 campaign deal after defending Kirk publicly. The agency cited “reputational risk.” Scott, however, shrugged it off as proof of how fickle brands have become. His observation rings true. modern sponsorships prize silence and “brand safety” over authenticity. The message to creatives is unmistakable — stay quiet or stay broke.
Corporate Crackdowns in the U.S.
In America, the aftermath was even harsher. Reporters, analysts, and even a Secret Service agent were fired or suspended for comments on Kirk’s death. United Airlines, Nasdaq, and major media outlets all took action against staff. These businesses were not enforcing morality but managing perception. In the current marketplace, brand protection outweighs freedom of expression.
The Blunders of the Left
Ironically, brands that think they are aligning with the “right side of history” often miscalculate spectacularly. Bud Light’s partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, meant to signal inclusivity, cost parent company Anheuser-Busch billions in lost sales and long-term brand damage. Jaguar’s ill-fated advertising campaign leaning into divisive DEI messaging alienated consumers and sent sales tumbling in key markets. These missteps show that pandering to progressive orthodoxy is hardly a risk-free strategy.
Contrast that with American Eagle. When the brand partnered with actress Sydney Sweeney ,who embodies a more traditional appeal, sales surged. Consumers rewarded authenticity over ideology, reminding marketers that cultural alignment with mainstream values still pays.
The Negative Impacts
Fear in the Workplace
Employees across industries now live under the shadow of “cancelation.” One wrong comment about Kirk — whether too harsh or too sympathetic — can end careers.
Fragile Sponsorships
As The Kiffness learned, one tweet can obliterate a lucrative partnership. Brands prize compliance, not courage.
Increased Polarisation
Every corporate move on Kirk’s assassination risked alienating one side of the political spectrum. No-win scenarios have become the norm.
The Positive Impacts
Conservative Market Growth
Kirk’s assassination created a martyr economy. His books, speeches, and affiliated outlets saw spikes in sales and donations.
Openings for New Voices
With Kirk silenced, emerging conservative influencers now attract attention, investment, and sponsorships.
Corporate Self-Awareness
Businesses are refining policies on employee speech, risk management, and crisis communication. Painful lessons may produce better resilience in the long run.
Conclusion
Charlie Kirk’s death revealed a truth that brands are struggling to face. Consumers don’t want ideologues; they want authenticity. When companies lean too far into progressive virtue-signaling, they risk Bud Light-level collapses. When they ignore the values of ordinary customers, they alienate the very people who buy their products.
For South Africans, The Kiffness stands as an example of what happens when principle meets profit. For Americans, the corporate purges show that freedom of expression is under siege in the workplace.
The real lesson is this, in the age of political assassinations and culture wars, business cannot hide. Choosing silence is itself a choice. And customers, as Bud Light learned the hard way, will always have the final say.
Comments