How have advertisers and platforms responded to Candace Owens in the last year?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Advertisers continue to appear on Candace Owens’s high‑reach podcast and related channels, with her team and husband saying some advertisers report returns of 2:1 to 5:1, while ad marketplaces and inventory partners list her show as available for booking and sponsorship [1] [2] [3]. Platforms have amplified her reach — her podcast ranks highly and her audience grew by millions this year per reporting — even as legal and interpersonal controversies (including a Macron defamation suit and disputes with Turning Point USA associates) have put commercial and platform relationships under new scrutiny [4] [1] [5] [6].
1. Audience scale and why advertisers still pay
Candace Owens has built a large, monetizable audience: Media Matters reporting cited by Fortune says her follower and subscriber base grew by more than 9 million this year and her self‑titled podcast became a breakout hit, factors that explain why brands and direct advertisers continue to buy spots on her show [4] [1]. George Farmer, Owens’s husband, told Bloomberg that advertisers on her show “allegedly reported seeing returns of two‑to‑one on dollars spent, and up to five‑to‑one in some cases,” a commercial argument advertisers use to justify continued spending despite controversy [1]. Podcast platforms and ad marketplaces list Candace’s show with sponsorship opportunities and promo codes — standard signals that inventory is active and being monetized [3] [2].
2. Platforms: distribution, listing and continued amplification
Major podcast platforms continue to distribute and list Owens’s show: Apple Podcasts and other services host the Candace podcast with sponsor links and promo codes, and third‑party ad marketplaces advertise the show as bookable inventory, indicating platforms have not broadly deplatformed her audio content [3] [2]. Fortune and related reporting emphasize the commercial logic behind platform decisions: large, engaged right‑leaning audiences command premium ad rates, which helps explain why distribution persists [4] [1]. Available sources do not mention any recent, broad removals of her podcast from mainstream podcast platforms.
3. Advertisers’ calculus: ROI vs. reputational risk
Reporting shows at least some advertisers and sponsors prioritize measurable returns over reputational risk: Farmer’s Bloomberg‑reported claim that advertisers saw 2:1 to 5:1 returns frames a reason brands stay on board despite public controversies [1]. At the same time, ad marketplaces and the podcast’s promo codes demonstrate a conventional sponsorship model is still operating around her content [3] [2]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of brands that have paused or pulled ads from her programs this year.
4. Legal trouble and reputational pressure on commercial relationships
A major legal development — a 219‑page complaint filed by the Macron family alleging Owens promoted a conspiracy about Brigitte Macron and accusing her of orchestrating a “campaign of global humiliation” — intensifies commercial risk and could test advertising and platform tolerance if liabilities grow [4]. Fortune frames the lawsuit as a potential existential threat to the “controversy‑as‑currency” business model that built her brand, signaling an avenue by which advertisers and platforms could reassess relationships [4]. The lawsuit and related claims are active developments that mainstream platforms and advertisers will likely monitor closely [4] [5].
5. Internal industry conflicts and their commercial side effects
Owens’s public dispute with Turning Point USA allies after Charlie Kirk’s assassination — including offers to appear at a refutation event and then backing out — shows how interpersonal conflicts within conservative media ecosystems can ripple into audience perception and event monetization [6] [7]. Those disputes create momentary attention spikes that can boost short‑term advertising value, even as they complicate longer‑term partnerships with established conservative institutions [6] [7].
6. What reporting does not say — limits and unanswered commercial questions
Available sources do not provide a full catalog of advertisers who have cut ties with Owens, nor do they supply independent verification of the ROI figures cited by Farmer; those ROI claims come from his statements reported by Yahoo/Finance referencing Bloomberg [1]. Sources also do not document any platform‑level policy actions in the last year that removed or suspended her podcast feed beyond existing controversies [3] [2]. Those gaps matter: advertiser behavior can be opaque, and public claims from interested parties should be read alongside independent ad‑buy audits, which are not present in current reporting.
7. Bottom line: commercial resilience amid rising legal and reputational risk
Current reporting shows Owens remains commercially viable — platforms list and distribute her podcast, ad channels are active, and her team cites strong advertiser ROI — but mounting legal exposure (the Macron suit) and high‑profile intra‑movement disputes create clear inflection points that could prompt advertisers or platforms to reconsider if liabilities or public pressure escalate [1] [4] [6]. Journalistic caution: the advertiser ROI claims originate with Owens’s camp and lack independent corroboration in the provided sources [1].