How did advertisers and sponsors respond to the allegations against Bill O’Reilly and did they withdraw ad buys?
Executive summary
When The New York Times and other outlets reported multiple settlements and allegations against Bill O’Reilly in April 2017, a fast-moving advertiser exodus unfolded: dozens of national brands publicly suspended or pulled ads from The O’Reilly Factor, with reported totals ranging from a dozen early on to more than 60 as the story intensified [1] [2] [3]. That advertiser pressure sharply reduced ad load on the program and — coupled with internal and public outrage — helped precipitate Fox News’ decision to part ways with O’Reilly [4] [5].
1. Advertisers reacted quickly and publicly, suspending or pulling spots
Within days of the Times report revealing at least $13 million in settlements tied to allegations against O’Reilly, a string of major advertisers said they would suspend or pause advertising on his time slot — moves publicly announced by brands including Hyundai, BMW, Mitsubishi, Allstate, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline among others — with outlets reporting more than 50 companies ultimately pulling ads [6] [7] [3] [2]. Coverage from TIME, The Guardian and Forbes cataloged firms that publicly stated they would not run spots during O’Reilly’s show, framing corporate statements as responses to both the allegations and mounting consumer pressure [3] [6] [2].
2. The scale of withdrawals grew from an initial trickle to a broad boycott
Initial reporting documented a smaller set of advertisers taking action; within days that list ballooned — Forbes compiled roughly 60 companies within the first week — and news outlets tracked the tally rising from a dozen to multiple dozens as advocacy groups and social media campaigns amplified calls for brands to pull ads [1] [2] [3]. Industry ad‑tracking data captured the market impact: ad time on The O’Reilly Factor dropped roughly 50 percent in the first week after the revelations, with one episode shrinking from an average of around 33 commercials to as few as seven spots, according to Kantar Media reporting cited by AM New York [4].
3. Not all actions were identical — “suspended” versus permanent cancellations
Reporting makes a consistent distinction between advertisers “suspending” or “pulling” spots and outright terminating long‑term relationships; many companies framed their moves as temporary suspensions while they evaluated the situation, or said they were “monitoring” future buys, rather than describing immediate contract terminations [3] [8]. That language allowed corporations to respond to reputational risk without necessarily admitting wrongdoing or breaching negotiated media contracts, and some advertisers were initially noncommittal or declined to publicly detail their media‑buy decisions [8].
4. Corporate ethics, consumer pressure and PR calculus drove decisions
Companies cited alignment with corporate values — such as support for women and diversity — and concerns over brand safety as motives for suspending buys, while advocacy groups and social media campaigns applied visible pressure that made staying silent costly [1] [3]. Press coverage and petitions calling for a boycott framed advertiser exits as a market sanction that amplified Fox’s reputational risk and financial exposure, a dynamic noted across reporting from The Guardian, TIME and the Chicago Tribune [6] [3] [9].
5. The advertiser flight helped force corporate action at Fox, though causal lines are complex
News accounts and timelines conclude that the advertiser exodus — and the visible revenue hit it produced — was a key factor in Fox’s decision to sever ties with O’Reilly; multiple outlets reported that after the industry pullback and fresh allegations, Fox and O’Reilly agreed he would not return to the network [5] [10] [4]. Reporting also notes that Fox initially defended O’Reilly’s denials and said some matters had been “resolved,” underscoring the interplay of legal settlements, internal review and external commercial pressure in the final outcome [3] [5].
6. Limits of the public record and lingering ambiguities
The contemporary reporting establishes clear patterns — dozens of advertisers publicly suspended or pulled ads and ad inventory fell significantly — but public accounts vary on exact counts and on whether every action represented a permanent end to advertising relationships versus temporary suspensions or paused buys pending review [2] [3] [4]. The sources do not provide full access to private contracts or the internal deliberations at each company, so while the overall narrative of advertiser withdrawal is well documented, some granular contract outcomes and long‑term advertiser strategies after the boycott are not fully detailed in the cited reporting [8] [2].