Charlamagne Tha God, the outspoken radio personality behind iHeartMedia’s The Breakfast Club, is calling out advertisers for what he sees as one of the industry’s biggest blind spots: the concept of “brand safety.”
Speaking at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB) Podcast Upfront event in New York on Tuesday, Charlamagne didn’t hold back. Onstage in conversation with executives from Nielsen, he argued that the advertising world’s fixation on “brand safety” the idea that brands should avoid placing ads near controversial or potentially “unsafe” content has gone too far.
“The whole concept of brand safety is a problem,” he said. “That’s just subjective. You look at somebody and their audience, and you say they’re not necessarily safe. What does that mean?”
He pointed out how arbitrary those decisions can be, noting that even authors like Judy Blume were once deemed “unsafe” for certain audiences. “You should say maybe that audience doesn’t necessarily align with my brand,” he said. “But if you deem what’s safe and not safe that’s not up to you, that’s up to the consumer.”
Charlamagne’s comments echo a growing frustration among creators, journalists, and advertisers who say automated ad systems often punish content unfairly. The term “brand safety” originated as a safeguard to prevent ads from appearing alongside explicit or violent material online. But as digital ad buying became increasingly automated, the practice began flagging and demonetizing legitimate content on sensitive topics from the COVID-19 pandemic to political news draining crucial ad revenue from credible media outlets.
Over the past several years, the debate has grown louder, particularly as “brand safety” has become entangled in political polarization. Some conservatives, including media figures and lawmakers, have accused advertisers and ad tech firms of using the concept to discriminate against right-leaning outlets. The Daily Wire’s cofounder Ben Shapiro even testified last year that his publication was unfairly shunned by major advertisers who had labeled its content “unsafe.”
As a result, many ad agencies have shifted toward using the phrase “brand suitability” a softer, more flexible framework that focuses on audience alignment rather than avoidance. But Charlamagne suggested that even that shift hasn’t solved the deeper issue: a lack of courage and authenticity in how brands choose where to appear.
He argued that advertisers should pay closer attention to the people behind the platforms the hosts, creators, and communities that shape the conversations. “Sometimes you have to not just look into the audience and how large it is,” he said. “Actually listen to the personality, listen to what the show is about, and say, ‘I think my brand will align with that.’”
For Charlamagne, it’s about authenticity not metrics. “You can tell when somebody is just getting paid to do something,” he added. “The read sounds generic, the read just sounds basic.”
During the event, he also emphasized how traditional media and digital platforms now coexist in a fluid ecosystem. “You can’t just have one form of content,” he said. “If you have that radio show every day, you’ve got to put it out on the podcast. You’ve got to put it on YouTube. You’ve got to put clips out on social media.”
That multi-platform strategy, Charlamagne suggested, is what advertisers should be leaning into not running away from. By labeling creators or discussions as “unsafe,” he said, brands risk alienating exactly the audiences they’re trying to reach.
His comments resonated with an ongoing industry reckoning. Many marketing experts now argue that the pursuit of “safety” has gone too far, resulting in lost opportunities for brands to connect authentically with diverse audiences and meaningful cultural conversations.
Charlamagne’s message to advertisers was clear: stop letting algorithms and outdated fear dictate your decisions. “If you really want your brand to matter,” he said, “you’ve got to meet people where they are not where you feel safest.”
