We just watched the biggest event of the year for marketeers, where brands lined up to spend around $8 million for 30 seconds of airtime in the biggest advertising arena on the planet. There was also some sort of sporting thing happening too, but that’s less important…
For those of us in the marketing space, these ads are way more interesting than the game, because they set the stage for where creativity is heading. The consensus this year is that some of it felt genuinely progressive, while some of it felt like innovation for innovation’s sake. But all of it came with a serious price tag.
AI Was Everywhere, And It Kinda Sucked.
If there was one dominant theme this year, it was AI. Unsurprising, right?
With 15 of the 66 commercials either using AI or an AI company, it’s safe to say tech brands leaned in heavily, as expected, but so did plenty of others with looser credentials. In the strongest executions, AI enhanced the idea and clarified the value. In the weaker ones, it became the headline without delivering much emotional return.
That distinction was everything.
Funnily enough, we saw Anthropic go head-to-head with OpenAI, skewering it for implementing ads, which is not only ironic given the platform but also very juicy if you know the backstory behind Anthropic’s founding. The shocker here is that this was one of the most talked about ads of the night, mainly because we all love a bit of drama.
On the flip side, Vodka company Svedka partnered with AI company Silverside to incorporate AI into their ad and was absolutely rinsed for it. Imagine spending all that money to create such heavily negative sentiment in such a short period of time… Especially because Silverside have already caused ad drama in the past via the Coca-Cola AI commercials. If they were hoping this would be their redemption arc, they were unfortunately sorely mistaken.
But with so many AI ads, it’s safe to say the audience had major fatigue. In fact, Meltwater analysis found that nearly 50% of mentions around the topic were negative, and “far more critical than the broader ad sentiment during the event”.
Obviously, AI isn’t going anywhere, but companies are missing the main factor for using it effectively. It was obvious at the Superbowl. When technology amplified human creativity, the work felt contemporary and compelling. When it was replaced, the result often felt cold. With this one, the lesson is that while AI is powerful, it’s not a strategy, and it’s very easy to get lazy with it. Luckily for us, craft still does the heavy lifting.
Emotion Remains the Differentiator
Obviously, it’s no surprise that all that AI usage tended to flop when it came to emotional resonance. Why? Because AI can’t comprehend emotions. So in a game built on noise and spectacle, the ads that resonated were rooted in human insight that pushed emotion to the forefront – whether that be by making us laugh, cry, or even feel a touch nostalgic. The most effective work understands that emotional connection drives memory, and memory drives preference. Big budgets can command attention, but they can’t force relevance, especially if what they’re trying to flog doesn’t try to bring the audience into it.
Funny Works, Unless It’s Not Funny at All
Comedy once again proved its value, particularly in a cluttered cultural moment where shareability matters as much as airtime.
The best ads, Superbowl or prime time TV, amp up the funny, because this little bit of airtime is, whether we realise it or not, a welcome break from all the unsavoury stuff going on out there in the world. This year, a few brands leaned into that, and the jokes that landed well. The ones that didn’t… well let’s just say while your $8 million stand up show might have only lasted 30 seconds, those virtual tomatoes being thrown at you on the internet are lasting a whole lot longer, and are also free…
The ads that travelled beyond the broadcast were those that delivered a genuine laugh while still reinforcing a clear product truth. Where humour and brand were tightly intertwined, impact followed.
DoorDash did this pretty well, using icons like 50 Cent and Dorinda Medley to link ‘beef’ in the more metaphorical sense to the literal sense. Perhaps they can make this a series and get Sam Altman on the next instalment…
Celebrity Needs Credibility
Famous faces were abundant, and when picked right, it’s still just as iconic. From last year, we saw a 6% drop in celebs on the big screen, but they’re still a major part of it all. Just take a look at Kendall Jenner’s ad for Fanatics poking fun at the Kardashian curse. That incredibly smart humour and positioning was viral before the game had even started!
This is why a well-chosen celebrity can elevate a campaign, but only when the link feels authentic. When the connection is forced, viewers disengage quickly, and then you’ve got an angry celeb on your hands, too, who has just as much to lose.
It really is a double-edged sword. Because, according to The Harris Poll report, while 55% of younger adults feel more favourably about a brand using a celebrity they like, a significant 36% feel more negatively if they dislike the celebrity or the fit feels forced.
So when it comes to celeb cameos, you’ve got to make sure it’s for the right reasons – otherwise your brand is going to be classed as a sad attempt to create a viral moment.
Purpose Demands Proof
It’s safe to say we saw a cultural shift in advertising this year (beyond the whole AI faff), with health, wellness and broader social themes featured prominently. When handled with care and credibility, this kind of storytelling strengthened brand connection and sparked meaningful conversation.
When it felt superficial, it triggered scepticism. Values-led creative requires alignment between what a brand says and what it does. Without that consistency, the work risks feeling hollow.
It Was Never Just 30 Seconds
Unsurprisingly, if you’re spending all that money, you need to be smart. And the smartest brands are playing the long game, treating the Super Bowl as a launchpad to a wider campaign rather than a standalone moment.
Teasers built anticipation, while extended content sustained engagement. At the same time, social adaptations ensured the idea travelled well beyond the broadcast window. The hero film ignites interest, but the wider ecosystem builds momentum… If an idea cannot stretch beyond 30 seconds, it probably was not strong enough to justify them.
So What Did $8 Million Really Buy?
$8 million smackaroos bought that all-important scale and visibility for brands willing to take the gamble, and perhaps even bought cultural relevance for a moment in time if they got it right.
But unfortunately, what it didn’t guarantee was effectiveness. And that’s not great when you’re dropping a bag that big.
Super Bowl LX made it clear that brands that cut through weren’t chasing a spectacle. Instead, they had a clear point of view driven by a human idea and crystal-clear messaging that wasn’t slogged down by inauthenticity and mismatched celeb cameos. We’re seeing solid examples of craft outperforming gimmickry and quick wins through AI in real time, and for us, that’s pretty exciting. The secret seems to be that technology works best in the service of a human idea (especially when the human is really funny), and with that, clarity remains non-negotiable.
The tools will keep advancing, and the budgets won’t shrink, but none of that fixes vague thinking. The brands that win understand the culture they’re stepping into, along with the commercial outcome they need to drive – and they shape the work accordingly.
It’s safe to say the Super Bowl has set the tone for what people want to see from ads this year. In some ways, the insights were an easy prediction, but there were a lot of surprises too.
Let’s see if human craft continues to emerge as the MVP, and whether the wavering sentiment towards AI use will spook brands and see it take a back seat.
