Which Super Bowl Ads Were (Probably) Worth the Spend
The Super Bowl is an annual stage for three main events — the game, the halftime show, and the ads — and the next day the Internet is always littered with hot takes about all three. However, unlike most “Best Ads” lists, I’m not going to focus on which ads people liked the most, or even which I consider the most creative. My focus is instead on which ads will likely produce the biggest long-term benefit to the brand relative to the absurd cost to produce and air each one. I’ve spent many years consumer-testing creative at various levels of fidelity, as well as advising teams on the most effective creative practices, and both have honed my ad effectiveness spidey sense to superhuman levels.
And yes, the brevity of the list is an explicit commentary on how often Super Bowl ads just aren’t worth the money.
Anthropic
This is probably my most obvious take because it’s one that’s shared with pretty much everyone else on the Internet, but Anthropic took the underhanded softball lob that was OpenAI’s inserting ads to ChatGPT and smashed it out of the park with near flawless creative execution. Every small decision — from utilizing OpenAI’s own pull-ups goal set piece, to the pause and soulless stare from the ChatGPT avatar — created the perfect level of schadenfreude and ick that will creep into every new interaction someone has with ChatGPT.
Humor doesn’t just beat out rational, message-led ad formats in long-term effectiveness. It also beats other emotional approaches…But amusement and schadenfreude (in other words, humor at someone else’s expense — usually in advertising a correction for excessively rigid, single- or absent-minded behavior) comes top of the chart.
Jon Evans, System1 Group (https://system1group.com/blog/adage-look-out)
If I had to nitpick, I would say that the brand linkage could be stronger. Without prior knowledge that Anthropic is committing to always being ad-free, it could be easy to forget which brand footed the bill for such an expensive spot. But I’ll forgive this for two reasons.
First, Anthropic’s brand linkage does come a bit by default through the process of elimination. Out of the major consumer AI players, there’s no way the ad was for OpenAI, and no one would expect Google to take a hard anti-advertising stance. That pretty much just leaves Anthropic.
Second, the behavior this ad is likely going to drive is disengagement from and cancellation of ChatGPT subscription. As one of the biggest competitors, Anthropic stands to steal those defectors, especially since the anti-ad sentiment would likely steer them away from Google’s Gemini.
Well done, Anthropic (and Mother).
Pepsi
Anyone who’s read How Brands Grow by Byron Sharp knows the importance of mental availabililty. The more often a brand can come to mind, either through explicit or implicit prompting, the stronger it tends to be. The brute-force way to achieve this is to simply inundate people with paid ads so they have no choice but to think of your brand. But this obviously a very expensive strategy.
A smarter way to build mental availability is to highjack another prompt that people are already likely to encounter and sneak in a mental connection with your brand. A good example of this is the Snickers “You’re Not You When You’re Hungry” campaign, which effectively linked the Snicker brand to feeling hangry, which meant every subsequent hangry experience would now lead to an automatic mental brand exposure for Snickers. Genius.
This is why I really liked what Pepsi did when they hijacked one of Coke’s brand mascots — the polar bear — and showed it making the switch to Pepsi. I’ve seen a lot of criticism from people saying this ad backfired by making people think of Coke, but I think that’s missing the point. Now, whenever Coke pays to put a polar bear in front of someone’s eyeballs, many viewers are now going to think of both Coke AND Pepsi. These are mental brand exposures that aren’t just free, but are in fact being paid for by Pepsi’s main competitor. I’ll be curious to see if Coke changes course and pulls back on using their iconic polar bears for a while.
Get Colin King’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
At this point, the only thing that might not make this ad worth it would be a lawsuit.
AI.com
I know, I can’t believe I’m writing this either.
Was I entertained by this ad? Not at all. Did I cringe when I saw the domain? Absolutely.
But when you choose to flip the script and run a DR ad during the Super Bowl (like what Coinbase did in 2022 with their QR code ad) you have to be judged by a different criteria. Whereas the Emma Stone Squarespace ad didn’t really compel me to pull out my phone to register a domain (I already know colinking.com is owned by an interior designer that shares my namesake), the AI.com ad made me seriously consider registering a domain right away. I thought back to missing out on on being early enough to Gmail, Instagram, and any other platform that forced me to add numbers to my username and figured registering would be quick (and not doing so would likely lead to regret later).
AI.com also employed one of Cialdini’s strongest pillars of influence — scarcity. The message was clear: claim your domain before someone else does RIGHT NOW.
If only their infrastructure could handle the amount of concurrent traffic it brought in…
Honorable Mention: Google Gemini
I promise I’m not here just to praise the AI brands, but Google has always provided a masterclass in product spots centered on human stories, from Parisian Love to Coda. And their Gemini ad was no different.
While most other consumer AI spots tend to focus on productivity — how AI can make you work faster, complete newer and more tasks, etc. — this ad showcases a much more emotionally salient goal: a mother trying to make her trepedacious son (and herself) feel more at ease about a big move. When comparing the powerlessness a parent feels when trying to comfort a scared child to, say, trying to code a program or design a workout program, it’s clear that the stakes are just so much greater. It’s also impossible to recount the story told in the ad without recalling both the brand and the specific product features showcased. Thanks for the misty eyes yet again, Google.
Dishonorable Mention: Amazon Alexa
Wow. I can’t believe this actually needs to be said, but maybe you shouldn’t show the various ways your product could kill someone. Just a thought.
Closing Thoughts
Whenever executives or marketing teams start floating the idea of running a Super Bowl spot, my advice is always the same: Don’t. At around $8 million just for the placement, plus the production costs, it’s incredibly difficult to find a creative execution that earns that money back. However, if a brand decides to take the plunge anyway, here are the guidelines I would follow:
- Skip the celebrity endorser. They’re expensive, and the main point of including a celebrity is to break through, which is impossible in an environment where everyone else is using a celebrity too. You won’t get penalized for not having a celebrity if the idea is strong enough, and if the idea falls apart without a celebrity, it probably isn’t worth it.
- Prioritize brand linkage. You want people to recall your spot as “That [brand] ad where X happens,” not “That ad where X happens.” It should be really difficult to recount the ad without mentioning the brand. It doesn’t matter how cute your tortilla-craving, Jim Parsons-voiced baby is if the ad could literally be for any supermarket chain (or, frankly, tortilla brand).
- Have a clear message takeaway or call-to-action. Too many spots I see fall into the “Ha ha, we’re such a fun and funny brand, you should totally buy from us” camp. That might be enough to break through and create positive associations for the brand during a different time of the year, but it’s just not enough to break through during the Super Bowl. Anthropic doesn’t have ads. Pepsi tastes so good even the most loyal Coke fans will switch. Get your AI.com domain name before someone else does. Gemini helps you visualize an uncertain future to help you feel more at ease.
Remember, the bar for a Super Bowl ad isn’t whether people liked it: it’s whether the brand benefits more from the spend than if it were allocated elsewhere. Most brands who participated this year won’t. However, a few of them just might.
