2025 Super Bowl Ads - Winners and Losers

My controversial picks for the best and worst Super Bowl ads of this year.

For anyone new here, I’m the founder of Woo Punch, a brand consultancy rooted in evidence-based brand design. I write about the evidence that debunks brand purpose, differentiation, brand love, loyalty marketing, customer personas, color psychology, mission statements, customer engagement, AdTech, and “hustle culture.”

Want to chat about your advertising? Schedule a free intro call.

For more thoughts on brand design, advertising, and marketing, you can find me on LinkedIn.

---

***IMPORTANT: IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS AS AN EMAIL, IT MAY BE “CLIPPED” FOR LENGTH IN YOUR EMAIL BROWSER. TO READ THE FULL MESSAGE, CLICK ON “VIEW ENTIRE MESSAGE”***

THE SUPER BOWL COMMERCIAL MYTH

The most incredible Super Bowl ads are clever, emotional, funny, and inspirational.

We’ve all bought into this myth. But does it hold true, considering what we’ve learned about consumer behavior from marketing science, behavioral science, and advertising psychology? Was 2011’s VW ad “The Force” effective at selling VWs? Or is AngelSoft’s semi-annoying ad from this year a better (and more realistic) standard for advertisers to aspire to?

Which ads will help the brands being advertised sell products, and which ads might simply help the creative agencies behind them win awards?

---

Below is the explanation for my rating system. If you would like to skip ahead, feel free to scroll past my 5 Keys.

THE 5 KEYS TO AN EFFECTIVE SUPER BOWL AD

I believe there are 5 keys to an effective ad based on the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute’s research into marketing effectiveness, Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman’s research into behavioral science, and Robert Heath’s research into the psychology of advertising. These 5 keys are Distinctiveness, Consistency, Broad-Reach, Category Entry Points, and Attention.

Certainly, other factors can go into whether or not an ad is effective, but the following 5 keys should be the primary objectives of any effective ad.

Each key is not created equal so I gave them different weights. For example, if a Super Bowl ad is clever and funny (scores well in Attention), but the brand being advertised is lost in the mix (scores poorly in Distinctiveness), that ad will have a lower grade than a boring but well-branded ad. That’s because Distinctiveness is far more important than Attention.

You can read more detail about these keys in my Super Bowl article from 2022 but I will summarize them here.

To grade this year’s ads, as always, I assigned the following percentages to each key:

DISTINCTIVENESS - 65%

The first key factor for an effective Super Bowl ad is distinctiveness, and I estimate that distinctiveness accounts for up to 65% of an ad’s effectiveness. If an ad isn't strongly linked to the brand being advertised throughout using distinctive audio, thematic, and visual cues, it will essentially be a waste of money. We won’t know who was advertised.

Despite this, many brands sacrifice these cues in favor of emotional narratives, virtue signaling, or humor. Advertisers often treat ads like short films aimed at winning creative awards, not tools to sell products. This is a mistake.

CONSISTENCY - 20%

The second biggest factor for an effective Super Bowl ad is consistency. I estimate consistency accounts for up to 20% of an ad's effectiveness.

If the brand being advertised has never been advertised before, or the brand has consistently advertised, but its Super Bowl ad is dramatically different from all of its other ads, consumers will find it hard to link the ad to its correct brand.

BROAD-REACH - 8%

The third factor is broad-reach. As a whole, broad-reach is more important than consistency and sometimes even distinctiveness. I estimate that broad-reaching advertising channels account for as much as 80% of advertising effectiveness in some cases. But here, I'm grading content, not advertising channels.

As a result, I estimate that broad-reaching messaging or content accounts for around 8% of a Super Bowl ad's effectiveness relative to all other key factors. Instead of catering to a specific demographic or psychographic, Super Bowl ads should target all category buyers with their messaging and content.

CATEGORY ENTRY POINTS (CEPs) - 5%

The 4th most significant factor for an effective ad is Category Entry Points (CEPs).

Rather than differentiating your brand, you should try to tap into why consumers buy from your category in the first place before they even consider brands. Most consumers don’t perceive the differences between brands. Therefore, while differentiation can be effective for niche brands targeting heavy category buyers looking for additional customization, it's costly to establish a differentiator among distracted buyers who are the key to long-term growth. By prioritizing CEPs the goal is to simply be considered in various buying situations.

Again, I explain this in more detail in my 2022 article.

While CEPs are extremely helpful, they take a lot of time and repetition to build. Because of this, I'm grading individual ads here without considering a brand's overall advertising, so I estimate CEPs account for around 5% of an ad’s effectiveness during stand-alone Super Bowl ads.

ATTENTION - 2%

Finally, attention is the least important (but still critical) key to an effective ad.

While marketing gurus and the general public think attention is the most essential key for a Super Bowl ad, attention is complicated and misunderstood. There are several types of attention and not all are good when it comes to advertising. High attention can even have a negative effect on sales. I estimate that attention accounts for around 2% of Super Bowl ad effectiveness.

My estimates for each key aren't an exact science, and there are additional keys that can be helpful that I don't discuss here, but I wanted to grade these ads on the most critical factors.

---

MY GRADES FOR THIS YEAR’S SUPER BOWL ADS

MY TOP 5 BEST

Strengths:

• The Reese’s brand couldn’t be much stronger here. Even casual viewers glancing up from their phones or engaging in Super Bowl party conversations are likely to register the brand being advertised.

• People running toward lava to eat it will certainly make viewers look up and it’s a pretty universally funny concept.

Weaknesses:

• Whenever a brand tries to be funny there is always a risk the joke will bomb. If/when that happens, some eye-rolling might occur. For a brand like Reese’s, it’s doubtful that will effect people’s desire to eat the beloved candy.

Strengths:

• The Budweiser Clydesdales masterfully demonstrate the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute's concept of “meaningless distinctiveness,” transforming a seemingly arbitrary animal with no inherent link to the category into a powerful and universally resonant brand symbol that appeals to all category buyers.

Weaknesses:

• It’s not the most compelling Clydesdale ad we’ve seen, but that likely won’t impact the sale of beer.

Strengths:

• Liquid Death's distinctive branding is a constant visual reinforcement throughout the ad. The cans are prominently featured in nearly every frame, with only a momentary cutaway to a close-up of the tires.

Weaknesses:

• Liquid Death's repeated attempts to associate its packaging with alcohol seem misguided. While the brand may attract a niche audience seeking a non-alcoholic beverage that mimics the appearance of beer, this motivation likely has limited appeal. That doesn’t mean it can’t attract additional customers, but it’s certainly not the best thing Liquid Death has going for it. I think “murdering thirst” is a much stronger message.

• Liquid Death's edgy, isolating brand aesthetic likely hinders its potential to compete with more broadly appealing water brands like LaCroix, Bubly, Dasani, Fiji, and others. I find it hard to imagine Liquid Death as a market leader. Which is fine depending on how big they want to become.

• Liquid Death's #DeathtoPlastic campaign is ironic, given the prevalence of aluminum cans in sparkling water. Their larger can size, compared to competitors, likely increases environmental harm per customer, as there's no indication consumers are buying fewer cans to compensate. Anytime a brand promotes a wider purpose like this, it’s prone to counter-argument and critique.

Strengths:

• If you are going to use celebrities in your ads, you better saturate them in your brand assets. Dunkin’ does a great job of that here.

• This ad resonates with coffee drinkers who appreciate a less "fussy" approach to coffee, even if they occasionally opt for the convenience of Starbucks.

• As a Succession fan and someone who's read about Jeremy Strong's intense acting style, I found his part of the ad hilarious.

Weaknesses:

• Any intended message here is drowned out by too many pop culture inside jokes, but that’s not a fatal flaw. Advertising's influence tends to stem from repeated brand exposure rather than persuasive messaging.

• In a market saturated with indistinguishable brands, Dunkin's ability to establish a recognizable brand personality is a testament to its marketing efforts. Most brands, even large ones, fail to achieve this level of tonal differentiation. However, while the "anti-snooty" positioning has likely resonated with many, it also presents a potential pitfall. Jabs at "fancier" coffee shops could easily be interpreted as criticisms of consumer tastes, potentially damaging Dunkin's broad appeal.

Strengths:

• The brand is clear throughout and is never hidden.

• Angel Soft has made a strategic choice to prioritize brand recognition over product differentiation in its advertising. By consistently showcasing its distinctive visual assets, the brand ensures its presence remains top-of-mind among consumers in a highly competitive category.

• This ad subverts the typical Super Bowl advertising formula—over-the-top entertainment, celebrity cameos, nostalgia, emotionally manipulative messaging, and eye-rolling brand purpose—with a refreshingly simple message: take a potty break.

• This ad isn't chasing creative awards; it's chasing sales. In today's advertising world, that’s rare.

Weaknesses:

• The angel’s repetitive high-pitched plea will be annoying to some.

---

MY TOP 5 WORST

Strengths:

• The category entry point is clear: AI-powered solutions for simplifying business travel.

• Salesforce, Agentforce's parent company, invested in a Super Bowl ad last year, also featuring Matthew McConaughey, demonstrating campaign consistency.

• This ad is very unlikely to turn anyone off. There is nothing remotely controversial here, except for AI itself. An AI tool can’t do much about that.

Weaknesses:

• The reliance on celebrities in Super Bowl advertising is a deeply flawed strategy. While they offer initial attention-grabbing power, celebrities are ultimately unownable brand assets. Their pre-existing associations—ranging from personal lives (like playing the bongos naked or his recent self-help guru persona) to past roles (like his Lincoln commercials and blockbuster movies)—compete with the brand's message.

  This contrasts with the effectiveness of "ownable" spokespeople like Jake from State Farm or Flo from Progressive, who become synonymous with the brand itself (until, perhaps, they achieve broader fame). Furthermore, celebrities often endorse multiple brands, as McConaughey's appearance in both the Agentforce and Uber Eats ads during the same Super Bowl demonstrates. While the Uber Eats ad effectively integrated its branding (earning it a higher grade), the Agentforce ad buried the brand until the very end, diminishing its impact.

  Celebrity endorsements can still be effective, but brands should, at minimum, follow Dunkin's example and saturate those celebrities with distinctive brand elements. Alternatively, adopting a character-based approach, like Colonel Sanders, allows for greater control and brand ownership, even when multiple celebrities are involved.

Strengths:

• Decent message. Slow down and eat some ice cream.

• The ad doesn’t take itself seriously.

Weaknesses:

• Not much to look at here, just another example of the flawed Super Bowl formula—a budget wasted on celebrities and nostalgia—likely resulting in terrible brand recall. A flash of the packaging at the beginning and a flash of the logo at the end provide insufficient brand exposure for most viewers to recall the advertised product when grocery shopping the following week.

• The Fast and Furious movie franchise isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. This ad's narrow targeting represents a missed opportunity to connect with a broader audience during advertising's biggest showcase.

Strengths:

• Brand recall may be a challenge (I initially mistook the name for HexLab), but the ad successfully positions the product as having advanced non-stick capabilities.

Weaknesses:

• HexClad's limited prior advertising investment, while understandable for a likely smaller brand, impacts the effectiveness of its Super Bowl debut and its ability to achieve significant brand salience.

• The brand is mentioned by name once and any brand assets are teased out until the end.

• Super Bowl ads are subject to intense scrutiny, and humor is a key element of consumer expectations. This ad's failure to deliver on that front is a significant weakness. While it might be unremarkable outside of the Super Bowl context, its lack of humor becomes a liability on advertising's biggest stage.

Strengths:

• The ad certainly grabs attention (even if it’s the wrong kind), lobbing up an opportunity to expose the brand name and assets to millions of people.

Weaknesses:

• The temporary nature of the "yourattentionhere.com" site, combined with the generic and easily confused slogan, undermines brand recall. While the campaign message might resonate, the actual brand—Novartis—is relegated to an almost invisible corner, likely to be overlooked by viewers.

• Robert Heath's work on attention in advertising highlights a crucial distinction: active vs. passive attention. Active attention draws viewers in, prompting deliberate thought and critical analysis. Passive attention, on the other hand, allows for a more intuitive, less analytical experience. Rational appeals and overtly emotional advertising, such as some brand purpose campaigns, exemplify active attention, as they directly solicit a conscious, often skeptical response. In contrast, humorous ads, or even ads like the Geico Gecko commercials—which, while perhaps not inherently funny, are designed to grab our attention—often achieve passive engagement, drawing viewers in without necessarily triggering critical analysis.

  This ad's strategy is clearly geared toward capturing active attention. However, this approach, while potentially engaging, creates a double-edged sword. Especially if the tool used to grab that attention is controversial.

  This ad's use of sexualized imagery undermines its intended message of breast cancer awareness and critique of objectification. While the goal is laudable, the execution is deeply flawed. My wife and I found ourselves having to shield our young daughters (ages 4 and 2) from these images during a family-friendly event. Children may not grasp the ad's intended critique, but they do absorb the visual message: women's bodies on display. To a child, this ad likely appears no different than any other media perpetuating the objectification of women. We can't be alone in our outrage; countless parents likely shared this reaction.

Strengths:

• There are no strengths here, unless you’re a big Bill Murray fan and enjoy seeing him regardless of what he’s doing.

Weaknesses:

• Could this be the worst Super Bowl ad of all time???

• After watching this ad several times, I still had no clarity about its message. Ok, so he needs help from a psychologist, but not a professional? Why is he seeing a dog in the mirror? Why does Bill Murray need help from Super Bowl viewers? The whole thing is confusing.

• This ad's experiential marketing approach, presumably encouraging viewers to engage with Bill Murray via Yahoo Mail, is unlikely to be effective. Like Coinbase's 2022 QR code stunt, it relies on viewer participation that will likely be minimal, and even those who do engage are unlikely to become Yahoo Mail converts. “Engagement” goals don’t tend to materialize into anything substantial.

• Most people will see an email. They might not see “@yahoo.com.”

For more thoughts on brand design, advertising, and marketing, you can find me on LinkedIn.

All Grades:

1. Reese's: A+

2. Budweiser: A+

3. Liquid Death: A+

4. Dunkin: A+

5. AngelSoft: A

6. BudLight: A

7. Pringles: A-

8. Totino's: A-

9. Taco Bell: A-

10. Ritz: A-

11. Michelob Ultra: A-

12. He Gets Us: A-

13. Stella Artois: A-

14. FanDuel: A-

15. Carls Jr: B+

16. Mountain Dew: B+

17. Dorito's: B+

18. Homes.com: B+

19. Nike: B+

20. Poppi: B+

21. Dodge Ram: B+

22. Duracell: B+

23. Bosch: B

24. Instacart: B-

25. T-Mobile: B-

26. Uber Eats: B-

27. Tubi: B-

28. GoDaddy: B-

29. ChatGPT: B-

30. TurboTax: B-

31. Booking.com: B-

32. Hellman's: B-

33. Meta Glasses: B-

34. Coors Light: B-

35. Jeep: B-

36. Skechers: B-

37. Squarespace: B-

38. Nerds: C+

39. Stand Up to Hate: C+

40. DoorDash: C+

41. NerdWallet: C+

42. NFL: C+

43. Little Caesar's: C+

44. WeatherTech: C+

45. Lay's: C+

46. Coffee Mate: C-

47. Cirkul: C-

48. Hims/Hers: C-

49. Fetch: C-

50. Pfizer: C-

51. Gemini: C-

52. MSC: D+

53. Rocket: D+

54. Agentforce: D+

55. Haagen-Dazs: D+

56. HexClad: F-

57. Novartis: F-

58. Yahoo: F-

---

---

Want to chat about your brand? Schedule a free intro call.