The Super Bowl LX ad blitz was a big budget highwire act—from Anthropic’s shot at OpenAI to Lady Gaga’s homage to Mr. Rogers and Dunkin’s nostalgia-fueled celeb fest. Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder breaks down what worked, what didn’t, and what the ads reveal about where marketing is headed next. Treseder also unpacks the business impact of Bad Bunny’s halftime show, and what it signals for the NFL and Apple.
This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode.
I have to say that the on-field game wasn’t much of a contest, kind of a blowout, but plenty of trick plays and Hail Marys in the ad battle. The cost for a 30-second ad this year was somewhere between $8 [million] and $10 million to place. You talk about ROMI—return on marketing investment—what’s worthwhile, what breaks through. Just quick off the bat, any big winners or losers that jumped out at you?
There were some big winners. I think Anthropic was a big winner this year. Rocket and Pepsi were big winners this year. So we can go into details, but off the bat, I would say those were some of the big winners this year.
I saw a lot of mentions in the other lists of the Dunkin ad, the “Good Will Dunkin’” spot fronted by Ben Affleck. Does it fit on all of the criteria that you’re looking at?
So I thought that that ad was sincere. You saw a lot of insincere use of celebrity. The only winners this year from a celebrity standpoint were the celebrities who got paid. Okay? A lot of brands used celebrities in ways that they really did not need to do that. Over $250 million was spent on celebrity placements for these Super Bowl ads. That’s a quarter of a billion dollars.
Wow.
And the ROI was really not there. In fact, 60% of the Super Bowl ads this year used celebrities, and many did not use them intentionally or use them well. I think “Good Will Dunkin’” was where celebrity use made sense. We all know one thing is true about Ben Affleck. He does like a Jennifer, and he does like Dunkin’ Donuts.
And like some of the more artsy highbrow ads, like Emma Stone for Squarespace or Adrien Brody’s TurboTax—sort of purposely overacting. That was effective or sort of modest?
I think it was modest. I don’t think it quite cut through as well. I would say that the Squarespace one was simple. Get a domain name using Squarespace. Many people might have thought about Squarespace to design their website, but not necessarily like, “I’m not even ready to design yet, but have I gotten my domain name yet?” That “If emmastone.com is unavailable, girl, what you sitting on? Go get your domain name right now”—that cut through. I even had my kid say, “Mommy, should I get my domain name?” I was, like, “Wow, this is cutting through all generations right now.” We’ve got an 8-year-old wanting to figure out if he needs to get his domain name or not.
He better. Otherwise, someone else is going to get it.
He better.
Right. In some ways, one of the simplest ads to me that sort of cut through was the Levi’s ad, which just focused on rear ends.
It worked. It worked. My son was, like, “Are we looking at butts? What’s going on here?” But you know what? It showed that: “Look, every human body is original. And whoever you are, we’ve got jeans for you.”
The other ad that you mentioned and was also a bold shot was Anthropic’s jab at OpenAI. Definitely came in hard with their Claude spots. Did they win even before the Super Bowl ad ran?
They won.
Because people were talking about it.
Well, before the Super Bowl ad ran, they were talking about it. Very few times my husband sends me a text about an ad. It grabbed a lot of people. The ads were incredibly well done. When you also think about the 360 strategy of, “Hey, we are going to maximize conversation and ROI,” they absolutely did that. When you take a shot at another company, and the CEO and the CMO of that company start to comment, you know you’ve won because you struck a nerve. Now I think that the proof will be in the pudding. Because now, if they start to bring ads to their platform, the internet will not forgive.
Yes. It’s a strategic business decision to play that up. It’s not just a tagline. You got to live with it.
You got to live with that. You absolutely have to live with that.
There were a lot of AI-related ads. Something like one in four of the ads I was tracking were AI. One of my producers really liked OpenAI’s ad for Codex. Another one hated the Genspark ad, the one with Matthew Broderick, for being tone-deaf about people’s fear of AI. All of these ads around AI. Is it like it was a couple of years ago, where suddenly every ad seemed like it was from a crypto company? Is this a bubble? What does all that mean?
I think the big picture was AI is here to stay. That was the big picture. The ads were not as spot-on or bull’s-eye as they could have been. So there wasn’t a single AI ad that I would say, other than the Anthropic ad, that we talked about. It almost felt like Anthropic was over here, and everybody else was over here. So there was a huge gap. So the AI winner was Anthropic, and everybody else was either meh or even in the loser category. But in general, the AI ads, they were overdone this year.
I would say the overarching theme this year was disappointment. I think a lot of the ads were not that great. There were a few standout ads, and we’ve talked about them. And, I think, a few honorable mentions, and we’ve talked about a few of them as well. But the majority of the ads were a little meh. It’s like, when your agency comes to you and suggests Bowen Yang, Jon Hamm, and Scarlett Johansson in a spot, your question should be: “Why?” And if it’s not clear, maybe don’t do that.
They were just trying to reach every demographic.
It doesn’t work. When you try to speak to everyone, you speak to no one.
In many ways, the biggest statement of the Super Bowl was the halftime show. Bad Bunny, singing in Spanish. At the Super Bowl party that I was at, some folks loved it. Some honestly were put off. “I don’t understand what he’s saying.” What was the larger impact, do you think?
The best ad of the day, of the night, was Bad Bunny for Bad Bunny. I thought he did an incredible job. And at my Super Bowl party, I was up. I was dancing. I had a great time. Now, there were also people at my Super Bowl that were, like, they were not up, they were not dancing. And I think that was reflective. I think your Super Bowl party and my Super Bowl party were reflective of what’s going on in the world today. The people who didn’t want Bad Bunny there, there was nothing he could have done to have pleased them. So to have tried to please them would have been a failure.
I thought he was a tremendous success because he spoke to the people who he needed to speak to, and he did it in a way that was incredibly authentic to them. From a real life couple getting married, to Lady Gaga performing, to just the joy. The overwhelming thing was joy and unity. He said, “God bless America.” And he said it in English, so everybody could understand that. He had the football that said, “Together, we are America.”
But the America he referred to then wasn’t just the United States of America, right? He referred to all of the countries in the Americas—which again, turned some people off. There’s risk in that.
I thought what he was saying—and this might be my own little interpretation—but I thought he was talking about all of these people come to America, and then they are American. And that very much resonated with me as an immigrant.
I’ll go a step further and say I thought it was a win for Apple. I thought it was a win for the NFL because they are trying to be global. These are global brands. And guess what? Who is global? Bad Bunny is global. A lot of people all over the world love Bad Bunny. The NFL is trying to go global. You saw that they were even showing the watch parties. Here are people watching the NFL in London. And they’re trying to be more global as an institution.