As with the on-field contest itself, Super Bowl ads are both highly anticipated and ultimately sorted into winners and losers. Unlike the game, however, advertising assessments can be subjective, so Bryant News turned to faculty to get a nuanced take on which of the 2026 ads — which this year clocked in a $6 million per 30-second slot — performed the best and the worst. Here’s what they said:
Winners
“My evaluation of the winners and losers of Super Bowl ads is based simply on how effective an ad is in promoting the brand. This year, in addition to AI-generated ads, I noticed many campaigns using retro themes (nostalgia appeals) and an unusually high number of celebrity spokespeople. My favorite was Budweiser’s horse and eagle ad, with honorable mentions to Pepsi, Hellmann’s, and Dunkin’. Budweiser and Pepsi are extensions or sequels of their past campaigns. When we see the opening scenes of these commercials, we instantly notice clear cues signaling which brand the ad is for (a horse and a baby animal for Budweiser; the parallel juxtaposition of Coke and Pepsi for Pepsi). This helps viewers digest and remember the ads more easily. Hellmann’s and Dunkin’ use well-liked celebrities (though Tom Brady may be hit or miss depending on audience preferences) who are easily recognizable and emotionally engaging, largely by triggering nostalgia through familiar music and themes, such as ‘Sweet Caroline’ or a ’90s sitcom-style setting featuring Boston-area celebrities — particularly fitting for Patriots fans.”
— Sukki Yoon, Ph.D., professor of Marketing and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
“Pepsi had one of the best advertisements of the game. They were able to touch on a cultural moment that everyone could recognize and relate to. In a world divided, the Coldplay Couple Scandal was a moment that brought together everyone, and Pepsi capitalized on this in a way that was memorable. The moment became a massive memetic event. While the memetic event was only months ago, that rapid cycle of Internet trends also made a nostalgic moment for the audience as we all reflected back on the humorous trends the Internet came together to create surrounding the kiss cam.”
— Jerrica Rowlett, Ph.D., assistant professor of Communication and Language Studies
“The Lay’s farm ad succeeded because it activated persuasion without triggering persuasion knowledge. The ad’s emotional, story-driven approach reduced viewers’ resistance by avoiding overt selling cues. Instead of feeling marketed to, audiences felt invited into a meaningful narrative centered on family, legacy, and authenticity, all of which foster trust and warmth toward the brand. From a persuasion standpoint, this is powerful: When consumers don’t consciously recognize persuasive intent, they are more likely to form favorable attitudes and share content organically. The ad’s simplicity also made it highly translatable across social platforms, where emotional resonance drives engagement. Lay’s leveraged narrative transportation to lower skepticism and strengthen brand associations, proving that persuasion works best when it’s subtle, human, and aligned with brand truth.”
— Sharmin Attaran, Ph.D., professor of Marketing and Director of the Digital Marketing program
"As a Rhode Island native whose kids run on Dunkin’ since they sit on every corner of the state, ‘Good Will Dunkin’ absolutely worked for me. The Good Will Hunting spoof, paired with a constant and surprising stream of ’90s TV icons, felt like a perfectly timed nostalgia bomb. Each appearance was better than the next! ‘Friends,’ ‘Cheers,’ ‘Seinfeld’: these weren’t just shows, they were part of growing up. Wrapping that into an iconic movie — one that everyone could quote back in the day in their thickest of Boston accents, ‘How ‘bout them apples?’ — genius. The ‘Cheers’ nod, ‘where everybody knows your name’ was especially fitting. Dunkin’ has always been that place that has a familiar smell and was a treat we all looked forward to; a place where ‘How you doin’?’ was often heard. Add Tom Brady? Mic drop. My kids didn’t get it (at all), so I know it didn’t land for everyone. But for those of us who grew up in the ’90s, it was funny, nostalgic and totally on brand. A great follow-up to the fluorescent tracksuits.”
— Kirsten Hokeness, Ph.D., School of Health and Behavioral Sciences director
Losers
“My pick for biggest loser was Svedka, followed by TurboTax, Squarespace, and Rocket Mortgage. Svedka used AI-generated robots dancing, but the imagery creates a creepy feeling and fails to connect the audience to the product — an example of mismatching emotional appeal with the advertised brand. The TurboTax ad was artistically pleasing and well-made, but its main message — the TurboTax equals no drama equation — is a little too complex to follow. Many audience members might enjoy the commercial itself, but the ad fails to translate that enjoyment into sales. For the Squarespace ad, Emma Stone’s frustration over learning that all the domain names that include “Emma Stone” are already taken misses the mark because the majority of the audience are non-celebrities, so the message does not resonate broadly. The Rocket Mortgage ad was also a poor use of emotional appeal. It attempts to engage the audience by highlighting the value of good neighbors, but this kind of emotional selling does not fit a mortgage company.”
—Yoon
“In my opinion, OpenAI was one of the worst ads of the night. The ad heavily features analogue media to promote AI, which is just ironic. Additionally, they feature the human labor that goes into creating everything from a ramp to roll a marble down to robot arms to the coding that goes into developing software. They highlight students learning in classrooms, reading, innovating through whiteboards and collaboration. They then end on a prompt screen from OpenAI before the phrase, “You can just build things” appears on the screen. In my opinion, it devalues the human labor that went into years of creating and developing the technologies, many of which have led to AI. The oversimplification of “you can just build things” takes away from the hard work that creatives and scientists alike have spent years developing.”
—Rowlett
“Dunkin’s ‘Good Will Hunting’ ad struggled because its persuasive intent was too transparent. Heavy reliance on celebrity cameos and inside jokes signaled ‘this is an ad’ almost immediately, activating persuasion knowledge and increasing viewer skepticism. Rather than being absorbed into a story, audiences were busy decoding references and questioning the purpose. From a persuasion lens, this creates cognitive friction, where attention shifts from emotional processing to critical evaluation, which weakens attitude formation. On social media, where users are quick to scroll past anything that feels forced or self-aware, this works against engagement. Persuasion fails when execution prioritizes spectacle over meaning. Without emotional grounding or a clear value signal, even high-budget ads can feel hollow and forgettable.”
—Attaran
“While many of this year’s commercials successfully rode the wave of nostalgia aimed at older generations like Backstreet Boys, Bon Jovi, and other familiar throwbacks, Instacart: Choose your own Bananas completely missed the mark. It was loud, over-the-top, and annoying. For most of the ad, I couldn’t even tell what it was selling, which feels like a pretty big problem when you’ve paid for Super Bowl airtime. I spent more time questioning whether Instacart actually lets you pick banana ripeness, something that feels highly aspirational given my real-life experience with pickup and delivery services, where I’m lucky if everything in my order shows up. But that distraction mirrors my experience watching the commercial itself. I kept trying to follow it, while simultaneously wishing it would end. It was clearly aiming for humor, but it didn’t land for me. Watching Ben Stiller flop around in a 1970s outfit was exhausting. Instead of being memorable for the right reasons, the ad was confusing, chaotic, and a reminder that not everyone has the same sense of humor.”
—Hokeness