You watched the game. You saw the ads. Some made you laugh, some made you think, and some left you wondering what you just watched. Super Bowl LX delivered over 60 commercials, each costing brands between $8 and $10 million for 30 seconds of airtime. That’s more than $260,000 per second.
With stakes that high, you’d think every ad would be a home run. They weren’t. Some brands nailed the assignment with authentic storytelling and clear messaging. Others burned millions on confusing concepts that left viewers scratching their heads. Here’s what separated the winners from the expensive mistakes, and what these lessons mean for anyone thinking about their own marketing strategy.
What Made the Best Super Bowl Commercials Work in 2026
The top-performing Super Bowl commercials this year had something in common. They didn’t just entertain—they connected. Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management analyzed every ad and found that the most effective ones delivered either an emotional or humorous punch while clearly showing what they were selling and why it mattered.
That sounds simple, but most brands missed it. They threw celebrities at the screen, cranked up the production value, and forgot to give viewers a reason to care. The winners understood that even with a massive audience, you still need to respect people’s time and intelligence.
Let’s look at the three commercials that got it right and why they worked.
Pepsi’s Polar Bear Ad: Bold, Risky, and Effective
Pepsi made the boldest move of the night by borrowing Coca-Cola’s most iconic mascot—the polar bear. Directed by Oscar winner Taika Waititi, “The Choice” showed a polar bear taking a blind taste test and choosing Pepsi Zero Sugar over Coke Zero Sugar. The bear’s existential crisis that followed, set to Queen’s “I Want to Break Free,” turned a simple taste test into a journey of self-discovery.
This wasn’t just clever. It was strategic. Pepsi has run blind taste tests in 34 locations throughout 2025, and two-thirds of participants chose Pepsi Zero Sugar over Coke Zero Sugar. The commercial backed up the creative concept with real data, giving viewers a reason to reconsider their cola choice beyond just brand loyalty.
The ad also referenced the viral 2025 Coldplay kiss cam moment, showing two polar bears caught on a jumbotron lifting their Pepsi cans proudly. It was layered, current, and gave people something to talk about. Northwestern’s review panel praised it for making Pepsi drinkers feel good about their choice while potentially making Coke drinkers question theirs.
What made it work? Clear product benefit, bold creative that earned attention, and cultural relevance that extended the conversation beyond the 30-second spot. Pepsi didn’t just buy airtime—they created a moment that generated $550 million in earned media value across social platforms. That’s how you maximize a Super Bowl investment.
The risk paid off because the execution was tight. The polar bear wasn’t just a gimmick—it was the vehicle for a legitimate product claim backed by consumer testing. When you’re spending $10 million on 30 seconds, that kind of strategic thinking matters.
Pokémon’s 30th Anniversary: Nostalgia Done Right
Pokémon celebrated 30 years with a star-studded commercial that asked a simple question: “What’s your favorite?” Trevor Noah, Lady Gaga, Jisoo from BLACKPINK, Formula One driver Charles Leclerc, and soccer star Lamine Yamal all revealed their favorite Pokémon characters. Lady Gaga singing Jigglypuff’s lullaby in a recording studio was the standout moment that had people rewatching and sharing.
This commercial understood something fundamental about nostalgia marketing. It wasn’t trying to make you feel old—it was celebrating the fact that Pokémon has been part of multiple generations’ lives. The diverse cast of celebrities from different industries and countries showed the franchise’s global, multigenerational reach without being heavy-handed about it.
The ad worked because it tapped into genuine affection people have for these characters. Trevor Noah later told reporters that Pokémon had been part of his life since age 9 or 10, starting with trading cards in South Africa and evolving through the Game Boy games. That authenticity came through. These weren’t celebrities awkwardly holding products—they were fans sharing something they actually cared about.
Pokémon also extended the campaign beyond the commercial. They launched a “What’s Your Favorite?” photography feature in Pokémon GO, letting anyone pose with their favorite character and share it with #Pokemon30. The Super Bowl ad wasn’t an isolated moment—it was the launch point for a year-long celebration that gave fans ways to participate.
The results speak for themselves. YouTube’s AdBlitz competition, which ranks commercials based on views and engagement, showed strong performance for the Pokémon spot. More importantly, it reminded people why the franchise has lasted 30 years: it creates genuine connections between characters and fans.
That’s the lesson here. Nostalgia works when it’s rooted in real emotional connections, not just “remember this thing from the past?” Pokémon gave people permission to celebrate something they loved, and that’s more powerful than any celebrity cameo alone could ever be.
The 3 Worst Super Bowl Commercials and Why They Failed
Not every brand got it right. Some commercials were confusing, others were tone-deaf, and a few were just plain boring despite massive budgets and A-list talent. The worst performers shared common problems: unclear messaging, gimmicks without substance, and creative concepts that prioritized being clever over being effective.
Northwestern’s Kellogg panel gave failing grades to ads that couldn’t clearly communicate what they were selling or why anyone should care. When you’re paying more than a quarter million dollars per second, confusion is expensive. Here are the three commercials that missed the mark and what went wrong.
Coinbase: All Style, No Substance
Coinbase brought back the Backstreet Boys for a karaoke-style singalong set to “Everybody,” billing it as “the world’s biggest singalong about crypto.” The problem? After watching it, you still had no idea what Coinbase actually does or why you’d want to use it.
Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management gave Coinbase a failing grade for exactly this reason. The ad leaned entirely on 90s nostalgia and the Backstreet Boys’ comeback appeal without connecting it to any actual product benefit or value proposition. Professor Tim Calkins noted that it wasn’t clear what they were advertising or what the benefit was—and ultimately, a Super Bowl spot needs to build the business and the brand by being clear about what the product is and why someone should buy it.
This is a common trap with nostalgia marketing. Brands assume that bringing back something people loved automatically creates positive associations with their product. It doesn’t. You still need to give people a reason to care about what you’re selling. The Backstreet Boys got people’s attention, but Coinbase didn’t do anything with it.
Compare this to Dunkin’s approach with 90s nostalgia, which we’ll discuss next. Dunkin used nostalgic elements to tell a story about their product’s origin and gave viewers something substantive to connect with. Coinbase just played a song and hoped people would feel warm and fuzzy about cryptocurrency. That’s not strategy—that’s wishful thinking.
The ad also suffered from timing issues. Cryptocurrency has had a rocky few years with regulatory concerns and market volatility. A vague, feel-good commercial doesn’t address any of the legitimate questions or concerns potential users might have. If anything, it reinforced the perception that crypto companies are all flash and no substance.
When you’re spending $10 million on 30 seconds, you need to earn that investment back. Coinbase didn’t. They bought attention but failed to convert it into understanding, interest, or action. That’s an expensive mistake that smaller businesses can learn from: nostalgia and celebrity power mean nothing if you can’t clearly articulate what you do and why it matters.
