At Super Bowl LXI — one of the most watched television events of the year — a record number of commercials leaned on artificial intelligence for their creative production, but many viewers and critics felt the results were lackluster or disappointing. Despite the hype around generative AI tools and the technology’s growing presence in media, numerous ads came across as cheaply made, visually unpolished, or confusing in narrative. Critics pointed out that audiences, now very aware of AI output, were quick to spot the flaws in image and video quality and the overall lack of cohesive storytelling.
Some of the most talked-about spots included those from brands like Artlist and Svedka, which leaned heavily on AI generation to create their Big Game ads. Artlist’s ad — meant to showcase the speed and ease of AI content creation — was criticized for its random and disconnected imagery, while Svedka’s vodka commercial, built around robot characters, was met with bewilderment rather than amusement. The general consensus among many viewers was that these ads felt more like AI experiments than polished marketing pieces.
Even ads that used a mix of traditional production and AI effects, such as spots from major brands like Xfinity and Dunkin’, drew comparisons to fully AI-generated work because of noticeable CG flaws and awkward visual elements. This fueled wider skepticism about the use of generative AI in high-stakes creative advertising, especially given the premium cost of Super Bowl airtime — often around $8–$10 million for a 30-second spot.
Amid the criticism, not all AI-related ads were universally panned. Some, like Anthropic’s commercial that playfully jabbed at a competitor’s approach to AI advertising, garnered attention for its humor and clever angle, standing out from more confusing or poorly executed spots. Nonetheless, the overall reaction underscored a gap between the promise of AI as a creative tool and its current execution on one of the world’s largest advertising stages.
