Why Budweiser, Pepsi and Dunkin’ Won Super Bowl Advertising While Michelob Ultra Fell Short

The aftermath of Super Bowl 60 didn’t just leave football fans talking about the game—it also reignited a vigorous debate in the advertising world about what makes a Big Game commercial truly memorable. While scores of brands invested millions of dollars in 30- and 60-second spots during the broadcast, recent recall data shows that not all Super Bowl ads deliver equal value.

According to new research from Ipsos, which measured spontaneous brand recall—the essential measure of whether viewers actually remember an ad—only a handful of advertisers emerged from the Big Game with significant traction in viewers’ minds. The rest, by contrast, barely registered at all.

Big Winners: Budweiser, Pepsi and Dunkin’

At the top of the recall rankings was Budweiser, which dominated the field with its “American Icons” spot. The ad featured a foal and an eaglet growing up together to the classic Lynyrd Skynyrd song Free Bird, creating a deeply emotional narrative that resonated with viewers. Ipsos data showed that nearly 20 million viewers remembered Budweiser’s ad the morning after the game, and that number climbed to 23 million a week later—a sign that the campaign transcended social feeds and stuck in memory.

Budweiser’s success illustrates the enduring power of long-running brand campaigns that build over time. Unlike ads crafted specifically for a single broadcast moment, this spot extended decades-old brand narratives that millions of consumers already recognised.

In second place was Pepsi, whose ad leaned into the old cola rivalry with a polar bear blind taste-test gag featuring Coca-Cola’s famed mascot choosing Pepsi. Measuring roughly 12 million in spontaneous recall, Pepsi succeeded because the creative built on decades of competitive messaging and a familiar cultural rivalry, making it easy for viewers to connect the dots.

Dunkin’ claimed third place with around 11 million recalls. Its ad starred Ben Affleck in an affectionate sitcom parody that turned out to be effective for the same reasons Budweiser and Pepsi did well: it was emotionally engaging, instantly recognisable, and unmistakably tied to the Dunkin’ brand.

Together, these three brands made the case that Super Bowl advertising still works—but only when it serves a strategic purpose. They didn’t chase a momentary burst of social attention; they reinforced ongoing brand narratives that people already understood.

Underperformers: Most Brands Missed the Mark

The Ipsos data also offered sobering news for the majority of advertisers. More than half the brands that aired commercials during the game gained less than 1% spontaneous recall the day after their ad ran. For many, the massive investment—often equivalent to a full year’s marketing budget—yielded very little audience recognition.

One of the most striking examples was Michelob Ultra, which placed 44th out of 45 brands in recall despite producing a glossy, star-studded spot featuring celebrities like Kurt Russell, Chloe Kim, and T.J. Oshie. The ad reportedly cost upwards of $8 million to produce and air; yet almost no one remembered it immediately afterward. Echoes of its presence a week later were likely due more to “ghost recall” from other Michelob Ultra marketing efforts (including Olympic advertising) than the Super Bowl spot itself.

Another underperformer was technology/security brand Ring, which managed 26th place with fewer than one million viewers recalling the brand. Its later uptick in recall seems tied to negative reactions around the ad’s narrative rather than positive brand reinforcement.

Why the Disconnect? Campaign Consistency Matters

So what separates the brands that benefited from their Super Bowl investment from those that didn’t? Consistency and familiarity appear to be key.

Budweiser and Pepsi didn’t treat their Super Bowl ads as one-off extravaganzas tailored just for the event. Instead, they extended and amplified long-running campaigns that consumers had been exposed to repeatedly. Budweiser in particular leaned on decades of Clydesdale imagery, a visual and emotional cue instantly associated with the brand. In fact, this was the 48th year Budweiser used its Clydesdales at the Super Bowl, embedding the imagery deeply into cultural memory.

That continuity helps brands bypass the analytical mind and tap into the memory directly. Marketing research has long shown that distinctive assets—recognisable symbols, consistent themes, repeated motifs—make it easier for audiences to recall a brand even without rational analysis or conscious effort.

In contrast, bespoke Super Bowl ads—those created specifically for the game with no prior brand groundwork—often fail to trigger that instant association. They may be visually appealing or humorous, but if they don’t connect clearly to the brand’s core identity, they risk fading almost as quickly as the broadcast itself.

The Broader Lesson for Marketers

The Ipsos data and Super Bowl results highlight a structural tension in advertising: while everyone wants to be noticed with a bold, new creative stunt, the most enduring brand gains often come from strategic consistency over time, not one-off shocks.

Marketers should take a lesson from brands like Budweiser and Pepsi, which leveraged their heritage and ongoing narratives rather than relying on fleeting spectacle. In an age where viewers can watch ads online before or after the game and entertainment experiences are increasingly fragmented, brand recall increasingly depends on long-term distinctiveness rather than short-term novelty.

For advertisers aiming to make the most out of one of the year’s most expensive media opportunities, the message from the latest Super Bowl is clear: don’t win the moment—win the memory.