Aura Kasih
This year’s Super Bowl advertising landscape was conspicuously dominated by generative artificial intelligence, yet the overwhelming consensus among industry observers and the public alike is that these AI-driven advertisements largely missed the mark, failing to demonstrate the technology’s practical value or spark genuine enthusiasm. While AI-generated commercials have appeared in previous iterations of the big game, the 2024 event witnessed an unprecedented saturation, fueled by a perceived maturation of image and video generation models. Although still demonstrably inferior to human artistry, these tools have reached a level of sophistication that has emboldened numerous brands to associate their identities with AI-derived visual content.
The allure of generative AI in advertising extends beyond its evolving technical capabilities; it presents a compelling economic proposition. The exorbitant cost of Super Bowl ad slots, ranging from $8 million to $10 million for a mere 30 seconds, makes cost efficiency a paramount concern for advertisers. Historically, the substantial investment in traditional production values translated into commercials that exuded a premium, polished aesthetic. However, this year’s widespread adoption of AI has, in many instances, resulted in advertisements characterized by a discernible cheapness and a lack of meticulous execution, undermining the perceived value of the expensive airtime.
A particularly egregious example of this AI-induced deficit in quality was the advertisement from Artlist, a creative firm that aired exclusively in the New York and Los Angeles markets. The ad’s central premise was to showcase the accessibility of its production suite, suggesting that anyone could generate Super Bowl-ready video content. Artlist even highlighted its agility, noting that its Super Bowl advertising slot was secured only a week prior to the event, with the commercial itself produced in a mere five days. While such rapid turnaround times might ordinarily be commendable, the final product failed to impress, presenting a disjointed and uninspiring showcase of the company’s tools.
Instead of a cohesive narrative or a compelling demonstration of creative potential, the Artlist advertisement devolved into a series of disconnected, brief clips featuring animals engaged in peculiar activities. This montage was accompanied by a voiceover, offering little in the way of innovation or engaging storytelling. In a world already saturated with superficial content, the ad felt less like a promise of future creative possibilities and more like an unsettling harbinger of a diluted aesthetic. The execution amplified the very anxieties that lead many to perceive AI-generated video as inherently derivative and lacking substance.
The vodka brand Svedka, a subsidiary of the Sazerac Company, also leveraged generative AI for its Super Bowl presence. The brand resurrected its established "Fembot" CGI character and introduced a new male counterpart, "Brobot," in an advertisement heavily reliant on AI generation. While Fembot’s design has been a consistent element of the Svedka brand, the Brobot character bore a striking resemblance to the Sonny character from the 2004 film I, Robot, portrayed by Alan Tudyk, raising questions of originality and inspiration.
In pre-game interviews with The Hollywood Reporter, Sazerac’s Chief Marketing Officer, Sara Saunders, indicated that the use of AI in creating the Svedka ad did not yield significant savings in terms of time or expense. Instead, the company believed that an AI-driven aesthetic would resonate thematically with a vodka brand and convey a message that was ultimately "pro-human." The narrative depicted two robots entering a club, dispensing vodka from their bodies, and engaging in a drunken revelry amidst a crowd of awkwardly dancing, AI-generated humans. The intended message was that liquor facilitates a distinctly human form of letting loose for machines.
However, the most memorable aspect of the commercial was Brobot’s dramatic malfunction after consuming a drink. The vodka spilled from his chassis due to a perceived disconnect in his internal fluid processing system, a visual that appeared to be a significant glitch. While Sazerac maintained that Brobot’s short-circuiting was intentional, it strongly resembled the kind of unintended and unappealing visual output that AI models are prone to produce without explicit prompting. This sequence could be interpreted as the character self-destructing through interaction with Svedka’s product, a message that deviates from the typical promotional strategies employed by alcohol companies. Sazerac’s attempt to frame the Svedka ad as a brand-aligned success story overlooks the more impactful contribution that human creativity could have made to a more compelling and ethically sound concept.
The pervasive sentiment among consumers and critics suggests a shared apprehension regarding the unpolished nature of generative AI’s production processes. This collective skepticism amplified the inherent risk for brands that chose to embrace AI for their Super Bowl advertisements this year. The current climate is such that any visual anomaly or perceived sloppiness in advertisements is swiftly attributed to AI, even when the issues might stem from conventional editing deficiencies.
A prime example of this pervasive suspicion surrounds a highly anticipated Jurassic Park-themed advertisement for Comcast’s Xfinity network, featuring digitally de-aged versions of Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. Social media buzzed with comments suggesting the questionable CGI and de-aging effects resembled "AI slop." However, the visual effects were officially credited to Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) and Lola VFX, the latter of which has a long-standing expertise in digitally de-aging actors for major motion pictures, including X-Men: The Last Stand and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Dunkin’s advertisement, "Good Will Dunkin’," also faced similar scrutiny regarding its use of AI. The commercial featured de-aged stars such as Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston parodying a 1990s sitcom. The unnaturally smooth skin and facial movements of the actors sparked considerable debate online about whether AI was employed to achieve the youthful appearance. While the ad achieved viral status, the conversations it generated were largely focused on the speculative "spot the AI" aspect, rather than the coffee and pastries it was intended to promote.
It is important to distinguish between the sophisticated machine learning processes embedded within professional creative software and the text-to-video generative models now commonly associated with AI-generated content. While machine learning techniques are integral to many visual effects, their application in traditional post-production differs significantly from the broad-stroke generation capabilities of current AI models. Inquiries have been made to Dunkin’, ILM, and Lola VFX to ascertain the specific tools utilized in the creation of the Xfinity and Dunkin’ advertisements.
The influence of AI has even permeated competitive advertising strategies, as evidenced by the Super Bowl ad for Pepsi Zero Sugar. Set to Queen’s "I Want to Break Free," the commercial featured a CGI polar bear, a long-standing mascot for Coca-Cola, experiencing an existential crisis over preferring Pepsi in a blind taste test. The ad concluded with the tagline, "Consumers deserve taste," potentially a subtle jab at Coca-Cola’s controversial AI-generated holiday advertisements. In a statement to AdWeek, Pepsi’s Vice President of Marketing, Gustavo Reyna, emphasized the importance of a "human touch" in their advertisements, underscoring a commitment to the "craft and creativity of our people, our talent, and our partners." While this statement could be interpreted as a differentiation from Coca-Cola’s AI initiatives, the association with the "animals doing weird stuff" trope, so carelessly exploited by Artlist, casts a shadow of suspicion.
The proliferation of generative AI advertisements during this year’s Super Bowl was, in part, an attempt to normalize the technology through sheer volume. However, the fundamental objective of an impactful Super Bowl advertisement is to forge a cultural connection, generating positive and memorable associations with the advertised product. Instead, these AI-driven campaigns have left audiences questioning the very nature of the content they are consuming: Is it AI? Does it merely resemble AI? Or has the distinction become irrelevant in the pursuit of expediency and cost reduction?
The implications of this year’s AI advertising performance extend beyond the immediate event. It highlights a critical juncture in the integration of artificial intelligence into creative industries. While the potential for AI to augment human creativity and streamline production processes is undeniable, the Super Bowl showcased a premature and often uninspired application of these tools. Brands that prioritize rapid, low-cost content generation over artistic integrity and consumer engagement risk alienating their audiences and undermining their brand equity. The future success of AI in advertising will likely hinge on its ability to serve as a collaborative partner to human creatives, enhancing rather than replacing the nuanced storytelling and emotional resonance that define truly memorable advertising. The industry must now grapple with the challenge of harnessing AI’s capabilities responsibly, ensuring that technological advancements serve to elevate, not diminish, the art of communication.
Safa Marwah
Ridwan Kamil
