When it comes to watching the Super Bowl, many consumers tune in for the jaw-dropping, tear-jerking, laugh-out-loud moments of – you guessed it – the commercial breaks. 

Each Super Bowl Sunday sets the stage for brand advertising trends of the year. The creative advertising approaches all stem from the objective of making viewers feel something – a technique that helps influence long-term memory and drive purchase intent. To get a better understanding of how brands use their $5+ million investments, Ace Metric looked at the emotional impact of past Super Bowl ads that earned the highest score (100*) for one of the following game-day ad emotions they measure: funny, inspiring, narrative (storytelling), WTF and eerie. 

The funniest ads

Humor is relied on by many advertisers on Super Bowl Sunday. According to Ace Metric’s studies (since 2014), 25 percent of all ads and 60 percent of all Super Bowl ads fall into the humor category. Ads that get it right create strong post-game buzz. 

The funniest ads combine quirkiness and humor to make a lasting impression. Examples include Audi’s “Doberhuahua;” the star-studded, “You’re not you when you’re hungry” campaign from Snickers; and Doritos crowdsourced “Crash the Super Bowl” campaign. 

The inspiring ads

Even if your team doesn’t make it to the Super Bowl, you might feel a rush while watching players compete in a career-defining championship game. Capitalizing on the emotions behind game day can give brands a chance to tap into what viewers are already feeling. According to Ace Metric’s studies (since 2014), less than 9 percent of all ads and 23 percent of Super Bowl ads fall in the inspirational category. 

The subject of inspiring ads tends to span a wide range but the key is ensuring viewers connect the inspiration with the brand. One solid example is Microsoft’s 2014 spot “Empowering,” which demonstrated to viewers the positive impact technology has on our lives while weaving in their products. Other examples that have hit Ace Metric’s highest score include Budweiser’s “Puppy love” and Chevy’s “Romance” in 2014. 

The WTF ads

Ads that signal the WTF emotion are confusing, leaving viewers with a “WTF did I just watch?” feeling. Found in 13 percent of all ads and 30 percent of Super Bowl ads (since 2014), these campaigns go for the statement or wow factor. WTF ads tend to generate a lot of buzz around the ad – though not always positive. 

Examples of high-scoring WTF Super Bowl ads since 2014 include Squarespace’s 2015 ad, “Dreaming with Jeff” and 84 Lumber’s “The journey.” 

The eerie ads

Some brands go for the weird – or eerie – ads to get attention from viewers. Found in less than 17 percent of all ads and 43 percent of Super Bowl ads (since 2014), these ads tap into consumer emotions through non-traditional means (uneasy, scared, etc.). Mountain Dew’s “PuppyMonkeyBaby” is the only Super Bowl ad to score 100 on Ace Metrix’s eerie emotion. The ad was particularly popular on social media after the big game. 

The wrong place for politics

Today, more and more brands are drawing on one thing to capture consumer emotions and headlines: politics. Political and social issue ad campaigns are everywhere. 

But a new poll by research technology firm Morning Consult shows that Americans aren’t looking for ads that make a statement during the Super Bowl**. Two-thirds of consumers call the Super Bowl an inappropriate place for advertisers to make political statements, according to the poll which surveyed over 2,000 Americans on whether they think the Super Bowl has become more political, conducted online by Morning Consult. “The Super Bowl is definitely the wrong place to make a statement,” said Michael Ramlet, chief executive at Morning Consult. 

So while we’re interested in seeing how the ads that air during Super Bowl LIII hit on the funny, inspiring, storytelling, WTF and eerie scales, we’re also waiting to see how brands do – or don’t – mix in politics. 

*The top possible score an ad can achieve, representing the highest quantifiable emotional impact. 

**This poll was conducted from January 03-05, 2019, among a national sample of 2,201 adults. The interviews were conducted online and the data were weighted to approximate a target sample of adults based on age, race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment and region. Results from the full survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.