Visibility vs Effectiveness: The Real Story of Super Bowl LX
The confetti may have settled at Levi Stadium, but for brands that invested big budgets in Super Bowl LX, determining whether they were a winner or not, continued long after the final whistle. With 30-second commercial slots costing between $8 million and $10 million, these results certainly mattered. CARMA tracked the impact of this year’s event, analysing which brands truly cut through the noise and how the media narrative evolved after the game was over.
Last year, headlines were dominated by the presence of high-profile attendees such as Donald Trump and Taylor Swift, alongside record-breaking advertising costs. This year, the spotlight shifted. In the absence of those headline-grabbing appearances, much of the pre-game and in-game conversation centred on Bad Bunny and the halftime Show, which featured special guests Lady Gaga and Ricky Martin. The shift in narrative highlights how quickly the focus of media attention can change, and why brands need real-time intelligence to understand where value is truly being generated.
Super Bowl LX may have produced a clear winner on the field, but our data revealed a far more complex picture off it. As we analysed coverage, sentiment and share of voice, it became clear that volume did not always translate into approval, and visibility did not necessarily equate to effectiveness. The insights from our dashboard tell a deeper story about who really won the media battle, and why.
Bad Bunny’s halftime performance metrics force a double-take
In the immediate aftermath of the halftime show, social media was flooded with claims that Bad Bunny had delivered “the most-watched Super Bowl Halftime Show in history,” reportedly drawing more than 135 million viewers. The figure gained rapid traction across social platforms and was echoed by several news outlets.
An account posted the incorrect halftime show viewership figures before later posting a correction in the caption
However, official Nielsen data later confirmed that the performance averaged 128.2 million viewers, making it the fourth most-watched Halftime show in history, not the first. The broadcast itself ranked as the second most-watched Super Bowl of all time, falling just short of last year’s record across NBC, Peacock, Telemundo, NBC Sports Digital and NFL+.
Super Bowl and Bad Bunny miss US TV audience record but new mark set for social media – The Telegraph
What proved more revealing than the correction itself was how far it travelled. CARMA’s dashboard showed a 94% decrease in social media posts referencing the verified figure compared to the initial, inflated claim. In other words, the incorrect information significantly outperformed the correction in terms of reach and engagement.
For brands and sponsors, this illustrates a critical reality: narrative momentum can outpace official data. In high-profile, high-investment moments such as the Super Bowl, real-time monitoring is essential not only to measure visibility but to track accuracy, sentiment and emerging reputational risks.
Online Media Volume coverage of brands associated with the Super Bowl over time from 2 – 16 February 2026
Apple dominated coverage despite not airing a traditional commercial
The heightened focus on the halftime show translated directly into measurable impact for its official sponsor. CARMA’s research showed that Bad Bunny was the most mentioned individual associated with Super Bowl LX, and Apple, as the halftime Show sponsor, captured the resulting media momentum.
Notably, Apple did not air a traditional 30- or 60-second Super Bowl commercial. Instead, it concentrated its investment on sponsorship and cultural alignment. The strategy proved effective. Our data showed Apple recorded the highest total cross-channel volume over time*, outperforming Amazon by just over 2%. In a landscape dominated by high-cost spot advertising, sponsorship-led visibility delivered the strongest share of voice.
By anchoring itself to the halftime show, Apple positioned its wider ecosystem, from Apple Music to curated playlists and editorial content, at the focal point of the Super Bowl conversation. Rather than competing for attention during commercial breaks, it became embedded within the event’s most talked-about cultural moment.
Amazon and Google followed as the next most visible brands in our volume analysis. Unlike Apple, both relied on traditional ad placements aired during the game, strategies that generated significant coverage, but with differing levels of resonance and sentiment.
Top Brands associated with the Super Bowl featured within online media from 2 – 16 February 2026
When visibility turns polarising
Amazon’s primary Super Bowl commercial focused on its next-generation AI assistant, Alexa+, featuring actors Chris Hemsworth and his wife Elsa Pataky, in a light-hearted narrative about the evolving role of artificial intelligence in daily life. Alongside this, Amazon-owned Ring aired a commercial showcasing its “Search Party” feature, which demonstrated how connected camera networks could help locate a lost dog.
While the Alexa+ ad generated steady engagement, the Ring commercial proved significantly more polarising. Online discussion quickly shifted from the emotional storyline to broader concerns around surveillance and data privacy. Commentary across social and digital media questioned whether the advert normalised the idea of a comprehensive camera network, transforming what was intended as a reassuring narrative into a reputational flashpoint.
In the days following the broadcast, Ring ended a planned partnership with surveillance technology firm Flock Safety. Although both companies described the decision as a strategic review, the timing underscored how rapidly public sentiment can influence corporate narratives in high-visibility moments.
Google combines volume with strong resonance
Industry rankings and public voting lists often tell different stories. This year’s leading “best of” evaluations, including USA Today’s Ad Meter, the Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review, iSpot, and System1, varied considerably in their assessments of overall performance. To compare cross-platform recognition more objectively, we created an AI-assisted composite leaderboard, standardising results across these major lists to identify consistent top performers.
Google’s “New Home” commercial for Gemini emerged as one of the strongest balanced campaigns. The 60-second spot secured the #1 ranking in the 22nd Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review, highlighting its strategic clarity and emotional resonance.
From a media visibility perspective, Google ranked third in total cross-channel volume over time*, trailing Apple and Amazon by 14% and 12% respectively. While it did not dominate share of voice, it achieved something arguably more valuable. Strong qualitative endorsement combined with significant reach.
Beyond Google, CARMA’s Top 10 brands by volume reflected a clear thematic pattern. AI-focused organisations, including Anthropic and OpenAI, featured prominently in the overall conversation. However, high visibility did not consistently translate into high-ranking positions across the leading ad review lists.
AI brands drove conversation but didn’t dominate ranking lists
Although AI-focused brands featured prominently in overall media volume, this visibility did not translate into consistent success across leading effectiveness rankings. When comparing performance against major “best of” evaluations, including our AI-assisted composite leaderboard, only Budweiser, a traditional FMCG brand, secured the top overall position. Other consumer-facing brands such as Pepsi Zero Sugar, Lay’s, Michelob Ultra, Levi’s and Expedia also outperformed many AI-led campaigns in cross-list evaluations.
AI-native brands generated significant attention, but often for conflicting reasons. Anthropic achieved strong visibility partly through competitive positioning within the AI space, while Amazon’s broader AI narrative was overshadowed by scrutiny surrounding Ring’s campaign. Meanwhile, Meta’s “Athletic Intelligence” glasses received comparatively limited earned media traction, despite the scale of its product launch.
As Tim Calkins, clinical professor of marketing and co-lead of the Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review, noted when discussing AI.com’s commercial, “After watching the ad, people were still left wondering what the product was.” The advert ultimately received an “F” grade in Kellogg’s review. Our data reinforces this assessment: several AI-focused campaigns ranked highly in raw visibility, but when sentiment and qualitative metrics were applied, they struggled to generate favourable audience perception.
Importance of sorting the signal from the noise
Super Bowl LX demonstrated a recurring truth in modern media. Visibility alone does not define success. High volume did not always equate to positive sentiment, strong engagement did not necessarily translate into effectiveness, and strong critical rankings did not guarantee share of voice. Likewise, sponsorship alone did not automatically secure sustained exposure.
In a media environment where narratives evolve in real time, measuring return requires more than surface-level metrics. It demands integrated analysis of coverage volume, sentiment, resonance, and competitive positioning across channels.
The brands that extracted the greatest value from the Super Bowl were not simply those that generated the most noise, but those that combined clarity of message with measurable impact. For organisations investing at this scale, separating perception from performance is critical.
CARMA’s dashboard enables brands to move beyond anecdotal evaluation and headline rankings, providing structured, evidence-based insight into what truly drives reputation, engagement and return. In moments as high-profile and high-investment as the Super Bowl, sorting the signal from the noise is not optional, it is essential.
*most volume over time = week leading up to and after Super Bowl LX (2 – 16 February 2026), looking at “Top Brands (Articles)” in Tier 1 US media publications.
Speak with one of our experienced consultants about your media monitoring and communications evaluation today.
Commentary
Visibility vs Effectiveness: The Real Story of Super Bowl LX
The confetti may have settled at Levi Stadium, but for brands that invested big budgets in Super Bowl LX, determining whether they were a winner or not, continued long after the final whistle. With 30-second commercial slots costing between $8 million and $10 million, these results certainly mattered. CARMA tracked the impact of this year’s event, analysing which brands truly cut through the noise and how the media narrative evolved after the game was over.
Last year, headlines were dominated by the presence of high-profile attendees such as Donald Trump and Taylor Swift, alongside record-breaking advertising costs. This year, the spotlight shifted. In the absence of those headline-grabbing appearances, much of the pre-game and in-game conversation centred on Bad Bunny and the halftime Show, which featured special guests Lady Gaga and Ricky Martin. The shift in narrative highlights how quickly the focus of media attention can change, and why brands need real-time intelligence to understand where value is truly being generated.
Super Bowl LX may have produced a clear winner on the field, but our data revealed a far more complex picture off it. As we analysed coverage, sentiment and share of voice, it became clear that volume did not always translate into approval, and visibility did not necessarily equate to effectiveness. The insights from our dashboard tell a deeper story about who really won the media battle, and why.
Bad Bunny’s halftime performance metrics force a double-take
In the immediate aftermath of the halftime show, social media was flooded with claims that Bad Bunny had delivered “the most-watched Super Bowl Halftime Show in history,” reportedly drawing more than 135 million viewers. The figure gained rapid traction across social platforms and was echoed by several news outlets.
An account posted the incorrect halftime show viewership figures before later posting a correction in the caption
However, official Nielsen data later confirmed that the performance averaged 128.2 million viewers, making it the fourth most-watched Halftime show in history, not the first. The broadcast itself ranked as the second most-watched Super Bowl of all time, falling just short of last year’s record across NBC, Peacock, Telemundo, NBC Sports Digital and NFL+.
Super Bowl and Bad Bunny miss US TV audience record but new mark set for social media – The Telegraph
What proved more revealing than the correction itself was how far it travelled. CARMA’s dashboard showed a 94% decrease in social media posts referencing the verified figure compared to the initial, inflated claim. In other words, the incorrect information significantly outperformed the correction in terms of reach and engagement.
For brands and sponsors, this illustrates a critical reality: narrative momentum can outpace official data. In high-profile, high-investment moments such as the Super Bowl, real-time monitoring is essential not only to measure visibility but to track accuracy, sentiment and emerging reputational risks.
Online Media Volume coverage of brands associated with the Super Bowl over time from 2 – 16 February 2026
Apple dominated coverage despite not airing a traditional commercial
The heightened focus on the halftime show translated directly into measurable impact for its official sponsor. CARMA’s research showed that Bad Bunny was the most mentioned individual associated with Super Bowl LX, and Apple, as the halftime Show sponsor, captured the resulting media momentum.
Notably, Apple did not air a traditional 30- or 60-second Super Bowl commercial. Instead, it concentrated its investment on sponsorship and cultural alignment. The strategy proved effective. Our data showed Apple recorded the highest total cross-channel volume over time*, outperforming Amazon by just over 2%. In a landscape dominated by high-cost spot advertising, sponsorship-led visibility delivered the strongest share of voice.
By anchoring itself to the halftime show, Apple positioned its wider ecosystem, from Apple Music to curated playlists and editorial content, at the focal point of the Super Bowl conversation. Rather than competing for attention during commercial breaks, it became embedded within the event’s most talked-about cultural moment.
Amazon and Google followed as the next most visible brands in our volume analysis. Unlike Apple, both relied on traditional ad placements aired during the game, strategies that generated significant coverage, but with differing levels of resonance and sentiment.
Top Brands associated with the Super Bowl featured within online media from 2 – 16 February 2026
When visibility turns polarising
Amazon’s primary Super Bowl commercial focused on its next-generation AI assistant, Alexa+, featuring actors Chris Hemsworth and his wife Elsa Pataky, in a light-hearted narrative about the evolving role of artificial intelligence in daily life. Alongside this, Amazon-owned Ring aired a commercial showcasing its “Search Party” feature, which demonstrated how connected camera networks could help locate a lost dog.
While the Alexa+ ad generated steady engagement, the Ring commercial proved significantly more polarising. Online discussion quickly shifted from the emotional storyline to broader concerns around surveillance and data privacy. Commentary across social and digital media questioned whether the advert normalised the idea of a comprehensive camera network, transforming what was intended as a reassuring narrative into a reputational flashpoint.
In the days following the broadcast, Ring ended a planned partnership with surveillance technology firm Flock Safety. Although both companies described the decision as a strategic review, the timing underscored how rapidly public sentiment can influence corporate narratives in high-visibility moments.
Google combines volume with strong resonance
Industry rankings and public voting lists often tell different stories. This year’s leading “best of” evaluations, including USA Today’s Ad Meter, the Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review, iSpot, and System1, varied considerably in their assessments of overall performance. To compare cross-platform recognition more objectively, we created an AI-assisted composite leaderboard, standardising results across these major lists to identify consistent top performers.
Google’s “New Home” commercial for Gemini emerged as one of the strongest balanced campaigns. The 60-second spot secured the #1 ranking in the 22nd Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review, highlighting its strategic clarity and emotional resonance.
From a media visibility perspective, Google ranked third in total cross-channel volume over time*, trailing Apple and Amazon by 14% and 12% respectively. While it did not dominate share of voice, it achieved something arguably more valuable. Strong qualitative endorsement combined with significant reach.
Beyond Google, CARMA’s Top 10 brands by volume reflected a clear thematic pattern. AI-focused organisations, including Anthropic and OpenAI, featured prominently in the overall conversation. However, high visibility did not consistently translate into high-ranking positions across the leading ad review lists.
AI brands drove conversation but didn’t dominate ranking lists
Although AI-focused brands featured prominently in overall media volume, this visibility did not translate into consistent success across leading effectiveness rankings. When comparing performance against major “best of” evaluations, including our AI-assisted composite leaderboard, only Budweiser, a traditional FMCG brand, secured the top overall position. Other consumer-facing brands such as Pepsi Zero Sugar, Lay’s, Michelob Ultra, Levi’s and Expedia also outperformed many AI-led campaigns in cross-list evaluations.
AI-native brands generated significant attention, but often for conflicting reasons. Anthropic achieved strong visibility partly through competitive positioning within the AI space, while Amazon’s broader AI narrative was overshadowed by scrutiny surrounding Ring’s campaign. Meanwhile, Meta’s “Athletic Intelligence” glasses received comparatively limited earned media traction, despite the scale of its product launch.
As Tim Calkins, clinical professor of marketing and co-lead of the Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review, noted when discussing AI.com’s commercial, “After watching the ad, people were still left wondering what the product was.” The advert ultimately received an “F” grade in Kellogg’s review. Our data reinforces this assessment: several AI-focused campaigns ranked highly in raw visibility, but when sentiment and qualitative metrics were applied, they struggled to generate favourable audience perception.
Importance of sorting the signal from the noise
Super Bowl LX demonstrated a recurring truth in modern media. Visibility alone does not define success. High volume did not always equate to positive sentiment, strong engagement did not necessarily translate into effectiveness, and strong critical rankings did not guarantee share of voice. Likewise, sponsorship alone did not automatically secure sustained exposure.
In a media environment where narratives evolve in real time, measuring return requires more than surface-level metrics. It demands integrated analysis of coverage volume, sentiment, resonance, and competitive positioning across channels.
The brands that extracted the greatest value from the Super Bowl were not simply those that generated the most noise, but those that combined clarity of message with measurable impact. For organisations investing at this scale, separating perception from performance is critical.
CARMA’s dashboard enables brands to move beyond anecdotal evaluation and headline rankings, providing structured, evidence-based insight into what truly drives reputation, engagement and return. In moments as high-profile and high-investment as the Super Bowl, sorting the signal from the noise is not optional, it is essential.
*most volume over time = week leading up to and after Super Bowl LX (2 – 16 February 2026), looking at “Top Brands (Articles)” in Tier 1 US media publications.
Speak with one of our experienced consultants about your media monitoring and communications evaluation today.