Anthropic's ad, a clever jab at OpenAI, failed spectacularly with its mass audience. Scoring in the bottom 3% for likability, it proves that "inside baseball" marketing, which resonates with a niche tech audience, often results in widespread confusion and negative perception among the general public.
Related Insights
Anthropic's Claude ad resonated strongly with the tech community on X but confused the mainstream Super Bowl audience. This highlights a critical marketing pitfall: niche messaging that works in a specific subculture can easily fail on a mass stage, requiring post-hoc explanations from the 'in-the-know' crowd.
Anthropic's Super Bowl ad was a massive success within the niche, terminally-online tech community on X (Twitter), but it completely failed with the general public. This demonstrates how hyper-targeted messaging can create a barbell outcome on a mass media stage, excelling with one audience while alienating another, ultimately ranking in the bottom 3% of all Super Bowl ads.
The conflict between AI labs has moved beyond a 'cold war' of poaching talent to a public battle for perception. Anthropic’s ads represent a 'gloves off' moment, using what the hosts call 'fear-mongering' and 'propaganda' to directly attack a competitor's business model on a massive stage like the Super Bowl.
Anthropic's ads lack a call-to-action, indicating their primary goal isn't consumer downloads. Instead, they use fear-mongering to "muddy the water" around OpenAI's upcoming ad product, aiming to make enterprise decision-makers and regulators wary of ad-supported AI models before they launch.
Anthropic's ad wasn't aimed at the mass market. Releasing it before the Super Bowl was a calculated move to capture tech press attention. The true goal was for potential enterprise customers to see the ad and share it internally on platforms like Slack, making it a clever B2B marketing tactic disguised as a consumer play.
By framing its competitor's potential ads as a "betrayal," Anthropic's Super Bowl campaign reinforced the public's negative perception of AI as another manipulative tech scheme. This damaged the industry's overall reputation in a country already highly skeptical of the technology, turning the attack into friendly fire.
While OpenAI and Anthropic ran abstract, niche, or philosophical ads, Google demonstrated a tangible, heartwarming use case for its AI (planning a room remodel). For a mainstream Super Bowl audience unfamiliar with the technology, showing a simple, delightful product experience is far more effective than trying to explain complex concepts or engage in industry inside jokes.
Anthropic's campaign risks poisoning the well for all consumer AI assistants by stoking fear about ad integration. This high-risk strategy accepts potential damage to its own brand and the category in order to inflict greater harm on the market leader, OpenAI.
By attacking the concept of ads in LLMs, Anthropic may not just hurt OpenAI but also erode general consumer trust in all AI chatbots. This high-risk strategy could backfire if the public becomes skeptical of the entire category, including Anthropic's own products, especially if they ever decide to introduce advertising.
Anthropic's ads imply OpenAI's upcoming ad integration will compromise AI responses with biased, low-quality suggestions. This is a "dirty" but effective tactic, creating fear and doubt about a competitor's product by attacking the category leader without naming them.