Scarlett Johansson Once Starred in the Most Expensive Super Bowl Commercial Ever.
Super Bowl commercials have become a cultural event of their own — sometimes more talked about than the game itself. With millions of viewers tuning in, brands are willing to spend staggering amounts of money for just a few seconds of airtime. But even in this high‑stakes advertising arena, one commercial stands above the rest.
In 2022, Scarlett Johansson and her husband, Saturday Night Live star Colin Jost, headlined what remains the most expensive Super Bowl commercial ever produced and aired.
Read also: Ozzy and Sharon’s Reclusive Daughter Attends Grammys Tribute
The $26 Million “Mind Reader” Ad
Amazon’s 90‑second Alexa spot, titled “Mind Reader,” aired ahead of the 2022 matchup between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Los Angeles Rams. Its total cost — a jaw‑dropping $26 million — has yet to be surpassed.
The premise was simple but clever: what if Alexa could actually read minds? Johansson and Jost playfully imagine the chaos that would ensue if the smart assistant started revealing thoughts best left unspoken. The ad’s humor, star power, and cinematic production value helped it stand out in a sea of high-budget commercials.
Of course, casting Johansson — the highest‑grossing box office actor of all time — didn’t come cheap. But Amazon clearly believed the investment was worth it.
Read also: Doomsday Rumors Heat Up: Hemsworth Says Thor Would Love a Storm Crossover
Johansson’s History With Super Bowl Ads
This wasn’t Johansson’s first appearance on Super Bowl Sunday. In 2014, she starred in a commercial for SodaStream, which also generated plenty of buzz at the time.
Other Big‑Budget Super Bowl Spots
While Amazon’s “Mind Reader” holds the record, several other brands have come close. Notable high‑spenders include:
- General Motors’ “No More Norway”
- Cadillac’s “ScissorHandsFree”
Both reportedly cost around $22 million to produce and air.
With advertising prices climbing every year, it’s only a matter of time before another brand attempts to dethrone Amazon’s record.
The Most Controversial Super Bowl Ads
Not all Super Bowl commercials are remembered fondly. Some have sparked intense backlash, igniting debates about taste, representation, and marketing ethics.
One notable example is Carl’s Jr.’s “All Natural Burger” (2015). The ad featured model Charlotte McKinney strolling through a market in minimal clothing, drawing exaggerated attention from onlookers. Critics slammed the commercial for objectifying women and relying on outdated, hyper‑sexualized marketing tropes.
And that’s just one entry in a long list of ads that have pushed boundaries — sometimes too far — in the pursuit of attention.
If that wasn’t enough, the trend continued last year when influencer Alix Earle appeared in a bikini top to promote the company’s “Hangover Burger.” The spot immediately drew criticism, with TV watchdog groups comparing it to “soft‑core porn” and accusing the brand of leaning on shock value rather than creativity. The backlash reignited long‑standing debates about how far advertisers should go during one of the most‑watched broadcasts in the world.
Another memorable entry in the Super Bowl controversy archives came in 2016, when PETA attempted to air a commercial titled “Last Longer.” Created ahead of Super Bowl 50, the ad compared the sexual stamina of a meat‑eating couple with that of a vegan couple — leaning heavily into explicit innuendo and provocative imagery to make its point.
The commercial never made it to air. Broadcasters rejected it outright, deeming the content too sexually explicit for television, even by Super Bowl standards, where boundary‑pushing ads are practically a tradition. PETA, unsurprisingly, used the rejection to fuel its publicity campaign, releasing the ad online and sparking a wave of debate about censorship, shock marketing, and the organization’s long‑standing reliance on sexualized messaging.
Another infamous Super Bowl controversy came in 2015 with GoDaddy’s “Journey Home” commercial. The ad followed a puppy who falls off the back of a pickup truck and bravely makes his way home — only to discover that his owners have already sold him through a GoDaddy‑powered website. What was intended as a tongue‑in‑cheek twist landed with a thud.
Animal rights organisations condemned the commercial for trivialising pet abandonment and irresponsible breeding practices. The backlash was swift enough that GoDaddy pulled the ad before it ever aired during the game. Then‑CEO Blake Irving publicly acknowledged the misstep, saying: “What should have been a fun and funny ad clearly missed the mark and we will not air it.”
Another major Super Bowl misfire came in 2011, when Groupon aired its now‑infamous “Save the Money – Tibet” commercial. The ad opened with actor Timothy Hutton delivering a solemn message: “The Tibetan people are in trouble. Their very culture is in jeopardy.”
But the tone abruptly shifted. The scene cut to Hutton sitting in a restaurant, cheerfully announcing that despite Tibet’s struggles, “they still whip up an amazing fish curry. And since 200 of us bought on Groupon.com, we’re getting $30 worth of Tibetan food for just $15.”
The attempt at satire landed poorly. Viewers and advocacy groups accused Groupon of trivialising Tibet’s political crisis and using human suffering as a punchline to sell coupons. The backlash was immediate and intense.
In response, Groupon published a blog post explaining the creative intent behind the campaign. The company said it wanted to poke fun at itself — a business that evolved from a philanthropic collective‑action platform (ThePoint.com) into a discount site — by framing deals as faux‑noble causes. They hired mockumentary legend Christopher Guest to direct and enlisted celebrity “philanthropists” to deliver the joke. Three ads ran before, during, and after the game.
But the explanation did little to calm critics. The Tibet spot remains one of the most widely cited examples of Super Bowl advertising gone wrong.
A more recent and deeply troubling controversy emerged in 2025, when Kanye West appeared in a bizarre ad promoting his Yeezy brand. The spot surfaced just days after he had posted a series of widely condemned antisemitic remarks, and although the commercial did not air nationally, those who did see it were outraged.
The ad showed West lying in a dentist’s chair, speaking directly into an iPhone camera. “So what’s up, guys, I spent, like, all the money for the commercial on these new teeth. So once again, I had to shoot it on the iPhone,” he said, before directing viewers to visit Yeezy.com.
What viewers found there sparked immediate backlash: the website was selling T‑shirts featuring a swastika, a symbol associated with hatred, violence, and extremist ideology. The inclusion of such imagery drew widespread condemnation and intensified criticism of West’s recent behavior.
The incident quickly became one of the most disturbing Super Bowl‑adjacent advertising controversies in recent memory, raising serious questions about platform responsibility, brand oversight, and the boundaries of shock marketing.
Another Super Bowl ad that sparked intense backlash was Nationwide’s “Boy” commercial from 2015. The spot featured a young boy narrating all the life experiences he would never get to have — learning to ride a bike, traveling, falling in love — before revealing the reason: he had died in an accident.
The ad’s somber twist stunned viewers who had expected the usual light‑hearted Super Bowl fare. Many felt blindsided and accused Nationwide of exploiting childhood tragedy to sell insurance during what is typically a celebratory broadcast.
In response to the uproar, the company defended the campaign’s intention, saying the message “was to start a conversation, not sell insurance.” Nationwide added, “We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us — the safety and well‑being of our children.”
Despite the explanation, the commercial remains one of the most jarring and divisive ads ever to air during the Super Bowl.
Another Super Bowl ad that drew significant backlash was General Motors’ “Robot” commercial from 2007. The 60‑second spot followed an assembly‑line robot that drops a bolt during production and is subsequently fired. The ad then shows the robot wandering the city in despair before dramatically jumping off a bridge — only for the scene to reveal itself as a dream sequence.
Even with the twist, viewers were disturbed by the imagery. Critics argued that the commercial trivialised suicide, and mental‑health advocates condemned the depiction as irresponsible. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention called the ad “inappropriate” and urged GM to reconsider its messaging.
The controversy ultimately overshadowed the ad’s intended message about quality control, cementing it as one of the most criticised Super Bowl commercials of its era.
Another ad from Groupon’s ill‑fated 2011 Super Bowl campaign drew heavy criticism — this time for its treatment of Brazil’s environmental crisis. The “Save the Money – Rainforest” commercial, fronted by Elizabeth Hurley, was accused of trivialising the devastation of Amazon deforestation by seemingly comparing it to a Brazilian bikini wax.
The ad followed the same satirical format as the Tibet spot, presenting a serious global issue before abruptly pivoting to a light‑hearted pitch for a Groupon deal. Viewers and environmental advocates argued that the attempt at humor was tone‑deaf and reduced a critical ecological crisis to a punchline.
Groupon founder Andrew Mason later defended the campaign, saying the ads were never intended to offend. Instead, he claimed they were designed to highlight important causes while poking fun at the company’s own origins as a philanthropic collective‑action platform. But much like the Tibet commercial, the explanation did little to quell the backlash.
