Who Was Watching the Super Bowl Ads? What 1,000 Viewers Told Us About Attention

Every year after the Super Bowl the same ritual plays out: hot takes, rankings, and debates over which brand won the night. A 30-second spot costs upwards of $8 million before production, and what that money buys is an opportunity to be seen by a very large audience. Whether the audience was looking, and whether looking changed anything, are separate questions the rankings never ask.

The day after the 2026 game we surveyed 1,000 viewers and asked three things: what had most of their attention during commercial breaks, what they were doing on their phones, and whether any ad changed how they view or consider a brand. This is what they told us.

31% of viewers said the commercials had most of their attention during the breaks. 30% said their phones did. The rest were talking, getting food, or away from the screen. For an event sold on total reach, the share of the audience that was watching the ads on purpose is the number to start from.

The viewers most invested in the game were also the most engaged with the commercials, and they were more likely to say a past Super Bowl ad had led to a purchase. Attention to the game and attention to the ads travel together.

Among all viewers, 31% said they scrolled social media during the breaks. That figure is slightly higher than the 30% who said their phone had most of their attention, because some people who said they were mostly watching the TV also checked social feeds. 29% said they did not touch their phone at all. The remainder were texting, checking stats, or doing something else.

For brands, the Super Bowl is not a single-screen moment. A spot that is designed to be recognized in a feed, and to continue as a conversation after the break, reaches the second screen. A spot that only works at full attention on the television reaches the third of the room that was giving it.

The topline numbers hide a wide split by age. Among viewers 18 to 34, 42% were on social media during the breaks and only 13% stayed off their phones. Viewers 35 to 54 tracked the topline: 36% on social media, 23% off their phones. Viewers 55 and older stayed with the television.

Only 25% of 18-to-34-year-olds said they actively watched the commercials, the lowest of any age group. Knowing how many people were in front of the screen is not the same as knowing which screen they were looking at.

35% of all viewers said Super Bowl commercials improved their view of a brand, and 36% said one influenced their purchase consideration. 9% said they had already made a purchase driven by a commercial, the day after the game, and another 27% said they were considering one.

Those figures rise sharply among the youngest viewers. 15% of 18-to-34-year-olds reported a purchase and another 29% said they were considering one, against 4% and 25% among viewers 55 and older. Younger viewers were also nearly twice as likely as the oldest group to say an ad made them view a brand more favorably.

So the group least likely to be watching the ads was the group most likely to say the ads did something. Self-reported influence is not a lift measurement, and younger respondents may simply be more willing to credit an ad. But the pattern is consistent across every influence question we asked, and it runs against the assumption that the attentive older audience is where the persuasion happens.

A survey like this one can say where attention went and what people believe an ad did to them. It cannot say what the ad did, because everyone in it saw the same broadcast and there is no comparison group. That is the gap between attention data and persuasion data, and it is the reason the post-game rankings, which are attention data too, say so little about which spots worked.

Two tests close the gap. A randomized controlled test of a spot against a placebo measures its effect on favorability, consideration, and intent among people who watched it. A clutter-reel test shows the spot among other ads under divided attention, which is closer to the room described above than a forced-exposure view. Together they answer the two questions the rankings skip: did the ad move anyone, and does it still move them when a third of the room is looking at a phone.

• 31% of viewers said the commercials had most of their attention during the breaks. 30% said their phones did.
• Younger viewers watched the ads least and were most likely to say an ad influenced a purchase or improved their view of a brand.
• The Super Bowl is a two-screen event. A spot built to be recognized in a feed reaches the audience that was not watching the television.
• Self-reported influence describes what viewers believe an ad did. Measuring what it did requires a control group.