The Knowledge
Google Reclaims No. 1 in Kellogg’s 2026 Super Bowl Ad Review
Google’s “New Home” ad topped the Kellogg School’s Super Bowl Advertising Review, praised for its emotional storytelling and clear product value. It marks Google’s fourth win. Other notable performers included Anthropic and Novartis. In contrast, Coinbase and ai.com struggled due to unclear brand connections. AI and health advertising trends emerged prominently in 2026.
Google is back on top in one of the most-watched postgame scorecards in marketing.
The Kellogg School of Management announced that Google Gemini earned the No. 1 ranking in the 22nd Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review, thanks to its emotional “New Home” spot—an ad built around the idea that AI can support life transitions through creativity and human connection. Kellogg says this marks the fourth time Google has taken the top spot in the panel’s rankings.
Not every advertiser had a good night. Kellogg’s review also called out Coinbase and ai.com for low grades, with panelists criticizing unclear brand linkage and fuzzy value propositions.
Why Google’s “New Home” ad won
According to Kellogg, Google’s top-ranked spot stood out for balancing two things that are hard to pull off in a Super Bowl window:
- Emotional storytelling that feels human
- A clear demonstration of product value
“This ad captures what Google has historically done best: pairing genuine emotional storytelling with a clear illustration of how the product fits naturally into people’s lives,” said Tim Calkins, clinical professor of marketing and co-lead of the Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review. Co-lead Derek Rucker added that it feels like a modern evolution of that approach rather than a departure.
The review also notes the ad echoed the spirit of Google’s iconic “Parisian Love” spot from 2009—offering a nostalgic reminder of what has long defined the brand while updating it for a new era of AI-powered tools.
Other top performers (and why they landed)
Kellogg’s panel also gave strong marks to:
- Anthropic’s Claude for “Can I get a six pack quickly?”
- Novartis for “Relax Your Tight End”
Rucker highlighted Anthropic’s advantage in a crowded AI category: the message was simple and clearly differentiated, which made it easier for viewers to understand what the brand is and why it matters.
The ads that fumbled: Coinbase and ai.com
On the other side of the rankings were ads that grabbed attention but didn’t connect the dots.
Kellogg said Coinbase aired a spot built around a karaoke-style use of a Backstreet Boys song, but the creative failed to establish a clear connection to the brand or its value proposition, resulting in a low rating from the panel.
ai.com also received a low grade, with panelists left unclear on what the product actually offered. “When you’re advertising new technologies, there’s a lot to learn from classic brand building,” Calkins said, adding that ai.com is a good example of what can go wrong when viewers are still wondering what the product is after the ad ends.
The bigger trend: AI wasn’t just a theme—it was the stage
Kellogg’s review makes it clear that artificial intelligence dominated Super Bowl advertising in 2026, both as a subject of brand storytelling and as a creative tool.
Brands including Microsoft, Amazon, and Genspark used the Super Bowl stage to define how their technologies fit into everyday life, ranging from emotional narratives to more functional demonstrations of performance and productivity. Meta returned with two spots highlighting its AI-powered eyewear, emphasizing the product’s “athletic intelligence.”
AI also played a role behind the scenes: Svedka said its spot featuring dancing robots was primarily created using AI.
Celebrity + nostalgia still work—if the brand is clear
As has become tradition, celebrity power was on full display, with brands stacking household names to break through the clutter. Kellogg also noted that nostalgia continued to be a reliable creative lever, with several brands tapping into 1990s pop culture to connect with millennial audiences.
“Many advertisers appeared to be playing it safe this year. Nostalgia and well-liked celebrities are two of the most reliable ways to do that,” Calkins said. The catch: familiar faces and throwback references can be a shortcut to attention, but they still need to be paired with a clear brand message to be truly effective.
Health advertising surged (including GLP-1 debuts)
Another shift Kellogg highlighted: a remarkable number of health-focused Super Bowl spots, covering everything from hydration and fiber intake to caffeine consumption and access to care.
Weight-loss medications were especially prominent, with Novo Nordisk (Wegovy), Ro, and Eli Lilly (Zepbound) all spotlighting their GLP-1 offerings. Rucker said Super Bowl ads have to entertain and educate at the same time—and he credited Novartis with striking that balance particularly well.
How Kellogg grades the ads: ADPLAN
The Kellogg School Super Bowl Advertising Review uses an academic framework known as ADPLAN to evaluate the strategic effectiveness of Super Bowl spots. The acronym helps viewers grade ads based on:
- Attention
- Distinction
- Positioning
- Linkage
- Amplification
- Net Equity
A full list of the rankings is available through Kellogg. To learn more, visit https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news-events/super-bowl.aspx.
Source: PRNewswire
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Former President Barack Obama recently sparked headlines, social media debates, and a fresh wave of UFO chatter after a brief remark during a podcast interview. The comment quickly ricocheted across news outlets, with many asking: Did Obama just confirm aliens exist? And just as quickly, Donald Trump weighed in.
Let’s unpack what was actually said — and what it means.
🎙️ The Comment That Ignited the Conversation
During a rapid-fire question segment on a podcast hosted by Brian Tyler Cohen, Obama was asked directly:
“Are aliens real?”
Obama’s response:
“They’re real, but I haven’t seen them.”
That short answer fueled immediate speculation. Clips spread online, often stripped of context, with some interpreting the statement as a bombshell confirmation of extraterrestrial life.
🧠 What Obama Meant
Soon after the comment gained traction, Obama clarified his meaning.
His explanation aligned with a position he’s expressed before:
✔ He was referring to the statistical likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe
✔ He was not claiming evidence of alien visitation
✔ He emphasized that during his presidency he saw no proof of extraterrestrial contact
In other words:
Obama was speaking philosophically and scientifically — not revealing classified information.
This interpretation matches mainstream scientific thinking: given the size of the universe, life beyond Earth is plausible, but confirmed evidence remains elusive.
🛸 Why the Comment Resonated
The remark landed in a cultural moment where:
• Interest in UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) is high
• Government transparency around UFO reports has increased
• Space exploration discoveries (exoplanets, water worlds) dominate science news
Even a casual statement from a former president can ignite intense discussion.
🇺🇸 Trump’s Reaction
Former (and current political figure) Donald Trump responded critically.
Trump characterized Obama’s comment as:
• A “mistake”
• Potentially involving “classified information”
He also reiterated his own stance:
He does not know whether aliens are real.
Trump pivoted the conversation toward disclosure, suggesting he would support or consider declassifying UFO/UAP-related files — a theme that has periodically surfaced in political rhetoric.
⚖️ Politics vs Interpretation
Trump’s reaction highlights how statements about extraterrestrial life often become political flashpoints, even when the original comment is speculative or philosophical.
Key distinction:Obama’s Clarification Public Interpretation Life elsewhere is likely “Obama confirmed aliens” No evidence of contact “Government disclosure”
🔬 The Scientific Reality
Organizations like NASA and the broader research community maintain:
✅ Life beyond Earth → statistically plausible
❓ Intelligent civilizations → unknown
❌ Confirmed alien contact → no verified evidence
Investigations into UAPs consistently conclude:
• Most sightings have conventional explanations
• Some remain unresolved due to limited data
• None confirmed as extraterrestrial craft
🌌 Why These Stories Keep Captivating Us
Conversations about aliens sit at the intersection of:
✨ Science
🧠 Curiosity
🛸 Mystery
🎭 Pop culture
🏛️ Politics
When a former president comments, the intrigue multiplies.
📌 Bottom Line
Did Obama say aliens are real?
Yes — but in the sense that life elsewhere in the universe is likely, not that aliens are visiting Earth.
Did he claim evidence?
No.
Trump’s response?
Critical, skeptical, and framed around classification and disclosure.
If you’re fascinated by this topic, you might also enjoy exploring:
• How scientists search for alien life
• What counts as real “evidence”
• Why UFO sightings are so often misinterpreted
Want me to craft a follow-up article like “How Close Are We to Discovering Alien Life?” 🚀👽
Related Links & Further Reading
- NASA – Search for Life
- NASA – Exoplanet Exploration
- SETI Institute – Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
- U.S. Department of Defense – UAP Reports
- How Close Are We to Discovering Alien Life?
- What Are UAPs? Explained
- A Brief History of UFO Investigations
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Urbanism
The Building That Proved Los Angeles Could Go Vertical
Los Angeles once banned skyscrapers, yet City Hall broke the height limit and proved high-rise buildings could be engineered safely in an earthquake zone.
Last Updated on February 19, 2026 by Daily News Staff
How City Hall Quietly Undermined LA’s Own Height Limits
The Knowledge Series | STM Daily News
For more than half a century, Los Angeles enforced one of the strictest building height limits in the United States. Beginning in 1905, most buildings were capped at 150 feet, shaping a city that grew outward rather than upward.
The goal was clear: avoid the congestion, shadows, and fire dangers associated with dense Eastern cities. Los Angeles sold itself as open, sunlit, and horizontal — a place where growth spread across land, not into the sky.
And yet, in 1928, Los Angeles City Hall rose to 454 feet, towering over the city like a contradiction in concrete.
It wasn’t built to spark a commercial skyscraper boom.
But it ended up proving that Los Angeles could safely build one.
A Rule Designed to Prevent a Manhattan-Style City
The original height restriction was rooted in early 20th-century fears:
- Limited firefighting capabilities
- Concerns over blocked sunlight and airflow
- Anxiety about congestion and overcrowding
- A strong desire not to resemble New York or Chicago
Los Angeles wanted prosperity — just not vertical density.
The height cap reinforced a development model where:
- Office districts stayed low-rise
- Growth moved outward
- Automobiles became essential
- Downtown never consolidated into a dense core
This philosophy held firm even as other American cities raced upward.
Why City Hall Was Never Meant to Change the Rules
City Hall was intentionally exempt from the height limit because the law applied primarily to private commercial buildings, not civic monuments.
But city leaders were explicit about one thing:
City Hall was not a precedent.
It was designed to:
- Serve as a symbolic seat of government
- Stand alone as a civic landmark
- Represent stability, authority, and modern governance
- Avoid competing with private office buildings
In effect, Los Angeles wanted a skyline icon — without a skyline.
Innovation Hidden in Plain Sight
What made City Hall truly significant wasn’t just its height — it was how it was built.
At a time when seismic science was still developing, City Hall incorporated advanced structural ideas for its era:
- A steel-frame skeleton designed for flexibility
- Reinforced concrete shear walls for lateral strength
- A tapered tower to reduce wind and seismic stress
- Thick structural cores that distributed force instead of resisting it rigidly
These choices weren’t about aesthetics — they were about survival.
The Earthquake That Changed the Conversation
In 1933, the Long Beach earthquake struck Southern California, causing widespread damage and reshaping building codes statewide.
Los Angeles City Hall survived with minimal structural damage.
This moment quietly reshaped the debate:
- A tall building had endured a major earthquake
- Structural engineering had proven effective
- Height alone was no longer the enemy — poor design was
City Hall didn’t just survive — it validated a new approach to vertical construction in seismic regions.
Proof Without Permission
Despite this success, Los Angeles did not rush to repeal its height limits.
Cultural resistance to density remained strong, and developers continued to build outward rather than upward. But the technical argument had already been settled.
City Hall stood as living proof that:
- High-rise buildings could be engineered safely in Los Angeles
- Earthquakes were a challenge, not a barrier
- Fire, structural, and seismic risks could be managed
The height restriction was no longer about safety — it was about philosophy.
The Ironic Legacy
When Los Angeles finally lifted its height limit in 1957, the city did not suddenly erupt into skyscrapers. The habit of building outward was already deeply entrenched.
The result:
- A skyline that arrived decades late
- Uneven density across the region
- Multiple business centers instead of one core
- Housing and transit challenges baked into the city’s growth pattern
City Hall never triggered a skyscraper boom — but it quietly made one possible.
Why This Still Matters
Today, Los Angeles continues to wrestle with:
- Housing shortages
- Transit-oriented development debates
- Height and zoning battles near rail corridors
- Resistance to density in a growing city
These debates didn’t begin recently.
They trace back to a single contradiction: a city that banned tall buildings — while proving they could be built safely all along.
Los Angeles City Hall wasn’t just a monument.
It was a test case — and it passed.
Further Reading & Sources
- Los Angeles Department of City Planning – History of Urban Planning in LA
- Los Angeles Conservancy – History & Architecture of LA City Hall
- Water and Power Associates – Early Los Angeles Buildings & Height Limits
- USGS – How Buildings Are Designed to Withstand Earthquakes
- Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety – Building Code History
More from The Knowledge Series on STM Daily News
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Long Track Back
Why Downtown Los Angeles Feels Small Compared to Other Cities
Downtown Los Angeles often feels “small” compared to other U.S. cities, but that’s only part of the story. With some of the tallest buildings west of the Mississippi and skyline clusters spread across the region, LA’s downtown reflects the city’s unique polycentric identity—one that, if combined, could form a true mega downtown.
Last Updated on February 18, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Panorama of Los Angeles from Mount Hollywood – California, United States
When people think of major American cities, they often imagine a bustling, concentrated downtown core filled with skyscrapers. New York has Manhattan, Chicago has the Loop, San Francisco has its Financial District. Los Angeles, by contrast, often leaves visitors surprised: “Is this really downtown?”
The answer is yes—and no.
Downtown LA in Context
Compared to other major cities, Downtown Los Angeles (DTLA) is relatively small as a central business district. For much of the 20th century, strict height restrictions capped most buildings under 150 feet, while cities like Chicago and New York were erecting early skyscrapers. LA’s skyline didn’t really begin to climb until the late 1960s.
But history alone doesn’t explain why DTLA feels different. The real story lies in how Los Angeles grew: not as one unified city center, but as a collection of many hubs.
Downtown Los Angeles
A Polycentric City
Los Angeles is famously decentralized. Hollywood developed around the film industry. Century City rose on former studio land as a business hub. Burbank became a studio and aerospace center. Long Beach grew around the port. The Wilshire Corridor filled with office towers and condos.
Unlike other cities where downtown is the place for work, culture, and finance, Los Angeles spread its energy outward. Freeways and car culture made it easy for businesses and residents to operate outside of downtown. The result is a polycentric metropolis, with multiple “downtowns” rather than one dominant core.
A Resident’s Perspective
As someone who lived in Los Angeles for 28 years, I see DTLA differently. While some outsiders describe it as “small,” the reality is that Downtown Los Angeles is still significant. It has some of the tallest buildings west of the Mississippi River, including the Wilshire Grand Center and the U.S. Bank Tower. Over the last two decades, adaptive reuse projects have transformed old office buildings into lofts, while developments like LA Live, Crypto.com Arena, and the Broad Museum have revitalized the area.
In other words, DTLA is large enough—it just plays a different role than downtowns in other American cities.
View of Westwood, Century City, Beverly Hills, and the Wilshire Corridor.
The “Mega Downtown” That Isn’t
A friend once put it to me with a bit of imagination: “If you could magically pick up all of LA’s skyline clusters—Downtown, Century City, Hollywood, the Wilshire Corridor—and drop them together in one spot, you’d have a mega downtown.”
He’s right. Los Angeles doesn’t lack tall buildings or urban energy—it just spreads them out over a vast area, reflecting the city’s unique history, geography, and culture.
A Downtown That Fits Its City
So, is Downtown LA “small”? Compared to Manhattan or Chicago’s Loop, yes. But judged on its own terms, DTLA is a vibrant hub within a much larger, decentralized metropolis. It’s a downtown that reflects Los Angeles itself: sprawling, diverse, and impossible to fit neatly into the mold of other American cities.
🔗 Related Links
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
