A study used 20 real brand ads and generated AI-produced counterparts using Google Gemini and OpenAI Sora with the same creative briefs. The ads were shown to 3,000 consumers. Only 25% of viewers who watched AI ads were at least somewhat confident the ads were AI-made, while 40% were uncertain whether the ads were AI-generated. Despite limited detection, viewers rated human-made ads as more eye-catching and more imaginative. Human-made ads also produced stronger performance, with 14% higher short-term sales impact and 17% higher long-term brand health compared with AI-made ads. The results suggest AI content can feel off at a subconscious level even when it appears polished.
"They took 20 real ads from major brands, including Cheerios, Chewy, Febreze, Fiat, H&M, Old Navy, Herbal Essences, Ray-Ban Meta, TurboTax and Visa. They fed the same creative briefs used by the human ad creatives into Google Gemini, then used OpenAI's Sora to generate fully AI-produced counterparts with no human intervention."
"They showed the ads to 3,000 consumers. Only 25% of AI ad viewers were at least somewhat confident the spot was AI-made, and 40% of all viewers were uncertain either way - suggesting the public isn't great at spotting ads that are AI generated."
"While most people didn't register that ads were AI-generated, they also didn't respond to them like they did with human-generated ads. They consistently rated human-made work as more eye-catching and more imaginative. In other words, people assumed AI ads were made by people, but didn't particularly like them compared to human-generated ads."
"Ads made by people without AI were 14% stronger on short-term sales impact and 17% stronger on long-term brand health. To me, the data here suggests that while people can't easily discern the difference between AI- and human-generated content, the AI stuff hits wrong on a subconscious level."
Read at Computerworld
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]