AI Use in Marketing Isn’t the Problem; Careless Execution Is
AI-generated marketing is everywhere, and consumers are increasingly calling it out. But this isn’t a rejection of AI itself; rather, it’s what standards marketers are willing to sacrifice in the name of speed and scale.
Last year, a round of AI-led marketing controversies hit the headlines, all of which highlighted fierce public pushback.
Both Coca-Cola and McDonald’s Netherlands’ 2025 AI-generated Christmas ads drew heavy criticism for their “creepy” and “soulless” visuals and tone; Valentino was slammed online for its “AI slop” Instagram promotional video; and Meta felt the wrath from both users and advertisers alike over “fake” and “intrusive” AI-generated comments, creative suggestions and content on posts.
Some even likened it to Black Mirror’s Nosedive episode – the one where algorithms manufacture approval and social connection, replacing anything real.
Should We Blame the Tech?
While these examples all highlight a seemingly clear risk around audience perception when using AI, what if I were to say the technology isn’t actually the problem here?
By that, I’m not suggesting the backlash isn’t real. It is – and it’s hardly surprising. Any major shift in how creative work is produced tends to trigger scepticism, and AI is no exception. For consumers and creatives alike, it still feels new enough to prompt a collective “hang on… should we be doing this?” reaction.
Layered on top of that is a very real fear of displacement. When people have spent years honing creative craft, AI can feel like a replacement that devalues that work (even when replacement isn’t the intent).
It’s also important to distinguish between a general “AI is bad” sentiment vs “this advert is lazy”. In general, people don’t mind efficiency. But any obvious cheapening of something they care about, cost-cutting disguised as innovation, or work that’s noticeably lower in quality, and there tends to be an immediate loss in trust.
And this is why I say AI isn’t the problem. The real issue is how the technology is being used, and the fact that it’s still new.
In fact, it’s my belief that the current level of backlash is temporary. We’ve been here before, – multiple times, in fact. Remember when marketing automation and email personalisation were initially deemed spammy and impersonal, before better targeting and restraint made them effective?
Or when Photoshop and digital retouching caused utter outrage about authenticity and deception, before later becoming accepted – expected, even – as core creative tools.
AI, too, is on an adoption curve. Before long, as tooling improves – both in output quality and in how convincingly it can replicate human-ness – it will become normal, and the shock factor will fade. At this point, we should see a change from “AI is unacceptable” to “AI is fine… as long as it’s good”.
Should We Still Use AI in Marketing?
The rush to AI is entirely rational. It offers the kind of speed, scale and cost efficiency that’s unmatched in a content economy that never switches off. In fact, for many brands – especially big ones managing thousands of touchpoints – not using AI can feel irresponsible.
That being said, the examples highlighted earlier do serve as a cautionary tale.
While there’s certainly a “cultural institution” effect that’s amplifying consumers’ reactions (they expect a much higher level of storytelling, craft and emotional resonance from big brands), smaller businesses must also take note of the following:
-
Don’t paint AI – or humans – out of the picture entirely:
Taking shortcuts in content creation can indeed have huge consequences when it comes to audience perception. But instead of jumping to the conclusion that marketers shouldn’t use AI at all, learn exactly what AI is good for and what it’s not good for.
Improving speed, personalisation, relevance and accessibility, and freeing up time to focus on deeper or more personal work? AI excels. Anything to do with strategy, taste, tone and judgment? Humans must be involved.
-
Be transparent when it adds value:
We’re seeing more brands add disclaimers like “this wasn’t written by AI” or “no AI was used”. It’s an understandable attempt to signal authenticity, but it can also reinforce the idea that using AI is something to be embarrassed about.
A better standard is more straightforward: is the thinking real, is the output high quality, and does it actually add value? If AI is used thoughtfully and the end result is useful, meaningful or distinctive, that’s not something to hide or apologise for, it’s something to stand behind.
-
Beware of AI laziness:
Because consumers aren’t outright rejecting AI for its own sake, but rather bad work and cheapened creativity, they tend to accept automation when the result is better (or at least equal). This means, however, they won’t hesitate to call out an output that’s in any way worse than what humans can do.
With that in mind, use AI only where it improves the experience, and avoid any weird details, inconsistent visuals, odd continuity or, indeed, anything that could be seen as a shortcut, cost-cutting replacement or diluted creativity.
Right now, the brands most visibly embracing AI are also the ones being punished hardest, but they’re also the brands that won’t find themselves left behind as technology continues to advance.
Because that is inevitable, and when it does happen, a shift will take place. Audiences will become more open to AI, and they’ll start to judge not the process, but the outcome, and how intentional, human and well-executed it feels.
ALSO READ: In-Game Marketing: Why Experience Design Beats Ad Placement
