Effort is the Message
By Holly Jolley Massaro, Designer
When generative AI first arrived on the scene, the urgency of not getting left behind sparked a wave of trial and error. The early assumption was that prompting alone would instantly democratise creative specialism – turning anyone into a copywriter, designer or director at the click of a button.
Yet in practice, this rush has inverted a cultural promise. As the author Joanna Maciejewska put it: “I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.” By deploying generative AI in creative to supplant human expression rather than everyday friction, brands have blurred the lines between automation and creation.
Automation belongs in the architecture of an organisation: managing logistics, analysing data, routing support tickets and clearing repetitive operational quirks. Creation, by contrast, is an inherently relational act. It requires a distinct voice and editorial judgement, qualities that, in the world of the personified brand, have become existential requirements. That’s not to say a creative person can never pick up an AI tool; the point is who is doing the thinking. Relying on, or worse, switching wholesale to generative AI for creative output is strategically misguided and detrimental to long-term brand authenticity.
The Trust Cost of Synthetic Content
We’re up to our necks in AI content. Platforms and tools have refined their outputs to the point where discerning what is authentic at a casual glance has become genuinely difficult. But that technical capability has brought widespread AI fatigue. Audiences are wary of the identical copy-pasted hooks, the airbrushed, cheesy imagery and the interchangeable quality of “AI slop”. In an environment defined by infinite content but finite human attention, people actively seek to direct their energy towards the real deal.
This pushback is particularly acute among younger audiences who grew up online and developed a radar for digital insincerity. A Rival Technologies study of 901 Gen Z consumers in the US and Canada found that 74% react negatively the moment they realise a brand’s marketing was made with AI. More critically for the bottom line, 43% have stopped buying from a brand because of its AI marketing, and half have unfollowed one. Tellingly, the backlash grows with age: the oldest of the group, those already building careers and spending power, react most strongly. For younger consumers, synthetic shortcuts carry a cost, and they’re making brands pay it.
Image source: Skechers
We’ve already seen this happen in real time. Google faced immediate backlash and pulled its Olympics ad after showing a child using AI to write a fan letter. Coca-Cola alienated fans by remaking its classic “Holidays Are Coming” trucks ad with AI. Skechers was openly mocked for running botched AI illustrations in Vogue. Dior’s new Christmas ad has the internet divided over alleged use of generative AI. And that’s before we get to the tech companies’ own showcases: Grok’s version of the Odyssey, a project with the emotional depth of a puddle.
Christian Dior’s “Night in Color” Ad
Even AI in marketing cannot escape the basic laws of supply and demand. When passable, frictionless content can be generated at near-zero marginal cost, its perceived value plummets toward zero. Conversely, the human hand becomes one of the rarest, most prized assets on the market.
To assume that this backlash threatens only luxury or heritage brands is naive. Trust is not a tiered feature reserved for high-end markets but a licence to operate in any category. Consider an independent fast-food restaurant: would you rather order from a shop that posts a slightly grainy, amateur smartphone photo of their actual food, probably taken by someone’s aunt, or one that uses an uncannily flawless, AI-generated image of their products? Consumers don’t demand perfection. We look for proof of reality, care and human presence. We’ll consistently choose the poorly lit photo of the real kebab and chips over an algorithm’s fantasy.
When a company attempts to automate emotional expression, it exposes the relationship as strictly transactional. People want to know what they’re buying into. If a company cuts corners on creative communication, consumers will reasonably assume it’s cutting them elsewhere too: in customer service, sourcing and product quality. If an audience realises a brand is unwilling to invest human thought into talking to them, they’ll conclude that the same indifference extends to everything else the brand sells.
Where AI Actually Belongs
Now, none of this means marketing should abandon AI. Scaling operations through automation makes commercial sense, but you cannot apply the same treatment to emotional resonance or values. If you outsource your voice to a tool, you cannot act surprised when everyone stops listening.
The real opportunity is implementing it where it creates genuine leverage: in data analytics, media efficiency, predictive modelling and workflows. Using AI behind the scenes allows marketers to solve performance problems and make smarter decisions, all without compromising the authentic craft, distinct voice and human effort that earn lasting brand trust.
Suggested articles:
