Observed Signal · Oct 19, 2026 · Research Study · Source: Manager Magazin · Impact: 3/5 · Sentiment: Negative
Study: AI Ads Underperform Human-Made Spots
A US study by Syracuse University and Ipsos reveals that AI-generated advertisements, while visually convincing, significantly underperform human-created spots in driving consumer purchase intent and brand equity. The study involved 3,000 US participants who viewed 20 ad videos for major brands, half of which were original human-made spots and half were AI recreations using Gemini and Sora 2. Although participants often struggled to distinguish between the two, AI-generated ads showed a 14% lower short-term sales potential and 17% lower long-term brand value. The researchers warn that the strategic risk lies in 'good enough' AI ads that cut costs but fail to build emotional connection, urging executives to measure actual outcomes rather than just production efficiency.
Highlights the underperformance of AI-generated ads in key metrics, urging marketers to reconsider AI adoption in creative production.
Track Ipsos Signals & Market Shifts in Real-Time
Polaris7 autonomous intelligence agents track regulatory filings, primary sources, executive changes, and deal flow 24/7. Create your free Explorer workspace to monitor these entities.
Key Takeaways & Evidence Grounding
- Syracuse University and Ipsos conducted a study on AI-generated ads.
- Study involved 3,000 US participants viewing 20 ad videos.
- AI ads had 14% lower short-term sales potential and 17% lower long-term brand value compared to human-made ads.
- AI models used: Gemini and Sora 2.
- Co-author Adam Peruta is Associate Professor at Syracuse University.
Connected Companies & Entities
1 Entity mapped“Ipsos collaborated with Syracuse University on the study.”
Ontology Mapping & Concepts
Related Market Signals & Shifts
Recent verified developments and strategic activity across this market segment.
AI Ads Match Human Performance in Groundbreaking Study
A large-scale study titled "AI Ads That Work: How AI Creative Stacks Up Against Humans" analyzed several hundred thousand live ads on Taboola’s Realize platform to measure the impact of generative AI on user behavior. The dataset included over 500 million impressions and about three million clicks. Using a sibling-ads methodology—pairing AI-generated and human-created ads from the same advertiser, campaign and day—the study controlled for targeting and timing to isolate creative effects. Raw click-through-rates were 0.76% for AI ads versus 0.65% for human ads, but after statistical controls overall performance was comparable. Perception mattered: ads visually identified as AI-generated performed worse, while AI ads that lacked typical AI cues achieved the highest engagement. The presence of clear human faces increased perceived authenticity; AI-generated creatives more often included such faces. The authors conclude AI is a tool that can match or improve creative outcomes when human perception and trust signals are considered.
AI Can't Spot AI Ads but Can Judge Human Creative Quality
Andrew Tindall, a senior leader at System1, explores whether AI can effectively evaluate human-made advertising, given that humans cannot reliably identify AI-generated ads. He cites four major studies over ten months, including NYU Stern's 'AI Advertising Paradox' (AI ads outperformed human ads by up to 19% without disclosure, but performance dropped 31.5% when disclosed) and a Taboola study with 500M+ impressions finding similar results for short-term metrics like CTR. In his own experiment, he ran ten well-known human-made ads through System1's AI testing tool, comparing its predictions to human-based ratings. Results show the AI predicted the Fluency Rating correctly 10 out of 10 times and the Star Rating 9 out of 10 times, with one refusal to score. AI performed best at extreme high and low performers, struggled with mid-table ads, and highlighted the importance of acknowledging uncertainty. Tindall concludes that AI is a probabilistic prediction machine, better used to supplement rather than replace human judgment in creative testing.
Study: Brands Thrive Next to Creative AI Content
A new survey by OM Media Trials (Omnicom Media) and Zefr of nearly 5,000 U.S. and Canadian respondents examined consumer reactions to ads shown after eight types of AI-generated video. Results show mixed outcomes: ads placed next to AI-generated satire, youth depictions, or artistic content produced positive brand perceptions (refreshing/innovative), while ads adjacent to AI spam or misinformation — especially about public figures — provoked negative responses. The study found 32% of people sometimes misattribute human-created content as AI, and 41% reported improved brand opinion when AI-created content was clearly labeled. The article cites examples of problematic AI-created ads (Valentino, McDonald’s) and cites a Gartner projection that 90% of internet content could be AI-created by 2030. The authors emphasize disclosure and contextual alignment as ways for brands to manage risk.
Receive all future signals for Ipsos & competitors in your briefing
Never miss material M&A deals, leadership changes, account wins, or product rollouts. Polaris7 monitors 20,000+ primary sources 24/7, delivering verified telemetry directly into your executive briefing.