AI Imagery: Imitation or the Real Thing?
AI has been one of the most prominent conversation topics for months now. As a marketer, it’s coming up as a discussion topic multiple times a day, either at work, on LinkedIn, or somewhere in my Apple News digest. I’ve used it, followed the developments, likely consumed content aided by AI - but so far, mostly text-based. I thought we all collectively agreed that AI art was not quite ready for prime time yet, creating images that could be best described as freaky or downright wrong. The little voice inside my marketer head said ‘we still had time’ and ‘don’t give up on being able to produce fun creative campaigns with actual budget’.
Then I came across this ad campaign.
One of many ads on Instagram Stories got me to stop the scroll. An ad for Santander Bank promoted one of their free online courses. I saw a disclaimer: “This image has been generated with AI”
Image of a Santander Bank Instatram Stories ad promoting a free Spanish course with an AI generated image of a blonde woman sitting at a cafe using a laptop
I was floored. It was the first time I had seen an AI image in an ad that was also publicly disclosing it. (Which I get, as a bank, they are going to play by the rules for compliance reasons.)
My next thought: why? This image is of a woman at a laptop in some public space. “Person sitting using laptop” has got to be one of the most common stock image topics. Instead they got one where the model’s hands are quite long and the Apple logo is backward. (Side note: Why did no one photoshop that out? That would have taken less than a minute!)
I sent the ad to my friend who is also a marketer, expressing bewilderment at the blatant use of AI for such an image that stock is readily available, and she let me know that with stock photos there may be a cap on impressions in the license, so for some paid campaigns stock photos are not a realistic option. Clearly Santander chose the AI route instead of custom imagery to meet their needs.
Of course, me engaging with the ad meant I would get served up more of them.
The next one immediately looked a little more AI-like. The sleeve of the dress in the left of the image looks a little too poofy and it’s unclear where she is sitting - at a desk? The height looks a off because of the couch - is she sitting on it, or is that in the background? But the under side of the desk looks more like a coffee table? The hands are pretty good though.
I got served up three more.
The Digital Marketing course looks solid and laptop but then the lower right of the image has the unmistakable AI struggles with the text on the coffee shop logo and some weird blurry thing that I can’t tell what it’s supposed to be.
The final two images look the least like AI. This Excel course ad looks the most realistic to me, bad posture and all. The hair looks a little AI but I wouldn’t have noticed if I didn’t know the image was AI generated. The skin looks textured and less airbrushed, just like real skin. The texture of the denim in the jacket looks pretty lifelike as well.
The third Spanish course ad also looks pretty realistic. The hand holding the pencil looks like a real hand with knuckles and body hair. The laptop back is reflecting what’s on the desk. I feel like this one has to have been an existing photo just adjusted with some sprinkle of AI.
Overall, I am more impressed than I thought I would be. The first three images all have clear things that mark them as AI driven. But two out of the five I think would be really hard for anyone to tell they are AI. I am so curious what program Santander is using to make them.
Even though AI uses a lot of power, I used some of my carbon footprint to see what Canva’s AI program could generate to recreate one of the simpler image formulas. I entered: “Blonde woman wearing a white t-shirt sits at a cafe next to the window, typing at a laptop.” I got four images back and none are as realistic as the Santander AI images, but two of them are okay - certainly aren’t as bad as a few I prompted with more challenging subjects for work a few weeks back. They still have that airbrushed animated look, the table angles don’t always line up, and a little unrealistic (like one where one eye is closed and the other is open). However, clearly, having a lot of source material to go off of helps.
While AI is getting better, I still just never feel great about the content or ads I consume with it. It feels like the equivalent of eating a mediocre prepackaged sandwich in a convenience store or airport grab-and-go stand. Sure, it’ll meet your need for food, but it doesn’t compare with a handcrafted deli sandwich (a custom ad) or a gourmet meal (real art). Someone does not need talent or skill to make something with it.
When I think of the best advertising I’ve seen, it’s clearly driven by talented artists applying their hard-earned skills to promote a product. Think of the Apple 1984 commercial, or old-timey Volkswagen print ads with poignant copywriting. I recall the salacious Godaddy commercials that were the talk of the town. I received an Hermes catalog-type magazine in the mailbox from someone who had the unit before me and it was interesting because it was a little weird and artsy, but I flipped through it all. The thing these all had in common? Investment in custom artwork to uphold the brand. It’s not cheap, but it has staying power.
In our media-saturated world, I feel like there’s a growing division between brands that invest in their advertising and those that treat marketing like a cost center where it’s just “whipping something up” to get the job done. I think relying on AI is going to be the deciding factor.
Why? AI generated advertising imagery feels like such a cop-out for real effort. I could make an Instagram story ad in 5 minutes, using the least-bad Canva AI image and throwing some text on top. With enough paid dollars behind it to generate a ton of impressions, it could drive a solid ROI. At the end of the day, that’s all many companies care about. But it doesn’t drive the brand forward. I got five Santander bank ads and they all feel so generic - even though it’s actually a neat concept for a bank to use free courses as a new customer acquisition move. If Santander had invested in their creative assets, they could do their whole campaign justice.
I guess the final thought here is: can we treat doing custom imagery in the same way we do shopping local, or fair-trade for clothing? Yes, it’s cheaper to buy your clothing from a fast-fashion brand where the items are made overseas with synthetic materials and possibly some unsavory labor practices. It’s more expensive to get the garment that is made with natural materials by someone paid a living wage. But many consumers choose to spend more by patronizing the companies whose process aligns with their values - and chances are, the garment will last longer, and consumers will talk about it more positively.
AI images can be made quickly, easily, and cheaply. For a brand with limited marketing dollars, it seems like it’s there to level the playing field by making it possible to keep up with the bigger brands when it comes to content production. In truth, I think it’s the opposite. Using AI will continue to be the imitation instead of the real thing. It’s the cheap polyurethane bag to the artisan-made leather bag.
AI is here to stay, and I think there are some awesome practical applications - but let’s get AI to do the boring manual work and then invest the extra time and energy into human powered art.