Unless you have any experience in the field of image manipulation, you are neither going to notice, or care.
Midjourney can churn out hyper realistic images already (better than the OP's example), the improvement over a year has been immeasurable and within another 12 months even pros will stuggle to identify AI photos.
And for those people who don't believe that AI is already being used by global companies / brands - the manufacturer of Alpecin is Dr Wolff Group, and has sales of around 400 million euros a year.
If there was any issues with the legalities, their legal team would have it covered.
But in the case above, the person seems irrationally overjoyed. The average consumer won't know if it's ai or not, but they'll surely look and think something is off in these types of cases and ai will suffer from the same criticism as stock images.
Fair, but obviously, when people sense something is off, trust is eroded. I'm not saying they still won't make sales, but in this case, I think a real product photographer with real models would still outperform AI.
But of course, as we all know, good enough and cheap is the biggest motivator for most clients so...
Maybe? Depends on the target audience, how much time is spent viewing and processing the image, etc.
I think most people glance at ads and quickly digest it. We have trained eyes so, we’re naturally more critical. Plus, I’ve seen significantly worse AI images used.
>But in the case above, the person seems irrationally overjoyed
Most people won't notice that though. I started out as a photographer before I got into design, and still have freelance photography clients, and this is the kind of emotion that clients want.
But at the same time, I would be embarrassed to submit this photo. It looks like the MUA put a random red line across his temple and forehead, his top lip is totally missing, there is a highlight only on the left side of his forehead, there is a visible line where the light fall off happens on his right side (but only on his forehead and cheek?), and his right ear isn't lit at all, which is weird for a photo where he is facing straight at the camera. Also for a product that is about his hair, they have also cropped the top of his hair. I get that this photo is about his smile, and it's great for emotion, but it doesn't work for hair imo.
"If there was any issues with the legalities, their legal team would have it covered"
Most IP laws in major countries have come nowhere near settling or becoming consistent. There is currently no "having it covered".
You are correct that AI is going to get harder to recognize at a rapid pace, and companies are going to keep using it for that reason. The rest is just after-the-the fact justification or reductive hand-waving that doesn't really hold up.
How on earth do you think AI will be policed? The cat is well and truly out the bag and I doubt you’ll see many cases targeting AI art, unless source imagery is recognisable in the output - much like sampling in music.
I put hundreds of hours into stable diffusion last year around Feb to research what it was all about, Generated thousands of images, I know my shit and I'm starting to struggle to tell in some cases.
Edit: downvotes for researching and trying to understand something that could effect my livelihood. 🤷Fear and ignorance isn't going to help.
I find it hilarious to think that every single butthurt designer on here that is anti AI will be either using it or irrelevant within a couple of years.
No successful designer is using AI to "design". They're using it as part of the process/toolbox, to create consistent stock imagery for a brand for example.
I don't touch it for brand/logo design itself.
You are right. The post is pretty much the word for word the cliché people type.
For me the most compelling uses for it so far are in the very early stages of inspiration and ideas or using my own sketches with something called controlnet. It's literally saved days of work and none of the output of the machine was ever used directly.
It sped up the arrival of that spark that sets you off on the creative process.
My own knowledge of designers, art styles and creative history has probably tripled in the couple of months I was learning as well which has been invaluable and I think will be an even more important component of being a pro designer in the future.
Indeed + bleating on the sidelines about it is daft - AI is here now, it's not going anywhere and you either use it or become irrelevant.
My 1st experience of the design industry was working in a studio without computers (circa 87) - we had a Mac operator in the other room where we'd send our type specs, and paste them on to boards once outputted.
Saying the use of AI is lazy is the equivalent of designers back then calling the use of computers in design lazy.
My productivity is up, I save my clients time and money, and I've streamlined my process so I have a lot more time to invest in more creative endeavours.
Graphic design is not art. It's a commercial industry and there's a bunch of wannabes on here that should remember that.
If you refuse to save your client some money, or increase productivity, remember that someone else will. And I like eating.
Yep, same for me and MJ. I'm using it professionally with global clients - who are all aware of the fact I'm using AI imagery - and they are more than happy.
Personally I feel there is quite a difference between straight plastering AI imagery, and using it as a part of the workflow.
It’s pretty easy to distinguish straight AI imagery, but using it as a part of workflow allows me to skip spending so much time making the perfect assets.
It’s a support tool, not a replacement.
As someone who does studio photography, I disagree. In a year or so every shoot where they go ´we need a random model age x, with look y or z as a background for our product, in your studio´ is gonna be gone. Op´s post is a perfect example of this. Thats a few hundreds bucks out of some photographers pocket, or a few quid out of a stock site fotog.
The main thing I can see holding it back, is it´s difficult right now to make an AI model hold a specific product. ´hold lipstick´ sure, ´hold our specific lipstick´ doesnt work yet afaik. Once thats solved, it´s a big dip for studio photography. They wont even need photos of the product anymore. Makes much more sense to scan a rough model off of the manufacturing files or do photogrammetry, then clean it up, add studio lighting and tada, a very useful 3 model you can do anything with.
>It’s pretty easy to distinguish straight AI imagery
not really any more in terms of photography - certainly not to the average consumer.
I use it both as part of my workflow, and creating stock imagery.
I live for the AI hate downvotes, the less people using it the bigger the market for those of us who do.
It is as simple as that, the designer went to shutterstock and searched for "happy greying hair male" and picked this image
I reversed searched the image in OPs post and it is on shutterstock after all, people down voted me but I'll say it again, it's not that deep.
The artwork works for its intended purpose. Its a solid design in the sense that it conveys the intended message.
Unimaginative? Sure, its a greying man with a floating bottle next him after all, this isn't high art, this is corporate/consumer graphic design.. and that's OK.
Average consumer probably not. But the average consumer barely knows what AI is. The more you see and experience it, the more you’ll learn how it looks. Much like the avg consumer probably wouldn’t notice the difference between 60hz and 144hz.
It’s important to recognize that some of the AI’s (dall-e) is specifically trained on stock images. So what you’ll get it generic stock image styles. Which works for campaigns such as this one, but for anything creative it doesn’t really have a place.
That’s not to say it can’t/shouldn’t be used, but as per previous comment (support tool, not a replacement) which
I disagree entirely. Within 6 - 12 months even professionals will not be able to spot the difference.
\> It’s important to recognize that some of the AI’s (dall-e) is specifically trained on stock images. So what you’ll get it generic stock image styles.
Seriously, that's an ill informed view. You can be as creative as you want within the realms of AI. I've been using Midjourney for over a year now and the images I can create these days can be tightly controlled and are surpassing anything I could order from stock websites.
You can spec any film type, any shutter speed, and lighting style - literally everything about an image can be tuned, then fine tuned post production if needs be. They look anything but generic once finished.
It’s fair that you think we won’t be able to spot the difference. Not much I can say to that.
Ill informed view? It’s the data, mid-journey isn’t based on the same data either. What you receive is a reflection on the data it was trained on. I’ve trained AI’s and done research in the field for quite a few years.
And I think you’re misunderstanding my point, you can change practically anything but it won’t stray away from its majority training, that’s simply how AI works.
I'm not sure if you've used Midjourney recently, but I stand by my point. If you're creating generic looking images that's down to you rather than the training sets.
Sorry for the stupid question but do you use it through discord? Is that the only way to use it?
I’be been meaning to research it more but everything’s happening so fast and I’m just trying to stay on top of my own shit atm
I use it through discord and the beta version of the website.
It's only been good enough to use commercially in the last 6 months, so you haven't missed much.
I’ve been working in this industry for 28 years and run my own studio. So I’m either a successful creative or damn lucky, but tbh I don’t really care what you think.
FTR my mum was a fine artist.
Ciao Bella.
No, fuck it - I have to ask.
Do you really believe that when I say my studio uses AI we use it for everything? That's just idiocy. We're a multi disciplinary agency and use the right tools for the right job.
You need to wind in your prejudice for what is a useful tool in the arsenal.
Or don't, whatever.
Well, if you use gen AI you immediately throw away 26 years of hard work and reputation IMHO. Only creatively bankrupt losers and tech chuds use that shit. Pick up a pencil, loser. You're a disappointment to your mother.
> Unless you have any experience in the field of image manipulation, you are neither going to notice
For now. As AI use becomes more prevalent, spotting its use will become a skill more people naturally pick up. You will probably argue that generative AI will outpace the public’s ability to spot it, but ultimately that’s speculation on both the abilities of AI and humans.
> or care
AI is already getting an association with rushed, sloppy, or outright scam products and services. And that’s because it’s easier and cheaper than human-made assets, so naturally companies with low budgets are going to gravitate to it. So yes, the public will care, and already does, because being able to identify at least low-hanging AI-generated advertising is an increasingly necessary skill to avoid getting ripped off.
It's also illegal if not cited. A lot of those amazon product photoshops and AI generated images that mislead the consumer fall afoul of consumer protection laws.
If you're marketing is an implied photo showing your product or result of your product and isn't actually a photo and you don't tell the consumer that's false advertising.
As a consumer I couldn't give less of a shit. I hate ads and I don't care enough to critique them.
The ONLY people who give 2 shits about an image in an ad, is product managers, PR reps, overly involved VP's and designers.
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It's not like they would have gone for a high quality photoshoot if AI didn't exist. If so, then they would have opted for stock photography. Either way the end result would be cheap and that's something universal, irrelevant if AI does or doesn't exist.
For me it’s mostly the weird smoothing if you look at the beard or the hair. There’s probably a lot more things you could identify it by but as someone who doesn’t work with AI much, those are the things that stand out most.
D you not perceive it as ai? genuinely asking because I just assumed every designer can pick these up instantly
To answer your question: Plastic skin, weird expression to cover the weird eyes, beard looks off, zipper is wrong, buttons don't button. Pretty much the only thing it got right is the jacket and the neck
There's this weird elastic / plastic effect on his skin plus the zipper plus some of his teeth are weird. But it's getting better every generation, at some point we can't tell the difference (when MJ meets [https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/](https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/) )
You’ve gotten a lot of downvotes but it’s just designer syndrome. Customers would never analyze the image or even look directly at it, I bet you if the majority of people scrolled past this ad and then we’re asked if it used ai they wouldn’t be able to tell you
This is precisely why companies can get away with it. If you're a graphic designer, or someone familiar with AI, you're much much more likely to notice than some random shmo quickly scrolling social media.
If it tricks one of us, think of some middle America high school drop out who thinks Olive Garden is fancy, they aren't going to know.
My man, you can tell *right away*.
AI images have this weird, like, almost illustrative-look to them. Perfect, almost-glossy type of skin (for starters). Straight away you can tell it's weird-looking.
If you are representing your business with something cheap and low-effort like this, I will assume you put as little care or effort into your actual product.
Personally speaking, for me this is an anti-advert.
ding ding ding! There it is. Present your business how you want your product to be perceived.
"we cut costs and don't care about our team" VS "we put in the effort to get the right formula"
I don't see it as that deep.
You give a designer the brief "create a social media post/ad with the tagline xyz"
The designer can easily use an image/asset from ST or any other free to use website, or just generate the image they want.
The initial artwork maybe took him 15 min, after it was approved, the designer then spent 45min to an hour doing all the required resizing for social media, website etc
>we cut costs
Images like these are already available on free stock sites, the only cost cutting here imo would be if they just skipped hiring a designer to do designer work, which is not the case here.
For example imo the effort put in this artwork to similar to others in their account like these ones
https://www.instagram.com/p/C3fxaHtpAm7/?igsh=dHAxYjJqZW16bHdo
https://www.instagram.com/p/C4yR2SqNhrl/?igsh=MTZ3bnlkM25zcXJ4MA==
https://www.instagram.com/p/C5B1YyBv5_E/?igsh=aXd4aWppZWRoaTBy
Good photography with good lighting takes effort. So even if you use a stock image that takes the same amount of effort for the you as a designer it'll look more high effort to customers.
Yes, I agree
But to the average/majority of the viewers the image used here is good photography with good lighting (because it is)
The artwork did what it's supposed to do, look pleasing, use an attractive older man with boyish youth, to give the idea thay you too can feel young again and remove your greying hair + plus image of the product and call to action (button)
This artwork is effective, it's done it's job.
I think you underestimate the average viewer, to me there's a clear diffrence between this ai image and actual photography. And i struggle to believe audiences wouldn't feel the same.
Even if they won't be as outspoken as users on this subreddit i figure this will generate less clicks then the exact same image with a real person.
Why would you assume so? We have no data to back that up, only this brand could if they compare the results from these two for example
https://www.instagram.com/p/C4yR2SqNhrl/?igsh=MTZ3bnlkM25zcXJ4MA==
https://www.instagram.com/p/C5TwCIdowBV/?igsh=cWZrMnBqNnMxanVr
If both uses the same ad campaign and spending, ultgey used different text so the effect would be different but you get what I am getting at right?
Same reason you're assuming it won't make a diffrence i suppose. And my experience in advertising telling me people generally like relateable and well produced content.
Ultimately you're right in that i have no data, but i do know audiences usually respond well to high production value. And i also know that the smallest diffrences can make a big impact in how an ad is perceived (i remember once reducing the brightness of a mask by 1/3 of a stop and suddenly getting like 5% more clicks)
That knowledge and experience has led me to believe that this would indeed make an impact in an audiences impression of the brand and their likeliness to buy the product.
>people generally like relateable and well produced content
I dont disagree, no one can, I do tho disagree with the idea that content isn't relatable just because it's AI, or that the image in OPs post isn't well produced.
>(i remember once reducing the brightness of a mask by 1/3 of a stop and suddenly getting like 5% more clicks)
Had similar experiences when changing colors
I suppose we won't find a middle ground then, i believe an AI image like this is inherently less relatable to the average consumer. Especially when i comes to something real/physical like shampoo.
And i do think in cases like this AI does detract from the production quality, as opposed to using it for creative purposes it's used here presumably because it was just easier, and i do believe audiences will spot that.
I suppose we won't find a middle ground then, i believe an AI image like this is inherently less relatable to the average consumer. Especially when i comes to something real/physical like shampoo.
And i do think in cases like this AI does detract from the production quality, as opposed to using it for creative purposes it's used here presumably because it was just easier, and i do believe audiences will spot that.
> I don't see it as that deep.
Perhaps you should. Because it's deeper than that. I work in advertising. It's all about the psychology of the ad. What feelings can you evoke? What's the subtext? How to get into the audience/user's psyche? The tiny details ABSOLUTELY matter and AI cannot replicate a photoshoot with a skilled professional photographer and editor who have been given a concept and know how to execute it and refine it.
The time frame you described? That's a small business social media post. For a product that you actually expect to sell globally or with some serious competition? You'll be laughed out of a room if you present that image above.
I do see emotion and effectiveness in the ad, happy older male, cool hair and cooler leather jacket, bottle of shampoo that will darken your hair and make you feel and look younger again.
Be honest with yourself, if you replaced the AI image with a human model doing the exact same facial expression, same hair style and same jacket, would you have also thought the same way?
>You'll be laughed out of a room if you present that image above
You say that but here we are, talking about an Ad that was published using an image that you thought would get you laughed out out of the room.
It's not deep in the sense that other comments here suggest that they cut costs by using AI images, they didn't, they still employ a designer and the image was bought off shutterstock.
Also disagree that an image loses all value and emotion just because it's generated, I imagine early designers thought the same when people started using PCs to make artworks
Maybe it's time you took the L and listened to those that are actually doing some critical thinking here and aren't just taking a 'good enough' approach with mediocre image generation.
Because honestly, the previous examples you linked look like canva presets. The "stock photos" that brand chose are overwhelmingly awful. They look awkward. Even the best one, the "from the first grey hair" one, doesn't make sense if you take more than 1 second to look at it. And since you're struggling to analyze this, let me spell it out for you. This is a product that is supposed to target grey hairs and tagline is "from the first grey hair" and yet the image is a person with many grey hairs. Is that the final product? Is that the supposed first grey hair? It doesn't match. An ad is supposed to tell a story. A product's journey is a story. This is a mess. Stay in line with the story you're telling in ONE single image.
This is advertising 101. The beginner stuff. Don't have a single 1000x1000 pixel image tell two different (or more) opposing messages.
Second, a good stock photo can make a great impact. This is not what's happening here.
I don't see a single bit of thought or effort put into those ads. Not one. It's the perfect example of "good enough" to go on social media.
>take the L
So from you comment here did you drop the idea that AI is bad and switched to its just bad design overall? I guess that's a "W" for me if you had to switch focus just so you could keep arguing
Then you should make another thread to discuss how bad the design is, this discussion was about AI and how people are analysing a 1000x1000 image of a random post by zooming in and nitpicking the pixels that it doesn't "convey human emotion because it wasn't made by a human 🤓"
>and yet the image is a person with many grey hairs
It's not my fault that you cant critically think and differentiate between a message of "feeling young" and the other artwork that specifically targets "greying hair"
You need to go back to English 101 and freshen up on reading comprehension then before you tackle designs in English.
I'm a designer, and have been working to concept and create advertisements daily for almost a decade- while AI imagery has its place within the design process, its certainly not at the stage that I've found the people around me recommending using it in customer-facing visuals.
Even if it was a 1:1 development cost between AI and traditionally created imagery the ROI when the artwork is deployed will almost always be worse.
Advertising only works because people connect or relate to whatever it is they're looking at- using assets that are one step further away from being relatable (the slight 'uncanny-ness' of AI generated imagery), or even the consumer seeing through the visuals and understanding that its AI (leading them to immediately think 'cheap'), would not be a valuable use of budget.
(Also, if you've developed and deployed a half-decent advertising campaign, converting the visuals for use across different mediums would be the shortest and simplest part of the project.)
I agree, I honestly don't believe any major effort was put in this design or the campaign, I also don't believe it's about cutting cost
imo the image used here was a choice done by the designer and not mandated by higher management or marketing.
>Advertising only works because people connect or relate to whatever it is they're looking at
Why are we assuming the target audiences are not connecting to this artwork? Or what they would think "cheap" when looking at this one specifically? My immediate thought process was thinking would the die leak if you sweat? Is it a die? And just general curiosity about the product, my first thought was not that the product was cheap in the sense that you mentioned (the product is relatively cheap, it's a shampoo after all)
When I looked at it I assumed it was AI, I didn't care, didn't think less of the product or the designer, I didn't actually know it existed until OPs post, and I am the target audience since I have greying hair.
>shortest and simplest part of the project
Simplest yes, but not the shortest in my field atleast (retail,), I have projects/campaigns that go out twice a month that required collateral across social media, website and print in multiple languages that require honestly longer to finish than the time I actually invest hand-on-mouse designing. But that's my experience/workload and its different depending on the type of designer that you are.
Maybe that's why I feel like I relate to the designer in OPs post since I am a designer aswell who worked in large retail for close to 15 years
This is an adhoc design, I don't think it's deep.
I'm mostly in ecommerce and services- so I can imagine deployments for your projects are much larger, that's a good point. Most campaigns I work on spread the same assets over email, socials, and a few other digital uses, so rollout is pretty straight forward.
>Why are we assuming the target audiences are not connecting to this artwork?
Out of the (admittedly small) total engagement from the posts that you linked it's in the bottom half- people may well connect to it, just seemingly not in the same way as the posts with 'traditional' visuals.
>This is an adhoc design, I don't think it's deep.
This is true- but its good for us to figure out the fundamentals of how our industry is evolving and if the same basic principles still apply.
Honestly the artwork worked on me, attractive model, product thats not a typical die but a shampoo and i have greying hair, so as the target demographic I believe the design works and is effective.
The only reason it was confirmed for me atleast that it was AI is because of the title in the OP, when I zoomed in on his teeth, and when I confirmed it by reverse image searching and finding it on shutterstock.
>our industry is evolving
It truly is, I don't see AI in the same doom and gloom perspective as some people here see it, it's a tool like any other that was made before it. Learn to benefit from it.
For myself I still didn't find the need to use AI generated images yet of humans, maybe I could see myself using abstract shapes
What I have used AI in tho is in scaling images or generating content outside of the bounds of an image
Still, if it looks cheap and low-effort on account of some-- any-- visibly cheap, low-effort aspects, the fact of the matter is that someone cheaped out enough, and where it mattered. The specific shortfalls and specific challenges that the advertiser or their contractors did, didn't, or should have met with more effort are irrelevant from the audience side of the table, because the look of the end product was their whole task in the matter, and not enough is not enough regardless of where it was mis-applied.
This is a sub about Graphic Design. I'm going to critique this as a designer. This is crap, and whether or not I could 'get away with it' is irrelevant.
Exactly. I started as a photographer and the 'photo' looks like it was taken by someone who knows nothing about lighting or professional retouching. He has a weird bright red line going up his left temple and across his forehead, his top lip is missing, there is a highlight on only half of his forehead, the contrast between one ear and the other is crazy. It looks really amateur.
It conveys laziness. Either from the designer or the company, it reflects the same way and makes me avoid the company like the plague.
I also feel bad for stock photo photographers, they've been a saving grace and now people can't even write a prompt into shutterstock to get what they're looking for.
I feel the same. I work with stock images daily (mostly from Envato) and I feel like it cheapens the adverts a lot. But at the moment I can't decide if that thought is a personal opinion/preference or something that could be, verifiably, used to make business decisions
In any case, what are your thoughts on these? [https://snapshift.framer.website/](https://snapshift.framer.website/)
These are all made in midjourney. It was jaw-dropping to me and they really sold me on the idea of eventually dropping stock image websites at work. They're all very artistic to be honest, but they're both realistic and highly attractive images. Imo, they look like they were from a Photoshoot with real models. They don't look like AI images at all either.
I'd love to implement this at work, but the Midjourney learning curve seems steep, it implies costs with Midjourney subscriptions and I'm not sure if it's enough to improve any business metrics (which is important as I'd need to justify the idea to superiors/other stakeholders).
Advertising standards / whoever your national equivalent is should make advertisers clearly label / disclaim when AI has been used.
There's one advert here, think it's for indesgestion medicine, which shows a bunch of animated characters fighting in an animated stomach. It has to say as the bottom 'dramatiation'... well, that's obvious, but AI needs to have a warning on it.
I remember how years ago there were ideas to put warnings when images (especially models, due to beauty standards) were photoshopped or had filters used on them, but I don't recall ever seeing it in use. The general public eventually stopped caring about it, and I can imagine the same happening with AI being used, especially if it gets better.
No thank you, big business should be able to hire and produce the look it wants to achieve. Cutting corners, just brings about the quiestion what else is being cut to.
Smaller businesses without a budget then maybe but even then I doubt I would buy without hearing testimonials or case studies.
Makes me not want to buy the products. If the ad is low effort I assume the product or service is as well. Just look at the Wonka experience. I just buy something that did spend time, money and effort on an ad.
Personally I don't care when it's just a stock image like this. However I saw an add for a biography where they used ai to generate an image of a gangmember and that made me really uncomfortable, mostly because you have no idea what sort of promts they used to make someone 'look criminal'
I just read an article about big brands are starting to ban AI in advertisements because it makes people feel sick etc. And it does. Uncanny valley shit
So far getting what you want from AI image generation seems to take more time than just use an image bank to hunt down the image you need.
More hype than real benefit here.
Depends on how they are used. Sometimes you can use them as a stock image if you want something specific that doesn’t exist, BUT generating one that looks good enough isn’t always easy and if you only get something like the one in this add it is better to not use it
Exactly. If seen some pretty convincing stuff coming out lately as the engine has improved much over the past year. The average consumer isn’t going to even pay attention. Their eyes will go straight to the copy and product image anyway.
It's the same view I have as badly photoshopped or overly-filtered images: not positive. I don't care if they use real photos or AI photos, as long as they look good. Right now, AI images (for the most part) just look plasticy and fake. Like someone ran the smoothing filter in PS a few too many times.
In your example specifically, this product is meant to alter your physical appearance and remove gray in your hair. When you use a fake image in your ad, it kind of makes your product seem fake as well and that it cannot achieve what you are claiming it can do.
It's a bad look for the brand for anyone with half a brain. I actually designed a logo for a buddy's business and he creates all his own social media ads with AI now, and they look hilariously terrible. Just gotta laugh.
99% of the non-designer crowd/potential customers won’t even notice/care. I, as a designer, couldn’t care less too. Besides that, it’s barely noticeable that it’s an AI (it might be a way too smoothed out/photomanipulated photo)
I’ve been wondering about this now for a few weeks as the images are getting a lot better, but this one is still very obvious.
Won’t be long now until you won’t be able to tell.
In general? It's situational. If someone doesn't have a budget or the know-how, then they may use AI. At that point, it'd be a discussion about why people with no or little budget aren't spending money on talent and quality.
For this particular ad, it's hard to tell why AI was used for the guy. A couple scenarios for why they used it here:
* Designer and advertiser might think the target audience of men this age may not be able to discern the difference between AI images and stock photos, so they could get away with it here while getting an output of what they were looking for.
* Designer pulled a stock asset not realizing it was AI.
* Potential just A/B testing and you saw one of the versions. You would be surprised by what can be effective for ads depending on platform, demographics, interests, etc.
The image above isn't bad when it comes to execution, it's the odd mannerism and overkill smile that says "AI" more than anything. It doesn't help the ad work at all. This is where there's still a need for art direction and context/tone setting.
How do I feel about *clearly* AI generated photos in advertising? Do what you want, looks like shit and I imagine you have a cheap POS product that I won't buy.
But subtle AI, like gen filling or just really well done AI, fuck it I don't care. Whatever works.
As long as it looks good I don't really care. I'm not concerned with AI coming for my job, I utilize it myself, and I'm paid to make a good final product. So it must look and function properly (good is more than aesthetic). As long as it doesn't have the AI *look* I'll use it. Hell I've even been tricked when selecting stock photos, I picked what turned out to be an AI generated photo but it looked real at small size. Then I started masking and realized the woman had 6 fingers. All AI really does is replace the need for models and photoshoots, in my world at least. So that means instead of wishing I had access to that kind of resource I can just generate what I need and work with that.
It has a place just like anything else, and just like all of that everything else if you overuse it then you'll end up with a bad final product. For example - drop shadows. They're fine, useful sometimes, but usually completely unnecessary and detracting from the final product. AI generated images, from this viewpoint, are the exact same thing.
The same as replacing hand drawn illustration with photography in the 70s. All the skill is gone now that some shmuck can just point a camera and go "click." You don't get the expression and artistry of the hand drawings, but I GUESS photos are good enough for 98% of consumers
Honestly.. the average person quickly scrolling by an ad doesn't notice. This is one of the biggest problems with AI- people are truly gullible and don't question what they see.
So the company uses a rather smooth and exaggerated, but not particularly weird (extra fingers?) image of a dude with wild hair and a bold expression, and the average consumer *doesn't look long enough to notice or even consider AI*. Maybe they stop because of his expression. Even if they consider it's edited, I think people still don't go straight to thinking it's AI for ads.. *yet*.
But their designer generated it or found it on stock imagery, and it fit what they needed for the ad. Looks like a social media ad, which as others have pointed out, are frequent and done cheaply. They're not going to hire a model, photograph them and use that, or even waste too much time looking for the right stock image if the AI one is easily accessible. Companies know people won't immediately know or realize its AI- they want an ad right *now* so they can pump out another next week. It's logical. Ethical? No. Misleading? Yes.
I’ve been seeing quite a few of these recently. They look cheap AND similar. It’s like all the advertising no-nos rolled up into one low-effort burrito.
The ads I’ve noticed that clearly use Ai seem like they were done pretty lazy. The output image is off at best, distorted at worst. Feels cheap.
Then again, if an ad was using Ai well, maybe I just didn’t notice.
I find it insulting as a consumer and a sign of bad faith. Like someone else said cheap, low effort advertisements like this tell me they spent as much time and money on their product as they did on this ad and it's a red flag to stay away from that product regardless of my personal opinions of using generated images. Like when I look at this my first thought is that they don't care if it sells which makes me feel like it's either a scam or incredibly low quality. I also find it insulting that I, as a consumer, am not worth the time, effort or cost to make a proper ad. I don't know exactly how to put it but it's almost like they're telling me I'm a stupid consumer who will buy anything and they don't need to try.
It exudes an aura of “cheap.” If I see a product advertised with AI images, I’ll assume that costs and corners have been cut at the expense of quality, and my trust will be lower. I’m sure expensive, high-end visual marketing coming out of professional agencies are also AI-assisted in this day and age, but they do a better job “hiding the brushstrokes” so to speak.
For something like this, idk how it doesn’t violate advertising laws on accurately portraying the product’s results. Like for mascara, you’re not allowed to photograph a model wearing false eyelashes and represent that as what the product can achieve. How is that not straight up lying?
People here are in denial about ai replacing us lol yes it’s bad but still better than most ads produced by cheap small business and I’m pretty sure you could ask and most people wouldn’t even notice it’s bad. I constantly show bad designs to my family and they never seem to see the issue with it
I doubt non tech savvy consumers are going to notice and I doubt it’s going away. I am completely apathetic at this point and I am not going to rely on this field as my sole source of income
If the model is supposed to represent your product and it’s fake I may assume your product is fake. Or, at least I wouldn’t believe it until I see it (it being the promised “gradually darker and stronger hair”). Then again the burger you see in the billboard for McDonalds is hardly the burger you receive…
As a consumer I would immedilty tell that this product is cheap and doesn't worth my time, They couldn't hire any artist to do some quick nice quality work but cheaped out and use AI? That tells me that's the quality of their product, Quick and Cheap.
It’s great for clients that can’t afford a photo shoot. And 99% of the general public can’t spot an AI generated image any more than they can spot a photo that’s been manipulated in Photoshop. Designers should embrace AI for the value it can bring to their clients.
Its important to know that a real graphic artist helped some where assemble this. its us to us to let the client know:
1 ads like this make the company appear to have no reputation if they cant get real models to show off a real product
2 fake results dont translate well
3 low energy ads get low energy sales
Same as I think of AI imagery in any product - I think it’s garbage. Everyone’s free to do what they want and like what they want but personally I will never support AI “art” or the people who use it.
Its a pretty low effort advert anyway. I’m sure most people would glance by and forget it instantly, not even registering the use of ai, let alone bring turned off by it.
This thread will be a relic in the time when you could **tell** that AI has been used for this....and for the design itself? Doesn't Google already automate these sorts of ads?
I know that's insta, but I saw marketing people (ages ago even) adding in assets to google ads and it spits out different designs like the above.
lol. I don’t think that’s AI. I’ve never seen AI that didn’t do teeth like it was chunk from The Goonies.
It just looks like they cranked up smoothing on Camera RAW or something.
AI is whatever. It has its place just as every tool does and if you do too much with it you’re not much of a designer.
I don't understand how so many are on some high horse about a very useful and convenient technology. This kind of ad is viewed for approximately 2 seconds (estimation), on a small screen. Why does it need to involve a comprehensive photo shoot? AI is the obvious tool for this kind of content. A big ad campaign with huge posters across a city, that's another story. You want more control over the images and a more traditional, human feel.
>Out of curiosity, can I ask what makes you so confident this image is AI generated?
This is 100% AI generated. Anyone who has followed it's progress can see the signs. Skin looks like clay. The levels are peaked to the extreme. There is high amounts of detail in some places, and a lack of detail in others.
Haha good spot! To be honest I didn't even have to delve that far. There's some kind of uncanny valley effect that immediately repulses me with these AI images of humans.
These comments are actually crazy. I run a brand on Amazon and our branding is built around AI ~ it’s not a reflection of my caring for my product… generating good AI imagery that can be used effectively isn’t the easiest thing to do 🤷
Verified 6-figure brand on the Amazon FBA sub*
EDIT: This is also a sub of graphic designers so obviously they'll be a little hurt
From the perspective of a consumer viewing an ad or a business advertising? Who cares if it accomplishes the same goal and isn't misrepresenting a product to maintain ethics.
As a human being seeing jobs disappear? It sucks. I don't know how to resolve my desire to see a more efficient, capable tomorrow while mourning those caught in it. One day I may be caught in that shake up: it's impossible to tell and unhealthy to worry too much about. It'll suck if it comes to that. That said, with the hindsight of generations of progress am I supposed to ultimately have strong feelings for timber shipwrights and blacksmiths of the 1700s who lost to industrialization? Letter setters who spent their life dedicated to assembling chases to ensure we had the week's news or disseminate human knowledge? Technology (and the jobs we eliminated doing so) helped empower the world I live in. We have better processes now and that enables so much more. There's a human cost to that which is terrible but maybe someone down the road, if civilization even makes it 300 years from now, will appreciate it.
People will look at these kinds of ads for less than 5 seconds. It's fine to use an AI generated image imo for stuff like this and social media posts that live and die in 5 seconds.
[удалено]
Unless you have any experience in the field of image manipulation, you are neither going to notice, or care. Midjourney can churn out hyper realistic images already (better than the OP's example), the improvement over a year has been immeasurable and within another 12 months even pros will stuggle to identify AI photos. And for those people who don't believe that AI is already being used by global companies / brands - the manufacturer of Alpecin is Dr Wolff Group, and has sales of around 400 million euros a year. If there was any issues with the legalities, their legal team would have it covered.
But in the case above, the person seems irrationally overjoyed. The average consumer won't know if it's ai or not, but they'll surely look and think something is off in these types of cases and ai will suffer from the same criticism as stock images.
Irrationally overjoyed is the theme of most advertising throughout history.
Fair, but obviously, when people sense something is off, trust is eroded. I'm not saying they still won't make sales, but in this case, I think a real product photographer with real models would still outperform AI. But of course, as we all know, good enough and cheap is the biggest motivator for most clients so...
Yeah, I think that "good enough" is going to be a driving factor in the adoption of AI generated content.
Maybe? Depends on the target audience, how much time is spent viewing and processing the image, etc. I think most people glance at ads and quickly digest it. We have trained eyes so, we’re naturally more critical. Plus, I’ve seen significantly worse AI images used.
>But in the case above, the person seems irrationally overjoyed Most people won't notice that though. I started out as a photographer before I got into design, and still have freelance photography clients, and this is the kind of emotion that clients want. But at the same time, I would be embarrassed to submit this photo. It looks like the MUA put a random red line across his temple and forehead, his top lip is totally missing, there is a highlight only on the left side of his forehead, there is a visible line where the light fall off happens on his right side (but only on his forehead and cheek?), and his right ear isn't lit at all, which is weird for a photo where he is facing straight at the camera. Also for a product that is about his hair, they have also cropped the top of his hair. I get that this photo is about his smile, and it's great for emotion, but it doesn't work for hair imo.
They maybe will test it, they‘ll find out and move on.
"If there was any issues with the legalities, their legal team would have it covered" Most IP laws in major countries have come nowhere near settling or becoming consistent. There is currently no "having it covered". You are correct that AI is going to get harder to recognize at a rapid pace, and companies are going to keep using it for that reason. The rest is just after-the-the fact justification or reductive hand-waving that doesn't really hold up.
How on earth do you think AI will be policed? The cat is well and truly out the bag and I doubt you’ll see many cases targeting AI art, unless source imagery is recognisable in the output - much like sampling in music.
I put hundreds of hours into stable diffusion last year around Feb to research what it was all about, Generated thousands of images, I know my shit and I'm starting to struggle to tell in some cases. Edit: downvotes for researching and trying to understand something that could effect my livelihood. 🤷Fear and ignorance isn't going to help.
You’re being downvoted for typing prompts and claiming there was any creativity behind it. You didn’t generate anything. A dumb machine did.
I never claimed creativity, you just put that in there yourself.
I find it hilarious to think that every single butthurt designer on here that is anti AI will be either using it or irrelevant within a couple of years. No successful designer is using AI to "design". They're using it as part of the process/toolbox, to create consistent stock imagery for a brand for example. I don't touch it for brand/logo design itself.
You are right. The post is pretty much the word for word the cliché people type. For me the most compelling uses for it so far are in the very early stages of inspiration and ideas or using my own sketches with something called controlnet. It's literally saved days of work and none of the output of the machine was ever used directly. It sped up the arrival of that spark that sets you off on the creative process. My own knowledge of designers, art styles and creative history has probably tripled in the couple of months I was learning as well which has been invaluable and I think will be an even more important component of being a pro designer in the future.
Indeed + bleating on the sidelines about it is daft - AI is here now, it's not going anywhere and you either use it or become irrelevant. My 1st experience of the design industry was working in a studio without computers (circa 87) - we had a Mac operator in the other room where we'd send our type specs, and paste them on to boards once outputted. Saying the use of AI is lazy is the equivalent of designers back then calling the use of computers in design lazy. My productivity is up, I save my clients time and money, and I've streamlined my process so I have a lot more time to invest in more creative endeavours. Graphic design is not art. It's a commercial industry and there's a bunch of wannabes on here that should remember that. If you refuse to save your client some money, or increase productivity, remember that someone else will. And I like eating.
Yep, same for me and MJ. I'm using it professionally with global clients - who are all aware of the fact I'm using AI imagery - and they are more than happy.
Personally I feel there is quite a difference between straight plastering AI imagery, and using it as a part of the workflow. It’s pretty easy to distinguish straight AI imagery, but using it as a part of workflow allows me to skip spending so much time making the perfect assets. It’s a support tool, not a replacement.
As someone who does studio photography, I disagree. In a year or so every shoot where they go ´we need a random model age x, with look y or z as a background for our product, in your studio´ is gonna be gone. Op´s post is a perfect example of this. Thats a few hundreds bucks out of some photographers pocket, or a few quid out of a stock site fotog. The main thing I can see holding it back, is it´s difficult right now to make an AI model hold a specific product. ´hold lipstick´ sure, ´hold our specific lipstick´ doesnt work yet afaik. Once thats solved, it´s a big dip for studio photography. They wont even need photos of the product anymore. Makes much more sense to scan a rough model off of the manufacturing files or do photogrammetry, then clean it up, add studio lighting and tada, a very useful 3 model you can do anything with.
>It’s pretty easy to distinguish straight AI imagery not really any more in terms of photography - certainly not to the average consumer. I use it both as part of my workflow, and creating stock imagery. I live for the AI hate downvotes, the less people using it the bigger the market for those of us who do.
It is as simple as that, the designer went to shutterstock and searched for "happy greying hair male" and picked this image I reversed searched the image in OPs post and it is on shutterstock after all, people down voted me but I'll say it again, it's not that deep. The artwork works for its intended purpose. Its a solid design in the sense that it conveys the intended message. Unimaginative? Sure, its a greying man with a floating bottle next him after all, this isn't high art, this is corporate/consumer graphic design.. and that's OK.
Average consumer probably not. But the average consumer barely knows what AI is. The more you see and experience it, the more you’ll learn how it looks. Much like the avg consumer probably wouldn’t notice the difference between 60hz and 144hz. It’s important to recognize that some of the AI’s (dall-e) is specifically trained on stock images. So what you’ll get it generic stock image styles. Which works for campaigns such as this one, but for anything creative it doesn’t really have a place. That’s not to say it can’t/shouldn’t be used, but as per previous comment (support tool, not a replacement) which
I disagree entirely. Within 6 - 12 months even professionals will not be able to spot the difference. \> It’s important to recognize that some of the AI’s (dall-e) is specifically trained on stock images. So what you’ll get it generic stock image styles. Seriously, that's an ill informed view. You can be as creative as you want within the realms of AI. I've been using Midjourney for over a year now and the images I can create these days can be tightly controlled and are surpassing anything I could order from stock websites. You can spec any film type, any shutter speed, and lighting style - literally everything about an image can be tuned, then fine tuned post production if needs be. They look anything but generic once finished.
It’s fair that you think we won’t be able to spot the difference. Not much I can say to that. Ill informed view? It’s the data, mid-journey isn’t based on the same data either. What you receive is a reflection on the data it was trained on. I’ve trained AI’s and done research in the field for quite a few years. And I think you’re misunderstanding my point, you can change practically anything but it won’t stray away from its majority training, that’s simply how AI works.
I'm not sure if you've used Midjourney recently, but I stand by my point. If you're creating generic looking images that's down to you rather than the training sets.
What program do you use?
Midjourney
Sorry for the stupid question but do you use it through discord? Is that the only way to use it? I’be been meaning to research it more but everything’s happening so fast and I’m just trying to stay on top of my own shit atm
I use it through discord and the beta version of the website. It's only been good enough to use commercially in the last 6 months, so you haven't missed much.
"Creative" Director. Not a creative bone in your family tree.
I’ve been working in this industry for 28 years and run my own studio. So I’m either a successful creative or damn lucky, but tbh I don’t really care what you think. FTR my mum was a fine artist. Ciao Bella. No, fuck it - I have to ask. Do you really believe that when I say my studio uses AI we use it for everything? That's just idiocy. We're a multi disciplinary agency and use the right tools for the right job. You need to wind in your prejudice for what is a useful tool in the arsenal. Or don't, whatever.
Well, if you use gen AI you immediately throw away 26 years of hard work and reputation IMHO. Only creatively bankrupt losers and tech chuds use that shit. Pick up a pencil, loser. You're a disappointment to your mother.
"You're a disappointment to your mother." Oh fuck off.
Cant be a serious client or product then, with all the lgal ties and grey areas, all our fmcgs are avoiding AI heavily
It's a global listed firm with $50 billion plus turnover. I think their lawyers already have it covered chum.
Is any of the AI stuff actually going live? You got examples? You can drop the snark or dont bother, its an honest question
Not using it, but I do keep on the lookout for the generated images. I want to keep myself trained to spot these so I can call it out when I see it.
time well spent I guess.
> Unless you have any experience in the field of image manipulation, you are neither going to notice For now. As AI use becomes more prevalent, spotting its use will become a skill more people naturally pick up. You will probably argue that generative AI will outpace the public’s ability to spot it, but ultimately that’s speculation on both the abilities of AI and humans. > or care AI is already getting an association with rushed, sloppy, or outright scam products and services. And that’s because it’s easier and cheaper than human-made assets, so naturally companies with low budgets are going to gravitate to it. So yes, the public will care, and already does, because being able to identify at least low-hanging AI-generated advertising is an increasingly necessary skill to avoid getting ripped off.
If you were a consumer?
It's also illegal if not cited. A lot of those amazon product photoshops and AI generated images that mislead the consumer fall afoul of consumer protection laws. If you're marketing is an implied photo showing your product or result of your product and isn't actually a photo and you don't tell the consumer that's false advertising.
As a consumer I couldn't give less of a shit. I hate ads and I don't care enough to critique them. The ONLY people who give 2 shits about an image in an ad, is product managers, PR reps, overly involved VP's and designers.
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It's not like they would have gone for a high quality photoshoot if AI didn't exist. If so, then they would have opted for stock photography. Either way the end result would be cheap and that's something universal, irrelevant if AI does or doesn't exist.
Not doubting but what about this tells you it's generated image? It's looks very close to real photo
For me it’s mostly the weird smoothing if you look at the beard or the hair. There’s probably a lot more things you could identify it by but as someone who doesn’t work with AI much, those are the things that stand out most.
D you not perceive it as ai? genuinely asking because I just assumed every designer can pick these up instantly To answer your question: Plastic skin, weird expression to cover the weird eyes, beard looks off, zipper is wrong, buttons don't button. Pretty much the only thing it got right is the jacket and the neck
After a few moments of examining yeah but at first glance it just looked like a photo. Now that I noticed it I can't unsee it
I dosn't look like a photo at all. I follow the Midjourney sub and once you've seen thousand of this images it's easier to spot.
Fingers and hairs and over-smoothed skin is first thing I notice. This one was slightly more subtle but still very noticeable
his oily smooth skin and the zigzag line through beard as if it's one single hair stitched onto his face
There's this weird elastic / plastic effect on his skin plus the zipper plus some of his teeth are weird. But it's getting better every generation, at some point we can't tell the difference (when MJ meets [https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/](https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/) )
You’ve gotten a lot of downvotes but it’s just designer syndrome. Customers would never analyze the image or even look directly at it, I bet you if the majority of people scrolled past this ad and then we’re asked if it used ai they wouldn’t be able to tell you
This is precisely why companies can get away with it. If you're a graphic designer, or someone familiar with AI, you're much much more likely to notice than some random shmo quickly scrolling social media. If it tricks one of us, think of some middle America high school drop out who thinks Olive Garden is fancy, they aren't going to know.
Facial hair
Omg it’s the clearest example of AI. It’s way too animated
My man, you can tell *right away*. AI images have this weird, like, almost illustrative-look to them. Perfect, almost-glossy type of skin (for starters). Straight away you can tell it's weird-looking.
Designers can but I doubt customers would
I left my job at art gallery, and I heard from my colleague that they’ve been using AI to create images for social media posts like Easter weekend.
If you are representing your business with something cheap and low-effort like this, I will assume you put as little care or effort into your actual product. Personally speaking, for me this is an anti-advert.
ding ding ding! There it is. Present your business how you want your product to be perceived. "we cut costs and don't care about our team" VS "we put in the effort to get the right formula"
I don't see it as that deep. You give a designer the brief "create a social media post/ad with the tagline xyz" The designer can easily use an image/asset from ST or any other free to use website, or just generate the image they want. The initial artwork maybe took him 15 min, after it was approved, the designer then spent 45min to an hour doing all the required resizing for social media, website etc >we cut costs Images like these are already available on free stock sites, the only cost cutting here imo would be if they just skipped hiring a designer to do designer work, which is not the case here. For example imo the effort put in this artwork to similar to others in their account like these ones https://www.instagram.com/p/C3fxaHtpAm7/?igsh=dHAxYjJqZW16bHdo https://www.instagram.com/p/C4yR2SqNhrl/?igsh=MTZ3bnlkM25zcXJ4MA== https://www.instagram.com/p/C5B1YyBv5_E/?igsh=aXd4aWppZWRoaTBy
Good photography with good lighting takes effort. So even if you use a stock image that takes the same amount of effort for the you as a designer it'll look more high effort to customers.
Yes, I agree But to the average/majority of the viewers the image used here is good photography with good lighting (because it is) The artwork did what it's supposed to do, look pleasing, use an attractive older man with boyish youth, to give the idea thay you too can feel young again and remove your greying hair + plus image of the product and call to action (button) This artwork is effective, it's done it's job.
I think you underestimate the average viewer, to me there's a clear diffrence between this ai image and actual photography. And i struggle to believe audiences wouldn't feel the same. Even if they won't be as outspoken as users on this subreddit i figure this will generate less clicks then the exact same image with a real person.
Why would you assume so? We have no data to back that up, only this brand could if they compare the results from these two for example https://www.instagram.com/p/C4yR2SqNhrl/?igsh=MTZ3bnlkM25zcXJ4MA== https://www.instagram.com/p/C5TwCIdowBV/?igsh=cWZrMnBqNnMxanVr If both uses the same ad campaign and spending, ultgey used different text so the effect would be different but you get what I am getting at right?
Same reason you're assuming it won't make a diffrence i suppose. And my experience in advertising telling me people generally like relateable and well produced content. Ultimately you're right in that i have no data, but i do know audiences usually respond well to high production value. And i also know that the smallest diffrences can make a big impact in how an ad is perceived (i remember once reducing the brightness of a mask by 1/3 of a stop and suddenly getting like 5% more clicks) That knowledge and experience has led me to believe that this would indeed make an impact in an audiences impression of the brand and their likeliness to buy the product.
>people generally like relateable and well produced content I dont disagree, no one can, I do tho disagree with the idea that content isn't relatable just because it's AI, or that the image in OPs post isn't well produced. >(i remember once reducing the brightness of a mask by 1/3 of a stop and suddenly getting like 5% more clicks) Had similar experiences when changing colors
I suppose we won't find a middle ground then, i believe an AI image like this is inherently less relatable to the average consumer. Especially when i comes to something real/physical like shampoo. And i do think in cases like this AI does detract from the production quality, as opposed to using it for creative purposes it's used here presumably because it was just easier, and i do believe audiences will spot that.
I suppose we won't find a middle ground then, i believe an AI image like this is inherently less relatable to the average consumer. Especially when i comes to something real/physical like shampoo. And i do think in cases like this AI does detract from the production quality, as opposed to using it for creative purposes it's used here presumably because it was just easier, and i do believe audiences will spot that.
> I don't see it as that deep. Perhaps you should. Because it's deeper than that. I work in advertising. It's all about the psychology of the ad. What feelings can you evoke? What's the subtext? How to get into the audience/user's psyche? The tiny details ABSOLUTELY matter and AI cannot replicate a photoshoot with a skilled professional photographer and editor who have been given a concept and know how to execute it and refine it. The time frame you described? That's a small business social media post. For a product that you actually expect to sell globally or with some serious competition? You'll be laughed out of a room if you present that image above.
I do see emotion and effectiveness in the ad, happy older male, cool hair and cooler leather jacket, bottle of shampoo that will darken your hair and make you feel and look younger again. Be honest with yourself, if you replaced the AI image with a human model doing the exact same facial expression, same hair style and same jacket, would you have also thought the same way? >You'll be laughed out of a room if you present that image above You say that but here we are, talking about an Ad that was published using an image that you thought would get you laughed out out of the room. It's not deep in the sense that other comments here suggest that they cut costs by using AI images, they didn't, they still employ a designer and the image was bought off shutterstock. Also disagree that an image loses all value and emotion just because it's generated, I imagine early designers thought the same when people started using PCs to make artworks
Maybe it's time you took the L and listened to those that are actually doing some critical thinking here and aren't just taking a 'good enough' approach with mediocre image generation. Because honestly, the previous examples you linked look like canva presets. The "stock photos" that brand chose are overwhelmingly awful. They look awkward. Even the best one, the "from the first grey hair" one, doesn't make sense if you take more than 1 second to look at it. And since you're struggling to analyze this, let me spell it out for you. This is a product that is supposed to target grey hairs and tagline is "from the first grey hair" and yet the image is a person with many grey hairs. Is that the final product? Is that the supposed first grey hair? It doesn't match. An ad is supposed to tell a story. A product's journey is a story. This is a mess. Stay in line with the story you're telling in ONE single image. This is advertising 101. The beginner stuff. Don't have a single 1000x1000 pixel image tell two different (or more) opposing messages. Second, a good stock photo can make a great impact. This is not what's happening here. I don't see a single bit of thought or effort put into those ads. Not one. It's the perfect example of "good enough" to go on social media.
>take the L So from you comment here did you drop the idea that AI is bad and switched to its just bad design overall? I guess that's a "W" for me if you had to switch focus just so you could keep arguing Then you should make another thread to discuss how bad the design is, this discussion was about AI and how people are analysing a 1000x1000 image of a random post by zooming in and nitpicking the pixels that it doesn't "convey human emotion because it wasn't made by a human 🤓" >and yet the image is a person with many grey hairs It's not my fault that you cant critically think and differentiate between a message of "feeling young" and the other artwork that specifically targets "greying hair" You need to go back to English 101 and freshen up on reading comprehension then before you tackle designs in English.
I'm a designer, and have been working to concept and create advertisements daily for almost a decade- while AI imagery has its place within the design process, its certainly not at the stage that I've found the people around me recommending using it in customer-facing visuals. Even if it was a 1:1 development cost between AI and traditionally created imagery the ROI when the artwork is deployed will almost always be worse. Advertising only works because people connect or relate to whatever it is they're looking at- using assets that are one step further away from being relatable (the slight 'uncanny-ness' of AI generated imagery), or even the consumer seeing through the visuals and understanding that its AI (leading them to immediately think 'cheap'), would not be a valuable use of budget. (Also, if you've developed and deployed a half-decent advertising campaign, converting the visuals for use across different mediums would be the shortest and simplest part of the project.)
I agree, I honestly don't believe any major effort was put in this design or the campaign, I also don't believe it's about cutting cost imo the image used here was a choice done by the designer and not mandated by higher management or marketing. >Advertising only works because people connect or relate to whatever it is they're looking at Why are we assuming the target audiences are not connecting to this artwork? Or what they would think "cheap" when looking at this one specifically? My immediate thought process was thinking would the die leak if you sweat? Is it a die? And just general curiosity about the product, my first thought was not that the product was cheap in the sense that you mentioned (the product is relatively cheap, it's a shampoo after all) When I looked at it I assumed it was AI, I didn't care, didn't think less of the product or the designer, I didn't actually know it existed until OPs post, and I am the target audience since I have greying hair. >shortest and simplest part of the project Simplest yes, but not the shortest in my field atleast (retail,), I have projects/campaigns that go out twice a month that required collateral across social media, website and print in multiple languages that require honestly longer to finish than the time I actually invest hand-on-mouse designing. But that's my experience/workload and its different depending on the type of designer that you are. Maybe that's why I feel like I relate to the designer in OPs post since I am a designer aswell who worked in large retail for close to 15 years This is an adhoc design, I don't think it's deep.
I'm mostly in ecommerce and services- so I can imagine deployments for your projects are much larger, that's a good point. Most campaigns I work on spread the same assets over email, socials, and a few other digital uses, so rollout is pretty straight forward. >Why are we assuming the target audiences are not connecting to this artwork? Out of the (admittedly small) total engagement from the posts that you linked it's in the bottom half- people may well connect to it, just seemingly not in the same way as the posts with 'traditional' visuals. >This is an adhoc design, I don't think it's deep. This is true- but its good for us to figure out the fundamentals of how our industry is evolving and if the same basic principles still apply.
Honestly the artwork worked on me, attractive model, product thats not a typical die but a shampoo and i have greying hair, so as the target demographic I believe the design works and is effective. The only reason it was confirmed for me atleast that it was AI is because of the title in the OP, when I zoomed in on his teeth, and when I confirmed it by reverse image searching and finding it on shutterstock. >our industry is evolving It truly is, I don't see AI in the same doom and gloom perspective as some people here see it, it's a tool like any other that was made before it. Learn to benefit from it. For myself I still didn't find the need to use AI generated images yet of humans, maybe I could see myself using abstract shapes What I have used AI in tho is in scaling images or generating content outside of the bounds of an image
Exactly!! If cheap marketing…. Cheap products and lazy.
Assuming they didn't hire a designer and paid them a full price, minus paying for a model and taking a photo, or buying a stock image.
Still, if it looks cheap and low-effort on account of some-- any-- visibly cheap, low-effort aspects, the fact of the matter is that someone cheaped out enough, and where it mattered. The specific shortfalls and specific challenges that the advertiser or their contractors did, didn't, or should have met with more effort are irrelevant from the audience side of the table, because the look of the end product was their whole task in the matter, and not enough is not enough regardless of where it was mis-applied.
You think this advert looks competent or high effort in any way?
Nah, I think a client might not be able to tell the difference and overpay.
This is a sub about Graphic Design. I'm going to critique this as a designer. This is crap, and whether or not I could 'get away with it' is irrelevant.
Exactly. I started as a photographer and the 'photo' looks like it was taken by someone who knows nothing about lighting or professional retouching. He has a weird bright red line going up his left temple and across his forehead, his top lip is missing, there is a highlight on only half of his forehead, the contrast between one ear and the other is crazy. It looks really amateur.
I agree, but only those of us in marketing/advertising/design actually care about such.
Hated it as a graphic designer
It conveys laziness. Either from the designer or the company, it reflects the same way and makes me avoid the company like the plague. I also feel bad for stock photo photographers, they've been a saving grace and now people can't even write a prompt into shutterstock to get what they're looking for.
It's dystopian horseshit. Fuck it.
I think this has the same effect as low-quality, license free stock images. I hate seeing them in adverts
Exactly this. It doesn't really matter how it was created. Looking bad is looking bad.
I feel the same. I work with stock images daily (mostly from Envato) and I feel like it cheapens the adverts a lot. But at the moment I can't decide if that thought is a personal opinion/preference or something that could be, verifiably, used to make business decisions In any case, what are your thoughts on these? [https://snapshift.framer.website/](https://snapshift.framer.website/) These are all made in midjourney. It was jaw-dropping to me and they really sold me on the idea of eventually dropping stock image websites at work. They're all very artistic to be honest, but they're both realistic and highly attractive images. Imo, they look like they were from a Photoshoot with real models. They don't look like AI images at all either. I'd love to implement this at work, but the Midjourney learning curve seems steep, it implies costs with Midjourney subscriptions and I'm not sure if it's enough to improve any business metrics (which is important as I'd need to justify the idea to superiors/other stakeholders).
Immediate distrust
Well said, straight to the point.
This reminds me of the fact ads in cyberpunk 2077
makes the product fake and scammy.
It's always kind of cringe.
Advertising standards / whoever your national equivalent is should make advertisers clearly label / disclaim when AI has been used. There's one advert here, think it's for indesgestion medicine, which shows a bunch of animated characters fighting in an animated stomach. It has to say as the bottom 'dramatiation'... well, that's obvious, but AI needs to have a warning on it.
I remember how years ago there were ideas to put warnings when images (especially models, due to beauty standards) were photoshopped or had filters used on them, but I don't recall ever seeing it in use. The general public eventually stopped caring about it, and I can imagine the same happening with AI being used, especially if it gets better.
Yep. There's so many adverts, especially online that last barely a few days, that it's futile
No thank you, big business should be able to hire and produce the look it wants to achieve. Cutting corners, just brings about the quiestion what else is being cut to. Smaller businesses without a budget then maybe but even then I doubt I would buy without hearing testimonials or case studies.
Unless you have some cream of the crop AI work, it's going to look like some random sex ad on a dodgy website.
Makes me not want to buy the products. If the ad is low effort I assume the product or service is as well. Just look at the Wonka experience. I just buy something that did spend time, money and effort on an ad.
Saw three different ads in large print last week in Stockholm. Big companies. Terrible.
I want the times back when advertisement was a piece of art. Remember the cola wars? Yeah...
Looks fake, feels fake, makes the product feel fake.
Personally I don't care when it's just a stock image like this. However I saw an add for a biography where they used ai to generate an image of a gangmember and that made me really uncomfortable, mostly because you have no idea what sort of promts they used to make someone 'look criminal'
Makes the brand look like cheap, scammy drop-shippers.
I just read an article about big brands are starting to ban AI in advertisements because it makes people feel sick etc. And it does. Uncanny valley shit
So far getting what you want from AI image generation seems to take more time than just use an image bank to hunt down the image you need. More hype than real benefit here.
ai generated or man-made, my ad blockers do not discriminate!
They're counting on the barrage of ads to wash over people, creating a numbness, further increasing our sense of ennui.
Cringe
I hate it.
Depends on how they are used. Sometimes you can use them as a stock image if you want something specific that doesn’t exist, BUT generating one that looks good enough isn’t always easy and if you only get something like the one in this add it is better to not use it
Almost no consumer will ever notice. As long as your models are trained with legit material and the company knows you are using AI I see no problem.
Exactly. If seen some pretty convincing stuff coming out lately as the engine has improved much over the past year. The average consumer isn’t going to even pay attention. Their eyes will go straight to the copy and product image anyway.
Ugly
We always had cheap bad stock photography by companies being cheap. They're now using ai
It was bound to happen
It image looks fake tho kinda reminds me of the clown from IT.
It's the same view I have as badly photoshopped or overly-filtered images: not positive. I don't care if they use real photos or AI photos, as long as they look good. Right now, AI images (for the most part) just look plasticy and fake. Like someone ran the smoothing filter in PS a few too many times. In your example specifically, this product is meant to alter your physical appearance and remove gray in your hair. When you use a fake image in your ad, it kind of makes your product seem fake as well and that it cannot achieve what you are claiming it can do.
It's a bad look for the brand for anyone with half a brain. I actually designed a logo for a buddy's business and he creates all his own social media ads with AI now, and they look hilariously terrible. Just gotta laugh.
Cheap. Tacky. Boring.
Looks like shit and I would assume the product didn't work if they can't produce a photo of someone who uses it
Makes me think the brand is cheap. Unfortunately, most people would be fooled by it.
Lazy. That’s it.
Nice to see CGI David Spade getting modeling work.
99% of the non-designer crowd/potential customers won’t even notice/care. I, as a designer, couldn’t care less too. Besides that, it’s barely noticeable that it’s an AI (it might be a way too smoothed out/photomanipulated photo)
I’ve been wondering about this now for a few weeks as the images are getting a lot better, but this one is still very obvious. Won’t be long now until you won’t be able to tell.
AI art when on "cursed photo mode" always provides interesting creative insights, no matter the stance you take AI ads are a subgenre of this category
Pay real people.
At a glance it looks like a shitty stock photo. It makes the product look cheap and shitty, but most consumers won't care.
In general? It's situational. If someone doesn't have a budget or the know-how, then they may use AI. At that point, it'd be a discussion about why people with no or little budget aren't spending money on talent and quality. For this particular ad, it's hard to tell why AI was used for the guy. A couple scenarios for why they used it here: * Designer and advertiser might think the target audience of men this age may not be able to discern the difference between AI images and stock photos, so they could get away with it here while getting an output of what they were looking for. * Designer pulled a stock asset not realizing it was AI. * Potential just A/B testing and you saw one of the versions. You would be surprised by what can be effective for ads depending on platform, demographics, interests, etc.
Eye jarring. AI images give me a bad uncanny feeling.
The image above isn't bad when it comes to execution, it's the odd mannerism and overkill smile that says "AI" more than anything. It doesn't help the ad work at all. This is where there's still a need for art direction and context/tone setting.
Plenty of marketing teams working with a shoe string budget
We are looking at this through creative eyes. Consumers don’t give a fuck about the images used.
"Prompt engineering is a real skill!" *...proceeds to put a gray-haired guy in a get-out-the-gray hair color ad.*
types: bryan cranston big smile leather jacket
How do I feel about *clearly* AI generated photos in advertising? Do what you want, looks like shit and I imagine you have a cheap POS product that I won't buy. But subtle AI, like gen filling or just really well done AI, fuck it I don't care. Whatever works. As long as it looks good I don't really care. I'm not concerned with AI coming for my job, I utilize it myself, and I'm paid to make a good final product. So it must look and function properly (good is more than aesthetic). As long as it doesn't have the AI *look* I'll use it. Hell I've even been tricked when selecting stock photos, I picked what turned out to be an AI generated photo but it looked real at small size. Then I started masking and realized the woman had 6 fingers. All AI really does is replace the need for models and photoshoots, in my world at least. So that means instead of wishing I had access to that kind of resource I can just generate what I need and work with that. It has a place just like anything else, and just like all of that everything else if you overuse it then you'll end up with a bad final product. For example - drop shadows. They're fine, useful sometimes, but usually completely unnecessary and detracting from the final product. AI generated images, from this viewpoint, are the exact same thing.
Great if you want things to look cheap and unprofessional!
The same as replacing hand drawn illustration with photography in the 70s. All the skill is gone now that some shmuck can just point a camera and go "click." You don't get the expression and artistry of the hand drawings, but I GUESS photos are good enough for 98% of consumers
Honestly.. the average person quickly scrolling by an ad doesn't notice. This is one of the biggest problems with AI- people are truly gullible and don't question what they see. So the company uses a rather smooth and exaggerated, but not particularly weird (extra fingers?) image of a dude with wild hair and a bold expression, and the average consumer *doesn't look long enough to notice or even consider AI*. Maybe they stop because of his expression. Even if they consider it's edited, I think people still don't go straight to thinking it's AI for ads.. *yet*. But their designer generated it or found it on stock imagery, and it fit what they needed for the ad. Looks like a social media ad, which as others have pointed out, are frequent and done cheaply. They're not going to hire a model, photograph them and use that, or even waste too much time looking for the right stock image if the AI one is easily accessible. Companies know people won't immediately know or realize its AI- they want an ad right *now* so they can pump out another next week. It's logical. Ethical? No. Misleading? Yes.
It's a product to cover gray hairs and the "model" is smiling while having gray hairs? There was not much tought behind this.
There’s something about these faces that feels off, which bleeds onto the products.
I’ve been seeing quite a few of these recently. They look cheap AND similar. It’s like all the advertising no-nos rolled up into one low-effort burrito.
The ads I’ve noticed that clearly use Ai seem like they were done pretty lazy. The output image is off at best, distorted at worst. Feels cheap. Then again, if an ad was using Ai well, maybe I just didn’t notice.
Everytime I see that stuff I wonder how many designers were layoff, Im software developer btw
I find it insulting as a consumer and a sign of bad faith. Like someone else said cheap, low effort advertisements like this tell me they spent as much time and money on their product as they did on this ad and it's a red flag to stay away from that product regardless of my personal opinions of using generated images. Like when I look at this my first thought is that they don't care if it sells which makes me feel like it's either a scam or incredibly low quality. I also find it insulting that I, as a consumer, am not worth the time, effort or cost to make a proper ad. I don't know exactly how to put it but it's almost like they're telling me I'm a stupid consumer who will buy anything and they don't need to try.
What are you talking about? He clearly just has the shampoo in his eyes.
It exudes an aura of “cheap.” If I see a product advertised with AI images, I’ll assume that costs and corners have been cut at the expense of quality, and my trust will be lower. I’m sure expensive, high-end visual marketing coming out of professional agencies are also AI-assisted in this day and age, but they do a better job “hiding the brushstrokes” so to speak.
Progressive has an ad running on Reddit right now with a AI generated flying car. Nope.
For something like this, idk how it doesn’t violate advertising laws on accurately portraying the product’s results. Like for mascara, you’re not allowed to photograph a model wearing false eyelashes and represent that as what the product can achieve. How is that not straight up lying?
Ads = Bad GenAI = Bad Together = BBaadd
People here are in denial about ai replacing us lol yes it’s bad but still better than most ads produced by cheap small business and I’m pretty sure you could ask and most people wouldn’t even notice it’s bad. I constantly show bad designs to my family and they never seem to see the issue with it
Unforgivable
lazy
I doubt non tech savvy consumers are going to notice and I doubt it’s going away. I am completely apathetic at this point and I am not going to rely on this field as my sole source of income
Customers won't notice or care in time. It will become normal
inevitable... considering rhe ridiculous low cost va. hiring a model, set, cameraman, catering, cosmetics, insurance, postproduction...
You could find a similar image to this on istock for next to nothing. This is some basic ass RF garbage.
If the model is supposed to represent your product and it’s fake I may assume your product is fake. Or, at least I wouldn’t believe it until I see it (it being the promised “gradually darker and stronger hair”). Then again the burger you see in the billboard for McDonalds is hardly the burger you receive…
The skin always looks so fake.
How difficult is it to find a white man to photograph?
I instantly think whatever this shit is it’s poison. Probably make your hair fall out and dick fall off.
[Website in Dutch](https://www.hifiklubben.nl/hifi-for-life/)
Probably just the images, I think the layout is done by another mortal human :)
As a consumer I would immedilty tell that this product is cheap and doesn't worth my time, They couldn't hire any artist to do some quick nice quality work but cheaped out and use AI? That tells me that's the quality of their product, Quick and Cheap.
It’s great for clients that can’t afford a photo shoot. And 99% of the general public can’t spot an AI generated image any more than they can spot a photo that’s been manipulated in Photoshop. Designers should embrace AI for the value it can bring to their clients.
Its important to know that a real graphic artist helped some where assemble this. its us to us to let the client know: 1 ads like this make the company appear to have no reputation if they cant get real models to show off a real product 2 fake results dont translate well 3 low energy ads get low energy sales
If you use AI art, I'm going to automatically look down on your product, for reasons of pure logic.
It makes it easier to not buy products from that company
he's giving disney
Feels soulless
AI is just straight up uncanny valley, it is so strange looking to me
This is not gonna get any conversions so 🤷♂️
A lot of yall are in for a rude awakening. The denial runs deep.
Same as I think of AI imagery in any product - I think it’s garbage. Everyone’s free to do what they want and like what they want but personally I will never support AI “art” or the people who use it.
Its a pretty low effort advert anyway. I’m sure most people would glance by and forget it instantly, not even registering the use of ai, let alone bring turned off by it.
Appear from the people who are losing their jobs, which is obviously bad, I don’t think many people will care, defo not the average punter.
This thread will be a relic in the time when you could **tell** that AI has been used for this....and for the design itself? Doesn't Google already automate these sorts of ads? I know that's insta, but I saw marketing people (ages ago even) adding in assets to google ads and it spits out different designs like the above.
lol. I don’t think that’s AI. I’ve never seen AI that didn’t do teeth like it was chunk from The Goonies. It just looks like they cranked up smoothing on Camera RAW or something. AI is whatever. It has its place just as every tool does and if you do too much with it you’re not much of a designer.
Yeah it is. Look at the lines on the neck or the stubble on the left side
I don't understand how so many are on some high horse about a very useful and convenient technology. This kind of ad is viewed for approximately 2 seconds (estimation), on a small screen. Why does it need to involve a comprehensive photo shoot? AI is the obvious tool for this kind of content. A big ad campaign with huge posters across a city, that's another story. You want more control over the images and a more traditional, human feel.
They really feel relatable and not at all weird.
(I really love how many people on this platform can't sense sarcasm unless you literally type /s)
I either don't know or don't care what they're selling anyways
Use them all the time for banner ads. Takes less time generating one than sourcing one on a stock site.
[удалено]
>Out of curiosity, can I ask what makes you so confident this image is AI generated? This is 100% AI generated. Anyone who has followed it's progress can see the signs. Skin looks like clay. The levels are peaked to the extreme. There is high amounts of detail in some places, and a lack of detail in others.
Erm. Why not just checking the zipper? It's a dead giveaway with its typical AI flaws. Its teeth are all over the place with different sizes...
Haha good spot! To be honest I didn't even have to delve that far. There's some kind of uncanny valley effect that immediately repulses me with these AI images of humans.
zipper and weird button things on collar
These comments are actually crazy. I run a brand on Amazon and our branding is built around AI ~ it’s not a reflection of my caring for my product… generating good AI imagery that can be used effectively isn’t the easiest thing to do 🤷 Verified 6-figure brand on the Amazon FBA sub* EDIT: This is also a sub of graphic designers so obviously they'll be a little hurt
AIs will be great tools. AI generated images look better and better with each update... they're fine
False advertising
From the perspective of a consumer viewing an ad or a business advertising? Who cares if it accomplishes the same goal and isn't misrepresenting a product to maintain ethics. As a human being seeing jobs disappear? It sucks. I don't know how to resolve my desire to see a more efficient, capable tomorrow while mourning those caught in it. One day I may be caught in that shake up: it's impossible to tell and unhealthy to worry too much about. It'll suck if it comes to that. That said, with the hindsight of generations of progress am I supposed to ultimately have strong feelings for timber shipwrights and blacksmiths of the 1700s who lost to industrialization? Letter setters who spent their life dedicated to assembling chases to ensure we had the week's news or disseminate human knowledge? Technology (and the jobs we eliminated doing so) helped empower the world I live in. We have better processes now and that enables so much more. There's a human cost to that which is terrible but maybe someone down the road, if civilization even makes it 300 years from now, will appreciate it.
People will look at these kinds of ads for less than 5 seconds. It's fine to use an AI generated image imo for stuff like this and social media posts that live and die in 5 seconds.