Are brands trying to be more intentional with their creative in the age of AI?

AI is everywhere.

It is in our inboxes, our search bars, our workplaces and, increasingly, our advertising. Depending on who you ask, it is either the greatest productivity tool of our generation or the beginning of the end for human creativity.

The conversation around AI and creativity has become particularly loud. Will it replace designers? Photographers? Writers? Illustrators? Will brands stop commissioning shoots and simply generate whatever they need?

But perhaps we are looking at the question from the wrong direction.

Because while some brands are embracing AI, others appear to be moving in the opposite direction. They are leaning harder into photography, physical production, human imperfection and ideas that feel unmistakably made.

And that raises a more interesting question:

In a world where almost anything can be created, are brands becoming more intentional about what they choose to create?

When everything can be made, making something means less

The arrival of generative AI has fundamentally changed the economics of creative production.

For years, polished, high-production advertising was something of a commodity that brands competed for. A beautiful image required a photographer, a location, models, lighting, set design, retouching and a production budget.

Now, increasingly, it can start with a prompt.

That doesn't mean those things have disappeared. But the perceived scarcity of polished imagery has.

And when something becomes abundant, its value can change.

We've spent years being sold impossibly clean homes, perfectly lit food, flawless skin and landscapes that look almost too beautiful to be real. Now AI can produce an almost infinite number of them.

So perhaps the pendulum is swinging.

Instead of craving perfection, audiences are increasingly interested in things that feel real.

A photograph with a crease in it. A slightly awkward expression. A recognisable person. A physical object. A real location. Evidence that somebody was actually there.

In other words, imperfection has become a creative signal.

Not every brand needs AI, and that's the point

There is an understandable temptation for brands to use AI simply because everyone else is.

But technology should serve the brand, not the other way around.

Imagine Patagonia filling its Instagram feed with AI-generated mountains.

Technically, it could.

Strategically, why would it?

Patagonia's brand is deeply connected to the physical world. Nature isn't simply a visual backdrop for the brand; it is part of what the brand stands for. Creating an artificial version of the thing it is asking people to protect would create a strange disconnect.

The same is true of a brand like National Geographic. Its authority comes from actually going somewhere, meeting people, documenting wildlife and showing audiences something they couldn't otherwise see.

An AI-generated lion might be visually impressive.

But it isn't a lion.

And that distinction matters.

There is also a wider environmental conversation around AI. AI systems require energy and, depending on the infrastructure being used, water for data-centre cooling and electricity generation. However, the exact footprint varies significantly by model, location and methodology.

Google's 2025 analysis, for example, estimated that a median text prompt in Gemini consumed approximately 0.26 millilitres of water. Google also stressed that this figure was specific to its own systems and methodology, rather than being representative of every AI prompt. Google — Measuring the environmental impact of AI inference

For a brand whose values are rooted in environmental responsibility, that makes the decision to use AI a strategic one, rather than an automatic yes.

The most intentional thing a brand can sometimes do with AI is not use it.

The rise of the anti-AI creative

There's another interesting response happening at the same time.

Some brands aren't simply choosing not to use AI. They are actively embracing the things AI threatens to make feel less valuable: physicality, spontaneity and human connection.

Take Polaroid.

Its "You Can't Automate Life" campaign is almost perfectly suited to the current moment. The idea works because it doesn't need to explain why AI is bad. It simply reminds us of something technology can't manufacture: the experience of actually being there.

That is a powerful brand move.

Rather than fighting AI on its own territory, Polaroid moves somewhere AI can't easily follow.

Heineken has taken a similar approach with its "Social Off Socials" campaign, positioning the brand as the "original social network" and encouraging people to put their phones down and be present with one another. Heineken itself describes the campaign as a reminder that the best social network is the one where people are physically together. Heineken — Social Off Socials

Again, the message isn't really "AI is bad."

It is:

There are some things that are better when they're real.

And that's a much stronger brand proposition.

We're starting to value the evidence of effort

This is where things get particularly interesting.

Perhaps the reason audiences are sceptical of AI creative isn't simply that they can tell it is AI.

Perhaps it's that they can't feel the effort behind it.

For most of human history, we have used effort as a shortcut for value.

We assume that something expensive probably required resources. Something intricate probably required skill. Something handmade probably took time.

Creative work has traditionally benefited from the same assumption.

When we see a photograph, we imagine the photographer finding the location, waiting for the light, directing the subject and capturing the shot.

When we see a painting, we imagine the hours spent making it.

When we see a film, we understand, at least vaguely, that hundreds of people were involved in creating it.

AI disrupts that mental equation.

A spectacular image can now appear to have taken seconds.

And psychologically, that seems to matter.

Research supports the idea that audiences can respond differently depending on whether they believe creative work was made by a human or by AI. A 2023 study found that identical artworks were evaluated more positively when participants believed they had been created by a human, with perceived effort helping to explain the difference. Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork

More recent research has made this relationship with effort even more explicit. A 2026 study found that greater perceived effort increased favourability towards AI-labelled artwork. Another 2026 study found that low perceived effort could contribute to AI art being valued less economically, and suggested that communicating human effort could help reduce that penalty. Computers in Human Behavior Reports — AI-labelled artworks and perceived effort Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services — The effort heuristic in the generative age

So perhaps we're not just asking:

"Is this good?"

We're subconsciously asking:

"How much did someone care about making this?"

Which is why some brands are making the effort visible

This could explain an emerging creative behaviour: brands being almost overly intentional about showing that their work could not have been casually generated.

The physicality becomes part of the idea.

The production becomes part of the content.

The craftsmanship becomes part of the story.

And this is where brands can turn something that might once have been considered a production constraint into a creative advantage.

A real set.

Real people.

Real materials.

A painstakingly constructed object.

A ridiculous practical effect.

Something that makes you wonder:

"How on earth did they make that?"

Because in an AI-saturated visual landscape, the making of the thing can become as interesting as the thing itself.

Fashion and beauty are particularly interesting here because physical texture, bodies and materials are central to the brand experience.

Victoria's Secret's recent "Modeled After Mom" campaign, for example, featured former Angels including Adriana Lima, Elsa Hosk and Jasmine Tookes photographed with their children. The campaign leaned into family, intimacy and real-life relationships rather than relying solely on the fantasy associated with traditional Victoria's Secret imagery.

But it's important not to claim that the campaign was a direct response to AI without evidence that the brand itself has said so.

Instead, it is a useful example of a broader shift towards human intimacy and recognisable reality in brand creative.

And that distinction matters.

It doesn't necessarily make the campaign "anti-AI".

It makes it pro-human.

AI isn't necessarily the enemy

Because this isn't an argument for brands to abandon AI.

AI can be incredibly useful.

It can help with repetitive production tasks, early-stage ideation, moodboarding, versioning, resizing, editing and countless other jobs that previously consumed time without necessarily adding much strategic value.

The problem isn't necessarily the tool.

It's when the tool becomes the idea.

A brand can use AI to make something extraordinary. It can also use AI to make something generic in approximately four seconds.

And consumers are increasingly surrounded by the latter.

That is why intentionality matters.

The strongest use of AI may not be:

"Look what AI can make."

It may be:

"Look what we wanted to make, and AI helped us get there."

The human idea comes first.

The technology follows.

Coca-Cola and the problem with "Real Magic"

Few brands demonstrate this tension more clearly than Coca-Cola.

Coca-Cola has built one of the world's most recognisable emotional brands around ideas of togetherness, nostalgia, celebration and, famously, "Real Magic".

That makes its use of AI-generated Christmas advertising particularly interesting.

The company faced criticism for AI-generated Christmas work, with critics arguing that the use of generative imagery felt at odds with the emotional promise of "Real Magic". Euronews — Coca-Cola's AI-generated Christmas ad sparks backlash

And whether or not you agree with that criticism, the strategic tension is obvious.

If a brand has spent decades telling us that Christmas is magical because of the human moments within it, replacing some of the human craft behind the storytelling can feel like a contradiction.

But there is an important complication.

Coca-Cola's 2025 Christmas campaign was not simply created by typing a prompt and pressing enter. Reporting from The Verge described a production involving around 100 contributors, including AI specialists, with tens of thousands of generated and refined clips involved in the process. The Verge — Coca-Cola's 2025 AI Christmas commercial

And that actually makes the discussion more interesting.

Because perhaps the problem isn't always the actual effort involved.

Perhaps it is the perceived effort.

The audience may see the finished product and think:

"This took five minutes."

Even when the reality is considerably more complicated.

The issue isn't simply that the image isn't real.

It's that the production method can become part of how we interpret the brand promise.

If you tell me something is "Real Magic", I want to feel that someone cared enough to make it real.

But here's the twist: AI can now be so good that we don't know what's real

And this might be the biggest challenge for brands.

We're getting worse at knowing where creative came from.

Or perhaps, more accurately, we're discovering that we were never particularly good at it in the first place.

A recent example came from an AI-generated Nike concept featuring basketball star Victor Wembanyama alongside Salesian nuns.

The work wasn't created by Nike.

It was created by 20-year-old USC design student Asher Hyde, who produced the images using AI after the nuns appeared courtside during an NBA game. The work spread widely enough that some people initially assumed it was an official Nike campaign. Sporting News — The viral fake Nike ads featuring Victor Wembanyama

That's fascinating for two reasons.

First, the technology was good enough to convincingly imitate the visual language of one of the world's most recognisable brands.

But second and arguably more importantly, the idea was good.

The concept understood the cultural moment.

It understood Nike.

It understood basketball.

It understood why the image of nuns sitting courtside next to Wembanyama was funny, strange and culturally interesting.

The AI didn't discover that.

A human did.

The tool simply made the execution incredibly fast.

And that's a useful lesson for brands.

AI has made production cheaper.

It hasn't made taste cheaper.

It hasn't made cultural understanding cheaper.

It hasn't made strategy cheaper.

And it certainly hasn't made having something worth saying cheaper.

So, are brands becoming more intentional?

Probably.

But perhaps not because brands have suddenly become more thoughtful.

Perhaps because they have to.

When anyone can produce an image that looks like an advert, looking like an advert is no longer enough.

When everyone can create polished content, polish becomes less distinctive.

When AI can generate the perfect lifestyle image in seconds, perfection stops being proof of quality.

And when audiences know that almost anything could have been generated, they start looking for signals of human intention.

The photograph that looks like someone actually took it.

The campaign that could only have come from that brand.

The idea that responds to something happening in culture right now.

The physical object that clearly took an unreasonable amount of time to make.

The creative decision that makes you think, "Why did they do that?"

Those things carry something AI can't automatically manufacture:

intent.

The future of brand creative might not be less AI. It might be more human.

The conversation around AI has become strangely binary.

Use it and you're accused of killing creativity.

Don't use it and you're accused of being behind the curve.

But brands don't need to pick a side.

They need to know why they're using it.

AI can be a production tool. It can be an ideation tool. It can make creative teams faster, more experimental and more ambitious.

But the brands that stand out may be the ones that understand that creative value isn't determined solely by how impressive the output is.

It's determined by the thinking behind it.

As AI makes production increasingly effortless, the effort itself becomes interesting.

As synthetic imagery becomes increasingly convincing, reality becomes distinctive.

And as everyone gains the ability to make almost anything, the most valuable creative skill may become knowing what is actually worth making.

So perhaps the question isn't:

"Will AI replace creativity?"

It's:

"Now that we can create almost anything, what will brands choose to create — and will audiences believe they cared enough to make it?"

Sources and further reading

1. Castelo, T., Bos, M. W. & Lehmann, D. R. (2023) — Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork . Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.
2. Computers in Human Behavior Reports (2026) — Research examining AI-labelled artwork, perceived effort and audience favourability .
3. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2026) — The effort heuristic in the generative age: why consumers aesthetically appreciate AI art but refuse to pay .
4. Google Cloud (2025) — Measuring the environmental impact of AI inference .
5. Heineken — Social Off Socials .
6. The Verge (2025) — Reporting on Coca-Cola's AI-generated Christmas campaign and its production process .
7. Euronews (2025) — Reporting on the criticism surrounding Coca-Cola's AI-generated Christmas advertising .
8. Sporting News (2026) — Reporting on Asher Hyde's viral AI-generated Nike concept featuring Victor Wembanyama .