This one is going to be maybe a little controversial, or at least news that humans don’t want to hear. A joint study from NYU and Emory University has delivered a sharp rebuke to the idea that humans and AI make better creatives together. After testing GenAI ads across more than 100,000 impressions, the researchers found that fully AI-generated ads outperformed both human-created and hybrid human-AI ads in everything from click-through rates (up by 19%) to emotional engagement and visual clarity. The so-called dream team of AI-assisted human creative didn’t just fail to outperform—it actively reduced purchase intent. Simply put, the more we “help,” the worse the results.
Even more awkward for marketers: transparency hurts. When consumers were told an ad was AI-generated, performance dropped like a rock—down as much as 31.5%. That sends a chill down the spine of anyone preparing for regulatory disclosure mandates. It’s hard to square the growing push for AI transparency with field data showing audiences trust AI less the moment they know it’s involved. Disclosure seems to flip the mental switch from “cool design” to “computer trickery.”
And in case traditionalists were still hoping “human touch” wins in the long run, the study also found that when GenAI was let loose on packaging design—an area many marketers still consider sacred—it drove even better results. The study design may not be perfect: just over 100k impressions does not exactly make a scaled test set, and the measured KPIs may not translate to actual business growth. But taken at face value, the data suggests that AI shouldn’t just optimize creative, it should originate it.
