Ipsos set up a tidy little test for generative video: take 20 :30 ads from major brands, show them to 3,000 U.S. consumers in a distracted, “real feed” viewing environment via Ipsos Creative|Spark, and see whether AI-made work can hang with the human stuff.
Half the ads were human-created originals; the other half were generated as AI counterparts. Syracuse professor Adam Peruta used Google’s Gemini to reverse-engineer a brief from each original spot, then had Gemini output a new concept as a shot list. That shot list was fed into OpenAI’s Sora 2 to produce the AI-generated version — “no human creative intervention,” per Ipsos. The models still needed multiple iterations to reach a “good enough” bar for testing, which is doing a lot of work in one phrase.
On perception, the machines did… fine. Only 25% of viewers of AI ads felt at least somewhat confident the spot was AI-made, and 40% of all viewers were uncertain either way. So much for the average consumer’s inner deepfake detective.
But even without reliably spotting AI, respondents still rated the human-made ads as more eye-catching and imaginative. Ipsos says the biggest human edge showed up in being more entertaining, more unique, and more talkable. Using its MISFITS framework — Creative Experiences, Empathy & Fitting In, and Creative Ideas — Ipsos reports the overall perception gap was “smaller than most would expect,” with humans scoring modestly better across the board. A useful reminder that “credible” and “compelling” are not interchangeable.
Then Ipsos brought in the part marketers insist is the only part that matters: predicted business impact. On average, human-made ads were 14% stronger on short-term effectiveness, measured by Creative Effect Index, and 17% stronger on long-term effectiveness, measured by Equity Effect Index, according to Ipsos’ sales-validated measures.
The stronger AI performers skewed functional and product-driven. Febreze and Herbal Essences are cited as examples that did relatively well with straightforward problem/solution structures. More ambitious narrative, emotional tone, or “point of view” briefs tended to land with less force. Ipsos points to a Fiat spot instructed to be “energetic, defiant, and confident with a playful, rebellious edge” as one that became one of the least emotionally stirring ads in the set. The machine heard “rebellious edge” and apparently reached for the nearest focus-group-safe leather jacket.
The bigger tension isn’t just performance. It’s trust. Ipsos says 79% of people believe companies using AI should have to disclose that use, and flags backlash risk for brands that don’t — right as disclosure standards and rules are still being sorted out by platforms, the IAB, and state laws.
Read more at Ipsos.