“AI slop” was named 2025’s word of the year by Merriam-Webster. Consumers are clearly hyperaware of the overuse of generative technologies and are increasingly allergic to it, especially when it degrades their experience. The artistic community has seen some of the strongest backlash and brands considering generative AI in creative should proceed with care.
The cautionary tales are already here. Brands like Coca-Cola, Svedka and H&M have openly promoted their use of AI in commercials, only to receive sustained criticism. That’s created understandable hesitation. But refusing to use these technologies altogether creates its own risk. Brands may fall behind or overspend just to maintain the same level of awareness and resonance.
What’s driving this reaction? More importantly, is there a way to use AI in brand creativity without damaging consumer trust?
The SEO toolkit you know, plus the AI visibility data you need.
Two Coca-Cola campaigns, two very different outcomes
Let’s look at two examples, both from Coca-Cola. The brand released a holiday ad titled “Holidays Are Coming.” It featured several minutes of Coke-branded trucks moving through animated environments in a style consistent with its seasonal campaigns. The response was immediate and negative.
Viewers labeled it AI slop, criticizing both the concept and execution. Many pointed out that the script felt one-note, as if it’d been generated from a basic prompt. Others noticed inconsistencies across scenes, including visual details, character design and even the Coca-Cola logo itself. The work gives the impression that cost reduction and speed were prioritized over brand authenticity.
To make matters worse, Coca-Cola publicly emphasized the role of AI in production, which amplified scrutiny.
In contrast, the ad titled “Coca-Cola Masterpiece” also relied heavily on AI but was received far more positively. The concept felt original. The use of AI extended reality rather than imitating it. The story unfolded in a way that would’ve been difficult, if not impossible, to execute through traditional production.
The supporting publicity around the campaign focused on the artists involved, not the technology. Viewer responses reflected that difference, with comments like “It wasn’t made by AI. It was made by humans using AI. I can feel the feelings of the person who made this ad.”
Technology doesn’t excuse mediocrity
Marketers already rely on tools that distort reality. Explosions are exaggerated. Cars don’t drive on Mars. Consumers accept this because the story works.
But when those tools are used poorly, people notice. Bad visual effects, inconsistent editing or weak performances break immersion. AI is no different. It’s a new tool that needs its own standards.
In the holiday ad, viewers detected laziness. The narrative was thin or missing entirely. Instead of building a connection, the ad stacked recognizable Coca-Cola symbols into a sequence of visuals. That kind of flatness is easy to detect and hard to ignore. It’s “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” in commercial form.
The aesthetic inconsistency made it worse. Visual glitches and mismatched styles disrupted the experience and signaled a lack of control, which would never have happened with standard technology. Whether the issue was immature technology, weak prompting or poor oversight, the result felt careless.
Then there’s the ethical ambiguity. Where did the underlying material come from? Was it licensed? Was it derived from existing creative work? Even when the output resembles a brand’s established style, the lineage is often unclear. That uncertainty makes people uncomfortable.
A better way to approach AI in creative
These failures point toward a clearer set of principles, reinforced by the stronger examples of successful ads.
- Use AI to expand imagination, not replace craft.
- Be obsessive about fidelity.
- Secure usage rights and control your inputs.
Expand your imagination
Generative AI works when it serves the narrative. It fails when it replaces it. Audiences can tell when something was generated without care. If AI is used primarily to cut production costs or replace human creativity, the result feels reductive. It strips away the purpose of storytelling.
Campaigns like Svedka’s AI-generated Super Bowl ad “Shake Your Bots Off” made the technology itself the focal point and the idea suffered as a result, notably from the same studio behind Coca-Cola’s 2025 “Holidays Are Coming” ad.
But when AI enables something genuinely new, it becomes additive. It allows brands to tell stories that weren’t previously possible. That shift changes how the work is received.
Obsess about fidelity
There’s an entire subculture dedicated to finding flaws and discontinuities in creative work. AI-generated content gives them a bright, shiny target, as seen with McDonald’s Netherlands holiday AI ad “It’s the Most Terrible Time of the Year,” where visual inconsistencies and unrealistic details quickly became the focus of criticism.
Be fanatical about the details. Logos must be exact. Visuals must be consistent. Even subtle impossibilities should be eliminated unless they’re intentional. These issues are symptoms of a deeper problem: AI-generated content often feels inauthentic. Traditionally produced work doesn’t exhibit these flaws in the same way. When they do appear, they signal to the viewer that something is off and that perception quickly becomes associated with your brand.
Your goal is to protect the viewer’s immersive experience, avoid the uncanny valley and maintain the integrity of your brand. Quality is the canary in your AI-generated coal mine.
Secure usage rights
Start with assets your brand owns or has explicitly licensed. Make sure those rights extend to AI-driven use cases. Where possible, build processes that include approvals for the use of likenesses or materials in final outputs.
Virgin Voyages offers a strong example. The brand shot original footage of Jennifer Lopez and allowed customers to use it to generate personalized invitations. The foundation was licensed, controlled and intentional.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, H&M, Levi’s and Mango have received backlash for their use of AI-generated digital twin models, raising concerns about consent, compensation and the displacement of human talent.
Beyond rights, tightly manage what goes into the model. Limit inputs to approved assets, likenesses and references. Don’t leave this open-ended.
Keep it to yourself or have a reason not to
One pattern across the most criticized campaigns is how loudly brands announced their use of AI. Press releases, descriptions, behind-the-scenes content. All of it invited scrutiny. If the work is strong, it should stand on its own without explanation.
If you choose to highlight AI, make sure there’s a clear reason. Nike’s use of AI to stage a match between 1999 and 2017 Serena Williams is a good example. That story couldn’t be told any other way.
The standards AI-driven creative must meet
Before shipping AI-generated creative, be clear on the impact of using AI. Marketing budgets are shrinking, and cost-cutting is a valid rationale. But if you can’t confidently answer these three questions, it may be more effective not to advertise at all:
- Is this additive? Does AI make the idea more interesting?
- Is this respectful? Are rights, likeness and labor considerations addressed?
- Is this excellent? Would we distribute this regardless of production source?
Consumers aren’t rejecting AI. They’re rejecting indifference. This backlash is a signal to raise the standard. Generative AI is not a shortcut. It’s a tool for telling more ambitious and original stories. Brands that treat it as a craft tool will earn trust instead of losing it.
The post Why AI-driven creative is failing and how to fix it appeared first on MarTech.