This week, a controversy in the fashion world uncovered consumers’ true sentiment toward AI.
Vogue, the decades-old powerhouse of fashion, published a Guess ad with a blue-eyed and blonde AI model. And the Internet is in shambles — one TikTok comment called it “war on art, fashion, and culture.”
AI might be ushering us into the future, but the question, as always, remains: Is it the future we want?
The decision to showcase an AI-made ad — especially this particular one — calls to mind the 2010s movement against the industry’s lack of diverse representation and impact on body image perception. But let’s face it: AI’s ability to set unrealistic beauty standards is not all too different from Photoshop’s. Ultimately, it’s a choice on whether, how, and to what extent to use such tools — as well as what the desired end result is for a prompt.
One Reddit user shared, “It’s not just cheap and lazy: it’s an admission that these are just ads, nothing more, no innovation or artistry.”
This is the quintessential point: When customers buy into your product through an ad, what they’re really buying into is the feeling your ad evokes and what your product represents. In the case of Guess or Vogue, the product is fashion with vision, artistry, and originality. Who dons the ‘fit is just one piece of the puzzle.
So it’s no surprise that even high-quality AI-generated ads elicit “weaker memory activation in the brain, compared to traditional ads,” as found in a study by NIQ, which also revealed “AI-generated ads may create a negative halo effect that could dampen consumer perceptions of both the ad and the brand.”
And although AI’s impact on job security is often swept under the table, the reality still is that you’re not just swapping out models — you’re also replacing hair and makeup artists, photographers, stylists, set designers, and so many more. Again, little wonder that MNTN Research reported “72% of respondents want brands to limit their adoption of AI to protect human jobs.”
Between talent, airfare, and sets, such photoshoots run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Seraphinne Vallora, the company which produced the infamous ad, shared with BBC that they may likewise “charge anywhere up to low six figures for a client like Guess.”
Some may wonder if at that price, you might as well hire models lining up out the door for gigs. Others may still call it “cheap” and “lazy.”
Cheaper it may be, but lazy—perhaps no more so than the floods of vibe-coded apps entering the marketplace. Co-founder Valentina Gonzalez has also shared that it’s a misconception that AI image generation is simple, when in reality it’s very complex. Anyone who’s tried to prompt an image on ChatGPT only to ask for 10 edits on misinterpretations will find this to ring true. Anyone who’s vibe-coded an app but still needed technical know-how to tidy it up will as well. Easier, yes, but lazy—not entirely. At least not for the producers responsible for generating a precise image.
But all that glitters for businesses investing in AI may not be gold in years to come: Gartner predicts 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled by 2027, citing “escalating costs, unclear business value or inadequate risk controls” as reasons companies abandon their early-stage experiments.
We’re at an inflection point. Consider wisely how and when you prompt.
And with that, we continue to dive into the AI-powered ad engine, including the tech companies making it possible.
—The Editors
