In a 2026 survey from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, 82% of advertising executives thought Gen Z and millennial consumers felt positively about AI-generated ads. Only 45% of the consumers surveyed said they did.
That gap matters for advertisers deciding where to spend their money. AI can make it cheaper to produce and test more versions of an ad, but a lower production bill doesn’t necessarily mean a lower cost to win a customer.
For Shane Ginsberg, founder of Street Poller Media, the distinction comes down partly to what an advertisement asks viewers to believe.
His argument is that content explaining a product serves a different purpose from content presenting someone’s personal experience with it. AI may help produce either format, but an apparent customer reaction carries expectations about whether that experience actually occurred.
Ginsberg has a commercial interest in that distinction. His company produces street-interview advertising built around interactions with people filmed in public settings.
Production efficiency and credibility serve different purposes
The supplied company commentary distinguishes between advertising that conveys information and advertising that relies on evidence of an experience.
An animated explainer, for example, can demonstrate a concept without suggesting that a customer personally used a product. A testimonial makes a different claim, whether explicitly or through the way it is presented.
In Ginsberg’s assessment, unscripted interactions can offer brands something that polished production alone does not provide. The appeal lies in a viewer’s belief that a person encountered a question or product and responded in the moment.
That does not make street interviews inherently trustworthy or immune to manipulation. Filming a real person does not establish that an encounter was spontaneous, that a statement is representative or that editing preserved its meaning.
Nor does an outdoor background establish that footage could not have been generated or altered.
The more defensible distinction is between an authentic, documented experience and a depiction that could mislead viewers about what happened.
Lower production costs do not guarantee better returns
Ginsberg expects automation to put pressure on advertising formats that compete primarily through production speed and volume. He argues that credible human participation could become a more important differentiator as generated content becomes more common.
That is a business thesis, not an established pricing trend.
Cheaper creative assets may allow advertisers to test more messages, but production cost is only one part of a campaign’s economics. Media placement, distribution, editing and performance measurement still affect the final result.
A video that costs less to make is not necessarily less expensive per customer acquired. Conversely, a more costly human-led production does not automatically justify its price.
For brands, the relevant comparison is whether a format delivers useful results at an acceptable overall cost, rather than whether it was made by people or generated by software.
Transparency matters alongside authenticity
Consumer attitudes also complicate the idea that audiences universally reject AI-made advertising.
The IAB research, based on more than 500 Gen Z and millennial consumers and 100 advertising executives, found that disclosure could support acceptance. Seventy-three percent of consumer respondents said knowing an advertisement used AI would either increase or make no difference to their likelihood of purchasing.
Those findings do not establish how every audience will respond. They suggest that clear presentation and expectations matter alongside production methods.
There are also rules governing testimonials regardless of how they are created. The Federal Trade Commission’s guidance on consumer reviews and testimonials addresses fake or false testimonials, including misrepresentations about a person’s existence or experience.
Using a real participant does not remove an advertiser’s responsibility to present that person’s experience accurately.
The business case remains campaign specific
Ginsberg’s broader argument is that automation may change the value of different kinds of advertising unevenly.
Some tasks may become faster and less expensive. Others may continue to require people, documentation and careful production because the message depends on a genuine experience.
But no advertising format is automatically protected from technological change, and credibility alone does not guarantee commercial performance.
For advertisers allocating budgets, the practical challenge is to separate savings in content production from results in the marketplace. AI can change how an ad is made. Whether audiences believe it, and whether it produces worthwhile business outcomes, remain separate questions.
©2026 Cox Media Group
