AI Versus Authenticity: Consumer Sentiments Toward AI-Generated Advertisements on Social Media and Strategic Implications for Brands

  • Chin M
  • Wang X
  • Zhong Y
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence in advertising has revolutionized the industry by enabling personalized content creation and enhanced efficiency. However, its impact on consumer perception and brand appeal remains a contentious issue. This study employs a mixed-methods approach to investigate whether AI-generated advertisements enhance brand appeal or risk alienating audiences. Through sentiment analysis of YouTube comments using MDCOR and SENA techniques on campaigns from Coca-Cola, Heinz, and KitKat, we uncover a complex landscape of consumer response. While quantitative analysis reveals an overall positive sentiment skew, a significant and vocal minority expresses strong negative emotions. These criticisms are rooted in perceptions of AI ads as "soulless," lacking authenticity, and raising ethical concerns about job displacement for human creatives and intellectual property misappropriation. The findings align with the “Theory of Planned Behavior”, where “attitudes” and “subjective norms” significantly influence behavioral intentions. The analysis also reflects the key dimensions of consumer sentiment—entertainment, informativeness, irritation, and relevance—where AI ads often fall short on authenticity, leading to irritation among certain demographics. The study concludes that while AI offers unparalleled efficiency and can yield high engagement metrics, its application without careful consideration of consumer ethics and emotional intelligence poses a significant risk to brand reputation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chin, M., Wang, X., & Zhong, Y. (2025). AI Versus Authenticity: Consumer Sentiments Toward AI-Generated Advertisements on Social Media and Strategic Implications for Brands. Communications in Humanities Research, 100(1), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/2025.ht30722

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free