Adam Peruta (Syracuse University) argues that risk is not a visibly failed creation, but a creation polished enough to pass internal validation and then underperform.
In a contribution published on September 3, 2026, Adam Peruta, associate professor at Syracuse University's Newhouse School of Public Communications, shifts the debate to AI-generated advertising. The usual question — does the public spot an automated creative? — is the wrong one, he says. Consumers often don't tell the difference, and that's precisely what masks the problem.
His argument is based on one distinction: appearing credible is not the same as working. Generative AI makes it possible to produce faster and cheaper, which speeds up internal validation; but a creation polished enough to pass the committees can then disappoint on commercial indicators. The risk is therefore not the visible failure, it is the almost-good that goes unnoticed until the campaign results.
The practical consequence for advertisers is to shift the arbitration criteria: judging a creative on its measured performance rather than on the impression it produces in the meeting room.
Read the full article on the original source
Go to the source →