AI Mentions in Commercials: Marketers Can Rest Easy

Does an AI disclosure lead to resistance or a lower rating for a commercial? The initial findings are mostly reassuring. The differences are minor. The biggest risk seems to be not the disclosure itself, but the perception that the use of AI was concealed.

The new European transparency rules make the discussion about AI in advertising more relevant than ever. Many marketers are wondering what happens when it’s clearly stated that AI has been used. Will consumers lose interest? Will the commercial become less appealing? Or will the disclosure reflect negatively on the brand? The initial results give us reason to remain calm.

An AI flag has little effect on the rating

Disclosing AI use in advance has virtually no impact on how a commercial is rated. The same AI commercial is rated almost identically with or without a prior disclosure. Even when differences in general attitudes toward AI are taken into account, this finding holds true. There is no convincing effect of the AI disclosure on the overall evaluation. Marketers therefore need not fear that consumers will turn away en masse or suddenly strongly reject a commercial as soon as it becomes clear that AI has been used.

The McDonald’s case followed the same pattern

These findings are consistent with earlier research on McDonald’s Christmas commercial, which was created entirely using AI. McDonald’s pulled the commercial after facing heavy online criticism. However, a survey of a broader audience showed that the commercial actually scored highly in terms of memorability, appeal, and emotional impact.

Nearly six in ten viewers did not realize that the commercial had been created using AI. Even among those who did recognize this, the rating remained high. After the use of AI was explicitly mentioned, the average rating dropped, but 68% of viewers’ opinions remained unchanged.

The decline was primarily caused by a relatively small group that reacted very negatively. It is precisely such a group that can dominate the online discussion, while the majority has little issue with it. For marketers, this is an important lesson: online outrage is not automatically representative of the general public’s reaction.

There is, however, a slight negative undertone

That doesn't mean that a mention of AI has no effect at all. For 17 of the 18 characteristics examined, a slightly lower rating is observed when it is disclosed in advance that AI was used.

These differences are minor and, for now, merely indicative. No firm conclusions can be drawn from them yet, but the trend is strikingly consistent. It is also important to distinguish between the evaluation of the commercial and the perception of the brand.

In the commercial itself, the most significant differences are seen in terms of appeal, annoyance, and boredom. When an AI reference is included, the commercial is rated as slightly less appealing, slightly more annoying, and slightly more boring.

When it comes to the brand, the most significant differences are evident in terms of humanity and warmth. The brand behind the commercial is perceived as slightly less human and warm when the role of AI is mentioned up front. In contrast, there are hardly any differences in brand values such as reliability, honesty, and credibility.

One respondent described this emotional distance as follows: “Now that I know the commercial was largely created using AI, I don’t think it’s as cool. To me, it feels less creative and less real.” So, the disclosure seems primarily to create a certain emotional distance. A brand isn’t immediately viewed with suspicion, but it may come across as slightly less warm or human.

It's riskier to talk about it after the fact

The most striking result emerges when people are told that AI was used only after they have watched and evaluated the commercial. For about two-thirds of them, their perception does not change. For about one-third, their opinion does change or doubts arise, just as in the McDonald’s case. When people indicate that their opinion has actually changed, their evaluation shifts in a negative direction. This pattern is evident across all the brands studied.

The open-ended responses mainly highlight feelings of deception and a loss of authenticity: “Because it makes me feel like I’m being tricked. That it’s not genuine. I miss a human voice and vibe, which makes the commercial feel insincere.”

Another respondent describes how this can reflect on the brand: “It now seems as if the company wants to appear authentic, but isn’t willing to actually be authentic.”

Transparency is therefore primarily a way to protect one's reputation. Disclosing information in advance has little effect on the average rating. Discovering it after the fact can elicit a much stronger negative reaction.

What does this mean for marketers?

The preliminary results lead to four practical recommendations:

Don't panic unnecessarily over an AI flag. The overall rating hardly changes.

Opt for openness when transparency is necessary or desirable. Disclosing information after the fact seems riskier than sharing it in advance.

Keep the human element in mind. Above all, make sure the brand conveys warmth and humanity.

Don't let a vocal minority automatically dictate the decision. Gauge the sentiment among the general public.

Reassuring, but not the final word

The study included commercials from various sectors, examining both commercials generated entirely by AI and those that made partial use of AI. This makes the pattern more relevant than a finding based on a single brand or a single type of commercial.

At the same time, further research is needed to draw more robust conclusions. The response may vary depending on the sector, target audience, creative style, and the way AI is applied. A fully AI-generated commercial may evoke a slightly different response than a commercial in which only a few images have been altered.

For now, the key message is clear: It is not the AI disclosure itself that appears to be the greatest risk, but the perception that the use of AI has been concealed. Therefore, prioritize transparency, continue to invest in human creativity, and do not let online outrage outweigh the reaction of the general public.

This article was previously published on MarketingTribune on August 14, 2026.