When AI Doesn’t Sell Prada: Why Using AI-Generated Advertisements Backfires for Luxury Brands
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research uncovers the potential negative consequence of utilizing AI-generated imagery in luxury brands’ advertising efforts. Across three experiments (field and lab studies) using only AI-generated ads, the authors find that when luxury brands feature and disclose the use of AI-generated imagery in their advertisements, consumers respond to the ads more negatively (Study 1). The results further reveal the underlying rationale for this negative outcome: AI-generated advertisements are perceived to be made with lower effort, which results in AI-generated luxury ads being evaluated as less authentic of the brand (Study 2). Finally, the authors explore a potential strategy that mitigates the negative impact of disclosing the use of AI-generated imagery on luxury ads’ evaluations (Study 3). Specifically, the authors find that the negative outcomes associated with AI-generated luxury ads are attenuated when luxury brands use generative AI to generate highly creative ad imagery rather than standard creative ad imagery. This research highlights how luxury brands should strategically approach AI usage and the important managerial implications of employing generative AI in brands’ advertising efforts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it