ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON VISUAL MARKETING MANAGEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing role of the visual content in the internet has made visual marketing as a highly significant strategic position in the contemporary marketing management. At the same time, the evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has enabled organizations to analyze, customize, and streamline the marketing efforts in visuals on a platform and scale never before attempted or achieved. The paper discusses the AI application in visual marketing management by examining the ways that the AI capabilities have transformed strategic planning, content creation, personalization, monitoring, and optimization of visual campaigns. The research that is founded on the overall assessment of academic literature and formulated analytical theories frames AI as the empowering management attribute, but not the technology application. Consequently, based on the analysis, one can mention that the visual marketing processes are supported by the use of computer vision, predictive analytics, and generative AI in data-driven decision-making, the real-time performance measurement, and the continuous learning processes. The paper also provides the assessment of whether visual marketing can be affected by AI or not and induce the short-term performance indicators, such as engagement and conversion rates, and the long-term brand equity indicators, such as brand recall and consumer trust. In addition, the study describes the managerial and ethical issues regarding the AI adoption, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency and human control. The current research contributes an analytical value to the management of AI-based visual marketing by combining strategic, operational, and governance strategies. The findings may be applicable to researchers and specialists who are interested in referring to AI as the basis of effective and responsible visual marketing in online services that are more competitive.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".