Here's a number that should make every marketer pause: 51% of advertisers think ads made with generative AI are creative. Only 35% of Gen Z and millennials agree.
That's a 16-point gap. And it's not a small one.
So what's going on? Advertisers are falling in love with a tool. The audience isn't falling in love with the result.
I've spent years building content on the road — photos from places like Patagonia, stories from campsites in the middle of nowhere, videos shot with shaky hands and worse lighting. I've watched AI tools get better every year. I've experimented with them myself, because that's what curiosity does — it makes you ask, "what happens if I try this instead?"
But here's what I keep noticing: a polished AI image can look impressive and still feel empty. Gen Z seems to be picking up on the same thing, just faster and more bluntly than the rest of us.
What Gen Z actually wants
The numbers tell a pretty specific story. 40% of Gen Z say high-quality images matter most to them in advertising. 39% want ads that actually entertain them.
Notice what's missing from that list. Nobody's asking for "more AI." Nobody's demanding efficiency, speed, or scale — the things AI is best at selling to marketing departments. They're asking for quality and entertainment. Two things that have nothing to do with which tool made the content and everything to do with whether the content is actually good.
That's the trap a lot of brands are falling into right now. They're optimizing for the process instead of the output. AI lets you produce ten times the content in half the time. But if that content doesn't look great or doesn't hold someone's attention for three seconds on a phone screen, who cares how fast you made it?
Why this gap exists
I think it comes down to a simple truth: the people making the ads and the people watching them want different things from the experience.
Advertisers see AI and think "innovative," "efficient," "creative." They're excited about the capability. Gen Z just sees the ad. They don't care that it took five minutes instead of five days. They care whether it's worth their time.
I've made that mistake myself, actually. Early on, I tried using AI-generated images for a few blog posts because it was faster than sorting through my own photo library after a long travel day. The posts felt flat. Readers didn't say much, but they also didn't engage much. Lesson learned: speed isn't the same as value. Nobody logs onto your site hoping for efficient content. They want something that feels real, or at least feels good.
Why this matters to you
Maybe you're not running ad campaigns. But this lesson applies to anyone putting content out into the world — a small business, a blog, a YouTube channel, even a Facebook post about your last road trip.
The tool you use to create something matters a lot less than whether the final product is genuinely good. Quality and entertainment value win. Every time. That's not a Gen Z quirk — it's just honest feedback from the generation most used to scrolling past things that don't earn their attention.
If you're thinking about leaning on AI for your own content, ask yourself the same question Gen Z seems to be asking brands: is this actually good, or did I just make it easier to produce?
What's next
AI isn't going anywhere, and neither is the gap between what companies think looks creative and what audiences actually respond to. The brands that figure out how to use AI as a tool — not a shortcut — are the ones that'll close that 16-point gap.
The rest will keep wondering why their "innovative" ads aren't landing.
Worth testing for yourself, isn't it? Try making something with AI. Then try making something without it. See which one people actually stop to watch. That's the only data that really matters.
Source: Revista Merca2.0
See also our earlier piece: Meta Just Told Advertisers: Our AI, Your Problem
