Ads generated by artificial intelligence are nearly indistinguishable from human-made ones, but new research shows they consistently underperform compared to human-made work when it comes to predicting short-term sales impact.

The first-of-its-kind study from global research firm Ipsos in collaboration with two faculty members from the  S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications tested 20 ads across 10 brands with 3,000 U.S. respondents. They found that human-made ads outperformed their AI counterparts, though the gap between the two was surprisingly slim.

The study paired existing human-made ads, produced before 2021 to ensure AI tools were not used, with fully AI-generated counterparts built from the same strategic brief, the document that ad professionals use to outline objectives, messaging and tactics for a campaign. Ads were then viewed by real consumers.

The results challenge assumptions the advertising industry can no longer afford to ignore, faculty Adam Peruta and Carrie Riby say, while the project overall reflects Newhouse’s commitment to train students with the skills and forward-thinking strategies needed to be effective and ethical communicators.

The Research Team

Peruta, director of the advanced media management M.S. program, and Riby, professor of practice in the advertising department, led the University side of the study. Ryan Barthelmes, senior vice president of creative excellence at Ipsos, guided the project for the research firm.

Peruta oversaw the technical process of deconstructing existing ads and building the pipeline to produce their AI counterparts. AI was assigned to do everything a creative team would do, from interpreting strategy to developing a concept to producing the final spot.

“The human ads and the AI ads started from the same brief,” Peruta says. “The only thing that changed was who made them, and that’s exactly what we wanted to measure.”

Riby brought advertising strategy and creative expertise, including insights drawn from her The Big Idea in Advertising class, where Newhouse students have spent three years creating AI-generated ads and evaluating the results.

The 10 brands selected for the project spanned various sectors, including consumer packaged goods, fashion, automotive and technology: Cheerios, Chewy, Febreze, Fiat, H&M, Old Navy, Herbal Essences, Ray-Ban Meta, TurboTax and Visa.

Raina Rice ’26, an advertising major, supported the project behind the scenes, helping organize and manage the ad assets across all 10 brand pairings.

What They Found

The study produced three findings that promise to generate conversation across the advertising industry.

• Consumers largely cannot tell the difference. Only 13% of viewers who saw an AI-generated ad were at least somewhat confident it was made by AI—the same share as viewers who suspected human-made ads were AI-generated. With 40% of all viewers uncertain either way, the line between human and machine-made advertising is blurring quickly.

• Despite that perceptual similarity, a measurable effectiveness gap emerged. Using Ipsos’ sales-validated measures of advertising performance, human-made ads over-indexed against the benchmark by 11 points on average, while AI-made ads under-indexed by five. In practical terms, human ads are predicted to drive stronger short-term sales impact. AI can produce credible work, but on average it does not move the needle the same way.

• AI performed best when the brief was straightforward and product-driven, but struggled when the creative challenge called for storytelling, emotion or a genuine point of view. The strongest result in the study came from the Cheerios pairing, where a deeply human brief produced the highest combined effectiveness scores across both versions.

“Every semester in my class, I watch students create AI ads about themselves, and not one of them has ever loved their output enough to put it on their refrigerator,” Riby says. “That reaction is the premise of this entire study. If the creators themselves are underwhelmed, why would we expect consumers to feel differently? The data now backs that up.”

An Industry Perspective

Barthelmes says the study addresses a question the advertising industry has been circling but is reluctant to answer directly.

“Every [chief marketing officer] is being asked whether AI can replace their creative agencies, and creative directors are wondering about their futures,” Barthelmes says. “This research gives us a framework for that conversation. AI is a powerful tool, but the data shows that the human capacity for storytelling and emotional connection still creates a measurable competitive edge. The future is humans and AI working together.”

Looking Ahead

The Newhouse-Ipsos partnership reflects the school’s broader investment in industry-facing research that shapes how the next generation of communicators understands and works alongside AI.

The study’s key recommendation is clear: do not settle for “good enough.” AI has an important role in modern campaign strategy and execution, but it is not a replacement for the human-led creativity needed to deliver a competitive advantage.