The synthetic influencer has arrived.
Marketers have never believed more deeply in the value of real humans, yet 2025 may be the year that AI takes over every step of the marketing process.
Is AI’s complete takeover of the marketing ecosystem imminent, or are real humans and tight-knit communities the future? I’m seeing pretty strong arguments in both directions this week.
In a win for the flesh and blood humans: WPP just dropped a report indicating that creator marketing will generate more revenue than any other form of advertising, including TV this year.
Yet much of the buzz this week has been about an outrageous non-human advertisement, an AI-generated spot aired during a recent NBA finals game by the online betting marketplace Kalshi. If you haven’t seen it, click the image above. Seriously.
In 2025 creator marketing will generate more money than other forms of advertising for the first time.
With a reported price tag of just $2,000, this monstrosity must have big agencies in a state of panic, although the creator PJ Accetturo wrote a long post detailing the steps he took to make this ad. There’s some human expertise here.
Meanwhile Meta recently announced that by 2026 it will go fully automated, with an AI platform that will allow advertisers to simply upload product photos and campaign basics and let AI build and execute the campaign.
“The basic end goal here is any business can come to us, say what their objective is…tell us how much they are willing to pay to achieve those results, and then we just deliver as many results as we can,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said.
Marketers have never claimed to believe more deeply in the value of real humans, yet ads like this make you wonder if 2025 is the year that the machines finally take over every step of the marketing process.
AI Stars Enter the Feed
Meta’s all-AI proposal got me into a rabbit hole of research on what an all-AI-generated campaign would look like?
That led me to The Clueless, an agency dedicated to making AI influencers. Each “influencer” has a bio, which are invariably a paragraph of vapid cliches like Olivia Roa’s description: “the digital It Girl everyone admires and wants to be… Though she’s deeply aware of issues like injustice and climate change, she finds joy in her daily rituals — matcha, meditation, journaling, and time with friends.” We should all sleep better knowing that Olivia is deeply aware of existential issues facing the world.
The Clueless aims to “mark the beginning of a new era in advertising and entertainment, where authenticity and real connections are at the center. Every model we create captures the essence of different personalities and experiences, becoming a unique soul with singular qualities.” Authenticity, real connections, a unique soul? Clearly the joke’s on us.
Yet I’m uncertain how to square my aversion to The Clueless with the booming world of viral AI-generated video series like Bigfoot vlogs or Biblical characters as influencers. Or what do we make of the fact that Bigfoot got a creator contract to do some drinking and sky diving as an ad for an LA dentist?
The question remains: assuming that Meta is about to roll out countless Olivia Roas pitching us start-up health-and-wellness products, whom will these AI influencers have influence on? And will they have any impact once the novelty wears off?
Sprout Social just released a whitepaper forecasting the state of creator marketing in 2027. (I barely feel confident guessing about the state of marketing in Q4 2025.) All of its experts predict that the public will embrace AI influencers rather than penalize brands turning to fake humans.
I’ve previously written about new ideas of relatability and authenticity, and I agree with Brendan Gahan’s take: “Marketers have long parroted authenticity as the cornerstone of influencer success. Clearly most have not bothered to ask fans if they feel like that's the case.”
If authenticity is simply “not taking money for a post,” then it’s probably losing relevance.
Reporting > Results
Rand Fishkin once pointed out that what made Google and Meta so dominant in advertising wasn’t their actual influence in the buying process, it was their ability to report it.
He who has the best reporting wins.
Meta’s product will probably be successful. Many small companies will dump their budgets into this tool, and will receive reporting that makes them feel like their money is well spent.
But since Meta owns the ad creative, the distribution and the dashboard, what else is it going to tell you about the power of its product?
(Side note: it would be nice if Meta spent any effort on their human customer service team. Meta’s customer service is absolutely awful, and if Meta is creating your ads, many customers will want a neck to wring when things go awry.)
Since Meta owns the ad creative, the distribution and the dashboard, what else is it going to tell you about the power of its product?
Scott Galloway’s response to this news was that human-created advertising will become a luxury good. Nike will maintain an agency to make bespoke, culture-shifting ads, while start-up CPG companies will hand their entire budget to Meta.
I would guess that, as we’re seeing elsewhere, the middle gets squeezed.
AI will crank out endless, utterly forgettable “personalized” ads, while Nike, Red Bull and Patagonia will surprise us with amazing storytelling that defines cultures. The middle ground of “pretty good” campaigns just gets smaller. And filmmakers like PJ Accetturo and small studios will continually pop up making very funny, clever AI-creator campaigns.
We’re all on notice that low-quality creative work is equally at-risk as other industries, but I’ll still wager that real people telling interesting stories has a long-term future.