OPINION: Brands deserve every bit of AI backlash they get

There’s nothing wrong with businesses embracing artificial intelligence (AI). Technology has always found its way into the workplace, and companies have every reason to explore tools that make operations more efficient.

But when businesses start replacing professional creatives with AI-generated shortcuts, they should be prepared for the backlash. And frankly, they deserve every bit of it.

The recent controversy involving The Old Spaghetti House (TOSH) is a case in point. A promotional poster featuring five pasta combos drew criticism after customers noticed that the supposedly appetizing food looked anything but edible. The unnaturally smooth textures and oddly rendered garlic bread made the dishes look more like AI experiments than actual restaurant offerings.

National Book Store also found itself facing criticism after photos circulated of classic novels carrying apparent AI-generated covers, including Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, whose cover featured strangely rendered hands. The books were published by Timeless Books, not National Book Store, but the controversy still drew attention to the retailer and the products it carried.

These incidents raise an interesting point about how consumers view businesses that use AI. Not everyone will react the same way, and perhaps they shouldn’t.

A small neighborhood restaurant or startup operating on a shoestring budget may not have the resources to commission professional photography or hire a designer for every promotional material. Some understanding is warranted when business owners are trying to stretch limited resources and keep their operations afloat.

But expectations change when established corporations with substantial financial resources resort to the same shortcuts. When a company can afford to hire photographers, illustrators, graphic designers and food stylists but chooses to replace them with prompts, consumers can reasonably question whether it is prioritizing savings over quality.

Cost-cutting can turn into consumer trust issue

This is where the backlash becomes understandable. Customers are not simply buying products. They are also buying into the experience a business promises through its marketing. A restaurant menu, for instance, creates expectations about the food that will eventually arrive at the table. When AI-generated images bear little resemblance to the actual product, a cost-cutting exercise can quickly turn into a matter of consumer trust.

Brands are effectively asking customers to pay for an experience they themselves seem unwilling to invest in. And what exactly are these companies saving money for if they are willing to compromise the very presentation they use to attract paying customers?

Then there’s the local creative industry. The Philippines has no shortage of talented photographers, illustrators, graphic designers and food stylists. These are professionals who have invested years developing their craft. Replacing them with a text prompt because it is cheaper is hardly a compelling business decision, particularly for companies that can afford to pay for quality work.

AI can certainly help with brainstorming, internal presentations and developing creative concepts. Nobody is suggesting businesses should ignore technology or refuse to experiment with it. But there is a difference between using AI to support creative work and using it to eliminate the people behind that work.

Businesses cannot keep telling consumers to support local talent while making decisions that take opportunities away from these same professionals. Nor can they expect customers to accept substandard marketing simply because it was cheaper and faster to produce.

If brands want consumers to value their products, they should start by valuing the people who help sell them. Cutting corners on creativity is not innovation. It’s cheap marketing dressed up as progress.

AI may save a company a few pesos today, but the backlash could cost it something far more expensive. Consumer trust.

That’s the point.