there's a gap between what the tools claim and what the data shows. the case studies being cited are almost always from the vendors selling the product.

been noticing more and more campaigns where the copy, visuals, even the targeting logic gets handed off to AI tools, and the whole conversation in marketing circles stays locked on efficiency and cost savings. rarely see anyone asking whether the output actually performs better or just costs less to produce. there's a gap between what the tools claim and what the data shows. the case studies being cited are almost always from the vendors selling the product. i've looked for independent research on this and haven't found much. the part that bugs me most is the personalization pitch. personalization at scale sounds great until you realize every brand is using the same three AI tools to personalize, which means they're all producing weirdly similar content aimed at the same audience segments. that's kind of the opposite of standing out. the cost efficiency argument makes sense on paper, the same way it does with robotics or game development. cut headcount, ship faster, reduce spend. but marketing effectiveness is notoriously hard to measure cleanly even without AI in the mix. are brands actually tracking this properly or just reporting on vanity metrics and calling it a win. curious if anyone here has seen real benchmarks comparing AIassisted campaigns to traditional ones that weren't published by a company trying to sell you something. submitted by /u/SwordfishOverall4378 [link] [留言]