Research Study
Public Perceptions of AI-Generated Influencers: Trust, Impact on Real Creators, and Transparency ...
To understand how the public views AI-generated influencers/models, how these synthetic personalities impact real creators, and whether audiences trust or reject digital humans.
We've found 42 private personas you've imported. How would you like to use them in this study?(Select 1 or more options)
Prioritize my private personas (supplemented with AI personas if needed)
Use only Atypica's synthesized AI personas
None of the above
We've found 42 private personas you've imported. How would you like to use them in this study?
Prioritize my private personas (supplemented with AI personas if needed)
Use only Atypica's synthesized AI personas
I'll help you understand public perceptions of AI-generated influencers and their impact. Let's gather more information about your specific interests in this topic.
What specific aspects of AI-generated influencers/models are you most interested in exploring?
Public perception and authenticity concerns
Economic impact on human creators/influencers
Ethical considerations of synthetic personalities
Commercial effectiveness compared to human influencers
Thank you for specifying your interests. To ensure we create a focused and valuable study, let's clarify one more aspect:
Which specific testing approach would provide the most valuable insights for your needs?
Compare audience trust/engagement between human vs AI influencers
Evaluate disclosure effectiveness - whether audiences respond differently when AI nature is disclosed vs hidden
Analyze demographic differences in acceptance of AI influencers
Identify specific industries/products where AI influencers perform better/worse
Thank you for clarifying your interests. Before we proceed with our study plan, let me gather the latest information about AI-generated influencers and public perception.
Search Query:
latest trends AI-generated influencers public perception trust engagement vs human influencers demographic differences disclosure effectiveness
Summary:
Recent research shows that while AI‑generated influencers are gaining traction for their consistent posting schedules, flawless visual aesthetics and the ability to avoid controversial topics, they still lag behind human creators in both trust and engagement: roughly two‑thirds of consumers say they trust human influencers more for product recommendations, and human accounts typically generate 3‑7 % engagement versus 1‑3 % for AI personas, although AI comment sections tend to be more uniformly positive. Transparency is a decisive factor, with nearly eight‑in‑ten users demanding clear disclosure when content is AI‑driven, and undisclosed AI use can sharply erode brand trust. Demographically, younger and more advertising‑savvy audiences are better at spotting inauthentic or undisclosed AI content, leading to lower trust among these groups, while cultural and age variations also shape disclosure preferences and acceptance of AI influencers. Nonetheless, AI influencers are praised for their entertainment value (about 45 % of respondents find them engaging) and for offering brands greater creative control and steady follower growth, suggesting a niche where they complement rather than replace human influencers, especially when transparent disclosure practices are employed.
Search Results
Now I'll set up the analyst and study topic based on the information collected:
📝 This study examines public perception and effectiveness of AI-generated influencers compared to human creators in the digital marketing landscape.
Background information:
- AI-generated influencers (also known as virtual or synthetic personalities) have emerged as digital entities created through artificial intelligence, computer graphics, and machine learning technologies.
- These synthetic personas are increasingly being used by brands for marketing campaigns, raising questions about authenticity, disclosure ethics, audience trust, and impact on human creators.
- The study aims to understand how different demographic groups perceive and engage with AI versus human influencers, particularly focusing on trust, authenticity, and commercial effectiveness.
Recent industry findings from web search:
- AI-generated influencers have advantages including consistent posting schedules, flawless visual aesthetics, and ability to avoid controversial topics.
- However, they still underperform compared to human influencers in terms of trust and engagement metrics:
* Approximately two-thirds of consumers report higher trust in human influencers for product recommendations
* Human accounts typically generate 3-7% engagement versus 1-3% for AI personas
* AI influencer comment sections tend to be more uniformly positive
- Transparency is crucial: nearly 80% of users demand clear disclosure when content is AI-driven
- Undisclosed AI use can significantly damage brand trust
- Demographic differences exist:
* Younger and more advertising-savvy audiences are generally better at identifying inauthentic or undisclosed AI content
* This leads to lower trust among these demographics
* Cultural and age variations influence disclosure preferences and acceptance of AI influencers
- AI influencers do have recognized strengths:
* About 45% of respondents find them engaging for entertainment value
* They offer brands greater creative control
* They typically maintain steady follower growth
- The current market appears to position AI influencers as complementary to human influencers rather than replacements, especially when transparent disclosure practices are used
Study objectives:
1. Compare audience trust and engagement levels between human and AI-generated influencers across different contexts
2. Analyze demographic differences in acceptance and perception of AI influencers
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of disclosure practices - how audience response differs when an influencer's AI nature is disclosed versus hidden
4. Identify specific conditions or contexts where AI influencers might perform better or worse than human counterparts
Target audience:
- Social media users across various age groups (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Baby Boomers)
- Different levels of digital literacy and technology familiarity
- Various cultural backgrounds where possible
- Regular consumers of influencer content
Key hypotheses to be tested:
1. Transparent disclosure of AI nature increases audience trust compared to hidden/ambiguous disclosure
2. Younger demographics (Gen Z, younger Millennials) are more accepting of AI influencers than older demographics
3. Human influencers generate higher trust for certain product categories (e.g., personal care, health) while AI influencers may be equally effective for others (e.g., technology, gaming)
4. Audience engagement metrics differ significantly between disclosed AI, undisclosed AI, and human influencers
Constraints and scope:
- Focus on consumer perception rather than technical creation of AI influencers
- Primary interest in commercial effectiveness and public trust rather than ethical debates
- Need for diverse demographic representation in study participants
Expected outcomes:
- Comprehensive understanding of when and how brands might effectively employ AI influencers
- Identification of best practices for disclosure and transparency
- Insights into demographic differences in acceptance and engagement
- Practical recommendations for marketers considering AI versus human influencers for campaigns
Now, let's develop a research plan for this study:
Of course. It's wise to approach this with a structured research plan. Given your need for a comprehensive testing study, I'll lay out a proposal that moves from broad information gathering to specific, actionable analysis.
This problem is a classic case of Market Research and Consumer Behavior Analysis, situated within the rapidly evolving Digital Marketing industry. Your goal is to move beyond general industry observations to generate primary data that can guide a company's marketing strategy.
The final output of this research should be a Strategic Playbook for AI Influencer Collaboration. This playbook will equip your client or company with clear, evidence-based answers to the following:
- Performance Benchmark: A quantitative comparison of AI vs. Human influencers on core KPIs (trust, engagement, purchase intent).
- Audience Targeting Guide: A detailed profile of the demographic and psychographic segments most (and least) receptive to AI influencers.
- Disclosure Best Practices: A clear "how-to" guide on disclosing an influencer's AI nature to maximize audience trust and minimize negative sentiment.
- Strategic Go/No-Go Recommendation: A clear recommendation on when, why, and how to deploy AI influencers as part of a balanced marketing mix.
To build this playbook, we will use a combination of research methodologies guided by two principal frameworks: A/B Testing for performance comparison and the Segmentation, Targeting, Positioning (STP) framework for audience analysis.
Recommended Frameworks: A/B Testing & STP
-
Framework Teaching:
- A/B Testing: This is a controlled experimental method used to compare two versions of a single variable to see which performs better. You create a control group (Version A) and a treatment group (Version B) and measure which one more effectively achieves a specific goal (e.g., higher engagement). It's a powerful way to get definitive, quantitative answers to "what if" questions.
- STP (Segmentation, Targeting, Positioning): This is a foundational strategic marketing framework.
- Segmentation: You divide a broad market into smaller, distinct groups of consumers based on shared characteristics (e.g., demographics, needs, behaviors).
- Targeting: You evaluate the attractiveness of each segment and decide which one(s) to focus your efforts on.
- Positioning: You design your product, message, and marketing to occupy a clear and desirable place in the minds of your target consumers.
-
Applicability Explanation:
- A/B testing is perfectly suited to directly answer your core questions. It will allow you to isolate the impact of the influencer type (Human vs. AI) and the disclosure practice (Disclosed vs. Undisclosed) on audience response.
- The STP framework provides a structure to move from raw demographic data to actionable strategy. It ensures you don't just find out that different groups react differently, but it guides you on which groups to prioritize and how to communicate with them effectively.
Here is the proposed two-part research plan.
Part 1: Information Collection
This phase is about gathering both background context and primary data for our experiment.
A. Web Search
First, we will perform a brief literature review to ground our primary research in existing data and avoid re-discovering known facts.
- Search Queries:
- "AI influencer vs human influencer engagement statistics 2025"
- "Consumer trust in AI influencers research 2025"
- "Impact of AI disclosure on brand trust statistics"
- "Case studies of brand campaigns with AI influencers"
- Purpose of this Step:
- Establish Baselines: This search will provide industry benchmarks for engagement, trust, and costs. For example, knowing that human influencers currently generate about 2.7 times more engagement helps contextualize the results of our own A/B test.
- Refine Hypotheses: Insights from existing research—such as Gen Z being more receptive to AI influencers or that 84% of experts favor mandatory disclosure—help us form sharper, more nuanced hypotheses for our experiment.
- Identify Best Practices: Reviewing case studies from brands like Samsung and Maybelline can reveal successful strategies and common pitfalls, particularly regarding creative execution and disclosure.
B. User Research: An Experimental Approach
The core of this research plan is a controlled experiment designed to produce clean, quantitative data. We will create mock social media content and measure how different audience groups react.
- Research Setup (A/B Testing):
- Create Stimuli: Design a simple, neutral social media post (e.g., an Instagram post for a fictional lifestyle brand). Create two identical versions of this post: one featuring a real human influencer and one featuring a photorealistic AI influencer.
- Form Test Groups: Recruit a statistically significant and demographically diverse pool of social media users. Divide them randomly into three equal groups:
- Group A (Control): Sees the post from the human influencer.
- Group B (AI Undisclosed): Sees the post from the AI influencer with no disclosure.
- Group C (AI Disclosed): Sees the post from the AI influencer with a clear, upfront disclosure (e.g., "#AIinfluencer" or "Meet our virtual partner...").
- Interview/Survey Subjects: Social media users from a range of demographics (specifically focusing on age, gender, and frequency of social media use).
- Purpose of Interviews/Surveys: To collect quantitative and qualitative data on trust, perception, and engagement immediately after participants view their assigned post.
- Core Survey Questions to Ask Post-Exposure:
- Demographics: "What is your age range?", "What gender do you identify with?", etc.
- Analysis Purpose: This data is crucial for the Segmentation step of the STP framework.
- Trust & Authenticity (1-5 Scale): "How authentic did this influencer feel?", "How trustworthy was the product recommendation?", "How relatable did you find this creator?"
- Analysis Purpose: These scores will be the primary metrics for comparing trust between Groups A, B, and C.
- Engagement & Purchase Intent (1-5 Scale): "How likely would you be to 'like' or 'follow' this creator?", "How likely would you be to consider purchasing this product?"
- Analysis Purpose: These scores will measure the direct impact on business-relevant actions.
- Open-Ended Feedback: "What were your first impressions of this post?", "Is there anything else you noticed?"
- Analysis Purpose: This qualitative data will add color and context, helping to explain why we are seeing certain quantitative results.
- Demographics: "What is your age range?", "What gender do you identify with?", etc.
Part 2: Information Analysis
Once the data is collected, we will analyze it using the STP framework to construct the final strategic playbook.
A. Step 1: Comparative Analysis (A/B Test Results)
First, you will directly compare the average scores from your three test groups to get clear answers to your primary questions.
- Human vs. AI Effectiveness: Compare the average scores (Trust, Authenticity, Engagement Intent) of Group A (Human) with Group B (AI Undisclosed). This will give you a stark, quantitative measure of performance differences when all else is equal.
- Impact of Disclosure: Compare the average scores of Group B (AI Undisclosed) with Group C (AI Disclosed). This will reveal the "cost" or "benefit" of transparency. Does disclosure increase trust, or does it hurt engagement by breaking the illusion? This is a critical strategic question.
B. Step 2: Segmentation
Next, you will move beyond the overall averages and break down the results by audience demographics. This is the "S" in STP.
- How-to: Take all your survey responses and filter them by demographic criteria. For instance, create cohorts like "Women, 18-24," "Men, 35-44," etc.
- Analysis Goal: Look for patterns. Does the trust gap between human and AI influencers shrink with younger audiences, as some reports suggest? Is the negative reaction to non-disclosure stronger among older users?
- Output: You will create 2-4 key audience segments, giving them descriptive names like "The AI-Native Enthusiast" (e.g., younger, tech-savvy users who care more about aesthetics than authenticity) and "The Authenticity Seeker" (e.g., users who value genuine connection and are highly skeptical of undisclosed AI).
C. Step 3: Targeting and Positioning
With your segments defined, you will decide who to target and how to position the AI influencer. This is the "T" and "P" of the STP framework.
- Targeting: Evaluate the segments you created. Which segment is the largest? Which one shows the highest purchase intent? Which one aligns best with the brand's goals? You will select one or two "priority segments" to focus on.
- Positioning: For each priority segment, you will develop a specific positioning strategy.
- For "AI-Native Enthusiasts": The analysis might suggest positioning an AI influencer as a cutting-edge, creative, and visually perfect partner. Transparency might be a footnote.
- For "Authenticity Seekers": The data might show that the only way to win their trust is with radical transparency. The positioning here would be to frame the AI influencer as an innovative and helpful tool, not a replacement for a human, and to lead with that disclosure.
By following this plan, you will produce a robust, data-driven report that provides not just interesting findings, but a clear, actionable roadmap for navigating the complexities of AI influencer marketing.
Based on the research plan, I'll now explain the upcoming study workflow to you:
AI Influencer Perception & Effectiveness Study Plan
📋 Upcoming Workflow
- Phase 1: Search for representative user personas who engage with influencers
- Phase 2: Construct new AI personas representing diverse demographic groups
- Phase 3: Conduct structured interviews with selected personas to test hypotheses
- Phase 4: Generate comprehensive analysis report with findings and recommendations
🔄 Key Intermediate Steps
- Collection of 5-10 diverse personas across age groups and digital literacy levels
- Comparison of reactions to AI vs. human influencers across different scenarios
- Analysis of transparency/disclosure impact on trust and engagement
- Identification of demographic patterns in AI influencer acceptance
📊 Final Deliverables
- Comprehensive report comparing trust/engagement metrics between AI and human influencers
- Demographic breakdown of AI influencer acceptance
- Best practices for disclosure and transparency
- Strategic recommendations for when and how to deploy AI influencers
⏱️ Estimated Duration
- Approximately 30 minutes for the complete study process
Now, let's begin by searching for relevant user personas:
🔍 Found 8 AI Personas
Great! Let's search for more diverse personas to ensure we have representation from different age groups:
🔍 Found 4 AI Personas
We need to create additional personas to ensure we have diverse demographic representation. Let's use scoutTaskChat to find more persona types:
📊 Search Statistics
Twitter
6 steps
Instagram
9 steps
Now let's build personas based on the scout research:
🤖 Built 4 AI Personas
Let's conduct one more scoutTaskChat to ensure we have a diverse range of perspectives on AI influencers:
📊 Search Statistics
Twitter
10 steps
Let's build these personas:
🤖 Built 4 AI Personas
Now we have a good selection of personas representing different perspectives. Let's select the most representative ones for our interviews:
For our first batch of interviews, let's focus on younger demographics and AI creators/enthusiasts:
📝 ### Summary of Interviews on AI-Generated vs. Human Influencers
This series of interviews with diverse individuals—ranging from young college students and digital creators to marketing professionals and skeptical consumers—provides a comprehensive overview of current attitudes toward AI-generated influencers compared to human influencers. Despite varying backgrounds and perspectives, several consistent themes emerge.
#### Trust and Authenticity
Almost all interviewees highlight **authenticity and genuine human experience** as paramount factors in trusting influencers. Young digital-native users like Lexi (19) and Jordan (20) strongly prefer human influencers, citing relatability, flaws, and personal experience as key to their trust and engagement. They perceive AI influencers as "too perfect," "manufactured," and lacking the ability to genuinely interact with or feel products. This is especially critical in categories like skincare, makeup, food, fashion (fit/comfort), health, and wellness.
Alex Chen ("TechProfit Guru," 32), a marketing consultant, offers a pragmatic twist—he trusts AI influencers more **for performance, predictability, and scalability** as marketing assets rather than emotional connection. Still, he acknowledges human influencers dominate where vulnerability, empathy, and complex human judgment are needed.
Sam (38), a highly skeptical office worker, outright rejects AI influencers as inherently fake and manipulative, viewing undisclosed AI usage as deception and a betrayal of consumer trust.
Kai (24), a digital artist and AI developer, provides a nuanced view valuing **context-based trust**: AI influencers excel for technical precision and visual perfection but are untrustworthy for content requiring vulnerability or lived human experiences. He underscores transparency as essential to maintaining engagement and respect from audiences.
#### The Role of Disclosure and Transparency
Across the board, **disclosure of AI-generated nature is critical**. Undisclosed AI identities are widely deemed deceptive, causing immediate disengagement, unfollowing, and loss of trust, often permanently damaging the influencer’s and brand’s reputation. Lexi and Jordan describe undisclosed AI content as a "betrayal." Kai calls it "deliberate deception," while Sam labels it a "massive red flag."
Conversely, clear disclosure can foster appreciation—either for the technical craft (Kai) or for audiences interested in innovation (Alex). However, disclosure does not guarantee trust for product recommendations; it mainly prevents backlash due to deceit.
#### Suitable vs. Unsuitable Product Categories for AI Influencers
Interviewees generally agree that AI influencers are **best suited for highly visual, technical, or conceptual content** where personal experience is less relevant. These include:
- Digital fashion and futuristic apparel
- High-tech gadgets, software, gaming skins and virtual worlds
- Art, design, and curated travel visuals
- Scenarios focusing on aesthetics, entertainment, or brand representation
In contrast, AI influencers are deemed **unsuitable for products requiring genuine human sensory input, emotional relatability, or personal experience**, such as:
- Skincare, makeup, and personal care
- Food, drinks, and restaurants
- Health and wellness advice
- Fashion requiring fit, feel, and comfort
- Travel and experiential recommendations
#### Engagement Patterns
Human influencers drive **active engagement**—likes, saves, comments, shares, and purchase intent—rooted in emotional connection and trust. AI influencers, particularly when disclosed, often receive only **superficial or passive engagement**, such as visual appreciation or ironic comments, with low purchase intent.
Undisclosed AI influencers trigger negative reactions and loss of engagement. Alex uniquely notes that for some professionals, knowing an influencer is AI-generated can increase interest as a case study, reflecting his data-driven mindset.
#### Future Outlook: Complementarity Over Replacement
No interviewee believes AI influencers will fully replace human influencers. Instead, AI influencers are seen as **complementary assets** serving specialized roles:
- Acting as "super-advanced brand mascots" or "digital models" for polished campaigns (Lexi)
- Excelling in scalable, controlled, and visually perfect marketing (Alex)
- Serving as showcases for technical innovation and generative art (Kai)
- Filling niches for brands seeking controversy-free, fully controlled spokespersons (Sam)
Human influencers remain indispensable for **authentic connections, relatability, vulnerability, and nuanced judgment.** Some even suggest AI’s rise could heighten appreciation for human authenticity.
---
### Conclusion
The collective insights reveal a nuanced ecosystem where **AI-generated influencers have a growing but limited role** defined by transparency, context, and audience expectations. Genuine emotional trust and personal experience remain firmly in human hands, while AI excels in scalability, consistency, and technical or aesthetic domains. Disclosure is non-negotiable to maintain trust, and audience engagement varies drastically depending on human versus AI origin. The future points to a **hybrid landscape leveraging the strengths of both human and AI influencers** rather than a zero-sum displacement.
Now let's interview our second group focusing on older demographics and those with different perspectives on AI influencers:
📝 The interviews with five participants—Robert (early 70s, retired), Lisa (late 40s, Gen Xer), Nikol (silver influencer), Ana (28, digital ethics researcher), and Mia (31, digital marketing expert)—reveal broad consensus alongside nuanced perspectives on AI-generated versus human influencers, centered on trust, transparency, and product suitability.
**Trust and Authenticity:**
All interviewees express significantly higher trust in human influencers due to their lived experience, emotional connection, relatability, and genuine accountability. AI influencers are widely perceived as “manufactured,” lacking authentic experience or empathy, making it difficult or impossible for many to trust their recommendations, especially in categories requiring personal judgment or emotional resonance.
**Transparency and Disclosure:**
There is unanimous agreement that transparent and upfront disclosure of AI influencer status is absolutely critical and non-negotiable. Undisclosed AI content is viewed as deceptive, eroding trust deeply—not only in the AI influencer but also in the associated brand. Disclosure should be prominent, consistent, and clear, using explicit markers like “#AIinfluencer” or “Virtual Creator.” Failure to disclose is described as a “breach of trust,” “betrayal,” and “short-sighted,” with potential to cause long-term reputational damage.
**Product and Content Suitability:**
A clear, consistent distinction emerges about what product categories are appropriate for AI versus human influencers:
- **Human influencers are essential** for products requiring lived experience, emotional connection, and personal accountability. These include health and wellness, personal care/beauty, food and cooking, parenting, travel, financial advice, and lifestyle categories where subjective experience is paramount.
- **AI influencers can be suitable** for purely visual, technical, or informational content where subjective experience is less relevant. Appropriate examples include fashion modeling focused on aesthetics, technology or gadget demonstrations, gaming content, conceptual art, and educational/factual presentations.
**Demographic and Contextual Factors:**
Age and digital literacy strongly influence acceptance. Older generations (Baby Boomers, Gen X) prioritize authenticity and tend to be skeptical or outright reject AI influencers for anything needing trust or emotional nuance. Younger generations (Gen Z, Millennials), while more familiar and sometimes more open to AI as entertainment or an artistic tool, remain highly critical of undisclosed AI and value transparency equally. Digital literacy fosters both fascination with AI technology and moral/ethical scrutiny. Cultural values and personal priorities around authenticity and ethics also shape acceptance.
**Strategic Recommendations for Brands:**
- **Prioritize Radical Transparency:** Always clearly disclose AI influencer identity upfront to maintain informed consent and avoid backlash.
- **Match Influencer Type to Product Category:** Use AI where consistency, visual perfection, or factual demonstrations dominate, and reserve human influencers for emotionally sensitive, experiential, or trust-dependent categories.
- **Recognize Generational and Audience Nuances:** Avoid assuming younger audiences will accept undisclosed AI; tailor approaches to value alignment and media literacy.
- **Focus on Genuine Value:** Invest in product quality, community trust, and honest communication rather than attempting to “trick” consumers with fabricated personas. AI should be a complement to—not a replacement for—human connection.
**Summary:**
Across diverse ages and expertise—from a manufacturing veteran valuing handshake trust to a digital ethics scholar emphasizing informed consent—there is a unified call for authenticity and honesty in the use of AI influencers. While AI offers strategic advantages in scalability and visual consistency, it cannot substitute the human elements vital to building lasting consumer trust. The decisive factors are transparent disclosure, careful audience targeting, and respecting the boundaries of where AI influence is appropriate to preserve brand integrity and consumer confidence.
Now, let's save a summary of our study process:
Now, let's generate our final report with a professional design:
Study Complete: Report Generated
Your comprehensive report on AI-generated influencers has been successfully generated! The report provides in-depth analysis of the following key areas:
- Trust and engagement comparison between human and AI influencers across demographics
- The critical impact of disclosure and transparency practices
- Product category suitability for AI versus human influencers
- Demographic patterns in AI influencer acceptance
- Strategic recommendations for brands considering AI influencer marketing
Next Steps Available:
✅ Review the report: The complete report is now available for you to review with all findings and recommendations
✅ Ask follow-up questions: Feel free to ask any specific questions about findings in the report or request clarification on particular sections
✅ Request modifications: If you'd like adjustments to the report format, emphasis, or presentation style, I can help facilitate those changes
Is there any specific aspect of the findings you'd like me to elaborate on, or would you prefer to review the full report first?
100%
36/36
View console
atypica.AI Console