AI in marketing is the use of software that learns from data to do marketing work that used to need a person: predicting who will buy, deciding which ad to show and what to bid, writing and designing content, answering customers, and increasingly running whole campaign steps on its own. In practice it sits inside tools most teams already use, from Google Ads to their CRM.
The money is already moving. Gartner’s 2026 CMO Spend Survey of 401 marketing leaders in North America, the UK and Europe found they now put 15.3% of their marketing budgets into AI, yet only 30% say their AI capabilities are mature enough to scale. So most of us are spending like leaders and operating like beginners, which is a very marketing way to adopt anything.
Strip away the vendor language and AI in marketing is pattern-matching at a scale no team could manage by hand. A model looks at a large amount of past data (clicks, purchases, emails opened, words written by humans) and uses it to make a prediction or produce something new. Everything else is a variation on which data it learned from and what it is allowed to do with the answer.
None of this is new in online marketing. Netflix wrote up how it uses algorithms to choose a different thumbnail for each member back in December 2017, and ad platforms were setting bids by machine long before anyone had heard of ChatGPT. We just used to call it “the algorithm” and blame it when cost per click went up. What changed after 2022 is that generative models made AI something marketers could talk to directly, so it jumped from the media team’s black box to everyone’s browser tab.
It helps to split AI in the marketing industry into four families, because they fail in different ways and need different kinds of supervision.
| Type | What it does | Typical marketing use | Where it goes wrong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive and analytical AI | Finds patterns in historical data and scores what is likely to happen next | Bidding, audience targeting, churn and propensity scores, recommendations, segmentation, forecasting | Learns from biased or thin data, optimises the metric you gave it rather than the one you meant |
| Generative AI | Produces new text, images, audio, video or code from a prompt | Copy drafts, ad variants, product imagery, localisation, research summaries | Confident errors, generic output, weaker persuasion than it looks |
| Conversational AI | Holds a dialogue in natural language, often on top of a generative model | Customer service, shopping assistants, lead qualification | Handles easy cases well and complex or emotional ones badly |
| Agentic AI | Plans and takes a sequence of actions across tools towards a goal, with limited human input | Building and launching campaigns, adjusting spend, nurturing leads | Takes actions nobody checked, and mistakes compound across steps |
Predictive AI is the oldest of the four and still does most of the heavy lifting in media, while generative AI is what people usually mean when they say “AI” in a meeting. The agentic kind is the one vendor decks get most excited about, and your legal team least. The difference between the last two matters enough that I’ve written it up separately in generative vs agentic AI in marketing.
The same company will usually use all four types in different jobs, so the application of AI in marketing makes more sense sorted by job.
AI in marketing analytics mostly means models that find groups and signals humans would miss or take weeks to find: which customers are drifting, which combinations of behaviour predict a second purchase, which campaign actually drove the sale. The practical upgrade from generative tools is that you can now ask a question of a dataset in English and get a first cut back in minutes, which is lovely until it miscounts a column without mentioning it (so you still check the numbers). I’ve gone through how to do this properly, including what data you need, in AI customer segmentation.
This is where most marketing budgets already meet AI, whether the team thinks of it that way or not. Google describes Performance Max as a goal-based campaign that uses Google AI “to make more accurate predictions about which ads, audiences and creative combinations perform best”, with Smart Bidding deciding placements across YouTube, Display, Search, Discover, Gmail and Maps. You supply the budget, the conversion goal and the assets, and the machine decides the rest. The catch is that these systems optimise hard towards whatever conversion you define, so if you tell them a newsletter sign-up is a conversion, you will get a great many newsletter sign-ups.
Netflix’s engineering team explained that it picks which artwork to show each member using contextual bandit algorithms, so someone who watches a lot of romantic films might see Good Will Hunting with Matt Damon and Minnie Driver, while a comedy fan sees Robin Williams. The team described it as the first time Netflix had personalised how it recommends a title as well as which titles it recommends (Netflix Technology Blog), which is a useful way to think about personalisation generally: the offer can stay the same while the way you present it changes per person.
Unilever is probably the clearest large-scale case. In March 2025 it said it was building 3D “digital twins” of products such as Dove, Vaseline, TRESemmé and Clear, using Nvidia’s Omniverse platform with the creative-tech studio Collective World, so AI can generate product imagery without a fresh shoot. Unilever reported imagery produced twice as fast and 50% cheaper, and a TRESemmé pilot in Thailand with an 87% cut in content creation costs. Its Chief Growth and Marketing Officer, Esi Eggleston Bracey, was careful to add that pushing out more content was never the aim, because anyone can do that, which is a line more of us should have on a Post-it.
Personalised creative at scale predates ChatGPT, too. For Diwali 2021, Mondelez India’s Cadbury, with Ogilvy India, Wavemaker India and the AI video company Rephrase.ai, let local shopkeepers use AI to make their own version of a Shah Rukh Khan ad that promoted their shop by name, covering 2,000+ retailers across 500 pin codes (LBB Online).
Brand advertising is where AI is most tempting and least proven. Coca-Cola worked with the San Francisco studios Secret Level and Silverside AI to rebuild its 1995 “Holidays Are Coming” spot with generative tools for its 2025 holiday campaign, while stressing that the music was “performed and sung by real artists”. Heinz went the other way with its “A.I. Ketchup” campaign, asking an image generator what ketchup looked like and making the openness of the process the idea itself (Adam Peruta, whose research comes up below, describes it in HBR). Both are useful to study, but neither tells you whether AI brand work actually sells, and a press release was never going to.
Klarna, the Swedish buy-now-pay-later company, is the case everyone quotes, and it’s worth quoting both halves. In February 2024 it said its OpenAI-powered assistant had handled 2.3 million conversations in its first month, two-thirds of its customer service chats, doing the work of 700 full-time agents, cutting time to resolve from 11 minutes to under 2, and forecast a $40 million profit improvement for 2024. By May 2025 the chief executive, Sebastian Siemiatkowski, was telling Bloomberg that “really investing in the quality of the human support is the way of the future for us”, and Klarna was piloting a scheme to recruit human agents again, which I read as a polite way of saying they’d overdone it.
The agentic end is newer and mostly still in vendor announcements. Salesforce launched Marketing Cloud Next in June 2025 with agents that it says can generate a campaign brief, build the audience, draft email and SMS copy, set up the customer journey, qualify leads around the clock and recommend paid media changes. McKinsey’s State of AI in 2026 survey (1,719 respondents, published August 2026) found that respondents in consumer goods and retail most often report using agents in marketing and sales.
Less glamorous but arguably more valuable is the back-office work. Wayfair, the US online furniture retailer, embedded OpenAI models into its catalogue of roughly 30 million items and corrected 2.5 million product tags, according to Masha Shunko (University of Washington Foster School of Business) and Serguei Netessine (Wharton) in HBR. The authors point out that inconsistent product attributes damage search, recommendations, merchandising and returns, so this is marketing even if nobody puts it in the awards entry.
The less flattering part of the same McKinsey survey is that only 37% of respondents attribute any EBIT impact to AI at all. Gains in a function are easier to claim than gains on the profit and loss account, and if you need to prove the difference to a finance director, measuring the ROI of AI in marketing sets out how I’d do it.
This is the finding I’d put in front of any leadership team before they sign off an AI creative programme. Adam Peruta, associate professor at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School, co-led a study with Ipsos in which 3,000 US consumers watched 20 video ads for major brands: half the original human-made spots, half rebuilt entirely with AI from briefs based on the originals. People struggled to tell them apart. Yet on average the AI versions were 14% weaker on short-term sales potential and 17% weaker on long-term brand equity (HBR, September 2026).
AI did well on functional, product-led work: its Febreze and Herbal Essences ads matched or beat the human versions on short-term sales potential, and a Cheerios ad built on a strong brief came close to the original. It did badly where the idea needed a joke or real emotional precision, such as a Fiat spot that took “rebellious” at face value and produced dark neon shots of a car, while the human version turned the same “testing” idea into a gag. Peruta’s warning is that the damage doesn’t show at the point of approval, because the CFO sees lower production costs and the CMO sees faster campaign cycles. My worry is what happens next: a year later the tracker dips and we blame the category, the media mix, the new logo and probably the weather.
Consumers have views on this too. Gartner found that 49% of US consumers (307 surveyed in March 2026) think generative AI has made content quality worse, rising to 57% among Gen Z and millennials.
Shunko and Netessine’s HBR piece, “Stop Automating Old Processes. Design New Ones Instead.”, uses Deloitte Australia as the cautionary tale: in 2025 it agreed to partially refund the Australian government after a report was found to contain fabricated references and a made-up legal quote, and a revised version disclosed that Azure OpenAI had been used. Their point is that the firm sped up the drafting without a strong enough verification gate around it, when verified findings were what the client was actually paying for. Marketing has its own versions: claims copy nobody checked, a chatbot that closes tickets quickly by not solving anything, a dashboard that improves while sales don’t.
In the UK there is no blanket legal requirement to disclose AI use in ads. The Committee of Advertising Practice said so in May 2025, adding that its existing rules “apply regardless of how content is generated”, so the test is whether the audience would be misled without a disclosure (think deepfakes or AI influencers). Peruta’s HBR article notes that the EU AI Act brings transparency obligations for certain AI-generated or manipulated content from August 2026, and that a large majority of his participants wanted AI use disclosed. In regulated categories the bar is higher again; if you work in healthcare, the UK pharma advertising rules apply to AI output exactly as they do to anything else.
Inside the organisation, the problem is trust in agents. Thomas McKinlay (Science Says), Stefano Puntoni (Wharton) and Serkan Saka (San José State University) write in HBR that 59% of enterprise organisations say they use agentic AI but only 9% have turned that into autonomous workflows. Gartner’s separate survey of 402 CMOs points at the human side of the same gap: 80% say staff fear and anxiety is a barrier to AI experimentation, even as they expect the share of marketing work automated by AI to rise from 16% in 2026 to 36% by 2028 (Gartner, May 2026).
This is the order I’d follow. I lead AI adoption in marketing at the charity ACTAsia, so it’s the sequence I think about most.
For the build itself (triggers, prompts, review gates, handoffs), see how to build an AI marketing workflow. And a reasonable first prompt for step 1, if you want to try it this afternoon, looks like this:
I run [process, e.g. our monthly donor email] for a [type of organisation]. Here are the current steps, who does each one and how long it takes: [paste]. 1. Identify which steps are repetitive and pattern-based, and which depend on judgement, brand knowledge or compliance sign-off. 2. For each repetitive step, suggest how AI could do a first draft and what a human should check before it moves on. 3. Tell me where the new bottleneck is likely to be, and what could go wrong if we skip the checks. Do not suggest removing any approval step. Flag anything you are unsure about.
You need fewer tools than the conference expo hall suggests, and many of the useful ones are already in your stack.
If I had to pick one thing to do this month, it would be to take the last few AI-made assets your team shipped and ask whether anyone tested them against a human-made version on the same brief. If nobody did, that test is where I’d start, before buying anything new.
Plenty of well-known brands have published what they do. Documented examples include Unilever, which uses AI digital twins of products such as Dove and TRESemmé to create imagery; Netflix, which personalises artwork for each member; Klarna, whose AI assistant handled two-thirds of customer service chats in its first month; Coca-Cola, which rebuilt its “Holidays Are Coming” ad with generative AI; and Wayfair, which used AI to correct 2.5 million product tags.
Google’s Performance Max is a good one. An advertiser sets a budget, a conversion goal and a set of text, image and video assets, and Google’s AI decides which combinations to show, to whom and at what bid across YouTube, Display, Search, Discover, Gmail and Maps. It is entirely possible to use AI this way for years without ever describing it as an AI project.
Not on average, according to a study by Adam Peruta of Syracuse University with Ipsos, published in HBR in September 2026. Across 20 ads shown to 3,000 US consumers, fully AI-made versions were 14% weaker on short-term sales potential and 17% weaker on long-term brand equity, even though people struggled to tell them apart. AI did best on simple, product-led ads.
There is no blanket legal requirement in the UK, according to CAP guidance from May 2025. Existing advertising rules apply however content is made, so you should disclose when leaving AI use unmentioned would mislead people, for example with deepfakes or AI-generated influencers. A label won’t rescue an AI image that exaggerates what a cosmetic product does, which is likely to mislead anyway. EU rules on certain AI-generated content apply from August 2026.
Gartner’s 2026 CMO Spend Survey of 401 marketing leaders in North America, the UK and Europe found CMOs allocate 15.3% of their marketing budgets to AI. Only 30% said their AI capabilities were mature enough to scale, and organisations Gartner classed as AI-ready put 21.3% of their budgets into AI.
2 Comments
Comments are closed.