Ruben Goots – HAMLET Co-Founder and CEO
The international controversy over McDonald's AI-driven Christmas campaign has reignited the fundamental debate about artificial intelligence in advertising. After heavy criticism, the spot was taken offline, and McDonald's, along with agency TBWA Neboko Amsterdam, quickly recast the story, saying it was “not about AI, it's about the message.” That structure is too simple.
What this case primarily reveals is how important emotion and authenticity are in advertising, and how quickly perceptions can change when new technology upsets that balance. In advertising, message and execution are inseparable. How a story is told determines how it is received. That's why when technology becomes too visible, it can create distance where intimacy and recognition were intended.
So the response wasn't just about the technology, it was also about the experience. A sense of alienation, a lack of warmth, an emotional distance that is difficult to explain rationally but is immediately felt. Brands operate not within a technical framework, but within a cultural reality where authenticity and trustworthiness are constantly tested.
How audiences accept technology is closely tied to what that technology represents. In the case of generative AI, for many consumers, the question is not just the end result, but what the AI will replace. The perception that human labor and creative craftsmanship are being replaced by technology creates resistance, especially when it concerns large, well-known brands. Not because progress is denied, but because such a choice is immediately interpreted as detachment and distancing.
This sensitivity is further reinforced by the way AI is currently presented and sold. While the technology is being positioned as faster, cheaper, and easier, less attention has been paid to what AI can do, and most importantly, what it still can't do. Their limitations, quality risks, and ongoing need for human oversight are often not adequately communicated. This asymmetry creates expectations that are difficult to meet.
Added to this is the persistent myth that AI is a kind of black box. That is, prompts are displayed and commercials are displayed. Anyone currently using these tools in practice knows that the reality is much more complex. AI-driven production requires hybrid workflows, many iterations, focused direction, and continuous adjustments. Complexity doesn't disappear, it changes.
The McDonald's incident itself clearly demonstrates this. As the executive producer later explained, a team of 10 people worked full-time, day and night, for five weeks on the film. But that reality is obscured by a simplistic narrative in which technology is framed primarily as a replacement.
There are further dynamics at play within large agency holdings. While AI applications are increasingly being developed and deployed in-house, external production steps are quickly labeled as “expensive” or “inefficient.” While this is understandable from an internal economics perspective, it runs the risk that technical choices are less tested against deliverables that are creatively and qualitatively appropriate for the brand and audience.
Generative AI is definitely useful today for certain applications such as visual development, previs, concept testing, replication, and certain VFX layers. But the discussion changes when it is presented as a complete solution. Not just at the execution level, but also at the trust level. Consumers instinctively make moral evaluations. What does this choice say about how the brand views people, creativity and craftsmanship?
AI does not automatically reduce the need for craftsmanship. on the contrary. The more powerful the tool, the greater the responsibility for direction, judgment, and decision-making. Technology allows us to do many things, but it does not allow us to make aesthetic or ethical choices. These are still human responsibilities.
Surprisingly, the ecological dimension is almost completely absent from this discussion. In recent years, the industry has understandably focused on sustainability and environmentally responsible production. Large-scale use of AI is at odds with these ambitions, as it involves large consumption of energy and water. The fact that this impact is so real, yet so little considered in today's debates, creates friction and heightens the sense of contradiction.
When AI campaigns are approached primarily for novelty value rather than execution, audience awareness, or credibility, standards begin to change. Being critical therefore does not mean resisting technology, but rather recognizing that not all applications are automatically accepted.
When you think about it, you realize that the very companies behind these technologies often choose classic, human storytelling in their brand communications. Apparently, there is an understanding that trust and confidence are not born from technology alone.
The debate over McDonald's does not show that AI will fail, but rather that discussions around AI are too often conducted in terms of technology and economics, and too rarely in terms of perception and impact. But the real benchmark lies elsewhere: with consumers.
At the end of the day, this discussion is not about AI, but about the relationship between brands and their audiences. About the connections, trust, and recognition that can be built over time, and how quickly we can come under pressure when the pursuit of speed and simplicity outweighs authenticity and humanity.
Ruben Goots is co-founder and CEO of Hamlet
