Once again, Super Bowl commercials from the “He Gets Us” campaign polarized viewers tuning into the Big Game on Sunday night. But this year’s outcry had as much to do with artificial intelligence as it did religion, as a result of numerous viewers erroneously believing that vignettes featured in one of the spots were generated by AI.

The confusion over “Foot Washing” is a cautionary tale for marketers about the still-evolving consumer perceptions around AI, especially in the absence of transparency.

Viewers’ negative reactions show “the potential [of AI] to erode consumer trust in brands if they feel misled or manipulated in any way,” said Mary Ann O’Brien, founder and chief executive of ad agency OBI Creative.

Now that image platforms such as OpenAI’s DALL-E are well-established in the mainstream, consumers have cultivated an eye for AI-generated content. This sense has perhaps become too strong for some, deluding them into seeing the mark of AI even where it does not exist. Much of the art created by image generators has a noticeable aesthetic characterized by hyper-realistic glossiness, a BBDO marketer previously told Ad Age. The style of the images in “Foot Washing” appears to resemble this sheen.

Also read: Top 10 most-liked Super Bowl ads

Even news outlets shared in the confusion and outrage. SB Nation, the sports blogging site owned by Vox Media, published an article during the game titled “This AI ad for Jesus is easily the worst Super Bowl ad of all time.”

The images in question were not AI-generated, but rather stills shot by fine art photographer Julia Fullerton-Batten, Ad Age previously confirmed with agency Lerma/, which produced the spot. 

“Our goal was to reflect an idealistic world that shows what our world could look like if we all loved our neighbors like Jesus,” said Greg Miller, a spokesperson for the “Het Gets Us” campaign. Lerma/ did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

O’Brien cited several similarities between the photographers’ shots and the aesthetic of AI generators that may have confused viewers. The images’ over-produced look and heightened color ratios match the content that AI bots typically output, she said. That the ad was made up of still photos, with no moving actors or personalities, may have been another false indication. AI-generated video is considered far less developed for creative application than static images.

But the issue was not that fans erroneously saw AI but their negative reaction to perceiving AI-generated content, suggesting that the technology is an unwelcome addition to advertising for many consumers.

The backlash “underscores a broader misunderstanding and apprehension among the public regarding AI’s role in creative processes,” said Bernard Marr, a technologist, founder and chief executive of consulting firm Bernard Marr and Co.

Also read: How AI is shaping Super Bowl strategies

Previous reports have indicated how consumers may be less excited for AI than the ad industry, owing to fears such as excessive job replacement. Throwing the technology back in consumers’ faces could be unwise, depending on the audience in question. For example, 61% of U.S. adults over the age of 65 say they are more concerned than excited about the growing use of AI in daily life, according to a survey published last August by the Pew Research Center. That number is significantly lower (42%) for adults ages 18 to 29. 

In a survey conducted by Ad Age and Harris Poll early last year, fewer than two in five U.S. adults (39%) supported brands using generative AI tools to make ads.

The presumed use of AI in “Foot Washing” seemed even more excruciating to some viewers given its appearance during the Super Bowl, one of the lone occasions in which consumers actually care about seeing ads. Users on social media lamented what they presumed to be the wasting of millions of dollars in ad budget on AI tools. Since viewers very much care about seeing certain themes and qualities in their Big Game ads, the inclusion of AI may be another polarizing expectation.

More transparency, less religion

At the heart of the issue, according to O’Brien, was that some viewers may have felt misled—even though they ultimately were not. To prevent this reaction, Lerma/ or Come Near, the non-profit that spearheaded the “He Gets Us” campaign this year, could have been more transparent that AI had nothing to do with the ad’s creation. 

Transparency has become a sticking point around the use of AI, not just in advertising, but in many other creative fields including acting and journalism. Publications such as Sports Illustrated have come under fire for publishing AI-generated stories without divulging the use of the technology. 

“Foot Washing,” of course, did not actually hide any truths with regards to AI. 

Another takeaway for marketers is that consumers may feel a heightened sensitivity toward the blending of AI and serious themes, such as religion, said Marr. 

“It doesn’t necessarily mean that serious themes should be off-limits for AI, but rather that brands need to be especially mindful of the context, presentation and the potential for misinterpretation,” he said.

Interestingly, “He Gets Us” really did use an AI platform in a spot that aired last March. That little outcry followed may have been due to the ad running outside of the Super Bowl, or that it readily admitted the use of AI throughout, or perhaps a bit of both.