AI slop

Credit: Antonio Guillem on Shutterstock

Brands looking to stand out should prioritize people in video content

In A Nutshell

  • Most consumers think they can spot AI-made videos, and that belief alone is enough to shape how they judge brands.
  • Perceived AI content often lowers trust, even when viewers may be wrong about how a video was created.
  • Videos featuring real people still inspire far more confidence than faceless or synthetic-looking content.
  • AI works best as a behind-the-scenes helper, not a replacement for human presence, voice, or judgment.

More than 8 out of 10 Americans say they’ve watched a video they believe was created by artificial intelligence. Whether or not that’s actually true doesn’t matter much anymore, because that snap judgment is already affecting how people feel about brands.

A recent survey from video creation platform Animoto found that 82.6% of consumers report watching videos they think were AI-generated. Among those who believe they’re seeing AI content, more than a third say it lowers their trust in the brand behind it. Meanwhile, nearly 78% of people say they trust videos featuring real people more than those without human faces or voices.

The findings come at a time when AI video tools are becoming more accessible and brands are racing to produce more content faster. Crucially, however, the research points to a disconnect: what saves time for marketers might be costing them credibility with audiences.

The poll surveyed 460 people in September 2025, split between everyday consumers and marketing professionals at small-to-midsize companies. All participants were already familiar with AI tools like ChatGPT or video generators. The company also gathered responses from more than 100 of its own users to add context to the numbers.

Why Audiences Distrust AI-Generated Videos

The survey didn’t ask people to identify specific tells that reveal AI-generated content, but responses from Animoto users suggest viewers are picking up on patterns. Olga Mirkovic, one survey respondent, described it as “an entire set of signals, and most of all, it’s a failure to fit into the real context in which the video should take place.”

Another user, Aaliyah Miller, noted that some AI videos have “a look and feel that tells you it is AI,” adding that “videos are meant to be engaging and fresh. AI needs to be able to deliver on that for users and viewers.”

The trust issue goes beyond aesthetics. Separate research cited in the report found that 88% of consumers consider brand trust as important as price and quality when making purchases. Three-quarters of U.S. adults think it’s extremely or very important to know whether images, videos, or text were created by AI or people.

This creates a peculiar situation for brands. Even if their videos aren’t AI-generated, audiences making assumptions about production methods can damage brand perception before the message even lands. Perception becomes reality, regardless of what actually happened behind the scenes.

AI everywhere
Is it AI? Perception matters more than reality when it comes to branding. (Credit: Gorodenkoff on Shutterstock)

Marketers Want AI Help Without Losing Creative Control

Despite the explosion in AI adoption, marketing professionals aren’t ready to hand over creative control. The survey found that marketers want AI to speed up their workflow, not replace their judgment about branding, voice, or which footage to use.

Roya Safarian, another survey respondent, explained the balance: “AI can enhance storytelling as long as the brand still keeps a human touch. The key is balance: technology should support the message, not replace the genuine voice behind it.”

This creates a practical challenge for brands trying to keep up with content demands. AI can generate scripts, suggest edits, and even create entire videos from text prompts. That all sounds great, but the data shows audiences can often tell when a video lacks human involvement, and that perception carries real consequences for brand reputation.

Beth Forester, CEO of Animoto, summarized the tension in the findings: “The data’s clear: consumers are curious about AI, but confident in humans. Generative AI can speed up and scale up your video creation, but it’s no replacement for authenticity.”

The survey revealed that marketers have clear boundaries about what they’ll delegate to AI. They want tools that enhance their existing creative process rather than ones that attempt to replicate human judgment about brand voice, visual style, or which moments deserve emphasis.

Human Faces Still Win Trust in Video Marketing

One finding in particular cut through the noise: 77.9% of consumers trust videos with real people. The simple act of showing up on camera appears to be one of the fastest ways to build credibility, even as AI tools become more sophisticated at generating realistic-looking content.

This preference for human presence held steady across different age groups in the survey. Younger consumers, who generally show more comfort with AI tools, still reported higher trust levels for videos featuring real people compared to those without visible humans.

Another respondent, Farrukh Kamran, explained why video continues to outperform other content formats: “I use video because it’s the most powerful way to tell a story, share emotions, and connect with people.”

Even as AI changes how videos get made, the fundamental reason people respond to video hasn’t shifted. People still want to see other people, hear real voices, and feel like someone is actually talking to them rather than at them.

For brands navigating 2026, the report suggests using AI as a production assistant rather than a replacement for human creativity. That means letting AI handle time-consuming tasks like transcription, initial edits, or generating draft scripts, while keeping humans visible in the final product and maintaining control over brand voice and creative decisions.

The practical takeaway here is that audiences aren’t opposed to AI helping create content. They’re opposed to content that feels like it was made without any human involved at all. Brands that show their faces, use their own footage, and maintain a distinctive voice can still benefit from AI’s efficiency gains without triggering the trust penalties that come when videos feel too synthetic.


Survey Methodology

Animoto conducted a mixed-methods study in September 2025 examining how video and AI are changing content creation and audience trust. The research combined quantitative and qualitative approaches to capture both marketer intentions and consumer perceptions.

The quantitative portion surveyed 460 qualified U.S. participants divided into two groups. The consumer segment included adults ages 22-64 who had watched at least one brand video in the past month. The marketer segment included adults ages 22-64 employed at companies with 10 to 1,000 employees who personally create or oversee video production at least once per month. All respondents confirmed familiarity with AI tools including ChatGPT, image or video generators, or text-to-speech systems. Researchers screened out individuals with no video or AI experience.

A qualitative follow-up survey gathered open-ended responses from more than 100 Animoto users. These responses provided context and direct quotes featured throughout the report.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Reply