Why we accept lower quality

People tend to be willing to trade quality for convenience and availability—much like when we moved from CDs to streaming and accepted a lower bitrate for music in our pocket. This compromise is now shifting to texts, videos, and images: we're gradually getting used to a new online standard, and a large part of the audience no longer pays attention to fine-grained quality. The “fast food” metaphor also fits: we reach for what's quick, cheap, and “good enough,” even though we know it's not the best. This applies to social networks as well—TikTok can be full of junk, but with a properly tuned feed you can also learn a lot there, while many others mainly seek instant dopamine.

Creation, marketing, and how to deliver quality

Tools like image generators and chatbots have made the “first output” cheap, and visuals often blur into similar styles. Craft makes the difference: thoughtful prompting, choice of “camera” and composition, subsequent post-processing, and an overall feel for visual language. The flood will be amplified further by new video generators from big companies; for now, however, they are not perfect, and some don't even work here (for example, Sora in the EU). All the more reason for advertisers and media to care about ethics and quality—don't use the first thing AI “spits out.”

The value of a campaign isn't determined by the tool but by the idea and execution: even the reworked “truck” Coca-Cola Christmas ad made with AI didn't perform badly with the general public. Technology doesn't mean the end of professions—just as illustrators once adapted to computers, creators will adapt to AI. Young people will naturally adopt an “AI mindset,” while older people know how to connect experience with new tools. The key is to add human craft and responsibility: so the outcome isn't slop, but meaningful content.