Generated video has become genuinely useful for some things and remains useless for the thing UGC exists to do. Knowing which side of that line a given task sits on saves both money and embarrassment.

Where generated video works

Backgrounds, abstract motion, product renders, animated explanations and filler between real shots. Anything where nobody is being asked to believe a person. In those uses it is faster and cheaper than filming, and there is no reason not to use it.

Where it fails

The moment the point of the video is that a real person tried the product. UGC works on the viewer's belief that somebody actually used it, and a generated face does not carry that belief. When it is noticed, it costs more trust than the video ever earned.

Disclosure is becoming the norm

Platforms increasingly require synthetic media to be labelled, and consumer protection rules against misleading advertising apply regardless of how the footage was made. A generated testimonial presented as a real one is a misleading claim, not a production shortcut.

The practical middle ground

Use generated assets for the parts of the campaign nobody is asked to believe, and real creators for the parts that carry the claim. Most brands end up with both in the same campaign, which is fine as long as the boundary is deliberate.

The Mexican audience angle

Mexican viewers are as good as any at spotting an ad that feels synthetic, and this market runs heavily on word of mouth and personal recommendation. That makes credibility a more expensive thing to lose here than the cost saved by generating it.

Keep reading

Find creators for your campaign →

Frequently asked questions

What is AI video good for?

Backgrounds, renders and abstract motion.

Where does it fail?

Anywhere a real person must be believed.

Does it need labelling?

Increasingly yes, and misleading ads are regulated.

What is the sensible split?

Generated for filler, real for the claim.