Google’s Controversial AI Ad: the Ordinary Viewer’s Verdict

Google’s new Olympic ad has had a… tricky reception. Well, no, let’s not mince words. If you’re reading the press, you’ll know this ad is highly controversial. It’s “The Antithesis Of The Olympics” (NPR); “Wins The Gold Medal For Worst Olympic Ad” (The Atlantic); “Everyone Hates That Google AI Olympic Commercial” (New York Magazine)

And there’s where the controversy lies. It’s another ad which has triggered a huge backlash by suggesting – in this case explicitly – that people should get Generative AI to do a human job. A Dad is talking about his daughter, who wants to write a fan letter to an athlete. He “wants to get it just right”, so he opens up Google’s Gemini AI app to to the job. Cue outrage: fan letters should be authentic, human and from the heart, not AI generated. Right?

Well, here’s where things get interesting. Before building a narrative around an ad, it’s usually worth checking in with ordinary viewers, which we did by running Google’s commercial through Test Your Ad with a panel drawn from the general public. Would they turn on the ad for its recommendation to use AI, or would they see it as a Dad doing his best?

The results show that no, this is not the Worst Olympic Ad – but that’s no thanks to the AI parts of the story.

In fact, Google’s ad scores 4.4-Stars on Test Your Ad, a good result for the brand which, all other things being equal, has the potential to drive strong growth. But a closer look at the results suggests a more nuanced story. The first half of the ad, focusing on the Dad and daughter and her fandom, shows steadily rising happiness. As soon as Gemini AI is mentioned, negative emotions like anger and sadness begin to creep into the response.

These negative emotions never dominate, and the ad has enough momentum to land a 4-Star score without them damaging the final result too much. But the ad’s peak of happiness is the moment before AI gets involved. It’s clear that the positive feeling our audience felt for the ad is despite the AI content, not driven by it. They like the story, but not the message. And the other metrics – short term Spike and Brand Fluency – are unimpressive, meaning no short-term boost is predicted.

This isn’t the first time in 2024 a big tech brand has got in trouble for an AI-themed ad. Apple’s ominous “Crush” ran into trouble when it seemed to endorse replacing human creativity with the newest iPad. Audiences disliked the ad too, giving it 2-Stars, but they didn’t pick up on the AI metaphor like critics did. Something similar is happening with Google – audiences like the human story and while they don’t like the AI parts, it’s not a deal breaker.

With financial analysts starting to ask where the transformative profits of Generative AI are coming from, it’s no wonder tech firms are turning to ads to demonstrate some of this new technology’s use cases. But is a heartfelt fan letter really the best option? Could Google have saved themselves a lot of bad publicity by telling a different story?

We can’t know for sure. But we can look at a recent ad from Adobe which scored 5-Stars for its showcase of Generative AI capabilities, as a little girl designs a fantastical birthday invite thanks to the Gen AI tools in Photoshop. That ad got our top rank in Test Your Ad, and created zero bad publicity.

The key difference between Apple and Google, and Adobe is the question of Gen AI’s relationship to humans. In ads like “Crush” and “Dear Sydney”, the technology is replacing personal human effort. In Adobe’s ad, the tech is enhancing and liberating it. It’s easy to imagine a version of the Google ad in which Gemini is helping the daughter express her feelings herself, not replacing her entirely because her Dad is delegating the job. While Google’s finished ad is a lot more effective than its haters might imagine (or want), the anger it’s generated is real, and will continue as long as ads show AI replacing, not enhancing, the human touch.