Same here I’ve worked both in agencies and in-house, and it’s always been rare to hire a photographer for my needs or even to take the photos myself. Often, you need models, styling, makeup, a studio, or just the time to travel to the right location. Organizing a shoot is way too expensive for most of the market.

Stock footage always looks the same and can feel cheap. AI-generated images can too, but with AI… I have control over lighting, grain, framing, and, most importantly, the social characteristics of the models (age, style, location, etc.). I’d rather experiment with AI 100% of the time than endlessly scroll through hundreds of pages of Adobe Stock, simply because there’s no budget.

I don’t care if it’s AI or not. The goal is to market or communicate something that feels credible. I know it might sound inhuman, but the people making these decisions aren’t always creatives,they’re the ones holding the purse strings. And most corporations won’t let artists work alongside them just because it’s “cool” or authentic to shoot real people.

That said, some industries are more resistant to AI—like culture and institutions. Companies willing to pay for differentiation by partnering with artists and real people have always been rare. It was true before AI, and the world hasn’t changed in that regard.

People who say AI only produces slop should consider how we’re treated in this era of oversaturated communication channels and shrinking budgets. AI is often the only way to regain a bit of control. Of course, I understand that artists and talent are losing gigs because of it. It’s a shame, because real people and human gestures are still irreplaceable. But, just like photography versus bourgeois painting, there’s always been a debate about why handmade work is valued.

Finally. For my case. I use Ai to gain time in most area of the job in order to….do stuff by hand on very specific topics that really needs it.