Menu
Close
.svg)
Scrolling through Instagram recently, I was struck by a short reel demonstrating how artificial intelligence can generate an entire ad -- actors, settings, scripts, and production -- without the logistical and financial weight of a traditional shoot. It was sandwiched between cat videos and workout tips that occupy my personal IG algorithm...but it stopped me cold. If consumer brands are already experimenting with AI-driven advertising, what might this mean for pharmaceutical direct-to-consumer (DTC) efforts?
Pharma is already deep into its pivot toward the consumer. Patient-facing platforms are expanding, DTC campaigns are proliferating, and customer experience has become a front-and-center commercial strategy. But introducing AI-created characters into this world raises thorny, perhaps moral, questions -- especially about authenticity, trust, and patient engagement.
Advertising has always been expensive. Casting, locations, sets, production crews, endless revisions... weather contingencies...it’s no wonder many brands struggle to justify the spend. AI promises something radically different: a chance to reduce these costs dramatically while scaling creative output. Emerging creative platforms like RunwayML, Midjourney, and Kling now allow teams to generate hyper-realistic people, cinematics, and full narratives at a fraction of traditional production costs.
This is no longer experimental. Global brands in automotive, food, and lifestyle categories are already leveraging these tools to produce spec ads, showcase concepts, and even release fully evolved campaigns. A car commercial that once required exotic locations and professional actors can now be filmed in days -- entirely synthetically. For pharma, which has long struggled with the high cost and logistical barriers of film-based campaigns, the implications are profound.
Imagine being able to create multiple ad themes in parallel, each tailored to a different demographic or therapeutic context. AI could also accelerate the cycle of testing and refinement, unlocking faster time-to-market. The result: a broader creative repertoire available to teams who, until now, might have been constrained by budgets and production timelines.
Yet the question that arises immediately is: how will patients respond?
In my decades of ad campaign testing, one finding has been remarkably consistent: patients value authenticity. They want to see “people like me” represented -- not in a superficial sense, but in ways that reflect the true lived experience of their condition. When reviewing concepts for diseases such as hidradenitis suppurativa or breast cancer, patients scrutinize details with a microscope. Small cues -- a scar, a gesture, a facial expression, the setting of a conversation -- signal whether the brand truly understands their journey.
At ThinkGen, where my colleagues and I have tested countless creative campaigns, we’ve observed that patients are generally receptive to a variety of creative treatments. Many ads do feature real patients, or are designed with that intent. But just as often, ads use illustrative motifs: cartoons, animations, or stylized themes. And patients accept these approaches, indeed, sometimes even prefer them, when the story is told authentically. What matters most is not whether the “actor” is a real person, but whether the narrative resonates as truthful, empathetic, and respectful of the lived experience of the condition.
This opens the door for AI-generated characters. If the storyline is rooted in genuine insight, and the creative treatment is handled with care, patients may embrace it. Conversely, if the execution feels contrived, manipulative, or “off,” patients will notice -- and they will reject it. At least that's what I anticipate.
The risk is subtle but significant. Pharma already operates under heightened scrutiny because of the deeply personal and often vulnerable contexts in which its brands engage consumers. Trust is the foundation of the patient relationship, and trust can be fragile.
When consumers see a soda, dish soap or deodorant commercial with an AI-generated actor, they may not pause to ask whether the smile is real. But when patients see a pharma ad about living with a chronic condition, they bring a different lens. They look for signals of empathy and understanding. If AI-generated personas come across as artificial in the wrong way -- too polished, too generic, too “perfect”-- they may undermine the very trust the brand is trying to build. Indeed, I would argue that this is a challenge that (based upon what we hear from both patients and HCPs) plagues a lot of existing DTC ads.
There’s also the broader cultural backdrop to consider. We live in an era where “deepfakes” and misinformation are an emerging element of the public consciousness. An AI-driven DTC ad risks being misinterpreted as inauthentic or deceptive if companies aren’t transparent. Even the perception that pharma is “faking” patients could be damaging.
So how should pharma approach this new frontier? I would suggest three principles - and there are probably more, but these 3 just happen to be top-of-mind:
1. Act in full disclosure. Pharma already faces trust challenges, and misleading patients -- intentionally or not -- would only compound them. Today’s DTC ads often feature sub-headers such as “John M., someone living with Type 2 diabetes.” If a character is AI-generated, that fact should be disclosed just as clearly. Transparency isn’t a “nice-to-have,” it’s a fundamental requirement for preserving credibility.
2. The story supersedes the medium. Patients consistently remind us: it’s not whether the ad shows a real patient, a cartoon, or an AI-generated avatar -- it’s whether the story rings true and the details and nuances have been incorporated. They are looking for authenticity in context, tone, and detail. I recall a breast cancer patient in a recent interview who dismissed a concept by saying, “That isn’t really a breast cancer patient,” pointing out subtle visual cues that betrayed the inauthenticity. The medium may change -- whether film, animation, or AI-generated -- but the story and detail must remain authentic.
3. Test relentlessly and listen closely. The decision to use AI should always be treated as a marketing research question, not a foregone conclusion. If AI-generated characters are under consideration, test both the story and the medium. Patients will often surprise us in what they find compelling -- whether that’s a digital avatar, an animated figure...or even finger puppets. What matters most is whether the execution reflects lived experience. Commercial teams must listen deeply, lean into subtleties, and remain open to where the insights lead.
AI-generated advertising represents a creative enterprise that is already reshaping adjacent industries -- and it is quickly evolving. For pharma, these tools can unlock new possibilities: more efficient production, personalized outreach, and a wider range of thematic approaches. But as with every innovation in this industry, the opportunity comes with risk and responsibility.
If executed thoughtfully, AI-driven ads could expand the repertoire of how pharma communicates with patients, enabling more frequent, relevant, individualized and empathetic engagement. If executed poorly, they risk alienating the very people they aim to serve.
In the end, patients don’t care whether the character in a commercial is a real person, an actor, or an AI-generated avatar. They care whether the story feels real. They care whether the brand “gets” them. And in pharma, that distinction, between real and authentic, may be the most important one of all.
