With advances in AI video generation, there are more and more services that offer AI UGS an easy way to create them. And they are so good that most people will think it is real. And in general, UGS are one of the best ways to build trust, attract customers, boost sales, and are great for branding. If you place UGC sections on the home and product pages, they are great trust signals to customers, and they would be more likely to buy a product. Also, using them as ads is beneficial as it builds connections with customers.
But AI UGC, to me, is the same as a fake review. It does look good, but as it is completely fake, there is a clear intention to trick customers. You can say, “But that is marketing”, “It would be the same for paid actors/influencers.” But I think it is wrong. UGC is “user-generated content”, mostly videos that real customers share. And that, all customers value the most. Real people’s opinion. Paid actors/influencers are a bit shady, depending on whether they really tested the product and gave an honest opinion. But AI UGC is on another level. More affordable than actors/influencers for sure, but at what cost? Does it matter if it is fake but brings more sales?
Fake AI UGC made by the merchant to mislead.
In the first I’d including even things like the customer using a filter to change their face, use an avatar, or background , and that stuff is rampant.
But the 100% artificial in both is problematic, and needs to be regulated. Unless your selling some niche thing like VFX assets, or are literally selling AI-generation tools, etc.
Risk
Both sets of artificial content seems like a higher legal risk than normal UGC.
It’s not like customers are providing providence for what they upload, or a merchant is gonna investigate it.
It’s one thing to spot someone uploading Superman talking about a product, it’s another silent problem for some lesser known IP the merchant doesn’t even know is a trademark issue to make it onto their website. like a dropshipper follow a “guro” course ingesting an entire feed but not checking for things needing brand approval to avoid deplatforming
Anti-Patterns silently limit merchant ROI?
And just like other FOMO dark patterns it’ll work right up until it doesn’t or silently never actually works but collects a recurring subscription fee while being a detriment.
Like “X just bought product Y , dont miss it or else!!!” popups, or spin the wheel noise, they will work on a specific type of customer for specific type of merchants.
While completely alienating others who’ll close the tab so fast it might not even register as a bounce.
Which can be the point for fly by night operations wanting to be ignored by most people.
Greenfields
It is new tech however so it should be given a good shake to find legitimate use cases.
At least one use legitimate use case is literally for UGC apps themselves.
Those apps need demo content to show features and it can be a right unmovable hassle to use some other companies content just for demo purpose.
A hypothetical use case is privacy, and law, not everyone is comfortable plastering their face online.
Then there’s video’s of children wanting to talk about their toy not a lot of parents want their kids face online.
Just because they want to leave a review for something they like that requires video/video-with-face..
Nor should they be as it just gets used without consent, or to make more fake faces.
So if given the option some would opt for a generated AI version of what they submit(so merchant has the original as first party provenance/chain of custody against misrepresentation regulations).
this is an interesting line to draw and i think you’re mostly right. there’s a real difference between ai-generated product photos (making your product look good in a setting) and ai-generated ugc (pretending a real person used your product and loved it). one is production quality, the other is manufactured trust.
imo the problem isn’t the ai part, it’s the deception part. if a brand uses an ai model in a product photo and it’s clearly a styled shoot, nobody feels tricked. but the second you slap an ai-generated face on a “review” video and pass it off as a real customer, you’ve crossed into fake testimonial territory and that erodes trust for the whole ecosystem.
The issue isn’t AI itself, it’s how it’s used. When brands clearly present AI-generated visuals as styled content, there’s no problem. But using AI faces or voices to mimic real customers in “reviews” crosses into deception. That blurs authenticity, damages credibility, and can undermine trust not just in one brand, but across the entire market.
totally agree on that distinction. AI for product photography (clean studio shots, styled lifestyle scenes) is very different from AI trying to fake real customer testimonials. one is a production tool, the other is manufactured trust, and people can tell the difference.
fwiw we built a tool called Prodofoto specifically for that first category. studio shots, lifestyle scenes, on-model editorial, all clearly product photography, not pretending to be UGC. brands should be transparent about using AI for production work while keeping actual customer content real. that’s where the line is imo.
Unless your selling some niche thing like VFX assets, or are literally selling AI-generation tools, etc.
talking about a product, it’s another silent problem for some lesser known IP the merchant doesn’t even know is a trademark issue to make it onto their website.