0 cumulative citations
View corpus contextLight personalization in AI-generated ad imagery persuades better than either no personalization or heavy tailoring; excessive personalization raises creepiness and cancels out relevance gains.
Enabling and Understanding Personalization in AI-Generated Advertising Imagery
arxiv
quasi_experimental
medium evidence
7/10 relevance
Full text
usable extracted full text
Source
PDF
In a within-subjects experiment with N=100, light personalization of AI-generated advertising imagery produced the most favorable ad and product attitudes and purchase intentions, whereas stronger personalization increased perceived personalization but also perceived creepiness, which netted negative effects.
Citation observations
Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.
Personalized marketing traditionally matches static products to customers, while dynamic creative optimization focuses mainly on AI-driven text personalization or basic product image modifications. We address this gap by developing and implementing an AI-based framework that generates personalized advertising imagery directly from customer data. We evaluate this framework in a two-stage within-subject study with N=100 participants across four products and three levels of personalization, varied by the amount and specificity of customer data used. Participants rated each image on attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention. Results show that participants perceive differences across personalization levels and evaluate AI-generated advertising imagery most positively at a moderate level of personalization. High personalization increases perceived personalization, which is positively associated with all three outcome measures, but also increases perceived creepiness, which is negatively associated with the outcomes and dominates the total effect.
Summary
Main Finding
The authors develop and implement an automated pipeline that uses customer data to generate personalized advertising images (persona → LLM prompt → text-to-image model) and evaluate its marketing impact in a two-stage within-subject study (N = 100). Results: light/moderate personalization (L1) yields the most favorable outcomes on attitude toward the advertisement (ATA), attitude toward the product (ATP), and purchase intention (PI). Stronger personalization (L2) raises perceived personalization but also substantially raises perceived creepiness; the negative effect of creepiness offsets or outweighs the benefits, producing diminishing returns and (for some outcomes) worse performance than L1.
Key Points
- Technical pipeline: three-step framework — (A) persona creation from individual customer data (rule-based Python templates), (B) scenario/prompt generation via an LLM (gpt-5), (C) image generation via a T2I model (gpt-image-1) with a product reference image.
- Personalization manipulation: three levels L0 (no personalization baseline), L1 (light/moderate personalization), L2 (strong/hyper-personalization). Prompt templates are held constant; only persona content varies.
- Study design: two-stage within-subject experiment. Survey 1 collects real participant data used to generate personalized images; Survey 2 presents generated images (across four products and L0–L2) back to the same participants and measures ATA, ATP, PI using established scales. N = 100 participants.
- Results:
- Participants perceived the intended differences across personalization levels (manipulation check).
- H1 (personalization affects ATA, ATP, PI) supported.
- H2 (improvement over baseline) partially supported — L1 improves ATA and ATP relative to L0; L2 does not add benefit.
- H3 (inverted-U: moderate best) supported for ATA and ATP.
- Mediation/exploratory analysis: perceived personalization positively predicts outcomes; perceived creepiness negatively predicts outcomes and dominates the total effect for high personalization.
- Practical takeaways: light personalization is most effective in this setting; aggressive hyperpersonalization risks backfiring due to privacy/creepiness perceptions.
Data & Methods
- Participants: N = 100 (within-subjects).
- Stimuli: AI-generated advertising images for four different products, each produced at three personalization levels (L0, L1, L2).
- Pipeline implementation:
- Persona creation: rule-based Python that assembles natural-language persona descriptions from structured participant data collected in Survey 1.
- Prompt generation: persona + product info inserted into an LLM prompt template; processed with OpenAI gpt-5 to generate scenario guidance.
- Image generation: scenario guidance + product reference image fed to OpenAI gpt-image-1 (one-shot generation), parameters: high quality, resolution 1024×1536; prompt templates include role prompting, negative prompts, XML/formatting to stabilize outputs.
- Experimental measures:
- Primary outcome variables: attitude toward the advertisement (ATA), attitude toward the product (ATP), purchase intention (PI) — measured with established survey items.
- Manipulation checks: perceived personalization and perceived creepiness.
- Design choices to isolate personalization: identical prompt templates and generation parameters across conditions; variation only in persona detail/amount.
- Analysis: confirmatory hypothesis tests across personalization levels; exploratory mediation analyses linking perceived personalization and creepiness to ATA/ATP/PI.
Implications for AI Economics
- Production cost and scalability: The pipeline demonstrates how GenAI can automate individualized creative production at low marginal cost, enabling one-to-one visual personalization at scale. This could substantially lower the cost per creative and increase supply of ad variants.
- Returns to personalization (economics of targeting): Evidence of an inverted-U implies diminishing (and potentially negative) returns to excessive data-driven personalization. Economic models of personalization should incorporate a privacy/creepiness disutility term that increases with the depth/specificity of personalization.
- Labor and market structure: Automated generation of individualized ads may substitute for some designer/creative labor and for template-based DCO systems, shifting value toward prompt engineering, data management, and monitoring for consumer reactions.
- Consumer welfare and privacy trade-offs: Firms face a trade-off between relevance gains and consumer discomfort. Optimal personalization policies will depend on the monetary value of incremental conversion versus the welfare/brand costs associated with perceived creepiness and potential long-term reputational effects.
- Measurement and pricing: Standard performance metrics (CTR, short-term conversions) may overstate benefit if they ignore negative effects of creepiness on longer-term brand equity or retention. Auctions and pricing for targeted ad inventory should account for non-monetary externalities (privacy harms, backlash risk).
- Regulation and market design: Findings strengthen the case for policy and platform-level guardrails (limits on depth of personalization, consent, transparency/disclosure, opt-outs) and suggest regulators may need to monitor not just data use but degree of creative personalization.
- Recommendations for practitioners and economists:
- Start with light personalization and field-test for behavioral outcomes (CTR, conversion, retention), not just click metrics.
- Monitor perceived creepiness and brand metrics; include them in ROI models.
- Consider pricing and allocation adjustments for ultra-personalized creative that internalize consumer disutility.
- For economic research: incorporate behavioral responses to personalization intensity into models of advertising competition, consumer surplus, and privacy regulation; pursue field experiments to quantify long-run effects and externalities.
Limitations to note for economic interpretation: study is lab/online with N = 100 and four products (limited external validity); image-generation artifacts are model-dependent; long-run and marketplace-level effects (e.g., on ad prices, labor markets, consumer trust) remain to be quantified in field settings.
Assessment
Paper Typequasi_experimental
Evidence Strengthmedium — The paper uses an experimental manipulation (within-subjects) which supports internal causal inference about personalization levels, reports manipulation checks, and uses real participant profiles as inputs; however the sample is modest (N=100), outcomes are self-reported attitudes/intention rather than behavioral or market-level outcomes, only four products were tested, and external validity and field performance (CTR/revenue) are not demonstrated.
Methods Rigormedium — Design strengths include a controlled within-subjects manipulation, explicit levels of personalization, and manipulation checks with mediation analysis; limitations include modest sample size, potential demand and order effects inherent to within-subjects designs (unclear counterbalancing details), reliance on self-reported measures (ATA/ATP/PI) rather than observed behavior, limited product variety, and dependence on specific proprietary models (gpt-5, gpt-image-1) which may affect replicability.
SampleTwo-stage online study with N = 100 participants; survey 1 collected real participant/customer data used to generate personalized images; survey 2 presented AI-generated images for four exemplar products at three personalization levels (L0, L1, L2) to the same participants and measured attitude toward the advertisement (ATA), attitude toward the product (ATP), and purchase intention (PI). Demographic details and recruitment source are not specified in the excerpt.
Themesinnovation adoption
IdentificationWithin-subjects experimental manipulation of personalization level (three treatments: L0 non-personalized, L1 light personalization, L2 high personalization) applied to the same N=100 participants across four exemplar products; manipulation checks (perceived personalization, perceived creepiness) and mediation analyses are used to link treatment to outcomes (ATA, ATP, PI).
GeneralizabilityModest and potentially non-representative sample (N=100) — unclear recruitment frame (students/MTurk/Prolific/university)., Laboratory/online survey setting with self-reported ATA/ATP/PI — not direct measures of clicks, conversions, or revenue in real campaigns., Only four exemplar products tested — limited product-category coverage., Within-subjects design may induce demand characteristics or carryover effects if not fully counterbalanced., Implementation relies on specific commercial models (gpt-5, gpt-image-1), limiting replication with different generative models or future model versions., Cultural/geographic generalizability unclear (participant origins not specified)., Static image ads only — findings may not extend to video, dynamic ads, or multi-channel campaigns.
Claims (5)
| Claim | Direction | Outcome | Confidence & Evidence | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The study developed and implemented an AI-based framework that generates personalized advertising imagery from real customer data by combining an LLM with a text-to-image generator. Other | positive | Feasibility of generating customer-personalized advertising imagery |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| Participants perceived differences among the three levels of personalization in AI-generated advertising imagery. Consumer Welfare | positive | Perceived differences in personalization level |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=100
|
| Light personalization produced the most favorable responses across attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention. Consumer Welfare | positive | Attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=100
|
| Stronger personalization did not provide additional marketing benefit and could reduce attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention relative to light personalization. Consumer Welfare | negative | Attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=100
|
| Perceived personalization was positively associated with all three marketing outcomes, whereas perceived creepiness was negatively associated with them; the negative creepiness pathway dominated the total effect at high personalization. Consumer Welfare | mixed | Attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
n=100
|