Beautiful Thinking.
There are few who would disagree that our world – and our everyday lives – have been fundamentally reshaped by AI. What once felt like science fiction has become so embedded in the day-to-day that we barely think twice about using it.
Yet while AI is celebrated by many, it is also viewed with caution by others – particularly creatives like those of us here at Free The Birds. Those who cherish artistry, value the presence of human hands, and take joy in witnessing real talent shape the world around us.
This emerging tension is now influencing how consumers choose the brands they support. One group gravitates towards raw, unpolished, human-led content – something they instinctively trust over anything shaped by algorithms. The other embraces AI for its ability to unlock unprecedented speed, scale and hyper-personalisation.
What these two groups share is a swelling sense of digital fatigue – but for very different reasons, and with entirely different outcomes.
While one sees AI as a tool for streamlining their lives, the other feels worn down by its relentless expansion, concerned that creativity is being diluted, intuition overridden, and spontaneity replaced by automation.
In 2024, Adobe found that 75% of Gen Z were “tired of overly perfected digital aesthetics,” favouring content that feels “real, unedited and human.” That same year, Nielsen’s Trust in Advertising survey revealed that 62% of consumers trust brands less when their communications feel “overly polished or overly optimised for algorithms.” This sentiment has only strengthened – and brands must now decide how to respond.
In the worlds of beauty, health and wellness, the imperfect has become a new marker of trust. And this goes far beyond honest communication or transparent formulations – it is about the presence of human judgement, skill and experience. Visible expertise, built through years of training and practice, becomes a powerful signal of credibility.
Practitioners who have mastered subtlety – whose work enhances without announcing itself – are increasingly sought after. “Less is more” aesthetics continue to rise, with studies showing a 27% year-on-year increase in natural injectables, and “bare-skin beauty” up 19% over the same period.
This reverence for human ability doesn’t end in treatment rooms. It extends into the way products are conceived, made and brought to life. When a brand can reveal its creative process – from formulation through to packaging – it builds affinity and trust. Smaller, independent brands have long excelled at this, and there is significant opportunity for larger players to follow suit.
The benefit for innovation is clear. Bringing consumers behind the scenes throughout NPD strengthens demand before launch, dramatically increasing the likelihood of success.
Social platforms that offer genuine behind-the-scenes access play a crucial role here. From the creators brands collaborate with to the communities they engage, interactions should feel like real conversations – not choreographed performances.
This shift also reflects how people want to be seen. A constant stream of algorithmically perfected imagery has left many feeling sceptical about what is realistically achievable. Instead, consumers are seeking grounded, honest communication about what improvement genuinely looks like. Real skin. Real challenges. Real progress.
The deep and ingrained value of longevity – still one of beauty’s most influential forces – champions ageing beautifully rather than pretending ageing can be erased. Women in particular want to be spoken to with empathy and clarity, not with unattainable perfection. They seek brands that understand the hormonal shifts, textural changes and cycles they navigate daily.
Similarly, in wellness, long-taboo subjects are now being addressed with greater openness. Menopause, sexual wellbeing, hormonal health, chronic pain – no matter how advanced AI becomes, no model can fully understand the lived experience behind these realities, and consumers know it.
Ultimately, emotional resonance – the feeling of genuinely connecting with a brand – remains incredibly powerful, particularly in categories as intimate and identity-shaping as beauty and wellness. It is difficult to imagine this being replaced entirely by automation.
Or can it?
Because when we look at those who embrace AI wholeheartedly, the appeal is clear – simplified complexity, highly accurate personalisation, and access to expertise that would have felt out of reach even a year ago.
On the other side of the spectrum sit the consumers who balance this dichotomy. While some push back against algorithmic perfection, others run straight towards it – and with conviction. This group sees AI not as a threat, but as a tool to unlock clarity, efficiency and expertise at a scale previously unimaginable. They trust data, diagnostics and engineered solutions over the subjective and fallible instincts of the human hand.
They are both fuelling and riding the explosive growth of AI and LLMs, whose influence now touches almost every industry – beauty and wellness included. While McKinsey’s 2024 State of Beauty report noted that 70% of brands expected to use AI in personalisation, diagnostics or content creation by 2025, the firm’s 2025 outlook sharpened this further, positioning personalisation as a key driver of competitive advantage. Brands that excel here, McKinsey notes, generate greater revenue and stronger returns.
In practice, robust personalisation strategies can reduce customer acquisition costs by up to 50% and increase marketing ROI by 10-30%.
PerfectCorp’s AI Beauty Index 2025 reinforces this trajectory, reporting a 40% increase in adoption of AI diagnostic tools such as skin analysers between 2024 and 2025.
For these consumers, AI offers something deeply reassuring – clarity in a cluttered, chaotic world. It simplifies complexity, strips out guesswork and enables fast, confident decision-making. And while this plays out in practical ways such as discovering the right skincare regime or personalised supplement plan, its impact goes deeper. AI offers a sense of control.
At a time when we are bombarded with information about how much more there is to understand about our bodies, this control feels powerful. AI-driven biomarker analysis, supplement protocols and skin-mapping tools promise experiences that feel premium, futuristic and democratising – even if, for many, knowing where to begin can feel overwhelming.
Here, we see the deeper psychological needs AI fulfils. In a world full of subjective opinions, it feels clean, impartial and decisive. It offers the sense that health, skin, hormones and routines can be managed – not simply reacted to. The underlying belief is simple. If a better version of ourselves is possible, why wouldn’t we use the tools available?
Rather than feeling fatigued by digital noise, this group sees AI as a filter through it.
For brands, this demands a careful response. Embracing AI is essential – if consumers are searching and you are not present, you have already lost ground.
But this must be done ethically and transparently, with a clear understanding of where scepticism remains. Overreliance on evolving platforms, unchecked automation and opaque systems risks undermining trust.
AI can feel emotionally flat. Optimised content often lacks the warmth, humour and texture of human creativity – something these consumers may tolerate, but still recognise as a limitation. Brands must be clear about how AI is being used, ensuring customers never feel managed or manipulated through its application.
For this audience, AI does not replace the human element – it elevates it. They trust precision over provenance, engineered solutions over approximation, and believe optimisation is a form of self-care. They are not rejecting humanity; they are choosing accuracy. And brands must stay aligned with that belief.
At the centre of this debate sits a very real creative tension for brands.
A key signifier is often the friction between generated AI and a “real” photoshoot. There’s something useful here, because the middle ground is no longer a place brands can comfortably occupy. When the line is blurred, scrutiny comes from both sides. What brands need now is clarity – a stronger definition of what is AI, what is live-action, and why each choice has been made.
AI itself has shifted. We’re moving out of the era of the plastic, obviously synthetic look. The newer work is more nuanced – flyaway hairs, imperfect lines, texture, asymmetry. Those small, human visual flaws that once signalled artificiality are now being simulated convincingly. In many ways, AI is adapting in response to backlash. “Fake” became a look consumers could spot and reject, so the technology has begun chasing what we’ve historically read as real.
From a brand perspective, however, the decision often collapses into budget. Content expectations are relentless, and many brands simply cannot afford the volume of shoots required to keep pace. AI becomes the practical answer. But the risk is reputational – fear of being called out, accused of deception, or failing to be transparent about how imagery is created.
The flip side is equally uncomfortable. A brand can invest in a shoot, hire models and pay for craft, and still manufacture perception. This is where the “real versus fake” argument becomes messy. From the perspective of the creatives amongst our team here at Free The Birds who have art-directed beauty shoots, the model may never have used the product before, may have no relationship with it, and may be applying it for the first time on set. Yet the final imagery implies a lived-in routine, authentic use, a story of transformation. The medium is “real,” but the claim can still be constructed.
So the debate isn’t simply that AI equals fake and photography equals truth. It’s more accurate to say that both can be constructed, both can mislead, and both can be honest – depending on intent, disclosure and the gap between what’s depicted and what’s being promised.
Packshots sit slightly outside this tension. They are more functional than aspirational, and audience expectations are different. Most consumers won’t mind – and often won’t notice – whether a packshot is photographed or generated, as long as it accurately reflects what they will receive.
What feels necessary now is a clearer framework. When AI is appropriate. When photography is essential. And how brands can be explicit enough to avoid the uncanny middle – where everything feels defensible, but nothing feels trustworthy.
And it is this clarity that brands must now design for.
Decide whether AI is your engine or your amplifier. Brands that lead with optimisation should own speed, precision and personalisation. Brands that lead with humanity should elevate craft, emotion and expertise. That’s not to say a brand can never touch or use AI if they choose the human touch route – but sitting ambiguously between the two creates confusion, make clear the role it plays.
Even the most AI-forward brands must show where human judgement still matters. Position AI as an enabler of better outcomes, not a replacement for creativity, care or accountability.
Hyper-optimised content may win attention, but resonance builds loyalty. Decide whether your brand earns trust through efficiency or through emotional connection, and align your content accordingly.
Transparency is non-negotiable. Explain where AI sits in your ecosystem, what it does, and where its limits lie. Clarity builds confidence, especially in categories as personal as beauty and wellness.
If AI accelerates scale, protect the spaces where human touch still matters – expertise, service, tone, storytelling and community. These moments increasingly define brand value.
From diagnostics to packaging copy, from social content to customer support, every interaction should reinforce your chosen stance. Consistency signals conviction, and conviction builds trust.
