Coca-Cola's New AI Holiday Ad Is a Sloppy Eyesore (theverge.com) 60
Coca-Cola has doubled down on AI-generated holiday ads despite widespread criticism of last year's uncanny results. This year the beverage company is replacing human actors with oddly animated animals in a visually inconsistent campaign. The Verge reports: There's no consistent style, switching between attempted realism and a bug-eyed toony look, and the polar bears, panda, and sloth move unnaturally, like flat images that have been sloppily animated rather than rigged 3D models in CG. Compared to the convincing deepfake videos being generated by tools like OpenAI's Sora 2 or Google's Veo 3, the videos produced for this Coke ad feel extremely dated.
The only notable improvement to my eyes is that the wheels on the iconic Coke trucks are actually consistently turning this year, rather than gliding statically over snow-covered roads. The Wall Street Journal reports that Coca-Cola teamed up with Silverside and Secret Level on its latest holiday campaign, two of the AI studios that previously worked on the 2024 Coke Christmas ads.
Coca-Cola declined to comment on the cost of the new holiday campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal, but said that around 100 people were involved in the project -- a figure comparable to the company's older AI-free productions. That includes five "AI specialists" from Silverside who contributed by prompting and refining more than 70,000 AI video clips.
The only notable improvement to my eyes is that the wheels on the iconic Coke trucks are actually consistently turning this year, rather than gliding statically over snow-covered roads. The Wall Street Journal reports that Coca-Cola teamed up with Silverside and Secret Level on its latest holiday campaign, two of the AI studios that previously worked on the 2024 Coke Christmas ads.
Coca-Cola declined to comment on the cost of the new holiday campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal, but said that around 100 people were involved in the project -- a figure comparable to the company's older AI-free productions. That includes five "AI specialists" from Silverside who contributed by prompting and refining more than 70,000 AI video clips.
Polar Bears (Score:5, Insightful)
Coca Cola has been doing weird animated Christmas ads since before I was born.
Visually inconsistent = trying multiple things, looking for what works.
Seems like a hullaboo over nothing.
Re:Polar Bears (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But I'm still not buying Coke.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But I'm still not buying Coke.
NGL, I miss having a nice cold glass of Coke Zero at home. Shit just got too expensive to justify purchasing regularly, though.
Re: (Score:2)
brain damage used to be free, but now you have to pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bad publicity is still publicity, here we are talking about it and watching the video to see how bad it is.
Just like with the NX-5 Planet Remover [fandom.com]
Bug #1: It's marketing. Like, uh, "The NX-5 destroys the whole planet except for the Wrangler jeans."
Bug #2: Because they're so tough. Tougher than the laser? Stupid.
Bug #1: You're talking about it.
Bug #2: Mm, you're right. They... they got me.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly - they did not have to put "made by AI" or detail _anything_ about the produciton on here, but here I am clicking on a christmas coca cola ad to see the bad AI. Clickbait wins again!
Re: (Score:1)
your own fault. why click, the words tell you everything you need to know - this is a fluff piece paid for by Coca Cola to bring publicity.
Re: (Score:3)
I love the bit at around 47 seconds in this years ad where there are a bunch of people facing away from the truck about to be run over and it doesn't even slow down. It is unclear if they got hit or not because they move off screen just before impact.
Re: Polar Bears (Score:2)
Well, we're talking about Coke on slashdot so depending on their metrics, it's a success.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a cynic about the AI fap-fest we typically see (Score:3, Insightful)
But really, this commercial wasn't that bad - for a commercial, anyway. Coke's older, more traditionally animated holiday ads over the past few decades have shared pretty much all the same shortcomings ("no consistent style, switching between attempted realism and a bug-eyed toony look, and the polar bears, panda, and sloth move unnaturally,") the blogger reported... it's a bit of a stretch to pin that on AI, in this case.
Technology moving forward (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
finger painting with shit is free and easy
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. The whole thing is an insane and completely irrational belief in "AI", coupled with no actual skills in evaluating the quality of something. To get real animators to deliver something this bad takes real work and may fail because they may well refuse to do it. "AI" will have no such limitations. And that is why you hire people that have real skills if you want something good.
Welcome to the world of tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the combined cost of (robot output + cost of remediating robot mistakes) less than (human output + cost of remediating human mistakes)?
Adjust the value of humans up a bit if the humans served have more money. Adjust up significantly if there are regulatory reasons why a human needs to be in the loop.
As far as ads, well, robots are tireless, very good at recycling striking images into attention-grabbing slop, and this is actually one area where concern for the truth is far lower than elsewhere. You already know where this is going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One very cynical, but possibly true, view is that people will buy whatever you shove into their face, no matter how disgustingly you shove it.
Another view is that if you make something revolting to look at and force people to watch it they might develop a negative attitude toward your product.
Ad companies today clearly hold view #1. Why not? It makes them a lot more money to tell their clients that there is no negative utility in pumping out unpleasant ads. However there are some studies that indicate that
AI is cutting edge so we must be be doing it (Score:3)
If you don't use AI - or at least make the appearance of doing so - 'questions will be asked' about why you are refusing to use the latest technology. Add in the need to be seen to be backing the massive bets that your lords and masters of the real elite have made on AI and it's inevitable that AI is being dragged into everything. Will it last or will there be a massive bubble burst? That's the many billion question...
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. At the same time, people with actual skills hire people with actual skills to do things that require said skills.
I guess we are seeing a divide forming in the population of decision makers: Those that actually have a clue what they are doing and the majority that does not and got into their positions by random chance or using skills that do not help them doing a good job. Before, the incompetents could at least depend on the underlings having some skills (depending on how hiring was done), with "AI"
Make the robots drink the Brawndo (Score:1)
I'm gonna cook up some real food to eat.
On a half-serious note, the interwebs are full of AI generated videos, some quite well-made and cleverly written, others equivalent to prior slop.
The pre-AI slop was pretty prolific too. Looked like it was mostly animated or otherwise slide-showed together by faceless gig workers somewhere in the third world.
When I was in grad school about 10 years ago, one of the other grad student was paying an FPGA developer somewhere in Southeast Asia something like a few hundred
It's Not THAT Sloppy (Score:3)
Look, I absolutely despise the use of AI art by massively profitable companies who are literally just trying to keep more money in their pockets instead of paying people to develop animations themselves, but this is not a particularly ugly piece. Here are the issues I see:
1. The people look large by comparison to the trucks.
2. The license plate numbers are AI-weird. Normally, license plates can be used to reference something seasonal, but AI doesn't work well with text rendering.
3. The wheels on the trucks don't spin 100% correctly in all of the shots. Most of the time they work, but if you look for the problem, you'll find it.
4. Standard AI-weird eye-sizes and movements.
The problem is that if you haven't trained yourself to look for these flaws (like 99.999% of the people who will see the commercial), you won't notice them as flaws but "design decisions" or "the human touch". Heck, if AI weren't a thing, You could explain away all of the flaws I found like this:
1. The people look large by comparison to the trucks. -- Artistic intent. The scale of everything is so large to get the view, that appropriate human scale would force the people out of focus.
2. The license plate numbers are AI-weird. -- We decided not to put in a custom plate and make it a bit more standard.
3. The wheels on the trucks don't spin 100% correctly in all of the shots. -- That's what happens when you use a small studio!
4. Standard AI-weird eye-sizes and movements. -- The kids LOVE cartoonish animals!
Ya, it sucks from an ethical standpoint, but let's not act like it's anywhere in the "low quality AI video" pile.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this post has a real "Old Man Shouts at Clouds"-vibe. I agree with the ethical concerns, but trying to convince people that adequately good content is not adequately good (especially when we're only on - what? - Gen 2 of a process that's going to get better and better) is a losing battle.
I dig the fight you're fighting, but fight on better turf than 'the eyes are slightly the wrong size' and don't gaslight me.
Re: (Score:2)
Although that sloth is positively satanic.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the I-5 sloth just south of Bellingham Washington.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't exclude, that currently companies who demonstratively create experimental AI videos make sure they look like AI and not perfect. You want to show people you're trying something new.
One can also wonder if we will see effects that people start liking images/videos with AI artifacts like they like MP3 artifacts and (minor) JPEG artifacts in "blind" tests.
Creative Bankruptcy (Score:2)
This is what it looks like.
Use nostagia (Score:1)
Bring back the mid-to-late-20th-century TV ads, remastered or re-shot for modern televisions. No need to use any kind CGI for the pre-CGI-era ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all the same Re:Use nostagia (Score:2)
>Aren't all of their Christmas adverts essentially the same anyway?
No, some use artificial intelligence, some use real intelligence.
This is a time I wish I had Twitter clout (Score:2)
It would be absolutely hilarious if the online community decided to mock Coca-Cola by making parody AI slop ads of their own. Fight fire with fire, or perhaps diabeetus. [x.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Who knew people watched AI slop just so they could sarcastically complain about it? Now if only there was a way to monetize this phenomenon... nah.
Watches ad and immediately... (Score:2)
"Alexa, use Google Maps to trace the driverless truck route in the latest Coca-Cola Christmas ad."
"Alexa, transfer this information to my phone."
(Picks up phone) "Google Maps, avoid those roads."
Does it matter? (Score:2)
Coke has such a long tradition, and is so pervasive, that I find it hard to believe their advertising has much of an impact on sales one way or the other. Barring any gaffes of the scale of New Coke, I don't think there's a lot they can do stop customers from buying the product. And IIRC, the rebound sales once they admitted that New Coke was a mistake more than made up for earlier losses.
If these new ads do have an impact, then according to the "no such thing as bad publicity" philosophy they may even caus
I'm not buying Coke (Score:1)
Not a surprise (Score:2)
Coca-Cola's New AI Holiday Ad Is a Sloppy Eyesore
"A Sloppy Eyesore" is also a pretty good description of most drinkers of Coca-Cola.
Did Coca-Cola give Santa his red suit? (Score:1)
I have heard the suit used to be green. But Coca-Cola made it red, and that stuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Santa Claus is a blend of the legend of Saint Nicholaus -- a bishop, and Father Christmas -- from English folklore.
Each has been depicted in many garbs and colours throughout the centuries, including red, before the traditions blended together.
In the Dutch Sinterklaas tradition, he is definitely a bishop wearing red with gold trim, with a red bishop's mitra and staff.
When people have dressed up in the English tradition specifically, they have often chosen other colours, such as green, to as not be mistaken
So do you suppose they just vibe-coded the ad? (Score:2)
"Make a Coca-Cola commercial with a semi truck, polar bears, rabbits, etc."
And...out popped the finished commercial?
Nope.
The Wall Street Journal, but said that around 100 people were involved in the project -- a figure comparable to the company's older AI-free productions
That seems about right. For all you AI doomers, AI still needs a lot of human supervision.
That Tears It! (Score:3)
The holiday promotion is clearly inappropriate! That last thing anyone would associate with Coca Cola is "artificial"!
Looks like any other coca-cola commercial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Bad press? (Score:3)
Successful ad campaign!
ORLY (Score:1)
Mission accomplished (Score:3)
Why do we care? (Score:2)
It's an ad campaign from a profitable company. OF COURSE IT SUCKS. That seems to be about 90% of the point. Shovel ads out that are cheap enough to produce that you can continue to shove ads out, and get people talking. And here we are talking about it. I'm not sure why Slashdot wants to give Coke free advertising, and REALLY not sure why we care how Coke makes their ads. They're going to go cheapest bidder that gets the job done every time. That's how giant corporations work. There's nothing surprising her
Winter (Score:2)
That's what happens on ice!