arxiv-2512-03373 SRC-0336 · paper

LLM-Generated Ads: From Personalization Parity to Persuasion Superiority

Created: 2025-12-03 · Ingested: 2026-09-19

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable of generating persuasive content, understanding their effectiveness across different advertising strategies becomes critical. This paper presents a two-part investigation examining LLM-generated advertising through complementary lenses: (1) personality-based and (2) psychological persuasion principles. In our first study (n=400), we tested whether LLMs could generate personalized advertisements tailored to specific personality traits (openness and neuroticism) and how their performance compared to human experts. Results showed that LL

In brief

Multimodal ads assembled by LLMs plus a diffusion model beat human-created ads on forced-choice preference, and keep winning even when people correctly spot them as AI. Trait-level text personalization, by contrast, only reaches parity with human copywriters.

Study 1 had 400 MTurk participants rate Xphone ad copy (GPT 3.5, temperature 0.7) targeted at openness or neuroticism against human-written ads from prior work, then complete a 20-item Big Five questionnaire. Study 2 had 800 Prolific participants, 200 per condition, choose between a human ad and an AI ad (text from GPT-5, Sonnet 4, or LLama 4; images from Midjourney) built on authority, consensus, cognition, or scarcity.

LLM ads took 51.14% of clicks versus 48.86% in Study 1, with no significant AI-human difference on matched traits. In Study 2 AI won 59.1% to 40.9% (chi-square = 26.65, p<0.001), strongest on authority (63.0%) and consensus (62.5%), tied on scarcity (51.5%, p=0.671). Detection accuracy was 58.4% (Kappa = 0.17); knowing the origin cut AI preference from 71.5% to 50.3%, still above 40.9%.

Effects are measured with matched side-by-side comparisons, randomized position, and Bonferroni correction, but the human baseline is a single set of ads, the AI variant was hand-picked by 1 non-expert author, and Study 1 uses 1 model.

Boundaries: US online samples, 1 product, single exposure, stated preference rather than purchase, no prompt optimization or fine-tuning.

If you treat human authorship as the quality ceiling in persuasive copy, the authority and consensus results argue otherwise; the scarcity null suggests consumer skepticism, not execution, sets the limit.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-10-17, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsLLM-written advertisements matched human expert ads when personalized to personality traits (51% vs 49% preference, n=400) and beat them when built on general persuasion principles such as authority and consensus (59% preference, n=800); participants who recognized an ad as AI-made penalized it only slightly, and 29% chose the AI ad knowing its origin.