Craft over code: AI is a powerful production tool—but are we using it the right way?

Artificial intelligence is reshaping creative industries at an unprecedented pace. In advertising, AI-generated visuals, scripts, and even entire commercials are emerging with increasing frequency. 

The efficiency is undeniable. But are we applying this technology in the right way? Is AI a tool for enhancing creativity, or are we using it as a replacement for what makes storytelling truly resonate? 

Traditionally, agencies have relied on crude mockups, stock references, or rough illustrations—none of which truly capture a concept’s full potential.

As an independent creative agency, we’ve always believed in the power of craft—the details, the texture, and the choices that make something feel alive. AI has a role to play, but it’s a supporting act, not the lead. The difference between using AI and relying on AI is a critical one. 

AI can help agencies create realistic mock-ups and articulate their visions so clients see their idea's full potential. 

AI as a creative accelerator, not a creator 

One of AI’s greatest strengths is its ability to articulate a vision before it exists. Traditionally, agencies have relied on crude mockups, stock references, or rough illustrations—none of which truly capture a concept’s full potential. 

When creating our recent Papaya Swing ad, AI helped us refine and visualise the idea in a way that gave the clients confidence to invest at scale. They weren’t just buying into an abstract vision; they could see its full potential, which made committing to a larger production a far easier decision. 

In an era of AI-generated everything, audiences can still tell the difference between what’s simulated and what’s truly felt. 

By generating detailed concept imagery, we could clearly communicate tone, lighting, and composition—helping everyone, from the director to the production crew, align around the ambition. AI wasn’t a shortcut; it was a tool to remove uncertainty. But once production began, AI had no place. 

Real stunts, real stakes

To create the visceral sensation of a swing in motion, we built a functional swing, suspended from a 165-foot crane, allowing actors to soar through a city street. Working with a stunt team from Mission Impossible, Dune, and James Bond, we engineered a setup that captured the movement with real physics—no simulations. 

Some brands are pushing AI not just in pre-production but as the main event, prioritising the how over the why. 

Once the footage was locked, we built the city around it in CGI, blending practical execution with digital artistry. But the swing, that was 100% real. In an era of AI-generated everything, audiences can still tell the difference between what’s simulated and what’s truly felt. 

Some brands are pushing AI not just in pre-production but as the main event, prioritising the how over the why. Coca-Cola’s recent AI-generated ad is a prime example. The campaign was a technical achievement, showcasing AI’s capabilities in a visually intricate way. Did it create an emotional connection? Or was it AI for AI’s sake—an experiment in technology rather than a piece of storytelling? 

That’s the risk when brands focus on process rather than purpose. Audiences don’t connect with technology; they connect with human stories, emotions, and experiences. That’s why we chose to build our swing for real—because when something is physically there, when the movement is tangible and felt, it creates a truth that no algorithm can replicate. 

Behind the scenes film for the making of Papaya Swing. 

The pushback: why some creators are resisting AI

The AI debate isn’t just playing out in advertising. Across creative industries, leading artists, filmmakers, and musicians are questioning where the line should be drawn. 

Take James Blake, for example. When we approached him for Papaya Swing, we knew AI-generated music wasn’t an option. His sound being ethereal, organic, deeply human, wouldn’t have the same emotional pull if it were generated by an algorithm. The very thing that makes his work resonate is the unpredictability, the imperfections, the way a vocal take feels different each time. AI can replicate patterns, but it can’t replicate presence. 

 The resistance isn’t about rejecting technology—it’s about preserving what makes creative work compelling. 

Other artists have expressed similar concerns. Nick Cave has famously called AI-generated lyrics “a grotesque mockery” of human creativity. Hollywood’s recent WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes were, in part, fuelled by fears of AI replacing actors and screenwriters. The resistance isn’t about rejecting technology—it’s about preserving what makes creative work compelling. 

Even within advertising, some AI-driven campaigns have drawn criticism for feeling hollow. One notable example was a recent AI-generated fashion campaign for Mango that, while visually striking, lacked the human nuance of a traditional shoot. The images were technically impressive, but they didn’t connect. Consumers can tell when something feels off, when there’s no weight behind the story.