AI Can Cut Costs, But It Can’t Replace Creativity

Often used as a tool to improve processes or build efficiencies, AI’s presence continues to grow at an unprecedented rate in creative industries, raising broader concerns around creativity, ownership, and ethics. We are facing a new set of questions: Is it fair to make an exact replica of a photographer's work without credit or consent? Or to replicate a model's face for commercial usage? Where do we draw the line between technological innovation and creative copyright?

Without any regulation, AI is beginning to undermine the careers of photographers, art directors, producers, stylists, and many other creatives whose work, expertise, and intellectual property have helped train the very systems that threaten to replace them.

The human cost of the algorithm

Earlier this month, Suzy Shier released an AI-generated campaign. Creatives across the country expressed anger and frustration, questioning why a brand would choose AI to bypass its traditional creative teams to produce a campaign. Even more recently, SSENSE announced layoffs within its photography and makeup departments, explicitly citing AI as their replacement.

For Montrealers specifically, a city historically known for its vibrant creative community, these decisions feel especially disheartening for local brands. It felt like a departure from the collaborative process that has made this city attractive to work in.

The conversation around AI is often justified by its use for efficiency and to create smaller budgets. Studies show that by using AI-generated imagery, brands can reduce production costs by up to 80 percent compared with traditional campaigns. That sounds like a compelling business decision in theory, but what does it mean when you are losing your audience in the process?

Brands earn value through trust, authenticity, cultural relevance, and emotional connection born out of the creative process. Successful campaigns do more than sell products when they build emotional relationships with their audiences, tell real stories, and stand with contemporary culture. When brands use AI-generated content to replace their creative processes, they risk sacrificing the qualities that established that connection with their consumers in the first place.

The backlash towards the Suzy Shier campaign is a perfect illustration of this tension. Criticism of the campaign grew so strong that it was removed from their social accounts. If those assets can no longer be used across all channels, is the value still there? While their decision to use AI may have delivered on cost savings, those margins came at the expense of audience trust and the brand’s reputation.

Other global companies known for their artistic credibility, including A24, have also announced investments in AI filmmaking tools recently, already prompting conversations across the industry about growing distrust, disappointment, and concerns over the future of creative work.

Testing, testing

Last year, photographer David Curleigh approached me with a project because more and more clients were asking whether AI could be integrated into their shoots and how it might help reduce production costs. To test whether AI truly posed a threat to the fashion industry, we produced a typical fashion campaign using a full production team and then attempted to recreate and expand the final image library using AI.

We wanted to evaluate the quality of the output, as well as the potential cost and time savings. To truly test the capabilities of AI, we produced a 70s style shoot, focused on garments with intricate textures, patterns, and detailing that would be particularly challenging to replicate accurately. In fashion, where the goal is ultimately to showcase and sell clothing, details such as button placement, stitching, pockets, and more are critical.