AI, Crayons, and the Illusion of Skill. The Rise of Creative Directors Everywhere.

A Trend Desk on why having the tool doesn’t mean you have the talent.

Let’s get something straight: having access to the tool doesn’t mean you suddenly have the skill. Just because AI can help you create something faster doesn’t mean that something is good.

This whole idea that creativity is now “easy” just because the software is accessible? That’s not adorable. It’s dangerous — because it makes people think they can skip the part that actually matters: knowing what’s worth saying in the first place.

Truth is, AI didn’t replace creative thinking — it just exposed who had it in the first place. It’s like handing everyone a crayon and expecting a gallery show. Technically, sure, anyone can draw. But without vision, taste, and intention, you’re just doodling in public.

Yes, the tools are powerful — but that’s the point. Now that anyone can generate a headline, an image, a campaign, the bar for what actually stands out is way higher. Execution alone isn’t enough. You need to know what to say, how to say it, and who you’re saying it to. Otherwise? It’s just noise in a slightly nicer font.

But creative direction isn’t about clicking ‘generate’ until the chaos looks cool. It’s about instinct. Restraint. Knowing when to push and when to delete the whole thing and start over. It’s not picking the prettiest image — it’s building meaning, message, and momentum into something that actually moves people.

So of course we’re diving into the mess — why else are we here? Because when the prompt goes live before the strategy does, things don’t just go wrong. They go weird. Fast.

What if AI is left unsupervised?

Coca‑Cola’s AI‑generated holiday commercial

Attempting a nostalgic “Holidays Are Coming” remake, the ad landed “cold and ineffective”—critics blasted it as “creepy dystopian nightmare” lacking emotional warmth and missing the charm of humans behind the camera.

Google’s pulled “Dear Sydney” Olympic spot

In theory, the concept sounded promising: a dad using Google’s Gemini AI to help his daughter pen a heartfelt letter to her Olympic hero. But in execution? The ad felt emotionally hollow, eerily generic, and weirdly off. Viewers weren’t moved — they were uncomfortable. But here’s the thing: it wasn’t just the execution. It was the premise. Emotion is earned, not generated. You can’t outsource sincerity to a language model and expect a tearjerker. Some stories need a heartbeat — not a prompt.

Toys “R” Us AI‑Made Commercial

At Cannes last year, Toys “R” Us proudly debuted what they called the “first-ever brand film made entirely with OpenAI’s Sora.” But critics were brutal: the animation looked stilted, uncanny, and bizarrely off-brand for a children’s retailer. It was creepy enough to trigger flashbacks to “six‑finger photos and glue on pizza”—a clear sign that no one was guiding the AI output with creative direction, emotional calibration, or brand DNA

AI isn’t here to replace talent. It’s here to raise the standard.

What these examples show isn’t that AI is the enemy — it’s that creativity without direction is chaos with a good rendering engine. The tech isn’t the problem. The problem is skipping the thinking part. When brands rush to prove they’re “innovative” without a strategy, a voice, or a point of view, what they end up with isn’t a breakthrough. It’s a breakdown in storytelling.

AI isn’t here to replace talent. It’s here to raise the standard. To separate the clever from the cliché, the visionary from the vaguely generated. So before you press generate, ask yourself what you’re really trying to say — and who’s going to care. Because now more than ever, the work doesn’t just need to be done. It needs to be worth noticing.

Thank you for spending time at the Trend Desk