Battle of the Ads: Borzo Reveals Who Wins – Advertising Team or AI?
Borzo, a global courier delivery service, conducted a case study to compare the effectiveness of human-made ads with AI-generated ads. The study released two sets of advertising banners on Facebook, Instagram, and Google to determine which approach produced better results. The report aimed to explore the potential of AI-driven advertising tools and compare them with ads created by human teams. The findings of the study can guide businesses in deciding which approach to use in their marketing strategies, as AI-driven tools gain more prominence in the industry.
What did Borzo do?
Borzo conducted an experiment using two sets of advertising banners. The first set was created entirely by 3 AI tools and compiled using Viewst, while the second set was developed by the company’s marketing team.
The banners were run in parallel for a month with a total budget of $19,065, with Google ads receiving $12,775 and Facebook ads receiving $6,290.
How did it create the advertising banners?
The marketing team included copywriters and designers, while the paid specialists were the same for both campaigns as they optimized and evaluated the results.
And you are in for surprise. Here, are the results,
-The Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) of AI banner ads was also 2.5x higher than human-made banner ads.
-The AI banner ads had 3x higher Clickthrough rates (CTR) compared to human-designed banner ads.
-The Google Ads campaign showed that AI banners with texts had 26% lower CAC compared to human-designed banners with texts
-Also, AI banners had 32% better View-Through Conversion (VTC), even though they showed a worse CTR.
Whoa, did those results just defy all expectations?
-The Facebook and Instagram advertising campaigns showed that human-designed banners were more effective in bringing in customers.
-AI-generated ads are more effective in getting attention but fall short of generating clients despite high cash burn.
-However, human-designed ads draw less attention but are more effective in generating lead whilst burning less.
Implications and Future Outlook
–The campaign demonstrated that AI was more efficient than humans in execution. AI prepared the campaign in 4 hours, while humans took 3-4 days considering planning and task load. However, AI needed 50-60 prompts to produce AD images, while human designs had minimal revisions after receiving the brief, making them less tedious.
-The output accuracy of AI was lower than that of human designers. Additionally, most creatives generated by AI exhibited vibrant colors rather than brand colors.
-The advertising campaigns on Facebook, Instagram, and Google have shown that AI-generated banners may result in a higher click-through rate, they are often costlier and generate fewer leads compared to those created by human designers.
-While AI is capable of generating more attractive and efficient images, human intervention is still necessary to optimize the final output.
Adscholars conducted a LinkedIn poll recently where majority votes revealed that AI could enhance ad content personalization. However, although the case study highlights AI’s potential, it is more effective for local entrepreneurs and small businesses. For larger brands, relying solely on AI may not be feasible, but it can still be useful in expediting the overall process.
Devesh Gangal, Country Marketing Manager, Borzo, India said, “We always look for innovative ways to engage our audience and this time we have taken a brave attempt at testing our marketing team by pitting them against AI.”
“It may take more time for Meta to learn and attract clients with a low CAC for AI generated ads, but we have not disabled campaigns on Google with AI banners, and will continue to work with them. As we continue to refine our approach to online advertising, we are excited to see what the future holds for the use of AI in marketing.”
Interesting Read: Tête-à-Tête With ChatGPT- The Power Of AI