AI for Video & Creative

For short-form social, ads variants, and repurposed clips — yes, in production at many teams. For hero brand films and content that serves as evidence of real products or people, human production still wins. The dividing line is whether the video illustrates a message or is the proof.

Generally yes with mainstream tools, but terms differ by generator and tier — check commercial-use rights and indemnification for your specific plan, avoid generating recognizable people or trademarked elements, and keep records of what was generated where. Treat "we generated it" as the start of the rights question, not the answer.

Lock a one-paragraph style description — palette, illustration style, composition rules, banned elements — and reuse it verbatim in every prompt. Keep a library of approved outputs with the exact prompts that produced them. Consistency comes from the standing brief, not from generating harder.

Two layers: automated pre-checks for technical specs and brand compliance (colors, logo treatment, banned claims), then human judgment on concept and taste. Plus an artifact pass — hands, edges, background text, warped reflections — as an explicit checklist step, because glances miss what zooms catch.

For the volume tier — variants, repurposing, illustration — measured teams report cost-per-asset dropping to a fraction of traditional production. The savings are real when the pipeline includes selection and QA; skipping those converts the savings into brand damage.