Great article - thanks, Kyle. For those of us old enough to remember the .com boom (and subsequent bust) in the late ‘90s, the state of AI marketing today sure has a 1999 feel to it.
People care about output/outcomes/benefits and not so much about input. AI is an input. Much like fuel for your car/truck etc, customers care about fuel to the extent that it does the job of getting them to where they need/want to.
100% agree. I've been saying this for months. It'd be like featuring that a graphic was made with Photoshop all over the graphic. Nobody cares how you made it, just that it works!
This research is both refreshing and validating. Making reference to 'AI this and AI that' is the equivalent of saying "Turn on the electric lights" or "Use the electric toaster". I can finally rest easy I don't need to put AI front and center anymore. Thank you!
Wow, this was fascinating to read and super helpful! I’m actually building an “AI-powered” tool right now for product development teams. Now I want to rethink my messaging. Thanks!
Truly insightful. If businesses can study use cases and use those verbatim in their marketing material, they won’t just not need to use “AI”; they will convert better too. But I guess it’s easier for businesses to build stuff in labs than speak to customers. But the latter is what made Apple successful.
This is such an important reminder, and the research is very much in line with what my anecdotal experience has been.
In talking with people, it seems like it holds true for a few key reasons.
One is that most people don’t really understand AI, so when you talk about in isolation or prop it up as it’s own thing, people don’t have the understanding to make sense of it. It ends up just being noise that distracts from the stuff that matters.
There’s also the reality that people don’t care about noise, they care about how things help solve their problems. You can do that when talking about AI features without having to talk about it being an AI feature. It doesn’t mean you ignore the feature. It means you focus on how it solves a problem and leave the AI out.
That its on kind of the final thing that is just related to AI in general. AI is a catalyst, it’s not it’s own thing. It’s designed to enhance or accelerate something. When you try and make it it’s own thing, it’s doomed to fail.
Awesome guest post! I find all the AI marketing fluff mildly annoying and often lacking substance. I think it will be really interesting to see how different technology companies may differ between having a thoughtful, impact-based approach in AI features, vs. organizations that attempt to integrate AI as a flashy feature, but with little to no impact. I at least think I am seeing that in my specific SaaS industry.
This is 🔥, Kristen. "AI" has become the new "synergy"—impressive to the boardroom, but meaningless to users unless it drives real outcomes.
The stat about performance expectations actually dropping with “generative AI” labels is gold. It echoes what I've seen: user trust is earned through clarity, not complexity. Saying “AI-powered” without a concrete win (like “write 3x faster” or “never take notes again”) is just noise.
Favorite line: “Users won’t remember your tool as ‘AI-powered.’ They’ll remember how it made their lives better.” Pure truth.
Curious: have you tested how naming the AI (like “Otto,” “Magic Write,” “DJ”) changes engagement vs. generic labels?
Loved this. I'm working on a new product and I have been conflicted on my strategy where I will be using a small AI component. Given your research and my target customer, you've help me in the decision process.
I love Irrational Labs, and also hate marketing AI to consumers, but doesn’t this A/B test look biased? It appears that the AI version doesn’t have value props in the title whereas the non-AI version does. To be a true A/B test, shouldn’t both have value props, but one have AI with it?
Or is the test to show value props matter more than AI?
Great article - thanks, Kyle. For those of us old enough to remember the .com boom (and subsequent bust) in the late ‘90s, the state of AI marketing today sure has a 1999 feel to it.
Oops! Great article, Kristen!
People care about output/outcomes/benefits and not so much about input. AI is an input. Much like fuel for your car/truck etc, customers care about fuel to the extent that it does the job of getting them to where they need/want to.
100% agree. I've been saying this for months. It'd be like featuring that a graphic was made with Photoshop all over the graphic. Nobody cares how you made it, just that it works!
This research is both refreshing and validating. Making reference to 'AI this and AI that' is the equivalent of saying "Turn on the electric lights" or "Use the electric toaster". I can finally rest easy I don't need to put AI front and center anymore. Thank you!
We probably need drinking games or bingo cards for most homepages that have "AI" language used five or six times over one scroll
Wow, this was fascinating to read and super helpful! I’m actually building an “AI-powered” tool right now for product development teams. Now I want to rethink my messaging. Thanks!
Great article! Just amazing
Great Article! Thanks for sharing insightful information about the most important topic 'AI' which is buzzing everywhere.
Truly insightful. If businesses can study use cases and use those verbatim in their marketing material, they won’t just not need to use “AI”; they will convert better too. But I guess it’s easier for businesses to build stuff in labs than speak to customers. But the latter is what made Apple successful.
Great stuff Kristen!
This is such an important reminder, and the research is very much in line with what my anecdotal experience has been.
In talking with people, it seems like it holds true for a few key reasons.
One is that most people don’t really understand AI, so when you talk about in isolation or prop it up as it’s own thing, people don’t have the understanding to make sense of it. It ends up just being noise that distracts from the stuff that matters.
There’s also the reality that people don’t care about noise, they care about how things help solve their problems. You can do that when talking about AI features without having to talk about it being an AI feature. It doesn’t mean you ignore the feature. It means you focus on how it solves a problem and leave the AI out.
That its on kind of the final thing that is just related to AI in general. AI is a catalyst, it’s not it’s own thing. It’s designed to enhance or accelerate something. When you try and make it it’s own thing, it’s doomed to fail.
Awesome guest post! I find all the AI marketing fluff mildly annoying and often lacking substance. I think it will be really interesting to see how different technology companies may differ between having a thoughtful, impact-based approach in AI features, vs. organizations that attempt to integrate AI as a flashy feature, but with little to no impact. I at least think I am seeing that in my specific SaaS industry.
Hear hear
PREACH. I am so sick of seeing AI slapped on everything. Please, stop marketing friends.
This is 🔥, Kristen. "AI" has become the new "synergy"—impressive to the boardroom, but meaningless to users unless it drives real outcomes.
The stat about performance expectations actually dropping with “generative AI” labels is gold. It echoes what I've seen: user trust is earned through clarity, not complexity. Saying “AI-powered” without a concrete win (like “write 3x faster” or “never take notes again”) is just noise.
Favorite line: “Users won’t remember your tool as ‘AI-powered.’ They’ll remember how it made their lives better.” Pure truth.
Curious: have you tested how naming the AI (like “Otto,” “Magic Write,” “DJ”) changes engagement vs. generic labels?
Loved this. I'm working on a new product and I have been conflicted on my strategy where I will be using a small AI component. Given your research and my target customer, you've help me in the decision process.
I love Irrational Labs, and also hate marketing AI to consumers, but doesn’t this A/B test look biased? It appears that the AI version doesn’t have value props in the title whereas the non-AI version does. To be a true A/B test, shouldn’t both have value props, but one have AI with it?
Or is the test to show value props matter more than AI?