mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LLM-Generated Ads: From Personalization Parity to Persuasion Superiority

arXiv 2512.03373 ↗First posted 3 Dec 2025cs.CY cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable of generating persuasive content, understanding their effectiveness across different advertising strategies becomes critical. This paper presents a two-part investigation examining LLM-generated advertising through complementary lenses: (1) personality-based and (2) psychological persuasion principles. In our first study (n=400), we tested whether LLMs could generate personalized advertisements tailored to specific personality traits (openness and neuroticism) and how their performance compared to human experts. Results showed that LLM-generated ads achieved statistical parity with human-written ads (51.1% vs. 48.9%, p > 0.05), with no significant performance differences for matched personalities. Building on these insights, our second study (n=800) shifted focus from individual personalization to universal persuasion, testing LLM performance across four foundational psychological principles: authority, consensus, cognition, and scarcity. AI-generated ads significantly outperformed human-created content, achieving a 59.1% preference rate (vs. 40.9%, p < 0.001), with the strongest performance in authority (63.0%) and consensus (62.5%) appeals. Qualitative analysis revealed AI's advantage stems from crafting more sophisticated, aspirational messages and achieving superior visual-narrative coherence. Critically, this quality advantage proved robust: even after applying a 21.2 percentage point detection penalty when participants correctly identified AI-origin, AI ads still outperformed human ads, and 29.4% of participants chose AI content despite knowing its origin. These findings demonstrate LLMs' evolution from parity in personalization to superiority in persuasive storytelling, with significant implications for advertising practice given LLMs' near-zero marginal cost and time requirements compared to human experts.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Dec 2025.

Builds on

15 of 56 references.

References · 15

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  2. 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,579
  3. 2023PaLM-E: An Embodied Multimodal Language Modelcited by 2,037
  4. 2022Galactica: A Large Language Model for Sciencecited by 736
  5. 2023Visual ChatGPT: Talking, Drawing and Editing with Visual Foundation Modelscited by 659
  6. 2023Language Is Not All You Need: Aligning Perception with Language Modelscited by 543
  7. 2023A Comprehensive Survey of AI-Generated Content (AIGC): A History of Generative AI from GAN to ChatGPTcited by 221
  8. 2024On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trialcited by 105
  9. 2024Personalized Pieces: Efficient Personalized Large Language Models through Collaborative Effortscited by 71
  10. 2024PersonalLLM: Tailoring LLMs to Individual Preferencescited by 56
  11. 2023The Persuasive Power of Large Language Modelscited by 46
  12. 2025Personalized Generation In Large Model Era: A Surveycited by 45
3 more
  1. 2025Personalize Your LLM: Fake it then Align itcited by 15
  2. 2025Aligning LLMs by Predicting Preferences from User Writing Samplescited by 11
  3. 2018On Microtargeting Socially Divisive Ads: A Case Study of Russia-Linked Ad Campaigns on Facebookcited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.