Who Speaks for the Brand When No One Is Real?
Synthetic Voices and Media Representation
The Human Default
Since the inception of marketing and brand media, companies have leaned on humans to represent their products. In doing so, they are able to get their messages and values across with true authenticity, driving a sense of relatability and connectedness through the vessel of people. Celebrities, influencers, voice actors, and even “regular people” are aligned when it comes to their assumed role in providing credibility. This model has remained largely intact, standing the test of time as trends come in and out. From mediums like print all the way to social media and everything in between, it is no accident that audiences have a deep tie to humans and how they interpret trust and persuasion.
In the current media landscape, brand communication is built on recognizable human figures. You’ve seen your favorite basketball player in a DraftKings ad, actors promoting travel websites, and of course, Shaq and The General. Social media is filled with ad reads from influencers with millions of followers, down to those with just a few thousand. Not to mention the thousands of ads that rely on professional voice talent. In many cases, these individuals become closely identifiable with the brands they represent, symbolizing their values and curating the personality of the brand. This approach has served well across the advertising industry as positioning and differentiation rely heavily on emotional resonance.
After seeing this model work for so long, it almost becomes invisible. Most people do not question why a human is speaking in an ad because that has always been the expectation. To be honest, it would probably come across a little weird if there wasn’t one speaking. Advertising has trained audiences to associate people with trust. Humans naturally communicate emotions, allowing tone, humor, and confidence to come through clearly. Down to small imperfections, humans resonate. All of this occurs while viewers are fully aware that they are being marketed to, yet a message delivered by a person feels more familiar and less corporate. This is amplified by the last decade of influencer marketing. This marketing attack really amplifies this effect. Influencers are no longer just appearing and ads, they now integrate brands into their daily content. A sponsored post might show up between clips of someone’s workout, their morning routine, etc. it is a woven in thread of the fabric of social media. This placement matters a lot, as it makes the brand feel like a part of real life rather than interrupting it. Well, this sector has created ongoing debates around authenticity and disclosure, is also reinforced the idea that people respond best when brand messages come from other people they already know and love
While this system is extremely effective, it does come with tradeoffs that are becoming more and more noticeable as media continues to scale. Cost is one of the biggest. High profile endorsements can consume massive portions of the marketing budget, and even smaller influencer partnerships require time and coordination. Not to mention the constant management of all of the different individuals now repping your brand to their own audience. One brand attempts to run campaigns across multiple platforms and regions, but those costs only get larger. This leads to something that works well for a single campaign, but becomes rather inefficient and repeated across dozens of executions. Additionally, control is a major challenge that is regularly faced. As they enter that before, personalities do not always stay aligned with a brand of time. Athletes can get traded, influencers shift, their image, and public perception of someone can change overnight. There can be controversy, or sometimes people simply evolve. Regardless of the case, brands are often forced to react and pivot on the fly, which disrupts consistency and capability within the brands. Even without major incidents, having so many different spokespeople deliver messages in their own unique ways will surely blur a brand’s voice over time.
Once brands operate on a global scale, these challenges become even more complex. Different markets require different languages, cultural references, and tones. To stay relevant, brands often rely on regional voice actors or local influencers. While this certainly improves authenticity, and also fragments their identity, as many different faces now grace the cover of this brand’s catalog. Maintaining one consistent message while adapting to dozens of regions is difficult, especially when digital platforms demand constant content brands, often finding themselves choosing between global consistency and local relevance, knowing that fully optimizing both is most likely unrealistic. Audience expectations also play a major role, as consumers are used to seeing people represent brands, and the deviations from that norm can feel strange or impersonal. In an era when trust and advertising are already fragile, many brands hesitate to experiment with approaches that could feel artificial or misleading. As a result, new technologies are often layered on top of existing practices instead of being used to fundamentally reshape them.
Taken altogether, the current state of brand media is not broken, but it certainly is under pressure. Its fundamental structure makes it hard for growth and scalability across multiple markets and sectors. Human representation does continue to deliver emotional impact and familiarity; however, it does run into the high demands of speed, scale, and consistency required to flourish on modern digital platforms. Understanding why the system works and why it is taking place for so long set the groundwork for examining our new forms of representation that might eventually begin to emerge.
When Representation Becomes Synthetic
When people hear the idea of synthetic voices and faces in advertising, the knee-jerk reaction is usually discomfort. It sounds artificial and impersonal. A lot of people may even associate this with deception. But the more you look at how brands already operate, the less far-fetched it feels. This is not about replacing humans outright, but rather about brands slowly experimenting with more controlled and scalable ways to represent themselves. At its core, synthetic voices and faces are exactly what they sound like. They’re AI-generated human likenesses that can speak and appear on screen, while delivering brand messaging without relying on a specific individual each time. Importantly, this is not the same thing as deepfakes or impersonation. In most cases, the systems are designed to be brand-owned or brand-licensed assets, built intentionally rather than copied from someone without consent. These are usually standalone fictitious people, a brand ambassador built from scratch. The distinction matters and changes how these tools are positioned and potentially accepted by the public.
The interesting piece is that this technology did not originate in advertising or media. It came from other industries that had very different goals. Voice synthesis and digital avatars are first pushed forward by accessibility tools, customer service, service automation, language, translation, and many other sectors. These industries were not very concerned about emotional storytelling, but rather focused on efficiency and clarity. Over time, this technology has naturally improved, leading to results that start to look more human and certainly to sound more human, which has opened the floodgates. You already see early versions of this outside of traditional advertising. Automated customer service agents speak with increasing natural voices. Localization tools can now generate voiceovers in multiple languages without the need to re-record everything from scratch. Now these are meant to replace my connection, but they do show how comfortable companies have become with synthetic interfaces when the goal is to scale quickly.
From a brand’s perspective, the appeal is not hard to understand: create a synthetic face and voice, and now you have a cheap, highly scalable actor at your disposal. Brands can deploy this across multiple regions and time zones with ease, making localization easier than ever before. Not to mention the newly unlocked ability to pump out tons of content for little cost, allowing brands to meet the ever-increasing demand for content. For global brands, this is very attractive, and they are willing to take a risk even after understanding the potential tradeoffs.
Get Ryan Wright’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
There’s also a broader cultural shift happening at the same time. Audiences are increasingly becoming more comfortable with interacting with non-human entities in their daily lives. With the Bloom of software like ChatGPT, Grok, and other AI models, people are becoming more conditioned to AI. For younger audiences, especially, digital personas are not inherently strange. They operate, simply as another form of media presence, a presence that is deeply ingrained in the world we now live in.
That said, advertising is not customer support, and brand media carries higher expectations around trust and authenticity. Because of that, it is unlikely that synthetic voices and faces would suddenly replace human spokespeople across the board. A more realistic path looks gradual. Brands would likely start in lower-risk environments, such as explainer videos, product walkthroughs, internal content, or supplementary digital ads. Over time, as audiences become more familiar with the format, these tools could move into more visible roles.
This can shift how brands operate entirely. We may see a move from traditional celebrity ambassadors to newly generated characters who can be around the brand for multiple lifetimes, all with the push of a few buttons. These characters would not age, change careers, or bring personal baggage with them. They would exist purely to deliver messaging in a consistent way. That consistency could become a competitive advantage in an increasingly crowded media environment.
It is important to acknowledge that this change will not come without pushback. Legal and regulatory standards surrounding this whole sector of ai-generated media are becoming wider spread. There are ongoing legal battles surrounding rights to likeness and consumer protection, indicating a rigid pushback from a large portion of people. Labor is also a major concern, as we have seen in recent months, SAG-Aftra pushing back against the use of actors and writers in Hollywood, truly blowing the horn on what seems to be a budding concept ready to explode.
In total, synthetic voices and faces represent a solid option for brand media, but they won’t come without backlash. The technology is getting better with each day, and the incentives are certainly there. The main question is whether or not the juice is worth the squeeze; will this shift cause brands to lose their customer base due to distrust and inauthenticity?
What Happens When No One Is Real
Thinking about what a life with synthetic voices and faces might actually look like requires pulling back from extremes. It is very easy to imagine this dystopian future where everything feels robotic and fake. Day-to-day life is automated by AI generated assistance and characters. I also feel that some people try to take a reactionary stance and assume that humanity will eventually rule out this sort of technology. The more realistic outcome sits somewhere in the middle, allowing brands and audiences to react over time. Of course, regulators will have the same as well, as laws are constantly adapting and changing how these industries operate.
In one possible future, synthetic voices and faces become normalized, but clearly defined as part of brand media. This is an idealistic world where brands use these tools intentionally and with intelligent limits. In this world, a synthetic spokesperson might act as a consistent brand narrator across platforms. Picture a character appearing in explainer videos, app tutorials, or interactive, digital ads. This would be a transparent way to disclose the artificial intelligence being used, and operate them as extensions of the brand rather than replacements of real people. This would allow for human creators to still have their hands on the product and the campaigns, providing a more trustworthy resolution to the customer base. In the scenario, the brand pushes forward successfully because expectations are clear. The audience understands what they are interacting with and why. There’s no attempt to substitute out humans without people knowing; they are simply just brand-owned and operated characters that add to the overall experience. This is going to work best if situations are clear and consistency matters more than true emotional depth. These characters could really add to the brand as they become recognizable and familiar to fans. The brands benefit from the control and efficiency, while still leading heavily on human creativity behind the scenes, and pairing the created imagery alongside real human components from time to time.
Another possible outcome is much more conservative. A world where brands experiment with synthetic voices and faces, but only in short bursts, and at an extremely low volume. In this narrative, this sort of technology would become a novelty that generates curiosity, but it would fail to ever integrate into a long-term strategy. By this tech existing in a low-visibility context, audience discomfort doesn’t really exist. Internal hesitation or creative pushback would be the reason to slow this adoption. In this case, synthetic representation exists on the margins of brand media rather than the center. This would not be out of the ordinary, as the media industry has a history, full of innovations that have sparked true interest, but haven’t been quite broken through to the point where they disrupt the long-standing dominant practices. Here, human representation would remain the default, with AI generated content being a small supplemental tool.
A third, more aggressive future would highlight efficiency above everything else. This is a world where economic pressure has pushed brands to adopt synthetic voices and faces at scale. Cost and speed have forced human actors out the door, and Ai AI-generated content has taken over. While this approach may initially seem effective to brands, it would then introduce significant risks. Overuse would quickly lead to audience fatigue, and if synthetic characters become too common or feel overly polished, brand media can start to feel sterile and would certainly become impersonal. This would likely lead to trust eroding within the customer base, and labor concerns would intensify amongst the voice actor community. The public backlash would be large, yet it would yield a high level of efficiency for brands. This third scenario offers a severe trade-off that the brand would seriously have to consider before acting upon.
Across all of these futures, media companies and agencies alike would need to adapt. New roles are, of course, going to emerge around the oversight and governance of this synthetic media. Creative teams will be looking for new skills to join them, as they shift towards managing and directing digital personas rather than curating a roster of people to perform in front of a camera or microphone. Rather than eliminating Creative labor, this trend could change where creative value is concentrated. This trend could usher in a new wave of creatives, ones with unprecedented skill sets.
Regardless of which path is taken, ethical questions will remain at the center. Issues around consent, transparency, and representation will not disappear simply because a voice or face is artificial, or if the screen actors guild has it their way. Synthetic media would likely make all of this more complicated, however, as brands, we need to decide how they go about using synthetic media so as not to reinforce harmful stereotypes or mislead audiences. Trust is difficult to regain once it’s lost in the advertising world.
It’s also worth acknowledging that this trend may never fully materialize. Consumer rejection is powerful, and it could derail this entire trend. Additionally, stricter regulation is a serious possibility as well. There is also a world where other innovations, such as more immersive brand experiences, or other evolving influencer models, may solve some of the problems that currently exist within digital media, without the need for synthetic media.
Ultimately, the rise of synthetic voices and faces highlights a larger tension in brand media. It is clear that brands are desperate for efficiency and consistency, but they cannot abandon the trust and emotion that they so heavily rely on. The navigation of this will determine whether synthetic representation becomes a meaningful part of advertising, or if it whistles out as another controlled experiment. It is fully plausible that this trend will force brands to rethink what authenticity and representation mean in a new digital first world, and create a new wave of talent, centered on a successful operation amongst the synthetic age.
