Creator video is one of the few formats that still earns attention from voters under 25. It is also slow to ship and expensive to produce, which puts it out of reach for most down-ballot campaigns. A human creator ad runs about $750 all in; the AI equivalent runs about $200.
In 2025 we ran a preliminary AI creative test in Wisconsin and found AI content held up in turning out voters when the underlying concept was strong. Video models have improved sharply since, and platforms now label AI content directly, so we re-ran the question within the new ecosystem context.
AI messengers can now match or beat human creators at engaging young voters
Each human creator video was paired with an AI version carrying the same message, built from that creator's asset so the avatars matched on demographics and delivery. Budget split 50/50 between arms, run separately on Facebook and Instagram.
We measured click-through rate, 3-second view rate, and cost efficiency through CPM and cost per click.
RACE
MI SD-35 special
TIMING
May 2026
AUDIENCE
Voters 18–24
PLATFORM
IG & FB
AI creative held attention just as well, too: hook rates were effectively identical on both platforms.
Nearly all of the AI premium sits on Instagram. On Facebook, delivery costs were close to parity.
AI content is highly viable on Facebook
With production costs included, AI on Facebook is the efficient buy. Instagram's CPM premium eats most of the savings.
Spend your time on the concept
Write and test the idea with a strong human asset, then generate from it. Matching a proven creator and strong messaging is what made these pairs work.
Budget a 30% cost premium on Instagram
Assume AI ads cost about a third more to serve. For Instagram, the savings live in production, not in media.
Test formats outside human replication
AI disclosure applies to all AI content, but the cost and engagement dynamics may differ when AI isn't depicting a specific person (B-roll, static, illustrated).
.svg)
