As AI-generated imagery rapidly enters Australian marketing – popping up in aged-care promotions, health insurance campaigns, and social services outreach – it arrives with promises of realism, polish and cost efficiency. Yet, for many Australians aged 65 and over, this apparent “perfection” falls short of genuine connection. This has especially important ramifications for government information campaigns aimed at this population.

Despite remarkable technical advances, AI imagery simply cannot replicate the authenticity that older audiences seek. To put it plainly: most older viewers dislike AI-generated faces. For many, the face is not just a visual element but a primary gateway to trust, especially in media. Our interviews show that, paradoxically, the more “realistic” an AI-generated face looks, the less believable it feels.

For policymakers, regulators and public-sector communicators, this is not just a design issue – it is a question of equity, effectiveness and trust in publicly-funded communication.

AI in Australian public communications

Digital marketing is being transformed by artificial intelligence. Virtual influencers, computer-generated models, and synthetic spokespeople allow organisations to produce images at scale for a fraction of the cost of traditional campaigns. Sectors such as aged care, health and wellbeing, insurance, and community services are especially drawn to these offerings for their speed and consistency.

These sectors are also shaped by Australian regulation and public funding—through My Aged Care, Medicare, public hospitals, and community grants. Yet as AI becomes ubiquitous, a crucial question remains: how do older Australians, the very people at the centre of these campaigns, actually respond to synthetic representation in the communications meant to inform and support them?

Seniors value authenticity over artificial perfection

Our research, based on in-depth interviews with Australians aged 65 and older, highlights a clear finding: authenticity trumps artificial polish. When asked about commercials created using AI, respondents gave strikingly candid feedback:

“Too perfect to trust.”

“Plastic, like someone ironed out their face.”

“Not a real person with a real story.”

One participant noted, “If the face in the ad looks friendly and honest, I’m more likely to believe what they say, even if it’s AI-generated.” But another added, “Older people like me pay attention to the faces. If it looks too perfect or fake, I lose trust fast.” The theme was remarkably consistent:

“I prefer ads where the person’s face looks sincere, not plastic or artificial – that’s really important for me.”

“AI faces sometimes lack that real human warmth. It’s hard to connect or trust if I feel like it’s just a computer-generated smile.”

“That’s not someone who understands my life.”

For these older adults, perfection signified artificiality, not credibility. When AI-generated images are used in communications about rights, entitlements or care options, they risk weakening confidence in the message and the institutions behind it, as one participant explained, “I am not happy for AI to make ads for my care or pensions, I want to see real people I can believe, otherwise I wouldn’t trust what they’re telling me.”

Emotional resonance, not surface realism

Older Australians are attuned to nuance in human faces: lived experience, the passage of time, subtle emotional cues. These features are not mere cosmetics; they are vital to trust in advertising, especially for health and aged-care services. Human connection, communicated through warmth, empathy, and relatability, carries far more weight than flawless digital renderings. Many interviewees explained that ads featuring “perfect” faces were easy to tune out, or even actively avoided, in favour of those showing genuine people with signs of age and life experience.

Authenticity, empathy and relatability – not glossy, AI-generated images – foster engagement and persuasion with this audience. For government and publicly funded campaigns, this directly affects the reach and impact of critical messages on screening, vaccinations, aged-care reforms and support services.

Communication risks and policy blind spots

When organisations use synthetic visuals in health, aged care, or community outreach campaigns, they risk undermining engagement and trust precisely where it matters most. Older people are especially vulnerable to feelings of invisibility and marginalisation in the media. Communications that feel fake or “plastic” can intensify those feelings, discouraging participation or eroding perceived credibility.

Trust is a critical outcome, not just a nice-to-have, for public information aimed at supporting well-being and service uptake. Yet Australian regulators, service providers, and marketers are embracing AI tools at speed, often without guardrails for age appropriateness and emotional intelligence. Few guidelines, if any, shape how older Australians should be represented in marketing, let alone in sensitive sectors like health and aged care. As a result, AI-generated campaigns can unintentionally alienate this substantial segment, exposing a clear policy and inclusion gap.

Policy recommendations and future directions

To create effective, inclusive communication for Australia’s ageing population, sector leaders and policymakers can take several concrete steps:

Embed age-inclusive image standards in funding and regulation

Federal and state departments responsible for health, ageing and digital communications should build age-inclusive image standards into campaign procurement guidelines, grant conditions and industry codes. This can include a presumption in favour of real people, visible age, and diverse representation in publicly funded health, aged care and social supports advertising.

Before rolling out large-scale AI-driven campaigns targeting older Australians, government agencies and funded providers should be required to conduct user testing (e.g., focus groups or interviews) with older adults to assess emotional resonance and trust. For major national campaigns, this requirement could be mandated in procurement frameworks or by entities such as the Australian Government Communications Service.​

Set clear rules on transparency and labelling

Consumer-facing communications that use AI-generated faces or avatars – particularly in health, aged-care and financial services – should clearly disclose this. Regulators such as the ACCC and the Australian Communications and Media Authority could provide guidance on when and how AI use must be labelled to avoid misleading impressions and support informed consent.

Align with digital inclusion and ageing strategies

Existing national ageing and digital-inclusion strategies should explicitly address AI-generated content and its impact on older people’s trust and participation. This includes recognising that seemingly “innovative” imagery can, if poorly designed, deepen digital exclusion by making communications feel alien or untrustworthy.

Fund ongoing research and co-design

Government and industry should support longitudinal and applied research on the communicative impact of AI imagery on older Australians, covering emotional, behavioural and trust outcomes. Grants from health, ageing, digital-inclusion or media regulation bodies can prioritise projects that use co-design, bringing older Australians into the room when standards for AI in public communications are developed.

A Call to Action for Australian policymakers

As AI continues to transform how Australian organisations communicate, one principle stands out: “realism” isn’t enough. For older audiences, authentic human connection is what counts. Employing flawless, computer-generated faces cannot replace real life and lived experience. The faces chosen in ads must exude warmth, relatability, and genuine understanding to build real trust.

Australian governments, regulators and publicly funded service providers have a rare opportunity: to set expectations now for how AI can be used in ways that support, rather than undermine, the rights and dignity of older people. It is time to embed inclusive, emotionally intelligent AI communication standards into policy, funding and practice. Australia’s ageing population deserves nothing less.

Dr Neeru Sharma is Senior Lecturer, The MARCS Institute of Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Australia. Her research centres on artificial intelligence in marketing communications, omnichannel marketing, services marketing, and consumer psychology, with a strong publication record in high-impact journals, including Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. Dr Sharma examines how AI reshapes customer experience and trust, focusing on the ethical and psychological impacts of AI-generated content on consumer cognition, emotion, and decision-making. 

 Dr Johra Kayeser Fatima is Senior Lecturer and Discipline Lead in Marketing, Canberra Business School, University of Canberra. She holds a PhD from UNSW, Sydney. Dr Fatima published in various prestigious journals, including Psychology and Marketing, Tourism Analysis, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Strategic Marketing and Environmental Education Research. She regularly speaks in academic conferences and is also an editor of the book, ‘Wilderness of Wildlife Tourism’. As a recognition of her research, she has been awarded ‘Dean’s Award for Research Excellence’ several times. She also received multiple grants from the ACT Government, Australia.

Image credit: Canva