Lil Miquela has 2.6 million Instagram followers, partnerships with Prada and Calvin Klein, and earns an estimated $10 million annually. She's also completely artificial—a CGI creation managed by the startup Brud.
She's not alone. Imma, Shudu, Noonoouri, and dozens of other AI-generated influencers are landing brand deals, releasing music, and building engaged audiences. The virtual influencer market is projected to reach $13.9 billion by 2027, and brands are wrestling with a question: Is this the future of influencer marketing, or are we heading somewhere uncomfortable?
Let me be clear upfront—I don't have a simple answer. The data shows both genuine opportunity and legitimate concerns. This isn't about being pro-AI or anti-AI. It's about understanding what's actually happening so you can make informed decisions for your brand.
The Case for AI Influencers
Let's start with why brands are interested, because the appeal is more nuanced than "AI is trendy."
Complete Creative Control
When Samsung partnered with virtual influencer Rozy for a Galaxy phone campaign, they knew exactly what they were getting. No scheduling conflicts, no off-brand personal posts, no risk of the influencer saying something controversial next week that damages your brand association.
One luxury fashion brand (they preferred not to be named) told me they shifted 30% of their influencer budget to virtual creators specifically because of control. Their quote: "We spent $180K on a campaign with a celebrity influencer, then three weeks later she posted something politically divisive that made half our customers angry. With AI influencers, that doesn't happen."
That level of brand safety has real value, especially for risk-averse companies or heavily regulated industries.
Always Available, Never Tired
Virtual influencers don't take vacations, get sick, or experience burnout. They can "appear" at multiple events simultaneously, post at optimal times across all time zones, and maintain a consistent content calendar indefinitely.
For brands running always-on campaigns or global initiatives, this operational efficiency is genuinely valuable. You're not coordinating across multiple human schedules or dealing with last-minute cancellations.
Built-In Novelty Factor
Right now, virtual influencers generate more earned media than human equivalents. When KFC created a virtual Colonel Sanders influencer, it got covered by dozens of major publications. That PR value is real.
A study by Influencer Marketing Hub found that campaigns featuring virtual influencers generate 3x more media impressions than comparable human influencer campaigns. People are still fascinated by the technology.
Demographic Appeal
Gen Z and Gen Alpha are digital natives who grew up with Snapchat filters, VTubers, and video game avatars. For them, the line between "real" and "virtual" content creators is blurrier than for older demographics.
Research from Morning Consult shows that 54% of Gen Z follows at least one virtual influencer, and 35% say they're "equally likely" to trust product recommendations from AI influencers as human ones.
If your target audience is under 25, virtual influencers might resonate more than you think.
The Case Against AI Influencers
Now let's talk about the problems, because they're substantial.
Authenticity Is the Whole Point
Influencer marketing works because it's fundamentally about trust transfer. Followers trust the influencer, so they're more receptive to products the influencer recommends. But that trust is built on the belief that the influencer is a real person who genuinely uses and believes in the product.
Virtual influencers can't use products. They can't have genuine experiences or authentic opinions. The entire premise is performance.
One brand manager I spoke with ran A/B tests with AI versus human influencers for their skincare line. The human influencers generated 4.2x higher conversion rates despite lower engagement metrics. Her take: "People know AI influencers can't actually have skin. The recommendation feels meaningless."
Engagement Doesn't Equal Influence
Virtual influencers often have strong engagement rates—comments, likes, shares. But if you read the comments, a huge portion are about the technology itself, not the promoted product.
When Imma promoted a beauty product, the top comments were "Is this real?", "How do they make this?", and "This is so weird." Very few comments engaged with the actual product.
High engagement that doesn't translate to consideration or purchase intent is vanity metrics at best.
Ethical Concerns About Disclosure
Not all virtual influencer content makes it immediately obvious that the influencer isn't human. Some AI influencers deliberately blur the line to maximize engagement.
The FTC hasn't issued specific guidance on virtual influencer disclosure requirements, but the principle is clear: audiences should know when content isn't from a real person. Brands that fail to make this clear risk regulatory backlash and reputation damage.
Uncanny Valley Problems
Even the best CGI influencers still trigger uncanny valley responses in many viewers—that unsettling feeling when something looks almost, but not quite, human.
Research from Mindshare found that 42% of consumers find virtual influencers "creepy" or "unsettling," and that negative emotional response extends to the brands they promote.
This is especially pronounced in categories that rely on emotional connection—wellness, parenting, personal finance. If your product category requires empathy, virtual influencers might be counterproductive.
It's Expensive to Do Well
Creating a convincing virtual influencer requires serious investment. We're talking six figures minimum for proper CGI modeling, animation, and ongoing content creation.
Yes, you can create a basic 3D character cheaply, but if it looks budget, the whole campaign feels cheap. The virtual influencers that work are backed by significant production budgets that most brands don't have.
What the Data Actually Shows
HypeAuditor analyzed 2,400 virtual influencer campaigns versus matched human influencer campaigns. Here's what they found:
- Engagement rates: Virtual influencers average 2.8% engagement versus 2.4% for humans (not a huge difference)
- Click-through rates: Humans outperform by 58% (1.9% versus 1.2%)
- Conversion rates: Humans outperform by 73% (3.2% versus 1.85%)
- Cost per engagement: Virtual influencers are 22% cheaper
- Cost per conversion: Humans are 34% more cost-effective
The pattern is clear: Virtual influencers generate attention and engagement, but human influencers drive more bottom-funnel action.
So What Should Brands Actually Do?
Based on the data and conversations with brands running these campaigns, here's my take:
Virtual Influencers Make Sense For:
- Awareness campaigns where the goal is impressions and PR coverage
- Fashion and tech brands where the futuristic aesthetic aligns with brand identity
- Global campaigns that benefit from a single controllable asset across markets
- Entertainment properties (games, movies, digital platforms) where the audience expects virtual content
Human Influencers Make More Sense For:
- Conversion-focused campaigns where you're optimizing for sales, not impressions
- Trust-dependent categories (health, finance, parenting, food)
- Local or community-focused initiatives where personal connection matters
- Authentic storytelling that requires genuine experience with the product
Hybrid Approaches Worth Testing:
Some brands are finding success using virtual influencers for top-of-funnel awareness, then retargeting that audience with human influencer content for conversion. You get the novelty and PR value of AI, plus the trust and conversion power of humans.
Others are using virtual influencers as brand mascots or characters within larger campaigns, rather than positioning them as authentic product reviewers.
The Bigger Picture
Virtual influencers aren't going away. The technology will improve, costs will decrease, and younger audiences will become more comfortable with AI-generated content.
But I don't think they'll replace human influencers, for the same reason that CGI actors haven't replaced human actors. There's something fundamentally valuable about human experience, perspective, and authenticity that technology can simulate but not replicate.
The brands getting this right aren't choosing between AI and humans. They're asking: "What's the right tool for this specific campaign objective?"
Sometimes that's a virtual influencer. Often it's not. The key is being honest about what you're actually trying to achieve and which approach is most likely to get you there.
If your goal is awareness, PR coverage, and brand positioning in innovation-forward spaces, virtual influencers can deliver. If your goal is trust-based conversion and authentic product advocacy, stick with humans.
Both have a place in the marketing mix. Neither is a silver bullet. And anyone telling you definitively that AI influencers are either "the future" or "a gimmick" is oversimplifying a complex landscape.
Make decisions based on your objectives, your audience, and your brand values—not hype or fear about the technology itself.
