Virtual influencers are having a moment, and some of them aren’t even real.
As brands explore everything from metaverse meetups to AI-generated avatars with millions of followers, a new peer-reviewed study (Joel-Edgar et al., 2024) has dropped a reality check that marketers need to pay attention to. The research shows that while Gen Z might follow, like, and share content from virtual personalities, they draw a hard line between algorithm and authenticity.
And the results aren’t just academic. They have real implications for how your brand is perceived the next time you launch a campaign using an influencer who was coded in a lab instead of born in a dorm room.
Gen Z Attributes More ‘Mind’ to Human Influencers
The study centers around “mind perception”, the idea that people assign mental states (like empathy, intent, or awareness) to others. Human influencers, according to the findings, score much higher in this category than their AI-powered counterparts. That means Gen Z sees human creators as more capable of thinking, feeling, and being responsible.
Why does that matter? Because trust isn’t built on perfect polish. It’s built on perceived agency — and people can’t relate to a personality that’s never had a bad day or a strong opinion. The influencers that resonate on campus aren’t the ones with flawless avatars. They’re the ones with stories, self-awareness, and actual opinions.
Human Influencers Get Blamed More — But Still Trusted More
Here’s where it gets interesting: human influencers also take more heat when something goes wrong. The same study found that when a campaign flops or a post crosses the line, audiences are quicker to hold real people accountable than AI-generated personas.
That might sound like a risk, and it is, but it’s a double-edged one. Because even when blame is high, brand trust stays stronger with human influencers. Why? People expect humans to mess up. And they respect brands that take responsibility alongside them.
In contrast, AI VIs might dodge the personal backlash, but they leave the brand holding the entire bag. No apology video. No “my bad” in the comments. Just a cold reminder that your digital puppet said something tone-deaf, and now the algorithm can’t fix it.
Blame Hurts Brands More with AI Influencers
When AI influencers get things wrong, whether it’s misinformation, tone issues, or simply weird vibes. The damage runs deep. According to the study, brand trust takes a harder hit when the audience blames an AI figure versus a human one.
Why? Because the accountability vacuum creates a perception that the brand was either careless or manipulative. With no “person” to redirect frustration toward, that frustration heads straight for your logo.
So, while AI VIs might feel like a safer, more controlled bet. Less likely to tweet something off-script or get caught in drama, they don’t come with the same trust cushion that human creators naturally build over time.
The Medium Doesn’t Matter (Social vs. Metaverse)
One surprise from the research? The platform doesn’t impact how audiences perceive influencers. Whether it’s traditional social media or a virtual event in the metaverse, Gen Z evaluates influencer “mind” the same way.
That means the same trust dynamics apply whether your brand is hosting a TikTok challenge or launching an NFT-powered fashion drop in Decentraland. The format is futuristic but the rules of credibility are still very human.
Takeaways for Brands Targeting Gen Z
Here’s how to stay ahead of the curve without losing credibility:
- Stick with human influencers for campaigns that depend on emotional connection, relatability, or values-based messaging. Students trust people, not programs.
- If you’re experimenting with AI influencers, be transparent about it. Don’t blur the line between real and virtual. Gen Z isn’t buying the illusion.
- Build in accountability. Whether the voice is real or rendered, your brand should have a plan if the messaging misses.
Reimagining Influencer Marketing With Accountability in Mind
Virtual influencers might be flawless on paper, but perfection doesn’t convert. This study confirms what a lot of students already sense: authenticity still drives trust, and trust drives results.
As brands stretch into new technologies, the smart ones will keep their feet on the ground. Influence isn’t about who has the cleanest aesthetic or the smoothest animation. It’s about who feels real enough to believe.
And until an AI can give an unfiltered opinion on dining hall pizza, your next campus campaign might still be better off with a student ambassador and a phone camera.
