Week #19: Trust Me, I’m a Bot

Marketing in the Age of Illusion

This newsletter sits at the intersection of marketing, tech, and—most importantly—humanity. It’s about how these tools shape our choices, our communities, and our collective wiring.

If you’re into that, hit the heart button. The algorithm loves it, and so do I.

The Trust Paradox: Ads vs. Influencers vs. AI

The News

Online ads continue to irritate users and they find them misleading, yet paradoxically, trust in influencers, real and even AI-generated is higher than ever, especially among younger consumers (Stacked Marketer). Virtual influencers, powered by AI, are booming, pulling billions of views on platforms like YouTube (Stacked Marketer, AI Marketing School). However, studies reveal a darker side: influencer content may contribute to manipulation and unhealthy consumer behaviors, with some AI-driven bots secretly swaying online opinions in controversial experiments (MSN, Reddit).

Bianca's Take

If you've ever sold anything online, from million-dollar courses to an old bike on Craigslist, you know trust is the ultimate online currency. It's marketing’s golden rule, yet frustratingly tricky to nail down.

Ads aren't fooling anyone, they shout their intentions loud and clear, practically screaming, flashing, begging "BUY ME!" from your screen. We instinctively roll our eyes and push them away because they're predictable, artificial, and honestly, a bit desperate.

Influencers, on the other hand, are playing a much smarter game. They act like our friends, sharing "genuine" moments, vulnerabilities, humor, and yes, plenty of products along the way. They're ads wrapped in humanity, and that's why they work so well. Same-same, but different.

Ever since I read that article on Aitana Lopez, I've been racking my brain, trying to explain the rise of virtual influencers. What exactly dictates trust online if not... the human?

Virtual influencers are algorithm-driven, pixel-perfect personas who mimic humanity so well they've got millions of followers hanging on their every post and buying the products they endorse. Is trust simply about looking human? If authenticity online is just an act, what happens when the actor isn’t even alive? Are our brains hardwired to trust anything that vaguely resembles a human face, even if we (intellectually) know those are just pixels?

Maybe the real question isn't just what we trust online, but why trust matters at all. As marketers, consumers, and humans stuck spinning through an increasingly more digital orbit, we've got to stay sharp.

Trust is integral to human dignity and meaningful connection. If we let trust become just another commodity, engineered and exploited without deeper consideration, we risk losing something far more profound: our shared human experience.

Big Tech’s Battle for Your Attention (and Survival)

The News

Mark Zuckerberg admitted a notable decline in engagement on Facebook and Instagram as users drift toward more engaging competitors like TikTok (Social Media Today). Meanwhile, Trump's administration hints at delaying TikTok’s ban yet again, prolonging the uncertainty over the app’s future (Stacked Marketer). Google's facing a historic breakup after losing antitrust lawsuits related to monopolizing search and advertising markets (Platformer). Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai argues such regulatory interventions could profoundly alter user experiences (and humanity) (Search Engine Land).

Bianca’s Take

There’s something weirdly intimate about watching giants stumble. Like seeing the cool kid from high school get really into NFTs and then quietly go bankrupt. Meta is bleeding attention, TikTok is in political purgatory, and Google is facing the regulatory equivalent of an identity crisis.

But let’s pause the schadenfreude for a second…

The “fall” of Big Tech isn’t just about billionaires in hoodies losing power, it’s about who gets to shape the internet we all live inside. For decades, we’ve outsourced that responsibility to the highest bidder. We handed over our attention, our data, our memories, and micro-decisions, and in return, we got convenience, connection, and a dopamine drip-feed that’s increasingly hard to unplug from.

Meanwhile… Google tightened integration between Demand Gen campaigns, YouTube, and Merchant Checkout, making impulse purchasing easier than ever. Similarly, ChatGPT's new shopping enhancements further remove consumer friction (Google Ads Help, The Verge)

As regulators finally sharpen their teeth, the cracks are showing, but even if your next phone will live longer thanks to Brussels, it's nowhere near enough.

I don’t romanticize regulation. But I do believe in friction where friction makes sense. I believe in slowing down enough to ask better questions and consider the consequences. And in the absence of friction, we end up making decisions on impulse, not intention.

That’s not user freedom. That’s behavioral engineering.

We need pauses. Checks. Boundaries. A moment between stimulus and response where ethics, and, dare I say, conscience can kick in. We need time to develop that critical thought, a thought that comes to you in the dead of night when you're scrolling through Amazon, that says, "You don't need another plastic container for your cereals, the box it comes in will work just fine."

Right now, the dominant system runs on an infinite growth loop: more engagement, more data, more monetization, more ecological and psychological debt. Regulation, if done well, could be the tool that reintroduces the necessary friction to interrupt this loop.

And no, regulation isn’t the magic bullet. It’s often slow, sometimes messy, and always reactive. But, in a world where platforms profit from addictiveness, where consumption is the default, and where attention is a resource extracted without consent, some friction is better than none.

Greenwashing and the Thin Green Line

The News

Earth Day saw an avalanche of superficial sustainability campaigns, often critiqued as empty PR gestures. Consumer confusion over vague "eco-friendly" labels is rampant, contributing to ineffective recycling behaviors known as "wishcycling." Meanwhile, Amazon finds itself under fire for allegedly misleading sustainability claims (The Conversation, The Cool Down).

Bianca's Take:

Slap a leaf on the label, say something vague like “consciously sourced,” and hope no one checks the fine print. Maybe it works for a while. Maybe it even boosts quarterly revenue. But let’s be clear: consumers aren’t stupid, and the planet doesn’t give points for empty effort.

Sustainability isn’t a seasonal campaign. It’s not a press release timed with Earth Day or a pastel green logo refresh. It’s a structural commitment, a long game. It means supply chain transparency, fair labor, honest labeling, lifecycle thinking, and accountability after the sale. If your “eco” product ends up in a landfill six months later, it wasn’t sustainable, it was storytelling. And storytelling has consequences.

Because when we flood the market with performative “green” messaging, we erode the very trust we claim to stand for. We make it harder for consumers to distinguish signal from noise. We dull their instincts. We make cynicism feel like the only rational response. And once people stop believing in sustainability altogether, we’ve lost far more than brand loyalty; we’ve lost momentum on the one thing we can’t afford to stall.

Don’t just market sustainability. Practice it. Prove it. And make it boringly, relentlessly consistent.

Because the world doesn’t need another hashtag campaign. It needs marketers who give a damn.

I’m curious to know what you think…
Anything you disagreed with? Or worse, agreed with?