For the finale (well, it was after lunch) of two packed days at IIEX EU in Amsterdam, Colonel Mustard Lucy Davison brought together our expertise in insights communication with the hottest topic of the moment – AI. We teamed up with Hennieke Potman, Global Consumer and Market Insight Manager from Flora Food Group to share our research into a common question we hear when advocating for thoughtful, structured insights communication: “Why not just use AI?”

In true research fashion, we put AI to the test in a real-world experiment: could it help us communicate insights faster, better, cheaper, or more effectively? The answer: not yet. While tools like ChatGPT, Piktochart, and Synthesia showed promise, we learned that human input is still essential – for structure, storytelling, data safety – and sanity.

Our brief was to create materials that went beyond Powerpoint reports which could be shared in Flora and which should make a measurable impact.

Here’s what we found out…

Lesson 1: The short-list only gets shorter

We began by exploring the landscape of generative AI tools, testing a wide range from LLMs like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot to tools like Claude and NotebookLM. We wanted to see if they could meet key criteria: data secure, low-cost, easy-to-use, time-saving, and genuinely useful. We also explored visual content generators like Custom GPTs, Vyond, Pictory, and our current favourite, Gamma, to see how they handled video and infographic production.

To ensure a fair comparison, we used the same input each time – a dense, 48-slide insights deck filled with data, charts, and infographics, on gender equality. We asked them to create videos, infographics and summaries – the materials for Flora to share.

The results? Very mixed. The tools varied widely in output, usefulness, and quality – and some offered more headaches than help.

Yes, generative AI can produce content based on your input – but that’s where the optimism ends. When we fed our insights deck into popular tools like ChatGPT, the results were underwhelming (and occasionally laughable).

Even custom GPTs designed specifically for infographic creation for example, could barely manage a bar chart. The outputs were incorrect, cluttered, or just plain bizarre – a classic case of hallucination.

And animated videos? Let’s just say the chaos on screen earned a solid laugh from the IIEX audience – but not for the right reasons.

Most of the tools we tried did not make it through the first round of testing.

Lesson 2: Trust still matters – read that data security clause!

Amongst the dozens of tools we tested, a few stood out for producing semi-decent outputs – notably Gamma, Piktochart, and Synthesia. These made our initial shortlist thanks to their ease of use and relatively polished results.

But when we looked closer at their data policies, things got murky. Scrutinising legal clauses and privacy terms quickly became a task in itself. And while many in the insights world love Gamma, its data protection terms are vague at best – offering no clear commitment that your input or output won’t be used to train their models. For this experiment, where we were working with confidential Flora research, that was a dealbreaker. Gamma had to go.

Lesson 3: It’ll take (your) time… A lot of it

AI tools love to promise the same things: faster, better, more efficient outcomes. And yes, in some cases, they delivered. For example, ChatGPT-4o (with its latest image generation update) helped us create custom visuals for our infographic. But other tools? Across the board, we found that the tools required a lot of human editing, creative judgement, and iteration – more than without using them.

Take Synthesia. It’s a platform that lets you create talking head videos using stock avatars – or even one in your own likeness, complete with your voice. Sounds futuristic, right? And on the surface, it is. The editing interface is user-friendly, and generating an avatar version of Hennieke was eerily realistic.

But things got manual, fast. We still had to write the storyboard, script the content, and manually adjust everything from tone of voice to timing and animation. After seven iterations and over five days of tweaking tone, timing, and visuals, we finally got a version we liked. Ironically, doing it the ‘old-fashioned’ way and filming Hennieke presenting, would have taken us just three. So, while Synthesia automated the avatar, the rest still relied heavily on human creative direction.

The same was true with Piktochart. It gave us a decent starting point for our infographic, based on a storyboard we fed in – but missed key insights, context, and tone. We had to fill in the gaps ourselves, then redesign fonts, colours, and layout elements to align with Flora’s brand. What began as a “smart” AI quickly became a clunky design tool. In the end, using good ol’ Adobe design platforms – with a real human at the helm – proved quicker and better for the job.

In total, the Flora and Mustard team spent over 60 hours producing all the content.

What does this mean for insights communications?

The bottom line? These tools not plug-and-play. AI can support the process – if you’re prepared to invest more time editing, refining, and steering output than you would without them.  Above all they don’t replace the creative thinking and sharp eye that only humans bring.

What is important to know is that when we shared the final materials and measured impact at Flora, the content captured attention and sparked engagement across the board – proving again the value of thinking beyond the PowerPoint report and creating insight communication campaigns that resonate.

Final lesson: AI is promising but people make it meaningful

Of course, AI isn’t the problem – it’s the expectation that it can do it all. The creativity, context, and quality control still need to come from people – AI just gives us a new set of crayons to colour with.

Experimenting with these tools reminded us just how valuable we are.

The post Faster! Further! Better? Spreading Flora’s Insights in a real-world experiment using AI appeared first on Keen as Mustard Marketing.

Insight Innovation Exchange was a whirlwind. It was the first of its kind in Europe, and with upwards of 40 presentations a day, I often found myself with room envy. Condensing my most memorable memories has been a challenge, but here goes:

1. Virtual Reality.

This is a reality – Lieberman Research Worldwide’s VR headset (in the exhibition) plus VR simulator ‘Avatar’, by  Hall & Partners and Simudyne, exemplified that. I personally had a terrifying time plunging into the virtual reality via LRW’s headset. And when I say plunging, I really mean it. I found myself upon a virtual bridge, being urged to jump off – a very uncomfortable feeling and only approximately 30% of people at the conference could do so.

The conference included not one, but nine presentations about accessing and understanding the sub-conscious. Several different approaches to facial coding and neuroscience demonstrated and proved the value of understanding the unconscious to drive success from different ad campaigns. Dr Kai-Markus Mueller presented a compelling account of how to ‘set prices that please the brain’. This emotional theme extended to brand analysis and on to Behavioural Economics.

John Kearon of Brainjuicer pointed out that feelings are a better predictor of what we will do than rational questions. To reinforce his point, during an energetic performance he sang the theme song from a UK advertising classic from the 1970s – ‘Just one Cornetto’ (which took me back!) This musical theme was reiterated later by Caroline Winnett of Neurensics USA, whose violin playing demonstrated very clearly how music accesses our subconscious and provides a universal language for brands.

3. Itsy bitsy (not big) data

There were several sessions which talked small, not big, data. A client panel, chaired by Ray Poynter, gave us a vision of the future of research being in multiple boutique/niche data vendors and small, solutions-oriented agencies.  We had Paul McDonald from Google talking about breaking surveys into ever smaller pieces in his session on ‘How data chunking will save the tracker’. The debate that followed, both through the Twittersphere and onward chat, highlighted that this might be because the current limitations of Google Surveys only allow for four questions per study. Far be it from me to comment.

It was also important to go small when delivering research.  Mark Earls, head of the Herd Consultancy, pointed out that at the moment we have container sized reports which need to fit through a letter box. The workshop that followed attempted to fix what is broken in marketing research – attendees crowd sourced issues, and their solutions. We broke down problems into small bite sized issues demonstrated that taking small, incremental steps to innovation is often a better way to go than to attempt giant leaps.

4.      Impact!

Impact, the critically important issue for client-side researchers, cropped up with a focus on how to visualise data, create stories and design for impact.  We heard a lot from technology and data visualisation companies, in particular Patricio Paganie of Infotools who took us through how Coca-Cola migrated to a visual portal solution to present research results. We also had the DIVA Awards. This included a lively panel discussion clarifying the essential differences between data visualisations and infographics: data visualisations are created by software that supports data analytics through imagery, and infographics are a synthesised and triangulated way of telling a story from data.

5.      Gone fishing!

At the end of day two there was one session that particularly resonated with me about the un-sustainable approach we take to marketing research. Using the concept of sustainable fishing as a metaphor, an expert panel consisting of a client, a supplier, a big agency and a small agency was chaired by Alison White and Betty Adamou with the support of Elina Halonen.  While Tom Ewing and Leigh Caldwell fought it out for the cheesiest fish metaphor on Twitter, the panel succinctly articulated one of the most important problems facing the industry – our un-sustainable approach towards the waters of respondents within which we ply our trade – and what we should do about it.

I could go on. There was a ‘rock n’roll’ feel to this conference – many presentations, some a little ragged around the edges, many very insightful. There was much more on the business of research than I have seen at other conferences. Although there was a lot on new ideas, methods and technology, I felt the desire to deliver real change was always there. I also felt that the industry is a great place to be right now and that IIeX was an inspiring and engaging window into our world.

This is an abstract from an article published in Quirk’s on 10th March 2014. To read the full article click here.

The post What I learnt at IIeX appeared first on Keen as Mustard Marketing.