The impact of AI on corporate video: decision-making, risk and accountability 

Over the past year, I’ve noticed a familiar tension in conversations with marketing and communications leaders when it comes to brand films. AI film is everywhere. Boards are asking about it. CEOs are referencing it. Teams are experimenting with it. But behind the curiosity sits a more uncomfortable question – if we use AI in our brand films, are we taking a reputational risk? 

That tension is understandable. AI film has reached the stage where it can produce genuinely impressive results but also equally impressive problems. Move too slowly and you look behind the curve. Move too quickly and you risk damaging trust in your brand that took years to build.  

In summer 2025 we faced that exact decision when Grant Thornton commissioned us to create their main brand film. The brief was ambitious: they wanted to stand apart from the competition, be remembered months after viewing, and deliver impact within tight time and budget constraints. Traditional filmmaking could have worked, but not within those parameters. 

So the question wasn’t “Can we use AI?” It was “Is AI the right strategic choice to solve this problem without lowering the bar on trust?”.  

The film went on to win the Gold for Best AI film at the 2026 Lens Awards, and it outperformed their previous content significantly in reach and engagement, but the most important outcome wasn’t the metrics. It was stakeholder confidence. As their CMO, Maria McDonagh put it: “Bringing AI into the mix for our ‘Alternatively’ brand film felt genuinely liberating. Suddenly the limits we’d always worked around, whether time or budget, just weren’t there anymore. That space to be braver while harnessing the power of new technology, changed the work. And you can feel that in how audiences have responded. There’s an energy to it, and a confidence, which was at the heart of the brief.” 

What we learned from that project is this: AI expands creative possibility, but it amplifies judgement. 

AI brand film is not a creative shortcut. It is a compressed production model. It can accelerate visual exploration and reduce certain costs, but it cannot compensate for weak strategy or unclear positioning. In fact, it exposes those weaknesses faster. 

For communications teams, this changes the nature of the risk. The technical barriers are falling quickly. The leadership decisions are becoming more visible. 

There are three areas where clarity becomes critical. 

First, what remains human-led. Brand strategy, narrative intent, emotional direction and final editorial judgement cannot be delegated to a system trained on general data. AI can generate images, but it cannot protect a reputation. 

Second, where AI is allowed to explore. It works particularly well in stylised, metaphorical or hyper-real storytelling, where the audience does not expect documentary authenticity. It is far less appropriate when a film depends on lived experience, sensitive representation or regulated subject matter. In those cases, synthetic imagery risks undermining credibility. 

Third, when sign-off happens. Because AI enables rapid generation, there is a temptation to “see what happens.” In practice, successful AI brand films require more clarity earlier. Tone, territory and boundaries need agreement before generation begins. Without that discipline, iteration becomes drift. 

The Grant Thornton film succeeded not because it used AI, but because it reflected a clear strategy and confident brand positioning. AI enabled the execution; it did not define it. 

So, in short – AI changes how we make brand films. It doesn’t change what makes them work.