First, determine whether an AIGC commercial suits the brand project during the initiation phase.
When evaluating AIGC commercials, brands most often err by treating generative imagery as a universal tool. AIGC excels at depicting fantasy scenes, abstract concepts, microscopic product structures, or historical reconstructions, but purely generated content often fails delivery requirements where precise control over brand assets, actor performances, product details, and compliance information is needed. Three questions should be answered during initiation: first, does the communication goal rely on visual spectacle; second, is the audience sensitive to compositing artifacts; third, do brand assets allow pixel-level deviations? If all three answers are negative, traditional filming or live-action with post-production compositing is safer.
Specifically, have the production team provide an AIGC feasibility assessment listing which elements in target shots suit generation and which require live-action or CGI reconstruction. Criteria include keeping generated content under 40% of total shots, with clear retouching plans for each generated shot. The risk lies in brands being dazzled by samples while overlooking instability in color, lighting, and physics within generated content. Exceptions include pure digital product demos or abstract mood films, which tolerate higher generation ratios. Without this assessment, post-production retouching costs may double and project timelines may spiral out of control.
Define clear communication goals and core selling points to prevent generated content from overshadowing the main message.
Planning for AIGC commercials must be reverse-engineered from communication objectives. Brands must document the single core message and three supporting selling points for the film. For example, in a new car model ad where the core message is 'Smart driving makes commuting easier,' selling points could include automatic parking, energy optimization, and cabin interaction. The production team uses this information to determine which shots to enhance with AIGC and which require live-action filming. If the core selling point is product safety, crash test footage must never rely on generated content, or it risks triggering a trust crisis.
Materials to be prepared by the brand include high-resolution product images, brand color codes, logo source files, historical ad footage, competitor references, and audience personas. The production team must verify the mapping between each selling point and its corresponding visuals, annotating the generation ratio and restoration difficulty for every shot in the storyboard. The standard is that each selling point must have at least one live-action or CGI shot as a fallback to avoid total reliance on generation. A risk arises when brands provide excessive reference imagery, causing generated content to appear overly derivative and lose originality. An exception applies to pure concept videos, where selling points may be downplayed in favor of mood and atmosphere. The consequence of unclear core messaging is significant rework during final acceptance, as generated content cannot precisely target vague objectives.
Plan intervention points for manual restoration during the storyboarding phase.
A storyboard serves not only as a visual description but also as a blueprint for manual restoration. The production team should annotate three categories of information beside each frame: scope of generated content, anticipated defect types, and restoration methods. For instance, in a rotating product shot, generated content might exhibit inconsistent surface reflections, jagged edges, or lighting errors; restoration methods could include local inpainting, CGI overlays, or manual compositing fixes. Brands must review these annotations to confirm that restoration costs align with the value of each shot.
Specifically, the production team provides a storyboard annotated with restoration notes for item-by-item brand approval. The benchmark is that estimated restoration hours for any generated shot must not exceed 50% of that shot's total production time; otherwise, it should switch to live-action or full CGI. The risk of omitting restoration notes during storyboarding is discovering extensive rework needs later in post-production. An exception exists for rapid pilot content on short-video platforms, where higher defect rates are acceptable provided the final delivery quality tier is contractually defined. Failing to plan for restoration during storyboarding leaves compositors with baseless revision requests, inevitably delaying the project schedule.
Capture sufficient live-action footage during filming to support AIGC compositing.
Even when AIGC is heavily utilized, the filming phase remains indispensable. Live-action footage provides lighting references, perspective baselines, and material textures for generated content, serving as a critical basis for manual restoration. During shooting, record color temperature, lighting angles, lens focal length, and camera movement trajectories for each scene; this data will calibrate generated imagery during post-production compositing. Brands must ensure filming locations permit the use of gray cards and color charts to facilitate accurate color matching in post.
The production team must prepare a pre-shoot data capture checklist including light probes, HDR maps, material samples, and reference videos. The standard requires retaining at least three sets of live-action footage at different exposures for every shot requiring compositing. A risk occurs if the crew assumes AIGC can replace live-action, resulting in insufficient footage and leaving post-production restoration without reference. Purely digital scenes are an exception requiring no live-action filming, though real-world lighting data must still be captured. When footage is missing, compositors can only guess based on experience, causing inevitable mismatches between generated imagery and live-action lighting, leading to visible inconsistencies in the final cut.
Establish a layered restoration and compositing workflow during post-production.
Post-production compositing is critical to the success of AIGC commercials. A layered workflow is recommended: layer one covers base color grading of generated footage; layer two addresses defect repair; layer three composites live-action with generated footage; and layer four ensures overall stylistic consistency. Each layer requires independent sign-off and cannot be skipped. For example, deformed fingers in generated footage should be fixed in layer two rather than after compositing, otherwise repair difficulty increases exponentially.
Specifically, the production team should maintain a repair log for each shot, documenting defect types, tools used, time spent, and results. Brands should review these logs regularly to track progress. Acceptance criteria require viewing each repaired shot at 200% zoom, ensuring edges, reflections, and textures show no visible defects. A key risk is retouchers over-relying on AI plugins while neglecting manual adjustments, resulting in unnatural visuals. An exception applies to highly stylized ads, where some generative artifacts may be retained as artistic expression. Without this layered process, post-production revisions become chaotic, making it impossible for brands to identify issue sources.
Acceptance checks are conducted across three levels: shot, scene, and version.
Acceptance cannot rely solely on the final cut; it must follow three tiers. Tier one is shot-level inspection, checking frame-by-frame for flickering, jitter, or texture drift in generated content. Tier two is scene-level verification, ensuring consistent color, lighting, and spatial relationships across all shots within a scene. Tier three is version-level review, requiring separate acceptance for each platform-specific output, such as landscape, portrait, 15-second, and 30-second cuts.
The brand's acceptance checklist should include shot lists, defect standards, color references, brand guidelines, platform specs, and subtitle requirements. The production team must provide repair logs, compositing project files, render settings, and delivery masters. Acceptance criteria require each shot to meet color standards on reference monitors and audio levels to comply with platform specifications. A major risk occurs when brands approve only the final cut while overlooking source and project file integrity, preventing future revisions. An exception exists for short-term, single-run ads where project files may be waived if specified in the contract. Incomplete acceptance leads to costly reshoots when issues arise after launch.
Define scenarios and boundaries where AIGC commercials are not applicable.
AIGC commercials are not suitable for all brand projects. Use caution or avoid AIGC in these cases: first, when product appearance or function requires precise depiction, such as medical devices, automotive safety systems, or food packaging; second, when brand image relies on real people or locations, like executive interviews or factory footage; third, in strictly regulated industries like finance, healthcare, or infant food, where generated content may pose legal risks; fourth, when timelines are extremely tight and budgets limited, leaving insufficient time for manual repair.
Project risk is considered excessive if generated content exceeds 60% while repair budget falls below 30% of total budget. A key risk arises when brands force AIGC usage for tech appeal, resulting in substandard quality that damages brand image. Exceptions include internal creative tests or non-public pitch demos, where bold AIGC experimentation is acceptable. Ignoring applicability boundaries may cause projects to fail approval or even face legal disputes.
The next step is to validate the workflow with a small test video.
Brands new to AIGC commercials should avoid launching large-scale projects immediately. Start with a product demo or brand concept video under 30 seconds, having the production team follow the project initiation, shooting, post-production, and acceptance workflows outlined here, focusing on validating manual repair efficiency and costs. After completion, evaluate whether output quality, timeline, and team collaboration meet expectations before expanding to full TVCs or video series. This test video need not be published externally but can serve as an internal decision-making basis and a reference sample for future vendor partnerships. Maintain restraint by neither exaggerating AIGC capabilities nor ignoring its limitations; rely on actual data to make informed budget allocations.
If you are preparing an AIGC ad project, gather your brief, visual references, product or company materials, delivery platforms, and licensing scope before proceeding.AIGC Video Services pageto translate abstract preferences into actionable production parameters.
