Until a few years ago, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube turned ordinary people into powerful sellers. Brands chased follower counts, and nearly every niche—food, fashion, fitness, travel—had a star. Everyone scrambled to become a popular social-media influencer—from roadside dhaba owners to daily-wage workers—with many documenting their lives. Even medical doctors jumped into the fray. Their content—posts, newsletters and videos—resonated with viewers. Fees soared, with top creators reportedly charging up to ₹22,00,000 ( ₹2.2 million) per reel. Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated virtual influencers (VIs) are helpful, but only with transparency and co-creation with human creators.
While audiences were still figuring out tools like ChatGPT, brands introduced AI-generated virtual influencers—computer-created characters that look real, post daily and promote products. The trend began in Japan and quickly spread to the US, China, and South Korea. India now has homegrown versions with real brand deals and growing reach. This matters because virtual personas change how influence is produced and sold: they can post endlessly, never age and never miss a brief. That power also pushes new questions to the front of the queue—about authenticity, disclosure and the impact on younger audiences.
Additionally, VIs can cut costs, scale content in multiple languages and give brands tighter control. For instance, a post by Mia Zelu—a fully AI-generated influencer with 150,000+ Instagram followers—reportedly costs around ₹1,49,135 ($1,694), letting even small brands buy studio-ready content at scale. Because teams script everything, avatars don't go off-message; they're always available and can create content on demand—no travel, shoots or scheduling. They're also cost-effective and trend-driven, well-suited to stylised aesthetics and augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR) tie-ins—benefits that explain the rush to adopt before we ask more complex questions about trust.
Yet those very strengths carry risks. VIs can blur authenticity, mask paid promotions and shape unhealthy ideals—especially for vulnerable groups. Because they are non-human, many followers perceive them as less credible than human creators. Consequently, companies and endorsed brands may be blamed—and even held responsible—if a VI "misbehaves." One recent flashpoint: Gucci's use of OH_ROZY, a Korea-created virtual endorser, drew heated comments on Instagram that it felt insincere and off-brand—a reminder that authenticity is brittle. Research also suggests that when AI influencers become too human-like, consumers dislike them—the "uncanny valley" effect. And because they have no physical presence, virtual influencers intensify questions of authenticity, a crucial currency in the influencer industry.
{{/usCountry}}Yet those very strengths carry risks. VIs can blur authenticity, mask paid promotions and shape unhealthy ideals—especially for vulnerable groups. Because they are non-human, many followers perceive them as less credible than human creators. Consequently, companies and endorsed brands may be blamed—and even held responsible—if a VI "misbehaves." One recent flashpoint: Gucci's use of OH_ROZY, a Korea-created virtual endorser, drew heated comments on Instagram that it felt insincere and off-brand—a reminder that authenticity is brittle. Research also suggests that when AI influencers become too human-like, consumers dislike them—the "uncanny valley" effect. And because they have no physical presence, virtual influencers intensify questions of authenticity, a crucial currency in the influencer industry.
{{/usCountry}}Even so, proponents argue that brands are adopting VIs to drive sales and engagement, including for utilitarian products, beneficial for small brands without celebrity budgets. They also note that VIs can attract strong engagement (likes and comments) and avoid human-endorser risks; when Tiger Woods' scandal broke, Accenture cut ties overnight. However, because influence depends on trust, we need clear disclosure: prominent in-frame and in-caption labels stating that the influencer is AI-generated and that the post is a paid partnership. Platforms should fix or remove flagged posts, age-gate minors within one to three days, and set realism rules. With these guardrails, brands can use VIs without eroding trust.
Use VIs—but only under these ground rules. Align campaigns with Gen Z's values and digital habits; done well, VIs can deepen engagement and spotlight social issues. Design avatars to reflect real body diversity and embrace flaws—for example, Brenn Gram, a plus-size Black model, was created to contrast with Shudu's idealised perfection. Clearly mark that the influencer is non-human; Miquela states she's an AI robot across her posts. Protect children: Keep under-13s outside targeting and placements. Maintain an audit trail of scripts, prompts, assets and approvals, with human sign-off before posting. Measure more than reach—track brand-lift, trust and complaint rates. Review results after a time-boxed pilot (for example, 12 weeks) and apply a clear go/no-go rule.
To summarise before the next reel drops: Say it's AI, paid, and who runs it. Team each avatar with a real creator. Keep children out. Fix bad posts fast—within three days. Do this, and you keep the magic and the trust. Skip it and expect boycotts, fines and followers who scroll past. As India meets its synthetic stars, let honesty be our motto.
This article is authored by Arpita Srivastava, associate professor, XLRI-Xavier School of management, Jamshedpur.