Imagine you're taste-testing wine with a friend who has no sense of smell. They can see the color, read the label, and tell you the glass is full — they pass every surface-level check. But ask them whether the Burgundy evokes leather or cherry, and their answers are coin flips. That's the gap this paper exposes between an LLM seeing a visual marketing stimulus and actually perceiving its consumer meaning. The committed claim: generative AI agents deployed as synthetic consumer panels systematically fail to reproduce known human perceptual effects in visual marketing, even when they ace manipulation checks. Tsai and Lai stress-test this with six preregistered experiments drawn from canonical visual marketing research — logo shape, packaging color, ad imagery — varying two levers that practitioners actually control: model generation (GPT-4o-mini vs. GPT-5.4-mini) and input format (plain text vs. JSON). Every configuration passed the manipulation checks, meaning the models correctly identified what they were looking at. But no configuration reproduced more than two of the six human effects. One configuration produced a statistically significant reversal of the human pattern. The architecture here is straightforward: the authors treat OpenAI's chat-completion API as a simulated survey instrument, feeding visual stimuli (described textually or as structured JSON) to the model and collecting Likert-scale or categorical responses across hundreds of synthetic "respondents" per condition. This is the standard synthetic-consumer pipeline that marketing teams are already deploying in production. The paper doesn't propose a new method — it audits the method everyone is already using, which is more valuable. The most interesting finding is the ceiling on in-context learning (ICL) as a repair mechanism. When the authors provide conceptual definitions or empirical evidence from prior studies as context, average synthetic responses shift toward human means. Steering works on the mean. But even when ICL succeeds, synthetic populations reproduce less than half the natural spread of human responses. The variance is crushed. For a marketer trying to understand whether a packaging redesign will alienate a consumer segment, the mean is not the point — the tails are. A synthetic panel that says "average consumers will like this" while hiding that 30% of real consumers would hate it is worse than no panel at all. Integrity is the paper's strongest suit. All six studies were preregistered on AsPredicted before data collection. The human baselines come from published, replicated visual marketing experiments — not bespoke benchmarks chosen to make LLMs look bad. The paper runs 58 pages with 18 figures and 25 tables, including a 23-page appendix with full prompt templates and supplementary analyses. This is an audit paper that takes the audit seriously. The authors distill their findings into a three-stage governance protocol — Calibrate, Intervene, Deploy (CID) — that gives practitioners a decision tree: run a small human calibration study first, apply ICL steering if the synthetic panel misses, and deploy synthetic screening only for effects where calibration confirms alignment. It's sensible but also an implicit admission that synthetic consumers cannot be trusted as drop-in replacements. The protocol's real message is: you still need human panels for anything where heterogeneity matters, which is most of marketing. The gap this paper leaves open is modality. All stimuli were delivered as text descriptions or JSON, not as actual images processed through the model's vision encoder. GPT-4o and GPT-5.4 both have vision capabilities, and the obvious next experiment is whether feeding the actual logo or package image — rather than a textual description — closes the perception gap. The authors don't run this, and the honest read is that it's either (a) a deliberate methodological choice to isolate conceptual processing from visual processing, or (b) they're saving it for the next paper. Either way, it's the experiment the field needs next.
