[HN Gopher] Pomelli
___________________________________________________________________
Pomelli
https://labs.google.com/pomelli/about/
Author : birriel
Score : 259 points
Date : 2025-11-01 23:09 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Link goes to a page with a minimal hint and a video.
|
| Their blog post has some detail:
| https://blog.google/technology/google-labs/pomelli/
|
| Kagi said the "Key features and functionalities of Pomelli
| include: Content Generation: Pomelli can
| generate various marketing assets such as social posts
| and ad creatives by analyzing a company's website to
| understand its brand identity Brand DNA: The
| tool builds a "Business DNA" from a company's website to
| ensure generated content is consistent with the brand's identity
| Campaign Creation: It aims to generate entire on-brand marketing
| campaigns with minimal user input Editable Assets:
| The generated campaign assets are editable Canva
| Alternative: Pomelli is positioned as a competitor to
| design tools like Canva"
| echelon wrote:
| Is Google going to put all of its API users out of business?
|
| Seems like Google will kill a whole bunch of SaaS companies
| with this.
| emmelaich wrote:
| I've heard of a little cost cutting at Canva. Some point to a
| possible IPO next year. But also I wonder if AI generally and
| products like this are causing increased competition.
| dang wrote:
| OK, we'll put that link at the top and
| https://labs.google.com/pomelli/about/ in the toptext. Thanks!
| Avicebron wrote:
| [edit: there is a bug] where it doesn't render LaTeX from the
| scraped website when injecting it into the campaign materials..
| ugh123 wrote:
| Sounds like a bug?
| nomilk wrote:
| 2 min tl;dr video by Culture Kings (streetwear brand) founder
|
| https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17L3FKCBbf/
| unangst wrote:
| "Pomelli is desktop only for now. Please switch to a computer to
| continue." It would be nice if there was at least a screenshot
| for mobile users so they could determine if this was actually
| worth a second visit.
| skoskie wrote:
| There's a video right on the landing page that shows it in use.
| Played fine on mobile for me.
|
| But to answer the question, it looks a lot like a Canva
| competitor.
| echelon wrote:
| AI is going to kill Canva, Figma, and Adobe. Without a doubt.
|
| Nano Banana alone obsoleted all of Photoshop. (And the
| Chinese versions of Nano Banana are even better!)
|
| I'm most worried for my friends in creative though. I have
| some extremely talented friends at WPP and other agencies.
| Everyone is shaking in their boots.
|
| Nobody's buying ads because of the economy, then these tools
| are nipping at their heels. They've already had one massive
| round of layoffs, and there's another one supposedly
| happening early next year.
|
| Where are these millions of people going to go? These are six
| figure income earners.
|
| There are five million marketing professionals in the US. If
| half of them lose their jobs, then what? What's lined up for
| them after this?
|
| If AI fails, the economy goes boom.
|
| If AI succeeds, the economy goes ... bigger boom?
|
| I used to think the tools would wind up creating more work,
| especially in narrative creative work. Outside of A24 and
| indie/foreign films, Hollywood is so trite. These models drop
| Pixar/Disney VFX into the hands of every YouTuber - and that
| could be really cool when used by the right people. Like the
| Corridor Crew folks.
|
| Maybe gaming and media will see a boost, but advertising and
| marketing folks are really going to get hit hard.
| wizzledonker wrote:
| The reason most creative media is good is because you see
| the _vision_ of a creative team or individual.
|
| If the _vision_ is diluted due to lack of control afforded
| by AI tools, then the tools won't be used.
|
| Many times in Hollywood have we seen directors spend
| _unjustifiable_ amounts of money in the pursuit of creative
| control.
|
| Hand camera tracking a dinosaur in Jurassic Park,
| developing a novel diffraction algorithm for THE ABYSS,
| hand-drawing 3-Dimensional computer animations for 2001,
| creating an entire scale model practically for a single
| fight scene in LOTR.
|
| AI allows you to get _anything_. The best movies are a
| direct reflection of a _particular vision_. AI can't
| provide this and I see no way to solve it.
|
| A natural response is - well directors already outsource
| some creative control to VFX artists so why not to a
| machine instead.
|
| Because an artist _can_ control everything. Even if the
| artist is prompting a model, at the end of the day an
| artist can drill right down to the tooling itself
| (photoshop for example) and exactly achieve the vision.
|
| I don't see AI achieving this granularity _while
| maintaining its utility_. It's a sliding scale of trading
| utility as a time saving device for control.
|
| If you lean too far to the control side, well you might as
| well fire up photoshop. If you lean too much to the utility
| side, you sacrifice creative control.
|
| When looked at under this lens the utility of AI generation
| is actually limited as it solves a non existent problem.
| One can think of it as an additional piece of tooling for
| use only as a generational tool where there is less need
| for control, such as for background characters.
|
| The team at Red Barrels, for example, train a local model
| on their own artwork to automatically generate variant
| textures for map generation. Things such as this. No need
| to be doom and gloom about this stuff.
| echelon wrote:
| > lack of control afforded by AI
|
| You should look at ComfyUI.
|
| Control is here, it's just not widely distributed or easy
| to use.
|
| If you're patient, you can fully control the set,
| blocking, angles. You can position your characters,
| relight them, precisely control props, etc. You have
| unlimited control over everything. It's just a mess right
| now.
| goshx wrote:
| > and Adobe
|
| Have you seen their announcements during Adobe Max? The AI
| features are mind blowing. Adobe is alive and well.
| bigiain wrote:
| > Adobe is alive and well.
|
| I wonder.
|
| They're doing well with their existing customer base of
| digital creatives and related industries/professions.
|
| Who may all be the buggy whip makers of the late 2020's.
|
| Way too many of the people/companies who traditionally
| paid highly skilled and creative Photoshop users are
| rapidly moving away from doing that in favour of cheap
| GenAI slop.
|
| I'm sure there are people in graphic design,
| illustration, videography, photography, UI/UX, 3D art,
| augmented reality, social media, creativity and design,
| collaboration and productivity, and education who are
| super excited about what Adobe is doing. I'm also sure
| almost all of those people are very concerned about their
| career choice and future (or are ignoring the reality of
| what's going on around them).
|
| Sure, the top graphic designers in the world will still
| earn great money being highly creative for key clients.
| But the vast majority of people in those fields are not
| the top in their field, and the vast majority of clients
| those people invoice are going to consider cheap AI slop
| "good enough" for their businesses and use cases.
|
| I have a 30+ year career in web related roles, working
| more or less closely with graphic designers, artists,
| illustrators, photographers, and other website
| development related professions. All of the ones I've
| remained friends with over that time are either deeply
| concerned about their career future, or have already
| jumped ship and become nurses, carpenters, teachers,
| caregivers, and even priests and drug dealers...
| creato wrote:
| > All of the ones I've remained friends with over that
| time are either deeply concerned about their career
| future, or have already jumped ship and become nurses,
| carpenters, teachers, caregivers, and even priests and
| drug dealers...
|
| Aside from the last one, that kinda sounds like a win for
| society.
| echelon wrote:
| > The AI features are mind blowing.
|
| It doesn't look like they developed any models. The 3d
| relighting and 3d manipulation are all 3rd party models
| given a UI.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Dare I ask: who owns the IP to all the generated content? User?
| Google? Some complex arrangement governed by a 20-page ToS?
| userbinator wrote:
| AFAIK and this may have changed, but at least in the US, AI-
| generated content is not copyrightable so it's effectively
| public-domain.
| trenchpilgrim wrote:
| That's incorrect. Start at "legal framework" on kage 7:
| https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-
| Intell...
|
| The short version is the copyright office says it is possible
| works by creative human authors using AI tools are partially
| copyrightable in many cases.
| 0x62 wrote:
| It's not that any content created by AI is not copyrightable,
| it's that work created solely by AI without human input is
| probably not copyrightable.
|
| See also [1] mentioned in the framework linked by sibling
| comment, AI copyright is essentially a logical extension of
| this.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dis
| put...
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| I think in reality its very much still undecided law in most
| ways that practically matter and a lot of decisions will
| still be made based on the pay rates of the lawyers for the
| different parties involved.
|
| As a simple example, assume a specific LLM-based tool (like
| Google's own, or someone else's) happens to generate a social
| media mascot for you that looks a lot like the modern
| rendition of Mickey Mouse.
|
| Let's see how long that creation flies as public domain
| because it came out of an AI (that almost certainly consumed
| a giant amount of content produced by Disney as part of its
| training).
| thih9 wrote:
| Such content is already available. As an experiment I
| entered "zombie elsa" into google and I found some very
| disturbing youtube videos, e.g.:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M5urB3u4aRk .
|
| If you want a specific tool, here is Elsa with a cigarette
| generated using Midjourney and more:
| https://journeyaiart.com/tag/Elsa .
| galaxyLogic wrote:
| This is what I've been pondering, people are using Claude
| etc. to produce software. Do they think about this copyright
| issue at all? Basically whatever they produce with Claude
| should be not copyrightable.
|
| But what happens if they MIX some of their own code with AI-
| generated code, is that combination then their copyright?
| With such combined output it would be very difficult to
| determine which part was created by human, which by AI, and
| which by AI but slightly modified by human.
|
| In the domain of graphics the AI could put in some markers
| which tells the graphic is AI-generated, but with code that
| is probabaly not possible, code is code and can always be
| edited by humans.
|
| A separate question is that if I use Claude to generate some
| code but then stamp the output with my copyright notice, am I
| doing something illegal?
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Copyright or not, surely there's ToS that you're expected to
| just click through and not read.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| > Pomelli by Google Labs is currently not available in your
| region.
|
| xd
| logoji wrote:
| Same, do you think this will work with vpn?
| Razengan wrote:
| Fucking region gating in this day and age.
|
| Sometimes even with a US account some things flop when you try
| to use them while traveling. You'd think the richass CEOs
| travel a lot so they would notice this problem but then you
| realize they never use their own products and have meat
| intelligence do all their shit for them anyway.
| aatd86 wrote:
| xD you're delivery made me laugh. But I think it is a
| combination of getting the product out of the gates as fast
| as possible, test on the main market, and also deal with
| foreign currencies, legislation and pricing later.
| bigiain wrote:
| Suspicious-me is wondering how Google are going to treat AI
| generated marketing slop created using Pomelli differently to
| slop created with other tools (or even human created marketing
| content) in search ranking?
|
| If I were an EvilGoogle manager, I'd have an enshittification
| playbook complete with a timeline and KPIs/OKRs mapped out - and
| probably already linked to individual engineer's promotion/RIF
| futures.
|
| They know exactly who's using this tool and which company they're
| using it on behalf of.
|
| In the short term I'd have those companies webpages using Pomelli
| generated content to rank highly, and for advertising on those
| pages to show higher then usual clickthrough rates - and probably
| gradually downrank non-Pomelli pages on their sites. Once it
| becomes well known that Pomelli generated content genuinely
| generates more revenue that other options (even though that's
| only because Google have their thumb on the scale), everybody is
| going to jump on the gravy train, and a sub-industry of Pomelli
| consultancies/agencies will show up, like specialist SEO firms
| did way back.
|
| Gradually that new "Pomelli Content Optimisation" will capture a
| significant-enough slice of the web content generation pie, and
| Google will start to sell them "Pro" subscriptions and features,
| while at the same time reducing functionality and effectiveness
| of the tools individuals and end-user companies have access to -
| driving even more revenue into the PCO industry.
|
| Eventually, when enough companies are fundamentally reliant on
| external PCO vendors, Google will ramp up the pricing of their
| tools.
|
| (With any luck AGI will have turned us all into paperclips before
| that runbook plays out.)
| aster0id wrote:
| I doubt that the product folks over at Google overseeing an
| experimental project like this have such outsized influence
| over something core like the ads engine
| bigiain wrote:
| I'm feeling deeply cynical here. I wonder if the people at
| Google overseeing this experiment are from or also oversee
| the ads engine team?
| hhh wrote:
| sounds really illegal and unlikely
| ksenzee wrote:
| Illegal, yes.
| lysace wrote:
| They are going all in on tolerating third party AI slop on
| Youtube. That feels like an executive decision at this point.
|
| Guessing: because they have AI products in the pipeline that
| can create Youtube shorts or similar.
|
| This aspect will be interesting to watch.
|
| Edit: Youtube Premium should include an optional AI slop
| filter.
| blazespin wrote:
| the way it will work is ai slop will rank high, and pomelli
| will generate the best ai slop.
| Culonavirus wrote:
| Google _actually_ doesn 't give a single flying fuck about AI
| slop because they produce it themselves and believe AI slop
| will feed their quarters going forward.
|
| They sometimes pretend to care but not really. You can already
| stuff Google Merchant full of ai-generated slop images that
| have little to do with how an actual product looks like and
| that's something they could easily control if they wanted...
| but do they? Nah, they're going the other way, creating shit
| like Product Studio and that's just the beginning.
|
| Make no mistake, Google is going all in on slop - search, ads,
| youtube, merchant, workspace, cloud, everything
| realusername wrote:
| That's also my opinion, they didn't care about non-AI
| generated slop either before that so why would they now?
| mcny wrote:
| If they cared, it would be trivial to scan for and block
| ads on YouTube that literally say "I am Elon Musk. Click
| the link below to message my assistant to start making
| money. This is a special message only for you." With a
| badly deep faked video of Elon Musk.
| ryukoposting wrote:
| I doubt Pomelli would get ranked higher. Google biases ads to
| their highest spenders. The more you spend, the better your ads
| perform. Nobody using something like Pomelli is giving Google
| enough money to rank highly. They could outrank the very lowest
| spenders, namely scammers and dropshippers whose ads are
| already AI slop anyway. But, really, who cares?
| tuananh wrote:
| this will kill a bunch of startups.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| No matter how it pans out.
|
| If no one uses it, that means the market has proven, no
| audience for this kind of product. Google loses, everyone else
| loses.
|
| If everyone who wants this sort of thing uses it, that's it,
| Google won, everyone else loses.
|
| The outcome to sell to investors is the least believable:
| people will pay for some offering when a nearly identical one
| is available directly from Google for free. And anyway, they
| have the best generative creative tech, so how could anything
| be better than Google's?
| xyzal wrote:
| Bill Hicks would not mind
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdjQICcD-XA
| dennisy wrote:
| Yeah, I was thinking the same. Quite a few YC companies are
| going after this.
|
| What sort of market dynamics do people predict here, winner
| takes all? Especially when this is integrated into the
| platforms of distribution.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The AI start-up field is going to be eviscerated. I too have
| the irresistible urge to bolt a SOTA LLM back end on a custom
| harness and charge $20/mo, but the total lack of a moat and
| ease of replication kills any motivation.
|
| You have to either have some big cajones or be totally lost to
| think it's a good idea to create a startup that is just a
| simple cheap veil on someone else's extremely advanced and
| expensive product
| commenter8 wrote:
| Does anyone think the world is better with this in it?
| metacritic12 wrote:
| Honestly, I'm fine with Google doing it. If not them, then some
| regulatory arbitrage startup will do it with way more de-facto
| scam and fraud. Google is not some morale arbiter for the long
| arc of technology -- look at how they gatekept their LLM
| technology and got wrecked by the people who actually
| commericalized it: OpenAI.
| LPisGood wrote:
| They didn't gatekeep LLM technology; they published their
| results in the open.
| jrflowers wrote:
| I think when it comes to gatekeeping you are mixing up the
| organization that invented the basis for language models and
| gave it away for free with the one that does not release
| model weights because they're too spooky
| LPisGood wrote:
| For an ad tech company, this is both on brand and pretty cool.
| I'm an AI skeptic and I support this.
| nikodunk wrote:
| Hot take from an AI skeptic: between this, Nano Banana and
| generative AI integrated into Gmail for repetitive emails, I'm
| starting to actually use Google's AI for tasks I hate most.
|
| Google appears to have their AI product game together!
| rgblambda wrote:
| Seeing a lot of "I'm an AI skeptic and <insert praise for new
| Google product>" highly upvoted in this thread.
| wartywhoa23 wrote:
| Yes, that triggers my template detector as well.
| keiferski wrote:
| I've seen many small businesses do well on TikTok and Instagram
| by eschewing all fancy graphics and technology, and just talking
| into their phone's camera like a normal person. "Hey I'm Joe, I
| just opened a cafe down here. It's always been my dream, etc."
| The more quirky and human the video, the better it does.
|
| I know this new tool looks to be for static graphics; but I do
| think the same thing applies. Not using AI-generated polished
| graphics will become a differentiator.
| vasco wrote:
| Yes but those guys need their marketing to work. Most marketing
| people just need to spend a budget. For those guys now they can
| pump out infinite crap to spend their budget so that you
| rEMemBeR tHeM lATer.
| bko wrote:
| I think you might be seeing guys who do that well so it's a bit
| survivorship bias. For most, if you just record yourself
| talking for 1m and watch it back as a video it's incredibly
| painful and awkward. The filler words, tangents, weird pauses.
| It really made me have respect for great speakers
| keiferski wrote:
| No, I have seen plenty of awkward people talking about their
| new business. The awkwardness is inferior to charismatic
| speakers, for sure, but it's still better than generic AI
| slop marketing content.
| ojr wrote:
| I did this with youtube for a while but I have to swallow
| my pride, (AI thumbnail, engagement bait title, AI voice
| narration) is better than pure loom-like organic video for
| ads
| gretch wrote:
| All of those people have already pass through a filter of
| self-selection
|
| There's a person out there that's 1) knows how to bake
| amazing cookies 2) has no desire to record tik toks
|
| Why is that you need both of those things combined to have
| a successful cookie business? Can't we desire a world where
| just being good at baking cookies is good enough? You don't
| ALSO have to record a bunch of tik toks?
| sowbug wrote:
| Some products are so good they don't need marketing. Some
| marketing is so good it can sell a bad product. Most of
| the time you need both.
|
| Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis had a
| great product (idea): if doctors wash their hands, fewer
| of their patients will die. But his marketing
| (personality) was off-putting, and his ideas weren't
| accepted until after his death.
| awillen wrote:
| This works for the subset of people who have a good story or a
| real connection to their brand, but that's just not most
| businesses. I buy and operate e-commerce brands, and I can't do
| it both because I really don't want to be on camera and because
| "hey I bought this company that sells leather handle covers for
| cast iron pans, and I personally don't use them but the
| cashflow was good" is not so compelling as a message. Sometimes
| you just need messages that convey the value proposition of the
| brand. (And FWIW they are nice handle covers, I just prefer to
| use a kitchen towel to grab my cast iron.)
|
| That said, I think video generation is at the point where
| someone will probably develop a product that fakes the kinds of
| videos you're talking about in the near future.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Interesting. Do you feel like the values you're propagating
| into the world align with your own personal values?
|
| I know personally that if I recognized some kitchen apparatus
| or product is redundant, and a something I already own such
| as a rag will do, I couldn't in good conscious perpetuate
| what I see as needless consumerism just to put another dollar
| in my wallet.
|
| Basically, if I couldn't get on tiktok and make an earnest
| video about why what I'm selling is useful and worth
| existing, and why it personally matters to me, I don't think
| I could sell that product in good conscience. Even if the
| customer truly thinks it's a great product, if I recognize
| the inherent waste and redundancy, I just can't buy into it.
|
| I just always think about the chapter in Fight Club when the
| narrator's house blows up:
|
| "You buy furniture. You tell yourself, this is the last sofa
| I will ever need in my life. Buy the sofa, then for a couple
| years you're satisfied that no matter what goes wrong, at
| least you've got your sofa issue handled. Then the right set
| of dishes. Then the perfect bed. The drapes. The rug. Then
| you're trapped in your lovely nest, and the things you used
| to own, now they own you."
| overfeed wrote:
| > Do you feel like the values you're propagating into the
| world align with your own personal values?
|
| > Basically, if I couldn't get on tiktok and make an
| earnest video about why what I'm selling is useful and
| worth existing, and why it personally matters to me, I
| don't think I could sell that product in good conscience.
|
| Have you ever involuntarily gone to bed hungry even once in
| your life?
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Yes. I was homeless from 16 to 22. Both of my parents
| were drug addicts, in and out of jail/prison. I don't
| speak to anyone in my family, because they side with my
| extremely abusive grandfather, who raised me and
| frequently savagely beat me for not sharing his extremist
| Christian values. Until very recently, I had an extremely
| thin social support network.
|
| I was awarded a full-ride scholarship to multiple state
| institutions after high school due to high test scores,
| but a vindictive teacher illegally altered my grade last-
| minute because I stood up to her for my peers, and
| disqualified me from being eligible. I was still 17,
| attending high school on my own, homeless, and had no
| parents to push back, and no money for summer remedial
| courses.
|
| I couldn't apply for government aid because my mother was
| committing tax fraud by claiming me as a dependent
| despite not providing me a home or resources, and refused
| to help. There was no economic opportunity in my rural
| town and I didn't have a car, so I proceeded to struggle
| for years, scraping by, risking my freedom, while I
| rounded out my skill set to become employable in tech
| despite not attending college.
|
| I've gone much longer than a day feeling hungry. Feeling
| starving. Feeling my muscles eat themselves and my face
| and jaw tighten from lack of nutrients. Friends in high
| school used to make fun of me for looking emaciated. I
| was a vulture, eating anything I could find, frequently
| stealing food to make up for an insatiable appetite. Now
| I have the opposite problem because of metabolism changes
| after years of malnutrition, and sometimes struggle with
| stress-related eating disorders.
|
| I'm going to do you the favor and not make such asinine
| implications about your own background.
| overfeed wrote:
| > I was a vulture, eating anything I could find,
| frequently stealing food to make up for an insatiable
| appetite.
|
| Now I'm even more confused because you experienced this
| first hand but can't imagine how someone can engage in
| practices that have nothing to.do with personal values to
| keep their families fed and sheltered.
|
| > I'm going to do you the favor and not make such asinine
| implications about your own background.
|
| Weren't you just shaming someone whose personal beliefs
| and background you don't know just 2 comments upstream?
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Can you point out when I shamed them?
|
| I asked them a question and presented my own perspective
| and motivations for asking the question. They followed
| up, and I have responded. I see nothing wrong with
| discussing socioeconomics on Hacker News. Maybe instead
| of being negative, making insinuations and accusing me of
| shaming someone, you could just provide your own
| perspective, which I'd be happy to engage with.
|
| > Now I'm even more confused because you experienced this
| first hand but can't imagine how someone can engage in
| practices that have nothing to.do with personal values to
| keep their families fed and sheltered.
|
| Principles are principles. I live and die by them. I'm
| not perfect, but it's the thing I try to maintain that
| separates me from those who have contributed to the
| suffering in my life. I don't expect everyone to
| understand this.
|
| I'm not religious, but I do have a patron saint, Joan of
| Arc. She was burned at the stake at 17 for refusing to
| bow to the Church. I haven't been killed for my beliefs,
| but there were definitely times I feared that I would be.
| I have suffered immense abuse for standing by my
| principles, when most would have caved.
|
| I'm not asking anyone else here to hold to my standards,
| but I do have my own standards and the nature of growth
| involves finding chances to challenge them.
| awillen wrote:
| I would say a couple of things:
|
| 1. Just because I don't use something doesn't mean that I
| think it shouldn't exist or be sold. People can make their
| own choices. A product isn't bad or useless or unnecessary
| because it doesn't align with my preferences. I'm fine with
| people being able to make their own choices about what they
| buy. Also, I generally don't think people should have to
| live a totally ascetic lifestyle. I have three monitors -
| certainly redundant, but fine. I have art on my walls -
| could've gone without that. I have a dog who I buy toys and
| food for - not strictly necessary. These things are all
| more than fine in my book.
|
| 2. There are other reasons to be in business besides deeply
| caring about the business itself. The biggest benefit to
| this business is that it doesn't require a lot of day-to-
| day work, and I can do that work whenever I want. That
| means I can almost always be there for my kids. That's what
| matters to me. I would take a job that I don't particularly
| care about that lets me put them first over one that I'm
| deeply passionate about that takes them away from me any
| time.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Thank you for sharing your perspective. I do agree that
| we don't need to extremify asceticism. I certainly own
| useless crap.
|
| I think I do specifically have a minimalist approach to
| kitchens inspired by setups such as hundred rabbits'
| https://100r.co/site/cooking.html plus I also am becoming
| increasingly concerned with my carbon footprint given the
| climate-related extinction event we are currently facing,
| and that probably strikes out personal promotion of any
| unneeded kitchenware.
|
| I'm curious about the economics of what you do, if you've
| ever written about it elsewhere.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| What you're talking about is the primary marketing collateral.
| But any good marketing campaign needs a ton of secondary or
| even tertiary marketing collateral
|
| The first "real video" you talked about is meant to grab
| attention and tell users, honestly, what the product is about
|
| But they're not customers - yet. They need to be reminded about
| your brand again and again
|
| You can't run the same video every time - for one, its
| repetitive. And for two, its disruptive on the wrong channels
|
| You will need static images and basic videos and even tweets
| across platforms to remarket to your audience
|
| That's where tools like this come in handy. You grabbed
| attention with the first video. But now you need to tell users
| that if they buy tomorrow, they get 15% off.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Just how many Gen ai products are they half assedly launching (in
| case of Google).
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| It's pretty bad. It generates mangled text and objects with bad
| proportions.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| On multiple levels; a snake eating its tail.
| wartywhoa23 wrote:
| May it gnaw itself down for good.
| vasco wrote:
| Now google can sell you the AI that will design the ads for you
| that you will pay Google to serve. So nice of them.
|
| Still waiting for the AI LLM based ad autobidder so that I can
| just plug a machine to Google and press the "give them all my
| money" button.
| camillomiller wrote:
| I've been thinking long and hard about how AI could disrupt the
| field of ads creative, because a significant part of my income is
| tied to motion design applied to html5 banner campaigns for large
| companies in Europe.
|
| What I see is that clients that invest in a campaign do not want
| to think about what an AI can produce. They don't want to
| interact or brief an AI, they don't want to do feedback rounds
| with an AI. They want a group of professionals that knows them to
| take over and do it all. If the professionals then use some AI
| for it, they mostly don't care.
|
| This is true so far for any campaign that allocates relevant
| funds (mid 5 figures and upwards). When it comes to the actual
| creation phase, right now AI is fundamentally immature and
| incapable of being controlled past the creation of static
| content.
|
| All the motion and animation part for example is still somehow
| terra incognita for these tools. Take Adobe Animate, which is the
| go-to tool for anything 2D-animation, or Google Web Designer.
| Zero AI-features, simply because you can't LLM frame by frame
| animations and have a result that is as precise as you need it.
| Or maybe you can, but for some reason these companies don't see a
| business case for allocating resources to this specific
| development.
|
| These tools can be great for smaller business that won't have
| access to large campaigns, but as someone else mentioned, why do
| that when hiring a working gen-z social media native student will
| cost you slightly more, and possibly perform 100-times better
| with their native social media aesthetic?
|
| Ps: Pomelli means door handles in Italian, and that's... weird?
| Feels like a name randomly regurgitated by an LLM as well.
| curiousgal wrote:
| I am genuinely surprised that people still get excited about
| Google announcing new products/services given their track record.
| Unless it's core to its businesss model, this will probably get
| axed in a couple of years.
| whoisthemachine wrote:
| Well, this does involve generating ads, so...
| jwr wrote:
| This is depressing. We are already meat in the google ad-serving
| machine that tracks us, profiles us, gives us "free" stuff
| (gmail, anyone?) in order to feed us advertising.
|
| Now even that advertising will be AI-generated. The human is
| reduced to the ultimate consumption machine, to be fed stuff paid
| for by advertisers and generated by machines.
| Culonavirus wrote:
| > The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine.
|
| Question is, if the AI bros are right about a "new industrial
| revolution", will there be consumers to consume if all the
| wealth is concentrated in the top 1-2% of the population? (the
| owners of AI hardware and software)
| ddalex wrote:
| I keep seeing this worry about "who will consume?!!?" This is
| entirely unfounded - the AI will develop its own marketplace
| and AI will consume.
|
| The question is, will be there anything left for humans to
| consume ? will we survive ?
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Buy acre of land, plant potatoes, raise chicken, pay your
| tithe to your landlord. People will survive, for sure. Not
| all of them, but enough.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| There won't be any such leases if machines can make more
| productive use of the land than a potato farmer.
| Thorrez wrote:
| Currently AI isn't allowed to own assets AFAIK.
| ddalex wrote:
| Of course they are allowed, they're called "corporations"
| because they have a "body" and legal rights.
|
| The datacenter is held by a corporation, and the
| corporation does what the resident AI wants it to do.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| If that happens it won't be the AI people who benefit. The
| wealth will be concentrated among the present capital owners.
| Even many top AI experts who contributed critical research
| won't become rich.
|
| You'll see the wealth concentration you talk of, but it'll be
| completely different people who get this wealth, maybe even
| people who own businesses where wages are a large outlay.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Question is, if the AI bros are right about a "new
| industrial revolution", will there be consumers to consume if
| all the wealth is concentrated in the top 1-2% of the
| population?_
|
| Who cares? That's two quarters away. What matters is that I
| got my Lambo and my speedboat today. Let the poors worry
| about the future.
| simianwords wrote:
| The answer is already in your question. The original
| Industrial Revolution concentrated wealth and yet increased
| the baseline wealth for everyone else.
|
| There is no reason to believe otherwise in this revolution.
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| Though for those of us above the current baseline (e.g.
| basically everyone reading this), it's not guaranteed that
| the new baseline will be above our current lifestyle.
| simianwords wrote:
| Why? Industrial Revolution increased everyone's baseline
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| If you're a software bro making $300k today, and lose
| your job to AI, it's very unlikely that the new baseline
| for everyone is going to be that of a $300k income. At
| least not anytime soon.
| simianwords wrote:
| sure but whatever mechanism allowed for jobs to exist a
| few years/decades after industrial revolution will apply
| here as well. with some jobs lost and chaos in the middle
| that is un-avoidable.
| overfeed wrote:
| This is why they are looking at government coffers with a
| hunger in their eyes. They don't care for the long term
| societal stability; the richest of them fantasize riding it
| out in their island bunkers.
| nkrisc wrote:
| People can choose to not consume crap they don't need. They
| won't, but they can.
|
| Advertising is now just worthless noise to me because I
| generally don't buy stuff anymore but what I need.
|
| I can't imagine why anyone would buy most of the crap I see
| advertised, but they do. Halloween was a recent example: how
| many tons of plastic shit for costumes was shipped from China
| only to be thrown away the next day? How much candy was bought?
| Even when I was 12 I started to see what a disgusting
| consumerist affair the whole thing was and it lost its appeal.
| And yet we have adults participating.
|
| The ad machine exists because people let it be successful.
| nashashmi wrote:
| > They won't, but they can.
|
| That is the problem with this advice. "Can choose not to" is
| code to stop someone complaining. "Just don't use it then".
| It sounds equivalent to the "love it or leave it" slogan used
| in the 70s in America.
|
| We don't leave. We fight. We don't stop using. We openly and
| publicly criticize
| lrvick wrote:
| Leaving it is the right choice though. The corpos will
| never care about you. I consume no ads, or Google software,
| and still do anything I want in the tech world.
| macintux wrote:
| I left Facebook, but its algorithm continues to actively
| encourage the divisiveness and misinformation that's
| poisoning the world I live in.
|
| Sometimes "you don't have to participate" isn't strong
| enough advice, not that I know what the answer actually
| is.
| FinnLobsien wrote:
| Would you make the same argument for smoking?
|
| I think we're in a world so dominated by the attention
| economy and things optimized to hook us in that it's hard to
| just say "I quit".
| realusername wrote:
| Personally I'm okay with that as it weakens the argument that
| ads are content, a dubious argument often used by ad companies.
| mcny wrote:
| I wonder if these ads will still be called "creatives".
| realusername wrote:
| I'm sure they will, this industry is completely delusional
| and out of touch with reality
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| One of the best arguments in favor of ads is that high-
| quality ads act as an honest/credible signal that a firm is a
| serious business offering a serious product. Through making
| the production of high-quality ads cheap, people who are
| truly passionate about their small business will be
| "disrupted", and scammers/fly-by-night operations will be
| "supercharged".
| bko wrote:
| I don't know, I feel like it will help smaller businesses
| without a budget for a designer or even design taste compete
| with larger companies.
|
| Maybe that's good and maybe not. But big brands always had this
| splashy advertising, so this evens the field
| Retr0id wrote:
| Is this really aimed at the smaller businesses, or is it
| aimed at the big businesses who want to cut down their
| marketing department?
| rafaelmn wrote:
| Thing is at that scale cutting down on marketing with slop
| has huge implications. It's not like this thing blew he
| ceiling, it just lifted the floor.
| bko wrote:
| Obviously both parties will have access to the tech, but I
| don't see giant brands just using something like this to
| hack an ad campaign. Either way it doesn't really matter.
| It just levels the playing field
| Retr0id wrote:
| The first time I saw an AI-generated ad was Coca Cola's
| 2024 xmas ad.
| mbreese wrote:
| That's where I stay to see some benefits. Will AI ads (or
| media) be better than an expert human made ad campaign?
| Not at the moment.
|
| But can a small business use AI tools to make a better ad
| for their smaller budget? Probably.
|
| I was thinking about this in the context of some videos
| posted here a few weeks back. They were AI generated
| video shorts. They weren't fabulous, but they were funny
| and entertaining. There was a small writing team behind
| it that was able to produce solid video content that
| would have been way out of their budget just a few years
| ago. But with AI tools they were able to get their ideas
| made and content available.
|
| That's where I start to struggle... I'm not a fan of pure
| AI content, but if it helps smaller teams on smaller
| budgets compete a little more, or helps individual
| creators get to tell their story when they otherwise
| couldn't, is AI content completely wrong?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Giant _companies_ don 't use do ad campaigns anyway. They
| hire _ad agencies_ , which themselves may hire _smaller
| ad agencies or consultants_ , and those are more than
| happy to innovate and improvise using whatever trick can
| come across.
|
| Note, I said _companies_ , because _brands_ at this point
| are merely labels, most of them throwaway; big companies
| use them the same way small companies do, including to
| run fly-by-night scams on burner brands. They 're more
| than happy to delegate it to smaller agencies, too.
|
| Point being: there's not much correlation between
| branding, ownership structure, and what advertising
| techniques can be applied by what organizations.
| awillen wrote:
| I tried this out, and the stuff it produces is just simple
| text overlaid nicely on images you supply. If you have a
| designer, it'd take 60 seconds to knock one of these out,
| plus you'd already have a style guide that this app
| wouldn't follow closely enough to use. This is definitely
| for small businesses.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Advertising is a negative sum game[0]. Helping smaller
| businesses without budget compete with larger companies on
| advertising is just contributing to making life worse for
| everyone.
|
| There's no evening the field, only deepening the muck.
| There's no persistent advantage possible here, because
| whatever new cool thing a small business can do, a large
| business can do more of it and better
|
| --
|
| [0] - It's a zero-sum game in the sense that everyone's
| effort only serves to cancel out the effort of their
| competitors, but it's hugely negative to society in absolute
| terms, because all that effort _burns labor and natural
| resources_.
| ErroneousBosh wrote:
| A Modest Proposal:
|
| We set all our servers to listen on port 4443, and walk away
| from the whole sorry mess.
|
| Make it all again from scratch. Block whole swathes of IP
| ranges known to belong to FAANG.
| dennisy wrote:
| Lots of startups are launching in this space. Creating ad copy
| and assets is obviously a hot idea.
|
| I would love to hear what people's takes on the market dynamics
| are, especially if any of the YC founders working in this space
| see this!
| Oarch wrote:
| I'm so dead do all this generic hype lexicon: unlock,
| supercharge, revamp, disrupt etc, etc.
| exasperaited wrote:
| Everything about this, and I mean everything, makes me want to
| vomit.
|
| I'm so glad we're all in this Faustian nightmare together,
| because as it all goes wrong we'll have a clear incentive to band
| together and help each other, right? Just like a lot of little
| Fausts would do.
| jmkni wrote:
| Tried to run it a couple of times against our website and it
| failed every time -\\_(tsu)_/-
| dmje wrote:
| The whole (original) premise of social media was "let's make a
| more human side of our business so that people can connect with
| us". Now we've come full circle where the robots are making all
| the social content and increasingly the robots are the ones
| consuming it too.
|
| Weird, uncanny valley times. And, FWIW, not times I want anything
| to do with, hence why I've been off all social media for years
| now...
| rgblambda wrote:
| Hacker News is social media too.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I'd rather spend $50 on Fiverr and get human generated content.
| Aldipower wrote:
| It really does not help me as a small business if Pomelli creates
| (shitty) AI content, but does not open the gates to actually
| reach people/customers.
|
| From the article: "..like your social media, your site and your
| ads..."
|
| I failed with my platform in the sense of online marketing.
| Although the platform itself did not fail, it has a solid user-
| base, but not enough reach to make a living from it.
|
| Why did I fail from a marketing perspective? Because my social
| media, blog, ad words, etc. all do not have enough reach! The
| human made content itself is good and never was the problem.
| Reach it is!
|
| This tool would not solve my problems.
| neom wrote:
| Do you know how reach happens though? Because if you don't, I
| suppose you wouldn't know if this tool was appropriate or not?
| (not saying that to be rude btw, just sayin!)
| Aldipower wrote:
| This tool is a content generator. It does not create reach.
| So I think I do not get your question? If you read the
| Pomelli article it states in the first sentences that Pomelli
| will help small businesses by creating campaigns. "Pomelli is
| an AI marketing tool designed to help SMBs more easily
| generate scalable, on-brand social media campaigns to help
| grow their businesses." But my point is, those campaigns are
| useless, if you do not have reach already. So, Pomelli does
| actually not help small business as they are stating, but
| instead is wasting your time and money, because you will end
| up in buying some ad words from Google.
| neom wrote:
| Content is a component of reach.
|
| Reach happens through channel marketing virally, virally
| typical happens via novelty.
|
| Creative humans can use any tool to execute reach, this
| particular tool seems it would be a good one for that, in
| fact.
| Aldipower wrote:
| Yes, content is _one_ component of reach, but without
| reach useless. And good content does not lead
| automatically to reach. Reach is developed by a lot of
| factors, channel marketing is also only one _minor_
| factor of it. This tool does not help significantly with
| building all of that reputation you need to be trusted
| and gaining reach. It can't, because it does not create
| new channels and connections between humans.
| neom wrote:
| With all due respect, this is simply a tool for creating
| content, one component of being able to reach people in
| channels where they consume your novel and interesting
| messages that both stand out and are shared, such they
| are aware of your amazing and unique product or service.
|
| It's not correct in business to blame a tool for a lack
| of creativity, some people are not very creative, those
| people tend to struggle with reach and therefore their
| attempt at a business, fails. I built 2 publicly traded
| businesses this way.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| The company that is responsible for filling the Internet with
| junk is just going to help fill the Internet with even junk crap.
| Who would have thought about that?
| neom wrote:
| Probably good for mom and pop shops, and super useful for someone
| who has a couple of restaurant locations or a few small grocery
| stores. I know a lot of places don't update their IG or whatever
| with specials for the week or basically anything because it's
| time and effort, if someone was running a campaign for a week of
| say a free side with a burger, but wanted to do a different side
| every day you could pick for free, you could churn stuff like
| that out super fast with this.
|
| I tried it. I used it first for my stuff and thought wow I'd
| never use this for my stuff, but my stuff isn't a mom and pop
| burger joint with the kids working on weekend etc, I will show it
| to the lady who has the pho shop next door, maybe she will update
| her IG with her specials more often than "whenever I remember".
| Atomic_Torrfisk wrote:
| This is just going to breed mistrust, possibly end up hurting
| businesses. Generally speaking, there are two categories of
| marketing when it comes to the products I buy.
|
| The first is the quality mass produced products like laptops,
| cereals, frozen pizzas, etc which have enough revenue that they
| can hire human marketing to come up with unique content,
| packaging and ads. The other category, is _high_ quality locally
| produced goods, like cheese, meats, and some clothing (for
| example) which do not have enough revenue to hire dedicated
| marketing staff, but instead use informal marketing. Marketing
| beyond simple ads in the later case barely matters since there is
| a lot of trust that the product is quality.
|
| Now there are a lot of garbage products out there, mostly from
| dollar/discount shops, drop shippers, online shops, and sometimes
| supermarkets. Margins on these cheap products is usually thin, so
| if they can save a few bucks with Pomelli they will probably use
| it.
|
| I'd argue that most people today have become very sensitive and
| well trained to sniff out poor quality products, its easy to get
| ripped off. Cues of poor quality could be the design of the
| packaging including language and fonts, the weight and feel of
| the product or the brand name when it comes to amazon products
| sold by Mosptnspg, DSPEAE , Sdarming or whatever lol.
|
| Is the cue to poor quality not going to become Pomelli-style
| designs? People are already sensitizing themselves to genAI
| content, and Pomelli is unlikely to produce designs time after
| time again which are unique enough to bypass a good eye.
| cmoski wrote:
| I didn't see anywhere on the page the date when they plan to kill
| the product...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-02 23:01 UTC)