Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is changing how work is organized and performed. Real estate marketing is a prime example of this, yet evidence of GenAI in real estate agents' day-to-day practice remains scarce. In this work, we report on our insights from a German-based empirical study with eleven semi-structured interviews. GenAI is already utilized across different activities, with marketing communication being the most prominent. Concrete use cases are emergent and unevenly adopted, with writing expos'e texts being the only widely established one. Interaction is predominantly human-in-the-loop: GenAI drafts, structures, and retrieves, while real estate agents curate, verify, and decide. Constraints stem less from model capability than from integration with listings and documents, data availability, and compliance in sensitive tasks. The study contributes a grounded map of existing and potential use cases and identifies tentative practical implications for adoption.
Generative artificial intelligence changes how firms reach customers, but standard marketing data do not record how often users see and notice a firm's name in generated answers. We develop Generative Marketing Mix Modeling (GMMM) to estimate the causal effects of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and Generative Engine Marketing (GEM). For GEO, GMMM combines repeated generated answers with question counts, shares of use across generative systems, and notice probabilities. For GEM, it combines records of sponsored placements with notice probabilities. GMMM compares expected business responses under alternative treatment sequences and establishes sufficient conditions for identifying the resulting effects. We investigate the empirical performance of the proposed method using simulated answers to product recommendation in English and Japanese.
Marketers now deploy generative AI agents as synthetic consumers to pretest visual assets such as logos, packaging, and advertising at a fraction of human-panel cost. However, this procedure assumes that a model seeing a visual cue can also perceive its consumer meaning, which is largely untested. We stress-test the assumption using six canonical visual marketing experiments, varying the two levers managers control: model generation (GPT-4o-mini vs. GPT-5.4-mini) and input format (plain text vs. JSON). Every resulting configuration passed the manipulation checks; however, none of the configurations reproduced more than two of the six human effects, and the remainder were nonsignificant. The one exception was a significant reversal of the human pattern. Providing conceptual or empirical evidence through in-context learning steers average responses toward the human effect. Yet steering has a limit: even when it succeeds, a configuration reproduces less than half of the natural spread of human responses and so understates consumer heterogeneity. We integrate these results into an AI governance protocol (Calibrate, Intervene, Deploy) that delineates when synthetic consumers can responsibly screen creatives and when human panels remain necessary.
Generative AI systems achieve impressive performance on standard benchmarks yet fail to deliver real-world utility, a disconnect we identify across 28 deployment cases spanning education, healthcare, software engineering, and law. We argue that this benchmark utility gap arises from three recurring failures in evaluation practice: proxy displacement, temporal collapse, and distributional concealment. Motivated by these observations, we argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories. Existing evaluations primarily characterize properties of model outputs, while deployment success depends on whether interaction with AI improves stakeholders' ability to achieve their goals over time. The missing construct is therefore utility: the change in a stakeholder's capability induced through sustained interaction with an AI system within a deployment context. To operationalize this perspective, we propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement. To make these stages practically deployable, we introduce three supporting instruments: structured deployment protocols, context-conditioned user simulators, and persona- and goal-conditioned proxy metrics. We conclude with domain-specific calls to action, arguing that progress in generative AI must be evaluated through measurable improvements in human outcomes rather than benchmark performance alone.