Not if, but where: how food brands are approaching AI production
AI has entered advertising production faster than most contracts, briefs, or strategies could keep up with. The question is no longer whether it’s being used. The question is where. That's what a new European study set out to map.
AI in advertising production 2026 is a 59-page report published by SPR, the Polish advertising producers' association, drawing on three data sources: a quantitative IQS study of 136 advertising professionals, 10 in-depth practitioner interviews, and written commentaries from 15 industry experts. It's the first study of this scope on AI in production published anywhere in Europe. Bites Production Hub was among the contributors: CEO Jakub Laskus co-led the project and authored the report’s section on food content production.
What the data shows isn't a rejection of AI. It's something more specific: a market actively working out which content belongs where.
Two numbers, one gap
76% of respondents had already worked with AI in advertising production. That's a high number for a technology that was barely production-ready two years ago. But ask whether AI belongs in brand image campaigns, and only 23% say yes.
That gap is the actual story. Widespread experimentation, selective acceptance. The industry has adopted AI broadly for pre-production research, moodboards, background generation, and content scaling, while drawing a clear line around content that sits close to brand identity.
Where food content draws the line
In most production categories, AI adoption is moving fast and in one direction. Food content is the exception, not because the technology isn't there, but because brands are making a different calculation.
Jakub Laskus puts it precisely in his expert commentary:
"The closer to the brand promise, the less AI in the brief."
For food specifically, the numbers are telling. The combined food and beauty category shows 64% acceptance, but he notes that beauty is likely pulling that figure up significantly, meaning food alone sits lower. This isn't about the quality of AI production. It's about what's at stake when the output doesn't land right.
A deliberate choice, not a knowledge gap
The standard assumption in the industry is that hesitation around AI production reflects unfamiliarity: brands just need to see better results, or more case studies, and adoption will follow. The observation from the inside challenges that framing:
"In food content, there's a clear disconnect between growing AI capabilities and client decisions. Even though we offer camera production, hybrid, and full AI, most of our clients choose camera. It's not a matter of lacking options, or just uncertainty about how it will come across in AI. It's a deliberate brand decision."
— Jakub Laskus, CEO, Bites Production Hub
Brands that have seen what AI can do are still making this choice.
Camera production is changing too
One of the points in the commentary is that camera production itself has already transformed, and not because of AI.
"Camera production is also changing, moving away from a single story and a single hero toward content systems. One shoot day is now planned as a source of dozens of variants for different formats and channels. That change doesn't come from AI. It comes from the changing media demands of marketers. And it, not AI itself, is what's changing food briefs most fundamentally today. AI becomes an effective tool for scaling that content."
— Jakub Laskus, CEO, Bites Production Hub
The real structural shift from campaign thinking to content-system thinking was already underway. AI accelerates and enables parts of that system, particularly at the scaling end. But the flagship, brand-close production stays camera. This isn't resistance to change; it's an evolved production model where different tools serve different functions.
The divide that's coming
The forecast from the report is direct:
"The weight of food content production will shift toward generative content, but strong brands, sensitive to consumer perception, will stay with camera production longer than today's industry conversation suggests. The divide won't run along budget lines. It will run along the brand's relationship with its consumer."
— Jakub Laskus, CEO, Bites Production Hub
Budget-based predictions miss the point for a significant part of the market. For brands where consumer trust is a core asset, the question isn't whether AI is affordable or capable. It's whether the brand can afford to misjudge consumer perception.
The brands where that risk is real will move toward AI on their own timeline, and on their own terms.
The bigger picture
87% of respondents have no formal AI strategy. 13% do. 92% cite legal uncertainty as a barrier, a number that the AI Act entering full effect in August 2026 will partially address but won't resolve overnight.
The industry is experimenting widely and planning minimally. The practical outcome is exactly what the report describes: high adoption in low-risk contexts, caution around brand-critical content, and a lot of decisions being made project by project rather than by policy.
The question isn't whether AI belongs in food production. It already does, in meaningful ways. The question is which work it belongs in, and that answer is different for every brand.
The full report is available in Polish through SPR. Bites Production Hub contributed expertise to the report as part of the SPR expert group.