When Coca-Cola Tried to Automate Christmas Magic

So Coca-Cola decided to remake their iconic 1995 Christmas commercial using artificial intelligence. And judging by the internet's reaction, they might as well have announced they were replacing Santa with a chatbot.

The thing is, I understand the temptation. AI is everywhere right now. It's fast, it's efficient, and it probably doesn't argue in meetings. But somewhere between "this could save money" and "let's hit publish," someone should have asked whether we actually needed a computer-generated version of something people already loved.

THE RECIPE FOR DIGITAL DISASTER

What we got instead was an ad created by three AI studios using four different generative models, featuring anthropomorphic animals with weird lip-syncing and a Santa that looks like he's questioning his life choices. The whole thing feels like watching someone try to explain a joke they didn't quite understand in the first place.

Here's where it gets really fun. They tagged this masterpiece with "Real Magic" while simultaneously slapping a disclaimer at the end that basically says "made by robots." That's some impressive cognitive dissonance right there. Like calling something "authentic Italian cuisine" and then admitting you got it from a vending machine.

WHEN MORE BECOMES LESS

The numbers are even better. Apparently, over 100 people worked on this campaign, generating more than 70,000 prompts to get the final result. Seventy thousand attempts. If you need that many tries to create a 60-second ad, maybe the technology isn't quite ready for prime time. Or maybe the entire approach is fundamentally flawed.

Because what Coca-Cola seems to have missed is this: people don't love holiday ads because of the production technique. They love them because of how those ads make them feel. And you can't prompt-engineer your way into genuine emotion. You can't run sentiment through an algorithm and expect warmth to come out the other side.

THE HUMAN ELEMENT NOBODY ASKED TO REMOVE

The original 1995 commercial worked because real people made creative decisions based on understanding what Christmas means to other real people. They knew when to linger on a shot, when to cut away, how to build anticipation. The AI version looks at all that nuance and goes, "Got it, I'll just make everything sparkle and call it done."

What's really interesting is the ad initially tested incredibly well with consumers, scoring a perfect 5.9 out of 6 in emotional response testing. People liked it just fine until they found out AI made it. Then suddenly the same footage that scored perfectly became soulless and empty. Context changed everything.

WHY CONTEXT KILLS THE COMEBACK

And that should tell you something important about where we are with this technology. The problem isn't just the output. The problem is what the choice to use AI represents. When you pick automation over artists for a holiday campaign, you're making a statement about priorities. You're saying efficiency matters more than craft. Speed matters more than soul.

The backlash wasn't really about whether the ad looked good enough. Critics pointed out that using AI for a Christmas campaign felt particularly tone-deaf because the holidays are fundamentally about human connection. You can't automate nostalgia. You can't generate the feeling of watching those red trucks roll through town when you were seven years old, hot chocolate in hand, believing magic was real.

WHAT GETS LOST IN TRANSLATION

AI can replicate patterns. It can analyze what worked before and produce something technically similar. But it can't tell you why something worked. It doesn't understand the difference between Christmas magic and Christmas content. It can't feel the weight of tradition or know when messing with something beloved requires extra care.

Coca-Cola could have used AI differently. They could have let it handle the tedious parts while humans focused on the creative decisions that actually matter. Instead, they handed the whole operation over and seemed genuinely surprised when people noticed the difference between art and imitation.

THE REAL COST OF CUTTING CORNERS

What's at stake here goes beyond one campaign. We're watching brands decide what creative work means going forward. Are we measuring success by how many prompts we used? By how quickly we shipped something? Or are we still asking whether what we made actually matters to anyone?

Because AI is a tool. A very powerful tool, sure. But tools are only as good as the people using them and the problems they're solving. Using AI to recreate something that was successful specifically because of its humanity is like using a calculator to write poetry. Technically possible, but completely missing the point.

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE

The lesson here isn't complicated. Before reaching for AI, ask what problem you're actually solving. If the answer is "we want to make content faster and cheaper," fine. But understand what you're trading away. Because sometimes the inefficiency is the point. Sometimes the human messiness is what makes something worth watching.

Good creative still starts with the same questions it always has. What are you trying to say? Who needs to hear it? What should they feel when they're done? If AI helps you answer those questions better, use it. But if you're using it to avoid asking them in the first place, you've already lost.

At Winsome Marketing, we help brands figure out when technology serves the story and when it gets in the way. Creating content that actually connects with people means understanding what matters and what doesn't. Ready to make something people will remember for the right reasons? Let's build campaigns that put the human element back where it belongs.