Design Choice or Shortcut? What the AI Posters for Züri-Wiesn Reveal About Credibility

At Zurich's main station, large-format posters for the Züri-Wiesn Oktoberfest are currently on display. The motifs show AI-generated people in traditional costume and AI-generated beer. The newspaper 20 Minuten reported on it on October 14, 2026 and asked passers-by for their reactions. The case is unassuming, but it contains a justification I rarely read this openly.

No shortage of images, a decision

According to the report, the commissioned PR agency says a lack of real imagery was not the reason. Footage from earlier editions exists, and photographers and videographers were also on site this year. The goal was a distinct visual language conveying conviviality and joie de vivre, which the agency calls an "aesthetic statement." The motifs, it says, aren't meant as documentation of real visits. At the same time, the agency concedes that questions of provenance and credibility are gaining weight.

That's an honest approach, and it sets the case apart from the usual cost debates. This wasn't about saving money but about a creative intent. That's exactly why it makes a good test of whether that intent lands with the audience.

How it lands

The reactions of the people asked are mixed, but mostly critical. Words like "fake," "lifeless," and "cheap" come up repeatedly; some spot immediately that the people aren't real and take issue with a large event not employing artists or photographers. A few find the posters well done. Whether the motifs are labeled as AI isn't stated in the report. It's a small, non-representative street survey, so a mood snapshot and not evidence.

A number to read with caution

Timely alongside it is a survey by the Polish agency Tears of Joy, reported by Euronews on October 22. According to it, 53 percent say their trust in a brand drops when advertising explicitly points to AI, and 76 percent prefer advertising with real people, places, and objects. But there is no information on sample or method, and the teaser and body text give different percentages for young respondents. All I take from it is that it points in the same direction as the Ipsos study on trust in AI advertising and the discussion about the placement of AI labels: anyone using AI visibly pays part of the price in trust.

What I take from this for image work

For a studio working with photography, CGI, and AI, the case is a useful touchstone. An image decision is strong when you can explain it in one sentence, and "because it's cheaper" doesn't carry. The question isn't whether AI was used but whether the character of the image fits the message. A festival that lives on real people, faces, and chance is being promoted with images that leave out exactly that. An abstract visualization, a product render, or a recognizably stylized world doesn't have this problem. Whether a motif promises authenticity matters more than the technology behind it.

In practice: before the brief, clarify whether the image claims anything documentary. If so, real material is almost always the simpler answer. If not, an AI or CGI choice can be legitimate, but it should be shown openly and be justifiable.

Conclusion

The Züri-Wiesn posters show that a deliberate design choice alone isn't enough when the motif promises authenticity and community while being synthetic. For us as a provider, the consequence stays clear: don't hide the use of AI and CGI, but don't sell it as a shortcut either; present it as a reasoned decision that fits the content of the image.