As one of America’s leading pollsters, I have a warning for AI companies: customers aren’t convinced by ads

The AI advertising wars have escalated, and Americans are feeling the pressure.

OpenAI has launched and from to . Consumers are navigating an unprecedented shift in how goods and services are purchased and sold. has not only , but also blocked Meta AI users from opting out.

So what do Americans think about this change?

Like most topics, public opinion analysis doesn’t yield a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer. After all, advertising is quintessentially American. Some consumers view ads as a necessary evil, while others eagerly seek out and share creative ones—or at least don’t mind fast-forwarding through them.

However, AI tools can invade personal, even private, spaces—from high school journaling to vacation planning. Many users experience AI chats as closer to therapy than web searches, so ads may feel acceptable in transactional moments but aggressive during reflective or emotional ones. Imagine your therapist pausing mid-listening to sell you a supplement.

Using data from LLM queries, AI responses will , and the line between “information” and “ad” may blur. The scale of LLM advertising will be unprecedented because it fundamentally transforms the ad business. Moving from keyword-based, demographic targeting (like in Search) to intent-driven targeting rooted in conversational context, LLMs are already integrating ads directly into natural language answers as a new “discovery” feature.

If this feels confusing or concerning, you’re not alone. Consumers should remain skeptical of “free” AI that demands unlimited attention. After all, “free” AI isn’t truly free—it’s paid for with our attention and personal data.

Consumers have every right to decide when an AI tool can sell to them and when it cannot. Most would prefer that Silicon Valley let them opt in before being targeted with ads.

Currently, 41% of U.S. adults find AI ads intrusive, while 33% say it depends on the level of personalized targeting—per the latest Outward Intelligence survey of U.S. adults. Combined, over two-thirds of responses hinge on how ads are delivered, not whether they exist. In other words, consumers don’t oppose LLM ads in theory, but they’re very particular about how those ads appear.

The underlying tension is the perceived loss of control users feel when algorithms decide what’s relevant. This isn’t normal advertising; it feels like a loss of agency, and customers are justified in this feeling. For example, if a user searches for medical advice and an intimate question triggers a “sponsored” response, it can be deeply unsettling.

Even more disturbing is the uncertainty around who has access to user data. Does the AI company keep it? A national hospital network? The pharmaceutical industry?

Most consumers want clear boundaries between conversation and commerce. That distinction must be respected. An AI that treats every chat as a sales opportunity isn’t just annoying—it’s untrustworthy. And customers may well shop around for the most reliable option.

People want AI tools to be both intelligent (which requires data) and private (which limits data use). Ads based on conversational context are most relevant to LLMs like ChatGPT, but they’re also the most invasive.

Companies that resolve this paradox through user control, clear labeling, and restrained ad frequency will capture the persuadable middle. Those that prioritize short-term ad revenue over credibility and trust will lose users before their monetization scales.

The 26% of consumers who find AI ads helpful see a value exchange: relevant suggestions in return for their attention. However, they’re outnumbered by those who fear manipulation or interruption. Nearly half of consumers believe ads would undermine AI chatbot credibility.

For AI companies, these findings mean context-based targeting—like an ad suggestion tied to recent interest in wedding photography—is essentially a high-stakes coin flip.

At stake is the existential relevance of LLMs. In an inflationary economy, price sensitivity is real. Only 8% of consumers would pay monthly for ad-free AI, reflecting both cost-consciousness and uncertainty about whether these tools are essential enough to warrant recurring costs. The 40% choosing “free-with-ads” aren’t necessarily ad-tolerant; they may just be unwilling to commit financially to a technology still proving its worth.

Clearly labeled ads signal honesty about commercial intent. Disclosure preserves trust, while hidden or disguised ads will spark a backlash. Even those more accepting of monetization will react viscerally to being deceived.

Outward Intelligence research shows most Americans are overwhelmed by the information age—from news consumption to on-demand technology. AI users fear being bombarded, not just tracked. Each individual ad increases the risk of reduced AI use.

So what’s the upshot? One-size-fits-all advertising will usually fail; segmentation is critical. Offering opt-out controls or ad-free tiers for privacy-conscious users can prevent churn while monetizing the willing majority.

For AI companies, a strategy rooted in public opinion will win out. It will also benefit consumers—millions of whom still need to be convinced of AI advertising’s value. When it comes to AI, there’s no free lunch.

The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of .