When India’s first virtual influencer, Kyra, appeared on Instagram two years ago, it seemed like the dawn of a new era for digital marketing. Boat, Realme, and Titan Eye rushed to collaborate with this avatar. But this happened 2 years ago, and these brands have not collaborated again. CGI-generated avatars were predicted to redefine brand collaborations, sleek, tireless, and controversy-free. Yet two years on, the hype has not seemed to pick up. While brands continue to experiment with AI-driven characters, marketers and data indicate that the impact remains largely superficial.
According to industry executives, the return on investment (ROI) from virtual influencers continues to trail their human counterparts. “From what we’ve seen, ROI from virtual influencers is still behind human creators,” Aditya Gurwara, co-founder and head of brand alliances at Qoruz, told financialexpress.com. Human influencers such as Kusha Kapila or Rida Tharana show engagement rates between 3-5%, compared to around 1.2% for AI-led profiles like Kyra, Gurwara noted. Audience credibility for human creators also exceeds 80%, while virtual influencers hover near 50%.
That gap has tangible consequences for brands seeking conversions. As Gurwara explained, “Human creators consistently outperform… most of the engagement with AI influencers tends to be curiosity-driven, not intent-driven.”
Similar patterns have been observed across the industry. Sagar Pushp, co-founder and CEO of ClanConnect, in a conversation with fianncialexpress.com, said that while virtual influencers appear cost-efficient at first glance, with no talent fees, travel costs, or scheduling issues, the true financial impact favours human influencers. “Brands may see virtual campaigns as ‘cheap’, but the true financial impact tends to favour human influencers,” Pushp said, adding that human creators “earn significantly more for their brand partners” thanks to stronger emotional engagement.
The novelty wears off
Both executives agreed that audience fascination with AI avatars tends to fade quickly. The initial buzz helps attract attention, but sustained engagement is rare. “The novelty wears off quickly,” said Gurwara. “The first few campaigns may generate buzz, but the sustained pull is missing. Audiences return to human creators who feel more relatable and authentic.”
“Virtual influencers offer brands unmatched creative control, consistency, and scalability, making them an appealing marketing tool in today’s digital age. However, while they drive innovation and safety, the emotional authenticity of real human connection remains irreplaceable.” Ankit Agrawal, Director, Mysore Deep Perfumery House (MDPH) & Zed Black, said. “We are open to newer ideas. So yes, a collaboration with virtual influencers can surely be a part of our marketing mix someday,” he added.
“We have not yet collaborated with virtual influencers, but remain open to possibilities. Our approach to partnerships, virtual or real, is guided by authenticity, style, and the ability to create meaningful experiences,” Mohit Jain, Founder & CEO, Miraggio, said.
However, the market data from Grand View Research states that the global virtual influencer market size was estimated to be $6.06 billion in 2024, growing at a CAGR of 40.8% and projected to reach $45.88 billion by 2030. News reports suggest that India accounts for about 2.5% of the global market.
Pushp echoed the sentiment, noting that brands eventually realised engagement was lower than expected. “Without a depth of trust or developing communities, these virtual promotions struggled to generate value over time,” he said. “As a result, many companies returned to humans to communicate.”
The trust and relatability gap
The problem, experts said, is rooted in relatability, the human quality that drives parasocial bonds between creators and followers. “People buy into people,” Gurwara said. “The reason influencer marketing works is because you feel like you know the creator, you trust their judgment. AI hasn’t cracked that yet.”
Pushp pointed out that while virtual characters might impress with visuals or storytelling, “they cannot be compared to the experience of linking with a person with real-life experiences and feelings.” That lack of emotional depth, he said, makes it harder for AI personas to inspire loyalty or long-term trust.
For now, marketers see virtual influencers as an add-on, suitable for futuristic or gaming-related campaigns, but not as replacements for real creators. “At this stage, they make sense in gaming, tech, or futuristic categories where the concept itself is the talking point,” said Gurwara. Pushp agreed, adding that they “tend to shine in specific niches such as gaming, tech, fashion, and beauty,” but fail to connect in mainstream categories like food, travel, or parenting, where authenticity drives consumer choices.
Despite the investment and innovation behind virtual influencers, data suggests they remain a novelty rather than a mainstream marketing tool. Engagement remains lower, communities shallower, and trust harder to build. Their aesthetics and efficiency may appeal to brands looking to experiment, but the emotional currency that fuels influencer marketing continues to belong to humans.
As Gurwara put it succinctly, “Audiences may find AI influencers wow or cute, but slowly, the emotions fade away.”