Airpanel in the headlines: How did marketers react?

Following the publication of Nicolas Jaimes’ article in his Open Garden newsletter, we received a wave of inbound interest. One question quickly came to mind: how did readers who discovered Airpanel through this piece perceive our solution?

To find out, we had 12 AI-simulated marketing professionals read the article and share their reactions.

Here’s a snapshot of the insights from the 20-page qualitative report automatically generated by Airpanel—in just a few minutes.

Key takeaways

The article introducing Airpanel received a remarkably positive and consistent reception from its target audience: marketing professionals. It presents a disruptive value proposition (cost, speed, agility) that strongly resonates with the industry’s daily frustrations and unmet needs. Respondents unanimously described Airpanel as a “revolutionary” innovation and a potential "game-changer".

However, this near-unanimous fascination was consistently tempered by a healthy dose of professional skepticism. While the rational mind is convinced by the functional benefits, the marketer’s intuition remains on alert. The main barrier to adoption isn’t lack of understanding or interest—but trust in AI’s ability to faithfully simulate the complexity, nuance, and unpredictability of human reactions.

A promise of efficiency versus the fortress of human intuition

The discourse reveals a fundamental tension—a near-perfect psychological standoff between two opposing forces: on one side, irresistible rational appeal; on the other, instinctive professional resistance.

The initial appeal is economic and operational. In a context of ROI pressure, tight deadlines, and constrained budgets, Airpanel is seen as almost miraculous. Words like revolution, game-changer, and dream appear repeatedly. The solution activates a powerful desire for control, optimization, and performance.

Clémentine : “The promise to cut study costs by a factor of 10 or 20 while radically speeding up timelines is incredibly compelling. This kind of innovation could truly change how we work every day.”

Jacques :“This really speaks to me—it sits at the crossroads of tech, marketing, and business strategy. It sparks both curiosity and ambition: I want to try it, be among the first to adopt a technology that could drive measurable performance gains.”

On the other hand, skepticism emerges as a defense mechanism for human expertise. The resistance isn’t about technical performance, but about the AI’s ability to grasp what is seen as the essence of qualitative insight: the unexpected, the irrational, the unspoken, the spark. There’s a recurring fear of missing out on the unpredictable “aha” moment. Sociologically, this reflects a defense of symbolic territory—empathy, intuition, and the subtle understanding of consumers—core components of a marketer’s professional identity.

Claire : “What would hold me back in strategic decisions—like launching a new product—is the risk of missing out on a truly human insight, the kind that’s unexpected and can change everything.”

Chloé : “It’s exciting because it drives innovation, but there’s also a hint of unease: this technology is automating skills I see as deeply human—like empathy and intuition.”

Yasmine : “No matter how well-trained, an AI doesn’t have a body, memories, or an unconscious. I’m concerned it might miss the non-verbal or sensory-based reactions that are central to how humans really respond.”

The quest for authenticity: avoiding lukewarm, generic insight

At the heart of this skepticism lies a shared obsession: the fear of getting bland, generic answers. The metaphor used in the article—“lukewarm tap water”—deeply resonated with respondents, capturing a core concern about LLMs in qualitative research.

The fact that Airpanel claims to have tackled this issue by training its agents in contradiction and emotional excess was seen as a sign of conceptual maturity. It’s what sets the platform apart from a simple chatbot and makes it credible. Ironically, the ability to simulate human “flaws” (biases, emotions, irrationality) is precisely what makes the product feel more sophisticated and believable.

Sophie : "The line about avoiding ‘lukewarm tap water’ really struck a chord. That’s exactly the risk with AI, and it’s a real problem in research. The fact that Airpanel names it as a critical challenge gives me confidence in their level of rigor.”

Marie-Élise : "Training the agents to express contradictions, emotional excesses and even bias—that’s a very mature approach. That detail makes the project much more credible to me.”

That said, proof is still needed. The quotes from “Fatima” and “Jean-Paul” cited in the article, while illustrative, struck some readers as a little too polished—reinforcing the sense of a well-scripted simulation rather than a genuinely unpredictable response.

The keys to trust: from demonstration to blind spot management

Despite their reservations, professionals instinctively pointed to clear adoption triggers—what would help them move from curiosity to commitment. Airpanel’s communication strategy, as laid out in the article, was seen as smart and well-calibrated, already activating the strongest of these levers.

The comparative test—“we’ll analyze the same brief side by side”—was unanimously praised. It’s the classic “proof by example,” a scientific mindset that speaks to marketers’ analytical thinking. It reframes the trial as an experiment rather than a leap of faith.

Marie-Élise : "What would convince me is what Guillaume Valicon suggests—comparing Airpanel’s findings to an existing study we’ve already conducted with a traditional agency. If the insights are close, trust would naturally follow."

Claire : "What would definitively convince me is to run the test they suggest: brief them on one of our past studies and compare the outputs. If the alignment is as strong as they claim, adoption would be a no-brainer."

However, to turn trial into adoption, Airpanel must go further by proactively addressing the blind spots in its current messaging. Two topics emerged consistently at the end of interviews—proof of their critical importance:

1. Data confidentiality: The idea of uploading a strategic concept, a pre-release TV ad, or a confidential campaign to a third-party platform is a serious concern for companies. The absence of messaging around security and confidentiality was described as a major gap.

2. Ethics and bias: More mature marketers raised questions about the risk of reinforcing stereotypes—even unintentionally—through AI personas. Topics like cultural diversity and the fair representation of minority groups were specifically mentioned, especially by Yasmine.

Renée : "I would have appreciated a line or two about data confidentiality—especially when uploading sensitive content."

Clémentine : “They barely touched on ethics, but for me it’s a big issue. The creation of custom profiles raises important questions about bias and unintentional stereotyping.”

Persona Portraits

To illustrate the psychological tension observed in the study, we sketched two composite personas:

Jacques, the pragmatic strategist

• Role : Marketing Director, 45–55, in a large corporate group

• Mantra : "Time is money. Data is power."

• Reaction : Pragmatic excitement. He immediately sees the performance lever and competitive edge. His brain runs the ROI math: “If I can run 10 pre-tests for the price of one, my campaigns will statistically perform better.” His skepticism is analytical, not emotional. He cares less about human magic, more about outcome reliability. Ready to run a pilot now—low risk, high potential upside.

• Verbatim: "What would convince me is a successful pilot on one of our actual campaigns, with actionable results. A quantified business case showing ROI would seal the deal."

Claire, the human-centric guardian

• Role : Marketing Manager, 35–45, in a values-driven B2C company

• Mantra : "Numbers validate, stories connect."

• Reaction: Cautious fascination. She’s drawn to the promised agility, but her mind immediately goes to what might be lost: the spark, the non-verbal cue, the insight born of a personal anecdote. She fears the uncanny valley—the sense of something human-like that lacks a soul. For her, Airpanel is a powerful complementary tool for pre-testing and iteration—but not yet suitable for high-stakes, brand-defining decisions.

• Verbatim: "I’d be afraid of missing an irrational but fundamental insight—something only a real human might express. That’s my biggest hesitation."

These reactions sound familiar?

The perspectives shared by our AI-generated marketing professionals are remarkably aligned with the feedback we’ve received from real marketers over the past nine months. Their enthusiasm and their caution are both invaluable. They reflect the legitimate needs and standards of an expert audience and reinforce our commitment to building a rigorous, responsible solution that meets the highest standards in the industry.

Our agents are trained to simulate human reactions to brand stimuli—with all their nuance, emotion, and even irrationality. Our platform is secure by design: your data is never reused, and it’s hosted in GDPR-compliant European infrastructures. We ensure highly detailed and demographically diverse profiles to minimize bias and overgeneralization.

Airpanel doesn’t claim to replace traditional research—but offers a new paradigm: test more, test faster, test differently. As a complement. Always with rigor.

Test your content, test Airpanel.