Transparency as a standard.
Hasbro recently released AI principles that are easy to understand and simple to implement, and it makes me want to go buy Play-Doh.
Amidst the nonsensical, generic content that’s saturating my social feeds, press releases, and even the emails I receive, it’s refreshing to see an organization publicly outline a clear stance on the use of AI. One that aligns with what the brand stands for, and not what the trends say.
It’s something I’ve spoken to so many colleagues about, and the knock-on effect of a commitment like this does wonders for how a brand shows up to consumer.
Hasbro, a global toy company (think Transformers, Monopoly, Play-Doh, Magic the Gathering, etc), recently went public with what they call their “AI principles”. Chris Cocks (Hasbro CEO) said in February 2026 they’re deploying AI across financial planning, forecasting, order management, and other daily activities (Source here). Their brand purpose is to “create joy and community for all people around the world” (Source here). That feels quite simple, and direct.
But what I’ve found incredibly refreshing, is that the CEO says that teams have a choice on how they use technology, including “not to use it at all when it doesn’t fit their objectives”.
I found this approach incredible. It’s transparent, it inspires exploration and it drives adoption. it keeps the focus on what the company’s actually doing, and though it is incorporating AI, the company is not doing so just the sake of incorporating it.
Where a lot of tech companies (and advertising holding companies) are scapegoating AI for mass layoffs, and talking about digital labour, and restructuring work around AI’s promise, Hasbro has taken an approach that doesn’t deny AI’s promised potential. They’re simply hedging their bets on what they can control - and linking that to their business focus. It keeps their focus on what makes their business tick, while at the same time encouraging people to play. This approach is a long-term one, and one I can get behind.
It doesn’t provide shiny novelty stunts and press releases nobody asked for. It doesn’t deviate from what the brand is known for. And it basically says (internally and externally): We’re using AI, but don’t let it distract you from the fact that we’re selling Monopoly.
From an ad agency perspective, having an approach like this in place is gold.
If a brand is clear on how they’re going to use AI, and the focus of the organisation remains on the business (in this case, toys and joy and community) - it not only sets the brand up for success, but the brand’s staff, partners, and customers.
For the brand’s staff: If AI is optional where it makes sense, it’s incredibly liberating. Instead of horseshoeing it into a function it has no place in (i’m looking directly at Meta’s search tabs) adoption becomes a no-brainer. If someone finds success in using a tool and they get to define what that success means within their role - it removes the hype/fear and immediately gets back to basics. They’re able to define where AI is relevant, which means they’re able to measure the actual impact - and not vaguely evaluate buzzwords so often thrown around.
For the brand’s partners: Hasbro says “final work comes from people” - which encourages accountability, but also makes it very clear where AI’s place is in what they do. If i’m their ad agency, i know that efficiency will come over time, and that it’s not an immediate metric put in place with no reconciliation of promise vs reality.
For their consumers: Transparency is key, and a core principle of theirs literally outlines “We will be clear about when AI is used, what it does, and what data it relies on”, which immediately builds trust.
My favourite part of their principles is this: Creators may use tools for reference, but the final work comes from people, not machines. What we’ve said previously on this topic remains unchanged.
Here’s a link to their AI Principles.
I love this for Hasbro. It’s clear, it’s transparent, and it sets a standard for how brands should think about incorporating AI - not for the short-term, but for the long term.

