When the AI “Gets the Joke” but Misses the Style: A Real Workflow Debug
When the AI Gets the Joke but Misses the Style: A Workflow Debug That Actually Matters
🎸 Listen to Our Blues Albums While You Read
If you’ve ever argued with an AI about “style,” this music pairs nicely with the struggle.
Subscribe: Deep Dive AI | Spotify: Deep Dive AI Podcast
There’s a specific kind of pain reserved for creators: you give the AI a clear prompt, you provide style examples, you’re polite, you’re detailed—and the model still returns something that understands your joke while sprinting in the opposite direction visually.
That’s what happened here.
The concept landed. The style did not.
The original intent (what we asked for)
The request was simple in words, but strict in constraints:
- Create a satirical, slightly self-deprecating cartoon
- Use our established art style and image quality (editorial ink, cross-hatching, paper texture)
- Use the reference idea: being excited about tiny revenue (the “odd cents” moment)
- Show the irony: the hopeful “revenue moment” vs. what the future might actually hold
- Include our recurring visual rule: Russian Blue cat presence, consistently drawn
- Maintain brand/visual consistency (our look, our vibe, our watermark approach)
Put differently: the joke is cheap. Consistency is expensive.
What the model DID follow
To be fair, the AI didn’t completely face-plant. It did a few things right:
- Concept structure: It used the tiny revenue number and built a “now vs. later” contrast.
- Self-deprecating tone: Yes. It understood the humor of celebrating pocket change like it’s a quarterly dividend.
- Cat inclusion (eventually): A cat appeared, which means at least one instruction made it through customs.
So the model understood the sentence. It just didn’t understand the assignment.
What the model did NOT follow (the big misses)
1) Our art style was ignored
Our style is not “generic modern cartoon.” It’s editorial ink energy:
- bold linework
- heavy cross-hatching
- paper texture / hand-drawn vibe
- hand-lettering feel
- selective accent color (not “rainbow everything”)
The output leaned modern, smooth, full-color, webcomic/animation. Not “bad.” Just not ours.
2) The project style targets weren’t respected
Our targets imply newsroom editorial-cartoon logic: ink, caricature, symbolic minimalism, and confident composition. The output didn’t converge toward that visual language.
3) The selective color rule was broken
Our approach is “minimal color with intention.” The generated images used broad color everywhere, which dilutes the punch and changes the genre.
4) The Russian Blue cat showed up… but not as our Russian Blue
A cat appeared. But it wasn’t clearly the same recurring character in the same “house style.” Recurring characters only work when they’re recognizable on sight.
5) Brand consistency wasn’t there
Our examples often carry consistent layout discipline and branding treatment. The generated panels did not.
When your content is a system, consistency isn’t decoration. It’s the product.
The honest bottom line
The AI followed the idea (tiny revenue celebration + reality-check irony).
It failed the key instruction: “in our style and image quality” based on the examples provided.
My self-rating for the earlier results
Grade: C- (72/100)
- What worked: concept and tone
- What failed: style adherence, character consistency, selective color discipline, and brand treatment
In creator terms: it’s like ordering black coffee and receiving a caramel frappé with sprinkles. Technically coffee. Spiritually a different life choice.
How we fix this (the practical workflow)
Here’s the rule that prevents this from repeating:
If style is the priority, the prompt must treat style like a specification, not a suggestion.
Most people write prompts like they’re sending a polite request. But image models behave more like contractors: if the spec isn’t explicit, they’ll fill in the blanks with their defaults. And their defaults are rarely your brand.
A prompt checklist that works like a spec sheet
- Style lock: “editorial ink cartoon, heavy cross-hatching, paper texture, hand-inked linework”
- Color lock: “mostly black-and-white with ONE selective accent color (red)”
- Character lock: “include our Russian Blue cat in our consistent house style”
- Typography lock: “hand-lettered feel, bold readable text, no weird fonts, no misspellings”
- Composition lock: “single focal scene, clean negative space for headline text”
- Brand lock: “include ‘Deep Dive AI’ watermark bottom-right (if thumbnail)”
- Negative prompts: “no smooth 3D, no modern webcomic look, no full-color shading everywhere, no painterly render”
That checklist turns “please do it in our style” into “here are the guardrails you don’t get to ignore.”
Why this matters (beyond one cartoon)
This isn’t about being picky. It’s about keeping promises.
If your content pipeline is designed to build trust, your audience is learning what “you” looks like. They may not have the vocabulary to say “cross-hatching” or “selective accent color,” but they can feel when a piece doesn’t belong.
And once you’re building a brand, “doesn’t belong” becomes a tax you pay forever—usually in the form of extra revisions and a growing folder called FINAL_FINAL_REALLY_THIS_ONE.
Next step (what we’ll do from here)
Next time we generate this concept, we’ll do it correctly:
- Lock the editorial ink style
- Lock the selective color
- Lock the Russian Blue cat’s consistent design
- Lock the typography and readability
- Then let the AI be creative inside those constraints
CTA: If you’re building an AI workflow and you’ve ever had the model “understand your words” while ignoring your style, share this with one creator friend who’s also fighting the Great Battle of “No, Not Like That.”
Deep Dive AI links
- YouTube: https://bit.ly/447MHDH
- Spotify: https://bit.ly/41Vktg6
- Subscribe: http://bit.ly/44ArQcq
#DeepDiveAI #AICreator #PromptEngineering #EditorialCartoon #BrandConsistency #CreatorWorkflow
Some links below are Amazon affiliate links. If you buy through them, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.
Comments
Post a Comment