With one prompt, I built an entire brand kit in an hour using Lovart
If you've ever tried to build a brand kit from scratch — the logo, the social banners, the promo video, the product page — you'll know how brutal things get without a designer. All too often you end up bouncing between five different apps and five YouTube tabs just to make something halfway usable.
There has to be a better way. And I think I've found it.
When I came across Lovart — an AI that claimed it could generate over 40 branded assets from a single prompt — I gave it the most honest test possible. No prep. No fancy prompts. No design background. Just a raw idea.
The result?
In less than one hour I had a complete brand kit — logo, landing page, product visuals, and a full-motion video — all export-ready and shockingly good.
Lovart describes itself as an "AI Design Agent," not just a tool. You don't have to "create" everything — Lovart reads your idea and makes creative decisions on your behalf.
Let me show you how it works.
Here's what I typed: "A minimalist skincare brand inspired by ocean minerals, called NEU."
Seconds later, I got:
No file juggling. No bouncing between tools. Everything simply showed up in the same interface, fully editable and export-ready.
The quality genuinely surprised me. This wasn't "AI slop". It looked like something a junior designer might produce after a few days of work. It was clean, professional, and actually usable.
Here's what makes Lovart different from other AI design tools: it's not running one model. It coordinates multiple specialized AI systems and gets them to work together.
Under the hood, it's using:
The magic is in the orchestration. Each model contributes to a unified result that feels brand-consistent and intentional — not like random assets stitched together.
You can edit anything: shorten the video, tweak fonts, change product names, adjust the colors. It's a truly plug-and-play design, but it delivers the polish you'd expect from paying an agency.
What stood out most wasn't just the speed. It was how consistent Lovart felt across multiple tries.
I tested it with lots of different brand concepts: a coffee shop, a tech startup, a fitness app. Every single time it delivered coherent, on-brand results without me having to babysit the process or write perfect prompts.
It doesn't get tired. It doesn't get confused. It doesn't over-design or under-deliver. It just gets on with the job. It listens, executes, and adjusts — again and again and again, until it gets it right.
It felt less like using software and more like working with someone who's patient, fast, and never runs out of ideas. As a creator, that felt safe – and honestly, kind of luxurious.
Elena Rodriguez, Lovart's co-founder and COO, says that this human-like presence is intentional:
I've used Canva, struggled with Figma, and spent hours wrestling with Photoshop. And Lovart required none of that background knowledge.
The interface is refreshingly simple: there's a big text box where you describe your idea, and an infinite canvas where results appear. You can refine anything by typing natural language requests like "make the logo more playful" or "create a darker color palette."
There are no layers to manage. No export settings to figure out. No subscription limits across different tools. Just tell Lovart what you want, and watch it materialize.
For context, building the same brand kit manually would have taken me:
That's a total of 8+ hours, plus frustration.
With Lovart: 45 minutes, plus excitement about what else it could do.
Lovart won't replace human designers at big agencies. But for creators, marketers, small business owners, and indie builders it's genuinely game-changing.
Who this works best for:
What you get with one subscription:
Access to multiple premium AI models that would normally require separate subscriptions, plus the coordination layer that makes them work together. It's like hiring a creative team that actually listens and never misses a deadline.
Lovart isn't magic. Here's what I noticed:
If Canva is a toolkit, Lovart is a collaborator. If Midjourney is inspiration, Lovart is execution.
For the first time, you can go from "I have an idea" to "it's ready to publish" without getting lost in the tools, tutorials, or technical complexity.
Is it perfect? No. Is it useful enough to pay for? Absolutely. Especially if you value your time and sanity more than learning design software.
Pricing: Lovart starts at $29/month for individual creators, with team plans available. Given that you'd normally pay that much just for Canva Pro, and this includes access to multiple premium AI models plus coordination, it's reasonable value.
Try it yourself: Lovart is now publicly available at www.lovart.ai
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
3 ChatGPT Prompts Every Manager Or CEO Should Use
Amid waves of layoffs and tightening budgets, many managers and business leaders feel pressured to do more with less. 'In the absence of either time, financial resources or human-based resources, we can utilize AI to act as a thinking partner, an executive coach or a co-pilot,' said Stephanie LeBlanc-Godfrey, founder of MotherAI. For LeBlanc-Godfrey, tools like ChatGPT serve as 'an extra brain." This can be a game changer, whether you lead a corporate team with reduced headcount or run a small business with limited capacity. Executive coach Jess Goldberg, a former vice president at an AI robotics company who now teaches at Columbia University, encourages business leaders to think critically about how they can use generative AI to complement their skills and accelerate their work. 'These generative AI tools are ways to catalyze our growth and development,' Goldberg said. 'They can help us learn more quickly, develop our skills more quickly and drive performance.' What makes a good ChatGPT prompt? To get the full benefits of generative AI, users need to learn how to create effective prompts. ChatGPT, for example, can do much more than creating checklists or drafting write-ups. Goldberg said users of these tools should consider the following when prompting: - A goal: What do you want to achieve with the help of the AI tool? - A role: What expert or function do you want the tool to emulate? Examples of roles include performance review expert, advisory board member or business strategist. - Specific examples: What would a good output look like? What types of results do you want to avoid? Keep reading to see these prompting guidelines in action. Below are three ChatGPT prompts created by Goldberg for the busy manager, business leader or CEO. Copy and paste these prompts into ChatGPT, and personalize them to fit your business needs. 1. Actionable Performance Reviews by Jess Goldberg You are a performance review expert with experience in talent development and management. Your role is to help me write an objective, specific and actionable performance review that focuses on observable behaviors and measurable outcomes while maintaining a constructive tone. Using the information I provide below, create a balanced performance review that avoids personal judgments and focuses on specific examples: 1. Role Basics: - Job title: [insert information] - Department: [insert information] - Time in role: [insert information] - Key responsibilities: [insert information] 2. Performance Specifics (2-3 examples for each): - Notable achievements: [insert information] - Challenges faced: [insert information] - Key metrics/KPIs: [insert information] 3. Behavioral Observations: - Strongest demonstrated behaviors: [insert information] - Behaviors that need development: [insert information] 4. Development Focus: - Skills gained this period: [insert information] - Priority areas for growth: [insert information] Please structure the review to include: - A clear performance summary - Specific examples of achievements - Areas for development with actionable recommendations - Forward-looking objectives Use a tone that is professional, constructive and focused on growth. Avoid subjective language or personality-based assessments. Focus on behaviors and outcomes that can be measured or observed. Self-advocacy tip: In addition to creating performance reviews for direct reports, try using Goldberg's prompt to evaluate your own performance. This can help you articulate your contributions and wins, especially in promotion conversations. When you're in the room with decision-makers, language matters. 2. The Titans' Table by Jess Goldberg Act as my strategic advisory board, consisting of Warren Buffett (financial wisdom), Steve Jobs (innovation), Angela Merkel (stakeholder management), Sara Blakely (customer-centric strategy) and Mary Barra (organizational transformation). My strategic decision/challenge is: [Insert your challenge] Key context: - Current situation: [Briefly describe] - Main Objectives: [List 1-2 goals] - Available Resources: [Key resources] - Time constraints: [Timeline] Please provide: 1. Each advisor's specific recommendation (in their voice and expertise) 2. Quick SWOT analysis 3. Top risks and mitigation strategies 4. Key stakeholder impacts 5. Concrete next steps Keep responses practical and actionable. Focus on real-world implementation. Self-advocacy tip: One powerful way to advocate for yourself at work is to ask for what you need. Goldberg's prompt will help you make more strategic decisions and identify the resources and support essential for success. 3. The Delegation Playbook by Jess Goldberg You are an expert in strategic delegation and leadership decision making. Analyze my project and help me determine what to delegate and how to communicate it effectively. Project Overview: [Insert brief description of the project, its objectives and timeline] My Role & Expertise: [Insert your position, key strengths and where you add the most value] Team Context: [Insert key team members' roles, strengths and current capacity] Critical Success Factors: [Insert what success looks like and any major risks/concerns] Based on this information, help me: 1. Identify which decisions I should: - Make personally (critical decisions) - Provide input on (collaborative decisions) - Be informed about (awareness decisions) - Delegate entirely (autonomous decisions) 2. Draft clear delegation communications, including: - Specific expectations and outcomes - Decision making boundaries - Timeline - Success metrics - Escalation criteria Please provide practical, actionable recommendations for the effective delegation of this project. Self-advocacy tip: Your decision making bandwidth is limited. Defining and communicating your boundaries allows you to focus on the most important decisions that only you can make, while empowering your team members to lead in their own lanes. How do you use AI tools to advocate for yourself and boost your performance? Share your best ChatGPT and AI tips in the comments or send me a message on LinkedIn. Your response may be featured in a future Forbes article. Click the blue 'Follow' button next to my byline to get my Forbes articles delivered straight to your inbox.
Business Insider
32 minutes ago
- Business Insider
The real reason Silicon Valley hates Lina Khan
You'd think venture capitalists and startups would support an antitrust crackdown on Big Tech. These behemoths regularly squash promising young startups, using their unrivaled power over users, data, and various digital markets. But when antitrust regulators gave enforcing regulation a real shot in recent years, the VC industry's howls of displeasure became very loud. The apotheosis of this arrived last week, after Figma IPO-ed and its stock surged 250%. Former FTC Chair Lina Khan took a victory lap, saying regulators' efforts to block an earlier Adobe acquisition resulted in a far better outcome. "A great reminder that letting startups grow into independently successful businesses, rather than be bought up by existing giants, can generate enormous value," Khan wrote on X. "A win for employees, investors, innovation, and the public." Silicon Valley goes berserk "Colossal stupidity," responded Vinod Khosla, one of the most successful VCs in Silicon Valley. "Lina Khan cuts off the right hand of a genius pianist, who nevertheless perseveres and produces a one-handed masterpiece, for which she then takes credit," Shea Levy, a software engineer at defense tech startup Anduril, wrote on X. "It's crazy that you prevented that acquisition and infuriating that you're taking credit for Figma's success," Trevor Gehman, cofounder of a startup called Clearstream, tweeted. I asked a Silicon Valley M&A advisor for comment on Friday, and they responded with a kind of manic poem. This person asked not to be identified when discussing sensitive matters. Their response really captures the strength of feelings here, so it's worth sharing. " She doesn't deserve s***. She has done zero to create anything. Ever. Anywhere. Except carnage and havoc." Is that a Haiku? I'm not sure. Anyway, why so much vitriol? How VCs make a living The real reason VCs and their advisors hate limits on M&A is that they threaten the main way they make money. The industry loves to pretend it's in it for the long haul and wants to build enduring businesses that disrupt the goliaths of the sector. But in reality, M&A deals are the main way VCs make money from their startup investments. While they tweet publicly about changing the world, they often privately push founders to sell out to Big Tech. So if anyone gets in the way of such transactions, they become very twitchy. "People wonder why VCs cheer on Big Tech deals, it's simple: M&A offers a soft landing. Startups can flame out quietly instead of dying publicly," said Jordan Thibodeau, who worked on M&A deals at Google and now hosts the SVIC podcast. "Compared to the compliance nightmare of an IPO, getting acquired is the cleanest escape hatch and ensures most employees have a safe landing." "FDIC insurance for bad bets" Thibodeau said, pre-Lina Khan, and before Republicans decided to target the tech industry, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft were a kind of welfare office for founders and their VC sponsors. "M&A was basically FDIC insurance for bad bets," he added. "If it crashes, rich uncle Sundar or daddy Zuck will bail us out." At least legendary VC Paul Graham made some effort to be honest here, although he could have been clearer that Y Combinator relies heavily on larger tech companies buying the startups he backs. "Startups are risky. Sometimes when you keep rolling the dice things turn out well. Sometimes not. But founders should be able to decide for themselves when to stop," he wrote in response to Khan's post on X. We want our M&A fees For anyone else involved in tech M&A, such as investment bankers and deal lawyers, any limits on transactions mean fewer commissions and other fees. So, of course, they're inclined to criticize antitrust enforcement — whether deals are good for consumers and society or not. In the US, the DOJ was officially responsible for questioning Adobe's acquisition of Figma. But a lot of the ire for this, and other similar situations, has focused on Khan, a revolutionary antitrust regulator who ran the FTC during President Biden's recent term in office. She pioneered a new type of tech antitrust enforcement that focused on factors other than the traditional US test of whether consumers might see higher prices from M&A. Jonathan Kanter, a DOJ antitrust official, was part of this movement, but Khan is often credited with starting it. "Lina Khan did her job. She was active, competent, and gave the Biden administration what they wanted, aggressive oversight on tech," Thibodeau said, while saying that he disagreed with some of her antitrust moves, such as the FTC's efforts to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision and the successful challenge to Amazon's purchase of iRobot. During Biden's time in office, her new approach led to a pretty big decline in tech M&A activity, as you can see from that chart above. So, when Khan tweeted a victory lap after the Figma IPO, it's understandable that VCs went berserk on X — just not for the reasons they said publicly.
Politico
32 minutes ago
- Politico
‘Unlike Anything We've Seen': The Energy Industry is Counting on the AI Boom
'Load growth has been flat, basically flat, for 20 years or more in the U.S.,' said Tom Wilson, a grid expert at the Electric Power Research Institute, a think tank. 'And so the idea of load going up allows you, at the very highest level, to spread any sort of system-wide cost that should be allocated to the various players over a larger number of kilowatt-hours.' The broader uncertainty across the energy policy landscape helps explain why utilities are clinging to tech so fiercely now. And while tech may not have stuck its neck out particularly far on behalf of renewable tax credits, it's still going to be the power sector's best customer. The electric power industry's relative dispassion may also give it a valuable role in the continuing partisan battles over solar and wind power's reliability, as my colleague Nico Portuondo reported last month. When Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Mike Lee (R-Utah) dinged renewables at a hearing on electricity demand, Jeff Tench, executive vice president at Vantage Data Centers, offered a mild corrective. 'Our observation and our requirement is for more electrons, and Vantage is relatively agnostic as to the source of those electrons,' he said. So far, data centers have only increased total U.S. power demand by a tiny amount (they make up roughly 4.4 percent of electricity use, which rose 2 percent overall last year). But the two industries' fates are already linked. When Chinese firm DeepSeek unveiled an AI model in January that it billed as 10 to 40 times cheaper and more efficient than U.S. models like ChatGPT, the stock of tech giants like NVIDIA and Oracle plummeted — as did that of power providers like Constellation, Vistra and GE Vernova. There are risks in a hidebound, tightly regulated industry like power, which is essentially physical in nature, hitching its wagon to mercurial tech. 'There is a scenario where utilities benefit from this,' said Michael Wara, director of Stanford University's climate and energy policy program. 'And there's also a scenario where they overplay their hand dramatically.' There are several ways utilities could do that. One is taking demand estimates at face value and overbuilding. The tech industry is famous for its ability to improve its efficiency — and, simultaneously, for its tendency to overstate the energy use of new widgets. Computing history is littered with laughable-in-retrospect claims, like the one about a Palm Pilot using as much electricity as a refrigerator. 'Nobody has any idea how much demand is going to be from AI in five years, and anyone who says that they know that is lying,' said Jonathan Koomey, a researcher who's devoted decades to debunking demand projections and coined Koomey's Law, which holds that computing energy efficiency doubles every 18 months. There are solutions, though. In Virginia, for example, where data centers make up a quarter of demand and are projected to quadruple again by 2040, Dominion Energy is requiring data centers commit to buying fixed amounts of power for 14 years, to protect against unexpected efficiencies.
