Shutter showdown: Stock vs. AI photos
I love making AI-generated pics. I’ve spent hours tinkering with prompts to see what I can dream up. But here’s the big question I get from business owners: Do AI images or good old-fashioned stock photos work better in marketing? Let’s put them head-to-head.
🙋♀️ Clicks love a human face
When we compare ad performance, stock photos win out on:
- Clicks: Stock photos hit a 0.53% CTR vs. 0.49–0.52% for top AI versions.
- Conversions: Real people boost conversions by up to 45%.
- Trust: Genuine images got lower bounce rates and higher engagement.
Why the gap? Our brains know when a face looks almost real but not quite right. That’s the “uncanny valley” effect. Stock gives you the real deal.
💸 When “free” costs you
Sure, AI is a budget-friendly shortcut. But let’s break down the real costs:
- Adobe Firefly: Included with Adobe Creative Cloud subscriptions, starting at $54.99 a month.
- ChatGPT Teams: Runs $25 to $30 a month, with limits on AI image generation.
- Midjourney: A basic plan starts at $10 a month, up to $120 a month for pro-level features.
Free-tiers only let you generate a handful of visuals each day. Not exactly unlimited creativity.
On top of that, sell-through rates favor traditional photos: 13% of stock images make at least one sale vs. 9% for AI. Those wasted impressions can cost you more than a stock photo subscription.
🛡️ Keep your brand safe
Bad visuals aren’t just awkward. They hurt your bottom line. AI-generated content can sneak in extra fingers, weird shadows, distorted text or inconsistent lighting. Not the look you want for your brand.
How AI is reshaping stock photography
Photographers and illustrators ask me this question a lot: “Kim, is AI going to take my job?” The answer? It’s tricky. Yes, there’s growing competition between AI and human artists. But if you’re smart about using AI, it can become your secret weapon.