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.