Why stock photos hurt
The same five "team smiling at laptop" stock photos appear on tens of thousands of pages. Visitors recognize them subconsciously — even if they can't name the file, the page reads as "generic SaaS template." Across CXL eye-tracking studies, visitors fixate stock photos 40% less than original imagery, meaning the visual real estate is wasted. And for trust-critical pages (testimonials, team, about), stock photos function as an active credibility hit because the gap between the polished image and the implied claim ("this is our team") creates dissonance.
What works instead
(1) Real product screenshots — even if your product is "boring." A clear screenshot beats abstract illustration almost always. (2) Real customer headshots in testimonials — even imperfect phone-camera photos. The imperfection signals authenticity. (3) Original illustration in a distinctive style — Stripe, Linear, and Figma all use this approach successfully. (4) Real user-generated content where applicable — DTC brands routinely outperform with phone-quality customer photos vs studio shots.
The AI-generated image trap
Replacing stock photos with Midjourney or DALL-E output isn't a fix — it's the same problem in a new wrapper. Visitors increasingly recognize AI-generated images and the credibility hit is similar to stock. If you can't get original imagery, an honest "no image" with strong typography often beats either alternative. Read our AI sameness problem piece for the broader framing.