Few things in marketing are as simple as this one…the correct answer to “which LinkedIn bidding strategy should you choose for ABM?” is almost always manual bidding. In this post, I will try to explain why (if you need more convincing – every expert will tell you so ;))
My go to bidding strategy for LinkedIn ads is almost always manual bidding (having spent well over $500K on running ABM campaigns using LinkedIn ads, and having tested different bidding strategies). But there are some exceptions – e.g. when you want to penetrate a certain audience really fast and are on a timer to spend your budget and reach as many people as possible without expecting pipeline in return…I would then risk cost cap (or even max delivery – but that never happens, right?). Still – 95% of the time, you’ll want to use manual bidding (most LinkedIn ads experts such as Gabriel Erlich or Max Herzeg agree – read on why below).
In this guide, I will explain the difference between these different bidding methods on LinkedIn, and share why manual bidding strategy choosing your LinkedIn bidding strategy for ABM, backed by benchmark data from ZenABM’s 2026 ABM Benchmarks Report and expert recommendations from the ZenABM ABM Bootcamp.
If you want a one-line answer: use manual CPC bidding for almost every ABM campaign on LinkedIn:
As one of the LinkedIn consultants I’ve worked with, Max Herzeg (former LinkedIn employee and Founder of Kamrade) put it: “Manual bidding basically covers most cases. It’s so good that LinkedIn actually hides it from you.”
I agree with Max completely. I pretty much only use maunal CPC bidding (so manual bidding + website visits objective). LinkedIn’s algorithm then optimizes for audiences that are more high-intent and more likely to actually engage and click. For ABM, where you are targeting a specific list of companies and every dollar matters, this level of control is non-negotiable.
But the full answer is more nuanced. Different campaign types, audience sizes, and objectives call for slightly different approaches. Let me break that down for you.
To choose the best bidding strategy, you need to understand the game you are actually playing when bidding for placements on LinkedIn ads network. LinkedIn uses a second-price auction where your Ad Rank determines who wins:
Ad Rank = Bid x Ad Relevance Score
You pay just enough to beat the next highest bidder, not your full bid. This has two practical implications for ABM bidding:
This is exactly why manual bidding works best for ABM. Automated strategies like maximum delivery need large audiences and lots of data to optimize effectively. With a target account list of 500-2,000 companies, LinkedIn’s algorithm simply does not have enough data to make good automated decisions.
Here is the framework I use to choose bidding strategies across different ABM campaign structures:
Best strategy: Manual CPC bidding
When you are introducing your brand to target accounts for the first time, you want controlled spend and gradual exposure. Manual CPC lets you start with a lower bid and reach the most engaged subset of your audience first.
Max Herzeg’s approach: “What I would always do is 30% below the recommendation of the range.” Start low. If your ads are relevant, you will win enough auctions to build awareness without overpaying.
The trade-off is lower audience penetration. At lower bids, LinkedIn shows your ads to a smaller but more engaged subset. For cold ABM, this is actually an advantage – you build frequency with your best prospects first, then expand reach by increasing your bid over time.
Best strategy: Manual CPC bidding
For campaigns targeting accounts that have already shown engagement (visited your website, engaged with previous ads), manual CPC remains the best choice. These audiences are smaller and more valuable, so you want full control over costs.
You can generally bid slightly higher for warm audiences because CTR tends to be higher (improving your Ad Relevance Score) and the audience is pre-qualified. A higher bid ensures you reach more of this valuable segment.
Best strategy: Manual CPC bidding (with higher bids)
Retargeting audiences are your hottest prospects. Max Herzeg notes that the engagement objective works well here: “Engagement -lots of clicks, good for building retargeting audiences.” Once you have that retargeting audience, use manual CPC with competitive bids to make sure you reach them consistently.
Best strategy: Manual CPC bidding
Thought Leader Ads already deliver significantly lower CPCs than other formats – median $2.29 vs $13+ for sponsored content. Manual CPC keeps costs predictable. Max Herzeg notes that brand awareness as an objective “can work in combination with TLAs,” but I still recommend website visits with CPC bidding for most TLA campaigns.
| Campaign Type | Best Bidding Strategy | Starting Bid Approach | Key Metric to Watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cold ABM | Manual CPC | 30% below suggested range | Reach % across target list |
| Warm ABM | Manual CPC | Low end of suggested range | CTR and engagement rate |
| Retargeting | Manual CPC (higher bids) | Mid-range of suggested range | Conversion rate, frequency |
| TLA Campaigns | Manual CPC | 30% below suggested range | CPC vs $2.29 benchmark |
| Lead Gen Forms | Manual CPC (bid for clicks) | Low end of suggested range | Cost per lead |
Your audience size significantly impacts which bidding strategy works best. Here is how I approach it:
Use: Manual CPC, bid at or slightly above the low end of LinkedIn’s range.
With small audiences, LinkedIn has very few auction opportunities. If you bid too low, your ads may barely serve at all. Start at the low end of the suggested range (not 30% below) and adjust quickly based on delivery.
The budget formula helps set expectations: Audience size x Reachable % x CPM x Frequency goal = monthly budget. For a list of 300 companies, even at a 50% reachable rate, you are looking at a small addressable audience. Set realistic delivery expectations.
Use: Manual CPC, start 30% below the suggested range.
This is the sweet spot for ABM. You have enough auction opportunities for manual bidding to work efficiently, and enough data for you to optimize over time. Max Herzeg’s 30% below approach works perfectly here.
Use: Manual CPC, start 30% below the suggested range.
With larger audiences, you have more room to bid low and still get meaningful delivery. You might even consider segmenting your list into tiers and running separate campaigns with different bids — higher bids for Tier 1 accounts, lower for Tier 2 and 3.
Gabriel Ehrlich reinforces this approach: “I believe that you should be spending in direct relationship to your TAM.” Larger TAM can justify more budget, but your CPC should stay stable.
The campaign objective you choose affects which bidding options are available and how LinkedIn optimizes delivery.
Best bidding: Manual CPC
Max Herzeg is clear on this: “If you want to bring people to your website and educate them, use website visits. If you want people to sign up for a demo, use website visits.”
Website visits with manual CPC is the default combination for ABM. It gives you control over costs while optimizing for clicks — the most meaningful engagement signal for most ABM campaigns.
Best bidding: Manual CPC (bid for clicks, not leads)
A useful hack: even with lead generation campaigns, you can bid for clicks instead of leads. Since clicks are usually cheaper than leads, this can reduce your cost per lead significantly. LinkedIn still optimizes for people likely to fill out your lead gen form, but you pay per click rather than per lead.
Best bidding: Manual CPC
Max Herzeg recommends engagement campaigns for building retargeting audiences: “Engagement — lots of clicks, good for building retargeting audiences.” Manual CPC keeps click costs predictable.
Best bidding: Avoid this objective in most cases
I personally think the brand awareness campaign objective drives low-quality impressions and wastes a lot of budget. Max Herzeg notes it “can work in combination with TLAs,” but for standard ABM campaigns, stick with website visits.
Best bidding: Do not use this objective
Max Herzeg is explicit: “Do not use website conversions. It’s actually not working well. It’s a more expensive version of website visits.” Use website visits instead – even for conversion-focused campaigns.
Let me be specific about why the other two bidding strategies are not recommended for most ABM campaigns.
Maximum delivery… most people don’t like it, myself included.” – Max Herzeg, former LinkedIn employee
Maximum delivery optimizes for spending your budget, not for reaching your target accounts efficiently. For ABM, this creates several problems:
Gabriel Ehrlich warns: “If you just doubled [budget], and your CPM went up because of that, then that’s a problem. Maybe you had maximum delivery as your bidding strategy, and if you do that and just add budget, there’s a very decent chance that LinkedIn will waste your budget.”
No one ever talks about [cost cap]. I don’t recommend it personally.” -Max Herzeg, former LinkedIn employee
Cost cap sets an average cost target but lets LinkedIn adjust individual bids. In theory, it provides a middle ground between manual and automated bidding. In practice, it lacks the precision ABM campaigns need and does not have enough adoption or data points for most practitioners to trust it.
Your bidding strategy also needs to align with your overall budget allocation. Veronika Vebere from the ZenABM Bootcamp shared a useful framework:
I like to start with 5-10% of the total marketing budget. That should be allocated to experiments.” – Veronika Vebere
This means when you are testing a new bidding approach, allocate a small portion of your ABM budget to the experiment. Do not switch your entire campaign to a new strategy at once. Test with 5-10% of budget, compare results over 2-3 weeks, then scale what works.
Veronika also sets clear expectations for return: “Going after a 3 to 4 times return on ad spend would be conservative.” Your bidding strategy directly affects whether you hit that target – overpaying per click with maximum delivery makes hitting ROAS goals much harder.
Use these benchmarks from ZenABM’s 2026 report to evaluate whether your bidding strategy is working:
| Metric | ABM Benchmark (Median) | What It Tells You |
|---|---|---|
| CPM | $78 | If your CPM is significantly above this, your bidding may be too aggressive |
| TLA CPC | $2.29 | If your TLA CPC exceeds $5, review your creative or audience |
| Single Image CPC | $13.23 | If your CPC exceeds $20, lower your bid or improve ad relevance |
| Deal Open Rate | 0.58% | Measures downstream impact of your ABM campaigns |
| CTR (Single Image) | 0.42% | Low CTR increases CPC regardless of bidding strategy |
Overall, among our users, the median deal open rate was 0.58%, the typical CTR was 0.69%, and the typical CPM was $78. If your numbers are significantly off from these benchmarks, your bidding strategy is likely part of the problem.
Manual CPC bidding, starting at the low end of LinkedIn’s suggested bid range. Small audiences (under 500 companies) have fewer auction opportunities, so bidding too low will result in minimal delivery. Avoid maximum delivery, which tends to overspend with small audiences.
The strategy stays the same (manual CPC), but the bid amount changes. Use lower bids for cold awareness campaigns and higher bids for warm retargeting campaigns. The warmer the audience, the more you can afford to bid because conversion rates are higher.
In rare cases, maximum delivery can be acceptable for very short-duration campaigns (1-2 weeks) where speed of delivery matters more than cost efficiency. For example, promoting a time-sensitive event to your target accounts. But even then, I recommend testing manual CPC first.
Compare your actual CPC and CPM to the benchmarks. If your CPM is significantly above $78 (the ABM median) or your CPC exceeds format-specific benchmarks, your bidding may need adjustment. Also track downstream metrics like deal open rate (median 0.58%) to ensure clicks are translating to pipeline.
Yes, but I rarely find a reason to. Manual CPC works across all campaign types. If you want to test a different strategy, run it as a separate campaign with a small budget (5-10% of your total) and compare results over 2-3 weeks.
