LinkedIn ABM 2026 - Performance Benchmarks Report & Top Performing LinkedIn Ads
Quantitative & Qualitative Analysis of 161,256 ads, 211 companies from 29 countries, with $5,536,829 in ad spend
About This Report
You've heard everyone raving about ABM - but you don't know where to start? I've been there. Launching a LinkedIn ABM program for your company without knowing: how much budget you should allocate to it, how many companies you should target, which ad formats you should choose, how many ads you should have etc - is really daunting.
And that's why I really wanted to do this report - to give Demand Gen marketers starting a LinkedIn ABM Program in 2026 actionable insights into what works & what hasn't worked. So here it is - an actionable, quantitative & qualitative analysis of over 160k LinkedIn ABM ads, based on anonymised data of 211 ZenABM's users.
You will find answers to all your questions about typical company & top performer's LinkedIn ABM ad spend, number of accounts targeted, number of ads, and which ads performed best and what they had in common (inventory type, CTA, ad content).
The anonymised data has been pulled from ZenABM's Campaign Performance Dashboards, which combines data from the users' LinkedIn Campaign Manager API and their CRM, to provide detailed insights into LinkedIn ad campaigns performance and influence on pipeline and revenue.
You can try ZenABM for free for 37 days and get your own performance benchmarks for free, as ZenABM backfills 90 days of your ad performance data. It takes only 2 minutes to set up and a few minutes (depending on the number of LinkedIn campaigns run) to get your own report.
Read the full report below - no email required ;)
🔍 Key Findings
Budget & Scale
- Median spend: $2,693/mo
- Median ads: 312 across 16 groups
- Target accounts: 6,423/mo
Performance Benchmarks
- Median CTR: 0.69%
- Median CPC: $11.04
- Median CPM: $78.30
- Pipeline per $1: 5.21
Top Performers
(Top 25% by pipeline/$)
- Spend: $6,576/mo (+144%)
- Pipeline: $106,500/mo
- Pipeline/$: 15.20 (3× median)
- ROAS: 2.79
Critical Insights
- Budget drives pipeline (ρ = 0.47)
- Scale matters for total pipeline
- More ads ≠ better results
- Impressions > Clicks for pipeline
📈Ad Format Performance Rankings
🏅 WINNER: TLAs – 77% cheaper CPC than image ads ($3.06 vs $13.23)
| Format | CTR | CPC | CPM | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 TLAs | 2.68% | $3.06 | $82.14 | BEST VALUE |
| 🖼️ Single Image | 0.42% | $13.23 | $59.15 | GOOD REACH |
| 🎠 Carousel | 0.49% | $11.28 | $52.36 | BALANCED |
| 📄 Document | 0.52% | $13.04 | $62.06 | ENGAGEMENT |
| 🎬 Video | 0.24% | $15.61 | $38.94 | ⚠️REDUCE |
Source:  | ||||
💡Strategic Opportunity: Reallocating budget from video to TLAs can yield 2-3× more landing page traffic
🎨Creative Best Practices
🖼️Single Image Ads
- ✅Specific offers (FREE, $, time limit) – 6.5× more likely in top performers
- ✅Real people photos (not stock) – authenticity critical
- ✅Strong CTA button – visible, high-contrast, action-oriented
- ✅Process diagrams – show clear workflows, not UI dumps
- ❌Avoid: generic stock photos, cluttered designs, weak CTAs
🏆Thought Leader Ads (TLAs)
- ✅1st person "I" voice – 65% of top performers (vs 30% bottom)
- ✅Link at bottom – 75% place link in last 25% of text
- ✅1,000-1,500 characters – optimal length for value + attention
- ✅Pain-point hooks – "I've seen so many..." pattern wins
- ❌Avoid: webinar CTAs (0% in top 20), corporate "we" voice, hashtag spam
🎠Carousel Ads
- ✅Story progression – each card builds on the previous
- ✅5-7 cards optimal – enough depth without fatigue
- ✅CTA on final card – reward swipers with clear next step
🎬Video AdsConsider reducing
- ⚠️Gets 31.72% of budget but underperforms on CTR (0.24%)
- 💡If using: <30 seconds, captions required, hook in first 3s
- Reallocate to TLAs for better cost efficiency
💰 LinkedIn ABM Budget
How much were Companies Spending on LinkedIn ABM Ads per Month in 2025?
While the typical company spends a modest ~$2,700 monthly, the average spend ($8,788/mo) is pulled significantly higher ($12k+ in the US) by large enterprise budgets and aggressive spending in specific regions like the Netherlands ($35,260 average, n = 9 companies).
Typical Company
$2,693
Median/mo
$8,788
Average/mo
(average is pulled up by big spenders)
Top 25% Performers
(by pipeline/$)
$6,576/mo
🌍 By Country
$12,740
United States
/month
$35,260
Netherlands
/month
$4,869
United Kingdom
/month
$1,515
Poland
/month
💰 Total Annual LinkedIn ABM Budgets by Country▼
United States (N=55)
$47,967 median
$152,880 avg
Netherlands (N=9)
$50,755 median
$423,122 avg
United Kingdom (N=28)
$29,619 median
$58,423 avg
Poland (N=9)
$18,184 median
$29,782 avg
👥 By Employee Size
1–10
$2,129
median/mo
11–50
$5,386
median/mo
51–200
$9,984
median/mo
201–500
$14,784
median/mo
501–1k
$2,723
median/mo
1k–5k
$140,318
median/mo
10k+
$67,939
median/mo
🏭 By Industry
Industries with the biggest budgets (annualized)
Financial Services (N=6)
$62,491 median
$570,241 avg
Software Development (N=65)
$38,833 median
$94,743 avg
Advertising Services (N=15)
$37,022 median
$104,669 avg
IT Services & IT Consulting (N=16)
$20,294 median
$83,458 avg
Technology, Information & Internet (N=15)
$30,023 median
$94,530 avg
🏆Top Spenders
| Top Spender | Annual ABM Budget | Company Size | Country | Industry |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🥇 Spender #1 | $1,772,181 | 1k–5k | 🇳🇱 Netherlands | Financial Services |
| 🥈 Spender #2 | $1,511,109 | 11–50 | 🇺🇸 United States | Embedded Software Products |
| 🥉 Spender #3 | $1,476,337 | 1k–5k | 🇳🇱 Netherlands | Financial Services |
| Spender #4 | $841,907 | 1k–5k | 🇮🇳 India | Marketing Services |
| Spender #5 | $764,962 | 1–10 | 🇺🇸 United States | Advertising Services |
Source: | ||||
📊 LinkedIn ABM Ad Volume
How many LinkedIn ABM ads were companies running, on average?
A typical company running LinkedIn ABM runs 312 ads, across 16 campaign groups, and 44 ad sets. The highest number of ads are run by companies in the US, UK and the Netherlands. Interestingly - Top performing companies are running fewer ads (but this doesn't imply causality - as the average is pulled heavily by average ACV rather than pipeline efficiency or ad creatives).
Typical Company (medians)
312
Ads
16
Campaigns
44
Ad Sets
7.1
Ads/Ad Set
Top Performers (Top-25% by pipeline/$)
114
Ads
10
Campaigns
20
Ad Sets
5.7
Ads/Ad Set
🌍 By Country (average # ads)
582
United States
647
United Kingdom
4,011
Netherlands
👥 By Employee Size (average # ads)
11–50 employees
622
ads
1k–5k employees
7,297
ads
🎯 Target Accounts Reached
How many target accounts were reached?
The "typical LinkedIn ABM" company runs ads to around 9,875 companies total, and 6,423 target accounts per month. The number of companies targeted scales heavily with company size rather than performance tier.
Typical Company (medians)
6,423
Target Accounts/Mo
9,875
Total Accounts
Top Performers (Top-25% by pipeline/$)
4,717
Target Accounts/Mo
6,892
Total Accounts
Averages
4,398
Target Accounts/Mo
10,454
Total Accounts
🌍 By Country (avg target accounts/mo)
4,136
United States
5,326
United Kingdom
👥 By Employee Size (avg target accounts/mo)
11–50 employees
4,370
/mo
1k–5k employees
10,016
/mo
📊 LinkedIn Ad Performance Benchmarks
CTR, CPC, and CPM benchmarks for LinkedIn ABM ads
The "typical" company in the dataset running ABM ads has CTR 0.69%, CPC $11.04, CPM $78.30.
Typical Company (medians)
0.69%
CTR
$11.04
CPC
$78.30
CPM
Top Performers (Top-25% by pipeline/$)
0.21%
CTR
$21.91
CPC
$56.62
CPM
Top performance skewed by high ACV, not ad performance
💡Insight - why is Typical Company CTR Higher?
Clicks (and CTR) don't drive pipeline - impressions do. Better (higher) CTR doesn't correlate with higher pipeline or efficiency. But more impressions do (ρ = 0.445). This may imply that brand awareness and sheer ad exposure drives pipeline, and that a lot of clicks are obfuscated by LinkedIn's privacy policy. This means click-based LinkedIn ABM attribution misses the point and may lead to poor decisions (ZenABM uses impression-based attribution for ABM-influenced pipeline). Also - Top performance as measured by highest Pipeline/$ is heavily skewed by high ACV, rather than ad performance.
🌍 By Country (medians)
United States
0.52% CTR
$8.99 CPC · $62.67 CPM
United Kingdom
0.55% CTR
$9.16 CPC · $56.62 CPM
Netherlands
0.72% CTR
$6.40 CPC · $50.08 CPM
Want to analyze YOUR LinkedIn Ad Performance?
ZenABM's AI Chatbot (Zena) will help you analyse your LinkedIn Ad Performance benchmarks in minutes!
No credit card required
ABM Performance Metrics
💰 LinkedIn Influenced Pipeline & ROAS
Typical Company (medians)
$13,819
Pipeline/Mo
5.21
Pipeline per $
1.62
ROAS
Top Performers (Top-25% by pipeline/$)
$106,500
Pipeline/Mo
→ $1.28M/yr
15.20
Pipeline per $
2.79
ROAS
🎯 Deal Open Rate
Deals opened ÷ target accounts
Overall (median)
0.58%
Deal Open Rate
Top Performers (Top-25% by pipeline/$)
0.66%
Deal Open Rate
📋 LinkedIn ABM - Key Metrics Summary (averages)
| Segment | Monthly spend ($/mo) | Total spend ($) | Target accounts (total) | Target accounts (avg/mo) | LinkedIn ads (#) | Campaign Groups (#) | Ad sets (#) | Impressions (avg/mo) | Clicks (avg/mo) | CTR (%) | CPC ($) | CPM ($) | Influenced pipeline ($/mo) | Pipeline per $ | ROAS | Deal open rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | $8,788 | $84,995 | 10,454 | 4,398 | 724 | 26.5 | 84.8 | 318,653 | 1,017 | 1.15% | $11.03 | $68.62 | $247,794 | 38.96 | 263.63 | 0.99% |
| 🌍Country | ||||||||||||||||
| 🇺🇸 United States | $12,740 | $120,194 | 8,486 | 4,136 | 582 | 25.8 | 75.8 | 242,036 | 805 | 1.03% | $11.65 | $65.71 | $788,950 | 40.25 | 5.87 | 0.96% |
| 🇬🇧 United Kingdom | $4,869 | $47,056 | 12,451 | 5,326 | 647 | 29.0 | 108.2 | 340,025 | 1,165 | 1.03% | $12.73 | $72.20 | $37,120 | 5.74 | 908.59 | 1.01% |
| 🇳🇱 Netherlands | $35,260 | $290,575 | 14,651 | 5,012 | 4,011 | 39.2 | 130.8 | 614,006 | 2,073 | 1.17% | $8.21 | $76.62 | $160,910 | 4.01 | 1.17 | 0.88% |
| 🌐 Unknown | $5,191 | $44,119 | 10,541 | 4,899 | 1,171 | 24.1 | 89.8 | 420,663 | 1,224 | 1.23% | $10.86 | $65.07 | $165,406 | 54.22 | 563.62 | 1.02% |
| 🇮🇪 Ireland | $3,323 | $30,858 | 8,121 | 3,679 | 533 | 24.8 | 69.2 | 324,061 | 1,147 | 1.16% | $11.43 | $73.34 | $17,930 | 4.05 | 0.85 | 0.98% |
| 🇵🇱 Poland | $4,585 | $32,005 | 5,200 | 2,260 | 586 | 24.2 | 71.6 | 288,747 | 827 | 0.90% | $12.39 | $57.48 | $3,955 | 2.39 | 0.41 | 1.15% |
| 🇸🇪 Sweden | $3,922 | $28,192 | 6,058 | 2,825 | 503 | 22.8 | 58.4 | 214,167 | 539 | 1.03% | $15.08 | $55.16 | — | 0.35 | 0.00 | 0.85% |
| 🇮🇳 India | $2,134 | $18,627 | 4,421 | 2,004 | 202 | 19.7 | 45.3 | 159,688 | 320 | 0.68% | $11.80 | $47.24 | — | — | — | 0.59% |
| 🇦🇺 Australia | $6,036 | $44,333 | 10,296 | 4,681 | 733 | 28.7 | 97.7 | 363,353 | 1,191 | 1.05% | $11.89 | $66.41 | — | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.72% |
| 👥Employee Size | ||||||||||||||||
| 1–10 | $1,836 | $13,562 | 5,201 | 2,824 | 174 | 20.1 | 42.5 | 238,558 | 538 | 0.62% | $15.55 | $65.42 | $6,525 | 0.41 | 1.04 | 0.60% |
| 11–50 | $4,892 | $43,620 | 11,327 | 4,370 | 622 | 25.7 | 83.4 | 285,525 | 908 | 1.08% | $11.92 | $70.26 | $122,375 | 34.39 | 1.62 | 1.04% |
| 51–200 | $13,047 | $123,182 | 10,626 | 4,436 | 979 | 29.3 | 92.1 | 351,056 | 1,306 | 1.35% | $9.42 | $62.83 | $275,100 | 11.60 | 1.62 | 0.87% |
| 201–500 | $10,597 | $100,288 | 11,304 | 4,373 | 868 | 27.6 | 84.6 | 372,282 | 1,185 | 1.11% | $11.35 | $70.74 | $149,820 | 4.73 | 0.86 | 1.04% |
| 501–1k | $14,828 | $136,133 | 12,126 | 4,558 | 1,049 | 31.8 | 91.8 | 460,271 | 1,683 | 1.03% | $10.75 | $59.31 | $170,621 | 7.07 | 0.73 | 0.89% |
| 1k–5k | $68,249 | $653,407 | 22,669 | 10,016 | 7,297 | 40.9 | 168.4 | 876,612 | 3,748 | 1.29% | $5.55 | $82.90 | $460,950 | 2.78 | 0.08 | 0.77% |
| 5k–10k | $18,733 | $166,228 | 5,128 | 1,489 | 1,032 | 38.9 | 117.0 | 388,996 | 1,767 | 1.61% | $6.41 | $58.68 | $19,514 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.73% |
| 10k+ | $9,287 | $76,552 | 9,238 | 4,201 | 912 | 29.1 | 81.0 | 319,347 | 1,186 | 1.24% | $8.54 | $57.73 | — | — | — | 0.74% |
| Unknown | $7,181 | $66,223 | 7,524 | 3,510 | 608 | 25.8 | 79.7 | 297,468 | 941 | 1.06% | $11.68 | $66.12 | $92,715 | 34.61 | 981.93 | 1.31% |
| 💰Revenue | ||||||||||||||||
| <$1M | $2,543 | $25,882 | 7,666 | 3,747 | 254 | 22.5 | 59.0 | 277,152 | 605 | 0.72% | $13.72 | $63.78 | $38,717 | 14.41 | 2.49 | 0.77% |
| $1–5M | $2,480 | $22,172 | 11,456 | 5,032 | 291 | 23.2 | 70.1 | 299,629 | 768 | 0.90% | $10.87 | $61.42 | $126,005 | 50.83 | 1.85 | 0.89% |
| $5–10M | $4,365 | $43,556 | 9,911 | 4,584 | 462 | 24.4 | 79.4 | 361,105 | 915 | 0.88% | $12.43 | $71.01 | $116,050 | 26.60 | 1.11 | 0.92% |
| $10–50M | $6,582 | $62,035 | 12,067 | 5,321 | 889 | 27.4 | 92.0 | 366,716 | 1,246 | 1.30% | $9.63 | $69.92 | $147,704 | 22.44 | 0.95 | 1.18% |
| $50–200M | $8,677 | $81,412 | 13,001 | 5,147 | 846 | 28.0 | 87.2 | 431,418 | 1,417 | 1.05% | $10.82 | $64.08 | $109,790 | 4.59 | 0.40 | 0.90% |
| $200M–$1B | $20,131 | $167,950 | 8,301 | 3,057 | 1,220 | 34.4 | 108.7 | 423,720 | 1,611 | 1.46% | $7.31 | $66.22 | $133,655 | 6.64 | 0.56 | 1.05% |
| $1B+ | $33,832 | $259,463 | 2,440 | 1,140 | 1,586 | 45.0 | 141.0 | 409,386 | 1,952 | 1.91% | $6.21 | $55.33 | — | — | — | 0.64% |
| Unknown | $9,463 | $90,205 | 9,222 | 3,720 | 890 | 27.7 | 85.8 | 301,219 | 1,081 | 1.13% | $11.33 | $71.16 | $251,471 | 47.30 | 757.64 | 1.08% |
| 🏭Industry | ||||||||||||||||
| Software Development | $8,054 | $79,078 | 10,308 | 4,377 | 584 | 25.4 | 79.1 | 308,381 | 981 | 1.09% | $10.95 | $70.14 | $221,050 | 49.76 | 1.83 | 1.09% |
| Unknown | $4,828 | $43,144 | 10,642 | 4,856 | 1,336 | 23.1 | 89.7 | 425,741 | 1,223 | 1.13% | $11.50 | $62.13 | $167,945 | 42.13 | 638.37 | 0.98% |
| IT Services & Consulting | $8,969 | $83,347 | 11,676 | 4,909 | 782 | 27.7 | 90.0 | 329,383 | 1,036 | 1.04% | $11.62 | $69.25 | $40,135 | 5.07 | 2.27 | 0.94% |
| Advertising Services | $7,909 | $66,886 | 9,347 | 4,158 | 473 | 25.9 | 85.4 | 310,735 | 932 | 1.08% | $12.77 | $65.06 | $1,896 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 1.11% |
| Tech, Info & Internet | $13,567 | $134,231 | 12,397 | 5,768 | 1,011 | 29.4 | 92.0 | 437,804 | 1,560 | 1.31% | $8.70 | $74.20 | $325,000 | 23.96 | 0.64 | 0.93% |
Source: | ||||||||||||||||
What has the Highest Impact on LinkedIn ABM performance?
How does budget spend, number of companies targeted, number of LinkedIn ads, and ad performance metrics (average CTRs, CPCs, CPMs etc.) influence your ABM results (pipeline + efficiency - pipeline per $ spent)
Correlations vs Influenced pipeline per month ($/mo)
(Reported as Spearman rho + Pearson r)
| Driver | N | Spearman rho | Pearson r |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly ad spend ($/mo) | 33 | 0.47 | 0.57 |
| LinkedIn Campaigns (ad sets) | 33 | 0.39 | 0.21 |
| Companies targeted (total) | 33 | 0.37 | 0.13 |
| Companies targeted (avg/mo) | 33 | 0.35 | 0.27 |
| LinkedIn ads (count) | 30 | 0.31 | 0.06 |
| CPC ($) | 33 | 0.29 | -0.02 |
| LinkedIn Campaign Groups | 33 | 0.22 | 0.09 |
| CTR (%) | 33 | -0.14 | 0.05 |
| CPM ($) | 33 | 0.05 | 0.21 |
Source: | |||
*Higher values indicate a stronger relationship; Pearson shows how closely two metrics move together in a straight line, while Spearman shows whether they generally move in the same direction, even if the relationship isn't perfectly linear.
💡Key takeaways
Impact of budget, target account list size, number of ads & LinkedIn ads performance metrics on ABM results
If you want more pipeline, budget matters most.
Monthly ad spend has the strongest relationship with pipeline influenced per month (ρ 0.47, r 0.57)
Targeting more accounts is the 2nd largest predictor
Don't increase your ABM budget without increasing your target account lists. Larger lists perform better for increasing monthly pipeline:
"More ads" alone doesn't predict better results
Number of ads has only a weak link with pipeline/month (ρ 0.31, r 0.06)
CTR isn't a good success metric for ABM pipeline
Surprisingly, CTR doesn't move with pipeline/month (ρ -0.14)
Likely skewed by high ACV performers who don't worry about ad performance.
Cheap clicks don't equal more pipeline
CPC doesn't clearly relate to pipeline/month (ρ 0.29, r -0.02)
CPM isn't telling you much about performance
CPM is basically unrelated to pipeline/month (ρ 0.05) and efficiency (ρ -0.07)
Efficiency (Pipeline per $) doesn't improve just by scaling mechanics
Pipeline/$ has near-zero relationships with spend, targeting volume, # campaigns, # ads, CTR, CPC, CPM (most are between -0.13 and +0.09)
✅ To improve efficiency, focus on:
There's a tiny "bigger = slightly less efficient" pattern
Spend vs Pipeline/$ is slightly negative (ρ -0.13) — very weak, but it shows up.
🎯 Simple Takeaway
More Pipeline
Spend + coverage = more pipeline
Better Efficiency
Better targeting + messaging + conversion + follow-up
Connect Your CRM + LinkedIn ABM Data
ZenABM combines your CRM data with your LinkedIn ABM Ad Performance data — giving you insights into the impact of your ads on your pipeline & revenue.
No credit card required
📊 Correlation: Spend Tier ↔ Pipeline per $ (Efficiency)
Treating spend tier as an ordered variable (low → high):
Spearman rho
-0.12
Pearson r
-0.25
⚠️ Moving up spend tiers is not associated with higher efficiency — if anything it's slightly negative, but weak.
*Higher values indicate a stronger relationship; Pearson shows how closely two metrics move together in a straight line, while Spearman shows whether they generally move in the same direction, even if the relationship isn't perfectly linear.
💵 Pipeline per $ by Monthly Ad Spend Tier (Medians)
| Monthly Ad Spend Tier | Companies | Median Spend ($/mo) | Median Pipeline per $ | P25 Pipeline per $ | P75 Pipeline per $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low< $2k/mo | 9 | $977 | 22.10 | 6.11 | 74.91 |
| Med-Low$2k–$5k | 5 | $3,510 | 1.83 | 1.71 | 4.30 |
| Medium$5k–$10k | 9 | $7,663 | 2.78 | 1.13 | 14.51 |
| Med-High$10k–$20k | 5 | $14,474 | 9.30 | 8.38 | 25.39 |
| High$20k+/mo | 5 | $39,554 | 6.89 | 4.42 | 9.64 |
📊 Want to calculate YOUR Pipeline per $?
Calculate your Pipeline per $, Deal Open Rate, and see how you compare to these benchmarks — ZenABM makes it easy with pre-defined Dashboards + Zena (AI chatbot) answering any questions you may have!
No credit card required
📋 LinkedIn ABM Campaign Best Practices
Data-driven recommendations based on analysis of 33 B2B SaaS companies
1💰 How much should I spend on LinkedIn ABM per month?
Recommendation: Pick your tier based on how aggressive you want to be.
| Monthly ABM Ad Spend | Median (P50) | P75 | P90 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spend ($/mo) | $2,693 | $6,918 | $19,989 | $8,788 |
📊Correlation insight: Spend is the strongest “volume lever” for influenced pipeline/month (ρ 0.47 / r 0.57). Moving from ~$2.7k/mo → $6.9k/mo → $20k/mo reliably increases pipeline volume.
2🎯 How many accounts should I target with LinkedIn ABM?
Based on monthly average # of companies targeted.
| Target Accounts (avg/mo) | Median (P50) | P75 | P90 | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target accounts | 2,518 | 6,423 | 10,007 | 4,398 |
Baseline ABM
~2.5k/mo
Upper Quartile
~6.4k/mo
Aggressive Scale
~10k/mo
⚠️Note: Targeting volume has only a weak-to-moderate relationship with pipeline (ρ 0.35–0.37), and basically no relationship with efficiency (Pipeline/$ ~0). Scale targeting for volume, but don't expect it to “fix” Pipeline/$.
3📣 How many LinkedIn ABM ads / campaigns should I run?
Use these as execution targets (not “success” KPIs).
| Build Volume | Median (P50) | P75 | P90 | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LinkedIn Ads (#) | 247 | 622 | 1,405 | 891 |
| Campaign Groups (#) | 12 | 20 | 39 | 26 |
| Ad Sets (#) | 29 | 54 | 124 | 100 |
⚠️Note: # Ad sets has moderate relationship with pipeline/month (ρ 0.39), but weaker than spend. # Ads is weaker again (ρ 0.31, r 0.06). More ads ≠ guaranteed more pipeline.
4📈 What LinkedIn ABM ad performance metrics should I aim for?
| Metric | Median (P50) | P75 | P90 | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTR (%) | 0.69% | 1.41% | 2.37% | 1.26% |
| CPC ($) | $5.53 | $13.27 | $24.25 | $10.70 |
| CPM ($) | $40.18 | $81.15 | $151.19 | $74.53 |
CTR Target
~0.7% baseline
~1.4% upper quartile
CPC Target
$5–$13
Higher isn't bad in ABM
CPM Target
~$40 median
~$80 upper quartile
🔥 Key Insight: Impressions Drive Pipeline, Not Clicks!
Impressions ρ = 0.445 (p=0.009) — Statistically significant at p<0.01 level
✅ What DRIVES Pipeline:
- • Deals Opened (ρ = 0.593) ***
- • Total Ad Spend (ρ = 0.566) ***
- • Monthly Ad Spend (ρ = 0.511) **
- • Total Engagements (ρ = 0.480) **
- • Total Impressions (ρ = 0.445) **
❌ What DOESN'T Drive Pipeline:
- • CTR (ρ = -0.170) — Actually negative!
- • CPM (ρ = 0.112) — No relationship
- • Number of Ads (ρ = 0.186)
💡Takeaway: Don't set a “high CTR” goal as your primary ABM objective. Use CTR as a creative/account coverage diagnostic, but judge success with pipeline/month + Pipeline/$.
5⚡ What LinkedIn ABM efficiency targets should I aim for?
Best read on the pipeline-attributed subset (N=33).
💰 Pipeline/$
Baseline: ≥ ~7
Strong: ≥ ~22
🎯 Deal Open Rate
Baseline: ~0.35–0.40%
Strong: ~0.8%+
📊 ROAS
Baseline: ≥ ~1.6
Strong: ~2.5–3.0
6🌍 LinkedIn ABM Segment-specific Starting Points
Use medians for “typical” targets, means for scale planning.
📝 LinkedIn ABM Ad Content Analysis
This part of the report is based on quantitative and qualitative analysis of 2,828 ads run in 2025 by 7 B2B SaaS companies. This section covers selected ad formats represented in the data set: Single image ads (1,676), video ads (423), carousel ads (310), and TLAs (215).
📈 Ad Split by Inventory Type
Distribution of ad formats across the analyzed dataset:
Ad Format Distribution
| Ad Inventory Type | # Ads | % of Ads |
|---|---|---|
| Single image | 1,676 | 59.3% |
| Video | 423 | 15.0% |
| Carousel | 310 | 11.0% |
| TLA | 215 | 7.6% |
| Text | 115 | 4.1% |
| DM (Sponsored Messaging) | 67 | 2.4% |
| Dynamic | 13 | 0.5% |
| Document | 9 | 0.3% |
| Total | 2,828 | 100.0% |
Source: | ||
LinkedIn Ad Format Performance Overview
| Format | % of Budget | % of Ads | Median CTR | Median CTR to LP | Median CPC | Weighted CPC to LP | Median CPM | Median Dwell Time | Efficiency Score* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 TLAs | ~7-10% | 7.6% | 2.68% | 0.29% | $2.29 | $3.06 | $49.37 | 6.63s | 9.5 |
| 🖼️ Single Image | 61.87% | 59.3% | 0.42% | 0.42% | $13.23 | $13.23 | $59.15 | 3.64s | 3.2 |
| 📝 Lead Gen Form | ~2% | 5.8% | 0.45% | 0.00% | $12.33 | $811.09/lead | $75.59 | 3.18s | 3.7 (CTR only) |
| 🎠 Carousel | 2.73% | 11.0% | 0.32% | 0.31% | $13.30 | $13.30 | $45.28 | 4.56s | 2.4 |
| Document | 2.93% | 0.3% | 0.30% | 0.00% | $12.05 | N/A | $72.02 | 3.15s | 2.5 |
| 🎬 Video | 31.72% | 15.0% | 0.24% | 0.24% | $15.61 | $15.61 | $38.94 | 3.91s | 1.5 |
Source: | |||||||||
*Efficiency Score combines CTR, CPC to LP, and engagement metrics (higher = better)
💵 LinkedIn Ad Spend by Inventory Type
Global Spend (USD + Converted EUR)
Total Spend
$611,365.30
🖼️LinkedIn Single Image Ads Benchmarks
Dataset after excluding TLAs
| Metric | Average | Median |
|---|---|---|
| # Ads (non-TLA) | 936 | |
| CTR | 0.48% | 0.42% |
| CPC | $16.34 | $13.23 |
| CPM | $72.94 | $59.15 |
| Dwell Time | 4.19s | 3.64s |
Source: | ||
🎬LinkedIn Video Ads Benchmarks
All video ads (non-TLA)
| Metric | Average | Median |
|---|---|---|
| # Video Ads | 342 | |
| CTR | 0.37% | 0.24% |
| CPC | $20.66 | $15.61 |
| CPM | $48.87 | $38.94 |
| View-through Rate | 37.92% | 39.48% |
| Watch Time | 6.54s | 5.86s |
Source: | ||
🏆LinkedIn Thought Leader Ad (TLA) Benchmarks
TLAs (Image Ads only) - 119 ads analyzed
| Metric | Average | Median |
|---|---|---|
| # TLAs | 119 | |
| CTR | 3.40% | 2.68% |
| CTR to Landing Page | 0.43% | 0.29% |
| Clicks to Landing Page | 55.25 | 8 |
| Dwell Time | 7.06s | 6.60s |
| CPC | $4.24 | $2.29 |
| CPM | $116.74 | $49.37 |
Source: | ||
🎠 LinkedIn Carousel Ads Benchmarks
Carousel ads benchmarks (overall) - 44 ads analyzed
| Metric | Average | Median |
|---|---|---|
| CTR | 0.37% | 0.32% |
| CPC | $19.60 | $13.31 |
| CPM | $58.02 | $45.29 |
| Dwell Time | 4.72s | 4.56s |
Carousel card-level performance (Weighted CTR = total card clicks / total card impressions per card position)
| Card # | Impressions Share | Clicks Share | CTR (weighted) | CTR (median) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Card 1 | 76.32% | 55.95% | 0.12% | 0.10% |
| Card 2 | 22.75% | 38.83% | 0.27% | 0.26% |
| Card 3 | 0.43% | 1.62% | 0.60% | 0.00% |
| Card 4 | 0.29% | 1.62% | 0.91% | 0.00% |
| Card 5 | 0.13% | 0.90% | 1.12% | 0.00% |
| Card 6 | 0.05% | 0.63% | 1.84% | 0.00% |
| Card 7 | 0.02% | 0.45% | 2.89% | 0.00% |
📄LinkedIn Document Ads Benchmarks
⚠️ Note: Since there were only 9 Document Ads in the data set, these benchmarks are directional only.
| Metric | Average | Median | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| # Document Ads | 34 | combined across document files | |
| CTR | 1.58% | 0.42% | Impressions > 0 (skewed by a few strong ads) |
| CTR to Landing Page | 0.08% | 0.00% | many rows have 0 LP clicks |
| CPC | $39.95 | $11.06 | Clicks > 0 (big outliers inflate average) |
| CPM | $130.91 | $60.95 | Impressions > 0 |
| Dwell Time | 3.54s | 3.13s | Dwell > 0 |
📝 LinkedIn Lead Gen Form Ads Benchmarks
Lead Gen Form ads — overall performance (avg + median)
| Segment | # ads | CTR (avg) | CTR (median) | CPC (avg) | CPC (median) | CPM (avg) | CPM (median) | CTR (weighted) | CPC (weighted) | CPM (weighted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead Gen Form ads | 163 | 0.45% | 0.45% | $21.59 | $12.33 | $102.57 | $75.59 | 0.59% | $12.15 | $72.16 |
Lead-form specific benchmarks
| Segment | Lead Forms Opened (total) | Leads (total) | Completion rate (avg) | Completion rate (median) | Completion rate (weighted) | Dwell time (avg) | Dwell time (median) | CPL (median, ads w/ ≥1 lead) | CPL (weighted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead Gen Form ads | 2,128 | 48 | 1.24% | 0.00% | 2.26% | 3.38s | 3.17s | $430.76 | $811.09 |
🏆 Top Performing LinkedIn ABM Ads - Qualitative Analysis
Analysis of 2,828 LinkedIn Ads | December 2025
Executive Summary
This report analyzes quantitative performance data from 2,828 B2B SaaS LinkedIn ads from 7 B2B SaaS companies across 6 major formats, combined with qualitative visual analysis of 463+ top-performing ads.
Key Finding: Thought Leader Ads (TLAs) deliver the most cost-effective landing page traffic at $3.06 per click (77% cheaper than single image ads), while video ads significantly underperform despite receiving 31.72% of total budget allocation.
Strategic Opportunity: Reallocating budget from video to TLAs and applying proven creative patterns to image ads can yield 2-3× more landing page traffic for the same spend.
🎯 LinkedIn ABM Ads Visual Pattern Analysis: The Winner Formula
Top Elements in High-Performing Ads (≥2.00% CTR)
| Visual Element | % in Top Performers | % in Low Performers | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Specific Offer (FREE, $, time limit) | 65% | 10% | +550% more likely |
| 2. Strong CTA Button (visible, action-oriented) | 59% | 20% | +195% more likely |
| 3. Real People (authentic, not stock) | 47% | 30% (stock photos) | Authenticity critical |
| 4. Charts/Diagrams (strategic, not UI dumps) | 41% | 40% (poorly used) | Context matters |
| 5. Humor/Meme (pattern interrupt) | 35% | 2% | +1,650% more likely |
| 6. Testimonial/Quote (with credentials) | 29% | 20% | Moderate lift |
| 7. Minimalist Design (focused, not empty) | 18% | 45% (unfocused) | Quality over quantity |
Source: | |||
Anti-Patterns in Low-Performing Ads (<median CTR)
| Anti-Pattern | % in Low Performers | % in Top Performers | Performance Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Text-Heavy Layouts | 40% | 12% | +233% more common in failures |
| 2. Stock Photography | 35% | 12% | +192% more common in failures |
| 3. Generic Minimalism (no focal point) | 45% | 18% | +150% more common in failures |
| 4. Logo-Centric (brand over benefit) | 25% | 6% | +317% more common in failures |
Source: | |||
The Winner Formula (Apply to All Formats)
1. Lead with Specific Offer (65% pattern in top performers)
- • Use "FREE" prominently
- • Add time limit/urgency ("Ends Dec 31", "10 spots left")
- • Show concrete value ("$10 pipeline per $1 spent", "3 days vs 3 months")
2. Feature Real Humans (47% pattern in top performers)
- • Your team or customers (not stock photos)
- • Include names, titles, credentials
- • Show emotion and authenticity
3. Use Pattern Interruption (35% pattern in top performers)
- • Humor/memes where brand-appropriate
- • Bold statements that challenge industry norms
- • Unexpected visuals that stop the scroll
4. Make CTA Unmissable (59% pattern in top performers)
- • High-contrast button
- • Action-oriented copy ("Get Free Demo", "Claim Offer", "Kickstart Now")
- • Above-the-fold placement
5. Strategic Visual Hierarchy (41% pattern in top performers)
- • Process diagrams > dense UI screenshots
- • Data visualization with context
- • Before/after comparisons
- • Guide the eye with annotations
Avoid at All Costs:
❌ Logo as hero image (25% in low performers vs 6% in top)
❌ Stock photography (35% in low performers vs 12% in top)
❌ Text-heavy layouts (40% in low performers vs 12% in top)
❌ Generic "Learn More" CTAs (80% in low performers)
💰 Strategic Budget Allocation Recommendations
Scenario A: Aggressive Performance Optimization
| Format | Current % | Recommended % | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| TLAs | ~7-10% | 40-50% | 4.3× more efficient LP traffic ($3.06 vs $13.23 CPC) |
| Single Image (Optimized) | 61.87% | 30-35% | Apply winner formula to top 20% of creatives |
| Carousel | 2.73% | 12-15% | Leverage card-level engagement (Cards 3-7 = 5-25× CTR) |
| Video | 31.72% | 5-8% | Retargeting warm audiences only |
| Lead Gen | ~2% | 0-3% | High-ticket (>$50K ACV) only |
Source: | |||
Expected Results (90 days):
📈 Overall CTR to LP: 0.35% → 0.7-1.0% (+100-186%)
💰 Average CPC to LP: $11.50 → $6-8 (-30-48%)
🎯 Landing Page Traffic: +120-180%
✅ Cost per LP Visit: -35-50%
Scenario B: Balanced Growth (Lower Risk)
| Format | Current % | Recommended % | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| TLAs | ~7-10% | 25-30% | Proven efficiency, scale gradually |
| Single Image (Optimized) | 61.87% | 45-50% | Improve creative incrementally |
| Carousel | 2.73% | 8-10% | Test optimized sequences |
| Video | 31.72% | 12-15% | Reduce but maintain for brand awareness |
| Lead Gen | ~2% | 2-3% | Maintain for appropriate use cases |
Source: | |||
Expected Results (90 days):
📈 Overall CTR to LP: 0.35% → 0.5-0.65% (+43-86%)
💰 Average CPC to LP: $11.50 → $8-10 (-13-30%)
🎯 Landing Page Traffic: +50-90%
✅ Cost per LP Visit: -20-35%
🖼️Single Image Ads
In this section, we analysed Top performing single image ads by CTR. I defined "top performing" as having CTRs > the median benchmark for single image ads (0.42%).
Out of the 936 single image ads, 463 ads were above the median benchmark.
I then grouped into 5 CTR brackets:
- • low_above_median (0.42%–<0.55%) — 201
- • mid_above_median (0.55%–0.80%) — 173
- • high_above_median (0.81%–1.00%) — 40
- • very_high_above_median (1.10%–<2.00%) — 35
- • extremely_high_above_median (2.00%+) — 14
📊 Single Image Ads - Key Findings Summary
Comparison Table
| Visual Element | Extremely High (≥2.00%) | Very High (1.10-2.00%) | High (0.81-1.00%) | Mid (0.55-0.80%) | Low (0.42-0.55%) | LOW (<median) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Photo of Real Person(s) | 47% | 35% | 30% | 20% | 25% | 30% |
| Meme/Humorous Image | 35% | 20% | 23% | 10% | 5% | 2% |
| Screenshot of Software/Interface | 35% | 40% | 35% | 50% | 45% | 55% |
| Chart/Diagram/Data Viz | 41% | 45% | 40% | 45% | 35% | 40% |
| Specific Offer (FREE, discount, limited time) | 65% | 40% | 30% | 20% | 15% | 10% |
| Strong CTA Button | 59% | 45% | 35% | 30% | 25% | 20% |
| Testimonial/Quote | 29% | 25% | 20% | 15% | 18% | 20% |
| Stock Photography | 12% | 15% | 18% | 25% | 30% | 35% |
| Minimalist Design | 18% | 25% | 30% | 35% | 40% | 45% |
| Text-Heavy | 12% | 15% | 20% | 30% | 35% | 40% |
| Logo-Centric | 6% | 8% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 25% |
Source: | ||||||
🎯 Top Patterns That Drive HIGH CTR
1. Specific Offers (65% → 10% dramatic drop)
Top performers feature "FREE", time-limited deals, concrete value props. This is the #1 differentiator.
2. Real People (47% in top tier)
Authentic team members and customers (NOT stock photos). Stock photography increases to 35% in low performers.
3. Humor & Pattern Interruption (35% → 2% decline)
Memes, unexpected visuals, provocative messaging. Breaks through ad blindness.
4. Strong CTAs (59% → 20% decline)
Prominent, contrasting buttons with action-oriented language.
5. Strategic Diagrams (41% effective use)
Process workflows and before/after comparisons. NOT dense UI screenshots without context.
❌Anti-Patterns That KILL CTR
1. Logo-Centric Design (6% → 25% increase)
Corporate branding over benefit messaging. Large logo as hero image.
2. Stock Photography (12% → 35% increase)
Generic diverse teams smiling at laptops. Creates distrust and ad blindness.
3. Text-Heavy Layouts (12% → 40% increase)
Dense paragraphs, small fonts, multiple competing messages.
4. Generic Minimalism (18% → 45% increase)
Too much white space without focal point. No compelling reason to click.
5. Screenshot Overload (35% → 55% increase)
Dense UI without context or annotations. Feature-heavy product screenshots.
🔥 Visual Analysis of Extremely High CTR Ads (2.00%+)
Based on my analysis of all 17 ads, here are the common visual elements:
1. Photos of Real People - 35%
Multiple ads showing professionals, engineers in industrial settings, split-screen collaborations. Real faces build trust.
2. Screenshot/Interface Mockups - 18%
Product interface screenshots, dashboard/analytics displays. Shows actual product in action.
3. Diagram/Flowchart - 35%
Process flows, technical integrations (Connect → Transform → Deliver), funnel diagrams.
4. Specific LIMITED-TIME Offer - 41%
"Black Friday Deal" banners, "FREE" prominently displayed, time-limited offers. Creates urgency.
5. Strong, Clear CTA Button - 47%
"Kickstart your ABM for FREE!", "FREE IMPLEMENTATION", bright contrasting colors.
6. Testimonial/Quote - 18%
Customer testimonials with 5-star ratings, named person with title and company.
7. Bold, Provocative Statement - 12%
Pattern interrupt / myth-busting angle. Uses emojis for attention.
8. Partnership/Co-branding - 41%
Multiple logos shown together. Builds credibility through associations.
9. Dark Background with Bright Text - 35%
Black backgrounds with neon green/yellow text. High contrast, modern feel.
10. Problem-Solution Framework - 29%
"Tired of vendors holding your data hostage?" Shows pain point + solution.
🏆Top Performing Combinations
Most Common Stack (appears in ~35% of ads):
FREE offer + Real people photos + Strong CTA + Dark background
Second Most Common (appears in ~29% of ads):
Diagram/flowchart + Specific offer + Partnership logos
Example Winning Pattern Single Image Ad
✅Why This Ad Works:
FREE 30-day implementation with time limit urgency
Authentic team members, not stock photography
Quote from Sarah K., Lead Engineer with star rating
High-contrast green button with action copy
Clear integration flow visualization, not a UI dump
"Unify your stack 10x faster" - concrete value prop
🎯 LinkedIn TLA Content Analysis: Patterns & Anti-Patterns
Executive Summary
Analyzed 108 TLAs across performance tiers. The data reveals clear content patterns that separate top performers from failures.
🔑 Key Finding: Top-performing TLAs use 1st person "I" voice (65%), place links at the bottom (75%), average 1,000-1,500 characters, and open with specific, relatable pain points rather than generic statements.
PART 1LinkedIn TLAs: Patterns for MAXIMUM LANDING PAGE CLICKS
📊 LinkedIn Thought Leader Ads Performance Benchmarks
🏆 Top 20 TLAs
Overall CTR
4.49% - 17.39%
(avg 8.32%)
LP CTR
0.81% - 3.42%
(avg 1.18%)
LP CTR
0.35%
(Median)
📈 Bottom 20 TLAs
Overall CTR
0.89% - 2.14%
(avg 1.45%)
LP CTR
0.04% - 0.15%
(avg 0.09%)
LP CTR
0.09%
(Median)
🎯 Winning Patterns
1. Tone of Voice: 1st Person "I" Dominates
- • 65% use 1st person "I" voice (vs 30% in bottom performers)
- • 20% use "we" (customer testimonials)
- • 0% corporate brand voice
Example (3.42% LP CTR):
"I've seen so many businesses still running operations on Excel spreadsheets. It works, until it doesn't."
2. Link Placement: Bottom 75%
- • 75% place link in bottom 25% of text (vs 25% in bottom performers)
- • Build value FIRST, ask for click LAST
- • Never interrupt the story with a link
3. Topic: Personal Transformation Stories (40%)
- • Excel → Better tool (highest performer at 3.42% LP CTR)
- • ABM mistakes → Learnings (1.85% LP CTR)
- • Industry pain → Solution (Pharma stories: 1.39-1.46% LP CTR)
4. Hook Strategy: Pain or Vulnerability (65%)
Top Hooks:
- • "I've seen so many businesses..." (3.42% LP CTR)
- • "I made all the ABM mistakes..." (1.85% LP CTR)
- • "Some of the biggest problems in Pharma aren't loud..." (1.46% LP CTR)
- • "Every finance team I talk to says..." (1.39% LP CTR)
5. Offer Type: Specific Free Trials Win (25%)
- • "37-day free trial" appears in 5 top performers
- • FREE ungated resources (35%)
- • Case studies/reports (20%)
- • NOT webinars (0% in top 20, 20% in bottom 20)
6. CTA: Direct Commands at Bottom (50%)
- • "Want to find out more? Head to [link]"
- • "Read the full case study 👇 [link]"
- • NOT: Vague "Check it out" or "Learn more"
7. Text Length: 1,000-1,500 Characters (55%)
- • Long enough to establish value
- • Short enough to maintain attention
- • NOT: <500 chars (no value) OR >2,000 chars (loses reader)
8. Social Proof: Specific Metrics (45%)
9. Formatting: 100% Use Line Breaks
- • Short paragraphs (1-2 sentences max)
- • Line breaks every 2-3 lines
- • Minimal emojis (35% use 1-3: 👍, 👇, 👉)
- • ✅ checkmarks for benefit lists
- • NO hashtag spam
10. Structure: Problem-Solution Framework
Winning Arc:
PART 2LinkedIn TLAs: Patterns for MAXIMUM ENGAGEMENT (CTR + Dwell Time)
Key Differences from LP-Optimized TLAs
Shorter Text (60% <1,000 chars)
- • Engagement: 600-1,000 chars
- • LP clicks: 1,000-1,500 chars
More Provocative Hooks (30%)
- • "2 years ago I thought LinkedIn ads were a complete waste of money" (9.43% overall CTR)
- • "People have been sneak-dissing me..." (7.87% overall CTR)
25% Have NO Link
- • Pure engagement posts generate discussion
- • Example: "It's been exactly 3 months since we launched our ABM campaign..." (17.39% overall CTR, 0% LP CTR)
More Emojis (50%)
- • Emojis drive reactions but reduce professional clicks
- • Use 3-5 emojis for engagement vs 1-3 for LP clicks
No Direct CTA (35%)
- • Conversation starters vs action drivers
- • Open-ended questions invite debate
High-Engagement Elements
- • Personal vulnerability (admitting mistakes)
- • Specific dollar amounts ($650k pipeline)
- • "Us vs them" positioning
- • Controversial opinions
PART 3LinkedIn TLAs: ❌ ANTI-PATTERNS (What Kills LP Clicks)
What Bottom 20 TLAs Do Wrong
1. Corporate "We" Voice (45%)
- • vs 20% in top performers
- • Feels impersonal and sales-y
2. Generic Opening Statements (40%)
- • "Running an agency is a constant balancing act" (0.04% LP CTR)
- • "Project planning is no easy task" (1.03% LP CTR)
- • "Are agencies going to disappear?" (0.07% LP CTR webinar)
3. Link in Middle of Text (40%)
- • vs 20% in top performers
- • Interrupts value delivery
4. Webinar CTAs (20%)
- • Consistently 0.07-0.08% LP CTR
- • People won't register for webinars via TLA
5. Overly Long Tangential Stories (20%)
- • "The Accountant Story" Pattern
- • 2,000+ characters
- • Story takes 60% before product mention
- • 0.06-0.12% LP CTR
6. Vague Offers (30%)
- • "Learn more"
- • "Check it out"
- • "Transform your decision-making"
7. Bracketed Links (20%)
- • "[Check out the report here - link]"
- • Reduces perceived clickability
- • 0% in top performers, 20% in bottom
8. Hashtag Spam (25%)
- • 5-7 hashtags at end
- • Looks desperate
- • 5% in top vs 25% in bottom
9. Future-Focused Without Pain (15%)
- • "As we stand on the cusp of 2026..."
- • "Data delays are soon to be a relic..."
- • Start with pain NOW, not future vision
10. Survey Data Instead of Results (25%)
- • "We surveyed 180 agencies..."
- • NOT compelling; use customer outcomes
🏆 Sample Top Performing TLA generated based on the patterns:
This TLA is specifically engineered to hit the high-performing benchmarks identified in the data analysis for Maximum Landing Page Clicks. It utilizes the 1st Person "I" voice (founder/engineering leader persona) to establish authority and trust, targets the specific pain point of "brittle pipelines" relevant to Acme Inc., and follows the exact structure and formatting proven to drive the highest click-through rates (1.0% - 3.42%+).
The "Engineering Efficiency" Winning Pattern TLA for Acme Inc.
Character Count: ~1,150 | Goal: Maximize LP Clicks
Jane Doe
VP of Engineering at Acme Inc. | Building the future of data infrastructure
1d • 🌐
I've seen so many engineering leaders still running critical operations on brittle, custom-coded Python scripts and manual crons. It works, until it doesn't. It's just not built for scale.
For years, our own data stack looked solid on the surface. We had all the right logos—AWS, Salesforce, Snowflake. Our dashboards were green.
But I couldn't shake the feeling we were missing something critical.
Turns out, we were.
Our "modern" data stack was actually held together by digital duct tape. Our best engineers were spending 30% of their week just debugging broken connections between tools to get close to the truth. They weren't building new features; they were just keeping the lights on.
That kind of friction is a silent killer for growth.
That's why we stopped coding manual integrations and moved to a unified integration engine. Now, the Connect → Transform → Deliver process is automatic:
✅ Connect AWS, Snowflake, and Salesforce in minutes, not weeks.
✅ Eliminate brittle pipelines and late-night debugging.
✅ Deliver clean, actionable data to operational dashboards instantly.
We recently helped a SaaS infrastructure company consolidate their 12-tool stack and accelerate their data delivery speeds by 10x in just 90 days.
We are currently offering a free 30-day implementation to provably unify your stack.
Want to find out more? Read the full case study and claim your implementation here 👇
[Link to Acme Inc. Landing Page]
📊Comparison Table: Top vs Bottom Performers
| Pattern Element | Top LP Click | Top Engagement | Bottom LP Click | Key Insight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Person "I" | 65% | 55% | 30% | Personal voice = trust |
| Link at Bottom | 75% | 40% | 25% | Value first, ask second |
| Personal Story | 45% | 50% | 25% | Must be crisp & relevant |
| Specific Metrics | 45% | 60% | 10% | Numbers engage & convert |
| Free Trial | 25% | 15% | 5% | Specific periods win |
| Long (>1500) | 55% | 30% | 35% | Long = valuable, not verbose |
| Problem Hook | 65% | 45% | 20% | Pain → Solution = clicks |
| Line Breaks | 100% | 100% | 70% | Mandatory for readability |
| Emojis | 35% | 50% | 40% | More emojis = engagement |
| Direct CTA | 50% | 20% | 25% | Direct commands work |
| Corporate "We" | 20% | 30% | 45% | Corporate = lower CTR |
| No Offer | 5% | 35% | 25% | Engagement ≠ conversion |
| Webinar CTA | 0% | 0% | 20% | Webinars consistently fail |
| Bracketed Links | 0% | 5% | 20% | Brackets kill clicks |
Source: | ||||
📋 PRESCRIPTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
Formula #1: Maximize Landing Page Clicks
THE EXACT FORMULA:
- • Tone: 1st person "I" (founder/expert voice)
- • Length: 1,000-1,500 characters
Structure:
[HOOK] (50-100 chars)
Relatable pain or vulnerability
"I've seen so many businesses..."
[BACKSTORY] (300-500 chars)
Personal experience with problem
"For years, our financials looked solid..."
[TURNING POINT] (200-300 chars)
"Turns out, we were..."
[SOLUTION + BENEFITS] (300-400 chars)
3-4 specific outcomes with ✅
👍 Benefit 1 | 👍 Benefit 2 | 👍 Benefit 3
[SOCIAL PROOF] (100-200 chars)
"$650k pipeline in 90 days" OR "[Customer Name] built with [Product]"
[CTA + LINK] (50-100 chars)
"Want to find out more? Head to [link]"
Offer:
"37-day free trial" OR "FREE ungated [resource]"
Formatting:
- • Short paragraphs (1-2 sentences)
- • Line breaks every 2-3 lines
- • 1-3 emojis total (👍, 👇, 👉)
- • ✅ for benefits
- • 0-2 hashtags max
Formula #2: Maximize Engagement
THE ENGAGEMENT FORMULA:
- • Tone: 1st person "I" with vulnerability or contrarian take
- • Length: 600-1,000 characters (shorter)
Hook: Provocative
- • "2 years ago I thought [popular thing] was a waste..."
- • "People have been sneak-dissing me..."
Structure:
- • Bold hook
- • Quick before/after story
- • Specific $ results
- • Opinion/learning
- • Optional link (or NO link for pure engagement)
Formatting:
- • 3-5 emojis
- • Numbered lists
- • Question endings (invite discussion)
Formula #3: What to AVOID
❌ NEVER:
- • Generic corporate voice - "Running an agency is a balancing act"
- • Link in middle - Build value first
- • Webinar CTAs - 0.07% LP CTR consistently
- • 2,000+ char tangential stories - "Accountant story" pattern
- • Bracketed links - [Check here - link]
- • Hashtag spam - 5+ hashtags
- • Dense paragraphs - No line breaks = skip
- • Future vision hooks - "As we stand on the cusp of 2026..."
- • Survey data - "We surveyed 180..." (not compelling)
- • Vague CTAs - "Learn more", "Check it out"
📝 Ready-to-Use Template
High LP CTR Template
Expected Performance: 1.0-3.0% LP CTR
📈 LinkedIn TLA Key Success Metrics
TOP 20 LP CTR
BOTTOM 20 LP CTR
💡 INSIGHT: Length alone doesn't determine performance. VALUE DENSITY and STRUCTURE matter more than word count.
🎯 Conclusion: Key Takeaways
Use this report as your benchmark guide when planning LinkedIn ABM campaigns. Compare your metrics against these benchmarks to identify improvement opportunities and prioritize high-impact changes.
💰 Budget & Scale
- →Start with $2,700-$6,500/month minimum for meaningful results
- →Target 6,000-10,000 accounts/month for optimal reach
- →Run ~300 ads across 15-20 campaign groups
📊 Performance Targets
- →Aim for CTR ≥0.69%, CPC ≤$11, CPM ≤$78
- →Target $5+ pipeline per $1 spent (top performers hit $15+)
- →Expect ROAS 1.6-2.8× when properly optimized
🏆 Ad Format Priority
- →TLAs first – 77% cheaper CPC ($3.06) than image ads
- →Single image ads for broad reach with proven creative patterns
- →Reduce video spend – underperforms despite 31% budget allocation
🎨 Creative Best Practices
- →Use 1st person "I" voice in TLAs (65% of top performers)
- →Include specific offers (FREE, $, time limit) – 6.5× more effective
- →Avoid webinars as CTAs – 0% in top 20 TLAs
Ready to benchmark your own LinkedIn ABM performance?
