A/B tested LinkedIn ad copy vs video and the numbers were NOT close

I ran a split test for a SaaS client's lead gen campaign last month, putting $500 toward text/image ads and $500 toward short video ads. The video ads got 3x the click-through rate and cost half per lead, which surprised me because I thought text would work better for B2B. Has anyone else seen video crush text in their own campaigns, or was this just a fluke in my industry?

2 comments

2 Comments

campbell.david3d ago

I ran a similar test for a manufacturing client and video hit about double the leads at half the cost too. It kind of makes sense when you think about how people scroll through their phones now - they're not really reading text on LinkedIn, they're just swiping past stuff. Video forces you to stop for a second because your brain is wired to notice movement. I've noticed this even in real life, like at a party where someone telling a story face to face grabs your attention way more than a written invite on the wall. We're all just getting lazier about reading and more hooked on watching. That B2B thing is probably a myth from ten years ago before everyone started watching short clips on every platform.

sullivan.abby3d ago

My buddy runs a small landscaping company and he tested this exact thing last summer. He made a 30 second video showing a backyard transformation and posted it on Nextdoor instead of his usual text ads with before/after photos. The video got 14 calls in one day, his text posts usually get maybe 2 or 3 over a whole week. Here's the weird part though - he noticed the calls were mostly from older homeowners, people in their 60s and 70s who normally don't even use social media. His theory was that video made him feel more like a real person they could trust, like meeting someone in person versus reading a flyer. So maybe the opposite of what everyone thinks is true... older folks might actually respond better to video than younger ones because it replaces that face to face connection they grew up with.