by Christina | Jun 13, 2025 | 2025, ebooks
Over the last 30 days, we tested short-form videos vs. traditional blog posts on LinkedIn—tracking everything from impressions and engagement to profile views and website visits.
Key Takeaways:
👀 Engagement was up 290%, and impressions rose 408%, mostly thanks to video.
📽️ Videos were 5x more likely to be shared and received more reactions, but blogs drove more profile views and comments.
🌍 90%+ of reach came from 1st connections—raising questions about LinkedIn’s promise to expand visibility. More on this in the full report below.
Paid promotion and Premium didn’t yield meaningful ROI (CTR was just 0.13%).
The Bottom Line: Video is trending, but don’t look for it to move the needle on business impact. It is an awareness tool to inform your existing audience.
The key insight: LinkedIn’s algorithm favors content consumers more than creators—the future of your feed will be more content from less creators. For creators, it will be very difficult to grow your audience outside your existing network…even using paid promotions.
To learn more download our e-book.
by Christina | Jun 10, 2025 | 2025, Tech Trends
For the past month we have tested the performance of short form videos versus traditional blogs posted on LinkedIn.
Why do it?
Two decades ago, I started blogging. Back then, keeping a post under 2,000 words felt like a constraint. (I was a management consultant — so yes, I used a lot of words.)
A couple of years later I began writing for Forbes which trimmed my posts to 1,200 words. Then, while writing for The Drum,down even further to 800. As attention spans shrank, so did my word count.
Fast forward to today: content is everywhere, AI tools are flooding our feeds, and the pressure to stand out is greater than ever. So I find myself asking: Should I still write, or do I shift to short-form video?
The Experiment
To measure the effectiveness of each, we created three tiers of key metrics. Tier one being the most important, tier three being the least.
● Tier 1 – form fills on our website or DMs on Linkedin
● Tier 2 – profile views or website visits, views/read time of the content, new followers
● Tier 3 – reach, engagement (impressions, engagement, shares)
To track performance, we used Linkedin Analytics (post performance), Hubspot (form fills), GA4 (web performance), Warmly (web visits), and Looker Studio (blog performance). The time period included all posts and performance for the last 90 days (March 1 to May 30th) allowing us to have enough data to measure the performance before and after.
The top 8 viewed posts of the last 90 days were evenly distributed between video and blog content posted in the last 30 days as part of our test. The first video was released was the top viewed post, with the remaining three videos making up the 3rd, 7th and 8th most popular.
Correspondingly, blogs ranked 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th, were almost of perfect distribution to compare, with both having a median between 4 to 5.
Overall performance for the last 90 days on LinkedIn, compared to the previous period, experienced a 20% lift in content performance (impressions) and a 42% increase in engagement. Even more striking is the 28 days compared to the previous period, which produced a 408% increase in impressions, and a 290% increase in engagement.
Given the Tier 3 performance, it might be logical to believe that increases will be seen in the other tiers.
The Results
Before I jump in, it’s important to recognize how LinkedIn counts impressions and views of videos.
An “impression” is registered every time your post appears in someone’s feed. It reflects overall visibility, not necessarily engagement, or that it has been seen/read. Think of it as a billboard along a road. The cars pass by but may or may not glance at it.
LinkedIn’s algorithm, based on the content and responses to it, then decides to distribute more broadly…or not.
A video view is counted when someone watches for at least 2 continuous seconds (down from 6 seconds in 2023), either via autoplay or a manual click. In this case, we are using autoplay.
To dig deeper into evaluating the performance we downloaded Richard Van der Blom’s Algorithm Insights Report 2025 for LinkedIn metrics and benchmarks. We tried to download LinkedIn’ Benchmarks for Brand Awareness, but the link is broken on the LinkedIn for Marketers page…I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
Okay, now for the results. I’ll start with “members reached” defined as the number of distinct members and pages that saw the post. Caveat, this number is an estimate and does not include repeat displays. I’ll begin with Tier 3 metrics and work my way to Tier 1.
- Reach – no real difference between videos (60%) and blogs (57%).
- Consumption (read or watched) – video (70%) outperformed blogs (12%) but that number is misleading. The videos were set to autoplay and a view “counts”, even if it’s for only 2 seconds.
- View/read times – this becomes a more important metric given the prior statement and is closer to the truth. Videos still outperformed (35% to 20%), but this is an average. For video, it’s total viewed time divided by views, for blogs it’s average read time divided by total read time (eg. 1 min read time on a blog that is a 5 mins read).
- Reactions (likes, etc.) – video outperformed content significantly (almost 2 to 1), but that is skewered by video #1 which has nearly half of all the video reactions.
- Comments – viewers were more likely to comment on blogs, by 52% .
- Reposts – viewers were 5 times more likely to share a video.
- Profile views – blogs were twice as likely to generate a profile view. But, when compared to the previous period, my profile views over the last 28 days decreased.
- Audience growth – you might assume given the previous statement about the 90 day overall improvement in performance would net an increase in my audience, but unfortunately, that was not the case. There was no change. Additionally, most of the views, (almost 90%+) came from my first connections.
- Web visits and/or visits to the Linkedin Company page – recognized no change, and visits to our corporate page actually declined by 18% during the period.
- Tier 1 metrics – neither format produced a form fill or a DM.
Interestingly enough during this test period, a post on ABM written by Ruth Stevens, mentioned an article I had written years ago drove more traffic to our site in one day than anything else we did on LinkedIn the past 90 days..
Learnings
How you view these results really depends on how you view LinkedIn as a channel and your desired goals…a la the key metrics listed. I also came away with as many questions as I did answers.
For me, blogs have a slight advantage over short form videos (for now), purely from the ease of creating them. Additionally, based on the performance of the comments and profile views, I feel like viewers were more invested in the content.
Now for some caveats… I’m making this comment as a Gen X twenty-year blogger with a mature senior executive audience. This brings up an interesting challenge we faced, and soon I’ll be creating another post going into more detail.
Trying to reach a new audience, we tested upgrading my account to Premium and using paid ads on our corporate site, hoping to boost video views for the last two weeks. Neither produced the results we hoped for, and/or was promised by LinkedIn.
LinkedIn Premium claims it will “expand your network and increase visibility.” We saw no evidence of that being true, as I mentioned 90%+ of the reactions came from 1st connections. Paid ads dramatically increased impressions (a relatively meaningless Tier 3 metric) but performed poorly, producing a 0.13% CTR with no conversions.
This raises a question on the value of the 800 lb gorilla of B2B channels, LinkedIn. LinkedIn has changed its algorithms to bring you more content from the creators you interact with, which somewhat explains the concentration of my audience.
The key insight from this experiment, at least for me, is that LinkedIn’s algorithms are geared towards the content consumer and not the creator.
The change in their algorithm means you are more likely to see more content from one creator than a vast group of creators. For example, you are 60% more likely to see a post from someone that you have interacted with on your feed. LinkedIn, like other social media platforms, is changing what you see in real time as you interact with what’s on your feed.
As a result, as pointed out by the Algorithm Report, reach, engagement and follower growth have declined dramatically since last year.
Source: Just Connecting™ and Richard van der Blom
The bottom line – the performance of short form videos may have been handicapped because I wasn’t able to reach an audience that prefers that content format.
LinkedIn lives on creator content and that content, according to the report, is quickly moving to video (an increase of 23% in 2024 over 2023). What the report doesn’t show, nor could we, is that it is any more effective than anything else.
If you’re searching for an ROI for the business impact of any type of content posted on LinkedIn, it may not be the format but rather the channel that is the problem.
Now let’s see if anyone reads this content…don’t make me do another video!
Special thanks to Ben Armstrong at 9Mile media for the creation of the videos and Naheed Somji, our social media guru for his support and advice.
by Christina | May 7, 2025 | 2025
Your best copy might sound like AI to clients. See why creative value is under pressure and what it means for agencies.
AI is changing how clients view creative work. Even the best human efforts are starting to be questioned — not for quality, but for authenticity. I recently saw this firsthand.
The feedback I was not expecting
Below is recent feedback from a client on some content we created.
“I do have a piece of feedback for them. I’m not sure which AI writing tool they’re using to create these, but they may want to take a second pass… a lot of these pieces of copy are clearly first pass AI generations…”
The problem is that our copywriter didn’t use AI and would be offended by the feedback. He’s an award-winning creative with a big agency background. As you might expect, he’s vehemently opposed to using generative AI.
Where is the feedback coming from? It’s from a company whose marketing department strongly embraces generative AI for content creation. I guess they assume their agency is using it as well.
That will be a significant issue if you are on the agency side. Perhaps it already is, and I’m just now experiencing it. Our copywriter is very talented and has a lot of great experience. As a result, he is not inexpensive.
He warrants the rate he receives, now threatened by clients who will discount the value, assuming a tool is responsible for his output.
As more clients adopt generative AI tools for marketing, questions will arise regarding the outputs and cost of agency services, particularly creative agencies.
In this example, it’s content. However, the same scenario could apply to any creative service: creative concepting, AI image generation, media planning, AI audience segmentation, etc. AI is everywhere.
The real problem behind the perception
The reality of AI tools is that they are handy and efficient. As a result, we face the challenge of protecting the craftsmanship of our creative resources while leveraging the tools’ value.
I’ve always believed that good copy or content is an art. But what happens if no one appreciates the art? What will be its value?
Many creatives use AI tools for ideation, content refinement, editing, etc. However, to date, I’ve not seen any evidence that AI-generated or modified outputs perform any better than what humans have created in the past.
Dig deeper: What AI means for the future of agency-brand partnerships
AI vs. human-generated content
Maybe it’s not a choice of “either-or,” but knowing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach (see below) and when to use them situationally to our advantage.
AI-generated content
Human-generated content
Dig deeper: https://martech.org/riding-the-ai-tsunami-harnessing-creativity-and-efficiency-in-the-digital-age/
The blended future of creativity
After pulling this together, I realized where the client feedback came from in our latest content round. Over the last few months, we have been hand-crafting emails for announcements, follow-up emails to events and other marketing outreach activities.
This most recent round, and what generated the feedback, was a change in our approach. We profiled the personalities of the target audience and found that the most dominant personality type was one that prefers concise, to-the-point, no-nonsense content.
We removed the “emotional depth and empathy” mentioned as a strength of human-generated content. As a result, the content had an “emotional flatness,” making it sound like a machine wrote it. The blending of machine and man is not going away. The only real question is, will it improve our results?
Dig deeper: The AI-powered marketer’s roadmap to the future of content
by Christina | Apr 3, 2025 | 2025, Business Trends
In today’s economic climate, losing a customer isn’t just disappointing—it’s potentially devastating. Yet many businesses miss the early warning signals until it’s too late.
I’m experiencing this firsthand with one of our vendors right now. The relationship is deteriorating, and I can see exactly where things went wrong. Don’t let this happen to your business. Here are the critical warning signs to recognize and address immediately:
1. Service Deterioration
When service quality stumbles at the start and never recovers—or worse, begins strong but steadily declines—customers notice immediately. This often stems from internal turnover or stretched resources, but regardless of the cause, clients can sense when they’re no longer a priority. Remember: consistency is as important as quality.
2. Communication Breakdown
Poor communication compounds service issues and accelerates relationship decline. Worst of all is attempting to cover problems with transparent excuses—this damages trust far more than the original issue. The solution is straightforward but crucial: honest, proactive communication can salvage even troubled relationships.
3. Eroding Trust
If your customer begins questioning your expertise or experience, you’re facing a five-alarm fire. Once trust evaporates, recovery becomes exponentially more difficult. This warning sign demands immediate intervention—schedule a candid conversation about expectations and reset the relationship before it’s unsalvageable.
4. Subpar Deliverables
Sometimes the sales team sets impossible expectations, creating a delivery gap from day one. Other times, businesses overreach beyond their core competencies. Either way, consistently disappointing deliverables will end relationships. Focus on excelling at what you do best rather than attempting to be everything to everyone.
5. The Toxic Team Member
One underperforming team member can poison an entire customer relationship. Don’t retain problematic employees simply to fill a position—they consume disproportionate management resources while actively damaging customer relationships. Make the difficult staffing decisions before they cost you valuable clients.
6. The Preemptive Reset
Sometimes the boldest move is acknowledging when you can’t meet expectations. Proactively addressing shortcomings—even suggesting a pause in the relationship—demonstrates integrity and preserves future possibilities. A temporary revenue hit is preferable to a permanently damaged reputation.
The Path Forward
Customers don’t make switching decisions lightly. When a vendor is deeply integrated into operations or fulfills a critical function, transition costs are substantial. This reality often creates a window for relationship recovery—but only if you recognize the warning signs and act decisively.
Use this opportunity to genuinely improve your service delivery. Not only might you save the relationship, but you’ll also remove the constant weight of knowing you’re underserving a client—a burden no business owner should carry.
by Christina | Mar 13, 2025 | 2025, Business Trends
5 Ways to Protect Against an AI Bot Attack
Businessman and former Presidential candidate Andrew Yang once said, “Automation is no longer just a problem for those working in manufacturing. Physical labor was replaced by robots; mental labor is going to be replaced by AI and software.”
AI bots are starting to deliver on that promise in the market research arena, to the detriment of research practitioners and their clients. Recently, we deployed an online survey for a client, dangling a financial incentive for completing the twenty minute questionnaire. As soon as the link hit social media with the financial incentive the AI bot sharks smelled blood in the water.
Within a few hours we had over 400 completed forms, and over 1,500 (!) within a day. And their completion rate was much higher than among our real human survey takers. Yes, AI bots are now trained to be able to navigate a 48-question survey with multiple choices, including intelligence designed to eliminate responses that don’t fit our profile.
If that isn’t shocking enough, no two survey responses were alike. Bots responded as if they were in different industries, big and small companies. And presumably by gauging the length and difficulty of the survey, bots seemed to learn to slow their response pace down to more closely mirror the typical speed if taken by human beings, typically completing at similar lengths of time as our population of human participants.
Before we shut things down after discovering what was happening, the bots completed the survey 1600 times out of 2100 starts.
How did we detect them?
The most obvious giveaway was the sheer volume of responses received within a very short time. We had been sending out the survey via email and had anticipated a response rate, based on past experience which was much slower.
Additionally, we could tell by the fake emails they created. The bot submissions ended with false gmail accounts (an email was required in order to receive the gift card award – easily spotted as garbage.
How to prevent this in the future?
According to our head of research, Steve Wolf, recommends five things to consider in order to prevent bots from hijacking your survey:
- Gauge expected response metrics – starting with a trusted, proprietary sample of responders (e.g., a client’s customer base) can provide a baseline of start and completion rates, and time per survey, when taken from living breathing humans.
- Create a unique link – don’t rely on one master weblink to the survey, which would make it very difficult to identify which respondent is coming from where. Instead, assign a unique URL per channel (such as email, client website, social media). This way, one can isolate bot submissions to the channel which they took over.
- Add open ended questions – bots have gotten smarter, but they still are unable to answer open ended questions…yet. Sprinkle in 2 or 3 open ended questions throughout the survey.
Use a “trap question” – trap questions ask the survey taker to take an action proving they’re a human – similar to a CAPTCHA. For example, a survey asks “please enter the number 32”. Bots are best at reading multiple choice surveys and picking an option.
- Try adding an invisible question – using a hidden question is another way to trick a bot. Use white font on a white background. Since humans can’t see the question it will always be skipped, but bots will answer it.
And unfortunately, the best option would be to avoid tempting bots in the first place – especially as AI bots become more and more sophisticated. Just avoid “open” surveys – such as those promoted on social media channels or advertised via banner ads – and recruit target participants from other “closed” sources such as email, or at least “quasi-closed” sources such as company newsletters or blog posts.
Lastly, today’s researchers must be especially diligent on reviewing the completed surveys. If you are using a financial incentive to drive survey completions, know that there are bad actors out there looking to cash in.
More Bot Bad News
More and more people are using AI assistants to read and respond to emails. As a result, it is impacting your campaign success rates.
We just switched email platforms. Our company newsletter was the first item to be sent and the performance dropped significantly. Open and click thru rates were half of what they historically had been. The reason? The new platform can filter out bot/agent responses.
For the most part, marketers have been focused on the upside of AI, in particular, generative. What has been missed for the most part is the impact of AI on our results. As I just illustrated, AI bots are disrupting our marketing research efforts, and AI assistants are distorting email response rates. Expect more disruption as AI agents become better at understanding workflows.
AI is turning out to be a double-edged sword. The focus of last year was mostly application and production. This year, we will need to make the time to start considering the impact it will have on our efforts. Or, maybe just program your own bot to figure it out.
by Christina | Feb 13, 2025 | 2025, Business Trends
Sales may be a “numbers” game but selling is not.
We often confuse the two. Treating prospects as a “number” that we need to reach more broadly, and more frequently.
I had the opportunity this year to evaluate a half a dozen new AI enable sale and marketing tools on the market. New tools that promise the world but at the end of the day they deliver basically the same thing we are using tools for today.
- Volume – aka scale, scratching the “reach more’ prospect itch
- Speed – scratching the “more frequently’ itch
- Efficiency – an output of speed and some interesting capabilities to improve productivity
If the goal is greater efficiency you’re in luck, but if it’s efficiency AND effectiveness you’ll be disappointed.
Why? Because performance is not a scale or speed issue, in fact, they make it worse. To get to the root of the performance problem, you have to do post modem on stalled or lost deals.
Here’s what we’ve seen based on our assessments:
- Corporate Priorities – as in you’re no longer on it, priorities shift all the time as well as budgets, this one is interesting because companies often come back to solving the issue at some point
- ROE – the costs, the solution, resources investment, timeline, roi, etc. and/or some combination of those kills the decision
- Motivation – loss of sponsorship, other priorities, effort level, elements of ROE slow the progress
- Inside Job – they did it themselves, gave it to an existing vendor, picked someone they knew/trusted, etc.
Can you think of any sales or marketing tool that can fix the bullets above? If you answered no, you’re right, because they are “selling problems.”
Keep that in mind as you’re watching demos of the latest and greatest.
