A recommendation buys you attention, not information
Somebody they already trust told them you were worth a look. So they arrive warmer than any paid click and further from a decision than almost any of them, because nobody has asked them to think about their own situation yet. Ask them one thing about it and the goodwill turns into something your sales team can use.
Not open yet. Your score at the end, not after a sales call.
What our research covers
None of the 25 B2B segments we ranked generates leads this way yet
The other six channel pages are built from segments that name the channel themselves. This one is built from method rather than from evidence, and it is shorter because of it. If that changes, this page changes with it.
Where the spend goes
You are buying somebody else’s relationship
The fee, the brief, the rounds of edits and the usage rights all buy one thing, which is a moment of borrowed credibility.
It is the opposite of paid search. There the click carries a problem and no trust. Here it carries trust and no problem, and your page treats both of them exactly the same way, which wastes whichever half you happened to be paying for.
The other cost is invisible. When the next invoice arrives, the only evidence either side has is reach, so the fee gets argued over views. Nobody in that conversation can say whether the audience contained anybody who could buy.
After the click
Ask what made them look today
One question, before anything else, because the answer is the only thing this channel can tell you that the others cannot.
A reason to stay past the recommendation
They arrived on somebody’s word and they have nothing to do with it. A short set of questions about their own setup gives the visit a point, and hands back something worth the four minutes whether or not they ever speak to you.
The first evidence about who that audience actually is
Company size, what they run, what it costs them, and whether there is a buying decision anywhere near. That is the argument for the next fee, and right now nobody on either side of the deal has it.
The format we would reach for is the cheapest credible one, a short fit check rather than a full scored model. It is also the cheapest format in our census to copy, so it earns a place as a test and not as a programme, and we would rather tell you that now than after you have paid for the second one.
How the format gets chosenMeasurement
Measure the creator, not the campaign
This is the part of the page we are most confident about, because it does not depend on the channel working.
One entry address per creator
Not one per campaign. The unit of spend here is a person, so the unit of measurement has to be a person, and without that split you will be renegotiating fees on impressions again next quarter.
Answered profiles, not clicks
Reach is what you were sold. What you want to know is how many people behind that reach have a business, a budget and a problem, and that only shows up once somebody answers something.
Band mix, creator by creator
Two creators can deliver identical traffic and completely different quality. The band mix is the only thing that tells them apart, and it is the number the renewal conversation should be about.
Questions
Three straight answers about this one
Your turn
Find out which of your channels is worth the first build
Our scorecard grades your funnel on the four things that decide whether the traffic you buy turns into anything. Where it comes from is the first of the four, and it is the one that decides where to start.
Not running yet. You keep the report whatever the score says.
The other six
Every one of these has more evidence behind it
- SEO
Nobody sent them and nobody is waiting on an answer.
- Google Ads
The budget is approved and the meter is running.
- LinkedIn
Two taps from a feed, back in a meeting in four minutes.
- Meta ads
Not looking for you. Willing to answer one thing anyway.
- Outbound
Deciding whether you are worth a reply before breakfast.
- Content and webinars
A name on a list, and nothing you can sort by.