B2B marketing channels: A 2026 data study on ROI and spend

Marketing leaders are currently navigating a challenging paradox: They are spending more capital than ever before, yet their confidence in performance has hit a new low. They are juggling a sprawling ecosystem of nearly 20 channels, from account-based marketing (ABM) and content creation to podcasts and review platforms. Critically, each of these channels demands significant budget allocation, a dedicated headcount, and constant executive attention.

This research reveals the disconnect, as a noteworthy 61% of marketing leaders rate their digital ROI satisfaction as merely “moderate” (3 or 4 out of 5). Despite this lukewarm sentiment, they remain stuck in a rut, funneling 40–60% of their budgets into the same channels annually. Furthermore, inbound efforts consistently outperform their weight: Thirty high-performing teams credited inbound for exceeding expectations, compared to only nineteen for outbound efforts. Nevertheless, budget allocation remains perfectly split.

This data study reviews the reality behind the marketing budgets of 90 different companies. We pull back the curtain to show you precisely where top marketers are placing their capital, which investments are yielding the highest returns, which channels are being cut loose or doubled down on, and the critical patterns that separate top-tier performers from the rest of the pack. We also add extra insights gained from research on how results differ depending on company size and the respondents’ roles within a company. 

Whether you are a CMO defining next year’s allocation, a VP optimizing your channel mix, or a founder placing initial market bets, this report will give you a clearer picture of what high-performing budgeting looks like.

Quick takeaways: What this research reveals

1. The execution gap is real. Only 15% of marketing leaders report being “very satisfied” with their channel ROI, while 74% rate performance as merely “moderate.” Teams that excel in 3-5 channels consistently outperform those spreading resources across 10+ channels with adequate effort.
2. Investment priorities don’t always match performance data. Content marketing leads in effectiveness (70%) and strategic preference (32% would choose it as their only channel), yet only 37% plan to increase spending. Meanwhile, video tops growth plans at 51% despite ranking 7th in effectiveness at just 21%.
3. Traditional channels deliver higher peaks and deeper valleys. Events (60% effectiveness) and networking (61% effectiveness) outperform most digital channels when done well, but traditional channels also show 19% dissatisfaction versus digital's 11%.
4. The “must-have” channels aren’t optional anymore. Email (87% adoption), content marketing (86%), organic social (83%), and paid advertising (82%) have become infrastructure requirements.
5. Company size shapes channel effectiveness more than industry. Email is the only universal channel with 75%+ adoption across all company sizes. Paid advertising scales with budget (from 67% adoption at small companies to 100% at enterprises), while content peaks in smaller organizations at 89% but declines as companies grow.

Most widely used B2B marketing channels

Email (87%), content marketing (86%), organic social media (83%), and paid advertising (82%) have become must-haves for marketing teams. Only 13–18% of companies operate without these foundational channels. The statistics represent what procurement, investors, and leadership teams now consider a basic requirement regardless of individual effectiveness or ROI.

Live events (71%), influencer marketing (70%), video content (69%), and digital events (66%) occupy the mainstream adoption range: high enough to be standard practice but low enough that 29–34% of organizations successfully opt out. This tier represents “actively debated” channels where adoption decisions remain strategic rather than automatic. The 30% non-adoption rate for these channels may indicate they require specific capabilities (video production skills, event execution expertise, influencer relationship management) or business model fit that not all organizations possess.

Account-based marketing at 58% and networking and referrals at 60% sit just below the mainstream tier. This positioning reveals these as “specialist channels” requiring specific conditions: ABM needs enterprise target accounts with $50K+ deal sizes and 3+ month sales cycles, while networking requires existing executive relationships and years of cultivation that can’t be “turned on” like paid campaigns.

Communities (47%), traditional PR (47%), and review platforms (45%) cluster in the 45–47% range, nearly perfect 50/50 splits indicating maximum market uncertainty about these channels’ value. These channels haven’t achieved mainstream consensus, but also haven’t been relegated to niche status. The even split suggests half the market sees value while the other half doesn’t.

Cold outreach (40%), local communities and associations (34%), offline advertising (29%), and digital PR and media (21%) rank the lowest in terms of current channel usage. They have generally been relegated to niche status.

With such varying adoption rates and degrees of strategic importance across channels, from 87% must-haves to 21% niche plays, teams need a unified framework to manage this complexity. We’ve asked Denine Harper, Fractional CMO at DHX Consulting, to share her execution-first philosophy:

How do teams allocate marketing budgets?

Paid digital advertising (10.9%) and content marketing & SEO (10.6%) are virtually neck-and-neck, together commanding over one-fifth of all marketing investment. The fact that these two channels are separated by just 0.3% suggests marketers view them as complementary equals, not competing alternatives.

ABM (8.9%) and digital events & webinars (8.8%) rank closely, again nearly identical in allocation. This pairing is significant: Both channels represent high-intent, relationship-driven engagement requiring substantial infrastructure.

Email marketing (7.4%), influencer & partner marketing (6.2%), and digital PR & media outreach (6.0%) occupy the operational tier. They require consistent investment but don’t dominate budgets.

Video & podcasts (5.6%), events & field marketing (5.3%), communities & forums (5.3%), and organic social media (5.2%) form a tight cluster. This grouping is fascinating: Traditional field events sit alongside digital community building at nearly identical allocation levels (5.3%).

Cold outreach (3.8%), review & comparison platforms (3.6%), and networking & referrals (3.6%) represent what might be called “supplemental investment” channels. At 3–4%, these receive meaningful but not transformational budgets.

Local communities & associations (3.1%), traditional PR & media (3.1%), and offline advertising (2.6%) occupy the bottom tier, collectively accounting for less than 9% of spend. Traditional PR’s relegation to 3.1% (half the allocation of digital PR (6.0%)) signals a clear industry shift. Offline advertising’s 2.6% suggests that most companies have largely abandoned traditional ad formats.

While the data shows clear patterns in spend allocation, the approach varies by company. Paresh Mandhyan, Global VP of Marketing at VWO, describes their philosophy:

Are marketers satisfied with their channel performance (ROI)?

The combined 15% “very satisfied” rate (8% digital + 7% traditional) shows marketing’s ongoing mediocrity issue. After years of utilizing best practices, tools, and resources, only 1 in 7 marketers sees a strong ROI. This 85% non-excellence rate highlights that the problem isn’t knowledge or tools. Instead, it lies in execution — measurement systems, attribution, team skills, and strategic alignment.

Belkins’ CMO, Margaret Lee, shared her thoughts on where this execution gap originates:

The 74% neutral (39% digital neutral + 35% traditional neutral) and 81% “satisfied” rating reveal marketing’s biggest waste. This group represents neither success (15% very satisfied) nor failure (11–19% dissatisfied).

This comfort with “good enough” helps explain why some less effective channels linger (organic social has 83% adoption but only 26% effectiveness), while more effective ones receive comparatively less investment (content shows 70% effectiveness, yet only 37% of marketing leaders plan to increase spending).

The 15% ceiling indicates that execution quality is more important than channel choice. Companies need to stop fixating on which channels to use. The 85% majority uses the same channels as the 15% minority — email at 87%, content at 86%, and paid at 82%.

Which channels are getting more budget in 2026?

We asked marketing leaders how they plan to shift their channel investments in 2026: which channels they’ll increase spending on, which they’ll scale back, which new channels they’ll test, and which existing channels they plan to abandon entirely. These responses reveal not just where budgets are heading, but why certain channels are gaining momentum while others are being cut despite high current adoption rates.

Digital channel budget priorities

Growth plans are primarily focused on channels that require significant production (video, digital events) and channels that benefit from greater scale (paid ads, account-based marketing, ABM). Video’s impressive 51% growth rate*, despite already being used by 69% of marketers, suggests that it's seen as an underused tool. Meanwhile, the 45% growth in paid advertising from a base of 82% adoption suggests that companies plan to increase their spending on it, rather than simply using it more frequently. The trend shows budgets are shifting toward channels that need ongoing investment, not one-off setup costs.

* By “growth” here, we mean the sum of respondents who plan to start using the channel and those who plan to increase their budget on it.

The 46% abandonment rate* for review platforms and 39% for influencer marketing indicate that, despite high adoption rates (45-70%), retention is not guaranteed when results are disappointing. Review platforms’ low 13% effectiveness rating and influencer marketing’s declining efficiency did not justify further investment. The high abandonment rates indicate that marketers often try out popular channels but quickly stop using them once they’ve gathered enough performance data.

*The abandonment rate is the sum of respondents who won’t be using the channel and those who plan to decrease their budget on it.

Channels with 48-64% “continue using” rates represent infrastructure in a steady state, where companies maintain their current effort but don’t plan to expand. The fact that 48% of companies are just keeping their email use, despite an 87% adoption rate, suggests that the market is saturated. Most companies already using email won’t stop (only 15% plan to exit), but they don’t see much room for further investment.

Organic social has the highest maintenance rate at 64%, with minimal growth at 21% and low abandonment at 13%. This confirms its status as a “necessary presence”: Companies post regularly but don’t expect exceptional results, which explains the 26% effectiveness rating.

One channel is showing both strong growth and a significant decline in intentions: Content marketing. The numbers are pretty split: 37% of companies are increasing their content efforts, while 29% are decreasing them. Content is at a strategic crossroads. The quality of the content is what really determines the outcomes. 

The 29% of companies cutting back on content are likely struggling with producing consistent quality, dealing with the complexities of SEO, or figuring out how to measure the impact of their content. Adding to this challenge is the rise of AI search engines like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s AI Overviews, which are fundamentally changing how people consume information. On the other hand, the 37% of companies that are increasing their content efforts are probably seeing returns grow over time.

These divergent investment strategies collectively reveal the complexity of modern marketing decisions. Making the right calls requires looking beyond simple performance metrics. Eva Knutsson, Head of Marketing Operations at Megaport, explained her holistic approach:

Traditional channel budget priorities

Traditional channels are growing faster than expected, with 37-45% growth rates. This challenges the idea that digital-only marketing is the way to go. Traditional channels’ lower “continue using” rates (25–48%) versus higher growth rates also reveal investment dynamics that differ from those of digital ones. Digital channels get adopted more universally and are then maintained at static levels (email and social continue at 48% and 64%, respectively), while traditional channels require progressive investment. You can’t “maintain” networking with constant effort because relationships require ongoing cultivation or they atrophy.

Networking and referrals lead the pack with 45% growth, followed closely by cold outreach at 44% and events at 41%. After years of digital-first strategies, companies are rediscovering that face-to-face connections and direct personal outreach often deliver better results, especially for complex B2B sales where trust and relationships are paramount. The 25% “continue using” rate for networking combined with 45% “increase” shows that 70% of companies are actively investing. You can’t put networking on autopilot.

Even channels like traditional PR & media (36% growth), local communities & associations (37% growth), and offline advertising (33% growth) are seeing renewed interest. This isn’t nostalgia — it’s a strategic correction driven by two realizations: Brand-building channels deliver compounding returns that justify ongoing investment, and large language models (LLMs) are changing how these channels create value. When buyers ask ChatGPT or Claude for recommendations, the AI references companies with a strong media presence, published research, and industry recognition. Traditional PR and community leadership now serve dual purposes: building long-term credibility and training the AI systems that influence purchase decisions.

Rather than a simple “digital versus traditional” divide, we’re seeing a maturation of marketing strategy. The strongest growth is concentrated in channels that build genuine relationships and require sustained effort, such as networking, events, and direct outreach. Meanwhile, channels that promise quick wins but require constant spending are showing polarized results, with marketers either doubling down when they deliver or abandoning them entirely when ROI becomes unclear.

With such divergent priorities across roles and channels, how do the most effective teams actually decide where to invest? Dylan Max, VP of Marketing at TeamSense, explained:

Which channels deliver the best results?

Top-performing digital channels

7 out of 10 marketers rate content marketing and SEO as top performers, making it the most promising digital channel by far. Paid advertising (51%) and email marketing (46%) hold the second place, indicating these channels work consistently when properly executed despite their high costs.

Account-based marketing (34%), digital events and webinars (33%), organic social media (26%), and video/podcasts (21%) are mid-performers, despite heavy industry buzz and aggressive investment plans.

The bottom performers (digital PR at 8%, communities at 9%, review platforms at 13%) represent massive industry-wide misallocation. These channels collectively consume resources from hundreds of marketing teams despite effectiveness ratings below 15%.

Also, the digital channels will likely see the most significant percentage gains from AI, doubling or tripling their effectiveness. Companies that adopt AI tools early will gain 2-3 year competitive advantages. Not everyone agrees on AI’s timeline or impact, but most marketing leaders acknowledge that the landscape is shifting. Here’s how our CMO sees the experimentation required to navigate this transition:

Top-performing traditional channels

Networking and referrals (61%) and events and field marketing (60%) dominate traditional channel effectiveness metrics, with 3 out of 5 marketers rating these relationship-driven channels as top performers, proving that human connection remains irreplaceable in B2B marketing.

Cold outreach (35%) and traditional PR and media (35%) tie for third place, demonstrating moderate effectiveness that consistently works for approximately one-third of users, indicating that these channels deliver when executed with precision targeting and messaging.

Local communities and associations (27%) and offline advertising (24%) are lower-tier performers, with roughly one in four marketers seeing results. Despite lower effectiveness ratings, these channels serve specific geographic and demographic niches where other channels struggle to reach decision-makers.

What’s the single best marketing channel?

The #1 digital channel choice

Content marketing and SEO dominate at 32.3%: nearly 1 in 3 marketers would choose content as their sole channel if forced to pick one. It’s the highest preference among all digital channels, proving that owned assets that compound over time represent the most strategically valuable digital approach.

Paid digital advertising is nearly equal at 28.1%: more than 1 in 4 would bet everything on paid channels, demonstrating that scalable, measurable acquisition remains essential despite high costs. The near-parity with content (only 4.2 percentage points behind) reveals two distinct strategic philosophies: build or buy, coexisting in B2B marketing.

Email marketing (16.7%), ABM (8.3%), and digital events (6.2%) show moderate support as channels that work for specific business models.

Organic social media (4.2%), video & podcasts (3.1%), and digital PR (1.0%) are low-performers, proving these heavily hyped channels lack universal strategic appeal despite widespread adoption.

Cost considerations emerged as the most frequently cited factor (21.9%), followed closely by nurturing potential (19.8%) and conversion performance (15.6%), suggesting marketers balance multiple priorities when selecting channels rather than optimizing for any single metric.

“Low risk” scores a mere 1.0%, last among all the reasons, revealing that B2B marketers rarely choose channels for safety; they choose them for results.

The #1 traditional channel choice

Events and field marketing dominate at 41.2%, meaning that more than 2 out of 5 would choose events as their sole channel. It’s also the highest preference across ALL channels (beating even content marketing and SEO).

Networking & referrals are strong at 28.2% (nearly matching paid advertising’s 28.1%), demonstrating the value of human networks.

Traditional PR & media (12.9%) and cold outreach (10.6%) show persistent value. 

Offline advertising (5.9%) and local communities (1.2%) are low-performers, proving that a highly specialized approach works for these channels but lacks universal strategic appeal.

High conversion rates matter more for traditional channels (31.8%) compared to digital ones (15.6%), a 2x difference that suggests marketers associate face-to-face interactions with stronger conversion outcomes. However, this reflects perception and preference rather than proven performance. Marketers choosing traditional channels prioritize conversion as a selection criterion.

Measurement and targeting rank significantly lower for traditional channels (3.5%) than digital ones (14.6%), a 4x difference. This gap reflects the structural differences between channel types: traditional channels like events and networking don’t offer the same tracking capabilities as digital platforms, so marketers selecting them are less likely to cite data and targeting as primary decision factors.

Which marketing channels are most commonly outsourced?

Paid digital advertising leads all digital channels with 23.6% of outsourcing mentions, making it the most commonly contracted-out digital channel. This might reflect the platform complexity (Google Ads, Meta, LinkedIn) and constant algorithm changes that require specialized expertise most companies lack internally.

Video and podcasts (17.4%), content marketing and SEO (14.9%), and email marketing (13.7%) belong to the top 4 outsourcing digital channels. They dominate outsourcing for different reasons: video demands production skills (equipment, editing, creativity), content needs writing talent and SEO knowledge, and email requires technical execution (HTML coding, automation setup, and deliverability maintenance).

Digital events (2.5%), review platforms (2.5%), and communities (1.9%) show the lowest digital outsourcing rates, together accounting for only 6.8%. This doesn’t mean these channels are simple. Digital events, for instance, require significant internal coordination between multiple team members for speaker management, promotion, technical setup, and attendee engagement. However, they can be handled with existing internal resources and standard tools (laptops, internet, video conferencing platforms) without requiring the specialized external expertise that paid ads, SEO, and video production demand.

Offline advertising dominates traditional outsourcing at 26.3% of all traditional mentions, making it the most commonly contracted-out conventional channel. This reflects the specialized media buying expertise, vendor relationships for print/radio/billboard placements, and creative production requirements that traditional advertising agencies provide.

Traditional PR and media (7.9%) and events and field marketing (5.3%) show moderate outsourcing rates. Meanwhile, cold outreach (2.6%), local communities (2.6%), and networking & referrals (2.6%) each show minimal 2.6% outsourcing, together accounting for only 3 of 38 responses (7.9%), proving that relationship-based channels requiring personal networks, authentic company voices, and face-to-face trust-building stay almost exclusively in-house regardless of the availability of agency expertise.

Bottom line: Digital’s “none” responses (11.8%) are much lower than traditional’s (47.4%). Companies keep conventional communication in-house 4 times more often than outsourcing it, showing a 35.6 percentage point gap. The data shows that “digital transformation” often means hiring more agencies. In contrast, “traditional marketing success” focuses on building internal relationships. This isn’t just about budgets; it’s about requirements. Digital skills (like SEO, paid ads, video editing, and automation) can be sourced from agencies. However, face-to-face communication (like networking, personal presence at events, voice in calls, and handshakes) can’t be outsourced without losing the authenticity and trust that make these channels effective for relationship-building.

Belkins’ CMO, Margaret Lee, offers an interesting insight about outsourcing trends, mentioning that this reluctance to outsource high-volume activities like cold outreach may be a missed opportunity:

Overall satisfaction across channels

Average satisfaction: 3.35/5, but only 15.3% of marketing leaders are really happy despite the industry being well established and having plenty of tools. 

Digital shows a somewhat poor net performance of -4.1%*, with 17.4% underperforming and 13.3% beating expectations. Traditional shows performed even worse with a -15.3% net, where 30.6% didn’t meet the mark and 15.3% exceeded it. 

What’s also striking is that 74% of respondents rate their channel performance in the middle range (satisfactory/adequate), with only a minority reporting either outstanding success or clear failure.

*We calculated the “net performance” by subtracting the percentage that underperformed from the percentage that exceeded targets.

Final takeaways: Key insights for marketers about channel performance

Marketing effectiveness remains a challenge, with 85% of companies failing to achieve “very satisfied” outcomes. This likely isn’t due to poor channel choice but because firms execute 10–12 channels adequately rather than concentrating their efforts on 3–5 channels with excellence. The data presents a two-part strategy, allocating 70% of the budget to the top three channels (content, paid, email) rather than distributing it across many options. 

• Content leads in effectiveness but lacks investment. Content marketing achieves 70% effectiveness and 32.3% ultimate channel choice, yet only 37% plan to boost spending, 14 points less than video’s 51%, although video has 21% effectiveness and 3.1% ultimate choice.
• Only five channels truly matter; others are extras. Just five channels (events 41.2%, content 32.3%, paid 28.1%, networking 28.2%, email 16.7%) receive over 15% of ultimate choice votes, adding up to 141.2% of strategic conviction. The remaining 12 channels only gather 28.5% combined, showing confusion in strategy. 

• Investment plans don’t align with reported effectiveness. Video tops growth plans at 51% yet ranks 7th in effectiveness ratings (21%) and 10th in ultimate choice (3.1%). Similarly, organic social has 83% adoption but only 26% effectiveness and 4.2% ultimate choice. This gap between investment intention and performance satisfaction suggests marketers may be prioritizing channels based on factors beyond measured results, such as strategic positioning, brand visibility, or long-term potential, rather than immediate ROI. Marketing leaders can compare their channel satisfaction scores with budget allocation to identify potential discrepancies, considering whether channels rated “neutral” merit their current investment levels relative to those rated “satisfied” or “very satisfied.”
• Traditional channels exhibit higher variance: bigger wins, bigger failures. Traditional channels see 19% dissatisfaction compared to digital’s 11%, yet both have similar “very satisfied” rates (7–8%). Events (60% effectiveness) and networking (61% effectiveness) outperform many digital channels, but this success isn’t simply about having the “right skills.” It reflects years of relationship-building, social capital accumulation, and strategic positioning. These channels require long-term investment that many companies underestimate.

• Marketers outsource digital channels far more than traditional ones. The data shows that 89.8% outsource at least one digital channel, versus 50.0% for traditional, a 4.2x difference. This indicates that digital requires specialized skills, while traditional relies on authenticity. Paid advertising (23.6%), video (17.4%), and content (14.9%) lead in digital outsourcing, while events (5.3%), networking (2.6%), and cold outreach (2.6%) stay more internal. While the intent to keep relationship-based channels in-house is understandable, the current low adoption rates for outsourcing these channels may actually mask a significant efficacy problem.
• Company size influences channel fit more than industry. Email shows 75-100% adoption across all sizes, while paid advertising scales with wealth (67% small to 100% large). Content peaks at 89% in small firms but declines in larger ones. Video content illustrates a U-shaped curve in adoption. The best approach is to align your channel strategy with your resources and growth stage. Early-stage companies and startups with limited budgets should prioritize content marketing and SEO heavily. Mid-sized growth companies can adopt a balanced approach, maintaining their content foundation while layering in paid advertising to accelerate growth. Larger enterprises with substantial budgets can leverage paid channels more aggressively, both digital advertising and traditional media, to achieve rapid market penetration and brand awareness.
• The abandonment wave signals failing channels. Review platforms face a 46% abandonment rate, influencer marketing a 39% rate, and digital PR has the lowest adoption rate (21%), indicating channels that have faltered. The bottom three channels (digital PR at 8%, communities at 9%, and review platforms at 13%) waste resources by delivering low effectiveness. Marketing teams might consider exiting these channels in such cases, unless they specifically drive results in certain categories. 
• The neutral majority accepts mediocrity, causing inertia. A notable 74% rate channels as neutral or just “satisfied,” indicating ambivalence. Only 15% of people report being “very satisfied.” This suggests that measurement problems may hinder our ability to identify effective strategies. Companies should invest 10-15% of their budget in measurement tools to shift from “we think this works” to “we know it works.” The research may suggest that the 8% achieving “very satisfied” outcomes likely have superior measurement capabilities, not superior channel selection.
• Most marketers report moderate satisfaction with their channels. 74% rate their channels as delivering satisfactory or neutral results, while only 15% report being “very satisfied” with performance. This concentration in the middle range could reflect several factors: genuinely adequate performance, measurement challenges that make it difficult to assess true impact, or realistic expectations about what marketing channels can deliver. It also raises questions about what distinguishes top performers. It could be superior channel selection, better execution, more sophisticated measurement capabilities, stronger alignment between channels and business models, or simply higher-performing products that make marketing easier. Without additional data, we can’t definitively identify what separates the satisfied minority from the neutral majority.
• Execution quality is more crucial than channel selection. Both digital and traditional channels have similar rates of highly satisfied customers. What matters most is how well you execute, not which channel you choose. The 85% moderate satisfaction may indicate that marketing leaders would be better off putting most of their budget into 2–3 proven channels instead of spreading resources too thin. The data shows that excelling in a few channels outperforms mediocre performance across many.
• The 2025–2027 strategic window offers advantages for early AI adopters. AI presents opportunities for scaling traditionally manual channels, particularly cold outreach. While AI can’t replace the authenticity of in-person networking or live events, it can dramatically improve the efficiency and personalization of cold outreach at scale. Companies that integrate AI into outreach workflows (personalized messaging, prospect research, follow-up sequencing, etc.) may gain advantages before this becomes standard practice. However, the core relationship-building channels, networking and events, will remain fundamentally human activities where personal presence and authentic connection can’t be automated.

Methodology

This research was conducted via email questionnaire between November 2024 and November 2025. We surveyed 90 marketing leaders and decision-makers who manage or influence their organization’s marketing channel strategy and budget allocation. 

The analysis was led by Belkins. We reviewed all open-ended responses from CMO-level executives, quantified budget allocation patterns across 17 distinct marketing channels, and analyzed satisfaction metrics to identify gaps between spend and performance. 

From these insights, we outlined the narrative that connects channel investment decisions to measurable outcomes.

Sample composition:

• Company roles: The majority were marketing leaders at the Director level and above, including CMOs, VPs of Marketing, Directors of Demand Generation, Content Marketing, Digital Marketing, and Marketing Operations, as well as additional representation from founders and CEOs of smaller organizations who oversee marketing strategy directly.
• Company sizes: 31% at companies with 11–50 employees, 28% with 51–200 employees, 16% with 1–10 employees, 11% with 200–500 employees, and 7% with 500–1,000 employees, with additional representation from enterprise organizations with 1,000+ employees.
• Industries: Diverse representation across B2B sectors, including SaaS (dominant), marketing services, financial services, healthcare, telecommunications, retail, manufacturing, and logistics. 84% primarily serve B2B audiences, with additional representation from B2C and B2G organizations.
• Offerings: 36% service-based companies, 30% product-based companies, and 29% offering both products and services.

Question framework: The survey included quantitative budget allocation questions across 11 digital channels and 6 traditional channels, effectiveness rankings, ROI satisfaction ratings, investment plans, and open-ended strategic questions. This dual approach captured both concrete spending patterns and the strategic rationale behind channel selection, allowing us to identify disconnects between resource allocation and perceived effectiveness.