Social Media Marketing Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 LinkedIn Marketing Statistics for 2026

Judge LinkedIn by the behavior you need, both by visible reactions. This page separates Company Page activity, personal-profile benchmarks, advertising attribution and buyer attitudes so you can build a defensible measurement brief.

The research covers different populations: connected social accounts, an attribution provider's customers and US business decision-makers surveyed about thought leadership. These are useful benchmarks, not a census of LinkedIn or proof that a particular content tactic causes revenue.

Headline figures

  • LinkedIn Company Pages averaged 831.96 impressions per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages had a mean engagement rate including clicks of 13.90% in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Personal Profiles averaged 1.65 comments per post in Metricool's January–February 2026 sample. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Image content represented 49.5% of Company Page posts in Metricool's January–February 2026 sample. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Video content represented 40.11% of Personal Profile posts in Metricool's January–February 2026 sample. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • LinkedIn document posts had a median engagement rate of 21.77% in Buffer's 2025 baseline through 3 December. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
  • Dreamdata's 2025 customer benchmark recorded 121% LinkedIn ROAS. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • Dreamdata's 2025 customer benchmark recorded 281 days from first LinkedIn ad impression to revenue. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • Dreamdata's 2025 customer benchmark recorded 17.9% of closed deals with Company Page impression influence. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • Dreamdata's 2025 customer benchmark recorded 81% of the buying journey before pipeline entry. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • 63% of surveyed US hidden decision-makers spent more than one hour weekly consuming thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 91% of surveyed US hidden decision-makers identified uncovering unrecognized difficulties or needs as a hallmark of quality thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)

How do LinkedIn Company Pages and profiles perform?

Public reactions tell only part of the story because Company Page analytics also include clicks. Metricool excludes posts with zero impressions or zero interactions, so these benchmarks describe active posts in connected accounts instead of every LinkedIn post.

How did Company Page impressions and clicks change?

  • Company Pages averaged 924.42 impressions per post in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 112.89 interactions including clicks per post in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 115.63 interactions including clicks per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 97.54 clicks per post in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 102.32 clicks per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 13.47 likes per post in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 11.67 likes per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)

Company Page clicks and total interactions rose while impressions and likes declined in Metricool's comparison. These are means per post for matched calendar windows, not platform-wide counts or a forecast for an individual Page. The newer impressions figure appears in the takeaways. Total interactions here include clicks.

What happened to Company Page engagement and posting frequency?

  • Company Pages averaged 0.59 comments per post in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 0.49 comments per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 1.29 shares per post in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 1.16 shares per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages had a mean engagement rate including clicks of 12.21% in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 2.6 weekly posts in January–February 2025. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 2.34 weekly posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)

Company Pages posted less frequently and received fewer comments and shares in the newer period. The click-inclusive engagement rate tells a different story, illustrating why visible reactions alone are an incomplete measure. The newer engagement-rate figure is in the takeaways. A higher rate can coexist with reduced exposure.

Can personal profiles be compared fairly with Company Pages?

  • Personal Profiles averaged 817.67 impressions per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Personal Profiles averaged 14.44 interactions excluding clicks per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Personal Profiles had a mean engagement rate excluding clicks of 2.60% in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Personal Profiles averaged 3.05 weekly posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Personal Profiles averaged 12.71 likes per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Personal Profiles averaged 0.08 shares per post in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages averaged 13.31 interactions excluding clicks per post in the normalized January–February 2026 comparison. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Company Pages had a mean engagement rate excluding clicks of 1.60% in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)

Yes, if clicks are excluded from both sides of the comparison. Metricool provides a normalized company/profile comparison because personal-profile analytics do not expose the same click information as Company Pages. The personal-profile comments observation appears in the takeaways. These sample means do not establish that switching account type causes a performance gain.

Which LinkedIn content formats do marketers use?

Popularity and performance are different decisions. Metricool measures the format mix of eligible posts, while Buffer compares median engagement across its own published-post sample; those datasets should inform separate questions.

Which formats do Company Pages publish?

  • Video represented 24.75% of Company Page posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Multi-Image represented 12.75% of Company Page posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Carousel represented 7.58% of Company Page posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Text represented 4.46% of Company Page posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Poll represented 0.39% of Company Page posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Newsletter represented 0.56% of Company Page posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)

Company Pages favor image content in Metricool's format distribution; that leading share appears in the takeaways. The remaining shares show a varied mix instead of a channel consisting only of text updates or video. The figures describe eligible connected-account posts during the study window, not LinkedIn's full publishing inventory. A format's share is not its success rate. Low use may reflect production effort, account needs or measurement availability, so it cannot establish an overlooked engagement opportunity by itself.

Which formats do personal profiles publish?

  • Image represented 38.78% of Personal Profile posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Multi-Image represented 8.06% of Personal Profile posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Carousel represented 4.51% of Personal Profile posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Text represented 8.21% of Personal Profile posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)
  • Poll represented 0.33% of Personal Profile posts in January–February 2026. (Metricool, Apr 2026)

Video leads the personal-profile format distribution in Metricool's sample, with its share reported in the takeaways. The remaining format shares provide context for the kinds of content included in the profile benchmark. Personal profiles and Company Pages serve different purposes and may have different audiences. Consequently, a difference in format mix should not be interpreted as a recommendation to copy the other account type. These are observed publishing shares after the study's eligibility exclusions, instead of a survey of creators' preferences. Compare production effort and audience fit before adopting a format solely because it is common.

Which LinkedIn formats had higher median engagement?

  • LinkedIn video posts had a median engagement rate of 7.35% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
  • LinkedIn image posts had a median engagement rate of 6.52% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
  • LinkedIn link posts had a median engagement rate of 3.81% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
  • LinkedIn text posts had a median engagement rate of 3.18% in Buffer's 2025 baseline. (Buffer, Mar 2026)

Documents lead Buffer's LinkedIn comparison, with that benchmark reported in the takeaways. Video and images follow, while link and text posts have lower medians in the same dataset. Buffer's baseline covers posts through early December, so it is not a completed calendar-year census. Its detailed methodology uses reach or the closest available platform equivalent, including impressions, instead of the denominator in every other study on this page. The comparison is observational and does not control every difference in topic, audience or creative quality. Use it to put first tests of substantive content, then compare similar posts within your account. Interaction does not automatically produce qualified demand.

What supports LinkedIn distribution and conversation?

Simple rules about links and replies miss the measurement context. The evidence supports testing useful outbound resources and participating in conversations, while stopping short of claiming that either action guarantees additional distribution.

Do links always reduce Company Page impressions?

  • Company Page posts containing links had 51% more impressions than posts without links in Metricool's comparison. (Metricool, Apr 2026)

No. Metricool's Company Page comparison found higher impressions for posts containing links, which contradicts a universal claim that every outbound link suppresses reach. The result applies to its eligible connected-account sample. The report's chart gives the comparison below; accompanying prose rounds it. This is an association between groups of posts, not a randomized link-placement test. Accounts may use links for different topics, campaigns or audiences, and those differences can affect distribution. The study also excludes posts without recorded interactions or impressions. For a hands-on test, compare similar posts on the same Page and track the destination outcome alongside impressions. A resource that attracts qualified visits may have value even when a reach-only comparison does not favor it.

Does replying to LinkedIn comments help?

  • Creator replies were linked to 30% higher LinkedIn engagement in Buffer's within-account analysis. (Buffer, Mar 2026)
  • About 83% of LinkedIn profiles in Buffer's reply analysis performed better on posts where they replied. (Buffer, Mar 2026)

Buffer's within-account analysis associates creator replies with stronger LinkedIn engagement. It also reports how broadly the positive pattern appears across the analyzed profiles, which is different from the size of the engagement association. The analysis compares posts from the same account, reducing some account-level differences. It does not randomly assign replies, however, so already-successful posts may be more likely to attract follow-up from their creators. The precise observation window for this analysis is not disclosed. Treat the findings as evidence for a measured community-management test: answer substantive questions, clarify claims and contribute useful context, then evaluate results without promising that every reply will create the reported lift.

How do LinkedIn paid and organic signals connect to revenue?

A cheap click and an economical company-level outcome are different metrics. Dreamdata's customer benchmarks connect activity to observed buying journeys, but attributed or influenced revenue should not be presented as proven incremental revenue.

How do LinkedIn advertising costs compare?

  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 41% share of measured ad budgets allocated to LinkedIn. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: a LinkedIn cost per click of €5.98. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: a cost of €70.11 per company influenced through LinkedIn ads. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2024 customer benchmark: a cost of €154 per company influenced through LinkedIn ads. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2024 customer benchmark: 113% LinkedIn ROAS. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: a Google Search cost of €110.37 per company influenced. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: a Meta cost of €128.70 per company influenced. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)

LinkedIn's company-influence cost is lower than the comparison channels in Dreamdata's customer benchmark even with its higher click cost. The latest ROAS observation appears in the takeaways; ROAS measures attributed revenue divided by ad spend, not profit. These are selected customer benchmarks, not guaranteed returns.

How do paid sessions and revenue timing differ?

  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 24.2% LinkedIn Ads share of sessions at MQL stage. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 30.2% LinkedIn Ads share of sessions at SQL stage. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 28.3% LinkedIn Ads share of sessions at new-business stage. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 214 days from first LinkedIn ad conversion to revenue. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 212 days from first LinkedIn ad engagement to revenue. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)

Dreamdata reports different LinkedIn Ads session shares across funnel stages and different delays from initial signals to revenue. These are separate measurement questions: session composition does not equal conversion probability. The first-impression timing appears in the takeaways. The figures below describe observed customer journeys instead of a prescribed attribution window. A session at a stage does not prove the ad created that transition. Keep the signal definition explicit when comparing timing: an impression, an engagement and an ad conversion can occur at different points in the same buying process.

What does organic Company Page influence measure?

  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 9.4% of MQLs with Company Page impression influence. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 15% of SQLs with Company Page impression influence. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 90 days from first organic LinkedIn impression to closed revenue. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)

Dreamdata identifies Company Page impressions in journeys linked to qualified leads and closed deals. These are impression signals, so they should not be relabelled as Page visits or treated as evidence that an organic post caused a purchase. The closed-deal share appears in the takeaways. The other figures provide funnel and timing context for the same customer dataset. Attribution coverage depends on what the measurement system can observe, and an absent signal does not prove an absent influence. Conversely, the presence of an impression does not establish incremental effect. Use these observations to question a purely last-click view of organic content while preserving the distinction between exposure, attribution and causation.

How long and complex is the B2B buying journey?

LinkedIn activity sits inside a wider buying process, not a self-contained funnel. Dreamdata supplies observed customer-journey benchmarks, while Edelman and LinkedIn survey US decision-makers about thought leadership across formats, more than LinkedIn posts.

How much activity happens before pipeline entry?

  • In the 2024 customer benchmark: 70% of the buying journey before pipeline entry. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 88 mean customer touchpoints. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2024 customer benchmark: 76 mean customer touchpoints. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)

Dreamdata's benchmark places much of the buying journey before formal pipeline entry. Its latest pre-pipeline share appears in the takeaways; the historical share and touchpoint counts below explain why sales-stage reporting can miss earlier activity. These observations cover the customer dataset's B2B journeys instead of only LinkedIn interactions. A touchpoint is a recorded event in the measurement system, not necessarily a unique person or an equally persuasive contact. Changes between benchmark years may reflect customer mix and measurement coverage as well as behavior. Use the figures to frame the scope of demand creation, without assigning all preceding activity to whichever channel appears last.

How many channels and stakeholders are involved?

  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 4 mean channels per journey. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2024 customer benchmark: 3.7 mean channels per journey. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2025 customer benchmark: 10 mean stakeholders. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)
  • In the 2024 customer benchmark: 6.8 mean stakeholders. (Dreamdata, Mar 2026)

Dreamdata's newer benchmark includes more channels and stakeholders per journey than its earlier comparison. That pattern supports planning for a buying group instead of assuming that a single contact receives and interprets every message. The values are means across measured customer journeys, not minimum requirements for closing a deal. They also do not establish that adding channels or contacts will improve an opportunity. A measurement system's identity resolution and account matching affect how activity is grouped. For content planning, the useful implication is to make the argument understandable across roles and contexts, while retaining consistent definitions when comparing your own account-level trends.

Do buyers consume and use thought leadership?

  • 64% of target buyers spent more than one hour weekly consuming thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 56% of target buyers used thought leadership to vet vendors. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 55% of hidden buyers used thought leadership to vet vendors. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 71% of hidden buyers reported never, rarely or occasionally interacting with vendor sales teams. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 95% of hidden buyers said high-quality thought leadership made them more receptive to outreach. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)

The Edelman-LinkedIn survey finds substantial thought-leadership consumption and vendor evaluation among both target and hidden decision-makers. The hidden-buyer weekly-consumption figure appears in the takeaways; the remaining observations describe different aspects of reported behavior. This US survey covers thought leadership across formats. Its answers are self-reports, not measured LinkedIn click-through or sales conversion rates. Hidden decision-makers can shape a purchase without frequent direct sales contact, which makes their stated evaluation behavior relevant to a LinkedIn content strategy without proving a platform-specific outcome.

What makes thought leadership useful to B2B buyers?

Expertise counts when it helps a buying group evaluate a difficult decision. Edelman and LinkedIn's US survey supports that editorial direction, but its reported attitudes should remain separate from observed post engagement or attributed advertising revenue.

Do buyers trust thought leadership when assessing vendors?

  • 71% of hidden buyers rated thought leadership more effective than conventional marketing for demonstrating value. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 73% of target buyers rated thought leadership more effective than conventional marketing for demonstrating value. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 64% of hidden buyers trusted thought leadership over marketing materials for assessing capabilities. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 65% of target buyers trusted thought leadership over marketing materials for assessing capabilities. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 41% of target buyers reported C-suite encouragement to consider a vendor after its thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 35% of hidden buyers reported C-suite encouragement to consider a vendor after its thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 81% of target buyers associated identifying overlooked needs with quality thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)

Both buyer groups report that thought leadership can communicate vendor value and capability. The hidden-buyer observation about recognizing previously unrecognized needs appears in the takeaways; the measures below cover trust, effectiveness and executive encouragement. These are attitudes, not measured persuasion.

Which vendor qualities matter in final purchasing decisions?

  • 86% of hidden buyers preferred provocative ideas that difficulty their assumptions. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 73% of hidden buyers agreed thought leadership helps assess the kind and calibre of thinking a vendor delivers. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 41% of hidden buyers rated being the safest choice important in RFP decisions. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 56% of hidden buyers rated cultural fit important in RFP decisions. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 68% of hidden buyers rated strategic fit important in RFP decisions. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 74% of hidden buyers rated relevant expertise important in RFP decisions. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 76% of hidden buyers rated industry-trend understanding important in RFP decisions. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 85% of hidden buyers rated business-difficulty understanding important in RFP decisions. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)

Hidden buyers value business understanding and expertise. In the RFP items below, important combines very important and moderately important responses; it is not a forced ranking among mutually exclusive choices. Several qualities could matter.

Can thought leadership support internal advocacy?

  • In both US buyer groups, 53% said strong thought leadership made brand recognition less important. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 51% of hidden decision-influencers rated thought leadership important for persuading the C-suite about a vendor. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 52% of hidden decision-influencers rated thought leadership important for persuading other decision-makers. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 79% of hidden buyers were more likely to advocate for proposals from consistent high-quality thought leaders. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 60% of hidden buyers associated distinctive style with quality thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)
  • 51% of target buyers associated distinctive style with quality thought leadership. (Edelman / LinkedIn, Jun 2025)

Surveyed buyers report that strong thought leadership can support advocacy and reduce reliance on brand familiarity. Decision-influencers are a distinct survey group in the persuasion items below and should not be merged with decision-makers. These attitudes favor shareable explanations. They do not establish that a LinkedIn campaign will produce an equivalent sales result. The survey covers thought leadership across channels and formats.

Glossary

B2B
business-to-business.
ROAS
attributed revenue divided by advertising spend; it excludes other costs and is not profit.
RFP
request for proposal.

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.