The Mad Bear team recently did a test.
We wanted to see if LinkedIn‘s new Video Ads platform would outperform LinkedIn’s standard ads (i.e. the ones that use a combination of an image and a little text).
Both versions in our test used the same subject matter and were targeted to the same audience (i.e. geography, job title, etc).
We actually did multiple versions of the non-video ad with various adjustments to the headline and the image associated with each campaign.
We only did one version of the video ad…. yet the results were clear.
Video had a noticeably higher level of engagement per ad impression. In fact, the video ad scored the same number of clicks as the standard ad in nearly a quarter of the impressions.
What does that mean?
It means the video ad was nearly 4 times more likely to inspire action than the standard ad… pretty cool!
Now here comes a different question:
Are LinkedIn Video Ads worth it?
Well the obvious answer would seem to be yes… but the truth is we are not convinced.
1) Cost Per Click.
LinkedIn clearly recognizes the power of video because video ads are nearly twice as expensive per click:
Standard Ad- $2.07/click
Video Ad- $4.02/click
2) Overall Cost.
While the inspired action to click was far higher on the video end (as shown above), we actually paid nearly half as much for the standard ad for nearly the same number of views. Granted the standard ad had far more impressions, again proving video’s vastly superior power to engage, but as far as ROI — the standard ad proved to be a better deal.
We structured these campaigns on a pay per click basis — based upon our results it would appear the better strategy would be to pay by the number of impressions instead. LinkedIn does allow for that … That is unless LinkedIn jacks up the cost on impressions of its Video Ad format just like it jacked up the cost of video clicks.
We love to get your impression… so if you have any questions or thoughts please feel free to share by commenting below.