The State of B2B SaaS Brand Marketing
Inside the B2B brand paradox: Everyone says it matters, almost no one proves it
Want articles like this straight to your inbox?
Subscribe here
Subscribe here
Here's the stat that changes everything: 92% of B2B buyers only purchase from their day-1 shortlist.
Think about what that means. By the time they book demos, the decision is essentially made and they're confirming choices they've settled on.
This should make brand investment non-negotiable. But walk into any boardroom and ask for brand budget, and watch what happens. Someone will ask: "What's the ROI?" and the room goes quiet.
So we went straight to the source. We surveyed 100 B2B SaaS marketing leaders at $50 million + companies to understand how they're navigating this paradox.
What we found: an entire industry trapped between knowing brand matters and being able to prove it. Most are stuck but some have cracked the code.
They've figured out what to measure, where to invest, and how to build brand programs that finance actually understands.
Here’s everything they told us.
We asked the 100 marketing leaders a straightforward question: "How confident are you that your current brand marketing effectiveness metrics reflect reality?"
Not a single marketer feels highly confident in their brand metrics.
If no sales leader trusted their pipeline data, or no product leader believed their user metrics, there would be pandemonium. But in B2B brand marketing? It appears everyone is carrying on with business as usual.
Their confidence levels break down as follows:
Considering 20% selected neutral, that means one in five marketers are essentially admitting they have no idea whether their brand measurement systems work. Combined with the 43% who actively distrust their metrics, we're looking at nearly half the sample doubting whether their brand data reflects reality.
These same questionable metrics determine everything:
As an industry that prides itself on being "data-driven", the majority are steering brand strategy and decision making with metrics that they don’t trust. If the people running brand don't trust the numbers, why should anyone else?
It’s clear that for the majority, their current brand measurement metrics are broken. The question now is whether they’ll fix it or keep spending money on metrics they fundamentally don’t believe in.
One marketing leader put it plainly:
This captures the core problem. Despite having more attribution tools, dashboards, and data than ever, brand decisions are often based on gut feel.
When marketing leaders don’t trust their brand metrics, they can’t make confident decisions, win budget, or plan for real growth. Switching from gut feel to data-backed brand strategy will not only reduce risk, but also give you an edge over the 74% still guessing.
Given that nobody really trusts their brand metrics, what’s the logical next step? The data paints a stark picture: when marketing leaders lose faith in their brand metrics, most stop measuring altogether instead of finding better alternatives. The rest? They default to the simplest metrics available.
52% don't measure brand impact at all. The majority have thrown in the towel. No brand tracking studies. No lift analysis. No sophisticated attribution. Nothing.
33% rely on share-of-search. Tools like Google Trends has become the brand measurement tool of choice for a third of the market. It's free, simple, and provides directional data that feels meaningful. But share-of-search tells you what people are searching for, not why they're searching or whether they'll buy.
13% run brand tracking surveys. These companies still believe in traditional brand measurement. They pay to track awareness, consideration, and preference among their target audience. The challenge remains consistent across every company running these studies: connecting survey data to pipeline metrics.
11% use marketing mix modeling. Even though it claims to reveal exactly which channels drive results, MMM demands enormous datasets and often generates contradictory insights. For B2B companies with complex buyer journeys, it can be an expensive gamble that rarely gives clear direction.
9% run incrementality experiments. These forward-thinking companies use rigorous testing, comparing markets where they advertise versus where they don't, to prove what’s driving their sales.
2% measure ad recall. It still exists, but barely anyone in B2B is using it.
Here's where it gets interesting. Company size dramatically affects measurement sophistication, but not always how you'd expect:
These brand measurement attempts are filled with good intentions, failed attempts, and expensive tools that aren’t always put to good use. Half the market has given up on measuring brand impact entirely. The other half is relying on metrics that provide comfort, and not necessarily clarity.
The companies succeeding with brand measurement don't have better tools. They have better tolerance for ambiguity and longer time horizons. They measure what they can, acknowledge what they can't, and invest anyway.
The other option? Do nothing and let your brand marketing efforts fade while your competitors grow theirs. That’s the one move that’s guaranteed to backfire.
Despite all this measurement chaos, all this uncertainty, all this flying blind, we have one undeniable fact that should change everything:
92% of B2B buyers purchase from their day-1 shortlist.
By the time a buyer reaches out for demos or your sales team spots an opportunity, the likelihood is that it's already too late. They've already decided who they're considering, and their shortlist was decided before you even knew they were shopping.
So we asked our 100 marketing leaders: "When you talk about brand internally, how does getting onto buyers' 'day-1 vendor shortlist' show up in the conversation?"
The answers revealed three distinct themes, and the differences between them help explain why some companies consistently win deals while others are always playing catch-up.
These teams understand the importance of the day-1 list, and they organize their entire marketing strategy around it. For them it’s the metric that guides their decision making.
This CMO has cracked the code. They've translated brand into a language the CFO understands: RFP invites. It's not perfect attribution, but it's pipeline-connected attribution.
The most insightful response came from a marketing leader who truly gets it:
That's brand at its most powerful: being the answer people think of before they even realize they have a question.
Another marketing leader explained their dedicated approach of refinement and adjustment:
That last one is refreshingly honest. If they're not on the list enough, they know it, and they're adapting to make sure that they are.
Then there's the 10% who aren't having this conversation at all. The responses are stark in their simplicity:
They know it's important, but it's not part of brand strategy. Then what exactly is brand strategy for?
This shows there is hope, sometimes all it takes is naming the problem so it comes to mind.
Running B2B marketing without discussing whether buyers consider you from day one means you're operating without the most crucial feedback loop. All that effort, all that spend, but no clarity on whether you're even in the game when it matters most.
The third group doesn't use "day-1 shortlist" language but deeply understands the concept through other approaches:
Mental availability. It's the more academic term for what the other 32% called day-1 shortlist. Same concept, fancier words.
Others never frame it as ‘the day-1 shortlist’ or ‘brand’, but instead call it something else:
Despite using different names and approaches, the goal is identical: becoming known for ideas before products and being the default choice before the buying process even starts.
The companies obsessing over day-1 shortlist inclusion aren't necessarily bigger or better funded. They've just connected the dots:
It's not complicated logic but only 42% are actively having this conversation and they share some of these characteristics:
We know brand is a crucial element in determining shortlists. But without measurement, how do you get budget? Their answer: You don't. We asked our 100 marketing leaders: "What are the top three reasons you're not spending more on brand today?"
The findings reveal the majority are trapped in a cycle of knowing what drives long-term growth while being forced to optimize for short-term survival.
These major brand investment killers surfaced:
Nearly half of respondents are caught in the quarterly pipeline trap.
Notice the cascade of problems:
For many, it's a range of different problems compounding:
These marketing leaders want to invest in brand, they know they should, but the board is focused on short term gains:
The phrase "short-term" appears again and again. It’s clear these marketers aren't confused about brand's value, they're just stuck in a cycle to help next quarter's numbers.
Without attribution, brand feels "fluffy", and to put it simply, fluffy doesn't get funded.
Now, imagine going to your CFO and saying "I need $200K for something that feels directionally correct."
Others budgets hinge on ROI and proving brand marketing works:
Some think they might already have enough brand impact, but how would they know? Without measurement, "pretty well known" could just be a guess.
This quote sums up the trap:
Then there's the barrier of leadership. The responses paint a consistent picture:
The fatigue is evident, marketers are repeatedly trying to explain brand value to leadership who demand immediate revenue attribution.
The pattern is clear: executive teams and boards in this category consistently prioritize short-term, measurable returns over brand building. Multiple respondents explicitly mention leadership's lack of understanding about brand's role in driving long-term growth.
There’s a systemic disconnect between marketing teams who understand brand's importance and leadership teams who either don't understand it or don't value it.
A small but significant group face external pressures as their key budget blocker:
When the giants have 10x your budget, matching their brand spend feels almost pointless. So they don’t try, give in on the awareness battle and hope to win on features or price.
Hidden in the responses were a small group of marketing leaders who actively want to invest more:
They see the value, they want to invest but their current conditions force them to lean toward immediate returns.
Key takeaway:
Marketing leaders aren’t necessarily ignoring brand, they’re boxed in. The data shows a clear pattern: budget pressure, attribution gaps, and short-term leadership mindsets are killing long-term brand investment.
Nearly half are stuck optimizing for pipeline this quarter, not awareness next year. One-third can’t prove ROI, so they can’t ask for more budget. And for 1 in 10, leadership just doesn’t believe in brand at all.
It’s not that marketers don’t get it. They do. The problem is structural and brand struggles to compete when every dollar needs to show up in the next revenue report.
After hearing all the reasons brand doesn’t get funded, we asked: What would convince your CFO or CEO to approve a bigger brand marketing budget?
The answers show what it takes to get a yes, and just how far most teams are from meeting that bar.
A third of respondents said the same thing, just with different words: if you want budget, prove brand drives pipeline. Not someday. Not in theory.
For this group, approval always comes back to attribution. They want to trace it back to specific brand activities:
This is actually good news. These CFOs aren't dismissing brand but they are asking for attribution. And it’s the marketing leader’s role to find ways to deliver it.
This CFO understands the journey from awareness to deal. They're not saying "prove immediate ROI", they're saying "help me see the path."
Yes, they want SQLs, but notice, they understand brand can generate them. This CFO gets that brand drives pipeline: they just want to track it.
Our advice? Start capturing these mentions in your CRM. When prospects say "We saw your CEO's talk" or "We've been reading your blog for months," that's measurable brand impact, and this sample prove having evidence works.
These CFOs and CEOs are saying "help me say yes." They want to invest in brand, but they need a bridge between brand activities and business outcomes.
Our advice? Start small, track religiously, and tell the story with numbers.
This group reports their CFOs and CEOs need financial models that make sense to them. What's revealing here isn't just what they're asking for, it's how achievable these requests actually are when you decode them.
They're asking for a timeline they can defend to the board.
Before dismissing this as impossible, consider what this really reveals: a CFO under pressure who's being transparent about their constraints.
The opportunity? Show them what is measurable in six months:
Then position these as early indicators of the 18-24 month full return.
This CFO wants to measure brand properly. They've tried share of search and recognized its limitations. If this sounds familiar, this is your opening to propose better approaches:
The companies getting brand budget approved aren't the ones with perfect attribution. They're the ones who learned to tell brand's story in the language of finance: payback periods, incremental returns, ROI projections and compound value.
Remember your CFO or CEO isn't the enemy of brand. They're a potential ally who needs the right information. Give them models they can trust, even if they're not perfect. The more proof you have, the better.
Only 14% of CFOs and CEOs see brand as a strategic asset. The rest still treat it as just another marketing line item.
This is sophisticated thinking. Brand as a way to reduce paid acquisition costs over time. Build once, benefit forever.
These metrics reveal a crucial understanding: brand creates leading indicators of future financial performance. When NPS rises, retention follows. When awareness lifts, consideration follows. When organic search grows, free pipeline follows.
These CFOs grasp what most miss, and they’re playing an entirely different game.
The question for every marketing leader: is your CFO in the 14% who see brand as value creation? Or the 86% who see it as an expense?
More importantly, if they're in the 86%, how do you help elevate their thinking? Because the distance between these two groups could be the distance between category leaders and everyone else.
The data reveals a clear split: 33% of CFOs and CEOs want pipeline proof, 27% need financial models, and only 14% think strategically about long-term value.
But here's the insight that matters, all three groups are asking for the same thing in different languages. They want confidence that brand investment will pay off.
The winning move isn't to fight the CEO or CFOs preferred framework, it's to work within it while gradually expanding their view:
Start where they are: If they need 6-month ROI, show them early indicators while building toward long-term value.
Build trust through measurement: Every small win, properly tracked and reported, earns you permission for bigger bets.
Elevate the conversation: Use their language to tell a bigger story. That "pipeline impact" becomes "compound CAC reduction."
Give them a path they can follow, metrics they can track, and a story they can defend to the board.
Despite all the measurement challenges, trust issues, CFO and CEO resistance we've documented, some companies invest heavily in brand (really heavily.)
When we looked at what percentage of total marketing budget goes to brand, we expected to see larger companies spending more. Bigger budgets, bigger brand investments, right?
Wrong.
Smaller companies (51-200 employees) outspend everyone else on brand as a percentage of their marketing budget. The breakdown by company size is as follows:
But these averages hide the real story, it's in the ranges.
In the smallest company bracket (51-200 employees), brand spend ranges from 5% to 80% of marketing budget. Picture two identical companies: same size, same market, same revenue but with a 16x difference in brand spend.
This decision is not driven by resources or opportunity, but by fundamental beliefs about if brand marketing is worth it.
Here's what's strange: almost nobody spends 40-50% on brand. Regardless of company sizes, they all cluster at the extremes, either brand is everything or it's an afterthought.
As companies scale, something predictable happens:
Company size is a surprisingly weak predictor of brand investment. The smallest companies show a staggering 5-80% range, while even the largest companies vary from 15-50%.
The data points to one conclusion: brand investment reflects leadership philosophy, not company demographics.
Consider what drives these extremes:
However, with 52% of companies not measuring brand impact, these investment levels appear to be based more on leadership conviction than on performance data.
The missed opportunity? With most companies not measuring brand impact, they lack the evidence to know whether they're underinvesting or overspending. Those who do track brand metrics gain the clarity to invest with confidence, and the rest continue operating on instinct rather than insight.
We've seen companies invest up to 80% of their marketing budget on brand. We know 92% of buyers purchase from their day-1 list. Yet when it comes to measuring this critical investment, budgets tell a different story.
The most revealing pattern emerges at 200+ employees. Companies split into two distinct camps:
There's virtually no middle ground. Companies either scrape by with Google Trends and surveys, or they invest seriously in brand tracking, competitive intelligence, and attribution modeling. The $40-60K range? Nearly empty.
Only 15-25% of companies at any size spend over $100K on brand measurement. Even among enterprises, six-figure measurement budgets remain rare. This tells us companies are willing to spend heavily on brand activities but significantly less on understanding if those activities work.
A clear line emerges at 500 employees. Below this line, most spend under $10K. Above it, nobody admits to spending that little.
What their budget really buys
Under $10K: Basic tools, annual surveys, and spreadsheet analysis. They’re measuring, but lightly.
$10-25K: Quarterly tracking studies and basic competitive intelligence. Enough to spot major shifts.
$25-100K: Sophisticated tracking, multi-touch attribution, regular competitive analysis. Real, rich insights they can act on.
Over $100K: Continuous measurement, predictive modeling, dedicated analysts. They know exactly what's happening and why.
What the marketing leaders told us reveals an industry-wide blind spot. They debate endlessly about how much to spend on brand (as seen by the 5% vs 80% range), but barely discuss how much to spend understanding if it works.
The companies that figure this out and invest in measurement proportional to their brand spend, gain an advantage. They’re the ones optimizing while competitors guess and building on evidence while others rely on instinct or guesswork.
Our thoughts? The research shows brand measurement budget reveals what you really believe about brand. If it's under $10K, it’s implied brand impact doesn't matter enough to measure it properly. If it's over, it indicates the understanding that brand intelligence drives competitive advantage.
Of course, it's more comfortable to claim measurement is impossible than to admit we're choosing not to measure. Our advice? Comfort doesn't win markets, knowledge does.
Every company has someone in charge of revenue, product, and sales. But when we asked 100 marketing leaders, “Who’s in charge of brand?” we didn’t get a straight answer. The responses paint a clear picture: brand is often an organizational afterthought.
The takeaway: in most companies, brand is something execs juggle between other priorities. And as companies scale, ownership keeps shifting. Here’s how marketing leaders described brand ownership at their company size:
The pattern is clear:
When brand is nobody's main job (70% of companies): It gets pushed aside whenever urgent issues arise. Strategy changes, budgets fluctuate with quarterly results.
When brand is everybody's job (7% of companies): Lower accountability, many opinions and little authority.
When brand is somebody's actual job (7% of companies): Progress happens, clear strategy, protected budgets and measurable results.
70% of companies default to "marketing leader handles it somehow." But is this working?
The evidence suggests not. These same companies report measurement problems, budget fights, and unclear strategy. They're trying to build something that works but their attention is spread thin.
The 7% with dedicated brand teams? They report better measurement, clearer results, and consistent strategy, because at least one person’s actually focused on brand full-time.
Our take? If no one truly owns brand, it never gets the focus it needs, and companies end up wasting time and wondering why it never delivers.
Half of B2B SaaS companies don't track their brand. At all. Not "track it poorly" or "track it sometimes" they simply don't measure whether their brand exists in buyers' minds. It’s surprising as In 2025, we have dashboards for everything, and yet still, 50% fly completely blind on brand health.
In other words, half have given up, one-fifth are perpetually "about to start” and only 26% actually measure brand health with any regularity.
20% say they'll start tracking within 12 months, but only 4% have pilots running, this reveals a 5x gap between intention and action. The intent feels like progress, but intent without action doesn’t deliver results.
The patterns by company size reveal who's serious:
For the 26% who do track, timing reveals another issue:
We have an industry where:
The 50% with "no plans" have made a choice: they'd rather not know. The 20% "planning to start" have made a different choice: they'd rather feel productive than be productive.
Only 26% have chosen knowledge, which is surprising as information is a competitive advantage, and almost three-quarters are choosing to compete without it.
Our question isn't why so few companies track brand, it’s how the 74% expect to win without knowing where they stand.
We wanted to find out what’s preventing marketing leaders from running or expanding brand tracking. The answers probably won't shock you, but the patterns in company size reveal why some companies break through the barriers while others stay stuck.
The remaining blockers point to uncertainty: not knowing how to do it (16%), how big the sample should be (11%), or even realizing brand tracking is an option (16%).
Companies with less than 50 employees: Can't afford it, often they don’t know how.
They're doubly trapped, no money for tools, no knowledge to use them sufficiently.
Companies with 50-500 employees: Stuck in the middle.
These companies have it worse, averaging 1.34 barriers versus everyone else's one or less. Their reality:
Nearly half struggle with platform integration. They've outgrown only relying on Google Trends but can't afford enterprise level solutions.
Companies with 500+ employees: Stakeholders get in the way.
Their barrier isn't resources, it's politics and struggling to agree on what to measure.
Each stage of growth brings its own challenge for brand tracking:
Still, in every size group, some companies track brand and others don’t, even though they face the same issues. So the barriers are real, but how companies deal with them varies.
The 26% who do track brand aren’t the ones with fewer obstacles. They’re the ones who’ve made it a priority to work around them.
After documenting all the measurement voids and budget blockers, let's examine what companies actually do and what delivers results. Despite the challenges, brands still need building, and here's where marketing leaders are currently placing their bets.
The dominant trio:
The steady performers:
Half of companies lean on owned media and content. The appeal is obvious: control the channel, own the audience, reduce dependence on paid distribution.
The emerging force:
This shows the biggest momentum of any tactic. Nearly a third plan to start, the highest "planning" percentage across all activities. B2B is finally discovering what B2C knew years ago: buyers listen to people they relate to. Real voices build relevance, and relevance drives action.
The forgotten channel:
The billboard is effectively dead in B2B. More than half have never even considered it.
It’s equally interesting to see what companies have recently tried but quit:
Over a quarter of companies tried these tactics and then gave in. The pattern suggests high-touch, resource-intensive activities are first to go when budgets tighten or results disappoint.
1. Content convergence: Over 50% use thought leadership, newsletters, and podcasts. But when everyone's a thought leader, no one is. Our advice? Aim for depth over breadth and make sure your content is as helpful as possible.
2. Influencers on the rise: With only 34% currently using influencer partnerships but 31% planning to start, early movers have a window of opportunity. It’s clear that in 12 months, this channel will be as crowded as all the others.
3. Less high-touch: The abandonment of events, dinners, and community building reveals a troubling trend: companies are retreating from the very activities that build deep relationships. It looks like they're choosing scale over connection.
The companies seeing results share patterns:
Integration over isolation: They don't see these as separate tactics but as connected systems. Thought leadership feeds newsletters, podcasts create community, PR amplifies everything.
Depth over breadth: Instead of being mediocre everywhere, they dominate one or two channels completely.
Human over corporate: The shift toward podcasts, newsletters, and influencers shows buyers craving more and more human connection (not corporate messaging).
If these current trends hold, here’s where we predict were headed:
1. The influencer rush: With 31% planning to start, B2B influencer marketing will explode, then rapidly consolidate as companies realize "influencer" doesn't mean "anyone with LinkedIn followers."
2. The content consolidation: Companies spreading thin across every content channel will focus on one or two they can truly own.
3. The importance of measurement: As traditional tactics show diminishing returns, companies will finally be forced to measure what matters.
The industry’s shifting. Traditional tactics still lead, but momentum is building around owned media, real voices, and meaningful engagement.
Winning in 2025 (and beyond) won’t be about volume, it’ll be about focus and execution. It’s clear most companies are stuck in rinse-and-repeat mode, which leaves plenty of room for those willing to think differently and act with intent.
We asked marketing leaders: "In your view, what are the most important business objectives brand marketing impacts?" We discovered three key objectives that capture 75% of brand focus. Here’s how the numbers breakdown:
Together, these three objectives account for 193 of 257 total responses (75%), which shows us B2B SaaS companies typically concentrate resources on awareness and pipeline generation, with limited focus on post-purchase objectives.
The survey reveals a clear evolution in brand focus as organizations mature. Early-stage companies chase everything while enterprises hone in on specific outcomes:
Key findings: Brand objectives evolve from awareness-centric to retention-focused as organizations scale.
The gap between awareness focus (72%) and consideration focus (58%) explains why so many B2B brands are known but not bought. Being famous means nothing if you're not on the shortlist.
Here's what should make every B2B leader pause: while 72% marketers chase awareness and 63% pursue demand generation, only 14% even mention customer loyalty as a brand objective.
Customer loyalty ranks 7th out of 12 objectives, barely registering on most teams' radars. Smaller companies practically ignore it entirely, with just 3% of responses from the 51-200 employee segment mentioning retention. Even scaled companies with established customer bases dedicate only 10% of their brand focus to keeping those customers engaged.
This creates a paradox: teams pour resources into filling the top of the funnel while ignoring the bottom, then wondering why growth feels so expensive.
Our thoughts: The 86% of marketers who disconnect brand from retention are missing the most efficient growth lever in B2B, turning customers into advocates.
The survey uncovered minimal focus on new discovery channels:
Our previous Wynter research shows that 24% of B2B marketing leaders use AI tools in their buyer research process but it seems B2B brand strategies haven't adapted to prioritizing AI discovery despite rapid adoption from buyers.
The retention gap: Only 14% of marketers connect brand to customer loyalty, while 72% focus on awareness. This 58-point gap suggests significant untapped value in post-purchase brand strategy. Companies that bridge this gap can differentiate through customer experience rather than competing for attention.
The timing advantage: The data maps exactly how brand priorities evolve by company size. Companies at 150 employees can prepare for the perception shift that hits at 200. Those approaching 500 can build retention infrastructure before growth stalls. Use these patterns to stay ahead of your needs rather than react to them.
The AI search gap: With only 1 of 100 marketers mentioning AI search optimization, this channel remains wide open. As B2B buyers increasingly use ChatGPT and Perplexity for vendor research, brands optimized for these platforms will capture traffic others don't even know they're missing.
The survey shows most B2B brands compete for the same objectives: awareness, demand generation, and consideration account for 75% of all efforts. The industry has figured out how to get noticed and drive pipeline, what it hasn’t figured out is what happens next.
Here's what 100 marketing leaders just told us: We're running a massive experiment in self-deception.
Everyone agrees 92% of buyers purchase from their day-1 shortlist. Yet half of us don't measure if we're on it. The majority of those who do measure don't trust the data. And zero feel highly confident in what they're seeing.
This isn't sustainable. When you can't prove brand impact, three things happen in sequence:
We're watching this play out across B2B SaaS right now. Companies that dominated with performance marketing five years ago are hitting walls. Their response? Double down on what's measurable, even as returns diminish.
A quarter of marketing leaders we spoke to are taking a different path. They share three things in common:
These aren’t companies with perfect data. They’re just not letting the lack of it stop them from acting. Measurement challenges exist, but they don’t let them define the strategy.
Brand is built through consistency. Every quarter you wait is one more quarter where your competitors are earning mindshare.
We know that buyers aren’t waiting for your sales team. They’re doing the research on their own, narrowing the field before you even know they’re looking. If you’re not already in their heads, you’re not on the list.
The current category leaders didn't get there by accident. They've been running brand as a core business function for years.
Brand is built in every customer interaction, every product decision, every single thing you publish. Yes, you need leadership buy-in. Yes, your team needs to believe in it.
But mostly, you need to stop waiting and start building. And you need to start tracking, because without measurement, all of this is just guesswork.
.png)
