27 Thought Leadership Statistics: How B2B Buyers Use It, Trends, and Data for 2026

This briefing compiles verified statistics on how B2B decision-makers use thought leadership to assess vendors, extend trust, shape RFP short-lists, and justify premium pricing. The data matters because most of the evidence comes from repeated, large-sample buyer surveys rather than marketing anecdote, and it reveals a persistent gap between how much buyers rely on thought leadership and how well producers actually execute it. Every figure below is attributed to its publisher and year, and self-reported survey limits are flagged throughout.

Executive Summary

• 73% of B2B decision-makers said thought leadership content is a more trustworthy basis for assessing an organization’s capabilities than its marketing materials and product sheets, per the 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report (global, 7 markets).
• 90% of decision-makers said they are moderately or very likely to be more receptive to sales or marketing outreach from a company that consistently produces high-quality thought leadership (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn, global).
• 60% of decision-makers said high-quality thought leadership makes them willing to pay a premium to work with an organization (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn, global).
• 86% of decision-makers said they would be moderately or very likely to invite an organization that consistently produces high-quality thought leadership to participate in an RFP, versus only 38% of producers who expect that outcome (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn, global).
• Only 15% of decision-makers rated the thought leadership they read as very good, and fewer than half rated it good, exposing a large quality gap (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn, global).
• 79% of “hidden” decision-makers said they are more likely to champion a vendor with consistent, high-quality thought leadership during the RFP process (2025 Edelman-LinkedIn, 7 markets, n=1,934).
• 96% of B2B marketers said their organization creates thought leadership content, yet at 37% of organizations less than 5% of employees with relevant expertise actively contribute (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey for 2025 outlook, n=980).
• 52% of B2B marketers expected their organization to increase investment in thought leadership content in 2025, the second-highest priority after video (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, n=980).

Key Findings

• 73% of B2B decision-makers said thought leadership is a more trustworthy basis for judging a firm’s competence than its marketing materials (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn). Source
• 75% of decision-makers, including C-suite members, said thought leadership prompted them to research a product or service they had not previously considered (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 90% of decision-makers said they would be moderately or very likely to be more receptive to outreach from firms producing consistent high-quality thought leadership (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 60% of decision-makers said good thought leadership makes them willing to pay a premium to work with an organization (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 60% of decision-makers said thought leadership made them realize their own organization was missing a significant business opportunity (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 86% of decision-makers said they would likely invite a consistent thought leadership producer to an RFP, while only 38% of producers expected that result (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 70% of C-suite leaders said thought leadership at least occasionally led them to question whether to keep working with an existing supplier (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• Only 15% of decision-makers described the thought leadership they read as very good, and fewer than half called it good (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 52% of decision-makers and 54% of C-suite executives said they spend an hour or more per week reading thought leadership (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 95% of “hidden” buyers said strong thought leadership makes them more receptive to a brand’s sales and marketing outreach (2025, 7 markets, Edelman-LinkedIn, n=1,934).
• 79% of hidden decision-makers said they are more likely to champion a vendor with consistent, high-quality thought leadership during the RFP process (2025, 7 markets, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 64% of buyers said they trust thought leadership more than product sheets or brochures when assessing capabilities (2025, 7 markets, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 53% of decision-makers said strong thought leadership matters more to them than a brand’s overall name recognition (2025, 7 markets, Edelman-LinkedIn).
• 96% of B2B marketers said their organization creates thought leadership content (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, North America-weighted, n=980).
• 52% of B2B marketers expected increased investment in thought leadership content in 2025 (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, n=980).

Trust and Credibility

The strongest and most consistent finding across sources is that buyers treat thought leadership as a credibility signal that outranks conventional marketing collateral. This is a self-reported attitude, not observed behavior, so it should be read as stated preference.

73% of B2B decision-makers said an organization’s thought leadership content is a more trustworthy basis for assessing its capabilities and competencies than its marketing materials and product sheets (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn). Source: 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report.

64% of buyers said they trust thought leadership more than product sheets or brochures when assessing a vendor’s capabilities (2025, 7 markets, Edelman-LinkedIn). Source: 2025 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report.

53% of decision-makers said strong thought leadership matters more to them than a brand’s overall name recognition, which suggests content can partly offset an incumbent’s brand advantage (2025, 7 markets, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Context: the 2024 figure (73%) and the 2025 figure (64%) are not directly comparable because the 2025 study redefined its respondent frame around “hidden” and target buyers and used a smaller sample. Treat them as two separate readings, not a year-over-year trend line.

Impact on RFPs and Vendor Short-Lists

Thought leadership influences who gets invited to compete, and the data exposes a large expectation gap between buyers and the marketers producing the content.

86% of decision-makers said they would be moderately or very likely to invite an organization that consistently produces high-quality thought leadership to participate in an RFP (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Only 38% of thought leadership producers expected their content to earn an RFP invitation, a 48-point gap versus buyer intent (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

79% of hidden decision-makers said they are more likely to champion a vendor with consistent, high-quality thought leadership during the RFP process (2025, 7 markets, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Context: these are intent measures (“would invite,” “more likely to champion”), which tend to overstate real-world conversion. They indicate direction and relative priority, not guaranteed pipeline.

Pricing Power and Purchase Behavior

Buyers link thought leadership to willingness to pay more and to concrete purchase movement, though the purchase-attribution figures are lower than the attitude figures.

60% of decision-makers said good thought leadership makes them willing to pay a premium to work with an organization (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Just under 25% of decision-makers said high-quality thought leadership led them to begin buying from or working with an organization (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

75% of decision-makers said thought leadership prompted them to research a product or service they were not previously considering (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

60% of decision-makers said thought leadership made them realize their organization was missing a significant business opportunity (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Context: the gap between stated willingness to pay a premium (60%) and self-reported purchase action (under 25%) is the clearest illustration that attitude metrics exceed behavior metrics in this dataset.

The Quality Gap

Demand for thought leadership far exceeds its perceived quality, which is the central strategic opening in the data.

Only 15% of decision-makers rated the thought leadership they read as very good, and fewer than half rated it good (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

55% of decision-makers cited strong research and data as a top characteristic of quality thought leadership (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

96% of B2B marketers said their organization produces thought leadership content, but at 37% of organizations fewer than 5% of employees with relevant expertise actively contribute to it (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, n=980). Source: CMI B2B Content Marketing Benchmarks 2025.

Context: near-universal production plus low expert participation and low buyer-rated quality together explain why so much thought leadership fails to move buyers. Volume is not the constraint; expertise density and rigor are.

Content Formats, Consumption, and Investment

Format and consumption data come mainly from marketer-side (CMI) and buyer-side (Demand Gen Report) surveys, which sample different populations and are not directly comparable to the Edelman-LinkedIn decision-maker panel.

The three most-used B2B content formats were short articles or posts (94%), videos (84%), and case studies or customer stories (78%) (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, n=980).

52% of B2B marketers expected their organization to increase investment in thought leadership content in 2025, second only to video at 61% (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, n=980).

One-to-one consultations with subject-matter experts were the most-sought content type among B2B tech buyers at 72%, followed by thought leadership content at 45%, per Demand Gen Report research (2024). Source: Demand Gen Report research.

81% of buyers said the winning vendor’s content had a significant impact on their buying decision, and 67% said the winner demonstrated stronger knowledge of their company and needs (Demand Gen Report, 2023 B2B Buyer’s Survey). Source: Demand Gen Report.

Context: the CMI figures describe what marketers make, while the Demand Gen Report figures describe what buyers want; the alignment between “buyers want expertise” and “marketers plan to invest in thought leadership” is directional evidence, not a controlled comparison.

ROI and Measurement

Measurement remains the weakest link, which undercuts confidence in any ROI claim for thought leadership.

20% of organizations said they have no systems in place to measure the effectiveness of their thought leadership (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

42% said they measure thought leadership purely through website and social media traffic (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Under 33% of organizations said they can trace sales back to specific thought leadership pieces (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Context: because most producers cannot connect content to revenue, published “ROI of thought leadership” figures should be treated cautiously. The buyer-side impact signals are stronger than the producer-side attribution data.

Original Synthesis

The three insights below are derived by combining the cited public datasets. They are analytical constructs, not new survey data.

1. The Buyer-Producer Expectation Gap (RFP)

Logic: subtract producer RFP expectation from buyer RFP intent. 86% of buyers would likely invite consistent thought leadership producers to an RFP, but only 38% of producers expect that outcome, a 48-percentage-point gap (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn). Input source: 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn Impact Report. Limitation: both figures are self-reported intent/expectation from different respondent groups within the same study; the gap measures perception mismatch, not realized RFP invitations.

2. The Attitude-to-Action Ratio

Logic: divide self-reported purchase action by self-reported willingness to pay a premium. Under 25% began buying versus 60% willing to pay a premium, an action-to-attitude ratio of roughly 0.4 (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn). Input source: 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn Impact Report. Limitation: the two questions use different framings and recall windows; the ratio is a rough indicator that stated intent is roughly 2.5x self-reported behavior, not a conversion rate.

3. The Quality Deficit Index

Logic: contrast near-universal production with low perceived quality and low expert participation. 96% of organizations produce thought leadership, yet only 15% of buyers rate what they read as very good, and 37% of organizations have under 5% of experts contributing (CMI 2024 + Edelman-LinkedIn 2024). Input sources: CMI B2B Benchmarks 2025; 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn Impact Report. Limitation: the production figure (marketers) and the quality rating (buyers) come from different surveys and populations, so the index describes a market-level tension rather than a single measured variable.

Data Tables

Table sources: 2024 and 2025 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Reports.

Table source: CMI/MarketingProfs B2B Content Marketing Benchmarks, Budgets, and Trends (2024 survey, outlook for 2025), n=980.

Charts to build

• Buyer intent vs producer expectation (RFP). Data: 86% buyer intent, 38% producer expectation (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn). Insight: a 48-point perception gap. Citation-worthy because it quantifies why marketers under-invest relative to buyer demand.
• Attitude vs action funnel. Data: 90% more receptive, 60% pay premium, under 25% actually bought (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn). Insight: stated intent decays to roughly a quarter in reported action. Useful as a caution against overstating ROI.
• The quality gap bar. Data: 96% produce it (CMI 2024) vs 15% rated very good (Edelman-LinkedIn 2024). Insight: oversupply, under-quality. Highly quotable single visual.
• Content format adoption. Data: short posts 94%, video 84%, case studies 78% (CMI 2024). Insight: format mix of the modern B2B program.
• Measurement maturity. Data: 20% no measurement, 42% traffic-only, under 33% trace to sales (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn). Insight: attribution is the bottleneck.

Methodology

Source-selection criteria: this asset prioritizes the primary annual buyer survey in the category, the Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report, supported by the Content Marketing Institute/MarketingProfs annual benchmarks and Demand Gen Report buyer research. Inclusion rule: a statistic was included only if it could be attributed to a named publisher and year and traced to that publisher’s own survey. Exclusion rule: figures that could not be tied to a specific report, year, and respondent base were excluded rather than estimated.

Handling conflicts: where 2024 and 2025 Edelman-LinkedIn figures differ (for example 73% vs 64% on trust), both are reported separately with a note that the studies used different respondent frames and sample sizes, so they are not treated as a year-over-year trend. Derived insights in Original Synthesis are labeled as analytical constructs, with formulas and input sources stated. Data limitations: all headline figures are self-reported survey responses, subject to social-desirability and intent-versus-behavior bias; several stats mix marketer-side and buyer-side populations. Date of last update: July 2026.

Source Quality

Tier 1 (primary survey publishers): Edelman and LinkedIn (2024 and 2025 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Reports); Content Marketing Institute with MarketingProfs (annual B2B benchmarks); Demand Gen Report (buyer and content-preference surveys). These are the originators of the underlying data.

Tier 2 (credible trade and agency analysis citing the primary reports): Ragan Communications, Cremarc, and comparable trade outlets that summarize the Edelman-LinkedIn findings.

Tier 3 (reputable secondary commentary): marketing blogs and roundups that restate the figures; used only for cross-checking, never as an originating source.

Most Quotable Statistics

• “73% of B2B decision-makers trust thought leadership more than a vendor’s own marketing materials.” (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn)
• “86% of buyers would invite a consistent thought leadership producer to an RFP, but only 38% of producers expect it.” (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn)
• “60% of B2B buyers say strong thought leadership makes them willing to pay a premium.” (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn)
• “Only 15% of buyers rate the thought leadership they read as very good.” (2024 Edelman-LinkedIn)
• “96% of B2B marketers produce thought leadership, but 37% get contributions from fewer than 5% of their experts.” (CMI 2024)

Data Limitations

• All primary figures are self-reported survey responses and reflect stated attitudes, which typically exceed observed behavior.
• The 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn study surveyed nearly 3,500 management-level professionals across seven countries; the 2025 study used a smaller sample of 1,934 respondents across seven markets (17 March to 3 April 2025) and redefined respondent segments, so the two years are not directly comparable.
• CMI/MarketingProfs data (n=980, fielded 25 June to 16 August 2024) is North America-weighted and marketer-reported, not buyer-reported.
• Demand Gen Report figures come from separate buyer surveys with their own samples and years; cross-source comparisons are directional only.
• Measurement gaps reported by producers mean revenue-level ROI for thought leadership is largely unproven at the market level.

Recommended Dataset Fields

For a downloadable CSV, recommended columns: statistic_label; value_percent; publisher; report_name; report_year; respondent_type (buyer / marketer / C-suite); sample_size; geography; survey_dates; metric_category (trust / RFP / pricing / quality / consumption / measurement); source_url; self_reported_flag; comparability_note.

Press Summary

B2B buyers now treat thought leadership as a primary credibility signal, not a nice-to-have. In the 2024 Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report, 73% of decision-makers said they trust an organization’s thought leadership more than its marketing materials when judging capability, 90% said it makes them more receptive to sales outreach, and 60% said it makes them willing to pay a premium. It also shapes competitive access: 86% would invite a consistent producer to an RFP, but only 38% of producers expect that. The catch is quality. Just 15% of buyers rate the thought leadership they read as very good, even though 96% of B2B marketers produce it, per CMI. The 2025 report extended these findings to “hidden” buyers, 95% of whom said strong thought leadership makes them more receptive to outreach. All figures are self-reported and should be read as stated preference rather than measured behavior. For firms, the data points to a clear opening: fewer, more rigorous, expert-led pieces beat volume.

Suggested Headlines

• 73% of B2B Buyers Trust Thought Leadership More Than Your Marketing Materials
• The 48-Point Gap: Why Buyers Value Your Thought Leadership More Than You Think
• 96% of Marketers Publish Thought Leadership. Only 15% of Buyers Rate It Very Good.
• 60% of B2B Buyers Will Pay a Premium for Real Thought Leadership
• Inside the RFP: 86% of Buyers Short-List Vendors on Their Ideas

FAQ

Do B2B buyers actually trust thought leadership more than marketing materials?

Yes. 73% of decision-makers said thought leadership is a more trustworthy basis for assessing a firm’s capabilities than its marketing materials and product sheets (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Does thought leadership affect RFP invitations?

86% of decision-makers said they would likely invite a consistent, high-quality thought leadership producer to an RFP, while only 38% of producers expected that (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Will buyers pay more because of thought leadership?

60% of decision-makers said high-quality thought leadership makes them willing to pay a premium to work with an organization (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

How receptive does thought leadership make buyers to sales outreach?

90% of decision-makers said it makes them moderately or very likely to be more receptive to outreach (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn), and 95% of hidden buyers said the same in the 2025 report.

Is there a quality problem with thought leadership?

Yes. Only 15% of buyers rated the thought leadership they read as very good, and fewer than half rated it good (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

How many organizations even produce thought leadership?

96% of B2B marketers said their organization creates thought leadership content (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, n=980).

Are companies planning to invest more in it?

52% of B2B marketers expected increased investment in thought leadership content in 2025, second only to video (CMI/MarketingProfs, 2024 survey, n=980).

Can most companies measure thought leadership ROI?

No. 20% of organizations said they have no measurement systems and under 33% could trace sales to specific pieces (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

Does thought leadership threaten incumbent suppliers?

70% of C-suite leaders said thought leadership at least occasionally led them to question whether to keep an existing supplier (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

How much time do buyers spend reading thought leadership?

52% of decision-makers and 54% of C-suite executives said they spend an hour or more per week reading it (2024, global, Edelman-LinkedIn).

About This Research

This briefing was compiled by CO Consulting, a research-driven growth-consulting firm, using primary buyer surveys and industry benchmarks. If your team wants help turning these findings into a rigorous, expert-led thought leadership program, you can book a consultation.

Related research

• Content Marketing
• Social Media Marketing
• Video Marketing
• Influencer Marketing
• Generational Marketing