<b>The 60/40 split that most B2B teams invert</b>

<b>The 60/40 split that most B2B teams invert</b>

The question: what share of B2B marketing effort should go to long-term brand building versus short-term demand capture?

Drawing on long-run effectiveness studies, researchers proposed a roughly 60/40 split (60% brand, 40% activation) for B2B, adjusted by category. Method: meta-analysis of campaign effectiveness over multi-year horizons — aggregate, not firm-specific.

Three findings:
— Brand-building effects compounded over years; activation effects spiked then decayed within weeks — different time signatures.
— Teams measured on quarterly leads systematically over-invested in activation, the opposite of the recommended split.
— The brand share that looked 'wasteful' in-quarter was what made later activation cheaper, by raising baseline familiarity.

Caveats: the optimal ratio varies by category, growth stage, and margin — treat as directional.

What it means for B2B: if your social output is mostly product, offers, and CTAs, you are running an activation-heavy mix that may be eroding the brand memory that makes activation work. The 'inefficient' brand content is the long game.

Bottom line: most B2B teams under-invest in brand because they are measured on the quarter, not the multi-year curve.