Last updated: September 7, 2026
Most B2B content marketing statistics are easy to repeat and hard to use well. A percentage without the question, survey period, and respondent base is usually weaker than it looks.
This is a small, source-led reference page built from Content Marketing Institute and MarketingProfs’ current B2B research. It focuses on the 2026 report, published in October 2025, rather than carrying forward 2025 planning figures as though they describe the market now.
Quick findings
| Finding | What the survey says | Why the context matters |
|---|---|---|
| Marketing effectiveness | 59% rated their marketing at least somewhat effective in the previous 12 months. | This is a self-assessment, not an audited revenue result. |
| Content strategy improvement | 61% said their content strategy had improved to some degree. | The report asked about change, not a universal definition of success. |
| Most cited improvement driver | 74% of marketers whose strategy improved cited strategy refinement. | The result is for the improving-strategy group, not every respondent. |
| Top 2026 investment priority | 45% selected AI-powered marketing tools among their top three planned investment areas. | It describes planned investment, not proven return. |
What this page covers
The figures below come from Content Marketing Institute’s 2026 B2B Content and Marketing Trends report. The survey was conducted with MarketingProfs from June 24 to August 14, 2025. It received 1,229 global responses, of which 1,015 were B2B marketers, mostly in North America.
That sample is broad enough to be useful as a directional benchmark. It does not represent every B2B company, every geography, or every SaaS team. The cleanest way to use these figures is as a prompt for a better internal question, not as a substitute for one.
59% rated their marketing at least somewhat effective
In the 2026 study, 12% of respondents said their marketing was highly effective and 47% said it was somewhat effective. The remaining responses were 31% neutral, 7% somewhat ineffective, and 3% highly ineffective.
| Self-rated marketing effectiveness | Share of respondents |
|---|---|
| Highly effective | 12% |
| Somewhat effective | 47% |
| Neutral | 31% |
| Somewhat ineffective | 7% |
| Highly ineffective | 3% |
The point is not that 59% is a comforting number. It is that a large part of the group still reported mixed or weak results. A content program can publish regularly and still struggle to show why a buyer should care, which pages influence a deal, or where sales can use the work.
61% said their content strategy improved
Among marketers with a content strategy, 13% said it significantly improved and 48% said it somewhat improved. Thirty percent said it remained stable, while 9% reported some level of decline.
The reported drivers are more useful than the headline. Of marketers whose strategy improved, 74% cited strategy refinement, 51% cited new technology implementation, 40% cited team restructuring or resource changes, and 26% cited measurement capabilities.
| Reported contributor to strategy improvement | Share of improving-strategy respondents |
|---|---|
| Strategy refinement | 74% |
| New technology implementation | 51% |
| Team restructuring or resource changes | 40% |
| Measurement capabilities | 26% |
| Budget adjustments | 16% |
That does not mean a strategy document creates results on its own. It does suggest that clearer choices about audience, priority pages, product evidence, distribution, and measurement matter more than simply adding another tool to the stack.
Conversion, resources, and measurement remain the main obstacles
When asked to select their top three challenges, 40% chose creating content that prompts a desired action, 39% selected resource constraints, and 33% selected measuring content effectiveness. Creating enough quality content came next at 28%.
| Top B2B content marketing challenge | Share selecting it |
|---|---|
| Creating content that prompts a desired action | 40% |
| Resource constraints: time, people, budget | 39% |
| Measuring content effectiveness | 33% |
| Creating enough quality content | 28% |
| Differentiating content from competitors | 24% |
| Aligning content with the buyer journey | 23% |
These challenges sit together. A team that cannot define the action a page should support will have a hard time measuring it. A team that has no measurement story will struggle to protect time, budget, or access to subject-matter experts. More production rarely fixes that chain on its own.
AI tools lead planned investment for 2026
Forty-five percent of respondents selected AI-powered marketing tools among their top three planned investment areas for 2026. Events and experiential marketing followed at 33%, then owned media at 32%.
| Planned 2026 investment area | Share selecting it among top three |
|---|---|
| AI-powered marketing tools | 45% |
| Events and experiential marketing | 33% |
| Owned media: content assets, website, blog, email | 32% |
| Paid media | 25% |
| Content personalization | 24% |
| Agency or outsourcing | 19% |
| Research and insights | 15% |
Planned spend is not proof that a channel works. The useful implication for a content team is smaller: AI tools are now a normal part of the investment conversation, while owned content still matters enough to remain near the top of the list. Teams need a clear view of where human product knowledge, source checking, and editorial judgment sit in that workflow.
How to use these statistics responsibly
- Keep the report year and fieldwork period together. A 2026 report can be based on research conducted in 2025.
- Name the group behind the statistic. Here, it is 1,015 B2B marketers, mostly from North America, not every B2B team.
- Separate plans, opinions, and measured outcomes. Planned AI spending is not a return-on-investment result.
- Use a benchmark to frame an internal question. For example, if measurement is a common challenge, ask which pages, actions, and sales signals your own program can actually track.
- Link to the original report so the reader can inspect the question and methodology.
Methodology and limitations
This page is a compilation of an original survey, not Wisdom Dabit’s own research. It relies on the report’s stated methodology: a 16th annual survey fielded by Content Marketing Institute and MarketingProfs, sponsored by Storyblok, from June 24 through August 14, 2025. The report received 1,229 global responses and presents the B2B subset of 1,015 marketers.
The study is useful for understanding the surveyed group’s priorities and self-reported experience. It cannot establish that any tactic caused revenue, predict the performance of a particular SaaS company, or explain every market outside its respondent base.
Source
Content Marketing Institute and MarketingProfs, B2B Content and Marketing Trends: Insights for 2026. Published October 8, 2025. Accessed September 7, 2026.
For research-led content, reports, and source-led assets, see original research and report writing services.
