13 Facts: LinkedIn’s New Lead Generation Forms vs. Facebook Lead Adstony tony https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/aa9bbdf8f1e6bbf534778ecea7c0c925?s=96&d=mm&r=g
13 Facts: LinkedIn’s New Lead Generation Forms vs. Facebook Lead Ads
For a platform that markets itself as business based, LinkedIn lacks in several useful capabilities that would make it a haven for marketers. The good news is that LinkedIn is doing something about it. They recently launched a lead generation form that is much like Facebook’s in many aspects. Read on to find out how the two compare.
Information collection limitations
LinkedIn’s forms avail seven pre-selected information categories which, according to LinkedIn, help to avoid encumbering users. Facebook, on the other hand, allows the collection of more details hence offering richer lead information.
In all honesty, LinkedIn’s limitations are not much of an issue as the seven categories are ideal for capturing pertinent data. Moreover, additional information can be obtained from the user’s profile if need be or via direct communication.
Form completion steps
LinkedIn lead forms have the upper hand as details are entered in a single step. Facebook has an additional terms and conditions page which may somewhat discourage users by promoting a sense of liability.
Cost per lead
Cost per lead depends on several factors such as price point, targeting, site structure, among a host of other things. This makes it impossible to arrive at a blanket CPL for both platforms. However, in line with LinkedIn’s slightly higher advertising prices compared to Facebook, it is safe to assume the LinkedIn’s CPL is a bit higher. Beyond this ‘safe’ assumption, it is also important to note that other factors still come into play such as quality of leads.
Lead generation and targeting go hand in hand if maximum lead acquisition efficacy is to be achieved. In this regard, LinkedIn lags behind as it does not have custom lists/audiences which are nifty targeting features. Though there is no concrete data to indicate the effect extent of this difference, logical deduction alone is enough to point out that some targeting inefficiency is to expected if using LinkedIn.
LinkedIn does not have a remarketing option yet remarketing is both a cheaper and more efficient way of acquiring leads. A Facebook lead collection campaign based on remarketing will certainly generate more leads compared to an ordinary campaign on LinkedIn. The lack of a remarketing scheme is one of LinkedIn’s gaping cons, but the fact that the company is addressing its shortcomings has fostered hope that the issue will be dealt with in turn.
Use of Video
It is no news that LinkedIn does not currently support video. Considering the proven efficacy of video in boosting lead generation, it is one of the unacceptable aspects of LinkedIn. This fundamental difference means that an advertiser will enjoy more liberty by using Facebook.
The percentage of spam accounts on LinkedIn is negligible. Facebook, on the other hand, has millions of fake and pseudo-accounts which impact advertising negatively. Thus, it is safe to say that a lead generation campaign on LinkedIn is likelier to reach more actual and genuine people hence realizing lesser risks of collecting false lead data.
Reach is a significant consideration for anyone looking to generate leads, and Facebook is the hands-down winner. With billions of users, a Facebook lead generation campaign is likelier to rake in more prospects. LinkedIn compensates for its lesser reach by offering a primarily business oriented demographic.
All things considered, LinkedIn is likelier to actualize higher quality leads due to the business orientation of its demographic. Moreover, people keep their LinkedIn profiles more updated compared to Facebook making the platform an advertiser’s dream. Facebook compensates by offering superior targeting alternatives which can be used to access a particular demographic.
LinkedIn lead generation forms only apply to sponsored content (for the time being). The company has reported that it will avail the functionality to in mail ads within the year. Comparatively, Facebook lead ads apply to most of the ad forms supported by the site.
B2B vs. B2C
Due to reach and the individual rather than corporate nature of many of Facebook accounts, the platform is great for businesses to reach the consumer directly. Contrastingly, LinkedIn’s demographic makes it prime for B2B marketing.
Lack of supporting data
LinkedIn lead forms are relatively recent. As such, data supporting their efficacy is still scarce and incomparable to Facebook’s lead ads which have been around for a while longer. This is expected to rapidly change since many are anxious to try out LinkedIn’s forms.
Both Facebook and LinkedIn are moving in the right direction when it comes to metric measurement, but they can still learn much from Google. However, Facebook has the upper hand in this regard, albeit slightly. Some of the metrics LinkedIn measures include form fill rate and CPL.
Both Facebook and LinkedIn are solid lead generation platforms. However, the many factors involved in definitively evaluating many of the comparative metrics means that an overarching answer on which is superior cannot be given. To know which is better for you, use both and compare results.