Every year for many years now, we’ve published the results of the Content Marketing Institute’s study on B2B content marketing. The study is entitled: “B2B Content Marketing Benchmarks, Budgets, and Trends: Outlook for 2025”. It probes the hearts and guts of professionals across the globe, with a slight biased towards our neighbors to the south.
Among other things, this publication focuses on strategies and trends, but above all on uses. These include, of course, generative AI, the new star of B2B content marketing, with a usage rate up to 81% from 72% last year.
Which is not to say that this high level of use is established as a fait accompli, far from it… Indeed, most of the teams or individuals who use it (54%) adopt an “ad hoc” approach to AI (i.e. they experiment with it, but don’t necessarily apply it on a large scale). A further 27% say they are not formally using AI, but that some staff may choose to. Only 19% of B2B marketers say AI is integrated into their daily processes/workflows.
And new to this year’s study, we’re pushing the envelope when it comes to AI usage. It’s a question of ethics… Well, let’s just say usage policies and… guidelines. The number of B2B marketers whose organizations have no AI usage guidelines has fallen to 45%, down from 61% last year.
What AI guidelines cover
Respondents’ guidelines for generative AI cover a wide range of topics. Acceptable uses in content marketing top the list (table below), cited by 78%. But nowhere in the CMI study is it specified which of these uses are acceptable, nor which are unacceptable…
Mustering all our courage, we dug around (with the help of the AI, of course) and categorized what was “good” and what was “bad”.
ACCEPTABLE
1- AI-assisted content creation
2- Large-scale content personalization
3- SEO optimization
4- Visual content creation
5- Content research and synthesis
6- Idea generation support
7- Improving the performance of advertising campaigns
8- Use of conversational robots
9- Content performance analysis
UNACCEPTABLE
1- Creation of misleading or unverified content
2- Excessive automation of personalized content
3- Production of plagiarized or unoriginal content
4- Manipulation or falsification of data
5- Automation without transparency
6- Exploitation of AI biases
7- Spamming and mass generation of low-quality content
8- Inappropriate automated responses in high-value contexts
9- Breach of confidentiality or misuse of user data
Acceptable uses of generative AI in B2B content marketing can be ethical, but they require a strict best-practice framework and human intervention to ensure transparency, accuracy, and respect for rights. Companies must remain vigilant about bias, manipulation and privacy risks, while ensuring that AI complements and enhances human engagement without replacing it.
A quick look at B2B content marketing strategies
Let’s take a quick detour into content strategies before delving into the details of usage. In many studies on B2B content marketing, it’s commonplace to see how ineffective content strategies are, and this is what these studies point out. Back in 2022, I wrote on this blog: “Very few companies are using B2B content marketing in the right way. In fact, just 10% of them would have had a paid content strategy by 2021… Any skeptics in the room?”
Back to the future… The CMI study shows a slight improvement. Thus, 29% feel their strategies are very effective, while 13% say it’s not effective at all, but 58% are in the “fuzzy without there”… What’s moderately effective? A polite way of not being negative. And look at why strategies fail: 42% say it’s because there are no clear objectives, little or no link to the customer journey (39%) or not enough focus on data (35%).
In my recent past, I’ve taught communication and always stressed the importance of evaluation in the process. This also applies to marketing, and yes, to B2B content marketing.
Evaluation is key
If we’re going to screw up our strategy, we need to know why we’re doing it and why. So that we can make the right adjustments in our next strategy. To be able to say, in a survey, that our strategy has been a resounding success, we need to base ourselves on facts and figures. And more often than not, there aren’t any…
In fact, in the present study, there’s only one tiny sentence in explanation on the chart about the challenges ahead, and it goes like this: “Measuring the results of content efforts (a new option in this year’s survey) came in second, cited by 47%.”. And it is a new option… But still identified as the second most important challenge. Evaluate, measure, again and again…
Usage and distribution channels
Here are two sets of three graphs illustrating two successive years. The first, top left, identifies which organic social networking platforms offer the best value for organizations. The results are so similar… LinkedIn continues its unchallenged dominance, increasing its “market” share to 85%, just one percentage point higher than last year. Next in line are :
Facebook (28 %) (-1%)
YouTube (22 %) (-)
Instagram (21 %) (-)
Twitter ou X (7%) (-1%)
TikTok (3 %) (-)
A quick observation about X (formerly Twitter)
I’m surprised the drop isn’t more marked, especially with all the negativism peddled since Elon Musk’s takeover. How can companies, agencies, serious media and governments still broadcast on this platform of misinformation and intimidation and still hope to be credible?
This other chart goes some way to answering my question. 39% don’t use it and 28% have reduced their use…
What strikes me most is that the graphs above on content distribution and usage patterns show almost no change in 2024-25. Short blog posts come first at 92% and long ones fourth at 69%. Videos come second at 76%, down 8%. So blogs and video still dominate the types of content used. The same applies to distribution and its effectiveness.
Social networks and blogs remain the two most widely used distribution channels (89 and 84% respectively), but not necessarily the most effective. Respondents to the CMI study identified face-to-face events as the most effective at 52% (up from 56% last year), with webinars following at 51%. Social networks came third at 42%, with blogs following at 41%.
See the interesting contradiction here? Blog posts are the most widely used type of content. But only 41% consider them to be effective, far behind events… And we’re putting the pedal to the metal on events (down 12%).
What does 2025 hold in store for us?
I wanted to save this picture for last. The idea was to ask the “respondents” what they thought would be the investments to be made in the coming year. It gives a good idea of the major trends… For example, the majority of B2B marketers (61%) believe their organization will increase its investment in video in 2025. Budgets devoted to AI for content optimization/performance (40%) and AI for content creation (39%) are new investment areas on the list this year. So, plenty more AI on the menu…
The other investment areas were cited in similar proportions to last year, with the exception of in-person events, down to 35% this year from 47% last year. Another trend here, or rather a correction. In 2023-24, trade shows and in-person conferences had seen a revival after the lean years of the Pandemic. The situation is stabilizing.
Conclusion
In summary, 61% believe their organization will increase its investment in video in 2025, followed by thought leadership content (52%), AI for content optimization/performance (40%), paid advertising (40%), AI for content creation (39%), in-person events (35%), webinars (32%), online community building (27%), digital events (21%), and audio content (20%).
If you’d like to know more about B2B content marketing, or if you have something specific you’d like to discuss with us, don’t hesitate. At ExoB2B, we like to share!
