LinkedIn’s head of ads measurement, Jae Oh, says the platform is “phenomenally cheaper” than others. I agree—on one condition. We have to judge cost by business outcomes, not vanity metrics. This debate matters because ad budgets are tight, and wasted clicks still drain teams every quarter.
My view is simple: LinkedIn can be the cheaper place to win if we measure the right thing—qualified outcomes—rather than the easiest thing, like cost per click. When leaders obsess over the wrong metric, they walk away from the channel that could be their most efficient path to pipeline.
What “Cheaper” Really Means
Many marketers call LinkedIn “expensive” because the click price looks higher on the dashboard. That’s the wrong scorecard. I’ve seen cheaper platforms pump out traffic that never converts. LinkedIn’s strength is intent and identity. It connects messages to job titles, seniority, and industries that match the product.
As Oh puts it, LinkedIn is “phenomenally cheaper” than others.
I read that claim as a challenge to how we define cost. Per click, you might pay more. Per opportunity, you can pay less. The price that matters is the price of a meeting, a demo, a deal—whatever your team actually needs.
Why The Math Can Favor LinkedIn
Marketers often forget the full journey. A cheaper click is not a win if it dies on the landing page or fails in sales follow-up. LinkedIn reduces that waste by matching creative to professional identity, which filters out people who were never prospects in the first place.
Here’s how the “phenomenally cheaper” effect can show up once you measure the full funnel:
- Fewer junk clicks from unqualified users.
- Higher conversion from click to form because the audience is relevant.
- Better meeting show rates since job fit is stronger.
- Shorter sales cycles when you reach the right buyers sooner.
- Higher deal sizes from senior or ICP-aligned roles.
If each step improves a little, the final cost per opportunity can drop a lot—even if the first click costs more.
The Skeptic’s View
Some will say this is wishful thinking. They’ll point out that LinkedIn CPMs and CPCs are higher. Fair. But that argument stops halfway. If the goal is pipeline, not pageviews, we must track the steps that create revenue. A thousand cheap clicks that never convert are not cheap. They are a silent tax on the budget.
Others will argue their data shows better results on other channels. That’s fine—every brand has its own mix. But I’ve also watched teams judge channels on the wrong KPI, then miss where their true efficiency lived. The fix is better measurement, not louder opinions.
What Marketers Should Do Now
If you want to test Jae Oh’s claim for yourself, set up an apples-to-apples experiment. Compare channels on the metric that matters most to your business.
- Define the real outcome: meeting, trial, SQL, or closed-won.
- Track each funnel step by channel from click to that outcome.
- Hold creative and offer as steady as you can.
- Run long enough to get stable numbers, not a weekend spike.
- Judge channels on cost per outcome and time to outcome.
This approach gives you truth, not dashboard comfort. If LinkedIn wins on cost per outcome, it is cheaper—even if it never wins the click-price beauty contest.
My Take
I don’t think “phenomenally cheaper” is hype when it’s anchored to qualified results. LinkedIn’s value lives in who you reach, not how little you pay for a visit. When targeting aligns with buyer identity, the downstream math works in your favor.
Of course, success still requires good creative, clear offers, and clean CRM tracking. But with those basics in place, the claim rings true. Measure what matters and the channel can surprise you.
Final thought: Stop grading channels by easy numbers. Grade them by the outcomes your business actually needs.
Call to action: Rebuild your channel report around cost per qualified outcome. Run a fair test with LinkedIn against your current top channel. If the winner changes, so should your budget.
