B2B Marketers Who Cut LinkedIn Ads - Measured Impact Over Time

Have we become so accustomed to including LinkedIn in B2B media plans that we've stopped questioning whether it actually needs to be there? We're exploring a research report for 2027, and I'm looking to speak to B2B marketers who've deliberately removed or significantly reduced their LinkedIn advertising investment and measured the impact over a meaningful period of time. It's something I've been questioning, particularly following conversations with marketing teams across different sectors. I wonder whether the platform's targeting capabilities and perceived audience size have made it almost a default choice in B2B advertising. But just because thousands of profiles match our targeting criteria, how many of those people are actually active? And how differently do professional audiences use the platform? A campaign can deliver great results among the people it reaches while potentially missing a substantial proportion of its intended audience. And with budgets under increasing scrutiny, how often are we genuinely testing the incremental impact of our media investment, rather than relying on attributed results alone? I'm particularly interested in marketers who've challenged years of always-on investment. What happened when you reduced or removed it? Did pipeline suffer? Did demand continue elsewhere? Did the findings change future budget decisions, or reinforce the value of keeping LinkedIn in the mix? To be clear, this is about paid advertising, not LinkedIn's wider role in organic marketing, networking or sales. Nor is it about proving one channel is better than another. It's about questioning some of the assumptions behind our media investment decisions, particularly as audience behaviour continues to evolve. If you've tested this, I'd genuinely love to hear what you found, whatever the outcome!