A consolidated read on every LinkedIn and Meta campaign run from launch through June 8 — spend, reach, traffic, and the lead question.
Total investment split by platform, then by individual campaign. LinkedIn carried the overwhelming majority of spend; Meta ran lean by comparison.
What we were paying the platforms to do. The awareness investment did double duty — building brand presence with named enterprise accounts and generating all six leads, at an efficient cost per lead.
Ranked across both platforms. Click a column header to re-sort. "Site clicks" = clicks that actually reached the website (LinkedIn landing-page clicks + Meta landing-page views).
The individual ads doing the work. The ABOS results-led angles and the XR traffic posts punched far above their spend.
LinkedIn delivery split by target market (ad-set level, daily). Japan carries most of the volume at the strongest CTR and lowest CPC. Meta's export has no per-market breakdown, so this section is LinkedIn only.
The clearest efficiency story in the whole account: Meta delivered website visits for a fraction of LinkedIn's cost.
All six leads came through the MonoMark awareness campaign — at ¥19,859 each, a more efficient cost per lead than the dedicated lead-gen budget delivered. Awareness was doing the conversion work.
A quality signal worth keeping: LinkedIn put the brand in front of named enterprise accounts across APAC. The targeting was sound — the conversion path was not.