Testing Personalized LinkedIn Ads: What’s Working (and What’s Next)

Over the past few weeks, we’ve run a series of LinkedIn ad tests for our clients to evaluate the impact of ad personalization across different geographies and campaign types. The early data has been promising,  and it’s helping shape a smarter, more scalable paid social strategy moving forward.

Here’s what we’ve learned so far and what we’re testing next.

What We Tested: Personalization in Lead Gen Ads

We rolled out personalized ad copy across two LinkedIn Lead Gen campaigns (global and US), inserting dynamic variables like FirstName, JobTitle, and CompanyName into our top-performing evergreen copy. The goal: drive more attention and conversions by speaking directly to each user.

Here’s what the early results look like:

Global Campaign (Lead Gen)

• 24% improvement in CPL
• 12% higher CTR
• 22% lower CPC

US Campaign (Lead Gen)

• 33% improvement in CPL
• 13% higher CTR
• 2% lower CPC

Safe to say that personalization works when tested and used strategically.

How We’re Iterating Now

After running the same personalized copy for about a month, we started to see some signs of fatigue (rising CPL, decreasing efficiency). While the performance still beats non-personalized ads, this prompted us to consolidate evergreen and personalized ads into a single campaign to consolidate budgets and lower the frequency of the personalized ad copy by mixing evergreen and personalized ads. This allows the campaign to run the ads side by side in the same environment to see how the algo responds.

This way, we can pit the best of both styles against each other in one campaign structure and optimize more strategically across performance, fatigue, and geography.

Geo-Specific Learnings from Our Rep

Our LinkedIn rep also offered some helpful regional insights that we’re starting to bake into testing:

• US audiences respond positively to all personalization variables,  especially FirstName. They like to be spoken to directly.
• EMEA audiences, on the other hand, tend to value privacy more and react negatively to FirstName personalization. In those regions, lean into industry or job title references instead.

These nuances matter, and we’re planning to test each personalization type separately to better isolate what resonates most by region.

How to Structure Personalization Tests

If you’re starting from scratch, here’s the basic framework we recommend:

1. Start with your best-performing non-personalized copy. Don’t reinvent the wheel,  just personalize what’s already working.
2. Run parallel variations using each personalization type individually:
   • FirstName
   • JobTitle
   • CompanyName
   • CompanyIndustry
3. Compare results across each variant to see which personalization type best aligns with your client’s ICP.
   Double down on the winner, then test combining multiple variables in the same copy to see if layering improves performance.
   
   

Creative Considerations Beyond Text

While the copy personalization gets a lot of the spotlight, we’re also thinking more broadly about creative alignment:

• Tailor messaging directly to your ICP's role, industry, and pain points.
• Use job title/industry callouts in headline and body.
• Include use cases and stats that speak to the challenges they care about.
• Match the tone to your audience. (For example, developers appreciate a cheeky, meme-y tone, while C-level execs prefer a polished, insight-driven voice.)

What’s Next

As we expand testing and collect more data, we’re focused on three things:

• Dialing in personalization by region
• Measuring the fatigue window more closely
• Mapping performance back to lead quality (if reported)

Even with some initial fatigue kicking in, the overall improvement in CPL and CTR tells us we’re moving in the right direction. Personalized LinkedIn ads aren’t magic,  but with the right structure, message, and audience insights, they’re a powerful lever worth pulling.