The State of B2B
Sales Content 2026
June 30, 2026
We surveyed 164 managers, directors and senior executives at B2B companies in the US, UK, Canada and Australia about what it really costs to produce, personalize and send customer-facing content at scale.
This report reveals where the losses are happening and what these teams most want to fix.
What content leaders told us
Most teams treat rework, off-brand decks, and zero post-send visibility as normal. The data shows what that actually costs.
85% lose up to half their working week redoing content they already finished. For nearly a third, that's more than a quarter of the week.
67% produce more than 20 customer-facing decks every month, and 81.7% of teams personalize their deliverables frequently or always.
75% spend anywhere from an hour to a full day on a single customer-facing deck, and they make dozens each month.
53% say outdated, off-brand or incorrect content reaches their customers monthly or more often.
At 80% of teams, reps change the approved deck at least sometimes before it goes out, so the final version can drift from what was signed off.
A 50/50 split on post-send visibility: 50.7% have only basic, informal or no tracking, while 49.4% track engagement in detail.
4.5
4.5
Liked This Report? Make It Yours
Grab the exact template we used for our report and build your own. Customize it, add your branding and publish it, all in one place.
FAQs
We asked questions about content volume, workflow pain points, rework cost, quality control, post-send visibility and whether AI has improved the process.
Yes. It’s a free PDF you can download as soon as you fill in the form.
B2B sales teams, content teams, and enablement leaders who produce customer-facing content. If your team builds decks, business reviews, or proposals for customers, the findings in this report apply directly to your work.
Between March and May 2026, through UserTesting. Respondents worked in the US (51.8%), the UK (30.5%), Canada (12.2%) and Australia (5.5%), and none were Visme users at the time. With 164 responses, the margin of error is about 7.7% at 95% confidence, so the figures are directional rather than precise.