Why CPC job postings are only popular in the USA, Canada, and UK

My company, College Recruiter, sells job posting advertising to employers directly and indirectly through their employment advertising agencies, recruitment process outsourcing (RPO) partners, programmatic and other job ad distributors, and even other job boards.

Until 2014, it was incredibly rare for any of our customers to want to buy job postings on a cost-per-click (CPC) or cost-per-application (CPA) pricing model. They almost all preferred traditional, duration-based pricing such as $75 for a 30-day posting or $12,500 for an annual, “all you can eat”, unlimited job posting package. Although we still have a few customers who prefer duration-based pricing, almost all of our customers have migrated to performance-based pricing such as $1.00 per click (candidates goes from the job posting ad on College Recruiter to the employer’s site to, hopefully, apply) or $25 per application. Those prices vary employer-to-employer and even job-to-job, largely depending on the difficulty of the hiring need.

There’s no doubt that far more customers in the United States prefer performance-based pricing than in other markets. Canada and the United Kingdom aren’t far behind and advertisers in the European Union are starting to shift, but there’s almost no traction for performance-based pricing anywhere else globally. Why is that?

Cost-per-click (CPC) advertising models, while prevalent in countries like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, are not as common in other parts of the world for several reasons:

1. Market Maturity: The adoption of CPC models is often tied to the maturity of the online, job advertising market in a particular country. The United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom have mature digital markets with businesses that are accustomed to online, job advertising methods, making the adoption of CPC models easier.
2. Familiarity and Trust: In some countries, businesses might be more familiar with and trust traditional advertising methods, including duration-based job postings. They might be hesitant to adopt a newer pricing model they’re less familiar with.
3. Infrastructure and Tools: The effective management of CPC campaigns often requires certain infrastructural elements and tools, like analytics and tracking solutions. In regions where these tools are not as readily available or familiar, managing CPC campaigns can be challenging.
4. Economic Considerations: In some markets, the average cost-per-click might be low due to currency value differences, making it less appealing for job platforms to prioritize a CPC model.
5. Cultural Factors: How businesses operate and their openness to new business models can be influenced by cultural factors. For instance, in some cultures, fixed pricing might be preferred due to its predictability.
6. Educational Effort: Adopting a CPC model requires educating advertisers about its benefits and mechanics. Not all job platforms may be willing to invest in this educational effort, especially if their existing business model is already successful.
7. Competition and Market Dynamics: If the dominant job boards in a particular country operate on a duration-based model, there might be less incentive for other platforms to introduce a CPC model. Conversely, if a major player in the market adopts the CPC model and gains a competitive advantage, it could drive broader adoption in that country.
8. Regulations and Policies: In some countries, advertising regulations might influence the types of advertising models that can be used. For instance, certain transparency or billing requirements might make CPC less attractive.

While these are some reasons that might explain the differential adoption of the CPC model for job postings worldwide, it’s essential to consider the specific context and dynamics of each country or region to get a comprehensive understanding. As the global digital landscape continues to evolve, it’s also likely that the prevalence of various advertising models, including CPC, will change over time.