Risks to employers when paying less than $16 per lead for customer service job applications

When employers pay significantly less than the standard $16 per application for customer service jobs, they risk compromising the quality of candidates they attract. Lower-cost job boards or ad platforms often source applicants from broader, less targeted channels, leading to a flood of unqualified candidates. This influx of irrelevant applications can overwhelm hiring managers, forcing them to spend more time filtering through resumes and delaying the hiring process. The initial savings on cost per application are often offset by the increased time and effort required to find suitable candidates, ultimately hurting recruitment efficiency.

In addition to poor candidate quality, paying below the market rate can also invite fraudulent leads. Low-cost platforms may resort to methods that encourage non-genuine applicants to apply, such as incentivized click campaigns or bot-generated applications. This skews recruitment metrics, giving the impression of high interest in the job posting when, in reality, few leads convert into qualified hires. In the long run, relying on cheaper CPL strategies can harm the overall quality of the customer service team, where strong communication skills and problem-solving abilities are critical to business success.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $16 if the job function is customer service. What quality and other risks do employers face if they pay a small fraction of the going rate to a vendor for these leads? We asked seven hiring leaders for their thoughts.

• Risks of Underpaying for Talent
• Quality Leads Ensure Team Stability
• Cheap Leads May Damage Reputation
• Cutting Costs Risks Recruitment Efficiency
• Invest in Quality Recruitment for Better Hires
• Low-Cost Leads Lead to Hiring Nightmares
• Missed Opportunities with Low-Cost Advertising

Risks of Underpaying for Talent

Customer service roles are becoming increasingly demanding and high-value. When tools like AI chatbots can take over the low-level, frontline work in customer service, the humans you hire for these roles need to be able to handle escalated situations and complex issues from day one. Underpaying for recruiting leads is going to make it harder to find the talent you need, especially in a field like customer service, where there are a lot of under-skilled, entry-level workers out there.

Nick Valentino, VP of Market Operations, Bellhop

Quality Leads Ensure Team Stability

I recognize the importance of investing in quality leads. Paying a fraction of the standard $16 per application fee can seem attractive, but it also brings several risks. Lower costs often correlate with lower-quality candidates, leading to a higher turnover rate and increased resources spent on rehiring and training. Additionally, there’s the potential for data inaccuracies or even fraudulent applications, which can compromise decision-making processes. 

My experience with tools like Expensify has taught me the value of thorough vetting and trustworthiness in financial processes—this principle should extend to recruitment. Ensuring the reliability and quality of applicants is critical to building a competent and stable team, making it an area where compromise can become costly in the long run.

Valentin Radu, CEO & Founder, Blogger, Speaker, Podcaster, Omniconvert

Cheap Leads May Damage Reputation

I noticed that the candidates sourced at a lower cost may be less committed, leading to higher rates of dropout during the hiring process or after initial interviews. This can result in wasted time and resources for the employer. You see, the customer service job role requires patience, empathy, and exceptional communication skills. If the leads provided by the vendor do not meet these criteria, it can be detrimental to the company’s customer service quality and overall reputation.

Budget vendors may not thoroughly vet candidates, increasing the risk of receiving applicants with exaggerated qualifications or false credentials. For instance, a candidate may claim to have previous experience in customer service but lacks the necessary skills or knowledge to excel in the role. This can lead to poor performance and dissatisfied customers.

There is a higher risk posed to the company’s brand reputation by relying on cheap leads from vendors. If these lower-cost candidates are not properly vetted and end up causing problems within the organization or with clients, it could damage the company’s image and credibility. In today’s digital age, negative reviews and word-of-mouth can spread quickly, causing potential customers to question the quality of service provided by the company.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Cutting Costs Risks Recruitment Efficiency

There is a famous saying, “You get what you pay for,” and I am sure this is spot-on in the recruitment process.

It is amazing for me to see how much a company pays for each job application, over $16. This made me wonder what happens when employers try to cut costs and end up paying less for each application.

What risks are we talking about? First of all, there is the quality issue. Imagine getting lots of applications, but none of them are a good fit. It’s frustrating and inefficient. In customer service positions, where the right personality and skills can make or damage a company’s relationship with the customer, this problem becomes even more serious.

It’s not just about candidate quality; there are other risks too. I have seen low-cost sellers use unverifiable methods for lead generation, like recycling old applications or making fake ones. This can harm a company’s reputation or even lead to legal issues.

Is there a practical example? Yes. A friend of mine was hiring for her startup. She used a cheap vendor for customer service applications to save money. At first, she was thrilled with the flood of resumes. But during interviews, some candidates were surprised to hear from her because they had applied for an engineering or nursing job months ago. In the end, she ended up wasting more time and energy fixing the mess.

Please remember, even though it can be so easy and anyone would be tempted to try and cut costs in the recruitment process, especially for things like call center staff, there are important factors you need to consider. In the long run, saving money on cheap applications can actually cost you more. You will end up with bad candidates, wasted time, and a damaged reputation, such things that add up fast.

Arslan Habib, Digital Marketer at Web3MoJo | Business Strategist at Sustainability Jobs, Sustainability Jobs

Invest in Quality Recruitment for Better Hires

When it comes to recruitment, investing in quality leads often pays off in the long run through better hires and lower turnover. While the temptation to save money on job advertising is understandable, especially for customer service roles, there are several risks to consider when paying well below the market rate for job applicant leads. 

Firstly, the quality of applicants is a major concern. We once tried a low-cost vendor for customer service recruitment and found that the majority of applicants were underqualified or poorly matched to our needs. This led to a waste of our HR team’s time in screening and interviewing unsuitable candidates. 

Secondly, there’s a risk of attracting candidates who aren’t genuinely interested in the role. When we used a bargain vendor, we saw a 40% increase in no-shows for interviews and a 25% increase in early turnover rates for the hires we did make. This ended up costing us more in the long run through repeated recruitment efforts and training expenses. 

Another risk is the potential damage to your employer brand. Low-quality job postings or spammy application processes can harm your reputation among job seekers. We noticed a 30% decrease in organic applications to our other positions during the period we used the low-cost vendor. 

There’s also the risk of missing out on passive candidates. Premium job boards often have features to reach out to qualified candidates who aren’t actively job hunting. By opting for the cheapest option, you might miss these potential high-quality hires. 

One unexpected issue we encountered was a lack of diversity in our applicant pool when using cheaper sources. This hampered our efforts to build a more inclusive workforce. For me, the goal of recruitment isn’t just to fill a position but to find the right person who will contribute to your company’s success. 

We’ve found that investing in quality recruitment sources leads to better hires, improved retention, and ultimately, better customer service. While it’s important to be cost-conscious, we’ve learned that the cheapest option rarely provides the best value in recruitment. It’s about finding the right balance between cost and quality to build a strong, capable team.

Tomasz Borys, Senior VP of Marketing & Sales, Deep Sentinel

Low-Cost Leads Lead to Hiring Nightmares

When employers pay far below the $16 per application rate for customer service roles, they can run into several issues that undermine both the quality of candidates and the overall efficiency of their hiring process. I remember a time when a company I worked with tried cutting costs on lead generation for customer service roles, thinking it would be a quick win. Unfortunately, it turned into a hiring nightmare. The cheaper leads came in bulk, but the majority were from candidates who lacked the right skills or weren’t serious about the role. We ended up wasting so much time filtering through irrelevant applications.

One of the biggest risks in paying too little for job leads is that you’ll often attract underqualified or poorly matched candidates. Customer service requires specific soft skills, like communication, empathy, and patience, which aren’t always easy to find. When a company opts for cheaper leads, the chances of getting applicants who lack these crucial qualities go way up. This can result in high turnover, poor customer experiences, and even damage to the company’s reputation. I recall that after we hired a few candidates from the lower-cost leads, it became clear they weren’t a great fit, and that resulted in more complaints from customers and frustrated team members.

Another risk is the long-term damage to the employer brand. When candidates apply for jobs through low-quality vendors, they often have poor experiences during the application process. This reflects badly on the company, and those negative impressions can spread, making it harder to attract top talent later on. In my experience, it’s always better to invest in quality from the start. Paying for well-matched, serious candidates may cost more upfront, but it saves time, protects your company’s reputation, and ensures you’re building a strong, reliable customer service team.

Tanya Lamont, CEO, Conversational

Missed Opportunities with Low-Cost Advertising

By opting for lower-cost job advertising, employers risk missing out on attracting top-tier candidates who are more likely to use reputable job boards or platforms with a higher cost per application. These candidates, often highly qualified and experienced, might not even see the job listing if it’s posted on less-regarded platforms.

As a result, employers are left with a pool of applicants that might not meet the desired standards. The lost opportunity to connect with top talent can have long-term effects, especially if competitors are able to hire better candidates more quickly.

In the end, paying less for job leads can reduce the overall quality of the hire, hindering company growth and performance.

Nora Sudduth, Founder & Owner, Nora Sudduth Coaching