Advice for Employers and Recruiters
4 risks to employers paying less than $15 per lead for job applications from human resource candidates
When employers pay less than the standard $15 per application for human resources jobs, they risk receiving a large number of unqualified or unsuitable candidates. HR roles require specific knowledge of labor laws, compliance, employee relations, and organizational development. Lower-cost job boards or platforms may fail to attract candidates with these specialized skills, leading to an influx of applicants lacking the necessary expertise. This forces hiring managers to spend more time screening resumes and conducting interviews, reducing the efficiency of the recruitment process and delaying the ability to fill crucial HR positions.
Furthermore, paying below the market rate for HR applications can distort recruitment metrics by inflating the volume of low-quality candidates. Cheaper platforms may prioritize quantity over quality, resulting in an increased number of applications that don’t meet the job’s requirements. This can give a false sense of recruitment success, but when it comes to filling HR roles—where attention to detail, legal knowledge, and employee management are critical—hiring the wrong candidate can have lasting negative effects on the organization. In the long run, the inefficiencies and potential for poor hires can far outweigh any initial savings from lower-cost applications.
Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $15 if the job function is human resources. What quality and other risks do employers face if they pay a small fraction of the going rate to a vendor for these leads? Here is what 4 thought leaders have to say.
- Risks of Low-Cost Candidate Leads
- Consequences of Budget Vendors
- Terrible Risks from Under-qualified Applicants
- Quality vs. Cost in Recruitment
Risks of Low-Cost Candidate Leads
When employers pay a fraction of the standard $15 per application for human resources job leads, they may encounter several risks, primarily related to candidate quality. Cheaper leads may result in a flood of unqualified applicants, which could waste valuable time and resources in screening and interviewing. This compromises the ability to find the right talent, increasing the chances of hiring the wrong candidate, which can lead to poor performance, decreased team morale, and higher turnover rates.
Moreover, vendors offering low-cost leads may use outdated or ineffective sourcing methods, meaning employers might miss out on the best talent. This can also damage the employer’s reputation, as job postings may appear on less reputable platforms, causing top-tier candidates to overlook the opportunity. In the long run, these risks can lead to higher overall costs, as finding quality candidates will take longer and may require further advertising efforts.
Shehar Yar, CEO, Software House
Consequences of Budget Vendors
As per my knowledge, budget vendors may not provide proper onboarding and training for candidates, resulting in a lack of knowledge and skills necessary to perform their duties efficiently. This can lead to a higher turnover rate and lower productivity, ultimately affecting the company’s bottom line. It is very common in my observations that cheap vendors do not have proper screening processes in place, leading to a high number of unqualified applicants for human resource job functions.
In today’s competitive job market, employers need to attract top talent and retain them by providing a positive hiring experience. There are higher chances that employers risk losing out on highly skilled and experienced candidates who could bring valuable insights and expertise to the organization by solely relying on cheap vendors. This could hinder growth opportunities and limit the company’s potential.
I have found that inaccurate background checks or discrimination in the hiring process can also pose significant risks to employers when working with low-cost vendors. This could result in legal consequences and damage the company’s reputation. In contrast, investing in quality leads from reputable sources ensures a fair and unbiased hiring process, protecting the employer from any potential lawsuits or reputational harm.
Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen
Terrible Risks from Under-qualified Applicants
Employers that pay below-market prices for HR job leads are subject to terrible risks, such as getting under-qualified applicants. Edumentors once attempted a budget vendor and soon discovered that the candidates didn’t have the suitable skills, which led to extended periods of filling the necessary roles. As a matter of fact, this manner stretched our hiring process for weeks and added 20% more onboarding time. By investing in good-quality leads upfront, the candidates would align perfectly with the need in the organization and save time and resources. My take on it: the better option is to focus on the need for quality instead of cutting corners in recruitment.
Tornike Asatiani, CEO, Edumentors
Quality vs. Cost in Recruitment
At Lansbox, we understand the importance of balancing cost with quality. Paying below the market rate can lead to poor leads, wasted time, and unqualified candidates. When we tested a low-cost vendor for recruitment, we saw a 40% drop in candidate quality. The lesson was clear: investing in reliable sources brings better results. Quality is worth the price, as hiring the right candidate the first time saves money and boosts long-term success. Always opt for value, not just cost, when looking for results.