8 risks to employers paying less than $15 per lead for job applications from insurance candidates

When employers in the insurance industry pay less than the typical $15 per application, they face the risk of attracting unqualified candidates who lack the specific skills and certifications needed for insurance roles. Insurance jobs often require expertise in areas such as risk assessment, claims processing, and customer service, making it essential to attract high-quality applicants. Cheaper job boards or ad platforms may generate a large volume of applicants, but many of those candidates may not have the necessary qualifications or experience. This leads to more time spent by hiring managers filtering through irrelevant applications, which slows down the recruitment process and reduces overall efficiency.

Additionally, paying below the market rate for insurance job applications can distort hiring metrics by creating the illusion of a successful recruitment campaign based on application volume rather than quality. Low-cost platforms might deliver a high quantity of applications, but few of those leads may convert into qualified hires. In an industry where regulatory compliance, attention to detail, and customer trust are key, underpaying for applications can result in hiring candidates who are not fully prepared for the demands of the role. Over time, the impact of poor hiring decisions can outweigh the savings from lower application costs, leading to higher turnover rates and potentially damaging the company’s reputation.

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 insurance. What quality and other risks do employers face if they pay a small fraction of the going rate to a vendor for these job applicant leads? Here is what 8 thought leaders have to say.

• Risk Low-Quality Applicants
• Cheap Leads Hurt ROI
• Low-Quality Leads Waste Time
• Risk Hiring Unqualified Staff
• Cheaper Leads Reduce Quality
• Low-Quality Leads Cost More
• Risk Missing Specialization
• Low-Quality Hurts Your Brand

Risk Low-Quality Applicants

Paying a vendor for leads almost always leads to more leads, but the risk is that the leads aren’t quality. If you’re advertising for a local insurance agency job opening, your best candidates will be people who live in the area and are available to work. 

While it’s not impossible for someone to be willing to transfer to your area for a job, there’s a good chance they won’t. Then, you’ll waste your time with interviews, background checks, and time. 

Another risk is getting bulk, junk interest. One serious inquiry is better than 100 bulk replies from people who aren’t really interested.

Michelle Robbins, Licensed Insurance Agent, USInsuranceAgents.com

Cheap Leads Hurt ROI

Cutting corners on lead quality can be a costly mistake in insurance recruitment. We’ve learned that cheap leads often result in unqualified candidates, wasting valuable time and resources. I’ve seen firsthand how low-quality applications can lead to higher turnover rates and decreased productivity, ultimately hurting the bottom line. It’s crucial to invest in reputable sources and thorough screening processes to attract top talent that aligns with your company’s goals and values.

Gregory Rozdeba, CEO, Dundas Life

Low-Quality Leads Waste Time

I have found that lower-quality leads often result in candidates who don’t show up for interviews, wasting recruiters’ time and delaying the hiring process. This can be particularly problematic in the insurance industry, where there is a high demand for qualified and reliable employees. Employers may end up with a smaller pool of applicants to choose from if they rely on low-cost vendors, potentially missing out on top talent.

Another risk is that budget vendors may not have a deep understanding of the insurance industry and its specific job requirements, resulting in sourcing candidates who are not adequately trained or knowledgeable about the field. This can lead to increased training costs and delays in filling positions, affecting overall productivity and profitability.

I must say that cutting corners by using low-cost vendors may result in long-term consequences that outweigh any initial cost savings in the insurance industry. I recommend prioritizing quality over cost when it comes to sourcing candidates for sensitive roles in the insurance sector.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Risk Hiring Unqualified Staff

I am well aware of the challenges that come with finding qualified candidates for insurance jobs. The cost per application can add up quickly, especially when we need to fill multiple positions at once. That is why it may be tempting to turn to vendors who offer leads at a lower cost.

However, paying a small fraction of the going rate for leads comes with its fair share of risks. One major risk is the quality of applicants. When employers pay less for leads, they may receive a higher volume of applications, but these applicants may not necessarily be qualified or have relevant experience in the insurance industry.

This poses a significant risk, as it could result in hiring someone who is not equipped to handle the complexities of insurance policies and regulations. This can lead to mistakes, dissatisfied clients, and potential legal issues for the company.

Not only does this put the employer at risk for potential legal repercussions, but it also reflects poorly on the company

Evan Tunis, President, Florida Healthcare Insurance

Cheaper Leads Reduce Quality

Opting for a vendor that offers job leads at a fraction of the standard cost often raises concerns about the quality of applications. A lower cost per application frequently correlates with a reduced vetting process. Vendors who charge less might not invest as much in screening and validating candidates, resulting in a higher volume of applications from individuals who do not meet the specific qualifications or experience required for the role. This could lead to a greater number of irrelevant or unqualified applications, making the hiring process more time-consuming and less efficient.

Another risk involves the potential for diminished candidate engagement. Vendors that offer cheaper rates may not have access to the same level of industry connections or networks. This often means that the candidates they do attract may be less engaged or proactive in their job search, which can affect their enthusiasm and commitment to the application process. As a result, employers might find themselves dealing with candidates who are not fully invested or who are exploring multiple opportunities simultaneously, potentially leading to higher dropout rates during the hiring process.

Oliver Morrisey, Owner, Director, Empower Wills & Estate Lawyers

Low-Quality Leads Cost More

As an expert in paid social advertising, my agency has run many insurance client campaigns. While a low cost per lead seems appealing, poor quality often means wasted spend. 

We’ve found leads under $10 convert at under two percent for insurance brands. The hours spent pursuing and vetting these leads end up costing more than paying a fair rate for qualified leads. 

Low-quality leads also damage the customer experience. Unqualified individuals may apply, requiring extensive vetting and follow-up only to never truly be interested. Dissatisfied “applicants” may leave poor reviews, turning away real candidates.  

The insurance brands I’ve had the most success with are those that invest in targeted lead generation. While slightly higher in cost per lead, these qualified applicants translate to 10-15% conversion rates, saving time and money. The new customers enrolled tend to be very satisfied, providing strong referrals and retention.

Luke Heinecke, CEO, Linear

Risk Missing Specialization

If employers pay a fraction of the typical $15 cost per application for insurance roles, they face several risks beyond just getting poor-quality candidates.

One big issue is missed specialization. Insurance jobs, whether in underwriting, claims, or sales, often require specific certifications or experience. Low-cost vendors may not prioritize sourcing candidates with these necessary qualifications, leaving you with a pool of applicants who aren’t properly skilled or licensed. This can lead to extended hiring timelines and more wasted resources.

Another risk is diluted candidate engagement. Candidates generated from cheaper sources may apply broadly to many roles without genuinely considering the fit, leading to higher dropout rates during interviews or even no-shows. This wastes valuable time for HR teams and hiring managers.

Additionally, data accuracy is often compromised. In the rush to offer cheap leads, vendors might not properly vet candidates, leading to outdated or incorrect information, and causing delays and confusion during the hiring process.

In the end, what looks like savings upfront can actually result in longer hiring times, poor hires, and increased turnover, ultimately costing more in the long run.

Kenan Acikelli, CEO, Workhy

Low-Quality Hurts Your Brand

As an agency owner, I’ve seen the hidden costs of low-quality leads and applicants. Paying bottom rates for job boards often meant chasing unqualified candidates who weren’t truly interested or skilled. My team spent hours sorting through people who would never actually join us.  

When we invested in targeted platforms known for qualified candidates in our field, it saved us money and time. Though slightly costlier, serious applicants converted at 10-15% and fit our culture. They also gave great reviews and have stayed long-term.  

In my view, cutting costs on human capital to save pennies is foolish. The hours spent on bad fits end up costing more than paying a fair price for talent. And poor experiences hurt your brand, deterring good candidates.

For employers, low-quality applicants require extensive vetting but rarely work out. The hidden costs of high turnover and poor fit outweigh any savings. My advice: invest in qualified candidates who want the role. Paying more upfront will save money, time, and brand reputation.

Bri Como, Chief Operating Officer, Argon Agency