Risks to employers if they pay less than $21 CPA for job applications for manufacturing roles

When employers in the manufacturing industry pay less than the typical $21 per application, they risk receiving a large number of unqualified candidates who lack the skills and experience needed for these positions. Manufacturing roles often require specific technical abilities, attention to safety protocols, and a strong work ethic. Lower-cost job boards or platforms may attract candidates who do not meet these essential requirements, leading to more time spent by hiring managers on screening unfit applicants. The initial cost savings of paying below market rates for job applications can quickly be offset by the inefficiency of the hiring process and the delays in filling vital roles on the production floor.

Additionally, paying below the market rate for manufacturing job applications can distort recruitment metrics, creating the illusion of success based on application volume rather than candidate quality. Cheaper platforms may drive high numbers of applicants, but very few may possess the necessary skills, certifications, or experience required in manufacturing. In an industry where operational efficiency, safety, and precision are crucial, hiring the wrong person can lead to costly mistakes, safety issues, and higher turnover. The long-term impact of these risks often outweighs the short-term financial savings from lower-cost applications, ultimately affecting production timelines and business performance.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $21 if the job function is Manufacturing. What quality and other risks do employers face if they pay a small fraction of the going rate to a vendor for the job application leads? Here is what nine thought leaders have to say.

• Risk Lower Quality Candidates
• Experience Costly Consequences
• Compromise Safety and Morale
• Reduce Visibility and Value
• Waste Time and Damage Brand
• Hurt Productivity and Revenue
• Face Lower Candidate Quality
• Receive Lower-Quality Applicants
• Compromise Hiring Quality

Risk Lower Quality Candidates

Employers who pay significantly less than the standard rate for job leads in manufacturing—$21 per application—may face several quality and operational risks. The primary concern is receiving low-quality candidates who lack the required skills, experience, or commitment, leading to a poor fit for the role. This can result in higher employee turnover rates, increased training costs, and lower productivity, all of which can erode profitability in the long run.

Another key risk is wasted time and resources on screening unqualified applicants. A vendor offering leads at a fraction of the going rate may not thoroughly vet candidates or prioritize quality, leading to inefficiencies in the hiring process. This can also damage the employer’s brand reputation in the marketplace, as potential high-quality candidates may see a mismatch in expectations.

Shehar Yar, CEO, Software House

Experience Costly Consequences

As a fractional CFO, I’ve seen companies neglect their hiring processes to cut costs, only to pay the price later. Paying bargain rates for job leads often yields low-quality candidates, high turnover, and skills mismatches—costing more in the long run.

For example, one manufacturing client hired a cut-rate lead generation firm. The candidates lacked relevant experience, and productivity suffered. Within 6 months, over 60% had left, and the client had wasted months of productivity and thousands in re-hiring costs.

In contrast, another client paid market rates for high-quality leads from a specialized firm. Candidates were well-suited to the complex, niche roles. Nearly all are still employed after 2 years, and the client saved over $200K in lost productivity and re-hiring.

Quality job leads reflect a company’s standards and brand. Bargain hunting for a “deal” on such a crucial process signals a desperation that can damage company culture. The risks far outweigh any short-term cost savings. My advice is: you get what you pay for. Invest in quality from the start. As a fractional CFO, I often see companies try to cut costs in areas that end up costing them more in the long run. Paying a fraction of the going rate for job leads is risky and can end up wasting time and money.

Low-quality leads often don’t match the job requirements well and lead to poor hiring outcomes. The time spent reviewing and interviewing unsuitable candidates reduces productivity and delays filling the role. It can also damage your employer brand if candidates have a poor experience.

There are also hidden costs to consider. Sorting through more applications requires additional resources and time. Candidates who are under-qualified tend to have higher turnover, costing thousands to rehire and retrain. Poor hires also negatively impact team productivity and morale.

In my experience, the true cost of a bad hire is substantial. It’s better to invest in qualified leads and a strong hiring process. Focus on building a quality talent pool and company culture. Your business and bottom line will benefit. Cutting corners often ends up being a false economy.

Russell Rosario, Owner, Russell Rosario

Compromise Safety and Morale

You see, the manufacturing job role is a vital part of any organization, and employers should be cautious when sourcing candidates for these positions. Low-cost vendors may not have the necessary expertise or resources to thoroughly vet candidates for manufacturing roles, exposing employers to the risk of hiring individuals who lack the required technical skills or safety certifications. This can lead to workplace accidents and injuries, affecting employee morale and increasing insurance costs.

I have come to realize that bringing in underqualified or unfit candidates potentially lowers team morale, as existing employees may need to pick up the slack or deal with co-workers who are not able to perform adequately. For instance, if a budget vendor sources an individual with poor time-management skills for a manufacturing role, it can delay production and cause frustration among the team.

I recently heard of a case where a budget vendor placed an individual in a manufacturing role without proper safety training, resulting in a workplace accident that led to significant financial losses for the company. I would emphasize that there is no room for compromise when it comes to safety and quality in the manufacturing industry, making it crucial for employers to prioritize reputable recruitment vendors over low-cost alternatives.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Reduce Visibility and Value

In my experience, reducing job-advertising costs in the manufacturing sector often invites risks. Comparatively minor outlays can lead to major challenges in terms of both quality and other fallout. Firstly, undervaluing advertisements can result in limited visibility among qualified talent, leading to a smaller pool of skilled applicants. Able Hardware, my own company, once attempted to cut advertising costs and ended up with inadequate or mismatched talent, significantly impeding operational efficiency.

Secondly, underinvestment can position a company as less competitive or committed in the job market. It diminishes employees’ perceived value within the company, affecting morale and productivity in the long haul. In the past, underfunding led to higher employee turnover at Able Hardware, incurring more costs in rehiring than what was saved in advertising. Lastly, without proper brand exposure, the company may struggle to uphold its reputation in the industry, which could potentially impact B2B relations and bargaining ability.

Jason Woo, Owner, Able Hardware

Waste Time and Damage Brand

As the Founder and CEO of Magnetik, a digital marketing agency in NYC, I would advise against paying only a fraction of the typical cost per hire. While it may seem like an easy way to cut costs, it often ends up costing more in wasted time and resources.

We once had a client who tried using an ultra-low-cost job board to fill a key marketing role. The quality of applicants was very poor, and we spent over 200 hours reviewing resumes and conducting interviews before finding a suitable candidate. The delay ended up costing the client over $50,000 in lost productivity.

Cheap leads also frequently result in bad hires that damage team morale and productivity. We had another client who hired a social media manager from a budget job board. The hire was completely unqualified and made multiple mistakes that harmed the brand. It took months to undo the damage, and the role had to be refilled, costing thousands.

My recommendation is to invest in quality leads and a rigorous hiring process. The true cost of a bad hire far outweighs any savings from low-cost job boards. Build a great company culture and consider using specialized recruiters. Your business will thrive as a result.

Doug Steinberg, Founder & President, Magnetik

Hurt Productivity and Revenue

As a construction company owner, finding quality job candidates is essential. Paying too little for job leads often results in wasting time and hurting productivity.

We once tried using a cut-rate recruiting service to save money. The candidates were poorly matched to our open roles and lacked relevant experience. Interviewing and reposting jobs cost us over $15,000 in lost billable hours. Several bad hires even damaged customer relationships before being let go.

In contrast, using a reputable recruiting firm providing qualified candidates has allowed us to fill roles quickly and keep projects on schedule. Though more expensive upfront, the higher-quality hires boosted revenue and morale. They integrated into our team culture, helping us earn repeat business and referrals.

For small companies, every hire significantly impacts operations. It’s worth investing in finding the right people, even if it means paying competitive rates. Skimping on recruiting to cut costs often backfires by reducing productivity and revenue over the long run. In business, as in life, you get what you pay for.

Jimmy Hertilien, Senior Project Manager, Herts Roofing & Construction

Face Lower Candidate Quality

If employers pay a small fraction of the typical $21 cost per application for manufacturing roles, they could face several quality and operational risks. Lower candidate quality is the most significant concern. Cheaper vendors may not invest in targeting the right platforms or may source candidates from low-quality job boards, leading to a flood of unqualified or irrelevant applicants. This makes it harder to find candidates with the specific skills and experience manufacturing jobs often require, which can slow down the hiring process. 

There’s also the risk of lead duplication. Cheaper vendors might resell the same leads to multiple companies, creating unnecessary competition for the same candidates. This could increase time-to-hire and hurt the overall hiring experience. 

Another issue is poor candidate engagement. When vendors cut corners to lower costs, they may attract applicants who aren’t genuinely interested in the job or don’t understand the role well, leading to higher dropout rates during the interview process or early turnover after hiring. 

In the end, paying below the going rate can result in wasted time, lower-quality hires, and potentially higher turnover costs. 

Kenan Acikelli, CEO, Workhy

Receive Lower-Quality Applicants

When employers pay significantly less than the standard $21 per application for manufacturing job leads, they risk receiving lower-quality applicants. Vendors offering cheaper leads may use less selective sourcing methods, leading to irrelevant or unqualified candidates, which increases time and resources spent on vetting. There’s also a heightened risk of data inaccuracies, which could result in compliance issues or hiring delays. In the long term, relying on subpar leads may lead to higher turnover rates, affecting productivity and company culture. It’s crucial to balance cost with quality to ensure hiring success.

Rene Ymzon, Marketing Manager, Advanced Motion Controls

Compromise Hiring Quality

If employers pay significantly less than the going rate for job leads in manufacturing, they risk receiving lower-quality candidates, as cheaper vendors may not target the right talent pool. This can lead to a higher volume of unqualified applicants, wasting time and resources on screening. Additionally, relying on low-cost vendors might mean less vetting and outdated or inaccurate applicant data, increasing the chance of hiring risks, like poor performance or high turnover. In the long run, cutting costs on leads could compromise the quality of hires, leading to productivity issues and even safety risks in manufacturing environments.

Janet Lowe, Managing Director, Stillages and Cages