Risks to employers when paying less than $24 per lead for education job applications

When employers in the education sector pay significantly less than the typical $24 per application, they expose themselves to the risk of attracting a lower caliber of candidates. Education roles often require specific qualifications, certifications, and experience, and cheaper job boards or ad distributors may lack the targeted reach to find candidates who meet these criteria. As a result, hiring managers could be inundated with unqualified applications, leading to increased time spent on screening and a slower overall hiring process. The savings from paying less per lead are quickly negated by the inefficiencies in finding suitable candidates who can meet the demanding requirements of educational roles.

Additionally, underpaying for job applications can result in misleading recruitment metrics. Low-cost platforms may drive traffic from unreliable sources, potentially even resulting in fake or bot-driven applications. This can create the false impression of high interest in a job posting, while very few applicants are actually a good fit. For employers in education, where finding candidates with the right skills and background is essential for maintaining the quality of teaching and support staff, these risks can have long-lasting negative impacts on the school or institution’s ability to deliver a high standard of education.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $24 if the job function is education. 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 five thought leaders have to say.

• Risks of Low-Quality Educational Leads
• Correlation of Ad Cost and Applicant Quality
• Hidden Costs of Low CPA in Recruitment
• Low-Cost Job Posts Deter Quality Candidates
• Data Integrity Risks with Cheap Vendors

Risks of Low-Quality Educational Leads

My experience is that education roles require a specific set of skills and qualifications, and cutting corners on the recruitment process can lead to serious consequences. For example, if a vendor provides cheap leads for teaching positions, there is a high possibility that these candidates may not have the necessary certifications or experience required by the school or educational institution. This can result in hiring unqualified individuals who are not equipped to handle the responsibilities of the role.

This results in screening out unqualified candidates, which extends the hiring process, requiring more time and effort from HR to filter through lower-quality leads. In this case, the saying “time is money” holds true, as the longer it takes to fill a position, the more resources and money are wasted. Always go for quality over quantity when it comes to hiring, as the consequences of hiring an unqualified candidate can be costly in the long run.

Once, I even encountered a situation where a budget vendor placed unqualified teachers in positions, resulting in numerous complaints from students and parents. This affected the reputation of the school and caused legal issues and financial losses due to refunds and compensation. It is crucial for employers to thoroughly vet candidates for education roles to avoid such risks.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Correlation of Ad Cost and Applicant Quality

In my career in educational administration, I’ve seen firsthand the quality and risks associated with low-cost job advertising. Often, employers who pay significantly below the standard rate for job advertisement face major risks, one being poor applicant quality. There’s a correlation between investment in job advertising and the quality of applicants: a low-cost ad might not reach the best talent pool. 

Additionally, there’s an inherent risk of diluting the employer’s brand image. If potential candidates associate a company with low-priced job ads, they might perceive it as an undervalued employer, damaging its reputation in the market. This might discourage high-caliber professionals from considering future openings with the company. 

Finally, there’s the risk of time wastage. Low-cost vendors might not adhere to rigorous filtering norms, resulting in a less relevant applicant influx, increasing the time spent on sorting and assessing. We understand that the real value comes from investing adequately in quality job advertisements, which directly reflects in the caliber of hired professionals.

Rosario Maccarrone, Director & Head of Student Services, OPIT

Hidden Costs of Low CPA in Recruitment

In my experience leading recruitment at a major educational institution, keeping the costs of advertising jobs low might seem attractive, but it isn’t devoid of risks. On the surface, a lower cost-per-application (CPA) may increase the employer’s return, but it may impact the quality of applicants. If a vendor charges significantly less for job leads, there’s a risk that they may not be investing enough in targeted advertising to attract suitable candidates. This approach may result in a larger pool of applicants, yet the relevance and quality of those applications might not be adequate.

Moreover, we’ve observed that a low CPA can also attract a high volume of unqualified applicants, spending recruitment teams’ valuable time sifting through irrelevant resumes—a significant hidden cost. Lastly, dealing with vendors that dramatically undercharge can jeopardize other areas, such as customer service and account management. For instance, our team once had to manage a complicated situation where an undercharging vendor could not promptly resolve an issue we had, causing a delay in our recruitment process.

Greta Maiocchi, Head of Marketing & Admissions, OPIT

Low-Cost Job Posts Deter Quality Candidates

Quality candidates are often skeptical of low-cost job postings, perceiving them as less credible or prestigious. We’ve seen this lead to a significantly reduced talent pool, particularly for specialized roles in education. Our experience shows that investing in proper recruitment channels yields better long-term results, attracting candidates who are more aligned with organizational values and culture.

Barbara McMahan, CEO, Atticus Consulting LLC

Data Integrity Risks with Cheap Vendors

Higher risk of data integrity. Getting leads from vendors below the going rate reduces their proactiveness in data validation and accuracy. Employers risk getting outdated or incorrect contact information, which will lengthen the recruitment process. A 2022 report from SHRM shows that 40% of resumes contain inaccuracies. The rate will be higher with vendors who don’t take the time and effort to verify their leads. Data integrity issues will result in inefficiencies that extend the recruitment process, which could stall learning in institutions.

Oliver Page, Co-Founder & CEO, CyberNut