8 risk employers face when paying less than $16 per lead from food service job applicants

When employers in the food service industry pay less than the standard $16 per application, they risk receiving a higher volume of unqualified or irrelevant candidates. Food service jobs often require specific skills, such as the ability to work under pressure, handle food safely, and provide excellent customer service. Lower-cost job boards or ad platforms may not be able to target the right applicants effectively, resulting in more time and resources spent by hiring managers sifting through unsuitable candidates. The initial savings on the cost per application can quickly be outweighed by the inefficiencies in the hiring process, leading to delays in filling critical roles.

Additionally, paying below the prevailing rate can expose employers to fraudulent or automated applications. Low-cost platforms may rely on mass application methods or incentivize candidates to apply without genuine interest in the role. This inflates the number of applications, giving the illusion of a successful recruitment campaign, but results in very few quality candidates. In an industry where efficiency and staffing consistency are essential, particularly during busy periods, underpaying for applications can lead to operational challenges, higher turnover rates, and ultimately affect the quality of service provided to customers.

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 food service. 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 eight thought leaders have to say.

• Risking Hire Quality for Lower Costs
• Mismatched Expectations Increase Turnover
• Hidden Costs of Cheap Leads
• Inconsistent Lead Quality Affects Hiring
• Quality Applicants Save Money Long-Term
• Subpar Candidates Disrupt Team Dynamics
• Lower-Cost Leads May Reduce Visibility
• Cheap Leads Yield Underqualified Candidates

Risking Hire Quality for Lower Costs

When employers opt for cheaper leads, they risk compromising the quality of their hires. Vendors offering these low-cost options might rely on outdated or less effective sourcing methods, leading to a pool of candidates who may not meet the necessary qualifications. This can result in a prolonged hiring process as employers sift through irrelevant applications, increasing overall costs and time spent on recruitment.

Another risk is that cheaper leads may attract less-committed candidates or simply job-hoppers. This can result in higher turnover, affecting team morale and incurring additional costs for rehiring and retraining. It’s a good idea to pay a fair rate for job leads. This way, you’ll attract candidates who are genuinely interested and more suited for the position, which often results in better hires in the long run.

Shane McEvoy, MD, Flycast Media

Mismatched Expectations Increase Turnover

Engaging with a low-cost vendor might lead to a mismatch between the employer’s expectations and the actual job role, which can cause new hires to feel misled. This misalignment can result in higher turnover rates, as employees may leave the job soon after being hired if they feel that the role does not match what was advertised. High turnover not only leads to increased hiring costs but also affects team morale and productivity.

Alari Aho, CEO and Founder, Toggl Inc

Hidden Costs of Cheap Leads

Cheap leads often come with hidden costs that can significantly impact your bottom line. I’ve learned that investing in quality leads yields better long-term returns and helps maintain the integrity of your hiring process.

Jonathan Gerber, President, RVW Wealth

Inconsistent Lead Quality Affects Hiring

Cheaper vendors might provide inconsistent lead quality, where some candidates are acceptable while others are far below expectations, creating an unpredictable hiring experience. For instance, in the case of food-service job functions, a low-cost vendor might provide leads that are not qualified for the position or lack relevant experience. This could result in increased turnover, inefficiency, and a waste of resources for employers.

In light of recent events where I have seen hiring managers struggle to fill vacant positions, I am confident that investing in quality leads is crucial for the success of any organization. I would point out that employers risk missing out on highly qualified and skilled candidates who could bring value and add to the company’s success by paying a small fraction of the going rate.

Keep in mind that relying on cheaper vendors also poses a risk of negative branding for employers. Candidates who have a poor experience with an employer’s hiring process are likely to spread their dissatisfaction through word-of-mouth or online platforms, which could harm the company’s reputation. This could make it difficult for employers to attract top talent in the future, leading to a potential loss of competitive advantage.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Quality Applicants Save Money Long-Term

Look, I’ve been in this game for over two decades, and I can tell you that cheaping out on job ads is a recipe for disaster. We’ve learned that quality applicants are worth their weight in gold—they boost productivity, reduce turnover, and ultimately save us money in the long run. Sure, you might save a few bucks upfront with bargain-basement leads, but trust me, you’ll pay for it tenfold in poor hires and endless recruiting cycles.

Andrew Dunn, Vice President of Marketing, Zentro Internet

Subpar Candidates Disrupt Team Dynamics

Quality risks are a major concern when paying below-market rates for job leads. We’ve seen firsthand how subpar candidates can disrupt team dynamics and hinder productivity. I’d recommend investing in reputable sourcing channels to ensure you’re attracting top talent that aligns with your organizational culture and values.

Barbara McMahan, CEO, Atticus Consulting LLC

Lower-Cost Leads May Reduce Visibility

When employers opt to pay significantly less than the standard rate for job leads, such as the $16 per application benchmark for food-service roles, they face several risks. Primarily, the quality of candidates may suffer, as lower-cost leads often attract less-qualified or -motivated individuals. 

Additionally, there is a risk of reduced visibility and reach, leading to fewer applications overall. The vendor’s ability to provide targeted, high-quality leads might be compromised, impacting the effectiveness of the recruitment process and potentially increasing the time and resources needed to fill positions.

Rene Ymzon, Marketing Manager, Advanced Motion Controls

Cheap Leads Yield Underqualified Candidates

When employers pay significantly less than the going rate for job leads—like a fraction of that $16 per application for food service roles—they’re likely to face a variety of quality and operational risks. I’ve seen it happen firsthand when a friend of mine was managing hiring for her café. She decided to go with a cheaper vendor for job applications, thinking she’d get a good deal. What ended up happening was that the applications coming in were often from underqualified candidates, or people not even interested in the role but just submitting applications to meet a quota on job-seeking platforms.

A major risk with these low-cost leads is the time wasted on screening poor candidates. Hiring managers end up spending valuable hours sorting through applications that don’t meet the basic qualifications, which, in turn, delays the entire hiring process. It’s also demoralizing for the hiring team. I remember my friend being frustrated because she had to bring in candidates who clearly weren’t a fit, simply because they came from a cheap batch of leads. This affected her ability to fill positions quickly and maintain staff quality, which, in food service, directly impacts the customer experience.

My advice would be to view quality leads as an investment. While paying the market rate may seem steep, you’ll likely end up with candidates who are more serious, better qualified, and a better fit for the role. Skimping on leads might save you upfront costs, but it often leads to inefficiency, higher turnover, and a lot of headaches down the road.

Tanya Lamont, CEO, Conversational