9 risks employers face when paying less than $29 per lead for gig or freelance job applications

We all like a good deal, right? That typically means getting a lot more value for the amount you’re paying than you normally would, or paying a lot less for what you’d normally buy. But, sometimes, you get exactly what you pay for and that includes recruitment advertising. Sometimes, when employers pay a lot less per job application than they might from another vendor, that employer ends up taking on a lot of risk that, in hindsight, they would have preferred to avoid.

When employers in the gig or freelance sector pay less than the typical $29 per application, they risk attracting candidates who may lack the flexibility, reliability, or specialized skills often required for these types of jobs. Gig and freelance roles demand a certain level of self-management and adaptability, making candidate quality critical to the success of the business. Lower-cost job boards or platforms may generate applications from individuals who aren’t genuinely interested in or qualified for flexible, project-based work, leading to an influx of unfit candidates. This results in more time and resources being spent on screening, diminishing the value of any initial cost savings.

Additionally, paying below the standard rate can distort recruitment metrics. Low-cost platforms may employ methods that prioritize quantity over quality, sometimes even generating fraudulent or bot-driven applications. This gives the illusion of a high application volume, but very few of those applicants are likely to convert into quality freelancers or gig workers. In the gig economy, where quick, efficient hiring is crucial, underpaying for applications can delay projects, disrupt workflow, and lead to a less reliable workforce. Over time, the cost of delays and inefficiencies outweighs any short-term 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 $29 if the job function is gig / freelance work. 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 nine thought leaders have to say.

• Beware of Low-Cost Applicant Quality
• Risks of Subpar Vetting Processes
• Unengaged Talent Increases Turnover
• Cultural Misalignment and Security Concerns
• Inferior Leads Yield Substandard Hires
• Hidden Costs of Low-Quality Leads
• Low-Cost Leads Harm Hiring Efficiency
• Training Costs Outweigh Initial Savings
• Misaligned Candidates from Cheap Sources

Beware of Low-Cost Applicant Quality

When hiring freelancers, I’ve noticed that opting for vendors offering a much lower cost per application can present significant risks. The most immediate issue is often the quality of applicants. Lower costs may attract candidates who are less qualified or less committed, leading to wasted time in sifting through unsuitable applications. There can also be concerns about the legitimacy of the vendor’s sourcing methods, possibly resulting in inflated applicant numbers with little genuine interest in the role.

Additionally, cheaper leads might not provide the necessary diversity of talent, restricting the potential for hiring the best fit for the job. Such scenarios can ultimately lead to higher turnover rates, necessitating repeated recruitment efforts that negate the initial savings. As someone deeply invested in ensuring efficient and meaningful hiring processes, these experiences highlight the importance of balancing cost with quality and reliability when engaging with vendors.

Valentin Radu, CEO & Founder, Blogger, Speaker, Podcaster, Omniconvert

Risks of Subpar Vetting Processes

Paying significantly below the standard $29 cost per application for gig job leads can lead to several risks. First, lower-cost vendors may use less thorough candidate-vetting processes, resulting in a higher likelihood of receiving unqualified or unsuitable applications. This can increase the time and effort required to find and hire the right candidate.

Moreover, inexpensive leads might come with issues related to data accuracy and compliance. There is a risk of encountering candidates whose information is outdated or incorrect, which could lead to potential legal or logistical challenges. 

Additionally, consistently opting for low-cost options can harm your company’s reputation, making it harder to attract top-tier talent in the long run. Investing in higher-quality lead sources generally ensures better candidate matches and a more efficient hiring process.

Shehar Yar, CEO, Software House

Unengaged Talent Increases Turnover

Employers risk hiring unengaged talent. Low-cost lead-acquisition vendors will deliver freelancers who might be unengaged. Those who might be willing to accept any project, regardless of how suitable it is to their skill set, could lead to a lack of enthusiasm and motivation. 

You risk hiring someone desperate for work, despite the rate, so they can complete projects quickly and earn, instead of delivering high-quality work. In return, you get poor-quality work and might even spend twice as much hiring the right talent and redelegating the same tasks.

Sergey Galanin, Director of SEO, Phonexa

Cultural Misalignment and Security Concerns

In my observations, low-cost vendors may not take the time to understand the employer’s company culture, leading to candidates who don’t align with the organization’s values and environment. For gig roles, it is crucial to have a good cultural fit as these individuals often work remotely or independently and need to be self-motivated and adaptable. If the leads provided by the vendor do not fit well with the company’s culture, it can result in conflicts, low productivity, and high turnover rates.

I would point out that there is a higher chance that budget vendors may not properly screen candidates for gig roles, leading to higher risks of hiring individuals with questionable backgrounds or dubious intentions. This can put the company at risk for fraud or other unethical practices. According to a survey by HireRight, 85 percent of employers uncovered lies or misrepresentations on resumes.

I have seen that vendors charging significantly less may have limited access to a broad pool of candidates, reducing the diversity and potential talent range employers can attract. This way, employers may miss out on talented individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, limiting the company’s growth and potential.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Inferior Leads Yield Substandard Hires

The very low cost of gig job leads may appear attractive in almost all respects, but it has enormous downsides. Employers are much more likely to hire substandard candidates by paying more for inferior leads. Cheap leads may come from untrusted or less effective sources, which may result in employers hiring people who don’t meet the employer’s specifications. 

We realize that investment in quality leads is what matters in any organization like ours when finding employees who will meet the standards. Cutting corners may cause higher rates of turnover and longer times for personnel to get on board, which increases costs in the long term. Quality always pays off in the end.

Tornike Asatiani, CEO, Edumentors

Hidden Costs of Low-Quality Leads

Paying below-market rates for leads may seem like a cost-saving move, but the hidden costs often outweigh the benefits.

Low-quality leads can waste an immense amount of time and money. Your team ends up spending hours chasing leads that aren’t a good fit, leading to frustration, burnout, and decision fatigue. Over time, this can lower the team’s standards as they rush to meet quotas, increasing the risk of bad hires or wrong decisions. In addition to adding to overhead, wasted salaries, and lost opportunities, poor-quality leads can erode trust between your teams as they become disillusioned with the process.

Instead of focusing on the quantity of leads, prioritize quality. Assess how much time and money is being spent on bad leads, and cut them off at the source. A well-targeted, prequalified lead is worth far more in the long run and reduces the risk of decision fatigue, team burnout, and wasted resources.

Deborah Forrister, Search Strategist, Envoca Search Marketing

Low-Cost Leads Harm Hiring Efficiency

When employers pay significantly below the going rate for job applications—especially for gig roles, where the cost per application averages around $29—they face several risks that could ultimately harm both the quality of the hires and their business operations.

First, the quality of applicants may suffer. Lower-cost leads are often sourced from platforms or methods that prioritize quantity over quality. This means employers are likely to receive a flood of unqualified candidates, leading to wasted time and resources in screening applications. For example, instead of getting candidates with relevant skills or experience, you might end up with individuals who apply indiscriminately to any job posting, without any genuine interest or fit for the role. This increases the workload for HR and recruiters, who have to sift through more applications to find suitable candidates.

Another significant risk is candidate engagement and reliability. Applicants attracted by low-quality or mass-distributed job ads may not fully understand the expectations of the role, leading to higher drop-off rates, poor performance, or even early turnover. Gig roles especially rely on fast onboarding and immediate productivity, so hiring disengaged or uncommitted workers can lead to operational inefficiencies.

Lastly, paying a fraction of the market rate for job leads can damage a company’s brand reputation. If the recruiting process feels impersonal or transactional, or if candidates feel misled by unclear job descriptions or terms, word spreads quickly—especially on social media and review platforms like Glassdoor. This could deter high-quality gig workers from considering the company in the future, further eroding the talent pool.

In short, while it may seem cost-effective upfront to pay less for job leads, the potential long-term costs in terms of hiring inefficiency, lower quality of work, and brand damage far outweigh the short-term savings.

Tanya Lamont, CEO, Conversational

Training Costs Outweigh Initial Savings

Lower-cost leads often result in candidates who lack the specialized skills needed for the job, forcing employers to invest more in upskilling. While the initial savings on cheaper leads may seem appealing, the need to train underqualified hires can outweigh those benefits.

Upskilling takes time and resources, delaying productivity and hindering overall team performance. This ultimately leads to increased costs, as the company must fill skill gaps that could have been avoided by paying for higher-quality leads.

In the long run, investing in more qualified candidates saves both time and money.

Nora Sudduth, Founder & Owner, Nora Sudduth Coaching

Misaligned Candidates from Cheap Sources

Cheaper leads often come from sources that don’t thoroughly vet their applicants, resulting in a higher number of unqualified or mismatched candidates. For gig roles, which can require specific skills, this misalignment means more time spent on screening and interviewing. It also increases the likelihood of hiring individuals who may not stay long-term, impacting overall workforce stability and reliability.

Data accuracy is another concern. Lower-cost leads may come from vendors using less rigorous data collection procedures, resulting in outdated or incorrect information. This can make it difficult to reach out to and evaluate potential prospects, complicating the employment process even further.

Reilly James, Marketing Manager & eCommerce Optimization Expert, William Morris Wallpaper