Risks to employers if they pay less than $24 CPA for job applications for management roles

When employers in management roles pay less than the standard $24 per application, they risk attracting candidates who may lack the leadership experience and strategic skills necessary for these positions. Management jobs require individuals who can oversee teams, manage projects, and make critical business decisions. Lower-cost job boards or platforms often fail to attract applicants with the relevant expertise, resulting in a flood of unqualified candidates. This forces hiring managers to spend extra time reviewing applications that don’t meet the necessary criteria, ultimately slowing down the recruitment process and reducing hiring efficiency.

Moreover, paying below the market rate for management job applications can skew recruitment metrics. While a lower cost per lead may bring in more applications, many of those applicants may lack the skills or qualifications required to succeed in management roles. In positions where decision-making, team development, and problem-solving are essential, hiring the wrong candidate can have serious long-term consequences for the organization. The savings gained from paying less per application may be quickly outweighed by the inefficiencies, poor hiring decisions, and potential disruption caused by bringing on underqualified management personnel.

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 Management. 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 13 thought leaders have to say.

• Risk Poor Leadership Qualities
• Attract Untested Candidates
• Risk Poor Candidate Engagement
• Risk Mismatched Candidates
• Risk Increased Hiring Costs
• Risk Brand Reputation Damage
• Risk Low-Quality Leads
• Risk Less-Qualified Candidates
• Risk Lower-Quality Candidates
• Risk Low-Quality Leads
• Risk Lower Candidate Quality
• Risk Compromised Quality
• Risk Candidate Quality Issues

Risk Poor Leadership Qualities

Paying a fraction of the going rate for management job leads can lead to a sharp rise in poor leadership qualities among applicants, as the screening process tends to be less robust. Management roles require strong decision-making, conflict resolution, and team-building skills, and low-cost vendors may not properly vet candidates for these competencies, resulting in applicants who lack the strategic vision and emotional intelligence necessary to manage teams effectively. Alternatively, this might mean you’re going to get quite a slew of candidates who recently graduated from business school and looking for their first crack at their chosen profession.

Dragos Badea, CEO, Yarooms

Attract Untested Candidates

Management is a tricky role to recruit for at the best of times, so employers who pay below the going rate for management candidates run the risk of attracting applicants who lack key leadership competencies, such as decision-making or team management skills. Management roles require strong people skills, and cheap leads may consist of candidates who are untested in these areas or have only limited experience. This might not be a deal-breaker, as people have to start somewhere, but it depends on whether you want to take the gamble or not to save some cash upfront.

Kate Kandefer, CEO, SEOwind

Risk Poor Candidate Engagement

I encountered this situation many times, where candidates sourced from lower-cost vendors were poorly engaged with the recruitment process, leading to poor communication and missed interviews or follow-ups. This can be particularly concerning for management roles, where strong communication and organizational skills are essential. A lack of engagement can also signal a lack of interest or motivation in the position, potentially resulting in high turnover rates and added expenses for the company.

One prominent example is when a budget vendor placed an individual in a managerial role who lacked the necessary qualifications and experience, resulting in poor decision-making and low team morale. This led to decreased productivity and increased conflicts within the team, ultimately affecting the company’s overall success. Employers must carefully consider the quality of candidates sourced by budget vendors for management roles to avoid such issues.

My best tip is to invest in reputable recruitment vendors who have a proven track record of providing high-quality candidates. The long-term costs and risks far outweigh the initial savings, although it may be tempting to save money by using low-cost vendors.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Risk Mismatched Candidates

You’re the best judge of what you need, and outsourcing these leads increases the risk that you’ll be mismatched with the wrong candidates. If you find a great vendor with a deep understanding of your needs, you could still make a good hire, but you’ll get what you pay for. The real cost of a bad hire, via lost productivity, damaged dynamics, and turnover, overwhelmingly outweighs any short-term savings. Ultimately, no one understands what your business needs better than you do.

When you’re hiring managers and leaders, that cultural and skills match is crucial because managers impact the work of everyone they lead. If they don’t live and breathe your company’s values, even a lead that looks great on paper might be a bad match.

Elisa Montanari, Head of Organic Growth, Wrike

Risk Increased Hiring Costs

When employers pay a small fraction of the $24 rate for management job leads, they often face significant risks in candidate quality and long-term hiring costs. At Edumentors, we experienced this first-hand when we opted for a lower-cost vendor for recruitment. While it seemed cost-effective initially, we ended up receiving under-qualified applicants and spent more time on vetting and training. This resulted in delayed hiring decisions and increased turnover. In management roles, hiring the wrong candidate can affect leadership and team performance, leading to higher costs down the line. The lesson learned? Investing in quality leads from the beginning saves time, and money, and ensures the right fit for your team.

Tornike Asatiani, CEO, Edumentors

Risk Brand Reputation Damage

I’ve noticed that choosing low-cost recruitment services can often put a company’s brand at risk. If candidates receive irrelevant job ads or encounter an unprofessional application process, it leaves a negative impression. This can cause potential hires to view the company as disorganized or lacking attention to detail.

A poor candidate experience can spread quickly, whether through word of mouth or online reviews, leading top talent to avoid the company altogether. In a competitive job market, where a company’s reputation plays a big role in attracting qualified applicants, even a small slip in the recruitment process can have lasting effects.

Erik Angelone, Professor of Translation Studies, Kent State University

Risk Low-Quality Leads

As the Founder of Rocket Alumni Solutions, I would caution employers about the risks of paying bargain prices for job leads. In building my company to over 500 schools, I’ve learned that cutting corners to save money often backfires.

Early on, I tried using a cheap overseas call center to generate leads. The unqualified leads they provided wasted my team’s time and yielded no new clients. I ended up spending more re-posting jobs and sorting through bad leads.

Now I pay fair prices for quality leads from reputable vendors with proven screening methods. Their higher standards and rates reflect the value of good leads that turn into long-term clients.

For management roles, $24 per lead is the norm for a reason. At a fraction of that, vendors likely cut corners in ways that risk employers’ resources and company culture. The true cost of mis-hires and wasted time usually far outweighs any upfront savings from low-quality, cut-rate leads.

As the founder of Rocket Alumni Solutions, I know the perils of bargain-hunting in business. While low costs seem appealing, cut-rate solutions often require extensive oversight and rework, costing more in the long run.

Early on, I tried an inexpensive marketing agency to generate leads. Their unvetted leads wasted weeks and yielded no clients. I learned my lesson—for critical functions like lead-gen, established partners with proven success is the most cost-effective choice. Industry-standard pricing means stable, quality pipelines and the best long-term hires.

At Rocket Alumni, we built a referral program engaging our community. Local media coverage and social campaigns spread the word. Parent groups and tech budgets funded our first schools. Hands-on demos showed our value. Today, 500 schools trust us to recognize achievements and build pride. Quality over quick fixes is the strategy that boosted us to $2M ARR.

Paying fair prices for the right partners paves the road to revenue and growth. My advice: find trusted allies charging standard rates. Their expertise will amplify your own while saving money and time. Build real value, and your community will support you. The rest follows.

Chase McKee, Founder & CEO, Rocket Alumni Solutions

Risk Less-Qualified Candidates

When employers opt to pay significantly less than the average cost per application—$24 for management roles, as per the data—there are several risks that can compromise the quality of their hires.

One major risk is the potential for receiving applications from less-qualified candidates. Vendors offering leads at a fraction of the standard cost might cut corners in their screening processes or use less effective methods for sourcing candidates. This can result in a pool of applicants with lower qualifications or mismatched skills for management positions, which can ultimately impact the effectiveness of the hiring process.

Moreover, there’s the issue of candidate experience. Vendors that offer lower-cost leads might not invest as much in nurturing candidates through the application process. This lack of engagement can result in a poor candidate experience, which not only affects the candidates’ perception of the company but may also deter top talent from applying. The long-term effect of this could be a diminished employer brand and reduced ability to attract high-quality candidates in the future.

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

Risk Lower-Quality Candidates

Paying a small fraction of the market rate for job leads can often lead to lower-quality candidates. At Lansbox, when we tried to cut corners on hiring costs, we noticed a drop in qualified applicants. We ended up spending more time sifting through unfit resumés, which slowed our operations. By investing in better-quality leads, we saw a 30% increase in efficiency and quicker hiring decisions. Sometimes, paying for quality upfront saves both time and resources in the long run.

Echo Shao, Founder, Lansbox

Risk Low-Quality Leads

Employers may face a number of quality and risk issues when they pay less for job leads. First, the leads might not be as good, which would mean more applications from people who aren’t qualified and a longer hiring process. In the end, this can cancel out any savings you make by going with a cheaper seller.

Cheaper leads may also come from less trustworthy sources, which raises the risk of data privacy problems or fake applications. Employers might have problems with the quality and dependability of the candidates, which could make the hiring process less effective overall.

To lower these risks, it’s important to check the vendors’ trustworthiness and make sure they give you good leads. Spending money on trustworthy sources can help keep the hiring process honest and improve the fit and happiness of candidates.

Nicholas Aboolian, Co-Founder, Hollywood Hills Recovery

Risk Lower Candidate Quality

If employers pay a fraction of the typical $24 cost per application for management roles, they risk several significant quality and operational issues.

First, candidate quality is likely to suffer. Lower-cost vendors may source applications from less reputable platforms or rely on generic databases, resulting in a flood of unqualified candidates. This makes it harder to find applicants with the leadership skills, experience, and cultural fit required for management positions, leading to a longer and more inefficient hiring process.

Another issue is poor targeting. Management roles often require specific industry knowledge and experience. If a vendor isn’t investing in targeting tools, you may receive irrelevant applications from individuals lacking the necessary qualifications or expertise, wasting valuable time sifting through unsuitable candidates.

There’s also a risk of lead duplication, where multiple employers are provided with the same candidates, making it harder to secure top talent in competitive industries.

Lastly, paying less may lead to low candidate engagement. Candidates sourced through cheaper vendors may not be fully invested in the role, resulting in higher dropout rates during interviews or higher turnover if hired.

Kenan Acikelli, CEO, Workhy

Risk Compromised Quality

When employers in the management sector pay far below the average $24 cost per application, they risk compromising the quality of candidates, which can have a significant impact on their organization. Management roles require specific leadership, decision-making, and strategic skills, and cheaper job leads often result in a flood of unqualified applicants. This forces hiring teams to spend more time filtering through irrelevant applications, leading to inefficiencies in the recruitment process and delaying critical hires.

Another major risk is the potential for long-term mismatches. Management positions have a huge influence on company culture, performance, and team dynamics. Hiring the wrong candidate due to subpar sourcing can lead to poor decision-making, low team morale, and increased turnover, not just within the management role itself but across the teams they oversee. The cost of replacing a poorly hired manager, both financially and in terms of organizational disruption, far outweighs the savings from paying less for initial leads.

Finally, using low-cost vendors for leads can damage the company’s reputation as an employer. Talented candidates in the management field often value professionalism and are likely to be deterred by an impersonal or disorganized hiring process, which is more common with low-cost recruiting methods. This not only shrinks the talent pool but also reflects poorly on the company’s ability to attract and retain high-caliber leadership, ultimately hurting its competitive standing in the market.

Tanya Lamont, CEO, Conversational

Risk Candidate Quality Issues

When employers opt to pay a fraction of the going rate for job leads, especially in fields like management where the average cost per application is around $24, they expose themselves to quality and other risks. One major risk is the potential compromise in candidate quality. Lower cost often means the vendor might cut corners, leading to a pool of applicants who may not meet the necessary qualifications or fit the company culture. This can result in a time-consuming screening process, as employers have to sift through a higher volume of unsuitable candidates to find a few that might be a good fit.

Additionally, these low-cost vendors might use less reputable or less targeted sources to attract applicants, which can flood the employer with irrelevant or unqualified applications. This not only wastes valuable time and resources but can also overwhelm hiring managers and dilute the effectiveness of the recruitment process.

Another concern is that these leads may not be as engaged or seriously interested in the role, potentially leading to higher dropout rates during the hiring process or even after hiring, causing further disruptions and costs. Employers also risk damaging their brand reputation by associating with vendors that don’t maintain high standards. Prospective candidates might perceive the company as cutting corners or not valuing the hiring process, which could deter top talent from considering future opportunities with the organization.

Advice for Employers: Investing in quality leads might seem costlier upfront, but it often saves time and resources in the long run by attracting better-qualified candidates who are more likely to fit well within the company. It’s crucial to work with reputable vendors who understand the specific needs of your job functions and can target the right audience effectively. This approach not only improves the quality of applicants but also enhances your employer brand, making it easier to attract top talent. Remember, quality hires are an investment in your company’s future success.

Faith Rock, Marketing Specialist, Alta Pest Control