Risks to employers if they pay too low of CPA when posting marketing and advertising job ads

When employers pay less than the typical $16 per application for marketing and advertising jobs, they risk attracting a large number of candidates who lack the creativity, strategic thinking, and digital expertise required for these roles. Marketing and advertising positions often demand knowledge of branding, social media, content creation, and analytics, along with the ability to develop and execute campaigns that drive business results. Cheaper job boards or platforms may bring in applicants without these essential skills, forcing hiring managers to spend more time sorting through unqualified candidates, which slows down the hiring process and wastes valuable resources.

Moreover, paying below the market rate can distort recruitment metrics, giving the impression that a campaign is performing well based on high application volume. However, many of these applicants may lack the qualifications necessary to succeed in marketing and advertising, where understanding consumer behavior and staying on top of industry trends are critical. In an industry where innovation and strategic thinking are key to a company’s success, underpaying for job applications can lead to hiring mistakes that ultimately impact the effectiveness of marketing efforts and the overall brand. The cost of hiring the wrong person can easily outweigh any initial 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 $16 if the job function is marketing or advertising. 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 21 thought leaders have to say.

• Gen-AI Reduces Risk
• Low-Quality Leads
• Risks Outweigh Savings
• Sector Specificity Matters
• Lower Quality Candidates
• Damaged Employee Morale
• Employer Brand Risks
• Increased Admin Burden
• Inexperienced Hires
• Sacrificing Quality
• Lower Quality Applicants
• Inexpensive Vendor Risks
• Time Versus Quality
• Limited Growth Potential
• Missed Top Talent
• Poor Hiring Decisions
• Quality and Operational Risks
• Real-World Consequences
• Substantial Risks Overlooked
• Lower-Quality Applicants
• Risking Quality Issues

Gen-AI Reduces Risk

These days, it’s not much of a risk, to be honest. Recruitment for many roles in marketing has slowed down quite a lot due to the advent of gen-AI being used to handle some of the tasks that historically would be handled by entry-level marketing professionals. This leaves the field full of talent with few openings, so even lower-cost vendors for recruitment are likely to net you a good selection of candidates.

Kate Kandefer, CEO, SEOwind

Low-Quality Leads

Vendors sell leads below the market rate for two main reasons:

1. They don’t know how much their leads are really worth.

2. Their leads are low-quality and can’t command the market rate. The second of these is much more common. The big risk in buying cheap, low-quality leads is that it can be a huge waste of your time and money. Going through leads can be time-consuming, especially when they’re not very good. If the quality is bad, you can easily spend significantly more per qualified lead than if you went with more expensive leads in the first place. Sometimes you get lucky, and the cheap leads turn out to be okay, but this strategy is rarely successful in the long run.

Temmo Kinoshita, Co-Founder, Lindenwood Marketing

Risks Outweigh Savings

Employers who pay much less than the typical cost for job applications in marketing and advertising face several risks that can outweigh any initial savings. Cheap vendors often use unreliable sources, leading to a flood of unqualified or even fake applications that waste valuable time and resources. This not only slows down the hiring process but can also hurt the company’s reputation if jobs are advertised on low-quality sites, which can drive away serious candidates and create a poor impression of the employer. The high volume of low-quality leads makes it harder to find the right fit, increasing the time-to-hire and overall recruitment costs. 

Additionally, hires from these sources are more likely to leave quickly or not fit in well with the company culture, leading to higher turnover and re-hiring expenses. There are also potential legal and compliance issues, as cheaper vendors might not follow industry standards or data-protection laws, which could result in fines or damage to the company’s image. Ultimately, while these cheaper leads might seem cost-effective at first, they can lead to bigger problems, making it harder to attract and retain top talent in the long run.

Grant Smith, Global Recruitment Marketing Specialist

Sector Specificity Matters

The issue here is that marketing and advertising is an incredibly broad sector. While good hires will be versatile and willing to learn the skills they don’t know, it’s generally advantageous to hire candidates who have specific experience with the platforms and skills you’re looking for. Someone who’s great at analytics may struggle to write good copy, for example. If you skimp on recruiting, you’ll have to sift through a lot of less-than-relevant skill sets to find what you’re looking for.

Nick Valentino, VP of Market Operations, Bellhop

Lower Quality Candidates

Vendors offering significantly cheaper rates often source candidates from lower-quality job boards or less reputable channels. This can lead to applications from individuals who may not meet the necessary qualifications or experience levels. In turn, employers spend more time filtering through irrelevant or unqualified candidates, slowing down the hiring process and increasing the overall cost in terms of time and resources.

Cheaper leads may come from candidates who are less engaged or interested in the role, resulting in a higher drop-off rate during the interview or onboarding stages. Since these candidates may be applying to a large volume of jobs without genuine interest, there’s a greater risk of no-shows for interviews or early attrition once hired, which further drives up the true cost of hiring.

Constantly dealing with low-quality applications can damage a company’s reputation on both internal and external fronts. Internally, hiring managers and teams may grow frustrated, which can lead to poor morale. Externally, your brand can be associated with poor candidate experiences if the process feels transactional or subpar, affecting future hiring efforts and customer perception.

Connor Gillivan, Entrepreneur, Owner & CMO, AccountsBalance

Damaged Employee Morale

For me, a major downside of cheap vendor-based job applications leads, especially marketing and advertising leads, is something that’s usually neglected but is incredibly important: the damage to your existing employees’ morale and work productivity. When you spend less money and end up with lower-quality candidates, not only is it burdening the hiring process, but it can demotivate your current team. They may have to either shoulder the burden or train more new, uneducated hires who were hired due to poor hiring. It can be frustrating for your best workers, who might think the company is no longer promoting a culture of excellence and could increase your turnover.

Also, I see that continually adopting lower-cost recruiting solutions silently disrupts brand perception in a business and undermines the brand reputation of the business in the marketplace. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the long run: working conditions and quality of output are poorer, which then makes it difficult to get talent that’s important for innovation and progress in the ever-competitive marketing/advertising industry. That culture change can be detrimental far beyond merely cost-saving.

Lydia Valentine, Co-Founder and Chief Marketing Officer, Cohort XIII LLC

Employer Brand Risks

When considering vendor services, you should vet them carefully before it’s too late because you risk hurting your employer brand’s reputation. Companies with a strong employer brand receive 50% more qualified applicants, according to LinkedIn’s study. According to my experience, this difference can easily be 100% to 200%.

At the beginning of the year, we were searching for seven different roles and decided to use the vendor to speed up the process. After three weeks of cooperation, we terminated the contract because we noticed that they were submitting job posts in communities with a questionable reputation. For example, in one of the communities, our SEO-Lead job posting was next to a job post from a gambling company.

Never compromise speed with reputation. Employer-brand strength is hard to evaluate, but this is a crucial metric that cannot be sacrificed. Take this risk into account when searching for future employees.

Alexandra Dubakova, Head of Marketing, Freetour.com

Increased Admin Burden

I noticed that the increased volume of low-quality applications may place a greater administrative burden on HR teams, diverting resources from other essential functions. This is because candidates who are not a good fit for the advertised position may slip through the screening process and end up being hired due to the high volume of applicants. This can lead to frustration and dissatisfaction among both the new hire and their colleagues.

I would point out that paying a small fraction of the going rate for leads may also result in a lack of diversity among applicants. Vendors who offer cheap leads may not have a diverse pool of candidates, resulting in a homogeneous workforce that lacks different perspectives and ideas. This can be detrimental to the overall success and growth of the company.

Most of the time, I have observed that vendors who offer leads at a lower cost may not have a thorough understanding of the company’s culture and values. This can result in mismatched hires, leading to high turnover rates and costly rehiring processes. For instance, if a company values teamwork and collaboration but the vendor sends leads who prioritize individual success, it can create tension and conflict within the team. This includes the time and resources spent onboarding, training, and integrating new employees into the company culture.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Inexperienced Hires

If you try to shortcut your marketing hires, you fail to vet the leads properly, which could lead to inexperienced, incompetent, and culturally mismatched hires. There’s a reason tech companies and other big businesses are willing to pay hefty commissions to solid recruitment agencies—they know the quality of hire leads to more revenue and lower costs in the long term.

Marketing and advertising require a strong understanding of brand voice and nuanced approaches learned only by experience and education. Since their work is largely customer-facing, mistakes could seriously damage your brand reputation and waste your marketing budget. Invest in hiring the right marketing team and protect the investment you’ve made in your brand.

Elisa Montanari, Head of Organic Growth, Wrike

Sacrificing Quality

If employers pay a small fraction of the going rate for leads in marketing and advertising, they risk sacrificing the quality of applicants. When vendors offer significantly lower rates, it often reflects a reduction in targeting precision or vetting processes. This can result in an influx of unqualified applicants, wasting both time and resources. In my experience, I’ve seen companies invest in budget options only to spend more on filtering out unsuitable candidates, ultimately costing them more in the long run.

Another risk is the potential damage to the employer’s brand. If job postings are distributed across irrelevant or low-quality platforms, it could reflect poorly on the company, deterring top talent. In the past, I’ve worked with businesses that initially sought cheaper alternatives, but they quickly realized that paying more for quality leads from trusted sources led to better candidates and a faster hiring process. Investing upfront in quality not only improves outcomes but also protects your brand’s reputation.

Brandon Leibowitz, Owner, SEO Optimizers

Lower Quality Applicants

In my opinion, paying significantly less than the average $16 per application for marketing and advertising roles can lead to several risks for employers. Firstly, the quality of applicants may be lower, as cheaper vendors might not have access to premium job boards or networks, resulting in less qualified candidates. Secondly, there is a risk of higher turnover rates, as candidates sourced through low-cost channels may not be as committed or well-suited to the role. Additionally, employers might face increased administrative costs and time spent on screening and interviewing unsuitable candidates, ultimately negating any initial savings. This approach can also harm the company’s reputation if it becomes known for hiring less qualified staff.

Ramon Khan, CMO & Co-Founder at Alloy, The Alloy Market

Inexpensive Vendor Risks

I have seen that inexpensive vendors may use basic or outdated algorithms that overlook qualified applicants, focusing only on high-volume, low-quality candidates. This is due to the low cost of their services, which may not allow for more advanced technology or methods to be used in the screening process. This can result in missed opportunities to hire top talent and ultimately affect the overall success of the company.

In my expert opinion, the job role of marketing and advertising requires a creative and strategic mind-set. For instance, a candidate with a unique and innovative approach may not fit into the traditional mold of qualifications set by cheap lead vendors. This can lead to sub-par performance and results in marketing efforts, which can impact the company’s bottom line.

You see, paying a lower price for leads may also lead to a lack of proper background checks and verification procedures. This leaves employers at risk of hiring candidates with false credentials or questionable work history. There is the biggest possibility of the risk of fraudulent activities and unethical behavior within the company, which can damage its reputation and result in legal consequences.

Neil Emmett, Chief Executive Officer, Bend Advisory Group

Time Versus Quality

Quality isn’t the risk here—it’s time.

Going for a quantity-over-quality approach with hiring marketing professionals won’t necessarily lead to bad hires if you qualify them properly post-application. But this will involve a lot of sifting through duds.

The most cost-effective way of getting your time back is adding a sentence like “Put [random word] in your application to prove you have read this.”

You can then use email filters to automatically weed out applicants who are just applying for every job out there.

James Oliver, Founder, Oliver.com

Limited Growth Potential

Employers might find it challenging to scale operations with unreliable talent sourced from cheaper vendors, limiting growth potential. Candidates hired at a lower cost may lack the skills necessary to contribute to business expansion and handle growing responsibilities.

To mitigate this risk, it’s important to assess whether the candidate has experience in scaling projects or working in environments that require rapid adaptation. Ensuring that candidates have a proven track record in managing growth can prevent operational bottlenecks and inefficiencies. Strong, adaptable hires are essential for seamless scalability.

Albert Kim, VP of Talent, Checkr

Missed Top Talent

When employers pay much less than the standard $16 per application, they risk missing out on top talent in marketing and advertising. Premium candidates typically look for jobs on reputable platforms, which cheaper vendors may not access. This means the job ad might not reach highly skilled marketers, resulting in a smaller, less qualified candidate pool. Without visibility on top job boards, employers can miss out on candidates with the right blend of creativity and strategic thinking. This lack of access to top talent can ultimately hurt the company’s marketing performance. Over time, it may slow down key projects and limit growth potential.

Limited reach is another key risk when using cheaper vendors. Lower-cost services often use less effective job posting methods, which may not target the right audience for marketing roles. Poor targeting can lead to an influx of unqualified applicants who don’t fit the job requirements. This increases the time spent filtering through résumés and reduces the chance of attracting the right professionals. When a job ad doesn’t reach its target, it delays the hiring process, leaving important marketing roles vacant longer. In turn, this can slow down important marketing initiatives and impact overall business progress.

Huang Xiong, Founder & Marketing Expert, BELTBUY

Poor Hiring Decisions

Opting for bargain-basement prices on job leads can have far-reaching consequences beyond just applicant quality. In my experience, I’ve seen how poor hiring decisions stemming from low-quality leads can negatively impact team dynamics and organizational culture. It’s essential to view recruitment as an investment in your company’s future, not just an expense to be minimized.

Barbara McMahan, CEO, Atticus Consulting LLC

Quality and Operational Risks

If employers pay a fraction of the typical $16 cost per application for marketing and advertising roles, they face several quality and operational risks.

First, candidate quality is a significant concern. Marketing and advertising roles often require a mix of creative and analytical skills, along with experience in areas like digital marketing, content creation, or brand management. Low-cost vendors might deliver a high volume of unqualified or irrelevant candidates, forcing hiring teams to spend more time weeding out unfit applicants.

Second, poor targeting is a major risk. Cheap vendors may not focus on sourcing candidates with specialized skills, such as SEO, data analytics, or social media expertise, leading to a mismatch between applicants and the role requirements. This can increase the time-to-hire and result in poor-fitting hires, ultimately costing the company more in the long run.

There’s also the risk of lead duplication. Lower-cost providers might sell the same candidate pool to multiple employers, leading to competition for the same talent and making it harder to close on top candidates.

Finally, low candidate engagement is a potential issue. Candidates from cheaper sources might not be fully interested in the role, leading to higher dropout rates during interviews or, worse, early turnover after hiring.

In the end, paying less upfront can result in higher long-term costs due to longer hiring processes, poor hires, and increased turnover.

Kenan Acikelli, CEO, Workhy

Real-World Consequences

When it comes to job applications in marketing and advertising, paying significantly less than the standard $16 per lead can lead to some serious quality issues. In my experience at Thrive, we’ve seen the consequences of this approach firsthand.

One of our e-commerce clients initially opted for a vendor charging just $3 per lead. At first, they were thrilled with the volume of applications. However, we quickly discovered that about 60% of these applicants didn’t meet even the basic qualifications for the role. Many had clearly used AI-generated résumés or had simply mass-applied without reading the job description.

This approach ended up costing them more in the long run. Their HR team spent countless hours sifting through unsuitable applications, and they even made a couple of poor hires that didn’t work out. Not only did this waste time and resources, but it also negatively impacted team morale and productivity.

There’s also a real risk to your employer brand when you use low-quality lead sources. Word gets around quickly in the marketing world, and you don’t want to be known as the company with a sub-par hiring process. It can make it harder to attract top talent in the future.

My advice? Invest in quality leads. It might cost more up-front, but it’ll save you time, money, and headaches in the long run. Focus on building relationships with reputable job boards and industry-specific recruitment agencies. It’s an investment in your company’s future and in building a strong, capable team.

Aaron Whittaker, VP of Demand Generation & Marketing, Thrive Digital Marketing Agency

Substantial Risks Overlooked

When employers opt for vendors that charge significantly less than the average $16 per application, they often overlook substantial risks tied to this decision. First and foremost, the quality of leads is likely to suffer. Cheap leads can attract candidates who are not only underqualified but may also be uninterested in the specific role. This leads to an influx of irrelevant applications, which ultimately wastes valuable time for hiring managers already pressed for time.

Moreover, there’s a risk to your company’s reputation. If candidates see your job postings as low-cost, they might perceive your organization as less desirable, which can deter top talent. High-quality candidates are often selective and will gravitate towards companies that invest in their hiring process.

Additionally, working with low-cost vendors can lead to inconsistency in candidate sourcing. If vendors don’t employ stringent methods for attracting candidates, the applicants you receive may lack the necessary skills or cultural fit, leading to higher turnover rates and increased recruitment costs in the long run. Ultimately, investing in quality leads not only streamlines the hiring process but also cultivates a stronger employer brand, attracting the talent that can drive your business forward. In the end, a little more upfront can save a lot on the back end!

Harmanjit Singh, Founder & CEO, Website Design Brampton

Lower-Quality Applicants

A major concern when employers spend less on job ads is the risk of getting lower-quality applicants. By paying less, the job posting may not reach the right people, leading to fewer skilled or experienced candidates. This means more time spent sorting through applications that don’t match the job requirements.

It can also increase the chance of hiring someone who isn’t the right fit, which could hurt team performance and lead to higher turnover. The hiring process might take longer, costing the company more in the long run. A bad hire can cause stress for the team and create extra work.

Liraz Postan, CEO & Founder, SEO Agency in London

Risking Quality Issues

If employers pay way less than the going rate for job applications, they’re definitely risking quality issues. The first thing that comes to mind is getting a flood of unqualified candidates. When you pay a lot less, the vendor is probably cutting corners somewhere, like sourcing candidates from low-quality or generic platforms. So, instead of getting marketing professionals with real experience, you’re more likely to see a bunch of irrelevant applications, and that’s just going to waste your HR team’s time.

Another big issue is poor screening. Vendors charging less probably aren’t doing much to filter candidates. This means you’ll spend way more time digging through applications that don’t meet the mark, and worse, you might miss out on the top talent who are on higher-quality job boards.

There’s also a brand risk. If candidates go through a sloppy process, they’re going to associate that bad experience with your company, which can hurt your reputation when you’re trying to attract good talent later on. And let’s be real, it’s a headache to deal with.

Lastly, those cheap rates often come with hidden costs. Sure, you’re paying less upfront, but if your team is bogged down sorting through bad applications, or worse, you hire the wrong person and have to restart the process, you’re losing time and money in the long run. So, it’s usually better to invest a bit more to make sure you’re getting solid candidates who actually fit the role.

Thomas Moussafer, Co-Founder