Risks to employers when paying less than $27 per lead for science and engineering job applications

When employers in the science and engineering fields pay less than the standard $27 per application, they run the risk of attracting candidates who lack the specialized skills, education, and experience needed for these highly technical roles. Science and engineering jobs often require expertise in specific areas such as research, data analysis, design, and problem-solving, along with advanced degrees or certifications. Cheaper job boards or platforms may generate a higher volume of applicants, but many may not meet the rigorous qualifications required for these positions. This leads to more time spent by hiring managers screening irrelevant applications, which slows down the hiring process and increases the cost of recruitment in the long run.

Additionally, paying below the market rate can distort recruitment metrics by giving the illusion of success through the sheer volume of applications, while failing to attract the right candidates. Science and engineering roles are critical to innovation and product development, and hiring underqualified individuals can result in costly mistakes, project delays, and a negative impact on the company’s performance. In fields where precision, expertise, and technical knowledge are essential, the long-term risks of underpaying for quality applications far outweigh the short-term financial savings. Investing in proper recruitment ensures that companies find the top talent needed to drive success and maintain competitive advantage.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $27 if the job function is Science and Engineering. 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 7 thought leaders have to say.

• Risk of Low-Quality Candidates
• Incompetent Individuals Waste Time and Resources
• Poor Data Integrity and Inefficient Screening
• Low-Quality Hires Damage Brands
• Cheap Leads Result in Job Misalignment
• Consequences of Cheap Recruitment Leads
• Cheap Leads Damage Brand and Productivity

Risk of Low-Quality Candidates

A company that pays a small fraction of the going rate to get leads for science and engineering roles will face two risks. The first is low-quality candidates who are a mismatch to the required skills. This is because the vendors who accept such low rates cannot afford the cost to pay to target the right pool of candidates. They attract cheap leads with poor technical and educational backgrounds. The other risk is taking longer to complete the hiring process. Since the candidates the vendor leads to the employer are of low quality, it will take longer for the employer to find the best fit. This ends up affecting the company’s projects that are on-stall until the vacancy is filled. Eventually, the one they finally hire might not even be competitive enough to fill the gap.

Leah Wanjiku Gathoni, Associate Product Manager, Locklizard Limited

Incompetent Individuals Waste Time and Resources

The employers who offer a very low cost-per-application, more so in Science and Engineering, risk attracting incompetent individuals. The heat is also on employees to source talented candidates quickly and at a low cost. This practice may lead to wasting time and resources on unqualified applicants due to a mismatch between applicants and what the organization had hoped for.

In Zibtek, we once tried a budget approach for technical hires, and as a result, we found ourselves going through many inappropriate resumes after a day. This isn’t to say there are no lessons to be learned. Quality sourcing may be costly, but it saves you time and keeps low the person-centered measures employed in recruiting.

Cache Merrill, Founder, Zibtek

Poor Data Integrity and Inefficient Screening

When employers pay significantly less than the average cost per application—such as for science and engineering roles—they often face several risks related to the quality of candidates and the overall recruitment process. Low-cost vendors may provide higher leads, but these candidates are usually less qualified or less targeted, leading to inefficient screening processes and wasted time. Employers also risk poor data integrity, where leads may not match the job criteria, resulting in unqualified or uninterested candidates. From my experience running an environmental consultancy in a specialized field, I know having high-quality leads is crucial to ensure the right skill sets for roles like asbestos or water testing. Opting for lower-cost vendors can ultimately harm the recruitment process by delaying hiring qualified individuals and increasing turnover rates.

Benjamin Alford, Environmental Consultant, Aerem

Low-Quality Hires Damage Brands

As an entrepreneur who grew a startup from $0 to $2M in revenue, I know the risks of cheap vendor leads all too well. Early on, eager to scale, I turned to generic job sites promoting “500+ leads for $99!” Out of hundreds of applicants, only a handful were viable. The time wasted sorting through unqualified candidates costs far more than quality recruiting options.

Low-quality hires also damage brands. Poor matches frustrate teams and reflect poorly on companies. Top talent may see the firm as valuing quantity over quality. For key roles, proven recruiting options are worth the investment.

We now use reputable industry networks and referrals to find experienced candidates. Though pricier, the qualified applicants and hires have offset costs through productivity and work quality. The few hires from cheap sources took months of training to meet standards, delaying growth.

For startups, community outreach finds hidden talent. I donated services to a local charity event. Though unsure of the impact, our site traffic and revenue rose enough to give staff bonuses. Engaging communities builds goodwill and finds talent. Quality over quantity is key.

As the CEO of Rocket Alumni Solutions, I have avoided the temptation of low-cost job leads. While the upfront savings seem appealing, the long-term costs to productivity and brand reputation are too high.

We once tested some bargain lead services and found that out of 50 leads, only two were viable candidates. The hours spent sorting through irrelevant applicants ended up costing far more than paying fair market prices. Strong candidates expect a rigorous hiring process, not a deluge of unqualified applicants.

For highly-skilled, critical roles, we exclusively use trusted lead sources that attract top talent. Their proven ability to filter for the necessary qualifications saves our hiring teams valuable time. The quality of our hires directly impacts our service, product, and client relationships. Our brand depends on consistently delivering excellence, so compromising on candidate quality is not an option.

Paying below-standard rates for job leads in scientific and engineering fields is risky when expertise, experience, and work quality are so essential. While the upfront savings seem appealing, the long-term impact on productivity, work quality, and brand reputation far outweigh any initial discount. When hiring for mission-critical roles, it pays to invest in the best available leads.

Chase McKee, Founder & CEO, Rocket Alumni Solutions

Cheap Leads Result in Job Misalignment

By ignoring the upper-provided figure on application cost per science and engineering-targeted roles, employers are placing volumes over quality. Cheap clients are likely to attract cheap vendors with either unqualified or poor-fit candidates, resulting in the rejection of the wrong applicants. Furthermore, these prospects may not be well-screened, leading to high turnovers since the candidates may not be really committed to or fit for the position.

However, at Display Now, we discovered that these relatively cheap recruitment strategies lead to job misalignment where roles and applicant abilities do not match, thereby incurring more costs in the long run. This is why some time, money, and effort need to be allocated to improving the quality of any such leads so that both the technical and cultural aspects of hiring can be evaluated and met and therefore avoid expensive turnover.

Chris Dukich, Owner, Display Now

Consequences of Cheap Recruitment Leads

I’ve seen countless organizations struggle with the consequences of cheap recruitment leads. Low-quality applicants not only waste valuable time and resources during the hiring process but can also lead to poor cultural fits and decreased team performance if hired.

Barbara McMahan, CEO, Atticus Consulting LLC

Cheap Leads Damage Brand and Productivity

As an expert in sales operations and CRM management, I’ve optimized hiring processes for over 30 companies. When employers pay bargain rates for job leads in specialized fields like science and engineering, they often receive applicants lacking the required background, skills, or drive.

Out of 300 leads from a budget service, one client found just five viable candidates for an engineering role after weeks of filtering. The time spent was far costlier than paying market rates upfront.

Cheap leads also damage brands by frustrating teams and turning off qualified candidates who see a company valuing volume over substance. For a biotech startup, low-quality leads implied a lack of standards that deterred the leading researchers we hoped to attract.

After transitioning clients to reputable lead sources known for highly skilled candidates, roles were filled 23 percent faster at 17 percent lower cost. Strong hires boosted work quality, innovation, and culture. While cheap leads seem frugal, the true cost of lost productivity, poor work, and brand impact is far higher. For technical, mission-critical roles, investing in quality leads is essential.

Ryan T. Murphy, Sales Operations Manager, Upfront Operations