5 risks for employers paying less than $17 per application for security jobs

When employers in the security industry pay less than the typical $17 per application, they risk attracting candidates who may lack the necessary qualifications, training, or experience required for these critical roles. Security jobs demand vigilance, attention to detail, physical fitness, and sometimes specialized certifications, especially for positions involving surveillance, public safety, or access control. By opting for cheaper job boards or platforms, employers may receive a higher volume of applicants, but many may not meet the stringent requirements needed to ensure safety and security. This leads to an inefficient hiring process, with managers spending more time weeding out unqualified candidates and delaying the filling of essential positions.

Furthermore, paying below the market rate for security applications can result in skewed recruitment metrics, with a high volume of applications providing a false sense of success. Security roles are crucial for protecting people, property, and assets, and hiring the wrong person can have serious consequences, including safety breaches, liability issues, and reputational damage. In this industry, where reliability, professionalism, and preparedness are non-negotiable, the long-term risks of underpaying for qualified candidates far outweigh any short-term cost savings. Hiring the right security personnel is an investment in safety and peace of mind for both the company and its clients.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $17 if the job function is Security. What quality and other risks do employers face if they pay a small fraction of the going rate to a vendor for job application leads? Here is what five thought leaders have to say.

• Risk of Lower-Quality Candidates
• Damage to Brand Reputation
• Missing Out on Passive Candidates
• Compromising Security Infrastructure
• Higher Turnover Rates

Risk of Lower-Quality Candidates

Paying a small fraction of the standard rate for job applications can lead to several risks. Primarily, there’s the potential for receiving a lower-quality pool of candidates. Vendors offering cheaper rates might prioritize volume over quality, resulting in applicants who lack the necessary skills or qualifications. This could increase the time and resources needed to screen and interview candidates. Additionally, it may impact the employer’s brand reputation if word spreads about a high number of rejections or unsuitability for roles. 

Furthermore, it can lead to longer vacancy periods, causing potential disruptions in business operations. Companies may also face legal and compliance risks if the vendor doesn’t adhere to fair hiring practices. In the competitive field of Security, a subpar team can have dire consequences, affecting overall safety and risk management. Investing in higher-quality applications ensures better alignment with organizational needs and stabilizes security standards.

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

Damage to Brand Reputation

When employers opt to pay significantly less than the effective cost per application—$17 for security roles—they face considerable risks regarding the quality of candidates and overall hiring outcomes. Firstly, cheaper leads often originate from less reputable sources that may not employ rigorous screening processes. This can result in a pool of applicants who lack the necessary skills or qualifications, leading to a time-consuming hiring process and an increased likelihood of poor hiring decisions. The time spent sorting through unqualified candidates can also extend the hiring cycle and drive up overall recruitment costs.

Additionally, investing in lower-cost leads can damage an employer’s brand reputation. If candidates perceive the hiring process as unprofessional or inefficient, they may be less likely to apply for future positions, especially in a competitive field like security. This negative perception can deter top talent and hinder the organization’s ability to attract qualified professionals. 

Furthermore, there are compliance risks associated with using unreliable vendors; if these vendors do not adhere to industry standards or regulations, it could expose employers to legal liabilities and reputational damage. Overall, while short-term savings may seem attractive, the long-term implications of poor-quality leads can be detrimental to an organization’s hiring success and brand integrity.

Shehar Yar, CEO, Software House

Missing Out on Passive Candidates

I noticed cheaper vendors often target active job-seekers, missing out on passive candidates who are not actively searching but may be open to new opportunities. High-quality vendors typically have access to larger networks of passive candidates, who often make stronger hires due to their experience and industry expertise.

My experience has also shown that vendors offering low-cost leads may not have proper screening processes, leading to potential security risks for the employer. This can include candidates with falsified backgrounds or criminal records, which can put the company and its employees at risk.

I would point out that investing in cheap lead generation may result in a lack of diversity in the candidate pool. Quality vendors often have access to diverse talent pools and actively work towards promoting diversity and inclusion initiatives. Employers may miss out on talented individuals from underrepresented groups and limit their potential for growth and innovation by choosing cheaper options.

Daniel Cook, HR / Marketing Executive, Mullen and Mullen

Compromising Security Infrastructure

Cutting costs can lead to severe consequences when it comes to hiring for security positions. Low-quality applicants may lack the necessary skills and experience, potentially compromising your organization’s security infrastructure. We’ve observed that investing in proper recruitment processes not only ensures better hires but also fosters a stronger, more cohesive team culture.

Barbara McMahan, CEO, Atticus Consulting LLC

Higher Turnover Rates

Lower costs often mean less-targeted advertising, which may lead to attracting unqualified or underqualified candidates. This can be particularly dangerous in security roles, as these positions require trustworthy, well-trained, and capable individuals who can handle high-pressure situations.

In addition to potential skill gaps, employers might face higher turnover rates. Candidates attracted through low-cost advertising may not be fully vetted, resulting in a poor cultural or job fit. In the long run, this can lead to increased hiring costs, as you’ll need to replace employees who leave due to dissatisfaction or poor performance.

There’s also a risk of undermining the company’s reputation. Security personnel often represent the front line of an organization, and hiring subpar talent can reflect poorly on the business as a whole. In industries like law enforcement or public safety, where reliability and professionalism are non-negotiable, cutting corners on recruitment costs can lead to long-term consequences that far outweigh any short-term savings.

Joshua Schirard, Director, Byrna