11 risks for employers paying less than $21 per application for technology jobs

When employers in the technology industry pay less than the typical $21 per application, they risk attracting candidates who lack the necessary technical skills, certifications, or experience required for these highly specialized roles. Technology jobs often demand proficiency in areas like software development, cybersecurity, data analysis, and IT infrastructure management. Cheaper job boards or platforms may generate a high volume of applications, but many of these candidates may not possess the expertise needed for the job. As a result, hiring managers spend more time screening unqualified applicants, which delays the hiring process and reduces the overall efficiency of recruitment efforts.

Additionally, paying below the market rate for technology job applications can distort recruitment metrics, providing a false sense of success based on application volume rather than candidate quality. In the tech industry, where innovation, precision, and cutting-edge knowledge are critical, hiring underqualified candidates can lead to costly mistakes, project delays, and lost business opportunities. The short-term savings from lower application costs can quickly be outweighed by the long-term impact of poor hires, making it essential for employers to invest in quality candidates who can drive technological growth and maintain a competitive edge in an ever-evolving industry.

Data gathered from hundreds of job boards shows that the effective cost per application when employers advertise a job is $21 if the job function is Technology. 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 11 thought leaders have to say.

• Risk of Outdated Skills
• Increased Turnover and Inefficiency
• Impact on Employee Morale
• Lower Caliber of Applicants
• Attracting Poor-Quality Candidates
• Higher Risk of Fraud
• Quality Suffers with Low-Cost Leads
• Fishing in a Small Pond
• Damage to Company Reputation
• Prolonged Hiring Process
• Brand Perception at Risk

Risk of Outdated Skills

In the tech sector, paying a fraction of the standard rate for job leads can result in candidates with outdated skills or limited expertise in the required technologies. The field moves quickly, so you need a vetting process that is going to find you reasonable candidates, as many of them will not have everything on your wish list simply because those types of candidates might not exist. Employers in need of highly skilled professionals, such as software engineers or data scientists, may find that cheaper leads are not up to par with the fast-evolving requirements of the industry.

Dragos Badea, CEO, Yarooms

Increased Turnover and Inefficiency

Employers who pay, say, $1 for the application for the position of a technology specialist risk not getting the right, cost-effective candidates and harming their recruitment practice. Since low-cost leads also come from unqualified sources, clients fill their offices with people who are not fit for the job. This causes inefficiency as the unnecessary applicants’ resumes are combed through, and even though time and resources have been used to do that, the organization still ends up with employees who are not suitable for their roles, leading to quick turnover of the employees.

However, some things that we’ve made use of from Zibtek are that we pay top dollar for quality recruitment, and what we get back are more skilled candidates. That saves the company stress from hiring cycles in the long run. So, while it may seem that lower-than-normal wages are a good way of cutting costs, in view of the consequences that may happen, these actually will help ease the recruiting process and incur more expenses due to inefficiency in recruiting and employee turnover in the long run.

Cache Merrill, Founder, Zibtek

Impact on Employee Morale

When employers opt to pay a small fraction of the going rate for job leads, they risk hiring candidates who may not meet the necessary standards, which can significantly impact employee morale. Existing team members might feel frustrated or demotivated if they perceive that new hires lack the skills or qualifications required for their roles. This perception can lead to a decline in overall productivity, as experienced employees may need to spend additional time training or compensating for the shortcomings of less-qualified colleagues. Furthermore, the morale of high-performing employees could suffer, leading to disengagement or even attrition, as they seek environments where their efforts are matched by equally competent peers. Ultimately, the decision to cut costs on recruitment can have a ripple effect, undermining team cohesion and the company’s long-term success.

Rubens Basso, Chief Technology Officer, FieldRoutes

Lower Caliber of Applicants

Primarily, they may receive a lower caliber of applicants, as top-tier talent is often attracted to positions that invest more in their recruitment process. This could result in a candidate pool that lacks the necessary skills, experience, or cultural fit for the technology roles being filled. Also, cut-rate vendors might employ less sophisticated screening methods, potentially flooding employers with a high volume of unqualified applicants and increasing the workload on HR teams.

Plus, these employers risk damaging their employer brand and reputation within the tech community. Tech professionals often share information about recruitment practices, and companies known for underinvesting in their hiring process may be perceived as undervaluing talent. This can lead to difficulties in attracting high-quality candidates in the future and may even impact the company’s ability to retain current employees.

Christian Espinosa, Founder and CEO, Blue Goat Cyber

Attracting Poor-Quality Candidates

Choosing to pay significantly less than the standard rate for job leads may expose employers to several risks, such as attracting poor-quality candidates, extending the hiring process, and increasing turnover rates. Employers might also face issues such as unverified credentials, inadequate experience, and potential compliance problems. On top of that, the time and resources spent on filtering through unsuitable candidates can outweigh the initial cost savings.

From this, my advice is to start investing in reputable vendors to ensure access to well-qualified candidates, ultimately leading to more efficient hiring, better employee retention, and long-term cost savings.

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

Higher Risk of Fraud

When employers pay much less than the usual $21 per application for tech job ads, they face a higher risk of fraud or spam. Cheap vendors might use bots or fake accounts to send in applications, leading to a lot of fake or irrelevant submissions. This can overwhelm hiring teams, wasting time as they sort through bad applications instead of focusing on real candidates.

Fake applications can also mess up important hiring data, making it hard to see how well the job ad is really doing. On top of that, dealing with spam can hurt the company’s image if real applicants have a bad experience. Plus, too many fake submissions can push qualified candidates out of sight, causing the company to miss out on top talent. In the end, handling these problems can cost more than the money saved by paying less for leads.

Rob Stevenson, Founder, BackupLabs

Quality Suffers with Low-Cost Leads

As the head of Magnetik, a digital marketing agency, I see many risks with paying too little for job leads. Quality suffers when vendors cut corners to keep costs low. Applicants may lack relevant skills or experience. With technology roles especially, poor hires can be costly.

My agency focuses on attracting high-quality leads through targeted campaigns. For one tech client, we optimized ads to reach developers with 5+ years of Python experience. The client paid a premium for these leads but decreased hiring costs by 50% because candidates were well-matched.

On the other hand, another client wanted the cheapest leads possible. Many applicants lacked basic qualifications, wasting time and resources. The client churned through 3 marketing agencies in 6 months, blaming each for poor results when the root issue was low quality.

There are always risks in lowering costs. For critical hires, investing in quality leads, even at a higher price, often pays off through decreased turnover, training, and lost productivity. While affordable solutions have their place, they may not align well with roles demanding substantial expertise.

Doug Steinberg, Founder & President, Magnetik

Fishing in a Small Pond

Think about fishing in a small pond vs. the ocean. Cheap vendors often fish in small ponds. They recycle old résumés, or use outdated lists, or even make fake applications to meet their goals. I have seen companies waste months interviewing people who are not really looking for jobs or who have already found a job elsewhere. They also deal with many résumés that do not fit their needs.

How to Protect Yourself? I have learned that when vendors promise tech candidates at really low prices, they are probably not doing things right. They might skip important checks, like verifying skills or doing background checks. Some even collect résumés without any real job openings, just to sell them later.

My advice is that instead of looking for the lowest price, focus on trusted ways to find candidates. The total cost is not just money; it is also the time your team wastes checking unfit candidates, the projects that get delayed because of bad hires, and the chances you miss while stuck in this hiring process.

Always remember that in tech hiring, if the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Jan Lutz, Director HR | Co-Founder Sustainability Jobs, Sustainability Jobs

Damage to Company Reputation

Consistently working with low-quality vendors can hurt your brand image in the job market. If word spreads that your hiring process is disorganized or that you’re attracting unqualified candidates, skilled professionals may avoid applying, making it harder to fill future roles with top talent.

Cheap vendors may overlook important regulations, like equal employment opportunity laws or data privacy standards. This can expose your company to lawsuits or penalties for noncompliance, which could easily outweigh the initial savings made on the job postings.

Attracting candidates who aren’t fully invested or qualified for the long term can result in higher employee turnover. This not only disrupts team stability but also leads to increased costs in rehiring, onboarding, and training, ultimately making it more expensive than paying for quality leads upfront.

Ronan Ye, Mechanical Engineer & Managing Director, 3ERP

Prolonged Hiring Process

If employers pay a small fraction of the going rate for job applications—such as $5 per lead compared to the typical $21—they may encounter several significant risks, particularly when it comes to candidate quality and overall hiring efficiency. Low-cost vendors often focus on providing quantity over quality, which can result in a high volume of irrelevant or poorly matched applications. This means hiring managers must spend more time filtering through unsuitable candidates, prolonging the hiring process, and driving up internal costs.

Additionally, relying on cheaper leads can increase the likelihood of hiring candidates who are not genuinely interested in the role or are underqualified. This can contribute to higher turnover rates, as these individuals may leave within a short period of time, leading to disruptions within teams and negatively affecting productivity. Frequent turnover also raises the company’s overall recruitment costs and could impact team morale and cohesion.

Another potential risk is damage to the company’s employer brand. Candidates who have negative experiences due to misalignment or lack of transparency may share their dissatisfaction, affecting the company’s reputation and making it harder to attract top talent in the future. Low-cost vendors may also cut corners when it comes to compliance and ethical sourcing practices, which can introduce legal risks and data privacy concerns.

To mitigate these risks, it’s essential for employers to partner with reputable vendors who prioritize quality over quantity and align with the company’s hiring standards. While paying for higher-quality leads may seem more expensive upfront, it can lead to better long-term outcomes, such as improved employee retention, higher satisfaction, and a stronger employer brand. Employers should also establish rigorous screening processes to ensure they maintain high standards for every candidate they consider.

Faith Rock, Marketing Specialist, Alta Pest Control

Brand Perception at Risk

Associating with low-cost, less-reputable vendors can damage the employer’s brand perception, especially in the tech industry, where candidates value working with top-tier companies.

To avoid this, employers can focus on building their own brand presence by showcasing company culture, projects, and values through social media and other in-house marketing efforts. This helps maintain a premium brand image while keeping recruitment costs manageable. By directly controlling how the company is perceived, employers ensure they attract high-quality candidates without compromising their reputation.

Gavin Yi, Founder and CEO, Yijin Hardware