Help Us Help You: You Might Just Get What You Pay For

In Part 1 of our Help Us Help You series, we encouraged clients to treat recruiters like strategic partners—not résumé vendors. In Part 2, we emphasized the importance of fixing internal processes before blaming your recruiter. Part 3 focused on running a structured, respectful interview experience, and Part 4 tackled the often-overlooked offer letter. Now, in Part 5, we’re going to say the quiet part out loud: fees matter.

Staffing is a commission-based business. And even if your recruiter doesn’t admit it, how you structure your fee—and how that fee compares to others—shapes how your search gets prioritized behind the scenes. In today's article, we're going to give clients a “peek behind the curtain” into how their pricing agreements could be negatively impacting their staffing and recruiting experience.

Clients and Recruiters Share a Goal

When you engage a staffing partner, it’s important to recognize that you’re not dealing with a competitor—you’re working with a partner. We’re just as invested in filling the role as you are. (If I’m being honest, sometimes it feels like we’re more invested!) Remember, we only get paid if and when we find a qualified candidate who actually gets hired. And presumably, that’s also what you want.

But here’s the rub: although we equally share the goal, we do not equally share the risk. Your staffing and recruiting partner doesn’t earn a dime until (and unless) your job is filled. That means they carry 100% of the risk upfront. They are sourcing, screening, pitching, prepping, coordinating, and following up—all in the hope of future revenue. In a model where your staffing partner performs fixed labor for uncertain payment, it’s natural for them to prioritize searches that warrant the asymmetrical risk.

The Impact of Risk in a Commission-Based Model

This may feel counterintuitive, but one of the simplest things you can do as a client to improve your recruiting outcomes is to pay a higher fee. Staffing and recruiting is one of those unique businesses where a higher fee usually saves you money. The reason is simple: staffing and recruiting is almost always commission-based.

Many clients approach staffing fee negotiations the same way they would with any other vendor—like an IT provider, software subscription, or facilities contract. They assume there's a fixed cost to deliver the service, and that their job is to push that cost down as low as possible. But staffing doesn’t work like that. There’s no fixed cost—in fact, we’re not guaranteed any payment at all. When you negotiate, it’s important to understand you’re not just setting a price; you’re shaping the level of urgency, attention, and investment your search receives.

Remember, until a candidate is actually placed, every bit of time, labor, and expertise your staffing partner invests to service your account is at risk. And because it’s commission, not a flat rate, the math is simple: the bigger the fee, the bigger the paycheck. Just like in real estate or sales, higher-value searches naturally get prioritized. It’s not favoritism. It’s how commission works.

The Impact of Fees on Recruiter Performance

The fee you ultimately agree to—whether high or low—has some practical implications regarding how your search is conducted.

·       Time and Effort – Recruiters are human (at least the ones I would trust). We spend more time on searches that pay better. It’s not spite—it’s human nature. When time is limited, we gravitate towards roles that have the biggest return.

·       Team Engagement – Most recruiters operate as part of a team. And teams talk. When an order comes in at a significantly discounted fee, it’s harder to rally interest from the best recruiters on your team. Your job might be technically “open,” but if no one’s excited to work it, you won’t see the best results. I wouldn’t blame a recruiting team if this happens—they’re just being rational.

·       Recruiting Expense – Higher fees justify higher investment. That includes premium job ads, specialized sourcing tools, industry databases, and paid outreach channels. These resources cost money up front. If the potential return doesn’t justify the spend, we’re not going to burn budget chasing a low-fee role. That’s not neglect—it’s resource allocation. 

·       Submittal Discretion – If we have a standout candidate who fits multiple roles—and all else is equal—our incentive is to submit them to the place that maximizes return. For various reasons, recruiters may not act on that incentive. Still, if you’re a client eager to recruit the best possible talent, quibbling about fees will always disincentivize submittals.

·       Speed of Execution – Faster turnaround requires prioritization. When your fee is below market, your job tends to move further down the list. You might still get candidates—but not first, and not fast, and probably only after higher-priority orders have been worked.

·       Search Time Invested – The strongest candidates require more effort to source, sell, and close. That kind of effort is reserved for searches that justify it. If your fee is too low, your recruiter is more likely to source from the surface instead of diving deep.

·       Negotiation Advocacy – When your recruiter is fully invested in a placement, they will advocate aggressively to close your top candidate. They will push back on competing offers, manage counteroffers, and go the extra mile to win. And yes, a recruiter will always do this—to an extent. But extraordinary fees often yield extraordinary effort.

Protecting a Client Means Fair Fees—Not Low Fees

Lest we overweigh the importance of financial incentives, let me make something crystal clear: most recruiters genuinely love their clients. We build real relationships. We get invested. And when we say “yes” to a search—even at a lower fee—we still go to the mat to fill it. That’s the nature of our work. We like being heroes. We like delivering. And we hate letting people down. Financial incentives may shape priorities, but they don’t erase loyalty or pride in our craft.

That said, this is exactly why our firm—and many others—set a floor on fees. It’s not about being stubborn; it’s about fairness. We know from experience that below a certain threshold, even the most well-intentioned recruiter will struggle to give the search the time, resources, and team support it needs. They’ll have trouble engaging their team or justifying additional spend.

If we accept a fee that doesn’t realistically allow for the level of service we promise, we’re setting everyone up for a bad experience. Sometimes, a low fee isn’t just a financial risk—it’s a reputational one. For both of us.

Incentivizing Best-in-Class Recruiter Performance

All else being equal, there are three primary ways to incentivize best-in-class recruiter performance. You can (1) pay a high fee, (2) make your job highly fillable, or (3) have an excellent hiring process.

While Options 2 and 3 have nothing to do with fees, they still relate to financial incentives. Remember, recruiters want to get paid for their upfront risk—and the only way they get paid is by filling a job. If you want to negotiate a low fee, then be sure you offset it by increasing the likelihood that your job would fill. The best ways to achieve this are by setting highly-fillable job parameters or adopting a best-in-class hiring process.

Option 1: Pay More for Your Recruiter’s Time, Effort, and Risk

At this point in the article, we hope this point is clear: paying higher fees incentivizes superior results from your staffing and recruiting partner. And while paying a lower fee doesn’t necessarily mean a bad result, it might mean a slower, suboptimal outcome. If you want best-in-class recruiting, you should be looking to negotiate best-in-market fees—not lower fees.

Option 2: Make Your Job More Fillable

Even if you’re extremely cost-sensitive, you can still get a recruiter’s attention by making a job easier to fill. That means tightening the job description, clarifying must-haves vs. nice-to-haves, and offering market-aligned compensation. It also means being open to candidates from adjacent industries, hybrid schedules, or different geographies if the role allows for it. The more flexible and realistic your expectations, the easier it is for us to deliver fast results. By making your job easier and more likely to fill, you increase the likelihood we’ll see a return on our upfront risk—and that incentivizes us to prioritize your opening.

Option 3: Improve Your Hiring Process

Recruiters love working with clients who move quickly, communicate clearly, and close decisively. A smooth hiring process boosts candidate engagement and dramatically increases fill rates. If your interviews are well-run, your feedback is prompt, and your offers are clean and timely, we’ll prioritize your roles—even if the fee is modest. Why? Because we know we can win. And winning matters just as much to us as it does to you.

The Holy Grail of Incentives

Want the holy grail? Combine all three. When your fee is competitive, your role is realistic, and your process is tight, you become every recruiter’s dream client. That’s when the magic happens: faster fills, stronger candidates, fewer fall-offs, and better long-term results. You don’t have to be perfect—but when you make it easy for us to succeed, we’ll move mountains to make sure you do.