Thursday, October 22, 2026

You're Already Paying for Candidate Screening. Pay the Candidates Instead.

Josh Priollaud

The money is already leaving your budget. It is buying the wrong signal from the wrong party.

Every hirer with an open role is already paying someone to evaluate candidates. The agency recruiter takes a percentage of first-year salary. The assessment platform takes an annual subscription. The AI screener takes a per-seat fee. What all of them sell is an old signal: a resume filtered, a phone call summarized, an algorithm scored against a test bank. Each is a claim about whether a person can do the job. None of them is the work, and none of them is the person explaining the work.

This post makes one argument: for the candidates you are seriously considering, the bulk of your screening budget, recruiter fees and software included, should go to the candidates themselves, as an honorarium for a short, scoped demonstration of their work and a walkthrough of their reasoning. Cheap filters at the start of the process (a resume check, a phone call) can stay cheap. This is about everything after that.

You are already paying. The question is who gets the money

Start with what a role costs before anyone is hired. Contingency recruiters charge 15% to 25% of first-year salary, with 20% the most common benchmark: $20,000 on a $100,000 hire. Technical assessment platforms run from roughly $950 to $6,000 a year on published self-serve plans, and the median Codility buyer pays about $15,000 a year once custom plans are counted. SHRM's figure for average US cost per hire in non-executive roles reached $5,475 in 2025.

So the relationship between hirer and candidate is already a paying one. The hirer asks for a performance and pays for the result. It is not colleague talking to colleague. The money is simply routed through intermediaries who sit between the person performing and the person paying, and who keep most of it. What they hand back is a shortlist and a score, the two weakest signals in the whole process.

That routing made sense when a candidate's output had to be collected, standardized and scored by hand. It makes much less sense now. If you are going to pay for a signal, pay the party that generates it.

A word on the word. What a candidate produces in a well-designed assessment has no commercial value to you (more on that below), so you are not buying it and you never own it. The payment is an honorarium: recognition of time spent producing and presenting something, with no purchase attached. We covered the distinction, and the legal background, in our post on unpaid take-home assignments. The short version is that the word does real work with HR and with candidates, and it is the right word.

Paying candidates is a brand decision, and brand is not small

Candidates talk. A survey of consumers across the US, UK and China found 52% said a negative interview experience would affect their purchasing decisions, and 75% of American respondents would share a bad interview with their networks. CareerArc found 72% of candidates with a poor experience shared it online or with friends. The most-cited case remains Virgin Media, which estimated that poor candidate experience cost it £4.4 million in lost customer revenue in 2014.

The moment a lasting opinion forms is rejection. Most candidates get a form email and nothing else. A rejected candidate who was paid a fair honorarium, kept their work, and got a real review walks away with something different to say. That matters for three groups that are easy to forget are the same people: your future applicants for adjacent roles, your customers, and the friends they refer.

A few hundred dollars per finalist is one of the cheapest levers in candidate experience, and it lands exactly where it counts.

It keeps the candidates you want in the process

The people you most want to hire are usually employed, busy, and interviewing elsewhere. Unpaid multi-hour assignments filter for who has free evenings, not who is best.

The data is blunt. Indeed found 73% of employers had lost candidates because of an assignment, and 93% of workers think any task over three hours should be paid. Greenhouse found about half of job seekers strongly dislike take-home assignments, and some drop out when they receive one. An honorarium and a reasonable window are what keep your strongest candidates from walking.

Does paying a candidate create an employment relationship? No

The objection HR raises is liability. It dissolves on inspection.

A knowledge worker with a degree, some work history and a professional profile is a recognizable professional. Three hours of scoped, unsupervised work for a flat fee, with no company systems involved and no obligation to use the result, is what an engagement with an outside expert looks like everywhere else in business. The tests for employment turn on control, continuity and integration into the business, and none of those are present.

The honorarium framing also does not depend on seniority. A conference speaker is not an employee of the conference at any career stage. Four rules keep the exchange clean:

No company data or assets. Public or synthetic inputs only.
Nothing production-applicable. If the output could fill a gap on your roadmap, redesign the exercise.
The candidate keeps ownership. Say so in writing before they start.
Call it an honorarium and pay it promptly. Not "compensation," which implies you bought something.

Administration is lighter than it sounds. For 2026 the federal 1099-NEC reporting threshold rose to $2,000, so most honorariums generate no tax paperwork, and a platform can handle the terms and the payment.

Your interviewers' time is the real expense. Put the paid demonstration in front of it

Here is the budget argument that should win over anyone who runs hiring.

Resume checks and phone screens are nearly free and cut a pipeline of forty to a handful. The expensive stage is the one after that: panel interviews with multiple staff. Gem's 2025 benchmarks put the average engineering hire at 39 interviews, against 21 for sales. interviewing.io estimated roughly 40 engineering hours per hire, about $6,000 of engineering time, before counting what those engineers were not building. Interview-outsourcing vendors put a senior engineer's loaded cost at $80 to $150 an hour. The median recorded interview runs 35.5 minutes, and every one of them costs at least one interviewer's time on top of the candidate's.

A paid work demonstration placed between the phone screen and the panel is the cheapest way to protect that time. It removes candidates who interview well and work poorly before five of your staff spend an afternoon on them. Our honorarium benchmark puts ten finalists at about 2% of the role's salary: $1,800 on a $90,000 role. One avoided panel round pays for it.

Where the screening money goes	Typical cost per role	What it buys
Contingency recruiter (20% of a $100k salary)	$20,000	Sourcing, a resume filter, a phone screen
Assessment platform (median Codility buyer, annual)	$15,000	An automated score
Engineering time on interviews (interviewing.io estimate)	~$6,000	Conversation about the work
Honorariums for ten finalists on a $90k role	$1,800	The work, and the reasoning behind it

Demonstration, not production, and make them walk you through it

The reason all of this is clean is the nature of the work. A good exercise has demonstrational value and no commercial value: it shows you how someone thinks and what they can build, and it produces nothing you could ship, publish or send to a client. That is what makes it fair to pay for, safe to decline to own, and defensible to anyone who asks whether you are extracting free labor. Indeed's survey found 45% of employers admit to reusing work candidates did for free. Don't be in that number.

One design requirement follows. Since any artifact can now be generated in minutes, the demonstration has to include the candidate explaining their choices to a reviewer. The walkthrough is where the signal lives, and we've measured how much of it there is. It is also what makes a paid demonstration worth more than anything the intermediaries sell: the recruiter gives you a shortlist, the platform gives you a score, the candidate gives you the work and the reasoning behind it.

Common questions

Should hirers pay candidates for take-home assignments? Yes, whenever the exercise runs beyond an hour or is given to finalists. Short screening exercises sent to a small number of people can stay unpaid if total candidate-hours are kept small.

How much should a candidate honorarium be? Enough to clear the role's own hourly rate. For a one to three hour exercise that is $100 to $500 depending on salary; the benchmark table is in the post linked above.

Won't paying attract people who just want the money? No, because the honorarium is never offered to the open market. It goes to candidates who have already passed your resume check and a phone screen, or whatever cheap filter you run first. By that point they are a short list of people you want to evaluate more closely, and the question is only whether you pay them for that evaluation or pay someone else to score it.

What about candidates with moonlighting clauses? Offer the honorarium and let them decline it. A few will; most are leaving their current employer anyway.

Does this mean dropping recruiters and assessment platforms? Not the sourcing. Finding candidates is a different job from evaluating them. The argument is about the evaluation share of what you pay, which is most of a recruiter's screening work and all of an assessment subscription.

The money is already moving. Point it at the signal that works and the person who produces it.

Pudding runs paid, candidate-owned work demonstrations with the honorarium, ownership terms and reviewer walkthrough built in. See how it works.

Sources

Josh Priollaud

Founder @ Pudding

Josh Priollaud is the founder and CEO of Pudding, a Siligo Ventures portfolio company. Josh has worked in business development roles at Cloud9 IDE, Webgility, MuleSoft and Adobe. Before his Silicon Valley career, Josh served as an Economic Development Adviser in the Peace Corps. Josh holds an MBA from the Leavey School of Business at Santa Clara University and a BS in Business Administration from Portland State University. Josh has been a full stack developer (Ruby on Rails, React) since 2020.

LinkedIn siligo.tech

Back to blog