This article is part of SourceFlow’s “Should recruitment marketers be incentivised?” series, where recruitment leaders and marketers share different perspectives on incentives, commission structures and commercial performance in recruitment marketing.
You are not a recruiter. So why are you asking for the trip, the commission and the number without any of the risk?
Recruitment marketers want bonuses. And the recruitment business owners hiring them are starting to think that is simply how it works.
That is understandable when many agency leaders built their own careers on commission and learned to equate money with motivation.
On the billing desk, that logic makes sense. Commission exists because recruiters operate under constant commercial pressure. The upside is tied directly to performance and the consequences of missing target are real.
Marketing is a different role entirely, and that model does not automatically travel.
Wanting the upside is not the same as deserving it
I find the assumption quietly offensive.
The idea that a marketer needs a financial top-up to do their best work implies their default setting is somewhere below that. That without the incentive, you are getting a lesser version. That professionalism itself has a price.
And to be clear, marketers are driving this narrative as much as anyone.
They sit close enough to the billing desk to see the commissions, the incentive trips and the visible rewards of a good quarter. Naturally, they want the same.
That is human nature. But wanting something and deserving it on the same terms are two very different things.
Recruitment marketing does not carry the same risk as recruitment
Let’s be honest about context.
Marketing in recruitment does not carry the same existential risk that a billing consultant operates under every single day.
A consultant who wants the commission, the incentive trip and to protect their seat at the table is operating under genuine pressure. Miss the target for long enough and the conversation changes quickly. That risk is priced into the model and it is a reasonable trade.
Marketing does not work that way.
The role comes with stability the billing desk simply does not have. No monthly number deciding whether you still have a job by Friday. That security has value whether it gets discussed openly or not.
Incentive structures can damage long-term thinking
I have also seen what happens when businesses bolt bonus structures onto marketing roles.
The marketer starts chasing the short-term metric that triggers the payout and quietly stops investing in the things that actually build the business over time, such as, brand, content, long-term pipeline, and market positioning.
The things that do not necessarily show up in this quarter’s numbers but matter enormously twelve months from now.
Recruitment marketing is a different role and it requires a different mindset. Borrowing incentive structures from the billing floor can actively damage that.
So, should recruitment marketers be incentivised?
My view is no. At least not in the same way recruiters are.
If you want the bonus, the incentive trip and the commission structure, then it is fair to ask whether you are also prepared to carry the number and accept the consequences that come with missing it.
Almost universally, the answer is no. And that tells you everything.
Profit share is the exception
Profit share is different; that is a genuine alignment of interests.
If a business performs well, it is fair and right to share that success with the people who helped build it. But commission, trips and bonus structures without the corresponding jeopardy is something else entirely.
That is wanting the upside of recruiter life without any of the risk attached to it.
If that is what you want, become a recruiter.
Results are the job, not the exception
From where we sit as a recruitment marketing consultancy, none of this is abstract.
We are brought in at a rate cheaper than a full-time hire and the arrangement is straightforward:
Deliver results or lose the contract.
There is no bonus for doing what we were engaged to do.
Results are the standard, not the exception, and there is a certain professional pride in treating them that way.
The marketers who consistently build pipelines, protect brand and generate commercial impact should be doing it because that is what the role demands. Not because a quarterly incentive scheme temporarily raised the stakes.
Do that well, do it consistently, and then you have every right to demand to be paid properly for it. If the incentive is the only thing driving the work, that is a different problem entirely.
About the contributor
Robert Woodford is Founding Director of The Marketing Junction, a recruitment marketing consultancy supporting agencies with strategy, lead generation and commercial growth. He has spent more than a decade advising recruitment businesses on marketing strategy and performance.
Other perspectives in this series:
-
Wayne Brophy: Should recruitment marketing be incentivised? My view after 20+ years in recruitment
-
Amity Watts: Why recruitment marketers should be commercially incentivised
-
Will Astbury: As recruitment marketer, bonus schemes have been responsible for my success
The views expressed in this article are those of the individual contributor and do not necessarily reflect the views of SourceFlow
Want more insight on recruitment marketing incentives?
Download the Recruitment Marketing Playbook from SourceFlow for more perspectives from recruitment leaders and marketers on commercial performance, incentives and growth in recruitment.