Recruiting strategy · 9 min read
The recruiting industry is split between brokerages that outsource everything and brokerages that build their own machine. Both can work. Both can fail. The right choice depends on your timeline, budget, internal capacity, and how important control is to your brand. We have helped brokerages do both; here is how to decide.
A recruiting company usually provides some combination of sourcing, outreach, appointment setting, and interview support. The best ones act like an outsourced recruiting department. The worst ones sell lists and hope something sticks.
Before you sign, clarify exactly what you are buying. Are you paying for a guaranteed number of conversations, qualified appointments, or actual placements? Those are very different products. The lowest-risk model is a hybrid: retainer plus a meaningful placement fee tied to the agent actually joining and staying.
In-house recruiting. Costs include the recruiter's salary or time, software, ad spend, event costs, and the opportunity cost of management attention. Fully loaded, an internal recruiter often costs $60,000 to $120,000 per year plus tools and spend. But the system they build is yours, and the cost per hire drops over time.
Recruiting company. Monthly retainers plus placement fees. If you hire 12 agents a year, total spend can be similar to an internal recruiter, but you do not build internal capability. The advantage is speed and no management overhead. The risk is that if you stop paying, the pipeline stops.
The break-even point is usually around 6-12 agents per year. Below that, a company may be cheaper because you avoid a full salary. Above that, in-house usually wins on cost and control.
In-house recruiting gives you control over messaging, tone, and process. The person representing your brokerage on the phone is part of your culture. That matters when you are recruiting experienced agents who will ask detailed questions about your support, commission, and leadership.
Recruiting companies, even good ones, represent multiple clients. Their recruiters may use a script that does not fully capture your value. If you outsource, invest time in onboarding the company so they sound like an extension of your team, not a vendor.
Hire a recruiting company when: you need fast pipeline, you are launching or relaunching recruiting, you do not have time to build systems, or you want to benchmark what good outreach looks like before building internally.
Build in-house when: recruiting is a permanent growth engine, you want to control the candidate relationship, you are recruiting 12+ agents per year, or your brand and culture are central to your competitive advantage.
Combine both when: you need immediate results while building internal capacity. Use the company for overflow and tough-to-fill roles, and keep the core pipeline in-house. The key is that the company must feed your system, not replace it.
They guarantee a number of placements without conditions. Recruiting outcomes depend on your offer, market, and follow-up. No company can guarantee results without controlling all of those.
They own your candidate data. You should receive a current list of candidates, conversations, and notes at any time. If the relationship ends, you do not want to lose the pipeline.
They do not ask about retention. A placement that leaves in 90 days is not a win. Good companies care about fit, not just volume.
They cannot show recent results. Ask for references from brokerages similar to yours. If they will not provide them, that is a signal.
A recruiting company can be worth it if you need fast pipeline volume and do not have the internal time or systems to build it. The cost is usually higher per hire than an in-house system, but speed and consistency matter. The real question is whether you are paying for activity or results.
Models vary. Some charge a monthly retainer, others charge per placement, and some take a percentage of the recruited agent's first-year commissions. Retainers commonly range from $2,000 to $10,000 per month, with placement fees from $2,500 to $15,000 per agent depending on experience level.
In-house recruiting is usually better for brokerages that want full control over their message, culture, and long-term pipeline. It becomes cost-effective once you are recruiting more than a handful of agents per year and can justify a dedicated recruiter or coordinator.
Yes. Many successful brokerages use an outside company to fill immediate gaps while building internal systems. The key is to avoid dependency. The outside company should not own your candidate database, your messaging, or your relationships.
Ask: how many agents they placed in the last 12 months, what their average retention rate is, how they source candidates, what is included in the fee, who owns the database, and what happens if you stop working together. The best companies have clear metrics and no long-term hostage contracts.
The tools that power an in-house recruiting system.
Build a 90-day recruiting plan whether you outsource or keep it in-house.
The conversations that convert recruiting appointments into signed agents.
Ready to install this in your brokerage?
By application
I partner with a small number of brokerages at a time. If you're serious about building something real, let's see if your market is still open.
