19 July 2026
What if the thousands spent on recruitment fees were invested in the people who actually create value? Discover how direct hiring is helping employers reduce costs, strengthen employer brands, protect candidate data, and take back control of recruitment.
.jpg)
Every year, employers spend billions on recruitment fees.
Yet almost nobody asks the most obvious question:
Why are companies paying recruitment agencies thousands of pounds to introduce candidates who already wanted to work for them?
Imagine this.
Yet somewhere between employer and employee, a third party often receives a fee worth 15%–30% of the candidate's annual salary.
In almost every other industry, technology has removed unnecessary middlemen.
So why is hiring still different?
This is the question that inspired Kaplunk.
Read more: Kaplunk: The UK's Ethical Hiring Platform The Rise of Ethical Hiring in 2026 | Transparent & Fair Recruitment
.jpg)
Kaplunk wasn't created to become another recruitment platform.
It was created because we saw a system that had gradually drifted away from the people it was supposed to serve.
Yet an entire industry continued to profit from standing between the two.
We saw businesses struggling with hiring costs while paying substantial recruitment fees.
Most importantly, we saw employers losing ownership of their hiring process.
That isn't innovation. That's dependency.
.jpg)
The relationship between employer and applicant should belong to the employer and applicant.
Everything we build starts from that principle.
Related: The Truth About Hiring The Truth About Hiring — And Why Kaplunk Is the Solution
Why Are Employers Paying Recruiters £20,000 to Introduce People Who Already Wanted the Job?
This is perhaps the most important question in modern hiring.
A candidate:
Yet somehow that connection can result in a recruitment fee worth thousands—or even tens of thousands—of pounds.
In most industries, technology reduces friction and removes unnecessary costs.
Hiring should be no different.
The reality is simple:
The Hidden Mathematics of Recruitment Fees:
Let's look at the numbers.
The recruitment fee becomes: £20,000
For a single hire.
Now multiply that:
The question isn't:
"Is £20,000 a reasonable fee?"
The real question is:
"What else could £20,000 have achieved?"
That money could fund:
Every pound spent unnecessarily on recruitment is a pound that cannot be invested in people.
Further Reading: How Saved Recruiter Fees Transform Hiring How Saved Recruiter Fees Transform Hiring and Employee Value
.jpg)
The £20,000 Experiment
Company A
Company B
Uses the same £20,000 to provide:
Both companies hire the same person.
Both spend exactly the same amount. But only one invests directly into the employee.
.jpg)
If the money exists, why are we giving it to intermediaries instead of investing it in the people who actually create value?
Think about it.
When employers struggle to find talent:
When recruitment processes become complicated:
When vacancies become urgent:
The traditional recruitment model often benefits from inefficiency.
.jpg)
The future should be built around efficiency—not dependency.
.jpg)
Every CV contains more than experience.
It contains:
Yet candidate data has become one of the least discussed issues in recruitment.
Kaplunk believes candidates deserve transparency.
They should know:
Ethical hiring isn't a marketing slogan.
It's a commitment.
As trust becomes increasingly important, employers who prioritise transparency will attract stronger talent and build stronger brands.
.jpg)
Every recruitment conversation today seems to focus on AI.
But the biggest question isn't:
"Who has the best AI?"
The bigger question is:
Who owns the relationship?
Should employers own their talent pipelines?
Should candidates own their career journeys?
Should hiring relationships belong to employers and candidates rather than intermediaries?
The future of hiring isn't simply about technology.
.png)
Forward-thinking HR leaders are no longer asking:
"Which recruiter should we use?"
They're asking:
"How can we reduce recruitment costs and hire directly?"
They want:
Direct hiring is no longer an alternative. It's becoming a competitive advantage.
See Why: The Future of Hiring Is Direct The Direct‑to‑Employer OS | The New Operating System for Modern Hiring
The Movement That's Changing Hiring
For decades, recruitment has been built around intermediaries.
Today, employers are beginning to rethink that model.
The question is shifting.
From: "How do we find another recruiter?"
To: "How do we build direct relationships with talent?"
The organisations leading the next generation of hiring are:
This isn't just another trend. It's a structural shift in how hiring works.
.jpg)
Imagine your organisation saved:
in recruitment fees over the next year.
Where would that money create more value?
In an agency invoice?
Or in your workforce?
Imagine reinvesting those savings into:
The companies that win the talent war won't necessarily spend the most.
They'll invest more wisely.
Before approving your next recruitment fee, ask yourself one simple question:
If that money stayed inside our business, could it create more value for our employees than for an intermediary?
If the answer is yes, then perhaps the future of hiring isn't about finding better recruiters.
Perhaps it's about removing unnecessary barriers altogether.
Kaplunk was founded on a simple belief:
Employers should be able to hire directly.
Most importantly, we believe the relationship between employer and applicant should never be controlled by someone standing in the middle.
The recruitment industry made the middleman normal.
Kaplunk is asking whether the middleman is needed at all.
And increasingly, employers are starting to ask the same question. What if recruitment fees went to employees instead of recruiters? Because when recruitment savings are invested back into people, everybody wins.
Kaplunk
