RPO or recruitment and selection
Recruitment and selection is the best-known recruitment model in the Netherlands, and for some situations still the best choice. But if you need people on a structural basis, one-off placements often mean paying too much for too little without noticing. The honest comparison.
What is the difference between RPO and recruitment and selection?
Recruitment and selection is a transaction: an agency finds candidates for one vacancy and you pay a fee per placement. RPO (Recruitment Process Outsourcing) is a structural partnership in which one partner runs the complete recruitment process, from employer branding and campaigns to screening and follow-up, under your name and without a fee per placement. Recruitment and selection buys individual hires; RPO builds a recruitment system that keeps working for you.
What is RPO?Transaction versus system
The comparisonBoth models deliver hires. The difference is in what does or doesn't get built along the way.
| Permanent placement | SocialFind RPO | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Fee per placement, often a percentage of annual salary | Fixed partnership, no placement fees |
| Scope | Searching and shortlisting for one vacancy | The full funnel: strategy, branding, media, sourcing, screening, follow-up |
| Under whose name | The agency approaches candidates under its own name | Everything under your name and your employer brand |
| Candidate relationship | Candidates sit in the agency's network | Candidates build a relationship with your organization |
| Multiple vacancies | A new fee for every vacancy | One partnership, a tailored approach per role |
| Employer branding | Not part of the model | Grows stronger with every campaign |
| Data and learnings | Stay with the agency | Stay available and improve every next hiring round |
| Incentive | Place fast, because that's when the fee lands | Working toward sustainable hires and a decreasing cost per hire |
A fee buys one hire, a system builds each one cheaper
The difference in one picture
With one-off placements, the work starts from scratch for every vacancy and nothing stays behind that remains available for a next hiring round. With a structural approach, brand, talent pool and data keep stacking up, making every next hire faster and sharper. That's the difference between a transaction and a system.
See how RPO worksWhy the incentive matters
A recruitment agency earns from the placement. That is not a reproach, but it creates an entirely different incentive from yours. It leads to exclusivity, ownership of candidates, shielded CVs and arguments over who introduced a candidate. We want the opposite: as much visibility and inflow for your employer brand as possible. We do not care which door someone comes in through, as long as you hire the right people. A placement model sells a new transaction every time; we build something for the employer.
No cure no pay feels safe: no hire, no invoice. But for that lack of risk upfront you pay top price when it succeeds. Agencies in the Netherlands charge on average around 25 percent of the gross annual salary per placement, usually between 20 and 35 percent (YoungCapital, Kosten werving en selectie), and for a senior role that easily means 20,000 euros or more for one hire. If you hire structurally, you pay that again every time. What you get with us for roughly one such fee is on our pricing page.
The economics behind both models
A placement fee seems expensive but straightforward: you only pay on results. The real comparison, however, isn't about the fee, but about the total cost per hire over a longer period. If you hire several people a year through one-off fees, you pay for the same work again and again. The agency starts from zero with every vacancy, and nothing from the search (the audience insight, the candidate relationships, the campaign learnings) becomes property of your organization.
With a structural model, that logic flips. The investment builds something that lasts: a stronger employer brand, a filled talent pool, an application funnel designed per role and data that makes every next hiring round sharper. That's why in a well-run RPO program the cost per hire drops the longer the partnership runs, while with one-off placements it by definition stays the same.
When is permanent placement the better choice?
Fair is fair:
- You have one specific (senior) vacancy and don't expect a structural hiring need any time soon.
- You're looking for a very scarce, very specific profile for which a specialized agency has a demonstrably relevant network.
- You want no structural commitment whatsoever and accept that this also means building nothing.
In those situations, we ourselves would simply recommend a good permanent placement agency.
When does RPO become structurally more interesting?
- You have multiple or recurring vacancies, or a wide range of role types, from board level to operational staff.
- The sum of one-off fees is starting to pinch and you want a predictable cost model without placement fees.
- You want hiring to strengthen your employer brand instead of candidates getting to know an agency.
- Your in-house team needs reinforcement in media, content or sourcing rather than yet another supplier.
You can run the full calculation on the business case page.
Paying for one-off placements or building a system?
Let us do the math with you: we honestly compare your current hiring costs with what a structural approach would do. And we'll say so if permanent placement remains the better choice in your case.
Frequently asked questions about RPO vs recruitment agencies
No, it's a different product. Recruitment and selection delivers candidates per vacancy; RPO builds and runs the complete hiring system: strategy, employer branding, campaigns, sourcing, screening and follow-up. You don't pay per placement but for continuous execution. What gets built along the way, such as brand, data and candidate relationships, revolves around your employer brand; how it stays available after the partnership is set out in the agreement.
It feels safer, but look at the incentive: a fee per placement rewards placing fast, not hiring well. And the 'risk' of not paying when there's no result also means: a vacancy that sits open for months, which quietly often costs more than the fee itself. The honest comparison is about total cost per hire, not about when you pay.
Yes. Some clients run a single highly specialized role through a niche agency while the structural inflow runs through the RPO partnership. What matters is that there's one director who prevents candidates being approached twice and keeps oversight of the entire funnel.
With recruitment and selection, they disappear back into the agency's network. With our approach, they applied to your brand: we build a talent pool around your employer brand that is used for your recruitment during the partnership, so we can approach them again for a future vacancy. It's exactly that build-up that makes the difference in the long run.
The first campaigns and candidate flows are typically up and running within a few weeks. The structural advantage, a falling cost per hire and a stronger employer brand, builds over months. You can read how we make that measurable on our methodology page.