It’s a question I’ve found myself thinking about more and more lately.
Historically, I’ve never charged retainers. I back myself to fill the roles I take on, and as a result, I’ve always been selective about who I work with. For the past eight years, I’ve enjoyed trusted, exclusive partnerships with some of the best-loved distilleries in the industry, businesses that are transparent, committed, and understand the time and effort required to do recruitment properly. And of course, sometimes jobs get pulled. That’s just part of the industry, and if the reason is genuine, I’ve always been fine with that.
But as my business grows and I begin engaging with a wider range of companies, I’m finding things shift. There’s been a noticeable increase in briefs that don’t lead anywhere, despite significant time spent travelling to sites, taking detailed briefs, investing in advertising, interviewing candidates, and delivering shortlists. More often now, the process stalls, the role disappears, or communication simply dries up. While that may not always be deliberate, it’s still costly, in time, in resources, and perhaps most significantly, in candidate trust.
There are various ways recruiters structure retained work. The most common approach is the “thirds” model:
That model suits traditional executive search, but I’ve always preferred a more flexible approach: one third on shortlist delivery, and the remaining two thirds on offer. It feels fairer. Clients see real work and real value before committing financially. But even with that model, the discussion around retainers often leads to broader questions about how recruitment partnerships are structured.
That’s one of the assumptions I hear often, that retainers are only appropriate for high-level or C-suite roles. But is that still relevant in today’s market?
From my perspective, the time, energy and expertise required to find a great Brand Manager, Master Blender, or BDM can be just as intensive as filling a board position. If a role is business-critical, specialist, or has a narrow talent pool, then perhaps the fee model shouldn’t hinge on salary level, but rather on the quality of process and the depth of commitment required.
When a role doesn’t come to fruition, whether it’s paused, cancelled or was never really concrete to begin with, I’ve already invested real money and time that I won’t recoup. That’s part of the job to an extent. But it doesn’t end there. I then need to spend more time contacting several, often highly engaged ones, and explain that the process isn’t moving forward. That can damage relationships, not just with them but with the wider talent network. It also means less time to spend on real, active briefs with trusted clients who are genuinely hiring.
This kind of inefficiency doesn’t just affect the recruiter, it affects the employer brand too. Candidates are quick to remember when their time has been wasted or their interest wasn’t taken seriously.
That’s the heart of the discussion, isn’t it? For some businesses, retainers still feel unfamiliar or risky. There’s understandable concern around handing over money before results are delivered. And for clients used to the traditional contingency model, it can seem like a big shift in dynamic.
On the flip side, a retainer, however small, often changes the tone of the relationship. It signals mutual investment. It sets clear expectations. It can help focus everyone involved and streamline the process, especially in industries where specialist talent is hard to find and moves quickly.
So perhaps the question isn’t “should all recruiters charge retainers?” but rather:
When does it make sense to agree a retained model, and what does it protect, enable, or improve in the process?
Ultimately, the best recruitment partnerships, retained or not, are built on trust, transparency, and a shared commitment to doing things properly. A fee model should reflect that. And for those of us working in tight-knit industries where reputation matters, anything that helps protect the candidate experience, the client relationship, and the quality of the hire is worth considering.
I’d love to hear how others approach this. Have you experienced the benefits or downsides of retained recruitment, either as a client or a recruiter? Where do you see the model heading?
