Here's the stat that should end the "competitive salary" debate forever: 66% of candidates won't even apply to jobs that don't include salary information. Not "they'd prefer to see it." Not "it would be nice to know." Two-thirds of job seekers straight-up refuse to waste time applying when companies play coy about compensation.

And yet, companies continue posting jobs with vague nonsense like "competitive salary based on experience" and then acting shocked—SHOCKED—when they get 12 applications from unqualified candidates over three weeks.

Salary transparency isn't a nice-to-have anymore. It's table stakes for attracting talent. Companies refusing to list salary ranges are voluntarily eliminating two-thirds of potential candidates before anyone even reads the job description.

Let's talk about why salary secrecy is killing your recruiting and why companies keep doing it anyway.

The Math That Should Terrify Recruiters

66% of candidates won't apply without salary transparency. Let's play that out with real numbers:

You post a job. Based on your company's employer brand and the role's appeal, you might naturally attract 100 qualified candidates. But because you didn't list the salary range, 66 of them see "competitive salary" and immediately close the tab. You're left with 34 applicants.

Of those 34, research shows that candidates who apply to roles without salary info are less likely to be top performers. Why? Because top talent with options doesn't waste time on mystery jobs. They focus on opportunities where compensation is transparent and aligned with their expectations.

So now you've got maybe 34 applicants, and a disproportionate number of them are either desperate, inexperienced, or willing to apply speculatively to anything regardless of fit.

Meanwhile, your competitor posted the exact same role with a clear salary range and got 100 qualified applicants, including the high-performers you wanted who skipped your posting entirely.

This isn't theoretical. This is happening right now with your job postings.

The Excuses Companies Use (And Why They're Nonsense)

Despite overwhelming evidence that salary transparency improves recruiting outcomes, companies trot out the same tired excuses for keeping compensation secret:

"We need flexibility to pay based on experience." Cool. That's what salary ranges are for. "This role pays $80,000-$110,000 depending on experience" gives you plenty of flexibility. What you actually mean is "we want to lowball candidates who don't know their market value".

"Our compensation is competitive—candidates will see that when they interview." If your compensation is truly competitive, why hide it? Companies with genuinely strong comp packages advertise it prominently because it's a recruiting advantage. Companies hiding compensation usually have a reason for the secrecy—and it's not because they pay above market.

"We don't want competitors to know what we pay." Salary data for most roles is publicly available on Glassdoor, levels.fyi, Payscale, and industry surveys. Your competitors already have a pretty good idea what you pay. The only people you're hiding it from are candidates.

"It's too much work to determine salary ranges for every role." You already have salary ranges—they're in your compensation bands and budget approvals. You're just choosing not to share them. And if you genuinely don't have salary ranges established, that's a compensation strategy problem, not a transparency problem.

"We want to attract candidates who care about mission and culture, not just money." Ah yes, the "passion pays the bills" argument. Newsflash: professionals care about mission AND fair compensation. Refusing to disclose salary doesn't filter for mission-driven candidates—it filters for candidates willing to tolerate disrespect and information asymmetry.

The Real Reasons Companies Hide Salaries

Let's be honest about what salary secrecy is actually accomplishing:

Internal equity issues: Companies don't want employees comparing salaries and discovering pay disparities. If you're paying new hires significantly more than existing employees in similar roles, posting salary ranges makes that obvious. Solution? Fix your internal equity issues, don't hide them.

Below-market compensation: If your salary is competitive, transparency helps recruiting. If it's below market, transparency exposes the problem. Many companies hide salaries specifically because they know they're not paying market rates and don't want candidates to self-select out early.

Negotiation leverage: Companies believe salary secrecy gives them power in negotiations. If candidates don't know the range, the thinking goes, they might anchor low and accept less than the role's maximum. This is technically true but also deeply exploitative.

Laziness and inertia: Some companies hide salaries because they've always done it that way. There's no strategic reason—it's just how their job posting template is structured, and nobody's bothered to change it.

What Salary Transparency Actually Does for Recruiting

Let's flip this around. What happens when you POST salary ranges prominently? The data is clear:

Application volume increases by 30-40%: Candidates are more likely to apply when they know the role matches their compensation expectations.

Quality of applicants improves: Transparency self-selects for candidates whose expectations align with your range. You get fewer "spray and pray" applications and more candidates who are genuinely qualified and interested.

Time-to-hire decreases: You eliminate the back-and-forth of "what's your budget?" followed by "that's below my expectations" that kills deals late in the process. Candidates opt in or out early based on fit.

Candidate experience improves: Professionals appreciate transparency and respect. Hiding compensation signals that you don't trust candidates or treat them as equals.

Offer acceptance rates increase: When candidates know what to expect throughout the process, they're less likely to be surprised or disappointed by the offer. Fewer candidates decline or try to renegotiate at the finish line.

Diversity hiring improves: Salary transparency reduces gender and race-based pay gaps by limiting opportunities for biased negotiation outcomes.

The Legal Landscape Is Changing (So You Might Not Have a Choice)

Even if you don't care about recruiting effectiveness, the legal environment is forcing salary transparency:

17 states and dozens of cities now require salary ranges in job postings. California, New York, Colorado, Washington, and others have passed legislation mandating pay transparency.

Companies posting remote roles must comply with transparency laws in any state where candidates might work. If your job is remote and open to candidates nationwide, you're effectively subject to the most stringent state requirements.

Penalties for non-compliance include fines and legal action from candidates or enforcement agencies. This isn't optional—it's the law in a growing number of jurisdictions.

How to Actually Do Salary Transparency Right

If you're ready to stop being part of the problem, here's how to implement salary transparency without screwing it up:

Post real ranges, not fake ones: Don't post "$50,000-$150,000 depending on experience". That's not transparency—it's compliance theater. Post realistic ranges where most hires will actually fall.

Explain how you determine placement within the range: "We pay toward the lower end for candidates meeting minimum requirements and toward the higher end for candidates exceeding qualifications or bringing specialized skills." This helps candidates self-assess where they'd likely land.

Include total compensation context: "Base salary $90,000-$110,000. Total compensation including bonus and equity typically $120,000-$145,000." This gives candidates the full picture.

Be consistent across all postings: Don't post salary on LinkedIn but hide it on your careers page. Inconsistency creates confusion and distrust.

Train recruiters to discuss compensation confidently: Recruiters should be prepared to explain your compensation philosophy, where the role sits in your bands, and how decisions are made.

The Bottom Line

66% of candidates won't apply to jobs without salary information. That's not a preference—it's a deal-breaker. Every job posting without a salary range is voluntarily cutting your talent pool by two-thirds.

Companies clinging to salary secrecy are operating at a massive competitive disadvantage. Your job postings are getting fewer applications, lower-quality candidates, longer time-to-hire, and worse candidate experience than competitors who embrace transparency.

Salary transparency isn't about being nice to candidates. It's about recruiting more effectively, filling roles faster, improving quality of hire, and complying with rapidly expanding legal requirements.

The only question is whether you'll adopt transparency proactively as a competitive advantage or reactively after hemorrhaging talent and facing legal consequences.

Post your salary ranges. It's 2025. Stop making this complicated.

Key Takeaways:

• 66% of candidates won't apply without salary transparency
• Hiding salaries reduces application volume, candidate quality, and diversity
• Common excuses for secrecy are nonsense masking internal equity issues or below-market pay
• Salary transparency increases applications by 30-40% and improves time-to-hire
• 17 states now legally require salary ranges in job postings
• Post real ranges with context, not compliance theater