Indeed CEO Hisayuki Idekoba says AI has halved time-to-hire: the new procurement benchmark every Sydney recruitment agency will face

On 15 May 2026, Recruit Holdings, the parent company of Indeed and Glassdoor, published FY25 full-year results. Revenue 3,697.3 billion yen, up from 3,557.4 billion. EBITDA+S up 17%. EPS up 28.9% year-on-year. FY26 guidance projects revenue up 9% to JPY 4.03 trillion, EBITDA+S up 19.5% to JPY 949 billion, and margin expanding to 23.5%.

The line from CEO Hisayuki "Deko" Idekoba's earnings commentary is the one every Sydney recruitment agency owner needs to read carefully: "Our AI tools are driving significant revenue growth and operational efficiency. We have reduced the hiring period roughly in half on certain products."

This is the platform CEO publicly stating that AI cuts time-to-hire by 50% on the products the world's largest employers already use. It is the new procurement benchmark.

What "halved time-to-hire" actually does to your fee

For the last two decades, the recruitment agency fee has been priced against an assumed hiring cycle. The standard contingent placement was priced for a six-week cycle, with three to four weeks of active sourcing and two to three weeks of interviewing and offer management. The fee, typically 15-20% of first-year salary, was justified by the time, attention and risk the agency absorbed across those six weeks.

Idekoba just publicly told the market the platform itself does the same outcome in three weeks.

That number does not vanish. It enters every procurement conversation from this point forward. Corporate procurement teams have access to the same earnings call. They have the same quote. They will use it.

The conversation in every renewal between now and Q3 2026 will include a version of: "The Indeed CEO says AI has halved the time to hire. Why are we paying you for the old timeline?"

The wrong response: defending the old fee

Most agency owners will respond by defending the existing fee structure. The defence usually centres on quality, relationships, and the experience of the team. These are real values, but they are not the values procurement is asking about.

The procurement officer is not arguing the agency adds zero value. They are arguing the platform now does part of the work, so the fee should reflect a smaller scope. That argument is correct. Defending the entire fee against an Idekoba-quoting CFO is a losing position.

The agencies that lose the negotiation in Q3 are the ones who try to defend the whole fee. The agencies that win restructure the fee.

The right response: restructure the fee into two parts

The fee needs to break into two clearly distinguished components.

Part one: The platform-priced part. Sourcing, application screening, basic candidate match, interview scheduling. The platform does these now. The fee for this part should be priced at near-platform rates: a flat fee per role, a small percentage, or a monthly subscription that bundles these activities. The procurement officer can quote Indeed at this part. You agree.

Part two: The agency-only part. Diagnostic conversations with hiring managers, counter-offer management, executive search judgement, candidate motivation, post-offer hand-holding, hiring manager pushback, rebuild after a failed interview. The platform does none of this. The fee for this part should be priced higher than the previous all-in rate, because it is now standalone work, not bundled.

The total fee can land at the same number, or even higher. But the conversation changes. The procurement officer cannot quote the Indeed benchmark against part two, because part two is not what the platform does.

What the restructure looks like in practice

Imagine an agency currently charging 18% of first-year salary on a $150K role: a $27,000 fee. The fee covers sourcing, screening, scheduling, interview coordination, offer management, counter-offer handling, and post-offer follow-up.

The restructure might look like:

• Sourcing and screening platform-priced bundle: $4,000 flat fee or $1,000 retainer/month. Reflects platform-level pricing for commoditised work.
• Strategic diagnostic and shortlist conversation: $6,000 fixed fee. Two-week intensive process with the hiring manager to define the role properly before sourcing.
• Offer-stage and counter-offer management: 12% success fee on first-year salary at offer acceptance, $18,000 on the same $150K role. Triggered only when the candidate signs.

Total: roughly $28,000. Same outcome. Different structure.

The procurement officer reading the new pricing sheet has no Indeed benchmark to quote against the diagnostic, offer or counter-offer lines. The benchmark they have only applies to the platform-priced bundle, which is already priced at platform rates.

The agencies that will lose Q3 negotiations

The agencies that will lose Q3 fee negotiations are the ones who arrive without a restructure. They will quote 18% on $150K. The procurement officer will quote Idekoba back. The agency will defend 18%. The procurement officer will counter at 10%. The agency will accept 12-13% to keep the relationship. Margin gone.

The agencies that win will arrive with the restructured pricing sheet. The diagnostic line. The platform-priced bundle. The success fee on the offer. The procurement officer cannot quote Idekoba against the diagnostic line, because the diagnostic line is not what Indeed does.

The window to restructure is now

Idekoba said "halved time-to-hire" on 15 May 2026. That quote will be in every procurement deck by July. Every renewal conversation from August through December will include it.

The agencies that restructure their fee in June will have the new pricing sheet ready when the quote arrives. The agencies that wait will be defending the old structure with the old maths against a quote that is now in the public record.

The platform did not do this to recruitment agencies. The platform just set the new ceiling. The agencies that survive the ceiling are the ones who reprice the work the platform does not do, and let the platform have the work it already does at platform rates.