Why Every Offshore Provider Is Suddenly Talking About Markups

Offshore and BPO providers across Australia and New Zealand are suddenly advertising "no markup" and "transparent pricing" because 2026 buyers are demanding it. Itemised billing has become a standard vendor-selection criterion, and a traditional agency markup of three to five times the worker's wage, sometimes higher, no longer survives scrutiny once a client asks to see the number. Pear Tree has itemised its fee since it started: one flat $400 a month management fee, with the wage disclosed and untouched.

Why are offshore providers suddenly talking about markups now?

Because buyers started asking to see the number, and once one provider answers honestly, every competitor selling the old model has to explain why they won't. The global outsourcing market is worth more than $525 billion a year and growing 8 to 9% annually, a market mature enough that repeat buyers, referrals and public salary guides have made the traditional blended rate harder to keep opaque. Itemised billing, disclosing the wage separately from the provider's own fee, is now flagged in 2026 buyer-side outsourcing guidance as a standard vendor-selection criterion, not a nice-to-have.

How big is the markup that's suddenly being disclosed?

Large enough to change the maths on its own. A traditional BPO typically charges a client three to five times what the offshore worker actually earns: an employee paid $18,000 a year can sit inside a $54,000 to $90,000 annual bill (Outsource Accelerator, 2024). Staffing agency markups outside the BPO seat model run narrower but still substantial, 40 to 70% above the wage, with some arrangements exceeding 100% (staffing industry data, 2025).

What changed to make buyers start asking about the markup?

Three things arrived at once. Offshore hiring itself went mainstream: 37% of Australian employers are now sponsoring or hiring overseas talent, up from just 7% a short time ago (Hays, 2026), which means far more business owners have been through the process once already and know what to ask the second time. Employer of Record platforms became common enough to normalise itemised pricing by default, with 43% of companies now using an EOR for offshore hires (Deel and Oyster HR, 2025), and those platforms show a service fee as its own line item rather than folding it into a single number. And the businesses that got burned, watching a cheap-looking offshore hire quietly cost more once turnover, replacement fees and rate escalation clauses were added up, started talking about it in public.

Is this just marketing, or is the industry actually changing?

Some of it is marketing. Saying "no markup" costs a provider nothing, and a claim is not the same as a structure that makes the claim true. The real test, per current buyer-side outsourcing guidance, is whether a provider will show three things without being pushed: what the worker is actually paid, whether the fee on top is a flat number or a percentage that rises with the wage, and what the replacement or attrition terms actually say in writing. A provider that answers all three in the first conversation is behaving differently to one that only started saying the word transparent once its competitors did.

Why does the size of the markup affect more than just cost?

Because underpaying the person doing the work has a retention cost that lands back on the client. Pear Tree maintains a 90% talent retention rate against an industry average of around 60% (Outsource Accelerator, 2024), and that gap tracks directly to pay. An agency protecting a large markup usually protects it by paying the worker less, and workers paid less leave for a better-paying seat. Every departure resets onboarding and institutional knowledge, so a markup that looks like the provider's problem is really a cost the client absorbs every time someone quits.

How does Pear Tree's model differ from the "no markup" claims now appearing everywhere?

Structurally, not just rhetorically. Pear Tree has charged a one-time placement fee plus a flat management fee from $400 a month per hire since it started, with the wage passed straight through and disclosed before the hire is confirmed. That fee does not move if the worker's wage rises later, and it is not blended into a single monthly number the client has to take on faith. The claim was true before it was fashionable to say out loud, which is a different thing to adopting the same sentence this year.

What should ANZ business owners actually check before believing a "no markup" claim?

Ask to see the worker's actual pay, in writing, before signing anything. Ask whether the provider's fee is a flat number or a percentage of the wage, because a percentage fee quietly grows every time the worker gets a raise. And ask what happens, in specific terms, if the placement doesn't work out. A vague replacement policy with no stated timeline or cost is one of the clearest transparency red flags a 2026 buyer can check for.

The bottom line

The markup conversation is happening across the industry because buyers finally have the leverage, the comparison points and the public salary data to ask for the number, and providers built on the old blended-rate model have to answer honestly or lose the deal. Pear Tree's answer has not changed: a one-time placement fee, a flat $400 a month management fee, and the wage disclosed and untouched, for every hire, since day one.

AUTHOR BIO: Nick is Co-Founder of Pear Tree, a direct offshore talent placement company helping Australian and New Zealand businesses hire world-class Filipino and South African professionals without the agency markup. With offices in Sydney, Auckland, Cebu, Manila, Cape Town and Hawke's Bay, Pear Tree has placed talent with 750+ companies and maintains a 90% retention rate.