Almost every AR team has experienced it: you call about an overdue invoice, the debtor says payment has been sent, and nothing arrives. You call again, they apologise and say it's coming. This cycle — often called the "cheque in the mail" problem despite most payments now being electronic — consumes staff time, extends the debt age, and reduces recovery prospects. Knowing how to manage it is a core AR competency.
Why payment promises are made
Some payment promises are entirely genuine: the debtor intends to pay, has authorised the payment, and there is a processing lag. Others are genuine in intent but unreliable in execution: the debtor plans to pay but has cash flow problems that prevent it. Others are tactical: the promise is made to delay escalation while the debtor manages other creditors or deteriorating finances.
The practical problem is that these situations can look identical in the first conversation. You cannot know whether a promise is genuine until you either receive payment or the promised date passes.
How to handle a promise professionally
When a debtor makes a payment promise, establish the specific amount, payment method, and date — not "soon" or "this week" but a calendar date. Confirm it in writing immediately after the call. A brief email — "As discussed, we expect to receive payment of $X by [date]. Please let us know if anything changes" — creates a record and reinforces the commitment.
Set a firm follow-up for the day after the promised date, not the day of. If payment has not arrived by close of business on the promised date, call on the following morning. Do not wait for a second promise cycle to start.
How many promises before escalation
This depends on your credit terms and the amount involved, but a general framework is: one missed promise triggers an immediate conversation and a shorter second timeline; two missed promises should trigger escalation — either to a senior person in your business or to an external provider.
A debtor who misses two specific payment commitments has demonstrated either an inability or an unwillingness to pay. Neither situation improves with more time. The debt is aging, and the recovery prospects are declining.
The time-value of acting
Every week spent in the promise cycle is a week of debt age accumulating. A debt that was 45 days old when the first promise was made may be 90 days old by the time the second promise fails. Recovery rates at 90 days are materially lower than at 45 days. The cost of waiting for one more promise cycle is not zero — it is a real reduction in expected recovery value.
Refer the account to Merion if you have exhausted reasonable internal follow-up. Early referral after a broken promise produces better outcomes than extended internal chasing.