In the world of commercial collections, credit managers often walk a fine line between firmness and relationship management. Sometimes, the temptation arises to apply pressure, and even fear and intimidation, to get a customer to pay what’s owed. But is “scaring” a customer into paying ever a good strategy? This month’s poll explores both sides of the debate, reflecting how credit professionals weigh ethics, effectiveness, and long-term impact.
The Case for “Yes”
Some credit managers believe that there are situations where fear-based tactics can be both justified and effective. For example:
- Yes, if I can secure payment in full
For customers who consistently ignore reminders and stall payments, a strong show of consequences, such as mentioning potential legal action or the involvement of a collection agency, can jolt them into compliance. The reasoning is straightforward: if a debtor won’t respond to polite nudges, sometimes the only way to get results is to make the cost of nonpayment crystal clear. - Yes, but only as a last resort
Other professionals say scare tactics should never be the first move but can play a role once diplomacy is exhausted. This might mean putting the customer on credit hold, warning of account suspension, or highlighting the reputational damage of unresolved debt. In these cases, “scaring” isn’t about intimidation for its own sake — it’s about underlining the seriousness of the situation when softer approaches no longer work.
The Case for “No”
On the other hand, many credit professionals caution against fear tactics, noting that short-term gains often come at long-term costs.
- No, fear tactics damage long-term relationships
Customers who feel bullied may pay once, but they’re unlikely to remain loyal partners. Worse, they may take their business elsewhere. For companies that value recurring revenue and stability, the risk of losing a client often outweighs the benefit of a single collected invoice. - No, I prefer to use diplomacy and negotiation
Some managers emphasize that professionalism, clear communication, and problem-solving are more sustainable approaches. By negotiating alternate payment terms, offering installment options, or tying fulfillment to progress payments, they believe collections can be resolved without burning bridges. The “soft but firm” approach may take longer, but it builds credibility and respect.
Striking the Balance
Ultimately, whether or not to “scare” a customer depends on context — namely the size of the debt, the history of the relationship, and the company’s risk tolerance. What most professionals agree on is that threats should never be idle; if you say you’ll escalate, you must be prepared to follow through. Otherwise, the tactic loses credibility.
This month’s poll isn’t just about whether you’ve ever resorted to scare tactics, it’s about understanding the philosophy behind your approach to collections. Are you the kind of collector who believes a little fear can motivate payment, or do you see relationship management as the ultimate tool in your tool kit?
Your thoughts and comments (nseiverd@cmiweb.com) are most welcome!
Nancy Seiverd, President
CMI Credit Mediators, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Image by freepik.com
