Why must I choose to accept ACH or Card to save Invoices? For large invoices this risks a large fee.

While I can mark an Invoice as paid via some other method (cash, check, wire, etc.) after the fact, why am I forced to accept either Card, ACH, CashApp, or Gift Card when saving it? All of these have uncapped fees (unless of course you pay Square for Invoices Plus). For large invoices, the 1% ACH adds up when there's no cap, and even Quickbooks who nickle and dimes you to death caps it at like $15.

 

It just seems silly to allow recording alternative payments but not allowing saving/sending invoices without fee-ridden methods turned on.

707 Views
Message 1 of 3
Report
2 REPLIES 2
Square Champion

Hi there @onstage.  I would imagine that the answer is pretty simple here.  Square has created a full-fledged invoicing system and can’t make it too easy to give it away for free.  They, like us, are in business to make money and they can’t do that if people only use the free stuff.  From a business perspective, that’s not silly at all — it’s a sound business decision.

 

If you have even just a few large invoices each month, it would seem that subscribing to Invoices Plus just to get the $10 cap on ACH fees would be more than a sound investment, actually.  Most likely that subscription fee would pay for itself with the first large invoice each month.  But, even the “free” invoicing services (like Invoicely, for example) are only free if online payments are excluded, and even with the free tier they severely limit the number of free invoices you can send each month.

Chip A.
Square Expert & Innovator and member of the Square Champions group. (But NOT a Square employee, just a seller like you)

Was my post helpful? Take a moment to mark it as a solution. Marked solutions help other sellers find possible resolutions to similar problems. Also, if you find your solution elsewhere (say, through Support), it is helpful to come back to your post and tell us about it, then mark that as a Solution. Solutions are what this Community is all about!
693 Views
Message 2 of 3
Report

See, but here's the rub: it's the little stuff like this that adds up to a poor user experience overall. I'm acutely aware they need to make money; I pay them $89/mo for the privilege of their retail POS services. I pay them a percentage of every card transaction. I pay them to run payroll. That's all well and good.

 

But offering a service, then half-baking the details in order to steer customers toward yet another paid add-on just to flesh out that service isn't a confidence-inspiring experience. If they didn't want to allow off-platform payments, then just say that. Technically allowing it but not enabling us to enforce those options? I don't invoice enough to be the target customer for "Invoicing Plus", that's fine. But it just feels poorly thought out at best, or intentionally handicapped at worst.

 

So as for being a sales tactic, why would I want to further embed myself in a platform that does either?

 

(also, having used other invoicing platforms, calling this "fully fledged" is generous)

553 Views
Message 3 of 3
Report