How to handle a client who wants to pay in cash as a solo beauty pro
She books the appointment and then asks if she can pay in cash. Or she arrives, receives the service, and hands you bills at checkout. Or she messages you before the appointment and says "I'll just pay you cash when I get there" — and the deposit link you sent her sits unopened.
Cash as a payment method is not inherently a problem. It is legal, it is fast, and for some clients it is genuinely the most practical option. The complication is not the payment method itself. The complication is what "cash" usually means in context — which is frequently not "I will pay you with physical currency in advance" but rather "I would prefer not to use the deposit system you have set up, and cash-at-checkout is how I'm framing that preference."
This post is about the cash payment request: who is making it, what they actually want, and how to respond in a way that either accommodates a genuine need or holds the deposit policy without turning the payment method into a separate argument. It is distinct from several related scenarios. The skip-the-deposit post covers the client who asks to be exempted from the deposit entirely — she may want to pay by any method, she just does not want to pay in advance. The deposit dispute post covers the client who already paid and is contesting the refund or the non-refundable terms. This post is specifically about cash as the requested payment method and what that means for slot protection, record-keeping, and the compliance obligations that fall entirely on you.
There are three distinct types of cash payment request, and they require different responses. Getting the type wrong — particularly confusing Type One with Type Two — is the most common error, because the surface presentation looks similar and the stakes are different.
What cash payment actually does and does not do
Before covering the three types, it is worth being specific about what cash payment means for the two things that matter most in a solo beauty practice: slot protection and income records.
Slot protection: A deposit protects your slot because it is received before the appointment. The function of the deposit is the timing, not the method. A deposit paid by card on Tuesday for a Friday appointment protects the Friday slot because you have received payment — the client has something at stake from Tuesday onward. Cash received on Friday at checkout protects nothing. The slot was unprotected from the moment she booked until the moment she handed you the money, which is also the moment the appointment was already over. Cash at checkout is not a deposit — it is payment. Those are different things with different protective functions.
This distinction matters because "I'll pay in cash when I come in" sounds like a commitment and often feels like one. She said she would pay. She intends to come. But if she does not come, there is nothing to apply. The deposit that was never received functions identically to no deposit at all — regardless of the payment method she stated and regardless of how sincere her intention was.
Income records: Cash income is taxable income. This is true regardless of the payment method, the amount, or whether a receipt was issued. For a solo booth renter operating as a self-employed professional, every dollar received for services is gross income that must be reported. The IRS does not distinguish between cash and card. Your state revenue agency does not distinguish between cash and card. Your bookkeeper does not get to distinguish between cash and card. A client who pays in cash and a client who pays by Venmo and a client who pays by card all produce income that must be recorded the same way. The payment method determines how the money arrives in your hand. It does not determine how you account for it, how it is taxed, or whether it exists as revenue.
This matters because a client who specifically prefers cash to avoid a digital record is asking you to participate in a reporting gap. She may not frame it that way — she may not even think of it that way. But "I prefer not to go through a system" as a reason for paying cash is a request to conduct a transaction without documentation, and the documentation obligation belongs to you, not to her. A client who pays cash and a client who pays card both exist in your records. Both get receipts. Both appear in your income total for the quarter. The payment method is a line on the receipt, not a decision about whether the transaction is recorded.
Three types of cash payment request
The three types are defined by what the client actually wants — not by what she says, which in all three cases may be identical: "I'd like to pay in cash."
Type One: The genuine digital barrier
This client has a real, practical obstacle to digital payment. Her bank card was recently compromised and the replacement has not arrived. She does not have a debit card linked to a compatible payment system. She is unbanked or uses a prepaid card that is not accepted by your deposit processor. She had a Stripe or PayPal dispute on a previous account and her card is flagged. Cash is not her preference over digital payment — it is the only option that is actually available to her right now.
This type is real and more common than most beauty pros expect, particularly in client bases that skew younger (prepaid cards, limited banking access) or older (comfort with cash, distrust of digital systems). The genuine digital barrier is a logistics problem, not a policy problem. The client is not trying to bypass your deposit — she is asking for a mechanism that works for her.
The response to a genuine digital barrier is to find a working mechanism, not to waive the deposit requirement. Most payment processors have a cash equivalent that solves this:
- Cash or money order received before the appointment (by mail, or in-person if she is local enough to stop by)
- Zelle, Venmo, or Cash App as an alternative to the Stripe link
- Bank transfer if she has a bank account but no card
The key is that whatever mechanism you use, the deposit is received before the appointment — not at the appointment, not after, before. A Type One client who genuinely cannot do digital payment is usually willing to arrange pre-appointment cash delivery, because she has a real obstacle and not a preference against commitment. She understands that you need the payment before the appointment if the deposit is going to function as a deposit.
Script — Type One, she has a genuine digital barrier: "Cash works — I just need to receive it before the appointment, not at checkout, so the slot is held the same way as everyone else. If you are local, you can drop it off before [day]. Or if Venmo or Zelle works better than a card, I can take it that way — the deposit amount is the same either way. What works best for you?"
The script does several things. It accepts cash without making it a special accommodation. It names the timing requirement (before the appointment) as the actual requirement rather than the payment method. It offers an alternative digital mechanism in case the barrier is Stripe-specific rather than digital-in-general. And it asks what works for her, which moves the conversation from a policy recitation to a practical problem-solving discussion. Most Type One clients respond positively and immediately, because they want to book and they have been waiting to find out whether cash is viable.
If she cannot arrange pre-appointment cash delivery: This is rare for Type One clients, but it can happen in markets where in-person drop-off is not practical and Venmo or Zelle is also not available. The decision at this point is yours: you can proceed without a deposit (which carries the same slot risk as any no-deposit booking), or you can decline to book without deposit receipt (which means losing a client who may have been perfectly reliable). There is no universally correct answer. The relevant question is whether her history with you (or her referral source, or anything you know about her booking patterns) gives you information about the actual slot risk. A first-time client who cannot produce a deposit by any mechanism is a higher risk than an established regular with the same barrier. Treat them differently.
Type Two: Cash as deposit bypass
This is the most common type. The client does not have a genuine obstacle to digital payment — she simply prefers not to interact with the deposit system, and "I'll pay in cash when I get there" is the framing she has chosen because it sounds like a commitment rather than a refusal. She has a card. She has Venmo. She is fully capable of paying a deposit digitally if she wanted to. She does not want to.
The tell for Type Two is usually in the timing and the specifics. She does not name a particular obstacle. She does not mention a card problem or a system she cannot use. She says "I prefer cash" or "I usually just pay cash" or "I'll bring it when I come in" — language that treats cash at arrival as an equivalent substitute for a deposit, which it is not. The absence of a named barrier is the signal that the barrier may not be real.
The most consequential thing about Type Two is the structural outcome if you accept the framing without naming what is actually happening. If "I'll pay cash when I come in" becomes the arrangement, you have a confirmed appointment with no deposit received. The slot is unprotected. She does not show, or she cancels with two hours notice, or she reschedules the morning of — and there is nothing to apply because the cash that was supposed to arrive at checkout never arrived because she did not come. You absorbed the full cost of the cancellation while having agreed to the arrangement that produced it.
The second-order effect is the pattern it sets. If "I'll pay cash when I come in" works once, it becomes her payment method going forward. Not because she is intentionally exploiting the system, but because the arrangement was established and nothing changed it. Three appointments later she is a reliable, cash-paying client who has never paid a deposit because the first request was not examined. The deposit policy applies to every client except her, by default, because of how one early request was handled.
The response to Type Two is to accept cash as a payment method while making clear that the deposit requirement applies regardless of method, and the deposit must be received before the appointment.
Script — Type Two, the response to "I'll pay cash when I get there": "I can definitely work with cash — I just need to receive it before the appointment so the slot is held the same way as everyone else. The deposit amount is [amount]. Is dropping it off ahead of time an option, or does Venmo or Zelle work if it's easier? I want to get you confirmed."
The script does not argue with cash as a payment method, which is not the issue. It does not say "I need a deposit," which she may interpret as a separate requirement from the cash she offered. It names the requirement as before the appointment and offers practical alternatives. "I want to get you confirmed" closes with warmth — you are trying to book her, not block her.
The pattern that develops when you accept cash-at-checkout as a deposit substitute:
The arrangement sounds reasonable in the moment. She will pay. She intends to come. The cash at checkout is the same money as the cash before the appointment. Except it is not, because the only payment that holds the slot is the one received before the appointment. What you have agreed to is not "cash instead of card" — it is "no deposit, with cash at checkout." Those are different arrangements with different risk profiles.
Most clients who establish this pattern are reliable for the first several appointments. The risk is not that this specific client will no-show immediately — it is that the arrangement produces a slot that is perpetually unprotected, and the cost only becomes visible when the single cancellation or no-show eventually occurs. One no-show from a client who has been coming for a year costs the same as one no-show from a first appointment. The year of reliable attendance does not retroactively produce a deposit that was never received. The arrangement was the problem, not the client's eventual absence.
When she says she cannot arrange pre-appointment cash: If she genuinely cannot drop off cash or pay via Venmo before the appointment, and this is her stated reason for cash rather than digital payment, you are now in Type One territory — the barrier is real. Follow the Type One process. If the barrier she names resolves on probing (she has Venmo, she is twenty minutes from your studio, she could arrange drop-off), the preference is not the barrier she initially presented, and the response is to gently name the available option: "Venmo works just as well — you would not need to drop by in person. I'll send you the deposit request."
Type Three: The off-the-books request
This type is less common than Type Two but worth recognizing, because the response is different and the stakes for you are higher. The Type Three client is not asking for cash because it is convenient or because she has a barrier to digital payment — she is asking for cash because she specifically wants the transaction to be undocumented. She may say "I prefer cash — I just don't like the digital trail." She may say "can we keep it simple and just do cash?" with a tone that implies the simplicity is related to the absence of records. She may be more direct: "I'd rather not have it on a card" without offering an explanation.
The motivation for Type Three can vary. She may be trying to manage her own financial tracking. She may have a specific reason to avoid a particular type of documentation. In some cases, the request is an attempt to conduct the transaction off the books — untaxed, unrecorded — which is a compliance problem that belongs entirely to you, not to her.
The important thing to understand about a Type Three request is that you cannot share the compliance obligation with her, no matter how the request is framed. She is a client. You are a self-employed professional. Her preference about how the transaction is recorded does not change your obligation to record it. If she pays cash and you record it, you are compliant. If she pays cash and you do not record it, you are not compliant — and she bears none of the risk. The IRS does not penalize clients for paying in cash. It penalizes self-employed professionals for underreporting income. The risk is yours. The benefit of the arrangement, such as it is, is also yours in a narrow short-term sense. But the asymmetry of risk strongly favors recording the income regardless of how the client prefers to pay.
Script — Type Three, the off-the-books framing: "Cash is totally fine — I just document it the same way I document everything else since it's all income I need to record. You will still get a receipt either way. The only difference from a card payment is that it is physical rather than digital. Does that work for you?"
This response does something specific: it normalizes the documentation requirement without engaging with the reason she wants to avoid it. You are not saying "I cannot help you avoid taxes." You are saying "I document all income the same way." The response is not a refusal — it is a description of your standard practice. If she is a Type Three client who wanted an off-the-books arrangement, this response closes that door without creating friction or naming what she was asking for. If she had an innocent reason for the preference — she does not like seeing small charges on her bank statement, she is managing a personal budget, she just prefers the physicality of cash — the response confirms that cash works without any issue.
Most clients who are Type Three either accept this response and proceed, or they disengage from the booking. Both outcomes are fine. The outcome you are preventing is the one where you accept an undocumented cash transaction to preserve a client relationship that was contingent on you assuming compliance risk on her behalf.
How to tell Type Three from Type Two: The language around documentation is the tell. A Type Two client says "I'll just pay when I get there" — she is talking about timing. A Type Three client mentions the trail, the record, the system, or names a preference for the transaction being between the two of you directly. The difference is usually clear in context. When it is not clear, treat it as Type Two (the deposit timing response) and add the standard documentation note ("I document all cash income the same way"). Both points are correct regardless of type.
What not to say
"Sure, cash at checkout is fine." This is the most common response and the one that produces the most downstream problems. It accepts the framing that cash-at-checkout is equivalent to a deposit, which it is not. It confirms the booking without holding the slot. And it sets the payment arrangement for every future booking with this client — she now pays cash at checkout, and the deposit policy applies to her in name only.
"I don't really do cash." Refusing cash categorically when the client may have a legitimate reason for it is unnecessary. Cash is legal tender. Accepting it is not a compliance risk — not recording it is a compliance risk. Refusing cash to avoid the complication of handling it is a service limitation that costs you a client who could simply have been asked to pay the deposit before the appointment.
"I trust you — just pay when you're here." This conflates trust and slot protection in the same way the skip-the-deposit post describes. Trust is a statement about the probability of a problem. Slot protection addresses the cost when a problem occurs. A trustworthy client can still have an emergency, change her plans, or go through a period of unreliability. The deposit is not a distrust signal — it is a mechanism that functions regardless of trust levels, and it functions only if it is received before the appointment.
"I'll make an exception for you." Named exceptions can be appropriate for specific, recurring clients where you have made a deliberate decision to carry the slot risk. The problem is "I'll make an exception" without naming what the exception is and when it ends. If the exception is "I will not require a deposit from you going forward," say that. If the exception is "I will accept cash at checkout for this appointment," name that it is for this appointment. An unnamed exception has no defined end and becomes the standing arrangement.
Accepting the deposit by Venmo and telling her "don't put a note so it doesn't look like a payment." This is worth naming explicitly because it happens: a pro who wants to accept cash-equivalent off the books but uses a digital payment method to do it. Venmo and Zelle transactions are reportable income if they exceed the annual threshold ($600 for third-party payment processors as of current IRS rules), and informal instructions about note-field content do not change the nature of the transaction. Document all income regardless of channel.
Vertical-specific notes
Colorists: The cash payment request arrives most often at high-ticket appointments — full balayage, color correction, major service upgrades. The dollar amount makes cash feel significant, which sometimes makes the deposit feel significant in a different way: "I'm not paying a $75 deposit on a card I'm not sure I'll use." This is usually a Type One or Type Two scenario depending on whether the card barrier is real.
The practical option for cash-depositing colorist clients is to require the cash deposit be received a specific number of days before the appointment — three to five days is a reasonable standard for deposits over $50. This gives you time to confirm receipt before the appointment window, and gives her time to arrange it. "Drop by Tuesday for a Friday color" is a concrete instruction she can follow.
Color correction appointments specifically: if the final cost is uncertain at booking (because correction scope is assessed at arrival), the deposit functions as a floor rather than full payment, and naming this in advance prevents a cash-at-checkout confusion about whether the deposit covered the full service. "The deposit is $75 toward the service — the final cost depends on what we find at the assessment, and I'll confirm the total before we start."
For Type Three in color: cash for a high-ticket service is where the off-the-books request is most financially material. A $300 balayage paid in cash and not recorded is a meaningful underreporting event. The documentation response applies here most importantly.
Lash artists: The high frequency of lash fills (every three to four weeks) means a Type Two "cash when I come" arrangement, once established, becomes a standing operating procedure quickly. A client who has paid cash at checkout for four consecutive fills has established a payment pattern — and that pattern is four consecutive unprotected slots. The risk of any single cancellation within that period is real; the risk of at least one cancellation across a year of no-deposit fills is higher.
A practical option for lash clients who prefer cash and visit frequently: a rolling cash deposit model. She pays the deposit for the next fill at the end of the current fill — before she leaves the studio. This is cash before the appointment (the next appointment) while being cash that she hands to you in person. It solves the pre-appointment cash delivery problem for clients who cannot arrange drop-off, and it funds the deposit organically at the moment when cash is already in motion at checkout. The conversation is: "I need the deposit for the next booking before you head out — you can just pay it now since you have cash with you."
This is not cash-at-checkout as a deposit bypass — it is cash-at-checkout of this appointment as the deposit for the next appointment. The slot for the next appointment is protected. The distinction matters.
Nail technicians: Small deposit amounts (often $15 to $30 for a gel set) make the cash payment request feel low-stakes, which is why it is most likely to be accommodated without scrutiny in this vertical. The dollar amounts are small enough that "just pay when you get here" sounds harmless. It is not harmless — a no-show on a sixty-minute gel set during a peak Saturday slot costs the same as a no-show on any other appointment, regardless of whether the deposit was $20 or $75. The small amount is not an argument for skipping the requirement; it is an argument for how easy it is to pay it.
The booking system structure is particularly important for nail clients: a booking flow that does not confirm the appointment until the deposit is received eliminates the Type Two dynamic entirely by making it structural rather than conversational. If "I'll pay cash when I get there" produces a confirmed booking on your end, the structural fix is to configure the booking system to hold the slot in pending state until payment is received, then handle the cash-before-appointment request through the confirmation flow rather than through trust.
PMU artists: Permanent makeup carries the largest deposit amounts in solo beauty — often $100 to $200 or more — which makes the cash preference more common (large amounts feel more significant to pay digitally to a provider you have not yet met) and the off-the-books request more financially material when it occurs.
For PMU specifically, the deposit anchors an administrative sequence: booking confirmation → consent documentation → pre-procedure instructions → contraindication screening → appointment. Cash-at-checkout does not anchor the sequence because the sequence has already concluded by then. The deposit as the trigger for releasing the consent documents is a practical argument for why the cash must be received before the appointment: "I send over the intake forms and pre-procedure prep instructions once the deposit is confirmed — that way you have everything you need before the day. I can work with cash; I just need to receive it before I send those through."
This framing connects the deposit to a practical benefit for the client (receiving the pre-procedure instructions in time to act on them) rather than to a policy requirement. It is accurate — the intake documentation should follow deposit confirmation — and it makes the before-the-appointment timing feel like a service step rather than a gate.
Mobile groomers: Mobile grooming has a historically cash-heavy client base in many markets, particularly for residential clients who are accustomed to cash-for-services arrangements. The Type Two dynamic is most normalized here: "I'll just have cash for you when you get here" is a common and culturally expected payment arrangement that predates the deposit system in grooming.
The deposit for mobile grooming has a specific additional function beyond slot protection: it covers the committed travel cost. If a grooming client cancels when you are already en route, or when you have declined another booking in the same area for that time slot, the travel cost is absorbed whether or not the service happens. Naming this makes the deposit concrete for cash-preferring grooming clients: "My deposit is mainly to cover the travel commitment once I block that route for you — I drive to your area specifically for your booking. It works fine in cash; I'd just need it a couple of days before so I can confirm the route is covered."
The rolling cash deposit model (paying the next appointment's deposit at the end of the current appointment) works well in mobile grooming for established clients who pay cash reliably. Once the pattern is established, the next booking is always pre-funded before the groomer departs, which protects each future slot without requiring a pre-appointment digital or in-person arrangement.
Six mistakes
1. Treating "cash at checkout" as equivalent to "deposit received at booking." They are not the same arrangement. The deposit function is the timing of receipt, not the payment method. Accepting cash at checkout as a deposit substitute is accepting an unprotected slot with a future payment promise. The cash at checkout is payment for the service. The deposit before the appointment is what protects the slot. These are different transactions with different protective functions.
2. Accepting cash and not recording it. Cash income is income. Not recording it is underreporting. The client's preference for cash does not change your obligation to account for it. The risk of non-recording is asymmetric: you bear all of it, she bears none of it. Record every cash transaction the same way you record every card transaction. Issue a receipt. Note the payment method. Include it in your income total.
3. Not communicating the cash-before-appointment requirement when cash is approved. Approving cash as a payment method without naming when the cash must be received produces the Type Two outcome: the client believes the arrangement is "cash instead of card" when what you required was "cash before the appointment." She pays at checkout having never understood that cash had a timing requirement, and you hold a slot that was never protected. The approval and the timing requirement must be in the same message.
4. Letting "I'll bring cash" become the recurring reason the deposit is perpetually deferred. "I'll bring cash" as a response to the deposit link sometimes becomes a holding phrase — she says it, the appointment proceeds, she pays, and the deposit question repeats next time. Each time, the deposit is deferred to arrival. The arrangement looks like it is working because she pays. What it produces is a client whose slot is unprotected at every booking, and whose unprotected slot becomes visible as a problem only when the one cancellation or no-show eventually occurs. Address the pattern after the second recurrence, not the first: "You mentioned cash last time — would it help if I sent the Venmo request as an alternative? I'd need the deposit before the appointment either way."
5. Conflating Type One with Type Two before asking the clarifying question. A client who says "I prefer cash" may have a real barrier or a preference. The response to each is different. A Type One client will readily name the barrier. A Type Two client will not — when you name the Venmo or Zelle option, she will often accept it, because the preference was for not using the deposit link specifically rather than a genuine obstacle to digital payment. The clarifying question is the offer of an alternative: "Venmo works just as well if that's easier." How she responds tells you which type you're dealing with.
6. For Type Three: engaging with the off-the-books framing rather than stating the documentation practice. If a client names her preference for an unrecorded transaction, the response is not to discuss the merits of the preference, to express discomfort with it, or to refuse on principle. The response is to name your standard practice: all income is documented the same way regardless of payment method. This closes the door without creating friction, applies universally so it is not a personal accusation, and is accurate. Most clients who receive this response either proceed normally or disengage — neither outcome requires additional management on your end.
Three years: two nail technicians, same client
Two solo nail technicians, both operating at the same studio building, both offering gel sets and fills. A new client — call her Rosa — books her first gel full set with both of them in the same week (she is new to the area and trying a few techs). At checkout, she pays cash at both appointments and mentions she prefers cash.
Nail Tech A says "of course — cash is easy." She does not name a timing requirement. Rosa's second appointment, booked two weeks later, proceeds the same way: she texts to confirm, she arrives, she gets her fill, she pays cash at checkout. The deposit link that went out after booking sits unopened. Tech A does not follow up, because Rosa always comes and always pays. This continues.
Over the first year, Rosa books nine appointments with Tech A. She pays cash at every one. She never pays in advance. The slot is unprotected at every booking. Tech A's records show nine cash payments at checkout, all of which Tech A records conscientiously, so the income reporting is clean. The only problem is the slot risk — which never materializes in year one, because Rosa is reliable.
In month fourteen, Rosa's schedule becomes unpredictable. She has a childcare change, a job shift, and three appointments in a two-month period where she cancels inside the 24-hour window. Tech A has no deposit from any of those appointments. The cancellation fee should apply — it is in the booking policy — but it has never been enforced because Rosa has never been a problem before, and the cash-at-checkout arrangement has no pre-collected amount to apply toward the fee. Tech A sends a message asking Rosa to pay the cancellation fee. Rosa pays for one of the three because the policy was clearly communicated. The other two are absorbed. The slots — one full gel set, two fills — sit empty on a Saturday.
After month sixteen, Rosa's cadence slows. She is booking every eight to nine weeks instead of every four. The relationship is warm but the appointment frequency has halved. She never fully returned to the pre-disruption cadence. The three absorbed cancellation fees total $110 in combined fill and set cost. The reduced cadence costs roughly $220 in annual revenue from the rebooking gap. Tech A's interaction with Rosa is still pleasant, but the financial relationship underperformed its potential because the deposit arrangement from appointment one was never examined.
Nail Tech B responds to Rosa's cash preference differently at the first appointment: "Cash is completely fine — I just need it before the appointment, not at checkout. If you're ever near the studio the day before, you can drop it off. Or Venmo works just as well if that's easier."
Rosa sends the deposit via Venmo before her second appointment. Then before her third. By the fourth appointment, she has saved Tech B's Venmo and the deposit request goes out and comes back in an hour. The mechanism changed — she stopped being a cash client and became a Venmo client — because the first named requirement made cash-at-checkout unavailable as an option without making it a confrontation.
When Rosa's schedule becomes unpredictable in month fourteen, she cancels twice inside the 24-hour window. Both deposits are on record. Both are applied to the cancellation fee. Rosa pays nothing extra — the fee is covered by what she already paid. The cancellation is handled exactly the way Tech B's policy says it will be handled, because the deposit was there to handle it.
Rosa's cadence with Tech B slows during the same two-month period, then recovers. She is back to every four to five weeks by month seventeen. The cancellation fee handled itself. The policy did what it was designed to do. Rosa did not experience the cancellation fee as a surprise because it was already paid. There is no residual friction in the relationship.
After three years: Tech A has absorbed three unpaid cancellation fees and watched Rosa's frequency halve during a difficult period, with partial but not full recovery. Tech B absorbed no losses, saw Rosa's frequency recover fully after the disruption, and maintained a Venmo deposit arrangement that operates automatically.
The three-year gap traces to one message at the first appointment: "Cash is completely fine — I just need it before the appointment." That message took five seconds to say and never needed to be said again, because the arrangement it established — deposit before the appointment, payment method negotiable — became the standing structure of the relationship. The slot was always protected. The cancellation policy always had something to apply. And Rosa, who was never a bad client, moved through a rough two-month period without leaving, because the financial mechanism handled itself rather than requiring a collection conversation in the middle of a disruption she did not cause.
ChairHold's deposit links go out automatically after a booking is confirmed. If you have clients who pay by cash or prefer digital payment methods other than card, the deposit can be received via Venmo, Zelle, or bank transfer before the appointment — the booking page confirms once you have marked the deposit received. The mechanism changes. The timing requirement does not.