Bringing credit control in-house across a group of companies

Summary

• The short answer: it depends on two things: (1) complexity of the work and whether context is required and (2) quality of the outsourced provider. Keep it outsourced if your provider is doing a good job and your setup is simple.
• The usual trigger: your number of unpaid invoices is increasing and the wrong emails are sent to the wrong customers.
• When it doesn’t make sense: if you have a relatively a small number of entities, low invoice volume, or a provider who’s performing well.
• When it does: multiple entities which each require different context, varying clients and terms.
• How Trove helps: Trove organises multiple Xero entities within one straightforward system so you know what is being chased when.

Why multi-entity groups consider bringing credit control in-house

Across a portfolio, an outsourced credit control provider has to manage the context of each business separately which can lead to errors without the proper system in place.

A few signals tend to trigger a review:

• Inconsistent chasing across your companies. One business’s ledger is clean, another has invoices weeks overdue that nobody has touched.
• The wrong clients are being chased on behalf of the wrong company.
• You’ve lost visibility. You can’t easily see, across the group, who owes what and what’s been done about it.

If two or three of those sound familiar, it’s worth considering an alternative.

When bringing credit control in-house doesn’t make sense

In-house isn’t automatically better for every multi-entity group.

Keep it outsourced when	Bring it in-house when
You have a small number of companies	You run several entities, often under different brands
Invoice volume and complexity are low	Volume is high and the chasing process varies significantly
Your provider is doing a good job	You are losing confidence your provider can handle the complexity
Your trust the process that is currently in place	You want more control over how and when clients are chased

If your outsourcer is on top of things, your setup is simple and you trust the system, moving in-house just adds cost and risk.

When bring credit control in-house does make sense

For a multi-entity group, it makes sense when:

1. There’s a high level of complexity. If each business in the group has a different set of customers, different email address chasing them and different late payment policies, a system in-house will work better.
2. Your provider is under-performing. If you’re on this page, it’s likely there’s an issue with your current outsourced provider. At this point, moving in-house is worth it.

How Trove helps a multi-entity group run credit control in-house

Providers usually can’t start to fall short because staying on top of the admin of credit control for multiple businesses simultaneously is tough. Trove removes most of it.

We’ve written a guide on how to in-source credit control using Trove, but in a nut shell Trove allows you to:

• Add all Xero entities under one umbrella login
• Set a standard credit control process across all entities - or adjust each one as required
• Chase each entity from a separate email address
• Review metrics as the group level
• Integrate with Creditsafe

Because Trove takes care of the routine chasing, you can focus on tricky customers that require a human touch. This division of labour usually leads to better results.

Credit control in-house across a group: in summary

Bringing credit control in-house is worth it when your portfolio reaches a certain level of complexity and your existing credit control provider is underperforming.

If you’re looking to bring it in-house, adding a tool like Trove will save your internal team significant time and effort.

FAQ

Is it cheaper to run credit control in-house?

It depends on volume. For a single small company, an outsourced provider is usually cheaper than a salary. Across a portfolio, the maths changes, because one person supported by automation can cover every entity while an outsourced fee tends to scale with the number of companies.

How many people do we need to run credit control across a group?

Often one, if the repetitive work is automated. The limiting factor isn’t the number of entities, it’s how much admin each one generates. Groups get into trouble when one person is manually chasing from fifteen separate Xero files.

Can we keep some companies outsourced and bring others in-house?

You can, but it works against the main reason for in-housing. If the goal is a consistent experience across your brands, a split approach reintroduces exactly the inconsistency you’re trying to remove.

What do we lose by leaving an outsourced provider?

Mostly the escalation experience of professional credit controllers on difficult accounts. If a lot of your book needs hard collections rather than routine reminders, factor that in. Most groups find the bulk of their overdue balance is routine and clears with consistent chasing.

Will clients notice the change?

They should notice it improving. Chasers come from your own brand and address rather than a third party, and they arrive predictably rather than whenever the provider got to your ledger.