The Green Sheet Online Edition

July 27, 2026 • 26:07:02

Raising the standard of merchant sales - Part 1

A recent LinkedIn discussion sparked by ImpactPays CEO Dee Karawadra centered on merchants' allegations of costly cancellation penalties, confusing contracts and aggressive sales tactics, prompting broader questions about transparency, accountability, merchant education and the professionalization of merchant sales

With that in mind, we asked a select group of payments leaders the following questions:

1. Stories about merchants feeling trapped by long-term contracts, equipment leases and cancellation penalties continue to surface in the payments industry. Where should the industry draw the line between legitimate business protections and predatory behavior, and how much responsibility falls on ISOs, agents and their upstream partners to ensure merchants truly understand the terms they are signing?
2. Has the industry done enough to professionalize merchant sales—through CPP accreditation, for example — or do ongoing concerns about hidden fees, confusing contracts and aggressive tactics point to a need for better training, oversight and accountability? If so, what measures would you recommend?<.li>

Following is a portion of their responses. Answers from additional payments experts, including Dee Karawadra, Allen Kopelman, Robert Taylor and Justin Volrath, will appear in our next issue. We wish to thank everyone who participated in this endeavor.

Mark Dunn, Vice President and Co-Founder, Omnia Payments Marketplace

Thanks for asking these questions.  Here are my thoughts:

1. The issue of unethical sales practices continues to plague the merchant services industry for several reasons. 

   A. The industry has relied on a large pool of independent sales agents to solicit every merchant in every community in the country. As independent contractors, sales agents can freely enter, make sales contacts, close deals or leave the merchant services profession. By IRS definition, the ISO cannot control the sales agent's daily activities nor how the work is done.

   Certainly, the ISO can set down ethical rules and can train the agent in the principals of sales best practices. However, the ISO that relies on independent sales agents has little control over what happens in any particular sales call. 

   B. It is incumbent on an ISO to train its sales agents as to its business principles and sales best practices. And as every registered ISO is responsible for registering the name of every independent sales agent with the card brands, the registered ISO is held responsible for the sales activities of its registered independent sales agent.

   In my long experience with merchant services, I have found that some ISOs do not do enough to inspect their expectations of ethical sales standards of their independent sales agents. 

   C. An ISO has a responsibility of care to its merchant prospects and clients to train its agents regarding what are acceptable and unacceptable sales practices. Every ISO should have a verifiable program of training for every independent sales agent with frequent re-training and testing to make sure sales best practices are being followed.

   D. I have met and worked with many professional independent sales agents who practice the highest level of sales acumen and ethics. As an industry, we need to support the efforts of these professionals by continuing to promote professional organizations of sales agents.

2. I believe the merchant services industry needs some new sales approaches. It is for this reason that several colleagues and I have created a new merchant sales channel for ISOs. We've created Omnia Payments Marketplace, where merchants can get matched up to an ISO provider that has the right payment solution for them and get a competitive quote for merchant services.

   Omnia is designed to let business owners shop online for merchant services the way they want to—by getting good information and a deal on payment processing (similar to the services of SelectQuote, Insurify or Lending Tree). Omnia matches a merchant to a payment solution and a quote. And only when the merchant accepts the quote do they find out who the ISO is. That way the merchant knows the details of the deal before they ever have contact with a salesperson. 

   Omnia is a different channel for merchants and ISOs to connect. Many ISOs are excited about the opportunities Omnia is bringing them. We believe Omnia represents the best parts of free enterprise: open communication, full disclosure of rates and fees, fair competition, and sales best practices.

Anita Meeks, President, Allure Payments 

1. There is a difference between protecting a business relationship and trapping a merchant in one. Legitimate protections are reasonable, transparent and tied to real costs. If a processor, ISO or agent invests time, service, equipment, pricing concessions, implementation support or custom work into a merchant relationship, I understand protecting that investment.

     But the terms have to be clear before the merchant signs. Not discovered after. Predatory behavior starts when the agreement depends on confusion. Buried cancellation penalties. Long-term equipment leases nobody clearly explained. Auto-renewals nobody mentioned. Pricing dressed up to look better than it really is.

     A fair agreement should be able to stand in the light. If the terms become uncomfortable once they are explained clearly, the issue is not the merchant. It is the agreement. I have a strong personal line on cancellation fees. I believe excessive cancellation fees are unethical, unprofessional and damaging to the credibility of the provider and the industry as a whole. They may protect revenue in the moment, but they do not build trust. My philosophy is simple: if I cannot take care of a merchant, serve them well and do right by them, I would never want to charge them for my inability to do that.

     That does not mean every merchant should be able to walk away from every agreement without consequence. If a provider has priced fairly, supported the merchant, honored the agreement and operated in good faith, then reasonable contractual protection may be fair. But there is a real difference between protecting an honest agreement and punishing a merchant for leaving one that was misrepresented, poorly supported or never properly explained.  

   A signed contract does not automatically mean the merchant understood what they signed. Transparency should be proactive, not reactive. The most important terms should be discussed before the merchant signs, not explained later when they are frustrated, intimidated or trying to leave. That is where too much damage has been done in this industry. When sales conversations are built only around rates, and the real obligations are left in the fine print, the merchant may sign the agreement, but trust was never really earned.

     Yes, merchants have a responsibility to read their agreements. But ISOs, agents, processors and upstream partners carry a greater responsibility because we are the experts in the room. Most business owners do not live in interchange, assessments, batch fees, PCI fees, lease obligations, liquidated damages, cancellation windows, funding timelines or surcharge rules. We do.

     That knowledge creates responsibility. A significant amount of responsibility falls on all of us because we are the ones presenting, explaining, approving and profiting from the relationship. Reasonable terms should not be hidden in fine print, minimized in conversation or left undisclosed until the merchant has a problem. They should be explained clearly before the agreement is signed.

   The best professionals in this industry do not need confusion to win business. They win with trust, clear tradeoffs and solutions merchants can still feel good about long after the agreement is signed. That is how we protect merchants, protect our reputations, lead with integrity and raise the standard of the industry.

   

2. There is a difference between certification and competence, and I think our industry sometimes blurs that line. CPP accreditation is a good thing. Education matters. Professional standards matter. I respect anyone who takes the time to study the industry, understand the rules and take their role seriously. But a credential by itself does not change what happens on a sales call, especially when the pressure is on, commissions are involved and the only thing being measured is how fast someone can close the account. So no, I do not believe the industry has done enough. The ongoing concerns around hidden fees, confusing contracts, equipment leases and aggressive sales tactics point to a bigger issue. This is not just a training problem. It is an accountability problem. And at the center of that accountability has to be integrity.

   Good training exists. Good associations exist. Good resources exist. The problem is that training is not always required, it is not always ongoing and too many people are not held accountable when they misrepresent terms or leave merchants confused.

     At the same time, I want to be clear that sales goals are not the problem. ISOs need to grow. Processors need volume. Agents need to earn. There is nothing wrong with wanting to win business and build revenue. The problem is when short-term production becomes more important than the quality of the relationship being created.  

   This is a longevity business. A merchant relationship built on pressure, vague pricing or missing information usually does not last. The merchant may sign, but they will walk as soon as the next person gives them a reason to. When the relationship starts with transparency, clear expectations and trust, the revenue is not only earned, it is more likely to stay.

     That is the part we need to train better. I would like to see sales training that is specific to our industry and teaches professionals how to sell with integrity, honesty and transparency. Too many salespeople are trained to lead with rate and urgency, but not enough are trained on how to explain the full relationship with confidence.

     When someone truly understands the pricing, the agreement, the equipment, the fees, the compliance considerations and the tradeoffs, transparency does not feel scary. It becomes part of the value they bring to the merchant. Pressure may get the signature. Transparency is what keeps the merchant.

   I would also like to see ongoing education, not just a one-time exam. Interchange changes. Card brand rules change. Compliance requirements change. Technology changes. Surcharge, cash discount, funding, gateway and software conversations all require current knowledge. A certification earned once does not automatically mean someone understands what merchants are dealing with today.

     Training also has to go beyond rates. Merchant sales professionals should understand pricing models, interchange, assessments, PCI fees, equipment terms, lease obligations, chargebacks, funding timelines, gateway implications, software integrations, surcharge rules, cash discount rules and how each of those decisions affects the merchant's actual business. This is not just sales. This is financial infrastructure for a business.

    We also need to train professionals to qualify the full relationship, not just the merchant. Yes, the merchant needs to be a good fit for the processor and the risk profile. But the solution also needs to be right for the merchant. The pricing structure, equipment, contract terms, support model and operational fit all matter. Real professionalism is knowing when to move forward, when to slow down and when a solution is not the right fit.

   We also need better contract transparency standards. Disclosure and transparency are not the same thing. Disclosure means the information exists somewhere in the agreement. Transparency means the merchant actually understood the terms before they signed. That difference matters. The most important terms should be explained in plain language before signature. Length of agreement. Cancellation terms. Equipment ownership or lease obligations. Monthly fees. PCI fees. Auto-renewals. Funding expectations. Any material cost or obligation that could surprise the merchant later should be impossible to miss.

   There also need to be real consequences for repeated misrepresentation. If an agent or ISO consistently creates merchant complaints, that should not be brushed off as just another service issue or cost of doing business. It should affect their ability to continue boarding accounts.

     And accountability cannot stop with the agent. ISOs, processors, sponsors and upstream partners all play a role because they set the rules, approve the channels, benefit from the volume and create the incentive structure people operate inside. If the fastest path to income is vague pricing and aggressive tactics, that is what some people will sell. Oversight has to start above the agent, not only with the agent. None of this is about punishing the industry. It is about protecting merchants, protecting good sales professionals and protecting sustainable revenue. The people doing this the right way should not have to compete against confusion.

  The industry does not need more people who can simply sell a low rate. It needs more professionals who can explain the full relationship, disclose the tradeoffs, stand behind the agreement and take responsibility for what happens after the signature.   To me, professionalizing merchant sales means leading with integrity, doing right by the merchant, supporting responsible growth, and making sure our industry rewards the people who are building trust, not the ones creating confusion. Certification helps. Training matters. Accountability changes behavior. Integrity is what makes the standard real. That is how we professionalize merchant sales and raise the standard of the industry.

Notice to readers: These are archived articles. Contact information, links and other details may be out of date. We regret any inconvenience.

Prev Next