# Data referral follow-up after a requested delay | SourceX

Canonical: https://refer.sourcex.si/guides/a-referral-follow-up-after-a-company-has-asked-for-more-time
Last updated: 2026-11-04

A company that asks for more time has given you a preference, not an objection to overcome. Write it down in the company's own words: until when, what it is waiting for, who should be contacted and how, and what, if anything, it wants in the meantime. Then send one follow-up at that point, quote its condition back and offer two easy answers. Your own deadlines, including the 90-day attribution window, stay out of the message.

If you are not sure whether you heard a timing request or a polite no, start with [handling a "not now"](/guides/how-to-handle-not-now-objection), which covers that diagnosis. This page begins where the company has been clear: yes, perhaps, but later, and on these terms.

## Their reason for waiting belongs in the case for this company

The reason a company gives for waiting is usually a fact about its records, and a good follow-up treats it as one. "After the warehouse system cutover" means a migration with a date, the moment old records are kept or lost. "After the audit" means finance is busy and the CFO, who often owns the archive, will be free later. "Once we have hired a COO" means the person who would prepare the case does not exist yet. "When the sale closes" means the decision may move to a new owner's CEO.

So the follow-up carries two company-specific lines, not one: the reason you raised the conversation in the first place (years of the company's own records in a named system, for example) and the reason the company gave for waiting. A message that carries both cannot be mistaken for a template sent to fifty people.

## The preference record: seven fields to fill the day they ask

Write the record the same day, while the words are fresh. Each field changes what you are allowed to send later.

| Field | What to write | Example (Illustrative) | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Their words | The request, quoted | "Come back after our system cutover in March" | The follow-up quotes it back |
| Return point | A date or a named event | After the March cutover | Defines when, and only when, you write |
| Who | The CEO, plus anyone the CEO named | The CEO, with the operations director copied | The CEO authorizes; you do not route around them |
| Channel | Email, phone, or through the person who introduced you | Email | Respect beats reach |
| In the meantime | Anything they asked for before the return point | Nothing | Rules out mid-wait nudges |
| What would make it a no | Any condition they named | "If the board rules out outside data projects" | Lets you close cleanly |
| Introduction status | Not yet introduced, or submitted to SourceX | Not yet submitted | Decides whether SourceX is involved in the follow-up |

A record with "Nothing" in the meantime field is an instruction. A record with no return point is not a preference at all; go back to the diagnosis.

## Follow-up templates matched to what the company asked for

Pick the template that matches the return point in the record. Each one quotes the request, restates one company fact, offers a yes and a no of equal weight, and promises no further chasing.

**They named a date.**

> {First name}, in {month} you asked me to come back after {date}. This is that note, sent once. The reason I raised it still holds: {one fact about the company's records}. If you would like an introduction to SourceX, reply and I will arrange it. If the timing is still wrong, or the answer is no, one word is plenty, and I will not follow up again.

**They named an event.**

> {First name}, you mentioned waiting until {event} was done. If it is, and you would like an introduction to SourceX, reply and I will arrange it. If it is not, tell me roughly when, or ignore this; I will take silence as "not yet" and leave it with you.

**Someone else has to weigh in.**

> {First name}, you wanted to talk it over with {co-owner or board} at {meeting}. If it helps, the attached one-page note is written so you can pass it on as it stands. Whatever the two of you decide is fine with me.

That attachment should be the [forwardable one-page note](/guides/when-a-contact-says-send-me-something-i-can-forward), disclosure included, because a co-owner reading it has never heard of you. For follow-ups that answer a question the company asked, see [the follow-up that adds a useful answer](/guides/the-follow-up-that-adds-a-useful-answer); for making the no easy, see [how to make a referral ask easy to decline](/guides/how-to-make-a-referral-ask-easy-to-decline).

**The silence rule.** One message at the company's point, in its channel. If nothing comes back, close the record with the date. You write again only if the company writes first.

## One warehouse operator, two follow-ups (Illustrative)

Illustrative: the warehouse operator below is generic and every fact about it is invented, so read no outcome into it.

In September the CEO of a 310-person third-party logistics warehouse operator, with twelve years of pick, putaway and exception records in its warehouse management system, told you: "Come back after our cutover to the new system in March. Email is best, and copy our operations director; she'll have time then." In the meantime, nothing.

**Before**, sent in October with the partner's own clock in mind:

> Hi Jordan, just circling back on SourceX! Lots of companies are moving on this and I'd hate for you to miss the window. Could we grab 15 minutes this week?

It ignores the March point the CEO set. "Lots of companies are moving" is a claim with nothing behind it. "Miss the window" turns the partner's attribution clock into the company's pressure. It asks for a meeting nobody offered, and it leaves no easy way to say no.

**After**, sent by email the week after the March cutover, with the operations director copied as asked:

> Jordan, in September you asked me to come back after the March cutover, by email and with Priya copied. This is that note, sent once. The reason I raised it has not changed: twelve years of pick, putaway and exception records in your previous system. If you would like an introduction to SourceX, reply and I will arrange it, and Priya is welcome on the first call. If not, one word is plenty and I will not follow up again.
>
> Priya, since this is the first you have seen of it: I am a SourceX referral partner, and if the company licensed data through SourceX, SourceX would pay me a referral reward, separately from anything the company receives.

The last paragraph exists because the operations director is a new reader. The FTC's endorsement guidance treats a financial relationship as a material connection to disclose unless the context already makes it clear, and it expects the disclosure to sit with the recommendation itself. Jordan heard it in September; Priya did not.

## Your attribution clock is not the company's deadline

You do have a clock, and it is honest to say so. It is the 90-day attribution window: the terms credit only the first valid introduction of a new company made inside it, and only once that company submits a verified application; SourceX's home page adds that attribution is locked when the application is submitted. The terms also say: "The 90-day window does not extend because contact protection under the agreement continues." Nothing in them pauses the window because a company asked for time.

So a company that wants six months may apply after your window has run. In the warehouse example, had the CEO opened your link during the September conversation, a 90-day window would have closed in December, three months before the date the CEO set. That cost is yours to carry. It is never a reason to hurry the company. How credit falls in a particular case is decided from dated records, including written introduction evidence, so keep yours: the introduction, the company's request and your follow-up. If the company approaches SourceX on its own in the meantime, the duplicate rules apply and SourceX decides from its records.

If you have already submitted the introduction, the terms let SourceX communicate with the referred company directly without affecting valid attribution. Agree with SourceX who sends the follow-up, so a company that asked for quiet hears from one person.

The reward itself does not change with the wait. By default it stays at the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of the Actual Supplier Payout (what SourceX actually pays the company), with no cap for each referred company, and SourceX pays it separately, never out of the company's payout. A lead, a meeting or a signature alone does not trigger it. The full rules are on the [rewards page](/rewards).

## What can change while the company waits

- **Headcount can fall without changing fit.** The size check is 50 or more full-time employees at peak, so a reduction during the wait does not undo a peak the company already reached; the [peak headcount guide](/resources/peak-headcount-data-referral-eligibility) covers it.
- **Ownership can change.** If the company is sold, the decision moves to the new owner's CEO, and your record's "Who" field needs rewriting before anything is sent.
- **Records can be retired.** When the reason for waiting is a migration, the one useful thing to mention, at the time of the request rather than mid-wait, is that exports of the old system are worth keeping.
- **Programs change.** Criteria follow the specific program, and a company that misses one program's criteria today may still match a different program later, so a wait can help as well as hurt.

## One step on their date, and silence accepted as an answer

The follow-up offers one step: an introduction, if the CEO wants it. It carries no invented deadline, no scarcity and no talk of what other companies are doing. Real urgency exists only when the company's own records face a dated event it has told you about, and then you name the event without adding pressure.

If anyone asks you to stop, stop that day. Where a follow-up counts as commercial email, the FTC's CAN-SPAM guide requires an opt-out to be honored within 10 business days; treat that as a legal ceiling, not a target. And keep the CEO informed throughout: a company submitted behind its decision maker's back is usually not a fit under SourceX's screening guidance, so a wait is never the moment to submit the company quietly to protect your window.

## Next step

> **Refer a company. No cap on rewards.** Default reward on a company's first qualifying transaction: the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pay 15%. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, including the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.

When the company's own return point arrives and its CEO says yes, [register for a partner link](/register) if you have not already, check the company against [who qualifies](/who-qualifies) and reread the attribution sections of the [program terms](/terms) before you submit.

## Sources

- https://refer.sourcex.si/terms
- https://refer.sourcex.si/
- https://refer.sourcex.si/who-qualifies
- https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
- https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business