Salon Booking Systems
BLOG SERIES PART 5
The Hidden Risks in Booking Systems: Why Most Salon Software Fails Co-Working Compliance (And What a Real Co-Working Tool Must Do)**
Even the best-run co-working spaces can undermine their entire legal structure with one mistake:
using the wrong software.
Most salon systems were built long before the rise of co-working. They were designed for a traditional model — one salon, one owner, one business, one central client list.
And when these tools are forced into a co-working environment, they quietly create risks that space owners often never notice until it's too late.
In Switzerland, the wrong booking system can affect:
SVA classification
MWST interpretation
independence criteria
turnover aggregation
implied employer relationships
data protection obligations
This blog breaks down how authorities look at booking and management systems, the typical “tripwires” inspectors watch for, and what a compliant co-working tool must do to avoid them.
Authorities Love Software Because Software Doesn’t Lie
Contracts can be reworded.
Websites can be cleaned up.
But software?
It reveals the actual relationship between Member and Space Owner.
During audits, Swiss authorities often ask two deceptively simple questions:
“Who controls the software?”
“What can the owner see?”
If the software shows:
revenue for each Member,
calendars for each Member,
client lists for each Member,
pricing control,
commission reports,
product-sales tracking by Member,
or one unified salon dashboard…
…the authorities immediately assume:
This is not co-working. This is one business.
And once that assumption is made, it becomes the Space Owner’s burden to prove otherwise.
This is why software matters more than websites, contracts, or marketing.
It is the operational truth.
The Biggest Software Red Flag: Shared Revenue Visibility
If a system shows the Space Owner any of the following:
“Total revenue per stylist”
“Turnover dashboard”
“Sales performance”
“Commission report”
“Income summary”
“Team earnings overview”
“Service totals by staff member”
…that is the fastest way for authorities to classify the entire setup as a single commercial enterprise.
Shared revenue displays imply:
supervision
financial control
business integration
employer-like oversight
salon-style hierarchy
And none of these belong in a co-working environment.
A true co-working space does not track — or need — the income of its Members.
The Second Red Flag: A Single Business Identity in the Booking System
Another major clue for authorities:
If clients book through a system where the space appears to be the merchant.
For example:
one central booking profile
one brand at checkout
one payment account
one confirmation email template
one cancellation email template
one receipt sender
This looks like a classic salon.
Not a co-working collective.
Authorities simply follow the branding:
“If everything looks like it belongs to the space owner,
then the businesses inside must belong to them too.”
Software must reflect the fact that Members are independent entities, not “team members.”
The Third Red Flag: One Payment → One Merchant → Internal Splitting
This is a huge issue.
If the booking system takes:
the full service payment,
into one account belonging to the space,
and then “splits” the money in the backend…
It immediately looks like the space is:
receiving service revenue,
distributing income,
operating a central business,
controlling financial flows,
participating in turnover.
This triggers:
MWST aggregation concerns
joint business interpretation
employer vs contractor evaluation
even potential FINMA issues in extreme cases
A compliant co-working space must never hold member revenue, even temporarily.
The Fourth Red Flag: Shared Client Lists
If the space owner can see:
client names
client phone numbers
service history
notes
preferences
…this is no longer co-working.
This is a salon with multiple workers inside.
Authorities interpret shared data as:
salon ownership
employee oversight
dependency on the space
lack of independent business activity
In co-working, clients belong only to the Member, not the building.
What a Co-Working Management Tool MUST Do (and Why We Built Pod.World This Way)
A compliant co-working system must:
Give every Member their own business identity.
Their own profile, pricing, branding, policies, and receipt sender.
Protect Member client data from the Space Owner.
If the owner can see it, it’s no longer co-working.
Separate all payments at the moment of sale.
Service → Member
Retail → Space Owner
No mixing, no splitting, no centralised payout.
Issue separate receipts from separate businesses.
This prevents MWST confusion and shows clear separation.
Avoid any feature that treats Members like staff.
No team dashboards.
No staff performance metrics.
No salon reporting structure.
Prevent the Space Owner from controlling Member pricing or services.
Independence must be absolute.
Allow block-based access instead of fixed stations.
This supports true co-working rather than rental.
Ensure the software structure mirrors a real co-working environment.
Software is the strongest proof of independence.
This is precisely why Pod.World, our co-working management app for service-based spaces, was built from the ground up around these rules — instead of retrofitting salon logic that doesn’t belong in a shared workspace.
Why This Matters in Switzerland: Software Tells the Truth
When an inspector walks into a co-working space, they ask for:
your contract
your marketing
your payment flow
and your software
The first three can be rewritten.
The fourth cannot.
Software reveals:
who controls the business
who gets paid
who sees what
who manages what
who directs what
and who benefits from what
If a co-working space uses software that behaves like a salon system,
authorities will treat it like a salon system — regardless of intention.
If the software matches the co-working model recognized across Zürich’s office and therapy spaces,
authorities will treat it as co-working — because that’s exactly what it is.
Conclusion: The Booking System Can Make or Break Your Co-Working Structure
Co-working is fully legal in Switzerland.
It is recognised.
It is normal.
It exists everywhere.
The only time co-working becomes risky is when salon-style software is forced into a structure it was never designed for.
That’s why Pod.World exists:
a tool built specifically to match the legal, financial, and operational realities of modern co-working providers.
In the next blog, we’ll explore how money flows and receipt structures prove independence — and how the wrong payment architecture can accidentally create a shared business where none exists.
