Leaving the content of the article completely aside, I've never understood the "Don't let your X write a check that your Y can't cash" meme. (Other common examp

Leaving the content of the article completely aside, I've never understood the "Don't let your X write a check that your Y can't cash" meme. (Other common example: "Your mouth is writing checks that your body can't cash", which I think means you've been challenging people but you don't have the matching physical prowess to win such a challenge.) If the product is trying to cash the check, then the hype wrote it out to the product. It's not clear to me why it did that. If the check bounces, it's because the hype doesn't have any money in its account. But assuming that money is figurative for some kind of value (e.g. ability to live up to the hype), it's the product who should have the empty bank account, not the hype. Why is the product solvant in this story - isn't the point that it isn't? And the transaction is entirely between the hype and the product, and thus doesn't really concern anyone else, which seems to defeat the point. I feel like the story should be that hype wrote a check on behalf of the product that the consumer can't cash. Or something. But maybe I'm missing something, like what the check and money are meant to represent. Can someone explain it to me?