As a Scheduler/Account Manager for Primo Solutions, I can assure you that Primo Solutions is a very reputable company. I have worked for the company in an Independent Contractor status for over 5 years.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2011 08:08PM by batesmotel.

I have been out of town since this past Sunday, so I am just now reading some of the responses. So, before I provide a status, I would like to thank the other mystery shopping companies who have supported Primo, as well as those shoppers and schedulers.

As the CEO of the company, I normally do to take time to respond in these forums. However, when I saw the post from DaScubaLady, I reached out to her immediately. That was Sunday prior to my leaving town. So, instead of spending a nice relaxing day with my family, I spent it trying to resolve this matter. It appears as batesmotel gave a very accurate response. She is indeed a scheduler for Primo and has been for a number of years, as she stated. Here is what was left out of the posting:

1) I tried calling DaScubaLady three times on Sunday and even left her my cell number. She refused to call me back.
2) I emailed DaScubaLady copies of all cleared checks providing proof of payment to her. To that response, she said I was accusing her of bank fraud.
3) I forwarded DaScubaLady emails that had been sent to her regarding the stop payment and the re-issuance of the check. You see, when DaScubaLady reached out to us and said she had not received her check, I was very concerned. Ask any of our shoppers and they will tell you w pay very quickly. That is important to me. So, the same day DaScubaLady said she had not received her payment, I went into our online bank and saw indeed the check had not cleared. I put a stop payment on the check and had another check in the mail the following day. My staff sent an immediate email stating we had issued another check and apologized.
4) DaScubaLady was supposed to follow up with me on Monday after she received the information from her bank. Since I have not heard from her, I can only assume that her bank provided the same proof that I had provided her.

Once again, I apologize that a status by me was not provided before now. For any shoppers that would have been interested in shopping for us prior to this incident, I hope you will reconsider. For anyone out there that has an issue or a concern with Primo, feel free to send an email to me personally. The email on our Contact page goes directly to me. Had there been any discrepancies on our part regarding this issue with DaScubaLady, I would most certainly have made it right. Not only that, I was prepared to write her a check to cover her fees because I thought it would be the Christian thing to do. However, if she can rub my company name in the dirt and not have the professionalism to even call me to help resolve the matter, then I have done all I attend to do.

One last note. I have had a couple other mystery shopping companies contact me regarding issues with DaScubaLady. What I refuse to do is stoop to a level to share that in a public forum. Ok, I am done. I don’t come her often, so if you want to reply specifically to me, please do so via email. Thank.

Haven't had a chance to read any posts......been crazy busy and late getting out today.
Briefly, Mr.Miller and I worked out a mutually beneficial agreement, and will follow up when I have a moment.

If anything else has been discussed...will have to deal with that when I have a moment.

msmiller1970 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Once again, I apologize that a status by me was
> not provided before now.
>
> One last note. I have had a couple other mystery
> shopping companies contact me regarding issues
> with DaScubaLady. What I refuse to do is stoop to
> a level to share that in a public forum. Ok, I am
> done. I don’t come her often, so if you want to
> reply specifically to me, please do so via email.
> Thank.

I have not shopped for Primo and I will not now, but my reason to avoid this company is not because of comments by DaScubaLady. Different shoppers see things different ways and one shopper's favorite may be another shopper's poison. Most smart shoppers (and does any company want to recruit dumb shoppers?) recognize that uh-ohs happen and that sometimes a shopper's post is incorrect, so a single negative post from one shopper is not enough to sour all potential shoppers on an MSP. But when a company feels the need to come on a shopper forum and defend itself, it very much puts me off. When the company identifies a shopper from their post, and then shares as much info about the shopper and the situation as was shared here by the MSP CEO and the scheduler on an open shopper forum, this sets off a big flashing sign to me "DON'T SHOP DON'T SHOP DON'T SHOP!"

A responsive MSP that wins my respect and admiration posts a simple "I'm sorry to hear that a shopper is having difficulty with my company. We care and we try to be responsive to all our shoppers. Here's my contact information. The shopper may contact me and identify herself and we will do whatever we can to work this out." Posting arguments on a shopper forum rarely improves an MSP's image.

And the final paragraph Msmiller1970 has included is appalling. Primo and Msmiller1970 have stooped to a very low level indeed here by adding the heresay about "a couple of other mystery shopping companies." I hope Msmiller1970 reconsiders how it makes Primo and its management look and comes back to edit it out. Regardless of the situation between Primo and DaScubaLady and regardless of who is right or wrong or whatever, because of the company's posts, I will avoid this MSP like the plague. Primo, I'd glad you're done and you should be ashamed of yourselves. No telling how many potential shoppers you have turned off with your posts, particularly the final one.

Ok, one last post because Austin Mom is very correct. My posts have been unprofessional and unbecoming. DaScubaLAdy and I did come to a very amicable resolution atfer sending the last post (which was unprofessional). For that, I apologize to DaScubaLady, the other people who visit this forum, and to my staff. I cannot change the past, but I can change the future. This was a lesson learned. AustinMom, thank you for putting me in check. It was much deserved.

So, I've gathered that the truth of the matter is that Primo did *not* bounce a check to OP. If that's the case, Scuba very much owes Primo a public apology for this thread.

I don't think you can assume that at all. I think that you have to assume there was confusion on both parts if you choose to assume anything at all.

AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
But when a company feels the
> need to come on a shopper forum and defend itself,
> it very much puts me off. When the company
> identifies a shopper from their post, and then
> shares as much info about the shopper and the
> situation as was shared here by the MSP CEO and
> the scheduler on an open shopper forum, this sets
> off a big flashing sign to me "DON'T SHOP DON'T
> SHOP DON'T SHOP!"
>

I disagree, DaScubaLady opened herself up by posting what could be considered, if even partially true, defamation on this board, and I feel Primo had every right to defend itself, at least it did so openly, readily identifying the post as coming from Primo. DaScubaLAdy could have responded sooner to Mr. Miller and it "might" not have reached the point it did. Mr. Miller provides more than adequate proof that he tried to rectify this situation to no avail:

>"1) I tried calling DaScubaLady three times on Sunday and even left her my cell >number. She refused to call me back.
>2) I emailed DaScubaLady copies of all cleared checks providing proof of payment to >her. To that response, she said I was accusing her of bank fraud.
>3) I forwarded DaScubaLady emails that had been sent to her regarding the stop >payment and the re-issuance of the check...."

Also to quote Mr. Miller: ‘DaScubaLAdy and I did come to a very amicable resolution AFTER SENDING THE LAST POST (The caps are mine,)”. I take from this statement that since he could receive no response from DaScubaLAdy, he did the next best thing; he posted his statement/side here, then he received a response. I feel if I had been in this situation, I would have been on the phone with the MSC ASAP trying to figure out what happened. Come on three phone calls and Mr. miller’s cell number, she could have at least responded to him, since she started the process, even if only to say I will call you Monday when I can go to or call my bank. However, by this point Mr. miller was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.

I can already hear the responses from the Mystery Shopping God’s telling me in their millionth post how wrong I am, but that is OK, I am glad this is an open forum for all to speak. When we feel we have been wronged by the mystery shopping companies we want to shout from the mountain top about it (I am guilty of this) but when we make a mistake and a shop is rejected we come to the valley to be consoled wondering how the MSC could take a minor issue so seriously (I am guilty of this as well).

Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think you can assume that at all. I think
> that you have to assume there was confusion on
> both parts if you choose to assume anything at
> all.

I do not think any assuming is necessary; I think the entire post speaks volumes and if I were called into court and asked if DaScubaLady’s posts had any effect on my opinion of Primo, I probably would have to say yes. (Good or Bad, I will leave to everyone’s assumption.)

When there is silence by the OP, I feel that speaks volumes.

As I have indicated numerous times, all of this is simply how I feel.

Wow, lot's going on in my absence. Unfortunately, I still don't have a ton of time so will briefly defend myself.

1. Arch: Just as an FYI. I was not singling you out. Yours was the only post about an update when I logged in and started to reply. By the time I posted, could have an hour later if something came up, others had also replied.


2. I still haven't had a chance to go really read and digest Mr. Miller and Brenda's posts, but I get the feeling they are placing the blame on me.

1. I was paid $7, not $47
2. I had to ask for the remaining $40
3. The $40 check that "bounced" came back " insufficient funds."
That's what my banks has on their electronic records.
I to date, only have that official information to go on.
4. I never received a phone call, and email or an communication from Primo regarding them stopping a check.
5. I never received any communication once my bank returned the check to Primo Solutions.
This check went through the system (re-deposited twice) typical of an insufficient fund check, atypical of stopped check.
6. Before posting, I contacted their VP; my contact person person at Primo questioning the check.
Not once, Not twice, but three times before posting.

I did not get any response from anyone at Primo before posting.

If I had been paid correctly from the get, or, more importantly, if I had been answered via normal communication method, this would have never hit the forum.

I also want to remind, that the first response I received was via this forum. Mr. Miller decided to answer me publicly, not privately.

I understand the need for preserving a good corporate image, but the road that one takes to get there is just as important as the road that got you there.

That's the facts...Ma'am.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2011 05:15PM by DaScubaLady.

Flash, did you not note my use of the word 'if'? I'm not assuming anything. msmiller clearly explained how no check was bounced; rather, Scuba tried to cash a check upon which a stop payment had been issued. A stop payment is a far cry from a bounced check. A bounced check reflects poorly upon the issuer, and I'm sure many of us would choose not to shop for a MSC which doesn't pay. If Scuba has a different explanation, then I'm sure she'll continue to make her case. But as I said, if the check wasn't bad, then Scuba at least owes Primo an apology.

It wasn't my choice to make this situation public, and I have no stake. But I do care about the truth.

I too 'care about the truth' and I will not argue with the sentence starting "If . . ." It is the first sentence of your post with which I take umbrage. I feel certain that there WAS a check that bounced and whether it was or was not under the circumstances the two parties claim I am reserving judgment for the moment. My suspicion is that neither one is 100% correct due to failure to communicate adequately with each other and I am not about to put the responsibility for that on either side. Misunderstandings happen in this and any other business.

I do take umbrage with companies that rush in to 'defend themselves' when rather evident to me is that there had already been attempts by the shopper to get this situation straightened out that had not been responded to.

The point of my post was not intended to determine who was right and who was wrong. I frankly don't care who was right or wrong here. Most smart shoppers realize that uh-ohs happen, whether they are mistakes on the part of the MSP or on the part of the shopper, and one negative post is not going to destroy a company's reputation. I agree that if a company chooses to "defend" itself, it has a perfect right. But sometimes defending yourself by responding to one disgruntled shopper raises the level of importance of the original post and alienates others. A company may end up tarnishing its own image by its response, which is what I believe happened here. EXCEPT for the last sentence of Msmiller's post, I probably would have laughed and thought "Wow, did that MSP ever shoot itself in the foot!" Because my point here is not who was right and who was wrong.

And, while I agree that an MSP certainly has the "right" to defend itself if it chooses, the last sentence of Msmiller's post went well beyond. When he stated "One last note. I have had a couple other mystery shopping companies contact me regarding issues with DaScubaLady. What I refuse to do is stoop to a level to share that in a public forum," he stooped to a very low level. That statement appeared highly vindictive to me, because it added absolutely nothing to his explanation of the situation or to the defense of his company. I see no reason for the final nebulous comment except to discredit the original poster.

Edited to add that I do respect Msmiller for coming back and acknowledging and apologizing. It takes a big person to do that, and I believe his instant apology shows that he does have respect for our forum and its members.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2011 05:56PM by AustinMom.

I respect Primo for stating what happened, and needing to explain their side of the story. Might have been better for shopper to have written about confusing situation after it was cleared up, and not damaging MSC's reputation, or her own. I know we all get heated (really), but the forum is cruel at times, as one shopper already professed to never shop for Primo again due to this, hope they have really reconciled, shopper stated she had large fees to pay due to bounced check, and MSC states check was never bounced. Waiting to hear the end of this story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2011 03:47PM by Irene_L.A..

This forum is public. If someone posts something about a company, Primo Solutions has every right to post their side of the story, because they have been named publically. I disagree that one negative post cannot affect a companies reputation.

Let's say I am a potential client of Primo and I do a good due dillagence and "google" Primo Solutions. It is highly likely that this thread will appear, and reading about how Primo Solutions bounced a check is not going to reflect highly on the company and may in fact loose me as a potential client as I potentially will not want to do work with Primo if they are bouncing checks.

How can we expect anything else but for Primo to come here and post their side of the story? This does not make me want to work for them any less for one second. While I do agree that the statement that Primo has been contacted by other companies regarding Scuba's work should have been left out (that statement is extraneous and un-necessary) I support their right to post the rest of their side just as much as I support Scuba's perogative to post her side.

I am very glad that it got resolved to both parties satisfaction. For me personally, this thread has not affected my decision wether to work for Primo or not (for the record, I have never worked for them - nor am I likely to). I do however, have a professional respect for Primo that I did not previously.

Mickey, I agree totally, and have never worked for Primo. I now have a little sympathy for them for having come forward to defend themselves. I think they have been damaged as you stated, everything is shown on record that happens on the internet, so, this matter should hae been resolved quickly between the two parties. I think Scuba made a mistake in the heat of the moment. I don't fault her, but making it public took the matter out of her hands...just wish it hadn't happened.

There is a post from another shopper at V. Complaint is bounced check...

mrcomputer101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a post from another shopper at V.
> Complaint is bounced check...

I think probably same person. I was searching for another MSC on the board and saw an old posting from DaScubaLady and she had signed it Sandi. Post on V-Board is by a similar name. Seems to be more than just a coincidence. The dates are the same as well.

This is my opinion then if I am incorrect I will gladly acknowledge.

I have received updated info. You are correct. Same poster...

swvaboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mrcomputer101 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is a post from another shopper at V.
> > Complaint is bounced check...
>
> I think probably same person. I was searching for
> another MSC on the board and saw an old posting
> from DaScubaLady and she had signed it Sandi.
> Post on V-Board is by a similar name. Seems to be
> more than just a coincidence. The dates are the
> same as well.
>
> This is my opinion then if I am incorrect I will
> gladly acknowledge.

Very odd that two company representatives responded and the company defended itself vigorously on this forum but the company did not respond on Volition. I would think it would be important to the company to defend itself on Volition as well as here, especially after the matter has been resolved.

AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very odd that two company representatives
> responded and the company defended itself
> vigorously on this forum but the company did not
> respond on Volition. I would think it would be
> important to the company to defend itself on
> Volition as well as here, especially after the
> matter has been resolved.


I agree, it is abit odd.

It's also a bit odd (or more) that the poster has not modified or updated the posting on volition. I can see the MMSC not noting the volition thread, but the OP of both threads certainly knows about the volition thread. It remains totally negative from her perspective. I am not liking this, a bunch.

OK, I'll bite and be the nosy one. How did all of this end up - for both sides?