I don't either but I don't read the emails for certain projects.

Egregiously hateful and random threatening emails directed toward shoppers are my least favorite part of this business. I have never worked anywhere else or with any other group in my entire life where they are so common. Realizing how very common they are, I try not to take them personal. However, sometimes we all have a bad day, and you just plain don't need to randomly get hit with that in the middle of whatever your work day. I have "fired" mystery shopping companies and schedulers both because I just plain wasn't into their vituperativeness.

For a business that is built on reporting on business practices for the purpose of improving business for its clients, you'd think that the mystery shopping industry itself would be the epitome of professionalism in the way they themselves conduct business, that every person you met in this field would be a consummate professional. Many in the business really are. However, that is as far removed from the everyday reality of this industry as could ever be imagined in any industry out there, and that is the one thing about mystery shopping that completely baffles me. It is clear that there is a real disdain for mystery shoppers among some in the mystery shopping industry; however, without mystery shoppers there would be no mystery shopping industry. It could be that we too are facing what restaurant workers in particular have faced for years in how they were treated both by the public and by the people they worked for. I don't know.

Very well stated GinnyLynn.

Whaaaat? “Egregious requests”? I don’t think I got that email. By definition, how can a request be “egregious” unless you’re asking someone to do something immoral or illegal? Why would a request that the scheduler thinks is excessive damage the relationship going forward? She (if it’s who I assume it is) is just looking for reasons to be rude.

@purpleicee wrote:

That same MSC that rejected the $940 offer...They asked me to do a bonused shop that was 5.5 hours away from me.The shop normally pays $90, and they only added a bonus of $35. In the past, the bonus was at least $150, to start, plus travel expenses that were good. I told them my gas would cost close to $90, not counting my drive time. I would not need a hotel. I was going to come right back, as I had others they needed done that were closer to home. The shop had to be done right away, as in leave tomorrow morning. My mistake about not getting the confirmation on the gas portion was huge and not my usual trend, at all. But, because they had always in the past, came through for me money-wise, and in turn they have always been able to count on me, I trusted it would work out. (Still shaking my head to this day). What a fool I was. They gave me $25 for gas. That is right, $25. I drove 11 hours round trip in one day to complete the shop. The shop took me just over 2 hours. I only stopped for coffee and to get gas after the shop before I got back on the road. I had a lunch packed. So, I learned a hard lesson and the thing that really makes it worse is that I knew better than to give them the benefit of the doubt. I had already seen the messages about "reasonable offers" and the other one that was threatening. Did you see it? Here is the exact wording: "I am willing to review any and all bonus requests that are reasonable and fair from those of you who are willing to travel. Egregious requests will not be entertained and will likely damage the partnership moving forward." What a statement! So, now I am convinced like some of you have mentioned, the scene has really changed. They do not appreciate seasoned, ethical and reliable auditors. I believe they do want to get rid of us and re-condition new auditors into their mold of cheap labor. And yes, like some of you have also stated, they think we are uneducated and desperate. They MSC's have important contracts with their clients. Those contracts get renewed because good auditor's/shopper's are part of the equation. We provide the data they need to keep the MSC and the client partnered. Why weaken the link?

Well since they now require a detailed list of what your expenses are, then technically they agreed to pay for the distance which wouldn’t change, or I assume it would change very little and that the mileage was to get to the General area. So the fee should be the new distance at IRS rate and however many shops are left @ $14.

@wrosie wrote:

So let's say they accepted your route offer of $940. Then the day before you were to start your route they cancelled half of the locations and told you they were only going to pay you $470. The distance driven is the same as the cancelled shops were sprinkled throughout the route, but not the furthest out.

Would you cancel the remaining shops? Would you do the route at half of what you expected to be paid?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

@Notme2021 wrote:

Well since they now require a detailed list of what your expenses are, then technically they agreed to pay for the distance which wouldn’t change, or I assume it would change very little and that the mileage was to get to the General area. So the fee should be the new distance at IRS rate and however many shops are left @ $14.

@wrosie wrote:

So let's say they accepted your route offer of $940. Then the day before you were to start your route they cancelled half of the locations and told you they were only going to pay you $470. The distance driven is the same as the cancelled shops were sprinkled throughout the route, but not the furthest out.

Would you cancel the remaining shops? Would you do the route at half of what you expected to be paid?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

You're dreaming. The distance could change depending on what shops they cancelled from the route. That last shop could be 50 miles each way to complete which would be 100 miles RT at the IRS rate.That would mean at least a $74 reduction in payment for the route. IF the shopper knew before they left to do the route. .

They have cancelled many shops at the last moment, even when shoppers have done the shops or are in route. I don't believe they would respect the furthest distant shop fee that was requested in the initial request. They didn't mine. They left me hanging out to dry.

I traveled just under an hour, 56 minutes, to do an audit that was rejected for someone else. The big, giant MSC needed it done right away. When I got to the location I opened the APP on my tablet to check-in. A message popped up stating the shop had been re-claimed or something similar. I looked at my emails and saw someone sent one after I was already on the road 20 minutes into the trip. The email asked me not to go because the shop was taken. I found out from someone the original auditor had it sent back for corrections and then did not re-submit in time. They contacted the scheduler who made it possible for them to get another chance, so they re-submitted it while I was en route. I contacted the person who sent the cancelation to me and told them I was already there and wasted my time and gas. There was no consideration given, of course. Two days later the location was available again. I found out from a reliable source the original audit was not done correctly at all. I needed the money, so I went to do it. I asked for a little compensation and was turned down. This MSC was once very good for me, where I could basically forget doing other shops. Now I have to go back to wearing all the different hats for different shops and MSC's, but I am happy to do it. I just hope the giant MSC does not acquire them all.

A tip of my hat to independent scheduler Jenn Barrick. On 08/29, I applied and was scheduled for three shops along an Interstate where I was traveling to purchase stock for my store on 09/01. Within hrs., she contacted me explaining an error had occurred and two of the jobs were cancelled That courtesy afforded me ample opportunity to locate replacements.

I have been fortunate in that this situation is only the fifth and sixth cancellations of my shopping yrs. and that all arrived before I had departed for the work.

You’ve had good luck. That scheduler alone has canceled more than 6 of my shops in the past year alone after I’ve done the shops. Usually without explanation. Admittedly before the due date but often I set a later due date to give myself leeway for unexpected problems. I think it also depends a lot on the project.

@shopperbob wrote:

A tip of my hat to independent scheduler Jenn Barrick. On 08/29, I applied and was scheduled for three shops along an Interstate where I was traveling to purchase stock for my store on 09/01. Within hrs., she contacted me explaining an error had occurred and two of the jobs were cancelled That courtesy afforded me ample opportunity to locate replacements.

I have been fortunate in that this situation is only the fifth and sixth cancellations of my shopping yrs. and that all arrived before I had departed for the work.

I said “technically,” meaning I’m sure they wouldn’t see it that way, and only in those circumstances. My only point is they can’t “reasonably” claim that it’s $x per shop when they asked for a detailed list of expenses. In that case it’s $14 per shop plus extra for mileage. I am not claiming they would be reasonable.

@wrosie wrote:

@Notme2021 wrote:

Well since they now require a detailed list of what your expenses are, then technically they agreed to pay for the distance which wouldn’t change, or I assume it would change very little and that the mileage was to get to the General area. So the fee should be the new distance at IRS rate and however many shops are left @ $14.

@wrosie wrote:

So let's say they accepted your route offer of $940. Then the day before you were to start your route they cancelled half of the locations and told you they were only going to pay you $470. The distance driven is the same as the cancelled shops were sprinkled throughout the route, but not the furthest out.

Would you cancel the remaining shops? Would you do the route at half of what you expected to be paid?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

You're dreaming. The distance could change depending on what shops they cancelled from the route. That last shop could be 50 miles each way to complete which would be 100 miles RT at the IRS rate.That would mean at least a $74 reduction in payment for the route. IF the shopper knew before they left to do the route. .

They have cancelled many shops at the last moment, even when shoppers have done the shops or are in route. I don't believe they would respect the furthest distant shop fee that was requested in the initial request. They didn't mine. They left me hanging out to dry.

That does not surprise me.

Eventually the chickens come home to roost. However, there's going to be a lot of suffering until they realize that they have alienated every good shopper they have left. They already have an issue with flaking. Continuing to threaten and belittle their dependable shoppers is going to hurt them in the long run.

This turns the whole email from a smoking gun to a smoking cannon. Maybe the independent schedulers are not to blame. Maybe they are simply trying to follow the orders of the upper management that clearly has a massive disdain for dependable, fairly paid shoppers.

@purpleicee wrote:

Just a clarification on who sent the "EGREGIOUS" email warning from that MSC...it was not the scheduler...it was the Senior Vice President -

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2022 01:32AM by thunderdeacon.

This is why I'm not willing to put miles on my car.

Hey - this thread is about Independent Schedulers - and I am that - but I see a lot of questions and concerns here - and I would just like to throw this out there - if you want to reach out to someone at Ipsos who can and will help clarify, or who welcomes your feedback - you can email carey.medina@ipsos.com Put Forum Question or something like that in the subject or put what your concern is there, and she will read it and I can tell you from personal experience she does welcome constructive feedback, and if you help her identify an issue - she will get it taken care of.

I appreciate the fact you’re always trying to help here on the forum, even when there are issues with projects you don’t schedule for. Since one of the complaints in this thread was that Carey herself sent an email that too large a request for one route would harm the shopper’s future relationship with Ipsos, then I certainly would not consider contacting her about much of this. If a quote for work that is actually less than previously-paid amounts means less work in the future because it is now considered “unreasonable,” who knows what a complaint about such emails and about such overall policies would mean. Perhaps escalating an issue about one shop that was canceled after a long drive makes sense. I’m not sure about the rest.

@KarenSchedulesForIpsos wrote:

Hey - this thread is about Independent Schedulers - and I am that - but I see a lot of questions and concerns here - and I would just like to throw this out there - if you want to reach out to someone at Ipsos who can and will help clarify, or who welcomes your feedback - you can email carey.medina@ipsos.com Put Forum Question or something like that in the subject or put what your concern is there, and she will read it and I can tell you from personal experience she does welcome constructive feedback, and if you help her identify an issue - she will get it taken care of.

Hi - did you get that email and it was from Carey? If so I would respond to her and discuss it. I work on a lot of different projects and receive all sorts of bonus requests. But I have never had that particular email sent to a shopper or auditor that had sent me a bonus request. So I don't know the criteria that would get that particular email. I don't know both sides of that.
What is posted here on the forum is all from the shoppers perspective. I see so much good advice and tips on here - and I think they are great. What I am saying is that there are shoppers who have commented that they just won't take shops now because they had a shop removed, or heard of it happening - so I am saying for things like that - email Carey and ask her what is the policy? If a shop is removed the day of the shop and you are already on the way to do it - then what? If it had a bonus and there is a route of these and you needed all of them for the entire route to work - ask her how that is handled. Then you would know if that is a concern - and if there isn't a policy for that then Carey will see that there may be a need to figure that out.
I see things on here a lot that i 100% know are not true - or are not being told exactly how things happened - but I would never comment on those. But I just urge you to not let comments decide if you want to shop with Ipsos - if you have a question or doubt - really Carey wants to know and figure it out.

I didn’t receive the email and haven’t seen it corroborated by anyone else. Someone above said it was from the Senior VP and I assumed they were talking about Ipsos and about Carey.

My issue is that Ipsos is reducing pay (via reduced bonuses, reimbursements that cover less, and in some cases lower reimbursements) and then saying (via several schedulers, I don’t know what your language is in emails) that asking for a fraction of what was offered last quarter is not reasonable (“if you live within x miles then asking for more is not reasonable.”) I personally have received such emails from schedulers. I think it is rude and unprofessional and the message is clearly coming from the top, since all or most schedulers began using the “reasonable” language at the same time for emails that mentioned additional bonus requests.

If they are going to lower the bonuses that they will accept, then they should say they have changed the system and/or contracts, that the requests should mention mileage, and shoppers should not assume that bonuses given in the past will be approved again. Then if a shopper gives a proposal that can’t be met, “unreasonable” should not be part of the response. It is much more unreasonable to expect shoppers to work for reduced fees when there is record-breaking inflation. So the scheduler or PM or Carey should just say, “Sorry, we can’t pay that much” without any adjectives.
It is these emails that made several of us think the above comment in an email could be true, though of course without corroboration, I always remain skeptical.

I agree that an issue with a shop being canceled should be addressed via the PM and/or Carey.

@KarenSchedulesForIpsos wrote:

Hi - did you get that email and it was from Carey? If so I would respond to her and discuss it. I work on a lot of different projects and receive all sorts of bonus requests. But I have never had that particular email sent to a shopper or auditor that had sent me a bonus request. So I don't know the criteria that would get that particular email. I don't know both sides of that.
What is posted here on the forum is all from the shoppers perspective. I see so much good advice and tips on here - and I think they are great. What I am saying is that there are shoppers who have commented that they just won't take shops now because they had a shop removed, or heard of it happening - so I am saying for things like that - email Carey and ask her what is the policy? If a shop is removed the day of the shop and you are already on the way to do it - then what? If it had a bonus and there is a route of these and you needed all of them for the entire route to work - ask her how that is handled. Then you would know if that is a concern - and if there isn't a policy for that then Carey will see that there may be a need to figure that out.
I see things on here a lot that i 100% know are not true - or are not being told exactly how things happened - but I would never comment on those. But I just urge you to not let comments decide if you want to shop with Ipsos - if you have a question or doubt - really Carey wants to know and figure it out.

And see I think that is EXCELLENT feedback and the type of thing that Carey would want to know - if a uniform system of asking for bonuses would help, I am sure she would be open to it. I never really thought that saying 'reasonable offers accepted' was a bad thing - but after reading these posts - I see that reasonable really doesn't say anything. So if you feel $20 is reasonable and we have to turn it down - that is saying you are unreasonable. So I have stopped using that wording. If we are open to offers I will just say that - then I submit it, if its not approved I say I am sorry we cannot pay that at this time, and if that changes I will let you know.
I am an independent contractor just like you are - but we both have ways that we can discuss the terms that we work under - so 100% if you feel that something isn't working for you, bring it to her attention. Anything brought to her thoughtfully and respectfully I know she will take a look at.
Anyway I hate to see unhappy shoppers - unhappy shoppers don't like to shop much so always let me know if I can help with anything.

Karen, you are sounding very reasonable and understanding and I appreciate your comments and concerns. They seem heartfelt. Truly. I must say though, the relationship the independent scheduler has with MSC's, is very different than the shopper has with the MSC's, regardless of IC status. That email that was also part of this whole thread was a true statement. Here is the body of the email copied and pasted from the email received. I only enclose it to show it was a truthful contribution because it sounded like it was now in doubt. I am not trying to get into this again all over. But rather, just to clear up the doubt of the existence of such email. I removed the client name from the email. Here it is:


Greetings,

Thank you for partnering with Ipsos on the (removed client name). I’m reaching out to you personally to ask for your partnership. I appreciate a good hustler, and I know that there are times when we ask you to travel or stretch outside your comfort zone to help get us over the finish line at the end of the month.

At this time, if you are willing to help us complete these audits during the last week of fielding, I want to hear from you. I am willing to review any and all bonus requests that are reasonable and fair from those of you who are willing to travel. Egregious requests will not be entertained and will likely damage the partnership moving forward.

We love our auditors and we want to make sure we’re taking care of you. Please return that consideration with thoughtful, and appropriate bonus requests. Send me an email and lets talk about it.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you!

Carey Medina
Senior Vice President, Ipsos

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2022 08:06PM by purpleicee.

Ok, that’s even worse in context. “We appreciate you but don’t request anything we perceive as egregious (even if it represents your true time and expenses), or you’ll get less work in the future.
We love you (unless of course your idea of fair and appropriate fees is different from ours).”

That word egregious in that context is even worse than the egregious use of reasonable.

That email from Carey tells you everything you need to know about what they are trying to do.

Why complain to the top when the person at the top is the problem?

That was a clear threat that asking for too much money could cause a shopper to lose out on opportunities in the future. Words like, "thoughtful," "egregious," "reasonable," "fair," and "appropriate" are really unprofessional. That email makes me sick to my stomach. Why does the company get to be the arbiter what those adjectives mean? It is designed to make a shopper fearful or ashamed of asking for what they think is an appropriate amount of money for their time, expenses, and effort. For their miles and miles on the road, their gas, their hotels, all the mileage and depreciation on their vehicle, their printing expenses, their time... the opportunity cost. If these have to be done this week, then a shopper has to drop everything and hit the road. I GUARANTEE YOU that the executives at the MSC are enjoying their Labor Day weekend with their friends and family while threatening and belittling shoppers who drop everything to get these shops done over the holiday weekend.

Business is supply and demand. It has nothing to do with what is "appropriate." If a project is over budget, it is because the MSC under-bid on the project. If they have a bunch of locations left and it is the last week, then that is their fault for waiting until the last minute.

However, it is all trumped by the huge smoking gun in the email:
"Egregious requests will not be entertained and will likely damage the partnership moving forward."

Threatening shoppers is HORRIBLE and sad. It tells you everything you need to know about how much they value us. All that other b@llsh@| about loving their auditors and taking care of them is pure hypocrisy and lies.

Karen, I don't know you, but I appreciate you coming here to talk. You are clearly not the problem at all!
You are so right in saying that a simple "yes or no" is appropriate. The MSC is clearly trying to use coercion and psychological manipulation to try to get shoppers to work for less. It is coming from the very top!!!

Business is SUPPLY and DEMAND. If you need a service, you pay what it takes to get it done. I would never call a plumber or an electrician for a quote and use the language used in that email to try to get them to bid lower on my project. They would be offended and bewildered. That's not how business works.

And based on all of this, the last thing I would want to do is contact anyone in management about my issues. I would be afraid they would blacklist me. We are private contractors. We do not have whistle-blower protections like regular employees do.

To be clear I don’t necessarily think there should be a uniform formula (and neither does Ipsos or they’d come up with one and it wouldn’t be the current system). My point is that IF “reasonableness” is considered to be based on miles, then they can say something that isn’t saying “you’re unreasonable if you want an extra bonus and you live within 50 miles.” They can say they’ll consider an extra bonus based on miles for those who live farther than 50 miles away.

If I go 50 miles to do a shop I’d have to pay quite a bit in tolls or go farther and slower to avoid them. Someone in NYC would pay probably $20 round-trip in tolls to go to northern Jersey, and could get stuck in hours of traffic. Going to the Florida Keys there’s one road in and one road out so one breakdown or accident could add 5 hours to the trip, which is a common occurrence. 50 miles in the DC area may mean no tolls but hours of traffic. Those are just the areas I’ve shopped and am familiar with. LA obviously has lots of traffic, too. Maybe I have to rent a car to do the shop. There are many scenarios in which objectively speaking it would be “reasonable” to ask for more without even considering different ideas of what a “reasonable” hourly rate is, or what I’m dropping to fulfill an “urgent scheduler’s request.” But that isn’t the issue. As Thunderdeacon said, it’s a matter of how much they’re willing to pay and who else has made an offer, and the quality of the work (reliability being key aspect). So it has nothing to do with being “reasonable,” and calling us unreasonable at every turn is rude and unprofessional, and like TD said, is trying to scare or manipulate us into lowballing our offer.

There are times when the word makes sense and is commonly understood. If there’s a route and Ipsos or whoever says they’ll reimburse a “reasonable” amount for hotel, or that a reasonable amount could be added to the bonus for hotel then we all pretty much know what that means. They’re not gonna reimburse or approve a bonus that means staying at the Ritz or Mar-a-Logo. But they also shouldn’t expect me to stay somewhere that’s dangerous and sketchy with drug dealers in the lobby. So a reasonable hotel is the cheapest safe and clean hotel (tho we may disagree on the details) or maybe a little nicer. Now how much a “reasonable” hotel costs still depends on geography, though.

I could also legitimately say they’re being unreasonable by offering $12.50 ($14) for a shop I know will pay at least $20 in the end. But I wouldn’t say that because that’s how this business works. They’re trying to keep their own “unreasonableness” (trying to get the job done for as little as possible) while threatening us about ours (doing the job for the highest renumeration possible, based on expenses, needs, and historical payments).

@KarenSchedulesForIpsos wrote:

And see I think that is EXCELLENT feedback and the type of thing that Carey would want to know - if a uniform system of asking for bonuses would help, I am sure she would be open to it. I never really thought that saying 'reasonable offers accepted' was a bad thing - but after reading these posts - I see that reasonable really doesn't say anything. So if you feel $20 is reasonable and we have to turn it down - that is saying you are unreasonable. So I have stopped using that wording. If we are open to offers I will just say that - then I submit it, if its not approved I say I am sorry we cannot pay that at this time, and if that changes I will let you know.
I am an independent contractor just like you are - but we both have ways that we can discuss the terms that we work under - so 100% if you feel that something isn't working for you, bring it to her attention. Anything brought to her thoughtfully and respectfully I know she will take a look at.
Anyway I hate to see unhappy shoppers - unhappy shoppers don't like to shop much so always let me know if I can help with anything.

In the past year, different schedulers have sent me various Emails requesting offers on doing some remote, faraway shop.
Often, I disregarded them as not worth my time. For others, I have sent in offers to perform the shops with a bonus amount I considered reasonable and honest. The value of my time on a weekend, plus fuel costs and mileage all were worked into determining how much my offer would be. Of course, I did not give the scheduler(s) that information. Why should I? To me, that is none of their business. It's take it or leave it.
Then, the scheduler(s) began asking me how many miles away was the shop. The first time, I gave the distance - grudgingly. I was told it was too much (the bonus request).
After that, I submitted offers on other E-mails. Same request. What was the distance. I did not answer, nor have I since then even bothered to respond to those Emails. I do the audits and shops as I see fit.
With the beginning of September and the announcement that they no longer will award shops as rotation allows, I am seriously considering firing this MSC.
The threatening and unprofessional letter from Ms Medina only reinforces my feelings.
And no, I shall not be attending any of those "Meet and Greets".

As this forum is here to help us and help us help each other, I am grateful for it and all of you for your insight, perspective and reasoning on all these matters. I just want to say about that email, I know I caused some anger to flare up. My intentions were to educate, inform and warn. Some of you have said the email made you sick or that it solidified your resolve to stay clear of them, etc. That is how I felt when I saw it the first time. Then the decline in pay, reimbursement, etc., continued to spiral down. I know the evaluation cost billed to the clients of the MSC have steadily gone up. So there is no excuse for cuts to the shoppers. It is just pure greed and manipulative language to make us feel like WE ARE...unreasonable! The posting of the email in its entirety was because the last few posts made me feel like my integrity was being questioned - as to whether that email existed. I would want to know as well if something was authentic. I would have wanted proof, too. But now I feel like repercussions are about to ensue with the cat out of the bag.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2022 11:46PM by purpleicee.

Purple, I appreciate your openness and willingness to share.

This is the smoking gun that solidifies what I have been observing over the past several months.

They are in the process of alienating all of their experienced and dependable shoppers. That might be their goal, to be honest. I am just not sure they can recruit enough new people to replace us all. It will be interesting to see.

Thunder, I believe you are right. They need us gone so they can do what they are doing with those fees. So many businesses lost good employees during COVID and they had to hire many who do not really want to work. As a result, customer service and assistance, etc., has declined terribly across the board. So maybe the MSC will be content with shoppers that are not good since businesses all over have the same issue. But how long will the clients stay with the MSC if they do not provide good reports or even fail in meeting deadlines because the reports/audits were not done right? Unless the client still desires the reporting and takes their business to another MSC. As I return to greater involvement with my former MSC's, to keep my business going, I say again, I hope the big MSC does not acquire those as well.

Hi - I am sorry if I made it sound like I didn't believe it was sent - what I meant is that I don't know what criteria would need to be met to get that email. We are seeing only one side here, that is what I meant.

Again - please accept my apologies if you felt I was doubting it was sent - I absolutely believed you, I believe that what is posted here is mostly very accurate - but there are times (not saying this is one of them) that the other side of the story just isn't told.

@KarenSchedulesForIpsos wrote:

Again - please accept my apologies if you felt I was doubting it was sent - I absolutely believed you, I believe that what is posted here is mostly very accurate - but there are times (not saying this is one of them) that the other side of the story just isn't told.

Tell me what the other side of the story is. It seems it's all been explained very clearly and that threatening email was the result of it.

Thank you, Karen. Not knowing what everyone may have been thinking, of course, it was just to give plain sight on the matter in question to all onlookers.

I agree with you that the 'reasonable' offer means something different to each person. And I did used to use it when I knew that maybe I could get another $5 approved so I didn't want to just say make an offer - because then if it is for a bunch of shops, the shopper looks at mileage and time and all of that to come up with an offer - so if I already know at that point that we can't do much more than that I didn't want to sound like I was misleading.