Helena,

You are correct that my shop count is relatively low; this year stands at an even 80. In my time in the business, only one scheduler has been a problem for me: Nikki Atkins.

A few minutes ago, it occurred to me I had never stated my position on Ipsos. In the 11 yrs. we have been contracted, I have completed 11 shops. Last year's. total was two, with this yr. being zero. The reason is their work:pay ration is generally not acceptable to me. I understand they, as is prudent, do not pay more than necessary. One of last year's shops paid me $140 for a double cell assignment, but only because I had what was needed and I, as was prudent. exploited the situation. After all, this IS business!

Yes when the money works for you grab it!

Ok, I am sure now that I know why shipping shops get yanked away from shoppers! Right now, both scenarios are available for self assign at the same locations during many of the same dates. Different schedulers for each scenario. Most of us know that any location cannot be shopped within a certain amount (18, I think?) Days of its last shop - any scenario. What we don't know is whether another shopper has self assigned a location for one of the scenarios yet. In which case, there could be two shoppers scheduled for the same location and somebody's going to get canceled, "Per client."

Why does Ipsos keep doing this? It has been going on for a while. They're posting them in violation of the client's requirements then blaming it on the client when they renege on their contracts with us.

Just one more example of the Ipsos's abuse of power.

Interesting in these times, MF and IPSOS are asking us to shop food places when the reimbursement won't even cover the minimum required purchases.

Shoppers here complained when RBG's steakhouse prices went up and the previous reimbursement already didn't cover the cost of two of the least expensive steaks on the menu.

What happened? RBG went to their client and renegotiated the reimbursements on all three of the different shops. The dine in shop went from $35 to $50 reimbursement. That's a 42% increase!

So why can't MF and IPSOS do the same with their clients?

Gas prices skyrocket and IPSOS lowers the reimbursement (or at least keeps it the same, I don't know because I believe they got the gas shops from Maritz). As many have stated, the gas reimbursement amount won't even cover the cost of a gallon of gas in some places.

And now that they've taken one of MF food shops, they increased the reimbursement but decreased the shop fee or visa versa. At least that's what I'm reading here. The nearest location is 60 miles from me so I don't do them.

Hi those different scenarios for the shipping shops can be on the board at the same time and even done on the same day. And what do you mean by shipping shops getting yanked from shoppers? That program I do schedule some of those and I have never seen shops just removed from a shopper before they do them - if this happened to you can you email me at karen.holland@ipsos.com and let me know what happened? It hasn't happened with the ones that I schedule. Sometimes they let us know of CLOSED locations, so we cannot shop those temporarily, but when they let us know they are reopen the shopper can go then.

Karen, you were not the scheduler. I only do the Regular scenario and those are the ones that have, many times, have been taken away after I plan a route, while I am on my way there and even while I am doing the shop they have disappeared from my shop log by the time I get back to my car. I've read here that it has happened to other shoppers. And the last time I read the guidelines there was a certain amount of days between shops required.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2022 05:40PM by sestrahelena.

Actually, I don't think the 18-day rotation per location rule is in the Shopper guidelines. But I have been told by previous schedulers and possibly through emails that there is a per location rotation.

ETA: found it! It's under the "Plan" heading in the guidelines. 18 days.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2022 07:34PM by sestrahelena.

This mystery shopping company needs to figure out why shops are being removed from shoppers after they have been assigned. Pulling shops out from under contractors while they are on their routes or actually doing the shops is really bad. It is really unprofessional, and it shows a complete lack of consideration for their contractors. If this does not stop completely and immediately, then it is just another piece of evidence that shows that this mystery shopping company really does not care about their shoppers. If they want to lower pay, then let them. That's their prerogative. They need to do it professionally and without emotional coercion. However, there is never an excuse to remove shops from contractors after they've been assigned. It should be extremely rare, and in those cases, the contractor should receive a personalized email or a phone call apologizing and trying to figure out a solution. Just removing them and not telling them is horrible. Absolutely terrible, and it shows a complete and total lack of respect and consideration for their workers. All of that crap about valuing and wanting to take care of their shoppers is just a big load of horse crap.

Thanks to the shopper who posted the email from Ipsos. I do not know what Carey's background is, but offer a perspective from one who negotiates for a living. One side says some of the changes and language is certainly new, different, and with some hurdles for mystery shoppers. The other side says it is not unique and very common across many industries.

The term "fair and reasonable" has been around for at least 5 decades. It is not intended to be rude or offensive. It is meant to be fair to both sides. Cost is one of the standard methods used to establish a price is fair and reasonable. It is to also include a reasonable profit. It is a take it or leave situation when working with regulated entities or the powerhouse conglomerates that require it.

On the flip side, some posters have expressed concern over the use of the "unreasonable." It is a commonly used word during negotiations (yes, seriously.) We don't simply respond “unreasonable." The position is supported by an explanation or facts.

I agree egregious is out there. It may have been more appropriate to address this part with the perceived culprits. But she choose to be direct while assuming the audience was more familiar some of the language. One shopper posted "Carey herself sent an email that too large a request for one route would harm the shopper's future relationship with Ipsos." Whereas, I interpret the potential blacklisting of a shopper to be more conspicuous or severe than just a large bonus request for a route or distance drive. They may not be willing or ever ready to pay what the shopper asks when he/she wants it (even if paid before), we may have to wait patiently, and if no other shopper picks it up, we may end up getting the bonus anyway, but that is another story.

My reading is that egregious is intended for those who have or continuously attempt to game the system. Padding the evidence like the contractor who sold $7 hammers to the feds for a whopping $400 at the taxpayers’ expense. Purposeful exaggeration of x, y, z for the benefit of personal gain. This is what I believe is being discouraged. I don’t read anymore into it than that. As it does not apply to me, for me, it is business as usual.

Now back to the beginning, I hear some saying your cost and profit is no one’s business but yours. Some contractors are open to sharing as winning the business is what is most important. Others choose to remain private and run very successful businesses. Absolutely a choice for every owner to decide what makes the best sense for their business.

@purpleicee wrote:

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 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2022 09:13PM by Zek.

@wrosie wrote:

Interesting in these times, MF and IPSOS are asking us to shop food places when the reimbursement won't even cover the minimum required purchases.

Shoppers here complained when RBG's steakhouse prices went up and the previous reimbursement already didn't cover the cost of two of the least expensive steaks on the menu.

What happened? RBG went to their client and renegotiated the reimbursements on all three of the different shops. The dine in shop went from $35 to $50 reimbursement. That's a 42% increase!

So why can't MF and IPSOS do the same with their clients?

Why can't RBG be like MF and Ipsos by paying more than a $0 fee for their steakhouse?

Simple. Because they can get the steakhouse shops done with a $0 fee.

@boridi wrote:

Why can't RBG be like MF and Ipsos by paying more than a $0 fee for their steakhouse?

@myst4au wrote:

Simple. Because they can get the steakhouse shops done with a $0 fee.

@boridi wrote:

Why can't RBG be like MF and Ipsos by paying more than a $0 fee for their steakhouse?

MF and Ipsos can get theirs done without full reimbursements. Same thing.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2022 01:31AM by boridi.

I definitely won't be wasting my time with this company. After completing work for them they'll find any reason not to pay you.