Salisburync ~ I would bet my net Ipsos isn’t pulling these stunts on most of ICs who do their low paying shops. If they did there would be no one left. I won’t get out of bed for under $25/hr. If others have to I don’t fault them but if no one took these shops they wouldn’t be so greedy, violating labor laws and cheating people.

@Minime wrote:

Salisburync ~ I would bet my net Ipsos isn’t pulling these stunts on most of ICs who do their low paying shops. If they did there would be no one left. I won’t get out of bed for under $25/hr. If others have to I don’t fault them but if no one took these shops they wouldn’t be so greedy, violating labor laws and cheating people.

I agree with the cheating people, but you do realize labor laws don't apply to us, right?

viv - Don't assume that because we are ICs, that IPSOS (or any other MSC) can act with impunity. .....labor laws don't apply to us ICs in the same way, but many labor laws do apply.

Wouldn't it be amazing that, as we all suspect, IPSOS is 'planning' on a certain % rejection rate (and then they go ahead and use the shop)? Even 1 or 2 percent would bolster a P & L bottom line.

Maggie...define "plenty"...what type of shops?...which platform?....dive a little deeper for us, would ya?

I believe I've read at least one of not more forum members are actually lawyers... would be amazing if they could file a suit to gain acess to this info. And prove (either way) what IPSOS does with rejected shop data.
I'm assuming that only a lawsuit would force them to turn over this data to anyone.

@salisburync wrote:

Wouldn't it be amazing that, as we all suspect, IPSOS is 'planning' on a certain % rejection rate (and then they go ahead and use the shop)? Even 1 or 2 percent would bolster a P & L bottom line.

@salisburync wrote:

Wouldn't it be amazing that, as we all suspect, IPSOS is 'planning' on a certain % rejection rate (and then they go ahead and use the shop)? Even 1 or 2 percent would bolster a P & L bottom line.

I don't suspect it at all. To bolster their profit they would have to bill the shop to the client, and I doubt the client would be on board with paying for a rejected shop.

@mystery2me wrote:

@salisburync wrote:

Wouldn't it be amazing that, as we all suspect, IPSOS is 'planning' on a certain % rejection rate (and then they go ahead and use the shop)? Even 1 or 2 percent would bolster a P & L bottom line.

I don't suspect it at all. To bolster their profit they would have to bill the shop to the client, and I doubt the client would be on board with paying for a rejected shop.

How would a client know it was a rejected shop?

Mystery - The client would never know.

@salisburync wrote:

Wouldn't it be amazing that, as we all suspect, IPSOS is 'planning' on a certain % rejection rate (and then they go ahead and use the shop)? Even 1 or 2 percent would bolster a P & L bottom line.

The hard line they’ve enacted recently indicates that this is highly probable. The midnight deadline, as if they’re working ‘round the clock and need it at 3 am, cutting off access to the shop when the clock strikes midnight, the refusals to allow for corrections the following morning, and in my case, rejecting a shop without proving that any mistake was made…because there wasn’t one…then using my refusal to allow them to get away with it as a reason to ban me… It’s all a crock. They look for reasons not to pay people and judging by the threads on this board alone, people are getting fed up with it.
They prey on people’s fear of getting banned and can see for themselves when they interlope here there are many still willing to accept less and get burned once or twice. It’s become common knowledge that this is going on. A mistake can be fixed by the IC. If that’s not allowed and they expect 100% perfection, that should be better scrutinized from a legal perspective. They’ve taken it a bit too far.

Agreed. Especially since this MSC themselves have numerous mistakes in everything they publish. Guidelines that are incomplete, have misspellings, have old/outdated information and survey reports that ask for things not in the guidelines, more misspellings, terrible grammar, etc. A different set of guidelines that go to their editors, causing the frequent disconnects. Horrendous, often times completely absent, communications that take days, weeks to occur - while demanding 12 hour responses themselves. Whats that old saying about the pot and the kettle?

@Minime wrote:

@salisburync wrote:

Wouldn't it be amazing that, as we all suspect, IPSOS is 'planning' on a certain % rejection rate (and then they go ahead and use the shop)? Even 1 or 2 percent would bolster a P & L bottom line.

The hard line they’ve enacted recently indicates that this is highly probable. The midnight deadline, as if they’re working ‘round the clock and need it at 3 am, cutting off access to the shop when the clock strikes midnight, the refusals to allow for corrections the following morning, and in my case, rejecting a shop without proving that any mistake was made…because there wasn’t one…then using my refusal to allow them to get away with it as a reason to ban me… It’s all a crock. They look for reasons not to pay people and judging by the threads on this board alone, people are getting fed up with it.
They prey on people’s fear of getting banned and can see for themselves when they interlope here there are many still willing to accept less and get burned once or twice. It’s become common knowledge that this is going on. A mistake can be fixed by the IC. If that’s not allowed and they expect 100% perfection, that should be better scrutinized from a legal perspective. They’ve taken it a bit too far.

deleted

deleted

deleted

deleted

deleted

Well technically you would have to remove the stickers and stuff they put on it when you shipped it last, so as the client I would want a new picture showing the stickers removed.

@mystery2me wrote:

Well technically you would have to remove the stickers and stuff they put on it when you shipped it last, so as the client I would want a new picture showing the stickers removed.

The stickers wouldn't be on the picture you submit as it was taken BEFORE the post office put them on.

Right. We are talking about using a photo taken before the *previous* shop, so the post office did put them on after the photo was taken, and now they want to see a photo of the stickers taken off before you do the next shop. In any case, the poster is right that it would be helpful for them to state this clearly in the guidelines, but it think it is common sense not to reuse the photo.

Quote removed

But those two photos would be identical. (That is if you could get the stickers off without leaving residue) I'm really not understanding how anyone could tell the difference (beyond Metadata) between a photo taken prior to the first round of shops and a photo taken prior to the second round of shops where you took stickers off.

They always check metadata.

Welcome to the forum. I feel for you about the frustrations.
I am doing the Debit card program. Yes, there are a couple of fine points that come up in situations. Because of the investment in product purchase this project may not be for everyone. I have also been asked for the statement from the debit card. The receipt said it was a credit sale even though it was debit or simply says the card name. It is necessary the MSC confirms it was a debit and we have to support proving that. They asked for the line item on the card statement. The entry was available within a few minutes after the purchase was complete. I took a screen shot and edited to the vicinity of the line. No account numbers were on the statement anyway. Yes, the MSC had dozens of other shops that included the debit card but each shop is distinct.

With bad GEO locations, try to make an entry for it on GeoVerify and name the address. I send the identifying code along in the comments to Ipsos or put it in the body of the report if available. It takes less than a minute to tag a site, copy and paste the code to the shop. On Presto there is a question that asks if there was a problem with the location verification which one can check off to explain the distance. These codes probably come from the mapping and navigation sites work products and can be funky.

Frustrating communication is a problem. Editors make mistakes or sometimes have a grasp on much finer points than we can perceive when evaluating shops. They have varied judgements, just like us. Yes, there have been a couple that require patience in a situation but I remember that when I miss or forget to include observations or ask for help from project teams. I think often they must think I am blind or not paying attention. I didn't know if someone might be new and have shared the guidelines back a few times to demonstrate how I made a judgment if I felt strongly enough but that is a rarity. I have had a rapport go south a couple of times. I have had my share of "inefficiency" no matter my intentions and have incurred due, and undue, retribution. I try to transcend and go to programs I am successful with and be thankful for extra effort a situation requires when I have a kick back. The BEST editors, schedulers and project teams HELP you to be successful.
Hang in there!

What annoys me about Ipsos editors is that they don’t provide feedback. I sometimes complete multiple shops a day for the same client and the same editor would rate my shops anywhere from 6 to 10 without any explanation and I’m talking about shops without narratives. Make it make sense.

For the low paying shops, you tell them as little as possible in the reports.