UPDATE: Just for transparency, they have investigated these shops and paid me for the visits. Everything was resolved.

I have had two shops "rejected" because the location wasn't "open". Per the website, the sites are listed as open 24 hours, and a previous reviewer had told me that if the pumps are operational, we shop it as if it were open, not "unable to shop".

I attempted to contact the phone number listed in the original email blast about the shops at the beginning of September. It rings two fast rings and then disconnects. Not sure what that's about. However, these "not accepted" ratings came in to my email late enough last night that it's been 15 hours. That being said, it's not kicked back for corrections, it was just flat out refused.

Does anyone have any information about who to contact about these two shops? It's only $20, but the two reviewers appear to have two different schools of thought regarding these audits. The first one, I marked as "unable to shop" because it was marked as 24h on the website, but when I got there everything was dark. Then I didn't get paid for that one because I wasn't able to go back and it happened to be the ONE shop I didn't take extra pictures of, so I couldn't resubmit it.

These two were just flat out rejected altogether, and apparently the notes were not read or were read and disregarded.

So, I need to call them. Does anyone know who is the lead on that team and have contact info for them?

Thanks everyone!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2024 05:47PM by naivasna.

Yep, that's the number I tried and it just continues to disconnect

I literally had one that kicked it back and said to shop it if pumps were operational, but then had these two which say that the stores were closed so can't shop. The pumps were operational here. They just rejected the shop, not even a "review and resubmit" and then a form that you can appeal. I mean, I have only ever had one shop that was rejected, and I did tons of these years ago. I've done about 40 of these this month, and these are the only two that have been flat out rejected. I wasn't able to update the first one where I was instructed to shop it if the pumps were operational, because I just couldn't get back to the site and I hadn't taken those extra pictures for that particular site.

Is Carey Medina the overall contact for these shops? I may send an email directly... assuming it's first.lastname@ipsos.com

You should still get an appeal link in the email they sent.

On the issue of showing 24 hours on the website. They used to require us to call to verify hours. Now they say call or check the website, iirc Some websites show 24 hours when they really aren't. Not your fault, but if they are going to reject, they should make it clear to call

There are a lot of gas stations here in AL that say they are open 24/7 when only the pumps are, and the C-store closes at 21:00. That should be made clear in the guidelines, that the C-store needs to be open and all of the lights have to be on.

After reading the guidelines, it does ask for the pictures of all of the lighting turned on. Though it also says to verify the fueling hours. Fueling hours does NOT equal the times when all of the lights are on. So that is clearly a mistake in their guidelines. It would be better stated to verify the closing time of the C-store, so that all of the lighting will be fully lit.

You have to go to the Program Manager, Susan Delgado. susan.delgado@ipsos.com. She takes a while to respond to emails and doesn't seem to have a published phone number. Hit and miss if she resolved anything, I've seen it go both ways. Good luck!

I completely stopped doing these due to the new editor problems.

Well, no where in the guidelines does it indicate if the cstore is required to be open or if the pumps are required to be open. I know that this is a variation between the different gas station brands. I've shopped PLENTY of these where the cstore was closed that were accepted, and several where the site was completely dark but the pumps were on. The one (first one that was dark that I shopped) was kicked back with the message that if the pumps are on, we are to shop it as normal, and mark all the unlit areas as infractions, basically. So, I shopped the subsequent ones the same way, and had a few that were completely dark but the pumps were operational.

But the funny thing is, those few that were dark with the pumps on, were accepted. The ones that were rejected.. were fully lit (which I figured out when I went back and double checked which shops they were) but the cstore was closed on both --- again, a ton of shops with the cstore closed that have been accepted with absolutely no issues.

I feel like the appeal process is worthless. I sent an email to the general mystery shop. I also finally got through to the phone number, but it's just a spot to drop a voicemail.

I mean, I'm happy to do this whatever way they want me to do it, but it really needs to be consistent and clearly outlined across the board.

1) Does the cstore need to be open or just the pumps?
2) If they are listed as open per the website, do we shop it as normal or do we mark it "cannot shop"
3) They also need to list that you only get half if the location is closed. It still takes time to put the information in. It's almost as long of a process as if they were open (and honestly, more dangerous as it's not lit and some of these locations are really remote).

I mean honestly, you just need to give me a clear outline of what's required. I take excellent pictures, I take extra pictures (usually), and I write fairly detailed notes if there's anything out of the ordinary.

There was zero reason for these two to be rejected.

The first shop that got sent back for revisions (first round of shops for me) was a gas station that said "24 hours pay at the pump" but when I got there, the entire station was dark. I put in "unable to shop" because it was closed, took the pictures relevant to the selection and then went on. I did not take any extra pictures for that one, mostly because I didn't expect to need them. Obviously my mistake. So I was told when that one was returned that "if the pumps are operational, audit as if it was open". I lost that one because I couldn't get back to get the needed pictures, but okay, that was a learning experience.

Then I did the second round -- a route in a location about an hour out from me. Originally, I thought that it must be the locations where the lights were off, but in fact, these two that were flat-out rejected, were stations where the cstore was closed but the pumps were operational and the canopy was even lit up. These were flat out rejected, not even sent back for revisions. I did send in the appeal on these and the original editor sent back a link to the gas station's hours on the brand website's location finder, stating that these can't be audited and then marked for infractions when they're not open. I opened the link and sent back the email with a screen shot of the page, and the part where it says "24 hours pay at the pump" highlighted and said "they WERE open for fueling". But you can also see that they are open for fueling because the pictures are really high quality so not only can you zoom in for that view on any number of the pictures submitted but I'm also sure that both had cars under the canopy getting fuel at that time. I'm not 100% sure on the cars, because I've done a bunch of them and they start to blur together.

In any case, I've sent a separate email and they are looking into the two rejected shops. After picking up a few "closed" locations that actually closed before dark, I double checked every station before I accepted the next round of shops and made sure that they were all open for fueling.

So, there were three. I took the "if pumps are on, conduct as normal" into consideration on all the future shops. I'm never going to say that I don't make mistakes, because I'm human and I definitely do. Some things aren't obvious to me at first, and I have to "learn" but my shops are good. I pay attention to details, I make notes about those details, and overall, I'm honest, so I'm not trying to pull a fast one. I give it my best effort.

I totally missed the "open for fueling" portion of that. Thanks for that! And having now spoken to you, I will make a note to specifically check all fuel pumps moving forward just to be sure. Great advice, thank you. I do want to point out that the $5 is better than nothing, especially since some of those locations were remote, and I drive a gas hog. I just am saying that I didn't see that listed anywhere, and I've been out of this industry since pre-COVID, so it's coming back to me but there's a lot I have to "relearn" or making up a word here -- re-remember. I remembered that was the case for most places after it happened.

Yes, they did get it straightened out and I did get paid for both shops. There was some confusion among the editors about it.

I did get another shop "rejected" after it was actually approved and paid, though, and I'm sort of wondering whether or not I would have gotten paid for it had they realized that it was an "unnecessary" shop and not needed for the quota prior to the approval and payment. I sent a message to the editor asking that -- also wondering if my metric will be affected. I'm honestly not certain how the editor meant it.

This is the email I got, "You have already been paid for this shop.

For future reference, we wanted to inform you that your shop did not meet the requirements for acceptance. Because we found this after payment was issued, you are welcome to keep the payment.

Reason provided by the reviewer:
"This shop is being excluded because the client does not need this location shopped at this time. You have already been paid for this shop"

I'm not sure if that means that I would not have gotten paid even though I did the shop (and had zero to do with it being posted unnecessarily) or if it was just an explanation as to why it was rejected. It's that "because we found this after payment was issued, you're welcome to keep the payment" part that has me wondering.

Right, I'd be fine with them pulling it before I do it, but if I do the work, and then submit it in good faith, and everything is fine with the audit, I shouldn't have my pay yanked. It's honestly not a scenario I think would happen all the time, but the overall... well, perhaps attitude is the correct word ... but take away from that scenario *if someone has the job rejected because of a mistake on the MSC's end, and not on the end of the shopper* is that the shopper will be the one to pay the price. That's just not okay.

That being said, I've never had any major issues with IPSOS. It's mostly just that that particular email comes on the heels of the other kerfuffle (resolved). For me, I cannot afford to make a route, put gas in my 2005 Durango 5.7 Hemi truck, and then have shops not paid. It's always a concern. The night time audits are fairly good money. But I do still have to put money out for them. And I can't afford to lose any money on those.