Ipsos and “Freelance isn’t Free” law
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
Good info! I wonder if I can file a labor complaint remotely. Gotta do some reading about this.
Glad to hear that they were successful. I was curious about this, and found the below:
New Yorkers utilizing freelance workers or independent contractors for work totaling $800 or more will soon need to comply with New York’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act (“FIFA”). The Act, which was signed into law by Governor Hochul in November 2023, is set to take effect on August 28, 2024.
The statute provides new protections and remedies for “freelance workers” (i.e., “independent contractors,” or those whose compensation is typically reported on an IRS Form 1099). FIFA applies to any service arrangement worth $800 or more, whether under a single contract or multiple contracts over a 120-day period. The law expands and builds upon a similar local law New York City enacted in 2016.
New Yorkers utilizing freelance workers or independent contractors for work totaling $800 or more will soon need to comply with New York’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act (“FIFA”). The Act, which was signed into law by Governor Hochul in November 2023, is set to take effect on August 28, 2024.
The statute provides new protections and remedies for “freelance workers” (i.e., “independent contractors,” or those whose compensation is typically reported on an IRS Form 1099). FIFA applies to any service arrangement worth $800 or more, whether under a single contract or multiple contracts over a 120-day period. The law expands and builds upon a similar local law New York City enacted in 2016.
Ipsos probably paid them because it was cheaper than fighting it. Especially since they contract out the editing now from what I've read here.
There was one thread I glossed over, but I wish I did see Susan L.'s post earlier about Freelancers Union:
[www.mysteryshopforum.com]
[www.mysteryshopforum.com]
On the other hand, I'm sure that even though the two contractors who sued Ipsos got their pay, they will no longer have the possibility of earning more with that company. Ipsos will deactivate a shopper for much less and seem to derive satisfaction from it, for reasons real or imagined, just to let the lowly ones who wields the power.
I'm not sure they actually sued them, as there is no record of a lawsuit in NYS against IPSOS (last one was in 2021, and IPSOS was suing a former employee). Sounds like they filed a complaint with the NY Attorney General's office (Which the NY DOL website says is the process for this). Point being, it should be the easy and now it looks like it is. You shouldn't have to sue IPSOS to get paid, and the NY AG office is rightfully enforcing the FIFA Act. Nice to see them doing something useful for a change. 
Is there a link to an article? Love to see workers getting more rights.
I don't know why but when I see the "Freelancer isn't free" I think that the other MSC that do fast food shops for no pay + reimbursement fit the "being sued" category better than IPSOS lol
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2024 02:47PM by kisekinecro.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2024 02:47PM by kisekinecro.
@kisekinecro wrote:
I don't know why but when I see the "Freelancer isn't free" I think that the other MSC that do fast food shops for no pay + reimbursement fit the "being sued" category better than IPSOS lol
Unfortunately, that MSC is based in Atlanta, GA.
@sestrahelena wrote:
On the other hand, I'm sure that even though the two contractors who sued Ipsos got their pay, they will no longer have the possibility of earning more with that company. Ipsos will deactivate a shopper for much less and seem to derive satisfaction from it, for reasons real or imagined, just to let the lowly ones who wields the power.
I would imagine deactivation as a result of the complaint would be considered retaliation and Ipsos could get into trouble for that.
Deactivation for any other reason would be fair game.
@Cassiespark wrote:
I'm not sure they actually sued them, as there is no record of a lawsuit in NYS against IPSOS (last one was in 2021, and IPSOS was suing a former employee). Sounds like they filed a complaint with the NY Attorney General's office (Which the NY DOL website says is the process for this). Point being, it should be the easy and now it looks like it is. You shouldn't have to sue IPSOS to get paid, and the NY AG office is rightfully enforcing the FIFA Act. Nice to see them doing something useful for a change.
Yeah, they filled out a form online. No litigation. I misspoke.
As I have only been, to my recollection, stiffed for $5 back when my approach to shopping was radically different, I can not state from experience. I do know, however, my system of handling disputes is far less involved than seeking assistance from any government agency and, to date, has worked for me.
The above paragraph is neither a criticism of anyone nor a suggestion to employ my manner of resolving disagreements.
The above paragraph is neither a criticism of anyone nor a suggestion to employ my manner of resolving disagreements.
@sestrahelena wrote:
Good info! I wonder if I can file a labor complaint remotely. Gotta do some reading about this.
I would give it a try. If they retaliate by deactivating you, they could get into trouble. I would think the law applies to New York based MSCs; not necessarily New York residents.
@Indastruktable wrote:
@sestrahelena wrote:
On the other hand, I'm sure that even though the two contractors who sued Ipsos got their pay, they will no longer have the possibility of earning more with that company. Ipsos will deactivate a shopper for much less and seem to derive satisfaction from it, for reasons real or imagined, just to let the lowly ones who wields the power.
I would imagine deactivation as a result of the complaint would be considered retaliation and Ipsos could get into trouble for that.
Deactivation for any other reason would be fair game.
I think retaliation only works when you are W9 employees with the company.
MS are independent contractors, which means it is nothing but a B2B relationship which both sides can terminate relationship with each other under no obligations.
I suppose deactivation could come with the territory here, especially if you are in a dispute with a company, (and the IC has the right to deactivate as well), but it is nice to see that companies are being held accountable.
@kisekinecro wrote:
@Indastruktable wrote:
@sestrahelena wrote:
On the other hand, I'm sure that even though the two contractors who sued Ipsos got their pay, they will no longer have the possibility of earning more with that company. Ipsos will deactivate a shopper for much less and seem to derive satisfaction from it, for reasons real or imagined, just to let the lowly ones who wields the power.
I would imagine deactivation as a result of the complaint would be considered retaliation and Ipsos could get into trouble for that.
Deactivation for any other reason would be fair game.
I think retaliation only works when you are W9 employees with the company.
MS are independent contractors, which means it is nothing but a B2B relationship which both sides can terminate relationship with each other under no obligations.
“FIFA” is specifically targeted to protect ICs. W-9s are already protected.
@sestrahelena wrote:
On the other hand, I'm sure that even though the two contractors who sued Ipsos got their pay, they will no longer have the possibility of earning more with that company. Ipsos will deactivate a shopper for much less and seem to derive satisfaction from it, for reasons real or imagined, just to let the lowly ones who wields the power.
Probably not, and it might be a mutual thing. (Wanna work for a company you had to file a government complaint against?) Still, most states have provisions against retaliation against employees. I don't know enough about this law to know if retaliation is forbidden against freelancers.
IPSOS already informs shoppers WHY their shops are declined. I've had several declined and I've always been told why. Only on one occasion I did disagree with them on the reason, but they did tell me their reason. Whether a shopper understands the reason, is another matter.
Is there anybody on this board who has had an IPSOS shop rejected and honestly was never told why? Normally when people come here bit**ing about stuff like that they start out saying they were not told why, then you call BS on it and dig down, they say something like, "Well, they said I did not have a photo of something" or "I took a photo of the wrong thing even I know I knew the guidelines says not to do that, I did it anyway."
The OP does not cite their source, only that "they heard." I want to know the details of the complaints.
Shops are rejected because shoppers f-up. That's not to say the MSC is never wrong - they are, but those instances are not nearly at the level people make them out to be. No company should ever genuinely screw a contractor over, but there are already other remedies available if it comes down to it. This law is government overreach, which isn't surprising coming from New York.
So, if you must, go ahead and file a complaint over a measly $25 that you feel is owed to you. Then, watch as already scarce work dries up even more or, worst, you are blacklisted from doing jobs for any MSC. You're an IC, the MSC does NOT have to use your services. They can terminate the contract you signed for any reason and without explanation. Guess what? You can do the same.
Losing any amount of money sucks, especially when you feel you are right. If a $25 loss or even a $200 loss puts your business in jeopardy, then you are doing something wrong and, more likely, you need to get out of trying to work for yourself and go find a traditional job.
IF you are going to try to do this as a business, then act like a business person. People that run businesses do not sweat over a $25 loss. It is far more important to maintain relationships in the business world as long as it is not a routine thing where a company is screwing you over. If they are, simply follow the very wise @shopperbob's advice and end your agreement with them. You don't have to give them an explanation, just do it and move on.
Is there anybody on this board who has had an IPSOS shop rejected and honestly was never told why? Normally when people come here bit**ing about stuff like that they start out saying they were not told why, then you call BS on it and dig down, they say something like, "Well, they said I did not have a photo of something" or "I took a photo of the wrong thing even I know I knew the guidelines says not to do that, I did it anyway."
The OP does not cite their source, only that "they heard." I want to know the details of the complaints.
Shops are rejected because shoppers f-up. That's not to say the MSC is never wrong - they are, but those instances are not nearly at the level people make them out to be. No company should ever genuinely screw a contractor over, but there are already other remedies available if it comes down to it. This law is government overreach, which isn't surprising coming from New York.
So, if you must, go ahead and file a complaint over a measly $25 that you feel is owed to you. Then, watch as already scarce work dries up even more or, worst, you are blacklisted from doing jobs for any MSC. You're an IC, the MSC does NOT have to use your services. They can terminate the contract you signed for any reason and without explanation. Guess what? You can do the same.
Losing any amount of money sucks, especially when you feel you are right. If a $25 loss or even a $200 loss puts your business in jeopardy, then you are doing something wrong and, more likely, you need to get out of trying to work for yourself and go find a traditional job.
IF you are going to try to do this as a business, then act like a business person. People that run businesses do not sweat over a $25 loss. It is far more important to maintain relationships in the business world as long as it is not a routine thing where a company is screwing you over. If they are, simply follow the very wise @shopperbob's advice and end your agreement with them. You don't have to give them an explanation, just do it and move on.
People are not chess pieces that can be manipulated through lies. The lesson is... that anyone who looks upon humanity as if it was a game a chess deserves to lose.
SA advises--..........end your agreement with them. You don't have to give them an explanation, just do it and move on.
Bob agrees--That works for me. I do not wish to avail myself of government intervention, as that is diametrically opposed to my position of laissez-faire.
Bob agrees--That works for me. I do not wish to avail myself of government intervention, as that is diametrically opposed to my position of laissez-faire.
@ServiceAward wrote:
IPSOS already informs shoppers WHY their shops are declined. I've had several declined and I've always been told why. Only on one occasion I did disagree with them on the reason, but they did tell me their reason. Whether a shopper understands the reason, is another matter.
Is there anybody on this board who has had an IPSOS shop rejected and honestly was never told why? Normally when people come here bit**ing about stuff like that they start out saying they were not told why, then you call BS on it and dig down, they say something like, "Well, they said I did not have a photo of something" or "I took a photo of the wrong thing even I know I knew the guidelines says not to do that, I did it anyway."
The OP does not cite their source, only that "they heard." I want to know the details of the complaints.
Shops are rejected because shoppers f-up. That's not to say the MSC is never wrong - they are, but those instances are not nearly at the level people make them out to be. No company should ever genuinely screw a contractor over, but there are already other remedies available if it comes down to it. This law is government overreach, which isn't surprising coming from New York.
So, if you must, go ahead and file a complaint over a measly $25 that you feel is owed to you. Then, watch as already scarce work dries up even more or, worst, you are blacklisted from doing jobs for any MSC. You're an IC, the MSC does NOT have to use your services. They can terminate the contract you signed for any reason and without explanation. Guess what? You can do the same.
Losing any amount of money sucks, especially when you feel you are right. If a $25 loss or even a $200 loss puts your business in jeopardy, then you are doing something wrong and, more likely, you need to get out of trying to work for yourself and go find a traditional job.
IF you are going to try to do this as a business, then act like a business person. People that run businesses do not sweat over a $25 loss. It is far more important to maintain relationships in the business world as long as it is not a routine thing where a company is screwing you over. If they are, simply follow the very wise @shopperbob's advice and end your agreement with them. You don't have to give them an explanation, just do it and move on.
I appreciate your experience with Ipsos, but it seems you’re making a broad generalization based on your personal situations. Just because you’ve received explanations doesn’t mean others always have. There are many shoppers who’ve had shops declined without a clear or valid reason, and the fact that some people have successfully filed complaints and won back pay shows there are legitimate concerns.
You mention people ‘bit**ing’ and then later admitting to a guideline mistake, but that doesn’t account for instances where MSCs, including Ipsos, might reject shops without proper justification or due process. The law isn’t about protecting people who failed to follow the rules; it’s about ensuring fair treatment for all independent contractors. You also say the ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ law is government overreach, but I’d argue it’s a necessary protection in an industry where companies hold the power and freelancers often lack the means to fight back.
As for filing complaints over ‘measly’ sums like $25—if it’s so insignificant to you, great. But for many shoppers, especially those who rely on multiple smaller jobs, it adds up. Why should a freelancer, who’s fulfilled their part of the contract, be expected to absorb losses just to maintain a relationship? A business shouldn’t sweat over $25 either, right? So, if they’re wrong, why not just pay what’s owed and move on? No one is advocating filing complaints over a one-time mistake, but when patterns emerge, it’s fair to demand accountability.
Also, being blacklisted for standing up for your rights should never be an accepted consequence in any profession. If maintaining ‘relationships’ means allowing yourself to be mistreated, then that’s a red flag about the companies you’re working with.
Freelancers deserve the same respect as businesses, and enforcing fair pay laws isn’t about putting your business in jeopardy—it’s about ensuring it can thrive without being shortchanged by those who hold more power. Running a business isn’t about quietly accepting unfair losses; it’s about understanding your value and ensuring you’re compensated appropriately for your work.
For me, I don't do as many shops with Ipsos or have as much experience as others. The only thing I've run into recently though, is that sometimes the scenarios and locations don't correlate. If a shopper unknowingly pursues the shop, it ends up being a waste of everyone's time.
Not sure about the NY shops/work, but it looks like there is a threshold amount of $800 and duration of 120 days.
It wouldn't apply for me with Ipsos. But it left me thinking about hotel shops that could well exceed $1k. Since that's reimbursement, I was curious if that would fall under this. I haven't run into that situation though, but with MSCs that have a presence on the coasts, it made me interested. But then again on second thought, maybe this is a moot point, since most of the times the client is reversing the transaction. But I was interested more about the payment side for an approved report, not necessarily the rejection part.
Not sure about the NY shops/work, but it looks like there is a threshold amount of $800 and duration of 120 days.
It wouldn't apply for me with Ipsos. But it left me thinking about hotel shops that could well exceed $1k. Since that's reimbursement, I was curious if that would fall under this. I haven't run into that situation though, but with MSCs that have a presence on the coasts, it made me interested. But then again on second thought, maybe this is a moot point, since most of the times the client is reversing the transaction. But I was interested more about the payment side for an approved report, not necessarily the rejection part.
If not tonight, as I have a shop for Informa due, after I close tomorrow, I will address an extensive counterpoint to Inda's comments.
As always, we are adults and civility is paramount to opining.
As always, we are adults and civility is paramount to opining.
ServiceAward, need a hug? Sending now with a heartfelt, "There, there, now. It'll be okay."
FIFA is specifically for NY state residents.
@Indastruktable wrote:
@sestrahelena wrote:
Good info! I wonder if I can file a labor complaint remotely. Gotta do some reading about this.
I would give it a try. If they retaliate by deactivating you, they could get into trouble. I would think the law applies to New York based MSCs; not necessarily New York residents.
Wow.
I don't know if you are responding to someone you know personally. But, likely you are responding to a stranger with aggression and assumption and frankly just plain rudeness. You have zero clue or proof that this person did something to f-up, and why would you would jump to side with a multi-billion dollar company over a fellow IC...well...wow.
I don't know if you are responding to someone you know personally. But, likely you are responding to a stranger with aggression and assumption and frankly just plain rudeness. You have zero clue or proof that this person did something to f-up, and why would you would jump to side with a multi-billion dollar company over a fellow IC...well...wow.
@ServiceAward wrote:
IPSOS already informs shoppers WHY their shops are declined. I've had several declined and I've always been told why. Only on one occasion I did disagree with them on the reason, but they did tell me their reason. Whether a shopper understands the reason, is another matter.
Is there anybody on this board who has had an IPSOS shop rejected and honestly was never told why? Normally when people come here bit**ing about stuff like that they start out saying they were not told why, then you call BS on it and dig down, they say something like, "Well, they said I did not have a photo of something" or "I took a photo of the wrong thing even I know I knew the guidelines says not to do that, I did it anyway."
The OP does not cite their source, only that "they heard." I want to know the details of the complaints.
Shops are rejected because shoppers f-up. That's not to say the MSC is never wrong - they are, but those instances are not nearly at the level people make them out to be. No company should ever genuinely screw a contractor over, but there are already other remedies available if it comes down to it. This law is government overreach, which isn't surprising coming from New York.
So, if you must, go ahead and file a complaint over a measly $25 that you feel is owed to you. Then, watch as already scarce work dries up even more or, worst, you are blacklisted from doing jobs for any MSC. You're an IC, the MSC does NOT have to use your services. They can terminate the contract you signed for any reason and without explanation. Guess what? You can do the same.
Losing any amount of money sucks, especially when you feel you are right. If a $25 loss or even a $200 loss puts your business in jeopardy, then you are doing something wrong and, more likely, you need to get out of trying to work for yourself and go find a traditional job.
IF you are going to try to do this as a business, then act like a business person. People that run businesses do not sweat over a $25 loss. It is far more important to maintain relationships in the business world as long as it is not a routine thing where a company is screwing you over. If they are, simply follow the very wise @shopperbob's advice and end your agreement with them. You don't have to give them an explanation, just do it and move on.
@Indastruktable wrote:
@ServiceAward wrote:
IPSOS already informs shoppers WHY their shops are declined. I've had several declined and I've always been told why. Only on one occasion I did disagree with them on the reason, but they did tell me their reason. Whether a shopper understands the reason, is another matter.
Is there anybody on this board who has had an IPSOS shop rejected and honestly was never told why? Normally when people come here bit**ing about stuff like that they start out saying they were not told why, then you call BS on it and dig down, they say something like, "Well, they said I did not have a photo of something" or "I took a photo of the wrong thing even I know I knew the guidelines says not to do that, I did it anyway."
The OP does not cite their source, only that "they heard." I want to know the details of the complaints.
Shops are rejected because shoppers f-up. That's not to say the MSC is never wrong - they are, but those instances are not nearly at the level people make them out to be. No company should ever genuinely screw a contractor over, but there are already other remedies available if it comes down to it. This law is government overreach, which isn't surprising coming from New York.
So, if you must, go ahead and file a complaint over a measly $25 that you feel is owed to you. Then, watch as already scarce work dries up even more or, worst, you are blacklisted from doing jobs for any MSC. You're an IC, the MSC does NOT have to use your services. They can terminate the contract you signed for any reason and without explanation. Guess what? You can do the same.
Losing any amount of money sucks, especially when you feel you are right. If a $25 loss or even a $200 loss puts your business in jeopardy, then you are doing something wrong and, more likely, you need to get out of trying to work for yourself and go find a traditional job.
IF you are going to try to do this as a business, then act like a business person. People that run businesses do not sweat over a $25 loss. It is far more important to maintain relationships in the business world as long as it is not a routine thing where a company is screwing you over. If they are, simply follow the very wise @shopperbob's advice and end your agreement with them. You don't have to give them an explanation, just do it and move on.
I appreciate your experience with Ipsos, but it seems you’re making a broad generalization based on your personal situations. Just because you’ve received explanations doesn’t mean others always have. There are many shoppers who’ve had shops declined without a clear or valid reason, and the fact that some people have successfully filed complaints and won back pay shows there are legitimate concerns.
You mention people ‘bit**ing’ and then later admitting to a guideline mistake, but that doesn’t account for instances where MSCs, including Ipsos, might reject shops without proper justification or due process. The law isn’t about protecting people who failed to follow the rules; it’s about ensuring fair treatment for all independent contractors. You also say the ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ law is government overreach, but I’d argue it’s a necessary protection in an industry where companies hold the power and freelancers often lack the means to fight back.
As for filing complaints over ‘measly’ sums like $25—if it’s so insignificant to you, great. But for many shoppers, especially those who rely on multiple smaller jobs, it adds up. Why should a freelancer, who’s fulfilled their part of the contract, be expected to absorb losses just to maintain a relationship? A business shouldn’t sweat over $25 either, right? So, if they’re wrong, why not just pay what’s owed and move on? No one is advocating filing complaints over a one-time mistake, but when patterns emerge, it’s fair to demand accountability.
Also, being blacklisted for standing up for your rights should never be an accepted consequence in any profession. If maintaining ‘relationships’ means allowing yourself to be mistreated, then that’s a red flag about the companies you’re working with.
Freelancers deserve the same respect as businesses, and enforcing fair pay laws isn’t about putting your business in jeopardy—it’s about ensuring it can thrive without being shortchanged by those who hold more power. Running a business isn’t about quietly accepting unfair losses; it’s about understanding your value and ensuring you’re compensated appropriately for your work.
Who are these "many shoppers?" How many is "many?" I have been on this board over a year. I have *NEVER* read a thread where someone had a shop declined and did not get a clear or valid explanation, OR it did not come out later in the thread that they actually did and they just took the opportunity to bash the MSC. Even in my own situation where I disagreed with IPSOS' take on the unique situation that happened, they explained their reasoning and certainly reasonable people can see things differently. It was hardly a violation of their own contract.
@Indastruktable wrote:
"[T]he fact that some people have successfully filed complaints and won back pay shows there are legitimate concerns."
First, we do not know it is "fact." You posted that "you heard." I'll re-ask the question I posed to you in my post: What or who is your source? How much money did they get? The New York law has an $800 threshold over a 120-day period. Even at an average shop fee of $40, that would be 20 shops! Who the heck is still working for a company they feel has screwed them over 20 times? That doesn't make any sense. If you have 20 shops, or even 10 shops rejected from the same MSC over a 4-month period, something is wrong with the shopper. I completed something like 1500 shops last year. I had 4 rejected without pay. Three were my fault, plus the one I think IPSOS may have handled wrong. I call BS on all of this.
Second, even if true, in no way does the fact they "won" back pay prove that their claim was "legitimate." It's just cheaper for companies to pay $20, then to have to spend thousands of dollars fighting on principle. Businesses and some individuals do that all the time. It does not legitimize someone's claim unless that company comes out and says, "Yep, we screwed up and we were wrong."
"Due process?" WTH? Unless the contract you sign with a MSC states that if they reject a shop, they will provide a means for you to appeal, you are not owed any "due process." There may be some contracts out there that provide for this, but I am not aware of any. Instead, most of the contracts I've read have the following section or something similar:
As full compensation for the services rendered hereunder, [MSC] shall pay you a fee [...] to be mutually agreed upon prior to the performance of each mystery shopping project, and the Fee shall be payable within [TIMEFRAME] of your reporting the data [...]; provided, however, [MSC] shall not have any liability or obligation of any kind to pay the Fee or any other amount to you if (a) [MSC] determines, at its sole and commercially reasonable discretion, that, in performing mystery shopping services to [MSC] pursuant to this letter agreement, you have not met (i) the standards of quality set forth in the Briefing Notes or otherwise in this letter agreement or (ii) the standards of quality customarily expected in the mystery shopping industry, (b) the mystery shopping services provided pursuant to this letter agreement are not complete, (d) you have not provided data to [MSC] within the time constraints [...], unless otherwise agreed to by [MSC], or (e) you have otherwise committed a material breach of this letter agreement.[...]'
The MSC isn't sweating over the $25. They have their way out built into the contract. Phrases like "commercially reasonable discretion," for instance. What does that even mean? It means the MSCs industry standard. What is customary. Who defines that? The very MSCs you are fighting against. Yes, they hold 99.9% of the power. That's how it is. If you don't like it, go do something else.
Companies SHOULD treat their contractors with respect. We agree there. My point is I question the wisdom of contractors taking the route of getting the government involved on what generally speaking are trivial amounts. $25 is a lot of money to those of us who do this work. But if I am losing $25 a year or two on something like this, it would not be wise to make a big issue of it, assuming I want to be able to do this work and enjoy the added benefits that come with it. A business is an investment and like any investment you have to look at the whole picture and think long-term, not a small piece in the short-term. A question I might ask myself is this assuming I was legit done wrong: "Will being cheated out of $XX impact me 6 months from now?" If the answer is no, then why potentially run my business into the ground by being labeled as a "difficult shopper" or having my contract terminated by the MSC. Sure, you can fight things on principal. I do that in my PERSONAL life. But in business, you cannot survive if you use your business to fight causes. You take the temporary hit, get a tiny break on the back end on the next year's taxes, and move on.
What MSC has a pattern of rejecting shops in a manner that is inconsistent when the contract you've signed?
You are contractor. Your power is being able to end your relationship with the MSC. That's your power. For some areas it won't matter because that area has a large number of shoppers. For other areas, it could cost the MSC some money as they will have to spend money marketing to find shoppers in that area.
People are not chess pieces that can be manipulated through lies. The lesson is... that anyone who looks upon humanity as if it was a game a chess deserves to lose.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2024 04:02AM by ServiceAward.
I could use a hug! Sorry, if that came off as creepy. Trying to bring some levity.@sestrahelena wrote:
ServiceAward, need a hug? Sending now with a heartfelt, "There, there, now. It'll be okay."
Um, I have had shops rejected where they give me clear justifications, but it doesn't mean the justifications were correct.
As someone who does shops in volume, I usually just let it go, knowing there are an equal amount of times they cut me some slack and approve shops where I missed something. But for someone who does only a few shops, and does not treat it as a business, getting an unwarranted rejection can really sting.
And, come on, all of us here know the recent dummification of the shop guidelines is designed to draw in new shoppers who aren't aware of the unwritten requirements that used to be spelled out in more detail. I understand it's designed to be less intimidating, but a more cynical person might describe it as a classic bait and switch.
As someone who does shops in volume, I usually just let it go, knowing there are an equal amount of times they cut me some slack and approve shops where I missed something. But for someone who does only a few shops, and does not treat it as a business, getting an unwarranted rejection can really sting.
And, come on, all of us here know the recent dummification of the shop guidelines is designed to draw in new shoppers who aren't aware of the unwritten requirements that used to be spelled out in more detail. I understand it's designed to be less intimidating, but a more cynical person might describe it as a classic bait and switch.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.