Ipsos and “Freelance isn’t Free” law

Oftentimes shops are rejected by the client, not the MSC, especially if there is a very specific thing they are looking for.

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

More Discussions About Ipsos Mystery Shopping (All Companies)

@mystery2me wrote:

Um, I have had shops rejected where they give me clear justifications, but it doesn't mean the justifications were correct.

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.

This, exactly!

When the guidelines are vague, or in at least one case, specifically opposite of what is required. It costs the MSC nothing to reject shops (I believe it was stated that editors don't get paid on rejections either) until someone happens to interperet the instructions to their satisfaction.

@ServiceAward wrote:

@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.

It sounds like you’ve had a fairly smooth experience with MSCs, but not everyone shares that same luck. You ask who these ‘many shoppers’ are, but just because you haven’t encountered them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There are numerous instances where shoppers have had shops rejected unfairly, and the fact that successful complaints have been filed proves that companies aren’t infallible. Ipsos and other MSCs aren’t beyond scrutiny, and that’s why laws like ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ are necessary—to ensure balance in what is often an uneven relationship between contractor and company.

You also mention that shoppers ‘f-up,’ but what about the cases where the MSC f-ups? We can’t ignore that companies make mistakes too, sometimes with faulty systems or unreasonable demands. Your suggestion that these companies just pay small claims to avoid the hassle of fighting them is speculation at best. If a shopper successfully wins back pay, it means the company didn’t meet their legal obligations. That’s not a matter of principle—it’s a matter of law.

Regarding ‘due process,’ it’s not about an internal appeal mechanism—it’s about fairness. Independent contractors don’t have the same protections employees do, and it’s precisely why laws like ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ are important. We shouldn’t accept a dynamic where MSCs hold 99.9% of the power and leave shoppers vulnerable to arbitrary decisions. That’s not an industry standard worth protecting.

As for making a ‘big issue’ over $25 or $200—it’s not always about the immediate amount. For some shoppers, it’s about a recurring pattern where rejections without proper cause happen more than once. These seemingly small losses can add up quickly. And why should anyone let a company consistently take advantage of them without accountability? Businesses should indeed treat their contractors with respect, and standing up for fair treatment doesn’t automatically make a shopper ‘difficult.’ Shoppers aren’t here to fight causes—they’re here to earn a living, and part of that means ensuring they’re fairly compensated for the work they’ve done.

You say the solution is simply walking away from an MSC. But why should that be the only option when there are legitimate means to resolve disputes? Yes, ending a relationship is a contractor’s power, but so is filing complaints or seeking compensation when wronged. We should be promoting accountability in this industry, not advising people to accept unfair treatment because it’s more ‘convenient.’ Long-term success in business comes from maintaining integrity, and that includes holding companies to the same standards they expect from their contractors.

@Indastruktable wrote:

@ServiceAward wrote:

@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.

It sounds like you’ve had a fairly smooth experience with MSCs, but not everyone shares that same luck. You ask who these ‘many shoppers’ are, but just because you haven’t encountered them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There are numerous instances where shoppers have had shops rejected unfairly, and the fact that successful complaints have been filed proves that companies aren’t infallible. Ipsos and other MSCs aren’t beyond scrutiny, and that’s why laws like ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ are necessary—to ensure balance in what is often an uneven relationship between contractor and company.

You also mention that shoppers ‘f-up,’ but what about the cases where the MSC f-ups? We can’t ignore that companies make mistakes too, sometimes with faulty systems or unreasonable demands. Your suggestion that these companies just pay small claims to avoid the hassle of fighting them is speculation at best. If a shopper successfully wins back pay, it means the company didn’t meet their legal obligations. That’s not a matter of principle—it’s a matter of law.

Regarding ‘due process,’ it’s not about an internal appeal mechanism—it’s about fairness. Independent contractors don’t have the same protections employees do, and it’s precisely why laws like ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ are important. We shouldn’t accept a dynamic where MSCs hold 99.9% of the power and leave shoppers vulnerable to arbitrary decisions. That’s not an industry standard worth protecting.

As for making a ‘big issue’ over $25 or $200—it’s not always about the immediate amount. For some shoppers, it’s about a recurring pattern where rejections without proper cause happen more than once. These seemingly small losses can add up quickly. And why should anyone let a company consistently take advantage of them without accountability? Businesses should indeed treat their contractors with respect, and standing up for fair treatment doesn’t automatically make a shopper ‘difficult.’ Shoppers aren’t here to fight causes—they’re here to earn a living, and part of that means ensuring they’re fairly compensated for the work they’ve done.

You say the solution is simply walking away from an MSC. But why should that be the only option when there are legitimate means to resolve disputes? Yes, ending a relationship is a contractor’s power, but so is filing complaints or seeking compensation when wronged. We should be promoting accountability in this industry, not advising people to accept unfair treatment because it’s more ‘convenient.’ Long-term success in business comes from maintaining integrity, and that includes holding companies to the same standards they expect from their contractors.

I think the biggest difference between you and ServiceAward is how you see yourself as secret shopper.

For you, you consider yourself as a "worker", and you working for the MSC, as in employer vs employee. However, the nature of secret shop is not that. We are independent contractor, which means we, ourself is a one-man business and the only employer/employee of this company. You do business with MSC as a business partner, which means it is entirely up to you to decide if you are to engage this relationship with any business, aka MSC. It is also up to you, the business owner to "estimate and take the risk" engaging into any business relationship. In exchange of all these you are allowed to write off many expenses for income tax write off, the own scheduling of time and etc.

[/quote]I think the biggest difference between you and ServiceAward is how you see yourself as secret shopper.

For you, you consider yourself as a "worker", and you working for the MSC, as in employer vs employee. However, the nature of secret shop is not that. We are independent contractor, which means we, ourself is a one-man business and the only employer/employee of this company. You do business with MSC as a business partner, which means it is entirely up to you to decide if you are to engage this relationship with any business, aka MSC. It is also up to you, the business owner to "estimate and take the risk" engaging into any business relationship. In exchange of all these you are allowed to write off many expenses for income tax write off, the own scheduling of time and etc.[/quote]

I understand the distinction you’re making between being an employee and an independent contractor, but even as contractors, we still have the right to fair treatment in our business relationships. Being a ‘one-man business’ doesn’t mean we should have to accept the risks of unpaid work or mistreatment without any recourse. While we may not be employees, we still engage in professional contracts that require mutual respect and accountability.

The idea that it’s entirely up to us to ‘estimate and take the risk’ of working with MSCs is partially true, but that doesn’t mean we should be at the mercy of unfair practices. Independent contractors deserve to be paid for completed work, just as any business partner would expect in a relationship. We aren’t asking for employee benefits—we’re simply asking for the protection of our rights under fair contract terms, which includes being paid when the work is done properly.

You mention tax write-offs and flexible scheduling, but those perks don’t erase the need for accountability on the part of MSCs. Flexibility in scheduling doesn’t justify the risk of working without fair pay, and tax benefits don’t replace lost income. As independent contractors, we should still expect transparency, clear communication, and prompt payment for services rendered.

Ultimately, protecting ourselves as contractors doesn’t mean simply walking away from bad business relationships—it also means standing up when we’re treated unfairly. If an MSC rejects a shop without proper cause or fails to pay, that’s not just ‘part of the risk’—it’s a violation of the contract, and we have every right to address it. Business partnerships should be built on trust and accountability, and that goes both ways.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2024 04:43PM by Indastruktable.

@kisekinecro wrote:

I think the biggest difference between you and ServiceAward is how you see yourself as secret shopper.

For you, you consider yourself as a "worker", and you working for the MSC, as in employer vs employee. However, the nature of secret shop is not that. We are independent contractor, which means we, ourself is a one-man business and the only employer/employee of this company. You do business with MSC as a business partner, which means it is entirely up to you to decide if you are to engage this relationship with any business, aka MSC. It is also up to you, the business owner to "estimate and take the risk" engaging into any business relationship. In exchange of all these you are allowed to write off many expenses for income tax write off, the own scheduling of time and etc.

I understand the distinction you’re making between being an employee and an independent contractor, but even as contractors, we still have the right to fair treatment in our business relationships. Being a ‘one-man business’ doesn’t mean we should have to accept the risks of unpaid work or mistreatment without any recourse. While we may not be employees, we still engage in professional contracts that require mutual respect and accountability.

The idea that it’s entirely up to us to ‘estimate and take the risk’ of working with MSCs is partially true, but that doesn’t mean we should be at the mercy of unfair practices. Independent contractors deserve to be paid for completed work, just as any business partner would expect in a relationship. We aren’t asking for employee benefits—we’re simply asking for the protection of our rights under fair contract terms, which includes being paid when the work is done properly.

You mention tax write-offs and flexible scheduling, but those perks don’t erase the need for accountability on the part of MSCs. Flexibility in scheduling doesn’t justify the risk of working without fair pay, and tax benefits don’t replace lost income. As independent contractors, we should still expect transparency, clear communication, and prompt payment for services rendered.

Ultimately, protecting ourselves as contractors doesn’t mean simply walking away from bad business relationships—it also means standing up when we’re treated unfairly. If an MSC rejects a shop without proper cause or fails to pay, that’s not just ‘part of the risk’—it’s a violation of the contract, and we have every right to address it. Business partnerships should be built on trust and accountability, and that goes both ways.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2024 04:49PM by Indastruktable.

@kisekincro wrote:

I think the biggest difference between you and ServiceAward is how you see yourself as secret shopper.

For you, you consider yourself as a "worker", and you working for the MSC, as in employer vs employee. However, the nature of secret shop is not that. We are independent contractor, which means we, ourself is a one-man business and the only employer/employee of this company. You do business with MSC as a business partner, which means it is entirely up to you to decide if you are to engage this relationship with any business, aka MSC. It is also up to you, the business owner to "estimate and take the risk" engaging into any business relationship. In exchange of all these you are allowed to write off many expenses for income tax write off, the own scheduling of time and etc.

It wasn't long ago (last year?) that we were discussing whether mystery shoppers have been correctly or incorrectly classified as ICs, since the requirements of the work we do often meet various legal classifications that would make us employees.

The past 20-30 years have brought so many structural changes in the economy, including different types of work arrangements. Old classifications like IC vs. employee may no longer be complete, and some states with large populations of freelancers, have paid attention. Many corporations take advantage of the changes to the long-term detriment of people who work for them, and some new corporations use "taking advantage" as a business model. New York and other states have made gradual changes to law to account for some, but not all, of these structural changes.

@kisekinecro wrote:

@Indastruktable wrote:

@ServiceAward wrote:

@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.

It sounds like you’ve had a fairly smooth experience with MSCs, but not everyone shares that same luck. You ask who these ‘many shoppers’ are, but just because you haven’t encountered them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. There are numerous instances where shoppers have had shops rejected unfairly, and the fact that successful complaints have been filed proves that companies aren’t infallible. Ipsos and other MSCs aren’t beyond scrutiny, and that’s why laws like ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ are necessary—to ensure balance in what is often an uneven relationship between contractor and company.

You also mention that shoppers ‘f-up,’ but what about the cases where the MSC f-ups? We can’t ignore that companies make mistakes too, sometimes with faulty systems or unreasonable demands. Your suggestion that these companies just pay small claims to avoid the hassle of fighting them is speculation at best. If a shopper successfully wins back pay, it means the company didn’t meet their legal obligations. That’s not a matter of principle—it’s a matter of law.

Regarding ‘due process,’ it’s not about an internal appeal mechanism—it’s about fairness. Independent contractors don’t have the same protections employees do, and it’s precisely why laws like ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ are important. We shouldn’t accept a dynamic where MSCs hold 99.9% of the power and leave shoppers vulnerable to arbitrary decisions. That’s not an industry standard worth protecting.

As for making a ‘big issue’ over $25 or $200—it’s not always about the immediate amount. For some shoppers, it’s about a recurring pattern where rejections without proper cause happen more than once. These seemingly small losses can add up quickly. And why should anyone let a company consistently take advantage of them without accountability? Businesses should indeed treat their contractors with respect, and standing up for fair treatment doesn’t automatically make a shopper ‘difficult.’ Shoppers aren’t here to fight causes—they’re here to earn a living, and part of that means ensuring they’re fairly compensated for the work they’ve done.

You say the solution is simply walking away from an MSC. But why should that be the only option when there are legitimate means to resolve disputes? Yes, ending a relationship is a contractor’s power, but so is filing complaints or seeking compensation when wronged. We should be promoting accountability in this industry, not advising people to accept unfair treatment because it’s more ‘convenient.’ Long-term success in business comes from maintaining integrity, and that includes holding companies to the same standards they expect from their contractors.

I think the biggest difference between you and ServiceAward is how you see yourself as secret shopper.

For you, you consider yourself as a "worker", and you working for the MSC, as in employer vs employee. However, the nature of secret shop is not that. We are independent contractor, which means we, ourself is a one-man business and the only employer/employee of this company. You do business with MSC as a business partner, which means it is entirely up to you to decide if you are to engage this relationship with any business, aka MSC. It is also up to you, the business owner to "estimate and take the risk" engaging into any business relationship. In exchange of all these you are allowed to write off many expenses for income tax write off, the own scheduling of time and etc.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Enough with the quoting!

Not in this thread, but especially when formatted wrong, and the wrong members get quoted.

Just to note, I was thinking about schedulers and editors that are contracted. We don't always hear about it or are privy to those details. I don't want to incite anyone by using the word "heard", but I have heard through the grapevine of those cases, as well.

None of us are really and truly independent contractors. We are misclassified for the convenience of the MSC and the client. Sure, sure, we can negotiate pay to a certain level, and we can choose whether or not to accept a gig. What defines us as employees in fact is not that.

When we accept a gig, we have to do what they ask and how they ask it. They come up with the scripts and the requirements, not us. They are the ones telling us we have to hit a certain set of marks to get paid. They have rules for our dress, behavior, how long we should wait if we can't be served, what photos to take, whether or not they want us to take photos with geolocation info, when the report needs to be turned in, we aren't supposed to contract someone else to complete our work, whether or not the shop is targeted, whether or not we need to record the call. We have to pass quizzes and tests unpaid to be "certified" on our own time. If an audio or videorecording isn't good enough, they don't pay. The real independent contractors are the MSCs hiring us as subcontractor employees to complete jobs according to their specifications because it costs them much less than hiring us as regular employee. They don't pay us for the additional time driving to the jobsite, per diems, and hotel stays, like they would if they had a full time employee completing inspections. Having fewer traditional employees gives them tax breaks and saves them on insurance. (See Uber and Lyft driver complaints.)

My example:
I went through a long (unpaid) training process to complete a specific kind of inspection with an MSC and told there would be many, many shops to complete. I was then removed from the program after I completed two of them - for no good reason, either. I hired an attorney and sued for unpaid wages in federal court. I can't reveal which one or when it was. In addition to a $5,000 settlement for me, they had to pay my attorney's fees. I have to say, it felt really good slapping them back like that, even though $5,000 isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things.

I don't recommend it for every transgression unless an attorney feels they can push it as a class action and get you a decent settlement.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2024 11:51PM by cherubino3.

Two days ago, I posted my intention to create a counterpoint, but the many quotes being included have muddled my ability to sort out who is whom and what is what. That being a weakness of Bob, below is my position on the subject.

I am vehemently opposed to government intervention into mystery shopping. When I do not like the peaches, I do not shake the tree. In my 21 1/2 yrs. in the business, I have been both the terminated and the terminator; that is the way I wish it to remain.

@shopperbob wrote:

Two days ago, I posted my intention to create a counterpoint, but the many quotes being included have muddled my ability to sort out who is whom and what is what. That being a weakness of Bob, below is my position on the subject.

I am vehemently opposed to government intervention into mystery shopping. When I do not like the peaches, I do not shake the tree. In my 21 1/2 yrs. in the business, I have been both the terminated and the terminator; that is the way I wish it to remain.

I can respect your position on not wanting government intervention in mystery shopping, but the issue isn’t about shaking the tree—it’s about making sure the tree isn’t rotten to begin with. Government intervention, like the ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ law, isn’t about overreach—it’s about protecting independent contractors from unfair treatment. In an industry where power dynamics heavily favor the MSCs, having some level of regulation ensures a fair playing field for all.

Your 21+ years in the business certainly gives you experience, but not everyone has the luxury of walking away when things go wrong. For many, mystery shopping is a significant part of their income, and being terminated unjustly or losing money for work they’ve already completed can have serious consequences. Government protections help prevent companies from exploiting the freelancers they depend on, ensuring that when things do go wrong, there’s a clear path to resolve disputes.

You’ve been both the terminated and the terminator, which shows you’ve experienced the ups and downs of this business. But wouldn’t you agree that a system where both sides are held accountable is better for everyone? Laws like these aren’t about micromanaging the industry; they’re about ensuring that contractors get what they’re owed for honest work. It’s not about shaking the tree—it’s about making sure the fruits of our labor aren’t taken without cause.

Indie, IF we lived in Utopia, I would agree with you; of course, we do not so habitate. Even then, there would be a requirement that once the government had its toe in the affairs that they could not move their foot into the game. That, in my opinion, would be the deal breaker.

I'm not a fan of gov't overreach by any means, but fact is, companies are taking advantage of people, that's why this law exists.

Here's a post I made a few months ago with an experience with Ipsos not giving a valid explanation, they just ghosted me. Would it make or break me to lose this money? No. But should I be the one who eats it and not them? Also no.

[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

Aside from shoppers for whom Ipsos is financially necessary, the parable of the man and snake definitely applies to this MSC.

Joanna had an inexcusably terrible experience, was ultimately paid and terminated the association without any government intervention. If enough people follow her lead and drop offending MSCs, there will not be any need for agencies to become involved. For IF there is involvement, there is a clear risk of the involved becoming mandators of policy. Should that come to pass, I predict the business, as we know it, will be "down the drain."

Just to add - I see everyone's point. For most who pursue this, I believe the intent of this would be as a later or last resort to receive payment after services had been successfully rendered or a contract had been fulfilled in good faith, after attempting to work it out. This seems to be a complaint and review process. $800 is the minimum amount and 120 days is the duration, but there is no cap on the amount. This can be argued as overreach, especially from a business's perspective. But at its core, I believe it's to protect freelancers from nonpayment and get assistance in getting paid. What had been mentioned before, after it's up to each individual to reevaluate the business relationship going forward. Whether it be to maintain or terminate a relationship, or make the decision to reject future work as a freelancer, it's up to the individual at that point.

@shopperbob wrote:

Aside from shoppers for whom Ipsos is financially necessary, the parable of the man and snake definitely applies to this MSC.

Joanna had an inexcusably terrible experience, was ultimately paid and terminated the association without any government intervention. If enough people follow her lead and drop offending MSCs, there will not be any need for agencies to become involved. For IF there is involvement, there is a clear risk of the involved becoming mandators of policy. Should that come to pass, I predict the business, as we know it, will be "down the drain."

While Joanna’s approach of handling things without government intervention worked for her, that doesn’t mean it’s a one-size-fits-all solution. Not everyone has the financial flexibility to walk away from an MSC without significant repercussions, and it’s not always as simple as just dropping a company that treats you unfairly. For some, mystery shopping is an important part of their livelihood, and ensuring fair compensation for work performed is not just a matter of choice—it’s a necessity.

The idea that if enough people drop offending MSCs, the problem will solve itself, overlooks the fact that companies don’t always respond to individual actions. Many MSCs have a large pool of shoppers to choose from, so losing a few won’t necessarily lead to meaningful change. This is where protections like the ‘Freelance Isn’t Free’ law come into play—giving shoppers a way to hold MSCs accountable when they fail to meet their obligations. It’s not about government agencies controlling the industry; it’s about ensuring that contractors are treated fairly and paid what they’re owed.

The fear that government involvement would lead to ‘mandators of policy’ may be overstated. These laws exist to prevent exploitation and provide recourse when things go wrong—not to dictate how every aspect of the business should be run. If MSCs are operating fairly and transparently, there should be no need for intervention in the first place. But when they don’t, shoppers deserve protection.

At the end of the day, a system that ensures fair treatment doesn’t spell the end of the mystery shopping business—it strengthens it by promoting trust and accountability between MSCs and shoppers. The drain won’t come from fair protections, but from unchecked practices that leave good shoppers feeling undervalued and taken advantage of.

Indy, I am full both the remainder of today and all of tomorrow, BUT, my car will be at the repairman's place all day Weds. I will reply to your comments in two days.

I should have added this to my other post, but at this point, this thread is already a little confusing with all the replies and quotes - I wanted to clarify - I do support the gov't getting involved when massive, multi-national companies want to screw over a shopper. An $800 minimum sounds more than reasonable, in my opinion.

Had I not gotten resolution from the VP of ipsos, I would have continued escalating the matter by:
-posting to BBB and TrustPilot (probably both)
-contacting the Dept of Labor in either Illinois and NY as Ipsos has offices in Chicago and NYC.

It might seem that I was being petty about it, so I want to reiterate that this was not about the money, but the behavior of the employees in the company. One of the schedulers or editors could have responded to my emails with an explanation - they chose not to.

I think some are misunderstanding the nature of what defines employment. It's not the ability to negotiate pay or turn down assignments that defines you as an independent contractor. The MSCs are the real independent contractors here. You're never an equal partner bringing independent thought or work, they do that. Yes, you have some writing skills, but you aren't contributing the setup of the workflow or the parameters, or the survey questions - they do that with the client. When we choose to accept a gig, we are employees for that time period doing their work for them as their subagents. We are doing what they ask according to their defined parameters/instructions, so that they can analyze that data and present it to the client. A real independent contractor can make decisions about how work is performed.

Think of it as the client hiring an architect to design a house. The client has a few design ideas. The architects are trained experts. They can have other architects working under their name in their firm complete some part of the plans according to the architect's designs. And then the architect presents it to the client. The MSCs are the main architects, and we are subagents of the architect. They are the independent contractor bringing their expertise, and we do the work for them.

We are misclassified employees. That's the hard truth the MSCs don't want you to know.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2024 08:03PM by cherubino3.

For employee and independent contractor classification regarding mystery shopping - for three categories of behavioral control, financial control, and relationship - it does seem to fail in behavioral control on certain shops and inspections, where one would be considered an employee.

@Okie wrote:

For employee and independent contractor classification regarding mystery shopping - for three categories of behavioral control, financial control, and relationship - it does seem to fail in behavioral control on certain shops and inspections, where one would be considered an employee.

Sorry, but that's not how that works. They have rules for how they want you to behave on a gig. I've seen that in most of the shops that you agree to behave professionally, not swear, not show up intoxicated, etc. You must not reveal to anyone that you are a mystery shopper on some shops. On others, you are to reveal yourself and you are to present a piece of paper that someone else designed. That does sound like behavioral control. They define the work that you are to do based on their survey questions and shop instructions. They define when the work is due, too. It is an employment agreement, even if it is a brief on lasting a short period of time and even if the relationships is a brief and occasional one. They do seem to have the upper hand financially, as well. Sure, you can choose not to accept a specific gig, but when you do, you are stuck with their parameters - what to ask, what to look for, what to photograph, by when to report it.

Ask yourself again, are you designing the surveys? Are you defining the parameters of the work? Did you contact the client directly to offer your services or did an intermediary set it up and tell you how it should be done?

"You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed."

[www.irs.gov]

I agree with your earlier inspection example, when it comes to types of instructions given, degree of instruction, evaluation system, training.
[www.irs.gov]

@cherubino3 wrote:

@Okie wrote:

For employee and independent contractor classification regarding mystery shopping - for three categories of behavioral control, financial control, and relationship - it does seem to fail in behavioral control on certain shops and inspections, where one would be considered an employee.

Sorry, but that's not how that works. They have rules for how they want you to behave on a gig. I've seen that in most of the shops that you agree to behave professionally, not swear, not show up intoxicated, etc. You must not reveal to anyone that you are a mystery shopper on some shops. On others, you are to reveal yourself and you are to present a piece of paper that someone else designed. That does sound like behavioral control. They define the work that you are to do based on their survey questions and shop instructions. They define when the work is due, too. It is an employment agreement, even if it is a brief on lasting a short period of time and even if the relationships is a brief and occasional one. They do seem to have the upper hand financially, as well. Sure, you can choose not to accept a specific gig, but when you do, you are stuck with their parameters - what to ask, what to look for, what to photograph, by when to report it.

Ask yourself again, are you designing the surveys? Are you defining the parameters of the work? Did you contact the client directly to offer your services or did an intermediary set it up and tell you how it should be done?

"You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed."

[www.irs.gov]

Sorry but I have to disagree with you here.

Let's say you are a manufacturer owner, someone comes to you and want you to provide something for them. The buyer is going to tell you the spec of the products, what material they want to use, what packaging they want, the dimension, weight etc, and they give you a budget, and the time frame of the process. You, as the manufacturer owner, will 1) decide if you can build the product with the given specs provided, 2) punch in the numbers and see if it is do-able for you, either making a profit, or enough to keep the cash flow moving, and you can accept the term and move on with the business transaction, or if you don't like the pricing, you can try to negotiate with the buyer on the pricing or time frame, or simply deny the terms and ended them that you cannot do it, come back when you have a better pricing.

This is exactly the same procedure between MSC and shoppers. MSC is the buyer, he has the task and the money, and he has a product (surveys) in mind. The MSC provides the detail of the product (is it covert, revealed? How many questions, how you want the answer, what you can/cannot do) the budget ($X for the job with/without reimbursement) and the time frame (the job is available between X-Y days).

You the shopper, can decide if the job is doable for the given time frame, determine if the job is profitable for you, and you can try to email/call the MSC and offer your pricing (ppl does do that, according to the forum posts), and you can choose to deny the job if you think the pay is too low (again, tons of people doing that) and wait for the buyer to offer better pricings (bonus!)

This is why, you are doing 1099, as a sole proprietorship, and that is why, you have the right to do tax deductions where a regular worker, those who do W-2, even if they are working from home, would not have been able to file.

Kise stated my point in an excellent manner; it is better than any opinion I am able to contribute.

@kisekinecro wrote:

Sorry but I have to disagree with you here.

Let's say you are a manufacturer owner, someone comes to you and want you to provide something for them. The buyer is going to tell you the spec of the products, what material they want to use, what packaging they want, the dimension, weight etc, and they give you a budget, and the time frame of the process. You, as the manufacturer owner, will 1) decide if you can build the product with the given specs provided, 2) punch in the numbers and see if it is do-able for you, either making a profit, or enough to keep the cash flow moving, and you can accept the term and move on with the business transaction, or if you don't like the pricing, you can try to negotiate with the buyer on the pricing or time frame, or simply deny the terms and ended them that you cannot do it, come back when you have a better pricing.

This is exactly the same procedure between MSC and shoppers. MSC is the buyer, he has the task and the money, and he has a product (surveys) in mind. The MSC provides the detail of the product (is it covert, revealed? How many questions, how you want the answer, what you can/cannot do) the budget ($X for the job with/without reimbursement) and the time frame (the job is available between X-Y days).

You the shopper, can decide if the job is doable for the given time frame, determine if the job is profitable for you, and you can try to email/call the MSC and offer your pricing (ppl does do that, according to the forum posts), and you can choose to deny the job if you think the pay is too low (again, tons of people doing that) and wait for the buyer to offer better pricings (bonus!)

This is why, you are doing 1099, as a sole proprietorship, and that is why, you have the right to do tax deductions where a regular worker, those who do W-2, even if they are working from home, would not have been able to file.

Your analogy makes a valid point about the decision-making process in accepting or declining work, but it overlooks the fundamental differences between a true independent contractor and the role mystery shoppers play. In your example, the manufacturer has the ability to negotiate, adjust the specs, and control various aspects of production, whereas in mystery shopping, the parameters are rigid, and we don’t have any influence over the process once it’s laid out by the MSC. While we can accept or decline an assignment, there’s little room for negotiation or input into how the work is performed.

Yes, shoppers can sometimes request bonuses or better pay, but those situations are exceptions, not the norm. The power dynamic is heavily skewed in favor of the MSCs, and unlike in your example, we often don’t have the leverage to truly negotiate. Independent contractors are supposed to have control over how the work gets done, not just the choice of whether to take it. In most mystery shopping gigs, we’re following very specific instructions with no room for flexibility, which raises the question of whether we’re truly functioning as independent contractors or something closer to misclassified employees.

Also, while tax deductions are certainly a benefit of being 1099, they shouldn’t be used as justification for accepting lower pay or diminished worker protections. Tax deductions can’t replace the security that comes from knowing you’ll be compensated fairly for work you’ve completed.

The bigger issue here is about control. In the independent contractor model you described, the contractor has control over key aspects of the business process, but in mystery shopping, that level of control is missing. The more rigid the structure, the less it feels like true independent contracting, and more like following orders without the benefits of employment.

At the end of the day, we should be pushing for fair treatment, whether we’re classified as independent contractors or employees. The goal isn’t to give up flexibility, but to ensure that flexibility doesn’t come at the cost of fair compensation and respect for the work we do.

@Indastruktable wrote:

Your analogy makes a valid point about the decision-making process in accepting or declining work, but it overlooks the fundamental differences between a true independent contractor and the role mystery shoppers play. In your example, the manufacturer has the ability to negotiate, adjust the specs, and control various aspects of production, whereas in mystery shopping, the parameters are rigid, and we don’t have any influence over the process once it’s laid out by the MSC. While we can accept or decline an assignment, there’s little room for negotiation or input into how the work is performed.

Yes, shoppers can sometimes request bonuses or better pay, but those situations are exceptions, not the norm. The power dynamic is heavily skewed in favor of the MSCs, and unlike in your example, we often don’t have the leverage to truly negotiate. Independent contractors are supposed to have control over how the work gets done, not just the choice of whether to take it. In most mystery shopping gigs, we’re following very specific instructions with no room for flexibility, which raises the question of whether we’re truly functioning as independent contractors or something closer to misclassified employees.

Also, while tax deductions are certainly a benefit of being 1099, they shouldn’t be used as justification for accepting lower pay or diminished worker protections. Tax deductions can’t replace the security that comes from knowing you’ll be compensated fairly for work you’ve completed.

The bigger issue here is about control. In the independent contractor model you described, the contractor has control over key aspects of the business process, but in mystery shopping, that level of control is missing. The more rigid the structure, the less it feels like true independent contracting, and more like following orders without the benefits of employment.

At the end of the day, we should be pushing for fair treatment, whether we’re classified as independent contractors or employees. The goal isn’t to give up flexibility, but to ensure that flexibility doesn’t come at the cost of fair compensation and respect for the work we do.

What you describe as how one often has the same equal power in negotiating is nothing but a perfect world expectation. If you are ever in the reality business world. you would know that the supplier often has little power in negotiation for a very simply reason: Demand and supply. If you are a few, and offer exclusive perk that no one else in the industry can offer, you hold much higher bargaining power, but you are just a norm or small business, sorry but you ain't getting much bargaining power, you can choose to accept the term, if you don't, there's plenty of others who will take the job at the price because they need the cash flow to survive. this is same everywhere. And this is the main difference between a worker and business owner.

Workers has little right but they don't need to take any risk and will always have a stable income regardless of the financial situation of the business. On the other hand, business owner has way more freedom, but they also take a much bigger risk than a worker, they can go bank, or go broke and there's nothing to protect them. High risk high rewards. For the ss industry, there's also plenty of high paying jobs but they often require certain specialized perk/skills. The realistic way to "avoid lowball offer" is to equip yourself with different skillsets and qualify for high pay jobs, not complaining about lowpay offers on things that a high school dropout can archive.

I am not denying any push for "better/fair treatment", however, you also need to have the right mindset and clear understanding of your position. otherwise what you are pushing is not better/fair treatment, but nightmare.

and always...be careful of what you wish for. What you wish for don't always comes in the form that you want. We have plenty of examples thanks to our progressive liberals in our country already.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2024 04:46PM by kisekinecro.

@kisekinecro wrote:

What you describe as how one often has the same equal power in negotiating is nothing but a perfect world expectation. If you are ever in the reality business world. you would know that the supplier often has little power in negotiation for a very simply reason: Demand and supply. If you are a few, and offer exclusive perk that no one else in the industry can offer, you hold much higher bargaining power, but you are just a norm or small business, sorry but you ain't getting much bargaining power, you can choose to accept the term, if you don't, there's plenty of others who will take the job at the price because they need the cash flow to survive. this is same everywhere. And this is the main difference between a worker and business owner.

Workers has little right but they don't need to take any risk and will always have a stable income regardless of the financial situation of the business. On the other hand, business owner has way more freedom, but they also take a much bigger risk than a worker, they can go bank, or go broke and there's nothing to protect them. High risk high rewards. For the ss industry, there's also plenty of high paying jobs but they often require certain specialized perk/skills. The realistic way to "avoid lowball offer" is to equip yourself with different skillsets and qualify for high pay jobs, not complaining about lowpay offers on things that a high school dropout can archive.

I am not denying any push for "better/fair treatment", however, you also need to have the right mindset and clear understanding of your position. otherwise what you are pushing is not better/fair treatment, but nightmare.

and always...be careful of what you wish for. What you wish for don't always comes in the form that you want. We have plenty of examples thanks to our progressive liberals in our country already.

While it’s true that in the real world, bargaining power often depends on demand and supply, that doesn’t mean we should simply accept unfavorable terms because ‘there’s always someone else willing to take the job.’ Just because certain industries or roles have limited leverage doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t strive for fairer treatment. It’s not about expecting a ‘perfect world’—it’s about pushing for a more equitable one.

In mystery shopping, the issue isn’t just about accepting or rejecting lowball offers—it’s about ensuring that when we do the work, we’re compensated fairly for it. The risk you’re describing—‘high risk, high reward’—is part of running a business, but that risk should come with fair compensation for services rendered. It’s not unreasonable for independent contractors to expect payment for completed work, and when companies routinely reject shops without fair cause, it’s an abuse of the contractor model, not just a ‘risk of business.’

Your suggestion to ‘equip yourself with different skillsets and qualify for high pay jobs’ is sound advice in many fields, but not entirely applicable to mystery shopping. The majority of shops are based on following preset guidelines, not developing unique skills. Many of us who do this work already bring professionalism, punctuality, and attention to detail to the table, but the reality is that the work is structured in a way that limits the amount of skill differentiation.

When it comes to workers versus business owners, I agree that the risks and rewards are different, but the risk of being a small business or independent contractor doesn’t mean we have to accept systemic mistreatment. Pushing for better treatment, like enforcing pay protections and creating a more balanced power dynamic between MSCs and shoppers, isn’t about wanting a perfect situation—it’s about ensuring that contractors aren’t taken advantage of by companies who hold all the cards.

As for your comment about being careful what you wish for, it’s not unreasonable to push for policies that prevent companies from exploiting freelancers. Fair treatment isn’t a ‘nightmare’—it’s the foundation of a healthy business environment. Many industries have evolved through regulations that protect both sides, and mystery shopping shouldn’t be any different. We can improve the system without ruining the flexibility that many of us value in this line of work. It’s not about stifling business with overregulation—it’s about ensuring that everyone gets what they’re owed for the work they do.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Ipsos and “Freelance isn’t Free” law

Create an Account or Log In

Official List of Mystery Shopping Companies

Mystery Shopper Magazine