If you are going to do it for next year, make sure you pay for it before Dec 31 so you can deduct it on this years taxes. Really wish I could find a grammer checker that worked with open office or hell, even google doc's, Never mind just tried it in doc's and not so hot. Thing is with Grammerly it wanted to change the "leading edge of the door" to a "come tither" which I have no idea what that is, when I was doing a report for an autobody shop. So I went back to Ginger for my grammar and spell checker. Ginger still doesn't catch it all or it just doesn't give you a clue to what the problem is.

bgriffin, I'm not sure whether you are intent on constantly defending the MSPA or just tearing apart walesmaven. To say she insinuated anything is far from objective on your part. By your own admission you have no idea what happened at the lone MSPA shoppers conference this year which was also the first one in about four years.

Here is what any new member needs to know. The MSPA and the IMSC can both be considered trade associations. The definition of a trade association is, "an association of people or companies in a particular business or trade, organized to promote their common interests." There is a huge distinction between the two. The MSPA was formed to promote the interests of the mystery shopping companies while the IMSC has been promoting the interest of shoppers. Too many times new shoppers have the mistaken notion the MSPA will somehow protect them and if a company is a member of the organization it is a guarantee they will operate under their code of ethics. Before you even considered mystery shopping, the rest of us saw instances where MSCs stopped paying shoppers yet remained MSPA members in good standing. If a shopper erroneously believes MSPA membership alone will protect them or the MSPA will step in as some sort of mediator they could be risking a lot of time and money. If a shopper believes non-MSPA companies cannot be legitimate they will be missing out on the opportunity to work with some excellent companies.

The IMSC was formed when the MSPA chose to stop holding shopper conferences. While the MSPA was still willing to provide shopper training, which benefits both the shopper and MSCs, they stopped holding events which benefited shoppers by allowing them to network with the companies. The IMSC originally picked up where the MSPA left off. In addition to trying to providing training and encouraging professionalism which can be considered a benefit to companies, the IMSC also provides workshops designed to benefit the shopper.

With the decision of the MSPA to go back to hosting a shopper conference, 2014 probably had too many conferences. Realistically, it would have been difficult for any company to provide a representative at every single event this year. With so many of the better MSCs being quite small, I can't imagine basically shutting down the company for several days to attend a conference every second or third month.

BTW...
I am both MSPA Gold Certified (2005) and an active participant in and presenter at IMSC conferences. Because I took the gold Certification at a workshop, with about 50 shoppers, several MSC participants and the author of a book about MS, I learned a lot as a new shopper. But, the learning experience was all about the lively discussions in the workshops about shopper and schedulers alternative views of how many tasks could be accomplished in ways that would both satisfy the client and conceal the shopper's identity. IMHO, and as I have repeatedly stated when I address the possible benefits of Gold Certification, when the MSPA went from interactive workshops to DVD-based shopper education, the major benefit to the shopper was lost. I have said this so many times on various threads that I no longer always repeat it when the subject arises.

LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bgriffin, I'm not sure whether you are intent on
> constantly defending the MSPA or just tearing
> apart walesmaven. To say she insinuated anything
> is far from objective on your part. By your own
> admission you have no idea what happened at the
> lone MSPA shoppers conference this year which was
> also the first one in about four years.


I'm only quoting the relevant part, because, well, all the other background information isn't relevant. I am neither intent on defending the MSPA or tearing apart walesmaven. I have little to do with either the MSPA or the IMSC. I am silver certified by the MSPA, which did a horrible job with the process I might add, and I have attended one IMSC conference, which was disappointing but still well worth attending. I have good and bad things to say about both. The fact that I did not attend the MSPA shoppers conference has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is simply that walesmaven insinuated something that is not true.

The topic at hand is you need to put on your big boy panties and if you truly have a different opinion state it in a non-confrontational manner. You also need to stop just attacking walesmaven at every turn as it is unflattering at best. I am not, nor will I ever, suggest everyone here should like each other. I do find your obsession beyond absurd and downright ugly.

walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW...
> I am both MSPA Gold Certified (2005) and an active
> participant in and presenter at IMSC conferences.
> Because I took the gold Certification at a
> workshop, with about 50 shoppers, several MSC
> participants and the author of a book about MS, I
> learned a lot as a new shopper. But, the learning
> experience was all about the lively discussions in
> the workshops about shopper and schedulers
> alternative views of how many tasks could be
> accomplished in ways that would both satisfy the
> client and conceal the shopper's identity. IMHO,
> and as I have repeatedly stated when I address the
> possible benefits of Gold Certification, when the
> MSPA went from interactive workshops to DVD-based
> shopper education, the major benefit to the
> shopper was lost. I have said this so many times
> on various threads that I no longer always repeat
> it when the subject arises.

As sad as it may seem (and I completely agree it's sad), when talking about MSPA certification how many times does someone hear the OP ask about learning anything? The question is always "will I get more shops?" How much you learn, and how you learn, is not relevant to that. It *should* be, but it's not. So going on about how the certification training used to be good and isn't anymore is also not relevant to that. The only relevant thing is will I see more shops. I know that bothers you, but whenever people ask about certification and you go off topic about the IMSC (and yes, it happens more than it doesn't happen), it just makes it look like you have an axe to grind against the MSPA. Like perhaps they peed on your mother's face or something. And let's face it, the IMSC's training may be 10x better than the MSPA, but how many companies recognize it? I don't know that any do, yet almost all have a place to put in your MSPA certification. So perhaps the IMSC training is better, it still won't get you more shops.

And to answer everyone's questions, absolutely certification will get you more shops. I'm going to put this further out there than most people ever have but here we go. There is a very large company that does a lot of shops. They have an internal grading system that you do not know about. The higher your shop grade the more shops you get to see. With that particular company entering your MSPA certification automatically gets you to certain grade levels (depending on gold or silver). If you have been shopping for a long time with this particular company you might already be at that level. If not, getting certified will get you to see things that you have never seen before. Not seeing all those hotels people talk about? Get certified. Not seeing the popular Italian and seafood chains that people talk about and when you ask they say you probably haven't done enough shops yet? Get certified. In fact, almost every thread that when someone asks about a shop and someone else replies that you probably just haven't done enough shops yet, they're almost always talking about the same company, and certification absolutely will let you see those shops.

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with how good the training is, how horrible the MSPA is and how spectacular the IMSC is, or anything else relating to the two entities. The simple fact is that yes, MSPA certification will get you more shops.

LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The topic at hand is you need to put on your big
> boy panties and if you truly have a different
> opinion state it in a non-confrontational manner.
> You also need to stop just attacking walesmaven at
> every turn as it is unflattering at best. I am
> not, nor will I ever, suggest everyone here should
> like each other. I do find your obsession beyond
> absurd and downright ugly.

I don't wear panties, I thought you knew this?

I have a different opinion. There weren't a lot of non-MSPA companies at the last IMSC conference as wales implied. I stated that. I didn't think I was being confrontational. It's just how I speak.

I am not attacking walesmaven at every turn. Only when she states something wrong. Like that last time you got angry with me for stating she said something wrong. And yes, as it turns out, she was absolutely wrong. Had I really wanted to be absurd and downright ugly I would have returned to that thread and pointed the fact out once the OP returned with the information.

Where did I say that there would be a lot of non-MSPA companies in attendance, please? I stated that a lot of great companies do not join MSPA and therefore cannot attend their conference. I went on to say that, as long as they were paying shoppers, all MSCs were welcome to attend IMSC conference. Also, not all MSCs that attend have tables so your count may not be complete unless you made it a point to meet every company attendee and note at the time what company they were affiliated with.

You seem to think that just becasue an MSC could attend I claimed that they did, and in great numbers. Please detail where I made such a claim.

You claim that there is nothing valuable about shopper education other than certification which will get you more jobs. If that is the case, why do you participate in this educational forum? Getting more jobs with the few companies that actively promote/prefer Gold Certification is very often balanced or even overcome by shopper experience and non-certificate education both of which have great value in "getting ahead" (more and better job offers) by the majority of MSCs.

Oh, I forgot. You participate in this educational forum to educate other shoppers not to believe anything that I post.

walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where did I say that there would be a lot of
> non-MSPA companies in attendance, please?

I already said you didn't say it, you insinuated it by stating that non-MSPA companies would never be at MSPA events but any company was free to come to IMSC events. Perhaps you didn't mean to insinuate it? Perhaps you meant it as a message to non-MSPA companies that they could come to IMSC events? Or perhaps you meant it as a way of making the IMSC look "above" the MSPA because they would allow non-MSPA companies? I'm guessing it was the last one for what it's worth. Either way most people who read your initial post that I responded to will infer that because the companies were not invited to the MSPA but were the IMSC that there would be more of said companies at that conference.

> You claim that there is nothing valuable about
> shopper education other than certification which
> will get you more jobs.

That is absolutely and positively not true. If you read my post I clearly explained that I agreed it was sad but that most people who ask about shopper certification are not asking about education, they are simply asking about getting more jobs. I am not the one who his making the value of education irrelevant, they are.

If I ask you if organic foods taste better than non-organic foods, you might reply that organic foods are much better for you. Yes, they are, but they don't necessarily taste better. If my driving factor is taste, then the fact that they're better for me is irrelevant, even though you and I would both agree that being better for me should be more important.

> Getting more jobs with the few companies that
> actively promote/prefer Gold Certification is very
> often balanced or even overcome by shopper
> experience and non-certificate education both of
> which have great value in "getting ahead" (more
> and better job offers) by the majority of MSCs.

Absolutely positively couldn't agree more.

>
> Oh, I forgot. You participate in this educational
> forum to educate other shoppers not to believe
> anything that I post.

Absolutely not. I participate in this educational forum because it's entertaining and I learn a ton. And I will be the first to say that you are one of the most knowledgeable posters on here. You've been shopping for 10 years, you should be. That doesn't mean everything you say is correct.

I have a question that maybe only schedulers can answer but wanted to ask anyway. I have been doing mystery shopping for six years and am silver certified. I do not mind taking the gold certification but the question is my age. I am 71 years old and in excellent health but I am afraid my age will keep me from being selected for the higher end jobs. Does anyone know if my age will be a problem.

This is a great discussion. It's been clarified that the MSPA is a trade association of mystery shopping companies and the IMSC is a trade association of shoppers. They are different organizations with different purposes and it appears for the benefit of all of us in the business that we need both of them. Because of what I've read on this forum in the past few years I don't see myself ever participating in an IMSC conference, although I've considered several of them. So, consider me an interested bystander.

Reading this forum over the past few years leads me to believe there is a lingering negative history that pops up with regularity. Problems can't be solved by those outside the problem looking in, and this negative history looks like one of those problems. We can't solve it, but we form opinions about how it looks.

It appears to me that slams against the MSPA are a unprofessional reflection on the IMSC, although I realize that the IMSC as an organization is not responsible for the comments of any of its individual members. Nevertheless, comments on this forum lead me to the opinion, however right or wrong it may be, that one of the main purposes of the IMSC is to discredit the reputation of the MSPA. Logic tells me that can't possibly be true, but logic often doesn't enter into the way people react to what they read.

MDavisnowell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It appears to me that slams against the MSPA are a
> unprofessional reflection on the IMSC, although I
> realize that the IMSC as an organization is not
> responsible for the comments of any of its
> individual members. Nevertheless, comments on
> this forum lead me to the opinion, however right
> or wrong it may be, that one of the main purposes
> of the IMSC is to discredit the reputation of the
> MSPA. Logic tells me that can't possibly be true,
> but logic often doesn't enter into the way people
> react to what they read.

You're not the only one.

I also find it interesting that these same people never mention the fact that the IMSC is run as a for profit business, not as a collection of shoppers with a mutual interest.

B, tell us more about the for profit business. Someone is making money off this trade association?

Unfortunately I have little else to add to that. I learned very recently that the IMSC is run as a for profit business. It is not a non-profit trade group. I was told that by a 3rd party but I had absolutely no reason not to believe it as the source was someone who would have extensive knowledge of the IMSC. Obviously I don't know if they are actually making money or not.

The question is not whether they are successfully making money. The question is whether it is their purpose to make money. If they are a for profit organization, that's entirely okay with me as I believe everyone is entitled to make a living, but it begs the question as to whether they may be misrepresenting themselves by not making that clear.

I went to their website and found no clarification as to non-profit status. It seems to me that if their sole purpose is to benefit shoppers (as we have been led to believe) they would be a non-profit dedicated to that purpose and not dedicated to making money. If they are not a non-profit, then they're just a business representing themselves as a shopper trade association but actually designed to make money off selling memberships and conferences.

I used to be a volunteer treasurer for a non-profit organization and I remember vaguely that we had certain fiduciary responsibilities on handling and reporting funds to the IRS and the state that insured we were actually non-profit. There may be a public list of non-profits. I'll see what I can dig up.

Apparently someone "alerted" the IMSC President I had questions about them (??? I don't remember asking any questions about them) and she sent me quite a lengthy email. I'm not sure why she responded in an email instead of posting a response here. Anyway, per the email, yes, they are a for profit company. I wonder who could have possibly "alerted" the IMSC that I was talking about them? Petty.

I'm glad they've settled the question of whether they're non profit. I originally misunderstood thinking they were a non-profit dedicated to shoppers but now I get it. They are profit motivated just like the MSPA/MSCs are profit motivated. So much for the position the MSPA is not concerned about shoppers but the IMSC only has our interests at heart. They are two businesses in business to make money, whatever it takes.

Neither organization can make its program work without shoppers. The difference is the MSCs can only make money if they have shoppers who deliver reports, and the IMSC can only make money if they have shoppers who pay dues and attend conferences.

Let's hope that the upshot in each case is some benefit for us as shoppers. That would be a welcome outcome.

Dear James Bond 007.5, Could you please explain the picture on your posts? Signed, Night Owl

MDavisNowell, I see an email in your future.

(heart)

Other members of the IMSC monitor all posts on all forums and blogs known to cater to MSing, bgriffin and Mary. I have not notified anyone at IMSC and would have no need to do so. I present at IMSC conferences (as a way of paying forward all of the mentoring and encouragement that I have gotten over the years), but am not even a dues paying member.

IMSC was formed by a group of shoppers 5 years ago when the IMSC decided to stop permitting shoppers to attend their conferences and also had stopped doing in-person shopper education. IMSC stepped in to fill a real void. It held its first conference in the same city, on the same dates as the MSPA conference, and specifically invited panels of MSPA past presidents and others to present at the IMSC conference, which they did. To say that IMSC exists to counter MSPA is not supported in fact. MSPA member organizations and MSPA officers and managers have been invited to attend and speak at many IMSC conferences and have done so. Sometimes that has been mutually rewarding. At other times it has been a public relations embarrasment for the MSPA because the reps that the organization sent stood up and belittled shoppers, among other things. Some of you may remember that within the last few months the MSPA named a new manager of shopper relations (or a similar title.) He showed up here and invited shoppers to email him. I did not, as I had chatted with him at an IMSC conference 2 years ago, where he stated, unequivocally that the MSPA was going to fix quite a number of well known problems (including the one that bgriffin referred to concerning nightmares over getting certifications recognized) and which plague them to this day. He soon removed his email address here and, as far as I know, has not been heard from since.

Now, I am out of here.

bgriffin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Edited to add:
>
> Why can't there be people who are certified by the
> MSPA and go to the IMSC conferences? Such as me.
> It's not a one against the other thing. There is
> room for both.


I agree. It is okay to go both ways. Since when did education and networking become a bad thing?

Because there is a group of shoppers who have an axe to grind with the MSPA. Take walesmaven's post above. The first paragraph was direct and relevant. Then she added the unneeded second paragraph, sunshine pumping the IMSC and again badmouthing the MSPA. Statements that she has made over and over ad nauseam that just make her look bitter.

I think there may be a misunderstanding. I am MSPA gold certified and many others who attend IMSC conferences hold MSPA silver or gold certification. So, I'm not sure what was intended in the above post. I also hold 4 or 5 IMSC certifications.

Yes, I had read that the IMSC was organized and stepped in to fill a void when the MSPA stopped hosting events for shoppers. I was aware that over the past few years IMSC hosted conferences with educational programs for shoppers. It was entirely my misunderstanding but I thought the IMSC was a non-profit organization dedicated solely to the benefit of the shopper community as a whole. My mistake.

Now that I understand it is a for profit organization I have better insight as to some of the posts on this forum when it was announced that the MSPA would once more host some shopper oriented events at one of its conferences. It seemed that there was resentment about the MSPA offering these events. I didn't understand the competitive attitude and I thought it was a step forward for us that the MSCs recognized a need for more shopper education. Even though they had not offered these benefits without a lapse, we should be aware they were the first (as far as I know) to offer these benefits. As Gene Autry said, "If you're the first singing cowboy you don't have to be the best singing cowboy."

Surely no one can fault either the MSPA or the IMSC for looking after its own best interests. If either or both decide to go forward with offering shopper oriented educational events that has to be a plus for the shopper community and not a minus. These organizations are both profit motivated and both have a place in the shopper community. We now understand that neither is structured for the sole benefit of the shopper.

bgriffin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently someone "alerted" the IMSC President I
> had questions about them (??? I don't remember
> asking any questions about them) and she sent me
> quite a lengthy email. I'm not sure why she
> responded in an email instead of posting a
> response here. Anyway, per the email, yes, they
> are a for profit company. I wonder who could have
> possibly "alerted" the IMSC that I was talking
> about them? Petty.

I don't think anyone needed to "alert" the IMSC of your questions. Pam, IMSC President, and Servanne, IMSC Vice President, both read here frequently. Servanne often posts information about IMSC and conferences. Pam does not post here, so if your response was from Pam, that would be the reason she chose to e-mail you rather than posting. Hopefully, Servanne will post a public response on the forum, because I'm always interested in more information about all phases of mystery shopping.

Perhaps you might post the e-mail you received. When I joined IMSC last Spring (financially it made sense to join and attend the NOLA conference rather than attend the conference as a nonmember), I don't remember signing any confidentiality agreement, so I assume there would be nothing wrong with you posting the e-mail you received.

As far as commenting that it is "petty" that someone (?) "alerted" the IMSC, that just sounds plain petty on your part, and a bit foolish. Do you imagine that those involved with IMSC cannot read?

AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bgriffin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Apparently someone "alerted" the IMSC President
> I
> > had questions about them (??? I don't remember
> > asking any questions about them) and she sent
> me
> > quite a lengthy email. I'm not sure why she
> > responded in an email instead of posting a
> > response here. Anyway, per the email, yes,
> they
> > are a for profit company. I wonder who could
> have
> > possibly "alerted" the IMSC that I was talking
> > about them? Petty.
>
> I don't think anyone needed to "alert" the IMSC of
> your questions. Pam, IMSC President, and
> Servanne, IMSC Vice President, both read here
> frequently. Servanne often posts information
> about IMSC and conferences. Pam does not post
> here, so if your response was from Pam, that would
> be the reason she chose to e-mail you rather than
> posting. Hopefully, Servanne will post a public
> response on the forum, because I'm always
> interested in more information about all phases of
> mystery shopping.

"Alerted" was her word not mine. The third sentence of the email was "I was alerted to the post on Mystery Shop Forum.."
I can only go with what I'm told. I was told someone alerted her. I'm curious why Pam does not post here? It would seem like an important place for her to be active.


>
> Perhaps you might post the e-mail you received.
> When I joined IMSC last Spring (financially it
> made sense to join and attend the NOLA conference
> rather than attend the conference as a nonmember),
> I don't remember signing any confidentiality
> agreement, so I assume there would be nothing
> wrong with you posting the e-mail you received.
>

The fourth sentence of the email is "You are of course welcome to share this email with whomever you see fit." So no, there would be no problem sharing the email. I'm not going to at this point, but I certainly might in the future.

> As far as commenting that it is "petty" that
> someone (?) "alerted" the IMSC, that just sounds
> plain petty on your part, and a bit foolish. Do
> you imagine that those involved with IMSC cannot
> read?

From my standpoint it appeared as if someone didn't like what I had to say about the IMSC (which was never who any post from me was directed at) and "tattled" on me. Perhaps a better choice of words could have been used in the email to me? What other conclusion should I have come to? I have never seen Pam post on here and only rarely have I seen Cervanne post on here, I know of no one else associated with the IMSC, and have so little to do with the IMSC that I have no clue if they monitor the forum or not. I will say if they do monitor the forum, why did the email start with "I was alerted" instead of "I'm aware of"? Slight difference in wording but certainly conveys a different conclusion.

Wales, I'm aware you were MSPA certified early on at a conference. However, you've made it clear to me that you consider the certification that was subsequently offered as decidedly inferior. While the networking possibilities were not present, the DVD program was never presented as having networking possibilities. It provided educational opportunities and was well within the reach financially of many more shoppers. In that respect, it was actually an improvement.

I found the DVD program helpful to me as a new shopper back when I certified and it opened up some shopping opportunities I had not enjoyed. I believe you have been off base, self centered, and short sighted discouraging others from taking the DVD certification. The position taken on this forum by some conference educated gold certified shoppers probably prevented many new shoppers from taking the DVD certification. Some forum members are opposed to any certification at all and have done well without it. The benefit of certification is generally to the new shopper, not the established shopper.

When I first came on the forum it was very difficult to speak out in favor of the MSPA certification due to the consensus expressed at the time. It seemed to me an agreement had been made and the matter was not open for discussion. I discussed it anyway, and I hope I encouraged some to go forward because I believe the DVD program had merit. I stated myself that it could have been better, but most things in life could be better.

If a person only took the conference related program they would tend to think it had great advantages. I'm sure it did. It also cost a boatload of money to go to a conference and take the program there. A full time shopper with resources may have been willing to spring for that. A part time shopper would make a decision to forego a conference based on economics. Based on your recommendations and the recommendations of others opposed to the MSPA program, many of those part time shoppers probably gave up the benefits they would have realized from certifying through the DVD program.

To say now that you are MSPA certified has no bearing on discouraging others from the DVD certification. It also does not alleviate the discomfort felt from posts disparaging the efforts of the MSPA. The IMSC can never replace the MSPA. I do not see a merger upcoming and I therefore feel both must stand alone. There is no benefit to be gained from dissing each other.

I'm so horribly jealous of MDNs ability to say things in a much nicer and concise way than me.

walesmaven, from reading your posts on this thread and other threads, you do seem to be a bit anti-MSPA which is fine. I am curious though, does that mean you do not work for MSPA companies?

bgriffin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm so horribly jealous of MDNs ability to say
> things in a much nicer and concise way than me.


Apparently MDavisnowell doesn't get yelled at by LisaSTL like you do. Another positive.