Update below.

Another case of shopper following guidelines, only to be told that the shop is being excluded because shopper didn't follow an instruction. Sigh.

I did a high-paying, multi-part shop, the first part of which was an internet inquiry. The guidelines give two scenarios for the reason for the inquiry. I copied the second one verbatim (with the addition of one word). I completed the shop and a few days later saw that it had a "pay hold" on it. There was a note to contact the MSC, but no contact information. So, how would I know who to contact and how? I emailed the scheduler, and she very kindly gave me the reason for the hold and the editor's contact information. The reason for the hold is that "Shopper did not give reason for inquiry." However, the reason was implied in the second allowable statement!

I've emailed the editor, and am waiting for a response. If they only want one scenario used (a very specific reason for the inquiry--which, to me, isn't as realistic as their second one), then why is it on the guidelines? And don't the editors refer back to the guidelines if they have a question? I don't expect editors to know every detail of every shop's requirements, but I'm not happy at all for having a shop excluded for using a scenario that was stated in the guidelines!

I just HATE it when you have trouble with a shop because you followed one allowable scenario when they apparently want you to follow another and don't tell you that.

I'm not going to drop this. I followed the instructions and can't understand why I'm being penalized for doing so!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2021 04:48PM by BirdyC.

Watch shop?

Yup. So you probably know the two stated scenarios for the initial inquiry.

I did the same shop at another location last month and thought I messed up, but it got accepted.

The biggest issue, from a technical standpoint, on these shops is that Shopmetrics won't allow you to submit each part of the shop once you complete it--although the instructions say you're supposed to. You can't submit until the entire thing is done--unlike Sassie, where you can easily submit each part of a multi-part shop. At least this issue happened to me on both shops. I assumed that since the shop shows as "working" once you fill out the first section of the survey, they know you're working on it (and hopefully can view the incomplete survey). But both of mine went into "overdue" status prior to the final waiting-for-follow-up time frame.

I was debating doing one of these, but it's far from home. The multi part thing is also an issue. I did a watch shop with a different MSC, and it only had the visit. I have done a few watch shops (not this one), and I was not asked for my contact info any of the times. How do you even complete the third part if the store does not ask for your information?

@Niner wrote:

How do you even complete the third part if the store does not ask for your information?

They'll have your email address from the online inquiry. This can be time-consuming, depending on how much back & forth communication there is in part 1, but it's worth the fee. If your shop gets accepted! I'm still waiting to hear back from the editor.

I love how, when these shops first hit the board for $50, the emails said, "these are highg paying and won't last!". Well, it's been 2.5 months, the fee has almost tripled, and there are two locations close to me still sitting on the board.

@thunderdeacon wrote:

I love how, when these shops first hit the board for $50, the emails said, "these are highg paying and won't last!". Well, it's been 2.5 months, the fee has almost tripled, and there are two locations close to me still sitting on the board.

May be because other companies do visits at the same locations for other brands with less hassle. I did a short route of the same locations advertised for the almost triple fee for $70 each but it was a quick 20 minutes or less each visit.

Apparently they've had a lot of problems with this shop. I followed up with the editor and asked why, if they won't accept the scenario that's right in the guidelines, it's still in them? There's a shop on the board now, and I looked at the guidelines--they're still the same as when I did it.

So I've asked to be told directly the very specific reason why my shop has been rejected. I haven't heard back, but I'm going to continue asking until I get an answer. I suspect the MSC did NOT word the second scenario properly, and the client is refusing to accept shops with that wording.

Also, and this is maddening, the watch is supposed to be for oneself; they make that very clear in the instructions. However, the sample inquiry they show says that the shopper is looking for a gift for a parent! That doesn't meet the requirements.

In any event, shoppers shouldn't be penalized for a failure of the MSC to write accurate guidelines.

I haven't done any of these since the locations are far and this post. Thank you for telling us about your experience. Hope you get paid!

Not only will I not get paid (that's definite), I can't get an answer as to why the shop was rejected since it included all of the elements listed in the guidelines--exactly as they're listed. I'm going to try asking again, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2021 09:27PM by BirdyC.

That's just wrong.

I want to say that the guidelines said you had to indicate that the jewelry was for yourself. I did one a few weeks ago but now I can't pull up the guidelines.

@foodluvr wrote:

I want to say that the guidelines said you had to indicate that the jewelry was for yourself. I did one a few weeks ago but now I can't pull up the guidelines.

Yes, they did, and yes, I did. But the sample inquiry shown in the guidelines had text that said the watch was for the shopper's "father." Why would they give this as an example of an acceptable inquiry? And yet I used the exact wording in the guidelines, and my shop was rejected.

Which MSC is this?

Birdy, do keep us posted. I know you're an experienced shopper with integrity, and you deserve better!

@ceasesmith wrote:

Birdy, do keep us posted. I know you're an experienced shopper with integrity, and you deserve better!

Thank you, Cease. The editor hasn't replied to my two previous emails, so I'm going to see if I can get the name of someone else to contact. My scheduler has been great, and I hate to put her on the spot, but she may be the only person who might know who else I can contact.

I think I know what their "loophole" explanation will be, but the fact remains that I used the MSC's own scenario verbatim. It may not be what the client wanted, but that's not my fault! The shop went back on the board and has been taken, so I'm not even looking for full payment (partial would be nice, though, since it was a nearly 60-mile r/t). I just want a direct and unambiguous explanation of the reasoning.

I should offer to re-write their guidelines! LOL. Mine would be much clearer.

Although the specific client hasn't been named, I think if I were to name the MSC, it would be a dead giveaway!

It's IPSOS, they are the largest MSC and they definitely do not respect their shoppers.

@ATLShopper wrote:

It's IPSOS, they are the largest MSC and they definitely do not respect their shoppers.

The most frustrating things are not being able to get a direct and straight answer, and that they have zero ways to contact anybody except via email. If you're in the middle of a shop and have questions, there's no way to reach anybody immediately, the contact email that's on the site bounces mail back, there are no phone numbers for shoppers in case they need assistance and can't wait for a scheduler to reply, and if you manage to reach anybody there by phone, it's not in a department that can help and they have no idea whom to call

They seem to go out of their way to NOT be contacted by shoppers! Isn't good communication one of the "musts" in this industry?

Well, knock me over with a feather! I learned, thanks to my scheduler, that my shop has now been accepted and is on the current pay statement! Will wonders never cease?

I'd received a mass email from the editor a couple of weeks ago indicating that several shoppers had had their shops excluded, but that the MSC was reviewing these and was in contact with the client. The email said that shoppers would be advised of the results, but since I never got a follow-up email, and since the editor didn't reply to my emails, and since the shop kept showing as "hold pay," I assumed this was a done deal. The shop also had gone back up on the job board and appeared to have been taken by someone, so....

Anyway, I'm very happy, and it appears that even though I didn't receive a reply, someone there read my emails and/or was indeed taking a closer look at these rejected shops and finding that some of them were done according to guidelines, even if the guidelines weren't quite what the client wanted. It still would be nice to have contact information readily available for this MSC, though.

I've learned a lot over the years I've been doing this, and have more to learn, but one thing that's been recurrent all this time is that guidelines and surveys are too often poorly written, are ambiguous or contradictory, don't anticipate a situation that seems likely, and so on. I still don't get why MSCs don't do focus groups of experienced shoppers for feedback on what may escape them but would be obvious to a shopper.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2021 05:22PM by BirdyC.

Good for you..I had a HOLD PAY reversed this week as well after contacting Celeste. She took it to the account manager and it was approved. There was a discrepancy between the receipt time and the actual time. According to my cell phone the transaction was completed 4 minutes before I entered the location. Editor wanted me to change it to; make the times match (ya know, how they're supposed to match on the form)..I didn't and it was put on HOLD PAY. It makes me wonder if the editors read the extra comments on the bottom for an explanation of unusual happenings. This place had a problem with their wifi being out since the storm last weekend. They were only able to take cash and I have to assume it affected their clocks as well. Response from the scheduler was prompt and helpful. Thanks Celeste!

ETA.. I saw the same location on the board this morning, so I guess it's being reshopped after all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2021 05:58PM by MsJudi.

Stick with it. They think you will tire of their delaying tactics and give up.

@MsJudi wrote:

It makes me wonder if the editors read the extra comments on the bottom for an explanation of unusual happenings. This place had a problem with their wifi being out since the storm last weekend. They were only able to take cash and I have to assume it affected their clocks as well.

I once put a note in that space at the bottom (which seems to have disappeared now) about an apparent discrepancy; I believe it was with a time. But I got the shop bounced back to me to explain the very thing I'd explained. When I responded to let them know I'd explained the issue in the notes box, they were surprised! I think the scheduler told me that she didn't think they read those notes and that shoppers didn't use that box very often. Sigh.

I use that box at the bottom often and on the shop I do most of the time for ipsos it says the client will not see what you write there. But on that particular shop there is a "notes" box at the top of the report and then the comments box at the bottom. I often wondered which one to use for what so if anyone knows the answer let me know.
Anyway, I am just one more shopper who DOES use that box.

Is this a watch shop for ipsos? I did one. Months later told I had to submit my inquiry on a computer not a phone. I don’t have a computer. 3 months later they still couldn’t fill the shop and I was asked to resubmit my online inquiry. They never reposted it after that. Can’t get them to pay yet you know they used it. Or how about those horrible electronic shops where they approve it then 2 weeks later claim their client doesn’t like the multiple choice answers you select. Yet there’s is proof they were completed. Geo code. Time and date stamp. Anyone else having an issue? I’m please respond. I’m thinking of putting a lawsuit together. And filing complaints with BBB,FTC and the department of labor. Something gotta give for these places using shoppers.

DPS5 I am curious about two things. First how do you know your reports were used and second, if they have not paid you for several jobs why did you continue to work for them?

I have a watch shop on hold pay. It has been 3 weeks and no one will get back to me. Juliana said 3 weeks ago we need to be patoent because there are so many people with rejections and she needs to talk to the client... I am asking what specific guideline was missed and I get crickets back. My scheduler is declining to get involved. Is there no one else that I can escalate this to? I feel like it should be cut and dry if a guideline was missed. There was only watch in that brand in the entire store...

@Myrab wrote:

I have a watch shop on hold pay. It has been 3 weeks and no one will get back to me. Juliana said 3 weeks ago we need to be patoent because there are so many people with rejections and she needs to talk to the client... I am asking what specific guideline was missed and I get crickets back. My scheduler is declining to get involved. Is there no one else that I can escalate this to? I feel like it should be cut and dry if a guideline was missed. There was only watch in that brand in the entire store...

I had the same trouble; no replies to my emails other than the initial one that went out to everybody. When I asked my scheduler whom else I could contact, she checked my file and saw that my shop had been accepted. It's frustrating that you can't find people to contact if you need answers to something!

I suspect what one of the problems might be, at least with my shop. The guidelines set out 5 clear things that must be included in this shop. One of them lists two different inquiry scenarios; you supposedly can use either one. I used one, but when my shop was rejected and the reason given (by the scheduler), I saw that, if you read very carefully, there's a section later on that has slightly different wording for the second scenario. I'm guessing that's the wording the client wanted. But there's not enough of a difference so a shopper would know NOT to use the other one. And the one I used is in the list of five mandatory items. Why wouldn't I use it?

My guess is that the guidelines weren't written precisely enough for the client's ultimate purpose. It would seem that the MSC didn't write the guidelines to the client's specs and/or the client approved the guidelines without reading them carefully.

I'm only guessing at this, based only on my situation, so am not going to be real specific here.

I have been following this thread for a while now and I am happy that they finally paid you and the others who did the same. But just as a caution I would never use what I saw in a "sample report" as guidelines. Many times I have seen instructions saying that the guidelines or the notes over ride anything you might see elsewhere.
In addition for many years now I have found that on most websites (not just mystery shop websites) if you dig down to other sections or pages you will see things written into their website years ago that whoever updated the website did not find and update. Even on the webpage for the meetup group that I run if I change something there are pages and pages of other things I wrote long ago when I first set it up. Only a newcomer to my website will find these pages and ask about the information that conflicts.
When updating, yes they should be thorough, but it is a problem that runs rampant through all websites. So, if the sample says something which does not match with the guidelines I would recommend asking first before using what you see there. I am not sure if this is the issue you ran into but it sounded like it was.

@sandyf wrote:

I am not sure if this is the issue you ran into but it sounded like it was.

No, it's not. The inquiry example in the guidelines (ETA the one in the sample report) is wrong, but I didn't use that as my guideline. I hope others didn't, either! I mentioned that earlier as a "see how these guidelines are contradictory" type thing. The sample report was clearly contradictory to the stated guidelines. I hope they've corrected that, but if shoppers read the shop requirements, they'll know not to use the sample example. That much is very clear.

OTOH, I copied and pasted the exact verbiage listed in the shop's mandatory requirements, with a minor addition (which didn't change the context or meaning). The list of requirements was very clear. I included all of them, but my shop was initially excluded.

Where I see a problem is that in another section addressing the inquiry portion of the shop, the wording is slightly different--not a lot, but I suspect the problem lies there. I'm guessing the wording in the enumerated list isn't exactly what the client wanted. But it's there in black and white as a scenario shoppers can use, so I don't see how shoppers can be penalized for using it. Not our fault if the instructions aren't right!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2021 01:19PM by BirdyC.