I become guilty of this at a certain point. One example would be Texas Roadhouse. If they are going to reimburse $50 and I like the place and can feed my family for $70, then I don't mind spending $20-$30 to feed 4 people a better meal. To feed the 4 people at Chipotle it would cost me $30-$40. So am I better off by NOT taking the TXRH and letting someone else do it? At some point the "free food" becomes "worth it". For TXRH, the report is basic. Now there are shops with ACL and Coyle that even with a reasonable reimbursement AND PAY, I don't feel like writing for days, so I won't take those.
I won't do any of the intellishop freebies (chicken/subs/burgers) nor will I do any of the Marketforce feebies either (chicken fingers/hot chicken/etc). When only 1 meal is being reimbursed, i EXPECT payment of at least $10 or more.
So I guess I'm saying that if the benefit is $50 (for me), then I am will do it for NO pay as long as it does not take ALL DAY :-)
Of course I would like pay with the shop, but my choice is to "hold out" and hope they don't get taken (which they do at least in So Cal), or take the shop as is. Since TXRH will be a $50 benefit, I choose to do that.
@HonnyBrown wrote:
As long as shoppers (regardless of experience) continue to work for food or coupons, why should MSCs increase the reimbursement?