The agreement was both verbal and in a confirmation email to them prior to the shop...

Phoebe70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never heard of it being acceptable to use a
> cell phone as a video device for a covert shop. I
> can't even imagine how one could remain discreet.
> In addition, one should ALWAYS get that type of
> approval in writing. The OP has no one to blame
> but him/herself. Filing a class action lawsuit
> for this type of situation is ridiculous and a
> waste of the court's time. JMO.

I've done too many video shops for them and cell phone video is never allowed, period.

I know I am always asked if I have experience with video then do I have my own equipment. I can't believe that he went in with a cell phone and called it a video shop. This is a joke to see who bites.

@ishopshopshop You do realize that regardless of you not being paid for your efforts to capture video on your cell phone, Intelli-shop won't get paid by their client either? Do you really think that if they said that your work was acceptable that they would pay themselves 100% of what the client would give them and you 0%?

It just doesn't work any other way in this industry. Even if you used a covert camera other than a cell phone and that the MSC deems it unacceptable, they don't get paid either. This goes for any other type of work in this industry that doesn't utilize covert video or other means of recording audio. In reading your latest response by what the MSC is saying, it seems as if they won't pay you because the work is not acceptable for what their client required. It sucks, but it happens.

Lisa, I am glad you have made a career for yourself doing mystery shopping.
Video evaluations are new to me and I told the scheduler I only had a video on my iPhone.

Perhaps you didn't understand or read my statement?

The point is, their own employee approved it!
He said it was ok as long as the date and time stamp appear.

I was not just assuming.

Its not my fault the scheduler approved it.
HE SAID YES verbally and I also confirmed it writing.

PERIOD

Maybe you work for INTELLI SHOP?




LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've done too many video shops for them and cell
> phone video is never allowed, period.

You may have confirmed your understanding in an email to them, but I think what you need is written proof from them or a printout of the shop guidelines specifying this video shop could be done with a cell phone. When push comes to shove, the posted guidelines rule.

Whatever your problem with the company, it has to be settled between you and the company. Anyone can sue anyone. Now that you've posted on this forum that they are "not legit" they can countersue. This is interesting. Please keep us informed.





ishopshopshop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The agreement was both verbal and in a
> confirmation email to them prior to the shop...
>

They never said the work was unacceptable. They never even took the time to review the video content.

They were desperate to fill it when they called me. My guess is that they missed their deadline and were looking for a way out of paying me.

My attorney agrees...


Eric in Tampa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ishopshopshop You do realize that regardless of
> you not being paid for your efforts to capture
> video on your cell phone, Intelli-shop won't get
> paid by their client either? Do you really think
> that if they said that your work was acceptable
> that they would pay themselves 100% of what the
> client would give them and you 0%?
>
> It just doesn't work any other way in this
> industry. Even if you used a covert camera other
> than a cell phone and that the MSC deems it
> unacceptable, they don't get paid either. This
> goes for any other type of work in this industry
> that doesn't utilize covert video or other means
> of recording audio. In reading your latest
> response by what the MSC is saying, it seems as if
> they won't pay you because the work is not
> acceptable for what their client required. It
> sucks, but it happens.

Lisa, based on the tone of your condescending assumptions and rude response, it is highly likely you are on staff with Intellishop.

If not, what type of training and certification process did you go through with them to be eligible?



LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, it is highly unlikely that a shopper not
> experienced in video would be begged to complete I
> the shop. Second, it is highly unlikely that
> Intellishop would have an inexperienced scheduler
> working with their video shops for a picky client.
> Third, I've been completing video shops with them
> for a long time, including two just this week, and
> the scheduler(s) for video have been women.
> Fourth, no video scheduler would mix up cell phone
> video and covert video. Lastly, the instructions
> for their video shops are quite clear so even if
> any of the above mistakes had been made, reading
> the instructions would have either cleared it
> right up or left the OP with no other option than
> to contact the scheduler for clarification.

You don't want to get ugly on this forum. Believe me.

By the way, since when did an Iphone have a time and date stamp?

Thank you for your comments.
The guidelines they sent to me did not specify. They simply stated that the date and time stamp must be turned on. No reference to the type of equipment.
I was the one who brought the question of equipment up to him and he replied that it was fine. I would not have wasted my time or theirs otherwise.

He received my confirmation email that I mentioned it and he also replied to it.

The legit issue is backed up by the multitudes of people on this forum (and others) who have complained about their tactics over the years.

I am not the type to sue someone. I actually hate the idea but I also hate that they are not doing the right thing. I wrote many emails trying to resolve the matter. Our legal system is there to protect people and to settle disputes so as an absolute last resort, this may be the only choice I have to see this settled.




MDavisnowell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may have confirmed your understanding in an
> email to them, but I think what you need is
> written proof from them or a printout of the shop
> guidelines specifying this video shop could be
> done with a cell phone. When push comes to shove,
> the posted guidelines rule.
>
> Whatever your problem with the company, it has to
> be settled between you and the company. Anyone
> can sue anyone. Now that you've posted on this
> forum that they are "not legit" they can
> countersue. This is interesting. Please keep us
> informed.
>
>
>
>
>
> ishopshopshop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The agreement was both verbal and in a
> > confirmation email to them prior to the shop...
> >

Would like to see your guidelines that state this. If you do, they changed them based on this issue. The guidelines they sent me did not.

LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think AM hit the nail on the head. I happened to
> still have the guidelines from my recent shops and
> they state, "DO NOT use your cell phone........."

Glad you asked. That was a key part of my conversation with him. When we first discussed it, I told him I would have to check and he said that his did and to check the settings on my phone. He also suggested that if that didn't work that there was likely an app I could download.
It turned out it does have the date/time stamp...

or Eric in Tampa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, since when did an Iphone have a time
> and date stamp?

It sounds like noobie scheduler met noobie shopper and doesn't want to admit they were wrong.

But be careful casting aspersions on LisaSTL's qualifications or affiliations. She is one of the most respected shoppers on this forum. No, she is not a shill for Intellishop. But she is one of the most qualified video shoppers on this board and knows what she's talking about.

I'm not saying the scheduler didn't screw up exactly as you have described. But given the video shopping industry as it stands now, what he agreed to was like agreeing that you could go into a restaurant and tell them you were a mystery shopper. It's that unbelievable.

But idiots are everywhere, and maybe your noobie scheduler was exactly that stupid.

I'm sorry you tried to do what you were told to do and are now getting screwed. If your case is righteous and you have the evidence, take them to small claims court. But I've never heard of anyone else being jerked around by intellishop in this manner. Most of the complaints on this forum about them have to do with arbitrary scores being given by holier than thou editors who think nobody is perfect except them. And that's nothing to sue about.

I just don't think you have a "class" for your lawsuit. Your situation is likely unique.

I appreciate you comments and your rebuke. I am not out to disrespect Lisa or discredit her but have to admit I felt her tone, along with some of the others was pretty mean spirited and haughty toward me, making broad assumptions, without having all the facts. I could have responded in a different manner.

Perhaps I started off a little strong with my own words and I apologize to all of you for that but from the myriads of comments on this forum along with others similar sites, it is evident that many others feel they have been taken advantage of by this corporation over the years.

I an not a noobie shopper but this was my first video evaluation experience and i trusted to word of the associate. It is mot my responsibility that he was not properly trained and miscommunicated the criteria to me.

Regardless of some opinions that I should have known. (For those who are eluding that I was stupid) the fact remains that we had an agreement and clear understanding and they refused to honor their commitment.

After learning that there are so many others that believe they have been taken advantage of, it was suggested to me to consider looking into a class action suit, which led me to this forum. It is undecided at the point the exact action I will pursue but in any event, I will persist until this is resolved.


itsasecret Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It sounds like noobie scheduler met noobie shopper
> and doesn't want to admit they were wrong.
>
> But be careful casting aspersions on LisaSTL's
> qualifications or affiliations. She is one of the
> most respected shoppers on this forum. No, she is
> not a shill for Intellishop. But she is one of
> the most qualified video shoppers on this board
> and knows what she's talking about.
>
> I'm not saying the scheduler didn't screw up
> exactly as you have described. But given the
> video shopping industry as it stands now, what he
> agreed to was like agreeing that you could go into
> a restaurant and tell them you were a mystery
> shopper. It's that unbelievable.
>
> But idiots are everywhere, and maybe your noobie
> scheduler was exactly that stupid.
>
> I'm sorry you tried to do what you were told to do
> and are now getting screwed. If your case is
> righteous and you have the evidence, take them to
> small claims court. But I've never heard of
> anyone else being jerked around by intellishop in
> this manner. Most of the complaints on this forum
> about them have to do with arbitrary scores being
> given by holier than thou editors who think nobody
> is perfect except them. And that's nothing to sue
> about.
>
> I just don't think you have a "class" for your
> lawsuit. Your situation is likely unique.

The tone is based on the subject line of this thread and your attempt to gather people for a class action suit. You have also gone on multiple threads with the same complaint and that is unnecessary.

I don't have to show you any guidelines and it would be a violation of my ICA to do so. The guidelines were not changed since January as I have video shopped for them long before. If you have the written confirmation it is simple enough to send the information to them and dispute their decision. Written confirmation is akin to a contract. Why are you not going through the proper channels and steps to resolve this issue?

I actually had a video shop an editor originally rejected, saying I had not followed the guidelines. By all appearances in the first few minutes of the video, I had not. Instead of jumping on here I contacted their video manager to tell him the circumstances and how it was addressed at a later point in the video. My shop was accepted and I was paid.

Like Lisa, I have done video shops for Intellishop. All my guidelines specified covert video equipment and I was asked to say what type of equipment I owned and would use before the shop was assigned.

If you read MS forums at all, I wonder how you could have missed the fact that every time someone asks about using other than the specific equipment that provides the product that meets the industry standards, one or more experienced video shoppers will post referring the OP to information about COVERT video and specific equipment. Several of us actually monitor 3 different forums for such questions and will always respond.

Its understandable for you to defend them as you do a lot of work for them and have financially benefited from them. I appreciate that.
I don't dispute your word that your instructions clarify your position. Mine did not. There was no reference to it whatsoever.

I don't know what you consider to be proper channels but as I have repeatedly stated, Before "jumping on here" I exhausted myself trying to communicate with several of the staff members. Many were slow to respond at all and when they did, they were evasive and condescending. I did provide the proof, they refused to accept it and refused to pay me. You can choose to believe me or not.

I am not alone in my dispute with this company. A simple google search will provide an endless amount of content for you to challenge.

When companies take advantage of people and refuse to do the right thing, they should be held accountable.

LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tone is based on the subject line of this
> thread and your attempt to gather people for a
> class action suit. You have also gone on multiple
> threads with the same complaint and that is
> unnecessary.
>
> I don't have to show you any guidelines and it
> would be a violation of my ICA to do so. The
> guidelines were not changed since January as I
> have video shopped for them long before. If you
> have the written confirmation it is simple enough
> to send the information to them and dispute their
> decision. Written confirmation is akin to a
> contract. Why are you not going through the proper
> channels and steps to resolve this issue?
>
> I actually had a video shop an editor originally
> rejected, saying I had not followed the
> guidelines. By all appearances in the first few
> minutes of the video, I had not. Instead of
> jumping on here I contacted their video manager to
> tell him the circumstances and how it was
> addressed at a later point in the video. My shop
> was accepted and I was paid.

Agree that I should have checked them out in the forums before I accepted the shop. I wish I had. I would likely have turned the shop down after reading all the negative reports about them.
I wish they had sent me the same guidelines they sent you. Sadly, they did not.


walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like Lisa, I have done video shops for
> Intellishop. All my guidelines specified covert
> video equipment and I was asked to say what type
> of equipment I owned and would use before the shop
> was assigned.
>
> If you read MS forums at all, I wonder how you
> could have missed the fact that every time someone
> asks about using other than the specific equipment
> that provides the product that meets the industry
> standards, one or more experienced video shoppers
> will post referring the OP to information about
> COVERT video and specific equipment. Several of
> us actually monitor 3 different forums for such
> questions and will always respond.

ishopshopshop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree that I should have checked them out in the
> forums before I accepted the shop. I wish I had.
> I would likely have turned the shop down after
> reading all the negative reports about them.
> I wish they had sent me the same guidelines they
> sent you. Sadly, they did not.
>
>

I have never seen negative reports about Intellishop as a company. The majority of the negative reports are about the editors and the grade that they give with an occasional one about the schedulers. I don't ever remember seeing one related to Intellishop screwing the shoppers out of payment.

You know....the OP's writing style seems VERY familiar to me, especially when he is snapping back at other posters....I wish I could remember who else the writing style reminds me of....

The very idea that I would jump into this thread just to lie in defense of an MSC is so ridiculous and offensive that this poster is just plain silly. Even if I did more than 2 shops a year for this MSC (about my average over the past 8 years) it is such a minor player in the video market that no one is doing very many videos for them!

BTW, for a class action suit, it seems to me that you would need a whole class of folks who had been denied payment on the basis that the instructions were not clear. None of the complaints that I have seen about this MSC (and there are many about super-picky editors) mentions the issue that the OP alledges.

Karen IL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know....the OP's writing style seems VERY
> familiar to me, especially when he is snapping
> back at other posters....I wish I could remember
> who else the writing style reminds me of....


Could it be...Cheryljane or txmedia???

SecretAgentMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Karen IL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You know....the OP's writing style seems VERY
> > familiar to me, especially when he is snapping
> > back at other posters....I wish I could
> remember
> > who else the writing style reminds me of....
>
>
> Could it be...Cheryljane or txmedia???

IMO, totally different styles.

I've completed 4 video and 34 traditional assignments for this MSC in 8 1/2 yrs.; 36 were paid as agreed and I'm awaiting fees for two. My only requirement is that I receive my money as stated; it has always so arrived.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2013 04:04PM by shopperbob.

Ishop, your suggestion that Lisa works for Intellishop is off base and illustrates your lack of understanding of the forum, the forum members, and what we do here. If you actually participated in the forum other than coming here only to bash a company, you would know that Lisa is first among those who donate their time and expertise to help others.

Frequently, those who come here to bash will accuse those who offer alternative views of being on the company's payroll. This is a common reaction, reflecting your opinion that the shopper must be right and the company must be wrong. Please look at this objectively. If most of us disagree with you, there may be something to what we say.

You have said repeatedly this company owes you $225.00 for a car shop. Not so. They didn't get a report they could use so they don't owe you anything. You sign on for that deal when you sign the ICA. It's part of the contract you won't be able to get around.

I agree this shop did not go down as you expected and there may be unresolved issues with instructions from a new scheduler, but get real about your losses here. Even though they aren't going to pay you, your loss is not $225.00. What you have involved here is your vehicle expense to get to the dealership and the value of your time, figured at X dollars an hour based on how much per hour you usually make mystery shopping including onsite and reporting. Please think about the time you continue to put into this and the aggravation you are causing yourself over such a small amount.

You are most likely not going to get support for a class action lawsuit against this company. Yes, we complain and joke around among ourselves about sometimes vague editorial comments. It's more fun than serious and we keep on working for them. Just because we would like for something to be a little different doesn't mean we're trashing the company. They would probably like for us to sometimes be a little different, too.

I believe you mentioned this is not about the money. I agree. It's about disappointment. We all encounter disappointment. What works well is to learn from it and move on.

There's an app for that.

really......there is.

Eric in Tampa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, since when did an Iphone have a time
> and date stamp?

Who accused you of jumping into this thread to lie?

walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The very idea that I would jump into this thread
> just to lie in defense of an MSC is so ridiculous
> and offensive that this poster is just plain
> silly. Even if I did more than 2 shops a year for
> this MSC (about my average over the past 8 years)
> it is such a minor player in the video market that
> no one is doing very many videos for them!
>
> BTW, for a class action suit, it seems to me that
> you would need a whole class of folks who had been
> denied payment on the basis that the instructions
> were not clear. None of the complaints that I
> have seen about this MSC (and there are many about
> super-picky editors) mentions the issue that the
> OP alledges.

If the employee truly said you could use iPhone video for the shop, the company should pay you, regardless if the employee was wrong. That is what a company with integrity would do. A company who takes responsibility for their mistakes would not penalize someone for their error. They would suck it up, take the loss, and re-train their employee.

Yes, if the published guidelines said you could use a cell phone they should pay for this shop, or if specific instructions were emailed from the company to the shopper that said you could use a cell phone they should pay for this shop. The shopper had reservations about this from the beginning, or would never have emailed the company confirming the cell phone as stated. Apparently the company did not reply and the shopper has no written authorization to use the cell phone. What is needed here is correspondence from the company to the shopper, not from the shopper to the company. Failing to get a written response from the company authorizing the cell phone, the shopper should have backed off. Hindsight is always clear. This cannot be resolved to the shopper's satisfaction and the best that can be expected is that the shopper can put this behind and move on.