Yes, I have a large family and I was using this shop to "grocery shop" as @jrossetti was describing. Nothing's in my freezer from these shops. As I said to the scheduler, you can easily do more than three shops if you the mystery shopper is one person in a multi-person family. Also, I'm in a high-price area, where $23.40 (before tax and tip) may only get you one entree - no sides, no dessert, no beverage - each shop.

@kenasch wrote:

Just curious, what do you do with all that food? Am I reading this right, you did an average of 8 pick ups per day? I guess your freezer is full or have many greatfull friends and family.

Nope, I'm still activated.

My point was, either they may deactivate me if they get a flat fee regardless of whether any more shops are done in my area OR they get paid per shop. If they may keep me activated so I can follow the new rules in the scenario, then they have a higher likelihood of this hurting their bottom line less (for the other 28 shops). By the way, it isn't the correct number, but that's the derivative point.

Let's say, for example, (making round numbers) that the client pays BVA $50 per shop, and $30 of the $50 is reimbursement. That leaves $20, right? Let's say the scheduler/editor/overhead is an additional $10. That means of the $50 that the client pays, the company keeps $10.

Now, let's say they paid me, but won't get paid for, ten $30.00 shops. That means they're in the hole $300, because 10 x $30 = $300.

If they want to "break even" for their mistake of not communicating the guidelines, that means if they are NOT planning on deactivating me, they break even by leaving me on for an additional 30 shops -- $10 profit divided into filling a $300 hole equals 30 shops. (Divided by three meals a day equals 10 days.)

But like I said, I don't know what arrangement they have with the client who's paying them for the shop. Or, maybe they'll use other people's shops and try to fill the hole with the other shopper's "profit margins" as it were. I'll find out when I hear back from the boss. But I'm definately not groveling when I have other food options, I'm not eating the food costs or some portion thereof when I am entitled to pay per the terms and conditions, and when they - like every mystery shopping company - were fully capable of putting the limiting rule on their website, on their terms and conditions, on their shop instructions, or on the shop. They had at least five places where they could have snuck it in, but one extra sentence cost them, if their numbers are correct, 28 shops at between $25 and $30 per shop.

#NoSympathyforLazy

@SoCalMama wrote:

@COMystery wrote:

What am I missing. They stated that they would be awarding you payment for all your shops. They then go on to say that they themselves will only be compensated for 18 or 46 shops. I don't read where they say you'll only be paid for 18 as a result of them not being paid. Am I the only one reading the response this way?

That’s how I read it. I also noted that OP was fired/deactivated due to their attitude with the company.

Ive done these shops from day 1 and i have had no issues. Yes they did send out an email a while back about some new restrictions on number of shops etc(which if you werent already signed up with , wouldnt have gotten)...i am certain having one person do 8 shops a day adds no valuable data to whatever it is they are trying to figure out from this project.
Their program wasnt designed to feed large families. Thats their fault. I wouldnt call them unethical. The OP played the system in a way and came out a little bruised. The MSC decided to cut their losses, i dont fault them for that either.

Uhm, yes it does add data considering: the restaurants were different, the boroughs/locations are different, the order ahead/schedule an order are different, the food being ordered is different, etc. I didn't just pick on restaurant and order eight of the same meals simultaneously. I'm not THAT dumb.

The problem is the inclination to think, as a mystery shopping company, that you wouldn't pay someone and you have to THINK ABOUT IT and CONSULT THE BOSS before you don't pay someone when you've been proved to have made the mistake. If I smash the window to your car, do I get to make Oprah Winfrey or Donald Trump pay for it? No. I'm to 100% blame, I take responsibility. They literally could have avoided ALL OF THIS by adding one sentence more on their shop instructions. They didn't.

@indianyooper wrote:

Ive done these shops from day 1 and i have had no issues. Yes they did send out an email a while back about some new restrictions on number of shops etc(which if you werent already signed up with , wouldnt have gotten)...i am certain having one person do 8 shops a day adds no valuable data to whatever it is they are trying to figure out from this project.
Their program wasnt designed to feed large families. Thats their fault. I wouldnt call them unethical. The OP played the system in a way and came out a little bruised. The MSC decided to cut their losses, i dont fault them for that either.

I didnt say you were dumb. Your words lol
I agree their execution has been evolving from day one. The scheduler has no authority to get you paid and im sure you know that. Regardless of if they were at fault or not.

@eodermatt wrote:

Uhm, yes it does add data considering: the restaurants were different, the boroughs/locations are different, the order ahead/schedule an order are different, the food being ordered is different, etc. I didn't just pick on restaurant and order eight of the same meals simultaneously. I'm not THAT dumb.

The problem is the inclination to think, as a mystery shopping company, that you wouldn't pay someone and you have to THINK ABOUT IT and CONSULT THE BOSS before you don't pay someone when you've been proved to have made the mistake. If I smash the window to your car, do I get to make Oprah Winfrey or Donald Trump pay for it? No. I'm to 100% blame, I take responsibility. They literally could have avoided ALL OF THIS by adding one sentence more on their

As idianyooper implied, it seems, though the MSC is ultimately at fault, that you jobbed the system to grab more shops than they intended anyone to have. Looking at jrosetti's post about applying, it seems you found a back door to getting more shops. So, yes, the MSC should have closed that door or stated a shop limit. But you rolled the dice and rather than using discretion and asking for clarification (as apparently others did), you plowed ahead. You didn't do anything wrong, but don't cry ethics when you go out of the box, burn the MSC and then still get to walk away with money. I don't even understand why you are complaining. You made a big score and somehow didn't get deactivated even though you cost the MSC money.

They sound very disorganized. As long as I am paid, I would cut my loses and move on.

My point is I'm trying to do more shops - following the rules - so that I don't cost them money, I dig them out of the hole that their mistake made them. But if they're going to deactivate me for following the rules that I knew about, then they're accepting the lost money instead of trying to get back to 0. That's on them, regardless of whether they like my attitude or not. You don't have to like me, you just have to like money.

I'm not quite sure how it is a "back door" when I didn't design the button that says, "add more jobs" on the jobs confirmation page. Perhaps I was supposed to design their website for them, too? Maybe be the mystery shopper for their website?

By the way, not sure where everyone is getting the "other people asked for clarification" idea is the default. Why am I responsible for getting any more information from them than what is in their materials? How many of your last 10 shops did you ask the scheduler/editor/company, "Hey, are you sure you put everything in there? Maybe take a look before I read it. Wouldn't want you to have any regrets later!" Seriously? This is where you are gonna fault me? Do I have to do all of the jobs in the company? Good grief.

@roxy1 wrote:

As idianyooper implied, it seems, though the MSC is ultimately at fault, that you jobbed the system to grab more shops than they intended anyone to have. Looking at jrosetti's post about applying, it seems you found a back door to getting more shops. So, yes, the MSC should have closed that door or stated a shop limit. But you rolled the dice and rather than using discretion and asking for clarification (as apparently others did), you plowed ahead. You didn't do anything wrong, but don't cry ethics when you go out of the box, burn the MSC and then still get to walk away with money. I don't even understand why you are complaining. You made a big score and somehow didn't get deactivated even though you cost the MSC money.

Maybe you might understand this analogy better...just because there is a shop that has no door and there is nothing that says "pay for your selections"...does not mean you get to go in and help yourself and then when they say you arent welcome anymore say " i didnt design the store" as your defense. Maybe they should call it uncommon sense?
Sucks that you or them or both ended up out of money...id live and learn. All parties involved.

@eodermatt wrote:

My point is I'm trying to do more shops - following the rules - so that I don't cost them money, I dig them out of the hole that their mistake made them. But if they're going to deactivate me for following the rules that I knew about, then they're accepting the lost money instead of trying to get back to 0. That's on them, regardless of whether they like my attitude or not. You don't have to like me, you just have to like money.

I'm not quite sure how it is a "back door" when I didn't design the button that says, "add more jobs" on the jobs confirmation page. Perhaps I was supposed to design their website for them, too? Maybe be the mystery shopper for their website?

By the way, not sure where everyone is getting the "other people asked for clarification" idea is the default. Why am I responsible for getting any more information from them than what is in their materials? How many of your last 10 shops did you ask the scheduler/editor/company, "Hey, are you sure you put everything in there? Maybe take a look before I read it. Wouldn't want you to have any regrets later!" Seriously? This is where you are gonna fault me? Do I have to do all of the jobs in the company? ]

I think they see that you found a way to do jobs in a way they did not intend. They then paid you for your work, even though they did not get paid. They have more then enough people begging to do these jobs (just look at how many in just this forum rave about the job for free food and easy survey). They are saying thanks, but we will move on with other shoppers. I am sure they can easily fill the jobs. Unless you planned to do the jobs for free (which I doubt), then they are within their rights to tell you thanks but we will look elsewhere.

@eodermatt wrote:

My point is I'm trying to do more shops - following the rules - so that I don't cost them money, I dig them out of the hole that their mistake made them. But if they're going to deactivate me for following the rules that I knew about, then they're accepting the lost money instead of trying to get back to 0. That's on them, regardless of whether they like my attitude or not. You don't have to like me, you just have to like money.

I'm not quite sure how it is a "back door" when I didn't design the button that says, "add more jobs" on the jobs confirmation page. Perhaps I was supposed to design their website for them, too? Maybe be the mystery shopper for their website?

By the way, not sure where everyone is getting the "other people asked for clarification" idea is the default. Why am I responsible for getting any more information from them than what is in their materials? How many of your last 10 shops did you ask the scheduler/editor/company, "Hey, are you sure you put everything in there? Maybe take a look before I read it. Wouldn't want you to have any regrets later!" Seriously? This is where you are gonna fault me? Do I have to do all of the jobs in the company? Good grief.

They do seem very disorganized. But I don't want to leave them in the hole for something when continuing with the correct instructions could mutually benefit both them and me.

@audrialyn30 wrote:

They sound very disorganized. As long as I am paid, I would cut my loses and move on.

I was already doing the shops for free, they are unpaid. The only "pay" is the "reward" -- aka reimbursement.
Let me not even get started about reimbursement only shops....

@oteixeira wrote:

I think they see that you found a way to do jobs in a way they did not intend. They then paid you for your work, even though they did not get paid. They have more then enough people begging to do these jobs (just look at how many in just this forum rave about the job for free food and easy survey). They are saying thanks, but we will move on with other shoppers. I am sure they can easily fill the jobs. Unless you planned to do the jobs for free (which I doubt), then they are within their rights to tell you thanks but we will look elsewhere.

@eodermatt wrote:

My point is I'm trying to do more shops - following the rules - so that I don't cost them money, I dig them out of the hole that their mistake made them. But if they're going to deactivate me for following the rules that I knew about, then they're accepting the lost money instead of trying to get back to 0. That's on them, regardless of whether they like my attitude or not. You don't have to like me, you just have to like money.

I'm not quite sure how it is a "back door" when I didn't design the button that says, "add more jobs" on the jobs confirmation page. Perhaps I was supposed to design their website for them, too? Maybe be the mystery shopper for their website?

By the way, not sure where everyone is getting the "other people asked for clarification" idea is the default. Why am I responsible for getting any more information from them than what is in their materials? How many of your last 10 shops did you ask the scheduler/editor/company, "Hey, are you sure you put everything in there? Maybe take a look before I read it. Wouldn't want you to have any regrets later!" Seriously? This is where you are gonna fault me? Do I have to do all of the jobs in the company? Good grief.

I have to ask again, how does this benefit them? Do you plan to do the job for free? Any other expectation and they can get any of their shoppers to do the job. I understand you feel like you can still do the job, but from their side, they probably have a few other folks in the area that can do it as well, so unless you have some incentive to give them, I don't see your argument that you are helping them.

@eodermatt wrote:

They do seem very disorganized. But I don't want to leave them in the hole for something when continuing with the correct instructions could mutually benefit both them and me.

I totally disagree. If you took the food, you got paid in food. Would you do the job without the food and no pay? If not, then why did you do the job? You did it for the food, so that was your compensation. Sorry, but people that say they didn't get paid but still do reimbursement only shops baffle me. You can't have it both ways.

@eodermatt wrote:

I was already doing the shops for free, they are unpaid. The only "pay" is the "reward" -- aka reimbursement.
Let me not even get started about reimbursement only shops....

To the contrary, the shop instructions don't say, "wait until the next meal time," or "wait 24 hours." The instructions literally say,

"... and feel free to book another job !"

So if they're going to fill the shops anyway, and assuming they've now communicated all the rules to me and everyone else in a complete and accurate way, then why does it matter to them who does them? Again, because they're hurt that I fought back about not being paid for something that was their fault. So I get retaliated against because their employees failed to do their job.

Bonus fact: they don't ever have to write me or any one else ever again if they had just correctly made up their website in the first place. They could just deactivate me. Which they haven't.

@oteixeira wrote:

I think they see that you found a way to do jobs in a way they did not intend. They then paid you for your work, even though they did not get paid. They have more then enough people begging to do these jobs (just look at how many in just this forum rave about the job for free food and easy survey). They are saying thanks, but we will move on with other shoppers. I am sure they can easily fill the jobs. Unless you planned to do the jobs for free (which I doubt), then they are within their rights to tell you thanks but we will look elsewhere.

@eodermatt wrote:

My point is I'm trying to do more shops - following the rules - so that I don't cost them money, I dig them out of the hole that their mistake made them. But if they're going to deactivate me for following the rules that I knew about, then they're accepting the lost money instead of trying to get back to 0. That's on them, regardless of whether they like my attitude or not. You don't have to like me, you just have to like money.

I'm not quite sure how it is a "back door" when I didn't design the button that says, "add more jobs" on the jobs confirmation page. Perhaps I was supposed to design their website for them, too? Maybe be the mystery shopper for their website?

By the way, not sure where everyone is getting the "other people asked for clarification" idea is the default. Why am I responsible for getting any more information from them than what is in their materials? How many of your last 10 shops did you ask the scheduler/editor/company, "Hey, are you sure you put everything in there? Maybe take a look before I read it. Wouldn't want you to have any regrets later!" Seriously? This is where you are gonna fault me? Do I have to do all of the jobs in the company? Good grief.

They didnt retaliate. As a independent contractor you gave up alot of your "rights". They decided to end things.

I'm literally not here to debate about whether not paying people in addition to the reimburseable item required to do the shop is ethical. It isn't like I can still do this shop and ignore the delivery person buzzing at the door by just recording what time they arrived, since you have to check that the food is correct for one of the survey questions.

I did this job for the reimbursement amount, the point was that they're not "paid." By the way, that's not my point; that's directly out of the scheduler's e-mail to me.

@oteixeira wrote:

I totally disagree. If you took the food, you got paid in food. Would you do the job without the food and no pay? If not, then why did you do the job? You did it for the food, so that was your compensation. Sorry, but people that say they didn't get paid but still do reimbursement only shops baffle me. You can't have it both ways.

@eodermatt wrote:

I was already doing the shops for free, they are unpaid. The only "pay" is the "reward" -- aka reimbursement.
Let me not even get started about reimbursement only shops....

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2018 01:53AM by eodermatt.

Maybe, but my right to be paid (or "reimbursed" if payment is too taxing of a word) for work that was correctly completed in a timely manner, in accordance with all the rules that were written and published to me, was not one of them. They crossed that line by even contemplating non-payment.

@indianyooper wrote:

They didnt retaliate. As a independent contractor you gave up alot of your "rights". They decided to end things.

I understand that you did not break any rules. I also understand that you deserved to be paid based on that. I also understand that they have plenty of shoppers, and if in their mind they lost money on your shops, they can choose not to use you. That is all I am saying. If, as you say, they have not deactivated you, then what is stopping you from booking more shops? I am a shopper with them and I just need to click a few clicks to have a shop.

@eodermatt wrote:

To the contrary, the shop instructions don't say, "wait until the next meal time," or "wait 24 hours." The instructions literally say,

"... and feel free to book another job !"

So if they're going to fill the shops anyway, and assuming they've now communicated all the rules to me and everyone else in a complete and accurate way, then why does it matter to them who does them? Again, because they're hurt that I fought back about not being paid for something that was their fault. So I get retaliated against because their employees failed to do their job.

Bonus fact: they don't ever have to write me or any one else ever again if they had just correctly made up their website in the first place. They could just deactivate me. Which they haven't.

What's stopping me is non-payment of prior shops, even though they said they would pay me, and even though the shops were more than 72 hours ago (from Saturday to today).

@oteixeira wrote:

I understand that you did not break any rules. I also understand that you deserved to be paid based on that. I also understand that they have plenty of shoppers, and if in their mind they lost money on your shops, they can choose not to use you. That is all I am saying. If, as you say, they have not deactivated you, then what is stopping you from booking more shops? I am a shopper with them and I just need to click a few clicks to have a shop.

@eodermatt wrote:

To the contrary, the shop instructions don't say, "wait until the next meal time," or "wait 24 hours." The instructions literally say,

"... and feel free to book another job !"

So if they're going to fill the shops anyway, and assuming they've now communicated all the rules to me and everyone else in a complete and accurate way, then why does it matter to them who does them? Again, because they're hurt that I fought back about not being paid for something that was their fault. So I get retaliated against because their employees failed to do their job.

Bonus fact: they don't ever have to write me or any one else ever again if they had just correctly made up their website in the first place. They could just deactivate me. Which they haven't.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2018 02:02AM by eodermatt.

Did you not state in this thread that they paid (or are paying you)?

@eodermatt wrote:

What's stopping me is non-payment of prior shops.

No, I said they said they were going to pay me, but that money has not appeared in my Paypal yet.

@oteixeira wrote:

Did you not state in this thread that they paid (or are paying you)?

@eodermatt wrote:

What's stopping me is non-payment of prior shops.

I might have missed it somewhere in here...but did you get "reimbursed" for the shops that you did?
On a separate note food is a form of payment. You didnt do anything for free. (Unless i missed something somewhere).

@eodermatt wrote:

Maybe, but my right to be paid (or "reimbursed" if payment is too taxing of a word) for work that was correctly completed in a timely manner, in accordance with all the rules that were written and published to me, was not one of them. They crossed that line by even contemplating non-payment.

@indianyooper wrote:

They didnt retaliate. As a independent contractor you gave up alot of your "rights". They decided to end things.

They are a real company, if you have it in writing, and they don't go out of business in the next 30-60 days, I would think you are going to get paid.

@eodermatt wrote:

No, I said they said they were going to pay me, but that money has not appeared in my Paypal yet.

Assuming they pay you at some point...thats the end of it? Or is there then the question of continued work for them to be decided?

@eodermatt wrote:

No, I said they said they were going to pay me, but that money has not appeared in my Paypal yet.

@oteixeira wrote:

Did you not state in this thread that they paid (or are paying you)?

@eodermatt wrote:

What's stopping me is non-payment of prior shops.

No, I have not been reimbursed for all the shops that I did before the rule was communicated to me, including shops for which I should already have been reimbursed because the time frame is past the number of hours ("within 48 business hours") that they as a company advertised to shoppers. Judging by the fact that the money was promised but has not been deposited into my Paypal, you can call it payment, reimbursement, "rewards," or a flying pig, but it has not happened. I could list unreimbursed shop numbers if you like....

@indianyooper wrote:

I might have missed it somewhere in here...but did you get "reimbursed" for the shops that you did?
On a separate note food is a form of payment. You didnt do anything for free. (Unless i missed something somewhere).

@eodermatt wrote:

Maybe, but my right to be paid (or "reimbursed" if payment is too taxing of a word) for work that was correctly completed in a timely manner, in accordance with all the rules that were written and published to me, was not one of them. They crossed that line by even contemplating non-payment.

@indianyooper wrote:

They didnt retaliate. As a independent contractor you gave up alot of your "rights". They decided to end things.

I don't know. I don't have enough information to say. I don't know if the rate of shoppers banging down their door is high enough in my area that they may still need me. I don't know if they're going to deactivate me in the future. I don't know if I can make up the money they lost paying me for shops their client won't pay them ..... or if not me, maybe will just get a family member to sign up and do the same three shops per day that I would have done anyway... to make up the "profitability." I'm trying not to harm them now that I know the client has stricter data collecting rules, but still do everything I want to in the bounds of what they allow and will get paid for. I'm still waiting on the boss to know what that looks like going further.

@indianyooper wrote:

Assuming they pay you at some point...thats the end of it? Or is there then the question of continued work for them to be decided?

@eodermatt wrote:

No, I said they said they were going to pay me, but that money has not appeared in my Paypal yet.

@oteixeira wrote:

Did you not state in this thread that they paid (or are paying you)?

@eodermatt wrote:

What's stopping me is non-payment of prior shops.

@eodermatt wrote:

They wrote me an e-mail this morning saying the following:

Hello Emily,

I submitted the issue to my boss and the conclusion is that since I agree that you never received the email with the limitations, you cannot be bound to follow them.

We are going to reward all of your surveys.

However, you never asked if there were some restrictions as did the other shoppers, you are the only one having done an average 8 jobs per day between the 21st and the 26th.

Only 18 out of those 46 surveys will be validated by our client because they are out of the boundaries. Therefore the work we did reviewing all the others will not be compensated.

We hope that you will understand that our relationship has been strained to the point that we’d rather put an end to our collaboration.

Best regards
The BVA Team

I still think that this means you were a PITA, and you are done.

Seems to me like abusing a good thing, that’s a lot of food shops in a day!

"I"m agreeing with you if that wasn't clear. On all points."

Yes, Rossiti, I realized that. Sometimes it's not clear who we're answering. I hope I got your name right.

I still think the MSC is making it right for the shopper. I would work for them any time!