@isaiah58 wrote:
Sorry to hear this.
As an IC we are all subject to termination without an explanation. Not much different then when someone takes on a 1099 job as an IC. The typical IC contract protects the company, not the IC.
@Zbog wrote:
@isaiah58 wrote:
Sorry to hear this.
As an IC we are all subject to termination without an explanation. Not much different then when someone takes on a 1099 job as an IC. The typical IC contract protects the company, not the IC.
I’m familiar with how IC agreements work. I wasn’t suggesting taking any legal action. I was just curious if this happened to anyone else and if anyone had any insight about why they would do this. Thanks!
@roflwofl wrote:
@Zbog wrote:
@isaiah58 wrote:
Sorry to hear this.
As an IC we are all subject to termination without an explanation. Not much different then when someone takes on a 1099 job as an IC. The typical IC contract protects the company, not the IC.
I’m familiar with how IC agreements work. I wasn’t suggesting taking any legal action. I was just curious if this happened to anyone else and if anyone had any insight about why they would do this. Thanks!
I don't think Isaiah was suggesting that you wanted to take legal action. I think his point was that this is pretty common, not only to Market Force but to a lot of mystery shopping companies. Yes, it has happened to many others with many different mystery shopping companies. Because of Market Force's size, we hear about it happening more with Market Force, but a lot of companies do it. Most companies are not as open about it as Market Force. Some companies just block a shopper and the shopper believes they no longer have shops in his area. In some areas, shoppers are rare or a particular shopper is a demographic the company prizes, but in most cases, there are plenty of shoppers. As for Market Force, new shoppers register every day. The new shoppers have "fresh eyes" and are willing to work for less. Market Force has such easy reports that a 3rd grader could probably complete them, so they don't need an experienced shopper. If something, anything, disturbs them with a shopper, there are plenty of new shoppers, so deactivation is the easiest route for them.
It is disturbing that your assigned shops were canceled when you were blocked from future shops. Usually, MF just blocks a deactivated shopper from future shops but allows them to complete any already assigned shops. When assigned shops are canceled, it usually means that some ethics issue concerns them - something reported by a client, something in the shopper's report that did not appear to be true, video at a client location did not match the shopper's report, their computer system identified that two users were submitting reports from the same ip address, or a family member or close friend was deactivated. If one member of a family is deactivated, MF usually deactivates all members of that family. There is really no way to know why you have been blocked. Based on their response, they are not likely to tell you, and it could be a lot of different things.
@roflwofl wrote:
Understand that you don't have to DO anything unethical. If they THINK that there is a POSSIBILITY that something MIGHT be unethical, deactivation is the easiest path for them. They do not usually explain and I suspect that may be because they don't plan to engage in a dialogue or argue. For example, if MF said "We deactivated you because the client came back and said his employee was offended by some action you took," you wouldn't just say "OK, I'm glad I know why." You would go back to them and say "No, I didn't," and you would want details of what was said and who said it. You would want to discuss and argue the point. They don't plan to do that. It isn't worth it to them. We shoppers, for the most part, are a dime a dozen to them. Deactivate one of us and two new ones - or 4 or 6 - register the same day.
And it could be that you canceled or rescheduled too many shops, there were QC questions on too many reports, too many Help Desk contacts, or any number of things. But, usually, shoppers deactivated for non-ethics issues are allowed to finish any already-assigned shops. Please don't be offended. I am not saying you are unethical or that you did anything unethical.
@Zbog wrote:
There is no possibility it had anything to do with lack of ethics on my part. So I appreciate everyone else’s insight on possible causes that have nothing to do with ethical concerns. Have a nice day
@CaliGirl925 wrote:
@Zbog wrote:
There is no possibility it had anything to do with lack of ethics on my part. So I appreciate everyone else’s insight on possible causes that have nothing to do with ethical concerns. Have a nice day
It seems like you're asking for possible reasons why you might have been deactivated, and then dismissing the possible reasons that you don't like. It's entirely possible that MF deactivated you for ethical concerns. The fact that you're so adamant that those couldn't possibly be it, makes me think it's even more likely. You don't seem to be taking an objective, honest look at what happened. I agree with @roflwofl : just because MF's algorithm deactivated you for "ethical" concerns (if that's even what happened, though it seems likely due to the removal of your future assignments) doesn't mean you did anything wrong. But for you to not even consider what actions you might have taken that would look out of place to them or their computer makes me skeptical that the reason they deactivated you has "nothing to do with ethical concerns".
@ColoKate63 wrote:
I do know that some shoppers have successfully negotiated a return to MF after time (6-12 months) has passed. I suspect that they’re the ones who were deactivated due to “recognizability.”
It took an email to the Help Desk to be reactivated, from the accounts that I heard firsthand.
@MFJohnston wrote:
Lots of folks on this forum have mentioned being deactivated by MarketForce. When it is something harmless (not completing enough shops, completing too many, being too harsh/lenient), they always seem to let folks know. when they think the shopper did something wrong, they tend to be more secretive.
You have been very clear that you did not do anything unethical. However, that does not mean that MarketForce does not *think* you *might* have done something. They will deactivate shoppers for such suspicions - without bothering to notify the shopper or even being willing to talk to the shopper. For instance, several shoppers have accidentally uploaded the same photo in two different shops. The shops were immediately invalidated and the shoppers deactivated. They pushed a little, calling somebody higher up at the MSC before being told the reason for the deactivation.
If you are interested in continuing to work for MarketForce, it might be worth trying to call somebody a little "higher up" than the help desk and making an inquiry.
Good luck!
@7star wrote:
I don't see a benefit unless you have to have the shop no matter the fee or reimbursement. Booking one of their shops too far in advance will rule you out of possible bonuses.
@kenasch wrote:
@7star wrote:
I don't see a benefit unless you have to have the shop no matter the fee or reimbursement. Booking one of their shops too far in advance will rule you out of possible bonuses.
I’m in a highly competitive market in California. I almost never see any bonuses here. If I wait, the shop will be gone. So if I want to do a particular shop, I need to select it as soon as it’s posted, even if it’s a few weeks in the future. I then try to build a route around it.
@JASFLALMT wrote:
They have some shops that I LOVE. One in particular is a healthy eats restaurant that is fairly new in my area and reimburses $15. I would eat there on my own dime. It's reimbursement only but that's great. It's about 14 miles from home. So, I get that shop assigned and then layer other shops there and back again. Win win.