It depends on which brand, but yes, they are, on the brands in my area.

@gocrazy4801 wrote:

Anyone know if ipsos is accepting offers on gas station shops yet?

Looks like they are going to another level of stubbornness. Just keep extending the dates until we give in.

I am passing up some locations over a $10 difference in historical pay. I wave at them when I drive by while I do nearby shops. I completely orphan them. In the end, when they have to pay even more than what I would have done them for, they will wish they gave me my historical amounts.

In my 100 mile radius shoppers took most at base pay and many more as soon as the $5.50 bonus showed up. The rest got taken after the $7.50 bonus was posted. And they are 16 pump, ever-busy stations with only large-sized in-store items. I may be forced into retirement.

Not IPSOS, but a scheduler once asked me why I was requesting a small bonus for a local shop. I replied that I was likely one of their most reliable shoppers, completing hundreds of shops correctly and never flaking. Her reply: "That doesn't matter."

It is unfortunate, but 90% of the time, that doesn't matter.

The only thing that matters is $$$ and the bottom line. They put up with flakers, unreliable shoppers, and lower quality work if those people are willing to sign up for shops for less pay.

@mitchk wrote:

Not IPSOS, but a scheduler once asked me why I was requesting a small bonus for a local shop. I replied that I was likely one of their most reliable shoppers, completing hundreds of shops correctly and never flaking. Her reply: "That doesn't matter."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2022 11:09PM by thunderdeacon.

@thunderdeacon wrote:

I am passing up some locations over a $10 difference in historical pay. I wave at them when I drive by while I do nearby shops. I completely orphan them. In the end, when they have to pay even more than what I would have done them for, they will wish they gave me my historical amounts.

I agree with the setiment, and I also will pass by plenty of locations even over a $5 difference. But I think you give them too much credit if you think they keep track of such details.

We are at a disadvantage when negotiating bonuses because we don’t know what the clients want.

Some energy companies want 100% completion every location, every quarter. (That gives us an advantage.)

Other clients have widely varying completion rates; I’ve heard everything from 90-98% of locations. From what I’ve heard, 95% is standard. So a client may very well be willing to let 1 of 20 locations go unexamined for 3-6 months. That puts us at a disadvantage.

Katie mentioned not knowing an MSCs needed completion rate as a disadvantage in negotiating. In addition being hungry, needing utilities and having bills greatly affect people's ability to "sit tight" unless they receive an acceptable fee. All MSCs are aware of that situation and some exploit the fact.

We can make an educated guess based on the bonuses and the timing.
I think it has more to do with when the last 10%-ish shops will be done, and not if.
I’m quite sure that some contracts changed in that regard as of January. It seems that both the yellow and the blue (by blues I mean ones with either monthly or quarterly, all have mystery and then reveal; the brand has red stations too that come first in the name) now don’t have 100% completion rates by the end of the month/quarter. It seems like it’s around 90% done by the end of the month/quarter, then maybe 8% within two weeks. The remaining ~2% seem like they can get done whenever. And the yellows had M1,M2, M3 which they still do but they don’t mind doing a bunch of M1’s at the end of the quarter.
So it seems that for these brands, gone forever (or the duration of the current contract) are the days of paying $200 for the last stragglers of the month/quarter, and possibly gone are the days of paying $60, or at least offering $60: they require us to grovel for the $60.
OTOH, it seems that the other blues (one project revealed one project pure mystery as long as the cashier is in uniform) and the green on the app still have their hard deadlines (tho this past quarter, it was hard to tell with the greens since they were done so quickly, sob).
There’s a brand in shopmetrics that I’m not as familiar with but looks like they never had hard deadlines even before January 2022.
It seems that Ipsos has two kinds of shoppers they want working: Route shoppers that they favor and who will also work for less than other route shoppers, and newbies (and desperados). The newbies and hungry will work for base pay or a bit above and clear a lot off the board that way, though there will be flakes etc. The route shoppers will clear a bunch off the board without much, or any, scheduler time. Experienced shoppers who may do a lot each month but not in the form of an official route (and wait until the bonuses are perhaps $12.50 and up) and route shoppers who require more pay, aren’t favored, etc., are out.

@ColoKate63 wrote:

We are at a disadvantage when negotiating bonuses because we don’t know what the clients want.

Some energy companies want 100% completion every location, every quarter. (That gives us an advantage.)

Other clients have widely varying completion rates; I’ve heard everything from 90-98% of locations. From what I’ve heard, 95% is standard. So a client may very well be willing to let 1 of 20 locations go unexamined for 3-6 months. That puts us at a disadvantage.

@Notme2021 - I’d agree with you on the overall strategy that IPSOS may be employing. Their overall goal is to create profit for their shareholders. Giving route shoppers the majority of work makes them more profitable.

However…

If they trend heavily towards route shoppers, IPSOS may quickly run into difficulties with their route shoppers and the laws governing what constitutes a 1099 contractor vs. an employee. If a route shopper is working almost exclusively for IPSOS and their 1099 forms indicate that they’re earning a full-time salary (or close), then the states or Federal government may take a hard look at their practices.

Should be interesting times ahead.

Well, Route shoppers and newbies/ really need the money shoppers (and the shoppers like some forum members who aren’t new but think they’re on the way or need gas anyway, so they don’t need to get a good fee) . Idk what the percentage of shops they’re looking to fill with each: that’s the part I’d really like to know. Route shoppers, even the low ballers, aren’t going to do it for base fee obviously, and they certainly are trying to get a lot done at the base.
There are 1099 workers who work exclusively for one company full-time plus. It depends a lot on whether the company says exactly when and where you have to work and other factors. I think it depends too on the state. I did work in Florida that should have been work as an employee but the employer called us IC’s even though we had to work 8-5 doing what they said to do. I got the impression it would be very hard in Florida to take that up, whereas in some states one phone call would have started an investigation (at that time anyway, before all state budgets were decimated). Generally I think the IC has to make the complaint.

Should be depressing times ahead : -(

At this point, I’m laying significant blame on their clients who earn not billions a year but billions a quarter. Just like Apple is held responsable for the way their contractors treat employees, I’m holding these major petroleum companies responsible for reduced fees and not even increased reimbursements for Ipsos’ independent contractors in a time of near double digit inflation and record income for said companies.

@ColoKate63 wrote:

@Notme2021 - I’d agree with you on the overall strategy that IPSOS may be employing. Their overall goal is to create profit for their shareholders. Giving route shoppers the majority of work makes them more profitable.

However…

If they trend heavily towards route shoppers, IPSOS may quickly run into difficulties with their route shoppers and the laws governing what constitutes a 1099 contractor vs. an employee. If a route shopper is working almost exclusively for IPSOS and their 1099 forms indicate that they’re earning a full-time salary (or close), then the states or Federal government may take a hard look at their practices.

Should be interesting times ahead.