So, I don't post much here, but this time I felt I needed to share.

I did a shop with Ipsos for a retail clothing company. I was supposed to ask for jeans for a special event. I did ask for that and the sales associate recommended pants that were not jeans, and was actually pretty convincing in this arguments. I tried the pants on, did all the shop requirements, took pictures, etc. My shop was rejected after a couple of days of editing because I did not try jeans.

Fine. While I argued with the editor that she could have reached out to me prior to rejecting the shop, that maybe I had actually tried on jeans as well but did not mention those because they were not covered in the consultation with the associate, the editor simply tells me that she did not ask for clarification because I could have gone back and edited the shop to say I tried the jeans even if I had not. So basically, in her mind, I'm guilty before even asking. So why bothers to ask clarifications from a shopper, since by default, they will falsify the report. That tells you everything you need to know about Ipsos.

In the past year, I have done many resort shops, with Coyle (!) and Trueguest (!) where things did not always go according to plan: once an outlet was closed for a private event, another time they were out of some items I was supposed to order. If that had been Ipsos, they would have rejected my shops and I would out a few thousand dollars because they would have considered that I was just lying. Even Coyle was very helpful and asked me for more details about what happened and my shop was accepted.

This is an awful way to look at shoppers. Thank GOD Ipsos does not have hotel or resort or casino shops, I can't imagine how it would go. This being said, it's a company that is incapable of calculating properly the amount of a meal to offer proper reimbursement, so what else to expect from them?

Needless to say, they are not on my never-to-work-with list, which they should have been on earlier !

deleted

@Mermo - I do not understand how you figure you would need a second order to use up the $10.00, or how the guidelines were inconsistent. Unless there is another "type" of these shops you were referring to. I only know of the Core shop for that company and the LTO shop. (By the way, you need to remove the name of the place as it violates the posting guidelines.) The two types of shops I just mentioned for that place, have clear guidelines on what you are to order and none provide any provision for ordering something else to use up the expense amount. One clearly states to order the entrée, side and drink, choosing from the allowed lists of those items. The other type of shop states to order one particular entrée item and you can only order a side if it was suggested and the same goes for a drink, otherwise it is just the entrée. If that was the case, yes, a few dollars would be left over on the expense allotment, but the guidelines do not state to go ahead and order something separate to get the whole $10.00. They do state you could order something afterward on your own, after you completed the shop from start to finish. Is that what you mean? You want to use any left over from the original $10.00, and apply it to a second, unrelated order? Come on.

@Mermo wrote:

Watch out for the misleading guidelines for [client name redacted by KokoBWare] shops. I always ask the scheduler + a couple other IPSOS if a 2nd order can be done to utilize the $10 expense - all said it was ok to upload both receipts. Graders are inconsistent or do not always know. Finally got the Proj mgr for [another redaction] Tony Medina. Despite what others told me or Guidelines, he said only 1 rcpt can be done. Still questioned him, as the guide is misleading. Very inconsistent co.

You got a response from IPSOS? Lucky you. In my experience they have become very unresponsive to email queries.

To be honest, I don't find the guidelines for this shop misleading at all.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2023 06:41AM by KokoBWare.

I have done a lot of shops for Ipsos but mine are restricted to only a few I like that I have done over and over. I have not had any issues with the guidelines that were not explained when I sent an email.
I just checked the guidelines for the clothing store. I have not done this shop as I am too old but it clearly states several times that you must try on jeans. I did not see anything misleading that would make the shopper think that trying on jeans was not mandatory. And if it is required than it should be addressed in your report.

I did a motorcycle shop one time and accidently wore a long skirt. The requirements stated that you have to sit on "a" bike but not necessarily the exact bike that you are shopping for. I sat on a Can-am instead! (This was years ago). I actually liked the Can-Am! The suspension was awesome! I was shopping for the motorbike for my son and not myself anyway.
Yes, I absolutely agree that IPSOS doesn't regard us, shoppers, very well. My husband a shop rejected for shopping the wrong daypart and received a 5 for a grade. I recently put 3:50 on my shop but didn't get out of the car till 4PM. (I had pulled onto the lot at 3:50. ) They rejected the shop because I accidently put 3:50 as my time in instead 4 PM. They then proceeded to knock my grade to a 1, for the exact same thing as my husband who received a 5. I have disputed it because the first picture was taken at 4:05 (the counter picture) and they can roll the cameras back to see what time I got out of the car. I also have a call in my call log for that day that came in at 3:59 and says that I was on the phone for 2 minutes. So I know I put the wrong time in and didn't get out the car until after 4:01. But I do NOT HAVE ANY HOPES that they will allow me to edit my time in to the correct time.

Pure speculation but maybe they hired some of the hardcore MF editors who treated every minor error as an attempt to get one over on them.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2023 11:37PM by mystery2me.

I learned a long time ago to immediately take at least one photograph when I arrived onsite anywhere for proof. Even if I was not going to get out of my car right away for whatever reason.

At charlhenri, I'm actually surprised your shop got rejected. I did a similar shop last weekend. I recall reading a side note in the guidelines that you are allowed to try on any type of clothing if your preferred jeans was not available. Since the salesperson didn't recommend any jeans, then I would have just tried on what he/she recommended as well. My salesperson did recommend a pair of jeans and my shop was accepted. I'm sorry that happened to you.

@Mellifluy According to the guidelines, you can only try on another article of clothing if the size in jeans is not available. This shopper didn't say that his size wasn't available, only that the employee recommended he try on chinos. Big difference. That is probably why it was rejected.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2023 03:28PM by luvtwoscrap.

Removed

It is always best to take multiple photos in case one doesn't work for whatever project you are working on.

@Luvtwoscrap: thank you for your feedback, and welcome to the forum! You'd be a great lawyer for Ipsos lol

I guess my problem comes also from the fact that I work with lots of other companies, in shops way more complex than this one, and every time I ran into an unexpected situation (they do arrive often when you're shopping a resort for 3 nights) the mystery shopping company has : 1) always been responsive, 2) always asked for clarifications, 3) always respected my work. Just after this shop, I shopped a hotel in San Diego for an overnight stay. I had to evaluate 3 bars. One of them was booked for an event. I reported it as such. The MSC asked me to confirm the bar was not accessible. Had it been Ipsos, my whole shop would have been rejected with the excuse: "The guidelines say you should shop the bar, and you did not". I will NEVER take the risk of shopping a hotel, a restaurant, or a resort/casino with Ipsos. I don't think they'd survive!!

In the case of the Ipsos shop where I had to try jeans, I do believe the guidelines should be clearer: like other MSC do, when something else than your target item is suggested, do let us know how to react. In this particular shop, the stylist not only recommended Chinos, but when I asked if there was a pair of denims that would be good for me, he specifically said they wouldn't be good for me. The program manager, when I told her that, said I should have kept it open and not mention my event was a formal event. There is no such requirement in the guidelines. They only mention "an event" This is why I think the guidelines are not well written and can lead to confusion. Furthermore, there's NOTHING in the report that makes a difference between trying a pair of jeans or other pants. The fitting room section is only about the follow-up of the stylist.

But most importantly, when the editor explicitly says she did not ask for any clarification or confirmation because she considers that I would have gone back in the report and changed it... that says everything you need to know about Ipsos. By default, a shopper is unreliable and will cheat. I would have confirmed what was in the report had they asked....

In any case, that will put a serious break on my collaboration with Ipsos. There are tons of other MSC out there that are more professional and do not treat shoppers this way. Ipsos used to be a good company - in the last couple of years, they went downhill. I've had other issues with them, but if I ever try to explain, i'll get the same thing "You, as a shopper, did not read the guidelines carefully - we, at Ipsos, are the best in the world and we work hard" - LOL

And I do believe the retailer would love to know that when requesting an item for a formal event, denims are not recommended. Since Ipsos is rejecting all the shops where you don't try specifically denims, imagine all the data they're missing about their stores suggesting other pants to shoppers...

Removed

Edit your post to remove the client name please.

@luvtwoscrap wrote:

@charlhenri Your shop was probably rejected because you did not put enough information in the details on the report. I do know that xxxxx is very strict with these surveys and that the guidelines are basically spelled out for you. If you didn't try on jeans, then you need to let the editors know why you didn't try them on. You can only bypass trying on something different if they do not have your size. That is spelled out in the guidelines. I had one rejected because I tried on blue jean shorts. That is when I realized I didn't read the guidelines thoroughly and it was of no fault but my own.
I have done plenty of these shops. Ipsos has always treated me well and I do know that these editors don't make up the rules. They work very hard and I don't think you understand how many projects these people have and how many hours a day they work trying to get everything finalized so we the shoppers can get paid. But at the same time, they also have a job to do. Please be patient and understanding with the editors as well.
Make sure you read guidelines and know what you are supposed to do beforehand is all I can say.
It doesn't sound like any of this was the editors fault, more like you didn't read and understand what was expected of this shop.

Edit your post to remove the client name, the MSC is listed in the thread title.

@F and L TeleComm wrote:

@charlhenri wrote:

And I do believe the retailer would love to know that when requesting an item for a formal event, denims are not recommended. Since Ipsos is rejecting all the shops where you don't try specifically denims, imagine all the data they're missing about their stores suggesting other pants to shoppers...

I was thinking the exact same darn thing Charlhenri! I would think xxxx would want to know that their products are NOT being recommended.

@F and L TeleComm,? the retailers won't miss any of that information as long as you put it in the comment section on the survey. That's all you have to do. Make sure to list what you asked the associate and then you can also put what the associate's response was. But you should also make sure to try on the jeans regardless if the associate doesn't recomment it. You can always say something like " Thank you for that recommendation but I think i'm also going to try these jeans on too just in case I like them." I have done quite a few of these so know how it works now and what this client wants. Hope that helps.

If you decide not to work for Ipsos any longer that will make room for those of us who do like working for them. And to follow up on your original post in addition to not trying on the jeans you are comparing a one item shop where they want you to try on jeans with a complex shop at a fancy restaurant or a three day hotel stay. There may be a good reason that the client wants us to try on jeans. It is not for us to decide we think trying on Chinos is the same. As to the comparison to a mystery shop with a lot of working parts, the small part you could not do at your three day hotel shop when they allowed you not to do it still left the majority of the shop intact. Comparing a complicated shop where just one item is missing with a fairly simple straightforward shop where the main item which seems to be trying on jeans, is missing is a different story.
And I would add to that the issue another shopper has of shopping the wrong daypart or starting the job at the wrong time. My understanding is that we record the time we start a shop, not the time we happen to be in the area. I do think if someone makes that mistake they should have a chance to appeal and explain the mistake but that is clearly a reporting error on the shoppers part. I have had many times working for this MSC when the editor has asked me for more information or to change an error. In those cases I have always gotten paid and perhaps knocked down a point on my report. Most companies who give you specific hours for a shop would disapprove in my experience if you started either too late or too early.
It seems to me that the main issue here for many shoppers is not paying thorough attention to the guidelines.

@sandyf wrote:

I have had many times working for this MSC when the editor has asked me for more information or to change an error. In those cases, I have always gotten paid and perhaps knocked down a point on my report. Most companies who give you specific hours for a shop would disapprove in my experience if you started either too late or too early.
It seems to me that the main issue here for many shoppers is not paying thorough attention to the guidelines.

You seem a little hard. You either are or should be an editor. I did NOT start the shop early. I actually messed up my time in a "senior" moment. I was not given an opportunity by the editor to correct the time in. However, my dispute was listened to and the shop accepted and is pending payment.
I am a full-time shopper and have been for 5 years. However, I am not perfect as most people are not. No one is "not paying attention to guidelines" as you put it. We are human and make mistakes and forget stuff sometimes, especially when distracted or rushed. No one wants to mess up a good shop, ignore guidelines, or any other "bad habits" that would cause us to not get paid. I check things that the guidelines say check and don't ignore them just because it doesn't require a picture. If I do accidentally forget to check something I do give the store credit. On the rare occasions that happens, I feel guilty because I know I missed something. No one knows except me and I still get paid but that doesn't change the fact that I feel bad about it. If you are a perfect person then that's fine but most of the rest of us are not.
Personally, I make "cheat sheets" to help remind me of things that I tend to forget. I print them right along side the authorization letters etc. I fill them out during the assignments so that if I forget something I know right away while on the assignment while the details are fresh in my mind. I also record (for myself) certain mystery shops so that I know the details are accurate when I complete my report.
If you are one of those rare people with hyperthymesia and/or eidetic memory that's awesome but don't expect the rest of the world to have it.

I think everyone is more or less right on this issue. The only issues I've ever had shopping, and I do shop quite a lot, have always been with Ipsos, and within the last year. It was noticeable enough to make me wonder why it worked so well with other MSC and so poorly with Ipsos. It's just like the clients, that move from one MSC to another. So will shoppers.

We can't get away from IPSOS, even if we don't like them. They have a monopoly on good assignments. The other companies are hit or miss.

F and L TeleComm opines--We can't get away from IPSOS, even if we don't like them.

Bob inquires--If your usage of WE is in a general sense, I disagree.

F and L TeleComm continues--They have a monopoly on good assignments. The other companies are hit or miss.

Bob concludes--If that were, in my opinion, a fact, I would immediately retire from all shopping activities.

F and L,. All I did was point out that we do need to follow the shop guidelines. I notice that a few days ago, to stress the point that IPSOS does not have any regard for shoppers you reported a story of how you entered the time you got to the parking lot into the report instead of the time you started the shop. You then went on to explain how IPSOS knocked your score down to a one and you were sure would not even listen to you. That was one day ago. Today you tell us they did listen to you and your report was approved. So I am curious why you did not report back to us that things had changed and IPSOS did give you the benefit of the doubt in the end, Instead you seem to prefer to make decisions about people you have never met based on one post. I guess you did not notice in my post that I said I thought that IPSOS should give a shopper a chance to appeal.
I happen to like the company and have not had issues. When I have an imperfect moment, which , by the way, I said in my post I have had, they have given me a chance to explain. I gather you missed that part of my post as well.

@sandyf wrote:

I gather you missed that part of my post as well.

I didn't miss anything you said. Your tone was not nice and blamed the shoppers. Now I happen to insist on certain things in shops even when the employee doesn't want to do whatever it is that I need them to do. However, since I am not always 100% "by the book" in my thinking I can see clearly how the shopper was following the natural course of the interaction.
Just because they happened to listen this ONE time does not mean that they have a reputation for listening. Times have changed and yes, I still miss Meritz! This job has gone to hell and our income has gone down since IPSOS took over. Listening to me one or two times is not enough for me to "love' them as you seem to. I prefer to keep my head away from rear ends and out of them.
Maybe you need to read some of the other posts on this forum in regards to IPSOS. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time a shopper has an issue with IPSOS. I can not pick up the phone and call and talk to a live person like I can with other MSP's with IPSOS. This will ALWAYS keep them lower on the totem pole with me as far as I'm concerned.
Nor does this mean I'm willing to stop working with them at this time. Right now they have a monopoly on the shops in my state so I'm stuck with them. I also know that on average they will P me off again in about 3 months....
There is always one troll that defends the MSP that people are complaining about on every post.

F and L TeleComm comments--.......I still miss Meritz!

Bob agrees--For me, Maritz exiting the business was on the level of when Strategic Reflections closed their door; both were very disappointing. Each will always be missed by me.

For those of you who are recent to the business, both MSCs provided a human answered phone number, were willing to, when needed, open their purse and always paid. I have no recollection of ever experiencing the slightest problem with either company.

If I were considering entering shopping today, I would "kick that thought to the curb" and look elsewhere. Fortunately for me, I am established with MSCs that value a shopper who never flakes and is capable of composing a report for the most demanding of clients.

@shopperbob wrote:

Bob concludes--If that were, in my opinion, a fact, I would immediately retire from all shopping activities.

LOL, I sympathize. Unfortunately, for me, I think this is about the only job I can do right now. But if I can get enough rental properties up and running...well maybe I can consider quitting.

There is a lot of complaining, yet admission on how big IPSOS is. That being said, it could seem like it has more things that have gone wrong compared to other MSC's. But not really. Not at all. Little MSC that has 10 shoppers with one that had an issue with them is the same as huge MSC with 100 shoppers and ten that had an issue. It is the same ratio. I wish the complainers would stop making statements like they know exactly how many shoppers have had a problem with IPSOS and they know no one had a problem with the others. Nope. You do not know that information.

L.O.L. Pretty much every shopper who posted a gripe in this thread also, in the same post, admitted a guidelines violation. It's a jeans shop but you didn't try on jeans. You want to place a second order to use up the reimbursement. You sit in the parking lot and count it as shop time. You shop the wrong day part.

Hey, we all make mistakes. I certainly do. The thing is, you have to own them rather than blaming the MSC, whichever one it may be.

@panama18 wrote:

L.O.L. Pretty much every shopper who posted a gripe in this thread also, in the same post, admitted a guidelines violation. It's a jeans shop but you didn't try on jeans. You want to place a second order to use up the reimbursement. You sit in the parking lot and count it as shop time. You shop the wrong day part.

Hey, we all make mistakes. I certainly do. The thing is, you have to own them rather than blaming the MSC, whichever one it may be.

Yessssssssssssss!