As part of our continuing dedication to insure the most objective, valid evaluations submitted to our Clients, we run a number of reports daily/weekly/monthly to assess and compare various criteria. Sometimes we feel it prudent to discontinue offering shops to a Shopper. It does...
not necessarily mean that the Shopper did anything wrong. Rather, we will act very carefully to remove any potential issue of conflict or the appearance of impropriety. In order to protect our Clients’ businesses, we will always err on the side of caution. While we appreciate a Shopper’s desire to know why he was removed, we simply are not at liberty to disclose the type of reports we look at or the specifics behind why we felt it necessary to take the action we took. As this is an Independent Contractor relationship, a Shopper is free to take or decline any assignments at his sole choosing – we cannot and do not force a contractor to take our shops. Conversely, we are free to offer or not offer shops at our discretion.
This shopper was terminated due to information that was submitted to us by the shopper that triggered a system red flag. Our clients require that we maintain very strict criteria for shopper credentials to ensure accuracy and transparency in the results and this shopper's information...
Below is the exact wording from the webscript explaining the pay rate: “Payment per each day for this check is $45 for 1st screen* and $20 for each additional screen. For example, if “[redacted]” is playing on 2 screens, you would check all show times on both...
screens and receive $65 for the day. *In the event that there are no matinee show times, or no evening show times, the pay rate is $20 for the matinee only, and $25 for the evening only, for the first screen. For example, if you are assigned to a drive-in that only shows evening shows, the pay rate would be $25 for the first screen, and $20 for each additional screen. Payment is NOT per show time! When a print is moved into a different auditorium (with a higher or lower seating capacity) it is not considered an additional screen checked. Compensation will not be increased since the total number of screens playing the feature at any one time has not changed” Here is the breakdown of the Customer’s payment for this assignment: 10/06/17 – Friday Visit: She checked 1 screen and was assigned with a $25.00 bonus ($45 for the first screen + $25 bonus). She received $70.00. 10/07/17 – Saturday visit: She checked 1 screen and was assigned with a $25.00 bonus ($45 for the first screen + $25 bonus). She received $70.00. 10/08/17 – Sunday visit: She checked 1 screen and was assigned with a $10.00 bonus ($45 for the first screen + $10 bonus). She only received $45.00. Inadvertently, the $10 bonus was omitted and that additional payment is being processed. We thank the Customer for bringing this to our attention so we could make it right. This is being added to the next run which will be processed on 12/8. According to our records, this Customer was paid $185 for the assignment completed as described (the direct deposit was processed on 11/8). The notes within the system show that the assignor, [redacted], offered a $25 bonus per day for Friday and Saturday; Sunday was assigned separately by [redacted] with a $10 bonus. Customer’s inquiry submitted on 11/24 was responded to with the direct deposit tracking information and she was told to speak with her bank for further assistance if she was unable to see the deposit in her account because the bank did receive the deposit. To recap, this assignment was paid as promised.
In reference to this complaint, the independent contractor has provided services to us in the past for which we have paid him according to contract. We raised questions about the last two assignments he performed for us and explained the issues to him. He did not accept our explanation, which we continue to believe is accurate. He has not provided a reasonable explanation for the issues we raised. Nonetheless, we have agreed to pay him fully for the assignment as a gesture of good will. He provided services as an independent contractor to us and we are not obligated to continue to engage with him or provide him further assignments as he is not obligated to continue accepting assignments from us. We have decided to terminate our relationship. Sincerely,
The Complainant selected this assignment knowing what the shop fee and purchase reimbursement would be. He then requested additional purchase reimbursement and if it could not be given, he would cancel the assignment. It was explained to him that the reimbursement amount could not be...
increased and the assignment was cancelled per his request. He then wanted to do the assignment anyway and requested that it be reassigned to him. He completed the assignment under the terms of the contract, but now is requesting the additional reimbursement. In the interest of settling this matter, we will pay the Complainant the additional $1.54, but we will not continue offering him additional assignments because he does not adhere to contracts that he enters into.
This Shopper was notified that a shop she had completed could not be submitted to the Client for payment because she had uploaded the same pictures that she had used in another shop for this same Client. This is a very serious infraction because it indicates, at a minimum, carelessness in...
reporting that data. A duplicate images infraction also shows that images are not properly labelled and that the report is not checked prior to submitting it. It calls into question the entire accuracy of the report being submitted because if the incorrect images were uploaded, was any of the other data incorrect. Shopper claimed she is always very careful uploading her images and that she labels each one and that the fault lay with us. Numerous emails resulted between several Shopper Advocates and the Shopper. One reply to the Shopper stated: “When you upload an image to a computer via scanner or photo device, the image is given a unique encryption code. This code follows the photo where ever it goes. Some computer systems are programmed to ignore multiple uploads of the same image (such as social networking sites). However, our system retains a copy of that code to ensure the integrity of our assignments. Whenever a duplicate photo is resubmitted by a Shopper, our system flags it.” The Shopper still maintained that the system had swapped out her images causing both shops to have the same images. The Shopper states in her complaint that she had no idea what we were seeing with regard to the images. However, this is not true. Copies of the two food images that were submitted in two different reports were sent as a side-by-side comparison to the Shopper and it was clear to the naked eye that both pairs of images were the exact same. Both pairs of images carried the Shopper’s personal labeling system as to date and location of the shop lending further credence to the fact that the Shopper had erroneously applied the labels for two different shops to the same set of images. We concluded that the system was working exactly as it was programmed to in detecting these duplicate images. Shopper had no explanation for the same pictures except that somehow our system was doing it. We also pointed out to her that if our system was arbitrarily or intentionally swapping out Shoppers’s images to other reports, we would have been flooded with Shoppers notifying us of this but that no one else was making this claim except her. The Shopper did offer to submit the correct images later; however, the shop had been put back out for reassignment as is our custom so we can meet our contractual deadline obligations with the Client and an approved report had been already received. This is why reviewing the report and all the images is a crucial step in submitting a valid report. While we welcome suggestions on how we can improve our processes and services, and the material that the Shopper sent us from another mystery shopping company was reviewed, no one is able to require any company to adopt those suggestions as that is solely an internal matter. Additionally, although we do not use the error reporting form that the Shopper sent us from another company, we do ask the same questions via email when it appears a Shopper is having problems logging on to our website. Our Shopper Advocates are senior, tenured employees and know when a situation presents where it is germane to ask how the Shopper connects to the internet, are they experiencing slowness, what day/time did they begin experiencing problems, and the other questions asked by another company’s form. Nothing indicated that we were dealing with a logging on issue, but rather an operator error issue of not being sure the correct images were uploaded to a report. The Shopper is asking that we resume offering her shopping assignments and having a better communication process. This is an independent contractor relationship and as such the parties are free to offer or accept shops and are free to not offer and not accept shops without explanation or penalty. We are opting not to offer any more shops to this Shopper. Changing any of our processes has already been discussed. However, we were unaware that the Shopper tried to secure her earnings information from our website in preparation of her taxes. To my knowledge, she did not write in to us explaining her problem because we would have been more than happy to assist her with this and give her the information requested. I will personally do this research and provide this information to the Shopper.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/05/18) */
This mystery shopper ("Shopper") completed 2 assignments for us - one completed on 18 April 2015 (which was approved and paid) and one completed on 16 April 2015 for our quick service restaurant client ("Client"). Shopper's report of her...
visit to our Client's restaurant, of which she complains, was originally approved for payment and sent to the Client. Our Client raised an inquiry about the assignment and report, which we in turn raised with the Shopper. The Shopper responded to our questions. On the basis of feedback from the Shopper and the Client, our shopper inquiry team determined Shopper made an error in recording the timing during the shop. In addition, we were advised by our Client of its concerns that Shopper was in fact familiar with certain employees who had been recently terminated from this Client location and that Shopper had alerted certain Client employees that she had just conducted a mystery shop of their location. For all these reasons, we rejected the shop as invalid for failure to follow published guidelines.
We are sorry to hear that Shopper became ill as a result of the food at this Client location. In her report on the shop, she only stated that "My biggest problem with the food is that it tasted like it sat in grease even after it was done. The burger I ordered was dripping grease, and I could even feel the grease in my mouth as I tried to eat it." Shopper only informed us of her illness after we rejected her report. We would always encourage our shoppers to seek immediate medical attention if they fell ill from consuming food at a client's establishment.
We certainly did not remove Shopper from our shopper list due to monies allegedly owed to her. She was removed from our list due to the abusive communications she subsequently sent to our help desk.
There are usually two sides to every story. While we agree with Shopper on certain factual elements in this situation, we disagree with her as to the basis on which her report was invalidated and why she was not paid for the shop. And while we believe that we acted properly in this case, including refusing to pay for the shop and report, as a gesture of good faith, we would be willing to pay Shopper for her report to resolve her complete in its entirety.
Mystery shopping is comprised of performing the shop in accordance with the shop guidelines and then accurately reporting that data. Accuracy is crucial to our business because our Clients have the right to expect and then rely on accurate evaluations in making changes to their...
locations. Part of the shop guidelines for this particular shop specifically said: “Choose one of the service departments listed on your CPI to evaluate. Also choose a back-up department to evaluate in case your first choice is closed (lights are off, no Associates are there). Go to the department’s counter and see if you are assisted within 8 minutes.” When [redacted] was asked in the report whether he waited 8 minutes for assistance in the Deli department, he answered ‘No’. This is what caused the report to have to be invalidated. If a shop was not done in compliance with the shop guidelines, it cannot be submitted to our Client for payment. As was explained to [redacted] when he protested the invalidations (same scenario for two shops), it is imperative to review one’s report for inaccuracies prior to hitting the submit button because once the report is submitted it can go through our auditing process very quickly and once it is audited, it cannot be returned to the Shopper to review and make whatever corrections he feels necessary. A shop is immediately put out for reassignment once it is invalidated so that another Shopper can complete the shop correctly so that we may make our contractual deadlines with our Clients. It is regrettable that [redacted]’ shop was either done incorrectly (by not waiting the full 8 minutes) or was reported incorrectly (by checking No instead of Yes) and not reviewed prior to submitting his report. It is the Shopper’s responsibility to do the shop correctly and report it accurately. [redacted] has asked as his desired settlement that we investigate his complaint enough in order to give him his payment. This investigation was already done when he received his Invalid Notices and wrote in to the Help Desk. We always investigate invalid controversies in case the auditor made a mistake in applying the shop guidelines. If the mistake is made on our end, we will own it and make it right by the Shopper. Following [redacted] filing of this complaint, we again reviewed the shop guidelines, the report that was submitted, the auditor’s ruling, and the thread of conversation between [redacted] and the Help Desk for one last chance to make this right if possible. It remains our conclusion that [redacted] either did not do the shop correctly or he did not submit accurate data in his report even though given the opportunity to review his data entries prior to submitting them. If we could pay [redacted] for these two reports, we would because we serve as liaison between our Shoppers and our Clients and we always want to do right by each one.Tell us why here...
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me if they agree to pay monies asked. However, I've done several other shops with this company and havent made mistakes before, so to question my entire accountability because of something as small as a "T" in front of a name, is insulting. Yes, it's crucial to submit information correctly, but I'm human and mistakes do get made. Ive already asked to be removed as a shopper before submitting this complaint.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Both of the shops referenced by the shopper were Invalidated by our automatic system processes due to Overlapping Times. Although they technically do not ‘overlap’, in the sense that the times entered do not show that the shopper was in two pl[redacted]s simultaneously, our system still considers it...
an infraction if one shop ends at 11:23 and the second shop begins at 11:23. Our systems are designed to invalidate these shops as a method of fraud protection to ensure our clients receive the most accurate and useful information. Although the shopper states that the two stores were right next to each other, the fact that he had to get in his car and drive to the second location would indicate that was not quite accurate because he could have walked out of one store and into the other if they were actually next to each other. According to Google maps, the two locations were actually one-half mile apart. Based on this, we did not feel that the shopper had accurately recorded the times for each of the shops and we were unable to overturn the invalidations.Nonetheless, as a gesture of good faith, we have offered to reimburse the shopper the costs incurred for both assignments. We will now pay additionally the shop fees he would have earned had the reports been able to be submitted to our clients.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: If MarketForce wants me to accept their response to my Revdex.com complaint, they're going to have to stop lying in their responses. MarketForce never asked for my explanation before voiding my shops. If they had, this whole mess would have been avoided. They took it upon themselves to make incorrect assumptions and voided my shops without contacting me. Then they terminated my contract in retaliation to me filing a complaint with the Revdex.com and [redacted]. I was forced to file these complaints to try to get paid for the shops that I completed accurately and on time. I have still not been paid for the work that I have done. I don't even want to have my contract reinstated. I just want to be paid for my work and for MarketForce to stop lying in their responses, saying that they contacted me and I didn't give them any explanation regarding my shop times.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The customer is correct that she completed a shop for us on 5/19/16. Her report had to be invalidated because she did not order one of the food items specified in the shop guidelines. Although she says her receipt showed that she ordered the French fries, receipts are reviewed...
independently of the auditing of the report, and in the report she said she ordered the veggie sticks and the dip. This report was automatically invalidated by the system when it ‘saw’ that something other than French fries had been ordered. This shop was immediately put out for reassignment to be completed correctly by another shopper. After several exchanges of emails with the customer, we decided to pay the customer for her shop so as to avoid additional emails. The following email was sent to the customer:
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The same lady who has been so unfair to me is the only one handling the complaint. She has been rude and has offered no solution other than to remove me as a shopper. I asked to have someone else review this because she is so unhelpful and unyielding. Still nothing has been done to address they way I was treated, all she did was send some information which was still not what I had asked for and I waited a week for her to send that. I asked to get some improvement in the shopping system for when there are errors so that shoppers have some help or some place to go for help for both sides so shops can be completed. I have received no attention at all to this part of my complaint not have I been restored as a shopper after years of service. I am still asking that my concerns be addressed, this time by someone else. Thank you for your attention to this and you consideration.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Our Shoppers are Independent Contractors and, as such, they are free to accept assignments from us or not. Conversely, Market Force is free to offer assignments or not to our Shoppers. Either party is free to walk away from this business relationship without penalty or explanation.We...
opted to discontinue our relationship with Mr. [redacted] on 10/19/2015. After reviewing the notes in his file, we have determined we will stand by our earlier decision and will not be reinstating our business arrangement with him.The assignment that Mr. [redacted] references was invalidated and we could not submit it to the Client for payment. Neither Mr. [redacted] nor Market Force received payment for that assignment. We have adhered to the terms of our agreement with the shopper; he understood that strict compliance with the guidelines was required in order to receive payment on the assignment. We believe that our reasons for invalidating the engagement are appropriate and correct and will stand by the decision.
As part of our continuing dedication to insure the most objective, valid evaluations submitted to our Clients, we run a number of reports daily/weekly/monthly to assess and compare various criteria. Sometimes we feel it prudent to discontinue offering shops to a Shopper. It does...
not necessarily mean that the Shopper did anything wrong. Rather, we will act very carefully to remove any potential issue of conflict or the appearance of impropriety. In order to protect our Clients’ businesses, we will always err on the side of caution. While we appreciate a Shopper’s desire to know why he was removed, we simply are not at liberty to disclose the type of reports we look at or the specifics behind why we felt it necessary to take the action we took. As this is an Independent Contractor relationship, a Shopper is free to take or decline any assignments at his sole choosing – we cannot and do not force a contractor to take our shops. Conversely, we are free to offer or not offer shops at our discretion.
This shopper was terminated due to information that was submitted to us by the shopper that triggered a system red flag. Our clients require that we maintain very strict criteria for shopper credentials to ensure accuracy and transparency in the results and this shopper's information...
failed our systems test.
Below is the exact wording from the webscript explaining the pay rate: “Payment per each day for this check is $45 for 1st screen* and $20 for each additional screen. For example, if “[redacted]” is playing on 2 screens, you would check all show times on both...
screens and receive $65 for the day. *In the event that there are no matinee show times, or no evening show times, the pay rate is $20 for the matinee only, and $25 for the evening only, for the first screen. For example, if you are assigned to a drive-in that only shows evening shows, the pay rate would be $25 for the first screen, and $20 for each additional screen. Payment is NOT per show time! When a print is moved into a different auditorium (with a higher or lower seating capacity) it is not considered an additional screen checked. Compensation will not be increased since the total number of screens playing the feature at any one time has not changed” Here is the breakdown of the Customer’s payment for this assignment: 10/06/17 – Friday Visit: She checked 1 screen and was assigned with a $25.00 bonus ($45 for the first screen + $25 bonus). She received $70.00. 10/07/17 – Saturday visit: She checked 1 screen and was assigned with a $25.00 bonus ($45 for the first screen + $25 bonus). She received $70.00. 10/08/17 – Sunday visit: She checked 1 screen and was assigned with a $10.00 bonus ($45 for the first screen + $10 bonus). She only received $45.00. Inadvertently, the $10 bonus was omitted and that additional payment is being processed. We thank the Customer for bringing this to our attention so we could make it right. This is being added to the next run which will be processed on 12/8. According to our records, this Customer was paid $185 for the assignment completed as described (the direct deposit was processed on 11/8). The notes within the system show that the assignor, [redacted], offered a $25 bonus per day for Friday and Saturday; Sunday was assigned separately by [redacted] with a $10 bonus. Customer’s inquiry submitted on 11/24 was responded to with the direct deposit tracking information and she was told to speak with her bank for further assistance if she was unable to see the deposit in her account because the bank did receive the deposit. To recap, this assignment was paid as promised.
In reference to this complaint, the independent contractor has provided services to us in the past for which we have paid him according to contract. We raised questions about the last two assignments he performed for us and explained the issues to him. He did not accept our explanation, which we continue to believe is accurate. He has not provided a reasonable explanation for the issues we raised. Nonetheless, we have agreed to pay him fully for the assignment as a gesture of good will. He provided services as an independent contractor to us and we are not obligated to continue to engage with him or provide him further assignments as he is not obligated to continue accepting assignments from us. We have decided to terminate our relationship. Sincerely,
The Complainant selected this assignment knowing what the shop fee and purchase reimbursement would be. He then requested additional purchase reimbursement and if it could not be given, he would cancel the assignment. It was explained to him that the reimbursement amount could not be...
increased and the assignment was cancelled per his request. He then wanted to do the assignment anyway and requested that it be reassigned to him. He completed the assignment under the terms of the contract, but now is requesting the additional reimbursement. In the interest of settling this matter, we will pay the Complainant the additional $1.54, but we will not continue offering him additional assignments because he does not adhere to contracts that he enters into.
This Shopper was notified that a shop she had completed could not be submitted to the Client for payment because she had uploaded the same pictures that she had used in another shop for this same Client. This is a very serious infraction because it indicates, at a minimum, carelessness in...
reporting that data. A duplicate images infraction also shows that images are not properly labelled and that the report is not checked prior to submitting it. It calls into question the entire accuracy of the report being submitted because if the incorrect images were uploaded, was any of the other data incorrect. Shopper claimed she is always very careful uploading her images and that she labels each one and that the fault lay with us. Numerous emails resulted between several Shopper Advocates and the Shopper. One reply to the Shopper stated: “When you upload an image to a computer via scanner or photo device, the image is given a unique encryption code. This code follows the photo where ever it goes. Some computer systems are programmed to ignore multiple uploads of the same image (such as social networking sites). However, our system retains a copy of that code to ensure the integrity of our assignments. Whenever a duplicate photo is resubmitted by a Shopper, our system flags it.” The Shopper still maintained that the system had swapped out her images causing both shops to have the same images. The Shopper states in her complaint that she had no idea what we were seeing with regard to the images. However, this is not true. Copies of the two food images that were submitted in two different reports were sent as a side-by-side comparison to the Shopper and it was clear to the naked eye that both pairs of images were the exact same. Both pairs of images carried the Shopper’s personal labeling system as to date and location of the shop lending further credence to the fact that the Shopper had erroneously applied the labels for two different shops to the same set of images. We concluded that the system was working exactly as it was programmed to in detecting these duplicate images. Shopper had no explanation for the same pictures except that somehow our system was doing it. We also pointed out to her that if our system was arbitrarily or intentionally swapping out Shoppers’s images to other reports, we would have been flooded with Shoppers notifying us of this but that no one else was making this claim except her. The Shopper did offer to submit the correct images later; however, the shop had been put back out for reassignment as is our custom so we can meet our contractual deadline obligations with the Client and an approved report had been already received. This is why reviewing the report and all the images is a crucial step in submitting a valid report. While we welcome suggestions on how we can improve our processes and services, and the material that the Shopper sent us from another mystery shopping company was reviewed, no one is able to require any company to adopt those suggestions as that is solely an internal matter. Additionally, although we do not use the error reporting form that the Shopper sent us from another company, we do ask the same questions via email when it appears a Shopper is having problems logging on to our website. Our Shopper Advocates are senior, tenured employees and know when a situation presents where it is germane to ask how the Shopper connects to the internet, are they experiencing slowness, what day/time did they begin experiencing problems, and the other questions asked by another company’s form. Nothing indicated that we were dealing with a logging on issue, but rather an operator error issue of not being sure the correct images were uploaded to a report. The Shopper is asking that we resume offering her shopping assignments and having a better communication process. This is an independent contractor relationship and as such the parties are free to offer or accept shops and are free to not offer and not accept shops without explanation or penalty. We are opting not to offer any more shops to this Shopper. Changing any of our processes has already been discussed. However, we were unaware that the Shopper tried to secure her earnings information from our website in preparation of her taxes. To my knowledge, she did not write in to us explaining her problem because we would have been more than happy to assist her with this and give her the information requested. I will personally do this research and provide this information to the Shopper.
Most of this response is a lie but whatever I'll take my money.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/05/18) */
This mystery shopper ("Shopper") completed 2 assignments for us - one completed on 18 April 2015 (which was approved and paid) and one completed on 16 April 2015 for our quick service restaurant client ("Client"). Shopper's report of her...
visit to our Client's restaurant, of which she complains, was originally approved for payment and sent to the Client. Our Client raised an inquiry about the assignment and report, which we in turn raised with the Shopper. The Shopper responded to our questions. On the basis of feedback from the Shopper and the Client, our shopper inquiry team determined Shopper made an error in recording the timing during the shop. In addition, we were advised by our Client of its concerns that Shopper was in fact familiar with certain employees who had been recently terminated from this Client location and that Shopper had alerted certain Client employees that she had just conducted a mystery shop of their location. For all these reasons, we rejected the shop as invalid for failure to follow published guidelines.
We are sorry to hear that Shopper became ill as a result of the food at this Client location. In her report on the shop, she only stated that "My biggest problem with the food is that it tasted like it sat in grease even after it was done. The burger I ordered was dripping grease, and I could even feel the grease in my mouth as I tried to eat it." Shopper only informed us of her illness after we rejected her report. We would always encourage our shoppers to seek immediate medical attention if they fell ill from consuming food at a client's establishment.
We certainly did not remove Shopper from our shopper list due to monies allegedly owed to her. She was removed from our list due to the abusive communications she subsequently sent to our help desk.
There are usually two sides to every story. While we agree with Shopper on certain factual elements in this situation, we disagree with her as to the basis on which her report was invalidated and why she was not paid for the shop. And while we believe that we acted properly in this case, including refusing to pay for the shop and report, as a gesture of good faith, we would be willing to pay Shopper for her report to resolve her complete in its entirety.
Mystery shopping is comprised of performing the shop in accordance with the shop guidelines and then accurately reporting that data. Accuracy is crucial to our business because our Clients have the right to expect and then rely on accurate evaluations in making changes to their...
locations. Part of the shop guidelines for this particular shop specifically said: “Choose one of the service departments listed on your CPI to evaluate. Also choose a back-up department to evaluate in case your first choice is closed (lights are off, no Associates are there). Go to the department’s counter and see if you are assisted within 8 minutes.” When [redacted] was asked in the report whether he waited 8 minutes for assistance in the Deli department, he answered ‘No’. This is what caused the report to have to be invalidated. If a shop was not done in compliance with the shop guidelines, it cannot be submitted to our Client for payment. As was explained to [redacted] when he protested the invalidations (same scenario for two shops), it is imperative to review one’s report for inaccuracies prior to hitting the submit button because once the report is submitted it can go through our auditing process very quickly and once it is audited, it cannot be returned to the Shopper to review and make whatever corrections he feels necessary. A shop is immediately put out for reassignment once it is invalidated so that another Shopper can complete the shop correctly so that we may make our contractual deadlines with our Clients. It is regrettable that [redacted]’ shop was either done incorrectly (by not waiting the full 8 minutes) or was reported incorrectly (by checking No instead of Yes) and not reviewed prior to submitting his report. It is the Shopper’s responsibility to do the shop correctly and report it accurately. [redacted] has asked as his desired settlement that we investigate his complaint enough in order to give him his payment. This investigation was already done when he received his Invalid Notices and wrote in to the Help Desk. We always investigate invalid controversies in case the auditor made a mistake in applying the shop guidelines. If the mistake is made on our end, we will own it and make it right by the Shopper. Following [redacted] filing of this complaint, we again reviewed the shop guidelines, the report that was submitted, the auditor’s ruling, and the thread of conversation between [redacted] and the Help Desk for one last chance to make this right if possible. It remains our conclusion that [redacted] either did not do the shop correctly or he did not submit accurate data in his report even though given the opportunity to review his data entries prior to submitting them. If we could pay [redacted] for these two reports, we would because we serve as liaison between our Shoppers and our Clients and we always want to do right by each one.Tell us why here...
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me if they agree to pay monies asked. However, I've done several other shops with this company and havent made mistakes before, so to question my entire accountability because of something as small as a "T" in front of a name, is insulting. Yes, it's crucial to submit information correctly, but I'm human and mistakes do get made. Ive already asked to be removed as a shopper before submitting this complaint.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Both of the shops referenced by the shopper were Invalidated by our automatic system processes due to Overlapping Times. Although they technically do not ‘overlap’, in the sense that the times entered do not show that the shopper was in two pl[redacted]s simultaneously, our system still considers it...
an infraction if one shop ends at 11:23 and the second shop begins at 11:23. Our systems are designed to invalidate these shops as a method of fraud protection to ensure our clients receive the most accurate and useful information. Although the shopper states that the two stores were right next to each other, the fact that he had to get in his car and drive to the second location would indicate that was not quite accurate because he could have walked out of one store and into the other if they were actually next to each other. According to Google maps, the two locations were actually one-half mile apart. Based on this, we did not feel that the shopper had accurately recorded the times for each of the shops and we were unable to overturn the invalidations.Nonetheless, as a gesture of good faith, we have offered to reimburse the shopper the costs incurred for both assignments. We will now pay additionally the shop fees he would have earned had the reports been able to be submitted to our clients.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: If MarketForce wants me to accept their response to my Revdex.com complaint, they're going to have to stop lying in their responses. MarketForce never asked for my explanation before voiding my shops. If they had, this whole mess would have been avoided. They took it upon themselves to make incorrect assumptions and voided my shops without contacting me. Then they terminated my contract in retaliation to me filing a complaint with the Revdex.com and [redacted]. I was forced to file these complaints to try to get paid for the shops that I completed accurately and on time. I have still not been paid for the work that I have done. I don't even want to have my contract reinstated. I just want to be paid for my work and for MarketForce to stop lying in their responses, saying that they contacted me and I didn't give them any explanation regarding my shop times.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
The customer is correct that she completed a shop for us on 5/19/16. Her report had to be invalidated because she did not order one of the food items specified in the shop guidelines. Although she says her receipt showed that she ordered the French fries, receipts are reviewed...
independently of the auditing of the report, and in the report she said she ordered the veggie sticks and the dip. This report was automatically invalidated by the system when it ‘saw’ that something other than French fries had been ordered. This shop was immediately put out for reassignment to be completed correctly by another shopper. After several exchanges of emails with the customer, we decided to pay the customer for her shop so as to avoid additional emails. The following email was sent to the customer:
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The same lady who has been so unfair to me is the only one handling the complaint. She has been rude and has offered no solution other than to remove me as a shopper. I asked to have someone else review this because she is so unhelpful and unyielding. Still nothing has been done to address they way I was treated, all she did was send some information which was still not what I had asked for and I waited a week for her to send that. I asked to get some improvement in the shopping system for when there are errors so that shoppers have some help or some place to go for help for both sides so shops can be completed. I have received no attention at all to this part of my complaint not have I been restored as a shopper after years of service. I am still asking that my concerns be addressed, this time by someone else. Thank you for your attention to this and you consideration.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Our Shoppers are Independent Contractors and, as such, they are free to accept assignments from us or not. Conversely, Market Force is free to offer assignments or not to our Shoppers. Either party is free to walk away from this business relationship without penalty or explanation.We...
opted to discontinue our relationship with Mr. [redacted] on 10/19/2015. After reviewing the notes in his file, we have determined we will stand by our earlier decision and will not be reinstating our business arrangement with him.The assignment that Mr. [redacted] references was invalidated and we could not submit it to the Client for payment. Neither Mr. [redacted] nor Market Force received payment for that assignment. We have adhered to the terms of our agreement with the shopper; he understood that strict compliance with the guidelines was required in order to receive payment on the assignment. We believe that our reasons for invalidating the engagement are appropriate and correct and will stand by the decision.