I think what you are saying whosear is that it is unethical to "use" the first store (store A) when they are not the client. Your ethics are admirable.

Would you ever do competitor shops? Also, it could be argued that you may buy some personal merchandise while you are at store A and therefore would give them business. Or at least potentially give them business.

pony123lucy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think what you are saying whosear is that it is
> unethical to "use" the first store (store A) when
> they are not the client. Your ethics are
> admirable.
>
> Would you ever do competitor shops? Also, it could
> be argued that you may buy some personal
> merchandise while you are at store A and therefore
> would give them business. Or at least potentially
> give them business.


How are you "using" them? You're just making a purchase from them. You get reimbursed for the price of the game from the MSC. They make a sale and they're not being shopped- I fail to see how they're being "used".

I'll just say again, if you think there are ethics issues with this type of shop then you need to examine being a mystery shopper as a whole. If you have a purchase requirement for a shop, you are buying that item just to make money. If you take the time of a salesperson for anything, you are stealing from that company because you really are not a customer in the store. If they bother you so much, just don't do the shops....

And, you can remind yourself that some people just shop for sport. Some people will buy ten items, planning to return nine for sure, and maybe all ten, if they don't like them when they get home. I'm not saying that that's right, but in most cases the disruptiveness of a mystery shopper gets lost in the background noise.

Well the way I understood it was you purchased a game from store A after determining they would allow you to return it for a refund. Then you attempted to sell the game to store B which does not buy new wrapped games so therefore your attempted sale would fail. You then returned the game to store A for a refund and also received a fee from store B ownership for conducting the shop.

RIMS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll just say again, if you think there are ethics
> issues with this type of shop then you need to
> examine being a mystery shopper as a whole. If
> you have a purchase requirement for a shop, you
> are buying that item just to make money. If you
> take the time of a salesperson for anything, you
> are stealing from that company because you really
> are not a customer in the store. If they bother
> you so much, just don't do the shops....

I know where you're comng from and I agree that we shouldn't do shops that may compromise our ethics if we feel that may be the case. But I think it's pretty harsh and extreme to say "if you take the time of a salesperson for anything you are stealing from a company because you are really not a customer in the store." You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I disagree. In my estimation, a shopper is not stealing from a company just because they don't intend to buy something from any establishment. How is gathering information stealing just because you're getting paid for it? In most retail shops people work on a salary. There is no requirement to buy. I usually shop at retail establishments fairly late in the day (within time guidelines, of course) when there aren't many customers in the store. This way I am minimizing my waiting time to be interacted with, I get an employee who is dedicated to me and not distracted by other customers and I have less traffic to contend with. I guess it could be construed as an added benefit that I am less likely to prevent a real sale if there is nobody else waiting to be helped. I can agree to using the employee's energy by being a mystery shopper but they're paid an hourly wage.

In the case of competitor shops, if anyone is "stealing" to ask shoppers to do competitor shops, in my opinion, it would be the client. But I don't think spying is stealing just because an employee's time is being utilized. And the establishment being utilized to gather information is free to use mystery shoppers to conduct its own research on the same competitor or any of its competitors if they choose. Most businesses want to know what other businesses are doing, charging, etc. in one way or another to help themselves stay competitively marketable. They may use other means besides mystery shoppers, but I'm sure every business owner is always keeping an eye on their competition.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2014 04:25PM by nycrocks.

RIMS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll just say again, if you think there are ethics
> issues with this type of shop then you need to
> examine being a mystery shopper as a whole. If
> you have a purchase requirement for a shop, you
> are buying that item just to make money. If you
> take the time of a salesperson for anything, you
> are stealing from that company because you really
> are not a customer in the store. If they bother
> you so much, just don't do the shops....


But you are a customer. You walk into store A and purchase a game- legitimately. You give the store money for a product. Store A never loses money.

You then take the game and bring it to store B and try to trade it in. If store B gives you reimbursement for the game, great! If not, the MSC that is contracted by store B will reimburse you for the game. I fail to see how it's unethical.

It is a little confusing but my understanding is that you return the game to store A for a refund if store B refuses to buy your game (which they are not supposed to)

Maybe the OP considers it a form of potential entrapment to try to catch employees accepting a new video when they shouldn't and is uncomfortable playing that role. This is slightly different, but I actually enjoy integrity shops a lot where my scenario gives the employee a choice to do the right or wrong thing. If they weren't being suspected of wrongdoing, I wouldn't be doing the shop. While I would never enjoy seeing anyone lose their job, there are too many honest people who need jobs right now for me to worry about anyone who might be dishonest losing theirs at worst, or reprimanded at best.

NYCRocks, the shop, as stated, is not entrapment. For there to be entrapment, you must do something that would cause the employee to do something they would not normally do. Now, if you were to offer the employee half the money that they would give you for the video game, then you have entrapment. But at that point, you have failed to follow the instructions and won't be paid anyway.

You're talking about legal entrapment. I did not mean the legal definition of entrapment.

This shop resembles a sting operation where they're trying to see if employees are doing the right or wrong thing.

So what is the unethical part?

whosear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While browsing through shops this morning, I found
> one that instructs you to do the following:
>
> Purchase the video game from any store other than
> <> (for example, visit the nearest Walmart, Target
> or Best Buy). Please check to make sure the
> location allows return.
>
> Basically you try to get cash without a receipt.
> I operate in my personal life on an old Jewish
> Law:
>
> "One is not permitted to ask the price if one does
> not intend to buy."
>
> While I have less difficulty where I am contracted
> to buy and return something, or take up time of a
> salesperson (and I have difficulty with that on a
> couple of levels), this one, unless the stores
> mentioned are cooperating with the client, is
> unethical.
>
> Your thoughts?

I understand what the client is trying to accomplish, I don't have ethical issues with the purpose. It is the means of using another store's merchandise to accomplish this, knowing that it is likely that the game will be returned. If the company that sells me the game has an agreement or considers it standard practice, so be it, it's not unethical. But that is not stated in the description.

If they said for instance, in your town there is a small game store. Go buy it from them, because if our employee follows policy, you need to return it because we will not reimburse you for it.

It doesn't matter if it is a small owner or large corporation, as the buyer my intent is not to buy the game, but to borrow it with collateral for making money.

I think you're carrying the ethics argument a bit far. At the time the Old Testament was written, yes, that would have been a valid argument. In today's retail world, where I worked as a manager for 19-years, stores know there are going to be a given percentage of returns. And, assuming that you do the return on the same day you bought the item, there is no effect on inventory as those calculations are all done at the end of the day, once all transactions are closed out.

If you want to make sure you're not affecting a potential sale, then just make sure that the store has more than one copy of whatever you are buying.

I guess everyone has their own personal line that they won't cross. If it doesn't feel right for you, then don't do those shops. If you find that most shops make you feel uneasy, then you just won't be performing a lot of work. It's up to you whether or not you wish to stay in the business. Nobody can tell you what is right or wrong on your personal journey.

The instructions say to buy one or two games from a store that will accept them as returns. If you read the scenario, the employee should reject or offer only store credit. You can accept cash only. So if you're attempt to return it to the clients store fails, you return the merchandise to the to where you purchased it.

That last part is what I am having an ethical issue with. If there are agreements or understandings among stores that this is an acceptable practice, then I don't have an issue. But that is not stated.

I doubt if there are any agreements say between someplace like example of store A (maybe a Target) and the client store B say someplace like Gamestop.

whosear Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The instructions say to buy one or two games from
> a store that will accept them as returns. If you
> read the scenario, the employee should reject or
> offer only store credit. You can accept cash only.
> So if you're attempt to return it to the clients
> store fails, you return the merchandise to the to
> where you purchased it.
>
> That last part is what I am having an ethical
> issue with. If there are agreements or
> understandings among stores that this is an
> acceptable practice, then I don't have an issue.
> But that is not stated.

I adopted it as I found more people would go into retail, use their knowledge and expertise, then go online to order the item. You are not required to buy something, just intend to buy. Going in to buy these games with the intent to use them to make money violates, "The Store Keeper Law".

The unethical part is using the games purchased elsewhere knowing that you plan to return them. You never meant to really own them in the first place. It is not being dissatisfied.

Again, if the store you buy them from has agreements that this practice is acceptable, then it isn't unethical. I don't violate the Store Keeper Law when I mystery shop because it is the client through the MSC who is acquiring my services. I stated my response to being chastised by an employee who took issue with my shop is that is between his employer and he.