Way back when mystery shopping involved snail mail and faxes I completed some "mail" assignments. Even then you had to sign and initial eons of confidentiality statements agreeing not to share or publicize the details of these assignments. As doing so would jeopardize the integrity of the program. Here is a reprint of one such breech..It is simply no longer a mystery once it has gone public and become accessible.............



OIG: Mystery Shopper Program was compromised

May 3, 2011 Mystery shopper, OIG, postal 1 Comment


The USPS Inspector General has released a report finding that the postal service’s Mystery Shop program was compromised by the public posting of mystery shop schedules and scenarios, and by the ability of current USPS employees to enroll as shoppers:


We determined that the integrity and objectivity of the Mystery Shopper Program was compromised, because information regarding the program is posted on the contractor’s website where it is accessible to the general public. Specifically, we found that information regarding mystery shop sites, as well as the dates and scenarios of scheduled evaluations, was available to anyone who accessed the contractor’s website.

Mystery Shopper Program was Compromised

We found that in January 2011, a Postal Service employee was able to enroll as a
mystery shopper on the contractor’s website. Although the employee did not complete a Post Office evaluation, the employee was allowed access to information regarding the locations, dates, and scenarios for scheduled mystery shop evaluations. Upon accessing the information, the employee distributed it to 44 Postal Service unit and retail managers via e-mail. This occurred because the information is available to the general public on the contractor’s website.1 As a result, advance notice of upcoming mystery shop evaluations was accessible, which compromised the objectivity of the program. We also found that three other employees enrolled as mystery shoppers on the contractor’s website between November and December of 2010;2 however, none completed a Post Office evaluation.

USPS Management accepted the findings, but said it would not seek a refund of fees paid to the Mystery Shop contractor, Synovate.

@ishoparound wrote:

Way back when mystery shopping involved snail mail and faxes I completed some "mail" assignments. Even then you had to sign and initial eons of confidentiality statements agreeing not to share or publicize the details of these assignments. As doing so would jeopardize the integrity of the program. Here is a reprint of one such breech..It is simply no longer a mystery once it has gone public and become accessible.............



OIG: Mystery Shopper Program was compromised

May 3, 2011 Mystery shopper, OIG, postal 1 Comment


The USPS Inspector General has released a report finding that the postal service’s Mystery Shop program was compromised by the public posting of mystery shop schedules and scenarios, and by the ability of current USPS employees to enroll as shoppers:


We determined that the integrity and objectivity of the Mystery Shopper Program was compromised, because information regarding the program is posted on the contractor’s website where it is accessible to the general public. Specifically, we found that information regarding mystery shop sites, as well as the dates and scenarios of scheduled evaluations, was available to anyone who accessed the contractor’s website.

Mystery Shopper Program was Compromised

We found that in January 2011, a Postal Service employee was able to enroll as a
mystery shopper on the contractor’s website. Although the employee did not complete a Post Office evaluation, the employee was allowed access to information regarding the locations, dates, and scenarios for scheduled mystery shop evaluations. Upon accessing the information, the employee distributed it to 44 Postal Service unit and retail managers via e-mail. This occurred because the information is available to the general public on the contractor’s website.1 As a result, advance notice of upcoming mystery shop evaluations was accessible, which compromised the objectivity of the program. We also found that three other employees enrolled as mystery shoppers on the contractor’s website between November and December of 2010;2 however, none completed a Post Office evaluation.

USPS Management accepted the findings, but said it would not seek a refund of fees paid to the Mystery Shop contractor, Synovate.

Never heard of Synovate. I have been doing USPS jobs for at least 10 years (through two different companies).

That is not terribly surprising. We have long suspected that Best Buy employees, for example, figure out who is shopping them and have someone lie about their affiliations in order to register and access scheduling information. It doesn't have to be the employee, it could be a spouse, girlfriend, etc. I'm sure that most MSPs realize how easy it is/would be to get someone registered as a shopper and see dates/times of shops at particular locations. And while we as shoppers get annoyed that we often don't get to see guidelines until we have accepted a shop, it probably is at least in part to prevent employees from knowing exactly what we are looking for.

@SoCalMama wrote:

Never heard of Synovate. I have been doing USPS jobs for at least 10 years (through two different companies).

Not all USPS evaluations were done by the former or current MSCs you have worked with. There were also programs through IPSOS, which bought Synovate in Oct 2011.

@Flash wrote:

@SoCalMama wrote:

Never heard of Synovate. I have been doing USPS jobs for at least 10 years (through two different companies).

Not all USPS evaluations were done by the former or current MSCs you have worked with. There were also programs through IPSOS, which bought Synovate in Oct 2011.

Yes, I saw that online. As far as I know, there is only one current MSC for USPS though.

As far as I know, that seems to be the case. There seemed to be some internal turmoil with the last round of mailings with IPSOS so I haven't seen them this year.

It still raises the question: if the store/employee knows we're coming, why the heck don't they do better on the interactions? Granted they don't know the specific points, but they more often than not don't even get the basics of retail customer service correct. And, after one shop has been done, they will know the specific points and thus should get a perfect score every time.

Been shopping since the early 90"s. Over the years many companies have changed hands. One thing that has not changed is the confidentiality agreements we as shoppers sign. When you read all the fine print and sign you are entering a contract not to disclose the details of the shop. There was no internet then or the ability to google search and find the details of a shop scenario because it was posted online.

That's a really good point Eveb. Job security for us as shoppers. If they all got it "right" shopping would be extinct.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2015 10:31PM by ishoparound.

@eveb wrote:

It still raises the question: if the store/employee knows we're coming, why the heck don't they do better on the interactions? Granted they don't know the specific points, but they more often than not don't even get the basics of retail customer service correct. And, after one shop has been done, they will know the specific points and thus should get a perfect score every time.

My sense is that those who would value a perfect score also value doing their job correctly every time because that is just the way they are. My suspicion is that if you laid out all the particulars of the shop, including date, time and whether the shopper would be male or female, old or young, those who don't give a rat's arse about what anybody thinks still wouldn't give a rat's arse.

I was astonished that during the recession, when there were so many people looking for any kind of work, employers did not take more initiative in weeding out employees with bad attitudes towards anyone and everyone to bring in employees with positive attitudes and behaviors. Even if those jobs only became available through employee attrition they could have increased the attractiveness of their business to the public hiring good attitudes.

Since I have seen actual photocopies of completed shop reports in a file folder at the cash register at one place, I'm sure there is very little 'mystery' to mystery shopping. And I can only guess at the trail that got it to the location--me to MSP, MSP to client, client to district manager, district manager to store.

There is nothing illegal about someone who works for Best Buy or any other place signing up for the mystery shop company that does their shop. They are just not allowed to take the ones at the place they work...but they can still see the job listings with the locations and times allowed at their company. I see shops for my employer every month when I look at the msc website. I do not take them but can certainly see them and I have told the msc I work there.

That is true and indeed some MSPs will not accept you as a shopper if you currently work for one of their clients.

I did a post office shop once and basically saw the report, typed in bullet form, taped to the wall. The employee was new and kept apologizing for taking so long, as she took care to make sure she covered everything that was one the memo. I noted it on my report to the MSC, but, of course, didn't hear anything back.

There is nothing illegal about an employee DOING a shop for the store they work for, even the exact location they work at. Against some company policies (both the retailer and shopping company), moral dilemmas, conflict of interests and the like absolutely. But not illegal at all.

Personally, I have no problems with employees seeing the reports or even knowing the general dates. I'd hope that in most places, the spirit of the mystery shop is to improve customer service. If that means releasing the shop form so the employees do everything on it, so be it. Oh wait, they probably already have that even if they don't have the form itself. It's called their employee handbook and similar items!

And Flash - one of the reasons I think you did not see employers firing employees and hiring better qualified ones is the simple costs of doing so. Hiring and training a new employee is quite expensive. You're not guaranteed you will get a better worker. Even firing for just cause might cause you to pay unemployment as the fired employee will likely fight for that and who knows who will win.

Just my 2 cents.

I am not using 'illegal' in the sense of breaking federal, state or local laws but rather in terms of it being against the rules. It has been years since I read the ICAs of most companies I work with/have worked with and as I remember it, both those agreements as well as custom say that you do not shop clients where you have some sort of relationship that might cause bias in the results. Then there is the confidentiality part of the agreements which indicate you should not share what information you have become privy to because of your acceptance as a shopper. These two aspects alone would make it highly improper, illegal (as in rule breaking) and possibly actionable in a court of law as a breach of contract to collect or share any information about the shops or schedules of any client you should not shop.

As for hiring better qualified employees, at most of the places we shop there is staff turnover and I have noticed that some places have significantly improved their service quality over the past few years by more careful screening of applicants from a larger applicant pool. Mostly, raising employee quality seems to be happening at places other than the places we shop.

Thank you "Flash" for speaking to my original point. Was starting to feel like the only shopper that "gets" the confidentiality clause we shoppers agree to. Just today I signed an updated one agreeing not to disclose "Trade Secrets".

Have been wondering how many shoppers actually read these terms they are agreeing to and understand how they jeopardize the integrity of a shop when they publicly post details of an assignment online.

In regards to the PO a friend called a complaint about an innapropriate attire (he is NOT a shopper), they told my friend we do not know if we actually have a dress code... hmmmm what?