I've noticed that there is a huge disconnect in the MSC industry between MSC, their clients' jobs, and potential shoppers....

We see it every day on this very forum. "Who shops this client" or "Give me a hint for this company..." and many others. This is simply the tip of the iceberg as I'm sure we've all wondered this question at one time or another. These requests are immediately followed by, reminders of IC agreements and 'advice' to sign up with a lot of companies. Here's my take on this currently valid advice: Just because it's always been done this way, doesn't make it the most efficient way...

Move to the MSC side of he equation and they are constantly trying to recruit new shoppers, have a hard time pairing jobs with shoppers, have to pay bonuses (for a variety of reasons) to fill shops.

Somewhere in the middle lie the scheduling firms who try to bridge this gap as they seem to be the only group able to make the link between MSC ==> Client ==> Mystery Shoppers legally.

So, MSC have jobs that need filled and mystery shoppers out there would like to do the work, but there isn't an easy way to marry the two needs and therein lies the disconnect.

I know, I know sign up with more companies, but honestly, I equate this piece of advice along the same lines as the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut.... One would think there would be a more efficient way to bridge this gap within the industry?! Perhaps this will be one of the future evolutions in the industry and years from now we'll start posts titled "Remember the old days when you had to sign up with a gazillion companies just to find a single client" My how things have changed....

I hear your frustration and I have heard the frustration of MSCs when their clients have been revealed in an open forum situation. While some companies are willing to show who the client is on their websites, others don't even let you know until you have accepted the job. The reasons are multi and varied but overall my sense is that they do have enough validity that it is not likely to change.

msimon, many of these companies have developed clients from scratch. Those clients have never previously been shopped until they were "sold" on the process by the MSC who now has their contract. Since the MSC has an investment in the development of the client they are wanting to hang on to that client as long as possible. The sooner other MSCs become aware the client is shopped, the sooner they try to steal the client away by offering a better deal. That's why MSCs may guard their client lists.

At the moment I hit this reply, there are three posts in the top six outlining exactly my point (One for Chik-fil-A, one for grocery stores, and one for DVF)

Yes, I get it. You want open information on who shops who. Me too. But the MSCs don't want their client lists made public and that's why the ICAs are written as they are. If the MSCs wanted to change this, they would have no problem changing it. As long as they don't want to make their clients public and we sign ICAs that we won't divulge, we're stuck right where we are. There's certainly nothing WE can do about it. It's entirely up to them, their ball game, their ball.

MDavisnowall, I am merely bringing to light what all of us recognize as a disconnect within our industry. I haven't yet elaborated on my opinion of this matter, nor have I said what I wanted. I simply posted what we all know to be true.

I'm sure the reasons for this confidentiality are many, including concerns over competitors, but let's be honest here, these client lists aren't truly secret, they are merely obscured. I treat all of my IC's very seriously as do most shoppers from what I can tell. I do not discuss MSCs or Clients individually, let alone in the same posting or context. An IC is really a legal remedy and not a security measure. It does not prevent a secrecy breach, it does provide a legal recourse for remediation should a company choose to pursue its' legal options.

I loved the post over the Summer concerning changes within our industry from those veteran shoppers who were in the biz pre-Internet. If we were able to jump in a time machine back to 1995 and ask them if there was a better way to handle the paperwork besides snail mail, they'd likely tell us that this is just how it has always been done and will always be done in the future. Back to 2015 and my how the industry has changed... Most shoppers in 1995 could not foretell the coming changes just as we cannot fathom changes to the status quo. This doesn't mean that there isn't a better way out there, it simply means we haven't uncovered it yet.

To me personally, "A problem is nothing more than a solution waiting to be discovered". If we always think inside the box, all we will ever see is four walls....

My main objection is when people on this forum act like you firebombed their lawn when you have the gall to ask. I haven't asked, so I don't have this burn directed at me, but I still don't like seeing it. It's catty and small-minded.

I agree with you Fastjack. It's newer forum members who ask and although most posters answer gently some are a bit abrupt. I hate it when any of us slips up and mentions MSC and client connections and then gets swarmed. Yes, we know better, yes, we're human and yes, it's going to happen now and then.

The disconnect we're talking about here is intentional. It's not an accident. At our level we find it a distinct inconvenience that we can't type in ABC Grocery at Smith and Jones Streets and find out the MSC. The MSCs don't want to share their client lists, and when we get right down to it, most of us who shop don't want to share our list either. Pot Kettle Navy Blue Black. I don't have an answer. Not sure I even have a question.

The only thing I could suggest to fix the situation would be for the MSC to remove the clause from the contract that would allow us to reveal who they shop for. But as long as that is a part of their contract, they are telling us not to sing. I have read so many posts where I wish someone would pity me and JUST GIVE ME A HINT... but to no avail. So I don't ask. It just doesn't happen and not once yet have I found my needle in a haystack. I try to look at the positive - all of the wonderful needles I have found and know that in time, the others will...or won't... come my way.

Jobslinger/Prestomobile is the best single source of shops. It doesn't answer the questions directly, but it is the best available answer.

If all the MSC revealed the companies, then a lot more mystery shoppers would apply to do the shop. I think that this would result in lower pay because of the increased number of shoppers wanting to do the shop. Shopping is a business and the idea is to make money. Why would I want to have another shopper in the area competing with me for the jobs? Yeap, I know - kinda selfish on my part!!!

I don't believe there is a "disconnect." I believe there are shoppers who want to know that information, when it is not available to them for a "reason." The ICA asks you not to divulge the client's name and the mystery shopping company (that work together) to provide confidential data for business purposes. I don't question "why" . I respect their decision. A shopper that wants to know who shops McDonald's, for instance, is not entitled to that information in a public forum. They need to sign up for companies and in those companies, they may find they want to shop for a certain client. Shoppers don't seem to question 5 pages of guidelines or reasons for why they have to perform observations to capture a large amount of information for that client. As such, they should not question why they need to keep proprietary client information private.

Here is a typical ICA and what is required of you as a mystery shopper:

"You acknowledge that information concerning ABC MSC shopping and research services and techniques, including the names and addresses of ABC MSC customers and their stores, the amount of sales, the types of products, projected market needs, market habits and conclusions of your shopping evaluations (collectively "Confidential Information" is of great value to ABC MSC) would be of great value to "competitors" of ABC MSC is not common knowledge, has been developed through substantial effort and substantial expenditure of money, and could not be properly acquired or duplicated by others without considerable difficulty. Accordingly, you acknowledge that any such information is confidential business information. You shall not, during or after the term of this Agreement, disclose any such Confidential Information or use any such Confidential Information except for the purposes of your performance under this Agreement."

And yet, companies go begging for referrals of shoppers from their current shoppers. So, when they need more shoppers for a particular client or more shoppers in general, they ask us to violate our IC agreements. You can't make a referral if you can't name the client and the MSC in the same breath (if the referral is for a specific client).

Not opining on the wisdom or validity (yes, I know it's legally valid, but whether or not it's valid from a practical aspect) of the confidentiality clause. Just saying that the confidentiality we are so closely guarding in order to adhere to our contracts is unilaterally and situationally voided all the time by the MSC's.

Perhaps they need to think about how they can creatively bridge this divide.

@msimon-2000 wrote:

This doesn't mean that there isn't a better way out there, it simply means we haven't uncovered it yet.

So start your own msc & reveal your clients to all of us w/out a care in the world. Problem solved.

@MDavisnowell wrote:

It's newer forum members who ask and although most posters answer gently some are a bit abrupt.

Not always. There was forum member of 3 years asking a who shops who question in recent thread. Someone like that should know better.

@MDavisnowell wrote:

msimon, many of these companies have developed clients from scratch. Those clients have never previously been shopped until they were "sold" on the process by the MSC who now has their contract. Since the MSC has an investment in the development of the client they are wanting to hang on to that client as long as possible. The sooner other MSCs become aware the client is shopped, the sooner they try to steal the client away by offering a better deal. That's why MSCs may guard their client lists.

Almost the same thing can be said about us. The msc is our client & some of them have been developed from scratch. That's why shoppers may guard their client lists.

Wow...based on many of the replies in this thread, it seems I've touched a nerve.

I completely understand the angle of shoppers not wanting to share their hard earned MSC/Client information. This is one very valid and understandable reason for maintaining the confidentiality aspect of the ICA. Even if there wasn't an ICA in place, veteran shoppers understandably wouldn't share this information with newbies. I personally have never asked anyone to share this coveted info and have no problem paying my dues in the pursuit of potential jobs, but that doesn't change the fact that the current method is inefficient to say the least.

So, we've identified one group who would like to maintain the status quo -- veteran shoppers. ICA or no ICA, veteran shoppers may recognize the disconnect in the industry, but for competitive reasons would like to maintain the current set-up. I get it and completely understand why this is so.

I don't think anyone is really fighting to maintain the status quo. We pretty much all agree that the shoppers are underpaid for the level of work required...and that, I think, is the true disconnect.

Pairing shoppers with assignments is the job of schedulers. They are free to announce the clients if they choose to. As a shopper wanting work, your job is more to create as many scheduler connections as possible, and signing up with as many companies as possible is often the best way to do that.

However, the way MSing works best includes keeping some element of 'mystery' to the availability. It's not really to punish new shoppers or frustrate existing ones. It's because shoppers who cherry-pick the assignments for only locations they want to shop are usually not very dedicated shoppers. They are often just looking for a discount at an outlet they would go to anyway, and probably favor above others...or they are someone connected with the outlet in another way. If you are an experienced MSer willing to shop just about any assignment offered to you because you like the company, or the pay, or the scheduler, you are probably a better prepared and more impartial shopper.

SteveSoCal, nice, well thought out post.

I would offer that shopper pay is a separate disconnect from the one that I posted about. Perhaps, in the coming months we can brainstorm 'industry challenges'. We all know that many MSCs and Scheduling companies read this forum and you never know when a seed that is brought to light will sprout...

Discussing one issue at a time would probably yield more focused and productive solutions then trying to lump all shortfalls into one thread. I believe that discussion would derail pretty quickly...

I think just about every discussion derails rather quickly, but that's the joy of this forum

My point is that the unavailability of who-shops-who information is not a disconnect at all. It's specifically designed that way to yield more impartial results. You're attempting to address something that isn't disconnected. The industry doesn't have a problem connecting shoppers to the shops they want. It has a problem of not offering an adequate incentive to perform the shops. There are plenty of shoppers out there for every assignment.

At this point in my MS career, it's not really an issue to know who shops who. If you sign up with every single company, do good work and follow job boards for a few years, you pretty much see everything available. I recently ran across the company shopping a new burger outlet near me that I had been hoping was shopped,. The problem is that I just don't like the shop. It doesn't reimburse nearly enough, has some crazy requirements and not enough flexibility with available dates. So now I have the answer to that question, but I don't like the answer. My solution is to take the jobs that I like better for the outlets I don't like as much and hope that in the new year, the client switches MSCs or changes the shop requirements.

There was another thread over the Summer that I enjoyed greatly and found to be particularly enlightening. It basically asked how many MSCs you actively worked with. I was quite surprised to learn that many seasoned shoppers who were signed up with the magic 200+ companies, only actively worked with a handful of those companies each year. By handful, I would say the majority worked for 20 or less. That works out to approximately 10% of all companies signed up with.

If a new shopper takes the sage advice of the seasoned, veteran shoppers and signs up with 200+ companies, I believe they are likely to find a similar result. This means several things (feel free to massage the percentages to match your experiences):

#1 Some number of these companies don't have work in a shoppers locally area currently. Let's call this group 25% of the 200+

#2 Some number of these companies have clients in a shoppers area, but they are of no interest to the shopper. Maybe the type of job isn't attractive, or the pay isn't attractive, or whatever. Let's call this group 25% of the 200+ as well.

#3 The next group has shops in the shoppers area that are attractive enough to perform some test shops. After a few test shops, the shopper decides that the company really isn't right for them (for whatever reason) and decides they really don't want to work with that company on a regular basis. Let's call this group 40% of the 200+

#4 Finally, the shopper finds a group of approximately 10% that fits their particular needs and parameters (which is different for each of us).

I consider signing up with 200 companies just to find the 20 I will eventually work with to be a disconnect in the industry. I welcome and respect each of you who disagrees with my opinion, but this is still my position.

Here's one other thing to consider for the 'sign up for 200' crowd: All your personal data, including SSNs are sitting on 200+ machines, across 200+ companies, on 200+ networks, all with 200+ different 'ideas' of what computer security is and should be... I would personally very much prefer for my sensitive data to only be on the 20 (ish) companies I am currently engaged with and eliminate 90% of my personal data vulnerability on the Interweb! Even better would be for my data to be on none of these machines until such a time that it is actually needed for 1099 purposes, but I digress and that is perhaps fodder for another time...

I have read posts from many well educated, extremely intelligent, open-minded people on this forum. My hope when I posted this thread was to engage those folks who think outside the box and promulgate some potential solutions to this disconnect. I challenge all of us to put aside our preconceived ideas, put aside the way 'it's always been done', and put aside 'protecting our personal sandbox' for a while and just for a moment imagine what our industry could look like in the future...

How many job applications do you put in for regular FT work that are A) ignored, turned down, C) invited to interview, D) make you an offer and E) make you an offer you will accept. Is 10% 'work for me' bad in that context?

Comparing ICs to Employees is a no-no in this industry or so I understand...it reminds me of "We do not speak his name..." reference.

In essence each registration is an application for work . . .

To answer your question Flash, If I wanted to be an employee of an Aerospace firm, but had to apply to 180 retail, food service, construction, cellular, housing, Gov't, auto (sales, service, and assembly), law enforcement, entertainment, and sales companies in order to find the 20 Aerospace firms I was interested in, then absolutely, unequivocally, YES, that would be too many applications to fill out to find my 10%

@Flash wrote:

In essence each registration is an application for work . . .

I would have to respectfully disagree. Each registration is equivalent to simply getting a key to open the door. Once the door is open, my application on a job board is my application for work...

You are screwing up the analogy. If I only got 10% of the work I applied for I would not still be doing this. Reality is that I get 90-95% of the jobs I apply for or self select. But on a daily basis if I don't like what I am seeing I can use any of the 200+ 'employers' I have to go look and see if they have something more interesting. Based on experience I know who has clients I want to shop this year and at the end of the year I will be discovering who has clients I want to shop for next year as clients move. Nothing wrong with that at all.

@Flash wrote:

You are screwing up the analogy. If I only got 10% of the work I applied for I would not still be doing this. Reality is that I get 90-95% of the jobs I apply for or self select. But on a daily basis if I don't like what I am seeing I can use any of the 200+ 'employers' I have to go look and see if they have something more interesting. Based on experience I know who has clients I want to shop this year and at the end of the year I will be discovering who has clients I want to shop for next year as clients move. Nothing wrong with that at all.

I think my analogy is spot on. But if it isn't, it is because you cannot compare employees to ICs as you are trying to do. Employees only work for one company, not 200+. In fact, many employees in competitive fields sign NCAs which specifically prohibit them from working for other companies. I think the MS field is extremely competitive and would guess that NCAs would be widely in use for employees.

Working for 200 employers would guarantee you 200 jobs with 200 salaries. Signing up for 200 MSCs guarantees you 0 jobs with 0 income. Hence my key analogy...

By signing up with 200 MSCs I am volunteering to receive IC job offers from all of them. I may work for only 20 MSCs in a year, but 5-10 of them are the same ones I worked with last year and 10-15 are companies that I did not work with last year. One of the companies that I had been signed up with for 8+ years but never worked with before 2 months ago now as three major projects, one of which pays 200 plus some rewards perks per shop and guarantees me one shop per month on that project alone. At one time I did not XYZ shops for four year; then an XYZ project came along that I would never have known about without that dormant relationship! That project yielded thousands of dollars in net fees and a lot of perks last year, and is ongoing. I think that fewer than 40 shoppers have ever worked on this project so the chances of even getting a clue as to the MSC or the client are close to zero unless one has a track record with the MSC.

I think that the OP is missing the flexibility and access to the newest opportunities/chnges of MSC by clients, that my initial investment of a few hour gave me. As a newbie, 10 years ago, I did not have a calendar full of shops each week. So, each day that I had no shops I made it my job to sign up with at least 5 more MSCs. Within a month I was finding it hard to make time to sign up with more, so I used every snow day to add more.