I did a payday loan shop the other day. I'm keenly aware if the employee uses my name during the interaction or whether or not they thank me. This employee did neither. The client confronted the employee with my report and she claimed to call me Ms.XXXX several times and she definitely thanked me. Not. I told the scheduler that my name is difficult to pronounce and no one ever pronounces it correctly. I know this employee did not thank me. I have not heard back from the scheduler as of yet. I had no clue that clients shared our reports including our names with employees. This does not make me feel warm and fuzzy, for the shop was in a shady area of town and now the employee knows my name, address and phone. Are clients supposed to share reports and name the shopper when confronting an employee?

It seems that some do share this information. One of the payday loan company definitely does this. It is very obvious that they know I am a shopper ever since the first one. For this, and other reasons, I don't do these company's shops anymore.

I hope the MSC has your back on this. More and more, I am avoiding companies with a reputation of throwing their shoppers under the bus. This forum has helped immensely in that endeavor.

@TeriW wrote:

I hope the MSC has your back on this. More and more, I am avoiding companies with a reputation of throwing their shoppers under the bus.

Teri, you just can not underestimate the value of a company that works with their shoppers rather than treating them as a disposable commodity. After a decade almost all the companies I work 'for' I am actually working 'with'. Companies that are not responsive to emails, don't pay when and as agreed to without a 'heads up' that payment may be late, can not be bothered to get around to assigning shops I have requested (or let me know they have awarded the shop to others), have editors who seem to need to find something wrong to justify their existence, just are not worth bothering with. There are too many companies out there who do value their shoppers and are worth building a relationship of mutual trust.

If the MSC doesn't back me, I will refuse to do any more shops for that particular client. If it happens again with another client from the same MSC, and they do not back me up, I will likely put that MSC on the bottom of my priority list of MSCs. There is one MSC that has a couple of clients who are constant whiners, and the MSC always sides with the clients, so I have stopped doing their shops for those clients.

OP, I am with Flash. Most of the MSCs I worked for have shown that they would not sacrifice me to keep the moneyed client. If they show time and time again that they do not trust and respect you as a shopper, move on! There are a thousand and one MSCs who are worth your loyalty.
At present I am considering cutting ties with one MSC as soon as I receive my payment for shops last year.

If it's a shop in which you're required to flash an ID, which the payday loan shops usually are, then it's safe to assume that the information is now 'up for grabs' just as it would be if it were present in any other company's files. An employee could potentially use memories of the shop and/or references in the reports, which sometimes do get shared with them, to trace (sometimes even contact) the shopper. So, unless the MSC actually admitted that they shared your information with the client---and thereis often fine print in the ICAs which allows them to do this---I wouldn't assume they were directly responsible for the information being shared with the audited employee.

That being said, MSCs can ~sometimes~ also request to have the shopper's information removed from the clients' databases, or perhaps even some of the clients automatically do it on their own after a certain amount of time. For your own peace of mind, you may want to review this and other MSCs' policies before accepting future contacts. As to whether the MSCs are supposed to share the shoppers' information with the employee who has been audited, that MAY vary by rank in the company, corporate approval or disapproval, how the contract was actually worded, and the area in which the shop was performed. I would think usually not, though, for liability reasons. You should also know, in case you audit a manager or independent franchise owner, they are the ones who are going to be more likely to see the reports than the lower-ranking employees are. They are also more likely to be able to retrieve your contact information, though any employee could hypothetically do it if they have a good enough memory and/or the information was left in the system. You're taking a chance with your personal information, just like any other time when you would be exchanging it. Many shoppers won't even show ID or use real personal information on shops because of this. It's up to the shopper to decide whether or not the risk is worth accepting the contract.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2016 06:15AM by OceanGirl.

@TeriW wrote:

It seems that some do share this information. One of the payday loan company definitely does this. It is very obvious that they know I am a shopper ever since the first one. For this, and other reasons, I don't do these company's shops anymore.

Payday loan shops definitely run you some of the highest chances of being outed.

Getting back to the real crux of the matter which is proving what was, or wasn't said. I learned from James Bond's experience in issue 17 of Mystery Shopper Magazine. Living in a single party state, I now audio record all my shops, unless the instructions specifically say to not record the shop. I haven't had to send any recordings in to back me up, but I did have to tell a MSC that I had an audio recording of the shop that I could send them to back up my position. At that point, the client decided to accept the shop.

There's so much "appeasement" going on now, that you almost have to wonder if some clients are challenging x% of the reports just so they don't have to pay for the work done. So many businesses will give something away just to keep someone from posting a bad review of the business online. My God, will the world end if Joe's Shoe and Hat Emporium gets a bad review on Facebook? It won't, but you can't tell that by the way a lot of businesses act. And no, I'm not talking about not providing good customer service. I'm talking the need for businesses to have limits on what they can or will do. Nothing is free. If "Joe" has to give away a $50 pair of shoes to keep someone happy, so he doesn't get a bad review on Facebook, everyone who shops there is going to pay for those shoes. The shoe manufacturer isn't going to give Joe the shoes for free, so Joe has to make up the lost profit from somewhere.

I think it is the editor, not the scheduler raising concerns and I can bet I know the shop company and the editors name. I did a bill pay , was asked , what was our small Talk, divulged my last name and comments the teller would have remembered. Then I heard back again, "Did she say, " Hi". Or smile. Hello , if she had, I would have reported it , and I gave the teller a good report ! Deleted the Company, editor is a badger!

I agree. I do record the majority of my shops that have an interaction. I use that information to do the reports. I also make notes once leaving the store on the voice recorder. It's easy to forget or confuse assignments when doing five or more a day. If it comes down to a he said, she said, I've got backup.

I did a video taped mystery shop at an apartment community a month or so ago. The apartment community was part of a strand of apartments within the same management company. This particular shop, I recorded and the agent did not take my id, did not gather my information, and was very pleasant and personable, which I mentioned in the report, but she failed at some very important tasks! I had to contact her again to view another property which did not have a leasing office, got stuck in traffic, called to let her know I was running late and her co worker said not to worry, she would wait. I got there and she was gone. I called when I arrived and she answered and I told her I had phoned her coworker to let her know that I was stuck in traffic and I was so sorry. She was very rude to me and made me feel like I did something wrong when she was actually in the wrong by being dumb enough to leave her phone at the office so she could not be contacted to let it be know I was running behind. I remained polite and told her I would wait for her to call and reschedule,, which she never did. The stupid management company let her see the first meeting before I completed the second and she told her boss that I was very rude, dressed unprofessionally, and because of my off putting attitude that i was hard to deal with and that I outright lied about her not getting my id or follow up info on the first one...and I had it all on tape. My scheduler told me that she saw nothing I did was wrong or off putting and that i was nice and did my job correctly...BUT the management company backed her completely and now will not allow me to do anymore shops for their apartments! And it was all on tape, but they backed that little liar and my scheduler backed me! The only good thing that came about it was that I knew my scheduler had my back and that I had shopped almost every property in my vicinity and within a 100 mile radius of my area for the management company so all they did was keep me from shopping one darned apartment! Scheduler told me this sometimes happens because mystery shoppers are at times made out to be the bad guys and the companies believe their lying employees....even with video and audio evidence to the contrary. Karma will get that agent believe me, but i respect my scheduler and her superior for backing me! If your scheduler believes in you, that is all that matters....$#%@# them companies with their head up their (*(&^%$% for not believing the real truth...for it is they who will ultimately suffer the consequences...lol.

To add to my original post - I was contacted by a scheduler to do the same shop. I told her I was afraid I would encounter the same associate again. She told me to call the store to make sure she wasn't there and do the shop with a different employee. I agreed, applied and was sent an email by the scheduler that I could not do any more shops at this location because they knew I was a mystery shopper! I did nothing to reveal that I was a shopper. I am sure the client confronted the employee as to why she did not use my name or thank me and that is why the employees at this store know that I am a shopper.

I shop for a high-level company that has a local restaurant conglomerate. Apparently it is a major no-no that managers aren't on the floor visiting tables. Twice in the past year this has happened and I reported it accurately. Both times the MS company said the client was questioning that because the manager said he/she was on the floor; in the more recent situation, I had sent back the soup because it was cold (cold creamed soup? No thank you!). The server was very apologetic, offered to replace it etc., which I declined because she said the entrees were almost ready. When she presented the bill, the server again apologized and noted she took it off the bill. In the report, the Manager section asked if the manager had been involved in any problem resolution; I said no, since no manager visited the table. Yet the manager blatantly lied and said she had personally apologized, etc. When the MS company questioned me, I pointed out how long I had been shopping with them, my record with them and that I was absolutely accurate in my report. I also pointed out this had happened previously for the same restaurant chain. I never heard back and was paid for the report. Clearly, these managers must get "reamed" for not following through on problem resolution and will go to any extent to CYA,

I have had situations when the client backed the subject I evaluated. They are training the shopper to fail to see negative issues. As you can not see everything the client or editor can not harass you for making a false report. I suppose if a server dumped hot soup on you it might have to go into the report, but failing that, editors would rather NOT report bad news.

If I was the CEO I probably already know my location is having issues by the decrease in year to date comparisons and I would want a "fly on the wall" to give me a heads up on that franchise.'s performance.

I have directly mentored many people in management positions before I retired. . I offered them entrepreneurial common sense. If the people who interface directly with customers are cheerful the customer returns the smile. If the customer is not mislead and trusts the employee and the company the customer returns and refers people. If the company does not cheat the customers when a misunderstanding occurs it is more likely the customer would be co-operative rather than confrontational when you sort out the issue. No one is perfect, Admit the obvious and move on.

Repeated uncorrected issues on ether side is a problem. Did the customer deliberately slip a foreign object onto a lunch platter or did that occur in the kitchen? My job as a mystery shopper is not to interface with the MSC's clients as I previously have done, but rather to tell it like it is. If an editor is afraid their client would be upset and change my report to a Pollyanna report they are doing their client an injustice. The client should have the opportunity to fix things.

The shopper has no malice toward the company they are evaluating. A piece of litter on the floor during high volume periods should not be reported as a messy location. An employee should not have to catch the litter in mid air as it falls. However bussers that sweep crumbs and napkins and utensils under the table creating an extreme litter issue you would not want to sit in during lunch would make you want to go elsewhere. If you can not get back to work in and hour during lunch that is a problem.

Even if it is a high volume lunch or dinner hour the table, chairs, and floors should be litter free and presentable when the next guest is seated. An editor re-wrote one such report urging me to ignore cleanliness and server attitude issues as they might upset the client. A few months later that location closed as the customers would rather go to other fast casual restaurants in the same mall for lunch. I am sure the franchisee was was upset but that could have been prevented.

I had a confidentiality issue. I could not dc anything more than report that I do not set the clients standards. I mentioned what should have been negatives as positives. "I reported, "If this, that and the other thing are acceptable then I saw no negative issues" I replied "YES" rather than "NO" to those questions. I am sure the editor re-wrote the narratives.

I do not work for that company anymore, my choice.

@Piled Hip Deep wrote:

I have had situations when the client backed the subject I evaluated. They are training the shopper to fail to see negative issues. As you can not see everything the client or editor can not harass you for making a false report.

There are times when I make an observation at a nearby table and ignore it if it is a negative observation for this very reason. If it occurs directly with my party, then I can report on it knowing the full story. Otherwise, I will now leave it out of the report unless asked to look and report this behavior.

Another example would be when a server slipped and a large tray of food in white china hit the floor, shattered and went everywhere. The dining room clapped as if it was a Greek restaurant. They moved the party to a new table and picked up the table moved it and three people were quickly sweeping up the mess. I asked my server how often this happens and the answer was never. My server then stated they worked there for over a year. This is not something you want to put in the report.