First, I appreciate hearing everybody's thoughts on my questions.... So, I have another.
My objective: I want to make sure that I remain in good graces with the MSP.

A week ago, I did a shop at a large retailer and my instructions were crystal-clear that I was to assess an employee of that retailer - and NOT a representative of a the client's company, who was assigned to the store at the time. My scheduler agrees with this assessment.

I followed the guidelines and evaluated an employee for the large retailer. The employee effectively knew nothing about the topic on which I was to evaluate him. However, after two or three minutes of effectively embarrassing himself, he realized he had a problem and introduced me to the client's representative. Not wishing to out myself as a shopper, I spoke with the client's representative as would a real customer. I then departed - I had everything I needed from the retailer's employee.

Today, the editor requested that I rewrite the report as an evaluation of the client's employee because I spent more time talking with him. At the top of the guidelines this MSP is very good about listing the "Primary Objective" of the shop. In this case said objective is to evaluate the retailer's employee. The second issue is that this was a week ago, I didn't take notes on this fellow as I was explicitly NOT supposed to evaluate him and I've done 20 shops since then. I won't be able to properly remember the details.

Am I out-of-line to ask the editors to confirm that the understand that their request is contrary to the guidelines? Should I be annoyed that I am being asked to do a second (not assigned) evaluation, when I did the assigned one very well? This MSP has been very good to me and, by no means, do I want to rock the boat, but... I also don't want the client to get my report and reject it because it would be completely against the assignment.

Thoughts?

It sounds like the editor is inexperienced. The request was posed as an off-hand request, when in fact the request represents a different shop entirely. I suspect emailing the editor the Primary Objectives from the guidelines would clear up the misunderstanding. Good luck.

a week since u did shop so it couldve gone to client & client is requesting rewrite of shop. In future U should always write notes on whole shop not just what u think is important. Keep notes & completed report until u get paid at very least. Was asked a ? about 6 weeks after shop date & i was able to provide answer 'cause I kept detailed notes.

If this is a request via email, I would copy my scheduler in on the response and state something along the lines of "Since the primary objective was to evaluate the store employee, when that employee turned me over to the client's employee, I did not take extensive notes. The store employee was not able to tell me about _________, which was when they referred me to the client's employee, Ann. Ann explained about __________ and about ___, ____ and _________. During this time the store employee (did/did not) stay with us to hear what Ann was telling me. Ann was poised, confident and professional."

The editor isn't asking a question about the original shop; they are requesting a new report based on a new target that the guidelines specifically said not to shop. If in fact the editor isn't simply mistaken, then the client is getting two shops for the price of one.

My take on this was to just evaluate the employee (as you did), and write about that encounter. The store would have then known to re-train him. I have had a "newbe" ask another sales rep., questions he may not have known, then you could have decided which one to write about. They are looking to re-train, but I would not have spoken to a higher up that was not to be evaluated. Maybe you can re-do this job. Good luck!

Well, I resubmitted the report last night, based on the incorrect employee.... I got a clarification from the editors this morning: They intentionally put a wrong instruction into the guidelines to prevent shoppers from directly asking for the client's employee instead of trying to engages with the retail outlet's employee. They wanted to make sure that I intentionally went to a retail employee first. I wish they had just put that in the instructions, instead of making a false guideline... Aargh.

That is not only the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in this business, it is actually fraud on the part of the MSC. You wrote a report based on the guidelines you agreed to then had to write a second report. I agree most of us would not be so focused on the interaction with the "incorrect" employee.

I agree that is complete fraud by the MSC if that is indeed what they are doing.

I would ask for double fee since you basically had to write two reports.

@MFJohnston wrote:

Well, I resubmitted the report last night, based on the incorrect employee.... I got a clarification from the editors this morning: They intentionally put a wrong instruction into the guidelines to prevent shoppers from directly asking for the client's employee instead of trying to engages with the retail outlet's employee. They wanted to make sure that I intentionally went to a retail employee first. I wish they had just put that in the instructions, instead of making a false guideline... Aargh.

I'm not sure I'm buying the editor's "explanation." Makes zero sense. Any chance the scheduler can shed light? Do you care to share the name of the MSC so we know to avoid them?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2016 07:01PM by ChrisCooper.

I'd rather not share the name of the MSP - it's a well-respected company and I suspect that this is not common for them. My scheduler did a wonderful job relaying my questions and concerns to the editor and asked for a clarification herself as she agreed with my concern. I do enjoy working with the MSP and really don't wish to trash them: they are human.... I posted here because I was trying to navigate an interesting situation and am new enough to the community that I wanted to make sure that I didn't mis-step too badly. (No, that doesn't mean that I wasn't frustrated.)

You are correct to try to sort it all out behind the scenes for now. The editor could be confused and given you misinformation. It doesn't change the fact you followed the guidelines as contracted and were forced to write another report. Whether the editor was at fault or not, you deserve some additional compensation.

If the guidelines were really written incorrectly they are guilty of fraud. What shoppers, schedulers and editors sometimes forget is each shop is an individual contract. While I'm not an expert in contract law, my understanding is any changes must be agreed to by all parties or the contract must be renegotiated. You agreed to evaluate and report on one employee only, not two. I would like to see them pull the same stunt on any other contractor. Get a painter to sign a contract to paint your living room then tell them it was really the dining room so they could just do it at no additional charge.