Hi. I have a question about MarketForce. In the preliminary questions for a fast casual shop, they ask you if you've recently worked in Fast Food. Let's say that you've recently worked in food service at an amusement park that did all its own food stands. (No name brand chains on the premises.)

On the one hand, your employer couldn't be considered to be, in any way, competition for a hamburger chain, but on the other hand, you do have some insight into food preparation and service issues.

Does anyone have a theory as to whether to answer that question 'yes' or 'no'? I notice that I told the truth about my employer, and the nature of the work: food service, when I applied.

Hmmmmm. That's kind of on the edge... but, IMO, technically what you did was *not* fast food.

A food stand at an amusement park is different than a fast food chain... I think they mean direct competitors.

But, you could always email Market Force's Help Desk, and ask them. The couple of times I've written for clarifications they've been helpful.

Market Force has a lot of work and it would be smart not to get crossways. I'd check with the company, giving them all the particulars.

What MDavis said.

One should answer "Yes", until you hear back from the scheduler. Keep in mind, some amusement parks have "name brand" franchises on their lot. It would not be uncommon for amusement park food employers to possible assist other food brands in the park. To try to differentiate between where you work and where you did not work in food should not be up to the client. Also remember you have a educated advantage on the preparation, timing, or order process over an unsolicited customer. Thereby, the client may look at your observations as being bias or unfair.

Some of MFs "recent" may mean ----->"currently" or "six months to a year" or "EVER".

While MF has a lot of projects in the fire (yeah, MDN!!), try to apply for one of their other shops which might not stretch your "food" integrity into question. Some of the food questions in the "preliminary questions for a fast casual" are worded differently, so what may be implied in one food questionnaire may not be in another.

Thank you very much. This place didn't have any name brand stores anywhere on the premises, so competition isn't an issue, but I think I'd better e-mail them, just to be safe.

Speaking as someone who was in upper management at 3 different fast food chains......

When we did our annual strategic plans and marketing plans, amusement park outlets were never, ever considered competition unless they were part of a national chain.

And you can believe me when I say that we had sales, numbers of locations, consumer rankings, and profit information in graphs for EACH and EVERY brand that we considered to be 'fast food' across the entire nation.

From my experience, the food outlets in amusement venues tend to be very different in operations, speed, and quality than on-the-street restaurants. As a matter of fact, we had different operations manuals and standards for our food court/captured audience outlets.

To me the obvious answer is no.

Now that you have branded yourself as food service, tread lightly. And next time, say you work for the government. In a way, we all do.

I once asked MF about Fazoli's and was told that does not count, so assume the amusement park doesn't either.

Michael. You are not big on Honesty, Are you?

Not for or against. There are simply too many times that blind loyalty and honesty will get you burned in this business. Risk vs. benefit.

Follow-up here, and thank you, everyone, for giving me advice.

I dropped them a note, explaining, and they patted me on the back and said: "Go ahead--it'll be fine."

As I saw things, if I asked them, there were two risks:

1: I'd have to wait another two months to do fast food shops. (No big deal in the grand scale of things.)
2: I annoy them by asking a silly question. (Note that if they were angry at me for asking the question, they'd not be a good company to work for. I can see that many things are going to require clarification, in this business.)

If I don't ask them, one risk:

1: They kick me off their rolls, for not following instructions.

So, the risk of not asking looked much bigger.

Good job, Ishmael-----having worked with MF for years, I also would have been most afraid of them finding out and deactivating me for not following directions.

Michael,
Your "when it suits me" approach to honesty seems antithetical to the very basis for mystery shopping.

Walesmaven, that is not what I said. I will not lie to the harm of another. I do not bear false witness against my neighbor. This industry is built on dishonesty. Now, with your lengthy histories, I'm sure that by now you have schedulers, editors, MSC vice presidents, and other seasoned shoppers who know who you are. So I don't expect you to follow anything other than the party line.

We shop for things we are never going to buy, we announce that we own things that we really don't. We buy products with the intent of returning them. We allow commission only salespeople to go on and on about that sale that we know will never happen, just to make a buck. How is it different if I tell an untraceable lie to close the sale, to the benefit of everyone involved?

What makes these people less deserving of your "honesty"? Is it the fact that the MSC got to you first, or the fact that they are paying you to lie?

How valuable is your honesty if it can be bought for $20 and a Hero Citation?

That's just plain insulting. You were referring earlier to lying to the MSCs who are our clients. You seem to say that I do not lie to them solely becasue they would know who I am? I am proud to stand behind what I say here.

Get a life,and work on developing a little common sense.

So you think what we do is just based on lies and solves no purpose other than to line our own pockets? Is that hour spent with a new car salesperson any less valuable than two or three hours or even two to three days he or she might spend in a training seminar? After all that is what we are, an extension of the sales training offering them an opportunity to use what they have learned in a real world setting.

No, this industry is not built on dishonesty. It is quite the opposite. Clients are putting faith in us to deliver honest, objective feedback.

Michael. There are those of us who have no need to lie. I use assignments to stay current on prices and products. If I evaluate roofing at a lumber store, I keep the data as it will be helpful to me in a couple of years. There is no need to misrepresent during a dining assignment. You give an honest evaluation of the food, location and customer service.
If I was a former employee of Sears, I would not lie about this to the MSC handing out Sears assignments. There are plenty of other assignments to choose from. By lying to the MSC, you disgrace the industry and the rest of us...

Services are "bought" ...... honesty or dishonesty is not "bought" ..... a person's honesty or dishonesty is a function of his ethics. Who employs you or how much they pay you should not affect your ethics.

Reminds me of a story my Dad used to tell - he attributed it to Winston Churchill, although I've heard the same story over the years attributed to other famous men - but the point is the same.

The way my Dad told it, Sir Winston was at a society dinner seated next to an attractive young single lady. He leaned over and said "My dear, you are lovely and charming. Would you do me the honor of spending the night with me at my hotel for a million pounds?"

The young lady giggled and stuttered and said "yes, Sir Winston, I think that would be lovely."

Sir Winston said "What about for 5 pounds?"

"Sir Winston! You should be ashamed of yourself! What do you think I am?" she angrily protested.

"I think we've already established that, my dear," Sir Winston replied, "now we're just haggling over price."

Does how much we are paid determine our morals and ethics?

I *kinda* see Michael's point, not that I agree with him. I think honestly is always the best policy with MSCs. I do however, find it ironic that our relationships with MSCs rely heavily on honesty but the jobs we do for them rely heavily on lies. I mean really, how many times a day do you give a fake name or phone number? How often do you say you're looking to buy a $100,000 Porsche when you're not? How often do you tell a cell phone company that you need phones for your wife and kids when you're single?

Okay, time to weigh in here.

To Michael: There is a huge difference between failing to declare a conflict of interest, and playing the scenario required to do a MS. The former means your report might be sufficiently biased to be invalid. The latter is what MSing is all about.

Personally, I have yet to do very many, if any, of the shops that require a lot of lying. My comfort zone is restaurants (fast food and dining), some retail, and some c-store/gas stations. Is that all I will ever do? No, I do plan to move up, and I do occasionally take assignments outside my comfort zone when they look appealing in one form or another. Expanding my comfort zone to include heavy duty acting/lying is on the list but it's not going to happen overnight.

There's certainly a difference between guidelines/scenario presented as an unknown, objective customer/IC/shopper versus blatant untruths presented to an MSC. It's not even a fine line, it's black and white. Misstating age, education, employment history, income, etc., is dishonest.

When a member encourages misrepresentation to an MSC, that directs attention to his/her dishonesty. Why even bother joining this community. Posts will be disregarded.

Mystery shopping is built on trust.

Lisa STL, No, you have not summarized what I think at all. Training? two words: Competitor. Shop. I never suggested giving anything other than honest, objective feedback. Your lies are pious and told with good intentions. Got it.

MrComputer, I think you are rationalizing. No fibs told after how many hundreds of shops? I am wondering now if "keeping the data" for other purposes is an ICA violation. Doesn't matter. Are you certain that your free meals have never been paid for by a competitor? I have an MSC that requires me to pass through airport security, then remove and hide my employee badge. This is a violation of federal law. I shopped every branch of a certain bank that no longer exists. Turns out the shops were paid for by a different bank, in preparation for a hostile takeover. I was told it was a simple bank shop route. Franchise Compliance and Freeman failed to pay me for work that received perfect scores. The MS clients looked the other way. You can award these people the moral high ground if you want. I will trust my own judgement.

AustinMom, yes.

Bgriffin, why is the MSC sacred while it's ok to lie to everyone else?

Dr Squash, as you expand your comfort zone, you will expand the gray area. Good luck.

This all started with a question about a gray area question about qualifying for an MSC with a SERIOUS history of "when in doubt, deactivate." My response was cheeky, but the core remains. I agree that a blatant conflict of interest should be disclosed. I feel that it is my job as a business owner to disregard overly broad disqualifications that have no effect on my ability to provide a good product.

Another example was recently on another thread. College education required for fine dining. I don't have a college education, but I am THE demographic that uses fine dining in this area (fat white guy, wife in big hair and big heels, 40's, nice car, six figures) So rather than blindly disqualifying myself, I have taken it upon myself to use my judgement, and help the MSC get it right. The same MSC has used me to competitor shop in home, commission only salespeople. Not only were they not given the opportunity to consent through employment, but they got nothing for their time and lost money on travel costs.

What if one MSC hired you to shop a competitor MSC, and gave you a "profile" to use when you applied? What if one MSC hired you to shop a restaurant that they did not have a contract with, in order to try to lure the business away from the current provider? What if you had done work for both companies?

Wow. I'm used to personal attacks, but this is the first time anyone has tried to ostracize me. Thanks Mert.

An actor / actress makes a million dollars or more pretending to be someone they are not. A mystery shoppers makes $20.00 or more pretending to be someone they are not.
Unless you actually need an oil change, need your eye checked, eat at fast food, take your family on a trip where you need gas and a hotel.
Some shops requires to play a role others shops is just like every day normal shopping where you get pay to pay attention to details.

When an actor works, everybody knows they are watching a play, a movie. when we play our role, we make a series of untrue statements to our targets and everyone standing between us and our targets. These untrue statements have an effect on their future. Maybe just a butterfly effect, or maybe they loose their job. Maybe somewhere in between.

I will lie to whomever you tell me to, but I won't lie to ~you~.

Sorry, but our untrue statements do NOT have an effect on anyone's future. They preserve our anonymity and enable the client to know, consistently, store by store, how their employees handle a given scenario.

Am I "lying" when I do a JIB shop when I never, ever eat at JIB in real life?

If a bank needs to know if a potential customer with $500,000 to invest is told about "Fluffix Funds" and given the proper, government-required "your investment could lose value" disclaimer every single time, it would take them years to find 100 people with $500,000 to invest who are willing to talk to a banker about it. So they ask us to pretend, so the bankers get lots of practice in offering "Fluffix Funds" and giving the right disclosures. That way when the one customer a year who actually has $500,000 to invest comes in, the bankers are in practice and know exactly what to do. But yes, it requires someone to lie, and for the banker to not know who is a liar and who is a real customer so they treat them all the same. But the bankers know that some people will be lying. So is it really even a lie if they know we are lying? Do I really think that people actually go into those blue banks and say, "Tell me about overdraft protection"? Wouldn't that normally come up in the context of opening an account? So I go in and perform my role as "Potential customer" and they deliver the lines assigned to "Banker who knows Potential Customer is a Mystery Shopper" and the audience (the MSC) cheers and the client knows they are less likely to get fined by government inspectors because they make sure the bankers get plenty of rehearsals every year.

There is lying that has a moral consequence and lying that serves a valid public purpose.

Our lying does not have a moral consequence, and if you run onto a shop where you feel it does (some competitor shops may cross that line) then don't take that shop.

Lying as part of a role play and lying to get a job are two very different lies.

I think Michael was simply trying to make a point, as he himself said, being "cheeky" about it. I'm not sure he's actually encouraging people to blatantly lie.... I'm with bgriffin on this--I see his point, although I may not agree with him. Although, I read into into his post a "devil's advocate" position. But maybe I'm misreading that!

This is another one of those times I just don't get it. Why is everyone so upset--to the point of sounding angry-- just because Michael C stated his viewpoint? The ironic thing is that Michael was honestly stating his opinion.....

(heart)