Please stand behind me in this matter, Measure Consumer Perspectives pays $12 for[client name deleted] with photos, Best Mark pays $14, no photos. I have called MCP on this gouging and have received no reply. If you see such non-competitive practices, I hope you will call the company on it. Have no fear. Don't be abused.

Mod note: As was mentioned, it is against forum rules to link the MSC company with its client. It is also an ICA violation

Please read the forum rules and edit your post. "Do not reveal the clients of mystery shopping companies." Not only have you named ONE of them, you have named TWO of them.

I don't think non-competitive means what you think it means

That said, sure I'll vow to stand with you and not take any of MCPs $12shops. Of course I won't be taking them at $14 either...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2015 09:23PM by saacman5033.

@Squaggy11 wrote:

Please stand behind me in this matter, Measure Consumer Perspectives pays $12 for[client name deleted] with photos, Best Mark pays $14, no photos. I have called MCP on this gouging and have received no reply. If you see such non-competitive practices, I hope you will call the company on it. Have no fear. Don't be abused.

squaggy, you sound like a new mystery shopper with no experience. I urge you to spend some time reading here on the forum so you can learn what mystery shopping is and how it works. I think you are way off base with your post and with "calling the company on gouging." I'd be surprised if you receive a reply. And I'd be surprised if you aren't deactivated by the company.

Since we are independent contractors, we pick and choose what assignments we take based on our personal business plan. No independent contractor can be abused by what you call "such non-competitive practices" unless the contractor abuses himself. Take the shops you want. Ignore the shops you don't want. You are not an employee of any company and you are not required to accept any shop that you feel is not enough money.

All MSCs are free to offer as much or as little for payment as they choose. There is no requirement for them to compete with other MSCs. And, WOW, I sure am glad! Two large MSC regularly shop a mattress client. One pays $12 and the other pays $10. My favorite, a smaller MSC, shops the same mattress client as the other two MSCs, but they pay $34. I certainly don't want the MSCs to start talking about competition and all decide to pay $12! I want the $34!

As far as I'm concerned, the MSCs can pay whatever they want for any shops. I take the shops I want and ignore the others.

Well said, rofl, In addition to your outstanding points, Squaggy needs to understand shopping opportunities are more plentiful in some parts of the country than others. No one is going to commit to take up someone's cause when it is detrimental to their own bottom line.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2015 10:53PM by bestofbothworlds.

BMA is the absolute worst as far as low-balling.

@roflwofl wrote:

squaggy, you sound like a new mystery shopper with no experience. I urge you to spend some time reading here on the forum so you can learn what mystery shopping is and how it works. I think you are way off base with your post and with "calling the company on gouging." I'd be surprised if you receive a reply. And I'd be surprised if you aren't deactivated by the company.

roflwofl, as someone who was so recently offended by me telling another new poster that speaking harshly about a MSC for their clearly posted requirements was out of line, this response seems somewhat hypocritical. If anyone bothered to look at the previous posts by squaggy, they include a polite introduction that does speak to squaggy's MSing experience.

No matter what the syntax used was, the point that squaggy made was indeed helpful for anyone that may be a MCP shopper and not actively checking for assignments with Bestmark. squaggy, please be careful about posting the client and MSC name in the same thread in the future, but do stick around continue to point out issues like this when you see them. I offer my support in the same manner as saacman5033...

I lol'd at Best Mark.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2015 12:52AM by dixiewhiskey.

Squaggy, I found your post helpful. Thank you for being brave enough to post it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2015 01:41AM by vee.

This is a perfect example of the sort of double standard that has been discussed for years. If squaggy had posted about Sentry, the same members lecturing him/her would be running to agree and comment about how terrible Sentry and/or I am. In my opinion, it is this sort of inconsistency that makes the forum look bad.

roflwofl - you've posted that Feedback Plus was one of your favorite companies (http://www.mysteryshopforum.com/read/6/434878/435449#msg-435449) and that you have never been registered with Feedback Plus (http://www.mysteryshopforum.com/read/6/336348/443071#msg-443071). I'm curious which one it is?

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@roflwofl wrote:

squaggy, you sound like a new mystery shopper with no experience. I urge you to spend some time reading here on the forum so you can learn what mystery shopping is and how it works. I think you are way off base with your post and with "calling the company on gouging." I'd be surprised if you receive a reply. And I'd be surprised if you aren't deactivated by the company.

roflwofl, as someone who was so recently offended by me telling another new poster that speaking harshly about a MSC for their clearly posted requirements was out of line, this response seems somewhat hypocritical. If anyone bothered to look at the previous posts by squaggy, they include a polite introduction that does speak to squaggy's MSing experience.

No matter what the syntax used was, the point that squaggy made was indeed helpful for anyone that may be a MCP shopper and not actively checking for assignments with Bestmark. squaggy, please be careful about posting the client and MSC name in the same thread in the future, but do stick around continue to point out issues like this when you see them. I offer my support in the same manner as saacman5033...

Things slow today or what? Why are you looking up people's posting histories and calling them out on a thread that has nothing to do with your company? If you don't want members to think you engage in vendettas, then don't engage in vendettas.

This forum is primarily a place for shoppers to share experiences and opinions. I don't support an owner with too much time on his hands attempting to control the conversation. And I really don't support threads being deleted because someone doesn't like what is being said about their company on social media.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion and I will be hated on for appearing to defend Dave, but forum members regularly step out on tangents within threads and that seems to be accepted practice.

I made the post about roflwofl being hypocritical and Dave replied, backing it up with further detail. My post referenced the fact that roflwofl was clearly aggravated at me for lashing out at another newbie who complained about pay and posted incorrect information regarding a Sentry shop, so it is somewhat related.

To me, the most disturbing thing is that his post above is currently liked by 19 different forum members. Top of the list of popular posts of the week, in fact. Yet, it encompasses many elements that roflwofl and others were supposedly offended by in my posts; Specifically bashing a newbie & defending a MSC's right to operate how they wish. To top it off, this newbie left the forum, never to return after the bashing. Is this what the majority of us like to see in posts?

Yes, we can address it in the Sentry thread if that makes anyone feel better, but this is the most current thread where this is being discussed, and I don't think anyone wants to reopen that Sentry thread. The point remains that roflwofl posted two very contrary statements regarding Feedback Plus:

One that specifically said, "I have never been registered with Feedback Plus,"
[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

And another where he claimed just four days earlier that Feedback Plus was one of his favorite companies
[www.mysteryshopforum.com]

Both post were clearly created to discredit Dave and his MSCs, and one of them contained an outright lie.

I personally don't care which one is true, but am disturbed about that behavior coming from the very same poster who told me...

@roflwofl wrote:

If you truly want to help others on the forum, stick to the type of shopping you do, the companies you work with, and what you have first hand knowledge of.

I will ask again because I think this is an important point that truly deserves an answer; Is this the kind of posting that forum members want? Is it okay to lie as long as we somehow convince ourselves that we are doing it to "inform" other shoppers?

If you don't want MSC representatives posting here, then just have Jacob make a rule that they are limited to the job board and please remove the requirement about posting honestly!

I understand the long term bias against Dave is based on incidents that happened several years ago. It's been carefully nurtured over the years by agitating responses to threads begun by newer shoppers who have problems with his companies. The attitude is carefully cultivated, it's not going away, and we deal with it over and over.

Everybody has an opinion, and my opinion is that often the responses here to issues with his companies and the responses to Dave's posts don't quite balance with what happens when issues are posted about other companies. I believe the major difference (now, forget the past if you can) is that Dave's companies have a face and he is that face. We have a real person we can savage and we do.

One problem is that many on the forum do not like for anyone except shoppers to post here or be here. Editors, Schedulers, and MSC owners are many times regarded with suspicion and skepticism, as though they are adversaries instead of partners in what we do. I can see why some companies prohibit their employees from participation here, and I am seeing more and more ICA agreements with specific clauses regarding shoppers posting on forums. My concern is that we will eventually be signing agreements that prohibit forum participation altogether.

Mary,
Just for the record, it is not just shoppers who don't want company owners or schedulers to post here who have had serious objections to Sentry and to its owners' posts. Some of the most serious negatives have been posted by posters who welcome other MSC owners and schedulers since many of the owners and schedulers are making very positive contributions. I am sure that you would not want readers to think that you are equating differences with Sentry/Dave with a general hostility towards owners and/or schedulers.

walesmaven

Could you please share with me the negative contributions I've made to this forum in the last five years? Is posting our side of an issue raised by a forum member considered a negative contribution?

@walesmaven wrote:

Mary,
Just for the record, it is not just shoppers who don't want company owners or schedulers to post here who have had serious objections to Sentry and to its owners' posts. Some of the most serious negatives have been posted by posters who welcome other MSC owners and schedulers since many of the owners and schedulers are making very positive contributions. I am sure that you would not want readers to think that you are equating differences with Sentry/Dave with a general hostility towards owners and/or schedulers.

I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. There is a difference between an owner/scheduler/editor or any other employee of a MSC either defending their company or making a contribution to this forum. It is an entirely different matter when an owner makes every effort to identify an anonymous member and/or does anything else here which smacks of censorship, such as suggesting a thread might be deleted. This is not Volition. Every effort is made to be sure more than one side of a story is told. Unfounded rants are given about as much consideration as they deserve, virtually none. Other companies are lambasted, other companies are defended. No one company should be given any consideration over another.

Let's also look at the bottom line here. The forum is for contractors to discuss MSCs. The only influence we may or may not have is whether someone decides to sign on as a shopper. We are not influencing potential clients. Unless Sentry can prove they have a dearth of shoppers which is impacting their ability to do business and can prove it is a direct result of this forum, why is such a big, stinking deal made of every perceived slight?

LisaSTL

You seem to be really concerned with my comment about deleting the thread. This was a JOKE using SARCASM. I'm sure if you check with bgrif and Mary they will confirm this. As fast as censorship goes, I'd be more worried about posts being deleted by the mods. Last year, when a comment about the private, invitation-only section of the forum, the comment was promptly deleted along with some comments from other forum members.

If you are suggesting that either of my companies are given more consideration than other companies here, well, I think the facts dictate otherwise.

Edited to add:

How are you so confident that you are not influencing potential clients? In addition, this site does impact potential shoppers. Based on that, it is really that unreasonable for any company to expect information posted on a public site to be accurate.

In aprilredbird's post, she made reference to guidance provided by our editor related to the description of the meal. Another forum member posted that she found the description requirement "weird and creepy". The fact is that our editor never asked for the description the way it was conveyed by the shopper, therefore, I posted the exact wording for the forum to review. Did I denigrate the shopper in any way? criticize them? No I didn't. But that fact isn't stopping your criticism of me.

@LisaSTL wrote:

I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. There is a difference between an owner/scheduler/editor or any other employee of a MSC either defending their company or making a contribution to this forum. It is an entirely different matter when an owner makes every effort to identify an anonymous member and/or does anything else here which smacks of censorship, such as suggesting a thread might be deleted. This is not Volition. Every effort is made to be sure more than one side of a story is told. Unfounded rants are given about as much consideration as they deserve, virtually none. Other companies are lambasted, other companies are defended. No one company should be given any consideration over another.

Let's also look at the bottom line here. The forum is for contractors to discuss MSCs. The only influence we may or may not have is whether someone decides to sign on as a shopper. We are not influencing potential clients. Unless Sentry can prove they have a dearth of shoppers which is impacting their ability to do business and can prove it is a direct result of this forum, why is such a big, stinking deal made of every perceived slight?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2015 05:30PM by Sentry Marketing.

Sentry, how many companies do you own? I am not familiar with this ongoing forum battle.

Why is such big deal made of every perceived issue with Sentry and why is every answer Dave provides not good enough? And yes, I do equate differences with Dave/Sentry/Feedback with general hostility to MSCs. Standing aside and watching, it's hard to understand why everything Dave says and why everything anyone says about Sentry is taken in the worst possible light. As far as his suggestion that the Sentry thread in question be deleted, that thread was absolutely not our finest hour. I am entitled to my opinion that deleting it would be an excellent move.

If all you have to worry about is a bunch of anonymous and not so anonymous shoppers dissing you or your company, life can't be all that bad.

Sentry,
Nothing in my post accused you of anything negative. I was commenting on not confusing those who have said negative things with those who don'y want owners or schedulers here; the two groups may have some overlap but they are NOT the same. Some who have posted negative views of your company (s) are also folks who generally welcome owners and schedulers here. I was commenting solely on Mary's post and said nothing about my opinions of you or you company. I trust that I am allowed to name your company n a post without saying anything negative or positive about it? ?? I may think that Mary is wrong about "equating" the two groups entirely; I said not one word about you.

You're right, Lisa. In the overall business of mystery shopping, the shoppers on this forum cannot possibly be important except to each other. There are not enough of us to matter compared to the millions who are shopping. Our ongoing failure to change or affect any of the policies we dislike proves how truly inconsequential we are.

Jacob has worked hard to build this forum to this point and finally the forum is paying it's way and rewarding him for years of attentive and previously fruitless work. I would really like to see it go forward in a positive way and we can all contribute to that journey forward. On the other hand, we can also contribute to a hostile, backbiting, and confrontational site without respect. Our choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2015 05:52PM by MDavisnowell.

wales -

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

I think that we are also getting away from the point that the negative attitude toward Dave's particular MSCs has been supported with more than one proven fabrication, and that those fabricated details have been vehemently defended with little or no concern for the truth being told.

Even if the forum is essentially or even strictly for contractors to discuss MSCs, why is the rule about not posting clients and MSCs in the same thread so strongly defended while the rule about telling the truth can apparently be skirted when it's deemed appropriate for a poster's argument?

As far as the forum attitude toward MSC staff goes, it has long been problematic and adversarial. My posts were treated with skepticism from the moment I arrived here due to the fact that I was last employed by an MSC as a staff member more than a decade ago, and after seven years of contributions to the forum as a shopper, I am still singled out for it at times and accused of being biased toward MSC operators.

Well, now, Steve, there you go assuming truth is the objective.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

I think that we are also getting away from the point that the negative attitude toward Dave's particular MSCs has been supported with more than one proven fabrication, and that those fabricated details have been vehemently defended with little or no concern for the truth being told.
.

A quick look at the fifteen most discussed companies on this forum will show anyone that Sentry ranks at the bottom of the list. Anyone who spends any time here has to admit many of those ranking higher have much more negative feedback and much less vehement defenders. When was the last time you saw anyone, let alone two anyones, rabidly defending Intellishop or EPMS or Gapbuster or Market Force? And how about GFK? Lately they have the ignominy of dozens of threads complaining about damn near everything they do. I think we can get off the Sentry pity party now.

When is the last time blatantly false information was posted about any of the companies you mention? Are those companies treated with the animus directed toward my company? I don't think so. Your conflating two totally different situations.

Your comment about the "Sentry pity party" is just another example of how anyone who posts anything remotely supportive of our company is attacked and marginalized. If you think (and you certainly seem to) that Sentry, Feedback and I deserve the disrespect heaped on us in this forum, then please point out posts of mine in the last five years that demonstrate the reason for such treatment.

edited to add:

Is there another company on this forum who has been on the receiving end of the six year vendetta that we have been subject to?

@LisaSTL wrote:

A quick look at the fifteen most discussed companies on this forum will show anyone that Sentry ranks at the bottom of the list. Anyone who spends any time here has to admit many of those ranking higher have much more negative feedback and much less vehement defenders. When was the last time you saw anyone, let alone two anyones, rabidly defending Intellishop or EPMS or Gapbuster or Market Force? And how about GFK? Lately they have the ignominy of dozens of threads complaining about damn near everything they do. I think we can get off the Sentry pity party now.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2015 06:39PM by Sentry Marketing.

Dave, I know you feel under attack, but your defensive stance is quite off-putting.

How about the fact you are posting on a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with Sentry simply because roflwofl posted here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see you are being petty and vindictive. I rarely read a Sentry thread and comment on them even less. My opinion has been entirely formed by your behavior over the years not by anything written by any member. For Chrissakes, you PMed me after I "liked" a humorous post. The reason, it was written by someone I can only assume you consider one of your arch nemeses. So yes, it's time for the pity party to stop and for you to give it a rest. No doubt your dog with a bone attitude is going to turn off way more potential shoppers than anything I could say in a hundred threads.

And having forum members post inaccurate information (this is being kind) that is defended by other forum members is pretty off-putting as well.

@bestofbothworlds wrote:

Dave, I know you feel under attack, but your defensive stance is quite off-putting.