I've shopped with Maritz for several years and never had any issues until today!

I submitted an invoice and forgot to put my product expense (I left it at zero). Sent a message through their website right after submitting the invoice and it wasn't included in the last two checks I got. So Julie answers their phone and I told her what happened. She begins telling me I should write down the job IDs and I agree, but I told her I thought the message I sent through the Maritz website that included the job ID was enough. She then says, "I fixed it. Bye" and she hangs up!! I call back because well I wanted to know what she meant by I fixed it. Am I getting paid? I call again and get Julie. She quickly gives me the job ID and hangs up! Still not telling me if I'll be paid or what happens next. So I call back because that is not cool!

I get someone else from team 3 and they pass me to their supervisor, Chris. She was apologetic and resolved my issue, telling me I would get an email with what happens next. If it weren't for Chris I would have canceled the remainder of my shops I have, which are plenty of them. I can't believe Julie's lack of professionalism! I have nothing left to do but laugh because I cannot believe this job would get to her like that. I wasn't rude, shouting, or raising my voice. Next time I will be extra careful when submitting my invoices and taking better notes but come on these things happen, us shoppers sometimes make mistakes or need help. Good riddance!

You would cancel all your shops because of a $1.00 product reimbursement? While it sounds like the scheduler could have been more helpful, it also would seem to be a Pyrrhic victory or cutting your nose off to spite your face, take your pick. For what it is worth, I have never spoken with Julie but I find the Maritz schedulers polite, helpful and efficient. Some more so than others but none rude or abrupt. I'm sure I will catch Julie one of these days and judge for myself.

You've shopped for them for years -- never had a problem, but when you do (AND it's a problem YOU caused!) you blow up?

Wow.

Personally, I think you owe Julie an apology, and maybe the supervisor one, too. Perhaps along the line of "I'm so very sorry I was out of line! I really do appreciate the help you gave me."

@ceasesmith wrote:

You've shopped for them for years -- never had a problem, but when you do (AND it's a problem YOU caused!) you blow up?

Wow.

Personally, I think you owe Julie an apology, and maybe the supervisor one, too. Perhaps along the line of "I'm so very sorry I was out of line! I really do appreciate the help you gave me."

I agree. Wow. Over-reaction. Clearly, the OP was having a bad day and took it out on an unfortunate employee who happened to answer the phone. To quoter the OP, "I have nothing left to do but laugh because I cannot believe this job would get to her like that," except I'm laughing because of how the job got to the OP like that, not the employee. It sounds like the employee helped the OP after the OP goofed, but her customer service didn't live up to the OP's standards. Oh, my. These things happen.

It is good that the OP realizes she caused the problem and she has resolved "Next time I will be extra careful when submitting my invoices and taking better notes."

Lol wow you guys. I know I caused the problem, but I didn't deserve to be hung up on like that. I was considering canceling my shops with them because this is the first time I've needed help with a payment and it was such a hassle. What if I needed help in the future? I wouldn't want to continue working for an MSC that treats their shoppers like that when they need help. I guess I should have mentioned that I had called them and left message three times before that in the last two weeks, but I was just more in awe about Julie hanging up on me. Who does that? Also the person that answered from team 3 said it wasn't the first time they were having issues with the admin team which is why he wanted to transfer me to his supervisor. I guess I'm not the only that had a similar experience.

@rolf I'm not the one having a bad day at all! I don't know about your standards but if the rep hanging up on me is okay with you then obviously there is a big difference between our standards.
@jake it wasn't $1.00.
@smith I admitted to Julie that I was wrong and I had made the mistake. I'm out of line because I dared to call the MSC for help. Okay I guess.

BTW Julie isn't a scheduler she is an admin rep. Their schedulers are really great and easy to work with. I really don't understand you three that replied saying I'm the one that owes an apology when I didn't mistreat Julie at all but whatever you're entitled to your opinion and I was just sharing my experience.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2016 09:12PM by Nataliekorn.

Natalie, After re-reading your post it seems that the problem started when you failed to include the visit ID and product amount of $6.00 or so. Both, of course, are your responsibility. You then attempted to correct it with emails and phone calls and were unhappy with Julie's apparent lack of empathy although she did say she fixed it.

If you feel it is in your best interest to jettison an otherwise profitable relationship with a MSC over $6.00 and hurt feelings then do it. But this is my advice and another metaphor, don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

@jake So you are okay with being hung up on intentionally not once but twice? Regardless of you you're speaking with that is poor phone etiquette in my book. I didn't need empathy, and I didn't even mind the lecture she gave me because I knew it was my mistake, I just wanted to know if I was getting my bottom line...paid, and Julie failed to tell me that.

The beauty of mystery shopping is that I can work with whomever I want to and if it weren't for the supervisor I would have cut ties with Maritz and I wouldn't have looked back! I don't depend on this for income though, which is probably why I'm willing to cut ties easily.

I am not privy to both ends of the conversations, actually either end, but I suspect I would have been able to handle it in such a way that I would have gotten the information I needed without being hung up on. But then perhaps you are right and Julie is just an obnoxious, uncaring, inept person unable to carry on a civil discourse. In that case cutting ties may be the best solution. Six dollars be damned.

@Nataliekorn, what state do you live in? Cali?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2016 12:39AM by Sybil2.

Perhaps Julie needed to answer other calls since you mentioned that she was adm. rep? She was probably instructed to answer as many calls as possible.. Did you consider other factors that may cause Julie to hang up abruptly with you?

@jake I just don't put up with that kind of stuff. Whether it's $6 or $20. If I do the work I want to get paid, and if people are going to be rude I would rather avoid it.

@catgranny The first time sure maybe it was an accident, but the second time? I highly doubt it. The first call was 2 minutes long, the second 36 seconds. I didn't take up much of her time. Not sure what her deal was.

@sybil I'm in California.

You cutting ties with MCX would have hurt no one. Julie "hanging" up on you abruptly was your perception. Julie told you she will fix it. Did you accept her fixing skills? No, you had to call back. Again she says she'll fix it. There was no need for you to be on the phone longer than that.

According to you with all the emails, phone calls and badgering back and forth, its a wonder no one at MCX did not know what you were complaining about. And "you don't put up with that kind of stuff". You are really making a mountain out of a molehill.

I am sure the schedulers and admin reps have a lot more assignments or projects to be concerned with than one shopper whom does not know how to fill out an invoice correctly. Especially after shopping with them after several years.

You really should cancel your "plenty" shops, You don't need the income. And MCX won't miss you.

@Sybil2--->I am in Rhode Island

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2016 05:07AM by sojo917.

I think it's pretty rude to drag a person who cannot defend themselves through the mud on a public forum over "poor phone etiquette" . That says a lot more about who you are then who she is.

Lol if you guys find hanging up on people acceptable behavior I wonder how you evaluate customer service on assignments. All great ratings for everyone!

I think it is about time for all these forum members to do a collective hang-up on Nataliekorn. The obsessing whining has taken up way too much of our valuable time.

I'm with Ms. Korn.

I don't know what companies you are evaluating, and it makes no difference if it is a QSR or a five star property,but I expect interactions - whether they be over the telephone, face to face or online chat, to end with being asked, "Is there anything else I can assist you with?" Anything less would be poor customer service, not to mention a lack of good manners and courtesy.

Julie is in a position to provide customer service to, I would think, internal and external clients. Her seeming lack of commitment to basic principles of customer service, to say nothing of her lack of courtesy and kindness towards others, is glaring and completely unacceptable.

If you score this type of behavior as acceptable on your evaluations/shops, you are doing the client(s) a huge disservice.

I would have done exactly what Ms. Korn did. I would have called back to clarify how the issue was "fixed". If the second call was concluded in the same manner, I would have brought it to a member of leadership's attention. I have done this both personally and professionally, and will continue to do so, as I would not like another person to be treated in the same manner, and I would presume, based on Julie's actions that she has and will continue to treat others in the same manner.

Yeah, Julie needs a little "coaching". And good for Maritz for addressing the issue as they did.

@Nataliekorn wrote:

if you guys find hanging up on people acceptable behavior I wonder how you evaluate customer service on assignments

@Professional Guest wrote:

I'm with Ms. Korn.

I don't know what companies you are evaluating, and it makes no difference if it is a QSR or a five star property,but I expect interactions - whether they be over the telephone, face to face or online chat, to end with being asked, "Is there anything else I can assist you with?" Anything less would be poor customer service, not to mention a lack of good manners and courtesy.

Yeah, Julie needs a little "coaching". And good for Maritz for addressing the issue as they did.

I agree with you about telephone manners and courtesy, but keep in mind that in this instance, Nataliekorn is not the customer. Maritz is Nataliekorn's customer.

Nataliekorn in this instance is kind of like the sales rep at a store whose customer cut her short and left without smiling after she said thank you. Nataliekorn felt that her customer owed her more respect and wanted her banned from the store. Sometimes our customers do not behave exactly like we want them to, but they are still the customer and we are still the service provider.

"Julie is in a position to provide customer service to, I would think, internal and external clients."

Ms. Korn is Julie's, and by extension, Maritz's internal client.

Your example above seems flawed. Ms. Korn is not the sales rep. Julie is the sales rep, and in the instance outlined above by Ms. Korn, the sales rep did not "say thank you". As a customer, you have a right to leave without smiling if you do/did not receive good customer service. You also have a right to not "shop" at a "store" that treated you in that manner. Whether or not the "store" cares, that's another story, but customer acquisition AND retention is expensive and a key metric that is measured, as is customer service.

@Jay C wrote:

Nataliekorn in this instance is kind of like the sales rep at a store whose customer cut her short and left without smiling after she said thank you. Nataliekorn felt that her customer owed her more respect and wanted her banned from the store. Sometimes our customers do not behave exactly like we want them to, but they are still the customer and we are still the service provider.

@Professional Guest wrote:

"Julie is in a position to provide customer service to, I would think, internal and external clients."

Ms. Korn is Julie's, and by extension, Maritz's internal client.

Your example above seems flawed. Ms. Korn is not the sales rep. Julie is the sales rep, and in the instance outlined above by Ms. Korn, the sales rep did not "say thank you". As a customer, you have a right to leave without smiling if you do/did not receive good customer service. You also have a right to not "shop" at a "store" that treated you in that manner. Whether or not the "store" cares, that's another story, but customer acquisition AND retention is expensive and a key metric that is measured, as is customer service.

Clearly, I did not explain my line of thought very well. I apologize.

My point is that Nataliekorn is not Maritz's customer. As an independent contractor providing a service to Maritz, Maritz is Nataliekorn's customer. Because she is not employed by Maritz, she is not an internal customer.

Nataliekorn made an error and created a problem for her customer. The problem Nataliekorn created caused her not to be paid a reimbursement. When she reached out to her customer to explain the problem, the customer (Julie) helped her fix the problem. Ms. Korn's customer was not as warm and polite as she wished.
Ms. Korn certainly has a right to choose not to do business with her customer any longer.

My analogy that Ms. Korn was the provider (perhaps it was too difficult to understand when I called her the sales rep at a store) is that Ms Korn created a problem for her customer. When the customer helped her fix the problem, she didn't feel the customer was warm and fuzzy enough with her.

My point is that the Customer is the Customer, and in this case, Nataliekorn is not the customer. Martiz is the customer and Nataliekorn created the problem in the first place. It should have been Nataliekorn falling all over herself apologizing for creating a problem for her customer.

@CoffeeQueen wrote:

I think it's pretty rude to drag a person who cannot defend themselves through the mud on a public forum over "poor phone etiquette" . That says a lot more about who you are then who she is.

I agree. Almost everyone is taking one side of this story to be the truth. I would like to hear Julie's account of the conversation before making any judgements one way or another.

I understand what you're saying. No apologies necessary.

"Sometimes our customers do not behave exactly like we want them to, but they are still the customer and we are still the service provider." - you

"Julie is in a position to provide customer service to, I would think, internal and external clients." - me

Ms. Korn is Julie's, and by extension, Maritz's internal client/CUSTOMER.

However, and actually, The "Client" = Maritz's EXTERNAL CUSTOMER. Ms. Korn = Maritz's INTERNAL CUSTOMER.

Now if you think of Ms. Korn as the (internal) customer, and Maritz as the service provider, which they are, then I agree with your comment.

It seems to me that Julie's role at Maritz is to provide customer service to Maritz's internal customers; otherwise why would she be answering calls? I'm not sure if her role is external customer-facing; I would hope not, if she treats internal customers in the same manner that she treated Ms. Korn.

Hey, I get it. I, too, have made mistakes - many that blow Ms. Korn's example out of the water, but I have owned up to them, as I believe Ms. Korn did, and requested assistance. I have done so professionally, with courtesy and respect. In return, I expect to be treated professionally, with courtesy and respect. It seems clear to me that this is not what transpired when Ms. Korn contacted Martiz's representative requesting assistance and insight.

From what I can deduce, Ms. Korn writes well. If I were a MSC I would want to retain her services as I would think that it took (considerable?) resources to attract, recruit and train her to complete assignments in the method we subscribe to. It would also be in my best interest to ensure that people within my organization treat EVERYONE professionally, with empathy and courtesy.

*** Edited to change CUSTONER to CUSTOMER.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2016 04:03AM by Professional Guest.

Julie is neither an editor nor a scheduler. I'll bet she has no idea that she is being publicly maligned using her real name. I'm not sure if Natalie Korn is the OP's real name or not. If it isn't, then it's truly unfair for OP to remain anonymous while denigrating someone else.

And as was mentioned above, the other party isn't being given a chance to state her side. You called her 3 times in a row. That's annoying. imo, you earned the behavior you received.

@ChrisCooper wrote:

Julie is neither an editor nor a scheduler. I'll bet she has no idea that she is being publicly maligned using her real name. I'm not sure if Natalie Korn is the OP's real name or not. If it isn't, then it's truly unfair for OP to remain anonymous while denigrating someone else.

And as was mentioned above, the other party isn't being given a chance to state her side. You called her 3 times in a row. That's annoying. imo, you earned the behavior you received.

How did Ms. Korn earn the behavior she received when Julie hung up on her the first time?

I'm going to give Ms. Korn the benefit of the doubt. It doesn't seem that she has an axe to grind, and that she stated the sequence of events as objectively as possible when someone hangs up before inquiring if there is anything else they can assist with. I haven't had the time to read any of her other postings, as others are wont to do, so my assessment is purely prima facie.

Julie being publicly maligned? Seems like the interaction was simply outlined with no initial malice. Now, if you're referring to my assessment of Julie's behavior- guilty. Call 'em like I see/hear/read them.

My response was to the OP, not to any other poster. I have no idea what the OP's prior posts are and didn't allude to any. My response is to the this post only. "Maligning" refers to the wording in the thread's subject. I don't think that administrative or technical staff working for the MSC are fair game for public shaming. Share the experience, but spare the person's identity. The OP has a choice of using her own name or a username, but went right ahead and outed a staffer. It would be nice if OP respected staffer's privacy and removed her name and just gave her job title.

OP received a "bye" so technically she wasn't hung up on the first time. I know that the staffer would never have hung on me three times in a row because I never would have called her three times in a row. Especially after she fixed the problem on the first call.

@kenasch wrote:

@CoffeeQueen wrote:

I think it's pretty rude to drag a person who cannot defend themselves through the mud on a public forum over "poor phone etiquette" . That says a lot more about who you are then who she is.

I agree. Almost everyone is taking one side of this story to be the truth. I would like to hear Julie's account of the conversation before making any judgements one way or another.

I agree with both kenasch and CoffeeQueen. Even hearing only the OP's side of the story, most of the respondents here disagree with the OP.

All this over $6? The OP made a mistake and cheated herself out of $6. The company fixed it. She wasn't happy with the customer service to which she believed she was entitled from her customer so she continued to phone until she got better service and more information. That still didn't make her happy. So she posted Julie's name on the internet.

My opinion is: If there's a prize for rudeness, the OP wins it hands-down. She got her mistake fixed, is getting her money, got an apology from a supervisor, but still felt it necessary to post the name of an administrative person employed by Maritz on the internet with disparaging comments. And over SIX DOLLARS and HER OWN mistake. WOW.

@Professional Guest wrote:

@ChrisCooper wrote:

Julie is neither an editor nor a scheduler. I'll bet she has no idea that she is being publicly maligned using her real name. I'm not sure if Natalie Korn is the OP's real name or not. If it isn't, then it's truly unfair for OP to remain anonymous while denigrating someone else.

And as was mentioned above, the other party isn't being given a chance to state her side. You called her 3 times in a row. That's annoying. imo, you earned the behavior you received.

How did Ms. Korn earn the behavior she received when Julie hung up on her the first time?

I'm going to give Ms. Korn the benefit of the doubt. Call 'em like I see/hear/read them.

You are willing to give Ms. Korn the benefit of the doubt, but you are not willing to give Julie the benefit of any doubt at all?

You have heard only Ms. Korn's side of the story, You have accepted her story totally, and, for those things that are questioned, you will allow her the benefit of the doubt. Julie hasn't told her story at all, but you believe Ms. Korn's perceptions are totally true and accurate and that everything she said about Julie is 100% true. Why should a mystery shopper bashing someone on an internet forum get "benefit of the doubt," but the person being bashed gets nothing?

Sounds unreasonable to me. Maybe you have an axe to grind?

@Jay C wrote:

My point is that the Customer is the Customer, and in this case, Nataliekorn is not the customer. Martiz is the customer and Nataliekorn created the problem in the first place. It should have been Nataliekorn falling all over herself apologizing for creating a problem for her customer.

I agree 100%. But I think these words of wisdom are falling on deaf ears. Nataliekorn sounds pretty set in her ways. Maybe it is a Cali thing.

@AustinMom wrote:

You have heard only Ms. Korn's side of the story, You have accepted her story totally, and, for those things that are questioned, you will allow her the benefit of the doubt. Julie hasn't told her story at all, but you believe Ms. Korn's perceptions are totally true and accurate and that everything she said about Julie is 100% true. Why should a mystery shopper bashing someone on an internet forum get "benefit of the doubt," but the person being bashed gets nothing?

Sounds unreasonable to me. Maybe you have an axe to grind?

[www.urbandictionary.com]

"To give someone the benefit of the doubt is to default to the belief that their intentions are honest, and not assume malice when there is uncertainty or doubt surrounding the circumstances." Yeah, that's what I did.

I mean, come on. I would hope this forum to be a resource, and one that is supportive of fellow shoppers/evaluators.

"Bashing" someone would be calling their experience and their subsequent, for lack of a better word, narrative as, "whining", or to dismiss their interaction/experience/perception as trivial.

Also, I don't consider recounting one's experience as "bashing". Nor do I think describing an interaction as a "really bad experience" as maligning anyone's character or dragging their name "through the mud".

I have absolutely no axe to grind with Maritz, or for that matter, Julie. Not familiar with either party. Never heard of them before I joined this forum. Don't really do any of their type of shops/evaluations.

Simply taking everything at prima facie.

And, again, "To give someone the benefit of the doubt is to default to the belief that their intentions are honest, and not assume malice when there is uncertainty or doubt surrounding the circumstances."

It is time to put this post to rest. All Shoppers and MSCs have their faults and faulters. I will lay down with the best and the worst of them.

It does not sound like korn was bashing anyone. The post was objectively wriiten. Also, how common is the Julie? There could be a dozen Julies working there. She never gave last name, so I don't understand how Julie is publicly shamed. An experience was being reported, which is what we do on this forum, good or bad. In business, it is unacceptable to hang up on someone. That is poor manners at best. I don't see how blaming korn for someone else's poor judgement is helpful. Some of the posts in this thread are unfair and mean spirited unneccessarily.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2016 07:45AM by audrialyn30.