dcrector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, Dee seems to be an expert. No matter what I
> say she always has to give her expert opinion. I
> find it interesting.
Wow. I am glad you find me so intelligent and interesting.
>I have no idea what Dee is
> talking about when she said I did her a huge
> favor, since I do not know her real name. It
> sounds as though she is saying I deactivated her,
> but how can I do that if she hides behind her
> screen name?? If I misread this then I
> apologize.
>
You did not misread this. I had never shopped for your firm, but had been signed up for a few years. I logged in to deactivate myself, and found that your firm had deactivated me already. You can claim you don't know who I am,
but seriously, I doubt that. I have given enough info about myself here to make me easy to figure out, and I have had one shopper from here whom I had never interfaced with find my real persona, not my shopper one, ON FACEBOOK...and they did not have near the amount of info an MSC has about me.
We have also seen, both here and on Violation, shoppers deactivated for what they have written on forums.
> Now, to answer your question.
>
> To start, I can only remark on my company. I don't
> want to assume what other companies do. That is
> between the company and the shopper.
>
> In my contract the client has a period of time to
> review their shops. If after that time there are
> no disputes then the shop is considered a valid
> shop and the shopper is paid.
>
> If it is a matter of the client not liking a shop
> score the shopper is given the benefit of the
> doubt and will be paid.
Well, that is better than you initially made it sound.
> But here are some
> examples of when a shopper won't be paid and we
> have taken a hit. These are true stories:
>
> 1). A shopper says they conducted a shop on a
> particular day and it is proven by the transaction
> it was done on another day. The shopper altered
> the date on the receipt. Obviously the shopper
> won't be paid.
You obviously need some better shoppers.
>
> 2). The instructions were clear that the shopper
> had to purchase a particular item off the menu,
> but instead they went outside the guidelines and
> purchased something else.
Same response for this.
>
> 3). Several months ago I had an excellent (so I
> thought so) shopper do parking lot audits. She had
> been doing them for a couple of years. One
> requirement was if the lot was full the shopper
> was supposed to take a photo of the LOT FULL sign.
And no one at your firm ever caught the photo was identical? I say the blame lies with the shopper for acting fraudulently, but your firm owns some of the blame too. Obviously, you disagree. Again, you not only need better shoppers, but you need better hiring practices (spoken as an ex-10 year HR director.)
> I was contacted by the client that one of the
> photos of a shop was taken of a sign just inside
> the garage where it could only be seen by driving
> the wrong way on a one way street. The lot was not
> full but the shopper got out of her car to take
> the photo to report the lot was full. She took
> the photo and continued driving not completing the
> shop but filing a report.
> After learning this I went through almost two
> years of shops where she said the lot was full and
> noticed that she had been using the same photo
> sand falsifying the report. I paid out to the
> shopper over $1200 in shopper fees for these
> fictitious shops and had to reimburse the client.
> On a side note she is being prosecuted for theft
> by deception.
As the shopper should be. But perhaps it never should have gotten that far.
>
> If a shop is submitted to the client and
> everything has been done correctly by the shopper
> they will be paid even if the client disagrees
> with the score IF the report was done within the
> guidelines even if I do a re-shop on my dime just
> to satisfy the client.
That is fair.
> But in cases where it is
> proven a shop was falsified or if it is PROVEN the
> shop was inaccurate the shopper will not be paid.
> In these cases before any final decision is made
> we do talk to the shopper.
***Falsified*** reports aside, what would constitute "inaccurate"?
>
> My policy with my clients is necessary because
> once I pay shoppers it is nearly impossible for me
> to be reimbursed, This is why the client is given
> the time to review the shop,
>
> Hopefully this rambling has answered your
> questions.
Edited to add:
Doug, before you felt the need to come here and ram your opinions down shoppers throats on a *forum run by shoppers for other shoppers*, I had nothing but respect for you and your firm, based on the feedback of some shoppers I know and trust. However, that has all changed for me. I cannot say I feel anywhere near the same respect as if you had just stayed playing in the forums for other MSPA members.
**********************************************************************
“Lying in bed would be an altogether perfect and supreme experience if only one had a colored pencil long enough to draw on the ceiling."
~Gilbert K. Chesterton
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2010 11:36AM by dee shops.