being 'identified' versus 'revealing oneself' - what actually constitutes being 'identified', and therefore cause for non-payment? - how about an employee hunch based upon an unrealistic scenario?

is there a major difference between being 'identified' as a mystery shopper versus 'revealing oneself' as a mystery shopper?

some companies threaten non-payment if a shopper 'reveals' herself/himself as a shopper. for example, 'hi, i'm a mystery shopper and i'm shopping you'.

however, some scenarios are so unrealistic that they inherently predispose a shopper to be 'identified', even though the shopper doesn't reveal herself/himself. for example, 'hi, i'd like to buy a car here with free tune-up service, even though i live 30 miles away and there are identical dealers right near my home. here's my driver's license with proof of address.'

if a client's employee simply assumes that someone is a shopper, based upon mere statistical probability inherent within an unrealistic scenario, does this constitute 'identification'? and therefore cause for potential non-payment? let's assume that the shopper has not willfully 'revealed' herself/himself.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2012 03:10AM by vince.

I have never, to my knowledge, been identified, (so far, knock on wood!) but many posters here on the forum have commented that they were identified on one or more of their shops. My recollection is that the shopper is still paid for the shop when identified, but it means the shopper cannot shop that location again. Sometimes it means the shopper cannot shop that client again at any of the client's locations. Many MSCs do say if you announce to the client that you are a mystery shopper you will not be paid, which seems to make sense to me since it would defeat the purpose of having a mystery shopper if the mystery shopper announces herself. If you flat-out announce yourself, you don't deserve to be paid. I do agree that some MSCs have some scenarios that are downright stupid but sometimes you can easily get around the stupid scenarios. If I can't get around the stupid scenario, I try not to do the stupid-scenario shop. The car dealership 30 miles away is a good example of easy to get around - I live 50 miles away from the dealership (the one where I did actually, not as a mystery shopper, purchase my car) but I work next door....... You play the scenarios the way to choose to play them....if a scenario is too unreasonable you walk away. Know what they say "Know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away.....and know when to run."

I feel the same about banks. Calling one's 50 miles from home when there is one in town. I go with now (thanks to you people) I am a therapist or social worker working in that town.

I worry about being "known" but I just go with it. Are you a mystery shopper? Huh, what is that? Or did you open that checking you were asking about? Huh, I have never asked about a checking account here? Or do I know you? I don't think so, but my sister does bank here. blah, blah, blah. I have seen where it says you won't be paid. I don't like the thoughts of that. Especially when the scenario is a dead give away.

On buying a car 50 miles from home...My dad does that. Why? Because he doesn't like anyone in our town or trust anyone. So it is more comfortable to go out of town and deal with a stranger than potentially someone who knows him. He is a private person, he also doesn't want anyone around our town knowing how much money he makes. Weird? YES, but that is true.

Being spotted as a shopper, you do not get paid for that shop..it was not completed properly. You cannot shop that location either ever or as in my
case, for 1 year. I just again did the bar audit I was spotted on, after
a year (it went well). There seem to be senerio's that are giveaways, but that is not our fault, it is our job to pull them off. Jobs that are a distance away, like banks. I say I'm visiting my Mother who is ill, and thought I'd get some information, as in my area, it is more difficult to pop in due to my work schedule.

Yes, Irene - I agree, there are lots of things to say about a location in a different place than you live. But if a shopper feels they can't reasonably look like a customer because a location is too far away from their home, don't take the job. In all cases, before I apply/accept a job, I can see the address. A far-away location is not what I would consider a stupid scenario on the part of the MSC - they post the job, the shopper decides to apply or not. I personally don't want an MSC to look at a location I've applied for and deny me because of my distance from the location. That's my choice. Now I do agree there are some stupid scenarios, like when you are told to ask a specific question that positively screams "SHOPPER" 'SHOPPER" "SHOPPER!" But if a location is too far from you home, it's not the MSC's fault if you take the job and then don't feel comfortable presenting yourself as a customer because it is so far from your home. Look ahead and minimize the problems - if you take a job and then read the instructions to find something stupid the MSC has written in, okay, you might be blindsided, but if you accept a job at a location that you know is 50 miles away, you've made the choice to take that shop 50 miles away, so how is that a stupid scenario on the MSP's part? If you feel that taking a shop assignment 50 miles from home makes it implausible for you to actually be a customer, then you are choosing to take a risk. Just choose not to do it.

I went to a branch on a job and asked for info. for my daughter in another state, stating she's a student and I want to get info. for a checking acct.
They have a college student no fee program, I have not been questioned, just
told, "Your a good mom, doing all the legwork". They will not turn a customer away, just be confident.

Right now I am 500 miles from home and shopping for new cars, new houses and apartments. You just need a "back story" that is plausible for the location and the confifence to carry it off. It;s what route shopping is all about.

Vince

I am looking at the guidelines for a shop I am signed up to do. If I understand these guidelines (and I am not sure I do) I am bound to be identified. And I am thinking of telling the MSC I cannot do the shops for that reason. I don't think this should be cause for non-payment but I had something happen on a Remington shop (their mistakes entirely) and they refused to pay). In another situation, Bare sent me to an apartment next to one I shopped about 6 months prior. The associate I shopped the second time around brought me to the building I shopped 6 months before because she was doing her job. I went because there was no reason a real apartment shopper would not want to take advantage of this. And guess who I ran into...Yep. The associate from 6 months ago. He recognized me and I am sure I was id'd as a shopper but BARE told me it was all good. I can't shop apartments in Arlington for a while but they paid me, no problem.

vince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> being 'identified' versus 'revealing oneself' -
> what actually constitutes being 'identified', and
> therefore cause for non-payment? - how about an
> employee hunch based upon an unrealistic
> scenario?
>
> is there a major difference between being
> 'identified' as a mystery shopper versus
> 'revealing oneself' as a mystery shopper?
>
> some companies threaten non-payment if a shopper
> 'reveals' herself/himself as a shopper. for
> example, 'hi, i'm a mystery shopper and i'm
> shopping you'.
>
> however, some scenarios are so unrealistic that
> they inherently predispose a shopper to be
> 'identified', even though the shopper doesn't
> reveal herself/himself. for example, 'hi, i'd
> like to buy a car here with free tune-up service,
> even though i live 30 miles away and there are
> identical dealers right near my home. here's my
> driver's license with proof of address.'
>
> if a client's employee simply assumes that someone
> is a shopper, based upon mere statistical
> probability inherent within an unrealistic
> scenario, does this constitute 'identification'?
> and therefore cause for potential non-payment?
> let's assume that the shopper has not willfully
> 'revealed' herself/himself.

If I am confronted with a required scenario that I think will get me identified, I tell the scheduler that I can do the shop only if I have an email stating that I will be paid even if I am identified. Sometimes I get the email; when I don't, I decline the shop.

Good plan.

I am about to do this with the AboutFace shop. Too many rediculous requirements that are almost guaranteed to give me away. I sent another email to the scheduler. And told him that, as an IC, I can only accept shops I feel comfortable with. If he doesn't like that, he can hire me and pay me for a day's work. I know, I know. It ain't gonna happen. I'm just saying. the MSC cannot have it both ways.

walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I am confronted with a required scenario that I
> think will get me identified, I tell the scheduler
> that I can do the shop only if I have an email
> stating that I will be paid even if I am
> identified. Sometimes I get the email; when I
> don't, I decline the shop.