While on a search to try and find out which MSC Applebee's has switched to since the first of the year, I cam across this. Applebee's employee telling that 2 poor mystery shops equals automatic firing. I think any shopper will benefit from reading this from the one who is shopped point of view.

[www.planetfeedback.com]

I wonder what it takes for a report to be considered poor.

wow. interesting (and sad) read

spam. reported

Years ago, really, decades ago, I worked for a major department store. I came in and my manager asked to see me privately. She told me I was MS'ed. I didn't know what that was at the time. She went on to tell me the report had mentioned that I was "rude, didn't approach the customer, didn't offer any suggestions in sales and was generally unhelpful." My eyes were wide open and so was my mouth. She went on to tell me Mystery Shoppers would come in and check on how a sales associate performs their work without us knowing we were being shopped, etc. As she was talking, she had a twinkle in her eye. Somehow, I knew I wasn't in trouble. I was the leader in sales in my department. So how could this report be true? She went on to say that the report had described me as 4" shorter than my height, another hair color, and my weight as 50 lbs. over my current weight. Hmmmm..... She concluded that the MShopper had indeed come in and shopped someone in the department but since they weren't able to get the right name tag, they shopped someone else. She actually realized who they shopped and began laughing. She told me not to worry about it and said it was going in the garbage. Now that was a manager who actually read the report and paid attention to it.

The point of this is how many companies do read their reports accurately? After reading the url from employees above, and seeing that some companies fire their employees after two bad reports, that's pretty frightening. Frightening because of what I just wrote about my own experience. It actually happened and I'm sure it can still happen in our business. Inaccurate reports about the shop. If a company chooses to fire people, that's pretty damn harsh without either speaking to the shopper or reviewing the video (if available), IMHO.

Of course, service should always be with a smile at worst. That's the job. Ours and theirs. Opinions should be left out of the report and truthfulness should be in it. A fine line can be drawn so easily. But I don't think we have that power to fire people so easily, either. Have them reprimanded, perhaps, yes. But not on one occurrence, either.

Employers must be careful in their firing too. There must be due cause. And if it's due to a shopper's report, and then the employee decides to sue that employer, ultimately, we could be brought back into court to describe the original report we wrote. If we tell the truth, that would be easy to remember. If we lied, there's the saying, "Oh what a web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...". It's easy enough to remember the truth. Why would I want to try to remember lies? I wouldn't. I would never want to be caught in deceptive practices. There's no point in dishonesty in this business.

I don't like dining at Applebee's but even if I did, I would dine less frequently there if I knew, for certain, that it fired employees after two negative reports without exception.

I have worked several retail postitions in stores that are shopped. One in particular, I got all points possible, but was described as "professional, but not friendly". Made me laugh.

Going on the line that Cerise was on .. I too worked at a major clothing/department store back in the 90's, and was once called into my store manager's office. It seems that an employee of mine got shopped with a score of 0 out of 10 points. I couldn't figure out what was wrong until I saw the date and time of the report. The employee in question was not only not working that day, but at the time the shop was supposedly done I was the only person on the floor of my department.

I threatened to make a copy of the report and give it to my employee so he could give it to his attorney if it wasn't purged from his records (My manager and I were on the outs at that time because of something she pulled on my when it came to being turned down from a promotion.). Unfortunately for the person that supposedly did the shop I knew who she was. The next week I saw her in my department, pulled her aside, and gave her such a scolding that she left the store without finishing her shop.

This was a case where not only could my employee have been at least reprimanded but I could have also had some consequenses for not providing training to my employees (loss of monthly bonus and a formal warning). I always look back on that incident when I write my reports to not only include the good about the shop, but to make sure that I include detail if something went wrong.

How did you know the shopper??? Amazing!


sethd85 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Going on the line that Cerise was on .. I too
> worked at a major clothing/department store back
> in the 90's, and was once called into my store
> manager's office. It seems that an employee of
> mine got shopped with a score of 0 out of 10
> points. I couldn't figure out what was wrong until
> I saw the date and time of the report. The
> employee in question was not only not working that
> day, but at the time the shop was supposedly done
> I was the only person on the floor of my
> department.
>
> I threatened to make a copy of the report and give
> it to my employee so he could give it to his
> attorney if it wasn't purged from his records (My
> manager and I were on the outs at that time
> because of something she pulled on my when it came
> to being turned down from a promotion.).
> Unfortunately for the person that supposedly did
> the shop I knew who she was. The next week I saw
> her in my department, pulled her aside, and gave
> her such a scolding that she left the store
> without finishing her shop.
>
> This was a case where not only could my employee
> have been at least reprimanded but I could have
> also had some consequenses for not providing
> training to my employees (loss of monthly bonus
> and a formal warning). I always look back on that
> incident when I write my reports to not only
> include the good about the shop, but to make sure
> that I include detail if something went wrong.

Disgruntled employees will always have their own explanations as to why they were dismissed. I, too, was a bit taken back a few years ago when I stumbled across the Applebee's postings. However, I shared these with a friend that works for Applebee's and she informed me that these postings were highly exaggerated. As with so many other accusations made by former employees of this business and others, the results of a mystery shop were not the sole reason for termination.

This is just another reason why it is so important for us as shoppers to report all the facts accurately without bias, and to leave our speculations at the door.

This is why I wont do the bar integrity shops. Unless they are going to video. I would hate to have to argue with them about free drinks.

To this I would say: "Dear Food Server:

"I know you didn't burn the steak. I know you didn't make the drink wrong. I know you didn't forget to spray for bugs, when the cockroach ran up my glass (true story). I know you did not have any say when the Hostess sat you 4 tables in 7 minutes. I know you tried to heat up my soup, that was lukewarm, because you did not want to serve me cold soup."

"I know all this and I don't judge you for those things. And, neither will your employer."

"We are not awful people, with an axe to grind. We are here to report to your employer (the client), just what we experienced. The fact that you quickly and breathlessly ran my wallet up to the front Hostess Station, when I left it in my seat, is so much appreciated. That fact that you brought crackers for my 15 month old and a nice high chair, did not go un-noticed."

"So, when we walk in, we are not here to "scalp" you. We know you can't control the steam pot, the bugs, the bad food, and the long lines."

" So, just remember, we are trying to be fair, we really, really, are."

(I used to be a Server and I know what they go through).

The other point to consider is that if an employee has received negative feedback from a shopper during a visit, and then receives yet another unfavorable report, this illustrates a performance behavior trend. The whole point of a mystery shop is for the client to identify areas needing improvement. If the results of a visit were shared with an employee for that purpose and the employee still did not show improvement on a subsequent visit, as that person's employer I would be seriously concerned about whether I had the right person in the right job.

I'm skeptical regarding accusations of unwarranted or capricious firings over bad reports. I would suspect that managers are going to rightly challenge or at least question a negative report regarding an employee they have observed to be solid and dependable, and will gladly use a negative report as leverage to force out an employee they have observed to be a slacker.
My skepticism is compounded by my own relatively brief time of participating in this forum. If I heeded every rally cry of boycott due to allegations of non-payment and unjust rejections of reports, in the past two weeks I would have had to drop every single one of the dozen MSCs I primarily shop for in order to stand in solidarity with my wronged fellow shoppers.
The online discussion groups of both shoppers and the shopped seem to have their fair share of individuals who will attack those holding them accountable in the face of inexcusable mistakes (yes, inexcusable; if you were supposed to do this, and you forgot or failed or chose not to do this, then fess up, seek pardon, make it right if you can, and learn from it - denying and attacking the rules-makers isn't gonna help anybody. [A very wise gunny once told me, "Excuses are like armpits. Everybody's got 'em, and they all stink." OK, he referenced a different anatomical feature, but the truth remains.])

Thankfully, the thoughtful, successful, reasonable, experienced, and even hysterical posters on this forum far outnumber the screed-bent, boycott-crying, malcontents.

Oh, and poking around a few of the retail and food service anti-mystery shopper diatribe boards yielded my favorite quote so far...
"I always wished I had the mystery shopper's job. How hard is that? Go into a store, buy gas (with someone else's money), get a snack and a drink, and boom, you have a paycheck."

(It's the boom that's killing me.)

No way an employer is firing employees based soley on MS results in this day an age. Maybe back in the 90s, but I seriously doubt that an employer would even try. Its exactly because they could never get ahold of us to testify and back up the employer that they shouldn't dare. Any employer who does is just asking for an unemployment claim. Most unemployemnt offices would ding the employer for benefits if that's the only documentation they provide for firing an employee.

Pippamama ... I knew who the shopper was because she shopped every week in the men's department, but somehow had an affinity for my department. She also would pay by credit card and sign the slip, so I knew her handwriting.

Going on the theme that has come about here ... if a restaurant fires for having a poor shop it means that not only has their behavior and actions been documented more than once (assumingly by a different shopper each time), but but also that same behavior and actions were also brought up by managers, customers, and/or coworkers as well. If someone gets fired for performing poorly on a shop more than once, and management does not do anything to train or help rectify the matter in a positive way, that restaurant/store could be in for good lawsuits. The only way I can see someone being immediately fired for a poor shop is if that server didn't get ID from someone who ordered an alcoholic drink.

I don't think we can say it never happens. Someone here has mentioned working for a company that would fire an employee over a SINGLE bad shop.

There are lousy MSCs, lousy shoppers, lousy customers, lousy employees, and lousy employers. Every walk of life has its share of a-holes. Lousy people do lousy things.

A lot of states are at-will employment states. They can fire you if they don't like the way you part your hair and there isn't a thing you can do about it. Only if the firing violates certain anti-discrimination laws can you get in trouble.

Waitresses who don't smile enough are not a protected class like racial and religious minorities, the elderly, the handicapped, and in some places, gays. If your boss doesn't like the color of your pantyhose, he can fire you. If you rolled your eyes when a customer demanded a free meal because the parsley touched their mashed potatoes, he can fire you.

So . . . it may or may not have ever happened at Applebees . . . but you can bet it has happened somewhere.

There's a few points to add to this discussion.

One, if any system can be abused, it will be or has been at some point. However, the possibility of this happening cannot deter mystery shoppers from maintaining their objectivity and withhold from reporting the facts.

Two, most managers are more inclined to challenge a negative report than to accept it. The results not only reflect on the employee, but the manager as well. Low reporting scores affect in-house performance evaluations, raises, bonuses, promotions, and a whole slew of other factors. Been there, done that.

Three, although no one desires being fired, one has to consider how hostile a working environment one is existing in if an employeer will use mystery shopping reports in such a punitive and unconstructive manner. In some cases, it might be a blessing in disguise if an employee were to be removed from such a situation. I'm sure we've all heard from friends or fam at one time or another that getting fired "was the best thing that ever happened to me". Count me among the members of this lucky club.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2013 04:15PM by shopgal.

I used to work for a company that would fire an employee for one bad mystery shop.

I am so happy I'm not there anymore. Leaving there was the best thing that ever happened to me.

In Colorado, a "Right to Work" state, an employee can be fired for any reason at any time. The employer can terminate them because they don't like their hair, tattoos, car, politics, or choice of pet. Really.

The flip side is that unemployment compensation is incredibly easy and straightforward to get here. And unless the employee has a history of documented poor performance, an appeal by the employer won't go far.

I hate the whole system, it creates needless hostility between employers and employees in this state, as well as fraud and abuse.

shopgal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a few points to add to this discussion.
>
> One, if any system can be abused, it will be or
> has been at some point. However, the possibility
> of this happening cannot deter mystery shoppers
> from maintaining their objectivity and withhold
> from reporting the facts.
>
> Two, most managers are more inclined to challenge
> a negative report than to accept it. The results
> not only reflect on the employee, but the manager
> as well. Low reporting scores affect in-house
> performance evaluations, raises, bonuses,
> promotions, and a whole slew of other factors.
> Been there, done that.
>
> Three, although no one desires being fired, one
> has to consider how hostile a working environment
> one is existing in if an employeer will use
> mystery shopping reports in such a punitive and
> unconstructive manner. In some cases, it might be
> a blessing in disguise if an employee were to be
> removed from such a situation. I'm sure we've all
> heard from friends or fam at one time or another
> that getting fired "was the best thing that ever
> happened to me". Count me among the members of
> this lucky club.


True enough on your second point. When I have done Sonic shops, certain locations seem to nit-pick everything that wasn't perfect via the editor who messages me back. I had a friend who did McDonald's shops who supposedly got picked out for a legitimately bad shop. Of course, that MSC kicked her off of those shops and she decided she had better things to do after that. When I was a graveyard manager at Whataburger getting shopped, I had no problem with my "100" and wondered how the much better staffed evening shift got a 47 or 52 that got them chewed on pretty nicely. There were some people who really needed to be fired from that dysfunctional bunch, anyway...

AlfredB1979 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True enough on your second point...certain
> locations seem to
> nit-pick everything that wasn't perfect via the
> editor who messages me back.

There are some clients who will fight ferociously when a report has any negative elements. There's a south-of-the-border fast food chain that is notorious for that, to the point of being annoying and time-consuming to both the shopper and the editorial staff at the MSC. But this client does have a lot riding on their scores, just like I did when I was a manager of a business that was mystery shopped. I'd like to think I was more sensible about which reports I challenged, though.

There's one MSC that has made it pretty clear that they really don't want negative reports, especially for one of their major clients. For every "no" response selected, a whole new subset of questions opens up that makes the shopper justify where THEY were and what THEY were doing, and if they followed up by doing this, that, and the other. It's a sketchy way of discouraging the shopper from reporting anything negative. I can only assume that this is because the client will challenge these types of reports, and this MSC doesn't want to be bothered dealing with that. So the burden is put upon the shopper to either jeopardize their shopper status with this company or to gloss over substandard performance issues. This leads me to believe that mystery shopping would have to be an ineffective and wasteful program for this client.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2013 07:04PM by shopgal.

It is just beyond wrong for a client or a MSC to penalize shoppers for reporting legitimately bad shops in any way -- from non-payment to being disallowed to shop that client any more. Supposedly we are paid to provide a genuine and truthful "snapshot" of conditions and service while we are there. If the client doesn't like that snapshot, they need to take responsibility.

To many people in all aspects of life don't take appropriate responsibility for their actions, though; so I guess it's nothing new or particularly surprising. But the MSC, as the liaison, should NOT take it out on the shopper.

Apparently many of you shoppers have never been on the business owners side of life. They depend on customers to provide funds from which to pay some of these slugs with. I've had wait staff all but throw the food on the table, which is why I don't eat at places where they have mandatory tipping.. Most cashiers give your change in a lump, and then give the customer a dirty look they count it. Why does it hurt to give the customer a smile and be pleasant? If the employee dislikes dealing with the public, they should go into a different line of work. If the employee is having a bad day, ask the boss for a differemt job for the day, or stay home.

I think there has been a disconnect here, Wjesse. I'm pretty sure the shopper community is well aware of what employees are capable of on the job. Many of us have also had supervisory or managerial positions where we had to deal with substandard performance issues. Regardless, as shoppers we are also cognizant of our purpose out in the field.

The thread was originally started to share how some employees felt about being mystery shopped. There was a claim that some clients might use negative reports to terminate employees.

Not quite sure what your point was or how it tied into this discussion.

StormCloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is just beyond wrong for a client or a MSC to
> penalize shoppers for reporting legitimately bad
> shops in any way -- from non-payment to being
> disallowed to shop that client any more...
> But the MSC...should NOT take it out on the
> shopper.

I've been thinking about this ever since I posted about the MSC that discourages shoppers from submitting negative reports. And you know what? I am getting just more than a little fed up with having that knotted up feeling in my stomach after hitting "submit". I've never gone along with this sketchy game of theirs, and am not going to start now. But I'm tired of second guessing myself with this MSC, and I am done haunting their website to ensure that my report was accepted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2013 01:03AM by shopgal.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2013 04:41PM by CAscotch.

I'm sure that bad reports are challenged. I think that might be a subconscious reason why we tend to hate writing reports on bad shops. I always try to find something positive, so I can end my report with that, even if it gets out of sequence.

On the other hand, if I'm having a generally good shop with just a couple of snags along the way, then it's reported in chronological order.

I handle a shop for a big box store that if the employee fails the shop the first time, they are pulled from the floor and have to complete training before being allowed back. If an employee fails a second time within a predefined time period, then they are let go.

To make sure it is handled properly, I have to sitdown with the manager of the store and then they have the employee come to the office and are given formal paperwork that I have with me. I hate having to be there when the manager has to tell them, this will be their last shift.

On the flip side, the employee was given a warning and had to complete training, and still performed poorly.

CAscotch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes I wonder if our reports are challenged
> by the very employees who are fighting to keep
> their jobs.

Usually there's a chain of people involved when a challenge is made. Typically, it goes from employee to location manager, location manager to district manager, and then from district manager to the MSC.

Many times location managers and district managers are just as invested in the challenge process as the employee, because ultimately, the performance of an employee reflects on them as well.

There are a lot of reasons that challenges are made that don't involve preserving someone's job which have been discussed previously.