During 2012, I did 19 pizza shops where you have to take multiple photographs of the pizza as part of the report. Out of 19 times, I never got a message that any of the photos were incorrect. I actually aggravated my kids to death because I would not let them touch the pizza until I was 100% satisfied with at least 3 pictures of each required shot. I am a bit of a perfectionist, so the pizza was usually cold by the time they could dig in.
So far in 2013, I have done 3 of the same type shop. Only 1 has been accepted. The other 2 were rejected for "poor photo quality". After the first one was rejected, I was stunned, but thought everyone messes up every now and then. I looked back over the pictures (I keep all pictures until I have been paid for the job) and honestly could not find anything wrong with them. My camera has a very high resolution and clarity is not a problem. I even use the setting that eliminates blurriness if you happen move a little when you take the shot. I was perturbed. I mean, common on, the pizza is less than subpar in taste and I would not have purchased it otherwise. Fast forward to last week. I was offered a nice bonus to do 2 pizza shops. I was determined to not have these rejected since I went out of my way to get the shops done. I took no less than 5 pictures of each side, flip, and top. I even took the stupid things out in the sunlight since "lighting was an issue" as a reason to the previous rejection. I looked over and over the pictures and had at least 3 that were top notch of every shot (only 2 are required so I made sure I had a backup). Well, lookie, lookie, loo......one of the shops was rejected for "poor picture quality" and the other is still under review to see if the client will accept it.
So, you mean to tell me the client got all the info they needed then decided to reject the shop for a bogus reason? I suppose I need to hire a professional fashion photographer if I would even consider taking these shops again. Oh, never mind, I would not take these cardboard pizza shops again unlesss I had not so much as a can of expired green beans in my pantry.
I can take perfectly clear action shots of my son playing baseball, but am told that my pictures of a pizza are not clear? And that is why pizza shops can kiss my grits.

Sounds to me like the company wanted freebies. They don't want to pay the scheduling company. I wonder how many more from other shopper's that were rejected?

It is definitely the company and NOT the MSC. I frequently work with the MSC and have done numerous jobs for other clients that require many more pictures, many of which can be difficult to properly photograph.

close up shots that are clear are harder to take then action shots farther away from many people. I don't do the pizza shops because I wont buy something I would never eat, but i've never had a problem with close up shots for other shops.

Always make sure your camera is in macro mode...

Another possibility is convection. The steam rising off the pizza could have possibly slightly fogged the camera lens, resulting in a slight softening of the image.

I had one of these shops, and on the overhead shot I was directly over the center of the pizza, but the box was out of square with the edge of the picture by less than 1 degree...I had to resubmit the images. First and last time that I'll do that shop. The pizza is so not worth it.

I did two of these shops this year. I had never done them before, so I thought I'd give it a go. Both times, I was asked to manipulate the images due to lighting issues. I'm glad I had a chance to do so rather than being rejected immediately. I got paid for both, but told them I won't be doing them again. I did them under completely different lighting and don't know how (or care to take the time to find out) to fix the problem.

Think I know the company and I definately won't be doing any for them.

I gave these up when they moved from the company known to start low then bonus fast and furious. Usually I took one of each shot, occasionally two. Other than my very first shop, all were accepted and we are talking several hundred of them. They briefly were with another MSC that I love and even though the fees never got high enough, I would sometimes pick one up as a favor as long as it was into the double digits. Never have and never will do them for the current MSCs.

Hey James Bond forget the steam theory ... by the time you get the pizza steam is long gone. Long gone!

For those loving the pizza ones I know for a fact your name is tagged in the computer at the pizza shop as a shopper. So just a beware. They match up the report and the time and put 2 and 2 together. How do I know. I had a friend of a friend work there for a week and saw my name well marked in the computer...... He asked me. And at that time all reports were glowing positive.

Love "kiss my grits" and loved Flo!

I empathize. I never did these shops but have read about them and the MSC for years. I have also been burnt by unethical clients (and sometimes MSCs).

It's their loss in the long run, losing you. Unfortunately, I don't see this client as focusing on the long term.

I worry every time I take one of these shops. This last time, I decided to take the photos in a different area of my house, to make it easier. Same camera, same settings. Boy did the photos turn out different. I am not saying this is the case with you, but I always take the photos in the same place now.

Hadn't done one of these pizza shops in over a year, but took a bonused one over the weekend. Never had a problem in years past, same place for photos, same camera, same settings on camera, but it got kicked back today - photos are said to be blurry. They look clear as ever to me. Never had this MSC reject any of the hundreds of photos for the many other-client shops done for them. Strange coincidence.

Maybe the editor has a vision problem that is getting worse.

I completed the above, back when one could order a "works," and the pay was either $20 or $25. Why anyone would accept such work in this day, is a mystery to me. They were a PITA then, but at least I could endure with the money and MY choice of toppings.

Bay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the editor has a vision problem that is
> getting worse.

Maybe. Or maybe there's something wrong with the compression of photos submitted through their website. It won't be the first time shoppers are accused of submitting unacceptable photos when the fault lies with the reporting platform or something else that is the MSC's responsibility.

Or maybe it is not the pictures at all... maybe they are used anyway. It has been known to happen before! Free reports. Eventually it will catch up to them.
How many of us have had a report denied for whatever reason and then we on our own never return for personal purchases? More often than not!

The pizza shop from this past weekend that I referenced above was, in fact, ultimately rejected for photo quality after sending all my backup photos. First shop out of over a thousand assignments with photos on the same camera for a dozen MSCs (including scores of other-client shops for this MSC) to ever be rejected for photo quality. Was given the opportunity to re-do. Will use two different cameras to have double the options for submitting acceptable photos.
May give up on this client.

How much does the shop pay to justify using two different cameras and taking dozens of pics? It sounds like people are taking more photos than I do for a gas station audit.

I was happy when I found the Pizza Pizza and Papa shops because I love pizza. But after doing one of each -- the pizza wasn't good enough to consider it compensation for the shop and the pictures were just too fiddly. By the time you take the pics the pizza isn't hot any more. So basically it's a $5 postal shop -- all report and the reimbursement doesn't benefit me at all.

Maybe if bonused enough to justify the hassle for the money alone I might do another. I've been called by both to do another but wasn't going to be in the area. But I no longer look forward to pizza shops.


Now, if my local Pizza Factory gets shopped, I'm there for it! But the "ketchup on cardboard" Pizza Pizza place is pretty much off my list. I might do Papa for $15 if I get the chance but not likely to do one for any less again. I could then take the $15 and order in a hot pizza from Pizza Factory that I could eat right away.

I am glad I never did a pizza shop with photo requirements. I've done the Dairy Queen and I was so nervous. the ice cream melted before I could take the different shots. I decided to never again take a shop with the picture requirement, whether it is the food or the menu or worse, the cashier or the washroom.

Oh, I will ALWAYS do Dairy Queen. I don't care if the pay is $3, I will always do a DQ if I get the chance.

I've been meaning to post my experience with the Papa Pizza shops.

I'd done several of these shops ~ not as many as some of you, but quite a few ~ and never had my photos questioned, and was always paid quickly.

Then, suddenly, earlier this year, my photos were questioned on one of these shops. I was told they were "out of focus", and asked if I had any other photos to submit. I told them I had already submitted the best photos of the bunch (I always take three of each angle). They said they would submit to the client, but warned the client may not accept. I never heard anything further until I was paid. So I presumed the client had accepted.

Like the rest of you, I took the photos for this shop with the exact same camera, camera settings, and in the exact same room in the exact same place as I always had, when they had never been challenged.

So, I accepted another of these shops. My Dad & I actually do like the pizzas, so we look forward to these.

Again, I got notice there was a problem with my photos. This time, they said they were "too grainy", and asked if I had other photos that were "clearer and sharper". I didn't see the email until their short time frame for a reply had passed, due to being gone on a couple of all-day routes. So I got an email that my shop had been rejected.

I emailed back to complain about this, telling them basically what I've said here: I'd done many of these shops in the past, all were acceptable, I was taking the photos the exact same way with the exact same camera & camera settings, etc. etc. and that until the shop immediately previous, all of my shops and photos had been perfectly acceptable. I told them that when I reviewed the uploaded photos, as I always did, they looked perfectly clear and sharp to me. I continued that I could not afford to not at least be reimbursed for this shop, and that I would never order that expensive of a pizza, and certainly not delivered, as I can't afford such luxuries.

I got an email back, this time with an actual name attached to it, saying: "Thanks for the message. I can see that you have done several {of these shops} in the past. We need good agents like you to complete these projects. Our client is extremely picky regarding these photos and I will send you 2 side by side photos so you can see the difference. A reshop was created for this shop. I have decided to make an exception and pay you for this unreported project this time. Would you be able to complete the reshop for this location? I can be flexible with the due date. Please let me know if you have any questions."

I replied expressing gratitude for the exception, but hesitation at doing another shop without further advice on the photo situation, wanting to know what I should do to ensure acceptable photos, adding that I was baffled since my photography habits were the same as they always had been but had only recently been called into question. I assured them again that my camera was already set on the highest megapixel (8) and the sharpest setting, just as it always had been.

I got a reply that she would be emailing me the comparison/example photos on Monday (the email was sent on Friday). I thanked her and said I'd look forward to seeing them, and getting any other advice.

On the following Tuesday, I got this email, again with an actual name attached: "Thanks for the message. I have spoken with someone on the review team. We are going through a transition of training new reviewers and moving them in-house. After further review of your photos they are acceptable and I apologize for the issues created. You have always done a great job and we really depend on great agents like yourself. I would continue to do what you have been doing. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me directly. You will be paid for the project. Thanks again for your patience while we looked into this for you."

I thanked her for the compliments and explanation, and said I would look forward to resuming these shops. I have one coming up next week, so we'll see how it goes. I have, of course, saved all of this correspondence!


So... just wanted to add my experience. Have any of the rest of you challenged the situation to the extent I did? What reply did you receive?


Oh ~ and I was paid for the shop, but there was a $1 deduction for "photo issues", according to the website. I decided not to make an issue of the $1.

Wow. Congratulations on getting your point across. The recent stories about photo issues have made me shy away from these even though my one and only papa shop went through with no problems.

StormCloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

[content of post respectfully snipped]

::throwing rose petals at StormCloud's feet and nominating post to our Hall of Fame::

::*blushes*!::

Thank you, Ladies! : )

I just thought that maybe, if some of the other shoppers who had posted here pressed the issue a little, they might get some positive results, too. And that maybe, relating my experience might give a little hope & inspiration! : )

Plus, I was really impressed with the thorough investigation and honest explanation from the MSC, and that when they go to these lengths to help a shopper resolve a complaint, it should be noted. : )

I took my pics on the hood of my car, in blazing noon day sun

You can't imagine the strange looks drivers gave me!

I have done these Pizza shops often for the past couple of years. Never had a problem. I did one this past November and my pictures were rejected. Same camera, same resolution and same location? I emailed the company and never heard a word and never got paid. I therefore, immediately fired this company. Looks as though they are loosing a lot of shoppers.

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in my rejection of low pay. Oh, that's not the subject but wow gas is twice as high, groceries are high and so on. Who can make money at $20 a shop much less $15. It's insulting, isn't it? Minimum wage is $7.50 and going to $10 or $11. Now that's off my chest... And then the tedious reports.....
I've wondered if we are, after all, - are we Mystery Shoppers just a built in market for the garbage fast food we are begged to buy for a pittance, a break even point? Duh. And where do the manufacturers (mass hamburger makers and pizza producers) cut costs as their costs of production are up too? You and me, and we go for it? Double duh. When one must produce a master work prose for pennies.
As for the rejections, well, who writes the check is the governing power. So how do we know if they're honest? Odds are a good percentage aren't if statistic's are correct that a sizable percentage of teh general public admit to cheating, lying and stealing.
What would they do if we copyright our pictures. Sure if they pay us then we forfeit ownership. But if they don't, they have no right to the intellectual property one Creates.
I know. How ya gonna prove it? Likely you can't, but they'll think twice before they use coprighted material they have stolen.
This is how the Teamsters and AFLCIO started.
Demand fairness for the workers. None of this mystery/shadow shopping can exist with we the little people.

risinghorizon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am glad I never did a pizza shop with photo
> requirements. I've done the Dairy Queen and I was
> so nervous. the ice cream melted before I could
> take the different shots. I decided to never
> again take a shop with the picture requirement,
> whether it is the food or the menu or worse, the
> cashier or the washroom.


DQ never made me nervous...mainly because I saw maybe one "perfect" sundae in my time doing those that I felt the need to get the pics right or it's my fault. Not that I butchered the other shop pics, mind you, but when a sundae is made already leaning over and the topping is all over the place, there's not much I can do there. It tastes the same going down, which is fine with me!

follinsmith@aol.com Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What would they do if we copyright our pictures.
> Sure if they pay us then we forfeit ownership. But
> if they don't, they have no right to the
> intellectual property one Creates.
> I know. How ya gonna prove it? Likely you can't,
> but they'll think twice before they use coprighted
> material they have stolen.
>

Follinsmith, under US Copyright Law, once you take a photograph, it is automatically copyrighted. The problem is that, in this instance, you may or may not own the copyright because you are taking the photograph as part of a contracted assignment. Most ICA's are ambigious on this point and, if you wanted to push it, the outcome would quite likley depend on the particular judge and jury in your neck of the woods.

That's one reason why, in the contract I have for weddings I photograph, there's a clause that states that I retain the copyright to the images for any commercial use, and the client is granted the right to have prints made for their own non-commercial use,as well as use of the pictures on their own, non-commercial website.