Why no leftovers?
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
First off, if you are concerned about waste...you are in the wrong business. The MS industry is absolutely filled with wasteful situations based on evaluating service standards. There are threads on the forum where people discuss enormous number of miles driven to earn a few $$ when they clearly have outlets closer to home had they not been MSing. Shoppers print reams of paper on a daily basis with shop instructions and then complain about the cost of ink/paper. FF shoppers are asked to go by themselves and order 2 different meals! I hardly think the half slice of uneaten cheesecake left on my plate is really the epitome of wastefulness, considering the bag, plastic carton, napkins and plastic utensils that often are included with take-home packaging. I NEVER take leftover desserts home, even when I'm paying, because I don't want that dessert in my fridge. They all pair too well with morning coffee.
Second, the fine-dining MSC that doesn't allow doggie bags also allows you to order an after dinner beverage like coffee or tea as a dessert option, so there are almost always options that won't leave excessive food on the table.
I agree that there are probably some shoppers that would not abuse the ordering policies without restrictions, but most do, so that's why the rules have to be there. It's not taboo in any fine dining establishment that I have evaluated to ask for a doggie bag, nor would it make you memorable to take it or not, IMHO. The rule is there simply to control ordering.
I am specifically referring to this requirement for fine dining, BTW. Ordering anything at Cheesecake Factory or Claim Jumper and not having leftovers to take home is definitely out of the ordinary!
Second, the fine-dining MSC that doesn't allow doggie bags also allows you to order an after dinner beverage like coffee or tea as a dessert option, so there are almost always options that won't leave excessive food on the table.
I agree that there are probably some shoppers that would not abuse the ordering policies without restrictions, but most do, so that's why the rules have to be there. It's not taboo in any fine dining establishment that I have evaluated to ask for a doggie bag, nor would it make you memorable to take it or not, IMHO. The rule is there simply to control ordering.
I am specifically referring to this requirement for fine dining, BTW. Ordering anything at Cheesecake Factory or Claim Jumper and not having leftovers to take home is definitely out of the ordinary!
SteveSoCal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First off, if you are concerned about waste...you
> are in the wrong business. The MS industry is
> absolutely filled with wasteful situations based
> on evaluating service standards. There are
> threads on the forum where people discuss enormous
> number of miles driven to earn a few $$ when they
> clearly have outlets closer to home had they not
> been MSing. Shoppers print reams of paper on a
> daily basis with shop instructions and then
> complain about the cost of ink/paper. FF shoppers
> are asked to go by themselves and order 2
> different meals!
Most of what you mention, other than the last example, is on the shopper, not mandated by the MSC. And I totally agree that much of that is extreme and unnecessary waste. It's easy in the beginning for a shopper to make those decisions that result in a big waste of resources (their time, gasoline, printer ink and paper, etc.). One hopes that most of us figure out after awhile that spending $15 in gas to "make" $20 is wasteful, and that we don't have to print out reams of paper for every shop.... But it's "mandated waste" to have a strict rule that a shopper can't take home a doggie bag.
> I hardly think the half slice of
> uneaten cheesecake left on my plate is really the
> epitome of wastefulness, considering the bag,
> plastic carton, napkins and plastic utensils that
> often are included with take-home packaging. I
> NEVER take leftover desserts home, even when I'm
> paying, because I don't want that dessert in my
> fridge. They all pair too well with morning coffee.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Steve, I'm NOT talking about a half piece of cheesecake! (And, yes, I know it's "too" tempting to eat it with coffee in the morning--not a good thing if you're watching the old waistline like I am!) I'm thinking more of the large baked potato that some people can't eat all of; the ribeye, NY Strip, or Delmonico steaks; the prime rib, etc.--all of which are usually larger portions than many of us can eat. Even some rich chicken dishes can be too large to be eaten in one sitting. And, I, for one, can never eat a full portion of any sort of pasta dish. So, sometimes you can be as careful and mindful of portions as possible, and you're still gonna have leftovers.... (I've never had plastic silverware included with my doggie bag, but if I did, I'd save it to use.)
>
> It's not taboo in any fine
> dining establishment that I have evaluated to ask
> for a doggie bag, nor would it make you memorable
> to take it or not, IMHO. The rule is there simply
> to control ordering.
I wasn't being literal about "taboo...."
I would think there must be a better way for the MSCs who have these shops to control ordering. Lower the reimbursement and raise the pay? Provide a list of items shoppers are not to order? Give clear guidelines as to the expectations regarding "over ordering"? I mean, if they get a shopper who time after time orders an appetizer AND soup, the king-cut prime rib, and dessert, that would probably be a tip-off to someone who's ordering purposely to max out their reimbursement, with the intention to get a second meal at home out of the leftovers.
And one would hope that someone who considers himself/herself a "professional" shopper would conduct themselves accordingly, and "over ordering" isn't very professional. Of course, that's not always the case, so I realize it works both ways. But, obviously, the idea of enforced wastefulness really bothers me, so, personally, I just wouldn't do these shops....
-------------------------------------------------------
> First off, if you are concerned about waste...you
> are in the wrong business. The MS industry is
> absolutely filled with wasteful situations based
> on evaluating service standards. There are
> threads on the forum where people discuss enormous
> number of miles driven to earn a few $$ when they
> clearly have outlets closer to home had they not
> been MSing. Shoppers print reams of paper on a
> daily basis with shop instructions and then
> complain about the cost of ink/paper. FF shoppers
> are asked to go by themselves and order 2
> different meals!
Most of what you mention, other than the last example, is on the shopper, not mandated by the MSC. And I totally agree that much of that is extreme and unnecessary waste. It's easy in the beginning for a shopper to make those decisions that result in a big waste of resources (their time, gasoline, printer ink and paper, etc.). One hopes that most of us figure out after awhile that spending $15 in gas to "make" $20 is wasteful, and that we don't have to print out reams of paper for every shop.... But it's "mandated waste" to have a strict rule that a shopper can't take home a doggie bag.
> I hardly think the half slice of
> uneaten cheesecake left on my plate is really the
> epitome of wastefulness, considering the bag,
> plastic carton, napkins and plastic utensils that
> often are included with take-home packaging. I
> NEVER take leftover desserts home, even when I'm
> paying, because I don't want that dessert in my
> fridge. They all pair too well with morning coffee.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Steve, I'm NOT talking about a half piece of cheesecake! (And, yes, I know it's "too" tempting to eat it with coffee in the morning--not a good thing if you're watching the old waistline like I am!) I'm thinking more of the large baked potato that some people can't eat all of; the ribeye, NY Strip, or Delmonico steaks; the prime rib, etc.--all of which are usually larger portions than many of us can eat. Even some rich chicken dishes can be too large to be eaten in one sitting. And, I, for one, can never eat a full portion of any sort of pasta dish. So, sometimes you can be as careful and mindful of portions as possible, and you're still gonna have leftovers.... (I've never had plastic silverware included with my doggie bag, but if I did, I'd save it to use.)
>
> It's not taboo in any fine
> dining establishment that I have evaluated to ask
> for a doggie bag, nor would it make you memorable
> to take it or not, IMHO. The rule is there simply
> to control ordering.
I wasn't being literal about "taboo...."
I would think there must be a better way for the MSCs who have these shops to control ordering. Lower the reimbursement and raise the pay? Provide a list of items shoppers are not to order? Give clear guidelines as to the expectations regarding "over ordering"? I mean, if they get a shopper who time after time orders an appetizer AND soup, the king-cut prime rib, and dessert, that would probably be a tip-off to someone who's ordering purposely to max out their reimbursement, with the intention to get a second meal at home out of the leftovers.
And one would hope that someone who considers himself/herself a "professional" shopper would conduct themselves accordingly, and "over ordering" isn't very professional. Of course, that's not always the case, so I realize it works both ways. But, obviously, the idea of enforced wastefulness really bothers me, so, personally, I just wouldn't do these shops....
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
How much gas is wasted evaluating drive thrus?
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
How much gas is generated by EATING at drive thrus?
SteveSoCal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jonk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Since most restaurant shops pay little if any
> fee
> > in addition to the reimbursement, I view
> > maximizing the reimbursement as taking full
> > advantage of my salary for the job.
>
> This is precisely the attitude the MSC is trying
> NOT to impart to the fine-dining clients when they
> put in the no doggie bag requirement. The client
> is not concerned with how little you are being
> paid as a shopper. They are told that shoppers
> are happy to complete the evaluation in exchange
> for a good meal. If three courses are required,
> then you should share a light appetizer and
> dessert if you are not a big eater.
>
> When I was scheduling, I learned that without
> limitations, shoppers will always order the most
> expensive items on the menu to maximize their
> return on the work. Knowing that you are not
> allowed to take the food home will generally keep
> shoppers from intentionally over-ordering.
> Without the requirement, a shopper will tend to
> order all of the way up to the maximum
> reimbursement and bag the uneaten food, like jonk
> suggested. That's what will make you suspect and
> memorable. People paying for their food tend to
> only order what they can consume....
I beg to differ. We eat out a good bit (not with mystery shopping) and we never waste food. If we can't eat it all (or the kids can't), we take it home. Doesn't matter if it is a pasta dish or seafood. We take home what we don't eat. If that makes us suspicious or memorable, we must be memorable at many restaurants.
-------------------------------------------------------
> jonk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Since most restaurant shops pay little if any
> fee
> > in addition to the reimbursement, I view
> > maximizing the reimbursement as taking full
> > advantage of my salary for the job.
>
> This is precisely the attitude the MSC is trying
> NOT to impart to the fine-dining clients when they
> put in the no doggie bag requirement. The client
> is not concerned with how little you are being
> paid as a shopper. They are told that shoppers
> are happy to complete the evaluation in exchange
> for a good meal. If three courses are required,
> then you should share a light appetizer and
> dessert if you are not a big eater.
>
> When I was scheduling, I learned that without
> limitations, shoppers will always order the most
> expensive items on the menu to maximize their
> return on the work. Knowing that you are not
> allowed to take the food home will generally keep
> shoppers from intentionally over-ordering.
> Without the requirement, a shopper will tend to
> order all of the way up to the maximum
> reimbursement and bag the uneaten food, like jonk
> suggested. That's what will make you suspect and
> memorable. People paying for their food tend to
> only order what they can consume....
I beg to differ. We eat out a good bit (not with mystery shopping) and we never waste food. If we can't eat it all (or the kids can't), we take it home. Doesn't matter if it is a pasta dish or seafood. We take home what we don't eat. If that makes us suspicious or memorable, we must be memorable at many restaurants.
If reimbursement is the only "pay" why wouldn't a shopper attempt to use every single penny? And the bigger question really is why shouldn't they? All things aside, that is probably why I don't bother with dining shops and rarely take a reimbursement only shop.
Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
cindy55 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How much gas is generated by EATING at drive
> thrus?
Depends on the location. It's a bit higher at Taco Bell.
-------------------------------------------------------
> How much gas is generated by EATING at drive
> thrus?
Depends on the location. It's a bit higher at Taco Bell.
LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If reimbursement is the only "pay" why wouldn't a
> shopper attempt to use every single penny? And the
> bigger question really is why shouldn't they?
I do agree on this. If they don't want you eating up all the reimbursement, then they should lower it....
But, I can see that there are probably shoppers who do "take advantage" of the situation and, please excuse the crudeness, make absolute gluttons of themselves. Maybe there have been some shoppers who get so concerned about getting as much food as possible they might not be as focused as they should be on their shopping duties!
There's gotta be a middle ground, I think, but enforced waste just doesn't cut it for me....
-------------------------------------------------------
> If reimbursement is the only "pay" why wouldn't a
> shopper attempt to use every single penny? And the
> bigger question really is why shouldn't they?
I do agree on this. If they don't want you eating up all the reimbursement, then they should lower it....
But, I can see that there are probably shoppers who do "take advantage" of the situation and, please excuse the crudeness, make absolute gluttons of themselves. Maybe there have been some shoppers who get so concerned about getting as much food as possible they might not be as focused as they should be on their shopping duties!
There's gotta be a middle ground, I think, but enforced waste just doesn't cut it for me....
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
BirdyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But, I can see that there are probably shoppers
> who do "take advantage" of the situation and,
> please excuse the crudeness, make absolute
> gluttons of themselves.
Ummmm. Isn't that the sole purpose of taking the high reimbursement no pay shops?
-------------------------------------------------------
> But, I can see that there are probably shoppers
> who do "take advantage" of the situation and,
> please excuse the crudeness, make absolute
> gluttons of themselves.
Ummmm. Isn't that the sole purpose of taking the high reimbursement no pay shops?
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
When you do a reimbursement only dining shop the food IS your pay. I really don't get this "over ordering" concept. Whatever amount of food you are ordering up to the reimbursement limit is acceptable as far as I can see. I can see no viable reason to prohibit you from taking the leftovers home but I guess the MSC makes the rules.
I don't really care either way. Most of those shops require two people and I only mystery shop alone. I know, I'm odd like that. A few people know what I do but I don't even like to let them know the clients that I shop.
There are reasons that a body stays in motion
At the moment only demons come to mind
At the moment only demons come to mind
Which companies do not permit you take a Doggie bag. I have never seen any in my instructions for the shops I have done. In fact, one that I am doing tomorrow night encourages me to take the left overs home. My husband is a very, Very small eater, I am taking about 1/3 of a Philly Cheesesteak or 1/4 of steak after eating a salad. Most restaurants ask if we want a box when we sit with a plate of food. I have gotten a box at even the upscale restaurants.
walesmaven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are on a shop where taking the remaining
> food is not allowed, just say that you would like
> to, but you are traveling and your hotel room does
> not have a refrigerator. End of story.
It's not at all end of story for those of us who would like to enjoy the leftovers later after finishing our 2-3 hour reports. I do not think the issue is that we don't know how to leave food on the table gracefully. As to ordering the most expensive thing on the menu, I have done quite a few fine dining shops and unless I am ordering one of the least expensive things on the menu with a mid range item for the second entree I will go over. I rarely have money left over. I have never been to a mystery shop where I could afford to order the most expensive steak. Perhaps I do not work for that company. Of course we do usually have 2 glasses of wine. I drink water to stay under the reimbursement. Water for one, one glass of wine at dinner and one at the bar before dinner for the other seems to be more of a giveaway to me than taking home leftovers would be.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are on a shop where taking the remaining
> food is not allowed, just say that you would like
> to, but you are traveling and your hotel room does
> not have a refrigerator. End of story.
It's not at all end of story for those of us who would like to enjoy the leftovers later after finishing our 2-3 hour reports. I do not think the issue is that we don't know how to leave food on the table gracefully. As to ordering the most expensive thing on the menu, I have done quite a few fine dining shops and unless I am ordering one of the least expensive things on the menu with a mid range item for the second entree I will go over. I rarely have money left over. I have never been to a mystery shop where I could afford to order the most expensive steak. Perhaps I do not work for that company. Of course we do usually have 2 glasses of wine. I drink water to stay under the reimbursement. Water for one, one glass of wine at dinner and one at the bar before dinner for the other seems to be more of a giveaway to me than taking home leftovers would be.
I always drink water at a meal. I rarely order wine or a soda. Sometimes I order coffee at the end of a meal but I do not think it is a giveaway. I did a shop recently that had a $30 reimbursement for lunch and the two of us spent only 16.50 total. We ordered the lunch specials that were only 5.99 each and then tax and tip. I did not take advantage of the reimbursement.
I have only seen the no doggy bag rule when it was next to a long list of items that could not be ordered, or other stupid rules like a bar lunch with no alcohol allowed. I view it as a strong warning sign that the client and/or restaurant owners are becoming disillusioned and bitter about the contract.
~
up, up, down, down, left, right,left,right, B,A, start.
up, up, down, down, left, right,left,right, B,A, start.
Michael C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have only seen the no doggy bag rule when it was
> next to a long list of items that could not be
> ordered, or other stupid rules like a bar lunch
> with no alcohol allowed. I view it as a strong
> warning sign that the client and/or restaurant
> owners are becoming disillusioned and bitter about
> the contract.
Hmmm, this is an interesting spin on this conversation. Could be true. I think part of the problem with this thread is that we are all talking apples and oranges. OP, is the instruction for no leftovers for lower end or a high end restaurant? All my previous comments refer to a high end restaurant. I mentioned the wine in conjunction with a dinner over $100 but got a comment about a $30 reimbursement dinner for two. As the work involved in a $30 reimbursement is much less than that typically involved in a $100+ kind of place I might feel differently about leftovers. I would definitely feel differently about not having wine being an issue. I cannot buy one glass of wine per person and the one required at the bar plus 2 mid priced entrees and an appetizer and a dessert and a valet on a high end shop and come under the reimbursement so pigging out and ordering the higher priced item to take home just to use all the money is not even a consideration. Again, perhaps I shop for the wrong companies. I know Coyle has more generous compensation/reimbursement but I have not felt the urge to spend even more time on a fine dining report than I already do.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have only seen the no doggy bag rule when it was
> next to a long list of items that could not be
> ordered, or other stupid rules like a bar lunch
> with no alcohol allowed. I view it as a strong
> warning sign that the client and/or restaurant
> owners are becoming disillusioned and bitter about
> the contract.
Hmmm, this is an interesting spin on this conversation. Could be true. I think part of the problem with this thread is that we are all talking apples and oranges. OP, is the instruction for no leftovers for lower end or a high end restaurant? All my previous comments refer to a high end restaurant. I mentioned the wine in conjunction with a dinner over $100 but got a comment about a $30 reimbursement dinner for two. As the work involved in a $30 reimbursement is much less than that typically involved in a $100+ kind of place I might feel differently about leftovers. I would definitely feel differently about not having wine being an issue. I cannot buy one glass of wine per person and the one required at the bar plus 2 mid priced entrees and an appetizer and a dessert and a valet on a high end shop and come under the reimbursement so pigging out and ordering the higher priced item to take home just to use all the money is not even a consideration. Again, perhaps I shop for the wrong companies. I know Coyle has more generous compensation/reimbursement but I have not felt the urge to spend even more time on a fine dining report than I already do.
Coyle is only the MSC I know that specifically doesn't allow doggie bags on any assignment. They also don't allow wine with most lunches, and the most expensive steak is never allowed either.
The requirements have been put in place by the MSC due to abuse, sadly. There was much more freedom when I started with Coyle long ago and I never had to watch my budget back then, provided I ordered within the guidelines. These days it's difficult for me to stay within budget because they have tightened up, and now I'm the one that's bitter because I remember the "good old days".
The requirements have been put in place by the MSC due to abuse, sadly. There was much more freedom when I started with Coyle long ago and I never had to watch my budget back then, provided I ordered within the guidelines. These days it's difficult for me to stay within budget because they have tightened up, and now I'm the one that's bitter because I remember the "good old days".
I have only seen one restaurant shop which stated clearly, do not take any food home. I just order accordingly. I google the restaurant's menu ahead of time so I stay under the limit 99% of the time, especially with fine dining. There is no way to stay under with cheesecake because I take my husband and we always order an appetizer, plus the two entrees, and coffee. By the time we add the tip, it usually is closer to $50. I have never taken home any food from Cheesecake, even though we could, under the guideline.
Not my circus - Not my monkeys @(*.*)@
~Polish Proverb~
~Polish Proverb~
I have done many, many restaurant shops but very few FF. I have neve encountered a restaurant shop requiring no
doggie bag. I just did a very upscale one this week and the clients seem to really, really enjoy carrying those cute doggie bags that my companion insisted in asking for a doggie bag.
Regarding the airport shops, if they had those no doggie bags requirement, I would have never done them. Never! I am a small eater. Since I am required to get an appetizer, an entree and a dessert, as well as a drink, there is no way I would not have to doggie bag part of my entree. There are actually at least 9 shops in an assignment and at least four of them are restaurants or bar, not a coffee shop or FF. I have always asked for a two-day window because there is just too much to eat. The requirement is usually a 30-minute stay. There is no way I could consume all of those in that period. And because it is at the airport, there is the impending 'flight' to consider. They usually are prepared for a doggie bag. It's in the way one
packs those doggie bags in the travel suitcase or back pack that would avoid suspicion. I have never encountered an airport shop guideline with no doggie bag.
When I was a newbie, I used to do mostly restaurant shops and high-end at that. My very first comment to my scheduler was my inability to consume all that food. She told me to order all the required food, taste them a little for the evaluation part and doggie bag them. I have never been questioned and they all went through and I usually don't even taste the dessert. The server almost always asks once you linger on the food if you want a doggie bag. They do get a good tip for that added task.
doggie bag. I just did a very upscale one this week and the clients seem to really, really enjoy carrying those cute doggie bags that my companion insisted in asking for a doggie bag.
Regarding the airport shops, if they had those no doggie bags requirement, I would have never done them. Never! I am a small eater. Since I am required to get an appetizer, an entree and a dessert, as well as a drink, there is no way I would not have to doggie bag part of my entree. There are actually at least 9 shops in an assignment and at least four of them are restaurants or bar, not a coffee shop or FF. I have always asked for a two-day window because there is just too much to eat. The requirement is usually a 30-minute stay. There is no way I could consume all of those in that period. And because it is at the airport, there is the impending 'flight' to consider. They usually are prepared for a doggie bag. It's in the way one
packs those doggie bags in the travel suitcase or back pack that would avoid suspicion. I have never encountered an airport shop guideline with no doggie bag.
When I was a newbie, I used to do mostly restaurant shops and high-end at that. My very first comment to my scheduler was my inability to consume all that food. She told me to order all the required food, taste them a little for the evaluation part and doggie bag them. I have never been questioned and they all went through and I usually don't even taste the dessert. The server almost always asks once you linger on the food if you want a doggie bag. They do get a good tip for that added task.
Regarding overordering, if I have somebody with me, I somehow order more than the reimbursement. Unless it specifically say to stay within the maximum reimbursement, I usually order what I want to eat, afterall, it is not just a job but an outing as well. I am a client in the establishment and must dress and act as such.
Why would the MSC discourage overordering when they are actually giving more business to the client when shoppers order more than they are reimbursed? Considering they don't usually pay for the tip, the client had actually acquired more business if the shopper spent more. They must have set the maximum reimbursement in accordance with the restaurant pricing, so they should be prepared to shoulder it and not expect the shopper to scrimp to save them money while she does her job. Nickel and diming a shopper to do her job would defeat the purpose of mystery shopping as a regular client in that establishment.
Are you suggesting that I budget my expenses to way below the reimbursement to save the client money?
It would not be natural because as a normal customer, when I decide to go to an upscale restaurant, I don't think that way. I am prepared to pay just to even think to go there.
For instance, in the latest upscale restaurant (popular haunts for young professionals) I went to, the reimbursement was $75 + parking (which I thought was very low) and I went way over that, not even considering the tax. The cheapest entree was $20 and the appetizer was more than $15, which we shared. Add to that the required alcoholic drinks and the dessert. When we lingered on the food a little, the server asked if we wanted a doggie bag and we jumped at the suggestion. We had seen people proudly carrying cute little doggie bags when they came out in the lobby, while we were waiting to be seated. Then I had to add tip...
Why would the MSC discourage overordering when they are actually giving more business to the client when shoppers order more than they are reimbursed? Considering they don't usually pay for the tip, the client had actually acquired more business if the shopper spent more. They must have set the maximum reimbursement in accordance with the restaurant pricing, so they should be prepared to shoulder it and not expect the shopper to scrimp to save them money while she does her job. Nickel and diming a shopper to do her job would defeat the purpose of mystery shopping as a regular client in that establishment.
Are you suggesting that I budget my expenses to way below the reimbursement to save the client money?
It would not be natural because as a normal customer, when I decide to go to an upscale restaurant, I don't think that way. I am prepared to pay just to even think to go there.
For instance, in the latest upscale restaurant (popular haunts for young professionals) I went to, the reimbursement was $75 + parking (which I thought was very low) and I went way over that, not even considering the tax. The cheapest entree was $20 and the appetizer was more than $15, which we shared. Add to that the required alcoholic drinks and the dessert. When we lingered on the food a little, the server asked if we wanted a doggie bag and we jumped at the suggestion. We had seen people proudly carrying cute little doggie bags when they came out in the lobby, while we were waiting to be seated. Then I had to add tip...
To clear up any confusion; We are talking about 1 MSC that prohibits this. Their dinners almost always reimburse well over $100, cover the tip, and pay a fee. Pricing on menu items vary by a lot and the MSC is generally generous about allowing shoppers to order from mid-priced items, rather than only getting the cheapest items and still being out of pocket.
What the MSC expects is to have shoppers order an average meal, consume their food at the table, enjoy the meal and then submit the evaluation. Since these are not chain restaurants with standardized pricing, the MSC does not have the manpower to constantly monitor the menu pricing and set it at a level that will not allow for over-ordering. If the client constantly gets billed for meals up to the limit of what they will reimburse, that just reinforces a stereotype about shoppers, so yes, I recommend ordering below the reimbursement threshold of an assignment on occasion if it's possible to do so and still have an enjoyable meal.
Shoppers SHOULD be concerned with how their behavior affects the end client. That's how you build a rapport with a MSC. When you look out for their interests, you may find that they take the initiative to look out for yours! If your goal is to maximize your profit by ordering a much food as possible, then you should not be surprised by a company trying to pay shoppers as little as possible.
There is so much hostility toward MSCs and their representatives that I see on this forum and I don't always understand it. The job at hand is to work together so that all parties benefit...not just in MSing, but in all business ventures.
What the MSC expects is to have shoppers order an average meal, consume their food at the table, enjoy the meal and then submit the evaluation. Since these are not chain restaurants with standardized pricing, the MSC does not have the manpower to constantly monitor the menu pricing and set it at a level that will not allow for over-ordering. If the client constantly gets billed for meals up to the limit of what they will reimburse, that just reinforces a stereotype about shoppers, so yes, I recommend ordering below the reimbursement threshold of an assignment on occasion if it's possible to do so and still have an enjoyable meal.
Shoppers SHOULD be concerned with how their behavior affects the end client. That's how you build a rapport with a MSC. When you look out for their interests, you may find that they take the initiative to look out for yours! If your goal is to maximize your profit by ordering a much food as possible, then you should not be surprised by a company trying to pay shoppers as little as possible.
There is so much hostility toward MSCs and their representatives that I see on this forum and I don't always understand it. The job at hand is to work together so that all parties benefit...not just in MSing, but in all business ventures.
SteveSoCal Wrote:
>
> There is so much hostility toward MSCs and their
> representatives that I see on this forum and I
> don't always understand it.
Steve, I had an opportunity to discuss employee discontent with a psychiatrist and he said it's cultural. Employees expect to be taken advantage of so they search for any perceived slight they can resent. He said that employees understand management is making a profit off their efforts, and they consider it part of their job to make that as difficult as possible. If there is more than one employee, the employees may work together to secretly undermine management by performing at the lowest possible acceptable level. Of course we are not employees but the same principle probably applies. It seems to me that many times shoppers assume the worst possible outcome when the least little thing goes wrong and are not willing to give the companies the benefit of the doubt. Of course the companies are trying to make money from their efforts. Aren't we all?
>
> There is so much hostility toward MSCs and their
> representatives that I see on this forum and I
> don't always understand it.
Steve, I had an opportunity to discuss employee discontent with a psychiatrist and he said it's cultural. Employees expect to be taken advantage of so they search for any perceived slight they can resent. He said that employees understand management is making a profit off their efforts, and they consider it part of their job to make that as difficult as possible. If there is more than one employee, the employees may work together to secretly undermine management by performing at the lowest possible acceptable level. Of course we are not employees but the same principle probably applies. It seems to me that many times shoppers assume the worst possible outcome when the least little thing goes wrong and are not willing to give the companies the benefit of the doubt. Of course the companies are trying to make money from their efforts. Aren't we all?
Mary Davis Nowell. Based close to Fort Worth. Shopping Interstate 20 east and west, Interstate 35 north and south.
Interesting point, Mary. It rings true since I think one of the major issues with shoppers is a lack of understanding the differences between contract work and employment.
It's also interesting to me that those who have the strongest objection to the no doggie-bag rule continue to cite examples that are clearly not connected to the MSC with this rule. As Sandy said above; We are talking about apples and oranges here.
Is there anyone unhappy with leftovers policy who is shopping high-end dining in the $200 range that pays a fee and fully reimburses the meal?
It's also interesting to me that those who have the strongest objection to the no doggie-bag rule continue to cite examples that are clearly not connected to the MSC with this rule. As Sandy said above; We are talking about apples and oranges here.
Is there anyone unhappy with leftovers policy who is shopping high-end dining in the $200 range that pays a fee and fully reimburses the meal?
I still don't get the "over ordering" concept. Are you saying that if the reimbursement is $XXX I should always order less to build some kind of rapport with the MSC?
Time to win friends and influence people with a sanctimonious comment.
I never go to movies. The last time I went was many years ago. I am cheap and have never bought food at a movie. I just did a movie shop with a snack bar allowance. I was outraged by the prices!!! Seriously I haven't been so outraged since I watched Girls. (I'm old fashioned.) Luckily I wasn't upsold so I did the morally superior thing and spent the smallest amount possible (which was still to me an outrageously high amount) because of my principles.
This was a silly thing to do. I'm gonna order whatever I want next time. If the food allowance is $50 it doesn't cost the restaurant $50 to prepare. They hired us to do a job. The increment isn't worth quibbling over. This is business - order and take advantage of your "pay."
I never go to movies. The last time I went was many years ago. I am cheap and have never bought food at a movie. I just did a movie shop with a snack bar allowance. I was outraged by the prices!!! Seriously I haven't been so outraged since I watched Girls. (I'm old fashioned.) Luckily I wasn't upsold so I did the morally superior thing and spent the smallest amount possible (which was still to me an outrageously high amount) because of my principles.
This was a silly thing to do. I'm gonna order whatever I want next time. If the food allowance is $50 it doesn't cost the restaurant $50 to prepare. They hired us to do a job. The increment isn't worth quibbling over. This is business - order and take advantage of your "pay."
imagator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still don't get the "over ordering" concept. Are
> you saying that if the reimbursement is $XXX I
> should always order less to build some kind of
> rapport with the MSC?
I only have one example of this where I felt I could not order to the max. I had a mid range Mexican dining where the maximum reimbursement was $125 for food and table drinks. There was a separate reimbursement for the prior bar visit where I was encouraged to try one or two of the fancy and very strong cocktails. I had not eaten at this place previously so assumed they would have entrees in the $20+/- range with that reimbursement. I got the menu and saw that the entree I wanted was $6.95! My husband went all out and ordered an entree for $12.95. I was already feeling drunk enuf (I am a cheap drunk) from my one very strong margarita so I did not want to spend further on those. Try as I might the most I could get my bill up to was $60 including tax and tip without feeling like I overordered. I ate the entire appetizer and my usual 2-3 baskets of chips and salsa which to me is the best part of a mexican meal. My husband had another margarita and I took most of my entree home. I had to eat the dessert because it would have melted. I still do not know why the max reimbursement for that place is so high but I have not gone back even though I had a huge meal. But I would have had to cover my table in appetizers or order extra entrees in order to spend more and I felt that was inappropriate. Part of the reason I never did this shop again is because I sort of felt cheated not even spending half the limit and also because it was a danged long report for a $6.95 entree! If I go back it will not be on a mystery shop. Anyway, this shop seems a rare occurance and I could see that particular restaurant saying no doggie bags. I could have taken home the whole menu for $125 or else been way to drunk to know what a minute was let alone time it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still don't get the "over ordering" concept. Are
> you saying that if the reimbursement is $XXX I
> should always order less to build some kind of
> rapport with the MSC?
I only have one example of this where I felt I could not order to the max. I had a mid range Mexican dining where the maximum reimbursement was $125 for food and table drinks. There was a separate reimbursement for the prior bar visit where I was encouraged to try one or two of the fancy and very strong cocktails. I had not eaten at this place previously so assumed they would have entrees in the $20+/- range with that reimbursement. I got the menu and saw that the entree I wanted was $6.95! My husband went all out and ordered an entree for $12.95. I was already feeling drunk enuf (I am a cheap drunk) from my one very strong margarita so I did not want to spend further on those. Try as I might the most I could get my bill up to was $60 including tax and tip without feeling like I overordered. I ate the entire appetizer and my usual 2-3 baskets of chips and salsa which to me is the best part of a mexican meal. My husband had another margarita and I took most of my entree home. I had to eat the dessert because it would have melted. I still do not know why the max reimbursement for that place is so high but I have not gone back even though I had a huge meal. But I would have had to cover my table in appetizers or order extra entrees in order to spend more and I felt that was inappropriate. Part of the reason I never did this shop again is because I sort of felt cheated not even spending half the limit and also because it was a danged long report for a $6.95 entree! If I go back it will not be on a mystery shop. Anyway, this shop seems a rare occurance and I could see that particular restaurant saying no doggie bags. I could have taken home the whole menu for $125 or else been way to drunk to know what a minute was let alone time it.
imagator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you saying that if the reimbursement is $XXX I
> should always order less to build some kind of
> rapport with the MSC?
I'm saying that you should not be concerned about spending as much as possible. Order the food that you would like to eat using the recommendations of the server for portion sizing and your knowledge of what is allowed in the budget.
With fine dining, portion sizes and item pricing can vary greatly. Always allow the server to gauge your appetite and make recommendations. That's what the clients usually wants to know about. If you really are just interested in a soup and small entree, along with a coffee for dessert, but that would leave you with $50 shy of the maximum reimbursement, don't be so concerned about the 'unspent' reimbursement money. That will give you a much better platform to plead your case from if you go over budget on another evaluation and proposition the MSC to modify the reimbursement level, as you are established as someone who orders sensibly (I push back on MSCs any time I order what I think is reasonable and end up over budget, and most of the time I end up getting fully reimbursed).
The scenario that the MSC is trying to avoid is Mr. Shopper ordering 2 large appetizers and entrees, disregarding the server's warning that the apps are very large and also ordering two side dishes, along with 2 desserts, eating 30% of the food and asking for the remainder to be boxed up. It gets in the way of the reporting and the service because the shopper is not allowing the upsell, and the timings/quality for the courses can potentially be off if the restaurant is holding up an order due to the shopper having uneaten food on the table.
There are times that you will have food left. It happens. The rule is really just about not over-ordering and/or prompting for a box. The end client reads that in the report and besides being potentially offended, they would have cause to possibly lower the reimbursement for future evaluations and none of us want that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you saying that if the reimbursement is $XXX I
> should always order less to build some kind of
> rapport with the MSC?
I'm saying that you should not be concerned about spending as much as possible. Order the food that you would like to eat using the recommendations of the server for portion sizing and your knowledge of what is allowed in the budget.
With fine dining, portion sizes and item pricing can vary greatly. Always allow the server to gauge your appetite and make recommendations. That's what the clients usually wants to know about. If you really are just interested in a soup and small entree, along with a coffee for dessert, but that would leave you with $50 shy of the maximum reimbursement, don't be so concerned about the 'unspent' reimbursement money. That will give you a much better platform to plead your case from if you go over budget on another evaluation and proposition the MSC to modify the reimbursement level, as you are established as someone who orders sensibly (I push back on MSCs any time I order what I think is reasonable and end up over budget, and most of the time I end up getting fully reimbursed).
The scenario that the MSC is trying to avoid is Mr. Shopper ordering 2 large appetizers and entrees, disregarding the server's warning that the apps are very large and also ordering two side dishes, along with 2 desserts, eating 30% of the food and asking for the remainder to be boxed up. It gets in the way of the reporting and the service because the shopper is not allowing the upsell, and the timings/quality for the courses can potentially be off if the restaurant is holding up an order due to the shopper having uneaten food on the table.
There are times that you will have food left. It happens. The rule is really just about not over-ordering and/or prompting for a box. The end client reads that in the report and besides being potentially offended, they would have cause to possibly lower the reimbursement for future evaluations and none of us want that.
SteveSoCal said
"The scenario that the MSC is trying to avoid is Mr. Shopper ordering 2 large appetizers and entrees, disregarding the server's warning that the apps are very large and also ordering two side dishes, along with 2 desserts, eating 30% of the food and asking for the remainder to be boxed up. It gets in the way of the reporting and the service because the shopper is not allowing the upsell, and the timings/quality for the courses can potentially be off if the restaurant is holding up an order due to the shopper having uneaten food on the table. "
This explains it better for me. It goes back to what a previous poster said about letting the shoppers know why something is done.
"The scenario that the MSC is trying to avoid is Mr. Shopper ordering 2 large appetizers and entrees, disregarding the server's warning that the apps are very large and also ordering two side dishes, along with 2 desserts, eating 30% of the food and asking for the remainder to be boxed up. It gets in the way of the reporting and the service because the shopper is not allowing the upsell, and the timings/quality for the courses can potentially be off if the restaurant is holding up an order due to the shopper having uneaten food on the table. "
This explains it better for me. It goes back to what a previous poster said about letting the shoppers know why something is done.
Ive never heard of this requirement. Frankly over 50% of the dining out I do is via shops. I oftentimes go above the reimbursement amount if there is no fee. While im generally not one to consume leftovers, and dont order more than i think i can handle, if I am paying out of pocket at a restaurant I otherwise would not have ate at, I would not be too pleased that I had to leave uneaten food against my will.
As far as buying food to taste and toss, I dont see how shoppers get away with it time after time. Especially a dine in shop where they have to order specific items and taste them. I got a friend into shopping and they repeatedly take fast food shops at a place where they dont like the required purchase. They will toss it or give it away, never personally tasting any of the food.
As far as buying food to taste and toss, I dont see how shoppers get away with it time after time. Especially a dine in shop where they have to order specific items and taste them. I got a friend into shopping and they repeatedly take fast food shops at a place where they dont like the required purchase. They will toss it or give it away, never personally tasting any of the food.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.