Hi! I am new to this forum, but not new to mystery shopping. I have been doing it for over a decade. Recently I learned about the opportunity to be certified, so I tested to earn my silver license. Anyway, here is my question. I often read in our guidelines that we better do so and so because there are video cameras in the store. Our every move will be watched and if we don't tow the line, we will not be paid! I always roll my eyes and say "puleeeeez!". But then, I think, hmmm, has anyone ever been told that their mystery shopping video tape was actually watched??? Have any of you been on the Candid Camera?

While I am sure it has happened, in my 19 years as a shopper I have never been told my shop was reviewed over the security cameras. I suspect it is one more method the MSC uses to keep us honest. Think about the effort that would be involved in doing this. Plus, how long does the store actually have access to video considering the shop may have been performed a month before the store-level employees see the results. Finally, does management really have the time to do this?

Since I never falsely report my shops, I could not care less about the client reviewing video. If they are doing it to spot the shopper, that's a defect in their mystery shopping program that I have no control over.

I wrote a report recently at a retail store where I was ignored by the staff and not offered any assistance.

About a week later I got a follow-up from the MSC that the client stated that I was only in the store for 9 minutes rather that the 14 I stated (no time requirement on the Guidelines) as the client reviewed the security footage.

Again another reason why I dislike when shops do not go correct as it becomes...

Welcome to the forum!
Since most establishments have security cameras, it is possible that any report could be checked against video footage. I don't think anyone has the time to check them all. My other thought is the laws in place in many states regarding consent while recording. The MSC may add this to their ICA or instructions to cover their end. If the employee has awareness via the employer, and we are forewarned via the "statement", then all parties are aware of the recording practices. This covers both one and two party consent for places that automatically record everything. This is not "fact", but just a thought
I do not worry about it either. As long as we are factual, then it is not an issue. Now, if you are in witness protection, or are a fugitive,,,, THAT is cause for concern, and you should consider another line of work

As long as there is no recorded audio, they can video to their heart's content as long as it is not in a dressing room, bathroom, or any of the other VERY FEW places where the laws say that privacy can be expected. Please see the New Mystery Shoppers area here and read the second thread about video and audio recording.

And, btw, if you have ever shopped a bank, you have been video taped.

Some are just saying that. Some are telling the truth. I would think it more depends on the client. For example, McDonald's reviews the tapes sometimes, both at the drive-thru and inside, when they want to. Some Five Guys locations review the tapes of all MS visits (management only, not the employees). I'm sure many clients could review the tapes, but I'm not sure many actually do it.

For me, there was an instance where the video tape saved a shop. It was for a bank. I had given the bank a few demerits due to lack of materials at the check writing desk and the brochure holders. I also mentioned in the report that parking was difficult even with a downtown lot nearby. When the bank received their report, the associates claimed I had hit a parked car while trying to parallel park, and then left the scene! My comment about difficult parking was the culprit. I asked for them to "roll tape." I drive a Nissan Murano. The car that left the scene was a Ford Taurus.
I was paid for the shop. The MSC offered an apology for accusing me.

crispins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wrote a report recently at a retail store where
> I was ignored by the staff and not offered any
> assistance.
>
> About a week later I got a follow-up from the MSC
> that the client stated that I was only in the
> store for 9 minutes rather that the 14 I stated
> (no time requirement on the Guidelines) as the
> client reviewed the security footage.
>
> Again another reason why I dislike when shops do
> not go correct as it becomes...


Almost exact same thing happened to me. A convenience store was cleaning the bathroom, poured out the mop bucket to mop the floor, and then left. Guess the go busy or something and forgot cause when I went it the floor was covered in soapy water and I almost fell on my ass. Put it in the report and the store reviewed the footage. Said I was in the store 2 minutes less than I said I was and threw the report out. So, yes, it does happen.

All good reasons why I love video shops; that way I have a video that supports my report down to the last detail.

I had a shop at Costco this morning and I wish I had been wearing my video rig. One of the people I was shopping was just standing there, piddling around with the product and totally ignoring the customers. I have a feeling I'm going to get called on this and would love to have the video backing me up.

I had a local grocery store pull tape one time. This was long before I was a MS. I use to go into the store 3-5 per week. And they had hired some new people and the last few times I went in the service was awful. Anyway, I saw the store manager out someone and he casually mentioned he hadn't seen me in a while. I knew the date because of a certain basketball game and he reviewed the footage. Called me and told me that he had written up the 3 employees - he knew way more details than I had given him - turns out two just never returned after that day and one was demoted from head cashier to cashier. My intention wasn't to get anyone fired. This was at least a month after my last visit that he was able to pull the tape.

As for stores pulling tape when I have shopped - I say go for it. I always give the benefit of the doubt to the employee so if I wrote it and it was bad then the service was bad and the management should look at the tape.

Yes, some of them do ! I completed a gas station and wrote in my report how wonderful and accommodating, 'Sally' was. While I was speaking with her near the cashier counter, she had told me that it was her first day, I wished her good luck. When they ran the video and evidentially the list of employees working that day, they booted my report due to they didn't have a 'Sally' working for them.

Not only that, the cashier didn't pass her introduction to me. I documented that, also. Come to find out they claimed that I was talking to the cashier in Portuguese; I responded that the only other language that I could speak would be seventh grade French, which was long, long ago.

So Crispins, It must be okay to be ignored in their store for 9 minutes. Really....talk about looking for an excuse to get a shop overturned!

I have been challenged on my report based on what was viewed on the tape, so yes they are checked when a report is challenged by the client.

I am amazed at these replies!!! Thank you all so much!

2 years ago I was challenge from my negative report. They could not find the vehicle that I had listed on my profile on the video tape. I had just bought a 2012 vehicle and did not update my profile. I even gave them more negative comments about the shop which were not required on the report. I got paid and still do those shops

barbage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Crispins, It must be okay to be ignored in
> their store for 9 minutes. Really....talk about
> looking for an excuse to get a shop overturned!

I thought that they were not going to pay me but I did get paid for the shop.

I think it was more of a case that the store manager didn't want to jeopardize his performance bonus and was looking for a reason to have the shop thrown out.

I responded the truth, that I did my timings from the time I got out of my car until I got back to my car.

When I am not doing a food shop where detailed timing is required I just use the clock in my car.

This shop was in a mall and the store was not where I thought it was.

I know they look at the video. I got called and asked if I had purchased a to-go order after eating my meal. Turns our that I had. I was even told what I had ordered. And yes, the shift manager had rec'd a negative report for telling me that one of their promotions was "just one of those marketing things that they made us do all the time". Turns out the client specified that I ask one of the associates to tell me about the promo. Wasn't a good response. I got chastised for not waiting till I was all done before getting my to go order. But I got paid.

I used to work for a few different retailers in loss prevention about 10 years ago. (Well, maybe longer...) At one of those retailers we had over 200 cameras (this was a more regional big box type store). All were connected to a computer system, and stored video for 30 days. We then pulled hard drives and put new ones in. Stuff was kept for years.

But that's not all. We could go to any point and any camera w/a date. We could also pull the keys entered into the registers at the same time. So I could look at a date 2 years ago, at 2:07 pm on XX date, and see who was at the cash register, what items were passing the scanner, and if they were being entered, if the price was being changed, etc.

So it's quite possible.

treydawgmt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that's not all. We could go to any point and
> any camera w/a date. We could also pull the keys
> entered into the registers at the same time. So I
> could look at a date 2 years ago, at 2:07 pm on XX
> date, and see who was at the cash register, what
> items were passing the scanner, and if they were
> being entered, if the price was being changed,
> etc.

Two years ago? That's unsettling from a privacy perspective. In the unlikely event I happened to be at this store when a murder was committed, and they didn't try to pin it on me until over a year later, the airtight alibi would be nice, but for most situations I had hoped surveillance video disappeared after three months tops.

Is this standard in the industry now? Even if I buy something with cash, if the date and time I bought it is known and it's within the last two years my anonymity is shot?

I have asked the msc to pulled the video on a FF I did a few years back. The cashier at the DT messed up, which ended up with my order messed up at the pick up window. The cashier coded there was more than one person in my car and the pick up window gave me one drink, slammed the window and was surprised when I was waiting for my the rest of my value meal. They completely messed up my order from start to finish, so after going back and forth with the msc, I gave them my car description, time I left the restaurant to start my drive thru and asked them to pull the video that showed I was in the car alone and that they did not give me my food. I was paid and I am still doing FF, so all's good.

The second time a security video was pulled was when I reported I was not helped within the time limit (4 minutes) in 3 departments. It was rare, but I reported it honestly. They tracked me backward from when I paid (using the receipt time and cashier, to when I started the shop at Customer Service. I have done hundreds of these shops since.

Do your shop correctly and do not be afraid of the companies pulling the security video.

DrSquash Wrote:

> Two years ago? That's unsettling from a privacy
> perspective. In the unlikely event I happened to
> be at this store when a murder was committed, and
> they didn't try to pin it on me until over a year
> later, the airtight alibi would be nice, but for
> most situations I had hoped surveillance video
> disappeared after three months tops.
>
> Is this standard in the industry now? Even if I
> buy something with cash, if the date and time I
> bought it is known and it's within the last two
> years my anonymity is shot?

I'm no longer (for the most part) involved in that industry. Is it the standard though? I'd bet so, since it was not new when I worked there probably 2002. In fact, I'd imagine the technology is even BETTER.

I'll tell you this, there is great reasons to have this technology in the stores from a business standpoint. I caught while working for a different retailer a manager and FORMER LOSS PREVENTION MANAGER stealing CASH from the safe. He KNEW there was a camera.

I caught an employee making "cash" payments to his store MasterCard. $600-800 "cash" missing every week, on the one night he worked. Amazingly a cash payment at the same time was made, and no cash went into the drawer.

At the store I was initially talking about, we caught more than one employee giving their friends 1/2 off, or skipping every other item, etc...

Theft is a HUGE issue, like you wouldn't believe.

My real issue with being videotaped is that the camera DOES add 10 lbs! :-(

*Is that 10 lbs per camera?

On my first casino job, I had a raging cocktail waitress. She had removed her name tag. Slammed the Bailey's on the table with a milk chocolately splash and ignored my stupid question about current slot promotions as she stomped away. I thought, "No name, no problem. Once they see this report, they will want to see the tape." I narrowed down my exact location and exact time and wrote a book about the event and her appearance.

Nope. That interaction was deleted from the report and I was docked accordingly.

I had an incident during an Ace Hardware shop; I said the associate was wearing a name tag, but it was barely legible. It had been printed out on a label maker a long time ago, was faded, and I could not read the name. Somehow, this translated to the proofreader that the associate was not wearing a tag at all! I got an email from the MSC, asking what I was wearing that day, my hair and jacket color, etc., so I knew they were going to videotape. It was obvious the associate WAS wearing a name tag, so they started squawking at me. I patiently explained: Yes, the associate was wearing a name tag, I never sad otherwise, but it was in poor condition and illegible, yada yada yada.

The shop was accepted, but I was asked to please not say an employee wasn't wearing a name tag when she was. I wrote back, "Please make sure your proofreader reads his/her work more carefully; this error was not on my end. Thank you."

Robinv

The multi burger man shop with pick your own toppings checks video. I said no peanuts. They said peanuts. I won!

I have had Coach and Buffalo Wild Wings review a couple of shops.

After employees contested my report at a Coach shop, my footage was shown, my statements were confirmed and I was "recognized" as a shopper and banned from further Coach assignments.

As for BWW, the employee claimed that she had indeed offered an appetizer. No audio was captured, so no go on her claim.

Coach know they are a dead giveaway with the expensive purchase and return. That is not ordinary there in my opinion and they know it. And with the required purchase on credit card we are a wave white flag shopper there.

cabazan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have had Coach and Buffalo Wild Wings review a
> couple of shops.
>
> After employees contested my report at a Coach
> shop, my footage was shown, my statements were
> confirmed and I was "recognized" as a shopper and
> banned from further Coach assignments.
>
> As for BWW, the employee claimed that she had
> indeed offered an appetizer. No audio was
> captured, so no go on her claim.

@CANADAMOMMY So true... I myself used to schedule 2 or 3 nearby shops and buy at one, return at the other and make a new purchase per my scenario.

I always assume the cameras are on and working.



cease