It would have been nice if you would have copied and pasted it into your post, rather than the small thumbnail that is difficult to read.

I can't read his two posts because they are too large. Only part of the text is showing. The left side is missing a few works.

You see a thumbnail. I see a poster!

Instead of trying to post actual articles, wouldn't it be easier to just include a link to the article? If people are interested in reading the article, they will just click on the link. And before people start whining about clicking on links, it is easy to tell who is a valid shopper in this forum by reading their other posts. Of course I would not click on a one posting hit and run.

Hey he fixed it. It's an interesting topic so can we get back on? Those pizza shops sound like a pita. I have never taken one because I don't do pita for just reimbursement. I need some actual income for that.

The answer was confusing. The GMs have a lot of pressure so they want to identify the shoppers in order to provide the best service. Then why do they out the shopper to corporate?

I did one back when they were paid in addition to the reimbursement. On one picture, I was less than one degree from being perfectly square in the frame...and the shop was rejected. After that I swore that I would starve before I did another of their shops.

If the MSCs and clients would put their heads together (as they should in COUNTLESS situations, but don't), then that new strategy would leave shoppers with some flexibility to deviate from the sometimes dead giveaway scenarios to which they require us to adhere. Every once in a while, it would come in handy to NOT HAVE TO ASK a particular question in a specific way, or order a particular type of pizza with no exceptions. If we were allowed that professional courtesy to adjust the pattern somewhat, then the employees would have fewer clues as to who is the shopper. Adhering to the same set of guidelines every single time just helps to out the shopper, regardless of how well the shopper conducts his/her shop. I had one manager try to out me, when he said as I arrived, "At first, we thought you were the mystery shopper." Apparently when I arrived, I wasn't who or what they had expected, since he said, "At first." Obviously I reacted so blankly to the statement, and convincing him that I was clueless, even commenting how mystery shopping is just an Internet scam, where they make you cash bogus checks or something because it had happened to a friend of mine, that he ended up apologizing for thinking I was the shopper. Then he told me that mystery shopping was real and he spent a few moments, explaining to me how it works and why my order had "at first" seemed so close to one of their shopping scenarios. I reported it and the MSC/client aparently had no issues, given that the manager had spent time, explaining to me what mystery shopping was. LOL!

I did one car dealership a few years ago and received the red carpet treatment. Did they figure out who I was? You bet they did! The dealership's owner's son took good care of me!

Ridiculous I think. It's like a sick game. What is the point?

Anyway, I guess I'll just do what I'm doing and let them figure it out.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2015 03:04PM by Canuck.

Canuck, if you are getting paid and getting more job offers, don't sweat it. You are not being paid to change policy at the MSC or the client's business.

I'm more likely to read what is posted in the thread than to click links, but I will also google on my own if I question what is being quoted out of the context. My personal MO is to quote in the post *and* include the link so people can go to the source if they want. I try to do this any time there is much more to the subject than the snippet I'm quoting so if someone wants to learn more they don't have to ask for the link.

Not sure I've had reason to do that here -- I'm on other boards where I have done that though, usually in the context of information or advice about an animal's medical problem. But it would be a good thing to do here too.

oh, and I heartily agree that the cookie-cutter scenarios do not provide a true customer experience to evaluate and are more likely to blow our cover. Some of the questions we have to ask are ridiculous.

I have posted the first paragraph of an article so people have an idea what what the subject matter is but I also have provided a link so people can continue if they want to. Providing a link does not mean that people can not discuss the subject matter. Read through the forum; it has been done lots of times. And it is a lot easier that having to reformat and edit your post several times after people complain that they can not read it. Why make things harder? Life is hard enough.

We often go off topic on this forum. It's one of the reasons the forum has a great exchange of ideas. If you want everything in neat little threads with no deviation I can perhaps suggest a different forum for you. Also you are not the moderator and should not be telling people what they can and can't post and where.

Also, to get back on the topic of how to post external things in forums, I don't like a lot of pictures on this forum. It's pretty and uncluttered, adding photos makes it cluttered. So personally I prefer a link, but I certainly understand that some people don't.

Adding please does not change the tone of your post.

And my comments were directly related to the original post so it was indeed on topic. If you want off topic, we can talk about Deflategate or what movie you watched over the weekend or the bad winter storm that has hit parts of the northeast? What's your pleasure?

@bgriffin wrote:

Adding please does not change the tone of your post.

How about adding "PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE?"

Don't delete it on my account. I was just stating my opinion.

Also, he seemed to contradict himself in the post so I didn't find it that relevant. He said they don't want to identify the shopper because it would skew the results and then at the end he said there was enormous pressure to identify the shopper so they could rack up a whole lot of good results.

@Sybil2 wrote:

Canuck, if you are getting paid and getting more job offers, don't sweat it. You are not being paid to change policy at the MSC or the client's business.

I often post hoping the MSC or the client reads the forum and gets my SUGGESTIONS. I do not suggest to scold them. They are sitting in offices and most likely are out of touch with reality.

People tend to perform at the level they are being compensated. An employee sweeping the floor will not perform like a manager. If they get $2 for a shop they figure the client only wants a $2 report.

If shoppers get impossible scenarios that scream "I am the mystery shopper" and lose their compensation because they were identified they do not submit the shops. Now the scheduler has to find a replacement shopper and the client still has a defective scenario.

@BillBryaninCarthage wrote:

Sorry, but by the consensus of Sybil2, bgriffin, and AustinMom, who don't like images posted at this forum, I have deleted the image so as not to upset them any more than they already have been.

Why drag AustinMom into this mess? She did not even post in this thread. She liked a couple of posts by various posters, not just one of mine. How is she "part of the consensus?" Quit being a baby and grow up already. Geesh!

I guess I came too late to this party. I would like to read the article referenced in the OP. Where can I find it please?

Now we do need a link. The answer was so contradictory it left more questions than answers.

It wasn't an article, it was a series of posts on a message board. A link would be helpful so people could read if they're interested.

I just googled "reddit I am a papa johns manager shopper" and it came up.

Interestingly enough; he doesn't really answer the question about outing them to corporate, just about making a perfect pie for the known shopper.

(Deleted. Crossposted with about five people. )

(heart)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2015 07:27PM by stilllearning.