I have the integrity to report as I see it. The client is looking for facts not fiction. The editors have absolutely NO RIGHT to alter a report unless they can prove the shopper is unprofessional. Checking with the manager is like checking with the Fox to see if the chickens are safe.

One editor sent me an edited version of my report. The restaurant I was evaluating was ankle deep in litter. Customers at many tables were walking out without paying because they did not get their food after 45 minutes of waiting.
I performed evaluations at this location twice and it was horrible both times.

Unfortunately the mystery shopper can not walk out, but if I was not on a shop I would have left.

The editor wrote pure fiction. "It does not have to be the best you ever tasted", or "the best you ever experienced" or, "if it was corrected do not report it."

The location in a busy mall is no longer operating. Like restaurants in the mall are still operating. It was not the availability of customers that forced the location to close. The same franchise has several locations within 15 miles of this mall that are still operating.

If the owner received the information I wrote I am sure the owner would not have lost their investment at that location.

PT Barnum said you can not fool all of the people all of the time. The editors are trying to do just that to the detriment of the clients. The clients should demand to have the option of contacting the shoppers directly just to keep the editors honest.

No thank you, you do NOT want the client contacting you! With most of the locations we shop they are chains. With most of the chains there is a district manager or a regional manager or both. Those managers should be visiting the locations in their district/region. They can't evaluate customer service because generally they are known to the staff, who will be on best behavior when they walk in. But they certainly can tell if they walk into a garbage dump that has been reported as clean and well maintained that something is going on that they are not getting correct feedback. If they can't trust the MSP they are working with, they need to find another MSP.

I received the following message from an editor:
Your evaluation of XXXX for XYZ MSC has been reviewed.
Shop Grade : 7
Comments: Thank you for your report. You must provide more details about your visit in future. It was necessary to add comments using the answers you checked off. Use the questions in each section as a guide as to what should be included. All "no" answers should be commented on, for example that you were not told how long the service time would be. Also the service time was left blank. Annmarie

My reply to this was:
Thank you so very much XXXXX for your very kind words. I really do not expect to get an answer to this email, but I just wonder, how many shops have you done? How many of them were conducted in towns that had a population of 4,100 people? Did you know that in towns of that size people expect others to take them at their word? If the sign outside in two foot high letters says the lube job will be finished in 15 minutes, then IT WILL be finished in 15 minutes. Therefore, it would be redundant of me to pull past that sign and promptly ask, "Now, how long is this 15 minute lube job going to take?" Some things people in the outside world learn to take at face value and to do otherwise would look really suspicious!

Another really big problem I have with your response is that you not only CHANGED my report, but you wrote and told me that you had changed it. If you felt I completely failed to convey the proper answers to the client, have the guts to say so and deny my evaluation! But don't change my written report. It is what I saw and heard as I saw and heard them to happen.

I even stayed in my car the entire 15 minutes before going to the restroom, as instructed, so I would not miss anything.

You had more than one of these shops on your site for quite some time and no one had taken them. Had I not already been going to that town I would not have taken it. It just seemed to be the day to help out those in need. I THOUGHT was helping three people that day. Obviously not. So far the other MSCs have not complained.

I have been mystery shopping for 14 years. I have been Gold Certified since before most of you started shopping. I really do not have to take that from an editor.

How can she add comments when she didn't do the shop? I've never had an editor add anything to my report, however, they have asked for more information or clarification. The editor basically committed a fraudulent act and probably should, if the company values honesty and integrity, be removed as an editor. Just my opinion.

I live in a small town and there are plenty of places where customers can't take the advertised timetables as gospel.

most times you cant... its because facts are skewed or what not... there are asterisks and small print... people can makes studies correlate to whatver they want... editors can do whatever they want... its up to the company to check on whats being done to the report... and whats really happening and if they feel they are properly served... they are the ones paying for it...

if you feel your report has been compromised in some way... heres a news flash dont shop for them... complain all you want but understand chances are the company will take the word of their employee over a IC... i know i would because i would know the person better...

why would anyone want to work for a crooked company? i dont... tell em to "stuff it" and be done with it...

and if they edit the living snot out of the report and still pay for it... well then... you got your money what more do you want?

My life, for 30 years, was observation. A lot of planning went into providing a plan of work for individuals depending on my observations. If companies do not want the truth then don't ask me to observe and report.

I had an editor reword several of my comments to make a negative comment sound better. When it happened I wondered if they did that all the time to make a negative sound better. I knew they were going to question my answer because they usually did when it was really negative.

Cold is cold when it comes to food and nothing anyone can say, on a report, can make it any warmer on the day I did the shop.

The MSC still has the client and the service is still good where it always was and poor where it always was. My shopping report did not change much that I know of.

Since I do not shop for them any longer I just figure the MSC is still trying to make things sound better than they are.

cooldude581 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> and if they edit the living snot out of the report
> and still pay for it... well then... you got your
> money what more do you want?

this works for me. i try not to take it personally.

The problem with just accepting the fact that they edit reports to make thngs "sound better," doesn't quite make sense to me. The reason is, if the editors and/or company is being dishonest in this respect, are they also playing games with the ICs to cut their fee (which, in most cases in't very much)? I had 2 points deducted from a report because I needed to resubmit receipts. The reason the points were deducted? "They had to contact me." I re-submitted immediately. One point maybe, but two points? Like I said, have to wonder what kind of games some of these companies are playing to keep cash in their coffers and not pay the full fees.

I agree avitoots. While it may be 'easier' to rewrite or change a shopper's report, it is just plain wrong unless the shopper said 'no' in the check list and then in the narrative supported a 'yes' or vice versa. Even then I would prefer they contact me and I can sheepishly be annoyed by my goof.

Based on my experience mystery shopping companies simply don't submit negative reviews. It happened a few times with me - review was not so good and the editor sent me an e-mail saying that I didn't follow the script (I followed the script!) and they can't submit my review.
Of course if they don't submit my review they don't have to pay me! There are so many really BAD mystery shopping companies out there! Unbelievable! They just take advantage of us because .... they can - economy is still bad!

Negativity has never been a factor in rejecting a report I have submitted. There have been other reasons--shopper screwup, location screwup, instructions screwup. My shops with negative reports are more likely to have lower posted 'grades' because 'they had to contact me' to clarify and/or confirm that bad things really happened. But even that has not been a serious problem. The real key is to make sure your negativity is completely objective and reported with clearly stated facts and that you include whatever positives you can so there is not the sense that you are 'out to hang the jerks'. You may have to search for positives, but there have to be some. "Her uniform was soiled and wrinkled, her hair was neatly combed and her black nail polish was chipped and scraped."

I really hate it when they contact me to verify and then count off for me telling them things were exactly like I said in my report. This is especially irritating when it's a company I've shopped for years and consistently earned 10's.

LoriSmith -- The editors can create any excuse whatsoever to reject a report and we basically have no recourse. And, who's to say that they didn't submit it to the client?

TechSavvy -- When I receive e-mails asking to verify things already in the report, I wonder how closely they read the report I submitted. I then wonder about the competency of the editor. As for your working for the company for ten years, it could be a new editor reviewing the work and they may have no idea how long or ably you've worked for the company.

That's true. I sometimes attach a copy of the PDF I print of my report prior to submission. In one case, the editor said she couldn't see how my report originally read, so that was helpful. That led me to believe there'd already been one editor at my report. Such duplication of labor isn't very profitable. Maybe they were training a new editor and the first one's work was double-checked.