anyone else have problems with shopnchek now market force they will not let me do anymore shops they said that I gave too many good scores to clients. SO this goes to show that market force wants there shoppers to give bad scores to there clients. I write back to them about this and of course they do not respond. Also be very carefull with marketforce there editors do a poor job and make up dumb reasons as to not want to pay you. Also there pay is poor. Also you try to sumbit a receipt electronically and it does not take the recipt. This is the only company that I ever seen have such a horrible upload system.

Sorry for the problems you have had with MFI. They are not my favorite company as they are impersonal, making it difficult to get resolution when you encounter an issue. However, I have challenged decisions and gotten paid. It is just time-consuming and frustrating due to having to do it all through the help deak, who cannot make any decisions themselves.

I have no issues with the receipt upload at all. As long as you ensure that the receipts are less than a meg (which is a huge file size for something like a scan of a receipt) they have always taken, no problems.

They do a lot by algorithm. If you skew outside their probabilities statistics, they dump you. I think that is what you got with the "too good" thing. It is not a very shopper friendly manner of doing business.

In the end, given everything you have written here, why would you want to continue to work for a company for which you have such animosity? Best to
use your energies finding companies that are a better fit.

Hi, mnairus, I've had questions from MF editors, sometimes when they had confused the directions, but they have always responded to my arguments and reversed the editor's question. MF is VERY strict about some things, like time frames. I know some shoppers here have had MF problems, but it hasn't been my experience. My son and I have both shopped for MF for about 18 months with only a few glitches. I actually LIKE their upload system. I don't like submitting a CPI, but I have never had difficulty uploading ....except when I tried to upload a pdf instead of a jpeg ....LOL ..... my mistake. I have done only a couple of negative reports, most have been very positive. So far I have not heard anything that would lead me to think they want bad reports. The pay IS low, and some shops I simply don't take because the pay is too low for me to consider; other shops are low but within my acceptable pay, because I like the shop location or because it is easy since I can self-schedule and they pay like clockwork.

From the folks I have heard from that MF dumped, I gather they do have an algorithm in place that identifies shoppers with reports that are too uniform. The only think you can do is report the good and bad you see--that is, after all, what you are hired to do. I am concerned that the main client I do for them rarely has any reportable issues. I suspect one of these days I too will get the algorithm dump and they don't let you contest those.

the funny with them also is that they write and email admitting that is the reason as to why they will not allow more shops. I wish that there clients knew how they are.

Honestly, I doubt the client cares. Why should they? The kind of shops that MFI typically handles (check the box, low narrative, etc.) shows what kind of clients they have...ones that are using it for bonusing management, etc. It is not their worry whether or not contractors are happy. It's a churn mill and they don't care.

However, clients that require and PAY FOR high quality narrative will be the opposite.

My guess is that their 'proprietary algorithms' are presented to potential clients as a methodology for eliminating "yes men" and "fault finders". Neither will do the client any good. With their shops I look very hard to make certain that I have really checked everything they ask about to have at least one at least minor deficiency. And if the place is a pit I would never return to there needs to be at least some positives because even the most rotten joint has something positive--even if it is just easy access to the parking lot from the street.

Whether MF or any MSP, I never give a thought to my reports consistently being positive, negative or mixed. They are what they are. Haven't had any problem with MF and the few issues I've had have been resolved. MF isn't an MSP with whom you can easily establish a 'personal' relationship. Fine with me. MSing is largely impersonal, in my opinion.

I do make an effort not to sound like a broken record with reports for the same client that I frequently complete. After a couple of years of positive reports, one client of theirs recently did poorly - a real difference in my usual reports. No problem sounding differently on that one!

I actually like MFI just fine. Fees could be better, but I take the shops that are very close to me and wait for them to call me on the shops that are a little further away. Any time they call for any reason (can you do a shop; we need to reschedule a shop for client reasons), I ask them for more money. I'm usually happy getting $12.50 for the FF shops. For the grocery shops, I was really surprised when they upped the fee from $4 to $15 in the blink of an eye. When fees go up by that much, it confirms that the MSCs are churning a fair amount of profit & sticking it to the shoppers as much as possible.

Their reports are standard & I try to watch details each time I shop no matter who it's for. After all, that's what we're paid to do. I have both positive and negative shops for them, but many are pretty straightforward.

I've pretty much given up on Shop'n'Chek, because I very rarely see any shops in my area, where there used to be plenty. I have emailed a couple times because of the stories of shoppers being blocked, and I was told that shops just get snapped up very quickly in my area. I'm skeptical of this because their big burger chain has a location in my neighborhood where shops don't tend to get picked up.

I wish that there clients knew of how poor of a company that they are using to provide there shopping services. Hopefully, these companies switch to other shopping companies

mnairus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish that there clients knew of how poor of a
> company that they are using to provide there
> shopping services. Hopefully, these companies
> switch to other shopping companies


At the risk of sounding like I agree with you, which I don't, it stands to reason that a company would demonstrate the same level of professionalism at both ends.

If Company X is unprofessional in dealing with shoppers, I would guess they are equally unprofessional in dealing with clients. So, a client that maintains a relationship with Company X probably knows their level of professionalism and chooses to remain with them anyway, probably for financial reasons.

Just a thought...

I so agree, JT. mnarius, I feel you are dreaming if you think the clients care "how poor a company they are using." They don't. That is why they use that one. It's cheap and they get the results that they want. Doesn't mean they are accurate, or that the clients really care about good service...These clients are price conscious and they choose to use it to bonus their managers, or not, given their set standards. YOU/US are a cog int the wheel. They could care less. Let the data roll in. Unbathed shpper? No worries.

dee shops Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I feel you are dreaming
> if you think the clients care "how poor a company
> they are using." They don't. That is why they
> use that one. It's cheap and they get the results
> that they want. Doesn't mean they are accurate,
> or that the clients really care about good
> service...These clients are price conscious and
> they choose to use it to bonus their managers, or
> not, given their set standards. YOU/US are a cog
> int the wheel. They could care less. Let the
> data roll in. Unbathed shpper? No worries.


Although I have no evidence, I suspect there is another reason as well. It speaks to liability.

If there are actual real glaring problems, companywide, even a poor quality MS company will eventually expose them. But if there are minor problems, it is quite possible that they will slip by unnoticed for quite some time.

Ignoring these minor problems allows Company X to save the money and frustration involved in having them corrected, as long as they don't dramatically impact the P&L statement.

However, should someone slip on the puddle on the floor, caused by the perpetually leaking ice machine, or some other similar incident, Company X can point out that not only was there a "Caution Wet Floor" sign in place, but as an extra precaution Corporate had been contracting Mystery Shoppers to visit the franchised location as their agent, each month for the last 3 years, to observe (among other things) any safety hazards, and as evidenced by their reports, (See Exhibit There had been no mention of a leaky ice machine, so corporate had no way of knowing that the machine had been leaking, thereby causing the puddle, so the franchisee may be liable, and perhaps the MSC shared that liability, but Company X certainly did not.

I know that in my experience with big business, the more CYA stuff you have in place, that you can get cheap, with results skewed the way you need them, the happier you are.

Excellent points, JT.

I do a lot of ff for mf and have never had a problem with reports or money. I guess I have been lucky so far.