Ritter: fair or foul?

There is a shop available near my area that is being advertised with a gas reimbursement, even though the pumps are out of order for remodeling. The scheduler is aware that this is the case, and has not changed the description of the shop, or added anything that would indicate that the additional consideration will not be offered. In my opinion, offering a nonexistent reimbursement is dishonest, and lowers the true value of the shop. How does everyone else feel?

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

More Discussions About Ritter & Associates (All Companies)

Sometimes there are things they cannot do about the shop as far as making changes, yet they too are obligated to get the work done. Just leave the shop alone because as it gets stale they will need to bonus it. When the bonus and fee make the shop worthwhile without any gas component, then will be the time to take it.

They've been throwing a couple of bucks at a time on it for the last two weeks, along with the far easier non-reveal shop at the same location. I had my choice of shops, and took the easier one because I already had 10 shops that day, and didn't feel that the extra $2+$4 reimbursement justified the additional work. I let them know about the construction after performing the shop, and the email reply I got from the scheduler stated that they already knew about the issue. I'm wondering why a MSP would advertise the gas reimbursement as an additional benefit, when they knew that it would not be possible to do so. I actually got an invitation email from the scheduler after completing the first shop, and she did not clarify that the gas reimbursement was not available.

And beware if you do that and it goes to a court trail for any reason they have the right to supeona you to court for your pics.....

CANADAMOMMY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And beware if you do that and it goes to a court
> trail for any reason they have the right to
> supeona you to court for your pics.....

I'm missing something here. The discussion was the non-disclosure of gas pumps being closed. What does this refer to?

**********************************************************************
“Lying in bed would be an altogether perfect and supreme experience if only one had a colored pencil long enough to draw on the ceiling."
~Gilbert K. Chesterton

You are stating the obvious. "the pumps are closed for remodeling." and the MSP agrees with you, But did you try to get gas.? Did the owner run out and tell you , "NO GAS, NO GAS!!!!!

Maybe the MSP is looking for an interaction between You and the owner." Or the owner is selling gas and trying to cover it up.

YOu know some of those gas shops have more than purchasing GAS.

Do the other Gas Shops in the area maybe You are missing something besides the obvius.

You would testify to the validity of your pics in court that the pumps were labeled..... at the time of your shop.
The shopping company freely admitted this in the past that they often were challenged in court for the shoppers validity of your pics...
Of course by that time hopefully you have NOT erased them and you can prove your shots have not be altered....
Could you look at your gas shots a year from now and positively say YES those are EXACTLY what you took on date.....
And that those shots were not altered? I would not want to be in court with that challenge.

Any shops could do this... ANY.... just that THIS topic went to one company and if you track back far enough you can find the track record....

Well, I keep every picture and recording submitted, and the extras, as well. The exif data is there, so if it is on the date and time stated, and the exif data shows it as the same, I am not worried about the pix. But, in general, I dislike doing shops that may end up in court, and try to avoid them. :-)

Update: the scheduler sent out another email disclosing the issue with the location and offering a small bonus. Better late than never. I would have been pissed if I took that other shop and was expecting a gas reimbursement that would have been impossible. That's why I was irritated, Dee: the company should not offer a reimbursement if they know that the shopper won't get it. This scheduler sent out four emails about this location before disclosing the issue, which directly impacts shopper compensation.

I don't disagree. I never said that I did. :-)

amshopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would have been pissed if I took that other shop
> and was expecting a gas reimbursement that would
> have been impossible.

Is it possible at the time they did not know you could not purchase gas? I ask because I've done several gas shops for another MSP at stations that were completely gone. Since I went and took pictures proving they were gone, I still received the full payment minus the $1 reimbursement. I can not imagine a client or MSP would willingly pay someone to shop something they knew was not there.

Something else to consider....and this has been my experience.

The job description is generic and covers MANY locations. They do not go back and tailor specific one description.

So if you see the job ad for towns in ME, they are probably identical to the job ads for OH, FL, MO, etc.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Ritter: fair or foul?

Create an Account or Log In

Official List of Mystery Shopping Companies

Mystery Shopper Magazine