Irene - the conversation, as told to me, was not related to the conference in Vegas.

Regarding the comments regarding my honesty or misleading in my original post. Although I did not identify myself as being with a MSP, I also did not state that I was a shopper and thinking about doing it. I simply asked if it was ever okay to falsify a report. The purpose of the question was to gain some insight and start a dialogue and my role in the industry was hardly relative to the question.

I have read many of the threads on this forum and realize that MSCs are sometimes the target of some very vicious posts and, in some cases, possibly rightly so. I have also read some threads where MSC reps that have been attacked directly when they have attempted to participate in the conversation. I was hoping to avoid that by not immmediately identifying myself. I did, however, identify myself as soon as the question came up in the thread.

Regarding MickeyB's assertion that ensuring a report is not falsified sits solely on the MSC, I respectfully disagree. If a shopper is fulfilling their responsbility, falsifying a report would not enter their mind - as many of the previous responses have indicated. In many cases the MSC may be able to spot the falsification and many companies use various techniques to try to spot those bad reports including planted questions, reminders, etc. The only guarantee is that is doesn't happen in the first place.

I have always believed that satisfying the client requires a cooperative effort of both the MSCs and the shopper community. It is unfortunate that, in too many cases, this relationship is confrontational rather than cooperative.

corydj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always believed that satisfying the client
> requires a cooperative effort of both the MSCs and
> the shopper community. It is unfortunate that, in
> too many cases, this relationship is
> confrontational rather than cooperative.

At least this part I think you are correct on. And I find it disheartening and unfortunate that increasingly my list of companies I will no longer work with grows longer and longer. I have noted over the past half decade how cooperative enabling has gone out the window in a game of 'gotcha'. I have noted that within the past 12 months shops rejected (or attempted to be rejected) for nonsense exceeds the total from the previous 5 years. I have noted a significant increase in shops being questioned--even for stuff that is NOT in the instructions at all or stuff that is just head scratchingly stupid. A recent example was when I reported that there was nobody in a certain area of the store during the 5 minutes I lingered there and I was ordered to clarify exactly what the employee in that area was doing.

There are still some excellent and intelligent companies out there that are a joy to work WITH, so the plague of distrust and idiocy is not industry wide.

MSC's have a similar frustration. Finding good, responsible shoppers seems to be getting more and more difficult. Just like a shopper probably doesn't know the quality of the MSC until they have completed a visit, the MSC won't know if they are working with a good shopper until after the report has been submitted or, in some cases, after an angry phone call from a client telling the MSC a recent report was falsified.

IMO, omitting information is not the same as lying. If you assumed that corydj was a shopper when the question was first asked, that assumption was yours. I don't know corydj and don't believe that (s)he knows me. But, it seems to me that corydj identified himself/herself as soon as the question was asked.

While this is a forum for shoppers, I personally don't understand why MSCs aren't sometimes welcomed in the discussion. If they come onto the forum and are straightforward with us, I think it adds value to the forum.

It's great to know who we're dealing with, but we are MYSTERY shoppers. I prefer my anonymity when shopping and when posting.

As to the original topic, I don't believe it is ever justified to falsify a report. However, I'm sure that it happens because MSCs don't seem to care about the quality of shoppers that they engage. Too often, they seem to only care about playing limbo with shoppers fees. Do a better job of screening your shoppers and the quality of your reports will improve.

It takes more reporting time to falsify a report than reporting the truth the first time. It takes me long enough to do 40 questions. Sometimes writing comments on the truth is the bizarre. Falsify the report would take longer than the 12 hours we are alotted.

Corydj---if you had told the truth the first time about your credentials, you would not of have to come back 3 or more times explaining yourself.

There are trick questions in every form report. The client knows them and the scheduler does not, is most likely because the client is looking for cheaters.

Cory - you misunderstood me. What I intended to communicate - was that it is not MY responsibility as a SHOPPER to ensure that OTHER shoppers (besides myself) do not falisfy reports.

It is first and foremost every individual's responsibility to be ethical and responsibile in their work. I thought it went without saying (but perhaps not) that it is the shopper's individual responsibility to not falisfy reports. But should that fail - it is the MSCs responsibility to ensure that the collective quality of the reports published by their company is factual and correct. It is NOT the responsibility of the MSPA, the IMSC, other MSPs, the client, or the shopping community as a whole.

I agree with others that your original post was an odd way to approach the issue at best. I am one that believes that MSPs should be encouraged and feel welcome to post here along with shoppers. But by coming here and trying to "trick" us into engaging in a discussion about an immoral, unethical, and illegal practice - well - that right there creates exactly the kind of "us" and "them" that you say you were trying to avoid.

MickyB - I apologize and you are correct, I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. I do agree fully with your clarification.

Regarding your last paragraph - I was not trying to trick anyone. As I have said, my role in the industry was not relevant to the question. And, even though you believe MSPs should be encouraged to post, the back and forth I have read on other threads and live conversations with other MSP reps would suggest not every one shares that belief.

Since I would have no way of knowing who, if anyone would respond, how could I know how my role in the industry would impact the comments or if the initial question would even get a response? It is entirely possible the discussion would have turned a completely different direction - again depending on who replied.

Corydj - as a provider, I ask that you investigate any claim that a report is falsified. Look for evidence in what was submitted to you. *Talk to the shopper.*

I shared the earlier example of what happened when I was on the other side of MS. Sometimes the client knows or suspects who the shopper is and if they don't get the score they want, they will dispute it, claiming it was falsified.

Another example - my manager was shopped. She was really upset with the score, an 89%, but much more with the description of her hair. The report said "Black with some grey." She was offended! How dare someone say she had grey hair!! She disputed the report, claiming that the shopper didn't really see her and falsified part of the report, if not all of it. Truth be told, the manager was MOSTLY grey hair, with very little black. The MS was not going to come to the store and check her hair color. They reshopped instead. I have no idea what happened to that shopper, but that would have been very unfair to the shopper NOT to get paid or to be fired over this.

Being on the shopping side of things, I had an editor/scheduler call me and tell me my report was faked. The reason - the person whom I shopped, and had their business card included in the report, was not assigned to that location. (The editor/scheduler had checked her master list, provided by the client.) I had even included in my narrative that the person was helping out the location because they were short staffed that day. I explained on the phone that the person was helping out AND that it had been included in my narrative. I even suggested she have the customer verify this. (They did verify, thank goodness!)

ijdk - Rest assured, we do investigate any allegation of falsification or inaccuracies. In many cases it comes down to a "shopper said / client (or employee) said" situation and may be a difference of perception or other understandable reason for the discrepancy. In those cases, we always pay the shopper AND have the visit redone for the client (& pay the 2nd shopper too).

We would rather have a happy customer and shopper than bicker over something that may be difficult to prove or have the customer be suspicious about the reports accuracy.

On the flip side, if we have hard evidence a shopper falsified an evaluation, that shopper is quickly deactivated.

We also prescreen shoppers to try and ensure they will be a good fit. We usually do a good job but some tell a great story on their application and may even do a good job on their first few reports only to falsify subsequent shops (after they figure out the system and get some initial data to work with and/or copy).

Fair enough. I think I can appreciate what you were trying to do here, and I accept that it was done with only good and honest intentions.

While I do stand by my premise that a MSC must take the first line of defense in ensuring that the data they sell to clients is 100% accurate - If I put myself in the MSP shoes, I can appreciate the wisdom of a blacklist of shoppers whom have falsified reports. I know that some of this goes on already among some of the MSPs, although I believe it is on a more informal basis and it is not really a formalized "list" that is disseminated to all companies.

I strongly believe this is something that MSPs need to create and maintain, NOT shoppers. There are way too much politics (not to mention the inherent competition factor) among shoppers to have any sort of shopper organization (like the IMSC) create and/or maintain this list.

But of course any 'blacklist' truly needs to be investigated and accurate. I have heard way too many tales of shoppers accused of fraudulent behavior where subsequent checks of the video showed they were right on the money in their report. And I have heard shoppers accused asking that the video be reviewed and evidently it never happened--easier to terminate the shopper. And there is more than one vindictive person in this business who would be just really happy to fill an enemies list with no substantiation whatsoever.

AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would certainly like to see the MSPA policing a
> little better. I would like to see them policing
> the behavior of their member MSCs in dealing with
> their shopper/contractors.
>

"In the MSPA Cory serves on the Industry Integrity Committee fighting industry related scams. He also serves on the Shopper Relations Committee to help improve the quality of shoppers in the industry and improve relations with those shoppers."

corydj hasn't properly introduced himself. I could be mistaken, but I believe the above quote refers to him, taken from the website of the MSP he owns.

Mert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AustinMom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I would certainly like to see the MSPA policing
> a
> > little better. I would like to see them
> policing
> > the behavior of their member MSCs in dealing
> with
> > their shopper/contractors.
> >
>
> "In the MSPA Cory serves on the Industry Integrity
> Committee fighting industry related scams. He also
> serves on the Shopper Relations Committee to help
> improve the quality of shoppers in the industry
> and improve relations with those shoppers."
>
> corydj hasn't properly introduced himself. I could
> be mistaken, but I believe the above quote refers
> to him, taken from the website of the MSP he owns.


What good does it do to 'out' someone? How is his identity relevant? He's already acknowledged that he works for an MSP. Of course you're not required to explain your motivation, but I'm very curious as to purpose of your post.

When part of his responsibilities are to 'improve relations with those shoppers' you don't think it is relevant?

Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When part of his responsibilities are to 'improve
> relations with those shoppers' you don't think it
> is relevant?


I'm not a huge fan of most MSCs (or ANY MSCs, for that matter). However, I have not seen him post anything that I know to be false. I don't work for his company (assuming the id is correct). But, it's a legitimate discussion and I just don't see what he's done to hurt the relationship with shoppers. Engaging in a discussion is a positive thing, not negative. If we're not revealing everything about ourselves, why should he?

Can't we have an honest discussion without providing a complete bio?

He has stated multiple times that his review of other threads made him (IMO) skeptical that he'd be treated fairly.

I've bashed other MSPs (hello, Dave) that are annoying and argue with every point. But, I've not seen it yet with Cory. It's still early, but my preference is to engage in a conversation.

For example, if we think it's relevant, we could ask, "Cory, is this your bio?" Instead, it's phrased as "he didn't properly introduce himself." I'm sure I'm inferring the "A-Ha!" We have an MSP that seems interested in our thoughts. Compare that to Greene who posted once to never be heard from again.

I, for one, am happy to have the ear of an MSP that seems to be listening.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. An honest discussion, in my view, is indeed one that doesn't start like this one did and I am not particularly flattered that an unidentified MSP decided to 'test the waters' that way.

"Can't we have an honest discussion without providing a complete bio?"

Here? Of course, but only if we're mystery shoppers.

Cory, I really appreciate your clarification. I am wondering if it is possible for you to reveal the company you work for?

Yes, I agree. I think, if cory, who has now confirmed what many of us believed from his first post, that he works for an MSP, is involved with an "MSPA Shopper Relations Committee to help improve the quality of shoppers in the industry and improve relations with those shoppers" that he should identify himself. There are many ideas and issues shoppers can present to him. It sounds as though he is already researching so he can take action on the integrity committee. Shoppers as a group can help him very little with that one. But I'm sure shoppers would have a lot of input on his shopper relations committee and we could probably really help his research in that area. There are several issues we could definitely present to him. He could make great strides toward improving shopper relations by identifying himself and opening a thread on "how can MSPs improve relations with shoppers" - most shoppers will have a lot more knowledge and more opinions on that one than on falsifying reports, which I'm sure the vast majority have not done.

Mert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Can't we have an honest discussion without
> providing a complete bio?"
>
> Here? Of course, but only if we're mystery
> shoppers.


This post, unless I misunderstand it, seems to confirm my concern that revealing myself as a rep of an MSP would impact the comments. I can see more biographic information being relevant for some questions posed on this forum, but I can also see cases were that is not relevant to the discussion.

Knowing the vindictive nature of some people, I'm sure everyone can appreciate why an MSP may not want to reveal themselves. After all, shoppers have the luxury of anonymity, especially on this forum. I have no idea the TRUE identity of anyone here or how to contact anyone or otherwise impact their lives outside of this forum. I may be able to determine where someone is located, but that is about the limit.

Even with very little information it may be possible to find out the identity of a rep from a MSP since it is entirely possible that our information is on our websites. Add to that the joy that some would get by "outing" the MSP and there is the possibility of tremendous negative impacts for the MSP all because of one simple question.

But that is a risk I am willing to take - Yes, I am on the MSPA's industry integrity (dealing with scams that impact the industry) and shopper relations committees. I am also a newly elected member of the MSPA board. Since that, combined with my username, is more than enough for you to do a quick search and find out who I am, I also own I-Spy Mystery Shoppers in Omaha, NE.

I have always believed that the relationship between the MSP and the shoppers must be a mutually beneficial one. After all, there is no way we could make all the client visits necessary without the assistance of shoppers. I also realize that good shoppers can provide valuable insight when asked which is why I posted on this forum.

Cory,

If you have read through this forum, I would expect you to see that as much as identifying yourself upfront may have effected the responses, posting such an obviously leading statement with no history here would be equally ineffective.

This is a forum of mostly seasoned shoppers who are used to reading between lines and a majority of us have are identities known the the MSCs who post here, so even if I was regularly falsifying information, I would certainly not be admitting that in an open forum.

I have had to deal with fraudulent reports from the side of an MSC before and I know what a problem that can be. Those who take part in the fraud are most likely not part of a group that spends hours each week posting advice for others while receiving no financial gain for their efforts. We are, instead, the kind of shoppers you would want to attract to your company.

Thank you for the introduction and although others may not agree with me, I welcome the (respectful) opinion of all MSC representatives here. Please just understand that although we may work together, we are not equal partners in this mystery shopping venture. The nature of our relationship is that we shoppers are paid to remain anonymous, while MSC representatives are not. Any request for anonymity on the part of a MS provider gives me cause for worry, since your role is to be an overt and well-run business.

Thanks, Steve. Your last paragraph is on the money about why I was annoyed and feeling duped. I certainly don't check out the pedigree of every poster who I attempt to help and don't appreciate being 'set up'. This is NOT, after all, an episode of "Undercover Boss".

Steve took the words out of my mouth. Shoppers that falsify reports won't come here and admit it..why should they want to be indentified.

I do agree 50% with you Cory from my own horrific experience here just questioning an MSC that I had not (ever) worked for. I was torn apart from one end to another. I would not identify who you work for (although I would love to know). This would have biased your intentions. I trust you more now after hearing your explaination, but still think you could have entered into a discussion without deceit. The fact is your concerns and effort to get information, was directed to the wrong place. I suggest you have a conference for shoppers and talk about ways to solve our problems and yours. I forgive you, and wish you luck with your project.

I really don't want to dwell on apologies or everyone's 'feelings.'

Now that we know who the MSP is, can we all agree to move onto other topics that might be mutually beneficial?

We are a group of seasoned shoppers and could certainly provide some insight if someone was listening and we make an effort to keep conversations productive.

There aren't too many of us that have posted on this thread. For those of us that have posted so far, can we agree to: (1) Keep a line of communication open and (2) keep the conversations productive with this MSP.

The conversation will be productive as long as we keep talking, so, why move on. This thread is about shoppers, if your tired of it and think it has run it's course, move on. I for one am interested, and actually think this is a great place for Cory to find experienced shoppers. I am glad he is taking the time to listen to us, no harm done (only harm in the way it started). I still wonder why anyone would take the time and effort to falsify a report, which brings us to the topic of screening the application and amount of experience of the shopper. For MSC's that want a free ride on us, you get what you pay for!!

Irene, I'll provide two very different examples of shoppers who have provided falsified information and what we believe to be their reason.

1. A new shopper for us called the location they were to visit and asked who was working that day. They also said they were supposed to visit that location for a mystery shopping evaluation and if the employee provided the information they needed, they would ensure they received a 100% on the evaluation. We found out when the location manager called corporate and our corporate contact called us. The shopper was hoping to get the pay without having to make the site visit.

2. A shopper who had done a lot of jobs for us and was really good faslified the time on a dry cleaning shop. The shop needed to be completed after 2pm and he showed up around noon. We found out because, after receiving the report, the employee remembered him and knew he was there early. We had not received the shopper's receipt yet but the client's receipts showed he was there significantly earlier than he reported. When asked about it he said he needed to do the visit that day but couldn't wait until 2pm and "Oops." We would have been happy to work with him on dues dates, etc so he could pick it up on another day had he just talked to us. Even though it was just a time issue, for the client it was a crucial dimension of the visit.

In the first case it was a shopper who came to us as a certified MSPA shopper. The second was a shopper with whom we had a previous relationship. We did not have any reason to suspect that either would falsify an evaluation.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2010 06:24PM by corydj.

Joytron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really don't want to dwell on apologies or
> everyone's 'feelings.'
>
> Now that we know who the MSP is, can we all agree
> to move onto other topics that might be mutually
> beneficial?
>
> We are a group of seasoned shoppers and could
> certainly provide some insight if someone was
> listening and we make an effort to keep
> conversations productive.
>

I totally agree, Joytron. Since we have already established that no one posting on our forum is completing reports in a fraudulent manner, further discussion of fraudulent reports, including examples of fraudulent reports, is pointless. I hope the OP got whatever information he was looking for. Now I’d like to see if this MSP owner who serves on two MSPA committees, the Industry Integrity Committee fighting industry related scams and the Shopper Relations Committee to help improve the quality of shoppers in the industry and improve relations with those shoppers, will be able to make a positive contribution to the forum.

I would think the Integrity Committee fighting industry related scams might be looking at the scammers who try daily to cheat shoppers and others by using the names of legitimate MSPA companies. I would think that activity is more prevalent than fraudulent shopper reports. As seasoned shoppers, we can provide input to help his research.

And, as a Shopper Relations Committee member, research with members of our forum might provide a lot of good information for improving shopper relations.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2010 07:13PM by AustinMom.

Although I understand feeling that Cory's initial post was misleading, I welcome this kind of dialogue with MSCs. One of the recurring themes on this forum is that many MSCs don't care about what their shoppers think.

I strongly believe that all company reps should announce their comapny affiliation in their origial posts and, if possible, in their sig lines.

Next, Cory, I was at the Las Vegas conference I attended nearly every session. (Attending all sessions is impossible because there is more than one session offered in each time slot on many occasions.) I neither heard, nor heard of, anyone making statements about falsifying reports being okay, or routine, or anything except contemptable. Sounds like your "third party" was also not at the conference. The shoppers on this forum, and those who attended the conference, are serious professionals. Your method of introducing your original question and your failure to identify your professional affiliation (even in general terms, much less your specific company until pressed) is highly unprofessional. Most forums *require* disclosure of MSP affiliation, as you, as a "leader" well know.

Your organization, the MSPA, "disinvited" shoppers from your conferences in 2009 and 2010. Now, without having observed the 2010 Las Vegas conference, or even having a "second party" source who did, you cast aspersions on a shopper conference that upholds the highest standards in its presentations and where every speaker is on the record. Some shoppers on this forum do not want to be affiliated with the independent conference, for a variety of personal reasons and differences of opinion, and that's fine. But to imply that people at that conference are actually undermining the integrity of shopping standards goes beyond the pale. Since the Las Vegas IMSC conference was the only recent shopper conference, known to any of us, you will have to go a long way to dissuade me that that was the conference to which you referred. (If the collective intelligence represented on this forum does not know about a shopper conference, it's very doubtful that one happened, lol.)

I have no doubt that you posed your question in a forum where several frequent contributors have objected to the leadership of the IMSC as a way of fishing for attacks on the conference planners and participants. Sorry that you are disappointed that no one would take your poisonous bait. The critics of the IMSC on this forum and I disagree about a number of things, but no one on this forum is using "third party" reports to inpugn (sic) the reputations of the Las Vegas conference attendees.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2010 08:12PM by walesmaven.

nicelytwicely Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Although I understand feeling that Cory's initial
> post was misleading, I welcome this kind of
> dialogue with MSCs. One of the recurring themes on
> this forum is that many MSCs don't care about what
> their shoppers think.


To toss in my 2 cents:
I feel the change to online scheduling has really disconnected schedulers from their shoppers. Back when we manually scheduled our shops, I used to know everyone of my shoppers, even down to being able to schedule around their vacations and school events. Now, I have no idea who is doing my shops, and the only time I get to speak to anyone is when they are calling angry to complain about something, or I am cold calling to recruit more people for a location.