Taking away the legal aspects, think about a couple of things. As a consumer do you want to give up your options? If you want your house painted you can choose to go with the lowest bidder or the one with most experience. Price fixing would take away those options. Whose idea of a reasonable fee are you going to use? And what makes you think anyone is going to want to pay the same for a shopper who performs picture perfect shops with client ready reports as someone who muddles through then submits reports needing heavy editing? Instead of increasing fees for all shoppers, this kind of scheme could backfire. MSCs would probably decide to only give work to a few shoppers. We already see that with many projects assigned as routes only.

If anyone feels they need the protection and minimum income provided by an employer/employee relationship, perhaps they should get a job. The rewards of being a small business owner will always be accompanied by the risks. We all have times in our life where the risks are just not worth it and some people never want to take the risk. There is no badge of honor for being a risk taker and no shame for preferring something safe and steady.

Every couple of years this "band together scheme" shows up to no avail, however Shop-et-al, thanks for the Tillie/Gigi story, fun and point proven. Point well taken, should newcomers or those in need suffer because the greedy say we should all make the same, no. experienced shoppers may ask and get more $$, how can that be an argument?Edited to add: No one has mentioned location, L.A. is known not to give huge bonus's unless your doing a route in far off places, which no amount of money (going into bad area's is enough). My safety as a woman alone counts far above the dollar. Many shoppers in populated area's cannot compare bonus wise with rural area's with no shoppers....way to complicated to loop us into one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 06:50PM by Irene_L.A..

Duplicate...written before coffee.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 03:07PM by Irene_L.A..

Yup, I do a lot of shops and projects that never see the job boards, and others that I do with bonuses (rarely the listed rste). Most are close to home.

@bgriffin wrote:

Just because something is on the board for $7 and disappears doesn't mean they got it for $7.

@bgriffin wrote:

It is not my business, nor do I care, what value other people place on their work. I have no idea if a shop is next door to their work or somewhere they would be anyway, how long the shop takes, or (as many people here don't seem to understand) how much they got for a shop. Just because something is on the board for $7 and disappears doesn't mean they got it for $7.

I did make the point that there are circumstances in which a low-paying shop makes sense (part of a route, close to where the shopper will be anyway, the need to eat a meal while conducting business, etc.). In fact, I sometimes do lower-paying shops for those reasons.

As far as caring about the value others place on their work.... No, it's not my business. But, yes, I care very much. For two reasons:

1. People who undervalue their own work are probably not going to reach their potential level of professionalism, ability, income, etc. In the end, that hurts all shoppers because MSCs know they can continue to offer ridiculous fees, and someone will always take them. I think this business is a profession, and I'd like to think that others view it that way. Not all jobs require the same degree of professionalism, but if perceptions are that unskilled, untrained shoppers are the norm, or can be had for less $$ than top-notch professionals, we all suffer. IMO.

2. I care about people in general. So I am sad when people don't realize their own worth. It's all too common, and I think the world would be a far better place if people realized their worth. We all have worth, and it seems that in this business, that worth is often not recognized.

Seems to me that if shoppers valued their own time more, it would benefit all of us in the long run.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 05:18PM by BirdyC.

I don't think individual shoppers holding out for higher fees is price fixing. It wasn't my impression that the OP was suggesting shoppers draw up a price list ($X amount for Y job). And less experienced shoppers don't usually warrant "best fees" on jobs. I didn't understand that the suggestion is a set fee for all shoppers for each type of job, regardless of experience or the urgency of the MSC's need. But I may have misunderstood.

Of course we, as consumers, want a choice. But getting the cheapest price for the job isn't always the best option. Usually, a combination of competency and price results in the "best deal." If we only look at price, we might end up with a lousy job.

I think it's important that shoppers value their time so that they're not working for peanuts. It makes sense, from many perspectives, to hold out for fees that at least compensate for time and expenses, plus give a profit on top of that.

I also was sure to point out the following: "But there will always be shoppers who don't care and shoppers who, due to their own personal circumstances, aren't able to work at a regular job and need what they make as mystery shoppers. Some people don't want to work for others and can make the trade-off work for them monetarily. Some people are better off taking a low-paying part-time job because that $8/hour job may pay, in reality, more than the $9 to $12 mystery shops."

I'm not sure to whom some of these posts are being directed, but as for me, I don't support price fixing, I most certainly understand that people shop for different reasons, I totally get that many people would rather make less money than work for others (I happen to be one of them), etc. My main point was that I don't think some shoppers really understand how much they're making when all is said and done. And I think that's a shame.

And I think the profession would be better for all of us if more people valued themselves and their time more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 04:25PM by BirdyC.

There are three situations under which I apply for shops:

1-Money. Last month I completed an $85 car assignment, a $75 & two $87 assisted living communities.
2-To defray costs from my personal life. This could be an eatery I enjoy or my version of Aunt Tilly. She, as a smokin' hot single woman of 31, saved me from an orphanage back in 1952. I visited her weekly and picked up numerous shops, of which I would not normally have had interest,
3-To cover travel costs for my non-shopping business.

I am a dyed in the wool free market individual that does not believe in the word FAIR. If I do not care for the manner in which you conduct business, I simply move on, BUT, I also respect that others feel differently. A difference between me and some other folks is I neither have need for money nor activity.

@ wrote:

Seems to me that if shoppers valued their own time more, it would benefit all of us in the long run.[/BirdyC]

We all would benefit if I valued my time more than I now do?

Hmm. My time is purposed and allotted according to my situation, some of which is given and the rest of which is variable. I am satisfied with how I value my time. More important, I am satisfied with the fact that I am learning daily how to make better use of my time. There are more purposes of time than performing shops. Other activities and jobs can have a place in my life. Are you certain that it is appropriate for anyone else to attempt to manipulate my values, such as how I value my time? Might the notion that others should dictate to me be just a tad overreaching, or just a shade beyond healthy boundaries?

My garden in England is full of eating-out places, for heat waves, warm September evenings, or lunch on a chilly Christmas morning. (Mary Quant)

@Shop-et-al wrote:

[Are you certain that it is appropriate for anyone else to attempt to manipulate my values, such as how I value my time? Might the notion that others should dictate to me be just a tad overreaching, or just a shade beyond healthy boundaries?

Who's trying to manipulate your values? Who's dictating anything to you? Who said *all* shoppers undervalue their time? Many do, and that's to the detriment of this profession as a whole. This seems a very simple concept. Nobody is saying *you* personally don't value your time enough. Nobody's trying to force you to re-evaluate your own sense of worth. We're having a discussion of opinions.

Other professions in which people are ICs not only hold themselves to a set of standards, but to a pricing structure that is in line with the services and value they provide. They do this without price fixing. I see this discussion, in part, as similar to that.

What's so awful about pointing out that *some* shoppers don't factor in all of the costs of shopping when they look at income? It seems clear by some of the discussions here that not all shoppers fully realize the costs of shopping.

What's bad about a) disclosure and awareness of the costs of shopping vs. income; b) wishing people valued their time more; c) wishing for the profession of mystery shopping to enjoy a better reputation than it has (among those who don't know a lot about it); d) attempting to ethically influence MSCs and their clients to pay better fees? These are bad things? I don't see it.

People seem to be reading an awful lot into some posts that which isn't there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 05:11PM by BirdyC.

For those of us who enjoy the waiting game, the negotiation game and the route game, banding together is, IMO, a terrible idea. When I'm playing the waiting game I'm waiting for fees to go up. When I'm playing the negotiation game I'm betting on other unknown shoppers and what they might do the shops for. And when I'm playing the route game I have some good money set up and am interested in adding to it in a fast easy manner.
There are other games but these are the main 3 for me.
If I'm playing the waiting game, I'm taking the chance that someone else will take the shops before the fees go up. They are usually welcome to them at that point. But if we are looking at them as a group then when I say I'm going to wait, what is to stop other shoppers from contacting schedulers and because they know I have a certain price in mind, making offers to undercut me? WIth shops sitting on the board we are all waiting for the same thing. It's fair. When the fees finally go up who gets them depends on who isn't already booked and who gets to the board first. I'm fine with that.
When I'm playing the negotiation game I'm taking the chance that someone else will negotiate for a lower price than I would. Again, they are welcome to them. But if they know that my negotiating style is to give my best price first and hold out for it, then they have an advantage. If they know I start high and come down then they also have an advantage. And if they know what my mileage, gas and hourly calculations are then I am dead in the water.
And there is some competition already in my area for routes. When submitting offers for routes the last thing i need is to have to second guess myself because ShopperJohn is waiting in the wings. He is, but I don't have to worry about that now. I would if we were grouped together.

Successful shopping is based on good work, fast responses, reliability and integrity. Apply yourself to those things and you won't need price fixing scams.

@CoffeeQueen wrote:

....things and you won't need price fixing scams.

I agree with most of what you've written, but I have to ask again: Who's talking about price fixing or price-fixing scams? I've re-read the OP, and I see nothing there that suggests price fixing. Encouraging shoppers to not take low-ball offers is a far cry from a scam. Even if some shoppers were to collaborate in some way, it's not price fixing. Unless they came up with a rigid fee schedule for every job or type of job out there, and all shoppers agreed to and stuck to it. I see nothing the in original post, or in other posts, to support that this is the suggestion.

I agree something like this will never happen, and maybe it shouldn't. But there's nothing wrong or even unethical with encouraging shoppers to wait out low fees. Whether they do or not is entirely up to them. Which is, of course, one of the benefits of working for oneself. My big thing here is that I would hope that shoppers fully recognize what their costs are vs. their income and make decisions based on that, even if their primary reason for shopping isn't money.

The OP made a very good point, which I think has been lost during this interesting discussion:

@ wrote:

I think teaching people how to calculate the value of shops, learning how to route, learning bonus cycles, etc. will improve their profitability and not have them get stuck so easily into a desperate "loan-like trap."

Not sure why people seem to be disagreeing with this bit of common sense.

Again, people seem to be reading things into posts that aren't there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 06:23PM by BirdyC.

It's a free market. Let's leave it that way.

Just because the OP did not use the exact words doesn't mean what she was suggesting wasn't some form of price fixing. The forum already does the other things you list, teaching how to calculate value, how to route, bonus cycles, etc. We do it without agreeing to some imaginary minimum fee we will accept.

Honestly, these discussions are all too frequent. There are always some shoppers who haven't figured out how to make more money so they decide the easy way would be for their competition to help them level the playing field. It is not enough to just give them the tools to be successful. Whether the motivation is impatience, entitlement or laziness, I do not know and I do not care.

@BirdyC wrote:

The OP made a very good point, which I think has been lost during this interesting discussion:

@ wrote:

I think teaching people how to calculate the value of shops, learning how to route, learning bonus cycles, etc. will improve their profitability and not have them get stuck so easily into a desperate "loan-like trap."

Not sure why people seem to be disagreeing with this bit of common sense.

Again, people seem to be reading things into posts that aren't there.

OP...respect us as workers, we can read what you write, to say we put more into it is an insult to our intelligence.
Needing to make more $$ is duable, figure out how much you need, take routes, work harder, asking others to help is a lazy concept (as far as I'm concerned). Lisa STL said it with elegance. End of this long subject.

@panama18 wrote:

It's a free market. Let's leave it that way.

Yeah, we're FREE to organize and demand or work together to improve wages!

No one is saying to get rid of the free market folks. (not directed at you panama18, but to all...just re:ing you, since you're the last person who wrote in the thread heh heh)

Gonna re: with longer responses later. In the meantime, I am going to just say that wages have been flat and have not grown after accounting for inflation for over 40 years in America. The average middle-class family and median household income is still around $~45,000/year. The difference is that inflation has skyrocketed the price of housing, transportation, and healthcare during that same period of wage stagnation. So, everyone is now broke!

Meanwhile, corporate CEO pay went from 30 to 1 to 300 to 1 (with NO correlation to how well they did their jobs and their company's profitability - feel free to Google all of this), unions have declined (see article I posted earlier) in direction correlation with middle-class wages taking a steep dive, the U.S. social safety net has deteriorated, and corporate welfare and profits have gone up through the roof. Companies like Amazon and Walmart pay their workers so low that they have to use food stamps, Section 8 Housing, etc. to survive, which we milddle-class tax-payers have to pay for - thus giving them corporate welfare. Sadly, those same workers use their wages to buy their essentials from their own bosses, increasing Walmart and Amazon's profits even more!

Why has this taken place in America? Go back to 1978's First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti case. It gave corporations "free speech" to donate to political campaigns. That opened the door to legalized corporate, political bribery in our nation and was put on steroids with 2010's Citizen's United case. That's why scholars say we live in an oligarchy in America. The rich rule the country and in many ways we are not free.

We don't have an entirely free market. Wages can be suppressed (for us, while corporations and the rich get tax cuts and corporate welfare) through political lobbying. When we don't have good job and wage options, we're forced to work for a pittance. Our economy is free in name, but not in practice. Is that true with every employer and sector of the economy? No. But it is for many industries. Americans are working longer hours, harder than ever, and later into their senior years than ever before for lower wages than can't cover the basic costs of living. 50% of Americans don't have $1,000 for an emergency. That's living paycheck to paycheck (or, if you take Robert Reich's numbers from the earlier article, it's 80% who live that way).

The "free market" arguments are not so sound when you delve deeper into them people!

I'll clarify what I meant too by collaborating and educating folks, but BirdyC did a good job of representing me above. Of course, I'd like to defend my comments myself as well. Need to get supper started for now!

@LisaSTL wrote:

Just because the OP did not use the exact words doesn't mean what she was suggesting wasn't some form of price fixing. The forum already does the other things you list, teaching how to calculate value, how to route, bonus cycles, etc. We do it without agreeing to some imaginary minimum fee we will accept.

I honestly didn't read it as an implication that we should engage in price fixing, but I was taking it at simple face value. And, yes, this forum is really good for helping shoppers with those things, but we're just a small microcosm of shoppers. I shopped for a year until I found this place. I imagine there might thousands of shoppers who are totally on their own and who haven't got any sort of support system or a place they can go to discuss these things.

As far as some imaginary minimum fee, I get that every person needs to set their own threshold. I still think that a lot of folks set theirs so low as to hurt the profession. It seems to me that anything we, as a profession, can do to elevate the professionalism and pay in this field benefits all of us.

I am all for free market and healthy competition - survival of of the toughest shoppers.

LisaSTL already said everything better than I could in response to this, so I'll just leave it at that except for this paragraph. I am glad, very glad indeed that low paying shops are there for people who need them. If they paid better they wouldn't be on the board for someone who needs groceries suddenly or has a deficit in the bill money for some reason. I'm glad they are there for college students who need to eat or single moms struggling to feed the kids. I will have no shame in taking them should I need them and I'll do the reports with professionalism, thank you very much. Pay is not the only determining factor. All honest work has dignity.

@BirdyC wrote:

@LisaSTL wrote:

As far as some imaginary minimum fee, I get that every person needs to set their own threshold. I still think that a lot of folks set theirs so low as to hurt the profession. It seems to me that anything we, as a profession, can do to elevate the professionalism and pay in this field benefits all of us.

In this business, a shopper who is very reliable, does outstanding work, and works well with MSC's will be able to demand much higher fees than a shopper who does not have such attributes. We know from the stories told on this forum by editors and schedulers that not all shoppers are the same. Why would the outstanding shopper every want to have to work for the same fees as the the not-so-great shopper?

Guilds and unions have their place in our society and, in many industries, are very, very good for the workers. However, in industries such as this one, where the quality of outcomes can vary vastly from one shopper to the next, such organization harms the folks who do very well.

I think a mystery shoppers union would be great. I'm all for it.

@CoffeeQueen wrote:

All honest work has dignity.

Very well put. And so true.

@guysmom wrote:

@CoffeeQueen wrote:

All honest work has dignity.

Very well put. And so true.

Well, I certainly agree with that. And nothing I said demeans shoppers who need to take low-paying jobs (and I said that--quite clearly--early on). And, yes, all honest work has dignity. But there's nothing wrong with encouraging shoppers to do the math so they know exactly what they're making. Which was my main and original point. Knowledge is good. Doing what you need to do to get by is good. And trying to get higher fees when/as possible is good, too. Nothing wrong in that. .

It's very frustrating when people either don't read someone's post all the way and jump on just one point, or make assumptions based on the assumptions of others--without actually reading the original source material, or misunderstand what was being said.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2018 01:40AM by BirdyC.

"You're suggesting price fixing, which is illegal."

Price fixing by companies is illegal; price fixing by workers--that is, collective bargaining by unionized labor--is not illegal. The first kind is regressive; the second kind is progressive. That said, the unionizing of mystery shoppers, which would bring a lot of low-wage people higher pay and even other benefits, would be extraordinarily difficult. It is also something that, however unlikely, mystery shopping companies are aware of and combat at every turn. That's why you're constantly told you're an "independent contractor" and are induced to sign statements to that effect over and over again.

I didn't suggest it is illegal by workers. We are not employees. In this scenario, we are the companies.

I think what you are saying is right on! Its collective bargaining and not price fixing as one respondent said. Collective bargaining happens to be what just gave us that great holiday we all just celebrated, Labor Day! One person mentioned they are in this for the friendships. Yes you do connect with very nice people but I am in this to pay bills and support a family and I'm sure the nice people met along the way are as well. It's true that when you add up all the time preparing, traveling, going to the site then writing up the report, the pay gets whittled down. If we all refused to take low paying jobs it would force them to raise the fees they can well afford. If there is ever a movement to galvanize solidarity or a union, count me in!

When I first started shopping I did a couple of $12.00 shops. I can’t believe people do these. Refusing those would do the trick. Either I do a shop because I need a car wash, oil change, movie viewing, etc or i’m It doing a shoo for less than 50.

When I first started shopping I did a couple of $12.00 shops. I can’t believe people do these. Refusing those would do the trick. Either I do a shop because I need a car wash, oil change, movie viewing, etc or i’m It doing a shoo for less than 50.

"I didn't suggest it is illegal by workers. We are not employees. In this scenario, we are the companies."

That's the definitional contention that Congress can easily decide in favor of shoppers and that can also be ruled on by the proper agency. Among other things arguing in favor of shoppers as workers--and I know of literally no shopper who thinks of herself as company--is that shoppers have SSN's not, EIN's, and that shoppers file income taxes as individuals or couples, not as businesses. At the same time, no mystery shopper that I know is a corporation or LLC. Further arguing against the claim that shoppers are companies is the extraordinary unlikelihood that a price-fixing charge would be brought against shoppers who organize for better pay and conditions. Of course mystery shopping companies, which benefit handsomely from a scattered, unorganized, legally disadvantaged workforce, are happy to claim that Mr. or Ms. low-wage shopper is really a company and should not enjoy the protection of this country's labor laws.

You won't get anywhere because there will always be shoppers who accept low pay. Some companies offer more money for emergency shops, other don't and take advantage of the shoppers.

I agree, shoppers should refuse o take those shops. In my area there are many shops that pay less than $12, some even pay $2. I don't even try to read the whole info, just delete it.