Editors don’t like it when th scenario doesn’t play out perfectly?

I’ve had 2 shops recently where the employees didn’t behave or respond as expected when given a certain scenario. I’m noticing a pattern with the editors that if the scenario doesn’t play out the way they expect it should, they have issues with my report. I understand that it makes the report more complicated, but I would think the company paying for these reports want to know the reality of what their employees are doing.

In one of these situations I could have forced the issue and probably guided the employee into taking the preferred direction, but I really thought I was a reporter of the facts and shouldn’t be coercing the situation. What are your thoughts on this? I don’t feel I should manipulate the shop so the report comes out a certain way.

Thanks!

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.

Already a member? Log In.

I think employees not responding as expected is the norm rather than the exception.

I had a return once, and it was supposed to be a test of the retailer's "No Hassle Return Guarantee!" The employee was to ask ONLY "May I exchange this for you, or would you prefer a return?" Instead, he asked WHY I was returning it.

It was an expensive (think: $50) bag of specialty dog food.

I burst into tears, and sobbed: "He said he'd shoot Old Blue before he'd buy him $50 dog food!"

I reported it exactly as it happened.

Shoulda got an Oscar.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2019 05:07PM by ceasesmith.
There are certain shops that I won't take for any amount because I know the person editing it is a royal PITA. I understand they're underpaid, but they CHOSE to take the job, and the job includes editing reports that are outliers. If you're going to take this particular job again, charge them a hefty bonus and let the scheduler know why.

Seriously, nobody cares that you're offended.

(Yes, I stole Hoju's tagline.)
My sense is that often editors feel I didn't give the employee a chance, so I am sensitive to reporting what I did to give them 'a chance'.

Lets take as an example pet food--as I don't know what shop(s) you did and I haven't done a pet food shop in years. I go in and ask about possibly changing food for my XXX because he doesn't seem to be thriving. The instructions tell me the employee should ask about my breed of XXX and age of my XXX in order to make a recommendation. They don't. Rather they outright recommend a product that is on sale with an additional coupon today and a pet XXX loyalty club card. If I end it there, the employee fails.

I am not above asking if this is appropriate for my XXX as he is only 4 months old. This SHOULD trigger more conversation from the employee about the breed and size and maybe what my expectations are that my pet is not meeting. I'm not giving away the whole shop here, but rather asking what any pet owner might ask while I am giving the employee a chance to shine. I am focusing the employee on me and my uncertainty and I have no issue with reporting such a prompt and the response it got unless the shop is specifically scripted to NOT provide anything to the employee.
It is helpful to have a shop with narrative when this happens. Those click yes and no shops with no way to explain can be very unfair to the salesperson or to the shopper filling it out. I agree with Flash that sometimes a small prod is helpful to get the response you are looking for.
I have not had issues with reports with negative responses on them but what bothers me is when there is a comment from an editor in an email to me with a "do not reply" email address and no way to contact them to explain or clarify.
I try and give both positive and negative softening the negativity...there are usually both sides, so if they (for instance) don't smile or say thank you, I offset it with they refilled my drink and cleared the table.
I also have been thanked for telling the truth, meaning a negative report so they then can re-train, isn't that
what we're for? Some companies like Service Check have super difficult Editors caring more about a spelling word and if things are in order than what is actually said, know who you are working for at all times.

Live consciously....
In my experience over the past year, it’s been the lower paying jobs where they’ve been ultra picky. I’ve already learned not to accept some of them because it just isn’t worth the hassle for such a small amount of money.
I had a grocery shop recently where the cashier didn’t even look at me, and only said 1 word. If they don’t ask in the report specifically, do you tell?
I follow the guidelines and respond as the survey requires. I have never checked to see if my comments were modified. If I receive questions asking for more info or clarification, I respond based on the expectations that the instructions and survey set forth. I do not lead the employees unless allowed to.

Now, if I am required to do something then I find a way to do it. For example, asking a question about a product. Unless I can wait a specific amount of time and move on, I will hunt someone down to assist me. If the guidelines require I ask about a specific company, I do if the associate does not mention them. If they do not, I make sure my comments are clear that I allowed the required amount of time to pass or otherwise interacted as expected.

If an editor asks me to answer something I already properly answered; I point out that I did properly cover the concern. I may also ask them if the response is not visible to them or what about my response caused them to think I did not properly cover the subject in question.

My posts are solely based on my opinions and for my entertainment, contact a professional if you need real advice.

When you get in debt you become a slave. - Andrew Jackson


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2019 12:43AM by isaiah58.
That’s what I also do. I think it’s just 2 companies that I deal with that don’t want a report of a bad experience. But that is precisely why they are hired. The customer wants to know what is wrong so they can fix it.
I have on occasion e-mailed the scheduler, senior scheduler, or program manager a copy of my report with a friendly , "You might want to read this one," or a "This one is unusual/special for X reason; it might be best to have it reviewed by other than a junior editor." Of course, that approach works only with those MSCs which one has very good relations with and should not be used frequently. I have done it, for example, when I have observed employee behavior which management ought to be informed but which was outside the scope of the shop (e.g. sexual harassment, theft, obscenity directed at other customers or underlings).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2019 08:03PM by Rousseau.
I had a hotel shop where I was supposed to check in with one person, request a housekeeping visit for a made up scenario, speak to a manager, speak to someone who coordinates groups and check out with someone else. After I checked in, I did not need to make up a scenario as I had a very specific (and gross) housekeeping problem. There were no housekeepers on call, so the associate moved me to another room. The next morning, the manager, group coordinator and person who checked me out were all the same person. My editor responded that I would probably be flagged since I only interacted with two people instead of all that they wanted me to. Also, because I had that specific housekeeping incident, I was probably memorable. How are you supposed to report issues without being memorable? I even told the scheduler they make it hard to be truthful if being truthful will cause you to be flagged to not be able to shop again.
You can’t control circumstances like this. That’s also why I’m wondering how much we are supposed to manipulate the visit. If this is really how the events play out, doesn’t the company want to know this? I’m guessing they DO want to know this, but the MSC is afraid they won’t get paid for the report if the scenario doesn’t play out perfectly.
A shopper has some control except in circumstances where a place is small enough that there is a super limited staff. On a hotel shop you are likely to be in the facility at least 18 hours. This gives you an opportunity to interact with at least two people in areas where there is 24 hr staffing. You don't put off to the next day anything you can possibly do today because a fail today means you still have a chance tomorrow. If you fail with the day shift, try again with the night shift. If you fail with the night shift, try again in the morning. Hotels are fairly unique situations because you potentially get multiple bites at the apple.

We need to manipulate the situation enough to get the evaluations we need. We need to calculate just how far we can go without blowing our cover. In a retail setting, leaving an evaluated associate to browse until that associate is busy helping another customer can be the key to speaking with two associates. I have read a lot of fine print labels on boxes waiting for my associate to re-engage elsewhere to get my two interactions with associates in a fairly small store--something that seems fishy if you energetically rushed into the store in the first place. I have pulled a paperback novel out of my purse in a bank waiting area as I have found platform associates took their time if waiting customers were on their phones, yet it made it apparent I was not taking care of other business while I waited. The only issue with the novel is that a well-meaning teller may offer to help you with a platform banker question--but that can be waved off readily enough with thanks.

What we cannot predict up front is whether it is the quality of the interaction itself or the overall sense of service/lack of service that is being tested by the client. If the client is looking for the percentage of associates who are responding to current training that indicates you 1) smile with a pleasant greeting, 2) suggest additional product and 3) thank you and invite your return, a 0 or 1 interaction shop yields little or no measurable data.
I had one of these the other day that was so wrong it ended with a manager getting involved. In this case the scheduler was the editor. I emailed her before filling out the report and told her the issue with the shop asking her where in the narrative I should report and what I should leave in or out. I mentioned my concern about being outed by the report when it was read. She said I should write it up and then let her know as soon as I submit the report and she would look it over and adjust it. In the end she emailed me back and said I should not do that location for a while.
One part of what I observed on the same shop that I did not mention in the report was the fact that the manager's butt crack was showing. I gave the manager a negative remark for professional dress and said the shirt was not long enough to reach the pants in the back. Then I sent a note to the editor about the butt crack issue so she could pass it on if she felt it was needed. In this case I knew who the editor was so that was a plus.
That manager was literally the butt of the joke with higher management. LOL. Some of them were cracked up over it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2019 10:01AM by JASFLALMT.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login