Oh, so THAT's what frustrates you? You weren't already frustrated when you first posted in this thread?
Who came into this thread calling the rule stupid?
Who falsely claimed people broke the rule here half the time and then mischaracterized and cited a casino thread as an example of people breaking the rule when client names were actually not mentioned?
Who asked outright which MSC had the BJ's account and which MSC I thought BJ's might have switched to?
After wrosie pointed out the casino thread didn't actually break the rule, who asked "WHY?" (in all caps) and what was the point of the rule?
myst4au and I both tried to explain to you some of the reasons behind the rule. Your response was to opine that someone who did not think that all company owners had already signed up (or paid to have their employees sign up) with their competitors to find out who the competitors' clients were must not be thinking things through.
You were showing frustration from the start and long before I brought up cynicism or ethics. I brought up those topics mainly BECAUSE you cynically claimed all MSC owners engaged in unethical behavior.
By the way, "taking a closer look" is a misquote if you got that from a steakhouse thread. If you didn't misquote on purpose, then I truly hope you are more careful/truthful in your reports.
Different posters obviously feel differently about whether to give hints and how easy to make the clues. To each their own. I sometimes give hints and sometimes don't.
Is wordplay involved sometimes? Sure. For those of us who wish to help posters who ask for hints, wordplay and other ways of giving hints let us help without technically breaking the rule. So, if the client is already named in a thread, people can use wordplay, or write something in French when it's a French MSC, or identify the reporting platform(s) the MSC uses, or write about contacting a help desk. If an MSC is already named in a thread, people can describe the color schemes of the client or mention other things associated with that client.
What you apparently want is for other shoppers to just break the rule and outright link clients to their MSCs. You don't like the rule. You don't see the point of following the rule even though some form of it is in most ICAs shoppers must agree to as a condition of shopping for MSCs. You want to benefit from reading these forums but not follow one of the key rules of these forums.
In addition to not being a violation of the rule, hints usually work only for readers who either have already signed up with certain MSCs (and therefore can associate the hints with specific MSCs) or have at least made the effort to read this and other forums or are willing to do some research to figure out the hints.
If hints are not good enough for you and you expect shoppers to break their ICAs just to hand you the information you want on a silver platter, good luck with that.
You are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong? Alrighty then.
By the way, I have had a few company owners and upper management ask me privately to identify which MSCs posted shops for specific clients. I always declined and reminded them that I could/would not since I signed ICAs that prohibited me to disclose the information. It is already rare for an MSC's owner or representative to ask. It is extremely rare for someone to ask again after I mentioned ICAs. I don't shop for companies who asked again.
@zaccari33 wrote:
@jrj76 wrote:
As frustrating as this can be when I crave a certain type of shop or want to specifically go for a certain client, I also like the fact that this creates a barrier to entry for an industry that has NONE if you want to find work. So many people say that they would love to mystery shop and do all of these things but to be honest almost none are willing to put in the work to even sign up for the companies. There is a lot of advice about how to find all of the shops and at its basic level it is to sign up for all of the companies. Sorry if that is too much work for some but I would rather not have competition to take shops anyway.
whats frustrating is when i get a passive aggressive poster who wants to talk about "ethically challenged" people or being not so cynical when they also have no problem replying to people about "taking a closer look" for an MSC or other ridiculous word play. you cant confirm msc to customer but then doit it anyhow while not saying the name.
seriously, does anyone believe that coyle, hsbrand/KSS, RBG, ACL, CHC, etc doesnt know who arbys works with?