@LindaM wrote:
@sestrahelena wrote:
It's a matter of "Quiet quitting" also called "Acting your wage" which was always present in work life but now has a name and is discussed openly on many internet platforms. It's really just human nature, though, to feel like doing your best work is pointless when those you do the work for do not appreciate your efforts and, instead, require more and more from you while compensating less and less.
I wholeheartedly agree with this post! Over the weekend, I stayed at the St Regis where I had to fill out multiple detailed reports. I stayed up late to complete all the forms. I added additional comments. I reviewed the reports again to see if I wanted to add anything else before submission. There were no out of pocket expenses, plus a decent fee, and plus accrued points.
Some posters ask why pick up shops that I know will have out of pocket expenses? Well, I do see some of the shops as a "coupon," as such I will treat the reports the same way.
A lot of posters on this board are so big on this being a "business." Well, as a "business" owner, I value my time and I'm going to treat every shop based on its value. The MSC is also a "business" that is paying for a service. If they want higher quality, they need to pay more. They shouldn't expect high quality when paying pennies.
Yesterday, I bought a cheap toy set for my son. It broke by the time I got home. Did I complain? No. I paid $8 for the toy set, not $28.
@rarararara wrote:
The key here is 35 years ago. In a lot of places these days, you can work really hard and really well, just to get a yearly raise that barely matches inflation. Then you look at your coworkers who are not working as hard or not working as well and making basically the same amount, and you think what's the point?
"I'll just leave something an elder worker told a group of us temp workers in a business setting probably 35 years ago. "If you were a regular worker, you would be subject to raises and advancements based upon your production" Needless to say I was offered a permanent position."
@shopperbob wrote:
Helena. thank you; your explanation was crystal clear. Daddy inquired as to why I permitted a single situation to affect the contract between Ipsos and myself. The two instances I stated were the culmination of a year's dissatisfaction. Last night, I realized Karen was correct and I should terminate. I have not an iota of regret.
@hbbigdaddy wrote:
Not sure what else can really be said on this topic. There are those that think (and act) based on the pay they are receiving for the shop. There are others that will put forth full effort regardless of the pay because that is what they feel should be done.
Neither side is going to convince the other to change. Time to move on!!!
@luckygirl0100 wrote:
@hbbigdaddy wrote:
Not sure what else can really be said on this topic. There are those that think (and act) based on the pay they are receiving for the shop. There are others that will put forth full effort regardless of the pay because that is what they feel should be done.
Neither side is going to convince the other to change. Time to move on!!!
AGREE 100%
I just hope that schedulers that visit this forum attempt to figure out who this person is and take appropriate action.
@shawnthewoman wrote:
My two cents:
I totally understand the way the OP feels about the current trends in the industry, as I have felt that way quite a lot lately. However, even if I wanted to, I could not give less than 100% in doing an assignment. I'm too much of an over-achiever and perfectionist to do so. If anything, I'm more frustrated by word limits in reports and lack of ability to sometimes explain a "Yes" answer. But whichever end of the spectrum one falls, I think many of the problems we face will only be solved by more involvement in the process from the CLIENTS.
Any business owner with more than one location knows they cannot be in two places at once and would feel better if they have some way to monitor what goes on when he or she is away. Thus, the reason the mystery shop industry exists. I can remember a few companies that used to run mystery shopping programs "in-house" and maybe some still do, but I think most of us can agree that using a middle-man, the MSC, is a more efficient way to handle a mystery shopping program. It eliminates much of the tedious work from the client, as it is the MSC who has to deal with scheduling, rotations, no-shows, dishonest shoppers, etc. They receive feedback from the MSC based on our work.
On our end, we have to continuously deal with MSC issues such as low pay, lack of communication, rude schedulers, etc.
What I believe is the missing piece of the puzzle that would not only make shoppers happier, but would also ensure better results for the client is MORE CLIENT INVOLVEMENT in the process. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of contracts between client/MSC, but I know, in general, the client pays a set fee to the MSC for XX number of reports, analysis, store visits, whatever. So the MSC sets out to fulfill their obligations through their pool of shoppers. It is in the interest of the MSC at this point to pay as little as possible to get the shops done. But do you ever wonder if the client actually realizes how little of what they paid to the MSC actually goes to us? Do shoppers even think about that? Remember the huge bonuses Maritz used to give on gas station shops? Why do you think they did that? Certainly, they wouldn't do it if they lost money. They did it because they understood that the best way to fulfill the obligation to the client of doing "XX number of shops" was to offer a pay rate that shoppers couldn't refuse. Sure Maritz listed jobs at base at the beginning of a round and surely got some done at that rate. I myself took many base for various reasons. But I also did plenty with as much as $100 bonus. If a company can offer that much bonus money, on a regular basis, then you can be sure the gap between base pay and the pay per shop the MSC received is HUGE. I don't think the clients fully realize this.
Also, I think the clients should also have more oversight/control in the quality of information they receive from the reports submitted by the MSC. I have no idea how this area could be fixed, however. But I do know that the information the clients receive is not always the information that the shopper provided to the MSC. I do not pretend to know the reason for this. But I know for a fact that it happens, and again I will use Maritz as an example. The Maritz editors regularly changed narratives I wrote in my reports. Maritz was famous for their "low-tech" approach to the business. So if I had submitted a report to them that was missing a pic, they would just send the whole report back to me to add it. Often, the editors had completed checking everything else, and I would find additions, deletions, or changes to my narratives. I'm not talking about just grammar or punctuation correction, either. I'm talking about observations completely deleted or dialog added that hadn't actually occurred. At first I complained about this, but never received an explanation or even an acknowledgement of any kind, so I just started ignoring it. But I am certain that Maritz can't have been the only MSC to ever do this and I am equally certain that the clients are unaware this happens.
Clients should also be more proactive about correcting the problems that we are reporting to them. It does lower the morale of a shopper to continuously report a problem at a store, but returning to that store month after month and never seeing the problem corrected. It's happened to me plenty, and I'd eventually think, "why even bother?" On the other hand if I were an employee of the client, most big corporations have entire departments dedicated to improving the workplace environment to keep the morale of its employees high, and any legit issues I had would likely be addressed in a timely manner.
The way the system is now, the MSC has all the power. They pay low because they can. In return, they get lower quality reports from us, because we can. If the clients would become a bit more involved and insist upon some of the standards that they set for their own employees, things would change. For example, they could negotiate their contracts insisting upon a certain minimum pay to shoppers. In their business, they pay more for better qualified employees, why should this facet of their business be any different? They should develop some sort of software or other method to ensure that they receive reports that are based upon our actual observations in the field. And they should dedicate a department that is tasked with investigating and fixing the problems we report. Of course these solutions only benefit us and the clients; they would be detrimental to the MSC. Which is why, every one of us, with every MSC we contract with, is required to agree to never contact the client for any reason whatsoever. I truly feel that the clients are not fully aware of the issues we as shoppers deal with. I also believe that many of the clients would not be happy to know that we are treated the way we are by some MSCs and would change the way they deal with the MSC if they knew. What I don't know is how to get these issues in front of them, as the MSC has blocked us from any contact. If someone out there can solve that problem, I believe we would all have a much better work experience.
@Notme2021 wrote:
I always think that when people start to talk about this being “a business,” that it’s because they don’t want to think of themselves as gig workers (all technically “business owners.” ) /quote]
If you're self-employed you do have a business--whether you're a gig worker, a sole proprietor of a brick & mortar or online store, a partner, etc. I think it can be kind of gray if you have a hobby and call it your business, even though you don't intend to make a profit.
I'm not sure why mystery shoppers would not call themselves businesses or why they would not think of themselves as gig workers. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You accurately term gig workers as business owners, but seem to imply that mystery shoppers are somehow being disingenuous by saying this is a business. I don't quite grasp what you mean. We own our own business, so I think the point is that we conduct ourselves as such--whatever that might mean to us.
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
@MrEd wrote:
A lot of moral grandstanding going on in these comments. Or perhaps it's virtue signaling, LOL.
@BirdyC wrote:
@MrEd wrote:
A lot of moral grandstanding going on in these comments. Or perhaps it's virtue signaling, LOL.
Because some of us really are honest? Is that moral grandstanding?
@LindaM wrote:
@luckygirl0100 wrote:
@hbbigdaddy wrote:
Not sure what else can really be said on this topic. There are those that think (and act) based on the pay they are receiving for the shop. There are others that will put forth full effort regardless of the pay because that is what they feel should be done.
Neither side is going to convince the other to change. Time to move on!!!
AGREE 100%
I just hope that schedulers that visit this forum attempt to figure out who this person is and take appropriate action.
Shoppers are such a funny group.
#1 complaint: low pay!!! ridiculous pay!!! pay going down!!!
Possible solution: let's stick together and hold out until fees go up? Response: No
Possible solution: turn in poor quality work that aligns with pay? Response: No
What do we do? Complain to the wall and hopefully the MSC will hear us a mile away.
Yes, I do agree with one thing you said. Probably enough has been said about this topic. I will continue to do what I feel is right and what I feel is appropriate. You can put in hours of work for the same miserable pay if it suits you. I'm going to continue putting in poor -- and I admit, maybe inaccurate -- reports if the pay is ridiculously low. The MSC can take the report or not. I don't care.
@hbbigdaddy wrote:
I think the OP mentioned they changed the answers because they didn't feel like explaining them.
Of course I put more effort into shops that require much detail. But I do NOT change my answers on things because I don't feel like explaining things. I agree with BirdyC...a detailed fine dining shop will require more effort than a fast food drive-thru shop. JUST BE HONEST regardless of which assignment it is. I'm not looking for every little detail with fast food place that I am with a high-end restaurant.