Some time ago I signed up with a MS company that focused on restaurant clients. I recall during the sign up process answering the question "How far are you willing to travel?" Since I am willing to travel, and have, when the bonus makes it worthwile, I put down 100 miles.

At some point after that, I received an assignment from the company. Not an offer, but an assignment. It was about 75 miles away and was for a restaurant. No fee was associated with the assignment, only a minimal reimbursment.

That was an assignment I was clearly not interested in so I went on line to cancel the assignment and found no place to do that. After some back and forth email with the company, the assignment was cancelled and I discovered that by putting 100 miles in my application, a was agreeing to do assignments within that area without additional compensation. We worked it out and I reduced my coverage are to a more realistic one. It wasn't a big deal, but felt that the MS company could have been more clear from the outset.

Moving forward, I received another assignment from the company. It required two people to go to the restaurant and had a minimal reimbursment. With some reservation, I took the job. It was a restaurant I was not aware of as it was a distance away. When my companion and I arrived it was a rib restaurant where the customer orders at the counter and they bring your order to the table. The reimbursment was not enough for one person, let alone two. It was also not enough to get the signature dish they were known for.

The report was broken into five or six parts: the outside, the inside, the service, the food, etc. The report requirements were three to five paragraphs per section. I completed the report and felt I had given a fair and accurate accounting for each section. It was not, however, five paragraphs per section. The report, of course was returned for additional comments. I found myself feeling like the eight year old who has to write the 250 word paper on "my summer vacation" and adding as many extra words as I could so I could meet the 250 minimum. ("I had a very, very, very, very, very nice summer vacation.")

I never did meet the minimum words. (How much can you say about counter service?) I finally gave up with an incomplete report and was not reimbursed. I was also deactivated from the ms company, which was fine with me.

For those of you still reading (and thank you if you are), my point is this: Mystery shop companies will do what they need to to make clients happy, even if the client request is unreasonable. They can do this because they know that one of us (shoppers) will be idiot enough to say yes to the shop. It is incumbant for we shoppers to say no to unreasonable requests. It is unfortunate that the shopping companies and shoppers could not be on the same side and work toward the greater good of the industry. Unfortunately, that partnership is not one I feel with many (not all) ms companies.

Thanks for reading... good luck with your shopping.

I don't think the client should get blamed for unreasonable requests. It falls to the MSC who is selling the service to provide the client with reasonable expectations based on what the client is willing to spend.

That whole thing about being assigned to a shop that you know nothing about is more than a little strange. IMHO that is the expectation for an employee, not an IC.

Lisa -- I'm not so sure that you can't blame the client for unreasonable requests. The $2 phone call I mentioned in another thread was rejected because I asked a "leading question" and the "client doesn't allow leading questions." So, it could very well be that the MSC is following their client's wishes as to what is being shopped, what is being asked and how much narrative is being asked for.

That's kind of my point. Naturally a client is going to ask for the world and want to do it as cheaply as possible. They may want to add requirements and behaviors that scream "this is the shopper." The MSC is supposed to be the expert and should be able explain to the client the best way to have their shop conducted and that the more detail the client wants or needs the higher the fee. If they don't, then it's the MSC that is feeding the unrealistic expectations.

I agree with Lisa. For instance, there are times when the guidelines instruct you to do something which 'shouts' to the world that you are a mystery shopper. The client may demand it, but should the company just agree? They would know the risk.

Citing an example, I had a shop where I was required to take a photo. I had the receipt but they still demanded a picture. Why? The owner's mother sat in a chair outside the store all throughout. So I waited until they closed and immediately took a shot since the mall was still open. The picture was rejected and I had to ask my son to take the picture so I won't be recognized.
The place was not even nearby. Just a ridiculous demand.

Another one and this was a restaurant shop. On the phone part, I was to ask about something that was nonsense. The SA did not know and she said she would ask the manager. I said that was fine. I was afraid I would be suspected since the question was nonsensical. Because of that, my shop was docked but the scheduler told me she completely agreed with me.

This is an example, in my opinion, of why MS seem not to be true ICs -- the pay ("contract rate") is not negotiated or set by the IC. The rate of pay is set by the MSC which seems more like a borderline employer.

qpone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M Monty,
>
> It's always struck me odd that on the one hand,
> mystery shopping is one of those industries where
> clear quality communication is so critical, and on
> the other the pay is so bad.
>
> Since most of the time we are doing the job based
> on paperwork we review, the ms company needs to be
> absolutely clear about the instructions and what
> they are looking for.
>
> Unfortunately, since humans are writing the
> documents, clarity is not always achieved. That
> leads to the difference between what they actually
> wanted and what we understood they wanted.
>
> As you have now experienced, the two sides are not
> always on the same page. You can bring it to the
> attention of the ms company, as you did... and now
> your easy less than 15 minute, pays $5 shop has
> become a "deal" and you are into it thirty
> minutes... an hour... or more... and you fee has
> not gone up.
>
> In addition, you can only press so hard with the
> ms company because they are in the power position
> and can cut you off from getting future shops.
>
> All in all, kind of a screwed position to be in...
> but it is part of the way it is set up... and part
> of the reason so many people drift away from being
> a shopper.
>
> Good luck with your current situation... continue
> to learn.
>
>
>
> M Monty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thank you qpone,
> >
> > I will definitely covet any and all
> encouragement
> > I receive. I felt I found a treasure trove of
> > information when I found this forum. I read for
> a
> > couple of days before posting. I am glad I
> did,
> > and I do not regret signing on. I want to do
> the
> > best I can, and work hard. I guess I don't
> want
> > to be one of those "one post newbies" who never
> > return.
> >
> > I listened to many posts, and gleaned some very
> > good advice from them. Today I had a very
> strange
> > experience with a phone shop I did involving a
> new
> > car dealership. I self-assigned the shop,
> > downloaded the details, read the comments,
> printed
> > the survey questions. It was simple; so I
> > thought..
> >
> > I had to shop the newest type of vehicle on the
> > lot which is a 2012, and evaluate the sales
> agent.
> > The acceptance email I received from the MSC
> gave
> > me the vehicle name, the guidelines gave me the
> > vehicle name, the comments gave me the vehicle
> > name, and the survey questions had references
> to
> > the vehicle I was to shop. Six and one half
> > minutes for the call, and less than seven
> minutes
> > for the report. The five dollars I accepted
> for
> > the shop was worth 13.5 minutes of work! It is
> > not 50 cents a minute, but I'll live with 37
> > cents.
> >
> > I received an email from the scheduler saying
> > there was a "lot of confusion" about the type
> of
> > vehicle I was to shop, and those details are
> very
> > specific to the shop, regarding the type of
> > vehicle. The scheduler mentioned I should
> review
> > the acceptance email I got, and if I didn't
> have
> > it look at the comments about the shop. I did
> > look at the details after receiving the email
> from
> > the scheduler, many, many times! I do not see
> > where I shopped the wrong vehicle. The
> > information about a different vehicle just
> isn't
> > there! I even took the advice given in the
> > guidelines about researching the vehicle at
> > www.companynameusa.com (fake name of course).
> The
> > absolute newest vehicle of the type I needed to
> > shop will not be available until March 15, 2012
> > according to the homepage of the company. In
> my
> > opinion, that vehicle does not apply.
> >
> > I took a screen shot of the first page of the
> > guidelines, the bottom of the second page, the
> > acceptance email, the comment section, which
> all
> > had the vehicle I shopped; and sent it all to
> the
> > scheduler in my reply to her email. I am very
> > curious as to the outcome of this whole
> > experience.
> >
> > I said all that in my ramblings to say this:
> > Thank you all for keeping me on point, and
> > sticking to the facts and not the first response
> I
> > personally felt. The best course of action,
> due
> > to the forum, was to submit what I was looking
> at.
> > Then let us determine where the confusion lies.
>
> > I am not to proud to be wrong. I just need to
> > know where I went wrong for future corrections
> to
> > be made.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > M. Monty

Lisa -- Having dealth with clients when I was supposedly the expert, they sometimes don't want to hear what you're saying and want to do it their way. I spent three weeks trying to convince one of my voiceover clients I did phone voice prompts for to talk to his voicemail provider because something was screwy on their end, He insisted on me recording at different speed variables. Finally, he did what I asked him to do and his voicemail provider told him the problem sometimes happened on their end. So, just because the MSC is the "expert" doesn't mean the they're going to listen.

Undercover... I have been saying this for a while. The more I shop, the more I realize, I am not an IC, the MSCs admonitions to the contrary. I am a laborer. I do EXACTLY what I am told or I am not paid (even when I do EXACTLY what I am told, I might not get paid, but that's a whole other thread!).

UnderCover Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is an example, in my opinion, of why MS seem
> not to be true ICs -- the pay ("contract rate") is
> not negotiated or set by the IC. The rate of pay
> is set by the MSC which seems more like a
> borderline employer.
>
> qpone Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > M Monty,
> >
> > It's always struck me odd that on the one hand,
> > mystery shopping is one of those industries
> where
> > clear quality communication is so critical, and
> on
> > the other the pay is so bad.
> >
> > Since most of the time we are doing the job
> based
> > on paperwork we review, the ms company needs to
> be
> > absolutely clear about the instructions and
> what
> > they are looking for.
> >
> > Unfortunately, since humans are writing the
> > documents, clarity is not always achieved. That
> > leads to the difference between what they
> actually
> > wanted and what we understood they wanted.
> >
> > As you have now experienced, the two sides are
> not
> > always on the same page. You can bring it to
> the
> > attention of the ms company, as you did... and
> now
> > your easy less than 15 minute, pays $5 shop has
> > become a "deal" and you are into it thirty
> > minutes... an hour... or more... and you fee
> has
> > not gone up.
> >
> > In addition, you can only press so hard with
> the
> > ms company because they are in the power
> position
> > and can cut you off from getting future shops.
> >
> > All in all, kind of a screwed position to be
> in...
> > but it is part of the way it is set up... and
> part
> > of the reason so many people drift away from
> being
> > a shopper.
> >
> > Good luck with your current situation...
> continue
> > to learn.
> >
> >
> >
> > M Monty Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Thank you qpone,
> > >
> > > I will definitely covet any and all
> > encouragement
> > > I receive. I felt I found a treasure trove
> of
> > > information when I found this forum. I read
> for
> > a
> > > couple of days before posting. I am glad I
> > did,
> > > and I do not regret signing on. I want to do
> > the
> > > best I can, and work hard. I guess I don't
> > want
> > > to be one of those "one post newbies" who
> never
> > > return.
> > >
> > > I listened to many posts, and gleaned some
> very
> > > good advice from them. Today I had a very
> > strange
> > > experience with a phone shop I did involving
> a
> > new
> > > car dealership. I self-assigned the shop,
> > > downloaded the details, read the comments,
> > printed
> > > the survey questions. It was simple; so I
> > > thought..
> > >
> > > I had to shop the newest type of vehicle on
> the
> > > lot which is a 2012, and evaluate the sales
> > agent.
> > > The acceptance email I received from the MSC
> > gave
> > > me the vehicle name, the guidelines gave me
> the
> > > vehicle name, the comments gave me the
> vehicle
> > > name, and the survey questions had references
> > to
> > > the vehicle I was to shop. Six and one half
> > > minutes for the call, and less than seven
> > minutes
> > > for the report. The five dollars I accepted
> > for
> > > the shop was worth 13.5 minutes of work! It
> is
> > > not 50 cents a minute, but I'll live with 37
> > > cents.
> > >
> > > I received an email from the scheduler saying
> > > there was a "lot of confusion" about the type
> > of
> > > vehicle I was to shop, and those details are
> > very
> > > specific to the shop, regarding the type of
> > > vehicle. The scheduler mentioned I should
> > review
> > > the acceptance email I got, and if I didn't
> > have
> > > it look at the comments about the shop. I
> did
> > > look at the details after receiving the email
> > from
> > > the scheduler, many, many times! I do not
> see
> > > where I shopped the wrong vehicle. The
> > > information about a different vehicle just
> > isn't
> > > there! I even took the advice given in the
> > > guidelines about researching the vehicle at
> > > www.companynameusa.com (fake name of course).
>
> > The
> > > absolute newest vehicle of the type I needed
> to
> > > shop will not be available until March 15,
> 2012
> > > according to the homepage of the company. In
> > my
> > > opinion, that vehicle does not apply.
> > >
> > > I took a screen shot of the first page of the
> > > guidelines, the bottom of the second page,
> the
> > > acceptance email, the comment section, which
> > all
> > > had the vehicle I shopped; and sent it all to
> > the
> > > scheduler in my reply to her email. I am
> very
> > > curious as to the outcome of this whole
> > > experience.
> > >
> > > I said all that in my ramblings to say this:
> > > Thank you all for keeping me on point, and
> > > sticking to the facts and not the first
> response
> > I
> > > personally felt. The best course of action,
> > due
> > > to the forum, was to submit what I was
> looking
> > at.
> > > Then let us determine where the confusion
> lies.
> >
> > > I am not to proud to be wrong. I just need
> to
> > > know where I went wrong for future
> corrections
> > to
> > > be made.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > M. Monty
-+-----i-

I just completed an auto phone shop and I, too, got a message that I shopped the wrong vehicle. The vehicle that I got the quote on cost a lot mire than I was quoted. I heard correctly and asked about the correct vehicle. I think it was a ploy for me to get to the dealership as the salesman kept saying that I needed to come in ASAP for this price. (I'm sure if I had gone to this dealership, the salesman would have said he misunderstood or deny I stated a particular model.) Many SS's state that they record all their calls. Yo me, that is a lot of hassle to justify a report - it's not worth the effort.
Even though I have done many shops for this MSC, I will resign for its lack of ethics.

jerry1552 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UnderCover Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is an example, in my opinion, of why MS
> seem
> > not to be true ICs -- the pay ("contract rate")
> is
> > not negotiated or set by the IC. The rate of
> pay
> > is set by the MSC which seems more like a
> > borderline employer.
> >
> > qpone Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > M Monty,
> > >
> > > It's always struck me odd that on the one
> hand,
> > > mystery shopping is one of those industries
> > where
> > > clear quality communication is so critical,
> and
> > on
> > > the other the pay is so bad.
> > >
> > > Since most of the time we are doing the job
> > based
> > > on paperwork we review, the ms company needs
> to
> > be
> > > absolutely clear about the instructions and
> > what
> > > they are looking for.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, since humans are writing the
> > > documents, clarity is not always achieved.
> That
> > > leads to the difference between what they
> > actually
> > > wanted and what we understood they wanted.
> > >
> > > As you have now experienced, the two sides
> are
> > not
> > > always on the same page. You can bring it to
> > the
> > > attention of the ms company, as you did...
> and
> > now
> > > your easy less than 15 minute, pays $5 shop
> has
> > > become a "deal" and you are into it thirty
> > > minutes... an hour... or more... and you fee
> > has
> > > not gone up.
> > >
> > > In addition, you can only press so hard with
> > the
> > > ms company because they are in the power
> > position
> > > and can cut you off from getting future
> shops.
> > >
> > > All in all, kind of a screwed position to be
> > in...
> > > but it is part of the way it is set up... and
> > part
> > > of the reason so many people drift away from
> > being
> > > a shopper.
> > >
> > > Good luck with your current situation...
> > continue
> > > to learn.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > M Monty Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Thank you qpone,
> > > >
> > > > I will definitely covet any and all
> > > encouragement
> > > > I receive. I felt I found a treasure trove
> > of
> > > > information when I found this forum. I
> read
> > for
> > > a
> > > > couple of days before posting. I am glad I
> > > did,
> > > > and I do not regret signing on. I want to
> do
> > > the
> > > > best I can, and work hard. I guess I don't
> > > want
> > > > to be one of those "one post newbies" who
> > never
> > > > return.
> > > >
> > > > I listened to many posts, and gleaned some
> > very
> > > > good advice from them. Today I had a very
> > > strange
> > > > experience with a phone shop I did
> involving
> > a
> > > new
> > > > car dealership. I self-assigned the shop,
> > > > downloaded the details, read the comments,
> > > printed
> > > > the survey questions. It was simple; so I
> > > > thought..
> > > >
> > > > I had to shop the newest type of vehicle on
> > the
> > > > lot which is a 2012, and evaluate the sales
> > > agent.
> > > > The acceptance email I received from the
> MSC
> > > gave
> > > > me the vehicle name, the guidelines gave me
> > the
> > > > vehicle name, the comments gave me the
> > vehicle
> > > > name, and the survey questions had
> references
> > > to
> > > > the vehicle I was to shop. Six and one
> half
> > > > minutes for the call, and less than seven
> > > minutes
> > > > for the report. The five dollars I
> accepted
> > > for
> > > > the shop was worth 13.5 minutes of work!
> It
> > is
> > > > not 50 cents a minute, but I'll live with
> 37
> > > > cents.
> > > >
> > > > I received an email from the scheduler
> saying
> > > > there was a "lot of confusion" about the
> type
> > > of
> > > > vehicle I was to shop, and those details
> are
> > > very
> > > > specific to the shop, regarding the type of
> > > > vehicle. The scheduler mentioned I should
> > > review
> > > > the acceptance email I got, and if I didn't
> > > have
> > > > it look at the comments about the shop. I
> > did
> > > > look at the details after receiving the
> email
> > > from
> > > > the scheduler, many, many times! I do not
> > see
> > > > where I shopped the wrong vehicle. The
> > > > information about a different vehicle just
> > > isn't
> > > > there! I even took the advice given in the
> > > > guidelines about researching the vehicle at
> > > > www.companynameusa.com (fake name of
> course).
> >
> > > The
> > > > absolute newest vehicle of the type I
> needed
> > to
> > > > shop will not be available until March 15,
> > 2012
> > > > according to the homepage of the company.
> In
> > > my
> > > > opinion, that vehicle does not apply.
> > > >
> > > > I took a screen shot of the first page of
> the
> > > > guidelines, the bottom of the second page,
> > the
> > > > acceptance email, the comment section,
> which
> > > all
> > > > had the vehicle I shopped; and sent it all
> to
> > > the
> > > > scheduler in my reply to her email. I am
> > very
> > > > curious as to the outcome of this whole
> > > > experience.
> > > >
> > > > I said all that in my ramblings to say this:
>
> > > > Thank you all for keeping me on point, and
> > > > sticking to the facts and not the first
> > response
> > > I
> > > > personally felt. The best course of
> action,
> > > due
> > > > to the forum, was to submit what I was
> > looking
> > > at.
> > > > Then let us determine where the confusion
> > lies.
> > >
> > > > I am not to proud to be wrong. I just need
> > to
> > > > know where I went wrong for future
> > corrections
> > > to
> > > > be made.
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > M. Monty
> -+-----i-
>
> I just completed an auto phone shop and I, too,
> got a message that I shopped the wrong vehicle.
> The vehicle that I got the quote on cost a lot
> mire than I was quoted. I heard correctly and
> asked about the correct vehicle. I think it was a
> ploy for me to get to the dealership as the
> salesman kept saying that I needed to come in ASAP
> for this price. (I'm sure if I had gone to this
> dealership, the salesman would have said he
> misunderstood or deny I stated a particular
> model.) Many SS's state that they record all their
> calls. Yo me, that is a lot of hassle to justify a
> report - it's not worth the effort.
> Even though I have done many shops for this MSC, I
> will resign for its lack of ethics.


Hello jerry1552,

I am getting into the habit of recording all my calls due to the fact I can jot very brief notes while recording, allowing me to do many more phone shops that I could not do without recording. As long as I check the recording right after the shop, I can go on to the next job, and hold off on submitting my reports right away. I can take a break, and then nail a bunch of reports one after the other by just doing a little payback, and transcribing. It works for me and is very efficient.

I know I would never be able to use the recordings as proof of my accuracies,since the MSC hold us to such a high standard of the ability of memorizing very minute details, it is an excellent resource for me to be as accurate as my puny human brain will not allow me to be. If I had to, I would transcribe the report verbatim to be exact. To me it is not any hardship to record since the 1 TB hard drive I use will allow me to record 13,900 hours of seamless conversation.

Besides, it gives me a good reason to play with my toys! I know this is serious business, but I would not be true to myself if I didn't try to be the best at it as I can. Ground floor usually doesn't work for me. If a company is unethical, I will do all that I can to determine if it may be just a fluke, or a reality, then I would bow out as gracefully as humanly possible.

Sincerely,

M. Monty

M Monty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...the guidelines for the shop had been updated on
> 3/6/12, I received the acceptance letter on 3/7/12
> and did the shop on 3/8/12...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> M. Monty


It sounds like the key words might have been 'on the lot'. If you were shopping the car on the lot, and the MSP meant the car arriving later this week, it could result in a miscommunication over 'newest vehicle'.
Just tossing out an idea in case it helps.

Bena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M Monty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> ...the guidelines for the shop had been updated
> on
> > 3/6/12, I received the acceptance letter on
> 3/7/12
> > and did the shop on 3/8/12...
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > M. Monty
>
>
> It sounds like the key words might have been 'on
> the lot'. If you were shopping the car on the
> lot, and the MSP meant the car arriving later this
> week, it could result in a miscommunication over
> 'newest vehicle'.
> Just tossing out an idea in case it helps.


Hello Bena,

Again I must reiterate, you all have been a fantantic bunch. I realize there seems to be a lot of discontent when it comes to the different problems that are inherent in this business, but it has been so refreshing to me people will stop a moment to help out a fellow shopper, new or used! I say this in jest of course, but we all know the truth of the situation!

"On the lot" was the most vital line in the instruction to me. I did't know any other way to decipher the guideline. I hope to hear from the MSC today.

Sincerely,

M. Monty

Bena Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M Monty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> ...the guidelines for the shop had been updated
> on
> > 3/6/12, I received the acceptance letter on
> 3/7/12
> > and did the shop on 3/8/12...
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > M. Monty
>
>
> It sounds like the key words might have been 'on
> the lot'. If you were shopping the car on the
> lot, and the MSP meant the car arriving later this
> week, it could result in a miscommunication over
> 'newest vehicle'.
> Just tossing out an idea in case it helps.


Hello Bena,

Again I must reiterate, you all have been a fantantic bunch. I realize there seems to be a lot of discontent when it comes to the different problems that are inherent in this business, but it has been so refreshing to me people will stop a moment to help out a fellow shopper, new or used! I say this in jest of course, but we all know the truth of the situation!

"On the lot" was the most vital line in the instruction to me. I did't know any other way to decipher the guideline. I hope to hear from the MSC today. A resolution would be greatly appreciated. You know the song; "...should I stay or should I go, da da da da da da da..."

Sincerely,

M. Monty

For those of you who followed this issue over the past few days with me. I did get a correspondence from the MSC that said I shopped the wrong vehicle. I was hoping it would be an explaination about what may have gone wrong, and why it was said I was confused. Even though I studied the information over, and over again (after the scheduler's email to me letting me know of my error), I still had the nagging feeling that I did something wrong, and the shop would be rejected. When I got the email from the proofreader, I took a deep breath before opening it, I thought; here we go!

The proofreader's request was to add in my narrative, how much the vehicle cost. I added one more sentence. So, I guess maybe that is the end of it! No mention about the error. What a tough five dollars.

Thanks for the support. Hopefully this terminates the exchange with the company and me: Whew!" I guess I'll stay. Live and learn.

M Monty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The proofreader's request was to add in my
> narrative, how much the vehicle cost. I added one
> more sentence. So, I guess maybe that is the end
> of it! No mention about the error. What a tough
> five dollars.
>
> Thanks for the support. Hopefully this terminates
> the exchange with the company and me: Whew!" I
> guess I'll stay. Live and learn.


Holy Moses! I forgot it was just for $5.00. What a waste of time,
not to mention the keyboard strokes. lol

M Monty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>I did get a correspondence
> from the MSC that said I shopped the wrong
> vehicle. I was hoping it would be an explaination
> about what may have gone wrong, and why it was
> said I was confused. Even though I studied the
> information over, and over again (after the
> scheduler's email to me letting me know of my
> error)....

Was it Intellishop? I got the same thing from proofreader telling me nice job, but wrong vehicle.

I sent them the vehicle info. from guidelines and comment section. But seems they have not corrected it.

anakin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M Monty Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >I did get a correspondence
> > from the MSC that said I shopped the wrong
> > vehicle. I was hoping it would be an
> explaination
> > about what may have gone wrong, and why it was
> > said I was confused. Even though I studied the
> > information over, and over again (after the
> > scheduler's email to me letting me know of my
> > error)....
>
> Was it Intellishop? I got the same thing from
> proofreader telling me nice job, but wrong
> vehicle.
>
> I sent them the vehicle info. from guidelines and
> comment section. But seems they have not
> corrected it.

With all due respect anakin, I wish to refrain from actually naming the company. As I stated in an earlier post, that there may be shoppers who recognize the procedures and terminology of certain MSC, but due to protocol or possible breach of contract agreement I'll pass on giving out the name. Again, no disrepect towards you, but I do not wish to seem two-faced by trying to do a good job for a company I shop for, regardless of how cheap or unreasonable they seem may be, and then coming here to drag their name through the mud.

No matter how large or small the meal, I do not want to bite the hand that feeds me, and my family!

Understood. You have your rules and protocols to live by. I have no qualms about naming the company. Then only the content of the post has any meaning/warning to other shoppers. Otherwise it is like pissing in dark pants it gives warm and fuzzy feeling, but no one notices it.

I agree, anakin. I think if we are going to help and support each other,we need the info. It is only a violation of the IC if the client and MSC are mentioned together.

I thought a CPI was mentioned somewhere, but that might be another thread all together. And a lot of shoppers might not know what a CPI is (assuming it is relevant.)

I don't suggest that just because someone had a bad experience with an MSC EVERYONE should automatically stay away, but if there's a trend...

Love your comment about pissing in the dark.

Thanks.



anakin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Understood. You have your rules and protocols to
> live by. I have no qualms about naming the
> company. Then only the content of the post has
> any meaning/warning to other shoppers. Otherwise
> it is like pissing in dark pants it gives warm and
> fuzzy feeling, but no one notices it.

Exactly jersey. There are quite a few motivators why a shopper would post here. Some of them might be:

1. Vent frustration
2. Generate sympathy
3. Sound off others, seek clarification and help.
4. Warn others.

I believe in #3 and 4. A MSC name would be useful. For # 3 some one might share their experiences that XYZ company likes it certain way. For 4 if others also have similar experiences a pattern might emerge e.g. IKEA shops or HDE (I am sure many have not taken IKEA shop and avoid HDE like a plague) . 1 and 2 are pissing in pants.

Remember we are Mystery shoppers and we shop MSCs too.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2012 01:20AM by anakin.

I respect the decision of M Monty to keep his information confidential. S/he is following the agreements as s/he sees them.

However... having said that, while I understand the desire of the MS companies to have shoppers hold confidentiality about being a shopper... the other advantage for them is it keeps us from talking completely openly to one another.

In my opinion, that is another manifestation of the control the MS companies like to have. After all, the less we know, the more we have to just accept what they offer.

God forbid that shoppers ever organize...

When MY rules become an impediment to helping others, I have to reevaluate those rules. That's just me. I agree whole-heartedly with both anakin and qpone on this. And forgive me if I get the two posts mixed up. I post for a number of reasons.

1. I need to let off steam. I work alone so I need colleages to share my tales of woe/frustration. For me, this is the equivalent of hanging out around the proverbial water cooler. I need to say, geeze the boss is sure as hell being unreasonable today.

and to keep the metaphor going.

2. I need folks to stop me from going overboard, i.e., from blaming the boss for everything. In this regard, I need to assess whether I did what I was supposed to do. If not, I cannot blame the MSC. I learn from other folk's mistakes as well as my own.

and

3. I need to know when it is NOT me. I am a perfectionist. When something goes wrong, my instinct is to blame myself. It must be me. Sometimes it is NOT me. And the forum helps me determine this.

and

4. I need to know when a company is probably toxic. I need to know when a company has a reputation for screwing shoppers in one way or anohter--by setting impossible demainds, by not paying, by pulling shops at the last minute or midstream, etc.

Just know a company does this is really not enough. If I am going to see a pattern of toxic behavior, I need to know what company we are talking about.

If I told you a company did not pay me, you can feel bad for me. But if you know it is GfK, you can take that information about this particular company, add it to all the other information you have about this company, and make an informed decision. You cannot do that if you don't know it is GfK I am referring to.

We need to adhere to the IC agreements we signed, even though according to the IRS rulings my CPA showed me today there is no way in hell we are really ICs, but WHY add extra restrictions? The MSCs have enough control over us. Why give them even more power than they already have.

PS anakin-what does HDE stand for?

PSS it would be quite the challenge to organize, per se. But where there's a will, there's a way.

3.

Jersey,

It would be a challenge to organize... but not impossible. Unions started to organize workers.

Where shoppers could get together is as an association. If we all would be willing to be a part of an association and be members for a few bucks each, we could work together as shoppers and WITH ms companies.

Somebody has thought about it. I did a search and found mysteryshopperassociation.com. Would be interesting.

qpone I love the idea. I had a couple of PMs with someone else who was also interested...we had talked about developing a web site. Lest any one began to panic, thinking we are starting a new Bolshevic revolution, I my intent would be to even the playing field.

PS anakin-what does HDE stand for?

Hill Dunlap....they only pay after you have badgered them. In my case I was paid after few emails. Others have gotten responses like,"You will get paid when we get paid."

But I must say their reports are very easy - no redundant narratives.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2012 04:34AM by anakin.

qpone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Somebody has thought about it. I did a search and
> found mysteryshopperassociation.com. Would be
> interesting.

Re: mysteryshopperassociation.com

"This domain name (MYSTERYSHOPPERASSOCIATION.COM) without content is available for sale by its owner through Sedo's Domain Marketplace."

anakin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly jersey. There are quite a few motivators
> why a shopper would post here. Some of them might
> be:
>
> 1. Vent frustration
> 2. Generate sympathy
> 3. Sound off others, seek clarification and help.
>
> 4. Warn others.
>
> I believe in #3 and 4. A MSC name would be
> useful. For # 3 some one might share their
> experiences that XYZ company likes it certain way.
> For 4 if others also have similar experiences a
> pattern might emerge e.g. IKEA shops or HDE (I am
> sure many have not taken IKEA shop and avoid HDE
> like a plague) . 1 and 2 are pissing in pants.
>
> Remember we are Mystery shoppers and we shop MSCs
> too.

Hello anakin,

I love it! I have to relay what just happened to me. Please bear with me. I just got home from having dinner with friends. The first thing I do everytime I am away and return, is to open my email inbox to determine whether I may have monies available to me, or an acceptance letter for another shop; God forbid if I miss something!

When I started to read the most recent posts I was drinking a Winn-Dixie brand peach Chek soda. Ok, I have to admit, I probably smell a little like urine right now (.."pissing in the dark"..). Let me get on with it...While bringing the soda to my lips, I was reading the previous posts and, sort of did a half-snort chufff, my cheeks blow up like I was doing a Dizzy Gilespi impression. I tried to squeeze my lips shut as hard as I could, to no avail. I experienced something no-one should ever have to go through. An explosion of a pale pinkish cloud burst forth from my face, and soda came pouring out of my nose. I thought someone shot me. What a vicious pain! Touche`! I understand what is being said. It was not my intention to garner sympathy, or to run back into town to warn others about the bridge being out, when I don't even know where the bridge is yet. The reason I posted in the forum was due to the comments, #1, and #3, that were so well assessed I might add.

I think it may be best I go back to the "kiddie table" and leave the grown-ups to hash out the true business that is going on here. What I write next is not sympathy-based: I just started here in this forum on March 9, 2012. I started the application process while visiting as many MSCs I could stand: Which was toward the end of January. Prior to this morning, I had only received one $45.00 check for an auto dealership shop, and as I was writing this, my email signal is chiming in the background every few seconds. I received, via PayPal, $5.00 more dollars.

So you see, after I realized I was reeking of pee, I was now drooling, coughing and staggering down the hall trying not to laugh too hard while I was dying. I suddenly realized how full-of-crap I was when I almosted soiled my pants as well as peeing down my leg.

Seriously, I do hope to develop a keen sense of what is going on. I am not one who just lays out as a doormat to allow others to walk all over me, or my family and friends. When I get the lay of the land and all it's inhabitants, I may become comfortable enough to really say what is on my mind to anyone who will listen. I believe what is being said. I also believe in: "Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The Way!" This especially applies to me. One person may not have the strongest voice when trying to make a point, but many can shout the walls down! After coming to this forum I am now entertaining the thought of the MSCs vs the MSs and the way there seems to be some concerted effort to hold all the cards....."beware the Ides of March." No man, or company can be so great that they couldn't be made aware of the possibility that an organized effort is afoot to knock them down a couple of pegs.

Sincerely,

M. Monty



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2012 05:31AM by M Monty.

qpone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jersey,
>
> It would be a challenge to organize... but not
> impossible. Unions started to organize workers.
>
> Where shoppers could get together is as an
> association. If we all would be willing to be a
> part of an association and be members for a few
> bucks each, we could work together as shoppers and
> WITH ms companies.
>
> Somebody has thought about it. I did a search and
> found mysteryshopperassociation.com. Would be
> interesting.

I think we are organized. Without union dues, shop stewards, compulsory membership we help each other with our comments. The flies on the walls of the Ikea MSC and the Goodwins of this MS world agree. Our comments are being read and heard be it with a phone conversation or the forums.I'm sure we have effected change, only a foolish MSC would ignore us as we need one another.
I'll always remember the teacher's union rep in a NY school rally "I don't need a free abortion, I need a good dental plan!" So much for needs being met through a union. The moral of the story be careful what you wish for.

I have questioned the MS IC v EE (employee) status for a while.
Are you willing to share with MSs what your CPA shared with you?
Workers have to be watchful because many non-MSC companies are gravitating to virtual offices -- having telecommuters with an IC relationship while moving away from liability/overhead that comes with brick-and-mortars...

jersey07032 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When MY rules become an impediment to helping
> others, I have to reevaluate those rules. That's
> just me. I agree whole-heartedly with both anakin
> and qpone on this. And forgive me if I get the two
> posts mixed up. I post for a number of reasons.
>
> 1. I need to let off steam. I work alone so I
> need colleages to share my tales of
> woe/frustration. For me, this is the equivalent of
> hanging out around the proverbial water cooler. I
> need to say, geeze the boss is sure as hell being
> unreasonable today.
>
> and to keep the metaphor going.
>
> 2. I need folks to stop me from going overboard,
> i.e., from blaming the boss for everything. In
> this regard, I need to assess whether I did what I
> was supposed to do. If not, I cannot blame the
> MSC. I learn from other folk's mistakes as well as
> my own.
>
> and
>
> 3. I need to know when it is NOT me. I am a
> perfectionist. When something goes wrong, my
> instinct is to blame myself. It must be me.
> Sometimes it is NOT me. And the forum helps me
> determine this.
>
> and
>
> 4. I need to know when a company is probably
> toxic. I need to know when a company has a
> reputation for screwing shoppers in one way or
> anohter--by setting impossible demainds, by not
> paying, by pulling shops at the last minute or
> midstream, etc.
>
> Just know a company does this is really not
> enough. If I am going to see a pattern of toxic
> behavior, I need to know what company we are
> talking about.
>
> If I told you a company did not pay me, you can
> feel bad for me. But if you know it is GfK, you
> can take that information about this particular
> company, add it to all the other information you
> have about this company, and make an informed
> decision. You cannot do that if you don't know it
> is GfK I am referring to.
>
> We need to adhere to the IC agreements we signed,
> even though according to the IRS rulings my CPA
> showed me today there is no way in hell we are
> really ICs, but WHY add extra restrictions? The
> MSCs have enough control over us. Why give them
> even more power than they already have.
>
> PS anakin-what does HDE stand for?
>
> PSS it would be quite the challenge to organize,
> per se. But where there's a will, there's a way.
>
>
> 3.

"Actually, I never mentioned unions. What I said was PSS it would be quite the challenge to organize, per se. But where there's a will, there's a way". I was talking about ORGANIZiNG not UNIONIZING.That was another poster and I think he/she was making an comparison, not suggesting we join the Temsters.

I don't agree that we are organized. we have no way (except by commisserating with each other) to give support when an MSC crosses the line. We are basically on our own.

But I don't see why it has to be this way. I don't know how to change the situation, even a little. Still, I think things NEED to change. Just my opinion