The following is the last letter sent to a scheduler at Summit Scheduling after they refused to compensate me for a shop performed for BRG.
Ms. Summit Scheduler:
Please be aware that my stance has not changed regarding this matter nor did the error and subsequent modification of the assignment, by your client, make performing this shop easier as claimed in your last electronic mail. In the contrary, your clients error regarding the employee to be targeted coupled with the modification of the assignment, after it had already commenced, put me at risk of losing my anonymity as a shopper. As such, I am due compensation for the shop I did indeed perform for BRG.
As you are already aware I spoke to Mr. John Doe of BRG on September 19, 2012 at 3:44 p.m. EST as I was in the field and did not have access to the internet so that I could contact you directly. However, my entire discussion with Mr. Doe was not communicated to you as it was only necessary to respond to your electronic mail stating that my shop was overdue. Be informed, that in addition to granting a one (1) day extension for this shopping assignment that Mr. Doe additionally authorized me to telephone this agency after 4:00 p.m., despite the guidelines of the shop, as it had been communicated that the targeted employee would be in meetings until approximately 4:15 p.m. Furthermore, Mr. Doe further changed the guidelines of the assignment by advising that once the target had been reached that I should state, if asked, that I had only wished to speak to the target as she had come highly recommended by an acquaintance of mine. I was further instructed to only give a fictitious first name of an acquaintance and state that I would telephone at a later time with the acquaintances last name, if need be.
As you are privy to the recorded communications made to this agency I would suggest that you listen to all four (4) of the discussions had, if you have not already done so. As previously communicated, via electronic mail, during my fourth (4th) telephonic contact with this agency I was put on hold by the target and my call was responded to by another agent who I had previously spoken with and moreover had previously denied her offer of assistance. As you are also aware, based upon our written communications, that this particular agent referred to me by utilizing my complete name stating "Is this Ms. ...". Further, despite my request that I continue my conversation with the targeted employee I was informed that the target did not furnish such information so once again the communication was ended politely giving a plausible excuse.
I find it utterly bewildering how you can state that your clients error related to the target for this assignment in addition to the clients subsequent modification of this assignment in fact made this assignment easier for me to complete based upon the following:
1. Numerous attempts were made to reach the specific target who I later found out was unable to furnish the information being sought as it was not within the realm of her job description.
2. That I spoke with every agent, in this very small agency, and had further declined assistance from each and every one them as this assignment was target specific.
3. That this agency requires that all blocked calls be unblocked prior to accepting telephonic communications so that they may monitor exactly who is calling.
4. That this shop required that I furnish true and correct personal information regarding myself, such as my home address, in order to receive the information being sought by the client. Therefore, if discovered as a Mystery Shopper this company would not only have my full name and telephone number from their caller ID but other personal information such as my home address, social security number and the like.
5. That your client furnished erroneous target information and then expected that this assignment could be modified, after it had commenced, and still be completed by the same shopper. Furthermore, as it is commonplace that businesses ask how a potential customer has been referred what plausible explanation would I have given if asked why I had attempted to contact the same agent several times over such a short period of time. Would I have followed the instructions for this shop by stating that I saw her name online, in an ad or the like? I think not, as the targeted employee does not even furnish information as was detailed by this assignment. Should I have utilized the suggestion of your colleague, Mr. Doe, and stated that I had been recommended by an acquaintance to conduct business with this particular employee? Once again, I think not as it is highly unlikely that one would be referred to an employee who is incapable of providing the assistance needed. Furthermore, please note that during the fourth (4th) recorded conversation that I was immediately addressed by both my first and my last name although I had not yet been asked for this information. Further, the next statement made by the employee was not the customary "how may I help you" but an inquiry as to how I had been referred to this location. Without question the aforementioned is not commonplace when contacting a business strictly for informational purposes.
As a scheduler you must be aware that once a shopper is outed as a Mystery Shopper they are not compensated for efforts put forth to complete an assignment nor is the shopper generally assigned future shops with the Mystery Shopping Company in question. Additionally, the "outed" shoppers circumstances may not remain only with the Mystery Shopping Company where the assignment was to be completed as schedulers often schedule assignments for numerous MSC's, as is the case here, thereby hindering future earnings for the shopper with other shopping companies.
Moreover, as previously communicated, no shoppers anonymity should ever be compromised due to an error caused by the client nor should this type of behavior be condoned by Mystery Shopping Companies and/or their schedulers. Let it be understood that I upheld my contractual duties, as per the original assignment, and it is not due to any error on my part that this assignment could not be completed. Therefore, your refusal to compensate me appropriately for my efforts is without merit.
This assignment which compensated only a mere $15.00 has to date rendered four (4) recorded calls to reach the targeted employee, one (1) telephone call to BRG as you did not provide a contact telephone number for yourself at Summit Scheduling and fifteen (15) electronic mails. Therefore, as promised if your stance remains unchanged after receipt of this communication then my very unfortunate shopping experience with BRG and Summit Scheduling will be shared with other shoppers, so that hopefully they can prevent the same, in addition to my taking any and all other necessary measures to be compensated appropriately. As such, this matter is closed to any further discussion and/or debate.
Ms. Summit Scheduler:
Please be aware that my stance has not changed regarding this matter nor did the error and subsequent modification of the assignment, by your client, make performing this shop easier as claimed in your last electronic mail. In the contrary, your clients error regarding the employee to be targeted coupled with the modification of the assignment, after it had already commenced, put me at risk of losing my anonymity as a shopper. As such, I am due compensation for the shop I did indeed perform for BRG.
As you are already aware I spoke to Mr. John Doe of BRG on September 19, 2012 at 3:44 p.m. EST as I was in the field and did not have access to the internet so that I could contact you directly. However, my entire discussion with Mr. Doe was not communicated to you as it was only necessary to respond to your electronic mail stating that my shop was overdue. Be informed, that in addition to granting a one (1) day extension for this shopping assignment that Mr. Doe additionally authorized me to telephone this agency after 4:00 p.m., despite the guidelines of the shop, as it had been communicated that the targeted employee would be in meetings until approximately 4:15 p.m. Furthermore, Mr. Doe further changed the guidelines of the assignment by advising that once the target had been reached that I should state, if asked, that I had only wished to speak to the target as she had come highly recommended by an acquaintance of mine. I was further instructed to only give a fictitious first name of an acquaintance and state that I would telephone at a later time with the acquaintances last name, if need be.
As you are privy to the recorded communications made to this agency I would suggest that you listen to all four (4) of the discussions had, if you have not already done so. As previously communicated, via electronic mail, during my fourth (4th) telephonic contact with this agency I was put on hold by the target and my call was responded to by another agent who I had previously spoken with and moreover had previously denied her offer of assistance. As you are also aware, based upon our written communications, that this particular agent referred to me by utilizing my complete name stating "Is this Ms. ...". Further, despite my request that I continue my conversation with the targeted employee I was informed that the target did not furnish such information so once again the communication was ended politely giving a plausible excuse.
I find it utterly bewildering how you can state that your clients error related to the target for this assignment in addition to the clients subsequent modification of this assignment in fact made this assignment easier for me to complete based upon the following:
1. Numerous attempts were made to reach the specific target who I later found out was unable to furnish the information being sought as it was not within the realm of her job description.
2. That I spoke with every agent, in this very small agency, and had further declined assistance from each and every one them as this assignment was target specific.
3. That this agency requires that all blocked calls be unblocked prior to accepting telephonic communications so that they may monitor exactly who is calling.
4. That this shop required that I furnish true and correct personal information regarding myself, such as my home address, in order to receive the information being sought by the client. Therefore, if discovered as a Mystery Shopper this company would not only have my full name and telephone number from their caller ID but other personal information such as my home address, social security number and the like.
5. That your client furnished erroneous target information and then expected that this assignment could be modified, after it had commenced, and still be completed by the same shopper. Furthermore, as it is commonplace that businesses ask how a potential customer has been referred what plausible explanation would I have given if asked why I had attempted to contact the same agent several times over such a short period of time. Would I have followed the instructions for this shop by stating that I saw her name online, in an ad or the like? I think not, as the targeted employee does not even furnish information as was detailed by this assignment. Should I have utilized the suggestion of your colleague, Mr. Doe, and stated that I had been recommended by an acquaintance to conduct business with this particular employee? Once again, I think not as it is highly unlikely that one would be referred to an employee who is incapable of providing the assistance needed. Furthermore, please note that during the fourth (4th) recorded conversation that I was immediately addressed by both my first and my last name although I had not yet been asked for this information. Further, the next statement made by the employee was not the customary "how may I help you" but an inquiry as to how I had been referred to this location. Without question the aforementioned is not commonplace when contacting a business strictly for informational purposes.
As a scheduler you must be aware that once a shopper is outed as a Mystery Shopper they are not compensated for efforts put forth to complete an assignment nor is the shopper generally assigned future shops with the Mystery Shopping Company in question. Additionally, the "outed" shoppers circumstances may not remain only with the Mystery Shopping Company where the assignment was to be completed as schedulers often schedule assignments for numerous MSC's, as is the case here, thereby hindering future earnings for the shopper with other shopping companies.
Moreover, as previously communicated, no shoppers anonymity should ever be compromised due to an error caused by the client nor should this type of behavior be condoned by Mystery Shopping Companies and/or their schedulers. Let it be understood that I upheld my contractual duties, as per the original assignment, and it is not due to any error on my part that this assignment could not be completed. Therefore, your refusal to compensate me appropriately for my efforts is without merit.
This assignment which compensated only a mere $15.00 has to date rendered four (4) recorded calls to reach the targeted employee, one (1) telephone call to BRG as you did not provide a contact telephone number for yourself at Summit Scheduling and fifteen (15) electronic mails. Therefore, as promised if your stance remains unchanged after receipt of this communication then my very unfortunate shopping experience with BRG and Summit Scheduling will be shared with other shoppers, so that hopefully they can prevent the same, in addition to my taking any and all other necessary measures to be compensated appropriately. As such, this matter is closed to any further discussion and/or debate.
ProMysteryShopper66 * MSPA Silver Certified & Reaching For GOLD!
