This post is beginning to remind me of the 17.00 Ace Shopping/Pay Quicker one from over the summer.

From the OP:

"As for this discussion, my intended message to warn other shoppers from falling into a pitfall with Summit Scheduling has been accomplished as I'm sure that this post has been read and will continue to be read by more than just those who have left postings here today."

------------------------

Honestly, this discussion makes me want to shop MORE for Summit, not less.

I don't suffer MSCs who rip off shoppers lightly. I have a history of slightly intemperate posts when I feel that they are taking advantage of their shoppers. That being said.....

... we aren't idiots here, we are highly literate. We've all just seen how quickly Summit and Ms. Gill and Roberts got on here. Anyone who searches for their names on this forum will see how reasoned and tempered their response has been.

Their side - backed up with email correspondence in clear, concise prose - is logical.

Yours isn't.

Give it a rest.

promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> As for this discussion, my intended message to
> warn other shoppers from falling into a pitfall
> with Summit Scheduling has been accomplished as
> I'm sure that this post has been read and will
> continue to be read by more than just those who
> have left postings here today.


promysteryshopper, you are correct in that this post has been read and will continue to be read by more than just those who have left postings today. But, because of your postings and those from the companies and other posters, your "warning" falls far short of its mark. After reading the thread, Summit Scheduling looks very good and you look like an argumentative shopper who did not get paid for a job not correctly completed. I don't think anyone will be warned away from Summit because of your comments; rather, I think you've given Summit, Judith and Deva some great publicity. I think you wasted a lot of time and you did not make your case.

Hello Promysteryshopper66 - This looks like a dispute over not getting paid for a job that wasn't completed. It doesn't look like anything that requires a warning to other shoppers with a BEWARE headline, so it doesn't seem fair to drag BRG and Summit through the mud over a payment dispute on an unfinished shop. This is simply a difference of opinion between you and BRG about the payment, and is not a question of wrongdoing. BRG and Summit have done nothing wrong, and this should be settled privately between you and them. It is not our business.

Promysteryshopper66 seems like someone who prides herself on appearing highly educated by throwing in lots of extra words. I did enjoy reading each post, finding misspellings, sentence fragments, and the dreaded "alot" among the rest of the drivel.

If we all chipped in and each sent promysteryshopper66 1.00 so that she reached her 15.00, would this go away?

and I don't care what time zone someone is in. You don't send an email to someone and then take it to the forum to complain because you haven't been answered within 1, 2 or even three hours!! Go a few days without a response and then complain about a lack of response.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2012 02:33PM by robinhardage.

Thank you to Summit for professional behavior and timely responses on the forum. Your efforts to address this issue have enhanced your reputation and proved you care about the community of shoppers. Kudos, hugs, and kisses.

promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SteveSoCal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I performed the
> > > assignment as required and it is certainly no
> > > fault of mine that I could not get a quote
> from
> > an
> > > employee who was not authorized to provide
> such
> > > information. Moreover, what Summit
> Scheduling
> > > actually offered me by requiring that I
> re-shop
> > a
> > > modified assignment, at the same location
> within
> > a
> > > 24 period, was no more than the opportunity
> to
> > > lose my anonymity as I was already known at
> > this
> > > location.
> >
> >
> > Did your agreement have a stipulation that you
> > would paid after 4 unsuccessful attempts to get
> a
> > quote? If not, you are simply not owed the
> money.
> > It's black and white as far as I'm concerned.
> > It's not your fault that the employee was
> > unshoppable, but the shop was not performed as
> > required, despite you insisting that it was.
> >
> > If I hire you to build a bridge and while you
> are
> > attempting to get a building permit, you
> discover
> > bridges are not legally allowed to be built in
> the
> > specified location, do I still owe you the fee
> for
> > building the bridge? Not unless it's in the
> > contract...
> >
> > As for as your reputation; It's pretty easy to
> > discern your argumentative nature from the
> posts.
>
>
> Sharing one's story, rebuting falsehoods and not
> agreeing 100% with your opinion, or the opinions
> of others for that matter, hardly classifies as
> being argumentative.
>
> As for this discussion, my intended message to
> warn other shoppers from falling into a pitfall
> with Summit Scheduling has been accomplished as
> I'm sure that this post has been read and will
> continue to be read by more than just those who
> have left postings here today.


Are you SURE you are not an Editor?

OMG! I just found this thread. Unreal! Let the $15 die a peaceful death. I'm sure the originator of the post has put in at least 2 hours here! Sorry for bringing this to the top again, but I couldn't resist. LOL

Okay, here's my 2 cents...

I complete phone shops for Client A, who are scheduled with scheduling company B. I have to call the location (Client C), until I get a completed call. Even if the call could be 100% complete (it's like all the other calls), but the person on the phone says "let me call you back". I'm SOL, calling the location again in a few days. Meaning a call which should take 6 minutes, now takes me 12+ mins. If call back 450 more times and get the same "let me call you back", I'm still not getting paid.

As a scheduler, I schedule phone shops. If the person calling the locations doesn't speak to the assigned target, without consulting me first, the shop is rejected, shopper isn't being paid. Our targets change all the time and I'm usually the last one to find out, and I find out [officially] about 3 weeks after I've figured the new targets out.

Also, it is not the scheduler's (the wonderful Deva), Scheduling Company (if applicable, Judith/Summit Scheduling), or the MSP's responsibility to constantly check with the client to see if all the targets are the same. None of us have the time or get paid enough to call the client weekly asking "So, does Sally still work at 123 Anywhere St. as an insurance sales person? Perfect, how about John at 765 West Ave. as a customer service supervisor?" When a target changes, it takes some time to change the target. First off, if it's a chain, the store manager will probably hire the new target. It will take them a few days to have them officially hired, in the system, with a log in, etc. Then it will probably have to go to the district manager, again, a few more days. Then to head office, again, a few more days. So, from HR in home office, it needs to get to the dept. that handles the mystery shopping. From there, it needs to go to the MSP. The MSP will need to tell it's project manager to change the target on the shop. The PM will then tell the account manager at Summit, then the account manager will tell the scheduler. This all takes quite a bit of time. I know this all from first hand experience scheduling shops. What if the target just quite with no notice, or the target got promoted immediately because someone quite without notice. I GUARANTEE you the priority is not notifying the MSP of a target change, it's getting a replacement in and trained. Once it's all settled down, it's time for to get the word to the MSP.

With all that being said, you were told to call and speak to anyone who can help you with a quote. The bottom line is, you refused to call and speak to anyone who could help you, therefore, you didn't complete a shop and didn't do your job. That warrants you not being paid.

promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LisaSTL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm confused. All I keep reading is how phone
> > calls were made. Did you visit the site in
> person
> > or were these just calls? If they were just
> calls
> > were you required to use your real name or was
> an
> > alias acceptable?
>
>
> Real name, birthdate, current home address and
> social security number were among the
> requirements.


Wow! You would give out your SS# for $15.00? Along with all your other personal information? I would have never accepted that shop to start with. But that is me.

God DAMN THAT is the way to write a complaint. Organized, documented, points made supported with detailed factual references, no temper, no abusive content or intent. Clear indication of the consequences for the MSC if the issue is not resolved. Makes me wonder if the MS involved is also an attorney. Nicely done and I hope the issue resolves for you.


promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

MissyH71 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1,159 words for a $15.00 shop fee?
>
> Why?


Because there are times when principle trumps practicality.

Art

promysteryshopper66 Wrote:

>
> Ms. Gill:
>
> You were indeed contacted via electronic mail. The
> following has been attached as proof of that fact,
> omitting my personal e-mail address:
>
> To judith@summitscheduling.com
> From:
> Sent: Tue 9/25/12 12:42 PM
>
> Do you deny having a scheduler by the name of Ms.
> Roberts who is the reason that this matter has
> been brought to this forum? Will you also deny
> that I was scheduled and subsequently performed a
> shop for a location on both September 19th & 20th
> for BRG? Be advised that I have proof of the
> aforementioned but due to client confidentiality I
> cannot post the proof on this forum.
>
> In the contrary, I will be in contact with the
> MSPA regarding this matter.
>
> A fellow shopper previously posed the question of
> "Why" for just a $15.00 shop - well I hope now
> that it is understood that this type of dishonest
> behavior is exactly why!!!
>
> Lastly, unlike suzieboz I find you, Ms. Gill, to
> be neither professional nor fair not to mention
> honest.

Hang on a second there promystery - you provided a copy of an OUTGOING email from your account. Taking at face value your claim that you sent said email, there is no proof of receipt by Ms. Gill. I am not weighing on the facts of this argument, I am merely pointing out that you have provided, at best, proof only that you composed said email, without date documentation or proof of receipt. Your case would have been a tad stronger with a screen shot showing your email providers copy of a requested proof of email read, but you apparently did not request that.

Your prior arguments showed really strong organizational skills and documentation. Don't blow that with sepcious claims of proof.

Attacking Ms. Gill, who I do not know from Adam (or Eve for that matter) because there is a he said - she said dispute over an email is grossly unfair.

Art

Having read more about this complaint my original opinion stands as to the quality of the presentation of the complaint. However, since the core issue was that the shopper did not follow guidelines, it certainly appears that the denial of payment by the MSC is well justified.

Still, the original complaint was a thing of beauty

Art

promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SteveSoCal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It seems the email to Judith was apparently
> sent
> > less than an hour before she responded, so I
> would
> > say there is a fair chance she had not even
> gotten
> > to reading it yet. Schedulers get a lot of
> > email.
> >
> > @promysteryshopper66; I'm guessing from your
> post
> > that you were never actually able to make
> contact
> > with the target, so they shop was never
> actually
> > performed or submitted...correct?
> >
> > Is your issue that you were assigned a shop
> that
> > was impossible to complete and want to be
> > remunerated for the time spent?
>
>
> My original issue was based upon the fact that I
> did indeed reach the targeted employee after four
> (4) recorded attempts over a two day period. The
> following is what transpired (excerpt from my
> original post follows)
>
> "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".
>
> Deva Roberts was informed of the before mentioned
> and subsequently responded by stating that the
> original shop assignment had been modified, after
> it had already commenced, due to the clients error
> relating to the targeted employee. For some
> bizzare reason Ms. Roberts and Ms. Gill are under
> the false assumption that modifying a shop
> assignment once a shopper has already commenced is
> acceptable - and it is not!
>
> It is no secret that I refused the modified
> assignment, in order to be compensated a mere
> $15.00, and the reasons behind the decision are
> very well detailed in my original post. It is
> absolutely ridiculous of a scheduler to ask a
> shopper to re-shop the same assignment, within 24
> hours, once that shopper is known at that
> location. I have never been detected as a Mystery
> Shopper to date and I was most certainly not going
> to let Summit Scheduling put me in that position.
>
>
> My newest issue with Summit Scheduling is Ms.
> Gill's utter unprofessionalism. It is well known
> that schedulers receive alot of e-mail as stated
> by SteveSoCal and I would imagine that MSC owners
> receive their fair share as well. However, Ms.
> Gill's adamant written claim, on this forum,
> stating that she had NEVER received any
> communication from me is rather disturbing as
> anyone who is indeed a true professional would at
> the very minimum review their e-mails before
> making such a claim. It is also rather ironic
> that after my response to her untrue posting that
> within a blink of an eye both she and her
> scheduler knew exactly who I was. Furthermore,
> unlike the claim previously made by Ms. Gill it
> was an e-mail from Ms. Roberts, not BRG, that
> informed me that based upon the decision of her
> boss that I would not be paid.
>
> Being denied compensation because a shop could not
> be fully completed due to a client error is wrong
> when the shopper has shopped in good faith as per
> the assignments guidelines! Further, being denied
> the contractual compensation because one would not
> agree to a modified shop assignment, after
> commencement, is equally wrong!
>
>
> So the long of the short of it is, that I firmly
> maintain that I should be compensated
> appropriately.

promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Further, if I understand you correctly then I
> should just chalk this all up to my being asked to
> perform an assignment that was impossible to
> accomplish from the start.

If you do not deliver what the client wants regardless of circumstances, you do not get paid - period.

Comparison: You own a delivery van. You contract with an appliance store to deliver a stove. You load the stove and head out on the delivery. An ice storm prevents you from completing the delivery. The customer is angry and cancels his order with the store; you thus cannot deliver to that customer. Do you deserve to get paid? Not in my book. Failure to get paid due to impossibility of completion is just a cost of doing business; suck it up. Is it worth losing a relationship with an MSC over $15?

promysteryshopper66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Sharing one's story and rebuting falsehoods hardly
> makes one argumentative and/or hard to work with.

When will the properly documented, factual rebutting of falsehoods begin?

Art

robinhardage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we all chipped in and each sent
> promysteryshopper66 1.00 so that she reached her
> 15.00, would this go away?

Put me down for a buck and tell me where to paypal it
Art

robinhardage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we all chipped in and each sent
> promysteryshopper66 1.00 so that she reached her
> 15.00, would this go away?
>
> and I don't care what time zone someone is in.
> You don't send an email to someone and then take
> it to the forum to complain because you haven't
> been answered within 1, 2 or even three hours!!
> Go a few days without a response and then complain
> about a lack of response.


I think promysteryshopper66 should be paying all of us for having to read her loooooong posts. There goes 20 minutes of my life I will never get back.

OMG....I think I need an Advil or 20.

What in the world?? I think I'd choose to chill and call it a day, if it were me. LOL

Let's hope she doesn't get a job writing guidelines.

SteveSoCal Wrote:
>
> If I hire you to build a bridge and while you are
> attempting to get a building permit, you discover
> bridges are not legally allowed to be built in the
> specified location, do I still owe you the fee for
> building the bridge? Not unless it's in the
> contract...
>
> As for as your reputation; It's pretty easy to
> discern your argumentative nature from the posts.


It seems to me the shopper is owed something for the time and effort spent getting the "permit to build and finding out it was not legal to do so".

However, since everyone is dug in and this has become a public brou ha ha, it's unlikely anyone will be happy. As I perceive what has happened is the client changed the shop directly with the shopper in the middle of the shop being done - unusual situation indeed.

And then everyone has piled in, including some who are known not to have stellar reputations, or so we hear.

Oh yes, of course, that includes SteveSoCal who has been editor, scheduler and manager of MSC, and not so humble shopper....as well as a charter member of THE OB Club, so I suggest his not so humble opinions in this matter should be totally discounted and ignored as a bunch of hot b --- oops,,,,,, air. No one made him god on this forum, except himself, of course.

But some never fail to butt in when there's a chance to put some shopper down.

Move on - nothing to be seen here.....move on folks - break up the crowd... and forget about it.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/02/2012 02:35AM by shoppinalong.

I don't understand what's going on here. I must be having a dissociative reaction, or a psychotic break. There seems to be some uproar about whether Steve is God, and I don't understand at all what the problem is. Do you mean he's not God? Can you prove that? And who are these people with less than stellar reputations who have posted? Do you mean me? Am I paranoid? Of course, I'm not paranoid if you're talking about me. Did all of us do something to offend you? What should we do now? I'm sorry, but I've lost the train of thought of the thread. I need more details. Please elaborate and provide names of those who have less than stellar reputations, and let us know why you think this is true.

What is THE OB Club? I have heard of the Judgmental @#$%& Club, as I am running for office, but I missed out on THE OB Club. Does THE OB Club have something to do with identifying God? Please tell me how to join, as I am keenly interested and want to be sure I don't miss out on anything. Also, how does one get one of those stellar reputations? Are they for sale? I would be interested in buying one if the price is right. Also, please tell us more about God, and furnish definitive proof that Steve is not God.

Cheez, I'm gone for a month and a half and there's already a "Judgemental @#$%& Club" ?

Things sure do move fast around here.

Good funny post and clever MDavis.

There's enough psychoses here to go around - not to mention narcissism.

So let's end this thread and move on with your witty ending.

shoppinalong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> However, since everyone is dug in and this has
> become a public brou ha ha, it's unlikely anyone
> will be happy. As I perceive what has happened is
> the client changed the shop directly with the
> shopper in the middle of the shop being done -
> unusual situation indeed.
>
> And then everyone has piled in, including some who
> are known not to have stellar reputations, or so
> we hear.
>
> Oh yes, of course, that includes SteveSoCal who
> has been editor, scheduler and manager of MSC, and
> not so humble shopper....as well as a charter
> member of THE OB Club, so I suggest his not so
> humble opinions in this matter should be totally
> discounted and ignored as a bunch of hot b ---
> oops,,,,,, air. No one made him god on this forum,
> except himself, of course.
>
> But some never fail to butt in when there's a
> chance to put some shopper down.
>
> Move on - nothing to be seen here.....move on
> folks - break up the crowd... and forget about it.

This thread has gotten way too personal, and unnecessarily so. ProMysteryShopper66's assessment of the situation is unwavering, and while you agree, there is no reason to attack others who have tried to offer a different perspective. Not sure to whom you're referring as having not so stellar reputations, but as for Steve, again, that's a matter of opinion -- I think the only one who's anointed him God is you. I have found his input on this forum to be valuable, and I know I'm not alone.

As for the matter at hand, it seems that if there's any kind of beef, it should be with BRG, not Summit. That said, personally, I'm with Summit on this one. Just my opinion, and obviously, everyone is entitled to theirs -- hopefully without recrimination and name-calling.

I read this entire thread from beginning to end - glutton for punishment, I know - but seriously, I feel compelled to speak up because I think there is a very valid point that the original poster was trying to make that was completely missed by everyone. Instead of this being an opportunity to educate and give constructive input, which is what I thought this forum is supposed to be all about, the person who originally posted was put on the defense and it all went to hell in a hand basket from there. Yes, the poster did come out with both barrells blazing, but who isn't guilty at one time or another of being so close to a situation that they can't step back and count to ten before losing their cool?

To promystershopper66 I would like to say this. . .

I completely understand why you felt like you did. After speaking to EVERY person except the target and turning down EVERY person who offered to help, it would be EXTREMELY awkward to find out the target couldn't help you (so much for saying they came "highly recommended" by someone you knew lol) and now you have to go back to one of the other people and ask for their help.

I can see why you felt the shop was blown - these other people you already spoke to were most definitely scratching their heads already and wondering what the heck was up - I believe that is why you feared you might be outted as a shopper and it would be too risky to go back. However, knowing that you had to have the quote in order to complete the shop, I think if the scheduler had put themselves in your shoes for just a moment and thought about how they would have handled this if put in this predicament, it might have ended up with you both coming up with a scenario that you would feel comfortable with that would have allowed you to go back in with confidence and complete the shop. In fact, given the circumstances I had hoped I would see some people posting how they would have handled it so the shop could have been fully completed and without being outted as a shopper.

My favorite fallback position in a situation like this is to just let them think I am a bit crazy (picture the crazy cat lady - that is what I envision when I have to do this) and I would have said to whoever answered the phone (assuming it was one of the many people who now knew who you were) something like: "Oh my goodness I finally got you on the phone! Do you know I have been trying to reach you and for some reason they kept trying to transfer me to (insert original target name here) and then when she answers the phone she tells me she can't help me - I already knew that! I'm sure she's a nice enough person, but you are the one I need to talk to. . . .can you please help me?" Yeah that might be overkill but it sounds like you needed to be able to believe they weren't looking sideways at you like you were a shopper. So something like that would just further reinforce to them that you are nothing more than a little whacko and they'll tell the story around the water cooler about the insane woman that called to talk to them, but asked for someone else, and didn't know they were asking for the wrong person, etc etc. Or the absolute easiest way to have handled this would have been to just call back and say nothing, ask them to give you a quote, get the quote, and hang up. There is no way they would question what happened if you just moved forward.

Regardless, I 100% understand how you feel. And I applaud your desire to remain anonymous.

As far as payment goes. . . there were viable options that would have protected your status as a shopper and still allowed you to complete the shop. So from that perspective, I see why the company does not want to pay you BUT I think if I were calling the shots I would have approved at least a partial pay for you because you did make a good faith effort to complete this shop and it was not your fault the target changed.

KWorkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read this entire thread from beginning to end -
> glutton for punishment, I know - but seriously, I
> feel compelled to speak up because I think there
> is a very valid point that the original poster was
> trying to make that was completely missed by
> everyone. Instead of this being an opportunity to
> educate and give constructive input, which is what
> I thought this forum is supposed to be all about,
> the person who originally posted was put on the
> defense and it all went to hell in a hand basket
> from there. Yes, the poster did come out with both
> barrells blazing, but who isn't guilty at one time
> or another of being so close to a situation that
> they can't step back and count to ten before
> losing their cool?

Hi Workman,

I too read this thread. I suspect most of us did. I contemplated posting at various times, inputting things here or there. I didn't.

I wanted to do so now to say that, yes, I see your point and yes, I also saw the point missed from the OP. I also agree with you about the way people will react in a situation that upsets them, and, naturally this doesn't apply to just the new people joining the forum, but anyone who feels like they've been wronged (by MSC or crazy guidelines or what have you). I will say, though, that for as long as I have been watching this forum, it does seem to be the new people who come in with the most emotional reactions and accusations. It's understandable and makes sense, but that's just the way of it.

I've also noticed, as you said, that these new posters are automatically put on the defensive, and there's both a reasonable (logical) and illogical rationale for this (at least, in my opinion). Because of the "illogical" part of the whole thing, it make it really hard to predict where a thread like this is going to go... whether it's going to be solved in five responses to the post or whether it will snowball into something volatile and potentially hurtful to the OP and others.

The logical rationale is that many of the people who are on the forum have been here, "come up" here, if you will, together. They've learned the business and earned their stripes here (and elsewhere, as this forum is newer than some of the other places they've met), and so... there are things that the vets are exposed to on an almost daily basis that are really trying for them. People coming in here, claiming _this_ or _that_ from a company that the vets have found reliable is definitely a hot-button issue. The responses typically set the OP on edge because they're pointed, not what I'd call "comforting", they're really designed to circumvent all the time spent wasted explaining to the OP why the company isn't terrible, showing them how the issue was really something they did (or did not do) and deconstructing the bomb that is that topic, instead of patting them on the back, there-there'ing them, and trying to make them feel better about the issue.

People who come in and post, though, are looking for sympathy (understandably). Sadly, that's where the rest of it comes in to play. There's the new poster's expectation vs. other people's exhaustion for the subject and, at times, lack of empathy for OP's "struggle". People who come in and demand, however caustically or casually, a list of mystery shopping companies that shop this store or sell this kind of item, for example. That's another hot-button issue. The people who have spent years, here, cultivating leads and doing their own research feel that the new shoppers who come in should do their own footwork. Those posts can go badly, too. And, like I said, this is the irrational, as far as I'm concerned. It's not a matter of the poster having made a small point somewhere along in the thread, it becomes a snowball effect... someone posts something that cuts the OP to the quick and then people jump on the bandwagon over and over and over again in a thread. That's when the whole thing disintegrates, and, as you said, "goes to hell in a handbasket."

Anyway, you said, "Instead of this being an opportunity to educate and give constructive input, which is what I thought this forum is supposed to be all about, the person who originally posted was put on the defense and it all went to hell in a hand basket from there." I can honestly say that I have never had the opportunity to meet Jacob (or to know him personally). I messaged him on a few different occasions and he has always been extremely awesome, so I have no idea what his original intentions were when he formed this board, but I have to believe they were something along those lines-- to educate and offer other mystery shoppers (the new and old) a place to find community, to share information, and to find a little fun. I mean, if we simply go by what's posted underneath this response window, it even says, "Be honest. Add a positive contribution to the community. We're in this together... have fun!" I think it's fair to extrapolate for those words, similar feelings. So yes, I agree with you and yes, I think these things have a habit of becoming way too personal and way too hurtful for a situation that could have either used some understanding or a simple "I'll pass on by that thread" from those annoyed by it. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I bothers me to see threads go like this though, Workman. I wanted to say, in that, you are not alone.

Sending the best,

Jen

It bothers me to see threads go this way as well, but some things cannot be avoided.

For the record, I don't see that the OP was bullied or harassed after the initial post. Some felt the long response was a waste of time, others asked to clarify information, and the scheduling company responded the following day. There was some confusion on Judith's part as to having actually received an email from the OP or when it was sent, but when that was cleared up and both sides had their say, the OP's point of view remained the same.

This was not a case of someone looking for sympathy. It was an all out blast on a known and respected scheduling company and MSC with an all-caps BEWARE attached, because the OP did not like how a situation was handled. The problem that I see is that the OP was trying to defend their position litigiously, but did not seem to comprehend that the contract they were up in arms about applied equally to both parties.

When this could have been a simple back and forth communication between shoppers and scheduler, with the shopper having the option to bow out when the shop was modified to be a non-targeted shop, it developed into something larger because the OP continued to feel wronged. Both shoppers and schedulers posted that it well understood that one will not get paid for an incomplete shop, but that was not an acceptable outcome for the OP.

My issue with this argument is that if one wants to utilize logic and legalities to justify your position, the be sure you are willing to apply those principles to your own thought processes as well.

In the end, nothing can be done to help the OP because they are not willing to listen to reason. I tried to make that point, though with a bit of humor and sarcasm attached, and it was lost. However, there are many more readers of this forum than posters, so all of these 'threads gone bad' do have a purpose....they warn readers about potential pitfalls in MSing. In that sense, I see this as a positive if it helps even one other shopper to see a problem approaching and avoid it.

Obviously, this is all my opinion. If the views of someone who has worked in all avenues of MSing over the course a decade don't mean anything to you, then I would argue that you are not really looking for a fair or balanced answer, but rather someone to pat you on the back no matter what you say. I was taught to own my mistakes and I feel that I do a pretty good job at that. I have botched my share of shops over the years and still managed maintain a positive working relationship with each MSC I encountered. That doesn't make me a deity....just a reasonable person.

There are certainly things that can be avoided.

I understand that you don't see that the OP was bullied or harassed. I see things a little differently, though I never used either of those terms. I think it's fair for a few people to guide a person to an answer, whether they agree with it or not, and then for the subject to fall by the wayside. I'm not going to go back through the thread and pick out the comments that were designed to inflict wounds... that's not really a good investment of my time. I guess I would just encourage anyone who's really interested to do so themselves (and to do so with empathy).

"My issue with this argument is that if one wants to utilize logic and legalities to justify your position, the be sure you are willing to apply those principles to your own thought processes as well."

I'm sorry, what argument? I'm not sure if you're responding to me, Steve, since some of it seems pointed to my comment, or if this is a culmination of responses (which also seems possible). You said "if one wants to utilize logic and legalities to justify your position" -- do you mean _my_ position, and if so, which one. It's not clear from the context. And what principles of am I not applying to my own "thought processes"? Which thought processes are those?

I agree that in many of these situations, nothing can be done. It's a constant frustration for people who have been over and over and over this again (it's like beating your head against a rock). That frustration is clear, however. People in this situation (as you've said, the ones that come in using all caps with the BEWARES) aren't treated with kid-gloves. It's pretty much a "Oh joy! This again!" kind of mentality. I feel like, if we apply what you've said in the paragraph above ("if one wants to utilize logic and legalities to justify your position", you'd be saying everyone should use that temperament whenever anyone had a problem with a company (or a quiz, survey, due date, etc.), unless they clearly and definitively made their case about why the company (or quiz, or survey, or due date) was wrong. This isn't the way the board works, though. If a seasoned and well-respected shopper came in and complained about something, and people trusted that person and cared about that person's well-being, the shopper would be treated with a lot more respect than the newbie who comes in yelling about x and so's company being unfair. I'm not saying it doesn't stand to reason... what I'm saying is, I think we all could take a little more care or practice a little more patience with those who come in lost... upset... and feeling like (in whatever situation) someone has wronged them. Of course, that's just this girl's opinion.

Steve said, "If the views of someone who has worked in all avenues of MSing over the course a decade don't mean anything to you, then I would argue that you are not really looking for a fair or balanced answer, but rather someone to pat you on the back no matter what you say." Again, Steve, I don't know if this was meant for me, but I am certainly not looking for anyone to pat me on the back. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure saying stuff like this is a surefire way of getting ostracized by people. That's not the goal, of course, but I believe in treating people gently... and I feel like this is a space, as I've said, to create community, to help new people learn, to take lessons from... as you have implied.. seasoned veterans who know so much about this business that could help those of us who do not.

I think you confuse disagreeing with your points, though, with confusing them or refusing to accept them as fact. Our views just differ...

I'm going to be really honest here and say that I learned a _lot_ from some seasoned vets who used to roam these halls. Some vets who were absolutely pivotal to not only my success, but the success of several people who are here on this forum, now. It saddens me that I have been told by some of these people that they no longer feel comfortable here because of tensions created, especially when it comes to new people entering the forums. These people were invaluable resources, as far as I'm concerned. Talk about your seasoned shoppers. I understand, though, that there comes a time when even discussion like this that we're having right now becomes futile. Especially when things become personal. After a while, it's no longer worth it. To me, that's a pity.

I definitely never called you a deity, but again, I don't think that was directed at me. I do think that you are someone who has a stance and isn't afraid to share your opinion, though it is nice that you seem to respect others, as well. Some things, as I've seen, are reasonable, yes. On the other hand, we definitely conflicting opinions about other things. And so it goes...