ceasesmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
That so-called shopper should be
> banned from
> the industry!
>
> cease


...and rolled in honey and set on an anthill, then tarred and feathered and then drawn and quartered!

LJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ceasesmith Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> That so-called shopper should be
> > banned from
> > the industry!
> >
> > cease
>
>
> ...and rolled in honey and set on an anthill, then
> tarred and feathered and then drawn and quartered!


Then his (her?) head on a pike on the interstate.....



cease

ceasesmith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I cannot imagine reporting a shop I never
> performed. That so-called shopper should be
> banned from
> the industry!

Certainly in my years as a shopper either the fraud and misrepresentation have gone up significantly or else the companies are just talking about it more. When I restarted doing this at early retirement there were only a few shops that required a proof of visit and usually that was a receipt where reimbursement was involved. Non-purchase shops you just told them when you were there and who you talked to and gave a description if you didn't have a name. The shops were paying about what they pay now, which seemed like more money back then, especially since gas costs were not so high.

I watched as one non-purchase shop went from no proof requirement to needing a business card (but they found devious shoppers recycling those) to wanting a photo of the front of the store (but devious shoppers were recycling those or taking multiples when they went there for future use) to wanting a photo of the front of the store with a copy of the day's newspaper in the picture such that you could read the date on it. Of course that still did not prove that the shopper ever entered the building and just increased the shop costs for the honest shopper who doesn't normally subscribe to the newspaper. When it was pointed out that the photo with newspaper did not prove the shopper entered the building, they backed off on that requirement.

Many companies started mentioning video surveillance a few years ago. Failure of the client to have accurate date/time on their videos created problems for several shoppers I know. GeoVerify is just one more way to check up on a shopper and when the companies decide to provide me with a smart phone at their cost I will consider the ap. Some companies use lots of threats that they will have you banned from the industry if they find you cheating. Considering how much grief even the security cameras without accurate date/time caused the shopper and that when the shopper was found to be truthful there was never an apology, being banned from the industry because they decided you were a crook would definitely invite lawsuits that could put a reporting company out of business pretty fast.

The issue is that the companies themselves do very little to vet their shoppers. Sure they get your SSN and theoretically verify that, but even a $10 background check is likely to be crap. (There used to be lots of background check shops around where a shopper got paid 50 cents to 75 cents per record to check public records at the courthouse. With a list of 10 names and a $5/hr parking cost I suspect you can guess how many of those checks were accurately and thoroughly done.) Some companies do the amazing thing of TALKING to their shoppers before assigning them work. They don't seem to feel a need to post threatening warnings in various colors, fonts and font sizes on their websites. When they feel they have made a mistake in hiring a shopper they pay them and do not hire them in the future. They never allow a new-to-them shopper to take a ton of shops and get into the emergency situation of one company that found all the shops had been completely falsified by a single shopper and they had to get everything reshopped ASAP with significant bonuses. Paranoia is an ugly thing and leads to threats, common sense and a little proactiveness would keep these companies from feeling so victimized.

One of my first purchases as a shopper was a Casio digital watch [solar powered] that resets to the atomic clock maintained by the National Bureau of standards each night.

Part of my Sunday routine is to check ad prices online and then to check my two digital watches against [time.gov] My old watch (black band) is now losing 10-20 seconds per week as the battery slowly fades away. The new one (white band) is now keeping almost perfect time after several months of running a few seconds fast per week.

Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Some companies use lots of
> threats that they will have you banned from the
> industry if they find you cheating.


It's true. I sometimes get a little offended when I read their warnings and threats. Then again, we have to realize that they do it because they've been burnt by some unethical POS and they feel they have to. Remember, they don't know us personally, and have no idea who we really are. Even when we've done many successful shops for them, they never really know what kind of person we will be when push comes to shove. It's just a damned shame that others have cast a shadow over the integrity of us all.

My point is that they should use more care in selection of shoppers and vetting them rather than scream at all of us. If you have 4 children and one of them misbehaves do you punish all 4 and send them to their rooms? Deal strongly with offenders and well with non-offenders. I don't appreciate the warnings because I try to do my jobs conscientiously and when they have to scream out their warnings that tells me that they think I'm a crook even before I accept the job--which, by the way, they can keep. I don't like working with offensive people.

I do agree with you to a point, Flash. I guess I've just decided that for me, I'll just look at the warning and think, "that doesn't apply to me" and carry on. Maybe that's just because, in my previous career, I learned how devious people really can be.

That being said, if they every said that to ME.. personally.. as in accusing me of something? Oh HELL no. I'll go all spider monkey on 'em!

I, personally, would love to see someone go spider monkey. Does it look anything like ape sh*t?

I don't think spider monkey has the pure destruction of ape @#$%&

Then again .. there is (are) certain company(ies) that call a shopper a liar and ban them for "lying", and say that they can't disclose the reason for the shop refusal or banning because it's confidential to the MSC.

Spider monkeys are wiry. (The previous sentence should be spoken with a Scottish brogue for more emphasis.)

To get a beat down by a spider monkey is a much more humbling experience too.

They could do background checks on mystery shoppers.

I love how this thread turned into a conversation about Spider Monkeys vs. Ape @#$%&. Probably not what the OP was hoping for.

I have to agree with the others... Ape @#$%& definitely wins.

Ha! OK, OK... the not being sure by 30 minutes would highlight the very distinct possibility of other problems with the shop. I sincerely don't mean to be offensive, but how can you not be sure within 30 minutes? Also, this is why I (most of the time) take a quick photo of my hand-written notes along with my receipt, and save it to the computer with the receipt photo.

background checks won't do anything to help the situation. They would not help determine if the shopper is reliable; just whether he/she has a criminal background.

Sandra Sue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They could do background checks on mystery
> shoppers.

To the OP: I believe the MSC paid you because they were convinced you submitted a fraudulent shop. If that was their conclusion, it would only stand to reason that they would pay you, using the assumption that if you submitted a false report to them, you would have no qualms about filing a false report against them with the BBB or the State. It was a smart business decision.

(heart)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2014 07:03PM by stilllearning.

This thread serves as a cautionary tale of what we do matters, and should be taken seriously. I don't know the designs of the mystery shops I do, I only know that I must execute it to the Guidelines. I don't have to take a shop: I'm an independent contractor.

I got sloppy yesterday and had to email corrections. My notes helped me to clarify m reports. I do keep them, I am ready to answer any questions regardng my shops.

Yes it is difficult to deal with crap sometimes, but this endeavor has benefitted me in so many ways.

First let me admit I have not been following the thread all that closely. Since the OP was paid for the shop, is it possible her error was as simple as transposing the numbers on the report and her real mistake was destroying her notes after receiving payment leaving her with just a vague recollection of when she went to the bank?

Lisa, anything is possible, however if I put myself in the OP's shoes and had a scheduler who was sincerely trying to help me salvage my credibility and reputation, I would have done everything and anything possible that everyone has already suggested. My opinion remains the same as my last post and I'm going to have to go with Judge Judy on this one. "If it doesn't make sense, it's not true."



(heart)

The report was submitted on 3/27. 12 days later she was asked for clarification. Since ath is one of the slower payers she could not have been paid by then. The op should still have had her notes and been able to clarify any discrepancies.

LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First let me admit I have not been following the
> thread all that closely. Since the OP was paid for
> the shop, is it possible her error was as simple
> as transposing the numbers on the report and her
> real mistake was destroying her notes after
> receiving payment leaving her with just a vague
> recollection of when she went to the bank?

Re: background checks.

Sometimes character comes out. It is possible to know if a person is a chronic speeder or has DWI's. Three divorces could show up, but not necessarily. Not being a child molester would be discovered. Civil lawsuits might show that a person lies a lot. While many background checks will just show that the person lives at so-and-so place and had a traffic ticket six years ago, others give other information. One of my jobs is doing background checks, mostly criminal. I do not think any MSC's do background checks, even for the time when I had to get a fake prescription filled at a pharmacy (to see if they were following policy) not in my hometown and send the medicine (I think it was insulin, if I remember correctly.) back to the MSC. I was so concerned about that assignment that I made sure the paperwork was in my car in case the police were called!

Sandra Sue, Trendsource does require background checks for their field evaluators.

Okay, I see where the OP wrote the dates for the follow up as 4/8. That makes even less sense to me and has me wondering if the follow up was on 5/8. First, she didn't come here to ask for advice until 5/12. Second, an unsatisfactory response to a follow up that early in the game would have allowed ample time for Ath to withhold payment. Third, wouldn't most women remember when they had their hair colored if it was only a matter of 12 days versus 42 days? Wouldn't a check (or whatever method they use these days) have been issued on 4/30?

Now here is the most important question. Why do people tell us part of the problem and then leave us to speculate on all the myriad details?

jwolpert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The report was submitted on 3/27. 12 days later
> she was asked for clarification. Since ath is one
> of the slower payers she could not have been paid
> by then. The op should still have had her notes
> and been able to clarify any discrepancies.

LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Why do
> people tell us part of the problem and then leave
> us to speculate on all the myriad details?
>
Because we don't really want to hear that we may be wrong. We come here to be right, to lick our wounds and be vindicated. We just want to fall back on our family of shoppers and let them catch us. We want to hear everyone say: "You're right and they are so wrong! Damn those MSCs"

Oh... and when I say "we", naturally I am using the "royal we". Certainly, I don't mean you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2014 06:13PM by LJ.

I think that's pretty much it. They tell us just enough to hope we will agree with them. They're not looking for advice, just some "sympathetic clucking noises" (I heard that expression somewhere and love the visualization) and reassurance that they are not a bad person, just an unlucky one.

They know we can't fix it and they pretty much know what they did wrong.

And this is why I keep all my reports, receipts, and record most shops and retain the recordings. I would never have to say I don't know when I went into a shop, I'd just have to say, "Give me a few minutes to find my records" and paw through the box I throw my docs in, or check the recordings for that date and listen because the first thing I do after turning on the recorder is announce the time. From there it's just a brief listen to see how much time elapsed from that point until the ambient traffic noises mute and I know I'm in the building. The only disclaimer is that my wristwatch is off about one minute. Someday I'll figure out how to reset it and get it aligned with my cell phone time or a geoverify timestamp.

OP said they may have been off by 30 minutes or so, but then cut and pasted the following email from the MSC:

///////ASAP, would you mind letting me know what you wore on this shop, or if willing, a description of yourself? I completely understand if you don't want to provide this information but I may not have another way to verify the shop without it.

Just to confirm, as well, you met in an office? No chance it was a time outside of 1230-130 PM? This banker never goes to an office during that time period.


OP REPLY:
I'm not certain of the exact time of day except that it was after 11:00 or so. //////////

So in reality, the OP reported a time in the window of 1230 -130 PM and is really "off by 90 minutes or so." I don't even know how to frame a polite comment about that.

I also always record every shop I do on my cell phone, which gives the date and time, unless I know it's a very simple inquiry type shop with no narrative, and then I write a note to myself on my phone as to the time in and out. It's too hard to remember conversation details without a recording and answer questions like "How many seconds did it take before ____?"

I have arrived too late according to guidelines to do a shop before and even though I did the shop anyway, I made sure to let the scheduler know before I did the report, so the decision would be theirs as to whether I should proceed with the shop report. I want to know if I am going to get paid before putting in the work to do a report if I've missed a guideline. It's certainly not worth any shop fee to get banned from the industry for putting in a wrong time. If I were the OP, I'd have paid the money back to ATH and asked that the shop be removed from my log. I'm not sure it would've helped, but it couldn't hurt.

I have worked with ATH for many years. You need to talk to someone other than the scheduler or editor. (There must be a way you can find out the time.) In the future get your balance from your checking account at the ATM. No charge. I know that don't require this, but in your case it would be wise. Don't upload this receipt unless requested. Other banks do require your ATM receipt. Did you give a good or bad report about the CSR? I don't think they have the right to notify other MSCs.
Honesty is the best policy.

Many years ago I had an editor cancel me on her own. I found out by viewing my log. She got fired. I was one of their best shoppers. The editor didn't like me because I questioned her editing. This was not ATH. All someone has to do in your log is check off that you don't want emails. EASY!

We share with each other which MSC's are stinkers. I don't know any reason why schedulers can't warn each other about a shopper they have reasons to distrust. I'm assuming they do talk to each other which is why I don't badmouth MSC's here. (That, plus none have given me reason to badmouth them. If I have a problem with an MSC I usually take it up with them directly.)

Just as a point of clarification: Depending on your bank you might still be charged for a balance inquiry from a foreign ATM.

shopper8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the future get your balance from your
> checking account at the ATM. No charge.