Coyle joins the cheapskates
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
Mystery post?
Mary Davis Nowell. Based close to Fort Worth. Shopping Interstate 20 east and west, Interstate 35 north and south.
They've always had maximum reimbursable amounts from what I've noticed. Now they're just putting it out there from the get-go.
I prefer the new format where you know up front what the maximum is. I've declined a few shops in the past, after they were assigned, when I saw the reimbursement was not high enough.
That said, there was a time in the way back when all assignments would cover 100% of the expense provided you ordered within the guidelines. That's no longer the case, sadly.
That said, there was a time in the way back when all assignments would cover 100% of the expense provided you ordered within the guidelines. That's no longer the case, sadly.
For some restaurants, I find that the total meal is covered once I factor in the $15 fee, which makes it a reimbursement only shop. However, that is still okay for me, since I am dining at a place that I would not go on my own money. Having said that, I now find that most hotel shops are offered to the lowest travel reimbursement requirement. Shoppers are bidding themselves to the lowest travel possible.
The issue with considering the fee into meal reimbursement is that (for me at least) many of the restaurants require paid parking that is not reimbursed, so I have always considered the shop fee as covering my travel expenses to the restaurant. When I'm out of town, it covers my taxi fare.
On a few occasions when I have not been able to find any way to order within the posted expense limit, I have brought it to their attention and they have been good about raising the limits. Once you start ordering above the minimum requirements, the remainder of the meal is usually on you, however.
While the bidding for travel is a relatively new concept, travel fees have always been pretty low with Coyle. There are a few exceptions to that, but you have to be creative in stacking up multiple shops if you want 100% of the travel expenses covered. Perhaps I'm just getting slower as I age, but I used to be able to take 2-3 hotels in a row and I can't do that anymore. The current writing requirements are definately more time consuming than they used to be.
On a positive note, when you are into evaluating the high-end resorts, there are no very few issues with meal overages. They will cover 100% of the dining and you just have to worry about the travel expense. My last few hotels have also covered transport to/from the airport to the hotel.
On a few occasions when I have not been able to find any way to order within the posted expense limit, I have brought it to their attention and they have been good about raising the limits. Once you start ordering above the minimum requirements, the remainder of the meal is usually on you, however.
While the bidding for travel is a relatively new concept, travel fees have always been pretty low with Coyle. There are a few exceptions to that, but you have to be creative in stacking up multiple shops if you want 100% of the travel expenses covered. Perhaps I'm just getting slower as I age, but I used to be able to take 2-3 hotels in a row and I can't do that anymore. The current writing requirements are definately more time consuming than they used to be.
On a positive note, when you are into evaluating the high-end resorts, there are no very few issues with meal overages. They will cover 100% of the dining and you just have to worry about the travel expense. My last few hotels have also covered transport to/from the airport to the hotel.
BillBryaninCarthage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever since Coyle accepted me as a shopper I knew
> that this company could not be the elite company
> that they claim to be, because they accepted me.
> If they will accept me as a shopper then they will
> accept just about anybody. I decided that this
> company might have fallen on hard times due to all
> of the competition out there for clients. Now they
> are opening the floodgates.
That make me laugh so hard, I snorted.
Cute post.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever since Coyle accepted me as a shopper I knew
> that this company could not be the elite company
> that they claim to be, because they accepted me.
> If they will accept me as a shopper then they will
> accept just about anybody. I decided that this
> company might have fallen on hard times due to all
> of the competition out there for clients. Now they
> are opening the floodgates.
That make me laugh so hard, I snorted.
Cute post.
I can't imagine completing one hotel and then starting all over with another one. There is no way I can do that. Although I continue to work for Coyle, I am becoming very selective now. If it is a resort that I really want to go, I will sign up. If not, I am okay with the one night stays with <a chain hotel>... Those allow me to earn points and travel on my own 
Mod note: Oops! Remember not to reveal client names!
Mod note: Oops! Remember not to reveal client names!
Coyle does not shop Marriott. They are not a client of Coyle, so how is that a violation?
In explanation/defense of the moderator, he or she does not necessarily know which MSC shops which hotel. Since I do not do hotel shops I am also not necessarily up on who shops which hotels. When I read your post, it sounded to me as though the client of the MSC was being revealed.
I think it was pretty clear from the post that Linda was mentioning the particular hotel chair as an alternate to taking shops for Coyle.
That said, there's confusion on everyone's part, since no single MSC has a contract for all of those hotels, and you will sometimes see them listed with Coyle, as well as just about every MSC I know that shops hotels. If the spirit of the rule is to keep other MSCs from poaching clients, or client employees from learning which MSCs shop them, very little harm is done in posting the two names together. If probably just boils down to making a habit of never mentioning anyone's client in a MSC thread, since clients move around all of the time. You might be breaking the posting rules inadvertently.
That said, there's confusion on everyone's part, since no single MSC has a contract for all of those hotels, and you will sometimes see them listed with Coyle, as well as just about every MSC I know that shops hotels. If the spirit of the rule is to keep other MSCs from poaching clients, or client employees from learning which MSCs shop them, very little harm is done in posting the two names together. If probably just boils down to making a habit of never mentioning anyone's client in a MSC thread, since clients move around all of the time. You might be breaking the posting rules inadvertently.
Michael C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am curious if they at least let you take the
> leftovers now.
>
The guidelines for my last job a couple of weeks ago said, "No doggie bags."
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am curious if they at least let you take the
> leftovers now.
>
The guidelines for my last job a couple of weeks ago said, "No doggie bags."
Well... I just finished a restaurant shop for them, my tab plus tip was almost $150. The valet parking was on my bill, even if they won't reimburse that I am very happy with my $15 fee plus reimbursement.
We ate everything. Wish they'd assign me more shops.
We ate everything. Wish they'd assign me more shops.
My posts are solely based on my opinions and for my entertainment, contact a professional if you need real advice.
When you get in debt you become a slave. - Andrew Jackson
When you get in debt you become a slave. - Andrew Jackson
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.