What does it matter what names are listed here? That is not the issue. There are far more important items on the table ie Grass Roots owes money and Best Mark offered $300 to a shopper as a buy out!

Yes, it does matter. You are impersonating three people now, making it seem that a problem has occured three times, when in reality if has occured just once.

Yes, it does matter. It matters a lot!

@wiseshopper wrote:

What does it matter what names are listed here? That is not the issue. There are far more important items on the table ie Grass Roots owes money and Best Mark offered $300 to a shopper as a buy out!

The pay is low, but I like BM. I like any company that pays twice a month.

Cheryl apparently worked hard for Bestmark and completed a large number of shops for them.

Then Bestmark dumped her.

Apparently all that happened was the client said they didn't like her. She was doing her shops correctly.

Can't blame her for being angry.

If you read these forums, you'll see that Bestmark has a number of acrimonious disputes with their shoppers.

@marklewis wrote:

Cheryl apparently worked hard for Bestmark and completed a large number of shops for them.

Then Bestmark dumped her.

Apparently all that happened was the client said they didn't like her. She was doing her shops correctly.

Can't blame her for being angry.

If you read these forums, you'll see that Bestmark has a number of acrimonious disputes with their shoppers.

I don't think that you have it straight.

Here's how I read it:

Cheryl (+2) did some sort of exit interviews or open audits for a major electronics company.
As it was not a mystery shop, she was known to the client / major electronics company.
The client had some sort of issue with Cheryl (+2) and asked Bestmark for a different person in the future.
The client can make this request. They are the client. That's how life works.
Cheryl (+2) got paid for the work done and was offered an additional $300 for the scheduled work that would now be done by somebody else.
Cheryl (+2) got pissed and posted all kinds of things true and imaginary about Bestmark all over the internet as well as filed with the BBB.
Bestmark came to defend (under their company name).


I used to shop for Bestmark twice a month, for over 14 years. They lost the client, and I just shop occasionally for them now. In 14 years, we had two minor disputes, and I sucked it up for the greater good. My shops were a pretty significant value (5 figures in total, easily), so eating $150 was worth it. I don't find them easy to reach lately, but they are consistent and fair overall. Yes, they pay on time, all the time. They pay quickly. No surprises. They are a big, well established company. If they have 100 disputes with 500,000 shoppers, so what?

@marklewis wrote:

..... Bestmark dumped her.

Apparently all that happened was the client said they didn't like her. She was doing her shops correctly........

If you read these forums, you'll see that Bestmark has a number of acrimonious disputes with their shoppers.

*ALL* that happened was that the client didn't like her? ALL? That the client DID NOT LIKE HER is actually quite a lot. As independent contractors, if the client doesn't like us, or if the MSC doesn't like us, they can drop us like a hot potato. No explanation or "settlement" is expected or necessary. We are not direct employees of the MSCs and there is no guarantee of continued assignments.

When I employ an independent contractor at my home - let's say a painter or a plumber - if I don't like him, I won't use him again. I don't actually think of it as "dumping" him, because the decision to employ him as an independent contractor is my decision alone. I haven't married him and haven't taken him to raise. Nothing has to "happen" - I can simply "not like him." Would I be expected to continue to use a plumber if I didn't like him?

And actually, reading this forum, given Bestmark's size and number of shops completed per month, I'm not seeing an inordinate number of acrimonious disputes between Bestmark and shoppers. I do see some shoppers who create multiple screeen names and post the same general complaint multiple times, making it appear that there are more complaints than there are. Of course, that happens with many complaints posted about many companies, not just Bestmark.

I actually am impressed that a company as large as Bestmark has so few complaints and is so well liked by most posters.

By the way, I don't have a dog in the hunt - Bestmark is not a company I have ever shopped with.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2015 01:18AM by AustinMom.

They are the fastest paying of all my companies.

AustinMom -

Read Glassdoor.com reviews of Bestmark.

Another view of the company outside the MS forums.

Even you were forced to take a loss when you had a dispute.

What were the disputes about?

Sorry - that was for SoCal Mama

@marklewis wrote:

AustinMom -

Read Glassdoor.com reviews of Bestmark.

Another view of the company outside the MS forums.

Even you were forced to take a loss when you had a dispute.

What were the disputes about?

Dispute #1: Directions said to make a reservation. I did not. I had also done this same scenario upwards of 50 times with no reservation and had been previously told that it was not necessary. It had not been required in the past. They suddenly wanted it done. $90 out

Dispute #2: They claimed that the person that I listed did not work at the location. I had written that the person was an employee from a nearby location and was behind the counter at the location. They refused to take it back to the client to explain that I knew they were not on the schedule for the location. $40 out.

Like I said, I made upwards of $40,000 over the course of time. I was not going to die on this hill for less than $150. It was a huge client. I am one (great) shopper. If there's a choice, I lose. Would I have preferred that they pay me at least part of what I put out? Sure. But the scheduler would not budge.

I'll check glassdoor now.

ETA: The random rants from ICs who are confused about the term "employee" are worthless. It does seem that it is a terrible in-house office environment though. That's a shame.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2015 01:06AM by SoCalMama.

Let us get the facts straight. I have not filed with the BBB against Best Mark. Nor would I accept their attempt to bribe me. The three page settlement certainly indicated that was the understanding. The #1 electronics co. in Beaumont, TX is the typical big fish in a small pond mentality. NOBODY wants to stay in Beaumont. They work there to obtain experience and use such to move a head. NOBODY wants to go TO Beaumont. They want to go FROM Beaumont. I had performed over a dozen interviews - in Beaumont, in Pt. Arthur, TX and in Lufkin, TX. I never had any issue. I always reached the quota. Last June the manager of this #1 electronics store asked me not to wish customers a Blessed Day. I complied even tho I did NOT agree. I worked at the Beaumont store several more times - and the last being November 2014. After two days I received notice there was a complaint. Of course I sought to learn the nature of the complaint. I knew who was behind the complaint. Attempts to contact this particular person did not succeed however I spoke with his asst. manager who did not know what had happened and commented that "I had always done a good job." I spoke with another manager in Pt. Arthur who had been on site in Beaumont that day and he too was in disbelief. Comments had been made about my clothes. I always wear the same clothes. My neighbor had been onsite shopping that day. I asked her about my clothing and she remarked, "the clothes were fine. What did they want me to wear?" I also had photos taken days afterwards of the exact clothes I wore. The bottom line - there are mean people out there who have huge egos and they do not care who or what they harm. Best Mark threw me under the bus. They did not stand up for me. The CEO kept pleading with me not to cause them to lose the account and thus a number of employees would lose their jobs. How would my words make any difference to the #1 electronics company in the world? I certainly don't want to harm anyone which is more than I can say about the #1 electronics company in the world.

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. To do nothing is agreeing with the ill treatment.

Sure there are many other msc out there. However, a rural setting offers few shops and I have to drive to obtain shops. Sometimes this does not equal out to the pay. Losing Best Mark was a side effect of an out of control moral compass.

As for the use of several names - nothing sneaking about it. Could not log in with one so had to create another. And what are your REAL names while we are at it?

Thanks Mark

It's unfortunate that you lost the opportunity to continue working for the company, Cheryl. We are are sympathetic. But, in the end, as an independent contractor, if the company doesn't want you, they don't have to continue to work with you.

We at BestMark have of course followed with interest this thread and very much appreciate the comments of those of you who have come to our defense. We understand that this shopper's perspective on this situation is and will remain what it is. However, suffice it to say that the details provided to date are not complete and are misleading at best. While this shopper may not recall (by her own statement) the vile and accusatory statements she made during multiple phone conversations as well as emails to many members of the BestMark staff, that does not nullify those statements or the impressions she left us with.

Our client requested that she no longer participate in the specific program – one program only – based on a variety of factors. We respect the requests of our clients, particularly when they are few and far between and are well documented. This respect applies to ALL clients and is not dependent on the size or spend. The shopper was informed that she would no longer be eligible to participate in this ONE client project. Her response was to vilify the client along with BestMark as well as to contact numerous representatives of the client organization. She was reminded that she was legally precluded from doing so, but undaunted, proceeded to go forward with her plan to make her dissatisfaction known, with phone calls, emails and personal visits to various client locations. At this point, after pointing out her violation of her shopper confidentiality agreements, we explained that she had forfeited her ability to perform any further projects / shops for BestMark. Additionally, she was informed that if she did not cease her actions, we would record and forward the facts of the situation to the MSPA so that our sister companies would be aware of the shopper's behavior and perceived immunity from her legal commitments. The threats, the unending harassing phone calls and the accusations continued (both verbally and in writing), each more bizarre than the last. She name-called, used continual profanity during communications and continued to make it difficult for the client by gathering feedback from managers who were not even involved in the situation. We afforded her the opportunity to speak directly to the President of BestMark which she did. During that phone call, the President of BestMark said that she understood the shopper did the best that she could and that there was no malicious intent during the performance of this BestMark project. This did not, however, change the fact that the client specifically asked that she be excluded from further participation based on their unshakeable perceptions of the situation (which were fully explained to the shopper). In a show of good faith, our President asked the shopper what she thought would be fair to all parties. The shopper's response was that she wanted $200 to cover the interviews she would no longer be able to perform. The President offered $300 and proceeded to put together the agreement to resolve the situation once and for all. This was in no way to be considered a bribe – it was our intent to ensure that despite the shopper's behavior that she would be treated more than fairly. The shopper did not respond to the settlement agreement within the time frame allowed so we reached out again. At that point, she indicated that the $300 that had been offered would in no way make up for the income that she would lose from BestMark over the coming year based on her own violation of her agreements with us and she would need substantially more money to cover her lost income. The offer was therefore rescinded.

We feel we have made every effort to be more than fair. It is well within our rights and is, in fact, our responsibility to our clients and to the thousands of mystery shoppers who continue to perform shops for BestMark every month to ensure that this particular shopper is no longer participating in our programs. It is very difficult on this forum to know just how much detail should be shared, and we have opted over the last weeks to remain above the fray. However, at this point, we feel the need to defend our actions so that they will not be misinterpreted or misused to sway public opinion. We applaud the sharing of feedback and opinion that this forum allows, and are hopeful that these comments and explanation will be received with the same open-mindedness and sentiment that guides other contributions made in good faith.

Better than a novela.

A responsible and mature response = what was said during a private phone call should have stayed there. It should not have been shared with MSPA who later removed the remarks which were not true. What was said or not said should never have been repeated and blasted all over the internet. I am not the one who offered $300 which was go away money. I don't recall asking for $200 as I frequently made $200 in a week. As for me going in person to [client name removed] - when? Nothing to do with this situation. Every time you make a comment about me you are committing slander and libel. EVERY TIME! You need to stop this ranting. It is counter productive and I dare say how many shoppers would have accepted your feeble hush money? Your comments paint a very gloomy picture of me - and my question - if the description even faintly correct - why would you have continued to assign me shop after shop after shop and ask me to take shops and offer travel money? Either you knew a good thing when you saw it or you regret having alienated a stellar shopper? You and the big fish in the little pond can dance the night away to this tune. I have better things to do.

Mod note: Do not link client with MSC.

The last paragraph by Bestmark is full of self-serving language. They need to protect the other shoppers from Cheryl?
Bestmark did not need to contact the MSPA to exacerbate the situation for Cheryl. I'm sure they have better uses of their time.

Reading between the lines, the client's feedback was about her clothes or her speech. The complaint was of a personal nature and therefore hurtful.

So, she was insulted and then they took the assignments away.

Can't blame her for being angry.

No one blames cheryl for being angry. But no one blames Bestmark for not wanting to work with her. Whether she was insulted or not really doesn't matter, except to her, because no one has to work with an independent contractor they don't like.

So - she can waste time being angry - and she can waste our time by continuing to tell us how angry she is - and you can continue to waste our time by telling us that we can't blame cheryl for being angry - and it won't change a thing. They still don't like her and they still don't want to work with her. And the angrier she gets, and the more she posts about her anger, the more she may turn off other companies who read here. Having read her angry posts, if I were a scheduler, I would avoid her like the plague. And I'm basing that on her posts, not on anything Bestmark has said.

I'm curious. What exactly is your position here? You started the thread but you really haven't told us anything about why you think Bestmark is not a great company. Are you just on a fishing expedition or did you start the thread so cheryl could tell us about her experience? I'd like to hear why you are so miffed with Bestmark.

Bestmark pays low. However, they have audits that pay very high. If you are a good shopper with the low paying ones, they tend to favor you with the audits and will even reach out because they trust you. Don't take the low paying shops it you dont want them we may not take them, but someone else will.

I might ask Jay C what his/her agenda is? Angry posts - I did not disclose personal phone calls I have had with Best Mark or any other msc. Those phone calls should have remained private. The manager at the #1 electronics store in the world in Pt. Arthur did not and does not have any problem with me. The Beaumont store has a reputation which they have acquired. Best Mark has chosen to slander me more than once. If Best Mark did not like my work why did they continue to assign shops to me? Why did they tell me you can still work for us - just not the #1 electronics store in the world? And by the way my camera is not working and it is still under warranty. The #1 electronics store in the world will not honor their warranty. This situation has gone into another level which will be resolved.

@jrossetti wrote:

Ive never not been paid by a report that met guidelines. Ever.

There would be hell to pay if that occurred.


You're an independent contractor, YOU wanted the job and volunteered for it. How is this the MSP's fault? DOn't do their job. IF they can't find someone else to do it they'll eventually have to start paying a better rate for it or they will lose their client.

Seriously man @kiki125 you seem bent out of shape. Don't cater to companies who don't treat you well or have @#$%& jobs. There are too many out there for you to get upset about. Go find companies who have jobs that pay decent and treat their people well and you're going to have a much better time.

I totally agree with that. You have to pick and choose what jobs, and MSC, suit you. Now, sometimes that means you might not work as much...

We at BestMark agree that more than enough time and effort has been devoted to a topic that would have best remained between the shopper and the MSC. However, we cannot in good faith let the most recent communication stand as the last comment. Wiseshopper states “You need to stop this ranting. It is counter productive and I dare say how many shoppers would have accepted your feeble hush money?” What needs to be clear is that however sanctimonious she chooses to portray herself, the shopper had no problem accepting money that was offered as a goodwill gesture – it was simply a matter of the amount of said money as was clearly stated in her last communication:

“I do NOT believe $300 covers the loss of income or reflects an understanding of such. I have made more than $300 in one week for BM on several occasions. Please review my income for 2012, 2013 and 2014 and understand $300 does not come close to making me happy…”

As repeatedly stated, it was only 1 client project for which the shopper was removed from eligibility. It was her subsequent behavior that was unprofessional to the point of being vile. The shopper was asked to stop and she chose not to. The shopper was advised in advance that we would be reporting the situation to the MSPA unless she stopped harassing not only BestMark employees but also client employees – she chose to persevere with these actions. The fact that she is no longer eligible to perform work for BestMark is entirely of her own doing and is not related to her performance prior to this situation. While she is very concerned that her behavior was made public, she seems not at all concerned or willing to be accountable for the unacceptable behavior itself.

We understand that this is a forum and contributors may say whatever they wish to say. This particular shopper chose to take the offensive on this forum and did so with selective use of the actual facts. The fact that “she does not recall” actual occurrences does not change the fact that they occurred. The fact that she does not address or own her actual behavior but rather is concerned that this behavior was reported to the MSPA is telling indeed. The posts from BestMark are in no way “rants” – they have been efforts to set the story straight. We respect the readers and contributors of this forum and believe they have the right to be provided with the facts and draw their own conclusions.

Good for you, BestMark. I appreciate your standing up for yourself. High time, too, and I hope other MSCs weigh in with facts when they're libeled.

Bestmark, there are other issues that perhaps you can address.

One is the low pay, and the lower-ing of pay of your assignments.

Also, someone wrote about Bestmark (on another thread) that they started seeing higher paying jobs after doing numerous low-paying ones.

Is that your system?

Do you have a way of calculating what a shop is worth? How do you decide what to pay for a shop?

Since you're a prominent company, perhaps you can explain more about how your company works in terms of shopper pay.

It took me a long time to get through this thread and I had to take a break halfway through. Phew!

I want to address the post above mine first. Marklewis, those are good questions about about BestMark's pay system, but I think it will get lost here. How about starting a new thread? I know I'd be interested in knowing if I can do higher paying jobs for them if I accept x number of lower paying ones to prove myself first.

Now to the rest of this thread. I have to say I back the MSC in this case 100% and am appalled by the behavior of the shopper. The only thing I had to stop and think about was how I felt about BM making comments about the shopper to MSPA, but then again, the shopper is here ranting about the MSC. Quid pro quo.

I also thought the $300 offer was a very generous offer to make someone who isn't even an employee. If I decided not to use my hair dresser any more I sure as heck wouldn't pay her for haircuts she might have given me in the future.

This thread has me SMH.

@marklewis wrote:

Bestmark, there are other issues that perhaps you can address.

One is the low pay, and the lower-ing of pay of your assignments.

Also, someone wrote about Bestmark (on another thread) that they started seeing higher paying jobs after doing numerous low-paying ones.

Is that your system?

Do you have a way of calculating what a shop is worth? How do you decide what to pay for a shop?

Since you're a prominent company, perhaps you can explain more about how your company works in terms of shopper pay.

While I may be curious about how BM figures out their rate-of-pay to shoppers I believe that information may very well be proprietary-in-nature and not in BM's interest to divulge (which is certainly their prerogative).

The bottom line is...if you don't like the rate of compensation don't accept the assignment.

While interesting to consider how any company structures its business, it is more helpful to consider how we structure our own businesses and what we are doing to be more effective and profitable. My take is that BestMark has been subjected to bashing, abuse, and libel in this thread and they have maintained a professional and controlled response in the face of a smear campaign with no protection from moderators. Shame on us and congratulations to them.

I applaud BestMark for taking this issue to the MSPA and garnering support from fellow companies. I wish more companies would do this and I suspect in future they may. I am in favor of MSPA suing renegade shoppers who initiate baseless smear campaigns. Of course to make that work well they have to find a renegade shopper with two dimes to rub together which may not be an easy task. I hope we see more and more of these companies standing up for themselves and fighting back against libel. I'm six years in on this business and I've got a belly full of whining. Hoping to see a better day.

Smiling Faces, smiling faces- they don't tell the truth. Your enemies can't do you NO harm, cuz you know where they're coming from. Don't let the hand shake or the smile fool you. Take my advice - I am only trying to school you.

Slander is slander and lies are lies. Facts are facts. Shoppers are people and deserve to be treated with respect. Of course that is often not the end result because the pay is not exactly high. Most work to supplement, not to live off of.

According to MSPA - the shopper is SUPPOSE to be informed of any comments and given a chance to respond. That never happened. Once this information and the three page offer to go away was shared with MSPA - the negative remarks were removed.

Some shoppers as noted are professional brown nosers while others have a generous dose of common sense. Enough said. The situation with the #1 electronics store has moved off this page and into another level.

Innocent until proven guilty - in a democracy.

The situation between Cheryl and Bestmark can serve as a useful case study.

I think Bestmark was trying to remedy the disappointment of the shopper and offered a kind of a bonus. But then the money was tied to her having to sign some "papers."

Also, Bestmark left it up to the shopper initially to "name her price" which was either $200 or $300. The shopper was already feeling bad and now was maybe intimidated. I'm not sure what the terms were of the "papers" she was going to sign, and maybe that's between the 2 parties. Negotiations and legal papers are scary for some people, and it could have made an unhappy situation worse.

My only other thought is that perhaps the shopper should have been required to "check in" with the store manager to "pass inspection." I think Cheryl was "blindsided" by her rejection as a shopper, especially because the complaint was of a personal nature. She asked the other store managers: "Is there something wrong my clothes, and am I making the interviewees uncomfortable?" She was feeling a sense of grievance.

If you take this step-by-step, you can see how it blew up to such proportions. It's because emotions got involved. There was a lack of understanding and communication.

I do not know Cheryl, but I can see how the situation was upsetting and confusing.

I've never heard of a situation like this in the Land of Mystery Shopping.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2015 07:49PM by marklewis.