Thanks for the headsup that I should pack some sweats or yoga pants on a hotel shop...never would have occurred to me.

Omg Steve. Sounds awful.

I've arrived at a club at 1:45 AM, eaten 8 times in 12 hours and asked more crazy questions than I can count. I can relate.

ETA
Add me to the list of people who also did not get assigned the undesirable LAX hotel....
Only one person's going to do that job and who knows how many qualified people applied ? Who knows if a shopper is owed a favor ? I don't stress that stuff.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2016 07:30AM by SoCalMama.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

I would say to put yourselves in the position of the client/scheduler when choosing to be offended by not being selected for things. They have some time on their hands to get these assignments completed, and would much prefer a proven entity, rather than take a chance on a new evaluator. Again...don't most business, and especially MSC's, work this way?

Nope.

It is not uncommon at all for me to email a video scheduler something like "can I have your 7 Griffin's Widgets shops in Timbuktu?" And get a reply of "oh we just got a new shopper in Timbuktu, I need to keep one to give them but you can have the others."

Right...but my 6 hotels have to get assigned first

Steve in Socal, sorry to be so long in responding.....it is summer, and the grapes are growing fast....No, it is NOT the nature of all job postings. It is an unethical and abusive way to select shoppers for their hotels, especially when, as you say, they are pre-selecting from a qualified pool. "Qualified for what?" a cynic might ask, ...to be baited and teased? How is that a way to treat your best shoppers? Here is a solution (not saying it is the only or best way, just an idea...) -- pick up the phone or write an email and ask a small group of shoppers if they would like the specific hotel shop.

Coyle is growing, and they have a hard time filling their jobs, and IMHO, some (only some) of their business practices are impeding their ability to grow as rapidly as they might.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2016 09:53PM by winemaker.

@winemaker wrote:

It is an unethical and abusive way to select shoppers for their hotels, especially when, as you say, they are pre-selecting from a qualified pool. How is that a way to treat your best shoppers?

We...if your point is that the 'qualified' shopper are the pool that get assignments. That's a good road to qualified shopper retention, IMHO.

Where is the lack of ethics here? While you might not agree with Coyle policies, the operators of the MSC are amongst the most ethical I have ever met. The only argument I see here is that shoppers want assignments and are not getting them.

This is a freelance IC based industry. The MSC can give assignments to whomever they chose, for whatever reason. That does not constitute a lack of ethics in any way.

Customer Impact has fine dining assignments that get mailed out to their entire database, but they have very specific qualifications and hand schedule the assignments. I was once in good relations with one scheduler there and used to get ever assignment I applied for. They now have a new scheduler in my area and I might get 1 in 10 applications approved if I am lucky. Is that unethical? It's a change of personal who are not in my favor...that's all! So be it.

@winemaker wrote:

Here is a solution (not saying it is the only or best way, just an idea...) -- pick up the phone or write an email and ask a small group of shoppers if they would like the specific hotel shop..

Isn't that called favoritism?

i know that there is a comment (or two or three) somewhere up above that says it all...

it's their biz and i guess their way of doing things has served them well over the years and they can do as they please. and they seem to have more shoppers clamoring for their shops than there are shops available.

if it cheeses you off enough to whine about something that you have no control over then here is a suggestion....
don't friggin' apply.

there doesn't that feel better, snowflake?

Steve, all respect, but....two things...1) Coyle being one of the best MSC's (iny your opinion) is not applicable either....it's like saying the pacifist inmate is the best dude in prison. 2) CI, their scheduler, and you and your history is not the case here. CI does not word their emails as if they are pleading with shoppers to apply in order to get scheduled. Coyle does that.

Further, Coyle certainly does NOT respond to emails and phone calls. so, IMHO, Coyle is sending (at best) misleading emails to a pre-selected shopper base of their best people/shoppers, and then ...poof!!!...no response, no assignments, no calls back, etc. This is what I refer to as unethical...but then, perhaps your definition of 'unethical' is different from mine....

Ah, but it does...! Hire schedulers with better communication skills!

I applied for a few restaurant shops for months before I got one. My score was 94%. I applied for a second shop in Santa Monica, a bake shop, no response. I sent the scheduler( from first shop) 2 emails and no response. That really sucks in my opinion.

@winemaker wrote:

Coyle being one of the best MSC's (iny your opinion) is not applicable

While is is my opinion that they amongst the best MSCs...that's not what I said. I said specifically that the operators of the MSC are amongst the most ethical I have ever met.

It may not be the most ethical industry, but it's an industry you choose to work in so you just have to deal with that.

Your claim that they don't not respond to emails is simply false. They respond on an almost daily basis to my emails. I never call them, and don't suggest that anyone else do that unless directed to. Perhaps that is specifically why they don't respond to YOUR emails!

I will reiterate what I said above:

This is a freelance IC based industry. The MSC can give assignments to whomever they chose, for whatever reason. You are not entitled to receive assignments just because you have received assignments in the past, or other companies give you assignments, or you just think you might be the best shopper for the assignment. You get the assignment when the scheduler has time to deal with your request and thinks you would be a good fit for the assignment. It's that simple....

Not responding to emails and phone calls from shoppers that want assignments may be rude or unprofessional, but it's simply not unethical. Not responding to emails from shoppers that have assignment and need questions answered WOULD be unethical. Has that happened with you?

@winemaker wrote:

Further, Coyle certainly does NOT respond to emails and phone calls. so, IMHO, Coyle is sending (at best) misleading emails to a pre-selected shopper base of their best people/shoppers, and then ...poof!!!...no response, no assignments, no calls back, etc. This is what I refer to as unethical...but then, perhaps your definition of 'unethical' is different from mine....

I see Steve's point here and I see yours. My only disagreement is in the way you are using the word "unethical." Whether Coyle does or does not respond to e-mails and phone calls and whether they do or do not disappoint shoppers by not awarding assignments as quickly as the shoppers wish is in no way either ethical or not ethical. So, yes, I would say your definition of unethical is different.

Thanks for the information.

Coyle, Coyle, what to do......applied for two shops weeks ago, still on the board. Today I get another wonderful email of all your great shops, so assign one to me already!!

Hi, SteveSoCal!

After waiting for years for Coyle listings in my area (I'm sure there were fewer than 5 in 8 years), that last round of simpler and lower paying hotel shops offered a number of those nearby and also in a highly-desirable neighborhood in a highly-desirable city only a couple hours from my home. I was hoping that this would be my chance to get on the hotel track without having had the opportunity to shop restaurants, especially since I described on my applications extensive hotel experience at all levels of quality including two multi-day resort evaluations. And, thankfully, I did score one of the really easy and lowest-paying ones just a few miles away. I didn't get a "grade," but the feedback was very general but good, and when I asked specifically about a rating, I was told that I had earned the highest. Since there were another 20 or so hotels within striking range that were quite simple (no f&b) but paid more than twice as much, I was hoping that I might get one of those. But it didn't happen. Being grateful for a chance to get my foot in the door, I hope that is what has happened with all the other easy hotels. I'm really hoping that next month there will be more opportunities.

I'm more confused, however, by receiving an email with a list of 6 reservation phone calls (all to the same resort) available, when I've had an application in for one for weeks. Should I be submitting a separate application for each of the six identical calls?

Finally, I noticed that one of the hotels in the desirable neighborhood/city, is listed as without f&b, but that the bar and a restaurant have completely separate listings. If I were indeed considered for the hotel, would it be out of line to ask if it could be coupled with the restaurant and/or bar? Thanks for your feedback.

@linderruth wrote:

If I were indeed considered for the hotel, would it be out of line to ask if it could be coupled with the restaurant and/or bar?

As far as the multiple assignments go; It mainly comes down to how Shopmetrics functions and you need to apply for each one, because the software considers each a separate assignment. Your application won't be carried to the others if you only apply for one.

For separate hotel/food assignments; once you have a track record of being able handle both types of assignments individually, it's usually allowed to pair up assignments that fit together like that. I can't say if they would allow it for a newer evaluator or not. It probably depends on the location and how many others have applied for the assignment, but if I'm staying in a hotel that has separate F&B assignments, I almost always take them.

That can also be a route to getting the better hotel assignments. I will often make an offer to take all remote F&B shops for a particular area provided that I'm given all of the hotels as well. That's where proving yourself and creating a good relationship with the schedulers really helps....

Steve - Not responding to emails when the original email ASKED for the response IS unethical. I agree with you that not responding to a shopper's request may be rude and unprofessional but does not cross the line into 'unethical'. BUT! ...soliciting a response, and then ignoring the response DOES CROSS THAT LINE...I know this because my mother taught me manners!
So, .....don't parse words.....your experience in getting responses from Coyle is obviously 'gamed', simply because you have a long history with them as well as former employment. it is the ones of "us" NOT getting responses despite multiple emails and phone calls that begs the 'ethical' question.

Jay C - What you are NOT mentioning is that Coyle solicits the shopper in the first place! THAT is what makes the behavior unethical...they are fishing from their own pre-selected 'best' pool of shoppers, and then ignoring them. Yuck.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2016 07:22PM by winemaker.

might this just sum up the op? (no offense, of course but jus' sayin')...

And the clouds! Do you see these cursed clouds?! What are you doing, clouds? Go away!

/Old man ranting

Ah, I wondered! Now on to some Coyle restaurant shops. Thanks for the topic.

Ive done the same thing, applying multiple times and never hearing a word. I have heard of their requirement, but the closest restaurant job is a 5 hour drive! Makes me wonder how they get these jobs filled and why they keep asking!

I have only ever seen a couple of hotel shops show up from Coyle, and they do not seem to have any restaurant clients in my area. I applied for one of the hotels, but it was not assigned to me.

I'm a little bummed with Coyle right now because I helped them with one of their "This needs to get done! And if you do it, we'll help you with an assignment next month!" shops. Everything went fine, but did I get an assignment I wanted this month? No. Or any acknowledgement when I emailed about the one I wanted? No. I would have even appreciated an email telling me that I couldn't have the restaurant I wanted because it was reserved for someone else or people with more experience.

I still want to work with them because I like to eat out, and I've always had a good time with their editors, but I think you can see where I'd be annoyed.

I was assigned a restaurant shop that 30 miles from my home because I wanted to prove that I could do a hotel. After getting all the guidelines, finding a friend to go, talking to the scheduler ect... the shop was cancelled one day before it was to be completed. Never applied for another Coyle shop since it was a big waste of my time.

Over the years, I have come to realize that, more often than not, "loyalty" only flows one way. Once I turn that light switch, I now only take shops if 1) it makes sense for me and 2) it is something I enjoy doing.

Doing good deeds for MSCs usually does not do much good.

Depends on your relationship with the schedulers.

I would no longer take a shop to "prove myself", but was offered a series of really desirable shops recently. When I got to the airport to leave town, my flight was moved to the international terminal, where I know the MSC has a bunch of hard to schedule dining shops. I made sure that the one I wanted was still on the job board, ate there and emailed the scheduler that I was able to do so. I wrote the narrative on the flight and when I landed, it had been assigned to me.

That a win-win-win situation because not only did I get a needed airport meal, but I was able to show my appreciation to the scheduler for the assignments I was given. It doesn't always have to be shopper favor first....