Shoppers, be aware...This is the stated payment policy of this firm. The owner posted it in another thread.

dcrector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Sometimes it takes a client time to review the
> shop and payments can be delayed, depending on the
> company, until the client okays the shop. I can't
> speak for other companies but we give the client
> 15 days to review the shop, after that the shop is
> closed and the process to pay the shopper starts.
> Each mystery shopping company is different and it
> is the responsibility of the shopper to contact
> the company to see what their policies are.

As I stated in that thread, that's a HUGE red flag for me. I went to deactivate myself, but Doug had already done it for me...HUGE FAVOR.

So if the client doesn't like the shop, NW will not pay the shopper? I would think once an editor had reviewed a shop and determined that the shopper had covered all requirements and following the instructions, the shopper has fulfilled her contract with the MSC. Is that not true?

I'm also concerned about your comment "I went to deactivate myself, but Doug had already done it for me.." In previous posts you have commented that you have never had the opportunity to work for NW although you are registered with them. Question: were you deactivated based on your comments and disagreement with posts made by NW Staff on this forum? There was another case (another shopper and another MSC) in which the shopper was deactivated because of her comments posted disagreeing with the company owner and I was quite appalled. If this is the reason you were deactivated I would be extremely disappointed. I don't always agree with Doug, but based on his posts and reputation, I have a healthy respect for him and this would surprise and disappoint me.

This is not a red flag for me. I can see the necessity of allowing a brief amount of time for the client to review and question the shop before starting the payment process. Two weeks seems reasonable to me. There are shoppers out there that falsify reports - everything from going into a bank, grabbing a business card and leaving (happened to me as a client once - we had them on video) then writing a narrative on a "shop" that never happened - to out and out photoshopping receipts and writing shops about completely fictionalized events.

Some of the people are very good - when I edited, I approved about 15 reports from one guy at a coffee shop chain before we finally figured out (with the clients head's up) that all of his shops, and his wife's shops were fabricated. They had done one shop, gotten a receipt, and then photoshopped the receipt and "made up" the rest. They ended up admitting it. Seems to me that it was a HUGE amount of effort to make them up, but I guess they felt it was worth it because they got to keep the reimbursement and the fee with no outlay of money.

ETA - So if this is the reason that NWLPC and other companies (because I think this practice is pretty common, rather it is stated or not to shoppers) allow this lag time, then fine. If the reason is to allow the client to decide if they "agree" with the report, then yea - that is a problem. But I do see there could be more than one reason for this practice.

Doug - perhaps you could clarify for us why the lag time is in place at NWLPC?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2010 08:52PM by MickeyB.

AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if the client doesn't like the shop, NW will
> not pay the shopper? I would think once an editor
> had reviewed a shop and determined that the
> shopper had covered all requirements and following
> the instructions, the shopper has fulfilled her
> contract with the MSC. Is that not true?

It certainly sounds that way, but I am sure Doug will be here shortly to "correct" that. LOL.

> I'm also concerned about your comment "I went to
> deactivate myself, but Doug had already done it
> for me.." In previous posts you have commented
> that you have never had the opportunity to work
> for NW although you are registered with them.
> Question: were you deactivated based on your
> comments and disagreement with posts made by NW
> Staff on this forum? There was another case
> (another shopper and another MSC) in which the
> shopper was deactivated because of her comments
> posted disagreeing with the company owner and I
> was quite appalled. If this is the reason you were
> deactivated I would be extremely disappointed. I
> don't always agree with Doug, but based on his
> posts and reputation, I have a healthy respect for
> him and this would surprise and disappoint me.

Yes, the owners get very childish, don't they?

MickeyB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is not a red flag for me. I can see the
> necessity of allowing a brief amount of time for
> the client to review and question the shop before
> starting the payment process. Two weeks seems
> reasonable to me. There are shoppers out there
> that falsify reports - everything from going into
> a bank, grabbing a business card and leaving
> (happened to me as a client once - we had them on
> video) then writing a narrative on a "shop" that
> never happened - to out and out photoshopping
> receipts and writing shops about completely
> fictionalized events.
>
> Some of the people are very good - when I edited,
> I approved about 15 reports from one guy at a
> coffee shop chain before we finally figured out
> (with the clients head's up) that all of his
> shops, and his wife's shops were fabricated. They
> had done one shop, gotten a receipt, and then
> photoshopped the receipt and "made up" the rest.
> They ended up admitting it. Seems to me that it
> was a HUGE amount of effort to make them up, but I
> guess they felt it was worth it because they got
> to keep the reimbursement and the fee with no
> outlay of money.


I am sure this happens more than shoppers with ethics want or choose to know. But I think the MSC needs to own it. If they cannot screen their shoppers well enough, then maybe they should not be in business. And yes, I will agree that liars are very good at what they do, and it complicates matters for everyone, including excellent shoppers. But the buck has to stop somewhere. If the shopper is accountable for the report, and the client for the quality of their own service and employee hiring decisions, then the MSC needs to own the acceptance of shoppers to shops, and to deal with fraud perpetrated against them, if and when it happens.

I don't disagree Dee with what you are saying, but I think the lag time is not necessarily putting the responsibility back on the shopper (at least we do not know that to be the case). In sum, I don't think we have all of the facts here, and I am willing to give Doug the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise (I have shopped for him many times and have always had a positive experience - I have written MANY negative reports and have never had push-back from him, his editors, and/or his clients).

I also wonder how much this lag time is not built into the practices of many, many, MSPs. Obviously there are some that pay on a cyclical basis so regularly, that it cannot possibly be the case (like Trendsource for example) but those that pay on the 15th or the 20th of the month following the month the shop was done - in theory they are doing the same thing - allowing the client a certain amount of time before payment is processed - even if they are not explicitly saying that is what they are doing.

MickeyB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I also wonder how much this lag time is not built
> into the practices of many, many, MSPs. Obviously
> there are some that pay on a cyclical basis so
> regularly, that it cannot possibly be the case
> (like Trendsource for example) but those that pay
> on the 15th or the 20th of the month following the
> month the shop was done - in theory they are doing
> the same thing - allowing the client a certain
> amount of time before payment is processed - even
> if they are not explicitly saying that is what
> they are doing.


And if it is (and it probably is, though not explicitly stated, as you said...)
AND then the shop that the MSC gave you a 10 on is disputed by the client, so the MSC all of a sudden decides not to pay?????

I find this despicable.

I got a 9.6/10 on a negative shop that the restaurant management later challenged, and the MSC initially took the client side. I was not about to just sit back and be accused of lying, especially since I had the entire evening recorded, word for word, on my iPhone. I got paid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2010 09:31PM by dee shops.

For sure Dee - that is totally despicable. If a client wants to challenge a shop - then it is between the MSP and the client to hash out, not me as a shopper, unless the client can prove that the shop was done incorrectly and/or was falsified.

I believe that the burden of proof should be on the client/MSP when a shop report is challenged - NOT on the shopper. My point is just that in the few cases where shoppers are unethical, the client and MSP should have some window of recourse open to them whereby they can engage the shopper in a dialogue and obtain their side of the story. Sometimes the client doesn't have the proof but kicks up such a fuss that the MSP has no choice but to go back to the shopper at least for clarification. I agree with you 100% though that if there is no proof other than he said/she said - the responsibility lies with the MSP to stand behind the shopper that they selected for the job.

As point of clarification, by unethical I mean anything from out and out falsifying reports to actually doing the job and reporting on it, but including errors of omission that clearly go against guidelines (bringing a child along when it is prohibited, or order more alcohol than allowed and having it put on a separate ticket, or whatever...)

ETA: I realized that my first paragraph kind of contridicts my second. I guess what I believe is the burden of proof is on the client/MSP but I am okay with the MSP questioning me if necessary (because the client is kicking up a fuss) as long as the questioning is done with respect and the MSP is willing to stand behind me if I clearly did my job correctly.

So Doug - I think the time is now for you to chime in and explain to us exactly why you have this window in place and how you approach situations where clients challenge shopper's reports.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2010 09:48PM by MickeyB.

First, Dee seems to be an expert. No matter what I say she always has to give her expert opinion. I find it interesting. I have no idea what Dee is talking about when she said I did her a huge favor, since I do not know her real name. It sounds as though she is saying I deactivated her, but how can I do that if she hides behind her screen name?? If I misread this then I apologize.

Now, to answer your question.

To start, I can only remark on my company. I don't want to assume what other companies do. That is between the company and the shopper.

In my contract the client has a period of time to review their shops. If after that time there are no disputes then the shop is considered a valid shop and the shopper is paid.

If it is a matter of the client not liking a shop score the shopper is given the benefit of the doubt and will be paid. But here are some examples of when a shopper won't be paid and we have taken a hit. These are true stories:

1). A shopper says they conducted a shop on a particular day and it is proven by the transaction it was done on another day. The shopper altered the date on the receipt. Obviously the shopper won't be paid.

2). The instructions were clear that the shopper had to purchase a particular item off the menu, but instead they went outside the guidelines and purchased something else.

3). Several months ago I had an excellent (so I thought so) shopper do parking lot audits. She had been doing them for a couple of years. One requirement was if the lot was full the shopper was supposed to take a photo of the LOT FULL sign. I was contacted by the client that one of the photos of a shop was taken of a sign just inside the garage where it could only be seen by driving the wrong way on a one way street. The lot was not full but the shopper got out of her car to take the photo to report the lot was full. She took the photo and continued driving not completing the shop but filing a report.
After learning this I went through almost two years of shops where she said the lot was full and noticed that she had been using the same photo sand falsifying the report. I paid out to the shopper over $1200 in shopper fees for these fictitious shops and had to reimburse the client. On a side note she is being prosecuted for theft by deception.

If a shop is submitted to the client and everything has been done correctly by the shopper they will be paid even if the client disagrees with the score IF the report was done within the guidelines even if I do a re-shop on my dime just to satisfy the client. But in cases where it is proven a shop was falsified or if it is PROVEN the shop was inaccurate the shopper will not be paid. In these cases before any final decision is made we do talk to the shopper.

My policy with my clients is necessary because once I pay shoppers it is nearly impossible for me to be reimbursed, This is why the client is given the time to review the shop,

Hopefully this rambling has answered your questions.

2 cents...I bet the % of shoppers reports not getting accepted once they go to the client is very low. They need to cover themselves in case of fraud shopping, or whatever can happen. Being too literal about the guidelines or what Doug is saying just isn't fair. Clients need to protect themselves, as we shoppers need to protect ourselves. I've not had a returned report after 2 weeks, and we all know about that one....one in 5 years of shopping would not have me sweat the small stuff. I think Doug is fair in sharing this information with us.

dcrector Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, Dee seems to be an expert. No matter what I
> say she always has to give her expert opinion. I
> find it interesting.

Wow. I am glad you find me so intelligent and interesting.

>I have no idea what Dee is
> talking about when she said I did her a huge
> favor, since I do not know her real name. It
> sounds as though she is saying I deactivated her,
> but how can I do that if she hides behind her
> screen name?? If I misread this then I
> apologize.
>

You did not misread this. I had never shopped for your firm, but had been signed up for a few years. I logged in to deactivate myself, and found that your firm had deactivated me already. You can claim you don't know who I am,
but seriously, I doubt that. I have given enough info about myself here to make me easy to figure out, and I have had one shopper from here whom I had never interfaced with find my real persona, not my shopper one, ON FACEBOOK...and they did not have near the amount of info an MSC has about me.
We have also seen, both here and on Violation, shoppers deactivated for what they have written on forums.


> Now, to answer your question.
>
> To start, I can only remark on my company. I don't
> want to assume what other companies do. That is
> between the company and the shopper.
>
> In my contract the client has a period of time to
> review their shops. If after that time there are
> no disputes then the shop is considered a valid
> shop and the shopper is paid.
>
> If it is a matter of the client not liking a shop
> score the shopper is given the benefit of the
> doubt and will be paid.

Well, that is better than you initially made it sound.

> But here are some
> examples of when a shopper won't be paid and we
> have taken a hit. These are true stories:
>
> 1). A shopper says they conducted a shop on a
> particular day and it is proven by the transaction
> it was done on another day. The shopper altered
> the date on the receipt. Obviously the shopper
> won't be paid.

You obviously need some better shoppers.

>
> 2). The instructions were clear that the shopper
> had to purchase a particular item off the menu,
> but instead they went outside the guidelines and
> purchased something else.

Same response for this.


>
> 3). Several months ago I had an excellent (so I
> thought so) shopper do parking lot audits. She had
> been doing them for a couple of years. One
> requirement was if the lot was full the shopper
> was supposed to take a photo of the LOT FULL sign.

And no one at your firm ever caught the photo was identical? I say the blame lies with the shopper for acting fraudulently, but your firm owns some of the blame too. Obviously, you disagree. Again, you not only need better shoppers, but you need better hiring practices (spoken as an ex-10 year HR director.)


> I was contacted by the client that one of the
> photos of a shop was taken of a sign just inside
> the garage where it could only be seen by driving
> the wrong way on a one way street. The lot was not
> full but the shopper got out of her car to take
> the photo to report the lot was full. She took
> the photo and continued driving not completing the
> shop but filing a report.
> After learning this I went through almost two
> years of shops where she said the lot was full and
> noticed that she had been using the same photo
> sand falsifying the report. I paid out to the
> shopper over $1200 in shopper fees for these
> fictitious shops and had to reimburse the client.
> On a side note she is being prosecuted for theft
> by deception.

As the shopper should be. But perhaps it never should have gotten that far.
>
> If a shop is submitted to the client and
> everything has been done correctly by the shopper
> they will be paid even if the client disagrees
> with the score IF the report was done within the
> guidelines even if I do a re-shop on my dime just
> to satisfy the client.

That is fair.

> But in cases where it is
> proven a shop was falsified or if it is PROVEN the
> shop was inaccurate the shopper will not be paid.
> In these cases before any final decision is made
> we do talk to the shopper.

***Falsified*** reports aside, what would constitute "inaccurate"?
>
> My policy with my clients is necessary because
> once I pay shoppers it is nearly impossible for me
> to be reimbursed, This is why the client is given
> the time to review the shop,
>
> Hopefully this rambling has answered your
> questions.

Edited to add:
Doug, before you felt the need to come here and ram your opinions down shoppers throats on a *forum run by shoppers for other shoppers*, I had nothing but respect for you and your firm, based on the feedback of some shoppers I know and trust. However, that has all changed for me. I cannot say I feel anywhere near the same respect as if you had just stayed playing in the forums for other MSPA members.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2010 11:36AM by dee shops.

Dee, I hate to burst your bubble (as you said to me), but,if you have never shopped for Doug, isn't this alot of hot air???

No, Irene, it is based upon my experience trying to deactivate myself, and what he posts here. So, no, it is not. But you can think it is, and I won't be offended in the least.

I have to tell you that I did a couple of shops for NWLPC. They were both casino shops. The first one was a positive shop and very fun. The second one was at a different mini-casino and was a negative shop. Most of the dealers & servers were focused on the players that were known to tip. Anybody new like myself was given the cold shoulder. I reported this, after I had spoke to Doug on the phone about how to report it. I got a scathing nastygram from Doug telling me how horrible of a job I did and that I was deativated. He pointed out all of my errors on describing dealers that were identically dressed and were of asian descent. They wanted descriptions that individually identified the staff but did not want you to comment on build. I had seven males with short black hair wearing the same uniform. Give me a break, I need to use body type to help describe them.

Now here is the best part of the experience. Doug's payment department is THE BEST that I have encountered. They email you and let you know when to expect payment and they pay sooner than agreed to.

So as far as I am concerned, NWLPC is a good MSC if you don't irritate Doug.

vanster2000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So as far as I am concerned, NWLPC is a good MSC
> if you don't irritate Doug.


LOL. When he visits here, anything said that does not agree with his opinion irritates him.

I used to do the restaurant they were known for, (tooters), never had a problem, got paid...stopped doing them because the food isn't to my liking. Would like to do a casino shop, into that these days...will take a look.

Does anyone know what the payment time for NWLP is? I did my first shop for them on November 4th and haven't heard anything .... or been paid yet.....

Got an email for a "Gold Certification" seminar being given in Irvine for $125.00. Haven't worked for them in a long time, just tired of exploting young girls and of the food. The company as a whole was fine.

WOW! Here's a very responsive-to-shoppers company! I did my first shop for them 11/4 and wasn't sure when payment should come ... I inquired (above) a couple of days ago. Doug PM'd me and suggested the problem may be that I had not submitted a W-9 and told me to e-mail him because he wanted to get me paid. Sure enough, I couldn't find a W-9 sent to NWLP in my "sent" file. I e-mailed Doug a W-9 a little while ago and got a PayPal payment within half an hour! That's a big WOW!

Big difference between a company like NWLP that values it ICs and others thta have "Procedures" to make payment inquires..


Great job, Doug