Sentry Marketing used telephone number to ask me to vote for a candidate.

Received a message from Megan, at Sentry Marketing that was a political solicitation for a presidential candidate. I was very disturbed by this. My number was only to be used for shopping and not to ask me to vote for a specific party and/or candidate.

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

Already a member? Log In.

This is untrue. Period.

We do not have an employee named Megan on staff.

I would ask that you contact me as soon as possible to discuss the matter.

Dave
dave@sentrymarketing.com

@LOH wrote:

Received a message from Megan, at Sentry Marketing that was a political solicitation for a presidential candidate. I was very disturbed by this. My number was only to be used for shopping and not to ask me to vote for a specific party and/or candidate.
Dave, the test message has Megan's (and her last name) attached. It also has her email address with the sentrymarketing.com. I went to my email address and found that there was a Megan (with the same last name) that had sent me emails about jobs from your company. Thank you for letting me know that she has not worked for you since April, 2016. Since she no longer works for you, then plese accept my apology. However, someone has used her information and used her (your company) email address. Thanks.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2016 05:45PM by LOH.
The OP appears to be contradicting themselves. The subject and original post implies a phone call was made. The follow-up post describes an email solicitation. I think a mod needs to remove this clearly unsubstantiated post that appears to have only one purpose. If the OP was sincere that would not have created a new account to hide behind.

I gave this a thumbs down and reported it asking for removal.

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


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2016 01:04AM by isaiah58.
@isaiah58 wrote:

The OP appears to be contradicting themselves. The subject and original post implies a phone call was made. The follow-up post describes an email solicitation. I think a mod needs to remove this clearly unsubstantiated post that appears to have only one purpose. If the OP was sincere that would not have created a new account to hide behind.

I gave this a thumbs down and reported it asking for removal.

I don't think the OP contradicted himself. He said in the original post "Received a message from Megan, at Sentry Marketing that was a political solicitation for a presidential candidate. ......My number was only to be used for shopping ......" This DOES seem to me to imply that the telephone number was used.

The followup post says "the test (I'm guessing he means TEXT) message has Megan's (and her last name) attached. It also has her email address with the sentrymarketing.com." He then went to his email and matched Megan's name and email address to previous emails he received. It seems to me that BOTH posts are talking about the use of the OP's telephone number via text message.

I think we need to really read before giving a thumbsdown and accusing someone of contradicting themself. Of course, I do not have a thumb. If I did, maybe I would be quick to use it, too. But it seems a bit unethical to start thumbing posts merely because they criticize a company we like. There was no bashing in the post, and the OP came back and provided more information for Dave. This seems to be a misuse of the thumb to me.
Personally, I would contact a MSC directly before assuming what happened and would not hide behind a shill account to create an emotional and reactionary disparaging post.

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
@isaiah58 wrote:

Personally, I would contact a MSC directly before assuming what happened and would not hide behind a shill account to create an emotional and reactionary disparaging post.

That's you and you are entitled to your opinion. While the initial post was disparaging, I did not find it the least emotional or reactionary. Once LOL was advised by the MSC they didn't have such an employee, LOL immediately offered an apology. To me LOL's actions are perfectly acceptable and respectable.

I wonder how you came to the conclusion it was a shill account rather than a legitimate new member. The idea that someone used a business-only contact to flog a personal, non-business request could easily bring someone who hasn't participated in the forum before to join and share.
Often what brings a first time poster to us is an unpleasant or highly unusual experience they want to talk about. These things happen to people. If everything is running along hunkydory they don't really have any reason to start posting unless they're extroverts who want to say hello.

It's not hard to recognize the OP who comes to us to sling slop around the pig pen. I'm not saying that sort of thing deserves any consideration.

I do believe we should give most new posters the benefit of the doubt if there is any doubt.
I also believe we should deal cordially with anyone who believes they have a real problem, whether we think it's a real problem or not. Often we're looking at what I've heard called a teachable moment.

Mary Davis Nowell. Based close to Fort Worth. Shopping Interstate 20 east and west, Interstate 35 north and south.
@isaiah58 wrote:

Personally, I would contact a MSC directly before assuming what happened and would not hide behind a shill account to create an emotional and reactionary disparaging post.

It sounds as though LOH has spoken with Dave, because in her second post she says " I went to my email address and found that there was a Megan (with the same last name) that had sent me emails about jobs from your company. Thank you for letting me know that she has not worked for you since April, 2016. "

In his post, Dave says only "We do not have an employee named Megan on staff." Yet, LOH posts a thank you to Dave for letting her know Megan left Sentry's employment in April 2016. It seems clear that Dave and LOH have communicated outside the forum about Megan. So, it does not appear that LOH is hiding her identity from Dave.
Given the circumstnces, I agree with you 100%.

@isaiah58 wrote:

Personally, I would contact a MSC directly before assuming what happened and would not hide behind a shill account to create an emotional and reactionary disparaging post.
@CoatClosetCommando wrote:

I simply refuse to believe this. Please stop disparaging a mystery shop company like Sentry (who I happen to like).

Sticking your head in the sand does not make something not true. A true refusal to believe something that is in fact possible, even if unlikely, is as clear an indicator of mental illness as hearing or seeing things that do not exist. Whether you like a company or not doesn't mean that somebody who works, or worked for that company cannot have done something unethical.

Speaking of ethics, to flatly deny the allegation because "We do not have an employee named Megan on staff." looks like an attempt to deceive when Dave knows very well that he did indeed recently have an employee by that name who is no longer there for some reason.

It might just be she was fired for bad behavior, which would be good business on the part of Sentry, but giving only partial information in the hopes that people will be allowed to believe the OPs statement a lie is a very questionable tactic from the perspective of ethics, and if I were the investigator reviewing such a complaint I would probably seek sanctions for providing false and/or MISLEADING information. That type of behavior, what we call "lack of candor" is covered in the same federal statute which applies to an outright lie.

I would really appreciate it if people would stop reminding me of my day job when I am off and at home!
I did not stick my head in the sand, Jerry. I stated a fact. One the day this occurred, we did not have an employee named Megan working at Sentry. Therefore, no one from my company cold have contacted the OP.

I also think it would have been more prudent for the OP to contact our company to discuss before creating a post that could give readers the wrong idea about the manner in which we use shopper information.

@JerryBrian wrote:

@CoatClosetCommando wrote:

I simply refuse to believe this. Please stop disparaging a mystery shop company like Sentry (who I happen to like).

Sticking your head in the sand does not make something not true. A true refusal to believe something that is in fact possible, even if unlikely, is as clear an indicator of mental illness as hearing or seeing things that do not exist. Whether you like a company or not doesn't mean that somebody who works, or worked for that company cannot have done something unethical.

Speaking of ethics, to flatly deny the allegation because "We do not have an employee named Megan on staff." looks like an attempt to deceive when Dave knows very well that he did indeed recently have an employee by that name who is no longer there for some reason.

It might just be she was fired for bad behavior, which would be good business on the part of Sentry, but giving only partial information in the hopes that people will be allowed to believe the OPs statement a lie is a very questionable tactic from the perspective of ethics, and if I were the investigator reviewing such a complaint I would probably seek sanctions for providing false and/or MISLEADING information. That type of behavior, what we call "lack of candor" is covered in the same federal statute which applies to an outright lie.

I would really appreciate it if people would stop reminding me of my day job when I am off and at home!
To me this looks like Megan probably added shoppers she scheduled to her contacts in her mobile phone. This could be something she did for convenience or it could be a default setting for that phone. In any case, she most likely got too excitable about saving the world from the wrong candidate and has been spamming everyone on her contacts list.

That can be annoying, but what actually bothers me much more is Dave acting like a concerned shopper is lying, only admitting that the woman he said was not an employee actually was an employee until fairly recently when he was confronted with documented evidence of her working for that company, and then trying to justify misleading the membership here through dishonesty by omission when saying "One the day this occurred.." (sic)

Would it have hurt too much to be a stand up guy and say "she doesn't work for us anymore, sorry she bothered you" instead of "that is not true period" when the OP is actually telling the truth as she knows it?

You can split hairs like a (political reference removed by Mod) lawyer Dave about "one the date" but the reality is you are not a stand up guy Dave, you just aren't. That's too bad. A good man would tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth.
Maybe that would have happened if the OP would have chosen something other than a public forum to address the issue.

I'm sorry that you don't think I am a stand-up guy when something false is posted about our company. My contact information is readily available on this forum and the OP could have reached out privately. IHO that's how this should have been handled.

@JerryBrian wrote:

To me this looks like Megan probably added shoppers she scheduled to her contacts in her mobile phone. This could be something she did for convenience or it could be a default setting for that phone. In any case, she most likely got too excitable about saving the world from the wrong candidate and has been spamming everyone on her contacts list.

That can be annoying, but what actually bothers me much more is Dave acting like a concerned shopper is lying, only admitting that the woman he said was not an employee actually was an employee until fairly recently when he was confronted with documented evidence of her working for that company, and then trying to justify misleading the membership here through dishonesty by omission when saying "One the day this occurred.." (sic)

Would it have hurt too much to be a stand up guy and say "she doesn't work for us anymore, sorry she bothered you" instead of "that is not true period" when the OP is actually telling the truth as she knows it?

You can split hairs like a (political reference removed by Mod) lawyer Dave about "one the date" but the reality is you are not a stand up guy Dave, you just aren't. That's too bad. A good man would tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth.
I will rephrase my earlier comment. The subject should say a Sentry employee contacted them. Dave should have asked for more specifics.

By the way, I've posted here that my contact information has been shared with Scammers via registering with Shadow Shopper. I have been called and sent texts, the scammers sometimes falsely claim to be with a well known company. Just like the BIG CHECK scams come across and we inform posters that it is not from the actual company. Giving both parties the benefit of the doubt, it is not fair for Dave to assume that Megan sent the texts.

One other observation here, it appears that so far only one person was texted. I know there are many members here registered and activate with Sentry.

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


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2016 01:44AM by isaiah58.
isaiah, thank you for the clarification!

"There's so much trouble in this world; surrounded by miracles" - Citizen Cope
I have been in contact with the OP by email. The OP sent me the text they received which is as follows:

Hey there - it's Megan, a (political reference removed by Mod) supporter. The election is so close! Can I count on you to vote for (political reference removed by Mod)?

Even after communicating with the OP, I do understand the connection between this text and our company. I also don't understand what "whole-truth" Jerry is referring to. On the day this occurred, an employee named Megan did not work for our company. Perhpas the "stand-up" thing to do was for hte OP to contact our company before post with certainty that this text was connected to our company.
That's unfortunate Dave. It is really too bad you don't understand the ideas of full disclosure and complete honesty. To help you grasp facts I will repeat some.

Megan worked for Sentri Marketing.
She doesn't work there any more, apparently since April.
The OP is used to receiving mystery shopping email from Megan, who also had her phone number.
Megan spammed the OP with a request to support (political reference removed by Mod).
The OP did not know Megan was no longer working at Sentri.
The OP complained on this board.
Dave had a chance to clear all of this up with a simple explanation.
Dave did not do that.
Dave denied the allegation from the OP by stating no Megan worked there and did not give any more information to let the OP or anyone else know what had happened.
The OP proved that Megan had worked for Sentri.
Dave doubled down by pointing out that technically he had not really lied since Megan did not actually work for Sentri on the day that the spam messaging occurred.
Jerry Brian realized that Dave is not the sort of guy who he can trust to tell the whole story.

Was there anything else that you still don't get Dave?
One thing we should point out is that Sentri Marketing is completely innocent of sending political spam messages to people that have shopped for them. The unwanted solicitation came from an individual who used contact information she had obtained while working for Sentri to send these messages of her own volition.

The only thing Sentri as a company might have done better would be not to let employees use their personal communications systems for business purposes, because as we have seen a former Sentri employee can still have shoppers information even though she has no legitimate business need for this information. The former employee can and has misused this information.

That Dave from Sentri marketing cannot be trusted to be up front and transparent does not mean that Sentri Marketing has done anything wrong. It simply means that Dave does not appear to be completely honest about what he knows and when he knew it when he is in "cover my butt" mode.

That sounds like a politician to me!
What was I dishonest about?

Also, it's "Sentry".

@JerryBrian wrote:

One thing we should point out is that Sentri Marketing is completely innocent of sending political spam messages to people that have shopped for them. The unwanted solicitation came from an individual who used contact information she had obtained while working for Sentri to send these messages of her own volition.

The only thing Sentri as a company might have done better would be not to let employees use their personal communications systems for business purposes, because as we have seen a former Sentri employee can still have shoppers information even though she has no legitimate business need for this information. The former employee can and has misused this information.

That Dave from Sentri marketing cannot be trusted to be up front and transparent does not mean that Sentri Marketing has done anything wrong. It simply means that Dave does not appear to be completely honest about what he knows and when he knew it when he is in "cover my butt" mode.

That sounds like a politician to me!
If you don't get it by now you probably never will. When people are unhappy about something they want sincerity, not lawyering. She was not trying to sue you, she complained about feeling mistreated. You blew a chance to do the right thing and make her feel better. You could have generated a lot of good will at no cost. You tried to make her look bad instead, and most assuredly made that lack of trust and esteem worse. I am surprised a company that measures customer service has people in charge who do not understand that.

Good luck in your future endeavors.
I am curious, is this forum always so combative? Since I am new, I am finding this quite a different experience than I found at the IMSC conference and real different than what the shopper who shared this forum told me it was like. Everybody was so happy and helpful at the conference. I am not sure what to think.
@azbound wrote:

I am curious, is this forum always so combative? Since I am new, I am finding this quite a different experience than I found at the IMSC conference and real different than what the shopper who shared this forum told me it was like. Everybody was so happy and helpful at the conference. I am not sure what to think.

@azbound, I think there are two big differences (and of course many other obvious differences) between attending a mystery shopping conference and participating on a mystery shopping internet forum.

1. A conference, which costs money, attracts people involved in the MS industry who are willing to commit time, travel, and money to attend. Participation on the forum is free and anyone can join in from the comfort of his own home or any place that has wifi. Participants can be anybody who can read and has an internet connection.

2. At a conference, attendees register with real names and wear name tags. Participation on the forum is anonymous. Most forum members, like you and me, have chosen to use anonymous screen names. Acting under anonymity, many people are a little more outspoken and a little less concerned about the feelings of others who might read what they write. For example, one of your posts stated "I have also seen some people and I am not going to name names, drink way too much and talk way too much. Some of them are really nice until they have too much wine." Would you have stood up at the Conference or at the Happy Hour, wearing your name tag and looking around the room at the other attendees, and said that? Or do you feel a litle freer to speak openly when people can't see you and don't know who you are?
I am equally surprised that you don't get it. The title of the thread clearly implies that we misused personal shopper information. The OP didn't contact our company to discuss the issue before posting, rather, they decided we were guilty of some wrong-doing that was immediately worthing of being posted on the web.

You seem to take great offense at the brevity of my reply. I didn't call the OP a liar or demean them in any way. I simply posted our side of the matter in a concise manner. There was no intent to be vague of obfuscate the facts. The reality is that on the day this text was sent, our company did not have an employee named Megan and an employee with that name had not worked for our company in over six months.

As a professional, I am surprised that you don't understand that respect and professional courtesy is a two-way street. If you don't care for that way I handled this, that is your perogative.

@JerryBrian wrote:

If you don't get it by now you probably never will. When people are unhappy about something they want sincerity, not lawyering. She was not trying to sue you, she complained about feeling mistreated. You blew a chance to do the right thing and make her feel better. You could have generated a lot of good will at no cost. You tried to make her look bad instead, and most assuredly made that lack of trust and esteem worse. I am surprised a company that measures customer service has people in charge who do not understand that.

Good luck in your future endeavors.
Megan is the one at fault here. I'm betting that she got caught up in what she felt was an urgency, and misused her contact list. OTOH, since no others have reported this, it may simply have been coincidental. Not sure about the rest of you, but the number of phone calls and texts that I received over the past month has been unusually high, even though I'm on the Do Not Call list.

@azbound, yes, it usually is. There is a Toggle feature here where you can choose not to see the worst offenders. It makes the experience better. Or, simply don't participate in the threads that get argumentative (you'll quickly figure out which ones are the usual hot buttons.) Alternatively, you can alert the mod (who is responsive) by clicking the !. It's still worth it. There is a lot of wisdom here.

Now scheduling travel shops for the day after Christmas through mid-January.
So did your former employee leave with the Sentry database of shopper information?
I'm guessing that people are mad that their personal info wasn't better protected?
No, my employee did not leave with our database. My guess is that she used her personal cell phone while working from home.

We safeguard all shopper information and take the privacy of that information seriously.


@SoCalMama wrote:

So did your former employee leave with the Sentry database of shopper information?
I'm guessing that people are mad that their personal info wasn't better protected?
@Sentry Marketing wrote:

No, my employee did not leave with our database. My guess is that she used her personal cell phone while working from home.

We safeguard all shopper information and take the privacy of that information seriously.


@SoCalMama wrote:

So did your former employee leave with the Sentry database of shopper information?
I'm guessing that people are mad that their personal info wasn't better protected?

Good to know Dave. I think that's really all anyone wants to know. Well I'm curious as to which candidate she supported. smiling smiley
Regardless of what the OP did or didn't do before posting to this forum, I do find that Dave's comment, "We do not have an employee named Megan on staff" was less than transparent. As JerryBrian said, had Dave stated that he did have a Megan on staff at one time but she left the company in April of this year, that would have gone a long way to clearing up the issue sooner rather than later. It would have been clear to the OP and everybody else that both parties (OP and Dave) were being truthful, and that this Megan was obviously using her shopper contacts for political purposes without the knowledge or consent of Sentry.

Why would it have been so difficult for Dave to give full disclosure upfront? No, he wasn't dishonest, but he wasn't completely forthcoming. When it would have been so much easier to have been, instead of coming back here later and being somewhat disingenuous by splitting hairs: "One [sic] the day this occurred, we did not have an employee named Megan working at Sentry." Truthful, yes. But also sounding like so much double speak. Like a politician! Ugh. Haven't we had enough of that lately? winking smiley

I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.