Are Sentry's Narrative Expectations too Great for the $?
Warning: For Full Access Please Log In or Create an Account (Free)
So you reject my shop because I wrote one sentence about the pay? Why editor asked me to correct this shop (add more sentences about the food taste etc) if they knew you won't pay me? Why the editor did not correct it?
The IC agreement only states that "failure to timely submit an assignment according to company standards and the guidelines for each assignment may cause contractor's compensation to be reduced or eliminated".
I did all that: followed the guidelines for the shop and submitted the report in a timely manner. Now according to IC agreement I should have gotten paid.
But Sentry Marketing decides to not pay me instead and reject a report performed according to guidelines. Just like others said on this forum, Sentry Marketing is looking for reasons to NOT pay the shoppers.
I did all that: followed the guidelines for the shop and submitted the report in a timely manner. Now according to IC agreement I should have gotten paid.
But Sentry Marketing decides to not pay me instead and reject a report performed according to guidelines. Just like others said on this forum, Sentry Marketing is looking for reasons to NOT pay the shoppers.
@alycja wrote:
Again, the company decides to not pay because they don't like the subjective answer to a subjective question. WOW. Talking about the unprofessional and shady.
Also Why the editor not raised those concerns then? If she thinks my comment about the insufficient pay is inappropriate (it was merely a kind suggestion to a MSC in the "MSC comments box" ), then they could have deleted that. Why do a poor job of editing the shop and send this info to a client by MSC?
In one of your previous posts, you wrote: "The email about rejection from the company.
"After review from the client, your report is being rejected." The client rejected your report not necessarily the MSC.
@Sentry Marketing wrote:
In addition, you did not include the fact that you ordered dessert even though dessert is not required by the assignment guidelines. Including comments in your report that complain about the fee/reimbursement is not appropriate.
@alycja, did you really order a non-required dessert and still complain about the reimbursement IN THE ACTUAL REPORT? Amazing.
I have no dog in this fight but I'm curious, was it against the guidelines to order a dessert? If not, I don't see why the commentary about the dessert was unprofessional. I agree that the comment about compensation was inappropriate but not the dessert.
If the assignment was to give feedback on the shoppers meal, I'd expect commentary on all items consumed.
Also, there seems to be some acknowledgement that there was visible skin on the chicken. Depending on the type of chicken, skin on may or may look appetizing.
If the assignment was to give feedback on the shoppers meal, I'd expect commentary on all items consumed.
Also, there seems to be some acknowledgement that there was visible skin on the chicken. Depending on the type of chicken, skin on may or may look appetizing.
@eyelove2shop wrote:
I have no dog in this fight but I'm curious, was it against the guidelines to order a dessert? If not, I don't see why the commentary about the dessert was unprofessional. I agree that the comment about compensation was inappropriate but not the dessert.
If the assignment was to give feedback on the shoppers meal, I'd expect commentary on all items consumed.
Also, there seems to be some acknowledgement that there was visible skin on the chicken. Depending on the type of chicken, skin on may or may look appetizing.
Commentary on all items consumed has been provided by me, Sentry Marketing did not complain then. They happily asked me to provide more info on the food temperature and taste... Then they rejected the shop.
Even of the comment was not appropriate, the company should pay according to IC agreement. Clearly I won't be willing to work for them in the future due to their lack of transparency, but the fact that my payment should be granted is indisputable!
There is not a lack of transparency. You accepted an assignment, ordered items outside of the assignment guidelines and complained about the pay in the evaluation form. The client reviewed the shop, found your assessment of the meal to be inconsistent and felt that your comments about assignment compensation biased your shop.
If you thought the pay for the assignment was not commensurate with the project requirements, you could not have accepted the assignment. Ordering an item outside of the assignment guidelines and then complaining about the reimbursement was inappropriate. We may have considered some type of payment as a goodwill gesture if you had contacted us before posting on public forums.
If you thought the pay for the assignment was not commensurate with the project requirements, you could not have accepted the assignment. Ordering an item outside of the assignment guidelines and then complaining about the reimbursement was inappropriate. We may have considered some type of payment as a goodwill gesture if you had contacted us before posting on public forums.
@alycja wrote:
@eyelove2shop wrote:
I have no dog in this fight but I'm curious, was it against the guidelines to order a dessert? If not, I don't see why the commentary about the dessert was unprofessional. I agree that the comment about compensation was inappropriate but not the dessert.
If the assignment was to give feedback on the shoppers meal, I'd expect commentary on all items consumed.
Also, there seems to be some acknowledgement that there was visible skin on the chicken. Depending on the type of chicken, skin on may or may look appetizing.
Commentary on all items consumed has been provided by me, Sentry Marketing did not complain then. They happily asked me to provide more info on the food temperature and taste... Then they rejected the shop.
Even of the comment was not appropriate, the company should pay according to IC agreement. Clearly I won't be willing to work for them in the future due to their lack of transparency, but the fact that my payment should be granted is indisputable!
None of this back-pedalling works now. Now you say you'd paid me if I contacted you first when in private message you said that you were the one who refused my work. Then why even refuse my job in the first place and waste everybody's time? You could have prevented this, if you provided fair and valid reason for rejection, which is still missing! At no point you admitted that you were wrong, and many users here agreed the subjectivity of the report should not be the reason for rejection by the company.
You keep changing your reasons to not pay me. Ordering additional items is not prohibited by the guidelines, nor the subjective feedback you did not like at first.
Neither the guidelines nor the IC do state that my respectful comment about the pay will result in non-payment.
The editor should have addressed the potential problems before you send the report to the client, why do you hire editors for?
Again, you blame editor's fault on me, perhaps you should reevaluate how they work. You never answered my questions, such as why can't the editor use the proper grammar? If they work as they write, no wonder they do a poor job at editing.
I performed the shop according to the guidelines and IC agreement and I am now refused to be paid.
You keep changing your reasons to not pay me. Ordering additional items is not prohibited by the guidelines, nor the subjective feedback you did not like at first.
Neither the guidelines nor the IC do state that my respectful comment about the pay will result in non-payment.
The editor should have addressed the potential problems before you send the report to the client, why do you hire editors for?
Again, you blame editor's fault on me, perhaps you should reevaluate how they work. You never answered my questions, such as why can't the editor use the proper grammar? If they work as they write, no wonder they do a poor job at editing.
I performed the shop according to the guidelines and IC agreement and I am now refused to be paid.
I imagine it's very upsetting to have a reimbursement shop rejected. I hate that happened. But I must admit it would never enter my mind to comment negatively on a shop payment amount, in the shop report. Also, if the client rejected the report, it doesn't seem to be the fault of the MSC unless I am missing something.
Here is what I wrote:
We may have considered some type of payment as a goodwill gesture if you had contacted us before posting on public forums.
This does not state that we would have paid you if you would have contacted us first. The point is that if you would have contacted us before posting, we may (MAY being the operative word) have considered a partial payment based on goodwill. This is a good point for other readers of this forum. It's always best to try to work out an issue with an MSC before blasting them in public.
We may have considered some type of payment as a goodwill gesture if you had contacted us before posting on public forums.
This does not state that we would have paid you if you would have contacted us first. The point is that if you would have contacted us before posting, we may (MAY being the operative word) have considered a partial payment based on goodwill. This is a good point for other readers of this forum. It's always best to try to work out an issue with an MSC before blasting them in public.
@alycja wrote:
None of this back-pedalling works now. Now you say you'd paid me if I contacted you first when in private message you said that you were the one who refused my work. Then why even refuse my job in the first place and waste everybody's time? You could have prevented this, if you provided fair and valid reason for rejection, which is still missing! At no point you admitted that you were wrong, and many users here agreed the subjectivity of the report should not be the reason for rejection by the company.
You keep changing your reasons to not pay me. Ordering additional items is not prohibited by the guidelines, nor the subjective feedback you did not like at first.
Neither the guidelines nor the IC do state that my respectful comment about the pay will result in non-payment.
The editor should have addressed the potential problems before you send the report to the client, why do you hire editors for?
Again, you blame editor's fault on me, perhaps you should reevaluate how they work. You never answered my questions, such as why can't the editor use the proper grammar? If they work as they write, no wonder they do a poor job at editing.
I performed the shop according to the guidelines and IC agreement and I am now refused to be paid.
I especially don't appreciate Dave telling me me "You should have contacted me privately" when he was the one who rejected the shop. As if his initial judgement to reject the shop could have been refuted only if we communicated privately? Or maybe the biggest concern is that his company issues are now seen by others on the forum?
Seems like you just rejected my report and hoped I won't ask you to pay me, after all. Otherwise, why would you want me to contact you and spend more time to discuss the rejection of this report and then only partially pay me?
It boggles my mind that you expect me to beg you to pay me, or to clear up the unfairly rejected shop and then try to make me feel bad and say we could have avoided this, only if I kept quiet. I read the forum, I see this company gets bad feedback from shoppers and you try to shut them down.
If you were proactive, you or the editor would have contacted me stating that you terminate me as a shopper because you don't like feedback about the payment from the shopper on the report, and then inform me that I will get paid this last time because I performed all the guidelines correctly and submitted the report on time.
Seems like you just rejected my report and hoped I won't ask you to pay me, after all. Otherwise, why would you want me to contact you and spend more time to discuss the rejection of this report and then only partially pay me?
It boggles my mind that you expect me to beg you to pay me, or to clear up the unfairly rejected shop and then try to make me feel bad and say we could have avoided this, only if I kept quiet. I read the forum, I see this company gets bad feedback from shoppers and you try to shut them down.
If you were proactive, you or the editor would have contacted me stating that you terminate me as a shopper because you don't like feedback about the payment from the shopper on the report, and then inform me that I will get paid this last time because I performed all the guidelines correctly and submitted the report on time.
This thread has become so tiresome and repetitious that it is making me sleepy. Thanks alycja for helping me get a good night's sleep. 
I know I don't have a dog in this disagreement nor have a wing and prayer. BUT------------>@alycja, ...................SM is right in this issue.
Why?
Because most MSCs will edit or ask for clearer information before submitting a report to the Client. The FACT, the MSC/SM thought there was nothing wrong with your report. (Afterall, @alycja had preformed three previous shops at the same Retail for the MSC and nothing was found wrong .And the Client approved the shops.) Based on that the MSC submitted your report. and the CLIENT read the report and rejected it. The CLIENT rejected your report.
We all know, if the shop does not pass the editors/schedulers or QC test --------->the Client never sees the report.
The Client pulled the MSC/SM to the side and told him/Dave what was wrong with the report. The CLient felt insulted such a report would even be considered for payment. The Client looks for requirements in his shops and regardless of what OUR IC says, they expect those requirements to be followed. You had complaints in your report. Complaints the Client had nothing to do with. Plus ordering additional items and still complaining, about the cost. Your report from this view sounded like a disgruntled customer not a Mystery Shopper.
@alycja--------->I am sorry. There is a thin line. SM has a rule---->"Come to me before you put me on BLAST".
Look at things this way, you enjoyed your shops at SM until you committed the cardinal sin. Learn from your mistakes and move on. Happy shopping.
Why?
Because most MSCs will edit or ask for clearer information before submitting a report to the Client. The FACT, the MSC/SM thought there was nothing wrong with your report. (Afterall, @alycja had preformed three previous shops at the same Retail for the MSC and nothing was found wrong .And the Client approved the shops.) Based on that the MSC submitted your report. and the CLIENT read the report and rejected it. The CLIENT rejected your report.
We all know, if the shop does not pass the editors/schedulers or QC test --------->the Client never sees the report.
The Client pulled the MSC/SM to the side and told him/Dave what was wrong with the report. The CLient felt insulted such a report would even be considered for payment. The Client looks for requirements in his shops and regardless of what OUR IC says, they expect those requirements to be followed. You had complaints in your report. Complaints the Client had nothing to do with. Plus ordering additional items and still complaining, about the cost. Your report from this view sounded like a disgruntled customer not a Mystery Shopper.
@alycja--------->I am sorry. There is a thin line. SM has a rule---->"Come to me before you put me on BLAST".
Look at things this way, you enjoyed your shops at SM until you committed the cardinal sin. Learn from your mistakes and move on. Happy shopping.
So, Vicky86 & alycja are the same person?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2017 05:41AM by SoCalMama.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2017 05:41AM by SoCalMama.
Sorry Vicky86. I saw that you posted as alycja. Perhaps a moderator can deactivate your extra ID?
That's what happens when I forgot the password on my phone and I previously used the forum from my computer.
@sojo917 wrote:
I know I don't have a dog in this disagreement nor have a wing and prayer. BUT------------>@alycja, ...................SM is right in this issue.
Why?
Because most MSCs will edit or ask for clearer information before submitting a report to the Client. The FACT, the MSC/SM thought there was nothing wrong with your report. (Afterall, @alycja had preformed three previous shops at the same Retail for the MSC and nothing was found wrong .And the Client approved the shops.) Based on that the MSC submitted your report. and the CLIENT read the report and rejected it. The CLIENT rejected your report.
We all know, if the shop does not pass the editors/schedulers or QC test --------->the Client never sees the report.
The Client pulled the MSC/SM to the side and told him/Dave what was wrong with the report. The CLient felt insulted such a report would even be considered for payment. The Client looks for requirements in his shops and regardless of what OUR IC says, they expect those requirements to be followed. You had complaints in your report. Complaints the Client had nothing to do with. Plus ordering additional items and still complaining, about the cost. Your report from this view sounded like a disgruntled customer not a Mystery Shopper.
@alycja--------->I am sorry. There is a thin line. SM has a rule---->"Come to me before you put me on BLAST".
Look at things this way, you enjoyed your shops at SM until you committed the cardinal sin. Learn from your mistakes and move on. Happy shopping.
You clearly don't know the whole story. Also, you are mistaken, ordering additional items was not prohibited in this shop. I followed every single shopper guideline from the client!!! So no, I didn't make any mistakes, other than commenting on the reimbursement amount.
But It's irrelevant because the previous three reports had a perfect score of the shops! The food was delicious, well presented etc - the client liked the great (almost perfect) feedback. This last one had many things wrong with the establishment, long wait, food wasn't hot, staff didn't clean etc. my report reflected all these mishaps accordingly. So what does the client do? Instead of learning that the location doesn't do a good job, they decide to reject the report for what reason? No good reason... that they asked me how I view the food and I said that I don't think it looks appealing. Why even ask shoppers what they think how their food looks like if they are unwilling to receive less than perfect score? I don't see how the comment about the payment relates to the report I submitted! Even if they think it was out of line, they should pay me because I didn't do anything "illegal" by commenting on the pay.
It's not even the worst part, I had to spend my own money and had a bad customer experience and the least they can do is to at least compensate me the amount I spent! Instead, they decide to punish me again and withhold my pay and they also keep the data.
Also, your logic is flawed when you say "MSc thought nothing is wrong with the report" - the editor read the comment about the pay and still submitted the report to the client and after the fact that the client rejected the report, the MSc decided that part was the reason they rejected the report. So they could not possibly think it was fine, or they did but then they just changed their story.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2017 06:01AM by alycja.
Okay a right fighter. Maybe MSC was flawed for not reading your report and offering you to re-shop because your subjective complaints violated an objective report. If you had a problem with commenting on the pay why didn't you ask the MSC before you included in the "perfect and great" report?. You want to be compensate for the amount you spent but you deliberately ate more than the requirement.
You really need to move on. or quit shopping. Based on your previous posts, this is not your first rejected shop. and it won't be your last. Move on. Learn from your mistakes or you will just keep repeating them.
You really need to move on. or quit shopping. Based on your previous posts, this is not your first rejected shop. and it won't be your last. Move on. Learn from your mistakes or you will just keep repeating them.
Maybe read about the situation better next time, before you side blindly with a company.
Company never offered me to re shop with them. Now you are making things up.
Also, you missed the point about the report asking a subjective question and then not liking the reply.
I see an awful lack of compassion from people who think it's okay for me to spend my time and my money on a job and then be refused to get paid.
Because we all know the company only gets richer and the shoppers loose time and money because of bad company practices.
I've gotten good feedback here from decent people but the recent comments show the sad part of this community where people instead of support, enjoy bringing people down because they are anonymous keyboard warriors. Don't you get it, I already lost, I lost my money and time, but to the miserable people here it's not enough. It's my money and livelihood on the line and clearly some can't have enough decency to stick up for someone to who that one reimbursement really means a lot. Nope, they'd rather be biased and side with a corporation.
Company never offered me to re shop with them. Now you are making things up.
Also, you missed the point about the report asking a subjective question and then not liking the reply.
I see an awful lack of compassion from people who think it's okay for me to spend my time and my money on a job and then be refused to get paid.
Because we all know the company only gets richer and the shoppers loose time and money because of bad company practices.
I've gotten good feedback here from decent people but the recent comments show the sad part of this community where people instead of support, enjoy bringing people down because they are anonymous keyboard warriors. Don't you get it, I already lost, I lost my money and time, but to the miserable people here it's not enough. It's my money and livelihood on the line and clearly some can't have enough decency to stick up for someone to who that one reimbursement really means a lot. Nope, they'd rather be biased and side with a corporation.
I think the greater issue is why Sentry would allow a report to be sent to the client with inappropriate commentary about the shopper's compensation. Why wouldn't the editor have deleted the comment first?
I added an additional thoughtful response and provided constructive criticism. Apparently someone deleted it?
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
I'm sorry, but based on all the evidence presented it doesn't appear that your report was rejected because they did not like your opinion on the food. Maybe that had something to do with it, maybe not. I'm more willing to believe it may have been the fact that you ordered an item that was not required (it doesn't matter if it isn't against the guidelines), and in addition, had the audacity to complain about the reimbursement amount. If you had ONLY ordered food items required by the guidelines, and perhaps approached the topic of the reimbursement amount in a more professional manner (via email instead of in the report for the client to see), the MSC may have responded better to your complaints, may have paid you partially, or may have given you a chance to re-do the shop.
Most of all it just appears that your lack of professionalism in the report is what caused your shop to be rejected.
Most of all it just appears that your lack of professionalism in the report is what caused your shop to be rejected.
After re-reading all the posts, it does sound like both sides have to take some responsibility.
The OP shouldn't have asked for re-imbursement of dessert, if that is what she did. It wasn't quite clear if that was the case although it sounds like it. If the pictures she submitted matches her description of the food then it should not be a problem to put it in the report.
As for the MSC, IMO if the editor thought the original report would have a problem getting approved by the client, then the editor should have clarified with the OP about the pictures, food descriptions, etc. If the editor left the food compensation comments in the report, I don't understand why they let that go through.
The goal is for all parties to give an honest and accurate report.
The OP shouldn't have asked for re-imbursement of dessert, if that is what she did. It wasn't quite clear if that was the case although it sounds like it. If the pictures she submitted matches her description of the food then it should not be a problem to put it in the report.
As for the MSC, IMO if the editor thought the original report would have a problem getting approved by the client, then the editor should have clarified with the OP about the pictures, food descriptions, etc. If the editor left the food compensation comments in the report, I don't understand why they let that go through.
The goal is for all parties to give an honest and accurate report.
@tommyjaneston wrote:
I think the greater issue is why Sentry would allow a report to be sent to the client with inappropriate commentary about the shopper's compensation. Why wouldn't the editor have deleted the comment first?
That's the issue here some people decide to overlook.
Why??
Did the editor really messed up that bad to leave the comment or maybe they removed it sand after that the report was good, but the MSc now made up reasons to not pay the shoppprt, while the company accepted the report after all? We don't know that because Dave from sentry is well known to omit truth on this forum. Instead of admitting his staff made a mistake, he'd rather blame an independent contractor. All I heard from Dave was defensive comments and no apology.
Mine was deleted too.
I'll paraphrase what I wrote because it was long. I basically said that I think if a shopper performs the shop instructions properly and within guidelines they should be compensated for their work.
I also stated that it depends on the guidelines and one's IC agreement. Some (most) IC agreements state that payment is contingent on a client's acceptance of the shop. If that is the case then the MSC did not withhold payment in this particular case. The client rejected the shop so shopper does not receive payment.
I recently had my first shop rejected from a MSC that I have received all 10s on except my first shop. This particular shop was a pizza shop. I have completed this same shop at least five times successful. My shop that was rejected by the client, included three supportive photos using the same camera that I've used in every shop with said MSC. The MSC even graded my report a 10, however the client said the photos were blurry and rejected the shop.
So, I totally understand how it feels to be stiffed by a MSC and a client. However, contracts explicitly state guidelines and if we are uncomfortable gambling with reimbursement shops, we have the option not to accept any.
I'll paraphrase what I wrote because it was long. I basically said that I think if a shopper performs the shop instructions properly and within guidelines they should be compensated for their work.
I also stated that it depends on the guidelines and one's IC agreement. Some (most) IC agreements state that payment is contingent on a client's acceptance of the shop. If that is the case then the MSC did not withhold payment in this particular case. The client rejected the shop so shopper does not receive payment.
I recently had my first shop rejected from a MSC that I have received all 10s on except my first shop. This particular shop was a pizza shop. I have completed this same shop at least five times successful. My shop that was rejected by the client, included three supportive photos using the same camera that I've used in every shop with said MSC. The MSC even graded my report a 10, however the client said the photos were blurry and rejected the shop.
So, I totally understand how it feels to be stiffed by a MSC and a client. However, contracts explicitly state guidelines and if we are uncomfortable gambling with reimbursement shops, we have the option not to accept any.
@isaiah58 wrote:
I added an additional thoughtful response and provided constructive criticism. Apparently someone deleted it?
@eyelove2shop wrote:
I recently had my first shop rejected from a MSC that I have received all 10s on except my first shop. This particular shop was a pizza shop. I have completed this same shop at least five times successful. My shop that was rejected by the client, included three supportive photos using the same camera that I've used in every shop with said MSC. The MSC even graded my report a 10, however the client said the photos were blurry and rejected the shop.
If your photos were clear and crisp then I don't understand why the client would reject and furthermore, why wouldn't the MSC comment on that to you ? Something sounds fishy here. I think the MSC should've pushed back on the client and said this is a super report and they should accept it. Even though we are IC, the MSC should fight for the good IC's who do a bang up job.
@eyelove2shop wrote:
I also stated that it depends on the guidelines and one's IC agreement. Some (most) IC agreements state that payment is contingent on a client's acceptance of the shop. If that is the case then the MSC did not withhold payment in this particular case. The client rejected the shop so shopper does not receive payment.
Sentrys IC doesn't state that payment is contingent with the company accepting the report.
They apologize to me. They said that they confirm that the photos are clear on their end but the client stated the photos weren't clear on their end. They resubmitted the photos to the client through their photo editor, redacted from editor:
"Can you please send the top view photos of your pizza to this email? The client has stated that the photo quality is appearing poorly on their end, but a simple photo resubmission should clear that up."
"Yes, we can see the alternate photos from your report. Unfortunately, the client has reviewed them and came back to us stating that they were too blurry on their end. We can try sending one of them through our photo editor to see if it will be more acceptable for the client’s program standards. Thanks again for you work"
"Can you please send the top view photos of your pizza to this email? The client has stated that the photo quality is appearing poorly on their end, but a simple photo resubmission should clear that up."
"Yes, we can see the alternate photos from your report. Unfortunately, the client has reviewed them and came back to us stating that they were too blurry on their end. We can try sending one of them through our photo editor to see if it will be more acceptable for the client’s program standards. Thanks again for you work"
@7star wrote:
@eyelove2shop wrote:
I recently had my first shop rejected from a MSC that I have received all 10s on except my first shop. This particular shop was a pizza shop. I have completed this same shop at least five times successful. My shop that was rejected by the client, included three supportive photos using the same camera that I've used in every shop with said MSC. The MSC even graded my report a 10, however the client said the photos were blurry and rejected the shop.
If your photos were clear and crisp then I don't understand why the client would reject and furthermore, why wouldn't the MSC comment on that to you ? Something sounds fishy here. I think the MSC should've pushed back on the client and said this is a super report and they should accept it. Even though we are IC, the MSC should fight for the good IC's who do a bang up job.
welp! If I were in this situation, I'd take it as a lesson learned and sever ties.
@alycja wrote:
@eyelove2shop wrote:
I also stated that it depends on the guidelines and one's IC agreement. Some (most) IC agreements state that payment is contingent on a client's acceptance of the shop. If that is the case then the MSC did not withhold payment in this particular case. The client rejected the shop so shopper does not receive payment.
Sentrys IC doesn't state that payment is contingent with the company accepting the report.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.