Hello fellow shoppers,

I tried to research on this issue to no avail. I need guidance please! You all have been the most direct and support group, I've ever come across and I really appreciate that dynamic.

For the first time, I had a shop rejected with Maritz. It was a for a bank inquiry that was a DO NOT ASK for materials. I did not ask for materials and apparently was overly forthcoming in my narrative about it.

I wrote that I declined on taking materials as it was a DO NOT ASK scenario. The editor dinged me and said that I violated the following: "Per the guide Read this first Major Changes: A. DO NOT request materials (Rate sheet and Product Folder) if not offered by the Personal Banker. If your instructions are: DO NOT request materials, please take them if the Banker voluntarily gives them to you."

My issue is that the Banker did not voluntarily give me materials. Instead, she said, as I was getting up to leave, "I can give you something, if you would like." I said no, since I had the required business card. According to the Editor, this qualified as giving me materials. I disagree, as I not given anything.

This was a bonus-ed shop that I accepted per request. Now I feel torn, not just on how I report, but the fact that this wasn't a fair rejection, in my opinion.

Can I challenge this further? I'm always so detailed with them and receive very high marks. This one doesn't feel right.

I would appreciate any guidance and/or feedback.

Thank you in advance.

If I understand, the rule was do not ask. If offered, accept. You were offered but did not accept. Not sure how this totally invalidates. It does reinforce why I avoid Maritz.

You did not ask for materials as the Guidelines stated. When the banker offered them you should have taken them. There is no challenge and you were not treated unfairly. You should not have said, "No", when offered the materials.

I suppose I'm splitting hairs but guidelines were specified "given materials", not implicitly offered materials. I understood that to be literal. For example, offering to get you a cup of water, if you would like, is not the same as having a cup of water in hand and giving it to you.

And does that really constitute invalidation of the entire shop? I know I'm still fairly new to the process, but it seems excessive and punitive. I've successfully performed over 30 banking shops for them. This was the first interaction of this sort, and outcome.

I am resigned to let it go, as I've had really positive history and guidance from them. but it still doesn't sit right with me.

With Maritz, you ALWAYS have the option of calling the team and talking to them about it. The supervisors have the power to push through a hold/decline. You may have some luck explaining what happened and it's no skin off your back if you do call them and they still decline it.

Thank you for feedback. I'll give a call. If still no, then I accept this learning lesson.

Definitely take if offered.

You refused to accept the materials. Did you think the banker should then force you to take them?? The banker did exactly what was expected and what was being tested. Of course your shop got rejected.

I've done plenty of these with the "Do Not Ask" and "Do Ask" instructions. I've never had a shop rejected.

Maybe they have new editors, maybe they've become stricter.

But, think about it: does it not make more sense if you came in asking about something at the bank that if you were then offered something at the end, you would accept the materials? The flow would seem questionable and interrupted and maybe a bit suspicious if you didn't accept materials given for free.

I agree with others. Call and beg forgiveness for following too strictly the intent of the shop instructions through misinterpretation of the guidelines.

I'm not certain you understood my dilemma. Not looking to force Banker to do anything. I had a do not ask for materials shop. I was not given any materials. I was indirectly offered, if i wanted them. I said I was okay. I did not turn down given materials, or materials in hand. I declined a "can go get, if I'd like" offer.

At this point, as stated earlier, I can chalk to learning lesson since I've done an abundance of shops for them with no incident and great feedback/ratings. It just seemed punitive to me that my whole shop would be invalidated because of implicit offer vs given materials on a do not ask shop. That's all.

Thank you for feedback and perspectives.

@organofaith wrote:

I'm not certain you understood my dilemma. Not looking to force Banker to do anything. I had a do not ask for materials shop. I was not given any materials. I was indirectly offered, if i wanted them. I said I was okay. I did not turn down given materials, or materials in hand. I declined a "can go get, if I'd like" offer.

At this point, as stated earlier, I can chalk to learning lesson since I've done an abundance of shops for them with no incident and great feedback/ratings. It just seemed punitive to me that my whole shop would be invalidated because of implicit offer vs given materials on a do not ask shop. That's all.

Thank you for feedback and perspectives.

Just curious, how do you know your rating with Maritz?

From speaking to a couple of their team people. I wanted to make sure that as I was taking on more and more assignments that I was meeting/exceeding expectations.

Thank you for feedback. To clarify, when I've received materials on a do not ask, I've never declined them. This was a different interaction. Lesson learned.

Definitely call. Explain that you did not ask and they ere not given to you but the banker said they were available. I had a similar situation this past week and took the documents and sent copies in. The shop was accepted. Maritz is reasonable and a call is definitely warranted. No need to beg.

@LIJake wrote:

Definitely call. Explain that you did not ask and they ere not given to you but the banker said they were available. I had a similar situation this past week and took the documents and sent copies in. The shop was accepted. Maritz is reasonable and a call is definitely warranted. No need to beg.

I did make a call to discuss. The folks there have always been great. Hopeful something can be worked out. Trying to be extra thorough, it seems I provided so much detail and information that it jeopardized me. Hence,
the notice took me by surprise.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2017 05:13AM by organofaith.

Let us know what Maritz says. Inquiring minds want to know!

Done many of the Do not ask/Do ask materials. When the banker said, "Would you like something to take with you?" that certainly meant the banker wanted to give you the materials. If the banker was not on their toes, I would ask for the business card at the conclusion of interaction, use the ruse that I might have additional questions and may want to contact the banker later, then wait to see if the banker offered the materials to take with you. See if you can redo the shop. You may not get the bonused amount, but at least you can redeem yourself. If you redo the shop and get the same banker, you can use the ruse that you wanted to get some information for a relative or similar.

Hopefully it can be worked out so your shop will be accepted but I'd say you're being too literal with your understanding of the instructions. She offered materials, you should have accepted them. Her offering means she was trying to give them to you which is likely the purpose of the shop.

I perform these shops regularly. With the new scenarios and guidelines, I would interpret that as being offered materials.

At least they kind of explained it to you. Do yourself a favor and don' t work with that team if possible. If you question the asst. supervisor "Jamie" she will act like a freak show. The supervisor backs her. Good luck.

I have had a different experience with Jamie. She is reasonable and I saw no signs of a "freak show".

Thank you for feedback. I never received call back on this issue but have received other calls for assignments. I've decided to accept other offers for the time being, at least until I fully make peace with it.

I get others' perspective on the topic, and though, while I may have been too literal, I still feel it shouldn't have invalidated my shop to $0 as I fulfilled all aspects of my requirements. To haggle over the very end of literal vs loose offer was not the basis of the shop. So to base fulfilling payment on that one thing was, in my opinion, punitive and excessive. So, I needed a break. I wouldn't label the exchange a freak show. I just know it didn't feel good to be asked for clarification and context then have it ignored as if nothing was communicated.

Thanks again.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2017 04:28AM by organofaith.

I've done more than a few of these shops.... The emphasis of the shop is to make sure that you are provided with all appropriate materials. In order for that to be verified, the client has to know what materials they attempt to give you. Yes, the banker's offer was weak. However, it is not for the shopper to determine what is and is not an appropriate offer. Take the materials and include a good description in the narrative as to how the interaction happened. This way, the client determines whether or not the banker fulfilled his/her obligation. I would have been surprised if you had been paid for that shop.

I see your perspective of offer, however weak the offer was. Again, I stand firm on mine as well. At the time of this incident, I'd completed over 20 of these types of shops. If the ultimate goal, regardless of ask vs do not ask, is to determine whether a banker offers materials, then that should be (1) a featured result, (2) an explicit acceptance mandate, however equivocating the offer and (3) acknowledgement of the narrative if it indicates any version of an offer. If the ultimate goal is taking materials regardless of ask vs do not ask, however weak or passive the offer, then that should be outlined as well. Considering that I have completed shops on a do not ask where the materials were not presented, I know that reception of materials is not the ultimate goal.

If the ultimate goal of a do not ask is an offering, however equivocating it is, and that information is included within the narrative, then credit is due.

I do a fair amount of banking and apartment shops and, for them, weak hints and equivocating are not the same as direct ask or offers. Reviewing the banking questions for this shop type reflect a more direct approach as well. Their questions are not vague or passive about banker's actions.

Frankly, I did not have to add that end of interaction quasi-offer. The blistering thing is had I not included one sentence, I would have been paid. If video playback was done, you would not see materials presented to me, nor would you see me turning down materials. It was because I was so detailed and explicit in my narrative about the non-offer offer as I was getting ready to exit that this is even an issue. None of the formal questions or survey answers resulted in this outcome. In other words, based on the questionnaire and survey, this would not even be a discussion and I would have been paid for my time, effort, and feedback. It was a subjective call based on my detailed narrative that resulted in this brouhaha.

If I'd explicitly violated terms, then this would have sat better with me. I don't want to feel like my commitment for thoroughness and details in my narratives will net me $0 for someone's subjective decision making when I'm asked to go out of my way to take a shop. Present it to the client. If they kick it back (which they wouldn't have), then it presents opportunity for further clarification of requirements. Otherwise, pay for the job completed as outlined.

Fortunately, there are tons more opportunities out there that I get to partake in that support my thorough and detail-oriented narratives without the hand of someone's willy nilly subjective punitive action.
Nonetheless, aside from this incident, my services are still requested by the MSC based on my historical quality submissions with them. I will not penalize them based on one unpleasant experience unless it becomes a pattern. Right now, I only accept shops from them that do not require narrative as I do not wish to risk having a repeat performance with this particular person for any reason. It left a sour taste with me. As a single working parent, I can't afford to subject myself to unnecessary loss in time, or money.

This can be a subjective business, I get that. Staff within MSCs have the ability to affect your payment. Conversely, I also have the ability to chose whether to further subject myself to that kind of exposure when I feel it is not warranted. It's not a big loss to me that others take these types of shops for this MSC if it means I protect my time and efforts. My lack of participation in this one area means others in my region can fulfill these shops. Win/Win as I see it.

You should stop!

From my working with this MSC, when a shopper attempts to over defend their position by using their (the shopper's) logic and opinion, this MSC will be quick to cut the shopper off by the legs and ban them from working with them.

Unless that is your wish, move on.

French Farmer,
I'm not following your response. I haven't had any further exchange with the MSC over the matter since my original post back in October. Like I posted originally, it was not a hill worth dying on with them so I moved on from the matter with respect to the MSC. That didn't preclude me from exploring additional options and limiting my exposure within the scope of this particular type of shop. Nor did it change the impact it had on me.

I was replying to comments in the forum. Is that what you're referring to? Are you saying that communications here will get me banned from working with this MSC, and/or others? I was not under the impression that expressing oneself constructively here would have that kind of negative impact. I could see it if I were here bashing and spewing negativity which I have not done. I had an experience that I disagreed with the outcome on. I expressed it here, seeking perspective and feedback. If that is enough to get me banned then I must reconsider this forum as a safe place for feedback and exchange.

I think you understood my comment.

If not, then indeed, verbosity can be a strange thing.

I'm pretty sure we don't know each other so I'm unclear as to why I'm the recipient of unsolicited snark.

Thank you for making it clear this forum is not nearly as open and welcoming as I'd thought.

@organofaith wrote:

I'm pretty sure we don't know each other so I'm unclear as to why I'm the recipient of unsolicited snark.

Thank you for making it clear this forum is not nearly as open and welcoming as I'd thought.

That was not, but this is: I now understand why your shop was rejected.

As my partner might say, "Sheesh!"

I don't think French Farmer was being snarky. I think the OP is sensitive to what is said and misunderstood the intent of the post. The OP sounds very upset about this, and, even though most of the respondents have commented that they believe the OP did it wrong and should accept that, the OP has continued to post, further explaining her thought process in an effort to convince others that she was right and Maritz wrongly denied the shop. I think French Farmer made the assumption that the OP was also arguing with Maritz, and I believe the post was intended to warn the OP to just accept and not argue with Martiz and ruin her chances of future work with them. Clearly, many of us misunderstood, because I also believed the OP was arguing with Maritz as well as responding here, but now she has told us she has only been responding here and has not continued to discuss with Maritz..

So, misunderstandings all around. It's over. No snark. No upset. Time to accept i and let it drop. The facts aren't going to change and neither are any opinions.