AboutFace - Ripped me off

I just took the design certification for About Face. My answer to the OP's problem has nothing to do with my working for AF. I don't judge a company until I have my own problem....smiling smiley

Live consciously....

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.

Regardless of how long it takes, or does not take, the real underlying issue here is how the unable to perform fee is paid. We all understand if a location is closed, or for some reason we can not access a location. In this situation, the MSC is requiring the shopper to go through all of the required interactions YET not paying the shopper if the item is not available. If I noted such parameters on a shop, I would avoid applying plus beocme very wary of working for a MSC that would treat shoppers this way. Just my opinion.

edited to add: The subject of the post is still misleading. The shopper accepted the terms.

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 01/30/2018 12:28AM by isaiah58.
You hit the nail on the head. For a closed location one often does not even need to get out of the car. A couple of pictures and your are on your way. It does vary whether a report needs to be done, but if a report is required it is equally short and sweet. I know there are a few MSCs who insist on paying a reduced fee to us. There are many others who do not and at least one told me they would bill their client in full for my visit to a closed location.

While the terms may have been in writing and the OP did not pay enough attention, the terms are still ridiculous. To go through a full shop and full report then have a fee reduced because the store did not have an item is beyond the pale. That in and of itself is valuable information the shopper provided.

Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie.
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." -Molly Ivins
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time and it really annoys the pig.
OP's post reminds me of the paperboy that chased his delinquent payment for the entire movie of "Better Off Dead."
It was not in the guidelines when I accepted the shop. It was also not in the guidelines for the same shop, for a different location, when I went back to verify. If you add a rule after the fact, then you are even shadier. I will not shop for them again. As I said, I was trying to warn others.
Just so everyone can see for themselves, the $5 fee was not addressed in the Guidelines and the rep above is not to be trusted. I’ll clean up the guidelines and post them so you can make your own call.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2018 08:26AM by saruhhh.
Just a guess but they may not be too happy a about their proprietary and confidential guidelines being posted online.

1. I agree that the $5 reduction if the item is not in stock is not mentioned in these guidelines.
2. The paperwork you posted clearly says to refer to the survey form for specific questions about pay. What does the survey form say about it?
3. The guidelines are clear that you are to all the Shopper 911 number while on site. Did you do this? What was the response?
4. Just removing the name of the client does not absolve you of ICA violations. The entire document is proprietary.

Hard work builds character and homework is good for your soul.
I did that pizza yesterday, NOT a shop. Took 36 minutes to get the pizza. Sure the editors would have had a hay day with that one.
Obviously, you can't get to the survey after you enter the results. So I don't know what that says now. These are the guidelines. This is where they should have specified the pay difference, like they did for two different scenarios.

Calling a Shopper 911 line wouldn't have located the products. The manager of the store couldn't even do that on site. I had already driven there. It would have still been a waste of my time. So no, I didn't bother to call.

I won't be shopping for AboutFace again, so I don't really care about the violation. I took out all identifying info. Their rep flat out lied in the comments and many people quickly took her sides and said that I missed that rule in the guidelines and that I "shaded myself", whatever the hell that means.
1. If calling a store were a trusted means to verify an item in stock, physical visit auditors would not be hired.

2. 10 min looking for the item, 5 minutes waiting your turn for customer service, 5-10 while that clerk looks and im sure with various distractions, 5 minutes to call a manager and for them to come, 5-10 minute to explain to manager and the manager verify location of item, 5 minute to do one last personal search for the item

*Time adds up easily. Some of the above estimates are generous.
It is very possible that the guidelines were altered between when you got them and the AboutFace rep posted. However, as there is supposedly more information in the survey, you will not be able to get anybody on the forum who does not have access to it to be able to fully support either side.

I also believe you run into a different issue. The guidelines are very clear that you MUST call the Shopper 911 number while onsite if you cannot find the item. Were I performing the shop, I would have stepped out of the store and made the call. Not doing so jeopardizes any argument you have and is enough to cause you entire report to be rejected. This direction is listed as the second point of "Key Objectives" at the top of the guidelines. Your interpretation that it would have been a waste of time is irrelevant. It is not our place to question the shop instructions or objectives. We are paid to follow them.

Hard work builds character and homework is good for your soul.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2018 03:55PM by MFJohnston.
@saruhhh wrote:

It was not in the guidelines when I accepted the shop. It was also not in the guidelines for the same shop, for a different location, when I went back to verify. If you add a rule after the fact, then you are even shadier. I will not shop for them again. As I said, I was trying to warn others.

saruhhh, just out of curiosity, why do you have two accounts? You registered as saruhhh1 and started this thread. Simultaneously, you are posting as saruhhh about a mistake you made with MarketForce. On this thread, after initially posting as saruhhh1, you have alternated your posts between posting as saruhhh and as saruhhh1. Why? I'm totally perplexed.

Putting that aside, just my two cents worth,. About Face does change their guidelines after shops are accepted. I stopped shopping for them because last time I accepted an AF shop, the guidelines were changed the day I performed the shop. About Face admitted they had changed the guidelines and told me it was their right to do so. The change only cost me $3, but I thought about it and decided to walk away from the company. It wasn't the $3; it was the principle. I never shopped for them again. Pick the companies you work for. If you don't like the way they work, put them on your Never Again list.

My email address “wasn’t found” so it wouldn’t send me a password link when I tried to log in from my laptop. So I created the new login. I checked the forum from my phone last night and it’s logged in on the original account (that didn’t exist a couple days ago....) The login depends on which device I reply from.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login