I'm going to give a little different perspective on the issue of what is/should be provided to the client. I got into mystery shopping in probably a very different way than most
After retiring from a local government job of over three decades, part of which was working directly for elected officials, including the chairman of the board of supervisors, I started doing a bit of contract work for consultants. It was a mixed bag, mostly consisting of land-use, environmental, and political projects. I also free-lanced as a writer for various news organizations. As such, I would go "undercover" in an attempt to get a feel for a community's attitude and concerns over certain projects so that the consultants could give the best advice to clients on how to overcome objections and market projects.
One day I saw an ad for a mystery shopping company that sounded a lot like what I was doing. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Early on I did a good number of McDonald's shops. I found them frustrating because I did not care if my food was ready in 60 seconds or less. I personally cared a lot more about the quality of the food and the cleanliness of the restaurant. Many years ago I opined in this forum that I thought the main MSC who had the contract was shooting itself in the foot by giving McDonald's what they asked for rather than what they needed.
A corporation does not need a consultant to maintain the status quo. It can hire recent college grads at a fraction of the cost to be "yes" men. It needs experienced consultants to determine the bottom line, find the hindrances to that bottom line, and make recommendations to get the corporation headed on the right direction.
As it turns out, it took a lot of stores closing and some rougher years before McDonald's learned it's lesson. It's now rebranding itsrlf without the help of the MSC that, in my book, failed it miserably. And that failure I'm sure had to be the loss of a contract that exceeded $1 million or more and the loss of mystery shopping opportunities for thousands of mystery shoppers.
Another example I ranted about on this board was Chipotle. One of the sites I did had a long list of health and safety issues that I reported every month for I don't know how long. The cockroaches and rats were beyond description. The filth was unbelievable. And the employees leaning over the food bins with their unnetted long hair almost touching the food just made me sick. The Yelp reviews for cleanliness were even worse than my reports.
I finally quit because I couldn't stomach walking in the place. Whether it was the MSC changing my report or Chipotle ignoring it, I don't know. I do know Chipotle has had a number of food poisoning issues so I doubt what was happening at that one was isolated. Again, was the MSC giving Chipotle what they wanted to hear or what they needed to hear? In my opinion any consultant who doesn't lay it on the line for their client is doing that client a disservice.
Sure, it can be argued that the consultants or MSC were simply doing what they were paid to do. I would argue that that is what sets apart mediocre consultants from top-of-the-line consultants, or MSCs.
We can all name MSCs whose integrity is above reproach, demand high quality shops and reports, and have stellar reputations. We can probably name more that are lax, lazy, shady at times, and certainly don't hold themselves to the same standards they demand of shoppers.
So, although I agree that ultimately it is the MSC's report, everyone involved is hurt in some way when that report doesn't provide an accurate measure of what is going on at a certain business. As shoppers, it could be years before it hurts us, but eventually it will likely result in less opportunities for us as we see one business after another go under and one MSC contract after another get cancelled.