@Hoju wrote:
I imagine there's a tolerance for error built in to most reports, particularly the really long and intricate ones.
@Hoju wrote:
Do you know for sure? I've made mistakes in my evals that have somehow been pushed through. When I completed the checklist eval for Coyle, I was asked a couple questions I couldn't answer. They weren't originally listed in the requirements, but they were questions which I wasn't prepared for.
@SteveSoCal wrote:
There are varying degrees of screw-ups, basically. Going to the outlet at an unspecified time or ordering a drink that you are requested not to order is one thing.
@SteveSoCal wrote:
There are varying degrees of screw-ups, basically.
. . .
Forgetting entirely to order room service. That's another level of trouble.
@Professional Guest wrote:
@SteveSoCal wrote:
There are varying degrees of screw-ups, basically.
. . .
Forgetting entirely to order room service. That's another level of trouble.
I am NEVER going to forget to order Room Service. It's one of the things I really look forward to when on an assignment.
@Professional Guest wrote:
My guest once ordered a Martini and I didn’t catch it when they were ordering. Dinged on my Mystery Shop Results. I have NEVER ordered Eggs Benedict, lobster or filet mignon. (I’m chuckling.)
@hotsauce1 wrote:
I did one of the audit style shops and I was supposed to take photos of the tags on the linens but there was a front and back of each label, and some items have 2-3 labels.
"@SteveSoCal wrote:
re; martinis...it's a confusing rule, but the genesis of it is that the owner of the MSC feels like anyone who orders a martini or shot is trying to get drunk, and that makes the MSC look bad when the evaluator is supposed to be aware of everything going on.
You can order strong drinks and/or martinis as long as they don't have the word "Martini" in them, however. The editors are pretty clueless, so if a specialty martini is called a "Mad Hatter", even if it's double size a regular martini, they won't say anything about it.
@MSF wrote:
I disagree about the MSC being clear about requirements and providing examples.
@SteveSoCal wrote:
@MSF wrote:
I disagree about the MSC being clear about requirements and providing examples.
Well...they do provide specific examples and requirements for each assignment. My statement was more to the fact that many don't access the resource center and examples there, and then complain about the work involved. They are clear about the quality and amount of work required.
@Hoju, there are so many variables with the hotel assignments that it's hard to cover every base. I'm not saying that the MSC is without flaw. I'm constantly frustrated by them, but you have put some work in to get comfortable with the assignments.
If the instructions say to book X and you book Y, you have to accept some culpability in that when it goes south. I think every evaluator should be concerned about every assignment they take. I've done close to 40 of the hotel audits in question and I still stress over each one, and every other assignment that I take. Every single hotel has it's own eccentricities and you have to intuit what the best approach is sometimes.
It's not really an excuse, but the explanation is that the MSC simply does not have the resources to be as accurate or helpful as many shoppers want. In order for them to get the projects, they bid it with the resources they have, and I would rather have the opportunities they offer with the caveat of it sometimes being problematic (said from the suite of my hotel paid for by such assignments). Now I gotta go eat my free breakfast....
@SteveSoCal wrote:
If the instructions say to book X and you book Y, you have to accept some culpability in that when it goes south...Every single hotel has it's own eccentricities and you have to intuit what the best approach is sometimes.
@SteveSoCal wrote:
@MSF wrote:
I disagree about the MSC being clear about requirements and providing examples.
Well...they do provide specific examples and requirements for each assignment.
@MickeyB wrote:
This isn't a case of a shopper not reading the resource center and then getting a report returned for correction or inadequate detail.