Don't take any shop, not worth your time. Absolutely don't.
When you take a shop, do it correctly. There's never a need for dishonesty.

At this point it just seems the O.P. is looking for a justification for half assing the jobs and assignments. Earlier she complained about the out of pocket, now she says she treats it as a coupon.

I guess if those shops start being rejected she have a problem with that also.

O.P. may wanna save themselves some stress, MSC are increasing fees for shotty work.

I'll just leave something an elder worker told a group of us temp workers in a business setting probably 35 years ago. "If you were a regular worker, you would be subject to raises and advancements based upon your production" Needless to say I was offered a permanent position.

Must people on this forum are grown and will do what suits them. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

@LindaM wrote:

@sestrahelena wrote:

It's a matter of "Quiet quitting" also called "Acting your wage" which was always present in work life but now has a name and is discussed openly on many internet platforms. It's really just human nature, though, to feel like doing your best work is pointless when those you do the work for do not appreciate your efforts and, instead, require more and more from you while compensating less and less.

I wholeheartedly agree with this post! Over the weekend, I stayed at the St Regis where I had to fill out multiple detailed reports. I stayed up late to complete all the forms. I added additional comments. I reviewed the reports again to see if I wanted to add anything else before submission. There were no out of pocket expenses, plus a decent fee, and plus accrued points.

Some posters ask why pick up shops that I know will have out of pocket expenses? Well, I do see some of the shops as a "coupon," as such I will treat the reports the same way.

A lot of posters on this board are so big on this being a "business." Well, as a "business" owner, I value my time and I'm going to treat every shop based on its value. The MSC is also a "business" that is paying for a service. If they want higher quality, they need to pay more. They shouldn't expect high quality when paying pennies.

Yesterday, I bought a cheap toy set for my son. It broke by the time I got home. Did I complain? No. I paid $8 for the toy set, not $28.

Sorry, if you want to guilt trip me, it’s not going to work. I have zero guilt and I sleep comfortably.

There are probably hundreds of threads about low fees and abusive MSCs. The MSC can take a little old me being abusive back.

That’s the way of the world. Pay more for better quality or pay less and have less quality. Also, I can and will take whatever shops I feel like (just as most ppl preach on this board) and I can and will put in whatever efforts I feel a shop deserves.

I have yet to be “fired” by anyone. If you want to spend hours on a shop while I spend 10 minutes and get same reimbursement/pay, be my guest. I’m not losing sleep over that.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2022 08:50AM by LindaM.

Lindane I used to bid on 2 or 3 states of the green stations and now to pay and the way the way the MSC treated I haven’t done a shops since May. I went back to work in Finance. After six years of doing tons of shops I had to drop some shops due to weather and was treated like I sent the company into bankruptcy. Don’t lose slept if the way you do shops they don’t care about you AT ALL. You are literally just another shopper that feel can be replaced. They set the standards on how to treat the relationship.

The key here is 35 years ago. In a lot of places these days, you can work really hard and really well, just to get a yearly raise that barely matches inflation. Then you look at your coworkers who are not working as hard or not working as well and making basically the same amount, and you think what's the point?

"I'll just leave something an elder worker told a group of us temp workers in a business setting probably 35 years ago. "If you were a regular worker, you would be subject to raises and advancements based upon your production" Needless to say I was offered a permanent position."

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2022 03:19PM by rarararara.

That is exactly what is wrong with unions. There is no reward for hard work. So it's a "race to the bottom." In college I worked at UPS (teamsters union). We all got the same raise each year regardless of effort.

Now that I'm in the business world (not union), i am generally rewarded for my efforts. Of course there are companies that don't reward their employees like they should. That is when you take your skills and go somewhere else where you are more appreciated.

@rarararara wrote:

The key here is 35 years ago. In a lot of places these days, you can work really hard and really well, just to get a yearly raise that barely matches inflation. Then you look at your coworkers who are not working as hard or not working as well and making basically the same amount, and you think what's the point?

"I'll just leave something an elder worker told a group of us temp workers in a business setting probably 35 years ago. "If you were a regular worker, you would be subject to raises and advancements based upon your production" Needless to say I was offered a permanent position."

@shopperbob wrote:

Helena. thank you; your explanation was crystal clear. Daddy inquired as to why I permitted a single situation to affect the contract between Ipsos and myself. The two instances I stated were the culmination of a year's dissatisfaction. Last night, I realized Karen was correct and I should terminate. I have not an iota of regret.

Not pertinent to your exact situation with IPSOS, but many shops require a date & time stamp; this is not just IPSOS. For future reference, this is easy to do. Just download a date/time stamp app to your phone and turn it on when needed. I use a free app called Timestamp Camera Enterprise. Easy to use, works great. And while your camera does have the information embedded in the photos, many MSCs want the info printed on the picture. I hope you won't let this requirement cause you to quit other MSCs.

I'm guessing that by asking for a photo of the location locator, they wanted a screenshot. But that's an odd way of asking for it.

OP, I 100% empathize with not caring about certain shops, however we as evaluators have a moral and ethical duty to report true findings. If you are having such feelings that cause you to outright lie and be deceitful, you really should step away from mystery shopping. You are giving the rest of us honest folks a bad name.

Birdy,

I use a Kodak digital camera and have been informed by two MSCs that the Meta Data my camera embeds is inaccurate, BUT, in the past, any MSC from whom I have accepted a shop has always stated in the initial conditions that a date/time was required. Ipsos did not so mention such a requirement until after the work had been assigned.

My two cents:

I totally understand the way the OP feels about the current trends in the industry, as I have felt that way quite a lot lately. However, even if I wanted to, I could not give less than 100% in doing an assignment. I'm too much of an over-achiever and perfectionist to do so. If anything, I'm more frustrated by word limits in reports and lack of ability to sometimes explain a "Yes" answer. But whichever end of the spectrum one falls, I think many of the problems we face will only be solved by more involvement in the process from the CLIENTS.

Any business owner with more than one location knows they cannot be in two places at once and would feel better if they have some way to monitor what goes on when he or she is away. Thus, the reason the mystery shop industry exists. I can remember a few companies that used to run mystery shopping programs "in-house" and maybe some still do, but I think most of us can agree that using a middle-man, the MSC, is a more efficient way to handle a mystery shopping program. It eliminates much of the tedious work from the client, as it is the MSC who has to deal with scheduling, rotations, no-shows, dishonest shoppers, etc. They receive feedback from the MSC based on our work.
On our end, we have to continuously deal with MSC issues such as low pay, lack of communication, rude schedulers, etc.

What I believe is the missing piece of the puzzle that would not only make shoppers happier, but would also ensure better results for the client is MORE CLIENT INVOLVEMENT in the process. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of contracts between client/MSC, but I know, in general, the client pays a set fee to the MSC for XX number of reports, analysis, store visits, whatever. So the MSC sets out to fulfill their obligations through their pool of shoppers. It is in the interest of the MSC at this point to pay as little as possible to get the shops done. But do you ever wonder if the client actually realizes how little of what they paid to the MSC actually goes to us? Do shoppers even think about that? Remember the huge bonuses Maritz used to give on gas station shops? Why do you think they did that? Certainly, they wouldn't do it if they lost money. They did it because they understood that the best way to fulfill the obligation to the client of doing "XX number of shops" was to offer a pay rate that shoppers couldn't refuse. Sure Maritz listed jobs at base at the beginning of a round and surely got some done at that rate. I myself took many base for various reasons. But I also did plenty with as much as $100 bonus. If a company can offer that much bonus money, on a regular basis, then you can be sure the gap between base pay and the pay per shop the MSC received is HUGE. I don't think the clients fully realize this.

Also, I think the clients should also have more oversight/control in the quality of information they receive from the reports submitted by the MSC. I have no idea how this area could be fixed, however. But I do know that the information the clients receive is not always the information that the shopper provided to the MSC. I do not pretend to know the reason for this. But I know for a fact that it happens, and again I will use Maritz as an example. The Maritz editors regularly changed narratives I wrote in my reports. Maritz was famous for their "low-tech" approach to the business. So if I had submitted a report to them that was missing a pic, they would just send the whole report back to me to add it. Often, the editors had completed checking everything else, and I would find additions, deletions, or changes to my narratives. I'm not talking about just grammar or punctuation correction, either. I'm talking about observations completely deleted or dialog added that hadn't actually occurred. At first I complained about this, but never received an explanation or even an acknowledgement of any kind, so I just started ignoring it. But I am certain that Maritz can't have been the only MSC to ever do this and I am equally certain that the clients are unaware this happens.

Clients should also be more proactive about correcting the problems that we are reporting to them. It does lower the morale of a shopper to continuously report a problem at a store, but returning to that store month after month and never seeing the problem corrected. It's happened to me plenty, and I'd eventually think, "why even bother?" On the other hand if I were an employee of the client, most big corporations have entire departments dedicated to improving the workplace environment to keep the morale of its employees high, and any legit issues I had would likely be addressed in a timely manner.

The way the system is now, the MSC has all the power. They pay low because they can. In return, they get lower quality reports from us, because we can. If the clients would become a bit more involved and insist upon some of the standards that they set for their own employees, things would change. For example, they could negotiate their contracts insisting upon a certain minimum pay to shoppers. In their business, they pay more for better qualified employees, why should this facet of their business be any different? They should develop some sort of software or other method to ensure that they receive reports that are based upon our actual observations in the field. And they should dedicate a department that is tasked with investigating and fixing the problems we report. Of course these solutions only benefit us and the clients; they would be detrimental to the MSC. Which is why, every one of us, with every MSC we contract with, is required to agree to never contact the client for any reason whatsoever. I truly feel that the clients are not fully aware of the issues we as shoppers deal with. I also believe that many of the clients would not be happy to know that we are treated the way we are by some MSCs and would change the way they deal with the MSC if they knew. What I don't know is how to get these issues in front of them, as the MSC has blocked us from any contact. If someone out there can solve that problem, I believe we would all have a much better work experience.

A lot of moral grandstanding going on in these comments. Or perhaps it's virtue signaling, LOL.

Not sure what else can really be said on this topic. There are those that think (and act) based on the pay they are receiving for the shop. There are others that will put forth full effort regardless of the pay because that is what they feel should be done.

Neither side is going to convince the other to change. Time to move on!!!

@hbbigdaddy wrote:

Not sure what else can really be said on this topic. There are those that think (and act) based on the pay they are receiving for the shop. There are others that will put forth full effort regardless of the pay because that is what they feel should be done.

Neither side is going to convince the other to change. Time to move on!!!

AGREE 100%
I just hope that schedulers that visit this forum attempt to figure out who this person is and take appropriate action.

@luckygirl0100 wrote:

@hbbigdaddy wrote:

Not sure what else can really be said on this topic. There are those that think (and act) based on the pay they are receiving for the shop. There are others that will put forth full effort regardless of the pay because that is what they feel should be done.

Neither side is going to convince the other to change. Time to move on!!!

AGREE 100%
I just hope that schedulers that visit this forum attempt to figure out who this person is and take appropriate action.

Shoppers are such a funny group.

#1 complaint: low pay!!! ridiculous pay!!! pay going down!!!

Possible solution: let's stick together and hold out until fees go up? Response: No

Possible solution: turn in poor quality work that aligns with pay? Response: No

What do we do? Complain to the wall and hopefully the MSC will hear us a mile away.

Yes, I do agree with one thing you said. Probably enough has been said about this topic. I will continue to do what I feel is right and what I feel is appropriate. You can put in hours of work for the same miserable pay if it suits you. I'm going to continue putting in poor -- and I admit, maybe inaccurate -- reports if the pay is ridiculously low. The MSC can take the report or not. I don't care.

Take pride in your job...or don't do it at all.

I used to give the same amount of effort to every shop I did (and that's a lot), regardless of pay. I found that wasn't cost-effective. I've gradually learned to tailor my reports so that I'm always doing what's required and usually a little more, but not spend the same amount of time on a $20 report that I spend on a $60 report. I usually go above and beyond even for the low-paying shops, but not by much. It's taken me years to learn to do this. But I feel that I'm earning what the job pays and not cheating myself. If I know a job isn't going to be worth the time and effort it requires, I just don't take it! Simple solution.

Hi Shawn:

Loved your response. At some point, you have to look at yourself in the mirror. It confirms what I've always said. "Your biggest opponent in life is not the person in the ring with you but the person in the ring with him".

What I think a franchisee of a restaurant should do is have her or his employees at one location pose as customers at another location. Pay some of your employees who work at the Main Street location to dine at your other unit on Elm Street on their day off or whenever. The waitress from the Main Street location knows the script that is supposed to be repeated, how soon you should be greeted after sitting down at the table, what the food should taste like, etc...

Regardless of how much training I have, I won't have the innate knowledge that she has.

@shawnthewoman wrote:

My two cents:

I totally understand the way the OP feels about the current trends in the industry, as I have felt that way quite a lot lately. However, even if I wanted to, I could not give less than 100% in doing an assignment. I'm too much of an over-achiever and perfectionist to do so. If anything, I'm more frustrated by word limits in reports and lack of ability to sometimes explain a "Yes" answer. But whichever end of the spectrum one falls, I think many of the problems we face will only be solved by more involvement in the process from the CLIENTS.

Any business owner with more than one location knows they cannot be in two places at once and would feel better if they have some way to monitor what goes on when he or she is away. Thus, the reason the mystery shop industry exists. I can remember a few companies that used to run mystery shopping programs "in-house" and maybe some still do, but I think most of us can agree that using a middle-man, the MSC, is a more efficient way to handle a mystery shopping program. It eliminates much of the tedious work from the client, as it is the MSC who has to deal with scheduling, rotations, no-shows, dishonest shoppers, etc. They receive feedback from the MSC based on our work.
On our end, we have to continuously deal with MSC issues such as low pay, lack of communication, rude schedulers, etc.

What I believe is the missing piece of the puzzle that would not only make shoppers happier, but would also ensure better results for the client is MORE CLIENT INVOLVEMENT in the process. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of contracts between client/MSC, but I know, in general, the client pays a set fee to the MSC for XX number of reports, analysis, store visits, whatever. So the MSC sets out to fulfill their obligations through their pool of shoppers. It is in the interest of the MSC at this point to pay as little as possible to get the shops done. But do you ever wonder if the client actually realizes how little of what they paid to the MSC actually goes to us? Do shoppers even think about that? Remember the huge bonuses Maritz used to give on gas station shops? Why do you think they did that? Certainly, they wouldn't do it if they lost money. They did it because they understood that the best way to fulfill the obligation to the client of doing "XX number of shops" was to offer a pay rate that shoppers couldn't refuse. Sure Maritz listed jobs at base at the beginning of a round and surely got some done at that rate. I myself took many base for various reasons. But I also did plenty with as much as $100 bonus. If a company can offer that much bonus money, on a regular basis, then you can be sure the gap between base pay and the pay per shop the MSC received is HUGE. I don't think the clients fully realize this.

Also, I think the clients should also have more oversight/control in the quality of information they receive from the reports submitted by the MSC. I have no idea how this area could be fixed, however. But I do know that the information the clients receive is not always the information that the shopper provided to the MSC. I do not pretend to know the reason for this. But I know for a fact that it happens, and again I will use Maritz as an example. The Maritz editors regularly changed narratives I wrote in my reports. Maritz was famous for their "low-tech" approach to the business. So if I had submitted a report to them that was missing a pic, they would just send the whole report back to me to add it. Often, the editors had completed checking everything else, and I would find additions, deletions, or changes to my narratives. I'm not talking about just grammar or punctuation correction, either. I'm talking about observations completely deleted or dialog added that hadn't actually occurred. At first I complained about this, but never received an explanation or even an acknowledgement of any kind, so I just started ignoring it. But I am certain that Maritz can't have been the only MSC to ever do this and I am equally certain that the clients are unaware this happens.

Clients should also be more proactive about correcting the problems that we are reporting to them. It does lower the morale of a shopper to continuously report a problem at a store, but returning to that store month after month and never seeing the problem corrected. It's happened to me plenty, and I'd eventually think, "why even bother?" On the other hand if I were an employee of the client, most big corporations have entire departments dedicated to improving the workplace environment to keep the morale of its employees high, and any legit issues I had would likely be addressed in a timely manner.

The way the system is now, the MSC has all the power. They pay low because they can. In return, they get lower quality reports from us, because we can. If the clients would become a bit more involved and insist upon some of the standards that they set for their own employees, things would change. For example, they could negotiate their contracts insisting upon a certain minimum pay to shoppers. In their business, they pay more for better qualified employees, why should this facet of their business be any different? They should develop some sort of software or other method to ensure that they receive reports that are based upon our actual observations in the field. And they should dedicate a department that is tasked with investigating and fixing the problems we report. Of course these solutions only benefit us and the clients; they would be detrimental to the MSC. Which is why, every one of us, with every MSC we contract with, is required to agree to never contact the client for any reason whatsoever. I truly feel that the clients are not fully aware of the issues we as shoppers deal with. I also believe that many of the clients would not be happy to know that we are treated the way we are by some MSCs and would change the way they deal with the MSC if they knew. What I don't know is how to get these issues in front of them, as the MSC has blocked us from any contact. If someone out there can solve that problem, I believe we would all have a much better work experience.

I agree that there’s been a lot of virtue signaling here. I always think that when people start to talk about this being “a business,” that it’s because they don’t want to think of themselves as gig workers (all technically “business owners.” ) I’m sorry you’ve gotten such negativity, Linda, and I hear where you’re coming from.

It’s not always possible for everyone to leave this field either temporarily or permanently, but maybe as was suggested, there are different kinds of shops that you could do as a break from the dining ones as you also try to see if there’s other work that could replace mystery shopping for awhile.

One line in the sand I will never cross personally is that I would never give an employee a lower rating or review than he or she deserves. The client is as responsible for the low fees as the MSC is imo. The employee who may be fired for a poor or even “ok” rating is not. So I do suggest giving that some thought as you’re trying to navigate this world of reduced fees and increased time required.

@Notme2021 wrote:

I always think that when people start to talk about this being “a business,” that it’s because they don’t want to think of themselves as gig workers (all technically “business owners.” ) /quote]

If you're self-employed you do have a business--whether you're a gig worker, a sole proprietor of a brick & mortar or online store, a partner, etc. I think it can be kind of gray if you have a hobby and call it your business, even though you don't intend to make a profit.

I'm not sure why mystery shoppers would not call themselves businesses or why they would not think of themselves as gig workers. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You accurately term gig workers as business owners, but seem to imply that mystery shoppers are somehow being disingenuous by saying this is a business. I don't quite grasp what you mean. We own our own business, so I think the point is that we conduct ourselves as such--whatever that might mean to us.

I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.

@MrEd wrote:

A lot of moral grandstanding going on in these comments. Or perhaps it's virtue signaling, LOL.

Because some of us really are honest? Is that moral grandstanding?

I regularly see people say things like they can do two revealed gas station audits; different clients, different locations obviously, with 12 or more pumps each one (all requiring individual pump photos along with restroom and at least one in store and others) including driving and reports and submitting them in under an hour. And usually these times are given as a way to defend the excrement pay the MSC in question pays. “It’s ok to cut fees for everyone by 60% because I can do them so fast.” There is no moral outrage and pile-on. As a matter of fact if you go so far as to just ask advice, how could you do that, or say that’s impossible where I am, then you are criticized. There is absolutely no way that is anything other than the same “dialing it in” that is described here by Linda. It’s dishonesty by omission. Linda noticed the so-so floor but left it out.The MSC-defender didn’t even notice the floor because they were rushing. But here, Linda was honest about it and gets a pile-on. That’s the moral outrage and virtue signaling.

There was another brand gas station where someone described using a wide angle lens on their camera to get the one pump photo needed and other elements from a distance, even though the requirements were to visually inspect each and every pump and take one pump photo. The response here? “What phone? Maybe I need that phone.” No outrage, no “you’re a professional!” No “take a break,” no “you have mental health issues,” no “you give us all a bad name.” Again, I don’t see the difference between the shoppers’ integrity or professionalism in those two scenarios. One was an honest “You get what you pay for,” And one was “it’s ok to do these for low fees if you have the right phone so you don’t have to go near the pumps.”

So it seems inconsistent to me. It’s ok to rush and skip things for the shop but not on the report basically is the message.

@BirdyC wrote:

@MrEd wrote:

A lot of moral grandstanding going on in these comments. Or perhaps it's virtue signaling, LOL.

Because some of us really are honest? Is that moral grandstanding?

I have have broken guidelines on a few shops and while I never falsify information in a shop, I often give the employees the benefit of the doubt.

Another example is a shop where you have to wait 3 minutes to ask a question about a product. If no one approaches you, you need to find someone in another department and ask for help in the original department. This client will never check the video footage (they don't have access). I wait two minutes, walk to find an employee, ask if there is anyone in the original department and usually, I get an "I don't know". I then leave, answer the report that I was unable to receive help and collect the pay for about 3 minutes of "work". Do this in an area where the various stores that have this product are located and you can easily make significant $/hr.

@LindaM wrote:

@luckygirl0100 wrote:

@hbbigdaddy wrote:

Not sure what else can really be said on this topic. There are those that think (and act) based on the pay they are receiving for the shop. There are others that will put forth full effort regardless of the pay because that is what they feel should be done.

Neither side is going to convince the other to change. Time to move on!!!

AGREE 100%
I just hope that schedulers that visit this forum attempt to figure out who this person is and take appropriate action.

Shoppers are such a funny group.

#1 complaint: low pay!!! ridiculous pay!!! pay going down!!!

Possible solution: let's stick together and hold out until fees go up? Response: No

Possible solution: turn in poor quality work that aligns with pay? Response: No

What do we do? Complain to the wall and hopefully the MSC will hear us a mile away.

Yes, I do agree with one thing you said. Probably enough has been said about this topic. I will continue to do what I feel is right and what I feel is appropriate. You can put in hours of work for the same miserable pay if it suits you. I'm going to continue putting in poor -- and I admit, maybe inaccurate -- reports if the pay is ridiculously low. The MSC can take the report or not. I don't care.

Who said I was getting 'miserable' pay?
My pay : work ratio is just fine
I don't complain about pay, so don't try to put those words into my mouth. I don't like the pay, I don't take the job. Pretty damn simple.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2022 12:57AM by luckygirl0100.

Not to beat this dead horse even deader, but there's a whole helluva lot of difference between giving the minimum amount of required effort to a job in relation to the pay (thereby not cheating either yourself or the MSC) while still being honest and just being dishonest.

I think the OP mentioned they changed the answers because they didn't feel like explaining them.

Of course I put more effort into shops that require much detail. But I do NOT change my answers on things because I don't feel like explaining things. I agree with BirdyC...a detailed fine dining shop will require more effort than a fast food drive-thru shop. JUST BE HONEST regardless of which assignment it is. I'm not looking for every little detail with fast food place that I am with a high-end restaurant.

Exactly

@hbbigdaddy wrote:

I think the OP mentioned they changed the answers because they didn't feel like explaining them.

Of course I put more effort into shops that require much detail. But I do NOT change my answers on things because I don't feel like explaining things. I agree with BirdyC...a detailed fine dining shop will require more effort than a fast food drive-thru shop. JUST BE HONEST regardless of which assignment it is. I'm not looking for every little detail with fast food place that I am with a high-end restaurant.

luckygirl commented--I don't like the pay, I don't take the job. Pretty damn simple.

Bob agrees--That is my position on work. I do, though, respect that some shoppers accept jobs to aid schedulers, MSCs and/or clients. As an old adage goes, "To each his/her own."

By default, I give everyone credit and pass them… Unless they do something crazy, I say they are friendly! so… I agree - I wouldn’t make something up to get staff in trouble.

Easy Frances- it appears you are an employee of the MSC - so just monitor and silence the commentary (eye roll)