I'm going to try to avoid going into a rant, but this is a major pet peeve of mine. Inspired by another post about a car wash shop, I'm inspired to open a thread. At least I'll get it out of my system and maybe help someone avoid the same mistake.

In recent months I've experienced FOUR different MSCs with "requirements" that were not mentioned in the guidelines. And I feel like naming the MSCs in order of decreasing annoyance. Presumably it's not the client's fault, so let's leave them out.

* Market Force had a shop where you investigate several ways to pay but do it with one specific method. But that method wouldn't work. I documented thoroughly that it wouldn't work and then rechecked the guidelines. They didn't say what to do. I even tried to reach a scheduler, but no reply. So I decided that in the interest of the most complete possible report I would pay a different way and continue the rest of the shop. They declined payment because apparently what I should have done was walk away. Sorry I made more than the minimum effort, Market Force.

* Ipsos is usually pretty solid. But in one report the cashier made a mistake. I corrected them so the purchase would be legal and accurate, and then put the mistake in my report. I was dinged 3 points because I should have let them generate an inaccurate receipt. The guidelines make no mention of this situation. Of course the point of the shop is to test the cashier, but the client doesn't get any more information that way. They're still dependent on me pointing it out.

* Presto doesn't let you see the full questionnaire until you start filling it out. They're largely meant to be reported on-site but I had a bad connection and had already downloaded the guidelines. Said guidelines wanted two photos. But the report required more than two. I got lucky because I had taken extras and I ended up cropping one so it looked like I was focused on the thing they wanted instead of getting it in the corner of a wide shot. Fortunately it was accepted, but no idea what would have happened if I'd only taken 2 shots.

* Intelli-shop wanted me to interact with a specific category of staff member. The guidelines make no mention whatsoever of that type of employee. They ask for an interaction with a different employee, but not this group. So I was scored 8/10. The only reason I'm putting this last is because the questionnaire had an appropriate section on that category, but (I think) even then it wasn't described as mandatory. (I can't check.) Also the guidelines specifically say "Please do not begin writing the report until you get home."

I can't be the only one experiencing this, right? What do you all do when an editor comes back and says "You should have done this differently?"

Yep, I got screwed on a shop like this. Guidelines and said something specific about a competitor shop. I followed them and was told it I did it wrong and the shop was declined and I was getting a 1/10 and no reimbursement. I tried arguing it and eventually got them to remove the 1/10 but no reimbursement. I had 10/10 on many other shops with them so it's not like I've got a questionable track record with them.
I really wish there was some sort of protection for us when it comes to these issues. Communication and what to do when an issue arises seem to be major blind spots in this industry (in my somewhat short span of experience).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2022 01:53PM by olympia tennenbaum.

With the car wash shop, the requirement wasn't in the shop report, but *was* in the guidelines. So there's no reason for complaint, imo. We have to read both documents.

But.... There are many times (e.g., IPSOS, particularly on the Sassie side) when the guidelines are ambiguous and the report does nothing to enlighten the shopper. And/or there are drop-down questions that appear when you're in the "live" form, but that didn't show in the print form and weren't mentioned in the guidelines. That's totally wrong--and shoppers shouldn't be dinged for not making an observation that they had no way of knowing was required. Or, and this is what used to really burn me, you notice a discrepancy between guidelines and survey before you do the shop, send a message to the scheduler pointing that out and asking for clarification, and they don't see the problem--even if it's obvious! Therefore, they don't answer your question. Or they give you an answer, but it doesn't answer the question you asked.

But, and I might be in the minority here, I think that if the particular point is in *either* the guidelines *or* in the report, even if not in both, the shopper has no reason to complain if he/she doesn't make a required observation or doesn't handle a situation correctly that he/she could have if both documents had been read. But some folks come on here and complain, blame the MSC, and act as if they've been treated unfairly. But the shopper made the mistake. Things *should* be in both documents, but there's a reason they tell us to read both and not rely on just one or the other.

OTOH, yes, sometimes there's no way to know something because it's not stated anywhere--and then when you go to fill out the report--voila! It appears by magic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2022 02:53AM by BirdyC.

I have noticed all of the above. Ditto on no protection for the shoppers. On some shops, after you have done a few similar, you will get the hang of what they actually want, but woe to any new shopper on a project.

You pretty much have to read between the lines with some of the MSCs because there is not half a chance in Hades that some of their schedulers will answer an email about such to a lowly mystery shopper, even though it clearly states in the guidelines that you should email the scheduler if you have a question or a problem.

Shoppers are almost guaranteed to get burned by any kind of anomalous situation with some of these big companies. As long as everything is as it should be, everything is fine, but woe if it isn't.

Over the weekend, I had a shop where the email, the guidelines and the note on the board all said something different on one requirement. Kudos to the scheduler who answered my email and clarified the ambiguities. The sad thing is, it should not be so unusual and one should not be literally surprised when other folks in the MS pipeline actually do their assigned job when it comes to getting the shops done. That would solve at least 90% of the problems mentioned in the above posts.

I have experienced first hand trying to read guidelines on my iPhone.

I learned the hard way I MUST access the guidelines on my computer. On new shops, I still print them out; on familiar shops, I just note any changes.

I have come to believe that we cannot access 100% of the written guidelines on our phones. I don't know why -- some gnarly algorithm? -- but I have learned it the hard way.

If I read your post correctly, you did not get paid for one shop of the 4. I'm sorry that happened (I do believe it has happened to us all at one time or another). The others you were paid, but "dinged".

I don't sweat "dings", as long as I get paid.

deleted

deleted

Pfui. Ran into it again today. Read the guidelines, took notes, even looked over the questionnaire.

Got home and no where in the guidelines/questionnaire was there mention of COVID protocol. But the actual questionnaire wanted the name and description of every team member NOT wearing a mask.

A dozen people were working, not one was masked. And I had no idea at the time I would be asked for names and descriptions of every single employee!

Not happening.

I won't be doing another of these, either. Heavy narrative, minimum of 4 "discretely taken" inside photos of a gas station, no reveal. But dang, I've done less work and had shorter reports with a full reveal.

It irks me when you cannot see the questions ahead of time, and there's a hidden bombshell like this.

I'm so ticked I actually don't care if I get paid, because right now I'm thinking I'll never do another one of these.

I feel your pain on those hidden bombshells. With time, I have become very wary of some particular of the MSCs and schedulers who tend toward that kind of behavior. There has been a lot of discussion lately about the strong language coming from the MSCs because of the unethical behavior they see among shoppers. Well, I don't actually consider it ethical to not fully disclose major aspects of a shop in the negotiations, and that is exactly what it is when they are trying to line up shoppers without actually telling them what is honestly involved on a particular project. We bid or apply accordingly to what we are told needs to get done for X amount of dollars. We consider if we can do it for that amount before we apply or negotiate.

You don't get extra for free just because you forgot to mention it or thought you were pulling something on the shoppers by not including what was really required in a particular shop. Some of them sure do think they can though. It is kind of like, if you hire a plumber to fix your leaky faucet, and then after she fixes it, you mention that your clogged toilet also needs to be fixed. You pay extra for the clogged toilet, the extra work is not free. But somehow or other, these companies think it is okay to pull on shoppers. The first couple I had a while back, both with the same company, who would repeatedly forget to mention certain shops were targeted, even though they were priced and promoted like an easy shop. So yea, they got over on me. I sucked it up and completed those shops because I felt like it was the right thing to do. However, there was a point where I realized that was pretty much their modus operandi, and I have pulled away from working with that MSC. They are flat not truthful in their contract negotiations with shoppers, and every single shop we do is on a contract basis.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2022 06:56PM by GinnyLynn.

I had a Post Office shop rejected because I chatted for a few seconds with the clerk and "took too long" to leave. Apparently, that made it unacceptable to forward to the client. It was only the second one I'd ever done and my instinct as a shopper was to casually make a little chit-chat, thinking about how not to look like a shopper. Then I saw that all the supplies I needed to check to make sure they were adequately stocked were on the other side of the lobby, past the vestibule from which I would have exited, so I meandered over to the other side, pretending to admire the woodwork and architecture of the historic building. And then I stopped to avail myself of the hand sanitizer, all so I could assess the supplies and cleanliness of that area. I left about four minutes after I finished with the clerk, but that was apparently too long.

I was told that chatting with the clerk was not allowed and that I only needed to "briefly glance" at the supplies to assess them, and should have left immediately. Um, sure, but the display with the supplies in it was about 30 feet away, facing away from me, and I couldn't see jack you-know-what. I argued my point, but ultimately the project manager wouldn't budge. And that was an expensive package to mail! I hate paying retail rates for postage. I get commercial rates for my small business, but do these shops solely to get the postage reimbursed. My shop being rejected after paying retail postage really hurt. Sigh.

The guidelines say to check supplies, and they're pretty specific about what to look for. They don't say to give a quick cursory glance. And perhaps they do say to leave immediately after the transaction, but they don't tell you that you can't chat or take your time to assess the place before leaving. Now when I do them I high-tail it out of there as soon as I'm done at the window and, until I'm paid, I am always stressing about whether I screwed up again somehow or not.

.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2022 01:12AM by shopnyc.

@ceasesmith wrote:

Pfui. Ran into it again today. Read the guidelines, took notes, even looked over the questionnaire.

Got home and no where in the guidelines/questionnaire was there mention of COVID protocol. But the actual questionnaire wanted the name and description of every team member NOT wearing a mask.

A dozen people were working, not one was masked. And I had no idea at the time I would be asked for names and descriptions of every single employee!

Cease, what a PITA! But can you just answer that none of the employees was wearing a mask? You can't be expected to record names & descriptions of a dozen employees! I assume that they're assuming all employees will be masked and are looking for the exceptions. Here there are no exceptions.

It's totally unfair to shoppers to have hidden questions on the survey!

I doubt the issue of "hidden" or undisclosed instructions/observations are an attempt to trip up the shopper. Why would an MSC do this? They want reports they can accept and send to the client. They don't want re-shops, they don't want to miss their deadlines to the client.

From what I can see, the problem is one of MSCs not having a second or third set of eyes review both the guidelines and the surveys to make sure they match and not having somebody view them on a desktop, laptop/tablet, and phone to make sure they appear correctly on each. And they should have shopper focus groups any time there's a new-to-them project so they can get feedback on exactly the issues we talk about here, including the above but also ambiguities and contradictions.

They're not out to "get" shoppers. That's a paranoid outlook. That would be counter to their own best interests and their pocketbooks. Carelessness (probably instigated by the get-it-done-now instead of the get-it-done-right mindset) seems to be the driving force.

Shoppers should continue to point out these issues and ask as many questions as possible to get the right information. I just had a shop where the report wanted the amount I paid for a product and in what currency, But the answer field would only accept numerals, so I couldn't specify the currency type. I emailed the scheduler to alert her and got a thank-you email back. Maybe nobody else had bothered to let her know. .

When we can't know about an issue until we actually do the shop, we should follow up with the scheduler to point out the problem (and hope they escalate it up the ladder).

I'm stuck doing a online car purchase shop where nothing is going as expected. I've literally been trying to do the shop for two months. Thankfully the scheduler has been fantastic but I'm still stuck because nothing that they want me to capture I can capture because I physically can't buy the car for a various number of reasons due to their website.

I have done this one before from a different MSC and it was a pain but not horrible. This is turning into a full-blown miserable experience.

I just hope I get some kind of fee out of this, even if it's not the originally agreed upon amount.

@BirdyC wrote:

They're not out to "get" shoppers. That's a paranoid outlook. That would be counter to their own best interests and their pocketbooks.

I totally agree. To me, it's simply sloppiness or carelessness in writing the guidelines, and overlooking or not realizing the minutiae that shoppers need to be aware of.

I do agree that if a shop is a targeted one, it needs to be disclosed upfront. But I rarely see one that's not disclosed, and if I were to take one and find out only after the fact that it's targeted, and I didn't want to it, I'd cancel and tell them why.

Along a similar line, today I accepted two tire shops that were listed at twice their usual fee. It wasn't until I read the complete guidelines that I discovered they were recorded. Not a big deal to me, as I live in a one-party state and do it regularly, but I was annoyed at the surprise.