I'm not talking abt a video shop, where the MS is recording, but where they say the store has video and will be tracking you.

To me this makes no logical sense, as in most cases no one from the company has ever seen the shopper, nor do they have photos of you. Sure, they have a general description, but if you're dressed and conducting yourself to blend in with the clientele, it seems to me it would be very difficult (not to mention costly) to actually track everybody in general.

Thoughts, anyone?

I would say that it happens mostly when there is a bad report. In some cases the location wants to 'prove you wrong' rather than clean up their act.

Within the past few months a shopper friend has mentioned that the company contacted him asking if he was the guy at the corner table with a laptop. His response was 'no' and he was wondering if he should go further to tell them that there were 3 laptops and he was not one of them. My response was tell them that he 'was not at the corner table with a laptop'. That eliminates only one person as the possible shopper if they are playing games of 'spot the shopper' with the videos.

A bunch of years ago a shopper did a grocery that required a bottom of the cart observation by the cashier. She reported that they did not spot the item and they also did not do one other required thing at the register. The store came back claiming she had nothing in the bottom of the cart and they had the video 'to prove it' and insisted she be dropped from shopping their stores. She protested, they rechecked their video and described her and the child that was with her--except she took no child with her and the description was vague. Eventually the store realized that the register time did not match the video time and when they adjusted for the time difference, things were exactly as the shopper had stated. There was no apology, only a reinstatement of her as a shopper and allowing her to further shop the client. This was back before the economic downturn that has brought such a glut of shoppers into the field. The shopper had been good and reliable, which was the only reason anybody even bothered to check her protests. I suspect today it is easier to take the client's word, terminate the shopper and move on.

There are virtually no locations that do not have video cameras. You need to assume you are being recorded at all times you are in any location, whether you are there on a shop or not and that especially you will be recorded at the register. I don't know that the corporate offices of the client will bother reviewing the video but I feel sure that the inadequate locations will, provided they weren't such sloths that their video is on a 24hr overwrite loop or broken and unrepaired.

They have a description and generally the time you arrived and departed. What more do they need?

I'm sure no company could justify checking each and every mystery shop, but I'm just as sure that many are randomly checked, and if the report is particularly negative that would also be checked. I think the best assumption is that each and every one of them is checked, so I my thing as I'm supposed to and don't worry about who's watching.

Of course I was in the cash transit business for 15 years so I guess I'm used to being watched.

Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A bunch of years ago a shopper did a grocery that
> required a bottom of the cart observation by the
> cashier. She reported that they did not spot the
> item and they also did not do one other required
> thing at the register. The store came back
> claiming she had nothing in the bottom of the cart
> and they had the video 'to prove it' and insisted
> she be dropped from shopping their stores. She
> protested, they rechecked their video and
> described her and the child that was with
> her--except she took no child with her and the
> description was vague. Eventually the store
> realized that the register time did not match the
> video time and when they adjusted for the time
> difference, things were exactly as the shopper had
> stated. There was no apology, only a
> reinstatement of her as a shopper and allowing her
> to further shop the client.

Time to buy a couple dozen eggs and accidentally drop them in the store. Instant justice! :-) jk

In most retail stores video cams are aimed at every spot where cash may be exchanged, plus many other points of interest such as displays of high priced goods. All the client needs is the receipt time and they can considerably narrow the field of "suspects." This is a good reason to ALWAYS note in your report if the receipt time does not match your clock time!

One of the reasons that I love covert video shopping is that I, too, have proof of what occurred during a shop.

Unfortunately there was not a happy ending here for the shopper. There was, of course, no additional compensation for the time spent defending her shop. There was no getting around the anger of being accused of falsifying a shop. There was no likelihood of shopping the client in the future anonymously once they had examined the video so closely. Not long after that there was another tussle with another company and the shopper quit shopping because it was just not worth it for the time and emotional energy involved.

Primarily I would assume that cameras are to deter theft, and identify the perpetrator. Being an honest shopper, the dire warnings and threats of being videoed rankles. So why don't they just view video and forgo mystery shopping? That of course would be a losing proposition. Think of the time it would take. And, the employee viewing video may sneeze, momentarily look away, or turn into a zombie.

I was questioned once. The MSP said the video did not show any active interaction with the associate. Such a simple, simple shop which required about 15 seconds of my time. Ruffled my feathers, but instead of spending time on my defense, I emailed them back and asked them what I was wearing. Never heard another word.

The one and only time I was spotted as the shopper was after a bar audit I had done many times in same place. I gave them a glowing report, so, no it doesn't always happen with negative reports. I think as a woman alone sitting at the bar, it was an instinct and they called on it. I used to say, this is my hour alone, close to my house and I enjoy the food, loving to sit at the bar as it is quicker to get a seat and everyone is so friendly...guess they bought it for so long, then got nervous. Maybe every now and then, camera's are checked, or I looked at my phone a bit too much...anyone's guess, but I can't do that (my favorite) location for a year. I should be able to start again soon, but don't know if I will. I do think telling you to "beware" of camera checks are a scare tatic.

Years ago I was pegged as the shopper on a cell phone job for then Shop'n Chek. I give them credit for the way it was handled. First they had the store describe me and what I was wearing, called and gave me the info and just asked me to confirm or not. They also said it happens and I was not banned from further shops for the client. While we talked I think they said that the store figured it out because it was unusual for someone to spend so much time and walk away without purchasing. Proof that scenarios do give us away What I found silly was they had received a glowing report and really just wasted everyone's time.

It usually only brought up when there is a discrepancy in the report. i.e. When you say you spoke with Mr. Jones from the bank and Mr. Jones was on vacation at that time. The bank will review the tape and see that you weren't in the bank at the time of the report/shop.

It's best to err on the side of caution and stick to the facts. You never know when they will "go to the video tape". Props to Warner Wolf...


Tony DeOliveira
Portamer Marketing
[www.portamer.com]