Hello,

I'm new here, and one of the things that I have often seen are posts that are either edited for ICA violations, or instances in which one member of the forum warns the another of violating or rather of coming close to violating an ICA by either revealing the name of a mystery shopping company and a client of it, or some other "sensitive" information. So my question is why does this matter? I get that it's against the rules, and that a shopper can get into trouble for breaking any rule that they have agreed to, but what I don't get is WHY it is against the rules.

Why make a big deal out of it? What would be the consequence of ICAs NOT prohibiting shoppers from freely sharing this kind of information? What is it that the mystery shopping companies are so afraid of that they feel like they need to make this, seemingly, a standard part of all ICAs that all shoppers must agree to?

I'm also curious as to why the forum moderators concern themselves with the policing of this. I understand it's in the best interests of the individual shopper not to violate an ICA, but I'm unclear on why an individual ICA violation is of any interest to the forum as a group. In the event that any action is taken against anybody, I would think it would just be the individual that violated the ICA rather than any other party. Is it simply just to be viewed favorably by the mystery shopping companies, or is there some way somebody else's ICA violation can affect me personally (in a bad kind of way)?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2013 02:22AM by Snoopy4678.

Hi, Snoopy, welcome to the forum. The guidelines of our forum prohibit revealing the client names of mystery shopping companies, which is why the moderators edit posts which reveal the names of clients. By posting on the forum, we all agree to follow the forum's guidelines, thus, regardless of whether a company has a confidentiality agreement in their ICA, our guidelines determine that we do not reveal.

When a shopper registers with a mystery shopping company, he is required to sign an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA). About 80% of these ICAs contain confidentiality agreements. Some of the confidentiality agreements are stricter than others, but almost all of them prohibit the mystery shopper from revealing the company's clients and "proprietary information," which is sometimes not clearly spelled out by the agreement. By signing the ICA, we enter into a legal agreement with a company, and many of us are very serious about that agreement.

When a poster violates an ICA by revealing a name or information that appears proprietary, it is usually because the poster is new and did not know or understand OR because he simply slipped up. In both of those cases, other posters frequently "warn" the poster, and many times the poster edits his own post before the moderators do. I would say that most forum members warn each other because we "watch each other's backs" and we know that in most cases the poster would not have intentionally wanted to dishonor their agreement with a mystery shopping company.

Another consideration is that this is an open internet forum and it is available to anyone who has access to a computer. Although we are primarily mystery shoppers, many editors, schedulers, mystery shopping company administrators and owners also read here. There have been times when a poster compromised an ICA and was contacted by the mystery shopping company. There have been other times when a poster posted a story about a company only to have the company post their version of the same story. It sometimes makes for interesting reading.

As for someone else's ICA violation affecting you personally, probably not. And, as to "What would be the consequence of ICAs NOT prohibiting shoppers from freely sharing this kind of information? What is it that the mystery shopping companies are so afraid of that they feel like they need to make this, seemingly, a standard part of all ICAs that all shoppers must agree to? " That would be a question for you to ask each mystery shopping company. When registering with each company, you can read the ICA and determine if you are willing to agree to it or not. If you have questions about a particular ICA, you might ask questions of the company before agreeing.

Thanks for the welcome, and well thought out response Austinmom.

I can appreciate that members warn other members of potential ICA violations as a courtesy, however, I can only surmise that it is a forum rule not to reveal client names of a company in order for the forum to be viewed favorably by the mystery companies that post jobs on here. Therefore, if it wasn't against forum rules, then perhaps schedulers wouldn't post jobs here, and/or present their side of the story if the forum didn't abide by some code of honor and fairness. If that were to happen, then it would become more difficult to research companies as the stories told on the forum might become a bit more one-sided, and opportunities harder to learn about. And if enough individuals lost their ability to shop due ICA violations, said individuals wouldn't have much of a reason to be a part of mystery shop forum, membership would decline, and it just wouldn't be the same vibrant community that it is. I don't know if I'd be right, but that would be my guess as to how the actions of the individual could ever affect the group (assuming the forum rules did not prohibit the naming of companies and their clients).

However, what I am really interested in knowing, from any other member of the forum that might know, is not so much why it is against forum rules so much as why is it against mystery company rules. (If it weren't for being against mystery company rules, I don't see how it would ever be against forum rules.) It is essentially the mystery company's rules that their clients not be named. I don't know why that is, but I'd imagine the reason is the same for all the companies that have this policy in place. Perhaps it's because they got their legal advise all from the same type of lawyer, who believes in having unnecessary legal provisions in the ICA "just because" or "just to be safe", or maybe its because they somehow feel like not having a confidentiality agreement a part of the ICA puts them at a competitive disadvantage over those companies that do. I don't know.

It would seem to me that this is just one of those rules that we have to follow without really having the benefit of knowing why beyond the overly simplistic explanation of "just because". (Its not something I really care to consult a lawyer about or bother the mystery companies with as I don't consider getting the answer to be THAT important. Its just something that I think would be nice to know as to better understand how this industry operates, and why it does in the way that it does.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2013 03:59AM by Snoopy4678.

Hello, Snoopy, welcome to the forum. I think most of the ICAs prohibit revealing a company's clients because most of the companies prefer to keep their client list confidential. This might be particularly important to a company that developed a new client who had not previously had a mystery shopping program. Clients are always subject to moving to a new mystery shopping company if they're offered a better deal; therefore, it would be to a company's advantage to keep their client list as confidential as possible, particularly if they've mined new resources.

Thanks MDavisnowell. It would seem my guess that mystery shop companies prohibit disclosure of their clients as to not be at an competitive disadvantage could be a possible explanation, though such a non-disclosure provision seems somewhat like an unnecessary hindrance to shoppers in my opinion. I've read a number of posts on this forum, and it would appear that whenever someone is asking what company has what clients, that it is often a new, and inexperienced shopper seeking this information - not someone looking to perform competitor research or cause any particular company harm. In such a case, the availability of such information helps mystery shop companies by aiding in recruitment efforts. (Shoppers and companies can more easily find one another when this information is freely available.)

If someone did want to perform competitor research though, then why would they bother with the shoppers is what I'd wonder. Why not just go straight to the source, and sign up on the competitor's website that they were interested in researching and run with that? That would provide much more reliable and detailed information than what would typically come from another shopper on here I would think. So it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. In any case, I guess it's just something we have to deal with as shoppers.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2013 07:01AM by Snoopy4678.

I'm inclined to agree with you snoopy...

You're exactly right that transparency would help shoppers find work and mystery shopping companies find shoppers. I'd love to have transparency but apparently most of the companies don't feel it to be in their best interest.

Considering how easy it would be to do competitor research without getting any shoppers to violate their ICA, maybe what it's all about is the not the forum's wishes, or even the mystery company's wishes, but rather the client's wishes. Maybe for some reason, it is the client that insists on the confidentiality, and the mystery company that simply puts it in their ICAs to enforce it.

You may be onto a bit of it, Snoopy. We have had employees of clients read on the forum. I have been PM'd over the years by several new posters asking "who shops xxxxx?" When I cite ICA violations and decline to disclose I got more PMs telling me they were employees of the company and just wanted to know which company shops their employer. Of course, the answer is to ask your employer, to which I have gotten "they won't tell me." Hmmmmmm

I don't know if that is THE reason for the confidentiality provision in ICAs, but so far that possible explanation is the one that makes the most sense to me of the ones that I've heard or considered. If an employee found out what mystery company shops their employer, then they could have a friend sign up as a shopper for that company for the purpose of filing reports that make them look good.

Of course that would be a major violation of the ICA that their friend signed to become a shopper, though I'm not sure that kind of violation is necessarily easy for the mystery company to find out about or prove as to take action against it. If that should be the case, then it may explain why there is a confidentiality provision in ICAs, and why the reason for its inclusion isn't made widely known to all shoppers. It would seem to me that most shoppers simply sign the ICAs so they can get the work rather than question the provisions in it. So if that's the case, I could see how mystery companies pull this off as well as their possible motivation for doing so. (They know most shoppers just want to make some money, and do not want their to be a widespread awareness of how the system could be taken advantage of if that were the case).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2013 11:28PM by Snoopy4678.

Snoopy,

I think the strongest reason for this rule is to hinder unscrupulous employees from figuring out too much about the mystery shopping program, like when the shopper is coming, or even having friends act to file undeserving good reports. Those things can seriously undermine the business itself. Therefore, revealing who shops which client has become the strongest of taboos in the business. Toward that end, the mystery shopping companies will sometimes enforce those wishes to the point of warning and possibly deactivating non-compliant shoppers.

To operate this forum, our forum owner has found he needs to respect that request for secrecy and has made it one of the very few rules we have to not reveal the clients of mystery shopping companies. Thus you will see comments from moderators toward that end. Also, forum members have often taken it on themselves to police that rule by pointing it out to posters. Thus, you will often see comments asking posters to remove either the client name or the name of the mystery shopping company from the post. "ICA Violation!" is another way of saying the same thing.

That makes sense.

this board could also be 'mystery shopped' as well - someone on here as a member could be shopping us and other similar boards as well.

Excellent, excellent thread folks.