The latest article from @James Bond 007.5 has now been published.

[www.mysteryshoppermagazine.com]

Discuss in here!

Another good article...

Very informative.

. . . and well written. Thanks.

Wow! What an interesting article! I would have never thought of requesting new locations for the following month. Thanks for helping me see that sometimes we can "think out of the box."

Communication and cooperation with a scheduler helps get the exceptions made. This is one reason why it's important not to burn bridges with any MSC if you can avoid it. The more reliable and cooperative and willing to learn you come across as, the more likely they will try to work with you.

@James, I am impressed with your ability to write in four different styles.

@cubbiecat wrote:

@James, I am impressed with your ability to write in four different styles.

The different styles may come in handy if you think you have been spotted as a shopper. Or maybe if you do a bank, shop month after month.

The hardest one was actually using the thesaurus for the more precise "word picture". There were literally so many options I had to make sure I maintained some degree of consistency.

On most shops, I look at the door and see how many fingerprints are on it. One or two tell me that they are regularly cleaning it...huge areas of smudges tell em they aren't cleaning on a regular basis. That was simply changing my focus. The same thing occurred with the person who was focused on how the interior decor made them feel, it was just changing what I normally focus on during a shop. One of the banks was located in an old small passenger train depot. It was in a bad area of town as all the windows were covered with bars. Needless to say, that made its way into my comments, specifically that it made that shopper "uncomfortable" as it felt like they were in a jail.

Wow, that sure was a lot of work on your part and I hope you were well-paid. I couldn't write in four different styles if I tried; I'm pretty sure of that. Why in the world did the client want that anyway?

So when a client is expecting shops to be done by different shoppers and schedulers, shoppers and MSCs conspire to hide that in order to get things done on deadline, it's good, but when I "double dip" on a shop offered by two different MSCs for the same location at the same time, it's bad?

Can someone explain this double standard to me?

I wondered about that myself. That would be the only reason for requesting 4 different styles of writing.

Sounds like you are advocating working with dishonest, shady schedulers who want to deceive their clients and submit work supposedly from numerous shoppers when in fact it's just one. Personally I would distance myself from such schedulers instead of trying to get more shops from them, but I think integrity is extremely important in mystery shopping. I'm kind of surprised the magazine would print an article like that.

Does the company paying for the shops understand that it is one shopper doing the shops? How can an editor not know it is the same person since the sign in name should be the same? Sounds kinda odd all the way around.

Good advice; I just hope this was all done with the client's cooperation. Sounds a touch shady.

On the other hand, I don't know why companies really care if the work is from different shoppers as long as the shopper isn't identified while they're at the location. If they have an expectation that they want their locations mystery shopped X times per month, that's the price they pay.

Here's the short form since I have apparently managed to confuse some people.

1-The MSC needed 5 banks shopped on a 500+ mile route.
2-After research, I made an offer to the MSC that I would do the job, provided that I could do the remaining 40 locations the following month and without the time and per day limit restrictions. In other words, that was my price for doing the 5 shops on this one day.
3-The MSC asked me if I could vary my writing style, and I agreed. Based on the performance I did with the 5 shops, I was given the 40 shop route the following month.

Yes, the MSC knew that I was doing all 40 locations. That was completely out in the open between the MSC and myself. I don't know if they told the customer, and it's none of my concern whether they did or not. For the record, I haven't done any further shops for this particular MSC. They have asked me, but that route, although financially profitable, did prove mentally exhausting and I've decided it isn't worth doing at the price.

The point of the story is that I did not break the rules on my own, I told the MSC what doing the job would require and they made the decision to grant me the shops. In fact, that is the point of the article...ask to see if the rules can be broken before you decide to go and break them on your own.

It isn't a double standard. The MSC had full knowledge of what I was doing. Disclosure was made. Your original post on the subject inferred that you were not going to tell the MSCs involved, and you were told by experienced posters here that you should check with both MSCs and obtain their consent that it was okay for you to double dip.

Also, I do not know if the fact that I did all 40 locations was kept from the client or not. But that is something that is not my concern.

@Misanthrope wrote:

So when a client is expecting shops to be done by different shoppers and schedulers, shoppers and MSCs conspire to hide that in order to get things done on deadline, it's good, but when I "double dip" on a shop offered by two different MSCs for the same location at the same time, it's bad?

Can someone explain this double standard to me?

No confusion at all, that was what I assumed had happened. I'm not making a judgment, but you could be banned directly by the client if they found out what happened and that you were a party to it. I'm surprised that the MSC not only willingly partook, but also involved you, ostensibly unknowingly.

Granted, that is possible Chigirl...but I don't know if they informed the client or not. And that isn't my concern. Also, as I stated, the route turned out to be so mentally exhausting that I've turned it down since...there needs to be more money on the table to make it worth my doing it again.

And, given that I've been offered the same route since, if I had to bet, my money would be on the client knowing that I did all 40 locations. No where in the story did I mention how long it took the MSC to get back in touch with me. I don't remember the time, but I know it was in excess of 24 hours.

@James Bond 007.5 wrote:

And, given that I've been offered the same route since, if I had to bet, my money would be on the client knowing that I did all 40 locations.

Do you know why the client would want you to write their reports in 4 different styles?

I don't, but from a business point of view, I could see trying to get away with having one person do all the locations one time without telling the client, but to try to do it more times doesn't make sense unless the client knows.

Actually I do have a theory. The MSC contacted whoever at the client and they gave an okay without contacting their supervisor. Again, I DO NOT KNOW, I'm saying this as a theory.

Or maybe the scheduler was running amok and the MSC didn't know? I guess it's impossible for you to figure that out now. But, somewhere along the line, the scheduler, MSC or client's own staff, the client's getting played.

Here's another theory for the different writing styles: So the bank staff would be less likely to ID the shopper. If 40 banks in one state were shopped in 3 days, with all the same writing style, it would be easier for the bank managers to compare notes (they all know each other) and figure it out. I'm not sure I could pull it off either, but I think it's a stellar idea!

Clients are known for unrealistic expectations and demands. Look at the Papa Johns shops and how they are often with multiple MSCs. My guess is the client believes they are getting distinct shopper pools because they have no clue how this business works. Another example is a certain high end sports car. The client started pushing for only having people shop the dealers who could actually afford to pay $50,000 to $100,000 plus for one of their cars. No doubt it looks good on paper, but try to convince someone who has an extra 100K to drop it would be worth their time to learn how to use a video camera or write a tedious report for a $50 to $200 discount. And then find enough of them to cover several hundred dealerships across the U.S.

Some requirements are nuts but you need to ask permission and learn to adjust.

If the company being shopped wants different shoppers, it is the responsibility of the MSC to supply the various shoppers. The fact that the MSC and the shopper agreed to write the reports in different ways suggests that both understood that it was not entirely kosher. So several other questions now arise.
1. If a shopper suspects that the MSC is not doing what the company wants, should the shopper decline the shop on ethical grounds? Or can the shopper use the standard "they told me it was ok or they told me to do it" excuse.
2. By agreeing to take all 40 shops the next round, was the shopper help devalue the shops? No bonuses would be offered because the shops would all be assigned early in the month.

Iagal, I can't answer your first question. As far as question 2, in this instance, the shops have not been devalued. The fee per shop has remained the same, and I have seen a few with a modest bonus added.

Since I asked my initial question as to why the client wanted reports written in various voices, I haven't been able to think of any reasons that made sense. So, I ask our talented friend who actually pulled this one off: why do you think you were asked to do it? I mean, when they first asked if you could do it, what was your first thought of such an unusual request? Why did you think you were doing it?

To quote Alfred, Lord Tennyson, from Charge of the Light Brigade, "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die." And I say that just a bit tongue in cheek. I really didn't think anything of it at the time. I was looking at earning in excess of $1k in a three day period. As I said, I named what it would take for me to do the job and, sometime over a day later, I had the assignment. I have a handful of friends who know what I do and we joke that I'm a prostitute. Well, it's kind of true. Meet my price and I'll do what you want. If you're old enough, you'll remember the Wendy's "Where's the beef?" commercials. For me, especially on long routes, it's "Where's the money?"

Now, enough of the flippancy. I really didn't give it any thought when the request was made. Reflecting upon it, I see several possible reasons. In no particular order:

1- They didn't want the bank managers to be able to compare notes and see that the same person had shopped all the locations.

2- Whoever they asked at the client okayed the assignment without getting approval from their superior. As LisaSTL said, it is possible the client doesn't realize how limited the shopper pool may actually be. This particular route covered about 750 miles and the largest town I was in had a population of maybe 5,000.

3- I don't believe this was done without informing someone at the client's location. I say this for three reasons. First, it took over 24 hours for me to get a reply. If the MSC was going to do it without the permission of the client, I would have had an answer in a matter of hours. Second, I could see a MSC doing it one time if the client wasn't informed, but as I have been asked to do it again [several times], I feel confident that at least someone at the client knows that there is a limited supply of shoppers. Additionally, this is a fairly small MSC; I would almost consider them a boutique MSC. From a business point of view, I can't see them wanting to risk losing any client. Also, I have started to see some bonuses showing up on this particular job. Perhaps it might have educated the client that the shopper pool isn't as vast as they might have thought.