I've been thinking on this discussion. I am not sure some of what is involved isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. These certain MSCs seem fully convinced that mystery shoppers are scum dogs, so they spew vile, threatening rhetoric and treat them like scum dogs. In the meantime, shoppers who aren't actually scum dogs get tired of being treated like scum dogs, so they move on to better MSCs at the first opportunity. This leaves the MSCs who think and treat shoppers like scum dogs with little more than scum dogs on their roster of shoppers (i.e., the best ones are long gone). From that perspective, it is no wonder they might be having a problem with shopper integrity. Also taken from that perspective, threatening rhetoric from these MSCs and schedulers could well be a red flag in more than one way. At any rate, I generally move on from the companies that spew such. I am just flat not interested in having that kind of negativity an everyday part of my life.

@BirdyC wrote:

how could one MSC know what other ones we work for? Maybe there's a secret blacklist we don't know about!

Actually, there is such a "list"--at least the equivalent of one.

Also, independent schedulers work for more than one MS company, so if you get banned at one company for misbehaving, others will know. From what I recall they have their own forum where they alert each other about troublesome shoppers.

So to lying, stealing, cheating shoppers--word gets around.

EXACTLY my point.

And in the type of shop the OP was talking about the client is testing the integrity of their employees! The person testing the integrity of the employee needs to have the highest standard of ethics.

@nolimitem wrote:

Ok, but since this could very well be the case. That plumber did 20 jobs (shops) for you. 20 X 5 has now become $100. This can easily add up over time.

@GinnyLynn wrote:

I've been thinking on this discussion. I am not sure some of what is involved isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. These certain MSCs seem fully convinced that mystery shoppers are scum dogs, so they spew vile, threatening rhetoric and treat them like scum dogs. In the meantime, shoppers who aren't actually scum dogs get tired of being treated like scum dogs, so they move on to better MSCs at the first opportunity. This leaves the MSCs who think and treat shoppers like scum dogs with little more than scum dogs on their roster of shoppers (i.e., the best ones are long gone).

@GinnyLynn, I agree wholeheartedly with your basic premise. However, the wording cited by the OP wasn't, in my opinion, threatening or unprofessional. It's nowhere near treating shoppers like scum, imo.

You must not have seen emails from a certain MSC that truly are accusatory and threatening. Every single email, from the offer to the confirmation to any subsequent communication you have with these people is full of implied accusations that you're going to flake, threats about what will happen if you do, and so on. I stopped shopping for them in part because of that. And a certain scheduler often mentioned on this forum has a reputation for accusatory, threatening emails.

Truly, I'm not sure *why* the language used by this MSC is construed to be threatening! I wish somebody would answer my questions.

It sounds informational more than anything. Yes, it's putting shoppers on alert, and worded differently, it could be threatening: But they're explaining what has happened in the past, not pro-actively accusing all of their shoppers of being dishonest and assuming that they all will be. Truly, it's not personal, but it seems that some folks here are taking it as such. Because we're an honest bunch doesn't mean all shoppers are. If they've had significant issues with this in the past, why wouldn't they include information about it in the guidelines?.

I understand what you are saying BirdyC, and I do understand that you have been trying to make that a discussion. However, I am not going to get into an argument or even a discussion about what is and is not out of line in that regard, or even where that particular post might rate on such a continuum. I don't really care. But I do understand the point of the OP, and we all have our boundaries. Personally, I don't like getting that kind of "recruitment" email either. At its most basic, those little emails about open shops are job recruitment postings, and I am not enticed by such. Would any other job recruiter on the entire planet post such and honestly expect people to apply for that job? I'm just plain not interested in working with folks hurling that many threats. I fully agree with the OP on that one. It's a red flag to me too, and I just plain don't want such jobs/contracts.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2022 01:05AM by GinnyLynn.

@GinnyLynn wrote:

I understand what you are saying BirdyC, and I do understand that you have been trying to make that a discussion. However, I am not going to get into an argument or even a discussion about what is and is not out of line in that regard, or even where that particular post might rate on such a continuum. .

I "get" the point in general, but, as I keep saying, I fail to see how that particular language is threatening or unprofessional. But people see things differently. I'm, quite frankly, clueless on that and was hoping to gain some understanding.

I was a little confused as well about the OP using the word "miss-statement" when the situation is lying, not miss-stating. Seemed a bit hypocritical to me--the OP bashing the MSC and at the same time misrepresenting the situation the MSC was referring to.

I'll just stay baffled, as frustrating as that is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2022 01:56AM by BirdyC.

@Amarsir wrote:

Lying on your report is never good, and doing so in order to pocket the money is just asking for trouble. But there's also a lack of decorum on the MSC's part to imply this is so prevalent it needs to be called out in the guidelines.

Maybe it is that prevalent with these types of shops; no implying about it, just fact.

@Amarsir wrote:

I don't 100% remember which shop it was so I won't call anyone out. But there was a guideline sheet that said over and over "Don't misrepresent", "If this doesn't happen, don't say it did," and "Your photo must be your own." All legit instructions, but done to excess. And yet was very skimpy on the details of what to do if the shop goes correctly. I just thought they've either had some terrible shoppers lately or their explanation skills are lacking.

I've seen shop guidelines like that and, yes, those are offensive. The default position seems to be an assumption that you're going to cheat. Big difference between these two.

@GinnyLynn wrote:

Would any other job recruiter on the entire planet post such and honestly expect people to apply for that job?

To answer that question, yes! Last year, when my younger son was looking for a job, I was helping him find open opportunities online. Some of the wording and some of the conditions in some job descriptions were beyond the pale. Stuff like, "You are not to take time off for personal appointments (that statement was in more than one job posting; if you're working 6 days/week, as some of these jobs called for, when the hell are you supposed to go to the doctor or the dentist?); if you miss work any work during your probationary period, you will be terminated; you must work mandatory overtime every week--no excuses. And so on. I was appalled.

Who's going to apply for those? But in hindsight, I guess it's probably better that they're being honest than getting people in the door who are then surprised and get fired.

Years ago, I spent a chunk of my career in management. I really loved the business of business. I had gone on and was taking courses toward an MBA. Then life happened, never got that MBA. I still love the business of business though, which is a major thing I love about mystery shopping. I love to see how the different businesses do business.

The reason I see the OP as a red flag is that, well, yes, it could be that the one company really is having problems with the integrity of their shoppers. However, the next thing I wonder is why they have this problem. Is their real problem really the integrity of the shoppers?

The best I can see, most shoppers really do try to do a good job and there is no problem whatsoever with their integrity. I've also been in this business long enough to be well aware that some of these MSCs treat shoppers like caca. From what I've seen, in any business, when you treat your workers like caca, the good ones go somewhere else the first chance they get, so that leaves you with mostly scum dogs, which is what some of those particular companies seem to think MSs are.

The way I see it, it could be that the only shoppers who will fool with them for long really are scum dogs, so they really do have a problem with shopper integrity that might incline them toward such emails. That is not my problem. There are a lot of good companies out there. I get dozens of shop recruiting emails a day. Companies that treat their workers well generally don't have much of a problem recruiting good workers, contract or otherwise. Shop recruiting emails like the one the OP mentions leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I hit delete. I'm not interested in getting in the middle of what smells a whole lot like a pile of caca. Yep, it's a red flag.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2022 01:30PM by GinnyLynn.

Wow, you guys really have faith in humanity. But at the end of the day, by reading these boards, you should know that there is plenty of dishonesty/ people who don't care about reporting accurately. And that's those of us that are invested enough to sign upm there's no interview, no background check, no visual inspection of the people you hire in this industry. I fully expect there to be a good chunk of shady characters.

I think that many of the most experienced and ethical shoppers in this forum do these shops or ones very similar. They have the most insight into the ethics of the MSCs who have them, the shoppers who do them, and the problems associated with them. I wouldn't call these folks scum.

I've never done these, so I don't know how rampant, or not, employee or shopper fraud is. But if the shoppers here who do them say both are a problem, I believe them! And if they are big problems, I don't think it's any disrespect toward shoppers, personal attack on the integrity of all shoppers, or unprofessional for the MSC to note this problem in the guidelines. Why would it be? (Rhetorical question, since nobody wants to articulate that point.) Unless it's done with a pre-conceived and blatant accusation that shoppers *are* going to cheat vs. "some do" cheat.

As I asked earlier, if a company has a big problem with fraud on employee expense reports, shouldn't it insert a clause in the reimbursement form alerting employees that there had been problems and letting them know the consequences of submitting a falsified report? What's wrong with that? The language and tone of such clause would need to be tactful--but to ignore the problem because their employees might be offended is unrealistic.

As a former manager in other organizations and a small-business owner myself, I always treated my staff and my freelancers with trust and respect. But I had a couple of freelancers fail to honor their commitments, and I almost lost clients because of it. Did I make sure that any freelancers I hired after that would be honest and keep their word on meeting deadlines? You bet. Was I *not* going to have that talk with them before giving them the work? Nope. Did they take it personally? Nope.

It's been interesting to see how so many people view a couple of sentences so differently. This would be a great exercise for a psychology class. LOL.

@luckygirl0100 wrote:

Let's see... I used to do about 25 parking shops a month. I've been doing shops for about 8 years. That could add up to THOUSANDS over time. Unprofessional? Lying on a report and stealing money is unprofessional. Coming here to complain that a company expects you to be HONEST is unprofessional.
When I worked on the MSC/ client end of things I saw more than a few shoppers that flat out lied/ stole and this behavior could cause a MSC to lose a contract. So yeah, they are going to do what they think they have to in order to protect against that.

A few points to make:

1. I find your bluster and righteous indignation for an UNNAMED mystery shopping company pretty damn funny.

2. How dare I come HERE to complain about a MSC's heavy-handed, clumsy, dishonest and ultimately empty threats to shoppers who have not been proven to be unethical, dishonest or criminal? How dare I object to being treated and talked to like some rebel scum before I've even had a chance to work with a company? So - where do you want me to go to voice my concern/distaste/dislike of being treated like this? Disneyland? McDonalds? My local public library? If not here on a.. let's see.... ::checks notes:: mystery shopping forum -- then.. where, exactly?

3. Let me be perfectly clear: I am NOT complaining that a mystery shopping company expects me to be honest - and I think you know that. Duh. That's a complete given and that wasn't even part of my beef. Of COURSE they expect shoppers to be honest. I have the highest integrity and ethical standards which is the very reason I object to the language, no matter their motivation. For the record I would never, ever lie on a report OR steal in any way shape for form. Integrity is important to me. I've been mystery shopping since the early 1990's - back when it was all fax machines and snail mail. I've done thousands upon thousands of shops and I've never, ever stolen, lied, or cheated. EVER. I hate a thief more than anything.

4. There are far more diplomatic, tactful, PROFESSIONAL, and ahem.. HONEST ways of getting their point across without resorting to threats (and lies). At best it shows a complete lack of dignity and respect towards shoppers and at worst it makes them looking like bumbling, unprofessional, LYING juveniles. Talk about honesty - they need to look in the mirror. Pulease. I'd eat my hat if they could prove they got a DA to press charges over $2. LOL.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2022 07:21AM by crayon.

A few comments:

!-Ginny expanded my vocabulary--CACA
2-Wales is correct that a blacklist exists and, according to a scheduler I occupy a spot. This due to my refusal to "help out" when needed and that I am too opinionated; that is absolutely true. I am an independent contractor who requires an acceptable work:pay ratio and am not a shrinking violet
3-I agree with JGARDA02.
4-I agree with LIVELYGIRL, but I do respect that other folks feel insulted with accusatory verbiage. As for me, I much prefer the baseball bat approach, as to that which is kind, gentle, sweet and loving.

No...I get your point...but I see the post a bit differently...I think the OP was stating that the threat of prosecution for such a small amount is unlikely, and that "banning for life" is simply ridiculous (at least within the industry). Was this referring to Intellishop? They sometimes are caustic like this in their written warnings.

@BirdyC @luckygirl0100 I don't think anyone here is advocating lying on reports. I agree with you that we should not lie on the reports since it makes it worse for everyone.

I find it interesting that you jump to defend the unnamed MSC with their highly probable lie. What does that tell you about that MSC? That company claimed that shoppers have been prosecuted for falsely reporting tipping amounts. I agree with @crayon, it is very difficult to fathom that the police and prosecutor would get involved in a $2 or even $5 tip or lack of. Do you guys believe that people were prosecuted for lying about a $2 tip?

@crayon even stated that he would never steal. Neither would I. I am not sure that I would be scared off by their language. If I were to take their job, I would be inclined to use marked bills -- whether I take pics of the bills; serial numbers so I can include it in the report or find some that have distinctive marks.

REMOVED

@heywave wrote:

@BirdyC @luckygirl0100 I don't think anyone here is advocating lying on reports. I agree with you that we should not lie on the reports since it makes it worse for everyone.

I find it interesting that you jump to defend the unnamed MSC with their highly probable lie. What does that tell you about that MSC? That company claimed that shoppers have been prosecuted for falsely reporting tipping amounts. I agree with @crayon, it is very difficult to fathom that the police and prosecutor would get involved in a $2 or even $5 tip or lack of. Do you guys believe that people were prosecuted for lying about a $2 tip?

I never said or implied, nor do I think, that anyone here is advocating lying on reports. I don't know where you got that. What I said, numerous times, was that if an MSC has had significant problems with shoppers lying on their reports, why wouldn't they mention it in the guidelines. Why are people so determined to take it personally?

Let's look at exactly what the OP objected to: [Sadly, the few shoppers who have reported tips but then shown by location video to have not tipped, have been prosecuted for misdemeanor theft by deception, and banned from mystery shopping for life.].

The above language isn't "treating shoppers like scum," nor is it assuming that shoppers are going to lie. It's blunt, but informational. It doesn't pre-emptively accuse shoppers of planning to lie on their reports. I've seen much more actual accusatory language in MSCs' guidelines.

The OP also cited this sentence as being "unprofessional": This is done so that the doorman won't try to steal the cash parking fee (they can't steal a credit card transaction.).

If that's true, which I'm sure it is on occasion, what's unprofessional in making shoppers aware of it? .

I asked, if you have a W-2 job and your employer has had employees falsify expense reports, wouldn't you expect there to be a clause on the expense form stating that employees found to be falsifying reports will be terminated? Is that treating employees like scum? Is it unprofessional? Would people take it personally and quit their jobs? In many employment contracts, there's language about dishonesty, stealing company property, divulging company trade secrets, and so on. And that employees violating these terms will be prosecuted. Do people here think that's unprofessional, rude and insulting, and that these companies are lying about prosecuting?

How do we know that people haven't been prosecuted over falsifying information about tips or other issues in these reports? Does anyone here know for a fact that this isn't true? How do we know that shoppers haven't been banned for life over this or similar things? More experienced shoppers here have confirmed that there is a black list, so this MSC might definitely have shoppers blacklisted.

I'm not rushing to defend this MSC; in fact, I have absolutely no idea who it is. What I'm defending is its mention of shopper dishonesty, which I believe to be a legitimate point of concern, and of potential cheating by clients' employees. And that the language they used is really not horrible to shoppers.

I can see that those two sentences could have been worded slightly differently. But even as written, I don't see that they justify the level of indignation present here. I also have a problem with the OP referring to shoppers making a "misstatement" about a tip on their reports. If you know you didn't leave a tip and say you did, it's a lie, not a misstatement.

Do some people here think that any mention of past issues with shoppers lying and employees stealing is "treating shoppers like scum"? What would you suggest? That the MSC simply ignore these issues when writing guidelines? Or, how would those who feel insulted by this write these two sentences so as not to offend anyone? People are saying how terrible this is, how poorly it's treating shoppers, but none has suggested an approach the MSC could take so as to not appear so tryannical.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2022 11:36PM by BirdyC.

@Birdy I am not sure why I lumped you in with Lucky. Do you know for a fact that people have been prosecuted for this? It seems highly unlikely.

I think it is a safe to say that how could police be called in to investigate a $2 tip discrepancy on a report, have a DA add it to their case load, and bring it before the court? If the MSC had video proof that a shopper was lying once or twice, then wouldn't they simply remove him/her from their shopper rolls and not work with them again?

I don't see where they would give them dozens of jobs where it would reach the threshold for the police to get involved. What if that shopper was out of state, then what?

I think those that provide less than honest reports, makes it difficult for the reputable ones.

This language by the MSC wouldn't necessarily dissuade me from taking the job. The pay rate and the MSC reputation would influence me. Their wording might make me document the interaction with the attendant and take pics of the bills as I mentioned before if I were to do the assignment.

@heywave wrote:

Do you know for a fact that people have been prosecuted for this? It seems highly unlikely.

I think it is a safe to say that how could police be called in to investigate a $2 tip discrepancy on a report, have a DA add it to their case load, and bring it before the court? If the MSC had video proof that a shopper was lying once or twice, then wouldn't they simply remove him/her from their shopper rolls and not work with them again?

I don't see where they would give them dozens of jobs where it would reach the threshold for the police to get involved. What if that shopper was out of state, then what?

I think those that provide less than honest reports, makes it difficult for the reputable ones.

This language by the MSC wouldn't necessarily dissuade me from taking the job. The pay rate and the MSC reputation would influence me. Their wording might make me document the interaction with the attendant and take pics of the bills as I mentioned before if I were to do the assignment.

I agree with you on most points. I'm guessing that nobody's been prosecuted for, say, one instance of lying about a tip. But, if it's habitual on the part of a single shopper ("I got away with it once, so I'll keep doing it" ), it's plausible that person could have been found out and prosecuted. These appear to be parking shops, and people who do these do a lot of them; some do several in a day. As someone else mentioned, $2 or $3 repeated over numerous shops could add up to an amount worth bringing charges. If one shopper does five shops in a day and lies about tipping $2, that's $10 in a day. If said shopper does two more days of five shops in a week, there's $30 just in a week. Pretty soon, that shopper will have accumulated a significant amount of money through lying on reports.

Those who dismiss this idea out of hand or, in turn, accuse the MSC of lying, appear to not be familiar with these shops and what issues accompany them.

And, yes, dishonest shoppers harm all of us honest ones. We've had shoppers come here on this board and admit they fudge reports. As we're a microcosm of shoppers, imagine how many in the grand scheme are dishonest? I don't blame MSCs for putting heads-up statements in their guidelines. These sentences by the MSC aren't beyond the pale, as some think. I think some of the super-negative comments made about the MSC based on these two sentences are over the top. Sometimes it feels like people are looking for reasons to feel insulted, disrespected (I hate that term), demeaned, etc. As a professional writer who's extremely picky about language and meanings, I feel that many of the characterizations of and accusations against the MSC are bizarre.

Extra documentation and meticulous observation and reporting sound like a good idea in this case. I wouldn't be deterred by this, but, like you, I'd be sure that my shop and report were as good as I could possibly make them. I don't mind being held to that standard, and it definitely wouldn't make me feel treated like dirt.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2022 01:34AM by BirdyC.

In my limited, as in I wish I had more management experience, most managers do not keep employees on the staff who make a habit of stealing from them, much less a whole staff of thieves. That is just plain bad management. Sometimes every manager has to learn about the very unpleasant chore of firing folks who really are not doing their company any good, if not outright causing it damage, as in massive amounts of stealing. I can't imagine if you got a bunch of folks together and gave them a lecture about not stealing from you. The thieves are going to be rolling their eyes, and the honest folks are going to be heading for the door. I stand behind my previous observation that there may be a potential management problem in an MSC that has that much of a stealing problem, and I don't really want to be in the middle of it all.

Despite comments on my apparent lack of worldliness and very low tolerance for caca, I have seen all I care to see and simply do not care to have random threatening emails to be a part of my everyday life. It is actually a choice. And being as I am an independent contractor, it is mine to make. There has been a lot in this discussion about dishonest shoppers. It could be they do have a problem, but shoppers also have to deal with a certain number of dishonest MSCs and schedulers as well. It could be they also occasionally have a problem with such, and thus keep their eyes open for the aforementioned red flags in the OP.

On another but related note, mystery shoppers are not employees, they are contract, gig workers by another name. How a manager handles any given problem with employees is not likely how they would handle a problem with contract workers. I don't know exactly where it stands at this point, but there is current legislation in process to require businesses who treat gig workers like employees to both pay minimum wage and to provide them with the same benefits they do regular employees. This discussion provides pretty good solid evidence that some of these MSCs really are treating/regard mystery shoppers like employees, without the pay or benefits, and should also fall under the same legislation. I did notice that Mystery Shopper Providers Association is having a legislative fly in day, and that may be a topic for discussion.

On the other, how would I deal with a bunch of thieves that I have working for me? I'd fire them.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2022 01:05PM by GinnyLynn.

Birdy shares--.........disrespected (I hate that term)...............

Bob comments--Me too!