I was just looking at some $5 phone shops- they are to call a rental place- renting for RV for no more than 7 passengers with a list of dates you cannot say you want to reserve. There is a list of 6 people NOT to shop- so will be a lot of calling up making excuses then hanging up- a long lists of things to do and not do- it is recoded so you have to do everything 100% or have the shop rejected- and the pay drum roll here- a whooping $5.00. Are these companies crazy or just cheap? Anyone taking these has to be either crazy or hard up or have a lot of time on their hands to waste calling, making excuses and hanging up and then recalling. Oh and of course writing the report. Time valued at 10 cents an hour! LOL

I feel the same thing alot of times. Especially with the new Presto $10 shops. I think the companies dont take into effect the 1.5 hours it takes to read and memorize guidelines sometimes also.

Shopping fees have only occasionally increased since I completed my first assignment 04/01/03. This is because MSCs are acutely aware there are shoppers desperate for:

1-Money
2-Activity
3-No or lower cost entertainment.

A company must have their first allegiance to their shareholders. We, as contractors, are on our own. As we are FREE to contract or pass, the ball is in our court.

This week, I received a notice of apt. jobs at $35 and requiring a recorded call. 19 yrs. ago, I was paid $40, without a recorded call.

Shell Oil currently has a market cap of slightly in excess of 1/5th a trillion. Their shops were paying $12.50 and requiring a minimum of 25 pics.

A final comment: I understand there are shoppers in need and that when in such a situation, you do what must be done to survive. I assure you the MSCs are also aware of those folks.

I have been shopping for over 25 years. I agree with Shopperbob. Fees have not risen whereas requirements have. I guess if someone is desperate for money they will accept the low paying shops. As for me, I refuse to work for what is virtually nothing.

I think schedulers may feel the same way about those types of shops. They know it is going to be a difficult task to get the job done and it reflects poorly on them if they do not. It is not fun for anyone no matter how much we share insight.

For that amount, I don't even bother reading the guidelines. Sounds awful!

I don't know why a company's market cap should play into the shopper fee. Does a shopper report on a Shell station generate meaningful gains to profit margin and revenue?

How would that work when Shell's market cap plummeted to a third of what it was in less than 2 years? Should the fee have gone from $12.50 to $4.13? Their market cap today is still 2/3 of what it was less than 5 years ago.

Shell is not a good example if you want to argue for market cap. That company has been dead money for over 24 years since it is trading at the same price as back then. The only benefit long term shareholders have seen in this time frame has been the dividend which has fluctuated over the years and at a certain point last year was effectively the same as 18 years prior. Their dividend seriously trailed inflation for that period

Although I have no info, my guess is that the station owners are paying more for these inspections than they did 15/20/25 years ago. If you want to argue that the fee the station owners pay Shell or the fee that Shell pays the MSP for these shops has increased in that time period, then yes I agree and shoppers should see a bump from that and they don't.

In that time period there are fewer c-store items that come in under the paltry reimbursement, yet that amount for the in store purchase hasn't changed. Not even those peanut sleeves are safe. One station I visited changed the pricing from 69 cents each or $1.09 for two to $0.79 each and no advantage if you buy two despite the price on the product.

You are right, these jobs have the same pay, but the work load has increased - more pictures and longer reports.

@shopperbob wrote:

Shopping fees have only occasionally increased since I completed my first assignment 04/01/03. This is because MSCs are acutely aware there are shoppers desperate for:

1-Money
2-Activity
3-No or lower cost entertainment.

A company must have their first allegiance to their shareholders. We, as contractors, are on our own. As we are FREE to contract or pass, the ball is in our court.

This week, I received a notice of apt. jobs at $35 and requiring a recorded call. 19 yrs. ago, I was paid $40, without a recorded call.

Shell Oil currently has a market cap of slightly in excess of 1/5th a trillion. Their shops were paying $12.50 and requiring a minimum of 25 pics.

A final comment: I understand there are shoppers in need and that when in such a situation, you do what must be done to survive. I assure you the MSCs are also aware of those folks.

I am responding to 4Mo's comment.

A market cap is an indication of the value a corporation represents to the public. My point is that slightly more than 1/5th of a trillion dollar client paying $12.50 for a shop that, and may still, require(d) a minimum of 25 pics AND the associated work involved with snapping and entering, is only possible due to some shoppers need.

I well understand this is business and it is the prerogative of ICs to accept or decline.

I should have checked both the two and 24 yr. chart readings for Shell. I disagree with 4MO's numbers concerning the level for 01/20/22 and 01/20/00. If, though, one were to factor in inflation, that, as the wizard informed Dorothy as they rode through the Emerald City, is a horse of a different color.

What gets me is that these shops generally are paying well below minimum wage in my state. Here the min wage is above $16 and marching up to $20 quickly Yet fees and reimbursements are the same around the country. I do realize as independent contractors we are not governed by the minimum wage laws however it is a good yardstick to measure what it costs to live here.
On top of a very low income for a majority of the jobs we are expected to have decent quality smart phones with good cameras, printers, a dependable internet connection and up to date computers, excellent grammar and an understanding of the technology we use. High expectations, low compensation. .

I hope these companies paying low pay, realize they get what they pay for. Pay cheap, get cheap reports.

In the case of many shoppers I am familiar with they get high quality reports despite the pay.

I know I'm not the average "shopper" here because I won't accept high effort / low returns. I shop when I'm in the area and almost always it's for food. I don't plan those "route shops" others speak about.

Like ShopperBob discusses, I think of myself as a business. I am the shareholder of my personal finances. My personal finances include being a stockholder in corporations like those in the S&P 500. Over the long-term I expect the average 9.8% annual gain like the S&P 500 by only making an investment of my capital. This type of thinking has allowed me and my spouse to retire earlier than our peers.

Most of the "Shop Emails" I receive are deleted. It's a waste of my capital. It's fiscally inefficient.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2024 01:06PM by maverick1.

*Note the satirical use of job posting descriptions*

My "Staightforward" take is that these recent years I have found it "Very easy" to make the same yearly income mystery shopping as I did 5+ years ago. I "Simply" have to increase my daily work hours from 7 to 20 and "Simply" increase my travel radius from 100 to 300 miles. In this way, I am able to avail myself of more "Exciting" and "Highly coveted" opportunities which generally, in total, net me the same "High-paying!" income as 10 years ago. Never mind that the cost of living has doubled. I can counter that with "Free!" food pantries which, aside from a day's worth of time and gas are, "No out of pocket expense!" I can also pick up an appetizer or two with food shops where MSCs graciously offer to pick up my tabs, by saying, "Have lunch on us!"

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2024 01:55PM by sestrahelena.

I would say that at least 80% of shops don't work for me, mostly due to low compensation, so I don't do them based on my own circumstances and that's ok, because I have other ways of making money when or if I need it.

I think most people have better ways of making money than mystery shopping, but maybe there's a reason why they prefer to mystery shop even when pay is so low or below minimum wage. I can only speculate.

Unless one has a regular, steady full time job, I think a mix of income sources is ideal - just my observation, you do you. I do me.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2024 03:41PM by BarefootBliss.

I fully concur with the post of BLISS. I used his/her logic in 2007, when I formulated my plan that has been instrumental in my success, as I measure it, to this point. Unless there are circumstances, such as an absolute need for every penny, simply decide under what conditions shopping will be a positive experience and proceed. For me, there are three: Money, lifestyle and defrayment of expenses. If the work does not satisfy at least one condition, I am devoid of the slightest interest.

In Jan. of, I think, 2009, Ms. Kern posted on the Volition forum requesting shoppers work for less to help struggling MSCs. My position then, and now, is that I work for Bob. This IS business and an MSCs problems should not concern shoppers, anymore than ours concern them.

@shopperbob wrote:

In Jan. of, I think, 2009, Ms. Kern posted on the Volition forum requesting shoppers work for less to help struggling MSCs. My position then, and now, is that I work for Bob. This IS business and an MSCs problems should not concern shoppers, anymore than ours concern them.

I agree, I don't work for less to keep YOU in business.

I also feel like Bob does. I work for myself. And not to make mystery shopping companies making a fool out of me by expecting me to work for way below minimum wage rates. Reading some of the long list of shop do's and don'ts-from the company ARC makes me wonder if they think people are stupid or hard up- the long list of things to remember and who not to shop and what to research for a whopping $5.00 makes me want to laugh!

In a perfect world, no shopper would be desperate for accessible work. We all could come and go as we please, taking what we want and leaving the rest. Unfortunately, some people are plagued by poverty math: too much here results in partial or complete loss of something else 'there.' Else could be benefits for shelter, food, child care, etc. Perhaps it works well for some people to balance the benefits of working a gig of certain pay with longer range benefits of a sustainable level of living. I will never ask and I will never criticize because I just don't know about others' lives.

But I strongly agree that in general, gig pay often is not commensurate with time, energy, delays, hazards, etc.

@johnb974 wrote:

I hope these companies paying low pay, realize they get what they pay for. Pay cheap, get cheap reports.

I usually do a poor job of articulating what I am trying to say but here it goes again....

I really do wonder what value companies derive from some of the shops I am asked to perform. I tend to think that Sonic uses their "quality control" initiative (i.e. mystery shopping) to drive sales for their franchisees. Like Sonic corporate pays the MSC to send us to a franchise owned by Jane Doe. Jane Doe gets X number of customers a month (however often they are shopped), corporate makes sure that nothing too crazy is happening at the stores that have their name on it, and we get paid whatever we get paid. I do the same Sonic locations (and eat there on my own periodically) and I've seen deficiencies linger for months.

My point is that quality control is not front of mind it seems. In the instance of these phone calls, yeah, I think the real goal of the company is to say that they have a quality control system in place as opposed to mining data that is to be used for improvement/coaching.

Several years ago I saw a ms phone posting for a mystery shop which took place at my regular 9 to 5 work. Or I should say my 8-5 place of work as i no longer live in NYC. My company had 15,000 employees at the time. I did not take the job due to conflict of interest but out of curiosity I looked at the guidelines and the form questions. It was clear to me that some msc person had put together this form and it would not be at all helpful for my company.
A few months later in a monthly staff meeting my boss shared with us that they had hired a company to make appointment phone calls to our company and come back with information on how we were doing. They had however dropped out of the program after a few months as the information gathered was not helpful. I went and talked to my big boss and told her that I did mystery shopping on the side and would be glad to work with them on a questionnaire that would hit the concerns they had but I guess they decided not to pursue that avenue again.
We often spot questionnaires that seem to not gather useful information however being on the inside for a change instead of being the mystery shopper was quite eye opening. Anyway, I think often they pay little because they are not getting a whole lot of value out of the program. Often it might be mandated by the Board of Directors, or in the case of some bank shops I think those are mandated by the government. So the company big wigs may not even care what comes out of it and they just do the program as cheaply as possible.

I've been doing this type of work for quite some time now. Years ago it was a "side gig" to make extra money for certain things I wanted. Then, as time progressed, I left my corporate job for other pastures, using the "Side Gig" work as a primary source of working income. Note* I said "working income" - the focus being "working".
With that being said, I found what may be my comfort zone is in doing site inspections, both revealed and non revealed of gas stations. Of course, I also did the grocery shops, the retail store shops, banks, etc, etc.
The odd thing I find, especially so are the gas stations shops.
For instance, some MSC's ago (I'll go back 3 MSCs) there was the photo requirement of one fuel dispenser along with some other photos. The pay wasn't so good. This was for both the E/M and Shell sites. I'll not comment on the BP types.
Then, another MSC took over and the requirements of additional photos and inspection areas increased. They wanted photos of every pump, check the doors and windows for that sticker, they paid extra for certain diesel photos, it went on. The pay went up. Even the gas allowance rose.
Now, in this latest iteration, the new MSC has reduced the fee and reduced the reimbursement for fuel allowance and asks for only a photo of the pump that fuel was purchased.
I wonder if later on this MSC will also reduce other photo requirements.
The Shell shops? They seem to have remained the same - so far.
Which leaves me to ask. Just who is doing the pay and requirement reductions? Is it the oil company or the MSC?
For instance, did the contract run out on the E/M shops at the end of the year with the newest one now in effect? Did the oil company find they did not need all those photos? Did so many shop owners complain that they changed the requirements? Just what was the impetus?
Will the Shell sites be next in line?
I can say for certain, a lot of the shops I have done do seem to bother fixing things like graffiti, paying attention to having a certain amount of up-to-date POP toppers, and other aspects of the shop that the shopper is supposed to inspect for a violation.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2024 04:02PM by French Farmer.

Ahhh, CoRI, with the non-reveal staring at $4 but eventually getting very lucrative. Memories...

I have no doubt that the MSC bargains for top dollar from the client but decides to pay shoppers a pittance while convincing the client that they don't need that much detail. Just my opinion.

if shoppers did not take the shops for low fees fees would rise but anxious nellies ruin it for everyone hoping at the first posting and signing up.

@SueW70 wrote:

if shoppers did not take the shops for low fees fees would rise but anxious nellies ruin it for everyone hoping at the first posting and signing up.

It's always a craap shoot. From experience, I know that waiting sometimes results in no gig because another shopper- who is not necessarily an anxious nellie-completes the assignment. People might fill in their routes with easy to schedule gigs, pick up a few gigs while traveling, etc. And then there are the people who work for less than they are worth in order to maximize benefits because they know it is unlikely that they can out-earn the benefit eligibility requirement amounts... Power to the people!