When the reimbursement won't cover costs

When the reimbursement won't cover costs - do you bring it up?

(Sorry, I deleted my original post. I wondered if it was too much of a rant)

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2024 03:45PM by olympia tennenbaum.

Create an Account or Log In

Membership is free. Simply choose your username, type in your email address, and choose a password. You immediately get full access to the forum.

More About Reimbursements

@olympia tennenbaum wrote:

Do you ever bring it up when the reimbursement doesn't keep up with the increase of products?

No, because it won't do a lick of good. The MSCs are feeling the squeeze and doing everything they can to retain clients. Just like in any other industry, when costs go up, that gets passed along to the little guy - in this case, us. The MSC isn't likely to ask the client for more money, and they aren't going to eat into their margins.

The only time I can recall a reimbursement going up was when Sonic got the $1 hike....and then pay went down by $1. The Blob giveth, and The Blob taketh away.

If your path dictates you walk through hell, do it as though you own the place. -unknown

I'm in the opposite camp as the doc, though I do respect and understand her point.

I bring it up every single time reimbursement is not sufficient. It has made a different for some of the dining clients. Others...not so much, but it gives me a good reason to refuse when they reach out and ask me to take something.

One of the things that has come from it is that most MSCs will not come to me for shops where a shopper ends up out of pocket. Even if it's mainly just to avoid the angry email response they get from me.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

I'm in the opposite camp as the doc, though I do respect and understand her point.

I bring it up every single time reimbursement is not sufficient. It has made a different for some of the dining clients. Others...not so much, but it gives me a good reason to refuse when they reach out and ask me to take something.

One of the things that has come from it is that most MSCs will not come to me for shops where a shopper ends up out of pocket. Even if it's mainly just to avoid the angry email response they get from me.

I find it interesting that come of the Coyle shops (the MSC I most associate with you), is that some of their training materials indicate that they cover all expenses as a point of distinction. I wish that were true but it is not always.

I can't remember if it was maybe sandyf or someone else who wrote that she does not want to visit a great restaurant and have to order a hamburger to order mid-priced items or stay within reimbursement.

I always wondered what happened to cause some MSCs to add that excessive ordering can result in a reduction in reimbursement. Like why would a company be angry that the shopper went out of pocket and ordered an extra side or two desserts if the shopper was willing to pay out of pocket?

And Steve, keep fighting the good fight!

@olympia tennenbaum wrote:

I find it interesting that come of the Coyle shops (the MSC I most associate with you), is that some of their training materials indicate that they cover all expenses as a point of distinction. I wish that were true but it is not always.

Sadly, many of those training materials are from 25 years ago and much of it was written by me when I worked there, and that was the case.

Back then, the proposition was that the shopper was entitled to a good meal in exchange for a quality report. There were no spending limits stated.

The problem (outside of the basic economic issues that have plagued the industry since then) is that many came in to the MS world and took advantage of it. They would over-order and take large amounts of leftover food home. Once the MSC started setting specific limits, shoppers would order right up to the limit, so there was a push down on limits, and food pricing continued to rise against that.

Now, I think they just don't care. There's enough people who want in to the MS world that they can burn shoppers out with underpaying them and there will be more ready to take their places.

Luckily, most of the hotel assignments still work on the "order reasonably" concept and don't set a price point.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@olympia tennenbaum wrote:

I find it interesting that come of the Coyle shops (the MSC I most associate with you), is that some of their training materials indicate that they cover all expenses as a point of distinction. I wish that were true but it is not always.

Sadly, many of those training materials are from 25 years ago and much of it was written by me when I worked there, and that was the case.

Back then, the proposition was that the shopper was entitled to a good meal in exchange for a quality report. There were no spending limits stated.

The problem (outside of the basic economic issues that have plagued the industry since then) is that many came in to the MS world and took advantage of it. They would over-order and take large amounts of leftover food home. Once the MSC started setting specific limits, shoppers would order right up to the limit, so there was a push down on limits, and food pricing continued to rise against that.

Now, I think they just don't care. There's enough people who want in to the MS world that they can burn shoppers out with underpaying them and there will be more ready to take their places.

Luckily, most of the hotel assignments still work on the "order reasonably" concept and don't set a price point.

That's interesting, I didn't know the backstory. I guess that explains that clause. Considering that seems to be long gone, shouldn't the clause disappear?

If there are order requirements (appetizer, two entrees, dessert, etc.) It feels like the reimbursement should be able to cover those items for most of the menu. I understand not wanting to reimburse gold covered hunks of meat, but at least cover reasonable orders.

With ACL, I did bring it up in the additional comments box. I ran into a shop where I went a little over during happy hour. I added a note in the additional comments box about the shop reimbursement barely covering ordering requirements. I picked it up again because it's within walking distance of where I work. The reimbursement amount stayed the same. But when I read the guidelines, they remove a good number of the ordering requirements. I don't know how much is attributed to that, if at all, but some reports have an additional comments box or internal notes area. In my opinion, it doesn't hurt to communicate the low reimbursement amount. ... To give the MSC the benefit of the doubt, they may not be aware.

Another MSC, I just wanted to confirm the bonus, but the person in charge of the shop was reviewing the shop and reimbursement amount. He/she just replied back to confirm, but also told me he/she increased the reimbursement amount on their own. With the same MSC, but different shop, the overview stated one reimbursement amount, and the details stated another amount. He/she told me as long as I ordered the required items, they would cover it.

On some of the Coyle shops, there were specific items I couldn't order. But it was left to my discretion on what I could order other than that.

@olympia tennenbaum wrote:

I understand not wanting to reimburse gold covered hunks of meat, but at least cover reasonable orders.

I actually came in under the reimbursement for the place that offers gold covered meat, but for the steakhouse with the boozy name in Glendale, you basically have to order chicken and pasta, with no booze, if you want to come in under reimbursement. I just refuse to take those shops. Kind of goes against the spirit of the restaurant name. No steak and no booze!

I have also adopted a new policy when dealing with all MSCs; I will adjust my level of caring about quality to match theirs. I just received feedback on my last hotel assignment telling that I need to proof my narratives for errors before submitting them. I replied back that once I receive an instruction set with no errors in it, I will start proofing my documents again. My proofing time has been exhausted proofing their documents!

Yes, there's a place by me that sells a variety of dairy products (ice cream, milk shakes, cheese). They have a required purchase (two items) and list out the price in the shop notes. The last time I did the shop, their shop notes vs. actual pricing was off by $1+ per item. Their products are good quality, so I don't mind going over IF it's my decision, but for a required purchase, it should at least cover what they require.

I mentioned it when I submitted the report but didn't go out of my way to email the scheduler. If they call or email me to do this location, then I will mention it again.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@olympia tennenbaum wrote:

I understand not wanting to reimburse gold covered hunks of meat, but at least cover reasonable orders.

I actually came in under the reimbursement for the place that offers gold covered meat, but for the steakhouse with the boozy name in Glendale, you basically have to order chicken and pasta, with no booze, if you want to come in under reimbursement. I just refuse to take those shops. Kind of goes against the spirit of the restaurant name. No steak and no booze!

I have also adopted a new policy when dealing with all MSCs; I will adjust my level of caring about quality to match theirs. I just received feedback on my last hotel assignment telling that I need to proof my narratives for errors before submitting them. I replied back that once I receive an instruction set with no errors in it, I will start proofing my documents again. My proofing time has been exhausted proofing their documents!

Oh my! That was bold of you! You likely have the deep history with them to back it up.

I recently got a request to edit a shop - with a little nasty gram that I needed to cover questions x, y, z as per the contracted I accepted when I took the job etc. The request was a bit pedantic because they asked if the server recommended x from the drink menu, y from the drink menu and z from the drink menu. I had written that they server did not recommend drinks and had to go back and say that the server did not recommend x, y and z. There was one item that I had omitted that I did address so I was not without error. I just found the not pretty off-putting.

I also agree about having to wade through error filled guidelines and instructions and sometimes even surveys. What makes me the most insane is conflicting instructions and the schedulers who don't answer questions or just reply to follow the instructions.

It would be my dream to have MSCs shopped. It would feel so gratifying to write about unresponsive or curt schedulers, error-filled instructions and lack of adherence to payment schedules, etc.

Non sequitur - Steve, how large do you think the business is? I.e. how much revenue in the US annually for mystery shopping.

I bring it up if I want the shop and suspect the MSC may be flexible.

@drdoggie00 wrote:

@olympia tennenbaum wrote:

Do you ever bring it up when the reimbursement doesn't keep up with the increase of products?
No, because it won't do a lick of good. .

Not in my experience. I complained when menu prices jumped ahead the reimbursement amount for fast food shops with sufficient reimbursement to cover the required purchase. I received an extra payment to cover the difference.

"It should not cost me money to perform work for your company unless it is at my option."

Have synthesizers, will travel...

As it applies to my category #2 work, leisure, I, as a matter of principle, refuse to spend any of my money to cover required purchases; I am NOT suggesting other folks adopt my position. The budgets of MSCs is none of my concern. After all is said and done, this IS business!

I mostly do middle of the road type of dining. I am not a fan of most fast food but often find value in "upscale" fast food. I used to do a lot more fine dining when my husband was alive as he loved to eat some of those menu items and i would just eat the low cost item to balance out his higher cost item and treat him to a treat. I am not so anxious to continually treat my friends by doing lengthy fine dining reports. .
My basic peeve is the difference in pricing in different areas of the country. Many of these shops reimburse the same amount everywhere even tho some bigger cities have upscale pricing for their downscale food.
That said if the fee is high enough that the overrun on the meal plus the fee still gives me some sort of smaller fee leftover I might take the job but only if it is food I enjoy.
I get very few phone calls but in most cases what I discuss with them is not the cost of food but the cost of driving in HOURS and miles to what they consider around the corner from me. San Francisco area is not around the corner from Los Angeles. Even to drive to downtown LA would mean their $12 fee job would work out to $2-3 an hour for me and a long walk from a free parking spot.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

I replied back that once I receive an instruction set with no errors in it, I will start proofing my documents again.

Oh, snap!

This kind of stuff isn't limited to MSCs. I was in a Teams meeting with my new employer, and they screen-shared some PDFs and Word docs that had so many errors that they were almost painful to look at. I thought, "You're a multi-million dollar company, and this is the best you can do?"

If your path dictates you walk through hell, do it as though you own the place. -unknown

I have and received increases from ACL back when they were a different type of MSC then they are now. They were 'Promo' fine dining shops as well as experience shops.

I also did a lot of fine dining for Bestmark way back when. Bringing up really short reimbursement for a particular fancy pants restaurant fell upon deaf ears. Didn't do that one.

I find most of Coyle's reimbursement generous. But yes, sometimes I.would like to order an additional appetizer, side, dessert and pay out of pocket.

I did a spa shop with RBG once and the bill was more than the reimbursement allowed. I complained and they increased my reimbursement to match what I paid.

@drdoggie00 wrote:

This kind of stuff isn't limited to MSCs. I was in a Teams meeting with my new employer, and they screen-shared some PDFs and Word docs that had so many errors that they were almost painful to look at.

I assure you I am more of a stickler at my actual workplace than in the MS world. I get things sent to me that are assembled or prepped wrong all of the time and have to just keeping sending it back with a note that says, "Can you please do it correctly this time?"

I also work in an industry were mistakes are generally not tolerated well, so it has to be fixed before we can move forward. That has been making me more frustrated with MSing these days.

@olympia tennenbaum wrote:

How large do you think the business is? I.e. how much revenue in the US annually for mystery shopping.

I am not in a position to fathom a guess these days, but assure you it's probably bigger than you think. Some of the MSCs are mom & pop, but others are working at a multi-million dollar level.

It's not the fine dining shops or hotels making the big bucks. It's usually corporate compliance shops for bringing in the money....

Welp, I'm pretty miffed that for the postal shops, postage went up by $.50 The current MSC is very cheap and will not do anything which doesn't have a significant bonus. If shoppers just don't do shops, maybe the fees will adjust up? Really, you should be keeping track of "unreimbursed employee expenses" for your taxes.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2024 05:03AM by cherubino3.

@SteveSoCal wrote:

I have also adopted a new policy when dealing with all MSCs; I will adjust my level of caring about quality to match theirs. I just received feedback on my last hotel assignment telling that I need to proof my narratives for errors before submitting them. I replied back that once I receive an instruction set with no errors in it, I will start proofing my documents again.

I think you mentioned it somewhere else, but some of the Coyle reports, I'm going to adopt a similar approach to yours, where I only pick up certain shops with a minimum reimbursement amount.

One of the reports that I submitted with the second highest reimbursement amount I've done, I thought it was solid and would get a high score. But the editor came back with numerous clarification requests. In my case and opinion though, I think this was the best editor I've seen in a while. I couldn't refute the requests and agreed, and it enhanced the report. It still got a high score, and I don't think he/she docked me on the additional requests.

But I do agree with some of the other shops, in that I'm willing to concede a higher score for less work involved.

Not too long ago I told a MSC that I didn't want to do the shop again if reimbursement wasn't going to cover the required purchase. This round the requirements changed, but the shop also no longer mentions the requirement to bring a guest. And the meal entree is something that could be enough for either one or two people.

I don't know if my input caused the change though..

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2024 03:25AM by Morledzep.

I don't really understand the shady reimbursements. Wouldn't it be in the interest of the client to see more and varied food items evaluated? They are only really paying for the food cost, which isn't that much.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

When the reimbursement won't cover costs - do you bring it up?

Create an Account or Log In

Official List of Mystery Shopping Companies

Mystery Shopper Magazine