There are a whole lot of ways that folks have tried to cheat on shops. From time to time we will even have someone come onto the forum and brag about how they short cutted a shop. A few years back there was a desperate communication from a company wanting me to make a road trip because they had used a shopper for some period of time only to discover that all or most shops had been falsified. . . There are folks who decide that a shop doesn't pay enough to be worthwhile so they fake it. One company evidently got taken a couple of years ago because they started requiring a photo of the front of the store complete with an in focus newspaper from that day. It doesn't take much imagination to suspect that shoppers had been turning in stock photos of the building as their 'proof of visit'.

MsJudi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I recently did a shop for Ritter and it did
> require all caps,but the form did not convert it
> automatically like it did in the past. I had to go
> back and redo the sentences when I remembered
> mid-report. PITA. I know it used to convert to
> upper case automatically, but it did not seem to
> do it this time. Anyone else notice that?
>
> I wonder why they want all caps anyway.
Ooooooooooooooooooooo

As I mentioned in a prior message, I had to go back and essentially re-submit a report as I had to capitalize.
Why does Ritter require reports in capitals?

Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are a whole lot of ways that folks have
> tried to cheat on shops. From time to time we
> will even have someone come onto the forum and
> brag about how they short cutted a shop. A few
> years back there was a desperate communication
> from a company wanting me to make a road trip
> because they had used a shopper for some period of
> time only to discover that all or most shops had
> been falsified. . . There are folks who decide
> that a shop doesn't pay enough to be worthwhile so
> they fake it. One company evidently got taken a
> couple of years ago because they started requiring
> a photo of the front of the store complete with an
> in focus newspaper from that day. It doesn't take
> much imagination to suspect that shoppers had been
> turning in stock photos of the building as their
> 'proof of visit'.

Thank you Flash for the education.
Lately I'm given to clock and verify bank visits via their ATM machines.
Some months ago I got a call from a project manager who could not believe that I had waited 34 minutes for a platform banker. Just by luck I had used the ATM to get cash to buy a roll of quarters and while waiting realized that I would need more cash and got it on the way out. I had both receipts and found it to be a good idea ever since.

Happy, healthy & successful New Year!

It is probably fair to say that someone cheated or was suspected of falsifying a bank shop and that is why you have more requirements and more need to document your times.

If you have been shopping for any length of time you know what companies have gone from reasonably trusting to downright paranoid. Not all that long ago a company owner on here was justifying their skepticism and bad behavior about a shopper with an injury based on their 'statistics' of how many shoppers flaked. The injured shopper was just categorically combined with the flakes and it was done with accompanying sarcasm and vindictiveness.

In this business you have nothing but your reputation to protect you. The superficial concept of IC PRO is not bad, but the apparent underlying motive and the execution are flawed. Certainly 'certification' is no guarantee of shopper honesty and reliability because cheats generally can put forth a good show of honesty and reliability and the real proof both of a shopper and a company come from their behavior in the long haul.

I don't know what the answer is because it is not as though any one company provides enough work for any particular shopper to keep a full schedule. One company may work well with a particular shopper and some other company unfairly accuse and penalize them and the shopper gets out of shopping, thoroughly insulted. Some companies take the time to build a relationship with a new shopper, some only award shops to a new shopper when they are desperate and even with a great report don't remember them the next time that shopper requests a shop, some companies work well with a shopper over a fairly long period of time, have one issue and terminate the shopper or never award them shops again. Babies and bath water . . .

Flash, what does IC Pro mean?

On the subject of cheating, I found a company that invites and/or almost begs for cheats as they cannot accept a "bad" report. In this case there was no one for me to engage except in the aisle which, per the guidelines, was a no-no and the cashier/customer service associate, which became a no no. I spent time outside the stock room waiting for someone to come on to the selling floor, generally loitering and eavesdropping, still no one. After half an hour I bought sneakers and left. My report was not accepted although I tried and tried to explain. I was out $18 + sneaker money. I realized that what this company wanted was a dog and pony show, which I could/should have written.The store is now out of business and I frequently wonder if it's because they did not get a truthful heads up only contrived baloney.
I removed myself from this MSCo and promised to save my fictional writing for My Great American novel.

IC Pro is/was a central registry being set up to identify 'professional' IC mystery shoppers. The representation was:

"So why did we even bother setting up this whole shebang? Here's our shmoozy sales shtick to explain who should register and why it's so important to our industry:

Do you consider yourself a mystery shopping professional?

Do you run your mystery shopping like a professional business?

Do you offer your professional mystery shopping services for more than one mystery shopping company?

If so, you're a mystery shopping IC Pro (Independent Contractor Professional)...
and Mystery Shopping Companies want you!"

The execution problem was that there are no tenure or performance requirements to identify yourself as a "Pro" so it can serve no useful function as any kind of screener for serious or reliable shoppers. New shoppers were mentioning here that they had signed up for IC Pro and for Jobslinger so they thought they were now ready to do their first shop. But it was offering 'hiring preference' just as purchased certifications would imply hiring preferences. While IC Pro is free (unlike certifications), it would appear it is just another vehicle to collect your personal data and who you work with.

A good mystery shopping company realizes that their shoppers are the key to their success. After all, good shop reports, done on time, make for happy clients! To reinforce the important role shoppers play, we at Customer Perspectives give bonuses each month to a few top shoppers. These are shoppers who are reliable, thorough, objective,good writers and follow directions well. We love them and want to show our appreciation for a job well done!

I do not see how a shopper can feel safe fudging a report. There are cameras and the camera is not only watching the cashier, it is watching the people who walk up to the register. The cameras compare the merchandise on the counter with the sales receipt so friends of the cashier does not get a 100% discount.

If I have to give names and descriptions and the turn over is high at a location, how do I report a false name? How do I report false data. If a camera can "follow" a shoplifter, they can follow a shopper after the fact by matching the data on the sales receipt to the face at the register and run the tape back to the door when I walked in.

You have to perform the shop as if "big owner" is watching you, because they are!

It would appear to me that the biggest problems have arisen with shops that do not require a receipt. The company that was looking for a shopper to do a long route of shops because of their cheating shopper only required photos, which apparently had been faked. The shop that required a newspaper in the photo of the front of the store had no purchase and I believe you were to pick up a brochure as proof of visit, if even that. A shopper on here a year or so ago mentioned there was 'no point' in going to a distant location to perform an audit when there was a store right down the street that should have the same prices.

The challenge for all MSCs is to come up with shops that make sense, have some sort of dated proof of visit and yet don't make shoppers obvious. Their alternative is to use shoppers they feel comfortable they can trust. The notion of having date/time stamped photos works on the assumption that the deliberate cheater is too dumb or lazy to change the date and time stamp on their camera. A business card works on the assumption that a collection of them is not made on a single visit with a call to the location to see who is on duty that day. The new notion of a GPS ap on shoppers reduces the numbers of shoppers to those with smart phones that can use the ap who are willing to install the ap. That immediately also skews the data because of the subset of available shoppers willing to play. The problem I have with all of this is that it is rapidly becoming more important to prove that I did what I did rather than making the observations I need to be making.

Think about what a difference it could make for the companies, clients and us if there was a focus on quality rather than quantity. A higher commission, less need to reshop, more value to the reports. Mystery shopping companies remind me of the most popular university in Missouri back in my day. The admission standards were on the low side and then they would weed out the bad students once enrolled.

I absoultely appreciate hearing about problems with MSC's!!!

I was signing up for a few more companies the other night and I ran across the carpet cleaning company where they reimburse you. I did not catch that who it was until I saw the jobs they offered. I remembered reading about all the troubles people had getting paid. Some waiting 6 months or more.

I immediately went in and made my account with that company inactive.


A few complaints about a large MSC? I read them but dont worry about it too much. Numerous complaints? Time to take notice.

LisaSTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mystery shopping companies remind me of
> the most popular university in Missouri back in my
> day. The admission standards were on the low side
> and then they would weed out the bad students once
> enrolled.

quite similar to your university example:

several years back, i had hired and trained well over 100 employees for a large company, (although not mystery shopping). i gave them promises of career success contigent on performance. i hired in mass quantities, knowing that i would weed out the less efficient people. i weeded out both longer-term employees who were no longer optimally productive, as well as some new employees who might be considered to be higher risk, but who were nonetheless temporarily needed during the busier work seasons. my overall goal was to replace 33% of the workforce (out of our local office) to enhance overall productivity. however, this ultimately resulted in reduced pay for the individual non-management employee and more pay for managers like myself. the average workforce also became 10 years younger. the strongest survive in a competitive environment. this method made it unnecessary to increase the payrates for non-management employees, while still enhancing overall quality and productivity for the corporation.

Flash said, "The problem I have with all of this is that it is rapidly becoming more important to prove that I did what I did rather than making the observations I need to be making."

Exactly my frustration. I understand having to prove I did something, but sometimes it preoccupies me.

get the business card, get the business card, do not forget the business card.

RobinMarie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Flash said, "The problem I have with all of this
> is that it is rapidly becoming more important to
> prove that I did what I did rather than making the
> observations I need to be making."
>
> Exactly my frustration. I understand having to
> prove I did something, but sometimes it
> preoccupies me.
>
> get the business card, get the business card, do
> not forget the business card.

Oooooooooooooooooo

Tes, it pre-occupies me, too. Don't forget that business card.
When I do get (he card, the associate often gets someone else's card and scribbles his name on it.
There must be a terrific turnover in employees!

Jerry, I agree. The HR in me wonders if they spent more on retention and less on printing they might not need us so much.

Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It would appear to me that the biggest problems
> have arisen with shops that do not require a
> receipt. The company that was looking for a
> shopper to do a long route of shops because of
> their cheating shopper only required photos, which
> apparently had been faked. The shop that required
> a newspaper in the photo of the front of the store
> had no purchase and I believe you were to pick up
> a brochure as proof of visit, if even that. A
> shopper on here a year or so ago mentioned there
> was 'no point' in going to a distant location to
> perform an audit when there was a store right down
> the street that should have the same prices.
>
> The challenge for all MSCs is to come up with
> shops that make sense, have some sort of dated
> proof of visit and yet don't make shoppers
> obvious. Their alternative is to use shoppers
> they feel comfortable they can trust. The notion
> of having date/time stamped photos works on the
> assumption that the deliberate cheater is too dumb
> or lazy to change the date and time stamp on their
> camera. A business card works on the assumption
> that a collection of them is not made on a single
> visit with a call to the location to see who is on
> duty that day. The new notion of a GPS ap on
> shoppers reduces the numbers of shoppers to those
> with smart phones that can use the ap who are
> willing to install the ap. That immediately also
> skews the data because of the subset of available
> shoppers willing to play. The problem I have with
> all of this is that it is rapidly becoming more
> important to prove that I did what I did rather
> than making the observations I need to be making.

The problem with going to a local store is that you would have to have a very special talent to give the names and or descriptions of the employees at the location at a distance and get your face on the video tape.

I do not fudge shops because in this age of electronics and security at the cash register a shopper has to be recorded with the cashier at the location the shopper was sent to. Another reason I do not fudge is that I have integrity. I give an accurate account and I have each shop on digital tape just in case the manager wants to rewrite history to save his or her butt." It is not "me said they said, It is "I can prove what was said!" I keep the tape till I get paid then erase it.

Hatred is an emotion. Ms'ing is a 'profession'. I learned a long long time ago never to merge emotion (neither negative such as hatred nor positive such as attraction!) with profession..they're not peanut butter and jelly :-)

Irritation is a more applicable word I think.

A shopper follows instructions, drives a half hour to the shop, spends a half hour or more in the shop itself, drives home another half hour, loads photos, 20 minutes to a half hour, writes a very detailed report with no errors, double checks it three times, for an hour or more, including fighting the program which doesn't want to upload the photos; all for a big $12.00 and then receives some obscure nitpicky complaint from the editor,which doesn't exist in your report, instead of just saying "great details thanks". Then the same company, with another scheduler cancels your shop and notifies you its canceled 8 hours after you have completed it.

In my mind it's time to let other shoppers know what's going on with that company's schedulers/editors.

Okay, that may be one or two stupid schedulers-editors at the company.
However, When all the editors at the same company do it,it would seem to be company policy. And it's also time to let other shoppers know about it.

Do you work for them again? Maybe.
For me, it's as little as possible. I ignore 99% of their emails, knowing I will only work for one decent editor/scheduler with whom I have had a positive experience.

You can definitely use the word 'Hatred' or maybe more for people like Julie Bishop who lies from you know where.

It really hurts people who depend on MS for their livelihood. If you do something right, you should expect to be paid.