Double post deleted. Sorry, not enough coffee this morning.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2011 03:06PM by Sentry Marketing.

From what I understand, the shopper entered part of the report and it got lost because she did not save her work fast enough. Ok, stuff happens. Frustrating, I understand. Where I have an issue is with the shopper trying to squeeze the MSC for more money because the report got lost. It wasn't their fault, it was the shopper's. The fee is negotiated before the shop is accepted, not when it's time to enter the report. If the report was too long (500 characters is a burden???), she should have still done it and chalked it up to experience with a note-to-self about never doing this shop again. Haven't we all been there? Can you imagine the mess this business would be in if, every time a shopper doesn't like the report, they refuse to enter it and/or ask for more money to do it?

Coming here and expecting sympathy and support when they've screwed up .... good luck with that!

I know that we all know that you can time out of a report and lose it. The shopper states that she clicked on SAVE several times, but does not indicate whether this was as she was going or when she was done for the evening. The shopper indicates that she had done about half the report when she closed out for the evening. I'm not convinced that just because we have all had reports time out makes the shopper's request for money "trying to squeeze the MSC". There is little excuse for the software, especially where lengthy reports are required, to time out. Shoppers have just had to work around that flake in software.

Some software tells you up front to save frequently, some software comes up with a time out warning and some just blinks out. And it is certainly not a problem isolated to one company or one software. I'm not sure why flaky software should EVER be the shopper's responsibility. Of course the issue is that when we complain, there is often no way of showing that we tried to get the shop entered except emailing the company. Just think about the 3 hrs a shopper spent frantically trying to get around a date issue on an Aeropostale shop yesterday so the report could enter [www.mysteryshopforum.com]. Was that 3 hours wasted somehow the shopper's error as well? Is the shopper not due something for the MSP not providing software that works in the environment it has previously worked for that shopper?

Statment above concludes that shopper was 100% correct, yet complaining over a 500 word report, and yet, wanting more money seems a little spoiled and lazy on part of shopper...this was not anyone else's fault, she needed to sit down, put on her big girl pant's and re-write the 500 words instead of writing 1000 words on forum, that would have been time well spent, why risk losing money over 500 words, thowing blame on someone else doesn't cut it, the more I read, the clearer it becomes. I hope shopper now knows she can't get "her way", rules are rules. Seems like she was Dave bashing and wanted company.

No, the statement does NOT conclude that the shopper was 100% correct, nor does it conclude that the shopper was in error. Since we do not know at what point(s) the SAVE button was hit, no conclusion can be made.

But I also wonder how much grief shoppers must go through with lost reports and reports that can't be entered (such as Aeropostale's issue) or can't be entered because the website is down or won't allow upload of a receipt etc. etc. etc. We have all had that happen and somehow like good little shoppers we continue not only to put up with it but find a request for more money to have to spend more of our time is "squeezing"?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2011 05:58PM by Flash.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the OP asking for more money - that is a business decision on her part and between her and her contracted client (in this case Sentry). I disagree that it makes her selfish, lazy, etc. etc. Why not ask for more money when you are having to do extra work, the worst thing that can happen is that the company refuses, right? On the other hand, I do think that coming and complaining about the outcome as though it was "unfair" and the cupibility was all on the MSC and then showing anger at the people who point out otherwise is unnecessary at best. Just as we as shoppers care about our reputations, MSCs and schedulers also care about their image and being slammed publically is something that most of us (shoppers, schedulers, MSC owners, etc.) take seriously.

Although I think there was nothing wrong with the OP asking for more money... there is also nothing wrong with Dave or the company refusing the request. Again, it is business. Most of us have lost reports at some point if we have been shopping for any length of time. These lost reports happen on lots of different software platforms (some more than others). Considering the number of reporting software used, paired with different computer OEs, ISPs, etc... there are a lot of variables at work here and we will never know where the problem originated.

My personal opinion (which I know means nothing) is that it was probably a Prophet issue. I hate that reporting software and from a totally qualitative standpoint, it seems to have more issues like this than other software packages. But who knows... maybe the shopper's ISP dropped or timed out and it was not obvioius to the shopper, maybe it was something specific to Sentry or they were doing maintenance to the form at that exact time.

There are costs on both sides here. Jeanne spent money and time on a report for nothing. Personally, I would have re-done the report, but the nature of the ICA is that this is her choice. On the other hand, Sentry spent time scheduling her and then corresponding with her about the missing report, etc. and in the end they are right back where they started - having to schedule the shop again to someone else. If there are enough loose-loose situations like this, then eventually pressure will be put on improving the reliability of the system.(s) in place Until then, protect youself as best you can - rather that means saving separately in a different program, entering all at once and not taking "breaks" or whatever.

MickeyB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If there are enough
> loose-loose situations like this, then eventually
> pressure will be put on improving the reliability
> of the system.(s) in place Until then, protect
> youself as best you can - rather that means saving
> separately in a different program, entering all at
> once and not taking "breaks" or whatever.

And of course it is only since I started shopping that some of the report platforms have added "Save" buttons at all. I've been using computers since college in the mid 1960s and have had personal computers since the Commodore 64 came out in 1982. I've taught computers, programmed computers, repaired and upgraded hardware and cleaned up software and internet messes. I mention this because I am hardly computer illiterate. Yet the software shoppers are provided is mediocre at best. I recently re-entered a report 3 times because there is no "Save" and if the report does not go through when you hit "Submit" you get no second chance, you start from scratch. This is an unreasonable burden on shoppers. And walking away from a shop, especially when you have out of pocket expenses, is something most shoppers will not do because it can and will have repercussions such as shopper termination. The 'lose' on the MSP side is disproportionately small enough that 'lose-lose' situations will not put pressure on software producers to get it right. So the 'lose-lose' is on the shopper--lose the shop and the opportunity to work in the future if you don't go back and re-enter the report, lose the time to re-enter it.

I'm just saying that I've lost reports, as have most of us. When it happened, I did what any professional would have done and that was to redo the report. I was furious when it happened but knew that, if I wanted to be paid, the MSC needed the report. It never occurred to me to ask for more money because, somehow, my report got sucked into cyberspace, even though I had no idea how it happened. I too had pushed "save". It definitely never occurred to me to tell the MSC that I would redo the report but only 1/2 of it, leaving out the parts I didn't feel like redoing.

Doing some research taught me that the fault was probably my own for letting the report sit while I did other stuff, then entering part of the report and thinking it would be saved. Lesson learned - I now do the reports all at once and save every few minutes. A pain, yes, but less of a pain then redoing the whole thing.

The OP is painting the entire experience in a negative light, not just the reporting aspect. She complained about the cost of the meal, the shop purchase requirements, the amount of data entry for the report, the time it took for the MSC to respond, etc. It has now been shown that many of her complaints were unfounded, exaggerated or simply her fault. I feel for her going through this situation but fail to see the complaints from her point of view. Prophet has its issues but I don't think this particular case is one of them.