Mystery Shopping Thread 23 *PLEASE READ THE OP FIRST**PLEASE NO CLIENT NAMES OR FEES

HeavensDevil

Big_Graeme wrote: »

And again, what rule has been broken?

We are not allowed to mention anything that connects a client with an MS co, just naming a shop hardly damages anyone.

We are explicitly not allowed to mention client names at all whether linking them to a company or not, otherwise the thread would be called 'Mystery Shopping Thread 23 *client naming OK but please don't say which company shops them*' Obviously referring to a shop, restaurant, etc in a chatty non-MS context is fine, but the poster used the name in a MS-related capacity - accidently I am quite sure, but nonetheless, warranted a polite reminder to edit the message.

DPJames

Workie_Ticket wrote: »

The payment for visit in Newcastle is 30% less than that.

Is that owt to do with Mike Ashley? Does he own Retail Active aswell as the cheap!!!!!forscruffs Arena?

Becles wrote: »

I might get the Durham jobs now

What there are of them. I've always found it slim pickings in Durham.

HeavensDevil

Although I must confess, whilst I wouldn't do it myself, I'm not entirely against DPJames' earlier post - RA should be embarrassed by their paltry fees, and newbies need to know that these are not normal or acceptable figures. And the client must already know what the shopper ultimately gets paid/reimbursed, musn't they?

S0litaire

HeavensDevil wrote: »

...

...

RA should be embarrassed by their paltry fees, and newbies need to know that these are not normal or acceptable figures. And the client must already know what the shopper ultimately gets paid/reimbursed, musn't they?

That's probably why RA got the contract!
cheap prices, through cheaper labour!

HeavensDevil

S0litaire wrote: »

That's probably why RA got the contract!
cheap prices, through cheaper labour!

Indeed, and I'm sure (at least I hope!) the report quality suffers for it! After all, if you pay peanuts...

Big_Graeme

HeavensDevil wrote: »

Although I must confess, whilst I wouldn't do it myself, I'm not entirely against DPJames' earlier post - RA should be embarrassed by their paltry fees, and newbies need to know that these are not normal or acceptable figures. And the client must already know what the shopper ultimately gets paid/reimbursed, musn't they?

So, it is OK to name a MS co, the client and the fee but not a random supermarket, pfff.

someone

HeavensDevil wrote: »

Although I must confess, whilst I wouldn't do it myself, I'm not entirely against DPJames' earlier post - RA should be embarrassed by their paltry fees, and newbies need to know that these are not normal or acceptable figures

I've taken one of these, don't normally take such s*it fees but I am already doing the shop next door. Not taken the other one I am driving past anyway (yup driving past) as it's just not worth it.

Going to consider if to release it in my own time. (They only get the quality of service that they are paying for).

Trevor64_2

Stockport and Salford ... "Payment for visit is £3.50, plus a reimbursement of £1.00".

Absolutely scandalous. I couldn't even get there for that.
The fee was 3 times that when RM had it.

Trevor64_2

Did anybody with a psychic bank account happen to do the FSS 'well being gambling' work the other week.
I'm potless at the moment and would love to know if it is being paid tomorrow.

DPJames

HeavensDevil wrote: »

I'm not entirely against DPJames' earlier post

What they gonna do? Ditch me? Woah. I know who'll be losing out the most on that one.

I thought a £1 reimbursement in the pound shop was bad enough. But at least you could get something there. In Maplins the cheapest thing is a packet of batteries, which coincidentally you're not allowed to purchase.

Here, two of their clients are the pound shop, and Lidl. Says it all really. You don't get cheaper than that.

Retail Active...You definitely suck!!