Mystery Shopping Thread 25 *PLEASE READ THE OP FIRST**PLEASE NO CLIENT NAMES OR FEES

chinora

whitelabel wrote: »

people dont seem to understand confidential information however much they agree or disagree with it.
Unless its illegal, to go to a newspaper is terrible.

So many companies carry out competitor analysis and various other things that may be grey areas but are not illegal and certainly dont need handling by people the way this has been dealt, it just jeopardizes future work for the rest of us as companies may think twice about doing ANthing


link is here for those who cant find it

Link IS here

I agree with you white it does jeopardise work for others in the future they might no longer want to do it but there are others out there who would have been happy to. The paper quotes the email almost verbatim!

sparklysaver

whitelabel wrote: »

From the wording of the text, it has been passed to them rather than written by someone who received it directly from ims.

Nah, if you read carefully, it looks like they've lifted it from another newspaper, as is their habit.

"[companies]...were both unavailable for comment yesterday and neither provided a comment when they were contacted by other newspapers last week"

They've probably lifted it from some local title and stuck one of their own reporter's names on it. I doubt whether anyone at the DM has seen any email.

Macadamia

sparklysaver wrote: »

They've probably lifted it from some local title and stuck one of their own reporter's names on it. I doubt whether anyone at the DM has seen any email.

I just searched and found it was in the Sunday Times
"Cup and saucery: ‘customers’ paid to demand shops sell xxxxx"

whitelabel

it seems the Sunday times had it first
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1344464.ece

and it has now spread like wildfire...

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1222271/typhoo-tea-uses-fake-customer-complaints-lobby-retailers

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/11/25/typhoo-tea-under-fire-over-fake-customers-hired-lobby-sainsbury-s

skintsocks

It would appear that confidentiality means nothing to some. No doubt they'll be the ones who turn up shouting and claiming unfair treatment because they are not offered work in the future. Not only did they break the confidentiality code, but they also indirectly reduced the income of other people who just got on and did the work, as requested.

Lil_Me_2

IMS were stupid enough to email the full details including 'client' to every tom richard and harry though. I signed up to IMS and was actually rejected as they didn't need anyone in my area... yet they still emailed me the details of this job. I wouldn't say I'm bound by any confidentiality clause that they may want to impose.

I would never be so rash as to go to the press though.

whitelabel

Lil_Me wrote: »

IMS were stupid enough to email the full details including 'client' to every tom richard and harry though. I signed up to IMS and was actually rejected as they didn't need anyone in my area... yet they still emailed me the details of this job. I wouldn't say I'm bound by any confidentiality clause that they may want to impose.

I would never be so rash as to go to the press though.

not watertighly no, but who ever went to press with it could face legal action, and given the threats that they make with every job brief contract detailing recovery for losses if you dont do a job properly i imagine they will at least try..

Do not take it for granted that your confidentiality notice can be relied upon, however much care goes into its preparation. There is no legal authority on the value of these notices in email communications. When the notice is added automatically to every external communication, there is a risk that a court would consider that the venom in your warning has been diluted.
The value of the notice is that, if the disclosure of the content of an email becomes a subject of dispute, it would be possible to point a court to the existence of the confidentiality notice and argue that the recipient should have known to not disclose the contents of the message.
If your organisation decides that it is worth including such a notice, just be aware that it will be in a court's discretion to ignore it.

ljshopper

whitelabel wrote: »

not watertighly no, but who ever went to press with it could face legal action, and given the threats that they make with every job brief contract detailing recovery for losses if you dont do a job properly i imagine they will at least try..

I think you are being a little melodramatic in suggesting that IMS might go down the legal route. That will never, ever happen.

The worst that could happen to the individual is that they would get sacked.

whitelabel

ljshopper wrote: »

I think you are being a little melodramatic in suggesting that IMS might go down the legal route. That will never, ever happen.

The worst that could happen to the individual is that they would get sacked.

If they have costs because of it, I can be sure they will look to recover it from someone....

Im aware of them requesting payment from someone who let them down and had agreed a contract to do a visit before and they couldnt get anyone else to do it, breaching an requirement with their client.,
it is in business law - a breach of contract. People should be aware of this - its not melodramatic, its standard business practice, but not commonly executed in this industry,
Each visit requires the signing of a complete contract with them agreeing to this and other costs etc. If they were to go to court, I suspect they would win. Recovery of costs would be difficult though... along with identifying who it was who leaked it in the first place !

ljshopper

It will never happen. IMS will just want this to go away. There isnt a chance in hell that they will take any action that would drag this out.

You are being silly to suggest that they would do so. Although it is a bit late and I might have misread your posting.