Mystery shopping thread 26 *please read the op first**please no client names or fees

ISWMLE

Wizzbang wrote: »

Sounds like you are talking about a certain company called AA? I had almost the exact same scenario with them a couple of years ago, soon after I first started out. They could have been enough to put one off!!! They are an absolutely disgusting company- I carried out their brief to the letter and they refused to pay me, apparently because the member of staff thought I seemed nervous and therefore thought I was a MSer. I fail to believe this was the case because I was the same as I ever was and ever have been, when MSing and I've never had a report denied to be paid from that day to this, nor before. Basically, their crappy brief gave the game away- who walks into a shop to buy a gift and claims they have no idea how much they want to spend or what kind of watch they want to buy?! AVOID, AVOID, AVOID. I swore never to work for them again and I never have. I hope they go under.

That is precisely their strategy WB and, I believe, the real reason they ditched me without actually telling me in December just b4 Xmas. I was too good at the job and they were not in a good position to actually refuse payments either. I was not profitable enough. Of course, they claimed they were paying me for substandard work and not following the brief but paid me and did not say anything to me at the time as to not hurt my feelings, but that is hardly likely and seems completely at odds with what others say they do. So I don't believe that for one minute. It is patronising completely invented drivel.

From all of the evidence I have gleaned so far from my own experience and comments given my numerous other people on non-payment issues, it seems to build up a picture like this. They put together rumble-friendly scenarios in the hope that mystery shoppers do the work well enough to use the relevant info they gather for the client, but with added direction and control extras of no value to the client - interferences (what they call 'guideance' that, if followed, is supposed to make you appear less like a mystery shopper to end client staff or to get better framing for footage etc, but, in reality makes you far more like one in the hope they can claim you did the job but did not follow the brief exactly and refuse payment. By resisting, and overcoming their guidance - as I did - to make me really less mystery shopper like, they can say eventually that you didn't follow the brief often enough (their crappy guidance) and ditch you entirely. A classic Catch 22 situation.

Sooner or later if they realise that you are not a good bet for screwing over - financially on enough jobs they give you - they claim the client won't work with you at present and don't want you doing their stores or they invent some irrelevant oversight, which was never in the brief in the first place, but which you rectified long ago to keep the peace, they can still claim you are still doing it wrong when the time is ripe to get rid of you.

What this amounts to for mystery shoppers is that each AA job is a lottery, which you cannot control - no matter how competent and careful you are. Your pay will ultimately depend on whether their profits are healthy enough and you are peceived to be of use and value to them, not whether you did the job well enough.

I would wager a guess that the clients do not know that any of this is happening at all and all of this D&C is actually coming from AA themselves. I have a good mind to call the end-clients and find out. Surely they can't all be that bad! I expect what lies behind this is that margins are very squeezed, overheads are too high and AA want to screw over as many MSers as possible by rotating them to rake in niaive newbies who do not know them better, to reap back some profits, whilst not losing their clients. I wonder also about this age discrimination from the shoe client. Is it that younger mystery shoppers are more compliant and more rumble friendly to screw over, I wonder?

MysteryMe

Well you don't need to give them a second thought now so onwards and upwards.

Nobbynobbs

In reply to the AA comments, my experiences with them are only positive, I have worked with them for a number of years and have a positive relationship with both E and J and to date have had no major issues with them whatsoever, if anything they are very approachable. EC who left and formed si**o was also very fair. The supervisor I think that is being referred to is L I am guessing.
Horses for courses I guess, every shopper should make their own opinion of AA and not be influenced by either mine or other shoppers personal opinions or experiences, but to make personal comments and attempt to sway other peoples opinions really isn't a nice thing to do irrespective of what has or has not been said.
There are other companies that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, but I am not in the naming and shaming game at all. There are two sides to every story but I never seen a msc name and shame a mystery shopper in front of a such an audience like this.

scattymam1

Does anyone have a referral to roamler please, I'm really interested, thanks I appreciate it

Mr._Bigglesworth

Perhaps it's time to quality control the list and dump AA from the MSC list in the intro to this thread. Why should they gain any new workers from this thread?

ISWMLE

Nobbynobbs wrote: »

In reply to the AA comments, my experiences with them are only positive, I have worked with them for a number of years and have a positive relationship with both E and J and to date have had no major issues with them whatsoever, if anything they are very approachable. EC who left and formed si**o was also very fair. The supervisor I think that is being referred to is L I am guessing.
Horses for courses I guess, every shopper should make their own opinion of AA and not be influenced by either mine or other shoppers personal opinions or experiences, but to make personal comments and attempt to sway other peoples opinions really isn't a nice thing to do irrespective of what has or has not been said.
There are other companies that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, but I am not in the naming and shaming game at all. There are two sides to every story but I never seen a msc name and shame a mystery shopper in front of a such an audience like this.

That's what I would have said before Xmas too, and had even said to them as well, before I realised they had already dumped me before I made it official and dumped them instead a few days ago. What they wanted to do was to keep my account open and just keep refusing me work and, eventually, I would wake up and smell the coffee. I was having none of it when their reasons were based on unsubstantiated rubbish.

And, no, their reasons for shafting me is not at all based on having arguments with them, doing bad work, not following briefs or any other plausible reason that might excuse their decision to do this.

Sorry, but with so many people with similar tales to tell, you cannot dismiss all of us - including my story too - as not providing a true picture of what they are really like. You just haven't experienced their nastiness, that is all, or haven't suspecting anything. If you start to challenge them about anything at all, no matter how relevant your comments are - you will soon see the other side - just as I did. They want blind compliance and no hint of any criticisms, even if constructive and helpful to them. If you do this they will compile a file and use that information against you when the time comes.

BTW: 'E' was furious with the other 'E' starting up the rival company and phone us all up questioning us on what they were doing and whether we had been approached.

ISWMLE

Nobbynobbs wrote: »

In reply to the AA comments, my experiences with them are only positive, I have worked with them for a number of years and have a positive relationship with both E and J and to date have had no major issues with them whatsoever, if anything they are very approachable. EC who left and formed si**o was also very fair. The supervisor I think that is being referred to is L I am guessing.
Horses for courses I guess, every shopper should make their own opinion of AA and not be influenced by either mine or other shoppers personal opinions or experiences, but to make personal comments and attempt to sway other peoples opinions really isn't a nice thing to do irrespective of what has or has not been said.
There are other companies that I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, but I am not in the naming and shaming game at all. There are two sides to every story but I never seen a msc name and shame a mystery shopper in front of a such an audience like this.

In reply to the AA comments, my experiences with them are only positive, I have worked with them for a number of years and have a positive relationship with both E and J and to date have had no major issues with them whatsoever, if anything they are very approachable.

That's what I would have said before Xmas before I realised they had already dumped me before I made it official and dumped them instead a few days ago. What they wanted to do was to keep my account open and just keep refusing me work and, eventually, I would wake up and smell the coffee. I was having none of it.

And, no, their reasons for shafting me is not at all based on having arguments with them, doing bad work, not following briefs or any other plausible reason that might excuse their decision to do this.

Sorry, but with so many people with similar tales to tell, you cannot dismiss all of them as not providing a true picture of what they are really like. You just haven't experienced it yet, that is all and I really don't appreciate your attempts to try to dissuade others to not listen or take note of these experiences either. Why? Because there is absolutely no point in talking about our experiences on here if no is expected to take note - good or bad - so why do it yourself?

evelyns2000

I would like to thank ISWMLE. I am on their register but have never done a job for them. Their fees seem far too low to get out of bed for. I will remove myself from their database. It's nice to get a heads up on these things. I know now not to waste my time with this outfit. Plenty of other nice companies to be getting work from.

ISWMLE

Wizzbang wrote: »

Sounds like you are talking about a certain company called AA? I had almost the exact same scenario with them a couple of years ago, soon after I first started out. They could have been enough to put one off!!! They are an absolutely disgusting company- I carried out their brief to the letter and they refused to pay me, apparently because the member of staff thought I seemed nervous and therefore thought I was a MSer. I fail to believe this was the case because I was the same as I ever was and ever have been, when MSing and I've never had a report denied to be paid from that day to this, nor before. Basically, their crappy brief gave the game away- who walks into a shop to buy a gift and claims they have no idea how much they want to spend or what kind of watch they want to buy?! AVOID, AVOID, AVOID. I swore never to work for them again and I never have. I hope they go under.

...and since when do females buy themselves an engagement ring too? Another easily implausible scenario that took a great deal of effort and Kate Winslet level acting skills to make it seem genuine. Even worse when you are meant to stand in front of the target to get the footage when they are standing behind a counter with a bright backlight or window light and the client wants 'clear facial features or the job will fail'. Even worse still when you are meant to ask for an engagement ring by targetting the manager by name to serve you, standing behind a strong light source, at the exclusion of anyone else in the shop trying on an engagement ring for yourself. LOL!

...hmmmm just like we all behave when we go shopping for jewellery.

....then there are the walking coats. We are expected to walk around the entire store first and then during the interaction we are told to try on a coat, risking ripping the camera wire twisting our arms around our back (we're not allowed to hold it against us to size and style even though the brief does not stipulate we try on - presumably because the client doesn't care) and we risk our recorder showing as our shirts ride up. This is a coat that is the right quality and fit and style - making all the right buying signals to prompt a sale closure - and it is sold at a very generous discount too. We pay for it and just a couple of minutes later we return the item for a refund with no real plausible excuses left to us change our minds. Apparently, trying it on for the first time in a cofee shop next door to justify the return and to speed up the visit and not risking our camera tearing is not allowed (yeah, right). Next month we go back to the same store and repeat the same actions and hope that the same staff don't recognise us. Of course they do.

.....hmmm just like all genuine customers behave.

Oh, and the shoe shops. Apparently, according to 'J' the client says you have to be under 40 to buy a pair of Uggs or Toms in this one, which is why the job board description says you have to be under 45 (not 40) ; it's because the client now insists on this age restriction (which one?) and why 'E' or 'J' ent out a mail a while back asking for shoppers who were under 50 (not 45 or 50).

....hmmm. me thinks that the age restriction is purely an AA invention - adapted to suit how many jobs they can fill -= because they, not the client, are pre-empting that older shoppers will be rumbled they claim (when they really think younger, less experienced ones will be - one's they dont' have to pay or won't resist their stupid attempts at D&C.

missymouse

Another gripe is when you do a mystery shop in a restaurant it's unlikely you would go alone, you get reimbursed (just about) for yours but why can't the other person use a voucher for their share or even a discount for the whole bill if you have one or clubcard vouchers.

You look more suspicious dining alone in the evening. Cafe or fast food is fine alone.