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

enevel

Interesting few days' worth of posts on here regarding AA (for whom I have never worked) and the industry in general. I think this highlights some serious issues which need addressing...

MSCs, in order to get the work, have cut and cut and cut their fees. That has seen all sorts of things happen: reduced payments, reduced (or withdrawn) reimbursements, cuts in company admin staff (making them more of a pain to deal with), the externalising (to shoppers) of some of those lost administrative processes. All of these have the impact of making the shopper's job more difficult or more poorly paid - because that is the only place the MSCs can see any 'slack' in the business.

The way our economy is structured means that cuts are a never-ending cycle. Some of the practices described in this thread echo what one or two of the big pub companies have done in recent years - having cut everything, they need to invent new places to cut. A common requirement now is that pub managers need to deliver '110% yield' on a barrel of beer. While 10 years ago, loss might be allowed for spillages (90% yield); and five years ago, the expectation was that there be no spillages at all (100% yield - so what happens to the stuff in the slops tray?); the only way to deliver what is needed now is to give short measures...

The MSC market is severely overcrowded, and the MSCs know it. For some of them, the only way they have managed to pitch for contracts at the agreed prices is by using the assumption that a certain number of jobs will go unpaid - ie. 110% yield. They are therefore required by their business model to search for spurious reasons to decline perfectly good work - which we all know, still gets sent to the client anyway. Shoppers are the ones being made to pay for the MSCs' poor business practices.

Two things are needed here to sort this out. Firstly, contrary to what one earlier poster said, shoppers need to do far more naming and shaming of those MSCs who bend or break the rules. I'd go further than that, and suggest there needs to be established a formal trade organisation or union for suppliers such as us - to provide a united front to oppose cuts in standards and pay.

And secondly, the industry desperately needs a crash. A big one, that takes out a lot of companies. Competition is the mantra of our economic times, but it only benefits those who are buying. In this industry, roles are reversed, and it is the small operator (ie, the shopper) who is selling - thus the more the competition for contracts, the lower the MSCs bid, the more cuts that are imposed on the shoppers. Were five or 10 MSCs to go out of business, there would be no less work - it would just go through a less competitive tendering process, which would be of far more benefit to us as shoppers. It would also mean a relaxing of administrative cuts within the MSCs and a probable linked increase in the quality of reports for the end client.

Attaining the second goal may seem out of our hands, but it is actually very much linked to the first. If shoppers avoided companies that employ the poor practices outlined here, it would be those companies that went to the wall - because at the end of the day, an MSC with no shoppers also has no clients.

Interested in people's thoughts on this...

mrbanjo

I keep banging the same old drum, but people doing jobs for peanuts certainly doesn't help our cause. MF, RA and React have a loyal band of followers who lap up the poor paid jobs.

missymouse

I know, I work for MF and it is rubbish money but I wouldn't know who else to apply to at the moment and I can get on with my main job which takes precedence. Also it is not too tricky.

evelyns2000

I do some of the measly paid ones too. Nothing under a tenner mind, can't bring myself to do that, but if I happen to be going to the certain store to buy something anyway, then I'll have a look and see if there's an assignment going on. Also, if I can do a round of say 6 £10 jobs in a small radius, I'll do it. I managed 6 jobs in an hour and a half last month which were quick and easy.

Big_Graeme

missymouse wrote: »

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 are doing the wrong visits then.

missymouse wrote: »

You look more suspicious dining alone in the evening.

Cobblers, I've dined alone plenty of times when away from home and been treated the same as when I've had guests, you just feel more nervous about dining alone, take a book or a tablet and chill.

missymouse

That's a bit harsh Graeme, I like going with my OH tbh. I often go alone on day visits etc and you are right it's fine alone

My point was about not being able to use vouchers and wondered why not.

Big_Graeme

missymouse wrote: »

That's a bit harsh Graeme, I like going with my OH tbh. I often go alone on day visits etc and you are right it's fine alone

Sorry not meant to be harsh.

missymouse wrote: »

My point was about not being able to use vouchers and wondered why not.

You shouldn't need to use vouchers, if you do then you are not working for the right companies, there are plenty of dines where you get a decent amount to cover the meal, I do about 1 a week and rarely have to stump up more than a few quid, often its because I/we choose to go for something more expensive.

Have a look at Silent Customer and Service Measure. MDC have some decent dines too if you avoid the pubs.

ISWMLE

enevel wrote: »

Interesting few days' worth of posts on here regarding AA (for whom I have never worked) and the industry in general. I think this highlights some serious issues which need addressing...

MSCs, in order to get the work, have cut and cut and cut their fees. That has seen all sorts of things happen: reduced payments, reduced (or withdrawn) reimbursements, cuts in company admin staff (making them more of a pain to deal with), the externalising (to shoppers) of some of those lost administrative processes. All of these have the impact of making the shopper's job more difficult or more poorly paid - because that is the only place the MSCs can see any 'slack' in the business.

The way our economy is structured means that cuts are a never-ending cycle. Some of the practices described in this thread echo what one or two of the big pub companies have done in recent years - having cut everything, they need to invent new places to cut. A common requirement now is that pub managers need to deliver '110% yield' on a barrel of beer. While 10 years ago, loss might be allowed for spillages (90% yield); and five years ago, the expectation was that there be no spillages at all (100% yield - so what happens to the stuff in the slops tray?); the only way to deliver what is needed now is to give short measures...

The MSC market is severely overcrowded, and the MSCs know it. For some of them, the only way they have managed to pitch for contracts at the agreed prices is by using the assumption that a certain number of jobs will go unpaid - ie. 110% yield. They are therefore required by their business model to search for spurious reasons to decline perfectly good work - which we all know, still gets sent to the client anyway. Shoppers are the ones being made to pay for the MSCs' poor business practices.

Two things are needed here to sort this out. Firstly, contrary to what one earlier poster said, shoppers need to do far more naming and shaming of those MSCs who bend or break the rules. I'd go further than that, and suggest there needs to be established a formal trade organisation or union for suppliers such as us - to provide a united front to oppose cuts in standards and pay.

And secondly, the industry desperately needs a crash. A big one, that takes out a lot of companies. Competition is the mantra of our economic times, but it only benefits those who are buying. In this industry, roles are reversed, and it is the small operator (ie, the shopper) who is selling - thus the more the competition for contracts, the lower the MSCs bid, the more cuts that are imposed on the shoppers. Were five or 10 MSCs to go out of business, there would be no less work - it would just go through a less competitive tendering process, which would be of far more benefit to us as shoppers. It would also mean a relaxing of administrative cuts within the MSCs and a probable linked increase in the quality of reports for the end client.

Attaining the second goal may seem out of our hands, but it is actually very much linked to the first. If shoppers avoided companies that employ the poor practices outlined here, it would be those companies that went to the wall - because at the end of the day, an MSC with no shoppers also has no clients.

Interested in people's thoughts on this...

This is an excellent post well worth commenting on.

My biggest gripe of all is that some of these MSCs do not know what freelancing actually represents beyond putting together a contract that says we are responsible for submitting our SATR, which means they are exonerated from paying employers NI.

Apart from that, many impose too much Direction and Control, which has nothing at all to do with treating us like autonomous experts in our fields. I suppose I am referring most to video shoppers here - those who do it for a living (part or full time).

One such big player, based on the south coast, has just sent out a contract stating that their shoppers cannot work for other companies without their permission. It is pretty much understood that we don't have any right to substitution (to put someone else in the job whilst we do something else). Not that it would be worth doing that anyway, but that is not the point. Geoverify is one such demonstration of this and other proofs like photos of locations, what is right and left of the building, etc. A lot of these companies also run in-house training for shoppers. Again, we, as freelancers, as supposed to be responsible for our own training.

Luckily, we are 'itinerant' freelancers with no consistent pattern of working to and from home get to a temporary place of work. This makes it very much easier for these companies to get away with this nonsense becuase if there was such a regular pattern then HMRC would surely be concerned that they are simply engaging the falsely self employed. But when MSCs start calling us employees and stating we can't work for other rival companies offering similar services is really going over the top. Many are also trying to guage the fee rate based on the average time it takes to do a job. Again, it is so one sided. When it goes over that carefully timed average - for the set fee - we can't charge them more, I notice! They they feel free to reduce the fee before offering a job out when they realise that a job they thought might take half an hour is now taking 15 minutes.

The whole point of freelancing is to make as profit as we can. We don't have the luxury of employee rights or a sense of stability and expectation of a certain amount of net income. Therefore, a fixed fee per assignment is supposed to enable us to do the job as quickly and efficiently as we can so we can pack in more work - provided standards don't drop to reduce the value of the product and harm the relationship with our client. How we achieve that efficiency should be up to us, not up to them to interfere and meddle. Half the time, as you say, it is to encourage failure so that they can still use it but also claim we never followed the brief or instructions. A real rip off.

You are also right about some MSCs expecting us to go well beyond the call of duty. For Aftersales work some companies won't offer one of those customer partner jobs unless we agree to ferry the customer to and from their address - sometimes miles away from the garage, which can encroach on other jobs we do that day. Others threaten us with fines for not diaring in our appointments of two days of receiving the jobs. These are definitely !!!! takes and completely unacceptable, even if some shoppers don't actually mind doing these tasks. It is the madatory and threatening element of it that is so reprehensible.

skivenov

Big_Graeme wrote: »

You are doing the wrong visits then.



Cobblers, I've dined alone plenty of times when away from home and been treated the same as when I've had guests, you just feel more nervous about dining alone, take a book or a tablet and chill.

I'd agree there, just got to look natural. I eat alone when I'm working away and I just chill out with the paper or reading on my phone while I'm eating.

donnamontana

Hey everyone

I have a question and was wondering if you could give me some advice.

I started small time MSing in November last year. I've been keeping an excel sheet and have registered for self assessment with HMRC. I've recently added on the mileage/printing costs etc following the good advice on this board.

My question is, if you do several jobs in one area in one day, do you calculate the mileage between them and just charge that (i.e. home -> job X -> job Y -> home)? At first I was clocking each job as being (home -> X -> home) and then (home -> Y -> home), but when I do two in one place, I figured that wasn't honest... but made sense for my bookkeeping! What do you guys do?

Donna