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

ISWMLE

Big_Graeme wrote: »

Whoa, every shopper has different experiences with each company, none are wrong, just different.



No, really its not. No one forces you to do any job, we all make judgement calls on the briefs and fees and make our minds up if they are ones we can do for the price. We are not here to educate MSC's, many of whom have the brief dictated to them by the client and go against recommendations, just don't work for that company.

There is plenty of information here about different companies and people are always more than willing to offer an opinion but it is down to the self employed shopper if they take the work or not.



Ah nice attitude, I'm right, you are wrong, your posting style reminds me of someone...

Probaby that poster that starts his own rude answers with 'Cobblers.'

Pot, kettle, black....

Ever heard of that expression?

OneFootEight

I'm a regular poster to this forum, and I wanted to post about AA, but I think they'll know who I am, so I've created a different alias just for this post. I know AA read this thread as I've had a conversation with them about this in the past.

I've had a similar problem to many of you with the jewellery client in particular. And I have to say, I think it is the client which is the problem, not AA.

Last year I did a run of jewellery jobs for them. Can't remember the exact number but it might have been 12 or 14. These were all out of my area.

Anyway, the reason I believe it was the client and not AA is that when I went to the office to drop my SD card in (I live local to them), they looked shocked. They had sent me an email telling me not to do any more of these stores and to contact the office urgently. Unfortunately, I had already completed all of them. This had been 2 of days work, involving a 1 night hotel stay and probably around 600 miles traveling.

They then broke the bad news - I had been spotted as a mystery shopper, but not only that, they suspected that the person who had indentified me had sent out an email with my description and (more importantly) my accent. Obviously, my accent was very different as I was not doing stores local to me. Four of the stores had emailed they to say they had seen the mystery shopper and describing me.

I can see what others said about the scenario. The four emails they'd received all said that I had been wooden and faced them too much. The emails were read out to me. They felt it was not truely representative of a real visit as I was more bothered about getting their head into the frame than the jewellery. Actually this was not true (see below). Obviously, it says in the brief you have to get the head in pretty much all the time.

One of the reasons I believe AA (apart from the fact that this was done face to face), is that in one jewellery store I went in and gave my opening line. The first thing the staff member said was "Oh, I'm really sorry I'm not wearing my name badge". And I thought at the time, what an odd thing to say. Why would a customer care?

Also, I don't think the jewellery store liked the scenario I'd used, yet the scenario was actually real. My wedding and engagement rings were stolen during a burglry about 5 years ago. I received the insurance money and my husband had recently said to look for a repacement for our 20th wedding anniversary, which is later this year. The ring I'd picked on these visits I loved and I'd even rang my husband and said I'd seen "The" ring. We were going to go together and look at it the following week. Obviously, I couldn't buy the ring now, as it would bring bad memories. So they lost a £2500 sale through this. And I won't go in one of these stores again, ever.

I didn't get paid for any of these visits. I was massively out of pocket and had missed two days of family time. I am fairly sure that some of them were re-shopped and I think Big Graeme did them. However, not all the stores were on the list of work which went out and I've often wondered if it was only the 4 which had emailed about me which were re-shopped.

I do still work for AA, though I'm not allowed to self assign anymore. I had a really bad summer holiday as with these visits not being paid and then my camera packing in, I ended up with no money whatsoever. So my kids spent the 6 weeks doing very little - I had to cancel our short holiday.

It also really knocked my confidence and I considered packing in altogether. The one thing which brought it back was getting a lovely message out of the blue from Douglas Stafford telling me that I had done 202 videos for them in the previous year and had had only two fails. Apparently, this is really low. They also use me for trials quite a lot.

The impression I got from the 4 emails AA read out to me was that the staff enjoy working out the mystery shopper and then outing them. It was something in the tone of the emails. They were really nasty. I think the staff don't like the program and hope by outing the mystery shoppers it will be thrown into disrepute and stopped altogether. From this, I suspect that they don't get bonused based on the mystery shopping program.

I also had the impression that AA were really scared of losing the client, so the client comes first and the mystery shopper is dropped.

Feel better I've got all that off my chest :rotfl:Rant over :T

[Deleted User]

OneFootEight wrote: »

I'm a regular poster to this forum, and I wanted to post about AA, but I think they'll know who I am, so I've created a different alias just for this post.

Isn't creating a sockpuppet against the rules of the forum?

evelyns2000

I think they'd know who you are anyway just by all the details you've put in your post.

OneFootEight

evelyns2000 wrote: »

I think they'd know who you are anyway just by all the details you've put in your post.

That's the point - if they look at my post history they'll see nothing. If I'd done it using my usual id they would know all sorts of stuff about my life that I'd prefer them to not know.

Big_Graeme

ISWMLE wrote: »

Probaby that poster that starts his own rude answers with 'Cobblers.'

Pot, kettle, black....

Ever heard of that expression?

Yup, but you probably got canned for the attitude with AA and if you are the poster I think you are it wouldn't be he first time either.

ISWMLE

Big_Graeme wrote: »

Yup, but you probably got canned for the attitude with AA and if you are the poster I think you are it wouldn't be he first time either.

No, BG. I got canned because of the reasons I gave and I got a lot of support because of it. So why don't you respect my verison of events and why not the opinions of those who supported me too? Don't forget many of those criticisms of this company came long before mine did or had you forgotten that already?

I noted in the post above, about AA briefs and the jewellery client that he said YOU had been asked re-shopped some of those AA gigs. I get the distinct impression, and have for some time now, that you are the forum stooge (the equivalent of the teacher's pet orthe bully's flying monkey). There's one on every work/business related site. They come on pretending to be one of the crowd but really you are there to act as the covert forum policeman to harangue and bully people and stir up trouble on behalf of the companies that are abusing those that chat about them on these forums and don't like it No doubt you are are being rewarded with extra work or bonused jobs from trying to discredit those who have had bad experiences.

Before you try to discredit me anymore - and without good cause - I happen to have lots of regular clients and pull in very good money from the work I do and have done for the past two and a bit years. I have come a long way since I started - and without resorting to the type of cowardly tactics you employ.

In future, I would appreciate it if you would just leave me alone or, better still, just leave....

MysteryMe

No, I doubt Big Greame is a stooge for Amber Arch seeing as he posted this in October 2012. In thread 24.


=========================================






Rule number 1 - Amber Arch are a really bad company to work for.
Rule number 2 - If you do find you take an Amber Arch job you'll soon realise rule number 1 is true.


==========================================


Just happened to be searching for old posts on Amber Arch as I knew I had read quite a few adverse comments about the company going back some time.

Sunny_spell

Mystery Me, that was priceless.:T

ISWMLE

OneFootEight wrote: »

I'm a regular poster to this forum, and I wanted to post about AA, but I think they'll know who I am, so I've created a different alias just for this post. I know AA read this thread as I've had a conversation with them about this in the past.

I've had a similar problem to many of you with the jewellery client in particular. And I have to say, I think it is the client which is the problem, not AA.

Last year I did a run of jewellery jobs for them. Can't remember the exact number but it might have been 12 or 14. These were all out of my area.

Anyway, the reason I believe it was the client and not AA is that when I went to the office to drop my SD card in (I live local to them), they looked shocked. They had sent me an email telling me not to do any more of these stores and to contact the office urgently. Unfortunately, I had already completed all of them. This had been 2 of days work, involving a 1 night hotel stay and probably around 600 miles traveling.

They then broke the bad news - I had been spotted as a mystery shopper, but not only that, they suspected that the person who had indentified me had sent out an email with my description and (more importantly) my accent. Obviously, my accent was very different as I was not doing stores local to me. Four of the stores had emailed they to say they had seen the mystery shopper and describing me.

I can see what others said about the scenario. The four emails they'd received all said that I had been wooden and faced them too much. The emails were read out to me. They felt it was not truely representative of a real visit as I was more bothered about getting their head into the frame than the jewellery. Actually this was not true (see below). Obviously, it says in the brief you have to get the head in pretty much all the time.

One of the reasons I believe AA (apart from the fact that this was done face to face), is that in one jewellery store I went in and gave my opening line. The first thing the staff member said was "Oh, I'm really sorry I'm not wearing my name badge". And I thought at the time, what an odd thing to say. Why would a customer care?

Also, I don't think the jewellery store liked the scenario I'd used, yet the scenario was actually real. My wedding and engagement rings were stolen during a burglry about 5 years ago. I received the insurance money and my husband had recently said to look for a repacement for our 20th wedding anniversary, which is later this year. The ring I'd picked on these visits I loved and I'd even rang my husband and said I'd seen "The" ring. We were going to go together and look at it the following week. Obviously, I couldn't buy the ring now, as it would bring bad memories. So they lost a £2500 sale through this. And I won't go in one of these stores again, ever.

I didn't get paid for any of these visits. I was massively out of pocket and had missed two days of family time. I am fairly sure that some of them were re-shopped and I think Big Graeme did them. However, not all the stores were on the list of work which went out and I've often wondered if it was only the 4 which had emailed about me which were re-shopped.

I do still work for AA, though I'm not allowed to self assign anymore. I had a really bad summer holiday as with these visits not being paid and then my camera packing in, I ended up with no money whatsoever. So my kids spent the 6 weeks doing very little - I had to cancel our short holiday.

It also really knocked my confidence and I considered packing in altogether. The one thing which brought it back was getting a lovely message out of the blue from Douglas Stafford telling me that I had done 202 videos for them in the previous year and had had only two fails. Apparently, this is really low. They also use me for trials quite a lot.

The impression I got from the 4 emails AA read out to me was that the staff enjoy working out the mystery shopper and then outing them. It was something in the tone of the emails. They were really nasty. I think the staff don't like the program and hope by outing the mystery shoppers it will be thrown into disrepute and stopped altogether. From this, I suspect that they don't get bonused based on the mystery shopping program.

I also had the impression that AA were really scared of losing the client, so the client comes first and the mystery shopper is dropped.

Feel better I've got all that off my chest :rotfl:Rant over :T

This is an interesting account and makes a good read.

However, I am not buying it (AA's is not the source of the abuse, that is). Firstly, their role as a MSC working as client to freelancer supplier is not to Direct and Control the shopper; nor is it the end-client's role to do this either. As freelancers, we are entitled and even expected by HMRC to work autonomously and work out for ourselves how we should go about doing the job to satisfy the end client's requirements. That is why we are entitled to claim expenses and make a profit rather than be paid a wage.

Therefore, it is not for a MSC or the end-client (the jewellery company, in this case) to tell us what is 'realistic' to seem like a customer in the information gathering process and what isn't. If the job fails becuase we are outed, so be it. What AA or the end client should not do is to impose their own verion of 'you' onto you = them. Only a while back the scheduler told me that I should always try on coats when doing work for their outdoorwear client. I told her that I often buy clothes without trying them on first. It was an irrelevant request too becuase it had no bearing at all on the integrity of the visit. The production would have been the same and the reasons for returning the coat so soon after the visit end would have improved. This was meddling, nothing more. I did oblige them though, but simply to keep the peace. But I was not pleased.

Why? It is because we are 'professional customers' not empty vessel representatives of the MSC to abdicate our own selves to be filled with the personality of the end-client or the MSC and to form opinions which accord with theirs. No one should tell you what it is liek to be a typical customer. There is no such thing. If that were to happen, - we could be so moulded - it would render Mystery Shopping entirely redundant and a complete waste of time except for the gathering of facts. But often we are asked for our opinion too. What would be the point of that if we are told what opinion we should have on what it is to be a typical customer?

So what we decide is a good scenario and natural to us - no matter how odd it might be to another person - is entirely our business, so long as the work the MSC doles out ot us is produced to the required standard and all of the required information is gathered to complete the ER and to deadline. What else we do; how and when we do the work and what that should comprise to make it a success should be entirely up to us to decide, no one else. If the MSC don't like using freelancers then they should get out of this game altogether or drop a freelancer supplier relationship that doesn't work and get another freelancer in whose natural way of working does accord with theirs - not try to ditch the freelancer, hire the temp - a sort of Stepford shopper - and change them; mould them like plasticine to suit their version of what we should think, believe and behave on site etc. I guess that is what AA did do to me - eventually - without even telling me at first.. But not without first trying to change my way of doing things, even when the production results were just as good. But in their case, they probably dropped me because they preferred to take on other freelancers who could be moulded, bossed about and treated like temps not to find other freelancers with the same kind of freelancer mentality. That was the problem.

If you look on their website, you will see a statement on Sassie (I think) that says that the videos we make belong to the MSC at all times - even before we sent them - and that we should destroy them after a certain period of time. Not so. The videos we make belong to us - the freelancer - to be sold to the MSC for a fee. What we do with the copies afterwards is down to what the law says we should do to protect the end-client data. Again, another example of an MSC meddling and misguided threats. I never discussed this with this MSC, btw.

So I have to disagree. There are far too many meddling MSCs treating mystery shoppers like temps. We are not quasi-employees. If we were, we would be entitled to a limited amount of rights of a temp and be entitled to the minimum wage, which would also include all of the admin and travel we do. It seems more and more apparent to me, over time, that some MSCs simply see freelancers as a cheaper, more convenient opportunity to abdicate their responsibilities to pay employers NI.

NB: Please feel free to comment. I would welcome some responses on what I have said, provided they are well thought through and reasoned out - whether you agree or not - and to fit the general tone of the debate. I do not welcome abuse or devils advocate disagreement for the sake of providing cheap entertainment. This is a serious matter and deserves well thought through commentary.