A Cautionary Tale: The Johnson Family Mystery Shopping Mistake
The Scenario
Sarah and her daughter Emily thought they were clever. The local coffee shop had a 60-day rotation policy, and they were determined to maximize their mystery shopping opportunities.
- June: Sarah completes the shop, bringing Emily along
- July: Emily completes the shop, bringing Sarah along
- Their strategy seemed foolproof
We can't assume Sarah and Emily are doing this intentionally; they might simply be unaware that the rotation is in place to bring in completely different shoppers. Regardless of who writes the report, the people must change.
The Telltale Signs
With each visit, Sarah would make remarkably similar comments:
- Always mentioning the same menu item
- Describing the bakery case in nearly identical words
- Consistent critique of the coffee temperature
The Client's Investigation
When the shop reports came in, something seemed off:
- Scores were consistently low
- Comments felt suspiciously familiar
- The video surveillance told the real story
The Direct Confrontation
The client calls the mystery shopping company with concrete evidence:
Client: "We've pulled our video surveillance. These are the same two people coming in repeatedly. Why are you sending the same exact shopper every time? "
Mystery Shopping Project Manager: "Let me look into this immediately, but I assure you that we stick to the 30-day rotation."
The Uncomfortable Truth
Upon investigation, the mystery shopping company discovered an embarrassing situation, and their credibility is damaged:
- Emily and Sarah were mother and daughter
- They had been alternating monthly shops
- Their appearances and mannerisms were nearly identical
- The rotation policy was being systematically violated, making their company look bad
Pulling the Contract
Frustrated by the breach of contract, the client:
- Automatically assume that the mystery shopping company is lying to them!
- Reviewed the original mystery shopping agreement
- Highlighted the specific rotation requirements
- Examined the video evidence in detail
- Prepared to terminate the mystery shopping contract
The Consequences
The situation exposed multiple failures:
- Sarah and Emily's attempt to manipulate the system
- Compromised evaluation integrity
- Potential loss of a valuable client contract
- Violation of mystery shopping fundamental principles
Why This Approach Fails
Client Detection Strategies
- Clients have sophisticated video surveillance capabilities
- Can easily track and identify recurring visitors
- Advanced analysis reveals patterns of visit frequency
Potential Consequences
- Both shopper's integrity and credibility are damaged, possibly beyond repair
- The client loses trust in the company
- Immediate disqualification from current and future shops
- Potential blacklisting across mystery shopping platforms
- Loss of reputation and future earning opportunities
- Damage to the mystery shopping company's credibility
Critical Principle:
Mystery shopping requires genuine, independent, and unbiased evaluations from each individual shopper. It doesn't matter who is writing the report, the rotation is based upon who walks into the establishment, either as the shopper or with the shopper.
Bottom Line:
Clients are far more observant and technologically equipped than shoppers assume. Attempting to circumvent rotation rules will likely result in detection and removal from the program.
