Secret Shopper ethics

[cooky560]

I'm not a lawyer, and don't pretend to be an expert at law. I know what's right and what's wrong, and this generally is aligned with the law (eg: don't steal). However some education as to the basics of law, wouldn't be a bad thing.

[LogicalDrm]

People, please chill a bit. "Funny" reactions to OP are not necessary. Unless you really think them showing valid concerns about how LMG has disclosed their practices in videos (and maybe their actual practices) is somehow ridiculous.

 

All companies shown in videos are contacted afterwards to give them report of sorts whats going on. This was shown/noted first in the very first Secret Shopper where they talked to reps about the results (IIRC, they talked about it in WAN). Whether LMG returns the parts they "scammed" as some here seem to call it, is unclear and something they should disclose to audience as part of their new standard of being more transparent. 

 

Also, I don't think its bad idea to talk these companies about possibility of being tested. I don't know if such being a thing has been disclosed or not. So any speculation for or against it is pretty pointless. Imo it would be good idea, with sponsors, to note it in contract already. Since LMG is already dropping and evaluating sponsors based on viewer feedback (for longer than official complaints threads has been  a thing too). Noting that company may be tested by LMG besides actual customers so they are notified about it being a thing. But still not given time frame. Company to refuse such would raise some red flags immediately.

 

The argument about "well, the reps are gonna tell the CSA's about upcoming calls/emails from Canada and warn them" is pretty hilarious tbh. For all of the secret shoppers, they have used people who are using throwaway emails (or personal emails), unidentifiable phone numbers and people who are not in front of camera. They might even use some fake names (which isn't illegal since its not for governmental officials). Chance of rep getting idea on whats going on is imo pretty slim. Maybe for smaller companies it might be easier to spot. 

[user_50983]

4 hours ago, tkitch said:

I'm not doing that in the slightest.

If it's done for a legit purpose:  Yes, it's fine.  In this case feedback was delivered to the companies, etc etc.  It served a purpose.

When it's a customer doing it for the sole purpose of benefitting themselves at someone else's expense, that's a VERY different story.  

I see the journalistic value, but journalists/individuals providing reviews and feedback do not have free rein to do whatever they would like. If they are stealing, that would be the case regardless of who they are.

[user_50983]

2 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

People, please chill a bit. "Funny" reactions to OP are not necessary. Unless you really think them showing valid concerns about how LMG has disclosed their practices in videos (and maybe their actual practices) is somehow ridiculous.

 

All companies shown in videos are contacted afterwards to give them report of sorts whats going on. This was shown/noted first in the very first Secret Shopper where they talked to reps about the results (IIRC, they talked about it in WAN). Whether LMG returns the parts they "scammed" as some here seem to call it, is unclear and something they should disclose to audience as part of their new standard of being more transparent. 

 

Also, I don't think its bad idea to talk these companies about possibility of being tested. I don't know if such being a thing has been disclosed or not. So any speculation for or against it is pretty pointless. Imo it would be good idea, with sponsors, to note it in contract already. Since LMG is already dropping and evaluating sponsors based on viewer feedback (for longer than official complaints threads has been  a thing too). Noting that company may be tested by LMG besides actual customers so they are notified about it being a thing. But still not given time frame. Company to refuse such would raise some red flags immediately.

 

The argument about "well, the reps are gonna tell the CSA's about upcoming calls/emails from Canada and warn them" is pretty hilarious tbh. For all of the secret shoppers, they have used people who are using throwaway emails (or personal emails), unidentifiable phone numbers and people who are not in front of camera. They might even use some fake names (which isn't illegal since its not for governmental officials). Chance of rep getting idea on whats going on is imo pretty slim. Maybe for smaller companies it might be easier to spot. 

Thank you! I greatly appreciate your insights and clarifications.

[user_50983]

4 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

As someone that has taken part in corporate secret shopper programs, they will absolutely do things to "test" the service, including not being 100% honest or testing loss prevention by stealing.

This isn't unethical, because the breaches in proper behaviour are disclosed in the video as part of a test in order to simulate a customer experience.

LMG isn't doing this work to "steal" broken parts.  They are doing it as a test of customer service. 

Was the mystery shopping affiliated with the tested company and those actions permitted by that company? Presumably these would be true, which would clear potential wrongdoing.

[kirashi]

14 hours ago, Needfuldoer said:

There's no way to guarantee that informing their media contact or the company's upper management ahead of time wouldn't taint their customer experience.

Oh, I know - just trying to appease @user_50983's concerns, which I now see seems a wee bit frivolous...  From a moral / ethics standpoint, fraud is fraud is fraud, no matter how you slice it. However, the world is not black and white, therefore exceptions exist.

 

At the end of the day, if you notify anyone of a test beforehand, you're tainting the test results in some way. This is why I've yet to tell anyone they're actually just living in the Matrix. Wouldn't want them to find out life is an illusion and time is a weird soup, after all...

[user_50983]

12 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

LOL.  I worked for a fortune 500 company doing this, and can assure you legal approves. 

 

Do you have link to a legal case where a company has been successfully prosecuted in civil or criminal court for this?

There is a similar case in USA v. Al-Maarej (2:23-cr-00147).

 

An organization systematically made fraudulent refund claims, which resulted in federal convictions. (Recording it for a YouTube video would be unlikely to make a material difference to the legality.)

 

I realize they are in Canada, not the US, however. 

[Seccedonien]

I would say the potential "loss" of sending parts/giving support in a test like secret shopper is nothing compared to the potential positive advertisement this has on your company if your company actually does what they promise.

[aisle9]

On 1/4/2024 at 5:45 PM, user_50983 said:

No? Because if they did not that would be fraudulent and hugely unethical. I would hope that a company like LTT would take steps to avert criminality.

Do you know how many organizations, including government organizations, do the exact same thing? If the company you're testing knows that you're going to test them, you're not going to get a real result.

[user_50983]

3 hours ago, Seccedonien said:

I would say the potential "loss" of sending parts/giving support in a test like secret shopper is nothing compared to the potential positive advertisement this has on your company if your company actually does what they promise.

I agree, though I also don't think it morally justifies the initial action if they did not consent to it. For example, if someone burglarized your home, and you received a ton of sympathetic community support and donations, resulting in a net profit, it would not rectify the original malfeasance.

 

I think the common sentiment is that it is justified by the journalistic intention of reviewing and documenting the customer service. I do not agree with this sentiment, but I concede that my opinions likely do not reflect the community (at least on this thread).

 

I do think/hope that they worked behind the scenes to square things away and make it right, but some clarification would be good.

[user_50983]

2 hours ago, aisle9 said:

Do you know how many organizations, including government organizations, do the exact same thing? If the company you're testing knows that you're going to test them, you're not going to get a real result.

 

I like LogicalDrm's reasoning on this:

 

15 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

The argument about "well, the reps are gonna tell the CSA's about upcoming calls/emails from Canada and warn them" is pretty hilarious tbh. For all of the secret shoppers, they have used people who are using throwaway emails (or personal emails), unidentifiable phone numbers and people who are not in front of camera. They might even use some fake names (which isn't illegal since its not for governmental officials). Chance of rep getting idea on whats going on is imo pretty slim. Maybe for smaller companies it might be easier to spot. 

 

[LogicalDrm]

6 hours ago, user_50983 said:

There is a similar case in USA v. Al-Maarej (2:23-cr-00147).

 

An organization systematically made fraudulent refund claims, which resulted in federal convictions. (Recording it for a YouTube video would be unlikely to make a material difference to the legality.)

 

I realize they are in Canada, not the US, however. 

That's way different though. What LMG is doing is not for material or monetary gain. They aren't in business for reselling items or don't use hardware from their sponsors for production in masses (as in camera gear for example). They get to keep most of items sent for reviews, so doing two videos yearly where they "scam" free parts is more work and costs for them than reselling or using gain goods would profit them.

 

E: Expanding this a bit. If someone buys product, tests and reviews it, and then returns it within the return period, are they being fraudulent? I don't think so, but I also think doing it in masses would be unethical due to potential ewaste created.

Edited January 6 by LogicalDrm

[user_50983]

11 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

That's way different though. What LMG is doing is not for material or monetary gain. They aren't in business for reselling items or don't use hardware from their sponsors for production in masses (as in camera gear for example). They get to keep most of items sent for reviews, so doing two videos yearly where they "scam" free parts is more work and costs for them than reselling or using gain goods would profit them.

 

E: Expanding this a bit. If someone buys product, tests and reviews it, and then returns it within the return period, are they being fraudulent? I don't think so, but I also think doing it in masses would be unethical due to potential ewaste created.

That is a good point, though it would be difficult to find an equivalent case, as petty-level theft or fraud is often not prosecuted and when it is, it does not make news. Since the query pertained to a legal case involving a company, it would generally have to be a scaled-up operation of these one-off events to warrant a major legal case. For a civil suit, the legal fees alone would likely outweigh the cost of the products.

 

I suppose I should leave the legal grievance alone; my concern is more an ethical one.

[Seccedonien]

14 hours ago, user_50983 said:

I agree, though I also don't think it morally justifies the initial action if they did not consent to it. For example, if someone burglarized your home, and you received a ton of sympathetic community support and donations, resulting in a net profit, it would not rectify the original malfeasance.

I disagree about the morality being an issue, the only parties who would have an issue with this are the ones that do not have their shit in order and they know it, then it becomes the question if it is morally correct that companies are fucking over customers knowingly for profit. The only reason why these tests are needed is because consumers are at a disadvantage because in many cases the legal system does not protect them well enough against bad actors.

[Rocketdog2112]

On 1/4/2024 at 7:08 PM, Hinjima said:

You realize this happens hundreds of thousands of times a day? all day, every day.

Yeah, except the fraudulent activity of purposely damaging goods with the intent of returning them for replacement or refund is not only captured on video, but as LTTMedia Group owns the channel, the fraud committed is done to profit from advertisers and viewership. 

 

A big difference than public Joe damaging something because he's a dumbass and returning it.