The Mystery Shopping Charade
Talk to disabled people and use competent research companies
You can listen to the main article in this newsletter (read by me).
In a misguided move, Barclays Bank has embarked on a journey set up to fail to understand the challenges faced by blind and deaf customers. Their method? Sending non-disabled mystery shoppers into branches armed with sunglasses and noise-cancelling headphones to "simulate" the experiences of those who are deaf or blind.
This approach, implemented in partnership with market research firm Ipsos, is not just wholly inadequate—it's insulting to the very customers it tries to serve. Let's be clear: Wearing sunglasses does not magically grant insights into the reality of blind and visually impaired people. The same is true for noise-cancelling headphones. They do not show what deaf customers experience when entering a bank.
The Fallacy of Simulation
The fundamental flaw in Barclays' strategy lies in its oversimplification of disability. Each disabled person’s experiences are unique, and barriers to service can’t be reduced to a one-size-fits-all simulation. Also, non-disabled people sometimes have entirely different expectations of how a service for disabled customers should look compared to the actual disabled customers themselves.
They underestimate coping strategies and find things helpful that aren’t. A person who has been blind or deaf for years navigates the world differently from someone who pretends to be deaf or visually impaired for 30 minutes.
The Missed Opportunity
What's particularly infuriating about this situation is the missed opportunity. Instead of engaging directly with blind and deaf customers—the true experts in their own experiences—Barclays has opted for a shallow, performative exercise that risks developing a service based on stereotypes and misconceptions. This harms their own business, not to mention their reputation.
Imagine the insights they could get by liaising with the disabled community, hiring consultants with lived experiences or talking to their disabled customers. Banking is a business of trust. Funny enough, Barclays states its company values are “respect, integrity, service, excellence, and stewardship”. I’m not sure how this matches with hiring fake disabled people to test their service. The integrity point especially seems to have room for improvement.
Unfortunately, Barclays is not alone in its questionable practices when it comes to mystery shopping. In May 2024, the government launched an investigation after claims that rail companies are using “mystery shoppers” who are pretending to be disabled to provide data on the accessibility of their services.
I’m seriously wondering how widespread this issue is in all industries. And why do companies do that? Are they not interested in what their disabled customers want? Or are they hiring bad market research companies to do the job, and they let them down?
This is Ipsos’ statement:
Ipsos seeks to represent the voices of everyone in society and the diverse experiences of people across the UK, including people with disabilities. The study referenced is an example of compliance mystery shopping where the intention is to objectively assess how staff behave when faced with specific scenarios and whether they follow appropriate training and protocols. This type of research is designed to ensure institutions are better meeting the needs of vulnerable customers and those with accessibility requirements. We do recruit many individuals with lived experiences relevant to the task, but we acknowledge we need greater representation across our panels and would welcome the opportunity to work with participants and charity partners to achieve this.
Like with Barclays, there is a notable inconsistency between their stated values (diversity, inclusivity) and their actions (using fake disabled people for mystery shopping). They don’t explicitly apologise or acknowledge the harm caused to the disabled community or Barclays. They use medical model language (people with disabilities and vulnerable), which is a clear sign to me to question their competency in the field of disability or accessibility. “Fake it till you make it” is not a strategy in these areas. So why hire them in the first place?
Authentic Engagement
So why risk such reputational damage for a lousy research job on top? The solution to get a far better outcome in service and compliance is so obvious:
Involve disabled people in the design and evaluation of services.
Provide comprehensive disability equality training for staff, led by those with lived experiences. This will improve the service and compliance because staff will understand why they actually have to do certain things.
Regularly consult with disabled experts.
Implement ongoing feedback mechanisms for disabled customers and act on them.
Check the competency of the company you’re outsourcing the research to. Many research companies have no idea what to ask, how to ask, or what is relevant. These are sensitive topics that can’t be researched as if we’re discussing the customer’s favourite floor cleaner.
Disabled customers deserve nothing less than a complete understanding of their experiences and addressing the barriers – not through clumsy simulations and fake mystery shoppers, but through respectful, direct, and meaningful collaboration.
Some interesting links
Do Car-Free Zones Hurt Disabled People? This is a very well-argued article about pedestrianised areas and their impact on accessibility.
Accessibility for business travel is such an overlooked topic. Finally, Forbes writes about it. When I worked for big corporations, I always booked the trip, especially the hotel, myself. I paid myself first, then asked for reimbursement after the travel team booked hotels for me with stairs at the entrance several times (“the hotel said they would help.”).
Josh Wintersgill created a tool to quickly calculate the watt-hour (Wh) rating of lithium-ion batteries used in mobility aids, such as electric wheelchairs and scooters. This information is relevant to anyone who wants to take their mobility aid on a plane. This tool has been designed to meet the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air and the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations.
Something to watch
DB Regio explores future urban rail travel ideas in a 1:1 regional train model. The interior features a flexible standing and seating layout and an intelligent system for informing and guiding passengers.
The goal is to actively shape the future of mobility with innovative ideas and encourage people to switch to environmentally friendly rail travel.
The video demonstrates how the interior can be adapted to the varying occupancy of trains during peak times to create more standing space temporarily.
Some final words
The Accessible Link is a reader-supported publication. So, if you like what you’re reading, consider to
As a paid subscriber you will receive an additional edition every two weeks with best-practice tips on improving accessibility in your organisation.
Who is writing this newsletter?
I’m Christiane Link, and I improve the customer experience in aviation, transport, and travel. I worked as a journalist for over two decades and travelled extensively for business and leisure. I’m a wheelchair user.
Work with me
Whether you're a Customer service director, a Head of Customer Experience, a corporate Accessibility manager, a DEI leader, a transport planner, or a disabled employee resource group member, I can help you to make your organisation more inclusive. You can book me for speaking engagements or hire me as a consultant for your accessibility or DEI strategy, communications advice and other related matters. I have worked for airlines, airports, train operators, public transport providers, and companies in other sectors.
If you want to read more from me, follow me on LinkedIn, Twitter, Bluesky or Mastodon. You can also reply to this email if you want to contact me.
.