3 ms·

FTA > Thieves can sell items for around a third of their retail value, according to the report, or for roughly half their value if they sell them to second han

FTA > Thieves can sell items for around a third of their retail value, according to the report, or for roughly half their value if they sell them to second hand shops. I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0.

jacobush 11y ago
The price difference would be lower, though. Hard to tell how low they'd need to go, but the other guy's cost is not $0. There is always opportunity cost, even for the other guy. (AKA it may push the other guy to greener pastures.)
- elcapitan 11y ago
  Also, the illegal sellers probably operate on pretty thin profits as well, if that's their only source of income. So it might hurt them just enough.
clort 11y ago
Hm Do you have a reference as to the prices of branded vs no-name items? I don't have any specific knowledge but I suspect the brand markup is quite significant.. might be interesting to check that (I don't think there is any no-name shop around here or I'd go out and have a look at soap for instance) Also, the other guys cost is not really $0 .. he also has to make the money to cover his costs, which could be anything from food and rent, or drugs, or paying off a loanshark or baliff, or greasing the palm of his crime boss. His costs don't go down, so if his profit is reduced then his exposure goes up as he needs to steal much more. That means more time spent on the job, and more chance of getting caught.
- elcapitan 11y ago
  In German supermarkts, no-name vs branded side by side is very typical. I would say for small household items like soap, the price is often twice for the branded. So it's quite significant. And that's already branded products that have to compete directly, so the markup might be even higher in branded-only environments.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Some googling indicates that Laundersol liquid detergent for commercial laundries can be had for $534.95/55 gallon drum (about $9.73/gallon). At walmart.com, Liquid Tide costs $17.97 for a 150 ounce container (about $15.33/gallon). So the markup is indeed substantial.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0. Corollary: for a big store, selling at a loss could still be more profitable than having stuff stolen. Actually just giving stuff away could still be more profitable if it cut big store security costs. Of course you'd have to ration or otherwise control the volume of sales, otherwise you'd just cannibalise official sales from the big store.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  even if you give stuff away there will still be people stealing other items. simple fact is that some people don't care and will just take what they want dismissing even discounted if not free items as stuff beneath them. you discourage it by fixing what is wrong in the local area and that requires an effort by the support agencies of the government understanding what is wrong and wanting to fix it. it also requires those who need help knowing how to get it, seeking it out, or accepting it, which is not always the case

jacobush 11y ago

The price difference would be lower, though. Hard to tell how low they'd need to go, but the other guy's cost is not $0. There is always opportunity cost, even for the other guy. (AKA it may push the other guy to greener pastures.)

elcapitan 11y ago
Also, the illegal sellers probably operate on pretty thin profits as well, if that's their only source of income. So it might hurt them just enough.

clort 11y ago

Hm Do you have a reference as to the prices of branded vs no-name items? I don't have any specific knowledge but I suspect the brand markup is quite significant.. might be interesting to check that (I don't think there is any no-name shop around here or I'd go out and have a look at soap for instance) Also, the other guys cost is not really $0 .. he also has to make the money to cover his costs, which could be anything from food and rent, or drugs, or paying off a loanshark or baliff, or greasing the palm of his crime boss. His costs don't go down, so if his profit is reduced then his exposure goes up as he needs to steal much more. That means more time spent on the job, and more chance of getting caught.

elcapitan 11y ago
In German supermarkts, no-name vs branded side by side is very typical. I would say for small household items like soap, the price is often twice for the branded. So it's quite significant. And that's already branded products that have to compete directly, so the markup might be even higher in branded-only environments.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
Some googling indicates that Laundersol liquid detergent for commercial laundries can be had for $534.95/55 gallon drum (about $9.73/gallon). At walmart.com, Liquid Tide costs $17.97 for a 150 ounce container (about $15.33/gallon). So the markup is indeed substantial.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0. Corollary: for a big store, selling at a loss could still be more profitable than having stuff stolen. Actually just giving stuff away could still be more profitable if it cut big store security costs. Of course you'd have to ration or otherwise control the volume of sales, otherwise you'd just cannibalise official sales from the big store.

Shivetya 11y ago
even if you give stuff away there will still be people stealing other items. simple fact is that some people don't care and will just take what they want dismissing even discounted if not free items as stuff beneath them. you discourage it by fixing what is wrong in the local area and that requires an effort by the support agencies of the government understanding what is wrong and wanting to fix it. it also requires those who need help knowing how to get it, seeking it out, or accepting it, which is not always the case