6 ms·

Serious answer: Offer the accused shoplifter some alternatives to police involvement. Pay for the merchandise, pay a fine, sign an agreement to never be on the

Serious answer: Offer the accused shoplifter some alternatives to police involvement. Pay for the merchandise, pay a fine, sign an agreement to never be on the store property. I'm not a retailer - I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas. Flippant answer: Pay Target to train your managers in how to not abuse community resources like police. They obviously figured out something that Walmart can't figure out.

Evenjos 10y ago
I like common sense solutions. Unfortunately, most people don't.
avalaunch 10y ago
Response to flippant answer: I'm pretty sure the only thing Target figured out is to cater to a higher income demographic. I'm curious if there were less disturbances before Walmart, or if they were just more distributed throughout the city.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure the only thing Target figured out is to cater to a higher income demographic. Whereas Walmart's genius lay in not only continuing to cater to the lower income demographic... but to keep its valued customers addicted to junk food, junk clothing, junk music, junk kitchenware, and just plain... junk in general (peppered with vindictive, quite possibly career- and/or life-ruining arrests for drinking a $0.98 iced tea before paying, now and then) so that they stay in the lower income demographic.
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    >drinking a $0.98 iced tea before paying Or shoving it behind something else on a shelf and not paying at all. When people no longer have any respect for authority, social contract or citizenship AND you can't crack them over the head to teach a lesson in hard knocks, how are loss prevention supposed to deal with it? You let it go, then it's suddenly a widespread thing (YES IT WILL BE) and it costs everyone. And frankly it never ends. Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      How are loss prevention supposed to deal with it? In the normal, pragmatic way: wait until you actually see them put the opened drink behind something else on the shelf. Which, not all the time but often enough, you surely will. If they're drinking it out in the open -- in the line at the register, say? Most likely they're going to pay for it. Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture. By the same token, treating people as if they're already "low" (by not giving them the benefit of the doubt for an opening a $0.98 bottle of iced tea before paying) makes for an unworkable culture, also.
maxsilver 10y ago
> Offer alternatives to police involvement. They are already trying this, it's mentioned in the article. "Instead of calling police, the store gives first-time shoplifters the option of paying restitution and completing online courses. Eight Tampa Bay stores are enrolled, he said, and the retailer is assessing whether it will expand the program here and elsewhere."
biomcgary 10y ago
I have seen many Walmart locations in low income neighborhoods, but not Target. Target figured out that they should charge more money per item and locate in more upscale areas, which tends to reduce shrink. Urban food deserts are a recognized problem. I suspect that Walmart reduces the number of urban "general items" deserts in a way that Target does not.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I have seen many Walmart locations in low income neighborhoods, but not Target. I've seen quite a lot of Targets in low-income neighborhoods, often within a few blocks of a Walmart.
whoopdedo 10y ago
> Flippant answer: Pay... And you can stop right there. Remember that the Walmart principle is "we pay less and pass the savings on to the customer". That applies to how they treat their employees as well. Anything that requires the company to spend more money is going to be a no-go.
calbear81 10y ago
Re: Target, it's not simply training, its' a commitment to put more people on the floors actively walking around. This works for Target because they have a slightly more upmarket brand and audience and probably have enough margin to support more service agents in store. The problem with Walmart in this instance is that it attracts a different audience. For example, there's a stark difference in the type of shoppers one encounters at the Target and Wal-Mart in Mountain View even though they are across the street from each other. This difference has even gained some cultural credence with sites like People of Walmart (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/).

Evenjos 10y ago

I like common sense solutions. Unfortunately, most people don't.

avalaunch 10y ago

Response to flippant answer: I'm pretty sure the only thing Target figured out is to cater to a higher income demographic. I'm curious if there were less disturbances before Walmart, or if they were just more distributed throughout the city.

kafkaesq 10y ago
I'm pretty sure the only thing Target figured out is to cater to a higher income demographic. Whereas Walmart's genius lay in not only continuing to cater to the lower income demographic... but to keep its valued customers addicted to junk food, junk clothing, junk music, junk kitchenware, and just plain... junk in general (peppered with vindictive, quite possibly career- and/or life-ruining arrests for drinking a $0.98 iced tea before paying, now and then) so that they stay in the lower income demographic.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  >drinking a $0.98 iced tea before paying Or shoving it behind something else on a shelf and not paying at all. When people no longer have any respect for authority, social contract or citizenship AND you can't crack them over the head to teach a lesson in hard knocks, how are loss prevention supposed to deal with it? You let it go, then it's suddenly a widespread thing (YES IT WILL BE) and it costs everyone. And frankly it never ends. Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    How are loss prevention supposed to deal with it? In the normal, pragmatic way: wait until you actually see them put the opened drink behind something else on the shelf. Which, not all the time but often enough, you surely will. If they're drinking it out in the open -- in the line at the register, say? Most likely they're going to pay for it. Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture. By the same token, treating people as if they're already "low" (by not giving them the benefit of the doubt for an opening a $0.98 bottle of iced tea before paying) makes for an unworkable culture, also.

maxsilver 10y ago

> Offer alternatives to police involvement. They are already trying this, it's mentioned in the article. "Instead of calling police, the store gives first-time shoplifters the option of paying restitution and completing online courses. Eight Tampa Bay stores are enrolled, he said, and the retailer is assessing whether it will expand the program here and elsewhere."

biomcgary 10y ago

I have seen many Walmart locations in low income neighborhoods, but not Target. Target figured out that they should charge more money per item and locate in more upscale areas, which tends to reduce shrink. Urban food deserts are a recognized problem. I suspect that Walmart reduces the number of urban "general items" deserts in a way that Target does not.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> I have seen many Walmart locations in low income neighborhoods, but not Target. I've seen quite a lot of Targets in low-income neighborhoods, often within a few blocks of a Walmart.

whoopdedo 10y ago

> Flippant answer: Pay... And you can stop right there. Remember that the Walmart principle is "we pay less and pass the savings on to the customer". That applies to how they treat their employees as well. Anything that requires the company to spend more money is going to be a no-go.

calbear81 10y ago

Re: Target, it's not simply training, its' a commitment to put more people on the floors actively walking around. This works for Target because they have a slightly more upmarket brand and audience and probably have enough margin to support more service agents in store. The problem with Walmart in this instance is that it attracts a different audience. For example, there's a stark difference in the type of shoppers one encounters at the Target and Wal-Mart in Mountain View even though they are across the street from each other. This difference has even gained some cultural credence with sites like People of Walmart (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/).