5 ms·

I think the automated system can do a bunch to stop fraud, but in the OPs case, a local manager should be able to do a common sense test to provide the customer

I think the automated system can do a bunch to stop fraud, but in the OPs case, a local manager should be able to do a common sense test to provide the customer the appropriate level of service instead of being flagged a hard no.

grkvlt 9y ago
Unfortunately this then enables fraud by allowing the manager to collude with someone and override the 'no' for fake returns by them, perhaps splitting the 'profit' generated. Perhaps the loss from this sort of white collar crime was predicted to be too high to be worth it.
- lazerwalker 9y ago
  I'm admittedly not used to thinking at the management scale of these sort of big-box retailers, but I'd think "we can't systemically trust our store managers to not commit fraud" is on its own a large problem that merits solving outside of trying to plug all potential fraud vectors.
- raincom 9y ago
  Usually, the fraud doesn't involve with managers. Usually cashiers or customer service folks in the return counter collude with customers: switching upc codes to swap a high price item with a low price one. LP (loss and prevention) usually focus more about this kind of collusion than a random $10 theft. In a case I know of, LP colluded with the customer service manager to steal $10K cash, by shifting the camera focus from the money counting area. In this case, both the LP manager and the customer service manager got fired, and, of course, without any charges, since there is no proof. At Fry's electronics, to return a product, LP has to key in his password as well. If the price of returned product is more than $300, LP and some other manager have to key in their passwords.
ethbro 9y ago
Home Depot had USD$88.5 B revenue for 2016. Kroger had $108 B. Walmart had $485.9 B. When you're selling that kind of volume, you're not doing it without algorithmic help. Absolutely agree that OP should have been able to more easily get an in-person override. But I understand why the original rejection happened: or rather, I understand why HD uses a data mining company to attempt to prevent theft. PS: Side note, you'd be surprised how big of a chunk of theft directly involves receipts / returns in some way or another.
- acdha 9y ago
  The number can’t tell you that in isolation: Home Depot might gross that much but they also have hundreds of thousands of employees at thousands of stores. The amount of money a particular manager is responsible for is going to be a lot more reasonable, especially when you think about how much of that is going to be a few contractors buying large amounts on a regular basis. In any case it’s ridiculous that a manager can’t look at someone’s history of buying lots of stuff and override a one-time return for a fraction of a percent of their recent history.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Ridiculous until you realize that there's an approximately equal percentage of internal and external theft in retail. The right answer here is that the algorithm probably screwed up in this instance. There was a clear signal for a legitimate customer: large order, small return.
    - acdha 9y ago
      If your concern is pervasive internal theft by your managers you need a lot more than this speed bump. Saying that the algorithm screwed up is confusing a symptom with the problem: making business processes so inflexible that local staff cannot correct mistakes.
- inetknght 9y ago
  > When you're selling that kind of volume, you're not doing it without algorithmic help. These companies have been profitable for a long time prior to now. Why is it that they suddenly need algorithmic help?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I'd be very surprised if their net margins haven't shrunk, comparing 50 or 100 years ago. If you're running a < 5% net profit margin, as most of these businesses are, then 1.5% inventory shrink (approx average) is a pretty big deal.
Cd00d 9y ago
I'm not sure local retail managers have any discretion anymore. They no longer actually run the store.

grkvlt 9y ago

Unfortunately this then enables fraud by allowing the manager to collude with someone and override the 'no' for fake returns by them, perhaps splitting the 'profit' generated. Perhaps the loss from this sort of white collar crime was predicted to be too high to be worth it.

lazerwalker 9y ago
I'm admittedly not used to thinking at the management scale of these sort of big-box retailers, but I'd think "we can't systemically trust our store managers to not commit fraud" is on its own a large problem that merits solving outside of trying to plug all potential fraud vectors.
raincom 9y ago
Usually, the fraud doesn't involve with managers. Usually cashiers or customer service folks in the return counter collude with customers: switching upc codes to swap a high price item with a low price one. LP (loss and prevention) usually focus more about this kind of collusion than a random $10 theft. In a case I know of, LP colluded with the customer service manager to steal $10K cash, by shifting the camera focus from the money counting area. In this case, both the LP manager and the customer service manager got fired, and, of course, without any charges, since there is no proof. At Fry's electronics, to return a product, LP has to key in his password as well. If the price of returned product is more than $300, LP and some other manager have to key in their passwords.

ethbro 9y ago

Home Depot had USD$88.5 B revenue for 2016. Kroger had $108 B. Walmart had $485.9 B. When you're selling that kind of volume, you're not doing it without algorithmic help. Absolutely agree that OP should have been able to more easily get an in-person override. But I understand why the original rejection happened: or rather, I understand why HD uses a data mining company to attempt to prevent theft. PS: Side note, you'd be surprised how big of a chunk of theft directly involves receipts / returns in some way or another.

acdha 9y ago
The number can’t tell you that in isolation: Home Depot might gross that much but they also have hundreds of thousands of employees at thousands of stores. The amount of money a particular manager is responsible for is going to be a lot more reasonable, especially when you think about how much of that is going to be a few contractors buying large amounts on a regular basis. In any case it’s ridiculous that a manager can’t look at someone’s history of buying lots of stuff and override a one-time return for a fraction of a percent of their recent history.
- ethbro 9y ago
  Ridiculous until you realize that there's an approximately equal percentage of internal and external theft in retail. The right answer here is that the algorithm probably screwed up in this instance. There was a clear signal for a legitimate customer: large order, small return.
  - acdha 9y ago
    If your concern is pervasive internal theft by your managers you need a lot more than this speed bump. Saying that the algorithm screwed up is confusing a symptom with the problem: making business processes so inflexible that local staff cannot correct mistakes.
inetknght 9y ago
> When you're selling that kind of volume, you're not doing it without algorithmic help. These companies have been profitable for a long time prior to now. Why is it that they suddenly need algorithmic help?
- ethbro 9y ago
  I'd be very surprised if their net margins haven't shrunk, comparing 50 or 100 years ago. If you're running a < 5% net profit margin, as most of these businesses are, then 1.5% inventory shrink (approx average) is a pretty big deal.

Cd00d 9y ago

I'm not sure local retail managers have any discretion anymore. They no longer actually run the store.