6 ms·

Target says it's closing stores due to theft. The data tells a different story

27 points by cainxinth 3y ago

bigyikes 3y ago
The “data” in question is reported theft, but the article completely ignores the possibility that theft goes unreported in these areas because the population is aware that reporting the theft will do nothing. It’s hard to take the article seriously when it doesn’t even acknowledge this possible flaw in their data. The other data point mentioned is “shrink”, which isn’t up much. As far as I can tell, this number is a kind of national average, so I don’t see how it has any bearing on stores which were closed because they are outliers.
- devmor 3y ago
  On what basis do you make the assumption that a multinational retailer, specifically one with some of the most aggressive loss prevention policies in the first world, would not keep track of theft in some stores?
  - rascul 3y ago
    I don't think they're making that assumption. I think they're saying that not all theft is reported to the police.
    - devmor 3y ago
      That's the same assumption. Why would Target not report theft as a matter of course?
      - rascul 3y ago
        It's not the same assumption. Target might not know theft has occurred at the time. It will show up later when doing inventory as a discrepancy and be recorded as shrinkage. Target in such a case has nothing to report to the police. There may also be reasons not to report known cases of theft. Lack of evidence, uncooperative police and/or prosecutor, or small enough value so that the effort isn't worth it, for example.
        devmor 3y ago
        The same assumption applies to all Target locations. There’s no reason for these locations to be any more underreported. And again, Target has one of the most aggressive loss prevention departments in the entire first world.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  From the article: > While crime data doesn't capture all incidents of theft, as some go unreported, it does provide a reliable way to measure relative levels of theft among stores.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  Is there any reason to believe that the degree of unreported theft in one store is any different than unreported theft at another? If unreported theft is similar across stores then it would seem to be essentially noise in the statistics. It's odd that by closing their brick and mortar stores they're essentially rolling up their business and conceding Amazon all those customers.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    Why is it odd? The goal isn’t revenue, it’s profit. That may have been forgotten during central banks’ long experiment with zirp but we are no longer in that.
    - JKCalhoun 3y ago
      From where I've been sitting, big box retailers have been running on the zeal of expansionism for decades now. No profit? Then by all means they can sit back and let Dollar General come in and capture the retail of a town. In the past this has generally been bad news for an entrenched retailer and the first signs of fracturing. It's hard for me to care too much though what happens to these big chains.
      - bradleyjg 3y ago
        I think you are mixing up cause and effect. It might be a bad sign for a retailer if it has unprofitable stores, but that doesn’t mean keeping them open is going to help.
  - prpl 3y ago
    Are you asking if shrink varies store to store? Yes. I grew up in a grocery store basically, shrink could vary 30% or more between stores. Stores with liquor in the back corners could easily be 10% more. Theft is only reported if you caught somebody, which you basically don’t try to do anymore
    - JKCalhoun 3y ago
- brookst 3y ago
  You raise some good points about the data and analysis here, but it seems curious you’re willing to accept Target’s claims without any data or analysis at all. Certainly retail theft is a big problem, and Target is strongly incentivized to put pressure on government to do something. So I would expect them to blame theft for any store closure, even if was for orthogonal reasons like low sales, problems with building systems, demographic trends, whatever.
  - panarky 3y ago
    The Seattle Times compared stores closing with stores remaining open and found that (1) the stores closing had fewer calls to the police than the stores remaining open, and (2) the stores closing just happen to be Target's new smaller-format stores, which have been seriously underperforming nationally. Retail "shrink" includes inventory losses from all causes -- breakage, spoilage, customer theft, employee theft, paperwork theft from fake invoices and receiving errors, and even unknown causes. It's the difference between the inventory they pay for, and the inventory they sell and physically count. Total shrink as a percentage of sales hasn't changed much over the years, so a skeptical mind might wonder why there's suddenly this coordinated, nationwide, nonstop, pervasive hyperventilating over retail theft. A skeptical mind might wonder if there's a hidden agenda driving this messaging.
    - daft_pink 3y ago
      Total shrink data in the article was taken from national average not specific stores. There is no specific shrink data from these stores, so while total shrink on a national level hasn't changed much in years, they have no evidence that total shrink at these specific stores has or hasn't changed. I'm not really for or against Target. I just feel that the quality of using some tangentially associated data while interesting really isn't enough to make assertions that "the data tells a different story" or that Target is covering up internal problems. It's bad journalism to just do some analysis on some data you happen to have and then claim someone who has the data's assertion is totally false. Other potential obvious flaws in methodology: 1. Analyzing the quantity of reported theft calls probably only means thefts where the police were able to make an arrest. Not th 2. Different thefts might result in different dollar amounts and quantity of thefts is probably less important to target than total value of theft. 3. Smaller stores may experience less quantity or value of theft, but have higher levels of overall theft, because they are smaller and have less sales and less traffic.
- magicalist 3y ago
  > so I don’t see how it has any bearing on stores which were closed because they are outliers. So we have flawed data and a corporate press release with no data and motivation to avoid any conversation about closing stores for any reason that could reflect poorly on the company's fundamentals. (hard to take a comment seriously when it doesn’t even acknowledge this possible flaw in their premise?)
polski-g 3y ago
Target publishes quarterly reports with the SEC. It lists the losses due to theft. There is a strange wish in progressive circles that crime isn't the cause of things and that crime isn't rising. "I was wrong and my ideas are dangerous" is a very difficult thing for people to admit.
- paulproteus 3y ago
  I took a look at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27419/000002741921000010/tgt-20210130.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27419/00000274192100... and searched for theft, and found this text as the only hit: "data loss or theft [...] could [...] adversely affect our results of operations. We continually invest to maintain and update our computer systems." What are you finding in the SEC reports about theft? I'm not an expert at reading them.
  - polski-g 3y ago
    Search for shrink
    - paulproteus 3y ago
      When I tried that, it didn't show a lot of detail. It seems they blend shrinkage generally into the cost of goods sold, and the original article in the thread discusses the idea that shrinkage is mostly caused by employees, not non-employee theft. I consider employee theft to be not the kind retail theft that news articles are really about. I can't find what you're saying, losses due to theft generally, nor can I find something specific about non-employee theft. Let me know if you can find something else I can search for, since I am quite new to this.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  I would have thought most progressives absolutely believe crime is rising - due to the increased wealth gap in the U.S.
  - 3y ago
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Target is planning on opening 20 new stores in 2023.
syspec 3y ago
The article is BS, just look at the SF map where it states that there's barely any shoplifting in SF because only ~80 reports where made on a particular area. Anyone from the Bay Area will tell you that there is much more rampant shoplifting, than what is reported because everyone knows there is no point in reporting it
- aworks 3y ago
  I'm from the Bay Area and I have little first-hand data about shoplifting or the ineffectiveness of reporting it. I do know that some Walgreens stores have more merchandise under lock and key than others.
jnovek 3y ago
I read the article and perhaps I missed it, but does the author propose a reason other than theft why these stores are closing? Is there an implied reason that I’m just too obtuse to catch?
- mcphage 3y ago
  In some cases, they report that Target is opening new, larger stores close by.
oh_sigh 3y ago
If you've ever dealt with NYC cops, you know they loathe to accept crime reports. I'm not sure the reason, maybe they want to keep the reported crime rate down, maybe they just don't want to do the desk work of writing the report, but they may gaslight you to stop you from reporting a crime. Example: a neighborhood acquaintance (pizza shop operator in the UWS) was unloading supplies from his car. A dude jumped in the car and tried to take off with it. Revved the engine but wasn't able to get it into gear. He was wrestled out and the cops came. The cops kept asking questions like "are you sure he wasn't just taking a seat and relaxing?", "How do we know you didn't say he could sit there?", "Are all your restaurant licenses up to date?", "He could sue you for holding him down like that", etc, ultimately leading the victim to tell the cops to just fuck off and they let the dude just walk away.
beoberha 3y ago
I live in Seattle, so I feel somewhat qualified to chime in. The article makes a good point that the Targets being closed here are the new smaller urban ones. The few times I have been in them, they are grossly understocked and give off a very unwelcoming feeling compared to the normal Targets like the one in Northgate. Not to say that’s the reason for closing, because they are certainly in high crime areas that the article’s data fails to represent. Also worth noting that the Northgate one is at the top of a multi level mall structure so crime is much less likely to happen there despite it being a much worse area.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  That target used to be the closest one to me, and I NEVER went there. That store was awful in every way, I don’t doubt theft was bad, but I doubt that if theft went away it would have kept the store alive.
- koil 3y ago
  I live right by Portland and have visited the three stores that are closing there. Every target in this area is hit hard by theft because there are many unhoused people who need things, or addicted people who need things to sell, and word got out that target wasn’t going to let their security people touch anybody. The three stores closing here are some of the hardest to drive to, so it’s no surprise to me that the average payment size would be smaller and result in way slimmer margins there. This is also following all Walmarts in town closing, likely for theft as well, Nikes employee store downtown closing due to theft and employee unsafety, and countless local businesses packing up shop and moving to other areas or shutting their doors. It’s a shame but it’s so common in the area that the news didn’t surprise me in the slightest.

27 points by cainxinth 3y ago

The “data” in question is reported theft, but the article completely ignores the possibility that theft goes unreported in these areas because the population is aware that reporting the theft will do nothing. It’s hard to take the article seriously when it doesn’t even acknowledge this possible flaw in their data. The other data point mentioned is “shrink”, which isn’t up much. As far as I can tell, this number is a kind of national average, so I don’t see how it has any bearing on stores which were closed because they are outliers.

devmor 3y ago
On what basis do you make the assumption that a multinational retailer, specifically one with some of the most aggressive loss prevention policies in the first world, would not keep track of theft in some stores?
- rascul 3y ago
  I don't think they're making that assumption. I think they're saying that not all theft is reported to the police.
  - devmor 3y ago
    That's the same assumption. Why would Target not report theft as a matter of course?
    - rascul 3y ago
      It's not the same assumption. Target might not know theft has occurred at the time. It will show up later when doing inventory as a discrepancy and be recorded as shrinkage. Target in such a case has nothing to report to the police. There may also be reasons not to report known cases of theft. Lack of evidence, uncooperative police and/or prosecutor, or small enough value so that the effort isn't worth it, for example.
      - devmor 3y ago
        The same assumption applies to all Target locations. There’s no reason for these locations to be any more underreported. And again, Target has one of the most aggressive loss prevention departments in the entire first world.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
From the article: > While crime data doesn't capture all incidents of theft, as some go unreported, it does provide a reliable way to measure relative levels of theft among stores.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Is there any reason to believe that the degree of unreported theft in one store is any different than unreported theft at another? If unreported theft is similar across stores then it would seem to be essentially noise in the statistics. It's odd that by closing their brick and mortar stores they're essentially rolling up their business and conceding Amazon all those customers.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Why is it odd? The goal isn’t revenue, it’s profit. That may have been forgotten during central banks’ long experiment with zirp but we are no longer in that.
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
    From where I've been sitting, big box retailers have been running on the zeal of expansionism for decades now. No profit? Then by all means they can sit back and let Dollar General come in and capture the retail of a town. In the past this has generally been bad news for an entrenched retailer and the first signs of fracturing. It's hard for me to care too much though what happens to these big chains.
    - bradleyjg 3y ago
      I think you are mixing up cause and effect. It might be a bad sign for a retailer if it has unprofitable stores, but that doesn’t mean keeping them open is going to help.
- prpl 3y ago
  Are you asking if shrink varies store to store? Yes. I grew up in a grocery store basically, shrink could vary 30% or more between stores. Stores with liquor in the back corners could easily be 10% more. Theft is only reported if you caught somebody, which you basically don’t try to do anymore
  - JKCalhoun 3y ago
brookst 3y ago
You raise some good points about the data and analysis here, but it seems curious you’re willing to accept Target’s claims without any data or analysis at all. Certainly retail theft is a big problem, and Target is strongly incentivized to put pressure on government to do something. So I would expect them to blame theft for any store closure, even if was for orthogonal reasons like low sales, problems with building systems, demographic trends, whatever.
- panarky 3y ago
  The Seattle Times compared stores closing with stores remaining open and found that (1) the stores closing had fewer calls to the police than the stores remaining open, and (2) the stores closing just happen to be Target's new smaller-format stores, which have been seriously underperforming nationally. Retail "shrink" includes inventory losses from all causes -- breakage, spoilage, customer theft, employee theft, paperwork theft from fake invoices and receiving errors, and even unknown causes. It's the difference between the inventory they pay for, and the inventory they sell and physically count. Total shrink as a percentage of sales hasn't changed much over the years, so a skeptical mind might wonder why there's suddenly this coordinated, nationwide, nonstop, pervasive hyperventilating over retail theft. A skeptical mind might wonder if there's a hidden agenda driving this messaging.
  - daft_pink 3y ago
    Total shrink data in the article was taken from national average not specific stores. There is no specific shrink data from these stores, so while total shrink on a national level hasn't changed much in years, they have no evidence that total shrink at these specific stores has or hasn't changed. I'm not really for or against Target. I just feel that the quality of using some tangentially associated data while interesting really isn't enough to make assertions that "the data tells a different story" or that Target is covering up internal problems. It's bad journalism to just do some analysis on some data you happen to have and then claim someone who has the data's assertion is totally false. Other potential obvious flaws in methodology: 1. Analyzing the quantity of reported theft calls probably only means thefts where the police were able to make an arrest. Not th 2. Different thefts might result in different dollar amounts and quantity of thefts is probably less important to target than total value of theft. 3. Smaller stores may experience less quantity or value of theft, but have higher levels of overall theft, because they are smaller and have less sales and less traffic.
magicalist 3y ago
> so I don’t see how it has any bearing on stores which were closed because they are outliers. So we have flawed data and a corporate press release with no data and motivation to avoid any conversation about closing stores for any reason that could reflect poorly on the company's fundamentals. (hard to take a comment seriously when it doesn’t even acknowledge this possible flaw in their premise?)

polski-g 3y ago

Target publishes quarterly reports with the SEC. It lists the losses due to theft. There is a strange wish in progressive circles that crime isn't the cause of things and that crime isn't rising. "I was wrong and my ideas are dangerous" is a very difficult thing for people to admit.

paulproteus 3y ago
I took a look at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27419/000002741921000010/tgt-20210130.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27419/00000274192100... and searched for theft, and found this text as the only hit: "data loss or theft [...] could [...] adversely affect our results of operations. We continually invest to maintain and update our computer systems." What are you finding in the SEC reports about theft? I'm not an expert at reading them.
- polski-g 3y ago
  Search for shrink
  - paulproteus 3y ago
    When I tried that, it didn't show a lot of detail. It seems they blend shrinkage generally into the cost of goods sold, and the original article in the thread discusses the idea that shrinkage is mostly caused by employees, not non-employee theft. I consider employee theft to be not the kind retail theft that news articles are really about. I can't find what you're saying, losses due to theft generally, nor can I find something specific about non-employee theft. Let me know if you can find something else I can search for, since I am quite new to this.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
I would have thought most progressives absolutely believe crime is rising - due to the increased wealth gap in the U.S.
- 3y ago

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Target is planning on opening 20 new stores in 2023.

syspec 3y ago

The article is BS, just look at the SF map where it states that there's barely any shoplifting in SF because only ~80 reports where made on a particular area. Anyone from the Bay Area will tell you that there is much more rampant shoplifting, than what is reported because everyone knows there is no point in reporting it

aworks 3y ago
I'm from the Bay Area and I have little first-hand data about shoplifting or the ineffectiveness of reporting it. I do know that some Walgreens stores have more merchandise under lock and key than others.

jnovek 3y ago

I read the article and perhaps I missed it, but does the author propose a reason other than theft why these stores are closing? Is there an implied reason that I’m just too obtuse to catch?

mcphage 3y ago
In some cases, they report that Target is opening new, larger stores close by.

oh_sigh 3y ago

If you've ever dealt with NYC cops, you know they loathe to accept crime reports. I'm not sure the reason, maybe they want to keep the reported crime rate down, maybe they just don't want to do the desk work of writing the report, but they may gaslight you to stop you from reporting a crime. Example: a neighborhood acquaintance (pizza shop operator in the UWS) was unloading supplies from his car. A dude jumped in the car and tried to take off with it. Revved the engine but wasn't able to get it into gear. He was wrestled out and the cops came. The cops kept asking questions like "are you sure he wasn't just taking a seat and relaxing?", "How do we know you didn't say he could sit there?", "Are all your restaurant licenses up to date?", "He could sue you for holding him down like that", etc, ultimately leading the victim to tell the cops to just fuck off and they let the dude just walk away.

beoberha 3y ago

I live in Seattle, so I feel somewhat qualified to chime in. The article makes a good point that the Targets being closed here are the new smaller urban ones. The few times I have been in them, they are grossly understocked and give off a very unwelcoming feeling compared to the normal Targets like the one in Northgate. Not to say that’s the reason for closing, because they are certainly in high crime areas that the article’s data fails to represent. Also worth noting that the Northgate one is at the top of a multi level mall structure so crime is much less likely to happen there despite it being a much worse area.

dghlsakjg 3y ago
That target used to be the closest one to me, and I NEVER went there. That store was awful in every way, I don’t doubt theft was bad, but I doubt that if theft went away it would have kept the store alive.
koil 3y ago
I live right by Portland and have visited the three stores that are closing there. Every target in this area is hit hard by theft because there are many unhoused people who need things, or addicted people who need things to sell, and word got out that target wasn’t going to let their security people touch anybody. The three stores closing here are some of the hardest to drive to, so it’s no surprise to me that the average payment size would be smaller and result in way slimmer margins there. This is also following all Walmarts in town closing, likely for theft as well, Nikes employee store downtown closing due to theft and employee unsafety, and countless local businesses packing up shop and moving to other areas or shutting their doors. It’s a shame but it’s so common in the area that the news didn’t surprise me in the slightest.