4 ms·

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 remaini

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.
- panarky 3y ago
  If total shrink as a percentage of sales has remained within a narrow band for many years, then it's natural to wonder why there's suddenly wall-to-wall coverage of the ostensible crisis of retail theft. From the panicked noises made by this CEO and his media amplifiers, you'd think losses must be up by a factor of ten. The fact that total losses are relatively constant gives the lie to the entire narrative.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Also, as a share of shrinkage, across retail, external theft isn't increasing. Its media driven hysteria.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  If total shrink hasn't changed, then total shrink hasn't changed. The end. If total shrink hasn't changed, then neither has any of it's components, of if any has, then something else got better by the same amount, and so what's the problem? If theft losses went up but something else got better by the same amount, then npthing changed, and so why are they closing again? Target is specifically being targetted? Suffering theft no one else is suffering? Walmart did something new to protect itself better and drove all the theft to Target? There is no reasonable way to have a stable total and yet Taget has some new drastically increased problem. Total shrinkage not changing means there is no new or increased theft problem.
  - _goaway_ 3y ago
    Shrink is not evenly distributed throughout a chain or evenly across all inventory. Some stores experience sub-1% shrink. The stores that get closed are more like >5% for multiple years. > Suffering theft no one else is suffering? Other major retailers are experiencing the same problem and have closed stores for the same reasons.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      And yet the average has not increased, and so you must be suggesting that Target and 'other major retailers' have had increased theft, and some equal number of others have apparently been gifted with negative theft.
      - daft_pink 3y ago
        I'm saying that Target closes stores with high shrink and thus total shrink hasn't changed, because when shrink increases companies take action and close the stores with high shrink. I'm suggesting that a store with above average shrink in a portfolio of many stores will not meaningfully move the overall average in a statistic of all the stores in the entire country or target's entire portfolio. But I'm not trying to write a defense of Target. You may be correct. You may be incorrect. There simply isn't enough data to accurately draw a conclusion and I'm just offended that journalists inflate stories that give extreme results but very weak foundations instead of you know... doing journalism correctly based on actual real data not suppositions based on a bunch of national averages as though they are accurately depicting actual shrink in a specific store in a specific market.

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.

panarky 3y ago
If total shrink as a percentage of sales has remained within a narrow band for many years, then it's natural to wonder why there's suddenly wall-to-wall coverage of the ostensible crisis of retail theft. From the panicked noises made by this CEO and his media amplifiers, you'd think losses must be up by a factor of ten. The fact that total losses are relatively constant gives the lie to the entire narrative.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Also, as a share of shrinkage, across retail, external theft isn't increasing. Its media driven hysteria.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
If total shrink hasn't changed, then total shrink hasn't changed. The end. If total shrink hasn't changed, then neither has any of it's components, of if any has, then something else got better by the same amount, and so what's the problem? If theft losses went up but something else got better by the same amount, then npthing changed, and so why are they closing again? Target is specifically being targetted? Suffering theft no one else is suffering? Walmart did something new to protect itself better and drove all the theft to Target? There is no reasonable way to have a stable total and yet Taget has some new drastically increased problem. Total shrinkage not changing means there is no new or increased theft problem.
- _goaway_ 3y ago
  Shrink is not evenly distributed throughout a chain or evenly across all inventory. Some stores experience sub-1% shrink. The stores that get closed are more like >5% for multiple years. > Suffering theft no one else is suffering? Other major retailers are experiencing the same problem and have closed stores for the same reasons.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    And yet the average has not increased, and so you must be suggesting that Target and 'other major retailers' have had increased theft, and some equal number of others have apparently been gifted with negative theft.
    - daft_pink 3y ago
      I'm saying that Target closes stores with high shrink and thus total shrink hasn't changed, because when shrink increases companies take action and close the stores with high shrink. I'm suggesting that a store with above average shrink in a portfolio of many stores will not meaningfully move the overall average in a statistic of all the stores in the entire country or target's entire portfolio. But I'm not trying to write a defense of Target. You may be correct. You may be incorrect. There simply isn't enough data to accurately draw a conclusion and I'm just offended that journalists inflate stories that give extreme results but very weak foundations instead of you know... doing journalism correctly based on actual real data not suppositions based on a bunch of national averages as though they are accurately depicting actual shrink in a specific store in a specific market.