5 ms·

> Vastly less than would be warranted to lock everything as they do Do you really believe you can conclude this from your personal observations? The company h

> Vastly less than would be warranted to lock everything as they do Do you really believe you can conclude this from your personal observations? The company has all the data on theft. At the end of the day, they are motivated by profit. Don’t you think they ran the numbers and found that locking items to prevent crime, even if it’s an additional barrier to paying customers, was better for business? edit: fixed a typo

John23832 2y ago
> Do you really believe you can conclude this from your personal observations? My experience is admittedly anecdata. > The company has all the data on theft. At the end of the day, they are motivated by profit. One of the modern fallacies that we've all fallen victim to at one point or another is that "more data" == "logical action". > Don’t you think they ran the numbers and found that locking items to prevent crime, even if it’s an additional barrier to paying customers, was better for business? It prevents an aspect of shrink that they can control through an affordable means, that does not mean that it is the vast majority of shrink. Companies are short term irrational thinkers. Thank the market for that. If they can lock everything up and say "You can expect a reduction in shrink, please pay me and my shareholders", they will. That's easier than locking up employee thieves, which is even easier than actually trying to fight Amazon (who is eating their revenue/lunch).
fzeroracer 2y ago
No, I don't think they did. I think they'll find any excuse to close down a business that isn't 'we fucked up and made multiple terrible business decisions'. For example: A local target here in Seattle was closed, citing retail theft. I stopped by there before closure; they had everything locked up and most of the shelves were empty. A grim sight, but the key point of the story was that said Target was also surrounded by other grocery store alternatives which did not lock items up and whose shelves were not empty. All within roughly a block or a block and a half of distance. The empirical observation is that they closed the stores with less retail theft than the ones they kept open.
- ranbato 2y ago
  As someone with more data, your observation is incorrect and has led you to an erroneous conclusion. The other stores are on the brink of unprofitability also but are seen as having less desirable merchandise so they weren't the favored target.
bsder 2y ago
> Do you really believe you can conclude this from your personal observations? Yes, because none of the retailers have been willing to cough up data. If the data supported that shoplifting is a problem and that locking things up helped, the companies would be trumpeting the data. There was a very recent article that nobody, not even the main retailers trade association, seems to know if locking things up is actually improving the situation or not. The primary hypothesis seems to be that employee theft is the real issue and no retailer wants to admit it because it opens up a whole host of issues that are all solved with "pay money". (ie. Why aren't they paying their employees more? Why aren't they prosecuting these thefts? etc.)
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  > Yes, because none of the retailers have been willing to cough up data. It's on their financial statements and it has been discussed in their earnings calls. The euphemism for theft is "slippage." As to whether locking things up helps, most of the thefts I have seen recently involve someone politely asking for a good to be unlocked, then walking out the door with it in hand. The lock only stops one person from taking all of it at once.
  - bsder 2y ago
    "Slippage" is easy to track but includes everything--loss, employee theft, shoplifting, etc. "Sales lost to locking up" is a lot harder to track, and nobody has been willing to be forthright about it. Mostly, this is sleight of hand. None of these companies want to admit that online (even their own!) is eating their lunch.

John23832 2y ago

> Do you really believe you can conclude this from your personal observations? My experience is admittedly anecdata. > The company has all the data on theft. At the end of the day, they are motivated by profit. One of the modern fallacies that we've all fallen victim to at one point or another is that "more data" == "logical action". > Don’t you think they ran the numbers and found that locking items to prevent crime, even if it’s an additional barrier to paying customers, was better for business? It prevents an aspect of shrink that they can control through an affordable means, that does not mean that it is the vast majority of shrink. Companies are short term irrational thinkers. Thank the market for that. If they can lock everything up and say "You can expect a reduction in shrink, please pay me and my shareholders", they will. That's easier than locking up employee thieves, which is even easier than actually trying to fight Amazon (who is eating their revenue/lunch).

fzeroracer 2y ago

No, I don't think they did. I think they'll find any excuse to close down a business that isn't 'we fucked up and made multiple terrible business decisions'. For example: A local target here in Seattle was closed, citing retail theft. I stopped by there before closure; they had everything locked up and most of the shelves were empty. A grim sight, but the key point of the story was that said Target was also surrounded by other grocery store alternatives which did not lock items up and whose shelves were not empty. All within roughly a block or a block and a half of distance. The empirical observation is that they closed the stores with less retail theft than the ones they kept open.

ranbato 2y ago
As someone with more data, your observation is incorrect and has led you to an erroneous conclusion. The other stores are on the brink of unprofitability also but are seen as having less desirable merchandise so they weren't the favored target.

bsder 2y ago

> Do you really believe you can conclude this from your personal observations? Yes, because none of the retailers have been willing to cough up data. If the data supported that shoplifting is a problem and that locking things up helped, the companies would be trumpeting the data. There was a very recent article that nobody, not even the main retailers trade association, seems to know if locking things up is actually improving the situation or not. The primary hypothesis seems to be that employee theft is the real issue and no retailer wants to admit it because it opens up a whole host of issues that are all solved with "pay money". (ie. Why aren't they paying their employees more? Why aren't they prosecuting these thefts? etc.)

pclmulqdq 2y ago
> Yes, because none of the retailers have been willing to cough up data. It's on their financial statements and it has been discussed in their earnings calls. The euphemism for theft is "slippage." As to whether locking things up helps, most of the thefts I have seen recently involve someone politely asking for a good to be unlocked, then walking out the door with it in hand. The lock only stops one person from taking all of it at once.
- bsder 2y ago
  "Slippage" is easy to track but includes everything--loss, employee theft, shoplifting, etc. "Sales lost to locking up" is a lot harder to track, and nobody has been willing to be forthright about it. Mostly, this is sleight of hand. None of these companies want to admit that online (even their own!) is eating their lunch.