3 ms·

If there wasn't any shoplifting, would they still put things in cabinets? No? So how is this action not related to shoplifting? Like, how does putting it in

If there wasn't any shoplifting, would they still put things in cabinets? No? So how is this action not related to shoplifting? Like, how does putting it in a locked cabinet reduce their customer service needs? Doesn't this increase their customer service needs, as now they need more people to constantly help unlock cabinets and escort people around the store? Wouldn't they just prefer to have a store with no employees in it, if shoplifting wasn't a thing?

akira2501 2y ago
> If there wasn't any shoplifting, would they still put things in cabinets? The article points this out. The problem was likely overblown in the first place or it has magically disappeared without any effort. So, "organized shoplifting" almost certainly _wasn't_ the real reason they did this. > No? Obviously, yes, because it looks very much like that's what they did. > Doesn't this increase their customer service needs Yea, that's _exactly_ what I meant by this being a "101 problem." The question you _should_ be asking is, why didn't they hire _more_ people when they put the locked cases in? They obviously didn't. Do you have an explanation for this? > if shoplifting wasn't a thing? It's about removing competition, particularly from smaller stores, that can offer better service even if they don't have the variety and hours that the large chain stores do. No coincidence that in my town Walgreen's then closed 3 of it's major central locations and pushed everyone out to their more favorable and less expensive locations. These companies want to extract the maximum value from your city at the least cost to themselves. You are now seeing the very long tail of decades of their mostly illegal strategies being allowed to play out unchecked against the population.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > It's about removing competition, particularly from smaller stores How does putting things in locked cabinets remove competition? How do big companies reducing locations make things worse for the smaller, more local stores? You're still not making any sense to me on this point. We want to eliminate the competition! I know, we'll make our customer experience worse, that'll definitely force those smaller stores to be less competitive! We'll close many of our stores to leave market voids where other stores can come in...that'll show those smaller stores that are now suddenly far more convenient! And you still haven't actually answered my original question. If shoplifting just didn't happen, would they still put things in these cases?
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > How does putting things in locked cabinets remove competition? You've taken my points backwards, again, for some reason. They don't _experience_ competition so they feel _comfortable_ doing this. I'm talking about the chicken, you're looking for the egg, which hatched already, years ago, the evidence this occurred is _the existence of the chicken_. > We want to eliminate the competition! "We already did that part. Now we're just taking advantage of it." > We'll close many of our stores to leave market voids You didn't bother to ask _when_ any of this happened. That would be a critical detail that may aid your understanding; however, you don't seem particularly interested in exploring a different point of view than the one you already have. > If shoplifting just didn't happen, would they still put things in these cases? Obviously, yes, and I've suggested a reason and a historical mechanism. I get that you disagree with them. Was there anything else you wanted to actually discuss?
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > You've taken my points backwards, again, for some reason. Because your entire premise makes little sense to me. You're acting like these things save money somehow outside of shoplifting (which according to you just doesn't happen). > They don't _experience_ competition so they feel _comfortable_ doing this. But _why_ would they do it? You say "reducing customer service to it's bare minimum", but this increases customer service needs. Once again, why would they do this since it increases customer service needs and increases costs of managing the store? Wouldn't it be cheaper to not have these cabinets and just have people check themselves out without having to interact with a store employee at all? > You didn't bother to ask _when_ any of this happened. It doesn't really matter in the end. New stores can be opened, clearly you feel there's a market need for those stores and obviously shoplifting just never happens, so there should be no problem for a new market entrant to move in there. If Walgreens left, CVS can go in there. If both left, well now the grocer nearby has more of a reason to build out their pharmacy. > Obviously, yes, and I've suggested a reason You haven't other than some weird conspiracy theory that it somehow reduces their customer service needs despite it obviously increasing their customer service needs. Before the cabinet I could just take the thing off the shelf and go to a self checkout. Now I have to have a customer service agent free in the store to come to the cabinet and unlock it to give it to me. Potentially also then having to have them either check me out or watch me check out. Customer service costs increase with the cabinets!
- kortilla 2y ago
  You’re premise doesn’t make sense. When Walgreens left the local retailers should have had no problem picking up the business. But the issue is they can’t because they are also subject to shoplifting problems, shocker. The premise of “this business drove itself into the ground to force itself to eventually have to close” is risible. Why wouldn’t they just close the business and skip all of the loss in between of going to locked down mode?
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > When Walgreens left the local retailers should have had no problem picking up the business. They already closed. > But the issue is they can’t because they are also subject to shoplifting problems, shocker. No, they just don't exist, bad COVID policies and mismanagement of PPP helped with that the most. > The premise of “this business drove itself into the ground to force itself to eventually have to close” is risible. That's your premise, not mine. I agree, that is risible. > Why wouldn’t they just close the business and skip all of the loss in between of going to locked down mode? You've watched the news? So you know what happens in a neighborhood when one of these stores tries to close because of simple economics? Wouldn't it be very useful for them to have a socially accepted excuse as to why they just _had_ to close? Anyways, so many of you are so eager to shout down what I'm saying, which doesn't bother me, but I do have to ask, what value calculation goes into you using your time in this way? Do you honestly think my words are that problematic that they must be addressed in this absurd rhetorical style? Or is it some other reason?
    - kortilla 2y ago
      Senseless babble. You’re not even expressing a basic premise of why a company would spend extra money to go out of business. PPP is gone and has been gone. If a small business is viable where those businesses have closed, someone would open one. It’s that simple.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > so many of you are so eager to shout down what I'm saying Because what you're saying makes little sense. Cabinets increase costs. Why would the retailer willingly increase their costs when they could just not have cabinets and enjoy a better margin and not risk losing customers to internet retailers?
simoncion 2y ago
> If there wasn't any shoplifting, would they still put things in cabinets? If your insurance company tells you to do something in order to retain your nice rates, (or your policy) you do that thing. So, yeah, there totally can be a disconnect between the situation on the ground and what the suits think is going on. Also, you might not be aware of how out of touch C-level employees can be with what's actually going on inside the company they theoretically oversee. Anyone who has worked at a BigCo for more than a handful of years should be quite familiar with the sight of incredibly stupid CRASH-priority projects hurled down from the C-suite. If you're a line worker, it doesn't matter how stupid it is; you don't sign the paychecks, so you shut the hell up and do it.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > If your insurance company tells you to do something in order to retain your nice rates Yeah because insurance companies never actually look at real data and just go by their gut feelings on everything. If insurance rates are increasing in areas which don't have these cabinets, it's probably because there are more claims due to shrink in those areas from stores which don't have cabinets. If it truly is because of insurance rates I'd say that'd be excellent data (or that they have that data) to point out it is because of shrink.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > Yeah because insurance companies never actually look at real data and just go by their gut feelings on everything. Just like company execs never go by their gut feelings and always actually go look at real data? Even companies that you'd think would have everything straight sometimes don't. Assuming that a company that should be a sophisticated actor is ALWAYS doing the correct thing is no less foolish than the converse.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Company execs aren't writing the policies, actuaries are. Actuaries which spend their days analyzing all the minutiae of data and trying to quantize risk. If anyone knows the real risk/reward of putting merchandise in cabinets by zip code it's some actuary at some insurance firm. Arguing insurance companies don't follow the data and usually behave irrationally is ignoring reality.

akira2501 2y ago

> If there wasn't any shoplifting, would they still put things in cabinets? The article points this out. The problem was likely overblown in the first place or it has magically disappeared without any effort. So, "organized shoplifting" almost certainly _wasn't_ the real reason they did this. > No? Obviously, yes, because it looks very much like that's what they did. > Doesn't this increase their customer service needs Yea, that's _exactly_ what I meant by this being a "101 problem." The question you _should_ be asking is, why didn't they hire _more_ people when they put the locked cases in? They obviously didn't. Do you have an explanation for this? > if shoplifting wasn't a thing? It's about removing competition, particularly from smaller stores, that can offer better service even if they don't have the variety and hours that the large chain stores do. No coincidence that in my town Walgreen's then closed 3 of it's major central locations and pushed everyone out to their more favorable and less expensive locations. These companies want to extract the maximum value from your city at the least cost to themselves. You are now seeing the very long tail of decades of their mostly illegal strategies being allowed to play out unchecked against the population.

vel0city 2y ago
> It's about removing competition, particularly from smaller stores How does putting things in locked cabinets remove competition? How do big companies reducing locations make things worse for the smaller, more local stores? You're still not making any sense to me on this point. We want to eliminate the competition! I know, we'll make our customer experience worse, that'll definitely force those smaller stores to be less competitive! We'll close many of our stores to leave market voids where other stores can come in...that'll show those smaller stores that are now suddenly far more convenient! And you still haven't actually answered my original question. If shoplifting just didn't happen, would they still put things in these cases?
- akira2501 2y ago
  > How does putting things in locked cabinets remove competition? You've taken my points backwards, again, for some reason. They don't _experience_ competition so they feel _comfortable_ doing this. I'm talking about the chicken, you're looking for the egg, which hatched already, years ago, the evidence this occurred is _the existence of the chicken_. > We want to eliminate the competition! "We already did that part. Now we're just taking advantage of it." > We'll close many of our stores to leave market voids You didn't bother to ask _when_ any of this happened. That would be a critical detail that may aid your understanding; however, you don't seem particularly interested in exploring a different point of view than the one you already have. > If shoplifting just didn't happen, would they still put things in these cases? Obviously, yes, and I've suggested a reason and a historical mechanism. I get that you disagree with them. Was there anything else you wanted to actually discuss?
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > You've taken my points backwards, again, for some reason. Because your entire premise makes little sense to me. You're acting like these things save money somehow outside of shoplifting (which according to you just doesn't happen). > They don't _experience_ competition so they feel _comfortable_ doing this. But _why_ would they do it? You say "reducing customer service to it's bare minimum", but this increases customer service needs. Once again, why would they do this since it increases customer service needs and increases costs of managing the store? Wouldn't it be cheaper to not have these cabinets and just have people check themselves out without having to interact with a store employee at all? > You didn't bother to ask _when_ any of this happened. It doesn't really matter in the end. New stores can be opened, clearly you feel there's a market need for those stores and obviously shoplifting just never happens, so there should be no problem for a new market entrant to move in there. If Walgreens left, CVS can go in there. If both left, well now the grocer nearby has more of a reason to build out their pharmacy. > Obviously, yes, and I've suggested a reason You haven't other than some weird conspiracy theory that it somehow reduces their customer service needs despite it obviously increasing their customer service needs. Before the cabinet I could just take the thing off the shelf and go to a self checkout. Now I have to have a customer service agent free in the store to come to the cabinet and unlock it to give it to me. Potentially also then having to have them either check me out or watch me check out. Customer service costs increase with the cabinets!
kortilla 2y ago
You’re premise doesn’t make sense. When Walgreens left the local retailers should have had no problem picking up the business. But the issue is they can’t because they are also subject to shoplifting problems, shocker. The premise of “this business drove itself into the ground to force itself to eventually have to close” is risible. Why wouldn’t they just close the business and skip all of the loss in between of going to locked down mode?
- akira2501 2y ago
  > When Walgreens left the local retailers should have had no problem picking up the business. They already closed. > But the issue is they can’t because they are also subject to shoplifting problems, shocker. No, they just don't exist, bad COVID policies and mismanagement of PPP helped with that the most. > The premise of “this business drove itself into the ground to force itself to eventually have to close” is risible. That's your premise, not mine. I agree, that is risible. > Why wouldn’t they just close the business and skip all of the loss in between of going to locked down mode? You've watched the news? So you know what happens in a neighborhood when one of these stores tries to close because of simple economics? Wouldn't it be very useful for them to have a socially accepted excuse as to why they just _had_ to close? Anyways, so many of you are so eager to shout down what I'm saying, which doesn't bother me, but I do have to ask, what value calculation goes into you using your time in this way? Do you honestly think my words are that problematic that they must be addressed in this absurd rhetorical style? Or is it some other reason?
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Senseless babble. You’re not even expressing a basic premise of why a company would spend extra money to go out of business. PPP is gone and has been gone. If a small business is viable where those businesses have closed, someone would open one. It’s that simple.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > so many of you are so eager to shout down what I'm saying Because what you're saying makes little sense. Cabinets increase costs. Why would the retailer willingly increase their costs when they could just not have cabinets and enjoy a better margin and not risk losing customers to internet retailers?

simoncion 2y ago

> If there wasn't any shoplifting, would they still put things in cabinets? If your insurance company tells you to do something in order to retain your nice rates, (or your policy) you do that thing. So, yeah, there totally can be a disconnect between the situation on the ground and what the suits think is going on. Also, you might not be aware of how out of touch C-level employees can be with what's actually going on inside the company they theoretically oversee. Anyone who has worked at a BigCo for more than a handful of years should be quite familiar with the sight of incredibly stupid CRASH-priority projects hurled down from the C-suite. If you're a line worker, it doesn't matter how stupid it is; you don't sign the paychecks, so you shut the hell up and do it.

vel0city 2y ago
> If your insurance company tells you to do something in order to retain your nice rates Yeah because insurance companies never actually look at real data and just go by their gut feelings on everything. If insurance rates are increasing in areas which don't have these cabinets, it's probably because there are more claims due to shrink in those areas from stores which don't have cabinets. If it truly is because of insurance rates I'd say that'd be excellent data (or that they have that data) to point out it is because of shrink.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > Yeah because insurance companies never actually look at real data and just go by their gut feelings on everything. Just like company execs never go by their gut feelings and always actually go look at real data? Even companies that you'd think would have everything straight sometimes don't. Assuming that a company that should be a sophisticated actor is ALWAYS doing the correct thing is no less foolish than the converse.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Company execs aren't writing the policies, actuaries are. Actuaries which spend their days analyzing all the minutiae of data and trying to quantize risk. If anyone knows the real risk/reward of putting merchandise in cabinets by zip code it's some actuary at some insurance firm. Arguing insurance companies don't follow the data and usually behave irrationally is ignoring reality.