57 ms·

> How does putting things in locked cabinets remove competition? You've taken my points backwards, again, for some reason. They don't _experience_ competition

> 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!
- consteval 2y ago
  > which according to you just doesn't happen It doesn't, at least not on the scale to warrant these responses. Often these are implemented as sweeping policies, affecting stores with virtually no shop lifting. My suburban Walmart in Texas locks up everything. I can guarantee we have extraordinarily small crime. But when the stores in Dallas do it, we do it too. I also highly, highly doubt that shop lifting has gotten particularly worse in the past 20 years. Every single crime is down, and by a lot. I think this was/is an overreaction.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > But when the stores in Dallas do it, we do it too. The Plano Walmarts I've shopped at don't. Neither do the Targets in Richardson/Plano. Nor the Walmart in Murphy. I think the Walmart off Forest @ 635 does though. Strange how they don't bother locking it up in the more affluent areas even though supposedly its got virtually nothing to do with shoplifting. And please, once again, explain what benefit the store gets from locking up merchandise if it has nothing to do with shoplifting? What positive outcomes comes from it from the business' perspective? > I also highly, highly doubt that shop lifting has gotten particularly worse in the past 20 years. > 74.1% of retailers report increases in external theft over 5 years (2016 – 2021). > From 2019 to 2020, the dollar value of retail theft losses increased 47.2%. > The dollar amount loss per shoplifting incident increased 71.2% YoY. https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/shoplifting-statistics/ https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/shoplifting-statisti... But sure just base your world view off assumptions and conjecture instead of actual statistics. > I think this was/is an overreaction. Once again, please give me a single reason why a store would choose to do this. How does it benefit the store outside of reducing shoplifting?
    - consteval 2y ago
      > Neither do the Targets in Richardson/Plano Ooo, I was just at the Target in Richardson Monday and yes, yes they do. Razor blades are 100% locked up, the electronics sections is more or less for show, and whitening strips are in prison. > And please, once again, explain what benefit the store gets from locking up merchandise if it has nothing to do with shoplifting? What positive outcomes comes from it from the business' perspective? Probably none. But I'm saying they may believe they're preventing shop lifting, but they're not. They're not doing it thinking "oh this locking up is good outside of shoplifting". No, they think "this will prevent shoplifting" - and it does. But is it on a scale worth preventing? Depends on store to store and area to area. > 74.1% of retailers report increases in external theft over 5 years To be completely fair, a lot of this is 100% their own fault. At this point the customers are employees. They have to find everything themselves and they have to check-out and bag themselves. Naturally less employee intervention means more stealing. I could've told you that 10 years ago, but these retailers are so short-sighted and greedy they don't care. My local walmart ONLY has self-check lanes. That's 1 employee per, like, 20 people checking out at the same time. Versus 1-1 before. A 20 times reduction in oversight, of course shit gets stolen. After a certain point we have to come back down to Earth and acknowledge the human condition.

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!

consteval 2y ago
> which according to you just doesn't happen It doesn't, at least not on the scale to warrant these responses. Often these are implemented as sweeping policies, affecting stores with virtually no shop lifting. My suburban Walmart in Texas locks up everything. I can guarantee we have extraordinarily small crime. But when the stores in Dallas do it, we do it too. I also highly, highly doubt that shop lifting has gotten particularly worse in the past 20 years. Every single crime is down, and by a lot. I think this was/is an overreaction.
- vel0city 2y ago
  > But when the stores in Dallas do it, we do it too. The Plano Walmarts I've shopped at don't. Neither do the Targets in Richardson/Plano. Nor the Walmart in Murphy. I think the Walmart off Forest @ 635 does though. Strange how they don't bother locking it up in the more affluent areas even though supposedly its got virtually nothing to do with shoplifting. And please, once again, explain what benefit the store gets from locking up merchandise if it has nothing to do with shoplifting? What positive outcomes comes from it from the business' perspective? > I also highly, highly doubt that shop lifting has gotten particularly worse in the past 20 years. > 74.1% of retailers report increases in external theft over 5 years (2016 – 2021). > From 2019 to 2020, the dollar value of retail theft losses increased 47.2%. > The dollar amount loss per shoplifting incident increased 71.2% YoY. https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/shoplifting-statistics/ https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/shoplifting-statisti... But sure just base your world view off assumptions and conjecture instead of actual statistics. > I think this was/is an overreaction. Once again, please give me a single reason why a store would choose to do this. How does it benefit the store outside of reducing shoplifting?
  - consteval 2y ago
    > Neither do the Targets in Richardson/Plano Ooo, I was just at the Target in Richardson Monday and yes, yes they do. Razor blades are 100% locked up, the electronics sections is more or less for show, and whitening strips are in prison. > And please, once again, explain what benefit the store gets from locking up merchandise if it has nothing to do with shoplifting? What positive outcomes comes from it from the business' perspective? Probably none. But I'm saying they may believe they're preventing shop lifting, but they're not. They're not doing it thinking "oh this locking up is good outside of shoplifting". No, they think "this will prevent shoplifting" - and it does. But is it on a scale worth preventing? Depends on store to store and area to area. > 74.1% of retailers report increases in external theft over 5 years To be completely fair, a lot of this is 100% their own fault. At this point the customers are employees. They have to find everything themselves and they have to check-out and bag themselves. Naturally less employee intervention means more stealing. I could've told you that 10 years ago, but these retailers are so short-sighted and greedy they don't care. My local walmart ONLY has self-check lanes. That's 1 employee per, like, 20 people checking out at the same time. Versus 1-1 before. A 20 times reduction in oversight, of course shit gets stolen. After a certain point we have to come back down to Earth and acknowledge the human condition.