4 ms·

I noticed an example of this rule at my local hardware superstore. Around a decade ago, the store installed anti-theft cages. At first they only kept high-dol

I noticed an example of this rule at my local hardware superstore. Around a decade ago, the store installed anti-theft cages. At first they only kept high-dollar items in the cages. It was a bit of an inconvenience, but not so bad. If a customer is dropping $200+ on some fancy power tool, he or she likely doesn't mind waiting five minutes. But a few years later, there was a change - almost certainly a 'data-driven' change: suddenly there was no discernible logic to which items they caged and which they left uncaged. Now a $500 diagnostics tool is as likely to sit open on a shelf, as a $5 light bulb to be kept under lock and key. Presumably the change is a result of sorting a database by 'shrinkage' - they lock up the items that cumulatively lose the hardware store the most money, due to theft. But the result is (a) the store atmosphere reads as "so profit-driven they don't trust the customers not to steal a box of toothpicks" and (b) it's often not worth it for customers to shop there due to the waiting around for an attendant to unlock the cage. I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line, even if it has prevented the theft of some $3 bars of soap.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tshaddox 2y ago
It’s much more convenient to buy from Amazon than to try to find someone to unlock a glass case at the pharmacy. Especially since any pharmacy with glass cases for basic items will also be understaffed.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  A few of my visits to this hardware store have been... memorable! (1) locate the aisle with the item I want to verify it is still in stock (2) spend 5 minutes wandering around the isles looking for a free attendant (3) give up, press the 'service' button (4) wait at the service desk for another 5 minutes until an attendant arrives to unlock the cage and hand me my $10 item (5) have attendant inform me that he must immediately frogmarch me to the nearest self-checkout station, even though I had further items I wanted to buy. Otherwise, I would have a chance to secret the $10 item in my pocket, or to dash for the door? (6) self-checkout and walk through the parking lot to place the item in my vehicle (7) walk back to the store to buy my other items (8) realize one of my other items is also locked in a cage (9) got back to step (1) and repeat for a second item I realize, as I type this, that the store has turned into the American equivalent of the British 'catalog merchant' except, in the UK, a catalog store gives you a numbered ticket, so the customer has, at least, a streamlined procedure and knows what to expect.
crazygringo 2y ago
> they lock up the items that cumulatively lose the hardware store the most money, due to theft. > I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line These seem to be in direct contradiction, unless you really think people have stopped going there because of it, to such an extent it outweighs the thefts. Especially when, if they stop going there, the competing local hardware superstore is probably doing the exact same thing. And remember, retail margins aren't usually huge -- for every item stolen, how many more do they need to sell to recoup the loss? Even if some people go to Amazon instead, it can still be worth it to avoid the theft. It's much more likely that it has indeed had the biggest impact on reducing theft, and that your "discernable logic" simply doesn't have experience with these things -- that theft often isn't about item value, but rather about reliable resellability. A single expensive niche power tool takes a long time to resell; laundry detergent and razor blades can be unloaded in quantity the same day. People go through detergent and razors a lot faster than light bulbs. I understand you dislike the inconvenience. But I really think you should be blaming the thieves or the factors behind theft, not the stores.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line; I do not know it. It is possible for a business to make money without customers actually liking the company: hey, it works for some of the FA*NG companies! That said, there is something that feels 'off' about management obsessing over shrinkage to the point that the shopping experience begins to suck. It's not a truckstop or a drug store in a bad area... it's a hardware superstore. With too much data, some manager can fixate on $3 screwdriver thievery and not think about the bigger picture: like shoppers finding the store to be a pain in the ass, and therefore no longer an attractive place to buy expensive riding-lawnmowers and floor jacks. A store can quantify lower sales figures, but it may not be obvious that the lower sales were related to the choice of 'caged vs uncaged' inventory. But again, I do not know. I only suspect.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > It's not a truckstop or a drug store in a bad area... it's a hardware superstore. I think that's where your misunderstanding might be. Hardware superstores are extremely attractive targets for huge quantities of theft. You just seem to personally not be aware of it, and are under the mistaken impression that theft is something that happens mainly in truckstops in bad areas. I think your suspicions are simply based on incorrect assumptions, both around the types of items that thieves steal, as well as the kinds of stores thieves target.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tshaddox 2y ago

It’s much more convenient to buy from Amazon than to try to find someone to unlock a glass case at the pharmacy. Especially since any pharmacy with glass cases for basic items will also be understaffed.

thomassmith65 2y ago
A few of my visits to this hardware store have been... memorable! (1) locate the aisle with the item I want to verify it is still in stock (2) spend 5 minutes wandering around the isles looking for a free attendant (3) give up, press the 'service' button (4) wait at the service desk for another 5 minutes until an attendant arrives to unlock the cage and hand me my $10 item (5) have attendant inform me that he must immediately frogmarch me to the nearest self-checkout station, even though I had further items I wanted to buy. Otherwise, I would have a chance to secret the $10 item in my pocket, or to dash for the door? (6) self-checkout and walk through the parking lot to place the item in my vehicle (7) walk back to the store to buy my other items (8) realize one of my other items is also locked in a cage (9) got back to step (1) and repeat for a second item I realize, as I type this, that the store has turned into the American equivalent of the British 'catalog merchant' except, in the UK, a catalog store gives you a numbered ticket, so the customer has, at least, a streamlined procedure and knows what to expect.

crazygringo 2y ago

> they lock up the items that cumulatively lose the hardware store the most money, due to theft. > I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line These seem to be in direct contradiction, unless you really think people have stopped going there because of it, to such an extent it outweighs the thefts. Especially when, if they stop going there, the competing local hardware superstore is probably doing the exact same thing. And remember, retail margins aren't usually huge -- for every item stolen, how many more do they need to sell to recoup the loss? Even if some people go to Amazon instead, it can still be worth it to avoid the theft. It's much more likely that it has indeed had the biggest impact on reducing theft, and that your "discernable logic" simply doesn't have experience with these things -- that theft often isn't about item value, but rather about reliable resellability. A single expensive niche power tool takes a long time to resell; laundry detergent and razor blades can be unloaded in quantity the same day. People go through detergent and razors a lot faster than light bulbs. I understand you dislike the inconvenience. But I really think you should be blaming the thieves or the factors behind theft, not the stores.

thomassmith65 2y ago
I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line; I do not know it. It is possible for a business to make money without customers actually liking the company: hey, it works for some of the FA*NG companies! That said, there is something that feels 'off' about management obsessing over shrinkage to the point that the shopping experience begins to suck. It's not a truckstop or a drug store in a bad area... it's a hardware superstore. With too much data, some manager can fixate on $3 screwdriver thievery and not think about the bigger picture: like shoppers finding the store to be a pain in the ass, and therefore no longer an attractive place to buy expensive riding-lawnmowers and floor jacks. A store can quantify lower sales figures, but it may not be obvious that the lower sales were related to the choice of 'caged vs uncaged' inventory. But again, I do not know. I only suspect.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > It's not a truckstop or a drug store in a bad area... it's a hardware superstore. I think that's where your misunderstanding might be. Hardware superstores are extremely attractive targets for huge quantities of theft. You just seem to personally not be aware of it, and are under the mistaken impression that theft is something that happens mainly in truckstops in bad areas. I think your suspicions are simply based on incorrect assumptions, both around the types of items that thieves steal, as well as the kinds of stores thieves target.