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?
> 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.
> 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?
> 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?
> 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!
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.
> 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.
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.
> Razor blades are 100% locked up, the electronics sections is more or less for show
Ok, but both of those things have been behind cases for a decade+. I remember needing to get an associate to get a Nintendo 64 game from the cabinet at Toys-R-Us. I'm talking about the recent push to put darn near everything in cabinets, not the highest risk things. Cabinets so pervasive you can't even buy socks or Tylenol or toothpaste without getting an associate. Walmart and Target stores where there are turnstiles to get in and out of the store. CVS/Walgreens locations where practically every isle is locked cabinets. I'm talking about the recent push to put far more stuff in cabinets. I don't think you've seen the kinds of stores these people here are actually talking about if you're thinking razorblades in cabinets are the epitome of what people here are complaining about.
> they may believe they're preventing shop lifting, but they're not.
> No, they think "this will prevent shoplifting" - and it does.
So they aren't preventing shoplifting with the cabinets, but the cabinets prevent shoplifting. The mental dissonance here is astounding.
> a lot of this is 100% their own fault.
Blaming the victim here. If they didn't want their stuff stolen they wouldn't have made it so easy to steal!
I'm not of the opinion that multi-billion dollar corporations can even be victims. They have too much capital and political power to be victims of anything.
> So they aren't preventing shoplifting with the cabinets, but the cabinets prevent shoplifting. The mental dissonance here is astounding
You're misunderstanding.
The cabinets DO prevent shoplifting, obvious. The question is SHOULD THEY? I think corps jumped on the opportunity without the proper analysis.
> put darn near everything in cabinets, not the highest risk things
Right. Which is why I'm shocked you don't believe, or refuse to consider, the fact that these corps DID NOT do the proper risk analysis here. If they're putting penny items behind locks my mind naturally will wonder if that's worth it.
Instead, you're concluding that the shoplifting must be so incredibly severe that even penny items must be locked up. This seems wildly unreasonable to me. What, is every other person a mass shoplifter?
You literally stated these cabinets are not preventing shoplifting. Direct quote from your previous comment.
> they may believe they're preventing shop lifting, but they're not
I'll take it as maybe you misspoke here, but I don't see any other way of reading that other than "they're not [preventing shop lifting]".
The person I was originally replying to was absolutely suggesting shoplifting practically doesn't happen and that these cabinets are entirely unrelated to shoplifting. That no, they did not set up these cabinets as any response to shoplifting. So, it's not obvious to a lot of people.
> The question is SHOULD THEY?
Uh, yeah, they should prevent shoplifting. Shoplifting increases costs for everyone actually trying to buy things. Overall, we should be trying to prevent and stop shoplifting, its bad for society overall. Unless you're arguing rampant theft is a good thing overall for society and a society which steals all the time is a healthy and good society.
> What, is every other person a mass shoplifter?
In some locations, kind of? As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread I've personally seen people come into stores, open a box of trash bags, fill the bags with stuff, and walk out the store. It happens, and quite often in some places.
> If they're putting penny items
They're not penny items. They're $20+ items which are now far easier to resell thanks to things like Amazon not questioning where stuff comes from and the rise of people using Facebook Marketplace and other online storefronts like that. Remember, a bottle of Tylenol or cold medicine or a pack of Fruit of the Loom socks can now be around $25. Grab a dozen or so of each of these items, sell them at half price, and you're up a few hundred bucks. Pretty low risk since so many jurisdictions these days won't actually enforce it at all, and technically there's nothing illegal about selling socks on Facebook Marketplace.
These kinds of organized shoplifting groups have greatly increased in the past few years. Usage of things like FBM exploded. But hey, you were just arguing shoplifting hasn't increased much, so you'll probably also argue this just doesn't happen.
> the fact that these corps DID NOT do the proper risk analysis here
You're stating it as if it is a fact. Where's the actual hard analysis you're presenting to prove this fact? Why do you refuse consider that maybe they did do the analysis? Just a few days ago you were of the opinion shoplifting was trending down, why are your thoughts from your wandering mind absolute truths?
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?
> 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?
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> Arguing insurance companies ... usually behave irrationally is ignoring reality.
Arguing that I claimed that insurance companies usually don't follow the data and usually do behave irrationally is ignoring what I wrote, which is reproduced below.
> 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.
You're arguing this time they got it wrong despite not actually sharing any evidence. Understood. Your gut and vapid speculation of internet commenters is infallible unlike these supposed insurance companies. Which is funny, because even the idea these rates are being set higher is nothing but speculation in internet comments.
I agree they probably get some things wrong, but I think they probably get things right more often than not when it comes to analyzing risk. I wouldn't bet against the insurance companies on any random thing, even though I acknowledge they do make some mistakes. Chances are the insurance company understands the generalized risks on whatever they're underwriting more than I do.
If nobody was actually making claims for shrink, you really think the insurance companies would jack up the rates or require cabinets? It wouldn't just come from nowhere. And it's odd they only do it in some markets and not others. Around me there are no cabinets at Walgreens, CVS, Target, Walmart, and the other retailers mentioned in these comments. Obviously there's some level of targeting here going on, I wonder what data point they'd use...hmm...
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?