NRF retracts its assertion that organized retail crime led to 50% of losses(stateline.org)
stateline.org
NRF retracts its assertion that organized retail crime led to 50% of losses
https://stateline.org/2023/12/19/smash-and-grab-robberies-fuel-new-laws-but-critics-question-the-need/
17 comments
They should just return to the 19th century retail model where customers orders are fulfilled by clerks. Shrinkage will be reduced to whatever the dishonest employees are taking for themselves.
> be reduced to whatever the dishonest employees are taking for themselves.
I was under the impression that two thirds of shrinkage was from employees to begin with. Either through error or theft.
I was under the impression that two thirds of shrinkage was from employees to begin with. Either through error or theft.
Even thats weird how they refer to “employees” like its hourly folks doing all the theft and not scams at a higher level
Immediately upon implementing that we'll start getting presented with the tip screen.
We already are.
I was at a gas station in Indiana last week and the pump asked me to choose a tip percent before i could start to pump
Reading the comments here, I’m left feeling like I’ve misunderstood this article. But I’ve now reread it three times and came to the same conclusion: this article does not say crime statistics were exaggerated.
Could someone help me understand what I’m missing?
If I’m reading it correctly, they exaggerated the amount of _organized_ crime.
This article seems to say the amount of shoplifting that was attributable to organized crime was 5% when originally they claimed it was 50%.
My understanding from that is that we originally estimated disorganized shoplifting to be less than 50% of missing merchandise, and organized crime was making up at least half.
In other words, the crime statistics are the same, but it’s actually randos walking into a CVS and stealing stuff.
That doesn’t seem like it is better?
Could someone help me understand what I’m missing?
If I’m reading it correctly, they exaggerated the amount of _organized_ crime.
This article seems to say the amount of shoplifting that was attributable to organized crime was 5% when originally they claimed it was 50%.
My understanding from that is that we originally estimated disorganized shoplifting to be less than 50% of missing merchandise, and organized crime was making up at least half.
In other words, the crime statistics are the same, but it’s actually randos walking into a CVS and stealing stuff.
That doesn’t seem like it is better?
You have misread the article, I believe.
The article opens with this quote: "The National Retail Federation earlier this month retracted its April assertion that nearly half of the $94.5 billion in merchandise that went missing in 2021 was stolen by retail rings."
It later clarifies that the $94.5 billion number that the NRF used is the "total shrinkage" - i.e. all unexpected inventory loss including theft (but not just theft).
> "Overall shrink accounted for $112.1 billion in losses in 2022, up from $93.9 billion in 2021 [This is where the $94.5 billion number comes from I believe]. Internal and external theft of all kinds, “on par with previous years,” accounted for about two-thirds — or $73 billion — of retailers’ shrinkage"
So they released a statement that implied that theft was up ~28% year over year (by using total shrinkage instead of the theft numbers), and that organized groups were responsible for half of the total theft. The truth is that theft was more or less the same as last year.
The article opens with this quote: "The National Retail Federation earlier this month retracted its April assertion that nearly half of the $94.5 billion in merchandise that went missing in 2021 was stolen by retail rings."
It later clarifies that the $94.5 billion number that the NRF used is the "total shrinkage" - i.e. all unexpected inventory loss including theft (but not just theft).
> "Overall shrink accounted for $112.1 billion in losses in 2022, up from $93.9 billion in 2021 [This is where the $94.5 billion number comes from I believe]. Internal and external theft of all kinds, “on par with previous years,” accounted for about two-thirds — or $73 billion — of retailers’ shrinkage"
So they released a statement that implied that theft was up ~28% year over year (by using total shrinkage instead of the theft numbers), and that organized groups were responsible for half of the total theft. The truth is that theft was more or less the same as last year.
The reason they're focusing on organized crime is due to media attention on really brazen mob shoplifting in places like San Francisco.
Certain media outlets are interested in making major cities, which lean left, to appear to be lawless hellholes in order to gather support for anti-leftist policy and candidates.
Certain media outlets are interested in making major cities, which lean left, to appear to be lawless hellholes in order to gather support for anti-leftist policy and candidates.
There is the flashy flash mob videos that make for good news media. But a lot of organized shoplifting is more like some fence giving drug addicts a list of stuff to walk out of Target with. It’s organized in the sense that a fence is getting a group of people (who are otherwise freelancers) to steal specific things that they can easily exchange for drugs.
There is also the right wing exaggeration, but at the same time if you live in Ballard of Seattle, you’ll see it happen at least weekly, if not more. Whether it’s organized or not is more of a behind scenes thing.
There is also the right wing exaggeration, but at the same time if you live in Ballard of Seattle, you’ll see it happen at least weekly, if not more. Whether it’s organized or not is more of a behind scenes thing.
The industry uses a very amorphous metric called "shrink". It's the total delta between inventory the computer says should be there and inventory actually there. It includes product mistracked or mislaid and sometimes even includes product deliberately discarded for economic reasons. Shrink has always been 1-2% of sales, and retailers have long decided it isn't worth it to spend a lot to try and push the number lower.
It’s still theft, sure. The point of the article is to contrast the police and lawmakers reaction based on wrong data. It’s a convenient story for police budgets and fear based politicians, and also much ado about nothing.
Edit: not that the thefts are nothing, but there is no surge, increase, things are not getting worse, thieves are not bolder, etc…
Edit: not that the thefts are nothing, but there is no surge, increase, things are not getting worse, thieves are not bolder, etc…
It’s not better, but the underlying cause of the situation is entirely different, meaning the solution to the problem probably has to be different.
If it was organized crime, the likely answer is investigations and law enforcement presence. You would have specific centralized targets to take out and restore order.
If it’s instead a widespread epidemic of individual shoplifting, the issue is going to be social (or likely socioeconomic, in any reasonable guess) and probably requires a complex solution that is way out of the hands of what retailers can reliably put resources towards.
This is important information for the businesses, their shareholders, the communities they are located in, the politicians serving those communities and likely many other minor interested parties.
If it was organized crime, the likely answer is investigations and law enforcement presence. You would have specific centralized targets to take out and restore order.
If it’s instead a widespread epidemic of individual shoplifting, the issue is going to be social (or likely socioeconomic, in any reasonable guess) and probably requires a complex solution that is way out of the hands of what retailers can reliably put resources towards.
This is important information for the businesses, their shareholders, the communities they are located in, the politicians serving those communities and likely many other minor interested parties.
[deleted]
>That doesn’t seem like it is better?
It will lead to more people saying things along the lines of "They're only stealing so they can feed their families (oh and by the way this is "capitalism's" fault you should totally support the socialist/communist policies that I do)" but yeah otherwise it doesn't change the facts on the ground much.
It will lead to more people saying things along the lines of "They're only stealing so they can feed their families (oh and by the way this is "capitalism's" fault you should totally support the socialist/communist policies that I do)" but yeah otherwise it doesn't change the facts on the ground much.
Story that led to the retraction was by the team here at Retail Dive https://www.retaildive.com/news/retailers-crime-problem-numb...
Someone from the Marshall Project was on APM Marketplace recently expressing similar facts.
https://www.marketplace.org/2023/09/11/is-retail-theft-reall...
https://www.marketplace.org/2023/09/11/is-retail-theft-reall...
>Now the outspoken lawyer has fresh ammunition for his effort to repeal the law: The National Retail Federation earlier this month retracted its April assertion that nearly half of the $94.5 billion in merchandise that went missing in 2021 was stolen by retail rings. The true percentage was only a small fraction of that amount, about 5%.
It's still an _absolutely insane_ amount.
It's still an _absolutely insane_ amount.
The $5B must be viewed in the context of roughly $5T in revenue: https://nrf.com/research-insights/state-retail
So we're talking .1% of retail revenue. Not that I'm fond of thieves, let alone organized ones, but it does not seem an existential threat to me at this level.
As a comparison, eliminating cashiers in favor of automated checkout solutions is estimated to a loss of about 1% of revenue: https://www.winsightgrocerybusiness.com/technology/self-chec...
So we're talking .1% of retail revenue. Not that I'm fond of thieves, let alone organized ones, but it does not seem an existential threat to me at this level.
As a comparison, eliminating cashiers in favor of automated checkout solutions is estimated to a loss of about 1% of revenue: https://www.winsightgrocerybusiness.com/technology/self-chec...
Many companies are removing self checkout because of this so I'm not sure that's a great example.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a self checkout removed, even in downtown Seattle locations where everything's been locked up and security is patrolling every floor. I've seen increased surveillance and scare tactics at self checkouts but I think costco is just about the only major store left that hasn't pushed people into using almost exclusively self checkout.
It's recent. Walmart is removing them in my area.
Still a great outcome if that’s the case.
That sounds like it's reporting gross revenue. Claiming that the $5B is unimportant because it's a small percentage of revenue, when it's actually gross revenue, is misleading.
[deleted]
Given the dubiousness of their original number, I am taking all of that with a grain of salt.
This page[0] lists the 2022 shrinkage for a few companies, and said Target was at $753M. Target is a huge national brand. Are there really ~100x more companies of Target's size experiencing equal shrinkage annually? How does the math work to get to $95B?
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/08/this-is-how-much-money-retai...
This page[0] lists the 2022 shrinkage for a few companies, and said Target was at $753M. Target is a huge national brand. Are there really ~100x more companies of Target's size experiencing equal shrinkage annually? How does the math work to get to $95B?
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/08/this-is-how-much-money-retai...
You underestimate the sheer number of small retail stores. Every town, no matter how small, has many.
Really? $4.7B is $14.11 per capita. Fourteen dollars and eleven cents.
The damage is done. US news channels on both sides saturated the airwaves with doom-mongering about rampant crime, allowing politicians to stoke these fears further for electoral gain.
Retailers were only too happy to have a running excuse for store closures, usually a sign of uncompetitiveness that negatively affects the stock price.
Retailers were only too happy to have a running excuse for store closures, usually a sign of uncompetitiveness that negatively affects the stock price.
I don’t think this naturally follows from the article.
If I’m reading it correctly, they’ve only retracted their statements about the amount of missing merchandise attributable to organized crime.
This article does not seem to dispute the volume of missing merchandise or the volume of retail theft, only the amount of that attributable to organized crime.
If I’m reading it correctly, they’ve only retracted their statements about the amount of missing merchandise attributable to organized crime.
This article does not seem to dispute the volume of missing merchandise or the volume of retail theft, only the amount of that attributable to organized crime.
Are you sure? I was a tourist in the US in 2021 and were really surprised by even inexpensive non-prescription products being locked down behind plexiglass at stores like Walgreens or Walmart, things priced below $25.
Either the retailers are being brain-dead by discouraging purchases or theft is a massive real problem.
Either the retailers are being brain-dead by discouraging purchases or theft is a massive real problem.
> Are you sure? I was a tourist in the US in 2021 and were really surprised by even inexpensive non-prescription products being locked down behind plexiglass at stores like Walgreens or Walmart, things priced below $25.
> Either the retailers are being brain-dead by discouraging purchases or theft is a massive real problem.
In NYC Walgreens locations, the store brand versions for many products are not actually locked up, but the branded versions are and require you to wait for an employee.
It's a subtle move, but once you're aware of it you see how prevalent it is.
> Either the retailers are being brain-dead by discouraging purchases or theft is a massive real problem.
In NYC Walgreens locations, the store brand versions for many products are not actually locked up, but the branded versions are and require you to wait for an employee.
It's a subtle move, but once you're aware of it you see how prevalent it is.
Wow, I didn't know that. I hope the store managers/owners remember to not only calculate increased profits of extra purchases of their store brands, but also lost customers in the long run because their shops are so annoying to use.
It seems like a "piss in your pants to keep yourself warm"-strategy.
It seems like a "piss in your pants to keep yourself warm"-strategy.
[deleted]
Not surprised. The portion of “shrink” attributed to shoplifting has hovered around 36% for quite a while. The notion that 50% was all organized is silly.
Note that this article makes the claim that merchandise that is stolen by opportunistic criminals and then later sold to organized fencing operations is not "organized retail crime".
With large organized criminal gangs providing financial incentives to independent opportunistic thieves, then it's all absolutely organized crime.
It's absurd to suggest otherwise. If an organized gang or cartel pays a independent opportunistic hitman to kill a target, it's organized crime.
San Francisco has extremely large fencing operations that operate with impunity right on the open street! They buy items all the way from single items of soap and hand wash all the way up to stolen TVs. The feds are doing nothing for some reason. [1]
[1] https://sfist.com/2023/09/23/a-known-fencing-operation-for-s...
With large organized criminal gangs providing financial incentives to independent opportunistic thieves, then it's all absolutely organized crime.
It's absurd to suggest otherwise. If an organized gang or cartel pays a independent opportunistic hitman to kill a target, it's organized crime.
San Francisco has extremely large fencing operations that operate with impunity right on the open street! They buy items all the way from single items of soap and hand wash all the way up to stolen TVs. The feds are doing nothing for some reason. [1]
[1] https://sfist.com/2023/09/23/a-known-fencing-operation-for-s...
> Note that this article makes the claim that merchandise that is stolen by opportunistic criminals and then later sold to organized fencing operations is not "organized retail crime".
With large organized criminal gangs providing financial incentives to independent opportunistic thieves, then it's all absolutely organized crime.
It's absurd to suggest otherwise. If an organized gang or cartel pays an independent opportunistic hitman to kill a target, it's organized crime.
I’ve read the article three times now and I can’t find this claim. Do you have a quote?
What I can find in this article is experts saying that there’s a lot of unknowns and police & co who just got shiny new toys based on the myth pinky promising that there truly is an organized crime issue.
Whatever the case, you can’t deny that the doom images pretending that hordes are storming a store at every corner are widely exaggerated.
> San Francisco has extremely large fencing operations that operate with impunity right on the open street! They buy items all the way from single items of soap and hand wash all the way up to stolen TVs. The feds are doing nothing for some reason. [1]
The article you linked explicitly states that there’s a joint sting operation. That’s not “doing nothing” that’s gathering evidence to build a case.
I’ve read the article three times now and I can’t find this claim. Do you have a quote?
What I can find in this article is experts saying that there’s a lot of unknowns and police & co who just got shiny new toys based on the myth pinky promising that there truly is an organized crime issue.
Whatever the case, you can’t deny that the doom images pretending that hordes are storming a store at every corner are widely exaggerated.
> San Francisco has extremely large fencing operations that operate with impunity right on the open street! They buy items all the way from single items of soap and hand wash all the way up to stolen TVs. The feds are doing nothing for some reason. [1]
The article you linked explicitly states that there’s a joint sting operation. That’s not “doing nothing” that’s gathering evidence to build a case.
>I’ve read the article three times now and I can’t find this claim. Do you have a quote?
Sure, specifically, the article says "more than 95% percent of shoplifting incidents are carried out by “one to two people,” -- implying this means it is not organized crime, even if the goods are sold to a large organized fencing operation.
1-2 people shoplifting does not disprove organized crime, particularly if the goods are immediately sold to organized fences.
>The article you linked explicitly states that there’s a joint sting operation
No, it doesn't. Please read it again. It poses a question of whether it's a sting operation, which seems unlikely given stolen goods have been GPS tracked going to that location and then going to third locations once sold, including by large YouTubers who independently investigated. [1]
The goods are not seized by law enforcement and then returned to owners at that location. The stolen goods are sold, which would be a crime in itself. Seems unlikely that police are on-selling stolen merchandise.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWWWyG5ZwG8
Sure, specifically, the article says "more than 95% percent of shoplifting incidents are carried out by “one to two people,” -- implying this means it is not organized crime, even if the goods are sold to a large organized fencing operation.
1-2 people shoplifting does not disprove organized crime, particularly if the goods are immediately sold to organized fences.
>The article you linked explicitly states that there’s a joint sting operation
No, it doesn't. Please read it again. It poses a question of whether it's a sting operation, which seems unlikely given stolen goods have been GPS tracked going to that location and then going to third locations once sold, including by large YouTubers who independently investigated. [1]
The goods are not seized by law enforcement and then returned to owners at that location. The stolen goods are sold, which would be a crime in itself. Seems unlikely that police are on-selling stolen merchandise.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWWWyG5ZwG8
> Sure, specifically, the article says "more than 95% percent of shoplifting incidents are carried out by “one to two people,” -- implying this means it is not organized crime, even if the goods are sold to a large organized fencing operation.
1-2 people shoplifting does not disprove organized crime, particularly if the goods are immediately sold to organized fences.
That paragraph specifically talks about statements made by someone from the Council on Criminal Justice on “smash-and-grab” operations by rings that storm department stores.
It neither confirms or denies anything about organized crime in general.
That said, you seem overly focused on the lack of disproving things, whereas commonly the good practice is to focus on proving things.
For example it’s also not disproven that this is done by retail competitors to hassle competitors, nor is it disproven that space aliens are behind this because they need the merchandise for sustenance. Nor are any multitude of possibilities disproven.
That doesn’t mean it makes sense to entertain such ideas. Even when here and there a PD reports instances of it occurring. We need something more statistically significant.
> Although videos of “smash-and-grab” rings storming department stores have ratcheted up concern about theft, a recent report by Lopez’s organization found that such incidents “are rare and account for a very small percentage of overall shoplifting,” said the analyst. More than 95% percent of shoplifting incidents are carried out by “one to two people,” he said.
> No, it doesn't. Please read it again. It poses a question of whether it's a sting operation, which seems unlikely given stolen goods have been GPS tracked going to that location and then going to third locations once sold, including by large YouTubers who independently investigated. [1] The goods are not seized by law enforcement and then returned to owners at that location. The stolen goods are sold, which would be a crime in itself. Seems unlikely that police are on-selling stolen merchandise.
It literally states:
> ABC 7 reached out to Supervisor Dean Preston's office, and they replied with a statement: ""Our office has repeatedly engaged departments about the various challenges on the 300 block of Leavenworth and our understanding is that this block is part of a joint field operation that includes various departments and the SFPD."
This is a SF legislator states “our understanding is that this block is part of a joint field operation that includes various departments”, after having contacted various departments.
They’re not saying “we wonder if”, they’re saying that to their knowledge there is a joint operation going on.
As for goods not being seized and returned to their owners, I don’t know what to tell you, other than that’s how sting operations on a bigger scale work. LE is after the people at the top or tried to build a case with high amounts to ensure harsh convictions, they’re not going to jeopardize that by returning a single laptop to their owner.
A quick Google seems to support this notion: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/18k-stolen-goods...
Even when it comes to drugs, which is arguably more dangerous, they often let it go (whether in a controlled manner or not) to build a case against a bigger fish.
That paragraph specifically talks about statements made by someone from the Council on Criminal Justice on “smash-and-grab” operations by rings that storm department stores.
It neither confirms or denies anything about organized crime in general.
That said, you seem overly focused on the lack of disproving things, whereas commonly the good practice is to focus on proving things.
For example it’s also not disproven that this is done by retail competitors to hassle competitors, nor is it disproven that space aliens are behind this because they need the merchandise for sustenance. Nor are any multitude of possibilities disproven.
That doesn’t mean it makes sense to entertain such ideas. Even when here and there a PD reports instances of it occurring. We need something more statistically significant.
> Although videos of “smash-and-grab” rings storming department stores have ratcheted up concern about theft, a recent report by Lopez’s organization found that such incidents “are rare and account for a very small percentage of overall shoplifting,” said the analyst. More than 95% percent of shoplifting incidents are carried out by “one to two people,” he said.
> No, it doesn't. Please read it again. It poses a question of whether it's a sting operation, which seems unlikely given stolen goods have been GPS tracked going to that location and then going to third locations once sold, including by large YouTubers who independently investigated. [1] The goods are not seized by law enforcement and then returned to owners at that location. The stolen goods are sold, which would be a crime in itself. Seems unlikely that police are on-selling stolen merchandise.
It literally states:
> ABC 7 reached out to Supervisor Dean Preston's office, and they replied with a statement: ""Our office has repeatedly engaged departments about the various challenges on the 300 block of Leavenworth and our understanding is that this block is part of a joint field operation that includes various departments and the SFPD."
This is a SF legislator states “our understanding is that this block is part of a joint field operation that includes various departments”, after having contacted various departments.
They’re not saying “we wonder if”, they’re saying that to their knowledge there is a joint operation going on.
As for goods not being seized and returned to their owners, I don’t know what to tell you, other than that’s how sting operations on a bigger scale work. LE is after the people at the top or tried to build a case with high amounts to ensure harsh convictions, they’re not going to jeopardize that by returning a single laptop to their owner.
A quick Google seems to support this notion: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/18k-stolen-goods...
Even when it comes to drugs, which is arguably more dangerous, they often let it go (whether in a controlled manner or not) to build a case against a bigger fish.
I would not be surprised to find that the numbers provided to insurance/media were not accurate. I suspect a little bit of fraud on the merchants side. While I can't provide proof of any kind, I just suspect after reading that this is what a lot of jewelry stores did upon robbery.
> "Shrink", an industry term to describe all inventory losses from multiple causes, including theft.
Including? So what other things is it from if organized theft is only like 5%.
Including? So what other things is it from if organized theft is only like 5%.
Standard theft, as in the individual is stealing for themselves, not on behalf of a criminal organization.
Other losses include things expiring, getting misplaced, miscounted, etc.
Say, for example, a shipment is received and signed for, but there were only 99 boxes, not 100. Or maybe one of the boxes has the wrong product.
It could easily get overlooked for a long time and only really show up at a point when it's anyone's guess as to whether it was stolen, lost or never received.
That doesn't happen as often, but it does happen.
Other losses include things expiring, getting misplaced, miscounted, etc.
Say, for example, a shipment is received and signed for, but there were only 99 boxes, not 100. Or maybe one of the boxes has the wrong product.
It could easily get overlooked for a long time and only really show up at a point when it's anyone's guess as to whether it was stolen, lost or never received.
That doesn't happen as often, but it does happen.
Disorganised theft, damage, mislaid, lost
Everyone is so committed to their own spin that it makes me sick.
That's how politics works. You don't get the changes you want by saying "there's a tiny little problem that we probably can get by ignoring. But it would be super great if we get changes made soon." You get it from yelling "THE WORLD'S ON FIRE! MAKE THE CHANGES I WANT NOW!!"
Is there any criticism of the laws that were passed as a result of this lie?
Is there any criticism of the laws that were passed as a result of this lie?
The article doesn't say what the Virginia law is, but the ones they do saw, I don't see any issue with them.
> At least one state — Texas — enacted two laws, one creating a task force and the other allowing potential thieves to avoid prosecution if they agree to an education course designed to steer them away from breaking the law.
> Republican state Sen. Aaron Freeman authored the law in Indiana, which makes the organized retail theft of firearms or at least $50,000 in merchandise a Level 5 felony, which carries a penalty of up to six years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.
> Prosecutors and authorities also describe a menacing picture in Alabama, which this year enacted a law that allows law enforcement and prosecutors to cross jurisdictional lines to pursue bands of thieves who hit retailers in multiple cities.
These aren't laws hurting the average person or even people doing petty theft, they target organized crime. Now it seems the organized crime isn't as common as the stores claim, but the laws are fine; the main issue I see is a waste of time and resources, but I don't even think that is happening with these laws.
> At least one state — Texas — enacted two laws, one creating a task force and the other allowing potential thieves to avoid prosecution if they agree to an education course designed to steer them away from breaking the law.
> Republican state Sen. Aaron Freeman authored the law in Indiana, which makes the organized retail theft of firearms or at least $50,000 in merchandise a Level 5 felony, which carries a penalty of up to six years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.
> Prosecutors and authorities also describe a menacing picture in Alabama, which this year enacted a law that allows law enforcement and prosecutors to cross jurisdictional lines to pursue bands of thieves who hit retailers in multiple cities.
These aren't laws hurting the average person or even people doing petty theft, they target organized crime. Now it seems the organized crime isn't as common as the stores claim, but the laws are fine; the main issue I see is a waste of time and resources, but I don't even think that is happening with these laws.
I saw that expressed something like a protest in the street with people chanting "What do we want? Slightly cheaper butter! When do we want it? Phased in over 3 to 5 years!"
I’m perfectly fine with tougher laws against organized retail crime. Seems like a loophole that should be closed now that anybody can fence in bulk using services like Amazon FBA.
Crime is high when people have nothing to lose and something to gain. It shouldn't be so politically controversial to say that both carrot and stick are needed to prevent+reduce crime.
These stats are all political. I dont trust either side. All i know is that when I walk into a CVS/Duane Reade in NYC, everything is locked up. Even the candy.
Why would CVS make it objectively more difficult to make a purchase if they didn’t have an earnestly held belief that the risk of theft outweighed the loss in sales of having everything “locked up”?
In other words, what motive do retailers have to lie?
In other words, what motive do retailers have to lie?
Because there are dumb regional/store managers who took these now retracted statistics at face value?
The store managers can’t compare how much inventory they ordered with got much of it was sold?
If you're really worried about this kind of thing, would you not take precautions to protect against it?
Because shopping for things behind plexiglass is such a major hassle that people won't bother purchasing at all?
Time never moves slower than waiting for an indeterminate time, possibly forever, for someone to come to open the plexiglass for you, especially as you're not even sure the button you pressed to call for help even worked.
Time never moves slower than waiting for an indeterminate time, possibly forever, for someone to come to open the plexiglass for you, especially as you're not even sure the button you pressed to call for help even worked.
The retracted statistics weren't about the total amount stolen. They were about the percentage stolen by organized retail theft rings.
It still makes sense to lock up your inventory if you're seeing a high rate of theft, regardless of whether it's organized crime or not.
It still makes sense to lock up your inventory if you're seeing a high rate of theft, regardless of whether it's organized crime or not.
Store Managers at retail chains are not buying locked cabinets for their stores. That decision is being made for them.
Their businesses are failing because they’re mismanaged and online retailers are putting them out of business. Blaming a made up retail theft boogeyman distracts from their incompetence and hopefully keeps stock prices and golden parachutes up a little longer.
Yes, it is a massive conspiracy to detract from…checks notes… recent losses from online retailers. Yeah, that’s it.
No, it isn’t a massive conspiracy. A handful of executives decided to score some political points by publicizing a demonstrably farcical narrative around organized retail theft.
This is what I wonder about. Locking items behind glass has to have some second order effects? When Target started locking toothpaste and laundry detergent behind glass, I stopped going to that store entirely. They lost the sale of whole basket of goods to prevent shrinkage of one item!
When I see this I can’t help but think that these big box retailers are in a death spiral.
When I see this I can’t help but think that these big box retailers are in a death spiral.
Thats my point, they might be saying one thing about shoplifting, but the locked up stores are telling a different story.
being high on their own supply isn't a different story
NYC resident here. Not sure where you are spending time, but I have not seen anything like that where I live and work: Midtown, upper west, upper east, greenwich village, Chelsea, Brooklyn.
Greenwhich village on Broadway, Midtown/all over Chelsea, am in these areas daily
Just the 'nice parts', then? I'm down in South Brooklyn and the Walgreens has most of the pricier beauty products (and much more) locked up.
GP was talking about “everything” being locked up, down to “the candy”.
Does the Walgreens you’re talking about lock up everything, including the candy?
If so, what’s it like at that store. Does every patron get a personal chaperone or is the store filled with patrons waiting for an associate who does the rounds to show up?
Does the Walgreens you’re talking about lock up everything, including the candy?
If so, what’s it like at that store. Does every patron get a personal chaperone or is the store filled with patrons waiting for an associate who does the rounds to show up?
Most if not all (the candy doesn't get stolen) the shelves have plexiglass, and there's buzzers placed every so often on the shelves. When you want someone, you press the buzzer and wait (usually pretty long) as they find you and open up the case. Repeat for multiple shelves. Also take into account that they downsized staff in all of these places, so sometimes it's literally the cashier that has to run up to the shelves. It's awful and the main reason I just stopped going and Amazon Prime everything now.
yeah, its lame. and its actually really annoying when its just lotion, hygienics, combs and I'm like "oooooooh its stuff homeless people of color need" but inconveniences people that are not stealing but have same hair and skin considerations
Seems unlikely shops are locking up items to inconvenience people of a specific skin type.
right, its things people of color are stealing or fencing for people of color, and its still a lame user experience to be inconvenienced by a corporate response in that specific way
its obviously just a stop gap solution to exiting the market entirely since these stores no longer operate in a market based economy where property rights are enforced, so just close up instead of operating a crippled store hanging on by a thread, inconveniencing random swaths of their remaining customers just because an excel spreadsheet said so
its obviously just a stop gap solution to exiting the market entirely since these stores no longer operate in a market based economy where property rights are enforced, so just close up instead of operating a crippled store hanging on by a thread, inconveniencing random swaths of their remaining customers just because an excel spreadsheet said so
CVS leadership are influenced by BS assertions of data scientists. Ground truth doesn’t matter to upper management living across the globe from the problem.
Onsite management is handed a recipe to implement, told someone is showing up to install locks in everything to, not because a specific store might need it but to normalize business operations with their paranoia.
Onsite management is handed a recipe to implement, told someone is showing up to install locks in everything to, not because a specific store might need it but to normalize business operations with their paranoia.
You think CVS doesnt have granular numbers on shoplifting? What planet are you living on. Whether they report those publicly is another story
> You think CVS doesnt have granular numbers on shoplifting?
Take a look at what CVS disclosed in official shareholder reports
> Whether they report those publicly is another story
Well, no, if they have evidence of a massive material increase in organized shoplifting and don't disclose that, it's securities fraud. Conversely, if they make false material claims in direct shareholder reports, that's also fraud.
Take a look at what CVS disclosed in official shareholder reports
> Whether they report those publicly is another story
Well, no, if they have evidence of a massive material increase in organized shoplifting and don't disclose that, it's securities fraud. Conversely, if they make false material claims in direct shareholder reports, that's also fraud.
Seems there's no material increase in organized shoplifting, but that doesn't change the claims about regular shoplifting? Seems like you're not actually disputing anything.
Seems like they would be motivated…to tell the truth about this.
> Seems like they would be motivated…to tell the truth about this.
In shareholder disclosures, yes. Which is, incidentally, where they have never made any of the claims the NRF is making! Those have been limited to PR statements with no legal obligations.
In shareholder disclosures, yes. Which is, incidentally, where they have never made any of the claims the NRF is making! Those have been limited to PR statements with no legal obligations.
Doesn’t matter. They want to normalize employee and customer experience. Think I’ll go with the anecdotes of my friends who managed retail locations for big box stores rather than an HN rando with a confrontational rhetorical style, as if projection is correctness
Your experience is a reflection of their desire to normalize rather than customize
Data is only useful to a point. Generate all the stats you want. Millions of other stats attenuate the usefulness of any given stat, except for those of broad application. Getting super granular is programming equivalent of bike shedding and yak shaving.
Your experience is a reflection of their desire to normalize rather than customize
Data is only useful to a point. Generate all the stats you want. Millions of other stats attenuate the usefulness of any given stat, except for those of broad application. Getting super granular is programming equivalent of bike shedding and yak shaving.
What point are you trying to make? What anecdotes have your totally-legit-retail friends shared that are relevant to this discussion?
[deleted]
ErasticBrub(1)
> All i know is that when I walk into a CVS/Duane Reade in NYC, everything is locked up. Even the candy.
Who do you think the NRF consists of?
The fact that Duane Reade locks everything up now isn't evidence of anything; the people making those decisions are by definition the same ones influencing the NRF.
Who do you think the NRF consists of?
The fact that Duane Reade locks everything up now isn't evidence of anything; the people making those decisions are by definition the same ones influencing the NRF.
obviousman(2)
It is too late of an apology. I can’t count how many times it has been used as a justification against minorities, homeless etc.
What is the penalty for lying purposely against a population that cannot afford lawyers for filing a defamation suit?
What is the penalty for lying purposely against a population that cannot afford lawyers for filing a defamation suit?
Are homeless people "exercis[ing] unauthorized control over the
property of a retail merchant with the intent to directly or
indirectly distribute the property for resale" (quoting the Indiana law)? If you're stealing something and then giving it away for money, we're pretty far from "stealing food to eat" territory. I don't think it's homeless people walking off with power tools.
> A national group retracted its assertion that organized retail crime stole half of missing merchandise.
My understanding of this article is not that they retracted their assertions about the amount of missing merchandise.
My understanding is that they withdrew their assertion that half of the total missing merchandise was attributable to organized crime.
My understanding of this article is not that they retracted their assertions about the amount of missing merchandise.
My understanding is that they withdrew their assertion that half of the total missing merchandise was attributable to organized crime.
There are two important points to be made here.
1) “missing merchandise” or “shrinkage” if you prefer ≠ theft
2) they, and subsequently the media, heavily implied retail theft was on the rise and not just that, but specifically “boogeyman style theft” even though theft numbers have remained the same
1) “missing merchandise” or “shrinkage” if you prefer ≠ theft
2) they, and subsequently the media, heavily implied retail theft was on the rise and not just that, but specifically “boogeyman style theft” even though theft numbers have remained the same
It may just be "unorganized" retail theft though, and not sure why that or race matters
> What is the penalty for lying purposely against a population that cannot afford lawyers for filing a defamation suit?
What lies specifically are you referencing?
What lies specifically are you referencing?
It is hard to fully understand what caused the disconnect from reality.
Here's a good NPR piece discussing the issue: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2023/12/18/is-shoplifting-getti...