Maybe Walgreens or Safeway should simply open a cheap unbranded store down the road that sells the typical thief goods in a no name version at competitive street prices, catering to the people who need that stuff but can't afford it at store price. That would dry up the stolen goods market. Their normal customers wouldn't buy there anyway, if the store is sufficiently awkward.
Why Thieves Steal Soap
81–90 of 121 posts
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#82Maybe Walgreens or Safeway should simply open a cheap unbranded store down the road that sells the typical thief goods in a no name version at competitive street prices, catering to the people who need that stuff but can't afford it at store price. That would dry up the stolen goods market. Their normal customers wouldn't buy there anyway, if the store is sufficiently awkward.
FTA
> Thieves can sell items for around a third of their retail value, according to the report, or for roughly half their value if they sell them to second hand shops.
I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0.
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#83So they can make a clean getaway?
...I'll get my coat.
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#84The Safeway in the San Francisco Castro neighborhood is especially... exciting... relative to the surrounding area. It even has its own full time police officer. One time as I was leaving I asked the officer why Folgers crystals of all things were locked up. His reply was "[ethnic group] gangs steal essentials in bulk, and sell them to the homeless." From that point forward it clicked in my head, retail theft is abou…
It's the same reason bike theft is so high. High liquidity and high value.
I'm not sure this is always true.
In The Netherlands a lot of bikes are stolen because people are too lazy to walk.
Most of the time your stolen bike can be found again next to a bus stop or train station.
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the parent didn't want to associate a group of people with stealing, they could have just started the quote at "gangs" and it would have worked just as well... But really, any reader who doesn't already have racial prejudices will recognize that the operative word is "gangs", not "[ethnic group]". It's a bit of an insult to the sensibilities of HN readers, and it doesn't protect anyone from anything.
What's with everyone getting offended over "[ethnic group]"? What probably happened was that the employee said it and the GP censored it before quoting, without much thought. No need to get all worked up about it.
Yeah, the (G)GP probably wanted to avoid the thread derailing into conversation about how "[ethnic group]" is a victim of racism. But it seems that HN is entirely capable of having that conversation with "[ethnic group]" being a free variable...
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#86Maybe Walgreens or Safeway should simply open a cheap unbranded store down the road that sells the typical thief goods in a no name version at competitive street prices, catering to the people who need that stuff but can't afford it at store price. That would dry up the stolen goods market. Their normal customers wouldn't buy there anyway, if the store is sufficiently awkward.
FTA > Thieves can sell items for around a third of their retail value, according to the report, or for roughly half their value if they sell them to second hand shops. I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0.
The price difference would be lower, though. Hard to tell how low they'd need to go, but the other guy's cost is not $0. There is always opportunity cost, even for the other guy. (AKA it may push the other guy to greener pastures.)
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#87Maybe Walgreens or Safeway should simply open a cheap unbranded store down the road that sells the typical thief goods in a no name version at competitive street prices, catering to the people who need that stuff but can't afford it at store price. That would dry up the stolen goods market. Their normal customers wouldn't buy there anyway, if the store is sufficiently awkward.
That is the Liddl approach and is taking marketshare in the UK from the main supermarkets
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTA > Thieves can sell items for around a third of their retail value, according to the report, or for roughly half their value if they sell them to second hand shops. I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0.
The price difference would be lower, though. Hard to tell how low they'd need to go, but the other guy's cost is not $0. There is always opportunity cost, even for the other guy. (AKA it may push the other guy to greener pastures.)
Also, the illegal sellers probably operate on pretty thin profits as well, if that's their only source of income. So it might hurt them just enough.
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#89Maybe Walgreens or Safeway should simply open a cheap unbranded store down the road that sells the typical thief goods in a no name version at competitive street prices, catering to the people who need that stuff but can't afford it at store price. That would dry up the stolen goods market. Their normal customers wouldn't buy there anyway, if the store is sufficiently awkward.
FTA > Thieves can sell items for around a third of their retail value, according to the report, or for roughly half their value if they sell them to second hand shops. I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0.
Hm
Do you have a reference as to the prices of branded vs no-name items? I don't have any specific knowledge but I suspect the brand markup is quite significant.. might be interesting to check that (I don't think there is any no-name shop around here or I'd go out and have a look at soap for instance)
Also, the other guys cost is not really $0 .. he also has to make the money to cover his costs, which could be anything from food and rent, or drugs, or paying off a loanshark or baliff, or greasing the palm of his crime boss. His costs don't go down, so if his profit is reduced then his exposure goes up as he needs to steal much more. That means more time spent on the job, and more chance of getting caught.
Re: Why Thieves Steal Soap
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTA > Thieves can sell items for around a third of their retail value, according to the report, or for roughly half their value if they sell them to second hand shops. I think even with no name brands, they'd still have to sell at a loss to be competitive with that kind of markdown. Hard to compete when the other guy's cost is $0.
Hm Do you have a reference as to the prices of branded vs no-name items? I don't have any specific knowledge but I suspect the brand markup is quite significant.. might be interesting to check that (I don't think there is any no-name shop around here or I'd go out and have a look at soap for instance) Also, the other guys cost is not really $0 .. he also has to make the money to cover his costs, which could be anythi…
In German supermarkts, no-name vs branded side by side is very typical. I would say for small household items like soap, the price is often twice for the branded. So it's quite significant. And that's already branded products that have to compete directly, so the markup might be even higher in branded-only environments.