Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

retailbrew.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#51

Post by vel0city »

simoncion wrote: post #43
vel0city wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employe…

> 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 o…

> 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.

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#52

Post by vel0city »

etempleton wrote: post #37
vel0city wrote: post #6

> “A year ago, America’s stores declared a shoplifting epidemic,” stated the CNN article. “This year, retailers are telling a very different story—or no story at all. It’s as if the shoplifting crisis suddenly vanished.” Or maybe because they closed down a lot of stores which were the worst and then on the borderline stores, they put up all the locked cabinets. Maybe now the rates of shrink have been reduced. There's…

I have little sympathy for many of these big box stores because their policies have indirectly lead to an increase in shoplifting. Their official policy in many stores is to do nothing when spotting a shop lifter other than report it to police after it has happened. For a while some of these big box stores would hire a security guard whose only job was to stand next to a shoplifter in the hopes it would intimidate th…

I mean, what should they do? Attempt to detain alleged shoplifters? Assault them? Shoot them? What do you think should be done?

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#53

Post by epoxia »

joshruby16d wrote: post #30

I was in a CVS where they had all the Tylenol/Advil behind a locked glass display, and all the CVS headache relief on the shelf. I mentioned to an employee that this seemed unfair/illegal, and they responded that "people only steal the brand name Advil, so that's what we lock up". Seems unlikely to me. Anyone else see something like this at CVS?

Unlikely that its problematic, brands/stores know that positioning/caging on shelves matter and negotiate accordingly. Eye level sells more than top/floor shelf.

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#54

Post by vel0city »

farnsworth wrote: post #35
vkou wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in Seattle, all the worst-for-shoplifting stores are still open. Mysteriously, a bunch of locations that were not bad for shoplifting, but were bad for overall sales (because of shitty layouts, small footprints, limited selection) ended up closed. Perhaps shoplifting was just the excuse regional management gave for why they closed badly ran locations.

I've always wondered why all the big chains are closing stores, blaming shoplifting, to the point where Belltown no longer has a single pharmacy. But I haven't seen any of the small independant shops/bodegas close, including a small grocery shop right next to the 3rd/bell bus stop. I can't imagine that nobody is shoplifting from those. I'm no expert but it's never added up to me.

I steal a bunch of candybars from a convenience store. What am I going to do, sell them for $1-2/ea just like the bodega? The high-margin goods like beer and wine require licenses to sell; I lose any benefit of plausible deniability in where I got these goods when I try and fence these on the street or online. Selling them without proper license is always a crime and practically impossible online.

Meanwhile I steal a bunch of vitamins and OTC drugs I can sell at $10-20/bottle, packs of underwear at $10-20 a package. A lot of this can even be sold through Amazon at full retail pricing, I don't even have to try and sell it on the street.

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#55

Post by akira2501 »

vel0city wrote: post #44
akira2501 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nee…

> 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…

> 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?

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#56

Post by alphabettsy »

bluetidepro wrote: post #23

> For 55% of respondents, it’s a lost sale, because when a product is locked up, they try to buy it elsewhere. It's wild to me that someone would rather go back to their car, drive somewhere else, HOPE it's not locked up there also, and THEN finally purchase the item at the new store instead of just waiting for someone to come unlock it at the current store you're at. I've personally never had to wait more than a few…

I have ordered things to be delivered more than one time recently rather than wait for an employee because I didn’t need it urgently, but it was on my grocery list.

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#57

Post by vel0city »

joshruby16d wrote: post #30

I was in a CVS where they had all the Tylenol/Advil behind a locked glass display, and all the CVS headache relief on the shelf. I mentioned to an employee that this seemed unfair/illegal, and they responded that "people only steal the brand name Advil, so that's what we lock up". Seems unlikely to me. Anyone else see something like this at CVS?

People buy Tylenol off Amazon all the time. Who buys CVS brand acetaminophen on Amazon?

You really think the market for CVS brand acetaminophen is as big as Tylenol?

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#58

Post by akira2501 »

kortilla wrote: post #49
akira2501 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nee…

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 goin…

> 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?

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#59

Post by vel0city »

akira2501 wrote: post #55
vel0city wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.…

> 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!

Re: Two in three shoppers won't buy products in locked display cases

#60

Post by giantg2 »

LordKeren wrote: post #27
giantg2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walmart locks their spraypaint now. Lowes does not. I'll go to lowes since it's easier than tracking down a associate at Walmart.

I would assume that is more tied to vandalism then theft though

How so?
Post reply on HN