Is there any easily discoverable data on precisely how much is lost to Loss? E.g., given that loss is plugged into operating expenses at retail outlets, how much money is, precisely, lost? And how does that compare to other operating expenses?
And, as I think of it, what is the likelihood that this is all just a real estate scheme?
As Seattle's satire site put it, "Bad news hit Seattle today when it learned two locations of a corporate chain that were always both more expensive and a pain-in-the-ass to shop at in Ballard and U-District will be shutting down due to safety concerns alone."
I am a retail worker in an upscale department store in a Midwestern suburb. My department is located by a main door, so we're witness to a lot of theft. And it is a lot. And getting bolder by the day. Yesterday, SIXTEEN bottles of men's fragrance was taken in an hour. That's about $1600, the better part of a day's sales, for a commissioned sales associate. Every associate in my company's stores is on commission, so that's the better part of a day's pay, gone. The next customer who comes in to buy will most likely not want the sales associate to order the item (because they want it now), will try another store in the mall. If they don't have it either, then they'll order online. The company may still get the sale, but not the in store associate.
I don't doubt that there is internal theft, and that some retailers use theft as an excuse to close underperforming stores, for whatever reason. but it's exhausting to have columns like this one and Popular Information (I subscribe there, too) just say it's not happening when it is. And pretending what we experience isn't having an effect on people's paychecks.
I think this is valuable input, and I hate that you and your coworkers getting shafted because of this (as, do I imagine, most of the Commentariat here). I think the disconnect is in the data and the actions of the affected companies. If Target is closing stores due to theft and loss, why are they closing stores that have fewer reported thefts than other nearby stores? And why are they re-opening stores a block away from the ones closed to theft? I don't doubt that theft is happening, even on a large scale, but the panic about it in relation to every other thing that contributes to loss at a retailer is what seems out of whack here.
It reeks of laziness (both on the part of the media and the companies themselves), shadiness (like Dean says below, how likely is it that Target's using this to help their real estate situation), thinly disguised racism and/or classism, and a desire to close stores and re-open them with cheaper labor.
I think the problem is that we get into a debate about whether or not the theft exists, but the pushback against retailers' narratives is not, simply "duh, there isn't any theft". The problem with the press' and retailers narrative is the causality and and where the responsibility lies. The whole of the narrative is that there is organized theft and using social media as a way to fence the stolen goods, to the point that it's an existential problem for the retailers.
We spend an inordinately large amount of money on policing, broadly. Set aside a hypothetical debate between our current carceral justice system, the expensive system that imprisons more people than any other developed country, and a social approach that would, ideally, reduce the incidence of these crimes - why can't our expensive, expansive police force solve this problem?
I'm skeptical of the last two parts of this narrative - I'm skeptical that the majority of the theft is organized, and that some organized theft ring could move enough merchandise, fast enough, on Facebook marketplace to turn a profit for the hypothetical ringleaders. But if it's happening, to any extent, why is it so hard for the police to curb and deter this crime? Why are we throwing good money after bad?
Theft happens, and shrink happens - that's why these stores are insured. But if theft is theoretically happening like the press and retailers say it is, don't get mad at reporters, get mad at the cops. We paid, and paid, and paid for them to solve and deter crimes. And if our incredibly expensive cops can't collar people who *sell shit on Facebook*, it's a cop problem.
Here's something I was pointed to today on the actual crime numbers vs. Target's claim that the Yakuza, the Mafia, the Purple Gang, and the Cornbread Mafia are all stripping the stores clean:
Is this relevant to Pam's story? Hard to say as stores like hers would be different from discount department stores like Target, but there may be higher meaning nonetheless.
I don't think I've seen any real evidence of an organized shoplifting ring. The news stories I've heard on this are long on speculation about organized theft and fencing, but I haven't heard about anything like the cops raiding a warehouse where the store all the stolen goods, or tracking down the people putting up the ads.
This is definitely relevant is the sense that Pam could be be experiencing theft in the store they work in, but that doesn't mean there's big, organized shoplifting gangs. The burden of proof is on the people claiming these gangs are behind the theft.
Walgreens CFO earlier this year when talking about retail theft: "Maybe we cried too much" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/06/walgreens-shoplifting-surge-chief-financial-officer
Any store with self check-out complaining about theft isn't serious. Self check-out lanes have higher shrinkage than cashier lanes. But, the lower labor costs associated with self check-out lanes outweighs the increase in shrink. Stores are choosing higher theft rates in order to pay people less. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/business/self-checkout-retail/index.html & https://money.com/shelf-checkout-encourages-shoplifting/
Is there any easily discoverable data on precisely how much is lost to Loss? E.g., given that loss is plugged into operating expenses at retail outlets, how much money is, precisely, lost? And how does that compare to other operating expenses?
And, as I think of it, what is the likelihood that this is all just a real estate scheme?
Very.
As Seattle's satire site put it, "Bad news hit Seattle today when it learned two locations of a corporate chain that were always both more expensive and a pain-in-the-ass to shop at in Ballard and U-District will be shutting down due to safety concerns alone."
https://theneedling.com/2023/08/02/cramped-overpriced-corporate-store-with-no-parking-or-anything-on-your-shopping-list-shutting-down-due-to-safety-concerns/
I am a retail worker in an upscale department store in a Midwestern suburb. My department is located by a main door, so we're witness to a lot of theft. And it is a lot. And getting bolder by the day. Yesterday, SIXTEEN bottles of men's fragrance was taken in an hour. That's about $1600, the better part of a day's sales, for a commissioned sales associate. Every associate in my company's stores is on commission, so that's the better part of a day's pay, gone. The next customer who comes in to buy will most likely not want the sales associate to order the item (because they want it now), will try another store in the mall. If they don't have it either, then they'll order online. The company may still get the sale, but not the in store associate.
I don't doubt that there is internal theft, and that some retailers use theft as an excuse to close underperforming stores, for whatever reason. but it's exhausting to have columns like this one and Popular Information (I subscribe there, too) just say it's not happening when it is. And pretending what we experience isn't having an effect on people's paychecks.
I think this is valuable input, and I hate that you and your coworkers getting shafted because of this (as, do I imagine, most of the Commentariat here). I think the disconnect is in the data and the actions of the affected companies. If Target is closing stores due to theft and loss, why are they closing stores that have fewer reported thefts than other nearby stores? And why are they re-opening stores a block away from the ones closed to theft? I don't doubt that theft is happening, even on a large scale, but the panic about it in relation to every other thing that contributes to loss at a retailer is what seems out of whack here.
It reeks of laziness (both on the part of the media and the companies themselves), shadiness (like Dean says below, how likely is it that Target's using this to help their real estate situation), thinly disguised racism and/or classism, and a desire to close stores and re-open them with cheaper labor.
I think the problem is that we get into a debate about whether or not the theft exists, but the pushback against retailers' narratives is not, simply "duh, there isn't any theft". The problem with the press' and retailers narrative is the causality and and where the responsibility lies. The whole of the narrative is that there is organized theft and using social media as a way to fence the stolen goods, to the point that it's an existential problem for the retailers.
We spend an inordinately large amount of money on policing, broadly. Set aside a hypothetical debate between our current carceral justice system, the expensive system that imprisons more people than any other developed country, and a social approach that would, ideally, reduce the incidence of these crimes - why can't our expensive, expansive police force solve this problem?
I'm skeptical of the last two parts of this narrative - I'm skeptical that the majority of the theft is organized, and that some organized theft ring could move enough merchandise, fast enough, on Facebook marketplace to turn a profit for the hypothetical ringleaders. But if it's happening, to any extent, why is it so hard for the police to curb and deter this crime? Why are we throwing good money after bad?
Theft happens, and shrink happens - that's why these stores are insured. But if theft is theoretically happening like the press and retailers say it is, don't get mad at reporters, get mad at the cops. We paid, and paid, and paid for them to solve and deter crimes. And if our incredibly expensive cops can't collar people who *sell shit on Facebook*, it's a cop problem.
Here's something I was pointed to today on the actual crime numbers vs. Target's claim that the Yakuza, the Mafia, the Purple Gang, and the Cornbread Mafia are all stripping the stores clean:
https://popular.info/p/target-says-its-closing-9-stores
Is this relevant to Pam's story? Hard to say as stores like hers would be different from discount department stores like Target, but there may be higher meaning nonetheless.
I don't think I've seen any real evidence of an organized shoplifting ring. The news stories I've heard on this are long on speculation about organized theft and fencing, but I haven't heard about anything like the cops raiding a warehouse where the store all the stolen goods, or tracking down the people putting up the ads.
This is definitely relevant is the sense that Pam could be be experiencing theft in the store they work in, but that doesn't mean there's big, organized shoplifting gangs. The burden of proof is on the people claiming these gangs are behind the theft.