Dear Costco, Fry's and Target: I am not a thief, and I resent the implication

The BBQ Pit
81

I skipped most of the posts here, so hopefully I’m not repeating what someone else said…

Any store I’ve ever been in that checks bags has a sign hanging near the entrance that has a picture of a bag on it, and says “As a condition of entry, please present any bags this size and larger to be inspected upon leaving the store” (or words to that effect). I always offer my bag without waiting to be asked, and security rarely do more than take a quick glance. I don’t have a problem with this because I know that if I don’t want them looking through my bags, I have two choices - a) Don’t take in any bags or b) Don’t go in the store.

I don’t have a problem with the store owners trying to combat shoplifting. I take issue with the stupid fucks who shoplift and inconvenience the rest of the community, as reflected in higher prices and increased security.

82

Explain that to my neighbors who see me being pulled aside while others pass.
Where I live, the problem I’ve had is with the inconsistency of the reciept check. At the local Best Buy I mentioned earlier, they let most customers through without even looking at their reciept.
By the way, I realise I was a bit obnoxious in my reply to Monster404 but check his first response to this thread, long before I showed up.

83

I didn’t know Best Buy was still out there.

Seriously, if you are being singled out, or there is a racial pattern to the checks, then that is illegal and they can be sued. The only stores I’ve seen do reciept checks are Costco and Fry’s, and both check everybody(at least when I’ve been there).

Sorry for ‘shouting’ post. Only the ‘you’ was supposed to be in bold. Sometimes I don’t pay close enough attention. Or preview.

84

I honestly don’t think it’s anything sinister, y’know. It seems to be random, sometimes they stop me sometimes not. I’ve never seen them stop everyone at the exit.

85

A couple of things:
Biggirl, I did not mean to suggest that you slink away when faced by these security measures. If you don’t like them, by all means, talk to the store manager. I’m sure that he will appreciate your thoughts, especially if you are articulate and appreciative of his side of things. Guaranteed, the management would prefer to not have this security, but they feel it’s necessary. I just wonder what these stores would be like if the security was removed. How much would your prices go up when you pay for the increased theft that results? Are you and your neighbors willing to pay more to get rid of security?

That said, if these security measures are not applied equally to everyone in the store, that is a major issue that I will not deal with here.

Spiritus Mundi I hope you do manage to find those statistics you mentioned. I have no doubt that these checks are effective in reducing overall theft, but can offer no proof. I say this primarily because of rjung’s comment.

It is not necessarily the evil consumer that they are trying to stop, instead it’s probably the crooked employee. Ideally, it is the checkout person that performs this security check, ensuring that the items in your bag match the items you paid for. The store management doesn’t trust them. Think about this chain of events:
1 - Cashier takes your items and rings them up
2 - Cashier places the items in a bag
3 - Customer pays
4 - Customer picks up bag and leaves

Why is it that the cashier, a store employee, doesn’t know that the items in your bag, which he filled, match the receipt, which he printed? Answer, the cashier knows damn well whether or not your bag matches your receipt! The management just doesn’t trust them. It is a separation of duties, having a separate person verify the transactions performed by the cashiers.

I wonder how many of these cashiers “accidentily” forgot to ring up a couple of big items when their friends come through their aisle. Employees WILL steal from a store. The only time I worked in retail, 2 different sets of employees stole from the store, that I know of, in the span of 1 year. This was a little Radio Shack too, less than 10 people all together.

It is unfortunate that so many of you feel put upon by these measures. Instead of taking it out on the schlub like our good friend EvilGhandi :rolleyes:, speak to the manager and tell them that you hate this practice.

Just to reiterate my previous post, you are under no obligation to go to these stores, this is America[sup]tm[/sup] [sub]for those of you in the US[/sub] you are free to take your business anywhere you want. Is this a great country, or what?

86

I had forgotton about employee theft(something I also engaged in in the past :() You’re right, of course.

87

First, let’s dispense with this idea. Shoplifting does not raise prices. The store is already chargeing as much for the item as they think the market will bear. They do not decide on the profit first, then add the overhead to come up with the total price. However, shoplifting can get to the point where the overhead exceds the price, and there isn’t any profit. So shoplifting does not raise prices, but it can and does drive stores out of business.

For me, at least, the key issue here is efficacy. If bag checking really worked, I think I could live with it, but as it is, it seems like a Dilbertesque band-aid designed more to make middle management feel like they are “doing something” than to actually preventing theft. It seems to me that hasseling everyone and creating the expectation of theft is a source of ill will that doesn’t really have much positive benefit. Looking at Monster’s number’s here:

it looks like his Best Buy still uses up 85% or so of their (admitidly arbitrary) shrinkage allowance. Considering that the door check is the last in an extensive array of security measures, this does not seem effective to me. When you add to this the tendency of employees to select customers based on race, sex, and age–opening the store to very negitive feelings and lawsuits–it just seems like a bad idea.
One thing that has gotten lost in the shuffle is the arguement about searching employee bags–all bags–at retail establishments. This really does seem insulting to me, and while i don’t have stats, I still think that if you treat every employee as an established thief (and having to have you purse searched everytime you leave the store seems pretty much like established thief to me) you will get more thieves.
Btw, It’s great to see you back, Spiritus.

88

Manda Jo,
How much does the cost of security, cameras, anti-theft tags and other related costs add to the overhead of a large chain store like Target?

I cannot believe that they don’t factor their running costs in when determining their prices. I also cannot believe that all the measures they have to take to counter shoplifting don’t add to their overheads. Finally, I don’t see how it even matters if shoplifting is factored into prices, since it’s wrong and people shouldn’t do it!

No one likes to have their bags checked. But to blame the stores for it is ridiculous - what kind of store would want to introduce those measures if they didn’t have to? When the cameras, guards, security tags and all else fails, they resort to checking bags at the door, and they get abuse for it in this thread. Scream and rant at the shoplifters! Don’t blame the victim!

89

Manda Jo I must disagree with your statement that shoplifting doesn’t raise the prices of goods. Theft is pretty much considered a cost of doing business for retail stores, just like labor, shipping and utilities. They know, before even opening a store, that theft will occur. Minimizing the cost of theft is just one measure they can take to keep their overall costs down.

These big stores, Walmart, Target, Home Depot, etc. are absolute masters at minimizing cost. They take EVERY opportunity to lower their costs, and do it well. That’s the only way they can keep their prices lower than the competition. It is a never ending fight and every store does it, in one form or another. The further they can lower their costs, the lower they will price their products, in an attempt to get the upper hand on the competition.

Walmart is the poster child for cost reduction. They had a business model that kept their costs lower than the competition. Those lower costs allowed them to offer lower prices and still have a good margin, thus they have crushed their competion and are a juggernaut of retail.

Theft is just one lever they can pull to keep costs down, take away that lever, and costs go up, bringing prices with it.

90

Cheesesteak you bring up a pet peeve of mine. When stores say stealing or theft raises prices, it is usually a lie, it takes away from the amount of money they make, it isn’t like Best Buy goes Hey we took in 2 million more than we should have, TIME TO CUT PRICES!

Honestly if all store theft stopped tommorow, do you think you would see lower prices, or the companies stock going up.

91

cazzle said:

Cazzle, stores set thier prices at the point where they think they gain the greatest gross profit. Look at it this way: I, as a consumer, am willing to pay $100 for a widget. That widget costs the store $20. Their overhead (including shrinkage and anti-shoplifting devices) comes to $30/widget. So they are making $50/widget. Now, if they come up with a great and effective way to prevent shoplifting, maybe thier overhead drops to $10/widget. Now, why should they lower thier price? I’m still willing to pay $100, because from my point of view, nothing’s changed. They’ve already decided that the price point of $100/widget will sell the greatest number of widgets at the greatest profit, and now they are making $70/widget.

Now, let’s say that a wave of professional shoplifters hits town, and hte overhead goes up to $70/widget. Now overhead + wholesale cost = $110/widget. The only thing is, I’m not willing to pay $110/widget. So instead of selling widgets at a loss, they just quit selling them. If all they sell are widgets, they go out of business.

There is no concept of a “just profit” in business–they don’t say, “we are looking ot make 10% net, the rest we pass on.” Thier job is to maximize profits, and this is true whether your philosophy is to sell cheap to many, or dear to few.

Orginizations often implement solutions that are not solutions at all, (I mean, my god, look at the entire motivational seminar industry) and I am argueing that that is what bag checks are. I would also be irritated if they made me wear a green badge that said “customer” whenever I entered the store because they thought the great shoplifting gods would be able to recognize me and prevent me from stealing if only I wore the sacred badge. Do stores have a right to do such a thing? Sure. Do I have hte right to bitch that it is a silly, ineffective policy with a high chance of becoming a tool for racism, sexism, nad ageism? Yep.

92

A guess: IIRC AmEx charges gawdawful fees to the businesses, so perhaps places are trying to encourage people to choose other cards.

Fenris

93

It is the responsibility of the cashier to make sure your purchase is recorded correctly. It is the responsibility of the consumer to make sure he gets what he pays for. If the cashier makes a mistake (and let’s talk about the mistake being “in the customer’s favour”, since we’re talking about shoplifting), then the store will have to take it up with the cashier. The customer should not be hassled after the purchase. After all, it’s not the customer’s fault if an error is made.

You’re missing an important difference here. In your example the guy at the loading dock has no idea what the customer purchased. He needs the receipt to collect the correct item from the storeage area. Having your receipt checked immediately after leaving the checkout is totally different. They are saying, “We suspect you of stealing. We are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent.” That’s just wrong.

94

I don’t shop at Best Buy, so I can’t speak to their policies. I do shop at Costco and I have never seen the policy applied selectively. If people are singled out, then teh potential for abuse of discretion exists and I both understand and sympathize with those who object. When the policy is applied generally, though, I just can’t find reason for outrage and resentment.

It isn’t personal. Neither are baggage screens or metal detectors or road blocks or the little affidavits on the bottom of forms declaring that you aren’t a liar.

re: stopping at red lights
Yeah, and people are more likely to speed because the deputy is sitting beside the road with a radar gun. :rolleyes:

95

Gawddamnit, you just won me over to your side of the argument. I was all set to say that checking bags was no bit deal, when you wrote the above.

This (random drunk checks) is one of my “irritate my friends by ranting about it” topics.

Once again, we’re on the same side.

I think it means it’s the end of the world! :eek:

:wink:

Fenris

96

A fairly important principle of free market economics is that prices are contained by competetive pressures. If I have a competetitor, and we both are subject to identical loss from meployee & retail theft, then our ability to compete while showing profit is equally impacted. Eliminating, or reducing significantly, the amount of loss allows competition to apply downward pressure to prices.

Mando jo, your argument assumes that prices are established in a vaccuum. When the free market works, they are not. How much the customer will pay is only one part of teh equation. How low my competitor can afford to sell the same item must also be considered. That is how retail loss raises prices. That is why retail loss prevention is a multi-billion dollar business in this country.

97

It’s all about competition. I’m going to use a lower profit margin in my example because I think it better reflects actual market conditions. If you’re selling widgets for $100 a piece with 20% profit, my guess is that every other store in your area is also selling at $100 each. As a consumer, even if you’re willing to pay $100, wouldn’t you go to the place advertising it for $95 instead? The guy advertising $95/ea is going to get more business than the guy advertising $100/ea.

If you manage to lower your costs so that you can still get your 20% margin at $95 instead of the $100 every other store is charging, you will drop your price to attract more sales. In order to keep up with you, the other stores have to drop their price to $95, and cut way into their profits. Stores do not stay in business by cutting costs and keeping prices high, there is too much competition.

When you price a product, you have to take into account 3 things:
1 - Your profit margin
2 - What the customer is willing to pay
3 - What the competition will charge for the same product

2 & 3 are related in that if the competition undercuts your price, customers will be unwilling to pay your price. When you cut cost, you can raise your profit margin as long as you are satisfied with your market share. Nobody is ever satisfied with their market share, they WILL cut price to gain that edge over the competition.

If we could completely eliminate theft, prices would fall, it may take some time for competitive forces to do the work, but they would get there eventually.

98

It is not like random stops. It is like a roadblock. Everyone gets checked.

When the policy is applied properly, it is fair and non-selective. I agree with those who say that “random” searches are rife with the potential for abuse.

99

Wow. In the past, I’ve posted about how I objected to the possibility of being taken to the back room and searched, and was attacked by all sorts of apologists for draconian store measures, who essentially said that the store could do anything short of killing you while on or even near their property (instead of calling the police, like they should be doing). That, and the attitude of “you don’t like it, don’t shop there” is what has been driving more and more of my purchases online. In fact, due mainly to the demeaining way in which I am treated by store security in the past, I always try to take business away from them by going online. If I had my way, I would shop for everything online, except possibly groceries.

Sure, you have to pay shipping. Yes, I will actually pay more just so I avoid having a 16-year old talk seriously of giving me a “pat down”, or have hulking men talk about taking me to a back room away from witnesses to “ask me some questions”. Or to be followed to my car and have a man (who I can’t even bear the touch of under the best circumstances) grab my arm to the point of bruising to demand that he be allowed to search my bags and my car.

[sub]Here’s am unrelated side rant, BTW. Large men grabbing a rape survivor near her car and scaring her and talking of taking her somewhere when she hasn’t stolen or broken any law at all has a non-zero chance of the large man being shot, regardless of whether it is legal or not to do so.[/sub]

Some say “you don’t like it, don’t shop there”. So be it. Now, I can’t wait to see myself get attacked over agreeing…

I think a point made earlier is very true too - the poor girl or guy stuck at the door, or doing security, is often completely untrained to act as security, and I don’t really want to make their job harder for them. Politely asking to check my bags is hard to object to IMO, and I don’t. Checking my receipt is fine. Asking me to open my bags when the beeper goes off no longer bothers me.

However, touching me or grabbing me is a no-no, regardless of what any store apologists try to say. If they think they need to go to that point, I’ll stand and wait while they call the real police.

Another thing I don’t get is the assertion that shoplifting doesn’t raise prices. I just don’t understand, and I think the example used is over-complicated. Just take two identical stores, offering identical wares in identical neighborhoods. One has no shoplifting, one loses 5% of its goods via shoplifting. Assuming each store needs to make the same profit, which one will have higher prices?

100

Except that at the few stores I’ve gone to that do have “bag checks” (and granted, I’ve only seen it 3 or 4 times) they were doing the “put a check-mark on the reciept” routine for some people and rooting through other’s stuff.

Fenris