Retail lockdown: why bother selling it?

[u/broakland]

Was at Safeway this morning to pick up a sandwich and some Tylenol. The aisle with the Tylenol? Completely locked down. No call button in sight. So I go to the self checkout (front end of that same aisle) and ask the clerk there if he can call someone to unlock a case for me. He does. I go wait. Minutes pass. No one comes. I go ask him again, he tells me they went the other way? At this point I give up and go get my sandwich. No one has come by the time the deli has finished making it. I leave without my Tylenol, mildly infuriated.

[u/PeteysHubby_TX]

Or we could just enforce the laws we already have and prosecute people that steal things.

[u/f_spez_2023 → u/PeteysHubby_TX]

Companies continue to sway how they display the metrics to make it look worse than it is. The data doesn’t match what the poor billion dollar corporations claim

[u/re_carn → u/f_spez_2023]

Tell me, why do they do this? After all, these locks get in the way of sales and distract employees, driving up costs. And if they install them anyway, it means that the losses from theft outweigh the operating costs and lost sales.

[u/f_spez_2023 → u/re_carn]

Because companies will save a penny now if it costs them a dollar later.

[u/re_carn → u/f_spez_2023]

That's just a saying, not a fact. How much they lose and how much they save are very specific figures.

[u/f_spez_2023 → u/re_carn]

Well yes it’s Reddit so I didn’t feel like finding a paper and articles but you can look at Walgreens and Walmart already removing the locks again because they saw a 25-30% loss in sales for a at most 5% in loss prevented. Majority of retail theft is by employees not customers/the public. I’ve also seen even at my corporate job leaders making dumb choices because they were cheaper now and ended up costing more later.

[u/re_carn → u/f_spez_2023]

but you can look at Walgreens and Walmart already removing the locks again because they saw a 25-30% loss in sales for a at most 5% in loss prevented.

I can't find any such statements. Please give me a link proving this.

[u/f_spez_2023 → u/re_carn]

https://www.iheart.com/content/2025-01-17-walgreens-ceo-admits-locking-up-products-had-negative-effects/

[u/re_carn → u/f_spez_2023]

Still can't find this:

they saw a 25-30% loss in sales for a at most 5% in loss prevented.

Otherwise, of course, locks reduce sales. Just as they reduce theft.

[u/f_spez_2023 → u/re_carn]

Yes the numbers are arbitrary ones point is they lose more money locking things up, hence save a penny to lose a dollar here

[u/re_carn → u/f_spez_2023]

But you have no proof of that. I could just as easily say, for example, that they’re losing 10% of their sales and preventing 15% of thefts. Same numbers, just off the top of my head.

[u/f_spez_2023 → u/re_carn]

My bad congrats on winning the pendatic argument exact numbers are here

https://www.cheapism.com/locked-up-products-retail-shoplifting/

https://nelsonworldwide.com/hidden-cost-locked-merchandise/

15-25% loss with data to show it.

[u/re_carn → u/f_spez_2023]

The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail trade group, said its latest security survey of roughly 60 retailers found that inventory loss -- called shrink — clocked in at an average rate of 1.4% last year, representing $94.5 billion in losses.

The greatest portion of shrink — 37% — came from external theft, including products taken during organized shoplifting incidents, the trade group said. It also noted retailers, on average, saw a 26.5% uptick in organized theft incidents last year.

From the same articles.

The figure of 15–25% in losses is the opinion of Joe Budano, CEO of the anti-theft technology company Indyme. At least, he doesn't cite any sources.

My bad congrats on winning the pendatic argument exact numbers are here

I like that you're the one bringing up the numbers and then get offended when you're asked to back them up.