Shrink and cameras

[SIW Editor]

Some interesting study data (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/online/Retail/Study--Major-Retailers-Misperceive-Shrink/11601SIW379) came out recently related to LP/shrink.

One of the things noted was that:
"More than one-fifth (21.4 percent) of those with CCTV systems say in-store personnel rarely monitor cameras."

Keep in mind this study probably measured businesses with active LP departments -- I think if it was expanded 'retail' to include things like mom-n-pop stores, convenience stores and more, then the percentage of stores that regularly monitor their cameras would be even lower. Am I off base, or are cameras really just used for "after the fact" investigations?

[HotelSecurity]

I'm not LP but in hotels you are almost 100% correct.

[Curtis Baillie]

Some interesting study data (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/online/Retail/Study--Major-Retailers-Misperceive-Shrink/11601SIW379) came out recently related to LP/shrink.

One of the things noted was that:
"More than one-fifth (21.4 percent) of those with CCTV systems say in-store personnel rarely monitor cameras."

Keep in mind this study probably measured businesses with active LP departments -- I think if it was expanded 'retail' to include things like mom-n-pop stores, convenience stores and more, then the percentage of stores that regularly monitor their cameras would be even lower. Am I off base, or are cameras really just used for "after the fact" investigations?
You're 110% right most business do not monitor their cameras. Sorry I haven't yet finished that article for you.

[Nauticus]

It's true. Unless you have additional LPO on duty who can watch the cameras, while you watch on foot...

My most recent loss prevention employment had four cameras. They weren't real, though, so we used them exclusively for deterring theft.

[panther10758]

If your not going to staff your LP department then cameras are a waste of time and money. In order for cameras to be useful you need an LP manning camera to document everything and at least one LP on floor for direct observation and to make stop.

[Nauticus]

If your not going to staff your LP department then cameras are a waste of time and money. In order for cameras to be useful you need an LP manning camera to document everything and at least one LP on floor for direct observation and to make stop.

Thats not completely accurate. Cameras are also visible deterrants, and just the existence of such a camera is very effective in reducing theft.

[panther10758]

Where I agree with that. Deterring theft alone will not pay for this equitment which takes us back to staffing enough people to make use of cameras

[Nauticus]

Where I agree with that. Deterring theft alone will not pay for this equitment which takes us back to staffing enough people to make use of cameras

Loss prevention = reduce shrink. Thats our job, not apprehending people. If we have to make arrests, we do, but preventing loss is our job.

[panther10758]

Again no arguement there but I fail to see where unmanned cameras alone will reduce shrink enough to pay for themselves. I am a big prevention supporter so any prevention methods I am for but high visibilty will do the same as cameras in plain view if not better and cost less and can do much more

[John H. Christman]

Dummy (prefer word "drone") cameras are very inexpensive, and many can be mounted simply with double backed tape.

[Chucky]

We had a thread several months ago on this subject and as usual there were legal ramifications for using dummy cameras. Seems a young lady was going to use the rest room at a mall and was not to keen on the idea of walking down a long hall alone until she saw what she believed to be active and monitored cameras in the hall.

As things would have it she was raped and battered in the hall way. Her lawyer used a point of law that states she had reasonable assumption to believe that she was being monitored and would not have entered the hall had cameras not been present. Needless to say she won a large suit against the mall and who ever else that had a pulse near by.

A store I worked in had a mix of real and fake cameras. The fake cameras actually had a blinking red light and a motion sensor that would make it sweep when someone tripped the sensor. I worked security in that store for over a month thinking they were real. I think that the real ones negate the reasonable assumption act of the dummies.

[Curtis Baillie]

Thats not completely accurate. Cameras are also visible deterrants, and just the existence of such a camera is very effective in reducing theft.
I do not agree with that. In the San Diego, area when I was in retail loss prevention two of my stores (big box) had very significant differences in shrink over a two-year period. Both stores had the same sales figures and clientele. Both had the same camera setups, were fully staffed with LP, and were allotted the same number of LP hours and both stores caught relatively the same amount of shoplifters (dollar recoveries were about the same).

One store had 2% more shrink than the other - two years in a row. After the first lopsided inventory figures I took charge of the inventory process in the high shrink store, even conducting a 6-month inventory of high theft merchandise.

In the end, employee theft and paperwork errors made the difference not cameras. Now this is just one example I cited, but I can point to many more.

The use of cameras can or may have an effect on whether or not a shoplifter decides to steal in your store, but in my humble opinion, the only ones who may be deterred are the first timers or the opportunist. One of the most common statements, in my experience, made by people apprehended for theft is "I didn't think anybody was watching the cameras."

[Curtis Baillie]

John . . . . any experience with neglience suits when using drone cameras - such as the false sense of security claim?

[John H. Christman]

Curt: I've never been involved in one and have only heard of a couple over the peast ten years. Based on the survey results posted above, I'd argue there is no expectation that they are being monitored. If I were consulting, however, I think (depending on the circumstances) that any camera images be recorded by multi-plex, so that if an incident occurs, it can be reviewed. As far as monitoring, there is no assurrance that any one camera will be under observation at any given time. If the "expectation issue" becomes an issue, perhaps signage stating cameras are not always monitored will be needed (somewhat like signs noting usage of EAS).

[Curtis Baillie]

Thanks John.

[SecTrainer]

Legal cases are too complex to analyze without knowing all the facts.

Either this was a poorly-defended case, or else I'd be inclined to believe that there was more involved in the "expectation of safety" case than merely the presence of a camera that was not monitored. There would have also had to be shown some form of negligence with respect to this issue.

Property owners do not owe a duty to anyone to assure their "safety". What they owe is a duty to:

1. Take reasonable steps to discover criminal activity (and other unsafe conditions) occurring on their property, and...

2. Either take reasonable steps to mitigate such unsafe activity/conditions OR to plainly warn persons of the risks.

My thought is that the presence of a visible camera (drone or otherwise) would not be a sufficient showing to establish a "reasonable expectation of safety" (assuming the case is properly defended). There must also have been some showing of a foreseeable risk of criminal activity based on the mall's history, etc., etc., and some degree of negligence in how this was dealt with.

Of course, we also have to remember that juries are quite capable of rendering verdicts that are not correct from the standpoint of the facts or legal principles. A case comes to mind...it's on the tip of my tongue...can't quite think what it was....Simpson somebody-or-other?

[Bill Warnock]

Curtis, John and SecTrainer, I want to thank you for this latter exchange. I am now more determined than ever to find case law on this matter of reasonable expectation when visiting a merchant or other service provider.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Curtis Baillie]

Bill . . . . Here are some links on the issue of using drone cameras:

http://www.video-surveillance-guide.com/dummy-security-cameras-1.htm

http://www.100share.com/Are-fake-video-cameras-in.htm

[Bill Warnock]

Bill . . . . Here are some links on the issue of using drone cameras:

http://www.video-surveillance-guide.com/dummy-security-cameras-1.htm

http://www.100share.com/Are-fake-video-cameras-in.htm
Thanks Curtis, it is appreciated.
Bill

[John H. Christman]

Because customers (busiiness invitees) are invited onto a retailers property, the retailer also owes a duty to provide a safe shopping environment. This added duty in tort law is the result of a "special relationship" established by the courts which also applies to inn-keepers, public transportation, restaurants, theaters etc.

[John H. Christman]

I just read the two referenced links posted by Curtis and can't stress to much the caution NOT to post a sign indicating video is being monitored/recorded when it is not. This is misleading and most likely would lead to enhanced liability if sued over an incident involving CCTVs. Where notice signs are rewquired (and perhaps even where they are not) a sign to the effect of "Areas of this store are covered by Closed Circuit Television" alerts the customer but doesn't commit to 100% coverage or monitoring. At the low cost of functioning CCTV cameras today (as opposed to 25-35 years ago) there are few reasons not to install real cameras.

[SecTrainer]

Because customers (busiiness invitees) are invited onto a retailers property, the retailer also owes a duty to provide a safe shopping environment. This added duty in tort law is the result of a "special relationship" established by the courts which also applies to inn-keepers, public transportation, restaurants, theaters etc.

Yes, but there's a reasonableness test applied to this duty, as I stated, which limits its scope. That is, there is no duty in tort law under any "special relationship" doctrine to guarantee anyone's safety, nor could there ever be such a duty, or there would be no malls in the nation able to open their doors.

I'd still bet at least a few acres of the family farm that there was some showing in the "drone camera" case of some degree of negligence under the reasonableness or "totality of the circumstances" test.

[Curtis Baillie]

Here are just a few "duty of care" cases (there are countless). All of these case were reversed in favor of the plaintiffs.

McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership (Tenn., 1996)

This case presents the question of the continued viability of Cornpropst v. Sloan, 528 S.W.2d 188 (Tenn.1975), in which this Court strictly limited the duty of care owed by owners and occupiers of business property to customers. Here, plaintiff's wife, a customer at a shopping center, was abducted from the parking lot, and later raped and murdered. Plaintiff sought recovery against defendants, owners, operators, and tenants, based on negligence for not providing security in their parking lot....

L.a.C., minor v. Ward Parkway Shopping Center, 75 S.W.3d 247 (Mo., 2002)

LA.C., a minor, by and through her Next Friend, D.C., Appellant... v... Ward Parkway Shopping Center Company, L.P., et al., Respondents... SC83718... Supreme Court of Missouri... 05/28/2002... Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. K. Preston Dean... Counsel for Appellant: Scott A. McCreight, Michael S. Ketchmark and Joseph K. Eischens... Counsel for Respondent: Paul P. Hasty, Jr., Rebecca S. McGinley, David Curotto, Douglas R. Richmond, Thomas B. Weaver, Jeffrey T. McPherson and...
(This is a case where two Security Officers failed to act after pleas for help.)

Erichsen v. No-Frills Supermarkets of Omaha, Inc., 518 N.W.2d 116, 246 Neb. 238 (Neb., 1994)

LANPHIER, Justice... This appeal arises out of a personal injury action. Janis L. Erichsen, appellant, a customer of appellee No-Frills Supermarkets of Omaha, Inc. (No-Frills), sustained injuries as a result of being dragged by a car during an attempted purse-snatching in No-Frills' parking lot. Appellee Harold Cooperman owns the shopping center. Appellant sought recovery from appellees for negligently failing to warn her of prior criminal activity which occurred on "at least ten occasions" in...

Madden v. C & K Barbecue Carryout, Inc., 758 S.W.2d 59 (Mo., 1988)

These two cases have been consolidated for purposes of appeal. In Madden v. C & K Barbecue Carryout, Inc., plaintiff's cause of action was dismissed for failure to state a claim. In Decker v. Gramex Corporation, plaintiffs' case was dismissed on motion for summary judgment. The Court concludes that the petition in Madden was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, and that the affidavits in the Decker case, broadly construed, demonstrate the presence of a fact issue of negligence. Reversed...

Richardson v. Quiktrip Corp., 81 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. Ct. App., 2002)

Margaret Jaccard Richardson, Appellant... v... Quiktrip Corporation, Respondent... WD58884... Missouri Court of Appeals Western District... 03/29/2002... Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Kenneth P. Dean, II... Counsel for Appellant: Donald Thomas Taylor... Counsel for Respondent: Diana Moore Jordison... Opinion Summary:... ... On May 14, 1994, Margaret Jaccard Richardson was raped by an unknown assailant in the ladies' room of the Quiktrip Convenience Store at 7201 East Front...

Zepf v. Hilton Hotel (2001)

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L- 1429-98. James M. Hirschhorn argued the cause for respondent (Sills Cummis Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross, attorneys; Mr. Hirschhorn, of counsel and on the brief). Robert A. Porter argued the cause for appellant (Friedman, Bafundo, Porter & Borbi, attorneys; Mr. Porter, on the brief). Before Judges Havey, Braithwaite and Coburn. The opinion of the court was delivered by BRAITHWAITE, J.A.D. Defendant Hilton...






I use Fastcase for legal research. You can get 24 hour complementary access to look at these cases by clicking on the link and signing up.

https://www.fastcase.com/Corporate/Home.aspx

I do not not endorse or receive renumeration from Fastcase.

[John H. Christman]

For a thorough discussion of the "special relationship" duty see: DELGADO v TRAX BAR & GRILL, 36 Cal 4th 224; 113 P. 3d 1159; 30 Cal Rptr 3d 145.

[Curtis Baillie]

What's interesting about Zepf v. Hilton Hotel (2001) the employee (assault victim) had not parked her car in a company parking lot, did not avail herself to transportation (provided by Hilton) from the parking lot to her place of employment, and was not attacked on Hilton's property - but the Court found that Hilton had a duty of care.

[SecTrainer]

For a thorough discussion of the "special relationship" duty see: DELGADO v TRAX BAR & GRILL, 36 Cal 4th 224; 113 P. 3d 1159; 30 Cal Rptr 3d 145.

This is one of the cases we studied recently in a security law seminar and essentially articulates what I stated above, although it moves a bit beyond foreseeability by articulating a responsibility to take simple, nonburdensome actions to "respond to unfolding events". It's important to note that this case involved a situation in which an business proprietor had advance notice of an impending assault. Remember what I said about looking up facts!! Although the court discusses foreseeability in its discourse on the principles of a proprietor's "duty", foreseeability really wasn't even an issue here. The proprietor had every reason to know in advance that a fight was going to ensue in the parking lot of the bar, and did not take even "simple, nonburdensome" steps (escorting the assaulted parties, calling the police, etc.) to prevent it.

Delgado v Trax clarifies, but does not really articulate any new law. Duty to protect, whether characterized as "special relationship" or not (which is merely a matter of the degree of the duty owed, incidentally), arises from the elements of foreseeability and whether the proprietor took reasonable actions to mitigate the foreseeable risks. "Special relationship" may impose a higher level of care, but still does not imply a duty to guarantee anyone's safety from third parties.

Paragraph (f) is particularly relevant to the original question of whether the mere showing of a "drone camera" - by itself - would support a "reasonable expectation of safety". Quoting in part:

"Merely because a business chooses to have a security program does not signify that the proprietor has assumed a duty to protect invitees from third-party violence."

The placement of both "live" and "drone" cameras can obviously be a very legitimate part of a security program. The presence of a security guard, as paragraph (f) also articulates, also does not indicate that the proprietor has undertaken to guarantee anyone's safety.

It's also enlightening to review Security Consultant's cases, wherein the concepts of "foreseeability" and "negligence" (in response to foreseeable risks) figure prominently.

[Bill Warnock]

Duty of care and forseeability lay a heavy burden on the security manager's shoulders. I firmly believe that anyone in a leadership position who decides to install dummy cameras without seeking a written legal opinion is suffering from terminal brain flatulance.
I sent an email to Ken Kirschenbaum, Esq., asking him to weigh in on this subject if he can make some free time.
In my consulting world, I've been asked that question several times and the only written and oral advice I provide is to seek written opinions from both legal counsel and the insurance carrier.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[fordy125]

in an ideal world the store i work as lp would have 2 lp staff but no such luck just me.
the cctv system instore is very good but 90% of my external arrests come from the shopfloor and i don't believe cctv is much of a deterrant as people assume that the system is not being monitered by scurity staff.

[Lynch Mob]

I have never seen any information that correlates shrink and camera usage. In my personal experiences, I have never seen that installation of cameras serves as any kind of consistent deterrent. The fact that you catch so many people on camera stealing proves it does not really deter people from stealing.

I have always viewed cameras as a tool to catch people stealing. They do not solve any problems on their own, but when utilized properly, can greatly assist in getting your desired results. PTZ cameras make it easier to catch shoplifters than floorwalking. Still cameras make it easier to catch employees stealing than live surveillance.

The only time that CCTV needs to be monitored is when you employ people who are actively seeking to apprehend shoplifters. If you don't have those LP agents, you don't need to monitor your cameras regularly. Everything else can be recorded and viewed at a later time.

I have always preached that the real value in CCTV comes from usage by Operations more than LP alone. If Ops utlizes the cameras to review employee performance, and then follows up with employees to discuss what they have reviewed, they get multiple benefit from the system. First of all, they get to correct poor performance. Second, it lets employees know that they are paying attention at all times, even when they are not physically present. And third, it reinforces the concept that all of their actions, including theft, will be caught on video, and serves to help heighten awareness to reduce losses.

[panther10758]

I share the view that CCTV usage does not deter theft in any measurable manner. Shoplifting stats prove that. However its a valuable tool on catching internal/external theft as well as some safety issues. However I have seen its shortcomings as well. Quite an LP (working alone or with no one getting floor observations) catch a subject conceal an item and head towards exit. Now they may even film the exit. Heres the problem. If you leave CCTV room to confront and arrest subject where is your unbroken observation? Time and time again I have heard seen and even scolded my own staff the violation of (steps) Loss Prevention principals. Yes 99 times out of 100 the subject still has merchandise and its good stop. What about that 100th time? 99 stops at about $75.00 ea and one bad stop for $100.000 Law suit!? CCTV is a tool (one of many) for catching theft internal and external it is not a deterant!

[Nauticus]

Sorry to bring up and old topic, but how do stats prove that cameras do not deter theft? How does one gather statistical information on something that doesn't occur?

[Curtis Baillie]

Good question. I think the only way would be to evaluate stats before and after cameras. Throughout the years I have consistantly seen where people conceal merchandise where they think cameras are not covering an area. One of the recommendations I make to retailers is - move the cameras around, cover the blind spots that are hard for your sales people to see. Better yet - open up the blind spots. Eliminate the areas where the thieves feel safe enough to conceal your merchandise and train you employees on good old customer service.

[Bill Warnock]

Good question. I think the only way would be to evaluate stats before and after cameras. Throughout the years I have consistantly seen where people conceal merchandise where they think cameras are not covering an area. One of the recommendations I make to retailers is - move the cameras around, cover the blind spots that are hard for your sales people to see. Better yet - open up the blind spots. Eliminate the areas where the thieves feel safe enough to conceal your merchandise and train you employees on good old customer service.
Curtis this is an outstanding posting. As I have told so many people, electronic security devices are force multipliers and they have to be viewed as such. Your emphasis on interface between camera placement and employee education strikes at the heart of the matter. All responsible security personnel should carefully read what you have written and then take positive action.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[SecTrainer]

Good question. I think the only way would be to evaluate stats before and after cameras. Throughout the years I have consistantly seen where people conceal merchandise where they think cameras are not covering an area. One of the recommendations I make to retailers is - move the cameras around, cover the blind spots that are hard for your sales people to see. Better yet - open up the blind spots. Eliminate the areas where the thieves feel safe enough to conceal your merchandise and train you employees on good old customer service.

Active, attentive customer service is the "magic triple whammy" resulting in increased sales, higher customer satisfaction and lower losses. Shoplifters do not like to frequent stores where the personnel are actively engaged with customers. Such stores, frankly, are quite rare - and thus the shoplifter has plenty of much better alternatives to choose from, and that's where he'll go (sometimes displacement of crime is all that's available to us). These are stores where he can roam around for hours without a single employee ever so much as glancing at him. Most stores fall into this category, and most retail employees have no idea what their role is in preventing loss, merely by doing exactly what they were presumably hired to do - help the customer!

Store layout is obviously important - not from the standpoint of camera locations or angles, but from the standpoint of employee visibility, using as reference points the register area, the fitting areas, and the stock room.

And, improving the visibility of customers to employees also automatically improves the visibility of employees to other employees, including management!! There must be a jillion industrial engineering studies showing that employee performance improves with increasing visibility.

I know of one hardware/camping gear type retailer who had the unusual idea of putting a big window in the wall between the retail area and stock area - which is usually hidden away from view, of course. Funny things happened when the stock area became visible:

1. The stock area started to be maintained in a much more orderly manner.

2. Employees no longer went to the stock area to "hide out" and loaf.

3. Employees could watch the retail area now from the back of the store (stock room) as well as the front.

4. Internal theft dropped and the owner is convinced this is because of the visibility of the stock area.

Very interesting. This wouldn't be appropriate in all situations, of course, and in some cases it might need to be modified by using a one-way window - but you'd lose half the benefit. However, it's an example of what happens when visual surveillance - whether of or by employees - is increased rather than decreased. Not camera surveillance, but human surveillance. Improve human surveillance first, and THEN add cameras to the blind spots.

[Nauticus]

Fantastic post. I'm actually going to extend these ideas to some of the 'harder-hit' stores I'm contracted to. Citing the ideas as yours, of course ;)

[NRM_Oz]

Sec Trainer covered it well in his post. We all hate pushy or nosey sales staff who hover around us waiting to jump in for a sale. Ever wished to buy and come across something you like on to see "Slick Willy in his hawaiian shirt watching your every move with the best deal on the strip for you ?"

One of the best approaches for sales staff is to follow their "Good morning, may I help you ?" routine and if they deny service wait, observe and then have someone else offer service. These people need to know they are being watched and I have myself offered them service or even served my LP crew if they believe they are being spotted.

[Bill Warnock]

Fantastic post. I'm actually going to extend these ideas to some of the 'harder-hit' stores I'm contracted to. Citing the ideas as yours, of course ;)
Nauticus, reference your earlier post #31. Don't feel that way about bringing up something that may have been hashed out before. Perhaps the topic needs to be rehashed again that bring out new ideas. That is what is so neat about this forum, new ideas or new perspectives on no so new ideas. You done good!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Curtis Baillie]

Active, attentive customer service is the "magic triple whammy" resulting in increased sales, higher customer satisfaction and lower losses. Shoplifters do not like to frequent stores where the personnel are actively engaged with customers. Such stores, frankly, are quite rare - and thus the shoplifter has plenty of much better alternatives to choose from, and that's where he'll go (sometimes displacement of crime is all that's available to us). These are stores where he can roam around for hours without a single employee ever so much as glancing at him. Most stores fall into this category, and most retail employees have no idea what their role is in preventing loss, merely by doing exactly what they were presumably hired to do - help the customer!

Store layout is obviously important - not from the standpoint of camera locations or angles, but from the standpoint of employee visibility, using as reference points the register area, the fitting areas, and the stock room.

And, improving the visibility of customers to employees also automatically improves the visibility of employees to other employees, including management!! There must be a jillion industrial engineering studies showing that employee performance improves with increasing visibility.

I know of one hardware/camping gear type retailer who had the unusual idea of putting a big window in the wall between the retail area and stock area - which is usually hidden away from view, of course. Funny things happened when the stock area became visible:

1. The stock area started to be maintained in a much more orderly manner.

2. Employees no longer went to the stock area to "hide out" and loaf.

3. Employees could watch the retail area now from the back of the store (stock room) as well as the front.

4. Internal theft dropped and the owner is convinced this is because of the visibility of the stock area.

Very interesting. This wouldn't be appropriate in all situations, of course, and in some cases it might need to be modified by using a one-way window - but you'd lose half the benefit. However, it's an example of what happens when visual surveillance - whether of or by employees - is increased rather than decreased. Not camera surveillance, but human surveillance. Improve human surveillance first, and THEN add cameras to the blind spots.

I'm currently working with a retailer who is designing their stores with this in mind. The stores are designed like a wheel with the registers in the center. The aisles are the spokes and are visible from the registers which face out in four directions. No shelving is taller that 5'5".

[SecTrainer]

I'm currently working with a retailer who is designing their stores with this in mind. The stores are designed like a wheel with the registers in the center. The aisles are the spokes and are visible from the registers which face out in four directions. No shelving is taller that 5'5".

I'd thought of that sort of design too, but wondered whether it might encourage "snatch & run" thefts from the aisles radiating out toward the doors?

[Nauticus]

Nauticus, reference your earlier post #31. Don't feel that way about bringing up something that may have been hashed out before. Perhaps the topic needs to be rehashed again that bring out new ideas. That is what is so neat about this forum, new ideas or new perspectives on no so new ideas. You done good!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Thanks for the clarification! I'm really enjoying this forum so far. At least everyone's easy to get along with ;)

[NRM_Oz]

I guess we can leave the kids games to other sites.

Yes I agree layout and design is important for not only sales and staff management but also for visual appeal and for theft management too. I have high theft items such as blank dvd media to a different shelf and watched the sales increase as the theft decline.

But I will go down to the basics and say - customer service is key to reducing the risk and #2 is actually be seen to be pro-active whilst you are dreaming of your weekend off in your head.

[Curtis Baillie]

I once had a department store who showed some terrible inventory results in men's leather goods. When I went to the store to look at the inventory issues the leather goods were in the middle of the department and employees were not paying attention.

I had the store move the belts, wallets and such near the wrapdesk, in plain view of employees. Store management tried to fight me on this saying that the move would not conform to planogram. The hell with planogram - you just lost 35K on wallets and belts - move the product. Next inventory, problem solved. My advice, don't be a slave to your planogram.

[N. A. Corbier]

What the hell IS it with people an planograms, anyway? They change every 3 months, and the store can override them at whim.

[Curtis Baillie]

I've worked for shortsighted companies where the planogram was King and you better not mess with it.

[SecTrainer]

I've worked for shortsighted companies where the planogram was King and you better not mess with it.

Planograms, being aimed at putting the most desirable items into people's hands, are successful in doing just that. Unfortunately, planograms have no interest whatsoever in whether the people PAY for the items once they are in their possession. Just get <whatever> in the cart!

In that sense, planogram marketing concepts probably run somewhat contrary to LP concepts. If so, this would suggest that smart management will find a way to strike a balance between POG objectives and LP objectives. It's no good boosting sales if people are "boosting" your profits!!

[NRM_Oz]

One store I was the LPM for has a 20 foot fragrance display and due to theft were told to place minimal stock on the shelves (ie. no more than 2 of everything as these old displays once held 7 layers of stock). One idiot LOST $2k of stock because she was too lazy to go into the stock room and replace the sold items so just filled the shelves up and of course when she went home, 2 x SL's came in and hit the unmanned counter.

Planograms are supposed to be the bee knee's of retail and if you don't have it to sell as it has been stolen, then they are about as much use as peeing on a forest fire. I once had some VM clown tell me he was place all 12 x 14 inch chainsaws on display at a hardware store as they were on sale. I said NO, you have 1 and some empty boxes and some props like wood chips and a log. We had 42 chainsaws for sale at a bargain price and they sold out in 4 hours (I got one). Most stores LOST 5% or more in theft as they followed their planogram which was wrong.