Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article of Interest

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    I'm not interested in what companies say, but what they do. While all companies talk about these things, relatively few do them, at least to the extent that would be required to reduce shrink to absolutely $zero. In fact, the real reason for the residual, seemingly unresolvable shrink "in spite of (and not because of) doing these things" is NOT that these measures are ineffective, but that companies make a conscious decision about how extensively to implement these measures relative to the cost of doing so. They implement them up to a certain "cost point", after which further implementation of these measures might well still be quite effective, and might well further reduce the residual shrink, but the cost of doing so would exceed the cost of the residual shrink. Well, sure, they could assign one LP person per employee to monitor their activities, but that defeats the purpose of reducing shrink. You act like the decision to not spend too much to reduce shrink is a bad one and businesses just being stingy. The whole point of Loss Prevention is to add profitiability, not erode it just for the warm fuzzy feeling of catching people stealing.



    Controls must continually be reevaluated because they will never be perfect, first of all, and because employees and patrons have proven their ingenuity in defeating controls - especially controls that are not continually being reevaluated. Controls aren't a "set it and forget it" proposition by any means.
    I disagree. If you need to continuously re-evaluate, you have bad controls. And the person who created those controls should be fired for implementing bad controls.


    I'm sorry, but this is sheer nonsense. Carry it out to the only logical conclusions that such a questionable proposition leaves you with (i.e., that enforcement breeds criminality) and you would have to support the ridiculous proposition that we could eliminate crime by disbanding police departments and LP departments altogether. I never said enforcement breeds dishonesty. I said that showing complete mistrust in those people who expect, and need, you to trust them will backfire. Overbearing and controlling parents are bad parents and tend to raise kids who will get involved in a variety of problems. So will parents who ignore their kids. You need a balance of monitoring behavior and educating them in a loving fashion to be contributing adults to society. The same applies to employees. Overbearing and mistrusting LP departments will breed dishonesty. You cannot even compare this to police work, as it is completely different. It is much more like parenting.

    I do not mean to be rude, but I honestly question whether anyone who holds such a philosophy should be involved in loss prevention in the first place. Why? Is there a requirement to think like a cop rather than a business person to be in LP?

    And the point of our response, collectively, is that we do not agree with your fundamental premise - i.e., that "Everything we have been doing for decades is really doing absolutely nothing", because nothing could be further from the truth. One of the chief reasons that new retail businesses fail, in fact, is because they typically cannot afford to implement strong LP programs and shrink gobbles the critical early profits. (Small Business Administration). The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners reports in its 2006 Report to the Nation that the average loss due to internal fraud for small businesses of less than 100 employees was GREATER by far ($190,000) than the average loss per incident suffered by large companies ($120,000). The reasons? A lack of or failure to enforce basic controls in small businesses, first of all, and a greater (obviously sometimes unwarranted) degree of trust in small businesses. So much for trust and loyalty. Report quoted in Small Business Fraud Prevention Manual - ACFE 2006. The evidence is clear...controls and preventive measures work. Trust might be nice, but it doesn't breed honesty where honesty doesn't already exist. "Trust, but verify" should be the motto. And at what point did I say controls were not necessary? At what point did I say monitoring behavior was not necessary? At what point did I say you place blind trust in employees? I never said any of those things. As for the CFE report, I cannot comment about it. Where do these numbers come from? What was their survey about? Does it refer to shrinkage or is it just talking embezzlement?

    I can certainly see value of improving the "us-versus-them" adversarial relationship between ops and LP, but not by adopting the philosophy that what you do is irrelevant!! Why keep running into a brick wall if you don't have to? Why be stubborn and deny the obvious truth? Why not be a professional and find the right strategy that works rather than clinging to methods that are not working?

    And, even if I believed what you are saying in your article, the one thing I would frankly never do would be to go onto the Internet and publish the argument that "LP is accomplishing absolutely nothing". If, as you say, there is an adversarial relationship between ops and LP, you've given them some very nice - if highly dubious - ammunition for their case against you, and the executives they show your article to will likely never see this debate on this forum refuting your ideas.
    You already said that my numbers were flawed. You have not demonstrated how they are flawed, yet you say I give "highly dubious" ammunition to ops. Again, where is my data flawed?

    I have no problem saying this on the internet or anywhere else because I believe it is the truth, and the data supports that truth. Why should I find anything wrong wtih telling the truth? Because it might make life harder for you or for others in the profession? They need it harder. They need to be held to a higher standard. They need to show that the money spent on them is benefitting their company. If what they are doing is working, great. If it is not working why should any company continue to drop money into something that is not working?

    LP has survived on fear of what could be happening. Nobody really expects them to reduce shrink, they just don't want to find out how bad it could be if LP were not there. In most cases, there wouldn't be a difference if LP wasn't there. I do not need to feel bad about saying this. The LP industry should feel bad that they are not doing more to make this statement untrue.
    www.plsolutions.net
    www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
      Both. These strategies are present, but not as some type of replacement for apprehension.
      Nice try. However, I am not aware of one LP department out there that addresses operational management deficiencies. I challenge you to name one that gets involved in that.

      In my next post, I will talk about my hypothetical situation and you will see the difference in what I do compared to what LP typically does. Then you tell me if this is what you do, or any LP department does.
      www.plsolutions.net
      www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

      Comment


      • #33
        Lynch Mob, please review the collective work submitted in response to your initial posting. Please dissect the varied disputations to see the wisdom of each.
        Enjoy the day,
        Bill

        Comment


        • #34
          Okay, I think that most LP professionals look at the hypothetical I put out and would primarily focus on the suspected theft and discuss the strategies for investigating. As a secondary concern is the manager's role in managing the employee.

          My view is completely opposite. My primary concern is the manager. I look at this manager and see a manager who has failed as a manager. This manager has created a bad situation by failing to address multiple problems with this employee. Shortages from day one. Attendance issues from day one. A bad attitude from day one. I have to question why this person still works for the company six months later? The problem is the manager. The employee stealing is a symptom of the problem.

          So, the first thing I would be doing is having a long talk with the manager. I would explain to her how her failure to address these problems created the suspected theft issues. I would talk with her about what she should have done much earlier. I would discuss with her what needs to happen now. I would explain to her what she needs to do in the future. It is all about early identification of problems and taking steps to address them immediately.

          Now, I would get to the investigation. I would not spend all that much time on the investigation. Based upon what I know now, I would interview the employee. Do I have a slam dunk case? No. Could the discrepancies be explained away as mistakes? Yes. However, I have enough to justify sitting down and talking with the employee. If the person is stealing, any decent interviewing will most likely get an admission. If I don't get an admission, it is not the end of the world, or the end of the interview.

          I would make sure the manager is the witness for the interview because this is a learning opportunity for them. If the employee denies the theft I get into the other performance issues. I talk about the extensive discrepancies. I talk about the attendance issues. I talk about the attitude. I let her know that mistakes have been made in managing her in the past, and by rights she should not even be working for the company any longer. I let her know that her behavior in the store has been unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. I will let her know that she has the opportunity to correct her behavior, but if she does not, the manager will be addressing all these problems without fail. I let her know, in no uncertain terms, that her performance must change immediately.

          Now, once the interview is complete, I spend more time with the manager talking about the interview and talking about how she needs to manage this employee going forward. I make it clear that it is crucial for her to step up and follow through. She cannot afford to not follow through. I will also talk about other employees in the store and discuss problems she may be having. I will give advice on how to properly manage those employees, and may even go as far as pulling some of them for interviews.

          This process TEACHES the manager what she needs to do going forward. I have shown her what mistakes she has made in the past and I have demonstrated how you can have a very direct conversation with employees about their performance that puts them on notice that they need to change. Of course, I always discuss the need to partner with their DM and HR, and the importance of documenting all events, just as I was going to document this interview.

          So, my primary goal is to teach this manager how to better manage to reduce losses. If she had stepped up and addressed all the problems with this employee within the first few weeks, she would either have an employee who was performing well, or she would have terminated the employee. Either way, the losses would not mount, and there would not be a need to do an investigation. If she is learning, she will not repeat the same mistakes, and in the future, I will have fewer investigations to worry about, and her shrink will be lower because she is solving the problem herself, before it gets to being a theft problem.

          Now, I am certain that everyone will say they talk to the manager about fixing the problem. However, there are different ways to go about it. If your primary concern is catching the employee stealing, you cannot be putting in the time and effort to be teaching. If you are not teaching, you are spending more time and effort on conducting investigations, which leaves you less time to teach. It is an endless cycle. If you are focused on education as your primary Loss Prevention tool, that means that the education takes precident over apprehensions. Yes, internal investigations will need to be conducted, but they should be conducted quickly. This is why I believe in cold interviews and phone interviews as valuable tools. I do not fall into the school that believes when you interview an employee you had better have all the evidence to fire them. If you have all the evidence, you have spent a substantial amount of time investigating that case, and you really do not even need to interview. Since you will be terminating regardless of the outcome, the interview is superfluous. To my way of thinking, interviews are opportunities to learn and opportunities to manage. They do not just have to be about getting rid of people.

          This is how my views differ from most of the LP world, and why I have found great success in doing what I do. I believe that focusing on catching people means you have to allow a lot of theft to happen in order to catch them. By then it is too late. I prefer to stop the theft immediately and manage the individual out of the business if they will not admit to stealing.
          www.plsolutions.net
          www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

          Comment


          • #35
            Kevin: Your approach is not that novel or different than most in LP, the only difference I can see is one of emphasis.

            You are correct that the Manager is a problem which musrt be addressed, but disparaging her in front of an emoployee who you may end up putting back to work is not, in my view, appropriate.

            I always tried to have enough documentation of R&R violations to justify a discharge before interviewing a suspect for theft. I'd get a commitment from HR in advance. If no commitment, they we had to decide whther to interview or continue with more investigation to get an iron clad case which we could prove without a confession. In this way, if they did not confess, they were still terminated. Why would you want to retain an employee who exhibited all these negative characteristics from day one? Best get rid of them ASAP!

            I also see evidence of poor supervision not only by, but of the store manager. Where was the DM, RM? Don't they also review O/S and challange the manager on employee performance and R&R violations. Where was HR manager? Lots of blame in the management ranks to go around. Besides, if you were store LP why didn't you know from the start about the shortages and take some action? You are as much to blame as the mananger.

            Why must this employee go? Bad attitude, performance from day one. Why waste time trying to change this behavior. Also, she is probably guilty of theft and one never wants to put a thief (suspected or proven) back to work under anycircumstances. Even if no confession is obtained an employee with this attitude will probably, if returned to the floor, tell fellow employees something like " LP accused me of stealing but I denied it and now I'm back to work. Never admit anything to those guys. LP is a joke." This is something I'd want to aviod!

            Your last paragraph states you believe in "stopping theft immediately and managing the individual out of the business." Just how do you accomplish this if the suspected thief has no other faults - i.e., is not violating any other R&Rs? This is why you need a thorough investigation or sufficient R&R violations so that this employee is terminated whatever happens during the interview.

            I will agree with you that this situation resulted from a failure of management - starting with the first line supervisor (Dept Mgr) and including LP Mgr, Store Mgr, HR Mgr, DM & RM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
              Kevin: Your approach is not that novel or different than most in LP, the only difference I can see is one of emphasis. Considering the number of people who keep telling me my ideas are wrong and they won't work, it would seem it is very different. The emphasis is what I have always talked about. The emphasis on prevention over apprehension. Most LP departments focus on apprehension over prevention.

              You are correct that the Manager is a problem which musrt be addressed, but disparaging her in front of an emoployee who you may end up putting back to work is not, in my view, appropriate. I don't think that explaining to an employee that their behavior has NEVER been acceptable, but mistakes were made that allowed the behavior to exist is disparaging the manager. It is the only way to let them know you are not "suddenly" finding their behavior bad when it was always acceptable before.

              I always tried to have enough documentation of R&R violations to justify a discharge before interviewing a suspect for theft. I'd get a commitment from HR in advance. If no commitment, they we had to decide whther to interview or continue with more investigation to get an iron clad case which we could prove without a confession. In this way, if they did not confess, they were still terminated. Why would you want to retain an employee who exhibited all these negative characteristics from day one? Best get rid of them ASAP! I agree you want to get rid of them ASAP. I have found it is easier and quicker to get rid of them by talking with them and managing them than it is to try to catch them doing something wrong. I am sure you have heard the stories of LP folks saying it took months, or even years, to catch someone, but by golly, they finally got them! I don't wait months. I react now. If there is sufficient policy violations to terminate, I am all in favor of it. Too often, the manager has failed to document and you have to wait for termination. Why not make the employee want to quit just as much as you want to terminate?

              I also see evidence of poor supervision not only by, but of the store manager. Where was the DM, RM? Don't they also review O/S and challange the manager on employee performance and R&R violations. Where was HR manager? Lots of blame in the management ranks to go around. Besides, if you were store LP why didn't you know from the start about the shortages and take some action? You are as much to blame as the mananger. As I have said before, I do not believe in in-store LP. But, yes, if there was a system to notify LP about the shortages and they did not react, they are as much to blame. I also agree with you on the supervision of DM failing. That is another level of teaching for LP to engage in. More reason to not want in-store LP, as they cannot have the credibility to teach a DM effectively.

              Why must this employee go? Bad attitude, performance from day one. Why waste time trying to change this behavior. Also, she is probably guilty of theft and one never wants to put a thief (suspected or proven) back to work under anycircumstances. Even if no confession is obtained an employee with this attitude will probably, if returned to the floor, tell fellow employees something like " LP accused me of stealing but I denied it and now I'm back to work. Never admit anything to those guys. LP is a joke." This is something I'd want to aviod! You assume that the interview is pure accusations. I have never experienced the "LP is a joke" concept. If you know how to back out of an interview and change the tone of the interview, you do not experience that. I do have to disagree with you statement that nobody wants to put a suspected thief back to work under any circumstances. It happens all the time, but usually before they are interviewed. Once you get reports of suspicions, what does LP typically say? Let them work as normal so we can catch them. The whole concept of making apprehensions is all about putting employees back to work that we suspect to be stealing. Why does it make a difference if it is before or after the interview?

              Your last paragraph states you believe in "stopping theft immediately and managing the individual out of the business." Just how do you accomplish this if the suspected thief has no other faults - i.e., is not violating any other R&Rs? This is why you need a thorough investigation or sufficient R&R violations so that this employee is terminated whatever happens during the interview. I have never seen a dishonest employee that did not show signs of it in their performance. Violations of R&R should not be the only cause for termination. Termination for poor performance should happen too (with the right disciplinary action taken). Think about it, they have to have faults or else you would not suspect them of stealing. It is the faults that lead to the suspicions.

              I will agree with you that this situation resulted from a failure of management - starting with the first line supervisor (Dept Mgr) and including LP Mgr, Store Mgr, HR Mgr, DM & RM.
              You say my approach is not novel, yet everyone tells me my approach is wrong. Many have argued that what I suggest should be HR and OPs area, and LP should not be involved. If we are in agreement that the situation resulted from the failure of management, at many levels, why would LP NOT be involved in the areas that are CAUSING shrink?

              Poor management is the primary cause of shink. This is what LP's primary concern should be, but it is not. SecTrainer argues about implementing stronger controls. What good are better controls if you have poor managers who are not enforcing the controls? He also mentioned a Corporate Culture that requires high integrity. What good is that if you have a poor manager who is not enforcing that requirement?

              It all stems from the Ops management. LP needs to stay focused on educating Ops. When that is our primary responsibility, consulting, we can achieve much more than when we try to catch all the bad guys.

              Going back to the article, since it would appear that the numbers support the idea that LP is not doing anything to reduce shrink, doesn't it make sense to TRY doing something different?

              Mr. Christman, you were in the business long before I was. What was the "average" shrink from the 60's and 70's? I am not aware of studies that existed back then, but wasn't 2% shrink the basic standard to meet?
              www.plsolutions.net
              www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

              Comment


              • #37
                Several quick points & then I must beg off this discussion - other things to do.
                1. Faults do not always lead to suspicions - I've often seem the "perfect employee" who admits to theft.
                2. As for no in-store LP because thwey can't teach DMs I'd argue in-store can address suspicions more quickly and refer the problems in this case to the LPs DM or RM to deal with their opposite number.
                3. Leaving a suspected thief at work is totally different than putting an employee who has been interviewed re theft back to work. An employee who is stealing is not about to confess it to fellow employees or suggest they are gettiung away with theft. When a suspected thief is interviewed it should be done without publicity to others, but let's face it, the word gets out. An interview which doesn't produce a confession allows the suspect, if put back to work, to claim "they beat LP".

                As far as setting shortage standards or accepting a certain percentage as a norm is wrong. I can't remember what our numbers were in the 70's (and wouldn't reveal them if I did), but I do recall they differed widely between stores in the same Division and between Divisions (West, East, South etc)
                We set reduction % goals, and initiated audits, controls etc to help achieve and monitor progress toward these objectives. That's one reason why I always insisted on introducing errors into our systems to check on their effectiveness. Where and when did the introduced error show up, who reported it, what was done when it was reported. Great believer in salting registers and shipments and using an extraction program as well. Relying solely on management to spot discrepancies is of little help if there is collusion between managers and staff; controls and audits by independent auditors (LP, e.g.) are also a necessary part of the equation.

                Hey, look - in the end we all do what works for us!

                Comment


                • #38
                  The reason most LP's would wait and sit on a DA, is because that is how they are evaluated. You cannot evaluate a store level LP's response because they are doing, speaking, living what is taught to them - make the numbers. If you fire someone for a policy violation, they don't get the stat, they don't get the stat, they don't get the promotion and if they don't get the promotion, they stay in their position and become disgruntled.

                  Company execs want numbers, so DM's push the multi store, who push the LPM's who push the LPO's.


                  There are many different approaches to reducing shrink. Some are better than others, but I do agree with a dialogue which spans across store level LP', regional LP, security officers and CEO, retired LP. Remember the instore LP of today are the leaders of tom and can take these ideas and run with them.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Lynch Mob
                    As I have said before, I do not believe in in-store LP.
                    This reveals your expertise, and makes it clear you've never worked in a large scale department store setting. Going without in-store LP may work fine for restaurants and small chain stores, but not in big box. If you think that all big department store LP departments "only focus on apprehensions," you're clearly wrong and clearly mis-informed. There are many other job duties that we handled at the store level that involved shortage and fraud issues.

                    As others have said, your ideas are not novel or new. I'm sure they work just fine in the settings that you have experience in--it's easy to strip LP out of the small store or restaraunt. And when I say that your ideas may work/or are utilized in big box, I say to a point. We focused on prevention, we focused on effective management, we focused on shortage awareness and education, and we also focused on keeping the associates happy. We educated them with fun events that keep them participating and rewarded them for doing the right thing.

                    However, we didn't stop making apprehensions in the meantime, and we didn't decide to remove ourselves from the store. You apparently are under the impression that your ideas can't work unless loss prevention stops apprehending shoplifters and only works at the regional level. I would advise you to gain some experience in a large scale department store first, since your lack of such is telling. Your ideas will not work for every venue, every district, every type of store, or every situation. There is not a "one-stop" answer for reducing shortage, however much you'd like to believe.

                    Since you're extremely fond of throwing numbers around, I'll tell you this--in 2006, the shrink for my particular store (located in a busy shopping nexus) was around the 0.90 level. Coincidentally, our external shoplift apprehensions were up about 250% from 2005, internal DEs were rare, and we also happened to be "team of the quarter." I could continue to go on, but it's obvious our shrink was low, our apprehensions were high, management (at both the regional and store level) and associates were happy and honest, and by all accounts, we were extremely successful.

                    I'm sorry, what was that about in-store LP being worthless?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
                      This reveals your expertise, and makes it clear you've never worked in a large scale department store setting. You would be wrong.Going without in-store LP may work fine for restaurants and small chain stores, but not in big box. Why? I asked you previously what made the bigger box different and why my strategies would not work, yet you failed to provide any explanation. If you think that all big department store LP departments "only focus on apprehensions," you're clearly wrong and clearly mis-informed. There are many other job duties that we handled at the store level that involved shortage and fraud issues. I never said "only". I said "primarily". Besides audits and apprehensions, what else do you do? I bet less than 10% of your time is spent on anything else.

                      As others have said, your ideas are not novel or new. I'm sure they work just fine in the settings that you have experience in--it's easy to strip LP out of the small store or restaraunt. And when I say that your ideas may work/or are utilized in big box, I say to a point. We focused on prevention, we focused on effective management, we focused on shortage awareness and education, and we also focused on keeping the associates happy. We educated them with fun events that keep them participating and rewarded them for doing the right thing. Did your LP department do anything close to what I described in my hypothetical? I am sure they didn't. So, you don't do what I do. That makes what I do very different.

                      However, we didn't stop making apprehensions in the meantime, and we didn't decide to remove ourselves from the store. You apparently are under the impression that your ideas can't work unless loss prevention stops apprehending shoplifters and only works at the regional level. I would advise you to gain some experience in a large scale department store first, since your lack of such is telling. Again, you would be wrong.Your ideas will not work for every venue, every district, every type of store, or every situation. There is not a "one-stop" answer for reducing shortage, however much you'd like to believe. Once more, you would be wrong. It works in all settings.

                      Since you're extremely fond of throwing numbers around, I'll tell you this--in 2006, the shrink for my particular store (located in a busy shopping nexus) was around the 0.90 level. Coincidentally, our external shoplift apprehensions were up about 250% from 2005, internal DEs were rare, and we also happened to be "team of the quarter." I could continue to go on, but it's obvious our shrink was low, our apprehensions were high, management (at both the regional and store level) and associates were happy and honest, and by all accounts, we were extremely successful. What was your shrink in 2005? Did it reduce by 250%?

                      I'm sorry, what was that about in-store LP being worthless?
                      So let me make sure I understand this correctly. You worked in one store where your internal apprehensions increased by 250% (which would probably mean you went from 4 apprehensions a month to 14) and you feel that is the entire reason your shrink was low? The fact that employees were happy had nothing to do with it? And you want to try to mock my experience, yet you think that your experience in one store is reflective of an entire industry? I think it is you that needs to spread your wings and gain a little more exposure to the world of LP.

                      A couple of questions:

                      - Is your shrink calculated at cost or retail?
                      - How big is your store?
                      - What is the annual sales volume of your store?
                      - How many apprehensions does your store make a month?
                      - What was your average apprehension $ amount?
                      - How many LP agents work in your store?
                      - What was your shrink in 2005? In 2004?

                      I am not here to debate whether or not you did a good job. As long as you are doing the job you are asked to do, you are doing a good job. But, I bet if you answer the questions above, I can prove that your efforts to make apprehensions did not add to the bottom line, and probably cost your company money. Most likely, I can show that your apprehensions had almost no effect on shrink too.
                      www.plsolutions.net
                      www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by LPCap View Post
                        The reason most LP's would wait and sit on a DA, is because that is how they are evaluated. You cannot evaluate a store level LP's response because they are doing, speaking, living what is taught to them - make the numbers. If you fire someone for a policy violation, they don't get the stat, they don't get the stat, they don't get the promotion and if they don't get the promotion, they stay in their position and become disgruntled.

                        Company execs want numbers, so DM's push the multi store, who push the LPM's who push the LPO's.


                        There are many different approaches to reducing shrink. Some are better than others, but I do agree with a dialogue which spans across store level LP', regional LP, security officers and CEO, retired LP. Remember the instore LP of today are the leaders of tom and can take these ideas and run with them.
                        You are correct about sitting back and waiting for the stat. I don't fault LP agents for doing the job expected of them. I fault LP executives who don't fully understand how to impact shrink and just focus on throwing stats in front of the senior execs to justify their existence.
                        www.plsolutions.net
                        www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
                          Hey, look - in the end we all do what works for us!
                          And in the end, this is what I am looking at. Is it working? All indicators that I have seen seem to show it is not working. So why do it if it doesn't work?
                          www.plsolutions.net
                          www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
                            Besides audits and apprehensions, what else do you do?
                            All fraud investigations were handled at the store level. I handled quite a few of these investigations as they could be almost a daily occurrence involving both checks and/or store credit cards.

                            Originally posted by Lynch Mob
                            So let me make sure I understand this correctly. You worked in one store (No.) where your internal (No, external.) apprehensions increased by 250% and you feel that is the entire reason your shrink was low?
                            Originally posted by Lynch Mob
                            The fact that employees were happy had nothing to do with it?
                            Try re-reading. You'll notice the "coincidental" mention of apprehensions among other factors as well. I did not correlate apprehensions to low shrink, even though they may have been a contributing factor.

                            Originally posted by Lynch Mob
                            Once more, you would be wrong. It works in all settings.
                            You're apparently convinced that there is one singular end-all, be-all answer to lowering shrink: your's. I think I'm done here.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
                              All fraud investigations were handled at the store level. I handled quite a few of these investigations as they could be almost a daily occurrence involving both checks and/or store credit cards. In other words, you nothing than audits and apprehensions, since the goal of a fraud investigation would be to make an apprehension.





                              Try re-reading. You'll notice the "coincidental" mention of apprehensions among other factors as well. I did not correlate apprehensions to low shrink, even though they may have been a contributing factor. So you are admitting that the apprehensions are just coincidental and not a driving force behind the shrink reduction? Wouldn't that then put you in agreement with me?



                              You're apparently convinced that there is one singular end-all, be-all answer to lowering shrink: your's. I think I'm done here.
                              I never said my method was the singular end-all, be-all answer. I said that my method was BETTER than what was normally done. History has shown that when the primary focus is making apprehensions, shrink really does not reduce, but when you focus on education it does. You are the one who keeps saying that what I am preaching WILL NOT work. But, I hate to tell you, you are dead wrong.

                              I notice you were not willing to answer my questions? Is that because you know that I will be able to prove what I am saying if you share that info?
                              www.plsolutions.net
                              www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I do not work in a store anymore, but oversee several stores. My company pushes apprehensions and that is what they are graded on. This is the biggest store I oversee and I rounded the numbers so it would be easier to visualize.


                                - Is your shrink calculated at cost or retail?
                                Cost

                                - How big is your store?
                                Two levels 175,000 sq feet

                                - What is the annual sales volume of your store?
                                50 Million

                                - How many apprehensions does your store make a month?
                                Avg 28 external apps

                                - What was your average apprehension $ amount?
                                Less than $100

                                - How many LP agents work in your store?
                                6 Lp agents and 1 Lp Manager

                                - What was your shrink in 2005? In 2004?
                                In 2005 a little over 1.2%
                                In 2004 around 1.0%

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X