Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article of Interest

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    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.
    I did some more research on the CFE Report to the Nation, as I was unfamiliar with this document. SecTrainer did not give the whole picture of what the document offered, and left out what did not work to support his position. You can read the report here http://www.acfe.com/documents/2006-rttn.pdf

    First of all, the CFE Report to the Nation is not a scientifically random survey. As the survey says "The study is based on data compiled from 1,134 cases of occupational fraud that were investigated between January 2004 and January 2006. Information from each case was reported by a Certified Fraud Examiner who investigated the case." This is an important note because it indicates that the data can be skewed to reflect just the most extreme. While the data is always good, it is not the same as a random sampling, or a completely in-depth study.

    Second, the report covers much more than just retail. As a result the numbers are much larger than what is faced in retail, ordinarily. I am familiar with the retail and restaurant industries, and know what they are generally doing for Loss Prevention. I cannot claim to understand other industries, such as banking, government, insurance, and manufacturing, are doing to thwart their losses. Are their efforts to reduce losses better or worse? Are they focused on apprehensions, audits, awareness? I don't know and can't say. The data may be extremely skewed as a result, and cannot be compared effectively to retail alone.

    Third, SecTrainer did not accurately reflect the reasons for the discrepancies between small and large companies. According to the report, "One of the reasons small businesses suffer such high fraud losses is that they generally do a poor job of proactively detecting fraud. Less than 10% of small businesses had anonymous fraud reporting systems, and less than 20% had internal audit departments, conducted surprise audits, or conducted fraud training for their employees and managers."

    While SecTrainer translated this into his own terms of "a failure to enforce basic controls", that is not what the report said. Notice the words PROACTIVELY detect fraud, which also means they were not PROACTIVELY preventing fraud. They did not teach employees to report fraud or provide a hotline for them to do so, and they did not provide FRAUD TRAINING for their managers. SecTrainer's own resource confirms what I have been saying. Training, education and awareness are the keys for PROACTIVELY reducing losses.

    Once again, I am not saying investigations are not necessary. I am not saying that controls are not necessary. I am not saying that audits are not necessary. I am saying that all of that should be secondary to EDUCATION. Only when you place the priority of Loss Prevention on education can you truly prevent losses, and even SecTrainers own resource confirms this to be true.
    www.plsolutions.net
    www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

    Comment


    • #47
      Thanks for the info LP Cap. I guess LP Guy is not willing to share his, so I can work from yours as an example.

      2005 shrink = 1.2% at cost (which is about the equivalent of 2.4% at retail) or about $1.2 million in retail dollars. This is higher shrink than the NRSS studies for department stores.

      2004 shrink = 1.0% at cost (about 2.0% at retail) or about $1,000,000 in retail dollars.

      7 LP personnel = $175,000 in payroll (assuming an average of $25,000 salary per). Benefits could be estimated at 20% of salary, adding another $35,000 in payroll expenses.

      28 apps per month = $33,600 in recoveries. This is equal to .0007% shrink. It is also 2.8% of total shrink dollars.

      So, we can deduce that $210,000 investment in LP resulted in shrink increasing by $200,000 annually, and only recouped $33,600 in recovery from shoplift apprehensions.

      In other words, even with 7 LP people actively pursuing shoplifters, the company still LOST over $400,000 as the benefit of their in-store LP efforts since shrink went up from 2004 to 2005. Or, the company lost $176,400 MORE by employing LP agents than if they had just not made any apprehensions at all and just let the $33,600 walk out the door.

      I don't know, but my simple mind tells me that this is not working. I am not trying to slam LP Cap at all here, as I think this is rather normal, and pretty consistent with typical LP strategies. The strategy comes from the top. The people in the field just doing what they are asked to do are not the problem.
      www.plsolutions.net
      www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
        2005 shrink = 1.2% at cost (which is about the equivalent of 2.4% at retail) or about $1.2 million in retail dollars. This is higher shrink than the NRSS studies for department stores.
        Pretty on target. The store lost a little over $1 million retail dollars in 2005. I took over this store in 2006. The 2005 inventory was off for several reasons. First, I am not exactly sure of the accuracy of the counting. Second, the department which lost the most amount of dollars (highest percent loss) was a department where shoplifting is non existant. You simply cannot shoplift these items and if employees are in on stealing, it will be out the back door, not off the sales floor. The reason for the high dollar loss (people gasp when you say one store lost $1 Million - in fact the old LPM got fired for this) is that they had horrible receiving and paperwork handling. Trucks were not getting received properly, merchandise was sitting on the dock for months, then getting marked down to sell as new merchandise came in and the organization of the backroom was not there.

        For about six months, the store went through a half dozen managers and the store was a wreck. When I looked back on it, it was no suprise that the inventory was bad.

        There was a lot of work to do from 2006 to now, and inventory is in July 2007, so we will see if the work paid off.

        What I did was go in and listen to the instore LP. Before, they were expected to catch shoplifters and dishonest employees, open doors to let trucks in, open offices for managers, help with customer pickups and do everything but catch shoplifters. The problem was, they were graded on catching shoplifters and employee theft. Every month, the report card would come out and they would fail because they didn't have time to catch 'lifters. I come in, worked with the store managers and removed LP of everything except that which was on their report card. Now, they catch 'lifters, employees, have an accident prevention team, enforce the key holder policies and oversee audits on high dollar/thef items. Pretty typical of an LP department, but they do an exceptional job.

        I am not trying to slam LP Cap at all here, as I think this is rather normal, and pretty consistent with typical LP strategies. The strategy comes from the top. The people in the field just doing what they are asked to do are not the problem.
        You are right, the people in the field are just doing what they are asked of. It is a typical LP strategy.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
          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.
          I am not sure if this is what you are talking of, but one company out there just started a program entitled "Impressions of Control". LP either on the floor or cameras, counsel and coach employees when they see them doing their job (either good/bad or inefficient). They then document it and at the end of the week give the sheets to the area managers. They then follow up to see if certain employees are developing patterns of not checking IDs for Credit cards and checks, or properly unloading trucks (safety) etc.

          Comment


          • #50
            I think one thing that should be noted is that determining the "results" from any crime prevention program (of which LP is one type) is not a straightforward matter of plugging numbers into Excel spreadsheets because many of the benefits are indirect, and either difficult or impossible to measure because it would require "proving a nonfact" - i.e., what didn't happen. Also, there is the practice of comparing this year's apples to last year's apples when the correct form of proof of the value of a program would be if you could compare this year's apples under the existing program with what this year's apples would have been without it. You can't do that, of course, except perhaps in the most indirect ways. So you are stuck making comparisons that frankly have limited value.

            This difficulty of "proving" cause and effect in complex processes (like crime) is a phenomenon that is well known to police, security professionals, criminologists and the larger world of sociologists. Did the crime prevention program prevent crime? Or did it merely displace it? Or did it merely delay it? Or did it perhaps even transform it from one type of crime to another? Believe me, there are no easy answers, and they are far beyond the ability of spreadsheets to analyze.

            For instance, an employee is apprehended for theft and therefore never has the chance to work his friends - with similar inclinations - onto the store's payroll. How much shrink has actually been prevented by that single apprehension?

            Kids who shoplift successfully tell their friends, but one got caught and the word got out that you'd better not shoplift at "Box X". "Box Y" is an easier mark. How much shrink has been prevented by the one apprehension?

            What I do know, without the slightest shadow of doubt, is that aggressive LP programs, and particularly those that operate hand-in-hand with other organizational tools (proper hiring practices, proper controls and procedures that are constantly reviewed for weaknesses and breaches, investigations, "mystery shops", audits, employee awareness programs, and a heavy emphasis on customer service and sales), do work.

            Just what form a particular LP program might take with respect to a particular retailer, a particular restaurant, a particular bar or any other venue should be carefully designed to "fit" the situation. There's no universal "LP program".

            But - there is one common element that must be true if any organization wishes to truly minimize shrink to the maximum extent possible: There must be a consistent, persistent, uncompromising and organization-wide culture of corporate and personal integrity that emanates from the top down and is endorsed at every lower level. This will be reflected in many ways, but especially in how well the company treats its employees, and, in turn, how the employees treat the company. It's impossible to disagree with Lynch on the benefits of a positive employer-employee relationship; I simply disagree that it can ever be enough. I've met the crooks - and a fair number of them, I'll say - up close and personal, and they are immune to the appeals to "loyalty", integrity, peer pressure, or any of those "soft" approaches. Nothing less than surveillance, investigation, apprehension and/or dismissal would do. Ya gotta have both - the carrot and a nice, big stick.
            "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

            "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

            "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

            "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
              What I do know, without the slightest shadow of doubt, is that aggressive LP programs, and particularly those that operate hand-in-hand with other organizational tools (proper hiring practices, proper controls and procedures that are constantly reviewed for weaknesses and breaches, investigations, "mystery shops", audits, employee awareness programs, and a heavy emphasis on customer service and sales), do work.

              Just what form a particular LP program might take with respect to a particular retailer, a particular restaurant, a particular bar or any other venue should be carefully designed to "fit" the situation. There's no universal "LP program".
              Thank you, SecTrainer. You've summarized my thoughts exactly on the best approach to loss prevention programs. There is no "one size fits all" LP program, but as you said, a good program will incorporate many different elements, including apprehensions as appropriate.

              One thing that Mr. Lynch has not proven is that only loss prevention programs without apprehensions are successful.

              I don't think there's anything more I can add to what you already wrote.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
                I did some more research on the CFE Report to the Nation, as I was unfamiliar with this document. SecTrainer did not give the whole picture of what the document offered, and left out what did not work to support his position. You can read the report here http://www.acfe.com/documents/2006-rttn.pdf

                First of all, the CFE Report to the Nation is not a scientifically random survey. As the survey says "The study is based on data compiled from 1,134 cases of occupational fraud that were investigated between January 2004 and January 2006. Information from each case was reported by a Certified Fraud Examiner who investigated the case." This is an important note because it indicates that the data can be skewed to reflect just the most extreme. While the data is always good, it is not the same as a random sampling, or a completely in-depth study.

                Second, the report covers much more than just retail. As a result the numbers are much larger than what is faced in retail, ordinarily. I am familiar with the retail and restaurant industries, and know what they are generally doing for Loss Prevention. I cannot claim to understand other industries, such as banking, government, insurance, and manufacturing, are doing to thwart their losses. Are their efforts to reduce losses better or worse? Are they focused on apprehensions, audits, awareness? I don't know and can't say. The data may be extremely skewed as a result, and cannot be compared effectively to retail alone.

                Third, SecTrainer did not accurately reflect the reasons for the discrepancies between small and large companies. According to the report, "One of the reasons small businesses suffer such high fraud losses is that they generally do a poor job of proactively detecting fraud. Less than 10% of small businesses had anonymous fraud reporting systems, and less than 20% had internal audit departments, conducted surprise audits, or conducted fraud training for their employees and managers."

                While SecTrainer translated this into his own terms of "a failure to enforce basic controls", that is not what the report said. Notice the words PROACTIVELY detect fraud, which also means they were not PROACTIVELY preventing fraud. They did not teach employees to report fraud or provide a hotline for them to do so, and they did not provide FRAUD TRAINING for their managers. SecTrainer's own resource confirms what I have been saying. Training, education and awareness are the keys for PROACTIVELY reducing losses.

                Once again, I am not saying investigations are not necessary. I am not saying that controls are not necessary. I am not saying that audits are not necessary. I am saying that all of that should be secondary to EDUCATION. Only when you place the priority of Loss Prevention on education can you truly prevent losses, and even SecTrainers own resource confirms this to be true.
                I naturally resent the implications in your post, sir, but will try to overlook your bad manners and deal instead with the other problems in your post, if I can figure out where to begin...there are so many.

                First, it's more than a bit disingenuous that you yourself used a nonrandom-sample source of data (the UCR) for your own conclusions and then criticize another source on the very same grounds.

                Second, the statistics you used from that report were certainly not "all retail", were they? Instead, you decided to use the very questionable idea of using the larceny category as a "proxy" for retail theft...and then criticized the source I used on the very same grounds. Frankly, it's much more likely that my source would have a strong retail component than yours. CFE's reporting for this study to the ACFE focus on businesses, not personal fraud whereas "larceny" in the UCR includes both personal and business-related theft, and a very great deal of it involves the theft of personal property - perhaps even most of it, as many business thefts are NEVER REPORTED to the police.

                Third, there is no statistically-sound requirement here for "random sampling" anyway, as you would know if you were familiar with the science of statistics, as it not that type of study. I can't delve here into the science except to say that the purpose of the study was not such that random sampling would have been appropriate.

                Fourth (and perhaps most mind-boggling of all), you fail to comprehend what the very purpose of "proactive" measures such as as 800 numbers, etc. are used for. "Thank you very much for the information" - and that's it????!!!! The proactive measures and tools, sir, are instituted for two reasons, and only two:

                1. To make theft more difficult by removing opportunity.

                2. To provide channels whereby information that triggers investigations and other corrective actions can be received and acted upon as early as possible. Both preventive controls and early detection of breaches (with subsequent investigation) ARE considered "proactive" in the ACFE philosophy, as you would know if you were a member. To superimpose YOUR very limited definition of "proactive" onto the ACFE report is, at best, a logical error. I will not yield to the temptation to characterize it in less flattering terms, although some might. For anyone else without an axe to grind, you must read the report in the FULL sense of "proactive", not the one that Lynch happens to like.

                It is you, sir, who have borrowed questionable numbers for your thesis. It is you, sir, who have twisted the clear findings of the ACFE into support for your basic thesis by melding your personal definitions into the report.

                I can't understand why we haven't yet received a communique from the ACFE admitting that it's been wrong all these years to train investigators, and that the members should become social club directors instead, if they *really* want to impact theft. I'll keep watching for it...but I won't hold my breath.
                Last edited by SecTrainer; 07-09-2007, 11:08 AM.
                "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
                  I naturally resent the implications in your post, sir, but will try to overlook your bad manners and deal instead with the other problems in your post, if I can figure out where to begin...there are so many.

                  First, it's more than a bit disingenuous that you yourself used a nonrandom-sample source of data (the UCR) for your own conclusions and then criticize another source on the very same grounds.

                  Second, the statistics you used from that report were certainly not "all retail", were they? Instead, you decided to use the very questionable idea of using the larceny category as a "proxy" for retail theft...and then criticized the source I used on the very same grounds. Frankly, it's much more likely that my source would have a strong retail component than yours. CFE's reporting for this study to the ACFE focus on businesses, not personal fraud whereas "larceny" in the UCR includes both personal and business-related theft, and a very great deal of it involves the theft of personal property - perhaps even most of it, as many business thefts are NEVER REPORTED to the police.

                  Third, there is no statistically-sound requirement here for "random sampling" anyway, as you would know if you were familiar with the science of statistics, as it not that type of study. I can't delve here into the science except to say that the purpose of the study was not such that random sampling would have been appropriate.

                  Fourth (and perhaps most mind-boggling of all), you fail to comprehend what the very purpose of "proactive" measures such as as 800 numbers, etc. are used for. "Thank you very much for the information" - and that's it????!!!! The proactive measures and tools, sir, are instituted for two reasons, and only two:

                  1. To make theft more difficult by removing opportunity.

                  2. To provide channels whereby information that triggers investigations and other corrective actions can be received and acted upon as early as possible. Both preventive controls and early detection of breaches (with subsequent investigation) ARE considered "proactive" in the ACFE philosophy, as you would know if you were a member. To superimpose YOUR very limited definition of "proactive" onto the ACFE report is, at best, a logical error. I will not yield to the temptation to characterize it in less flattering terms, although some might. For anyone else without an axe to grind, you must read the report in the FULL sense of "proactive", not the one that Lynch happens to like.

                  It is you, sir, who have borrowed questionable numbers for your thesis. It is you, sir, who have twisted the clear findings of the ACFE into support for your basic thesis by melding your personal definitions into the report.

                  I can't understand why we haven't yet received a communique from the ACFE admitting that it's been wrong all these years to train investigators, and that the members should become social club directors instead, if they *really* want to impact theft. I'll keep watching for it...but I won't hold my breath.
                  Wow, so many things to cover.

                  1. I did not distort the findings of the ACFE study, you did that. My quotes from the study show that they were not saying what you claimed.

                  2. There is a big difference between the UCR and the ACFE study. One is the single largest and most trusted compilation of crime statistics in the US and the other is a small group of hand selected case studies. I am not saying there is no value to the ACFE study, but don't distort it into something it is not. It is not an independent scientific study from random samples and it is not a detailed compilation. It is a group of extreme case studies. The UCR is not a scientific study, it is a coprehensive compilation. The NRSS is not a scientific study, it is a comprehensive compilation. Even Dr. Hollinger acknowledges his compilation is only as accurate as the number of particpants. These sources are both much more comprehensive than the ACFE.

                  3. No, the UCR is not purely retail. But the shoplifting statistics are purely retail. I cited those in the article. The NRSS is purely retail. The ACFE is not and the numbers involved become distorted as a reult. Do you really think retail internal theft cases average over $100,000? They don't.

                  4. I appreciate your efforts to explain when a scientific sampling would be appropriate. When you hold up the ACFE as a more reliable source for discussung the relationship between crime and shrink, I have to just laugh off you comments as they clearly are the comments of one who is in denile.

                  5. Your understanding of proactive measures, and how they are utilized is as accurate as your understanding of scientific sampling. There are more than the two reasons you cited for using an 800 number. They include maintaining Sarbanes Oxley comliance, maintaining an open door policy, and building trust among the employees. There are many more reasons too. And to say that an investigation, regardless of how soon it is detected shows you lack a basic english definition of the word "proactive". All investigations are reactive. This is not by my "limited definition" of the word. It is by the english definition. Try opening a dictionary.

                  Nown in your efforts to slam me, you still fail to provide anything that contradicts what I have said. You cannot argue that the UCR and NRSS provide the information they do. You can say you know a strong apprehension program works at reducing shrink, bt you provide no supporting facts. Your opinion is not a fact. The ACFE supports my viewpoint more than yours. The book Cheating Culture suppports my viewpoint more than yours. All of your "evidence" seems to support what I am saying.

                  So why do you continue to fight it?
                  www.plsolutions.net
                  www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally Posted by SecTrainer View Post
                    What I do know, without the slightest shadow of doubt, is that aggressive LP programs, and particularly those that operate hand-in-hand with other organizational tools (proper hiring practices, proper controls and procedures that are constantly reviewed for weaknesses and breaches, investigations, "mystery shops", audits, employee awareness programs, and a heavy emphasis on customer service and sales), do work.

                    Just what form a particular LP program might take with respect to a particular retailer, a particular restaurant, a particular bar or any other venue should be carefully designed to "fit" the situation. There's no universal "LP program".

                    I fully agree with the above.

                    Isn't it time now to stop wasting time and space with continuing arguments about what programs/procedures work to stop shrink. There is no "right"answer! The successful LP Director is the one who reduces and controls shrink for his/her company and brings shrink to ever lower levels or levels which satisfy senior management. The exact means by which he does this may vary, but the old saying the "proof of the pudding is in the eating" remains as true today as when originally uttered.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
                      Originally Posted by SecTrainer View Post
                      What I do know, without the slightest shadow of doubt, is that aggressive LP programs, and particularly those that operate hand-in-hand with other organizational tools (proper hiring practices, proper controls and procedures that are constantly reviewed for weaknesses and breaches, investigations, "mystery shops", audits, employee awareness programs, and a heavy emphasis on customer service and sales), do work.

                      Just what form a particular LP program might take with respect to a particular retailer, a particular restaurant, a particular bar or any other venue should be carefully designed to "fit" the situation. There's no universal "LP program".

                      I fully agree with the above.

                      Isn't it time now to stop wasting time and space with continuing arguments about what programs/procedures work to stop shrink. There is no "right"answer! The successful LP Director is the one who reduces and controls shrink for his/her company and brings shrink to ever lower levels or levels which satisfy senior management. The exact means by which he does this may vary, but the old saying the "proof of the pudding is in the eating" remains as true today as when originally uttered.
                      Sorry, but I disagree. How could you consider a waste of time to discuss specific strategies that will help reduce shrink? If this is a waste of time then everthing else we discuss must be a waste of time as well. So why participate in message boards if you find it a waste of time?

                      I also disagree that there are not right ways to approach LP. You have questioned various certifications because there isn't a consistent body of knowledge to justify the certification. I agree with you. The most consistent body of knowledge currently is the idea that you must focus on catching bad guys, even if it costs more to do that than to let people steal.

                      I am pushing for a body of knowledge that works. There is no evidence that shows that the historic strategy of LP actually reduces shrink. To just say that everyone should just do what works, when history shows what they have been doing has not worked, why would any well meaning professional settle for that? Considering you have written several books in an effort to make the LP profession better, I would think you would be supportive of open discussions on how to build a body of knowledge that actually serves to reduce shrink. Of course, if this discussion shows anything, it should show that what we believe and what is reality are not always the same.
                      www.plsolutions.net
                      www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I will not get drawn into a discussion of what is the one "right" way to direct and focus an LP Department. My comment about wasting time dealt with my personal belief that this topic has been fully explored and continued comments are only repetitive and add nothing new to the totality of prior discussions. As for the body of knowledge comments, the very fact that there are so many diverse opinions as to the way to reduce shrink, tends to support the fact there is no accepted body of knowledge (i.e., accepted method) but rather a plethora of techniques and procedures any of which alone, or in combination, are advocated as "the way" to achieve the desired result. If one were to ask what is the accepted standard for reducing shrink, determining the adequate number of FTEs for LP personnel per square footage or sales volume, or the proper number of CCTV cameras per square footage, floors, etc. there probably be as many answers as respondents.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          After more thought, I must comment on two statementts by Lynch Mob.

                          QUOTE: How could you consider a waste of time to discuss specific strategies that will help reduce shrink? If this is a waste of time then everthing else we discuss must be a waste of time as well.
                          This is a non sequitur.

                          QUOTE: To just say that everyone should just do what works, when history shows what they have been doing has not worked, why would any well meaning professional settle for that?
                          They wouldn't, and shouldn't! My point was if it does work - great! If it doesn't work - they try something else until you get the right procedure or combination of procedures which do work. No one is suggesting that one should continue doing something which has been shown to not work. What's good for the goose may NOT be good for the gander.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
                            After more thought, I must comment on two statementts by Lynch Mob.

                            QUOTE: How could you consider a waste of time to discuss specific strategies that will help reduce shrink? If this is a waste of time then everthing else we discuss must be a waste of time as well.
                            This is a non sequitur.

                            QUOTE: To just say that everyone should just do what works, when history shows what they have been doing has not worked, why would any well meaning professional settle for that?
                            They wouldn't, and shouldn't! My point was if it does work - great! If it doesn't work - they try something else until you get the right procedure or combination of procedures which do work. No one is suggesting that one should continue doing something which has been shown to not work. What's good for the goose may NOT be good for the gander.
                            Again, I must disagree.

                            It makes perfect sense that if we are wasting time by discussing 1) whether the LP industry has ever had an impact on reducing shrink, and 2) whether alternative strategies make more sense, then it clearly follows that any discussion about LP is a waste of time. Why discuss anything if worrying about the effectiveness of our industry is a waste of time? Why would anyone ever even write a book about our industry if discussing these topics are a waste of time?

                            Of

                            course, you may not be referring to the general topic as a waste of time and may be referring to the specific solutions discussed as a waste of time. In which case I would have to say that I can only think of two reasons why one might say that.

                            1) You believe the LP industry is so set in their ways that it is hopeless to discuss alternative strategies.
                            2) You agree that LP has taken the right path and proving otherwise could b financially disadvetageous to you. (concepts outlined in the Cheating Culture)

                            Anyone who really believes that the Lp industry needs to continue evolving and improving would ever say this discussion is a waste of time. Only those who have given up hope or have a financial interest in the status quo would find this to be a waste of timeA.

                            As for your comments about what is good for the goose may not be good for the gander, I find it interesting that you find this saying appropriate in selective areas. For example, when it comes to making shoplift apprehensions, would you ever say that each company should find what works best for them as the basis for making the stop, or would you say they should follow the Six Steps? We all know you would make a blanket recommendation for the Six Steps. And I would agre with you. The Six Steps have shown to be a consistent standard that is the best method for reducing liability. Why would people not do it when history has shown that failing to follow the steps increase liability? You would have to agree that it is foolish to not do so. I know you would not simply say, "*Well, whatever they believe works for them is okay. If they haven't been sued yet, they must be doing fine".

                            The same applies to what I am saying. Why should I sit back and let my industry fail time and time again and not speak up bout it? Why should I just keep the secrets to succes to myself? You wrote books because you believed you understood the "right way" for the LP industry to be successful. And now you want to criticize me for doing the same things you have done? And now you act like everyone should just do what makes them happy regardless of the results? Come on now. There is a word for that behavior you know.
                            www.plsolutions.net
                            www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Lynch Mob
                              Blah blah blah...
                              It should be readily apparent to everyone by now that Mr. Lynch's "One Stop LP Solution" is the only model that works because he says so. Your methods will not work as well as his, because he says so. Even if your methods are working fantastically, think again: they're not nearly as great as they could be if you were doing it the Lynch Way.

                              Mr. Lynch has a vested interest in making sure his way is the only right way. Why? Well, it's quite simple: his consulting firm gets paid to train companies in his methods. Why would he advertise that his ways may not be the best or the only way to do things? That's not exactly the best way to sell your services.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Kevin - I've seen recruiting advertisements by Forever 21 hiring LP staff and it appears their focus has changed from "your model" to a more apprehension based format. At some point after (or maybe before) you left their employment, they must of decided that your theory of loss prevention wasn't working.

                                You have been pushing your "model" for years now and I agree with some of your "ideas" - but then your ideas are nothing new. One size does not fit all.
                                Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
                                Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

                                Contributor to Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X