Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article of Interest

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Security Consultant View Post
    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.
    Curtis for those of us who have felt the sting of battle, we know one plan or method of troop deployment does not work in all cases. LP is probably like any battle, subject to fludity. What works now, ten minutes from now falls apart. It is not the plan but the planning that is essential. The key element I would suspect is to have the thief fight on our terms not their's.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Comment


    • #62
      Exactly - What may work for one store may not work for another two blocks away.
      Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
      Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

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

      Comment


      • #63
        I swore (to myself) I'd not enter anymore posts on this thread but I will break that vow! I fully agree with Warnock & Baillie and expressed that view in earlier posts. I've also found one can never win any argument (read discussion with differing views) with Lynch - it seems it is simply impossible for him to concede someone else may be correct. I just hope that newcomers to this site take their advice from those posters who have had experience in planning and implementing successful LP programs and recognize that "one size does not fit all."

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Security Consultant View Post
          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.
          While I appreciate the effort to try to discredit me based upon decisions a company I have not worked for in more than three years decides to currently run their LP program, it once again only serves to prove my point.

          When I started working at F21, their shrink was about average for the industry. They had shoplift agents in their largest stores (about 5 locations) and did not have a corporate LP structure. Why did they have shoplift agents? Because that is what other big stores did. Each store had a staff of 4 or 5. Shrink in thoose stores were among the highest in the company. One of the first things I did was to compile data to show that the agents were a waste of money. I soon convinced the powers that be that they could save almost a quater of a million by eliminating those positions.

          I then implemented my LP strateges, and still had to fight to get it done as I faced the same nonsensical arguments I face on this board. Everyone was saying the were different and the same approach would not work in all stores. After one year, shrink was down by 30 percent. After 3 years it was down by 60 percent. At that point I used outsourcing for help on investigations and when I left the companh felt shrink was under control enough to just use occasional outsource services to take care of problems. After about a year, their shrink doubled and was near industry averages again. Why did it go up? They stoppped the education and focused on apprehensions. They then hired an in-house Director and he stared building his own program which included the old idea of adding shoplift agents. From what I hear shrink continues to rise and their solution is to add more agents.

          So, this is a classic example of what happens when you implement my strategies compared to an apprehension focused strategy.

          By the way, for P&L Solutions, we continue to have significant challenges in convincing clients that our methods work better. They all say the same thing. "We are different. That won't work here. We need to send a strong message by aggressively apprehending people." Everything everyone here says. When we successfully get them to commit to our programs, every single client has reduced their shrink by at least 40 percent. When they don't commit, we do what they want which is typically to catch a lotof dishonest employees and audit their stores. However, we have seen that in all of these cases shrink hardly changes at all. Personally, I don't see this as coincidental.

          Everyone can say that what I am saying will not work everywhere. You would be dead wrong. It is really very simple as to the difference. Catch a fish for a man and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. You can keep justifying your jobs by counting the fish you keep catching for your employers. I will continue to teach my clients how to fish.
          www.plsolutions.net
          www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
            I swore (to myself) I'd not enter anymore posts on this thread but I will break that vow! I fully agree with Warnock & Baillie and expressed that view in earlier posts. I've also found one can never win any argument (read discussion with differing views) with Lynch - it seems it is simply impossible for him to concede someone else may be correct. I just hope that newcomers to this site take their advice from those posters who have had experience in planning and implementing successful LP programs and recognize that "one size does not fit all."
            That is the difference, you are trying to argue when I am discussing. To win an arguement though, you must apply logic and reasoning. You must reference sources and facts that support your views. To dismiss the opposing point of view with a wave of your hand and drop some generic statements of everyone is different and should all do something different makes no sense. Retail stores, in terms of how losses happen, are not different. Losses happen the same way in stores of all sizes and shapes. The percentages of weight of losses vary, but the losses occur in the same way. This means the strategy to prevent the losses is the same.

            I know you are quick to bow out of dicussions when you feel you are at the losing end of an argument. However, this is not an argument. We are just having a discusion. But, you want me to admit being wrong. Why should I change my views on things that I firmly believe are true? Because you or anyone says I am wrong without providing anything that would prove me to be wrong? So far, SecTrainer is the only person who attempted to provide some sources and his only served to confirm what I have been saying.

            What if I said the 6 Steps are wrong? Would you say that every store is different and it may not work for all companies? I already asked you that and you failed to answer. Again, when you feel you are losing an argument you just avoid the discussion. I only ask to show that there are strategies that do apply in all settings. You want to say they don't, except when it is a strategy you believe in, then suddenly it would apply.

            So if you want to treat this as an argument, why not step up and apply some consistent logic and reasoning to your argument?
            www.plsolutions.net
            www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
              When we successfully get them to commit to our programs, every single client has reduced their shrink by at least 40 percent.
              I've viewed your companies' Websites, and I see that most of your clients are the likes of Burger King and Jamba Juice. Are you sure external apprehensions don't work very well in a drive-through juice stand? I can't see why.

              Lynch, there's a reason you're not very popular. I understand and even agree with some of your views, except for one point: you're model is not the right one in every situation! As a police officer, did you also believe that there was one model to fight crime and that it should be present in each and every single police department around the world? No, of course not.

              You focus on removing store-based loss prevention officers as a major step in your program. Again, I do not believe this is the right model for every single retailer. In a large department store, you're then forced to do all internal investigations from a regional or corporate setting. And unless you hire more regional investigators (at a higher wage than those store-based officers were making), they won't be able to focus on all the investigations for all the stores in their region.

              In addition, you have not proven to any of us that you can't lower shrink unless you stop making apprehensions! There's no reason why your programs cannot be followed while also apprehending shoplifters. Unless, of course, you have little to no experience in a large scale department store, which may be the case--you don't even appear to have any clients in that setting.

              Comment


              • #67
                The Six Steps concept is perhaps the one standard of care which has been accepted and adopted within the LP industry. They are a procedure, not a philosophy. No one has said a company MUST use the Steps -only that by doing so it will minimize liability when a NPD is made. Very valid arrests can be made without the Steps. You, however, argue that your technique is the ONLY way to effectively reduce shrink and other methods are wrong and cannot be successful.. Again, you try to argue apples (a supportive procedure useful under certain circumstances) and oranges (a basic and the only correct philosophy under all circumstances), but I will not succumb to that trap. Please read my post carefully - I defined an argument (with you) as a discussion with differing views. I know you believe you are correct in your views just as others believe they are correct in theirs. While I don't bow out when I am "on the losing end" I do beg off when further time and effort are fruitless - you will never convince me you have found the one and only secret to shortage reduction success just as I will never convince you that a variety of techniques, skillfully blended based upon the environment and well executed can be just as successful. I have not got the time (and I'm wondering how you do) to continue this discussion which leads nowhere but around in a circle.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
                  I've viewed your companies' Websites, and I see that most of your clients are the likes of Burger King and Jamba Juice. Are you sure external apprehensions don't work very well in a drive-through juice stand? I can't see why. You assume a lot about one company by looking at the website of the other. We currently do not provide any LP services to F&B.

                  Lynch, there's a reason you're not very popular. I understand and even agree with some of your views, except for one point: you're model is not the right one in every situation! That is where you are incorrect. And you have nothing to contradict anything I have said. You tell me one company where training and education is not helpful.As a police officer, did you also believe that there was one model to fight crime and that it should be present in each and every single police department around the world? No, of course not. Therein lies the rub. You equate LP work to police work. They are nothing alike. LP work is more akin to raising children, of which there are many sound, concrete ideas that apply to people of all races and religions, in any part of the world, if applied. Try watching Supernanny sometime and tell me if she is using different strategies for different families.

                  You focus on removing store-based loss prevention officers as a major step in your program. Again, I do not believe this is the right model for every single retailer. Name one retailer where in-store agents actually pay for themselves. And, provide the data to prove it. In a large department store, you're then forced to do all internal investigations from a regional or corporate setting. And unless you hire more regional investigators (at a higher wage than those store-based officers were making), they won't be able to focus on all the investigations for all the stores in their region. They only don't have time if you FAIL to PREVENT losses. Then you are correct, they will be busy beyond belief on internals.

                  In addition, you have not proven to any of us that you can't lower shrink unless you stop making apprehensions! There's no reason why your programs cannot be followed while also apprehending shoplifters. I never said they couldn't. I never said it was a requirement to not apprehend shoplifters to lower shrink. What I have said is that the process of apprehending shoplifters costs companies MORE than if you just let the shoplifters steal, so why do it if it is not helping reduce losses?Unless, of course, you have little to no experience in a large scale department store, which may be the case--you don't even appear to have any clients in that setting.
                  I know you are hung up on my experience. The fact is you choose to ignore what I keep telling you about my experience, and I am bored repeating it.
                  www.plsolutions.net
                  www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
                    The Six Steps concept is perhaps the one standard of care which has been accepted and adopted within the LP industry. And how many years did that take for that to happen? I know there were many holdouts who learned the hard way.They are a procedure, not a philosophy. They are a philosophy that has outlined a procedure, just as I have done. The philosophy is taking proper care and precaution to reduce liability when making stops. The procedure is the six steps. Without the philosophy, you don't have a procedure. No one has said a company MUST use the Steps -only that by doing so it will minimize liability when a NPD is made. I have never said any company must adopt my strategy either, just that doing so will help reduce shrink. There is no difference.Very valid arrests can be made without the Steps. You, however, argue that your technique is the ONLY way to effectively reduce shrink and other methods are wrong and cannot be successful.. Once again, I have to be repeating myself. I have never said it is the ONLY way. I am sure some companies have reduced shrink in their own fashion too, but the bulk of the LP industry has done nothing to affect shrink while continuing to rack up apprehension stats. I have said it is the MOST EFFECTIVE way. Just as the 6 steps are the most effective way to reduce liability. Again, you try to argue apples (a supportive procedure useful under certain circumstances) and oranges (a basic and the only correct philosophy under all circumstances), but I will not succumb to that trap. Please read my post carefully - I defined an argument (with you) as a discussion with differing views. I know you believe you are correct in your views just as others believe they are correct in theirs. While I don't bow out when I am "on the losing end" I do beg off when further time and effort are fruitless - you will never convince me you have found the one and only secret to shortage reduction success just as I will never convince you that a variety of techniques, skillfully blended based upon the environment and well executed can be just as successful. I have not got the time (and I'm wondering how you do) to continue this discussion which leads nowhere but around in a circle.
                    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
                    - Upton Sinclair

                    I would expect you would find any discussion that goes against your teachings in your books to be "fruitless". I don't expect to change your view, or anyone else's who keeps telling me I am wrong. Just as my view will not changed as I have 18 years of history behind me convincing I am right. I keep sharing so the masses who are out there reading this might think about this and decide for themselves if it makes sense or not. I would hope that intelligent and rational LP professionals will read all this and take the time to explore what I am saying further. If they do, they should be able to determine what will work best for them, and if they are strong enough to admit that decades of LP failures is not the best strategy to follow, then they will find themselves rewarded for their efforts. Both financially and emotionally.

                    With that, I will not "argue" this subject any longer as we keep running in circles. I make points and others tell me I am wrong without presenting any facts.
                    www.plsolutions.net
                    www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                    Comment

                    Leaderboard

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X