Article of Interest

[Lynch Mob]

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.

[Lynch Mob]

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.

[John H. Christman]

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.

[LPGuy]

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.

[Lynch Mob]

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?

[Lynch Mob]

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.

[John H. Christman]

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."

[Curtis Baillie]

Exactly - What may work for one store may not work for another two blocks away.

[Bill Warnock]

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

[Curtis Baillie]

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.

[LPGuy]

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.

[Lynch Mob]

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.

[John H. Christman]

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.

[John H. Christman]

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.

[Lynch Mob]

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.