Tweet
For those who have followed the “Article of Interest” thread over the past three weeks, I felt some sort of recap of the entire thread and what can be learned from it might be appropriate.
For those who are relatively new to the LP environment such threads can be both confusing and instructive. How can respected LP professionals have such diametrically opposed views. Both can’t be correct – or can they?
If one considers the nuances of the various positions voiced, several things should become apparent.
First, LP professionals tend to be passionate about their beliefs – and this is as it should be.
Second, a careful reading of the various positions expressed did allow for a variety of techniques to be amalgamated into any given shortage reduction/control program – the distinction being in the emphasis given any part thereof.
Mr Lynch is convinced that the use of on-the-floor- LP agents whose primary duty is shoplifter apprehensions has a negative cost/benefit ratio and a negative ROI.
He cites the arithmetic he uses to substantiate his position, which, irrespective of the acceptance or non-acceptance of his theory, provides an insight into how LP goes about dealing with ROIs and cost/benefit analyses.
At the opposite pole, those advocating on-floor agents and an emphasis on apprehensions cite that simply ignoring theft (because apprehending thieves may not be cost effective) is hard to justify to senior management since it is counter-intuitative to their thinking. Additionally, it is anathema to many LP executives and staff, and may in and of itself encourage more theft.
Others, and I fall into this category, advocate a skillful and effective blend of all the techniques available for controlling and reducing shrink, as opposed to what is perceived as Mr Lynch’s reliance almost exclusively on “education” of staff regarding shortage and establishing stringent controls and developing a corporate culture of honesty and loyalty.
I would opine that the use of all techniques, with emphasis based on the totality of the circumstances and the specific environment (obviously, shortage problems in a fine jewelry store differ from those in a drive thru QSR, as do those in a high-end specialty fashion retailer from those of a “Nothing Over $1.00” variety store). One should consider the use of such techniques as: Mystery shoppers, audits, shortage awareness meetings, employee reward programs, shortage bulletin boards, shortage contests, shortage analysis, missing merchandise reports, anti-fraudulent refunder programs, exception reports. CCTV, EAS, U/Cs, RTV controls, shipping/receiving controls, extraction/insertion programs, transfer controls, hand-carry controls, to name just some. Obviously, such programs must be consistently managed and supported from the top down. One cannot expect a warehouseman to be theft adverse when he sees the warehouse manager fill his personal car with gas from the company pump every Friday night. The ‘no tolerance for theft” message must be enforced at all levels.
So back to the original question – can all views be correct? The answer is: Yes. LP is more of an art than a science. The Six Steps (we all agree) are probably the only generally accepted standard in the retail LP industry. Only one standard does not a science make.
If Mr Lynch obtains shortage reduction by using his education theory exclusively, and senior management endorses this approach, more power to him - he's meeting the objective. If another LP professional finds a blend of techniques works for him – great! If another environment achieves its objectives by spending its efforts almost exclusively on apprehensions – keep making those arrests as long as the objective is being met.
All LP Directors report to a boss (the CEO, COO etc) the boss has a boss - the Board of Directors and the stockholders or equity stakeholders. Generally, if our boss is happy with what we're doing and how we're doing it - we've met one of our major objectives.
I trust that the message taken away from this thread will be that there is no one “right” answer - one should do what proves successful for them in achieving the ultimate objective – contributing to the bottom like by controlling and reducing shrink and protecting our companies, their employees and their customers IAW with the desires of senior management.
For those who are relatively new to the LP environment such threads can be both confusing and instructive. How can respected LP professionals have such diametrically opposed views. Both can’t be correct – or can they?
If one considers the nuances of the various positions voiced, several things should become apparent.
First, LP professionals tend to be passionate about their beliefs – and this is as it should be.
Second, a careful reading of the various positions expressed did allow for a variety of techniques to be amalgamated into any given shortage reduction/control program – the distinction being in the emphasis given any part thereof.
Mr Lynch is convinced that the use of on-the-floor- LP agents whose primary duty is shoplifter apprehensions has a negative cost/benefit ratio and a negative ROI.
He cites the arithmetic he uses to substantiate his position, which, irrespective of the acceptance or non-acceptance of his theory, provides an insight into how LP goes about dealing with ROIs and cost/benefit analyses.
At the opposite pole, those advocating on-floor agents and an emphasis on apprehensions cite that simply ignoring theft (because apprehending thieves may not be cost effective) is hard to justify to senior management since it is counter-intuitative to their thinking. Additionally, it is anathema to many LP executives and staff, and may in and of itself encourage more theft.
Others, and I fall into this category, advocate a skillful and effective blend of all the techniques available for controlling and reducing shrink, as opposed to what is perceived as Mr Lynch’s reliance almost exclusively on “education” of staff regarding shortage and establishing stringent controls and developing a corporate culture of honesty and loyalty.
I would opine that the use of all techniques, with emphasis based on the totality of the circumstances and the specific environment (obviously, shortage problems in a fine jewelry store differ from those in a drive thru QSR, as do those in a high-end specialty fashion retailer from those of a “Nothing Over $1.00” variety store). One should consider the use of such techniques as: Mystery shoppers, audits, shortage awareness meetings, employee reward programs, shortage bulletin boards, shortage contests, shortage analysis, missing merchandise reports, anti-fraudulent refunder programs, exception reports. CCTV, EAS, U/Cs, RTV controls, shipping/receiving controls, extraction/insertion programs, transfer controls, hand-carry controls, to name just some. Obviously, such programs must be consistently managed and supported from the top down. One cannot expect a warehouseman to be theft adverse when he sees the warehouse manager fill his personal car with gas from the company pump every Friday night. The ‘no tolerance for theft” message must be enforced at all levels.
So back to the original question – can all views be correct? The answer is: Yes. LP is more of an art than a science. The Six Steps (we all agree) are probably the only generally accepted standard in the retail LP industry. Only one standard does not a science make.
If Mr Lynch obtains shortage reduction by using his education theory exclusively, and senior management endorses this approach, more power to him - he's meeting the objective. If another LP professional finds a blend of techniques works for him – great! If another environment achieves its objectives by spending its efforts almost exclusively on apprehensions – keep making those arrests as long as the objective is being met.
All LP Directors report to a boss (the CEO, COO etc) the boss has a boss - the Board of Directors and the stockholders or equity stakeholders. Generally, if our boss is happy with what we're doing and how we're doing it - we've met one of our major objectives.
I trust that the message taken away from this thread will be that there is no one “right” answer - one should do what proves successful for them in achieving the ultimate objective – contributing to the bottom like by controlling and reducing shrink and protecting our companies, their employees and their customers IAW with the desires of senior management.
Comment