Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shrink and cameras

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

  • Shrink and cameras

    Some interesting study data (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/onl...nk/11601SIW379) came out recently related to LP/shrink.

    One of the things noted was that:
    "More than one-fifth (21.4 percent) of those with CCTV systems say in-store personnel rarely monitor cameras."

    Keep in mind this study probably measured businesses with active LP departments -- I think if it was expanded 'retail' to include things like mom-n-pop stores, convenience stores and more, then the percentage of stores that regularly monitor their cameras would be even lower. Am I off base, or are cameras really just used for "after the fact" investigations?

  • #2
    I'm not LP but in hotels you are almost 100% correct.
    I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
    Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by SIW Editor View Post
      Some interesting study data (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/onl...nk/11601SIW379) came out recently related to LP/shrink.

      One of the things noted was that:
      "More than one-fifth (21.4 percent) of those with CCTV systems say in-store personnel rarely monitor cameras."

      Keep in mind this study probably measured businesses with active LP departments -- I think if it was expanded 'retail' to include things like mom-n-pop stores, convenience stores and more, then the percentage of stores that regularly monitor their cameras would be even lower. Am I off base, or are cameras really just used for "after the fact" investigations?
      You're 110% right most business do not monitor their cameras. Sorry I haven't yet finished that article for you.
      Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
      Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

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

      Comment


      • #4
        It's true. Unless you have additional LPO on duty who can watch the cameras, while you watch on foot...

        My most recent loss prevention employment had four cameras. They weren't real, though, so we used them exclusively for deterring theft.

        Comment


        • #5
          If your not going to staff your LP department then cameras are a waste of time and money. In order for cameras to be useful you need an LP manning camera to document everything and at least one LP on floor for direct observation and to make stop.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
            If your not going to staff your LP department then cameras are a waste of time and money. In order for cameras to be useful you need an LP manning camera to document everything and at least one LP on floor for direct observation and to make stop.
            Thats not completely accurate. Cameras are also visible deterrants, and just the existence of such a camera is very effective in reducing theft.

            Comment


            • #7
              Where I agree with that. Deterring theft alone will not pay for this equitment which takes us back to staffing enough people to make use of cameras

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
                Where I agree with that. Deterring theft alone will not pay for this equitment which takes us back to staffing enough people to make use of cameras
                Loss prevention = reduce shrink. Thats our job, not apprehending people. If we have to make arrests, we do, but preventing loss is our job.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Again no arguement there but I fail to see where unmanned cameras alone will reduce shrink enough to pay for themselves. I am a big prevention supporter so any prevention methods I am for but high visibilty will do the same as cameras in plain view if not better and cost less and can do much more

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Dummy (prefer word "drone") cameras are very inexpensive, and many can be mounted simply with double backed tape.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We had a thread several months ago on this subject and as usual there were legal ramifications for using dummy cameras. Seems a young lady was going to use the rest room at a mall and was not to keen on the idea of walking down a long hall alone until she saw what she believed to be active and monitored cameras in the hall.

                      As things would have it she was raped and battered in the hall way. Her lawyer used a point of law that states she had reasonable assumption to believe that she was being monitored and would not have entered the hall had cameras not been present. Needless to say she won a large suit against the mall and who ever else that had a pulse near by.

                      A store I worked in had a mix of real and fake cameras. The fake cameras actually had a blinking red light and a motion sensor that would make it sweep when someone tripped the sensor. I worked security in that store for over a month thinking they were real. I think that the real ones negate the reasonable assumption act of the dummies.
                      Last edited by Chucky; 07-19-2007, 11:12 PM.
                      THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
                      THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
                      http://www.boondocksaints.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nauticus View Post
                        Thats not completely accurate. Cameras are also visible deterrants, and just the existence of such a camera is very effective in reducing theft.
                        I do not agree with that. In the San Diego, area when I was in retail loss prevention two of my stores (big box) had very significant differences in shrink over a two-year period. Both stores had the same sales figures and clientele. Both had the same camera setups, were fully staffed with LP, and were allotted the same number of LP hours and both stores caught relatively the same amount of shoplifters (dollar recoveries were about the same).

                        One store had 2% more shrink than the other - two years in a row. After the first lopsided inventory figures I took charge of the inventory process in the high shrink store, even conducting a 6-month inventory of high theft merchandise.

                        In the end, employee theft and paperwork errors made the difference not cameras. Now this is just one example I cited, but I can point to many more.

                        The use of cameras can or may have an effect on whether or not a shoplifter decides to steal in your store, but in my humble opinion, the only ones who may be deterred are the first timers or the opportunist. One of the most common statements, in my experience, made by people apprehended for theft is "I didn't think anybody was watching the cameras."
                        Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
                        Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          John . . . . any experience with neglience suits when using drone cameras - such as the false sense of security claim?
                          Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
                          Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Curt: I've never been involved in one and have only heard of a couple over the peast ten years. Based on the survey results posted above, I'd argue there is no expectation that they are being monitored. If I were consulting, however, I think (depending on the circumstances) that any camera images be recorded by multi-plex, so that if an incident occurs, it can be reviewed. As far as monitoring, there is no assurrance that any one camera will be under observation at any given time. If the "expectation issue" becomes an issue, perhaps signage stating cameras are not always monitored will be needed (somewhat like signs noting usage of EAS).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks John.
                              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