We've all seen the videos of organized gangs barreling into stores, grabbing armfuls of merchandise, and then escaping before stunned store workers can do anything. The National Retail Federation puts some numbers to this crime wave:
Savvy, confident organized retail crime gangs — who steal billions of dollars worth of merchandise each year only to sell that merchandise online or at physical fence locations — continue to test retailers to the core, oftentimes stopping at nothing to profit from their criminal behavior. NRF’s ninth annual Organized Retail Crime (ORC) Survey found that 93.5 percent of retailers say they have been a victim of organized retail crime in the past year.
....One of the most distressing trends in organized crime activity is the propensity for thieves to resort to violence to avoid being apprehended, putting store personnel, law enforcement and customers at risk.
Oh wait. This is from 2013. It turns out that fear of criminal shoplifting gangs makes headlines every single year when the NRF's retail security report is published. It's nothing new. Here are the overall numbers for merchandise losses, or "shrink":
As CNBC noted last month in their report of the latest numbers—which apparently no one read—"the effect of theft on retailers’ bottom lines is about the same as it has been for years." Total shrink in 2022 was unchanged compared to before the pandemic, and of this total about one-third was due to shoplifting. (The rest came from employee theft, accidents, and other causes.)
So take all those reports of spiraling losses from shoplifting with a grain of salt. Total shoplifting losses increased from 0.49% of sales in 2010 to 0.56% of sales in 2022. That's up, but it's hardly an apocalypse.
At what net margin does retail operate?
Writ large? My understanding is about 5%. But that varies across the industry--high-end retail has margins multiple times greater.
You don't think they massage the books to keep it down, do you?
Clearly a plot by the Retail Industrial Complex…
I think retailers in some areas are hurting more than others, so stores are closing, or the company/owner has to put everything to put everything behind glass. Organized groups barreling into stores are a new form of shoplifting. It needs a different name. Even if the numbers (and the chart only goes from 2010) are only up a fraction, decriminalizing shoplifting is a bad idea.
Reread what Kevin wrote - the "Organized groups barreling into stores" has been happening for at least the past ten years and this tracks with my memory of local news coverage on this. It's like the War on Christmas for conservatives, they've invented a narrative that falls apart in the face of a quick google.
And yet stores closing because of shoplifting was debunked as a lie.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shoplifting.html
Yeah, Target just closed two of their mini-stores in our area and blamed theft/security as the main reason. Except it turns out that those two stores weren't at the top of their list for losses by theft. Basically, they bet on these stores before the pandemic and sales never met expectations, but that would be the fault of the executive suite and that can't happen.
What’s wrong with the name it already has? Robbery. I really don’t understand why much of the media calls it “shoplifting”.
Where have they decriminalized shoplifting? Has that even been proposed somewhere?
California recently raised the cash-value limit for charging shoplifting as a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Fox and other conservative outlets went apeshit, of course, claiming it was tantamount to "decriminalizing" store theft. The only problem is that California's limit is *still* lower than a bunch of other red states, including Texas.
I live in California and I know some right wing types say stupid things that they have heard from Fox or on line. Civiltwilight said two of those things and I was hoping he had some explanation/excuse for saying them.
I think the limit hadn't been raised in something like 20-30 years, so it was simply out of whack with what most other jurisdictions were doing. It's like $900 now (vs. $2500 in Texas).
What’s wrong with the name it already has? Robbery. I really don’t understand why much of the media calls it “shoplifting”.
The name it "already has" is, uh, shoplifting. The term "shoplifting" has been a term in use in English-speaking countries for centuries. Presumably "robbery" isn't used because that refers to a different crime.
Organized groups barreling in to stores, terrorizing customers and employees and using clubs to break displays to take things are not shoplifters. The elements of a robbery are “force or fear”.
“CHAPTER 4. Robbery [211 - 215] ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
211.
Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=211
Isn't the name for this 'smash and grab'?
That would be colloquial, at least in California. If a person sees a purse in an empty car and breaks the window and steals it, that is a theft. If there is a person in the car it is a robbery. Both would be described as “smash and grab”.
I really appreciate your taking the time to provide clear, concise, and accurate information regarding specifics of types of theft, with emphasis on California law.
I guess I should have replaced "theft" with "various forms of unlawful taking of property that is not legally yours".
Decriminalizing shoplifting is a bad idea, and I am glad to discover that liberals and conservatives agree with that. True enough that TX does not consider theft of property a felony until the amount is above $2500. It is also true that I thought California would not charge you with a crime if you took less than $900. So, I will take my correction with humility and will correct others under the same delusion.
Overall it's just an excuse companies leverage for closing stores that are not making enough money or they misplaced thinking they could garner enough traffic.
Thus it's a problem out of their control versus one they do control.
This is it. They close stores in poorer areas because the margins aren't as good. But instead of taking the heat for under-serving certain communities, they blame hordes of "shoplifting gangs."
And some people fall for it.
Pretty much. The raft of store closings in SF, for example, had far more to do with the dramatic fall-off in foot traffic from now-remote tech workers as opposed to just shoplifting. The theft was pretty much always there. Only earlier they had enough profits that it really didn't hurt the bottom line.
A friend posted the closings of 9 Starbuck's stores as a sign of the decay of SF. Quick Googling found Starbucks had 59 stores in SF. The stores being closed were along on Main Street.
Many of these stores were so poorly stocked that you'd go into them, find they didn't have the thing they stock you were looking for and have to go to a different location.
Very frustrating.
This to some extent is just survivorship bias though right? Stores above this trend get closed and no longer appear in the numbers.
Also, lots of stores have ramped up security (my neighborhood grocery has literal armed guards at every exit, for example), moved products behind glass, reduced inventory on the floor, etc. That's a real impact to both the business and shoppers that isn't reflected in these numbers.
Organized shoplifting gangs aren't a new thing either,
The Forty Elephants,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Elephants
Makes a personal wonder what legitimate business(es) they might have succeeded in that had been an option (with proceeds from stolen, then sold merchandise).
sorry - "had that "
I find this issue very interesting, because I have certainly observed the outward effects on retailers when i visit SF. Whether that’s because of perception or reality, who knows?
I wonder if the added measures to combat theft are somewhat mitigating the measured losses. Ie, loss is up modestly, but money spent fighting it is up 2x?
All that said, I do understand that has an enormous media component.
Stores like Walgreens and other retailers putting toiletries behind locked cabinets and so forth costs a fortune, but the companies figure it's cheaper in the long run than a much more reasonable solution: hiring enough employees to effectively manage the store during a shift. I noticed recently at a local CVS that a lot of times they literally have one employee in the entire store, who sometimes also has to man the pharmacy counter, and then run up to the cash registers at the other end when someone sounds the bell. One guy. I bet their "shrink" is off the charts. I also bet the CEO of CVS makes tens of millions a year.
I also bet the CEO of CVS makes tens of millions a year.
I was just reading about her. Something Lynch. Boston gal as it happens (undergrad Boston College; MBA Boston University). She certainly presides over more revenue than any women corporate leader in history: CVS does over $300 billion a year in revenue (largest healthcare firm on the planet by far; they bought Aetna a few years back, and have their tentacles in lots of different things). In fact, I think they're now 4th or 5th of all US firms based on sales.
So, yeah, I bet your right she's in the "tens of millions" neighborhood.
Why do you think putting plexiglass doors with locks on them costs much money? Because, that is the solution retailers have taken. I've read a lot that the reason they do that is because they don't want to staff at adequate levels so that employees would catch the theft instead of locking the merch behind glass doors.
I'm no business experts, but I'm guessing that more employees is more expensive than plexiglass doors and locks.
We all know this is an excuse to cover their asses for escalating prices in the stores. It is getting right out of hand. Not the losses but the cost of everything.
In the small town where I live, most of the big brand names have moved to the bigger cities. The malls are pretty much all closed. We have to travel quite a distance to shop. Likely why folks head on line. It was not due to "shoplifting". They just couldn't sell enough stuff. Bottom line. Greed.
It's a vicious cycle. As rural areas become poorer, people can't afford full-priced merchandise and so retail stores have to leave and make way for the Dollar Generals, Big Lots, and the like. A lack of good retail options and non-fast food restaurants also deters more affluent people from moving there and encourages more people to leave -- and so it goes.
I just ignore the complaints of large retailers, on account that their profit margins don't go down unless their business model is changing by wider cultural shifts. Home Depot's net margins used to be 4% in 2010 and the last two years it's been ~10%.
However, I think it's a frustrating and devastating event for small businesses, though. It might be impossible for them to stay in business, too.
Home Depot's net margins used to be 4% in 2010 and the last two years it's been ~10%.
Not sure, but it sure seems like they do that by having virtually no employees on the floor. The worst thing in the world is to need a piece of hardware and then have to go to Lowe's or HD for it and spend 20 minutes wandering around like a goddamn idiot looking for someone to help you.
When I go to Lowe's I use their app in my phone. I tell it what I want and it tells me *exactly* where to find it--Aisle AND Bin Number. That's even better than Walmart, whose app tells me Aisle Number but leaves it to me to scrutinize the shelves to locate the item.
I didn't know about the app -- that's a good tip. At least for when I know what I'm looking for, which isn't all the time. Sometimes I need someone, e.g., to help me select window blinds. Or mix paint. Or ask if the component I'm looking for will work with my appliance. Usually a quick question, but one that's definitely not worth running around trying to find someone for 20 minutes only to be told "it's not my department" or "they're on break" or "I'll see if I can find someone" and then no-one ever turns up. Happens to me all the time in big box stores.
OR the accounting around retail theft is now misleading. As someone who lives in a California city, I think its very likely/almost certaint, the local accounting around actual retail theft is under reporting.
With electronic inventory tracking today, it's pretty easy to quantify your "shrink." I think what you're talking about is how many shoplifting incidents get reported to the police.
Ha! The unprovable theory that can always be rolled out for any crime story. I'm just going to cut and paste what I wrote the last time this idea showed up in the comments:
Rolls eyes. (◔_◔)
No matter what the actual situation actually is, someone always tries to say something like this. There has never been a time when people, usually right wing hacks or someone blindly repeating right wing hacks, doesn't say something like this.
...let us all remember that mythical time when all crimes were reported. Every break in, mugging, and petty crime was reported, but now things are oh so different.
And it doesn't even matter what the current crime statistics are. If they are going up then the police are so busy why bother reporting it. Nothing will happen. If crime rates are down then it must be because no one is reporting it.
I could understand a 12 year old believing this, but you don't have to be an old man to know that there is no reason to believe or tell others this.
I think most crimes, even shoplifting or minor break-ins, do get reported to the police. It's routine business for them. What often happens though, is the police take a report, but can't really do anything about recovering the property. And unless there's some really obvious piece of evidence they can use to id the perpetrator (e.g. really clear video), the chances of actually catching a thief are pretty damn slim. That's what insurance is for. But then people jump to the conclusion that because the police can't recover most stolen property, then people must just not be reporting the crimes.
A kid grabbing a candy bar and leaving is hard to find. Someone taking minutes to collect a large number of items is often filmed by the store employees. Entire groups running in and stealing tend to get a lot of attention from police (at least when the police feel like doing their job).
I remember early this year I kept seeing goofy rightwing people trying to claim everything was going to hell and their big example was shoplifting. I did some searches. The immediate results that came back were stories about people being convicted of the smash and grab shoplifting and robberies. I don't know why you and others think these high profile events aren't leading to arrests. Especially the ones involving lots of people.
Why would reporting have changed?
While everyone's talking about shoplifting gangs and the like, has anyone been focusing on why this kind of crime has been going on for the past decade or more: online store sites like Amazon and (especially) Ebay make it ridiculously easy to fence stolen merchandise. Yes, some of it ends up at big swap meets and in the back rooms of small convenience stores where if you know the owner, he can hook you up with some cheap diapers and shaving cream. But most of it ends up online and, as far as I can tell, these companies haven't yet been hit with the proper "inducements" to put the kaibosh on people selling stolen shit on their sites.
I think there are two big factors. The big one is all the pharmacy mergers. A lot of chains now have more branches than they need in urban areas, so they're weighing profitability and leasing terms and deciding to close some. The other is the downtown office slow down. There were a lot of very profitable stores in business districts, but WFH has cut traffic, and they are now less profitable.
There has also been the professionalization of shoplifting.It is not about those large scale organized smash and grabs. It's about the industrialization of ordinary shoplifting. It is becoming more professional with fences having regular dealings with client shoplifters. They are repeatedly arrested and released, but no one is cracking down on the resellers. Right now, the aggregate impact is small, but it has potential to grow and spread if it isn't fought.
It would be interesting to see the same info for certain cities like Oakland, LA, or Portland. It might be that same store shrinkage is a problem that national data wouldn't illustrate.