LP Magazine

NOV-DEC 2018

LP magazine publishes articles for loss prevention, asset protection, and retail professionals covering shrinkage, investigations, shoplifting, internal theft, fraud, technology, best practices, and career development.

Issue link: http://digital.lpportal.com/i/1053401

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 66 of 85

the likelihood of an offender seeing, getting, and fearing it) in reducing shrinkage. This paper also describes shopper, employee, and offender perceptions of the ePVM as an effective (and employee/customer friendly) crime-prevention intervention. This paper employs quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis from experimental or randomized controlled trial (RCT) research results shows the implementation of PVMs in selected high-theft product categories can be both impactful and cost-effective. LPRC RCTs have shown both shrinkage reductions and sales increases in a majority of the tested or treated stores between the pretest period (before the ePVM is put in) and the posttest period (after the ePVM has been installed). A summary of these studies is shown in the table at the bottom of the opposite page. In addition to the quantitative analyses of impact of ePVMs on ROI and shrinkage, the LPRC also conducted numerous small qualitative projects to understand customer, employee, and active-shoplifter perceptions on current or enhanced asset protection devices, including ePVMs. LPRC studies have found the majority of shoppers were oblivious to ePVMs, where many walked by the ePVMs without noticing them. More than 80 percent of customers in all studies said the presence of PVMs did not adversely affect their shopping experiences. Customers usually acknowledged they feel safer in the store with the ePVMs. Customers also noted their shopping experience was not affected by the ePVMs, and finally, they would buy the items protected by ePVMs. A summary of these findings can be seen in the table above. The results from the employee survey show most employees interviewed about the ePVMs were positive about its effectiveness. All employees in every study were aware of the PVM and felt PVM works to deter shoplifters in the store. Employees also pointed out the ease of use of PVMs compared to loss prevention techniques like fixtures, spiders, and boxes. The results from various offender surveys show there is wide variation in the likelihood an offender will notice an ePVM. Enhancements such as sounds and flashing lights can increase the chances an offender will notice the ePVM. Once the shoplifter's attention is drawn to the ePVM, LPRC studies have shown most shoplifters understand why the ePVM was there. Nearly 65 percent agreed the presence of PVMs deters them. In one study, it was found an ePVM with a picture-in-picture box (PIP) displaying a "security guard" deterred 30 percent more offenders than ePVM without PIP. A summary of these results can be found in the table above. Our University of Florida and LPRC teams continue to work new ePVM dosing options including unit placement, numbers per store, constant slight changes to maintain freshness, and aural and visual priming cues to boost the treatment's noticeability and credibility. 2018 IMPACT Conference LPRC members set another attendance record at the beautiful University of Florida venue in two ways. First, overall participation hit just a hair under 400, and top LP leaders went from the typical dozen or so vice presidents to over thirty. While LPRC member engagement went up, so did the number of reviewed LP research projects in Learning Lab breakouts, posters, and main stage presentations rising from twenty-plus to forty-one. LPRC IMPACT is truly a learning and sharing environment. The Impact Mad Scientist gamification, the LPRC Solution Experience Center, updated conference app, along with the senior LP leader STRATEGY@ session made this year's event even more unique. Next year's LPRC IMPACT is already being planned and will be held September 30 to October 2. A Growing Research and Results Community As of this writing, the LPRC community continues to rapidly grow with over seventy retail chains, over seventy solution partners, industry partners like the Loss Prevention Foundation, LP Magazine, D&D Daily, the Restaurant Loss Prevention & Security Association, the National Association of Safety Professionals, and a half-dozen manufacturers like P&G, Mead Johnson, Bacardi, Coty, Duracell, and Stanley/Dewalt. What this means is more data, more test locations, and much more LP talent working together in eight working groups, the iLab, at summits, webinars, and Impact, and in the field to transform LP action and results. Please contact kevin.larson@kroger.com or jessi@lpresearch.org to learn more about how your organization can engage with us. Customer reactions to the ePVM in multiple areas of deployment in multiple stores ePVM location and store type See it Understand the purpose of the PVM Feel the PVM is effective in preventing crime Feel more secure at store with PVM Does not impact shopping behavior DIY Store – self checkout 1 31% 84% 79% 27% 97% DIY Store 1 – in aisle 45% DIY Store 1 – customer service 21% DIY Store – self checkout 2 42% Supermarket Chain 1 (ePVM near infant formula) 100% 85% 90% 81% 86% Supermarket Chain 1 (ePVM near premium Spirit) 100% 90% 76% 60% 100% Results for See It; Get it; Fear It over multiple areas of deployment and stores ePVM postion See it Get it Fear it Entryway ePVM in store 1 (n=10) 31% 84% 79% In-aisle non-PIP ePVM in store 1 (n=10) 45% In-aisle PIP ePVM in store 2 (n=38) 21% In-aisle ePVM in store 2 (n=48) 42% In-aisle PIP ePVM in store 3 protecting razor blade packs (n=49) 100% 85% 90% In-aisle PIP ePVM in store 3 protecting whitening strips (n=49) 100% 90% 76% 65 LP MAGAZINE | NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2018

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of LP Magazine - NOV-DEC 2018