LP Magazine

JAN-FEB 2019

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/1078914

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 50 of 77

49 LP MAGAZINE | JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2019 Winning with People Speaking of S2P, by mid-2019 LPRC will stand up a new working group termed the Workplace Performance Working Group to facilitate better employee on-the-job performance for members. Dishonest and unsafe behavior will be key action-research targets, but our vision is to help our members create a competitive advantage for their businesses through people. They can use research evidence to foster company spaces where everyone's best work is encouraged, enabled, expected, and recognized. More to come on this new working group. Featured Research Retail product theft, and fear of theft, frequently results in sales-suppression via defensive merchandising (in other words, removing live products from the shelf or impeding self-selection) and is still a chronic, critical issue with numerous popular retail product categories. Retailers want to maintain sales and customer satisfaction by sustained on-shelf availability. And a large part of that mission is cost-effectively maximizing theft deterrence without running shoppers to online or physical competitors. Priming Convincing a motivated thief not to steal a coveted item is difficult at best and often requires cotreatments or multiple measures to consistently work. Think about multimeasure advertising that combines radio, TV, online, and in-store ads. Same with medicine where radiation might make a lesion more susceptible to chemical agents, some of which kill the tumor, while others activate the natural immune system. Further, mood, exercise, and diet can make the system more effective and recoverable. Same thing in our stores, distribution centers, and offices. One piece of an effort rarely works, or at least for long. We need to get our deterrent or disruptive message to the ideating offender, right to the action part of their brain. So we prime the pump—we prep them to perceive, understand, and favorably respond to our countermeasures. It's for this reason you might note an emphasis on online messaging, layered and changing signage, and other priming measures. The Project A carefully designed survey was conducted to assess whether three in-store sign versions indicating a person is in an active surveillance area would be effective at deterring theft while not disrupting a customer's shopping experience. The signs presented in this exploratory research can be seen below. All data was collected in Gainesville, Florida, from an LPRC StoreLab, an operating retail store used for systematic testing. To further understand signage deterrent "dosing" characteristics (meaning how the sign should look, where it should be placed, how many should be deployed, and how to keep the message fresh) and store visitor perceptions and responses, the LPRC gathered offender and customer feedback about signage in the purposefully selected StoreLab location. First, thirteen active or former offenders were shown each of the three signs and asked what message each sign sent to them, if any version sent a stronger message than the others, and if any sign component was offensive. Offenders were then asked how they would react to the sign if it were placed near an item they often intended to steal. In the second phase of this study, twenty-three customers were intercepted at the entrance and were shown all three notifications. Customers were asked the same series of questions. A primary interest for this study is if the presence of the sign would change shoppers' store perceptions or shopping behavior. Both offenders and customers were also asked if they had any suggestions to make the signs more noticeable, understandable, and a more credible threat to a would-be shoplifter. Results Summary Customers and offenders both found the sign that excluded "thieves" to be the most noticeable. Many commented the largeness of the word "beware" on the signs was the best way to grab their attention. Over 50 percent of shoplifters indicated they would either go to another store or not steal anything if those signs were present in an area where they were trying to steal. They also noted that most shoplifters don't consider themselves "thieves," which lessens the impact of signs with that word. The presence of these signs was welcomed by most shoppers interviewed. Over 85 percent of respondents indicated they had no issue with any of the signs. Over 80 percent of customers surveyed thought posting signage would be an effective way of reducing theft. And 70 percent of customers surveyed also felt more secure by having these signs posted in-store. Many customers noted unsolicited the link between increased theft and increased prices, so many customers supported signage as an antitheft measure. One surveyed customer indicated the presence of these signs might adversely affect their shopping behavior, and two more said the sign did generate some concerns but wouldn't affect their shopping, but none could offer an explanation as to why. Our UF and LPRC teams continue to work online, outdoor, and indoor priming signage-dosing options including symbology, colors, size, 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. Active Surveillance Area Sign Options Customers and offenders both found the sign that excluded "thieves" to be the most noticeable. Many commented the largeness of the word "beware" on the signs was the best way to grab their attention.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of LP Magazine - JAN-FEB 2019