The First Rule of Security
Every once in a while, mostly as I think of them, I'll post some of the various "Rules," and other gems in the retail/security/loss prevention profession.
The rule for today is one considered quintessential to all forms of private security:
If you didn't see it, it did Not happen.
Without actual visual or video evidence of an incident occuring, there is no proof that anything happened. We in security can not just take the word of someone who informs us of some wrongdoing. If an employee told me that he saw a customer stuff merchandise down his/her pants, I can not make an apprehension on the word of the employee. I must witness the action. See the previous post for an explanation of what occurs when a Store Detective makes a "Bad Stop."
The Six (Or Five, Or Seven,) Steps.
This morning will be the first time I break my promise to keep actual work experiences from this forum. The tale I'll use as an example does not involve an apprehesion. In fact, the example outlines why the Loss Prevention microverse utilizes the Six(ish) Steps to making an apprehension.
The Six Steps are as follows: (These can be found easily with a little searching on Google.)
01: You must see the subject enter your store/ department
02: You must see the subject select your merchandise
03: You must see the subject conceal your merchandise (This step doesn't always occur because sometimes shoplifters do not conceal.)
04: You must maintain constant surveillance of the subject
05: You must see the subject fail to pay for the merchandise
06: You must apprehend the subject when they exit the store.
Every step is necessary (Number three depends on the shoplifter,) and if a Store Detective misses one of the steps, there is a very good possibility that a "Bad Stop," will occur. As the observant will notice, each step begins "You must..." That's done because each step is necessary. Here is my example:
Today while at work, I was watching a gentelman select a pair of very expensive boots. He was wearing beat up, old sneakers. I continuted to watch as the gentelman put on both boots, laced them up, and then put his sneakers in the box that originally contained the boots. The man walked along with my merchandise on his feet, and the box in his hand. He then met up with a female, and showed her the boots. He then ripped the tags off of the boots, and threw the tags to the ground. Yes, I was thinking I would soon be out the door. I maintained great surveillance, and then...the gentelman paid for the boots.
Now, had I gotten all excited, and neglected step 05, I'd have gone out the door and landed in a hornet's nest. The gentelman would have proved his innocence, and I'd be calling my Manager up about my mistake. I'd also probably be out of a job.
In Loss Prevention, it's crucial(!!) to have all the steps in place before an apprehension is made. I realize that those guidelines were written on the backs of numerous Store Detectives who made mistakes, and were sued, or fired for their actions. With all that said, there is a golden rule in Loss Prevention: When in doubt, let it out. Trust me, if they did something, they will be back.
The Great Hands On/ Off Debate
Every professional community has its own age old discussion topic. Usually the topic has to do with some form of limitation. Well, in Loss Prevention, one of the highly contested topics is, "Should companies allow Store Detectives to put their hands on a shoplifter? Or, is it better to take an entirely hands off approach?"
Before I get into my own opinion on the subject, let me state that I can see why certain companies are hands off. To best explain the thought process, I have two words: Legal Action. By keeping "hands off," of a shoplifter in all situations, there is a greatly reduced level of liability. When Store Detectives keep their hands to theirselves, people can not say they were physically harmed. Keep in mind, the shoplifter can claim all sorts of mental harm, but that is another story for another time. From a liability standpoint, a hands off policy seems to be a good option.
However, some people do not come back into the store when you say, "Excuse me, Sir/Ma'am, I'm with Store Security, and I'd like to talk about the merchandise in your pocket." In fact, in most cases, it is good to at least "guide," the shoplifter back into the store. Psychologically, this puts the Store Detective in "control," of the situation. By guide, I do not mean grabbing a shoplifter by the shoulder and shoving them back in the store. Gently place a firm hand on the arm or upper back, and guide right to the Processing Room. In most cases, that is the best approach. So, if for some reason the shoplifter decides to make a run for it, or tries to do something dangerous, the Store Detective can gain control of the situation.
The biggest problem with a hands off approach to Loss Prevention is simply the fact that a shoplifter can laugh in the face of a Store Detective, and walk away. The Store Detective can try to get a license plate number, or they can call the Police if the shoplifter is still in the vicinity of the store, but there is no guarantee that the shoplifter will still be there by the time the Police can respond. And, if the shoplifter leaves before the Police arrive, one very unhappy Police Officer will be on a frivilous call. Usually, something of that nature only harms the LP/ Police relationship that must exist for an effective LP program.
As soon as enough people realize how easily they can shoplift, the hands off store will be swamped with shoplifters of all types looking to take a leisurely stroll around the store while they steal with impugnity. A strong LP program needs to make apprehensions. If not, the store is nothing more than a target.
Although there is much debate about "Word on the street," in the shoplifting underworld, it is safe to say that people share with their friends, family and other partners-in-crime where the potential shoplifter can steal without worrying about apprehensions or prosecution.
Stores need to move away from the neverending fear of liability. I understand that companies want to minimize risk, and that one way to do so is through the hands off policy. However, companies should realize how much money they will lose through the hands off approach to preventing loss.
Really, the best way to minimize liability in Loss Prevention is high quality training. The better trained, and more knowledgable the Store Detective, the more apprehensions, the lower the shrink, and importantly, liability will not be a problem.
The Introduction
Welcome and hello. For the time being, I know for a fact that I will be the only person reading this blog. I have no intentions of driving a huge fanbase. In fact, the lower I can keep my profile, the better off I will be. I'd rather not attract too many shoplifter types interested in learning to one up Loss Prevention departments. As a caveat to those who do come here looking for some intelligence on how LP works, every retailer is DIFFERENT. Don't take what I write as the final word for all stores. Really, the LP world is extremely diverse, and dependant on corporate culture.
Oh, and also: Don't expect too many tales of apprehensions. If there is something novel, or truly bizzare, I may mention it in this blog. Other than that, I'm not too interested in "war stories."
