Interesting that the cops will even show up for petty shoplifting.
After reading the article, I'm still curious about why Walmart has so much more crime and why Walmart chooses to invite it. One of the practices that the article noted was Walmart had products in aisles, giving the impression that no one cares and inviting thieves to take advantage of that. That's something that's really noticeable in the Walmarts that I've visited because it stands out from other stores. I don't see products left in aisles in other stores. I've seen Target employees picking up garbage and products left in the aisles. If nothing else, products left in aisles won't be sold if they get damaged by people walking over them. I wondered if that was a cost-cutting measure that would translate to the bottom line. If it is, it's not working well. According to this article, in the beginning of 2015, Target was beating Walmart in gaining profitability. Since Target price matches, I don't buy the idea that Walmart's margins are so thin that the store has to prosecute petty theft and can't find another solution. At my local Walmart, the prices aren't the lowest in the area for most things. There's something about the culture of Walmart that invites those problems.
Fewer people working and visible inside the massive stores would be my guess. My local super giant grocery store has a LOT of people working inside the place. It's harder to be out of range of the people working making shoplifting more difficult.There's something about the culture of Walmart that invites those problems.
I dont think there is much stigma in stealing from walmart. By stealing from walmart you are sticking it to the man because f* walmart they steal from the community all the time. Nobody feels bad about sticking it to the man and your friends aren't going to look down on you for that.
Walmart's clientele is different from Target's. That's the obvious answer, and sometimes obvious is correct. I don't know why you think they "invite" crime. Every action in this article makes sense from Walmart's point of view. The bottom-line thing, I don't believe that any more than you do. I've shoplifted my fair share from Walmart, and I was just one bored, poor college student of millions. Theft hurts, but practically in the same paragraph he mentions 15b in profit.
I was just thinking about this. It is clear that Walmart's clientele is different than Target's. My curiosity is around why that would be. When I've visited Walmarts in upscale neighborhoods, there is generally a Target within a few miles. The difference in culture from the surrounding neighborhood is so huge that I wonder if they bus in the people to go to Walmart. Most major retailers have loss prevention departments. Their job is to find ways to prevent theft. Based on the article, Walmart is not employing very many of these techniques. In a colloquial sense, that's inviting crime. If someone leaves their door open and announces they're going on vacation, they're inviting crime. By not employing effective loss prevention techniques and using the police as their crime prevention, Walmart is inviting crime. It may make sense to Walmart's culture to operate this way, but I'm not convinced that it makes financial sense. For all the hours that it takes a police officer to respond to a theft, it also takes a Walmart employee's time to deal with the incident. That employee gets paid for that time. If the police hours are that high, then the Walmart employee hours are high as well. If Walmart used that money that they would have used to pay those employees, they could pay a loss prevention consultant team to find ways to reduce the theft or pay a security company to patrol. I don't know what you think I believe about the bottom line. I did read the $15B profit figure. Would it have been more or less than that figure if there was a good loss prevention plan in place? In my comparison of Target and Walmart, I was looking at the article linked in my comment that stated that in the first quarter of 2015, the net income margin was 3.7% for Target vs. 2.9% for Walmart. For the same time period, revenue growth for Target was .4% while Walmart's revenue growth was negative .1%.
Oops, I wasn't clear. This part: I don't either. It's a difference between micro and macro price margins, but the dichotomy is false. Anyway, I would chalk most of the clientele difference to Walmart's reputation. It may not actually be cheaper (though it is, often, cheaper than everything except Costco), and most of the calls may not actually come at 2am, but nonetheless its hours and perceived prices contribute to it seeming like the 'trashier' big box store. Can you imagine someone mixing meth in the bathroom of a Target? Target is also committed to customer service in a way that Walmart isn't, of course. Maybe. But the people who run Walmart right now are some of the most successful businessmen and women who ever lived. And as far as loss prevention goes, it's just as easy to shoplift from Target as it is from Walmart.I don't know what you think I believe about the bottom line.
I don't buy the idea that Walmart's margins are so thin that the store has to prosecute petty theft...
It may make sense to Walmart's culture to operate this way, but I'm not convinced that it makes financial sense. For all the hours that it takes a police officer to respond to a theft, it also takes a Walmart employee's time to deal with the incident. That employee gets paid for that time. If the police hours are that high, then the Walmart employee hours are high as well. If Walmart used that money that they would have used to pay those employees, they could pay a loss prevention consultant team to find ways to reduce the theft or pay a security company to patrol.
Chicago woman charged in Target washroom blastCan you imagine someone mixing meth in the bathroom of a Target?
Police Cmdr. Joseph Dugan says evidence recovered from the scene indicates Heidi E. Schmidt of 4049 W. Crystal was in a bathroom stall mixing items commonly used to produce a chemical high when the unstable mixture exploded.
I'm not convinced that all of the problems listed in the article wouldn't just happen somewhere else if you closed all of the WalMarts. Go ahead and close and shut down WalMart... Do the shoplifters stop shoplifting? Do the panhandlers stop panhandling? Do the homeless stop sleeping wherever they can? I doubt it.
Its interesting in that both Walmart and the police are both complacent in the problem so they both must get something out of it. The bigger problem is that the police keep showing up for these BS calls and there must be some incentive to do so. If the police just showed up 4-8 hours after the call was made and didnt hang out in the lots to provide extra security that would go along way to de-incentivze the bad behavior. So why are they showing up? I'm assuming they are trying to just game the response time numbers. If they just hang out it the parking lot and average 1-2min response times they can double the response times on other calls and still come out looking good. Its very common to see government respond to metrics by gaming the numbers instead of actually improving the issues.
The police have no legal obligation to protect or serve. They especially have no obligation to respond QUICKLY to a business that is wasting their resources. Being slow to respond is a pretty common police tactic when people piss the police off so the continued fast response time is an indication of some other incentives at work.