Black Friday Security Playbook: How Retailers Can Prevent Holiday Crime
The holiday shopping season isn’t just the most important time of year for retailers. It’s also when their risk of theft shoots up.
In 2023, retailers saw a 93% jump in the average number of shoplifting incidents compared to pre-pandemic times. That’s according to a survey last year from the National Retail Federation and the Loss Prevention Research Council. It polled senior security and loss prevention leaders in the retail field.
And those thefts are costing retailers more, too. According to the poll, the dollar value of losses was 90% higher.
If retailers aren’t careful, shoplifting and related crimes can eat into their profits, ruining what should be some of their most profitable periods. Fortunately, stores and shopping centers can improve their security with a few straightforward tactics.
A lot of it comes down to paying closer attention to the people visiting their locations.
“There’s definitely an increase in retail theft around the holidays, and really, it stems from an increase in foot traffic,” said Bryan Taylor, vice president at Chesley Brown, the security consulting and management firm.
“Shoplifters really want to avoid attention. During the holiday rush, it’s easier for them to blend in because there are more people, more traffic, to hide behind.”
At the same time, store employees are under more pressure because they’re busy stocking shelves and ringing up customers. They might struggle to notice when thieves are hiding shoplifted goods inside their winter coats or under their bulky sweaters.
“By the end of a 12-hour day, how closely are they paying attention?” Taylor said.
Chesley Brown serves shopping centers and related clients across North America, and it’s developed a playbook for helping them combat theft through Black Friday and beyond. Here are some of the most important steps that Taylor and his colleagues recommend.
Priority One: Set Aside Time for Training
Heading into the holiday season, retailers should hold customer service training for their employees, Taylor said. Longtime employees should receive refresher training, too.
That training should share best practices for interacting with customers, such as always acknowledging people when they come into the store.
Taylor recommends using the 20-10-5 rule. When an employee comes within 20 feet of a shopper, they should make eye contact and smile. Within 10 feet, they should say hello. Within 5 feet, they should ask the customer if they need help.
“In a lot of retail settings, there’s a lack of customer service training, and that directly correlates to security,” Taylor said. “We train people that going the extra mile with customer service is a form of security, too.”
For example, store employees might approach a shopper carrying a large number of items – maybe they’re even stuffing them into a tote bag or putting them in their pockets. Employees should ask that shopper if they need help.
If the shopper really needs help, they’ll appreciate the offer. It’s good customer service.
But if the shopper is actually a shoplifter? That light intervention might put them on notice, letting them know they’re being watched. They might decide not to steal anything.
A similar dynamic applies to parking areas. Security officers should approach people who seem like they’re wandering around the lot. Those individuals might need helping finding their cars. Or they could be looking for vehicles to break into.
Attention – even if it’s positive, helpful attention – is the last thing that thieves want.
“They want to operate in anonymity, right?” Taylor said. “They don’t want people watching them, they don’t want that attention.”
He also recommends that retailers provide de-escalation training. Employees should be shown how to prevent and manage disagreements with customers. Doing so might help prevent an argument from blowing up into something worse.
“How you talk to people is important,” Taylor said.
A big part of de-escalation training involves communicating more effectively with customers and understanding their problems, so employees can better help them. It’s good for security and customer service.
Other Best Practices for Holiday Theft Prevention
In addition to customer service training, retailers and shopping centers can put other security strategies to work.
Ensure staffing levels are adequate
It can be tough to find retail workers, especially during the holidays, but having a well-staffed store can have a big impact on shoplifting prevention. More employees means there are more eyes available to look out for theft.
Retailers and shopping centers should also make sure there’s adequate security scheduled. It’s important to have security officers who can do courtesy walkthroughs of stores, escort customers and employees to their vehicles, and provide other services.
“I think the biggest thing is just having the right security in place for the season,” Taylor said. “Especially security that is visible. If you’re operating a 1 million square foot mall, and you have one security officer walking the interior, and you have one officer on the exterior in a patrol vehicle, you don’t have enough coverage.”
Use working security cameras to deter thieves
This is a go-to for most stores and shopping centers, and for good reason. If potential shoplifters know they might end up on camera, it might make them think twice before stealing merchandise.
It’s critical to make sure those cameras are set up to provide complete coverage, and they need to actually work. Believe it or not, some retailers have cameras that don’t actually record anything. They’re basically there for show.
That’s a mistake because cameras can help retailers see exactly who is committing crimes in their stores, so that employees can shadow those people if or when they come back into the building.
Adjust store layouts to make theft more difficult
Even small changes can make life harder for shoplifters.
Many retailers display their most popular products at the front of their stores as a way to draw in shoppers. Unfortunately, that makes it easier for thieves to swipe those items and get away quickly.
“Those things should be kept further back or some place where people have to walk into the store, and you can have people in the store available to watch them,” Taylor said.
More retailers are letting customers pick up online orders at their brick-and-mortar locations – a practice that’s known as BOPIS, or buy online, pickup in store. They’re also a common way that fraudsters use to steal goods.
Taylor suggested setting up those pickup counters in areas away from the crowded parts of the store. That way, employees won’t feel pressured to hurry through the checkout process, and they’ll take the time to closely check the IDs of people picking up orders. A rushed process only makes it easier for these crooks to get away with their scams.
Control access to sensitive parts of the property
Many retailers use access control technology to secure their backrooms and inventory. Employees have to swipe their badges to get into those areas.
But stores shouldn’t overlook low-tech fixes, too, like training employees not to prop up the back door and emergency exits. It’s an easy way for thieves to sneak into your property – and sneak out with stolen goods.
Report shoplifters to law enforcement
Busy retailers might wonder if it makes sense to report shoplifting and related crimes to the authorities. In some jurisdictions, those cases aren’t really prosecuted.
According to the survey from the National Retail Federation and the Loss Prevention Research Council, a majority of the respondents (65%) said they reported less than half of shoplifting incidents.
“But you still gotta call,” Taylor said. “If you just ignore it, it’s not gonna go away.”
When retailers share video of shoplifters and other information, it gives law enforcement the information they need to target persistent shoplifters or even large-scale organized retail theft.
These theft rings can steal thousands in merchandise from retailers, and when the losses grow to that size, it can be easier for prosecutors to go after the criminals involved.
And communicating more with police can be helpful, too. Letting local departments know about higher levels of crime might convince them to increase their patrols in a certain area. Likewise, police can warn retailers about theft rings or new types of scams that are going around.
Putting It All Together
There’s no single perfect solution for preventing theft and other crimes in stores during the holiday. Instead, retailers should implement multiple tactics to deter and detect bad actors so that, if one defense fails, others can pick up the slack.
If your shopping center or retail business needs help addressing shoplifting, organized retail crime and other threats, Chesley Brown provides proven expertise honed over decades.
The firm can provide detailed security assessments that pick out hidden dangers while recommending solutions. Their experts can also lead training sessions for store employees and manage entire teams of security officers.
To learn how Chesley Brown can benefit your organization, contact us to schedule a consultation today.
Loss Prevention Agent
In subject area: Computer Science
A Loss Prevention Agent refers to a specialist responsible for observing, remembering incidents, knowing criminal law, and conducting investigations to prevent theft in retail settings. They blend in with shoppers, use CCTV systems, and help reduce shrinkage by deterring potential shoplifters.
AI generated definition based on: Security and Loss Prevention (Sixth Edition), 2013
How useful is this definition?Press Enter to select rating, 1 out of 3 starsPress Enter to select rating, 2 out of 3 starsPress Enter to select rating, 3 out of 3 stars
- On this page
Chapters and Articles
You might find these chapters and articles relevant to this topic.
Chapter
Protecting Commercial and Institutional Critical Infrastructure
2013, Security and Loss Prevention (Sixth Edition)Philip P. Purpura
Prevention and Reduction of Shoplifting through People
The reality of retail loss prevention budgets is explained by Hollinger (2011: 26). He notes that in 2010, 0.46 percent of retail sales were directed to loss prevention, with most of this money spent on payroll expenses. In his articles over the years, Hollinger repeatedly points out, and correctly, the following: “With limited LP budgets and even less money for high-tech countermeasures, more of the day-to-day responsibility for loss prevention is being shifted to overworked store managers, untrained sales associates, and inexperienced LP personnel.”
People are the first and primary asset for reducing shoplifting opportunities. The proper utilization of people is the test of success or failure in preventing and reducing shoplifting. Good training is essential and it can be applied in-store, online, or off-site.•
Management: Management has the responsibility for planning, implementing, and monitoring antishoplifting programs. The quality of leadership and the ability to motivate people are of paramount importance. The loss prevention manager and other retail executives must cooperate when formulating policies and procedures that do not hamper sales.•
Salespeople: One method to increase a shoplifter’s anxiety and prevent theft is to require salespeople to approach all customers and say, for instance, “May I help you?” This approach informs the potential shoplifter that he or she has been noticed by salespeople and possibly by loss prevention personnel.•
Loss Prevention (LP) Agents: These specialists must have the ability to observe without being observed, remember precisely what happened during an incident, know criminal law and self-defense, effectively interview, testify in court, and recover stolen items. They perform a variety of duties, such as observing the premises with a CCTV system, helping to reduce shrinkage, and conducting investigations of suspected internal theft and shoplifting. When they are on the sales floor and observing a suspect, they should blend in with the shopping crowd and look like shoppers. This can be done by dressing like average shoppers, carrying a package or two and even a bag of popcorn. The antiquated term “floor walker” should be reserved for historical discussions; this will help to professionalize the important LP position that has certification programs through the Loss Prevention Foundation.•
Uniformed Officers: Only a foolish shoplifter would steal in the presence of an officer who acts as a deterrent. A well-planned antishoplifting program must not lose sight of the systems approach to loss prevention, as described next (Altheide et al., 1978):
The store had four security guards or personnel. These people were also looked upon as “jokes.” The security personnel were primarily concerned with catching shoplifting customers. Most of their time was spent behind two-way mirrors with binoculars observing shoppers. Therefore, in reality while the security personnel caught a customer concealing a pair of pants in her purse, an employee was smuggling four pairs of Levi’s out the front door. Security was concerned with shoppers on the floor while all employee thefts usually occurred in stockrooms.•
Fitting-room personnel: Employees who supervise merchandise passing in and out of fitting rooms play a vital role in reducing the shoplifting problem. Many stores place a limit on the number of items that can be brought into a fitting room.
Chapter
Networking and the Liaison Function
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerBrion P. Gilbride
Fifth Scenario: Installing a Central Station
The final scenario involves installation of a central security location at a big-box store. It will be equipped with computers and monitors for the proximity card access control system, a fire detection & suppression system, CCTV with digital storage and thermal printer, and an environmental monitoring system. This means that loss prevention agents at the store will need to be trained on using and maintaining this equipment. It is likely that a different company handles each system, meaning multiple training sessions, different troubleshooting techniques, and different contacts should a system malfunction.
In terms of networking, there is opportunity here. The technicians who install the equipment and/or set up monitoring systems to work with existing equipment will likely be the same people the loss prevention agents would call in the event of equipment malfunction or damage. Technicians may not come to the store for relatively minor problems, but will likely talk through minor equipment issues with the loss prevention agents. The more issues that can be resolved without a service call, the more money loss prevention agents could potentially save the organization. Those savings are usually quantifiable and therefore would likely be of benefit to the security operation as a whole.
The more knowledge loss prevention agents can obtain regarding how the equipment in their facility functions, the more valuable they will be in general. Someone who is only proficient with the CCTV equipment may not know what to do if the access control system requires security personnel to produce and issue security badges. Someone who is only proficient with the access control equipment may not know how to deal with a fire panel; knowing the difference between a ground fault and a legitimate alarm condition may be the difference between hundreds of dollars in minor damage versus tens of thousands in lost productivity. Someone who is not proficient with the CCTV equipment may not know that a still picture can be printed on the thermal printer of a particular frame of CCTV video, much less how to print it. That lack of knowledge could be the difference between a closed theft case versus an unsolved one. It is in the loss prevention agent’s best interest to know as much about the equipment they use in their daily work as possible. The best people to explain what the various systems do are the people who install them.
Chapter
Workplace Crime and Deviance
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerNorman R. Bottom, Whitney D. Gunter
Summary
This chapter presented some lessons about controlling employee dishonesty. Employees at all levels may steal from their employers. Most employees steal what is immediately available to them. Opportunities for theft come about because of WAECUP. Protection officers cannot prevent all employee theft, but they can have a positive impact. Theft prevention is a good idea at any time. Today, it is especially important because of the economic climate.
Practical methods to prevent theft have been provided. These include tips on what to look for, what to report, and what actions to take. As a general rule, always look for the unusual and out of place, but be prudent in taking action. An employee may have permission to take company property off premises.
Protection officers can reduce theft of visible items, but it is best to reduce opportunity for theft. Theft reduction requires knowledge of company property, how it is marked, and its value. Make a property list to aid one’s memory.
Concealment often comes before removal of company property by the employee thief. Trash, garbage containers, and garbage bags are favorite hiding places. The thief may conceal valuable merchandise behind less valuable items. Everything should be in its place. Look behind shelved merchandise; examine storage rooms and broom closets.
Know the rules about what employees may bring onto company property. You may be able to prevent a theft simply by advising an employee not to bring in a container. Vehicle parking is another factor. Point out parking hazards that make employee theft easier.
Report suspicious activity, both verbally and in writing. Timely observation is critical to the right person or persons. Know who the right person is. Follow up on the reporting in discussions with protection supervisors.
Preventive actions are important to employee theft prevention. Wrongful actions by protection officers can lead to civil and criminal problems. Considerable care is needed in making searches and in making accusations. Some preventive actions are pleasant. Employee liaison is an excellent way to prevent employee theft. Liaison with senior employees means additional eyes and ears.
Company search policy must be understood and applied. Know whether policy allows random searches or searches on demand. A written search policy is essential. Search of company vehicles may be easier, but complications can arise with respect to seals, delays, or contract provisions. Always follow the rules.
Search of trash or storage areas is usually without complication. These searches should be done at staggered times. Some areas, such as research labs and executive offices, need prior permission to enter, even by the protection officer. There are valid reasons for these restrictions.
Public relations are important, especially during any search involving an employee. An officer must work tomorrow with the employee who is being searched today. Cultivate the respect of senior employees. These people can help the officer recognize employee theft potential. As a general rule, morale is a good indicator of theft potential. Low morale is likely to mean more employee theft problems.
Sometimes employees witness theft, but do not report it. If the protection officer develops the respect of key employees, hints to employee deviancy may be given. Liaison with non-security employees has other benefits. Changes in the workplace environment can raise the potential for employee theft. Good liaison will keep you up-to-date on such changes.
The protection officer can do a good job in preventing employee theft, but only if he follows the methods outlined and company policy.
Emerging Trends
Losses caused by employees have been a concern throughout history. At one time, employers in England and the United States forbade employees to talk during working hours. This was to ensure that there was no loss due to wasted time. A more contemporary approach to this issue is the use of temporary employees. Contract service firms provide employees to client organizations on an as-needed basis.
Such an approach cuts waste, but may create the potential for theft, espionage, and other crimes. Obviously, all employees with access to assets must be properly screened and supervised. Employee loyalty and commitment to the employer are also critical if theft, sabotage, espionage, and so on are to be controlled.
Workplace crime is not limited to theft; sabotage by employees can also occur. There are various types of sabotage, from total or near total destruction of equipment and facilities (planting explosives or incendiaries), to damaging equipment, to deliberate work slowdowns. Sabotage may be motivated by a variety of reasons. In construction and other industries, sabotage may be conducted to prolong the work; damage slows completion of the project and keeps hourly workers employed. Conversely, acts of sabotage may be motivated by labor unrest during contract negotiations or strikes. Sabotage may be committed by those advancing political or social agendas (terrorism), or it may be the work of foreign agents during times of war. Regardless of the motivation, sabotage is a type of workplace crime. The control of sabotage is similar to the control of theft in most cases.
Organized crime has been involved in some workplaces for many years. Infiltration of businesses, with the goal of exploiting their assets, is a common occurrence. Organized crime groups are now becoming involved with identity theft/fraud. Exploitation of an insider who provides confidential customer or employee information is a key concern. As information becomes a more valuable and accessible asset, such scenarios will likely increase.
Intelligence and crime analysis positions are becoming more common. In public sector organizations, there are often crime analysts employed by police departments. Intelligence analysts may be employed within law enforcement or investigative organizations. Major corporations are also using the services of those who can conduct applied research on an organization’s loss problems. Crime analysts help pinpoint where crime is occurring by day, time, and location. They aid in more effectively deploying personnel and other resources to address the crime problem. Intelligence analysts help to spot and track the activity of organized crime groups, terrorists, and embezzlers. The effective use of intelligence analysts helps to detect crime or loss problems that are forming. Intelligence analysts can also direct investigation into crime or loss situations. Exception reporting systems, which spot deviations from the norm, such as an unusual amount of voided sales at a cash register, are part of a theft intelligence system. Simply put, intelligence directs internal theft investigations. It tells us where to start looking.
The individual protection officer plays a key role in reducing workplace crime and deviance. Unfortunately, many organizations do not fully recognize this, relying instead on accountants, auditors, and human resources personnel to manage internal losses. This perspective is most often seen with uniformed security personnel; plainclothes personnel, such as retail loss prevention officers, tend to be more involved in internal loss problems. In retail, loss prevention agents do various forms of auditing, interviewing, and surveillance. In many cases, retail loss prevention officers also are involved in educational programs for employees. Coordinating and delivering awareness programs on internal loss, organized retail crime (ORC), safety, and related topics are functions that are often performed below the managerial level.Show more
Chapter
Investigation
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerChristopher A. Hertig
Conclusion
Investigation and asset protection are interrelated functions. Neither can exist in any real sense without the other. The contemporary protection officer serves as an intelligence agent for security management. As such, he or she is tasked with collecting and reporting all manner of information on potential loss-causing conditions. Information relating to crimes, accidents, and unethical/unprofessional practices has traditionally been collected by protection officers. Contemporary concerns with terrorism mandate that intelligence relating to potential terrorist activities be collected. Future officers will probably perform more auditing functions designed to catch errors and minimize waste.
In most cases, protection officers are involved in performing preliminary investigations. As the preliminary investigation is the most important phase of the investigative process, it is essential that it be conducted properly. This ensures that both security management and public police agencies can uncover facts necessary for the completion of their respective missions.
Proficiency and future growth and development in investigation depend on a mastery of the basic skills. Protective service professionals must master interviews (every conversation is an interview), note taking (edit and review notes at various stages of the investigation), and report writing. Efforts must also extend to testifying in legal and quasi-legal proceedings. Effective oral communication skills are a necessity if cases are to be presented effectively. They are also integral to the development of a professional image and more productive relations with management, police, clients, and the public at large.
Emerging Trends
As we deal with large scale disasters, arsons, or terrorist bombings, our ability to move from the emergency response phase of the event to the investigative phase is improving. Fire and EMS personnel are being taught crime scene preservation. Crime scenes must be more carefully processed than ever before. New scientific advances are enabling the collection of physical evidence such as DNA.
General loss interviewing is being done more frequently. This is a general conversational interview performed after an inventory has been conducted. It may also be performed after an “Orientation to Loss Prevention” session. It is somewhat open and informal; interviewers do this to uncover possible loss issues. Patrol officers also do this, as a general conversation with people encountered on patrol may lead to some indication of a problem. This initial information is then studied and further investigation conducted. The key is to make every conversation an interview, albeit in a subtle, easy, conversational manner.
Interviewing is becoming a more structured, methodological undertaking. There is more planning before going into an investigative interview and more time spent in building rapport. In law enforcement, videotaping is being used more often, whereas corporate interviews are using a two-person team approach. At the conclusion of the interview, the interviewer is debriefed by another investigator. This debriefing session is done for both operational reasons (making the interview better) and as part of Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD). CISD is designed to help the interviewer deal with stressful situations. The latter may occur after a focused interview where the interviewee gets very emotional and/or discusses a traumatic event.
Background investigations are becoming more commonplace. Increasingly, there is a legal requirement to conduct a preemployment check such as with schoolteachers, child care workers, nurses, etc. Background checks are the fastest growing area of investigative activity. Most of these investigations are being conducted by specialized firms such as USIS. There has been an explosive growth in the number of private investigative firms specializing in employee background investigations. There are hundreds of such companies in the United States alone.
Not all background investigations are performed by investigative firms. Some are conducted by governmental agencies such as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. In-house security departments may also conduct backgrounds; in other cases human resource departments do them. HR departments may also conduct part of the inquiry and contract out portions of it such as criminal records or credit checks.
With increasing privatization, it is likely that a greater proportion of investigative tasks will be performed by private investigative agencies and proprietary security departments. Driving forces for privatization are decreased budgets for public agencies and the need for specialized expertise. Public police agencies will probably contract out for various types of investigative services in the future more than at present. Investigative functions not currently envisioned will be carried out by both proprietary and contract security organizations.
In many corporate settings investigative plans are developed by investigative teams. These consist of human resources, legal, security, IT, and so on. The results of the investigation are reviewed by top management. Obviously, thoroughness and precise documentation are required in these situations.
There is a greater need for investigators to have computer skills. MS Office software is used extensively. Research and intelligence functions are performed online. Access control and surveillance logs are reviewed; the latter is becoming more important as video surveillance increases. Analytic video is becoming more common in both work environments and public streets. Once the information is collected, there is a need for some manner of human review. The information may also be moved into separate files for reporting purposes.
Liaison between different investigative entities is increasing and is taking place earlier in the investigative process. Obviously it is unfair for a retail loss prevention agent to suddenly give a police detective 30 bad check cases all at once. Managing the investigative workload must be given some thought. We cannot “dump on” our investigative partners.Show more
Introduction
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerIFPO
H Conclusion
The term protection officer frequently appears in this textbook. What is a protection officer?
Protection officers have many titles: security guard, security officer, campus police, loss prevention officer, crime prevention officer, retail loss prevention agent, military police, and several others. They can work part time or full time. They can be assigned to protect a person, a group of people, an office building, a network, a store or factory, and many other assets in many locations. Some are armed; some are unarmed. They can be employed as independent consultants, by a security services agency, by the military, by a state government, by the federal government, and by other organizations. The term “protection officer” is not easy to define. Titles vary, specific tasks vary, locations vary, employers vary, but the one thing that all protection officers have in common is that they are willing to take risks and put into place preventive measures to protect tangible assets, such as buildings, intangible assets, such as data, and of course, the public. They assume the risks so that others can go about their business and not have to worry about potential harm.
This textbook is written as a useful reference for security supervisors, managers, and those that teach; but the primary beneficiary is the student or working protection officer.
The editors of the Professional Protection Officer: Practical Security Strategies and Emerging Trends are honored to work with so many academicians, researchers, and outstanding security professionals since the planning of the first edition. These talented and dedicated security professionals have worked tirelessly in supporting, promoting, and contributing to the International Foundation for Protection Officers and all of its worthwhile programs. “We could not have done it without you!”
A special thanks goes to Alice Grime, Charles Thibodeau, and Jamie Ingram for their technical support and assistance in the production and development of this textbook.
Chapter
The Evolution of Asset Protection and Security
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerChristopher A. Hertig, John Christman
Commerce
Commerce has a tremendous relationship to asset protection. Professional security personnel must understand the marketing of their employer’s goods and services in order to be effective. A retail loss prevention agent must understand that selling merchandise is the reason for the existence of the store, not the apprehension of shoplifters. Marketing must be balanced with security. They are “both different sides of the same coin.” It can be said, in both a theoretical and practical sense, that “marketing is the ‘flip side’ of security.”
From the beginning of the nineteenth century until the development of the railroads, massive canal networks were constructed in the eastern United States. During their heyday, canals had asset protection concerns with accidents and labor shortages. Workers were sometimes injured and barges and canals damaged.
Railroad expansion during the nineteenth century was dramatic. Railroads were necessary to ship goods and raw materials in large quantities. Railroads had, and still have, a variety of security and safety issues. Nineteenth-century American railroads faced attacks and sabotage of tracks and telegraph lines by Native Americans, buffalo stampedes, wrecks, and labor difficulties. The labor problems included both shortages of workers and strikes. While the railroads had their own police forces and contracted with the Pinkerton Agency, they also relied on an external control force—the Union Army. The Army had nearly 5,000 soldiers patrolling along and around the tracks in 1868 (Matthews, 1990). Human resource management problems (recruitment of quality personnel), safety issues, and external threats faced by the railroads, parallel the challenges facing contemporary asset protection managers. Today’s manager is concerned with personnel recruitment (hiring) and retention (keeping workers), OSHA compliance, and external threats such as terrorist attacks.
Air transport is vulnerable to theft, safety problems, terrorists, and “air rage” by emotionally disturbed passengers. In 1969, numerous airplane hijackings occurred, and in 1974, the Anti-Hijacking and Air Transportation Security Act was passed, establishing security programs at airports. “Air rage” and the September 11 hijackings as well as the shoe bomb possessed by Richard Reid are more current issues.
Shipping on the high seas has historically presented problems with piracy and labor/human resource management (HRM) issues. Contemporary cruise ships face issues such as drunken, assaultive passengers and lawsuits due to cases of sexual harassment and rapes. The threat of terrorism is also very real, be it through the commandeering of a cruise ship, the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction aboard freighters, or attacks on ports such as detonating an explosive-laden ship within a harbor. Piracy—the robbery or hijacking of ships—continues to be a problem in some areas.
Telephone communication and Internet commerce are the new fronts for security issues relating to commerce. Disinformation (the deliberate dissemination of false information such as “urban legends”), theft of communications services, and so on are major concerns.
Chapter
Investigation
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerChristopher A. Hertig
Investigation and Asset Protection Go Hand-in-Hand
Uniformed protection officers on patrol or plainclothes loss prevention agents must be intimately familiar with their patrol environments. They must be able to discern when something isn’t right. In many cases, unusual or unexplained situations indicate criminal activity. The investigating officer on patrol must be able to first recognize things that aren’t quite right. This could be a vehicle parked in an unusual place, persons taking photographs, unusual trash disposal procedures, graffiti, hand gestures, clothing or “colors” worn around the area, persons conversing with others in an unusual way, etc. The list goes on and on. Each indicator could mean a variety of different things; terrorists or criminals conducting surveillance on a target, theft of materials, gang activity, or drug dealing.
One lesson to be learned regarding investigations is that major cases are solved via minor incidents. Murderers get caught parking illegally or shoplifting. While detectives and other investigative specialists may piece incidents together, it is the patrol officer who takes note of something and acts upon it that supplies the key information. Small observations often yield big results: “Minor Is Major.”
Along a similar vein, a review of accidents, terrorist attacks, or acts of workplace violence all have indicators that they are about to take place. After the unfortunate event has happened, it is often noted what all the indicators were present that should have been seen earlier. Perhaps better playing of the intelligence agent role is one means of taking corrective action before tragedy strikes.
In order to fulfill the intelligence agent role effectively, protection personnel must also be able to report what they observe in an articulate manner. They must “get it right” on paper. And they should always reinforce the written report with a verbal report to the appropriate personnel.
Investigation has nothing to do with stylish clothes, gunfights, or flashy cars. It is not glamorous. Rather, it is tedious and exacting. It has to do with fact-finding and research. Investigation is simply an objective process used to discover facts about a situation, person, or behavior. Once those facts are discovered, they are recorded in an appropriate manner. Investigation has a great deal to do with research; those who like to do Web or library research may acclimate themselves to investigative activity better than those who disdain research. Investigation requires precision and attention to detail. It culminates in writing reports about the known facts. These reports are the product of the investigation.
Investigation is important because without facts, management cannot make the correct decisions. As the security officer is a member of the security management team, it may be his/her responsibility to provide management with information. Usually the security officer will give investigative information to his or her supervisor and they will provide it to management. He/she reports this information after conducting some type of investigative activity (searching for something, talking with people, observing something, etc.).
Chapter
Role of the Professional Protection Officer
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerKevin Palacios, Christopher A. Hertig
Definition of a Protection Officer
A professional protection officer is a person whose primary job function is the protection of people and assets. The protection officer is dedicated to protecting organizations, individuals, or various publics (customers, visitors, patients, the general public, etc.). Protection officers work to give everyone peace of mind. The officers focus on safety and security so that others may concentrate on their own primary concerns. Although employees need to focus on their work, they must also be concerned about safety hazards or the actions of criminals. Students in a school are there to learn. Visitors are to conduct whatever business they have in a facility (distribution center, library, park, etc.). Customers in a retail store are to have an enjoyable shopping experience. At the same time each of these groups must have a healthy concern for their own safety and security.
The professional career path of a protection officer (PO) might take him through the operational level (basic protection officer), supervisory level (Certified Protection Officer), and strategic level (management). The change in level and job title represents the addition of responsibilities, but the core of the job description remains the same. A person who chooses a career path in safety or security will never stop being a protection officer. They will never cease to protect people, information, assets, reputation, and the environment surrounding an organization.
The protection officer may be acting as the agent or representative of the landlord. They may not have any arrest authority beyond that of a regular citizen. In other cases they may have some type of police commission with specific arrest authority: they may arrest for certain offenses and/or within a specific area. They may be members of a law enforcement organization whose job assignment is protecting a public figure, coordinating crime prevention activities, or guarding government buildings. Protection officers may be civilian or military, sworn or unsworn. Job titles vary considerably; a protection officer may be referred to in different ways. While the more common titles are “security officer,” “security guard,” or “retail loss prevention agent,” some protection officers may have the title of “police officer,” “campus police officer,” “special officer,” “crime prevention coordinator,” “loss prevention officer,” “deputy sheriff,” “military policeman,” and so on. (In many states these titles are controlled by state law. The state statutes should be reviewed in each state to determine the words you may or may not use.)
This protection officer could have full-time, part-time, or occasional employment. Part-time security work is very common in some areas. Many security service firms are largely staffed by part-time personnel. Amusement parks that are open during the summer may employ a large seasonal staff during the busy season. The security department may be managed by a small core of permanent persons. It is not unusual for police officers to work occasional security details. This may be while they are on official police duty or it may be while off-duty for a private employer. Security service firms that provide protection during special events may use a combination of regular staff, part-time probation officers, and a few off-duty police. Sometimes persons in the military are assigned to security work temporarily within the armed forces. In other cases they work for a civilian employer as a security officer or retail loss prevention agent.
The key is that the person’s major focus is on protection of others, tangible assets such as property, or intangible assets such as information or reputation. Legal authority or job title is not the determinant of what a “protection officer” is.
Chapter
Human Relations in a Global Environment
2010, The Professional Protection OfficerChristopher A. Hertig, Darrien Davenport1.
In a multicultural world, what type of language must a protection officer use to gain the trust of their audience?a.
Invasiveb.
Inclusivec.
Inquisitived.
Terse2.
The protection officer’s ability to effectively communicate will also be enhanced by _____ listening.a.
Activeb.
Effectivec.
Selectived.
All of the above3.
In a multicultural world, leadership ability can determine if a protection officer has the aptitude and capacity to protect their customer.a.
Trueb.
False4.
Future policing will depend in large part on the type of society being policed—the ______, ________, _____________ realities and, in more developed countries, the technological sophistication of the populace.a.
Situational, intellectual, and familialb.
Ethical, political, and multiculturalc.
Legal, societal, and personald.
Social, economic, and political5.
Globalization has grown largely due to the lowering of shipping costs.a.
Trueb.
False6.
Sexual harassment has traditionally taken the form of a hostile environment.a.
Trueb.
False7.
Women in protection are taking on more leadership roles than ever before. There is, however, a _____ ceiling that prevents them from being promoted beyond a certain level.a.
Raisedb.
Glassc.
Plasticd.
Acoustic8.
The first female investigator was Kate Warne.a.
Trueb.
False9.
Racial profiling in retail is counterproductive as it:a.
May alienate customers who belong to the group being watchedb.
Take the loss prevention agent’s attention away from actual thievesc.
May result in civil litigationd.
All of the above10.
Supply chain security is a rapidly growing area for both corporations and government.a.
Trueb.
FalseShow more
Chapter
Protecting Commercial and Institutional Critical Infrastructure
2013, Security and Loss Prevention (Sixth Edition)Philip P. Purpura
Commercial Facilities
The commercial facilities (CF) sector is diverse in the types of services and products offered to the public. CF subsectors are explained next from the Commercial Facilities Sector-Specific Plan: An Annex to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2010):•
Entertainment and Media includes television, radio, motion picture, and media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, and books) businesses.•
Gaming Facilities represents casinos and associated businesses such as hotels and restaurants.•
Lodging refers to hotels and motels.•
Outdoor Events are amusement parks, fairs, parks, and other outdoor venues.•
Public Assembly refers to conventions centers, stadiums, arenas, movie theaters, and other sites where many people gather.•
Real Estate represents office buildings, apartment buildings, condominiums, and other similar sites.•
Sports Leagues consist of the major sports leagues and federations.•
Retail includes shopping malls, strip malls, and freestanding retail sites.
A large number of people congregate at these locations to live, work, conduct business, shop, and enjoy restaurants and entertainment (Figure 17-1). The CF sector is dependent on other sectors such as energy, banking and finance, and transportation. The CF subsectors have similar and dissimilar protection needs, and since most of the CF sector is privately owned, the operators are responsible for assessing risks and implementing protection and resilience programs. Day-to-day protection is often the responsibility of private sector proprietary and contract security personnel with the assistance of physical security and fire protection technology. Public safety agencies provide emergency response.
HSPD-7 designated the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as the sector-specific agency for the CF sector. DHS provides assistance through advisories and alerts; efforts to bring groups together to enhance protection; site assistance; assessment tools; courses; and designation of an event (e.g., Superbowl) as a National Security Special Event, resulting in federal law enforcement participation and aid. Various guidelines, standards, codes, and regulations involving private sector organizations and government agencies also play an important role in protecting people and assets at CF. For example, FEMA published a series of risk management manuals providing guidance for designing buildings and mitigating threats and all-hazards.
Retail Subsector
The retail subsector is emphasized here. It contains many characteristics, vulnerabilities, threats, and hazards facing other CF subsectors. Examples are crimes associated with the acceptance of payment for products and services (e.g., internal theft and robbery), a constant flow of customers, access control and crowd control challenges, and the hiring of temporary and part-time employees. At the same time, the retail subsector is unique because store designs encourage people to enter. There is no payment to enter and very limited access controls. In addition, stores that “harden” security may discourage customer traffic and sales. For instance, customers often carry bags and other items that may contain contraband; searches would inconvenience customers.
The retail subsector generates over $4 trillion in annual sales, consists of 1.6 million U.S. establishments, and employs over 24 million (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2010: 7). Collective interests of the retail industry are represented through the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. These professional groups enhance the retail industry through advocacy (i.e., communicating with legislators), research, professional development, education programs, loss prevention, protection of the global supply chain, and several other activities.
The retail subsector is regulated primarily at the state and local levels through building and fire codes that have an emphasis on safety. On the federal level, OSHA requirements promote safety and OSHA has increasingly encouraged workplace violence prevention programs as explained in the next chapter. Various public and private sector standard-setting organizations and government requirements also apply to retailing.
Retailers apply numerous security and loss prevention strategies as explained throughout this book. With a very small profit margin in many retail businesses, loss prevention is a necessity for survival. Of particular importance is screening applicants, training, business continuity planning, and coordination with public police and other public safety agencies.
Loss Prevention at Retail Businesses
Shrinkage
As defined in Chapter 11, shrinkage is the amount of merchandise that has disappeared through theft, has become useless because of breakage or spoilage, or is unaccounted for because of sloppy recording. It is often expressed as a percentage. In retail businesses, guidelines are often in place to hold managers of stores, departments, and loss prevention responsible for shrinkage. The reality of retailing is that those who fail to meet shrinkage goals may be dismissed.
Several organizations publish shrinkage figures and these organizations depend on reporting by retailers; there is no government requirement that retailers must report shrinkage figures. The Center for Retail Research publishes an annual Global Retail Theft Barometer (GRTB). For the twelve-month period ending June 2011, the GRTB reported shrinkage cost respondent retailers $119.1 billion, which equaled 1.45 percent of retail sales. The results were 6.6 percent higher than the previous year. The sources of shrinkage face continuous debate, especially in reference to shoplifting versus employee dishonesty. In reference to causation, the 2011 GRTB showed the following percentages of total shrinkage: 43.2 percent from shoplifting and organized retail theft, 35.0 percent from employee dishonesty, 16.2 percent from errors in pricing and accounting mistakes, and 5.6 percent from supplier/vendor fraud (DiLonardo, 2012: 60).
The University of Florida, noted for its National Retail Security Survey (NRSS), found that, in 2010, 140 responding retail chains reported an average shrinkage of 1.49 percent of total annual sales, a slight increase from the previous year. Employee theft resulted in 45 percent of shrinkage, whereas shoplifting resulted in 31 percent of shrinkage. These figures were almost identical to the previous year. This survey of U.S. retailers reported $35.28 billion of lost profits from shrinkage, $15.9 billion from employee theft, $10.94 billion from shoplifting, and the remainder from paperwork errors and vendor fraud (Hollinger, 2011: 24–26).
The Hayes International Annual Retail Theft Survey found that, in 2010, dishonest employees stole almost six times the amount stolen by shoplifters. On a per case average, employee thieves stole $640 and shoplifters stole $108 (Doyle, 2011: 10).
For career survival in retail loss prevention, an accurate inventory and precisely pin-pointing the cause of shrinkage are very important.
Human Resources Problems in Retailing
Because retail loss prevention is highly dependent on the efforts of all employees, it is important to discuss the realities of human resources problems in retailing. This includes many part-time and/or temporary employees, inexperienced workers, training challenges, employees dissatisfied with working conditions (e.g., low wages and long hours), and high turnover. Research by Hollinger (2011: 26) found the following: “When we looked at the most likely causes of inventory shrinkage, both sales associate turnover and heavy reliance on a part-time workforce are again the two most obvious correlates.” Loss can become a by-product of each of these personnel factors. For instance, some part-time employees may be working during holiday seasons to make extra money and may steal to support gift expenses. A high rate of turnover creates additional training expenses and many inexperienced employees. These problems, coupled with poor performance, are especially troublesome to retailers because such employees are in direct contact with customers and this can have a negative impact on sales and customer loyalty.
Remedies for the above challenges include cost-effective screening, adequate socialization, auditing, and investigations. Another possible measure would be to assign part-time and temporary employees to be supervised by and work with permanent, experienced employees. Additionally, inexperienced employees could be barred from performing certain tasks and entering specific areas. Besides potential losses from part-time and temporary employees, loss prevention planning must also consider full-time regular employees.
Screening
The quality of job applicant screening is dependent on numerous factors. In a small store, the owner may interview the applicant; record pertinent information, such as address, telephone number, and social security number; and ask for a few references. In large multistore organizations, however, employment procedures are commonly more structured and controlled. Cambern (2010: 71) writes of vulnerabilities from retail employees obtained from staffing agencies. She writes that adverse results (e.g., criminal convictions) from background checks are higher for contract workers that for other employees. In addition, she notes that the most common alert is a bogus social security number, which signals false identity. Hollinger (2011: 26) reports that the “hottest” screening methods are criminal history checks, followed by honesty testing and computer-assisted interviews.
Socialization
Various training programs are applicable to adequately socialize an employee toward business objectives. Training can reduce employee mistakes and losses, raise productivity, create customer satisfaction, and reduce turnover.
Some retail businesses require employees to sign a statement that they understand the loss prevention program. This procedure reinforces loss prevention programming. Furthermore, as models of appropriate work attitudes and behavior, executives should set a good example and practice what is preached.
Numerous loss prevention awareness programs are applied by retailers. These include anonymous telephone hot lines, online reporting, discussions about shrinkage, bulletin board notices and posters, employee code of conduct, honesty incentives, and a variety of online and video training programs.
Internal Loss Prevention Strategies
The content of Chapter 7 on internal theft is pertinent to retailing. There are numerous targets for internal theft: merchandise, damaged items, cash, repair service, office supplies and tools, parts, time, samples for customers, food and beverages, and personal property. Research by Hollinger (2011) shows that apprehension and termination are common responses to employee theft. In addition, rapid detection of dishonest employees appears to keep losses down.
Although internal theft is a major part of the internal loss problem, there are other categories of internal losses. Examples are accidents, fire, unproductive employees, unintentional and intentional mistakes, and excessive absenteeism and lateness.
Besides screening applicants, training, and technological solutions, here are other strategies applied by companies to address internal losses:•
Motivation, morale, and rewards: Management must attempt to help employees feel as if they are an integral part of the business organization. Praise for an employee’s accomplishments can go a long way in improving morale. Other methods of increasing morale and motivation are clean working conditions and participative management. Contest and reward programs are also helpful. The employee with the best loss prevention idea of the month could be rewarded with $50 and recognition in a company newspaper.•
Employee discounts: Employee discounts usually range between 15 percent and 25 percent. These discounts are an obvious benefit to employee morale even though employees sometimes abuse this discount by making purchases for relatives and friends.•
Shopping service: A shopping service is a business that assists retail loss prevention efforts by supplying investigators who pose as customers to test retail associates for honesty, accuracy, and demeanor. One common test of associates involves two shoppers who enter a store separately, acting as customers. One buys an item, pays for it with exact change, and leaves, while the second shopper, pretending to be a customer, observes whether the associate rings up the sale or pockets the money. Theft of cash is not the only source of loss; revenues are lost because of the curt or even abrasive behavior of some sales associates.•
Undercover investigations: Investigations can be used as a last resort when other controls fail. By penetrating employee informal organizations, investigators are able to obtain considerable information that may expose collusion and weaknesses in controls.
Preventing Losses at the Checkout Counters
Checkout counters are also called point-of-sale (POS) areas (Figure 17-2). These locations in a retail business accommodate customer payments, refunds, and service. Although most cashiers are honest, and scanning technology prevents losses, the following activities hinder profits:
1.
Stealing money from the cash drawer2.
Overcharging customers, keeping a mental record, and stealing the money at a later time3.
Presenting the customer with the wrong change4.
Accepting bad checks, bad charge cards, and counterfeit money5.
Making pricing mistakes6.
Undercharging for relatives and friends7.
Failing to notice an altered price8.
Failing to notice shoplifted items secreted in legitimate purchases
O’Donnell and Meehan (2012) report that retailers are increasingly adding self-checkouts for customer convenience. However, the technology creates opportunities for theft, such as leaving items in the cart, hiding items, or manipulating an item so it is not scanned.
Cashier Socialization of Procedures
The quality of training will have a direct bearing on accountability at checkout counters. Procedural training can include, but is not limited to, the following:1.
Assign each cashier to a particular cash drawer and register/computer.2.
Have each transaction recorded separately and the cash drawer closed afterward.3.
Establish a system for giving receipts to customers.4.
Train cashiers to count change carefully.5.
Show cashiers how to spot irregularities (e.g., altered prices).6.
Encourage cashiers to seek supervision when appropriate (e.g., question about customer credit).
Point-of-Sale Accounting Systems
Retailers apply point-of-sale (POS) accounting systems with bar code or Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technologies to produce vital business information. (See Chapter 11 for the applications of RFID technology.) During inventory or at the checkout counters these systems collect information from the bar code or RFID attached to merchandise. This stored information provides a perpetual inventory and is helpful in ascertaining what is in stock and in ordering merchandise. In addition to shrinkage figures, POS systems produce a variety of loss prevention reports, exposing cashiers who repeatedly have cash shortages, bad checks, voids, and other problems. Voids are used to eradicate and record mistakes by cashiers at the checkouts. Theft occurs when, for instance, a cashier voids a legitimate no-mistake sale and pockets the money. Specialized software helps to pinpoint irregularities. Ratios are also helpful to spot losses; examples include cash to charge sales and sales to refunds. These processes and software within POS systems are designed to reduce and investigate irregularities and are referred to as exception reporting.
The Counterfeiting of Bar Codes
As technology improves retail operations, it also presents vulnerabilities. The counterfeiting of bar codes is a nuisance to retailers. The fraud involves using a computer to scan bar codes of inexpensive merchandise, printing copies of the bar codes, and placing the counterfeit bar codes onto expensive items. In addition, offenders are assisted by software available on the Internet. In one case, two married couples used counterfeit bar codes to purchase merchandise at Wal-Mart and two other retail chains, and then they returned the items for full value. Their con included entering stores at peak hours when employees were busy. Wal-Mart lost about $1.5 million from the scam. In another case, an offender used counterfeit bar codes to purchase Lego sets for a fraction of the actual value, and then he sold the sets on a website for toy collectors (Zimmerman, 2006; Beaulieu, 2005: 15).
CCTV and Video Analytics
POS systems are often linked to IP-based network cameras, video analytics, and network video recording (see Chapter 7). System capabilities enable retailers to view video of a cash register total, date, time, and other information as the merchandise is being sold. Furthermore, “exceptions” noted by the POS system can also trigger CCTV and a recording for later reference. Certain retailers are recording every transaction on every register. Today’s technology permits the viewing of video images on personal digital assistants and cell phones.
The Internet has enhanced the capabilities of CCTV systems. At one retail store chain, the plan is to keep an eye on widely dispersed stores, avoid the expense of a central station, and reduce time and travel costs of loss prevention personnel. The installed system permits real-time video through the Internet from a PC, laptop, or other device. Video is accessed through a secure, password-protected website. The digital video is archived on a secure server at a remote location without the need for loss prevention personnel to maintain files. Optional features helped to sell the system to senior executives. Examples are customer traffic counting, time and attendance of employees, and the transmission of in-house commercials to store TV screens. CCTV cameras are placed at front and back doors, the POS, and the back hallway. The cameras at the doors are linked to contact alarms so that each time a door is opened, loss prevention personnel receive an e-mail. In one case, a manager was caught improperly opening a back door by not following strict procedures. The manager was called on the telephone immediately for corrective action (Anderson, 2001: 22–23).
Aubele (2011: 48–53) describes the combination of POS and video analytics as follows. Although these systems are improving, Aubele refers to the analysis of pixels of digitized video of customer and cashier behaviors to spot irregularities, such as when a cashier pretends to scan a bar code of an item so a friend receives the item for free. Such automation helps to mitigate the problem of fatigue from watching TV monitors. These systems are also capable of identifying an item left in or at the bottom of a shopping cart at the POS, reading the bar code, and adding it to the transaction. Retailers often test new technology at a few stores before installation company-wide.
Aubele (2011: 48–53) refers to the benefits of cloud computing (see Chapter 16) in that retailers often do not have the capital to invest in expanded IT, so it can be rented rather than purchased. Retailers can store POS and camera data off-site with the cloud vendor. Percoco (2011: 76–78) warns that the many POS systems with direct access to the Internet face malware, botnets, and other risks. He argues for strong cybersecurity to protect these systems.
As the effectiveness of facial recognition systems increase and as the cost drops, retailers will increasingly apply this technology to identify known shoplifters, banned customers, and others who committed fraud and other crimes against the retailer.
Electronic Payments
Electronic payments, such as the use of credit and debit cards, are more popular than payments by cash or check. Credit cards permit the extension of credit with delayed payment, whereas debit cards charge the account at the time of the transaction. Credit and debit cards have a magnetic stripe that contains information on the account, such as customer name and account number. The customer’s card is “swiped” for electronic authorization to ensure that the account is valid and the purchase is within the account limit. Then the transaction is completed with the user’s signature. Although technology assists retailers in speeding payment transactions and saving on fees, at the same time, technology brings vulnerabilities (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2012).
In many locales throughout the world, a conversion is occurring from magnetic stripe to the “chip-and-PIN” card to speed transactions, especially for low-value payments (e.g., a cup of coffee), and to increase security. In the “chip-and-PIN” card, information is stored in a small computer chip. The customer places the card near a proximity reader, similar to an access card, and enters a personal identification number (PIN) instead of providing a signature. This newer type of card is less likely to be copied than the magnetic stripe card. A variation of this technology is referred to as “contactless payment systems,” and a PIN is not required. Both the “chip-and-PIN” and “contactless” methods use a proximity reader to obtain information from the RFID computer chip imbedded in the card. Proponents claim that encryption protects the information. Critics argue that an offender nearby, armed with a specialized reader, might capture information on cards held by the customer (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2012; DiLonardo, 2006: 116).
Another type of technology to save retailers money and provide quicker customer payment is known as “pay-by-finger.” This biometric fingerprint technology requires customers to place a finger on a scanner to register the transaction with their bank account to debit their account without using a card, entering a PIN, or writing a check. Customers enroll at a kiosk by providing identification, bank information, and a finger scan. The information is encrypted and store employees do not have access to the information. Opponents of this technology claim that retailers should consider the operational impact on the business, data center issues, setup costs, and customer security (Gaur and Gilliland, 2006).
Card fraud is a huge problem costing billions of dollars. The three major groups involved in card usage are card issuers (banks, oil companies, retail businesses, travel, and entertainment groups), acceptors (merchants), and users. All of these groups are susceptible to losses due to fraud. Lost or stolen cards can cause monetary loss to users. Acceptors who are careless may become financially responsible for fraud under certain circumstances and could even be placed at a competitive disadvantage if no longer authorized to accept the issuer’s card. Card issuers absorb billions of dollars in losses annually. Crime involving cards is varied and compounded because of identity theft. Vulnerabilities include theft of cards from the postal system and counterfeiting of cards.
The Commercial Facilities Sector-Specific Plan: An Annex to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2010: 160) refers to the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. It is a global information security standard designed to assist entities in preventing fraud when processing card payments. Businesses such as MasterCard, Visa, and American Express worked to prepare the standard. It covers topics such as network security and protecting cardholder data.
Although laws have been enacted to deter card fraud (e.g., Credit Card Fraud Act), the effectiveness of criminal laws is limited; we still have widespread card fraud. As with other risks, prevention is vital. Following are some loss prevention strategies (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2012) for retailers, although, if a store is busy, employees may not have time to thoroughly check cards.•
Ask the customer for a photo ID containing their signature and compare the photo with the customer and the signature on the ID and card.•
Check for alterations in a card, such as letters and numbers not lining up.•
Look for the holograph that changes its color and image as the card is tilted.•
Search for fine-line printing, such as a repeated pattern of the card company name.•
If the card contains ultra-violet ink, it will be visible under ultra-violet light and display, for instance, the card company logo.
E-Business
E-business (using Internet-based technologies), phone order, and mail order are particularly vulnerable to fraud because the customer and the card are not present for the transaction. Offenders obtain card numbers from many sources (e.g., discarded receipts, stealing customer information, and hacking into a business), establish a mail drop, and then place fraudulent orders. Woodward (2012) reported that an Internet Retailer survey found that 72 percent of e-retailers have a fraud rate of less than 1.0 percent and 21 percent have a rate of between 1.0 and 3.0 percent.
In one case, the owner of a computer parts company in New Jersey became concerned when he received a $15,000 order from Bucharest, Romania. The owner tried to contact the credit card authorization company and the bank that works with the processing company to verify the credit cards. However, they were not able to assist, so the owner telephoned the customer and had him fax his Romanian driver’s license and other documents to the owner. The owner then shipped the parts via UPS at about the same time the bank became suspicious and called the owner to say that all the cards used in the order were fraudulent. The owner was lucky when the shipment was intercepted in Bucharest.
Various tools are available to retailers to control fraud. Examples are IP geolocation products that analyze transaction risk based on geographic data, tools that use various metrics (e.g., dollar amounts and frequency) to monitor orders, and lists that show good customers. Barlas (2012) offers the following loss prevention strategies:•
Exercise caution (e.g., telephone the customer to confirm the order) if the shipping address differs from the billing address.•
Besides obtaining a card number and expiration date, request the three or four digit code on the card. The location of the code on the card varies with the issuer.•
Avoid processing an order if card and other necessary information are incomplete.•
Exercise caution with large orders, those from overseas, purchases with several cards, and orders from e-mail forwarding addresses.•
Employ card issuer services that authenticate customers.
Visa Security
Swartz (2012) describes security at a Visa Operations Center. Because hundreds of millions of daily card transactions are processed at Operations Center East (OCE), and at one other North American site, and because purchases on smartphones and tablets are expected to grow substantially, security is a high priority for Visa.
The main threats are profit-minded hackers and fraud. Visa employees work to keep hackers out of the network, address potential fraud, and ensure the network operates as designed. Visa has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on state-of-the-art technology and software (e.g., transaction risk scoring, transaction alerts, and encryption). Such efforts have reduced global fraud rates to 6 cents per $100 spent.
Security at OCE includes former military personnel, hundreds of cameras, bollards beneath the road, close turns to slow vehicles, and a drainage pond that serves as a moat. To access the huge facility, a guard station is the first layer of security, followed by a mobile security officer, and then a photo and fingerprint are required. Next, a “mantrap” is opened with the use of a badge and biometric image of the fingerprint.
The OCE command center looks like the one at NASA and includes a 40′×20′ wall of screens to monitor the global network that processes about 2,500 transactions per second. The main walkway is approximately three football fields long and is connected to several pods, each containing 20,000 square feet for mainframes, storage, cables, and other items.
The facility can withstand earthquakes and hurricane winds of up to 170 mph. In the event of a power failure, diesel generators can supply electricity for nine days.
Data centers are increasing in number because of the enormous demand for digital data, the growth of cloud computing, and the use of smartphones and tablets. Google, Facebook, and Apple are among many companies that have built huge data centers, often in rural areas to save money on land and electricity.
Checks
Although the popularity of credit and debit cards has reduced the use of checks, retailers continue to sustain losses from checks. A check is nothing more than a piece of paper until the money is collected. It may be worthless. Characteristics of bad checks include an inappropriate date, written figures that differ from numeric figures on the same check, and smeared ink. Sources of bad checks are varied and include customers who write checks with no funds in their checking accounts. Offenders may write bad checks by using stolen checks or by writing checks from a nonexistent account. Counterfeit checks (e.g., bogus personal checks or bogus payroll checks) are another problem growing worse because of computers, desktop publishing, check-writing software, newer color copier machines, scanners, and laser printers.
Various strategies are applied to mitigate the problem of bad checks. A retailer may choose to hire a service that verifies the legitimacy of checks before accepting them. Retailer policies and procedures may include carefully examining checks, not accepting checks over a certain amount, seeking supervisory approval for checks written over a certain amount, prohibiting checks from out of state, never providing cash for a check, and obtaining a thumbprint of the customer. Retail employees should scrutinize customer identification for irregularities. Many employees look at identification cards but do not see irregularities. Concentration is necessary to match (or not to match) the customer with the identification presented.
A retailer’s recovery from a bad check depends on the circumstances. Procedures depend on the state and retailers should query local police and prosecutors. A retailer may have to send the check writer a registered letter requiring payment (if the check writer has a legitimate address). If the letter is not effective, the retailer may be required to sign a warrant against the person who wrote the bad check.
In one jurisdiction, a “bad-check brigade” was formed. A magistrate coordinates the warrants, which are distributed to constables (part-time law enforcers) who are paid for each warrant served. Each week the brigade takes numerous offenders to jail. Retailers should check with public police about local practices. Some jurisdictions require collection through civil procedures. Another strategy, especially for large retailers, is to contract collection work to specialized firms.
If a retailer receives a check returned from a bank stating that there is “no account” or “account closed,” then fraud may have been perpetuated. The police should be notified. An altered or forged U.S. government check should be reported to the U.S. Secret Service.
Refund Fraud
In loosely controlled businesses, employees have an opportunity to retain a customer receipt (or hope that the customer leaves one) and use it to substantiate a fraudulent customer refund (i.e., merchandise supposedly returned for money). With the receipt used to support the phony refund, the employee is “covered” and can pocket the cash.
Especially bold offenders might enter a store, pick up merchandise, and then go directly to the checkout counter and demand a cash refund without a receipt. Another ploy is to use a stolen credit card to purchase merchandise and then obtain a refund at another branch store. In other instances, collusion may take place between employees and customers.
Refund fraud is minimized through well-controlled supervision and accountability. Consider requesting photo identification and writing a check for refunds over a certain amount. A supervisor should account for returned merchandise before it is returned to the sales floor and sign and date the sales receipt after writing refund. Stelter (2011) reports that retailers are finding that issuing carefully worded warnings to suspect-customers reduces the problem. In addition, knowing that customer service is important and that a small percentage of offenders commit refund fraud, one retailer established a controlled environment for refunds whereby loss prevention professionals are notified if deviations from policy occur.
Gift Card Losses
Gift cards generate profits for retailers and the use of these cards is increasing. The methods of gift card fraud, committed mostly by employees, includes card swapping by cashiers at the POS, “skimming” gift cards to produce duplicates, and using fraudulent credit cards to purchase gift cards. Fraudulent gift cards are used by employees, traded, or sold to local residents or online. Countermeasures focus on inventories of cards, sales data, exception reports, and surveillance.
Counterfeiting
Counterfeiting is the unlawful duplication of something valuable in order to deceive. Counterfeit items can include money, coupons, credit or debit cards, clothes, and jewelry. Here, the emphasis is counterfeit money. The U.S. Secret Service investigates this federal offense.
Persons who recognize that they have counterfeit money will not be reimbursed when they give it to the Secret Service. Because of this potential loss, many people knowingly pass the bogus money to others. The extended chain of custody from the counterfeiter to authorities causes great difficulty during investigations.
Counterfeiting is a growing problem because of the newer color copier machines, scanners, computers, and laser printers that are in widespread use. The best method to reduce this type of loss is through the ability to recognize counterfeit money, and an excellent way to do this is to compare a suspect bill with a genuine bill. The U.S. government has countered counterfeiting through a variety of security features on bills. One should look for the red and blue fibers that are scattered throughout a genuine bill. These fibers are curved, about 1/4 inch long, hair thin, and difficult to produce on bogus bills. Other security features on genuine bills are a security thread embedded in the bill running vertically to the left of the Federal Reserve seal, microprinting on the rim of the portrait, a watermark (hold the bill up to light to see the faint image similar to the portrait), and color-shifting ink (tilt the bill repeatedly to see shifting ink color).
Watch for $1 bills that have counterfeit higher denomination numbers glued over the lower denomination numbers. Also, compare suspect coins with genuine coins.
Another technique is the bleaching of a real, lower denomination bill (to wash away the ink), followed by placing the blank bill on a printer to apply a higher denomination bill. This method of counterfeiting may defeat the use of counterfeit detector pens used by cashiers because the pens react to starch in paper by showing a black mark. However, genuine bills are actually cloth and devoid of starch; the pen will create a golden mark.
Shoplifting
Shoplifting is a multibillion-dollar problem as presented in the explanation of shrinkage. To reduce it, loss prevention practitioners should have an understanding of the types of shoplifters, motivational factors, shoplifting techniques, and countermeasures.
Types of Shoplifters and Motivational Factors
Amateur shoplifters, also referred to as snitches, represent the majority of shoplifters. These persons generally steal on impulse while often possessing the money to pay for the item. Individuals in this category represent numerous demographic variables (e.g., sex, age, social class, ethnicity, and race). The distinguishing difference between the amateur and the professional thief is that the former shoplifts for personal use, whereas the latter shoplifts to sell the goods for a profit.
Generally, juveniles take merchandise that they can use, such as clothing and recreational items. Frequently working in groups, their action is often motivated by peer pressure or a search for excitement.
Because of the nature of their work, easy-access shoplifters are less likely to be scrutinized than customers and they may be familiar with retail operations and loss prevention programs. Delivery personnel, repair technicians, and public inspectors are included in this category. Even public police and fire personnel have been known to represent this group, especially during emergencies. The motivation is obvious: to get something for nothing.
Fairly easy to detect, drunk or vagrant shoplifters usually steal liquor, food, and clothing for personal use or shoplift other merchandise to sell for cash. These persons often are under the influence of alcohol and have a previous alcohol-related arrest record.
Addict shoplifters are extremely dangerous because of their illegal drug dependence and accompanying desperation. These persons generally peddle stolen items for illegal drugs or cash. Addicts may “grab and run.”
Kleptomania is a rare, persistent, neurotic impulse to steal. Kleptomaniacs usually shoplift without considering the value or personal use of the item, and seemingly want to be caught. This type of shoplifter usually has a criminal record from previous apprehensions and may have been caught several times at the same retail store.
Professionals or “boosters” account for a small percentage of those caught shoplifting. (This low figure could be the result of the professional’s skill in avoiding apprehension.) The motive is profit or resale of shoplifted merchandise. Professionals may utilize a booster box (i.e., a box that looks wrapped and tied, but really contains a secret opening), hooks inside clothing, or extra long pockets. A criminal record is typical, as are ties to a fence and ORT.
Organized Retail Theft and Countermeasures
Organized retail theft (ORT) refers to gangs of offenders who victimize retail businesses by stealing and selling the merchandise for illegal profit. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011a) and the retail industry refer to losses from ORT at $30 billion annually; this figure includes other crimes against retailers such as card fraud. The FBI focuses primarily on significant cases involving the interstate transportation of stolen property. Its strategies include partnering with other police agencies and retailers, undercover operations, and recruiting offenders as informants (e.g., “letting a little fish off easy to prosecute a big fish”). Since police resources are limited, the retail industry is heavily involved in combating ORT through ORT investigative teams, use of data bases, training, and improving legislation. Cooperation is essential between retailers and law enforcement agencies, especially because vehicles may be stopped, search warrants executed, and subpoenas obtained for Internet records.
ORT gangs sell stolen merchandise to local residents, at flea markets and Internet auction sites, back to legitimate retailers, and/or work with a network of fences who sell the items to similar markets. The e-fence sells stolen items online.
Muscato and Pearson (2010: 58–66) refer to the “Booster Business Plan.” They write that professional shoplifters and ORT gangs may set a daily monetary theft goal, work hard to reach the goal, and the results show on their “profit and loss statement” as tax-free profit. The business plan also considers risk management. For example, losses are mitigated by using multiple fences in case one is arrested and the booster’s cash flow is interrupted.
The financial impact of just one booster gang in one targeted market is explained next from Muscato and Pearson. Before members of this ORT gang were arrested, they stole about $5,000 per day and worked about five days a week. Muscato and Pearson estimated a cumulative annual loss at retail of $1,300,000 and the gang’s profit margin averaged 20 percent on the dollar, yielding a gross income of about $260,000. This example shows the importance of combatting ORT.
Muscato and Pearson offer the following remedies. Increase associate awareness and action, such as “Bob” and “Lisa.” At the POS, the former refers to checking the bottom of the basket and the latter refers to looking inside always (i.e., merchandise hidden in merchandise). They also recommend using a greeter, educating police detectives who investigate property crimes, and more precise criminal laws that focus on those who try to defeat electronic article surveillance systems, create bar codes and receipts, and sell stolen items at flea markets.
Shoplifting Techniques
The following list presents only a few of the many shoplifting techniques:1.
Shoplifters may work alone or in a group.2.
A person may simply shoplift an item and conceal it in his or her clothing.3.
A person may “palm” a small item and conceal it in a glove.4.
Shoplifters often go into a fitting room with several garments and either conceal an item or wear it and leave the store.5.
An offender may ask to see more items than a clerk can control or send the clerk to the stockroom for other items; while the counter is unattended, items are stolen.6.
A self-service counter can provide an opportunity for a shoplifter to pull out and examine several items while returning only half of them.7.
Merchandise is often taken to a deserted location (e.g., restroom, elevator, stockroom, janitor’s supply room, and so on) and then concealed.8.
A shoplifter may simply grab an item and quickly leave the store.9.
A shoplifter may drop an expensive piece of jewelry into a drink or food.10.
Shoplifters arrive at a store early or late to take advantage of any lax situation.11.
Disguised as a priest (or other professional), the shoplifter may have an advantage when stealing.12.
Some bold offenders have been known to impersonate salespeople while shoplifting and even to collect money from customers.13.
Price tags are often switched to allow merchandise to be bought at a lower price; sometimes the desired price will be written on the price tag of a sales item.14.
Shoplifters are aided by large shopping bags, lunch boxes, knitting bags, suitcases, flight bags, camera cases, musical instrument cases, and newspapers.15.
Dummy packages, bags, or boxes (“booster boxes”) are used, which appear to be sealed and tied but contain false bottoms and openings to conceal items.16.
Shoplifters may use hollowed-out books.17.
Stolen merchandise is often concealed within legitimate purchases.18.
Expensive items are placed in inexpensive containers.19.
Shoplifters sometimes slide items off counters and into some type of container or clothing.20.
Sometimes shoplifters wear fake bandages or false plastic casts.21.
Professional shoplifters are known to carry store supplies (e.g., bag, box, stapler, or colored tape) to assist in stealing.22.
Baby carriages and wheelchairs have been utilized in various ways to steal.23.
Sometimes items are hidden in a store for subsequent pickup by an accomplice.24.
Various contrived diversions (e.g., dropping and breaking something, faking a medical problem, setting off a smoke bomb, or having someone call in a bomb threat) have been used to give an accomplice a chance to shoplift.25.
Teenagers sometimes converge on a particular retail department, cause a disturbance, and then shoplift.26.
Adult shoplifters have been known to use children to aid them.27.
Sometimes “blind” accomplices with “guide” dogs are used to distract and confuse sales personnel eager to assist the disadvantaged.28.
“Crotchwalking” is a method whereby a woman wearing a dress conceals an item between her legs and then departs.29.
Baillie (2012: 31) writes that the Internet, YouTube, and eBay contain information and products helpful to shoplifters in the form of “how to” articles and videos, plus devices for sale that circumvent alarms and EAS tags.
Prevention and Reduction of Shoplifting through People
The reality of retail loss prevention budgets is explained by Hollinger (2011: 26). He notes that in 2010, 0.46 percent of retail sales were directed to loss prevention, with most of this money spent on payroll expenses. In his articles over the years, Hollinger repeatedly points out, and correctly, the following: “With limited LP budgets and even less money for high-tech countermeasures, more of the day-to-day responsibility for loss prevention is being shifted to overworked store managers, untrained sales associates, and inexperienced LP personnel.”
People are the first and primary asset for reducing shoplifting opportunities. The proper utilization of people is the test of success or failure in preventing and reducing shoplifting. Good training is essential and it can be applied in-store, online, or off-site.•
Management: Management has the responsibility for planning, implementing, and monitoring antishoplifting programs. The quality of leadership and the ability to motivate people are of paramount importance. The loss prevention manager and other retail executives must cooperate when formulating policies and procedures that do not hamper sales.•
Salespeople: One method to increase a shoplifter’s anxiety and prevent theft is to require salespeople to approach all customers and say, for instance, “May I help you?” This approach informs the potential shoplifter that he or she has been noticed by salespeople and possibly by loss prevention personnel.•
Loss Prevention (LP) Agents: These specialists must have the ability to observe without being observed, remember precisely what happened during an incident, know criminal law and self-defense, effectively interview, testify in court, and recover stolen items. They perform a variety of duties, such as observing the premises with a CCTV system, helping to reduce shrinkage, and conducting investigations of suspected internal theft and shoplifting. When they are on the sales floor and observing a suspect, they should blend in with the shopping crowd and look like shoppers. This can be done by dressing like average shoppers, carrying a package or two and even a bag of popcorn. The antiquated term “floor walker” should be reserved for historical discussions; this will help to professionalize the important LP position that has certification programs through the Loss Prevention Foundation.•
Uniformed Officers: Only a foolish shoplifter would steal in the presence of an officer who acts as a deterrent. A well-planned antishoplifting program must not lose sight of the systems approach to loss prevention, as described next (Altheide et al., 1978):
The store had four security guards or personnel. These people were also looked upon as “jokes.” The security personnel were primarily concerned with catching shoplifting customers. Most of their time was spent behind two-way mirrors with binoculars observing shoppers. Therefore, in reality while the security personnel caught a customer concealing a pair of pants in her purse, an employee was smuggling four pairs of Levi’s out the front door. Security was concerned with shoppers on the floor while all employee thefts usually occurred in stockrooms.•
Fitting-room personnel: Employees who supervise merchandise passing in and out of fitting rooms play a vital role in reducing the shoplifting problem. Many stores place a limit on the number of items that can be brought into a fitting room.
Prevention and Reduction of Shoplifting through Physical Design and Physical Security
Physical design and physical security comprise a second major category of an effective anti-shoplifting program. In reference to physical security, these systems are only as good as the people operating them. A retail company can spend millions of dollars on antishoplifting systems; however, money will be wasted if employees are not properly trained and they are not knowledgeable of system capabilities and limitations.
Physical Design
Physical design includes architectural design and store layout. Three objectives of physical design are to create an environment that stimulates sales, comply with the ADA, and create CPTED, as covered earlier in this book. The ADA requires the removal of barriers that hinder the disabled. An example of CPTED is increased visibility of customers by personnel (natural surveillance) by designing an employee lounge that is raised above the sales floor and has a large glass window. POS locations that are raised a few inches also increase visibility. Merchandise or other store features that obstruct the view of employees will aid shoplifters. A balance between attractiveness and loss prevention is essential.
Applying rational choice and situational crime prevention theories (see Chapter 3), Cardone and Hayes (2012: 22–58) interviewed shoplifters to identify store physical cues that influenced offenders’ decisions to shoplift. Four primary cues influenced the decision: natural surveillance, guardianship levels, formal surveillance, and target accessibility.
Hayes (2006: 46) writes that a retailer can manipulate variables in a store to influence moods and behavior. As examples, he refers to number of entrances and exits, walkways, flooring, fixture types, aisle width, and employee workstations. The proper utilization of turnstiles, corrals, and other barriers can limit the circulation of shoplifters and funnel customer traffic to select locations (e.g., toward the POS).
Other methods to hinder theft include locking display cabinets, displaying only one of a pair, using dummy displays (e.g., empty cosmetic boxes), arranging displays neatly and in a particular pattern to allow for quick recognition of a disruption in their order, having hangers pointing in alternate directions on racks to prevent “grab and run” tactics, and placing small items closer to cash registers.
Electronic Article Surveillance
Electronic article surveillance (EAS) systems “watch” merchandise instead of people. Electronic tags are placed on merchandise and removed or deactivated by a salesperson at the POS. If a person leaves a designated area with tagged merchandise, a sensor at an exit activates an alarm.
These systems have been on the market since the late 1960s. Because these plastic tags tended to be large (about three or four inches) and difficult to attach to many goods, they were used on high-priced merchandise such as coats. However, improved technology permitted manufacturers to develop EAS tags the size of price tags, at a lower cost. Today, inexpensive EAS tags may remain on merchandise following a sale and being deactivated, whereas higher-cost large tags are removed and reused.
The radio frequency (RF) is a popular type of EAS system, and it contains a tiny circuit that can be hidden virtually anywhere on a product or in packaging. If a cashier does not remove or deactivate it (which can be done automatically as items are scanned for prices at the POS) and the customer walks near a sensor, an alarm may be triggered. Its weaknesses are that shoplifters can cover the labels with aluminum foil and that the tags cannot be used on metal objects. At the refund desk, a verifier can check for “live” tags that may indicate that an item was not purchased legitimately. A second type, magnetic, employs a metal strip (called an EM strip) that interferes with a magnetic field at an exit to activate an alarm. This system is often applied in libraries. Another type is the acousto-magnetic system, which is similar to magnetic tags. These tags are wider and have superior detection in comparison to magnetic tags. Another type is microwave. Ink tags are also applied by retailers; these tags contain ink that ruins clothes if the tag is broken during removal.
Each company contends that its system is best. None is without problems, nor is any foolproof. False alarms or failure of the cashier to deactivate or remove the tag has led to retailers being sued for false arrest. Excessive false alarms can result in limited responses by retail employees. Another problem results from employees who carry an EAS tag on their person and activate the system as a pretext to stop and search suspicious customers. Training, and politeness when approaching customers prevents litigation. Experts claim that professional shoplifters and employee thieves are not deterred by EAS. Others view the tags as too expensive to be justified for low-cost merchandise. Many tag only high-shrinkage items. Beck and Palmer (2011: 112) write: “This technology continues to generate an enormous amount of debate concerning how effective it really is and whether it provides a genuine return on investment.”
Research by Read Hayes and Robert Blackwood (Gips, 2007: 26) showed that retail employees routinely ignored EAS alarms; of almost 4,000 alarms studied, employees requested receipts for merchandise in only 18 percent of cases. Prior to applying EAS, Hayes and Blackwood recommended strong evidence that a particular item is being shoplifted chainwide and EAS should be made obvious through signs.
Despite criticism of EAS, and initial costs and maintenance, these systems can be cost–effective. They are also popular. In fact, such systems are used in certain industries to “watch” inventories. Prisoners and patients also are being monitored with such technology.
Innovations have further enhanced EAS technology. One type of tag sends out an audible alarm when tampering occurs. Aubele (2011: 52) adds that although traditional EAS systems alert retailers that a theft may have occurred, these systems are unable to identify the merchandise. Modern RFID EAS systems, for instance, can inform the retailer that a belt selling for $59.99 passed through the door. Relevant data helps to plan loss prevention, such as items stolen frequently, from what department, on what days and times, who was on duty, and so forth.
Source tagging is popular; it involves the manufacturer placing a hidden EAS tag into products during manufacturing, to be deactivated at the POS. This saves the retailer the labor and cost of tagging and untagging merchandise. However, research by Beck and Palmer (2011: 110–122) showed that replacing large hard tags with less visible source tags resulted in a dramatic increase in shrinkage. When the choice was reversed, shrinkage dropped considerably. The research results stressed the importance of a visible deterrent and the use of large hard tags that are more difficult to defeat for both shoplifters and internal thieves. Some EAS manufacturers are addressing large hard tags as source tags.
Another loss prevention strategy is benefit-denial-technology. It is defined as technology that protects assets by rendering assets unusable to the thief unless purchased legitimately. Examples are ink tags and metal clamps that can ruin an item when removed without legitimate purchase. Other examples are electronic devices (e.g., cell phones and TVs) that do not work until activated following purchase. Benefit-denial technology has a great deal of protection potential for many products from the early stages of production and throughout the supply chain (Hayes, 2012: 39–46).
Alarms
In addition to EAS, various alarm sensors protect merchandise from theft. Loop alarms consist of a cable forming a closed electrical circuit that begins and ends at an alarm device. This cable is usually attached through merchandise handles and openings. When the electrical circuit is disrupted by someone cutting or breaking it, the alarm sounds. Cable alarms also use a cable that runs from the merchandise to an alarm unit. This alarm differs in that a pad attached to the end of the cable is placed on the merchandise. Each item has its own cable pad setup, which is connected to an alarm unit. Cable alarms are useful when merchandise does not have openings or handles. Retailers also use heavy nonalarmed cables that are also woven through expensive items such as leather coats. This cable usually has a locking device. Wafer alarms are sensing devices that react to negative pressure. This device, about the size of a large coin, is placed under the protected item; if a thief removes the item, an alarm sounds.
Additional Measures
Numerous security measures are applicable to retail stores to thwart not only shoplifting but also other sources of loss. Figures 17-3 and 17-4 focus on internal space protection and point protection. Chapters 7 and 8Chapter 7Chapter 8 explain a variety of security measures, such as CCTV.
