Let’s take a moment to appreciate the lengths that some customers will go in order to conduct their holiday shopping honestly. They’ll brave the cold, long lines on Black Friday. They’ll put their list on layaway and put whatever they can toward it. And sometimes, they’ll watch their loved one’s
About the Author
Articles by Mike Giblin, LPRC
The Loss Prevention Research Council conducts more than 100 in-person interviews with active shoplifters each year. Much of what they say pertains to whether they see/get/fear a particular theft deterrent. Other comments and musings reveal unexpected thought patterns and rationales put forth by people who steal.
What follows are direct quotes
As we march closer to 2020, a few common themes have emerged among the research questions that the Loss Prevention Research Council (LPRC) receives from its membership base. While much of our research seeks to provide insight on whether introducing a new loss prevention technology solution or policy to your
Scientists have been wrong. It happens all the time. Randomized controlled trials have produced results that don’t get replicated in full-scale rollouts. The argument for not scientifically testing a retail loss prevention solution tends to focus on two points: Science can be wrong, and science takes time and an investment.
Why is it that some product protection technologies has been around and working for decades, while other retail loss prevention solutions only seem to work for a few months before offenders aren’t impressed? Many components that factor in to answering this question, but one variable in particular explains a large
As a loss prevention agent in 2017, it’s easy to begin to feel helpless. Many retail environments have shifted to no-touch policies, as jurisdictions push legislation to ease the legal ramifications of shoplifting and theft. If you can’t stop the shoplifter as he’s strolling out your door with your merchandise,
The following describes a cornerstone theory of judgment and decision making that has tremendously important implications in loss prevention. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion, developed by Petty and Cacioppo, postulates a dual-process manner in which decision makers take in and process information.
Bottom line for LP: Even if offenders
Cops and robbers. Good guys and bad guys. The dichotomy in the loss prevention world seems simple enough: bad people doing illegal things and good people trying to stop them. While the complexities of what makes a person good or bad are too extensive to debate here, one commonly assumed
On March 29, the Loss Prevention Research Council collaborated with ALTO US, Cam Connections, and the Home Depot to host a Supply Chain Protection Working Group Summit in Atlanta, GA. Nearly 30 LP executives traveled to Atlanta to participate in the day-long research planning meeting hosted at the Home Depot
Some call it the initial sniff test. Others use a less-flattering term to describe it. It’s your initial gut reaction to a new, unresearched idea. Does your instinct say “yea” or “nay?” In many business contexts, million-dollar decisions – including loss prevention decisions – are made with no further deliberation.