SHRINK

[ClownLoach]

Remember that if they're forced to publicly admit the problem then they're more obligated to resolve it. That means more store closures for shrink, not less.

It would probably mean less store closures, because if they publicly announced the numbers, the public would be able to see that the problem is significantly exaggerated. Even without numbers, some executives have admitted to overstating the issue.

If they want to close a store, they will close a store. The public doesn't seem to be able to "pressure" retailers into keeping stores open anymore like they may have been able to back in the 90's. I think it is because of these large national chains being less receptive to public outcry than the smaller regional chains who were more common in the 90's were.

The other issue at play here is in some cases the landlord drives the closure. For instance this store in Reno that Raleys just closed the Sak N Save - this is an underserved area. You see how the store looked. Huge store. I suspect it may have been doing $500,000 a week in sales (not good for its size). Raleys was operating it on a "short term" lease and basically got the store taken out from under it by the landlord. Many customers walked or used a scooter/wheel chair to access the store. There is no other grocer in reasonable distance (there is a Dollar Tree and a Grocery Outlet, and a couple small asian/hispanic stores). Now this store the landlord found El Super to take over and sign a long term lease for part of the space and El Super will spend $3 million+ to remodel the space.

$3M will just pay for new shelves, coolers, and changing the lightbulbs. El Super isn't remodeling anything, its going to look like the same toilet bowl when they open as it did as Sak N Save.

[storewanderer]

It would probably mean less store closures, because if they publicly announced the numbers, the public would be able to see that the problem is significantly exaggerated. Even without numbers, some executives have admitted to overstating the issue.

If they want to close a store, they will close a store. The public doesn't seem to be able to "pressure" retailers into keeping stores open anymore like they may have been able to back in the 90's. I think it is because of these large national chains being less receptive to public outcry than the smaller regional chains who were more common in the 90's were.

The other issue at play here is in some cases the landlord drives the closure. For instance this store in Reno that Raleys just closed the Sak N Save - this is an underserved area. You see how the store looked. Huge store. I suspect it may have been doing $500,000 a week in sales (not good for its size). Raleys was operating it on a "short term" lease and basically got the store taken out from under it by the landlord. Many customers walked or used a scooter/wheel chair to access the store. There is no other grocer in reasonable distance (there is a Dollar Tree and a Grocery Outlet, and a couple small asian/hispanic stores). Now this store the landlord found El Super to take over and sign a long term lease for part of the space and El Super will spend $3 million+ to remodel the space.

$3M will just pay for new shelves, coolers, and changing the lightbulbs. El Super isn't remodeling anything, its going to look like the same toilet bowl when they open as it did as Sak N Save.

El Super seems to sort of destruct the space they take over then not do much work to it. They took over the rather attractive looking Marketon on Tropicana in Las Vegas and basically demolished the decor/floor/interior and did their thing, now it looks... not great. The other El Super in Las Vegas I went into seemed to be a former Vons and it was still in Safeway layout but again it had been undecorated. That former Vons in a Safeway layout actually worked really well for El Super. They removed many aisles, put a restaurant into where the deli space was, the large bakery space worked perfectly for them, and the large produce space also worked perfectly for them and it was expanded into what was also the large floral space. That may have been one of the best El Supers I've seen. I have a low opinion of El Super but this is a really good fit for the Sak N Save. I'd rather see El Super than Cardenas.

I think El Super is going to have to do a lot of work though, the flooring is shot, the entire infrastructure of the store is archaic. This is a 60+ year old building. Depending what part of the store they are taking they will either have to rebuild meat/produce or they will have to rebuild bakery/deli/restrooms.

[ClownLoach]

If they want to close a store, they will close a store. The public doesn't seem to be able to "pressure" retailers into keeping stores open anymore like they may have been able to back in the 90's. I think it is because of these large national chains being less receptive to public outcry than the smaller regional chains who were more common in the 90's were.

The other issue at play here is in some cases the landlord drives the closure. For instance this store in Reno that Raleys just closed the Sak N Save - this is an underserved area. You see how the store looked. Huge store. I suspect it may have been doing $500,000 a week in sales (not good for its size). Raleys was operating it on a "short term" lease and basically got the store taken out from under it by the landlord. Many customers walked or used a scooter/wheel chair to access the store. There is no other grocer in reasonable distance (there is a Dollar Tree and a Grocery Outlet, and a couple small asian/hispanic stores). Now this store the landlord found El Super to take over and sign a long term lease for part of the space and El Super will spend $3 million+ to remodel the space.

$3M will just pay for new shelves, coolers, and changing the lightbulbs. El Super isn't remodeling anything, its going to look like the same toilet bowl when they open as it did as Sak N Save.

El Super seems to sort of destruct the space they take over then not do much work to it. They took over the rather attractive looking Marketon on Tropicana in Las Vegas and basically demolished the decor/floor/interior and did their thing, now it looks... not great. The other El Super in Las Vegas I went into seemed to be a former Vons and it was still in Safeway layout but again it had been undecorated. That former Vons in a Safeway layout actually worked really well for El Super. They removed many aisles, put a restaurant into where the deli space was, the large bakery space worked perfectly for them, and the large produce space also worked perfectly for them and it was expanded into what was also the large floral space. That may have been one of the best El Supers I've seen. I have a low opinion of El Super but this is a really good fit for the Sak N Save. I'd rather see El Super than Cardenas.

I think El Super is going to have to do a lot of work though, the flooring is shot, the entire infrastructure of the store is archaic. This is a 60+ year old building. Depending what part of the store they are taking they will either have to rebuild meat/produce or they will have to rebuild bakery/deli/restrooms.

No way that is happening on $3M. There must be other permits pulled or a fat landlord contribution on top of the $3M. Sounds like it needs a full interior gut even to be a "no frills" environment since everything is shot; they don't want the liability of a old cracked/dangerous floor etc.

[storewanderer]

No way that is happening on $3M. There must be other permits pulled or a fat landlord contribution on top of the $3M. Sounds like it needs a full interior gut even to be a "no frills" environment since everything is shot; they don't want the liability of a old cracked/dangerous floor etc.

That floor is a nightmare. I wonder if it has asbestos. It is so shot maybe it doesn't. I would think if it had asbestos it would be in better shape. But I don't know.

I have more pictures- I will post them over at the Sak N Save thread within the week.

[storewanderer]

Anyone know if any if what is being said about Target policies for processing shoplifters is true?

Process outside in the rain? Can't the sheriff take them to the sheriff station or jail for processing if Target doesn't have space for that at the store?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/cali ... ifters.amp

[ClownLoach]

Anyone know if any if what is being said about Target policies for processing shoplifters is true?

Process outside in the rain? Can't the sheriff take them to the sheriff station or jail for processing if Target doesn't have space for that at the store?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/cali ... ifters.amp

So... most traditional format Target stores have a standard LP booking office. It's a nondescript "Employees Only" door that you'll see somewhere between the front registers and the exit door. However, some problematic and logistics challenged buildings have had all of the front end facilities gutted out, such as the breakroom and offices, to make room for the Drive Up order staging area. Somehow it seems that the stores with the worst problems are actually newer stores like SuperTarget and Greatland formats with dual entrances, they had built very nice breakrooms with one-way glass windows that look outside and such which have now all been removed and replaced with backroom breakrooms. This is one of the reasons for the stockroom remodel projects that install the death traps moving storage racking, they have to clear a large portion of the backroom space to erect new offices, new employee restrooms, and a new breakroom. My guess is that this particular Target is one that lost the LP booking room at the front end and that there is something more to the story. Clogged, overloaded back room full of freight they're behind on stocking blocking access to space? Remodel still underway in the backroom? I could easily see them saying to take them around to the back of the store, but to re-enter through a back door into one of those offices. I'm not so sure there is a PR issue of dragging the arrested shoplifter through the store to the back office, but I do see it being a threat to other customers especially if they haven't been more thoroughly searched by an officer which would have to occur in a private space like the office. What if they somehow pulled a gun or a knife? What if they somehow got the officer's weapon while walking through this crowded space? Handcuffs are not failproof. Even if not found liable I'm sure there would be lawsuits for millions of dollars filed against Target by anyone threatened or actually injured.

Past that, this is yet another example of what I have been saying ad nauseum. Retailers want to keep shoplifting out of the media and news, and as a result the majority of thefts go unreported. They would never speak a word of shoplifting losses unless they have a situation where they are a material cause of a change in earnings results, or a material cause of a financial loss. Only then do they speak publicly about the topic, and even then they provide very limited information as we all know. They know that the more they talk about it, the more the Wall Street and News Media will ask questions, and eventually if there are enough questions asked and not answered the SEC may change rules and mandate reporting of this figure. Mandated reporting of a figure that Wall Street execs with three brain cells each will criticize as unacceptable, unreasonable, etc. because they think that everything should be out on a shelf unsecured AND there should be little/no payroll AND it's perfectly reasonable to expect ZERO shrink because losses would only occur under bad management. These being the same Wall Street execs that short retail stocks and have billions invested in Amazon.

[ClownLoach]

Anyone know if any if what is being said about Target policies for processing shoplifters is true?

Process outside in the rain? Can't the sheriff take them to the sheriff station or jail for processing if Target doesn't have space for that at the store?

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/cali ... ifters.amp

So... most traditional format Target stores have a standard LP booking office. It's a nondescript "Employees Only" door that you'll see somewhere between the front registers and the exit door. However, some problematic and logistics challenged buildings have had all of the front end facilities gutted out, such as the breakroom and offices, to make room for the Drive Up order staging area. Somehow it seems that the stores with the worst problems are actually newer stores like SuperTarget and Greatland formats with dual entrances, they had built very nice breakrooms with one-way glass windows that look outside and such which have now all been removed and replaced with backroom breakrooms. This is one of the reasons for the stockroom remodel projects that install the death traps moving storage racking, they have to clear a large portion of the backroom space to erect new offices, new employee restrooms, and a new breakroom. My guess is that this particular Target is one that lost the LP booking room at the front end and that there is something more to the story. Clogged, overloaded back room full of freight they're behind on stocking blocking access to space? Remodel still underway in the backroom? I could easily see them saying to take them around to the back of the store, but to re-enter through a back door into one of those offices. I'm not so sure there is a PR issue of dragging the arrested shoplifter through the store to the back office, but I do see it being a threat to other customers especially if they haven't been more thoroughly searched by an officer which would have to occur in a private space like the office. What if they somehow pulled a gun or a knife? What if they somehow got the officer's weapon while walking through this crowded space? Handcuffs are not failproof. Even if not found liable I'm sure there would be lawsuits for millions of dollars filed against Target by anyone threatened or actually injured.

Past that, this is yet another example of what I have been saying ad nauseum. Retailers want to keep shoplifting out of the media and news, and as a result the majority of thefts go unreported. They would never speak a word of shoplifting losses unless they have a situation where they are a material cause of a change in earnings results, or a material cause of a financial loss. Only then do they speak publicly about the topic, and even then they provide very limited information as we all know. They know that the more they talk about it, the more the Wall Street and News Media will ask questions, and eventually if there are enough questions asked and not answered the SEC may change rules and mandate reporting of this figure. Mandated reporting of a figure that Wall Street execs with three brain cells each will criticize as unacceptable, unreasonable, etc. because they think that everything should be out on a shelf unsecured AND there should be little/no payroll AND it's perfectly reasonable to expect ZERO shrink because losses would only occur under bad management. These being the same Wall Street execs that short retail stocks and have billions invested in Amazon.

I should add more context to my remodel hypothesis; I have observed how a Target remodel goes about rebuilding the back room with the current initiative to add new offices, a new breakroom, and clears space for a new shipping prep and stage area. In many cases they order up a couple of small portable office units besides dozens of storage trailers, and relocate the breakroom, employee restrooms, and manager offices to these facilities which are out behind the store. This enables them to expedite the remodel by working in both the front end and back end simultaneously. If this was the case here as I suspect then they probably just did not have a space inside where they could handle this situation.

I will reiterate though that if Target didn't permit the processing of shoplifting suspects inside the store then why would they have the LP apprehension room by the doors in over 90% of the full size stores? Obviously it is their policy to allow apprehension and arrest inside their stores which is why they build and dedicate these spaces for them. They have a good partnership with my local Police Dept. who actually cares and will keep arresting these criminals and take them to the County Jail even if they get out the next day, and they not only let the PD use the facilities but they let them post their captures with blurred out faces on Facebook, many times referring to "local retailer ". Something is out of the ordinary in this Sacramento location in question, and since the average news reporter knows so little about stores and how they operate they probably have not asked any of the right questions as to why this situation occurred. Target is not going to volunteer any information unless it's in response to a question - the right questions to be clear. Knowing that this Sacramento area district also likely operates the horrific stores in Reno area that are showcased here for looking like a back alley in Downtown LA instead of a quality discount superstore makes me question how far they've "gone rogue" from the Target best practices (that's a Target specific internal term for policies and procedures). Maybe now that this story is going national in every "red state" news market there will be some changes from the top down in that area.

[Romr123]

There's nothing like a little unmistakable publicity about a specific area to bring chains into compliance with corporate standards/best practices tout de suite.

[ClownLoach]

There's nothing like a little unmistakable publicity about a specific area to bring chains into compliance with corporate standards/best practices tout de suite.

Without any more internal contacts at Target, I am 100% sure that within an hour or two of that news story being published that there were conference calls nationwide to reiterate the best practices that are to be followed. And if anyone was indeed deviating without justification they have likely already been dismissed (note the phrase best practices which allows for limited leniency and judgment calls, unlike true Standard Operating Procedures). I do not believe that anything has changed at Target chain-wide because they wouldn't have involved local law enforcement at all if they didn't want them to be arresting their shoplifters, and there is zero chance the police would just show up to do this work otherwise since they've got too much on their plates. I am sure there are extenuating circumstances at this particular location such as an active remodel as I stated previously or they are one that had to move the Apprehension office from the front end to the back of house due to space constraints.

[bryceleinan]

In the last two months, I’ve personally seen three shoplifting cases. Two at Dick’s in Reno, and one at WinCo in McMinnville, OR. In both stores, LP was at the entrance. Dick’s was taking pictures and picking up some of the discarded clothing, at WinCo, the LP agents surrounded the shoplifter and got back the purloined merchandise. I was surprised to see LP at all.