Cellphones On The Salesfloor – The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Of It

The use of cellphones in the workplace has become more prolific over the years. It used to be that managers could put out a policy stating that the use of cellphones was strictly forbidden. I used to be in this camp and to a certain extent, I still am. As a Loss Prevention Manager, I saw the negative impact phones could have on customer service. Employees would focus on the phone at the expense of the customers. When the culprit was a cashier I would see the violators of the policy hiding the phone next to the register and texting in the midst of a transaction. That was totally unacceptable and did on more than one occasion result in a register error. Either merchandise was not properly scanned or the wrong change was tendered to the customer. In several cases, I had cashiers texting family and friends telling them to come in and go through their checkout lane. This would result in theft through passing or “giving back too much change” commonly known as cash theft. Of course, using the phone as a means of stealing from the store was the ugly of the cellphone issues. 

     The bad side of the cellphone conundrum is the customer service issues they cause. You have seen it, the sales floor employee looking at their phone and texting or looking through their music. Eye contact is almost non-existent. As a shopper, this drives me up to the wall. If the employees would spend as much attention to shoppers as they do their phones I can only begin to imagine the increased sales stores would enjoy. Now, as a manager in a college library, I have student assistants working for me who all have phones and most carry the phone in their back pockets. We have policies restricting when they can use the phone but often I have to correct them when they violate the policy and pull the phone out and begin texting. We have the policy in place for the same reasons that stores have (or used to have) the policy; to ensure customer service is the number one priority. Making the enforcement of the policy more difficult is that other supervisors are pulling out their phones and using them. This seems a bit hypocritical in my view.  

     There is a good side to allowing cellphones in a retail or customer service environment and it has softened me just a tad to the arguments in favor of them. If a store employee is on the sales floor and sees suspicious activity from a potential shoplifter the employee can quickly get in contact with a manager without looking for a store phone. 2-way radios are not always the most effective communication devices. Some associates keep the volume on their radios turned up and even if an earpiece is in use conversations can be overheard. I have had shoplifting suspects hear employees talking and drop merchandise as I was preparing to stop them for stealing. I have also seen customers get angry when they heard employees talking about them over radios. It could be talking about the customer’s behavior or something the customer was saying that was causing a disturbance. For example, the customer could be causing a scene about a return they were trying to do that was refused. Radios are just not always the best communication tool from a safety or security perspective. Cellphones make a convenient and more discreet method of communication and can even include text messaging which isn’t heard at all.  

     Another pro-cellphone argument is the ability to summon help in a store in the event of an emergency. As we see in social media today there is hardly a significant event that can take place without someone(s) getting it on a cellphone camera. From natural disasters to vehicle accidents and even active shooters, right or wrong people are going to get video and messages out and post it. The more employees that are allowed to carry their phones the greater the likelihood first responders will be notified quickly from multiple sources in the store. Think about the advantages this could have in the event of an altercation or robbery. Someone is likely to get through to authorities much quicker than if a store phone is the only accessible communication device. 

     As much as they can be a pain in the neck to retailers, cellphones are here to stay. By laying out expectations and policies regarding when they can be used managers can try to manage the use of phones while being flexible in allowing them to be in an employee’s possession. Who knows, such a policy might be a lifesaver someday…literally.   

Sensormatic Systems Value

We just came back from a trip to Sensormatic Systems Head-Quarters in Boca Raton, Florida. What a fascinating, interesting and eye-opening experience. As anti-shoplifting systems are concerned, we clearly left with the knowledge that Sensormatic is the top of the line for value and quality. I have been in the field of Loss Prevention for over 35 years (I hate saying that, it makes me feel …. old). I rose to the top in a number of fine retail companies as the Director of Loss Prevention. I have had my own company now for many years. So, I have bought these systems as a Director and I now have the privilege of being a premier nationwide Sensormatic Dealer. For many years we sold another top brand. But it is very clear to me why Sensormatic is the world-wide leader. Let me throw out a few conclusions for you. 

Sensormatic invests a huge amount of money into testing. Not just making sure that systems ring the bell and flash the light. Testing is extensive. Research laboratories are used by Sensormatic Engineers to take something from an idea to a finished product. It starts with a team in design. They look at style and how it will impact the Retailer and their customers. Ergonomics are tested thoroughly. It is important that a retail employee can use a hand-held device for long periods of time with minimal fatigue. Drop tests are performed with high speed cameras to determine if devices will properly survive a fall with minimal damage and a low risk to the people around it. Stress tests are conducted on antenna systems to see how they will react to being bent until broken. Do the systems splinter? Does the electronics spark? 

Sensormatic is a massive company that operates on every continent, okay, well maybe not Antarctica.  Sensormatic Systems is part of Johnson Controls. And if you have not been hiding under a rock all your life know that Johnson Controls is one of the largest companies in the world with a serious reputation for quality and service in many fields. The Sensormatic division has that behind it. 

That is in addition to the testing of the antenna systems for detection of tags and labels. Sensormatic systems are tested and certified safe by the main testing agencies in the various countries all over the world. For example, in the United States Sensormatic systems are UL Certified among others. 

Sensormatic security systems are not going to be the cheapest. But it is like anything else you get what you pay for. However, the value runs deeper than just the highest quality commercial grade equipment that is made to last a very long time. These Acousto Magnetic (AM) systems perform much better than the competition for the price and much better than Radio Frequency (RF) systems. RF systems are very prone to false or phantom (no one nearby the system) alarms. Acousto Magnetic does not have that problem. This technology operates on a different frequency that is less prone to issues. Because of that we can easily get an 8 foot isle width. The very best RF can do is 6 feet.  

Acousto Magnetic technology has been around for over fifty years. It is proven and stable. Sensormatic brand hard tags and labels are very robust. The hard tags have clean, well “welded” seams that will not snag clothing. The genuine Sensormatic labels outperform any knock offs in both range and deactivation. Sensormatic security system deactivation performs at a very high level. When your cash/wrap associate kills the labels, it stays dead.  

So, the real question now is this: Are you going to go through all of the coming up year and again lose money, watching it walk out the door with shoplifters? Or are you going to fix the problem once and for all? Loss Prevention Systems’ proven process will significantly reduce your losses? All you have left to do now is contact us. 

Technology And Shoplifting

Shoplifting affects everyone. As shoplifting and employee theft seem to be an unstoppable problem for the retail industry, researchers try to find different methods to prevent and combat shoplifting.  Law makers across the country try to pass laws to deter shoplifters by imposing harsher sentences. Technology has for many years now helped loss prevention personnel catch shoplifters, and prevent bigger loses for stores.  But as technology has improved, shoplifters ways have changed to account for the technology being used to catch them.  As the technology evolves, so does the shoplifter. Are you keeping abreast of the problem? Keep reading by clicking the links below.


Why hasn’t security technology put an end to shoplifting?

As the UK crime rate falls, there is one crime that is on the rise. Recent figures show that shoplifting has consistently grown by an annual 6% against a wider backdrop of reduced crime. This statistic is surprising considering the vast amount of time, money and effort that goes into developing anti-shoplifting technology. So why isn’t it working?

How does anti-shoplifting technology work?

The vast majority of retail stores are equipped with several high tech security measures. CCTV cameras are the most common. According to the College of Policing, CCTV is more effective as a method of gaining evidence to catch and convict a criminal than as a deterrent.

Many security camera providers provide monitoring services to ensure footage is captured and analysed as efficiently as possible. However, surveillance systems require careful planning; Banham Group, security experts with more than 90 years’ industry experience, advise that CCTV installation must include guidance, particularly on data protection laws and system legalities.


Through the Eyes of a Shoplifter

In the June 1968 issue of the magazine, then-managing editor John J. Sullivan tried his hand at shoplifting from a few independent stores, just to see how easy it was to get merchandise past the sales register.

He didn’t have much trouble. With prior permission from the owners, he hit six stores in and around one city in one weekend, for a total of almost $250 worth of merchandise in about an hour—more than $1,700 today. Then-editor Bob Vereen got in on the experiment too, taking nearly $25 worth of merchandise in about 10 minutes from one store.

The point wasn’t, of course, to steal product from hardworking, honest hardware retailers. It was to show how easy it was to do so.

For a quick checklist you can share with your employees to make sure everyone is working to improve store security, click here to download our Loss Prevention Checklist.


Not all businesses on board with new shoplifting proposal

QUINCY, Ill. (WGEM) –

A new proposal by the Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform has been met with multiple opponents.

Right now, any theft valuing over $300 will land you a felony charge in Illinois. An Illinois criminal justice reform group has asked lawmakers to raise that thievery threshold to $2,000, in an attempt to combat prison overcrowding.

Executive Director Amy Looten of the Quincy Chamber of Commerce said on Monday that there are many reasons to oppose it.

“For every product that walks out the door, they’re not paying sales tax on that.” Looten said. “So our local government, our state government is not getting that income from the sales tax.”

Quincy Menard’s Assistant General Manager Scott Warner added on Monday that shoplifting affects many more people than just the person stealing.