JB Hi Fi draconian door security policy

Forums › Off topic › JB Hi Fi draconian door security policy

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

3594 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

WorldxChange

#318163 14-Apr-2010 05:59

Nice comments Kingjj.. enjoyed reading your posts they were well thought out and presented with what I would hope to be actual facts :).

I was actually really interested in seeing reactions to this post and I'm actually glad to see a majority of posters are more than happy to assist with store security, if it's done in a professional way and helps the industry to keep lower prices then I'm all for it and hopefully the deter more thieves.

Yes I am a employee of WxC (My Profile) ... but I do have my own opinions as well

https://www.facebook.com/wxccommunications

corksta

2397 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#318164 14-Apr-2010 06:12

friedCrumpet:
corksta:
Sorry, there is no way in hell you can equate a cavity search to a bag search, that is a ridiculous analogy.

It was never implied as being equal. I was simply using an extreme to hopefully make people think a bit about the opposing argument. I guess you didn't.

You know I'm probably not going to say much more on this. It looks like Quidam and I may be the sole objectors to such policies, which to me is a sad state of affairs. There is an obvious trade off over the way you can treat your customers vs the amount of effort you put in to loss prevention. It seems that while the majority are happy to accept bag searches they will cut their losses with the few who are aggrieved by such actions.

I wish that my life was so perfect and complete that the only thing I had to worry about was spending a small amount of time allowing someone to look through my bag as I leave a shop!

The whole "I support loss prevention techniques but just don't apply them to me" just doesn't cut it.

I can't remember the last time I left JB where I didn't have to open a bag I was carrying. The security guards have always been polite, it takes a few seconds for a quick look, I don't steal, they look in dozens of bags a day probably, and if a would-be thief sees me being randomly picked out and it makes them think twice about stealing then it's ok with me. Really, there are so many more things in life to worry about than getting so wound up about a quick bag search, especially when the sole intention is to prevent loss. And if it's that big a deal to you, exercise your democratic right to freedom and go somewhere else, you won't have many followers though.

Quidam

291 posts

Ultimate Geek

#318175 14-Apr-2010 08:19

Like I already said, this was a trivial event that on a better day, would probably not have bothered me at all. If there is a positive, it has simply got me thinking about wider issues. Non invasive approaches to reducing shop-lifting exist, and in my view are more customer focused. I don't think anyone here can argue that is not the case, it just appears that most people don't care and just want the cheapest prices they can get. Problem with that is while this may seem like the best result for you personally, it doesn't mean it's the best result for the economy as a whole.

So company X moves its plant off-shore because they can undercut the competition by doing all their manufacturing in some third world country that employes children at slave wages, thus delivering you, the consumer the cheap prices you demand. That's great news for company X because their profit margins go way up. It's bad news for all the companies that are still in NZ because all of a sudden the can't compete. So one at a time they leave, taking all their jobs with them. And those that remain loyal to NZ and refuse to move suffer the consequences and go bankrupt. It's not just manufacturing either. Helpdesks and Technology based industries are all heading off shore in record numbers to countries where people are happy to work 12 hour+ days just so they can feed their families. Most of us won't even notice -it's not like they advertise the fact that they are quitting NZ but still want your money. The problem now is that we really need those cheap prices because no one has a job and the economy starts to tank. Shoplifting goes up because it's the only way some people will ever get to enjoy even the most basic luxuries in life (not that I'm justifying it, but wait until you have nothing before deciding how you would behave).

Companies like JB respond by treating the symptom and reducing the focus on customer service and apparently most people cheer them on for fighting the good fight, but all it really means is that we are slowly going down the toilet like everyone else. Hardly seems like a reason to celebrate. Or as the case may be, just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, as long as I'm getting the cheapest price".

"There is no way to Peace -Peace is the Way" (A. J. Muste)

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#318214 14-Apr-2010 09:54

maverick: Nice comments Kingjj.. enjoyed reading your posts they were well thought out and presented with what I would hope to be actual facts :).

I was actually really interested in seeing reactions to this post and I'm actually glad to see a majority of posters are more than happy to assist with store security, if it's done in a professional way and helps the industry to keep lower prices then I'm all for it and hopefully the deter more thieves.

For once all my facts are actually legit

friedCrumpet

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

#318221 14-Apr-2010 10:18

corksta:
I wish that my life was so perfect and complete that the only thing I had to worry about was spending a small amount of time allowing someone to look through my bag as I leave a shop!

The whole "I support loss prevention techniques but just don't apply them to me" just doesn't cut it.

*sigh*

I never said that, my views are that some forms of loss prevention are too invasive/lazy.

Maybe next time instead of trying to belittle me and putting words in my mouth you could try actually reading what I said and respond to the actual points.

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#318236 14-Apr-2010 10:39

friedCrumpet:
corksta:
I wish that my life was so perfect and complete that the only thing I had to worry about was spending a small amount of time allowing someone to look through my bag as I leave a shop!

The whole "I support loss prevention techniques but just don't apply them to me" just doesn't cut it.

*sigh*

I never said that, my views are that some forms of loss prevention are too invasive/lazy.

Maybe next time instead of trying to belittle me and putting words in my mouth you could try actually reading what I said and respond to the actual points.

Could you elaborate on which forms are invasive/lazy? I'm not interested so I can 'belittle' you and attack your view, I'm more genuinely interested in how you envision Loss Prevention in NZ.

Bag searches are invasive, no one can deny that, but if stop policies are followed correctly and staff are well trained than it should not be an unpleasant experience. The Warehouse has had a door check policy for years yet I rarely hear anyone moan about it, is it because it is more entrenched and expected at a retailer such as TWH? The simple fact is that LP budgets are not big, LP comes with big expectations from retailers on a shoe string budget. Not every store can afford to provide high-tech or expensive LP solutions, for some the addition of a few mirrors and somebody to check the odd bag at the door is as far as their budgets will allow. Unfortunately most retailers don't see the LP deterrence value of simply providing excellent customer service; store staff are by far the best deterrent a store could hope for.

The way the industry is heading, bag searches may well be a pleasant change soon. CCTV is rapidly taking over traditional customer service and a lot of people see that as extremely invasive.

friedCrumpet

271 posts

Ultimate Geek

#318260 14-Apr-2010 11:02

kingjj:
Could you elaborate on which forms are invasive/lazy? I'm not interested so I can 'belittle' you and attack your view, I'm more genuinely interested in how you envision Loss Prevention in NZ.

Bag searches are invasive, no one can deny that, but if stop policies are followed correctly and staff are well trained than it should not be an unpleasant experience. The Warehouse has had a door check policy for years yet I rarely hear anyone moan about it, is it because it is more entrenched and expected at a retailer such as TWH? The simple fact is that LP budgets are not big, LP comes with big expectations from retailers on a shoe string budget. Not every store can afford to provide high-tech or expensive LP solutions, for some the addition of a few mirrors and somebody to check the odd bag at the door is as far as their budgets will allow. Unfortunately most retailers don't see the LP deterrence value of simply providing excellent customer service; store staff are by far the best deterrent a store could hope for.

The way the industry is heading, bag searches may well be a pleasant change soon. CCTV is rapidly taking over traditional customer service and a lot of people see that as extremely invasive.

Sure, I'm glad to talk about actual points. You're not the one telling me my life is obviously far too perfect and I shouldn't worry about such things.

The ones I find invasive/lazy are the bag searches, but in particular are the bag searches of your store bought goods. This I have only seen at JB (and heard about overseas) and it really irks me, becuase by simply placing your checkout in front of the exit (instead of in the middle of the store) you can avoid needing to this. Yes I can imagine that a particularly crafty theif might have snuck something in his jacket pocket and then stealthily moved it into his bag of other stuff while leaving the checkout line - but really - these highly determined theives are going to get around whatever methods you put in place.

I don't like being automatically treated as as suspect just because I have a bag, or in the case of JB because I decided to BUY something from your store. In my opinion store staff should have a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting before they attempt to search you. As you said store staff are the best deterrent and I think they should be on the lookout and report anything suspcious to the security guard at the door. Other retailers seem to have success with this approach, and you know they still have the ability to beat JB's prices here and there.

As for CCTV, I don't mind CCTV on private property. I'm not a big fan of CCTV being used in public spaces.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Handsomedan

7294 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#318283 14-Apr-2010 11:39

I'm a middle-aged, white, suit-wearing, balding overweight dude who works at a bank.

I just get a nice smile from the security at JB. Every time.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#318286 14-Apr-2010 11:44

friedCrumpet: Sure, I'm glad to talk about actual points. You're not the one telling me my life is obviously far too perfect and I shouldn't worry about such things.

The ones I find invasive/lazy are the bag searches, but in particular are the bag searches of your store bought goods. This I have only seen at JB (and heard about overseas) and it really irks me, becuase by simply placing your checkout in front of the exit (instead of in the middle of the store) you can avoid needing to this. Yes I can imagine that a particularly crafty theif might have snuck something in his jacket pocket and then stealthily moved it into his bag of other stuff while leaving the checkout line - but really - these highly determined theives are going to get around whatever methods you put in place.

I don't like being automatically treated as as suspect just because I have a bag, or in the case of JB because I decided to BUY something from your store. In my opinion store staff should have a reasonable suspicion of shoplifting before they attempt to search you. As you said store staff are the best deterrent and I think they should be on the lookout and report anything suspcious to the security guard at the door. Other retailers seem to have success with this approach, and you know they still have the ability to beat JB's prices here and there.

As for CCTV, I don't mind CCTV on private property. I'm not a big fan of CCTV being used in public spaces.

I agree that bag searches on store purchased goods is not a good idea and placing the checkout in the middle of the store is great for inciting impulse purchases but lousy for loss prevention. Experienced thieves know how to work the system, they know how to avoid bag searches and how to react when stopped so a bag search is rarely a deterrent to them anyway. To your impulsive thief they are a valuable deterrent tool. Even when the checkout is by the door thieves are extremely good at stealing while at the checkout, I've seen cases where they are paying with one hand, pocketing goods with another.

It's this perception that you feel like your being treated as a suspect that I would like to understand more. On one side of the coin your an honest customer whose never had more than a parking ticket against you and you feel aggrieved that you are being treated as a potential thief, on the other side of the coin there is no "mold" that thieves fit into, anybody is capable of stealing and everybody* does it (*not literally, but its done by all walks of life). Is there anyway in your opinion that bag searches could be done where you would not feel judged? (I would be interested in any ideas to try out), or would you rather there were no bag checks but one had to leave their bag at the door? (unless stated retailers have no responsibility for any goods left unattended so this is not always practicable).

In my experience store staff are excellent at deterring when they provide good customer service but lousy at spotting and reporting activity to security staff. It's not their job, they are not trained for it and they would rather not be involved (all understandable).

As for CCTV, as a ball park example some private systems (in retailers) can have retention for up to 6 months on anywhere from 30-100 cameras, many of which may be PTZ's which are more than capable of reading the time on your watch or a text message on a phone. They can zoom right in to see every pimple and blemish and generally catch every nose pick or PDA. Does this feel less like an invasion of privacy or is this still better than a bag search?

Thanks for your thoughts friedCrumpet!

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#318291 14-Apr-2010 11:49

Handsomedan: I'm a middle-aged, white, suit-wearing, balding overweight dude who works at a bank.

I just get a nice smile from the security at JB. Every time.

Do you carry a nice empty bag in with you on every visit? While sadly LP should never use stereotypes it does happen sometimes, which is indeed lazy.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#318313 14-Apr-2010 12:01

Handsomedan: I'm a middle-aged, white, suit-wearing, balding overweight dude who works at a bank.

I'm almost the opposite...

Handsomedan: I just get a nice smile from the security at JB. Every time.

Same...

lurker

831 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#318332 14-Apr-2010 12:21

Is this reaction based on a single inspection? Perhaps if you're chosen repeatedly you could feel aggrieved, but surely this might just have been random luck?

meesham

973 posts

Ultimate Geek

#318344 14-Apr-2010 13:14

Does anyone know what the actual law is when they do the search? I might be thinking of British law here but my understanding is that they can look in the bag but they can't actually put their hands into the bag, they have to ask you to move things about. Anyone know if this is correct?

FreakyKiwi

66 posts

Master Geek

#318354 14-Apr-2010 13:37

i must suggest then you are very very lucky not to be a foreign traveller to NZ/Oz in the 90s - they used to spray the entire passenger cabin with bug killing perfume on landing Down Under - would've made you feel worse than the worms that eat the $%^&

i must also advise you not to go travelling very soon because you'd be scanned by a show-all body scanner in some parts of the world! yes, replace bag with cavity.

yeah I remeber getting sprayed, long trip land at the airport in they come and spray everyone nasty stuff!!

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#318357 14-Apr-2010 13:44

meesham: Does anyone know what the actual law is when they do the search? I might be thinking of British law here but my understanding is that they can look in the bag but they can't actually put their hands into the bag, they have to ask you to move things about. Anyone know if this is correct?

You are correct, unless the customer gives approval for the officer to physically search the bag they should only look in it. Most companies have a 'inspection only' clause, meaning their staff may not physically touch a customers property when doing a bag search. It avoids acquisition's of theft or planting stock.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7