Mapping Surveillance - The Fulcrum Application as a Spatial Method

GEO 600

Final Project Writeup

12/22/2013

Jessi Breen

Jordan Miller

Alex Rittle

This project sought to characterise the surveillance and policing at Fayette Mall. In order to do so, we set out to physically map surveillance technologies within the mall. For the sake of simplicity, we opted to use a mobile application called Fulcrum.  Fulcrum allows users to create web-based field surveys that can then be easily filled out on site using a mobile phone.

We designed our field survey to include variables that we decided as a group would be useful to capture.  Those variables included:

• map location - a variable that allowed us to connect an alphanumeric name for a location to a hand-drawn point on the mall map
• ease of location - a Likert scale variable intended to allow users to rank the difficulty they had in sighting the technology given that surveillance technology is often concealed
• target - a variable intended to describe the space the surveillance technology was surveying
• type - a binary variable to gather whether the surveillance was being conducted by human or non-human means
• observation - a multiple choice variable to capture whether or not a user was surveilled while collecting this information
• photo - a photo of the surveillance technology

Fulcrum survey interface:

Once on-site at the Fayette Mall, we split into our three field research groups.  Each research group included a member of the mapping working group. In turn the three groups worked their way through the mall using the different research method protocols developed by the three working groups. This was intended to ensure that the groups did not duplicate each others efforts.

While on-site, the following observations where made:

• Retail stores seemed to consistently have surveillance cameras aimed at doorways and near cash registers
• While all stores had cameras aimed at entryways and registers, larger retailers had the entire floorplan covered in camera surveillance
• Human surveillance seemed to be absent
• Camera surveillance was only documented in retail stores - not in  mall walkway/open space/food court
• Dearth of security guards/human policing
• Tech surveillance in some stores more advanced than others; i.e. video screens, more square footage, cameras more discrete in some locations
• Surveillance seemed to be just as concerned with employees (aimed at registers) as much as shoppers
• The level of discernibility because of several factors - camera position, high level of shopping activity, cost/benefit - was in question
• No consistent trend in types/quantity of surveillance and location in mall - random, perhaps based on level of retail business

Figure 1 and 2: TV screens that display camera’s POV; commonly in entryways of stores

Figure 3: Large camera; common in large department stores. Seemed to cover entire floorplan of store.

Figure 4: Small camera in corner of Victoria’s Secret - aimed at shoppers.  Small, doesn’t cover entire floorplan.

We encountered a few methodological problems during our field research, not the least of which was that the Fulcrum application ultimately “ate” our data when the trial organizational membership ran out. Other problems included:

• Inconsistent picture taking styles
• Jessi took contextual pictures, Alex took pictures of the specific surveillance mechanisms
• GPS didn’t work across platforms
• Before the data got eaten, GPS points were in weird places and Jessi wasn’t able to record any GPS points at all.
• We neglected to account for audible or tactile surveillance methods
• The beeps at doors caused by various sensors and the merchandise attached to the wall/table, like in Best Buy and the Apple Store.
• No check box for the lack of cameras
• Made it unclear whether a space had been covered
• Should give a description of what the store is like if it does not have physical surveillance
• small/big; lots of workers, etc.
• “Target” should have been a drop down option.
• The descriptions were very different across users and should have standardized some with a drop down menu.

Given the outcome of our field experiences there are a few things that we would do differently next time. First off, we wouldn’t use Fulcrum.  Without an organizational account, apps in Fulcrum are restricted to single users.  A better option would be Epi-Collect, which allows multiple users to participate in a survey without having a paid account.  Next, we would spend more time training on the application and having a backup plan for how to update the survey in the field. We would also make sure that researchers were spread out more, it was fairly obvious that we were all together and we would assign an individual to observe the data recorder to see how that individual was observed. We would also consider adding more nuance to our data collection on human surveillance.  We lacked options in the survey to record who conducted the human surveillance, a greeter, a floater? And how it was conducted, where you followed?  Did someone look in your bag? Finally, we would consider the non-human aspect of surveillance, beyond the video camera, more.  Our initial concepts of the non-human surveillance seemed to stop at video recordings and our experience in the field tells us that there is a lot of non-human surveillance that we hadn’t expected or allotted ways to record in our survey.

Ultimately, this experience raised more questions for us about the characterization of surveillance within the Fayette Mall.

• How effective is camera surveillance?

• Is camera surveillance used enough to where it is beneficial?
• Tech surveillance vs. Human surveillance?
• Is surveillance for shoppers or employees? Both? Even distribution?
• Surveillance a form of intimidation instead of actual evidence?
• Surveillance used more at certain times of year?

Participant observation of “loss-prevention” surveillance at the Fayette Mall

                                   

Participant observation of “loss-prevention” surveillance at the Fayette Mall

Perhaps the most interesting element of our participant observation project in the Fayette Mall was the lack of apparent control over customer interactions in stores. Having been informed in interviews that people who are obviously looking around at employees and other shoppers while carrying large, empty bags are prime targets for surveillance, most of us expected to attract at least some kind of attention from staff. Instead, most of us were either completely ignored by staff, or greeted with a “how may I help you” and no followup that made us feel like we were different in any way from the other customers, most of whom were very obviously not "casing the joint." Only one group succeeded repeatedly in drawing obvious attention from employees, but in order to do so they had to break various social sanctions in ways that other group members were unwilling or unable to do. In the narrative that follows, I describe the experience of my own group, as well as referring to others' experiences as they attempted to be obviously surveilled.

My group started out not being very blatant, thinking that maybe – simply by walking into stores and looking around somewhat suspiciously while carrying large, empty bags, with one person dressed in stained, faded, and baggy clothing – we would be able to see employees taking interest in us. This was not the case. In Williams Sonoma, where numerous expensive kitchen gadgets weren't tagged, we had no interactions whatsoever with store staff. Deciding to be a little more up-front, we entered Sephora, where we expected – as two bearded men – to be out of place and particularly suspicious. I picked up a variety of makeup products while staring at the nearest employees, but they were very obviously not paying attention. I put them back down. This experience was repeated in almost all of the stores we visited, and is confirmed by other groups. After visiting several stores with no “success”, we went so far as to split up so that one group member could conduct more interviews, which we thought would probably be more useful.

Overall, two of our three groups had difficulty attracting any kind of negative attention from employees. Tad was the only individual who was able to really attract attention (a shocked look at Claire's and pretty blatant observation/dissuasion at the Cosmo skate shop. Kenny had an employee wheel around to look into his bag in Best Buy, and Jonghee was glared at from behind a counter when she picked up a shoe from a display outside of The Walking Co. Everywhere else, it's safe to say that we were pretty roundly ignored. Despite the fact that positive attention (the “how may I help you”) was reported as an explicit means of loss prevention, and was apparently used to that effect in several stores, our group got this treatment in less than half of the stores we visited. At one point while visiting the Gap, I had a weird feeling of identification with the people who write employee handbooks and train retail workers. As we walked to the back of the store, looking as sketchy as possible, the two employees in the front of the store flirted with each other and ignored us completely. For most of us, the experience led us to think that shoplifiting – particularly with a plan and possibly a partner – should be relatively easy.

While our research was inherently limited by our class backgrounds and (mostly) racial background, we can probably see two general trends that will likely be true across a broad spectrum of cases. First, security is hard. Shop floors are relatively open, and hard to secure. As we know from debates around “security theater” in airports, it’s pretty hard to make anything secure against determined assailants, and attempts to secure space are not always received very well by the people who use the space. However, there are also ways in which security is easy. In many ways, it is built in to the social fabric in ways that are hard to tease out. Speaking for myself (which limits the relevance of this anecdote due to my whiteness and upbringing as an “upstanding citizen), I felt like in order to “win” and get disapproving looks from employees, I would have to do something that would be obviously not socially sanctioned. Maybe if I had stood to gain something by shoplifting I would be more enabled to do these things, but even when I was relatively sure that nobody cared about anything I was doing, the fear of “getting caught” was substantial. It seems to me like this fear is abstract, rather than particular: If I were actually attempting to steal something, any fear would be related to specific acts and consequences. Even though we weren’t doing anything illegal, there is still an immense social pressure to conform and avoid breaking social codes. Ultimately this kind of internalized social control was the strongest factor in my experience in the mall, and in many ways makes other, external/invasive forms of control less necessary.

Not all social control is invasive, however. Although we had relatively few negative interactions with staff, all groups had a variety of “customer service” interactions, which mostly seemed more positive. However, customer service is commonly cited as a prime tool for loss prevention, appearing in handbooks[1], training workshops[2] and in retail studies.[3]  These resources suggest that by providing excellent customer service employees are able to make customers feel both welcomed and watched.  For example, “The retail staffing experts” at Set and Service Resources state:

It turns out that one of the most powerful ways to deter shoplifting is by providing superior customer service.  Excellent customer service means that you know where your customers are and are nearby to offer them assistance – and being able to see where they are makes it easier to provide that service. [4]

And the website, “Security Info Watch” suggest that in addition to store layout and video surveillance, providing good customer service is important:

Provide good customer service: Shoplifters want and need privacy; so take it away from them. When they respond "I'm just looking," teach employees to say "Ok great, I’ll keep my eye on you in case you need any assistance.” Honest customers are ok with this (you are there if they need help), and this is the last thing a shoplifter wants to hear.[5]

The U.S. Security Associates offer an external security program entitled: “COMPASS Store-Greeter Service.[6]” The “Store-Greeter” is a security agent in disguise who provides a watchful eye and a smiling face to customers with the goal of preventing loss and shoplifting. The store-greeter also monitors employees. Similarly, the job search website, monster.com advertises over 130 job openings of “Loss prevention Customer Service Associate” in Lexington.

According to “Shoplifting in Retail Clothing Outlets: An Exploratory Research” (1994) by Lin Hastings and Martin,

Many of the outlets focus on customer service as their number one preventive device against shoplifting. Because of this many customers are not alarmed when entering the store and will actually feel welcomed by the added customer service. By using customer service as a deterrent most stores are confident that their deterrent is successful (mean = 3.92). Almost every respondent surveyed listed customer service as a deterrent. The managers also believe the training of their employees in shoplifting deterrents and preventive devices is significant in lowering shoplifting in their stores (mean = 1.51).

Although interviews with store managers in our study also suggest that customer service is one of the most important “preventative device against shoplifting” (see JCrew interview) our research findings did not correlate with this statement.  For example, during the participant observation segment, one person said that no one offered help or customer service to him at all. Two groups suggested they received a low amount of customer service, especially in places where the clothing had tags. One of the groups, however, received a high level of customer service and reported that most places greeted them and offered help and suggestions. This group, incidentally, did not dress up in a way that was supposed to attract negative attention. These findings may suggest an inconsistency in the goals of management and the goals of associates. Additionally, the findings may also suggest a reliance on technological surveillance rather than customer service on the part of the employees. The high number of cameras and tags may have seemed adequate to employees. One hypothesis that higher end stores would have a different approach to surveillance and security was not substantiated in this study. There did not seem to be a difference between different types of stores based on the supposed clientele or the price of merchandise.

---

[1] http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/criminology/people/bna/10WaystoKeepShrinkageLowpdf

[2] http://www.losspreventionfoundation.org/lpq.html

[3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=162435

[4] http://blog.sasrlink.com/blog/bid/234760/Customer-Service-A-Tool-for-Small-Retail-Loss-Prevention

[5] http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/10725458/hayes-international-24th-annual-retail-theft-survey-shows-that-apprehensions-and-recovery-dollars-from-shoplifters-and-dishonest-employees-rose-in-2011

[6] http://www.ussecurityassociates.com/usa-services/specialized-services/retail-loss-prevention.php