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
No comments:
Post a Comment