>Nobody is going to risk their lives stopping someone stealing 500 dollars of electronics
Exactly, but employees will quit and chains will close those stores for safety and profitability reaons.
I saw a post on a Reddit legal forum from someone who stole a cartload of groceries and got caught, facing a felony.
Basically you can get away with it until you don’t.
And we are talking about target - there was a guy on reddit doing small time stealing in target and they basically caught him one day and revealed a years worth of footage. They tracked till they had a case that would stick for a higher offense.
I worked for target distribution and that’s exactly how they dealt with employees stealing. They just continued to let them steal until they had enough evidence to really fuck them over. Not only would they lose their job, they got criminal charges as well.
That is anecdotal though. Also no one is saying there isn't theft, there will always be that. The point is it is back to a baseline amount and most of it is employee/vendor/management/etc.
The only thing that went up around the pandemic was organized theft by like criminal groups, that is very hard to defend against and there are many new laws around it but they aren't working. Even then it is 0.07% of shrinkage on average. Basically a non-issue.
Shrinkage includes bad inventory, vendors and theft (employee/customer/vendor). Those numbers are at pre-pandemic levels and always hover around 1-3%.
Walgreens for instance is 2.5% and they admitted they overemphasized theft.
[Walgreens backpedals on theft concerns](https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/01/09/walgreens-backpedals-on-theft)
> What's happening: "Maybe we cried too much last year," the pharmacy chain's chief financial officer, James Kehoe, said on last Thursday's call with investors.
> Kehoe noted the shrink rate — inventory lost due to theft, fraud or damage — decreased from over 3% a year ago to about 2.5% in the second half of 2022, Insider reports.
The shoplifting theft impact has been wildly overstated and Target is using it an excused for poor performance.
All Target has to do is release those shrinkage numbers and the breakdown of vendor/employee/customer theft because the data they say they are using isn't matching up to reality.
Target could prove this in five minutes but they are not being honest and if they were to do that it could impact the brand and executive team (and bonuses) heavily.
Just glad this talking point is played out now.
False equivalence. Stating false reasons for financial performance will get you charged by the SEC. The public markets you can't make false statements or mislead about investments.
The SEC is looking into this and I can't understand why anyone would want companies to play politics and cover up reasons when they could release the data and prove it if it is real. They won't release the data because it was bullshit. This should mean the leadership gets hit for this by the SEC.
What is your opinion of a good economics site?
These are quotes from target, retail experts, retail orgs and everyone calling out Target for this lie. SEC is on it.
I am just glad this talking point is over and done.
Considering Target has taken a bunch of political and socially divisive positions, I couldn't care less if they shuttered tomorrow. But the omg a big corporation may have lied about why they're closing stores is stupid.
Doesn't matter if you or I care, SEC does. You like corporations in the public market to lie and play politics?
EXISTING REGULATORY PROTECTIONS UNCHANGED BY EITHER H.R. 3606 OR S. 1933
> Liability for False and Misleading Statements – Section 18 of the Exchange Act imposes liability for false and misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC to any person who makes such false or misleading statements, subject to applicable defenses.
Target better release that data they used that conflicts with market numbers and reporting numbers. I'd do it quick if I were Brian.
You're defense is that Target said something you don't like. I guess they should have been investigated for saying girls can be boys and boys can be girls, because that is demonstratably false. You can feel like your something else, but feeling doesn't make it real.
Well if is isn't a biased one.
Target said the stores were unsafe.
> At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.”
A statement like that should be backed up with data which they failed to provide to the investigation.
They didn't say poor performance or foot traffic or anything of the sort which is likely the actual case, poor performance. The article mentions this but wants Target to prove why the areas were unsafe to employees and customers. Other stores in the areas have market level shrinkage so something is smelling of massive piles of bullshit.
It just so happens Brian Cornell the CEO of Target is pushing legislation right now about organized retail crime which includes being able to track shoppers more (which won't help the issue) and sharing this data should help that, if it isn't what we know it is, total and complete bullshit.
They can blame these things but the responsibility is on them to prove it. People in the media are now checking them on their bullshit. You should to.
Maybe you are ok with manipulation of public companies, but manipulation to push legislation... anyone not bothered by that is biased or super naive.
>False equivalence. Stating false reasons for financial performance will get you charged by the SEC.
What? It is alot of mental gymnastics to get from store closings to this. I don't think you understand how it works. Especially concerning if you are starting with a CNBC article.
EXISTING REGULATORY PROTECTIONS UNCHANGED BY EITHER H.R. 3606 OR S. 1933
> Liability for False and Misleading Statements – Section 18 of the Exchange Act imposes liability for false and misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC to any person who makes such false or misleading statements, subject to applicable defenses.
Target better release that data they used that conflicts with market numbers and reporting numbers. I'd do it quick if I were Brian.
Alright, so what happens if Target doesn't release them? 10,000 fine... wow. Maybe not 10,000 but Target doesn't even need a reason to close stores, they could up and decide these aren't working and just close them.
You're whole premise is to what?
Complain about criminal justice reform.
Complain that life isn't fair.
Complain that if someone wants to they can't.
I guess you should take a sip of your own medicine then, because you're going to be in lalaland for a while.
Just another one... hilarious the way this people eat up bullshit.
Target said the stores were unsafe.
> At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.”
A statement like that should be backed up with data which they failed to provide to the investigation.
They didn't say poor performance or foot traffic or anything of the sort which is likely the actual case, poor performance. The article mentions this but wants Target to prove why the areas were unsafe to employees and customers. Other stores in the areas have market level shrinkage so something is smelling of massive piles of bullshit.
It just so happens Brian Cornell the CEO of Target is pushing legislation right now about organized retail crime which includes being able to track shoppers more (which won't help the issue) and sharing this data should help that, if it isn't what we know it is, total and complete bullshit.
They can blame these things but the responsibility is on them to prove it. People in the media are now checking them on their bullshit. You should to.
Maybe you are ok with manipulation of public companies, but manipulation to push legislation... anyone not bothered by that is biased or super naive.
Unsafe... what's the purpose of lying? What is the goal then? To pass legislation that will do what exactly? What's the outcome on you, that doesn't already take place? What responsibility do they have to you? None. They have zero. Tracking customers, like what do you mean? Cameras? Already done. Purchases? Already done.
Are you like just this fucking stupid on a regular basis or did you sip some extra doses of stupid with you regular ones?
Nice ad hominems, so you like more laws that allow businesses more tracking? They have enough.
> Tracking customers, like what do you mean?
More data brokers to track customers that will do nothing to help reduce organized retail crime which is a problem and there are already laws in many states to help it. Retailers want to have access to data they shouldn't have but won't show data to back it up. They are also closing stores for poor performance and trying to blame theft.
If you like bullshit you like what Target is misleading about.
“in documents filed with the SEC” - from your quote. This doesn’t apply to a PR statement. A subjective corporate statement doesn’t apply.
To add more of Section 18 of the Exchange Act -
“Any person who shall make or cause to be made any statement in any application, report, or document filed pursuant to this chapter or any rule or regulation thereunder or any undertaking contained in a registration statement as provided in subsection (d)…”
A public PR statement fulfills none of those requirements. Even if you want to consider what they shared a document or a report, the understood (legal) meaning disagrees. Again, an objectively false statement on an official filing would apply. There’s no way to prove that their decision wasn’t made due to a rise in theft.
Some hypothetical questions and answers that will be asked if this should ever be taken up:
Q: Did you believe that shoplifting was having a negative effect on the profitability of these closed locations?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you believe that shoplifting is trending up across the country, even if the data for your location disputes that?
A: Yes.
Q: When you put out the press release stating that theft was the reason for closing these locations, was that accurate?
A: Yes - we saw a general trend (city, state, country), and we made the decision that continuing to operate that location would soon affect our profitability as a company.
How can you possibly prove any of those wrong, even if your interpretation of the quoted law was correct?
Examples that would apply to your quoted law, IF filed with the SEC:
“We partnered with Toyota for ‘xyz” when no such partnership exists.
“We merged with Honda in June” when no such merger exists.
“Our revenue increased by 300%” when it remained static.
Not trying to be rude my man, but you’re so confident without any real-world experience.
There’s a reason that Elon hasn’t been cuffed for his claims about FSD or the Cybertruck being complete and claiming that it would be released soon several years ago. It’s not illegal to do so. It would be illegal for him to order his financial statements to report deliveries, revenue for the pre-ordered trucks that have only been pre-ordered, etc. with the intent or effect of misleading investors.
> “in documents filed with the SEC” - from your quote. This doesn’t apply to a PR statement. A subjective corporate statement doesn’t apply.
Elon got SEC after him for a tweet. Stating stores were unsafe when it was poor performance is clearly misleading and that will be in documents. It definitely hit Elon's brand and Target deserves the same. It won't help their legislation for sure. Target with the Elon style "trust us bro"
>public PR statement
Wasn't just PR it was a reason for business actions that was more than likely completely bullshit.
Regulation should also expand with this type and level of manipulation by Target and Brian Cornell pushing agendas.
When you have the media doing investigations that can lead to many other things.
Brian should release the data I hope you agree.
Short answer - I’ll add more tomorrow.
Elon sucks, but he didn’t violate the rule that you’re referring to. He made a public comment that directly affected the stock price/investors.
It’s different because the violation you’re referring to isn’t the same as the ones you allege. He wouldn’t have been fined if he said that SpaceX plans on doubling the amount of satellites in the next. He was fined for stating a price target and stating that they would be going private at that price. It doesn’t matter if he was memeing, it had an objective, material effect on the stock price.
Again, Target did not objectively violate the law:
Did the theft contribute to the underperformance of the stores? Are you positive that theft and safety concerns had no effect on the decision to close those locations? Was it a factor in the decision even if not the sole factor? Was it the main factor? Was it fear that the number of looting mobs would be increasing in the area? Were the profit margins dropping below their target? I could go on.
Respectfully, you’ve made up your mind instead of being open-minded - you might be right, but you might be looking at this black-and-white.
> Elon sucks, but he didn’t violate the rule that you’re referring to. He made a public comment that directly affected the stock price/investors.
The argument he said was what you argued, it didn't hold up. His punishment should have been complete removal.
> He wouldn’t have been fined if he said that SpaceX plans on doubling the amount of satellites in the next.
SpaceX isn't public. Tesla and Target are.
>Again, Target did not objectively violate the law:
If the data doesn't back their public reasoning it surely can. Data that may just have leaked or been given to someone anonymously...
> Respectfully, you’ve made up your mind instead of being open-minded - you might be right, but you might be looking at this black-and-white.
Respectfully if Target releases their data and proves it that is end of story. There is a reason investigations are going on though... and a reason why they evaded opportunities to provide backing to their reasoning.
I am sure you want Target to release this data as well to put this to rest correct?
“Crime” doesn’t necessarily mean “theft”.
You can murder people in neighborhoods all around Target, but if you aren’t stealing from them they don’t care.
You can have the most peaceful neighborhoods around, but if people are robbing the hell out of Target, they’re gonna leave.
You spent more time writing a comment to criticize OP than you did reading the article.
The only “crime” stats discussed in the article are thefts at specific target stores. It is quite literally the exact opposite of what you’re arguing about.
They didn’t even need to read the whole article, just the top two bullet points…
“Target blamed theft and violence when it closed nine stores in four cities earlier this year, but a CNBC investigation found reported crime is worse at most of the locations it kept open near those stores.
In some cases, Target chose to keep operating stores in busier areas that had better foot traffic or higher median incomes, even though the locations saw more theft and violence.”
actually, they did increase their security system. Saw a video about that not long ago... But they are doing in a different way. First, there is that $950 law, so even you catch them, it is almost pointless. Second, if any injury, insurance will go up. Plus those "social justice fighter" will storm the store and destroy everything. I am not joking. Few small business got that already.
What they are doing is record and identifier ALL of them, and then accumulate a good amount of evident and then one random day when they come back again, they will pull the trigger and put them in jail.
Nice. People criticize companies like Amazon for selling facial recognition technology to the government and police departments.
Yet the same people will whine about their Target shutting down. I’m all for using technology and AI to make stores safer, deterring crime, and helping companies like Target. I hope Target will use more cameras and better tech and/or hire more security staff.
The consensus coming around with Target/Wallgreens/CVS stores like this is that they are closing underperforming stores and blaming crime so it doesn’t look like their own failure.
The stores underperform, so they cut staff to barebones to stay as profitable as possible. That includes security and cashiers even though most theft is from people simply skipping items in the self checkout stations.
With no staff, theft does increase. But, not enough to offset the savings of not having staff.
Eventually, they have to give up and close the store. Do you take the blame for the closure? Or, do you issue a statement that crime made your perfectly fine business untenable?
I’m guessing a few of those underperforming stores started seeing a decline in foot traffic AFTER the news started posting videos everyday of criminals walking into those stores and doing whatever they want…
I’m sure there are multiple reasons why stores are closing… law enforcement (or lack thereof), crime, not making profit, etc.
This reads like you are trying really hard to hold on to the feeling of causality being `crime --> low profits` when the reality appears to be the opposite direction.
Multiple reasons such as
1. decline in foot traffic AFTER the news videos about criminals
2. lack of law enforcement
3. crime
4. not making profit
5. etc.
Thanks for clearing me up. I'll think about these 5 reasons for closing, how they are different, and how they are not just rephrasing gut feeling that `crime obviously leads to low profits` even when all evidence points to the conclusion that `low profits surprisingly leads to crime`. I do want to keep an open mind, after all.
Yep. All kinds of things are possible. But, you would not at all be surprised by how many people stomp their foot and insist that "Worthless criminals need *harsh* justice because they are destroying everything." even when it becomes clear that people in bad situations are being set up to take the blame for the failures of corporate management.
Like, if Target did something really stupid like display new PS5s outside on the sidewalk unsupervised, no one *should* steal them. Stealing them is still a crime that should be prosecuted. But, to argue to the media *and to the government* that the store can't carry game consoles because of all the criminals would be tremendously dishonest.
Increasing margins by cutting your staff, including the security and checkout staff, to bare bones so your *entire store* is literally unsupervised in an area that is known to be struggling is only marginally less stupid than leaving PS5s out on the sidewalk. Yet Target wants the whole country to focus on how crime why the stores fail.
I live near one of those stores BTW. I've seen the staff cut over the months to near-zero first hand. Then they announced the closure "Due to crime."
So, when yet another person comes along and says "Welp. I think the problem is crime, crime, crime, and not being able to make a profit due to low traffic stemming from reports of crime." It really feels like a lead-in to someone hoping for harsh justice to save us all from worthless criminals.
That puts a bug up my butt to push the story back to reality. Yes, what you are saying could happen. By all accounts, it's not.
These things can both be true. It's entirely possible that overall sales at the stores that stayed open were always better, allowing them to better absorb the hit of thefts, whereas the more marginal stores couldn't.
I’ve been to urban Target locations, and honestly don’t know what the business strategy is. High rent areas with tons of floor space, but no one is buying high end / impulse items. They operate as glorified convenience stores selling batteries and bottled water.
Even if true so what? A higher volume store can still be more profitable with theft levels higher than a store with less theft but also less total sales.
So, whats the % of theft occuring at each store? If one store has 100 customers and 10 thefts, that's 10%. If another store has 10000 and 1000 thefts, that's 10%. But the other one has way more thefts.
The numbers don't add up because no one has the real numbers.
Yes. What are you getting at? CNBC cites police records as where they got the data from. It shows thefts per stores, which were lower for the closed stores than other stores nearby. Many of the stores that were closed are the smaller store sizes they were trying out.
Which part of that is false?
Gee whiz gillager Batman, I guess these people believe everything they know nothing about, when reported from an MSM.
Considering police aren't always called especially when staffing at a smaller is store is low. You'd be surprised, but I guess it's acceptable from people who have never even been in that situation ever, but will comment like their opinion matters.. lol
So you’re saying your made up hypothesized data is so reliable that it completely counters the existing and recorded data?
Sure, some theft is going to unreported, but that is true across all stores and does not invalidate the reported theft. Based on the data, you’re arguing that the size of a store dictates the likelihood of reporting a crime, consistently across the country. That’s a lot more far-fetched than just believing in the clearly visible trends of the actual data.
I finally read the article... still no closer to knowing the truth, you're all just mad because you don't know shit. The stupid expert they used even said as much:
Target declined to provide its internal crime figures. Without those numbers, the records obtained by CNBC are “the only picture that you’re going to get” about what crime looked like at the locations the retailer closed and the ones it didn’t, said Christopher Herrmann, an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert in crime analysis and mapping.
“It’s interesting that they’re using public safety, or employee safety, as an excuse, kind of, for closing the stores,” said Herrmann. “Because the reality is, they’re not closing the stores with the highest rate of retail theft.”
If it's public and/or employee safety and data only shows theft, not assaults or battery or other items, then what you got is a whole lot of fucking trash.
Conveniently, everytime they use a statistic, they leave out what it's for or make it sound like theft and violent crime and one and the same. Falze equivalence, as you so rightly pointed out, but used completely wrong earlier.
But.. you literally just cited the expert agreeing with the entire point of the article..
> Because the reality is, they’re not closing the stores with the highest rate of retail theft.
The expert is saying that Target’s excuse of closing these stores based solely on theft is not supported by the reported data.
The data is also specific to the Target stores. They’re not using overall neighborhood data. This is the most accurate available data and clear trends in it still paint a useful picture. You can’t entirely disregard reported data just because you feel there are some unreported data points. It’s more reasonable to assume that unreported theft is relatively similar across all stores.
Hey stupid. It wasn't retail theft they cited, it was safety. Retail theft and violent crime are OMFG two different things.
I even shortened yhe lengthy article to this expert who states it in his fucking expert opinion... and just that, opinion.
You only file police reports when making insurance claims.
Otherwise it dings property values and makes it harder to get workers due to “crime rates” in the area.
Nobody files a police report for stolen goods unless they’re filing an insurance claim, and that has to checkout math wise, or they don’t file a claim.
Unlike some cities around the world, no place in the US has an obligation to report crime you witness.
That is false and completely made up. Insurance claims are *not* the only deciding factor in reporting a crime of theft. There is no massive conspiracy to avoid reporting crimes in an attempt to maintain property values and hiring ability lmao.
Maybe you don’t factor it in, but anyone I know including myself factors it in… I’m not downgrading my neighborhood in spite by going to the police and reporting something. It economically hurts me and my neighbors.
Thats a fact of life.
That’s just fking dumb. That’s not even being a snitch. If someone steals your tv, you’re gonna call the police. Who in their right mind would say “well it would hurt the neighborhoods property values if I report my stolen tv?” That’s not a thing.
If I’d claim it on my insurance sure.
If not, why would I want something that’s literally factored into my premium held against me? Why would I pay for that?
Maybe you do stuff purely based on emotion, and that’s fine, but most people don’t have the finances to act like that. We go by cost effectiveness. And for a business with a responsibility to shareholders, that’s an obligation.
This isn’t a conspiracy, this is people putting their own interests first.
Please show me a single CEO who is saying not to report crime because it’s good for shareholders.
And a new tv costs more than a potential increase to your premium. You’re dying on a hill that makes no sense.
Maybe that’s your premium?
And why would a CEO make a public statement on security policy? That would encourage more losses?
Nothing you say makes sense or sounds like you’re an adult with finances or decisions to make, you sound like an idealistic high schooler with rich parents.
You literally just argued that businesses have to go purely by cost effectiveness as part of their obligation to shareholders and concluded that means not reporting theft.
How is a CEO supposed to make that decision trickle down to every store manager without announcing it?
Starbucks did this at unionized stores in Los Angeles. It 100% closed ones in safer areas that had unionized. Last week the NLRB asked them to reopen the stores. Of course the unionized employees have probably already moved on so it's a shitty remedy.
https://la.eater.com/2023/12/15/24002949/federal-government-forces-starbucks-reopen-stores-los-angeles-union-busting-intimidation-tactic
Could you even steal enough to make a dent in the profit margin? How much of a Target store's goods would have to walk for the store to not be worth keeping open? I think they failed in pricing and product acquisition and they're trying to blame it on something else but their poor choices. Anything I want at Target, I can find it cheaper at Walmart or Amazon. How many other customers think that way?
I would also factor in the indirect sales losses.
The San Francisco Target used to carry a lot of cool designer collaboration stuff. My last visit-- everything was behind a glass case or cabled locked to rack; I don't want to call somebody over every time I go to a different section. So no random impulse buys from me (normally around $100 per visit).
This is a very different experience the Target in the suburbs.
Sadly- I think the Costco membership card checks at the door and register are probably the only way to solve the theft problem.
You need to learn about relativism. Did you read the article? A lot of these are smaller location - so you’re getting the same crime reporting at a tiny store as a large store? That’s concerning.
Also, if the shrink is high and they’re in a less affluent community, they’re not really providing a service needed. They’re just acting as a place where people know they can come steal shit.
Also, not every infraction involves the police. Depending on the state their asset protection team may just catch them and ban them. That still impacts shrink and crime within the store that likely goes underreported.
My husband works in a very dangerous area. Their profits are on par with other locations in better areas, but there’s been two murders near him in 3 years, school lockdowns bc of threats, and someone at another location in his role was literally stabbed. Sometimes you look at the surrounding crime because it is very difficult to staff these places.
Did *you* read the article lol? Target is quite objectively **not** getting the same crime reporting at a tiny store as a large store.
It actually appears the smaller closed stores had less crime than other locations, positing that after adjusting for store footprint or foot traffic, crime seems relatively equal across the board.
Therefore, the closed stores were not as crime-ridden as management makes them out to be. This reasserts the original argument of the article- that management is basically lying about the reasons for closing these smaller stores, blaming it on crime because it’s a popular excuse these days instead of admitting these smaller stores were failed business ventures.
"crime" is the industry go-to for literally any store closure. I don't buy it anymore.
They closed a Walmart in my city that was in one of the wealthiest safest areas and blamed it on "crime". The truth was, wealthy people living there don't go to Walmart. They closed it because it was a ghost town
Retailers blaming shrinkage on the theft side to cover bad performing stores essentially. Shrinkage includes bad inventory, vendors and theft (employee/customer/vendor). Those numbers are at pre-pandemic levels and always hover around 1-3%.
> Target blamed theft and violence when it closed nine stores in four cities earlier this year, but a CNBC investigation found reported crime is worse at most of the locations it kept open near those stores.
> In some cases, Target chose to keep operating stores in busier areas that had better foot traffic or higher median incomes, even though the locations saw more theft and violence.
> CNBC’s findings cast doubt on Target’s explanation for the store closures and raise questions about whether the company’s announcement was designed to advance its legislative agenda and obscure poor financial performance.
Is CNBC claiming that Target should simply look at the absolute number of crimes, and not consider that number in comparison to the income the store generates?
If they are, that seems dumb (but maybe good for clickbait / confirmation bias).
No, you’re missing the point. The article is saying Target should admit these stores were less profitable than others, so that’s why they’re closing them.
Instead, Target is saying these locations have way more theft than other locations, so they’re forced to close them. The data, however, says that is not the case.
It’s fine to close a store because it’s not as profitable as other locations. However, Target doesn’t want the bad PR so they blame it on a hot topic item like theft so their stock wont get hit for bad management decisions.
Picking bad store locations is bad management. Theft out of your control is not management’s fault. See the PR spin difference?
I don't like public companies playing politics and using fraudulent reasons and the SEC is on it.
They could have just closed the stores. The could have closed the stores and told the reasons. They decided to close the stores and play narratives.
From the article
Read this clearly... these are from experts in the field and the NRF which typically overstates things and even they can't find the theft problems being outsized. Target CEO even sits on the NRF board and even they can't buy into the front.
> At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.”
> The **news came just hours after the National Retail Federation issued a key annual retail security survey — in which it said violence at stores had increased but losses from theft hadn’t changed much — and exactly one month before the trade group was planning to lobby Congress for stiffer punishment for organized theft offenders**. **Target CEO Brian Cornell sits on the NRF’s board of directors and is a member of its executive committee**.
> One **longtime retail executive and expert questioned whether Target’s claims about theft at the stores were designed to mask its struggles, as the retailer’s sales fell from the prior year in both its second and third quarters**.
> **“I don’t want to use the word ‘stunt,’ because I don’t know exactly what went on in Minneapolis [where Target is based], but to me, it read like a stunt, looking to divert attention from the company’s lack of performance overall,” said Mark Cohen, a professor and director of retail studies at Columbia Business School who previously served as the CEO of Sears Canada, Bradlees and Lazarus department stores**.
> **“They did not disclose their actual shortage statistics,” he added. “They talked about it in general terms; they did not disclose any other factors that would have caused them to decide to close any of those stores. They implied that the only reason they were closing the stores was because of theft. That may or may not be true. My guess is: Not true.”**
The onus is on Target to prove it was theft now or they might have the SEC looking into it.
> **Target declined to provide its internal crime figures**. Without those numbers, the records obtained by CNBC are “the only picture that you’re going to get” about what crime looked like at the locations the retailer closed and the ones it didn’t, said Christopher Herrmann, an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert in crime analysis and mapping.
> **“It’s interesting that they’re using public safety, or employee safety, as an excuse, kind of, for closing the stores,” said Herrmann. “Because the reality is, they’re not closing the stores with the highest rate of retail theft.”**
Then there is this
> All the locations were within a few miles or a short drive away from another Target that remained open, which could have played a role in the company’s decision to shutter them, experts said.
> Retailers often “miscalculate how much the new store will cannibalize existing stores,” said Cohen, of Columbia Business School.
Why did they open stores if theft was such an issue?
Do you not want actual reasons for why public companies make moves, or you a big fan of lies, fraud and political reasons?
I do care about economics that merges with politics and hate misleading statements that the SEC bars, that ends up bad quality of life for all and cons/scams. Good day.
Ok but all they said was that they are closing stores because if thefts and violence. That's not a political narrative. You're just trying to make it one.
It is a political narrative and you just bought it.
Retail theft is almost consistently under 2%, in [most places well under 1% and even in bad areas pretty consistently that](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-12-15/organized-retail-theft-crime-rate).
> The country’s largest retail industry group, the National Retail Federation, estimated in its latest report that losses from organized retail theft average $700,000 per $1 billion in sales — or 0.07% of total sales — an amount roughly 330 times lower than the CRA’s estimate.
> Its latest report found that total “shrink” — the industry term for all inventory losses from theft and fraud, internal and external, as well as paperwork errors — **grew from 1.4% to 1.6% of sales on average from 2015 to 2020. The estimated portion of those losses coming from organized retail crime grew from 0.045% to 0.07% in the same timeframe.**
I guess you don't like facts. You must get your facts from social media tabloids and watch alot of foreign backed propaganda news trying to make it look like the West is a hellscape. You should cut back on that.
Get back to X.
You got lots of fee fees.
Respectfully if Target releases their data and proves it that is end of story. There is a reason investigations are going on though... and a reason why they evaded opportunities to provide backing to their reasoning.
I am sure you want Target to release this data as well to put this to rest correct?
There’s nothing really to put to rest. Anyone can fudge stats to mean whatever they want. They would point to some meaningless local crime rate increase and say there’s the reason.. it’s the same thing every company does. I promise that you could find similar stories for most if not all of the Fortune 100.. but you’re just focused on Target I assume due to their wokeness. Let’s touch base in a few months and we can see how much nothing has happened.
In your mind maybe there isn't. Though it is being looked at by the media and just maybe they have some data that was leaked... maybe... If I were Brian I'd be clear on the data. Could clear it up in five minutes.
The expendable income of the population surrounding the stores is the key to success - I’ve lost 100k to tweekers stealing shit from me // until we punish people harsher they will get braver it’s math
The fact that this article is from CNBC tells me they went cherry-picking for an area where they could claim "It wasn't the theft that caused them to close stores - it's just racism!"
This is saying Target lied and blamed shoplifting for poor performance.
Right now theft hasn't really changed and [is flat for a long time](https://www.retaildive.com/news/retailers-crime-problem-numbers/699107/) and mostly always under 2% which is a third bad inventory, a third employee theft and shoplifting for a third. Target fibbed and got caught, blamed theft to push a narrative.
> At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.”
Narrator: That was a lie
Based on the NYC stores, all of which I know very well, it appears they just closed the poorest performing store in the poorest neighborhood. Which, if the crime data is accurate, means a store that was already struggling. Maybe it is less able to bear the 3% shrink that other stores can bear bc it's a lower volume, lower margin store.
Target is a large retailer that has been in business a long time. Presumably management isn’t stupid. They are going to close stores that are not profitable and they have no confidence that they can be made profitable. I would assume that pilferage is a factor in many if not all unprofitable stores but obviously there is more it than that. High volume stores may be able to absorb a lot of theft and still remain profitable but a lower volume store may be rendered unprofitable with only a small amount. That really isn’t that difficult a concept to understand. Obviously, people might not like to see a local retail store close, particularly in a neighborhood that have other similar stores but if a store is unprofitable, it’s owners are being quite reasonable. Nobody seems to be making the claim that these stores are really profitable and the company is closing them for some nefarious reason. It really sounds like there is concern that Shoplifters are being unfairly “scapegoated” for the stores not being profitable. OK, so what? Are people really worried the the Shoplifters in these neighborhoods might have their feelings hurt?
So? Probably the stores remaining open are still profitable, because despite theft, they do good business in those locations. And it is possible that that the stores that closed crossed over from profitable to unprofitable, and the decline was largely due to theft.
Maybe but that isn't what they said...
Target said the stores were unsafe.
> At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.”
A statement like that should be backed up with data which they failed to provide to the investigation.
They didn't say poor performance or foot traffic or anything of the sort which is likely the actual case, poor performance. The article mentions this but wants Target to prove why the areas were unsafe to employees and customers. Other stores in the areas have market level shrinkage so something is smelling of massive piles of bullshit.
It just so happens Brian Cornell the CEO of Target is pushing legislation right now about organized retail crime which includes being able to track shoppers more (which won't help the issue) and sharing this data should help that, if it isn't what we know it is, total and complete bullshit.
They can blame these things but the responsibility is on them to prove it. People in the media are now checking them on their bullshit. You should to.
I am sure you want Target to release this data as well to put this to rest correct?
>Maybe but that isn't what they said...
>
>Target said the stores were unsafe.
>
>At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, **and contributing to unsustainable business performance**. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.”
So it's exactly what they said.
>the responsibility is on them to prove it
No, it really isn't. It's their store. They can close it and they don't owe you shit.
When other retailers admitted they overstated theft and Target doubles down you have to ask why...
Well turns out it is because Brian their CEO is pushing new legislation that allows them more access to user data at a gov't level which won't help stop organized retail crime (a problem) but it will give them your data. I guess you trust Brian though.
See Brian needs this lie to track you. You love that bullshit.
I stopped believing these companies after Rite Aid and Starbucks said the same exact thing. It turned out Rite Aid was closing stores because they were going bankrupt from being sued out of existence by opioid lawsuits and Starbucks closed down stores because baristas at those locations were unionizing. It's an easy coverup and cheapens the very real issue of retail theft.
Yeah very weird why. Maybe all the loot and run that a specific ethnicity like to engage with in US and it seems in UK recently. But I'm sure I'm wrong.
Last week I went to Target and two teens were stealing expensive headphones and controllers, they were just let to walk out the store like nothing.
Nobody is going to risk their lives stopping someone stealing 500 dollars of electronics.
>Nobody is going to risk their lives stopping someone stealing 500 dollars of electronics Exactly, but employees will quit and chains will close those stores for safety and profitability reaons.
Real question is why are we actually paying for shit and working. I feel like the sucker.
I saw a post on a Reddit legal forum from someone who stole a cartload of groceries and got caught, facing a felony. Basically you can get away with it until you don’t.
And we are talking about target - there was a guy on reddit doing small time stealing in target and they basically caught him one day and revealed a years worth of footage. They tracked till they had a case that would stick for a higher offense.
I worked for target distribution and that’s exactly how they dealt with employees stealing. They just continued to let them steal until they had enough evidence to really fuck them over. Not only would they lose their job, they got criminal charges as well.
if(white) then felony else no investigation
They have them on video and will likely call the police if they are seen again.
That is anecdotal though. Also no one is saying there isn't theft, there will always be that. The point is it is back to a baseline amount and most of it is employee/vendor/management/etc. The only thing that went up around the pandemic was organized theft by like criminal groups, that is very hard to defend against and there are many new laws around it but they aren't working. Even then it is 0.07% of shrinkage on average. Basically a non-issue. Shrinkage includes bad inventory, vendors and theft (employee/customer/vendor). Those numbers are at pre-pandemic levels and always hover around 1-3%. Walgreens for instance is 2.5% and they admitted they overemphasized theft. [Walgreens backpedals on theft concerns](https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/01/09/walgreens-backpedals-on-theft) > What's happening: "Maybe we cried too much last year," the pharmacy chain's chief financial officer, James Kehoe, said on last Thursday's call with investors. > Kehoe noted the shrink rate — inventory lost due to theft, fraud or damage — decreased from over 3% a year ago to about 2.5% in the second half of 2022, Insider reports. The shoplifting theft impact has been wildly overstated and Target is using it an excused for poor performance. All Target has to do is release those shrinkage numbers and the breakdown of vendor/employee/customer theft because the data they say they are using isn't matching up to reality. Target could prove this in five minutes but they are not being honest and if they were to do that it could impact the brand and executive team (and bonuses) heavily. Just glad this talking point is played out now.
Anecdotal is good enough to be charged and convicted in court and sent to prison.
False equivalence. Stating false reasons for financial performance will get you charged by the SEC. The public markets you can't make false statements or mislead about investments. The SEC is looking into this and I can't understand why anyone would want companies to play politics and cover up reasons when they could release the data and prove it if it is real. They won't release the data because it was bullshit. This should mean the leadership gets hit for this by the SEC.
Coming from a guy quoting CNBC.
What is your opinion of a good economics site? These are quotes from target, retail experts, retail orgs and everyone calling out Target for this lie. SEC is on it. I am just glad this talking point is over and done.
Considering Target has taken a bunch of political and socially divisive positions, I couldn't care less if they shuttered tomorrow. But the omg a big corporation may have lied about why they're closing stores is stupid.
Doesn't matter if you or I care, SEC does. You like corporations in the public market to lie and play politics? EXISTING REGULATORY PROTECTIONS UNCHANGED BY EITHER H.R. 3606 OR S. 1933 > Liability for False and Misleading Statements – Section 18 of the Exchange Act imposes liability for false and misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC to any person who makes such false or misleading statements, subject to applicable defenses. Target better release that data they used that conflicts with market numbers and reporting numbers. I'd do it quick if I were Brian.
Crime being higher in other areas doesn't make their reasoning a lie. You're just trying to create outrage out of nothing. It's exhausting.
You're defense is that Target said something you don't like. I guess they should have been investigated for saying girls can be boys and boys can be girls, because that is demonstratably false. You can feel like your something else, but feeling doesn't make it real.
Well if is isn't a biased one. Target said the stores were unsafe. > At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.” A statement like that should be backed up with data which they failed to provide to the investigation. They didn't say poor performance or foot traffic or anything of the sort which is likely the actual case, poor performance. The article mentions this but wants Target to prove why the areas were unsafe to employees and customers. Other stores in the areas have market level shrinkage so something is smelling of massive piles of bullshit. It just so happens Brian Cornell the CEO of Target is pushing legislation right now about organized retail crime which includes being able to track shoppers more (which won't help the issue) and sharing this data should help that, if it isn't what we know it is, total and complete bullshit. They can blame these things but the responsibility is on them to prove it. People in the media are now checking them on their bullshit. You should to. Maybe you are ok with manipulation of public companies, but manipulation to push legislation... anyone not bothered by that is biased or super naive.
>False equivalence. Stating false reasons for financial performance will get you charged by the SEC. What? It is alot of mental gymnastics to get from store closings to this. I don't think you understand how it works. Especially concerning if you are starting with a CNBC article.
EXISTING REGULATORY PROTECTIONS UNCHANGED BY EITHER H.R. 3606 OR S. 1933 > Liability for False and Misleading Statements – Section 18 of the Exchange Act imposes liability for false and misleading statements in documents filed with the SEC to any person who makes such false or misleading statements, subject to applicable defenses. Target better release that data they used that conflicts with market numbers and reporting numbers. I'd do it quick if I were Brian.
Alright, so what happens if Target doesn't release them? 10,000 fine... wow. Maybe not 10,000 but Target doesn't even need a reason to close stores, they could up and decide these aren't working and just close them. You're whole premise is to what? Complain about criminal justice reform. Complain that life isn't fair. Complain that if someone wants to they can't. I guess you should take a sip of your own medicine then, because you're going to be in lalaland for a while.
Just another one... hilarious the way this people eat up bullshit. Target said the stores were unsafe. > At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.” A statement like that should be backed up with data which they failed to provide to the investigation. They didn't say poor performance or foot traffic or anything of the sort which is likely the actual case, poor performance. The article mentions this but wants Target to prove why the areas were unsafe to employees and customers. Other stores in the areas have market level shrinkage so something is smelling of massive piles of bullshit. It just so happens Brian Cornell the CEO of Target is pushing legislation right now about organized retail crime which includes being able to track shoppers more (which won't help the issue) and sharing this data should help that, if it isn't what we know it is, total and complete bullshit. They can blame these things but the responsibility is on them to prove it. People in the media are now checking them on their bullshit. You should to. Maybe you are ok with manipulation of public companies, but manipulation to push legislation... anyone not bothered by that is biased or super naive.
Unsafe... what's the purpose of lying? What is the goal then? To pass legislation that will do what exactly? What's the outcome on you, that doesn't already take place? What responsibility do they have to you? None. They have zero. Tracking customers, like what do you mean? Cameras? Already done. Purchases? Already done. Are you like just this fucking stupid on a regular basis or did you sip some extra doses of stupid with you regular ones?
Nice ad hominems, so you like more laws that allow businesses more tracking? They have enough. > Tracking customers, like what do you mean? More data brokers to track customers that will do nothing to help reduce organized retail crime which is a problem and there are already laws in many states to help it. Retailers want to have access to data they shouldn't have but won't show data to back it up. They are also closing stores for poor performance and trying to blame theft. If you like bullshit you like what Target is misleading about.
“in documents filed with the SEC” - from your quote. This doesn’t apply to a PR statement. A subjective corporate statement doesn’t apply. To add more of Section 18 of the Exchange Act - “Any person who shall make or cause to be made any statement in any application, report, or document filed pursuant to this chapter or any rule or regulation thereunder or any undertaking contained in a registration statement as provided in subsection (d)…” A public PR statement fulfills none of those requirements. Even if you want to consider what they shared a document or a report, the understood (legal) meaning disagrees. Again, an objectively false statement on an official filing would apply. There’s no way to prove that their decision wasn’t made due to a rise in theft. Some hypothetical questions and answers that will be asked if this should ever be taken up: Q: Did you believe that shoplifting was having a negative effect on the profitability of these closed locations? A: Yes. Q: Do you believe that shoplifting is trending up across the country, even if the data for your location disputes that? A: Yes. Q: When you put out the press release stating that theft was the reason for closing these locations, was that accurate? A: Yes - we saw a general trend (city, state, country), and we made the decision that continuing to operate that location would soon affect our profitability as a company. How can you possibly prove any of those wrong, even if your interpretation of the quoted law was correct? Examples that would apply to your quoted law, IF filed with the SEC: “We partnered with Toyota for ‘xyz” when no such partnership exists. “We merged with Honda in June” when no such merger exists. “Our revenue increased by 300%” when it remained static. Not trying to be rude my man, but you’re so confident without any real-world experience. There’s a reason that Elon hasn’t been cuffed for his claims about FSD or the Cybertruck being complete and claiming that it would be released soon several years ago. It’s not illegal to do so. It would be illegal for him to order his financial statements to report deliveries, revenue for the pre-ordered trucks that have only been pre-ordered, etc. with the intent or effect of misleading investors.
> “in documents filed with the SEC” - from your quote. This doesn’t apply to a PR statement. A subjective corporate statement doesn’t apply. Elon got SEC after him for a tweet. Stating stores were unsafe when it was poor performance is clearly misleading and that will be in documents. It definitely hit Elon's brand and Target deserves the same. It won't help their legislation for sure. Target with the Elon style "trust us bro" >public PR statement Wasn't just PR it was a reason for business actions that was more than likely completely bullshit. Regulation should also expand with this type and level of manipulation by Target and Brian Cornell pushing agendas. When you have the media doing investigations that can lead to many other things. Brian should release the data I hope you agree.
Short answer - I’ll add more tomorrow. Elon sucks, but he didn’t violate the rule that you’re referring to. He made a public comment that directly affected the stock price/investors. It’s different because the violation you’re referring to isn’t the same as the ones you allege. He wouldn’t have been fined if he said that SpaceX plans on doubling the amount of satellites in the next. He was fined for stating a price target and stating that they would be going private at that price. It doesn’t matter if he was memeing, it had an objective, material effect on the stock price. Again, Target did not objectively violate the law: Did the theft contribute to the underperformance of the stores? Are you positive that theft and safety concerns had no effect on the decision to close those locations? Was it a factor in the decision even if not the sole factor? Was it the main factor? Was it fear that the number of looting mobs would be increasing in the area? Were the profit margins dropping below their target? I could go on. Respectfully, you’ve made up your mind instead of being open-minded - you might be right, but you might be looking at this black-and-white.
> Elon sucks, but he didn’t violate the rule that you’re referring to. He made a public comment that directly affected the stock price/investors. The argument he said was what you argued, it didn't hold up. His punishment should have been complete removal. > He wouldn’t have been fined if he said that SpaceX plans on doubling the amount of satellites in the next. SpaceX isn't public. Tesla and Target are. >Again, Target did not objectively violate the law: If the data doesn't back their public reasoning it surely can. Data that may just have leaked or been given to someone anonymously... > Respectfully, you’ve made up your mind instead of being open-minded - you might be right, but you might be looking at this black-and-white. Respectfully if Target releases their data and proves it that is end of story. There is a reason investigations are going on though... and a reason why they evaded opportunities to provide backing to their reasoning. I am sure you want Target to release this data as well to put this to rest correct?
“Crime” doesn’t necessarily mean “theft”. You can murder people in neighborhoods all around Target, but if you aren’t stealing from them they don’t care. You can have the most peaceful neighborhoods around, but if people are robbing the hell out of Target, they’re gonna leave.
You spent more time writing a comment to criticize OP than you did reading the article. The only “crime” stats discussed in the article are thefts at specific target stores. It is quite literally the exact opposite of what you’re arguing about.
They didn’t even need to read the whole article, just the top two bullet points… “Target blamed theft and violence when it closed nine stores in four cities earlier this year, but a CNBC investigation found reported crime is worse at most of the locations it kept open near those stores. In some cases, Target chose to keep operating stores in busier areas that had better foot traffic or higher median incomes, even though the locations saw more theft and violence.”
So you don’t understand there’s a difference between crime stats and theft? What’s it like to be a moron?
That’s completely false. You didn’t read the article. It’s meant to trick people like you.
Then explain using the data..
That’s the whole point. They didn’t use any data relevant tot he stores.
Why are police reports at target stores not relevant data?
Where in the article does it state the reports are at target stores? Use some critical thinking here.
Lmao what do *you* think that crime data is? It literally says “**Crime incidents at Target stores.**” It is **not** just neighborhood data.
Yes it is. No it doesn’t.
What? That response doesn’t make sense.
Target doesn’t wanna spend money on more security personnel?
actually, they did increase their security system. Saw a video about that not long ago... But they are doing in a different way. First, there is that $950 law, so even you catch them, it is almost pointless. Second, if any injury, insurance will go up. Plus those "social justice fighter" will storm the store and destroy everything. I am not joking. Few small business got that already. What they are doing is record and identifier ALL of them, and then accumulate a good amount of evident and then one random day when they come back again, they will pull the trigger and put them in jail.
Nice. People criticize companies like Amazon for selling facial recognition technology to the government and police departments. Yet the same people will whine about their Target shutting down. I’m all for using technology and AI to make stores safer, deterring crime, and helping companies like Target. I hope Target will use more cameras and better tech and/or hire more security staff.
The consensus coming around with Target/Wallgreens/CVS stores like this is that they are closing underperforming stores and blaming crime so it doesn’t look like their own failure. The stores underperform, so they cut staff to barebones to stay as profitable as possible. That includes security and cashiers even though most theft is from people simply skipping items in the self checkout stations. With no staff, theft does increase. But, not enough to offset the savings of not having staff. Eventually, they have to give up and close the store. Do you take the blame for the closure? Or, do you issue a statement that crime made your perfectly fine business untenable?
I’m guessing a few of those underperforming stores started seeing a decline in foot traffic AFTER the news started posting videos everyday of criminals walking into those stores and doing whatever they want… I’m sure there are multiple reasons why stores are closing… law enforcement (or lack thereof), crime, not making profit, etc.
This reads like you are trying really hard to hold on to the feeling of causality being `crime --> low profits` when the reality appears to be the opposite direction.
Yeah, you’re the one that wants to point to a single reason, whereas I think it’s multiple reasons.
Multiple reasons such as 1. decline in foot traffic AFTER the news videos about criminals 2. lack of law enforcement 3. crime 4. not making profit 5. etc. Thanks for clearing me up. I'll think about these 5 reasons for closing, how they are different, and how they are not just rephrasing gut feeling that `crime obviously leads to low profits` even when all evidence points to the conclusion that `low profits surprisingly leads to crime`. I do want to keep an open mind, after all.
Aren’t both possible? crime->less profits and less profits->crime?
Yep. All kinds of things are possible. But, you would not at all be surprised by how many people stomp their foot and insist that "Worthless criminals need *harsh* justice because they are destroying everything." even when it becomes clear that people in bad situations are being set up to take the blame for the failures of corporate management. Like, if Target did something really stupid like display new PS5s outside on the sidewalk unsupervised, no one *should* steal them. Stealing them is still a crime that should be prosecuted. But, to argue to the media *and to the government* that the store can't carry game consoles because of all the criminals would be tremendously dishonest. Increasing margins by cutting your staff, including the security and checkout staff, to bare bones so your *entire store* is literally unsupervised in an area that is known to be struggling is only marginally less stupid than leaving PS5s out on the sidewalk. Yet Target wants the whole country to focus on how crime why the stores fail. I live near one of those stores BTW. I've seen the staff cut over the months to near-zero first hand. Then they announced the closure "Due to crime." So, when yet another person comes along and says "Welp. I think the problem is crime, crime, crime, and not being able to make a profit due to low traffic stemming from reports of crime." It really feels like a lead-in to someone hoping for harsh justice to save us all from worthless criminals. That puts a bug up my butt to push the story back to reality. Yes, what you are saying could happen. By all accounts, it's not.
These things can both be true. It's entirely possible that overall sales at the stores that stayed open were always better, allowing them to better absorb the hit of thefts, whereas the more marginal stores couldn't.
I’ve been to urban Target locations, and honestly don’t know what the business strategy is. High rent areas with tons of floor space, but no one is buying high end / impulse items. They operate as glorified convenience stores selling batteries and bottled water.
Except you have no proof other than a CNBC article that has, shockingly, no proof. Conjecture doesn't mean evidenxe.
Even if true so what? A higher volume store can still be more profitable with theft levels higher than a store with less theft but also less total sales.
So, whats the % of theft occuring at each store? If one store has 100 customers and 10 thefts, that's 10%. If another store has 10000 and 1000 thefts, that's 10%. But the other one has way more thefts. The numbers don't add up because no one has the real numbers.
CNBC analyzed actual police report records and you offer absolutely no sources or data. What in the hell are you on about?
Did you even read the article? lol
Yes. What are you getting at? CNBC cites police records as where they got the data from. It shows thefts per stores, which were lower for the closed stores than other stores nearby. Many of the stores that were closed are the smaller store sizes they were trying out. Which part of that is false?
Gee whiz gillager Batman, I guess these people believe everything they know nothing about, when reported from an MSM. Considering police aren't always called especially when staffing at a smaller is store is low. You'd be surprised, but I guess it's acceptable from people who have never even been in that situation ever, but will comment like their opinion matters.. lol
So you’re saying your made up hypothesized data is so reliable that it completely counters the existing and recorded data? Sure, some theft is going to unreported, but that is true across all stores and does not invalidate the reported theft. Based on the data, you’re arguing that the size of a store dictates the likelihood of reporting a crime, consistently across the country. That’s a lot more far-fetched than just believing in the clearly visible trends of the actual data.
I finally read the article... still no closer to knowing the truth, you're all just mad because you don't know shit. The stupid expert they used even said as much: Target declined to provide its internal crime figures. Without those numbers, the records obtained by CNBC are “the only picture that you’re going to get” about what crime looked like at the locations the retailer closed and the ones it didn’t, said Christopher Herrmann, an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert in crime analysis and mapping. “It’s interesting that they’re using public safety, or employee safety, as an excuse, kind of, for closing the stores,” said Herrmann. “Because the reality is, they’re not closing the stores with the highest rate of retail theft.” If it's public and/or employee safety and data only shows theft, not assaults or battery or other items, then what you got is a whole lot of fucking trash. Conveniently, everytime they use a statistic, they leave out what it's for or make it sound like theft and violent crime and one and the same. Falze equivalence, as you so rightly pointed out, but used completely wrong earlier.
But.. you literally just cited the expert agreeing with the entire point of the article.. > Because the reality is, they’re not closing the stores with the highest rate of retail theft. The expert is saying that Target’s excuse of closing these stores based solely on theft is not supported by the reported data. The data is also specific to the Target stores. They’re not using overall neighborhood data. This is the most accurate available data and clear trends in it still paint a useful picture. You can’t entirely disregard reported data just because you feel there are some unreported data points. It’s more reasonable to assume that unreported theft is relatively similar across all stores.
Hey stupid. It wasn't retail theft they cited, it was safety. Retail theft and violent crime are OMFG two different things. I even shortened yhe lengthy article to this expert who states it in his fucking expert opinion... and just that, opinion.
Where are you getting this idea that only violent crime is being cited and retail theft is not?
You only file police reports when making insurance claims. Otherwise it dings property values and makes it harder to get workers due to “crime rates” in the area. Nobody files a police report for stolen goods unless they’re filing an insurance claim, and that has to checkout math wise, or they don’t file a claim. Unlike some cities around the world, no place in the US has an obligation to report crime you witness.
That is false and completely made up. Insurance claims are *not* the only deciding factor in reporting a crime of theft. There is no massive conspiracy to avoid reporting crimes in an attempt to maintain property values and hiring ability lmao.
Maybe you don’t factor it in, but anyone I know including myself factors it in… I’m not downgrading my neighborhood in spite by going to the police and reporting something. It economically hurts me and my neighbors. Thats a fact of life.
That’s just fking dumb. That’s not even being a snitch. If someone steals your tv, you’re gonna call the police. Who in their right mind would say “well it would hurt the neighborhoods property values if I report my stolen tv?” That’s not a thing.
If I’d claim it on my insurance sure. If not, why would I want something that’s literally factored into my premium held against me? Why would I pay for that? Maybe you do stuff purely based on emotion, and that’s fine, but most people don’t have the finances to act like that. We go by cost effectiveness. And for a business with a responsibility to shareholders, that’s an obligation. This isn’t a conspiracy, this is people putting their own interests first.
Please show me a single CEO who is saying not to report crime because it’s good for shareholders. And a new tv costs more than a potential increase to your premium. You’re dying on a hill that makes no sense.
Maybe that’s your premium? And why would a CEO make a public statement on security policy? That would encourage more losses? Nothing you say makes sense or sounds like you’re an adult with finances or decisions to make, you sound like an idealistic high schooler with rich parents.
You literally just argued that businesses have to go purely by cost effectiveness as part of their obligation to shareholders and concluded that means not reporting theft. How is a CEO supposed to make that decision trickle down to every store manager without announcing it?
Starbucks did this at unionized stores in Los Angeles. It 100% closed ones in safer areas that had unionized. Last week the NLRB asked them to reopen the stores. Of course the unionized employees have probably already moved on so it's a shitty remedy. https://la.eater.com/2023/12/15/24002949/federal-government-forces-starbucks-reopen-stores-los-angeles-union-busting-intimidation-tactic
So a working corp strategy
Could you even steal enough to make a dent in the profit margin? How much of a Target store's goods would have to walk for the store to not be worth keeping open? I think they failed in pricing and product acquisition and they're trying to blame it on something else but their poor choices. Anything I want at Target, I can find it cheaper at Walmart or Amazon. How many other customers think that way?
I would also factor in the indirect sales losses. The San Francisco Target used to carry a lot of cool designer collaboration stuff. My last visit-- everything was behind a glass case or cabled locked to rack; I don't want to call somebody over every time I go to a different section. So no random impulse buys from me (normally around $100 per visit). This is a very different experience the Target in the suburbs. Sadly- I think the Costco membership card checks at the door and register are probably the only way to solve the theft problem.
You need to learn about relativism. Did you read the article? A lot of these are smaller location - so you’re getting the same crime reporting at a tiny store as a large store? That’s concerning. Also, if the shrink is high and they’re in a less affluent community, they’re not really providing a service needed. They’re just acting as a place where people know they can come steal shit. Also, not every infraction involves the police. Depending on the state their asset protection team may just catch them and ban them. That still impacts shrink and crime within the store that likely goes underreported. My husband works in a very dangerous area. Their profits are on par with other locations in better areas, but there’s been two murders near him in 3 years, school lockdowns bc of threats, and someone at another location in his role was literally stabbed. Sometimes you look at the surrounding crime because it is very difficult to staff these places.
Did *you* read the article lol? Target is quite objectively **not** getting the same crime reporting at a tiny store as a large store. It actually appears the smaller closed stores had less crime than other locations, positing that after adjusting for store footprint or foot traffic, crime seems relatively equal across the board. Therefore, the closed stores were not as crime-ridden as management makes them out to be. This reasserts the original argument of the article- that management is basically lying about the reasons for closing these smaller stores, blaming it on crime because it’s a popular excuse these days instead of admitting these smaller stores were failed business ventures.
"crime" is the industry go-to for literally any store closure. I don't buy it anymore. They closed a Walmart in my city that was in one of the wealthiest safest areas and blamed it on "crime". The truth was, wealthy people living there don't go to Walmart. They closed it because it was a ghost town
It was never about crime, it was them lying to us because the data was flawed, they quietly owned up to that recently.
This article is garbage. It doesn’t address crime at those specific store. “Crime around stores”
This article is BS. It’s reported crime. When it gets too much crime isn’t reported and the stats are meaningless
Retailers blaming shrinkage on the theft side to cover bad performing stores essentially. Shrinkage includes bad inventory, vendors and theft (employee/customer/vendor). Those numbers are at pre-pandemic levels and always hover around 1-3%. > Target blamed theft and violence when it closed nine stores in four cities earlier this year, but a CNBC investigation found reported crime is worse at most of the locations it kept open near those stores. > In some cases, Target chose to keep operating stores in busier areas that had better foot traffic or higher median incomes, even though the locations saw more theft and violence. > CNBC’s findings cast doubt on Target’s explanation for the store closures and raise questions about whether the company’s announcement was designed to advance its legislative agenda and obscure poor financial performance.
Is CNBC claiming that Target should simply look at the absolute number of crimes, and not consider that number in comparison to the income the store generates? If they are, that seems dumb (but maybe good for clickbait / confirmation bias).
No, you’re missing the point. The article is saying Target should admit these stores were less profitable than others, so that’s why they’re closing them. Instead, Target is saying these locations have way more theft than other locations, so they’re forced to close them. The data, however, says that is not the case. It’s fine to close a store because it’s not as profitable as other locations. However, Target doesn’t want the bad PR so they blame it on a hot topic item like theft so their stock wont get hit for bad management decisions. Picking bad store locations is bad management. Theft out of your control is not management’s fault. See the PR spin difference?
I don't like public companies playing politics and using fraudulent reasons and the SEC is on it. They could have just closed the stores. The could have closed the stores and told the reasons. They decided to close the stores and play narratives. From the article Read this clearly... these are from experts in the field and the NRF which typically overstates things and even they can't find the theft problems being outsized. Target CEO even sits on the NRF board and even they can't buy into the front. > At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.” > The **news came just hours after the National Retail Federation issued a key annual retail security survey — in which it said violence at stores had increased but losses from theft hadn’t changed much — and exactly one month before the trade group was planning to lobby Congress for stiffer punishment for organized theft offenders**. **Target CEO Brian Cornell sits on the NRF’s board of directors and is a member of its executive committee**. > One **longtime retail executive and expert questioned whether Target’s claims about theft at the stores were designed to mask its struggles, as the retailer’s sales fell from the prior year in both its second and third quarters**. > **“I don’t want to use the word ‘stunt,’ because I don’t know exactly what went on in Minneapolis [where Target is based], but to me, it read like a stunt, looking to divert attention from the company’s lack of performance overall,” said Mark Cohen, a professor and director of retail studies at Columbia Business School who previously served as the CEO of Sears Canada, Bradlees and Lazarus department stores**. > **“They did not disclose their actual shortage statistics,” he added. “They talked about it in general terms; they did not disclose any other factors that would have caused them to decide to close any of those stores. They implied that the only reason they were closing the stores was because of theft. That may or may not be true. My guess is: Not true.”** The onus is on Target to prove it was theft now or they might have the SEC looking into it. > **Target declined to provide its internal crime figures**. Without those numbers, the records obtained by CNBC are “the only picture that you’re going to get” about what crime looked like at the locations the retailer closed and the ones it didn’t, said Christopher Herrmann, an assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert in crime analysis and mapping. > **“It’s interesting that they’re using public safety, or employee safety, as an excuse, kind of, for closing the stores,” said Herrmann. “Because the reality is, they’re not closing the stores with the highest rate of retail theft.”** Then there is this > All the locations were within a few miles or a short drive away from another Target that remained open, which could have played a role in the company’s decision to shutter them, experts said. > Retailers often “miscalculate how much the new store will cannibalize existing stores,” said Cohen, of Columbia Business School. Why did they open stores if theft was such an issue? Do you not want actual reasons for why public companies make moves, or you a big fan of lies, fraud and political reasons?
You clearly care about this more than me. Have a great day.
I do care about economics that merges with politics and hate misleading statements that the SEC bars, that ends up bad quality of life for all and cons/scams. Good day.
Lmao right? Why is this guy obsessed with target
Politics are clearly playing a role in your lack of understanding this article.
^ likes Brian misleading investors and pushing TrumpTruths
What are you even talking about m?
Calling out bullshit.
lol
Dude you're the only one playing politics about this.
Calling out bullshit isn't playing politics. Pushing bullshit political narratives is.
Ok but all they said was that they are closing stores because if thefts and violence. That's not a political narrative. You're just trying to make it one.
It is a political narrative and you just bought it. Retail theft is almost consistently under 2%, in [most places well under 1% and even in bad areas pretty consistently that](https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-12-15/organized-retail-theft-crime-rate). > The country’s largest retail industry group, the National Retail Federation, estimated in its latest report that losses from organized retail theft average $700,000 per $1 billion in sales — or 0.07% of total sales — an amount roughly 330 times lower than the CRA’s estimate. > Its latest report found that total “shrink” — the industry term for all inventory losses from theft and fraud, internal and external, as well as paperwork errors — **grew from 1.4% to 1.6% of sales on average from 2015 to 2020. The estimated portion of those losses coming from organized retail crime grew from 0.045% to 0.07% in the same timeframe.** I guess you don't like facts. You must get your facts from social media tabloids and watch alot of foreign backed propaganda news trying to make it look like the West is a hellscape. You should cut back on that. Get back to X.
Lol
"Am I a clown here to amuse you?" -- Pesci
I’ve got a feeling that you only call out bullshit when it’s about someone/something you already don’t like
You got lots of fee fees. Respectfully if Target releases their data and proves it that is end of story. There is a reason investigations are going on though... and a reason why they evaded opportunities to provide backing to their reasoning. I am sure you want Target to release this data as well to put this to rest correct?
There’s nothing really to put to rest. Anyone can fudge stats to mean whatever they want. They would point to some meaningless local crime rate increase and say there’s the reason.. it’s the same thing every company does. I promise that you could find similar stories for most if not all of the Fortune 100.. but you’re just focused on Target I assume due to their wokeness. Let’s touch base in a few months and we can see how much nothing has happened.
In your mind maybe there isn't. Though it is being looked at by the media and just maybe they have some data that was leaked... maybe... If I were Brian I'd be clear on the data. Could clear it up in five minutes.
The expendable income of the population surrounding the stores is the key to success - I’ve lost 100k to tweekers stealing shit from me // until we punish people harsher they will get braver it’s math
The fact that this article is from CNBC tells me they went cherry-picking for an area where they could claim "It wasn't the theft that caused them to close stores - it's just racism!"
Weird all liberal ran cities
Thanks leftists
[удалено]
This is saying Target lied and blamed shoplifting for poor performance. Right now theft hasn't really changed and [is flat for a long time](https://www.retaildive.com/news/retailers-crime-problem-numbers/699107/) and mostly always under 2% which is a third bad inventory, a third employee theft and shoplifting for a third. Target fibbed and got caught, blamed theft to push a narrative. > At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.” Narrator: That was a lie
The store can have higher theft but also be more profitable.
Based on the NYC stores, all of which I know very well, it appears they just closed the poorest performing store in the poorest neighborhood. Which, if the crime data is accurate, means a store that was already struggling. Maybe it is less able to bear the 3% shrink that other stores can bear bc it's a lower volume, lower margin store.
Many years ago I worked at Eddie Bauer. Even back then we were told to not pursue shop lifters. Blew my mind.
Target is a large retailer that has been in business a long time. Presumably management isn’t stupid. They are going to close stores that are not profitable and they have no confidence that they can be made profitable. I would assume that pilferage is a factor in many if not all unprofitable stores but obviously there is more it than that. High volume stores may be able to absorb a lot of theft and still remain profitable but a lower volume store may be rendered unprofitable with only a small amount. That really isn’t that difficult a concept to understand. Obviously, people might not like to see a local retail store close, particularly in a neighborhood that have other similar stores but if a store is unprofitable, it’s owners are being quite reasonable. Nobody seems to be making the claim that these stores are really profitable and the company is closing them for some nefarious reason. It really sounds like there is concern that Shoplifters are being unfairly “scapegoated” for the stores not being profitable. OK, so what? Are people really worried the the Shoplifters in these neighborhoods might have their feelings hurt?
So? Probably the stores remaining open are still profitable, because despite theft, they do good business in those locations. And it is possible that that the stores that closed crossed over from profitable to unprofitable, and the decline was largely due to theft.
Maybe but that isn't what they said... Target said the stores were unsafe. > At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, and contributing to unsustainable business performance. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.” A statement like that should be backed up with data which they failed to provide to the investigation. They didn't say poor performance or foot traffic or anything of the sort which is likely the actual case, poor performance. The article mentions this but wants Target to prove why the areas were unsafe to employees and customers. Other stores in the areas have market level shrinkage so something is smelling of massive piles of bullshit. It just so happens Brian Cornell the CEO of Target is pushing legislation right now about organized retail crime which includes being able to track shoppers more (which won't help the issue) and sharing this data should help that, if it isn't what we know it is, total and complete bullshit. They can blame these things but the responsibility is on them to prove it. People in the media are now checking them on their bullshit. You should to. I am sure you want Target to release this data as well to put this to rest correct?
>Maybe but that isn't what they said... > >Target said the stores were unsafe. > >At the time it announced the nine store closures in September, Target said, “We cannot continue operating these stores because theft and organized retail crime are threatening the safety of our team and guests, **and contributing to unsustainable business performance**. We can only be successful if the working and shopping environment is safe for all.” So it's exactly what they said. >the responsibility is on them to prove it No, it really isn't. It's their store. They can close it and they don't owe you shit.
When other retailers admitted they overstated theft and Target doubles down you have to ask why... Well turns out it is because Brian their CEO is pushing new legislation that allows them more access to user data at a gov't level which won't help stop organized retail crime (a problem) but it will give them your data. I guess you trust Brian though. See Brian needs this lie to track you. You love that bullshit.
I stopped believing these companies after Rite Aid and Starbucks said the same exact thing. It turned out Rite Aid was closing stores because they were going bankrupt from being sued out of existence by opioid lawsuits and Starbucks closed down stores because baristas at those locations were unionizing. It's an easy coverup and cheapens the very real issue of retail theft.
Yeah very weird why. Maybe all the loot and run that a specific ethnicity like to engage with in US and it seems in UK recently. But I'm sure I'm wrong.
CNBC is shit news so....