Features

Protecting your practice from shoplifting

Adam Bernstein delves into the problem of shoplifting and what to do about it

Shoplifting is a scourge and according to recent reports it is at epidemic levels. With countless stories in the media detailing how theft is sometimes opportunist, sometimes to order, but always at the expense of the retailer, the subject is a hot topic. Of course, there are cases that have affected the optical profession.

Back in March 2023, ITV reported on Thomas Howden who was arrested after leaving DNA when he cut himself when breaking into a practice in Peterborough; he stole a backpack-full of glasses. In September 2023, two members of the public chased shoplifter Romanian Muscalu Valentine who stole from Tom Davies in London’s Royal Exchange.

More recently, in November 2023, Kyle Porter was charged following a shoplifting incident at Vision Express in Reading.

 

Statistics

But is the problem really getting worse? According to Statista, citing ONS data, there were 342,343 offences in 2022/23, up from 275,076 the previous year and 228,154 recorded in 2019/20. Notably those two lower years might seem high in their own right, but in reality they were lulls following Covid, which caused retail closures and ‘shoppers’ to buy online.

Where the numbers get interesting is when data from much earlier years is examined. Statista highlights that, for example, in 2002/03 there were 310,881 offences, a similar number (300,623) in 2012/13 but a peak of 382,649 in 2017/18 (with higher numbers in general in the year before and two years after) when the economy was in fine fettle.

Part of the problem is that criminals feel that they are almost invulnerable to arrest since the police rarely turn up to shops where shoplifting is alleged. It does not help that police chiefs have effectively decriminalised shoplifting because of a £200 rule – a value below which officers are not sent.

But while, as The Telegraph reported, ministers want police to attend and investigate every shoplifting allegation, they are resisting such demands because ‘it is not realistic’ for them to do so. So, what can retailers do?

 

Police advice

According to police.uk, there are six key steps to reducing the threat. The first is to meet and greet customers as it shows that staff are paying attention to those that enter. Second comes crime mapping where data is captured on what is stolen and from where with security in those areas improved; where items cannot be seen, the advice is to consider placing more staff there or display items elsewhere.

Next is the electronic tagging of often stolen or valuable items; more on this later. Fourth is keeping a tidy shop with clear lines of visibility with wide aisles where possible to make it difficult for unnoticed shoplifting. The last two are intertwined and suggest having enough staff to deter the casual thief while only taking action to stop a shoplifter if it is safe to do so.

 

Technical solutions

Apart from the advice above, at the simplest of levels, David Kearns, managing director of Expert Investigations, says cost-effective tools such as strategically placed mirrors and signage and the relocation of higher value product ‘should be used alongside newer technologies’. But then come technical solutions.

 

Cameras

Cameras are an obvious solution as few shoplifters want to be recorded as they steal. The mere presence of CCTV in retail and around premises can protect against a variety of threats and may also deter employee theft and shoplifters while providing evidence. There are two main types of camera – dome and turret.

Safeguard Systems says: ‘Dome cameras are perfect for shopping centres and are more vandal-proof than turret cameras; they can withstand the elements and attempts at physical damage due to their destruction-proof plastic or glass domes.’ In contrast: ‘Turret cameras excel in indoor spaces with more adjustable viewing angles and better-quality video and image capturing.

Turret cameras are also great outside too.’ Overall, turret cameras offer flexibility during installation as they can be mounted on a wall, ceiling, or a pole. There are variants that can count people, pan, tilt and zoom (PTZ), use thermal imaging to track, recognise faces and read and store number plates (ANPR). In a retail environment, the company recommends a mix of PTZ, bullet, turret, dome and even ANPR cameras.

But taking the world by storm has been the roll out of artificial intelligence (AI). Kearns reckons AI ‘will be a major tool in preventing and disrupting shoplifting and internal theft; it can now monitor the movements and activities of shoppers and identify what is suspicious and alert staff to the activity.’ Similarly, smart CCTV can do the same as well as profiling individuals.

Costs vary, but as an example, one firm, Alarm Monitoring, states a four-camera system can be acquired from £985 plus VAT or £1,895 plus VAT with AI. A single camera can cost from £119 plus VAT.

 

Tagging

The physical tagging of products is another option, especially where items are small and high value. However, as Miles Thomas, managing director of TagMax, a supplier of security tagging systems, notes, risks come not only from the public, but also from staff: ‘Whether that’s by a member of staff stealing directly or that individual helping others to steal. In the trade this is called “sweet hearting’’.’

While his raison d’être is to offer tagging systems, he says they ‘are only as good as the staff operating it’ – a reference to ‘sweet hearting’. That said, he knows that while many retailers are now using tagging systems as a deterrent, ‘there is an issue on the manufacturers side; it’s very difficult to protect some frames due to the design of them.’ He says that tags are best fitted onto a frame which has a bend around the ears; frames where the arm is completely straight make it easy to slide a tag off. 

Even so, if he were to recommend a tagging system, he would opt for an acoustic magnetic (AM) system as they are most reliable: ‘I would have every sample frame on the shop floor hard tagged with a reusable tag, while for contact lens solutions and other boxed merchandise, I would protect with an adhesive disposable label.’

For the record, Thomas says he avoids the alternative, RF tags: ‘It is an old technology that is easily defeated; all you have to do is to put your hand around the tag. In addition, the size of the tag is very much dependant on the exit width.’ RF systems are slightly cheaper, however. 

But nothing is perfect, and Thomas warns that every tagging system can be defeated by a foil-lined bag – ‘anyone who says different is lying.’ However, he says some use other systems to look for quantities of metal such as those found in rogue de-taggers and foil-lined freezer bags.

Tagging systems – complete with tags, de-taggers and pedestal detectors (often seen at retail entrances as they are a visual warning of protection) – are not overly expensive and start from around £3,500 plus VAT.

Opticians could consider cable locks, but Thomas thinks them visibly unattractive to retailers as they tend to be quite bulky and provide difficulties when customers try glasses on: ‘AM is better because the tags are smaller, the tags pick up better and it’s a more modern system with better performance.’

 

Fogging

Another option is security fogging. Best described as ‘instant fog’, this responds in seconds to a staff member pressing a button, or an overnight protection system electronically triggering the same when a circuit on a door or window is broken which then waits for a secondary sensor to prevent false positives.

Neil Chrismas, sales and marketing director of Bandit UK Ltd, tells how such systems can ‘instantly deliver a dense, visually impenetrable yet harmless fog’ by heating a simple blend of glycol and water. He says that ‘an average sized shop, office or showroom of 140 cubic metres takes just five seconds to fill.’

Fogging systems are best used overnight when the risk of break-in is higher. However, as Chrismas explains, ‘a daytime robbery deterrent is achieved by deploying a fog curtain between a thief and the employees and/or goods.’

But regardless of when the system is activated, ‘the impenetrable fog means that valuable stock, equipment and other contents can be obscured from sight, thus protecting them from the possibility of theft or damage.’ He explains that the system is used in many boutique stores ‘including Chanel, Gucci, Prada and Sunglass Hut and numerous independent optician stores.’

It should be remembered that fogging is very different from any other form of theft protection and so staff must be trained in what to expect should it be deployed. This is because it disorients and impairs vision completely as the goal is to create an unfamiliar space with no path to escape for would-be thieves.

Fogging is not expensive to install and starts at £1,450 plus installation and VAT. The bonus is that it is a peaceful way to stop theft and leaves no damaging residues.

 

Other options

Beyond these systems, Kearns considers that staff training is vital as shoplifters are often aggressive and violent. ‘Good training,’ he says, ‘and at all levels, can assist in prevention and disruption of staff theft.’ There are other options such as store retail links – ‘a useful community tool’ says Kearns that mean that shops can, via a radio link, ‘alert each other to suspicious activity to give advance warning to staff.’

If those offenders enter a store, with good training, staff can implement a ‘prevention plan’, which Kearns reckons can be as simple as engaging in polite conversation to make the individual aware they are being watched.

 

Summary

It is a fact of life that theft and shoplifting happens. But ultimately, practices need a layered approached of measures as professional shoplifters will make an assessment on entering the store, or from previously gained knowledge, of the risks they face.

While staff training, good CCTV, mirrors, signage, a retail link and better product placement are basic and cheap to implement, a longer-term view can be taken based on value of losses against the cost of more technical measures.