Re: TARGET: ANTI-THEFT STICKERS ON ONLY SOME FOUND... - Page 2

stevieb · ‎03-10-2010

@Shanus wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
Stores have ways of tracking sales and inventory. Is it possible only some shades were unaccounted for? If so, they did what they needed to do. Honestly, this is a head shaker. This is a financial issue pure and simple.

@stevieb So as not to discriminate, if there's a theft issue, put the darn stickers on ALL shades. It's just not right. There are enough issues like this already.

@Shanus Sorry, my friend, on this one we'll have to agree to disagree. If it's been documented that only certain shades are 'walking' there's no reason for a retailer to go to the added expense of theft prevention for all shades. It's not 'shameful', it's not a matter of discrimination nor is it 'profiling', which is making assumptions of wrong doing before they occur... If there isn't any documentation of selective theft then that's a completely different story...

In my pantry with my cupcakes...

mistriTsquirrel · ‎07-17-2010

@Shanus wrote:
@mistriTsquirrel wrote:
Is it possible that they put anti-theft stickers on all of their shades, sold out of the lighter ones, and then failed to put anti-theft stickers on the shades they re-stocked?

@mistriTsquirrel No chance. Darker shades were specifically mentioned w/ photo.

@Shanus What I'm saying is that no matter where I shop, the lighter shades of foundation seem to be fewer in number or out of stock, while the darker shades of foundation are still plentiful. And when I look at the clearance foundations, I rarely see lighter shades. Doesn't seem to matter what store I'm shopping in or which website I'm on. Drugstore, Ulta, Sephora, Dollar General, Sally Beauty, etc.

This would indicate to me that lighter people are using more foundation. I can think of possible reasons for this, but that would only be speculation on my part.

So if a store completely sold out of the lighter shades and a store associate neglected to apply the anti-theft stickers to the new inventory when re-stocking, it would look the way it looks.

"Heartburn Can Cause Cancer" -- www.ecan.org

Shanus · ‎05-17-2010

@stevieb wrote:
@Shanus wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
Stores have ways of tracking sales and inventory. Is it possible only some shades were unaccounted for? If so, they did what they needed to do. Honestly, this is a head shaker. This is a financial issue pure and simple.

@stevieb So as not to discriminate, if there's a theft issue, put the darn stickers on ALL shades. It's just not right. There are enough issues like this already.
@Shanus Sorry, my friend, on this one we'll have to agree to disagree. If it's been documented that only certain shades are 'walking' there's no reason for a retailer to go to the added expense of theft prevention for all shades. It's not 'shameful', it's not a matter of discrimination nor is it 'profiling', which is making assumptions of wrong doing before they occur... If there isn't any documentation of selective theft then that's a completely different story...

@stevieb No math genius here, but considering the cost of anti-theft stickers on the other shades compared to the amount of business they'll lose from black customers who are outraged...no contest! I'll go so far as to say many customers who aren't happy with anything that smells like discrimination will stop shopping there or anywhere with such practices.

stevieb · ‎03-10-2010

@Shanus wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
@Shanus wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
Stores have ways of tracking sales and inventory. Is it possible only some shades were unaccounted for? If so, they did what they needed to do. Honestly, this is a head shaker. This is a financial issue pure and simple.

@stevieb So as not to discriminate, if there's a theft issue, put the darn stickers on ALL shades. It's just not right. There are enough issues like this already.
@Shanus Sorry, my friend, on this one we'll have to agree to disagree. If it's been documented that only certain shades are 'walking' there's no reason for a retailer to go to the added expense of theft prevention for all shades. It's not 'shameful', it's not a matter of discrimination nor is it 'profiling', which is making assumptions of wrong doing before they occur... If there isn't any documentation of selective theft then that's a completely different story...
@stevieb No math genius here, but considering the cost of anti-theft stickers on the other shades compared to the amount of business they'll lose from black customers who are outraged...no contest!

@Shanus One might suspect this will become one of those threads that degenerates by attracting zealots, so I'll just say this and then hope for the best. It's possible there will be a backlash, but I would suspect it would be limited and short-lived. More likely, whether they should or not, and my view is they should not... Target might well end up bowing to unreasonable pressure (media and social media looking to be relevant or inflammatory...) and do as is being suggested by applying stickers to all items. Unfortunate, because if inventory control indicates only certain products are 'disappearing' then a reasoned opinion would indicate there's no call for 'outrage' based on acting to limit theft of those items. I'm of the opinion that taking unnecessary action simply to assuage sensitivities has taken on a life of its own and I'd personally like to see someone stick to their guns and draw a line. If items weren't being stolen, after all, there would be no need for theft prevention stickers on any of the products in the first place... I would also note that the more they spend on said stickers, the more all of us pay at the checkout counters, which personally, is not my preferred solution...

In my pantry with my cupcakes...

Shanus · ‎05-17-2010

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:
@Shanus wrote:
@mistriTsquirrel wrote:
Is it possible that they put anti-theft stickers on all of their shades, sold out of the lighter ones, and then failed to put anti-theft stickers on the shades they re-stocked?

@mistriTsquirrel No chance. Darker shades were specifically mentioned w/ photo.
@Shanus What I'm saying is that no matter where I shop, the lighter shades of foundation seem to be fewer in number or out of stock, while the darker shades of foundation are still plentiful. And when I look at the clearance foundations, I rarely see lighter shades. Doesn't seem to matter what store I'm shopping in or which website I'm on. Drugstore, Ulta, Sephora, Dollar General, Sally Beauty, etc.

This would indicate to me that lighter people are using more foundation. I can think of possible reasons for this, but that would only be speculation on my part.

So if a store completely sold out of the lighter shades and a store associate neglected to apply the anti-theft stickers to the new inventory when re-stocking, it would look the way it looks.

@mistriTsquirrel Not to beat a dead horse, but the issue is not whether lighter shades are sold out, not restocked, etc. As you can see in the Target photo, there are lighter shades of foundation on that row that are not tagged.

mistriTsquirrel · ‎07-17-2010

@Shanus wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
@Shanus wrote:
@stevieb wrote:
Stores have ways of tracking sales and inventory. Is it possible only some shades were unaccounted for? If so, they did what they needed to do. Honestly, this is a head shaker. This is a financial issue pure and simple.

@stevieb So as not to discriminate, if there's a theft issue, put the darn stickers on ALL shades. It's just not right. There are enough issues like this already.
@Shanus Sorry, my friend, on this one we'll have to agree to disagree. If it's been documented that only certain shades are 'walking' there's no reason for a retailer to go to the added expense of theft prevention for all shades. It's not 'shameful', it's not a matter of discrimination nor is it 'profiling', which is making assumptions of wrong doing before they occur... If there isn't any documentation of selective theft then that's a completely different story...
@stevieb No math genius here, but considering the cost of anti-theft stickers on the other shades compared to the amount of business they'll lose from black customers who are outraged...no contest! I'll go so far as to say many customers who aren't happy with anything that smells like discrimination will stop shopping there or anywhere with such practices.

@Shanus I get what you're saying, but putting those tags on every item will mean that the prices go up. And nothing alienates customers more than seeing that an identical item costs more at your location than it does elsewhere.

Part of the issue now is that implementing these security devices means that online-only retailers will probably end up selling more items. They won't have to pay for all of the security devices that businesses with brick and mortar locations will have to, so people will go to the store to shade match or test an item and then go home and order it online from some other seller for less money.

Clearly that is not good for business at brick and mortar locations.

"Heartburn Can Cause Cancer" -- www.ecan.org

Tori3569 · ‎06-27-2010

I just went to read the article. It is apparently a photo from an individual store on a particular day that went viral on social media NOT a corporate policy. The target SM person asked for the date time and location of the photo to investigate.

As a retail regional manager, I will say that many times one employee's actions make the whole brand look bad. This could be receiving department employee's stupid decision, laziness or ineptitude, but I highly doubt it's a corporate decision or policy of any sort. Target corporate just wouldn't be that unaware.

i had an issue with one of my stores making a bad decision on a customer transaction that caused some local social media buzz. One employee, in one store that made the whole brand look bad.

mistriTsquirrel · ‎07-17-2010

@Shanus wrote:
@mistriTsquirrel wrote:
@Shanus wrote:
@mistriTsquirrel wrote:
Is it possible that they put anti-theft stickers on all of their shades, sold out of the lighter ones, and then failed to put anti-theft stickers on the shades they re-stocked?

@mistriTsquirrel No chance. Darker shades were specifically mentioned w/ photo.
@Shanus What I'm saying is that no matter where I shop, the lighter shades of foundation seem to be fewer in number or out of stock, while the darker shades of foundation are still plentiful. And when I look at the clearance foundations, I rarely see lighter shades. Doesn't seem to matter what store I'm shopping in or which website I'm on. Drugstore, Ulta, Sephora, Dollar General, Sally Beauty, etc.

This would indicate to me that lighter people are using more foundation. I can think of possible reasons for this, but that would only be speculation on my part.

So if a store completely sold out of the lighter shades and a store associate neglected to apply the anti-theft stickers to the new inventory when re-stocking, it would look the way it looks.

@mistriTsquirrel Not to beat a dead horse, but the issue is not whether lighter shades are sold out, not restocked, etc. As you can see in the Target photo, there are lighter shades of foundation on that row that are not tagged.