> they lock up the items that cumulatively lose the hardware store the most money, due to theft.
> I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line
These seem to be in direct contradiction, unless you really think people have stopped going there because of it, to such an extent it outweighs the thefts. Especially when, if they stop going there, the competing local hardware superstore is probably doing the exact same thing. And remember, retail margins aren't usually huge -- for every item stolen, how many more do they need to sell to recoup the loss? Even if some people go to Amazon instead, it can still be worth it to avoid the theft.
It's much more likely that it has indeed had the biggest impact on reducing theft, and that your "discernable logic" simply doesn't have experience with these things -- that theft often isn't about item value, but rather about reliable resellability. A single expensive niche power tool takes a long time to resell; laundry detergent and razor blades can be unloaded in quantity the same day. People go through detergent and razors a lot faster than light bulbs.
I understand you dislike the inconvenience. But I really think you should be blaming the thieves or the factors behind theft, not the stores.
I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line; I do not know it.
It is possible for a business to make money without customers actually liking the company: hey, it works for some of the FA*NG companies!
That said, there is something that feels 'off' about management obsessing over shrinkage to the point that the shopping experience begins to suck. It's not a truckstop or a drug store in a bad area... it's a hardware superstore.
With too much data, some manager can fixate on $3 screwdriver thievery and not think about the bigger picture: like shoppers finding the store to be a pain in the ass, and therefore no longer an attractive place to buy expensive riding-lawnmowers and floor jacks.
A store can quantify lower sales figures, but it may not be obvious that the lower sales were related to the choice of 'caged vs uncaged' inventory.
> It's not a truckstop or a drug store in a bad area... it's a hardware superstore.
I think that's where your misunderstanding might be.
Hardware superstores are extremely attractive targets for huge quantities of theft. You just seem to personally not be aware of it, and are under the mistaken impression that theft is something that happens mainly in truckstops in bad areas.
I think your suspicions are simply based on incorrect assumptions, both around the types of items that thieves steal, as well as the kinds of stores thieves target.
Great, the store is 100% justified. I'm still avoiding them, of course, because, given a choice, nobody wants to wait around ten minutes for an attendant.
> I doubt the optimization helped their bottom-line
These seem to be in direct contradiction, unless you really think people have stopped going there because of it, to such an extent it outweighs the thefts. Especially when, if they stop going there, the competing local hardware superstore is probably doing the exact same thing. And remember, retail margins aren't usually huge -- for every item stolen, how many more do they need to sell to recoup the loss? Even if some people go to Amazon instead, it can still be worth it to avoid the theft.
It's much more likely that it has indeed had the biggest impact on reducing theft, and that your "discernable logic" simply doesn't have experience with these things -- that theft often isn't about item value, but rather about reliable resellability. A single expensive niche power tool takes a long time to resell; laundry detergent and razor blades can be unloaded in quantity the same day. People go through detergent and razors a lot faster than light bulbs.
I understand you dislike the inconvenience. But I really think you should be blaming the thieves or the factors behind theft, not the stores.