Evaluating loss-prevention claims with actual store data

“Fewer alarms” and “less shrink” are not equivalent outcomes. Test a vendor’s named claim against store records: define its measure and period, establish a pre-pilot baseline, then compare the same measure over the pilot.

Pick measures that can be checked

Start with store records for employees, stock, transactions and shoppers, plus records of shrink occurrences and where security controls or technology fail. Link each claim to the relevant store measure rather than treating a vendor’s reported result as local performance.

For alarm and traffic claims, use EAS alarm counts and shopper-traffic data for the same store and period. Sensormatic lists Alarm Overview, Alarms by Hour and Alarm Rate by Traffic as key performance indicators; calculate the last as alarms divided by shopper traffic.

For item-loss claims, use stock or inventory records alongside loss-prevention records. Sensormatic says its Shrink Visibility product integrates item-level inventory and loss-prevention data; that description of capability is not a local performance result.

Sensormatic’s Storefront Visibility combines Traffic Analytics, EAS, RFID, Inventory Visibility and Video Intelligence. Its POS Systems use RFID to support inventory management; identify which store records and measures a proposed claim actually relies on.

Choose a pre-pilot period from the store’s records, record its dates and use an equally long pilot period. Keep the store, counting method and measure definition consistent where possible, and note promotions, layout changes, staffing and receiving problems that could affect the result.

For a claimed percentage reduction, compare like-for-like baseline and pilot values: (baseline measure − pilot measure) ÷ baseline measure × 100. Use the vendor’s stated measure and denominator for shrink, and ask how each measure was collected and whether the proposed store has comparable tagging and data quality.

A drop in reported incidents may mean less loss, poorer detection or less reporting.

Alarm Reduction vs. Shrink Reduction: Key Differences in Loss Prevention Metrics

Key Performance Indicators from Sensormatic Storefront Visibility

Test a bounded deployment

Choose comparable products or stores and define the pilot dates before starting. Compare the selected store measures over the baseline and pilot periods using the same counting method.

Set the decision rule before the pilot, then apply it to the vendor’s named measure. Compare hardware, tags, maintenance, investigation, staff time and customer friction with any measured reduction in loss.

When the Privacy Act 1988 covers an organisation or agency, personal information collected through a security camera must comply with the Australian Privacy Principles. The Act covers Australian Government agencies, organisations with annual turnover of more than $3 million and some others; OAIC guidance says people must be told before they are recorded, and recorded personal information must be secured and destroyed or de-identified when no longer needed. State and territory surveillance laws also apply.

Decide whether to expand from the store’s verified results, not from a marketing percentage detached from its measure and method.

Pros and Cons of Using RFID and Video Intelligence in Loss Prevention