It’s sad that retailers need armed guards to keep staff and shoppers safe. While Hy-Vee’s decision is understandable, and for stores in high crime areas it’s prudent, overall the idea of having armed guards at retail stores is disturbing. I visited retail stores in Nicaragua a few years ago, and they consistently had armed guards at the front of stores – let’s hope this is not our future in the U.S.

WOW! Is it this bad? As a shopper, I would feel very uncomfortable. Fortunately, I am not seeing it in my local stores. I don’t have it, but there must be a better solution.

This is a slippery slope. There have been calls by city leaders in cities for retailers to get more involved in protecting their stores and this is a response to that. However this puts stores in a precarious situation when someone gets injured or worse and it becomes something else. I will be anxious to see how this develops over time.

For good and valid reasons retailers today have more or less broadcast a “we won’t stop you from stealing – help yourself” message to shoplifters. Perhaps Hy-Vee’s approach will deter would-be thieves and troublemakers from their doors, although I expect that it will move the problem elsewhere, not solve it.

As consumers we have grown used to seeing uniformed, but not necessarily armed, guards at the front of stores like Louis Vuitton. At the grocery store? Not so much.

Will consumers feel safer knowing there is an armed guard looking out for shoppers? Maybe. It depends on the guard and the experience and training that person has received.

Hiring an in-house armed security team is terrifying if those guards receive minimal training before they are sent to the floor. I don’t know much about Hy-Vee’s training programs, but think how much training the average retail store associate receives before being sent to the sales floor. New protocols will need to be set and followed to the letter.

Making stores more like airports with armed personnel is most unfortunate. However there is a rise in retail crime and there is also an increase in violence against retail staff. Against that backdrop it is not unreasonable for Hy-Vee to take steps to increase security. In such a situation, it’s preferable for Hy-Vee to control and manage the security team rather than outsource such functions.

I think it will be a deterrent to criminals. That said, uniformed policemen walking the store, it gives a feeling of fear. I can hear customers saying, “they wouldn’t be here if there wasn’t a problem.” This is a tough call. It is expected in high crime neighborhoods, but be careful Hy-Vee!

It’s very unfortunate that senior leadership has to take up precious time to make difficult decisions like this, but they have a responsibility to their shareholders, boards and communities to keep a safe and secure environment while patrons are shopping in their stores. With smash and grabs on the rise and overall theft at all time highs, alternatives to armed guards are thin. It’s my hope for 2022 and beyond that we see fewer and fewer “in-store” issues.

On the whole, sadly, a move like this would definitely improve things — but it is another blow to the idea of physical shopping both from a customer perspective (can you imagine seeing those mass run-outs in person?) and from a retailer’s cost base. Also you have to ask, from a bigger, social picture, why is this happening? The answers are complex and not only up to retailers to fix.

Armed guards are to deter potential shoplifters from entering the store rather than capture them after they have shoplifted. Unfortunately, it can deter customers for several reasons including their not wanting to be caught in a potential exchange of fire between the guard and a perpetrator. For that reason, retailers are reluctant to implement this except where shoplifting is way out of hand. The alternative for the retailer may be to close the location.

Armed security guards are a deterrent to shoplifting, but retailers need to weigh the risks of how escalation can turn into a much larger problem if training is not focused on local community and PR concerns. For grocery, average product price in the store assortment makes deterrence through armed security far less important than, for instance, a jewelry store. It’s not worth it if there are homicide charges brought up over a sirloin steak or candy bar. Paying armed security is not a low cost endeavor – usually the pay is as much as a store assistant manager, from $15-$20 per hour. The risks and additional costs will require justification and may be better suited for specific types of retailers.

Unfortunately this is a sign of the times and Hy-Vee is taking a lead in addressing the issues of shoplifting and organized crime. Customers are worried about theft occurring when they are in the store. With Hy-Vee using its internal security force, customers will feel safer in the stores. As crime goes down in certain stores, Hy-Vee will be able to reduce the security forces accordingly. Hopefully we will get back to a time when crime is reduced and consumers feel safer.

In a word, no. In theory I like the idea of a standardized, professional security force with common policies, training, procedures and an organized command structure. That all makes sense. But, arm them against shoplifters? Doesn’t make sense to me. To begin with you are sending a message to your customers that you, as a retailer, don’t believe your stores are safe and are, in fact, so dangerous that armed response may be necessary. Next, are these guards going to shoot anyone for boosting a steak? Seems like that won’t stand up in courts, even in these days. Finally, I’m not sure about Iowa and other states but in Michigan once a shoplifter has left a store the store has no legal authority to pursue them. Like it or not, fair or not, that’s the law. So while I see a lot of positives about having an internal security force, arming them is asking for trouble. What happens, for example, when an employee pulls a gun on a shoplifter who pulls their own gun and… Read more »

Bravo, Hy-Vee. Armed security guards in supermarkets will be a welcome sight for shoppers. There’s too much crime in stores nowadays, including shootings.

As a shopper, I’d likely avoid entering any store with visibly armed security, as it sends a message that the environment is unsafe. Hy-Vee will need to (has?) weigh the loss of business this decision may create against the actual cost of shoplifting.

Then again, I am not deterred by seeing an armed guard in a bank. Then again, banks are not self-service retail environments. There is no presumption of trust.

The grocery store model is based on low-friction, self service selling. This does depend on trust — that shoppers will dutifully select and present their items at checkout and pay for them. Social pressure helps the equation, but for shoppers under economic duress, this can be outweighed by sheer need.

Maybe community outreach would be a more effective way for Hy-Vee to build trust and lifetime customer value. They should run those numbers.

This solution needs to be considered store by store. For shoppers living in a high-crime area, it may very well be a sign of assurance and safety to see an armed guard at the supermarket, but in other locations it may send the opposite message — that entering the store is a risky business. I can understand Hy-Vee’s desire to bring security in-house, but that brings with it a requirement for strict training. Hiring 3rd party services means you’re giving up control over how those armed security guards will diffuse a difficult situation, so bringing this in-house implies you want more control over that training. I don’t know what the best and proper training looks like, but let’s hope Hy-Vee is reaching out to those that do so that this doesn’t turn into another deadly incident on the local news!

Wow. Living in a country where guns are a rare sight and police officers do not routinely carry guns this is always going to be a tricky one for me. I do know that I feel safe and secure at UK airports and major train stations seeing heavily armed police officers, but then the police badge is also part of that — knowing that the officer has been through specific training and vetting before being allowed to carry a weapon in this way. I am genuinely not sure how this would make me feel — but then were I aware of a series of incidents, then I would likely have a strong view in favour.