March 11, 2025
©GoodLifeStudio via Canva.com
Is In-Store Theft Driving Customers Online?
A new survey found that about one-third of U.S. adults consider shoplifting and organized retail crime (ORC) to be either “very serious” or “extremely serious” problems in their cities, prompting more consumers to prefer shopping online.
When asked about their preferences for online shopping over in-store shopping given their concerns regarding shoplifting and organized crime, 31% indicated they “strongly prefer” and 27% “somewhat prefer” online shopping.
The survey of about 3,500 U.S. consumers taken during December and January from Flock Safety in partnership with Zencity comes as stores have been increasingly locking up merchandise and investing in other security measures to combat a spike in retail crime. NRF’s 2024 report, The Impact of Retail Theft & Violence, found more than three-quarters (76%) of retailers saying that ORC shoplifting has grown as a concern in the last year.
When asked about security changes in their local stores, 63% of respondents in the Flock Safety survey reported seeing more locked shelves or items placed behind counters. This was followed by an increase in video cameras inside or outside stores (59%) and a greater presence of security personnel (45%).
The survey showed healthy support for technological solutions to retail theft, with nearly half (45%) of respondents likely to support the use of technology to combat shoplifting and organized retail crime amid frustrations with some in-store security measures. The study showed that more than half of respondents said it took them more than five minutes to get the items they wanted in stores with locked merchandise.
A survey of over 5,000 U.S. consumers last fall from Numerator found consumers particularly irked at the increasing practice of locking up items to reduce in-store theft. Of the respondents, 61% were seeing more locked-up merchandise on a regular basis over the past year, with 27% indicating they would switch retailers or abandon the purchase altogether instead of waiting for assistance for a locked-up product. Only 53% of shoppers said they would wait for assistance if bath and body products are locked up, 56% for makeup and cosmetics, and 57% for personal hygiene products.
The survey found that shoppers most often see locked-up items in drug stores and mass retailers.
Another survey of 400 small to mid-size retailers taken in November 2023 from Software Advice, a software marketplace and advisory services firm owned by Gartner, found SMB retailers particularly being impacted by theft. Of the respondents, 34% reported a rise in shrink over the previous year, and 68% had shrink rates above the industry standard rate of 1.5% at the time.
The most common in-store loss prevention strategies used by SMB retailers, according to the survey, included installing security cameras (53%), arranging the store layout to deter theft (40%), utilizing inventory management software (39%), implementing security sensors (35%), and maintaining records of known shoplifters (34%).
Software Advice said store employees remain the “first line of defense against shrink,” pointing to the value in greeting customers and reporting incidents. The consultancy also advised SMB retailers to pursue low-cost options to quell theft and avoid methods that disrupt the in-store experience.
The study stated, “At the end of the day, customers come to your store either to make a quick and convenient purchase or to enjoy the sensory experience of browsing. Some anti-theft tactics, such as locking products in protective boxes or keeping a lot of products behind the register, add friction that could drive customers away.”
BrainTrust
Nolan Wheeler
Founder and CEO, SYNQ
Georganne Bender
Principal, KIZER & BENDER Speaking
Frank Margolis
Executive Director, Growth Marketing & Business Development, Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are increases in theft at the store level leading consumers to shop more online?
What in-store loss prevention solutions are effective but not too disruptive to the shopping experience or invasive to shoppers’ privacy?
Poll
Loading …
I can understand people migrating to online because of locked up products. I can also see how out of stocks caused by theft would push people online. We have seen both of these trends in our own data and, what’s interesting, is that once people have migrated online it is very difficult to get them back into store.
Aside from this, I am not quite sure how theft itself – rather than its secondary effects – impacts consumers. Unless it creates dangerous or unsafe environments, I can’t see shoppers worrying about it too much when deciding whether to shop in store or online.
I think it’s the perceived environment that can be off-putting to customers. I know that I always do a double take when I see an armed security guard at my suburban grocery store.
Customers don’t like waiting. If they have wait 15 minutes to get a bottle of ibuprofen from a locked shelf, they are leaving.
Isn’t it more accurate to say the efforts to prevent shoplifting are driving people online, rather than the shoplifting itself? Which is to say a bit more thoughtfulness in the approach(es) might be useful. Perhaps an intermediate approach of putting high risk items, not behind a locked door, but rather a behind a counter might be given more useage; that, of course requires the counter be staffed, but, unfortunately there’s no magic solution that’s costless, either in hard dollars or staff time. More vigorous prosecution of offenders might also be given thought, tho that’s not strictly a company decision.
Perfectly stated.
I can see where consumers would turn to online shopping versus in-store in areas of heavy theft. Who wants to feel unsafe while shopping? And who wants to wait for an associate to unlock the things you want to buy?
Shopping is stressful when there is added hassle, but when it’s not, I think normal shopping habits prevail.
I don’t see the direct connection between store theft and driving customers to the online channel. Consumers don’t “see” theft nor the criminals that perpetrate it. If anything, it’s the indirect results of store theft that may drive customers to online shopping and even that, is likely, in very small numbers.
Increasing costs and reducing profit margins are two of the consequences of in-store theft for retailers. As a result, businesses often raise prices for consumers in an attempt to offset their losses. Higher prices might drive consumers to shop more online than in-store.
In addition, increased theft may force retailers to invest more in security measures, which further strains their resources.
Furthermore, customers may make fewer in-store shopping trips in order to avoid all the inconvenient security measures. In addition, customers don’t enjoy being watched by employees, additional security cameras, and having to call customer service to purchase items under lock and key.
Consequently, this decline in in-store shopping can lead to decreased sales and revenue for retailers. Furthermore, the negative shopping experience may damage customer loyalty, pushing consumers towards online shopping alternatives.
The locking up of items is just another reason shoppers prefer online to in store. Add poor service, poor store conditions and out of stocks and you have fewer and fewer reasons to shop in store. Mainly for time-sensitive items. If you can wait, online shopping gets you what you want delivered when promised. The exception online being marketplace vendors versus primary retailer sourced product. Too many marketplace vendors are more harm than good to the retail brands that host them.
The perception of increased theft is the issue here. The measures that stores are taking to harden their locations when online purchases are friction-free is the primary issue. Retailers should be really judicious about where to deploy their aggressive anti-theft measures. The best deterrent for shoplifting is employees who greet customers, are highly visible in the store, and are quick to inquire if they can help people in the store.
It takes some investment in training and development. Retailers have to decide for themselves where the ROI between shrink prevention and sales impact exists.
This hinges on the shopping experience. Stores in areas where merchandise is locked up are most certainly driving certain consumers online. Where crime is not rampant, well it is business as usual. High crime and locked up caseloads? Get thee to the internet.
As we’ve seen, locking up products might help with shrink, but it also creates friction, driving customers online. Instead of adding more barriers, retailers need solutions that balance both security and customer experience. Solutions like SKU-level shopping allow in-store customers to shop high-friction items without waiting for assistance, reducing wait times while keeping products secure. Ultimately, it’s about deterring theft without impacting sales or the overall experience.
It depends on the product, how quickly it is needed and what (if) there is a price differential. Consumers don’t want to wait for product to be unlocked and their patience becomes exponentially shorter the longer it takes a store associate to unlock a product, particularly if they are short on time. The bigger issue is if they do go online, it is very easy to sign up for automatic refill if it’s a repeat purchase and then you are effectively removing a trip driver. The more trip drivers removed, the less beneficial a store trip is and the fewer impulse purchases are made overall.
Retail theft is a real challenge, but locking up merchandise is a short-sighted fix that alienates customers and drives them elsewhere. If security measures make shopping inconvenient, retailers risk losing more than stolen goods, they lose trust, loyalty, and foot traffic.
Smarter solutions exist like AI-driven loss prevention, strategic store layouts, and real-time analytics which can detect theft without making honest customers feel like suspects. Well-trained associates remain a powerful deterrent, but security shouldn’t come at the cost of experience.
The real issue isn’t just theft, it’s how retailers respond. Those who strike the right balance with enhanced surveillance, RFID tracking, and frictionless security will not only protect inventory but also ensure customers still want to shop in-store.
More Discussions
Would an Amazon Shift of Prime Day to June Be a Good Move?
Would it be a wise move for Amazon to move Prime Day ahead of its current…Should Amazon Be Banning AI Shopping Agents From its Platform?
Amazon is clamping down on access to its platform from competing AI agents.Does Macy’s Own Celebrations?
Macy’s has made a name for itself in terms of high-profile celebrations. Will that drive cross-over…
I can understand people migrating to online because of locked up products. I can also see how out of stocks caused by theft would push people online. We have seen both of these trends in our own data and, what’s interesting, is that once people have migrated online it is very difficult to get them back into store.
Aside from this, I am not quite sure how theft itself – rather than its secondary effects – impacts consumers. Unless it creates dangerous or unsafe environments, I can’t see shoppers worrying about it too much when deciding whether to shop in store or online.
I think it’s the perceived environment that can be off-putting to customers. I know that I always do a double take when I see an armed security guard at my suburban grocery store.
Customers don’t like waiting. If they have wait 15 minutes to get a bottle of ibuprofen from a locked shelf, they are leaving.
Isn’t it more accurate to say the efforts to prevent shoplifting are driving people online, rather than the shoplifting itself? Which is to say a bit more thoughtfulness in the approach(es) might be useful. Perhaps an intermediate approach of putting high risk items, not behind a locked door, but rather a behind a counter might be given more useage; that, of course requires the counter be staffed, but, unfortunately there’s no magic solution that’s costless, either in hard dollars or staff time. More vigorous prosecution of offenders might also be given thought, tho that’s not strictly a company decision.
Perfectly stated.
I can see where consumers would turn to online shopping versus in-store in areas of heavy theft. Who wants to feel unsafe while shopping? And who wants to wait for an associate to unlock the things you want to buy?
Shopping is stressful when there is added hassle, but when it’s not, I think normal shopping habits prevail.
I don’t see the direct connection between store theft and driving customers to the online channel. Consumers don’t “see” theft nor the criminals that perpetrate it. If anything, it’s the indirect results of store theft that may drive customers to online shopping and even that, is likely, in very small numbers.
Increasing costs and reducing profit margins are two of the consequences of in-store theft for retailers. As a result, businesses often raise prices for consumers in an attempt to offset their losses. Higher prices might drive consumers to shop more online than in-store.
In addition, increased theft may force retailers to invest more in security measures, which further strains their resources.
Furthermore, customers may make fewer in-store shopping trips in order to avoid all the inconvenient security measures. In addition, customers don’t enjoy being watched by employees, additional security cameras, and having to call customer service to purchase items under lock and key.
Consequently, this decline in in-store shopping can lead to decreased sales and revenue for retailers. Furthermore, the negative shopping experience may damage customer loyalty, pushing consumers towards online shopping alternatives.
The locking up of items is just another reason shoppers prefer online to in store. Add poor service, poor store conditions and out of stocks and you have fewer and fewer reasons to shop in store. Mainly for time-sensitive items. If you can wait, online shopping gets you what you want delivered when promised. The exception online being marketplace vendors versus primary retailer sourced product. Too many marketplace vendors are more harm than good to the retail brands that host them.
The perception of increased theft is the issue here. The measures that stores are taking to harden their locations when online purchases are friction-free is the primary issue. Retailers should be really judicious about where to deploy their aggressive anti-theft measures. The best deterrent for shoplifting is employees who greet customers, are highly visible in the store, and are quick to inquire if they can help people in the store.
It takes some investment in training and development. Retailers have to decide for themselves where the ROI between shrink prevention and sales impact exists.
This hinges on the shopping experience. Stores in areas where merchandise is locked up are most certainly driving certain consumers online. Where crime is not rampant, well it is business as usual. High crime and locked up caseloads? Get thee to the internet.
As we’ve seen, locking up products might help with shrink, but it also creates friction, driving customers online. Instead of adding more barriers, retailers need solutions that balance both security and customer experience. Solutions like SKU-level shopping allow in-store customers to shop high-friction items without waiting for assistance, reducing wait times while keeping products secure. Ultimately, it’s about deterring theft without impacting sales or the overall experience.
It depends on the product, how quickly it is needed and what (if) there is a price differential. Consumers don’t want to wait for product to be unlocked and their patience becomes exponentially shorter the longer it takes a store associate to unlock a product, particularly if they are short on time. The bigger issue is if they do go online, it is very easy to sign up for automatic refill if it’s a repeat purchase and then you are effectively removing a trip driver. The more trip drivers removed, the less beneficial a store trip is and the fewer impulse purchases are made overall.
Retail theft is a real challenge, but locking up merchandise is a short-sighted fix that alienates customers and drives them elsewhere. If security measures make shopping inconvenient, retailers risk losing more than stolen goods, they lose trust, loyalty, and foot traffic.
Smarter solutions exist like AI-driven loss prevention, strategic store layouts, and real-time analytics which can detect theft without making honest customers feel like suspects. Well-trained associates remain a powerful deterrent, but security shouldn’t come at the cost of experience.
The real issue isn’t just theft, it’s how retailers respond. Those who strike the right balance with enhanced surveillance, RFID tracking, and frictionless security will not only protect inventory but also ensure customers still want to shop in-store.