In response to NRF’s safety warning to shoppers earlier this week, an online marketplace lobbyist told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that retailers are simply pursuing organized retail crime legislation “to demonize their online competition.” (This is a ridiculous point, but more on that later.) In addition, this lobbyist attempted to minimize the seriousness of organized retail crime by saying that auction sites already police themselves to “prevent” the sale of stolen goods. The problem, he thinks, is that retailers are not committed to fighting crime themselves.
The accusation that retailers are counting on legislation to replace their own efforts could not be farther from the truth. It is true that the recession forced many retailers to make deep spending cuts last year just to stay in business, and loss prevention spending was not immune. But according to a study from the University of Florida, companies still spent an estimated $8.2 billion on loss prevention expenses last year. Need a comparison to realize just how huge that number is? It’s similar to the annual revenues of major retailers like Nordstrom and Whole Foods.
Later in this same article, an eBay representative provided his own reasoning behind why we want legislation. In his view, NRF is “trying to discredit thousands of honest, hard-working small business people in an attempt to forward its lobbying agenda.” He also says these efforts “are aimed more at protecting retail giants rather than serving consumers.”
This is another allegation that the auction sites have been fond of making and, quite frankly, I’m tired of the stale messaging. This has nothing to do with small businesses; in fact, small businesses make up one-third of our thousands of members. As for the claim that we’re trying to stifle competition between stores and websites? Far from it: NRF has under its umbrella the largest online retailing association, Shop.org, which counts most online retailers as members.
This is not about large businesses or small businesses, online or offline companies. It’s about selling legitimate merchandise versus stolen merchandise. I would imagine that many of the millions of honest businessmen and women who do sell their merchandise through online auction sites would love federal legislation to wipe the scarlet letter from their livelihood, and it would.
My favorite criticism from the article? eBay attempts to discredit the list itself, saying that we compile our guide “by checking with retail crime specialists from retailers about the types of products that most often went AWOL from store shelves.” I’m not sure of their point. Of course NRF reaches out to retail crime specialists to compile our list, and these experts provide insight not only based upon which items go missing but also which items are most likely to pop up for sale on online auction sites. Those loss prevention professionals are on the front lines of the ORC war every day; of course we should be gaining insight from them.
With over 30 retailers, associations and manufacturers supporting federal legislation and endorsements including the FBI – Law Enforcement Executive Development Association, National District Attorneys Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Florida Police Chiefs Association and many others, NRF is not the only group thinking something has to change.
—
Want to know more? Watch a video about potential health risks shoppers face when buying products from auction sites.
One Comment
Ok, that is well and fine. We all want to stop theft. My daytime job is in loss prevention, but I also sell part time on ebay. I have serious concerns about privacy. I sell legitimate product that I purchase thru legitimate means. Large discount operations have no business with the details of where I purchase my merchandise. If ebay verifies my items without giving my sources ok. I see this as an damaging the little guys who purchase clearance and loss leaders. And keep in mind there is nothing illegal about either of those.