Increasing the noticeability of epvms An offender survey

Looking back Prior research conducted by the LPRC indicates that ePVMs can be an effective asset protection measure. Positive ROI on investment from shrink reduction. Not affecting the majority of customer’s experience over several retail settings. Big box, grocery, pharmacy and department stores. Still interested on its effect on high end stores. Relatively low upkeep, meaning associates don’t have to spend time working with them as they do with on item asset protection measures.

The problem Using the LPRC’s See-Get-Fear ideology, ePVMs can only be a theft deterrent if they are seen by the shoplifter Varied thoughts on how to draw attention to ePVM. Flashing lights Sounds Signage Height No particular research on the level of effectiveness in drawing offender attention to the ePVMs.

The research LPRC worked in a Gainesville StoreLab working with different combinations of the following factors. Height Sounds Light Color Contrast Signage Set up in a deliberate fashion (Fractional Factorial study design) where we could have ePVMs display multiple attributes, but done so in a way were we could get individual effects for each factor. Also, find which factor or combination of factors would have the greatest impact on increasing an offender’s chance of noticing the ePVM.

The Project LPRC worked with 40 offenders to go “visit” certain sections of the electronics department in a Gainesville StoreLab and make note of asset protection measures in each section Each offender visited 4 sections of the Electronics department and were asked to locate certain products. Each product was located an equal distance away from the ePVM (approximately 6 feet away) Each department was in 4 separate corners of the electronics department so they didn’t have the opportunity to walk by any ePVMs during their “visits”. The starting location was randomized from a central point in the electronics department (towards the front, in the middle, towards the back) to address confounding effects of starting position. Each section visit was randomized as well

The Settings Each factor had 2 levels: Height Light Sound 0 – The ePVM was 4’-5’from the floor 1 – The ePVM was 7’ or higher from the floor Light 0 – The ePVM did not display a flashing light 1 – The ePVM did display a flashing light Sound 0 – The ePVM did not make a chime sound when a person walked by 1 – The ePVM did make a chime sound when the person walked by

The Settings Each factor had 2 levels: Color Contrast Signage 0 – The ePVM had the standard black border 1 – The ePVM had a neon green border Signage 0 – The ePVM did not have a sign hanging off of it 1 – The ePVM did have a sign hanging off of it

The Design Height Sound Light Color Contrast Signage   Height Sound Light Color Contrast Signage Treatment combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Quality check After all the data was collected, data verification techniques were used to make sure no confounding effects were affecting our data Looked at the relationship between the frequency in which they saw the ePVM vs the turn taken Most offenders couldn’t identify ePVMs at all 4 locations. Offenders were interviewed regarding other asset protection measures in the area to make sure we weren’t only focusing on ePVMs Looked at the relationship between starting point and noticing ePVMs in certain locations No validation tests came up statistically significant (which is a good thing sometimes!)

The results Overall, after all offenders had visited all stations, the ePVMs were noticed 65% of the time. Most significantly (p=.0012), height seemed to play the biggest role in offender noticing the ePVM. Offenders were 3 times more likely to see the ePVM that is 4’-5’ from the floor when compared to an ePVM that was higher than 7’ Count Row % Did they see the ePVM? No Yes Total Height 4-5’ 19 23.75% 61 76.25% 80 7’+ 38 47.5% 42 52.5% 57 103

The results The second most significant factor (p=.0572) was the color contrast on the border of the ePVM Offenders were 2 times more likely to see an ePVM with a black border when compared to a neon green border, Count Row % Did they see the ePVM? No Yes Total Color Contrast Black Border 23 28.75% 57 71.25% 80 Neon Green Border 34 42.5% 46 57.5% 103 160

The results The third most significant factor (p=.1189) was the inclusion of sound Offenders were 1.7 times more likely to notice an ePVM when it was making a chime sound as they walked by However, your associates will likely despise the LP department for leaving the chime sound on Count Row % Did they see the ePVM? No Yes Total Sound No Chime 33 41.25% 47 58.75% 80 Chime 24 30.00% 56 70% 57 103

The results Some factors which were thought to be helpful didn’t have an impact in this study The flashing light did not assist offenders in seeing the ePVM in this study (p=.225) Oddly enough, the ePVM was seen at a lower rate with the flashing light Count Row % Did they see the ePVM? No Yes Total Flashing light No flashing light 25 31.25% 55 68.75% 80 32 40.00% 48 60.00% 57 103

The results Signage attached to the ePVM did not assist in drawing offender’s attention to the sign (p=.883). The proportion of offenders who saw the ePVM with and without the sign were nearly equal There were no statistically significant interactions (combination of factors) that proved to enhance an offender’s ability to notice the ePVM. Count Row % Did they see the ePVM? No Yes Total Signage No sign 28 35.00% 52 65.00% 80 Sign 29 36.25% 51 63.75% 57 103

Limitations This study was conducted only using 10” in aisle ePVMs only. These results may not be applicable for entryway and larger ePVMs which are typically placed at a higher height The electronics section was somewhat noisy due to the row of televisions that were playing consistently May affect the impact that a chime sound has on offender’s ability to detect an ePVM. However no ePVM was placed such that the offender had to face the wall of televisions, which could potentially “drown out” the ePVM picture

Future research and projects Looking at ePVM impact on violent crime events Pharmacy robbery prevention with face boxing analytics Enhancing exitway ePVMs by integrating them with EAS Impact of ePVMs on self checkout theft Look at factors that increase an offender’s chance of noticing an ePVM at 7’ and above (ADA compliant)