1. Increasing the noticeability of epvms
An offender survey

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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!)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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)