Self-Checkout Psychology: Losing The Customer’s Trust

Written by Evan Schuman
May 9th, 2008

With the many new self-checkout offerings being introduced this week from the likes of IBM, NCR and Fujitsu, it’s not a bad idea to focus on what will truly decide whether these machines do anything to help retailers.

To state the obvious: It’s getting consumers to use them. I say it’s obvious, but one wouldn’t guess that based on what the vendors were saying this week.

From consumers I’ve watched and talked with, the hesitation comes from a lack of trust. They don’t trust themselves to run the machine correctly and they don’t trust the retailer that it’s truly a benefit (suggestions to offer consumers an X percent discount for using self-checkout have proven to be as popular as Jerry Yang at a Yahoo Daytraders Convention).

But there’s another trust issue circulating that may prove to be self-checkout’s downfall: Consumers want to trust that the store won’t have them arrested if the self-checkout machine fails or if they inadvertently forget to scan something.

Initially, these appeared to be a series of unrelated little crime stories, but they’ve been getting more numerous lately. No conspiracy theory needed, as these reports are getting more common as self-checkout deployments increase and the acceptance of these devices creeps upward.

That said, consumers are starting to hear about such stories not so infrequently. This is another of our favorite "reality versus perception" stories, where perception is far more important because it can shape reality. Without commenting on U.S. politics, it’s safe to say that perception changes reality a lot more often than reality changes perceptions.

So let’s look at the perceptions/realities behind these headlines. Perception: self-checkout is more attractive to shoplifters than a staffed aisle. Reality: The opposite. Between video cameras, spot-checks and CPUs that don’t get tired or lenient, most smart veteran shoplifters would much rather take their chances with the yawning 16-year-old working aisle 10.

But there are a lot of stupid amateur shoplifters who will try and outfox the machine. Another reality is that retailers must maintain a strict zero-tolerance policy on shoplifting.

Therein lies the conundrum. When someone sticks memory sticks or caviar in his pockets or down his pants, it’s not too hard to conclude unlawful intent. But when someone leaves a package of toilet tissue or a crate of oranges beneath the cart, was that criminal or merely unobservant or forgetful? If the intent was criminal, would a crook be that obvious?

Let’s take it one step further. What if the customer is trying to checkout, but the machine glitches? Here’s a small story that has me worried. I have no idea whether the accused consumer in this Massachusetts case is innocent. The point is that, for an IT manager responsible for self-checkout, it likely doesn’t matter.

If a customer argues that an alleged shoplifting was merely the result of a malfunctioning self-checkout system (which is hardly an outlandish scenario), there’s an awful lot at stake beyond that stolen crate of tomatoes. Is the customer offering to pay for the forgotten goods right then and there? Assume, for the moment, that the customer is telling the truth. Do you have any firm evidence (such as video surveillance) to contradict it?

A few weeks ago, I was in a Circuit City doing a little buy online/pick up in store. As I was about to leave, the alarm rang for the customer ahead of me. An employee waved the person out the door. Perplexed, I tried leaving and it did the same for me. When he waved me on through, I asked what was going on and he said, "The system does this all the time. It’s fine." I asked him if he wanted to check my bag. He said "no thanks."

These are the two extreme ends of a very wrong retail security situation. In the first, we have retailers choosing to believe a self-checkout system’s reliability and accuracy over a customer’s word, failing to seriously consider the possibility of computer error. In the second, the employee assumes computer error and concludes that every stolen merchandise alert is false.

The cost of the second extreme is obvious, but what about the first? It’s not merely a matter of losing that initial customer and their friends. It’s about losing thousands of self-checkout customers who are much less trusting of the software and who would rather be believed in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

This is by no means limited to a loss prevention conversation. If you want consumers to further embrace self-checkout (don’t kid yourself: You’ve thus far only gotten the low-hanging fruit), you must convince them that you’re on their side and that self-checkout isn’t frightening. The system won’t slow consumers down, it won’t charge them more and, most critically, it won’t get them falsely thrown in jail. Speaking for myself, any grocery store that doesn’t pretty aggressively avoid that last one isn’t going to get my egg purchase.


4 Comments | Read Self-Checkout Psychology: Losing The Customer’s Trust

  1. Chris Kapsambelis Says:

    When I went to college, a long time ago, I recall a study in Psych 101 that was done to test the honesty of people buying newspapers at an unmanned stand with a sign requesting the buyer to leave the money in a box. Something like 90% always left the money while the rest took the paper without paying. A percentage of people will constantly cheat, and in the end retailers will have to accept these as a cost of business and pass the losses on to the consumer.

    The big question I have is this: When self check out becomes ubiquitous, will the small percentage of cheaters grow to unmanageable proportions?

  2. Tim Pinette Says:

    Today’s item, re: Self Checkout, rings true with me and I don’t even think I was aware of the urban legends stories of consumers being arrested. I use the self checkouts at the local big box hardware stores, mostly to avoid the irritation of dealing with “the yawning 16 year olds”. But, I always cling tightly to the receipt and, upon exiting the store, have the same feeling I get when driving by an interstate highway speedtrap even while well within the speed limit; i.e. “if they come after me, I may be defenseless”.

    My question about self checkout has more to do with the cost aspect. I’m old enough to remember the banks telling us that their new-fangled ATM machines would reduce their expenses. And now, ATM transactions often cost the consumer extra fees from their own bank and the owner of the ATM. How did this happen, anyway? And, if retailers are successful with their introduction of self checkout, how long will it be before they charge a fee for the “convenience of not waiting in a line?”

  3. novelgirl Says:

    Until they become easier to use/ have less glitches, I think most customers will prefer a live cashier.
    I worked in a grocery store for five years, many of those with a scanner check out, and still have problems maneuvering self-checkouts.

  4. confused Says:

    I used the self-checkout last night at the grocery store. After scanned groceries, requested $20 cash back. When the bill dispensed, I grabbed it and left the tray empty. I put the (thinking it was my $20 bill) in my wallet, grabbed my receipt and took my groceries home only to find that in my wallet was a $10 bill not a $20. I called the grocery store and was told the machine does not make mistakes. I checked my receipt & the printout indicated $20 was dispensed. I am now out $10 and surely should have checked before leaving, however, I don’t believe the machine is always right like the manager indicated.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.