Macy’s LP Approach Of Monitoring Dressing Rooms From The Inside Is In Major Need Of An IT Fix

Written by Evan Schuman
July 21st, 2011

A Macy’s loss-prevention program, which involved security employees surreptitiously having a complete view of customers getting changed in its dressing rooms, is embarrassing primarily because it could have been avoided with some help from the retailer’s IT group.

The program was reported on by a Florida TV station, when an apparent Macy’s LP employee revealed that the slots on some dressing room doors were turned upside down, thereby providing an unobstructed view of sometimes naked customers. The station said it confirmed the program in Macy’s stores in Florida and Washington, D.C.

Macy’s did not respond to our request for comment. The chain issued a statement to the station—WINK—that didn’t deny the program and generically said the chain does what it has to. “Retailers work hard to strike a balance between preserving the privacy of customers, providing customer service, maintaining customer safety in fitting rooms and deterring the theft of merchandise. We at Macy’s are continually reviewing our policies and procedures to ensure we are serving the best interests of all of our customers. We strive to make customers feel safe and secure at Macy’s.”

This is one of these extremely emotional stories, where facts and legitimate justifications are irrelevant. Once a report combines “Macy’s dressing rooms” and “see customers naked,” a reasoned explanation has little chance.

Aggravating the emotional problem are gender stats in the station’s report, which discussed one store that had 49 doors altered in various women’s departments, including lingerie and juniors. Only one door was found altered in the men’s changing rooms.

As a practical matter, clothing thefts of this nature are much more likely to happen with women—men tend to shoplift other types of merchandise—but that reality can’t compare with the perception that male LP officers are gawking female customers.

The WINK-TV story also discussed the legal issues involving notification. The LP officer referenced a 6-inch-by-6-inch sign outside the fitting rooms. “It may be legally OK according to Florida law, because there is a sign posted saying loss-prevention personnel are monitoring the fitting rooms. But I knew for a fact that our customers did not know that we could see them naked. Really that we could see their private body parts,” he said.

This program is a bad idea for a lengthy list of reasons. Obviously, it has the emotional charge to truly alienate customers and to send them into the dressing rooms of the nearest rival. But it’s also truly not necessary, given the existence of technology options to detect what the guards are supposed to be watching for.

Joe Larocca, head of loss prevention for the National Retail Federation, said he couldn’t discuss any specific retailer’s program. He did say, however, that fitting rooms are very challenging places for LP to function.

“There are many [LP] considerations to take into account when designing fitting rooms,” he said. “EAS and RFID technology may prevent and detect merchandise theft, but some people take advantage of the private setting of the fitting room to remove these tags and conceal the merchandise.”

That’s absolutely true. But that assumes there are changes made to the merchandise after the customer walks into the changing area and when the customer leaves. It would seem that sensors located at the entrance could specifically note any such deviations. And one associate assigned to that area—one is likely to be assigned there anyway—could note both what the system says is the number of detected tags and what the associate actually sees the customer bringing in.

Besides, a thief could simply opt to only use dressing rooms that do not have the reversed slots. And given the modesty issues, that wouldn’t even be a red flag for a possible shoplifter.

Also, for this program to work, a two-second glance wouldn’t likely detect anything. It would require an elongated look, which is simply going to freak out other customers. Sometimes, technology investments are the right way to go. In this case, though, the decision shouldn’t even be close.


5 Comments | Read Macy’s LP Approach Of Monitoring Dressing Rooms From The Inside Is In Major Need Of An IT Fix

  1. Lori Yone Says:

    RFID technology has the capability of alerting store personnel when improper products are taken into the fitting room, and when product or discarded product tags are left in the fitting room. Alerts are sent via mobile hand-held devices such as iPhones or iPads.

    “Improper product” -meaning product that would not need to be worn to make a purchasing decision, but has a high theft probability in fitting rooms: i.e. earrings, handbags, fragrances.

    In addition, this technology would help drive sales as fitting room personnel receive alerts when merchandise is left in a fitting room and is not displayed on sales floor or when merchandise needs to be replenished from back stock.

    The ROI on RFID is quick when an overall store ops approach is taken by the retailer and would help aid loss prevention personnel to do a more effective job without invading customers’ privacy.

  2. AUtlaw Says:

    on the upside, associate retention (at least amongst pimply faced teens) is good if “free look at nude girls” is included as a job benefit ;)

  3. ed Says:

    RFID can be neutralized with aluminum foil.

  4. Evan Schuman Says:

    Clearly, anything can be defeated. But if the system notes that a customer entered dressing room 861 with six tags and then exits with two tags, an associate can stop the customer and look in the room for the other four. It doesn’t seem very practical. More importantly, is the customer supposed to be wearing the stolen outfit and leaving the one she owns? And wearing it with the tag covered in foil? Also, if it’s something small (earrings, rings, etc.), going into the restroom will accomplice the same privacy without the security issues. Am not suggesting that any of these approaches are perfect, but they’re certainly better (in terms of an absence of huge downsides) than peeking into dressing rooms.

  5. Brad Jarrett Says:

    There is a better and more affordable solution utilizing existing EAS tags. In addition, important information including items or tags left in dressing room, time in fitting room including when a customer enters and exits, CCTV overlay of attempted theft, etc.


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.