Navigating Retail Security: Combating Violence, Crime, and Fraud in a Changing Landscape

00:06 - Steve Kenny (Host)

Hi, and welcome to today's episode of Security Tech Talk. I have been joined today by a great colleague that I've worked with many, many years in Corin Dennison. So Corin is a law enforcement veteran and then more recently he moved over into loss prevention for the likes of Burberry before he headed up the global profit protection for Adidas, and today Corin is the managing partner for Insight Retail Risk Consultancy. So I guess there is absolutely no doubt that Corin is more than qualified to discuss the challenges around the retail environment that we'll be sharing today, and it's obviously one of the hot topics that is obviously in the press a lot at the moment, and so no better person to open up the discussion around retail and the challenges that are faced today. Corin, thank you for joining me.

00:58 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

Thanks, Steve. Good to be here. Thank you.

00:58 - Steve Kenny (Host)

Excellent. So I'm going to kick it off, Corin. It is clearly one of the big topics that we see talking around, the challenges faced by retailers today. We obviously have the loss prevention considerations. We've got the crime, we've got staff welfare. From your experience of probably nearly 30 years in the industry, you've probably seen it from all different aspects across the spectrum. What are you seeing today? Is that the big challenges that retailers need to address and how are they moving that forward?

01:30 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

Yeah, I think the big challenge is you have to be living under a rock not to see the increase through the media of workplace violence, and when I say workplace violence, I mean retail specific violence. Some would say that you know crime has now got out of control and that the bad actors, the individuals that commit these crimes, are indifferent to the measures that, whether the retailer or solution providers are putting out there. Some would also tell you this is an isolated issue to the UK or to the US, but it's not. This is a global trend that we're seeing now with clients and the challenges of retailing, keeping your consumers safe, keeping your employees safe and keeping your products safe, and it's a real balance. I think it's not end of days.

02:24

We keep hearing about various factors, whether it be cost of living crisis, turning those law-abiding citizens into non-law-abiding citizens, organised retail crime, so stealing to order or COVID and still the effects of COVID so many years on. And I wouldn't dismiss any of those as being factors. What I would suggest is that no one single factory is driving this narrative at the moment. Retailers want to sell, and I think we should always remember that when we're talking about advising retailers on strategies and products. At the end of the day, a retailer is there to sell stuff to people and that's what they want to be famous for. I've not spoken to any retailer globally that wants to be famous for the best LP program or loss prevention program in the world. But for sure, if you could do that pretty good and sell what you want to do and you serve the objective, then you're probably in a nice sweet spot.

03:25 (He trails off at the end of sentences in this paragraph)

But at the moment, definitely people safety is where most of the investment is going and retailers actually want to validate now their programs. We're getting a lot more requests to just simply come in and reassure a retailer that they are doing everything they can do to mitigate a particular problem. But there are some hard realities here and sometimes the worst case scenario is that a retailer will understand that maybe they have placed a location, a store, in the wrong place and that place is no longer viable to trade. And we're seeing that quite a lot in the US at the moment, very widely publicized, about some big brands pulling out of areas because simply it's not financially or commercially viable. And you're hearing in the UK as well, particularly in the convenience retail, grocery sector, CEOs are being very bold now to stand up and put a number to the impact of crime. You know whether it be a percentage of profits or whether it be a financial figure, and I think that's the dilemma that retailers are now having to struggle with and work their way through.

04:37 - Steve Kenny (Host)

So looking at it from lots of different perspectives, I know that you've been a big advocate of the customer experience when you've been working in stores, and then you've got the staff welfare. I know you referenced earlier around, sort of the UK potentially being one that's been in the media more than any other country in terms of violent crime against the staff in these environments. These sites have technology deployed for security. Video surveillance is in all of these stores. It's in all of these sites already. So no one can argue that the deployment of tech hasn't taken place and isn't there already. The criminal are, would I say, more bold than ever in order to go in. They'll casually take what they want and they'll walk out the front door. Is that because there is no fear of repercussion, or what's the thoughts there?

05:25 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

I mean it's consequence management is what it is, to be honest with you. Yes, I mean, I think there is a perception that the bad actor is indifferent to the measures, and technology can serve a number of things. But I think again, when you're deploying a technology like a CCTV or a security tag, you need to break down to is this a preventative measure? Will this measure prevent the crime from happening, the product from being removed? Is it a detection measure? So is it going to detect that the crime is happening, allowing the retailer to make then another informed decision? Or is it an evidential capture, in that we accept that the theft or the incident is going to happen, but we want to retain as much evidence as we can in the expectation that, should this be reported to law enforcement, that there will be a consequence, and I think that's the tilt point we're seeing at the moment. Traditionally, we've gone through. This product is protected. If you steal it, an alarm will happen. We've gone through this environment is being surveilled. If you steal from us, we will have a picture of you and we will come after you. Down to we have a physical security guarding function at the door and if you try to steal this item there will be some type of interaction which will be there to detain you, and all of those play a part.

06:51

The challenge now is what we have is we have non-confrontation policies which are widely publicized, whereby people will know that a retailer may well be surveilling you and there'll be a body worn camera or a camera on the ceiling, but that that employee will not engage you, will not put hands on you. And there's a number of reasons for that which retailers genuinely are struggling to kind of manage. One is litigation by their employees against them for putting them into that position because a store associate is there. Remember I said, retailers are there to sell. Store associates are there to facilitate the sale of product. They're not there to physically manhandle and jump on people. You've got the risk of litigation by the bad actor. So if they are detained and something goes wrong, very much unlike a law enforcement officer that is operating maybe under different rules of engagement. A member of staff may or may not do the right thing and, as a result, the retailer may be liable for that behavior. So what we have is this perfect storm of what should we do, what should we not do. So retailers often err on the side of caution and say, well, okay, we'll observe, we'll monitor, but we won't engage. And some have gone further. In the US, some have actually dismissed employees for doing the right thing. Because it's part of your DNA. If you've been a law abiding citizen all your life and you see something that is wrong, it's almost a reflex reaction that you may or may not intervene and, as a result, to be penalized for that would seem unfair.

08:25

But I think, again, this audience has changed. You know, particularly when you talk about organized crime and we know, as I said before, organized crime is present, there are stealing people who are stealing to order. They're stealing specific products which they know they can turn around and sell straight away. They know that product is often unsecure in terms of you know, it's very difficult to secure a jar of coffee or a bar of soap. And sometimes they're even stealing to order for other retailers, and we've heard that before on news media reports. So again, how do we mitigate that? Because the fear element has potentially gone in some cases, others not. If we can't rely on a police response or a law enforcement response, which isn't a slight on law enforcement.

09:14

There are many, many priorities for policing nowadays and, yes, business crime is now emerging as a topic. But quite frankly, we have to be realistic with the scenarios. Somebody walks into a convenience retailer with maybe two members of staff, cigarettes, alcohol and they sweep the shelf and they walk out. Likely that police response isn't going to be there before they leave the store unless somebody jumps on the person. And if that happens, then we have this whole myriad of issues which could arise. So which one is our priority? Keeping our people safe, selling products? Doing both and, as I said, we have to rely on technologies to do some of that. But ultimately it's the apprehension piece which we're struggling with. Talking to guarding companies, some clients telling them you will apprehend and we will sit there, wait for the police. And others are saying listen, even I don't want to be litigated against by my security guarding company, observe. Let's build up a profile of these bad actors and hope that if we can build a more compelling case, that something will be done.

10:22 - Steve Kenny (Host)

If we look at building the profile of the bad actors that you've mentioned, we can obviously identify through technology or at least give us a best case scenario of okay, well, we know that individual is there, we've got the evidence to support that.

10:36

But I know from experience of working in different markets. I was given an example of where someone referenced the fact that in certain parts of the UK, the criminals were walking around with a calculator because they knew that if they were to steal under a certain value that actually the police were not going to get called. And not only were they not gonna get called, all that the retailer could do is give them a banning order. It's not really a way of discouraging bad behavior and crime when they can just walk to the next one and can commit the same offense knowing that the police are not going to get called. So any likelihood that things like that might change in the future? Because when people are facing violent crime and that absolutely does happen and that is what we are seeing across the media what are we seeing in terms of I'm not going to call it petty theft or small crime, because actually when you add all of these different incidents up and probably in a day it can turn into thousands. Is that likely to change?

11:34 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

Yeah, this threshold approach, which, again, has been widely publicised and some very fixed numbers applied to it. I think to your point around the terminology, it's about terminology. I mean to your point theft is theft. There is nothing petty about theft. Whether it be a Mars bar, whether it be a can of Coke, whether it be a bottle of vodka, it's theft, and the law was never designed to put those in.

11:59

onvenience Stores, from their: 2024

13:47

Because, for sure, there is a bit of a, I wouldn't call it a conflict, but there's a bit of an impasse. Retailers will complain that the crime that is happening to them is not being investigated or acted upon, and sometimes law enforcement is saying the quality of what we're getting is not good enough for us to prosecute, and that's always been there. It's not just retail crime, it's in crime in general. If the quality of the evidence and the way you capture it is not good enough, you cannot expect a jury or a magistrate to convict on that, because there are standards and rules in place. So I think this is where we tried to start to plug the gap. Now, whether that be providing you with funded tools or whether there be applications that you can download where you can simply keep a record of what's happening, maybe add the evidence. And at that point, it allows you to say, “It was a Mars bar, do I want to report it?”

14:45

was a large screen TV worth $: 3000

15:42

Shrinkage is effectively the difference between what I had, what I sold, and what I've got left. So it's effectively what have I lost? Now, shrinkage is made up of the actions from crime, so loss from crime, but it's also made up of inventory inaccuracy or whatever. Once you, as a retailer, say I'm willing to sustain a level of shrinkage to this level, and then once I go over that, that's when I'm going to have to revisit this model. Because, again, the commerciality of trading has to come in at some stage. You know, no retailer is going to build a store or a premises and lose more than they actually take. It just simply isn't sustainable.

16:24 - Steve Kenny (Host)

I want to do a little digging in something around. We obviously need to collect all of this additional data, and I think there is an acknowledgement that if less than 50% of that information is being created, we're making a lot of assumptions on that. Let's say, utopia, the Holy Grail, we get to 100% and we've got all the accurate data. Then how do these retailers react when they have got accurate data to actually create data-driven decisions? Well, what do they do then in terms of, okay, we know what the problem is, we know what the risk is. Do they share that with law enforcement? Do they put any sort of public-private partnerships in place? Are there any of those examples already? Well, what does that look like? Because we know there's a gap. If we can fill the gap, what do we do with it?

17:09 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

Yeah, I mean data in this case, I think, is king. I mean, as I said, I like to simplify the statements that better data allows you to make a better informed decision. Now, whether that decision is, I need to put guarding into my store on a weekend Friday, Saturday, Sunday because my data is telling me that's when most of my product is leaving the environment. Or is it that the hottest topic this week is a football jersey and it's positioned at the front of the store, which is where we love to merchandise it because it's in full view, but obviously that makes it more vulnerable. So do I leave it there but then target harden the location with cameras, with guards, with security tags? I think we're quite sensitive, and you mentioned it before. I am all about consumer centricity, retailing first and security second, and that's not because security is not as important as retailing, but the two are codependent. So I'm a big believer in making sure that we at best facilitate good retailing, but actually using some of the data to make sure we're making the right risk assessments in order that the consumer can interact with the product and ultimately buy. Now, often people say well, the consumer doesn't like security guards, they don't like cameras, they don't like security tags. But actually when you speak to a lot of consumers, they expect it to be there. Some are even surprised if product isn't protected, particularly in the grocery channels now where you're seeing a whole range of solutions to protect things like meat, cheese, staple foodstuffs that you would think that that's crazy, but because of their price point, they're sometimes as valuable as a pair of sneakers or a football jersey or whatever. So I think again, there's no silver bullet here in my opinion. And it is only my opinion. We often talk about layered approach, and I'm a great believer in there is no one size fits all. Grocery food retail solutions there would not definitely fit into a luxury apparel retailer environment.

19:18

However, layering on trying different combinations of solutions, I think is healthy. I mean even down to recently some of the what I would call, they appear to be more aggressive solutions like fogging technology, for example, where you fill the space with smoke. Now, instinctively you would say, well, that's great, because it disorientates the bad actor who can't now steal the cigarettes or whatever, but also it disorientates the employee that's in close proximity and potentially the customer as well. So you've got three people all in this smoke fog running around, potentially one with a weapon, whatever. But again, if you risk assess that, and you overlay it with things like audio that says remain calm, breathe, the police are on their way. What you're probably more likely to see is the bad actor thinking well, I can't see anybody, I'm not getting my cigarettes today and I need to find the exit as quickly as possible, otherwise, when the smoke dissipates, I'm going to be the last one standing, a bit like musical chairs.

20:20

And we're seeing this approach again now adopted because retailers, I wouldn't say they're exhausted or running out of options. There are always new technologies coming in, but is it going to get them to where they want to be? Is it going to deter the bad actor from coming to their store? Is it going to not deter them but catch them when they do come? And again, these are all considerations, I think, because we're in a very different world now and obviously our worst case scenario is there being a fatality or a serious injury in a store of an employee, of a consumer and dare I say it or a bad actor. I know some would say you know, you might get what you deserve, but actually a retailer doesn't want that on their premises or associated to their brand. So I think again, there's a number of things here which impact the decision making, and we just want to be able to make good decisions based on good information.

21:18 - Steve Kenny (Host)

Earlier on you were talking around the different challenges that are being faced and you very loosely referenced the pandemic and some of the challenges that that created. I know from personal experience it absolutely changed the way I shopped, it changed the way my wife shopped and we do so much more online, which I guess put a whole new host of challenges. But I guess even in on-prem, when shops were no longer open and we saw headcounts drop or people repositioned to do other things, have organizations had to rethink the way that they look at security, especially those that sit in an Omni channel sort of environment, or are they still adapting and getting back to the old way of working?

22:02 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

Omni is an interesting evolution of that trading channel since COVID because, quite rightly, I mean, it was again very, again very simple. Fiscal retail was closed. There was only a limited amount of fiscal retail open, like grocery, and any business that already had an Omni capability leveraged that to ensure that they could still trade and get through that pandemic. However, we shouldn't be under any illusion that the criminal element adapted and moved, and what we're seeing now within the e-com area is we're seeing an exponential rise in returns fraud, which probably actually I would be bold enough to say is equal, if not bigger, than the risk in fiscal retail, definitely organized, and again, the USP here is, we're talking about a very, very different type of bad actor community. We're now talking about social media driving behavior. So if simple model where you saw a weakness in a fiscal retail bricks and mortar, somebody might tell their friends they maybe have a social circle of 10 or 20 and they tell them and they all go down to that location the following day and they all try the same thing, some to better rates of success than others. On e-com, in social media channels now, like Telegram and Facebook Marketplace, we have communities of thousands. So if a vulnerability is published within that community, particularly for an online retailer. That retailer could literally be overwhelmed with thousands of thousands of bad actors all trying the same methodology and, as a result, the shrinkage goes up.

23:40

ld say, well, okay, we've got: 2000

24:31 - Steve Kenny (Host)

What are retailers doing, then? Obviously, they know that this is a big problem and, as you just said, there it could be bigger than the high street. Are they looking at new processes, new policies? Are they looking at how do they engage with the third parties that might actually be doing and managing the return? Are they looking at technology to evidence that something might or might not have happened? It seems like a massive challenge that people are struggling to get to grips with.

24:55 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

And it comes back to data again, Steve, having good data, whether a retailer themselves has good data on their consumer, on the consumer orders, on the consumer returns, or, better still, if they consolidate their data. So I liken it to this. I'll use myself as the example. So Corin Dennison orders something online, I make, let's say, a fraudulent return to the retailer and I get my money back. Highly likely I'm not going to limit my behavior to one retailer, so I then go to the next retailer. I do the same.

25:28

If these retailers were sharing specific data on specific activity not talking about sharing your complete database, but if you're sharing data on high risk transactions, which, in a fiscal retail space, we monitor those. If you were sharing that, you could say, well, actually I've got Corin Dennison in my database. And the grocer down the road would say, well, so have I. And they say, well, when? How many claims has Corin made in the last three weeks? And you'd find Corin had made 10. I've made a claim for a pair of sneakers. I've made a claim for a vacuum. I've made a claim for a lost chicken with my home delivery.

26:04

Is it then more or less likely that the next retailer who sees that and I make a claim might be empowered to say no or at the very least, put some friction into that, to say, Corin, we're not going to give you money back straight away, we're going to put you into a referral and we're going to defer the return until we investigate.

26:25

Because, again, these individuals are pretty much acting unregulated in this space and it's the retailer's own returns policy which is working against them. If the retailer said, “I am not going to take that claim until that product is back in my distribution center, and if you say it's lost, you are the unluckiest consumer in the world and I'm sorry. We're prepared to make a stand.” And there are some retailers what I mean, some are no longer with us, sadly who actually, during covid, didn't take returns. They would sell online, but you had to return the item to a fiscal store now, not the best consumer experience, you have to say and and you'd need to have a store within two miles of you to make that even viable. But they did it and they saw their sales drop for sure, but they saw their losses drop as well. So, again, they made an informed decision and they went one way, whereas another retailer might go another way.

27:22 - Steve Kenny (Host)

Yeah, I think that the concept of that is incredible. I know that for me, returning has never been so easy, especially where I live now. People will knock on your door, they'll collect the item, they'll scan a QR code. Within the same day, the money is back in your account, so I can absolutely see how it's open for people to exploit. I want to pick on something that you just referenced, because it is around data sharing, but I'm not going to use it within the sort of online return type world. Data sharing in terms of, I'm going to say, facial recognition type applications, and what we've seen is how this technology is used, where you identify a bad actor and they go into a database and then you've got multiple retailers that are all utilizing that.

28:09

So as soon as an individual walks into their premises, they know that they've been associated with past crimes or the retailers. What's your thought process on that? Because I am mindful that it's an area that people need to tread very carefully in terms of GDPR compliance, maintaining the privacy of the customer. But actually, is that not one area that, if deployed correctly, with correct data sharing policies in place with other retailers, can actually help mitigate some of the risk of a known offender continuing to well, steal and decrime in a premises.

28:47 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

Yeah, I mean facial recognition or identification of offenders has been a contentious topic for a couple of years now.

28:55

And I think the community has pivoted several times. I mean we've seen developments in Australia with it, we've seen developments in the UK and moved towards it. You know, when we were talking about counterterrorism, I mean facial recognition was actually. I mean I first came across it in France 98 for the World Cup, when it was being used to track hooligans at the border. So I think, I think to your point, I think it's a valid technology with the right controls. I don't think we should be afraid of it, whether it be GDPR or, if you're outside of Europe, any other privacy laws. Its deployment, if it's proportionate, can be used, and we've seen it used with several vendors now that have created effectively closed communities of retailers. So they're all working within almost like a closed group who are then sharing information, sharing imagery.

29:52

The one thing for sure is we have to sit on good data and that data has to be factual and we have to put in those, those measures to prevent mistakes, to prevent somebody being labeled and then somebody acting upon that labeling. That is incorrect. And again, there have been some cases recently where consumers have been wrongly identified because they should never have been placed into that data set in the first place. However, as we say that the environment is changing and as the risk changes, so the measures that are deployed have to be considered. I think it's very much like most things with data privacy. It should be a living thing. We should be constantly revisiting it. We should be constantly revisiting the justification for keeping data on somebody for 5, 10, 12 years. If it's proportionate to do, then absolutely. If it isn't, then we should be bold enough to say we need to stop and take a step back. Again, though, I would raise the issue. Detection, prevention. The challenge we have at the moment is apprehension. So even if a retailer knew that someone had entered their store who was either a prolific thief, an active thief, a wanted thief, we have to still the dilemma of what is the next action. And ultimately, the next action would be, call the police, call 911, wait, don't do anything, don't put yourself at risk.

31:27

So again, you know and I'm not saying any of these things are wrong. You know we heard the term love bombing, which again was used heavily several years ago, where employees, where associates, were encouraged, if they saw something, to go up and customer service the hell out of the individual until they put the basket down and left. Now that would be actually inappropriate in certain situations where people are offering extreme violence, to say, hey, three of you go and try to appeal to this individual's sense of duty and have them leave. You wouldn't do it. You'd say actually withdraw. The more aggression that you're being offered, the more you should withdraw. It's only product and your life is worth more than anything in this store.

32:10

So I think, again, we should embrace what's available. We should look at the opportunities to deploy. Consolidating data, one would think would get you to a quicker point of identification and justification for doing something. If it's only one thing, then you might say, well, balance probabilities. But if you've got four retailers all with the same picture of Corin Dennison entering a store and I am prolific then yes, you would expect to consolidate that data set and that somebody is going to act upon it. But it doesn't always work that way, as I said, and it has to be evidentially sound, and I think this is some of the concerns. But there is now, it's now being talked about a lot more. We're getting far more assurances from the solution providers that the technology is sound and is foolproof as best it can be.

33:08 - Steve Kenny (Host)

So I know from when we've worked on different applications in the past together and this is probably a slight detour on some of the conversations, but you did reference it there on the solutions providers. I know that some retailers will keep their vendors and their technology providers at arm's length. I know that you have historically brought them in to your environment, within your ecosystem, to take more of a partnership approach with them. Why do you see the value in that moving forward, in engaging with tech companies to actually deliver unique solutions that are there to address specific applications when others have gone actually? No, we're going to deal with this and we're going to keep everyone else at arm's length.

33:52 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

I think it goes back to as an LP leader, retailer, I mean, you can't know everything. And solution providers I mean that yes, again, we have to accept solution providers are there to sell their product. However, you're also subject matter experts. You have multiple clients across multiple channels, so you will be seeing things and experiences that maybe we haven't seen. I mean, covid was a perfect analogy of. A big global retailer would not have been surprised with that Covid had swept across the world because they would have seen it in their Chinese business environment first. Then they would have seen it come into Europe and those retailers were much, much better positioned to warn and to prepare for the impact in the US and Latin America and whatever. And it's the same with this is if I have solution providers who have a presence across multiple entities and can say to me hey, Corin, have you seen the emerging risk that's coming from Latin America at the moment with armed robberies. It allows us then again, acting on information, to make better informed decisions and to determine whether that risk is going to reach us in other areas or is it going to be isolated there.

35:06

The other one is there's no exclusivity to success here. Most people tasked with owning this topic want to prove to their employers that they are worthy of that role. They are invested in trying to protect the business, the product, the people, and the only way you can do that is to have a much wider view on technology and also what works and what doesn't work. So, whether that be and again I've been bold enough to do it in the past, bringing in competitors together and saying, listen, you both do the same thing and, yes, you're both competing for my business. But actually knowing that you work together, that you are at least complementary, if not compatible, is very important, certainly for larger retailers who will buy technologies and then will pivot two years later and may say, “hey, listen, I've got these pedestals, I only just paid for them, but now I want to use this different security tag that's made by somebody else. So I need these systems to be relatively agnostic.”

36:12

Again, it's an interaction, because otherwise we just get into,

I buy a solution because the salesperson or the pitch has been so very, very well polished and I don't really understand how it's going to return or give me the return on investment, and for sure anybody in that kind of leadership role will be looking for a return on investment because there are so many technologies out there and there are so many issues to tackle. You will probably find in the next well, even at this moment in time, some retailers are more focused on the individual, the employee, the person than they are the product. So they will actually be investing more in protecting the person than they are the product. That could, once that problem has been negated or reduced, then pivot back to say right, I now need to focus on product. rather, because I've solved or at least mitigated some of the risk with people.

37:10

And, as I said, we're in a living world. I mean, that's why all of the things we do should be almost taken as works in progress. Whether it be a policy, whether it be a strategy, they are all living things. Because I don't imagine before COVID what we are seeing now with workplace violence. I would never have thought we would have gone to that end that quickly?

37:29 - Steve Kenny (Host)

Yeah, I think it's when people look at sort of threat casting, it's trying to predict things that aren't even on our horizon at the moment. So, just to wrap up, you mentioned the word “no silver bullet” twice and I agree there is probably no silver bullet to addressing the challenges that people need to address today in terms of retail crime. But, from your experience, what words of wisdom can you give as a final takeaway?

37:57 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

I would go back to something a colleague said many, many years ago when I entered this industry. He said actually, risk mitigation, retail risk mitigation is based actually on some pretty long standing fundamental principles, which is having good controls, sound policies and understanding your position. So understanding what your loss is and what your risk is. And I think sometimes, when I talk to clients and I'm quite bold to ask, because I shouldn't assume anything, is to what is your strategy? Do you have a strategy? Do you have a plan? So let's take the word strategy, which seems could be quite sound, quite complicated, but do you have a plan? And what is your plan for all of these elements which we're trying to tackle? So is, what's your plan with CCTV? Because then, once you understand that, you understand why the retailer and how they're making those decisions. As I said, it all comes down to good data. Is if you're confident in your data and you believe that your data is sound, it allows you to then make better decisions as opposed to knee-jerking, and there is an element of that.

39:09

I mean, there are dynamic risks which people are moved to and, as I said, at the moment some retailers have done everything that could possibly have been done and are actually not second guessing themselves but questioning well, have we done everything? Because the problem hasn't gone away. It wasn't a silver bullet that we were sold. And I think again, managing expectations is, risk will always be there, theft will always be there and loss will always be. What we're trying to do is we're trying to bring it down and make it manageable or tolerable, to allow us to trade, and, and for sure, if you ask a retailer, honestly, deflection, diversion versus, you know, removing the problem completely, some would settle for either or.

39:58

And that's what, again we're trying to kind of understand is, is if I'm very, very good at what I do and I deflect that bad actor to the person next to me that isn't doing as good a job as me, maybe is that the right, is that the moral thing to do? Now, some would say morals and commercials, Corin, you know you've gone too far, but again, there should really be no competitor advantage in crime. We should be relying on you know the laws of the land to actually stop this behavior or at the very least punish it when it happens. But there is a commercial element and sometimes some brands will go in a different way because, for sure, I'd be honest, I stand in the camp that says I would rather it didn't happen first, than chase it down after it has happened.

40:47 - Steve Kenny (Host)

Right, so interesting when you say there's no competitive advantage with crime, I tell you what. The criminals are incredibly good at sharing opportunities, vulnerabilities. I think people just need to be better at sharing it within the communities of retail. Corin, it's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your valuable views and opinions with us today, and I'm certainly sure that the audience will get a great level of value out of that. So thank you very much.

41:12 - Corin Dennison (Guest)

Thank you.

41:20 - Steve Kenny (Host)

Thanks for tuning in to Security Tech Talk. If you've enjoyed today's episode, be sure to check out the other episodes for more insightful discussion and expert perspectives. Don't forget to subscribe so you never miss an episode. This podcast is brought to you by Axis Communications.Axis enables a smarter and safer world by creating solutions for improving security and business performance.