[avalaunch]

Response to flippant answer: I'm pretty sure the only thing Target figured out is to cater to a higher income demographic.

I'm curious if there were less disturbances before Walmart, or if they were just more distributed throughout the city.

[kafkaesq]

I'm pretty sure the only thing Target figured out is to cater to a higher income demographic.

Whereas Walmart's genius lay in not only continuing to cater to the lower income demographic... but to keep its valued customers addicted to junk food, junk clothing, junk music, junk kitchenware, and just plain... junk in general (peppered with vindictive, quite possibly career- and/or life-ruining arrests for drinking a $0.98 iced tea before paying, now and then) so that they stay in the lower income demographic.

[michaelbuddy]

>drinking a $0.98 iced tea before paying

Or shoving it behind something else on a shelf and not paying at all. When people no longer have any respect for authority, social contract or citizenship AND you can't crack them over the head to teach a lesson in hard knocks, how are loss prevention supposed to deal with it? You let it go, then it's suddenly a widespread thing (YES IT WILL BE) and it costs everyone. And frankly it never ends. Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture.

[kafkaesq]

How are loss prevention supposed to deal with it?

In the normal, pragmatic way: wait until you actually see them put the opened drink behind something else on the shelf. Which, not all the time but often enough, you surely will. If they're drinking it out in the open -- in the line at the register, say? Most likely they're going to pay for it.

Certain people will go so low at the expense of others, it makes for an unworkable culture.

By the same token, treating people as if they're already "low" (by not giving them the benefit of the doubt for an opening a $0.98 bottle of iced tea before paying) makes for an unworkable culture, also.