1. Theft is identified during stocktakes, not in real time

For many retailers, stocktakes remain the primary way to uncover theft. These audits usually happen once or twice a year due to the cost, labour, and operational disruption involved.

The problem? If an item is stolen the day after a stocktake, that loss can stay invisible for months. During that time, systems still show the item as “in stock,” creating phantom inventory and false confidence in availability. By the time discrepancies are found, the opportunity to act is long gone.

      2. CCTV footage is reviewed only after losses are found

Most retail stores are full of cameras, but cameras alone don’t prevent theft. Traditional CCTV systems are passive. They record everything, but the don’t flag anything.

Footage is typically reviewed only after a stock discrepancy is discovered or an incident is reported. At that point, teams are searching through hours of video just to confirm what already happened. The theft may be visible on screen, but it’s discovered far too late to intervene meaningfully.

      3. Repeat theft patterns go unnoticed

Organised retail crime doesn’t usually look dramatic. It appears as small, repeated losses across stores, days, or even regions. Without real-time visibility and shared intelligence, these incidents seem isolated rather than connected.

Because data is fragmented, separate systems for inventory, CCTV, and incident reports, repeat offenders often operate anonymously. Patterns only emerge months later, if at all, when losses are aggregated during audits.

    4. Store staff are forced to react instead of prevent

Retail teams are increasingly trained to take a hands-off approach to theft. With rising violence and legal risk, staff are instructed to prioritise personal safety over intervention.

As a result, employees react after the fact: documenting losses, filing reports, and adjusting inventory. Prevention becomes passing, not proactive. Even when suspicious behaviour is noticed, staff often lack the tools or confidence to act early and safely.

   5. The result: a rear-view-mirror approach to loss prevention

Put together, these factors create a discovery lag. Retailers know what they lost, but not when, how or by whom, until it’s too late. Traditional loss prevention tells the story of yesterday’s theft, not today’s risk.