Not a stupid question. If you steal sabra hummus (as an example) from a grocery store, are you stealing from Sabra or from the grocery store? I don’t know how big grocer accounting works but I’m sure someone knows.
My understanding is that for most grocery stores, you're stealing from the grocery store. They're responsible for theft and stuff like food going bad. However, if enough people steal a certain brand, the store might stop carrying it.
I think the notable exception to this is Costco, where Costco never actually owns the stock in the store; it's the brand's until you buy it.
I wonder how much theft actually happens from Costco, it seems like the hardest store to actually steal from given the size of most objects and that they have staff to check your cart n shit at the exit
I just stick my figer in it.
A stolen item is not noticed by customers. A vandalised product still in the store sows doubt in the customer about food safety.
Who knows what us fanatics might do to it?
it just deducts from the deli manager's inventory count. it was already bought by the warehouse and shipped based on a algorithm (with varying levels of manual control)
fun fact: most shrink (at least where im at) comes from the transfer of product between warehouse and store. warehouses love to short to make their own inventories
(ths includes warehouses sending damaged, expired, and unwanted products)
also if i product is stolen enough it eventually just gets dropped forever and replaced with an alternative item
I can’t say for certain, but I imagine this would, when accounting for scale, just cause the store to replenish its inventory as if the stock had been bought.
Edit: I guess if enough were being stolen they might stop selling it, but I think realistically the effect is just you are depleting their supply along with people buying it.
Inventory accounting does factor in 'shrink', which is for stuff which gets stolen. To put it simply, when stuff gets stolen, it's recorded as an expense and a decrease in inventory, simultaneously; that expense is reported with typical Cost of Goods sold, so it usually still reduces a company's bottom line by the amount stolen.
What happens after that varies company to company, but usually there isn't much they can do. It's not like bad debt expense, where it (the bad debt) can be packaged and sold to some company that hopes to collect on some of the debt at a big discount, companies just have to eat the cost of shrink.
The point of BDS is to make it unprofitable for companies to partner with Israel. They don't profit off of stolen goods, so stealing BDS items doesn't go against the boycott.
I'm pretty sure the grocery store in most cases takes the hit on the stolen item and they'd just buy more to replace it as if it were purchased. Of course if enough people steal it, the grocery store might not restock it. Costco is the notable exception; they don't actually own the product in their store AFAIK
They do though, losses are already assumed in the price, and unless rate of losses sufficiently change, they'll buy at the same price (so campaign of stealing would deny value, individual act wouldn't)
Not sure if you're referring to my comments, but I don't care at all about grocery stores and I'm happy to steal non-BDS items from them. My concern with stealing BDS items is that the company being boycotted often still makes the money if it was stolen as if it were bought.