Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: UPC Scanners
Message-ID: <952@terak.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 13:26:49 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.952
Posted: Mon Dec 30 13:26:49 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 02:38:33 EST
References: <300@opus.UUCP> <942@terak.UUCP> <1482@wanginst.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 61

> >I find that scanner-equipped stores are actually significantly *slower*
> >than the old manual methods (and it appears that they use as many or
> >even more cashiers). 
> 
> Come on Doug, justify your *ridiculous* claim!!!

I don't have to "justify" what I observe.  It exists whether or not I
can explain it and/or justify it.  Where the stores used to use 2 or
3 cashiers during normal periods, and maybe 8 during Saturday rush,
now they have to use 3 or 4 most of the time, and on Saturdays the
lines back up well into the display aisles even though all 10 check-out
lanes are manned.  From a personal view, where I used to get impatient
if I had to wait for 2 minutes, now I have to be content with a 5 to
10 minute wait.

However...  I saw a posting by Ron Natalie which provides a plausible
explanation:  the stores in my area have made no changes in their
checking procedures.  Also, it appears that there are significant
differences in the kind of scanners used by different stores around
the country, and ours must be the absolute worst.

In the last year, a number of the groceries in my area have gone to the
scanners, and they all seem to be of the same type.  In all cases, the
situation is the same:

There is no conventional register... items are either scanned or (for
produce) weighed.  The scale has a keypad on which the clerk enters a
code number for the type of produce.  This keypad also serves as the
entry point for "amount tendered", coupons, etc.  The system has no
capability to enter sale of non-coded, non-weighed items; so even the
50-lb dog food bags have to go up on the counter, and if you buy
something by the case you have to open the case and take out one of
the packages to be scanned.

The cashiers use the one-hand approach, and probably 1/3 of the time
have to make multiple passes over the scanner (if it missed the first
time, it usually takes 3 to 5 passes before the scanner is happy).  The
Phoenix area stores never have used baggers on any regular basis, and
still don't; the cashier bags the stuff after first scanning it all.

Oh yes, we suffer the same scanner-related problems as others have
noticed:  the packages aren't marked (that being the big way the store
saves money with scanners), and the shelves sometimes aren't properly
labelled.  Often, the merchandise is put at the wrong spot on the
shelf (the 24 oz size appearing over the price sticker for the 16 oz
size, or a national brand placed on the shelf with the store brand's
price).  And no unit pricing, of course.  And it's impossible to monitor
the prices being scanned, even if you can remember the correct price.

Somebody posted a comment about the apparent failure of the "free
market" to control this sort of nonsense.  The situation here in Phoenix
is terrible for supermarket operators -- almost a dozen major chains
competing for far too few customers.  In the last ten years at least
a half-dozen grocery chains have failed (or pulled out of the market,
same thing) because of the cutthroat competition.  And yet, more and
more stores here are installing equipment which inconveniences their
customers.  That tells me that scanners must be darn good at improving
the profit margin (4% margin on reduced sales of $1 million beats 1%
margin on sales of $3 million).
-- 
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug