throbber
BULKY DOCUMENTS
`(exceeds 300 pages)
`
`Proceeding] Serial No: 9 1 165826
`
`Filed: 06- 12-2006
`
`Title: Opposer’s Notice of Filing; Testimony
`Deposition of David K Shoemaker; and Exhibits
`
`Part 4 of 9
`
`

`
`.u..
`
`Securing Your Products Against
`Counterfeiting and Product Diversion
`
`Secure Marks Provided by Checkpoint Systems
`
`Worldwide Counterfeiting Problem
`
`0 Globally, counterfeiting is one the fastest growing
`economic crimes
`> In last two years, market for counterfeit goods has
`increased from 6% to 10% of all world trade
`> Losses to US businss are estimated at $200 billion a year
`- Moretnanhalfofthose seized ooodscamehol-n01-naand
`Honqlwng
`> or all hand protection issues facing brand owners,
`counterfeiting ranks as most serious problem
`- Protect profits
`- Proms: quality and image olme orand
`- Cuszomer orouruon
`
`Real World Examples
`
`Counterfeiting in Apparel
`
`> zsonuonnuarltsnoftvuesezealuyunvanaontszsarna-cricxains
`>
`l:1urI=lt>rIr.yisnnvvri'KI'l-viorvhrvnllxarwrxuuu
`was
`cannula!
`> vwvu\2dwsdD~v1Icoounpnri¢IuAMaa'I1.nr\sv-cuaartg
`meson:
`y sn:O:LZoD2vruqn\Iy2mJ,utz5oaoeoos¢:ouusa1Jauu1ut
`Aaaums-oalwuuvunnmunoeuuu-on
`0 Nalfiooemu
`p hcucnmwuntnlaauxonn-Iuuvoorim-eoelnrvqvaywaa
`r Suunvwunlomnru-ducuna:
`Olkky
`p Anuouoavuua-cwiwwvmnuxz
`> <>Iy)uIi:u¢-rvvnnauvorwlrvuuloeus
`
`; Clothing and footwear are among industries most effected by
`counterfeit goods
`Clothing is :13 illegal import alter media (DVDs, CDs) and
`electronic devices
`$3-$6 billion worth of contraband clothing enters the US.
`each year
`In Eurooe. 32% of counterfeit sportswear is Nike, 13% is
`Tommy Hilfiger and 7% Adidas
`Recent study reverted that 50% of people would knowingly
`purmase counterfeit clothing .
`
`CS1 01576
`
`

`
`Product Diversion and Overruns
`
`In-Store Sweeps
`
`0 Occurs when vendors and suppliers act outside the
`tenns and conditions of a contractual agreement
`0 Diversion can negatively affect brand image if a
`product is sold in a channel/drain/store that it was
`not intended for
`0 Ovenuns occur when autiienficate product is
`produced and sold but not according to
`manufacturers plan
`
`0 In-store sweeps by UIDEVES who steal thousands ofdollars or
`merdiandise and sell to ‘diverters' is on the rise
`-. fiay e-aarnmace as a valide of fraud
`> Organized Retail Theft An (ORT) of 2003
`0 Retailers are addrasing the problem in various ways
`> Ovemv manung products
`> Cavemv rnanung products
`0 Most marking is done at store—level
`2 canoecoslyfrornalaborpersaemve
`'r can Impact brand mange
`'» Doesntalwaysguarantee desired rsults
`‘Organized retail theft is a scourge on retailas
`and consumers BUKC-..v Senator Lan-y Craig
`
`-
`
`Brand Protection Strategy
`
`L.-. -'
`
`0 Brand owners are taking action
`> Fortune 500 companis spend an average of $2 to 54 million per
`year to combat counterfeiting
`0 Key segments
`‘» Footwear and Apparel (Nike, Adidas, Timberland)
`> Pharmaceutical
`> Electmnits (Microsoft, Sony Ericsson)
`0 Significant growth forecast for brand protection devices
`
`Brand Protection Roadmap
`
`0 World of counterfeiting and diversion is dynamic
`
`9 Technology solutions range from
`
`> Simple tooomplex
`; oven to covert
`'» Single security feature to multi-security
`
`9 Modify strategy over time
`
`> Technologies available will evolve
`> Stay ahead of the counterfeiters/diverters
`; Start as an ‘Insurance Policy‘
`
`~
`
`'
`
`>
`
`-J
`
`__
`J
`
`:~-
`
`/I
`
`v
`
`J
`
`cs1 @1577
`
`"_l
`
`

`
`_‘,___A_,,.,......cn-.-.-mu-4
`
`Brand Protection Process
`
`Checkpoint’s Product Road ma p
`. .__....:..j..j_____.._._
`
`lrlucnatwum
`in-«i~-nan».-nsn 9
`""°°°"
`. Eaxnm
`Canznmd
`umoapa I
`am: ma -I-van
`vi aw-any
`tooacviuainer
`
`‘
`
`Leader in supply drain solutions
`Security
`Expmssfrok
`“*1”
`mu
`(Chivkss)
`95"”
`4-—:-—j-—j-—-2-——+:-——>
`
`0 Range of products In meet different applications
`> Aria-theft
`-. Supply chain management
`'- Bram orotemon
`9 Checkpoint is einionng solutions for Brand Protection
`3 Product offerings will evolve as new tnchnologis oemme availauc
`
`Dxadpah!
`
`Brand Protection Solutions
`
`0 The product: lnvisibie secure marks applied In your products,
`packaging, rags and tabels
`0 Thwart oounter1eiters' and divert2rs' efforts by giving the brand
`owner the ability to secure, authenticate and track and trace a
`produ:t throughout the supply chain
`0 Affordable and easy to use system
`
`Secure Mark System
`
`9 Checkpoint provides:
`' Pre-printed marts
`Readers
`Dam registry
`in-field audits
`Field audit report!» ‘Exception Based Reports‘ (problem
`areas identified and reported to brand owner)
`
`CS} @1578
`
`
`
`yxsu-.a-4l\’....i..-.-...-.-—--r-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`,.;. .;.'.r... . _‘.s,—.-.. -. :_..
`
`Range of Secure Marks.
`
`.1‘
`
`SmartDye"'
`
`Differentiated on level or security, fearura and pnce
`Fluorscent
`Infrared
`SmartDye
`Ink
`
`0 A covert “smart dye” based marking system that is:
`Customizable, hard to reproduce and provides unique ‘cabal
`fin9erpnnt" for client
`' Able to carry ‘ID, track & trace"dam
`‘ Easy to apply to almost any matenal using any priming method
`' Reliably read over product lifetime
`’ Readable via a low-cost hand held device
`' Cost-eflecxrve way to aumennaate 8. secure your prcduct/brand
`
`A Unique Optical Fingerprint
`
`A Unique Optical Fingerprint
`
`BRIGHTNESS
`
`After the excitation flash from a
`reader, the smart dye loses its
`luminescence rapidly...dilTerent
`excitation flashed generates
`different luminescent responses...
`
`BRIGHTNESS
`
`...but different smart dye
`formulas lose their luminescence at
`customizable yet characteristic rates.
`
`The dye chemistry is virtually
`impossible to "reverse" engineer.
`
`C81 @1579
`
`

`
`APP"C3ti°n EX3mP|es
`
`Secure Mark Readers
`
`0 Secure mans are applied to substrate at time of manufacture
`‘. Exarnpls
`- Asnwenvusabbamartfovautisevluanonok
`. Mcvua¢mn:acoc!ntMan¢2Doa'wa:nnu'I'\s
`muunuznnuwamu-uuuauaueunuurn
`nauswvo.r.'.:yoe.saunnca»,rom.nwsa
`- VU\$¢GlU€U|%SQ'$4I§EIU
`nmum
`ccwuinnxnlnvv-.
`
`.‘¢-
`'
`1]
`
`]
`
`z
`
`0 APD"C3O'0n dictates W96 Of reader needed
`> All Itne of sight
`
`\:/
`7-:
`r...‘
`""‘
`
`"
`
`I
`-
`._-—-_
`
`..~.;. —
`
`*~
`
`.||t_JJm1BJs||.%
`£'/Ieclpomz
`
`Data Registry
`
`Field Audits & Reports
`
`0 System mat omvida supolv chain visibility. security and
`3""‘°“”‘3“°" °“ 3 9‘°b°' W5“
`‘ “M399” bY C”5‘°‘"°" °' W c"°d‘9°'“t
`0 System an be oonfigured to your needs— simple to complex
`-’ A"'"'°"°°°°" WV
`_
`> Tad 5 Tact WW9" mm‘ “DOW mam macs‘
`
`0 Checkpoint will perform field audits to authenticate and
`monitor products based on customefis requirements
`> Network of auditors across U.S. and Canada
`._ "mom coverage’ a" ma“ c,,an,,e,5
`> On-going planned visits or onetime blitz
`; Reports provided via web, elecuomc copy or hard copy
`
`|.n.4.w.«.a
`
`CS1 @1589!
`
`

`
`Pricing Schedule
`
`Checkpoint Value
`
`0 Average sell price for the secure mark is estimated at $.01-$.07./mark
`-» Type of secure Ink
`; TYDC or mark (same vs. vanable nnformauon)
`> Volume
`0 Readers, data registry and field audits/reports quoted separately
`
`> Secure marks are printed and distributed by Ozedzpoinr only
`
`0 Complete, single source for all Tag 8:. Label needs
`> Pnnfing
`> Logistics
`; NEW! Brand protection
`0 Whole product solution
`9 Extremely secure process
`
`C51 @1561
`
`

`
`
`
`mccooaazzoa2.323
`
`Imiuoonw
`
`C81 @1582
`
`

`
`Subcommittee Interactive Workshop: Hardgoods
`
`October 10, 2003
`
`Facilitator:
`
`Dave Shoemaker— Group Vice President of Strategic Marketing — Checkpoint
`Systems, Inc.
`
`Attendees: (Again — Lets loose the list of attendees???)
`Impact Media
`.
`U/ta
`Rite-Aid
`Lovelock
`
`\
`
`Shoppers Drug Mart
`Walgreen’s
`Labeling Systems
`Target Corp.
`Nintendo of America
`Gillette
`
`Supermarket News
`Matrics
`
`Brown Forman Corporation
`BrandsMan‘ USA
`
`Kroger
`Barnes & Noble
`PE TsMART
`Bonds
`
`Dunwiddie Custom Packaging
`Woolworths
`
`Dave Shoemaker presenting the anti-trust statement.
`
`Purpose of the discussion is to identify common trends and work for common solutions.
`In the past, subcommittees have identified common areas of concem. This meeting
`consolidates hardgoods as a broader product scope and brings in CPG manufacturers.
`
`Update on DVD source tagging
`
`All major studios are tagging new-release DVDs and some catalog products.
`
`-
`
`lncrease number of tag orders from replicators indicates that program is
`highly successful.
`
`- Tags are applied automatically in line.
`
`C81 @1583
`
`

`
`- All replicators are using Checkpoint technology.
`
`I Checkpoint is identifying solutions" for tagging packages with metal or foil.
`
`- Frequency changes
`
`- Look-alike substrates
`
`- Cut-outs
`
`Buyer training programs
`
`Target:
`
`Buyers are focused on sales, so they had to be trained in loss prevention.
`
`- Explain what happens when 200 DVDs walk out the door
`
`- Explain that their decisions influence other parts of the company
`
`Ulta:
`
`\
`
`Education was notjust on source tagging, but the problem of shoplifting and
`theft.
`
`- Buyers change frequently
`
`I Manufacturers don’t always understand the issue
`
`- Manufacturers who are source tagging don’t always share the information
`with other divisions
`
`Fractional tagging
`
`Ulta noted that Coty fractional tags. They ship RF, AM and untagged, and they
`kill the AM tag prior to shipment. Every third item in a case is different. Ulta
`prefers 100-percent tagging, but so few companies are source tagging that
`fractional is better than not tagging at all.
`
`Kroger said that fractional tagging is unacceptable. Ideal is 100-percent tagging
`and package enhancements. It's too easy to slip fragrance bottles out of boxes.
`Fractional tagging may be acceptable if the item is stolen in batches rather than
`individually.
`Eckerd prefers 100-percent tagging, but was one of the first retailers to consider
`fractional tagging and has not received bad feedback. The lowest ratio it accepts
`is one out of three.
`
`- Coty source tags fragrances 1 in 3. Eckerd took fragrances out of lock box
`and placed on open sell in 2/3 of stores. Sales increased 200 percent.
`
`- Taking Buena Vista video out of lock box resulted in 100-percent sales
`increase with minimal losses.
`'
`
`Packaging issues with cosmetics and pharmaceuticals
`
`- Europe uses more packaging and peg rack displays for cosmetics and does
`more source tagging of cosmetics
`
`cs1 @1534
`
`

`
`I Checkpoint’s 1915 tag can be used for antihistamines and other products in
`foil blister packs
`I Checkpoint's source tagging presentation encourages manufacturers to look
`at the inside of the package
`Inserts or spacers are used in foil-lined paperboard packages (e.g. pregnancy
`test kit)
`I Checkpoint will attend vendor meetings with customers to address technical
`issues
`
`I
`
`Manufacturer I distributor issues
`Nintendo of America is a distributor for Nintendo. The distributor packages its
`own software.
`-
`
`I
`
`investigating possibility of printing tag directly on title sheet
`
`I
`‘ Looking at tagging costs
`I Need to educate parent company (manufacturer) on need for source
`tagging
`I Need factual data on up-tick in sales with source tagging
`
`I Working on lockable DVD-style case
`
`Product availability is a big issue for Gillette.
`I Established tools to evaluate benefit of going from restricted
`merchandising to open sell. Saw 78-percent increase.
`I Want to curb shrink not only at shelf, but at receiving dock, warehouses,
`factory.
`
`I Holistic approach is key.
`I Set up store lab to look at shoplifter behavior, locations within store, time
`and motion studies.
`
`Brown Forrnan believes education is necessary on both sides.
`I Modifications to bottling lines may be necessary to accommodate source
`tagging.
`I Manufacturers aren't refusing to source tag, but need to know how to
`make it practical.
`’
`I Get Checkpoint involved and see how all can work together.
`Retailers reported seeing more large manufacturers offering source tagging.
`particularly as category managers get the message. Reinforcing the importance
`of source tagging to category manages is important, because it is not a top-of-
`mind issue for them. Some retailers are evaluating whether to stock certain items
`that they can't get source tagged, particularly on high-price-point items.
`General reaction to the shift to EPC and applications of interest
`
`C81 @1535
`
`
`
`—......—vu-uuuu
`
`

`
`
`
`.‘___a.__..J'.._.—lA::'%-J.‘
`
`
`
`
`
`The overall reaction was positive. Gillette was excited about the previous day's
`RFID demonstration, and Rite-Aid said that the conference was valuable in
`bringing attendees up to date on EPC/RFID.
`
`- PetSmart sees an opportunity to control computers at headquarters.
`
`- Education is important. The controller, category managers, president/CEO
`have to understand the value of EPC/RFID.
`
`- Nintendo is in a learning phase. The company hasan automated distribution
`center. It sees applications for pack-and-ship operations and the returns
`process, as well as combating counterfeits. It also sees electronic registration
`in the future.
`‘
`
`I Checkpoint technical team can provide support on application issues.
`
`EAS as a revenue generator
`Impact Media gave a presentation on its Impact Display Panel program. The
`company is an advertising/marketing company focused on helping retailers offset
`EAS costs, create a new revenue stream, increase profits and move more
`product. The company exclusively sells impact display panels for EAS pedestals.
`
`The program
`
`- Three-year contract
`
`-
`
`Impact calls on national advertisers and their agencies
`
`- Chains receive a commission based on net advertising revenues
`
`- Turnkey program includes set up, shipping, panel installation and changes,
`billing
`
`Benefits to retailer
`
`- New non-food, non-merchandise revenue stream
`
`- Product sales increase as much as 19 percent
`
`- Advertising that does not come out of merchandising budget
`
`I Four-color traffic builder at front of store
`
`- Revenue sharing with all advertising placed for length of the display
`
`Benefits to national brand manufacturer
`
`- Great sales impact from POP
`
`-
`
`74 percent of all purchase decisions made in store
`
`- Silent salesman educates and informs consumers
`
`- Gives ad 100-percent visibility to all shoppers
`
`- Guaranteed impressions
`
`-
`
`-
`
`28 cents per 1,000 impressions
`
`‘Reach active shopper in mode to make purchase
`
`C81 @1586
`
`
`
`

`
`- Largest ads at eye level in store
`
`Proven dramatic lift
`
`- Nicorette — 12 percent lift in product sales
`
`- Mrs. T's Pierogies —— 19.75-percent lift with no other promotions
`
`Potential revenue
`
`If a chain has 1,570 stores with 2 pedestals per store and its pedestals are 100-
`percent sold at $50 per pedestal, the chain stands to receive $54,863 per month.
`
`CSI @1587
`
`
`
`

`
`IKWACT
`
`DBPLAY
`
`PANEL
`
`PROGRAhI
`
`WHY iMi>Acr MEDIA '2
`
`-OFFSET your E.-\S cost
`
`-CREATE a new revenue stream & increase
`
`profits
`
`-LVCREASE product movement
`
`.. . ..--.___.r -#1
`fimfimimmA"
`
`?**
`
`”m®¢Tfi&m
`
`H°“‘ ‘he l"°g”"" “'°"“
`
`How the program works
`'|mpaci Media sales executives call on i\'ATlO.\‘.-\L
`advertisers and their agencies.
`
`lmpaci Media contracts with the retail chain to exclusively
`5:” Impact Dispia), panels inside the security pedestals‘
`
`°Chains receive a commission basal upon nei advertising
`revenues.
`
`The contract runs for a minimum three-year period. with an
`op“-on {or yearly mnewal Ihereafler.
`
`_
`_
`__
`_
`°lmpact Media handles the program “soup-to—nuis , shipping.
`installation, billing, panel changs. ..
`
`CS1 01599
`
`

`
`.
`
`RETAILER BENEFITS
`
`-Retailers benefit by receiving a percentage of all advertising
`revenues. as well as higher profits from increased sales.
`
`-The billboards attract the e_\‘e ofthe consumer to the
`advemsement. instead ofto the security device.
`
`\
`
`-Impact Media is forming a national network of retailers for
`this program. working with all Checkpoint clients,
`
`RETAILER BENEFITS
`- Retailer receives a commission basoi upon net advertising
`revenues. which can be used to offset the cost ofthe E.-XS
`program.
`- Revenue is derivaj from national advertisers. and national
`budgets. not merchandising budgets.
`
`RETAILER BENEFITS
`
`RETAILER BENEFITS
`
`Sales ofadvenised product proven to increase by more than
`l9% and irrprove profitability.
`evenue sharing with all advatising placed for the length of
`display.
`Another source of non~food. non-merchandise revenue that
`requires no maintenance by the retailer.
`
`-4-color high quality an on displa_i' for a
`professional appmrance.
`
`- “Traffic Builder" displays to increase product
`sales of advertised items.
`
`C81 @1589
`
`
`
`

`
`IMPAC
`
`EFFECT]! E — The effectiveness of P-0-P advertising is
`clearly demonstrated by sales impact. With the advent of
`scanner technology. brand marketers and retailers have been
`
`able to immazliately determine the effectiveness of‘?-O-P.
`
`PERSL-'.4SllE — P-O-P advertisin_<__' is persuasive. it is no
`coincidence, vvith'7-1°u ofall purchasedecisions made in store.
`an increasing number ofbrand marketers and retailers invest
`in this maiium.
`
`—. — ..
`—“D.vu§
`IIvfl’D
`
`IMP
`
`SlLE;\'TSALESMA:\'— P-O—P advenising serves as the silent
`salesman with displays, signage and in-store media educating
`and informing consumers about a product's availability and
`attributes.
`
`-SOPHISTICA TED— Increasingly sophisticated in its
`construction and utilization. P-O~P is more easi1_v assembled
`and maintained and at the same time. it‘s more powerful for
`entertaining and informing in the retail environment.
`
`-ENHANCE/llEl\'T— P-O-P advertising is used increasingly
`by retailers to enhance the shopping experience. lt is used to
`redirect store traffic and bolster merchandising plans.
`
`.....4munN.
`
`C81 @1592!
`
`

`
`Advertiser Benefits
`
`- Unparalleled Rncn: 99% at nurmases aremaae rvszcre 7I\ct bum aeasn:-mt are
`made n-store
`
`The Impact Display Panel Program
`The only medium that gives your advertisement
`100% visibility to all shoppers.
`
`- Lowostcostpu Thousand Imnrusions(SO.2B): OOH (52: non tsevt
`neu-snzoer139-).‘N(stew.vrncxnems»:
`- "Prime" thousands: Aunt: srnaoevs (aecson-rnaern vs nasswe mnvessons on the
`streenn nvnq rooms
`
`Guaranteed Impressions
`
`Not Just In Aisle #3
`
`Highly Efficient
`
`“J
`
`I.
`
`_
`
` Advertiser Benefits
`
`'The largest ad at eye level within the store
`-Highly coveted advertising position in the store
`
`
`*PRO\’EN dramatic lift in product sales
`
`
`
`5%
`-Exclusive rights to the front end of the store
`
`12% Lift in Product Sales for
`G|axoSmithK|ine (Nicorette/NicoDerrn CO)‘
`
`-"-'—:r.I_t_t+x
`H“.
`
`
`‘GSK rsearch September 2002 campaign
`
`C51 @1591
`
`x
`
`

`
`:4-‘..~..a
`
`»..:»-.
`
`Test Program Analysis
`. Pmdun Tamed: Mrs. TS Piemgies
`.
`.
`., _
`-;\umber ofsxore locauons: /3
`
`~.\'umber ofpedeslals with Display Panels: -1
`
`Test Program .-\nal_\'sis Mrs. T’s
`
`-Results were based over a 6-week Period.
`-Total increase in sales for a 6-week period: 19.75%
`
`-There were no other promotionsor sale prices during this
`‘es!
`
`°$>m‘_e5“e51ed "1: ‘\°nh Camhna‘ South Carolma‘ Fbnda‘ and
`\ xrgmla
`
`rmmulu -mecpnpludb,-.w,Ju_t Abraham .\'.1IronuI.ldIrrmmg D:rrtIurofFoa-{Luau
`Grant) Slarn.
`
`Sample Revenue Projection
`
`Rflenue Projection
`
`.
`_
`Liberty P)\- Number ofSlores: 1,570
`
`_
`_
`L1bertyPX- Number ofEAS Pedestals: 3,135
`
`Adveniser/Vendor Cost: S50 per pedestal per cycle
`(Includes both sides of pedestal)
`
`Revenues based on 35% commission paid (0 retailer
`
`Percent Sold Monthly
`
`Quarterly
`
`Annually
`
`100%
`
`$54,863
`
`$164,588
`
`$658,356
`
`C81 @1592
`
`

`
`
`
`5cl
`
`HP5«.5.2
`
`...
`
`C81 @1593
`
`

`
`. _.
`
`
`
`«San.U.mo:mm_o:
`
`
`
`=.m._._u3n_.u=..a.
`
`CS1 @1594
`
`

`
`ILRT Program and Panel Discussion
`
`October 10, 2003
`
`Facilitator:
`Michael Garry — Technology Editor— Supermarket News
`
`Paneh
`Jack DeAlmo — Vice President of Store Replenishment and Inventory Management —
`CVS
`Chuck Kibler— Group Vice President, Loss Prevention - Rite-Aid
`Brian Potvin — Manager, On-‘Shelf Availability — Gillette
`
`Dave Shoemaker introduced the panelists.
`
`Michael Garry noted that the HBC market has developed partnerships for source
`tagging and is laying the groundwork for EP_C by establishing a foundation for long-term
`cooperation. The momentum for EPC will build since Wal-Mart is taking a leading role.
`
`Industry Loss Reduction Team
`Jack DeAlmo gave a presentation on the ILRT. In addition to his role with CVS,
`DeAlmo sits on the board of overseers of the Auto-ID Center.
`
`Background
`ILRT is a group of retailers and manufacturers that got together to share
`frustrations regarding how to move source tagging fonrvard and to find
`solutions that worked for all involved.
`
`Theft impacts retailers’ profits and source tagging reduces theft.
`The manufacturer is moving product through the pipeline and views shrink as
`a retailers‘ problem.
`Various groups tied to reach a consensus on EAS source tagging, including
`NACDS. technology providers user groups and the Consumer Product
`Manufacturers Association (CPMA). One proposed solution was a dual-
`technology pedestal, but no manufacturer or retailer could support a retrofit of
`that magnitude. ILRT was formed in 2001 after a meeting between CVS,
`Walgreen's and the CPMA companies.
`
`- Open forum
`
`- Non-exclusionary
`
`CS] @1595
`
`,.,.......a
`
`--
`
`

`
`- Decision support models
`
`- Non-binding best-practice document
`
`- Understand and share costs
`
`Key issues
`
`- Create a way to identify high-loss SKUs
`
`- NACDS couldn't come up with top 1,000 because everyone's data is
`different
`
`- Working group pulled together list of top 250, which was ranked and
`accepted
`
`- Provides starting port for manufacturers
`
`- Build protection for new SKUs into budget for new items
`— Need advice on\how to think about item’s loss potential
`
`- Develop criteria for tagging; e.g. if expected loss is 2X cost of solution or
`when protection cost is less than 1 percent of retail price and item is
`easily pocketed
`
`- Retail Intelligence Subcommittee provides confidential guidance to
`manufacturers
`
`- ROI decision model tool included in best practices document
`
`- Determine ways to deal with a single inventory
`
`- Manufacturer must make a decision and come to trade with it
`
`- Retailer must decide whether to buy that product
`
`- Tag pollution is an issue, but to date has not had serious legal impact
`
`- How to think about emerging technologies
`
`- Work on broader issues of loss
`
`ILRT published its best-practices document in May 2003. To access the
`document from the NACDS website (www.nacds.org), search for ILRT. For
`membership information, contact anyone listed in the document.
`
`The ILRT model could be applied to other channels of trade and to RFlD.
`
`Following the presentation, panelists answered questions.
`
`How does the group enable the discussion to move forward?
`
`I Common goal — working together to remove barriers
`
`- Open dialog to understand each others’ issues
`
`- Willingness to make effort (e.g. identifying the major SKUs)
`
`- Willingness to look at issues in different ways
`
`C81 @1596
`
`

`
`
`
`aux-.nmar.»-«.4-up-nuamong.“
`
`
`
`
`
`n4~4u..o-I
`
`~A...
`
`What is the progress with the 250 SKUs identified?
`
`CVS sees progress with “new to world items." because it is easier for
`manufacturer to incorporate protection cost as part of the price point and
`production. It has not reviewed the list of 250 items.
`
`Gillette noted that it is taking corrective action against the hot SKUs. It also
`noted that with source tagging, introducing one new item results in three new
`SKUs
`
`Has the group discussed EPC?
`
`lLRT has not discussed EPC in depth, but agrees that the source tagging
`model has to work for EPC. As the number of pilots increases, the group will
`begin to focus more on EPC.
`
`CVS is interested in item-level EPC, primarily in the pharmacy, where
`inventory management is critical due to the regulatory environment. It is
`working on as pilot with Procter & Gamble and Accenture to track outdates and
`recalls. The retailer is also interested in targeting counterfeiting.
`
`Rite-Aid has asked Checkpoint to demo EPC/RFID solutions to its executives.
`
`At noon, Dave Shoemakerthanked participants fortheir involvement and closed the
`conference.
`
`cs: 01597
`
`

`
`I-tr-.t.tn-r:
`
`Industry Loss Reduction Team
`
`October to. 2003
`
`Agenda
`
`What Is the ILRT, why was I: Formed and \‘.'r'.o Are «:5 ltlemuelsa
`
`‘fne Goals oftne ILRT
`
`Results
`
`Other Agreed Pnncrples
`
`Next Steps
`
`:.~4 :4.-~ -«-s: 3:.” TA‘.‘'’. :11 >\-
`
`:D".N~'k-KY.‘ x.-.:st>~-»~:m>.»
`
`What Is the ILRT, Why Was It Formed and Who Are Its Members?
`
`- The Industry Loss Reduction Team (ILRT) is a group pt retailers
`and manufacturers working together to address retail loss lssues -
`focused initially on source taggmg
`
`The ILRT was formed to address the shared lrustratuons regardmg
`lack ot consuslency. complexity, progress and cost 0! EAS tagging
`
`The ILRT charter was to collaboratively develop and implement an
`action plan - reducing retailers‘ loss on high risk sku‘s in a way
`thal‘s a win-win for the retailer. manufacturer and consumer
`
`What Is the ILRT, Why Was It Formed and Who Are Its Members?%:_?
`Background - The Retailer's Perspectlve
`
`Theft significantty impacts retarler's profit
`
`Source lagging reduces theft
`
`Retailers have dealt with suppliers. one-on-one, to encourage
`source taggmg - with limulea success
`
`Without source agging. product are often locked up and not easily
`accessible by customer
`
`Sales and the customer sufler the consequences
`
`:od~.l~'A-IoI:vfl.$!o-DJ-ufliouv
`
`::>v:x~'4--v: K.II\'nD.P': ur><-
`
`C81 @1598
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`What is the ILRT, Why Was It Formed and Who Are Its Members?
`Background — The Manufacturer's Perspective
`
`Snnnk is viewed as a retailer's issue
`
`What Is the ILRT. Why Was It Formed and Who Are its Members?
`Attempts at Consensus
`NACDSvAr'.nur L‘ Line conducted a stuoydes-gaeo to oeue:o: a roaarna:
`towards widespread U6 aooolcn ano source la;-;:n;
`
`Inlemat the-‘X. paper loss and retailer's operational inefficiencies are
`otner CJUSES
`
`To fully participate. three inventories (AM. RF. untagged) would be
`necessary - tne cost IS prohibitive - ‘nerd and soft’
`
`Dana SUDDO-'UX'lg Dositive impact 0! source tagging not availablelrloi
`snared
`‘
`
`:>a xv \ — :-1; ::.u :z»-.-—: in >.-
`
`NACDS'BattaIe Memonat institute set outto devetoo a se: of oeficrnance
`cntena to measure the oenormnce o: xanaus EAS technologies an 00::
`retau anomanutaaiunng enuronments
`‘roo—lo-Top meetings
`Sensomatic Source Taggng c°UnCI'
`Cnecioo-nl User Gr-auo
`Consurrer Products Manufacturer Association lCPll.lAl
`- Johnson 3 Johnson Procter A Garnue KDGZI, Giuene
`— Ananol to find 2 sotuuon — smg-e leatrviogt
`- Navavnsoon demons a Dedlsul so-utton mat aeieos ndzn teaimloq-es
`- Cvswaiqreens conduct a test at me CPMA soiut-on
`
`:>-a .2.-~-A -us: ::.no--.o-can >.-
`
`What Is the ILRT. Why Was It Formed and Who Are its Members?
`Formation of the ILRT
`
`.j.e_:
`What Is the ILRT_ Why Was It Formed and Who Are Its Members?
`Formation of the ILRT (continued)
`
`In 2001. a meeung was neldin Chicago Demeen CVS. Walgreens and the
`CPMA ccrwantes to
`~ Evaiuate me in-store test results 01 the single Dedestal solm-on
`- Determine next steps
`
`it was auICk‘Y3DDareI'l| lhaimohlle me test was SUCCESTUI. the CD5! ID
`retrofit would be prunnmve
`
`The Group discussed a different approach to trtmroblan
`Procua proleaion was really more :2! I suDD'1 Otanissue than a loss
`Drvvermon issue atone - lute fill rates
`together. retainers and rnanutaaurers have solved may other suooiy main
`Dfuotems
`ll aanruaa-ed as such. muld we find a solution
`
`Group decided to see if a larger group of retailers and manulactureis
`would
`- See tne sane oooortunxy
`— Agree 10 WOI1 on me DVDDIBTI
`
`A broader group of retailers and manufacturers convened in Chicago
`to discuss the idea
`— Concluded that tneidea was worth an arlanot
`- The ILRT was created
`
`:Ov~:I'~'.a\ . ran :.s:uuo- use :1: :~ .
`
`zoo-nr~r.s -v-aI:.1r4no- -.a--: us an-
`
`CSI @1599
`
`

`
`u-..a.-5'.
`
`What Is the ILRT. Why Was It Formed and Who Are Its Members?
`ILRT Membership
`
`Readers
`CVS
`Eckerc
`Kman
`Kroger
`Rlle Au:
`Targe:
`Walgreen:
`‘~'ai-Mar.
`
`Manulaclurers
`Gillene
`G|axoSmi(hKhne
`Johnson 8. Jcnnson
`Kodak
`Novams
`Pfizer
`Procter & Gamble
`Unrlever
`Wyeth
`
`:2»: xv « —-rs: ::..u->»-av. :2: :~
`
`Goals of ILRT
`
`To Deg-n me drsaussrcn between real-er: an: man-.:fa::.re's ta deve d: a new
`apcroacn to me rssues aroun: aroa-.;:: orurec.-c.". 5 source la;g-r; to e-ta: e
`razxona: mean-r;1.: and cos: e‘¢e:::ve Dfogress
`
`Focus
`Be an open l.-_r-.m for rarsm; and resolvn; lne Issues for FEB-|E"S an:
`rnam.1a::urers
`Develop a Decsron SUDDCH Model la: we can: an wen v.::—.
`Develco anq gum-sn Es: Pra:::ce' l1G-'lvD:.".:I.’1; recommenaamns that :0»:
`wOl'k as any relazl channel
`UHOEYSTZHU lne PEIZIIETS 1055 3713 B!|'§One 5 50123113‘ CGShS|u'1a'.'.' all SC?‘._'
`3l'1O HON I0 063 WM’.-'1(T1Ef71
`- COSI Sh3V‘..“.._:
`Enable awnnwrn oulczme lor (era-ers an: wen-.5 2‘..1.'e's
`
`Goals of ILRT
`
`lLRT Challenges _e..e..
`II was clear mar we needed lo address the current sku base but the longer term
`rssue was to derermrne lne anomnnaxe unaxecuon pnor to manner entry
`
`Creale a process for rdenr:r~_r~g gggrhwgn-loss skis and ce\elaD
`gurdelnes lo protect ngwmgn-ask sxu's before nlrocluclron
`- Oevaao Ullena 8 nruoess lo: -dermfymq slus
`-
`Bu-Id proremon no me sinus PAL
`- Dz-ode eany rn producl devenoamem cyue ll ororeamn would be needed
`-
`he-Inr¢WU§I.4I|'7lUVI'o:UeI
`- no-..nan°nug¢ cl\u'qc1rR4Iovvrulov\’IJ°C gum". or:
`
`Develop a Decnsron Model to nc delemne wnal sku's to nmlecl and
`ensunng me cosr ol prorecuon does not exceed me cdsl cl me loss
`
`Goals of ILRT
`
`ILRT Challenges (continued)
`4 Delermne flood 10 malnlarn a smge nmenlor,-ol lagged product
`-
`ll bdrn reamologres mnunue lo e-usx — can we 9¢1IO one ¢nvenmry"
`5 HOW 10 11%| Wllh the C051 ~II RUSK De UHCEFSIOOC
`
`6 Omar
`' Whfl G7?\s|OQrZlIDf‘l§ need YD DE filvln IO fffitfullv xecrrvclogres - ALAO-ID
`
`Now mum [his group -on mallne: on broader loss -ssues — D7301. dwers-on.
`eoumeneumg
`
`Hour In aw-eve me ab0V¢- Y9‘ sun orovsde and-ce let me mam-dual urndames
`
`can-::~-.g . new :lx..uo- run: 1:: On -
`
`:ou.:r~-.-. --aa,r:.1so..;aom><-
`
`C81 @1691?!
`
`

`
`The Results
`
`- The final recommendations. which were distributed in May 2003.
`addressed the tollowing.
`
`Current hign Loss S-u oaua
`
`Gu-ae:-nes 1:: New H-gn-nsx sx: CTDIECIIOI‘.
`
`Decision Support and R3 Mona
`|l'YU|EfT\el'|la5C-'3 VECCIEFTEOSZIOES
`
`ldentification of Current High Loss Sku’s
`The Problem
`
`- Manufacturers have been lrusrrateo oy the lack ol con5lSlEl'lC_\
`across retailers when asking for hign-loss items to oe tagged
`
`There is no comprehensive list ol identified items lor which tagging
`could provide an effective theft-deterrent. and lnere is no process
`lorioentilying and pnontizing them across retailers
`
`Existing items have an established PAL structure - adding cost is a
`problem
`
`:;~—' xv s ~ Art.
`
`:_n >--.--v. us >«~
`
`:>.‘x~' L -0-: s:.u»:- -.s-:s.i>.-
`
`lg‘
`
`l
`
`Identification of Current High Loss Sku's
`The Solution
`
`DlSCU§|OnS helped to deielop a process to icenlilytne top 250 canrnon
`High-loss slus as a slanmg point -existing slurs
`First. a Retailer Vlonung Group vies organized to identify and analyze their
`top 250 High-nss sku's
`‘rne Group wanted to agree to a target lsl ol 250. the data inclined
`- Sun I. UPC oaoe Desaiumrvsizusvervm
`- Data sources -naudeo shoplifunp apprehension data. retailer internal
`apprehension data. nu lever invembrv results. lEl2I|¢' exception repomnc
`- Then. not shortages or billing errors, drove In: 250 High-Ion sltu list
`Once corrplete. the slu's were pnontzed -highest risk to towest
`The work group presented the Isl to the NI ILRT and agreanent was
`reached
`
`The Reta! Intelligence Suoccrnrnirtee ol he ILRT will perooicaly uocme
`and repuolish thelisl
`
`:aai:r~v«--o-aisziaso-no-:sn Dn-
`
`15
`
`__guidelines for Introducing [~l£_w/_‘l_-l_igh_-_R_i_s_k__§lg1's
`The Problem
`
`__
`
`- There are generally two types of new items:
`— New or Changed EAN UPC (‘noes tor reiauncnesoaciege
`cnangesiretomulalmn. and
`- New 10 my World DPOUUCIS
`
`- we needed to develop criteria lot manufacturers to use for
`identifying potential High-loss skus early in the development cycle.
`so proper protection can be considered and cost ouilt into the P&L
`- There needed to be a retail resource that rnanulacturers could use
`to gain opinions on nsk potential
`
`:9: nova. --oa:is:.no.atp-cusp-..
`
`CS1 016131
`
`

`
`Guidelines for Introducing New High-Risk Sku's
`The Solution
`- Criteria for tagging hew to wane anocr Cnangec EAN ED: SKUS was
`developer:
`°rote<1-on should be mus-deled lor an items when oemg introduced irtta I
`iirovrfl H-amass rztegory arr:
`when tne uoeaed lass e-deeds 2x me can lor the arm-tnett soiutiom, OR
`Cost cl dmtecion is <1‘. ol resaie once AN:
`Item is EISIH aanceziatze AN:
`item wit: be introduced into a new utegory out Imeiy to be Highly oesiatxe due
`to aavertis-nq.oenerii
`
`- A Re:a:i lniealigeice Suocarimnee was created to
`Represent tne Food Drug and Mass sectors
`‘
`Maintain the process to -aeniiry High-IOSS nu s
`“mud: Best Pracices rvonsu: aodmaizies lot brocuc protection oeosions
`AGCYESS OUESIIOVIS BT13 WUVDGC U)fifIO€f|1.‘3|EfL§u|lZlIOfl DH 02* Of UWTVPC
`EAx L29: t:x:e items
`
`Decision and ROI Model
`The Problem
`
`Cnteria needed to be established to help determine what is the
`most effective product protection solution
`
`Need a methodology for manufacturers and retailers to evaluate
`protection costsfbenef

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket