Content uploaded by Raymond R. Burke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raymond R. Burke on Jul 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Raymond R. Burke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raymond R. Burke on Jan 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
10.1177/009207002236914JOURNALOFTHEACADEMYOF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002Burke/TECHNOLOGYAND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE
Technology and the Customer
Interface: What Consumers Want
in the Physical and Virtual Store
Raymond R. Burke
Indiana University
For companies to realize the benefits of recent innovations
in customer interface technology, they need to understand
the value consumers place on technology as part of the
shopping process. A national survey of 2,120 online con-
sumers was conducted to explore how people want to shop
in both online and in-store environments and determine
how interactive and conventional media work together to
move consumers through the purchase process. The study
investigated 128 different aspects of the shopping experi-
ence, from common elements to recent innovations. The re-
sults indicated that consumers are generally satisfied with
the convenience, quality, selection, and value provided by
retailers today. They are less satisfied with the level of ser-
vice provided, the availability of product information, and
the speed of the shopping process. The findings suggest
that new technologies can enhance the shopping experi-
ence, but applications must be tailored to the unique re-
quirements of consumer segments and product categories.
In the world today, consumers are literally surrounded
by technologies that promise to redefine the way that they
interact with manufacturers and retailers. The Internet is
perhaps the most visible innovation, attracting consider-
able media and commercial attention, but there are many
others, including handheld and wireless devices, touch-
screen kiosks, electronic signage and shelf labels, virtual
reality displays, body scanning, smart cards, and even
robotics.
A few of these innovations provide clear consumer ben-
efits and have achieved high levels of consumer adoption.
The Internet provides advanced search capabilities and is
frequently used to locate product information prior to pur-
chase (Hof 2001; Shop.org 2001). Automated teller
machines (ATMs) have proliferated because they offer
consumers convenient 24/7 access to banking (Lawrence
and Karr 1996). UPC scanners have become pervasive in
retail stores and have increased the speed and accuracy of
checkout while providing a rich source of marketing
research data.
Other applications have been less successful. A number
of online retailers overestimated the appeal of electronic
shopping and underestimated the costs and logistical chal-
lenges of providing home delivery (Blackwell 2001).
Some, such as Webvan, Toysmart.com, and PetStore.com,
went bankrupt, while others (e.g., Peapod and CD-NOW)
were acquired. Companies have also struggled to find the
best applications of technology in conventional retail
stores (Garry 1992). Interactive kiosks, for example, have
fluctuated in popularity over the years, getting a boost
every time a new technology is incorporated (such as
videodisk players, touch screens, bar code readers, and
Web access). But there are disappointments, such as
Kmart’s Solutions™ in-store kiosk, Hallmark’s gift card
kiosk, and the MicroMall catalog shopping kiosk (Cleary
2001). In 1993, Ted Turner’s Checkout Channel, a net-
work of five-inch color monitors positioned by the check-
out counters in 840 grocery stores, was discontinued
(Goldman 1993). That same year, VideOcart went bank-
rupt after installing LCD screens and computers on the
handlebars of shopping carts in 220 stores (Fox 1994).
Despite these setbacks, companies continue to fund
new initiatives in this area. According to a recent Jupiter
Media Metrix survey, more than one quarter of all U.S.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Volume 30, No. 4, pages 411-432.
DOI: 10.1177/009207002236914
Copyright © 2002 by Academy of Marketing Science.
firms will spend at least $500,000 on customer-based tech-
nologies over the next 2 years, with retailers spending an
estimated $3.2 billion in 2006.
Before companies invest more time and money in de-
veloping, deploying, and promoting these technologies,
the following questions should be asked:
•What role do consumers want technology to play in
the shopping process?
•How do media work together to move consumers
through the purchase process?
•What are the most promising applications of tech-
nology and the areas of consumer resistance?
•How can retailers optimize the online and in-store
experience by tailoring the customer interface for
specific product categories and customer segments?
To address these issues, a national survey was conducted
to assess consumers’ perceptions of the desired role of
technology in the shopping experience and determine
what would be the “ideal shopping experience” from the
customer’s perspective. The following discussion summa-
rizes the key findings from this research and highlights the
major implications for retail practice in the twenty-first
century.
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, a considerable volume of
research has focused on tracking consumer and retailer
adoption of new customer interface technologies and fore-
casting future penetration. Government agencies and vari-
ous consulting and media research firms (including the
U.S. Census Bureau, Forrester Research, Jupiter Media
Metrix, Accenture, and Ernst & Young, among others)
issue regular reports and projections. For example, recent
U.S. census figures indicate that more than 50 percent of
households have one or more computers, and 42 percent
include a family member who uses the Internet at home
(“Report Counts Computers” 2001). Forrester Research
forecasts that by 2005, personal computers will generate
$246 billion in online sales, with interactive television and
mobile devices contributing another $23 billion in sales
(Dykema 2000). These media are predicted to influence an
additional $378 billion in offline sales.
There are a number of factors affecting consumer adop-
tion and use of these new technologies (see, e.g., Burke
1997, 1998; Maruca et al. 1999). On one hand, interactive
shopping technologies can provide extensive product
selections, powerful search and screening tools, and vol-
umes of information (Alba et al. 1997). By lowering
search costs, these technologies can improve the quality of
purchase decisions (Hauser and Wernerfelt 1990;
Ratchford 1982). On the other hand, the quality of the
digital information may be poor, especially if consumers
typically rely on social or physical interaction to evaluate
product quality (Quelch and Takeuchi 1981). New tech-
nologies may be confusing, take time to learn, are prone to
failure, and can raise the prices of goods and services, dis-
couraging consumer usage (cf. Mick and Fournier 1998;
Venkatesh 2000).
A study of self-service technologies by Meuter,
Ostrom, Roundtree, and Bitner (2000) investigated con-
sumers’ reactions to a variety of technologies and applica-
tions, including Internet shopping services, pay-at-the-
pump terminals, telephone-based and interactive voice
response systems, automated hotel checkout, and package
tracking, among others. The study used the critical inci-
dent technique, asking a sample of respondents from an
online panel to report a memorable encounter with a self-
service technology. The authors found that the technolo-
gies were most satisfactory in cases where they saved time
(30%), worked reliably (21%), were easy to use (16%),
addressed a salient need (11%), and offered greater control
and 24/7 access (8%). However, many of the technology
encounters were not satisfactory, primarily because of
technology failure (43%), process failure (17%), or poor
design (17%).
Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Malhotra (2000) con-
ducted a series of focus group interviews to understand
consumers’ motivations for shopping on the Web rather
than through other channels (e.g., catalog, in-store). Par-
ticipants liked the convenience of online shopping, the
ability to buy unusual items, the ease of comparison shop-
ping, and lower prices, but preferred the physical product
interaction, service, security, and privacy of offline shop-
ping. The authors discovered that ease of navigation, flexi-
bility, efficiency, site aesthetics, and price knowledge were
critical in the online environment, in addition to several
dimensions that were also important in offline shopping
(reliability, responsiveness, access, assurance, and cus-
tomization/personalization).
Prior research also reveals that there are distinct differ-
ences in the demographic and psychographic profiles of
innovators and early adopters of these technologies (see,
e.g., Darian 1987; Greco and Fields 1991; Parasuraman
and Colby 2001; Zeithaml and Gilly 1987). For example,
Parasuraman and Colby (2001) identified five types of
technology customers: the optimistic and innovative
“explorers,” the innovative yet cautious “pioneers,” the
uncertain “skeptics” who need the benefits of technology
proved, the insecure “paranoids,” and the resistant
“laggards.”
These studies provide insight into the general criteria
consumers use to evaluate existing online and offline
shopping environments, and they identify factors that
affect consumer technology adoption. However, they offer
limited guidance in evaluating a host of new interactive
technologies and applications that are being introduced
412 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
into the retail space. Marketers need a roadmap showing
how consumers want to shop in the future and the desired
role of technology. They need to understand consumers’
channel preferences as they move through the purchase
process and the unique technology requirements of spe-
cific consumer segments and product categories.
METHOD
To address these issues, a national survey was con-
ducted using an online consumer panel. Internet users
were surveyed because they are familiar with interactive
technologies and can provide early indications of con-
sumer interest in new retail applications. It is important to
note that this group tends to be younger, have higher
income, and be better educated than the general popula-
tion. Therefore, the findings may be a more accurate
reflection of the opinions of the next generation of con-
sumers rather than today’s average shopper.
Sampling and Procedure
The research was conducted in two phases. In the first
phase, the NPD Group, Inc., contacted 10,000 consumers
from their online panel via e-mail and asked them to com-
plete a short interview. As an incentive, each person who
completed the survey was entered into a drawing to win
one of six $200 cash prizes. Respondents were asked if
they had shopped for or purchased products (either online
or in-store) in each of 10 broad categories during the past 6
months. The categories were (1) major appliances; (2) fur-
niture and lighting; (3) hardware, paint, and wallpaper; (4)
small appliances and consumer electronics; (5) school and
office supplies; (6) toys and games; (7) music, movies, and
books; (8) weekend apparel; (9) weekday apparel; and
(10) groceries and health and beauty care products.
On the basis of their responses, 4,000 people were
selected to participate in the second phase of the survey.
Each respondent was screened to have shopped for or pur-
chased products in one of the 10 product categories during
the past 6 months. Respondents were asked to design their
“ideal shopping experience” for one of the 10 categories
and to rate their interest in using various media at each
stage in the shopping process. The survey also included
questions on consumer demographics, shopping habits,
and satisfaction. The online survey was completed by
2,120 consumers, for an overall response rate of 53 per-
cent. More than 200 surveys were completed for each of
the 10 categories, with the exception of furniture and light-
ing, with 196 completed.
The demographics of the sample reflected the charac-
teristics of the online U.S. population on most dimensions
(see Table 1). Sample percentages were within 5 percent of
population statistics for age, 7 percent for gender, 2 per-
cent for income, 6 percent for education, and 4 percent for
market size. Women were intentionally oversampled
because of their significant role in retail spending.
Questionnaire Design
In the first section of the survey, respondents were
asked, when shopping for the assigned product type, to
rate the importance of each of 10 different aspects of the
shopping experience: convenience, fun of shopping, value
provided, product selection, service, product information,
speed of shopping, privacy, product quality, and security.
The importance ratings were recorded on a scale from 1 =
not at all important to5=very important. Respondents
were then asked to think about the store they shopped at
most frequently for the assigned product type and to rate
their satisfaction with the shopping experience on the
same 10 attributes. They rated their satisfaction on a scale
from 1 = very dissatisfied to5=very satisfied.
In the second section of the survey, respondents were
asked which channels they would prefer to use—including
the Internet, television, catalogs, wireless devices, public
kiosks, and the physical retail store—when shopping for
the assigned product category. They could select any com-
bination of channels for each of the four steps in the
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 413
TABLE 1
Online Sample and U.S. Population
Demographics (in percentages)
Category Sample Population
Age
Younger than 25 13.6 17.8
25-34 26.9 23.7
35-44 27.0 24.7
45-54 24.5 21.9
55 and older 8.0 11.9
Gender
Male 39.1 46.0
Female 60.9 54.0
Income level
Under $25,000 10.0 11.8
$25,000-$34,999 14.2 14.4
$35,000-$44,999 12.5 12.3
$45,000-$59,999 21.0 18.8
$60,000-$74,999 14.9 15.9
$75,000-$99,999 14.5 13.9
$100,000 and over 12.9 12.9
Education level
Some or no high school 2.1 2.8
High school diploma 7.9 10.2
Some college 24.2 30.0
College diploma 38.5 34.0
Postgraduate 27.3 23.0
Market size (MSA)
2,500,000 and over 26.6 30.0
1,000,000-2,499,999 26.3 26.0
Under 1,000,000 29.6 30.0
Non-MSA 17.5 14.0
purchase process: (1) finding out about new products, (2)
searching for information on specific products, (3) com-
paring and evaluating alternatives, and (4) purchasing and
paying for products. They also were asked how they would
like to receive products and return unsatisfactory items: by
having them shipped through the mail and/or visiting a
retail store.
The third and most extensive section of the survey
asked shoppers to evaluate 128 different aspects of the
shopping experience, with 58 online and 70 in-store attrib-
utes. The list of shopping features was compiled based on a
detailed analysis of existing online and in-store shopping
environments; interviews with retailing executives, con-
sultants, and technology vendors; and a review of second-
ary research (e.g., trade publications, research reports) on
current and planned retail technology applications.
Consumers were asked to assume that they were shop-
ping for 1 of 10 different product types and to design the
shopping experience any way they wanted, with the spe-
cific features they desired most. People classified each of
the online and in-store features into one of five categories:
“must haves” were critical features that shoppers could not
do without; “should haves” were important features that
shoppers would consider sacrificing under some circum-
stances; “nice to haves” were desirable features that were
not necessary; “indifferent” features were those that con-
sumers did not care about one way or the other; and “prefer
not to haves” were undesirable features that consumers
would not include in their ideal shopping experience. Peo-
ple were told to assume that these features were being pro-
vided by the retailer at no additional cost to them.
Shoppers rated their preference for many kinds of prod-
uct information, including product specifications, photo-
graphs, video clips, expert ratings, consumer discussion
forums, and brand and price comparisons. They evaluated
a variety of options for advertising, promotions, pricing,
personalization, customization, and e-mail messaging.
People assessed several different online and in-store tech-
nologies, including agent technology, multimedia, 3-D
simulations, kiosks, handheld computers, and electronic
signs. The study explored the role of people in the shop-
ping process, including guest greeters, sales assistants,
cashiers, and customer service representatives. In addi-
tion, the study sought shoppers’ preferences for various
checkout, payment, fulfillment, and return options. The
questions concerning the in-store shopping experience
were organized according to the stages in the shopping
process: (1) entering the store; (2) entering a specific aisle,
section, or department of the store; (3) checking out and
paying for items; and (4) postpurchase customer service.
Respondents were also asked the following open-ended
question: “What else would you include in your ideal
shopping experience for [product]?” These responses
were content analyzed and tabulated by the research firm.
The final section of the survey captured respondents’
levels of computer usage, online shopping, and demo-
graphic characteristics. After the surveys were completed,
these data were merged with geodemographic and buyer-
graphic data collected through previous surveys of the
same panel members.
RESULTS
Given the breadth of the survey, there are a number of
different ways in which the data could be analyzed and the
results presented. To simplify the exposition of the find-
ings, this section focuses first on consumers’ satisfaction
with existing retail stores and the areas of potential weak-
ness. Then it identifies those features of the ideal shopping
experience that most consumers felt must or should be pro-
vided by retailers and summarizes consumers’ preferences
for specific channels of communication. This is followed
by an in-depth analysis of the differences in feature impor-
tance as a function of product categories and consumer
segments. The final segment identifies “technology traps,”
those aspects of the shopping experience that provoked a
negative reaction from consumers.
Satisfaction With
Existing Retail Stores
The survey revealed that shoppers were generally satis-
fied with the shopping experience at existing retail stores
on the dimensions of convenience (with 91% satisfied),
product quality (90%), value provided (90%), and product
selection (85%). The levels of satisfaction and dissatisfac-
tion are shown in Figure 1. (Note that the 5-point satisfac-
tion scale was collapsed into three categories—satisfied,
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and dissatisfied—to sim-
plify the presentation of the findings.) The mean satisfac-
tion ratings were 4.2 or higher (on a 5-point scale) for each
of these attributes.
However, fewer respondents were satisfied with the
speed of shopping (70%), level of service (66%), available
product information (62%), fun of shopping (53%), secu-
rity (53%), and privacy (49%). Almost 10 percent of shop-
pers expressed dissatisfaction on the dimensions of service
and speed of shopping, suggesting opportunities for
improving the customer interface with technology.
Delivering the Basics
Consumers expressed clear and consistent opinions
about which features must be provided. While there was
some interest in technology, people were much more
focused on the fundamental elements of the shopping pro-
cess. They wanted to purchase quality products at a good
price from an attractive selection of alternatives. They
414 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
wanted a fast and convenient shopping experience, with
excellent service and sufficient product information. The
specific features customers desired most are described in
the following sections. Online shopping, in-store shop-
ping, and multichannel integration are discussed in turn.
Shopping Online
When shopping on the Internet, almost all consumers
insisted on knowing the prices of products sold online, and
most wanted to know the prices in the closest retail store.
In addition, online shoppers liked access to product speci-
fications, usage instructions, warranty information, and a
list of the products currently on sale. Consumers wanted to
be able to pay for products by entering their credit card
number on a secure Web page, receive an e-mail message
confirming that the order was received and shipped, and
then track their shipment using the Web. Most shoppers
liked having the products shipped to their homes or offices
and assumed that there was a process to ship back unsatis-
factory or defective products to the retailer. If they needed
help, shoppers wanted to be able to call a customer service
representative on a toll-free telephone number or commu-
nicate via e-mail. Table 2 lists the percentage of consumers
who reported that they “must have” each of these features.
(Item response rates exceeded 98% for all questions, with
samples sizes ranging from 2,090 to 2,120.)
While each of the features mentioned in the table was
important for all 10 product categories, there were signifi-
cant variations in some ratings. For example, having
detailed product specifications, usage instructions, and
warranty information was much more important for major
appliances (78% “must have”) than for music, movies, and
books (37%). On the flip side, people were more willing to
ship back unsatisfactory music, movies, and books (62%)
than major appliances (43%), furniture and lighting
(47%), or hardware, paint, and wallpaper (47%). (All
reported differences were tested using a Pearson chi-
square test and are significant at p< .01, df = 36.)
There were several features that most consumers felt
should be provided by online retailers but that were not
absolutely necessary. These included information on what
products are in stock, detailed product photographs, prod-
uct price and feature comparisons, a list of new items car-
ried by the Web site, and expert ratings of product quality.
Several features concerning the integration of the online
and in-store shopping experience fell into this category,
including being able to check on a local store’s inventory,
printing store coupons, getting travel directions to the
closest retail store, and being able to put a 24-hour cour-
tesy hold on an item that the store has in stock.
Consumers also felt that retailers should provide sev-
eral features to improve the convenience of shopping.
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 415
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Convenience
Product quality
Value provided
Product selection
Speed of shopping
Service
Product information
Fun of shopping
Security
Privacy
Dissatisfied
Neither
Satisfied
FIGURE 1
Consumer Satisfaction With the Current Shopping Experience
These included saving shipping and billing information
for one-click ordering, saving a list of prior purchases for
proof of purchase and warranty repairs, being notified by
e-mail of sale items, and being able to pick up and return
online purchases at a local retail store. Many consumers
wanted the option of placing an online order by calling a
toll-free number, being billed by the retailer upon delivery,
and having a retailer’s agent pick up defective or unsatis-
factory products. (In the following discussion, any refer-
ence to the percentage of customers who felt that they
“should have” a particular feature also includes those cus-
tomers who indicated that they “must have” the feature.)
In-Store Shopping
When shopping in the physical retail store, consumers
felt that it is essential for the store to provide knowledge-
able, helpful sale assistants. If there is a question or prob-
lem, shoppers wanted to be able to speak to a live customer
service representative, either in person or on the telephone.
When checking out, shoppers wanted cashiers to be avail-
able who can scan and bag products, accept payment, and
provide a printed receipt. They wanted the store to accept
all forms of payment (cash, credit card, check and debit
card) and to have products in stock and available to take
home.
Once again, the importance of some aspects of the
shopping experience varied by product category. Con-
sumers were most interested in having knowledgeable
sales help when shopping for infrequently purchased dura-
ble goods, such as major appliances, small appliances,
consumer electronics, furniture, lighting, and hardware.
Sales assistance was less important (but still valuable)
when shopping for groceries, health and beauty care,
apparel, music, movies and books, and toys and games.
There were several additional features that most con-
sumers felt retailers should provide but that were not
416 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
TABLE 2
Online Shopping Features That Consumers Must or Should Have (in percentages)
Must Have Should Havea
Product information
Online product prices 92.9 98.4
Product specifications, usage instructions, and warranty information 57.3 88.2
Online list of product promotions 50.4 87.0
Online product inventory (what is in stock) 44.3 83.3
Small product photographs (thumbnails) 38.0 74.1
Detailed product photographs 33.3 65.9
List of new items carried by Web site 33.0 76.5
Comparison of product prices across online stores 28.1 66.9
Comparison of product features across brands 20.2 60.5
Expert ratings of product quality 19.9 57.3
Shopping aids
Web site saves list of purchases for returns and warranty repairs 29.4 67.9
Web site saves shipping/billing information for one-click ordering 22.1 57.4
E-mail notification of sale items 21.7 54.1
Clicks-and-mortar integration
Product prices and promotions in the closest retail store 64.3 92.3
Online information on local store’s inventory 34.7 76.1
Product returns to local retail store 33.9 73.4
Ability to print coupons for local retail store 26.9 68.1
Travel directions to local store 24.4 60.1
Product pickup at local retail store 19.0 56.3
Ability to place 24-hour courtesy hold on product in local store 16.9 52.9
Payment, fulfillment, and customer service
Toll-free telephone access to customer service 78.6 94.8
Products shipped to home or office 77.6 95.4
E-mail order confirmation 72.6 94.6
Secure, Web credit card payment 69.3 83.9
E-mail shipping confirmation 66.5 92.7
E-mail access to customer service 58.0 88.2
Online shipment tracking 55.7 86.6
Returns shipped back to retailer 52.4 77.1
Retailer’s agent picks up product returns 35.8 67.4
Order online by calling toll-free number with credit card number 31.5 63.0
Pay retailer when merchandise is delivered 25.4 56.6
a. Top-two box score, which includes “must have” and “should have.”
mandatory. These included printed circulars and signs list-
ing new and promotional items, a map of the store, sales
associates with computer access so they can look up
detailed product information, everyday low prices, regular
and seasonal sales, and individual item pricing. Con-
sumers liked having the option to order out-of-stock items
and have them shipped to their home or office or pick them
up from the store at a later date.
There was significant interest in several in-store tech-
nology applications. More than 50 percent of shoppers felt
that retailers must or should provide electronic shelf labels
that are always accurate and current. They would like elec-
tronic signs displaying daily and hourly promotions and
kiosks for retrieving electronic coupons and ordering out-
of-stock merchandise. Also, shoppers wanted handheld
scanners that display prices; report product availability in
other colors, styles, sizes, or varieties; and provide an
option to order out-of-stock items. These results mirror the
findings of an earlier study conducted by Indiana Univer-
sity and KPMG in the summer of 1999 (Burke 1999). In
this research, 82 percent of shoppers felt they would bene-
fit from retailers’ adoption of electronic shelf tags, 81
percent wanted handheld price scanning, 77 percent liked
product information/ordering kiosks, and 74 percent val-
ued electronic-coupon kiosks.
Multichannel Shopping
A majority of consumers expressed a preference for
using multiple channels when shopping. More than three
fourths (82%) preferred to use more than one channel to
learn about new products, 77 percent to search for product
information, 74 percent to compare and evaluate alterna-
tives, and 63 percent to purchase and pay for products.
More than half (59%) of consumers liked the option of
receiving merchandise through the mail or a store visit,
and 39 percent wanted to be able to return products
through both channels. Consumers were less interested in
using multiple channels when shopping for frequently
purchased goods, such as groceries and health and beauty
care products.
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 417
TABLE 3
In-Store Shopping Features That Consumers Must or Should Have (in percentages)
Must Have Should Havea
Sales assistance and customer service
Knowledgeable sales assistants 52.6 85.4
In-person or telephone customer service 51.6 75.6
Product information
Printed store circulars listing promotional items 45.0 91.8
Sales associates with computer access to detailed product information 36.0 73.1
Large store signs listing promotional items 28.8 72.7
Printed store circulars listing new items 26.0 65.2
Map of the store 25.0 61.3
Large store signs listing new items 17.1 57.4
Pricing policy
Individual item pricing 47.8 75.8
Everyday low prices 25.7 68.5
Regular sales 17.7 57.9
Seasonal sales 19.0 52.8
In-store technology
Handheld scanners that can display a product’s price 39.6 62.7
Electronic shelf labels that are always accurate and up-to-date 31.2 54.7
Handheld scanners that check colors/styles/sizes and place orders 25.4 51.8
Kiosks providing electronic coupons 23.7 61.0
Electronic signage displaying daily and hourly promotions 21.5 56.6
Kiosks allowing shoppers to order items that are out of stock 21.1 55.1
Checkout, payment, and fulfillment
Cash payment option 89.8 96.6
Printed receipt 88.0 97.7
Credit card payment option 84.6 95.3
Product available at the store to take home 80.0 97.3
Check payment option 76.9 91.3
Debit card payment option 69.7 84.4
Cashier checkout and bagging 54.9 87.0
Order out-of-stock items and have them shipped to home or office 21.8 55.9
Order out-of-stock items for later pickup at retail store 21.0 55.5
a. Top-two box score, which includes “must have” and “should have.”
Consumers were most enthusiastic about shopping in
conventional retail stores and on the Internet. However, the
survey revealed that the various media can play different
roles in moving shoppers through the purchase process
(see Figure 2). On one hand, consumers preferred to visit a
retail store to learn about new products (76%), purchase
and pay for merchandise (91%), receive products (91%),
and return unsatisfactory items (89%). On the other hand,
they were most enthusiastic about using the Internet to
search for product information (90%) and compare and
evaluate alternatives (83%).
Consumers preferred using media that could accurately
portray the characteristics of the specific products they
were buying. For example, consumers liked using the
Internet to find out about and search for information on
products such as music, movies, books, and consumer
electronics, presumably because of the detailed informa-
tion that is available online. Catalogs were more popular
for weekend apparel and furniture and lighting, for which
visual quality is important. Television was a preferred
medium for learning about products that have a sensory or
entertainment element, such as toys, games, music, and
videos. In-store visits were more appealing for expensive
and infrequently purchased items such as appliances, fur-
niture, hardware, paint and wallpaper, as well as weekday
apparel and groceries.
Optimizing the Experience:
Product Categories
Consumers were in general agreement that three
aspects of the shopping experience—product quality,value
provided, and product selection—are critically important
no matter what type of product is being purchased. These
attributes were rated as being very important by 74 percent,
69 percent, and 66 percent of respondents, respectively.
For most other shopping dimensions, there were dis-
tinct differences between product categories in consumer
importance ratings. To explore these differences, the
results of the study were examined using discriminant
analysis. This procedure generates a set of statistical func-
tions that provide the best discrimination between the 10
product categories based on linear combinations of the
attribute importance ratings. The first two discriminant
functions provided a good fit for the data, explaining 74
percent of the variance in the data set. The variable correla-
tions and group means for these two dimensions are plot-
ted in Figure 3. Each of the arrows in the diagram repre-
sents a shopping attribute. The attribute’s importance for a
particular product category is reflected by the distance of
the category along the attribute dimension.
As shown in the figure, the 10 product categories fell
into three different groups. The first group, shown on the
418 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
In-store visit Internet from
home
Mail-order,
catalog
Television Public kiosk Cell-phone,
mobile, PDA
Percent of Consumers Wanting to Use Channel
Find out about new products
Search for product information
Compare and evaluate products
Purchase and pay for products
FIGURE 2
Consumer Preference for Multichannel Shopping
left side of the diagram, is the infrequently purchased,
durable goods: major appliances, small appliances, con-
sumer electronics, furniture, lighting, hardware, paint,
and wallpaper. When buying these items, consumers want
retailers to provide detailed product information and
excellent service. A second group of products, shown in
the lower right-hand quadrant of the diagram, is the fre-
quently purchased, nondurable goods: groceries, health
and beauty care items, and school and office supplies.
When shopping for these items, consumers emphasized
the importance of having a fast and convenient shopping
experience. The third set of products clusters together in
the upper right-hand quadrant and consists of entertain-
ment products—music, movies, books, toys, and games—
and weekend and weekday apparel. When shopping for
these products, consumers want to have a fun and enter-
taining shopping experience. Shoppers also feel that it is
important to maintain their privacy when buying these per-
sonal and lifestyle-oriented products.
As noted earlier, the evaluations of many individual
shopping features depend on the specific type of product
being purchased. These interactions are explored in more
detail in the following sections.
Product Information
Some of the most dramatic differences between prod-
uct categories concerned product information. Across a
range of online and in-store shopping features, consumers
expressed a greater interest in having access to detailed
product information for durable goods—such as major
appliances, small appliances, and consumer electronics—
than for frequently purchased products such as groceries,
school and office supplies, apparel, and music. When shop-
ping on the Internet, respondents emphasized the impor-
tance of having product specifications, a comparison of
store prices and brand features, and expert ratings of prod-
uct quality. When shopping in the retail store, they wanted
knowledgeable sales assistants who could look up product
information on a computer, and kiosks that could provide
access to manufacturers’ Web sites and expert ratings of
product quality. Figure 4 shows how consumers rated various
kinds of information for four broad product types.
While facts and figures are important for appliances
and consumer electronics, the visual appearance of prod-
ucts is critical when shopping for products with a strong
aesthetic component, such as furniture, lighting, and
apparel. For example, 50 percent of furniture shoppers
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 419
Product information
Fun of
shopping
Privacy
Speed of
shopping
Convenience
Service
Groceries, HBC
School, office supplies
Furniture, lighting Weekend apparel
Weekday apparel
Toys, games
Music, movies, books
Hardware, paint, wallpaper
Major appliances
Small appliances, consumer electronics
FIGURE 3
Discriminant Analysis of Product Differences in the Importance of Shopping Attributes
indicated that Web sites must provide full-page product
photographs, and 36 percent said that sites should allow
shoppers to view 3-D product images that can be rotated
360 degrees. Consumers wanted the option to view thumb-
nail photographs of all product types because this makes it
easy to search quickly through a large number of items. They
especially liked thumbnails for apparel, toys, and games.
Noninteractive media were especially popular for fre-
quently purchased products, such as groceries, health and
beauty care products, school and office supplies, and
weekend apparel. For example, 75 percent of grocery
shoppers felt that retailers should display large signs with a
list of promotions, 81 percent for school and office sup-
plies, and 78 percent for weekend apparel. When shopping
for school and office supplies, 88 percent of shoppers
wanted to receive printed circulars listing items on
promotion.
Shopping Aids
Several online and in-store shopping aids were rated as
being particularly desirable for one or more product types.
Internet shoppers felt they must have the ability to check
inventories for products frequently purchased online, such
as weekday apparel (52%); weekend apparel (46%);
music, movies, and books (52%); and toys and games
(45%). For these same product categories, approximately
one fourth of the respondents wanted the option to place
one-click orders. People had a greater interest in custom-
designing their own “ideal product” when purchasing life-
style-oriented items, such as furniture, lighting, music,
and apparel. Consumers shopping for apparel were also
more interested in having individual item pricing (56%),
seasonal price markdowns (25%), and personalized prod-
uct offers and discounts (22%).
Fulfillment
Different products have different physical characteris-
tics and handling requirements that affect how consumers
would like to receive and return merchandise. For exam-
ple, approximately three fourths of consumers purchasing
major appliances and furniture insisted on having these
items delivered because they are large and heavy and
would be difficult for shoppers to transport themselves.
However, they were less enthusiastic about having to ship
these items back to the retailer if there is a problem.
Instead, many consumers felt that retailers should arrange
to pick up the defective merchandise. People also
expressed some interest in using a drive-through ware-
house to pick up and return major appliances, furniture,
lighting, hardware, paint, and wallpaper, perhaps because
they are familiar with home improvement centers that use
a warehouse format.
420 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Online product specifications, usage instructions
Knowledgeable sales assistants
Salespeople with computer access to product information
Detailed product photographs (full page)
Small product photographs (thumbnail)
Online comparison of store prices
Online comparison of brand features
Online expert opinions on product quality
Kiosk access to product information from manufacturer websites
Kiosk access to expert opinions on product quality
Percent of Consumers Who "Must Have" Feature
Apparel
Entertainment products
Nondurable goods
Durable goods
FIGURE 4
Product Differences in the Importance of Online and In-Store Information
Other Elements of
the Shopping Experience
After people rated 128 different features of the online
and in-store shopping experience, they were asked to
describe in their own words what else they would want.
More than half of the respondents made suggestions. The
most frequent comments are summarized in Figure 5 for
five representative product categories.
The dominant suggestion for 8 of the 10 product cate-
gories was for retailers to provide knowledgeable, helpful,
courteous salespeople. The importance of having good
salespeople is mentioned by about 40 percent of the
respondents shopping for major appliances and furniture
and lighting and more than one third of the respondents
shopping for groceries, health and beauty care products,
small appliances, and consumer electronics. Many shop-
pers qualified their comments by saying that they only
wanted sales assistance when it was needed and that they
would prefer not to have pushy salespeople.
Shoppers for weekend apparel wanted an attractive
store, with large fitting rooms and other amenities, and
suggested that stores include areas serving food and drink
and provide places for children to play. The sensory
aspects of the shopping experience also were important for
entertainment and lifestyle products. Shoppers wanted to
be able to sample or try out products when shopping for
music, movies and books, toys and games, and furniture
and lighting.
Consumers made several suggestions that were specific
to just one or two product categories. For example, when
buying groceries and health and beauty care products,
shoppers wanted a fast shopping experience with no
checkout lines. When buying appliances, they wanted
timely, reliable delivery. Some people asked to see product
demonstrations when shopping for small appliances and
consumer electronics.
Optimizing the Experience:
Consumer Segments
The four demographic variables—age, gender, educa-
tion, and income—had a significant impact on shoppers’
preferences for online and in-store shopping features. The
following sections discuss how these attributes influenced
the way shoppers would like to shop.
Age
There were clear generational differences in what con-
sumers valued most in the shopping experience. People
younger than age 25 were the group most interested in hav-
ing fun while shopping (Figure 6). They responded more
favorably than older shoppers to features that made shop-
ping entertaining, including online and in-store product
auctions, video games on handheld shopping devices, and
cell phones to call friends and relatives. They also were
more positive about features that increased the chances of
finding a bargain. They favored variable pricing policies,
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 421
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Knowledgeable, helpful,
courteous sales people
Clean, well-lit store;
large fitting rooms; food &
drink; kids' area
Competitive, low prices Fast shopping; no lines at
checkout
Sample products, try out
products
Percent of Consumers Requesting Feature
Major appliances
Furniture and lighting
Groceries and HBC
Weekend apparel
Music, movies and books
FIGURE 5
Consumer Suggestions for Enhancing the Shopping Experience
such as having sales on a broad selection of products, cut-
ting prices at the end of the season, and changing prices on
a daily basis depending on the retailer’s product inventory
and competitive conditions.
Older consumers were more pragmatic, placing greater
emphasis on having detailed product information, quality
service, and a fast and secure shopping environment.
When shopping online, they had a greater interest in prod-
uct specifications, usage instructions, warranty informa-
tion, product histories, countries of origins, and retailer
and manufacturer advertisements. In the conventional
store, older shoppers were more accepting of guest greet-
ers and more enthusiastic about having retailers post large
signs with product information. However, their enthusi-
asm for product information did not translate into a higher
interest in interactive technologies.
Younger adults (especially those under age 25) were
significantly more interested in using newer technolo-
gies—cell phones, mobile and palm computers, and inter-
active kiosks—to find out about new products, search for
product information, and compare and evaluate alterna-
tives. They were more enthusiastic than older shoppers
about almost every application of interactive kiosks and
handheld shopping devices, including applications that
•provided access to product information, product lo-
cations, customer evaluations, and expert ratings;
•personalized the shopping experience;
•expanded the selection of available products;
•entertained through auctions and video games; and
• provided price and promotional information and
electronic coupons.
Younger adults were also more positive about (or toler-
ant of) one-to-one marketing practices than older consum-
ers. When shopping online, younger people were more
interested in receiving personalized product offers and dis-
counts, custom-designing products, and seeing the pro-
files of other shoppers who had previously purchased
items. When shopping in physical stores, they were more
receptive to frequent-shopper discounts and having a
salesperson make product suggestions based on their com-
puterized purchase history (in addition to the personaliza-
tion applications for kiosks and handheld shopping
devices noted earlier).
Surprisingly, younger consumers did not differ signifi-
cantly from older shoppers in their interest in shopping
online or in conventional retail stores. This runs counter to
the general intuition that young shoppers are migrating
fastest “from bricks to clicks.” It is important to note, how-
ever, that this research was conducted over the Internet, so
it may have missed the views of those consumers who have
been slow to adopt online shopping.
With the recent media focus on the Internet, it is easy to
forget the importance of television for the younger genera-
tion of consumers. People younger than age 35 were more
interested in using television to find out about new prod-
ucts, search for product information, and compare and
evaluate products than older shoppers. They also placed a
greater emphasis on seeing pictures of products when
422 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
1
2
3
4
5
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or more
Age of Respondent
Attribute Importance
Fun of shopping
Service
Product information
Speed of Shopping
Not at all
important
Very
important
FIGURE 6
Attribute Importance as a Function of Shopper Age
shopping online, which suggests that younger people may
be more attuned to visual information.
When shopping online and in conventional stores, older
shoppers favored the more familiar methods of checkout,
payment, product fulfillment, and customer service. For
example, when shopping online, they preferred to enter a
credit card number on a secure Web page, have the mer-
chandise shipped to their home or office, and interact with
customer service people via the telephone. In the physical
store, they liked having a cashier scan and bag products,
accept payment, and provide a printed receipt. They
wanted the merchandise to be available immediately to
take home and resolve any problems by speaking to an
onsite customer service representative.
Younger consumers were more willing to try new and
alternative methods of checkout, payment, product fulfill-
ment, and customer service. For example, when shopping
online, they were more interested than older consumers in
swiping a credit card through a PC’s keyboard reader to
pay for merchandise and using two-way text chat and
videoconferencing to interact with customer service repre-
sentatives. In the retail store, they were more receptive to
using handheld shopping devices and self-checkout sys-
tems to scan, bag, and pay for products, and buying items
electronically and having them shipped to their home or
office.
When shoppers were asked what else they would
include in their ideal shopping experience, younger shop-
pers (under age 35) were more likely to suggest eliminat-
ing overaggressive or pushy salespeople and, in fact,
wanted retailers to make it easier for them to find items
themselves. In contrast, older consumers were more inter-
ested in the facilities and suggested that retailers offer to
sell refreshments and provide play areas for children.
Gender
Men and women had distinctly different views of what
would constitute an ideal shopping experience. Men
expressed a greater interest in using various types of tech-
nology in the shopping process. They were more positive
about using the Internet, cell phones, mobile and palm
computers, and interactive kiosks than women. In contrast,
female shoppers expressed a greater interest in using cata-
logs at each stage in the shopping process: to learn about
new items, search for product information, compare
brands, and make purchases.
In both online and in-store shopping environments,
women were consistently more focused on price, promo-
tions, and coupons than men. A greater percentage of
women said that they “must have” online product prices, a
list of sale items, personalized product discounts, and the
ability to view prices and print out coupons for the local
retail store. They were also more interested in receiving e-
mail notification of sales. When shopping in conventional
stores, women wanted printed circulars and store signs
listing promotions. They also expressed a greater interest
in using kiosks that offer electronic coupons that are auto-
matically deducted at the register. When asked about their
ideal pricing policy, female shoppers were more enthusi-
astic about variable pricing strategies, including high-low
pricing, end-of-season markdowns, and even daily and
hourly promotions displayed on electronic signs.
In contrast, men expressed somewhat greater interest in
product information, perhaps because they shopped less
frequently. When shopping online, they were more inter-
ested in information on product histories and countries of
origin, complementary products, comparisons of brand
features, and unedited consumer evaluations. They were
more tolerant of online advertising and more interested in
viewing a map of the local retail store with product loca-
tions. When visiting the physical store, they showed a
greater interest in using handheld shopping devices to scan
an item’s UPC code and display unedited consumer evalu-
ations, and to e-mail product information from the store to
their home PCs for later review.
Women were more interested than men in a variety of
features that increased shopping convenience. When
shopping online, they were more receptive to using an
electronic shopping list or having the Web site save a list of
past purchases to simplify reordering. Women liked being
able to speak to a real person (customer service representa-
tive) when placing an order or requesting assistance.
Compared to men, they had a greater interest in being able
to check if a local store had an item in stock and then plac-
ing a 24-hour courtesy hold on the item. Women were
more insistent that online stores notify them through
e-mail when orders were received and shipped and were
more interested in alternative means of returning products,
such as having a retailer’s agent pick up the product or
returning it to an affiliated convenience store or drugstore.
When shopping in a conventional store, women were
more interested than men in all forms of assistance by
salespersons. They were more receptive to using kiosks
and handheld devices that allow them to order items that
are out of stock. They wanted a cashier to be available to
scan and bag merchandise, accept all forms of payment,
and provide a printed receipt. If an item was out of stock,
women were more interested than men in having the item
shipped to the home or office or returning to the store in a
few days to pick up the merchandise.
Compared to female shoppers, men were more tolerant
of technology that could increase the time and effort
required to shop. When shopping online, men were more
interested than women in Web sites that allowed them to
custom-design products. They were more willing to
access customer service using a PC’s two-way voice or
one-way videoconferencing capabilities. In the physical
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 423
store, they had fewer concerns than women about remov-
ing item pricing and were more comfortable with having
receipts e-mailed to them or made available on a private
Web site. They were also more interested in online and in-
store product auctions (the latter using handheld shopping
devices).
Education
Education played an important role in determining con-
sumers’ perceptions of the ideal shopping experience.
Higher education consumers were more comfortable
using nonstore channels (e.g., the Internet and catalogs) to
find out about new products, search for product informa-
tion, purchase products, and have the merchandise deliv-
ered. When shopping in conventional stores, they were
more likely to use credit cards (while lower education
shoppers were more interested in debit cards) and were
more willing to have out-of-stock items delivered or avail-
able for pickup at a later date from the retail store.
Lower education consumers were significantly more
accepting of most forms of intrusive communications.
When shopping online, they were more tolerant of retail-
ers’ and manufacturers’ product advertisements displayed
on a Web site and were more willing to receive e-mail
notices alerting them to when new items and sales items
were being offered. These consumers were also more posi-
tive about receiving unsolicited communications within
the physical store. They liked the idea of being greeted by a
customer service representative when entering the store
and were more interested in receiving printed store circu-
lars and seeing large signs featuring new and promotional
items. They were also more willing than higher education
shoppers to be exposed to product advertisements in the
store, on conventional (e.g., printed signs) and electronic
(e.g., handheld shopping devices) media.
Lower education shoppers were significantly more
positive about in-store technologies that provided person-
alized product suggestions and promotions. They were
more willing to have a salesperson look up their past pur-
chases on a computer terminal and make recommenda-
tions or to use a handheld device to scan a product’s UPC
code and display a list of complementary items, a rating of
how well the product fits their personal profile, or person-
alized product promotions. Higher and lower education
consumers did not differ in their interest in using conve-
nience-oriented personalization features, such as saving
shopping lists and billing information to facilitate replen-
ishment purchases.
Higher education consumers resisted some attempts to
increase the complexity of the shopping experience. For
example, they would prefer not to have prices change daily
based on store inventory and competitive conditions. They
were also less interested in using a kiosk to custom-design
their own ideal product.
Income
In general, education level was a better predictor than
income of respondents’ preferences for specific shopping
features. However, income did play a significant role in a
few relationships. Higher income consumers ($60K+) had
a greater interest in seeing detailed photographs of prod-
ucts when shopping online and checking product invento-
ries in local retail stores. They also were somewhat more
interested than lower income shoppers in using credit
cards as a method of payment. When shoppers were asked
what else they would include in their ideal shopping expe-
rience, higher income consumers were 28 percent more
likely than lower income consumers to suggest increased
levels of customer service.
Technology Traps
Consumers were generally positive or neutral about
most of the features presented in the survey. However, a
significant percentage of shoppers were negative about
several aspects of the shopping experience, including
intrusive communications, personalization, variable pric-
ing policies, technology-intensive shopping aids, and
alternative methods of checkout and payment. Table 4 lists
those shopping features that more than 10 percent of con-
sumers would “prefer not to have.”
Intrusive Communications
Advertising is an important part of consumer market-
ing. It informs and entertains consumers, promotes prod-
ucts, and subsidizes many of the traditional and interactive
media channels. Therefore, it is not surprising that most
consumers were positive or neutral when asked about their
preference for online and in-store advertising. However,
28 percent said that they would prefer not to be exposed to
one or more forms of advertising tested. Consumers also
had mixed emotions about other types of intrusive com-
munications. Most shoppers liked being greeted by a store
representative when entering a retail store and receiving e-
mail notices alerting them when new items became avail-
able. Yet, a segment of consumers stated that they would
prefer not to have such interactions with the retailer.
Shoppers had different opinions about product infor-
mation and product advertising, perhaps because the for-
mer is seen as being more objective and relevant than the
latter. When shopping online, 88 percent of respondents
felt that a Web site must or should have detailed product
information, while only 20 percent had a similar desire to
see online product advertising. In the physical store, 46
percent of consumers strongly favored store signs with
product information while almost the same amount (40%)
were positive about in-store advertisements. Consumers
may have placed greater emphasis on having detailed,
objective product information when shopping online
because there is no physical interaction with the product.
424 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
Web advertisements can also slow down the loading of
Web pages and consume limited screen space.
Shoppers were more receptive to the idea of receiving
e-mail notification of sale items than new items, with 54
versus 32 percent saying that retailers must or should pro-
vide this feature and 5 versus 13 percent preferring not to
have this option, respectively. Consumers were consis-
tently more positive about shopping features that provided
a tangible benefit, such as a price discount.
While the results of this research are generally positive
for advertisers, one should not assume that consumers will
tolerate further increases in the volume of advertising. The
proliferation of advertising and other unsolicited commu-
nications on the Internet, in retail stores, and on handheld
and wireless devices will continue to reduce advertising
effectiveness and may cause the large group of indifferent
consumers (38% for online ads, 24% for in-store, and 32%
for mobile) to turn decidedly negative.
Personalization and Privacy
In recent years, retailers have sought to strengthen
their relationships with customers through one-to-one
marketing programs. These programs collect individual-
level data on the unique needs, preferences, and shopping
habits of consumers and attempt to personalize retailing
activities to better satisfy shoppers’ requirements. In this
study, seven online and nine in-store personalization fea-
tures were evaluated.
Most consumers were positive or indifferent about the
various personalization features tested. The five most pop-
ular personalization options involved the Internet. Con-
sumers were receptive to having a Web site keep track of
their past purchases to provide proof of purchase for
returns and warranty repairs (68% “should have”), display
personalized promotions (50%), and simplify reordering
(46%). People also liked having a Web site that saves ship-
ping and billing information for one-click ordering (58%)
and allows customers to construct a personal shopping list
(46%). Each of these features provides a significant con-
sumer benefit and helps to overcome some of the inherent
bandwidth and customer-interface limitations of the
Internet.
However, a significant percentage of shoppers had res-
ervations about letting businesses collect and use
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 425
TABLE 4
Shopping Features That Some Consumers Would Prefer Not to Have (in percentages)
Prefer to HaveaPrefer Not to Have
Communications
Online advertisements for products sold by a Web site 45.4 16.7
Store representative who welcomes guests and can answer questions 55.9 14.1
E-mail notification of new items 65.9 13.2
Handheld device displaying ads for products near your location 55.4 12.7
Online manufacturers’ product advertisements 59.9 10.4
Personalization
Handheld scanner evaluates product fit with shopper’s preferences 39.5 21.1
Salesperson who can look up past purchases, make recommendations 54.5 16.0
Online profiles of shoppers who previously bought specific products 38.7 13.5
Web site saves shipping and billing information for one-click ordering 80.7 12.5
Handheld device displays personalized offers based on past purchases 56.9 12.3
Pricing
In-store prices change daily based on stock levels/competition 43.2 36.2
Shelf pricing but no item pricing 59.7 26.6
In-store auction where you bid for products using handheld device 35.5 22.8
Store sells products at discount to its most frequent shoppers 72.9 12.4
Shopping aids
Store-supplied handheld games for children 40.4 25.0
Store-supplied cell phones to call friends/relatives for opinions 41.3 19.1
Store-supplied cell phones to call sales assistants 58.1 12.4
Online customer service through one-way videoconferencing 45.2 11.1
Checkout and payment
In-store purchase receipt available on private Web site 37.4 36.4
In-store purchase receipt e-mailed to you 51.1 29.4
Pay for online purchases by faxing credit card number to retailer 40.8 28.5
Scan products with handheld device while shopping, pay ATM 57.1 22.3
Self-scan and bag products at checkout, pay ATM 59.7 22.0
Pay for online purchases by swiping credit card in keyboard reader 54.2 19.1
a. Top three box score includes “must have,” “should have,” and “nice to have.”
individual-level customer data to tailor their marketing
programs. People had the strongest negative reactions to
personalization options that made product recommenda-
tions based on a customer’s preference profile. For exam-
ple, 21 percent of shoppers disliked having a handheld
scanner tell them which products matched their personal
profile, 16 percent opposed having a salesperson make
recommendations based on their past purchases, and 14
percent objected to having shoppers’ profiles available
online. Some shoppers also had reservations about one-
click ordering, perhaps due to concerns about the security
of their credit card information.
When evaluating these features, consumers differenti-
ated between personalization that was done by the manu-
facturer or retailer and personalization that was controlled
by the consumer (also known as customization). Custom-
ization features included options to build personal shop-
ping lists and custom-design products (online and in-
store) and add items to a gift registry. Looking across the
16 features tested, almost 50 percent of consumers
objected to at least one of the personalization features,
while less than 20 percent disliked one or more of the cus-
tomization features. These results are consistent with ear-
lier research indicating that consumers prefer one-to-one
marketing options that give them control over the acquisi-
tion, dissemination, and use of their personal information
(Burke 1999).
Variable Pricing
Across all product categories, 36 percent of shoppers
disliked the idea of having product prices change on a
daily basis depending on product inventory and competi-
tion compared to 25 percent who felt that retailers must or
should do this. A smaller group of shoppers disliked in-
store auctions and loyalty programs that discounted prod-
ucts for frequent shoppers. Not surprisingly, people who
shopped and purchased products more frequently were
more positive about stores running regular sales, providing
frequent shopper discounts, and changing prices on a regu-
lar basis, while infrequent shoppers tended to favor every-
day low prices.
Some shoppers also disliked having price labeling on
shelf fixtures as a substitute for individual item pricing.
This was of greatest concern to apparel shoppers, with
more than 30 percent opposing this practice. Again, this
confirms earlier research that consumers want to be able to
find prices quickly and easily while shopping (Burke 1999).
Technology-Intensive
Shopping Aids
Some high-tech shopping features were seen by shop-
pers as being more trouble than they were worth. For
example, while it is technically possible to provide online
customer service through one-way videoconferencing,
55 percent of shoppers were indifferent or disliked this
feature.
People also were not that interested in carrying and
using a networked palm computer or Web-enabled cell
phone during their shopping trip. In part, this may have
been due to the limited screen resolution and inconve-
nience of carrying a handheld device. For example, while
many shoppers felt retailers should provide store maps on
large signs (61%) or kiosks (49%), only 18 percent of
shoppers were enthusiastic about viewing a store map on a
handheld device. The highest rated applications of mobile
devices were those that displayed coupons for products as
shoppers passed nearby (32% “should have”) and notified
shoppers when they were next in line at the cash register
(27%). Shoppers were more enthusiastic about using a
specialized handheld device that could scan a product’s
UPC label and display item pricing (63% “should have”);
check if other colors, styles, and sizes of a product are
available (52%); keep a running total of purchases (49%);
and allow self-checkout (46%).
Several online and in-store technologies were found to
provide value for certain niche segments and applications.
For example, 24 percent of households with two or more
young children favored having the store provide handheld
video games for children compared to 14 percent for the
total sample. This option was particularly attractive for
adults who were shopping for apparel (presumably
because kids dislike buying clothes and would enjoy an
electronic baby-sitter).
Checkout and Payment
This section concludes with a discussion of alternative
methods of checkout and payment. Many of these new
approaches were appealing to a particular segment of con-
sumers or when shopping for a specific type of product.
However, in almost every case, consumers favored the sta-
tus quo. For example, Internet shoppers preferred to enter
a credit card number on a secure Web page (84% “should
have”) rather than swipe their card through a keyboard
reader (16%) or fax the number to the retailer (25%). Peo-
ple shopping in conventional retail stores preferred to have
a cashier scan and bag their merchandise and accept pay-
ment (87%) rather than interact with an ATM (30%).
Almost all shoppers want to get a paper receipt (98%)
instead of a digital receipt sent as an e-mail attachment
(19%) or available on a private Web site (13%).
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Consumers spoke with a clear voice about what they
wanted and did not want in their ideal shopping experi-
ence. The five key lessons are summarized below.
1. “Technology Is a Means, Not an End”
Consumers are not interested in technology for its own
sake. People want the basics in their ideal shopping
426 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
experience. When shopping online, they look for accurate
product and pricing information, convenient and secure
ordering, order tracking, reliable delivery, and accessible
customer service. In retail stores, shoppers want knowl-
edgeable and courteous sales help, clean and attractive
facilities, competitive prices, fast checkout, and conve-
nient payment options. People rarely mentioned technol-
ogy when they were asked to describe their shopping
nirvana.
However, technology can play a role in enhancing the
shopping experience. For example, a large percentage of
consumers were enthusiastic about having at least one
application of each of the in-store technologies tested.
Looking across applications, 84 percent of shoppers felt
that retailers must or should provide interactive kiosks, 89
percent requested electronic signs, and 73 percent asked
for handheld shopping applications. However, there were
substantial differences in the ratings of each application of
the technology. For example, 63 percent of shoppers
wanted retailers to provide a handheld device that could
perform price checks, but only 12 percent would use the
same device to participate in an in-store auction or call a
friend or relative for advice.
This response suggests that it is not the technology
per se but how it is used to create value for customers that
will determine its success. Several of the technology appli-
cations tested were perceived as less convenient than con-
ventional shopping aids. For example, most shoppers pre-
ferred to see what is on sale by looking at a printed circular
(92% “should have”) or conventional signage (73%) rather
than using a kiosk (32%) or a handheld device (20%).
Technology applications were rated highest when they
made shopping more convenient. Nearly two thirds of the
respondents liked being able to electronically clip and
redeem coupons from a kiosk rather than having to cut
them out of a newspaper and carry them to the checkout
counter. The same percentage wanted to self-scan prod-
ucts to verify prices rather than having to find a sales assis-
tant to run a price check.
What about all of the other high-tech features that were
tested? Many of these have been hyped as the latest revolu-
tion in electronic shopping—software agents, discussion
forums, online auctions, multimedia, 3-D shopping, text
chat, and voice chat, among others. From the customer’s
perspective, they fell in the netherworld of indifference.
Most consumers did not care if they were provided or felt
they were nice to have but not essential. In some cases,
shoppers were happy with an existing alternative. In oth-
ers, the technology was seen as not sufficiently developed.
Many of these innovations will require significant refine-
ment and consumer education to deliver their benefits.
2. “We Want to Shop Differently
for Different Types of Products”
Mass retailers, warehouse clubs, power centers, and
shopping malls have all achieved some degree of success
by providing one-stop shopping, selling a variety of differ-
ent products from one convenient location. Retailers cre-
ate “destinations,” leveraging existing customer traffic to
sell more products. Why not use the same strategy on the
Internet, selling a variety of products from a single Web
site?
The present research suggests that using the same shop-
ping interface to sell a diverse set of products is likely to
result in a poor shopping experience. Shoppers value dif-
ferent features when shopping for different kinds of prod-
ucts. For products purchased infrequently, such as appli-
ances and electronics, consumers want detailed product
information and expert evaluations. For frequently pur-
chased products, such as groceries and school and office
supplies, consumers want a fast and convenient shopping
trip with instant fulfillment. In addition, for apparel and
entertainment products such as toys, books, and music,
shoppers would like a pleasant and entertaining shop-
ping experience with an extensive product selection. In
the latter case, there is more variety seeking and a
greater interest in new items. Objective information has
limited value because product evaluation is a more subjec-
tive experience.
The benefits of one-stop shopping are reduced on the
Internet because online search costs are much lower than
in the physical world. At the same time, the risks of using a
“one size fits all” shopping interface are much greater. The
electronic interaction is a degraded experience compared
to conventional shopping, so it is critical to understand
what cues consumers use to make decisions and create an
appropriate customer interface.
3. “Don’t Treat Us Alike”
During the past few years, e-commerce companies
went on a spending spree to acquire customers, with sales
and marketing expenses often equaling or exceeding reve-
nues. They ran extravagant ad campaigns, gave shoppers
substantial price discounts, and offered free shipping, all
in the hopes of cementing relationships with as many cus-
tomers as possible. These high acquisition costs were sup-
posed to be offset by the repeat business of loyal shoppers.
Unfortunately, customer loyalty cannot be taken for
granted. Different shoppers have different needs and
wants, and they will go where they are best served. The
research revealed, for example, that women want features
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 427
that make shopping more convenient and provide better
value while men are more enamored with new technical
innovations. Younger consumers place more emphasis on
the visual experience and the fun of shopping while older
consumers want more detailed product information, faster
shopping, and better service. By going after the mass mar-
ket, these online companies guaranteed that many shop-
pers would not be satisfied with the experience. Rather
than staying for the long haul, shoppers switched to the
first competitor who offered a better deal. In the future, we
are likely to see companies giving shoppers more control
over the experience, allowing them to tailor the process to
their unique style of shopping.
4. “Help Us Make the
Best Use of Each Channel”
The initial success of several online shopping ventures
led many consultants to predict that conventional retail
stores would be driven out of business. The research
reveals that the Internet is not a substitute for the physical
store but instead is a valuable complement. Consumers
want to use a variety of media in the process of purchasing
goods and services. They might see something new on
television or in a catalog, then search the Internet for prod-
uct information, and finally visit a store to make a pur-
chase. Retailers should explore how to best use technology
to move consumers through each of the stages in the pur-
chase process.
Consumers were enthusiastic about several shopping
features that made it easier to shop across multiple chan-
nels. They liked being able to use the Internet to check the
prices, promotions, and inventory in the closest retail
store. They appreciated having the option to buy online
and pick up the product at the closest store, shop in the
store and have the merchandise delivered to home, and
return merchandise to the store or through the mail.
Retailers need to integrate channels so that consumers can
move transparently between the various media.
This is not to say that the experience should be identical
in each medium. For example, several features that were
popular online were not as desirable when delivered in the
store through a kiosk or handheld device. Consumers are
in a different frame of mind and have different informa-
tional needs when shopping online and in the physical
store. This suggests that retailers should exercise caution
when attempting to Web-enable their stores. Rather than
simply providing Web access in the store, they should opti-
mize the interface for the in-store shopping environment.
5. “Personalization Does
Not Guarantee Our Loyalty”
Many conventional and online retailers have invested in
customer-relationship management, personalization, and
one-to-one marketing programs in the hopes of building
customer loyalty and increasing customer retention.
Retailers believe that by tailoring their marketing activi-
ties to the unique needs and wants of individual shoppers,
they can do a better job of serving their customers.
While personalization can create customer value and
reinforce loyalty, most applications have been simplistic
and retailer-centric. The 16 personalization features tested
in this research represent some of the common techniques
used in retailing. From this set, there were only 2 that most
consumers thought retailers must or should provide and
another 4 that more than 40 percent of shoppers desired.
Seven features were disliked by more than 10 percent of
consumers. There are several reasons why personalization
programs have failed to achieve their goals.
Convenience. One of the most popular methods of per-
sonalization is the frequent-shopper program, which re-
wards repeat customers with price discounts. Some
programs require shoppers to carry a special loyalty card
and present it at the point of purchase so that their pur-
chases can be tracked across all forms of payment. Others
require consumers to save their receipts and turn them in at
a special service desk. For people who do participate, this
reduces the convenience of shopping by adding extra steps
to the process. For those people who do not, it raises issues
of fairness by charging higher prices. It is not surprising
that some of the most popular personalization options in-
creased the convenience of shopping, such as saving a
transaction log to simplify returns and warranty repairs.
Privacy. Most people do not have to pay their friends to
reveal their names, addresses, and hobbies. Yet, this is
what most retailers do when they sign shoppers up for their
frequent shopper programs. They give people a discount in
exchange for information. Why? Because shoppers often
do not see any other tangible benefit for participating in
these programs. Quite the contrary, consumers worry that
the information will be distributed to other companies
without their knowledge and permission, which may lead
to unwanted junk mail, spam, and telephone solicitation.
For personalization to be effective, retailers must build
trust with the consumer. Shoppers want to know what
information is being collected and how it will be used.
They would like the option to view and edit personal infor-
mation and to control its dissemination. Shoppers expect
to see tangible benefits for providing personal data that are
commensurate with the amount and type of data provided.
Prediction. At the core of most personalization pro-
grams is an algorithm that attempts to predict which prod-
ucts, services, and messages a consumer will respond most
favorably toward. Often, this prediction is based on a sta-
tistical model of the shopper’s past purchases and demo-
graphic profile. While this approach can improve the
chances that shoppers will respond to an offer, most con-
428 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
sumers still receive a mountain of irrelevant and poten-
tially irritating product recommendations and promotional
messages. Prediction is poor because (1) the forecasts are
based on an incomplete record of shoppers’ category pur-
chases, (2) the purchase history may include items pur-
chased for someone other than the shopper, (3) consumers’
needs change over time and across situations, and (4) pur-
chase histories and demographic profiles may not reflect
consumers’ attitudes and lifestyles.
Retailers need to move away from the practice of just
offering consumers more of what they bought last time (or
giving them an incentive to switch to a competing prod-
uct). Retailers need to understand the full constellation of
consumer needs and the role of variety seeking so they can
filter out what consumers truly have no interest in yet still
retain a selection of items that will satisfy and potentially
delight shoppers. They also need to expand the concept of
personalization to include situational influences and the
life stage of shoppers, both of which are important pur-
chase drivers.
LIMITATIONS AND
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The present study has several theoretical and method-
ological limitations that suggest productive avenues for
future research. Two of the most important issues are the
use of survey research to evaluate retail technologies and
the focus on consumer demographics and product cate-
gory characteristics as moderating variables of technology
preference.
From Surveys to Laboratory
and Field Research
The survey research methodology employed in the
present study is useful for gathering consumer feedback on
a broad range of technology options. However, it has
inherent limitations for evaluating new and innovative
concepts. Since the survey was conducted online, all of the
respondents were familiar with computers and Web-based
applications. Yet, there was no demonstration of or inter-
action with the specific technologies and applications
being evaluated. Consumers’ ratings were based on short
descriptions of each customer interface technology.
Respondents relied on their prior knowledge to assess the
usability and benefits of these tools, which tended to favor
established technologies that are familiar to shoppers (cf.
Karlin and Klemmer 1989).
A complementary research approach is to prototype
new applications of customer interface technologies and
test them with consumers in a laboratory environment
(e.g., Wagner 2001). This gives shoppers a more realistic
sense of how the applications operate and what benefits
they provide, allowing a more accurate assessment of
value. For example, Gray, Barfield, Haselkorn, Spyridakis,
and Conquest (1990) found that when commuters were
surveyed about a new service providing real-time traffic
information, only 27 percent said they would use it. Yet,
when they were shown a prototype of the service, the num-
ber of favorable respondents jumped to 84 percent. Labo-
ratory testing is also useful for assessing the usability of
new technology applications and providing input for
improving its design (Nielsen 1993). Schrage (2000)
reported that several major firms, including Citigroup,
Merrill Lynch, and British Air, have dramatically changed
their customer service infrastructures after simulating and
testing the proposed support systems.
Of course, survey research and laboratory studies pro-
vide only a partial view of the performance of retail tech-
nologies. It is also necessary to test these innovations in the
field to measure how they affect consumer behavior, store
traffic, retail sales, and profitability (see, e.g., Coleman
2000). A field test can also provide detailed information
on the costs of installing and maintaining technology,
highlight issues of employee acceptance and training, and
provide feedback on competitive response. Field experi-
ments are often conducted over several months to track the
technology adoption process and repeat usage. An
extended trial allows the researcher to identify novelty and
wear-out effects and rule out alternative explanations of
changes in retail performance.
Creating the Ideal
Shopping Experience
This research has profiled consumers’ perceptions of
the “ideal shopping experience” in online and in-store
environments and highlighted the significant role that
product categories and consumer demographics play in
determining the appeal of customer interface technolo-
gies. These variables were the primary focus of the project
because they relate directly to several strategic retail deci-
sions, including store design, assortment planning, and
target marketing.
To understand why these differences were observed,
researchers need to look at the unique characteristics of
product categories and consumer segments and investigate
how they affect the purchase process. One such variable is
shopping frequency. When consumers in the survey
shopped for a product less than once a month, they were
significantly more interested in a variety of informational
technology applications, including online and in-store
information search engines, expert product evaluations,
and personalized product suggestions. At the same time,
frequent shoppers had a greater interest in a number of
transactional applications, such as shopping from a saved
purchase list, short-term price reductions, and paying for
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 429
merchandise by swiping a credit card through a home PC’s
keyboard reader (all ps < .05).
Another critical factor is the consumer’s purchase moti-
vation and the importance of specific shopping benefits.
For example, 37 percent of consumers rated the “fun of
shopping” as somewhat or very important, and these shop-
pers were significantly more enthusiastic about using a
variety of shopping media, including catalogs, television,
cell phones, mobile devices, and in-store visits (but, sur-
prisingly, not the Internet, which was popular for both
groups). They expressed a greater interest in technology
options for product visualization (3-D product images and
store simulations, store maps, video clips and animations,
virtual modeling), product news (lists of new items, e-mail
notices, online ads and coupons, online auctions, comple-
mentary product information, search agents, daily and
hourly promotions), personalization (personalized prod-
uct offers and discounts, one-click ordering, custom-
designed products), and community (online discussion
forums, unedited consumer ratings, two-way text chat and
videoconferencing; all ps < .01). These findings closely
mirror the results of Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001), who
reported that “experiential shoppers” want to have fun
while shopping online and are more interested in positive
sociality, positive surprise, and bargain hunting.
In addition to product and consumer characteristics,
researchers should consider how technology preferences
may be affected by temporal and situational factors. Mar-
keters have recognized for some time that context can have
a significant impact on consumer attitudes and purchase
behavior (see, e.g., Belk 1975; Dickson 1982; Yang,
Allenby, and Fennell 2002). The present study revealed,
for example, that consumers with access to high-speed
Internet connections (e.g., 56 kb modem, cable modem,
DSL, ISDN) were significantly more likely to prefer band-
width-intensive applications, such as video playback, 3-D
store simulations, and videoconferencing (p< .05).
While consumers may express general satisfaction with
the current shopping experience, retailers still have con-
siderable opportunity to improve the process. They need to
identify and amplify the “shopping catalysts” (the envi-
ronmental factors that heighten the salience of consumer
needs) while reducing the sources of “shopping friction”
(the obstacles in the purchase process that reduce the con-
sumer’s ability to satisfy his or her needs).
A number of observational and self-report methods can
be used to identify these factors for specific product types,
consumer segments, and shopping contexts. Berstell and
Nitterhouse (2001) described using customer case
research, in-depth case studies of actual purchases, to rec-
ognize the purchase drivers and decision influence points.
Underhill (1999) has conducted extensive video observa-
tion of consumer shopping patterns to identify problems
with store layout, merchandising, and packaging, among
other factors. Burke (1996) has used virtual reality
simulations, and Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, and Voss
(2002) used video walkthroughs to gauge shoppers’ reac-
tions to alternative shopping environments. Web retailers
have analyzed click-stream data to pinpoint the causes of
shopping cart abandonment, such as hidden shipping
charges (Russell 2000). Using exit interviews of retail cus-
tomers, Bearse (2001) found that 21 percent of the people
leaving a store without buying reported that they did not
make a purchase because they could not find the desired
size, color, or style of product. An additional 60 percent of
nonpurchasers said they were just browsing.
Customer interface technologies can address many of
the obstacles that consumers face in the online and conven-
tional retail store while creating a more attractive and
engaging environment. They can provide volumes of
product information and facilitate the search and filtering
process (Kemp 2001; Lynch and Ariely 2000). They can
make extensive assortments available to shoppers at little
additional cost (Alba et al. 1997) and organize the alterna-
tives in ways that maximize the perception of variety (cf.
Hoch, Bradlow, and Wansink 1999). They can put custom-
ers in a positive mood through auditory and visual stimula-
tion (cf. Baker et al. 2002; Puccinelli and Zaltman 2001).
They can enhance customer satisfaction by speeding the
checkout process through barcode scanning, faster credit
card authorization, and self-checkout options (cf. Tom and
Lucey 1997). And they can “save the sale” by allowing
consumers to electronically purchase attractive items that
are temporarily out of stock (cf. Fitzsimons 2000).
CONCLUSION
Many companies fail and others stumble in their efforts
to use technology to enhance the shopping experience.
The research reveals that this is not due to the wholesale
rejection of these innovations by consumers. Instead, peo-
ple see technology as playing an important role in the
shopping process, but it must be optimized for their shop-
ping style, the stages in the decision process, and the type
of product being purchased.
With the incredible clutter in most retail environments
(both online and in-store), merchants have just a few sec-
onds to communicate the value of new technology. The
innovation must provide an immediate, tangible benefit to
the consumer. It must be easy to use, requiring a minimal
amount of new learning and few changes in consumer
behavior. It must relate to the shopper’s current need state.
Features must be linked together into a simple, coherent,
and compelling interface. The best customer interface
does not have to change every few months because it deliv-
ers its benefits conveniently, reliably, and at a low cost
today.
There is no question that there will continue to be inno-
vations in retail technology and that consumers’
430 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
expectations will continue to change. Increased levels of
consumer education, familiarity with technology, and gen-
erational issues are likely to increase technology adoption.
At the same time, competitive pressures will turn several
of the features that consumers rated as “nice to have” or
“should have” into “must haves.” However, retailers must
be cautious in adopting new technologies. Many innova-
tions will not deliver sufficient value and consumer patron-
age to offset their costs. It is critical to establish a program
of consumer research to continuously monitor the role of
traditional and new retail practices in customers’ ideal
shopping experience, as well as to conduct field experi-
ments to test and refine the most promising concepts.
Companies need to focus on consumer innovation—devel-
oping creative solutions to consumers’ problems—rather
than technical innovation as we move forward into the
twenty-first century.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of
Indiana University’s Center for Education and Research in
Retailing and KPMG LLP on this project. He also thanks
the guest editors and two anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.
REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard
Lutz, Alan Sawyer, and Stacy Wood. 1997. “Interactive Home
Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Par-
ticipate in Electronic Marketplaces.” Journal of Marketing 61 (July):
38-53.
Baker, Julie, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal, and Glenn B. Voss. 2002.
“The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived
Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions.” Journal of Marketing
66 (April): 120-141.
Bearse, Scott. 2001. “From Browsers to Buyers.” Retailing Issues Letter
[Center for Retailing Studies, Texas A&M University] 13 (5): 1-4.
Belk, Russell W. 1975. “Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior.”
Journal of Consumer Research 2 (December): 157-167.
Berstell, Gerald and Denise Nitterhouse. 2001. “Asking All the Right
Questions.” Marketing Research 13 (Fall): 14-20.
Blackwell, Roger. 2001. “Why Webvan Went Bust.” The Wall Street
Journal, July 16, p. A22.
Burke, Raymond R. 1996. “Virtual Shopping: Breakthrough in Marketing
Research.” Harvard Business Review 74 (March-April): 120-131.
———. 1997. “Do You See What I See? The Future of Virtual
Shopping.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (4):
352-360.
———. 1998. “Real Shopping in a Virtual Store.” In Sense and Respond:
Capturing Value in the Network Era. Eds. Stephen P. Bradley and
Richard L. Nolan. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 245-260.
———. 1999. “Retail Technology in the Next Century.” Discount Store
News 38 (July/Special insert): 1-25.
Cleary, Mike. 2001. “Box on the Rocks.” Interactive Week, January 15,
pp. 56-59.
Coleman, Calmetta Y. 2000. “Eddie Bauer’s Windows Add Electronics.”
The Wall Street Journal, November 28, p. B8.
Darian, Jean C. 1987. “In-Home Shopping: Are There Consumer Seg-
ments?” Journal of Retailing 63 (2): 163-186.
Dickson, Peter. 1982. “Person-Situation: Segmentation’s Missing Link.
Journal of Marketing 46 (Fall): 56-64.
Dykema, Evie Black. 2000. “Online Retail’s Ripple Effect.” The For-
rester Report, September.
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. 2000. “Consumer Response to Stockouts.” Journal
of Consumer Research 27 (September): 249-266.
Fox, Bruce. 1994. “Expensive Flops.” Chain Store Age Executive 7
(March): 176.
Garry, Michael. 1992. “Waste or Windfall?” Progressive Grocer, Sep-
tember, pp. 117-120.
Goldman, Kevin. 1993. “Advertising: Turner Bags Checkout Channel,
but Rivals Remain Undeterred.” The Wall Street Journal, March 4,
p. B8.
Gray,Bruce G., WoodrowBarfield, Mark Haselkorn, Jan Spyridakis, and
Loveday Conquest. 1990. “The Design of a Graphics-Based Traffic
Information System Based on User Requirements.” In Proceedings
of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. Ed. Michael E.
Wiklund. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 603-606.
Greco, Alan J. and D. Michael Fields. 1991. “Profiling Early Triers of
Service Innovations: A Look at Interactive Home Video Ordering
Services.” Journal of Services Marketing 5 (3): 19-26.
Hauser, John R. and Birger Wernerfelt. 1990. “An Evaluation Cost Model
of Consideration Sets.” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (March):
393-408.
Hoch, Stephen J., Eric T. Bradlow, and Brian Wansink. 1999. “The Vari-
ety of an Assortment.” Marketing Science 18 (4): 527-546.
Hof, Robert D. 2001. “Don’t Cut Back Now.” Business Week, October 1,
p. EB34.
Karlin, J. E. and Edmund T. Klemmer. 1989. “An Interview.” In Ergo-
nomics: Harness the Power of Human Factors in Your Business.Ed.
Edmund T. Klemmer. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 197-201.
Kemp, Ted. 2001. “Macy’s Doubles Conversion Rate.” Internet Week,
November 28. Retrieved from http://www.internetweek.com/story/
INW20011128S0004
Lawrence, Philip and John Karr. 1996. “Technology Spending and Alli-
ances: New Highs in Financial Services Firms.” Journal of Retail
Banking Services 17 (3): 45-52.
Lynch, John G., Jr. and Dan Ariely. 2000. “Wine Online: Search Costs
Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution.” Marketing
Science 19 (1): 83-103.
Maruca, Regina Fazio, Raymond R. Burke, Sir Richard Greenbury, John
Quelch, Robert A. Smith, and Ragnar Nilsson. 1999. “Retailing:
Confronting the Challenges That Face Bricks-and-Mortar Stores.”
Harvard Business Review 77 (July-August): 159-168.
Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree, and Mary Jo
Bitner. 2000. “Self-Service Technologies: Understanding Customer
Satisfaction With Technology-Based Service Encounters.” Journal
of Marketing 64 (3): 50-64.
Mick, David Glen and Susan Fournier. 1998. “Paradoxes of Technology:
Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies.” Journal
of Consumer Research 25 (September): 123-143.
Nielsen, Jakob. 1993. Usability Engineering. San Diego: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Parasuraman, A. and Charles L. Colby. 2001. Techno-Ready Marketing:
How and Why Your Customers Adopt Technology. New York: Free
Press.
Puccinelli, Nancy and Gerald Zaltman. 2001. “The Strategic Use of Mu-
sic in Marketing: A Selective Review.” Research Note 9-501-056.
Harvard Business School.
Quelch, John A. and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1981. “Nonstore Marketing:
Fast Track or Slow?” Harvard Business Review 59 (4): 75-84.
Ratchford, Brian T. 1982. “Cost-Benefit Models for Explaining Con-
sumer Choice and Information Seeking Behavior.” Management Sci-
ence 28 (February): 197-212.
“Report Counts Computers in Majority of U.S. Homes.” 2001. The New
York Times, September 7, p. A15.
Russell, Brenda G. 2000. “Shoppers Bailing Before Checkout.” Crain’s
Chicago Business, November 11, p. SR38.
Schrage, Michael. 2000. Serious Play. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Shop.org. 2001. The Multi-Channel Retail Report 2001. Washington,
DC: National Retail Federation.
Burke / TECHNOLOGY AND THE CUSTOMER INTERFACE 431
Tom, Gail and Scott Lucey. 1997. “A Field Study Investigating the Effect
of Waiting Time on Customer Satisfaction.” Journal of Psychology
131 (6): 655-660.
Underhill, Paco. 1999. Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Venkatesh, Viswanath. 2000. “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use:
Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion Into the Tech-
nology Acceptance Model.” Information Systems Research 11 (4):
342-365.
Wagner, Mary. 2001. “IU’s Customer Interface Laboratory Previews To-
morrow’s Interactive Tools Today.” Internet Retailer 3 (September):
10-13.
Wolfinbarger, Mary and Mary C. Gilly. 2001. “Shopping Online for Free-
dom, Control, and Fun.” California Management Review 43 (Win-
ter): 34-55.
Yang, Sha, Greg M. Allenby, and Geraldine Fennell. 2002. “Modeling
Variation in Brand Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment
and Motivating Conditions.” Marketing Science 21 (Winter): 14-31.
Zeithaml, Valarie and Mary C. Gilly. 1987. “Characteristics Affecting the
Acceptance of Retailing Technologies: A Comparison of Elderly and
Nonelderly Consumers.” Journal of Retailing 63 (1): 49-68.
———, A. Parasuraman, and Arvind Malhotra. 2000. “A Conceptual
Framework for Understanding e-Service Quality: Implications for
Future Research and Managerial Practice.” Report 00-115. Mar-
keting Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Raymond R. Burke is the E. W. Kelley Professor of Business
Administration at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Busi-
ness and the founding director of the school’s Customer Interface
Laboratory. His research focuses on understanding the influence
of point-of-purchase factors and new retailing technologies on
consumer shopping behavior. Prior to joining Indiana University,
he served on the faculties of the Harvard Business School and the
University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. He has consulted
for a number of leading manufacturers and retailers, and his vir-
tual shopping technology is used by market research firms
around the world. His articles have appeared in various profes-
sional journals, including the Harvard Business Review, the
Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of Marketing, and
Marketing Science. He is also coauthor of ADSTRAT: An Adver-
tising Decision Support System.
432 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2002
