Content uploaded by Chris Lazaris
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chris Lazaris on Oct 23, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
EXPLORING THE “OMNICHANNEL” SHOPPER BEHAVIOUR
Chris Lazaris, Adam Vrechopoulos, Katerina Fraidaki and Georgios Doukidis,
ELTRUN - The E-Business Research Center, Department of Management Science &
Technology, Athens University of Economics & Business, Greece
OMNICHANNEL RETAILING DYNAMICS AND THEORETICAL DEFINITIONS
Nowadays, consumers are interacting with an increasing number of touchpoints as they search, buy,
and get support. For example, they can use their mobile devices while there are in a physical store, in
order to instantly search for availability and price, comparing multiple retailers. Then, they can easily
move across different retail channels (online or offline) of the same or a competitor retailer. They are
characterised by retail practicioners as “omnichannel” shoppers: “an evolution of multichannel
consumers who want to use all channels (store, catalog, call center, web, and mobile) simultaneously,
not each channel in parallel” (Ortis, 2010, p.1). “Omni” stems from the Latin word “Omnis” which
means “all” “everything”, or “universal”. In comparison, “multichannel” comes from the word
“Multus”, meaning “multiple”, “much” or “many”. The term “omnichannel retailing” was first
introduced in a 2009 study by IDC’s Global Retail Insights research unit (Ortis & Casoli, 2009). Since
then, omnichannel retailing remained a buzzword, until enabling Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT) made this notion a reality. These technologies (e.g. mobile devices, in-store
technologies, augmented reality, location-based services) appeared both online and offline, blending
all the retail channels together, providing a seamless integrated experience for the consumers, while
empowering retailers with valuable tools, often only available to e-commerce environments. Indeed,
as Chen & Mersereau (2013, p.3) point out, “a significant challenge of modern in-store retailing, seen
in the push for “omnichannel retailing”, is learning how best to compete with, complement, and learn
from the e-commerce channel”. As a result, retailers should reengineer their business processes so as
to place the customer at the center of their business and provide omnishopping experiences. Similarly,
merchandise and promotions should not be channel specific, but consistent across all channels. In fact,
offline marketers begin to adopt mobile marketing and experiment with in-store marketing efforts
enabled by e-commerce platforms (Walker, 2010). Apart from the previous business sources,
omnichannel retailing has recently appeared in academic literature, too. It is defined by Rigby (2011,
p.67) as “an integrated sales experience that melds the advantages of physical stores with the
information-rich experience of online shopping”. Aubrey & Judge (2012, p.31) report that “a huge
opportunity is realised for brands to reinvent the physical store so that it actively drives growth”. They
also suggest that instead of considering e-commerce as a threat to their offline retail networks, brands
need to develop online operations that cooperate and support the physical channel, as part of an
integrated “omnichannel ecosystem”. Finally, Brynjolfsson & Rahman (2013, p.1) explained how “the
distinctions between physical and online retailing are vanishing” and they pointed out how “advanced
technologies on smartphones and other devices are merging touch-and-feel information in the physical
world with online content, creating an omnichannel environment”.
RELEVANT EMPIRICAL STUDIES, RESEARCH HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY
The research need of the present study is clearly documented by the fact that while consumer
behaviour has been thoroughly investigated in the multichannel retailing environment, relevant
research in the context of the emerging omnichannel retailing landscape is limited. Kourouthanassis et
al. (2007) found that in-store retail technologies positively affect shopping experience within the
physical store. Also, Van der Heijden, (2006) introduced a decision support system for consumers “on
the go” when they are located inside a retail store, which was found useful for shopping. Similar
results where found by Jan-Willem et al. (2010) regarding the influence of mobile recommendation
agents in in-store consumer behaviour. In parallel, Broeckelmann & Groeppel-Klein, (2008) studied
the usage of mobile price comparison sites at the point of sale and its influence on consumers'
shopping behaviour. Their research revealed that consumers recognise differences in prices, which in
turn influence their evaluation of the shop's price competence, their trust in the shop and their
patronage of it. Using a different research approach, Verhoef et al., (2007) discovers that Internet
search, followed by store purchase, is the “most popular form of research shopping”. Along these
lines, Chiu et al. (2011) revealed that when consumers have more multichannel self-efficacy
perception, then cross-channel free-riding behaviour (i.e. when consumers visit a retailer’s channel
1
only for product information & evaluation and switch to another retailer to purchase) increases. They
report (p.268) that “perceived service quality of competitors’ offline store and the reduced risk in the
brick-and-mortar channel influence the attractiveness of this behaviour and increase cross-channel
free-riding intentions”. Nevertheless, this study investigated only the behaviours associated with a
specific purchase path: searching online and purchasing offline. However, searching offline and then
purchasing online is another kind of multichannel free-riding, which remains relatively scarcely
researched. It is partly addressed by Van Baal & Dach (2005). Elaborating on these research insights,
the research objective of the present study is to explore omnichannel shopper behaviour placing
particular emphasis on exploring the “intensity” of omnichannel retailing practices used by shoppers
(i.e. the degree that shoppers use these capabilities) and explore any potential relationships between
the omnichannel retailing intensity and other shoppers’ behavioural characteristics. Thus, the
following research hypotheses focus on exploring whether consumers with different levels of
omnichannel retailing intensity differ, in terms of a series of relevant to the omnichannel retailing
phenomenon key behavioural patterns, as derived through the review of the literature:
Η1: Shoppers’ omnichannel retailing intensity affects the frequency of their mobile Internet usage
Η2: Shoppers’ omnichannel retailing intensity affects the research online - purchase offline behaviour
Η3: Shoppers’ omnichannel retailing intensity affects the importance shoppers attach to the offline
retail stores’ assisting technologies
Η4: Shoppers’ omnichannel retailing intensity affects the research offline - purchase online behaviour
For testing the research hypotheses, it is, firstly, attempted to classify/segment the respondents into
distinctive groups according to the degree they use omnichannel retail capabilities and practices (i.e.
“omnichannel intensity”). Multichannel shopper segmentation has already been addressed in the
multichannel literature, but not in relation to the omnichannel concepts. For example, Nunes &
Cespedes (2003) introduced 4 segments: Habitual Shoppers, High-value Deal Seekers, Variety-loving
Shoppers & High-involvement Shoppers. Similarly, Keen. et al., (2004) discovered 4 clusters:
Generalists, Formatters, Price Sensitives & Experiencers. Moreover, Kumar & Venkatesan (2005)
classified multichannel shoppers according to the number of channels they use. Furthermore, Thomas
and Sullivan (2005) identified 5 shopper categories according to the impact of product type, customer
lifestyle, and price sensitivity on their channel choice. Finally, Konus, Verhoef, & Neslin, (2008),
identified 3 multichannel shopping segments (Multichannel Enthusiasts, Uninvolved Shoppers, and
Store-focused Consumers), while Quint & Ferguson (2013) classified mobile shoppers to
Traditionalists, Experience-Seekers, Exploiters, Savvys & Price-Sensitives. The present study
employed an exploratory quantitative empirical research design that took place in Greece, in
November 2013. The data collection instrument of the survey was an online questionnaire which
received 1324 answers from Internet users. The groups of the present study are classified according to
the observed level of the omnichannel retailing intensity of the sample’s participants. Then, the study
investigates whether there are statistical significant differences among the groups, in terms of the
variables included in the aforementioned research hypotheses. A detailed profiling of each of the
resulted groups is also attempted by utilizing relevant information provided through the descriptive
statistics and by the hypotheses testing results.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The sample comprised 62,53% male and 37,47% female. It originated mostly from Attiki region
(63,87%), but it also included 3,23% respondents from abroad. Descriptive statistics reveal that
71,27% of the consumers use in-store Internet access. This finding alone shows the blending of online
and offline shopping environments. In other words, the consumer is online, even in physical stores
and, therefore, the purchase process can become differentiated and complex. In addition to this,
consumers have mobile phone Internet access at a percentage of 89,84% (62,10% of them daily),
which partly explains the previous statistic. Also, 43,17% of consumers spend more than 30 hours per
week on the Internet, a figure that implies that they are experienced Internet users. Their shopping
profile shows that they shop online at a percentage of 91,94% (52,30% often). Similarly, 94,36% of
the sample, use the Internet for product search and price comparison (53,18% often). Furthermore,
more than 50% of offline purchases took place after having searched online, for more than half of the
respondents (53,55%). In contrast, more than 50% of online purchases took place after having
2
searched offline, for 23,68% of the respondents. This is aligned with literature findings (Verhoef et al.,
2007). The results regarding consumer multichannel preferences are very interesting, too. In addition
to the physical store, consumers’ supportive channels of choice are: call center (56,77%), online store
(51,72%), catalogs (37,49%), in-store retailing assisting technologies (34,13%), store social media
(28,41%), store mobile version (24,11% ) and store mobile apps (22,52%). The omnichannel notion is
best depicted in the results which showed that 39,29% of consumers used their mobile phones for
price comparison, while in store (in order to negotiate or buy elsewhere), whereas 17,79% of the
sample would also act that way, if their mobile supported it and they had Internet access. In parallel,
32,46% of respondents have used their mobile phones to search for product presentations and
reviews/comments, while in store, in order to make a purchase. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
classification process conducted according to the omnichannel intensity of the study’s participants,
characterizing as “omnishoppers” those that comply with omnichannel behaviour. It should be noted
that from the 1324 respondents (i.e. total sample size), 894 questionnaires were employed for this
classification due to several reasons (e.g. missing values, invalid or contradicting data).
Group Labels Group Classification Characteristics/Criteria %
Group #1:
Full Omnishoppers
These shoppers have mobile Internet access within the store and use it to compare
prices (i.e. for negotiations or for free-riding) and search for product information
(i.e. presentations and reviews/comments for products) 23%
Group #2:
Partial Omnishoppers
These shoppers have mobile Internet access within the store and use it either to
compare prices (i.e. for negotiations or for free-riding) or search for product
information (i.e presentations and reviews/comments for products) 21%
Group #3:
In-Store Internet Users and
Potential Omnishoppers
These shoppers have Internet access within the store but they don’t use it for
comparing prices and search for product information. However, they report that
they are willing to use it for the previous purposes if their mobile phones supported
this function
10%
Group #4:
In-Store Internet Users but
Omnishopping Avoiders
These shoppers have Internet access within the store but they are not interested to
use it for performing the previous tasks 26%
Group #5:
Non In-Store Internet Users
but Potential Omnishoppers
These shoppers don’t have Internet access within the store but they are willing to
have, in order to perform the previous tasks 6%
Group #6: Omnishopping
Avoiders These shoppers neither have Internet access within the store, nor they are willing to
have, in order to perform the previous tasks 14%
Table 1: Classification of Shoppers according to their Omnichannel Retailing Intensity
Descriptive statistics regarding the Full Omnishoppers’ profile reveal that they spend more time on the
Internet per week than any other group. Also, this is the only group in which every member has
conducted online transcactions. Finally, most of them age between 28-34 years. For testing the
research hypotheses of the study, the Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test with
pairwise comparisons was employed, since the data do not follow the normal distribution (i.e. instead
of the ANOVA with Post-Hoc comparisons test). This test examines potential differences between two
or more groups and, thus, it is suitable for the present study objectives. The results indicate that there
are statistical significant differences among the groups for each of the research hypotheses of the study
(all asymptotic significances are equal to ,000) implying that shoppers with different levels of
omnichannel intensity significantly differ in terms of a series of behavioural patterns. All research
hypotheses are accepted. Specifically, as far Hypothesis #1 is concerned, the pairwise comparisons
show that the significant differences lie among almost all groups except the groups #5 and #6, groups
#3 and #4 and groups #2 and #4. As far as groups #5 and #6 are concerned this finding could be
explained by the fact that both groups do not have Internet access within the store. Regarding the other
two relationships, observing Table’s 1 results it is clear that groups #3 and #4 and groups #2 and #4
have Internet access within the store and thus this may explain the unobserved significant differences.
Furthermore, as it was expected, group’s #1 respondents (full omnishoppers) are the ones reporting the
highest average score in the the frequency of mobile Internet use (with significant differences
observed between this and all the other groups) confirming existing theory reporting that one of the
dominant characteristics of omnichannel retailing is the simultaneous mobile Internet use for retailing
purposes within the physical store. Hypothesis #2 aims to discover whether the combined use of the
online and the offline channels is related to the omnichannel intensity of shoppers. More specifically,
it is attempted to explore whether higher omnichannel intensity reflects a higher use of the online
3
channel for information search before conducting offline channel purchases (i.e. purchases in the
physical retail store). The main results indicate that almost all groups use the Internet to search for
product information (either in store or in other locations – e.g. home) before buying offline. This
finding is in line with the trends regarding the shopping behavioural patterns dominating today’s
retailing environment (i.e. consumers use the Internet for information search either they buy online or
offline) and with the descriptive statistics discussion included at the beginning of this section.
However, as expected, it was found that group #6 (i.e. the omnishopping avoiders) significantly differ
with both #1 and #2 groups of respondents. This finding confirms existing knowledge in the sense that
if any difference was expected to be observed in this test, this was expected to lie between the higher
and the lower levels of omnishopping intensity (i.e. full and partial omnishoppers vs. omnishopping
avoiders). Finally, the other significant relationship was found to lie between group #1 and group #4.
It should be noted that group’s #4 respondents are omnishopping avoiders and despite the fact that
they have Internet access also within the store, they are not interested to search online before buying
offline at least at the extend the groups’s #1 respodents are. This finding implies that this group does
not use the Internet for retailing purposes at least at the extent other groups do or willing to do.
Regarding hypothesis #3, it is observed that almost all groups’ respondents attach high importance to
the existence of technology applications that support their purchases within the physical store.
However, also in this case, as expected, significant differences are observed between group’s #1 and
group’s #6 participants with full omnichannel shoppers attaching significantly higher scores in this
dimension. Also, group’s #3 and group’s #6 participants (i.e. potential omnishoppers vs.
omnishopping avoiders) significantly differ without, however, lower than the average scores in the
likert scale observed for avoiders. Furthermore, significant differences are observed between groups
#3 and #4 (i.e. potential omnishoppers attach higher scores than avoiders). Also, it should be
underlined that group’s #3 respondents provided the highest from all other groups score in this
dimension (even from the full omnishoppers) implying that the fact that these shoppers are not
classified as full omnishopping ones is attributed to the limitations of their mobile phones’ browsing
capabilities. Finally, as far as hypothesis #4 is concerned, the results indicate that omnishoppers tend
to research offline and then purchase online. To be more specific, most significant differences where
found between groups #1-#6, #2-#6, and #3-#6, which are the pairs with the highest differences
observed as far as omnichannel intensity is concerned. This finding implies that omnishoppers may
use the store for showrooming and, therefore, engage in free-riding behaviour. This is consistent with
multichannel free-riding behaviour literature previously referenced (Chiu et al., (2011), Van Baal &
Dach (2005)) and with several recent business reports (e.g. Quint & Ferguson, 2013).
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The present paper contributes to the emerging omnichannel literature in two ways: by executing a
segmentation study of omnishoppers and by discovering behavioural patterns that are related to the
degree that these shoppers engage in omnichannel behaviour. Interpreting the results we can conclude
that more than the half (approximately 60%) of the sample’s respondents (i.e. the ones used in the
shoppers’ classification in terms of their omnishopping intensity – Table 1) are either current or
potential users of the omnishopping retailing capabilities. The evolution of smart phones capabilities,
along with the product life cycle dynamics that may convert these products/services to commodities,
(e.g. lower prices both for smart mobile devices and Internet connections and/or diffusion of in-store
availability of free wi-fi access) could constitute the enabling omnichannel retailing mechanisms that
may potentially accelerate the diffusion and adoption of these practices. Moreover, also for the case of
omnichannel avoiders, these shoppers may adopt omnichannel practices in the future, motivated by a
series of factors that probably differ from the ones that motivate current and potential omnichannel
shoppers (e.g. price vs. reference groups’ effects, speed vs. entertainment, etc.). All these indications
pose great implications for retailers, especially for their offline stores. However, it should be
underlined that since the data collection of the present study was conducted online (i.e. the population
from which the sample was drawn comprised only Internet users), these results can not be generalized
to non-Internet users. Evidently, there are quite many future research directions and opportunities in
this emerging topic. Indicatively, since the complexity of that issue is high (mainly due to the
simultaneous involvement of more than one channels in the shopping process), the employment of a
shoppers’ “panel” logic/mechanism (e.g. collaboration of different loyalty schemes programs,
4
combined use of current market research offline and online consumers’ panels, exploitation of
advanced ICT capabilities, etc.) for shoppers that are active both online and offline could contribute to
the effective investigation of their behaviour in the omnichannel retail environment. Also, further
research could examine omnichannel usage in relation to products/services categories and
corresponding retailers/service providers. Moreover, it would be interesting to analyse if such usage
affects loyalty and how that could be dealt with. To sum up, an integrated view and deep
understanding of shoppers’ omnichannel behaviour, following permission Marketing guidelines and
legal frameworks regarding consumers’ data exploitation, is critical in today’s evolving multichannel
environment. REFERENCES
Aubrey, C. & Judge, D., (2012), "Re-imagine retail: Why store innovation is key to a brand’s growth
in the “new normal”, digitally-connected and transparent world", Journal of Brand Strategy, 1(1),
pp.31–39.
Broeckelmann, P. & Groeppel-Klein, A., (2008), "Usage of mobile price comparison sites at the point
of sale and its influence on consumers’ shopping behaviour". The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(2), pp.149–166.
Brynjolfsson, E. & Rahman, J., (2013), "Competing in the Age of Omnichannel Retailing", MIT Sloan
Management Review, 54(4), pp.23–29.
Chen, L. & Mersereau, A.J., (2013), "Analytics for Operational Visibility in the Retail Store: The
Cases of Censored Demand and Inventory Record Inaccuracy", working paper, Fuqua School of
Business, Duke University, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina, 29
August.
Chiu, H., Hsieh, Y., Roan, J., Tseng, K. & Hsieh, J., (2011), "The challenge for multichannel services:
Cross-channel free-riding behavior", Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 10(2),
pp.268–277.
Jan-Willem, S. et al., (2010), "In-store consumer behavior: How mobile recommendation agents
influence usage intentions, product purchases, and store preferences". Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(4), pp.697–704.
Keen, C. et al., (2004), "E-tailers versus retailers". Journal of Business Research, 57(7), pp.685–695.
Konus, U., Verhoef, P. & Neslin, S.A., (2008), "Multichannel Shopper Segments and Their
Covariates". Journal of Retailing, 84(4), pp.398–413.
Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giaglis, G. M., & Vrechopoulos, A. P. (2007), "Enhancing user experience
through pervasive information systems: The case of pervasive retailing". International Journal of
Information Management, 27(5), 319–335.
Kumar, V. & Venkatesan, R., (2005), "Who are the multichannel shoppers and how do they perform?:
Correlates of multichannel shopping behavior". Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(2), pp.44–62.
Nunes, P.F. & Cespedes, F. V, (2003), "The customer has escaped.". Harvard business review, 81(11),
pp.96–105, 140.
Ortis, I. & Casoli, A., (2009), "Technology Selection: IDC Retail Insights Guide to Enabling
Immersive Shopping Experiences", IDC Retail Insights Report.
Ortis, I., (2010), “Unified Retailing - Breaking Multichannel Barriers”, IDC Retail Insights Report.
Quint, M., Rogers, D. & Ferguson, R., (2013), “Showrooming and the rise of the mobile-assisted
shopper”. Columbia Business School – Aimia Report.
Rigby, D., (2011), "The Future of Shopping", Harvard Business Review, 89(12), pp.64–75.
Thomas, J.S. & Sullivan, U., (2005), "Managing Marketing Communications with Multichannel
Customers". Journal of Marketing, 69(4), pp.239–251.
Van Baal, S. & Dach, C., (2005), "Free riding and customer retention across retailers’ channels",
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(2), pp.75–85.
Van der Heijden, H., (2006), "Mobile decision support for in-store purchase decisions". Decision
Support Systems, 42(2), pp.656–663.
Verhoef, P., Neslin, S.A. & Vroomen, B., (2007), "Multichannel customer management:
Understanding the research-shopper phenomenon", International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 24(2), pp.129–148.
Walker, B.K., (2010), “What Every Exec Needs To Know About The Future of eCommerce
Technology”, Forrester Report, p.4, 27 August.
5
