Retail attributes: Influence on shopping mode choice behavior.

Abstract

Retailers are very aware of the importance of the consumer's store choice process. They realize that consumers can buy the same or similar merchandise in any number of outlets. Thus, they undertake a number of activities to attract and keep consumers coming back to their stores. Many retailers, however, are not as aware of the broader mode choices of consumers. These alternatives include shopping in a local retail store (local shopping), shopping out of town (outshopping), or shopping at home through mail, telephone or computer (in-home shopping). Depending on the shopping mode choice of consumers, retailers may have little, if any, chance of attracting the consumers to their stores. That is, if certain consumers choose outshopping or in-home shopping for a significant portion of their purchases, local retailers will have lost their business, not to alternative stores, but to different shopping mode preferences. In a preliminary study, Riecken and Yavas (1988) found evidence that there are four distinct segments defined on the basis of shopping mode choice. Blakney and Sekely (1992a, 1992b, 1993) expanded upon the Riecken and Yavas (1988) study. Using multivariate analysis and empirically based definitions of outshopping and in-home shopping activity, they found evidence that the four shopping segments had distinct household/buyer characteristics (1992b) and psychographic (1992a) profiles. These four groups are defined below: 1. Outshopper: significantly participates in outshopping, but not in-home shopping. 2. In-home shopper: significantly participates in in-home shopping, but not outshopping. 3. Supplement shopper: significantly participates in both outshopping and in-home shopping. 4. Local shopper: does not significantly participate in either outshopping or in-home shopping and therefore does not fit the definition of an outshopper or an in-home shopper. Although outshopping and in-home shopping are pervasive activities, there is very little information as to why consumers participate in either or both of these activities. Outshopping and in-home shopping consumers have been found to be dissatisfied with local shopping area attributes (Gillett, 1970; Reidenbach et al., 1984, for example). However, many researchers, particularly in the outshopping area, feel that focusing on dissatisfaction alone does not adequately explain why consumers select alternative shopping modes. They recommend that additional research be done to examine the influence of various attributes in determining shopping decisions (Reynolds and Darden, 1972; Samli and Uhr, 1974; Papadopoulos, 1980; Hozier and Stem, 1985). The purpose of this study is to examine the importance or determinance value of attributes regarding shopping mode choice. No other study has looked at the specific attributes that motivate shoppers to select one shopping mode over another. Specifically, the study examines the four shopping segments described above (i.e., outshoppers, in-home shoppers, supplement shoppers, and local shoppers) to identify attributes or shopping motives that are determinant in their shopping mode decisions. This information will help retailers respond to the competitive environment and the changing wants and needs of their customers. It also provides a base for further research that will help retailers understand why people choose shopping mode alternatives that exclude the local retailer. PATRONAGE THEORY AND DETERMINANT ATTRIBUTES Unfortunately, the outshopping and in-home shopping literature has not contributed a strong theoretical base for research purposes. In 1983, Sheth presented an integrative theory of patronage preference and behavior. Although his theory deals more specifically with store patronage, the shopping preference component of his theory can also apply to shopping mode choice. According to Sheth, an individual selects a shopping predisposition or preference based on rules or heuristics formed by matching his or her shopping motives and shopping options. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 82 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.