Exploring consumer value of multi‐channel shopping: a perspective of means‐end theory

Abstract

Purpose-With advances in information technology, multi-channel shopping (MCS) has become a prevailing purchasing pattern today. Although MCS provides more benefits than single-channel shopping, there is a need to investigate consumer values in the MCS context. This study aims to develop a consumer value hierarchy that represents how consumers think and pursue when performing MCS. Design/methodology/approach-The research framework was developed from a perspective of means-end theory. Two studies were designed to elicit and evaluate a consumer value hierarchy of MCS. First, a qualitative study was conducted to explore means-end elements of MCS. Then, a hierarchical value map of MCS was constructed with 314 usable responses from an empirical survey in Taiwan. The impacts of past shopping experience on consumers' value perceptions were also examined. Findings-In the hierarchical value map (HVM) of MCS, the results indicate 18 means-end chains from ten MCS attributes resulting in nine consequences derived from those attributes, and then to four MCS values. The results also show that both expert and novice shoppers emphasize the utilitarian value of MCS; however, shopping novices pay more attention to the hedonic value of MCS than experts do. Practical implications-This paper provides several managerial implications for multi-channel retailers. Multi-channel retailers need to know more about the attributes and functions of each channel that they offer in order to create a superior shopping experience for their customers. Also, retailers need to understand different MCS patterns for successful multi-channel customer relationship management. Finally, the consumer value hierarchy of MCS is a useful tool for retailers to develop effective promotion strategies to increase customers' engagement in MCS. Originality/value-This paper is the first to apply means-end theory to investigate consumer value in the MCS context. It advances the consumer value literature in explaining a novel type of consumer channel-mixing behavior. The paper concludes with implications for multi-channel retailers, and future directions for MCS research are also discussed.

Understanding multi-channel research shoppers: an analysis of Internet and physical channels

“…Further, more and more consumers are becoming multi-channel research shoppers that use various channels for their search and purchase (Hsiao et al 2012;Yu et al 2011). Therefore, the use of multiple channels enables a business to differentiate itself from competition by expanding the scope of their offers (e.g., in terms of time, space and range) (Kotler and Armstrong 2007;Schröder and Zaharia 2008).…”

Drivers and Technology-Related Obstacles in Moving to Multichannel Retailing

“…Shopping via multiple channels enables customers to take advantage of the benefits, and minimise the drawbacks, related to different channels [22]. Advantages and disadvantages linked to individual channels can vary by factors such as the amount of time an individual has to complete a purchase and the type of product brought [40,56].…”

“…It helped these retailers to avoid the problems of using delivery couriers, and thus enabled them to provide more consistent customer service levels across multiple channels. In addition, at case 1 'click and collect' helped the retailer to engage sceptical and initially antagonistic store staff with the Internet channel since it facilitated the retailer giving stores the credit 22 for Internet sales made, or collected, in-store. As such, the Internet (through 'click and collect') helped stores to achieve their sales targets.…”

Brands as substitutes for the need for touch in online shopping

“…This lack of physical contact during the buying process is a key inhibitor of uses of electronic commerce (eMarketer, 2011;ONTSI, 2012). Moreover, electronic shopping sometimes is based on consumers' previous experiences in traditional outlets, which provide plenty of opportunities to examine product alternatives (Balasubramanian et al, 2005;Cho and Workman 2011;Hsiao et al, 2012;Pauwels et al, 2011).…”