The influence of hurdles and benefits on the
diffusion of online grocery shopping:
How to improve the adoption rate in the Dutch market?
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the
diffusion of online grocery shopping:
How to improve the adoption rate in the Dutch market?
Samir Selimi
1under supervision of
Prof. dr. L.M. Sloot
2Dr. M.C. Non
2________________________________
1 Samir Selimi is MSc student at Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, The
Netherlands. The research was conduced as a graduation project for the studies Business
Administration in Marketing Management and Marketing Research. Address for correspondence: Samir Selimi, xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxx xx Groningen, The Netherlands; Tel. +31 xxxxxxxxx; E-mail: samir@selimi.nl; student number: s1912801.
2 Laurens Sloot is Professor of Retail Marketing and Mariëlle Non is Assistant Professor of Marketing
Summary
In the Netherlands most retailers offer multiple channels to their customers for many years now. Even though the beneficial effects of a multichannel approach are clear from literature, not all Dutch industries have managed to apply the approach successfully. An example can be found in the Dutch food industry, which did not offer an online channel until recently. However, the attention has increased in the past years and many food retailers now do offer an online channel for sales purposes. Even though, it is still not widely used by Dutch consumer. Therefore, this master thesis investigates what food retailers can do to encourage the usage of online grocery shops. By understanding the entire adoption process of innovations food retailers are capable to invest in the most important aspects of the online environment. Not only the characteristics of the online channel are important, but also the characteristics of consumers play a great role. Even though food retailers are not able to influence consumer characteristics and how they feel or react on certain things, it can provide insight in potential target groups. To understand the entire adoption process in this case, the following problem statement was investigated:
“Which characteristics of online grocery shops cause resistance or increase the rate of adoption towards online grocery shopping and are different strategies necessary in
order to meet the needs of different consumer (groups)?”
In order to enhance further insights into the problem statement several research questions were formulated, which have served as an outline for finding relevant literature. The findings led to the following conclusion and recommendations for management:
- Some consumer characteristics have an effect on both the adoption and the resistance, while others only influence one of the two. For example, shop enjoyment. This indicates that if people dislike shopping in general they will not per se resist online grocery shopping. But if they do like shopping in general the probability is higher that they will adopt online grocery shopping faster than consumers who dislike shopping in general.
Table 1.1
- The results in table 1.1 also indicate that the characteristics, which are related to someone’s beliefs and values, have a higher effect on the resistance. Characteristics, which are related to beneficial aspects of online grocery shopping influence the adoption more. Finally, more general consumer characteristics have an effect on resistance as well as on adoption.
The second stage of the decision path of Rogers (1995) relates to the characteristics of the online channel itself. In contrary to the consumer characteristics food retailer can influence these characteristics directly.
- The results of the aggregated conjoint analysis have shown that the hurdles are indicated as more important than the benefits.
- The time to order online is perceived as the most important attribute, but also the quality of delivered goods, delivery fee and the delivery options are seen as very important. The highest change in utility is when the delivery option to receive the good in the afternoon is also added.
- The segmented CBC analysis indicates that there are three segments. The first segment focuses on the price benefit, the second on the quality and delivery options and the final segment focuses on the time benefit. The first segment is lower educated and more often unemployed, the second segment consists mainly out of women who are responsible for the grocery shopping. The final segment is the highest educated of all, has the highest income and likes grocery shopping the least.
Finally, the insights above have enabled us to answer our initial problem statement. The three characteristics, which create resistance, are: 1) delivery options, 2) delivery fee and 3) quality of ordered goods. The three characteristics, which increase the adoption, are: 1) price benefits, 2) time benefit and 3) the order procedure. Of course the effect of each (utility) differs from each other. Overall the hurdles have a higher effect (utility) on resistance than the benefits have on the adoption.
Content
INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 11
1.2 RELEVANCE & UNIQUENESS OF THESIS 12
1.3 OUTLINE 13
2 DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS 14
2.1 ONLINE SHOPPING (E-SHOPPING) 14
2.2 INNOVATIONS 14
2.3 DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS 16
2.4 DIFFUSION PATH 18
2.5 RESISTANCE VS. ADOPTION 20
2.6 CONCLUSION 22
3 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE RESISTANCE AND ADOPTION 23
3.1 FACTORS, UNDERLYING ANTECEDENTS AND ADOPTION PATH 23
3.2 INNOVATION CHARACTERISTICS 25
3.3 CONSUMER CHARACTERISTICS (MODERATOR) 27
3.3 ADOPTION PATH- WILLINGNESS TO RETRY AND DEGREE OF RESISTANCE 30
3.4 CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR CONJOINT STUDY 31
3.5 CONCLUSION 33
4 METHODOLOGY 34
4.2 STUDY TWO – TOP SIX ATTRIBUTES 38
4.3 STUDY THREE – QUANTITATIVE STUDY 40
5 RESULTS 47
5.1 SAMPLE AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 47
5.2 MEASUREMENT PURIFICATION 51
5.3 REGRESSIONS 55
5.4 CONJOINT ANALYSIS 66
6 CONCLUSIONS & MANAGERIAL IMPLICATION 80
6.1 CONCLUSION 80
6.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS 84
6.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR TRUUS.NL AND APPIE.NL 87
7 LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 91
REFERENCES 93
Introduction
The enhancement of customer value has become very important for retailers (Neslin et al., 2006). To achieve this it is important that retailers improve their customer acquisition, retention and development processes (Neslin et al., 2006). Geyskens, Gielens and Dekimpe (2002) state that enabling consumers to choose from multiple channels can enhance customer value as well. The channels typically include the store, web, catalogue, sales force, third party agencies and call centres (Neslin & Shanker, 2009). Besides the increase in customer value, a multichannel strategy also offers other benefits, for example, to counteract competitor’s actions (Grewal, Comer, & Mehta, 2001), to decrease the costs per transaction (Dutta, Heide, Bergen, & John, 1995) or to increase their scope within the market (Friednamdn & Furey, 2003). Besides these benefits, other studies argue that offering multiple channels could also lead to disadvantages, such as lower information search costs for consumers, lower switching costs and better insight in the price developments within a market (Wallace, Giese & Johnson, 2004; Verhoef, Neslin & Vroomen, 2007). This can result in higher competition as well as force retailers to invest more in acquiring and retaining customers (Brynjolfsson & Smith, 2000; Tang & Xing, 2001).
Even though negative aspects are present when a multichannel strategy is used, it seems that its organizational benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Moreover, offering multiple channels also has beneficial effects on consumer behaviour. For example, it leads to the improvement of the brand image, the improvement of customer experience and the enhancement of customer loyalty across all channels (Danaher, Wilson & Davies, 2004; Bailer, 2006; Harvin, 2000; Shanker, Smith & Rangaswamy, 2003; Wallace, Giese & Johnson, 2004). This is mainly caused by the increase in customer convenience since consumers are able to choose their preferred channel for each purchase and each channel satisfies different needs. For example, stores enable face-to-face contact, instant gratification and physical examination, while the web increases the accessibility for consumers and access to product and price information. Thus, when combined all the different channels enable retailers to meet more complicated consumer needs (Wallace, Giese & Johnson 2004; Bucklin, Ramaswamy & Majumar, 1996).
retailers within different industries (e.g. fashion, travel, electronics and furniture industry) already apply the multichannel strategy, the Dutch food industry has not paid the same amount of attention towards the multichannel strategy. This is mainly due to their lack of attention towards the online channel for sales purposes (Twinkle, 2011). The online channel was mainly used to provide customers with information (e.g., C1000.nl, 2011; Jumbo.nl, 2011, Plus.nl, 2011) and not as an online channel for sales purposes. Therefore, it does not fit the definition of an online grocery shop, which is; ”an online grocery shop offers the ability for consumers to order groceries from home electronically (i.e. Internet) and have them delivered at their own preferred location” (Burke, 1997; Gillett, 1970; Peterson, Balasubramanian & Bronnenberg, 1997). While most Dutch food retailers did not use a multiple channel approach, only one Dutch food retailer offered an online channel, which suits the definition, the most. From 2010 until the beginning of 2011 Albert Heijn (AH) was the only Dutch food retailer who did offer the ability to purchase groceries online (Ah.nl, 2011; Twinkle, 2011). However, other supermarket chains like Coop, Dekamarkt, Plus and Boni have adapted their online channel and since 2011 enable their customers to purchase groceries online as well (Twinkel, 2011). Since most Dutch food retailers have only started using the online channel for sales purposes recently, it can still be characterised as an innovation (Rogers, 1995; Gatignon & Robertson, 1989). A comparison between general and food related online sales developments confirm this conclusion.
Next to the literature and market related figures, several studies (e.g. Verhoef & Langerak, 2001) also indicate that consumers have a generally positive attitude towards online grocery shopping. They indicate that consumers expect shopping via an electronic channel to be more convenient and time saving. Other studies also state that time pressure (Srinivasan & Ratchford, 1991), the increase of Internet usage and situational factors (Hand, Riley, Harris, Singh & Rettie, 2009) positively influence the adoption of online grocery shopping. Interestingly, market research (e.g. GfK, 2010) shows that only 5% of Dutch Internet users have indicated to have purchased groceries online in 2010 and in addition 57% show high resistance and have even indicated to be unwilling to purchase groceries online at all. Which is quite odd as general consumer figures characterize Dutch consumers as the most active users of the online channel (Twinkle, 2010). In addition 72% of them have, at least once, purchased goods online, which makes shopping the 4th most important activity online (GfK, 2010).
This leads to the conclusion that there is a large discrepancy between the intended consumer behaviour and the actual behaviour regarding online grocery shopping. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that literature has shown many positive consumer intentions towards online grocery shopping. However, the actual sales figures and market research indicate the opposite. It seems that studies which have found positive intentions towards the adoption of the online channel for grocery shopping have been performed in situations in which the respondents had little or no experience with online (grocery) shopping (e.g. Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Wilson & Reynolds, 2006). Also, during these studies the intention to shop online for groceries were measured based on more general metrics and combined with the limited experience of the participants this might have lead towards a biased conclusion. Another reason for the discrepancy between the positive consumer intentions and the actual online grocery sales might be the fact that many factors, which have been found to be beneficial, for the adoption of online grocery shopping (e.g. time restrain and increase of Internet usage) are not controllable by food retailers. Therefore, food retailers are not able to control the situation in order to increase the rate of adoption of the online channel for grocery shopping.
of the online grocery shop itself, in order to provide Dutch food retailers with insights, which are more controllable. In contrary to non-controllable aspects (e.g. time restrain) our findings enable food retailers to asses their own situation and if needed adapt their strategy and online environment to better meet customer needs. However, this does not mean that the non-controllable aspects will be left out, as they are needed to provide insight whether differences exist between consumers and thus, whether there are different adopter groups. If this is the case food retailers will have to use different strategies to attract different adopter groups.
1.1 Research questions
In order to gain more insight in aspects that influence the usage of the online grocery shop, negatively or positively, the following main research question will be covered in this paper:
“Which characteristics of online grocery shops cause resistance or increase the rate of adoption towards online grocery shopping and are different strategies necessary in
order to meet the needs of different consumer groups?”
An answer to this question will give food retailers better insight in how to adapt their online grocery shops to diminish hurdles and increase the rate of adoption. Therefore, to answer the problem statement five research questions have been formulated:
1. What does the adoption process of new innovations look like?
2. Which consumer characteristics cause resistance and which increase the rate of adoption of online grocery shopping according to literature?
3. Which characteristics of online grocery shops cause resistance or increase the rate of adoption of online grocery shopping according to literature? 4. What are the three most important characteristics to create resistance and what are the three most important characteristics to increase the rate of adoption?
5. What is the degree to which the six most important characteristics affect the choice to resist or adopt online grocery shopping?
These research questions serve as an outline to find relevant literature regarding hurdles and benefits towards online grocery shopping. However, hurdles and benefits of regular online shopping will also be taken into account, because it is expected that more literature and knowledge is available on this topic. This will lead to a better understanding of aspects that influence online grocery shopping positively or negatively. Next, the six most important hurdles will be determined, which will be tested by a Conjoint Analysis to enhance the insight in the degree of importance per hurdle and benefit. Finally, options to diminish hurdles and increase the awareness of benefits regarding online grocery shopping will be determined by the use of findings in literature and practice. This will lead to the formation of different strategies in order to meet the needs of different consumers (consumer groups). All steps will lead to answers to the research questions, which will contribute to the answer of the problem statement.
1.2 Relevance & uniqueness of thesis
Considering the information and arguments, which have been presented above, this study’s main contribution to existing literature is to provide insight in the degree of importance of the three most important hurdles and the three most important benefits of online grocery shops. These insights enable food retailers to fully benefit from the opportunities of an online grocery shop and to build the most ‘ideal’ online grocery shop. Moreover, by taking the non-controllable aspects (e.g. time restraints) into consideration, information can be provided on whether or not these aspects impact the relative importance of the hurdles and benefits.
and the actual behaviour towards online grocery shopping. Since online shopping and online grocery shopping is more common and consumers have better knowledge of it, at this moment, it is expected that our study will be able to better capture consumers’ intentions regarding online shopping for groceries. Also, our main focus will be on the characteristics of the online grocery shop itself in order to fill the gap in literature, as the consumer characteristics and other non-controllable aspects have been studied extensively in the past.
For food retailers, our findings will enable them to better control the situation in order to fully benefit the positive effects of a multichannel strategy (e.g. Danaher, Wallace, Giese & Johnson, 2004; Bailer, 2006; Harvin, 2000; Shanker, Smith & Rangaswamy, 2003). In order to do so food retailers need to better understand which characteristics of the online grocery shop are perceived as most important and how they influence the adoption process. Moreover, by studying the differences between adopter groups food retailers are provided with insights, which enable them to choose the correct strategy for each adopter group. This is needed as different groups might have different needs regarding the online environment itself.
1.3 Outline
2
Diffusion of innovations
This section will deal with literature regarding the diffusion of innovations. Since online grocery shopping is relatively new in the Netherlands it can be considered as an innovation (Rogers, 1995; Gatignon & Robertson, 1989). Therefore, by providing more insight on this topic a better understanding can be formed of how online grocery shops can be diffused throughout the market. At first in paragraph 2.1 more information is provided regarding online grocery shops, followed by insights originating from previous literature regarding innovations and its diffusion in paragraphs 2.2 2.3 and 2.4. In paragraph 2.5 the difference between resistance and adoption are provided and finally the conclusion in 2.6. The different insights, which are provided in this chapter will aid in the formation of a conceptual model.
2.1 Online shopping (e-shopping)
Online shopping is defined as: ”the ability for consumers to order from home
electronically (i.e., Internet) and have it delivered at their own preferred location”
(Burke, 1997; Gillett, 1970; Peterson, Balasubramanian & Bronnenberg, 1997). Even though, this definition also concerns other channels as the fax and telephone, in this study the emphasis will only be on the Internet.
Leeflang and van Raaij (1995) state in their study that a reason for food retailers to introduce an online grocery shop could be the ability of online shops to better anticipate changes in consumers’ shopping behaviour and differences in social demographic profiles, for example, the increased need for convenience (Burke, 1997). On the other hand, online grocery shopping is also beneficial for consumers, as it enables them to save time by shopping online from a preferred location (Verhoef & Langrak, 2001). Still, despite the benefits on both sides, online grocery shopping is relatively new in the Netherlands and is not used by many consumers.
2.2 Innovations
innovation is and how it diffuses throughout the market (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2008). First of all a definition of innovations provides us with a better view of what an innovation is; ‘an innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new
by an individual’ (Rogers, 1995; Gatignon & Robertson, 1989). It is thus not
important whether the idea, practice or object is new, as long as its (potential) users perceive it as new. Moreover, changes regarding the way an innovation is used or produced can also be used to characterize innovations (Robertson, 1971; Gatignon & Robertson, 1989). However, the degree of change can vary between innovations and with the use of the ‘Innovation Continuum’ of Robertson (1971) innovations can be classified according to the degree in which a change in consumer behaviour is required. Innovations that do not require a dramatic change (e.g. a wireless mouse instead of a non-wireless one) are characterized as continuous innovations (Robertson, 1971). On the other hand, a discontinuous innovation requires a drastic change in the consumption pattern of consumers (Robertson, 1971). Thus, while continuous innovations are often comparable to existing alternatives, discontinuous innovations are totally new products or services (Moreau, Lehman & Markman, 2001). The features of discontinuous innovations are often new to the market and cause a discontinuity in the existing market or technology-base and that causes the need for a radical change in consumer behaviour (Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Moreau, Lehman & Markman, 2001).
Moreover, besides the degree of required behavioural change, innovations can also be divided into product and service innovations. According to Alba et al., (1997) product and service innovations differ (e.g. tangibility (Lovelock & Wirtz, 2011; Lovelock & Gummesson, 2004)) and therefore, should not be treated equally. However, in contrary Dolfsma (2004) argues that the differences between service innovations and product innovations are only present from a managerial perspective. Consumers may not even perceive any differences at all, because for them the importance lies only in the added benefit of products or innovations (Drucker, 1974). The findings of Dolfsma (2004) and Drucker (1974) are in line with the statement of Fagerberg, Mowery, and Nelson (2005), who state that service innovations do not follow significantly different diffusion paths compared to product innovations. Therefore, even though online grocery shopping can be considered a service innovation, based on the previous arguments no distinction is made between literature focused on service innovations and literature focussed on product innovations.
2.3 Diffusion of innovations
the market in order to improve the diffusion of online grocery shopping as well (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008).
The traditional diffusion theory of Rogers (1995) is a widely used theory to better understand how innovations diffuse in a market. According to Rogers’ (1995) theory there are four main concepts that influence the diffusion of innovations, these are: (1) the innovation, (2) the communication channels, (3) time and (4) the social system. The innovation was already mentioned in the previous paragraph and therefore, only the other three concepts will be discussed in this section.
The second concept is the ‘communication channel concept’ in which Rogers states that not all channels are equally effective in the diffusion of innovations. Mass media is, for example, more effective for simple (continuous) innovation, while more difficult (discontinuous) innovations require a more personal channel (Rogers, 1995; Robertson, 1971). Therefore, more information is needed to aid in the diffusion of discontinuous innovations and to counteract resistance, which is also the case for online grocery shopping.
The ‘time’ concept, the second concept of Rogers (1995) is a good method to understand the diffusion of an innovation by looking at its pattern of adoption over time (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008; Bass, 1969). Several diffusion patterns have been identified in literature (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008; Bass, 1969). However, one of the most common patterns is the S-shaped diffusion curve (see figure 2.1) (Bas, 1969), which is often found in cases where consumers perceive risk (e.g. social, psychological, economic, performance and physical risk) in using the innovation (Hoyer & McInnis, 2008).
Finally, the diffusion of innovations can also differ between consumers or consumer groups. The adopter categorization framework of Rogers (1995), which is also the final concept; i.e. the social system, provides insight into the different stages of innovativeness per adopter group (see figure 2.1). The five different stages are adoption categories and are defined as: ’a classification of individuals within a social
system based on their innovativeness’ (Rogers, 1995). In this concept the diffusion
differs per innovation (e.g. Shih & Venkatesh, 2004; Peterson, 1973; Darden & Reynolds, 1974; Baumgarten, 1975). Also the division of consumers over the categories is not always bell-shaped. This means that the largest group is not always in the middle or at the end, in that case only the ‘more’ innovative consumers should be targeted.
Figure 2.1: Stages of innovativeness (Rogers, 1995) and S-shaped diffusion curve (Bass, 1969).
Thus, in the case of online grocery shopping food retailers should understand the norms, values and the interconnectivity of the different adopter groups within their market. Also, an understanding of the division of adopter groups is necessary as well as the amount of adopter groups. Moreover, the channel through which information is provided should be chosen wisely in order to enhance the diffusion rate. Finally, a comparison of the diffusion over time increases the awareness of an innovations’ diffusion performance and whether extra action is needed to enhance the adoption rate or whether it just need more time.
2.4 Diffusion path
path and is divided into five stages, i.e. (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4) implementation and (5) confirmation (see figure 2.1). The knowledge stage refers to the moment that a consumer becomes aware of the innovation, when no information is gathered yet. During the persuasion stage an individual is more interested in the innovation and gathers information, which is used in the third step to form an attitude in order to make a decision whether the innovation will be rejected or adopted. A positive attitude in step three can result in the trial of the innovation in step four. Eventually, in the fifth and final stage it is decided whether the innovation will become part of an individuals routine and thus if the innovation will be used again.
Figure 2.3: Five stages of the decision path (Rogers, 1995)
Thus, by providing consumers with enough information, their perceived risk could be lowered, what can result in trial. This is important as trial enables consumers to better evaluate their self-efficacy or ability and this can lead to a higher chance of adopting the innovation (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989; Hansen, 2005).
Thus, the diffusion of an innovation depends on many factors and consumers’ perception regarding these factors. Most important in the diffusion process is the attitude of the consumer and whether or not it is positive towards the innovation, which is formed in the third stage (see figure 2.1). Therefore, extra insight into resistance and adoption is provided in the next part.
2.5 Resistance VS. Adoption
As figure 2.1 visualizes, consumers decide in the third step, after evaluating the gathered information, whether they resist or try an innovation. The decision in this step is important as it can lead to the adoption of the innovation. However, an individual is not automatically willing to adopt an innovation if there is no resistance towards it and therefore also benefits are needed in order to persuade the consumer to try and adopt the innovation (e.g. Gatignon & Robertson, 1989; Herbig & Day, 1992; Ram & Sheth, 1989). Even though studies often do not differentiate adoption from resistance and consider them as opposites, which leads to the conclusion that no resistance automatically leads to the adoption of the innovation (Nahib, Bleom & Poiesz, 1997). According to Rogers (1995) the main reason for this assumption has been the ‘pro-innovation bias’ of researchers, which have often assumed that an innovation should diffuse and therefore, resistant individuals have not been taken into account. Instead, individuals who did not adopt the innovation or did this in the latest stage of Rogers’ adoption categorization theory were seen as ‘laggards’, instead of resistant consumers. However, different studies have concluded that resistance is not the mirror image of adoption, but a different form of behaviour (e.g. Gatignon & Robertson, 1989; Herbig & Day, 1992; Ram & Sheth, 1989). Moreover, adoption only occurs if there is no resistance (e.g. Ram, 1987; Ram & Sheth, 1989; Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008). This leads to the conclusion that resistance and adoption are influenced in a different manner.
Foxhall, 1998). According to Moore (2002) the lack of consumer insights, before the introduction of innovations, leads to resistance from consumers, as innovations do not meet their needs (Garcia & Atkin, 2002; Molesworth & Sourtti, 2002). Hoyer and McInnis (2008) even state that innovations need to appeal to every adopter group of Rogers’ (1995) adoption categorization framework, in order to diffuse throughout the market. The mismatch that occurs due to little consumer insight, prior to the launch of an innovation, is the main reason for the high failure rates of innovations (Moore, 2002). This is because consumers compare the innovation with existing alternatives and consciously choose to be resistant (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998), which is in line with the following definition of resistance: ‘the resistance offered by consumers to an
innovation, either because it poses potential changes from a satisfactory status quo or because it conficts with their belief structure (i.e. barrier/hurdles)’ (Ram & Sheth,
1989; Hirschheim & Newman, 1988; Ram, 1987). It also suggests that resistance is based on consumer’s beliefs, values and their status quo, rather than the benefits of the innovation in comparison to existing alternatives. The latter, on the other hand, is needed to attract consumers to adopt the innovation (Mahajan et al, 1995).
Therefore, it can be concluded that adoption of an innovation can only occur if consumers do not feel resistant towards it. However, as it was stated before adoption only occurs if an innovation offers more benefits when compared to existing alternatives (Ram, 1987; Ram & Sheth, 1989; Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008) and is not automatically the result of non-resistance (e.g. Gatignon & Robertson, 1989). Consumers who perceive no resistance may still refuse or postpone the use of an innovation, for example, due to the lack of added benefits or due to financial reasons (Greenleaf & Lehmann, 1995). This leads to the conclusion that resistance can lead to more than simply not trying the innovation, which is in line with findings of Ram and Sheth (1989) and Szmigin and Foxall (1998) who suggest that innovation resistance is not a single form, but it consists out of three types of behaviour; i.e. (1) rejection, (2) postponement and (3) opposition.
second option consumers might have overcome the resistance, but they still can decide not to adopt the innovation at that time and simply postpone the use of it (Greenleaf & Lehmann, 1995). Finally, consumers who choose to oppose the innovation have not only decided not to use it, but are even trying to sabotage the innovation (e.g. negative WOM) (Davidson & Walley, 1985). All three behaviours occur due to different reasons (Kleijnen, Lee & Wetzels, 2009). The weakest form of resistance is postponement (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998). Followed by the rejection. Both the postponement and the rejection mainly occur due to perceived risk, while the strongest form of resistance, the opposition is mainly driven by an individual’s personal and societal environment (Kleijnen et al., 2009).
In conclusion it can be stated that the approach to decrease resistance is different from the approach to increase the adoption rate (Gatignon & Robertson, 1989; Herbig & Day, 1992; Ram & Sheth, 1989). Moreover, the negative aspects (hurdles) have a far stronger impact on resistance than the benefits have on adoption (Mizerski, 1982). Therefore, the adoption rate cannot be increased by simply adding other benefits. Thus, the resistance should be decreased first in order to increase the adoption rate (Fortin & Renton, 2003).
2.6 Conclusion
3
Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
The theory regarding innovations and its diffusion of the previous chapter is used to form a better understanding of the decision stage in the decision process model of Rogers (1995). These insights are used to enhance our understanding of the influential factors in this stage. Therefore, in paragraph 3.1 a model is formed, which indicates the different factors, the underlying antecedents and the adoption path of innovations. This model is based on several relevant theories on the diffusion of innovations. Followed, by further explanation of the different steps and analyses in the model, which are needed to better understand the entire adoption process of online grocery shopping. Finally, in paragraph 3.3, the theory based hurdles and benefits for the conjoint analysis are provided. Resulting in a preliminary conceptual framework, which will be tested with the use of a qualitative study in chapter four.3.1 Factors, underlying antecedents and adoption path
Figure 3.1:
3.2 Innovation characteristics
The first and main dimension that influences the resistance and adoption is the consumer’s perception of innovation characteristics (Mahajan et al, 1995), which is also the only dimension that is controllable by food retailers. The traditional diffusion theory of Rogers (1995) mentions five innovation characteristics, which determine the rate of the adoption; i.e. (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4)
divisibility and (5) communicability. The relevance of these characteristics and their
influence on the diffusion process have been confirmed by different studies (e.g. Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Meuter, Bitner, Ostrom & Brown, 2005; Kleijnen et al., 2004). Moreover, other models like the TAM (Davis, 1989) and TRA (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw, 1988) have used antecedents that are the same or correspond with the ones mentioned by Rogers (1995). Therefore, these characteristics have been used in our framework. In table 3.1 a short explanation is given of each characteristic and what each characteristic stands for.
Table 3.1:
Innovation characteristics
Characteristics Definition Source
-Relative advantage ‘The degree to which an innovation is being perceived as better than the idea it supersedes (added value)’
(Rogers, 1995)
-Compatibility ‘The degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters’
(Gatignon & Robertson, 1991)
-Complexity ‘The degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use’
(Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008)
-Divisibility/ trialability
‘The degree to which an innovation can be tried on a limited basis’
(Rogers, 1995)
-Communicability/ observability
‘The degree to which an innovation is visible and can be shared with other within a social group’
(Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008)
Perceived risk* the consumer’s perceptions of the uncertainty and adverse consequences of buying a product or service
(Dowling and Staelin, 1994) (Ram & Sheth, 1989)
*(Not mentioned by Rogers (1995), but added based on findings of Ram & Sheth (1989))
opposite, namely the resistance. However, most of the barriers that are mentioned by Ram and Sheth (1989) show large resemblances with the framework of Rogers (1995). The differences and resemblances will be mentioned in the next part.
According to the study of Ram and Sheth (1989) resistance occurs out of two main barriers; i.e. (1) the psychological and (2) the functional barrier (see figure 3.2). The psychological barrier requires psychological change, while the functional barrier requires behavioural change (Gatignon & Robertson, 1989; Herbig & Day, 1992; Martinko, Henry, & Zmud, 1996; Ram & Sheth, 1989).
Figure 3.2:
Innovation resistance framework (Ram & Sheth, 1989).
The sub-barriers that form the (1) psychological barrier are related to consumers and their psychological mindset. For example, the traditional barrier occurs if the usage of an innovation requires a cultural change for the consumer; e.g. their current norms and values do not allow them to use the innovation. The image barrier occurs if the innovation does not fit in the current ‘image’ that an individual might have within their social environment. Disapproval towards the innovation from the social environment could lead to uncertainty and resistance. Both the sub-barriers of the main psychological barriers show resemblance with the compatibility barrier of Rogers (1995). Even though it is a barrier related to psychological aspects, these aspects might be related to characteristics of the online grocery shop itself and therefore, this barrier is also taken into account.
Next, the value barrier occurs when the use of new innovations requires higher monetary and non-monetary costs (Aylott and Mitchell, 1998; Cassill et al., 1997), which shows resemblance with the relative advantage characteristic of Rogers (1995). Finally, the risk barrier occurs if consumers feel uncertainty towards trying the innovation (Dowling and Staelin, 1994). A comparison with Rogers’s framework shows that this characteristic is not yet represented and therefore, it will be added to our model. According to the Innovation Resistance theory of Ram and Sheth (1989) the perceived risk is an important influencer of resistance.
A more detailed view of the risk barrier shows that different sub-risks influence the main risk barrier, which are the (a) economic risk, (b) functional risk, (c)
social risk and (d) physical risk. Consumer’s trust in the innovation and the producer
is the main influencer of the sub-risks (Verhoef & Langerak, 2001). Consumers question the ability of the innovation and its producer to deliver an alternative effectively and reliably (Doney & Cannon, 1995). Additionally, Kleijnen et al. (2009) state that risk is one of the most important drivers that form resistance towards an innovation. A remedy for risk perception might be the information that is provided regarding the aspects that are perceived as risky, by doing so an individual’s perception can be counteracted (Dowling & Staelin, 1994). This is also in line with the ‘high effort hierarchy’ statement of Hoyer and MacInnis (2008), in which they show that information affects the chosen route towards adoption and consumers perception.
3.3 Consumer characteristics (moderator)
enable food retailers to better understand which adopter groups like and dislike shopping online for groceries, which is necessary in order to make the innovation appealing to the most important adopter groups (Rogers, 1995). This is necessary in order for the innovation to diffuse throughout the market properly (Hoyer & McInnis, 2008). In appendix A an overview is given of the consumer characteristics, which will be taken into account in our studies. The consumer characteristics are selected by comparing different sources regarding the diffusion of innovations (e.g. Meuters et al., 2005; Dabholkar, 1996). Additionally, a further explanation will be given in this part for each characteristic.
Technology readiness: The technology readiness depends on a person’s
innovativeness, attitude towards technology and their anxiety to use technology. Thus, what is a person’s attitude towards new technologies and the usage of it in daily life (Bobbit & Dabholkar, 2001: Parasuraman, 2000). For this study it is therefore, important to know whether consumers degree of technology readiness influences the usage and adoption of online grocery shopping.
Motivation: A consumers’ motivation to use online grocery shopping depends
on the degree to which they need grocery shopping to be more convenient (extrinsic/utilitarian) (Braczak, Ellen & Pilling, 1997: Davis, 1989). This is also the case of the usage of an e-commerce environment (Brdiges & Florsheim, 2008: Pagani, 2004). Therefore, in our case it is important to understand whether the motivation of a person influences the degree of resistance and adoption of online grocery shopping.
Need for interaction: The personal interaction between consumers and
employees are of course lower in an online environment. In contrary to a regular supermarket consumers are less able to interact with employees. The degree to which a consumer needs personal interaction is referred to as ‘need for interaction’ (Dabholkar, 1996). Thus, the resistance towards trying online grocery shopping increases if a person has a higher need for personal interaction (Meuters et al., 2000). For this study it means that food retailers should understand the effect of interaction on the resistance and adoption of online grocery shopping. If this is indeed an important aspect than alternatives should be offered for the interaction.
Time pressure: Consumers with a higher time pressure are more likely to look
satisfaction are more likely to look for alternatives. However, shopping for groceries in an online environment also depends on several other hurdles (e.g. delivery issues and less interaction). Therefore, it is important to understand whether the time aspects is more, equally or less important than the hurdles.
Attitude towards the online channel: Whether a consumer will use an online
channel also depends on their attitude towards information sharing and online payment (Childers et al., 2001). A negative attitude towards information sharing and online payment can influence the willingness of consumers to try and adopt online grocery shopping. Insight in the effect and influence of the privacy concerns can aid food retailers to better shape the online environment and to decrease the resistance towards trying online grocery shopping.
Current usage/knowledge (online channel): Studies in the innovation diffusion
area and the adoption have shown that consumers with more knowledge of the online environment or experience react more positively towards the adoption of new technologies and service (Meuters et al., 2005; Mahajan et al., 1990; Reinders, Dabholkar & Frambach, 2008). If this is the fact for online grocery shopping, than food retailers could use this information to attract consumers who already use other online service as well.
Need for convenience: Convenience is becoming more and more important for
consumers. Verhoef and Langerak (2001) already stated in their study that the most important factor for consumer to shop online is the convenience that the online channel offers. Therefore, it might also be interesting to know the effect of this variable on the resistance and the adoption for grocery shopping.
Travel costs/time: The Netherlands has a very high density of supermarkets
(CBL, 2008). Therefore, a better understanding is needed of the effect of travel costs and travel time of Dutch grocery shoppers. Thus, this characteristic measures whether consumers perceive the monetary costs and time to visit a regular supermarket as high.
Shopping enjoyment: The general shopping enjoyment (hedonic) of a
General innovativeness: The technology readiness characteristic is based on a
person’s general innovativeness towards technologies (Bobbit & Dabholkar, 2001: Parasuraman, 2000). However, a consumer’s general innovativeness influences the degree to which they are open to gather information and use new products and services (Baumgartner & Steenkmp, 1996). This is not related to technologies, but it gives an indication of whether someone is open to gather information or use alternatives. In combination with the study of Rogers (1995) this can give an indication on whether a consumer is an early adopter of actually a laggard.
Satisfaction with general online shopping and general grocery shopping: As it
was stated before, it is expects that consumers who already have experience with shopping in an online environment are more likely to try other online shopping services (Meuters et al., 2005; Mahajan et al., 1995; Reinders et al., 2008). However, it is also expected that the degree of trying additional online services depend on a person’s current satisfaction with the online environment (Lijander et al., 2006). Therefore, the satisfaction toward general online shopping is measured as well. Moreover, the study of Rogers (1995) states that consumers who are not satisfied with a specific product or service will, more likely, look for alternatives. Therefore, an understanding is needed of whether consumers are unsatisfied with the current way of grocery shopping and whether they are indeed more likely to try online grocery shopping (Lijander et al., 2006; Mittal, Kumar & Tsiros, 1999).
Demographics and shopping behaviour: Finally, the demographics and
grocery shopping behaviour are taken into account. Aspects such as age, gender and household composition might influence the degree of resistance and adoption (e.g. Rogers, 1983; Venkatraman, 1991). But also additional aspects such as the frequency of grocery shopping, time spend on each visit to regular supermarket and the person who is responsible for the grocery shopping within a household are important. These aspects can all provide more information and help food retailers to target segments with the lowest degree of resistance and the highest chance of adoption online grocery shopping.
3.3 Adoption path- willingness to retry and degree of resistance
resistance forms (i.e. postponement, opposition and rejection). However, if an individual decides to resists an innovation and the innovation is adaptable, then the entire process can start all over again. However, a perquisite is that an individual should be willing to re-evaluate the innovation. If this is the case than a re-evaluation of the adapted innovation might lead to not resisting the innovation and maybe even adopting it (Ram, 1987; Zaltman, Duncan & Holbek, 1973). Nevertheless, if the innovation is not adapted well enough, it can again lead to one of the resistance forms. While the opposition and rejection lead to not using the innovation at all, postponement might still lead to the adoption of the innovation in a later stage (Kleijnen et al., 2009).
Therefore, both the degree of resistance and the willingness to retry online grocery shopping will be analyzed as well. This is done in order to provide insight in the influence of the consumer characteristics on both variables. In chapter two it was already mentioned that no resistance does not directly lead to the adoption of a product of service (e.g. Gatignon & Robertson, 1989; Herbig & Day, 1992; Ram & Sheth, 1989) and adoption only occurs if there is no resistance (e.g. Ram, 1987; Ram & Sheth, 1989; Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008). Hence, a better understanding is needed of the influence of consumer characteristics on the resistance and the adoption.
3.4 Conceptual model for conjoint study
It was already mentioned in the previous paragraph that consumer characteristics are not controllable and therefore, only used to better understand potential users. However, food retailers can influence the innovation characteristics. Therefore, thee antecedents of this dimension are further investigated in this paragraph and are used to form a preliminary conceptual model (see figure 3.3). In table 3.2 theory based hurdles and benefits of online grocery shopping are provided. The consumer characteristics will only be used in our conjoint analysis to identify whether different adopter groups are present and if they react differently towards the innovation characteristics. It also provides information on how food retailers should attract and target potential adopters.
Theory based hurdles and benefits: The importance of the innovation
Langerak, 2001; Hand, Riley, Harris, Singh & Rettie, 2008; Kurnia & Chien, 2003). With the use of these and other studies a conceptual framework is formed in which the six innovation characteristics, mentioned table 3.1, function as a base for the framework. Additionally, a short explanation is provided for each aspect in table 3.3 and the sources of ach aspect are provided as well.
Table 3.2:
Theory based hurdles and benefits of online grocery shopping
Aspect Sources (e.g.)
-Price advantage compared to an offline store. Park, Perosio, German & McLaughlin, 1998; Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds 2006
-Convenience due the ability to receive the groceries at home.
Darian, 1987; Grewal et al. 2004; Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds 2006
-Time saving (e.g. less wait time & planning time).
Burke, 1997; Park et al. 1998; Peterson et al. 1997; Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Darian 1987
Re la ti ve a d va n ta ge
-Larger assortments compared to brick-and-mortar grocery shops and easier to compare.
Grewa et al., 2004; Chu et al. 2010; Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds 2006; Alba et al. 1997; Darian 1987
-Shopping enjoyment is less possible during online grocery shopping (hedonic motivations).
Alba et al. 1997; Verhoef en Langerak, 2001, Bruner & Kumar 2005; Childers et al. 2001; Mathwick et al. 2001
-The quality of the online shop (quality of interface, usability and information quality).
Ahn, Ryu & Han, 2004; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003; Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds, 2006
-The quality of the delivered groceries should not differ from offline purchased groceries.
Baker, 2000; Ernst & Young, 1999; Citrin et al. 2003; Kurnia & Chien, 2003
-Consumers are not able to feel, smell, touch and try the groceries (sensory attributes).
Chu et al. 2010; Morganosky & Cude, 2000; -A consumer has to be at home when the
groceries are delivered (delivery options).
Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds 2006
Co m p at ib il it y
-Consumers have to pay for a delivery fee. Huang & Oppewal, 2006; Småros, Holmström & Kämäräinen, 2000 Di vi si b il it
y -The possibility to try online grocery
shopping on a limited base in order to better understand how it works and to enhance the trust towards it.
Verhoef & Langerak, 2001
-Order and fulfilment procedure should be easy (order time).
Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds 2006
-Shopping online should be done in a setting that matches the offline environment (Virtual reality- 3D shop- Interface).
Freeman et al., 1999 Co m p le xi ty
-The online shop(ping) should not differ too much from current online shops (non grocery products).
Co m m u n ic ab il it
y -Communication with others is less personal
in the online environment and also not as easy as in the offline environment.
Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Chu et al. 2010; Freeman et al. 1999
-The perceived risk of doing business over the internet (Payment, information sharing)
Zeithaml et al. 2002; Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003; Gefen & Straub, 2003; Ha & Stoel, 2009; Park et al. 1998 -The risk of receiving groceries with a lower
quality.
Baker, 2000; Ernst & Young, 1999; Citrin et al. 2003; Kurnia & Chien, 2003; Forsynthe & Shi, 2003 -The delivery of products takes too long (time
slots)
Kurnia & Chien, 2003; Wilson-Jeanselme & Reynolds 2006
-The online grocery shop is not working/offline (fails to work/ not robust).
Curran & Meuter, 2005; Meuter et al., 2000
Pe rc ei ve d R is k
-Not being able to ask questions to employees (no interaction possible).
Reinders et al. 2008; Shankar et al., 2002
3.5 Conclusion
The different aspects, which are presented above, are used to form the conceptual model in figure 3.3. The conceptual model in 3.3 is, however, a preliminary model and its completeness will be tested in chapter four. This will be done with the use of a qualitative study in which the current aspects will be presented during individual interviews and group discussions and if necessary additional aspects will be added to ensure a complete conceptual model.
Figure 3.2:
4
Methodology
In the previous chapter a preliminary conceptual framework was presented (see figure 3.3). However, this framework is solely based on insights gathered from literature. In order to be sure that all important hurdles and benefits are taken into account a qualitative study is conducted to check our findings and if necessary, to enhance our model with new insights. In a second study the same participants from the first study and ten additional participants are asked to rank the six most important hurdles and benefits from the final conceptual model. This is the model, which is derived from literature and study one (see figure 4.1). Next, this will lead to the formation of the final six attributes, which are tested in the third study. These outcomes provide insight into the importance of each hurdle and benefit. Additionally, the moderating effects will be tested, as well, to see whether they affect the hurdles and benefits. Finally, possible segments will be identified in order to better understand potential differences between customers and their needs.
4.1 Study one – qualitative study
As was mentioned above, the preliminary conceptual framework (see figure 3.3) is a result of a literature study in chapter three. In order to determine whether or not it is complete a qualitative study is conducted in this section, which will test whether the 19 attributes of the conceptual model are in line with hurdles and benefits according to consumers. The qualitative study consists of two parts. In the first part individuals are interviewed and in the second part we have conducted groups discussions.
4.1.1. Method
Participants: For study one we have conducted seven individual and three
composition, gender, age and innovativeness. This is done in order to ensure that a representative group is interviewed and that different needs are taken into account.
Procedure: Participants in the individual discussion were asked questions
regarding (online) shopping and (online) grocery shopping. These questions (e.g.
what do you think of grocery shopping in general or can you explain your first thoughts if I mention online grocery shopping) were mainly used to get a discussion
started and in order to gain insights in whether there are additional hurdles or benefits regarding online grocery shopping. The discussion was focused on characteristics of the online grocery shop and its perceived relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, divisibility, communicability and risks.
During the group discussions a different approach was used. This time the participants received different quotes (e.g. if online grocery shopping is cheaper than shopping in a regular supermarket, than I will probably shop online for groceries or the benefits of online grocery shopping are…), which they had to share with the rest of the group and explain whether they agreed with the quotes or not and why this was the case. The quotes were used to gain insight into the different characteristics of online grocery shopping and its perceived relative advantage, compatibility, trial ability, communicability and perceived risk as well. However, in some cases additional questions were asked to the group, because the discussion of the quotes did not always lead to sufficient insights.
4.1.2 Conclusion
Conclusion individual discussions: During the individual discussions most
try shopping online for groceries, but they would still prefer to visit the offline channel as well next to the online channel.
Comparing the aspects, which are mentioned in our preliminary conceptual model and the findings of the different discussion, it can be stated that most of our aspects are confirmed. The participants state that the basics of the online grocery shop should work and should continue to work properly. If not, their trust in the online channel would decrease and they most probably will switch to the offline channel again. The same holds for the ordered groceries. They should all have the same quality as in the offline channel and the orders should always be complete (no missing articles). Moreover, the main focus for the advantage should be on the large assortment, delivery convenience (delivery fee, delivery time & delivery slots), it should be easy to use and comparable to offline grocery shopping (e.g. 3D environment). It was very interesting to see that most perceived hurdles were based on the delivery convenience and whether the online shop was reliable (server stability) than on payment or online information sharing. This was even the case for the participants who did not shop online at all.
Based on the individual study it can be stated that there are three additional aspects, which can be added to our preliminary conceptual model. The first one is the ability to shop at all supermarkets online (e.g. AH, C1000, Lidl, etc.). Participants have indicated to shop for groceries at multiple supermarkets. This means that if one of their preferred supermarkets does not offer the ability to shop online for groceries they would have to go to a regular supermarket for some products. This will probably create resistance towards online grocery shopping. The second one is the ability to purchase food and non-food products at the same time at one retailer. This option might be interesting for consumers as more and more products are purchased online and the necessity for them to be at home for deliveries is seen as a hurdle for online shopping. Therefore, by delivering all food and non-food products together this will save time and counteract the hurdle to shop online. The final one is the ability to receive the ordered groceries at home at the same time with other non-food products, even if they are not purchased at the same retailer. Both benefits indicate a need for convenience during the delivery phase.
satisfaction in the offline channel (average satisfaction in our case of 6,8 on a 1-10 scale) offer opportunities for online grocery shopping as well. By counteracting the main hurdles; i.e. the quality of the received goods should not be lower than in an offline environment (e.g. lower quality tomatoes), the delivery phase should be convenient (i.e. delivery fee & delivery options) and an online shop should be easy to use (time to order), the usage of online grocery shops could be increased. Moreover, to make it even more attractive to use an online grocery shop should offer additional benefits compared to a regular supermarket e.g. convenience, price and a larger assortment.
Conclusion group discussions: The group discussions lead to almost the same
conclusions as the conclusions of the individual interviews. However, it is important to note that during the group discussions the less innovative and less active shoppers were quite easy to convince by the other participants. Initially some participants showed distrust against the payment and information sharing risks. However, the distrust would diminish if other more experienced and innovative participants counteracted these argument with positive examples gained from experience. This might indicate that positive WOM could increase the rate of adoption as well. Another noticeable observation is the fact that the participants within the group discussions were less convinced of the price benefits they would receive from online grocery shopping. They also indicated that online shopping in general had a lower service level, as it is more difficult to contact employees in case of problems. The effort to solve the problem will cost additional time, which will overrule the “small” price benefit. Moreover, they argue that at this moment the prices between offline and online do not differ a lot for general products as well. This statement is formed by prior experience with online shopping. Finally, no additional hurdles or benefits, which are not mentioned in the preliminary conceptual model or in the individual discussions, are found.
General conclusion: Most participants are willing to try the online channel for
WOM and time restraint might positively influence the adoption of the online channel as well.
4.2 Study two – top six attributes
The first study has provided insight in whether there are additional hurdles or benefits, which have not been taken into account in the literature part. Based on these findings we have adapted our preliminary conceptual model and added three new hurdles and benefits (see figure 4.1). In order to determine the three most important hurdles and the three most important benefits we have conducted a second study in which all of the hurdles of figure 4.1 have been presented.
Figure 4.1:
Final conceptual model conjoint analysis
4.2.1 Method
Participants: For the second study we have asked the same participants from
Procedure: Two main questions were presented to the participants. In order to
find the top six benefits we have stated the first question in a positive way: i.e. I
would certainly shop online for groceries if… After the main questions all hurdles and
benefits are presented in a sentence form: e.g. if online grocery shopping is cheaper
than grocery shopping in a regular supermarket, or: if the order procedure in the online environment would be short. Participants were asked to choose and rank (1 to
6) the top six most important reasons for them to shop online for groceries. The same was done to find the top six hurdles, however, this time the main question and the choice were presented in a negative form: e.g. I would certainly not shop online for
groceries if… And again the hurdles and benefits were presented in a sentence form:
e.g. if online grocery shopping is more expensive than shopping in a regular
supermarket, or: if the procedure to order online takes long. This has resulted in the
following ranking:
Table 4.1:
Top six hurdles and benefits
Rank Hurdles Benefits
1 Delivery fees Time saving
2 Delivery options Price
3 Quality of ordered goods Order procedure
4 Delivery time Quality of ordered goods
5 Price Delivery time
6 Convenience Delivery options
The ranking in table 4.1 is formed in the following way. If a participant would rank a benefit or hurdle as the most important one, the hurdle or benefit would receive 6 points. The second most important hurdle or benefit would receive 5 points and so on until the sixth most important hurdle or benefit. If a hurdle or benefit would not receive a ranking at all it would receive 0 points. At the end the sum of all points has lead to the top six as presented in table 4.1.
4.2.2. Conclusion:
own products, but they do indicate that the quality of the order goods should be at least equally high as in the offline channel. This is in line with the most important benefit, namely the fact that online grocery shopping should really be time saving. If they would have to choose each product themselves, it would simply cost too much time. This also indicates that the benefit of online shopping should not only concern monetary benefits, but also non-monetary benefits, which are perceived as more important than monetary benefits. Next, the third most important benefit again indicates that time is very important. Thus, the time it takes for consumers to order and pay their groceries online should be as short as possible. It is however remarkable that the online payment and information sharing is not seen as an important hurdle. The same can be concluded for the assortment. It was expected that a larger assortment would be an important reason for consumers to purchase online.
It can be concluded that consumers need the online grocery shopping process to be as simple and fast as possible. This is the case for the order procedure and the entire delivery process as well. Thus, by only offering cheaper products the online channel cannot increase the adoption rate. These findings are in line with the findings of the individual and group discussions in which the respondents have indicated that the basics of the online grocery shop should work properly in order for them to consider adoption.
4.3 Study three – quantitative study
In this study the findings from the first two studies will be used to form a questionnaire (see appendix A) in order to conduct the final and quantitative study. First, it will be explained why a Choice Base Conjoint is used, followed by the survey development, the data collection and finally the data analysis.
4.3.1. Research method
Conjoint analysis: In this study we intend to explain what the perceived value of
