Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
The influence of hurdles and
benefits on the diffusion of online
grocery shopping
Retailing Beyond Borders
Foreword
Sipko Schat, Member Executive Board Rabobank
The ‘Anton Dreesmann Leerstoel voor Retailmarketing’ Foundation - su...
4
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the
diffusion of online grocery shopping:
How to improve the adoption rate in the...
6
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
Summary
Most retailers in the Netherlands have already been offering multiple channels to their customers
for many years ....
Table 1.1
The effect of consumer
characteristics on the
resistance and
adoption of online
grocery shopping

they do like s...
on the resistance. Characteristics, which are related to beneficial aspects of online grocery
shopping influence the adopt...
10
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
Preface
Our environment is changing rapidly. We are fully dependent on our smart phones, Internet and
social media. As a c...
Table of contents
Foreword	3
Summary	7
Preface	11
Table of contents	

12

1. Introduction	

15

§1.1 Research questions	

...
4. Methodology	

41

§4.1 Study one – qualitative study	

41

§4.2 Study two – top six attributes	

44

§4.3 Study three –...
14
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
1. Introduction
The enhancement of customer value has become very important for retailers (Neslin et al., 2006).
To achiev...
fit the definition of an online grocery shop, which is; “an online grocery shop offers the ability for
consumers to order ...
This leads to the conclusion that there is a large discrepancy between the intended consumer
behaviour and the actual beha...
An answer to this question will give food retailers better insight as to how to adapt their online
grocery shops in order ...
In the past the main interest in marketing literature regarding online grocery shopping, has been on
the socio-demographic...
20
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
2. Diffusion of innovations
This section will deal with literature regarding the diffusion of innovations. Since online gr...
an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual’ (Rogers, 1995; Gatignon & Robertson,
1989). It is ...
Therefore, even though online grocery shopping can be considered a service innovation, based on
the previous arguments no ...
The ‘time’ concept, the third concept of Rogers (1995) is a good method
to understand the diffusion of an innovation by lo...
across the categories is not always bell-shaped. This means that the largest group is not always in the
middle or at the e...
risks and follow the ‘low-effort hierarchy route’ will try the innovation first,
then form an attitude to consider the ado...
the ‘pro-innovation bias’ of researchers, who have often assumed that an innovation should diffuse
and therefore, resistan...
In the rejection type consumers have really evaluated the innovation, which has resulted in rejecting
(Rogers, 2003). Thus...
3. Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
The theory regarding innovations and their diffusion discussed in the p...
Figure 3.1:
Innovation Adoption
framework (adapted
from e.g. Ram, 1987;
Rogers, 1995; Kleijnen
et al., 2004)

§3.2 Innovat...
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw, 1988) have used
antecedents that are the same or correspond with ...
Figure 3.2:
Innovation resistance
framework (Ram &
Sheth, 1989).

to use the innovation. The image barrier occurs if the i...
A more detailed look at the risk barrier shows that different sub-risks influence the main risk barrier:
the (a) economic ...
Motivation: A consumer’s motivation for using online grocery shopping depends on the degree
in which they need grocery sho...
Need for convenience: Convenience is becoming more and more important for consumers. Verhoef
and Langerak (2001) already s...
degree of resistance and adoption (e.g. Rogers, 1983; Venkatraman, 1991). Additional aspects such as
the frequency of groc...
and if they react differently towards the innovation characteristics. It also
provides information on how food retailers s...
Complexity
Communicability

The possibility to try online grocery shopping on a
limited base in order to better understand...
§3.6 Conclusion
The different aspects, which are presented above, are used to form the
conceptual model in figure 3.3. The...
40
The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
4. Methodology
In the previous chapter a preliminary conceptual framework was presented (see figure 3.2).
However, this fr...
Procedure: Participants in the individual discussion were asked questions regarding (online)
shopping and (online) grocery...
Moreover, the main focus for the advantage should be on the large assortment, delivery convenience
(delivery fee, delivery...
risks. However, the distrust would diminish if other more experienced and innovative participants
counteracted these argum...
Figure 4.1: Final
conceptual model
conjoint analysis

4.2.1 Method
Participants: For the second study we have asked the sa...
in a sentence form: e.g. if online grocery shopping is more expensive than
shopping in a regular supermarket, or: if the p...
for consumers to order and pay their groceries online should be as short as possible. It is however
remarkable that the on...
Regression: Besides finding the importance per hurdle and benefit and potential segments, we are
also interested in the de...
and the willingness to re(try) an online shop. Each section is further explained below.
Section one- consumer characterist...
Table 4.2
Online Grocery Shop
design elements
Quality of ordered goods

Only in the afternoon

No items below quality

€ 4...
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Samir selimi   thesis- online grocery shopping
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Samir selimi thesis- online grocery shopping

1,706

Published on

Published in: Marketing, Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,706
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
82
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Samir selimi thesis- online grocery shopping"

  1. 1. The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping Retailing Beyond Borders
  2. 2. Foreword Sipko Schat, Member Executive Board Rabobank The ‘Anton Dreesmann Leerstoel voor Retailmarketing’ Foundation - supported by a group of leading retailers in the Netherlands - has chosen Rabobank as its partner to host and co-organise its annual congress. The initial partnership was for a period of three years (2011-2013), but based on the success of our cooperation we have agreed to extend it for at least three more years (2014-2016). We appreciate this opportunity to share views on retail with key players in the sector. The January 2013 congress, ‘Retailing Beyond Borders - Cooperation´ took place in the Duisenberg Auditorium in Utrecht. During this congress the ´Rabobank Anton Dreesmann Thesis Award´ was granted to Samir Selimi for his thesis on ´The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping´. Part of this award is the publication of the thesis as a book. The result is now in front of you. Capturing and embedding knowledge is important, both for Rabobank as a knowledge driven financial organisation and for retailers. We therefore support the initiatives of the Foundation to combine scholarly knowledge with retail practice. The ´Rabobank Anton Dreesmann Thesis Award´ is one of these initiatives. The thesis of Samir Selimi discusses an actual, relevant and interesting issue. The online food retail industry is underdeveloped compared to other online businesses. Various hurdles and benefits from the perspective of the online consumer are investigated. The thesis concludes that the hurdles are more important than the benefits, so retailers should focus on taking away the hurdles in order to drive online shopping. Furthermore the thesis provides some insights on different online market segments that are driven by different consumer preferences. Although the thesis is focussed on food retail, we think that the conclusions are also valuable for non-food retailers. I trust that the thesis will energise and inspire you to go out and grab the opportunities in the (online) retail market. Kind regards, Sipko Schat Member Executive Board Rabobank February 2013 3 Foreword
  3. 3. 4 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  4. 4. The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping: How to improve the adoption rate in the Dutch market? Samir Selimi1 under supervision of Prof. dr. L.M. Sloot2 Dr. M.C. Non2 1 Samir Selimi is an MSc student at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. The research was conducted as a graduation project for the studies Business Administration in Marketing Management and Marketing Research. Address for correspondence: Samir Selimi, Hereweg 104, 9725 AJ Groningen, The Netherlands; Tel. +31 622614931; E-mail: samir@selimi.nl; student number: s1912801. 2 Laurens Sloot is Professor of Retail Marketing and Mariëlle Non is Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, The Netherlands 5
  5. 5. 6 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  6. 6. Summary Most retailers in the Netherlands have already been offering multiple channels to their customers for many years . Although the beneficial effects of a multichannel approach are clear from literature, not all Dutch industries have managed to apply the approach successfully. An example of this can be found in the Dutch food industry, which, until recently, did not offer an online channel. However, take-up has increased in the past few years and many food retailers now offer an online channel for sales purposes. Nevertheless, it is still not widely used by the 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 able to invest in the most important aspects of the online environment. Not only are the characteristics of the online channel important, but the characteristics of consumers also play a great role. Even though food retailers are not able to influence consumer characteristics and how they feel or react to certain things, it can provide insight into 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 this question several research questions were formulated, which served as an outline for finding relevant literature. The findings led to the following conclusion and recommendations for management: The decision path of Rogers (1995) showed that the adoption depends on several stages. Therefore, food retailers should understand each step in order to enhance the adoption and decrease the resistance to online grocery shopping. The conclusions of the consumer characteristics, which are also part of the decision path of Rogers (1995), indicate that not all characteristics affect the resistance of the adoption. Table 1.1 shows the significant effects of the consumer characteristics on the resistance and adoption. • 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 7 Summary
  7. 7. Table 1.1 The effect of consumer characteristics on the resistance and adoption of online grocery shopping 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. • The results in table 1.1 also indicate that the characteristics, which are related to someone’s beliefs and values, have a higher effect 8 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  8. 8. 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. Unlike consumer characteristics, the 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 taken to order online is perceived as the most important attribute, but the quality of delivered goods, delivery fee and the delivery options are also seen as very important. The most significant change in usage is when the delivery option for receiving the goods in the afternoon is also added. • The segmented CBC analysis indicates that there are three segments: (1) the price benefit, (2) the quality and delivery options and (3) the time benefit. The first segment comprises mainly lower educated people who are more often unemployed, the second segment consists mainly of women who are responsible for the grocery shopping. The final segment includes the most highly educated, who have the highest income and like 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. However, the effects do differ between the three segments and therefore, one strategy is not sufficient to meet the needs of all potential segments. 9 Summary
  9. 9. 10 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  10. 10. Preface Our environment is changing rapidly. We are fully dependent on our smart phones, Internet and social media. As a consumer I can fully relate to these changes. They influence my daily life and offer many benefits. However, these changes also have a large effect on my work as a marketer. Consumers react differently across all the channels and are more demanding. This thesis has helped me to better understand the effect of the online channel on the consumer’s preference and vice versa. The input, which I have received from my supervisors, Laurens Sloot and Mariëlle Non, was of great value and provided me with new insights regarding this topic and academic research in general. Therefore, I would like to thank them for their support during this research. Moreover, I am also very grateful for their comments and suggestions, which have added significantly to the value of this thesis. Finally, I would also like to thank my friends and family for motivating me and providing me with very useful tips. Without the support of the above, writing this thesis would not have been as interesting as it was. Samir Selimi 11 Preface
  11. 11. Table of contents Foreword 3 Summary 7 Preface 11 Table of contents 12 1. Introduction 15 §1.1 Research questions 17 §1.2 Relevance & uniqueness of thesis 18 §1.3 Outline 19 2. Diffusion of innovations 21 §2.1 Online shopping (e-shopping) 21 §2.2 Innovations 21 §2.3 Diffusion of innovations 23 §2.4 Diffusion path 25 §2.5 Resistance vs. Adoption 26 §2.6 Conclusion 28 3. Factors influencing the resistance and adoption 29 §3.1 Factors, underlying antecedents and adoption path 29 §3.2 Innovation characteristics 30 §3.3 Consumer characteristics (moderator) 33 §3.4 Adoption path- willingness to retry and degree of resistance 36 §3.5 Conceptual model for conjoint study 36 §3.6 Conclusion 39 12 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  12. 12. 4. Methodology 41 §4.1 Study one – qualitative study 41 §4.2 Study two – top six attributes 44 §4.3 Study three – quantitative study 47 5. Results 53 §5.1 Sample and sample characteristics 53 §5.2 Measurement purification 57 §5.3 Regressions 61 §5.4 Conjoint analysis 72 6. Conclusions & managerial implication 87 §6.1 Conclusion 87 §6.2 Managerial implications 91 §6.3 Implications for Truus.nl and Appie.nl 93 7. Limitations and directions for further research 97 References 99 Colofon 111 Disclaimer 112 13 Table of Contents
  13. 13. 14 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  14. 14. 1. 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 less 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 to force retailers in investing 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 organisational 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). Even though the beneficial effects of a multichannel approach are clear from literature, not all Dutch industries have been able to profit from it. While most Dutch 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 15 Introduction
  15. 15. 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 best fits this definition. From 2010 until the beginning of 2011 Albert Heijn (AH) was the only Dutch food retailer to 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 have enabled 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. In 2010 the total online spending in the Netherlands, for products, increased by 10% to €4.2 billion (Thuiswinkel.org, 2011; ING, 2011). This is approximately a share of 5% of the total Dutch retail market in 2010. However, a comparison with food related figures show that less than 1% of the total spending on groceries is done online (ING, 2011). Albert Heijn, for example, which had a monopoly until the beginning of 2011, had an online turnover of ±€150 million in 2010. This was approximately 1.49% of their total turnover (ING, 2011; Ahold.nl, 2011). While in the Netherlands online spending is quite low, in other countries, for example the UK, the online grocery market already accounts for 3.2% (€5.55 billion) of their total food sector in 2010 (IGD, 2011) and is expected to grow to €10 billion by 2015. These figures and the previously mentioned figures regarding the general online market in the Netherlands, indicate that the online channel can still offer many opportunities for Dutch food retailers and can still be expected to grow. Alongside 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 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 characterise 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). 16 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  16. 16. 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 was measured based on more general metrics and combined with the limited experience of the participants this might have led 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 restraints 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. Hence, the aim of this study will be to find out which characteristics of an online grocery shop have negative and which have positive influences on the intention for consumers to engage in online grocery shopping. It has been decided to study the effects of the online grocery shop itself, in order to provide Dutch food retailers with insights, which are more controllable. Contrary to non-controllable aspects (e.g. time restraints) our findings enable food retailers to assess 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 omitted, as they are needed to provide insight as to 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 into 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?” 17 Introduction
  17. 17. An answer to this question will give food retailers better insight as to how to adapt their online grocery shops in order 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. According to literature, which consumer characteristics cause resistance and which increase the rate of adoption of online grocery shopping? 3. According to literature, which characteristics of online grocery shops cause resistance or increase the rate of adoption of online grocery shopping? 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? 6. What is the best strategy per adopter group to diminish the resistance and increase the adoption of online grocery shopping? These research questions serve as an outline in to finding relevant literature regarding hurdles and benefits towards online grocery shopping. 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 either 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 from 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 into 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 . 18 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  18. 18. In the past the main interest in marketing literature regarding online grocery shopping, has been on the socio-demographic profile of home shoppers (Cunningham & Cunningham, 1973, Darian, 1987; Gillet, 1976; Peters & Ford, 1972; Reynolds, 1974). Only a few studies have investigated the influences of both personal characteristics and innovation characteristics on the adoption of innovations (e.g., Hirschman, 1980; Labay & Kinnear, 1981; Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Wilson & Reynolds, 2006). However, these studies were only able to measure the intention to purchase groceries online when online grocery shopping was not available for consumers (e.g. Verhoef & Langerak, 2001: Wilson & Reynolds, 2006). This might be the reason why there is a large discrepancy between positive consumer intention and the actual behaviour towards online grocery shopping. Since online shopping and online grocery shopping is more common and consumers now have better knowledge of it, 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 from 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 This paper will offer more information with regard to innovations and the diffusion of innovations. Also, a more detailed view of resistance and adoption is provided in chapter two. In chapter three a theoretical framework will be presented. This initial framework is used to form the methodology in chapter four which will be followed by the results of the three statistical analyses in chapter five. Finally, the results from chapter five will be used to formulate the conclusion and the managerial implications in chapter six. In chapter seven the limitations and directions for further research are provided. 19 Introduction
  19. 19. 20 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  20. 20. 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 into this topic a better understanding can be formed of how online grocery shops can be diffused throughout the market. 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 such 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). 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 The introduction of new products and services is necessary for retailers in order to ensure future sales and growth (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2008). However, many commercial organisations are still faced with high failure rates, as many innovations are not adopted by consumers (Moore, 2002; Tauber, 1973; Rogers, 1983). Therefore, in order for innovations to be successful a better understanding is needed of what an 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 21 Diffusion of innovations
  21. 21. 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 characterise 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 characterised 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). For online grocery shopping a significant change in consumer behaviour and habits is required, as in the online channel consumers would have to purchase their groceries in a new way when compared to the current way of grocery shopping. Moreover, they are not able to perform some tasks, which are possible in the offline channel; e.g. feeling and smelling the products (Darian 1987; Tauber, 1972). This is in line with findings from Jager (2003) who states that when an action is performed very often a habit occurs, which is also the case for the traditional way of grocery shopping in the offline channel. Thus, Dutch consumers who switch to online grocery shopping require a change in their current habits regarding grocery shopping and even need to use new technologies to perform the same task (e.g. use of internet and online payment). This leads to the conclusion that online grocery shopping can be categorised as a discontinuous innovation (Robertson, 1971; Hansen, 2005; Moreau, Markman & Lehman, 2001; Molesworth & Suortti, 2001). 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, to the 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. 22 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  22. 22. 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 Besides the importance of understanding what an innovation is, it is also important to know why innovations do (not) diffuse, because it is necessary for an innovation to diffuse properly in order for it to be successful (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008). Several studies have investigated the successful diffusion of innovations (e.g. Rogers, 1995; Mahajan, Muller & Bass, 1995) and the challenges that are present when an innovation diffuses (Moore, 1991; Moreau et al. 2001; Rogers, 1995). While some studies have been more focused on high-tech innovations and their technological discontinuities (Moore, 1991; Linton, 2002), others have focused on low-tech innovations (Atkin, Garcia & Lockshin, 2006). High-tech innovations are often related to technological discontinuities while low-tech innovations are more often related to discontinuities regarding consumers and their behaviour (Atkin, et al. 2006). Aspects from both sides influence online grocery shopping as the technological discontinuities arise due to the necessity to use new technologies; e.g. new distribution systems, Internet and a web shop. Behavioural discontinuities are present due to consumers’ strong habits in the offline grocery channel. Therefore, it is necessary for Dutch food retailers to understand how innovations diffuse throughout 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 widely used 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. 23 Diffusion of innovations
  23. 23. The ‘time’ concept, the third 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 categorisation 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 rate is determined by the match between the innovation and the norms, values and the degree of interconnection within the social system. The better the fit the higher the diffusion rate (Hoyer & McInnis, 2008). An important note regarding the adopter categorisation Figure 2.1: Stages of innovativeness (Rogers, 1995) and S-shaped diffusion curve (Bass, 1969) framework of Rogers (1995) is the critique that some studies have shown towards the number of adoption categories. They state that the amount of categories differs per innovation (e.g. Shih & Venkatesh, 2004; Peterson, 1973; Darden & Reynolds, 1974; Baumgarten, 1975). Also, the division of consumers 24 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  24. 24. across 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. 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. 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 innovation’s diffusion performance and whether extra action is needed to enhance the adoption rate or whether it just needs more time. §2.4 Diffusion path Insight which is provided by Rogers’ (1995) concepts aid us in better understanding innovations and what has to be done in order to have a successful introduction and diffusion of an innovation. However, besides insight into the innovation itself, some insight into consumers and how they adopt an innovation (adoption path) is needed. According to Rogers (1995), the diffusion of an innovation follows a specific 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 as to 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 individual’s routine and thus if the innovation will be used again. Hoyer & McInnis (2008), on the other hand, state that the diffusion path (route) is influenced by the consumer’s motivation, ability and opportunity (MAO) and therefore might differ per individual. If the perceived risk (e.g. physical, social, economic financial or safety) is high then individuals are most likely to choose the so-called ‘high-effort hierarchy route’ (Hoyer & McInnis, 2008). This is often the case for discontinuous innovations, as these kinds of innovations are relatively new and different from existing alternatives (Moreau, Lehman & Markman, 2001). Therefore, individuals require additional information regarding the innovation (Moreau, Lehman & Markman, 2001). Individuals who follow the ‘high-effort hierarchy route’ will gather information first, after they have become aware of an innovation, and then form an attitude towards the innovation. In case of a positive attitude it can result in trial and finally, this can lead to the adoption of an innovation. However, individuals who do not perceive any 25 Diffusion of innovations
  25. 25. risks and follow the ‘low-effort hierarchy route’ will try the innovation first, then form an attitude to consider the adoption of the innovation. Thus, by providing consumers with enough information, their perceived risk could be lowered, which 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 the consumer’s perception regarding these factors. Most important in the diffusion process is the attitude of the consumer and whether or not it is Figure 2.2: Five stages of the decision path (Rogers, 1995) positive towards the innovation, which is formed in the third stage (see figure 2.2). Therefore, extra insight into resistance and adoption is provided in the next sub-chapter. §2.5 Resistance vs. Adoption As figure 2.2 shows, consumers decide at the third step, after evaluating the gathered information, whether they resist or try an innovation. The decision at 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). Still many studies often do not differentiate adoption from resistance and consider them as opposites. This statements would leade to the fales conlsuion that consumers who have no resistance towards an innovation will automatically adopt it (Nahib, Bleom & Poiesz, 1997). According to Rogers (1995) the main reason for this assumption has been 26 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  26. 26. the ‘pro-innovation bias’ of researchers, who 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 categorisation 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. The understanding of resistance is crucial for successful innovation diffusion; therefore insight into the reasoning of consumers in resisting innovations is necessary (O’Conner, Parsons, Liden & Herold, 1990; Midgley & Dowling, 1993; Szmigin & 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 categorisation 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 conflicts with their belief structure (i.e. barrier/hurdles)’ (Ram & Sheth, 1989; Hirschheim & Newman, 1988; Ram, 1987). It also suggests that resistance is based on the 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 previously stated, 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 of three types of behaviour; i.e. (1) rejection, (2) postponement and (3) opposition. 27 Diffusion of innovations
  27. 27. In the rejection type consumers have really evaluated the innovation, which has resulted in rejecting (Rogers, 2003). Thus, the rejection does not simply occur because consumers ignore new innovations or because they are not aware of them, but they have consciously made the decision. Also, according to Lee and Clark (1996-1997) consumers who reject an innovation are often suspicious of new innovations and are not willing to change their status quo (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988). In the 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 for different reasons (Kleijnen, Lee & Wetzels, 2009). The weakest form of resistance is postponement (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998), followed by the rejection. Both postponement and rejection mainly occur because of perceived risk, while the strongest form of resistance, 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 and thus, the resistance should be decreased first in order to increase the adoption rate (Fortin & Renton, 2003). §2.6 Conclusion The information, which is provided in this chapter, has shown that not all innovations are the same and that different approaches are needed in order to increase the adoption rate. Moreover, aspects, which are not directly related to the innovation, also require the attention of retailers when the online channel is launched or adapted; aspects such as the channel through which the innovation is introduced or the information which is necessary to decrease potential resistance. Furthermore, the final part has shown that resistance is not the opposite of adoption and therefore, should be treated differently. Therefore in chapter three insights will be provided into the aspects that create resistance towards online grocery shops and aspects, which can ensure that consumers adopt the online channel for grocery shopping. Using these insights a model will be built, which will aid in the search for theory based hurdles and benefits towards online grocery shopping. 28 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  28. 28. 3. Factors influencing the resistance and adoption The theory regarding innovations and their diffusion discussed in the previous chapter is used here 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 sub-chapter 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. Next, 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, are discussed. Finally, in sub-chapter 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 We already know that adoption and resistance are influenced in a different manner and that adoption only occurs if the resistance is overcome, a framework will be built to visualise which antecedents influence the resistance and the adoption of an innovation (see figure 3.1). The framework is based on various relevant theories on the diffusion of innovations e.g. the Diffusion model of Rogers (1995), the (TRA) Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Sheppard, Hartwick and Warshaw, 1988), the (TAM) Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), the (TPB) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and the Innovation resistance theory of Ram (1987). The theory of Ram (1987) is one of the few who explicitly mentions the difference between resistance and adoption, even though his model corresponds with most of the before mentioned models. Based on the previously mentioned theories it has been decided to use the (1) innovation characteristics and (2) the consumer characteristics as the two main factors in our model (see figure 3.1). The underlying antecedents have also been formed based on several theories. The choice for each antecedent is further explained in the next parts. Finally, the degree of resistance, the willingness to (re)try online grocery shopping and the process for both aspects is also mentioned. Insight into the process of both aspects is needed. Insight into the influence of the consumer characteristics on the degree of resistance and the willingness to (re)try online grocery shopping can aid in the detection and selection of potential segments. 29 Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
  29. 29. Figure 3.1: Innovation Adoption framework (adapted from e.g. Ram, 1987; Rogers, 1995; Kleijnen et al., 2004) §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 30 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  30. 30. (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)) Where Rogers’s (1995) framework measures the antecedents that influence the adoption of an innovation, the framework of Ram and Sheth (1989) measure the opposite, namely the resistance. However, most of the barriers that are mentioned by Ram and Sheth (1989) show large resemblances to 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 from two main barriers; i.e. (1) the psychological barrier 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). 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 31 Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
  31. 31. Figure 3.2: Innovation resistance framework (Ram & Sheth, 1989). to use the innovation. The image barrier occurs if the innovation does not fit with 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. The second main barrier; i.e. (2) the functional barrier is also influenced by sub-barriers. The first one is the usage sub-barrier, which increases if the innovation is not compatible with existing habits, patterns or the way consumers perform the same task. This sub-barrier is in line with the compatibility characteristic of Rogers (1995). 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. 32 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  32. 32. A more detailed look at the risk barrier shows that different sub-risks influence the main risk barrier: the (a) economic risk, (b) functional risk, (c) social risk and (d) physical risk. The 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 the consumers’ perception. §3.3 Consumer characteristics (moderator) While the innovation characteristics are fully controllable by the food retailers, the consumer characteristics are not at all controllable. This means that food retailers can only use this information to better understand the formation of an attitude by consumers towards online grocery shopping. All characteristics will provide separate insights as to their influence on the degree of resistance and the willingness to (re)try online grocery shopping. Moreover, a better understanding can be formed on the importance of the innovation characteristics and potential differences between consumer(groups). With this information food retailers are better able to understand customers and, if necessary, adapt innovations to meet their needs (Zaltman, Duncan & Holbek, 1973). In our conjoint analysis the consumer characteristics will be taken into account as a moderating effect, in order to identify potential segments. This will enable food retailers to better understand which adopter groups like and which dislike shopping online for groceries. This is necessary in order to make the innovation appealing to the most important adopter groups (Rogers, 1995), and 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 using 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 the consumer’s degree of technology readiness influences the usage and adoption of online grocery shopping. 33 Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
  33. 33. Motivation: A consumer’s motivation for using online grocery shopping depends on the degree in 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 (Bridges & 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 is of course lower in an online environment. 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 then alternatives should be offered for the interaction. Time pressure: Consumers with a higher time pressure are more likely to look for alternatives (Childers, Carr, Peck and Carson, 2001). This is also acknowledged by the study of Rogers (1995). In his study he states that consumers with a lower 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 aspect 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 into the effect and influence of the privacy concerns can help 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, then food retailers could use this information to attract consumers who already use other online services as well. 34 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  34. 34. 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 a 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 consumer can influence consumers in a positive way and increase the chance of trying new shopping services (Childers et al., 2001; Davis, 1989; Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). Therefore, it is expected that consumers who like shopping in general have a higher chance of trying online grocery shopping, even if it is solely for fun. 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 gathering information and using new products and services (Baumgartner & Steenkmp, 1996). This is not related to technologies, but it gives an indication of whether someone is open to gathering information or using 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 previously stated, it is expected 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 depends 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, demographics and grocery shopping behaviour are taken into account. Aspects such as age, gender and household composition might influence the 35 Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
  35. 35. degree of resistance and adoption (e.g. Rogers, 1983; Venkatraman, 1991). Additional aspects such as the frequency of grocery shopping, time spent on each visit to regular supermarket and the person who is responsible for the grocery shopping within a household are also 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. §3.4 Adoption path- willingness to retry and degree of resistance Alongside the influencing antecedents and the moderators our framework also shows the adoption path, which is adapted from Ram (1987) and (Kleijnen et al., 2009), as our framework indicates a too high degree of resistance might lead to one of the resistance forms (i.e. postponement, opposition and rejection). However, if an individual decides to resist 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 then 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 at a later stage (Kleijnen et al., 2009). Therefore, both the degree of resistance and the willingness to retry online grocery shopping will also be analysed. This is done in order to provide insight into the influence of the consumer characteristics on both variables. In chapter two it has been mentioned already 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). Therefore, a better understanding is needed of the influence of consumer characteristics on the resistance and the adoption. §3.5 Conceptual model for conjoint study As previously mentioned, consumer characteristics are not controllable and therefore, only used to better understand potential users. Food retailers, however, can influence the innovation characteristics. Therefore, the antecedents of this dimension are further investigated in this subchapter 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 36 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  36. 36. 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 characteristics will be studied in our conjoint model. In order to depict the most important characteristics, first an overview is given of the hurdles and benefits of online (grocery) shopping, which have been found in prior studies (e.g. Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Hand, Riley, Harris, Singh & Rettie, 2008; Kurnia & Chien, 2003). Through the use of these and other studies a conceptual framework is formed in which the six innovation characteristics, mentioned in table 3.1, function as a base for the framework. Additionally, a short explanation is provided for each aspect in table 3.2 and the sources of each aspect are also provided. Table 3.2: Theory based hurdles and benefits of online grocery shopping 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; WilsonJeanselme & 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 Larger assortments compared to bricks-and-mortar grocery shops and easier to compare. Grewa et al., 2004; Chu et al. 2010; WilsonJeanselme & Reynolds 2006; Alba et al. 1997; Darian 1987 Shopping enjoyment is less possible during online grocery shopping (hedonic motivations). Compatibility Sources (e.g.) Price advantage compared to an offline store. Relative advantage Aspect 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 Consumers have to pay a delivery fee. Huang & Oppewal, 2006; Småros, Holmström & Kämäräinen, 2000 37 Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
  37. 37. Complexity Communicability 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 The online shop(ping) should not differ too greatly from current online shops (non grocery products). Reinders et al. 2008 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 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 Not being able to ask questions to employees (no interaction possible). Perceived Risk Sources (e.g.) The perceived risk of doing business over the internet (Payment, information sharing) Divisibility Aspect Reinders et al. 2008; Shankar et al., 2002 38 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  38. 38. §3.6 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 through 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 3.3: Preliminary conceptual model 39 Factors influencing the resistance and adoption
  39. 39. 40 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  40. 40. 4. Methodology In the previous chapter a preliminary conceptual framework was presented (see figure 3.2). 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). 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 3.2) 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 group discussions (three individuals per group). During the group discussion both active and non-active (online) shoppers were interviewed at the same time in order to create a better discussion and to gain insight into whether there are differences between the two groups. These differences would also aid in understanding the completeness of our conceptual model in figure 3.2. Differences between active and non-active (online) shoppers have also been taken into account during the individual discussions. Moreover, participants were also selected on the following criteria: household 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. 41 Methodology
  41. 41. 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 into 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, then 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 or not they agreed with the quotes 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 participants indicated that they did not really think about shopping for groceries in a different way, as their current way of grocery shopping was part of their life. They were simply used to shopping for groceries in a certain way. Additionally they stated that grocery shopping in a regular supermarket offers hedonic aspects as well and is not always only for utilitarian purposes (e.g. I like to just visit the supermarket and I do not perceive it as only something that is necessary). On the other hand, they also acknowledge that their satisfaction with shopping in the offline channel for groceries is low (an average of 6.8 on a scale of 1-10). Moreover, the satisfaction (average of 6) is even lower for participants who work full-time and/or have children. They even see online grocery shopping during the week as a burden. Overall, people are willing to try shopping online for groceries, but they would still prefer to visit the offline channel as well as using the online channel. Comparing the aspects, which are mentioned in our preliminary conceptual model and the findings of the different discussions, 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 back 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). 42 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  42. 42. 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 that they 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. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the individual discussions is that consumers prefer the hedonic aspect of offline shopping and the control they have on the quality of the goods they purchase. However, the time restraint and the decreasing 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 with a regular supermarket e.g. convenience, price and a larger assortment. Conclusion group discussions: The group discussions led 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 towards the payment and information sharing 43 Methodology
  43. 43. risks. However, the distrust would diminish if other more experienced and innovative participants counteracted these arguments 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 greatly 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 grocery shopping. Their main concern is more towards the quality difference of the received goods and convenience of ordering groceries via the online channel (e.g. delivery and order time) than on online payment or information sharing. Positive WOM and time restraint might also positively influence the adoption of the online channel. §4.2 Study two – top six attributes The first study has provided insight into 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 have 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. 44 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  44. 44. Figure 4.1: Final conceptual model conjoint analysis 4.2.1 Method Participants: For the second study we have asked the same participants from the first study and ten additional participants to choose their top six hurdles and top six benefits. The same criteria are used for the additional ten participants as the criteria mentioned in study one (e.g. active/non active (online) shoppers, household composition, gender, age and innovativeness). The additional ten respondents are added in order to increase the sample, as the study is a more quantitative one than the first study. 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 45 Methodology
  45. 45. 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 Table 4.1: Theory based hurdles and benefits of online grocery shopping Rank a long time. This has resulted in the following ranking: 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 It is clearly visible that the entire delivery process of grocery shopping is really seen as a large hurdle. Not only are the costs of the delivery important, but also the number of delivery possibilities per day and the time that it takes to receive the groceries. Moreover, it seems that consumers do not want the ability to choose their own products, but they do indicate that the quality of the order goods should be at least as equally high as 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 46 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  46. 46. 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 quick as possible. This is also the case for the order procedure and the entire delivery process. 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 online grocery shopping is for consumers. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2010) state that consumers evaluate the value of an object by combining the separate amounts of value provided by each attribute in the object, which are in our case the hurdles and benefits. The value in turn determines whether the service is adopted or resisted by the consumer. Hence, in our study consumers evaluate the different sets of attributes and form a perceived value based on the separate values of the attributes. Therefore, for our research a conjoint analysis is most appropriate (e.g. Hair et al, 2010; Malhotra, 2010), especially if we compare our description with the definition of a conjoint analysis according to Malhotra (2010): “a conjoint analysis attempts to determine the relative importance consumers attach to salient attributes and the utilities they attach to the levels of attributes”. However, there are different forms of conjoint methods e.g. traditional conjoint analysis, adaptive conjoint analysis and the choice based conjoint analysis and not all are suited for our study (Hair et al., 2010; Orme, 2009). In our study we have chosen to use the Choice-Based-Conjoint (CBC) method, because compared to the standard conjoint and an adaptive conjoint analysis the tasks in a choice based conjoint analysis represent the market behaviour more directly. Furthermore, it is recommended to use no more than six attributes in a CBC analysis (Hair et al., 2010; Malhotra, 2010). 47 Methodology
  47. 47. Regression: Besides finding the importance per hurdle and benefit and potential segments, we are also interested in the degree of resistance and the willingness to (re)try online grocery shopping. Both are measured at an individual level (Leeflang, Witting, Wedel & Naert, 2000). The willingness to (re)try is measured with the use of a Likert-scale (i.e. 1-very unlikely to 5 -very likely) and the resistance is measured based on the following choices; (1) whether someone is likely to try online grocery shopping very soon, (2) in the future, (3) not at all or (4) not at all and will use negative WOM in order to stop others from using it as well. The willingness to (re)try is measured with three items all on a five-point Likert scale. Initially this could be analysed by using an Ordered Multinomial Logistic Regression (Leeflang et al., 2000). However, as we intend to take the average of the three items to form one construct, an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method will suffice. The reason is because the five categories on which the items are measured disappear and the output becomes a scale variable (Hair et al., 2010; Leeflang et al., 2000). The degree of resistance is measured by using four categories. Initially the use of a Multinomial Logistic Regression would seem a proper way to analyse this. However, the different options contain a specific order, as the first option contains no resistance and the other three options increase in resistance ending with the highest in the fourth option. Therefore, the resistance will be analysed by using an Ordered Multinomial Logistic regression (Hair et al., 2010; Leeflang et al., 2000). For both regressions the consumer characteristics and the demographics will be used as covariates to better understand which consumer characteristics lead to resistance and which to adoption. The data is cross sectional in both cases (Leeflang et al., 2000). 4.3.2 Survey development After choosing the research design and conjoint method we developed the questionnaire, which consists of three sections. The first section of the questionnaire concerns the measures with regard to consumer characteristics. These measurements will provide insight into the moderating effects of the different consumer characteristics, it will enable segmentation and the respondents are triggered to think about their (online) grocery shopping behaviour. The latter is necessary in order to prepare respondents for the stimuli part, as they have to think about it in the first part. Moreover, the consumer characteristics will also be used as independent variables in order to study whether they influence the degree of resistance and the current willingness to (re)try online grocery shopping. In the second section of the questionnaire, the stimuli are presented. Respondents can choose their most preferred online grocery shop, which resulted from the top three hurdles and top three benefits. Finally, section three will provide insight in the degree of resistance towards online grocery shopping 48 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping
  48. 48. and the willingness to re(try) an online shop. Each section is further explained below. Section one- consumer characteristics: Section one contains the measures with regard to consumer characteristics, which are: technology readiness, motivation, need for interaction, time pressure, attitude towards online channel (privacy), current usage of online shops, current knowledge of online shopping, travel costs/time, shopping enjoyment, grocery shopping behaviour and demographics. These questions have been presented on a 5-point Likert scale (1- totally disagree to 5- totally agree), as it is a proper scale to measure consumer attitudes (Malhotra, 2008) and is perceived as easier when compared to a 7-point Likert scale. The questions for the characteristics are formed by using existing measurements, which have been found in literature. In some cases we have formed our own questions to enable the measurement of all characteristics. Each measurement and its source is explained in appendix A. Section two- stimulus presentation: This section is formed with the use of study two. In table 4.2 the different hurdles and benefits are shown. Each one is further divided into three attribute levels. The levels are formed by using real life examples and literature (e.g. AH.nl, 2012; Wilson & Reynolds, 2006). The formation of the questions for the conjoint part is performed with the use of Sawtooth software (sawtoothsoftware.com, 2012). To limit the amount of questions, Sawtooth calculates which combination of questions makes sure that the efficiency per level is at least 0.80. This ensures that each level is properly represented in the calculation of the utility. The combination of questions is based on the amount of attributes, amount of levels, amount of respondents and the amount of versions used in the questionnaire. In our case we have six attributes and three levels per attribute. To limit the amount of questions we have used three versions of the conjoint questions. This means that we have three different sets of questions in the conjoint part of our questionnaire. This also allows us to achieve an efficiency of at least 0.80 for each level with approximately 200 respondents (N=200). Each set comprises seven questions, which in turn consists of two stimuli. The stimuli are the combination of the different levels mentioned in table 4.2. Each stimulus consists of six levels (see appendix B2). The efficiency score for each level is, in this case, at least 0,87, thereby fulfilling the requirement for a conjoint design (Hair et al., 2010). Next to the seven randomly selected questions with the use of Sawtooth software, we will present one hold-out question as well. In this question we have formed two stimuli, which allows us to check how accurate the estimated model predicts the hold-out sets (Hair et al., 2010). 49 Methodology
  49. 49. Table 4.2 Online Grocery Shop design elements Quality of ordered goods Only in the afternoon No items below quality € 4,99 delivery fee Afternoon and evening 1 out of 20 items is below quality €9,99 delivery fee Free choice 1 out of 10 items is below quality Time saving Price Order procedure Saves no extra time Benefits Deliver options No delivery fee Hurdles Delivery Fees No price difference 20 minutes to place and order Saves 5% of total shopping time 5% cheaper than regular supermarket 40 minutes to place an order Saves 10% of total shopping time 10% cheaper than regular supermarket 1 hour to place an order During the questionnaire respondents are thus offered two options each time. The none-option is left out, because it is expected that consumers might choose for the none-option too often as they have little experience with online grocery shopping. The tasks and the efficiency of each level are provided in appendix B2 and the different conjoint questions are provided in appendix B1. Section three- demographics and shopping behaviour: In the final section the following measurements are used; willingness to (re)use online grocery shopping (5-point scale from 1-very unlikely to 5-very likely), satisfaction with current offline grocery shopping and general online shopping (grade from 1-very dissatisfied to 10-very satisfied), degree of resistance (four categories) and finally the socio demographic characteristics and the current (online) shopping behaviour. The demographics and shopping behaviour questions range from gender and age to the frequency of grocery shopping in a general supermarket. The overview of all questions is provided in appendix A. 50 The influence of hurdles and benefits on the diffusion of online grocery shopping

×