Journeying Together: Aligning Retailer and Service ...

A

ebocsrpmttr©

K

nsma(2tioat

a

h0

Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

Journeying Together: Aligning Retailer and Service Provider Roles withCollective Consumer Practices

Tandy Chalmers Thomas a,∗, Amber M. Epp b, Linda L. Price c

a Stephen J.R. Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, 143 Union St., Kingston, ON K7L 7N6, Canadab School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Grainger Hall, 975 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706, United States

c Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, 1208 University St, Eugene, OR 97403, United States

Available online 31 December 2019

bstract

Consumer journeys offers a powerful metaphor that has inspired diverse strategic frameworks to aid retailers in managing and designing customerxperiences. Absent from existing frameworks, however, is a clear understanding of the journeys consumers perform as a collective that is boundy a shared identity and communal goals. Yet, whether taking vacations, going out to dinner, facing a health crisis, or setting up a household, muchf consumers’ lives are spent journeying together. With families as our focal collective, we adopt a social practice theory lens and integrate prioronsumer research related to collective practice dynamics (identity goal interplay, connectedness, and corporeality) to articulate what retailershould consider when designing collective journeys. Using this theoretical foundation, we build a conceptual framework that identifies three rolesetailers play in collective journeys: central, mediated, and dispersed. We differentiate each role by the core value retailers provide to consumerractices as well as the collective dynamic challenges implicated. Our framework highlights the need for retailers to structure their offerings toatch the dynamics of families’ collective journeys. To explore this matching process more fully, we introduce the idea of ‘fields of alignment’ as

he social spaces where retailers and consumers actively negotiate, improvise, and experiment to align around common frames for action. We use
he concept of fields of alignment to generate implications for retailers, propose guidelines for managerial action, and present avenues for futureesearch.
2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

es; A

fipfvea

cabS

eywords: Retailing; Service providers; Consumer journeys; Collective practic

Introduction

In this article, we present a framework that describes the jour-eys that consumers perform as collectives that are bound by ahared identity and communal goals. The conscious design andanagement of consumer experiences has garnered increased

ttention from marketing scholars and retailers in recent yearsSchmitt 1999, 2003, 2011; Schmitt, Brakus, and Zarantonello015; Verhoef et al. 2009). In part, we attribute this interest tohe proliferation of new technologies, augmented reality, andnnovative retail spaces that open up possibilities and stoke
ur imaginations for what comes next (Grewal, Roggeveen,nd Nordfält 2017; Heller et al. 2019). Recent work concep-ualizes “customer experience as a customer’s ‘journey’ with a
∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.C. Thomas),

[email protected] (A.M. Epp), [email protected] (L.L. Price).

a(a(odb

ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.008022-4359/© 2019 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserv

lignment frames; Customer experience

rm over time during the purchase cycle across multiple touchoints” (Lemon and Verhoef 2016, p. 74–76). Consumer journeyrameworks offer a window into customer experience and pro-ide retailers with some structure for managing experiences bymphasizing how to strategically improve touchpoints (Lemonnd Verhoef 2016).

Emerging research moves beyond the traditional purchaseycle boundaries of a consumer journey. This work examines

more diverse range of touchpoints to consider what happensefore and after experiences with retailers (Mende et al. 2019;eybold 2001; Vredeveld and Coulter 2019), how touchpointscross a retailer’s multiple channels influence decision processesAnderl, Schumann, and Kunz 2016; Herhausen et al. 2019),nd the ways consumer journeys facilitate broader life projectsHamilton and Price 2019). There is also increasing recognition
f the social nature of journeys within this emerging work thatocuments the role of other consumers, peers, and employees asoth direct and indirect touchpoints that influence consumers’
ed.

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.008&domain=pdf

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.008

mailto:[email protected]



https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2019.11.008

1 l of R

ea2

aaarwBRRataL

aaarwBRRaetci

tolO2tavaspanisaaerCm

jaad

Fstbct2aasntsaTifg2mtptpe2

apisohcdrep

fetPtjAecsc

ct

0 T.C. Thomas et al. / Journa

xperiences (Baxendale, Macdonald, and Wilson 2015; Dahlnd Argo 2019; Grove and Fisk 1997; Lemon and Verhoef016).

Yet, explicitly absent from this literature is a focus on how collective journeys together. In these journeys, members of collective, who are united by a shared collective identitynd communal goals, perform a journey together. There are aange of consumption situations where consumers do thingsith others, such as consuming in the presence of others (e.g.,oothby, Clark, and Bargh 2014; McFerran and Jennifer 2014;aghunathan and Corfman 2006; Ramanathan and McGill 2007;atner and Hamilton 2015), interacting with strangers (Epleynd Schroeder 2014), and cboth direct and indirect touchpointshat influence consumers’ experiences (Baxendale, Macdonald,nd Wilson 2015; Dahl and Argo 2019; Grove and Fisk 1997;emon and Verhoef 2016).

Yet, explicitly absent from this literature is a focus on how collective journeys together. In these journeys, members of collective, who are united by a shared collective identitynd communal goals, perform a journey together. There are aange of consumption situations where consumers do thingsith others, such as consuming in the presence of others (e.g.,oothby, Clark, and Bargh 2014; McFerran and Jennifer 2014;aghunathan and Corfman 2006; Ramanathan and McGill 2007;atner and Hamilton 2015), interacting with strangers (Epleynd Schroeder 2014), and collaborating through the sharingconomy (Eckhardt et al. 2019; Lamberton 2016). However,hese situations are differentiated from collective journeys as theonsumers involved are not bound together by a shared collectivedentity or communal goals.

In this article, we develop theory and implications aroundhe idea of collective journeys. To do so, we use families asur focal collective. Many family experiences take place as col-ective journeys. For example, pursuing parenthood (Fischer,tnes, and Tuncay 2007), addressing health issues (Berry et al.017), going on vacation (Epp and Price 2011), taking a trip tohe zoo (DeVault 2000), and setting up a household (Bradfordnd Sherry 2013) all involve collective experiences with ser-ice providers, often across multiple retail settings. Even when

journey appears as an individual endeavor, various relation-hips are often implicated in the experience. For example, aarent’s trip to the grocery store to feed the family is onlyn individual journey on the surface, but upon closer exami-ation, feeding the family is a collective pursuit that involvesnvisible tensions and negotiations that parents manage in theupermarket aisle (Epp and Price 2018). Similarly, shopping for

wedding dress may be a heroic quest for the bride (Dobschand Foxman 2012), but when viewed as a collective experi-nce, it also serves as a site of negotiation for a broader set ofelationships (Otnes and Pleck 2003; Velagaleti and Epp 2019).ollective journeys are thus much more prevalent than retailersay think.The purpose of this paper is to critically examine collective

ourneys as they unfold within and across retailing contexts. Toid in our conceptualization of collective journeys, we adopt

social practice theory lens. This perspective overcomes threeeficiencies we identify in work examining consumer journeys.

ctev

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

irst, existing frameworks do not account for the influence ofhifting macro trends that impact, and disrupt, collective prac-ices. A social practice lens is able to attenuate this shortcomingy explicitly accounting for macro shifts such as technologi-al advances, environmental changes, and cultural movementshat may challenge and transform social practices (Magaudda,011; Phipps and Ozanne, 2017)This would allow retailers tonticipate potential disruptions. Given that social practices offer

governance structure for how practices should happen, anderve as highly idealized templates for families’ collective jour-eys (Schatzki 1996; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012), whenhere are shifts in the macro environment, the social practicecript changes. For example, technological advances spawned anrray of non-physically, non-temporally shared social practices.he availability of video chat and other digital platforms, for

nstance, inspired families to reconfigure previously co-locatedamily practices (e.g., holidays, gaming, or bedtime stories) aseographically and temporally dispersed (Epp, Schau, and Price014). Through another example, we contemplate how culturalovements to improve animal welfare confront social prac-

ices of family zoo outings or trips to the circus. In such cases,roviders and families are re-imagining the ideal social prac-ice with the help of holograms and virtual reality solutions toreserve the educational and entertainment value of the experi-nce while also protecting the animals (Kateman 2019; Wehner019).

Second, current consumer journey theorizing does notccount for the interplay between the dynamics of a collectiveractice and the implications for journeying together. With anmplicit assumption that individuals are the focal entity for con-umer journeys, existing scholarship has neglected the influencef collective practice dynamics. We know from prior research,owever, that collective dynamics, such as the interplay amongollective, relational, and individual goals for the journey canisrupt practices. Understanding these dynamics can improveetailer solutions (Epp and Price 2011). A social practice lensxplicitly draws attention to the ways collective dynamics com-licate enactments within consumer journeys.

Third, existing consumer journey frameworks are retailerocused rather than consumer focused, meaning they largelyxamine retailer-controlled touchpoints within the confines ofhe stages of a customer experience with the firm (Hamilton andrice 2019; Lemon and Verhoef 2016). Introducing a social prac-

ice lens explicitly forces retailers to consider how the consumerourney maps onto templates for enacting the collective practice.s social practices typically extend over time and across retail-

rs, this lens opens new pathways to think about how retailersan adapt journey frameworks to include more temporal andpatial diversity as well as reconsider what kinds of roles theyan play in collective journeys.

In the next section, we overview social practice theory andonsumer research on collective practice dynamics as a founda-ion for understanding collective journeys. We then introduce a
onceptual framework that depicts three retailer roles in collec-ive journeys: central, mediated, and dispersed. We elaborate onach role by offering a definition, identifying the retailer’s corealue, and describing the challenges posed by collective dynam-

l of R

ictanftp

ot

S

eamfkeTctoPtFutHuasrpwt

bekaPaa2ed(

f(m

w22taEa2sk

tcS2otdssaa(

lbPtspbjmwi

C

tpwat(vti

sZgi

T.C. Thomas et al. / Journa

cs. We conclude with a discussion that emphasizes how retailersan make conscious choices about the roles they play in collec-ive journeys and we introduce the idea of fields of alignments social spaces where retailers and consumers come together toegotiate, improvise, and experiment to align around commonrames for action. We use this concept to generate implica-ions for retailers, propose guidelines for managerial action, andresent avenues for future research.

Theoretical Perspectives

To better understand collective journeys, we propose the usef two complementary theoretical perspectives: social practiceheory and collective practice dynamics.

ocial Practice Theory

Social practice theory refers to a group of related theories thatxplore how practices come to structure everyday life. Practicesre “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several ele-ents, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities,

orms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a backgroundnowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states ofmotion and motivational knowledge” (Reckwitz 2002, p. 249).hese can be either individual level practices, like riding a bicy-le, or collective practices, like family dinner. Practices exist atwo levels. First, social practices refer to cultural-level viewsf what a practice should be (Shove and Pantzar 2005; Shove,antzar, and Watson 2012). That is, social practices are cul-

ural scripts that encapsulate the normative view of a practice.or example, the script for how a wedding celebration shouldnfold is culturally defined. The second level of a practice ishe enacted practice (Reckwitz 2002; Shove and Pantzar 2005).ere, consumers adapt the social practice to their particular sit-ation and perform the practice—for example, how a weddingctually unfolds. Bridging these two levels is consumers’ envi-ioned practice (Thomas and Epp 2019). The envisioned practiceepresents consumers’ plans for enacting a practice. It is theirersonalized view of how they imagine their practice enactmentill play out—for example, a couple’s plan for how they want

heir wedding to unfold.Practices are enacted, both individually and collectively,

y integrating practice elements into a performance. Practicelements include materials (e.g., objects), competences (e.g.,nowledge related to the practice), and meanings (e.g., the ideas,spirations, and emotions associated with a practice) (Shove,antzar, and Watson 2012). When these three elements are inlignment, a practice functions as intended and the practice isble to reproduce and habituate over time (Shove and Pantzar005; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012). The processes thatnable the replication and stability of practices have been theominant focus of research in the domain of practice theoryReckwitz 2002; Shove and Pantzar 2005; Warde 2005).

However, research has started to examine both practiceragility and how practice replication can be differentialNicolini 2012; Rouse 2007). In terms of fragility, research docu-ents how practices can easily fall into a state of misalignment

ptea

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24 11

here elements do not work together as intended (Magaudda011; Reckwitz 2002; Shove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012; Warde005, 2014). In these situations, consumers work to restore prac-ice stability by reconfiguring elements to bring them back intolignment (Arsel and Bean 2013; Canniford and Shankar 2013;pp, Schau, and Price 2014; Phipps and Ozanne 2017; Sereginand Weijo 2017; Thomas and Epp 2019; Woermann and Rokka015). For example, Canniford and Shankar (2013) describe howurfers reconfigure their practice after it is disrupted by variousinds of technological changes.

While stability is certainly an important outcome for prac-ices, a focus on dynamism also brings to light how practicesonstantly shift and evolve over time (Price and Epp 2015;hove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012; Thomas, Price, and Schau013). In this work, researchers describe how each instantiationf a practice performance is likely slightly different from thosehat came before, as well as those that will come after. Chil-ren’s birthday parties, for example, tend to follow a generalcript over time, but also vary year to year. Further, the socialcript for birthday parties changes over time and between gener-tions. In this way, enacted practices exhibit both heterogeneitynd evolution, even when informed by a common social practiceEpp, Schau, and Price 2014; Thomas and Epp 2019).

To summarize, social practice theory conceptualizes socialife as a series of practices that are guided by cultural-level scriptsut enacted, individually and/or collectively, at a localized level.ractice enactments involve the integration of materials, compe-

ences, and meanings, all of which are dynamic and constantlyhifting as enactments evolve over time. Our understandings ofractices are enhanced by examinations of both practice sta-ility as well as practice fragility and heterogeneity. Collectiveourneys often comprise the enactment of a practice, or the enact-ent of a series of related practices. In the sections that follow,e discuss how the collective dynamics of family practices are

mplicated in consumer journeys.

ollective Practice Dynamics

Understanding the dynamics of collective practices is essen-ial to building retail solutions around journeying together. Asreviously noted, prior research on consumer journeys startsith an implicit assumption of a solo focal consumer (Lemon

nd Verhoef 2016), but many retail experiences facilitate collec-ive practice enactments or, at least, implicate collective pursuitsDiamond et al. 2009; Epp and Price 2011). We draw on pre-ious consumer research on collective practices to identify andheorize three relevant dynamics that shape collective journeys:dentity goal interplay, connectedness, and corporeality.

First, identity goals refer to “conscious or unconscious pur-uits related to how people define themselves” (Coulter andaltman 2000; Epp and Price 2011, p. 37), and multiple identityoals may be relevant to a collective practice. Examining thenterplay of these goals captures the complementarity and com-
etition among collective, relational, and individual goal levelshat occur within a practice enactment (Epp and Price 2008). Forxample, the collective goal of being together as a family may bet odds with a couple’s relational goal to connect during family

1 l of R

vitswPtif

ootytfpsutccfwtettfp

micP2pltpedptfttPtti

rt

cosbtatpc

ajicowrp

C

K

pstiw‘tae2antjh

C

tdpca

C

bsew


acations (Epp and Price 2011). In some cases, conflicts resultn tradeoffs or prioritization among goal levels, and we knowhat consideration of this interplay aids in the design of retailolutions. For instance, family vacation providers can explicitlyeigh the mix of goals to improve solution design (Epp andrice 2011). Over the course of a collective journey, attention to

he dynamic interaction of collective, relational, and individualdentity goals allows providers to trace the ebb and flow of howamilies prioritize goals within practice enactments.

Second, connectedness refers both to the nature and strengthf ties among members. Connectedness highlights the inertiaf entanglements that might hold collectives together, or pullhem apart, sometimes in unanticipated ways. To illustrate, manyoung adults remain interwoven within collective family prac-ices, long after they establish residential independence, viaamily insurance plans, Netflix or Hulu subscriptions, phonelans, iTunes playlists, or Amazon Prime accounts, among otherervices (Jennings 2019). These retail alliances reveal inertia,nruliness, and stickiness as they gather force, but also main-ain collective family practices by providing ways to remainonnected. In some cases, this is enabled by technologies, butonnectedness dynamics also emerge within physical spaces. Inact, families tend to actively manage connectedness by findingays to disconnect, partially participate, or bracket their collec-

ive experiences (Epp and Price 2008). For example, researchxamines how families attempt to bracket spaces by locking outechnology in valued family practices such as dinner around theable (Nathanson 2018), while others use technology to facilitateull or partial participation in long-distance versions of familyractices (Epp, Schau, and Price 2014).

Third, corporeality directs attention to the degree to whichembers of a collective are co-located, spatially bound, or phys-

cally present (Epp, Schau, and Price 2014). Prior research onollective practices emphasizes corporeal interactions (Epp andrice 2010; Moisio, Arnould, and Price 2004; Shove and Pantzar005). However, in recent years, technologies have enabled aroliferation of non-temporally and non-spatially bound col-ective phenomena. Thus, consumer researchers must considerhe degree of corporeality when theorizing about collectiveractices, and retailers must rethink how they design experi-nces around journeying together. To illustrate, geographicallyispersed families find creative ways to maintain practices inhysically isolated spaces—for example, shopping together viaext or video chat, coordinating streaming services to continueamily movie night, or meeting in online gaming spaces. Givenhis, corporeality matters for practice enactment, with the poten-ial to enhance or disrupt collective practices (Epp, Schau, andrice 2014). Effective design of virtual and physical retail spaces

hat accommodate collective journeys requires consideration ofhe degree of corporeality necessary for family members to joinn, as well as ways to enable variation in how they participate.

Retailer Roles in Collective Journeys

We developed a conceptual framework (Fig. 1) that detailsetailer roles in collective journeys and attends to the oppor-unities that emerge from consideration of social practices and

h2Pg

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

ollective dynamics. Journeying together involves the enactmentf collective practices that represent localized performances ofocial practices. These enactments emerge from the interplayetween consumers and retailers, where both work to balancehe collective dynamics of the family—individual, relational,nd collective identity goals, connectedness dynamics, and prac-ice corporality—with the actions of retailers, who are playingarticular roles. We identify three roles that retailers can play inollective journeys: central, mediated, and dispersed.

In the sections that follow, we define and describe these roles,rticulating what they are, how they provide value to collectiveourneys, and the key challenges and opportunities retailers facen each role. These opportunities involve matching consumers’ollective practices with retail offerings. This matching processccurs in what we refer to as fields of alignment—social fieldshere retailer roles intersect with collective practices. Here,

etailers and consumers work to align their practices throughrocesses of negotiation, improvisation, and experimentation.

entral Role

ey retailer and service provider roleThe first retailer role we identify – the ‘central’ role – is

erhaps the most typical role described within the existing con-umer journeys literature, albeit without consideration of howo design around collective dynamics. Here, the retail contexts central to the practice and the consumer journey is containedithin the retail setting. Colloquially speaking, the retailer is

the main event.’ A multitude of collective journeys fall intohis category. Examples include a Disney World vacation (Eppnd Price 2011), exploring the American Girl store (Diamondt al. 2009), shopping for a wedding dress (Dobscha and Foxman012), or utilizing Ronald McDonald House when caring forn ill child (Rubin and Franck 2017). During all of these jour-eys, we observe the dominance of collective goals that emergehrough practice enactments. Notably, many, but not all, of theseourneys are linked to crucial transitional moments in a family’sistory.

ore value offeringWhen retailers play a central role in a collective journey,

he core value offering is driven by how successful they are inesigning an experience that matches consumers’ envisionedractices. Retailer success is dependent on a matching pro-ess that considers the collective’s ideal view of a practice andccounts for each collective’s goals.

hallengesThe challenge for retailers in a central role is that consumers,

oth within and across collectives, and over time, do not neces-arily share the same view of what constitutes the ideal practicenactment. In contrast to individual consumer journeys, whenorking with collectives, retailers must account for the inherent
eterogeneity that characterizes groups (Canniford and Shankar013; Epp and Price 2008; Thomas, Price, and Schau 2013).rior research on heterogeneous collectives has articulated howroup members differ in their views of a practice’s materials,

T.C. Thomas et al. / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24 13

s in c

ca2ct

FatmiShca

ttttrmett(iTaPtehfo

eWr(ltyic2esf(oaaj

O

ekjwemaof

Fig. 1. Retailer role

ompetences, and meanings (Thomas, Price, and Schau 2013),s well as the identity goals to which they ascribe (Epp and Price008). From a practice perspective, this means that, within aollective there is likely considerable variation in how membershink about and understand a practice (Warde 2005).

Retailers need to contend with three types of heterogeneity.irst, heterogeneity exists within families as to what constitutesn idealized journey: family members may differ in what theyhink a practice should look like, how it should be enacted, theeanings they associate with a practice, and even who should be

ncluded in the practice (Connell, Schau, and Thomas 2019; Epp,chau, and Price 2014; Thomas and Epp 2019). Prior researchas documented this kind of heterogeneity across a range ofollective journeys, including child rearing, family vacations,ttending sporting events, and family food preparation.

A second type of heterogeneity retailers in a central role con-end with concerns the replication of collective practices overime and across generations. Many family practices, especiallyhose that are tied to life transitions (e.g., weddings) or impor-ant family rituals (e.g., birthday celebrations), are performedepeatedly over time, both within a single generation and acrossultiple generations. Under these conditions, families often hold

nvisioned practices that are steeped in years of experiences,raditions, and enactments. In many cases, these envisioned prac-ices outlive the retailers that supported the original practiceOtnes et al. 2009). The challenge for retailers thus lies in provid-ng a retail setting where these collective journeys can flourish.his can be particularly difficult as, unlike with the intergener-tional transfer of material objects such as heirlooms (Curasi,rice, and Arnould 2004), it is harder to transfer practices over

ime and across different retail settings—while physical objectsndure, reproducing the essence of a practice and capturing its
istorically-rooted meanings relies on the replication and trans-erence of competences and meanings across retail providersver time.
jcat

ollective journeys.

Finally, retailers in the central role are also challenged by het-rogeneity that stems from shifting macro-level cultural trends.

hen cultural trends shift, this can disrupt social practices andesult in differing views of what constitutes an ideal practiceShove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012). For example, as noted ear-ier, 30 years ago going to the zoo or an aquarium was consideredo be an iconic family practice (DeVault 2000), however in recentears, increasing awareness of the treatment of animals keptn these facilities has disrupted the degree to which familiesonsider this to be an appropriate family experience (Kateman019). Likewise, changes in parenting practices (Afflerbackt al. 2013; Shirani, Henwood, and Coltart 2012), as well ashifts in technology have influenced how consumers interact asamilies and how different family members view family ritualsEpp, Schau, and Price 2014). These kinds of cultural trends notnly change the nature of a particular social practice, they alsodd heterogeneity to the collection of social practice templatesvailable to families, which further complicates their collectiveourney (Thomas and Epp 2019).

pportunitiesTackling the challenges described above requires that retail-

rs adopt a family-centered perspective that allows for variousinds of heterogeneity to co-exist within a particular collectiveourney (Thomas, Price, and Schau 2013). Retailers should workith families to calibrate and align their retail platforms with the

nvisioned practice(s) of the collective. In building this align-ent, retailers should first consider how to design journeys that

llow for a range of family members to be included, in a varietyf different ways. Retailers in a central role can benefit from plat-orms that enable families to flexibly constitute their idealized
ourney across the retail platform, but also provide materials andompetences to help them improvise and negotiate tensions thatrise as the journey unfolds. Doing so requires retailer sensitivityo various forms of heterogeneity child (Berry et al. 2017), caring

1 l of R

fwentpsnritgaasw

mTvwtbaaemhitaibbc

M

K

aftamtoitaoaiMci

C

sIAtbrfr?(

C

sIAtmltcaeforl

C

apctidkiuate

crdtidgf


or aging parents (Barnhart and Penaloza 2013), or planning aedding for same-sex couples (Velagaleti and Epp 2019). Retail-

rs tend to focus on normative views of iconic transitions that doot always account for the ‘messiness of doing’ that results whenhe reality of an enactment does not match the guiding socialractice (Thomas and Epp 2019). In these situations, familiescramble and improvise to try to find a solution that meets theireeds. These non-traditional transitions are often ignored by theetail landscape. Notably, non-traditional does not mean focus-ng on niche or rare moments, but rather looking at experienceshat are common but ignored (Scaraboto and Fischer 2013). Thisap between the goals of families and retailer offerings affordsn opportunity for retailers to change the way families perceivend experience these journeys. Specifically, retailers can, andhould, work with families to co-author the cultural scripts thatill come to guide and define these new social practices.Finally, retailers should focus not only on the material ele-

ents of a practice, but also on the competences of a practice.hat is, thinking about how a journey is enacted as well as thearious ways that it could be enacted will help retailers workith families who are struggling to replicate a practice over

ime or across generations. Retailers can meet these challengesy incorporating new materials and skills to afford innovativerticulations and elaborations of family practices, but with duettention to the family meanings that frame the enactment. Forxample, while families may still prize the enactment of home-ade food and look to retailers such as Williams Sonoma to

elp them script these practices, the ways in which this practices enacted have changed dramatically, and will likely continueo change, as cultural shifts alter family life (Moisio, Arnould,nd Price 2004). Retailers thus not only need to build flexibilitynto their own offerings, but also need to work with families touild flexibility into their envisioned practices. The goal is toridge the gap between what retailers are able to offer and howonsumers envision a practice.

ediated Role

ey retailer and service provider roleThe second retailer role we identify is what we refer to as

‘mediated’ role. Here, retailers shift to a supporting role byacilitating collective practices that help orchestrate connec-ions between family members, frequently across time zonesnd distances (Epp, Schau, and Price 2014). There are numerousundane examples of how important it is for retailers to consider

his mediating role. For example, families often travel togethernly to find that, despite their best efforts, they have been putn different parts of an airplane faced with begging strangers torade seats so they can sit with their children. Alternatively, theyre often punished for being a family and banished to the backf the plane. And of course, as many of us can attest, restaurantsre often chosen based on whether they work for what the familys collectively trying to accomplish, rather than quality ratings.

any of us have watched more than our fair share of ‘romanticomedies,’ ‘action’ films or ‘independent’ films (dare we say it)n the service of relational goals.

ptde

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

ore value offeringWhen retailers play a mediating role, they can create sub-

tantial customer value by helping consumers journey together.n these cases, the retailer needs to remember that ‘It’s Notll About Me,’ or even my relationship with individual cus-

omers.often punished for being a family and banished to theack of the plane. And of course, as many of us can attest, restau-ants are often chosen based on whether they work for what theamily is collectively trying to accomplish, rather than qualityatings. Many of us have watched more than our fair share of?romantic comedies,???action?films or ??independent?filmsdare we say it) in the service of relational goals.

ore value offeringWhen retailers play a mediating role, they can create sub-

tantial customer value by helping consumers journey together.n these cases, the retailer needs to remember that ‘It’s Notll About Me,’ or even my relationship with individual cus-

omers. That is, unlike in the first role, where the retailer is theain event, in a mediating role, the retailer emphasizes col-

ectives?desired relationships with each other in the design ofheir services. Here, the retailer must ask: ??How important areollectives?desired relationships in the choice of my productsnd services??To effectively serve a mediating role requiresxplicit retailer consideration of how to structure flexible plat-orms that enable collective practices to thrive. Over and abovether sources of brand value, performance of this facilitatingole can significantly enhance or attenuate brand patronage andoyalty (Price 2015).

hallengesIn thinking about the mediating role, we foreground man-

ging collective connectedness as the central challenge. In therior section, where the retailer is the main event, we stressed thehallenge of managing heterogeneity within and between collec-ives in their envisioned ideal practice. Managing heterogeneitys also important for the mediating role, however rather thaniversity in envisioned practices, family members may not evennow what options are possible to facilitate goals of connect-ng with other family members in meaningful, albeit sometimesnanticipated or previously un-envisioned, ways. With the medi-ted role, retailers face two primary, related, challenges: shiftingheir focus toward connectedness and identifying current andmerging enactments of connectedness in consumer practices.

First, retailers need to overcome the tendency to view theonsumer journey as focused on their offerings. Unfortunately,etailers rarely explicitly define their platforms to supportynamic connectedness goals. As such, retailers often inadver-ently end up obstructing collectives?desire to flexibly engagen consumption together. For example, Epp and Price (2011)escribe numerous instances where designing around individualoals consequently disrupts and derails collective goals, whereamilies are forced to take all or none-should we, for example,
ut our children in ski school and never see them, or never geto ski that awesome black run that as a couple we have beenreaming about the whole year? Too often, retailers focus onither the core practice, only the individuals within a collective,

l of R

oim

aacamcpdncmtp2o

O

euteCiqarhfTtavet

hifH(woihsbshtti

fd

bpstatcmioteehpe

oLcHdossftflBasf?ibwilvea(sSsseTe


r just the collective, without considering the complex set ofndividual, relational, and collective connectedness goals that

otivate a collective journey (Epp and Price 2008).Second, retailers in the mediated role must contend with new

nd alternative conceptualizations of what it means to connectnd how family members want to connect to each other. Here, thehallenge of facilitating flexible connectedness unfolds against

backdrop of cultural changes that alter the essence of what iteans to connect. For example, parents connecting with their

hildren can take myriad forms. It might include watching a childlay Fortnite to grab hold of pieces of the experience withoutisrupting the child?s own collective online video game jour-ey, or evoking cell phone ??lock-down?for family meals orollective events (Chitakunye and Amandeep Takhar 2014). Itight include a book club designed to help parents support their

eenagers by reading what they are reading, or to help their ownarents with aging challenges (Thomas, Pyle, and Handelman019). In each of these, and many other everyday cases, there arepportunities for retailers to facilitate or thwart connectedness.

pportunitiesManaging connectedness has two critical parts. First, retail-

rs should design structures that are malleable to dynamic andnexpected collective arrangements. Specifically, retailers needo put collectives in charge of defining who is included andxcluded from collective practices organized on their platform.ontemporary families are distinguished by substantial diversity

n membership, characteristics, and roles, exhibiting an electiveuality in how they define family (Epp and Price 2018; Thomasnd Epp 2019; Velagaleti and Epp 2019). It is important foretailers to think beyond stereotypical depictions of families inow they deliver value. Second, retailers should consider how toacilitate connectedness across collective practice participants.hat is, retailers should offer materials and skills (affordances)

hat help collectives share meanings and experiences (Bradfordnd Sherry 2013). Many retailers operate in both physical andirtual spaces and it is important for retailers to manage connect-dness within and across both platforms, with explicit attentiono whether and how corporeality shapes connections.

Many evolving retailer platforms serve a critical role inelping families connect, including across distances. Yet themportance of this role may be underappreciated in retail plat-orm design. For example, platforms such as Netflix, Acorn,ulu, Amazon, Apple, Spotify, Airbnb, Grubhub, and Uber

add the app of choice) may poorly design around the extent tohich they serve a mediating role. Let?s take just one examplef a young married woman, who similar to many millennialss close to her parents who live far away. She competes oner Apple watch (gift from mother) with her mother for steps;hares an Acorn subscription with her mother because theyoth love British mysteries; shares her and her husband?s Huluubscription with her parents so they can ??co-watch;?shares
er parents Amazon subscription because ??they like shoppingogether;?and shares their Netflix accounts because they ??loveo binge watch Stranger Things.?And, of course they love shar-ng playlists on iTunes. They talk daily, share pictures, and look
p

hm

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24 15

or opportunities to connect. Retailers and brands can help themo that.

Families select many products and services together and sharerands that connect them. Yet, at every turn, many of theselatforms are inflexible in how they accommodate and enableharing across collective practices. For example, prized collec-ive practices of connecting through sharing are constrainednd thwarted: sharing an e-book with a friend; sharing Spo-ify lists; sharing profiles within an account on Netflix; oro-watching TV shows with geographically dispersed familyembers. Ironically, whereas digital options should make shar-

ng easier, they often make it harder. Perhaps because platformsrganize around restricting sharing (in protection of intellec-ual property and potential revenue) they miss meaningful andconomically advantageous ways to enable it. As a notablexception, WhatsApp has experienced explosive growth per-aps in part because it affords dynamic and flexible collectiveractices, letting consumers easily choose who is included andxcluded and affording different modalities for connectedness.

Conventional retail institutions may also have overlookedpportunities to structure platforms around a mediating role.et?s take two examples that are increasingly besieged withompetitive challenges: grocery stores and department stores.ow consumers feed and provision their families has changedramatically in the past decade with an explosion of onlineptions (Epp and Price 2018). What if grocery and departmenttores decided to meet at least some of those challenges bytructuring environments to afford collective journeys? whereamilies could enjoy experiences together? At the same timehat grocery stores feel pressured to reinvent themselves online,armers?markets have thrived as places that families can col-ectively explore and enjoy (Godfrey and Wallendorf 2017).y privileging efficiency and space optimization (two char-cteristics that online options offer in abundance), grocerytores do not provide affordances that make it fun and easyor families to share the experience together as part of scarce?family time?(Epp and Price 2012). For example, what if mov-ng through the grocery store was designed to help childrenetter understand, learn about, and experience various foods?ith interactive displays and rotating events? Augmented real-

ty could be employed to make grocery store shelves come toife to help navigate and enrich the collective journey and pro-ide families with opportunities to engage meaningfully withach other through the grocery shopping experience. Althoughugmented reality is increasingly used in retail environmentsGrewal, Roggeveen, and Nordfält 2017), there is little discus-ion about how it might serve collective connectedness goals.imilar to grocery stores, department stores organize aroundtandard demographics intended to promote efficiency for theingle shopper. What if instead department stores redesigned tonable families to explore and experience the space together?his might suggest mixing age and gender assortments to keepveryone engaged, along with highly visible central areas for
lay with ease of movement into and out of them.
Both of the above examples illustrate how many retailersave been privileging conventional metrics (e.g., space opti-ization) that do not allow for relational affordances that enable

1 l of R

cotrntt

D

K

nAmiiaaaectc2smegsp

C

tilhoiiro

C

soHsatia

dG

ccrBanpbdsadowotaFimip

pjftsaRs

scaofve2icad

O

ratpra


ollective practices to thrive. Moreover, many retailers still focusn understanding the individual customer experience, failingo adequately attend to the complex, collective obligations andelations that comprise most consumers?lives. There are thusumerous retailer opportunities for creative innovation aroundhe mediator role that could ultimately lead to competitive advan-ages for retailers, as we detail in the discussion section.

ispersed Role

ey retailer and service provider roleFinally, the ??dispersed?role recognizes that collective jour-

eys often distribute activities across a diverse set of retailers.cknowledging the dispersed role aligns with calls to take aore holistic view of consumer journeys, where consumption

s not necessarily the goal (in contrast with the central role) butnstead is implicated as part of a broader life project (Hamiltonnd Price 2019). Much of family life involves such activities,nd families typically take on the work of integrating retailersnd actions across service providers (Epp and Price 2011). Forxample, healthcare interactions that involve visits with primaryare providers, specialists, at-home care, pharmacists, physicalherapists, and community support groups require substantialoordination by families to ensure quality care (Berry et al.017). Families also work across service providers in childcareettings, in pursuit of family leisure activities such as sports orusic, and while planning multi-sited vacations. In these cases,

ach individual retailer acts as a ??team player?and the journeyoes smoothly when service providers understand their roles,hare information, and synchronize across retailers on relevantlatforms.

ore value offeringWhen retailers play a dispersed role in a collective journey,

he core value offering is the retailer?s ability to coordinate andntegrate with other service providers. For a few prominent col-ective journeys, the retail industry currently offers specialists toelp with coordination such as wedding planners, travel agents,r care advocates. Taking on this role as a retailer, however,s less common though we do see examples. As a purveyorn a dispersed role, Airbnb recently began coordinating restau-ant reservations and booking adventure experiences through itsnline platform (Barkho 2019).

hallengesWith the dispersed role, the key challenge retailers face is to

tart thinking of themselves as embedded in a broader networkf actions within a journey, as opposed to being the focal point.ere, in addition to optimizing their own offerings, retailers and

ervice providers need to focus on the connections between stepsnd/or elements of a journey. This process directs attention towo key challenges: reframing how retailers think of their rolen a dispersed journey and implementing coordination efforts
cross retailers.
Shifts in retailing trends indicate an increasing need for coor-ination across retailers and service providers in the future.eneralist retailers? such as department stores and malls? that

ejpt

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

ould support the enactment and synchronization of diverseollective practices are giving way to more distinct specialtyetailers, many of which are online (Ertimur and Coskuner-alli 2015). A key problem is that retailers currently structureround product categories instead of around consumer jour-eys. As a result, collective journeys desperately need retaillatforms that integrate across providers. Consider a family?sack-to-school journey, for example. Families must locate aiverse array of specific items necessary to prepare for the newchool year, ranging from notebooks and markers to lunchboxesnd backpacks to electronics and clothing. Some savvy ven-ors and retailers have found creative ways to take on a bulkf the work of integration for parents by coordinating directlyith teachers to produce ready-made kits for parents to ordernline (Zumbach 2018). In contrast, when we consider collec-ive journeys related to childcare, healthcare, or extra-curricularctivities, much of this integration work still falls to parents.or instance, parents spend substantial time and effort research-

ng and synchronizing extra-curricular activities across familyembers to manage the interplay of collective, relational, and

ndividual identity goals that surface in the enactment of theseractices.

Thinking about the connections between retailers requiresaying attention to the sequencing of elements in a collectiveourney. For this to happen, a retailer needs to understand theull scope of a collective journey and determine the various wayshat a family can move through that journey. For example, smallequences such as family night out might require orchestrating

park walk, dinner, movie, and ice-cream on the way home.etailers can help families both envision and move through these

equences.One option is for the retailer to acquire other firms in the

equences in order to own the entire journey and gain efficien-ies; this seems to reflect Amazon?s primary strategy (Moynihannd Payo 2019). Alternatively, retailers could coordinate withther providers in the sequence to provide a seamless journeyor families. Of course, coordination across retailers and ser-ice providers, especially when they are not owned by the samentity, can be difficult (Krafft et al. 2015; Varman and Costa009). Retailers may be met with resistance from other retailersn the journey, power dynamics between retailers could derailoordination efforts, and retailers may use incompatible systemsnd/or have incompatible infrastructure that makes coordinationifficult.

pportunitiesAs evidenced in the above discussion, retailers that fail to

ecognize their dispersed role are bypassing an opportunity touthor their place in the collective journey through coordina-ion of disparate activities and providers. Given that collectiveractices regularly extend across time and spatial arrangements,etailers in dispersed roles also would benefit from adopting

long-term view of consumer journeys that account for the
bb and flow of relevant service providers in and out of theourney. This is especially evident when we embrace a holisticerspective of journeying together that emphasizes the collec-ive practice enactment to define the borders of the journey. In

l of R

gobrmcbnpast

la2iercibhccetRaje

freHtulhMItaafacu

R

r

tpawtrnpjmj

mnrittsiswcHc

caacrfch

swhcriatcha

iwtttd


eneral, longer-term journeys amass a more expansive rangef participants including evolving assortments of family mem-ers and retailers. Facilitating coordination within these settingsequires dexterity and improvisation within the fields of align-ent where retailers?innovative solutions account for evolving

ollective journeys. Here, we propose that retailers focus onest practices in coordination that have been developed in chan-el coordination (Kozlenkova et al. 2015) as well as serviceroviders who focus on coordination (e.g., travel agents). Therere significant opportunities available for retailers to take owner-hip over an entire journey through coordination, without havingo provide each element themselves.

One example that draws out the complexity of such col-ective journeys is the path taken to pursue parenthood usingssisted reproductive technologies (Fischer, Otnes, and Tuncay007). This journey often spans years, sometimes decades, andnvolves not only the focal couple, but a shifting assortment ofxtended family, doctors, specialists, procedures, and supportesources. As families move through this journey, they are oftenonfronted with coordination challenges that embroil familiesn frustration and seemingly insurmountable bureaucratic road-locks (Fischer, Otnes, and Tuncay 2007). Service providersave the opportunity to take on the role of coordinating this pro-ess. Overall, thinking about the dispersed role highlights howonsumer goals and identities are embedded in journeys thatxtend beyond a single firm and require a lens that allows theotality of the consumer journey to dominate decision making.etailers who adopt this view, and tackle coordination effortscross retailers, will have substantial control over collectiveourney scripts, as well as over which retailers are included orxcluded.

Discussion

Retail and services research increasingly highlights the needor a dynamic, multi-actor-centric perspective on customer expe-ience, including an emphasis on the dynamic nature of customerxperiences across touch points and over time (Bolton 2014;amilton and Price 2019; McColl-Kennedy et al. 2015). In addi-

ion, there are calls to adopt a consumer practice perspective tonderstand customer experience, including understanding col-ective practices among known and unknown consumers whoelp co-create the customer experience (Carù and Cova 2015;cColl-Kennedy et al. 2015; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009).

n this paper, we invite retailers and researchers to focus atten-ion on whether and how collective consumer journeys? thatre guided by a shared collective identity and communal goalsnd that temporally unfold within, and between, retailer plat-orms? inform and challenge retailer roles and practices. Wedopt family as the focal collective and argue that collectiveonsumer practices on retailer platforms are both common andnder-examined as fertile ground for managerial action.

¨
etailers?Strategic Role Choices
Using a practice theory lens, we identify three specific rolesetailers take on to support consumers?collective journeys: cen-

amci

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24 17

ral, mediated, and dispersed. These roles differ in how theyrovide value to consumers as well as the retailer challenges,nd opportunities, implicated in each role (see Fig. 1). Thus fare have treated these roles in a rather static manner to aid in

he exposition of ideas. However, it is important to note thatetailers frequently shift between roles over a collective jour-ey, play different types of roles across collectives, and can evenlay multiple roles simultaneously within a single collective?sourney. Recognizing this role fluidity emboldens retailers toake strategic choices about what roles they play in consumer

ourneys.Consider, for example, a health-care scenario where a family

ember has a health crisis, such as a heart attack requiring coro-ary bypass surgery. In this scenario, the hospital shifts betweenoles as the journey unfolds. During the acute phase of the med-cal emergency, the hospital plays a central role. However, ashe patient?s care evolves over time, the hospital?s role movesoward playing a mediating role, where it provides spaces andervices to help connect and support the patient and their fam-ly. Later, it plays a dispersed role where the hospital?s functionhifts again from being a primary care provider to coordinatingith other supports such as home-health care teams, pharma-

ies, rehabilitation centers, fitness specialists, and nutritionists.ere, we see a single retailer playing all three roles for the same

ollective at different points in their collective journey.Notably, in addition to shifting roles within a journey, retailers

an also play different roles for different collectives where theyre central for some, mediated for others, and dispersed for yetnother set of families. So, for example, a hospital may play aentral role while a family member is having surgery, a mediatedole that facilitates the interaction of family and friends when,or example, someone has a baby, and a dispersed role whenoordinating the long-term care of someone with an ongoingealth issue.

Retailers may also find themselves playing all three rolesimultaneously within a single family?s journey. Continuingith the health-care setting, for example, Ronald McDonaldouse, which provides housing for out-of-town families wherehildren are receiving medical care at hospitals, plays all threeoles simultaneously. The organization plays a central role in thatts homes are focal to the family?s experience. It plays a medi-ting role in that the primary goal is to keep family membersogether, and it plays a dispersed role in that the organizationoordinates care between multiple services providers, includingealth-care professionals, teachers, social workers, and recre-tion program providers.

Given the complexity and dynamic nature of roles, it is thusmportant for retailers to determine what role(s) they are playingithin each collective journey and whether these roles contribute

he most value to the collective practice. If not, retailers need tohink about how they can productively, and proactively, shiftheir roles to better match the needs of families?practices? oresign their offerings so that they do not find themselves in

role that they cannot support. Retailers should strategicallyake choices about whether and how they play each role, and

arefully structure their offerings to match the dynamics of fam-lies?collective journeys. To explore this matching process more

1 l of R

fg

F

tcrfinf2ibm(tspetpaammwm2iuaptor

ecawsfnarea?a?aNtrt

Tafsruc

mcnmaartgtCnmmoottppil(parm

etattroe2sfoptrfv


ully, we next elaborate on fields of alignment and proposeuidelines for retailer action.

ields of Alignment

Retailer roles do not always seamlessly align with collec-ive practice enactments. Our framework illustrates the centralhallenge of bringing together collective dynamics with retaileroles through what we term fields of alignment. We define theseelds as the social spaces where retailers and consumers activelyegotiate, improvise, and experiment to align around commonrames for action (Snow et al. 1986; Thomas, Price, and Schau013). Heterogeneous goals and diverse membership make find-ng common frames for action difficult. There is also a delicatealance between practice replication and transformation. Whileuch of prior research has emphasized practice replication

Reckwitz 2002; Warde 2005), we foreground the transforma-ional dimension of collective practices that may necessitatehifting roles. As we have suggested, retailer roles and consumerractices are sticky and scripted, embedded in and reflective ofxisting social meanings and institutional structures? there is aendency to just do things the way we have in the past. However,ractices are also ?Sfragile, contestable, and open to challengend transformation?? (Price and Epp 2015; Snow, Vliegenthart,nd Ketelaars 2019, p. 392). For example, while grocery storesay have conventionally been framed as retail platforms whereothers provision their families (DeVault 1991; Miller 1998),e are at a moment in social life where the relevance of thateaning is open to challenge and transformation (Epp and Price

018). Similarly, what it means to go to a zoo or circus as a fam-ly, plan a family wedding, or deal with an aging parent is alsondergoing potent re-examination. Families and their practicesre different and arguably more diverse than they were in theast, and retailers have many opportunities to strategically alignheir roles with these changes. We provide numerous examplesf where conventional scripts may be open for new scrutiny andevision.

We challenge retailers to identify alignment frames that arelastic, flexible, and inclusive to a diverse range of enactedollective practices and journeys. They can bring to fields oflignment new opportunities for consumers to connect not justith the firm but with each other. Research in the context of

ocial movements supports that elastic, flexible, and inclusiverames can mobilize and transform practices, although this hasot been examined in the context of retailer? consumer inter-ctions (Snow, Vliegenthart, and Ketelaars 2019). How canetailers create alignments that mobilize rewarding consumerxperiences? Retailer roles and consumer practices often fail tolign because social actors have differing assumptions about?what is going on here??and ??what does it mean??; oper-te with different logics or goals; or have taken-for-granted and?sticky?practices that conflict with the dynamic, complex char-cter of social life (Snow, Vliegenthart, and Ketelaars 2019).
otably, flexibility is a key element of each role. For the cen-
ral role, it?s vital that retailers exhibit flexibility to allow for aange of ideal enactments to occur. For mediated roles, the cus-omer experience recognize family members as essential actors.

trob

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

hat is, retailers privilege the dyadic relationship between firmsnd customers rather than attending to the dynamic, electiveamily members who are a fundamental part of many con-umer journeys. Even most commercial ethnographic customeresearch (which prides itself on a cultural lens) is oriented aroundnderstanding and empathizing with an individual sovereignonsumer (Arnould and Cayla 2015).

To create opportunities for alignment, retailers should deter-ine which touchpoints represent a central component of value

o-creation for the collective practice that characterizes the jour-ey. What value is being created through these touchpoints (e.g.,anaging heterogeneity, facilitating relationships, coordinating

cross providers)? Does the value the retailer is contributinglign with the collective practice? Answering these questionsequires an understanding of both the enacted and desired collec-ive practice. For example, both parents and retailers may framerocery stores as inhospitable to family shopping, but what arehe taken-for-granted assumptions that impose this meaning?ould a new collective frame accent, highlight, and make salientew retailer roles to support collective journeys—such as theediating roles foregrounded in many county fairs and farmers’arkets? We have argued in this paper that one ready source

f field alignment for retailers is to systematically ask ‘who isn this journey,’ ‘for which segments,’ and ‘how important isheir participation to the value created.’ A poignant example iso consider the flow of family engagement across the touch-oints of a child’s illness in a children’s hospital and how familyarticipation grows and shrinks around the moments of thatllness, variously including one or both parents; parents and sib-ings; parents, siblings; other family members and close friendsSilvis 2013). We posit that strategic consideration of journeyarticipants can dramatically shape how retailers define rolesnd opportunities. This guideline is useful for each of the threeetailer roles, and can also help inform opportunities for retailerovement across roles.Second, consider how market competitiveness might be

nhanced (rather than diminished) by amplification of a collec-ive frame. Different logics and goals are replete in failures tolign retailer roles and collective practices. We have highlightedhe heterogeneity of goals within consumer collectives, but alsoheir many desires to journey together. As noted above, becauseetailers typically adopt an individual consumer frame they areften oblivious to where and when the most prized customerxperience is the opportunity to “be a family” (Epp and Price008; Epp and Price 2011). In addition, retailers may empha-ize logics and goals that constrain improvisational opportunitiesor field alignment. For example, adopting a frame of spaceptimization, shopping efficiency, or protection of intellectualroperty can tightly and inflexibly couple retail platform designo practices that are antithetical to collective practices. Thus, aeady source for field alignment is to ask how logics for per-ormance evaluation might frame opportunities for collectivealue to emerge. Can we create logics for performance evalua-
ion that foreground communal goals such as facilitating familyelationships or coordinating across providers? Of course, issuesf space, efficiency and so forth may still be important, but flexi-ility may enable retailers to think about their roles beyond their

l of R

chdwtinwnmiveb

tithbmqsrpEtdnlppeotsiapparabmcaaj

F

ifal

detp

P

emoaSeaanri

tcbprt

itctivrcis

fhowrivtoa

C

ia


urrent boundaries. For example, retailers should think aboutow to share intellectual property within close, elective, andynamic family groupings and make that easy and seamless,hile at the same time constraining broad violations of intellec-

ual property. Naturally, the stickiness of institutions is importantn this context. However, before acquiescing to institutionalorms, retailers need to recognize the economic and consumerell-being payoff of framing around consumers’ collective jour-eys on their platforms. There are many retail platforms wherearket competitiveness might be improved (rather than dimin-

shed) by amplification of a collective frame that invigoratesalues around enhancing collective journeys. We give a fewxamples in in this paper, but there are likely many others hiddenecause retailers fail to consider other logics and goals.

Finally, our framework transcends taken-for-granted assump-ions about families and retailer roles. We emphasize themportance of creating flexible frames that transcend conven-ional family and retailer scripts. Throughout our exposition weave highlighted not just rituals and traditions of collectives,ut change and resilience. As marketers, we often focus on theaterial components of practices underscoring their enduring

uality and iconic properties (Price 2013). Nevertheless, con-umers are remarkably improvisational in bringing new materialesources and competencies to the problem of enacting familyractices (Cross and Gilly 2014; Epp, Schau, and Price 2014;pp and Velagaleti 2014; Thomas and Epp 2019). The goal to ‘be

ogether’ can transcend changes in material actors, competences,istances, and modalities. We invite retailers to experiment withew platforms that accommodate evolving and unforeseen col-ective goals. Should retailers act as mediators and design gamelatforms such as Fortnite to enable parents to move in and out ofarticipation with their children in some mutually reinforcing,lective way? Or is this an unwinnable war as some framingsf this platform would suggest (Morris 2018)? If retailers ques-ion taken for granted assumptions, they can create win–wincenarios that emphasize stretching and morphing around chang-ng family relations. Rather than viewing normative violationss threats to ‘business as usual’ retailers can embrace the newractice enactments afforded by new material actors. For exam-le, it is easy to see augmented reality, virtual reality, robots,nd smart devices such as Alexa and Google home in dyadicelational terms (cf. Hoffman and Novak 2017), but there arelso numerous opportunities to envision these material actors inroader relational terms in service to collective journeys. Howight retailer roles shift as Alexa reconfigures a family’s gro-

ery shopping, for example? Within fields of alignment, retailersnd consumers can experiment with revised collective practicesnd reimagine the core values retailers bring to the collectiveourney.

uture Research Opportunities

In addition to provoking changes to retailer practices and
nviting mangers to imagine a different way of aligning with aamily’s collective journey, our framework also opens up newvenues for future research. In particular, thinking about col-ective journeys as emerging from the interplay of collective
aerp

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24 19

ynamics, consumer practices, and retailer roles highlights sev-ral important avenues for future research in the areas of practiceheory, consumer experiences, and journey metrics and valueerceptions (see Table 1).

ractice theoryFuture research should explore the role of heterogeneity in

nvisioned practices and how this connects to practice enact-ent opportunities. Until recently, an underlying assumption

f practice theory is that the meanings attributed to a practicere shared by those performing the practice (Reckwitz 2002;hove, Pantzar, and Watson 2012). Our framework, and somemerging work in the area of practice theory, however, call thisssumption into question (Thomas and Epp 2019; Warde 2005)nd describes how, within collective practices, there exists sig-ificant heterogeneity (Thomas, Price, and Schau 2013). Futureesearch should seek to understand this heterogeneity and howt impacts retailer roles.

For those in a central role, researchers should explore howhese retailers can co-author scripts that cater to heterogeneousollectives. This work will help us understand how practices, atoth the enactment and social levels, shift and change. It will alsorovide insights into how the marketplace can take a more activeole in shaping social practices, instead of merely supportinghem.

For mediated roles, researchers should examine how agencys distributed across connections in a journey. Here, given thathe retailers are not ‘the main event,’ questions emerge as to whoontrols the practice and who has the agency to alter practiceso fit consumer needs. The locus of agency within a practices an area of research that has received little attention but is ofital importance—future research should explore the ways thatetailers can either enhance or constrain consumers’ agency inollective journeys. This kind of exploration will foregroundssues of agency in collective practices and help us better under-tand their dynamics.

Finally, examining heterogeneity within the dispersed roleocuses research on the long-term nature of practices and willelp improve our understanding of the evolution and interactionf practices. Conceptualizing practices as long-term enactmentsithout a consistent set of players, as is the case with a dispersed

ole, is a novel way to think about practices. Exploring this rolen more detail will allow researchers to track the ebb and flow ofarious providers throughout a collective journey, and highlighthe challenges and obstacles that may inhibit these practicesver time. Here, we anticipate seeing both structural obstaclesnd collective dynamics disrupting practices.

onsumer experiencesA recurring theme in our discussion of collective journeys

s that designing consumer experiences that facilitate collective,s opposed to just individual, practices may bring substantial
dvantages to retailers. This calls for research into consumerxperience design that offers direction to retailers on how toeimagine, and redesign, experiences to accommodate and sup-ort collective journeys.

20 T.C. Thomas et al. / Journal of Retailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

Table 1Future research opportunities.

Core Research Focus Central Questions Mediated Questions Dispersed Questions

Practice Theory Understanding theheterogeneity inenvisioned practices andhow that connects topractice enactmentopportunities.

Explore how retailers cancoauthor scripts foremerging collectivepractices.

Study heterogeneity inhow agency is distributedacross connections for amediated journey.

Build an understanding ofpractices as long-termenactments without aconsistent set of players todocument the challenges andobstacles in the process thatinhibit the collective journey.

ConsumerExperiences

Redesign experiences toaccommodate and supportcollective journeys.

How do existingtouchpoints support ordetract from collectivejourneys? What kinds oftouch points can be addedto support collectivejourneys?

How do we designservices, retail spaces,and customer experiencesaround the relationshipsthat we want to enable?

How do we build cohesivetouchpoints over time thataccount for, and facilitate, theebb and flow of consumersand retailers through ajourney?

Journey Metrics andPerceptions of Value

Redefine the metrics usedto assess success.

What are the value-addedelements of a collectivejourney?

What are the potentialvalue tradeoffs betweenincreasing sharing

What is the equity in playingthe dispersed role in acollective journey?

tfpbtt2

fotbdfgetainTtirer

rtowcsRr

tp

J

csjmirtitfitot2

ijsepa(tstb

From the perspective of retailers in a central role, it is impor-ant to explore how existing touchpoints either support or detractrom collective journeys, and determine what kinds of touch-oints need to be added to support a collective. Retailers couldegin by examining how various touchpoints are aligned withhe goals of the collective, as well as the individual and rela-ional goals of those who comprise the collective (Epp and Price011).

For retailers in a mediated role, researchers should shift theirocus away from the individual consumer, or even the productffering, and explore how retailers can build affordances intohe consumer experiences that promote and support relationshipuilding. For example, accessible playgrounds that accommo-ate a wide range of differences in ability allow siblings andamilies to play together in new ways (Barber 2018). Fore-rounding connectedness also could transform how collectivesngage with art galleries, museum tours, and theaters whenhe emphasis moves toward facilitating relationships. Thinkingbout creative ways to design retail places to promote inclusivitys vital. That is, processes for designing customer experienceseed to start with the relationships, and build out to the service.his will require research into not only a redesign of the func-

ional and aesthetic arrangements of these new spaces, but alsonto the processes through which customer experience designerseimagine what is possible—How would the process look differ-nt if retailers designed around the collective and connectedness,ather than around the key provider or service offering?

Focusing on the dispersed role illuminates the need for futureesearch that focuses on the dynamic nature of touchpoints overime. Adopting this longitudinal perspective brings to the forepen questions about how retailers can maintain connectionsith customers and other retailers over time, as well as how

ustomer experience designers can account for an ever-changing
et of actors that ebb and flow through a collective journey.esearchers should explore what kinds of mechanisms can help
etailers achieve their goals in a dispersed role, as well as how

Wacr

capabilities at the expenseof protecting offerings?

hey can overcome obstacles that will invariably emerge as theractice unfolds.

ourney metrics and perceptions of valueThe final area of research motivated by our framework is

onsumer journey metrics. By conceptualizing both what a con-umer journey looks like, as well as what constitutes consumerourney success, it is vital for researchers to develop ways toeasure the extent to which retailer interventions are achiev-

ng the desired results. As we have noted previously, this mayequire completely rethinking what constitutes value and howhat relates to measures of performance. Across all three roles,t is imperative that firms incorporate collective dimensions intoheir calculations of customer value (Kumar 2018). Too often,rms rely on individual level factors to assess value, obscuring

he extent to which collective behaviors (e.g., referrals, sharingf experiences) impact long-term value, as well as the value ofhe collective as a whole (Petersen et al. 2009; Verhoef et al.010).

For retailers in a central role, research should explore how todentify and measure the value-added elements of a collectiveourney. In doing so, researchers should take on multiple per-pectives and build measures that assess the alignment betweennvisioned and enacted practices and retail offerings. For exam-le, researchers could adapt measures that assess how easily

consumer can find a particular brand in a retail environmentAilawadi and Farris 2017) to assess the ease with which a collec-ive can move through a particular journey. Likewise, researchershould explore how making retail environments more conduciveo collective journeys can enhance store traffic and dwell time,oth of which are tied to profitability.

Designing metrics for mediated journeys is also essential.
ith mediated journeys, one intuitive benefit researchers might
ssess is the extent to which supporting the relationships of aollective enhances referrals and a firm’s ability to use thoseelationships to attract other valuable customers (Verhoef et al.

l of R

2erfemspDt

ejdtraanpptfiWjc

C

faaiteatscusagj

rotgmiistmf

E

TjIsnmttzveiclt

utottnft

ildtj

psdriiaoatiiavt

lwwet


010). Assessing the value of the shareability of journeys, how-ver, presents a particularly interesting complication. In thisegard, retailers would benefit from shifting their focus awayrom policies that inhibit sharing to instead adopt policies thatnable sharing. This focus problematizes the metrics used toeasure success, as retailers make tradeoffs between enabling

haring which could lead to gaining new customers from unex-ected places, and protecting intellectual property and copyright.eveloping metrics that allow retailers to better understand these

radeoffs will help retailers gain traction in this kind of role.Finally, future research should also look at understanding the

quity associated with playing a dispersed role in a collectiveourney. For example, what value is derived from being able toefine which retailers are included in a journey? Or in playinghe coordinator role amongst a group of retailers? We encourageesearchers to think creatively, for example, about how we candapt the metrics used to measure the effectiveness of multi-nd omni-challenge distribution systems to that of a dispersedetwork of retailers (Ailawadi and Farris 2017). Building onrior work on coopetition (Varman and Costa 2009) may alsorovide a jumping off point for researchers to better understandhe dynamics of this (potential) competitive advantage, whererms work together to create value across a collective journey.e also encourage researchers to adopt a long-term view of

ourneys, in contrast to the shorter focus that tends to dominateurrent metrics (Katsikeas et al. 2016).

onclusion

In conclusion, we want to emphasize how important it isor retailers to consider collective journeys as a consequentialnd distinct aspect of their offerings. Here, retailers need toccount for shifting macro trends and collective practice dynam-cs, while also adopting a consumer perspective that allows themo envision how their platforms can support, match, and perhapsven define, collective journeys. In this paper, we have providedn account of collective practices, informed by social practiceheory, which enhances our understanding of the journeys con-umers perform as a collective and outlines what retailers shouldonsider when working with collective journeys. While we havesed families as our focal collective, a collective journey per-pective can extend beyond families to any collective that holds

shared identity and has communal goals. For example, friendroups, teams, consumption communities, or employees mayourney together.

Our work invites retailers to make strategic choices about theoles they play and how they can, and should, structure theirfferings to match families’ collective journeys. We highlighthe need for retailers to be cognizant, and perhaps even strate-ic, about how they may shift between roles. Consumers areore empowered in the marketplace, and technology is increas-

ngly putting retailers in mediated and/or dispersed roles. It ismportant for retailers to focus on these emergent roles to better
erve the needs of their market. Finally, we encourage retailerso take advantage of fields of alignment where they can shedany of the shackles of legacy practices that hinder a collective
ocus and embrace collaboration with collectives.

jve

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24 21

xecutive summary

he purpose of this paper is to critically examine collectiveourneys as they unfold within and across retailing contexts.n these journeys, members of a collective, who are united by ahared collective identity and communal goals, perform a jour-ey together. We chose families as our focal collective becauseany family experiences take place as collective journeys (e.g.,

aking vacations, going out to dinner, facing a health crisis, set-ing up a household, pursuing parenthood, or taking a trip to theoo). Even when a journey appears as an individual endeavor,arious relationships are often implicated in the experience. Forxample, a parent’s trip to the grocery store to feed the familys only an individual consumer journey on the surface. Uponloser examination, we observe that feeding the family is a col-ective pursuit that involves invisible tensions and negotiationshat parents manage within the supermarket aisle.

Current consumer journey frameworks, however, lack a clearnderstanding of the journeys consumers perform as a collec-ive. First, existing frameworks do not account for the influencef shifting macro trends that impact, and disrupt, collective prac-ices. Second, with an implicit assumption that individuals arehe focal entity for consumer journeys, existing scholarship haseglected the influence of collective dynamics. Third, existingrameworks focus on retailer-controlled touchpoints instead ofhe consumer experience as a whole.

To redress these gaps, we adopt a social practice theory lens,nformed by consumer research related to the dynamics of col-ectives (i.e., identity goals, connectedness, and corporeality), toescribe what retailers should consider when designing collec-ive journeys. We identify three roles retailers play in collectiveourneys: central, mediated, and dispersed.

In the central role, retailers are essential to the consumerractice and the collective journey is contained within the retailetting (e.g., a Disney world vacation or shopping for a wed-ing dress). In this role, the retailer is ‘the main event’ and theetailer’s core value offering is driven by how well the retailers able to design an experience that matches consumers’ ideal-zed views of the practice. In the mediated role, retailers shift to

supporting role by facilitating collective practices that helprchestrate connections between family members, frequentlycross time zones and distances. In this role, the retailer needso realize that ‘It’s not all about me.’ Here, the core value offer-ng is derived from facilitating collective experiences. Finally,n the dispersed role, retailers are just one of many providers in

collective journey. The focus is on being a ‘team player’ withalue being derived from the degree to which the retailer is ableo coordinate across providers.

In each role, retailers are faced with a unique set of chal-enges and opportunities. To help embrace these opportunities,e introduce the idea of ‘fields of alignment’ as the social spaceshere retailers and consumers actively negotiate, improvise, and

xperiment to align around common frames for action. Withinhese spaces, retailers and collectives can work together to design
ourneys that meet their needs. By embracing this collaborativeiew, and recognizing the unique patterns of interactions thatmerge from understanding collective dynamics and retailers’

2 l of R

ratcae

a

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E

E

E

E

E

E

F

G


oles, we argue that retailers can build significant competitivedvantage while also improving the experiences of their cus-omers. We describe a range of retail platforms where marketompetitiveness might be improved (rather than diminished) bymplification of a collective frame that invigorates values aroundnhancing collective journeys.

Declarations of interest

None.

Acknowledgement

This research did not receive any specific grants from fundinggencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

fflerback, Sara, Shannon K. Carter, Amanda Koontz Anthony and Liz Grauer-holz (2013), “Infant Feeding Consumerism in the Age of Intensive Motheringand Risk Society,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 13 (3), 387–405.

ilawadi, Kusum L. and Paul W. Farris (2017), “Managing Multi-andOmni-Channel Distribution: Metrics and Research Directions,” Journal ofRetailing, 93 (1), 120–35.

nderl, Eva, Jan Hendrik Schumann and Werner Kunz (2016), “Helping FirmsReduce Complexity in Multichannel Online Data: A New Taxonomy-BasedApproach for Customer Journeys,” Journal of Retailing, 92 (2), 185–203.

rnould, Eric J. and Julien Cayla (2015), “Consumer Fetish: CommercialEthnography and the Sovereign Consumer,” Organization Studies, 36 (10),1361–86.

rsel, Zeynep and Jonathan Bean (2013), “Taste Regimes and Market-MediatedPractice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 899–917.

arber, Megan (2018), “Why Cities Need Accessible Playgrounds,” Curbed,June 20, (accessed October 15, 2019), [https://www.curbed.com/2018/7/20/17582148/accessible-playgrounds-design-ada-standards-inclusive].

arkho, Gabriela (2019), “Airbnb ‘Adventures’ Debuts to AccommodateThrill-Seeking Travelers,” Observer, June 14, (accessed July 30, 2019),[https://observer.com/2019/06/airbnb-adventures-thrill-seeking-travelers/].

arnhart, Michelle and Lisa Penaloza (2013), “Who Are You Calling Old? Nego-tiating Old Age Identity in the Elderly Consumption Ensemble,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 39 (6), 1133–53.

axendale, Shane, Emma K. Macdonald and Hugh N. Wilson (2015), “TheImpact of Different Touchpoints on Brand Consideration,” Journal of Retail-ing, 91 (2), 235–53.

erry, Leonard L., Tracey S. Danaher, Robert A. Chapman and Rana L.A.Awdish (2017), “Role of Kindness in Cancer Care,” Journal of OncologyPractice, 13 (11), 744–50.

olton, Ruth N. (2014), “Small Details That Make Big Differences,” Journal ofService Management, 25 (2), 253–74.

oothby, Erica J., Margaret S. Clark and John A. Bargh (2014), “Shared Expe-riences Are Amplified,” Psychological Science, 25 (12), 2209–16.

radford, Tonya Williams and John F. Sherry (2013), “Orchestrating Ritualsthrough Retailers: An Examination of Gift Registry,” Journal of Retailing,89 (2), 158–75.

anniford, Robin and Avi Shankar (2013), “Purifying Practices: How Con-
sumers Assemble Romantic Experiences of Nature,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 39 (5), 1051–69.
arù, Antonella and Bernard Cova (2015), “Co-Creating the Collective ServiceExperience,” Journal of Service Management, 26 (2), 276–94.

hitakunye, Pepukayi and A. Amandeep Takhar (2014), “Consuming FamilyQuality Time: The Role of Technological Devices at Mealtimes,” BritishFood Journal, 116 (7), 1162–79.

G

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

onnell, Paul M., Hope Jensen Schau and Tandy Chalmers Thomas (2019),Practice Interrupted: Production Cohort Disruptions and Practice Replica-tion, Working Paper, Stony Brook University.

oulter, Robin and Gerald Zaltman (2000), “The Power of Metaphor,” in TheWhy of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives,Goals, and Desires, Ratneshwar S., Mick David Glen and Huffman Cynthia,eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 259–81.

ross, Samantha N.N. and Mary C. Gilly (2014), “Cultural Competence andCultural Compensatory Mechanisms in Binational Households,” Journal ofMarketing, 78 (3), 121–39.

urasi, Carolyn Folkman, Linda L. Price and Eric J. Arnould (2004), “HowIndividuals’ Cherished Possessions Become Families’ Inalienable Wealth,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (December), 609–22.

ahl, Darren and Jennifer Argo (2019), “The Impact of Social Influence andSocial Marketing on the Customer Journey,” Journal of Retailing,, this issue

eVault, Marjorie L. (1991), Feeding the Family: The Social Organization ofCaring as Gendered Work, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

(2000), “Producing Family Time: Practices of LeisureActivity Beyond the Home,” Journal of Qualitative Sociology, 23 (4),485–503.

iamond, Nina, John F. Sherry, Albert M. Muniz, Mary Ann McGrath, RobertV. Kozinets and Stefania Borghini (2009), “American Girl and the BrandGestalt: Closing the Loop on Sociocultural Branding Research,” Journal ofMarketing, 73 (May), 118–34.

obscha, Susan and Ellen Foxman (2012), “Mythic Agency and Retail Con-quest,” Journal of Retailing, 88 (2), 291–307.

ckhardt, Giana M., Mark B. Houston, Baojun Jiang, Cait Lamberton, AricRindfleisch and Georgios Zervas (2019), “Marketing in the Sharing Econ-omy,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (5), 5–27.

pley, Nicholas and Juliana Schroeder (2014), “Mistakenly Seeking Solitude,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (5), 1980–99.

pp, Amber M. and Linda L. Price (2018), “Constraints and Possibilities inthe Thrown Togetherness of Feeding the Family,” European Journal ofMarketing, 52 (12), 2499–511.

and (2011), “Designing SolutionsAround Customer Network Identity Goals,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (2),36–54.

and (2008), “Family Identity: AFramework of Identity Interplay in Consumption Practices,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 35 (1), 50–70.

and (2012), “Family Time inConsumer Culture: Implications for Transformative Consumer Research,”in Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well-Being, Mick David Glen, Pettigrew Simone, Pechmann Cornelia (Connie)and Ozanne Julie L., eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 627–50.

and (2010), “The Storied Lifeof Singularized Objects: Forces of Agency and Network Transformation,”Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 820–37.

pp, Amber M., Hope Jensen Schau and Linda L. Price (2014), “The Role ofBrands and Mediating Technologies in Assembling Long-Distance FamilyPractices,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (3), 81–101.

pp, Amber M. and Sunaina R. Velagaleti (2014), “Outsourcing Parenthood?How Families Manage Care Assemblages Using Paid Commercial Services,”Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (4), 911–35.

rtimur, Burcak and Gokcen Coskuner-Balli (2015), “Navigating the Institu-tional Logics of Markets: Implications for Strategic Brand Management,”Journal of Marketing, 79 (2), 40–61.

ischer, Eileen, Cele C. Otnes and Linda Tuncay (2007), “Pursuing Parenthood:Integrating Cultural and Cognitive Perspectives on Persistent Goal Striving,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 425–40.

odfrey, D. Matthew and Melanie Wallendorf (2017), “Representationsof Space: Methodological Tensions in Spatial Consumer Research,” inNa—Advances in Consumer Research Volume, Gneezy Ayelet, Griskevi-cius Vladas and Williams Patti, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research, 135–9.
rewal, Dhruv, Anne L. Roggeveen and Jens Nordfält (2017), “The Future ofRetailing,” Journal of Retailing, 93 (1), 1–6.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0022-4359(19)30085-5/sbref0005

























































































































https://www.curbed.com/2018/7/20/17582148/accessible-playgrounds-design-ada-standards-inclusive

https://www.curbed.com/2018/7/20/17582148/accessible-playgrounds-design-ada-standards-inclusive

https://observer.com/2019/06/airbnb-adventures-thrill-seeking-travelers/
















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































l of R

G

H

H

H

H

J

K

K

K

K

K

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

N

N

O

O

P

P

P

P

R

R

R

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

S

S


rove, Stephen J. and Raymond P. Fisk (1997), “The Impact of Other Cus-tomers on Service Experiences: A Critical Incident Examination of “GettingAlong”,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 63–85.

amilton, Rebecca and Linda L. Price (2019), “Consumer Journeys: DevelopingConsumer-Based Strategy,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,47 (2), 187–91.

eller, Jonas, Mathew Chylinski, Ko de Ruyter, Dominik Mahr and Debbie I.Keeling (2019), “Let Me Imagine That for You: Transforming the RetailFrontline through Augmenting Customer Mental Imagery Ability,” Journalof Retailing, 95 (2), 94–114.

erhausen, Dennis, Kristina Kleinlercher, Peter C. Verhoef, Oliver Emrich andThomas Rudolph (2019), “Loyalty Formation for Different Customer Jour-ney Segments,” Journal of Retailing, 95 (3).

offman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (2017), “Consumer and Object Expe-rience in the Internet of Things: An Assemblage Theory Approach,” Journalof Consumer Research, 44 (6), 1178–204.

ennings, Rebecca (2019), “Why So Many Financially IndependentAdults Are Still on Their Parents’ Phone Plans,” Vox, January20, (accessed November 10, 2019), [https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/10/18172589/phone-plan-verizon-att-sprint-millennials].

ateman, Brian (2019), “Should Zoos Exist?,” Fast Company, June 19,(accessed August 1, 2019), [https://www.fastcompany.com/90365343/should-zoos-exist].

atsikeas, Constantine S., Neil A. Morgan, Leonidas C. Leonidou and G. TomasM. Hult (2016), “Assessing Performance Outcomes in Marketing,” Journalof Marketing, 80 (2), 1–20.

ozlenkova, Irina V., G. Tomas M. Hult, Donald J. Lund, Jeannette A. Menaand Pinar Kekec (2015), “The Role of Marketing Channels in Supply ChainManagement,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (4), 586–609.

rafft, Manfred, Oliver Goetz, Murali Mantrala, Francesca Sotgiu and SebastianTillmanns (2015), “The Evolution of Marketing Channel Research Domainsand Methodologies: An Integrative Review and Future Directions,” Journalof Retailing, 91 (4), 569–85.

umar, V. (2018), “A Theory of Customer Valuation: Concepts, Metrics, Strat-egy, and Implementation,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (1), 1–19.

amberton, Cait (2016), “Collaborative Consumption: A Goal-Based Frame-work,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 10 (August), 55–9.

emon, Katherine N. and Peter C. Verhoef (2016), “Understanding CustomerExperience Throughout the Customer Journey,” Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.

agaudda, Paolo (2011), “When Materiality ‘Bites Back’: Digital Music Con-sumption Practices in the Age of Dematerialization,” Journal of ConsumerCulture, 11 (1), 15–36.

cColl-Kennedy, Janet R., Anders Gustafsson, Elina Jaakkola, Phil Klaus, ZoeRadnor, Helen Perks and Margareta Friman (2015), “Fresh Perspectives onCustomer Experience,” Journal of Services Marketing, 29 (6/7), 430–5.

cFerran, Brent and Argo Jennifer (2014), “The Entourage Effect,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 40 (5), 871–84.

ende, Martin, Maura L. Scott, Aaron M. Garvey and Lisa E. Bolton (2019),“The Marketing of Love: How Attachment Styles Affect Romantic Con-sumption Journeys,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (2),255–73.

iller, Daniel (1998), A Theory of Shopping, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

oisio, Risto, Eric J. Arnould and Linda L. Price (2004), “Between Mothers andMarkets: Constructing Family Identity through Homemade Food,” Journalof Consumer Culture, (November (3)), 361–84.

orris, Betsy (2018), “How Fortnite Triggered an Unwinnable Warbetween Parents and Their Boys,” The Wall Street Journal, December21, (accessed August 1, 2019), [https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-fortnite-triggered-an-unwinnable-war-between-parents-and-their-boys-11545397200].

oynihan, Raqayyah and Alberto Payo (2019), “These Are the Acquisi-tions That Have Made Amazon the Giant It Is Today,” Business Insider,
June 20, (accessed November 5, 2019), [https://www.businessinsider.com/acquisitions-that-made-amazon-the-giant-it-is-today-2019-6].
S

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24 23

athanson, Amy I. (2018), “How Parents Manage Young Children’s MobileMedia Use,” in Families and Technology, Hook Jennifer Van, McHale SusanM. and King Valarie, eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–22.

icolini, Davide (2012), Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Intro-duction, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

tnes, Cele C. and Elizabeth H. Pleck (2003), Cinderella Dreams: The Allureof the Lavish Wedding, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

tnes, Cele C., Jenny Yang, Behice Ece Ilhan and Nicole Tami (2009), “Con-sumer Mourning and Coping with the Loss of Strategic Rituals: The Caseof Marshall Field & Co,” in Na—Advances in Consumer Research, McGillAnn L. and Shavitt Sharon, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for ConsumerResearch 688

etersen, J. Andrew, Leigh McAlister, David J. Reibstein, Russell S. Winer, V.Kumar and Geoff Atkinson (2009), “Choosing the Right Metrics to Max-imize Profitability and Shareholder Value,” Journal of Retailing, 85 (1),95–111.

hipps, Marcus and Julie L. Ozanne (2017), “Routines Disrupted: Reestablish-ing Security through Practice Alignment,” Journal of Consumer Research,44 (2), 361–80.

rice, Linda L. (2013), “Family Stuff: Materiality and Identity,” in The RoutledgeCompanion to Identity and Consumption, Belk Russell and Ruvio Ayalla,eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 302–12.

(2015), “Loyalty and Brands in Consumers’ AssembledLives,” in Strong Brands, Strong Relationships, Fournier Susan, BreazealeMichael and Avery Jill, eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 13–27.

rice, Linda L. and Amber M. Epp (2015), “The Heterogeneous and Open-EndedProject of Assembling Family,” in Assembling Consumption: ResearchingActors, Networks and Markets, Canniford Robin and Bajde Domen, eds.New York, NY: Routledge, 59–76.

aghunathan, Rajagopal and Kim Corfman (2006), “Is Happiness Shared Dou-bled and Sadness Shared Halved? Social Influence on Enjoyment of HedonicExperiences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 386–94.

amanathan, Suresh and Ann L. McGill (2007), “Consuming with Others:Social Influences on Moment-to-Moment and Retrospective Evaluations ofan Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 506–24.

atner, Rebecca K. and Rebecca W. Hamilton (2015), “Inhibited from BowlingAlone,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (2), 266–83.

eckwitz, Andreas (2002), “Toward a Theory of Social Practices a Developmentin Culturalist Theorizing,” European journal of social theory, 5 (2), 243–63.

ouse, Joseph (2007), “Social Practices and Normativity,” Philosophy of theSocial Sciences, 37 (1), 46–56.

ubin, Nicole and Linda Franck (2017), “The Role of Ronald Mcdonald HouseCharities® in Keeping Families Close,” Pediatric Nursing, 43 (4), 202–5.

caraboto, Daiane and Eileen Fischer (2013), “Frustrated Fatshionistas: AnInstitutional Theory Perspective on Consumer Quests for Greater Choicein Mainstream Markets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1234–57.

chatzki, Theodore R. (1996), Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approachto Human Activity and the Social, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

chau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muniz and Eric J. Arnould (2009), “How BrandCommunity Practices Create Value,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 30–51.

chmitt, Bernd H. (2003), Customer Experience Management: A RevolutionaryApproach to Connecting with Your Customers, New York, NY: The FreePress.

(2011), “Experience Marketing: Concepts, Frameworksand Consumer Insights,” Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 5 (2),55–112.

(1999), Experiential Marketing, New York, NY: The FreePress.

eregina, Anastasia and Henri A. Weijo (2017), “Play at Any Cost: HowCosplayers Produce and Sustain Their Ludic Communal Consumption Expe-riences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (1), 139–59.

eybold, Patricia B. (2001), “Get inside the Lives of Your Customers,” HarvardBusiness Review, 79 (5), 80–9.

hove, Elizabeth and Mika Pantzar (2005), “Consumers, Producers and Prac-tices,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 5 (1), 43–64.






































































































































https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/10/18172589/phone-plan-verizon-att-sprint-millennials

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/10/18172589/phone-plan-verizon-att-sprint-millennials

https://www.fastcompany.com/90365343/should-zoos-exist

https://www.fastcompany.com/90365343/should-zoos-exist




























































































































































































































































































https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-fortnite-triggered-an-unwinnable-war-between-parents-and-their-boys-11545397200



https://www.businessinsider.com/acquisitions-that-made-amazon-the-giant-it-is-today-2019-6

https://www.businessinsider.com/acquisitions-that-made-amazon-the-giant-it-is-today-2019-6












































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































2 l of R

S

S

S

S

T

T

T

V

V

V

V

V

W

W

W

Zumbach, Lauren (2018), “Back-to-School in a Box: Parents Keep It Simplewith Supply Kits,” Chicago Tribune, August 2, (accessed August 7, 2019),


hove, Elizabeth, Mika Pantzar and Matt Watson (2012), The Dynamics ofSocial Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes, London, UK: SagePublications.

ilvis, Jennifer (2013), “Children’s Hospital Design Grows Up,” HealthcareDesign, May 28, (accessed August 13, 2019), [https://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/architecture/childrens-hospital-design-grows/].

now, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden and Robert D. Benford(1986), “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and MovementParticipation,” American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464–81.

now, David A., Rens Vliegenthart and Pauline Ketelaars (2019), “The FramingPerspective on Social Movements: Its Conceptual Roots and Architecture,”in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Snow David A.,Soule Sarah A., Kriesei Hanspeter and McCammon Holly J., eds. Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 392–410.

homas, Tandy Chalmers and Amber M. Epp (2019), “The Best Laid Plans: WhyNew Parents Fail to Habituate Practices,” Journal of Consumer Research,46 (3), 564–89.

homas, Tandy Chalmers, Linda L. Price and Hope Jensen Schau (2013), “WhenDifferences Unite: Resource Dependence in Heterogeneous ConsumptionCommunities,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (5), 1010–33.

homas, Tandy Chalmers, Martin A. Pyle and Jay M. Handelman (2019), “Iden-tification Incubators: Reflexivity in Consumer Book Clubs,” ConsumptionMarkets & Culture,, forthcoming

arman, Rohit and Janeen Arnold Costa (2009), “Competitive and CooperativeBehavior in Embedded Markets: Developing an Institutional Perspective on
Bazaars,” Journal of Retailing, 85 (4), 453–67.
elagaleti, Sunaina and Amber M. Epp (2019), When Cultural Categories AreDestabilized: Mobilizing Capital to Establish Legitimacy, Working Paper,University of Wisconsin-Madison.

etailing 96 (1, 2020) 9–24

erhoef, Peter C., Rajkumar Venkatesan, Leigh McAlister, Edward C. Malt-house, Manfred Krafft and Shankar Ganesan (2010), “Crm in Data-RichMultichannel Retailing Environments: A Review and Future Research Direc-tions,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24 (2), 121–37.

erhoef, Peter, Katherine Lemon, A. Parasuraman, Anne Roggeveen, MichaelTsiros and Leonard Schlesinger (2009), “Customer Experience Creation:Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies,” Journal of Retailing,85 (1), 31–41.

redeveld, Anna J. and Robin A. Coulter (2019), “Cultural Experiential GoalPursuit, Cultural Brand Engagement, and Culturally Authentic Experiences:Sojourners in America,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 274–90.

arde, Alan (2014), “After Taste: Culture, Consumption and Theories of Prac-tice,” Journal of Consumer Culture, 14 (3), 279–303.

(2005), “Consumption and Theories of Practice,” Journalof Consumer Culture, 5 (2), 131–53.

ehner, Mike (2019), “German Circus Goes Cruelty-Free and Replaces Ani-mals with Holograms,” New York Post, June 7, (accessed August 13, 2019),[https://nypost.com/2019/06/07/german-circus-goes-cruelty-free-and-replaces-animals-with-holograms/].

oermann, Niklas and Joonas Rokka (2015), “Timeflow: How ConsumptionPractices Shape Consumers’ Temporal Experiences,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 41 (6), 1486–508.

[https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-back-to-school-supply-kits-0805-story.html].


















https://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/architecture/childrens-hospital-design-grows/

https://www.healthcaredesignmagazine.com/architecture/childrens-hospital-design-grows/















































































































































































































































































































































https://nypost.com/2019/06/07/german-circus-goes-cruelty-free-and-replaces-animals-with-holograms/

https://nypost.com/2019/06/07/german-circus-goes-cruelty-free-and-replaces-animals-with-holograms/


























https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-back-to-school-supply-kits-0805-story.html

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-back-to-school-supply-kits-0805-story.html

Journeying Together: Aligning Retailer and Service ...

Documents

Transcript of Journeying Together: Aligning Retailer and Service ...