ONE SIZE FITS ALL? Angelica Blom · angelica blom one size fits all? understanding shopper...

Angelica Blom

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?UNDERSTANDING SHOPPER RESPONSES TOWARDS

INTEGRATION ACTIVITIES IN OMNICHANNEL RETAILING

Angelica Blom

O

NE SIZE FITS A

LL?

ISBN 978-91-7731-113-3

DOCTORAL DISSERTATION IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, SWEDEN 2019

ANGELICA BLOM is a researcher at the Center for Retailing.

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

Contemporary shopper journeys often entail myriad interactions, including online or offline stores, smartphone applications, social media platforms and mass communication. Shoppers typically expect to shop seamlessly across in-teractions, leading retailers to develop omnichannel strategies focused on in-tegrating such interactions. This thesis investigates shopper responses, linked to sales- and brand-related outcomes, towards these integration attempts, seeking to determine if these responses are dependent on four distinct as-pects in the shopping situation: type of purchase made by the shopper, how well-planned the purchase is, the shopper’s smartphone shopping expertise and the location of the shopper.

The shopping behavior literature suggests that shoppers respond differently towards marketing, depending on their shopping situation. However, a com-mon belief in both omnichannel research and practice is that integration across interactions is preferable in all situations. This thesis contributes to re-search and practice by examining if and when shopper responses towards re-tailers’ integration activities can be dependent upon the shopping situation.

The empirical results from five articles consisting of eight experimental stud-ies indicate that a one-size-fits-all integration strategy is not universally ap-plicable. The overall patterns demonstrate that retailers will gain more by focusing on integration activities targeted towards shoppers who purchase utilitarian products, make planned purchases, have less experience in using their smartphone while shopping, and are located outside the store. The find-ings can be used as a guide for retailers in the design of their integration activities.

One Size Fits All?

Understanding Shopper Responses Towards Integration Activities in Omnichannel Retailing

Angelica Blom

Akademisk avhandling

som för avläggande av ekonomie doktorsexamen vid Handelshögskolan i Stockholm framläggs för offentlig granskning

fredagen den 22 februari 2019, kl 10.15, sal Ruben, Handelshögskolan,

Saltmätargatan13-17, Stockholm

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

Understanding Shopper Responses Towards Integration Activities in

Omnichannel Retailing

ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

Understanding Shopper Responses Towards Integration Activities in

Omnichannel Retailing

Angelica Blom

i i

Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D., in Business Administration Stockholm School of Economics, 2019

One Size Fits All?: Understanding Shopper Responses Towards Integration Activities in Omnichannel Retailing © SSE and the author, 2019 ISBN 978-91-7731-113-3 (printed) ISBN 978-91-7731-114-0 (pdf)

Front cover illustration: © Rasmus Svensson, 2018

Back cover photo: Nicklas Gustafsson, 2013

Printed by: BrandFactory, Gothenburg, 2019

Keywords: Omnichannel retailing, shopper journey, integration strategy, shopper responses, shopper behavior, seamless shopping

To Rasmus and Olivia

Foreword

This volume is the result of a research project carried out at the Department of Marketing and Strategy at the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE).

This volume is submitted as a doctoral thesis at SSE. In keeping with the policies of SSE, the author has been entirely free to conduct and pre-sent her research in the manner of her choosing as an expression of her own ideas.

SSE is grateful for the financial support provided by the Hakon Swenson Stiftelsen, which has made it possible to carry out the project.

Göran Lindqvist Hans Kjellberg

Director of Research Professor and Head of the Stockholm School of Economics Department of Marketing and Strategy

Acknowledgements

This thesis would never have been completed without the guidance of and encouragement from several actors, all of whom deserve a special thanks. For your support, I will be forever grateful.

First, I want to thank my three superheroes, Sara Rosengren, Fredrik Lange, and Anna Jonsson. I’m sincerely grateful and privileged that all three of you wanted to be part of my supervisory committee. To Sara Rosengren: thank you for believing in me and encouraging me, always, as well as for always finding time for me, and for giving me invaluable advice whenever I needed it. Thank you for always being so supportive along the way. You are truly an academic inspiration and a great mind. To Fredrik Lange: if it was not for you, this journey would probably never have been started; I’m truly thankful that you inspired me to apply for the Ph.D. program. Thank you for your great guidance throughout this journey and for always making time for me and my projects. Thank you for always making my questions—even the less clever ones—feel like million-dollar inquiries, worthy of your time and thoughts. You are sincerely a brilliant scholar. To Anna Jonsson: for so generously offering your support, time, and valuable insights along the way, for helping me see the bigger picture, and for always cheering me on: you are a great intellectual, and a source of wisdom and happiness. To Sara, Fredrik and Anna: I’m truly honored to have had the opportunity to work with three such inspirational scholars.

To all my colleagues, present and former, at the Center for Retailing and the Center for Consumer Marketing: Erik Alenius, Hanna Berg, Ann Cedersved, Per-Jonas Eliaeson, Maja Fors, Rebecca Gruvhammar, Mikael Hernant, Cecilia Höft, Svetlana Kolesova, Lina Lehn, Karina T. Liljedal, Annika Lindström, Erik Modig, Sofie Sagfossen, Reema Singh, Karl Strelis, Torkel Strömsten, Carolina Stubb, Stefan Szugalski, Martin Söndergaard,

vii i

Erik Wikberg and Nina Åkestam-Grahnström. I’m so lucky to have had the opportunity to share my working days with you. A special thanks to Claes-Robert Julander and Richard Wahlund for your wise insights, to Magnus Söderlund for always making time to answer my questions, and to Jonas Colliander and Wiley Wakeman for reading and commenting on my texts. To Jens Nordfält, Anne L. Roggeveen and Dhruv Grewal, I am grateful for your insightfulness and wisdom that you shared with me along the way.

To all of my co-authors, Fredrik Lange, Ronald L. Hess Jr., Sara Rosengren, Micael Dahlen and John Karsberg: working with you has been a privilege, and I have learned so much throughout our joint projects. I also want to thank everyone who has helped me in collecting data throughout this thesis project. To the Hakon Swenson Stiftelsen, for supporting this thesis project financially, for that I am genuinely thankful. To Daniel Tolstoy, thank you for being a great opponent on my mock defense, and for all your valuable insights and comments.

A special thanks goes to John Karsberg, who shared the bigger part of this process with me, for making this journey an even more pleasant one. I’m so glad that we decided to work on a joint project together. A special thanks is also extended to Joel Ringbo and Carl-Philip Ahlbom for being the greatest roomies I could ever have wished for. John, Joel and Carl-Philip, thank you for your invaluable support along the way and for being such great friends.

To the love of my life, my husband Rasmus: there are not enough words to describe how lucky I am to share my life with you. Thank you for cooking ninety percent of all weeknight dinners, for every load of laundry you have washed, for being our family’s Chief of VAB and for being the bedtime story-general, as well as for the countless hours you spent on the playground after kindergarten indulging our daughter’s love of “gunga,” while I spent most of my time writing this thesis. Most importantly, thank you for believing in me, being my biggest supporter and for being the best dad our daughter ever could had whished for. The light of my life, my daughter Olivia, thank you for always reminding me what’s most important in life. To my family, my everything: I love you to the moon and back.

Bromma, December, 2018

Angelica Blom

ix

Contents

Prologue ................................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Research Problem ................................................................................ 4 1.2 Purpose of the Thesis .................................................................................. 7 1.3 Outline of the Thesis ................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review: Shopper Responses towards Integration Activities ......... 9 2.1 The Contemporary Shopper Journey ........................................................ 9 2.2 Integration in Omnichannel Retailing ................................................... 11 2.3 Shopper Responses Towards Integration Activities ............................ 15 2.4 Intended Contribution to the Literature ............................................... 19

CHAPTER 3

Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................... 21 3.1 Manage Interactions Across Channels and Touchpoints ................... 22 3.2 Manage Interactions Inside and Outside the Store ............................ 23 3.3 The Shopping Situation ............................................................................ 25

3.3.1 Type of Purchase ............................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Degree of Planning ........................................................................... 26 3.3.3 Degree of Shopper Expertise .......................................................... 27 3.3.4 Shopper Location .............................................................................. 28

3.4 Manage Sales and Brand-Related Outcomes ........................................ 29

CHAPTER 4

Introducing the Articles ...................................................................................... 31 4.1 Article 1 ...................................................................................................... 32 4.3 Article 2 ...................................................................................................... 34 4.3 Article 3 ...................................................................................................... 35 4.4 Article 4 ...................................................................................................... 36 4.5 Article 5 ...................................................................................................... 37

x

CHAPTER 5

Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................ 39 5.1 Contribution to Research ......................................................................... 39 5.2 Practical Implications ................................................................................ 43 5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research .............................. 46

References .............................................................................................................. 49

CHAPTER 6

Article 1: Omnichannel-based promotions’ effects on purchase behavior and brand image ............................................................................................... 59

CHAPTER 7

Article 2: Omnichannel promotions and their effect on customer satisfaction ......................................................................................................... 71

CHAPTER 8

Article 3: Targeted smartphone promotions and their effect on fashion consumers’ satisfaction and promotion redemption ................................ 105

CHAPTER 9

Article 4: Virtually same but physically different? How marketing for a new store format impacts shopper behavior in the current store .................. 133

CHAPTER 10

Article 5: Store-window creativity’s impact on shopper behavior .............. 159

Prologue

Imagine you are looking for an outfit to wear at a special occasion. You first search on the web and get access to a worldwide assortment. The number of alternatives is over-whelming. You then remember that you saw an outfit on one of your favorite retailer’s Instagram account last week. You repost that outfit on your social media platforms and ask your followers to vote yes or no if you should buy the item. Most of your friends vote no. The next day you walk by a fashion retailer’s store window and something catches your eye. One of the outfits displayed in the store window looks really interesting, you enter the store and test the outfit. You send pictures to your closest friends to ask for ad-vice. They give you thumps up for the outfit. Using your smartphone, you check if the outfit can be bought at some other retailer for a better price. In the store you see that the retailer is promoting shopping in their online store; if the purchase is made this week through their smartphone application you will get 10% off. You search for the right size in the app, find it, order it, and choose to have it delivered the next day to your local gro-cery store.

This shopper journey illustrates the contemporary shopping behavior in the evolving retail landscape where technology enables flexible shopping. Shoppers can interact any-where with a retailer, both inside and outside the store, and the number of interactions made are often numerous. Shoppers often interact with retailers through online stores, social media, store window displays, other brand communication, a physical store, and/or a smartphone application. Retailers’ integration activities potentially allow the retailer to offer a consistent retail offering independent of mode of interaction and seamlessness across these interactions. However, how will shoppers respond towards these attempts to inte-grate, and will these shopper responses be dependent on the place of the interaction and/or contingent on the shopping situation such as; purchase type, the degree of planning a shopper makes before a purchase, the shopper’s expertise and the location of a shopper? These questions will be explored in the thesis.

Chapter 1

Introduction

The way shoppers interact with retailers has changed considerably over the last decade due to new technology and new formats, including social media, smartphone applications, and online stores. Due to this change, retailers are attempting to integrate activities across these interactions. This thesis exam-ines how shoppers respond towards retailers’ integration activities and, more specifically, if shopper responses can be contingent upon the shop-ping situation.

Retailers have traditionally depicted the shopper journey as a one-way journey where shoppers first recognize a need, search for information, and then evaluate the possible alternatives, all before making a choice and buy-ing a product in a store (Faulds et al., 2018; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Levy et al., 2019). Typically, shoppers interacted with the retailer through only one channel, such as a physical offline store or an online website store (Verhoef et al., 2015). This step-by-step shopper journey described as a dis-crete one-way journey with a distinct beginning and an end has however changed (Faulds et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2018; Kahn et al., 2018; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Lee et al., 2018). Technological development facilitates shopping flexibility (McKenzie et al., 2018) and, as illustrated in the pro-logue, shoppers don’t interact with a retail brand only through a store visit, they also potentially use several different retail channels (i.e. interactions where transactions can be made including offline and online stores or the smartphone application store) and touchpoints (i.e. informational interac-tions such as social media, reviewer sites, shopper communities, and/or

2 ONE SIZE FITS ALL?

mass communication) throughout their shopper journey (Anderl et al., 2016; Barwitz & Maas, 2018; Harris et al., 2018; Kahn et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015). These interactions can take place both inside and outside a store (Bloch and & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Hagberg et al., 2016; Shankar 2014). Furthermore, shoppers often switch between these channels and touchpoints or use them interchangeably (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Rigby, 2011, Rosengren et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015).

These changes in shopping behavior have led both retailers and re-searchers to conclude that contemporary shoppers expect that they can start their journey in one channel or touchpoint and then continue the journey via a different channel and/or touchpoint without any disruptions (Huré et al., 2017; Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Rigby, 2011; Zhang et al., 2018). More specifically, it is argued that shoppers expect 1) movement across channel and touchpoint to be seamless (Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Rigby, 2011; Verhoef et al., 2015), and 2) their shopper journey to be as effortless and efficient as possible (Murfiled et al., 2017).

Because of these changes in shopper behaviors and expectations, both scholars and professionals in the field recommend retailers to integrate channels and touchpoints and implement what is referred to as an omni-channel retailing strategy (Lemon & Verhoef 2016; Rosengren et al, 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015). Omnichannel retailing is defined as “the synergetic management of the numerous available channels and customer touch-points, in such a way that the customer experience across channels and the performance over channels is optimized” (Verheof et al., 2015, p. 176). Fo-cus in omnichannel retailing is thus on optimizing both the retailer’s perfor-mance and the shopper experience with the retail brand. Thus, the changing shopper behavior challenges retailers to go beyond the traditional perfor-mance focus where direct sales in retail channels have been the central out-come (Brynjolfsson et al., 2013; Flauld et al., 2018) to add a brand focus across both channels and touchpoints (Rosengren et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015).

In omnichannel retailing, integration across channels and touchpoint interactions has been described as fundamental in order to facilitate the seamless shopper journey expected by shoppers in the emerging retail land-scape (Cao & Li, 2015; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Kleinlercher et al., 2018;

CHAPTER 1 3

Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Li et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016; Rigby, 2011; Saghiri et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). Integration can be described as creating unity across channel and touchpoint interactions; the shopper should be able to shop seamlessly across interactions, and the retail brand image should be consistent across these interactions (Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Huré et al., 2017; Kleinlercher et al., 2018). Integration activities that can create unity across channel and touchpoint interactions commonly mentioned in research include: retail mix (Bendoley et al., 2005; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Li et al., 2017; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Van Baal, 2014; Zhang et al., 2018), distribu-tion functions (Bendoley et al., 2005; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2018), customer information (Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Li et al., 2017; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2018;), customer service (Bendo-ley et al., 2005; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Li et al., 2017; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018;), and brand image (Frasquet & Mi-quel, 2017; Van Baal, 2014).

Integration can be executed differently among retailers, and the terms used to describe a management strategy focusing on integration can also differ. Researchers use the terms multichannel (e.g. Emrich et al., 2015; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Melis et al., 2015), cross channel (e.g. Bendoley et al., 2005; Cao & Li, 2015; Li et al., 2017) or omnichannel retailing (e.g. Saghiri et al., 2017; Verhoef et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018) to describe in-tegration across interactions, with each of these terms describing different integration strategies. Furthermore, it has been established that these differ-ent integration strategies sometimes are used to convey different perspec-tives or levels of integrations, but sometimes are used as synonyms (Beck & Rygl, 2015; Huré et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016). These three inte-gration strategies will be discussed further in chapter 2. The term omni-channel retailing is used here since it recognizes the changing shopper behavior and the way contemporary shoppers interact with retailers through several channels and touchpoint both inside and outside the store. Moreover, it also recognizes the importance of having a sales and brand focus (Saghiri et al., 2015; Verhoef et al., 2015).


In this thesis I take a shopper perspective by examining how shoppers respond towards integration activities in terms of managing interactions across channels and touchpoints, and interactions inside and outside the store. For retailers, shopper responses (i.e. promotion redemption, shopper in-store movements, store entry, satisfaction, and retail brand attitude) can lead to both sales and brand related outcomes. My objective is that this the-sis will further the understanding of shopper behavior in omnichannel re-tailing. This is done by exploring the following questions; How will shoppers respond towards integration activities, and will these responses be dependent upon where the interaction takes place? Furthermore, will these responses be contingent upon the shopping situation such as the type of purchase made, degree of planning made before a purchase, shopper exper-tise and the location of the shopper?

1.1 The Research Problem

Changing shopper behavior has recently increased the interest in omni-channel retailing across varied disciplines. Omnichannel retailing have been studied in various research disciplines such as marketing and supply chain (Cao & Li, 2015; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Gallino & Moreno, 2012; Ganesh, 2004; Ishfaq et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017; Petina & Hasty, 2009; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2018), management and organiza-tion (Cao, 2014; Lewis et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2016; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016; Wiener et al., 2018), and retail (Emrich et al., 2015; Herhausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015). Focus has been on examining issues linked to dis-tribution (Gallino & Moreno, 2012; Ishfaq et al., 2016), and business and strategy (Cao, 2014; Lewis et al., 2014; Müller-Lankenau et al., 2016; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016; Von Briel, 2018; Wiener et al., 2018). Furthermore, ef-fects on performance (i.e. sales growth and profit) from integration has also been examined (Cao & Li, 2015; Oh et al., 2012; Petina & Hasty, 2009; Yan et al., 2010).

Additionally, in relation to the main shopper focus of this thesis, recent research has addressed the following issue which are of special interest; showrooming and webrooming shopping behavior (Bell et al., 2013; Gao & Su, 2017; Rapp et al., 2015; Rippé et al., 2017; Yurova et al., 2017),

CHAPTER 1 5

smartphone use (Fuentes & Svingstedt, 2017; Fuentes et al., 2017; Grewal et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015), omnichannel shopper’s characteristics (Jueanda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Murfield et al., 2017; Melis et al., 2015) and retailers’ integration activities and its effect on shopper responses (e.g. Ben-doley et al., 2005; Bertrandie & Zielke, 2017; Emrich et al., 2015; Herhau-sen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Oh & Teo, 2010; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Seck and Phillipe, 2013; Zhang et al., 2018). These specific research streams establish that shoppers use channels and touchpoints simultane-ously, through smartphone use (e.g. Fuentes & Svingstedt, 2017; Grewal et al., 2018; Rippé et al., 2017; Yurova et al., 2017), and interchangeably, where showrooming behavior foremost has been in focus (e.g. Bell et al., 2013; Gao & Su, 2017; Rapp et al., 2015). Moreover, the omnichannel shopper is time conscious (Murfield et al., 2017) and prefers to shop at re-tailers that can provide an efficient shopper journey (Jueanda-Ayensa et al., 2016).

The growing body of omnichannel research has also focused on shop-per responses towards integration activities, where recent research demon-strates that retailers’ integration activities generally result in positive shopper responses, thus affecting outcomes linked to both sales and brand positively (e.g. Bertrandie & Zielke, 2017; Emrich et al., 2015; Gallino et al., 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018). Hence, the common no-tion in omnichannel research and practice is that the shopper is expecting integration across channel and touchpoint interactions. Retailer’s integra-tion activities are thus expected to lead to positive shopper responses such as an improved shopping experience, increased shopping value, satisfaction and loyalty (Faulds et al., 2018; Huré et al., 2017; Kleinlercher et al., 2018; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Verheof et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018). How-ever, actors both in research and practice seem to overlook if and when integration might not be universally effective. This is surprising since previ-ous research has demonstrated that shopper responses towards marketing are contingent upon the shopping situation (e.g. Büttner et al., 2015; Büttner et al., 2013; Kushwaha & Shankar, 2013; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006; Yalch & Spangenberg, 1990). It has been established that the shopping situation can be formed by, for example, the type of purchase the shopper is making (e.g. Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Kushwaha & Shankar, 2013), by the degree


of purchase planning (e.g. Bell et al., 2011; Cobb-Hoyer, 1986; Engel et al., 1995), by the shopper’s degree of expertise (e.g. Herhausen et al., 2015; Lindström et al., 2016) and by the shopper and her/his location (e.g. Bues et al., 2017). Thus, the shopping situation can yield different types of shop-per journeys (Lee et al., 2018) which in turn may affect how shoppers will respond towards retailers´ integration activities. Thus, integration activities may lead to strengthened or attenuated shopper responses (Verhoef et al., 2015). The implementation of an omnichannel retailing strategy might not be as straightforward as one might think. Thus, a one-size-fits-all integra-tion strategy might not always be applicable.

Even though integration activities can lead to strengthened or attenuat-ed shopper responses only a few researchers, to the best of the author’s knowledge, have examined the variation in the magnitude of shopper re-sponses to integration activities (Bues et al., 2017; Emrich et al., 2015; Her-hausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2018). More specifically, these studies demonstrate that shopper responses towards integration activ-ities are contingent upon type of retailer (Emrich et al., 2015), the shopper’s location (Bues et al., 2017) and shopper expertise linked to IT (Shen et al., 2018), and online shopping (Herhausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015). This suggests that the magnitude of shopper responses towards retailers’ integra-tion activities can vary. Integration investments can therefore lead to di-verse outcomes for retailers depending on the shopping situation.

Furthermore, little is still known regarding how shoppers will respond towards integration activities depending on where the interaction takes place. Contemporary shoppers can interact with a retailer both inside and outside the store while shopping (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Hagberg et al., 2016; Shankar, 2014). Only a limited number of articles have however focused on this aspect (e.g., Bues et al., 2017). This has however been pin-pointed in research as an important aspect to examine further in order to manage interactions inside and outside the store more effectively (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018, Hagberg et al., 2016; Shankar, 2014). More research is needed to further the understanding of shopper responses towards inte-gration activities, both with regards to under which conditions shopper re-sponses will be strengthened or attenuated, and if these responses will differ depending on where an interaction takes place.

CHAPTER 1 7

1.2 Purpose of the Thesis

The purpose of this thesis is to better understand shopper responses to-wards retailers’ integration activities in omnichannel retailing. More specifi-cally, this thesis investigates if shopper responses are contingent upon the shopping situation in terms of type of purchase, degree of planning, degree of shopper expertise, and shopper location. By empirically investigating shopper responses linked to sales and brand related outcomes this thesis contributes to both research and practice in the area of omnichannel retail-ing.

1.3 Outline of the Thesis

This thesis is compiled of five articles with a total of eight experimental studies. Before introducing the articles and how they collectively contribute to the overall aim with the thesis in chapter 4, a literature review is outlined in chapter 2 focusing on shopper responses towards retailers’ integration activities. Chapter 3 will then present and discuss the conceptual framework of the thesis. The motivation for outlining a conceptual framework is two-folded; first it offers an overview of how the shopper journey is affected by the new and emerging retail landscape, where multiple channels and touch-points has become a vital part of that journey (e.g. Hagberg et al., 2016; Harris et al., 2018; Kahn et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018). Secondly, it illustrates how the findings from this thesis contribute to an understanding of com-plex shopper journeys that retailers need to manage. In chapter 5 this thesis contribution to both research and practice will be discussed. The limitations of this thesis and suggestions for further research are also discussed in this chapter. The five articles are presented in full length in chapter 6-10.

Chapter 2

Literature Review: Shopper Responses towards Integration Activities

In this chapter I will discuss how changing shopper behaviors influence retailers to focus on integration of channel and touchpoint interactions. The literature focusing on shopper responses towards integration activities will be outlined in order to get an overview of the current knowledge in the field.

2.1 The Contemporary Shopper Journey

A shopper journey can and will most often entail several interactions with the retailer (Harris et al, 2018; Kahn et al., 2018), both inside and outside a store (Hagberg et al., 2016). The increased number of interactions during a shopper journey has forced retailers to rethink the retail channel concept, adding touchpoint interactions as vital aspects of the shopper journey, such as social media and mass communication (Ailawadi & Farris, 2017; Baxen-dale et al., 2015; Saghiri et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015; Von Briel, 2018).

Channels and touchpoints, both important in the shopper journey, dif-fer in the type of interaction, who controls the interaction, and where the interaction takes place. Firstly, channel interactions can be described as transactional, that is interactions that enables shoppers to make a purchase. Meanwhile touchpoint interactions can be described as interactions that


provide shoppers with information during their shopper journey. Secondly, in comparison with channel interactions which are mainly controlled by the retailer, touchpoint interactions do not necessarily need to be in the hands of the retailer. These interactions can also be in the hands of a) other com-panies, such as a reviewer site that shoppers seek information from during their shopper journey, or distribution companies that deliver the products ordered online; and b) other shoppers (e.g. through communities or social media), such as when shoppers ask peers for shopping advice (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2015). Thirdly, these interactions can also be made inside a store, such as interactions with offline store channels, or out-side the store, such as interactions made with the retail brand through touchpoints like social media or mass communication (e.g. Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018).

Hence, shoppers do not just interact with one retailer, one retail brand, or one retail store during their shopper journey; they interact with several channels and touchpoints (Barwitz & Maas, 2018; Harris et al., 2018; Kahn et al., 2018). These interactions can be controlled by different actors (e.g. Verhoef et al., 2015) and be made inside and/or outside the store (e.g. Hagberg et al., 2016). All these interactions have become fundamental in describing the contemporary shopper journey (Rigby, 2011; Rosengren et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015) and makes both channels and touchpoints interactions two important aspects of this journey (Kahn et al., 2018; Li et al., 2017; Saghiri et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015). More-over, it is argued in research that shoppers expect seamlessness across all these interactions (Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Rigby, 2011; Verhoef et al., 2015).

A contemporary shopper journey should therefore be described as a seamless journey across both channels and touchpoints (Faulds et al., 2018; Kahn et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2018; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). The contem-porary shopper journey is formed by this seamless process, where infor-mation from past and future experiences are mixed. Furthermore, current experiences with the external environment and interactions with different channels and touchpoints during the pre-purchase, the purchase, and the post-purchase stage are essential in forming the contemporary shopper journey (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Rosengren et al, 2018). The contempo-

CHAPTER 2 11

rary shopper journey is therefore often complex and difficult to control and predict (Barwitz & Maas, 2018; Harris et al., 2018; Huré et al., 2017; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2015).

Shopping situations are variable, and will therefore generate different types of shopper journeys (Lee et al., 2018). The type of purchase a shop-per is making (e.g. a utilitarian or a hedonic) can affect which information the shopper is attentive towards during their journey (e.g. Kushwaha & Shankar, 2013). Additionally, a well-planned purchase can potentially entail an additional number of interactions with a retailer compared to an un-planned purchase and can increase the shopper’s level of involvement (e.g. Engel et al., 1995). The shopper´s degree of expertise can affect which in-formation the shopper makes decisions based on (e.g. Mandel and Johnson, 2002). Furthermore, shopper journeys can be generated through only one interaction inside an offline store or by several interactions both inside and outside a store. Therefore, shopper journeys will vary widely (Barwitz & Maas, 2018; Harris et al., 2018; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Nevertheless, it is typically argued that shoppers expect the shopper journey to be seamless (Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Rigby, 2011; Verhoef et al., 2015), and effi-cient (Murfiled et al., 2017).

Integration across interactions is vital to create seamless and efficient shopper journeys, and thus manage these contemporary shopper journeys more effectively (Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Kahn et al., 2018; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Li et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016; Saghiri et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018).

2.2 Integration in Omnichannel Retailing

Integration in an organization is defined by Lawrence and Lorsch’s (1967, p.4) as: “the process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsys-tems in the accomplishment of the organization’s task”. According to Law-rence and Lorsch (1967), the task is linked to design, production, and distribution activities. Applying this in an omnichannel retail setting, inte-gration is about achieving unity across channel and touchpoint interactions in order to optimize both sales and brand-related outcomes across these interactions (cf. Verhoef et al., 2015).


There is a great variation regarding which integration activities that have been in focus in previous research. Focus have primarily been put on the retail mix such as price, assortment, and promotion (Frasquet & Mi-quel, 2017; Lee & Kim, 2010; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Van Baal, 2014); distribution; purchase and returns (Bendoley et al., 2005; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015; Lee & Kim, 2010; Li et al., 2017; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011); cross-channel shopping information; custom-er loyalty; stock information; promoting interactions in other channels and touchpoints, such as store location and opening hours (Bendoley et al., 2005; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015; Lee & Kim, 2010; Li et al., 2017; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017); and brand image (Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Lee & Kim, 2010; Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; Van Baal, 2014). Brand image can be linked to aspects such as store atmosphere and quality of the assortment and service level (see Anselmsson et al., 2017 for a more through description of the dimensions of retail im-age). This great variation may influence why the term of integration refers to many different ideas within the research community. Integration has been referred to as multichannel integration (Frasquet & Miquel, 2017), cross channel integration (Bendoley et al., 2005; Cao, 2014; Cao & Li, 2015; Lee & Kim, 2010; Li et al., 2017; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011), channel inte-gration (Lewis et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2016; Melis et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2018; Yan et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2018), online-offline channel integra-tion (Gallino & Moreno, 2012; Herhausen et al., 2015; Kleinlercher et al., 2018), strategic integration (Müller-Lankenau et al., 2006), multichannel coordination (Pentina & Hasty, 2009), channel congruity (Wang et al., 2009), harmonization across channels (Van Baal, 2014; Wiener et al., 2018), synchronization (Picot-Coupey et al., 2016), and organizational integration (Oh & Teo, 2010; Saghiri et al., 2017; von Briel, 2018).

Another reason for the extensive use of the term integration in retail re-search could be that the term can be used to portray different levels of in-tegration, such as multi, cross, and omnichannel retailing (Figure 1). Although it is not always clear whether these concepts differ in practice or in theory, or if they are used interchangeably, two parameters that can help explain the differences are a) the number and type of activities that are in-

CHAPTER 2 13

tegrated and b) the number of channels and touchpoints that these activi-ties are integrated across (Beck & Rygl, 2015; Cao & Li, 2015; Huré et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016). In short, this means that multichannel retail-ing refers to an almost non-existent integration across channels. That is, the retailer’s channels are used separately, and the number of activities integrat-ed across these is minimal. In cross channel retailing the level of integration is intensified through integration of those activities that can offer the shopper a seamless journey across channels. In omnichannel retailing activities that can offer the shopper a seamless shopper journey and create a consistent brand image should be integrated across both channels and the touchpoints. The level of integration in omnichannel retailing can be described as the highest level of integration (Beck & Rygl, 2015; Cao & Li, 2015; Huré et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016).

Figure 1. Integration level across multi, cross, and omnichannel retailing

Figure adapted from Huré et al., (2017) and Picot-Coupey et al., (2016). The main differences across these three integration strategies summarized in the figure are based on Beck & Rygl, 2015; Cao & Li, 2015; Huré et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016

Integration level

Multichannel Retailing - No Integration - Manage interactions in

separate channels - Focus: Sales related

outcomes

Cross Channel Retailing - Moderate Integration - Manage interactions across

channels - Focus: Sales related

outcome

Omnichannel Retailing - Full Integration - Manage interactions across

channels and touchpoints and in interactions inside and outside a store

- Focus: Sales and Brand related outcomes


In addition to researchers using the term integration to refer to different levels, they may also vary in their perspective of integration. Integration can, for example, be viewed from a retailer or a shopper perspective (Beck & Rygl, 2015; Cao & Li, 2015; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Huré et al., 2017; Saghiri et al., 2017). The retailer perspective of integration, described as creating unity across channel and touchpoint interactions (Cao & Li, 2015; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Huré et al., 2017; Saghiri et al., 2017) can lead to benefits of lowered costs through creating synergies (Cao & Li, 2015). Meanwhile, integration from a shopper perspective can be described as the opportunity to shop seamlessly across channel and touchpoint interactions (Beck & Rygl, 2015; Cao & Li, 2015; Huré et al., 2017; Saghiri et al., 2017).

Thus, retailers may integrate activities that create synergies (the retailer perspective) and/or create seamlessness and consistency (the shopper per-spective) in channel and touchpoint interactions. These two perspectives can be linked to Frasquet and Miquels’ (2017) description of integration as both physical and informational. Physical integration is achieved when activi-ties that create cross channel movements are integrated; a retailer’s integra-tion activities should enable shoppers to switch between channels whenever they please during the different stages of the shopper journey. Cross channel movements can be accomplished when stock information is shared across channels, when transactions and returns cross channels are possible, when the retailer promotes its channels and touchpoints in other interactions, when customer service is consistent across interactions, and when the retailer uses the same retail brand across interactions, letting shoppers know which channels and touchpoints they can switch between. Informational integration on the other hand is achieved when activities that create information consistency across channels and touchpoints are inte-grated, such as the retail mix. Retailers should coordinate the retail mix in such a way that brand unity is generated. Coordination of the retail mix in channel and touchpoint interaction could in the end lead to synergetic ben-efits for the retailer (Frasquet & Miquel, 2017).

CHAPTER 2 15

2.3 Shopper Responses Towards Integration Activities

The concept of integration is multidimensional, making it a relatively com-plicated topic for researchers to fully address in a single research article. Thus, the operationalization of integration varies across research articles. Researchers have focused on shopper perception of integration (Bendoley et al., 2005; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Lee & Kim, 2010; Schramm-Klein & Morschett, 2005; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2018), integra-tion of distribution activities (Gallino & Moreno, 2012; Gallino et al., 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017), retail mix activities (Bertrandie & Zielke, 2017, Emrich et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Van Baal, 2014) and integration of activities which enables cross channel shopping (Bues et al., 2017; Chatterjee, 2007; Oh & Teo, 2010; Seck & Phillippe, 2013; Shen et al., 2018) when examining how shoppers respond towards integration (Ta-ble 1).

Multiple studies show that integration activities translate into positive effects on sales-related outcomes. More specifically, research has shown positive effects on shoppers’ willingness to pay (Herhausen et al., 2015), shopping intention across channels and touchpoints (Gallino &Moreno, 2012; Schramm-Klein & Morschett, 2005; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Shen et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018), and purchase intention (Bues et al., 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015). In addition, retailers’ integration activities can affect what type of merchandise the shopper puts in her/his shopping bas-ket (Gallino et al., 2017).

Similar to sales-related outcomes, integration activities have also been demonstrated to effect brand-related outcomes positively. More specifical-ly, research has shown that shoppers perceive greater shopper value (Oh & Teo, 2010), become more satisfied (Chattarjee, 2007; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Seck & Phillipe, 2013), and become more loyal towards the retailer (Bendoley et al., 2005; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Melis et al., 2015; Lee & Kim, 2010; Li et al., 2017; Schramm-Klein & Morschett, 2005; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Van Baal, 2014) when offered integration activities.


These positive shopping responses to integration may be due to shop-pers perceiving lower risk and uncertainty (Bendoley et al., 2005; Chattarjee, 2007; Gallino & Moreno, 2012; Herhausen et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017), in-creased service (Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Gallino et al., 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017; Melis et al., 2015; Oh & Teo, 2010; Seck & Phillipe, 2013;), increased trust (Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2018), and consistency (Seck and Phillipe, 2013; Van Baal, 2014). In contrast, it has also been demonstrated that integration activities do not always have posi-tive shopper responses. For example, full integration of the assortment across channels does not always need to be the most appreciated integra-tion activity by shoppers (Bertrandie & Zielke, 2017; Emrich et al., 2015). Asymmetrical assortment integration, where a wider assortment is offered in one or in a certain number of channels but not in all channels used by the retailer, can lead to less choice confusion (Bertrandie & Zielke, 2017) and higher patronage intentions when shopping for general merchandise (Emrich et al., 2015) compared to full integration; when the retailer offers the same assortment in all channels. Moreover, price and assortment inte-gration activities across channel and touchpoint interactions may result in cannibalization (Van Baal, 2014).

Shopper responses to integration activities can also be contingent on the shopper’s expertise (Herhausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2018). More specifically, shopper responses towards integration activi-ties are attenuated when the shopper has more expertise regarding IT usage (Shen et al, 2018), online grocery shopping (Melis et al., 2015), and online shopping (Herhausen et al., 2015). Moreover, shopper responses towards integration activities can be contingent on the shoppers’ different locations in the store (Bues et al., 2017), and the shopping benefits being communi-cated through the integration activity (Kleinlercher et al., 2018) affecting purchase intention (Bues et al., 2017) and which channel they wish to shop from (Kleinlercher et al., 2018). Thus, research suggests that shopper re-sponses could be contingent upon different aspects in the shopping situa-tion. However, only a limited number of researchers have so far examined shopper responses towards integration activities and if they are contingent upon the shopping situation (Table 1).

Ta

ble

1. S

umm

ary

of r

esea

rch

arti

cles

exa

min

ing

shop

per r

espo

nses

tow

ard

s ret

aile

rs’ i

nteg

ratio

n ac

tiviti

es

Sour

ce

Purp

ose

of In

tegr

atio

ns A

ctiv

ities

Fo

cus

Shop

per R

e-sp

onse

s Sh

oppe

r Res

pons

es

Con

tinge

nt o

n C

hann

els

& To

uchp

oint

s M

etho

d

Bend

oley

et a

l.,

2005

M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Shop

per

per

cept

ion

of in

tegr

atio

n

Bran

d re

late

d

outc

ome

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Surv

ey

Lee

& K

im, 2

010

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s Sh

opp

er p

erce

ptio

n of

inte

gra

tion

Bran

d re

late

d

outc

ome

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Surv

ey

Zha

ng e

t al.,

201

8 M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Shop

per

per

cept

ion

of in

tegr

atio

n Sa

les &

Bra

nd

rela

ted

out

-co

me

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Surv

ey

Schr

am

m-K

lein

&

Mor

sche

tt, 2

005

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s Sh

opp

er p

erce

ptio

n of

inte

gra

tion

Sale

s & B

rand

re

late

d o

ut-

com

e

- O

fflin

e st

ore,

Onl

ine

stor

e &

C

ata

logu

e Su

rvey

Schr

am

m-K

lein

et

al.,

201

1 M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Shop

per

per

cept

ion

of in

tegr

atio

n Sa

les &

Bra

nd

rela

ted

out

-co

me

- O

fflin

e st

ore,

Onl

ine

stor

e &

C

ata

logu

e Su

rvey

Fra

sque

t & M

ique

l, 20

17

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s Sh

opp

er p

erce

ptio

n of

inte

gra

tion

Bran

d re

late

d

outc

ome

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Surv

ey

Ga

llino

& M

oren

o,

2012

M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Dist

ribut

ion

stra

tegy

Sa

les r

ela

ted

ou

tcom

e -

Offl

ine

stor

e &

Onl

ine

stor

e Pr

etes

t &po

stte

st

des

ign

G

allin

o et

al.,

201

7 M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Dist

ribut

ion

stra

tegy

Sa

les r

ela

ted

ou

tcom

e -

Offl

ine

stor

e &

Onl

ine

stor

e Pr

etes

t &po

stte

st

des

ign

Her

haus

en e

t al.,

20

15

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s D

istrib

utio

n &

cro

ss-

cha

nnel

shop

ping

in

form

atio

n

Sale

s rel

ate

d

outc

ome

Inte

rnet

Sho

pp

ing

Exp

ertis

e O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Expe

rimen

t

Li et

al.,

201

7 M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Dist

ribut

ion

& c

ross

-ch

ann

el sh

oppi

ng

info

rma

tion

Bran

d re

late

d

outc

ome

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Surv

ey

Oh

& T

eo, 2

010

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s

Perc

eptio

n of

cro

ss-

cha

nnel

shop

ping

in

form

atio

n, re

tail

mix,

dist

ribut

ion,

im

age

Bran

d re

late

d

outc

ome

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Surv

ey

Sour

ce

Purp

ose

of In

tegr

atio

ns A

ctiv

ities

Fo

cus

Shop

per R

e-sp

onse

s Sh

oppe

r Res

pons

es

Con

tinge

nt o

n C

hann

els

& To

uchp

oint

s M

etho

d

Shen

et a

l., 2

018

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s Pe

rcep

tion

of c

ross

-ch

ann

el sh

oppi

ng

info

rma

tion

Bran

d re

late

d

outc

ome

IT Ex

per

tise

Offl

ine

stor

e, O

nlin

e st

ore,

te

leph

one,

sma

rtpho

ne,

soci

al m

edia

Surv

ey

Cha

tterje

e, 2

007

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s

Cro

ss-c

hann

el

shop

ping

info

r-m

atio

n

Sale

s & B

rand

re

late

d o

ut-

com

e

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Con

sum

er su

rvey

Sa

les d

ata

Se

cond

ary

da

ta

Exec

utiv

e su

rvey

Se

ck &

Phi

llipe,

20

13

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s C

ross

-cha

nnel

sh

oppi

ng in

for-

ma

tion

Bran

d re

late

d

outc

ome

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Surv

ey

Bues

et a

l., 2

017

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

n in

side

the

stor

e C

ross

-cha

nnel

sh

oppi

ng in

for-

ma

tion

Sale

s rel

ate

d

outc

ome

In st

ore

loca

tion

O

fflin

e st

ore

& S

ma

rtpho

ne

Expe

rimen

t

Klei

nler

cher

et a

l.,

2018

M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Cro

ss-c

hann

el

shop

ping

info

r-m

atio

n

Sale

s rel

ate

d

outc

ome

Shop

pin

g b

enef

its

Offl

ine

stor

e &

Onl

ine

stor

e Su

rvey

Va

n Ba

al 2

014

Ma

nagi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns a

cros

s ch

anne

ls an

d to

uchp

oint

s

Reta

il m

ix, b

rand

im

age

Sa

les &

Bra

nd

rela

ted

out

-co

me

- O

fflin

e st

ore,

Onl

ine

stor

e &

C

ata

logu

e Su

rvey

Mel

is et

al.,

201

5 M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Reta

il m

ix Sa

les r

ela

ted

ou

tcom

e O

nlin

e G

roce

ry

Shop

pin

g Ex

per

tise

Offl

ine

stor

e &

Onl

ine

stor

e Sa

les d

ata

Bertr

and

ie &

Zie

l-ke

, 201

7 M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Reta

il m

ix Sa

les &

Bra

nd

rela

ted

out

-co

me

- O

fflin

e st

ore

& O

nlin

e st

ore

Expe

rimen

t

Emric

h et

al.,

201

5 M

ana

ging

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss

chan

nels

and

touc

hpoi

nts

Reta

il m

ix Br

and

rela

ted

ou

tcom

e Ty

pe

of R

eta

iler

Offl

ine

stor

e &

Onl

ine

stor

e Ex

perim

ent

CHAPTER 2 19

2.4 Intended Contribution to the Literature

Little is still known regarding under which conditions integration activities may lead to strengthened or attenuated shopper responses. This thesis in-tends to fill this gap by examining if shopper responses are contingent on the shopping situation, including type of purchase, degree of planning, de-gree of expertise, and shopper location.

Furthermore, the majority of the research with a focus on shopper re-sponses to integration activities reviewed in this chapter, except from one article by Bues et al. (2017), has focused on examining shopper responses towards integration activities, with the purpose of managing shoppers across the online and offline channel (Table 1). Little is known regarding shopper responses to integration activities and their dependency on where the interaction takes place. Thus, there is still little guidance for retailer hon how to manage interactions inside and outside the store. Consequently, this is important to investigate further in order to manage contemporary shop-per journeys more effectively, where shoppers now interact with retailers both inside and outside a store (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Hagberg et al., 2016; Shankar, 2014).

The majority of research on shopper responses towards integration ac-tivities has focused on either sales or brand-related outcomes (Table 1). Both these outcomes are however important in omnichannel retailing and should be considered jointly (Rosengren et al, 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015). Both these outcomes, when examining shopper responses, will be in focus in this thesis. Additionally, by taking an experimental-based approach, this thesis intends to contribute to the established literature, which, up to this point, mainly has used survey-based methods to examine shopper respons-es towards integration activities (e.g. Li et al., 2017; Kleinlercher et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). This experimental-based approach introduces the pos-sibility to establish causality (Kardes, 1996; Söderlund, 2018).

Chapter 3

Conceptual Framework

To better understand shopper responses towards integration activities I argue that it is vital for retailers to: 1) manage shopper interactions across channels and touchpoints; 2) manage shopper interactions both inside and outside the store; 3) develop an understanding of the shopping situation since it can affect how shopper movements across channel and touchpoint interactions and interactions inside and outside the store should be man-aged, and 4) manage both sales and brand related outcomes. The conceptu-al framework used in this thesis is built on these four aspects and will thus be discussed in this chapter (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The conceptual framework used in this thesis


3.1 Manage Interactions Across Channels and Touchpoints

It is argued in research that contemporary shoppers overarching goal is to shop as seamlessly as possible throughout the shopper journey (Huré et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016; Rigby, 2011). In this thesis it is argued that integration activities can increase the possibility for the shopper to shop seamlessly across channels and touchpoints. Moreover, when shoppers switch between different channels and touchpoints during their shopper journey, they may reveal information regarding their more specific shop-ping goal (e.g. browsing history may reveal which product or product cate-gory peaked their interest). This information could be used to match integration activities towards a specific shopper in a specific interaction (e.g. upon entering the store, offer a promotion on a specific product or product category in which the shopper has previously shown interest). Integration activities that are based on the shopper’s previous interactions with the re-tailer would thus match the shopper’s specific shopping goal. Hence, inte-gration activities in general, and those that take shoppers previous interactions into account in particular, would match both the shoppers overarching shopping goal and the more specific shopping goal for a spe-cific shopper journey.

Shoppers who perceive a match between a stimulus (e.g. integration ac-tivity) and mental representation (e.g. the shopping goal) may perceive an ease in processing the stimuli. Ease of information processing has been shown to lead to perceived processing fluency (Minton et al., 2017). Pro-cessing fluency has been shown to lead to positive effects on brand evalua-tion (Dahlen, 2005; Labroo and Lee, 2006) and omnichannel service usage (Shen et al., 2018). This should be especially appreciated in a retail envi-ronment since the shopper journey across channel and touchpoint interac-tions can be filled with an overwhelming number of stimuli (Fuentes et al., 2017; Grewal et al., 2017; Nordfält, 2011). Thus, integration activities should lead to positive shopper responses.

More specifically, a perceived match between the overarching shopping goal of seamless shopping and the integration activity should result in posi-

CHAPTER 3 23

tive brand-related outcomes, especially since the evaluation of the retail brand can be linked to the shoppers’ evaluation of the shopper journey overall (e.g. Brakus et al., 2009). In addition, integration activities that take the shoppers previous interactions into account are argued to match the shopper´s specific shopping goal, thus affecting sales-related outcomes pos-itively since the integration can make the information processing more flu-ent during purchase decisions. These expectations are in line with previous research that has demonstrated positive effects on sales-related outcomes from integration activities that takes the shoppers previous interactions into account (e.g. Bues et al., 2017). Moreover, positive effects on brand-related outcomes from integration activities have also been demonstrated (e.g. Bendoley et al., 2005; Lee & Kim, 2010; Seck & Phillipe, 2013). Hence, in-tegration activities in general and integration activities that take shoppers previous interactions into account in particular would affect shopper re-sponses positively (linked to sales- and brand-related outcomes). Taken to-gether, research suggested that integration across channel and touchpoint interactions seem to be a preferable strategy to implement in order to man-age shoppers across these interactions.

3.2 Manage Interactions Inside and Outside the Store

Aside from managing shoppers across channel and touchpoint interactions, it is also important to understand how to manage shoppers in interactions both inside and outside the store. This is especially important since interac-tions through both channels and touchpoints are now common during the shopper journey (Barwitz & Maas, 2018; Faulds et al., 2018; Kahn et al., 2018; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2015). Depending on where the interaction takes place, shopper mindset may vary, resulting in shoppers being attentive and responsive towards different types of integration activi-ties.

Shopper responses to in-store marketing have been well covered in the literature (e.g. Baker et al., 1992; Nordfält, 2011; Nordfält et al., 2014). Shoppers seem to be more attentive to information that is designed with


less complexity (Orth & Crouch, 2014) and demand less cognitive elabora-tion (Nordfält, 2011) in-store. Shopper responses in interactions outside the store are however examined to a lesser extent, yet these interactions are also important in omnichannel retailing (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Hag-berg et al., 2016; Shankar, 2014). Shopper responses in interactions outside the store should be similar to those demonstrated in advertising research where shoppers are more attentive towards complex and cognitive de-manding information, often referred to as creativity (e.g. Rosengren et al., 2013). These differences can be a result of the degree of abstracted-ness/concreteness of the shopper’s shopping goal. The shopper’s shopping goal could be categorized as more or less concrete depending on where in the shopper journey the interaction takes place (Lee & Ariely, 2006). In in-teractions outside the store (e.g. earlier stage of the shopper journey through touchpoint interactions), shoppers have formed more abstract shopping goals, compared to interactions inside the store (e.g. later stage in the shopper journey through channel interactions) when they have formed more concrete shopping goals (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Büttner et al., 2013; Lee & Ariely, 2006). This will thus affect how they process infor-mation, and which type of information that they are receptive towards and give attention to (Büttner et al., 2013).

In interactions outside the store, where shoppers have formed more abstract shopping goals, shoppers are more prone to elaborate on irrelevant information (Büttner et al., 2013) and peripheral cues (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018). Hence, more complex information would be more appreci-ated outside the store, such as information designed with creativity, where the shopper is more prone to elaborate upon this type of information. On the other hand, in interactions in-store, shoppers have formed more con-crete shopping goals. At this stage of the shopper journey, shoppers are more receptive to information that demands less cognitive elaboration (Nordfält, 2011). Hence, shoppers would respond differently towards inte-gration activities and how they are designed in interactions outside the store compared to in interactions inside the store.

Moreover, exposure to integration activities in-store which promotes other channels owned by the retailer, may prime shoppers to think of sev-eral shopping contexts at the same time in the current store. Priming theory

CHAPTER 3 25

posits that a shopper being exposed to a prime would increase accessibility of information shoppers have stored regarding that specific prime, which in turn will influence shopper responses (Janiszewski & Wyer, 2014; Minton et al., 2017). Pervious research has demonstrated that priming shoppers in-store with information that promotes another channel affected in-store be-havior positively (Bhargave et al., 2016). Thus, shoppers being exposed to in-store marketing promoting another channel should make the shopper aware of this other channel, which in turn will affect sales-related outcomes such as in-store movement and purchase decisions. However, depending on if the shopper is primed to think of an online or offline channel through the integration activity, shoppers might become interested in different as-pects in the current store, resulting in varied responses to the integration activity. A shopper can also be exposed to integration activities in interac-tions across the entire shopper journey, not just in-store. Shopper respons-es towards these activities would be dependent upon where shoppers are exposed to this information. Hence, integration activates can prime shop-pers to behave in a certain way depending on where the interaction takes place and what information used to prime the shopper.

3.3 The Shopping Situation

The shopping situation can yield different shopper journeys (Lee et al., 2018) that can affect how shoppers process information. Shopper respons-es towards retailers’ integration activities should therefore be contingent upon the specific shopping situation. Four common shopping situations discussed in shopper behavior literature include the type of purchase a shopper is making, the degree of planning of a purchase, a shopper´s de-gree of expertise, and shopper location.

3.3.1 Type of Purchase

A shopper’s mindset can be affected by the type of purchase the shopper is making (Büttner et al., 2013). One common distinction made in research is shopping for hedonic or utilitarian products (Kushwaha & Shankar, 2013; Yurova et al., 2017; Van Baal, 2014). When shoppers shop for hedonic products they are more receptive towards shopper journeys that are enjoy-


able, explorative, pleasant, and varied (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Hirschman & Hoolbrook, 2002; Kushwaha & Shankar, 2013). This type of purchase has been linked to a deliberative shopping mindset (Büttner et al., 2013). Shop-pers with a deliberative shopping mindset are more attentive towards in-formation that does not necessarily match their shopping goal (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Büttner et al., 2013). On the other hand, shoppers shopping for utilitarian products are more receptive towards information that makes their shopper journey more effective and effortless. These shoppers strive for a fluent shopper journey (Dhar & Werthenbroch, 2000; Kushwaha & Shankar, 2013; Voss et al., 2003). This type of purchase has been linked to an implemental mindset (Büttner et al., 2013). Shoppers with an implemental mindset are more attentive towards information that more closely matches their shopping goal (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Büttner et al., 2013). Thus, the type of purchase would affect a shopper’s mindset and, correspondingly, also which type of information commands the shopper’s attention. This in turn can affect how shoppers respond to-wards integration activities.

Integration activities in general and those that match a shopper’s specif-ic shopping goal in particular can make shoppers perceive their shopping journey as more seamless and efficient. Seamless and efficient shopper journeys may better correspond to those shoppers making a purchase of utilitarian products than those shopping for hedonic products. Shoppers shopping for hedonic products have a deliberate shopping mindset and would therefore be more receptive towards greater variation and integration activities that do not explicitly match their shopping goals. Shopper re-sponses towards integration activities would thus be strengthened (attenu-ated) when shoppers shop for utilitarian (hedonic) products.

3.3.2 Degree of Planning

Similar reasoning can be used for shoppers that make a planned or an un-planned purchase. When shoppers make planned purchases, they are more involved in the purchase (Engel et al., 1995), have more concrete shopping goals, and are therefore also less irrational (Prion, 1993). Likewise, when shoppers are making planned purchases they are likely to have an imple-mental shopping mindset, making them more responsive to information

CHAPTER 3 27

that matches their shopping goal better (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018). Meanwhile, when shoppers are making unplanned purchases, they are typi-cally less involved in the shopping process and have more abstract shop-ping goals (Bell et al., 2011). Unplanned purchases are therefore more emotional and irrational (Arnoud et al., 2002; Aruna & Santhi, 2015; Engel et al, 1995; Sharma et al., 2010). Shoppers that make an unplanned pur-chase are more likely to have a deliberative shopping mindset and are also more receptive to information that is perceived as a less of a match with their shopping goal (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018). The degree of plan-ning would thus also affect how shoppers respond towards integration ac-tivities.

More specifically, when a shopper makes a planned purchase, integra-tion activities that match their concrete shopping goal would be more ap-preciated since the information would correspond with their shopping mindset. Hence, shopper responses would be strengthened when shoppers make more planned purchases. Conversely, shoppers that make an un-planned purchase have a deliberative shopping mindset. These shoppers would therefore be opened to a greater variation of information. Hence, shopper responses towards integration activities would be attenuated when shoppers make an unplanned purchase.

3.3.3 Degree of Shopper Expertise

The shopping situation and thus the shopper’ mindset could also be affect-ed by the shopper’s degree of expertise. A shoppers’ degree of expertise has been shown to affect which type of information can and will influence shoppers (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018). Shoppers with lower expertise are more affected by the external environment, compared to shoppers with higher expertise (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Langner & Krengel, 2013; Lindtröm et al., 2016; Mandel & Johnson, 2002). Hence, shoppers with lower expertise have a more open mindset and will thus elaborate and become more receptive towards peripheral cues (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018). These shoppers therefore become more influenced by external stim-uli such as integration activities when making a shopping decision. Mean-while, shoppers with higher degree of shopping expertise would have a less


open mindset and would to a greater extent make a shopping decision based on their previous knowledge (Mandel & Johnson, 2002).

A shopper’s IT and/or online shopping expertise has been shown to affect how shoppers respond towards integration activities. Lower expertise was shown to strengthen shopper responses to integration (Herhausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2018). Integration activities should thus lead to strengthened (attenuated) shopper responses when shoppers have less (more) expertise.

3.3.4 Shopper Location

The shopping situation may also depend upon the location of the shopper. The location of the shopper, which could be at home and/or inside a store, can impact the level of effort that shoppers need to put in throughout the shopper journey. Effort is related to monetary, cognitive and physical as-pects the shopper puts in throughout the shopper journey (Söderlund & Sagfossen, 2017). Thus, if a retailer offers a shopper an integration activity such as an in-store promotion that matches a shopper’s shopping goal in an interaction outside (inside) the store, a shopper would be required to put in more (less) effort in order to redeem that promotion. For example, if the shopper is located outside the store when exposed to an integration activity (e.g. an offline-store promotion that matches the shopper´s shopping goal) the effort to go to the offline store and take part of that activity would be higher. More effort has been shown to enhance shopper responses, such as the shopper´s intention to act upon the marketing message (Baek et al., 2015). Shopper responses towards retailer´s integration activities should thus be contingent upon the location of the shopper. More specifically, shopper responses towards integration activities should be strengthened (attenuated) when shoppers are located outside (inside) the store. Similar findings have been found by Bues and colleagues (2017), where shopper responses (i.e. purchase intention) towards a targeted offer was demon-strated to be contingent upon the shopper’s location (i.e. entrance vs. shelf). More specifically, shopper responses were demonstrated to be en-hanced the further away the shopper was located from the product being promoted (Bues et al., 2017).

CHAPTER 3 29

3.4 Manage Sales and Brand-Related Outcomes

Both transactional interactions (i.e. channels) and informational interactions (i.e. touchpoints) are currently forming the contemporary shopper journey (e.g. Lemon & Verheof, 2016). This makes it untenable for retailers to fo-cus solely on managing sales generated from channel interactions. Instead, retailers must also focus on managing brand-related outcomes across the entire shopper journey. The importance of focusing on brand related out-comes, thus the retailer brand, is not a new occurrence, but is rather a result of the retail development over the last couple of decades (Burt, 2010). Managing brand-related outcomes have perhaps become even more im-portant in the present retailing landscape since showrooming and webrooming have become mainstream shopping behavior among shoppers (Bell et al., 2013; Gao & Su, 2017; Rapp et al., 2015; Rippé et al., 2017; Yurova et al., 2017) and since the competition among retailers worldwide is increasing (Anselmsson et al., 2017). Thus, focusing on both sales- and brand related-outcomes is vital in order to manage contemporary shopper journeys, and it is clearly important to understand and manage shopper re-sponses linked to both these outcomes.

In this thesis shopper responses towards integration activities linked to sales-related outcomes are defined as those short-term direct responses such as promotion redemption, and shopper movements. Those responses can, in turn, have an effect on direct sales. In this thesis the sales-related outcomes of promotion redemption, in-store movements, and store entry were considered. Brand-related outcomes are defined as those shopper re-sponses that I categorize as more long-term outcomes such as shopper sat-isfaction and retail brand attitude. These responses linked to brand-related outcomes might not have a direct effect on sales but can in the long run lead to positive sales-related outcomes (Anselmsson et al., 2017). Satisfac-tion with the shopper journey and retail brand attitude are those two brand-related outcomes that were examined within the present thesis.

Moreover, it is also vital to understand how to manage one of these outcomes without eroding the other. Driving sales can easily be done by offering sales promotions. However, only offering sales promotions in or-der to drive sales could hurt brand-related outcomes in the long run and


affect long-tern profitability. Integration across channel and touchpoint interactions can enable retailers to offer more sophisticated promotions that also would be beneficial for brand-related outcomes. Moreover, in or-der to offer more refined integration activities, it would also be important to have an understanding of the drivers of these two outcomes. These two important outcomes may be driven by different aspects of shopping value and perceived benefits with the integration activity. Shopper responses connected to brand-related outcomes may be linked to the shopper´s eval-uation of the entire shopper journey. Previous research has demonstrated that a brand experience is linked to both utilitarian and hedonic shopping values and benefits (Brakus et al., 2009). This brand evaluation is thus af-fected by the utilitarian and hedonic aspects derived from the overall shop-per journey, such as the possibility to shop effortlessly and effective (utilitarian aspects) and the possibility to obtain a nice and enjoyable shop-per journey across channels and touchpoints (hedonic aspects). Sales-related outcomes on the other hand have been shown to mainly be driven by utilitarian aspects (e.g. Chandon et al., 2000). Sales-related outcomes would, to a greater extent, be evaluated by utilitarian aspects that are rele-vant in the moment of truth, such as those aspects that help the shopper to make an effective and efficient purchase. Sales-related outcomes would be driven by the utilitarian aspects, whilst the brand related outcomes would be driven by both utilitarian and hedonic ones that shoppers can derive from the shopper journey.

Chapter 4

Introducing the Articles

The five articles this thesis is compiled of will be introduced in this chapter. An overview of the five articles are presented in table 2. The five articles will be presented in full length in chapter 6-10. Both online scenario-based and field experiments were conducted across eight studies in order to better understand how shoppers respond towards integration activities. More spe-cifically, the research in the thesis focused on examining if shopper re-sponses are contingent on the shopping situation. Effects on sales- and brand-related outcomes from managing interactions across channel and touchpoints (article 1-3) and interaction inside and/or outside the store (ar-ticle 4-5) were examined. Moreover, possible mechanisms driving shopper responses were studied in order to further the understating of these re-sponses (article 1-2). Figure 3 depicts the conceptual framework of the the-sis together with the contribution of each of the five articles.


Figure 3. Overview of the contributions from the five articles

4.1 Article 1

Title: Omnichannel-based promotions’ effects on purchase behavior and brand image First author. Co-authored with Fredrik Lange and Ronald L. Hess Jr. Pub-lished in Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2017), 39 (Novem-ber), 286-295 The aim of this paper was to investigate shopper responses towards an in-tegration activity, (i.e. a promotion based on customer data integrated

CHAPTER 4 33

across channel and touchpoint interactions). Shopper responses were inves-tigated in terms of sales- (i.e. promotion redemption) and brand- (i.e. retail brand attitude) related outcomes. The study focused on examining 1) po-tential drivers of shopper responses (i.e. promotional benefits and experien-tial shopping value), and 2) whether type of purchase (i.e. hedonic vs. utilitarian purchase) and degree of planning (i.e. planned vs. unplanned) are possible contingency conditions of these effects. Shopper responses were also examined in two industries (general merchandise and travel).

In this paper, congruency theory (e.g. Ahkter et al., 1994; Groza & Gordon, 2016; He & Mukherjee, 2007; Mandler, 1982) was used to explain the shopper responses from integration activities. The results from two online scenario-based experiments (study 1: n=526, study 2: n=550) demonstrate that integration activities have positive effects on sales-related outcomes in both industries, but only positive effects on brand-related out-comes in the general merchandise industry. Moreover, the effects on sales- and brand- related outcomes from integration activities in the general mer-chandise industry are explained by different benefits and values. Sales-related outcomes are explained by the utilitarian benefits and values that shoppers enjoy when receiving an integration activity. Meanwhile, both util-itarian and hedonic benefits and values explain the positive effects on brand-related outcomes from integration. In addition, the results from this article demonstrate that an integration activity is more appreciated when a shopper is making 1) a utilitarian purchase (vs. a hedonic purchase) since enhanced effects on sales-related outcomes was demonstrated for this type of purchase and 2) a more of planned purchase (compared to an unplanned purchase) since enhanced effects on brand-related outcomes was shown for higher degree of planning.

This article demonstrates that although integration leads to positive shopper responses, the effects are overall contingent on to the shopping situation. More specifically, responses linked to sales-related outcomes are contingent on the type of purchase, and responses linked to brand-related outcomes on degree of planning. Moreover, sales-and brand-related out-comes are driven by different shopping values and promotional benefits.


4.2 Article 2

Title: Omnichannel promotions and their effect on customer satisfaction First author. Co-authored with Ronald L. Hess Jr. and Fredrik Lange. Sub-mitted to: European Journal of Marketing The second article complements article 1 through the examination of shopper responses in terms of brand-related outcomes (i.e. shopper satis-faction) towards an integration activity (i.e. omnichannel promotions), and explored a possible driver (i.e. service excellence) of this effect. In addition, this article explored how shoppers respond towards promoting different kinds integration activities (i.e. omnichannel promotions categorized as congruent vs. in-congruent and monetary vs. non-monetary). It also inves-tigated if shopper responses are contingent on the type of purchase (i.e. hedonic vs. utilitarian). Just as in article 1, congruity theory was used in or-der to explain shopper responses linked to brand-related outcomes (e.g. Ahkter et al., 1994; Groza & Gordon, 2016; He & Mukherjee, 2007 Man-dler, 1982).

The result from an online, between-subject experiment (n=1,034) showed that integration activities lead to higher brand-related outcomes, and that this effect was driven by service excellence (i.e. the perception of the retailer providing service excellence due to integration). Furthermore, the results demonstrate that the positive effect on brand related-outcomes from integration activities are attenuated when shoppers purchase products categorized as hedonic.

More specifically, this article demonstrates that integration activities categorized as congruent and monetary lead to positive effects on brand-related outcomes, since shoppers perceive that integration enables the re-tailer to provide excellent service. That is, integration activities can lead to positive effects on brand-related outcomes, especially if they are designed as congruent with shoppers´ shopping goals and/or offer monetary incen-tive. Most importantly, results of this study show that shopper responses towards integration activities (i.e. omnichannel promotions categorized as congruent and monetary) are sensitive towards the type of purchase the

CHAPTER 4 35

shopper makes. More specifically, shopper responses are strengthened when a shopper shops for products categorized as utilitarian.

4.3 Article 3

Title: Targeted smartphone promotions and their effect on fashion con-sumers’ satisfaction and promotion redemption Singled authored. Submitted to: International Journal of Retail & Distribu-tion Management The third article adds to the findings from article 1 and 2 by examining if the effects of an integration activity (i.e. promotion based on integrated customer data across the online channel, offline channel and the smartphone touchpoint) on sales- (i.e. promotion redemption) and brand- (i.e. satisfaction) related outcomes are contingent to expertise and location. The aim of this paper was thus to examine if shopper responses are contin-gent on the shopping situation; degree of expertise (i.e. low vs. high smartphone shopping expertise), and shopper location (i.e. in the store vs. at home).

In this paper, research on behavioral targeting (e.g. Yu et al., 2017) was used to explain the shopper responses towards an integration activity. The result from a scenario-based experiment (n=175) demonstrated that an in-tegration activity leads to positive effects on both sales- and brand-related outcomes. Moreover, the effect on sales-related outcomes was strength-ened when the shopper received the promotion at home. Findings also show that both sales- and brand-related outcomes are strengthened when the shopper is less of an expert. This article demonstrates that integration lead to positive shopper responses, but that shopper responses are overall contingent on the shopping situation; shopping expertise and shopper loca-tion.


4.4 Article 4

Title: Virtually same but physically different? How marketing for a new store format impacts shopper behavior in the current store First author. Co-authored with Fredrik Lange, Micael Dahlen and John Karsberg. Submitted to: Psychology & Marketing The fourth article examined shopper responses from an integration activity (i.e. omnichannel marketing promoting a new store format categorized as either an online or offline store) linked to sales-related outcomes (i.e. browsing and purchase behavior in the current store) when a shopper in-teracts with a retailer in a physical store. More specifically, the aim of the study was to further the understanding of shopper responses in the current store towards marketing that promotes other aspects of the retailers omni-channel offering (e.g. other channels and/or touchpoints). In this paper, research on assimilation effects (e.g. Alexopoulos et al., 2017; Mafael et al., 2016; Thorbjörnsen et al., 2016) was used to explain how shoppers respond in the current store when they are exposed to an integration activity in-store.

The result from two experiments (n=155 and n=227) demonstrate that shopper responses linked to sales-related outcomes differ depending on whether the new store format is being promoted as an online or offline channel. As a result, shoppers browse around and buy from different de-partments in the current store. We conceptually explain this effect by the integration activity priming shoppers to think of different shopping envi-ronments, thus affecting sales-related outcomes differently in the current store.

This article focused on shopper responses towards integration activities in interactions in the current store. Hence, this article demonstrates that shopper responses in-store will differ depending on which channel shop-pers are primed to think of through the integration activity. Integration ac-tivities in-store, promoting other parts of the omnichannel offering, can thus also affect shoppers directly in the current store.

CHAPTER 4 37

4.5 Article 5

Title: Store-window creativity’s impact on shopper behavior Third author. Co-authored with Fredrik Lange and Sara Rosengren. Pub-lished in Journal of Business Research (2016), 69 (3), 1014-1021 The fifth article investigated shopper responses linked to sales-related out-comes (i.e. store entry) in interactions outside the store (i.e. interaction with a more or less creative store window). More specifically, the aim was to ex-amine if shopper responses are dependent upon where the interaction takes place. The paper also investigated if these shopper responses were contin-gent upon the shopping situation; degree of expertise (i.e. shopper frequen-cy) and examined possible drivers of these responses (i.e. shoppers’ beliefs and attitude towards the store window).

This article was grounded in advertising creativity research (e.g. Modig, 2012; Rosengren et al., 2013). The results from one field quasi-experiment (n= 1,834) and one online between-subject experiment (n=480) demon-strate positive sales-related outcomes from a more creative store window design, compared to less creative. These effects were shown to be driven by shoppers’ positive beliefs and attitudes to the store-window design. Fur-thermore, the effect was however weakened for shoppers with lower exper-tise. Most importantly, the findings in this paper demonstrate that shoppers are attentive towards different types of information depending on where they interact with a retailer.

This article demonstrates that shoppers respond differently in interac-tions outside the store than in interactions inside the store. Hence, this pa-per contributes to the understanding of shopper responses in omnichannel retailing by indicating that shoppers need to be managed differently de-pending on where an interaction takes place. Consequently, communication should be designed differently depending on where the shopper interacts with the retailer.

Tabl

e 2.

Sum

ma

ry o

f the

five

arti

cles

pre

sent

ed in

this

thes

is

Title

Aut

hor

Aim

Th

eory

M

etho

d

Find

ings

Om

nich

anne

l-bas

ed

pro

mot

ions

’ effe

cts o

n pu

rcha

se b

eha

vior

and

br

and

imag

e

Blom

, A.,

Lang

e, L

. &

Hes

s Jr.

R. L

. Un

der

sta

nd sh

oppe

r re-

spon

ses a

cros

s int

era

ctio

ns,

and

if th

ese

are

cont

inge

nt

on ty

pe o

f pur

chas

e an

d

deg

ree

of p

lann

ing.

Con

grue

ncy

theo

ry

(e.g

. Ma

ndle

r, 19

82;

Ahk

ter e

t al.,

199

4;

Gro

za &

Gor

don

, 201

6;

He

& M

ukhe

rjee,

200

7)

Expe

rimen

tal;

Sh

opp

ing

scen

ario

St

udy

1: (n

=526

) St

udy

2: (n

=550

)

Inte

gra

tion

act

iviti

es le

ad

to p

ositi

ve sh

opp

er

resp

onse

s. Sa

les-

rela

ted

out

com

es a

re c

ontin

-ge

nt o

n ty

pe

of p

urch

ase

, bra

nd-re

late

d o

ut-

com

es a

re c

ontin

gent

on

deg

ree

of p

lann

ing

and

thes

e re

spon

ses a

re e

xpla

ined

by

diff

eren

t b

enef

its a

nd v

alu

es.

Om

nich

anne

l pro

mo-

tions

and

thei

r effe

ct o

n cu

stom

er sa

tisfa

ctio

n

Blom

, A.,

Hes

s Jr.

R.

L. &

. Lan

ge, L

. Un

der

sta

nd sh

oppe

r re-

spon

ses a

cros

s int

era

ctio

ns

and

if th

ese

are

cont

inge

nt

on ty

pe o

f pur

cha

se.

Con

grue

ncy

theo

ry

(e.g

. Ma

ndle

r, 19

82;

Ahk

ter e

t al.,

199

4;

Gro

za &

Gor

don

, 201

6;

He

& M

ukhe

rjee,

200

7)

Expe

rimen

tal;

Sh

opp

ing

scen

ario

(n

=1,0

34)

Inte

gra

tion

act

iviti

es (c

ongr

uent

& m

onet

ary

) le

ad

to p

ositi

ve b

rand

rela

ted

out

com

es. T

his

effe

ct is

driv

en b

y se

rvic

e ex

celle

nce

and

are

co

ntin

gent

on

typ

e of

pur

cha

se.

Targ

eted

sma

rtpho

ne

prom

otio

ns a

nd th

eir

effe

ct o

n fa

shio

n co

n-su

mer

s’ sa

tisfa

ctio

n a

nd

pro

mot

ion

red

emp

tion

Blom

, A.

Und

erst

and

shop

per r

e-sp

onse

s acr

oss i

nter

act

ions

an

d if

thes

e ar

e co

ntin

gent

on

deg

ree

of e

xper

tise

and

sh

oppe

r loc

atio

n.

Beha

vior

al ta

rget

ing

rese

arc

h (e

.g. Y

u et

al.,

20

17)

Expe

rimen

tal;

Sh

opp

ing

scen

ario

(n

=175

)

Inte

gra

tion

act

iviti

es le

ad

to p

ositi

ve sa

les a

nd

bran

d re

late

d o

utco

mes

. Sal

es-re

late

d o

ut-

com

es a

re c

ontin

gent

on

shop

per

loca

tion

and

bo

th sa

les a

nd b

rand

-rela

ted

out

com

es a

re

show

n to

be

cont

inge

nt o

n sh

opp

er e

xper

tise.

V

irtua

lly sa

me

but

phy

s-ic

ally

diff

eren

t? H

ow

ma

rket

ing

for a

new

st

ore

form

at i

mp

act

s sh

oppe

r beh

avi

or in

the

curre

nt st

ore

Blom

, A.,

La

nge,

F.

, Da

hlen

, M. &

Ka

rsbe

rg, J

.

Und

erst

and

shop

per r

e-sp

onse

s in

inte

ract

ions

insid

e th

e st

ore.

Ass

imila

tion

effe

cts

(e.g

. Ale

xopo

ulos

et a

l, 20

17; M

afa

el e

t al,

2016

, Tho

rbjö

rnse

n et

al,

2016

)

Expe

rimen

tal;

In

-sto

re e

xper

imen

t St

udy

1: (n

=155

) O

nlin

e ex

perim

ent

Stud

y 2:

(n=2

27)

Shop

per

s are

prim

ed b

y a

n in

tegr

atio

n a

ctiv

ity

in-s

tore

tha

t pro

mot

es a

new

stor

e fo

rma

t, he

nce

affe

ct sa

les-

rela

ted

out

com

es. H

owev

-er

, the

effe

ct o

n sa

les-

rela

ted

outc

omes

diff

ers

dep

end

ing

on th

e ne

w st

ore

form

at i

s com

mu-

nica

ted

as a

n on

line

or o

fflin

e ch

anne

l.

Stor

e-w

indo

w c

rea

tivi-

ty’s

impa

ct o

n sh

oppe

r be

havi

or

Rose

ngre

n, S

., La

nge,

F. &

Blo

m,

A.

Und

erst

and

shop

per r

e-sp

onse

s in

inte

ract

ions

out

-sid

e th

e st

ore

and

if th

ese

are

con

tinge

nt o

n d

egre

e of

shop

per

exp

ertis

e.

Adv

ertis

ing

crea

tivity

re

sea

rch

(e.g

. Ros

en-

gren

et a

l, 20

13; M

odig

, 20

12)

Expe

rimen

tal;

1

qua

si-ex

per

imen

t (n=

1,

834)

1

onlin

e be

twee

n su

b-je

ct e

xper

imen

t (n=

480)

Shop

per

resp

ond

diff

eren

tly to

wa

rds i

nteg

ratio

n a

ctiv

ities

in in

tera

ctio

ns o

utsid

e th

e st

ore

tha

n in

in

tera

ctio

ns in

side

the

stor

e. S

hop

per

resp

onse

s in

inte

ract

ions

out

side

the

stor

e is

also

con

tin-

gent

up

on d

egre

e of

exp

ertis

e.

Chapter 5

Concluding Remarks

The contemporary shopper journey, where shoppers now use many diverse sources of information to inform a purchase, is challenging retailers to seamlessly integrate their channels and touchpoints. However, few re-searchers have investigated when shopper responses towards these integra-tion attempts would be strengthened or attenuated. This thesis aims to improve the understanding of shopper responses to integration activities by empirically examining if these responses could be contingent on the shop-ping situation.

5.1 Contribution to Research

Taken together, this thesis contributes to retail research in several ways. Firstly, this thesis advances the current body of omnichannel research (e.g. Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Murfield et al., 2017; Picot-Coupey et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2015; Yurova et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018) by presenting a conceptual framework that pinpoints important as-pects which could be essential for retailers to have an understanding of in order to manage contemporary shopper journeys more effectively. More specifically, it pinpoints the importance of managing shopper responses in interactions across channels and touchpoints, and in interactions inside and outside the store. Most importantly the conceptual framework establishes how shopper responses are contingent upon the shopping situation. This conceptual framework also emphasizes the importance of having an under-


standing of what drives shopper responses linked to sales-and brand-related outcomes.

Secondly, this thesis enriches current omnichannel research by compiling and reviewing research focusing on shopper responses towards integration activities. Furthermore, the literature review revealed that most of these relationships between integration activities and shopper responses that have been demonstrated are established through a survey-based methodology. The causal relationship between integration activities and shopper respons-es could be established by examining shopper responses towards integra-tion activities using an experimental approach (Kardes, 1996; Söderlund, 2018). Thus, this thesis contributes to current omnichannel research by es-tablishing a causal relationship between integration activities and shopper responses.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the findings in this thesis signifi-cantly extend theoretical knowledge regarding shopper responses towards integration (e.g. Bendoley et al., 2005; Bertrandie & Zielke, 2017; Emrich et al., 2015; Herhausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Oh & Teo, 2010; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Seck & Phillipe, 2013; Zhang et al., 2018) through the examination of contingency conditions. Examining possible contingency conditions for a stated relationship can be seen as one plausi-ble way of extending existing research and theoretical knowledge (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Söderlund, 2002; Whetten, 1989). This thesis therefore an-swers the call by Verhoef and colleagues (2015) for more research on when integration activities will lead to strengthened or attenuated shopper re-sponses by examining if these responses are contingent upon the shopping situation. Previous research has demonstrated that shoppers evaluate these activities as relevant in the moment of truth (e.g. Bues et al., 2017; Herhau-sen et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018) and appreciate these overall (e.g. Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Li et al., 2017; Melis et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018). The empirical findings in this thesis thus confirm the findings from established research by demonstrating overall positive effects on sales-related outcomes (article 1 & 3), and brand-related outcomes (arti-cle 1-3) from integration activities, these responses are however overall contingent upon different aspects of the shopping situation such as type of purchase (article 1-2), degree of planning (article 1), shopper expertise (arti-

CHAPTER 5 41

cle 3), and shopper location (article 3). The overall patterns thus demon-strate that shoppers that make a utilitarian type of purchase, planned their purchase more, are less of an expert, and are located further away from the store are more attentive towards integration activities and thus respond to-ward these activities more favorably than a shopper who is making a he-donic or unplanned purchase, is more of an expert, and is located closer to the store. Plausible explanations for this may be that the shopping situation can affect the mindset of the shopper (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Büttner et al., 2015) and the effort the shopper needs to put in in the shop-per journey (Söderlund & Sagfossen, 2017), thus affecting which infor-mation the shopper becomes attentive to. These findings are in line with the limited number of papers that so far have examined if shopper re-sponses are contingent on the shopping situation such as online shopping expertise (Herhausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015) and where the shopper is located in an offline store (Bues et al., 2017).

This thesis also further expands the examination of these contingency conditions by examining additional aspects of the shopping situation such as smartphone shopping expertise, location inside and outside the store, type of purchase, and degree of planning. This thesis therefore substantially enriches the current body of shopper behavior and omnichannel research by empirically demonstrating that integration activities will not yield the same strong positive shopper responses in every situation. Implementing integration activities seem to be more or less effective depending on the shopping situation.

Fourthly, this thesis adds to the understanding of in-store shopper re-sponses and thus contributes to in-store marketing research (e.g. Baker et al., 1992; Nordfält, 2011; Nordfält et al., 2014) by demonstrating that shop-per responses inside a store are affected by integration activities that pro-mote an additional store format. These responses are shown to be affected differently depending on if the new store format is an online or offline channel. One explanation for this is that this integration activity primes shoppers to think of different channel categories, which makes different aspects in the current store interesting.

Fifthly, this thesis advances current omnichannel research and the un-derexplored issue of shopper responses and their dependability of where


the interaction takes place (Bues et al., 2017). This thesis fills this gap by exploring shopper responses inside (article 4) and outside the store (article 5) and the contingency of shopper responses on shopper location (article 3, i.e. store vs. home). By using advertising creativity research (e.g. Modig, 2012; Rosengren et al., 2013) as a stepping stone, this thesis demonstrates that shoppers respond towards communication in interactions outside the store just as they do towards advertisement. Thus, shoppers are receptive towards different types of information depending on where the interaction takes place. One explanation for this could be that shopping goal formation differs across the shopper journey. In the early stage of the shopper journey (i.e. outside the store) a shoppers’ shopping goal is more abstract, com-pared to in a later stage of the shopper journey (i.e. inside a store) when their abstract goals have become more concrete. This seems to affect which type of information shoppers are responsive to (Bloch & Kamran-Disfani, 2018; Büttner et al., 2013; Lee & Ariely, 2006).

Furthermore, these findings advance retail research with regards to shopper responses towards integration activities (e.g. Bendoley et al., 2005; Bertrandie & Zielke, 2017; Emrich et al., 2015; Herhausen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Oh & Teo, 2010; Schramm-Klein et al., 2011; Seck & Phillipe, 2013; Zhang et al., 2018) by demonstrating that the same integra-tion activity offered at two different shopper locations (i.e. at home vs. in-store) affects how shoppers respond toward this activity (article 3). Moreo-ver, the same location (i.e. inside a store) with two different integration ac-tivities (i.e. online vs. offline channel being promoted) affects shopper responses differently (article 4). Moreover, shoppers are responsive to dif-ferent types of information depending on where the interaction takes place (inside or outside the store; article 5).

Lastly, the findings in this thesis also adds to established omnichannel research by demonstrating that sales and brand related outcomes are driven by different shopping values and promotional benefits that shoppers can gain from an integration activity. More specifically, sales-related outcomes are shown to be driven by utilitarian values and benefits. Meanwhile, brand-related outcomes are driven by both utilitarian and hedonic values and ben-efits, and by perceived service excellence, from integration.

CHAPTER 5 43

Moreover, the findings in this thesis demonstrate that sales related out-comes are not contingent on the degree of planning. An integration activity seems thus to be perceived as relevant in the moment of truth for both un-planned and planned purchases. In addition, brand-related outcomes seem to be equally positive independent of shopper location. Thus, sales- and brand-related outcomes are contingent on different aspects in the shopping situation.

5.2 Practical Implications

The findings presented in this thesis are from a shopper perspective and therefore uniquely contributes to practice by offering guidance on how to manage shoppers and their contemporary shopper journeys. The outline of a conceptual framework can offer retailers guidance regarding how to man-age this changing shopper behavior in this new retail landscape. The con-ceptual framework pinpoints the importance of having an understanding of the shopping situation in order to more efficiently manage shoppers across channels and touchpoints, shoppers in interactions inside and outside the store, and sales- and brand-related outcomes. The findings in this thesis can also help retailers to make more effective integration decisions by demon-strating that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to integration. More specifically, the findings in this thesis can guide retailers regarding when integration activities can be more or less beneficial to offer, and how these integration activities can be communicated.

Results presented in this thesis confirm previous findings of established omnichannel research, concluding overall positive effects on both sales- and brand-related outcomes, (e.g. Bues et al., 2017; Frasquet & Miquel, 2017; Herhausen et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). However, integration activities might work better in some situations than in other sit-uations. The findings in this thesis suggest that retailers will enjoy higher returns on integration investments when they sell products that in general are 1) categorized as more utilitarian, and 2) bought with more pre-planning. For example, consumer electronics retailers may benefit more by moving towards an omnichannel retailing strategy than fashion retailers. Fashion retailers, on the other hand, may gain more by being organized


through a cross channel strategy instead, enjoying positive effects on both sales- and brand-related outcomes without having to invest as much re-sources in the integration process as consumer electronics retailers might need.

Retailers that sell products categorized as both hedonic and utilitarian and/or have shoppers that make both planned and unplanned purchases might need to analyze the shopping situation even more thoroughly before making integration decisions, especially since these retailers might need to implement higher levels of integration in some situations and lower levels of integration in others. These retailers might gain more by offering integra-tion activities that make the shopper journey more effective, such as offer-ing a subscription service on utilitarian products. Meanwhile, the shopper journey for the more hedonic products in the assortment should perhaps focus on being more inspirational than integrated. Moreover, retailers that sell products which could range from planned to unplanned purchases, such as beauty retailers, might gain more by offering integration activities to shoppers that interact more with a retailer throughout the shopper journey than to shoppers that interact less. The possibility that shoppers have inter-acted with the retailer before making a purchase increases for planned pur-chases. Thus, the number of interactions can be used as an indicator of a purchase being more or less planned. Analyzing shoppers’ digital traces might be even more valuable for these types of retailers, since it can reveal which shoppers should be targeted with an integrated offer.

The findings in this thesis support previous research that suggests shopper responses are contingent upon shopper expertise (e.g. Herhauen et al., 2015; Melis et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2018). Studies presented in this the-sis demonstrate that its more beneficial to target inexperienced shoppers, since both sales- and brand-related outcomes are strengthened when inte-gration activities are offered to these specific shoppers. Integration activi-ties might therefore be more beneficial to offer to new shoppers and/or to shopper segments that are less experienced with smartphone shopping than to shoppers already loyal to the retailer or shoppers using the smartphone as a common shopping tool. In addition, sales-related outcomes are strengthened when integration activities are targeted towards shoppers lo-cated outside the store. Similar findings have been demonstrated by Bues

CHAPTER 5 45

and colleagues (2017), where shoppers responded more positively towards personalized offers based on previous purchase history at the entrance of the store than at the shelf. Investing in Bluetooth or similar technologies in order to target shoppers when they are located in the store might not pay off as expected. The findings in this thesis suggest that integration invest-ments will pay off more if they are directed towards new and inexperienced smartphone shoppers, and to shoppers that are located outside the store.

Results from this thesis can also guide retailers on how integration ac-tivities can be communicated more effectively. In line with those findings from established advertising creativity research (e.g. Modig, 2012; Rosen-gren et al., 2013), the findings in this thesis suggest that integration activi-ties should be communicated with more complexity, such as using more creativity in interactions outside the store than in an interaction inside a store. Thus, it seems more beneficial to adjust the communication of an integration activity based on shopper location. Additional findings from article 4 suggest that retailers will enjoy enhanced sales-related outcomes when integration activities signal that the retailer has invested more effort in the communication of the integration activity or in the integration activi-ty itself. These findings correspond with results of previous studies focus-ing on effort used by a marketer and its effect on the shopper (e.g. Dahlen & Karsberg, 2016; Thorbjörnsen et al., 2016). Moreover, the findings in this thesis demonstrate that higher returns from these investments can be enjoyed when these activities are designed with a monetary incentive and are more congruent with a shoppers specific shopping goal, compared to activities that are designed with a brand-building focus or are not congruent with the shoppers specific shopping goal.

In order to design more effective integration activities, retailers need to understand the drivers behind both sales- and brand-related outcomes. If the objective for a specific integration activity is to drive sales, these activi-ties should focus on offering a shopper a cost-effective deal. If the objec-tive is to drive brand-related outcomes, integration activities should focus on making the shopper journey perceived as both effective and enjoyable. Brand-building integration activities, such as promoting other channels, can have direct effects on sales related outcomes. Thus, retailers need to be aware that they can prime shoppers to behave in certain ways in the current


store, even though the primary focus of that specific integration activity was to affect brand-related outcomes by communicating other channels in-store in order to promote the retailer’s omnichannel offering.

The findings demonstrate that a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to integration is not advisable. Integration decisions should be made with an understanding of the specific shopper and shopper journey, and with the knowledge that the most beneficial integration decisions can vary across shopping situations and retailers.

5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

While the research presented in this thesis intends to inform the theoretical knowledge of shoppers’ responses to integration activities, several theoreti-cal assumptions are used to explain mechanisms of shopper responses. Shopper responses towards integrations activities are argued to be a result of processing fluency (e.g. Dahlen, 2005; Labroo & Lee, 2006; Minton et al., 2017) caused by a match between the shopping goal and the integration activity operationalized foremost as perceived congruency (e.g. Ahkter et al., 1994; Mandler, 1982; He & Mukherjee, 2007). Process fluency is how-ever not explicitly examined in the studies, indicating a need for future re-search in this area. Further research should also address additional mechanisms that may explain the shopper responses to integration activi-ties. Further research should also focus on other priming mechanisms than the one used in this study (i.e. assimilation) when explaining effects on shopping behavior in the current store from in-store integration activities. Studying additional mechanisms that could explain shopper responses will further enhance the understanding of shopper behavior in an omnichannel retailing context.

The eight studies in this thesis have all been grounded in experimental research, thus tying conclusions based on that particular methodology. Most papers have used a scenario-based approach, where data integration and their accuracy of detecting shopping goals is assumed. However, retail-ers using customer data and data analytics might not be as accurate in de-

CHAPTER 5 47

tecting shoppers specific shopping goals, yet this was assumed in this thesis. However, a scenario-based approach makes it possible to examine effects of potential future activities implemented by the retailer, hence giving re-tailers guidance regarding whether to invest in these types of integration strategies or not. Applying other research methodologies could further the understanding of shopper responses, such as a more qualitative approach similar to the method used by Baxendale et al. (2015). Qualitative ap-proaches can examine shoppers’ actual channel and touchpoint-switching behavior and the simultaneous use of these. This could be used as guidance by pointing out at which channel and/or touchpoint interaction the shop-per should be targeted.

Further research should also examine additional shopper responses linked to both sales- and brand-related outcomes. Lemon and Verhoef (2016) and Anselmsson et al. (2017) provide several ways to measure ef-fects on brand-related outcomes, such as customer experience and retail brand equity, which can help retailers analyze more long-term effects from integration. Furthermore, article 4 and 5 examined the effects on actual shopper behavior, additional research should add to this research in order to provide supplementary guidance for retailers to measure the effects of integration activities in dollars.

The findings in this thesis also point to the importance of considering shoppers´ specific shopping situation when attempting to match the inte-gration activity towards the shopper more effectively. Research in this the-sis examined if shopper responses were contingent on shopping situations, including type of purchase, degree of planning, degree of expertise, and shopper location. Future research should add to these findings by examin-ing if shopper responses are contingent upon other important aspects in the shopping situation. Lee et al. (2018) have established several shopping situations beyond these examined in this thesis that could be worth examin-ing further, such as shopper involvement and shopper motivations. Addi-tionally, shopper responses towards integration activities may also be contingent on product complexity and product risk, and could thus also be worth focusing on in future studies.

Different retail industries may face distinct challenges in this emerging retail landscape (Hagberg et al., 2016; Verhoef et al., 2015), providing a


natural experiment to examine how shopper responses to integration varies across retail industries. In this thesis, focus has largely been on general merchandise and fashion retailing, but shoppers in the grocery industry are slowly becoming more experienced with cross-channel shopping. Some differences across these industries might be seen, since the shopping journey often differs across these two contexts (i.e. general merchandise vs. grocery). It would perhaps be more important for grocery retailers to invest in integration strategies, since shopping for food compared to shopping for clothes is often more associated with a task-related purchase (i.e. a utilitarian type of purchase) and sometimes also often more planned. Thus, shopper responses towards integration activities in a grocery setting might be even stronger than those in a general merchandise industry. Further research should also address the possible negative effects from integration, such as when integration activities might cause feelings of surveillance and/or as an invasion in shoppers’ personal sphere. This avenue of research could add to the established field of privacy issues (e.g. Ho & Bodoff, 2014; Sutanto et al., 2013).

The changing shopping behavior as illustrated in the prologue, chal-lenges retailers to integrate channel and touchpoint interactions. The find-ings in this thesis suggest that a one-size-fits-all solution regarding integration is not realistic. Even though positive shopper responses towards integration activities was demonstrated in general, these responses were shown to be contingent upon the shopping situation and dependent upon where the interaction took place. Hopefully, the findings in this thesis can inspire researchers to examine additional aspects of the shopping situation that may influence shopper responses to integration activities.

References

Ahkter, S.H., Andrews, J.C. & Durvasula, S. (1994), “The influence of retail store

environment on brand-related judgments”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1 (2), 67-76

Ailawadi, K.L. & Farris, P.W. (2017), Managing multi- and omni-channel distribution: metrics and research directions, Journal of Retailing, 93 (1), 120-135

Alexopoulos, T., Lemonnier, A. & Fiedler, K. (2017), “Higher order influence on evaluation priming: Processing styles moderate congruity effects”, Cognition and Emotion, 31 (1), 57-68

Anderl, E., Schumsnn, J.H. & Kunz, W. (2016), “Helping firms reduce complexity in multichannel online data: A new taxonomy-based approach for customer Journeys”, Journal of Retailing, 92 (2), 185-203

Anselmsson, J., Burt, S. & Tunca. (2017), An integrated retailer image and brand equity framework: Re-examining, extending, and restricting retailer brand equity, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Service, 38 (September), 194-203

Arnoud, E.J., Price, L.L., Zinkhan, G.M., 2002. “Consumers”, First edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Aruna, S., Santhi, P., (2015), “Impulse purchase behavior among generation-Y”. IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (1), 21–38

Baek, T. H., Yoon, S., & Kim, S. (2015), “When environmental messages should be assertive: examining the moderating role of effort investment”, International Journal of Advertising, 34 (1), 135-157

Baker, J., Levy, M. & Grewal, D. (1992), “An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisions”, Journal of Retailing, 68 (4), 445-460

Barwitz, N. & Maas, P. (2018), “Understanding the omnichannel customer journey: Determinants of interaction choice”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43 (August), 116-133

Batra, R. & Aholta, O.T. (1991) “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes”, Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170

Baxendale, Shane., E.K. Macdonlad, and H.N. Wilson. (2015), “The impact of different touchpoints on brand consideration” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 235-253


Beck, N. & Rygl, D. (2015), “Categorization of multiple channel retailing in multi-, cross-, and omni-channel retailing for retailers and retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 27 (November), 170-178

Bell, D., Gallino, S. & Moreno, A. (2013), “Inventory Showrooms and customer migration in omni-channel retail: The effect of product information”, published online, Dowloaded the 12th of april 2018

Bell, D.R., Corsten, D., Knox, G., (2011), ”From point of purchase to path to purchase: how preshopping factors drive unplanned buying”, Journal of Marketing. 75 (1), 31–45

Bendoley, E., Blocher, J.D., Bretthauer, K.M., Krishnan, S. & Venkataramanan, M.A. (2005), “Online/in-store integration and customer retention”, Journal of Service Research, 7 (4), 313-327

Bertrandie, L. & Zielke, S. (2017), “The effects of multi-channel assortment integration on customer confusion”, The International Review of retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 27 (5), 437-449

Bhargave, R., A. Mantonakis, and K. White. (2016), “The cue-of-the-cloud effect: When reminders of online information availability increase purchase intentions and choice”, Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (5), 699-711

Bloch, P.H. & Kamran-Disfani, O. (2018), “A framework for studying the impact of outdoor atmospherics in retailing”, Academy of Marketing Science

Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 52–68

Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y.,J., Rahman, M.,S., (2013), “Competing in the age of omnichannel retailing”, Mit. Sloan Management Review. 54 (4), 23–29

Bues, M., Steiner, M., Stafflage, M., & Krafft, M., (2017), “How mobile in-store advertising influences purchase intention: value drivers and mediating effects from a consumer perspective”, Psychology & Marketing, 34 (2), 157-174

Burt, S. (2010), “Retailing in Europe: 20 years on”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20 (1), 9-27

Büttner, O.B., Florack, A. & Göritz, A.S. (2013), “Shopping Orientation and Mindsets: How motivation influences consumer information processing during shopping”, Psychology and Marketing, 30 (9), 779-793

Büttner, O., Florack, A. & Göritz, A.S. (2015), “How shopping orientation influence the effectiveness of monetary and nonmonetary promotions”, European Journal of Marketing, 49 (1/2), 170-189

Cao, L. & Li, L. (2015), “The impact of cross-channel integration on retailers’ sales growth”, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 198-216

Cao, L. (2014), “Business model transformation in moving to a cross-channel retail strategy: A case study”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18 (4), 69-95

Chandon, P., Wansink, B., Laurent, G., 2000. A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness, Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 65–81

REFERENCES 51

Chattarjee, P. (2007), “Cross-channel product ordering and payment policies in multichannel retailing: implications for shopping behavior and retailer profitability”, Journal of Shopping Center Research, 13 (2), 31-54

Cobb, C.J., Hoyer, W.D., 1986, “Planned versus impulse purchase behavior”, Journal of Retailing, 62 (4), 384–409

Corley, K.C & Gioia, D.A. (2011), “Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, 36 (1), 12-32

Dahlen, M. (2005), “The medium as a contextual cue”, Journal of Advertising, 34 (3), 89-98 Dahlen, M. & Karsberg, J. (2016), “Time to forget everything we learned in the past

about branding? The future is the future branding”, Journal of Brand Strategy, 5 (1), 22-30

Dhar, D., Wertenbroch, K. (2000), “Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods”, Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60–71

Emrich, O., Paul, M. & Rudolph, T. (2015), “Shopping benefits of multichannel assortment integration and the moderating role of retailer type”, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 326-342

Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.R., Miniard, P.W. (1995), Consumer Behavior, eighth edition. The Dryden Press, Forth Worth

Faulds, D. J., Mangold, W. G., Raju, P. S., & Valsalan, S. (2018), “The mobile shopping revolution: redefining the consumer decision process”, Business Horizons, 61 (2), 332-338

Frasquet, M. & Miquel, M-J. (2017), “Do channel integration efforts pay-off in terms of online and offline customer loyalty?”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution, 45 (7/8), 859-873

Fuentes, C. & Svingstedt, A. (2017), “Mobile phones and the practice of shopping: aA study of how young adults use smartphones to shop”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38 (September), 137-146

Fuentes, C., Bäckström, K. & Svingstedt, A. (2017), “Smartphones and the reconfiguration of retailscapes: Stores, shopping, and digitalization”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39 (November), 270-278

Gallino, S. & Moreno, A. (2012), “Integration of online and offline channels in retail: The impact of sharing reliable inventory availability information”, Submitted manuscript to Management science

Gallino. S., Moreno, A. & Stamatopoulos, I. (2017), “Channel integration, sales dispersion, and inventory management”, Management Science, 63 (9), 2813-2831

Ganesh, J. (2004), “Managing customer preferences in a multi-channel environment using web services”, International Journal of Retailing & Distribution Management, 32 (3), 140-146

Gao, F. & Su, X. (2017), “Online and offline information for omnichannel retailing”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 19 (1), 84-98


Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L. & Nordfält, J. (2017), “The future of Retailing”, Journal of Retailing, 93 (1), 1-6

Grewal, D., Ahlbom, C-P., Beitelspacher, L., Noble, S. M., & Nordfält, J., (2018), “In-Store mobile phone use and customer shopping behavior: evidence from the field”, Journal of Marketing, 82 (4), 102-126

Groza, M.P. & Gordon, G.L. (2016), “The effects of nonprofit brand personality and self-brand congruity on brand relationships”, The Marketing Management Journal, 26 (2), 117-129

Hagberg, J., Sundtröm, M. & Egels-Zandén, N. (2016), “The digitalization of retailing: An exploratory framework”, International Journal of Retailing & Distribution Management, 44 (7), 694-712

Harris, P., Dall’Olmo Riely, F. & Hand, C. (2018), “Understanding multichannel shopper journey configuration: An application of goal theory”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 44 (September), 108-117

He, H. & Mukherjee, A. (2007), “I am, ergo I shop: does store image congruity explain shopping behavior of Chinese consumers?”, Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (5-6), 443-460

Herhausen, D., Binder, J., Schoegel, M. & Herrmann, A. (2015), “Integrating bricks with clicks: Retailer-level and channel-level outcomes of online-offline channel integration”, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 309-325

Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions, Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92–101

Ho, S.Y. & Bodoff, D. (2014), ”The effects of web personalization on user attitude and behavior: an integration of the elaboration likelihood model and consumer search theory”, Mis Quarterly, 38 (2), 497-520

Huré, E., Picot-Coupey, K. & Ackermann, C-L. (2017), “Understanding omni-channel shopping value: A mixed-method study”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39 (November), 314-330

Ishfaq, R., Defee, C.C. & Gibson, B.J. (2016), “Realignment of the physical distribution process in omni-channel fulfillment”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46 (6/7), 543-561

Janiszewski & Wyer Jr., R.S. (2014), “Content and process priming: A review”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (1), 96-118

Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A. & Sierra Murillo, Y. (2016), “Omnichannel customer behavior: Key drivers of technology acceptance and use and their effects on purchase intentions”, Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (July), 1-11

Kahn, B.E., Inman, J. & Verhoef, P. (2018), “Introduction to special issue: Consumer response to the evolving retailing landscape”, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3 (3), 256-259

Kaltcheva, V. D., & Weitz, B. A. (2006), ”When should a retailer create an exciting store environment? ”, Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 107–118

REFERENCES 53

Karders, F.R. (1996), “In defense of experimental consumer psychology”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (3), 279-296

Kleinlercher, K., Emrich, O., Herhausen, D., Verhoef, P.C. & Rudolph, T. (2018), “Website as information hubs: How informational channel integration and shopping benefit density interact in steering customers to the physical store”, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3 (3), 330-342

Kushwaha, T., Shankar, V., (2013). Are multichannel customers really more valuable? The moderating role of product category characteristics, Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 67–85.

Labroo, A.A. & Lee, A.Y. (2006), “Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation”, Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 347-385

Langner, T., & Krengel, M. (2013), “The mere categorization effect for complex products: the moderating role of expertise and affect”, Journal of Business Research, 66 (7), 924-932

Lawrence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1967), ”Differentiation and integration in complex organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (1), 1-47

Lee, L., & Ariely, D. (2006), “Shopping goals, goal concreteness, and conditional promotions”, Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 60–70

Lee, H-H & Kim, J. (2010), “Investigating dimensionality of multichannel retailer’s cross-channel integration practices and effectiveness: Shopping orientation and loyalty intention”, Journal of Marketing Channels, 17 (4), 281-312

Lee, L., Inman, J., Argo, J.J., Böttger, T., Dholakia, U., Gilbride, T., Vanittersum, K., Khan, B., Karla A., Lehmann, D.R., Mcalister, L.M., Shankar, V. & Tsai, C.I. (2018), “From browsing to buying and beyond: The needs-adaptive shopper journey model”, Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3 (3), 277-293

Lemon, K. N. & Verhoef, P. C. (2016), “Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey”, Journal of Marketing, 80 (6), 69-96

Levy, M., Weitz, B.A. & Grewal, D. (2019), “Retail Mangement”, McGraw-Hill Education, New York

Lewis, J., Whysall, P. & Foster, C. (2014), ”Drivers and technology-related obstacles in moving to multichannel retailing”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(4), 43-67

Li, Y., Liu, H., Lim, E.T.K. Goh, J.M, Yang, F. & Lee, M.K.O. (2017), “Customer’s reaction to cross-channel integration in omnichannel retailing: The mediating roles of retailer uncertainty, identity attractiveness, and switching cots”, Decision Support System, article in press

Lindtröm, A., Berg, H., Nordfält, J., Roggeveen, A., & Grewal, D. (2016), “Does the presence of a mannequin head change shopping behavior?”, Journal of Business Research, 69 (2), 517-524


Luo, J., Fan, M. & Zhang, H. (2016), “Information Technology, cross-channel capabilities, and managerial actions: Evidence from the apparel industry”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17 (5), 308-327

Mafael, .A., S. A. Gottschalk, H. Kreis. (2016), “Examining biased assimilation of brand-related online reviews”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 36 (6), 91-106

Mandel, N., & Johnson, E. J. (2002), “When web pages influence choice: effects of visual primes on experts and novices”, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 235

Mandler, G. (1982), ”The structure of value: Accounting for taste”, Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium, eds. Clark, M.S & Fiske, S.T., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawreence Erlbaum Associates, 3-36

McKenzie, B., Burt, S. & Dukeov, I. (2018), “Introduction to the special issue: Technology in retailing”, Baltic Journal of Management, 13 (2), 146-151

Melis, K. Campo, K., Breugelmans, E. &. Lamey, L. (2015), “The impact of the multi-channel retail mix on online store choice: does online experience matter?”, Journal of Retailing, 91 (2) 272–288

Minton, E.A., Cornwell, B. & Kahile, L.R. (2017), “A theoretical review of consumer priming: Prospective theory, retrospective theory, and the affective-behavioral-cognitive model”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, 16 (4), 309-321

Modig, E. (2012), “Understanding advertising creativity—How perceptions of creativity influences advertising effectiveness”, Stockholm: Ineko AB

Murfield, M., Boone, C.A., Rutner, P. & Thomas, R. (2017), “Investigating logistics service quality in omni-channel retailing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Management, 47 (4), 263-296

Müller- Lankenau, C., Wehmeyer, K. Klein, S. (2006), “Strategic channel alignment: an analysis of the configuration of physical and virtual marketing channels”, Information Systems and e-Business Management, 4 (2), 187-216

Nordfält, J., Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L. & Hill, K.M. (2014), “Insights from in-store marketing experiments” In Shopper marketing and the role of in-store marketing, 127-146

Nordfält, J. (2011), ”In-store marketing, On sector knowledge and research in retailing”, second edition, Market Forma Magazines AB, Västerås

Oh, L-B. & Teo, H-H. (2010), “Consumer value co-creation in a hybrid commerce service-delivery system”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14 (3), 35-62

Oh, L-B., Teo, H-H. & Sambamurthy, V. (2012), “The effects of retail channel integration through the use of information technologies on firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, 30 (5), 368-381

Orth, U.R., & Crouch, R.C. (2014), “Is beauty in the aisles of the retailer? Package processing in visually complex contexts”, Journal of Retailing, 90(4), 524–537

Pentina, I., & Hasty, R. W. (2009), “Effects of multichannel coordination and e-commerce outsourcing on online retail performance”, Journal of Marketing Channels, 16 (4) 359-374

REFERENCES 55

Picot-Coupey, K., Huré, E. & Piveteau, L. (2016), “Channel design to enrich customers’ shopping experiences, synchronizing clicks with bricks in an omni-channel perspective- the direct optic case”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 44 (3), 336-368

Prion, F., (1993), “A comparison of emotional reactions experienced by planned, unplanned and impulse purchasers”, Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 341–344

Rapp, A., Baker, T.L., Bachrach, D.G. & Ogilvie, J. (2015), “Perceived customer showrooming behavior and the effect on retail salesperson self-efficacy and performance”, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 358-369

Rigby, D., (2010), “The future of shopping”, Harvard Business Review (December), 65–76 Rippé, C. B., Weisfeld-Spolter, S., Yorova, Y., Dubinsky, A. J., & Hale, D. (2017),

“Under the sway of a mobile device during an in-store shopping experience”, Psychology & marketing, 34 (7), 733-752

Rosengren, S., Lange, F., Hernant, M. & Blom, A. (2018), “Catering to the digital consumer: From multichannel to omnichannel retailing” in Managing Digital Transformation, eds. Andersson, P., Movin, S., Mähring, M., Teigland, R. & Wennberg, K. SIR, Stockholm

Rosengren, S., Dahlen, M., & Modig, E. (2013). Think outside the ad: Can advertising creativity benefit more than the advertiser? Journal of Advertising, 42(4), 320–330

Saghiri, S., Wilding, R., Mena, C. & Bourlakis, M. (2017), “Toward a three-dimensional framework for omni-channel”, Journal of Business Research, 77 (August), 53-67

Schramm-Klein, H. & Morschett, D. (2005), “Retail channel porfolios: Channel-attributes or integration-benefit- what counts more?”, European Advances in Consumer Research 7, eds. Karin M Ekstrom and Helene Brembeck, Goteborg, Sweden: Association for Consumer Research, 377-384

Schramm-Klein, H., Wagner, G. Steinmann, S. & Morschett, D. (2011), “Cross- channel integration-is it valued by customers?”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 21(5), 501-511

Seck, A. M., & Phillipe, J. (2013), “Service encounter in a multi-channel distribution context: virtual and face-to-face interactions and consumer satisfaction”, The Service Industries Journal, 33 (6), 565-579

Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B., Marshall, R., (2010), “Impulsive buying and variety seeking: a trait-correlates perspective”, Journal of Business Research, 63 (3), 276–283

Shankar, V. (2014), “Shopper marketing 2.0: Opportunities and challenges”, in Shopper Marketing and the Role of In-Store Marketing, Review of Marketing Research, Volume 11, eds; Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L. & Nordfält J., Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley UK

Shen, X-L., Li, Y-J., Sun, Y. & Wang, N. (2018), “Channel integration quality, perceived fluency and omnichannel service usage: The moderating roles of internal and external usage experience”, Decision Support System, Article in Press


Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Tan, C.-H., Phang, C.W., (2013), “Addressing the personalization-privacy paradox: an empirical assessment from a field experiment on smartphone users”, MIS Quarterly, 37 (4), 1141–1161

Söderlund, M., & Sagfossen, S. (2017), “The consumer experience: the impact of effort and consumer effort on customer satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39 (November), 219-229

Söderlund, M. (2002), “Tankeverktyg för marknadsförare”, first edition, Liber Ekonomi, Malmö

Söderlund, M. (2018), ”Experiments in marketing”, Studentlitteratur, Lund Thorbjornsen, H., M. Dahlen, and Y. H. Lee. (2016), “The effect of new product

preannouncements on the evaluation of other brand products”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33, 342-355

Van Baal, S., (2014), “Should retailers harmonize marketing variables across their distribution channels? An investigation of cross-channel effects in multi-channel retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (6), 1038–1046

Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K., Inman, J.J., (2015), “From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing Introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 174–181

Von Briel, F. (2018), “The future of omnichannel retail: a four-stage Delphi study”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 132 (July), 217-229

Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B. (2003), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 310–320

Wang, S., Beatty, S. & Mothersbaugh, D.L. (2009), “Congruity´s role in website attitude formation”, Journal of Business Research, 62 (6), 609-615

Wang, R.J-H, Malthouse, E.C. & Krishnamurthi, L. (2015), “On the go: How mobile shopping affects customer purchase behavior”, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 217- 234

Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a Theoretical contribution?”, The Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 490-495

Wiener, M., Hossbach, N. & Saunders, C. (2018), “Omnichannel businesses in the publishing and retailing industries: Synergies and tensions between coexisting online and offline business models”, Decision Support Systems, In print

Yalch, R. & Spangenberg, E. (1990), “Effects of store music on shopping behavior”, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7 (2), 55-63

Yan, R., Wang, J. & Zhou, B. (2010), “Channel integration and profit sharing in the dynamics of multi-channel firms”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17 (September), 430-440

Yu, S., Hudders, L., & Cauberghe, V. (2017), “Targeting the luxury consumer, a vice or virtue? A cross-cultural comparison of the effectiveness of behaviorally targeted ads”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21 (2), 187-205

REFERENCES 57

Yurova, Y., Rippé, C.B., Weisfeld-Spolter, S., Sussan, F., Arndt, A. (2017), “Not all adaptive selling to omni-consumers is influential: the moderating effect of product type”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 271–277

Zhang, M., Ren, C., Wang, G. A., & He, Z. (2018), “The impact of channel integration on consumer responses in omni-channel retailing: the mediating effect of consumer empowerment”, Electronic Commerce research and Applications, 28 (March-April), 181- 193

ONE SIZE FITS ALL? Angelica Blom · angelica blom one size fits all? understanding shopper...

Documents

Transcript of ONE SIZE FITS ALL? Angelica Blom · angelica blom one size fits all? understanding shopper...