The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Role of consumer
Multiple-channel and shopping
cross-channel shopping behavior orientations
Role of consumer shopping orientations
9
Patrali Chatterjee
School of Business, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair,
New Jersey, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of consumer shopping orientations on
consumer’s channel choice, cross-channel shopping behavior, and shopping outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – Using multiple sources of data including surveys of store, web,
and cross-channel shoppers and their transaction information, the impact of consumer shopping
orientations on comparison-shopping, likelihood of cross-channel usage, purchase outcomes including
unplanned purchasing, retailer satisfaction, intent to return/abandon purchases, and share of category
purchases are investigated.
Findings – Results suggest that high-thrift customers patronizing a cross-channel retailer are less
likely to search for competitive offerings online or offline than customers patronizing a multiple
channel retailer. Further, retailer satisfaction is higher for cross-channel compared to multi-channel
retailers irrespective of the transaction channel used by consumers.
Research limitations/implications – The data have external validity; however, they lack the
control possible in laboratory experiments. Future research should examine if the findings can be
replicated in multiple retail sectors.
Practical implications – These results suggest that brick-and-click retailers can exploit synergies
between their channels through order online and pick up in store strategies for greater profitability
than those who operate multiple independent channels.
Originality/value – This paper examines managerial implications of multiple independent channel
vs cross-channel strategies by retailers using data from customers of a commercial retailer.
Keywords Shopping, Internet shopping, Customer orientation, Consumer behaviour,
United States of America
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Retailing firms face market pressures to transact with consumers across multiple
channels – brick and mortar stores, catalogs, kiosks, and/or web sites and
consequently the challenge of exploiting synergies across them. A retailer’s objective is
to distribute resources across the channel mix to satisfy customers and maximize
profits. An important strategic decision facing any retailing firm is: should various
distribution channels be integrated so that consumers can seamlessly use multiple
channels to complete a single purchase transaction? Or, should multiple channels be
independently managed so that consumers can search across multiple channels but Marketing Intelligence & Planning
Vol. 28 No. 1, 2010
pp. 9-24
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The author acknowledges the financial assistance from the International Council of Shopping 0263-4503
Centers Education Foundation (available at: www.icsc.com) for their research Grant in 2006. DOI 10.1108/02634501011014589
MIP have to complete a purchase transaction within one channel? While the integration of
28,1 remote retail channels like catalog and web store has been widely accepted (and hence
not addressed in this research), the integration of remote and store-based retail
channels presents a challenging issue because of costs, channel conflict, and other
strategic implications.
Retailers using multiple channels have two strategic options:
10 (1) operate multiple channels as independent entities (multi-channel strategy, i.e.
order and pick up in-store, order online or by telephone and get product
delivered); or
(2) integrate multiple channels allowing cross-channel movements of products,
money, and information (cross-channel strategy, order online/pick up in store,
order in-store, and get product delivered home).

Since cross-channel retailers allow cross-channel transfers of information, money, and

goods, they need to maintain uniform pricing, positioning, and merchandising strategy
online and in stores which limits their stores’ ability to respond to local competition
and creates pricing conflict across two channels of the same retailer (Tang and Xing,
2001). Most research on multi-channel strategy by firms and multi-channel use by
consumers focuses on the information search stage of the purchase process (Baal and
Dac, 2005). However, research on the impact of a cross-channel strategy on consumer
outcomes in the transaction stage (product ordering, payment, and order fulfillment) of
purchase process is scarce. How purchase outcomes of consumers with different
shopping orientations differ based on whether multiple channels operated by the same
firm are independent or integrated is the focus of this research.
Current research on multi-channel retailing does not distinguish between multiple
channel retailers and cross-channel retailers. Similarly, research on multi-channel
consumers does not distinguish between consumers that use one channel (e.g. web) for
information search and buy the product in-store (or vice versa), and those that prefer to
use multiple channels not only during the information search phase but also during the
purchase transaction itself. Retailers with brick-and-mortar stores increasingly use the
localized e-commerce model, whereby consumers view product information and order
products through the web site (or print catalog), and opt to pick up the product at the
local store. Hence, research on the behavioral consequences of a retailer’s multi- and
cross-channel strategy on consumer shopping experience during the purchase
transaction stages of ordering, payment, and fulfillment is seriously needed.
Commercial studies report that multi-channel shoppers spend more and have higher
incomes (The Wall Street Journal, 2004). However, survey data cannot identify whether
multi-channel shoppers purchase more due to their higher incomes or due to greater
accessibility to multiple channels. About 20 percent of customers switch retailers when
they switch channels between information collection and purchase transaction stage
(Baal and Dac, 2005). Hence, there is a tendency to free-ride, and multiple channel
retailers retain substantially fewer customers. However, these findings apply to
multiple independently managed channel retailers that did not allow channel
switching during the transaction process. The implications for cross-channel retailers
that allow customers to switch channels during the transaction process are largely
unknown. Hence, it is not clear if integrating multiple channels can further increase
sales revenues, satisfaction with shopping experience and retailer profitability.
Despite the important strategic reasons for or against integration, it is critical for both Role of consumer
managers and researchers to gain insight into consumer-level responses to shopping
multi-channel retailing strategies and their implications for retailer profits.
This research addresses the following managerial questions. First, how do orientations
consumer shopping orientations influence cross-channel usage during the purchase
transaction process? Second, how does the impact of a firm’s multiple vs cross-channel
strategy affect purchase outcomes of consumers with different shopping orientations? 11
Third, how does cross-channel strategy affect the retailer’s performance in terms of
share of category purchases, unplanned purchases, order size, retailer satisfaction, and
purchase abandonment or return propensity?
We develop a conceptual framework in Section 2. Then, we describe the research
design incorporating multiple data sources:
.
a quasi-experiment using web-based (at online stores) and paper surveys
(in physical stores) to examine how consumers respond to cross-channel
ordering, payment and delivery policies at textbook stores (Study 1); and
.
consumer surveys at physical stores of a consumer electronics retailer to validate
our findings (Study 2).

We conclude by discussing our empirical findings and managerial implications for

retailers.

2. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Retailers differentiate themselves from their competition by augmenting their core
product offerings with service outputs (e.g. product selection, attribute information,
and extended hours of operation) provided before, during, and after a purchase. All of
these facilitate ordering, payment, and product delivery/pick-up stages in a purchase
process (Stern and El-Ansary, 1992). At a multiple independent channel retailer, a
consumer can search online, and go to the store to purchase and vice versa; however all
of the transaction stages of purchase process – ordering, payment, and product
fulfillment, have to be executed in a single channel either in-store or remote
(web site/telephone). In contrast, at a cross-channel retailer, not only can the consumer
search online, and go to the store to purchase and vice versa, but the consumer can also
change channels while completing a purchase transaction. The consumer can start the
purchase transaction in one channel (i.e. order and pay online), and complete it in
another channel (i.e. pay and pick up at store). This allows consumers to exploit the
benefits of each channel (ability to search product information online during brand
choice, instant pickup in store), while avoiding costs (travel costs to collect information
during brand choice, paying shipping charges to order online) inherent in each channel.
Existing research demonstrates that retailers offering an array of delivery channels
can increase customer satisfaction, loyalty, and firm value. However, it does not
indicate whether additional gains accrue from their integration. Proponents of
multi-channel retailing frequently assert that the benefits of using multiple marketing
channels go beyond the sales generated through each of these modes, through
exploitation of synergies across channels; savings on transaction costs (Dutta et al.,
1995), and increase in market coverage. Multiple channel retailers increase consumer
value by offering shopping convenience. Consumers reward such retailers by
purchasing more and/or concentrating the share of their purchases compared to
MIP single-channel customers (Baal and Dac, 2005). This would suggest that integration
28,1 across multiple channels is necessary for a seamless experience across all of the firm’s
channels allowing the consumer to choose when, where, and how she wants to interact
with the retailer and ca lead to even higher consumer value. By not integrating
channels retailers might forgo profit-maximizing opportunities.
A contrary stream of research on channel cannibalization suggests that the total
12 demand for a specific retailer’s goods is rather rigid and not contingent on the number
of the company’s channels (Deleersnyder et al., 2001). If multiple channels operated by
a firm compete for rigid, exogenous sales potential, integrating channels will increase
channel maintenance costs without adding to overall sales. Further, integrating
channels restricts the cross-channel retailer to maintain uniform pricing, positioning,
and merchandising strategy across channels. This limits flexibility to respond to
competition in the online and offline market spaces, and to differentiate market
offerings across various segments of consumers. Further channel integration requires
heavy investments in inventory control, logistics, fusing, and standardizing data about
customers and interactions with them from different channel systems which may be
individually efficient but not interoperable. Such integration can even destroy a
previously well-run multiple channel system (Schmeiser, 2006). Thus, a cross-channel
retailer would be at a disadvantage compared to competitors with multiple
independently managed channels or those with fewer channels.

Benefits and costs inherent in channels

Consumer’s choice of a retail channel to complete purchase transactions is significantly
affected by the costs and benefits incurred to satisfy shopping goals (Kim et al., 2002).
Channel types differ in their abilities in performing various retail service outputs and
in the benefits and costs they impose on consumers (Bucklin et al., 1996). Online stores
provide expanded temporal and geographical accessibility, larger assortment, factual
product information, and novelty (Grewal et al., 2004). The availability of search
capabilities to manage and compare objective price information facilitates
pre-purchase information search not only within a retailer’s site but also across
retailers (Balasubramanium et al., 2005). However, the remote nature of the channel
makes product fulfillment temporally separated from the ordering and payment
process. Hence, regardless of whether pre-purchase search is online or offline,
consumers choosing online or remote delivery have to bear transportation (shipping)
costs and waiting time costs for product fulfillment.
In contrast, the traditional in-store retailer bears most of the transportation and waiting
time costs, while offering consumers physical accessibility and immediate product
possession. However, consumers have to incur effort and time costs of collecting factual
and sensory product information, have limited geographical and temporal accessibility
during the pre-purchase search and when picking up the product at the time of purchase.
Multiple independent channel retailers allow consumers to self-select themselves into one
of the channels provided to complete their transaction; however consumers bear the
transactional costs inherent to the chosen channel, not unlike shopping with a single
channel retailer. These differences between physical and online channels gain greater
significance as cross-channel firms operating within these channels, as well as across
channels, are able to compete by leveraging channel features to create and deliver different
value propositions, while selling the same physical product or commodity.
Influence of consumer shopping orientations on cross-channel usage Role of consumer
The extant published research on goals consumers seek to satisfy during the transaction shopping
stage of the purchase process suggests that customer desire for convenience, the quest for
self-affirmation in terms of decision expertise, and thrift all drive the consumer’s selection orientations
of channels to complete purchase transactions (Balasubramanium et al., 2005). We discuss
how these goals affect choice of channel modes.
Convenience goals. Convenience orientation is a distinct consumption strategy, 13
defined as “seeking to accomplish a task in the shortest time with the least expenditure
of energy” (Morganosky, 1986). It refers to a person’s general preference for convenient
goods and services at higher costs. In the retail context, convenience is defined as
consumers’ effort and waiting time perceptions related to buying or using products or
services, and comprises of decision, access, transaction, benefit, and post-benefit
convenience (Morganosky, 1986). Consumer choice of a particular channel during
ordering, payment and fulfillment stages of the purchase transaction process depends
on tradeoffs she makes between the waiting time and effort needed to complete each
stage in the channel, and varies over shopping occasions. The addition of remote or
delivery channels like catalogs or web sites by conventional retailers is a response to
the needs of consumers with high-effort costs, who resent the inconvenience of
traveling (effort) to the store. In contrast, the addition of physical stores (or store-based
affiliates) by internet-only retailers is a response to reduce the time costs of waiting for
product delivery (or positive time discounting) for consumers with high waiting time
costs. Hence, when consumers are heterogeneous in their desire for shopping
convenience, i.e. consumers have different unit travel costs or waiting unit time costs:
H1a. Consumers with high-effort costs are more likely to complete their purchase
online than at physical stores of the cross-channel or multi-channel retailer.
H1b. Consumers with high waiting time costs are more likely to complete their
purchase at physical stores of multi-channel or cross-channel (order online
and pick-up in store) retailers than the online channel.
Self-affirmation goals. The self-perception theory suggests that individuals examine
their own behavior and its attendant circumstances to determine their attitudes
towards themselves. This need to maintain positive self-impressions characterized as
the “need for self-enhancement” includes the tendency to perceive greater control over
the environment than actually exists. A shopping occasion can provide consumers
with an opportunity to affirm certain positive traits like expertise and thrift.
Self-affirmation of expertise refers to the consumer’s perception of being empowered to
select the best product from a choice set with skill (Brucks, 1985). Such subjective expertise
is more likely to give them confidence in their decisions and take credit for them, or draw
satisfaction from them. Hence, consumers seeking self-affirmation of expertise will prefer
channels that provide them with the greatest opportunity to exercise their perceived
expertise. Cross-channel retailers allow consumers to search across channels, leading to
greater confidence. Greater confidence in search decisions attenuates the consumer’s
desire to search for competitive offerings. Hence:
H2a. Consumers with high self-affirmation needs of expertise are less likely
to comparison-search for competitive offerings when patronizing a
cross-channel retailer compared to those patronizing a multi-channel retailer.
MIP Thrift is the trait of seeking to acquire products or services inexpensively, the
28,1 affirmation that one has been careful in spending money. Online channels generally
offer greater potential for price comparisons, and for finding bargains, than physical
stores. However, this increased perception of thrift online compared to shopping in
physical stores is negated by shipping and handling charges for online purchases.
Allowing consumers the ability to search for price bargains across multiple channels,
14 and cherry-pick products consumers wish to buy across channels, increases the
perception of thrift among consumers who buy from cross-channel retailers, compared
to those that restrict consumers to complete transactions in one of the multiple
channels used by the retailer. Rather than objective savings, it is the perception of
savings that drives self-affirmation of thrift. Since consumer perception of thrift is
positively associated with the extent of pre-purchase price search, we hypothesize:
H2b. Consumers with high self-affirmation needs of thrift are less likely to
comparison-shop for competitive offerings when patronizing a cross-channel
retailer compared to those patronizing a multiple channel retailer.
The availability of price comparison and shopping agents like MySimon.com,
pricescan.com allow consumers to comparison shop for prices at online stores and
consumers are aware that prices at web sites for multiple channel retailers differ from
those at stores. Consumers with self-affirmation needs of expertise and thrift can therefore
gain from engaging in comparison shopping online as well as at physical stores. Prices for
cross-channel retailers have to be the same in all channels, so the marginal utility
associated with comparison shopping is low, providing further support for H2a and H2b.

Differential impact of retailer’s cross-channel strategy on consumer’s purchase outcomes

In cross-channel shopping, there is a temporal separation of the ordering, payment, and
product fulfillment stage and this can impact consumers’ shopping outcomes like
unplanned purchasing, purchase abandonment or returns, share of category purchases
and hence retailer profitability. Retailers encounter challenges and opportunities when
the shopping process is completed within the same channel (online or offline) at
multiple channel retailers.
Prior research indicates that the information-laden and price-dominant nature of the
online shopping environment discourages impulse-based and hence unplanned
purchasing (Frambach et al., 2007). If online consumers of cross-channel retailers
simply visit stores to pick up products ordered online, the cost of merchandising and
customer service at the store is wasted. If instead, online consumers make “unplanned”
or impulse purchases at the store, in addition to picking up online orders, the cost of
merchandising and customer service can be justified. Research on two-stage decision
processes in behavioral theory suggests that when online consumers prepay and opt to
pick up at stores “mere ownership” or possession effects (Sen and Johnson, 1997) are
activated without actual possession of the product, and consumers are more likely to
have “spent” their budget, and are less likely to make impulse purchases. They are
more likely to define their goals in terms of product pick-up, and less likely to make
unplanned purchases at the store than consumers completing their purchases at
physical stores of multiple channel retailers (Soman and Lam, 2002). Hence:
H3. Unplanned purchases will be higher at the physical store of the multiple
independent channel retailer compared to the cross-channel retailer.
A retailer’s cross-channel strategy can encourage free-riding and cherry picking Role of consumer
behavior by consumers. Consumers can free ride when a firm cannot feasibly charge shopping
separately for its services, such as displaying product information and accepting
returns, and when it cannot distinguish free riders from other customers (Carlton orientations
and Chevalier, 2001). Brick-and-mortar stores face a dilemma in defining the role
stores, particularly the salesperson effort and merchandising in stores, play in
supporting cross-channel activities. Many cross-channel retailers testify to internal 15
conflicts, resulting from different perceptions of the magnitude of free riding across
a retailer’s channels, even if a single company owns all of them (Tang and Xing,
2001).
The implications of free-riding differ for cross-channel and multiple channel
retailers. Consumers consume services like product demonstrations and sales person
opinions at physical stores and then purchase at online stores. Since online stores do
not provide these services their costs of doing business is considerably lower than
physical stores. Physical stores cannot charge for standard pre- or post-sale services
(for example, via an entrance fee or shipping charges); hence, pre- and post-sale
services that the physical stores provide become a public good. Multiple channel
retailers can discourage free-riding behavior across channels for pre-sale services,
by creating differences in assortments, prices, and promotions available in stores,
and remote channels. They can also restrict usage of post-sale services through
restrictive return policies, but cross-channel retailers cannot. Hence, the
consequences of free-riding are more severe at physical stores of cross-channel
retailers, since they have to maintain consistency in prices and assortment, and
allow returns and order cancellations at physical stores even if the consumer has
bought products online. Free-riding in the other direction (order in store and have it
delivered to the home) is not as severe a problem, primarily because the costs of
online shops are largely fixed (their online information is a public good), while the
costs of traditional retailers are largely dependent on the number of visitors to their
stores (Carlton and Chevalier, 2001). Further, consumers at multiple channel retailers
bear the time and effort costs of going to the store and bear shipping costs for
delivery that cannot be recouped so there is lower incentive for frivolous ordering
and purchase abandonment. Hence:
H4. Intent to return or abandon purchases will be higher at stores of the
cross-channel retailer compared to those of the multiple independent channel
retailer.
A portfolio of complementary channels makes available a greater and deeper mix of
service outputs to the final customer (Frazier and Shervani, 1992). Cross-channel
retailers that allow cross-channel product ordering and pick-up options through “order
online and pick up in store” or “order in store and have it delivered at home,” allow
consumers to switch channels at various stages of the transaction process. This can
subsidize transaction and search costs across channels, while also allowing the option
of using a single channel for the entire process. With more service outputs seamlessly
available across several channels, customers can choose their preferred channel to
interact with a retailer across multiple contact points at each stage of the purchase
process during a single purchase, enhancing customer satisfaction and retailer loyalty
(Wallace et al., 2004). Hence:
MIP H5. Consumer satisfaction with a cross-channel retailer will be higher than with a
28,1 multiple independent channel retailer.
In a competitive market, as channels multiply, the retailer’s market coverage increases.
This leads to a decrease in the customers’ information search costs and an increase in
price transparency, since firms have to maintain consistency in prices across channels.
The resulting increased competition may lead to lower prices, higher price elasticities,
16 frequent price changes, and narrow price dispersion – classic symptoms of market
competition (Brynjolfsson and Smith, 2000; Tang and Xing, 2001). All of these factors
decrease customer switching costs, and at the same time increase customer motivation
to distribute purchases across firms, cherry-picking the best offers available if
competing firms engage in price competition, leading to decrease in order sizes and
erosion in customer loyalty. Cross-channel strategies can reduce consumers’
propensity to consolidate purchases with a retailer. Hence:
H6. Share of category purchases will be lower at the cross-channel retailer
compared to the multiple independent channel retailer.

3. Empirical context and methodology

We examine how consumer shopping orientations drive cross-channel usage for
purchase transactions, and the impact of a retailer’s multi-channel strategy on
behavioral outcomes of a consumer’s shopping process. We collected survey and
purchase transaction data from a bookstore chain that had introduced “order online
and pick up in store” (OOPS) at only one of its locations, thus offering us an
opportunity to examine our hypotheses on shopping motivations in a quasi-controlled
environment. Since prices, assortment, and service are similar across stores for the
retail chain, we can control for factors not accounted in our analyses.

Study: consumer shopping orientations and cross-channel usage

Procedure. The bookstore retailer (name withhold at the request of the sponsor)
participating in this study sold products online through an e-store and through
brick-and-mortar stores at two locations 50 miles apart – store A and store B close to
university campuses. Only store A had OOPS – order online and pick-up in-store.
At the e-store consumers can order and pay online, and have their purchases shipped
for a fee anywhere in the USA or pick up at store A.
Consumers visiting the two physical stores were randomly solicited for
participation in the study by student researchers at entrances of stores A and
B. Clickable pop-ups on the homepage of the online store were used to randomly solicit
online consumers to participate in the study. No purchase was required to participate
in the study. Our data collection method involved two distinct stages and participants
received an incentive of $10 for completing both stages.
Variables and measures. In the first stage, respondents provided demographic
information and the following pre-purchase behavior information:
.
shopping list (to determine planned purchases); and
.
number of stores or web sites visited during pre-purchase search (search for
competitive offerings).
At bookstore A subjects indicated whether they had come to pick up an order placed Role of consumer
online. shopping
In the second stage, information was collected from shopping receipts[1]:
.
total purchase amount in dollars;
orientations
.
number of items in the shopping list (obtained in first stage) that were purchased
(no. of planned purchases);
17
.
total planned purchase amount in dollars;
.
number of items purchased that were not mentioned in the shopping list in first
stage (total unplanned purchase amount in dollars);
.
percentage (per cent) of annual category expenditures spent at this retailer (share
of category expenditures); and
.
number of items ordered and paid online that were picked up (at bookstore A
only).
Consumers who did not make any purchases only answered only the survey questions,
and recorded zero purchase amounts in the survey. The following attitudinal and
shopping orientation measures were collected in the survey:
.
retailer satisfaction (five point Likert scale);
.
multi-item scale for convenience time and effort orientation (Morganosky, 1986);
. multi-item scale for self-affirmation of search expertise (Putrevu and Ratchford,
1997);
.
multi-item scale for self-affirmation of thrift (Urbany et al., 1996); and
.
intention to abandon order (for OOPS orders) or return products bought during
the shopping visit (five point Likert scale, five: certainly would abandon/return).

Scores on all items in the scales were summed and standardized with respect to the
mean for shopping orientation. A median split was used to determine if the shopper
was high or low on a particular orientation.

4. Results and discussion

Of the study, 2,459 respondents participated with 412 completing both stages
(16.7 percent response rate). As Table I indicates the majority of shoppers were female
(54 percent), employed (87 percent), well educated, and lived off-campus. Analyses of
pre-purchase behavior in Table II indicate that cross-channel shoppers do not differ
significantly in the number of items in their shopping list, compared to web-only or
store-only shoppers ( p . 0.05).

Do shopping orientations drive cross-channel usage and consequently purchase outcomes?

We used a binary logistic model to examine the impact of shopping orientations on the
consumer’s decision to complete their purchase online or at the store. Please note that
we combine responses for store and OOPS consumers in the statistic to test H1a and
H1b, since in both of those cases consumers complete their purchase at the store.
Estimation results in Table III show that consumers with high-effort costs
(convenience oriented/effort) are not significantly more likely to complete their
purchase online (z ¼ 1.78, p . 0.1). Hence, H1a is rejected. It is important to note that
MIP
Respondent profile
28,1 Variables Means (or %) SD

Female (%) 54 –
Average age (years) 33 10.12
Household income per member (US$) 16,456 9,893
18 Years of college education 3.4 2.1
Annual expenditure in category (US$) 968.42 309.4
No. of internet purchases in last six months 2.79 4.19
Weekly internet use for shopping purposes (hours) 1.3 3.21
Distance from home to closest store (miles) 11.8 9.56
Table I. Distance from home to farthest store (miles) 57.3 8.14
Summary statistics No. of respondents 412 –

Bookstore A B
Transaction channel used by shopper Store Web OOPS Store Web

No. of respondents 76 82 86 97 71
Pre-purchase behavior
Av. number of items on shopping list 8.1 10.2 9.3 7.3 10.7
Shopping orientations driving channel choice
Percentage of high convenience oriented w.r.t. effort
(n ¼ 76) (H1a: not supported) 0.22 0.25 0.14 0.20 0.18
Percentage of high convenience oriented w.r.t. time (n ¼ 141)
(H1b: supported)a 0.23 0.09 0.33 0.29 0.06
Av. number of web sites and stores visited by
consumers with high self-affirmation of expertise
(n ¼ 69) 1.24 2.36 2.02 1.46 1.98
(H2a: not supported) (0.8) (1.1) (1.3) (0.2) (1.2)
Av. number of web sites and stores visited by high
thrift cons.b 6.42 7.20 5.03 7.95 8.05
(H2b: supported) (2.2) (1.8) (1.1) (1.7) (0.2)
Purchase outcomes
Retailer satisfactionb 3.9 3.8 4.3 3.8 3.7
(H5: supported) (0.6) (1.1) (0.3) (0.9) (1.1)
Table II. Unplanned purchase amount ($)a,b 24.71 2.33 43.94 28.11 3.16
Summary statistics on (H3: supported in opposite direction) (8.2) (1.2) (9.4) (7.9) (2.1)
store, web, and Purchase return/abandonment intenta 2.9 1.2 3.3 2.1 1.3
cross-channel shoppers (H4: supported) (0.6) (0.8) (0.2) (0.3) (1.1)
at cross-channel Share of category purchase
(bookstore A) and (H6: not supported) 69.02% 61.97%
multiple channel
a
(bookstore B) retailers Notes: Standard deviations in parentheses; significant differences ( p , 0.05) for cross-channel and
(Study 1) store vs web shoppers; bsignificant differences ( p , 0.05) for cross-channel vs multi-channel retailer

result may study-specific, because the stores are close to university campuses and
student respondents do not perceive the visit to the physical bookstores as effortful.
In contrast, respondents with high-waiting time costs are significantly more likely
to complete their purchases at physical stores of the cross-channel retailer rather than
the online channel (2 0.871, p , 0.01), and marginally for the multiple independent
channel retailer (2 0.613, p , 0.05), thus supporting H1b. This may explained by the Role of consumer
fact that the long waiting time costs for books to arrive by mail (seven days for shopping
standard shipping), and possibly missing assignments, might be the reason many
shoppers prefer to complete purchase at physical stores. In general, consumers at the orientations
multiple independent retailer are significantly less likely to shop online than those at
the cross-channel retailer (2 0.074, p , 0.01).
Table IV provides estimation results for hypotheses H2-H6. Please note that the 19
multiple independent channel retailer represents the baseline. Our analysis indicates
that while consumers with high self-affirmation needs for expertise are more likely to
comparison shop, they are not significantly less likely to comparison-shop when
patronizing a cross-channel retailer, compared to multiple independent channel retailer
(0.024, p . 0.1) hence, H2a is not supported. Since books, stationery, and software are
standardized products, hence a cross-channel strategy does not add value to the
comparison-shopping process. Retailer choice is driven by price, an objective criteria
easily communicated through online interfaces.
Analyses of Table II indicates that the number of competitive web sites and stores
visited by respondents with high self-affirmation needs of thrift at a cross-channel retailer
(6.08, SD ¼ 1.6) is significantly lower (t ¼ 3.53, p , 0.05) than those who transact with a
multiple channel retailer (8.21, SD ¼ 1.1) thus supporting H2b. Further, store-only and
web-only shoppers at the multiple independent channel store search significantly more
competitive options than cross-channel shoppers ( p , 0.05) as shown graphically in
Figure 1. Post hoc tests on comparison shopping by low self-affirmation of expertise and
thrift subjects indicate that hypotheses H2a and H2b are not supported. Hence, we find
that cross-channel integration by a retailer leads to the perception of higher value, lower
prices, and decreases price-based comparison search by thrifty consumers.
Contrary to hypothesis H3, our analysis shows that unplanned purchase amounts
are significantly higher at the cross-channel retailer compared to the multiple channel
retailer (t ¼ 2.12, p , 0.05) and significantly higher in-store (note, we combine store
and cross-channel unplanned purchase amount) than at a web site (t ¼ 4.19, p , 0.01).
Hence, H3 is not supported. This suggests that consumers prepaying online for OOPS
orders do not merely pick up online orders but are likely to browse through, and
purchase additional merchandise at the store. Thus, store managers need to invest in
merchandising activities, even if the proportion of store consumers who order online
prior to visiting the store is high or is increasing. This finding finds support in other
research suggesting that online activities do not cannibalize offline sales (Biyalogorsky
and Naik, 2003).

Purchasecross-channel retailer PurchaseMultiple independent-channel retailer Summary of

(online ¼ 1) (online ¼ 1) hypotheses tests

Constant 0.002 (0.013) 20.076 (0.019)

Convenience
w.r.t. effort 0.131 (0.230) 0.142 (0.164) H1a not supported
Convenience Table III.
w.r.t. time 2 0.871 (0.218) 2 0.62 (0.357) H1b supported Logit analyses of
shopping channel choice
Note: Standard deviations in parentheses for purchase completion
 20
28,1
MIP

outcomes
Table IV.
Impact of shopping
orientations on purchase
Unplanned Customer Share of category
Parameters Comparison shop purchases Intent to return satisfaction purchases

Constant, cross channel retailer 2 0.124 (0.198) 1.107 * * (0.346) 0.351 * * (0.129) 0.529 * (0.214) 1.007 (0.671)
H3 supported H5 supported H6 not supported
Self-affirmation needs of expertise 0.239 * (0.108) 0.487 (0.315) 0.266 (0.192) 1.281 * (0.512) 0.009 (0.018)
Self-affirmation needs of expertise £ cross
channel retailer 0.024 (0.019) 1.009 (0.983) 1.145 (0.911) 0.096 (0.076) 0.048 (0.030)
H2a not supported
Self-affirmation needs of thrift 0.307 * * (0.079) 0.018 (0.138) 0.024 (0.310) 0.371 (0.279) 0.181 (0.096)
Self-affirmation needs of thrift £ cross
channel retailer 20.179 * (0.054) 0.718 (0.552) 0.059 * * (0.017) 0.060 (0.112) 0.092 (0.148)
H2b supported H4 supported
Notes: Significance at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01; standard deviations in parentheses
 9 Av. # of websites Role of consumer
shopping
Av. no.of competitive stores and

& stores visited

8
by high expertise
7 consumers orientations
websites searched

6 Av. # of websites
& stores visited
5
by low expertise
4 consumers 21
3 Av. # of websites
2 & stores visited Figure 1.
by high thrift Comparison shopping by
1
Av. # of websites channel choice and
0 & stores visited shopping orientation
CC-store CC-web CC-OOPS MC-store MC-web
by low thrift (Study 1)
Choice of transaction channel

As hypothesized, purchase abandonment/return intentions are statistically higher at

cross-channel compared to multiple channel retailers (Table IV), especially at physical
stores, thus supporting H4. Purchase return intentions are marginally higher ( p , 0.1)
in-store compared to web site. Further post-hoc analyses in Table II indicated that
high-thrift consumers in cross-channel stores are significantly more likely to
return/abandon (mean ¼ 3.1, SD ¼ 1.4) purchases compared to those at the multiple
channel retailer (mean ¼ 1.8, SD ¼ 0.8). However, the difference in means was not
significant for low-thrift consumers (2.1, SD ¼ 0.9 vs 1.2, SD ¼ 0.4).
As we hypothesized, Table IV indicates that satisfaction is higher at the
cross-channel retailer compared to multiple channel retailer, thus supporting H5. Post
hoc analysis in Table II shows that average retailer satisfaction is significantly higher
at the cross-channel retailer (mean across store, web and OOPS is 4.04, SD ¼ 0.9),
compared to the multiple channel retailer (mean across store and web is 3.8, SD ¼ 1.1),
t ¼ 4.43, p , 0.01.
Share of category purchases was insignificantly higher at the cross-channel retailer,
compared to the multiple channel retailer (z ¼ 2.16, p . 0.1) thus rejecting H6. These
findings must be interpreted with caution in the context of standardized products like
textbooks, software and computer equipment, and a captive shopper population –
university students. However, share of category purchases was significantly higher at
cross-channel retailers for consumers with high self-affirmation needs of expertise.
In order to validate, and generalize our findings from a student population in Study 1, we
report findings from a general population of shoppers in Study 2. We are able to examine
retailer and channel choice in a competitive setting (unlike Study 1, where respondents
could only choose between two franchises of the same bookstore chain), and purchase
behavior for retailers with multiple independent vs integrated channel strategy.

5. Influencing practice
By integrating and managing multiple channels as a system, retailers can expect each
channel to support and complement others, and thus lead to increased total sales
(Brynjolfsson and Smith, 2000). Cross-channel options like “order online and pick up in
store” are becoming a critical differentiating factor for retailers. Concerns about the
role of stores being relegated to merely pick-up counters for online customers plague
many retailers, however, this research proves otherwise. Our research shows that the
MIP OOPS not only succeeds in attracting online consumers with high waiting time costs,
28,1 but also offers convenience, greater confidence, and control in product search to
store-consumers. Retailer satisfaction is higher for cross-channel compared to
multi-channel retailers irrespective of the transaction channel used by consumers.
Further, high-thrift customers patronizing a cross-channel retailer are less likely to
search for competitive offerings online or offline than customers patronizing a multiple
22 channel retailer. These results suggest that brick-and-click retailers can exploit
synergies between their channels through OOPS strategies for greater profitability
than those who operate multiple independent channels.
Our research has practical implications for retailers that sell standardized products.
Our industry survey suggests that retailers selling standardized products (available
for OOPS) are prime adopters of cross-channel strategy. Retailers selling
non-standardized products or a combination face a dilemma. Self-affirmation for
expertise becomes especially salient for hedonic products, as is the difficulty of
evaluating subjective or credence attributes online. Development of online decision
aids to evaluate such attributes, trust advisors, virtual models, and return guarantees
will play an important role. Research is needed to examine whether our findings hold
true for retailers selling non-standardized or hedonic products.
We find that thrift-seeking consumers are more likely to reverse their purchase
decision at a cross-channel retailer than a multiple channel retailer. Hence, firms with a
larger proportion of thrift-seeking consumers may prefer to avoid allowing
cross-channel transactions in order to protect their margins, provided their close
competitors follow the same strategy. Alternatively, cross-channel strategy may be
used as a customer-segmentation strategy by firms with mixed customer bases as a
fee-based feature, where quality-sensitive consumers may be willing to pay a premium
for using OOPS. This is an issue that warrants serious investigation as retail margins
decline over time and retailers seek to break out of the commoditization trap by
creating new ways to offer value.

Note
1. Names, loyalty card numbers, credit card information and other identification information
were blackened out to meet stipulations set by the Human Subjects Institutional Review
Board.

References
Baal, S. and Dac, C. (2005), “Free riding and customer retention across retailers channels”, Journal
of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 75-85.
Balasubramanium, S., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2005), “Consumers in a multichannel
environment: product utility, process utility, and channel choice”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 12-30.
Biyalogorsky, E. and Naik, P. (2003), “Clicks and mortar: the effect of online activities on off-line
sales”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Brucks, M. (1985), “The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 1-16.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Smith, M. (2000), “Frictionless commerce? Comparison of internet and
conventional retailers”, Management Science, Vol. 46, pp. 563-85.
Bucklin, L.P., Ramaswamy, V. and Majumdar, S. (1996), “Analyzing channel structures of Role of consumer
business markets via the structure-output paradigm”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 73-86. shopping
Carlton, D.W. and Chevalier, J.A. (2001), “Free riding and sales strategies for the internet”, orientations
The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 49 No. 94, pp. 441-62.
Deleersnyder, B., Geyskens, I., Gielens, K. and Dekimpe, M.G. (2001), “How cannibalistic is the
internet channel?”, Working paper 12-2001, eBusiness Research Center, Penn State 23
University, University Park, PA.
Dutta, S., Bergen, H.J. and John, G. (1995), “Understanding dual distribution: the case of reps
and house accounts”, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 189-204.
Frambach, R.T., Roest, H.C.A. and Krishnan, T. (2007), “The impact of consumer internet
experience on channel preference and usage intentions across the different stages of the
buying process”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 26-39.
Frazier, G.L. and Shervani, T. (1992), “Multiple channels of distribution and their impact
on retailing”, in Peterson, R.A. (Ed.), The Future of US Retailing: An Agenda for the
21st Century, Quorum Books, New York, NY, pp. 217-38.
Grewal, D., Gopalkrishnan, R.I. and Levy, M. (2004), “Internet retailing: enablers, limiters and
market consequences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 703-13.
Kim, Y.K., Pookulangar, S. and Crutsinger, C. (2002), “Vitality of multi-channel retailing: function
of retail synergy and consumers’ perceived benefits and costs”, Journal of Shopping Center
Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 7-29.
Morganosky, M. (1986), “Cost-versus convenience-oriented consumers: demographic, lifestyle,
and value perspectives”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 3, pp. 35-46.
Putrevu, S. and Ratchford, B.T. (1997), “A model of search behavior with an application to
grocery shopping”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 463-86.
Schmeiser, L. (2006), “Divide and conquer strategy”, Investor Business Daily, September 29,
p. 7.
Sen, S. and Johnson, E.J. (1997), “Mere-possession effects without possession in consumer choice”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 105-17.
Soman, D. and Lam, V. (2002), “The effects of prior spending on future spending decisions:
the role of acquisition liabilities and payments”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 359-72.
Stern, L.W. and El-Ansary, A. (1992), Marketing Channels, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Tang, F. and Xing, X. (2001), “Will the growth of multi-channel retailing diminish the pricing
efficiency of the web?”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 319-33.
Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.E. and Kalapurakal, R. (1996), “Price search in the retail grocery market”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 91-104.
(The) Wall Street Journal (2004), “Shoppers who blend store, catalog, web spend more”,
(The) Wall Street Journal, September 3.
Wallace, D.W., Giese, J.L. and Johnson, J.L. (2004), “Customer retailer loyalty in the context of
multiple channel strategies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, pp. 249-63.

About the author

Patrali Chatterjee is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the School of Business,
Montclair State University. Prior to joining Montclair State University, she was a Vice Chair
MIP and an Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, at Rutgers Business School, Rutgers
University. She holds a PhD in Marketing from Owen School of Management, Vanderbilt
28,1 University. Her research interests are online advertising and promotions, clickstream data
modeling, and customer relationship management. Her research has appeared in several
books and academic journals including Advances in Consumer Research, Journal of Business
Research, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Journal of Electronic Commerce
Research, Marketing Science, and the Review of Economics and Statistics. Her research has
24 been reported in news and business media outlets like The Wall Street Journal, The Star
Ledger, and Stanford Innovation Review among others. Patrali Chatterjee can be contacted
at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints