Www.research.manchester.ac.uk



Shopping Channel Preference and Usage Motivations: Exploring Differences Amongst A Fifty-Year Age Span1. IntroductionThis research contributes to knowledge by investigating why different age groups use different shopping channels and explores their preferences and motivations to interact with these channels. This provides an insight into whether age influences consumer channel choice, an area that is vital in the 21st century, due to the significant growth of online over the past two decades. With older consumers increasingly shopping online it becomes pertinent to explore preferences and unique behaviours, an aspect that is lacking in extant research. PWC (2017) describes a shift in customer preferences towards online, raising the question of how traditional retail can remain relevant in a volatile environment. Consumer needs continue to drive purchase decisions (Grewal, Roggeveen and Nordfalt, 2017) and thus understanding perceived channel benefits and motivations for usage provide insights into channel selection and multi-channel behaviour. Although demographics can be used to detect consumer niches and their purchase intentions for specific products and underpinning consumer behaviour, which than leads to improved communication strategies, current research fails to investigate how different age groups perceive retail channels and their motivations for use, and therefore, a lack of understanding into how different consumers view a multi-channel shopping experience (Sullivan and Hyun, 2016). We address this gap, by investigating:What shopping channels do different ages of consumers prefer to shop from?What motivates different ages of consumers to shop via those channels? Past research (e.g. Konus, Verhoef and Neslin, 2008; Park and Lee, 2017) on channel usage and motivations for multi-channel shopper behaviour is predominantly quantitative. Our qualitative enquiry further enhances current debates by providing an insight into perceived channel benefits and whether motivations into channel selection are affected by the consumers’ age. 2. Fashion Retailing The volatile market environment forces retailers to operate via a multiple channel strategy including multi-channel and omni-channel formats. Multi-channel research focuses on the sales per channel while omni-channel looks at the total sales (Park and Lee, 2017). Multi-channel retailing is complex with technology continuously evolving and consumers’ demanding faster and superior devices to stay connected. Moving from multi-channel to omni-channel involves the challenge of creating a seamless and cohesive cross-channel retail experience (McCormick, Cartwright, Perry, Barnes, Lynch and Ball, 2014). Technology adoption into consumers’ lifestyles is the main driver behind channel evolution and a channel-agnostic approach to shopping. Consumers can shop any time, anywhere, eliminating barriers between channels (Juaneda-Ayensa, Mosquera and Sierra Murillo, 2016). The exponential growth in multi-channel retailing leads to empowered customers, who seek channel advantages throughout their shopping journey. Fashion retailers, such as BHS, Austin Reed, and Agent Provocateur, who have predominantly focused on the physical store environment, have gone into administration, as a result of failing to address changes in consumer behaviour and adoption of online retailing. Contrarily, Marks & Spencer have reviewed their current channel portfolio and its relevance, thereby closing six large and thirty-four smaller stores (Drapers, Sept 2017). Despite the online retailing trend, physical stores still remain important, as they generate the majority of sales (PWC, 2017). In the early stages of multi-channel development it was feared that if new channels were adopted, old ones would become obsolete (Marciniak?and?Bruce, 2004), yet, this has rendered untrue - it is essential for fashion retailers to have a physical, online and mobile presence. Huang, Lu and Ba (2016) investigated the impact of introducing a mobile channel on a business and found that, although online sales were slightly cannibalised, consumer purchases increased. Due to the similarities between online and mobile channels in respect to product availability and payment methods, it was suggested that channel benefits cause choosing one over the other. For example, whilst online channels are more convenient for information search, mobile channels provide convenience and ubiquity, thus, discrepancies are minimised by cross-channel shopping (ibid). Cross-channel shopping behaviour has led to discussion concerning show-rooming, which implies consumers browsing in-store and moving to virtual channels to purchase (Shiffman and Wisenblit, 2015), and web-rooming, where consumers browse online but purchase in physical stores (Arora and Sahney, 2017). Consumers predominantly display cross-channel switching behaviour to minimise discrepancies between channels, for example, show-rooming when product comparisons in-store are insufficient and web-rooming due to poor product diagnosticity online (Reid, Ross and Vignali 2016). For fashion retailers this type of behaviour is likely to be heightened due to the nature of the product being an experience good (Arora and Sahney, 2017). This type of cross-channel behaviour could further be prevalent by mobile shoppers (Rapp, Baker, Bachrach, Ogilvie and Beitelspacher, 2015), with the development of QR code scanners, such as the Amazon app, which allows online price comparisons (McCormick et al., 2014). Footfall to physical stores has declined as consumers have more choice to shop online and via their mobile. Therefore, retailers need to develop an omni-channel strategy that integrates channels, such as providing more product information via apps to inspire consumers to look for additional items in-store and investing in in-store technologies like self-service information kiosks to connect the offline-online environments. Petermans and Kent (2017) investigate how the physical store as a showroom could be perceived positively and be a space where customers can interact with products/brands, try on clothes, get advice, buy clothes, and?relax in cafes and nail bars. NEXT are developing their in-store experience by trialling experiential concessions, such as a prosecco bar and a hairdresser (Drapers, 2017) and thus, differenciate themselves further from competitors. Goworek and McGoldrick (2015) state that retailers’ multi-channel strategy not only integrates physical stores and online sites, but also other channels (e.g. catalogues) to optimise consumer shopping experiences. Although catalogue retailing, a traditional home-shopping channel, has seen a steady year-on-year decrease 2010-2014, due to growth of ecommerce and reductions in print advertising (Key Note, 2015), it is important to investigate whether this holds true across all consumer sectors, especially among older generations that are used to these channels. PWC (2017) insists that shopping by desktop computer (PCs) is becoming less popular as portable devices (e.g. tablets, smartphones) are increasing in popularity. However, when shopping for fashion online, 84% of consumers stated that they used PCs, 32% smartphones, and 29% tablets (Mintel, 2017). This indicates that there is still room for growth from an mcommerce perspective and a need to understand how and why customers use tablets. Mobile is an inherent part of fashion retailing and according to PWC (2017), the majority of retail spend on tech was going to be spent on mobile investment in 2017, likely due to the fact that the UK ecommerce market is set to exceed ?81.55 billion in 2017, of which ?35.31 billion will come from mobile (eMarketer, 2017). In order to effectively manage their channel portfolio it is imperative that retailers understand the motivation to use individual channels from a consumer perspective, to successfully develop their strategy to mitigate the weaknesses of any channel. 2.1. Channel usage motivationHuman motives (cognitive or affective) are primarily done in search of individual gratification and satisfaction (McGuire, 1974). Shopper motivations tend to be classified as utilitarian and hedonic (Kang and Park-Poaps, 2010). Consumers with a utilitarian shopping motivation are goal-oriented, rational, and decision-effective (Babin, Darden and Griffin 1994). To, Liao and Lin (2007) distinguish 6 dimensions in utilitarian motivations: cost-saving, convenience, selection, availability of information, lack of sociality, and customised product/service. According to Babin et al., (1994) hedonic shopping motivation results from consumers’ need to fulfil their hedonic values, which can be derived from fun experience, amusement, fantasy, and sensory stimulation. Experience is highly important for consumers who are motivated by hedonic values rather than the product itself. To et al., (2007) separate hedonic experience into 6 dimensions: adventure/explore, social, idea, value, and authority/status – which form the baseline of this research. We further extend these to test all channels, as opposed to just ecommerce. Indeed, shopping motivations might vary according to characteristics of specific shopping channels, highlighting the necessity for this research (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).By 2021 consumers aged 25-34 see a dramatic increase, there will be almost 20% more women aged 55+, comprising of 31% of the population, whilst those aged 16-24 will decline (Mintel, 2016a). The UK population retires increasingly later, with only 65% of over-55s being retired (Mintel, 2016b). This has led to shifts in perceptions – whilst a 60 year old person thirty years ago, may have seemed elderly, today they are active and often still working. The decrease of the 16-24 year old female population is a concern for retailers as they are a fashion-conscious driving force (Mintel, 2016a), indicating that they must broaden their target markets to include older consumers to maintain profits. The UK ageing population has provided retailers with the opportunity to create collections that suit an older market, as the over-55s have high purchasing levels of 94%, more disposable income, and are increasingly spending more on clothes (Mintel, 2017). Older women have also become more style-conscious and confident, thus, retailers need to ensure that they incorporate more fashionable items in their ranges (ibid). This highlights that age groups have different shopping attitudes and behaviours and must be taken into account when researching multi-channel behaviour.3. MethodThis exploratory, interpretivist study investigates channel preferences of different age groups and their motivations for usage. In-depth interviews were conducted based on open-ended questions that allowed exploration into why and how consumers use channels to gain insights into current consumer behaviour in fashion retailing (Repko, 2008). The rich qualitative data sets allowed for patterns and clusters to emerge organically. The interview guide (Appendix, Table 2) was structured according to main, probes, and follow-up questions (Rubin and Rubin, 2012) in line with the themes identified in the literature review. Coding, a methodical process of finding and grouping relevant points in data sets (Smith, 2015), generated meanings from the data and an understanding of participants’ motivations to?use the channels. Open-coding methods were used to ascertain concepts with common properties and dimensions. The initial coding cycle was based on a grounded approach (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2015), whilst further coding allowed for the emergence of categories and subcategories, which led to theme developments (Strauss and Corbin 1998). The continuous coding by both researchers and recording of any discrepancies created rigor in the results (Henninger, Alevizou, Tan, Huang and Ryding, 2017).Data was collected from consumers of a high-street brand, which was chosen on the basis that it had catalogue, ecommerce, mobile and physical store channels, which allowed consumers’ multi-channel shopping behaviour and channel preferences to be analysed. As the research aimed to discover general multi-channel shopping behaviour and motivations for usage, the brand was not significant and was not included as part of the analysis. A non-probability, purposive sample of 50 females, split equally across each age group (20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s) were chosen. Data saturation was reached. Participants were chosen purposefully according to the following criteria: they were regular customers of the brand and had purchased from the brand within the previous 3 months and they were aged 20-69. This provides a more realistic understanding of multi-channel shopping behaviour by loyal consumers, which has not previously been addressed. The interviews lasted on average 45 minutes. A pilot study involving 6 participants was conducted prior to the research in order to assess any problems that could occur. 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. What shopping channels do different ages of consumers prefer to shop from?Participants were asked about each channel, including when they used them during their shopper journey as well as the benefits of each channel. Participants were then asked to rank each channel in order of preference for shopping for apparel (Figure 1). Fig. 1. Shopping Channel Preferences We found that online (mcommerce or ecommerce) are the preferred shopping channels for the 20-59s, with only the 60s+ preferring to shop via the physical store. According to PWC (2017), although retail sales are steadily growing, the majority of growth is generated online and store sales growth is approximately 1%. Our research concurs by demonstrating a shift towards preferring online shopping across all ages, with participants in the 60s+ all having shopped online in the past 3 months and being confident online shoppers:‘It’s fantastic to sit at home and do it…’ (P.49–60s)The youngest ages (20-39) ranked in-store shopping as their 3rd choice, preferring online channel. In order to encourage younger consumers to visit stores in the future, retailers need to entice them in via technology, integrating the online and offline channels effectively. Furthermore, only younger consumers (20-39) purchased apparel from their mobile, highlighting a significant generational divide in mcommerce. Although the 30-39s did use their mobile as a shopping channel to purchase, it was with more caution than the 20s, with well-known brands such as NEXT, eBay and Amazon and for more utilitarian products/ shoes rather than garments (which also holds true for the 40s):‘I have purchased… not for clothes because it’s such a small screen… unless I’m going for something specific like a shoe or a dress that I’d already seen… ?you couldn’t really get detailed look…’ (P.12–30s)This suggests that the 30s and 40s only purchase low-risk items via mobile, yet regularly browse for clothes: ‘…browsing retailer’s mobile apps… the images are a lot smaller... so I just get an idea and then come back to it later on the computer...’ (P.22-30s)This implies that there is a new form of web-rooming where consumers browse on their mobile for items on-the-go and then purchase them on their laptop. However, this was only true for ages 20-49 as the screen size was seen as too prohibiting for browsing/purchasing clothes for the 50s+. ‘…If I was looking at a dress on my phone I don’t think I would have enough room to decide whether I really like it or not, it wouldn’t be big enough…’ (P.5-50s)‘I’ve never done it because I think the screen’s too small and I can’t see what I’m looking for… I got the iPad because that’s bigger…’ (P.37–60s)The small screen results in a lack of visibility and inability to sufficiently enlarge the product, which is of importance for decision-making for clothes. This makes the mobile channel less useful for purchasing clothes for consumers 40+. This is contrarily to Gupta and Arora (2017), who found that shopping on mobiles makes consumers feel anxious and they lack confidence in doing so; we found that the key hindrance for the 40+ consumers was the screen size. Many consumers aged 50+ had bought a tablet to counteract this with a larger screen, and were using it in place of a mobile (Papadopoulou, 2017). This study disagrees with Lee, Lee and Chan-Olmsted (2017) that tablets are complementary to smartphones and used as well as, rather than as a replacement, as older consumers are using tablets to access ecommerce sites in place of smartphones, whereas the 20s did not see the necessity of owning a tablet and a smartphone, which have the same functions. This highlights the importance of analysing age differences when exploring consumer preferences in shopping channels and the consideration of devices.Only the 60s+ ranked the physical store as their preferred channel: ‘…I like to have a look at the clothes and fashions before I order…’ (P.15–60s)This shows that the 60s partook in show-rooming and web-rooming: ‘…I look online and then if I’m a bit sceptical I’ll go into the shop and try it on… if I’ve been in the shop and tried it on and couldn’t make my mind up, I’ll go home and think about it and then order it online…’ (P.5-60s)However, this may change as the retirement age increases and this age group has less free time. Consumers’ aged 40-59 found shopping in stores useful for getting items immediately, for a special occasions, or if they needed to try something on, making this channel their secondary choice. In contrast, younger participants (20-39) thought that physical stores offered less choice and visiting them was time-consuming:‘…you presume it’s all going to be there and it wasn’t… I was disappointed’ (P.46–20s).Interestingly catalogue shopping was not viewed as a purchasing channel, but rather a marketing channel that encouraged cross-channel purchasing; this was justified as communicating with a call centre was inconvenient and it lacked information compared to online. Catalogues were viewed as a channel to inspire and to browse for leisure: ‘…it is best for browsing… I like to have a cup of tea when I look at it… its nice…’ (P.1-50s)Yet it did prompt consumers aged 30+ to go online and purchase:‘I have a flick through... I’ve seen stuff in the catalogue that I might have missed online... then I go online and buy it’ (P.13–30s)However, the 20s were the least enthusiastic about catalogues and simply disposed of them:‘…they end up going in the bin... while they’re still in the plastic… I shop online…’ (P.44–20s)This age group grew up with the internet and since then mail-order catalogues have declined. Participants 30+ will have previously used mail-order and, therefore, do not dismiss it but use it for hedonic reasons. Catalogues were further described as “bulky”, “heavy” and “not good for the environment”. Therefore, traditional catalogues that provide a complete retail range should be reconsidered or alternatively be interactive and available online/app. These results contradict Sullivan and Hyun (2016) that senior citizens prefer to shop for clothing via catalogues. 4.2 What motivates different ages of consumers to shop via those channels?Table 1 shows the differences between each channel and each motivation. Hedonic motivationsThe study found a number of hedonic motivations for using the different shopping channels and further differences concerning age. Ecommerce Consumers were motivated by exploration/adventure and ideas when shopping online. Ecommerce was viewed as an enjoyable activity, evident through being first/second preferred channel choice by participants aged 20-69: ‘I enjoy browsing… I do it in my own space, in my own time, when it suits me...’ (P.1–50s)Participants liked browsing websites in their home environment at a convenient time, making the activity both enjoyable and relaxing. Furthermore, participants liked multi-tasking whilst browsing:‘...I just like to multi-task, watch TV and be on the tablet’ (P.43–30s)This was often conducted in the evening when work had finished and family activities were complete. This finding is important from a retail perspective as this indicates evenings are a good time to send email offers or short promotions to convert browsers to buyers. Consumers were also motivated by idea shopping online:‘…it gives you ideas… things like that are helpful because then you tend to look at things that you might not have looked…’ (P.24-50s)This contradicts Parker and Wang (2016) who argue idea shopping is unimportant in online (laptop/PC) shopping. This may be because their sample were all under 30 years old and primarily students, highlighting the importance of analysing channel preferences and motivations across a broad age range and with loyal consumers. To et al., (2007) found social to be insignificant in online shopping. However, consumers in their 30s-40s prefer to use online channels to see product reviews and engage in customer-customer interaction:‘…I like the reviews… I like… reading what other people have said… before I buy… you can’t try it on, it’s nice to know if people think it’s true to size…’ (P.32–30s)This highlights the importance of investigating different age groups as they have different motivations for multi-channel shopping.Mcommerce Younger consumers (20-39) use their mobile for exploration/adventure shopping, enjoying the search for products and browsing on their mobiles as an escape: ‘…if I’m just sat down getting a coffee… I might go on somebody’s website… I do quite a lot of window shopping on it...’ (P.51-20s)This supports To et al., (2007) and Yang and Kim (2012) that enjoyment is a significant motivation for mobile shopping, but only for the 20s-30s. Due to the accessibility of the device they were able to do it in any location, therefore it was spontaneous and unplanned. However, these results disagree with authors (Parker and Wang, 2016; Hubert, Blut, Brock, Backhaus, Eberhardt 2017) who found that adventure and enjoyment are unimportant motivations for mcommerce. As alluded to earlier, this may be due to Parker and Wang’s (2016) chosen sample. Nevertheless, we found that older age groups (40+) were unmotivated hedonically to shop on their mobile. This highlights the importance of investigating the differences between age groups in multi-channel shopping behaviour and preferences. Physical store The main motivation for shopping in-store was social, to enhance consumers’ relationships with peers and family by shopping together (Martínez-López, Pla-García, Gázquez-Abad, Rodríguez-Ardura, 2014):‘…I have daughters, so I go shopping with them…’ (P.16-40s)It is often discussed as a treat due to the social nature of the experience rather than the actual shopping activity. With a decline in footfall in physical stores and large retailers such BHS and American Apparel closing stores in 2016 retailers need to entice consumers back into store by focusing on experience. Alexander and Kent (2016) consider retail environments as the ‘third space’, discussing the complexities involved as the channel changes function from one of transactional necessity to leisurely enjoyment. Within the discussions it emerged that vising physical stores is a leisure activity, thus, retailers should invest in flexible retail spaces that are a shop, café, gallery of ideas and event space (ibid) in order to provide a stronger bond with customers as they immerse themselves and are stimulated by the environment. The digital landscape offers a global shopping mall that can be assessed on demand and delivered to their door, therefore physical shopping needs to provide value in other ways that are unique to this channel, such as the environment, added experiences, fitting rooms, and sales assistants. Blázquez, Boardman and Xu (2017) found that sales assistants were seen as flagship stores’ biggest assets and had the biggest impact on purchase intention. Personalised customer service that offers ideas and inspiration via sales assistants is unique to this channel and so could be enhanced in order to encourage shoppers. We found that this would be particular welcomed by customers aged 50+, who were also motivated to shop in stores for idea and adventure/exploration shopping:‘…I like to go… to just try something on... I normally buy things online that I know I’m going to like, whereas if I went into a store then I’d perhaps try something on that I thought was completely outrageous… ?just to see, because I can’ (P.9-50s)Idea shopping drives shoppers whose goal it is to learn new styles and to keep up with trends by noticing new products and innovations (Martínez-López et al., 2014). Hence, retailers targeting 50s+ should focus on developing their in-store experiences to make it more inspirational and encourage idea shopping. Younger participants (20-39) were unmotivated to shop in stores as frequently as older participants, ranking it third for channel preference. Indeed, the 30s considered shopping in stores as a luxury that they could do occasionally for enjoyment, but not on a regular basis because they were time poor:‘I would like to go shopping-shopping... I treat this as being a luxury rather than it being an essential… (P.18-30s)This emphasises the importance of the physical store providing an enhanced ‘luxury shopping experience’ in order for it to be considered a ‘treat’ for consumers, especially as the 30s lack time and the 20s consider shopping a social activity. We also found that ‘product involvement’ was a hedonic motivation, which is a new classification not found in previous research. This highlights the importance of this research in multi-channel shopping behaviour as To et al., (2007) solely investigated online motivations. In particular, older consumers (40s+) were motivated to go into stores to try on items and feel the fabric in order to aid them in their decision-making. Nevertheless, they used both online and in-store interchangeably to eliminate the risks of each channel, such as size and fit. Interestingly, the older generation (40s+) mentioned concerns about fit and returning products when shopping online, an aspect that was not discussed by the 20-39s. Hence, product involvement may increase in importance with age. Catalogue Consumers were motivated to shop via catalogues for exploration/adventure and ideas. However, this was purely to browse and did not translate into a purchase. Catalogues provide different imagery to those on ecommerce sites as they use situational imagery, i.e. beachwear modelled on a beach. This type of imagery inspired consumers aged 30+, allowing them to ‘complete the look’‘…I do like the catalogues… it’s just like getting magazines.... I just like flicking through… sometimes there’s some in the catalogue that’s not online and they are styled differently so I can see how to get the look… I don’t want to miss out… I’d just take the number down and then order it online’ (P.50-60s)Although no participant purchased through catalogues, many welcomed them and were encouraged to purchase via other channels as a result of looking through them. However, the 20s were the least enthusiastic about catalogues:‘I flick through them and then they usually go in the bin… I just prefer to see and do everything online really’ (P.38-20s)This suggests that catalogues are not considered a shopping channel by the 20s and casts doubt over their longevity as a channel. Utilitarian motivationsThere were a number of utilitarian motivations for using the different shopping channels and further differences concerning age found. EcommerceWe found cost-saving, convenience, selection, availability of information, and lack of sociality to be motivations for shopping online. The primary motivation was convenience: the interest of consumers in time-saving and energy saving by shopping online (Mikalef, Giannakos and Pateli 2013; Martínez-López et al., 2014; Parker and Wang, 2016). A majority of participants were in full or part-time employment and therefore the ubiquitous nature of ecommerce shopping, enabling people to shop 24/7, was a significant reason why the online channels were preferred:‘It’s more convenient... I can shop when I get home from work, I can get it delivered when I want…’ (P.40–20s)People today are time-pressured; in 48% of couple households both parents work full-time and the figures are rising for the millennial generation (Working Families, 2017). Along with people working full-time, over 72% of parents catch up on work in the evenings or weekends, therefore shopping via the internet is more convenient than going to a store for many people that have to balance work and family life (ibid). Selection was also a significant motivation for shopping online (To et al., 2007; Mikalef et al., 2013). Product choice and size ranges were discussed as key benefits of ecommerce:‘…there’s a lot more selection online… Also some things are exclusive to online…’ (P.35–20s)The physical store can only accommodate a certain number of products to sell, however the web allows retailers to offer a broader selection, resulting in consumers viewing it as a more reliable channel: ‘…it’s much more reliable, when you’re looking for something when you know that they have it’ (P.49–60s)We also found that there were differences between age groups in their motivations for shopping online. A lack of sociality was a motivation for shopping online for ages 30-59:‘I’d rather shop online than in stores… because of the hustle and bustle or waiting in queues, and I don’t have the time…’ (P.16-40s)However, this research disagrees with Dhaundiyal and Coughlan (2016) that individuals with high degrees of shyness may prefer non-face-to-face channels whereas those with higher levels of sociability may prefer more traditional channels, as it was a result of overcrowding (Blazques et al., 2017) that dissuaded people from shopping in stores and made them prefer online. Moreover, cost-saving was an important motivation for consumers in their 20s, but was not for any other age group: ‘You can shop around easily and get the better deals… I’m on a tight budget so I always want to get it as low as possible…’ (P.38-20s). Thus, consumers’ ability to easily find discounts and compare different prices is a reason why they shopped online as opposed to in-store. The 20s were the most price-conscious consumer group. This is vital for retailers when targeting younger consumers for their marketing strategy. Mcommerce The primary motivation for shopping via smartphones was convenience, because of its portability and accessibility on-the-go:‘…they’re more versatile. Wherever you are... if you’ve got a few minutes… you can do it on your phone...’ (P.50-20s)Mcommerce was considered to be the most useful channel because it enabled consumers to buy items any time, anywhere (Parker and Wang, 2016; Hubert et al., 2017). However, this decreased with popularity as consumers got older; the 20s browsed and purchased clothes regularly, the 30s browsed and purchase less so, the 40s and 50s only browsed occasionally and the 60s+ did not browse or purchase at all. This indicates that mcommerce will continue to grow as an apparel shopping channel. Physical Store We found an additional utilitarian motivation – immediacy – thus adding to To et al.,’s (2007) original dimensions. Older consumers (40+) were motivated to go into the store due to an uncertainty about the arrival time when ordering online, especially if it was for an upcoming occasion. ‘…you have to plan further ahead if you want something for a special occasion because you don’t know how long it’s going to take…’ (P.17-40s)Consumers were motivated to go to stores, as they were able to purchase items immediately, rather than having to wait for delivery. This was not something that was raised by younger consumers (20-39). Furthermore, the 60s+ were motivated to shop in the physical store due to convenience:‘I just go there because it’s dead easy…’ (P.15–60s)This was not found as a motivation for any other age group and indicates that they are less time-poor than other age groups, however, this may change as the retirement age increases. Catalogues There were no utilitarian motivations to use catalogues discussed by any age group in this study. 5. ConclusionThis research provides valuable insights into the relationship between channel preferences and motivations for usage when shopping for apparel. The results show that there are differences concerning the preferences and motivations for different age groups. Multi-channel and omni-channel shopping is an area of interest in research with extant literature indicating that the integration of channels will be imperative to business growth. However, the present study found that the younger generation viewed the channels as distinct entities, each offering different benefits. For example, they used ecommerce for cost-saving, selection and ideas, mccomerce for convenience and the physical store for social experiences. Yet, as consumers increased in age, they undertook more of a multi-channel shopper journey. The 30s discussed how, after browsing a catalogue, they would be encouraged to go online, and, along with the 40s, partook in a new form of web-rooming where they browsed their mobile for clothes and completed the purchase on their laptop/tablet at home after getting a more detailed look at the item. Moreover, the 50-69 age group, in particular, viewed products across the different channels utilising the benefits of each, partaking in forms of web-rooming and show-rooming. They browsed the catalogue for inspiration, looked for more detail, went in-store to try items on, then went home and to buy online having contemplated the purchase. This behaviour may be driven by having more time to shop for clothing than the younger age groups, as it was evident that the motivation was mainly for hedonic enjoyment. This is significant and contributes to knowledge as it shows that multi-channel shopping behaviour increases with age, and younger consumers (20s) are not partaking in it, but view the channels as separate entities. The purpose of this paper was to identify the preferred shopping channels for different age groups and the reason it is preferable. The study found that the 20s preferred to shop on their mobiles for convenience and enjoyment. However, mcommerce shopping for apparel decreases with age, with the 30s citing it as their second choice, the 40s-50s using it ‘for emergencies only’ and the 60s not using it at all. Online is the preferential shopping channel for ages 30-59 and the secondary choice for the 20s and 60s, making it the most popular shopping channel out of the four investigated. Ecommerce is used by all ages because it is convenient, offers a broad product selection, information and enjoyment, facilitating ideas and adventure/exploration. Physical stores were preferred by older consumers, decreasing in popularity as consumers decreased in age. However, all consumers visited them for social reasons. Finally, the study found that catalogues are seen as out-dated, inconvenient and not environmentally friendly, and as a result have been replaced by online as a transactional channel. Nevertheless, catalogues are important for the multi-channel shopper journey as they act as a prompt to go online, as a result of the inspirational images that consumers aged 30+ were motivated to look at for adventure/exploration, and ideas shopping. The results of this study shed doubt on the existence of catalogues as a transactional channel in the future as there was no motivation to purchase via this channel across all ages and the 20s were not motivated to even browse through it, preferring it do it online or via their mobile. Different ages had different motivations for using certain channels. The 60s+ found shopping in stores convenient, which differed from other age groups who are more time-poor. This may change as the retirement age increases. Furthermore, consumers aged 40-69 found shopping in stores to be useful for getting items immediately and were motivated to go in-store for ideas and adventure/exploration shopping. Younger age groups (20-39) were unmotivated to go to stores due to a lack of time (30s) or product selection (20s), thus, making ‘social’ the main reason. This highlights the importance of creating an enticing in-store experience that suits social shopping to encourage footfall into stores, otherwise the decline in popularity in stores as consumers get younger is a concern for brick-and-mortar retailers. The main difference between age and motivations to shop online was that the youngest age groups were the most price-conscious and motivated by cost-saving, which was not discussed by any other age group. This is significant for retailers targeting the 20s as they can tailor promotions to suit them. Interestingly, it was the middle age group (30-59) who were the only ones motivated to shop online due to a lack of sociality and simultaneously social reasons in order to read reviews and facilitate consumer-consumer interaction. This indicates that the middle age groups want sociability when shopping but in their own time and space. This study also identified that the 40-50s were not confident in purchasing via their smartphone, mainly due to the small screen size and lack of visibility and that the 60s+ did not even use their phones to browse. Fashion retailers targeting the 40s+ should, therefore, design their apps to include large, clear images of clothing in order to encourage more browsing by the 60+ market and convert occasional browsers to purchasers in the 40s+. In summary, this study highlighted that consumers’ shopping channel preferences and motivations differ across ages and, therefore, advocates the importance of analysing age as a factor for consumer shopping behaviour. In particular, the 20s had considerably different multi-channel shopping behaviour, preferences and motivations to other ages. Younger consumers have grown up with technology and therefore perceived mcommerce/ecommerce as the norm rather than new channels. Expectations of future generations concerning offline and online retailing will become increasingly blurred and it will be imperative that research continues investigating customer preferences and motivations in order to develop retail strategies to satisfy the requirements of the younger generation.Practically this research contributes by providing insights into possible strategies for each channel when targeting particular age groups. In a volatile environment it is not just about adding channels to reach consumers, it is vital to understand the value of the channels and motivations to use concerning their target market in order to improve their channel offering and exceed consumers’ expectations. 7. Further ResearchFuture work could explore channel preference and usage differences in male consumers, thereby comparing genders and age groups. Future research could be conducted to see how the type of brand (luxury vs high street) could affect consumers’ multi-channel shopping behaviour, or the type of product offering (experience vs search products).8. References Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E. (2003). ‘Hedonic shopping motivations’, Journal of Retailing, 79(2): 77-95. Arora, S., Sahney, S. (2017). ‘Webrooming behaviour: a conceptual framework’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(7/8), pp.762-781.Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M. (1994). ‘Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value’,?Journal of consumer research,?20(4), pp.644-656.Blázquez, M., Boardman, R., Xu, L., (2017). ‘International Flagship Stores: An exploration of store influence on atmospherics and their purchase behaviour’, The International Journal Of Business and Globalisation, accepted in press Dhaundiyal, M., Coughlan, J. (2016). ‘Investigating the effects of shyness and sociability on customer impulse buying tendencies: The moderating effect of age and gender’,?International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,?44(9): 923-939.Drapers, Sept 2017. Next in a ‘better place’, says Wolfson, 14 September 2017 By Jill Geoghegan Drapers, Sept, 2017. M&S mulls Covent Garden store closure. 7 September 2017By Harriet Brown.Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P.R., (2015). Management and business research. Sage.eMarketer, (2017). “UK Consumers Increasingly Comfortable Buying by Smartphone”, June 20, 2017, Retail & Ecommerce.Goworek, H., McGoldrick, P. (2015). Retail Marketing Management. Pearson Education Limited.Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A, Nordf?lt, J. (2017). ‘The Future of Retailing’. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), pp.1-6.Gupta, A., Arora, N., (2017). ‘Understanding determinants and barriers of mobile shopping adoption using behavioral reasoning theory’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 36, pp.1–7.Henninger, C., E., Alevizou, P., Tan,J., Huang, Q., Ryding, D. (2017). ‘Consumption strategies and motivations of Chinese consumers: The case of UK sustainable luxury fashion’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21(3), pp.419-434.Huang, L., Lu, X., Ba, S., (2016). An empirical study of the cross-channel effects between web and mobile shopping channels. Information & Management, 53(2), pp.265-278.Hubert, M., Blut, M., Brock, C., Backhaus, C., Eberhardt, T. (2017). ‘Acceptance of Smartphone-Based Mobile Shopping: Mobile Benefits, Customer Characteristics, Perceived Risks, and the Impact of Application Context’, Psychology & Marketing, 34, pp.175–194.Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A., Sierra Murillo, Y. (2016). ‘Omnichannel Customer Behavior: Key Drivers of Technology Acceptance and Use and Their Effects on Purchase Intention’, Frontiers in Psychology, 7, pp.11-17. Kang, J., Park-Poaps. H., (2010). ‘Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion leadership", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14(2) pp. 312–328. Key Note, (2015). Home Shopping: Market Update.Konu?, U., Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., (2008). Multichannel shopper segments and their covariates. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), pp.398-413.Lee, S., Lee, S., Chan-Olmsted, S., (2017). ‘An Empirical Analysis of Tablet PC Diffusion’, Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), pp. 518–527.Marchiniak, R., Bruce, M. (2004), ‘Identification of UK fashion retailer use of web sites’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(7), pp. 386-93.Martínez-López, F.J., Pla-García, C., Gázquez-Abad, J.C., Rodríguez-Ardura, I. (2014). ‘Utilitarian motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales’,?Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,?13(3), pp.188-204.McCormick, H., Cartwright, J., Perry, P., Barnes, L., Lynch, S. & Ball, G. (2014). ‘Fashion retailing, Past, present and future’, Textile Progress, 46(3), 227-321.McGuire, W.J. (1974). ‘Psychological motives and communication gratification’,?The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research,?3, pp.167-196.Mikalef, P., Giannakos, M. Pateli, A. (2013). ‘Shopping and word-of-mouth intentions on social media’,?Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research,?8(1), pp.17-34.Mintel – Adapting to changing ages of retirement – 21st December 2016 (b)Mintel Reports - Fashion Online – UK- June 2017 Mintel Reports - Fashion: Technology and Innovation - UK - September 2016 (a)Papadopoulou, P., (2017). Exploring M-Commerce and Social Media: A Comparative Analysis of Mobile Phones and Tablets. In Research Paradigms and Contemporary Perspectives on Human-Technology Interaction (pp. 1-21). IGI Global.Park, S., Lee, D., (2017). An Empirical Study on Consumer Online Shopping Channel Choice Behavior in Omni-channel Environment. Telematics and Informatics.Parker,?C. J., Wang, H. (2016). ‘Examining hedonic and utilitarian motivations for m-commerce fashion retail app engagement’,?Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 20(4), pp.487 – 506. Petermans, A., Kent, A., (2017). Retail Design: a contextual lens.PwC’s Annual Global Total Retail Consumer Survey (2017). “Total retail 2017”, available at , A., Baker, T.L., Bachrach, D.G., Ogilvie, J., Beitelspacher, L.S., (2015). ‘Perceived customer showrooming behavior and the effect on retail salesperson self-efficacy and performance’, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), pp.358-369.Reid, L.F., Ross, H.F., Vignali, G., (2016). ‘An exploration of the relationship between product selection criteria and engagement with'show-rooming'and'web-rooming'in the consumer's decision-making process’, International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 17(3), pp.364-383.Repko, A.F. (2008). Interdisciplinary Research, Process and Theory, Sage, London.Retailing, 93(1), pp.1-6.Rubin, H., Rubin, I., (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data: The Art of Hearing Data, SAGE.Smith, J., (2015). Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods?, SAGE???????????????????????????????????????????????????Strauss, A., Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques?and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications IncSullivan, P., Hyun, S., (2016). ‘Clothing Retail Channel Use and Digital Behavior: Generation and Gender Differences’, Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 4(1)Working Families (2017) content/uploads/2017/01/Modern Families-Index_Full-Report.pdfTo, P.L., Liao, C., Lin, T.H. (2007). ‘Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic value’,?Technovation,?27(12), pp.774-787. Verhoef, P., Kannan, P., Inman, J., (2015). ‘From Multi-Channel Retailing to Omni-Channel Retailing: Introduction to the Special Issue on Multi-Channel Retailing’, Journal of Retailing, 91(2), pp.174–181.Yang,?K., Kim, H Y. (2012) ‘Mobile shopping motivation: an application of multiple discriminant analysis’,?International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(10), pp.778–789.Tables Table 1: Motivations To Use Each Channel Main QuestionsProbesFollow-up QuestionsNecessary to ask in order to address the research topicEncouraged participants to provide further details and examples in their answersGot participants to expand on key themes and concepts addressed to gain a greater understanding of the issueShopping Channel PreferencesCan you talk me through your usual shopping journey? Why do you do that? That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that. Can you give me an example of the last time you were shopping for an item?Why did you choose to go shopping in that way? That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that?What do you think about shopping online? When do you shop online?Why do you shop online then?That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that? Can you tell me about the last time you went shopping online?What do you think about shopping on your smartphone?When do you shop on your smartphone?Why do you shop through your smartphone then?That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that?Can you tell me about the last time you went shopping on your mobile?What do you think about shopping in stores? When do you shop in stores?Why do you shop in stores then?That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that? Can you tell me about the last time you went shopping in store?What do you think about shopping through catalogues? When do you shop via the catalogue?Why do you shop via the catalogue then?That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that? Can you tell me about the last time you went shopping through the catalogue?What channels do you prefer to shop on?Why is that? That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that?How would you rank those channels in order of preference for browsing for and purchasing clothes? Why is that? That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that?What would you normally do when shopping for a specific item you want/need? Why would you do that? That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that? Can you tell me about the last time you went shopping when you had a particular item in mind?What would you normally do when you want to go shopping but have nothing in particular in mind? Why would you do that?That is interesting; can you tell me a bit more about that?Can you tell me about the last time you went shopping without anything in particular in mind?Table 2. Interview Guide (based on Rubin and Rubin, 2012) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download