Advertisement

Technology and the customer interface: What consumers want in the physical and virtual store

  • Raymond R. Burke
Article

Abstract

For companies to realize the benefits of recent innovations in customer interface technology, they need to understand the value consumers place on technology as part of the shopping process. A national survey of 2,120 online consumers was conducted to explore how people want to shop in both online and in-store environments and determine how interactive and conventional media work together to move consumers through the purchase process. The study investigated 128 different aspects of the shopping experience, from common elements to recent innovations. The results indicated that consumers are generally satisfied with the convenience, quality, selection, and value provided by retailers today. They are less satisfied with the level of service provided, the availability of product information, and the speed of the shopping process. The findings suggest that new technologies can enhance the shopping experience, but applications must be tailored to the unique requirements of consumer segments and product categories.

Keywords

Product Category Product Information Retail Store Shopping Online Shopping Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard Lutz, Alan Sawyer, and Stacy Wood. 1997. “Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces.”Journal of Marketing 61 (July): 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, Julie, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal, and Glenn B. Voss. 2002. “The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions.”Journal of Marketing 66 (April): 120–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bearse, Scott. 2001. “From Browsers to Buyers.”Retailing Issues Letter [Center for Retailing Studies, Texas A&M University] 13 (5): 1–4.Google Scholar
  4. Belk, Russell W., 1975. “Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior.”Journal of Consumer Research 2 (December): 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berstell, Gerald and Denise Nitterhouse. 2001. “Asking All the Right Questions.”Marketing Research 13 (Fall): 14–20.Google Scholar
  6. Blackwell, Roger. 2001. “Why Webvan Went Bust.”The Wall Street Journal, July 16, p. A22.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, Raymond R. 1996. “Virtual Shopping: Breakthrough in Marketing Research.”Harvard Business Review 74 (March–April): 120–131.Google Scholar
  8. —. 1997. “Do You See What I See? The Future of Virtual Shopping.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (4): 352–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. —. 1998. “Real Shopping in a Virtual Store.” InSense and Respond: Capturing Value in the Network Era. Eds. Stephen P. Bradley and Richard L. Nolan. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 245–260.Google Scholar
  10. —. 1999. “Retail Technology in the Next Century.”Discount Store News 38 (July/Special insert): 1–25.Google Scholar
  11. Cleary, Mike. 2001. “Box on the Rocks.”Interactive Week, January 15, pp. 56–59.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, Calmetta Y. 2000. “Eddie Bauer’s Windows Add Electronics.”The Wall Street Journal, November 28, p. B8.Google Scholar
  13. Darian, Jean C. 1987. “In-Home Shopping: Are There Consumer Segments?”Journal of Retailing 63 (2): 163–186.Google Scholar
  14. Dickson, Peter. 1982. “Person-Situation: Segmentation’s Missing Link.Journal of Marketing 46 (Fall): 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dykema, Evie Black. 2000. “Online Retail’s Ripple Effect.”The Forrester Report, September.Google Scholar
  16. Fitzsimons, Gavan J. 2000. “Consumer Response to Stockouts.”Journal of Consumer Research 27 (September): 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, Bruce. 1994. “Expensive Flops.”Chain Store Age Executive 7 (March): 176.Google Scholar
  18. Garry, Michael. 1992. “Waste or Windfall?”Progressive Grocer, September, pp. 117–120.Google Scholar
  19. Goldman, Kevin. 1993. “Advertising: Turner Bags Checkout Channel, but Rivals Remain Undeterred.”The Wall Street Journal, March 4, p. B8.Google Scholar
  20. Gray, Bruce G., Woodrow Barfield, Mark Haselkorn, Jan Spyridakis, and Loveday Conquest. 1990. “The Design of a Graphics-Based Traffic Information System Based on User Requirements.” InProceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. Ed. Michael E. Wiklund. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 603–606.Google Scholar
  21. Greco, Alan J. and D. Michael Fields. 1991. “Profiling Early Triers of Service Innovations: A Look at Interactive Home Video Ordering Services.”Journal of Services Marketing 5 (3): 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauser, John R. and Birger Wernerfelt. 1990. “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (March): 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoch, Stephen J., Eric T. Bradlow, and Brian Wansink. 1999. “The Variety of an Assortment.”Marketing Science 18 (4): 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hof, Robert D. 2001. “Don’t Cut Back Now.”Business Week, October 1, p. EB34.Google Scholar
  25. Karlin, J. E. and Edmund T. Klemmer. 1989. “An Interview.” InErgonomics: Harness the Power of Human Factors in Your Business. Ed. Edmund T. Klemmer. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 197–201.Google Scholar
  26. Kemp, Ted. 2001. “Macy’s Doubles Conversion Rate.”Internet Week, November 28. Retrieved from http://www.internetweek.com/story/INW20011128S0004Google Scholar
  27. Lawrence, Philip and John Karr. 1996. “Technology Spending and Alliances: New Highs in Financial Services Firms.”Journal of Retail Banking Services 17 (3): 45–52.Google Scholar
  28. Lynch, John G., Jr. and Dan Ariely. 2000. “Wine Online: Search Costs Affect Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maruca, Regina Fazio, Raymond R. Burke, Sir Richard Greenbury, John Quelch, Robert A. Smith, and Ragnar Nilsson. 1999. “Retailing: Confronting the Challenges That Face Bricks-and-Mortar Stores.”Harvard Business Review 77 (July–August): 159–168.Google Scholar
  30. Meuter, Matthew L., Amy L. Ostrom, Robert I. Roundtree, and Mary Jo Bitner. 2000. “Self-Service Technologies: Understanding Customer Satisfaction With Technology-Based Service Encounters.”Journal of Marketing 64 (3): 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mick, David Glen and Susan Fournier. 1998. “Paradoxes of Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Strategies.”Journal of Consumer Research 25 (September): 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nielsen, Jakob. 1993Usability Engineering. San Diego: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  33. Parasuraman, A. and Charles L. Colby. 2001Techno-Ready Marketing: How and Why Your Customers Adopt Technology New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Puccinelli, Nancy and Gerald Zaltman. 2001. “The Strategic Use of Music in Marketing: A Selective Review.” Research Note 9-501-056. Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  35. Quelch, John A. and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1981. “Nonstore Marketing: Fast Track or Slow?”Harvard Business Review 59 (4): 75–84.Google Scholar
  36. Ratchford, Brian T. 1982. “Cost-Benefit Models for Explaining Consumer Choice and Information Seeking Behavior.”Management Science 28 (February): 197–212.Google Scholar
  37. “Report Counts Computers in Majority of U.S. Homes.” 2001.The New York Times, September 7, p. A15.Google Scholar
  38. Russell, Brenda G. 2000. “Shoppers Bailing Before Checkout.”Crain’s Chicago Business, November 11, p. SR38.Google Scholar
  39. Schrage, Michael. 2000.Serious Play. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  40. Shop.org. 2001.The Multi-Channel Retail Report 2001. Washington, DC: National Retail Federation.Google Scholar
  41. Tom, Gail and Scott Lucey. 1997. “A Field Study Investigating the Effect of Waiting Time on Customer Satisfaction.”Journal of Psychology 131 (6): 655–660.Google Scholar
  42. Underhill, Paco. 1999.Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  43. Venkatesh, Viswanath. 2000. “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion Into the Technology Acceptance Model.”Information Systems Research 11 (4): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagner, Mary. 2001. “IU’s Customer Interface Laboratory Preview Tomorrow’s Interactive Tools Today.”Internet Retailer 3 (September): 10–13.Google Scholar
  45. Wolfinbarger, Mary and Mary C. Gilly. 2001. “Shopping Online for Freedom, Control, and Fun.”California Management Review 43 (Winter): 34–55.Google Scholar
  46. Yang, Sha, Greg M. Allenby, and Geraldine Fennell. 2002. “Modeling Variation in Brand Preference: The Roles of Objective Environment and Motivating Conditions.”Marketing Science 21 (Winter): 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeithaml, Valarie and Mary C. Gilly. 1987. “Characteristics Affecting the Acceptance of Retailing Technologies: A Comparison of Elderly and Nonelderly Consumers.”Journal of Retailing 63 (1): 49–68.Google Scholar
  48. —, A. Parasuraman, and Arvind Malhotra. 2000. “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding e-Service Quality: Implications for Future Research and Managerial Practice.” Report 00-115. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond R. Burke
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations