Consumer Priorities in Online Shopping

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 185)


This study examines consumer behavior and priorities in online shopping through the distribution of a questionnaire—subjected to choice-based conjoint analysis—to 1341 Japanese Internet users. It finds that respondents placed a higher priority on the popularity of online shops than on other attributes. Surprisingly, respondents considered postage as a more important criterion than the selling price of goods. Our results show that respondents who made purchases at online shops were tolerant of the postage costs and selling prices of goods but expressed a stronger dislike for the former than did inexperienced respondents. In addition, respondents who had faced problems in online shopping estimated the popularity of online shops lower and tolerated higher selling prices more than the other respondents. These results contribute to the understanding of customers and suggest effective marketing strategies for online shopping.


Consumer priorities Online shopping experiences Problem experiences Conjoint analysis Mixed logit 



This research was partially supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), 24530414, 2012.


  1. 1.
    Gensler, S., Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Theysohn, S.: Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219(2), 368–378 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, Y.H., Hsu, I.C., Lin, C.C.: Website attributes that increase consumer purchase intention: a conjoint analysis. J. Bus. Res. 63(9–10), 1007–1014 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacFadden, D.: Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (ed.) Frontiers in Economics, pp. 105–142. Academic Press, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Revelt, D., Train, K.: Mixed logit with repeated choices: households choices of appliance efficiency level. Rev. Econo. Stat. 80(4), 647–657 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Train, K.: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MacFadden, D., Train, K.: Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometrics 15(5), 447–470 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brownstone, D., Train, K.: Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econometrics 89(1–2), 109–129 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ida, T., Horiguchi, Y.: Consumer benefits of public services over FTTH in Japan: comparative analysis of provincial and Urban areas by using discrete choice experiment. Inf. Soc. 24(1), 1–17 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Halme, M., Kallio, M.: Estimation methods for choice-based conjoint analysis of consumer preferences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 214(1), 160–167 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H.: Applied Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sattler, H., Hensel-Börner, S.: A comparison of conjoint measurement with self-explicated approaches. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds.) Conjoint Measurement, pp. 67–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F.: Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds.) Conjoint Measurement, pp. 3–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A.G., Kolstad, K.: Consumers’ Willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. Am. Agricu. Econ. 88(4), 1050–1061 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Resano, H., Sanjuán, A.I., Albisu, L.M.: Consumers’ response to the EU quality policy allowing for heterogeneous preferences. Food Policy 37(4), 355–365 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McFadden, D., Train, K.: Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 15, 447–470 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schaupp, L.C., Bélanger, L.: A conjoint analysis of online consumer satisfaction. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 6(2), 95–111 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Decker, R., Trusov, M.: Estimating aggregate consumer preferences from online product reviews. Int. J. Res. Mark. 27(4), 293–307 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shiau, W.L., Luo, M.M.: Factors affecting online group buying intention and satisfaction: a social exchange theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(6), 2431–2444 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sher, P.J., Lee, S.H.: Consumer skepticism and online reviews: an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Soc. Behav. Pers. 37(1), 137–144 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wittink, D.R., Vriens, M., Burhenne, W.: Commercial use of conjoint analysis in europe: results and critical reflections. Int. J. Res. Mark. 11, 41–52 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rao, V.R., Sattler, H.: Measurement of price effects with conjoint analysis: separating informational and allocative effects of price. In: Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F. (eds.) Conjoint Measurement, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law and LettersEhime UniversityMatsuyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations