See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235317432

Consumer Response to Online Grocery Shopping

Article  in  International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · February 2000

DOI: 10.1108/09590550010306737

CITATIONS READS

241 11,303

2 authors, including:

Brenda Cude
University of Georgia
67 PUBLICATIONS   847 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

What Makes a Retailer an Omni-channel Retailer? A Case Study Examining Nordstrom's Retail Platform and Strategy. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brenda Cude on 09 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Consumer response to online grocery shopping
Michelle A. MorganoskyBrenda J. Cude
Article information:
To cite this document:
Michelle A. MorganoskyBrenda J. Cude, (2000),"Consumer response to online grocery shopping", International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 17 - 26
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550010306737
Downloaded on: 09 August 2016, At: 10:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 20 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18293 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2003),"Buying or browsing?: An exploration of shopping orientations and online purchase intention", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 Iss 11/12 pp. 1666-1684 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310495401
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

(2002),"Consumer demand for online food retailing: is it really a supply side issue?", International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 30 Iss 10 pp. 451-458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550210445326
(2006),"Understanding shoppers' expectations of online grocery retailing", International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 34 Iss 7 pp. 529-540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550610673608

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:403714 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Introduction
Consumer response
There is currently a glut of trade publications
to online grocery and consulting reports which attempt to
shopping predict the future potential for online
shopping. In this study, we collect and
Michelle A. Morganosky and analyze data from actual users of online
grocery shopping services. Our objective is to
Brenda J. Cude profile the characteristics of such users and
make a preliminary assessment of consumer
response to, and demand for, online grocery
shopping services based on behavioral data.
Terbeek (1996, p. 93) suggests that the
future of the retail food industry is less about
incremental supply chain improvements and
more about ``redistributing rewards and
The authors profits along the consumer's value chain
Michelle A. Morganosky is Professor of Consumer and
according to value created''. Kinsey and
Retail Marketing in the Department of Agricultural and
Senauer (1996) believe retailers have the
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana,

potential to ``create value'' along two
Illinois, USA.
dimensions of convenience. That is, the
Brenda J. Cude is Professor and Head of the Department
retailer improves convenience by enabling the
of Housing and Consumer Economics, The University of
consumer to increase the number of tasks that
Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.
can be accomplished during a single visit to
the retailer, or reduce the amount of time
required to complete the shopping task.
Keywords
Retailers that expand their product
Retailing, Internet, Food, Consumer behaviour assortments and add a variety of services to
the offering (e.g. banking, floral, video rental,
Abstract cleaning) focus on adding value along the first
Reports a preliminary assessment of consumer response dimension (completion of multiple tasks).
to and demand for online food retail channels. Data were Those retailers that add express checkout
collected from 243 US consumers who currently buy their lanes and offer drive-up services are adding
groceries online. The majority of online users were value on the second dimension by reducing
younger than 55 years of age, female, and reported the time spent on the grocery shopping task.
annual incomes of $70,000 or more. Over 70 percent According to Kinsey and Senauer (1996),
reported convenience and saving time as their primary the ultimate time-saving convenience may be
reasons for buying groceries online but 15 percent cited home shopping. Liebmann (1998, p. 25)
physical or constraint issues that made it difficult for them observes that while consumers are shopping
to shop at grocery stores. Of the respondents, 19 percent more, at more outlets, and more often, ``. . .
bought all of their groceries online. Also reports these same consumers repeatedly tell us they
demographic and online shopping variables that are are time-pressed and want more convenience-
significantly related to the primary reason for shopping oriented and added value services that will
online, willingness to buy all grocery items online, save them time.'' Also, grocery store operators
perception of time spent shopping online vs in the store, are seeking more retail channels that bring
and experience with online grocery shopping. them into direct contact with the consumer
without the shopper stepping into the physical
store. Thus, online grocery shopping services
Electronic access
have the potential to fulfill the goals of both
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is consumers and grocery store operators. It
available at was, therefore, the objective of this article to
http://www.emerald-library.com make a preliminary assessment of consumer
response to and demand for online grocery
shopping services using data collected from
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . pp. 17±26 actual online shoppers. Specifically, the
# MCB University Press . ISSN 0959-0552 researchers wanted to:
17
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

. learn who uses online grocery shopping Both also offer customers not only weekly
services and why; home deliveries of groceries, but also other
. describe consumers' online grocery services such as picking up dry cleaning, and
shopping behaviors; video rentals as well as UPS shipments.
. learn how shopping online has influenced Streamline deliveries can be left in a special
consumers' overall food shopping; and unit that is installed in the customer's garage
. identify what consumers see as the at no extra cost to the consumer (Lardner,
positive and negative aspects of online 1998). The unit includes a refrigerated and a
grocery shopping. frozen section (Lundegaard, 1997). A
Streamline field agent visits the home initially
and uses a barcode scanner to record what the
Background consumer already has in order to set up a
personal shopping list (Ransdell, 1998).
Although the earliest grocers offered home Customers pay a flat monthly fee for the
delivery services in the US market, service.
supermarket shopping via the computer dates A second basic type of Internet grocery
only to the late 1980s. An estimated 90,000 service is the store-based shopping service.
US consumers bought groceries online in This service typically picks a consumer's
1998 but the number is expected to grow to 7 order at a local supermarket; the consumer
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

million by 2002 (Belsie, 1998). Several can either pick up the order at the store or
factors explain the demand for more have it delivered to his or her home or place of
convenient ways to buy groceries, including business. While some online retailers (e.g.
greater labor-force participation by women Schnucks; www.schnucks.com) fill orders
(who have traditionally been the primary food from their own stores, at least one (PC Foods;
shoppers), a greater number of dual-income www.pcfoods.com) shops at one or more
and thus higher-income households, and a stores chosen by the consumer.
greater number of single-parent and elderly The oldest US grocery shopping service is
households with time and other resource Peapod Foods (www.peapod.com) which had
constraints (Park et al., 1998). The greater $69 million in revenues (and a $21 million
number of consumers with personal loss) in 1998 (Anders, 1999). In the decade
computers, modems, and subscriptions to that Peapod has been in operation, it has used
online services in their homes makes ordering the store-pick format. In the store-pick
groceries over the Internet a realistic option format, Peapod contracts with a supermarket
for an increasing number of households. and Peapod's professional grocery pickers
select merchandise at that store to fill orders.
Practices of online food retailers However, Peapod has recently changed to the
A recent search for Internet sites selling a full warehouse model in two of the eight US
line of groceries online identified 12 in the US markets it serves and plans to make that
market. (This paper does not include the conversion in its other markets as well
numerous specialty and gift food retailers (Donegan, 1999). Peapod's delivery prices
operating online.) Each of the 12 fits one of vary by market; however, typically the charge
two basic descriptions: online retailer or is a monthly fee plus a flat rate delivery
online grocery shopping service. Online change. In some markets, Peapod charges
retailers are virtual supermarkets, existing only the delivery charge. Peapod offers the full
only online. They typically fill orders from range of products typically found in the local
merchandise stored in a warehouse. Examples supermarket and delivers seven days a week.
include NetGrocer (www3.netgrocer.com) The consumer's cost of using a store-based
and Streamline (www.streamline.com). shopping service varies considerably
Among the online retailers found in the Web depending not only on the individual retailer,
search, most delivered only in the Boston but also on the type of service provided.
area; an exception was NetGrocer which Store-based services usually charge around
delivered non-perishables nationally via $10 to $15 per order. Some add other fees
Federal Express. depending on the service, the market, whether
Two online retailers, Streamline and groceries were delivered or picked up, and
ShopLink, lease warehouses from which sometimes the amount of the order. Still
orders are picked and filled (Kirsner, 1999). others waive the delivery fee on orders above a
18
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

certain minimum amount, typically $60 to shopping while ``Necessity Users'' have
$75. Online retailers typically charge a service limitations that make going to a store difficult.
fee of $30 to $50 a month which includes one ``New Technologists'' are young and
delivery per week. comfortable with technology while the ``Time
Starved'' are not sensitive to price and will pay
extra to free up time in their schedules. The
Previous work group termed ``Responsibles'' has available
time and gets an enhanced sense of self-worth
Research on online grocery shopping has been from shopping.
limited since this is a relatively new retail US researchers at the University of Maine
channel. Most of the research reviewed here have been examining electronic marketing of
was conducted in the context of the US specialty foods and drinks since 1995 (White,
market. In one study, Park et al. (1998) 1997). Specialty food and drink customers
conducted focus group interviews with US primarily shop online to buy items not
consumers who had previous experience with available locally or to buy items that appear to
home shopping for groceries. The researchers be significantly higher in quality than similar
categorized the participants into two groups: products available elsewhere (White, 1998).
hi-tech baby boomers and older/physically It is not clear, however, if the behaviors and
challenged consumers. Hi-tech baby boomers expectations of online specialty food and
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

were interested in home shopping for the drink shoppers would be comparable to those
convenience or because of the novelty. of online grocery shoppers.
Respondents in this group typically used the Research by Hiser et al. (1999) confirms
computer to order items from home, found that consumers other than those in suburban
that ordering time decreased with experience, dual-income households are interested in
were very satisfied with delivery, found online grocery shopping. They surveyed 390
mistakes in orders to be their greatest source consumers in four supermarkets in Bryan/
of frustration, and felt the convenience College Station, Texas. About one-third of
justified the delivery fee. the shoppers were familiar with online grocery
The second group of respondents was shopping even though it was not available in
older, had lower incomes, and was more likely the area at the time of the survey. Logit
to live alone. They typically bought groceries analyses indicated that income, the number of
via home ordering because of physical people living in the household, the presence
difficulty in going to the store. They tended to of children, and gender were not significant
phone in orders when possible rather than determinants of interest in using a grocery
order online. Like the first group, they were shopping service. Age and education were,
very satisfied with delivery but were however; people over age 50 were less likely to
concerned about mistakes in orders. Unlike consider using the service (compared to
the hi-tech baby boomers, the older/physically people 18 to 29 years old) as were those with
challenged group found it difficult to justify less education.
paying what they perceived to be a very high
delivery fee.
Both groups of respondents expressed Methodology
concerns about security (using a credit card
online and having a stranger come to their With the permission of the retailer, data were
home to make a delivery) and trusting the collected in April through June 1998 from
supermarket to select groceries (especially 243 US consumers who purchased groceries
perishables and frozen food) for them. Some from Schnucks Express Connection, the
felt they saved money by ordering from home. Internet shopping service of Schnucks
Several mentioned frustrations due to the lack Markets, a St Louis-based chain of stores in
of online nutrient and ingredient labeling. Illinois, Missouri, and Indiana. At the time of
Anderson Consulting (Kutz, 1998) data collection, Schnucks offered the service
identified five major groups of potential in the St Louis market area plus three others
online grocery shoppers based on survey in Missouri. The service was also available in
respondents' attitudes toward time, shopping, four market areas in Illinois and one in
and technology. The group they termed Indiana. Schnucks Express Connection
``Shopping Avoiders'' dislike grocery shoppers can choose either to pick up their
19
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

orders or have them delivered. The costs are (4) how their grocery shopping at super-
about $13 for same-day delivery, $10 for markets is now different since they started
next-day delivery, and $6 if the consumer ordering groceries via the Internet;
picks up the order. A minimum order of $10 (5) how their grocery shopping at super-
is required. centers is now different since they started
During the survey period, a shopper who ordering groceries via the Internet;
completed an order at the Schnucks Web site (6) how their grocery shopping at warehouse
was invited to click on a link to the clubs is now different since they started
researchers' site to answer questions about ordering groceries via the Internet;
online grocery shopping. Shoppers were (7) how their grocery shopping at limited-line
asked to complete the survey one time only to discount food stores is now different since
avoid multiple responses from the same they started ordering groceries via the
individual. No incentives were offered to Internet; and
shoppers to complete the survey. Once at the (8) any other comments.
site, consumers were asked to respond to nine Questions mentioning a particular retail
closed-end questions and eight open-end format included an illustration appropriate to
questions. The closed-end questions, for each market (e.g. warehouse clubs like Sam's
which all responses were categorical, asked Club). Responses were immediately sent to
consumers:
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

researchers in the form of e-mail messages.

(1) length of time they had used the Internet
to buy groceries;
(2) whether they usually have groceries de-
livered or pick them up;
Results
(3) if they still buy groceries at stores; A demographic profile of the online survey
(4) age; participants is provided in Table I. The
(5) education;
majority of respondents were younger than 45
(6) household composition;
years of age (68 percent), female (82 percent),
(7) gender;
and 92 percent had some college education or
(8) income; and
a college degree. A total of 50 percent
(9) Zip code.
reported an annual income of $70,000 or
Including Zip code in the data collected more while 12 percent had an annual income
served two purposes. First, it allowed the below $30,000. In most households there
researchers to identify the market in which the were two adults (63 percent); most
respondent lived. This was important since households had one or more children (83
Schnucks began operations in its different percent). Of the respondents, 57 percent lived
markets at different points in time. Zip code in the St Louis, Missouri market area. The
and other demographic data could also be balance of the respondents lived in one of five
compared to eliminate responses that cities, three in Illinois and one each in
matched perfectly and thus were likely from Missouri and Indiana. The demographics of
the same household. the respondents matched very well with the
One advantage of conducting surveys profile online grocery shopping services
online is that respondents can easily provide typically used to describe their ideal customer
extensive responses to open-end questions if ± suburban families with incomes above
they choose. This feature is particularly $75,000 and at least one child (Lardner,
valuable in emerging areas of consumer 1998; Ransdell, 1998; Ingram, 1999; Kirsner,
research such as online shopping to allow 1999).
consumers to describe their experiences with Table II includes descriptors of the
this new retail channel. The eight open-end participants' online grocery shopping behaviors.
questions asked consumers: Of the online survey respondents, 14 percent
(1) the most important reason for using the had used the Internet to buy their groceries for
Internet to buy groceries; more than six months, and 35 percent had used
(2) what grocery items, if any, they would not it between one and six months. However, about
order via the Internet; one-half (51 percent) had bought groceries via
(3) how using the Internet has affected the Internet for less than one month. Three-
grocery shopping time; quarters of the respondents said they usually
20
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

Table I Demographic profile of online grocery shopping survey Table II Grocery shopping descriptors of online grocery shopping survey
participants participants
Percent Percent
Variable n of total Variable n of total
Age (years) (n = 240) Period of time using Internet to buy
34 or younger 81 33.8 groceries (n = 242)
35-44 83 34.6 Less than one month 124 51.2
45-54 54 22.5 One to six months 84 34.7
55 or older 22 9.2 More than six months 34 14.0
Gender (n = 232) Usually have groceries delivered or pick up
Male 41 17.7 order (n = 240)
Female 191 82.3 Delivered 181 75.4
Income ($) (n = 220) Pick up 52 21.7
29,999 or less 26 11.8 Pick up as often as have delivered 7 2.9
30,000-49,999 31 14.1 Still shop in stores for groceries (n = 238)
50,000-69,999 52 23.6 Yes 192 80.7
70,000 and over 111 50.5 No 46 19.3
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

Educational level (n = 239) Primary reason for using Internet to buy

High school education or less 19 7.9 groceries (n = 242)
High school graduate with some college Convenience/time 178 73.3
education 82 34.3 Physical constraints 36 14.8
College graduate 138 57.7 Hate grocery shopping/hate grocery stores 12 4.9
Number of adults in household (n = 231) Buying for a business 6 2.5
One 46 19.9 Can avoid impulse buying 3 1.2
Two 146 63.2 Do not like standing in line 2 0.8
Three or more 39 16.9 Other 5 2.2

Number of children in household (n = 154) Secondary reason for use of Internet to shop
Zero 26 16.9 for groceries (n = 73)
One 42 27.3 Convenience/time 20 27.4
Two 55 35.7 Can avoid impulse buying 15 20.5
Three or more 31 20.1 Physical constraints 8 11.0
Do not like standing in line 7 9.6
Market area (n = 233)
Hate grocery shopping/hate grocery stores 5 6.8
St Louis, Missouri area 133 57.1
Buying for a business 1 1.4
Other markets 100 42.9
Other 17 23.3
Grocery items will not buy through the
have their groceries delivered (rather than Internet (n = 182)
picking them up at the store) when they buy Nothing 88 48.4
groceries online. A higher proportion than Meats and/or produce 55 30.2
expected (19 percent) said they buy their Items cannot buy because are not offered 8 4.4
groceries only online. Perishables 7 3.8
Other 18 9.9
Reasons for grocery shopping online Don't know 6 3.3
Since online shopping is still a fairly new Perception of time spent shopping through the
phenomenon, respondents were asked to list Internet vs the supermarket (n = 221)
their most important reasons for using the A lot less 68 30.8
Internet to buy groceries. Each of the two Less 48 21.7
researchers involved in the project coded Not less time but other benefits 58 26.2
No difference or spend more time 47 21.3
these responses independently. The inter-
rater reliability was 0.92 and the two
researchers reconciled any differences in Convenience was cited most often as the most
coding by discussing and agreeing on an important reason for using online shopping
appropriate code. with 73 percent of the respondents
21
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

mentioning factors related to convenience online was either no different from or greater
and saving time. For example, respondents than shopping in stores. However, some
said: consumers indicated that additional time
Saves me time. The time I took to grocery shop I spent was not a concern. For example,
use for other things now. respondents said:
Convenience, don't have to deal with crowds, It has increased (the time I spend) because it
takes less time. takes so long to go from screen to screen;
Saves me time, gas, and aggravation. however, that tradeoff is preferable to taking my
Convenience. I work on the Web. I can shop all children out at night or wasting a Saturday
week, my list is stored, and I can send it off when morning in the store.
I'm ready for delivery. Because of age and speed of computer, it takes
longer.
Another group of respondents (15 percent)
mentioned physical and/or constraint issues Over one-quarter (26 percent) of consumers
that make it difficult for them to shop at responded to the question by commenting on
grocery stores as their primary reason for other benefits such as greater accuracy, a
shopping online. Physical constraints more peaceful experience, easier comparison
included disabilities as well as difficulty shopping, better ability to monitor total
driving and lifting groceries. Respondents spending, and facilitating planning and thus
mentioned temporary conditions (e.g. more meals prepared and eaten at home.
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

recovering from surgery, wearing a cast) as About 8 percent of respondents said that
well as more long-term physical limitations. while online shopping did not yet save them
Illustrative comments include: time, they expected it to save them time in the
I'm disabled and can't get out much. So I use my future as they gained more experience.
computer to shop from home.
I don't drive, so it's a major pain for me to make Influence on overall grocery shopping
a trip to the grocery store. Somewhat surprisingly, nearly 20 percent of
Delivery to my kitchen is most important since the respondents said they buy all their
carrying heavy items is getting more and more groceries from an online food channel. The
difficult.
main demographic variable related to buying
A number of respondents mentioned the all groceries online was education. The
presence of children in the household as a greatest proportion of online-only food
constraining factor ± in terms of both being shoppers were high school graduates with
able to leave the home and not wanting to some college education (53 percent) while the
take children with them to the grocery store. greatest proportion of those shopping
For example, respondents said: multiple retail channels were college
It can be difficult to take three small, tired graduates (65 percent) (chi-square = 14.7;
children to the store at the end of the day. p = 0.001). Two grocery shopper descriptors
I am a single parent and this allows me to shop were at least marginally related to online-only
without taking the kids to the store. shopping. Those who shopped online only
I don't want the hassle of taking (my three were more likely to say there was ``nothing''
children under 4 years), paying for a sitter, or
they would not buy online (chi-square = 7.7,
inconveniencing my husband in the evenings.
p = 0.006). In addition, they were more likely
A small number of respondents (5 percent) to agree they were now spending a lot less
mentioned the primary reason for using the time grocery shopping due to the availability
Internet to shop for food was because they of online grocery shopping (chi-square = 6.8;
hate to shop and hate grocery stores. Another p = 0.08).
7 percent listed hating to shop as a secondary
reason for going online. Online grocery shopping behaviors
Despite consumer interest in the Chi-square analyses were used to identify
convenience aspects of online grocery variables significantly related to descriptors of
shopping, not all of the respondents felt that the survey participants' online grocery
shopping online saved them time. Although shopping. Results are reported in Table III. A
more than one-half thought the Internet saved number of the demographic variables were
them either a lot (30 percent) or some (21 significantly related to the primary reason for
percent) grocery shopping time, another 21 shopping online. Compared to those who
percent thought that the time spent shopping cited physical and/or constraint issues, those
22
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

Table III Results of chi-square analyses of online shopping variables by demographic characteristics and other
online shopping variables
Online shopping variables
Perception of
Willing to buy time spent Experience with
Demographic and other online Primary reason all grocery online vs online grocery
shopping variables to shop online items online in-store shopping
Gender 0.08 2.37 1.29 0.42
Education 0.75 3.89 7.48 6.41**
Income 23.03*** 0.33 14.23 1.44
Age 20.69*** 5.90 6.90 9.61**
Number of adults in household 19.36*** 3.8 10.28 4.44
Number of children in household 23.34*** 3.9 10.47 3.07
Market area 4.84** 6.37** 0.90 12.05***
Buy groceries online only 0.00 7.7** 6.77* 0.21
Primary reason shop online ± 2.7* 15.69*** 0.03
Willing to buy all grocery items online 2.72* ± 1.42 0.36
Experience using online grocery shopping 0.03 0.36 3.30 ±
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

Perception of time use when shopping

online vs in-store 5.70*** 1.42 ± 3.3
Notes: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10

that shopped online for other reasons more likely to shop online only and to cite
including convenience tended to have higher convenience as their primary reason for
incomes, were younger, and lived in shopping online. Two demographic variables
households with larger numbers of adults and were related to how long the consumer had
children. Of those who shopped online for been using the online service to buy groceries.
reasons other than physical and/or constraint Those who had used the service for more than
issues, 56 percent reported annual incomes of a month had lower educational levels and
$70,000 or more compared to 18 percent of were older.
those who shopped online due to physical The market area was a significant variable
and/or constraints. Of those who shopped in three of the four chi-square analyses.
online for physical reasons, 28 percent were Compared to the other markets, a larger
age 55 or over compared with 5 percent of proportion of St Louis shoppers (19 percent
those who shopped online for other reasons. compared with 9 percent) cited physical and/
Those who shopped online for reasons other or constraint issues rather than other factors
than physical and/or constraint issues were as their primary reason for shopping online.
more likely to say there was nothing they Despite the fact that St Louis is the home
would not buy online (53 percent compared market for Schnucks, a smaller proportion of
with 36 percent) and to say that using the St Louis respondents (42 percent compared
Internet saved time (56 percent compared with 62 percent) said they were willing to buy
with 31 percent). any grocery item online. A third finding was
None of the demographic variables was that about 41 percent of respondents in the St
significantly related to willingness to buy all Louis market had used the service less than
grocery items online. However, compared to one month compared with 64 percent in other
the rest of the sample, those who did not markets. The service had been available in St
restrict their online choices were more likely Louis longer than in any of the other markets
to say they buy groceries online only. They and had only recently been introduced in two
were also more likely to say that they shopped of the other market areas.
online for reasons other than physical or
constraint issues. While none of the Positive and negative aspects of online
demographic variables was significantly grocery shopping
related to the perception of time spent Respondents were also given the opportunity
shopping online vs in the store, those who to add any comments they chose and 126
thought shopping online took less time were respondents did. Many elaborated on
23
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

questions asked earlier in the survey or wrote individual do both the picking and the
general statements of praise such as, ``I think delivery to build some sense of loyalty and
it is the most inventive way to grocery shop'' familiarity. Finally, only one respondent
and ``It has been a blessing for those of us who expressed any concerns about the security of
cannot leave the house''. Ten respondents the online transaction. That individual
commented on using the Internet, generally suggested the e-mail confirmation of the order
writing statements encouraging more should contain only the consumer's name and
opportunities to shop online. Some not, as is now the case, his/her phone number
comments (14) related to the selection of and address as well as directions to the home.
items available online, generally asking that all Results from this preliminary survey suggest
of the items in the supermarket also be sold that better educated and somewhat higher-
online or inquiring why specific items (sugar- income consumers may be more likely to shop
free foods, fat-free foods, larger sizes, smaller online, primarily for time savings and
sizes, specific brands) were not available convenience aspects. However, other
online. Eleven respondents wrote about consumers may be likely candidates for such
mistakes in orders and two complimented the services as well. A segment of respondents
service for rarely making mistakes. The mentioned physical and/or transportation
sentiment among the other comments was constraints as a primary motivation for
that mistakes should not happen primarily shopping online.
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

because correcting them requires a trip to the

store, thus defeating the purpose of online
shopping. While six consumers commented Discussion
that shopping online went too slowly, only
one mentioned a technical problem that Before discussing results from this survey of
prevented completion of an order. online grocery shoppers, limitations need to
A total of nine individuals wrote comments be acknowledged. This was an exploratory
on the cost of the service. Most said the fee study based on a non-probability sample.
was reasonable and they were willing to pay Therefore, generalizations to other audiences
for it, but three acknowledged that they may not be appropriate.
shopped online only when they had a large For our respondents, shopping online
order that would make paying the fee appears to be the ultimate in streamlining
worthwhile. One requested specials available grocery shopping. The majority cited
only to those who buy online to help offset the convenience and saving time as their primary
delivery cost. A further five consumers motivation for buying groceries online. When
specifically stated that they found being asked to compare the time spent shopping
unable to use coupons to be a great limitation online vs in the store, many commented that
of online shopping. the real time savings was a result of not
A total of 17 respondents commented either traveling to and from the store, rather than a
on what information is available online or decrease in shopping time. Just over one-half
how it is presented. Seven specifically wanted had used the Internet less than a month and
a listing of all sale items in one location while 11 percent of those users noted that while
five wanted to be able to see all of the shopping online was not yet less time-
information on the product's label, either for consuming than shopping in the store, they
health reasons or to learn more about a expected it would be as they gained more
product before buying it for the first time. experience. Their continued patronage of the
Several consumers wanted information online service is likely to depend on the
presented differently, largely asking for a realization of these expectations.
shopping experience more like the in-store The demographics of both the online-only
experience with items organized by aisles as in shoppers and those who cited convenience as
the local store and brands shown side-by-side their primary reason for shopping online
rather than separately. suggest these are consumers with above-
Interestingly, only two shoppers made average opportunity costs who see shopping
comments suggesting they missed the online as a way to minimize those costs. Many
personal contact of in-store shopping. One were younger, had children, and had relatively
suggested that a ``real'' person call to confirm high incomes. There were also hints in the
the order. Another suggested that one data that these shoppers were ones who were
24
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

less likely to restrict the grocery items they sliced bread''! Several groups of online
were willing to order online and to believe grocery shoppers emerged, each with unique
that shopping online saves time. However, a reasons for shopping online. Mothers with
larger sample size is needed to profile this young children in the household were
group more accurately using multivariate especially positive about online grocery
analysis. shopping. Online shopping allows them
Another market segment may be the 15 access to a grocery store without taking young
percent who used online shopping as a way to children along or finding someone to care for
reduce fixed costs associated with physical them. They also can shop without having to
and/or caregiving constraints. While they are resist the exhortations of their children to buy
not a majority of respondents, they are the latest cereal or candy. Another group that
important in that individuals with physical was also very positive about the availability of
constraints may be overlooked when Web- online shopping was those with physical
based services are designed. Of the sample, 6 disabilities. This was somewhat surprising
percent mentioned what Aylott and Mitchell given this market segment is typically
(1998) refer to as grocery shopper stressors as characterized as unable or unwilling to pay for
their primary motivation for online shopping; optional services. In some cases the individual
another 5 percent described it as a secondary with the disability reported that he or she
motivation. Consumers who shop online may could now shop via the computer; in other
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

avoid the problems of crowding and standing cases, the individual's caregiver bought the
in line. Retailers must, however, be careful groceries online. A surprising number of
that in-store stressors are not replaced with respondents reported shopping online
parallel online stressors such as being unable because of minor physical ailments that
to access the Web site, long delays in limited their ability to complete the grocery
completing online orders, inconsistencies in shopping task. Examples included difficulty
the items available online, mistakes in filling lifting groceries, carrying groceries, and taking
orders, and the hassle of returning groceries up a few stairs from the garage into
merchandise. the home. It is important to remember that
Our research suggests that online grocery with an aging US population such minor
shoppers in this study are more upscale physical limitations will likely increase and
demographically than the average grocery perhaps add to the demand for home
shopper. With one important exception, their shopping and delivery services. Minor
characteristics were, however, not unlike the disabilities, even when temporary as when
demographics typically reported for Internet recovering from an accident or an illness, can
users ± younger with higher education and present major concerns for grocery shopping
income than the general population since food and grocery items tend to be
(Graphics, Visualization and Utilization purchased more frequently than most other
Center, 1999). The one important exception retail products.
here is that a majority of our respondents were Online grocery shoppers also seem to
women. That is typical of grocery shoppers in recognize and value differences between the
the USA (71 percent are women in the US online grocery shopping experience and the
market (Weinstein, 1998)) but not of online in-store shopping experience. For example,
shoppers (71 percent are men (McPhee, they described putting an order together over
1998)). Perhaps online grocery shopping a period of days and sending it when it was
services have the potential to close the gender complete, being able to check recipes or
gap that researchers have observed in general cupboards for needed items while shopping,
for online usage. checking the running total of the order
periodically while shopping, and other
behaviors that are typically impossible or at
Conclusions least difficult to do when shopping in the
store. At the same time, the online shoppers
For the most part, the respondents in the seem to want other aspects of online grocery
survey appeared quite satisfied with their shopping to be as much like in-store shopping
online grocery shopping experiences. One as possible. They want to find their favorite
respondent succinctly expressed her feelings brands, the sizes they prefer, and the
by saying, ``This is the greatest idea since information they need to make decisions.
25
 Consumer response to online grocery shopping International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Michelle A. Morganosky and Brenda J. Cude Volume 28 . Number 1 . 2000 . 17±26

Perhaps most of all, if they choose to order Kinsey, J. and Senauer, B. (1996), ``Consumer trends and
online, they want to avoid also having to make changing food retailing formats'', American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 78 No. 5,
a trip to the store, especially to correct
pp. 1187-91.
mistakes in orders or to buy items unavailable Kirsner, S. (1999), ``Express lane'', Wired, May,
online. If asked, consumers will no doubt say pp. 112-14, 16, 18-20, 22.
they expect much from online grocers ± Kutz, K. (1998), ``Online grocery shopping on track for
personal service at a reasonable cost with rapid growth'', Anderson Consulting News Release
timely delivery and few out-of-stocks and (online), January 20, available from: http://
www.shoplink.com, (accessed June 13, 1998).
mispicks. The challenge for retailers is finding Lardner, J. (1998), ``Please don't squeeze the tomatoes
a model that enables them to meet online'', US News & World Report, November 9,
consumers' expectations profitably as pp. 51-2.
demand grows for online food retailing. Liebmann, W. (1998), The Consumer Paradox, WSL
Strategic Retail, New York, NY.
Lundegaard, K.M. (1997), ``New owner to streamline
shopping alternatives'', Washington Business
References Journal (online), April 7, available from: http://
cgi.amcity/com/washington, (accessed June 3,
Anders, G. (1999), ``Co-founder of Borders to launch 1998).
online megagrocer'', Wall Street Journal, April 22, McPhee, L. (1998), ``Number of Internet users and
pp. B1, B4. shoppers surges in United States and Canada'',
Aylott, R. and Mitchell, V. (1998), ``An exploratory study of
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

CommerceNet News & In the Press (online), August

grocery shopper stressors'', International Journal of 24, available from: http://www.commerce.net,
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, (accessed October 29, 1998).
pp. 362-73. Park, K., Perosio, D., German, G.A. and McLaughlin, E.W.
Belsie, L. (1998), ``A mouse in the bakery aisle'', The (1998), What's in Store for Home Shopping?,
Christian Science Monitor (online), September 8, Cornell University Food Industry Management
available from: http://www.csmonitor.com, Program, Ithaca, NY.
(accessed November 4, 1998). Ransdell, E. (1998), ``Streamline delivers the goods'', Fast
Donegan, P. (1999), ``The evolution of Peapod'', Grocery Company (online), August, p. 154, available from:
Headquarters, April, pp. 79-83. http://www.fastcompany.com, (accessed May 7,
Graphics, Visualization, and Utilization Center (1999), 1999).
GVU's 10th WWW User Survey: General Terbeek, G.A. (1996), ``1996 and beyond: the value of
Demographics Summary (online), available from: value'', Progressive Grocer, December, pp. 91-5.
http://www.gvu.gatech.edu, (accessed February 11, Weinstein, S. (1998), ``Changing channels'', Progressive
1999). Grocer, April, pp. 39-44.
Hiser, J., Nayga, R.M. and Capps, O. Jr (1999), ``An White, G.K. (1997), ``Using the WWW for retail food sales:
exploratory analysis of familiarity and willingness to discussion and demonstration'', Journal of Food
use online food shopping services in a local area of Distribution Research, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 26-9.
Texas'', Journal of Food Distribution Research, White, G.K. (1998), Specialty Food and Drink on the
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 78-90. Internet Project: Highlights (online), available from:
Ingram, B. (1999), ``Boston bears watching'', Supermarket http://www.ume.maine.edu/~specfood, (accessed
Business, March, pp. 41-5. May 5, 1999).

26
 This article has been cited by:

1. Nicole J. Olynk Widmar, Elizabeth S. Byrd, S.R. Dominick, Christopher A. Wolf, Lalatendu Acharya. 2016. Social desirability
bias in reporting of holiday season healthfulness. Preventive Medicine Reports 4, 270-276. [CrossRef]
2. Jonathan Elms, Ronan de Kervenoael, Alan Hallsworth. 2016. Internet or store? An ethnographic study of consumers' internet
and store-based grocery shopping practices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 32, 234-243. [CrossRef]
3. Kristina Melis, Katia Campo, Lien Lamey, Els Breugelmans. 2016. A Bigger Slice of the Multichannel Grocery Pie: When
Does Consumers’ Online Channel Use Expand Retailers’ Share of Wallet?. Journal of Retailing . [CrossRef]
4. Zachary Anesbury, Magda Nenycz-Thiel, John Dawes, Rachel Kennedy. 2016. How do shoppers behave online? An
observational study of online grocery shopping. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 15:3, 261-270. [CrossRef]
5. M. Rombach, V. Bitsch. 2016. A typology of online flower shops on the German market. Acta Horticulturae :1132, 127-134.
[CrossRef]
6. Herbert Kotzab, Xavier Brusset and Christoph Teller Alexander Hübner Department of Operations, Catholic University
Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany Heinrich Kuhn Department of Operations, Catholic University Eichstätt-
Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany Johannes Wollenburg Department of Operations, Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt,
Ingolstadt, Germany . 2016. Last mile fulfilment and distribution in omni-channel grocery retailing. International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management 44:3, 228-247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Chunghan Kang, Junghoon Moon, Taekyung Kim, Youngchan ChoeWhy Consumers Go to Online Grocery: Comparing
Vegetables with Grains 3604-3613. [CrossRef]
8. Nur Shahrulliza Muhammad, Haslinda Sujak, Sofiah Abd Rahman. 2016. Buying Groceries Online: The Influences of
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

Electronic Service Quality (eServQual) and Situational Factors. Procedia Economics and Finance 37, 379-385. [CrossRef]
9. Bengi Yanık İlhan, Tutku Eker İşçioğlu. 2015. Effect of women’s labor market status on online grocery shopping, the case
of Turkey. Eurasian Business Review 5:2, 371-396. [CrossRef]
10. Anna Corinna Cagliano Department of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
Alberto De Marco Department of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy Carlo Rafele
Department of Management and Production Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy Andrea Bragagnini Telecom
Italia, Torino, Italy Luca Gobbato Department of Control and Computer Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy .
2015. Analysing the diffusion of a mobile service supporting the e-grocery supply chain. Business Process Management Journal
21:4, 928-963. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Weng Marc Lim School of Business, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia . 2015. Antecedents and
consequences of e-shopping: an integrated model. Internet Research 25:2, 184-217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Tendai Chikweche. 2015. Independent Retail and Grocery Shops in Zimbabwe: Survival and Demise in a Crisis and Post-
Crisis Era. Journal of Marketing Channels 22:2, 121-136. [CrossRef]
13. Alireza Abroud, Yap Voon Choong, Saravanan Muthaiyah, David Yong Gun Fie. 2015. Adopting e-finance: decomposing the
technology acceptance model for investors. Service Business 9:1, 161-182. [CrossRef]
14. Steve Greenland, Andrew NewmanRetail Distribution Channels 1-2. [CrossRef]
15. Kenneth D. Bahn†, Kent L. Granzin, Mert Tokman. 2015. End-User Contribution to Logistics Value Co-Creation: A Series
of Exploratory Studies. Journal of Marketing Channels 22:1, 3-26. [CrossRef]
16. Elin Nilsson, Tommy Gärling, Agneta Marell, Anna-Carin Nordvall. 2015. Who shops groceries where and how? – the
relationship between choice of store format and type of grocery shopping. The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research 25:1, 1-19. [CrossRef]
17. Ronan de Kervenoael, Jonathan Elms, Alan Hallsworth. 2014. Influencing online grocery innovation: Anti-choice as a trigger
for activity fragmentation and multi-tasking. Futures 62, 155-163. [CrossRef]
18. Francisco J. Martínez-López, Cintia Pla-García, Juan Carlos Gázquez-Abad, Inma Rodríguez-Ardura. 2014. Utilitarian
motivations in online consumption: Dimensional structure and scales. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 13:3,
188-204. [CrossRef]
19. Chechen LiaoDepartment of Information Management, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi, Taiwan Pui‐
Lai ToDepartment of Management Information Systems, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan Chuang‐Chun
LiuDepartment of Information Management, Shu‐Zen College of Medicine and Management, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2013. A
motivational model of blog usage. Online Information Review 37:4, 620-637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Sanghyun Kim, HyunSun Park. 2013. An Empirical Study on Individual and Social Commerce Factors Impacting Shopping
Value and Intention to Repurchase in Social Commerce and Moderating Effects of Perceived Security. Journal of the Korea
society of IT services 12:2, 31-53. [CrossRef]
21. Ling (Alice) JiangFaculty of Management and Administration, Macau University of Science and Technology, Taipa, Macau,
China Zhilin YangDepartment of Marketing, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Minjoon JunManagement
 Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA. 2013. Measuring consumer perceptions of online
shopping convenience. Journal of Service Management 24:2, 191-214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Marta Arce-Urriza, Javier Cebollada. 2013. Elección de canal de compra y estrategia multicanal: internet vs. tradicional.
Aplicación a la compra en una cadena de supermercados. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 16:2, 108-122.
[CrossRef]
23. Sadrudin A. Ahmed, Sergio Aguilar. 2013. Comparison of Canadian and Mexican Students' Online Shopping Behavior. Latin
American Business Review 14:1, 79-106. [CrossRef]
24. Enrico CollaNovancia Business School Paris, Paris, France Paul LapouleNovancia Business School Paris, Paris, France. 2012.
E‐commerce: exploring the critical success factors. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 40:11, 842-864.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Helen Eyles, Cliona Ni Mhurchu. 2012. Tailored nutrition education: is it really effective?. Public Health Nutrition 15:03,
561-566. [CrossRef]
26. Frank Goethals, Aurélie Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, Yazgi Tütüncü. 2012. French consumers' perceptions of the unattended
delivery model for e-grocery retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19:1, 133-139. [CrossRef]
27. Kim Willems, Gilbert Swinnen. 2011. Am I cheap? Testing the role of store personality and self-congruity in discount
retailing. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 21:5, 513-539. [CrossRef]
28. Weixing Li, Yibo WangConsumer Behavior, Expectation and Retail Sales in Service Economy: Based on Household Survey
Analysis 1-4. [CrossRef]
29. Purushottam Papatla. 2011. Do online shopping styles affect preferred site attributes? An empirical investigation and retailing
implications. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18:4, 362-369. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

30. Katsutoshi Yada. 2011. String analysis technique for shopping path in a supermarket. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems
36:3, 385-402. [CrossRef]
31. Gary Sacks, Kim Tikellis, Lynne Millar, Boyd Swinburn. 2011. Impact of ‘traffic-light’ nutrition information on online food
purchases in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 35:2, 122-126. [CrossRef]
32. Marta Arce-Urriza, José-Javier Cebollada-Calvo. 2011. Una comparación del comportamiento del consumidor en los canales
online y offline: sensibilidad al precio, lealtad de marca y efecto de las características del producto. Cuadernos de Economía
y Dirección de la Empresa 14:2, 102-111. [CrossRef]
33. Ling Jiang, Nan Jiang, Shixiong Liu. 2011. Consumer Perceptions of E-Service Convenience: An Exploratory Study. Procedia
Environmental Sciences 11, 406-410. [CrossRef]
34. Angel Herrero Crespo, Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque. 2010. The influence of the commercial features of the Internet on the
adoption of e-commerce by consumers. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9:6, 562-575. [CrossRef]
35. Virpi Timonen, Ciara O’Dwyer. 2010. ‘It is nice to see someone coming in’: Exploring the Social Objectives of Meals-on-
Wheels. Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement 29:03, 399-410. [CrossRef]
36. Cheryl T. Druehl, Evan L. Porteus. 2010. Strategic Product/Service Innovations of an Online Firm. Decision Sciences 41:3,
595-622. [CrossRef]
37. Sally Harridge‐MarchBoram ParkSchool of Merchandising and Hospitality Management, University of North Texas, Denton,
Texas, USA SooKyoung AhnSchool of Merchandising and Hospitality Management, University of North Texas, Denton,
Texas, USA HaeJung KimSchool of Merchandising and Hospitality Management, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas,
USA. 2010. Blogging: mediating impacts of flow on motivational behavior. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 4:1,
6-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Wei‐yu Kevin ChiangDepartment of Management Sciences, Faculty of Business, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon,
Hong Kong Zhen LiCollege of Business Administration, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA. 2010. An
analytic hierarchy process approach to assessing consumers' distribution channel preference. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 38:2, 78-96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Ritesh Chugh, Srimannarayana GrandhiElectronic retailing in Australia: A review of Australia's top 20 retailers 235-241.
[CrossRef]
40. Tak-Kee Hui, David Wan. 2009. Who are the online grocers?. The Service Industries Journal 29:11, 1479-1489. [CrossRef]
41. Chris HandDepartment of Strategy, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Kingston University Business School, Kingston upon
Thames, UK Francesca Dall'Olmo RileyDepartment of Strategy, Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Kingston University
Business School, Kingston upon Thames, UK Patricia HarrisDepartment of Strategy, Marketing and Entrepreneurship,
Kingston University Business School, Kingston upon Thames, UK Jaywant SinghDepartment of Strategy, Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, Kingston University Business School, Kingston upon Thames, UK Ruth RettieDepartment of Strategy,
Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Kingston University Business School, Kingston upon Thames, UK. 2009. Online grocery
shopping: the influence of situational factors. European Journal of Marketing 43:9/10, 1205-1219. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
 42. Karine Picot-Coupey, Elodie Huré, Gérard Cliquet, Christine Petr. 2009. Grocery shopping and the Internet: exploring
French consumers' perceptions of the ‘hypermarket’ and ‘cybermarket’ formats. The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research 19:4, 437-455. [CrossRef]
43. Dongdae Lee, Audhesh K. Paswan, Gopala Ganesh, M. J. Xavier. 2009. Outshopping Through the Internet: A Multicountry
Investigation. Journal of Global Marketing 22:1, 53-66. [CrossRef]
44. Junhong Chu, Pradeep Chintagunta, Javier Cebollada. 2008. Research Note—A Comparison of Within-Household Price
Sensitivity Across Online and Offline Channels. Marketing Science 27:2, 283-299. [CrossRef]
45. Torben Hansen. 2008. Consumer values, the theory of planned behaviour and online grocery shopping. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 32:2, 128-137. [CrossRef]
46. I.A. Rodríguez Del Bosque, Á. Herrero Crespo. 2008. Antecedentes de la utilidad percibida en la adopción del comercio
electrónico entre particulares y empresas. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 11:34, 107-134. [CrossRef]
47. Lydia Gan, Shujia He, Tingli Huang, Jiebin Tan. 2007. A comparative analysis of online grocery pricing in Singapore.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 6:4, 474-483. [CrossRef]
48. Pui-Lai To, Chechen Liao, Tzu-Hua Lin. 2007. Shopping motivations on Internet: A study based on utilitarian and hedonic
value. Technovation 27:12, 774-787. [CrossRef]
49. Amit BhatnagarLubar School of Business, University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2007. Do
determinants of online shopping differ for personal shoppers and professional shoppers?. EuroMed Journal of Business 2:1,
87-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Andrea M. Prud'hommeEli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
USA Kenneth K. BoyerEli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

USA G. Tomas M. HultEli Broad Graduate School of Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
USA. 2007. An analysis of operations‐oriented drivers of customer loyalty for two service channels. Direct Marketing: An
International Journal 1:2, 78-101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Thomas J. KullMichigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Ken BoyerMichigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA Roger CalantoneMichigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 2007. Last‐mile supply chain
efficiency: an analysis of learning curves in online ordering. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
27:4, 409-434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Kyösti PennanenDepartment of Marketing, University of Vaasa/Epanet,Vaasa, Finland Tarja TiainenDepartment of Computer
Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Harri T. LuomalaDepartment of Marketing, University of Vaasa/
Epanet,Vaasa, Finland. 2007. A qualitative exploration of a consumer's value‐based e‐trust building process. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal 10:1, 28-47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Neil F. Doherty and Fiona Ellis‐ChadwickYan HuangDepartment of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia Harmen OppewalDepartment of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia. 2006. Why consumers hesitate to shop online. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 34:4/5, 334-353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Neil F. Doherty and Fiona Ellis‐ChadwickRay HackneyManchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK Kevin
GrantGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK Grete BirtwistleGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. 2006.
The UK grocery business: towards a sustainable model for virtual markets. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 34:4/5, 354-368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Sendy Farag, Kevin J. Krizek, Martin Dijst. 2006. E‐Shopping and its Relationship with In‐store Shopping: Empirical
Evidence from the Netherlands and the USA. Transport Reviews 26:1, 43-61. [CrossRef]
56. Kim RamusMAPP – Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus,
Denmark Niels Asger NielsenMAPP – Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus School of
Business, Aarhus, Denmark. 2005. Online grocery retailing: what do consumers think?. Internet Research 15:3, 335-352.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Klaus G. GrunertMAPP – Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus,
Denmark Kim RamusMAPP – Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus School of Business,
Aarhus, Denmark. 2005. Consumers’ willingness to buy food through the internet. British Food Journal 107:6, 381-403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Angela C. Lyons, Brenda Cude, Frances C. Lawrence, Michael Gutter. 2005. Conducting Research Online: Challenges Facing
Researchers in Family and Consumer Sciences. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 33:4, 341-356. [CrossRef]
59. Torben HansenDepartment of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. 2005. Consumer adoption
of online grocery buying: a discriminant analysis. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 33:2, 101-121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Simon J Wilde, Stephen J Kelly, Don Scott. 2004. An exploratory investigation into e-tail image attributes important to
repeat, internet savvy customers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11:3, 131-139. [CrossRef]
 61. Efthymios ConstantinidesAssistant Professor at the University of Twente, Faculty of Business, Public Administration and
Technology, Department of Marketing, Strategy and Entrepreneurship, Enschede, The Netherlands. 2004. Influencing the
online consumer's behavior: the Web experience. Internet Research 14:2, 111-126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. Julie E. FrancisDoctoral student and scholarship recipient at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, Australia
Lesley WhiteAssociate Professor in Marketing, at Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, Australia. 2004.
Value across fulfillment‐product categories of Internet shopping. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 14:2/3,
226-234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Helen WhiteUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Elizabeth DanielSchool of Management, Cranfield University,
Cranfield, UK. 2004. The future of on‐line retailing in the UK: learning from experience. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
22:1, 10-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. R.B.M. de Koster. 2003. Distribution strategies for online retailers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50:4,
448-457. [CrossRef]
65. Steve Burt, Leigh Sparks. 2003. E-commerce and the retail process: a review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
10:5, 275-286. [CrossRef]
66. Bill MerrileesGriffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia Marie‐Louise FryUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle,
New South Wales, Australia. 2003. E‐trust: the influence of perceived interactivity on e‐retailing users. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning 21:2, 123-128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. E.W.T. NgaiDepartment of Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong,
People’s Republic of China. 2003. Internet marketing research (1987‐2000): a literature review and classification. European
Journal of Marketing 37:1/2, 24-49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

68. Alan C. McKinnonAlan C. McKinnon is Professor of Logistics at the Logistics Research Centre, Heriot‐Watt University,
Edinburgh, UK.Deepak TallamDeepak Tallam is a Research Associate, at the Logistics Research Centre, Heriot‐Watt
University, Edinburgh, UK.. 2003. Unattended delivery to the home: an assessment of the security implications. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 31:1, 30-41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Tino FenechTino Fenech is a Lecturer, Marketing (E‐commerce) at Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia..
2002. Exploratory study into wireless application protocol shopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
30:10, 482-497. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
70. Michelle A. MorganoskyMichelle A. Morganosky is Professor of Consumer and Retail Marketing in the Department of
Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA.Brenda J. CudeBrenda J. Cude is
Professor and Head of the Department of Housing and Consumer Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia,
USA.. 2002. Consumer demand for online food retailing: is it really a supply side issue?. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 30:10, 451-458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. René (Marinus) B.M. de KosterRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands. 2002. Distribution structures for food home shopping. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 32:5, 362-380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Bill Merrilees. 2002. Interactivity Design as the Key to Managing Customer Relations in E-Commerce. Journal of Relationship
Marketing 1:3-4, 111-126. [CrossRef]
73. Bill AnckarBill Anckar is Assistant Professor at the Institute for Advanced Management Systems Research, Abo Akademi
University, Turku, FinlandPirkko WaldenPirkko Walden is Professor based at the Institute for Advanced Management
Systems Research, Abo Akademi University, Turku, FinlandTawfik JelassiTawfik Jelassi is Professor at ENPC School of
International Management, Paris, France.. 2002. Creating customer value in online grocery shopping. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management 30:4, 211-220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Kari TanskanenKari Tanskanen is a Professor at the Department of Industrial Management, Helsinki University of
Technology, Helsinki, FinlandHannu YrjöläHannu Yrjölä is a Researcher at the Department of Industrial Management,
Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, FinlandJan HolmströmJan Holmström is a Senior Research Fellow at the
Department of Industrial Management, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.. 2002. The way to profitable
Internet grocery retailing – six lessons learned. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 30:4, 169-178.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Julia Bevan, Ruth Murphy. 2001. The nature of value created by UK online grocery retailers. Journal of Consumer Studies
and Home Economics 25:4, 279-289. [CrossRef]
76. Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2001. Innovation and Strategy in the Australian Supermarket Industry. Journal of Food Products
Marketing 7:4, 3-18. [CrossRef]
77. Vesa KämäräinenResearcher in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of
Technology, Finland.Johanna SmårosResearcher in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki
University of Technology, Finland.Jan HolmströmSenior Research Fellow in the Department of Industrial Engineering
and Management, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.Tomi JaakolaLogistics Designer at S‐Kanava Oy, Helsinki,
 Finland.. 2001. Cost‐effectiveness in the e‐grocery business. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 29:1,
41-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Paul WhysallPaul Whysall is Professor of Retailing at Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham, UK.. 2000. Retailing and the Internet: a review of ethical issues. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management 28:11, 481-489. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. S. Kurnia, U. Leimstoll, P. SchubertAn Evaluation of Australian and Swiss E-Shops in the Grocery Sector 191b-191b.
[CrossRef]
80. Ritesh Chugh, Srimannarayana GrandhiE-Tailing 297-313. [CrossRef]
81. S. Pekkola, J. Heikkila, V.K. TuunainenLaunching multi-modal interaction on an EC-site 2216-2224. [CrossRef]
82. Tuğçe Ozansoy Çadırcı, Şirin Gizem KöseAugmented Reality as a Tool to Enhance the Experiential Value of Online Shopping:
280-304. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Georgia At 10:21 09 August 2016 (PT)

View publication stats