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

net/publication/38174527

The role of situational variables in online grocery shopping in the UK

Article  in  The Marketing Review · March 2007

DOI: 10.1362/146934707X180703 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

24 1,895

4 authors, including:

Helen Robinson Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley

Kingston University London Kingston University London
19 PUBLICATIONS   243 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   1,948 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ruth Rettie
Kingston University London
79 PUBLICATIONS   1,818 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Online and store patronage behaviour View project

Brand extensions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francesca Dall'Olmo Riley on 02 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Role of Situational Variables in Online Grocery
Shopping in the UK
Helen Robinson, Kingston University, UK*
Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley, Kingston University, UK
Ruth Rettie, Kingston University, UK
Gill Rolls-Willson, Kingston University, UK

Previous research on e-grocery shopping has mainly been descriptive of online

purchase patterns and loyalty to brands, but little is known about what lies
behind these patterns. More research is needed on what motivates consumers
when shopping for groceries online. The aim of this study is to understand
the motivations and perceptions of UK online grocery shoppers. A qualitative
approach, using four discussion groups with internet grocery shoppers was
employed for this exploratory study. Life events emerged as the catalyst for
starting or stopping online shopping. While convenience was a motivation for
shopping online, issues of service quality, particularly surrounding deliveries,
made respondents frequently re-evaluate their decision of whether or not to
continue to shop online. Most respondents considered online shopping as a
complementary, rather than as an alternative mode of shopping for groceries,
with users continuing to make purchases in traditional stores, as well as online.
Our results have important implications for managers involved in the provision of
online grocery operations in the U.K. and indeed in other countries where online
shopping for grocery products is at an earlier stage of development.

Keywords Internet consumer behaviour, Online shopping, E-grocery

Introduction

According to Mintel (2003), the UK “has arguably the most developed

online grocery retail market in the world”, with more than 1.3 million people
shopping for groceries online (Daily Record 2004). The largest UK provider,
Tesco.com, is also the world’s biggest Internet grocery business (Finch 2001)
and has exported its online techniques to the USA, in a partnership deal with
Safeway, California’s biggest food retailer (The Economist 2001). However,
online grocery purchases are estimated to account for only 1% of the total UK
grocery market (Institute of Grocery Distribution 2004). The online grocery

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.

The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106 DOI 10.1362/146934707X180703
ISSN1469-347X print / ISSN 1472-1384 online ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.
90 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

sector in the UK can therefore be considered still at the early stages of the
adoption process, whereas online shopping in general is growing at a much
faster pace (Daily Telegraph 24th November 2005).
With most major supermarkets now competing online as well as offline,
competition in the UK is intensifying to offer added value services to online
customers, above and beyond the mere delivery of groceries. Indeed,
according to Småros et al. (2000) and Anckar et al. (2002), the provision of
value-added services is essential to sustain growth in the e-grocery industry.
The first step in the development process of such added value services should
be the examination of individual customers’ ‘demand chain’ i.e. their needs
and wishes during the stage preceding the acquisition of a good (Småros et
al. 2000).
Most research pertaining to internet grocery shopping has focused on
comparing online and offline purchase behaviour in terms, for instance, of
brand loyalty (e.g. Danaher et al. 2003); shopping behaviour (e.g. Andrews
and Currim 2004); the importance of brand names (e.g. Degeratu et al.
2000); and shopping motives (Rohm and Swaminathan 2004). More recently,
Ramus and Nielsen (2005) have investigated consumers’ perceptions of the
advantages and disadvantages of shopping online for groceries.
However, little has been done to date to understand the evolution of
consumers’ motivations, likes and dislikes when purchasing groceries online,
as they become more experienced with this mode of shopping. In this respect,
Morganosky and Cude’s (2000, 2001, 2002) longitudinal study of the
evolution of US consumers’ online grocery shopping habits is unique. More
analytical research on the satisfaction derived by consumers from the process
of purchasing groceries online continues to be advocated by researchers (e.g.
Elliot and Fowell 2000; Hansen et al. 2004). As Westbrook and Black (1985)
remarked: “the analysis of shopping motivation requires assessment of the
satisfaction which shopping activities provide, in addition to the utility and
satisfaction to be obtained from the merchandise purchased” (p. 85).
In this spirit and against the background of a growing, but still small,
UK e-grocery market and intensifying competition, our research provides
important insights into consumers’ motivations for adopting the online mode
of shopping for groceries, as well as into the dislikes which may threaten
further diffusion and growth.
In line with previous research we found that a major motivation for
purchasing groceries online is convenience, both in terms of being able
to shop at any time and of having bulky items delivered. However, life
events emerge as the catalyst for either starting or discontinuing online
grocery shopping, suggesting that adoption of online grocery shopping
is reconsidered in view of changing life events. Our findings suggest that
the online mode of shopping for groceries may be discretionary: it may be
abandoned when a particular trigger disappears or because consumers are
unhappy with service, but equally, it may be restarted as changing life events
create new triggers. This is possibly due to the fact that most online grocery
shoppers were found to never completely cease to shop in traditional grocery
stores, at least for some products. Switching between the two modes of
shopping hence appears to be the norm.
After a review of the relevant literature, we proceed to explain the research
methods used in this study and we discuss relevant results.
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 91

Theoretical Background

The adoption of innovations and motivational theories are the underpinnings

of our research. We provide below the highlights of the relevant literature
and relate pertinent issues to online grocery shopping.

The Process of Adoption

The general literature on the process of innovation adoption is well known.
The key issues are emphasised here, their relevance to the diffusion of online
grocery shopping is discussed and research needs are identified.
Robertson (1967) classifies innovations as continuous, dynamically
continuous and discontinuous. Crucially, discontinuous innovations not only
involve the adoption of a new product, but also cause buyers to significantly
alter their behaviour patterns. Based on Robertson’s typology, shopping
online for groceries can be classified as a discontinuous innovation, since
the behaviour pattern of selecting grocery items online is considerably
different from personally choosing items on display on a supermarket shelf.
This is particularly the case for produce such as fresh meat, fish, fruit and
vegetables, which are rich in sensory attributes (e.g. Morganosky and Cude
2000; Geuens et al. 2003).
The changes in behaviour patterns required by discontinuous innovations
imply that the process of adoption for such innovations may be lengthier
and possibly more problematic than for the other two types of innovations.
This would help to explain the relatively slow uptake of e-grocery shopping.
A better understanding of the extent to which consumers undertake
significant changes in their purchase behaviour patterns when shopping
online for groceries and the extent to which such changes are perceived to
be advantages or disadvantages, will be helpful to online grocery companies
seeking to facilitate and to speed up adoption.
Furthermore, consumers’ perceptions of the characteristics of an
innovation affect its rate of adoption (Mahajan et al. 1995, quoted in Verhoef
and Langerak 2001). According to Rogers (1983), the five characteristics of
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, divisibility and communicability
influence the rate of adoption of an innovation. In the context of the
adoption process of online grocery shopping, Verhoef and Langerak (2001)
investigated the effects of perceived relative advantage, compatibility
and complexity on consumers’ intentions to purchase groceries online.
Their results showed that consumer perceptions of the relative advantage
and compatibility of electronic grocery shopping positively influenced the
intention to adopt online grocery shopping. For example, busy consumers
regarded e-grocery as compatible with their shopping experiences, while
the physical effort associated with in-store shopping and time pressure
positively influenced the perceived relative advantage of shopping online.
Perceived convenience therefore emerged as a potentially decisive factor in
determining consumers’ perceived relative advantage and compatibility of
electronic grocery shopping. Finally, as expected, consumers’ perceptions of
the complexity of electronic grocery shopping had a negative influence on
their e-grocery intentions.
More recently Hansen (2005) found that US online grocery shopper
92 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

adopters attached higher compatibility, higher relative advantage, more

positive social norms and lower complexity to internet grocery shopping,
not only compared with consumers who had never bought anything on the
internet, but crucially, also compared with consumers who had purchased
other goods/services on the internet but not groceries. This finding suggests
that online shopping is not adopted per se, rather online shopping is adopted
in connection with specific product categories.
Morganosky and Cude’s (2000) and Geuens et al.’s (2003) findings that
many e-grocery shoppers tend to buy non-food items online but continue
to purchase fresh products in stores supports this. From similar evidence,
Hansen (2005) concluded that perceived compatibility with existing grocery
shopping patterns is the main differentiator of online grocery shoppers.
However, perceived compatibility appears to change over time, as shoppers
become more accustomed to the innovation. For instance, whilst Morganosky
and Cude (2000) found that only 20% of online shoppers bought all their
groceries online, follow up studies by the same authors showed that the
proportion of online shoppers buying all their groceries online increased 3
and 4 fold respectively after 1 and 2 years, suggesting that expertise with the
online mode of shopping may offset barriers arising from the characteristics
of the products (Morganosky and Cude 2002).
When Verhoef and Langerak conducted their study in the Netherlands
in 2001, the majority of the Dutch population did not have access to an
electronic grocery shopping service, hence their focus on intentions. More
research is needed on the perceptions of consumers who have already tried
e-grocery shopping. Whilst Morganosky and Cude’s and Hansen’s studies
are steps in this direction, we need to gain a more in-depth understanding
of individual consumers’ adoption processes, in terms of what motivated
them to try e-grocery shopping in the first place, what keeps them using the
new mode of shopping and possible reasons for discontinuing the adoption.
This kind of research will enable e-grocery managers not only to understand
their customers better, but also to ensure that the Internet shopping process
provided by grocery e-retailers is as compatible as possible with consumers’
entrenched habits of in store shopping (see Hansen 2005).
Within this perspective, motivational research is reviewed below.

Shopping Motivations and Shopping Orientation

The study of the motivational determinants of shopping behaviour is at least
half a century old. Amongst the earlier studies, Stone (1954) identified four
orientations or motives for shopping: economic/price; ethical; personalising/
service; and apathetic. A combination of personal and social motives was
found by Tauber (1972) to be the basis of shopping behaviour. Importantly,
Tauber suggested that shopping is motivated by the satisfaction arising
from shopping activities, as well as by the expected utility obtained from the
merchandise bought. Consistently, Westbrook and Black (1985) proposed
that the satisfaction derived from the process of shopping, as well as the
utility derived from its outcome, should be included in the analysis of
shopping motivation.
On these premises, an extensive body of research has focused on developing
a typology of shoppers, both in general (e.g. Bellenger and Korgaonkar
1980; Darden and Ashton 1974; Ezell and Russell 1985; Westbrook and
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 93

Black 1985; Williams et al. 1978; Williams et al. 1985) and in relation to
internet shopping in particular (e.g. Brown et al. 2003; Childers et al. 2001;
Fenech and O’Cass 2001; Rohm and Swaminathan 2004; Sénécal et al.
2002). The unifying characteristic of all these typologies of shoppers is the
essential distinction between a utilitarian or functional (goal and outcome
driven) versus a recreational or hedonic (process driven) motivation to shop.
However, the utilitarian and the hedonic motivations to shop can co-exist,
both offline (e.g. Dawson et al. 1990; Babin et al. 1994) and online (Brown
et al. 2003; Scarpi and Dall’Olmo Riley 2003).
Of particular interest to our study is Rohm and Swaminathan’s (2004)
typology of online shoppers into: convenience shoppers, variety seekers,
balanced buyers and store-oriented shoppers, based upon their predominant
shopping motivations. Convenience shoppers, variety seekers and balanced
buyers were found to exhibit a high propensity overall to shop online, but
with varying purchase frequencies, depending upon the product category
and in relation to their main shopping motivation. Contrary to expectations
from previous research (e.g. Corbett, 2001), time saving did not appear
to motivate consumers to shop online, possibly because of the time taken
to receive the goods. Therefore store oriented shoppers, who were mainly
motivated by immediate possession and by the desire for social interaction,
preferred to shop in stores. Consistently, Ramus and Nielsen (2005) found
that the loss of the recreational aspect of grocery shopping acted as a barrier
to the uptake of e-grocery.
Rohm and Swaminathan’s (2004) finding that variety seeking and
convenience are significant motivating factors for online shopping is
consistent with research findings by Morganosky and Cude (2000), Ramus
and Nielsen (2005) and Verhoef and Langerak (2001) in the specific context
of online grocery shopping. In addition, Morganosky and Cude (2000)
noted that convenience was an especially relevant motive when there were
situational constraints such as ill health or the presence of small children in
the household. This suggests that situational factors may also be important
in the study of online shopping motivations. Indeed, Gillett (1976) found
that most of the times in-home shopping was motivated by specific needs
or circumstances, such as avoiding an extra trip to pick up a needed item.
Yet, Belk’s (1975) observation that situational variables have gone largely
unheeded in consumer behaviour research is still valid today.
Finally, research findings concerning online shopping motives are broadly
consistent with earlier studies in the context of catalogue shopping, which have
identified functional motives relating to convenience, product assortment,
price and availability of unique products to be dominant (e.g. Jasper and Lan
1992; Korgaonkar 1984; Reynolds 1974; Januz 1983; Gillett 1976; Eastlick
and Feinberg 1999). Additionally, non functional motives relating to company
responsiveness and reputation have been found to influence the choice of
shopping mode - from home or in the store (Eastlick and Feinberg 1999).
However, the evidence on whether the lack of shopping enjoyment in store
motivates people to shop from home is not clear cut. Berkowitz et al. (1979)
and Reynolds (1974) contended that those who do not like shopping in store
would shop from home, but this was not supported by Eastlick and Feinberg’s
(1999) findings. Indeed, there is evidence that catalogue shoppers are also
frequent in-store shoppers (Gillett 1976; Lumpkin and Hawes 1985).
94 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

The evidence so far suggests that online grocery shoppers do not

completely give up shopping in traditional stores, at least for some products
(e.g. Geuens et al. 2003; Morganosky and Cude 2000, 2001, 2002).

Aims of Study and Research Design

Aims of the Study

If e-grocery shopping is to develop and the process of adoption is to
continue, we need to understand not only what motivates consumers to
start shopping online for groceries, but also the extent to which their online
shopping experience encourages them to continue doing or motivates them
to stop e-grocery shopping. Consequently, our research focuses on two main
areas: online grocery shopping motivations and the online grocery shopping
experience.

Online Shopping Motivations

Situational variables are generally neglected in motivational studies (e.g.
Belk 1975; Gillett 1976), although there is some evidence that situational
variables may be important in triggering the adoption of e-grocery shopping
(Morganosky and Cude 2000). Our first objective is therefore to understand
the role of situational variables in the adoption process of online grocery
shopping.
Secondly, we investigate the motivations for choosing a particular e-
grocery service provider and whether, once again, this choice is triggered by
situational variables or by ‘loyalty’ to a particular supermarket brand.
Last, but not least, we investigate consumers’ motivations for continuing
to shop online for groceries and the extent to which e-grocery shoppers
combine the online and offline shopping modes, as suggested in the literature
(e.g. Geuens et al. 2003; Morganosky and Cude 2000; 2001; 2002).

Online Shopping Experience

As mentioned earlier, Westbrook and Black (1985) remarked that the
satisfaction derived from the process of shopping, as well as the utility
derived from its outcome, should be included in the analysis of shopping
motivation.
Consistently, our second broad objective is to understand consumers’
perceptions of their online grocery shopping experience, from the moment
of placing the order to the receipt of the goods. This is important, firstly,
in order to understand the extent to which the e-grocery shopping process
is perceived by consumers as compatible with their entrenched habits of
in store shopping or whether it’s perceived as more difficult or stressful.
Secondly, a better understanding of the extent to which consumers undertake
significant changes in their purchase behaviour patterns when shopping
online for groceries and the extent to which such changes are perceived to
be advantages or disadvantages will be helpful to online grocery companies
seeking to facilitate and to speed up adoption.
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 95

Research Design
Qualitative research was deemed more appropriate than quantitative
research for this exploratory study. The research focuses on respondents’
general motivations and perceptions in the area of online grocery shopping.
Respondents may not be consciously aware of their behaviour in general.
Similarly, their motives and attitudes may not be pre-formed, but may need to
be co-constructed in interaction with the researcher (Wright Mills 1940). This
suggests that interactional qualitative research is appropriate. Focus groups
are used rather than individual depth interviews, as this method facilitates the
identification and interrogation of internal experience. “Because moderators
can challenge and probe for the most truthful responses, supporters
claim that qualitative research can yield a more in-depth analysis than that
produced by formal qualitative methods” (Mariampolski 1984, p21). Groups
are not intimidating for respondents, and shared experiences ‘spark off’
others (Gordon and Langmaid 1988). Focus groups “…can be especially
useful for topics where people are not in touch with or able to articulate
their motivations, feelings and opinions” (Morgan, 1988, p. 58).
Four 90 minute focus groups were held with 8 people in each group. The
32 respondents had all brought groceries online regularly, although some
were lapsed users. All respondents lived in Greater London, were over 25
years old and represented a broad mix in terms of age, occupation and family
life stage. They were recruited on the Internet by a professional recruitment
agency and received £35 as an incentive for attending the groups. The four
groups were purposefully recruited to include those at different stages in
the adoption cycle. The inclusion of a male group reflects their relative
importance in the market; men account for one third of online grocery
shopping (Verdict, 2004):

■ Female regular users

■ Female ‘mixed’ light and regular users
■ Male ‘mixed’ light and regular users.
■ Female light and lapsed users

Regular users were defined as those who shopped online for groceries once a
month or more with light users shopping less than once a month. The focus
groups were led by an experienced moderator. All groups were recorded but
not video-taped. The tapes were transcribed by a professional audio-typist.
Data analysis took place in two stages. Firstly, the group moderator
analysed the transcripts using paper coding and a thematic approach,
producing a report and presentation. In a further, supplementary analysis,
the transcripts and tapes were analysed by an analyst who coded the research
brief, transcripts and the research report using Qualrus software. The use of
CAQDAS (Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software) enabled a
more comprehensive analysis of our data, providing additional and more
detailed findings. Figure 1 in the Appendix depicts the research process.

Research Findings
We summarise our research findings, for the objectives stated above.
96 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

Online Shopping Motives

Situational variables
When questioned about their motivations for starting (or stopping) online
grocery shopping, situational variables appeared to be the dominant triggers.
In particular, many focus group participants mentioned that lifestyle changes
had led them to starting or stopping online grocery shopping. Moving house,
breaking a limb, getting a job or changing jobs, having a baby, leaving work,
working late, working at home, children leaving home, elderly parents dying,
getting a dog, getting a car were some of the many examples of reasons for
starting or stopping using Internet grocery shopping.

‘My sister has just had a baby and she shops online.’ (female light/
regular)

‘I broke my back four years ago, so it was then.’ (female regular)

‘I broke my arm.’ (female regular)

Significantly, situational variables appeared to be important triggers not only

for starting but, importantly, also for stopping to shop, or diminishing the
frequency of shopping online for groceries, particularly when the situation
had reverted back to normal. For example:

‘I had elderly parents, and it saved me having to go to the supermarket

all the time, I’d order on the Internet and it would get delivered to them
but they have passed away now so I don’t use it as often.’ (female light/
regular)

‘A friend of mine had a hip replacement...and she did all her shopping
online for a few months so it is very useful in that respect.’ (female light/
regular)

For some, moving house to an area where the habitual supermarket did
not have a physical presence had triggered shopping in the ‘virtual’ store.
Others had been influenced by advertising such as leaflets, coupons, TV ads,
banners and Air Miles.

Choice of internet service

Most respondents had chosen their internet delivery service from the
supermarket where they normally shopped because they liked and were
familiar with the range of goods sold. In addition, the loyalty card appears
to act as a switching barrier, partly because goods bought offline with a
loyalty card automatically appeared in the online ‘favourites’ list.

‘Well because I had a Tesco’s card and I used to use the Tesco’s store
anyway so I logged on to that one.’ (female light/lapsed)

‘I find sticking to Tesco’s is very quick because I use my basic shopping list
and just add on or remove bits.’ (female regular)
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 97

Many, particularly the regular users, had tried several suppliers (Asda,
Sainsburys, Tesco and Iceland) and found all very similar in terms of quality
of service and technical aspects of the websites with the exception of Ocado
which was considered superior, although it was possibly more difficult to set
up at the outset.

‘I’ve tried them all and basically I’ve found Ocado the best. Tesco really
were very disappointing, as was Sainsburys and Asda doesn’t deliver in my
area.’ (female regular)

Ongoing motivations
Convenience emerged as the dominant motivation for consumers to continue
to shop online. Convenience factors included; not having to take the children
out, not having to be physically active and saving time. For instance:

‘I’m starting to be regular, I never used to be. I do it mainly to save time as

I work quite late quite a lot and I don’t have time to shop at lunchtime, I
just don’t have the time.’ (female regular)

However, consistently with previous research (Rohm and Swaminathan

2004), not everyone thought that shopping on the Internet saved time.

‘Well you save travelling time but it is probably quicker to shop in store, it
is easier to get lost or distracted on the Internet.’ (female light/regular)

Whereas buying on the Internet in general was considered not only more
convenient but also cheaper, when buying groceries on the Internet, the prices
were the same. Although prices are not cheaper, it was generally agreed that
the Internet mode of buying made grocery shopping more organised and
the absence of impulse shopping made it more economical.

‘I think it is cheaper ordering than going shopping. I mean, the prices

aren’t cheaper but I spend less’. (female light/regular)

Online grocery shopping was considered ideal for heavy or bulky goods
such as cat litter, nappies, washing powder and toilet paper. However, most
respondents shopped personally for perishables or ‘important food’ such
as ingredients for a dinner party, fresh fruit, vegetables, meat and fish,
supporting earlier findings by Morganosky and Cude (2000).

‘I use them for bulk buying so they can cart it home rather than me carting
it home, things like bottled water, sacks of dog food, sacks of potatoes.’
(female regular)

‘For fruit and veg I think you have to see what you buy and feel it, the
fresh things.’ (female light/regular)

These findings support the suggestion that online grocery shoppers do not
give up completely shopping in traditional stores, but alternate the two
modes of shopping, at least for some products (e.g. Geuens et al. 2003).
98 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

The E-grocery Shopping Experience

All respondents were heavy users of the Internet and most had access to
broadband either at home and/or work. The majority of respondents found
shopping for groceries much less interesting or fun than ‘surfing the web’,
gambling or buying products such as CDs, books and holidays.
Some enjoyed shopping in supermarkets and found the online browsing
experience less satisfactory, as they did not come across interesting new
items and offers in the same way as when shopping in the store. There were
exceptions, however, for instance:

‘I changed my beer drinking habits through online shopping, because

we were just browsing and saw some really nice ales which normally you
just skip past them in the supermarket, you go to the deals and stuff,
but I thought, we’ll give that a go. That was November last year and
I’ve completely changed my beer drinking. It wasn’t something I would
normally look at, but it leapt out, and you could read a bit more, a bit
about it, and in the shop, you only read the labels, whereas you can
have a decent description of what you’re going to buy online’ (male light/
regular)

Overall, however, Internet grocery shopping was regarded as a chore rather

than a pleasure, but regular shoppers had reduced their ordering to a very
short time (10-15 minutes). This was helped by improved technology and the
use of a ‘favourites’ list, in line with previous research (Andrews and Currim
2004; Degeratu et al. 2000).

‘When you set up your account with Asda, the next time you logged on
it said hello, thank you for shopping with Asda, here’s a list of what you
bought last time.’ (female light/regular)

Suggestions for improvements to websites to make them more interesting

included: more illustrations; recipes; simulated stores/ games and dating
shopping.
Few respondents had a regular day or time for placing orders, sometimes
from home, sometimes from work, other times in the middle of the night.
Some placed their order when doing something else, e.g. e-mail or surfing
and did a little bit at a time while others wanted to complete the task of
online grocery shopping as quickly as possible. Orders may be placed less
regularly because of the need to justify the cost of delivery. Online orders
tended to be bigger as the motivation to place a specific order depended on
buying enough to avoid or justify the cost of delivery costs.

‘You don’t want to pay a fiver, particularly on a small shop. It’s quite a
percentage isn’t it?’ (female light/lapsed)
A number of areas of concern were raised by our respondents, who felt
that their online grocery providers could not be trusted to be reliable and
products were regularly omitted from the delivery. Substitute items were
often considered unsuitable and there was an awareness of differences in
service quality between orders supplied from the warehouse or from a local
store.
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 99

‘It’s not to be trusted if you want something specific because they make
mistakes and replace things completely arbitrarily.’ (male light/regular)

‘I have given up expecting to get what I’ve ordered.’ (female regular)

‘If you want a particular cheese, you go into a supermarket and if they
don’t have it, you go into another one but if you are relying on a delivery
coming and they don’t deliver it, you have to go out anyway so that
defeats the object of buying online.’ (female light/regular)

Unsatisfactory deliveries and incorrect orders were the main cause of

complaint and were given as the main reason for abandoning online grocery
shopping.
In contrast, a number of respondents admitted to feeling ‘slightly excited’
when opening their delivery as they had become accustomed to expecting
unexpected items to arrive or wanted to see what was missing. The majority
complained immediately when anything went wrong and got the full delivery
charges refunded.
Respondents found waiting for a delivery stressful, considered the standard
two-hour slot too long and many complained about late deliveries (cfr. Rohm
and Swaminathan 2004):

‘I find delivery quite stressful because you are anticipating them coming
and I find that quite stressful. The longer I have to wait the worse it gets,
I just get more and more stressed.’ (female light/regular)

The one-hour slot offered by Ocado was regarded as an attractive proposition.

There was also a suggestion that the ability to collect an already packed
order would be preferable to waiting for a delivery. Other worries raised by
respondents included bad picking and packing of goods and there were
concerns about perishables being too near to sell-by dates or not being kept
properly chilled in delivery vans.
Respondents felt that websites have gradually improved over time,
although search engines were criticised as ‘user unfriendly’ for infrequently
bought or new items. Pictures, which have recently been introduced, were
deemed to be of great help with ordering and were increasingly being used
to aid brand and product recognition. However, consistent with the literature
(e.g. Burke et al.1992), many shoppers found it difficult to envisage pack
sizes or quantity of product, compared with being able to see it on the
shelf and handle it in store, with weights (especially metric) being particularly
confusing.

‘One of the things I’ve found is I’m not familiar with weight. When I can
see something or pick it up, I can tell how much I need.....I can’t picture
it.’ (female light/regular)

Some respondents also noted that products which are available in store are
often not available on the Internet, such as ‘in season fruit’ and special offers
are often ‘sold out’ or not available online.
Those who used the ‘more expensive’ Ocado (Waitrose) had fewer
complaints because of the accuracy of the orders, good quality fresh fruit
and vegetables, one hour time slots to which they stuck, regular ‘little
100 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

presents’ and helpful delivery people who even took the bags into the house!
A few mentioned that they used their usual supermarket online service and
occasionally used Ocado ‘as a treat’. Ocado was frequently compared with
Marks and Spencer because of high quality and high prices.

Discussion

Online Shopping Motives

Our research has provided important insights into consumers’ motivations for
adopting the online mode of shopping for groceries, as well as the dislikes
which may threaten further diffusion and growth.
The key finding in our research is the importance of situational variables
in the decision to start and, crucially, also to stop buying groceries online.
Situational variables and life events in particular (e.g. having a baby, caring
for elderly parents) have emerged as the trigger for starting online grocery
shopping because of the convenience of this mode of shopping. The
importance of situational variables in triggering the adoption decision is
significant for several reasons.
Firstly, as noted in the literature review (e.g. Belk 1975; Gillett 1976),
situational variables have not received a great deal of attention in the study of
consumer behaviour. In the context of the adoption of innovation, situational
variables have at most been considered as potential barriers to adoption even
for people who would have been potential innovators. For instance, Engell
and Blackwell (1982, p. 394) noted: “An individual may possess a trait of
innovativeness but not actually be an adopter of the product. Situational
variables may prevent the person from adopting (trying and liking) the
product”.
Furthermore, our findings suggest that, at least in some circumstances,
the adoption of innovations does not follow the rational process postulated
in the relevant literature (e.g. Rogers 1983). Our respondents did not seem to
undertake a pre-adoption evaluation of the characteristics of the innovation
in terms of relative advantage, compatibility and complexity (e.g. Verhoef
and Langerak 2001), before deciding whether to start shopping for groceries
online. Rather, their decision was determined by the change in needs derived
from the new situation or circumstance.
Crucially, however, our findings also showed that when the situational
trigger ceased to exist, many consumers reverted to the traditional mode of
supermarket shopping. This suggests that the process of diffusion of the e-
grocery innovation by no means follows a smooth and continuous path, and,
at the individual level at least, is subject to situations in which consumers find
themselves.
Additionally, our findings indicated that the adoption decision is frequently
re-evaluated after the initial decision has been made. In this respect, post-
adoption evaluation appears crucial to the decision of whether to continue
with or to drop the innovation. Reverting back to the traditional mode of
shopping appears to be easy because many consumers never completely
cease to shop in traditional stores. This is consistent with Gillett’s (1976)
suggestion thirty years ago that in-home shoppers are not a captive market.
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 101

The E-grocery Shopping Experience

Morganosky and Cude (2001; 2002) reported that perceptions of online
grocery shoppers changed quickly over time, together with an increased
propensity to buy online and our research confirms these findings. There is
evidence of an increased acceptance by some respondents of the disadvantages
of online grocery shopping, for example, a willingness to accept unexpected
substitutions and becoming reconciled to waiting for deliveries.
Despite evidence of attitude changes as users become more used to online
grocery shopping, our research indicates that consumers still prefer to shop
personally for experiential ‘touchy feely’ products such as fruit and vegetables
or meat, fish and cheeses, confirming previous findings in this area. This
attitude suggests that online shopping should not be thought of as an
alternative, but as a complementary shopping mode, with users continuing
to purchase fresh products offline. Paradoxically, this creates an opening for
local specialist shops, and could conceivably reduce the concentration of
grocery shopping.
Overall, our findings support Hansen’s (2005, p. 115) suggestion that
online grocery retailers should “adapt to the daily life of consumers”, and
should comply with consumers’ existing grocery shopping patterns, needs
and habits.
Crucially, despite the persistence of online providers, the opportunity to
shop on the Internet does not appear to have changed consumers’ perceptions
towards grocery shopping as a chore and there is scope for enhancements
to websites to make them more exciting and interesting, for example, online
competitions and spot-prizes.

Conclusions and Managerial Implications

These, albeit preliminary, findings have important implications for e-grocery

providers in the UK and in other countries where the online grocery market
is currently at an earlier stage of development. In the UK, it appears that
existing providers should concentrate on service quality issues, particularly in
terms of delivery and should consider improvements to websites to make the
online grocery shopping experience easier, more stimulating and rewarding
for customers. This is very important because it suggests that the decision
to shop online is frequently re-evaluated, creating tangible opportunities for
conversion by online providers.
This finding has strong implications for online retailers, since lifestyle
changes can be used as a basis for marketing communications content
and advertising targeting, for instance, by using magazines directed at new
parents or a promotion in conjunction with estate agents for people who
have recently moved. In addition, it suggests an opportunity for re-attracting
new users; quoting from the moderator’s research report “those who had
stopped using it still wanted the service to remain available because they
intended to use it again either when their lifestyle changed or when the
service had improved enough to be usable.” An obvious direct marketing
opportunity is available here, by e-mailing lapsed users, a strategy currently
being exploited by Ocado.
102 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

Our findings may enable e-grocery providers in other countries to

accelerate their market’s development, learning from the experiences of
the more ‘expert’ UK consumers and providers. Firstly, tangible incentives
to starting online grocery shopping should be offered, in line with life stage
events (having a child) or a crisis (breaking a leg) as triggers. Furthermore,
even small rewards such as regular ‘little presents’ have been shown to
contribute to the improvement of the experience of an inherently tedious
shopping routine.

Limitations

The limitations of this study are those associated with qualitative research
methods. The research involved a quota sample of only 32 respondents who
may not be representative of online grocery shoppers in general. In addition,
in focus groups, respondents may be unduly influenced by other respondents.
However, the research adopted the relatively unusual process of two stages
of analysis, and the use of CAQDAS was valuable as a supplementary analysis
leading to a more comprehensive scrutiny of our data.

References

Anckar,B., Walden, P. and Jelassi, T. (2002), “Creating customer value in online grocery
shopping”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution, 30 (4), pp. 211-220.
Andrews, R.L. and Currim, I.S. (2004), “Behavioural differences between consumers
attracted to shopping online versus traditional supermarkets: implications for
enterprise design and marketing strategy”, International Journal of Internet
Marketing and Advertising, 1 (1), pp. 38-61.
Babin, B.J.; Darden, W.R. & Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, pp. 644-656.
Belk, R.W. (1975) “Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior”. Journal of Consumer
Research (December), pp. 157-164.
Bellenger, D.N. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (1980), “Profiling the Recreational Shopper”,
Journal of Retailing, 56 (fall), pp. 77-91.
Berkowitz, E.N., Walton, J.R. and Walker, O.C. (1979), “In-Home Shoppers: The
Market for Innovative Distribution Systems”, Journal of Retailing, 55 (Summer),
pp. 15-33.
Brown, M., Pope, N., and Voges, K. (2003), “Buying or browsing? An exploration
of shopping orientations and online purchase intention”, European Journal of
Marketing, 37 (11/12), pp. 1666-1684.
Burke, R.R., Harlam, B.A., Kahn, B., and Lodish, L.M. (1992), “Comparing dynamic
consumer choice in real and computer-simulated environments”, Journal of
Consumer Research 19, pp. 71-82.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian
motivations for online retail shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, 77, pp.
511-535
Corbett, J.J. (2001), “Is online grocery shopping increasing in strength?”, Journal of
Food Distribution Research, 32, (1), pp. 37-40
Daily Record (2004), “Online grocers ‘failing to deliver’”, Oct. 8, p. 15.
Daily Telegraph (2005), “Online spending to reach £5 billion”, Nov. 24
Danaher, P.J., Wilson, I.W. and Davis, R. A., (2003), “A Comparison of Online and
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 103

Offline Consumer Brand Loyalty”, Marketing Science, 22, (4), pp. 461-476.
Darden, W.R. and Ashton, D. (1974), “Psychographic Profiles of Patronage Preference
Groups”, Journal of Retailing, 50, (4), pp. 99-112.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H. and Ridgway, N.M. (1990), “Shopping Motives, Emotional
States, and Retail Outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, 66, (4), pp. 408-427.
Degeratu, A., Rangaswamy, A. and Wu, J. (2000), “Consumer choice behavior in
online and traditional supermarkets: the effects of brand name, price and other
search attributes”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17, (1), 55-78.
Eastlick, M.A. and Feinberg, R.A. (1999), “Shopping Motives for Mail Catalog
Shopping”, Journal of Business Research, 45, pp. 281-290.
Elliot, S. and Fowell, S. (2000), “Expectations versus reality: a snapshot of consumer
experiences with Internet retailing”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 20, pp. 323-336.
Ezell, H.F. and Russell, G.D. (1985), “Single and Multiple Person Household Shoppers:
A Focus on Grocery Store Selection Criteria and Grocery Shopping Attitudes and
Behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13, (1), pp. 171-187.
Fenech, T. and O’Cass, A. (2001), “Internet users’ adoption of Web retailing: user and
product dimensions”. Journal of Product & Brand management, 10.
Finch, J. (2001), “E-grocery sales soar in Britain: Tesco.com leads the way as shoppers
decide cyberpower eases the burden”, The Guardian, Feb. 23, p. 28.
Geuens, M., Brengman, M. and S’Jegers, R. (2003), “Food retailing, now and in the
future. A consumer perspective”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10,
pp. 241-251.
Gillett, P.L. (1976), “In-home Shoppers – An Overview”, Journal of Marketing, 40,
(October), pp. 81-88.
Gordon, W and Langmaid, R. (1988), Qualitative Market Research, Aldershot:
Gower.
Hansen, T. (2005), “Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant
analysis”, International Journal of Retailing and Distribution Management, 33, (2),
pp. 101-121
Hansen, T., Jensen, J.M. and Solgaard, H. S. (2004), “Predicting online grocery buying
intention: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned
behaviour”, International Journal of Information Management, 24, pp. 539-550.
Institute of Grocery Distribution, (2004), Private correspondence with authors.
Januz, L.R. (1983), “It’s Helpful to Know Who is Purchasing Through the Mail”,
Marketing News, 17, (August), p. 4.
Jasper, C.R. and Lan, P.N.R. (1992), “Apparel catalog Patronage: Demographic,
Lifestyle and Motivational Factors”, Psychology and Marketing, 9, (July/August),
pp. 275-296.
Korgaonkar, P.K. (1984), “Consumer Shopping Orientations, Non-Store Retailers,
and Consumer Patronage Intentions: A Multivariate Investigation”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 12, (Winter), pp. 11-22.
Lumpkin, J.R. and Hawes, J.M. (1985), “Retailing without Stores: An Examination of
Catalog Shoppers”, Journal of Business Research, 13, pp. 139-151
Mahajan, V., Muller, R. and Bass, F.M. (1995), “Diffusion of new products: empirical
generalizations and managerial uses”, Management Science, 14, (3), pp. 79-89.
Mintel International Group Limited, (2003), Home Shopping – UK – December
2003.
Mariampolski, H. (1984), “The resurgence of qualitative research”, Public Relations
Journal, 40, (7) pp. 21-23.
Morgan, D.L. (1998), In: Morgan, D.L. and Kreuger, R.A, (eds.), The focus group
guidebook (The Focus Group Kit), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Morganosky, M.A. and Cude, B.J. (2000), “Consumer response to online grocery
shopping”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 28, (1),
pp. 17-26.
104 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

Morganosky, M.A. and Cude, B.J. (2001), “Consumer response to online food
retailing”, Journal of Food Distribution Research, 32, (1), pp. 5-17.
Morganosky, M.A. and Cude, B.J. (2002), “Consumer demand for online food retailing:
is it really a supply side issue?”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 30, (10), pp. 451-458.
Ramus, K. and Nielsen, N.A. (2005), “Online grocery retailing: what do consumers
think?”, Internet Research, 15, (3), pp. 335-352.
Reynolds, F.D. (1974), “An Analysis of Catalog Buying Behavior”, Journal of Marketing,
38, (July), pp. 48.
Ring, L.J. and Tigert, D.J. 2001, “Viewpoint: the decline and fall of Internet grocery
retailers”, International Journal of Retailing and Distribution Management , 29, (6)
pp. 266-273.
Robertson, T.S. (1967), “The Process of Innovation and the Diffusion of Innovation”,
Journal of Marketing, 31, (January), pp. 14-19.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of innovations, New York: The Free Press.
Rohm, A.J. and Swaminathan V. (2004), “A typology of online shoppers based on
shopping motivations”, Journal of Business Research, 57, pp. 748-757.
Scarpi, D. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (2003), “Hedomism on the wire?”, 32nd European
Marketing Academy (EMAC) Conference Proceedings, Glasgow, May 2003.
Sénécal, S.; Gharbi, J.E. and Nantel, J. (2002), “The Influence of Flow on Hedonic and
Utilitarian Shopping Values”, Advances in Consumer Research, 29, pp. 483-484.
Småros, J., Holmström, J. and Kämäräinen, V. (2000), “New Service Opportunities in
the E-grocery Business”, International Journal of Logistics Management, 11, (1),
pp. 61-73.
Stone, G.P. (1954), “City Shoppers and Urban Identification. Observation on the Social
Psychology of City Life”, American Journal of Sociology, 60, (July), pp. 36-45.
Tauber, E.M. (1972), “Why do people shop?”, Journal of Marketing, 36 (October),
pp. 46-49.
The Economist (2001),“Surfing USA“, June 28th.
Verhoef, P.C. and Langerack, F. (2001), “Possible determinants of consumers’
adoption of electronic grocery shopping in the Netherlands”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 8, pp. 275-285.
Westbrook, R.A. and Black, W.C. (1985), “A Motivation-Based Shopper Typology”,
Journal of Retailing, 61, (1), pp. 78-103.
Williams, R.H., Painter, J.J. and Nicholas, H.R. (1978), “A Policy-Oriented Typology of
Grocery Shoppers”, Journal of Retailing, 54, (1), pp. 27-42.
Williams, T., Slama, M. and Rogers, J. (1985), “Behavioral Characteristics of the
Recreational Shopper and Implications for Retail Management”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 13, (3), 307-316.
 Robinson, Dall’Olmo Riley, Rettie & Rolls-Willson Role of Situational Variables 105

APPENDIX
FIGURE 1 Diagram of Research Process

Four Focus Groups

Audio Tapes

Transcriptions

Paper Coding Qualrus Coding

Analysed by Analysed by
Moderator Second Researcher

Presentation DIfferences
Discussed with
Moderator

Report

Analysis of Value
of Additional
Qualrus Analysis

About the Authors and Correspondence

Helen Robinson Author bio for in here please

Corresponding Author: Helen Robinson, Kingston Business School,
Kingston University, Kingston Hill Centre, Kingston-upon Thames, Surrey,
KT2 7LB, UK.
T +44 xxx
F +44 xxx
E h.r.robinson@kingston.ac.uk

Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley, author bio for in here please

Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley, Kingston Business School, Kingston University,
 106 The Marketing Review, 2007, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 89-106

Kingston Hill Centre, Kingston-upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 7LB, UK.

Ruth Rettie author bio for in here please

Ruth Rettie, Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston Hill
Centre, Kingston-upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 7LB, UK.

Gill Rolls-Willson, author bio for in here please

Gill Rolls-Willson, Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston
Hill Centre, Kingston-upon Thames, Surrey, KT2 7LB, UK.

View publication stats