Summarizing the articles

Consumer reactions toward clicks and bricks: investigating buying behaviour on-line and at stores

GLENN J. BROWNE, JOHN R. DURRETT and JAMES C. WETHERBE

Area of ISQS, Rawls College of Business Administration, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-2101, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The development of the world wide web created a new sales channel for retailers, and many thousands of companies have attempted to take advantage of this new method for reaching customers. Analysis of the 2000 stock market collapse suggests that business models relying on both internet (‘clicks’) and physical (‘bricks’) presences may be the most successful. Internet business problems include the need to structure internal and external business processes to serve customers appropriately, the need to provide adequate technological and physical infrastructures, and the need to understand customer consumption processes in ‘virtual’ and physical environments. The purpose of this research is to provide insight into these problems by investigating consumer beliefs and preferences about shopping on-line and in physical stores. We developed a research model and then performed an empirical investigation using two studies. Results and implica- tions of the findings for business strategy are discussed.

1. Introduction

Technological advances in the 1990s enabled entirely new ways of conducting business in the US and throughout the world. Of particular importance was the World Wide Web, an enhancement of the internet that allowed consumers and businesses to communicate in ways that were previously unavailable and perhaps even unthinkable. From the mid-1990s to early 2000, the focus of businesses was primarily on the opportu- nities provided by the new internet capabilities. Following the ‘dot-com’ crash in early 2000, however, businesses began to recognize the problems associated with doing business on the internet. From this point onward, much of investors’ and the media’s focus shifted to companies with both internet and ‘brick and mortar’ presences.

Numerous researchers have investigated on-line buy- ing behaviour over the past several years (e.g., Jarvenpaa and Todd 1997, Lohse et al. 1997, Bellman et al. 1999, Lohse and Spiller 1999, Swaminathan et al. 1999, Bhatnagar et al. 2000, Chau et al. 2000, Palmer et al. 2000, Ratchford et al. 2001). However, little research has addressed relationships between on-line purchasing (‘clicks’) and purchases made at physical stores (‘bricks’). The purpose of this paper is to report the results of two exploratory studies designed to assess consumers’ reactions to shopping at clicks and bricks. We first review background relevant to the two shopping channels and the challenges faced by compa- nies operating in the on-line environment. We next develop a research model and research questions to guide our investigations. We then report the results of a large survey aimed at uncovering several of the relation- ships specified in the model, as well as a study of a single retailer operating in both the clicks and bricks environ- ments. These studies provide insights into consumers’ experiences with shopping on-line and at physical locations, as well guidance as to how retailers can take maximum advantage of the two shopping channels.

2. Background

2.1. The dot-com explosion and implosion

The end of the 1990s witnessed an explosion in the number of companies that promised to sell only on the internet. The US stock market fell in love with these so- called ‘dot-coms’, pushing prices for shares in such companies to stratospheric heights. For example,

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, JULY–AUGUST 2004, VOL. 23, NO. 4, 237–245

Behaviour & Information Technology ISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/01449290410001685411

Amazon.com, an icon of internet-only companies, at one point had a stock market capitalization of $23 billion, twice that of Barnes and Noble, even though the latter had three times the sales of Amazon. In the year 2000, however, the stock market suddenly re-valued technology companies, including the dot-coms, and stock prices and the stock market as a whole dropped dramatically. What happened? Was buying and selling goods on the

internet not such a good idea after all? After the dot- com crash, several facts seem clear. The internet has changed fundamentally the ways that most companies do business, because it has enabled communication and transaction capabilities that can dramatically lower costs for both consumers and vendors. However, the internet has not removed the need for face-to-face and voice-to-voice contact between people. It has not reduced the importance of customer service before and after sales. It has not removed the need for competent and responsible management, be it in logistics, market- ing, or employee relations. Much of the dot-com boom was fueled by overreaching expectations about the changes to the ways of doing business that the internet would bring. The dot-com crash was due to a realization by investors that many of these expectations were not reasonable. In forecasting the long-run success of the retail

segment of internet sales, it is arguable at this point that most successful retailers will have both internet sites and physical retail locations. (Potential exceptions include retailers that deal primarily in information, such as travel brokers and some financial services companies. For catalogue retailers, the internet has generally been an enhancement to the business). For every internet- only company faring at least reasonably well financially (e.g., eBay, Amazon, Expedia), there are dozens of established retailers with physical stores that have developed internet presences as well. Funding for internet-only companies, whether from venture capital, loans, or stock valuations, has slowed dramatically. Established physical retailers, on the other hand, can use capital and cash flow from their physical operations to fund on-line ventures.

2.2. Issues and challenges for internet sites

All internet retailers, be they internet-only companies or companies with clicks and bricks, currently face a number of barriers to success. One problem with purchasing goods and services on-line is that technique lags technology (that is, business processes and indivi- dual behaviours change more slowly than the enabling technologies). This problem is not new. For example,

from the 1950s through to the 1980s, traditional mainframe computers and personal computers were used to automate old ways of doing business. It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that traditional information technology was used in truly novel ways. Successful reengineering efforts changed internal busi- ness processes by integrating business functions and eliminating non-value-added, time-consuming steps. For instance, Ford Motor Company cut its accounts payable department personnel by 75% in the late 1980s by streamlining processes (Jarvenpaa and Todd 1997). Through reengineering, technique had finally caught up to technology (or at least the technology of the 1980s).

With the internet, technique is again struggling to catch technology. However, the internet requires process transformations that are both internal and external. That is, rather than focusing only on changes to the internal processes of organisations (‘producer pro- cesses’), the internet also enables changes to the external processes of customers (‘consumption processes’) (Wetherbe 1998). A consumption process is a series of steps and tasks that people use to fulfill a need. An example of a consumption process is the process of purchasing a home in a new state. From a consumer’s perspective, this is a fragmented, lengthy, multi-step process that includes locating a city, selecting a neighbourhood, finding a real estate agent, shopping for homes, securing a mortgage, buying homeowner’s insurance, finding a home inspector, choosing a moving company, etc. And the consumption process does not end when the house is purchased. Furniture, appliances, carpeting, and security systems must be purchased; doctors, dentists, and baby sitters must be located; plumbers and electricians often must be found. Thus, a consumption process extends beyond the identification and purchase of goods and services that collectively meet a need to the successful use and maintenance of those goods and services.

The burden of the consumption process has tradi- tionally fallen on the consumer. For most consumption processes, the internet provides an unprecedented opportunity to transform and alleviate that burden (Champy et al. 1996). Companies that can leverage the internet and transform consumption processes that are critical, difficult, and costly for consumers will be handsomely rewarded. For the process of establishing a residence, a consortia of real estate companies, mortgage companies, insurance companies, moving companies, and other parties have joined to bring all their products and services to one website to transform the process and make it more efficient and more effective for consumers (e.g., www.realtor.com). In fact, in many industries, ‘electronic community developers’ are aggre-

238 G. J. Browne et al.

gating a range of consumer products and services that collectively improve a consumption process such as buying a home, finding entertainment for an evening, purchasing a car, and finding a job. This trend will continue as companies improve their understanding of consumers’ consumption processes. Although most of the technology to permit safe and

easy on-line shopping is available, adoption of the means to take advantage of these technologies is lagging. First, there are infrastructure adoption issues. From the consumer’s point of view, computers are now in about 70% of US homes and are widely available in schools and libraries as well (Pew Internet and American Life Project 2003). As of early 2004, data show that internet penetration has reached 62% in North America (including 63% in the US and 53% in Canada), 28% in Europe (but with high numbers in northern and western Europe, e.g., 77% in Sweden, 66% in the Netherlands, and 59% in the UK), and similar penetration in other developed countries (e.g., 64% in Australia, 62% in South Korea, 50% in New Zealand, and 45% in Japan) (Internet Usage Statistics 2004). However, while the world growth rate for internet penetration between 2000 and 2004 has been 100%, there is still considerable room for growth; total world penetration is currently just 11.1% (Internet Usage Statistics 2004). Further, given that most consumers do not yet have high speed connections (e.g., currently 38% of US home internet users (Sharma 2004) and 28% of home users in Europe (Nielsen Net Ratings 2003)), on-line shopping is relatively slow and difficult with the still-standard telephone telecommunications connections. From the vendor’s standpoint, there are also numer-

ous infrastructure issues. Sometimes there is a need or opportunity to re-structure an entire company because of the possibilities offered by the internet. This fact shows the causality behind the initial explosion of internet-only companies. In cases in which a successful business has created a viable web presence, it has been required to make significant changes to its technology infrastructures and/or its internal and external business processes. For example, FedEx has developed and implemented a system that allows both customers and vendors to process returns of items purchased on the internet (Brooks 2001). On-line tracking of orders is an example of a new process enabled by the internet. In the past, tracking orders of books, compact disks, and similar items was not a service offered by anyone. Finally, some vendors have changed business pro-

cesses at their physical store locations in an attempt to benefit from a perceived disadvantage of buying on line. For example, Wal-Mart’s just-in-time inventory man- agement system is designed to ensure that items at its physical stores are never out of stock. This allows

customers to be able to see a product before purchasing, which is a commonly stated disadvantage of shopping on-line (discussed below). However, these and other changes are works in progress at many vendor organisations.

The second adoption issue is that both consumers and vendors are in a learning stage concerning internet shopping. Many consumers have yet to adopt the personal habits necessary for on-line shopping, and many more who have at least embraced the internet for acquiring information still do not use it as a means for purchasing products and services. In fact, the most recent data (August 2003) from the US Commerce Department showed that internet purchases represent just 1.5% of all sales transactions, although the sales channel is growing at about 27% per annum (www.com- merce.gov 2003). The percentage is expected to rise to only 8% of retail sales by 2008 (Forrester Research 2003). In the UK, internet sales currently represent 7% of all transactions, and are growing about 50% per year (IMRG 2003). Thus, although growth is robust, the vast majority of retail sales are still made using other channels, primarily physical stores.

Finally, many vendors do not sell on-line, and most of those that do are still experiencing a learning curve about how to present and sell their products. However, despite these limitations to on-line shopping, all avail- able evidence suggests that purchases on the internet will increase dramatically in the next few years. As the technological infrastructure improves, consumers will become more comfortable shopping on-line, and ven- dors will learn how to take advantage of the internet’s strengths to market and sell goods and services more effectively (Burrows 2001).

3. Research format

3.1. Model and questions

Using this background, we developed a research model to guide our investigations. The model appears in figure 1. Of interest are the relationships between consumers and purchases made on-line and at physical stores. We also propose an intervening variable, perceived advantages and disadvantages about shop- ping, which may influence consumers’ preferences about where to shop. Finally, we are also interested in the direct relationship between shopping on-line and shop- ping at stores.

Because this is an exploratory study, we did not formulate hypotheses. Nor do we attempt to measure all important aspects of constructs and relationships used in the model. These and other measures are left for

239Consumer reactions toward clicks and bricks

future research. Instead, we identified research questions based on our model. The research questions of interest in the study were as follows:

(1) (a) Are consumers actually making purchases on-line?;

(b) What items do consumers purchase most often on-line, and from which vendors?;

(c) Do consumers prefer to purchase goods on- line or in physical stores?;

(d) What is the perceived importance of on-line sellers also having physical presences?;

(2) (a) What are the perceived advantages and disadvantages to purchasing on-line?;

(3) (a) What are reasons for visiting a company’s website prior to making a purchase at a physical store?;

(b) What is the impact of website visits prior to purchasing at a physical store?

Answers to these questions have important implica- tions for all the issues noted above, namely, reengineer- ing internal and external business processes, building appropriate technological and physical infrastructures, and understanding consumption processes. The rela- tionships addressed by the research questions are designated by number and letter on figure 1. We now present the results of two studies designed to answer these research questions.

3.2. Methodology

Our first study was conducted with a sample of 605 college students between the ages of 18 and 25. The students were recruited from a large introductory business class, and no known biases were present in the sample. We chose members of the so-called

‘Generation Y’, since people in this group are more likely to be technologically savvy and are also heavy shoppers on the internet (Newborne 1999).

Although a few past studies have investigated factors important to on-line shopping (e.g., Swaminathan et al. 1999, Bhatnayer et al. 2000), we view many character- istics of shopping on-line as exploratory research rather than confirmatory. This viewpoint provides a particu- larly important perspective due to the rapidly changing nature of both features of the internet shopping environment and the demographics of on-line shoppers. Because of our exploratory approach, we first convened a group of 30 Generation Y students and asked them individually to list advantages and disadvantages of shopping on-line, and to list categories of products they had purchased on-line. We then assembled the students into groups of 4 – 5 people and asked each group to discuss their members’ individual lists and to generate a composite list from the group. The individual and group lists were then analysed by the authors to create lists for the questionnaire to be used in the study. Advantages and disadvantages mentioned by at least 20% of the students were included in the questionnaire. The categories listed were modified and combined by the authors using their judgment and knowledge of general retail categories. A questionnaire was then prepared with questions relating to respondents’ on-line pur- chases within the past year, perceived advantages and disadvantages of purchasing on-line and in physical stores, and where they prefer to learn about and purchase products. This questionnaire was then com- pleted by 605 Generation Y students, none of whom had participated in the prior session.

To answer our research questions more fully, parti- cularly questions 2 and 3, we also report and analyse some secondary data collected by NFO Research, Inc. These data are formerly propriety data that have not appeared publicly prior to this paper.

Figure 1. Research model.

240 G. J. Browne et al.

4. Results

4.1. Generation Y study

Of the 605 participants in our Generation Y study, 51% had purchased goods or services on the world wide web during the past 12 months. Categories of items purchased most often on line included clothing (21% of participants), travel (14%), computers and related equipment (13%), audio disks (12%), and books (10%). Table 1 provides complete information. Vendors

preferred by participants included Amazon (48 unique customers from our sample), Southwest Airlines (40 unique customers), Dell Computer (31 unique custo- mers), Gap (27 unique customers), and Best Buy (11 unique customers). These results suggest a need to profile shoppers to understand why certain categories and vendors are succeeding in on-line shopping and why others are failing. The results provide insights into research questions 1a and b.

One of the survey’s fundamental questions asked people their preferences about purchasing on-line or in physical stores. In response to this question, 73% of our participants stated that they would rather purchase at physical stores than on line, even if they liked to learn about products on the internet (see figure 2). Only 21% preferred to purchase on line. Even among those people who had shopped on-line in the past year, 58% of people preferred to make purchases at physical stores. These results help explain the demise of many internet- only retailers; many were used just for information and not for purchases. On the other hand, the 21% of people preferring to purchase on-line may represent a real opportunity, since, as noted, only small percentages of retail goods and services are currently purchased on-line (e.g., 1.5% in the US and 7% in the UK). These results offer conclusions about research question 1c.

Participants judged having physical stores as very important for big-ticket items such as automobiles, computers, and appliances. They also judged having physical stores as very important for clothing (presum- ably because it is often returned) and for groceries. Participants judged having physical stores much less

Figure 2. Preferences about where to learn about products and where to shop.

Table 1. Number of purchasers of products during last 12 months, by category.

Category Unique

Purchasers % of Sample

Clothing 126 20.8% Travel 82 13.6% Computers/computer equipment 81 13.4% Compact disks 74 12.2% Books 62 10.2% Internet services 50 8.3% Software 38 6.3% Videotapes/DVDs 38 6.3% Investments 29 4.8% Audio and video equipment 27 4.5% Household items 25 4.1% Toys 19 3.1% Appliances 13 2.1% Groceries 11 1.8% Telephones/Fax 8 1.3% Automobiles 7 1.2%

241Consumer reactions toward clicks and bricks

important for books, toys, household items, travel, and internet services. For books, toys, and household items, it is likely that the low cost is a factor in participants’ judgments. For travel, it seems likely that since people purchase so much travel from ‘virtual’ vendors already, they were unconcerned with travel sources’ physical locations. Table 2 shows complete information. These results are offered as evidence for research question 1d. We also asked people their perceptions about the

advantages and disadvantages of purchasing on-line (see tables 2 and 3). The most commonly listed advantages were the ability to shop from home (named by 43% of participants), the ability to shop any time (35% of participants), that it saves time (23% of participants), and that a person can locate hard-to-find items (22% of

participants). These results indicate that the main perceived advantages to purchasing on the internet are related to convenience. This is not surprising, since prior shop-at-home services such as catalogues (e.g., for clothing) and in-house parties and demonstrations (e.g., Tupperware, vacuum cleaners) also emphasized convenience factors.

The most commonly listed disadvantages of purchas- ing on-line were the inability to see items before purchasing (named by 36% of participants), discomfort with the security of the transaction (34% of partici- pants), and difficulty in returning items (23% of participants). The responses concerning disadvantages show more variability than do the advantages. Some relate to convenience (returning items), but others are concerned with the ‘virtual’ nature of the transaction (inability to examine the items before purchasing and concerns about security). These data concerning per- ceived advantages and disadvantages provide evidence for research question 2.

4.1.1. Click and brick buying behaviour – Data from Best Buy Co., Inc. In this section we report the results of a study undertaken for Best Buy Co., Inc., the leading US electronics retailing firm, which is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. With more than 400 retail stores nationwide, annual sales approaching $20 billion, and an internet presence at BestBuy.com, the company is keenly interested in improving its understanding of consumer purchasing preferences at its physical stores, its internet site, and at combinations of the two.

Of primary interest in the study were the interaction between brick and click shopping experiences and the impact of visits to the internet site on purchasing behaviours at the physical stores (as reflected in research questions 3a and 3b). It is interesting to note that in our Generation Y study, at least 70% of respondents judged having physical locations somewhat important or extremely important for most of the product categories in which Best Buy sells (table 4). Further, 39% of the Gen Y participants in our study said they prefer to learn about products on-line but then purchase them at physical stores. These results reinforce the need to understand the impact of the on-line site on physical locations.

A total of 3635 consumers were interviewed from a nationally representative panel by NFO Research, Inc. Of those respondents, 1397 (38.4%) had visited a Best Buy physical store in the 6-month period prior to the survey. The survey showed that 27% of store shoppers had visited the BestBuy.com website prior to shopping at the store. The reasons given for visiting the website are listed in table 5. The top reasons all point to the desire to find information

Table 2. Perceived advantages of buying on-line (participants were asked to list up to three).

Perceived advantages % of Participants

Can shop at home 43.1% Can shop any time 35.2% Saves time 23.1% Can get hard-to-find items 22.0% Good prices 20.3% Home delivery 19.2% Can find brands not available locally 15.5% Easy to order 15.4% Easy to compare products and/or prices 14.5% Avoid driving/traffic/travel 14.2% Better selection/variety 12.4% Easy to find information about products 8.8% Tax free 6.1% Good customer service 2.6% Good security for transactions 2.3% Other 1.2%

Table 3. Perceived disadvantages of buying on-line (participants were asked to list up to three).

Perceived disadvantages

% of Participants

Prefer to see products before purchasing 35.7% Uncomfortable with security of transaction 33.7% Purchasing requires credit card 23.5% Difficult to return items 22.8% Shipping costs too high 17.5% Shipping time too long 14.5% Cannot speak to a salesperson 10.1% Not confident about on-line merchants 8.6% Wrong product shipped 5.8% Cannot find enough information for decision 5.3% Poor customer service 4.1% Prices too high 3.6% Not appropriate for perishable items 2.5% Other 1.8%

242 G. J. Browne et al.

about products. These data offer insights into research question 3b. Further, results showed that among those consumers

who visited the website first, 60% said the visit made the trip to the store better, and 17% said the website caused them to go to the store (23% said the website did not help). Respondents were also asked how important their visit to Best Buy’s website was to their decision to buy from the store. More than 25% said that the website was important or extremely important in their decision to buy from the store. In addition, people who visited the website before shopping at the store were more likely to make purchases at the store and were more likely to spend more money on purchases than people who did not visit the website first. These results indicate that websites can have a strong impact on a company’s physical retail locations. Consumers who visited Best Buy’s website prior to

shopping at a physical store also affected store sales in other positive ways. The survey found that website visitors had shopped at physical stores 44% more often

than non-website visitors during the past 6 months. Further, the 27% of store shoppers who were also website visitors contributed 38% of the total spending by the store shoppers. Website visitors were also spending more on average in all major product categories (computers and accessories; software, music, video games, and movies; home appliances; and consumer electronics) than non-website visitors. Finally, website visitors were also more likely to purchase impulse items at Best Buy stores than non-website visitors (62 vs. 42% of shoppers). Part of these results may simply be that technology enthusiasts are more likely both to use the internet and to make purchases at Best Buy. However, it seems likely that the information gathered at the website is also partly responsible for the increased spending. These effects of Best Buy’s website on its physical store sales provide further insights into research question 3b.

A question that logically arose was why consumers who visited the Best Buy website chose to go to a physical store rather than purchase items on-line (although, as noted earlier, this behaviour is consistent with our findings concerning the preferences of Gen Yers). Respondents were asked their reasons for buying from the physical store. Their responses are shown in table 6. As can be seen, the reasons given for shopping at stores are similar to those given in our study of Generation Y shoppers (as disadvantages of shopping on-line, table 4). Many of the reasons are a reaction against ‘virtual’ experiences, e.g., the need to see and touch products, comfort from shopping in person, and desire to speak to salespeople. These results add further support to our conclusions about research question 2.

In summary, the Best Buy data make it clear that there is an interaction occurring between companies’

Table 4. Perceived importance of on-line retailers having physical stores, by product category.

Category Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not relevant

Automobiles 70% 15% 8% 4% Clothing 59% 28% 8% 3% Computer & computer equip. 52% 33% 10% 3% Groceries 51% 18% 18% 10% Appliances 46% 36% 12% 4% Money mgt 42% 30% 18% 7% Audio/video equipment 34% 43% 17% 4% Software 32% 40% 21% 4% Telephones/Fax 32% 38% 23% 4% Travel 25% 34% 30% 9% Household 23% 42% 26% 6% CDs 23% 36% 34% 7% Books 22% 35% 34% 7% Toys 21% 35% 31% 10% Videos/DVDs 20% 38% 35% 5% Internet services 20% 27% 33% 15%

Table 5. Reasons for visiting BestBuy.com before shopping at a physical store (participants were asked to list all that applied).

Reasons % of Participants

Look up prices 62% Check products Best Buy carried 57% Compare products 48% Browse 41% Check out detailed specifications 36% Thought might buy on-line 20% Wanted help selecting right product 11% Find store location 6% Listen to music 2%

243Consumer reactions toward clicks and bricks

websites and their physical store locations. In the case of Best Buy, at least, the impact of website visits on store shopping is quite positive. Increased traffic on the website (e.g., through improved advertising of the website’s existence) should result in higher positive impacts on the stores. Further, although not addressed in this study, removing some of the perceived dis- advantages of shopping on-line may be expected to increase purchases made at BestBuy.com.

5. Conclusions

This paper has reported the results of two studies designed to gain insight into the shopping experiences and perceptions of consumers using retailers’ websites and physical stores. A number of important conclusions can be drawn from these data that are of interest to both research and practise. First, the internet appears to have altered consumers’ consumption processes in some significant ways. For example, the internet is used very often to gather information about purchases. The data from the Best Buy study show that websites can provide information that consumers will then use in making purchases at physical locations. Further, the results from our Generation Y study show that consumers are inclined to purchase certain products and services on- line, but not others. Part of the current adjustment of on-line vendors is in discerning what consumers will purchase on the internet, and in creating new technol- ogies or sales methods to entice them to purchase on-line what they currently will not. Thus, although the internet’s long-term strength may be primarily in providing information, there appears to be much promise for continued growth in on-line sales as well. Second, our studies have implications for re-structur-

ing business processes and technological infrastructures. For example, to sell products on-line, companies must

add value to the consumer’s purchasing experience. The data from our Generation Y study indicate that this additional value is likely to come from added conve- nience. This convenience is most apt to be in the form of time savings or avoiding the hassle of driving some- where, but there are other possibilities as well. Websites have the potential advantage of presenting an almost limitless inventory, since the size of the ‘showroom’ has no inherent constraints. Therefore, if someone is shopping for a certain pair of unusually sized shoes in an uncommon colour, he or she should be more likely to find it on-line than in a physical shoe store. Further, on- line retailers need to address the convenience factors that are currently viewed as limitations to purchasing on the internet. For example, the need to speak to a salesperson was cited in our survey as a reason for not shopping on-line. On-line retailers may need to provide the opportunity for customers to speak to a salesperson in real time, either using instant messaging or internet telephone connections. Returns of products also need to be made easier. For this convenience, retailers with both on-line and physical presences have an advantage, although items purchased on-line must be returnable to physical locations just as if they had been purchased there. In addition to conveniences related to business processes, there is also the need for new technologically enabled conveniences. Retailers need improved technol- ogy to provide realistic views of products, so that consumers can (almost) ‘see and touch’ the products. The perception of the security of transactions needs to be improved significantly, so that those concerns of consumers can be eliminated (it’s worth noting that by most measures the security of online shopping is quite good, although consumers do not typically perceive it as such). As the shopping experience becomes more convenient, the number of consumers shopping on line will likely increase dramatically.

In addition, it seems clear from the Best Buy study that there is an interaction between companies’ websites and their physical stores. The data presented show that a company’s web presence can have a positive impact on sales at their physical locations. More research concern- ing the influence of websites on sales at physical stores is warranted.

A related question for future research is whether companies’ physical stores can influence on-line sales. There is already some evidence that the impact can be positive. For example, Barnes and Noble has experi- enced high sales growth rates at its website through kiosks installed in their physical stores (Neuborne 2001). However, the factors that drive the influence of stores on web sales will require systematic investigation.

In summary, the internet provides opportunities for sharing information with consumers and for selling

Table 6. Reasons for buying at physical store (participants were asked to list all that applied).

Reasons % of

Participants

Get product faster 67% See and touch products 53% Save shipping costs 43% Going to or near store anyway 34% More comfortable buying from store 21% Can talk to salesperson 20% Don’t purchase over the internet 10% BestBuy.com doesn’t sell products wanted 5% Not comfortable buying from BestBuy.com 4% Other 10%

244 G. J. Browne et al.

them products and services. The current studies shed some light on these opportunities, as well as the opportunities to leverage the internet to improve sales at physical stores. However, much more research is required to improve our understanding of consumer buying behaviour at clicks and bricks.

References

BELLMAN, S., LOHSE, G. L. and JOHNSON, E. J. 1999, Predictors of online buying behavior. Communications of the ACM, 42, 32 – 38.

BHATNAGAR, A., MISRA, S. and RAO, H. R. 2000, On risk, convenience, and internet shopping behavior. Communica- tions of the ACM, 43, 98 – 105.

BROOKS, R. 2001, Outside the box. The Wall Street Journal, February 12, p. R20.

BURROWS, P. 2001, The era of efficiency. Business Week, June 18, pp. 92 – 101.

CHAMPY, J., BUDAY, R. and NOHRIA, N. 1996, Creating the electronic community. Information Week, June 10, pp. 57 – 64.

CHAU, P. Y. K., AU, G. and TAM, K. Y. 2000, Impact of information presentation modes on online shopping: An empirical evaluation of a broadband interactive shopping service. Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce, 10, 1 – 22.

FORRESTER RESEARCH. 2003, ‘‘US eCommerce Overview: 2003 To 2008.’’ See http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/ Brief/Excerpt/0,1317,16875,00.html

HAMMER, M. 1990, Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, 68, 104 – 112.

IMRG. 2003, ‘‘e-Christmas.com Online Shopping Report.’’ http://www.imrg.org/ See http://www.imrg.org/e-christ- mas_report_2003.doc

INTERNET USAGE STATISTICS. 2004, Available online at http:// www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm InternetWorldStats. com.

JARVENPAA, S. and TODD, P. 1997, Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the world wide web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1, 59 – 88.

LOHSE, G. L., BELLMAN, S. and JOHNSON, E. J. 2000, Consumer buying behavior on the internet: Findings from panel data. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14, 15 – 29.

LOHSE, G. L. and SPILLER, P. 1999, Internet retail store design: How the user interface influences traffic and sales. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5.

NEUBORNE, E. 1999, Generation Y. Business Week, February 15.

NEUBORNE, E. 2001, The box that rocks. Business Week, June 4, p. EB 6.

NIELSEN NET RATINGS. 2003, www.nielsen-netratings.com PALMER, J., KALLIO, J., SAARINEN, T., TINNILA, M., TUUNAINEN, V. K. and VAN HECK, E. 2000, Online grocery shopping around the world: Examples of key business models. Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 4.

PEW INTERNET AND AMERICAN LIFE PROJECT. 2003, ‘‘Consump- tion of Information Goods and Services in the United States.’’ Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/ chart.asp?img = 103_Tab2.jpg

RATCHFORD, B. T., TALUKDAR, D. and LEE, M.-S. 2001, A model of consumer choice of the internet as an information source. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5, 7 – 22.

SHARMA, D. C. 2004, ‘‘Study: U.S. getting hooked on high- speed Net.’’ Available online at http://zdnet.com.com/2100- 1104_2-5137780.html CNET News.com.

SWAMINATHAN, V., LEPKOWSKA-WHITE, E. and RAO, B. P. 1999, Browsers or buyers in cyberspace? An investigation of factors influencing electronic exchange. Journal of Compu- ter-Mediated Communication, 5.

WETHERBE, J. C. 1998, Time and technology: Competing for customers in the future. Cycle Time Research, 4, 1 – 12.

www.commerce.gov. See http://www.census.gov/mrts/www/ data/pdf/20032q.pdf

245Consumer reactions toward clicks and bricks