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

net/publication/280580317

The Interplay of Omniretailing & Store Atmosphere on Consumers’ Purchase

Intention towards the Physical Retail Store

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3928.3048

CITATIONS READS

13 3,128

4 authors, including:

Chris Lazaris
Athens University of Economics and Business
10 PUBLICATIONS   120 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

MyGrocer: Mobile Shopping of Electronically Referenced Grocery Products View project

Store Atmospherics: An Omnichannel Approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Chris Lazaris on 31 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

THE INTERPLAY OF OMNIRETAILING & STORE ATMOSPHERE ON

CONSUMER’S PURCHASE INTENTION TOWARDS THE PHYSICAL
RETAIL STORE

Chris Lazaris, ELTRUN - The E-Business Research Center, Athens University of Economics &
Business, School of Business, Department of Management Science & Technology, lazaris@aueb.gr
Adam Vrechopoulos, ELTRUN - The E-Business Research Center, Athens University of Economics
& Business, School of Business, Department of Management Science & Technology,
avrehop@aueb.gr
Georgios Doukidis, ELTRUN - The E-Business Research Center, Athens University of Economics &
Business, School of Business, Department of Management Science & Technology, gjd@aueb.gr
Katerina Fraidaki, ELTRUN - The E-Business Research Center, Athens University of Economics &
Business, School of Business, Department of Management Science & Technology, fraidaki@aueb.gr

Abstract

The increasing use of consumer supportive technologies and applications within the physical
retail store in the context of the omnichannel retailing era has enhanced shopping experience &
store atmosphere. In parallel, emerging consumer behavioural patterns indicate that physical
retail store visitors interact with the offline and the online channel simultaneously, mainly
through their smart mobile devices. Relevant research, however, has not thoroughly
investigated that issue from a consumer perspective. The present study investigates the
importance consumers attach to a series of online practices offered in the physical retail stores
and explores consumers' preferences regarding the combined use of online & offline store
atmosphere and omnichannel criteria that affect their purchasing intentions towards the
physical store. The findings show that both in-store Internet users and non-users attach more or
less the same importance to some specific online practices offered within the physical store. On
the other hand, consumers with different levels of in-store internet use evaluate online & offline
store atmosphere and omnichannel criteria in a differentiated manner. The study ends by
providing some implications to practitioners and researchers regarding the omniretailing
technologies that should be applied in the physical stores, as well as the importance of online &
offline store atmosphere in order to purchase from them.

Keywords: Store Atmosphere, Omnichannel Retailing, Consumer Behaviour, Retail

Technologies.

1 INTRODUCTION
Since the introduction of the online channel, mainly in the form of the world wide web, retailers have
attempted to establish it as a retail medium, complementing or replacing existing offline ones. In order
to make ICT retailing technologies more consumer friendly, retailers tried to adapt offline practices to
online ones. Online store features, such as the electronic shopping cart, electronic product catalogs,
advertising banners, e-mail campaigns & store layout tried to resemble their offline counterparts, in
order to assist consumers' buying behaviour and enhance their shopping experience.
Part of that approach was to replicate a store’s conventional atmosphere to an online one. Store
atmospherics consist of “all of the physical and non-physical elements of a store that can be controlled
in order to enhance (or restrain) the behaviors of its occupants, both customers and employees”

1
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

(Eroglu & Machleit, 1993, p.34). In accordance, a web atmospheric cue is “comparable to a brick-and-
mortar atmospheric cue and can be defined as any web interface component within an individual’s
perceptual field that stimulates one’s senses” (Dailey, 2004, p.796).
As the internet started to establish itself as a part of everyday life, e-commerce technologies and
practices began to mature and consumers started to familiarize with them at high levels. Both retailers
and consumers became multichannel, in the sense that they choose either channel in order to satisfy
their purchase intentions. The introduction of the mobile and social media as new online channels
increased consumer engagement towards online, as well as internet use. Consumers were now able to
interact with all channels at all times, exploiting unique advantages that emerged. The boundaries of
online and offline channels became blurred and a disruption in retailing industry took place: the
emergence of omnichannel retailing, as an evolution of multichannel retailing.
Online best practices and technologies were brought to the physical store, as retailers' strategies turned
to the opposite direction: to replicate the online environment to the offline one. Nevertheless, the
majority of retailers haven’t established a clear omniretailing strategy regarding the optimum
application of related ICT technologies or how to seamlessly integrate them (e.g. consider the potential
role of the physical store's salespeople that use innovative ICT technologies to support the consumer
buying processes). In fact, most of them try to empower consumers with in-store self-service
technologies in order to create an enhanced store atmosphere and shopping experience (Wurmser,
2014).
The purpose of this study is to explore the consumer’s perception about this new hybrid retailing
environment, in relation to online & conventional atmospherics, that are integrated through
omnichannel retailing practices and technologies. To this end, the study attempts to discover what
omniretailing technologies & practices add value to the in-store shopping experience, from the
consumer’s point of view.

2 STORE ATMOSPHERE & OMNICHANNEL RETAILING THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

It was not until Kotler (1973) introduced the store atmosphere notion based on the four human senses.
Store atmosphere initially consisted of four atmospheric dimensions: visual, aural, olfactory and
tactile.
Later on, these dimensions expanded with the addition of human & social factors. Baker (1986) added
the social dimension (store employees and customers) and Turley & Milliman (2000) as well, included
the human variable (employee & customer characteristics). At that point, store atmosphere
components also included external, general interior, layout & design, point of purchase & decoration
variables (Turley & Milliman, 2000).
In parallel, with the introduction of the internet medium, store atmosphere was translated to the virtual
world by various researchers. Dailey (1999) and Vrechopoulos et al. (2000) were among the first ones,
adapting conventional atmospherics principles. According to Vrechopoulos et al. (2000), virtual store
atmosphere consists of virtual layout & design (tree/hub, pipeline & guiding pathway structure),
virtual atmospherics (site view, sound, scent) and virtual theatrics (animation techniques).
Afterward, Manganari et al. (2007) presented mobile commerce (m-atmospherics) and also added the
social factor (virtual social presence), in accordance to conventional atmospherics (Manganari et al.,
2009). Newly, Park et al. (2014) following the paradigm of social networks, introduced the social
networking atmosphere. In this way, online store atmosphere included all main online channels, but
there was no framework that brought them altogether.
That was until Poncin & Mimoun (2014) united Baker’s and Turley & Milliman’s framework in a
single store atmosphere study. Findings from that study included that in-store technologies &
multichannel integration affect consumer behaviour in the physical store.
However, that study did not take into consideration the omnichannel phenomenon. Originating from
the latin word omnis (meaning: all, everything) it made its first appearance in the practitioners’
domain. It was first introduced in order to separate itself from the multichannel concept through the

2
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

simultaneous and not just parallel use of channels by consumers (Parker & Hand, 2009 and Ortis &
Casoli, 2009).
In academia, Rigby (2011, p.4) was the first to define omnichannel retailing as “an integrated sales
experience that melds the advantages of physical stores with the information-rich experience of online
shopping”. Recently, Omniretailing, synonymous to this concept, appears by Levy, et al. (2013, p.67)
as “a coordinated multichannel offering that provides a seamless experience when using all of the
retailer’s shopping channels”.
To that end, although omniretailing extends from the physical retail store to the whole supply chain,
the simultaneous presence of all channels take place within the offline store, altering the shopping
environment. We could postulate that this hybrid store atmosphere, consisting of both online & offline
channels atmospheric cues is the result of the omniretailing interplay. In a sense, it could be described
as the Omnichannel Retailing Store Atmosphere (ORSA).

3 RELEVANT EMPIRICAL STUDIES & RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Omniretailing practices in the physical store take place when consumers use all available retailer’s
channels (Levy, et al. (2013, p.67). Therefore, consumers should utilize the online channel within the
physical store, in order to engage in omnichannel while present in the conventional store. The
prevalent way to achieve this, is by using their mobile phones’ internet capabilities. In fact, the degree
that shoppers use omnichannel retailing practices, encountered as omnichannel retailing intensity by
Lazaris et al. (2014), affects the frequency of their mobile Internet use (Lazaris et al. 2014).
On the other hand, the frequency of online shopping imposes several implications to shopping
orientation across several criteria (Schramm-Klein et al., 2007). Schramm-Klein et al. (2007) have
compared offline vs. online stores' frequency of use among internet users, in terms of the orientation
towards store atmosphere, service, personal communication and contact. They found out that there is
no statistical significant relationship between frequent online & offline shoppers in terms of shopping
orientation towards store atmosphere (both online & traditional) & service. In contrast, there was
found to be significant statistical relationship between frequent online & offline shoppers in terms of
shopping orientation towards personal communication and contact: frequent offline shoppers were
more oriented towards these criteria than frequent online shoppers.
In parallel, Pauwels et al. (2011) discover that, in general, frequent online visitors spend more offline.
Nevertheless, there was also a consumer group (entertainment oriented) that reduced their offline visits
and revenues, since they replaced them online.
Later on, Schramm-Klein et al. (2011) have shown that positive evaluation of perceived multichannel
integration favourably affects a retailer’s image, which in turn affects the frequency of multichannel
use. Similarly, Bendoli (2005) discovered that high levels of multichannel integration perception lead
to loyalty and purchase intention. Last but not least, Chen (2007) provides empirical evidence which
indicates that enhanced multichannel store image increases purchase intention and, therefore, proposes
integration & synergies across channels.
Drawing from the aforementioned literature findings, four store atmosphere & omnichannel criteria
were selected (analytically presented in Table 2) in order to test whether in-store internet use by
consumers affects the importance they attach to them in order to purchase from a physical store. Apart
from the conventional & online store atmosphere, we included the human variable atmospheric
component, in the form of the salesperson. We chose to empower this human variable with
technologies, in order to test the impact of online cues on conventional ones. In addition to this, we
also added the criterion of multichannel integration that creates a seamless shopping experience, in
order to test the effect of omnichannel. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are formulated:
H1.1: There are statistically significant differences among consumers with different frequency levels
of in-store internet use, in terms of the importance they attach to a physical store atmosphere, in order
to purchase from that store.

3
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

H1.2: There are statistically significant differences among consumers with different frequency levels
of in-store internet use, in terms of the importance they attach to a physical store’s service support
offered by salespeople that utilize sales supporting technologies, in order to purchase from that store.
H1.3: There are statistically significant differences among consumers with different frequency levels
of in-store internet use, in terms of the importance they attach to the online store’s atmosphere, in
order to purchase from its physical store counterpart.
H1.4: There are statistically significant differences among consumers with different frequency levels
of in-store internet use, in terms of the importance they attach to a store’s multichannel integration
that creates a seamless shopping experience, in order to purchase from that physical store.
On the other hand, apart from the frequency of in-store internet use effects on the previous factors,
subsequently, another research question emerges: which store atmosphere & omnichannel criteria are
more important for consumers in order to purchase from a physical store?
Past literature findings reveal that conventional store atmospherics influence store patronage intentions
(Grewal et al., 2003). In parallel, online store atmosphere influences online store patronage intentions
(Kim et al., 2007).
Moreover, investigating the role of technology at the interface between salespeople and consumers,
Ahearne & Rapp (2010) propose that salesperson technologies increase effectiveness & efficiency,
whereas consumer-centric technologies reduce the need of a salesperson.
To that end, Mitchell (2010) discovers that store atmospherics amplify expectations of salespeople
orientation and patronage intentions. Nonetheless, store atmospherics effects lessen at the introduction
of salespeople.
Furthermore, Kwon & Lennon (2009) find out that online & offline store image are enriched via
multichannel integration and affect customer loyalty and store patronage intention. Actually, offline
store image affects online, which in turn affects online loyalty.
Next, Verhagen & van Dolen (2009) discover that offline store image (consisting of store atmosphere
& service among other components) affects online purchase intentions. Moreover, online & offline
store constitute the same multichannel experience and therefore retailers could benefit from a seamless
multichannel integration.
Finally, Badrinarayanan et al. (2010) reveal that there are transference and congruence effects on
purchase intentions in online stores from their offline counterparts.
Elaborating on these research insights, the following research hypotheses are formulated:
H2.1: There are statistically significant differences among different store atmosphere & omnichannel
criteria, in terms of the importance that consumers attach to them in order to purchase from a
physical store.
H2.2: There are statistically significant differences among different store atmosphere & omnichannel
criteria, in terms of the importance that in-store Internet users attach to them in order to purchase
from a physical store.
Beyond the previous research studies, it is obvious that omnichannel behaviour inside a physical store
involves the application of online practices & technologies within the physical context. After all,
according to Rigby (2011, p.4) that is the very essence of omnichannel retailing: blending the
advantages of both physical stores & online shopping.
But, which online practices & technologies are more important for consumers inside physical stores?
Business reports that have emerged recently, attempt to answer to this question (Wurmser, 2014).
These reports either provide statistics about how retailers integrate channels inside the physical store,
or depict what ICT retailing technologies consumers actually use in-store, giving emphasis on mobile
technologies.
Academia has approached this question long ago in several studies. Burke (2002) investigated what
technologies consumers want in the physical and the virtual store. He investigated 128 different

4
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

aspects of the shopping experience both online & in-store by conducting a national survey with 2.120
online users. He concluded that retailers should assist consumers to make the best use of every channel
by seamlessly integrating them. Features & technologies of the shopping experience included sales
assistance & customer service, digital signage & info kiosk, in order to assist product information,
availability & pricing provision, support, payments and checkouts among others.
At the same period, Dabholkar & Bagozzi (2002) explored technology-based self-service importance
for consumers and find out that it contributes to enhancing user experience, if accompanied with ease
of use and performance characteristics.
In addition to this, Ahn & Han (2004) discovered that a combination of online and offline features
amplify the impact on usefulness, attitude, and intention to use, in comparison to each one on its own.
At another study, Andersson & Nordmark (2008) elaborated on the notion of the info kiosk as a means
of “bringing the web to the shop floor”. They conclude that web features & multichannel integration
are crucial for the in-store environment.
Recently, Magrath & McCormick, (2013) emphasized the importance of mobile apps as a marketing
and sales channel.
The previous studies as well as the business insights reported above, led us to select specific online
practices and technologies (analytically presented in Table 1), suitable for an omnichannel retailing
environment, in order to explore the importance that consumers (both in total and in-store internet
users only) attach to them within the offline channel. Thus, based on the previous literature findings,
the following research hypotheses are formulated:
H3.1: There are statistically significant differences across a series of online practices & technologies
applied inside physical stores, in terms of the importance that consumers attach to them.
H3.2: There are statistically significant differences across a series of online practices & technologies
applied inside physical stores, in terms of the importance that in-store Internet users attach to them.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study employed an exploratory quantitative empirical research design that took place in
Greece in November 2014, in the context of the ELTRUN - The E-Business Research Center annual
E-Commerce survey. The data collection instrument of the national survey was an online
questionnaire which received 1022 answers from Internet users. The questionnaire was created in
google forms and hosted on the research center web site. Internet users were informed of its existence
via e-mail campaigns, display banners on popular Greek news sites & e-shops, social media, as well as
from the hosting site directly.
Participants where questioned about their frequency of internet use across multiple channels, with the
physical retail store included. Consumers were separated into different groups (quasi experimental
design) regarding the frequency levels of their in-store internet use. Survey questions included various
store atmosphere criteria & components, along with omniretailing technologies & practices (see
Tables 1, 2). Specifically, store atmosphere criteria included both offline & online ones, with the
inclusion of omniretailing characteristics, such as the technology-empowered salespeople and the
multichannel integration in order to create a seamless shopping experience. In this way, we attempt to
explore the link between store atmosphere and omnichannel retailing, regarding purchase intention
towards the physical store.
In the context of this exploratory study, specific omniretailing technologies & practices were selected
based on previous academic literature (Burke, 2002), as well as recent relevant business reports
(Wurmser, 2014). It should be clarified that participants were asked about their preferences
(importance attached) and not actual use of these technologies since most of them, though popular
online, have not high penetration offline (because of either store availability or consumer mobile
phone compatibility).

5
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

It should be noted that a similar survey took place in 2013 (also in the context of the ELTRUN's
annual E-Commerce survey), aiming to investigate the existence of omnishoppers & omniretailing
practices. Based on those results (Lazaris et al. 2014), the present study aims to further clarify their
preferences, purchase intentions & the importance they attach to online & offline environmental
factors along with supporting e-commerce technologies.

5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics reveal that mobile phones are the second device of choice for internet browsing,
right after laptops, surpassing even desktops. In fact, 88% choose laptops for frequent internet use and
86% choose mobile phones. What’s more, 56% frequently use the internet on the move, whereas 41%
use it frequently in the physical retail store. Only 21% of them have never used it in-store.
Regarding the four store atmosphere – omnichannel criteria, 89% of consumers regarded service
support by salespeople utilizing sales supporting electronic technologies as very important in order to
purchase from the physical store (Figure 1). In second place, the online store’s atmosphere collects
77% of consumers that attach high importance (Figure 2), which is marginally higher than the
conventional store atmosphere (76%, Figure 3). Last place, though not low in percentage, is
multichannel integration in order to create a seamless shopping experience, collecting 69% of our
sample (Figure 4).
These results alone, show that the combination of the human-technology factor is regarded by the
majority of internet users as the most important criterion in order to purchase from the physical retail
store. Another striking result is the equal attention to online & offline store atmosphere. This could be
attributed to the fact that they are both internet users and also possess high omnichannel retailing
intensity. This intensity is also evident by the high percentage of importance they attach to
multichannel integration.

Figure 1. The importance that consumers attach to service support by salespeople utilizing sales supporting
technologies, in order to purchase from the physical retail store.

Figure 2. The importance that consumers attach to online store’s atmosphere, in order to purchase from the
physical retail store.

6
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

Figure 3. The importance that consumers attach to a retail store’s conventional atmosphere, in order to
purchase from the physical store.

Figure 4. The importance that consumers attach to multichannel integration, in order to purchase from the
physical retail store.

As far as the online practices & technologies applied inside physical stores are concerned, it was
discovered that the ones that gathered the greatest importance were #6, #16 and #3 (Table 1). It should
be noted that although in-store price comparison, which could lead to showrooming (#6) scores lower
at the mean ranks, it takes one of the first places among the number of consumers that regard it as very
important. Showrooming, also encountered as free riding behaviour in multichannel literature (Heitz-
Spahn, 2013), is the behaviour where a consumer researches a product or service at a retailer, only to
purchase it from another one, at the same or different channel.

7
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

% of consumers that
attached great importance
Online practices & technologies applied inside physical stores
6. In-store price comparison, which could lead to showrooming 77%
16. Fast electronic checkouts without queues 77%
3. Ability to buy in-store with internet prices, as a result of an electronic
check-in in the physical store 74%
11. Product stock electronic availability 69%
4. Special prices, coupons, offer alerts at the store’s entrance 69%
12. Loyalty points electronic access 61%
15. Product electronic search & map navigation to them 57%
1. Free in-store wifi 55%
18. In-store retail-assisting mobile site (accessible via wifi) or mobile app 55%
8. Access to user opinions, product presentations & reviews 53%
14. In-store location-based offers 50%
13. Self-service assisting technologies 47%
17. Mobile payments 46%
5. Access to electronic profile & purchase history 43%
7. Electronic recommender systems 34%
2. Electronic check-in in the physical store (e.g. via wifi, foursquare,
swarm, facebook, etc) 32%
9. Product/service posts and comments on social networks 29%
10. Email send & receive 28%
Table 1. Online practices & technologies applied inside physical stores ranking, in terms of the percentage
of consumers that attach great importance

5.2 Hypotheses Testing Results and Discussion

Non-parametric statistical tests were employed due to the violation of the normality distribution
assumption. Kruskal-Wallis H tests showed statistically significant differences among consumers with
different frequency levels of in-store internet use in terms of the importance they attach among
different store atmosphere & omnichannel criteria, in order to purchase from a physical store (Table
2). Specifically, significant differences are observed among consumer groups with different frequency
levels of in-store Internet use regarding all the store atmosphere & omnichannel criteria. Thus,
hypotheses 1.1 to 1.4 are accepted.

Store atmosphere & Consumer groups with different

omnichannel criteria frequency levels of in-store Internet use N Mean Rank
Criterion 1: Store’s conventional Non In-Store Internet Consumers 186 369,97
atmosphere Low In-Store Internet Consumers 287 419,76
Frequent In-Store Internet Consumers 215 414,28
Heavy In-Store Internet Consumers 108 359,73
Total 796

8
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

Criterion 2: Service support by Non In-Store Internet Consumers 186 457,82

salespeople utilizing sales supporting Low In-Store Internet Consumers 306 397,33
electronic technologies Frequent In-Store Internet Consumers 206 393,72
Heavy In-Store Internet Consumers 108 346,08
Total 806
Criterion 3: Online store’s Non In-Store Internet Consumers 186 372,73
atmosphere Low In-Store Internet Consumers 297 390,86
Frequent In-Store Internet Consumers 206 377,68
Heavy In-Store Internet Consumers 108 507,27
Total 797
Criterion 4: Multichannel integration Non In-Store Internet Consumers 186 353,79
in order to create a seamless shopping Low In-Store Internet Consumers 296 433,84
experience Frequent In-Store Internet Consumers 206 399,01
Heavy In-Store Internet Consumers 118 413,58
Total 806
Criterion 1: Criterion 2: Criterion 3: Criterion 4:
Store’s conventional Service support by Online store’s Multichannel integration
atmosphere salespeople utilizing sales atmosphere in order to create a
supporting electronic seamless shopping
technologies experience
Chi-
11,409 21,546 32,641 15,217
Square
df 3 3 3 3
Asymp.
,010 ,000 ,000 ,002
Sig.

Table 2. Kruskal-Wallis test statistics for Hypotheses H1.1 & H1.2

Regarding Criterion 1, post-hoc pairwise comparisons show that the null hypothesis is rejected, since
the differences observed among groups are significantly important. Nevertheless, there are no
statistically significant differences observed between Non In-Store Internet Consumers and Heavy In-
Store Internet Consumers. These results could be explained through the notion of atmospheric
responsiveness, which is the tendency to behave according to environmental factors. Heavy In-Store
Internet Consumers seem to be more online-oriented and therefore score lower at offline cues. On the
other hand, Non In-Store Internet Consumers could mean that this group is more utilitarian in-store
and don’t care about the shopping environment.
As far as Criterion2 is concerned, it is evident that significant statistical differences exist only between
Non In-Store Internet Consumers and all the others. Also, this consumer group scored the highest
mean rank, which implies that the need for service support by salespeople utilizing sales supporting
electronic technologies decreases, as the frequency of in-store internet use by consumers increases
(they are probably served by themselves).
In contrast, Criterion 3 test shows that significant statistical differences exist only between Heavy In-
Store Internet Consumers and all the others. Also, this consumer group scored the highest mean rank,
which implies that as the frequency of in-store internet use by consumers increases, they start to pay
more attention to online atmospheric components, even in order to purchase from a physical store.
Finally, Criterion 4 post-hoc pairwise comparisons show that significant statistical differences only
exist between Non In-Store Internet Consumers and Low In-Store Internet Consumers, which could be
attributed to the fact that Low In-Store Internet Consumers have a more balanced approach towards
multichannel perception, whereas the other consumer groups use either online or offline channels at
most. Therefore, we expect that significant statistical differences are more probable to be found

9
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

between this group and the offline channel one (since the other online groups are also multichannel,
too).
Regarding hypothesis 2.1, a Kruskal-Wallis H test showed that there is a statistically significant
difference among these criteria (χ2(3) = 194,758, p =0,000), with a mean rank importance score of
2312,99 for service support by salespeople utilizing sales supporting electronic technologies (criterion
2), 1874,82 for multichannel integration in order to create a seamless shopping experience (criterion
4), 1871,26 for online store’s atmosphere (criterion 3) and 1673,13 for store’s conventional
atmosphere (criterion 1). Thus, hypothesis 2.1 is accepted.
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that there are significant statistical differences between all
criteria except #3 & #4, which could be an indication that online atmosphere is almost equally
important to multichannel integration in order to provide a seamless shopping experience in the
physical store.
Regarding hypothesis 2.2 (i.e. in-store Internet users), the results are more or less the same (χ2(3) =
105,963, p =0,000), except for the lower mean rank importance scores. Specifically, there was a mean
rank importance score of 1799,13 for service support by salespeople utilizing sales supporting
electronic technologies (criterion 2), 1559,00 for multichannel integration in order to create a seamless
shopping experience (criterion 4), 1521,92 for online store’s atmosphere (criterion 3) and 1365,92 for
store’s conventional atmosphere (criterion 1). Thus, hypothesis 2.2 is accepted.
Nevertheless, for this target group it is observed that pairwise statistical differences between criteria
#3 & #4 are roughly the same, whereas pairwise statistical differences between criteria #2 & all the
others are decreased. This could also be an indication that in-store internet consumers attach less
importance to salespeople utilizing sales supporting electronic technologies in comparison to the other
criteria, than the hypothesis 2.1 group (i.e. all consumers).
Furthermore, a Kruskal-Wallis H test for testing hypothesis 3.1 showed that there is a statistically
significant difference on the importance score that consumers attach across a series of online practices
& technologies applied inside physical stores (χ2(17) = 1890,866, p =0,000), with the mean rank
importance scores reported in Table 3. Thus, hypothesis 3.1 is accepted.

Mean
Online practices & technologies applied inside physical stores N Rank
Importance 16. Fast electronic checkouts without queues 914 10882,56
attached by 3. Ability to buy in-store with internet prices, as a result of an electronic
consumers check-in in the physical store 972 10632,88
6. In-store price comparison, which could lead to showrooming 924 10108,59
11. Product stock electronic availability 894 10034,16
4. Special prices, coupons, offer alerts at the store’s entrance 914 9426,63
12. Loyalty points electronic access 913 9157,78
1. Free in-store wifi 952 8791,43
15. Product electronic search & map navigation to them 894 8560,32
18. In-store retail-assisting mobile site (accessible via wifi) or mobile app 913 8284,34
14. In-store location-based offers 904 8061,67
17. Mobile payments 904 8015,85
8. Access to user opinions, product presentations & reviews 924 7960,35
13. Self-service assisting technologies 924 7577,87
5. Access to electronic profile & purchase history 904 7159,09
7. Electronic recommender systems 914 6369,36
9. Product/service posts and comments on social networks 894 5920,61
10. Email send & receive 914 5916,97

10
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

2. Electronic check-in in the physical store (e.g. via wifi, foursquare,

swarm, facebook, etc) 954 5787,21
Total 16526

Table 3. Kruskal-Wallis test statistics for Hypotheses H3.1

Internet In-Store Non- Internet In-Store

All Consumers
Consumers Consumers
Online Online Online
practices & practices & practices &
technologies N Mean technologies N Mean technologies N Mean
16 914 4,07 16 748 4,16 16 166 3,66
3 972 3,99 3 786 4,08 11 166 3,64
6 924 3,88 6 748 3,94 6 176 3,63
11 894 3,84 11 728 3,89 3 186 3,61
4 914 3,68 1 766 3,72 4 176 3,53
12 913 3,62 4 738 3,71 12 156 3,28
1 952 3,53 12 757 3,69 8 176 3,25
15 894 3,48 15 728 3,61 13 176 3,01
18 913 3,37 18 747 3,49 14 166 2,96
14 904 3,35 14 738 3,44 15 166 2,87
8 924 3,31 17 738 3,4 18 166 2,83
17 904 3,29 8 748 3,32 17 166 2,82
13 924 3,21 13 748 3,26 1 186 2,75
5 904 3,06 5 738 3,17 5 166 2,55
7 914 2,85 7 738 2,93 7 176 2,52
10 914 2,76 10 748 2,83 9 166 2,43
9 894 2,73 9 728 2,79 10 166 2,42
2 954 2,61 2 768 2,69 2 186 2,27
Table 4. Comparison of the importance that consumers attach to online practices & technologies applied
inside physical stores, in terms of their internet use in-store

Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that there are no significant statistical differences between
online practices & technologies #7, #9, #10 & #2, which have the lowest mean ranks. Therefore, these
are equally considered by consumers as less important in comparison to the others. Next, online
practices & technologies #15, #18, #14, #17, #8, #13, #5 are positioned in the middle of importance by
rank, and #17, #8, #13, #5 have no significant statistical differences between the other three (#15, #18,
#14). All the other ones have significant statistical differences between the rest, with #16, #3, #6 &
#11 being considered as the most important ones by consumers. In fact, #6 (In-store price comparison,
which could lead to showrooming) scores the highest percentage among the rest, according to the
number of consumers that consider it of primary importance in individual scores.
Finally, regarding hypothesis 3.2 (i.e. in-store Internet users), the results are more or less the same
(χ2(17) = 1627,702, p =0,000), except for the generally higher mean scores (Table 4). Nevertheless, for
this group it can be observed that online practices & technologies #1 & #17 have each risen by a single
rank in the final classification. This could be attributed to the fact that this target group attaches greater
importance to in-store internet facilities (#1, free in-store wifi) & therefore wants to use mobile
devices in order to satisfy the primary importance of fast electronic checkouts without queues (#16)
via mobile payments (#17). In contrast, consumers that don’t use internet in-store have scored
significantly lower for free in-store wifi, something which is self-justified (Table 4). Thus, hypothesis
3.2 is also accepted.

11
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

Several interesting conclusions and corresponding implications are derived through the present study.
These mainly refer to the promising role that in-store online practices, retail technologies and
employees could play in the in-store consumers' shopping process.

Specifically, it seems that some online practices-services offered/applicable within the physical retail
store (e.g. fast electronic checkouts without queues, ability to buy in-store with internet prices as a
result of an electronic check-in in the physical store and in-store price comparison, which could lead to
showrooming, etc.) are more attractive and promising than others, since consumers (both in-store
Internet users and non-users) attach greater importance to them. Also, electronic check-in in the
physical store is not desirable, unless it offers important benefits (e.g. price matching). Moreover, it
seems that consumers are more eager to adopt cost-cutting technologies, than shopping-assisting or
experience-enhancing technologies. In sum, it is clear that both in-store Internet users and non-users
do not possess significant differences as far as the importance they attach to these practices (with some
slightly differences observed in some online practices, as discussed in the previous section).

In parallel, it seems that for both in-store Internet users and non-users, the service support offered by
salespeople that utilize sales supporting technologies is the most important store atmosphere relevant
feature. While it was expected that especially for in-store Internet users this feature would not be so
important (in the sense that they could potentially execute these tasks by themselves through their
mobile phones), the fact that also this group attach the greatest importance to this particular
attribute/feature highlights the promising role that salespeople (equipped with technology) could play
in the physical retail store. Nevertheless, it is evident that heavy in-store internet users seem to care
less for technology-empowered employees, probably because they serve their own needs appropriately
utilizing their own technology. Also, this group attaches the greatest importance to the store’s online
atmosphere, which comes at no surprise since they probably admire the store’s online characteristics
highly due to in-store internet use. In fact, the online & the offline store atmosphere are generally
perceived of equal importance by all participants. Specifically, the online one gathers 77% of
consumers that attach high importance to it (Figure 2), in comparison to 76% for the conventional
store atmosphere (Figure 3).

6.2 Managerial Implications

The findings strengthen the implications to practitioners regarding the selection of the most attractive
and promising in-store technologies that they could first adopt in their physical retail stores in order to
satisfy their customers. Besides, comparing the study results with current business practice, it seems
that several innovative retailers have, more or less, already adopted several of the aforementioned
online practices/services.

Nevertheless, since in some cases ICT in-store technologies may empower consumers and not
employees, a retailing "paradox" could be potentially created: consumers utilizing smartphones and
integrating channels could outperform employees who may feel helpless inside their own shopping
environment (i.e. physical retail stores) and, thus, cannot support consumers effectively. In other
words, in these cases, salespeople can only depend on their existing experience (e.g. personal selling
techniques). However, ICT (e.g. mobile technologies) could prove to be important assets also for the
salespeople, in order for them to provide enhanced and innovative services and effective support to
consumers during their in-store visit (as also derived by the present study results). Thus, it could be
suggested to retailers to invest on educating and training their salespeople along with offering them
access to Information and Communication Technologies infrastructure (e.g. CRM and ERP systems,
smart devices). In addition to this, multichannel retailers should pay increased attention to their online
stores’ atmosphere along with their conventional counterpart, since it is considered to be equally

12
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

influential among consumers. In sum, since retailers are trying to find ways to adjust their presence in
the context of the omnichannel retailing era (by exploring which innovative technologies to adopt), it
seems that they should also place emphasis on the role of their employees (e.g. in-store salespeople
equipped with technology) in order to offer value added services to their physical store visitors (i.e.
services that could not be offered exclusively through technology).

6.3 Limitations

It should be underlined that, since the study was conducted online, the results cannot be generalized to
non-Internet users. Apparently, several offline retail store visitors do not use the Internet in general
(i.e. either within a physical retail store or not), and, thus, they may not intend to adopt omnichannel
retail practices, in-store retail technologies, etc. (at least for the near future). However, also for this
group, the role of salespeople may be important (e.g. provision of detailed product information,
customer service, etc.). Last but not least, we should not underestimate the potential effects of the
economic crisis in Greece. To this end, a multinational study could reveal different preferences among
omniretailing technologies, which could possibly outscore cost-cutting ones.

6.4 Future Research Directions

Future research could further investigate this topic through several perspectives and approaches.
Indicatively, some of the online practices and the store atmosphere relevant criteria reported in the
paper could serve as the treatments of an experimental design aiming to investigate causal
relationships between retailers' omnichannel retail practices and consumer behavioural patterns and
evaluations. Also, an interesting research direction could be to investigate showrooming behaviour at
the presence of omniretailing technologies at the hand of both consumers and salespeople, in order to
test which scenario is more effective for coping with such behaviour. Similarly, qualitative research
approaches (e.g. in depth personal interviews) could also contribute towards thoroughly exploring and
understanding consumers' concerns, needs and intentions in the context of the evolving landscape of
omnichannel retailing.

References
Ahearne, M., & Rapp, A. (2010). The role of technology at the interface between salespeople and
consumers. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 30(2), 111–120.
Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2004). The impact of the online and offline features on the user
acceptance of Internet shopping malls. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
3(4), 405–420. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2004.05.001
Andersson, M., & Nordmark, M. (2008). Bringing the web to the shop floor. In Proceedings of the 5th
Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction building bridges - NordiCHI ’08 (pp.
579–580). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1463160.1463252
Badrinarayanan, V., Becerra, E., Kim, C.-H., & Madhavaram, S. (2010). Transference and congruence
effects on purchase intentions in online stores of multi-channel retailers: initial evidence
from the U.S. and South Korea. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(4), 539–
557. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0239-9
Baker, J. (1986). The role of the environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective. The
Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, 1(1), 79–84.
Bendoly, E. (2005). Online/In-Store Integration and Customer Retention. Journal of Service Research,
7(4), 313–327. doi:10.1177/1094670504273964
Burke, R. R. (2002). Technology and the Customer Interface: What Consumers Want in the Physical
and Virtual Store. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 411–432.
Chen, J.-S. (2007). The Effect Of Multi-Channel Store Image On Purchase Intention. In International
DSI / Asia and Pacific DSI.

13
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An Attitudinal Model of Technology-Based Self-Service:

Moderating Effects of Consumer Traits and Situational Factors. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 30(3), 184–201. doi:10.1177/0092070302303001
Dailey, L. (1999). Designing the world we surf in: a conceptual model of web atmospherics. In
American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings (Vol. 10, p. 225).
Dailey, L. (2004). Navigational web atmospherics. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 795–803.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00364-8
Eroglu, S. A., & Machleit, K. A. (1993). Atmospheric Factors in the Retail Environment: Sights,
Sounds and Smells. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 34.
Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M., & Voss, G. B. (2003). The effects of wait expectations and store
atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail stores. Journal of
Retailing, 79(4), 259–268. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2003.09.006
Heitz-Spahn, S. (2013). Cross-channel free-riding consumer behavior in a multichannel environment:
An investigation of shopping motives, sociodemographics and product categories. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 570–578. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.006
Kim, J., Fiore, A. M., & Lee, H.-H. (2007). Influences of online store perception, shopping enjoyment,
and shopping involvement on consumer patronage behavior towards an online retailer.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(2), 95–107.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.05.001
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48–64.
Kwon, W.-S., & Lennon, S. J. (2009). What induces online loyalty? Online versus offline brand
images. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 557–564. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.06.015
Lazaris, C., Vrechopoulos, A., Katerina, F., & Doukidis, G. (2014). Exploring the “Omnichannel”
Shopper Behaviour. In AMA SERVSIG, International Service Research Conference, 13-15
June. Thessaloniki, Greece. doi:10.13140/2.1.1278.2089
Levy, M., Weitz, B., & Grewal, D. (2013). Retailing Management. McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 9th edition.
Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Retailing-Management-Michael-
Levy/dp/007802899X
Magrath, V., & McCormick, H. (2013). Marketing design elements of mobile fashion retail apps.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(1), 115–134.
doi:10.1108/13612021311305173
Manganari, E. E., Siomkos, G. J., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2009). Store atmosphere in web retailing.
European Journal of Marketing, 43(9/10), 1140–1153. doi:10.1108/03090560910976401
Manganari, E., Siomkos, G., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2007). Atmospheric qualities in mobile commerce:
an initial approach. In Proceedings of the 36th European Marketing Academy Conference
(EMAC) (pp. 1–7). Reykjavik, Iceland: McGraw-Hill.
Mitchell, N. R. (2010). Selling the experience: the interrelationship between store atmospherics, retail
salesperson orientation and patronage intentions. Thesis. Monash University. Faculty of
Business and Economics. Department of Marketing. Retrieved from
http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/monash:120266
Ortis, I., & Casoli, A. (2009). Technology Selection: IDC Retail Insights Guide to Enabling Immersive
Shopping Experiences. IDC Retail Insights. Retrieved from
http://idg.com/www/pr.nsf/ByID/IDGC-8MBQMJ
Park, M.-S., Shin, J.-K., & Ju, Y. (2014). Social networking atmosphere and online retailing. Journal
of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 24(1), 89–107.
doi:10.1080/21639159.2013.867681
Parker, R., & Hand, L. (2009). Satisfying the Omnichannel Consumers Whenever and Wherever They
Shop. IDC Retail Insights. IDC Retail Insights. Retrieved from
http://www.amazon.com/Satisfying-Omnichannel-Consumers-Whenever-
Wherever/dp/B002PW0G46
Pauwels, K., Leeflang, P., Teerling, M. L., & Huizingh, K. R. E. (2011). Does Online Information
Drive Offline Revenues? Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.10.001
Poncin, I., & Ben Mimoun, M. S. (2014). The impact of “e-atmospherics” on physical stores. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.02.013
Rigby, D. (2011). The Future of Shopping. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 64–75.

14
 European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems 2015 (EMCIS2015)
June 1st – 2nd 2015, Athens, Greece

Schramm-Klein, H., Swoboda, B., & Morschett, D. (2007). Internet vs. brick-and-mortar stores -
analysing the influence of shopping motives on retail channel choice among internet users.
Journal of Customer Behaviour, 6(1), 19–36. doi:10.1362/147539207X198356
Schramm-Klein, H., Wagner, G., Steinmann, S., & Morschett, D. (2011). Cross-channel integration –
is it valued by customers? The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research, 21(5), 501–511. doi:10.1080/09593969.2011.618886
Turley, L. ., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric Effects on Shopping Behavior. Journal of
Business Research, 49(2), 193–211. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00010-7
Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2009). Online purchase intentions: A multi-channel store image
perspective. Information & Management, 46(2), 77–82. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.12.001
Vrechopoulos, A., Keefe, R. M. O., & Doukidis, G. I. (2000). “Virtual Store Atmosphere” in Internet
Retailing. In 13th International Bled Electronic Commerce Conference (pp. 1–12). Bled,
Slovenia, June 19-21, 2000.
Wurmser, Y. (2014). Retailers Playing Catch-Up with Consumers - Emarketer. eMarketer. Retrieved
from http://www.emarketer.com/public_media/docs/state_of_omnichannel_retail.pdf

15

View publication stats