Do Digital Displays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format andMessage Content�
Anne L. Roggeveen a,∗, Jens Nordfält b, Dhruv Grewal a
a Babson College, Babson Park, MA 02457, United Statesb The Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
bstract
This research examines the impact of in-store digital displays on retail sales across four different store formats. The results of three fieldxperiments show that sales in hypermarkets are enhanced when digital displays are on. However, in supercenters and supermarkets, having theigital displays on has a minimal effect on sales, and in smaller stores (e.g., convenience stores), the digital displays have a negative impact onales. A follow-up study confirms that the lift in sales in larger stores when the digital displays are on continues five months after their initial
nstallation, though the lift does diminish somewhat. Furthermore, for the digital display to result in a sales lift, the message content must promotehe price.
2015 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
tvtw
rtdansostt
eywords: Digital displays; Retail displays; In-store marketing
Digital displays are increasingly prevalent in large retailhains such as Walmart, Tesco, and Carrefour. While generallyiming to enhance the in-store environment (Dennis et al. 2010),nd promote certain items (Burke 2009), these screens can alsoisplay other information to customers. As retailers face increas-ng competition from Amazon and other e-commerce providers,igital signage has become a key focus to help increase salesRoster 2012).
This research note investigates the impact of digital signagen retail sales, as well as whether the impact of the digital sig-age varies by the retail format (e.g., hypermarket, supercenter).ast research shows that retail formats influence consumers’ in-tore shopping behavior and proclivity for impulse purchasesKahn and McAlister 1997; Stilley, Inman, and Wakefield 2010a,010b). With an empirical orientation (McGrath and Brinberg
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
983) to explore the substantive phenomenon of whether digitalisplays enhance or detract shopper sales, three field experi-ents were conducted in a large Swedish grocery conglomerate
� The authors thank the Babson Faculty Research Fund for financial supportf this project.∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 781 239 4289.
hat owns hypermarkets, supercenters, supermarkets, and con-enience stores. The chain installed digital displays in each ofhe four retail formats, and then experimentally manipulatedhether the displays were on or off.Study 1 examines the impact of the digital display on sales
eceipts, time customers spent in the store, and items sold inhe hypermarkets and supercenters. The results consistentlyemonstrate that in hypermarkets, digital displays enhance themount of the sales receipts, time spent in the store, and theumber of products purchased, but they have minimal effects inupercenters. Study 2 explores the impact of the digital displayn sales receipts in mid-sized supermarkets and smaller sizedtores. In supermarkets, the sales receipts do not vary whenhe digital display is on or off. However, in the smaller stores,he digital display appears to interfere with customers’ focusedhopping and results in a reduction in sales. Study 3 examinesow the content (price-promotion vs. non-price promotion)hown on the digital display impacts purchases. These findingsndicate that price promotional content is more effective.
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
Empirical Orientation and Background
Research is important in three domains: substantive, method-logical, and conceptual (McGrath and Brinberg 1983). This
2 A.L. Roggeveen et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
Table 1Previous research about digital displays.
Article Method Result
Burke (2009) Analysis of academic and commercial experiments Digital display’s “advertising effectiveness depends onboth the content of the message (appeal type andproduct category) and the context and quality ofexposure (audience need state, traffic speed anddirection, message frequency and duration)” (p. 180).
Dennis, Brakus, and Alamanos (2013) Survey experimentPretest (n = 103) university studentsField experiment (n = 437) Harrods department store
Digital display ads high on hedonic information evokedaffective experience and strengthened experientialprocessing.Digital display ads high on utilitarian informationevoked intellectual experience and strengtheneddeliberative processing influencing the cognitive route.
Dennis et al. (2014) Survey-based field experiment (n = 437). Test messagescontent is high-cognitive/low affect; high affect/lowcognitive; high cognitive/high affect
Digital display “content high on sensory cues evokesaffective experience and strengthens customers’experiential processing route.. . . Digital signagemessages high on ‘feature and benefits’ informationevoke intellectual experience and strengthen customers’deliberative processing route” (p. 2250).
Dennis et al. (2012) Structured questionnaires quasi-experiment (n = 357)Compare before and after display installation versusunchanged control mall
Digital display positively impacts shoppers’ approachbehaviors (e.g., spending). This impact is mediated byperceptions of the retail environment and positive affect.
Dennis et al. (2010) Survey of mall consumers (n = 315) Digital display has positive effect on “approachbehaviors, mediated by positive affect and (arguably)perception of mall environment” (p. 205).
Newman et al. (2010) Qualitative study, focus groups in three countries Impacts of digital display on images of shopping malland atmosphere are influenced by audio and videocontents and location of screens.
Newman, Dennis, and Zaman (2006) Qualitative study, focus groups Digital display provides helpful information, creates a
rpaewGaa
S
t2ieobfp
pwercd
(i(stc
MS
iesi(da
fwfs
esearch empirically investigates the substantive issue of how theresence or absence of digital displays in different retail formatsffects shopping behavior and sales, using Latin square fieldxperiments. These empirical observations are corroboratedith insights from past environmental psychology findings.iven the empirical nature of this research, formal hypotheses
re not presented, but background is provided on the substantivend methodological domains.
ubstantive Domain: The Role of Digital Displays
Digital signage is growing at a tremendous pace, withhe global market expected to be worth over $17 billion by017 (Intel 2014). Yet despite such impressive growth, theres relatively little academic research into digital signage (forxceptions, see Table 1). Thus, we focus our research effortsn three issues. First, do digital displays influence shoppingehaviors? Second, is its effectiveness contingent on the storeormat? Third, does the content (price-promotional vs. nonrice-promotional) matter?
Two previous studies suggest that digital displays have theotential to enhance shopping behavior. Based on interviewsith 315 mall customers, one study found that digital signs
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
nhance approach behavior (frequency of visits, likelihood ofevisiting soon, and spending; Dennis et al. 2010). Similarly,onsumers in a quasi-experiment, which compared respon-ents’ ratings in a test mall (digital signage) and a control mall
cs4f
modern image, and increases shopping enjoyment.
no signage), revealed higher approach behaviors (visits, spend-ng, items bought, time spent shopping) with digital signageDennis et al. 2012). However, both of those studies depended onelf-reports to assess approach behavior. To truly test the effec-iveness of digital displays, a field study is needed to captureonsumers’ actual behaviors.
ethodological Domain: Field Experiments in Varioustore Formats
Given the potential costs and benefits of digital signage, its important to determine their actual effectiveness using fieldxperiments. This research reports the results of three fieldtudies. Although field studies sacrifice certain internal valid-ty elements, they increase the external validity of the resultsCalder, Phillips, and Tybout 1982, 1983; Lynch 1982, 1983),ue to their large samples and focus on actual shopping behaviornd purchase data.
Our retailer partner for this study runs multiple retailormats and therefore provided a natural context to assesshether the role of digital displays is contingent on the retail
ormat. These formats included hypermarkets, supercenters,upermarkets, and convenience stores. The hypermarkets
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
arry 29,000–38,000 items, supercenters 12,000–19,000 items,upermarkets 7,000–11,000 items, and convenience stores,000–8,000 items. Further descriptive information about theour retail formats appears in Table 2. In each of these retail
A.L. Roggeveen et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx 3
Table 2Description of the retailer’s store types.
Items sold Annual sales (millions) Description
Hypermarket 29,000–38,000 $47.3 Carries a range of categories (e.g., grocery, hardware,sporting equipment, furniture, appliance)
Supercenter 12,000–19,000 $24.6 Carries mainly food and household itemsSC
fdta
IF
s2swhasR
lspats
adhtftHd
M
hcpiut
TC
S
S
S
t
upermarket 7,000–11,000 $9.0
onvenience 4,000–8,000 $2.8
ormats, a Latin square design, manipulating whether the digitalisplay was on or off was run. By running these tests in consis-ent time periods, the impact of the different retail formats using
factorial design could be determined.
s the Impact of Digital Displays Influenced by the Retailormat?
Past research reveals that different retail formats and storeizes influence shopping behavior (Gauri, Trivedi, and Grewal008; Talukdar, Gauri, and Grewal 2010). In general, largertores, such as hypermarkets, aim to deliver one-stop shopping,hereas formats that predominantly cover food and house-old items are designed to fulfill more specific needs (Kahnnd McAlister 1997). As a consequence, customers in largertores spend more time and money per shopping trip (Ganesh,eynolds, and Luckett 2007; Kahn and McAlister 1997).
Consumers typically enter large stores with a more extensiveist in mind, and as they shop for these items throughout thetore, they are exposed to multiple in-store stimuli that can
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
rompt unplanned buying (Kollat and Willett 1967). Consumerslso set aside more time for the shopping trip, which leaveshem more time to be exposed to and process the in-storetimuli that influence their unplanned buying (Park, Iyer,
isT
able 3ustomer and store information.
Customerc
Income Age Employ
tudy 1Hypermarket 1 284,688 39.6 78.2
Hypermarket 2 260,064 38.2 78.0
Supercenter 1 240,067 44.8 80.6
Supercenter 2 214,685 45.5 74.5
tudy 2Supermarket 1 230,567 44.7 76.8
Supermarket 2 277,787 38.8 77.8
Supermarket 3 250,825 38.8 74.1
Smaller Store 1a 253,009 41.0 76.4
Smaller Store 2a 253,009 41.0 76.4
Smaller Store 3a 232,835 43.3 80.6
tudy 3Hypermarket 1 284,688 39.6 78.2
Hypermarket 2 260,064 38.2 78.0
Supercenter 1 240,067 44.8 80.6
a Smaller Stores 1 and 2 were convenience stores. Smaller Store 3 was an older supb In hypermarkets, approximately 35 percent of space is devoted to non-food. In su
o non-food is a small percentage.c Data source: www.ekonomifakta.se.
Carries mainly food and household itemsCarries mainly food and household items
nd Smith 1989). Stilley, Inman, and Wakefield (2010b) alsoemonstrate that the more aisles a consumer shops, the moree or she deviates from a planned budget. These results suggesthat customers shopping in a hypermarket with more squareootage, aisles, and stockkeeping units (SKUs) are more likelyo be influenced by in-store stimuli, such as digital displays.owever, for customers shopping in smaller formats, theseigital display may be less effective.
Study 1
ethod
Study 1 empirically assesses the effects of digital signs in twoypermarkets and supercenters. Both hypermarkets and super-enters are large store formats, but they differ in terms of theroducts carried (see Tables 2 and 3). Digital displays werenstalled in two hypermarkets and two superstores, then manip-lated to be turned on or off. The selection of the stores ensuredhat the customer populations had similar demographics. The
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
ncomes, ages, and employment status of customers in the citieserved by the different store types were nearly identical (seeable 3).
Store
ed Sales space (sq m) Number of observations
6,435b 3,5409,302b 7,4625,076 5,8022,750 2,502
1,370 26,0551,370 14,6301,500 14,492
446 12,776650 13,525682 20,935
6,435b 13,5229,302b 27,3005,076 21,216
ermarket whose size was consistent with a convenience store.percenters, supermarkets, and convenience stores, the amount of space devoted
Mean $16.32 $13.93 $16.66 $16.77SD 33.56 30.39 24.95 22.96
Display off Non-price content Price content
Study 3Sales receipts
Mean $61.92 $61.63 $63.22SD 54.60 54.48 56.65
Number of itemsMean 26.58 26.33 27.17SD 18.82 19.09 19.44
Store 2 Price content Digital display off Non-price contentStore 3 Non-price content Price content Digital display off
Prior to the on/off manipulation of the digital display, a com-any that specializes in in-store digital signage installed LCDcreens. Two 42′′ screens showing weekly specials were at thentrance. Six to eight 42′′ screens showing seasonal, promotions,nd image building content were installed at the store perimeter.ne to two 42′′ screens were installed in the deli wall. These
creens showed cooking related content and promotions. One towo 42′′ screens were installed in the produce department. Thesecreens showed cooking content and product information. Fouro six 42′′ screen were installed at the checkout. Those screenshowed retailer information, local information, and games. Inhe hypermarkets, five 42′′ screens were placed on the endcaps.n the supercenters, three 15′′ screens were installed on eachf five endcaps. The content shown on the endcaps screens inoth supercenters and hypermarkets was new product informa-ion and promotions. All screens were installed at least threeeeks prior to the experiment, to allow for a familiarizationeriod (Dennis et al. 2010), but they were not turned on duringhis period. Then in each of the hypermarkets and supercenters
Latin square experiment was run over two three-week timeeriods. In the first time period, the digital display was off inalf the stores and on in the other half. In the second time period,he conditions reversed (see Table 4).
Sales receipt (total amount spent), time spent shopping in thetore, and the number of SKUs purchased were gathered by theetailer on each Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday in both then and off conditions for all stores. Sales receipts in Swedishroners were converted into U.S. dollars, using an exchange
ate of .12. Time spent shopping was converted into minutes. Inotal, 19,306 observations were provided (11,002 hypermarkets,,304 supercenters).
esults
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital Displays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.08.001
Sales Receipts. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) (seeables 5 and 6), using the display and store format as the inde-endent variables, revealed a main effect of whether the display
Time spent shoppingMean 27.58 27.92 28.30SD 21.91 21.70 22.60
as on or off (F(1, 19302) = 67.52, p < .001) and the store formatF(1, 19302) = 766.86, p < .001). Customers spent more when theisplay was on ($73.09) versus off ($65.70). They also spentore when they shopped in the hypermarket ($81.84) versus
he supercenter ($56.95). Importantly, there was an interactionetween display and store format (F(1, 19302) = 38.24, p < .001,ee Fig. 1). In the hypermarkets, the display enhanced salesMon = $88.31, Moff = $75.37; F(1, 19302) = 120.53, p < .001). Inhe supercenters, the difference in the amount customers spentas smaller and not significant when the display was on versusff (on = $57.86, off = $56.04; F(1, 19302) = 1.81, p = .18).
Number of SKUs Purchased. The analysis of theumber of SKUs purchased revealed similar results. Cus-omers purchased more items when the display was onMon = 31.05, Moff = 28.74; F(1, 19302) = 40.87, p < .001) and
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
hen they shopped in the hypermarket (Mhypermarket = 33.96,supercenter = 25.82; F(1, 19302) = 504.77, p < .001). There was
lso an interaction effect (F(1, 19302) = 39.18, p < .001). In the t
tailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx 5
ypermarkets, the displays enhanced the number of SKUs pur-hased (Mon = 36.25, Moff = 31.67; F(1, 19302) = 93.03, p < .001).n the supercenters, there was no difference in the number oftems customers purchased, regardless of whether the displayas on or off (Mon = 25.85, Moff = 25.80; F < 1).Time Spent Shopping. Customers spent more time
hopping when the display was on (Mon = 31.70, Moff = 29.68;(1, 19302) = 45.20, p < .001). They also spent more time
n the hypermarket (Mhypermarket = 34.87, Msupercenter = 26.51;(1, 19302) = 776.29, p < .001). There was also an interactionffect (F(1, 19302) = 21.98, p < .001). In the hypermarkets, the dis-lay enhanced the time shopping (Mon = 36.58, Moff = 33.16;(1, 19302) = 75.68, p < .001). In the supercenters, the difference
n the time spent shopping decreased and was not significanthen the display was on versus off (Mon = 26.81, Moff = 26.20;(1, 19302) = 1.82, p = .18).
iscussion
The results of this field experiment demonstrate that there is difference in the impact of digital displays on sales, SKUs pur-hased, and time spent across hypermarkets and supercenters.he digital displays resulted in a sales lift, more SKUs pur-hased, and shoppers spending more time in hypermarkets, buthey had minimal impacts on sales and time spent shopping inhe supercenters. The hypermarket results are in line with theualitative shopping time findings of Uusitalo (2001), namely,hat shoppers lose their sense of time when shopping in largeretail establishments. As a result, they appear more likely toecome immersed in the environment, including looking at in-tore displays.
It is also possible that the enhanced sales found in the hyper-arkets when the digital displays were turned on were a function
f hypermarket shoppers’ openness to purchasing from a widerange of product categories. These results are in line with Bell,orsten, and Knox (2011) finding that shopping goal abstraction
esults in significantly more unplanned purchases (60 percent)ompared with more concrete goals (i.e., shopping for imme-iate consumption, 2 percent). It also corresponds to researchy Nordfält (2009) that highlights the increase in unplannedehavior during less planned shopping trips.
An important implication for retailers is that digital displaysn hypermarkets (which carry more categories) enhance cus-omer slack in the amount spent, time spent in the store, and theumber of items purchased. However, these effects did not arisen the somewhat smaller supercenters, which predominately sellood and household products. In the next study, we thereforexamine the impact of digital displays in smaller, destination-riented stores, where consumers tend to arrive with a plannedhopping list in hand. Here, the impact of digital displays evenight distract the customer from planned shopping, resulting in
educed sales.
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
Digital displays were installed in three supermarkets andhree smaller stores. The supermarkets had approximately 1,450
quare meters of space; the smaller stores had approximately00 square meters of space (see Table 3). One of the smaller,lder stores traditionally had been viewed as a supermarket, yett was classified as a smaller store on the basis of its sales space682 sq m), which was more consistent with the other smallertores (446 sq m; 650 sq m) than with the other supermarkets1,370 sq m, 1,370 sq m, 1,500 sq m).
Similar to Study 1, the digital displays were manipulated toe on or off in the different stores. This study took place fiveonths after Study 1. Although the tests were done at separate
imes, the distance between the stores included in the experimentargely ruled out the possibility that the same customer wouldisit one of the larger stores during a Study 1 test period andhen one of the smaller stores during a Study 2 test period. Thats, the average distance between the stores used Study 1 and inhis study was more than 100 miles. As in Study 1, the storesere carefully selected to ensure that the populations servedad similar demographics. The incomes, ages, and employmenttatus of customers in the cities served by the different storeypes were nearly identical (see Table 3).
Consistent with Study 1, prior to the on/off manipulationf the digital displays, a company that specializes in in-storeigital signage installed LCD screens, with ten to twelve 15′′creens installed in the supermarkets and eight to ten 15′′ screensnstalled in the convenience stores. The screens were located athe entrance, center of the store, and checkout. Those located athe entrance and center broadcast a similar mix of price promo-ional and non-price-related content. At the checkout, the screensroadcast news, quizzes, or other information. All screens werenstalled at least three weeks prior to the experiment, to allowor a familiarization period (Dennis et al. 2010), but they wereot turned on during this period.
A Latin square design was again employed in both the super-arkets and the smaller stores. The experiment consisted of two
hree-week time periods. In the first time period, the digital dis-lay was off in one group of stores and on in the other. In theecond time period, the conditions reversed (see Table 4). Theales receipts were analyzed for all days for which the retailerrovided results, for both on and off conditions. Supermarket
and all three smaller stores provided receipts for each dayf the week; Supermarkets 2 and 3 provided receipts only forondays and Tuesdays for both the on and off conditions. We
ecalculated the sales receipts in U.S. dollars, using an exchangeate of .12. In total, we analyzed 102,413 observations (55,177rom supermarkets, 47,236 from smaller stores).
esults
Sales Receipts. An ANOVA (see Tables 5 and 6 and Fig. 2),sing the display and store format as the independent variables,evealed a main effect of whether the display was on or offF(1, 102409) = 41.34, p < .001). Having the display on actuallyeduced the amount spent in these stores (Mon = $15.35,
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
off = $16.49). There was also a main effect of store formatF(1, 102409) = 80.81, p < .001). Customers spent more whenhey shopped in supermarkets versus the smaller storesMsupermarket = $16.72, Msmaller = $15.13). Importantly, there
(p2o
Fig. 2. Study 2 results.
as an interaction as well (F(1, 102409) = 50.09, p < .001). In theupermarkets, there was no difference in sales receipts as a func-ion of the displays being on or off (Mon = $16.77, Moff = $16.66,
< 1). However, in the smaller stores, sales receipts were lowerhen the digital display was on (Mon = $13.93, Moff = $16.32,(1, 102409) = 84.15, p < .001).
iscussion
This field experiment shows that turning on the digital dis-lays did not impact sales in the supermarkets but resultedn a lower sales in the smaller stores. These findings corrob-rate qualitative findings by Uusitalo (2001) that consumershopping in smaller stores prefer to complete the task quicklynd efficiently. Thus, retailers need to be cautious about imple-enting tactics like digital displays in destination-oriented
tores. In addition, these findings suggest that digital displaysust provide relevant content that makes it worthwhile for cus-
omers to disrupt their planned shopping path, such as priceromotions. Accordingly, in the next field experiment tests thempact of two different types of content in the digital displays.
Study 3
Previous research has examined the impact of different typesf displays. Burke (2009) suggests that the effectiveness of dig-tal displays likely depends on the message content. Dennis,rakus, and Alamanos (2013) and Dennis et al. (2014) provide
ome evidence that digital display content changes processingoutes. Inman, McAlister, and Hoyer (1990) highlight the impor-ance of the use of in-store price promotion signage. Therefore,nother substantive research question is whether digital displayontent affects shopping behaviors.
Specifically, this research investigates whether the contentisplays a price promotion message, a non-price message, oro display. The purpose of a sales promotion message “is toave a direct impact on the behavior of the firm’s customers”Blattberg and Neslin 1989, p. 3). Previous research shows that
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
rice promotions spur purchases by customers (Grewal et al.011). In contrast, a non-price message highlights an item, with-ut any mention of the price. We predict that digital displays that
how a price promotion message increases sales by stimulatingurchases, whereas non-price messages do not affect sales.
ethod
This field study again used a Latin square design, with 62,037bservations. The non-interacting external variables were thetore and the time period. The independent variable, digitalisplay content, contained three levels (price promotion, non-rice, display off), three stores were needed. Study 1 revealedhe strongest impact of displays in hypermarkets, so Study 3ncluded two hypermarkets and a supercenter and was run five
onths after the test reported in Study 1. In the price promotionondition, the digital displays showed different products, withhe sales price boldly displayed. The non-price content showedroducts from different angles, without any price or other infor-ation (see Appendix A). The no content condition meant that
he digital display was turned off.The study was divided into three three-week time periods.
n the first, the digital display remained off in one-third of thetores, showed the price promotion content another one-thirdf stores, and showed the non-price content in the remainingne-third of stores. For the second and third time periods, theonditions rotated (see Table 4). The stores recorded the saleseceipts, number of items purchased, and trip length in all threeeriods. We recalculated the sales receipts in U.S. dollars, usingn exchange rate of .12. In total, we obtained 62,038 observations40,822 in hypermarkets, 21,216 in the supercenter).
esults
The sales receipts, number of items purchased, and trip lengthere the dependent measures in an multivariate analysis of vari-
nce, which demonstrated a significant effect of display typeWilks’ Lambda F(6, 124066) = 6.00, p < .001).
The ANOVA for sales receipts revealed a significant mainffect (F(2, 62035) = 4.87, p < .01, Fig. 3). Price promotional con-ent resulted in higher sales ($63.22) than no content ($61.92,
< .05) and than non-price content ($61.63, p = .01). There waso significant difference between the non-price content and noontent conditions (p > .8).
Similarly, the ANOVA on number of items purchasedevealed a significant main effect (F(2, 62035) = 8.03, p < .01,ig. 3). Price promotional content resulted in more items pur-hased (27.17) than no content (26.58, p < .001) or non-priceontent (26.33, p < .001). There was no such difference betweenon-price content and no content (p = .5).
Finally, the ANOVA on the length of the shopping tripevealed a significant main effect (F(2, 62035) = 7.40, p < .01,
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
ig. 3). Price promotional content resulted in a longer shoppingrip (28.30 min) than no content (27.58 min, p < .001). Price pro-otional content led to a slightly longer shopping trip than
on-price content (27.92 min, p = .10). There was no signifi-ant difference between the non-price content and no contentonditions (p = .17).
th(cwi
Fig. 3. Study 3 results.
iscussion
This study provides evidence that a promotional messagenduces a lift in sales, number of items purchased, and timepent in the store relative to the display being off, whereason-price content does not. These data were collected with aatin square design (non-interacting external variables were
he store and the time period), using two hypermarkets and aupercenter. However, because Study 1 revealed a differenceetween hypermarkets and supercenters, such that the effectas muted in the supercenters, we also analyzed the Study 3ata using a factorial design, in which the display content andtore format were independent variables. These results showhat in the hypermarkets, price promotional content resulted inigher sales receipts than no content when the display was offMprice = $66.93, Moff = $64.42, p < .001), whereas the no-price
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
ontent did not impact sales differently than when the displayas off (Mnon-price = $65.40, Moff = $64.42, p > .14). These find-
ngs are consistent with the Latin square results. However, in
iuiments. Although we corroborate empirical observations fromenvironmental psychology findings, much work remains tobetter understand the conceptual domain of why digital displays
A.L. Roggeveen et al. / Journal
he supercenters, a promotional message did not induce higherales relative to when the display was off (Mprice = $56.01,
off = $57.43, p > .12), and non-price content actually hurt salesompared with when the display was off (Mnon-price = $53.94,
off = $57.43, p < .001).These results highlight that the impact of the digital displays
n sales is not simply due to novelty. The very impressive 17ercent sales lift for the hypermarkets in Study 1, immediatelyfter the digital displays were installed, does not carry forwardully though. Instead, a 3 percent sales increase remained fiveonths after the signs had been installed in the hypermarkets.his increase may seem low, but in a low margin, high volumeusiness such as grocery retailing, a 3 percent gain is critical toetailers’ profitability. The difference also is significant (z = 55,
< .001).
General Discussion
mplications
This research helps explicate the role of digital displays innhancing retailers’ in-store marketing efforts. In-store digitalisplays are being widely considered, but investing in them isot a trivial decision. Retailers must understand exactly howhe displays will affect their bottom lines before they can makenformed decisions about whether to invest in digital displayechnology for their stores. We accordingly have focused onhether digital displays influence shopping behaviors, how theyepend on retail formats, and the impact of the displayed content.
The results of Study 1, in which we examined the impactf digital signage in hypermarkets and supercenters, show thatigital displays result in greater sales receipts, more items pur-hased, and more time spent in the hypermarkets, but they haveinimal impacts in supercenters. Hypermarkets are larger than
upercenters in terms of both square footage and range of items.hese differences lead customers to browse more in hypermar-ets, such that they are more influenced by in-store displays.herefore, digital displays may be an important investment for
etailers that maintain larger, more browsing-oriented stores.Study 2, which examined the impact of digital signage in
upermarkets and smaller stores (e.g., convenience stores), indi-ates that digital displays do not affect sales in supermarkets, andn the smaller stores, they actually result in lower sales. For retail-rs that run smaller stores and appeal to task-oriented customers,igital displays thus might not be worthwhile investments.
The content provided by the displays in Studies 1 and 2 mixedf price promotional and non–price-related content. To explicatehe effectiveness of digital displays, we examined the impact ofarying content in Study 3. These results demonstrate that pro-iding content that highlights price promotional elements, ratherhan non-price content, increases sales, the number of itemsurchased, and the time spent in the store. They also supportnman, McAlister, and Hoyer (1990) findings that promotional
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
nformation gets used as a deal proxy and thus spurs action byonsumers. The lack of impact of non-price content highlightshe importance of displaying relevant visual information. Study
also provides an important test of the longer-term impact of s
tailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
igital displays. That is, Studies 1 and 2 tested the impact of theisplays when they were new in the stores; Study 3 examinesheir impacts five months after their installation. These resultsndicate that in-store displays have a novelty effect, such that theift shortly after the displays were turned on was a whopping 17ercent in the hypermarkets. That lift declined to 3 percent afterve months. However, even a 3 percent lift means substantialrofit increases for the retailer.
Finally, it is important to recognize that the profits for theigital display are much greater than the 3–17 percent sales lift,ecause the retail chain receives sizable revenue from manu-acturers that pay to promote their products on these displays.1
urrently, all formats of the chain present digital displays.
imitations and Further Research
This research has examined the impact of digital signs onverall purchases in the store (cumulative receipts). Additionalesearch should explore their impact on specifically promotedtems, for which the effects might be even more pronounced.nderstanding how shoppers respond to in-store communi-
ations is critical for retailers (Ailawadi et al. 2009). Theffectiveness of the digital sign may depend on the categorye.g., Chevalier 1975a, 1975b). Furthermore, synergies of itemsromoted in local flyers or displayed on end-caps and thoseisplayed in the digital displays need to be assessed.
Another potential avenue for future research is to examinehe impact of the digital display size. The 42′′ digital displaycreen size were effective in the hypermarkets, but not effectiven the supercenters. It is possible that a screen smaller than 42′′ight be more effective in a store with a smaller footprint. Thus,
uture research should examine the impact of varying the screenize of the digital display in different store formats.
In considering the effects of display content, we did notxplore interactive content, which represents an importantvenue for additional research. Split screens that display bothrice promotions and information about the product mightncrease the novelty of the screens themselves, which wouldttract more interest and attention from consumers. In thisense, additional research should consider various ways toncrease the sense of novelty surrounding the screens. However,rior research suggests that too many options can reduceurchase (Iyengar and Lepper 2000). If displays become tooovel and exciting, do they cause analysis paralysis? Or doesn option highlighted in a display become more clearly framedn consumers’ minds, such that it facilitates their analysis andurchase?
As noted previously, this research focused on the substantivessue of the impact of digital displays on shopping behavior,sing the methodological domain of Latin square field exper-
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
1 The chain estimated that it took them a year to re-coop their investment inetting up the digital displays (displays and network connection costs).
ork differently in various store formats and with differentypes of messages. We are hopeful that the empirical resultsn this research note can serve as a springboard for furtheresearch in this area.
Appendix A.
References
ilawadi, Kusum L., J.P. Beauchamp, Naveen Donthu, Dinesh K. Gauri andVenkatesh Shankar (2009), “Communication and Promotion Decisions inRetailing: A Review and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Retail-ing, 85 (1), 42–55.
ell, David, Daniel Corsten and George Knox (2011), “From Point-of-Purchaseto Path-to-Purchase: How PreShopping Factors Drive Unplanned Buying,”Journal of Marketing, 75, 31–45.
lattberg, Robert C. and Scott A. Neslin (1989), “Sales Promotion: The Longand the Short of It,” Marketing Letters, 1 (1), 81–97.
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
urke, Raymond (2009), “Behavioral Effects of Digital Signage,” Journal ofAdvertising Research, (June), 180–5.
alder, Bobby J., Lynn Phillips and Alice M. Tybout (1982), “The Concept ofExternal Validity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 240–4.
R
tailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx 9
alder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips and Alice M. Tybout (1983),“Beyond External Validity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (1),112–4.
hevalier, Michel (1975a), “Increase in Sales Due to In-Store Display,” Journalof Marketing Research, 12, 426–31.
(1975b), “Substitution Patterns as a Result of Display inthe Product Category,” Journal of Retailing, 51 (4), 65–88.
ennis, Charles, J. Josko Brakus and Eleftherios Alamanos (2013), “TheWallpaper Matters: The Influence of the Content of Digital Ads on Cus-tomer In-Store Experience,” Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (3–4),338–55.
ennis, Charles, J. Josko Brakus, Suraksha Gupta and Eleftherios Alamanos(2014), “The Effect of Digital Signage on Shoppers’ Behavior: TheRole of the Evoked Experience,” Journal of Business Research, 67 (11),2250–7.
ennis, Charles, Richard Michon, J. Josko Brakus, Andrew Newman and Eleft-herios Alamanos (2012), “New Insights into the Impact of Digital Signageas a Retail Atmospheric Tool,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11 (6),454–66.
ennis, Charles, Andrew Newman, Michon Richard, J. Josko Brakus and LenTiu Wright (2010), “The Mediating Effects of Perception and Emotion: Dig-ital Signage in Mall Atmospherics,” Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, 17, 205–15.
anesh, Jaishankar, Kristy Reynolds and Michael Luckett (2007), “RetailPatronage Behavior and Shopper Typologies: A Replication and ExtensionUsing a Multi-format, Multi-method Approach,” Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 35 (3), 369–81.
auri, Dinesh K., Minakshi Trivedi and Dhruv Grewal (2008), “Understandingthe Determinants of Retail Strategy: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal ofRetailing, 84 (3), 256–67.
rewal, Dhruv, Kusum Ailawadi, Dinesh Gauri, Kevin Hall, Praveen Kopalleand Jane Robertson (2011), “Innovation in Retail Pricing and Promotions,”Journal of Retailing, 87S (1), S43–52.
nman, J. Jeffrey, Leigh McAlister and Wayne D. Hoyer (1990), “PromotionSignal: Proxy for a Price Cut?,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1),74–82.
ntel (2014), “USD 17 Billion and Beyond: Continuing to Grow the DigitalSignage Economy,” Intel Retail Industry Solution Brief,,
yengar, Sheena S. and Mark R. Lepper (2000), “When Choice Is Demotivating:Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 79 (6), 995–1006.
ahn, Barbara E. and Leigh McAlister (1997), Grocery Revolution, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ollat, David T. and Ronald P. Willett (1967), “Customer Impulse PurchasingBehavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (February), 21–31.
ynch, John G. Jr. (1982), “On the External Validity of Experiments in ConsumerResearch,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), 225–39.
ynch, John G. (1983), “The Role of External Validity in Theoretical Research,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (1), 109–11.
cGrath, Joseph E. and David Brinberg (1983), “External Validity and theResearch Process: A Comment on the Calder/Lynch Dialogue,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 10 (1), 115–24.
ewman, Andrew, Charles Dennis, Len-Tiu Wright and Tamira King (2010),“Shoppers’ Experiences of Digital Signage – A Cross-National Qualita-tive Study,” International Journal of Digital Content Technology and ItsApplications, 4 (7), 50–7.
ewman, Andrew, Charles Dennis and Shahid Zaman (2006), “MarketingImages and Consumers’ Experiences in Selling Environments,” MarketingManagement Journal, (Fall), 515–99.
ordfält, Jens (2009), “Unplanned Grocery Purchases: The Influence of theShopping-Trip Type Revisited,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8 (1),1–13.
ark, C. Whan, Easwar S. Iyer and Daniel C. Smith (1989), “The Effects ofSituational Factors on In-Store Grocery Shopping Behavior: The Role of
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
Store Environment and Time Available for Shopping,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15 (March), 422–33.
oster, Jeffrey (2012), “Market Insight: Retail Primer, North America,” GartnerReport, March 29, 1–21.
tilley, Karen M., Jeffrey J. Inman and Kirk L. Wakefield (2010a), “Spendingon the Fly: Mental Budgets, Promotions, and Spending Behavior,” Journal
Please cite this article in press as: Roggeveen, Anne L., et al, Do Digital DJournal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.0
of Marketing, 74 (May), 34–47., and
(2010b), “Planning to Make Unplanned Purchases? The Role of In-StoreSlack in Budget Deviation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (August).
U
tailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
alukdar, Debabrata, Dinesh K. Gauri and Dhruv Grewal (2010), “An Empir-ical Analysis of Extreme Cherry Picking Behavior of Consumers in the
isplays Enhance Sales? Role of Retail Format and Message Content,8.001
Frequently Purchased Goods Market,” Journal of Retailing, 86 (4), 336–54.usitalo, Outi (2001), “Consumer Perceptions of Grocery Retail Formats and
Brands,” International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 29(5), 214–25.
