Download - Retail Food Store Employee Influence on Customer Shopping ... · The continued shopping in a retail food store is contingent upon a series of factors being satisfactory to the food

Retail Food Store Employee Influence on

Customer Shopping Behavior

by

Harry F. Krueckeberg, Ph.D.Professor of Marketing

College of BusinessColorado State UniversityFort Collins, CO. 80523

Preface

This report represents one in a seriesbeingdeveloped by the author on the topic of employeehelpfulness. Additional work haa been done inFort Collins dealkg with helpfulness in retailfood stores as well as restaurants. A comparativeproject has been conducted by Dr. John Snyderin AustraIia which will facilitate internationalcomparison of the perception of helpfulness,

Appreciation goes to the numerousindividuals for their assistance in data collectionand report preparation. Appreciation especiallygoes to Lynette Mohr for her manuscript pre-paration assistance.

Abstract

Retail food store employees presumablyimprove the level of satisfactioncustomers realizeduring a shopping trip. A review of the litera-ture revealed few significant contributions sup-porting or refuting this contention.

A telephone survey of 505 households inFort Collins, CO. during the Fall of 1988 wasconducted to generate information on retail foodstore employees helpfulness. The findingsrevealed little explicit impact of helpfulness.Statisticalanalysis determined a number of rela-tionships between dollars spent in a store andthe perceived level of employee helpfulness.

Retail food stores were not selected,patronized nor avoided based exclusively norextensively on perceptions of employee helpful-

ness. On the other hand, employees were con-sidered necessary for an enjoyable shopping trip.

Employees are neither change agents inretail food stores nor are they apparently signifi-cant stressinducers or inhibitors compared to thepotential stress redlzed by an inconvenient loca-tion, high prices or a poor variety of products,

It is recommended that employees be moreclosely associatedwith obvious service strategies,and that services be made more obvious andpredominant in the promotion and advertisingofthe retail food store.

Prologue

In a sense, buying actions are alwaysactions of self-expressionin that theyembody the consumer’s own goalsand wants and express how con-sumers define themselves.*

(0’Shaughmw 1987)

Introduction

Retail food store experiences areencountered by most consumers on a regularlyscheduIed basis. Food shopping for the majorityof consumers is a regular procedur~ is in effectcustoma~ and for some can be aaid to be pre-scribed by one or more environmental, maritaland physiological situations (namely hunger).

Retail food stores are staffed by personswho may or may not confront the shoppev someto provide service, others to provide convenience,and other to finalize the transaction (namely the

Journalof Food DistributionResearch February90/page 121

checkers). The confrontation between employeeand shopper may be constructive or destructiveduring any one of the shopping trips.

As Park, Iyer and Smith (1989) state,

Unlike most consumer buying con-texts, the grocery shoppingexperience is characterized by (1)multiple buying goals that must beachieved through the processing ofa complex array of in-store stimulisuch as products, brands, and point-of-purchase information, and (2)repetition at regular time intervals(e.g., once a week). These conditionscreate a unique context in whichpurchase intentions and outcomesoften differ depending on a variety ofsituational factors.

The previous quote as well as otherreported research results raise several questionsconcerning the perceived impact of employeehelpfulness on shopper behavior. To what extentis employee helpfulness a goal for managementto achieve? To what extent do employees stimu-late shopper satisfactionand prolong patronage ofa store? To what extent is employee helpfulnessone of the cognitive situational factors creatingthe context of a satisfactory or frustrating shop-ping experience?

A review of numerous retailing and con-sumer research publications released over thepast several years reflects a passive attitudetoward an examination of the influence thatemployees have on consumer and shopperbehaviors and attitudestoward retail food stores.

It is an initial assumption that humanresources employed by a retail food store facili-tate or retard the exchange of value betweencustomers and the store. It is generally assumedthat both the management and non-managementemployees influence the marketing ability of thestore and influence the purchasing ability andwillingness of the customer. It is also assumedthat influence is accomplishedthrough verbal andnon-verbal communications; upon request bycustomers and or voluntarily by the food storeemployee (i.e., customer service).

Situation and Research Problem

The continued shopping in a retail foodstore is contingent upon a series of factors beingsatisfactory to the food purchasing agent of thehousehold. The Burgoyne study (1981) presenteda lengthy list of factors influencing consumer

selection of a retail food store (Table 1). TheBurgoyne study asked the respondents to rankthe importance of “courteous and helpfulemployees.” This factor ranked seventh with anaverage rating of 7.57 on a scale of 9. No men-tion was made of which employees, what depart-ment of the store nor the specific role of employ-ees in creating a satisfactory environment forshoppers.

Table 1

The average importance ratingsof factors considered

when selecting a supermarket

WeightedStore Characteristic Average Rating’

Quality and freshness of meat 8.10Quality and freshness of produce 8.09Attractiveness and cleanliness 7.97

Overall prices 7.78Variety and selection 7.77Convenient location 7.69

Courteous and helpful employees 7.57Prices of meats 7.36Prices of produce 7.35Good parking facilities 7.15

Fast checkout service 7.09Good store arrangement 7.04Advertised specials 6.30

lBased on a scale of 1-9; 9 = the most important.

SOURCE: Burgoyne Study (1981)

Progressive Grocer (1989) annually pub-lishes its scores and ratings of characteristicsonwhich consumers base their choice of a super-market. The highest ranking that “employees”other than checkers received was 15th with ascore of 83.6, with 48 percent of the respondentsrating “helpful personnel in service departments”as an extremely important characteristicin choos-ing a supermarket (Table 2). A “friendlymanager” and “knowing customers names” wereranked 28th and 42nd respectively.

Februa~ 90/page 122 Journalof Food DistributionResearch

Table 2

Factors looked for by consumerswhen choosinga supermarket

as reported by Progressive Grocer, April 1989.

PercentRating

“ExtremelyRank Characteristic Score Important”

1234

5

613

14

15

28

42

CleanlinessAll prices labeledLow pricesAccurate, pleasantcheckout clerksFreshness datemarked on productsGood produce dept.Does not run shortof items on“special”Unit pricing signson shelvesHelpful personnelin servicedepartments● Ranked 12th

in 1987;c Ranked 14th

in 1988Manager is friendlyand helpful

● Ranked 29thin 1987;

● Ranked 28thin 1988

Store personnelknow customers’names● Ranked 41st

in 1987;● Ranked 43rd

in 1988

93.993.791.7

90.5

89.388.1

83.9

83.9

83.6

67.6

28.7

—

757874

66

6662

54

56

48

35

6

SOURCE: Progressive Grocer (April 1989)

Hansen and Deutscher (1977) also dis-cussed the attributes of retail food stores impor-tant to consumers, Helpful store personnelranked 8th with an average importance rating of8.88 (Table 3).

Journalof Food DistributionResearch

TabIe 3

Top ten and bottom five atore attributesImportant to consumers

In the selection of a retail food store

MeanImportance

Store Attribute Rank Rating

Dependable products 1Store is clean 2Easy to find items you want 3Fast checkout 4High-quality products 5

High value for the money 6Fully stocked 7Helpfnl store personnel 8Easy to move through store 9Adequate number of

store personnel 10

Many friends shop thereStore is liked by friends ::Easy to get credit 39Layaway available 40Easy to get home delivery 41

Source: R. Hansen and T. Deutscher

Retail food store employees and

9.509.339,279.239.10

9.058.948.888.88

8.87

4.184.072.582.091.93

(1977)

managersare visible resources in a retail food store. Theyact and react as stimulated or motivated by cus-tomers, managers, other employees, and by thework environment. Are employee actions orreactions a source of frustration or satisfactiontocustomers? Are experiences, or the lack of same,with store employees a source of motivation ordistraction to customers in a retail food store?

The situation faced by retail food atoremanagement involves hiring and training storepersonnel in an effort to achieve store goals andobjectives. One assumed goal is profitability.Can customer dollar purchases be influenced orassociated with perceptions of, and experienceswith employees? Is store loyalty a function of in-Store behavior of employees?

Previous Rweareh

Research into the customer selection of afood atore reflects the relative unimportance ofemployee “helpfulness” and “service.” Do these

February90/psge 123

terms adequately describe what is expected ofemployees and management? What other dimen-sions of employee and management attitude andbehavior should be considered?

Research on retail food store customerbehavior has focused primarily on product-con-sumer interactions such as the effect of displaywidth (Harris 1958), and new counter displays(McClure and West 1969), and point of purchasedisplays (Dickson and Sawyer 1986). Otherauthors have explored the following

Brucks, 1985

COX, 1964

Hayer, 1984

Kollat &Willett, 1967

Pork, Iyer &Smith, 1989

Stephenson, 1969

Farley, 1968

Jacoby, Chestnut& Fisher 1976

Monroe &Guillinan, 1975

Louviere &Garth, 1987

Golden &Albaum, 1987

Tantiwong &Wllton, 1985

Hawkins, Coney& Best

Hornik, 1984

Keng &Ehrenberg, 1984

Andreasen, 1984

Effect of product classknowledge

Response to shelf-space

Effects of repeat purchasing

Impulse purchasing

Effects of situationalin-store factors

Determinants of patronage

Dimensions of choice patterns

Information acquisition

Retail patronage influence

Determinants of retail facilitychoice

Retail image measurement

Elderly food store preferences

Consumer behavior

Perceptionof time in consumerbehavior

Patterns of store choice

Changes in consumerpreferences

Korgconkar, Lund Attitude and& Price, 1985 patronage behavior

The results of the Monroe and Guillinan(1975) paper “offer some substantive findingsabout the nature of relationships among somekey variables believed to influence retailpatronage behavior.” The influence of storeemployees was not explored nor considered.

Numerous examples plus most of thereferences listed previously do not consideremployee impact or influence on customershopping behaviors.

This Study’s Significance

This study differs from previous researchin several fundamental ways:

First, it considers the association of per-ceived employee helpfulness on the shoppingduration of consumers and the dollars spent byconsumers.

Second it limits consideration to presentbehaviors associated with post-store selection,namely, present shopping experiences, not initialstore selection.

Management’s Goal

It is assumed that store managementstrives to develop a retail food store marketingplan based on a valid analysis of the relationshipof human resource impact and customer loyalty.More specifically,it is assumed that managementstrives to accomplish several objectives.

Management’s Objectives

More specifically, this study is predicatedon several assumed management objectives.These objectives are the basis for the researchobjectives that follow.

The management objectives assumed are:

a) To improve the situational relationshipsbetween human resources and customers.

b) To implement the appropriate marketing stra-tegies in order to improve store loyaltythrough employee helpfulness, and

c) To effectively follow-up and evaluate the mar-keting plan and its human resource deploy-ment strategies.

Severalalternativeaccomplishmentsdesiredas a result of working toward the m~or manage-ment goal can be described as:

a)

b)

c)

To increase effectiveness of human resourcesin order to improve store loyalty.To improve the hiring of the appropriatelyeffective employees for maintaining and orimproving customer loyalty.To improve training and retraining of storeemployees to achieve customer loyalty.

February90/page 124 Journalof Food DistributionResearch

Research Goal

The primary research goal to which thisresearch project contributes is that of determin-ing the perceived relationshipsbetween employeehelpfulness and retail food store customer satis-faction, store loyalty, dollar expenditures andother descriptive characteristicsof the customer.

Research Objectives

The analysis presented in this report wasbased on the following research objectives:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

To determine the number of purchaseoccasions and dollars expended consistentlyatretail food stores during a “pastmonth” periodof time.To determine the descriptive socio-economicand psychographiccharacteristicsof customers.To determine the relative importance ofemployee characteristics associated withpatronage characteristics of food store cus-tomers.To determine the personality,professional andfood marketing skill areas of an employeeimportant to the customer in the continuedpatronage of a retail food store.To determine the direction and intensi~ ofattitudes of customers toward employees.To determine apparent education and trainingresources and programs needed to improveand/or maintain positive attitudes towardemployees.To determine the perceived level of employeehelpfulness associated with retail food storesshopped most frequently.

This study seeks to fulfill four secondaryresearch objectives 1) to motivate the use of“helpfulness”as a segmentation strategy in retailfood marketing, 2) to review the conspicuousliterature on employee “helpfulness,” 3) toreplicate findings from previous researchinvolving relationships between helpfulness andretail food store customer patronage behavior,and 4) to extend the scope of previous researchin the determination of retail patronage loyalty.

Methodology

Design

The results of this project were based pri-marily on a random sample of 505 householdsand secondarily on a second random sample of635 households. A telephone survey was con-ducted in the Spring and Fall of 1988 in FortCollins, Colorado.

The frame consisted of all households listedin the Fort Collins, Colorado telephone directory,The random samples were systematically drawnfrom the directory based on random page andcolumn selection.

The survey subjects were persons in thehousehold with the primary food procurementresponsibility.

Presumptions

The presumed situations on which thisstudy was based are that market planning (stra-tegic as well as tactical), sales volume and pro-fitability depend on a favorable relationshipbetween retail food store employees and thehousehold purchasing representative, namely thestore patron.

The behaviors, present and immediatepast,recallableby the household respondent, as well aspresent attitudes and opinions represent thedependent and independent variables in this pro-ject.

The independent variable, employee help-fulness was defined by the consumer and theresulting perception of helpfulness was rated ona scale of Oto 10,

The respondents were asked to recall theirretail food store shopping experiences during thepast four weeks, including store shopped, fre-quency of shopping trips, the duration in yearsthey had shopped in each store, dollar expendi-tures, and expressionsof preferences, satisfactionsand frustrations resulting from the shoppingexperience.

There was no distinction made between in-store decisions and external store decisions. Itwas assumed that dollars expended and the fre-quency and duration of patronage were manifes-tations of both decision making locations.

Helpfulness Defined

The “helpfulnessrating” is an ordinal mea-sure of the customer’s perception of helpfulnessof the food store’s employees with which theyinterface during the shopping trip. No attemptwas made to define or suggest a definition of theterm helpfulness. It was assumed that the cus-tomer’s definition was one which included theconcept of making things easier or better for thecustomer or a feeling of assistance in avoiding ofa shopping mistake.

Journalof Food DistributionResearch Febmary90/page 125

It is realized that the construct of helpful-ness as defined above does not lend itself to posi-tive actions by management compared to anexplicit set of more specific operational defini-tional characteristics. The analysiswas based onconsumer self-definition of helpfulness.

To a limited extent, it is assumed that“helpfulness” is an alternative store offering atleast an implied implicit store offering.

The ordinal numerical rating scale usedwas O to 10. The rating was the subject’s ownrating or perceived value of the helpfulness ingeneral of store employees.

Helpfulness is an Attitude

Attitude is basic to action. Attitude is avariable that intervenes between awareness andaction - store familiarityand customer patronage.

A positive consumer attitude is considerednecessary in order to realize the benefits of mar-keting strategies.

The findings of Korgaonkas, Lundand Price (1985) “suggest thatretailers interested in increasingstore patronage could benefit bytaking actions aimed at developinga positive attitude toward theirstores.”

The helpfulness rating is assumed toreflect a positive or negative attitude toward thestore.

Research Findings

Descriptions and Profiles

The primary data source was a sample of505 randomly selected households from onemedium size city in the Rocky Mountain region.

The mean or modal descriptive profile ofthe household sample can be summarized asfollows:

Demographic Profile

Average AnnualFamily Income $28,700

Average Household Size 2.66 personsPredominant Occupation StudentAverage Respondent Age36.9 yearsSex Classification 65.9 percent Female

F’atrona~eCharacteristics

Monthly RetailFood Expenditure . . . . . $222.00

Duration of Patronage(years) . . . . . . . . . . ..6.88 years

Frequency of Monthly FoodShopping Trips . . . . . . 8.17 trips

Number of Food StoresShopped . . . . . . . . . ..2 stores

Number of Food ChainsShopped . . . . . . . . . ..l.9 chains

Helpfulness Rated

Helpfulness, as self-defined by the surveyrespondents, was rated at an overall level of 7.94on a scale of O to 10. On a scale of one to onehundred, this would represent a 72.2 rating.

The weighted average rating of the storesmost intensely shopped by the respondents wasan 8.21 while the secondary stores were rated ata 7.68. Some of these secondary stores wereconsidered as substitute stores as well ascomplementary stores.

Overall Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.94Primary Store Rating . . . . . . . . . . 8.21Secondary Store Rating . . . . . . . . . 7.68

Helpfulness Rating and Store Characteristics

The survey respondents rated the helpful-ness of locally owned, independent retail foodstores substantiallyhigher than other regional ornational chain stores (Table 4). On the otherhand, even if locally owned, medium to smallretail food stores were rated the lowest in help-fulness.

The highest rated store (by a very smallmargin) was the local food coop while the lowestrated store was a national chain store (Table 5).

The highest rated supermarket was alocally owned store with a significantly greatershare of food store dollar sales, realized moreshopping trips and was located out of the down-town are% with a clientele reporting an aboveaverage household income (Table 6).

This store along with its companion storelocated downtown, were rated the highest of allsupermarkets. Importantly, both of these storesprovided a service meat counter and grocerycarqy out for all shoppers. They realized a mar-ket share of sales dollars in excess of 24 percen~and had a patronage base reporting an averagehousehold income of $26,500 and $29,800 respec-


tively compared to the overall average of $26,400for all the survey respondent households.

Table 4

The weighted average helpfulnessrating of four retail food store sub-classifications by size of store andtype of ownership, 12 Fort Collins,CO, retail food stores, 1988.

Weighted AverageRating Store Subclassification

7.56 Medium or small size (square feetand sales)

7.61 National or regional chainsupermarkets

7.96 Supermarket size stores (square feetand sales)

8.60 Local, independently owned,supermarkets, medium and smallstores

Statistical Relationships

The helpfulness rating was positively andsignificantly related to dollar purchases byhouseholds in four store situations (Table 7).Four significant positive correlations emergedfrom the analysis at the .039 level or above,Customer dollar purchases were positively andsignificantly related to the two newest stores inthe community and the two locally ownedsupermarkets which received the highesthelpfulness ratings and which offered servicemeat counters and groce~ carry-out for all cus-tomers.

The analysis of the demographic charac-teristics of the survey respondents also producedseveral significant correlations with the helpful-ness rating (Table 8).

In five situations, as age increased so didthe helpfulness rating. Stores 040, 041 and 042received the highest helpfulness ratings and arein locations or situations appealing to the middleto upper age people. These stores are locallyowned as is store 030. Store 038, with a nega-tive correlation value, is a store serving manyuniversity students. As age increased, the help-fi.dness rating decreased reflecting an apparent

perceived higher helpfulness level for studentsand lower for non-students.

Income was both positively and negativelycorrelated with the helpfulness rating. The twostores with negative correlations reflected storeshighly affected by student populations: as incomeincreased, ratings were loweq conversely, asincomes decreased, the perception of helpfulnesswas significantly higheu i.e. the higher incomenon-student households perceive lower levels ofhelpfulness being provided to them.

Students, elderly and the retired representoccupations significantlyrelated to perceptions ofthe store helpfulness. Stores 038, 039, 040 and044 are stores highly affected by students andelderly. These occupations reported significantlyhigher perceptions of helpfulness in these storescompared to other occupations.

The number of persons in the householdand the sex of the household respondent weretwo demographic characteristics not significantlyrelated to helpfulness.

Store Complementarity andSubstitutability

Correlationswere run between the numberof times shopped, dollars spent and the helpful-ness rating among all stores, for all shoppers foreach store. The object of this analysis was todetermine store complementarily and sub-stitutability and the extent to which storeemployees influenced this situation as reflectedinthe rating of helpfulness by customers of allstores.

For an individual household shopper, itwas assumed that a significant positive correla-tion between times shopped and dollars spentrepresented complementarily. Likewise, it wasassumed that a significant negative correlationbelsveenthe shopping frequency and/or the dollarexpenditures between any two stores representeda situation in which the two stores were sub-stitutes for each other.

If significantcorrelations did exist betweentwo stores, to what extent was the helpfulnessrating also significantly related?

There were 91 possible store situation cor-relations; 19 were significant, Five correlationsituations were positive, suggesting complemen-tarily while 14 were negative, suggesting sub-stitutability.


Table 5

The contrasting and comparative characteristicsof the two retail food stores rated highestand lowest on employee helpfulness, Fort Collins, CO, 1988.

Highest Rated Store Lowest Rated Store StoYeRating= 9,00 Rating=6.82 Characteristics

Local National Chain Type of storeCooperative Supermarket

Near Downtown Downtown Location

.19

.60

6.00

10.00

$16,250

5.99 Share of dollar

sales (percent)

6.40 Share of shoppingtrips (percent)

7.60 Average shoppingduration of patron (years)

24.00 Age of store (years)

$19,800 Average householdincome

Table 6

The contrastingand comparativecharacteristicsof the two retail food supermarketswith the lowest and highest helpfulness rating, Fort Collins, CO, Fall 1988.

Highest Rated Supermarket Lowest Rated Supermarket StoreRating= 8.98 Ratiniz=6.82 Characteristics

Locally owned National Type ofChain Supermarket

15.13 5.99 Share of dollarsSales (percent)

Suburban Downtown Location

11.10 6.40 Share of shoppingtrips (percent)

15.0 24.0 Age of store(years)

8.50 7.60 Average shoppingduration of

patron (years)

$29,800 $19,800 Average householdincome

Yes No Service meat counter?

Yes No Grocery-carqy out?


Table 7

The significant correlation coefficientsresulting from an analysis of the relation-ships between the helpfulness rating anddollars spent for food by store, by 505 FortCollins, Colorado, households, Fall 1988.

Level ofSignificance of

Store the CorrelationNumber Coefficient

030 .006

036 .030

040 .006

041 .039

The correlation coefficientswere generatedfor significance between each and every store forshopping frequency, dollars spent, employee help-fulness rating and duration of shopping at eachstore.

Given the “comp” and “sub” situations,thehelpfulness rating was significantly correlatedwith the frequency of shopping and the dollarsspent.at a “comp” or “sub” store.

Complementary situations existed in 5store situations. The sales and frequency ofshopping were positively correlated. In “eachinstance, the helpfulness rating was also posi-tively correlated.

Conversely, there were 14 situations inwhich frequency and sales were negatively cor-related. At the same time, helpfulness depreci-ated significantly for those stores with sub-stitutabilitystatus.

The findings reflect a related influence ofhelpfulness. Shoppers made more trips andspent more dollars in secondary or complemen-tary stores in which helpfulness was aninfluencing factor. Likewise, shoppers spentfewer dollars and made fewer trips to stores inwhich the helpfulness was perceived to be lowerthan their regular store. Substitute stores wereperceived to have less helpful personnel.

Store Choice Criteria

The original decision to shop a food storeand the subsequent decision to consistently shop

a food store may not have been based on thesame criteria.

In fac~ the “decision”to continue and con-sistently purchase goods and services from aretail food store may not be a “decision” in thedeliberative sense of decision making. Evidence:The average survey respondent shopped consis-tently at the same store for 6.88 years, averagingfrom 3.3 years for those shopping a new store toover 13.5 years for those sho,ppingan established,locally owned retail food store.

The original decision is assumed to havebeen based on choice criteria reflecting the con-sumer’s goals, needs and perceptions. The sub-sequent decision to continue shopping one ormore stores is assumed to be based on a ration-alizationbalancing cost quality,and other factors.

The final store selection is assumed toreflect the consumer’s perception of self amongother shoppers; quality of products and pricelevels; and the ability to achieve other goals suchas time conserved through familiaritywith prod-uct location and service location within a store.

Retail food store customers avoid frequentfood store selection decisions. The average sur-vey respondent shopped their present supermar-ket for 6.88 years; which represented 62.3 percentOftheir Fort Collins residency years (10.6 years).The 6.88 years represented 45.5 percent of theyears during which the present food store hadbeen open for business (14.5 years).

‘I%efactorswhich reinforcedthis consistentshopping of the same store or stores can be hypo-thesized to be:

a)

b)

c)

d)

Absolute satisfaction with the present storeor stores.

Desire to avoid continued,re-evaluation of thestore, its services and products.

Customer resignation - no other store is anybetter, or

Any number of other satisfaction or rational-ization.

Reasons for Store Selection

Customer “convenience” was the mostimportant reason given for retail food store selec-tion; including convenience in general (24.6%)and the convenience of location (22.4%) (Table 9).


Table 8

The significantcorrelation coefficientsresulting from an analysisof the relationshipsbetweenthe helpfulness rating and the demographic characteristics of age, number of familymembers, income, sex, and occupations, by store, by 505 Fort Collins, CO, households, Fall1988.

Level of Significance of theStore Correlation Coefficients forNumber Age Persons Income Sex Occupation

030 .000 .000

031 -.001

036 .000

038 -.001 -.000

039

040 .000

041 .001

042 .006

044

.001 .000

.006

.004

.000 -

.002

.017

.008

Retail store personnel were mentioned by7.7 percent of the 505 respondents se animportant factor in store selection.

The analysisinvolved three questionsaekedof all survey respondents relating to factorsinfluencing shopping behavior. Assuming eachrespondent had directlymentioned “employees”asa factor, there was a potential for 1,515 (505x3)employee related responses. In total, employeeswere specifically mentioned 121 times for a“mention” rate of 7.99 percent. In comparison,convenience and inconvenience were terms witha mention rate of 31.9 percent.

Sources of Satisfaction

The most significant sources of shoppingsatisfaction expressed by the retail food storeshoppers were the store products (25.1%) and theease and convenience of checking out of the store(24%) (Table 10).

Store employees (personnel) were men-tioned by 14 percent of the respondents sesources of satisfaction, Previous research deter-mined that the majority of respondents con-sidered the checker as a source of satisfactionrather than any other position.

Table 9

The most important reasons for shopping thepresent retail food store, and the percent ofsurvey respondents expressing each reason,Fort Collins, CO, Fall 1988.

Reason Percent of Resrnondents

Convenience 54.9Level of prices 29.9Products in genertll 12.7Familiarityand comfort 9.3Personnel 7.7

Cleanliness and appearance 7.0Services 3.6Meat department 4.0Produce department 2.8All others 11.3

The primary reasons customers referred toemployees as a source of shopping satisfactioninvolved friendliness and pleasantness (Table 11).Knowledge of the store by employees rankedthird and was mentioned by 17.2 percent ofthose referring to employees as a source of shop-ping satisfaction.


Table 10

The most significant sources of customersatisfactionreported by shoppers and percentresponding, 505 Fort Collins, CO, households,Fell 1988.

Source of Percent ofSatisfaction Respondents

Products in generalCheck-out characteristicsConveniencePersonnelLevel of pricesFamiliarity and comfortProduce departmentServicesCleanliness and appearanceMeat departmentMiscellaneous Sources

25.124.016.014.113.56.26.04.84.23.6

18.0

Table 11

The characteristic of store personnel referredto as sources of employee satisfaction, 505households, Fort Collins, CO, Fall 1988.

Employee Percent ofCharacteristics Res~ondents

Friendly and pleasant etc. 45.0Helpful and service oriented 28.0Knowledge of the store 17.2

(In reference to Table 10)

Sources of Frustration

Store employees were not referred to ashighly significant sources of shopping satisfaction.On the other hand the employees were rankedeven lower, 7th, as a source of frustration--mentioned by 2.6 percent of the respondents(Table 12).

The employee characteristics mostinfluencing perceptions of dissatisfaction wereunfriendliness, rudeness, and lack of familiaritywith the store (Table 13).

Store Avoidance Criteria

The reasons given for avoiding a retail foodstore reinforced the lack of influence of storeemployees. Nine@-five percent of the respond-

ents provided reasons for avoiding a store and3.40 percent of the respondents mentioned storepersonnel (Table 14). The average helpfulnessrating of those atoresnot shopped by respondentswas 6.7; and 24.9 percent could not (or wouldnot) rate the helpfulness of employees of a storein which they had not shopped.

Do Shoppers Want Employee Help?

A modified Thurstone Scale, involving fivestatements,was used to generate a continuum ofperceived acceptance of employee contact andassisimce (Table 15).

The responses to the five statementsstrongly endorsed retail food store employeeassistance. Employee contact with customersshould not be prohibited and contact was notperceived as shopping interference. Conversely,employee assistance was helpful in the job ofshopping and 68 percent of the respondentsreported that employee assistance was the mostimportant service that a shopper could receive.

Table 12

The sources of retail food store shoppingfrustrations, and percent responding, 505Fort Collins, CO, households, Fall 1988.

Source of Percent ofFrustration Remondents

Check out characteristicsInconvenienceProducts in generalLevel of pricesCleanliness and appearanceProducePersonnelMeat departmentFamiliarity and comfortServicesAll Others

30.324.815.04.23.02.62.62.01.21.0

15.8


Table 13

The characteristicsof store personnelreferred to as sources of employeecaused frustrations, 505 Fort Collins,CO, households, Fall 1988.

Source of Percent ofFrustration Resr)ondents

Unfriendly, rude, poor attitude, etc.Employee unfamiliar with storeIgnore customersNot helpful

(In reference to Table 12)

Table 14

Reasons for not shopping in a retailfood store, 505 Fort Collins, CO,households, Fall 1988.

29.015.89.09.0

Avoidance Percent ofCriteria Rest)ondents

InconvenienceHigh level of pricesLack of familiarity and comfortLack of cleanliness and appearanceProducts in generalPersonnelCheck out characteristicsServicesMeat DepartmentProduce DepartmentAll other

57.221.213.37.93.83.42.81.81.81.48.1

Summary and Conclusions

Shopping by the Rules

To paraphrase O’Shaughnessy (1987) in hisdiscussion of adaptive behavior, he states that“the consumer acts as if employing one or morerules.”

Were the rules “employed” by the surveyrespondents? Were any of the rules implied? Insummarizing this research repo~ the followingdiscussion explores the extent to which results

conform to several “rules” to which consumersare reportedly adhering.

Rule 1. Consumers “follow what others do, whoare known to be knowledgeable.”

This “imitation” rule was manifested inseveral ways. The dependence by consumers onstore employees as “others known to be know-ledgeable” was not reflected in the “reasons,”“satisfactions”nor “frustrations”expressed by therespondents.

Likewise, the “following” of neighbors,friends or relatives was not explicitly important.The data reflect little overt expression of“followership.”

The “imitation”concept or rule was impliedin the duration that respondents continuouslyshopped the same store- i.e., the repeated rein-forcement of the original store selection decision.

“Self-imitation” was implied and demon-strated in the data. The duration of shopping atthe same store implied a means of avoiding adecision and shopping errors. The durationsimply implied the successful relationshipbetween the store and consumer.

Roselius (1971) would explain store loyallyas the continued shopping at a retail food storebased on the grounds that collectivejudgement isunlikely to lead to serious error.

Rule 2. Consumers “turn to people they cantrust.”

There was little evidence to imply thatstore employees were either trusted or mis-trusted. Likewise, other than checkers, few othertypes of store employees were or would be com-plimented for their helpfulness. This can beexplained in part by the fact that food items arein many instances not complex products; manybrands are not totally nor significantly differentin many or any respects; and few food productsare socially visible at the point of consumption,i.e. baked potato does not carry a brand.

Neither did survey respondents report onthe importance of the approval of others of thefood store in which they shop. The approval ofothers as a criteria for continuous food store usewas not substantiated by the research data.Other criteria were more significant ininfluencing the loyalty of food store consumers.

February90/psge 132 Journalof Food DistributionResearch

Table 15

The degree to which retail food store employee assistance is perceived as helpfulin the shopping activity, 505 Fort Collins, Colorado, households, Fall 1988.

Statement regarding Percent Percent WeightedEmdovee Assistance Agreeing Disagreeing Average’

A,

B.

c.

D,

E.

All supermarketemployee contact withcustomers should beprohibited.

Offers of shoppingassistance by super-market employeesinterferes with theshopping trip.

I have no feelingone way or anotherabout supermarketemployee assistance.

Supermarket employeeassistance helps me todo a better job ofshopping.

Supermarket employeeassistance is the mostimportant service thata shopper can receive.

1 96 1.55

11 ’77 2.17

10 77 2.21

71

68 13 3.68

11 3.72

(a) The weighted average was based on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 equal to “strongly agree” and 1 equal tostrongly disagree.


Rule 3. Consumers “Keep to firms or brandsthey can trust.”

Familiarity was explicitly and implicitlystated as a patronage reason for shopping a retailfood store.

“Familiarity in itself reduces uncer-tainty” (0’Shaughnessy p. 149).

Credibility was implied by the shoppingduration which in turn implied a realization ofpersonal values desired by the consumer.

Another implicationwas that the store wastotally accepted as the purchasing agent for thehousehold. It was apparently presumed by theconsumer that the retailerwould not risk placingpoor quality and/or poor value products into thestore--or if such would appear, the consumerwould be able and willing to reject and re-evalu-ate the situation.

The store name and perceived image mayproject an image of quality, price, and value butwas not an explicitly mentioned factor. QuaMyproducts were specificallymentioned by 17.3 per-cent of the survey respondents as being animportant factor.

Rule 4. “Turn to the experience you can trust.”

The consumers--the survey respondents--obviously did!

Rule 5. “Insure your trust.”

The duration of shopping implied a self-guaranteed warran~ for the results of the foodstore transaction. Trust and reinforced experi-ences appeared to provide the insurance for deci-sions that might not have been correct.

At the same time, the average respondentreported shopping in an average of 2.04 retailfood stores. The back-up store, as well as a pre-sumed knowledge of other alternative stores inthe communi~, supported the original storeselection criteria.

Trust and confidence were implied in theresults of the analysis. Comfort areas or zoneswere implied. To reinforce these perceived basesfor the continued patronage activity of the aver-age consumer, the characteristicof product vari-ety or mix was explicitly a factor necessary tocreate shopping satisfaction and avoid frustra-tions.

The importance for “variety” implied theneed to continuously meet a variety of needs andwants which fluctuate and change over time.Variety also implied a means of risk avoidanceand comfort zone enhancement. An increasedprice, the inconvenience of an out-of-stock, aspecial occasion or an unexpected or unan-ticipated need is hedged against by the availabil-ity of “variety.” “Varieiy” increased the probabil-ity of solving a problem without the need of seek-ing out an alternative store in which to researchand redecide among unfamiliar brands or productpresentations.

Employees as Change Agents

The results imply that employees were notactive change agents in the retail food store, or atleast were not perceived as change agents. Like-wise, the expectation that employees can causechange has yet to be determined.

Knowledge of the retail food industry sug-gests that few retail employees, possibly with theexception of a consumer advisor or dietitian, areexpected to intervene on behalf of a product orbrand. Likewise retail employees for the mostpart are not trained in intervention techniques.

Role of Time Stress

The results lead one to conclude that theperceived amount of time available in contrastwith the amount of time required for shoppingtiected the store selection and patronage: thesame store was shopped an average of 6.88 years,and two stores were consistently shopped.

The willingness to process in-store and out-of-store information was manifested in the fre-quency to which “convenience” was expressed.The stress of time constraints expressed byIsenberg (1981) and Revelle (1976) and by theresults of this study cause one to ask the extentto which employees contribute to or detract fromshopping stress. The evidence suggests thatemployees contribute little to stress, contributelittle to satisfaction, yet numerous respondentsmentioned their importance to the shoppingexperience.

The responses given in definition to theterm “convenience” were basically those inreference to reducing the time spent shopping,saving money, and reducing stress.

The economic shopper is defining frustra-tion satisfactionand convenience in terms of timeand money saved, the apparent goal of the shop-ping experience.


Initial Decision Stage Recommendations

Higher levels of employee helpfulness arepresumed necessary and more cognitive to con-sumers during the initial shopping trips and dur-ing the first time contact with the store. In anongoing relationship, cognitive relevance of help-fulness is assumed to be relatively invariatebecause once such behaviors are established,theyappear to be given; and they need not be reaf-firmed on a highly conscious level each time ashopping trip is made.

This study does nothing to disprove thefindings of Hayer (1984) in which he reports that

. . . This study (p. 829) suggestathatchoice is the result of numerousexperiences and evaluations whichoccur over a repeated number oftrials (or purchases). Over thesetrials, consumers develop a set ofsimple choice tactics which permitquick yet satisfactory decisions.

The implied consumer objectives includeda desire to seek a store in which a combinationof factors facilitated the exchange of valuebetween the customer and the store.

Post Analysis Definition

The dependent variable, helpfulness, wasdefined in the early section of this paper. Theresults of the analysis lend additional insight intothe definition of the concept and confirm certainassumed characteristics associated with helpful-ness.

What is helpfulness? The results suggestthat helpfulness is more a situation that facili-tates a convenient shopping trip, permits thestore to maintain competitive if not advantageousprices, and creates a psychological availabilityofproducts and services. Helpfulness is being ableto get out of the store promptly and withoutdelay.

Helpfulness is being friendly and not rude,but helpfulness in general was apparently not acommodity, product nor offering easily perceivedas being of assistance to the customer.

Introduction

This section presents several recommen-dations for strategicas well as tactical marketingto customers of retail food stores.

The marketing plan should be specific inits recommended strategies and tactics. Thefollowing recommendations present some alter-natives that store management should consider.

Specific Recommendations

The limited extent to which employeesexplicitly influenced consumers suggests a lackof awareness of employee services and activitiesby employees. The visible stocking and cleaningup, the check-out personnel, the baggers andcarry-out personnel all apparently subservient toconvenience and product variety among otherthings.

An improved helpfulness rating, if this isa management goal, will apparently be achievedby maintaining conspicuous levels of obviousservice desired by the market segment at thelocation served by the store.

This leads to a second recommendation,Management should determine the level of ser-vice desired by the clientele served. This studydid not attempt to compare the perceived presenthelpfulness level with the desired helpfulnesslevel. This determination is recommended.

More specifically, management needs toperiodically define the services most desiredbefore any level of any one service is imple-mented. What do customers want? Can man-agement afford to offer those services?

Servicesshould be advertisedand promotedin order to develop perceived distinctionsbetweenor among a store and its competitor(s). Variousaspects of helpfulness and service should beplaced in the promotional rotation of goods andservices advertised by the store. Personalize theservices.

It is recommended that management con-tinuously re-evaluate the strategic goal of feasiblehelpfulness offered customers.

Services included in the helpfulness pack-age should be coated out and positioned in sucha fashion as to be profitable and active in facil-

Journalof Food DistributionI&search February90/page 135

itating the exchange of value between the storeand its customers.

If a “helpfulness” strategy is implemented,monitor its success. Improve it discontinue itor make whatever changes are necessary tomaintain a feasible strategy.

Services create an image of helpfulness.Helpfulness creates distinction. Obvious servicesand the perception of helpfulness should improveand create satisfactions for the retail food storecustomer. Obvious services will provide anopportunity to make employees more significantto the customer, Should they be? The evidenceis yes. Employees contribute to creating theimage of helpfulness and the total store.

References

Andreasen, R. Alan (1984), “Life Status Changesand Changes in Consumer Preferences andSatisfaction,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 11 (Dec.), 784.

Agnew, Joe (1987), “Eating at home and AwayFood Indust~ Challenged by Consumers’Continuing Quest for Quality,Convenience,Nutrition,” Marketing News, 21 (June),7,13.

Assael, Hemy and George S. Day (1968),“Attitudes and Awareness as Predictors ofMarket Share,” Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 8 (Dec.), 3-10.

Beatty, Sharon E. and Scott M. Smith (1987),“External Search Effort: An InvestigationAcross SeveralProduct Categories,”Journalof Consumer Research: An InterdisciplinaryQuarterly, 14 (June), 83-96.

Brill, Eileen B. (1986), “Grocery MarketingSuper Marketers Pursue the NewConsumers/Shoppers Pick Up More thanGroceries,” Advertising Age, 57 (Oct.), 54-510.

Brucks, Merrie (1988), “Search Moniton AnApproach for Computer-ControlledExperiments Involving ConsumerInformation Search,q’Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15 (June), 117-121.

Burgoyne, Inc.(1981), The National Study ofSupermarket Shoppers 1979-80, CensusProfile, Cincinnati, OH, Burgoyne, Inc., 6-18.

Cunningham, M. RoSS (1962), “ConsumerLoyally to Store and Brand,” HarvardBusiness Review, 40 (Nov.-Dee.), 127-37.

Farley, U. John (1964), “Brand Loyalty and theEconomics of Information,” The Journalof Business, 37 (Oct.), 370-380.

Farley, John (1968), “Dimensions of SupermarketChoice Patterns,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 5 (May), 206-210.

Fenshol$ Carol (1988), “Localized MarketingGetting Away from the Broad-BrushApproach,” Supermarket Business, 43(July), 19-26,66.

“56th Annual Repor$ of the Grocery, Industry1989 (1989), Progressive Grocer, Vol. 68,No.4 , Pt. 2, Apr. 1989, 45.

Foxall, Gordon (1975), “Social Factors inConsumer Choice: Replication andExtension,” The Journal of ConsumerResearch: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly,2 (June), 60.

Glass, Harold E., “Turning the Human ResourceFunction Into active Business Partner,”TheHandbook of Business Strategy, Warren,Gorham and Lament, New York, N.Y., 10-10.8.

Golden, Linda L., Gerald Albaum and MaryZimmer (1987), “’~he NumericalComparativeScale An Economical Formatfor Retail Image Measurement,”Journal ofRetailing, 63 (Winter), 393-410.

Hawkins, Del L, Kenneth A. Coney and Roger J,Best (1980), “Consumer Behavio~Implications for Marketing Strategy,”Business Publications Inc., Dallas, Texas,Irwin-Dorsey Limited, 471-479.

Hansen, R., and T, Deutscher (1977), “AnEmpirical Investigation of AttributeImportance in Detail Store Selection,”Journal of Retailing, (Winter 1977-78), 59-73.

Hornik, Jacob (1984), “Subjective vs. ObjectiveTime Measures: A Note on the Perceptionof Time in Consumer Behavior,”Journal ofConsumer Research: An InterdisciplinaryQuarterly, 11 (June), 615.


Hoyer, D. Wayne (1984), “An Examination ofConsumer Decisions Making for ACommon Repeat Purchase Product”Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (Dec.),822.

Jackson, Ralph W., Stephen W. McDaniel and C.P. fiO (1985), “Food Shopping andPreparation: Psychographic Differences ofWorking Wives and Housewives,” Journalof Consumer Research, 12 (June), 110-113.

James, Don L., Richard M. Durand and RobertA. Dreves (1976), “The Use of a Multi-Attribute Attitude Model in a Store ImageStudy,”Journal of Retailing, 52 (Summer),23-32.

Jocoby, Jacob, Robert W, Chestnut and WNiamA. Fisher (1978), “A Behavioral ProcessApproach to Information Acquisition inNondurable Purchasing,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 15 (Nov.), 517-532.

Johnson, Scott Lee, Robert Sommer and VictorMartino (1985), “Consumer Behavior AtBulk Food Bins,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12 (June), 114-117.

Kahn, Barbara E. and Rakesh K Sarin (1988),“Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions UnderUncertain@,” Journal of the ConsumerResearch, 15 (Sept.), 265-272.

Kamakur% Wagner A., Brian T. Ratchford andJagdishAgrawsl (1988), “MeasuringMarketEfficiency and Welfare Loss,” The Journalof Consumer Research, 15 (Dec.), 289-302.

Keng, Kau Ah and A. S. C. Ehrenberg (1984),“Patterns of Store Choice,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 21 (Nov.), 399-409.

Klein, Noreen M. and Manjit S. Yadav (1989),“Context Effects on Effort and Accuracy inChoice: An Enquiry into Adaptive DecisionMaking,” The Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15 (Mar.), 411-421.

Kono, Ken (1985), “Are Generic Buyers Deal-Prone? On a Relationship BetweenGeneric Purchase and Deal-Proneness,”Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, (Winter/Spring), 62-74.

Leong, Siew Meng (1989), “A Citation Analysisof The Journal of Consumer Research,”The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(Mar.), 492-497.

Llchtenstein, Donald R., Peter H. Bloch andWilliam C. Black (1988), “Correlates ofPrice Acceptability,” The Journal ofConsumer Research, 15 (Sept.), 243-252.

Locander, B. William and Peter W. Herman(1979), “The Effect of Self-Confidence andAnxieiy on Information Seeking inConsumer Risk Reduction,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 24 (May), 268.

Louviere, Jordan J. and Gaqy J. Gaeth (1987),“Decomposing the Determinants of RetailFacility Choice Using the Method ofHierarchical Information Integration: ASupermarket Illustration,” Journal of

Retailing, 63 (Spring), 25-48.

Lynch, John G,, Jr., Howard Marmorstein andMichael F. Weigold (1988), “Choices fromSets Including Remembered Brands: Use ofRecalled Attributes and Prior OverallEvaluations,” The Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15 (Sept.), 169-184.

Maursky, David and Yaacov Schul (1988), “TheEffects of Advertisement Encoding on theFailure to Discount Information:Implications for the Sleeper EffecL” TheJournal of Consumer Research, 15 (June),24-36.

Monroe, Kent B. and Joseph B. Guiltinan (1975),“A Path-Analytic Exploration of RetailPatronage Influences,” The Journal ofConsumer Research: An InterdisciplinawQuarterly, 2 (June), 19-29.

Moore, Ellen M., William O. Bearden and JesseE. Teel (1985), “Use of Labeling andAssertions of Dependency in Appeals forConsumer Suppo~” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12 (June), 90-96.

O’Shaughnessy (1987), “Why People Buy NewYork NY,” Oxford University Press, Inc.

Park, C. Whan, Easwar S. Iyer, and Daniel C.Smith (1989), “The Effects of SituationalFactors on In-Store Grocery ShoppingBehavio~ The Role of Store Environment”The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(Mar.), 422-433.

Reynolds, William H. (1966), “some Empiri~Observations on a Ten-Point Poor-To-Excellent Scale,” Journal of MarketingResearch, 3 (Nov.), 388-392.

Journalof Food DistributionResearch February90/psge 137

Rivas, Javier Alonso and Jose M. Mugica (1986),“Customer Store Image in Spain: AnEmpirical Study on Food Stores,” TheInternational Journal of Retailing, 1 (Feb.),3-1.1.

Roselius, Ted (1971), “Consumer Rankings ofRisk Reduction’ Methods,” Journal ofMarketing, 35 (Jan.), 71.

Rae, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988), “TheModeration Effect of Prior Knowledge onCue Utilization in Product Evaluations,”The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(Sept.), 253-64.

Rivas, Javier Alonso and Jose M. Grijalba (1986),“Customer Store Image in Spain: AnEmpirical Study on Food Stores,”International Journal of Relation, 1 (Jan.),3-11.

Sarian, Jean C. (1987), “In-Home Shopping AreThere Consumer Segments?’ Journal ofRetailing, 63 (Summer), 163-186.

Schmittm Bernd H., France Leclerc, and LauretteDube-Rioux (1988), “Sex Typing andConsumer Behavior A Test of GenderSchema Theory,” The Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15 (June), 122-128.

Stephenson, P. Ronald (1969), “IdentifyingDepartments of Retail Patronage,”Journalof Marketing, 33 (July), 57-61.

Tantiwong, Duangtip and Peter C. Wilton (1985),“Understanding Food Store PreferencesAmong the Elderly Using Hybrid ConjointMeasurement Models,” Journal ofRetailing, 61 (Winter), 33-43.

Yavas, Ugur and Secil Tuncalp (1984), “PerceivedRkk in Grocery Outlet Selection: A CaseStudy in Saudi Arabia,” European Journalof Marketing, 18 (Mar.), 13-25.

Februaxy90/page 138 Journalof Food DistributionResearch