The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

rchive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1066-2243.htm

Online grocery
Online grocery retailing: what do retailing
consumers think?
Kim Ramus and Niels Asger Nielsen
MAPP – Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, 335
Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark

Abstract
Purpose – To use the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as a theoretical framework to explore in
depth the range of beliefs held by consumers about internet shopping in general and internet grocery
shopping in particular.
Design/methodology/approach – Seven focus group interviews, four in the United Kingdom and
three in Denmark, were conducted among consumers with different degrees of experience with internet
grocery shopping. This diversification of respondents was chosen to capture a broad range of the
consumer beliefs that predict intentions to buy groceries online or not. The TPB framework was used
to construct the interview guide that was followed in all focus groups.
Findings – An unexpected result of the explorative study was that the seven groups consisting of
more or less experienced internet shoppers differed only little in their pool of beliefs (outcome and
control beliefs). Beliefs about internet grocery shopping, positive as well as negative, were remarkably
congruent across groups. In the minds of consumers, internet grocery shopping is an advantage
compared with conventional grocery shopping in terms of convenience, product range and price.
Disadvantages, which could act as mental barriers, are, for instance, the risk of receiving inferior
quality groceries and the loss of the recreational aspect of grocery shopping.
Research limitations/implications – An important potential limitation of this research is the
choice of focus groups as research methodology, which can prevent the elicitation of certain types of
beliefs. If important beliefs concern issues of a more sensitive, personal character they are not likely to
be mentioned in a focus group. Another limitation is the explorative nature of the research, which
makes it impossible to attach weights to the importance of the elicited beliefs in predicting internet
shopping behavior.
Practical implications – The findings could be used to direct attention to consumer beliefs about
internet grocery shopping which have the potential of acting as barriers to this line of e-commerce.
Originality/value – To shed some light on the role of consumers in an underperforming and
understudied branch of internet retailing. Barriers in the consumers’ minds to shop for groceries online
are identified using an established theoretical framework.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Electronic commerce, Marketing theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Purchasing via the internet is one of the most rapidly growing forms of trade
(Limayem et al., 2000; Levy and Weitz, 2004; Shim et al., 2001) but whereas e-commerce
has gained ground at an impressive speed in the business-to-business area, the share of
total consumer spending carried out via internet-based transactions is still modest.
Among the companies who have attempted to sell products to consumers via the
internet, a significant number run large deficits and several have even had to close Internet Research
Vol. 15 No. 3, 2005
down. pp. 335-352
The difficulties facing internet retailers have been pronounced in connection with q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1066-2243
the sale of groceries and other products for daily use. In this line of business there has DOI 10.1108/10662240510602726
INTR been a number of attempts to establish internet shops, but with no breakthrough
15,3 success. This has to be seen in the light of the fact that grocery purchases account for a
large proportion of consumer spending. The most prominent American internet-based
supermarket failures are Webvan, Streamline, Homegrocer, Homeruns and Shoplink
(Tanskanen et al., 2002). Also in Denmark, supermarkets have closed down their
internet-based grocery shops, e.g. ISO, Favør/SuperBest and ISS.
336 One of the common difficulties that internet grocery retailers have encountered is
that sales tend to fall short of expectations and it is, therefore, relevant to look at the
consumer and the reasons for her or him to either use or not use the internet for grocery
shopping.
A variety of studies have attempted to profile internet shoppers, mainly with regard
to demographic and, to a lesser extent, psychographic criteria. Donthu and Garcia
(1999) found that internet shoppers are older and make more money than non-internet
shoppers. They are also more innovative, impulsive, convenience seeking and less risk
averse. Bellman et al. (1999) have used a Wharton Forum panel consisting of 10,180
persons to characterize internet shoppers regarding their internet habits based on
number of daily mails, months online and other mainly behavioral aspects of internet
use. In an online survey among 626 respondents, Jayawardhena (2004) found links
between personal value dimensions, attitude towards e-shopping and aspects of online
behavior. Weber and Roehl (1999) have profiled people shopping for travel products on
the internet. George (2004) has investigated 193 college students using theory of
planned behavior (TPB) in a survey of general online purchasing behavior and found,
that respondents that have little concern about privacy and trustworthiness of the
internet and believe in their own abilities regarding internet purchasing are more likely
to use the internet for purchasing. They confirmed the robustness of TPB, but they
only looked at privacy and trustworthiness as antecedents to attitude towards internet
purchasing, and the special case of online grocery shopping is not considered in the
survey. Morganosky and Cude (2000) were the first to look specifically at the reasons
for consumers to shop online in the grocery area, and their survey of 243 respondents
from the USA showed that convenience and time saved were the primary reasons for
shopping online. An important limitation of this study is that it only focused on users
of online grocery shopping, i.e. it only included consumers with a favorable attitude
towards internet shopping. Raijas and Tuunainen (2001) did include a small sample of
44 non-users (and 47 users) in their investigation of critical factors in Finland and they
found time saving and trust in the company as being important for the decision to shop
online.
Although profiling studies give us an indication of who shops on the internet, it
provides few theoretically founded explanations for the poor performances of large
internet-based grocery companies such as Webvan. This paper is a more systematic
attempt to investigate what factors explain consumers’ willingness to buy groceries on
the internet than has hitherto been presented in the literature.

Theoretical approach
One of the most widely used social psychology theories about the way in which
perceptions influence actions is Ajzen’s TPB (Ajzen, 1985, 1988), which is an extension
of the previously widely used Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
 Figure 1 is an illustration of TPB and it can be explained as follows. The intention to Online grocery
perform an action is caused by three constructs: attitude towards the action, subjective retailing
norm, and perceived behavioral control. Attitude towards the action is the valence of
the action for the potential actor, i.e. whether and to which extent the action is regarded
as positive or negative. Attitude is in turn determined by outcome beliefs, i.e. a person’s
beliefs about the expected outcome of a given behavior. Subjective norm refers to how
the potential actor believes relevant others will react to performing the action, i.e. 337
positively or negatively. Subjective norm is determined by normative beliefs that the
individual holds about the behavior expected by relevant referent individuals.
Perceived behavioral control refers to a person’s ability to perform a given behavior.
Perceived behavioral control is expected to have an effect on the formation of
intentions, but also on the behavior itself. Beliefs about factors that facilitate or impede
the performance of the behavior, control beliefs, are determining perceived behavioral
control.
The TPB has been widely used in analyzing consumer behavior (East, 1993; Taylor
and Todd, 1995; Bredahl, 2001; Bredahl and Grunert, 1997; Conner, 1993; Dennison and
Shepherd, 1995; Povey et al., 2000; Scholderer and Grunert, 2001; Thompson and
Thompson, 1996). In relation to internet behavior, it has been applied in order to
explain intentions to learn how to use the internet (Klobas and Clyde, 2000), adoption of
virtual banking (Liao et al., 1999), and as a framework for investigating the suitability
of different products for internet shopping (Vijayasarathy, 2002). Shim et al. (2001)
have created an adaptation of the TPB, where they use the construct intention to use
the internet for information search as a predictor of intention to use the internet for
purchasing books, computer software and videos, i.e. products classified as search
goods with high information content. In a longitudinal study, Limayem et al. (2000) use
the TPB as a foundation for their model to predict online buying in general.
In this exploratory study of consumers’ perceptions about internet grocery
shopping, the TPB provides a systematic, comprehensive account of psychological
factors with a potential power to explain why people use or abstain from using the
internet for shopping groceries.

The aim of the paper

In this paper, we will use the TPB as an underlying framework in a qualitative study to
uncover the range of beliefs that are the basis for forming consumers’ intentions to
either use or not use the internet for shopping groceries.

Figure 1.
The TPB
INTR Methodology
15,3 Initially, an exploratory methodology (as opposed to a confirmative methodology) was
decided upon in order to uncover beliefs, underlying attitude, subjective norm and
perceived behavioral control for online grocery shopping. Given that “belief” is a
cognitive construct, which is unobservable, observation studies were excluded. This
left us two main ways of conducting qualitative research, namely focus groups and
338 in-depth interviews.
The non-sensitive nature of our subject, the potential for group interaction (Morgan,
1997) and the obvious advantages in terms of speed and economy (Evans et al., 2001)
made focus groups the obvious choice as method of data collection.

Data collection and analysis

Seven focus groups were established in Denmark and England. The choice of these two
countries was based on the following considerations: in the investigation of internet
utilization in grocery related commerce, it seems sensible to include a country that has
progressed a good deal in the development of e-commerce with grocery products along
with a country which is less advanced in this respect to be able to study whether this
difference in experience level leads to the elicitation of different beliefs. Even though
the number of internet connections per capita is among the highest in the world,
Denmark is not yet very advanced with regard to internet commerce (Rasmussen,
2000). In contrast, England is the leading country with regard to e-commerce in Europe
(White and Daniel, 2004).
In both countries, different focus group interviews were carried out with consumers
who had not bought anything on the internet, consumers who had bought products on
the internet, but not grocery products, and finally consumers who had bought grocery
products on the internet. In England, this last group was split into a group of
consumers who had used “Tesco Direct”, which is the internet shop set up by
England’s largest grocery retailer Tesco, and consumers who have bought specialty
products, like for example, organic vegetables or spelt flour. This split was made to
capture possible differences between specialty grocery buyers and convenience
grocery buyers. One reason for specialty grocery buyers to buy products on the
internet could be that it was not possible for them to get certain niche products in their
neighborhood, while consumers who buy their grocery products via “Tesco Direct”
could be motivated by mere convenience gains.
The Danish focus group interviews were conducted in October 2002 in Copenhagen.
Consumers were selected from a database from Bilka, a hypermarket, which is one of
the main grocery retailers in Denmark. They have built-up a database containing
25,000 consumers who have signed up to get a weekly e-mail with offers from Bilka.
These consumers all have internet access and they use their computer regularly. Thus,
they are not “ordinary” consumers. They had at some point found the Bilka homepage,
which means that they had not only skills and experience regarding the use of
computers and the internet but also some kind of interest in grocery shopping. The
first 2,000 consumers lived close to Copenhagen, and they were asked if they would like
to participate in focus groups. Another 2,000 consumers in the central area of
Copenhagen were asked to participate in order to fill the gaps in some of the groups. It
was particularly easy to get respondents for the group that had already bought
products, though not groceries, on the internet, which was not surprising as consumers
in the recruitment base had some experience with the internet, as noted above. It was Online grocery
more difficult to find consumers who had either not bought anything on the internet or retailing
who had bought groceries.
The English groups were formed by contacting people in the street in the southern
suburbs of London in October 2002. All focus group interviews lasted for two hours
and on average, eight persons participated in each group.
Moderators followed standardized interview guides in all seven groups, although 339
certain sections of the guide had to be adapted to the participants’ different levels of
experience with internet food shopping. Questions for the interview guides were
carefully selected based on their presumed ability to elicit information about
consumers’ outcome beliefs, control beliefs and normative beliefs with regard to online
grocery shopping. The questions in the interview guide were predominantly
open-ended, and the moderator did not have to engage in much prompting, since most
participants seemed to find the topic both interesting and easy to talk about.
Moderators ensured that the discussions centered on the list of questions provided, and
they ensured that the group did not deviate too much from the topic.
In a systematic way, focus group audiotapes were transcribed, written notes were
examined for additional data to clarify responses, and transcripts were analyzed.
All beliefs relating to internet grocery shopping were identified, coded and their
occurrences across groups were counted. The identification of beliefs and the coding of
the interviews were thoroughly discussed by both authors.
From the entire list of beliefs, groups of related beliefs were formed, and opposite
beliefs (e.g. online food shopping saves time – online shopping is time consuming)
were assigned to the same group to make it easier to identify disagreements among
participants. The resulting list of beliefs arranged into groups was finally organized
into three superordinate groups of beliefs based on the theoretical distinction between
outcome beliefs, control beliefs and normative beliefs.

Results
For the sake of clarity and flow in this presentation, we have divided this section into
three subsections based on the theoretical distinction of three types of beliefs. Based on
the focus group discussions, we initially present the salient outcome beliefs among
focus group participants in Denmark and England with regard to internet grocery
shopping. Outcome beliefs can be benefits, gains, disadvantages or losses that
consumers either expect or have experienced in relation to shopping via the internet.
Secondly, we outline what could be distilled from the interviews in terms of control
beliefs, i.e. the beliefs that consumers hold about their mastering and control of the
entire buying process. And finally, we report which types of referent groups that seem
to be important among group participants when they form their behavioral intention to
buy food on the internet. In other words, we try to reveal the relevant reference groups
acting as the source of consumers’ normative beliefs, i.e. their perceptions of the
behavioral expectations of important referents.
The presentation of groups of beliefs and the beliefs within a group are ordered so
that belief groups and individual beliefs, that were mentioned in all or almost all focus
groups, are listed first. Quotes from the transcripts are typed in italics.
INTR Outcome beliefs
15,3 The content coding of all the text bits and passages of the focus group discussions,
which could be interpreted as outcome beliefs, resulted in seven distinct groups of
beliefs:
(1) convenience of shopping;
(2) range of available products, information about products;
340
(3) enjoyment, fun of shopping;
(4) social aspects of shopping;
(5) personal service;
(6) price, bargains, costs; and
(7) technical systems, home page.

Convenience of shopping. The convenience or inconvenience of online grocery shopping

is an aspect, which is at the forefront of people’s minds when they think about this new
way of procuring their daily groceries. It was brought up by focus group participants
as one of the very first concepts in all seven groups and there was a general agreement
in the groups that online grocery shopping, or at least the ideal of it, was more
convenient and timesaving than conventional grocery shopping. The picture became
more blurred, however, when the discussion moved to more concrete convenience
beliefs relating to different phases in the buying process from the process of ordering
the goods via the computer at home, through the selection, packaging and
transportation of the goods (usually taken care of by the online shop), until they arrived
at the consumers’ doorstep, their condition is evaluated, and a decision is made to
accept or return the delivered goods.
Two benefits of internet grocery shopping were at the top of the participants’ minds
across focus groups. The first one pertained to the fact that online stores are always
open, allowing you to shop at any time of the day or night, which seemed to be
regarded as an important benefit by all consumers. The second, universal advantage of
online grocery shopping, compared to conventional shopping, was that this form of
shopping allowed you to shop without leaving your home and to order groceries in a
situation which is less stressful than going to the grocery store during rush hours.
Some of the participants’ views about this attribute of online shopping are cited below:
.
The shop is always open to let you shop whenever it suits you best.
.
You don’t have to wait in line for 40 minutes to pay for your goods.
.
You avoid the trolley raids.
.
You don’t have to get out of the house, you could be decorating, cleaning, get on
with things, and – you don’t have to get dressed.
.
You can spend half an hour [in the normal supermarket] and people just get in
your way.
In groups of experienced online grocery shoppers it was mentioned that online grocery
shopping was inherently more organized, because the web site encouraged you to set
up a basic list of groceries that your household normally had in stock and household
stock-levels of each item on this basic list could be checked by the shopper every week
to ensure uninterrupted household supplies of the most important groceries. “You Online grocery
never run out of basics”, as one participant in the English “Tesco Direct” group retailing
explained his enthusiasm for this feature of online grocery shopping. However, the
initial set up which includes this list of basic groceries was also mentioned as a barrier
to even begin shopping via the internet: “When you actually first log on, actually to get
your basic buying list, it takes quite a while”.
None of the participants who were experienced online shoppers were making all 341
grocery purchases through the internet. Even when it was actually possible for
participants to purchase a full range of grocery products via the internet, it was not
seen as a realistic option. Delivery of certain goods (usually vegetables, meat and other
non-standardized perishables) was very often seen as too risky, and the occasional
“emergency purchase” could not be made in this way because of the inherent time lag
in delivery. In the English group of specialty shoppers, it was considered inconvenient
having to supplement the online grocery shopping with purchases in a normal grocery
store as well:
It is complicating our lives further. I have to go like: “I’m not going to get them to get that but
I’ll get them to get that”, and then you’ve got to remember what you haven’t ordered.
In all groups in both countries there was a strong belief that time and energy were
saved when goods were delivered to your doorstep. To be relieved from the burden of
carrying heavy groceries home from the supermarket was seen as a major advantage.
That you do not have to drive to the supermarket and find a space to park your car was
also mentioned as a benefit in several groups. In the English group of consumers not
experienced with online shopping, it was brought up that the opportunity of online
shopping was an advantage for disabled and other less mobile people.
Even though most participants in the focus groups found it convenient that the
groceries were delivered to the doorstep, one major inconvenience in this regard was
mentioned in most groups: the trouble the consumer had to go through if he or she for
some reason had to complain about a product and/or return it. In all Danish groups and
one English group, it was seen as a hassle and a major drawback of online shopping
that you expose yourself to the risk of having to return wrong, unwanted or damaged
products. According to a Danish non-online shopper it was better to pay 10 percent
more in a physical shop than to risk the trouble of complaining and sending back the
product.
Participants in the two English groups not experienced with online grocery
shopping felt that it was not convenient having to arrange for delivery at home at a
suitable time and place. The inherent time lag between ordering and delivery when
shopping online was mentioned in both countries as a barrier in situations of urgency.
Range of available products, information about products. It was a strong belief
among participants in all groups across countries and experience levels that online
shopping gave access to a wide range of stores and products from the entire world.
However, consumers qualified this belief by pointing out that food products that are
often perishable (sensitive to shipping time) and heavy (prohibitive delivery costs) set
natural limits on the realistic range of stores and products to choose from.
Enjoyment, fun of shopping. The enjoyment or fun that they experienced during
shopping was to several participants across nationality and experience level a very
important aspect of shopping – be it online or conventional. A participant in the
INTR Danish group of participants with grocery shopping experience said: If I imagined that
15,3 all my shopping was done online, then I actually think I would start to miss going to Bilka
[a Danish hypermarket] – I would miss the shopping experience.
Some participants treasured shopping experiences as a way to achieve moments of
pleasure. Both browsing around online and conventional shopping seems to be able to
deliver fun and excitement although some participants attributed it exclusively to the
342 conventional shopping experience and missed this dimension when they bought
online.
Impulse buying was discussed in nearly all groups and it seemed to be an important
positive part of grocery shopping to a lot of consumers, and many participants believed
that this element of shopping was sadly missing in online shopping which was
regarded as much more planned and organized. Some consumers used impulse buying
as an interesting and desirably spontaneous way to complete their grocery shopping,
as their shopping lists were often incomplete. A participant from the English group of
consumers who bought specialty grocery items on the internet put it this way: If you
are buying on the net you have to plan in advance Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, what
you think you’re going to eat. But if you physically go shopping you can act
spontaneously.
On the other hand, some participants saw it as an advantage of internet shopping
that you could make the buying decision in private and avoid the sometimes stressful
shopping trip. In several groups, respondents mentioned it as an advantage of
shopping on the internet that pushy salesmen were avoided. This belief was expressed
in connection with online shopping in general, and is probably less important for
grocery shopping, but nevertheless there are occasional activities in conventional
supermarkets, like product demonstrations, where it is possible to meet a pushy
salesman.
Social aspects of shopping. Another set of psychosocial consequences of shopping
for groceries via the internet, compared to conventional grocery shopping, relates
to social interactions with other people in the shops and/or between family
members. It was a widely held belief among group participants that social
interaction with other people was missing when shopping online. This belief was
viewed positively by some participants who liked to contemplate their purchases
in private. Other participants did not like this isolating aspect of online shopping.
They saw conventional shopping as a chance to get out of their home and meet
other people.
In the families of some participants, grocery shopping functioned as a social, family
event where everyone was able and willing to participate. This last aspect of shopping
was attributed to conventional and not to online shopping by group participants,
perhaps reflecting the fact that none of the participants shopping on the internet
reported having company in the process of ordering. A participant in the English
group of non-grocery online shoppers said about conventional shopping with his wife:
It’s a time where we actually go out together and it’s a social thing. . .she’ll ask your
advice “shall we buy this this time?” and you’re there and you can discuss it together.
Personal service. Some participants, mainly less experienced online shoppers,
expressed concerns about the lack of personal customer service. They liked to be able
to get answers to specific questions and they wanted to be able to make complaints
about products to a real person at a physical location.
 Price, bargains, costs. It was a widespread belief among focus group participants Online grocery
that online shopping was generally less expensive despite the delivery costs, which retailing
were perceived to be of a considerable size. Delivery costs are viewed as a factor to be
taken into account when ordering, and it was pointed out that the delivery costs made
small purchases prohibitively expensive.
It was also generally believed that online shopping made it much easier to compare
prices. However, the participants reported that they did not usually compare prices of 343
individual grocery items, but rather the price levels of supermarkets based on a
selection of their most frequently bought basic grocery items.
In most of the groups, participants expressed the belief that by shopping online they
would not get the special offers at the end of supermarket aisles (e.g. special
promotions of goods supplied in a limited number or products close to their “sell by”
date). It is interesting to note in this connection that some experienced online grocery
shoppers found that online shopping saves money because the number of impulse buys
(e.g. the above-mentioned special offers) is reduced to a minimum.
Technical systems, home page. Another potential barrier to online shopping is a slow
web connection or site resulting in annoying waiting times, crash downs and the like.
Disadvantages in this regard were discussed in most groups, but several participants
referred to problems of the past when they used slower modems.
Experiences regarding homepages were rather mixed, but the general impression
was that participants wanted homepages with a clear and simple design, they wanted
to be able to see if goods were in stock or not, and they wanted to be able to check or
receive information that the goods had been dispatched (Table I).

Control beliefs
Two groups of control beliefs could be distinguished from the focus group discussions:
confidence in company logistics and general trust in the company and its payment
systems.
Confidence in company logistics. A large number of concerns about supermarket
logistics when handling online orders were expressed by participants across
experience levels and countries. To leave the picking out of individual items to
supermarket employees was a concern to participants in all groups. They were
concerned with the freshness of the delivered products, and they expressed
considerable uneasiness about the fact that they could not see, smell, hear, touch, feel,
test or select the goods themselves. Not to be able to sense and select products was not
regarded as important for standard, non-perishable, packaged or tinned groceries, but
in relation to perishables like vegetables, fruit, meat and bread, it was a major concern
not to be able to control if the products were fresh and undamaged. An online grocery
shopper at Tesco Direct only ordered the “basics” as she put it, not fruit, vegetables
and meat: I want to be able to go: that bit’s bruised, put that back, get another one out.
In the Danish group of consumers with online grocery shopping experience and the
English group of online specialty shoppers, participants also shared this concern, but it
did not prevent them from buying perishables like organic vegetables, organic meat and
fish online. In general, these products were perceived by participants in these groups to
be of superior quality and freshness from the outset, a belief that seemed to offset the
negative effect of not being able to check the quality of the specific products supplied.
An interesting case was a woman from the English group of online specialty shoppers
INTR Denmark UK
15,3 NE NF FO NE NF TE SP

Convenience of shopping p p p p p p p
Internet grocery shopping is convenient p p p p p p p
Internet store always open, shop when you like p p p p p p
Shop from home, less stressful shopping
344 Never run out of basics – can check list saved on p p
system p p
Initial set up is time-consuming p p
Too expensive for small amounts of groceries p p p p
Time-lag in delivery is sometimes a barrier p
Cannot buy all groceries online – complicated p p p p p
Delivery to door is time-saving p p p p
Transport of heavy goods taken care of p p p
Avoid driving, parking p
Good for disabled, less mobile people p p p p
Delivery of the wrong product, mixing up orders p p
Inconvenient to arrange for delivery p p p p
Troublesome to have to return goods

Range of available products, information about products

Internet gives access to large range of food stores p p p p p p p
and products p
Limited range of products in online food stores
More information about products available on p p
internet p p
Can find special products not available elsewhere
Fresher food directly from farmers (boxed organic, p p
seasonal veg)

Enjoyment, fun of shopping p p p

Internet shop makes shopping fun p
Internet shopping good subject of conversation
Don’t have to deal with pushy salesmen on the p p p
internet p p p p
Miss pleasure of conventional shopping trip
Internet shopping is too planned, get triggered to p p p p
buy in store

Social aspects of shopping p p p p p p

Internet shopping lacks the social dimension
Grocery shopping is a family thing, purchase p p p p
discussed in shop
Personal service p p p
Lack of personal customer service p p
No physical place to complain
Price, bargains, costs p p p p p p
Internet shopping is less expensive, best price p p p p
Easy to compare prices on internet p p
Table I.
No impulse buys on internet – positive
Inventory of outcome
beliefsa (continued)
 Denmark UK Online grocery
NE NF FO NE NF TE SP retailing
p
Nice to get special offer by e-mail
Don’t get end of aisle bargains/special offers on p p p p p
internet p p p p p
Delivery cost are high
Technical systems, homepage
345
p
Technical problems, can’t backspace, site crashes p p p p
Slow connection or site p p
Can’t see if goods are really in stock p p p
Can see if goods are in stock p
Can’t see if goods have been dispatched p p
Confusing homepage design/layout
Notes: NE refers to the group of participants with no experience with shopping on the internet; NF the
group of participants with no experience with shopping for food on the internet; FO the group of
participants with experience with grocery shopping on the internet; TE the group of participants with
experience in shopping for food via Tesco Direct; SP the group of participants experienced in shopping
for specialty products on the internet; and a tick means that a belief has been mentioned in the group Table I.

who did not buy meat online. The group discussion and another participants’ praise of
the opportunity to buy organic meat online from a local farm made this woman very
curious about this option . . .but listening to you with the sort of organic meats then yes, I
would be interested. . .I’ve just got it from the Tesco shop, but when I go home I’m
definitely going to have to look for some. Another person in this group had also been
convinced by other members of the group that the range of grocery products to consider
buying online could be expanded. She said: I suppose it’s a bit of an education here
because some of the things I would have thought were “no gos” but now I would totally
consider buying online, they’ve managed to convince me that my fears are misplaced.
Nevertheless, participants in all groups were to some degree concerned about the
risk of having products of inferior quality delivered. As one participant put it: It’s like
shopping in the dark or buying a lottery ticket.
Participants across groups shared worries about the picking out of individual,
non-standard grocery items and they expressed additional concerns about the
possibility of maltreatment of fragile groceries that could take place before they arrived
at the consumers’ doorstep. More specifically, their concerns focused on packaging and
transport. Some online grocery shoppers based their worries on actual experience. One
participant, for instance, had experienced that grapes and eggs were crushed on
arrival: I mean they were putting heavy cheese on top of grapes; their packing leaves
something to be desired. Another participant had this to say about supermarket
packing: If you get it delivered you’ve got some bloke walking around who hasn’t got a
clue just pushing it all in the bags and you’d get rotten fruit.
According to experienced online shoppers, unfortunate events could happen during
transport as well. Frozen goods could thaw and the driver is not necessarily concerned
with the state of the grocery bags: they just throw “em around and squash” em.
Some participants (experienced online shoppers as well as inexperienced) felt that
online shopping introduced extra uncertainty into the process of buying. You are not
completely sure that the product is actually delivered or whether it is delivered on time.
INTR Several groups also mentioned misunderstandings when ordering as a risk. An
15,3 English participant said: When I ordered off Tesco for the groceries, I was buying fruit
and it said how many apples and I said five and it sent me five kilos, I had to pay for them.
A Danish non-online shopper talked about a friend who ordered cat-food online and
was delivered a pair of safety shoes instead.
Participants who had tried shopping online were generally satisfied with the rules
346 of returning goods at online shops, but in the Danish group of online non-grocery
shoppers it was an issue that policies of returning goods were not sufficiently clear.
General trust in company and payment systems. In the two groups of non-online
shoppers (a Danish and an English) there was a deep, spontaneously expressed
distrust in the security of the payment systems when engaging in online shopping.
There was a general aversion in these groups of inexperienced internet shoppers to
supply any personal information, let alone credit card numbers, through the web. As a
Danish participant put it: Security for me is not to give my account number to some
server, never. An English non-online shopper said that he almost had a phobia about
giving information over the web, as he put it: your credit card number is available to
everybody. Several participants had heard stories, mainly through the media, about
people who were tricked by dishonest sellers on the web. One Danish participant said:
It is common to read bad stories in the papers about dishonest suppliers. In the English
group of non-online shoppers there were concerns about the lack of a physical receipt
to verify your payment.
Participants in the groups of experienced online shoppers saw few problems in this
respect. A Danish participant made this comment: I think the systems of payment are
safe. I haven’t experienced fraud. The bad examples that I know of involve victims who
behaved so thoughtlessly that they were asking for it.
In relation to this security aspect, issues about general trust in online companies
were raised. There was a general feeling in most of the focus groups that big, reputable
companies with offline as well as online business were trustworthier than small,
exclusively web-based companies (Table II).

Denmark UK
NE NF FO NE NF TE SP

Confidence in company logistics p p p p p p p

Can’t see, feel, touch, smell, hear product p p p p p
Don’t know if products are fresh, the perishables p p p p p
Cannot sort out, test goods (e.g. bread or fruit) p p p p
Uncertain (risk of bad) condition of product at arrival p p p
Uncertain if product is delivered – and on time p p p
Misunderstandings can happen more easily p p
Groceries are squashed when packed p
Frozen food thawed p
Unclear warranties, rules of returning goods
General trust in company and payment systems p p p
Distrust in systems of payment p
Table II. General lack of trust in online shopping p p p p p
Inventory of control Only large, reputable companies can be trusted p
beliefs Don’t get physical receipt
Normative beliefs Online grocery
In the five focus groups of online shoppers an important probe was to elicit important retailing
and, for this consumer behavior, relevant referent individuals or groups by asking how
they started buying things on the internet and if it had been recommended to them by
others. The way participants in the five groups had started shopping online can be
grouped into three:
(1) influence of colleagues, family and friends; 347
(2) exposure to advertisements; and
(3) accidental browsing across interesting commercial web sites.
Of these three, the opinions, recommendations and experiences of referent others was
mentioned most often across groups as the triggering factor. The most important
referent groups seem to be friends, colleagues and family, and the impression from the
focus groups was that communication with referent individuals played an important
role in forming the behavior of consumers with regard to this new form of shopping.
Some participants reported explicitly that online shopping was a popular
conversational topic. A few excerpts from the Danish group of internet shoppers
(non-grocery) could serve to underline the significance of referent groups in molding
online shopping behavior, even though it was impossible to tell if the conversations are
primarily affecting normative beliefs or outcome beliefs:
. [. . .] and when friends and acquaintances tell you about their experiences [with
online shopping], you do it.
.
Then I talk to my friends who use homepages that I don’t use and that is quickly
changed when we have talked about it.
.
Good and bad experiences are exchanged. . .then someone says: why don’t you try
this. I think that when you discuss this, it is usually experiences, good as well as
bad.
.
Mouth to mouth advertising has an importance as well. When you hear from
others that they have tried to shop there, then you have already confidence in this
place.
The participants in the groups were not only affected by referent individuals, but also
by others. A large number of participants in the groups of online shoppers reported
that they had recommended or even tried to persuade family, friends or colleagues to
take up internet shopping.
An interesting difference between focus groups of online shoppers and groups of
non-online shoppers with regard to the reported online shopping experience of referent
individuals could be observed. The two groups of consumers who did not shop online
shared the same characteristic that relatively few participants in these groups reported
that they had referent others who shopped online, whereas most – if not all – online
shoppers had friends, relatives or colleagues who were online shoppers as well. When
we discovered this interesting difference, we took a closer look at the stated reasons
behind the outcome beliefs of non-online shoppers to see if the difference in referent
groups’ experience with online shopping was reflected in the motivations they stated
for holding outcome and control beliefs, and indeed we found a difference. When
non-online shoppers explained their reluctant or negative opinion about online
INTR shopping and listed negative features of online shopping, they often referred to reports
15,3 in the press or stories broadcast in consumer television programs. The negative
outcome beliefs held by online-shoppers, on the other hand, were more often motivated
by personal experience and experiences of referent individuals.

348 Discussion
The main purpose of this research was employing the TPB as the theoretical
framework, to explore in-depth the range of beliefs held by consumers about internet
shopping in general and internet grocery shopping in particular. Having elicited beliefs
in two countries from seven focus groups of consumers with different degrees of
experience with internet grocery shopping, we have captured those consumer beliefs
that are most likely to be the basis for forming intentions to buy groceries online or not.
We found it rather striking that the seven groups of experienced and inexperienced
internet shoppers did not differ very much in their pool of stated outcome and control
beliefs. A remarkable overlap was found in both positive and negative beliefs about
internet grocery shopping.
Internet grocery shopping (or at least the ideal of it) was considered by almost
everyone to be convenient. The store is always open, and it is easy, relaxing and time
saving to shop from home. Participants also seemed to agree that it is an advantage of
internet shopping that it gives access to a large range of stores and products from the
entire world.
Prices were believed to be generally lower on the internet, but at the same time
participants were afraid to miss out on the special, end-of-aisle bargains in the
conventional shop.
As mentioned above, participants with different experience levels also seemed to
share quite a number of beliefs about negative outcomes of internet shopping. They
saw it as a disadvantage that there was an increased risk of having to accept or return
products when they were in a bad condition or when products simply did not match the
expectations of the consumers. This drawback of internet grocery shopping was seen
across groups as the negative side of the coin when consumers entrusted the selection,
packaging and transportation of grocery shopping to an internet supermarket.
Consumers were particularly worried about the selection and handling of perishables
like vegetables, eggs and meat products, and such reservations about internet grocery
shopping were apparently important determinants of consumers’ intentions to buy
groceries through the internet. Among experienced online grocery shoppers, this belief
obviously did not make them stop buying groceries online, but it often restricted these
consumers in the range of products they were prepared to procure in this way.
Another important finding across focus groups was that participants believed that
the elements of fun and enjoyment, that they associated with conventional grocery
shopping trips, were lost when it took place at home in front of the computer. In the
eyes of at least some experienced internet shoppers, however, this loss of the
recreational aspect of shopping was counterbalanced by the fun and excitement they
experienced when shopping through the internet.
Participants across experience levels also shared the opinion that the shopping trip
to the supermarket had a social aspect. A shopping event is often seen as an
opportunity for the family to do something together, and it provides an opportunity for
the shopper(s) to meet other people (albeit casually) outside the home. Participants Online grocery
believed that this aspect was sadly lacking in internet shopping. retailing
The focus groups also showed that the groups of referent individuals with the
potential of playing a part in the decision of shopping groceries online or not was the
same across focus groups, namely colleagues, friends and family. Whether these
referent groups were sources of significant normative beliefs (about the behavioral
expectations of these groups) is not clear from this research, but since internet 349
shopping seems to be a popular conversational topic and shopping experiences are
often shared with referent groups, it should not be surprising to find a significant
subjective norm component in the formation of consumers’ behavioral intentions to
buy groceries via the internet.
Beliefs that were unique to either experienced or inexperienced online grocery
shoppers were encountered less often, but one control belief seemed to be of high
importance in the two groups of non-internet shoppers and missing in the other groups.
There was among non-online shoppers a general, apparently deep-rooted, distrust in
the systems of payment. Consumers with no internet shopping experience simply did
not believe that there was sufficient security in the payment systems, and they feared
disclosure of personal information, e.g. credit card details, when making an online
payment.
The beliefs that appeared exclusively in the groups of experienced internet grocery
shoppers were mostly quite specific beliefs relating to actual experience with this form
of shopping and the set up of particular companies’ internet stores. For instance, the
internet supermarkets in England usually want the consumer to set up a basic list of
groceries, which is then checked at each shopping event. This was regarded as an
advantage by consumers because it could ensure an uninterrupted supply of basics in
the household, but it was also mentioned in both English groups of online grocery
shoppers as a potential barrier for new customers who had to use considerable time
and effort to set up this basic list of groceries. Another advantage mentioned only by
experienced online grocery-shoppers in both countries is that boxed, organic meat and
vegetables ordered via the internet are fresher than supermarket groceries because
these consumers believe they are supplied almost directly from the farmers.
As the consumer beliefs we have elicited in this study about online grocery
shopping across two countries and across individual experience levels are surprisingly
similar, one could perhaps conclude that beliefs about online grocery shopping, with a
few exceptions, are unable to explain different intentions to shop for groceries via the
internet. This would be jumping to conclusions, however.
First, it is quite possible that beliefs are evaluated differently by different
consumers. Two consumers may agree that it is a disadvantage of internet grocery
shopping that you risk getting squashed or bruised groceries delivered, but they may
not agree on how important this disadvantage is. One consumer may think that this is
an almost prohibitive disadvantage, whereas others may regard this problem to be of
minor importance. It is also quite possible that consumers weight advantages of
internet grocery shopping differently, although they all admit that they exist. An
unemployed consumer, for example, would probably not appreciate the time saved by
shopping online as highly as a busy employed consumer, and a physically strong male
shopper would probably not regard the advantage of escaping carrying heavy
groceries home to be as important as a more fragile elderly person would.
INTR Secondly, all focus group participants were encouraged to mention any positive or
15,3 negative, important or less important belief they could think of in this context in order
to elicit the broadest range of beliefs possible in each group. Having this exhaustive
elicitation procedure in mind, it is perhaps less surprising that we found a large
intersection of beliefs across the focus groups.
In a more quantitative approach, future research could investigate the significance
350 of the different beliefs elicited in this study in the formation of consumers’ attitude,
subjective norm, behavioral control and eventually intention to buy groceries via the
internet, and by including groups of consumers with different levels of online shopping
experience it could be studied to what extent these groups evaluate beliefs differently.
Such a study could add to our understanding of consumers’ different (and in general
rather reluctant) reception of this new way of shopping groceries.
Several possible barriers to consumers’ acceptance of the idea of using the internet
for grocery shopping could be inferred from this exploratory study, explaining the
hitherto rather poor performance records of internet grocery retailers. Some of these
barriers are very difficult or impossible to remove, whereas others could be more easily
addressed by internet retailers.
The belief among non-internet shoppers that payments systems are not safe is
perhaps the most evident barrier to a breakthrough in internet grocery shopping, but it
is also a barrier likely to diminish over time as consumers generally become more
familiar with making payments through the internet and as improved and safer
payment systems are introduced. To be successful, individual internet grocery retailers
will have to make an effort to build-up consumers’ general trust in their company and
convince consumers that they can safely reveal their credit card details, etc.
This study indicates that consumer acceptance of internet grocery shopping could
also be severely impeded by widespread beliefs which are probably harder to change
than beliefs about the safety of payment systems, because they are rooted in inherent
characteristics of internet grocery shopping. The sources of these negative beliefs
cannot be removed without removing the benefits of online grocery shopping as well.
When the consumer leaves selection (the picking out of individual products),
packaging and delivery of groceries to the retailer, the consumers’ risk of getting a
damaged or wrong product will almost inevitably grow compared to the conventional
form of shopping. Internet grocery retailers should nevertheless aim at reducing
consumers’ risk in this respect as much as possible by setting up high quality control
standards for the selection of individual grocery items as well as for the packaging,
transport and delivery of groceries to the customer. Such a quality control should be
supplemented by a clear and attractive compensation and replacement policy for
unwanted or damaged products in order to address consumers’ concerns. That such
efforts do not have to be fruitless was indicated by some statements made in this study
by online shoppers buying organic vegetables (a difficult perishable) who believed that
their vegetables were better and fresher than those in the supermarket.
This study also shows that a number of consumers believed that grocery shopping
on the internet was less fun and exciting than the conventional trip to the supermarket.
They saw grocery shopping in the supermarket as a recreational event and a chance to
do impulsive things. Shopping on the internet will probably not be able to provide the
consumer with a recreational experience which could be compared to a conventional
shopping trip, even though it is with no doubt possible to make internet grocery
shopping more interesting and fun. An alternative strategy would be to communicate Online grocery
that the time saved by shopping online leaves the consumer with an opportunity to retailing
make a trip to a more fun and interesting place than the supermarket.
To consumers who appreciate the social aspects of shopping it could act as a barrier
for taking up online grocery shopping that they see internet shopping as an individual,
homely occupation precluding much social interaction with family members or other
people they meet during a shopping trip. This barrier is probably also very difficult to 351
remove without removing the benefits of internet shopping in the process, but this
negative belief could perhaps be compensated by positive beliefs if the consumers’ gain
of valuable time is communicated to the consumer. Time that previously was spent on
trips to the supermarket could now be spent on arranging social events with family
and friends.

References
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and
Beckmann, J. (Eds), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY, pp. 11-39.
Ajzen, I. (1988), Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, The Dorsey Press, Chicago, IL.
Bellman, S., Lohse, G.L. and Johnson, E.J. (1999), “Predictors of online buying behavior”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 32-8.
Bredahl, L. (2001), “Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to
genetically modified foods: results of a cross-national survey”, Journal of Consumer Policy,
Vol. 24, pp. 23-61.
Bredahl, L. and Grunert, K.G. (1997), “Determinants of the consumption of fish and shellfish in
Denmark: an application of the theory of planned behavior”, in Luten, J.B., Børresen, T.
and Oehlenschläger, J. (Eds), Seafood from Producer to Consumer: Integrated Approach to
Quality, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 21-30.
Conner, M.T. (1993), “Understanding determinants of food choice”, British Food Journal, Vol. 95
No. 9, pp. 27-31.
Dennison, C.M. and Shepherd, R. (1995), “Adolescent food choice: an application of the theory of
planned behavior”, Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 8, pp. 9-23.
Donthu, N. and Garcia, A. (1999), “The internet shopper”, Journal of Advertising Research, pp. 52-8.
East, R. (1993), “Investment decisions and the theory of planned behaviour”, Journal of Economic
Psycology, Vol. 14, pp. 337-75.
Evans, M., Wedande, G., Raltson, L. and van ’t Hul, S. (2001), “Consumer interaction in the virtual
era: some qualitative insights”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 150-9.
Fishbein, M.A. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
George, J.F. (2004), “The theory of planned behavior and internet purchasing”, Journal of Internet
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 198-212.
Jayawardhena, C. (2004), “Personal values’ influence on e-shopping attitude and behavior”,
Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 127-38.
Klobas, J.E. and Clyde, L.A. (2000), “Adults learning to use the internet: a longitudinal study of
attitudes and other factors associated with intended internet use”, Library & Information
Science Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-34.
INTR Levy, M. and Weitz, B.A. (2004), Retail Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 6-31.
15,3 Liao, S., Shao, Y.P., Wang, H. and Chen, A. (1999), “The adoption of virtual banking: an empirical
study”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 19, pp. 63-74.
Limayem, M., Khalifa, M. and Frini, A. (2000), “What makes consumers buy from the internet?
A logitudinal study of online shopping”, Systems and Humans, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 421-32.
Morgan, D.L. (1997), Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
352 CA.
Morganosky, M.A. and Cude, B.J. (2000), “Consumer response to online grocery shopping”,
International Journal of Retail Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Povey, R., Conner, M., Sparks, P., James, R. and Shepherd, R. (2000), “Application of the theory of
planned behaviour to two dietary behaviours: roles of perceived control and self-efficacy”,
Journal of Health Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 121-39.
Raijas, A. and Tuunainen, V.K. (2001), “Critical factors in electronic grocery shopping”,
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 255-65.
Rasmussen, K.T. (2000), Danmark er bagud, Secondary, København.
Scholderer, J. and Grunert, K.G. (2001), “Does generic advertising work? A systematic evaluation
of the Danish campaign for fresh fish”, Aquaculture, Economics and Management, Vol. 5
Nos 5/6, pp. 253-72.
Shim, S., Easstlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P. (2001), “An online prepurchase intention
model: the role of intention to search”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 397-416.
Tanskanen, K., Yrjölä, H. and Holmström, J. (2002), “The way to profitable internet grocery
retailing: six lessons learned”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 169-78.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P. (1995), “Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned
behavior: a study of consumer adoption intentions”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 137-55.
Thompson, N.J. and Thompson, K.E. (1996), “Reasoned action theory: an application to
alcohol-free beer”, Journal of Marketing Practice, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 35-48.
Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2002), “Product characteristics and internet shopping intentions”, Internet
Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 411-26.
Weber, K. and Roehl, W.S. (1999), “Profiling people searching for and purchasing travel products
on the world wide web”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37, pp. 291-8.
White, H. and Daniel, E. (2004), “The future of online retailing in the UK: learning from
experience”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-23.

Further reading
Albarracı̀n, D., McNatt, P.S., Williams, W.R., Hoxworth, T., Zenilman, J., Ho, R.M., Rhodes, F.,
Malotte, C.K., Bolan, G.A. and Iateta, M. (2000), “Structure of outcome beliefs in condom
use”, Health Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 458-68.
Richard, R., Vries, N.K.D. and Pligt, J.V.D. (1998), “Anticipated regret and precautionary sexual
behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 15, pp. 1411-28.
Tolman, R.M., Edleson, J.L. and Fendrich, M. (1996), “The applicability of the theory of planned
behavior to abusive men’s cessation of violent behavior”, Violence & Victims, Vol. 11,
pp. 341-54.