Webroomer customer experience in the
multichannel retail purchase journey

Experiência do
cliente do Webroomer na jornada de compra no varejo multicanal

Gabriela Pastre

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5305-5222

Mestre em
Administração. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) – Brasil. [email-masked]

Martin de La Martiniere
Petroll

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7280-9202

Doutor em Administração Universidade
Federal do Paraná (UFPR) – Brasil. [email-masked]

João Coelho Soares

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3278-0844

Mestre em Administração. Universidade do
Sul de Santa Catarina (UNISUL) – Brasil. [email-masked]

ABSTRACT

This study aims an analysis of webroomer customer experience
investigating the stages of the purchase journey and decision making, as well
as customer touch points and emotions experienced. This study is based on a
qualitative approach and used electronic diaries produced by participants
during their purchase journey, and by subsequent in-depth interviews. Data were
collected from a sample of eight webroomers who purchased furniture or home
decoration items. Thematic analysis revealed that negative experiences were
mainly reported at brand-owned touch points. Negative emotions prevailed during
the “evaluation of alternatives” stage, due to perceived contrasts between
information obtained online and from physical stores. This study analyzed the
factors underlying webrooming from a customer experience perspective, as well
as holistically by combining cognitive and often neglected affective elements
at the different touch points of real purchase journeys. We investigated (to
our knowledge for the first time) the webroomer customer experience during the  purchase journey in the multichannel context
both from a rational (decision-

making process stages) and emotional perspectives.

Keywords: webrooming; purchase journey; touch points; emotions;
customer experience.

RESUMO

O estudo objetiva investigar a
experiência do cliente do webroomer através dos
estágios da jornada de compra, bem como dos pontos de contato e emoções
vivenciadas pelos clientes. Este estudo se baseia em uma abordagem qualitativa,
faz uso de diários eletrônicos alimentados pelos participantes durante a
jornada de compra e de entrevistas em profundidade. Os dados foram coletados de
uma amostra de oito webroomers que compraram itens da
categoria de móveis, decoração ou ferramentas. A análise temática revelou que
as experiências negativas foram relatadas principalmente em pontos de contato
de propriedade da marca. As emoções negativas prevaleceram durante a fase de
“avaliação de alternativas”, devido aos contrastes percebidos entre as
informações obtidas online e nas lojas físicas. Este estudo analisou os fatores
subjacentes ao webrooming de uma perspectiva
holística da experiência do cliente, combinando elementos cognitivos e
afetivos, muitas vezes negligenciados no estudo das jornadas de compra.
Investigamos (até onde sabemos pela primeira vez) a experiência do cliente do webroomer durante a jornada de compra no contexto
multicanal, tanto de uma perspectiva racional (estágios do processo de decisão)
quanto emocional.

Palavras-chave:
webrooming; jornada de compra; pontos de
contato; emoções; experiência do cliente.

Recebido
em 17/12/2021.  Aprovado em 05/01/2022.
Avaliado pelo sistema double blind peer review. Publicado conforme normas da APA.

https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2022.v12.p01-13.1748

1 INTRODUCTION

The multichannel retail resulted in stiff
competition and in a proliferation of touch points between consumers and
suppliers (Arora and Sahney, 2017). Consumers can
browse through online stores and subsequently buy from physical stores, a
process known as webrooming (Flavián, Gurrea, and Orús, 2016).

According to Flavián,
Gurrea and Orús (2016),
webrooming has become the most frequent form of multichannel consumer behavior.
A survey by the National Confederation of Shopkeepers and the Credit Protection
Service (2017) revealed that 47% of Brazilian consumers with internet access
always research online before shopping at a physical store. Although webrooming
is more frequent than showrooming (the reverse process consisting of offline
browsing followed by online shopping), it has received less attention by
researchers. Kang (2018) specifically identified a lack of research into the
factors influencing webrooming behavior.

Joint analyses of customer experience, stages
and touch points should therefore produce a better understanding of purchase
journeys (Følstad, Kvale,
and Halvorsrud, 2013). A report on research
priorities for 2018-20 by the Marketing Science Institute (2018) highlighted
the need to investigate the entire customer journey as a way of revealing new
insights into the paths taken by consumers. In addition, Chen, Cheung and Tan (2018) pointed out that identification and
analysis of the complete purchase journey, including all touch points and
stages, are potential research targets. Specifically, about the multichannel
customers, Viejo-Fernández, Sanzo-Pérez and Vázquez-Casielles (2020) point out the need to understand the touch
points used at each of the stages of the purchase journey and how they act in
each of it.

Despite the growing importance of webrooming in
retail, there are few studies that examine the webroomer consumer behavior in
detail (Kleinlercher, Linzmajer,
Verhoef and Rudolph, 2020). Flavián, Gurrea and Orús (2016) showed
that webrooming improves consumer shopping experience before purchase (purchase
intention), during purchase, and after purchase (satisfaction with search
process and confidence in product choice). Flavián, Gurrea and Orús (2020a) advance
the knowledge of multichannel customer experience by examining the impact of
the multichannel behaviors on smart shopping perceptions and feelings. But they
still signalize the importance to research about how specific multichannel behaviors
affect customer experience. Viejo-Fernández, Sanzo-Pérez
and Vázquez-Casielles (2019) found that negative
emotions have a stronger negative influence on perceived value and satisfaction
during webrooming in comparison to showrooming. However, little is known about
the timing of manifestation of positive and negative emotions during the
purchase journey, about possible frustrations at some point during the search
process, or about how the emotions may improve the shopping experience at the
pre-purchase, purchase, or post-purchase stages.

This study adopts a customer experience
perspective and aims to investigate the stages of the purchase journey, analyzing
touch points and emotions experienced by the consumer in the multichannel
context of webrooming and provides an understanding of how webroomers behave
and feel along the process of buying furniture, home decoration and tools,
which stand out as webrooming targets in Brazil (Nielsen, 2016).

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Although new, the literature related to
webrooming is already showing significant results. The first study of
webrooming (Chiu, Hsieh, Roan, Tseng and Hsieh, 2011)
revealed that webrooming intention is associated with the level of confidence
of customers in their ability to process information from different channels,
and with a positive perception of the physical store (better service quality
and lower risks) compared to online shopping. Reid, Ross
and Vignali (2016) found that webrooming is selected
when the consumer is unable to perform a full product evaluation (clothing in
their study) exclusively online. In addition, difficulty to estimate product
dimensions and financial implications of the purchase (shipping, product
returns, refunds, high online prices, and late refunding) were the main reasons
for consumers to avoid online channels. Arora and Sahney
(2019) results suggest that perceived search benefits online significantly
determine consumers' webrooming behavior. Flavián, Gurrea and Orús (2020b) observed
the influence of mobile word of mouth (m-WOM), finding that that kind of WOM,
when received at the physical store, was perceived as helpful by webroomers and affected their preferences and choices.

Viejo-Fernández et al. (2019) investigated the
emotional aspects of the shopping experience and found that positive emotions
have a greater effect on perceived value and satisfaction with the retailer
when the purchase journey relies on two channels compared to a
single one. They also showed that negative emotions during webrooming
have a more negative effect on perceived value and satisfaction than
showrooming, indicating the importance of their identification especially in
the context of webrooming. Kleinlercher et al. (2020)
study shows that the customers to engage in webrooming propensity is associated
with their online versus offline shopping experience, where the increase in
online store shopping experiences is negatively associated with the decision to
use the webroom, while the increase in shopping experiences in the physical
store is positively associated with webrooming.

Interest in customer experience grew due the
increasing complexity of purchase journeys, number of available channels and
multiplicity of interactions between consumer and company (Lemon and Verhoef,
2016). Although there is no consensus on the definition of customer experience
(Jain, Aagja and Bagdare,
2017), here we adopt the proposal by Verhoef et al. (2009, p. 32) highlighting
the interconnections among experience, purchase journey and emotions:

The customer experience construct is holistic in
nature and involves the customer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the retailer. This
experience is created not only by those elements which the retailer can control
(e.g., service interface, retail atmosphere, assortment, price), but also by
elements that are outside of the retailer's control (e.g., influence of others,
purpose of shopping). Additionally, we submit that the customer experience
encompasses the total experience, including the search, purchase, consumption,
and after-sale phases of the experience, and may involve multiple retail
channels (Verhoef et al., 2009, p. 32).

Our study also adopts the definition of
customer purchase journey as “the process a customer goes through, across all
stages and touch points, that makes up the customer experience” (Lemon and
Verhoef, 2016, p. 71). The customer journey is a non-linear structure expected
to “reflect cognitive, emotional, and behavioral drives” (Wolny
and Charoensuksai, 2014, p. 319). Lemon and Verhoef
(2016) classified the purchase journey into three stages: pre-purchase, purchase and post-purchase. The pre-purchase stage covers
all interactions with the brand, product and
environment prior to the purchase. The purchase stage includes product choice,
ordering and payment, involving interactions with the brand, product
and environment. The post-purchase stage includes product consumption and use, engagement and possible service requests, covering the
interactions after the purchase transaction itself.

About the model of consumer decision-making, an
influential one is the five-step model (Engel, Kollat
and Blackwell, 1978) postulating the stages of 1) problem recognition; 2)
information search; 3) evaluation of alternatives; 4) purchase; and 5)
post-purchase. It was the theoretical framework adopted in this study as it
provides an appropriate account of consumer decision making in contemporary
shopping environments (Ashman, Solomon and Wolny,
2015). The EKB model has been applied to online and multichannel purchase
contexts (Wolny and Charoensuksai,
2014) and to showrooming behavior (Sit, Hoang and Inversini,
2018).

We also follow Lemon and Verhoef (2016) who
defined touch points as places of interaction between customers and companies
during the shopping process. They can be classified into the ownership
categories of 1) brand (aspects of the marketing mix created and managed by the
company itself); 2) partner (aspects of the marketing mix jointly created or
managed by the company and partners); 3) customer (choice of payment method,
creation of videos on products, etc.); and 4) social or external (third-party
sources of information such as review sites and social media). Lemon and
Verhoef (2016) argued that the typology is useful for companies to identify relevant
touch points and improve customer experience.

Studies on the purchase journey revealed
valuable insights for both academia and companies. Wolny
and Charoensuksai (2014) showed that a channel
(online or physical) may appear during several purchase stages of the same journey, and be used in parallel with other channels.
Another study (Vilppula, 2016) showed that some
consumers research products exclusively as a hobby or habit, while others
purposely browse shops to obtain a full picture of prices and products.
Purchase journeys can also go back and forth between decision-making stages, be
interrupted and later reinitiated as a function of
customer motivation, and not necessarily result in purchase.

Finally, a review of emotions during the
purchase journey (Puccinelli, Goodstein, Grewal,
Price, Raghubir, and Stewart, 2009) showed that
affection, humor and feelings play important roles
during all five stages of the consumer decision-making process. Sit et al.
(2018) addressed emotions in a context of multiple channels (England
participants in an consumer electronics context) and identified positive
emotions (excitement and curiosity) mainly in the “problem recognition” and
“information search” stages; negative emotions (confusion, overload, stress,
disappointment and mistrust) mainly in the “evaluation of alternatives” stage,
due to the variety of choices offered online and offline and price differences
between them; mixed emotions (happiness, hesitation and confidence) in the
“purchase” stage; and finally positive emotions (satisfaction) in the
“post-purchase” stage.

The studies above suggest connections among
customer experience, purchase journey and emotions experienced by customers.
Here we investigate (to our knowledge for the first time) the webroomer
customer experience during the purchase journey in the multichannel context
both from a rational (decision process stages) and emotional perspectives.

3 METHODS

We performed a qualitative study, with data
based on participants diaries and in-depth interviews. The study relied on
intentional or purposeful sampling (Belk, Wallendorf,
and Sherry Jr, 1989), as well as snowball sampling. Participants were selected
based on pre-established criteria, that is, they were over 18, and planning to
purchase furniture, home decoration or tools within a month, and Brazilians,
since no previous webrooming study had been performed in the country, and
culture is a possible influence on results (Kang, 2018). The final sample
consists of eight participants, that were in the pre-purchase stage (thus
allowing observation of the entire purchase journey), intending to buy a
product within the stipulated value (R$100 funded by the authors), and
practicing webrooming.

Personal diaries were created with the ExperienceFellow, a smartphone app already used in previous
studies (Stickdorn and Frischhut,
2012; Muskat, Muskat, Zehrer and Johnswamy,
2013; Bosio, Rainer, and Stickdorn,
2017), where participants describe touch points, with the option of including
photos, videos, and location regarding each touch point with retailers, and
evaluation of the experience as positive, neutral, or negative. Prior to data
collection, selected participants received a tutorial on using the ExperienceFellow app so that everyone was able to use it
correctly. Participants were instructed to register all touch points with
retailers and products throughout the purchase journey, as well as emotions
they experienced.

At the end of the journey (about two weeks
after the purchase, to allow for post-purchase activities), subjects were
interviewed in-depth, using a semi-structured script, with items based on the
literature, and refined in a pre-test with the same target audience. The
purpose of interviews was to understand in more detail the information acquired
through the electronic diaries. Seven interviews were conducted in person and
one online (via Skype), with audio recorded with prior participant consent
(participants were informed that audios would be used only for transcription
and subsequent data analysis). Transcribed interviews were sent to participants
to delete, modify, or add information via online messaging, such as missing
emotions.

Thematic analysis was applied (Bazeley, 2013) with the diaries and transcribed interviews
data, following the steps of open coding, axial coding, and framework
development. The first stage codes transcripts into macro-questions (stages of
the journey, decision-making process, and emotions); the second manually codes
transcriptions as pre-defined by the literature into decision-making process
(Ashman et al., 2015) and touch points (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016); and the third
stage cross-tabulates decision-making activities with emotions. Emotions were
classified as positive or negative according to the participants own narrative,
i.e., whether they used a certain emotion to explain negative or positive
moments.

4 RESULTS

Profiles of the eight anonymized respondents
are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant profiles

Fonte: Prepared by the authors (2021)

Most participants were female, single and
completed higher education. Ages range from 19 to 29 years, and average age was
24 years. All participants had made purchases online at least once before. All
participants except for Caroline and Paulo had a credit card. Grouping was
based on the similarity of reasons for webrooming: (1) “I need to touch the
product and compare online and in-store prices”: subjects who left the online
shopping environment after initial evaluations of alternatives, and decided to
physically inspect products in at least one physical store and compare online
and in-store prices; (2) “Warming up online, action at the physical shop”:
subjects who intended to research but not purchase online, and only wanted to
know products offered in the physical store to prepare for the purchase (being
afraid of being tricked by shop assistants at the physical store); and (3)
“Online shopping is disappointing”: respondents who migrated to physical stores
after online search, as they experienced unhappiness in the online environment
(distrust regarding delivery, delivery costs, and lack of products and models).

4.1 Decision-making process analysis

Touch points were analyzed for each stage of
the decision-making process, as well as the emotions described in each stage.

4.1.1 Pre-purchase stage

Problem recognition: The two mentioned touch points are described in decreasing order of
citations. All respondents internally assessed the possibilities of needs that
could be satisfied by participating in this research, that is, satisfying the
conditions of being an item of furniture, decoration
or tools and under R$100.00. This touch point is classified as being owned by
the client (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). As exemplified by Flavia (who bought a
throw blanket):

Question: How did you decide to buy this product?

Choice was based on the options you gave me, right? It had to be
something for my home. And price had to be more or less the
amount I wanted to spend. And I had been planning to buy a throw blanket for a
while.

Two participants had help from peers (friends,
spouses, and family members; social/external touch point) to identify a desired
product. At this stage, only positive feelings were reported such as motivation
(in conversation with peers and internal evaluation of the possibilities of
product search and purchase), and confidence that they would find the desired
product at the stipulated price.

Information search: Eight touch points were mentioned in this step. The most frequent was
visiting online stores (confirming the first step of the webrooming sequence).
This touch point was classified both as owned by partners (in the case of
Google searches not managed only by the store) and by brand (online store
itself). Natalia searched for online stores to seek information on whether
prices of the desired product would be within the stipulated range.
Participants also talked to peers (friends, spouses, and family; social touch
point) to seek information about desired products.

Social networks kept by stores (touch points
owned by brand) were visited for an initial appraisal of products. Paulo
commented that he missed information on product prices on online store
profiles. In addition to Google searches to find online stores, Google Maps was
also used (touch point owned by partners). Flavia searched for stores
discarding those too distant from her preferred location. Natalia mentioned her
frustration with the lack of information on stores (photos, websites, etc.)
from Google searches.

Store websites (touch points owned by brands)
were also visited (website without e-commerce). Caroline was confused as to
whether the website had a catalogue of available items in-store:

I found the site very elegant and beautiful. However, I did not find any
catalogue. And then I thought “I'm going to click on the shopping basket icon”.
I clicked and it showed and empty basket. Then I was like, “Okay, where are the
items?” (Caroline, bought a statuette).

Online ads (touch point owned by brand) in
social networks were also used to search for information. They were seen as
positive for as long as they provided new information and were not excessively
displayed, otherwise subjects evaluated ads negatively. One of the participants
visited blogs (social touch point, independent information source) only to seek
information about the handling of the product. Fabricio used Google Images
search (touch point owned by partners) to collect information on visually
attractive products.

In this step a mix of positive and negative
feelings were reported, including happiness (when finding the store location
using search engines), excitement (when reading information about the product
on blogs and social networks or through peers), disappointment (due to scarce
returns from online searches, high shipping costs and limited information on
the store website) and confusion (lack of understanding of product
specifications online, and excessive number of products and models offered on
social networks).

Evaluation of alternatives: Eight touch points were mentioned in this step. All respondents
visited at least one online store (touch point owned by brand) to evaluate
product alternatives. The reasons were diverse. A participant did not examine
shipping terms and conditions due to having no intention of proceeding with a
purchase, as she did not have a credit card and could not assess the product
based on images alone. Another participant (Barbara) also made online searches
as preparation work for purchases at the physical rather than the online store.
Paulo also looked for products online to prepare for the visit to the physical
store, as he thinks he is unsure about which products and models to select.
Caroline likes to research online before visiting a physical store to avoid
shops assistants’ tactics:

Although I prefer to shop physically, I am a little shy. That's why I
like to learn about the product on the internet, so that I’m already sure about
it and make no mistakes. I am bad at saying no, I feel like I’m being
disrespectful [to shop assistants] (Caroline
bought a statuette).

The online environment was unpopular with some
participants for various reasons. Flavia and Luiza did not purchase their
products online and preferred to physically inspect the fabric items they
planned to buy, as they found online specifications hard to understand. When
asked about how product description could be improved, Luiza said companies
should use simpler terms:

[...] perhaps an easier description, such as “fluffy cushion, suede
fabric, not so long nap”, something like that (Luiza bought pillows).

Delivery was an additional concern about online
shopping, as Luiza works and no one is available at
home to sign for deliveries. Juliana reported that shipping costs were a major
factor discouraging her from online shopping even when she was interested in a
product, as they could be up to five times the price of the product itself.
Caroline stated that she feels anxious about waiting for product delivery and
with the possibility of getting something different from the expected, and thus,
she avoids online shopping.

Another negative point was the inadequate
information on product dimension in the online environment. Luiza suggested
that products should be displayed in their context of use to facilitate
understanding of their dimensions. By contrast, for Barbara the fact that
online stores display products in isolation is a positive point: “Sometimes it
is good to see the product on itself, independently. Sometimes a nice product
is overshadowed by other items you don’t want to buy” (Barbara bought mini
statues). Paulo had to pause his online research due to the overwhelming number
of available products:

I saw a nice print, for example one with a bar scene, I thought it was
great. Then suddenly I see another one with a Netflix theme and I thought that
one is the best. [...] And then I felt that the more I researched, the more
doubts I was left with (Paulo bought a popcorn bucket and
glass cushion).

Physical stores (touch point owned by brand)
were also visited to evaluate alternatives. Flavia and Juliana went to various
high street shops at this stage. Natalia and Luiza said they searched for
physical stores to compare prices and options with online shops: “I wanted to
look at the cushion, its size and so on. And price difference as well, which is
important. Sometimes we think it’s cheaper online, but it's not when shipping
cost is included” (Luiza bought cushions). Paulo and Flavia were surprised by
the difference between online and in-store products:

I thought I would find it in almost any store I went, the product I
wanted and as it was shown on the internet [...] The blanket on the internet is
very different from the one at the physical store. This shocked me (Flavia bought a sofa blanket).

Another interesting finding was from
comparisons between online and in-store prices by the same retailer. Two
participants were frustrated by not finding a product offered online in the
physical store (since the website is a marketplace, participants did not verify
whether the online product was sold by the retailer itself or a partner):

I was frustrated because she [the mother] said she had found nice things
at good prices. But I didn’t see any of that. Perhaps the site said that it was
only for shipping, but it was my mother who saw the product and I didn't even
feel like getting back to them (Caroline bought a statuette).

Peers (friends, spouses
and family members; social touch point) assisted in the assessment of
alternatives. Store profiles on social networks (touch point owned by brand)
were also visited by participants. Barbara reported that Instagram timelines
influenced her choice of store and product.

Google Maps (touch point owned by partners) was
used with different objectives. Caroline used it to find the name of a specific
store, and Barbara to estimate the distance between the physical store and her
office.

Ads on social networks and websites (touch
point owned by brand) were used to evaluate alternatives. Fabricio received an
ad and then decided where and which product model to buy. Store websites
(without e-commerce) were also used (touch point owned by brand). Barbara
comments on her negative experience and unhelpful research:

But on the website it was like this, just one
page with “we sell this decoration item, or that one", and there was an
armchair and something like that. But it didn’t help me at all. That website is
as useful as none (Barbara bought mini statues).

Google Images (touch point owned by partner)
search was used by one participant (mentioned above in the description of the
information search step).

At this step, there was a stronger indication
of negative feelings mainly due to contrasts between virtual and physical
product: disappointment (due to limited information available on website,
contrast between virtual and real product, limited product range at physical
store compared to online catalogue, online product or product model not being
available at the physical store from the same retailer), frustration (with
available models and reduced range both online and in-store, online product not
being available at the physical from the same retailer), uncertainty (due to
the excessive number of products and models on social networks and online
stores) and irritation (due to the large number of online ads and difficulty to
find the desired product online).

4.1.2 Purchase stage

All eight survey participants reported
purchases at physical stores (touch point owned by brand), confirming the
second step of the webrooming sequence (search online and purchase in-store).
At this stage, comparisons between information from online and physical stores
were reported. Fabricio was concerned that the website would be out of date
regarding stocks. In addition, he compared products and prices from the same
online and physical store but found no differences. At the purchase stage,
buying intentions developed online were the basis for product selection at the
physical store:

And then I already discarded the two glasses. Like it or not, having
done all these online surveys, I had already decided what I wanted (Paulo bought a cushioned popcorn bucket and glass).

Juliana, Natalia and
Caroline visited their selected store twice on the purchase day, as they wanted
to collect initial information on products. Likewise, Barbara visited the store
more than once, and took advantage of other trips to the store to browse for
options. She only made the purchase when her sister joined her:

Because when I went to the shop, I kind of encouraged my sister to come
along [...] So much so that the day I went to the shop without her I didn't buy
anything, as I wanted to be with her. [...] But it was really
nice when my sister joined me, as we spent a lot of time in the store
choosing, thinking (Barbara bought mini statues).

The reasons participants chose a specific physical
store were multiple: Barbara visited a store because its social network caught
her attention. Flavia remembered a past shopping experience of her mother.
Luiza and Paulo selected stores due to their location.

At this stage, only positive feelings were
reported, including enthusiasm for the shopping experience at the physical
store, and happiness and satisfaction with a good purchase. No participant
reported negative emotions. All claimed to be very satisfied or satisfied with
the product and store.

4.1.3 Post-purchase
stage

Five touch points are described below. All
respondents talked to their peers (friends, spouses
and family; social/external touch point) about the selected store, purchased
product and purchase process. Some participants also recommended their selected
physical shops to peers. In addition, participants who had been sent online
advertisements (touch point owned by brand) reported that they continued to be
received even after the purchase at the physical shop.

Natalia returned to the physical store (touch
point owned by brand) to browse for new products as her shopping experience was
positive:

Then you get attached to the store when your experience is very
positive. As in “I want to get back”. But when I came back after the purchase, it
was a much stronger feeling. “I want to go back to that shop just to take a
look”. It feels good when you see the store and go inside (Natalia bought a vase and a plant).

As for the online environment, only one
participant (Caroline) posted online content (a photo of the product on her
Instagram timeline; touch point owned by customer) after the purchase, without
mentioning the store name. Juliana on the other hand explained the reason for
not posting comments: “I didn’t comment on anything, and I didn’t post any
comments on the shop website. I didn’t do any research on the site and then I
think I ended up forgetting to post something” (Juliana bought a shoe rack). As
for social networks, Barbara continues to check for posts by the store (touch
point owned by brand) to keep up to date with new releases.

At this stage the reported feelings were
predominantly positive, all during conversation with peers, such as excitement
(to use the product with friends), and confidence, satisfaction
and happiness (approval of product by peers). The only negative emotion
(discontent) resulted from the frequent online advertisements even after the
purchase at the physical store (Luiza). No participant was completely satisfied
with the shopping process. One case of dissatisfaction was the difficulty of
finding the product at the physical store (Flavia), while the other mentioned
online prices (Fabricio). The others were either satisfied or indifferent.
Figure 1 shows that at the pre-purchase stage all participants internally assessed
their needs and considered possible products for purchase. Except for Paulo,
they searched for stores and products on Google, which was also used to
evaluate alternatives. Purchases took place at the physical store, and the
post-purchase stage mostly involved conversations with peers about products and
purchase processes.

Figure 1. Summary of most used touch points at each stage of the
decision process

Fonte: Prepared by the authors (2021)

4.2 Discussion

Reid et al. (2016) proposed that the main
reason customers avoid online channels at the purchase stage is the difficulty
to evaluate product attributes in a virtual environment. In our study, a group
of participants also practiced webrooming in order to
physically inspect products (“I need to touch the product and compare online
and in-store prices”). Reid et al. (2016) also pointed out that financial
factors were another reason for avoiding online channels. In the narratives
above, the only reason explicitly mentioned was the high shipping cost.

As Harris (2017), that pointed significant
costs associated with online search (frustration and fatigue), this study also
found negative emotions on information search and evaluation of alternatives
online. Fabricio and Caroline faced difficulty in finding the product they wanted
on the internet. Contrarily, but corroborating, Paulo experienced negative
feelings as he was overwhelmed by the many possibilities of products online.

We suggest that companies should facilitate the
online evaluation process. The participants in our sample were asked about
possible changes to improve their online experience. They suggested short
videos with products in their context of use to reveal their specifications
more clearly. Natalia suggested online content describing how to use the
advertised product, videos on product processing and delivery (how product is
packaged and transported, as she was worried about the product being damaged),
and shopping via messaging apps. Participants also expected integration of
company channels, as well as a better match between online and in-store shops
regarding product offer.

For this reason, physical stores should try to
match online stores in terms of product selection, since the pre-purchase stage
mostly takes place online. Hossain, Akter, Kattiyapornpong, and Dwivedi (2019) point out several
dimensions to ensure multichannel integration quality (MCIQ), one of them is
the Channel-Service Configuration (which includes make the customers aware of
the other channels and ensure that all the channels provide some useful
service). In the present research it was verified that positive emotions occurred
from the discovery of physical channel browsing on the online store and
negative emotions appeared when the customer did not see any value at the store
website.

As previously shown by Ashman et al. (2015), Wolny and Charoensuksai (2014), Vilppula (2016) and Sit et al. (2018), we corroborated the
five-stage decision model in the current multichannel purchase journey by
webroomers. However, two stages happen simultaneously: “information search” and
“evaluation of alternatives” in the pre-purchase stage.

Vilppula (2016) argued that the purchase journey can go back and forth between
stages, take breaks, and resume when the customer finds something exciting.
Accordingly, the “information search” and “evaluation of alternatives” steps
swapped order several times. Pauses were also observed due to lack of
participant motivation. For example, Caroline was frustrated by many
unsuccessful searches, and only resumed active research after she identified an
interesting physical store.

The analysis of touch points during the
purchase journey identified the four types proposed by Lemon and Verhoef
(2016). The touch points reported as inducing negative emotions were almost
entirely owned by the brand, which highlights a great opportunity for retailers
to improve costumer experience. As for the analysis of emotions, Sit et al. (2018) analyzed showrooming to reveal that
respondents cited positive, negative and mixed emotions depending on the stage
of the purchase journey and decision-making.

In our study on webrooming, positive emotions
were reported more frequently during problem recognition, mixed emotions during
information search, and negative emotions during evaluation of alternatives,
and positive emotions also during the purchase and post-purchase stages. It is
relevant that for both between-channels behaviors (showrooming and webrooming)
negative feelings during evaluation of alternatives result in change of channel
(and sometimes retailer) at the purchase stage. As proposed by Viejo-Fernández
et al. (2019), positive emotions have a greater impact on perceived value and
satisfaction with retailer when shopping requires more than one channel
(research shopping). Therefore, it is important to identify areas of
improvement (as causes of negative emotions) and points associated with
positive emotions, which we identified predominantly at the problem
recognition, purchase and post-purchase stages.

5 CONCLUSION

Our aim was to
understand the webroomer customer experience in a multichannel context, based
on a holistic perspective including all the stages of the purchase journey and
decision-making process, touch points and experienced emotions. Qualitative
analysis provided an understanding of customers’ underlying reasoning for
choosing a sequence of channels, in addition to providing an examination of
symbolic and subjective elements of the consumption experience (emotions,
perceptions and meanings).

This work brings as
an academic contribution into the most frequent multichannel behavior in
Brazil, webrooming. The qualitative analysis of this behavior can provide new
insights to understand the customers' underlying reasoning for choosing the
sequence of channels adopted, in addition to providing the exploration of
symbolic and subjective elements of the consumption experience – emotions,
perceptions and meanings attributed to the experiences.

At a managerial
level, this study proposes a way for online retailers to turn visitors into
customers. By identifying the touch points mostly associated with negative
feelings, retailers can develop strategies to avoid online free-riders
who only collect information about products without purchasing. It was seen
that negative emotions predominate in the evaluation of alternatives stage. For
strictly physical retailers, the identification of the exact location where
negative feelings experienced by customers occur, and of their expectations,
may facilitate the review or creation of strategies to avoid free-riding.

As for the study
limitations, it was found during the in-depth interviews that participants
showed a reduced vocabulary of emotions. Future studies should present a list
of positive and negative emotions to assist participants. Regarding the sample,
there was no differentiation between participants who frequently purchased the
analyzed or similar products and might be more knowledgeable than others.
Research contrasting high experience versus low experience groups may produce
relevant findings on webrooming behavior. The sample is biased towards graduate
people/higher education. Future studies should collect a more representative
sample of the population. As only the webrooming behavior was investigated, a
comparison between the emotions experienced and steps used by webroomers and showroomers
can be carried out, in order to identify the
particularities of each group, serving as a source of insights to increase
knowledge of both multichannel behaviors.

REFERENCES

Arora, S., & Sahney,
S. (2017). Webrooming behaviour: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 45,
762-781. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-09-2016-0158

Arora, S., & Sahney,
S. (2019). Examining consumers’ webrooming behavior:
an integrated approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
37(3).

Ashman, R., Solomon, M. R., & Wolny, J. (2015). An old model for a new age: Consumer
decision making in participatory digital culture. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 14,
127-146. https://doi.org/10.1362/147539215X14373846805743

Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative
data analysis: Practical strategies. London: SAGE Publications.

Belk, R. W., Wallendorf,
M., & Sherry Jr, J. F. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer
behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal
of consumer research, 16, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1086/209191

Bosio, B., Rainer, K., & Stickdorn,
M. (2017). Customer experience research with mobile ethnography: A case study
of the alpine destination serfaus-fiss-ladis. Qualitative Consumer Research, 14,
111-137. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-643520170000014009

Chen, Y., Cheung, C. M., & Tan, C. W. (2018).
Omnichannel business research: Opportunities and challenges. Decision Support Systems, 109, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.03.007

Chiu, H. C., Hsieh, Y. C., Roan, J., Tseng, K. J., &
Hsieh, J. K. (2011). The challenge for multichannel services: Cross-channel
free-riding behavior. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 10, 268-277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.002

Engel, J., Kollat, D., & Blackwell, R. (1978). Consumer Behaviour (3rd ed.). Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, p.
665.

Flavián, C., Gurrea, R., & Orús, C. (2016). Choice confidence in the webrooming
purchase process: The impact of online positive reviews and the motivation to
touch. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15, 459-476.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.1585

Flavián, C., Gurrea, R., & Orús, C. (2020a). Combining channels to make smart
purchases: The role of webrooming and showrooming. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101923

Flavian, C., Gurrea, R.,
& Orús, C. (2020b). Mobile word of mouth (m-WOM):
analysing its negative impact on webrooming in omnichannel retailing. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.

Følstad, A., Kvale, K., & Halvorsrud, R. (2013). Customer
journey measures: State of the art research and best practices (Research
Report No. A24488). Oslo, Norway: SINTEF.

Harris, P. (2017). Multichannel shopping well-being:
a narrative-based examination.  Qualitative Market Research, 20,
354-369. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0055

Hossain, T. M. T., Akter,
S., Kattiyapornpong, U., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019).
Multichannel integration quality: A systematic review and agenda for future
research. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 49, 154-163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.019

Jain, R., Aagja, J., &
Bagdare, S. (2017). Customer
experience: A review and research agenda. Journal
of Service Theory and Practice, 27, 642-662. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-03-2015-0064

Kang, J. Y. M. (2018). Showrooming, Webrooming, and
User-Generated Content Creation in the Omnichannel Era. Journal of Internet Commerce, 17, 145-169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2018.1433907

Kleinlercher, K., Linzmajer, M., Verhoef,
P. C., & Rudolph, T. (2020). Antecedents of webrooming in omnichannel
retailing. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3342.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016).
Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of marketing, 80, 69-96.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420

Marketing Science Institute. (2018). Research priorities 2018-2020. In.
Cambridge.

Muskat, M., Muskat, B., Zehrer,
A., & Johns, R. (2013). Generation Y: evaluating services experiences
through mobile ethnography. Tourism Review.

National Confederation of Shopkeepers, and Credit
Protection Service (2017). 47% dos internautas
sempre buscam informações online antes de comprarem em lojas físicas, mostra
levantamento do SPC Brasil e CNDL. Retrieved April 04,
2019, from https://www.cndl.org.br/noticia/47-dos-internautas-sempre-buscam-informacoes-online-antes-de-comprarem-em-lojas-fisicas-mostra-levantamento-da-cndl-e-spc-brasil/

Nielsen
(2016). E-commerce cresce no Brasil principalmente para bens duráveis. Retrieved December 01, 2019, from
https://www.nielsen.com/br/pt/insights/news/2016/E-commerce-cresce-no-Brasil-principalmente-para-bens-duraveis.html

Puccinelli, N. M., Goodstein, R. C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P., & Stewart, D. (2009). Customer experience
management in retailing: Understanding the buying process. Journal of retailing, 85, 15-30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.003

Reid, L. F., Ross, H. F., & Vignali,
G. (2016). An exploration of the relationship between product selection
criteria and engagement with 'show-rooming' and 'web-rooming' in the consumer's
decision-making process. International
Journal of Business and Globalisation, 17,
364-383. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2016.078851

Sit, J. K., Hoang, A., & Inversini,
A. (2018). Showrooming and retail opportunities: A qualitative investigation
via a consumer-experience lens. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.10.004

Stickdorn, M., & Frischhut, B.
(2012). Service design and tourism: Case studies of applied research
projects on mobile ethnography for tourism destinations. BoD–Books on Demand.

Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., &
Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer experience creation: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of retailing, 85, 31-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001

Viejo-Fernández, N., Sanzo-Pérez,
M. J., & Vázquez-Casielles, R. (2019). Different kinds of research shoppers, different
cognitive-affective consequences. Spanish
Journal of Marketing-ESIC, 23, 45-68.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-09-2018-0040

Viejo-Fernández, N., Sanzo-Pérez,
M., J., & Vázquez-Casielles, R. (2020). Is showrooming really so
terrible? Start understanding showroomers. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102048

Vilppula, M. (2016). Consumer
purchase journeys in multiple channels: A consumer-centric approach. Master
Thesis, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.

Wolny, J., & Charoensuksai,
N. (2014). Mapping customer journeys in multichannel decision-making. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital
Marketing Practice, 15, 317-326. https://doi.org/10.1057/dddmp.2014.24