buying through direct methods: benefits and …...buying through direct methods: benefits and...

[95]

9507

january · april 2007 · esic market

Buying through direct methods: benefits and limitations from the consumer point of viewCarla Ruiz Mafé

Silvia Sanz Blas

University of Valencia

AbstractDuring the last few years, direct methods selling have experienced a note-worthy increase and improvement. The importance these new shoppingformulas are reaching as complementary methods to traditional sellingmakes necessary to study them deeply. Thus, the main objective of thecurrent paper is to know, from a demand point of view, the benefits andlimitations of direct buying methods, analysing from a practice perspecti-ve the reasons and restraints derived from the use of one of the most thri-ving direct buying methods during the last years: teleshopping.

Keywords: direct selling, home shopping, teleshopping, consumer beha-viour.

JEL Code: M31.


buying through direct methods: benefits and limitationsfrom the consumer point of view

1. IntroductionIntegrating direct media in marketing strategy means that companies canoffer new shopping experiences and have a significant impact on consu-mer behaviour (Keen, Wetzels, De Ruyter and Feinberg, 2004). The use ofcredit cards, free phone numbers and companies which accept telephoneorders in the evening or even during public holidays (Dholakia y Uusita-lo, 2002) to buy products which are then delivered to the customer’s homewithin 24 or 48 hours, have accelerated the growth of distance selling andits expansion in the consumer market and have made it a convenient andenjoyable way of acquiring products (Schiffman, Sherman y Long, 2003).

The importance of distance selling is clear nowadays and its positionin the Spanish market is going from strength to strength. The sector has atotal of 2,283 employees and more than 400 federated companies ofwhich 90% offer their services to the end consumer (FECEMD, 2003).

The growth of distance selling over the last ten years has been markedby three sources of economic and social change which have boosted homesales. Firstly, rapid change in consumer values, not just in fundamentalconcepts such as the family but also in defence of the individual who isnow less faithful to tradition, more practical and sceptical and reacts lessand less to generalised messages. (Kamali and Loker, 2002; Rodríguez,2000). The consumer is concerned about the quality of his leisure time andlooks for convenience and ways of saving time and travelling (Gómez,1995). Secondly, market demassification encouraged by demographic andlife-style change, de-regularisation and technological advance in commu-nications (Burke, 1997; Thompson, 1997). Finally, changes in the com-mercial distribution sector as a result of a transfer of power from manu-facturers to distributors and the search for new alternatives to diversify theoffer of products/services and obtain a higher market share (Rodríguez delBosque, 1998; Vriens, Van Der Scheer, Hoekstra and Roelf, 1998).

Given their increasing importance, companies need to understanddirect selling methods fully in order to profit from efficient marketingactions. This study therefore, aims to analyse the main benefits and limi-

[96]

96 07



tations of direct selling methods in relation to how they are accepted andused by the consumer.

2. Distance selling: benefits for consumersDistance selling is described as “a set of distribution methods which usedirect communication media to propose sales directed at specific marketsegments, generally chosen through computerised database systems” (San-tesmases, 1999; p.618). Thus, the characteristic feature of this type ofsales is the use of a medium which eliminates face to face communicationwith future contractors.

Characterising distance selling, through its benefits and limitations, isimportant to determine the future development of new direct selling for-mulae (Swaminathan Lepkowska-White and Rao, 1999). Therefore,below we discuss the main benefits of direct methods for the consumer,which often turn out to be decisive elements in the purchase decision.

a) Practicality, convenience and time savingMost studies (Darian, 1987; De la Ballina, 1998; Díez de Castro, 1997;Donthu and Gilliland, 1996; Eastlick and Feinberg, 1994; Gehrt y Carter,1992; Gómez, 1995; Jasper and Lan, 1992; Korgaonkar, 1984; Levy andWeitz, 1998; McDonald, 1995; Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004; Rosem-bloom, 1999; Sainz de Vicuña, 2000), report that the main benefit for theconsumer in distance buying is convenience.

Buying through direct methods eliminates all the problems associatedwith the consumer having to travel in order to make the purchase. Thisbenefit is particularly positive for consumers whose age or physical disa-bilities prevent them from going to sales outlets and also for users withsevere time restrictions due to work and/or family obligations (Brown,Pope and Voges, 2003; Felker, 1995).

Nowadays, the emphasis is on free time, leisure and entertainment andon personal development through such activities. Certain collectives suchas working women try to improve their quality of life, for example by

[97]

9707



reducing/economising on the time used in shopping (Martinez, Polo andFlavián, 1998). Convenience, practicality and ease of ordering from homeattracts those consumers who demand more free time and who see shop-ping as yet another monotonous domestic chore.

b) Advantageous pricesThe growing increase of home sales has been attributed to consumer reluc-tance to paying traditional prices in retail shops. This is illustrated by thefact that 21.9% of people in Spain who buy on the Internet are mainlymotivated by reduced prices (AECE, 2004).

The consumers who are guided only by this type of motivation are notloyal and constantly compare offers with those of competitors, changingsupplier when there is the least reduction in price for the products and ser-vices they need (Reibstein, 2002). For this reason, companies in the dis-tance sales sector compete more aggressively than conventional distribu-tion in terms of price and presentation of the offer (Stenfield andWhitten,1999; Valor, Subirana and Carvajal, 1999), and this normallyresults in a low to moderate pricing policy.

However, some products and/or services offer no significant price dif-ferences according to marketing channel. This may be an attempt to avoidconflict between the different types of distribution channels used (Bailey,1998a, 1998b; Lee, 1997; Viñals, 1999). Furthermore, consumers do notalways consider that the prices of the products on offer are very advanta-geous because any transport and delivery charges have to be added to thefinal price. In view of this, in addition to their pricing policy, direct sellingcompanies use a wide range of promotional techniques to make the pro-duct more attractive and appear more economical (Silverman, 1995,1996; Underwood, 1993).

c) Product exclusivity and varietyThe success of distance selling largely depends on the characteristics of theoffer, with one of the most valued aspects for the customer being the

[98]

98 07



opportunity to purchase new, exclusive products (AECE, 2004; Cuesta,1997; Peterson, 1995; Trocchia y Janda, 2003).

Most companies in the sector specialise in large groups of products,which they diversify by extending the range and including new products.Thus, the offer is increasingly wider and sectorised by product ranges(Casares y Rebollo, 2002; Cuesta, 1997; Flavián y Gurrea, 2003).

d) GuaranteesThe consumer is always able to evaluate the product and reject it within 7days after receiving the order. This right may be exercised without havingto give any reason, in other words, when the goods received are totally aspromised or advertised by the company and even if the company has faith-fully and scrupulously fulfilled the contract.

In some direct selling systems, there are also money back guaranteeseven after the product has been used and the consumer is not satisfied withit. The consumer may use the product for 30 days and if dissatisfied,return it and obtain a full refund (Sanz, 2002).

Thus, companies are extending their guarantee periods from 7 to 30days (Sanz, 2002) helping their customers to reduce considerably the per-ceived risk on the purchase decision (Applegate, 1997; Hawthorne, 1998;Silverman, 1995; Whitford, 1994; Yoegel, 1997).

e) Different payment methodsPayment must take place on receipt, as advance payments are not, in prin-ciple, allowed by law (Spanish Law 47/2002, 19th December). However,products can be paid for by credit card.

It should be noted that there is a great deal of mistrust among consu-mers over the use of credit cards, as they are concerned that their perso-nal details may be used fraudulently. To alleviate the problem, the law pro-tects the card holder (Spanish Law 47/2002, 19th December) byrecognising the right to cancel the charge made to the card account, andstipulating that the customer’s account should be reimbursed as soon as

[99]

9907



possible. Furthermore, the option of cash on delivery also helps to reducethe perceived risk of the purchase decision.

f) Customer serviceMost companies which sell directly to the consumer have a customer ser-vice department (Customer Relationship Management) able to provideany type of information their customers may require, especially when theproducts are new, clarifying any doubts and any problems which mayoccur after placing the order (exchange and/or return of product) (Miquel,Parra, Lhermie and Miquel, 2000). This service is offered to the customerboth before and after making the purchase and means that offers can bepersonalised and adapted to customer needs (Fajula, 2000).

g) InteractivenessInteractiveness is, nowadays, one of the main advantages offered by someof the most successful direct media over recent years. The use of interacti-ve purchase channels makes the purchasing process easier, reducing thecost of finding information on the different categories of product and/orservice on offer (Alba, Lynch, Weitz, Janiszewski, Lutz, Sawyer and Wood,1997; Flavián y Gurrea, 2003; Klein, 1998). These new channels providea large amount of information, answering customers’ doubts, needs orwishes, providing an efficient information system and a better fit betweenoffer and demand (Berthon, Pitt, Katskeas and Berthon, 1999).

[100]

100 07


january · april 2007 · esic market [101]

10107

Donthu y Gilliland, 1996; Deighton, 1997; Felker,1995; Klein, 1998; Martínez, Polo y Flavián, 2003 ;Salomon y Koppelman, 1992.

Brown, Pope y Voges, 2003; Darian, 1987; De la Balli-na, 1998; Díez de Castro, 1997; Donthu y Gilliland,1996; Eastlick y Feinberg, 1994; Gehrt y Carter, 1992;Gómez, 1995; Jasper y Lan, 1992; Korgaonkar, 1984;Levy y Weitz, 1998; Martinez, Polo y Flavián, 1998;McDonald, 1995; Rohm y Swaminathan, 2004;Rosembloom, 1999; Sainz de Vicuña, 2000.

Brown, Pope y Voges, 2003; Felker, 1995; McKay yFletcher, 1988.

Alba, Lynch, Weitz, Janiszewski, Lutz, Sawyer y Wood,1997; Bailey, 1998a, 1998b; Díez de Castro, 1997;Gómez, 1995; Lee, 1997; Sainz de Vicuña, 2000; Salo-mon y Koppelman, 1992; Silverman, 1995, 1996;Steinfield y Whitten, 1999; Underwood, 1993; Valor,Subirana y Carvajal, 1999; Viñals, 1999.

Casares y Rebollo, 2002; Cuesta, 1997; Flavián yGurrea, 2003; McKay y Fletcher, 1988.

Cuesta, 1997; Díez de Castro, 1997; Peterson, 1995;Sainz de Vicuña, 2000; Trocchia y Janela, 2003; Under-wood, 1993.

Díez de Castro, 1997; Gómez, 1995; Sainz de Vicuña,2000.

Díez de Castro, 1997; Gómez, 1995; Sainz de Vicuña,2000; Sanz, 2002.

Fajula, 2000; Miquel et al., 2000.

Alba, Lynch, Weitz, Janiszewski, Lutz, Sawyer y Wood1997; Berthon, Pitt, Katskeas y Berthon, 1999 ; Deigh-ton, 1997; Flavián y Gurrea, 2003; Klein, 1998.

ADVANTAGES OFDISTANCE SELLING

AUTHORS

Time saving.

Practicality and convenience.

Transport costs saving.Home delivery.

Advantageous prices.Promotions and reducedprices.

Product variety and range.

Product exclusivity.

Different payment methods.

Guarantees.Product return and money refund.

Customer service.

Interactiveness.

Table 1. Advantages of Distance Selling

Source: Original work.



3. Distance selling: drawbacks for consumersAlthough shopless sales offer significant advantages there are also somedrawbacks which need to be considered as they can negatively influencethe purchase decision (see Table 2).

a) Problems with home deliveryAlthough home delivery is one of the most outstanding advantages ofbuying from home (Carcasona, 1994; McKay and Fletcher, 1988; Rohm ySwaminathan, 2004; Salomon and Koppelman, 1992), there are also somedrawbacks for some consumers.

Firstly, the consumer must pay for the home delivery service, eitherdirectly or in the form of higher prices; secondly, products may be dama-ged in transit with the consequent need for a refund or replacement sys-tem; thirdly, there is the inconvenience of having to wait for the productsto arrive, and delays in delivery are one of the main problems (AndersenConsulting, 2001).

b) Lack of visual stimulation and not being able to touch the productsAnother factor the consumer has found to be a limitation in distanceselling as against traditional shopping, is the lack of a good visual elementto stimulate the purchase (McKay and Fletcher, 1988; Quelch and Takeu-chi, 1981) and the fact that it is not possible to touch or inspect the pro-ducts (Citrin, Stern, Spangenberg y Clark, 2003; Díez de Castro, 1997;Donthu and Gilliland, 1996; Gómez, 1995; Solomon, 1994; Trocchia yJanda, 2003). However, nowadays, thanks to new technological advances,this drawback has been practically overcome as new technology is openingup promising new fields for sales.

Thus, the advantages of visual stimulation offered by purchasing fromshops (communication of new products, favouring impulse buying andinciting the buyer to try different products) are being adopted by directsales systems, with in some cases, new advantages (Beatty and Ferrell,1998; Thomas and Quindry, 1999). For example, access to different views

[102]

102 07



of the product or the chance to see it from different angles, considerablyimproves the consumer’s ability to appreciate the product’s characteristics.

The fact that it is not possible to touch and examine the products befo-re purchase gives rise to a new drawback to the system in terms of consu-mer distrust and the need for minimum guarantees.

c) Distrust of the systemThe Spanish consumer’s distrust of direct selling is mainly based on thelack of physical presence of both the seller and the product on offer (Cul-nan and Armstrong, 1999; Díez de Castro, 1997; Gómez, 1995; Miquel,Parra, Lhermie and Miquel, 2000; Sainz de Vicuña, 2000). This distrust ismade even more pronounced by the innovative nature of many of the pro-ducts offered which are normally not found in traditional sales outlets(Díez de Castro, 1997) and by the lack of privacy and security in the tran-sactions (Burke, 1997; Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, Saarinen y Vitale, 1999;Keen, 1997; Swaminathan, Lepkowska-White y Rao, 1999).

d) Lack of relations between the individual and societyGenerally, consumers have a positive attitude towards traditional sellingmethods as the purchasing process is perceived to be a pleasant experien-ce and a type of pastime and entertainment (Bellenger and Korgaonkar,1980; Eastlick and Liu, 1997; Nowak, 1992).

The consumer generally finds purchasing in shops attractive and enjo-yable for social and personal reasons (a break in routine, personal gratifi-cation, being up-to-date with the latest trends, social interaction outsidethe home, communication and affiliation with other people, etc.)(Arnould, 2000; Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Levy and Weitz, 1998;Salomon and Koppelman, 1992; Westbrook and Balack, 1985). Therefo-re, the lack of social relations is an inherent disadvantage in all direct salessystems which will be difficult to overcome unless the new generationsattach less importance to the social aspect of shopping (Swaminathan,Lepkowska-White and Rao, 1999).

[103]

10307



4. Objectives and methodologyAfter studying the benefits and limitations of direct selling methods, wenow concentrate on analysing from a practical perspective, the main rea-sons for and obstacles to using a particular direct selling method whichhas been most successful in recent years: teleshopping, a system with spec-tacular perspectives for growth, thanks in particular to new technologicaladvances in this field.

Our specific aims in this study are as follows:

1.- To know the consumer’s reasons for choosing the television mediumas a home shopping channel.

[104]

104 07

Bellenger y Korgaonkar, 1980; McKay y Fletcher,1988; Quelch y Takeuchi, 1981.

Citrin, Stern, Spangenberg y Clark, 2003; Culnan yArmstrong, 1999; Díez de Castro, 1997; Donthu yGilliland, 1996; Gómez, 1995; McKay y Fletcher,1988; Miquel, Parra, Lhermie, Miquel, 2000; Quelch yTakeuchi, 1981; Salomon y Koppelman, 1992; Solo-mon, 1994; Trocchia y Landa, 2003.

Andersen Consulting, 2001; Díez de Castro, 1997;Gómez, 1995; McKay y Fletcher, 1988; Sainz de Vicu-ña, 2000; Salomon y Koppelman, 1992.

Burke, 1997; Culnan y Armstrong, 1999; Díez de Cas-tro, 1997; Gómez, 1995; Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, Saari-nen y Vitale, 1999; Keen, 1997; Miquel, Parra, Lhermiey Miquel, 2000; Sainz de Vicuña, 2000; Swaminathan,Lepkowska-White y Rao, 1999.

DRAWBACKS TODISTANCE SELLING

AUTHORS

Lack of relations betweenindividual and society

Lack of physical presence ofseller/product

Lack of visual simulation andnot being able to touch theproducts

Cost and delay in deliveryand return

Insecurity/distrust of the system

Table 2. Drawbacks to distance selling




2.- To know the main obstacles to using the teleshopping system as ashopping channel.

3.- To analyse the relevance of purchase motives in the purchase decision.4.- To explore and determine the factors with the greatest impact on

teleshopping behaviour.5.- To analyse the incidence of the main factors or components in the

purchase decision and future behaviour intentions.

The data used to determine the teleshopper and non-teleshopper profi-les come from market research carried out in March and April 2002. Theresearch is based on a sample of individuals over the age of 18 and inclu-ded teleshoppers and non-teleshoppers.

The data was collected by personal interview at the interviewee’s homeusing the random route sampling method to choose the homes. The inter-views were carried out at different times and days of the week to obtainsociodemographic diversity of tele and non-teleshoppers.

The final sample consisted of 610 people of whom 216 were teleshop-pers and 394 were non-teleshoppers (see the sociodemographic profile inTable 3). Overall sample error was +/-4% for a confidence level of 95.5%(p=q=0.5).

[105]

10507

Demographic Characteristics Shopper Non-shopper(N = 216) (N = 394)

Gender Male 33.8% 29.1%Female 66.2% 70.9%

No formal education 3.2% 3.8%Primary 24.5% 23.5%

Education Secondary 37.5% 40.7%Diploma 14.8% 14.8%Degree 19.9% 17.2%

Table 3. Sociodemographic sample profile



The questionnaire was directed at obtaining information from bothteleshoppers (the first block of questions) and non-teleshoppers (thesecond block). In particular, the teleshoppers were asked about their mainreasons for using the teleshopping system, how important those reasonswere and their future purchase intentions. The questions for collectinginformation from the non-teleshopper referred to their reasons for neverbuying from the television, an evaluation of the importance of purchasedecision motivations and their future behaviour intentions.

SPSS version 11.5 computer software was used to analyse the dataobtained with the questionnaire. Firstly, a descriptive study was done toanalyse the main reasons for and obstacles to teleshopping behaviour.Then an exploratory analysis was done to obtain reliability indicators and

[106]

106 07

Table 3. Sociodemographic sample profile (continuation)


Demographic Characteristics Shopper Non-shopper(N = 216) (N = 394)

Below 601 euros 6.6% 10.5%

Income Between 601 – 1202 euros 39.4% 37.5%Between 1202 – 1803 euros 41.2% 44.2%Over 1803 euros 13% 7.8%

Under 24 16.2% 15.2%Between 25 and 34 33.8% 27.1%

Age Between 35 and 44 23.1% 23.6%Between 45 and 54 19.4% 22.2%Between 55 and 64 6.5% 8.7%Over 65 0.9% 3.2%

Employed 50.9% 55.3%Self-employed 18.5% 12.5%

Job Unemployed 9.3% 6%Student 6.5% 7.2%Housewife/retired/other 14.8% 19%



the main factors behind purchase behaviour. Finally, regression analysiswas done to determine the impact of these factors on the purchase deci-sion and future behaviour intentions.

5. Results

5.1. The teleshopper: purchase motivations and their averageimportance

Given that a significant part of the sample were teleshoppers and therefo-re users of the teleshopping system, we considered it important to analysewhy they purchased through that system. To answer that question, theinterviewees were given a dichotomous question to determine whethereach motive had been taken into account in the purchase decision or hadnot been considered relevant (see Table 4). The 18 items in this batterywere taken from the literature on the topic and mainly based on the workby Eastlick and Liu (1997) and McDonald (1995). In addition, the inter-viewees were asked to score each of the motives for relevance on a 5 pointLikert scale where 1 = “not important” and 5 “very important”. Averagerelevance for each motive is shown in Table 4.

[107]

10707

Purchase motivations Frequency Averageimportance

Quality 42.6% 4.03

Brand 6.5% 3.08

Price 32.4% 3.98

Offers and promotions 15.3% 3.63

Variety 7.9% 3.65

Innovation 25.9% 3.80

Utilities and advantages 14.4% 3.99

Table 4. Reasons for teleshopping



Analysis of the frequency column shows the main purchase motiva-tions to be: product quality (42.6% of interviewees), non availability inshops (40.3%), price (32.4%), demonstration (28.2%) innovative product(25.9%). Practicality and convenience appear as one of the reasons givenby the interviewees for using the system, but we were surprised, bearing inmind the literature review, that this was not the main or even among thefirst reasons to be mentioned, as only 19% of interviewees said their pur-chase was motivated by the practicality and convenience of the system.

Furthermore, the following purchase motivations were hardly mentio-ned: entertainment value of the programme, trust in the presenters (evenwhen well-known and famous), recommendations by sales representati-ves, users or experts in the product.

The results for the average relevance for each motivation coincide lar-gely with the above results. While the interviewees consider that pro-

[108]

108 07

Purchase motivations Frequency Averageimportance

Non-stores-availability 40.3% 3.93

Demonstration 28.2% 3.58

Given recommendations 6% 3.23

Presenters’ reliability 1.9% 2.59

Program entertainment 1.4% 2.73

Convenience and time saving 19% 3.54

24 hours sales 7.9% 3.53

Facility to order 7.9% 3.87

Payment possibilities 4.6% 3.52

Delivery speed 10.6% 3.77

Guarantees 9.7% 3.94

Table 4. Reasons for teleshopping (continuation)



duct/service-related aspects, such as quality, price, usefulness/advantages,innovation, non-availability in shops, guarantees, easy ordering and fastdelivery are important, they do not value aspects related to the program-me itself (content and presenters).

5.2. The non-teleshopper: obstacles to the purchase decision and average importance of purchase motivations

After discovering purchase motivations, we now analyse the main obsta-cles to the purchase decision, in other words, we attempt to find out whythe interviewees have never used this system. Once again, the interviewe-es were given a dichotomous question with 13 statements in order to dis-cover the main obstacles to the purchase. In addition, the intervieweeswere asked to score the relevance of the purchase motivations if they wereto decide to purchase through the television (see Table 5) (a 5 point Likertscale where 1 = “not important at all” and 5 = “very important”).

[109]

10907

OBSTACLES TO THE % AVERAGE IMPORTANCE OF %PURCHASE DECISION PURCHASE MOTIVATIONS

Programme is not attractive or entertaining 33.2% Quality 4.23

Superfluous products 31.7% Brand 3.35

No social contact 13.7% Price 4.2

Boring programme 34.3% Offers and promotions 3.65

Comments not reliable 32% Variety 3.68

Not enough information 27.9% Innovation 3.65

Cannot see, touch or try out product 60.2% Utilities and advantages 3.93

Do not know quality, size or colour 47.7% Non-stores-availability 3.58

Cannot see trends, fashion or innovation 7.6% Demonstration 3.54

Table 5. Obstacles to teleshopping and averageimportance of purchase motivations



Note that the relevant motives for not purchasing through the teles-hopping system are not being able to see, touch or try out the product(60.2.% of interviewees) and also not knowing the quality, size or colour(47.7%), all aspects emphasising distrust of the system. Together with theabove, the lack of confidence in comments by the presenters and users ofthe product and the fact that televiewers find the programmes unattracti-ve and boring are the main obstacles to the purchase decision.

The results for the average relevance of each purchase motivationshow that non-teleshoppers also consider aspects related to the productand services offered important, such as quality, price, usefulness/advan-tages and guarantees. However, aspects related to the programme itself,such as entertainment and trust in the presenters are awarded little valueby non-teleshoppers while programme quality1 is considered very impor-tant.

[110]

110 07

OBSTACLES TO THE % AVERAGE IMPORTANCE OF %PURCHASE DECISION PURCHASE MOTIVATIONS

No free phone 7.9% Given recommendations 3.24

Delivery and/or refund problems 21.6% Presenters’ reliability 2.28

Non-competitive prices 19.3% Program entertainment 2.47

No phone 0% Convenience and time saving 3.08

Other reasons 6.9% 24 hours sales 3.10

Facility to order 3.51

Payment possibilities 3.24

Delivery speed 3.57

Guarantees 3.99

Others: Programme quality 4.09

Table 5. Obstacles to teleshopping and average importanceof purchase motivations (continuation)

(1) Programme quality

was mentioned by a

large majority of the

non-teleshoppers

within the variable,

other motives.



5.3. Exploratory factorial of teleshopping motivesTo obtain the underlying dimensions in the scale of purchase motivations2

(Eastlick and Liu, 1997; McDonald, 1995) a principal component facto-rial analysis was done after checking with the appropriate tests that thedata was appropriate for this type of analysis (see Table 6).

After applying factorial analysis to the set of 18 variables, 4 factors wereobtained which explain 61.2% of the variance. The condition for retaininga factor was that its own value be greater than 1 (Miquel et al., 1997). Exa-mination of the results (see Table 7) shows that the explanatory power isfairly well divided between the factors, with the percentage of explainedvariance fluctuating between 19.729 and 13.260%. Factor composition isshown in Table 8, where the variables were assigned to the factors with aload greater than 0.5 (an appropriate value according to Hair et al., 1999).

(2) The scale was first

analysed for reliability

with the following result:

(1) no need to eliminate

items (2) Cronbach’s

alpha was 0.8916.

[111]

11107

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measurement 0.892

Determinant of the matrix of correlations 0.0001

Bartlett’s sphericity test 4605.927

D.f. 153

Sig. 0.000

Table 6. KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Principal Components Total % Variance % Accumulated Variance Variance

Factor 1 3.551 19.729 19.729

Factor 2 2.704 15.024 34.753

Factor 3 2.391 13.285 48.038

Factor 4 2.387 13.260 61.299

Table 7. Factorial Analysis of Purchase Motivations

Source: Made using SPSS v.11.5 (Rotated components matrix) (Varimax and Kaiser Normalisation).



The first factor identified, termed “services”, explains 19.729% of thevariance and comprises the following variables: Convenience and timesaving, 24 hour shopping, ease of ordering, payment terms, fast deliveryand guarantees. In other words, all the services which a teleshopping com-pany can offer its customers.

[112]

112 07

Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Brand 0.620

Price 0.727

Offers and promotions 0.510

Variety 0.542

Innovation 0.639

Utilities and advantages 0.558

Non-stores-availability 0.716

Demonstration 0.523

Given recommendations 0.653

Presenters’ reliability 0.827

Program entertainment 0.766

Convenience and time saving 0.718

24 hours sales 0.770

Facility to order 0.764

Payment possibilities 0.700

Delivery speed 0.713

Guarantees 0.532

Crombach Alpha for 0.8576 0.7431 0.6919 0.7756each factor

Table 8. Data from the rotated factorial matrix for the four main factors



The second factor, denominated “product-related aspects”, explains15.024% of the variance and is formed by the variables: quality, brand,price, offers and promotions and variety.

The third factor, termed “differential aspects of the product”, explains13.285% of the variance and comprises the following variables: innova-tion, product advantages and non availability in shops.

Finally, the fourth factor which we have termed “programme content”,explains 13.260% of the variance and is identified with the followingvariables: demonstration, recommendations, trustworthy presenters andprogramme entertainment value.

5.4. Regression analysis of purchase motivation factors to purchase behaviour

After determining the main components or factors and accepting the relia-bility of the underlying scales, their potential effects on teleshopping pur-chase behaviour was determined by multiple regression analysis. Thisanalysis was done using the stepwise method, where the dependent varia-ble was the purchase behaviour and the explicative variables were the dif-ferent factors or components obtained with the factorial analysis.

[113]

11307

Purchase motivations factors Standardized TV Value Sig.Beta Coefficient

Constant - 16.586 0.000

Factor 1: services 0.289 5.676 0.000

Factor 2: product-related aspects 0.189 3.645 0.000

Factor 3: differential aspects of the product 0.145 2.812 0.005

Factor 4: programme content 0.060 1.272 0.204

R2: 0.75; R2 adjusted: 0.69

Table 9. Regression analysis for purchase motivationfactors to purchase behaviour

Source: Made using SPSS v.11.5. Regression analysis with stepwise method.



The results show (see Table 9) that three of the four factors analysedhave a positive and statistically significant effect (p<0.01) on purchasebehaviour.

Services have the greatest influence on the individual’s purchase deci-sion followed by product-related aspects and then differential aspects ofthe product. These variables can largely explain purchase behaviourbecause the adjusted R2 represents 69%.

5.5. Regression analysis of purchase motivation factorsto future behaviour intentions

In this case, the effect of the different factors identified for the future pur-chase intention is determined again by regression analysis (stepwise met-hod). The dependent variable was taken to be the future purchase inten-tion and explicative variables were taken to be the different factors orcomponents identified above.

[114]

114 07

Purchase motivations factors Standardized TV Value Sig.Beta Coefficient

Constant - 16.162 0.000

Factor 2: product-related aspects 0.173 3.266 0.001

Factor 1: services 0.055 1.058 0.290

Factor 4: programme content 0.047 0.980 0.327

Factor 3: differential aspects of the product 0.003 0.050 0.960

R2: 0.32; R2 adjusted: 0.26

Table 10. Regression analysis for purchase motivationfactors to future purchase behaviour

Source: Made using SPSS v.11.5. Regression analysis with stepwise method.

The results obtained show that of the four factors analysed, only oneof them (Factor 2: product-related aspects) has a positive and statistically



significant effect (p<0.01) on future purchase intention (see Table 10).Therefore, quality, brand, prices, offers/promotions and product varietyare the variables which most influence the future purchase decision.However, our interpretations should be approached with caution as thesevariables can only explain 26% of the future purchase intention.

6. ConclusionsOver the last ten years important changes have decisively affected distri-bution systems: mature markets, increasing competition, new informationand communication systems, changes in purchase habits, more sophistica-ted consumers demanding new, differentiated, specialised, products tomeet high standards of quality and important sociocultural changes whe-re leisure and the enjoyment of free time play a major role. All theseaspects are forcing businesses to change the way they operate on the mar-kets, and increase their efforts.

These changes are encouraging the appearance of new commercialmethods and consequently the development of new sales methods whichtry to adapt more to the customer to meet present demand more effi-ciently.

These new direct sales formulae are not substitutes for present salesformats but the perfect complement to help company sales departmentsoperate better and more profitably. The consumer is being offered yetanother alternative to choose from when making the purchase decision.There are now hundreds of companies developing different sales systemsto adapt to new consumer realities, needs and demands. These direct saleschannels allow consumers to satisfy their needs without having to give uptheir leisure time, an aspect which is becoming ever more highly valued inour society.

As with other direct marketing techniques, practicality and convenien-ce in the purchase is one of the motivations customers give for using theteleshopping system, but there are other characteristics of this offer whichare more significant at the moment of purchase such as quality, non-avai-

[115]

11507



lability in the shops, price or product innovation. It should be emphasised,in addition, that the customer does not claim to purchase motivated byprogramme entertainment value, nor by the trust placed in the presenters,even if they are well-known or famous, or for the recommendations givenon the product.

The study also shows that for many of the non-teleshoppers, the appe-al of home shopping is minimal, as for many of them shopping in com-mercial establishments is a leisure activity in itself which they prefer overother activities. A break from routine, personal gratification, being up-to-date with the latest trends or social interaction outside the home are themotives which make purchasing from a shop attractive, enjoyable, plea-sant and beneficial and therefore preferable to teleshopping. Also, teles-hopping programmes are considered to be poor quality and not enjoyableor entertaining, reducing yet further any interest in this type of televisiongenre.

Furthermore, there is still a high degree of distrust of direct sales sys-tems, the consumer perceives significant risks mainly due to not being ableto physically inspect the products and uncertainty due to the lack of infor-mation, including information on the legal conditions related to refundsand/or delivery periods for the goods. Thus the main obstacles to teles-hopping are the fact that the consumer cannot see, touch or try out theproduct and cannot know the precise quality, size or colour of the pro-ducts. Other possible obstacles found in our analysis are the lack of infor-mation on certain aspects of the purchase or problems with deliveryand/or refunds. It is really this distrust and the perceived risk by the Spa-nish consumer which maintains this sector a long way behind the levelsfound in other countries.

The services offered in the purchase (24 hour shopping, ease of orde-ring, payment terms, fast delivery and guarantees) and product-relatedaspects (quality, brand, price, offers, variety, novelty and exclusivity) arethe factors which both teleshoppers and non-teleshoppers have noted asimportant in the purchase decision. In fact they have been identified as

[116]

116 07



being the most relevant to explain purchase behaviour. However, aspectsconcerning the advertisement and/or programme were valued very poorlyby those interviewed and were not relevant in the analysis of purchasebehaviour. This suggests that the teleshopping genre as it is at the momentis not a determining factor in the purchase decision.

Therefore, programme content is one of the aspects which companiesshould pay more attention to in order to turn it into a driving force behindthe decision, as in other countries. At the moment such programmes arenot very appealing. Thus, this content together with the offer of servicesof value to the customer and the appropriate presentation of the offercould guarantee the success of this commercial formula, given the impor-tance of these aspects for both teleshoppers and non-teleshoppers.

In addition and in order to reduce the perceived risk in this type of pur-chase, companies should, among other things: allow a trial period for theproducts, provide the consumer with more information, set competitiveprices and offer after-sales guarantees to reduce the risk of purchase wit-hout physical inspection. In addition, the use of these systems by well-known, prestigious companies and offering well-known brand productsmay also help to reduce distrust. This information will undoubtedly helpcompanies in these sectors to plan and develop actions better, improvingthe services they offer to their customers.

The future of the new sales formulae will depend to a large extent onthe capacity of distribution companies to make the most of these systems’advantages and minimize the drawbacks.

7. BibliographyAECE (Asociación Española de Comercio Electrónico) (2004). Estudio

sobre Comercio Electrónico B2C.ALBA, J.; LYNCH, J.; WEITZ, B.; JANISZEWSKI, C.; LUTZ, R.; SAW-

YER, A.; WOOD, S. (1997): “Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer,retailer and manufacturer incentives to participate en electronic mar-ketplaces”. Journal of Marketing, 61 (July), pp. 38-53.

[117]

11707



ANDERSEN CONSULTING (2001): “Los Problemas de Distribución fre-nan el B2C Europeo”. Mk Marketing y Ventas, 154, pp. 17-19.

APPLEGATE, J. (1997): “Infomercials: Taking the product directly to themasses”. Business Press, 9 (39), pp. 6-14.

ARNOULD, E. (2000): “A theory of shopping/shopping, place, and iden-tity”. Journal of Marketing, 64 (1), pp. 104-106.

BAILEY, J. (1998a): Intermediation and electronic markets. Aggregationand pricing in Internet commerce. Cambridge: Massachusetts Instituteof Technology

– (1998b): “Electronic commerce: prices and consumer issues for threeproducts: books, compact disks and software”, electronic documentobtained from: http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it7ec/prodie98-4.htm.

BEATTY, S.E.; FERRELL, M.E. (1998): “Impulse buying: Modelling itsprecursors”. Journal of Retailing, 74 (2), pp. 169-191.

BELLENGER, D.N; KORGAONKAR, P.K. (1980):” Profiling the recrea-tional shopper”. Journal of Retailing, 56 (4), pp. 77-92.

BERTHON, P.; PITT, L.; KATSIKEAS, C.; BERTHON, J.P. (1999): “Exe-cutive insights: virtual services go international. International services inthe marketspace”. Journal of International Marketing, 7 (3), pp. 84-105.

BROWN, M.; POPE, N.; VOGES, K. (2003): “Buying or Browsing? Anexploration on shopping orientations and online purchase intention”.European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), pp.1666-1684.

BURKE, R. (1997): “Do You See What I See?. The Future of Virtual Shop-ping”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (4), pp. 352-360.

CARCASONA, A. (1994): “Cómo llevar a cabo una campaña de Tele-venta. Nuevos canales de distribución: la venta por televisión”. MK.Marketing y Ventas, 87 (December), pp. 40-42.

CASARES, J.: REBOLLO, A. (2002): “La innovación en la distribucióncomercial”. Distribución y Consumo, (November-December), pp. 5-23.

CITRIN, A.; STERN, D.; SPANGENBERG, E.; CLARK, M. (2003):“Consumer need for tactile input. An Internet retailing challenge”.Journal of Business Research, 56, pp. 915-922.

[118]

118 07



CUESTA, F. (1997). La gestión del Marketing Directo. Madrid, Mc Graw-Hill.

CULNAN, M. J.; ARMSTRONG, P. K. (1999): “Information privacy con-cerns, procedural fairness and impersonal trust: An empirical investi-gation”. Organization Science, 10, pp. 104-115.

DARIAN, J.C. (1987): “In home shopping: Are there consumer seg-ment?”. Journal of Retailing, 63 (2), pp.163-186.

DE LA BALLINA, F. J. (1998):” Formas de Marketing Directo”. EnRodríguez Del Bosque, I; De la Ballina, F.J. y Santos, L. (2º edición),Comunicación Comercial: conceptos y aplicaciones, pp. 315-345.Madrid, Civitas.

DEIGHTON, J. (1997): “Commentary on: Exploring the Implications onthe Internet for Consumer Marketing”. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 25 (4), pp. 347-351.

DÍEZ DE CASTRO, E. (1997). Distribución Comercial (2ª edición).Madrid, Mc-Graw Hill.

DONTHU, N; GILLILAND, D. (1996): “Observations: The infomercialshopper”. Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (2), pp. 69-76.

DHOLAKIA, R.; UUSITALO, O. (2002): “Switching to Electronic Stores:Consumer Characteristics and the Perception of Shopping Benefits”.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30 (10),pp. 459-469.

EASTLICK, M.; LIU, M. (1997): “The influence of store attitudes andother nonstore shopping patterns on patronage of television shoppingPrograms”. Journal of Direct Marketing, 11 (3), pp. 14-24.

EASTLICK, M.A; FEINBERG, R.A. (1994):”Gender difference in mailcatalogue patronage motives”. Journal of Direct Marketing, 8 (Spring),pp. 37-44.

FAJULA, F. (2000): “Impacto del comercio electrónico en los negocios”.Política Exterior, Winter 2000-2001, pp. 55-60.

FLAVIÁN, C.; GURREA, R. (2003): El empleo de Internet como nuevocanal de distribución: un análisis de sus principales ventajas e inconve-

[119]

11907



nientes”. Distribución y Consumo, 64 (November-December), pp. 64-78.

FECEMD (Federación Española de Comercio Electrónico y MarketingDirecto) (2003). Anuario 2003 del comercio electrónico y marketingdirecto.

FELKER, C. (1995): “Shop ‘til you drop: Tales from a physically challen-ged shopper”. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (3), pp. 39-55.

GEHRT, K.C; CARTER, K. (1992): “An exploratory assessment of cata-logue shopping orientations”. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6 (1), pp.29-39.

GÓMEZ, E. (1995): “Televenta: distribución a través de la televisión”.Distribución y Consumo, 22 ( June-July), pp. 74-80.

HAIR, J.F; ANDERSON, R.E; TATHAM, R.L; BLACK, W.C. (1999).Analysis multivariante, 5ª ed. Madrid, Prentice Hall Iberia.

HAWTHORNE, T.R. (1998): “Opening doors to retail store”. DirectMarketing, 60 (9), pp. 48-51.

JARVENPAA, S.; Tractinsky, N.; Saarrinen, L.; Vitale, M. (1999): “Con-sumer Trust in an Internet Store: A cross cultural validation”, electro-nic document obtained from: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/jarvenpaa.html

JASPER, C.R; LAN P.R. (1992): “Apparel catalogue patronage: Demo-graphic, lifestyle and motivational factors”. Psychology and Marke-ting, 9 (July-August), pp. 275-296.

KAMALI, N.; LOKER, S. (2002): “Mass Customization: On-line Consu-mer Involvement in Product Design”. Journal of Computer MediatedComunication, 7 (4), electronic document obtained from: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue4/kamali.html

KEEN, P. (1997): “Are you ready for "trust" economy?”. ComputerWorld, April, pp. 80.

KEEN, C.; WETZELS, M.; DE RUYTER, K.; FEINBERG, R. (2004): “E-tailers versus retailers. Which factors determine consumer preferen-ces”. Journal of Business Research, 57, pp. 685-695.

[120]

120 07



KLEIN, L. (1998): “Evaluating the Potential of Interactive Media througha New Lens: Search versus Experience Goods”, Journal of BusinessResearch, 41 (3), pp. 195-203.

KORGAONKAR, P. (1984):”Consumer shopping orientations, non-storeretailers, and consumers’ patronage intentions: A multivariate investi-gation”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12 (Winter),pp. 11-22.

LEE, H. (1997): “Do electronic marketplaces lower the price of goods”.Communications of the ACM, 41(12), January.

LEVY, M. R; WEITZ, B.A. (1998). Retailing management (3rd ed.). Seriesin Marketing, Boston: Irwin/Mc Graw Hill.

LEY 47/2002, de 19 de diciembre, de reforma de la Ley 7/1996, de 15 deenero, de adecuación del comercio minorista para la transposición alconocimiento jurídico español de la Directiva 97/7/CE en materia decontratos a distancia y para la adaptación de la Ley a diversas Directi-vas Comunitarias (BOE nº 304, de 20.12.02).

MARTINEZ, E.; POLO, Y.; FLAVIÁN, C. (1998): “The acceptance anddiffusion of new consumer durables: differences between first and lastadopters”. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(4), pp. 323-342.

McDONALD, W.J (1995): “Home shopping channel customer segments:A cross-cultural perspective”. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9 (4), pp.57-67.

McKAY, J; FLETCHER, K. (1988): “Consumers’ attitudes towards teles-hopping”. The Quarterly Review of Marketing, 13 (3), pp. 1-7.

MIQUEL, S; BIGNÉ, E; LÉVY, J.P; CUENCA, A.C; MIQUEL, M.J.(1997). Investigación de mercados. Madrid, McGraw-Hill.

MIQUEL, S; PARRA, F; LHERMIE, C; MIQUEL, Mª J. (2000). Distri-bución Comercial (4ª edición ampliada). Madrid, Esic editorial.

NOWAK, G. (1992): “TV viewer characteristics and results beyond res-ponse”. Journal of Direct Marketing, 6 (2), pp. 18-31.

QUELCH, J.A; TAKEUCHI, H. (1981): “Nonstore Marketing: Fast trackor slow?”. Harvard Business Review, 59 (4), pp. 75-84.

[121]

12107



REIBSTEIN, D. (2002): “What attracts customers to online stores andwhat keeps them coming back?” Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 30(4), pp. 465-473.

RODRÍGUEZ DEL BOSQUE, I.A. (1998): “Tendencias de la distribucióncomercial”. 6º Congreso Español de Centros Comerciales, pp. 153-174. A Coruña, 8-10 de Julio.

RODRIGUEZ, I. (2000). Marketing.com. Madrid, Pirámide.ROHM, A.; SWAMINATHAN, V. (2004): “A typology of online shoppers

based on shopping motivations”. Journal of Business Research, 57, pp.748-757.

ROSEMBLOOM, B. (1999). Marketing channels. A management view.Chicago, IL: The Dryden Press.

SAINZ DE VICUÑA, J.M. (2000). La Distribución Comercial: Opcionesestratégicas (2ª ed.). Madrid, Esic editorial.

SALOMON, I; KOPPELMAN, F.S. (1992): “Teleshopping or going shop-ping?. An information acquisition perspective”. Behaviour & Infor-mation Technology, 11 (4), pp. 189-198.

SANTESMASES, M. (1999). Marketing, conceptos y estrategias (4ª ed.).Madrid, Pirámide.

SANZ, S. 2002. La venta por televisión. Propuesta de un modelo de rela-ciones con el medio televisivo. Tesis doctoral no publicada. Universi-dad de Valencia.

SCHIFFMAN, L.; SHERMAN, E.; LONG, M. (2003): “Toward a betterunderstanding of the interplay of personal values and the Internet”.Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), pp. 169-186.

SILVERMAN, G. (1995): “Planning and using infomercial campaignseffectively”. Direct Marketing, 58 (5), pp. 32-34.

– (1996): “Infomercials”. Direct Marketing, 59 (3), pp. 50-52. SOLOMON, B. (1994): “TV shopping. Comes of age”. American Mana-

gement Association, 83 (9), pp. 22-26. STEINFIELD, C; WHITTEN, P. (1999): “Community level socio-econo-

mic impacts of electronic commerce”, electronic document obtainedfrom: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/steinfl.html

[122]

122 07



SWAMINATHAN, V.; LEPKOWSKA-WHITE, E.; RAO, B. (1999):“Browsers or Buyers in Cyberspace? An Investigation of FactorsInfluencing Electronic Exchange”, electronic document obtained from:http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/swaminathan.html

THOMAS, D.Q; QUINDRY, J.C. (1999): “Exercise consumerism let thebuyer beware”. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,68 (3), pp. 56-60.

THOMPHSON, I. (1997): “New direct channels” In I. Thomphson (Eds),Home Shopping: The Revolution in Direct Sales, pp. 23-40. England:Financial Time and Media Decision.

TROCCHIA, P., JANDA, S. (2003): “How do consumers evaluate Inter-net retail service quality?” Journal of Services Marketing, 17(3), pp.243-253.

UNDERWOOD, E. (1993): “Why I’m a home shopper”. Brandweek,19th April, pp. 22-26.

VALOR, J., SUBIRANA, B., CARVAJAL, P. (1999): “Mercados electrónicoen Internet. Un modelo evolutivo basado en el flujo de transacciones”.Harvard-Deusto Business Review, September-October, pp. 84-94.

VIÑALS, J. (1999): “Estrategias de diferenciación en Internet”. HarvardDeusto Marketing y Ventas, núm. 32 (May-June).

VRIENS, M.; VAN DER SCHEER, H.R.; HOEKSTRA, J.C.; ROELF, J.(1998): “Conjoint experiments for direct mail response optimization”.European Journal of Marketing, 32 (3/4), pp. 323-333.

WESTBROOK, R.A.; BLACK, W.C. (1985): “A motivation-based shop-per typology”. Journal of Retailing, 61 (1), pp. 78-103.

WHITFORD, D. (1994): “TV or no TV”. Inc., 16 (6), pp. 63-67. Yoegel, R. (1997): “A bright future for infomercials”. Target Marketing,

20(6), pp.28-31.

[123]

12307

buying through direct methods: benefits and …...buying through direct methods: benefits and...

Documents