Decomposing the value of department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to decompose total customer value as perceived by department store shoppers into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions, and empirically test this conceptualization in a Finnish department store shopping context.Design/methodology/approachData were collected by a questionnaire administered over three days at a department store that generates the second largest turnover in Finland. A total of 364 shoppers completed the questionnaire.FindingsEmpirical evidence supports our tripartite conceptualization of total customer value. In particular, social value is an independent construct. Further, social value varies by day‐of‐week, with a significant increase on Saturday (versus weekdays) when the store is more crowded, whereas no such differences in utilitarian and hedonic values were detected.Originality/valueThe principal contribution is a tripartite conceptualization of total customer value that incorporates utilitarian, social and hedonic value dimensions in a department store shopping context. Individually these dimensions are all well rooted in streams of consumer behavior literature, albeit mostly at the product or brand, not the store, level. Increasing our understanding of these softer aspects of shopping, particularly the social dimension, is important because they represent possible differentiating factors in the highly competitive and often commoditized retail markets.

Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of willingness to share information

“…Customers typically engage in information exchange with retailers to gain benefits that may be utilitarian, hedonic, or symbolic in nature (see Rintamäki et al 2006). In a retailing context, exchange costs and benefits seldom occur simultaneously; therefore, a certain amount of risk and uncertainty are involved in customers' decisions to share information with a company.…”

Influence of hedonic and utilitarian values in determining attitude towards malls: A case of Indian small city consumers

“…Carr (1990) posits that shopping motives range between pleasurable / hedonic to functional and malls that are able to deliver fun retail formats ( Cope, 1996 ;Burke, 1997 ;Wakefi eld and Baker, 1998 ) will be successful. Shopping malls have been of interest for researchers ( Goss, 1993 ;Robertson, 1995 ;Buss, 1997 ;Miller, 1998 ;Csaba and Askegaard, 1999 ;Castaldo and Botti, 2001 ;Yavas, 2003 ;Arnold and Reynolds, 2003 ;Resciniti, 2004 ;Rintam ä ki et al , 2006 ;Ahmed et al , 2007 ;Ooi and Sim, 2007 ;Michon et al , 2008 ;Teller et al , 2008 ) as they suggest a multitude of factors infl uencing consumers ' shopping behaviour.…”

“…Tauber (1972) states that people go shopping when they desire attention, interact with peer groups and want to meet people with similar interests. Malls try to increase the consumers ' patronage by appealing to their social motives ( Chandon et al , 2000 ;Solomon, 2002 ;Rintam ä ki et al , 2006 ). Malls are often a central point for community interaction and entertainment and fulfi l the social and hedonic shopping needs of consumers ( Tauber, 1972 ;Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982 ).…”

Development and validation of the Perceived Investment Value (PIV) scale

“…It follows that consumers experience economic value when their monetary needs are met. Economic PIV has a dual characterization: as monetary savings (e.g., Chandon et al, 2000;Petrick, 2002;Rintamäki et al, 2006) and as risk-adjusted return (e.g., Markowitz, 1959;Sharpe, 1964;Sharpe, 1995).…”

“…Hence, "risk-adjusted" refers to a ratio of profit to risk, and risk- and increasing the appropriate outcomes of investments. Convenience refers to a ratio of inputs to outputs, with time and effort being the relevant inputs (Holbrook, 1999;Rintamäki et al, 2006). Farquhar and Rowley (2009, p.434) …”