CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CONSTRUCTS IN E-COMMERCE
SEGMENT-A STUDY
ABSTRACT
The primary objective of this study is to identify factor impacting customer experiences in case of E-commerce market segment and to propose a reliable instrument for measuring customer satisfaction based on customer experiences. Primary data collected from 420 respondents and exploratory factor analysis (using SPSS version 20) used to analyze data. The questionnaire used for the study consists of 18 statements that focussed on real time E-commerce customers purchase experience. This study provides insights to the conceptual framework of customer experience dimensions in a systematic manner. The results confirm hexagonal model of customer experience dimensions that plays important role for real time purchase of E-commerce products and services.
Keywords: Hexagonal model, Real –Time purchase, Customer satisfaction, Customer experience.
1. INTRODUCTION
Traditional marketing communication channels are not sufficient to influence the present day’s consumers (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, (2003;2004);Coelho and Santos,2013). These days buyers have develop experience attitude towards the selection of goods and services (Sharma & Sharma,2011) There is a requirement of such a marketing strategy which have an impact on each and every aspect of consumer behaviour (Schmitt,1999). Marketers worldwide are looking for new ways to utilize marketing communications channels to their full potential in order to engage their target audiences on a deeper level, and builds relationship that create loyalty and brand advocacy. Experience is the main element of future marketing (Schmitt, 1999a) and that is all about customer perceptions, feelings, thoughts and memories about a product or service (Coelho and Santos, 2013). Consumers thinking, feeling, experience about a product and services always remains the major concern for the marketers (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Caru and Cova, 2003). Pine and Gilmore (1999) introduced experience economy as the next economy followed by service economy.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Various scholars like Holbrook & Hirshman (1982);Schmitt (1999);Shaz(2009);Lin & kuo(2009);You-Min(2010);Sharma and sharma (2011); Ika & Kustini (2011);Adeosun &Ganiyu; Same and Larimo 2012 and so on Defined the notion of experiential marketing. Schmitt, 1999b; Grundey, 2008; Sharma and Sharma, 2011 considered experiential marketing as contemporary marketing discipline being adopted by several firms and proclaimed two types of experiential
Pinki
Shri Ram College of Commerce University of Delhi, India
Dr. Vazir Nehra Department of Commerce
marketing framework: First based on five types of multi-sensory experience called as Strategic experience model (SEMs) and second the tactical tool (Ex Pros) Experience Providers, also supported by Brakus et al(2009). Multi-sensory experience such as Sense, Think, Feel, Relate and Act are considered as contemporary marketing mix elements that provide holistic consumption experiences (Sharma and Sharma, 2011). Brakus et al. (2009) developed four dimensions of brand experience scale- behavioural, intellectual, sensory and affective. Further the same restudied into two different service categories that is Diagnostic laboratories and telecommunication services in Indian context and found only three dimensions are applicable in Indian context that is activity triggering, sensory and affective (Ramakrishnan and Vohra , 2015). The current study is to study the relevance of hexagonal structure of customer experiences –based on customer journey that consists of brand touch point at the time of real time interaction (pragmatic experience) , multi-sensory experiences i.e., sense to sight, hear, smell, touch & taste aesthetic appeal(Caru, A. and Cova, B. ,2003; Nehra, V. & Pinki ,2017)(sensory experience), affection and feelings at the time of interaction composition( emotional experience), action directly related to consumer behaviour, lifestyle which leaves consumer with sensation, influence and relationship ( Ika & Kustini,2011; Nehra, V. & Pinki ,2017)(lifestyle experience), intelligence process of creative involvement of customers(cognitive experience) and Social Identity Experiences(relate experiences).
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The primary objective of this study is to identify factor impacting customer experiences in E-commerce market segment. Also, the study provides insight to the practical applicability of customer experience hexagonal model (Nehra, V. & Pinki , 2017).
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
to the rural area. Out of the total sample 97.9% were the actual user of E-commerce services and the remaining 2.1% used E-commerce for their friends and family members. Out of the total 59.7% respondents were using e-commerce for both family and self, 32.6% were using for self only, 5% using for family members and the rest for others. Also the source of availing E-commerce services is different for them. Out of the total respondents 87.8 % used to have services from private sector and the remaining from the others.
Table-1: Sample Characterstics
Demographic Profile No. of Respondents Valid Percentage % A) Gender
a) Male
b) Female 211209 50.249.8
B) Age
a) 18-24 years b) 25-30 years c) 31-40 years d) 41-50 years e) Over 50 years
288 68 27 21 16 68.6 16.2 6.4 5 3.8
C) Marital Status
a) Married b) Unmarried c) Other 91 327 2 21.7 77.9 .5
D) Educational Level
a) Matric
b) Senior Secondary c) Graduate d) Post Graduate e) Doctrate 3 99 215 91 12 .7 23.6 51.2 21.7 2.9 E) Occupation a) Employed/Service b) Business/Self Employed c) Student d) Household e) Other 109 28 273 7 3 26 6.7 65 1.7 .7
F) Monthly Income(in Rs.)
a) Below 20000 b) 20001-40000 c) 40001-60000 d) Above 60000
281 46 49 44 66.9 11 11.7 10.5
G) Residential Status
a) Rural b) Sub Urban c) Metropolitan City
19 72 329 4.5 17.1 78.3
H) Service Availed or Not
a) Yes
b) No 4119 97.92.1
I) Service Availed For
a) Self b) Family c) Both d) Other 135 21 247 11 32.6 5.1 59.7 2.7
J) Service Availed From
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
For the purpose of data analysis exploratory factor analysis (EFA) being carried out on SPSS software version 20. Questionnaire was based on 18 statements three for each of the six dimensions and the respondents have to rate them on seven point Likert Scale(1for Strongly Disagree, 2 for Disagree, 3 for Disagree somewhat, 4 for Neither agree nor disagree, 5 for Agree Somewhat, 6 for Agree ,7 for Strongly Agree). To validate all the 18 statements in context of hexagonal model first Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient checked. Cronbach alpha coefficient measured internal consistency of the measurement scale. Cronbach (1951) came up with a measure that is loosely equivalent to splitting data in two in every possible way and computing the correlation coefficient for each split. The average of these values is equivalent toCronbach’s alpha,α, which is the most common measure of scale reliability (Field, A., 2009). 22Cronbach α, Thumb rule- 0.6(ok), 0.7(good), 0.8(very good), 0.9(excellent), above .95 (too inter-related items). The overall questionnaire cronbach’s alpha coefficient come out .861, indicates high reliability of the scale. The alpha coefficient for the six dimensions were .637(pragmatic), .682(sensorial), .602 (relate), .681(emotional), .638(cognitive) and .630(lifestyle) that lies in the acceptance range.
Table-2 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.861 18
Table-3 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if
Item Deleted Variance ifScale Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Ls2 85.53 232.097 .394 .858
Ls3 85.09 232.200 .388 .858
Pragmatic1 85.24 233.949 .393 .858
Pragmatic2 85.10 231.457 .474 .854
Pragmatic3 85.14 232.358 .427 .856
Sensorial1 85.51 228.265 .505 .853
Sensorial2 85.21 226.343 .551 .851
Sensorial3 85.04 228.552 .549 .851
Relate1 85.22 229.097 .515 .853
Relate2 85.42 225.475 .580 .850
Relate3 86.03 232.121 .365 .860
Emotional1 85.34 227.417 .511 .853
Emotional2 85.49 227.220 .550 .851
Emotional3 85.30 230.759 .507 .853
Cognitive1 85.42 226.741 .547 .851
Cognitive2 85.30 229.831 .475 .854
Cognitive3 85.19 230.701 .448 .855
Then Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) measure for sample adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was checked. a value close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. KMO values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre, values between 0.7 and 0.8 are good, values between 0.8 and 0.9 are great and values above .9 are superb ( Field, 2009).Table-4 shows KMO value come 0.856 that shows sample adequacy to conduct factor analysis. ALSO Bartlett’s test of sphericity p value is less than 0.05, that’s considered appropriate for factor analysis. Table-5 shows communality value among variables and found all values were greater than 0.5. If sample size> 250, then the average communality greater than or equal to 0.6 is considered good ( Field, 2009)
Table-6 shows Total variance explained by all the six factors, factor1 (emotional experience) 13.264%, factor 2(pragmatic experience) 12.975%, factor 3 (lifestyle experience) 10.976%, factor 4(sensorial experience) 10.616%, factor 5(cognitive experience) 10.144%, and factor 6 (relate experience) 9.499% and total six factors explain 67.474% of the total variance.
Table-4 KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy. .856
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 1289.235
df 91
Sig. .000
Table-5 Communalities
Initial Extraction
Pragmatic1 1.000 .553
Pragmatic2 1.000 .619
Pragmatic3 1.000 .628
Sensorial1 1.000 .746
Sensorial2 1.000 .682
Relate1 1.000 .576
Relate3 1.000 .774
Emotional1 1.000 .687
Emotional2 1.000 .669
Emotional3 1.000 .657
Cognitive2 1.000 .642
Cognitive3 1.000 .761
Ls2 1.000 .727
Ls3 1.000 .725
Table-7 (Rotated Factor Matrix) emerged following result based on factor analysis: as clearly Table-6: Total Variance Explained
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings Rotation Sums of SquaredLoadings Total % of
Variance Cumulative% Total Variance% of Cumulative% Total Variance% of ative %Cumul
1 4.326 30.897 30.897 4.326 30.897 30.897 1.857 13.264 13.264 2 1.354 9.668 40.566 1.354 9.668 40.566 1.817 12.975 26.240 3 1.031 7.365 47.930 1.031 7.365 47.930 1.537 10.976 37.215 4 .940 6.713 54.643 .940 6.713 54.643 1.486 10.616 47.831 5 .922 6.587 61.231 .922 6.587 61.231 1.420 10.144 57.975 6 .874 6.244 67.474 .874 6.244 67.474 1.330 9.499 67.474 7 .751 5.364 72.839
8 .678 4.840 77.678 9 .613 4.376 82.055 10 .591 4.222 86.277 11 .526 3.755 90.032 12 .501 3.580 93.611 13 .474 3.384 96.995 14 .421 3.005 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table-7 Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Emotional2 .741 Emotional3 .691
Emotional1 .688 .355 Pragmatic3 .749
Pragmatic1 .711 Pragmatic2 .710
Ls2 .822
Ls3 .817
Sensorial1 .795
Sensorial2 .739
Cognitive3 .821
Cognitive2 .712
Relate3 .861
Relate1 .359 .593
factor. Also shows emotional 1 have a cross loading factor 4(.355) that is less than .4 that why
emotional 1 included in factor 1 only. Also relate 1 cross loaded on factor 1(.359) that considered with factor 6 only.
All the three statements related to pragmatic experience loaded on a single factor 2 that named as pragmatic construct. Lifestyle 1 statement excluded due to low loading, remaining two have clear loading on factor 3 named aslifestyle construct. Sensorial 3, Cognitive 1 and relate 2 also excluded due to low loading. Remaining two statements of sensorial, cognitive and relate experience shows clear loading on the three different factors therefore the study support hexagonal model.
Cronbach alpha coefficient for the questionnaire validation again tested after removing lifestyle1, relate2, cognitive1 and sensorial 3 statements that turn out .822 indicates overall questionnaire reliability. For emotional construct (.681) and for pragmatic construct (.637) remain same as before. For the remaining four constructs it changed. For lifestyle construct it improved little bit .633(earlier .630), for cognitive construct now alpha value reduced 0.553(earlier 0.638), for relate revised alpha value .493(earlier .602) for relate and for sensory construct revised alpha .628(earlier .682). As the four statements related to four different constructs deleted that’s Cronbach alpha reliability reduced.
6. CONCLUSION
In total all the six factors explain 67.674% of the total variance. Therefore the results support the hexagonal model of customer experience to measure E-commerce real-time-experiences.
Based on this exploratory study to identify factors impacting customer experiences in e-commerce segment it can be said that all the six experience dimensions:pragmatic, sensory, relate, cognitive, emotional and lifestyle, that suggested earlier based on literature review support hexagonal model of customer experience.
7. IMPLICATIONS
There are certain limitations of this study as well. The study sample related to Delhi/ NCR area that can be tested for other areas with different population characteristics. Also E-commerce real time purchase experience were considered for this study. That can be tested for other products and market segments. Authors will try to validate the results for pre purchase and post purchase experiences using the same scale.
REFERENCES
2) Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., Zarantonello, L. (2009) Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, Vol.73, No.3,pp- 52–68. Available online at -http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52.
3) Caru, A. and Cova, B. (2003) A Critical Approach to Experiential Consumption: Fighting against the disappearance of the contemplative time.Stream 23: Critical Marketing: Visibility, Inclusivity, Captivity, CMS conference 2003 proceedings. Availableonlineat:http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/2003/proceedings/criti calmarketing/Caru.pdf][accessed11/6/2013].
4) Coelho, M. F. and Santos, P.A.A.(2013) The smartphone experience marketing: Cocreating Value through mobile apps. PMKT – Brazilian Journal of Marketing, Opinion, and Media Research(ISSN 1983-9456 Print and ISSN 2317-0123 Online), São Paulo, Brasil, Vol. 13, pp. 46-66, October, 2013.
5) Field, A. (2009) Discovering statistic using SPSS. 3rdedition, London, Sage publication Ltd. 6) Grundey, D.(2008) Experiential Marketing vs. Traditional Marketing: Creating rational and
emotional liaisons with customers. The Romanian Economic Journal, Year XI, No. 29, pp 133-151.
7) Hair, J.F., et al (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, New Jersy: Prentice hall Publication. 8) Holbrook, M. B., Hirschman, E. C.(1982) The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Feelings,
Fantasies and Fun.Journal of Consumer Research,New York, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.132 -140. 9) Ika and Kustini(2011) Experiential marketing, emotional branding and brand trust nand their
effect of loyalty on Honda motor cycle product. Journal of Economics, Business and Accountancy Ventura, Volume 14, No. 1, April 2011, pp. 19 – 28, Accreditation No. 110/DIKTI/Kep/2009.
10) Lin, Kuo-Ming., et al. (2009) Application of Experiential Marketing Strategy to Identify Factors Affecting Guests’ Leisure Behaviour in Taiwan Hot-Spring Hotel. Wseas Transactions on Business and Economics, Issue 5, Volume 6, May 2009, ISSN: 1109-9526,pp.229-240.
11) Nehra, V. & Pinki (2017) Experiential Marketing Metrics- A Review. Researchers World-Journal of Art, Science & Commerce, International refereed research journal, Vol.-VIII, Issue 4(4), October, 2017, pp 84-97.
12) Pine II, J. B. and Gilmore, J. H.(1998) Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1998.
13) Pine II, J. B. and Gilmore, J. H. (1999)The Experience Economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, USA.
15) Pinki (2013), “Memorable Customer Experiences: A Tool to Enhance Firm Value” International Journal of Management and Social Science Research, Volume 2, No.12, December 2013, ISSN: 2319-4421,pp 56-59.
16) Prahalad, C. K., Ramaswamy, V. (2003)The New Frontier of Experience Innovation. Sloan Management Review,Summer, 2003.
17) Ramakrishnan, R & Vohra, A. (2015) Application of the brand Experience Scale in the Indian Context. Business Analyst. A refreed journal of Shri Ram College of Commerce, Volume 36, Issue 2, October 2015- March 2016, pp 87-97.
18) Same,S. and Larimo, J(2012) Marketing theory: Experience marketing and experiential marketing. 7th International Scientific Conference “Business and Management 2012” May 10-11, 2012, Vilnius, LITHUANIA ISSN 2029-4441 print / ISSN 2029-929X online.
19) Schmitt, B.H.(1999a) Experiential Marketing: How to customers to sense, feel, think, act and relate. The Free Press, New York, USA. Available online at-http://www.gobookee.net/get_book.php.[accessed 11/6/2013].
20) Schmitt, B.H. (1999b) Experiential Marketing. Journal of Marke3ting Management, Vol.15, No. 13, pp 53–67. Available online at-http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725799784870496. 21) You–Ming, C. (2010) Study on the Impacts of Experiential Marketing and Customers´
Satisfaction Based on Relationship Quality. International Journal of Or-ganizational Innovation,Vol.3, No. 1, pp 189–209.
22)https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Internal_consistency [accessed11/11/2017].
Appendix: E-commerce Customer Experience Questionnaire based on Likert’s rating scale Sr.
No.
Constructs Statements SD D DS N AS A S
A 1 Pragmatic
Experience
S1: I feel overall activities(From Purchase to Consumption) well organized-I did not have to wait much
S2: I feel Instructions and directions were simple and clear
S3: I did not have to run from one place /window to another – I got one-point solution of the problem
2 Sensorial Experience
S1: Everything about the place is beautiful I feel my buying experience has aesthetic appeal
product/service
**S3: I feel my shopping experience was pleasant
3 Relate Experience
S1: I feel they try hard to provide me better treatment/faster service
**S2: I am always attended well. I do not feel neglected by the marketer
S3: They even customize the product according to my needs. It feels as if I made the product.
4 Emotional Experience
S1: The product/service I use admired by others
S2: The product has provided me with more satisfaction than expected
S3: The product is safe, state-of-the art and easy to use
5 Cognitive Experience
**S1: I find the dealing person knowledgeable about product/service offered
S2: I feel I became better informed after interacting with the dealing person
S3: The type of knowledge/information I gain from the dealing person have an direct impact on my purchase behaviour
6 Lifestyle Experience
**S1: I always used to check product/service carbon footprints before taking purchase decision
S2: My purchase habits are affected by my concern for our environment
S3: It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment
**item removed from factor analysis results
