sfdsdagfdhgfhgj

8/9/2019 sfdsdagfdhgfhgj

1/11

Consumer observations on channel choices—Competitive strategies inFinnish grocery retailing

Katri Koistinen a,, Raija Järvinen b

a National Consumer Research Centre (NCRC), P. O. Box 5, 00531 Helsinki, Finlandb Helsinki School of Economics, P. O. Box 1210, 00101 Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Channel competitive strategies

Consumer

Cross-shopping

Grocery retailing

Multi-channel retailing

a b s t r a c t

This article aims at providing consumers’ observations on their choices between various grocery

retailing channels. The theoretical roots are based on Porter’s competitive strategies and their further

developed variations, but also the retailing research concerning competition and consumer perspective

will be discussed. The results of the study confirm that consumers have one primary store, which is

often a hypermarket or a supermarket. In addition, they prefer to shop in several supplementary stores

located close to their homes. The empirical study also reveals that all retail channels have both

weaknesses and strengths from the consumers’ viewpoint.

& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A retail channel is a pathway from the producer to the

consumers. It contains various retailers who are involved in the

delivery of goods and services to consumers. The traditional

perspective sees the channel as a structure with several

producers, a limited number of retailers or other intermediaries

and an unlimited amount of consumers as final users ( Järvinen

and Lehtinen, 1997). However, during the last decade traditional

channels have experienced several changes when retail chains

have developed bigger entities and multi-channel models have

replaced the traditional channel structures. In addition, consu-

mers have become multi-channel shoppers as a consequence of

decline in channel loyalty (Gensler et al., 2007). The changing

reality is about to have its effect on the topics emerging among

academics working with retail channel research.

The tradition in channel research has been strong since the

1960s and the variety of research conducted vast (see state-of-

the-art reviews by e.g. Schwartz, 1965; Gaski, 1984; Stern andEl-Ansary, 1992; Cronin et al., 1994). Relationships between

producers and intermediaries from the producers’ point of view

have dominated the channel studies. The most common variables

in channel research have been power and conflict (e.g. Gaski, 1984),

whereas channel competition and co-operation have become

sources of interest only recently, and even today these topics are

rare in channel research. Stern and El-Ansary (1992) (see also Weitz

and Jap, 1995; Andersson et al., 1996) do not even mention the term

competition in their classification of various types of channel

research. However, it can be assumed that competition within the

channel is one cause of the conflicts occurred.

The review by Järvinen (1998) concludes that channel

literature does not accept consumers as full members within the

channel and there are no extensive discussions on the influence of

consumers even though it is the consumers that in the end decide

which retailers they buy from and which they do not. Falvey

(1988, 277) reminds that:

You can do almost everything wrong in business and still

succeed if you serve the customer. You can do just about

everything right in business and fail if you do not take care of

their needs, wants, desires, and emotions.

Falvey’s words hold in the grocery retailing competition even

today. His view is supported by Stern and El-Ansary (1992) as they

encourage all channel members to keep their eyes on the most

important people in the entire channel – consumers – and Hardyand Magrath (1988), who remind that one of the oldest axioms in

marketing is to keep close to the consumers. Anderson et al.

(1996) even suggest that channels should be evaluated with two

dimensions: consumer needs and costs. In spite of the few

arguments on behalf of consumers’ importance in retail channel

context, consumers seem to be the most neglected factor in the

channel research. Therefore, it is important to shift the focus of

retail channel studies to the consumer perspective.

This article aims at providing consumer’s observations on their

choices between various grocery retailing channels. The study was

started along the lines of the research idea developed by

Morganosky (1997), who has conducted studies on the impacts

of structural changes within grocery retailing on grocery retailing

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: ww w.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

0969-6989/$- see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.02.003

Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 400 871598; fax: +3589 77267715.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Koistinen), [email protected]

(R. Järvinen).

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 260–270

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/jjrchttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconserhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.02.003mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_5/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.02.003http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconserhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/jjrc


2/11

itself and the consumers. Her special concern has been the cross-

shopping patterns between different grocery retailing channels.

The article endeavors to find answers to the following

questions:

What are the cross-shopping patterns of Finnish consumers

within different grocery retailing channels?

What do consumers regard as the strengths and weaknesses of different retail channels?

How do retail channels compete with or complete each other

from the consumers’ viewpoint?

Section 2 will discuss the channel competitive strategies in

grocery retailing, after which in Section 3 there will be details and

analysis of the research data. Section 4 will briefly touch upon the

Finnish retail grocery channels as the context of the study,

followed by consumer observations on these grocery retail

channels in Section 5. In Section 6, the paper will concentrate

on channel competition or completion from the consumers’

viewpoint, and in Section 7 conclusions and discussion were

outlined.

2. Channel competitive strategies in grocery retailing

Recent changes in the retail channel environment have

affected not only retailers but also consumers. According to the

table by Järvinen and Lehtinen (1998) the most dramatic change is

the oversupply of goods and services experienced by all Western

countries. The second one concerns channel structures, as

producers move from one-channel to multi-channel strategy, the

third and fourth illustrate a tendency towards co-operation and

increasing power of retailers as intermediaries. The fifth change

concerns consumers as they are becoming more experienced and

quality conscious. Therefore, the monologue that characterizes

mass marketing-oriented organizations and tries to manipulateconsumers has to be turned into a dialogue with consumers. Some

of the above changes listed in Table 1 have been going on for a

longer period, e.g. Bucklin and Schmalensee observed already in

1987 an increased retailer concentration and Stern (1987) stressed

the growth of retailer power.

2.1. Consumer preferences in multi-channel retailing

Many retailers play important roles in those channels where

producers lack direct contacts with consumers. Retailer co-

operation can achieve positive results in the form of increased

sales volume and publicity (cf. Narus and Anderson, 1996) and

they are in special position to manage and influence consumers

( Järvinen, 1998).Multi-channel retailing is becoming the standard approach

(McGoldrick and Collins, 2007). Multi-channel strategies concern

channels that often are organized as complex networks instead of

traditional channel structures (Rapp and Collins, 1987; Moriarty

and Moran, 1990). Multi-channel types can be classified according

to their characteristics, e.g. Järvinen (2001) has proposed three

types according to ownership, differentiation and complementary

nature. From retailers’ point of view, consumer channel use is

important to understand in order to maximize retailers’ efficiency

in meeting the needs of the consumers. Channels can complete

each other and give consumers better shopping options ( Johnson

et al., 2006; McGoldrick and Collins, 2007). The study of Johnsonet al. (2006) also indicates that consumers who try emerging

retail channels do not switch completely to the new channels but

just add them as further shopping options. Yet multiple buying

environments most probably change consumer buying habits,

because various channels interact and influence each other in the

consumer mindset, as Park and Lennon (2006) state. However,

Birgelen et al. (2006) argue that multi-channel research has so far

left issues connected to consumer satisfaction and behavioral

intentions virtually unaddressed.

Dowdell (2006) reports that almost 80 per cent of consumers

shopped at five or more retailers in a 3-month period, and one

quarter shopped at least at 10 retailers. He groups consumers’

opinions of retailers in four segments: routine replenishment, big

shops, experience makers and quick shops. Out of thesealternatives routine replenishment retailers earn the most

frequent shopping trips and have wide, consistent selections.

McGoldrick and Collins (2007) profile four scales for multi-

shoppers in their empirical study: ease of shopping, risk-

reduction, product value and experiment seeking. On the other

hand, Salmon (1987) concentrates on summarizing consumers’

preferences in retail channels: one-stop shopping for routine

needs, complete assortment, convenience (location, opening

hours and parking), availability of post-sale services and hassle-

free return privileges together with reasonable price level.

Another key component of consumers’ channel preference is

their behavioral loyalty to each channel (Gensler et al., 2007).

Aalto-Setälä et al. (2004) studied the reasons for high prices in the

Å land Islands, a small archipelago between Finland and Sweden.

They found that high prices manifest the strong regional spirit

among the inhabitants: they are prepared to pay higher prices for

products that are produced in Å land. Further support for loyalty is

given by Johnson et al. (2006), who confirm that consumers

remain loyal to their local stores if they are satisfied with them

and have a feeling of belonging to the local community.

Practically all grocery retail chains target on long-term

relationships with consumers. On the other hand, Light (1988)

has noticed that in many cases consumers feel that they have a

relationship with both retailers and producers. We agree with

Light, as many retail chains and producers have together

developed various kinds of long-term loyalty programs. Park and

Lennon (2006) particularly stress the interaction between sales

personnel and consumers because of its positive impact on

purchasing behavior. Juttner and Wehrli (1994) even see long-term relationships with consumers as a stabilizing element and

they suggest that information exchange provides a basis for

personalized offerings.

According to the above studies, long-term relationships

between consumers and retailers benefit both parties and create

loyalty and commitment. However, consumers seem to prefer

multi-shopping and frequenting various retailers instead of only

one. One reason for that can be the retailers’ neglect of consumers

as soon as they have established a relationship with them, as

Kotler (1995) claims. In order to avoid this, retail channels need to

adopt new strategies and attitudes towards their existing

customers. When taking into account that producers believe in

multi-channel structures in spite of the increasing competition

between retailers, this issue arises among the most importantstrategic decisions. Therefore, it can be suggested that consumer

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Changes in channels (cf. Järvinen and Lehtinen, 1998).

Demand ) Oversupply

One channel strategy ) Multi-channel strategy

Channel member competition ) Channel member co-operation

Producer domination ) Retailer power increase

Price conscious consumers ) Quality conscious consumers

Consumer manipulation (monologue) ) Consumer commitment (dialogue)

K. Koistinen, R. Järvinen / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 260–270 261


3/11

buying patterns and attitudes are one of the key phenomena

when future retail channels are planned and established.

2.2. Retailers’ options for competitive strategies

Studying consumers’ observations on their choices between

various competing grocery retailing channels is well grounded, asthere is an abundance of retail channels available—one might

even say there is an excess of options to choose from. The more

channels there are to choose from, the more demands will be

placed on those channels that the consumers actually decide to

favor. In her study, Morganosky (1997) pays attention to two key

concepts: channel competition, which assesses the degree to

which one format shares its customers with alternative formats

for a given product category, and channel competitiveness, which

refers to a channel’s ability to attract or pull customers from the

alternative channels.

From the retailers’ perspective there are several alternative

strategies to handle competition. Porter (1982) divides competi-

tive strategies into three basic types: cost leadership, segmenta-

tion/differentiation and focusing. In grocery retailing the narrowfocus is rare whereas strategies like cost based and segmentation/

differentiation are more relevant. Alternative ways to achieve

competitive advantage in retailing are listed more thoroughly by

Walters and Knee (1989).

The cost-based strategy consists of seeking advantage from the

functions, which cause costs, i.e. customer operations, logistics,

services and self-service equipment, product range, quantity and

timing of buying. The cost-based strategy has contributed to the

success of large hypermarkets and supermarkets, which have

succeeded in offering broader ranges at lower prices. Tight cost

focus has enabled them to gain competitive advantage over small

stores with higher costs (Uusitalo, 1998). Naturally, it is more

difficult for small stores to gain economies of scale and

negotiation power (Ellis and Kelley, 1992; Morschett et al.,

2006). However, in the competition between large hypermarkets

this strategy is less effective, because it is difficult to win a cost

advantage over an equally cost-efficient unit. On the other hand,

there are enough hard discounters in the markets that focus on

low prices and low costs only. The segmentation/differentiation

strategy implies that competitive advantage is pursued by

specifying customer groups and differentiating retail offers from

other retail chains. Successful differentiation enables the retail

chain to gain an unique position among retailers. Differentiation

can be executed through product design or store image (Uusitalo,

1998; Knee and Walters, 1985).

In addition to Porter’s (1982) strategies Wortzel (1987)

suggests one new strategy, a service and personality differentia-

tion strategy, to be included in competitive strategies. It is based

on unique services and the personality of each store. On the otherhand, Ellis and Kelley (1992) present four comparative advantages

such as (1) product variety and sizes, (2) amount of promotion, (3)

promotion effectiveness and (4) customer service, but soon after

them Conant et al. (1993) add pricing, incentives and fashion into

the Ellis and Kelley list. Later, relational attitudes, i.e. the

advantage of building lasting relationships with consumers, have

been paid attention to Harris and Ogbonna (2001).

Recently, Morschett et al. (2006) conducted an empirical study

of Porter’s competitive strategies in the context of food retailing.

One reason for their analysis is the criticism presented towards

Porter’s framework with arguments claiming it to be too

simplified. From our point of view the criticism towards Porter

arises from missing consumer perspective. However, for our

purposes the article of Morschett et al. (2006) offers three centraldimensions of competitive strategies identified from the con-

sumer perspective: (1) price level, (2) quality of performance, and

(3) scope of offers/convenience.

For a large amount of consumers price has traditionally been

one of the most important criteria in grocery store choice in

Finland (Marjanen, 1997; Raijas, 1997). Uusitalo (1998) even

argues that consumers are thought to select an outlet on the basis

of the price, the results of which can be seen in the aggressive

price advertising in local newspapers. In many areas, price-warshave resulted from using price as the primary competitive tool.

We claim that as long as grocery stores fail to promote any other

appealing advantages, price is likely to remain the major store

choice criterion for the consumers.

The research by Pitkäaho et al. (2005) reveals a clear shift in

grocery choice from price to other criteria. Namely, it suggests

that the most important criteria for choosing a grocery store in

Finland are location near home, benefits for regular customers,

price–quality ratio, assortment and ease of patronizing. Price is

important only for the age group over 55 years. It seems that

location near home in particular has became a more important

choice criterion for consumers at the beginning of the twentieth

century and this concerns all store types from the small stores to

department stores.In order to conclude the discussion on the competitive

strategies and the research conducted in grocery retailing area,

it should be emphasized, as do Morschett et al. (2006), that Porter

forms a solid ground for research, but his strategies need to be

further developed as current research proves that there are other

criteria in addition to costs, differentiation and focusing that affect

consumer channel choices. The above-presented dimensions of

Morschett et al. (2006) are chosen to guide our empirical analysis.

The study by Pitkäaho et al. (2005) supports this choice. The

reason for this choice is that similarly to this study, Morschett

et al. (2006) also carried out their research in grocery retailing,

and we believe that there can be variation in most valid

competitive strategies between various areas in retailing.

3. Research data and analysis

This study is qualitative in nature and focus groups were used

for data acquisition (see e.g. Morgan, 1988; Barbour and Kitzinger,

1999; Bloor et al., 2001). Focus groups help the researcher to

perceive and outline the research subject in a comprehensive way

and successful groups may discuss a range of topics that not only

cover the issues that researchers already know to be important,

but also introduce a set of issues that the researchers had not

anticipated (see e.g. Morgan, 1988; Bloor et al., 2001). As opposed

to this, for example in surveys respondents answer the questions

but the questions may not concern issues that the respondents

consider important. The goal in using focus groups is to learn

about the participants’ experiences, perspectives, opinions, wishesand concerns (see e.g. Morgan, 1988; Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999)

In this research the target was to gather current information about

consumers’ experiences and perspectives on their choices be-

tween various grocery retailing channels.

The strength of a focus group is that the group stimulates

participants to discuss topics which would perhaps not have been

brought up without the interaction of the group (Morgan, 1988;

Barbour and Kitzinger 1999). The practical strength of focus

groups is that the same number of participants could be

interviewed in much less time in a group format than in

individual interviews (Morgan, 1988).

Most participants in the focus groups were members of the

National Consumer Research Centre (NCRC, Finland) Consumer

Panel but some participants were recruited through the research-ers’ own networks. There were altogether 45 participants

ARTICLE IN PRESS

K. Koistinen, R. Järvinen / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 260–270262


4/11

attending the seven focus groups in spring 2004. The groups

represented consumers in three different shopping environments.

The differences in retail structure and supply were expected to

influence the consumers’ attitudes, opinions and behavior.

Four of the groups consisted of consumers living in urban areas

(the cities of Helsinki, Turku and Joensuu), three of the groups

represented consumers living in rural areas with limited retail

supply. The rural areas are situated close to the cities mentionedabove. The more segmented the groups are, the more necessary it

is to have several groups (see e.g. Bloor et al., 2001). Seven focus

groups altogether were a suitable amount of groups in this

research as the discussion themes were the same in every group,

and by having at least two groups per research area the

researchers made sure that possible regional differences would

come up.

The methodological texts about focus groups have typically

recommended groups consisting of between six and eight

participants as the optimum size for focus group discussion (see

e.g. Bloor et al., 2001). This advise was followed in this research as

far as it was possible (some very late cancellation of participation

decreased the size of two groups) and it was found relevant. In

general, it was discovered that the bigger the group was, the morecare the researcher needed to take to make sure that every

participant got a possibility to take the floor.

Each focus group consisted of five–eight participants with

varying socio-economic backgrounds but their residing areas were

alike. Of the participants 69 per cent were women and 31 per cent

were men. The youngest participant was 22 years old and the

oldest was 66 years old. Participants were highly educated, half of

them had an academic degree and one third of them had a

college-level degree. The households of 64 per cent of the

participants consisted of one or two adults. The remaining 36

per cent of households had one child or several children under 18

years of age. The percentage of households with one child or

several children in Finland was 25 per cent in 2004 (Statistics

Finland, 2008). Thus, the participants in the discussion with one

or several children were somewhat overrepresented against the

average. It was assumed that a similar residing area would make it

easier for the group to discuss retailing and service supply as they

are bound to be more diversified in urban areas than in rural areas

(Fig. 1).

The research area of Helsinki is by far the largest urban area in

Finland in terms of the number of inhabitants. This area is

populated by approximately 1.2 million people, i.e. almost every

fourth Finn lives inside this area. The center of the area is Helsinki,

the capital of Finland. The area boasts the most diversified supply

of grocery stores and specialty stores. The research area of Turku is

the third biggest urban area in Finland with nearly 300 000

inhabitants and a wide supply of services. The population of theresearch area of Joensuu is almost 100 000 and it is a typical

representative of a middle-sized urban area in Finland. The

Joensuu region has suffered from loss of population during the

past decades.

The data collection revealed that the same subjects came up in

various discussions. The differences between the research areas

were very small. Grocery stores and chains are very alike in

different parts of Finland and we believe this to be due to the very

small differences between the areas. The only differences were

found to concern shopping for specialty products, which is outside

the scope of this article.

The seven focus groups discussed following preformulated

themes:

1. The supply of grocery and specialty stores in the neighborhood

and in the region in general.

2. Shopping for groceries—where, how and when (food, deter-

gents and personal hygiene)

3. Shopping for specialty products—where, how and when?

4. Multi-purpose shopping trips.

5. Shopping as a leisure time activity.

This article concentrates on grocery shopping only. Each

discussion was preceded by a presentation of the topic of the

research, discussion themes, researchers, finance of the research

and the ethical principles of the research. The discussions were

tape-recorded. Two researchers attended every focus group: one

as a moderator and the other took the minutes and did the

recording. However, the moderator did not let the participants

engage in a free-flowing discussion, she stepped in to cut off

unproductive discussion. Most of the discussion time the

participants discussed actively and the moderator only listened

to the discussions. Sometimes the moderator asked more specific

questions. (e.g., Morgan, 1988; Bloor et al., 2001). On the whole,

discussions were successful.

The discussions were written down from the tapes. The data

were analyzed by using content analysis (e.g. Eskola and Suoranta,

1998; Mayring, 2004). First the grocery retail channels that the

participants used were identified. Likewise were identified the

primary and supplementary retail stores. The participants’ homes

and the grocery shops were located on maps using geographical

information systems. In that way it was possible to study thedistances between the homes and shops. According to these facts

it was possible to conceptualize where, when, in which way and

how often the participants did their grocery shopping.

After that the analysis continued by collecting the expressions

(words and terms) that the participants used to describe the

character and quality of a certain grocery retail channel. Informa-

tion was linked to every expression to indicate whether it was

connected to a primary, secondary or supplementary grocery

store. Some participants evaluated also grocery retail channels

they had not used. These expressions were also included in the

analysis.

All the expressions (words and terms) with enclosed informa-

tion were organized to strengths and weaknesses of each channel.

While doing this organizing, it was important to be conscious of the context and meaning of the expressions. For example, some

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. The centers of the research areas.



5/11

participants considered it a positive factor that a hypermarket had

a large area, whereas some felt negative about it. The context of

the expression revealed what the participant really meant. The

strengths and weaknesses of each channel were first divided into

three dimensions presented by Morschett et al. (2006) and

thereafter further up to following groups (e.g., Berman and Evans,

2001), in order to make it easier to analyze and compare the retail

channels:

(a) Price level

price level of products

(b) Quality of performance

quality of products

selection and assortment

service (customer service)

(c) Scope of convenience

location

shop environment (ease of patronizing)

business hours

All this information was summarized together in the tables (see

Appendix A). In every focus group more strengths than weak-nesses of each channel came up. Also Uusitalo (1998) has come up

with findings of more strengths than weaknesses in her research

regarding consumer perceptions of grocery stores, even though

her study was conducted only in one town in Finland and

restricted to the six specified stores. Unlike this study, Uusitalo

used a strictly structured questionnaire with a variety of

quantifications. However, in this research it was assumed that

consumers patronize stores they find competitive and satisfactory

to their needs, and that is the reason why a great number of

strengths came up.

4. Finnish retail grocery channels as the context of the study

In spite of the vision that channel structures in many cases

tend to develop towards network arrangements (see. e.g.,

Håkansson and Snehota, 1995), the following list of the main

grocery retailing channels in Finland confirms that the structure

obviously still is more close to the traditional channel than

network arrangements:

hypermarkets, supermarkets, neighborhood stores and conve-

nience stores, hard discounters

market places

market halls

direct sales outlets

kiosks

service stations patisseries, bakeries, sweet shops, butcher’s and fishmonger’s

shops

e-retailing

Fig. 2 shows the market shares of each retail channel in Finland.

In 2005, the total market share of all-sized supermarkets in

Finland accounted for almost half of the grocery retail business

(47%), the share of hypermarkets being 24% (A.C.Nielsen Finland

Oy, 2006).

About 80 per cent of Finnish grocery stores belong to different

grocery chains and these chains sell 94 per cent of all groceries

(A.C.Nielsen Finland Oy, 2006). Stores belonging to the chains are

very alike regardless of location. Also certain styles of stores, for

example supermarkets, are similar despite the chain they belongto. Therefore, it is assumed in the empirical part of the research

that the participants’ descriptions of a certain shop signify this

type of shops. By studying the strengths and weaknesses

simultaneously it was possible to form an opinion on how the

consumers perceive the competition between the different retail

channels (Koistinen et al., 2005).

5. Consumer observations on the grocery retail channels

All respondents in the study patronize one primary retail store,

and in addition, they use at least one retail store as a

supplementary channel to complete the primary one. Some of

the respondents even use several primary stores that compete

with each other. For example, two hypermarkets are named as

main stores, and the choice between them was made on the basis

of location. On working days the choice is made in favor of the

hypermarket located along the way home, but during weekends

the criteria for choice can be business hours, hobbies or location of

other stores.

On the basis of focus group discussions, the primary store is

most often a hypermarket. They are not the nearest grocery stores

to home, but their location is convenient by other criteria. The

second most often visited primary store is a supermarket that

locates near the consumers, especially if they live in densely

populated urban areas.

The supplementary grocery store is often the one that islocated as near as possible. The type of store varies from hard

discounters to neighborhood stores and even to kiosks. Those

consumers that are living in rural areas are used to the fact that

the nearest store may be from 2 to even 10 km from their homes.

Moreover, respondents stress the speed of shopping in connection

with the choice of a supplementary grocery store. However, there

is no one and only type of store used as the supplementary choice,

instead, that choice can be a niche channel such as a market place

or a market hall. Even Lidl, which entered the Finnish market in

2002 is considered one of the supplementary stores. All in all, the

respondents knew very clearly which stores they considered

supplementary grocery stores.

The focus groups produced a vast variety of characteristics

concerning each channel. They will be explained below in moredetail (see Appendix A).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. The market share of Finnish grocery stores in 2005 ( A.C.Nielsen Finland Oy,

2006).



6/11

5.1. Hypermarkets

The price level of hypermarkets inspired the respondents to

describe a vast variety of experience and opinions, and some of

them were inconsistent with each other. For example, typical

goods targeted for families with children are priced as low as

possible, but the others are perceived expensive. It is obvious that

hypermarket chains have chosen different price strategies. Twohypermarket chains tend to use the every day low pricing (EDLP)

format and one chain uses the promotional pricing (Hi-Lo pricing)

format, and two of them seem to have succeeded in their loyalty

program. The advantages of hypermarkets revealed by the earlier

research (e.g. Aalto-Setälä, 2002) are competitive price level and

cost-effectiveness. In spite of this, the price policies between the

chains vary in the light of our research and the consumers are well

aware of these variations. The other strengths of the hypermarkets

are the quality of products and wide assortment. Quality in this

case means that there is enough time before the date of expiry.

Moreover, the special diet meals and private label products were

highly appreciated.

Lack of personal service is a widely accepted factor in

connection with hypermarkets. In spite of this, many respondentswish to have more service available. The cashier is often the only

person to interact with. Selling food and clothes in the same store

appeals to some consumers but irritates others. Having to go

through other departments in order to reach the food department

is considered particularly irritating. When there is no public

transportation with a bus stop available, the location is considered

poorly planned. On the other hand, if there is a hypermarket close

to home, or speedy public connections, or enough parking space,

the consumer opinions turn more positive.

5.2. Supermarkets

Surprisingly, the respondents pay no attention to the price

level of supermarkets. From that we draw the conclusion that it isnot considered an important factor in choosing the supermarket,

or that the price level is already considered reasonable. We

explain this conclusion by the observation that both high and low

price levels are clearly a decisive factor, which came out in the

discussions concerning the different channels.

The advantages of the supermarkets are a wide and versatile

assortment and the availability of specialty and local products. In

a supermarket a consumer can buy everything in one go. Personal

service proved to be the major strength, e.g. in the form of

personal advice for preparing the food together with bountiful

meat and fish counters.

The size of the supermarkets is another strength: the

respondents evaluated the size optimal in this respect, as they

could do all their shopping within a reasonable time span.

5.3. Neighborhood stores and convenience stores

The biggest strengths of neighborhood and convenience stores,

i.e. stores less than 400 m2 of selling space, are their business

hours on Sundays and late nights on weekdays. On the other hand,

the most important weakness of this type of store is lack of fresh

food, such as bread, especially outside office hours. The long

business hours do not serve consumers if they cannot find the

food they prefer.

The product assortment of neighborhood and convenience

stores is considered sufficient as far as normal everyday products

are concerned even if there are not so many delicacies available.

The personal service is of high quality and the sales staff knowtheir customers. Especially in the countryside and small villages

these stores are favored so as to keep them going. In some cases,

the importance of social contacts is mentioned. Location and

small size are the main strengths of neighborhood and conve-

nience stores. They are nearby, thus making the shopping easy and

fast. Therefore, saving time together with store layout are among

the most important factors when these stores are discussed.

5.4. Hard discounters (Lidl)

The greatest advantage of Lidl proved to be reasonable, even

cheap prices. Typically, consumers find one or several products

with excellent quality–price ratio and these items attract them to

shop in Lidl. Examples of these attractive product lines are drinks,

sweets, snacks, nuts, fruits, vegetables, washing agents and

nappies. In addition, Lidl offers more unique alternatives com-

pared to Finnish retail chains.

The most important weakness of Lidl is the limited selection

and assortment. Therefore, Lidl alone cannot serve as the primary

store or the only store, but consumers have to complete their

shopping in other stores. Another weakness of Lidl is connected

with the lack of personal service, in addition to which the check-

out desks and the routines at check-out are different from those of the Finnish stores. One the other hand, it is easy to find the

products as every Lidl is organized the same way.

5.5. Kiosks and service stations

Kiosks and service stations have long business hours. Con-

sumers are able to shop in these stores, when all the other stores

are closed, but on the other hand, the price level is high compared

to other alternatives. When there are larger stores, e.g. conve-

nience stores, in service station areas, their price level seems to be

more reasonable.

Service stations are particularly important for small shopping

in rural areas. It is fast and easy to get the necessary groceries

from the station when you drive by. In many cases service stationsand kiosks are visited during the leisure time. The last minute

shopping before summer cottage or visits is a good example. The

typical shopping items are drinks, snacks, sweets, sausages and

ice cream.

5.6. Market places

Market places were favored because of the fresh food and

reasonable price level. Market places are ideal for buying season’s

specialties and in fact this is often the main reason to go to the

market place. Especially domestic strawberries and apples were

considered best when bought from the market places. In addition,

the special atmosphere in the market places attracts many

consumers.The main weakness of market places is the lack of car parking

facilities, because they are usually located in city centers. The

other weakness concerns business hours, which are quite short, as

market places close early in the afternoon. Shopping in the market

places centers around some high seasons, but also on weekends,

and for many consumers they represent quite an occasional

shopping place.

5.7. Market halls

Market halls are similar shopping options to market places.

Again, fresh food is considered the main strength of the market

halls, especially fresh meat, fish, vegetables, bread and all kind of

organic food. Particular value was set on skilled staff, who knowtheir assortment and the origins of the food well. If necessary,

ARTICLE IN PRESS



7/11

they can also teach consumers how to preserve, handle and cook

food. In addition, market halls often contain cafés, where you can

comfortably pop in while doing your shopping.

Similarly to market places, also market halls suffer from short

business hours as they are closed in the evenings. Often market

halls locate near market places in city centers and as a

consequence of this their additional weakness is lack of car

parking. In general, market halls are appreciated because of theirarchitecture; they are beautiful old buildings that form an

essential part of the cityscape.

5.8. Direct sales outlets

Farm shops close to farms are popular in rural areas. They are

worth visiting because of their low price level and fresh products

of high quality. The assortment varies according to season, but the

origin and growth environment is well known.

Some farm shops function without staff. In these cases

products can be paid to special money boxes, which characterizes

a strong trust in the visiting consumers. This system is

appreciated, as there are no fixed business hours, but consumers

can visit the stores whenever they pass by. Still, farm shops areseldom located near main roads, more often they are located at a

distance, but that does not bother the consumers. The reason for

this is that both the price level and the quality satisfy the

customers and they do not mind making a special effort to reach

the particular shop.

5.9. Patisseries and bakeries

Patisseries and bakeries are specialized in their own products

that may have a unique recipe. Often the assortment, selection

and even taste, freshness, raw-materials and looks are different

from the products of mass production. Often consumers with a

special diet find suitable alternatives from patisseries and

bakeries.

It is important for many consumers to buy the products of a

certain bakery, and if those products are not available in the usual

retail store, then they are bought separately from the particular

bakery or patisserie.

The good smell that attracts customers to buy something or

pop in for a cup of coffee is the main strength of bakeries and

patisseries. This is not mentioned in connection with other retail

channels. The experience concerning business hours varied; some

bakeries and patisseries were open for a limited time, but others

also during the weekends and late nights. The opportunity to use

bakeries and patisseries as a complementing outlet outside the

usual retail business hours and to have access to fresh products

every day is appreciated, in particular.

6. Channel competition or complementation from the

consumers’ viewpoint

Consumers tend to take their business mainly to hypermarkets

and supermarkets if their key choice criterion for deciding on a

retail channel is price level. Out of the supplementary choices that

display a more limited range of groceries but still provide several

product groups, stores such as Lidl, are the ones that compete

with low price level. Competing with price level is also common

for such supplementary shopping choices as market places and

direct sales outlets, which concentrate on selective product

groups.

If the key criterion is the high quality of all products on offer,the consumers favor hypermarkets and supermarkets as their

primary and supplementary choices. Quality is a competitive

factor for those supplementary choices, which offer individual

product groups, i.e. market halls, market places, direct sales

outlets, and bakeries and patisseries.

When wide assortment and selection is the decisive criterion for

the consumers, they will choose hypermarkets and supermarkets,

which then compete with each other for being the primary choice.

However, some of the supplementary shopping choices offer awide selection of individual product groups. For example, market

places and direct sales outlets compete with their choice of fresh

vegetables, fruits and berries.

When the decisive criterion is service, supermarkets compete

with neighborhood stores and convenience stores for being the

primary and supplementary shopping choices. Out of the

supplementary choices offering individual product groups, only

market halls can be said to offer top service. It is difficult to

determine the competition in terms of the location of the store. If

the consumers resort to walking, biking or public transportation,

the primary and supplementary shopping choices are mainly

neighborhood and convenience stores and supermarkets that are

within walking distance or along public transportation routes. If

the consumers have access to cars, the most likely shoppingchoices are hypermarkets and supermarkets, because the bulk of

these are easily accessible by car and they provide free parking.

The opinions of the consumers concerning the shopping

environment vary greatly both within a single retail channel as

well as between the different channels. Those consumers who

appreciate the efficiency of shopping choose either neighborhood

or convenience stores as well as supermarkets. Consumers who

consider shopping an enjoyment and a way of spending their

leisure time, will choose hypermarkets and supermarkets. Within

supplementary shopping choices for individual products, places

such as market places and market halls are able to provide an

attractive shopping environment.

If consumers prefer business hours above all, neighborhood

stores and convenience stores compete with supermarkets for

being the primary and supplementary shopping choices. Neigh-

borhood stores and convenience stores are open every day, also on

Sundays and late in the evenings. Supermarkets and hypermarkets

are not allowed to stay open on Sundays except during the

summer season and on five Sundays just before Christmas. The

business hours of hypermarkets did not generate any discussion.

Instead, the business hours of supplementary shopping choices

such as market places, market halls, patisseries and bakeries were

considered insufficient.

The focus group discussions revealed that shopping for food

and shopping for other products are not usually done at the same

store or even during the same shopping trip, i.e., Finnish

consumers do not prefer to connect grocery shopping with

shopping for specialty products. Only low price, small-in-size

specialty products are sometimes purchased in connection withgrocery shopping, i.e. everyday consumer goods such as socks,

underwear, books and music recordings (cf. Bromley and Thomas,

2002; Popkowski Leszczyc et al., 2004), which are usually

available in hypermarkets, because they are easy to pick up on

the way to the food department. When shopping for more

valuable and sizeable specialty products, consumers are likely to

make a separate shopping trip for that purpose and visit a

specialty store.

The reason for not combining the shopping trips is that

normally specialty stores are located far away from grocery stores.

Another reason is that groceries need to be taken home and put

into the freezer or refrigerator as quickly as possible. Furthermore,

large and expensive specialty products, such as household

appliances, need time and concentration in order for theconsumer to choose the most suitable product.

ARTICLE IN PRESS



8/11

Finnish consumers are rather loyal to the retail channels they

have chosen. They are also loyal to their supplementary choices,

even if they use a variety of them, they know exactly what to get

in each shop. To change the store where the everyday grocery

shopping is done, is a decision that is not made in a haste. In a

familiar store with a convenient location, it is very easy and

efficient to shop when the consumer knows exactly where to find

the right products. The respondents criticize moving productdisplays from one place to another inside the stores, as it takes

some time to find the products again. Some respondents are more

understanding if, as a result, the displays will be more logically

organized afterwards.

The study shows that the choice of the retail channel of big

households is more likely to be affected by the various loyalty

programs and cards than the choice made by smaller households.

The reason for this is the way these programs work, i.e. the more

you buy, the more you benefit from the loyalty card. Small, and

especially single-person households, feel that the volume of their

purchases will never add up to any significant benefits. Conse-

quently, for these households, it is less important to favor any

particular chain.

7. Conclusions and discussion

When consumers are shopping they use several channels, and

retailers have made it easy for them to move between alternative

channels. Variables that promote multi-channel shopping beha-

vior are time poverty, satisfaction with local offerings, community

attachment and shopping criteria ( Johnson et al., 2006).

In this study, consumers favor primarily hypermarkets and

secondarily supermarkets as their main choices for grocery

shopping. This is the expected result, as the market share of this

kind of large retail units has grown in Finland since the end of the

1980s (Koistinen and Vesala, 2006). The most frequently visited

supplementary choices are the neighborhood stores and conve-

nience stores close to home. Other retail channels (e.g. market

places, market halls, kiosks, service stations) are only used as

supplementary choices.

On the basis of the present study, it can be concluded that

when the key criteria for choosing the primary grocery retailing

channel are price, quality, selection and assortment, and shopping

environment, the main choices are hypermarkets and super-

markets. If the most important criteria are service, shopping

efficiency and accessibility on foot or by public transportation, the

first choices of the consumers are neighborhood and convenience

stores and supermarkets. The study confirms that supermarkets

compete with both hypermarkets, and neighborhood and con-

venience stores.

During the past few years, the retail groups in Finland have

built new hypermarkets, expanded old hypermarkets and in-creased the supply of specialty products in hypermarkets. In other

words, the retailing business has assumed that the consumers

want to connect grocery shopping with shopping for specialty

products. This study shows that this is often not the case.

Supermarkets, which mainly supply groceries, proved to be the

most competitive choice from the consumers’ viewpoint. Accord-

ingly, the retail groups in Finland should seriously reconsider their

store strategy, especially in connection with strategic positioning

(see e.g., Yiu and Yau, 2006). Following the example of

municipalities and provincial federations, also retailers should

carefully consider the type and size of unit needed for each

planned location. When the land use plans have provided space

for large retail units, this has normally meant building hypermar-

kets. However, since the Ministry of Environment endeavors tomake the urban structure more compact instead of decentralized,

and since the size of Finnish households is constantly decreasing,

and as consumers do not want to combine grocery shopping with

shopping for specialty products, it might be that in the future,

supermarkets will be the most competitive choice in the grocery

retail markets. It is possible to plan supermarkets of the size

which the consumers feel can offer them a sufficiently diversified

supply of products. In addition to this, supermarkets are smaller in

size than hypermarkets and thus it is easier to include them in thecompact urban structure, whereas hypermarkets often need to be

located outside urban centers where they are only accessible by

car.

It can be concluded that Finnish consumers are used to multi-

channel choices and they are capable of taking advantage of

channel competition strategies. In addition, the empirical results

show that the cost-based strategy is not dominating, but

consumers value other criteria too. Quality and assortment in

particular came up in each channel. Therefore, there is room for

the other two strategy dimensions, quality of performance and

scope of convenience, in the retailing markets. The quality for

consumers means fresh food with low or reasonable price. Extra

services and long business hours are found attractive, whereas

consumers’ attitudes towards location were divided; store shouldeither be close to home or at a distance with free car parking.

This study reveals quite many differences between grocery

retail channels. This differs from the results of the study by

Pitkäaho et al. (2005) where all five studied channel types come

close to each other when choice criteria are compared. For

example, location near home is the most important attribute of all

channels in the research of Pitkäaho et al. (2005), whereas in this

study location dominates only in connection with neighborhood

stores. Hypermarkets’ and supermarkets’ locations are described

with such expressions as ‘on the way home’ and ‘easy access by

car’. In addition, focusing as a strategic choice seems to work very

well in the Finnish market, particularly when it is connected to

choosing the supplementary store, such as market places and

market halls. This is quite an opposite view compared to the one

in the study of Uusitalo (1998).

According to our study Finnish consumers are rather loyal

shoppers and they are also active in using loyalty cards. However,

in reality the cards are so popular that it is usual to have two–five

loyalty cards in each household. This phenomenon refers to

‘floating customers’ (see Gensler et al., 2007) and it is about time

that retail chains develop their loyalty programs further in order

to tie their customers in more closely. Particular attention should

be paid to catering for smaller households, as their number is

increasing every year. The amount of one- and two-person

households is already 70 per cent of Finnish households. In

addition, one of the retailers’ primary goals in today’s competitive

environment is to engage customers by keeping them interested

in their store ( Jones and Reynolds, 2006). That can be done e.g. by

organizing special offers and various campaigns with specialthemes.

Changes in working hours and leisure time are influencing the

preferences of consumers, their flexibility and individualization

(Cuthbertson et al., 2006). The growth of information and

communication technologies in the society may lead to increasing

opportunities for e-commerce and home deliveries (Cuthbertson

et al., 2006). So far consumers prefer traditional shopping options

because of higher prices and problems with logistic arrangements

in e-commerce.

One issue we did not discuss in this article is the motivation

behind channel choice. Typically research in shopping distin-

guishes between two different orientations: economic shopping

on one hand and recreational shopping on the other (Bäckström,

2006). Economic shopping refers strongly to the fact that groceryretailing is a necessity for most consumers. In recreational

ARTICLE IN PRESS



9/11

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table A1

Strengths Weaknesses

Consumers accounts of hypermarket as a choice for shopping for food

Price level Reas onable p rice level, esp ecially in t he p rodu ct s necessary for

families with children, and gluten-free products

High price level; only limited advantage of loyalty card

Quality Fresh food; quick turnover; enough shelf life

Selection and assortment Wide selection/supply of goods; food, clothes and house ware

available in one store; availability of special products, privatelabel products, organic food, special fruits, etc.

Food, clothes and house ware available in one store; too wide

selection/supply of goods

Service (customer service) Customer-friendly checkout; additional services such as

chemist’s, off-license ; tasting of products

Not enough salespersons/shop assistants; lack of an armchair

service; queuing at rush hour; wipes out corner shops

L ocation Easy a cce ss by c ar; o n the way home ; al ong the bus route; next

to public services

Only accessible by car

Shop environment Capacious and free car park; perfect for strolling; spacious and

convenient atmosphere; safe; easy to patronize with children;

free public facilities

Unattractive car park; layouts differ between stores belonging

to the same chain; the placing of the articles changes too

often; shopping takes too much time in the large store; rush

hours; massive shopping trolleys; unpleasant color scheme

Business hours

Consumers accounts of supermarket as a choice for shopping for food

Price level Only limited advantage of loyalty card

Quality Fresh food, quick turnover, enough shelf life

Selection and assortment Wide selection/supply of goods, special food products, local

food products, private label productsService (customer service) High standard of service; not only self-service; polite personnel Queuing at rush hour

Location On the way home or to hobbies

Shop environment Nice layout; comfortable size, not too large; capacious car park The placing of the articles changes too often; narrow aisles

Business hours Long business hours

Consumers accounts of neighborhood stores and convenience stores as a choice for shopping for food

Price level Suitable offers Only limited advantage of loyalty card; high price level

Quality Fresh food, quick turnover, enough shelf life Slow turnover, outdated products

Selection and assortment Wide selection/supply of goods; private label products Skeletal selection/supply of goods, especially organic food;

service counters unattended in the evenings

Service (customer service) High standard of service, familiar Sales personnel Low standard of service

Location Near home; within walking or cycling distance from home

Shop environment Quick shopping; easy to patronize with children; the placing of

the articles is easy to learn and shopping list can be made

according to the placing of the articles

Business hours Ope n on Sundays and late in the evenings

Consumers accounts of hard discounters (Lidl) as a choice for shopping for food

P rice leve l Low price l evel; so me products are inexpensive Price–quality ratio is good o nly in c ertain products

Quality Food pr od ucts wit h diff er ent t as te; suf ficient salt con tent Cold cuts cont aining a lot of f at ; cou nt ry of manuf acture is n ot

stated

Selection and assortment Patronizing for a change; products from abroad; products from

Finland

Skeletal selection/supply of goods, especially products from

Finland

Service (customer service) Low standard of service; not taking part in the bottle recycling

system; different check-out system; queuing

Location Location outside the city center

Shop environment Exotic, foreign grocery store; the placing of the articles is the

same in every store in every country

Insufficient car parks; narrow aisles; no shopping baskets;

cramped store layout; untidiness; mistreatment of the sales

personnel

Business hours

Consumers accounts of kiosks and service stations as a choice for shopping for food

Price level Relatively af ford ab le p rice level in th e grocery sh op s adjacen t t o

service stations

High price level

QualitySelection and assortment

Service (customer service) Easy and quick to patronize

Location

Shop environment

B us iness hours Long b usiness hour s, open when grocery s tores are closed

Consumers accounts of market places as a choice for shopping for food

Price level Low price level

Quality Fresh food

Selection and assortment Organic food; local food; specialties from the province; fruits,

berries and vegetables (seasonal products); market events

Service (customer service)

Location Far away from home for carrying a heavy shopping bag

Shop environment Good atmosphere Insufficient car parks

Business hours Insufficient business hours

Consumers accounts of market halls as a choice for shopping for foodPrice level Low price level High price level



10/11

shopping elements like social aspects, atmosphere, store design,

display and layout are associated with in-store experiences

(Bäckström and Johansson, 2006). The reason why consumers

shop will definitely affect which channel they choose and,

therefore, this issue should be included in future retail channel

studies. This is confirmed in the study by Cottet et al. (2006) that

also revealed that atmosphere, service and store employees

increase the shopping value most. Our study contains consumers’

opinions on service, and in some channels evaluations of atmo-

sphere, but leaves employees outside the scope of the study.

Opinions are described in terms like ‘customer-friendly’, ‘polite

personnel’ or ‘familiar personnel’. On the other hand, positiveatmosphere seems to contain free public facilities, free car

parking, nice layout, quick shopping, café, etc.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of this

journal for their valuable comments that improved the structure

and content of this article. Editor-in-Chief Harry Timmermans

earns special thanks for his guidance during the review and

publication process.

Appendix A

See Table A1 for the strengths and weaknesses of different

retail channels—consumers accounts of different retail channels

as choice for shopping for food.

References

Aalto-Setälä, V., 2002. The effect of concentration and market power on foodprices: evidence from Finland. Journal of Retailing 78 (3), 207–216.

Aalto-Setälä, V., Kinnunen, J., Koistinen, K., 2004. Reasons for high food prices insmall market areas: the case of the Å land Islands. Agribusiness: AnInternational Journal 20 (1), 17–29.

A.C.Nielsen Finland Oy, 2006. Market trends.Anderson, T., Hosten, D., Latimore, D., 1996. Balancing customer needs in retail

banking distribution. McKinsey Quarterly (1), 180–182.Andersson, U., Johanson, M., Silver, L., 1996. What’s up in distribution and

marketing channels: an analysis of three concepts frequently applied in

marketing research. In: Proceedings of the 12th IMP Conference, 5–7September, Karlsruhe, pp. 699–727.

Barbour, R.S., Kitzinger, J. (Eds.), 1999. Developing Focus Group Research: Politics,Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, London.

Berman, B., Evans, J.R., 2001. Retail Management: A Strategic Approach, eighth ed.Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Birgelen, M.van., Jong, A.de., Ruyeter, K.de., 2006. Multi-channel service retailing:the effects of channel performance satisfaction on behavioral intentions.

Journal of Retailing 8 2 (4), 367–377.Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., Robson, K., 2001. Focus Group in Social

Research. Sage Publications, London.Bromley, R., Thomas, C., 2002. Food shopping and town centre vitality: exploring

the link. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and ConsumerResearch 12 (2), 109–130.

Bucklin, R.E., Schmalensee, D.H., 1987. What has changed and why. In: Bucklin, R.E.,Schmalensee, D.H. (Eds.), Viewpoints on the Changing Goods DistributionScene, Summary of a Marketing Science Institute Conference, pp. 4–8.

Bäckström, K., 2006. Understanding recreational shopping: a new approach.International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 16 (2),143–158.

Bäckström, K., Johansson, U., 2006. Creating and consuming experiences in retailstore environments: comparing retailer and consumer preferences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13, 417–430.

Conant, J., Smart, D., Solano-Mendez, R., 1993. Generic retailing types, distinctivemarketing competencies, and competitive advantage. Journal of Retailing 69(3), 254–279.

Cottet, P., Lichtle, M.C., Plichon, V., 2006. The role of value in services: a study in aretail environment. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23 (4), 219–227.

Cronin Jr., J., Baker, T.L., Hawes, J.M., 1994. An assessment of the role performancemeasurement of power-dependency in marketing channels. Journal of Business Research 30, 201–210.

Cuthbertson, R., Islei, G., Franke, P., Cetinkaya, B., 2006. What will the best retailsupply chains look like in the future? European Retail Digest 50 (Feature),

7–15.Dowdell, S., 2006. Changing channels. Progressive Grocer 85 (6), 78–80.Ellis, B., Kelley, S., 1992. Competitive advantage in retailing. The International

Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 2 (2), 381–396.Eskola, J., Suoranta, J., 1998. Johdatus Laadulliseen Tutkimukseen [Introduction to

Qualitative Research]. Vastapaino, Tampere.Falvey, J., 1988. Customer service: who delivers? In: Lovelock, C. (Ed.), Managing

Services, Marketing, Operations and Human Resources. Prentice-Hall, London,pp. 277–279.

Gaski, J.F., 1984. The theory of power and conflict in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing 48 (Summer), 9–29 .

Gensler, S., Dekimpe, M.G., Skiera, B., 2007. Evaluating channel performance inmulti-channel environments. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14,17–23.

Hardy, K.G., Magrath, A.J., 1988. Marketing channel management. StrategicPlanning and Tactics. Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview, IL.

Harris, L., Ogbonna, E., 2001. Competitive advantage in the UK food retailing sector:past, present and future. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8,157–173.

Håkansson, H., Snehota, I., 1995. Developing Relationships in Business Networks.Routledge, London.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table A1. (continued )

Quality Fresh food

Selection and assortment Wide selection/supply of goods; meat; fish; vegetables; organic

food; bread

Service (customer service) High standard of service; nice café

Location

Shop environment Pos sibility t o s it d own f or a cup of cof fee

Business hours Insufficient business hours

Consumers accounts of direct sales outlets as a choice for shopping for food

Price level Low price level

Quality Fresh, high quality food

Selection and assortment Organic food; berries; vegetables


Location

Shop environment

Business hours

Consumers accounts of patisseries and bakeries as a choice for shopping for food

Price lev el Some products have goo d prices for second rate quality

Quality Fresh food

Selection and assortment Special products; products made to order; cakes


Location Within walking distance

Shop env ironment Lovely scent attracts customers

Business hours Open at weekends Insufficient business hours



11/11

Johnson, K.K.P., Yoo, J-J., Rhee, J., Lennon, S., Jasper, C., Damhorst, M.L., 2006. Multi-channel shopping: channel use among rural consumers. International Journalof Retail & Distribution Management 34 (6), 453–466.

Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., 2006. The role of retailer interest on shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing 82 (2), 115–126.

Juttner, U., Wehrli, H.P., 1994. Relationship marketing from a value systemperspective. International Journal of Service Industry Management 5 (5), 54–73.

Järvinen, R., 1998. Service channel relationships. The dyadic relationships betweenservice producers and service intermediaries. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis,

no. 625. Tampere. Järvinen, R., 2001. Monikanavamallit palvelutoimialoilla [Multichannel models inservice sector]. In: Järvinen, R., Grönroos, C. (Eds.), Palvelut ja AsiakassuhteetMarkkinoinnin Polttopisteessä [Services and Customer Relationships in theFocus of Marketing]. Kauppakaari, Vantaa, pp. 28–41.

Järvinen, R., Lehtinen, R., 1997. From service channels to service delivery processes.Unpublished Working Paper.

Järvinen, R., Lehtinen, R., 1998. Viewing final customers in distribution channels.Paper presented in Fifth International Conference of Recent Advances inRetailing and Services Science, 25–28 August, Baveno, pp. 1–16.

Knee, D., Walters, D., 1985. Strategy in Retailing: Theory and Application. PhilipAllan, Oxford.

Koistinen, K., Vesala, T., 2006. Päivittäistavarakaupan Rakennemuutos SuomenKeskeisillä Kaupunkiseuduilla 1995–2003 [Structural Change within GroceryRetailing in Prominent Finnish Urban Areas 1995–2003]. National ConsumerResearch Centre, Publications 6/2006, Helsinki.

Koistinen, K., Vesala, T., Marjanen, H., 2005. Jakelukanavien Välinen KilpailuSuomen Päivittäistavaramarkkinoilla Sekä Eräillä Erikoiskaupan Toimialoilla[Channel Competition in Finnish Grocery Retailing and in Some Areas of

Specialty Retailing—

Consumer View]. National Consumer Research Centre,Publications 7/2005, Helsinki.

Kotler, P., 1995. The new paradigm: what’s really happening out there? MarketingMay, 20–23.

Light, D.H., 1988. A guide for new distribution channel strategies for service firms.In: Lovelock, C. (Ed.), Managing Services. Marketing, Operation and HumanResources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ pp. 114–124.

Marjanen, H., 1997. Distance and store choice. Publications of the Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Series A-4: 1997, Turku.

Mayring, P., 2004. Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick, U., von Kardorf, E., Steinke,I. (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London.

McGoldrick, P.J., Collins, N., 2007. Multichannel retailing: profiling the multi-channel shopper. International Review of Retail, Distribution and ConsumerResearch 17 (2), 139–158.

Morgan,D.L.,1988.Focus Group as Qualitative Research. SagePublications, California.Morganosky, M.A., 1997. Retail market structure change: implications for retailers

and consumers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 25(8), 269–274.

Moriarty, R.T., Moran, U., 1990. Managing hybrid marketing systems. HarvardBusiness Review November–December, 146–155.

Morschett, D., Swoboda, B., Schramm-Klein, H., 2006. Competitive strategies inretailing—an investigation of the applicability of Porter’s framework for foodretailers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13, 275–287.

Narus, J.A., Anderson, J.C., 1996. Rethinking distribution: adaptive channels.Harvard Business Review July–August, 112–120.

Park, J., Lennon, S.J., 2006. Psychological and environmental antecedents of impulse buying tendency in the multichannel shopping context. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23 (2), 58–68.

Pitkäaho, M., Uusitalo, J., Marjanen, H., 2005. Ostosmatkojen suuntautuminen ja

ostopaikan valintakriteerit Turun seudulla vuosina 2001–2003—

Mylly-pro- jektin toinen vaihe [Shopping trips and store choice criteria in Turku area in2001 and 2003—second phase of the Mylly-project]. Publications of the TurkuSchool of Economics and Business Administration, Series Discussion andWorking Papers 3: 2005, Turku.

Popkowski Leszczyc, P.T.L., Sinha, A., Sahgal, A., 2004. The effect of multi-purposeshopping on pricing and location strategy for grocery stores. Journal of Retailing 80, 85–99.

Porter, M.E., 1982. Competitive Strategy. Macmillan, New York.Raijas, A., 1997. The Consumer’s Choice of Grocer’s Shop—A Comparison between

Two Metropolitan Areas in Finland and Norway. National Consumer ResearchCentre, Publications 6/1997, Helsinki.

Rapp, S., Collins, T., 1987. MaxiMarketing: The New Direction in Advertising,Promotion and Marketing Strategy. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Salmon, W.J., 1987. What the changing distribution environments means. In:Bucklin, R.E., Schmalensee, D.H. (Eds.), Viewpoints on the Changing ConsumersGoods Distribution Scene. Summary of a Marketing Science InstituteConference, pp. 36–39.

Schwartz, G., 1965. Nature and goals of marketing science. In: Schwartz, G. (Ed.),

Science in Marketing. Wiley, New York, pp. 1–19.Statistics Finland, 2008. Families 2006 /http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/perh/

2006/perh_2006_2007-05-31_tie_001_en.htmlS.Stern, L.W., 1987. The changing power structure and channel strategy. In: Bucklin,

R.E., Schmalensee, D.H., (Eds.), Viewpoints on the Changing Consumer GoodsDistribution Scene, Summary of a Marketing Science Institute Conference,pp. 32–35.

Stern, L.W., El-Ansary, A.I., 1992. Marketing Channels. Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Uusitalo, O., 1998. Consumer Perceptions of Grocery Stores. Jyväskylä Studies inComputer Science, Economics and Statistics, vol. 44. University of Jyväskylä,

Jyväskylä.Walters, D., Knee, D.,1989. Competitive strategies in retailing. Long Range Planning

22 (6), 74–84.Weitz, B., Jap, S.D., 1995. Relationship marketing and distribution channels. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 (4, Fall), 305–320.Wortzel, L., 1987. Retailing strategies for today’s mature marketplace. Journal of

Business Strategy 8 (Spring), 45–56.Yiu, C., Yau, Y., 2006. An ecological framework for the strategic positioning of a

shopping mall. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property 50 (4), 270–280.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/perh/2006/perh_2006_2007-05-31_tie_001_en.htmlhttp://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/perh/2006/perh_2006_2007-05-31_tie_001_en.htmlhttp://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/perh/2006/perh_2006_2007-05-31_tie_001_en.htmlhttp://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/perh/2006/perh_2006_2007-05-31_tie_001_en.html

Documents

sfdsdagfdhgfhgj