Consumer demographics, storeattributes, and retail format

choice in the US grocery marketJason M. Carpenter and Marguerite Moore

Department of Retailing, University of South Carolina, Columbia,South Carolina, USA

Abstract

Purpose – To provide a general understanding of grocery consumers’ retail format choice in the USmarketplace.

Design/methodology/approach – A random sample of US grocery consumers (N ¼ 454) wassurveyed using a self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques(regression, ANOVA) were used to evaluate the data.

Findings – Identifies demographic groups who frequent specific formats (specialty grocers,traditional supermarkets, supercenters, warehouse clubs, internet grocers) and examines storeattributes (e.g. price competitiveness, product selection, and atmosphere) as drivers of format choice.

Research limitations/implications – The results included in this research were gathered andreported on an individual format basis. In order to capture consumer choices across a range of groceryretail formats, forcing respondents to compare formats was not initiated. In addition, data pertainingto whether consumers had access to each and every type of format in the study were not collected.Examination of how dimensions of consumer access limit or expand retail patronage behavior couldalso be highly beneficial to grocery retailers.

Practical implications – This research provides grocery retailers that operate within the USAspecific knowledge of the attributes that consumers consider to be most important when makingformat choices (e.g. cleanliness, price competitiveness, product assortment, courtesy of personnel), andidentifies the demographic characteristics of these consumers. The results suggest marketing strategyimplications for grocery retailers that operate in the US market. As competition in the sector continuesto evolve and consumer demographics change within the US market, understanding theconsumer-format choice linkage will be critical to retailer performance in the industry.

Originality/value – This exploratory study uses demographics and store attributes as a frameworkfor profiling consumers by their ultimate retail format choice. The paper is unique because there arefew similar empirical studies focused on the US grocery sector.

Keywords Retailing, Retail trade, Demographics, Store ambience, Consumer behaviour,United States of America

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionCompetition in US grocery retailing has reached an unprecedented level of intensity.A recent series of consolidations and mergers, coupled with the emergence of new retailformats (e.g. supercenters and internet-only grocers) has radically modified thecompetitive landscape of the sector (US Department of Commerce/International TradeAdministration, 2000). Much to the dismay of traditional supermarket retailers, fulland/or partial lines of grocery products can now be found at supercenters such asWal-Mart, K-Mart, and Target, as well as in other retail formats (e.g. specialty grocers,internet retailers, drug stores). Grocery products are also being offered online, although

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

IJRDM34,6

434

International Journal of Retail &Distribution ManagementVol. 34 No. 6, 2006pp. 434-452q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-0552DOI 10.1108/09590550610667038

growth in this format is considerably slower. Supermarket retailers believe thatconsumer cross-shopping among these formats poses a serious threat to traditionalgrocery stores (Gose, 2002; Progressive Grocer Report of the Grocery Industry, 1999;Taylor, 2003).

Supercenters possess several key competitive advantages in comparison totraditional supermarkets, including the ability to sell items at lower prices and theability to offer consumers the convenience of one-stop shopping. Likewise, specialtygrocers are using strategies such as product assortment differentiation and customerrelationship management to create and serve niche markets (Hansen and Solgaard,2004). In response to these competitive threats, traditional grocery retailers in the USare increasing the number of private-label products offered, providing more preparedmeal options, expanding their produce, deli, and meat departments, and creatingcustomer loyalty programs. However, according to recent trade reports, supercentersare consistently outperforming supermarkets (Berner et al., 2004; Taylor, 2003; USDepartment of Commerce/International Trade Administration, 2000; Coleman, 1997).

In light of the competitive shifts in the industry, it is crucial for retailers to gain abetter understanding of the grocery consumer. Although there is a considerable bodyof literature that examines marketing issues in the grocery context, few recent studieshave attempted to characterize the US market in terms of consumers’ channel and/orformat choice and the reasons for their choice (i.e. store attributes). Instead, researchershave focused upon topics such as location modeling (Roy, 1994), product purchasepatterns (Kim and Park, 1997), business potential at retail sites (Smith and Sanchez,2003), and customer satisfaction and loyalty programs (Magi, 2003).

The purpose of this research is to provide a general understanding of groceryconsumers’ retail format choice in the US marketplace. To accomplish this purpose, weuse demographics as a framework for examination of consumer format choice acrossfive major retail formats in the domestic retail industry: specialty grocers, traditionalsupermarkets, supercenters, warehouse clubs and the emerging internet format. Inaddition, we investigate the desired store attributes of consumer groups who frequenteach format. By identifying the demographic characteristics and desired storeattributes of US grocery shoppers and linking these variables to format choice, weprovide a starting point for understanding the nature of patronage behavior in thedynamic US grocery market. This research provides grocery retailers that operatewithin the US specific knowledge of the attributes that consumers consider to be mostimportant when making format choices, and identifies the demographic characteristicsof these consumers. As competition in the sector continues to evolve and consumerdemographics change within the US market, understanding the consumer-formatchoice linkage will be critical to retailer performance in the industry.

Literature reviewConsumer demographics and retail format choiceIndividual characteristics of consumers influence their consumption behavior.Specifically, previous research has revealed a connection between demographiccharacteristics and choice of retail format. Crask and Reynolds (1978) compared thedemographic characteristics of frequent and non-frequent patrons of department storesand found that frequent patrons tended to be younger, more educated, and had higherincomes. Sampson and Tigert (1992) found that warehouse club members represent

US grocerymarket

435

an upscale market compared to the general population. Findings from the studyindicated that warehouse club members were more educated and had higher incomes.Later work by Arnold (1997) found significant differences between the demographicprofiles (e.g. age, education, household size) of large-format department store shoppersas compared to non-shoppers.

A few studies have examined the effect of consumer demographics on retail formatchoice in the grocery context. Zeithaml (1985) conducted a field study to examine theeffects of five demographic variables (gender, female working status, age, income,marital status) on supermarket shopping variables (e.g. shopping time, number ofsupermarkets visited weekly, amount of money spent). The study detected major shiftsin demographic characteristics of US grocery consumers and the author predicted thatthe traditional mass market for grocery products in the US would break into variousmarket fragments as new retail formats emerged. In particular, the study emphasizedthat changes in the family unit (e.g. increases in the number of working females, maleshoppers, and single, divorced, or widowed households) would drive changes ingrocery patronage in the USA.

Stone (1995) compared the demographic profiles of supermarket shoppers andwarehouse club shoppers, finding that warehouse club members were younger, moreeducated, and had higher incomes. Fox et al. (2004) examined the effect ofdemographics on format choice across three formats: grocery stores, massmerchandisers, and drug stores. Findings from the study indicated that householdsize, income, and level of education influence consumers’ format choices.

Store attributes and retail format choiceThe relationship between store attributes and retail format choice is also examined inthe literature. Previous studies have shown that pricing, product assortment, andcustomer services are important factors in determining choice of format in thedepartment store context (Arnold, 1997; Sparks, 1995). In addition, store environmentand atmosphere appear to be influential in consumers’ format decisions (Baker et al.,1994; Donovan et al., 1994). The findings of studies published in the trade literature aresimilar, identifying product assortment, availability, convenience, and pricing assignificant drivers of format choice (Chain Store Age, 2004; Taylor, 2003).

Recent research linking store attributes to retail format choice within the US grocerymarket is less common. Early studies examined the effect of store environment ongrocery store selection and produced evidence of a relationship between the twovariables (Hansen and Deutscher, 1977; Doyle and Fenwick, 1974). Later, Williams et al.(1978) found evidence of relationships between pricing practices, customer servicepolicies, and format choice. A more recent study by Seiders and Tigert (2000) comparedsupercenter shoppers with traditional supermarket shoppers. Supercenter shoppersidentified low prices and range of product assortment as the primary reasons for theirformat choice. In contrast, traditional supermarket shoppers placed more importanceon location and product quality. Fox et al. (2004) identified frequency of storepromotion efforts and product assortment-related factors to be highly influential onformat choice in the grocery sector. Interestingly, price was shown to be lessinfluential. The findings also suggest that households making frequent purchases frommass merchandisers are also frequent patrons of supermarkets, suggesting that visitsto mass merchandisers do not substitute for visits to traditional supermarkets.

IJRDM34,6

436

A large study of the Danish grocery retailing industry by Hansen and Solgaard(2004) provides several important findings relevant to the current research. Productassortment was identified as the single most influential variable affecting thechoice of retail format across three formats: discount stores, hypermarkets andconventional supermarkets. In addition, price level and location appeared to beinfluential factors in terms of retail format choice. The study also found thatquality and service level did not appear to be influential across the formats.Similar results were produced in a study of the Greek grocery market (Baltas andPapastathopoulou, 2003) where product assortment, quality, store brands andlocation were key drivers of choice.

Cross shopping and retail format choiceThe importance of examining retail format choice is fueled by the evolution of formatsand frequency of cross shopping behaviors among consumers. The cross shoppingconcept was first discussed in the trade literature in the late 1970s (Cort andDominguez, 1977). Over the past 25 years researchers have altered the formal definitionof cross-shopping to represent different retail contexts. Cort and Dominguez (1977,p. 187) originally defined cross shopping as:

. . . when a single customer patronizes multiple types of retail outlets which carry the samebroad lines of merchandise, are operated by a single firm, and are designed to appealprimarily to different target segments.

Cassill and Williamson (1994, p. 2) augmented the original definition by defining theconcept as, “a single customer patronizing multiple types of outlets which carry thesame broad merchandise lines” to suit their conception of cross-shopping in apparelretailing. Yet another definition of cross-shopping in the literature includesSchoenbachler and Gordon ’s (2002) interpretation of cross-shopping as situationswhere consumers purchase goods through multiple channels operated by the samefirm (i.e. brick and mortar, internet, catalog). Regardless of context, the phenomenonrefers to the incidence of consumers shopping at different types of retailer formats forlike products also commonly referred to intra-type competition (i.e. two different retailformats that sell substitutable products or services).

The trade literature reports that cross shopping is widespread in the US grocerymarket (Morgenson, 1992; Corstjens and Corstjens, 1995). However, empirical workthat examines the cross-shopping phenomenon within the grocery context is limited.Fox et al. (2004) found that varying levels of assortment influenced consumerpurchases more than assortment or price. The same study found that frequentshoppers of mass merchandisers were also frequent shoppers of other formats(e.g. supermarkets, drug stores), which provides evidence that trips to massmerchandisers are not necessarily replacing trips to the supermarket. Galata et al.(1999) performed a store switching analysis based on a comparison of price formats(every day low pricing versus high-low promotional pricing) which demonstrated lowlevels of inter-format switching, but a great deal of intra-format switching. Davies(1993) studied patterns in cross-shopping for groceries as a means of supporting theidea of cooperative locations for similar retailers. Bucklin and Lattin (1992) attemptedto model product category competition among grocery retailers as a means ofunderstanding the nature of within-category store competition.

US grocerymarket

437

In summary, the literature on format choice has been sporadic over the past30 years and has focused on a number of issues and retail shopping contextsincluding: within chain choice (Cort and Dominguez, 1977), within product sectorchoice (e.g. Cassill and Williamson), choices based upon marketing and storeattributes (Gehrt and Yan, 2004; Hansen and Deutscher, 1977) and multi-channelchoices (Schoenbachler and Gordon, 2002) both inside and outside of the grocerysector. Owing to the contextual nature of extant findings in this area, the currentresearch is intended to establish a general understanding of grocery store formatchoice in the US market under current competitive conditions. The current researchincorporates demographics and store attributes in a comprehensive study of storeformat choice across five different retail formats in the US market. Though thestudy’s design draws upon extant findings explicated in the literature review, theresearch is conceived, planned and implemented from an exploratory perspective.Extant findings on store choice are tied to specific contexts and in many casescannot be applied in explaining general store choice behaviors, particularly in theUS grocery market. A lack of unequivocal findings directly relevant to the contextincluding its changing market conditions (i.e. supply and demand side) providefurther justification for an exploratory approach.

MethodologySampling methodData for the research is drawn from a larger study that examines general patronagebehaviors across multiple retail contexts. The original sampling method was designedto capture a representation of US demographic groups based first on age, then income,household size, and so forth. To control for size and cost of the survey, the samplingmethod focused upon providing representation among the demographic groups ratherthan exact proportion to the US population. Data were collected using a telephonesurvey among a sample of US consumers aged 18 years and older. Telephoneadministration was used for its effectiveness and efficiency reaching a range ofconsumer demographics within a short time period.

A market research firm with expertise in telephone survey methods was contractedto carry out data collection during September, 2004. The researchers worked with thefirm to procure a mailing list from Info USA (www.infousa.com) that was consistentwith the sampling criteria and to design the questionnaire for administration over thetelephone. Trained interviewers administered the survey during a three and a-halfweek period, including a two-day pretest (N ¼ 50) which was carried out prior to fulldata collection. The pretest allowed the researchers and the firm to coordinateissues related to the wording of questions and the time required to administerthe questionnaire. During the pretest, subjects indicated clear understanding of theformat choice examples as well as the format choice scales which range from “never” to“always” (Appendix). Interviewers made calls until a representative sample ofdemographic characteristics was achieved (N ¼ 562). A minimum of three attemptswere made to contact numbers drawn from the original sample in order to gain accessto the focal range of demographics. Among the overall sample, 454 respondentsindicated that they shopped for groceries for their household always, often or onoccasion. Therefore, this group of respondents (N ¼ 454) constitutes the final sample(N ¼ 454) for the analyses.

IJRDM34,6

438

MeasurementThe survey opened with a single screening question designed to probe groceryshopping behavior. Subjects were first asked to indicate how often they shop forgroceries for their household. Respondents who indicated that they “occasionally,”“often,” or “always” shop for groceries for their household continued with the survey,while those who answered “rarely” or “never” were allowed to exit the data collectionprocess.

Measures for the study’s variables were taken from previous research anddeveloped directly for the study. The importance of 15 store attributes was measuredon a five-point interval scale ranging from not important at all to extremely importantfollowing the example of Yavas (2003). The measures for format choice were developedfor the study using a five-point interval scale (i.e. always, often, occasionally, rarely,never) that measured how often consumers shop for groceries in specialty grocerystores, supermarkets, supercenters, warehouse clubs, and internet-only grocers. Inorder to define the formats, consumers were given examples of stores within eachcategory. For the specialty category, consumers were told to refer to a neighborhoodgourmet grocery store of their choice, and for supermarkets, Kroger, Safeway, Bi-Lo,Albertson’s, Publix, and Winn-Dixie were provided as examples. Examples ofsupercenters included Wal-Mart, Meijer, and Big K-Mart, while warehouse clubexamples included Sam’s Club, Costco, and BJ’s Wholesale. Internet-only grocerexamples included Peapod.com and Netgrocer.com. Demographic data includingincome, education, household size, age, race, marital status and gender were alsocollected (see Appendix).

AnalysisA combination of descriptive and inferential statistical techniques was used to analyzethe effects of demographics and store attributes on format choice. Linear regressionwas used to examine the effect of the continuous demographic variables on formatchoice including: age measured by years, income, education level, and household sizemeasured by total number in household. Stepwise regression models were fit for eachof the five levels of format choice using a minimum inclusion alpha of .05. Significancetests and beta estimates were used to evaluate the magnitude and direction of theeffect(s) of the continuous demographic variables on format choice.

One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the effect of thenominal variables including race and marital status on each of the five levels of formatchoice. T-tests were used to examine differences between males and females for the fivelevels of format choice. In cases that ANOVA models were significant, post-hoc testingusing Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) statistic were undertaken toinvestigate specific differences among the demographic variables and each of the fivelevels of the dependent variable for format choice. In addition, Levene’s test forhomogeneity of variance was evaluated for each of the ANOVA models as well as forthe t-tests.

A descriptive method using means and ranks was performed to determine theimportance of store attributes on format choice. The scale was applied in adisaggregated manner to retain the information inherent in each of the individual storeattribute items consistent with the approach of Yavas (1997) and others in the extantliterature related to the grocery sector (Fox et al., 2004; Hansen and Solgaard, 2004).

US grocerymarket

439

To facilitate the analysis and interpretation of store attributes, respondents weredivided into three groups within each of the five formats based upon their patronagefrequency: frequent shoppers (i.e. responded always and usually shop in format),occasional shoppers (i.e. responded occasionally shop in format) and infrequentshoppers (i.e. responded rarely and never shop in format). Means and ranks werecalculated across the store attribute scale for the frequent and occasional shoppergroups only. The infrequent shopper group was omitted from this portion of theanalysis to focus attention upon the consumers that are most likely to patronize the fivefocal retail formats.

ResultsSample characteristicsExamination of the respondents (N ¼ 454) indicated a majority of females (73 percent)compared to males (27 percent), which is inconsistent with the most recent US Censusdata (Table I). Ages of respondents ranged from 18 to 82, with a median age of 57 years.About 81 percent of the respondents were Caucasian, 9 percent were African American,3 percent were Hispanic, 1.5 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.3 percent wereNative American, and 3 percent were of mixed race. Income levels were normallydistributed across the sample with 23 percent of respondents indicating annualhousehold incomes less than $25,000, 30 percent indicating incomes between $25,000and $50,000, 28 percent indicating incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 and10 percent indicating incomes greater than $100,000. About 32 percent of respondentsindicated that they had some high school, a high school degree or an equivalent degree.About 54 percent of the sample indicated having completed some college (20 percent), atwo year degree (12 percent) or a four year degree (22 percent). An additional 13 percentreported graduate or professional degrees. A total of 39 percent of the sampleresponded that they represented single households: never married (23 percent),divorced, widowed or separated (16 percent) while 60 percent responded that theyrepresented married households. The average number of inhabitants per householdwas three (range: 1, 11, SD: 1.44). This number was slightly skewed towards the smallend which mirrors population trends in the US (US Census Bureau, 2000). Table Iprovides a comparison of the sample characteristics with US Census data (2000).

Consumer demographics and retail format choiceThe effects of the continuous demographic variables including age, income, level ofeducation and household size on the four individual format choices were examinedusing stepwise regression. The resulting regression models for all four dependentvariables were significant including distinct predictors at varying a levels. The overallregression model for specialty grocers yielded a significant statistic (F ¼ 9.583,p , 0.002) with income as its single significant predictor (b ¼ 0.144, t ¼ 3.096,p , 0.002) (Tables II and III). The regression model for the supermarket choice wasalso significant (F ¼ 3.947, p , 0.048, a ¼ 0.05) with household compositiongenerating a significant effect within the model (b ¼ 20.093, t ¼ 21.987,p , 0.048). Again, the regression model for supercenter was significant (F ¼ 15.136,p ¼ 0.000) with income (b ¼ 21.73, t ¼ 23.665, p ¼ 0.000), household composition(b ¼ 0.095, t ¼ 2.78, p , 0.038) and education (b ¼ 21.76, t ¼ 23.700, p ¼ 0.000)producing significant estimates as predictors of this format choice. The final regression

IJRDM34,6

440

model for the warehouse club format was also significant (F ¼ 9.478, p ¼ 0.000) withtwo significant predictors including income (b ¼ 0.173, t ¼ 3.371, p ¼ 0.000) andhousehold size (b ¼ 1.02, t ¼ 2.216, p , 0.027).

One-way analysis of variance was used to examine the effects of the fixed factordemographic variables including race and marital status on the four levels of formatchoice (Table IV). Among this portion of the analysis only a single significant modelemerged, the effect of race on the supercenter format choice. The one-way ANOVAmodel generated a significant estimate (F ¼ 2.772, p , 0.027). Tukey HSD tests were

Variable Level Frequency Percent US census percent

Gender Male 121 27 49.1Female 333 73 50.9Total 454 100 100

Age 18-19 10 2 7a

20-24 62 14 6.725-34 95 21 14.235-44 77 17 1645-59 101 22 18.260-74 100 22 10.375 þ 9 2 5.9Total 454 100 78.6Median 57 years 35.3 years

Race Caucasian 369 81.3 70African American 40 8.8 12.3Hispanic 14 3.1 11.5Asian/Pacific Islander 7 1.5 3Native American 6 1.3 .8Mixed 12 2.6 2.4Total 448 98.7b 100

Income (annual) Less than $25,000 105 23.1 28.6$25,000-$50,000 136 30 29.3$50,001-$100,000 127 28 29.7.$100,000 45 9.9 12.3Total 413 91b 100

Education No high school degree 13 2.9 19.6High school graduate 132 29.1 28.6Some college 92 20.3 21Two year degree 53 11.7 6.3Four year degree 101 22.2 15.5Graduate/professional degree 60 13.2 9Total 451 99.3b 100

Marital status Single, never married 103 22.7 27.1Married 274 60.4 54.4Separated 3 0.7 2.2Divorced 35 7.7 9.7Widowed 34 7.5 6.6Total 449 98.9b 100

Average household size 3 (mean) 2.59 (mean)

Notes: aUS Census data includes ages 15-19 in this category, but our sample includes those 18 andolder; bmissing values resulted in less than 100 percent response for variable

Table I.Sample characteristics as

compared to US CensusData (2000)

US grocerymarket

441

Mod

el/d

epen

den

tv

aria

ble

RR

2A

dju

sted

R2

Sta

nd

ard

erro

rof

esti

mat

eS

um

ofsq

uar

esd

fM

ean

squ

are

FS

ign

ifica

nce

Gourm

etspecialtya

0.14

40.

021

0.01

90.

891

Reg

ress

ion

7.60

11

7.60

19.

583

0.00

2*

*

Res

idu

al35

8.52

245

20.

793

Tot

al36

6.12

345

3Superm

arket

b0.

093

0.00

90.

006

1.46

1R

egre

ssio

n8.

420

18.

420

3.94

70.

048

*

Res

idu

al96

4.28

445

22.

133

Tot

al97

2.70

545

3Supercenterc

0.30

30.

092

0.08

61.

408

Reg

ress

ion

89.9

923

29.9

915

.136

0.00

0*

**

Res

idu

al89

1.83

445

0T

otal

981.

826

453

Warehouse

clubd

0.20

10.

040

0.03

61.

239

Reg

ress

ion

29.0

191

14.5

559.

478

0.00

0*

**

Res

idu

al69

2.55

045

21.

536

Tot

al72

1.65

945

3

Notes:

ap

red

icto

rs:

con

stan

tan

din

com

e;bp

red

icto

rs:

con

stan

tan

dn

um

ber

inh

ouse

hol

d;

c pre

dic

tors

:co

nst

ant,

edu

cati

on,

inco

me

and

nu

mb

erin

hou

seh

old

;dp

red

icto

rs:

con

stan

t,in

com

ean

dn

um

ber

inh

ouse

hol

d;

* a,

0.05

,*

* a,

0.01

,*

** a

,0.

001

Table II.Summary regressionmodels for effect ofdemographic variables onformat choice

IJRDM34,6

442

used to investigate specific differences in each racial group and their strength of choicefor the supercenter format (Table V). Tukey HSD indicated a specific differencebetween Caucasian respondents and African American respondents in their frequencyof patronage in supercenter formats (mean difference 2749, p , 0.019). The Levenetest for homogeneity of variances between race and supercenter format choice wasnon-significant (Levene ¼ 0.103, p ¼ 982).

The t-tests which examined the effect of gender on format choice across the fiveformat types indicated significant differences between males and females among theirchoices of the supercenter (t ¼ 23.871, p ¼ 0.000, mean difference, 20.59) andwarehouse club formats (t ¼ 22.381, p , 0.026, mean difference ¼ 20.29) (Table VI).All tests for homogeneity of variance were non-significant with the exception of thewarehouse club format choice (F ¼ 24.480, p , 0.035) in which case the t-statistic fornon-equal variances was interpreted. Given the significant findings associated withgender and the two format choices (supercenters and warehouse clubs), an additionalt-test was performed to examine whether the female respondents represented largerhouseholds compared to the male respondents. The difference in household size betweenthe two genders was significant (t ¼ 23.372, p , 0.001), with a non-significant Levenestatistic (F ¼ 0.109, p , 0.742). This test indicated that the females representedsignificantly larger households compared to the males in the sample.

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficientsModel/predictor variable B Standard error b t Significance

Gourmet specialtyConstant 1.272 0.101 12.646 0.000Income 0.087 0.028 0.144 3.096 0.002 * *

Education 0.083 1.705 0.089Household size 0.005 0.111 0.912Age 0.032 0.692 0.489

SupermarketConstant 3.813 0.153 24.946 0.000Income 0.045 0.950 0.343Education 0.036 0.750 0.453Household size 20.095 0.048 20.093 21.987 0.048 *

Age 0.066 1.350 0.178

SupercenterConstant 3.515 0.148 23.717 0.000Income 21.70 0.046 20.173 23.665 0.000 * * *

Education 20.219 0.059 20.176 23.700 0.000 * * *

Household size 0.097 0.047 0.095 2.078 0.038 *

Age 20.70 21.476 0.141

Warehouse clubConstant 1.577 0.179 8.801 0.000 * * *

Income 0.144 0.039 0.173 3.371 0.000 * * *

Education 0.019 0.381 0.704Household size 0.090 0.040 0.102 2.216 0.027 *

Age 0.076 1.564 0.119

Notes: *a , 0.05, * *a , 0.01, * * *a , 0.001

Table III.Predictor effects and beta

estimates fordemographic variables on

format choice

US grocerymarket

443

Store attributes and retail format choiceThe means and ranking of each store attribute by format are presented in Tables IIand III. Both frequent and occasional shoppers across all retail formats indicatedcleanliness as the single most important store attribute (Tables VII and VIII). Thesecond most important attribute among frequent shoppers for the specialty groceryformat, the supermarket format and the warehouse club format was product selection.Among frequent shoppers of the supercenter format, price competitiveness was thesecond most important store attribute, followed next by product selection. A total of 15respondents indicated that they were both frequent and occasional users of the internetchannel for groceries. Owing to very low response in this category, the Internet formatwas omitted from the analysis.

ModelIndependentvariable Dependent variable

Sum ofsquares df

Meansquare F Significance

Race SpecialtyBetween 0.994 4 0.248 0.305 0.874Within 365.130 449 0.813Total 366.123 453SupermarketBetween 12.507 4 3.127 1.462 0.213Within 960.198 449 2.139Total 972.705 453SupercenterBetween 23.666 4 5.916 2.772 0.027 *

Within 958.160 449 2.134Total 951.826 453Warehouse clubBetween 2.064 4 0.516 0.322 0.863Within 719.594 449 1.603Total 453

Marital status SpecialtyBetween 0.662 3 0.221 0.272 0.846Within 365.462 450 0.812Total 366.123 453SupermarketBetween 10.088 3 3.363 1.572 0.195Within 962.617 450 2.139Total 972.705 453SupercenterBetween 8.908 3 2.969 1.373 0.250Within 972.918 450 2.162Total 981.826 453Warehouse clubBetween 11.371 3 3.790 2.401 0.067Within 710.288 450 1.578Total 721.659 453

Note: *a , 0.05

Table IV.Analysis of variancemodels for effects of raceand marital status onformat choice

IJRDM34,6

444

Conclusions and discussionExamination of the demographic variables for their effect on the specialty groceryformat indicated income as the only significant predictor of patronage. The stepwiseregression model indicated that respondents with higher incomes were more likely toshop in specialty grocery stores. There was no indication among the data that the otherdemographics predicted or indicated a propensity to patronize this format. The top fivestore attributes for the small sample of frequent shoppers among the specialty groceryformat (N ¼ 14) are cleanliness, product selection, courtesy of personnel, crowding andprice competitiveness. Though price competitiveness was ranked lowest by thefrequent specialty store shopper, it remained one of the top five store attributes sought.Though the respondents indicated that product assortment and courteous personnelwere most important, price competitiveness remains an influential factor within thiscontext. Rankings for the specialty format were slightly different for respondentsamong the occasional shopper group (N ¼ 64) which indicated cleanliness, productselection, ease of access, courtesy of personnel and crowding as the top five storeattributes. As a whole, these results appear logical and agree with a typical specialtygrocery strategy with high service levels in terms of customer service and physicalfacilities.

Dependentvariable I (race) J (race)

Meandifference (I-J)

Standarderror Significance

SupercenterCaucasian African American 20.749 0.243 0.019 *

Hispanic 20.559 0.398 0.624Asian Pacific, NativeAmerican and other

20.154 0.302 0.986

AfricanAmerican

Hispanic 0.189 0.454 0.994

Asian Pacific, NativeAmerican and other

0.595 0.372 0.500

Hispanic Asian Pacific, NativeAmerican and other

0.406 0.488 0.921

Note: *a , 0.05

Table V.Tukey HSD tests for

differences among raceand supercenter format

choice

Levene’s test for equalityof variances T-tests for equality of means

Format F Significance T df Significance (2-tailed) Mean difference

Specialty 2.556 0.111a 0.925 452 0.355 0.088Supermarket 1.089 0.297a 1.191 452 0.234 0.185Supercenter 2.617 0.106a 23.871 452 0.000 * * * 20.596Warehouse club 4.480 0.035b 22.381c 452 0.026 * 20.299

Notes: aNon-significant Levene statistic assumes equal variances between gender groups; bsignificantLevene statistic indicates unequal between gender groups for Warehouse club; cequal variances notassumed; *a , 0.05; * * *a , 0.01

Table VI.Effect of gender on

format choice

US grocerymarket

445

Analysis of the demographic variables suggests that household size is a significantpredictor of patronage within the traditional supermarket category. The negative bestimate indicates that as household size decreases, supermarket patronage increases.Given the importance of accessibility motivations like crowding, parking facilities, and

Store attributeSpecialty grocers

N ¼ 14Supermarkets

N ¼ 454SupercentersN ¼ 194

Warehouse clubsN ¼ 129

Pricecompetitiveness 3.57 (5) 3.90 (3) 4.09 (2) 3.99 (3)Courtesy ofpersonnel 3.93 (3) 3.82 (5) 3.99 (4) 3.97 (4)Cleanliness 4.57 (1) 4.31 (1) 4.40 (1) 4.45 (1)Product selection 4.36 (2) 4.00 (2) 4.04 (3) 4.00 (2)Hours of operation 2.79 (9) 3.32 (10) 3.52 (10) 3.42 (9)Atmosphere 3.36 (7) 3.41 (9) 3.53 (6) 3.29 (10)Ease of access 3.29 (8) 3.75 (6) 3.87 (7) 3.88 (5)Security 3.93 (3) 3.59 (8) 3.89 (5) 3.80 (7)Parking facilities 3.43 (6) 3.63 (7) 3.85 (8) 3.70 (8)Crowding 3.71 (4) 3.83 (4) 3.80 (9) 3.83 (6)Presence of eatingplaces 2.57 (11) 2.47 (13) 3.85 (8) 2.42 (13)Special events 2.29 (12) 2.28 (14) 3.89 (5) 2.59 (14)Seats/rest area 2.64 (10) 2.68 (12) 2.95 (12) 2.99 (12)Ease of children 2.29 (12) 2.73 (11) 3.10 (11) 3.12 (11)

Note: Respondents were allowed to indicate that they were frequent shoppers of as many formats asthey desired. They were not forced to choose one format over another. Therefore, the numbers do notcorrespond directly with the sample size

Table VII.Means and ranks of storeattributes amongfrequent shoppers bychannel

Store attributeSpecialty

grocers N ¼ 64Supermarkets

N ¼ 71SupercentersN ¼ 111

Warehouseclubs N ¼ 129

Price competitiveness 3.73 (7) 3.96 (2) 3.74 (8) 3.87 (5)Courtesy of personnel 3.80 (5) 3.96 (2) 3.80 (4) 3.95 (3)Cleanliness 4.27 (1) 4.39 (1) 4.38 (1) 4.32 (1)Product selection 3.98 (2) 3.87 (3) 3.89 (2) 3.98 (2)Hours of operation 3.36 (10) 3.30 (9) 3.49 (10) 3.22 (4)Atmosphere 3.47 (9) 3.44 (8) 3.50 (9) 3.33 (8)Ease of access 3.94 (3) 3.86 (5) 3.83 (3) 3.91 (4)Security 3.55 (8) 3.75 (6) 3.77 (5) 3.65 (7)Parking facilities 3.84 (4) 3.92 (4) 3.75 (7) 3.83 (6)Crowding 3.81 (6) 3.73 (7) 3.76 (6) 3.91 (4)Presence of eating places 2.50 (13) 2.54 (12) 2.70 (13) 2.37 (12)Special events 2.30 (14) 2.45 (13) 2.54 (14) 2.34 (15)Seats/rest area 2.84 (11) 2.94 (11) 2.79 (12) 2.63 (11)Ease of children 2.67 (12) 3.04 (10) 2.95 (11) 2.80 (10)

Note: Respondents were allowed to indicate that they were frequent shoppers of as many formats asthey desired. They were not forced to choose one format over another. Therefore, the numbers do notcorrespond directly with the sample size

Table VIII.Means and ranking ofstore attributes amongoccasional shoppers bychannel

IJRDM34,6

446

ease of access, it appears that this format may appeal to the convenience orientedshopper. The regression model’s indication that household size decreases as patronageincreases could be interpreted to suggest that smaller households tend to patronizetraditional neighborhood markets rather than traveling to larger grocery shoppingvenues such as supercenters or warehouse clubs. The highest ranked store attributesamong frequent shoppers in the traditional supermarket format (N ¼ 454) arecleanliness, product selection, price competitiveness, crowding and courtesy ofpersonnel. The rankings of these attributes among occasional shoppers are the samewith the exception of the fourth and fifth most important, which are parking facilitiesand ease of access.

The regression model indicated that education, income and household size predictpatronage within the supercenter format. This finding appears to be consistent withconventional wisdom: as income and education decrease, the likelihood of shopping inthe supercenter format increases. Likewise, as household size increases, the likelihoodof shopping in this format increases. The ANOVA model indicated significantdifferences among racial affiliation and supercenter patronage. Focused contrastssuggest that this difference occurs specifically between the Caucasian and AfricanAmerican respondents in the sample. The African American respondents indicated asignificantly higher likelihood of shopping within this format as compared toCaucasians. Further, the t-test for gender indicated that females were significantlymore likely to patronize supercenters as compared to males. The findings related tosupercenter patronage appear to agree with popular logic for the most part:supercenters attract price oriented patrons with larger households. In addition, basedupon our sample these formats attract female and African American consumers ingreater numbers.

Cleanliness, price competitiveness, product selection, courtesy of personnel andsecurity are the top five store attributes among frequent shoppers (N ¼ 194) in thesupercenter format. Interestingly, the occasional shoppers (N ¼ 111) among thisformat ranked cleanliness, product selection, ease of access, courtesy of personnel andsecurity as the top five attributes. Price competitiveness was not ranked among theoccasional shoppers’ top attributes, indicating that these shoppers may be moreconcerned with product assortment.

Attention to deep inventory, price control and operational efficiency are already animportant operational component within the supercenter format type and shouldcontinue to be emphasized. In addition, the importance of catering to diverse consumergroups remains important in the supercenter format which attracts a diverse customerbase compared to traditional neighborhood markets that tend to draw on morehomogenous local and regional customer bases. Supercenters should consider diversityin staffing, product assortment and customer service. Given the growth of diversefamily oriented consumer groups in the USA such as Hispanics, diversity managementcould be an important competitive advantage for grocery formats in the comingdecade.

The regression model and its related b estimates for income and education indicatedthat as each of these demographic variables increased, patronage in the warehouseformat increased. Further, the t-tests for gender differences in format choice suggestedthat women were more likely to choose the warehouse club format to shop forgroceries compared to men. Additional investigation indicated that female respondents

US grocerymarket

447

represented significantly larger households compared to male respondents suggestingthat these consumers are likely carrying out household shopping duties. Cleanliness,product selection, price competitiveness, courtesy of personnel and ease of access werethe top five store attributes among frequent patrons in this format. Occasionalshoppers indicated a similar ranking of attributes: cleanliness, product selection,courtesy of personnel, and ease of access. The findings associated with the warehouseclub format suggest that consumers seek product variety and easy access as majormotivations. Further, it appears that higher income consumers frequent this venue andlikely expect a higher level of service compared to the supercenter customer.Warehouse clubs should focus on ease of access and service related to aidingconsumers in the logistics of their shopping experience particularly given the fact thatfemales appear to be more likely to choose this format. They may also considerintegrating upscale products and services into their offer given their higher incomeconsumer.

Overall, the results provide interesting insights into the US consumer’s choice ofgrocery format. With regard to store attributes, the fact that cleanliness was themost important attribute regardless of format was not surprising. The pricecompetitiveness attribute appeared to be most important among shoppers in thetraditional supermarket format and the supercenter format. Surprisingly, pricecompetitiveness did not rank among the top five attributes for occasional shoppersin the supercenter format or the specialty grocery format and ranked only fifthamong these shoppers for the warehouse format. While many assert that thegrocery industry is strongly driven by price competitiveness (Taylor, 2003), ourresults suggest that product selection and courtesy of personnel are also veryimportant in determining format choice.

Limitations and future researchThe results included in this research were gathered and reported on an individualformat basis. In order to capture consumer choices across a range of grocery retailformats, forcing respondents to compare formats was not initiated. Though we canmake general observations and predictions about the demographic variables and storeattributes that influence format choice, we cannot suggest the factors that influenceconsumer to choose one format over another. A useful addition to this area ofresearch would be to examine the situations under which consumers patronizedifferent grocery formats such as extensive shopping trips versus short shopping tripsor the accessibility of format types. Considering the constant evolution of retailformats, longitudinal studies could also be particularly helpful in this highlycompetitive arena.

The findings associated with format choice suggest that different shopping needslikely influence format choice. For example, the largest group of respondents indicatedfrequent or occasional patronage in the traditional supermarket format. Among thisgroup, frequency of patronage rose as household size decreased. Under whatcircumstances do smaller households frequent formats outside of their neighborhoodor regional markets? Do they plan for special shopping trips outside of their localeor do they choose not to patronize supercenters or warehouse clubs based uponhousehold size alone?

IJRDM34,6

448

We did not collect data pertaining to whether consumers had access to each andevery type of format in the study. For instance, we understand that Internet-basedgrocers operate in very few markets in the USA and are diffusing very slowly.Therefore, low response to the questions related to the internet channel was notsurprising. However, we do not know whether all respondents had access to each of theformat types which ultimately limits the applicability of our findings beyond thegeneral trends that were indicated by the data. Examination of how dimensions ofconsumer access limit or expand retail patronage behavior could also be highlybeneficial to grocery retailers.

References

Arnold, S. (1997), “Shopping habits at Kingston department sores: wave III: three years afterWal-Mart’s entry into Canada”, Report No. 3, Queen’s University School of Business,Kingston, July.

Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), “The influence of store environment on qualityinferences and store image”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 4,pp. 328-39.

Baltas, G. and Papastathopoulou, P. (2003), “Shopper characteristics, product and store choicecriteria: a survey in the Greek grocery sector”, International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 10, pp. 498-507.

Berner, R., Brady, D. and Zellner, W. (2004), “There goes the rainbow nut crunch”, BusinessWeek, No. 3892, p. 38.

Bucklin, R. and Lattin, J. (1992), “A model product category competition among groceryretailers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 271-93.

Cassill, N. and Williamson, N. (1994), “Department store cross-shoppers”, Journal of AppliedBusiness Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 88-97.

Chain Store Age (2004), “Age doesn’t affect buying patterns”, Chain Store Age, June, p. 33.

Coleman, C. (1997), “How grocers are fighting giant rivals”, The Wall Street Journal, Easternedition, March 27, p. B.1.

Corstjens, J. and Corstjens, M. (1995), Store Wars: The Battle for Mindspace and Shelfsp, Wiley,New York, NY, p. 0.

Cort, S. and Dominguez, L. (1977), “Cross-shopping and retail growth”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 187-92.

Crask, M. and Reynolds, F. (1978), “An indepth profile of the department store shopper”, Journalof Retailing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 23-33.

Davies, G. (1993), “Patterns in cross shopping for groceries and their implications forco-operation in retail location”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 4, pp. 91-101.

Donovan, R., Rossister, J., Marcoolyn, G. and Nesdale, A. (1994), “Store atmosphere and purchasebehavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 283-94.

Doyle, P. and Fenwick, I. (1974), “How store image affects shopping habits in grocery chains”,Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 39-52.

Fox, E., Montgomery, A. and Lodish, L. (2004), “Consumer shopping and spending across retailformats”, Journal of Business, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. S25-S60.

Galata, G., Randolph, E., Bucklin, R. and Hanssens, D. (1999), On the stability of store formatchoice, Working paper, Anderson School of at UCLA.

US grocerymarket

449

Gehrt, K. and Yan, R. (2004), “Situational, consumer, and retailer factors affecting internet,catalog, and store shopping”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-18.

Gose, J. (2002), “Supercenter showdown”, National Real Estate Investor, Vol. 44 No. 12, p. 14.

Hansen, R. and Deutscher, T. (1977), “An empirical investigation of attribute importance in retailstore selection”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 59-72.

Hansen, T. and Solgaard, H. (2004), New Perspectives on Retailing and Store Patronage Behavior,Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

Kim, B. and Park, K. (1997), “Studying patterns of consumers’ grocery shopping trip”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 501-17.

Magi, A. (2003), “Share of wallet in retailing: the effects of customer satisfaction, loyalty cardsand shopper characteristics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 97-106.

Morgenson, G. (1992), “Here come the cross-shoppers”, Forbes, December 7.

Progressive Grocer Report of the Grocery Industry (1999), Markets in Motion, April.

Roy, A. (1994), “Correlates of mall visit frequency”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 2,pp. 139-61.

Sampson, S. and Tigert, D. (1992), “The impact of warehouse membership clubs: the wheel ofretailing turns one more time”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and ConsumerResearch, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-58.

Schoenbachler, D. and Gordon, G. (2002), “Multi-channel shopping: understanding what driveschannel choice”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 42-53.

Seiders, K. and Tigert, D. (2000), “The impact of supercenters on traditional food retailers in fourmarkets”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 Nos 4/5,pp. 191-3.

Smith, D. and Sanchez, S. (2003), “Assessment of business potential at retail sites: empiricalfindings from a US supermarket chain”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution,and Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 37-58.

Sparks, L. (1995), “Customer service in retailing”, in Akehrst, G. and Nicholas, A. (Eds), RetailMarketing, Frank Call, London.

Stone, K. (1995), Competing with the Retail Giants: How to Survive in the New Retail Landscape,Wiley, New York, NY.

Taylor, R. (2003), “Top of mind: saving America’s grocers”, Brandweek, Vol. 44 No. 18,pp. 22-3.

US Census Bureau (2000), Census of the United States, available at: www.census.gov

US Census Data (2000), Census of the United States, available at: www.census.gov

US Department of Commerce/International Trade Administration (2000), US Industry & TradeOutlook (Retailing & Economic Trade Trends), Chapter 42, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Williams, R., Painter, J. and Nicholas, H. (1978), “A policy-oriented typology of groceryshoppers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 27-42.

Yavas, U. (2003), “A multi-attribute approach to understanding shopper segments”, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 541-8.

Zeithaml, V. (1985), “The new demographics and market fragmentation”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 49, pp. 64-75.

IJRDM34,6

450

Further reading

Bell, D., Ho, T. and Tang, C. (1998), “Determining where to shop: fixed and variable costs ofshopping”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 352-69.

Bellenger, D., Robertson, D. and Greenburg, B. (1977), “Shopping center patronage motives”,Journal of Retailing, No. 2, pp. 29-38.

Bhatnagar, A. and Ratchford, B. (2004), “A model of retail format competition fornon-durable goods”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 39-59.

Corstjens, J. and Corstjens, M. (1995), Store Wars, the Battle for Mindspace and Shelfspace, Wiley,New York, NY.

Dellaert, B., Arentze, T., Bierlaire, M., Borgers, A. and Timmermans, H. (1998), “Investigatingconsumers’ tendency to combine multiple shopping purposes and destinations”, Journal ofMarketing Research, May, pp. 177-88.

Finn, A. and Louviere, J. (1990), “Shopping center patronage models: fashioning a considerationset segmentation solution”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 3, pp. 259-75.

Grewal, D., Levy, M., Mehrotra, A. and Sharma, A. (1999), “Planning merchandising decisions toaccount for regional and product assortment differences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75No. 3, pp. 405-25.

Hortman, S., Allaway, A., Mason, J. and Rasp, J. (1990), “Multi-segment analysis of supermarketpatronage”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21, pp. 209-23.

Kirsche, M. (2004), “Convenience is key in customer’s choice of channel”, Drug Store News,19 July, p. 17.

Korgaonkar, P., Lund, D. and Price, B. (1985), “A structural equations approach towardexamination of store attitude and store patronage”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 2,pp. 39-60.

Leszcyzc, P., Sinha, A. and Timmermans, H. (2000), “Consumer store choice dynamics: ananalysis of the competitive market structure for grocery stores”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 323-45.

Lord, J. (1986), “Cross shopping flows among Atlanta’s regional shopping centres”, InternationalJournal of Retailing, Vol. 1, pp. 33-54.

Messinger, P. and Narasimhan, C. (1997), “A model of retail formats based on consumers’economizing on shopping time”, Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Rousey, S. and Morganosky, M. (1996), “Retail format change in US markets”, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 8-16.

Tang, C., Bell, D. and Ho, T. (2001), “Store choice and shopping behavior: how price formatworks”, California Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 56-74.

Turley, L. and Milliman, R. (2000), “Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: areview of the experimental evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2,pp. 193-211.

Wakefield, K. and Baker, J. (1998), “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shoppingresponse”, Journal of Retailing, No. 4, pp. 515-39.

US grocerymarket

451

Appendix. Survey instrumentHow often do you shop for groceries for your household?

Please indicate how often you shop at the following types of retailers when shopping for

groceries.

Please indicate how important each of the following factors is to you when selecting a place to

shop.

Corresponding authorJason M. Carpenter can be contacted at: jcarpent@gwm.sc.edu

Neverimportant

Rarelyimportant

Sometimesimportant

Oftenimportant

Alwaysimportant

Price competitiveness 1 2 3 4 5Courtesy of personnel 1 2 3 4 5Cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5Product selection 1 2 3 4 5Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 5Atmosphere 1 2 3 4 5Ease of access 1 2 3 4 5Security 1 2 3 4 5Parking facilities 1 2 3 4 5Crowding 1 2 3 4 5Presence of eatingplaces

1 2 3 4 5

Special events 1 2 3 4 5Seats/rest area 1 2 3 4 5Availability ofsmoking area

1 2 3 4 5

Ease of children 1 2 3 4 5

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Never Rarely Occasionally Often Always1 2 3 4 5

Never Rarely Occasionally Usually AlwaysGourmet grocery store 1 2 3 4 5Supermarket (Kroger, Safeway, Bi-Lo, Albertson’s,Publix, Winn-Dixie)

1 2 3 4 5

Supercenters (WalMart, Meyer, Big KMart) 1 2 3 4 5Warehouse club (Sam’s Club, Costco, BJ’s) 1 2 3 4 5Internet ONLY grocery store (Peapod.com,Netgrocer.com)

1 2 3 4 5

IJRDM34,6

452