Measurement and Implications of Experiential Retail: An Abstract

Abstract

The business press and academics have written many obituaries for traditional retail, (i.e., “Warren Buffett just confirmed the death of retail as we know it”; Business Insider 2017). Many suggest that traditional retail is being ‘killed’ by digital (Kara 2017; Adweek “Bad news, Brick –and-Mortar Stores: The Internet Finally has you Beat”). Not only merchandise stores, but whole industries have been transformed due to the internet – particularly books/music/movies (McCracken 2011) and theaters (Moore 2017). Nearly all products can be bought online, as well as many services. While many proclaim the death of traditional retail, others are stating that “Why Technology Won’t Kill Brick and Mortar Retailers” (Forbes 2018) and “Online Shopping Hasn’t Killed Brick-and Mortar Retailers” (ABC News 2018). One thing is common among the proponents of B&M retailers is that the shopping experience itself is a competitive advantage. Industry experts have suggested that physical retail not focus only on the merchandise offering but also the experience – “Physical Retail Isn’t Dead. Boring Retail Is.” (Dennis 2018). Interestingly, although prior research has focused on exploring and measuring specific elements of consumer experience, there is little knowledge regarding how to identify and measure all factors that go into consumers’ experiential outcomes in retail, events, etc. The present study seeks to address this gap by creating and testing a holistic measure of consumer experience. In particular, we create an experience scale that measures 6-dimensions of consumer experience across a variety of contexts: affective, cognitive, behavioral, sensory, and social/self-identity. In study 1, we validate this scale in the context of retail shopping. In study 2, we validate the scale in the context of a music concert. It appears that a general scale of experiential consumption/shopping is indeed possible. However, a discussion of the dimensionality of the scale need be conducted before further construction. Examination of the most common six dimensions (Affect, Cognitive, Behavior, Sensory, Social, and Relate) were empirically examined herein. The empirical results suggest that some of these dimensions may be inseparable or perhaps antecedent, or at minimal highly related. In particular, the affective, relate (self-identification) and sensory dimensions appear to overlap within the EFA. There seem to be two potential explanations for this: (1) the dimensions are simply conceptually overlapping and need to be measured more precisely and/or (2) one is antecedent to the other. Discussion among the authors (which we hope for input from the conference attendees), is that perhaps sensory experiences are antecedent to affect and one or both may be antecedent to self-identification. In addition, the social aspects might be antecedent to affective and cognitive dimensions. Each dimension appears to have high correlation with brand equity/loyalty as per Brun et al. (2017).