Store choice: How understanding consumer choice of ‘where’ to shop may assist the small retailerby Steve Goodman, Hervé Remaud

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services




Consumer choice

Susanne Sleenhoff, Patricia Osseweijer

Consumer Trial, Continuous Use, and Economic Benefits of a Retail Service Innovation: The Case of the Personal Shopping Assistant

Heiner Evanschitzky, Gopalkrishnan R. Iyer, Kishore Gopalakrishna Pillai, Peter Kenning, Reinhard Schütte

Price presentation and consumers’ choice

Carin Huber, Nadine Gatzert, Hato Schmeiser

Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice

Uzma Khan, Ravi Dhar

Consumer choices in Parkinson's disease

The Lancet Neurology


mce ont ats l se eri t a tho ns m the con ark

Crown Copyright & 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ete: b e prob a low dverti hich l rent r eed to ’; if the ght of influences and shapes the consumers mind-set; what are the ey expect from a g three types of s for the purpose lowed by global tainability of the ting growth and nrose, 1959) that worlds with a somewhat diminished presence of small firms. We

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect lse

Journal of Retailing and

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 118–124 a theoretical question of whether the firm needs to grow? Is there a segment of consumers that value the small firm's offering, thus providing an environment for a small firm to coexist in a marketplace with big firms? The retail wine sector in Australia has 0969-6989/Crown Copyright & 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. n Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: (S. Goodman), (H. Remaud).firms (as proposed by Penrose 1959) may not be the key to the firm's sustainability. Competing necessitates understanding what position the duty of the firm is to grow; we have seen massive rationalization of retail outlets in the western and developingavailability in that the store is easily accessible to the consumer, whereas mental availability refers to the propensity for the store (brand) to be thought in a purchase situation (Romaniuk and

Sharp, 2004). Both concepts are highly independent of each other.

A store physically existing and being physically available in the market does not mean that consumer will necessarily visit the store unless it is part of the consumer's ‘mind-set’ of places to shop. For the store to exist it becomes evident that it must meet this challenge if it is to survive, that growth which occurs for small make their choice on where to shop is to unde their expectations and what kind of value do th range of stores. We investigate this question usin wine stores available to the Australian consumer of purchasing alcoholic beverages.

An environment of global rationalization fol slowdown leaves question marks about the sus business environment created by theories promo expansion. We have seen theories of the firm (Pereason to overcome the convenience of large store access? Physical (2003). The question that remains in how to assess the way people rstand what are1. Introduction

Stores compete as brands comp mentally available to consumers. Th is that like small brands, they occupy brand communication. Small stores a more likely to be ‘not thought of’, w people shop at small stores for diffe shop at large stores?” Consumers n shop as well as have it within ‘reach voice then it is less likely to be thouy being physically and lem for small business, percentage of the total se much less and so are eaves the question “do easons than those who think about where to small store has a small , will customers have a influencers on where they choose to shop. Is there a segment of consumers that can be empirically identified that seeks out the type of offering smaller firms in the marketplace present? This also entails examining how stores compete in order to see how consumers may view their positioning in the marketplace.

How do different types of stores co-exist in a market? The key assumption is that stores co-exist because they do not share similar positions in the consumer's mind, therefore they do not compete using the same points of difference. In that sense, stores are more likely to experience stronger intratype competition than intertype competition, as suggested by Solgaard and HansenStore choice: How understanding consu may assist the small retailer

Steve Goodman a,n, Hervé Remaud b a University of Adelaide Business School, South Australia 5005, Australia b Bordeaux Management School, 680 Cours de la Libération-33480 Talence Cedex, Fran a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 16 October 2014

Received in revised form 12 December 2014

Accepted 17 December 2014


Store choice retailer choice consumer behaviour a b s t r a c t

Recent decades has seen c ‘category-killer’ store form how it can ‘win’. We propo reasons. Using a choice exp amongst small, independen

Best:worse is a choice me ‘actual’ reasons for decisio segment that may assist in consumers seek. This is a practitioner effort in the m journal homepage: www.eer choice of ‘where’ to shop inued rationalization in the retail sector and the growth of ‘big-box’ or eaving the small business struggling to compete and at a loss to determine that a segment of shopper exists that shop at small businesses for specific ment approach to investigate the reason consumers choose where to shop nd large scale retailers we see this different segment of consumers appear. d that forces choice amongst a range of variables, designed to uncover ade. This paper finds consumer choice for retail stores types identifies a sustainability of smaller stores if they cater to the attributes their target tribution to small business researchers and small business strategy and eting and design of small retailer offering.

Consumer Services tribution confirms Kara et al. (2005) findings for small-sized serS. Goodman, H. Remaud / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23 (2015) 118–124 119vice retailers using MARKOR scale items. By definition, such findings suggest that consumer expectations are varied, which requires small retailers to build and develop distinctive competencies to sustain their competitive advantage against bigger retailers. McGee and Peterson (2000) note that because these distinctive competencies are difficult to generate and sustain (therefore to imitate), that situation gives the opportunity to small retailers to battle and conserve a market position over time.undergone massive rationalization with two supermarket's combined national market share moving from 28% in 1998 (Burch and