w

(”um-{2 W {3
WK ’ L7,?“

CMOJE:

  
  
 
  

gagglj‘i 3‘55

\S
\‘ AUG 2 3' 2003‘

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER MARKET SEGMENTATION
IN RESPONSE TO AN INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION
IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY

by David Lee Appel

The history of retailing in the United States has
been a dynamic one as retailing has continually adapted
to keep pace with the times. The process of change is
accomplished by the introduction and adoption of institu-
tional innovations, such as the mail-order house and the
supermarket. In spite of the importance of the institu-
tional innovation, however, little is known about the actual
success of consumer acceptance responsible for the success,
or failure, of a new type of retail outlet.

The objective of the study was to learn more about
the process of adoption with respect to a selected insti-
tution. To accomplish the task, the study investigated
the segmentation of the consumer market resulting from the
introduction of a one-stOp shopping center into a market
PEBViously served by two conventional supermarkets. Although
several other purchase decision areas were studied, the

mwhlthrust of the research was on the purchase of food.

David Lee Appel

A research instrument was designed to provide a
measurement of consumers on three key dimensions of shop-
ping behavior: (1) Socio-Economic Characteristics; (2)
Purchase Motivation; and (3) Purchase Behavior and Patron-
age Loyalty. The purchase motivation variables were clas-
sified as convenience, economicanui,promotional variables.
The variables were analyzed according to the major source
of supply for food chosen by the family unit, i.e., either
the one-stop shopping center.or the conventional super-
market. In addition, the research studied the extent to
which behavior patterns carried over to other types of
shopping, and analyzed earlier and later adopters of the
one-stop shopping center to identify any changes in the
responsive segment of the market.

The field research involved the administration of
the research instrument to 159 family units in a selected
area of Lansing, Michigan, which was broadly representative
of different social classes, income levels, age groups,
and housing types. Each of the housing units in the re-
search area was located within a five minute driving time
of the one-stop shopping center and several conventional
supermarkets.

The data was analyzed using both bivariate and
multivariate techniques. Both techniques indicated that
the one-stOp shopping center served a distinct, and readily

identifiable, segment of the consumer market.

David Lee Appel

The bivariate analysis indicated that the segment
of the market responsive to the one—stop shopping center
was composed primarily of younger families with children
under ten. The purchase motivation and purchase behavior
of the responsive segment was not found to be different
from non-responsive segments. The one-stop shopping cen-
ter customers did exhibit a higher degree of related pur-
chase behavior, however. In addition, the one-stop shop-
ping center shoppers were found to be heavier users of
mail-order shopping than conventional supermarket shoppers.

Bivariate analysis of the data with respect to
the time of adoption failed to show a significant differ-
ence between earlier and later adopters of the institu-
tional innovation. There was some evidence that the
earlier adopters were from lower social classes, had lower
incomes, and had lower levels of formal education, but the
data was inconclusive.

The multivariate analysis resulted in distinct
patterns emerging for the one-stop shopping center cus-
tomers and the conventional supermarket customers. Com-
bining fourteen research variables into convenience, ec0r
nomic and promotional variables indicated that the one-
stop shOpping center customers were more interested in the
convenience and economic aspects of shopping, while con-
ventional supermarket customers were more interested in

the promotional aspects.

AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER MARKET SEGMENTATION
IN RESPONSE TO AN INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION

IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY
By

David Lee Appel

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DePartment of Marketing and Transportation Administration

1968

,-. - -
37.47%"?

COpyright by
DAVID LEE APPEL
1968

I
\
\ ._hl.
- I-w

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The completion of the dissertation presents an
Opportunity to reflect on the results of several years of
effort, and express sincere appreciation for the guidance
and support of the many persons instrumental in the com-
pletion of the doctoral program generally, and the disser-
tation effort specifically.

The research reported in the dissertation was made
possible through the financial support of The Sperry and
Hutchinson Company. The generous research grant made
available to the author is part of a continuing effort by
The Sperry and Hutchinson Company to promote research of
interest to the academic-and business communities alike.
The author sincerely appreciates the support given by The
Sperry and Hutchinson Company and the food industry gen-
erally over the last few years of the author's education.

In particular, the author wishes to express his‘
gratitude for the contributions of the following persons:

Dr. Bernard J. La Londe, Professor of Marketing
and_Transportation, Michigan State University, as Chairman
of the Committee which guided the research, has contributed

substantially to the final work. Dr. La Londe's ideas,

iii

 

comments and suggestions provided both motivation and
direction as the research progressed from proposal to
completion. An invaluable resource, he has contributed
greatly to the author's professional and personal develop-
ment, both before and during the research effort, and his
generosity in time and effort is sincerely appreciated.

Dr. Donald J. Bowersox, Associate Professor of
.Marketing and Transportation, Michigan State University,
for hiscontributions as a member of the dissertation com-
mittee, and especially for his guidance in the original
formulation of the problem and selection of the research
area.

Dr. Thomas A. Staudt, Professor and Chairman of
the Department of Marketing and Transportation, Michigan
State University, for his contributions as a member of the
dissertation committee, as well as his support and encour-
agement throughout the author's doctoral program.

The late Dr. Edward A. Brand, Professor of Market-
ing at Michigan State University for many years. Dr.
Brand's friendship, guidance and support during the author's
early-years at Michigan State University strongly influenced
the author's choice of a professional career.

Finally, to Judith Anne for her contributions both
large and small during the last year which have helped to

make the culmination of the doctoral degree a reality.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O O 0 O 0
LIST OF TABLES O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0
LIST OF FIGURES . O O 0 O I o 9 O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O C O I O C O O O O 0 0

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

PROBLEM DELINEATION. . . . . . . . . . .

Nature of the Problem. . . .
Background of the Problem.
Sc0pe of the Problem . . .
Statement of the Problem .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . .
Methodology. . . . . . . .

Potential Contributions of the

Limitations of the Study . . .

Organization . . . . . . . . .

00w000000
(D

00m0‘00000
(D

0093000000
H

SHOPPING BEHAVIOR AND INNOVATION . . . .

The Concept of Market Segmentation . .
General Merchandise Shopping Behavior.
The General Nature of Shopping . . .
The Central City vs. the Shopping
Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department Store vs. Discount House.
Food Shopping Behavior . . . . . . .
Progressive Grocer' s "Annual Report"
"The Supermarket Industry Speaks".
Burgoyne Index Study . . . . . . .
Other Relevant Research. . . . . .
Innovation and the Adoption Process.
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESEARCH DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Design Framework. . . . . . .
Identification of Variables. . . . .
Independent Variables. . . . . . . .

Page
iii
viii
xiv

XV

CHAPTER Page

Dependent Variable . . . . . . . . . . 71
Related Variables and Additional

Analysis . .L. . . . . . . .~. . . . . 73
Questionnaire Objective. . .~. . . . . . 74
Sample Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Sample Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Selection of Research Area . . . . . . . 76
Selection of Specific Households . . . . 77
Interviewer Selection and Household
Contact Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Interviewer Selection. . . . . . . . . . 81
Contacting Household Units . . . . . . . 82
Administrative Procedures. . . . . . . . 83
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Data Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Computer Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . 89
IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . 94
Socio-Economic Variables . . . . . . . . . 96
Family Income. .7. .9. . . . . ... . . . 97
Age of the Household Head. . . . . . . 97
Occupation of the Household Head . . . . 98
Family Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Level of Formal Education. . . . . . . . 100
Family Life Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Social Class . . . . . . . .y. . . . . . 101
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Effectiveness of Selected Elements in an
Institution's Marketing Mix. . . . . . . 103
Price. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Trading Stamps and Promotional Games‘. . 109
Coupons and Price Specials . . . . . . . 112
Private Label Merchandise. . . . . . . . 114
Summary.'. . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . 115
Purchase Behavior and Patronage Loyalty. . 116
Number of Stores Shopped . . . . . . . . 117
Concentration of Purchases . . . . . . . 117
Average Size of Customer Order . . . . . 120
Number of Shopping Trips . . . . . . . . 120
Distribution of Purchases by Day of
Week 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Related Purchase Behavior. . . . . . . . . 123
Convenience Goods. . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Shopping Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

vi

CHAPTER Page

Specialty Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Catalog Shopping. . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Characteristics of Adopter Family Units . . 130
Socio~Economic Characteristics. . . . . . 131
Effectiveness of Selected Elements in an
Institution's Marketing Mix . . . . . . 133
Purchase Behavior and Patronage Loyalty . 136
Related Purchase Behavior . . . . . . . . 137
Other Significant Findings. . . . . . . . . 138
Summary of Other Significant Findings . . 155

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 157

General Summary of the Study. . . . . . . . 157
Evaluation of the Hypotheses. . . . . . . . 157
Socio-Economic Characteristics. . . . . . 160
Effectiveness of Selected Elements in an
Institutional Marketing Mix . . . . . . 162
Purchase Behavior and Patronage Loyalty . 165
Related Purchase Behavior . . . . . . . . 166
Characteristics of Adopter Family Units . 169
Multivariate Analyses and the Guiding
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Major Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
The One-Stop ShOpping Center as an Insti-
tution's Innovation . . . . . . . . . . 176
The Customer Mix of the One-StOp Shop-
ping Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
The Adoption of the One-Stop Shopping
Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . 182
Implications of the Research for Retail

Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Market Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Competitive Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . 188

Implications for Consumer Behavior
ResearChO O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 191
Implications for the Adoption Process . . . 192
Suggested Areas for Further Research. . . . 194
APPENDICES. O O 0 O I O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O 198

BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 27s

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

2-1 Food Chain Margins, Expenses and Net Pro-
fits for Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . 43

2-2 Five Year Trend in Sales and Prices of
Merchandise Distributed Through the
supermarket O O O O I O O O p O I 0 O O O 9 O 4 5

2—3 Grocery Stores Using Trading Stamps as
Reported by Progressive Grocer Magazine . . 46

2-4 Trading Stamp Usage Among Supermarket Insti-
tute Members for Selected Years . . . . . . 47

2-5 Supermarket Institute Members Engaged in

Food Discounting Through Discount Houses

and/or Discount Supermarkets. . . . . . . . 48
2-6 Number of Stores ShOpped to Purchase Food . . 49

2-7 Number of Shopping Trips Per Week to Pur-
chase Food. . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . 50

2-8 Determining Factors in Supermarket Selection
Mentioned First by Consumers. . . . . . . . 52

2-9 Trading Stamp Saving Behavior Reported for
Consumers by Burgoyne Study . . . . . . . . 53

2-10 Effect of Trading Stamps on Prices as Per-
ceived by Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2-11 Consumer Preference for Trasing Stamps vs.
Lower Prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3-1 Research Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

4-1 Summary Table of the Size of Family Units
Shopping in Each Type of Store. . . . . . . 100

4-2 Average Percent of Shoppers Correctly Pricing
Food Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

viii

‘1.—
_1
73%:

Table Page

4-3 How One-StOp Shopping Center Customers Rated
the Quality of Groceries, Meat and Produce
for the One-StOp Shopping Center and Con-
ventional Supermarket Customers Rated the
Quality of Groceries, Meat and Produce in
the Conventional Supermarkets . . . . . . . 108

4-4 Percentage of Each Type of Shopper Redeeming
Manufacturer "Cents-Off" Coupons. . . . . . 113

4-5 Number of Stores Shopped by Each Type of
Shopper I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 ll 8

4-6 Percentage of Each Group of ShOppers Con-
centrating at Least Seventy-Five Percent
of all ShOpping in One Store. . . . . . . . 119

4-7 Purchase of Merchandise by Mail for Family
Units Shopping in Each Type of Store. . . . 127

4-8 Purchase of Merchandise by Mail for Adopters
of the One-Stop Shopping Center . . . . . . 137

4-9 Percentage of Women Who Drive Family Car. . . 140

4-10 Percentage of Women Who Have Cars Available
During the Day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

4-11 Who Accompanies Housewife on Food Shopping
Trip. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 142

4-12 Manufacturer "Cents-Off" Coupon Usage
Patterns 0 O O I O O I O O O I O O O I O O O 143

4-13 Percentage of WOmen Adopting the One-Stop
Shopping Center Having Car Available During
Day 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 144

4-14 Number of Cars Available per Family for
Adopters Family Units . . . . . . . . . . . 145

4-15 Simple Correlation of Research Variables With
First Preference Store. . . . . . . . . . . 153

5-1 Summary of Findings for Individual Research
Variables Using Bivariate Analysis. . . . . 173

ix

Table

A-1

A-lO

A-ll

A-12

A-13

Page

Income of Family Units Shopping
in Each Type of Store . . . . . . . . . . 200

Age of the Household Head for Family
Units ShOpping in Each Type of Store . . . 201

Occupation of the Household Head for Family
Units Shopping in Each Type of Store . . . 202

Size of Family Units Shopping
in Each Type of Store . . . . . . . . . . 203

Level of Formal Education for Family
Units Shopping in Each Type of Store . . . 204

Stage in the Family Life Cycle for Family
Units Shopping in Each Type of Store . . . 205

Social Class of Family Units Shopping
in EaCh Type OfStOI'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '. 206

Price Awareness of Family Units Shopping
. in Each Type of Store for Selected Items . 207

Quality Image of Groceries, Meat and
Produce in the One-Stop ShOpping Center
by Family Units Shopping in Each Type
of Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Quality Image of Groceries, Meat and
Produce in Conventional Supermarket
No. 1.by Family Units Shopping in
Each Type of Store . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Quality Image of Groceries, Meat and
Produce in Conventional Supermarket
No. 2 by Family Units Shopping in
Each Type of Store . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

Amount of Selected Trading Stamps Saved
by Family Units Shopping in Each
Type of Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Number and Value of Gifts Received Through
Trading Stamp Redemption by Family Units
ShOpping in Each Type of Store
(12 Month Period) . . . . . . . . . . . . 220

Table Page

A-l4 Awareness of Promotional Contests and Games
by Family Units Shopping in Each Type
Of Store 0 O O . O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 221

A-15 Redemption of Manufacturer "Cents-Off"
Coupons by Family Units Shopping in
Each Type of Store (One Month Period) . . 222

A-16 Value of Manufacturer "Cents-Off" Coupons
Redeemed by Family Units ShOpping in
Each Type of Store (One Month Period) . . 222

A-l7 Number of Advertised Specials Priced
Correctly by Family Units Shopping
in Each Type of Store . . . . . . . . . . 223

A-18 Number of Private Labels Recognized by
Family Units ShOpping in Each Type
Of Store 0 I O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O 224

A-19 Awareness of Two Private Label Brands in
First Preference Store by Family Units
Shopping in Each Type of Store . . . . . . 225

A-20 Number of Stores Shopped for Food by
Family Units ShOpping in Each Type of
Store 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O I 225

A-21 Concentration of Purchases for Selected
Produce Categories by Family Units
Shopping in Each Type of Store . . . . . . 226

A-22 Average Food Bill per Shopping Trip for
Family Units Shopping in Each Type
OfStore O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 227

A-23 Number of Trips to Purchase Food by Family
Units Shopping Each Type of Store . . . . 227

Ar24 Purchases by Day of Week for Family Units
Shopping in Each Type of Store . ... . . . 228

Ar25 Where Family Units Shopping in Each Type
of Store Stated They Would Purchase
Selected Convenience Goods . . . . . . . . 229

Ar26 Where Family Units Shopping in Each Type

of Store Stated They Would Purchase
Selected Shopping Goods . . . . . . . . . . 231

xi

Table Page

A-27 Where Family Units ShOpping in Each Type
of Store Stated They Would Purchase
Selected Specialty Goods . . . . . . . . . 233

A-28 Mail-Order Catalogs in Homes of Family ‘
Units Shopping in Each Type of Store . . . 235

A-29 Value of General Merchandise Ordered by
Mail for Family Units Shopping in Each J
Type of Store (3 Month Period) . . . . . . 236

A-30 Value of Special Merchandise Ordered by
Mail for Family Units Shopping
in Each Type of Store . . . . . . . . . . 236

A-3l Income of Family Units AdOpting the
One-Stop Shopping Center . . . . . . . . . 237

A932 Education of the Male for Family Units
Adopting the One-Stop Shopping Center . . 238

A-33 Stage in the Family Life Cycle for Family
Units Adopting the One-Stop Shopping
Center 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O I O O 239

A-34 Social Class of Family Units Adopting the
One-Stop Shopping Center . . . . . . . . . 240

A-35 Number of Gifts from Trading Stamp
Redemption for Family Units Adopting
the One-Stop Shopping Center
(12 Month Period) . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

A—36 Redemption of Manufacturer "Cents-Off"
Coupons for Family Units Adopting the
One-Stop Shopping Center
(12 Month Period) . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

A237 Awareness of Two Private Labels Featured in
the one—StOp Shopping Center by Family
Units Adapting the One-StOp Shopping
center 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 242

Ar38 Concentration of Purchases in Selected
Product Categories for Family Units
Adopting the One-Stop Shopping Center . . 243

xii

— HI

Table Page
A-39 Number of Trips to Purchase Food for Family

Units AdOpting the One-Stop Shopping

center 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 2 44
A-40 Mail-Order Catalogs in Homes of Family

Units Adopting the One-Stop Shopping
center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245

C-1 Summary of Field Interviewing. . . . . . . . 272

C-2 Number of Calls to Complete the Interi

viewing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
C-3 Refusal to Take Part in Research . . . . . . 273
C-4 Family Units Not-At-Home . . . . . . . . . . 273
C-5 "Other" Reasons for Not Taking Part in

Research . . . . . . . . . . . .y. . . . . 274
C-6 Summary Table of Non-Respondents . . . ... . 274

xiii

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

3-1 Location of Research Area and Retail Stores

3-2 Flow Chart of Interview Contact Process

4-1 Position of Group Centroids in Discriminant
Function Space Using Fourteen Variables .

xiv

Page
0 O 78
. . 84
. . 151

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Detailed Research Findings Pertaining
Specifically to Chapter IV . . . . . . . . 199
B. Letter of Introduction, Interviewer
Instructions, Research Questionnaire
and Family Recall Charts . . . . . . . . . 246
C. Summary Data on Responding-and

Non Responding Family Units . . . . . . . . 270

XV

 

CHAPTER I

PROBLEM DELINEATION

The primary objective of the research is to invesé
tigate consumer market segmentation by use of socio-eco-
nomic characteristics, purchase motivation, and purchase
behavior to determine the responsiveness of consumers to

institutional innovations in the field of food retailing.

Nature of the Problem

Background of the Problem

The history of retailing in the United States is
a history of competition and change. As the social envi-
ronment has changed, retailing has continually adapted in
an effort to serve changing consumer needs. With the deé
velopment of mass—production and mass-markets across the
nation, retailing entered the era of mass-distribution to
link mass-markets with a mass-production capability. The

changing structure of distribution in the United States

has been studied by numerous scholars.

 

Schumpeterl writes that certain new institutions
operate in such a manner that their influence in retailing
is felt far beyond their actual number. The type of in-
stitution that he refers to is an "institutional innova-
tion" that completely disrupts the status quo in the exist-
ing retail system and forces change. The institutional
innovation creates what Schumpeter calls the "competition
that matters" because the new type of institution enters
the market place with new methods of selling and new cost-
sales relationships. As he points out, "In the case of
retail trade, the competition that matters arises not from
additional shops of the same type, but from the department
store, the chain store, the mail-order house and the
supermarket . . ."2

Tallman and Bloomstrom discuss this same process of
creative destruction in an article on retail innovations.3
According to Tallman and Bloomstrom, "Retail innovations

of importance . . . have been the development from 1870 to

1890 of the early forms of the now 'traditional' department

 

1Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and De-
mocrac , Second Edition (New York: Harper and Brothers,*
I947).

 

21bid0 I. F0 850

3Gerald Tallman and Bruce Bloomstrom, "Retail In-
novations Challenge Manufacturers" in Ronald Gist (editor),
Mane ement Pers ectives in Retailin (New York: John Wiley
an Sons, InCo, ( pp0 " 0

store, of general merchandise mail-order selling (1890-
1910), of the variety and food chain stores (1910-1930),
and the food supermarket after 1930. Each of these major
«retail innovations, when first developed, offered customers
lower prices than were generally available through prev-
iously existing channels. Each, with time has traded up
the quality of its service, and with this its operating
expenses and margin."4

Both references discuss a more or less definitive
cycle in American retailing which McNair has labeled the
"Wheel of Retailing."5 According to McNair, the wheel
revolves, sometimes quite fast and at other times extremely
slow, but always moving. The cycle begins with a bold,
new concept, or innovation, for a new type of distributive
institution. The new institution starts out as a low-
status, low-margin, low-price Operation. As it matures,
however, the process of "trading-up" continually occurs,
resulting in higher margins and prices. Finally, a mature
institution emerges with high margins and prices. At this
stage in the cycle, another institutional innovation ap-

pears and the wheel turns.

 

41bid., p. 68.

5M. D. McNair, "Significant Trends and DevelOpments
in the Postwar Period, " in A. B. Smith (editor), Competi-
tive Distribution in a Free, High Level Economy andIIts
Implications for the Un1vers1ty_(P1ttsBurgh: University
0 P1ttsburgh Press,l958), pp. 1-25 at pp. 17-18. Also
see Stanley C. Hollander, "The Wheel of Retailing," Journal
of Marketing, July, 1960, pp. 37-42.

 

Numerous examples of institutional innovations and
the wheel of retailing theory exist in American retailing.
The department store, the mail-order house, the chain store,
and the supermarket all started out as low—margin,low-price
institutional innovations replacing higher cost methods of
retailing. Each has traded up, resulting in higher margins
and prices. Each is now vulnerable to new institutional

; innovations which may arise.

The fact that this process of creative destruction

occurs is well known, but the dynamic process of change
‘ itself has not been closely studied. In hindsight, it can

be seen that the department store, the mail-order house,
the chain store, and the supermarket did gain consumer
acCeptance, causing them to grow and prosper. Other in-
stitutional innovations, lacking this consumer acceptance,

have failed to achieve a place in American retailing.

fiope of the Problem

The institutional innovation is generally disting-
llishable from conventional institutions. As McNair points
(Int, ". . . the innovation has an idea for a new kind of
<iistributive enterprise . . . (which) at the outset is in
1bad odor, ridiculed, scorned, and condemned . . . but at-

tracts the public on the basis of a price appeal made pos-

‘ sible by the low Operating costs inherent in his

innovation."6 The development of the supermarket during

the thirties is perhaps the best example of the wheel con-
cept in action. By 1940, the supermarket had revolutionized
the field of food retailing.

In spite of the importance of the institutional
innovations, the actual process of consumer acceptance
responsible for their success, or failure, is not well
known. The institutional innovation may gain consumer
acceptance in a number of different ways. First, the new
institution may gain consumer acceptance from the total
consumer market at its inception. Secondly, the new‘in-
stitution may begin with acceptance from a small, distinct
innovative segment of the population, and then gain broader
market acceptance with time. Thirdly, the new institution
may never achieve broad market acceptance, in which case
the institution serves a smaller, identifiable segment of
the market which remains the institution's core market
over time.

To understand this process better, consumer accep—
tance can be studied as an adoption process. Much work
has been done on the adOption process in the area Of dif-

. . . 7
fus1on of 1nnovat1on research. To date, however, most of

 

61bid., p. 17.

7EverettM. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New

 

York: The Free Press, 1962). See especially Chapters six
and seven.

 

these studies have dealt with either the adoption of con-
cepts and ideas, or the adoption of new products. Little
research has been done on the adoption process as it re-
lates to institutional innovations. The adoption process
as developed, however, is general enough to be a potential-
1y useful tool in analyzing the consumer acceptance process
with respect to institutional innovations.8

The acceptance and growth of the supermarket, coin-
operated laundry, or the general merchandise discount house
could be studied, but they are all too well established to
be appropriate research situations. A recent institutional
innovation, in part connected with the food industry, does
provide an Opportunity to carry out the research, however.
The institution is the lowered margin, one-stop shopping
center. Several factors make the one-st0p shopping center
an ideal institutional innovation to use in the research.

First, it follows the general pattern that McNair
describes in the wheel of retailing theory. It is a low-
margin, low-price institution threatening traditional in-
stitutions which, through time, have traded-up causing
margins and prices to rise. In addition to lower prices
on general merchandise items, the one-stOp shopping centers

generally Operate the food departments with prices which

8A further review of Rogers' work in the area of
diffusion and adoption research can be found in Chapter II,
"ShOpping Behavior and Innovation."

1‘
. , l
h

are five to seven percent below prices in conventional
supermarkets.9 At present levels, this means the one—stop
shOpping centers are Operating the food departments at
approximately seventeen percent gross margin rather than
the twenty-two percent found in most conventional super-
markets.

Secondly, the one-stop shopping center is a recent

and growing institutional innovation. Granyatter (a pub-

 

lication of Gray Advertising, Inc.) reports that, "Accord-
ing to Barron's, discount stores (counting food volume)
are slightly ahead of conventional department stores in
total volume."10 They predict that if the present growth
rate continues, discount retailing will reach twenty bil-
lion dollars by 1970.

Thirdly, the one—stOp shopping center is generally
distinguishable from conventional counterparts. The gen-
eral pattern is to have both general merchandise and food
under a common roof with no walls or barriers separating
the two areas. Without dividing walls or barriers, the

consumer can freely shop all departments within the store

before proceeding to the checkout area. The increased

 

9"Behind the New Wave Discount Super Revolution,"
Chain Store Age, Vol. 43 (Nov., 1967), p. 88.

 

10Gray Advertising, Inc., Gray Matter, Volume 38,

Number 5 (May, l967),p . 2.

 

 

 

 

emphasis on convenience and time found in the American
culture today makes this freedom of movement an important
"plus" in favor of the one-stOp shopping center.

The early success of the one-stop shopping center
indicates that it has filled a need in the market place.
A recent study conducted in nine cities indicates that
sixty-two percent of the women queried say that they shop
in discount stores and that food is part of the attraction.11

The continued acceptance and growth of the new one-
stop shOpping center as an institutional innovation depends,
however, on its continued consumer acceptance. The contin-
ued acceptance and growth is a difficult prediction to make,
since little is known about the specific market segments
responsible for the innovation's present acceptance. The
shopper who concentrates food purchases in the one-stop
shopping center may be no different than the conventional
supermarket shOpper, or she may be entirely different in
terms of socio-economic characteristics, purchase motiva-
tion and purchase behavior. In addition, the market seg-
ments being served by the one-stop shopping center may
change over time.

Some research has been done on consumers who have
accepted another institutional innovation--the general

merchandise discount house. One study found that the

 

11

Ibid., p. 2.

 

general merchandise discount house and the conventional
department store each had distinct images to the American
consumer and appeal to different market segments.12 The
style and quality of merchandise, as well as clerk service,
were important factors to the department store customer,
whereas price and bargains were more important to the cus-
tomer of the price-appeal or discount stores.

In most of these studies, family income and life-
cycle concepts have been key variables in segmenting the
market to identify heavy-user segments for each type of
retail institution. Whereas the middle-income shopper
forms the base for both types of institution, higher-income
shoppers and the older shOppers do the majority of their
shOpping in the department store. The study also indicated
that heavy users of discount outlets tended to be either
lower-income families, or younger families with children
at home.13

Since there are a number of differences between

the general merchandise discount shopper and the department

store shOpper, the distinct possibility exists that the

 

12Stuart Rich and Bernard Portis, "Clues for Action
From Shopper Preferences," Harvard Business Review (March-
April, 1963), pp. 132-149. Also Rich and Portis, "The
'Imageries' of Department Stores," Journal of Marketing
(April, 1964), pp. 10-15.

13

 

A further review of this area can be found in

Chapter II, "Shopping Behavior and Innovation."

 

 

 

 

10

behavior and preference patterns may carry over into the
purchase of food. It may be that there are distinctive
market segments being served by the one-stOp shOpping cen-
ter, with its lowered margin food department, and the con-
ventional supermarket. The shOppers adOpting the institu-
tional innovation may be significantly different than the
shOpper frequenting the conventional supermarket in terms
of socio-economic characteristics, purchase motivation and
behavior patterns.

If significant differences can be identified be—
tween consumers frequenting the one—stOp shopping center
and the conventional supermarket, then a definite segmen-
tation of the consumer market is occurring in response to
the institutional innovation. To determine if segmentation
is occurring, the first step is to identify the consumers
presently being served by each type of institution. With
specific identifying characteristics known, the role of
each institution in the industry can be identified, and

changes occurring in the industry better understood.

Statement of the Problem

The research investigates the segmentation of the
consumer market resulting from the introduction of an in-
stitutional innovation into a market previously served by
conventional retail outlets. The first area of the research

attempts to isolate key socio-economic variables that will

11

result in an accurate identification of apprOpriate market
segments. A second area identifies purchase motivation
factors. The third area of the research studies behavior
patterns and patronage loyalty with respect to food pur-
chasing. The fourth area investigates related areas of
consumer decision making. A final area of the research
studies how earlier adopters of the institutional innova-
tion differ from later adopters in terms of the above var-
iables. This will indicate any change in market segments
responding to the institutional innovation over time.

Specifically, the research is focused on the fol-

lowing major questions:

1. What are the key socio-economic variables which
will lead to an identification of that segment of the
consumer market most likely to frequent a one-stop
shopping center rather than a conventional supermarket?

2. What element, or elements, in an institution's
marketing mix have the greatest motivational effect On
the consumer in selecting a specific retail institution
to patronize?

3. Is there a significant difference in terms of
purchase behavior and patronage loyalty between consum-
ers who shop in one-stOp shopping centers and consumers
who shop in conventional supermarkets? }

4. Does this preference for purchasing food in a

one-stop shopping center carry over to a preference

 

12

for patronizing lowered-margin institutions in other
areas of consumer purchasing?

5. Is there a significant difference between the
earlier adOpter and the later adopter of the one-stop
shOpping center in terms of socio-economic variables,
purchase motivation, purchase behavior and patronage

loyalty?

Hypotheses

 

The fundamental premise of the research is that
certain key socio-economic, purchase motivation and pur-
chase behavior variables can be used to determine which
consumers are most likely to patronize specific retail
institutions. The specific research hypotheses are based
on the premise that the variables can be identified and
analyzed as a means of segmenting the market to better
delineate the market segments being served by each type
of retail institution.

The guiding and research hypotheses cover five
general areas of investigation:

1. The profile of the consumer who concentrates

food purchases in the one-stop shopping center is sig-
nificantly different than the profile of the consumer

who concentrates food purchases in the conventional

supermarket.

 

13

1.A. Consumers who concentrate food purchases
in the one-stOp shopping center differ from con-
sumers who concentrate food purchases in the con—
ventional supermarket in terms of:

1.A.l. Family Income;

1.A.2. Age of the Household Head; .
1.A.3. Occupation of the Household Head;
1.A.4. Family Size;

1.A.5. Level of Formal Education;

1.A.6. Family Life Cycle;

1.A.7. Social Class.

2. The importance of the various elements in an
institution's marketing mix to the consumer in motivat-
ing her to frequent a particular institution varies
significantly between the consumer who concentrates
food purchases in the one-stop shopping center and the
consumer who concentrates food purchases in the con-
ventional supermarket.

_2.A. The importance of elements in the insti—
tution's marketing mix varies between the consumer
who concentrates food purchases in the one-stop
shOpping center and the consumer who concentrates
food purchases in the conventional supermarket in
terms of:

2.A.l. Price;

2.A.2. Quality;

14

2.A.3. Trading Stamps and Promotional

Games;

2.A.4. Coupons and Price Specials;
2.A.5. Private Label Merchandise.

3. The purchase behavior and patronage loyalty of
the consumer who concentrates food purchases in the
one—stop shopping center is significantly different
than the purchase behavior and patronage loyalty of
the consumer who concentrates food purchases in the
conventional supermarket.

3.A. Consumers who concentrate food purchases
in the one-stOp shOpping center differ from con-
sumers who concentrate food purchases in the con-
ventional supermarket in terms of:

3.A.1. Number of Stores Shopped;
3.A.2. Percent of Shopping Done in First

Choice Store;

3.A.3. Average Size of the Customer Order;

3.A.4. Number of Shopping Trips to Pur-
chase Food Per Week;

3.A.5. Distribution of Purchases by Day of
the Week.

4. Consumer preference for purchasing food in the
one-stop shopping center or the conventional supermarket
carries over into other areas of consumer purchasing

behavior.

15

4.A. Consumers who concentrate food purchases
in the one-stOp shopping center are more likely to
shop in similar lowered-margin retail institutions
than are customers who concentrate food purchases
in the conventional supermarket when they shop for:

4.A.l. Convenience Goods;
4.A.2. ShOpping Goods;
4.A.3. Specialty Goods.

4.B. Consumers who concentrate food purchases
in the one-stop shopping center are more likely to
be catalog shoppers than are consumers who concen-
trate food purchases in the conventional super-
market.

5. Earlier adopters of the one-stop shopping cen-
ter are significantly different than later adopters of
the one-stop shopping center.

5.A. Earlier adopters differ from later adOp-
ters in terms of socio-economic characteristics.

5.B. Earlier adopters differ from later adop-
ters in terms of the motivational effect of the
various elements in the institution's marketing
mix.

5.C. Earlier adopters differ from later adOp-

ters in terms of purchase behavior and patronage

loyalty.

 

l6

5.D. Earlier adopters differ from later adOp-
ters in terms of the carry over of purchase behavior

to other areas of consumer purchase decisions.

Methodologyl4

 

The research study is based on personal interviews
with 159 family consuming units. .The families participating
in the research were all geographically located within a
five minute drive of both the one-stop shOpping center and
several conventional supermarkets.15

A complete enumeration of all housing units within
the geographically concentrated area was used as the pop-
ulation for the research. From the population a sample of
200 hOusing units were randomly drawn. The interviews were
made in the rerondent's home by experienced female inter-
viewers hired and trained for the research. The average
interview was completed in approximately forty minutes.

All interviews were made with the housewife infeach con-i
suming unit.

Upon completion of the interview period, which took

two weeks, the data collected were transferred to punch

 

14A complete section on Methodology can be found'

in Chapter III, "Research Design."

15See Figure 3-1 on p. 78.

 

17

cards and tabulated. The survey findings were then sub-
jected to statistical tests to accept or reject the re-

search hypotheses.

Potential Contributions of the Research

The primary contribution of the research is to
develop a body of knowledge about a distinct segment of
the consumer market to determine the extent to which this
segment's socio-economic characteristics, purchase motiva-
tion and purchase behavior differs from the entire pOpula-
tion of consumers. The extent to which the segment served
by the institutional innovation differs from the pOpulation
indicates the extent to which the adopters of such an in-
stitution differ from the general population. If these
adopters can belidentified, the process of acceptance for
an institutional innovation can be accelerated. This would
result in a better matching of retail offerings to market
demand.

Thus, the research assumes an extremely broad def-
inition of the marketing concept. The marketing concept
is the philosophy that the business enterprise takes its
cues from, and adjusts to, the market. Under the philos-

ophy, the enterprise adjusts not only its product offering,

but rather the enterprise itself adjusts in an effort to

match marketing effort with market Opportunity.

 

18

A second, and related, contribution of the research
is a better understanding of market segmentation as it
exists in an industry which is vital to the growth and
well being of the United States economy. With this know—
ledge,tflu3present and future role of the various types of
institutions comprising the industry can be evaluated.

A third contribution of the research is a better
understanding of the "Wheel of Retailing" theory. By
studying the changing structure of retailing as an on-going
process of consumer acceptance, knowledge is gained as to
the causes of the rise and fall of Specific retail insti-
tutions. In addition, knowledge of the adoption process
as it applies to the acceptance of institutional innova-
tions is gained.

A fourth contribution of the research is the know-
ledge to be gained about the extent of carry-over between
food purchasing and other related consumer purchase deci-
sions. The research should indicate the extent to which
purchase motivation and purchase behavior are similar in
different consumer decision areas.

A fifth contribution of the research is a knowledge
of the differences between earlier and later adopters of an
institutional innovation. This knowledge should allow a
continual adjustment of the innovational institution's

marketing mix in an effort to better serve the market.

19

Limitations of the Study

 

The limitations of the study are as follows:

1. The geographic area of the research was ex-
tremely concentrated. All consuming units interviewed
in the research were taken from an area approximately
one mile wide and three miles long. While visual ob-
servation confirms the belief that the area contains
a wide divergence in housing types, income levels and
social classes, the area is not necessarily representa-
tive of the entire metropolitan area. In addition, the
reader is cautioned against applying the data generated
in the research to other metrOpolitan areas.

2. It is apparent that the research area was se-
verely "under-stored" in the market offering of food
outlets prior to the introduction of the one-stop shOp-
ping center. This may be a contributing factor to the
early success which the institutional innovation en-
joyed in this case. This may also have had some effect
on the types of consumers who have chosen the outlet as

their primary source of supply for food.

Organization

 

The remainder of the study is organized into four
chapters. Chapter II presents a review of the literature
relevant to the research. The areas reviewed are:

1) Market Segmentation; 2) General Merchandise ShOpping

20

Behavior; 3) Food ShOpping Behavior; and 4) Adoption of
Innovation Behavior. ‘Chapter III presents a complete
description of the research design used in the study.

The research findings are presented in Chapter IV.
The results of the completed research design are presented
in tables as a basis for the evaluation of the hypotheses
generated in Chapter I. Chapter V is an analysis of the
findings with respect to the various research hypotheses.

In addition, Chapter V contains the conclusions of the re-

search and presents suggested areas for further research.

 

CHAPTER II

SHOPPING BEHAVIOR AND INNOVATION

Chapter II presents a review of relevant research
pertaining to the areas of market segmentation, shopping
behavior and the innovator.

The first section reviews the concept of market
segmentation and briefly reports on a number of studies
that have been done in the area. The second sectiOn re-
views conventional and discount shopping with respect to
the purchase of general merchandise. The third section
discusses conventional and discount shOpping with respect
to food purchases. The final section reviews the processes
of innovation and adoption and reports on some of the re-

cent studies which have relevance to the research.

The Concept of Market Segmentation

Staudt and Taylor1 have pointed out that, generally

. . . a firm seeks to grow and perpetuate itself, in addi-

tion to earning for its owners, managers, and employers an

 

1Thomas A. Staudt and Donald A. Taylor, A Manager-

ial Introduction to Marketing_(Englewood Cliffs, New Jer-
sey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965).

21

22

ever-improving return for effort."2 To accomplish this
objective in an affluent economy such as we have in the
United States today, a firm must accept, and operate under,
the marketing concept with its inherent orientation toward
the consumer. Operating under a market orientation the
firm performs the role of ". . . analyzing, organizing,
planning and controlling . . . the firm's customer-imping—
ing resources, policies, and activities with a View to
satisfying the needs and wants of chosen customer grOups
at a profit."3
The market orientation is an important change from
the production and selling orientations that most firms
have followed in the past. Under the current marketing
concept, ". . . the consumer becomes the fulcrum, the pivot
point about which the business moves in Operating for the
balanced best interest of all concerned."4 With a market
orientation as the guiding philoSOphy of a business organ-

ization, a firm attempts to adjust not only its product

offering, but rather adjusts the entire firm itself to

 

21bid., p. 3.

3Philip Kotler, Marketing Management, Analysis,

Plannin and Control (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pren-
tIce-HaII, Inc., 1967), p. 12.

 

4Fred J. Borch, "The Marketing Philos0phy as a Way

of Business Life," in William Lazer and Eugene J. Kelley
(ed.), Mana erial Marketin : Perspectives and Viewpoints,
Second Edit onITHomewood, I 1.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1962): p. 15.

 

23

changes occurring in the market place. Only through this
process of adjusting the enterprise to changes constantly
occurring in the market, can the firm efficiently match
marketing effort with market Opportunity.

Kelley and Lazer enlarge on this concept of adjust-
ment when they state that, "A major marketing management
task is that of adapting to market Opportunity through
planned innovation. Planned innovation is a basic charac-
teristic of the modern marketing concept. Planned marketing
involves both adjusting to the innovations of competitors
and providing creative counter innovation by the firm."5
Interpreted broadly, the emphasis of the passage is that
of adjusting the firm's market offering to consumer needs
and desires. In attempting to accomplish the desired ad—
justment of marketing effort to market Opportunity (con-
sumer wants), a number of important areas of research have.
been undertaken in the discipline of marketing.

One particularly useful area of research has been
that of market segmentation. Market segmentation recog-
nizes the fact that there is not a‘single, large market of
consumers, but rather a large number of smaller market seg-

ments relevant to specific products. Stated more concisely,

 

5Eugene J. Kelley and William Lazer (ed.), Mana-

 

gerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, Third Edi-
tion (Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967), p. 12.

 

24

market segmentation ". . . consists of viewing a hetero-
geneous market (one characterized by divergent demand) as
a number of smaller homogeneous markets in response to
differing product preferences among important market
segments."6
In the same article by Smith, the author enlarges
the definition as follows:
Segmentation is based upon developments on the
demand side of the market and represents a rational
and more precise adjustment of product and marketing
effort to consumer or user requirements. In the lan-
guage of the economist, segmentation is disaggregative
in its effects and tends to bring about recognition of
several demand schedules where only one was recognized
before.7
To date a number of researchers have successfully
utilized the concept of market segmentation to better del-
ineate and identify relevant segments of the market. One
of the variables that has been used in a number of different
studies is social class. In an article entitled "Social
Class and Consumer Behavior," Sidney Levy reports that
social class has been used successfully to segment markets

in a number of situations.8 Of particular interest to the

research is the effect of social class on shopping behavior.

 

6Wendell R. Smith, "Product Differentiation and
Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies"
in Kelley and Lazer, op. cit., p. 201.

71bid., pp. 200-201.

8Sidney Levy, "Social Class and Consumer Behavior"
in Joseph Newman (ed.), On Knowing the Consumer (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 146-160.

 

25

Levy reports that social status appears to affect
how peOple feel about where they shop. According to the
article, shOppers tend to purchase goods in retail outlets
which have status "images" similar to the shoppers own
social status. High status shOppers tend to shop in high
status stores while low status shoppers frequent stores
with a lower status where they feel comfortable shOpping.

The author also indicates that consumers from dif-
ferent social classes exhibit different shOpping behavior.
According to the article:

The upper middle class woman organizes shopping
more purposefully and efficiently than women of lower
status . . . lower middle class women "work" more at
shopping, showing more anxiety about it, finding non-
food purchases especially demanding and tedious . . .
[and] lower class women are most impulsive about shop-
ping, the least organized.9

In a second study, Martineau reports similar find-
ings on the usefulness of using social class as a means of

10 Martineau reports that in the

segmenting the market.
retail food industry, consumer profiles show that each

retail chain acquires a status definition. The research
indicates that in Chicago, where both A & P and Jewel are

large grocery chains, ". . . A & P is strong with the mass

 

9Ibid., p. 154.

10Pierre Martineau, "Social Class and Spending Be-
havior," Journal of Marketing, Vol. XXIII (October, 1958),
pp0 121—1360

J

26

market, whereas Jewel has its strength among the middle
class."11

Martineau summarizes the findings of the research

by stating that:

Each major department store, furniture store, and
grocery chain has a different "pulling power" on dif-
ferent status groups. The usual customers of a store
gradually direct the store's merchandising policies
into a pattern which works. The interaction between
store policy and consumer acceptance results in the
elimination of certain customer groups and the attrac-
tion of others, with resulting equilibrium around a
reasonably stable core of specific customer groups who
think of the store as apprOpriate for them.1

A third study of the application of social class

13 In the

to market segmentation should be mentioned.
study, Carman summarizes the theory of social class as
developed in sociology and marketing research, and repOrts
a number of findings on the measurement of the concept.

In general, the conclusions of the study are that: (1) it
is possible to use social class theory in a fashion useful
to marketing; (2) it is possible to subdivide classes into
a few gross, but homogeneous groups which can be identified
simply; and (3) persons in each of the groups do exhibit

differences which may be useful in planning segmented mar-

keting strategies.

 

llIbid., p. 127.

lzIbid., pp. 129-130.

13James M. Carman, The Application of Social Class
in Market Segmentation (Berkeley: Institute of Business

 

 

and Economic Researéh, University of California, 1965).

 

27

A second variable frequently used in market seg-
mentation is life-cycle. Life-cycle generally is a mar-
riage of the age of the household head and the ages of the
children living at home. One study, again reporting on
shopping behavior, found that "Younger women shop more
often than older women, but presence of children did not
make any significant difference within the two age groups."14
In addition, the study indicated that younger people showed
more of a tendency to shOp in shopping centers than did
‘older persons.

Lansing and Kish in another article have discussed
the general use of the life-cycle variable as a means of

15 The authors state that in each

segmenting the market.
of the areas of consumer behavior that they had researched,
family life-cycle was a better indicator of behavior than
was age. The article concludes by stating that ". . . life
cycle should be adOpted more widely as an independent

variable."16

 

l4Stuart U. Rich and Subhash C. Jain, "Social Class
and Life Cycle as Predictors of ShOpping Behavior," Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. V (February, 1968), p. 4 .

15John B. Lansing and Leslie Kish, "Family Life
Cycle as an Independent Variable," in Ralph Day (ed.),
Marketing Models! Quantitative and Behavioral (Scranton,
Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company, 1964),
pp. 256-268.

16

 

Ibid., p. 267.

 

28

Similar research findings have been found using a
number of different variables as the basis for market seg-

mentation. Some of the more conventional variables that

have been used are age,17 race, 18’19 and occupation.20

In addition, a number of more complex variables have also

been used to segment markets. Among the other variables

22 innovativeness,23 brand

25

are personality,21 mobility,

loyalty,24 and private-brand proneness.

 

17Sidney Goldstein, "The Aged Segment of the Market,
1950 and 1960," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 (April, 1968),
pp. 62-68.

18Milton Alexander, "The Significance of Ethnic
Groups in Marketing New-Type Packaged Foods in Greater New
York," in Lynn H. Stockman (ed.), Advancing Marketing Ef-
ficiency_(Chicago: American Marketing AssoEiation, 1959).

19Raymond A. Bauer, "Negro Consumer Behavior," in
Joseph Newman (ed.), gngKnowing the Consumer (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 161-165.

20The Working Man: Do Marketing Men Know Him,"
Printers Ink, Vol. CCLXXVII (December 1, 1961), pp. 48-49.

21Morris J. Gottlieb, "Segmentation by Personality
Types," in Lynn H. Stockman (ed.), Advancing Marketing_
Efficiency_(Chicago: American Marketing Association,
I959): PP. 148-158.

22James E. Bell, Jr., "An Analysis of the Decision
Process Utilized by Long Distance Mobile Families in Select-
ing New Sources of Supply for Goods and Services," Unpub-
lished D.B.A. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967.

23William E. Bell, "Consumer Innovation: An Inves-
tigation of Selected Characteristics of Innovators," Unpub-
lished D.B.A. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962.

24Ronald E. Frank, "Is Brand Loyalty a Useful Basis
for Market Segmentation," Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 7 (June, 1967): PP. 27-33.

 

 

 

 

 

 

—————@

29

In the majority of these studies, the researchers
found the respective variables useful in identifying homo-
geneous segments of the total market. Some of the findings
have relevance to the research and are briefly reviewed
below to give the reader a better idea of the areas in
which market segmentation has been used.

Bauer, in analyzing the Negro market concludes that
". . . from reports on shOpping behavior, we have indica-

26 The article indicates

tions of a self-segmented market."
that Negro consumers show much more anxiety about products
and the making of product decisions than do white consumers.
In addition, the negro market is a great deal more brand
conscience and brand loyal than the white market.

Frank and Boyd report that they found private-
brand-prone (PBP) grocery shoppers to be somewhat different
than grocery shoppers who were not private-brand-prone.

The article states that:

There are some relatively small associations be-
tween private-brand-proneness and household socio-eco-
gnomic and consumption patterns. Larger families have
a higher PBP than do small ones. The greater a house-
hold head's education, the higher is the expected level

of a household's PBP . . . households with high con- 27
sumption rates are more apt to be private-brand-prone.

 

25Ronald E. Frank and Harper W. Boyd, Jr., "Are
Private-Brand-Prone Grocery Customers Really Different?,"
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 5 (December, 1965),

 

pp. 27-36.
26

Raymond A. Bauer, op. cit., p. 164.
27

Ronald E. Frank and Harper W. Boyd, Jr., Op. cit.,
p. 35.

_1

30

In another article, Frank concludes that brand
loyalty is not very useful in the segmentation of markets.
Frank states:

The pattern of results for brand loyalty as a basis
for market segmentation in food products is not encour-
aging. Brand loyal customers almost completely lack ‘
identifiability in terms of either socio- economic or
personality characteristics.28

With the exception of the last study, the use of
market segmentation reported in each of the articles above
has allowed the researcher to more accurately identify a
relevant market through identification of smaller homogen-
eous segments of the total market, rather than using the
concept of the more heterogeneous "mass market." Such an
identification allows a firm to reduce marketing ineffic-
iencies by narrowing the mass market into more responsive

target markets. In this way the firm can better match its

marketing effort with market Opportunity.

General Merchandise Shopping Behavior

The General Nature of Shopping»

Consumer shopping behavior has undergone a number
of important changes during the last two decades. Approx-
imately twenty years ago, at the end of World War II, the

vast majority of all consumer purchases were concentrated

 

28Ronald E. Frank, Op. cit., p. 33.

31

in the nation's central business districts. While there
were a few planned suburban shopping centers in existence,
they accounted for a relatively small percent of retail
sales. Today, this is no longer the case.

While the present study is primarily concerned with
the shifts in retail patronage occurring within the metro-
politan area, a study recently completed at Michigan State

University merits mention.29

The study, by Cox and Erick-
son, indicates a long-run shift in consumer purchase pat-
terns away from the metrOpolitan areas. According to the
study, ". . . since 1929 there has been a relative decen-
tralization of retail sales, in that retail sales in non-
metropolitan areas are increasing at a faster rate relative
to pOpulation and income than are sales in metropolitan

areas."30

Two of the reasons posited for the shift are an
increasing emphasis on convenience, and the increasing
efficiency and effectiveness of the small town retailer.

The shift in shopping patterns shown in the Cox and Erickson
study is a shift occurring in addition to the shifts occur-
ring within the metropolitan areas which are reviewed below.

29Eli P. Cox and Leo G. Erickson, Retail Decentral-
ization (East Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Business and
EconomIc Research, Michigan State University, 1967).

301bid., p. 61.

32

Within the metrOpolitan area, two important changes
in retail offerings have been primarily responsible for the
change in purchase patterns. Each was undertaken in an
attempt to follow the changing spatial and demand patterns
of the consumer market. First, came the acceptance, and
rapid growth, of the planned suburban shopping center.
Second, came the acceptance and patronage of the now famil-
iar discount house across the nation. Both changes in the
retail offering have caused drastic shifts in the patterns
of shOpping behavior exhibited by the American consumer.

A great many reasons can be given to explain this
shift that is evident. Certainly, the increased mobility
of the consumer and the migration of the "masses" from the
urban areas are partly responsible. Likewise, increasing
affluence and an emphasis on leisure are also respOnsible.
In fact, the whole changing style of life in the United
States is responsible for these shifts in shopping behavior
and retail offerings.

Kelley attempts to explain these changes in consumer
purchasing behavior through the constructs of "commodity
costs" and "convenience costs." According to the article,
"Commodity costs are defined as the monetary price paid
the seller to obtain possession of goods and services
(while), . . . convenience costs are incurred through the
expenditure of time, physical and nervous energy, and money

required to overcome the frictions of space and time, and

33

to obtain possession of goods and services."31 Kelley

feels consumers making purchase decisions attempt to achieve
an equilibrium between commodity costs and convenience
costs, and that presently convenience costs are becoming
more important as patronage determinants.32
The author also states that, "The new emphasis on
convenience does not necessarily mean that the consumers
are less price conscious than formerly; rather, insistence
of convenience cost minimization has been superimposed on
the desire for economically favorable commodity transac-

tions."33

Hence, consumers making purchase decisions at-
tempt to balance both the economic and the convenience
aSpects of the decision and purchase at the point where
the sum of the commodity costs and the convenience costs
are minimized.

The fact that consumers attempt to minimize total
shopping effort does not mean, however, that consumers no
longer like to shop. Another study gathered information
from over four thousand women shoppers in two major metro-

34

politan cities. The study reported that, "As a testimony

 

31Eugene J. Kelley, "The Importance of Convenience

in Consumer Purchasing," in Kelley and Lazer, Op. cit.,
p. 155.

321bid., p. 155.

331bid., pp. 155-156.

34Stuart U. Rich, Shgpping Behavior o£_Department
Store Customers (Boston: Harvard UniVersity Press,I1963).

 

34

to the popularity of shOpping, virtually all of the women
in New York and Cleveland went shopping for clothing and
things for the household, with half of them doing so at

35 When asked about enjoyment in

least twice a month."
shopping, approximately two-thirds of the women interviewed
stated that they "really enjoy" shopping, while only 16
percent stated that they "actually dislike" to shop.36

The facts would seem to indicate that even though
the consumer is shifting buying patterns to minimize shOp-
ping effort, the reason for these shifts does not come from

an actual dislike of the shopping process itself.

Tge Central City vs. the ShOpping
Center

In the mid-fifties a study of shOpping patterns in
three major metropolitan markets was undertaken in an at-
tempt to better understand how consumers in the three mar-
kets met their shopping needs. The results of the study
were reported in The Shoppinngenter Versus Downtown.37
According to the study the three major disadvantages of

the central business district, in order of importance,

were 1) difficulty in parking, 2) too crowded to enjoy

 

35Ibid., p. 61.

361bid., p. 65.

37C. T. Jonassen, The ShOpping Center Versus Down-
town (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University,l955).

35

shOpping, and 3) traffic congestion. The advantages, in
order of their importance were, 1) large selection of
goods, 2) the fact that several errands could be completed
at one time, and 3) cheaper prices.38
Opinions concerning suburban shopping centers were
less uniform. Respondents in all three cities did agree
however that the chief advantage was closeness to home.
The disadvantages were 1) lack of a large selection, 2)
not all kinds of businesses represented, and 3) prices too
high.39
Jonassen felt that the results of the study strong-
ly indicated that the advantages of the central business
district minimized the disadvantages. The fact that the
central business district has continued to decline would
seem to indicate that the disadvantages associated with
the downtown area were greater than his study first indi-
cated. On the other hand, the suburban shOpping center
through its continued growth has done much to eliminate
the disadvantages he found associated with these centers.
Since the Jonassen study was conducted in the early
fifties, the central business district has been slow to
respond to the problems of parking and traffic congestion.

381bid., p. 90.

39Ibid., p. 90.

36

Only now, in the late sixties are most of the large cities
accepting the realism of the problems and actively attempt-
ing to correct them. The solution would appear to be a few
years away, however.

A 1965 study, Parking in the City Center, reported

40 According to the study, "The

on the continuing problem.
nation's urban centers are striving for a new equilibrium
attuned to the motor vehicle--an adaptation essential for

41 While the cities are now

their continued prosperity."
aware of the problem, the question still remains whether
the cities can do enough to "off-set" the problems of park-
ing and traffic congestion soon enough to save the cities.
The study clearly delineates the fact that more
downtown travelers will come from auto-oriented suburban
areas in the future years, increasing the magnitude of the
problem. For example, it was established that Philadelphia's
downtown core will require an additional 6000 parking spaces
in 1970, as compared with the 3000 additional spaces re-
quired in 1960. The findings were similar for the other
cities studied in the research.

On the other hand, suburban shopping centers have

continued to grow and prosper over the same period of time,

 

4oWilber Smith and Associates, Parkingin the City
Center (New Haven, Connecticut: Wilber Smith and Asso-

cIates, 1965)..
41

 

Ibid., p. iii.

37

till they have become part of the American way of life.

While the 1957 edition of the Directory of ShOpping Centers

 

listed some 2000 shopping centers, the 1967 edition listed

over 10,000 different centers in existence.42

In addition
to the tremendous growth in number of shOpping centers;
the centers have grown in terms of stature and acceptance
also. As one source reports, ". . . in almost every way
conceivable, shOpping centers will transplant all the ser-
vices and activities of the central city core to the new

centers of population in the suburbs."43

Department Store vs. Discount
House

 

Ever since the nation's first full-line discount
store, E. J. Korvette, Inc., Opened its doors in 1955 the
discount industry has continued its rapid growth. §£gy_
Matter reports that as far back as 1965 the industry had
sales of over thirteen billion dollars and that discount
stores (including food sales) had passed conventional de-

partment stores in total dollar sales.44 Another study

 

 

42National Research Bureau, Sho in Center Direc-
togy (Chicago: Published annually since I957).

43"Urban Travel Patterns for Airports, ShOpping
Centers, and Industrial Plants," in National Cooperative
géghwgy Research Program Report 24 (Highway Research Board,
6) I P- 33.
44Gray Advertising, Inc., Grangatter, Vol. 38
(May, 1967).

 

 

38

indicated that sixty-three percent of all people interview-
ed had shopped in a discount store within the last month.45
In a separate article reporting the findings of
the Rich and Portis study carried out in New York City and
Cleveland, the authors state that ". . . both the discount
stores and the department stores have strong distinctive

46 Their research indicated that ". . . the main

appeals."
strengths of the department stores lie in the quality of
their merchandise, their reputation and reliability, their

47 In addition,

salesclerk service, and other services."
the research indicated that ". . . price appeal stands out
for the discount stores, in terms of both good value and
lower prices, although the latter is by far the stronger
reason of the two when it is compared with the store pref-
erence reasons for particular department stores."48
The study also indicated that, "Salesclerk service
and other traditional department store services such as

delivery, charge accounts, and so on, are of major impor-

tance to the large proportion of women who say that

 

45"14th Annual Study of Super Market Shoppers,"
(Cincinnati, Ohio: Burgoyne Index, Inc., 1967). p. 38.

46Stuart Rich and Bernard Portis, "Clues for Action
From Shopper Preferences," Harvard Business Review (March-
April, 1963), p. 132.

47
48

Ibid., p. 139.
Ibid., p. 139.

39

department stores are easier places to shop in than are

discount stores."49

Conversely, ". . . to another sizeable
group of women who prefer the discount store . . . the
self-service of the discount store is also of major impor-
tance."50
Analyzing the consumers who shop in discount stores,
the study found that, ". . . seventy percent of New York
women and sixty percent of Cleveland women do at least some
of their shOpping in discount stores . . . and nineteen
percent of the women in New York and twelve percent of
those in Cleveland can be considered to be high frequency
shOppers, since they do half or more of their shOpping in
these stores."51
In addition, they substantiated two other facts in
the research. First, the research indicated that, "Dis-
count shopping . . . tends to be more pOpular among the
lower-and middle-income women."52 Secondly, "Younger women
patronize discount stores more than do older women . . .
and women with children, regardless of age, do more dis-

count shopping than those without children."53

 

491616., p. 143.

50
51

Ibid., p. 143.

Ibid., p. 135.

521bid., p. 135.

53Ibid., p. 136.

40

Food Shopping Behavior

The food industry in the United States is a large
and important industry to our country. In 1967 grocery
store sales reached an all time high of seventy-four bil-

54 This was about a five percent increase

lion dollars.
over 1966. Along with the continued increase in sales,
has come continued increases in efficiency.

One study by a leading trade organization states

the following:

Impressive evidence of the benefits to the average
.consumer from mounting efficiency in food production
and marketing is found in the steadily decreasing share
of income required to buy the family's food. The ear-
liest study on record, in the 1870's, indicates that
food took fifty eight percent of all the consumers
earned. By 1965, the figure was 18.2 percent of dis-
posable income--a sixty nine percent reduction.55

The reduction is misleading however, since per

capita disposable personal income rose significantly during
the period.56 If this figure is comparedwith most other

countries, the efficiency of the system becomes evident.

Disposable income spent for food in most countries exceeds

 

54"Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Grocery In-*
dustry," Progressive Grocer (April, 1968), p. 79.

. 55Pro ress in Food Distribution (Washington, D. C.:
National Assoc ation of Food Chains, 1966), p. 8.

56Per Capita D.P.I. rose over 112 percent between
1929 and 1967 alone. For more detail see Economic Report
gt the President (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing OffIce, 1968). (See especially p. 227.)

41

thirty percent, and in many of the develOping countries
goes as high as seventyvfive percent of disposable income.57
The reduction in percent of income spent on food tells only
part of the story. The 18.2 percent spent by consumers in
the United States today buys more food, more convenience,
higher quality, more variety and more services than ever
before.

To accomplish the results, the retail segment of
the industry has continually adapted to changing consumer
needs. The development of the general store, the chain

store, the supermarket,58

and now the lowered-margin dis-
count Operation have all been shifts in the retail offering
designed to better serve the consumer.

The most recent change in the retail offering is
the rise of the discount supermarket, either as a free-
skanding unit or under the same roof as a general merchan-
dise discount house. While the actual number of discount
houses varies according to the source quoted, a Department
of Agriculture study reports that these discount stores
accounted for over eleven percent of all grocery store

sales in 1965.59

i

 

57Ibid., pp. 8-9.

58David L. Appel, "The Early DevelOpment of the
Super Market As a Major American Retail Institution," Un-
published monograph, Food Marketing Program, Graduate School
of Business Administration, Michigan State University, 1967.

59Gray Advertising, Inc., op. cit., p. 2.

42

The new discount supermarket is readily disting-
uishable from the conventional supermarket. Generally,
operating a supermarket under the discount philosophy means
". . . operating the grocery department at an average drop
of five points in gross profit percent; at a maximum seven—
teen percent gross instead of the conventional twenty-one

to twenty-two percent."60

The discounters usually operate
a supermarket which is ". . . larger in selling area by
2,500 to 5,000 sq. ft. than the average . . . and uses
price-oriented high pressure advertising (but no games or

61

stamps) as their prime shopper lure." In addition, the

new discounter generally ". . . offers lower everyday prices
on virtually every grocery item in the supermarket."62
Several studies have been conducted which should prove

useful to the research.

Progressive Grocer's "Annual

Report”53

The "Annual Report of the Grocery Industry," is

published yearly in Progressive Grocer, a leading food

 

industry publication. The report analyzes changes and

 

60"Behind the New Wave Discount Super Revolution,"
Chain Store Age (November, 1967), p. 88.

611bid., p. 88.

621bid., p. 90.

63"Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Grocery In-
dustry," op. cit.

43

trends occurring in the-industry during the current year.
While impossible to report all the findings here, a number
of the findings relevant to the research will be reviewed.
The report substantiates the widely held belief
that the retail segment of the industry is facing contin-
ually rising costs and shrinking margins. Table 2-1 shows
the reported margins, expenses and net profits for food

chains during the last five years.

TABLE 2-1

FOOD CHAIN MARGINS, EXPENSES AND
NET PROFITS FOR SELECTED YEARS

 

 

 

Year
1966- 1965- 1964— 1963- 1962-
Item Reported 1967 1966 . 1965 1964 1963
Margin on sales 22.23% 22.32% 22.48% 22.23% 22.13%
Total Operating
expense 21.33 21.38 21.20 21.11 21.13

Net operating profit 0.90 0.94 1.20 1.12 1.00
Net other income 1.33 1.46 1.46 1.50 1.53

Total net income
before taxes 2.23 2.40 2.66 2.62 2.53

Net income after
taxes 1.19 1.31 1.41 1.31 1.24

 

Source: Table adapted from p. 93 of the "Thirty-Fifth Annual
Report of the Grocery Industry"

44

The data indicates that margins rose until the
1964-65 period. Since 1964-65 margins have declined while
expenses have continued to climb upward. The result has
been a decline in net income after tax from 1.41 percent
in 1964-65 to 1.19 percent during the current reporting
period of 1966-1967.

Another part of the report relevant to the research
is concerned with prices and price awareness. The report
indicated an increasing awareness of prices and total shop-
ping dollars spent. Of the retailers surveyed, sixty-nine
percent indicated that consumers were becoming more sensi-
tive to price Specials and sixty-five percent felt there
was increasing sensitivity to price increases.64

The increase in prices is shown in Table 2—2. The
Table shows a five year trend in sales and the relative
contribution of price changes and increased product move-
ment. As the Table shows, in every year except 1966 the
increase in sales has come more from increased tonnage
movement than from rising prices.

A third area of interest that the report is con-
cerned with is trading stamps. Table 2-3 shows the percent
of stores using stamps. The Table was developed from the
last five annual reports. Data for 1967 is not included

due to a change in reporting format. The Table indicates

 

64Ibid., p. 86.

45

that trading stamps have experienced a decline in usage
over the last five years. The 1967 report also indicates

a decline in usage. According to the study, ". . . the
percent of food stores giving trading stamps showed its
greatest single-year decline in 1967."65 Stamp usage de-
clined eight percent in regional and local chain Operations
from 44.5 percent of the organizations using stamps in
January, 1967, to 39 percent using stamps a year later.66
Independent store owners using stamps declined from 33.2
percent to 31.8 percent over the same time period.67 The

data from 1967 is not directly comparable with the earlier

 

 

 

data.
TABLE 2-2
FIVE YEAR TREND IN SALES AND PRICES OF
MERCHANDISE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH
THE SUPERMARKET
Year

Reason for Change 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963
Total sales gain 4.9% 7.5% 6.1% 5.7% 5.4%
Tonnage gain 4.0 2.5 3.7 4.5 3.8
Retail price increase 0.9 5.0 2.4 1.2 1.6

 

Source: Table adapted from p. 80 of the "Thirty-Fifth.
Annual Report Of the Grocery Industry"

 

651bid., p. 80.

66Ibid., p. 82.

67Ibid., p. 32.

46

TABLE 2-3

GROCERY STORES USING TRADING STAMPS AS REPORTED
BY PROGRESSIVE GROCER MAGAZINE

 

 

 

 

Year
Type of Store 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963
Chain stores N.A. 74% 77% 81% 85%
Independent stores N.A. 21 22 23 38
All grocery stores N.A. 25 24 25 64

 

Source: Data for Table 2-3 was compiled from the 1963
through 1967 Annual Reports by Progressive Grocer
Magazine

 

"The Super Market Industry_Sp_eaks"68

"The Super Market Industry Speaks" is the annual
report published by Super Market Institute. The report is
concerned with numerous different aspects of the industry
such as sales, Operating results, expansion, discounting,
sales promotion, personnel and merchandising. Of particular
interest to the research are the sections on sales promo-
tion and discounting.

The section Of the report on sales promotion deals
primarily with trading stamp usage among Super Market Insti-
tute member companies. Table 2-4 is a composite Of data
reported in the 1963 through the 1968 annual report.

6lag-"The Super Market Industry Speaks 1967," Annual

Report of the Members (Chicago: Super Market Institute,
1967).

 

47

The data indicates that stamp usage by member com-
panies and stores increased rapidly until 1960. In 1962
there was another increase in usage, but at a much slower
rate of growth. Since 1962, the trend has been one of de-
clining usage. The decay in usage appears to be about as

rapid as the growth was during the late fifties.

TABLE 2-4

TRADING STAMP USAGE AMONG SUPER MARKET
INSTITUTE MEMBERS FOR SELECTED YEARS

 

 

Companies and
stores using Year
trading stamps 1968 1966 1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954

 

Percentage of
companies 38% 48% 54% 56% 51% 47% 39% 15%

Percentage Of
stores 46 61 70 78 72 58 40 13

 

Source: Data for Table 2-4 was compiled from the 1954

through 1968 reports from Super Market Institute.

The other area of interest to the research is the
extent to which food retailers are engaging in discount
Operations, either in free-standing discount supermarkets
or under the same roof with a general merchandise discount
house. Table 2-5 shows the data.

The Table indicates that a significant number of
Super Market Institute members are engaged in the discount

revolution. Presently, thirteen percent of the members

48

Operate food stores in discount houses and another sixteen
percent Operate free-standing discount supermarkets. Com-
bining both types of operation, the stores account for ap-
proximately fifteen percent Of the member stores. As can
be seen in the Table, the percentage represents approx-
imately three times as many member stores as were involved
in discounting in 1963. While too early to tell, it does
appear from the data that this growth has leveled out dur-

ing the last two years.

TABLE 2-5

SUPER MARKET INSTITUTE MEMBERS ENGAGED IN FOOD
DISCOUNTING THROUGH DISCOUNT HOUSES
AND/OR DISCOUNT SUPERMARKETS

 

 

Year
Number and percent Of stores 1968 1967 1965 1963

 

Members Operating food store in
discount house 13% 12% 11% 10%

Percent of member stores 4 4 4 2.5

Members Operating discount
supermarkets 16 15 16 12

Percent Of member stores 10 10 5 3

 

Source: Data for Table 2-5 compiled from 1963 through 1968
reports from Super Market Institute.

49

69

 

Burgoyne Index Study

The "Annual Study of Super Market ShOppers" is
published annually by Burgoyne Index, Inc. The study re-
ports the results Of interviews with approximately 3,500
shOppers in a number of key cities throughout the country.
The study is somewhat narrower in SCOpe than the last two
studies reviewed. The Burgoyne study is primarily concerned
with consumer patronage motives, purchase behavior and
purchase loyalty.

The first section of the study reports on actual
consumer behavior patterns. Table 2-6 shows the number of
food stores patronized. Of the consumers interviewed,
eighty-four percent shopped in more than one supermarket,
while only sixteen percent of those interviewed completed

all their food shopping in a single store.

TABLE 2-6

NUMBER OF STORES SHOPPED TO PURCHASE FOOD

 

 

Year
Number of stores shOpped 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963

 

One supermarket exclusively 16% 18% 17% 29% 25%

More than one 84 82 83 71 ,75

 

Source: Table adapted from p. 10 of the "Fourteenth Annual
Study of Super/Market Shoppers"

 

69

"14th Annual Study Of Super Market Shoppers,”
Op. cit. ‘

50

The data would seem to indicate a trend toward,
and pattern of, multiple store ShOpping. Those shoppers
who frequent more than one store, shop in approximately
2.8 different stores to complete their food Shopping.7o
The respondents evidently do not shop in each store every
week, however. The average number of stores shopped per

week was 1.6.71

In terms of shopping trips per week, Table
2-7 indicates that forty-nine percent of the respondents
shop once a week, or less, while fifty-one percent shop at

least twice a week.

TABLE 2-7

NUMBER OF SHOPPING TRIPS PER WEEK
TO PURCHASE FOOD

 

 

Year
Shopping trips per week 1967 ‘ 1966 1965 1964 1963

 

Once a week or less 49% 47% 48% 54% 55%
Twice a week ' 26 25 26 24 24
Three times a week 15 16 16 13 13
Four or five times a week 6 7 7 7 6
Every day 4 5 3 2 2
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

Source: Table adapted from p. 25 of the "Fourteenth Annual
Study of Super Market ShOppers"

 

7°1b1d., p. 11.'

711bid., p. 13.

51

A second section of the study is concerned with
determining which factors are most important to supermarket
shoppers. As Table 2-8 shows, "low prices on groceries"
was the most important factor to conSumers for the second
year in a row. Approximately thirty-two percent of all
shOppers interviewed felt that low prices were the most
important factor. The second and the third most important
factors were "quality and freshness of meat" and "convenient
location" with twenty-three percent and fifteen percent
respectively.

It is interesting to note the reversal that occurred
between 1965 and 1966. Prior to 1966, the quality and
freshness of meat was the leading factor mentioned by ShOp-
pers as the reason for shOpping in a specific store. As of
1966, the primary factor in food store selection shifted
away from quality and freshness of meats to lower prices on
groceries. The change in emphasis was probably a reaction
to rapidly rising meat prices during 1966, although a gen-
erally rising awareness of the total food bill may have
been responsible also.

A third area of interest from the study is concer-
ned with trading stamps. In the metropolitan areas sur-
veyed, approximately eighty-four percent of the people in-
terviewed received trading stamps and eighty-two percent
saved them. [The study also indicated that, of the "savers,"

about sixty percent save two or more different brands of

52

trading stamps and ninety-seven percent express a pref—
erence for a specific stamp.72 Table 2-9 Shows the trend

in saving trading stamps for the last six years.

TABLE 2-8

DETERMINING FACTORS IN SUPERMARKET SELECTION
MENTIONED FIRST BY CONSUMERS

 

 

 

Year
Factor mentioned first 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963
Low prices on groceries 31.9 30.5 22.5 21.7 20.3
Quality and freshness of
meats 23.2 22.6 27.0 25.4 29.7
Convenient location 14.5 13.7 13.9 13.0 14.8
Attractiveness and clean-
liness of store 10.0 11.0 11.7 15.7 12.8
Variety and selection of
grocery merchandise 6.8 7.2 6.6 6.9 6.9
Quality and freshness of
fruits and vegetables 2.7 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.2

 

Source:

Table adapted from p. 23 in the
Study Of Super Market Shoppers"

"Fourteenth Annual

Table 2-10 indicates that the study found an in-

creasing awareness Of the costs involved in giving trading

stamps.

Approximately two-thirds of the shoppers felt that

supermarkets giving trading stamps charged higher prices.

Only twenty-nine percent felt the prices were the same.

 

721bid., p. 34.

53

In addition, when posed with the question Of whether they
would rather shop in a store giving trading stamps or an
identical store with prices two cents less on the dollar,
seventy-nine percent chose the latter. Table 2-11 shows ’
that the percent of Shoppers preferring lower prices to

stamps has risen over the last five years.

TABLE 2-9

TRADING STAMP SAVING BEHAVIOR REPORTED
FOR CONSUMERS BY BURGOYNE STUDY

 

 

 

Year Percent Year Percent
1967 81.6 1964 90.0
1966‘ 88.4 1963 92.5
1965 92.5 1962 91.8

 

Source: Table adapted from p. 33 of the "Fourteenth Annual
Study of Super Market ShOppers"

A fourth section of the study reports on consumer
attitudes and behavior with respect to discount stores.
Sixty-three percent of all consumers interviewed said that
they had shopped in a discount store within the last

73

month. Of this group, sixty percent said that they gen-

erally purchase food and other merchandise when shopping

 

73Ib1d., p. 38.

54

in a discount store.74 The primary reason for Shopping at

the discount store was again lower prices with forty-seven

percent of the shoppers interviewed reporting this as their

75,76

primary reason for patronage. Additionally, approx-

imately twenty-two percent of the Shoppers stated that they

purchase "almost all" of their food in discount stores.77

TABLE 2-10

EFFECT OF TRADING STAMPS ON PRICES
AS PERCEIVED BY CONSUMERS

 

 

Prices in supermarkets Year
using trading stamps 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962

 

Charge higher prices 66% 64% 54% 55% 59% 57%

Prices about same . 29 31 40 40 34 36
Don't know 5 5 6 5 7 7
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

Source: Table adapted from p. 35 of the "Fourteenth Annual
Study of Super Market ShOppers"

 

74Ibid., p. 39.

7SIbid., p. 40.

76The forty-seven percent reporting low prices as
their primary reason for patronizing the discount stores,
is significantly higher than the 31.9 percent reported for
all food shoppers in Table 2—8.

77Ibid., p. 42.

55

TABLE 2-ll

CUSTOMER PREFERENCE FOR TRADING STAMPS
VS. LOWER PRICES

 

 

 

Year
Stamps and price 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963
Trading stamps 21%‘ 28% 30% 32% 55%
2 cents lower 79 72 70 68 45
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

Source: Table adapted from p. 37 of the "Fourteenth Annual
Study of Super Market ShOpperS"

Other Relevant Research

 

Several other studies have been conducted which
have relevance to food shopping generally, and discount
food shOpping specifically. One unpublished study entitled,
"An Exploratory Study of Selected Discount Food Stores,"78
is relevant to the research. In the study, the author
analyzed three pairs of conventional and discount super-
markets tO determine the extent to which the discount
supermarkets actually differ from conventional outlets.
The three pairs of matched stores studied were selected

from 1) a large chain, 2) a small chain, and 3) a voluntary

chain.

 

78Robert J. Minichiello, "An Exploratory Study of
Selected Discount Food Stores," Unpublished D.B.A. disser-
tation, Harvard University, 1965.

56

Several Of the findings on actual Shopping behavior
are Of interest. In each case, using Similar stores, the
discount supermarket's drawing power far exceeded that of
the conventional store. From forty-five to sixty—six perk
cent Of the conventional store's customers lived within one
mile of the store. The discount supermarkets, however,
drew heavily from areas beyond one mile with seventy-eight
to one hundred percent Of all customers coming at least

79'80 Store visits were less frequent:

that far to shOp.
however, in the discount supermarkets with a maximum Of
twenty-five percent of the consumers shopping more than
once a week as compared with forty-five to fifty percent
shOpping more than once a week in conventional outlets.
The study also found substantial differences in
margins and expenses. According to the study, "Operating
expenses were from 2.5 to 3.6 percentage points less at

the discount store."81

In Minichiello's Opinion, this was
due primarily to the elimination Of trading stamps and
lower labor expenses. Expenses did not fall quite as

sharply as margins, however. In fact, "Reductions in

 

791bid., p. 124.

80An earlier study by Bernard J. La Londe identified
a number Of additional factors which affect the drawing
power Of a retail store such as the location of the shop-
ping center and the cluster of outlets in which the store
is located. See footnote 5 in Chapter III for citation.

811bid., p. 149.

57

Operating expenses by the discount food stores did not
compensate fully for the differences in gross margins:

consequently, net profits before taxes were from 1.4 to

2.6 percentage points lower at the discount stores."82

In summary, the author states:

The findings of this study indicate that discount
food stores, as exemplified by the outlets studied,
have reduced Operating expenses primarily by eliminating,
trading stamps. The lower Operating costs have enabled
the discount stores to reduce prices and the lower
prices appear to have attracted a segment of the market
motivated more by a low price appeal than by merchan-
dise premiums obtainable by saving and redeeming trad-
ing stamps. 83

In addition to offering customers lower prices, the
discount stores studied were also part of a complex
providing one-stop shOpping. The combination of food
and general merchandise in close proximity may have
convenience appeal to some customers.

Another study dealing briefly with food discounting
was conducted in the Boston metropolitan area in 1965.85
At the time, Boston had thirty-one discount supermarkets
which represented six percent of all Boston supermarkets,
and accounted for eleven percent of total supermarket

sales, or eight percent of total food sales for the area.

In general, the study found that the discount stores were

 

821bid., p. 150.

831bid., p. 151.

84Ibid., p. 158.

85WilliamApplebaum, Patterns oft Food Distribution
in a Metro 0113 (Chicago: Super Market Institute, Inc.,
I9665. (See eSpecially pp. 10-11. )

58

about fifty percent larger than conventional supermarkets
and located primarily in extensively built-up middle income
suburban areas. The study also noted that there was not a
single discount supermarket located in a strictly low in-
come area.

A third and forth study relevant to the research
has been conducted by the Agricultural Experiment Station
of the University of Kentucky. One of the studies is con-
cerned with sources of information and food buying deci-

86 and the other is concerned with homemaker's re-

87

sions,
sponses to direct advertising.
The study on sources of information found that
factors having influenced recent food purchases were in-
formation on containers and labels first, requests from
children and family members second, and newspaper grocery
store advertisements third. Radio was more important to
the Negro segment than the white segment of the market.
Literature such as magazines, food articles and reference
materials were more important to white segments Of the
market. Store specials and bargain counters appealed more

to the homemakers who had above average incomes and

___...n_.._.4 A

86"Sources Of Information and Food Buying Deci-
sions," Southern_COOperative Series Bulletin 85 (Lexington,
Kentucky: University of Kentucky, 1963).

87"Homemaker's Responses to Direct Advertising,"
gouthern Cooperative Series Bulletin 121 (Lexington, Ken-
tucky: University Of_Rentucky, 1966).

 

59

educational levels as well as to those who were younger.
Generally, the study found that patterns of response were
similar for white and Negro market segments, but that the
levels of response were lower for the Negro segments.

The other study found little difference between
Negro and white market segments in response to direct ad-
vertising. Differences were found in terms of income,
education and age Of the household head, however. The
respondents with college level educations (especially
graduate work) indicated a much more distinctly negative
attitude toward direct mail and unsolicited advertising
than the average respondent. Respondents with incomes
greater than $8000 per year were also extremely indifferent
to this form of advertising. Likewise, older people were
shown to be less prone toward direct mail. Thus the neg-
ative groups with respect to direct mail advertising were
those with advanced formal education, higher incomes, and
Older persons. Other groups appear to be more tolerant of
the technique.

It is apparent from the studies cited that there
are a number Of different types of food stores composing
the retail Offering, one Of which is the discount super?
market. It also appears that this type of outlet has sig-
nificantly lower prices and distinctive marketing mixes
which should make them readily identifiable to the con-

sumer.

60

Innovation and the Adoption Process

In the dynamic economy which characterizes the
United States, innovation is necessary to continual change.

As one author states it:

Innovation is . . . essential in the activities
that must be performed to distribute goods and ser-
vices efficiently and economically. Several process
innovations in marketing of a basic nature have ap-
peared in recent years. These include the shopping
center, the discount house, automatic vending machines,
physical distribution changes, new credit concepts,
and new organizational developments growing out of the
marketing concept.

Consumer acceptance of these innovations can be
studied as an adOption process. Rogers has studied the
process Of adOption quite extensively.89 According to
Rogers, adOpter categories ". . . are the classification
of individuals within a social system on the basis of in-
novativeness."90 As such, the adOption process can be a
useful tool in analyzing the consumer acceptance of new
institutions. Rogers' work has led to some significant
findings useful to the research.

Rogers' past studies have shown that the adoption

of innovations generally follows a bell-shaped, or normal,

 

88Eugene J. Kelley and William Lazer, "Managing

Innovation in Marketing," in Kelley and Lazer, op‘ cit.,
p. 282.

89Everett M. RO ers, Diffusion of Innovations (New

York: The Free Press, 962). (See eSpecIally chapters
six and seven.) '

9°1b1d., p. 148.

61

curve when plotted over time. While not all adopter dis-
tributions have been normal, few have been skewed enough

that they do not at least approach normality.91

Thus,
innovativeness is a continuous distribution in that indi-
viduals adOpt a new process, or idea, at different times.
When aggregated, the distribution of adopters takes on a I
definite pattern which approaches the normal curve.

Since the adoption process forms a continuum, the
partitioning of this continuum into categories should be
viewed as a conceptual device. Rogers identifies five
adOpted categories through the use of two parameters--the
mean and the standard deviation--Of the normal curve.92
Each of his five categories (Innovators, Early Adopters,
Early Majority, Late Majority and LaggardS) have identify—
ing characteristics. Often, however, the differences sep-
arating the categories are extremely small.

Due to the small differences, it is often (at least
in earlier studies) useful simply to study the adoption
process by means of earlier vs. later adopters of an inno-

vation. Using the breakdown, earlier adOpters are the left

half of the distribution of adopters (i.e., from minus

 

911bid., pp. 159-169.

92A number of different adOpter categories are in
use depending on the researcher quoted. Rogers' five cate-
gories based on the use of the mean and standard deviation
is an attempt at standardization of the terminology.

62

three standard deviations to the mean) while later adOpters
are the right half of the distribution (i.e., from the mean
to plus three standard deviations). The justification is
that there is greater similarity within the earlier adopter
category and the later adOpter category than there is be-
tween the two categories. Rogers has used this breakdown.
in some of his work and found significant differences be-
tween earlier and later adopters.93

Rogers' research, while not directly related to
marketing, has shown that the adoption process is definitive
enough to lend itself to study in the field Of marketing.
Rogers' work has been primarily concerned with the diffusion
and adOption of new ideas and information. However, the
methodology has provided a number of useful tools that
should lend themselves to study Of the problem at hand.

The concepts and techniques develOped in diffusion of in-
novation research can be useful in answering the questions
raised by the consumer acceptance of institutional innova-
tions.

Much Of Rogers' early work was concerned with the
adoption of new farm techniques in rural America. The
research indicates that innovators have ". . . higher adop-
tion leadership, more education, greater formal participa-

tion, higher social status, younger age, higher reading

 

93Rogers, Op. cit., pp. 171-189.

63

levels and better interview rapport than other adopter

categories."94 In another publication95

it has been stated
that the adOption process ". . . follows a rather uniform
pattern from the time the new product is developed until it
is widely accepted by the ultimate consumers."96
‘ A more general study of the consumer as an innova-‘t
tor was conducted several years ago. The study-found that
innovators were young, highly concentrated in professional
and managerial occupations, very highly educated, and had
a high home ownership rate.97 The study went further how-
ever, and delineated the innovative market segment into
Strategic and functional innovators. Strategic innovators
were defined as those who "accept minor product altera-
tions," while functional innovators were those who "accept
more complex change." According to the findings, the func-
tional innovators were older than the strategic innovators:
had higher educations, higher incomes,and higher home own-

ership rates than all other groups.98

 

94Everett M. Rogers, Characteristics of Agricultural

Innovators and Other Adopter Categories (Wooster, Ohio:
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961), p. l.

95The Foundation for Research on Human Behavior,
AdOption of New Products (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University
Of Michigan, 1959).

961bid., p. 1.

97William E. Bell, op. cit., p. 181.

98Ibid., p. 182.

64

New product acceptance has also received a good
deal of attention in the literature. One study in the area
analyzed social and psychological factors associated with

the acceptance of new food products.99

In the study, the
author found that the "High Triers" (the first sixteen per-
cent tO try a new food product) had more formal education,
higher levels of income, were younger, had larger families
and Older children than the "Majority" or the "Low

Triers."loo

The study also found no relationship between
occupation and the extent to which new foods were tried.
Graham has also studied the adOption process as it

relates to marketing.101

Of particular significance to the
research is the section on the adOption of the supermarket.
While the data does indicate that the middle and upper
class were most responsible for the supermarket's success,
the dichotomy between "accepters" and "rejectors" was not as

distinct as in some other areas of the research. In the

study he found that ". . . indications were that the

 

99H.‘Bruce Bylund, "Social and Psychological Fac-
tors Associated with Acceptance Of New Food Products,“ in
Ralph L. Day (ed.), Mggketing Models: Quantitative and
Behavioral (Scranton, Pennsylvania: Ihternational Text-
Book Company, 1964), pp. 145-174.

100

 

Ibid., see especially pp. 147-152.

101Saxon Graham, "Class and Conservatism in the
AdOption of Innovations,” in Perry Bliss (ed.), Marketipg.
and the Bepgvioral Scienceg (Revised Edition) (Boston:
Allen and Bacon, Inc., 1967), pp. 195-207.

 

65

accepting classes were those which had most contact with

them, either through residing near them, or through prior

use Of chain stores."102

A number of other studies have been concerned with
‘1
the process of adoption in marketing. Several of these

articles have attempted to clarify the processes of inno-.

103'104 Others have studied actual

adoption processes such as fashion,105 drugs,106 and new

107

vation and adOption.

products.

Summary

The substitution of a market orientation rather
than a production or sales orientation by American business

has created a renewed interest in the consumer. One method

 

102Ibid., p. 202.

103Francis S. Doody, "Research in the Process of
Innovation," Boston Business Review, Vol. VIII, NO. 4
(Spring, 1962): pp. 13-21.

104Thomas S. Robertson and James N. Kennedy, "Pre-
dictions of Consumer Innovators: Application of Multiple
Discriminant Analysis," Journal of MarketinggResearch, Vol.
V (February, 1968), pp. 64-69.

105Charles W. King, "Fashion Adoption: A Rebuttal
to the 'Trickle Down' Theory," in Stephen A. Greyser (ed.),
Toward Scientific Marketipg (Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 1964), pp. 108-125.

106J. Coleman, E. Katz, et al, "The Diffusion of an
Innovation Among Physicians," Sociometry, Vol. XX (1957),
pp. 253-270.

107

 

 

Adoption Of a New Product, op. cit.

66

of better understanding the consumer is through more pre-
cise identification and delineation of apprOpriate markets.
Market segmentation is the tool which makes this possible.

Many authors have utilized the concept of segmen-
tation to better delineate the market. .A number Of studies
in the area have utilized the variables of 1) sex, 2) age,
3) income, 4) race, 5) occupation, 6) social class, 7)
personality types, 8) life cycle, 9) mobility, 10) inno-
vativeness, and 11) brand purchasing behavior.

The concept of market segmentation and the above
mentioned variables have been useful in studying a number
Of shopping patterns which have changed markedly over the
last twenty years. General merchandise shopping behavior
has changed with the decline in the central business dis-
trict and the rising acceptance Of the suburban shopping
center and the discount house. Increasing consumer mobility
and the rising importance of leisure have also been partly
responsible for the shifts in patronage. Generally, young
families have been the key segment of the market responsible
for many of the changes that have occurred.

Discount shopping has also affected food shopping
patterns in the United States. The discount food stores
are generally about fifty percent larger than the conven—
tional supermarket, and operate at approximately five per-
centage points below the gross margin of the conventional

market. In addition, the discount supermarket's drawing

67

power appears to be far greater than that of the conven-
tional supermarket.

The process of consumer acceptance for the new
institutional innovations can be studied as an adOption
process. The adoption process attempts to stratify cOn-
sumers on the basis Of innovativeness, and studies how a
product, an idea, or an institution gains acceptance over

a period of time.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN

The purpose of Chapter III is to provide a detailed
presentation of the methodology used in the research. The
chapter is presented to provide a base upon which the re-
search findings may be accepted or rejected. In addition,
the chapter provides a framework for future research in
the area of consumer shopping and adoption behavior.

The first part of the chapter presents the inde-
pendent and dependent variables used in the research. In
the second section, the sample design and selection pro-
Cedures are covered. The third section presents the in-
Vterviewer selection and training procedures used, the
method used to contact the selected consuming units inter-
viewed, and the administrative control procedures followed.
The final section Of Chapter III is concerned with the
preparation of the data for statistical analysis and the

statistical analysis used in the research.

68

69
Research Design Framework

Identification of Variables

The research design is constructed to make a com-
prehensive study of the process by which consumer market
segmentation occurs in response to an institutional inno-
vation in a specific field of retailing. The actual con—
Suming units interviewed were randomly drawn from a specific
geographic area selected due to the presence of both the
one-stop shopping center and several conventional super-
markets within a five-minute driving time of all housing
units. The research was carried out in a metropolitan area
having a total population of over 200,000.

The research design was concerned with a compre4
hensive investigation of socio-economic variables, purchase
motivation, and purchase behavior to determine which seg—
ments Of the consumer market were responsive to the new
type of innovational institution. In addition, the research
was designed to study several areas of related consumeé
purchase behavior and how the adopters of the one-stop,
shOpping center change over time. Characteristics of the
consuming units were identified as independent variables
while the primary source of supply chosen for food was1

identified as the dependent variable.

 

70

Independent Variables

 

The selected characteristics of the consuming units
used as independent variables were drawn from three areas.
The three areas used were socio-economic characteristics,
the motivational effectiveness of various elements in an
institution's marketing mix, and purchase behavior patterns.
The specific socio-economic characteristics chosen for the
research were (1) family income, (2) age of the household
head, (3) occupation of the household head, (4) size of the
family unit, (5) level of formal education, (6) family life
cycle, and (7) social class. The life cycle characteristics
developed were a function of (1) the age of the household

head, and (2) the age of the children.1

The development Of
social class data was based on the techniques developed and

reported in W. Lloyd Warner's Social Class In America.2

 

The second area from which the independent varia-
bles were selected was the motivational effectiveness of
various selected elements Of an institution's marketing
mix on the consuming unit as a specific institution wag

selected as the primary source Of food purchases. The,

!

 

1The life cycle used in the research was developed
by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan

and used in Life Stud of Consumer Expenditures. Conducted
for Time, Inc., by Al¥red PoIitz Research, Inc., 1957. .

2W. Lloyd Warner, Social Class in America (New 1
York: Harper and Row, 1966). (See especially chapters
eight and nine.)

 

71

specific elements chosen were (1) price, (2) quality, (3)
trading stamps and promotional contests, (4) coupons and
price specials, and (5) private label merchandise. In each
area the consumer was asked to recall specific past behav-
iOr patterns for a recent time period rather than general
Opinions about the variable in question. Recent behavior
patterns were studied in the belief that the motivational
effectiveness of the selected elements can best be measured
by studying recent behavior.

The last area from which the independent variables
were drawn was consumer purchase patterns. The area con-
tains both purchase behavior and patronage loyalty factors.
The characteristics selected for study were (1) number of
stores shopped, (2) concentration of purchases, (3) average
size of purchases, (4) number of ShOpping trips per week,
and (5) day of the week that the major shopping trip is
made. Again, recent actual purchase behavior was measured.
Table 3-1 details the three areas in the context of the

entire study.

Dependent Variable

 

The dependent variable selected for the research is}
the type Of retail institution selected by the consuming
units as their primary source Of supply for food. The two
specific retail institutions studied were the cOnventional

supermarket and the one-stop shopping center. For purposes

72

 

How>mnmm

masseuse omumaom .o
muammoq mmmcouuom

one How>mn0m Omenouom .U

coeum>auoz masseuse .m
moeumwuouomumnu

Oweocoomlowoom .<

mumumoom Hound .m> Hmwauom

x003 no use .m
x003

\mmaua.mcwmmonm mo Honeoz .o
momenouom mo Ouam ommuo>< .U
momonouom mo SOAHMHucmOSOU .m
oommoom monoum mo Hensoz .4
muHMth oomcouumm

.ocm How>on0m masseuse .HHH

Omaoconoumz Henna mum>HHm .m
mamaoomw

.moaum one msomnoo .o
mumoucoo amoOADOEOHm

.HH one mmfimum weapons .0

 

Suwanee .m
. mowed .d
a
.Hmucmo mcammonm noun mmmao Hmwoom .6
-mp0 may lac “means in a me
.muwoo mc«EdchO gnu macho Oman maweom .m
an cowono aammSm sowumosom
mo OOHOOO Hons: Huanom mo Ho>oq .m
anew sesame .o
meeaaonm moemnpo .o puma neon
mpooo huamwoomm .U Immsom mo cowuomoooo .U
mooow mcwmmonm .m use: odonmmsom MO 004 .m
mooou mocowco>cou .m mEOOcH haefiOm .m
How>mnom mmmsouom mowumwumuomumnu
ca Ho>o anumu mo acmuxm .H OREOSOOOIOwOom .H
moanmwum> ooumamm moanoflum> useocmmoo moanmwum> DGOOGOQOOGH

 

 

mmfldem¢> SUM¢Mmmm :l!

Him manda

73

Of the research, the following broad definitions were
developed:3

Conventional Supermarket.--A large integrated food
store Offering groceries, meat, dairy, produce and
frozen food, Operating primarily on a self-service
basis, and having an annual sales volume of at least
one million dollars.

One-Stop Shopping Center.--A lowered-margin inte-
grated shopping center Offering both a wide line of
general merchandise and a complete supermarket under
the same roof and Operating with a lower gross margin

, than conventional general merchandise and food outlets.

1

1

Related Variables and Additional
Analysis

 

 

In addition to the independent and the dependent

Variables, a number of related variables were also studied

 

in the research. The related variables examined identified
She extent of carry over in consumer purchase behavior.
Specifically, the research identified the extent to which
consumer food purchasing behavior carried over into four

other purchase decision areas. The areas Selected for the

research were (1) convenience goods purchase decisions,

 

3The definitions used here are a conglomerate of
definitions from several sources and have been constructed
especially for the research.

74

(2) shOpping goods purchase decisions, (3) specialty goods
purchase decisions and (4) mail-order shopping.

Finally, the entire range of independent variables
studied was reanalyzed for those consuming units selecting
the one-stOp shOpping center as their primary source Of
supply for food. The independent variables were studied
in relation to the time at which the individual consuming
units adopted the one-stop shopping center as a primary
source of supply. The purpose of this additional area of
the research was to see if any of the independent variables
could readily identify the earlier adOpters of the insti-
tutional innovation, and learn how the adopters Of the

institution have changed over time.

Qpestionnaire Objective

The questionnaire develOped for the research, and
contained in Appendix B, was designed to investigate the
extent to which market segmentation has occurred due to the
introduction of an institutional innovation into a specific
geographic area. The questionnaire contained four specific
sections which investigated the areas of (1) food purchase
behavior, (2) purchase motivation, (3) related purchase
behavior, and (4) socio-economic characteristics. The
questions were all formulated to stress recent purchase
decisions and purchase behavior since it was believed that
recent and actual behavior was the best measure that could

be used in light of existing time and money considerations.

~44

.‘

Ob.

On.

I
.se'

4;.

:‘n

I (I)

75

The questionnaire was also structured to develop
additional information on the consuming units reSponsible
for the acceptance of the one-stop shopping center. Through
analysis of the data, the market segments responsible for
the original acceptance of the new institution and its con-
tinued growth can be analyzed in detail to identify any
shift in responsive market segments that has occurred over

the last eighteen months.

Sample Selection

Sample Source

Prior to selecting a sample and testing the hypo-
thesis, a relevant population for the research had to be
defined. After preliminary investigations of a number of
cities in the midwest, the community of Lansing, Michigan
and environs, a metropolitan area of about 200,000 total
population, was selected for the research.

A two step selection process was used in the re-
search. In the first step, the specific geographic area
tO be used in the research was selected. In the second
step, a sample Of housing units was systematically drawn
from the research areas to arrive at the actual sample of
respondents to be interviewed in the research. Each step

in the sample selection process is covered in detail below.

76

Selection of Research Area

The research was concentrated in a geographic area
located at the western edge Of the Lansing, Michigan Stand-
ard MetrOpOlitan Statistical Area.4 The area was selected
due to the two decision criteria previously set up. First,
extremely diverse conditions existed within the area.‘ Vis-
ual Observation confirmed the fact that extreme variability
in housing types, social class, life cycle and income could
all be found in the research area.

Secondly, all housing units within the research
area were located within approximately a five minute driv-
ing time to both the one-stop shopping center and several
conventional supermarkets. The concentrated aspect of the
research area controlled the variable of distance, since
it has been shown to be such a critical variable in select-
ing a source of supply for food.5

The specific area in which the research was con-

ducted is the area bounded on the north by the Grand River,

on the east by the Lansing city limits, on the south by

 

4For further information see: U.S. Bureau of the

Census, U.S. Census Of PO ulation and Housin : 1960, Census
Tracts, Final Report PHC (IS-73 (U.S. Government PrintIng

Office, Washington, D. C., 1962).

5For other variables affecting trading areas and
drawing power see: Bernard J. La Londe, Differentials in
Supermarket Drawin Power (E. Lansing, Michigan:. Bureau
of Business and Economic Research, College of Business and
Public Service, Michigan State University, 1962).

 

 

 

77

West St. Joseph Street, and on the west by Creyts Road.
The research area was approximately three miles long and
two miles wide. The research area and location of the

retail institutions are shown in Figure 3-1.

Selection of Specific Households

 

The selection of the actual housing units to be
interviewed in the research was accomplished by a two-phase
process. The first phase required an enumeration of housing
units. The second phase then randomly selected the actual
housing units to be included in the sample and interviewed
for the research. Each phase is covered below.

The first phase in selecting specific housing units
to be interviewed in the research required a complete enu-
meration of all housing units in the research area. Two
different techniques were required to complete the enumera-
tion. Approximately fifty percent of the research area is
enumerated in the 1967 edition Of R. L. Polk's City Direc-

tory-Lansipg, Michigan.6 Using the Citprirectory, an

 

enumeration of all housing units located in the research
area was generated according to street addresses. 'Since
the first half of the research area has very little, if any,

new housing starts there was no serious updating problem.

 

6R. L. Polk, Polk's Lansing (Ingham County, Mich.)
City Directory (Detroit, Michigan: R. L. Polk and Company,

 

9 7 .

N Hmnfioz poxumsuomom Hmcofiuom>coo .m
H HOQEOZ umxumeuomsm Hmooeucm>ooo .N
Hoodoo mcwmmosm moumumqo .H

mmmoaw AHdBmm 924
4mm¢ mUm¢flmmm m0 ZOHBGUOA

HIM HMDUHW

bk

  

79

After checking numerous sources, it was apparent
that no such list existed for the other half Of the research
area. In addition, this half of the research area had quite
a few new houses which were either under construction, or
had recently been occupied. Consequently, a more detailed
method of enumeration had to be used. A recent street map‘
of the entire area was obtained and each street was system-
atically enumerated according to street address by visual
Observation. The procedure resulted in an exact enumeration
of all occupied housing units in the area.

By combining the street address listings arrived at
by each technique, a complete enumeration of all housing
units within the research area was achieved. The master
list contained three thousand five hundred and seventy-two
street addresses.

The second phase was to select the actual housing
units to be interviewed in the research from this master
List of housing units. The desired sample was to be com-
posed Of two hundred housing units. This sample was then
randomly drawn from the master list of all housing units in
the area through the process Of sequential sampling.

The final sample was systematically drawn through
the use of a "skip interval" and randomly chosen starting
point. The skip interval is a number, arrived at by divid-
ing the number Of housing units in the research area by the

number of housing units to be interviewed. The random

80

starting point is a number between one and the designated
skip interval and is selected from a table of random num-
bers. The methodology guaranteed the random selection and
geographic dispersion of the sample from the research area.

For example, if there were thirty six hundred hous-
ing units in the relevant pOpulation and a sample of two
hundred was desired, the skip interval would be eighteen.
The skip interval means that every eighteenth house would
be systematically selected. The starting point for select-
ing the sample would be determined by randomly selecting a
number between one and eighteen. Starting with the selected
number, every eighteenth housing unit wOuld be selected for
inclusion in the sample.

In the actual selection procedure the designated
skip interval turned out to be seventeen. The result was
two hundred and ten housing units being selected for inclu-
sion in the sample. Ten housing units were then randomly
dropped from the selected sample, resulting in a final
sample Of two hundred housing units. The two hundred street
addresses were then designated as the actual sample to be
used in the research. The housing units selected by the
skip interval procedure and dropped were designated as al-
ternates. None of the alternates were used.

Prior to interviewing the selected sample, the
survey instrument was pre—tested to insure that the ques-

tions were properly worded to Obtain the desired information.

.-
I

J

000'

sun

I

“s'
I

.3“
Hi5:

II+.

«...:

‘v J
b.’ ‘

Fag
6‘»

‘BA‘
‘ugp

new

‘I‘A
~..§J

7?:

6“e

‘1

i
“Gin.

81

The data gathered during the pretest was not included in
any Of the statistical analysis or findings. The sole pur-
pose Of the pretest was to check the effectiveness of the
measuring instrument. In light of the information gained

during the pretest two questions were changed slightly.

Interviewer Seleption and Household
Contact Procedures

 

Interviewer Selection

 

All interviews completed for the research were
taken by a staff of interviewers recruited, selected, and
trained specifically for the research. Interviewers were
recruited through a research interviewing service in the
Lansing area. After selecting eight interviewers to be
used in the study a group training session was held. The
purpose of the training session was to acquaint the inter-
viewers with the general purpose Of the research and famil-
iarize them with the survey instrument to be used. Training
included discussion of the prOper way to run an interview,
how to ask and record questions, and how to probe for needed
information. After the interviewers had been thoroughly
briefed on each question contained in the survey instrument,
the technique of "role playing" was used to similate the

actual interview situation.

R

Ivo-

pa.

“vi

Ag;-
48'»-

‘
4%.

V
\I A

I ~‘l

‘\‘ .
t. i-
b

82

ContactingHousehold Units

The research pOpulation on which the study was
based contained three thousand five hundred and seventy-two
housing units. From the population a sample Of two hundred
hOusehOlds and ten alternates were randomly selected for
the study. The Objective of the interviewing was to con-
tact as high a percentage of the actual sample as possible
and use the alternates only if less than seventy-five per-
cent of the actual sample cooperated in the research. The
study results are based on responses from one hundred and
fifty nine (159) housing units, or seventy-nine and a half
percent (79.5%) Of the original sample.

All housing units were contacted by the interviewers
a minimum of five times before they were considered non-
respondents. Five attempts resulted in one hundred and
sixty-one (161) completed interviews. Two (2) of these
completed interviews were later drOpped from the analysis
due to a number of 'nonsense' answers the respondents had
given.

Of the thirty-nine (39) interviews that were not
completed, twenty-three (23) were contacted but refused to
be interviewed without giving a specific reason for the
refusal. Nine (9) other housing units were designated as
non-respondents when the interviewers had failed to contact
anyone at the home after four "call-backs." One (1) housing

unit turned out not to be actual family unit. Two (2)

..- .
“vi

1"“!
Vi.

83

housing units failed to respond due to illness in the fam-
ily. Three (3) other housing units refused to be inter-
viewed since they had moved into the Lansing area within
the last month and felt they had not yet developed any
shopping patterns. Finally, one (1) of the housing units
had recently been zoned differently and was at the time a
commercial establishment.

Figure 3-2 and Appendix C detail the breakdown of
respondents and non—respondents. Figure 3-2 is a flow
chart of the contact process as it occurred in the research.
Appendix C analyzes the location of the non-respondents and

the reason for not taking part in the research.

Administrative Procedures

All housing units asked to participate in the re—
search were originally contacted at their home by the in-
terviewers perSonally. Each interviewer carried a letter
of introduction to show the respondent, should some question
as to the authenticity of the study arise. The letter is
contained in Appendix B.

At the start of interviewingperiod, each inter-
viewer was assigned fifteen to twenty housing units to be
contacted. Each survey instrument contained the street
address to be contacted, directions on how to find the spe-
cific street address, and a control number for accounting

purposes. After each attempted interview, the interviewer

84

 

 

oomswmm

 

H

 

 

 

 

 

ommOmmm

 

m

 

panamom

 

e

venomom

 

 

NH

 

 

venomom

ma

 

 

 

 

 

@803 um uoz

m

 

msom um uoz

 

ma

 

 

 

 

mmuoameoo

N

 

 

 

 

ooumamfiou

Md

 

 

 

OBOE um #02

wv

 

 

 

 

 

ooumamsoo

Hm

 

 

850: um uoz

HOH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omumamfiou

me

 

com
mo
meow

 

 

 

 

 

omuoameou

om

 

 

 

poemuua sum

haemuua sue

adamuua cum

uasmuua cam.

pasmuua awe

 

 

memoomm eoaezoo smH>mmezH mo amaze zoom

Nlm WMDme

 

'0‘.

N».

Na -
v.4:

85

was required to enter the day, time, and results (i.e.,
completed, not-at-home, etc.) on the cover of the survey
instrument.

If, after two attempts, no contact had been made
with the housing units, the interviewers were instructed to
check the name on the mailbox, or check with a neighbor to.
(Mytain it, and then call to set up a specific time for the
:hrterview. In all cases four "call-backs" were attempted
before a housing unit was designated asa non-respondent.
In each case this included both a Saturday call and an
evening call.

The original packets of fifteen to twenty surveys
assigned to each interviewer were based on a geographical
distribution to minimize travel time whenever possible.

On completion of their original assignments, five of the
eight interviewers were "pulled out" Of the field. The
three most productive interviewers were retained to com-
Plete the field interviewing. Completion of all interviews

took slightly less than two weeks.

Data Collection

The research data was obtained through comprehensive
Parsonal interviews conducted with the housewife in each of
the selected housing units. All interviews were conducted
in the respondent's home. Each interview took between

thirty five and forty five minutes to complete depending on

‘1.

n.

o'—

..l

9A
bu

'- ,.
a“,

,
. n
h“

(
[If

C:-

H

86

the amount Of information each respondent was able, and
willing, to give. The actual field work took place between
March 25, 1968, and April 6, 1968.

4 The interviewers turned in the completed interviews
daily at two collection points. As each was returned to
the researcher, the status of the survey (i.e., completed,
etc.) was recorded on a master control sheet maintained for
this purpose. In addition, ten percent of the responding
housing units were called to assure that the interviews had
actually been taken. Appendix B, in addition to containing
the survey instrument used, contains the pre-coded charts
used by the interviewers and the letter of introduction

carried by each of the interviewers.

Analysis of the Data

 

Data Preparation

 

Following the completion of all data collection,
the responses were coded according to predetermined category
breakdowns and placed on punch cards for computer analysis.
The coding was randomly inspected for any coding error, and
all punch cards varified for accuracy. In addition, a cOm—
plete record of all codes used was developed for future
reference and a duplicate deck of cards maintained to insure
against any loss of the working deck.

The analysis of the data gathered was primarily

confined to the hypothesis generated in Chapter I. To test

CA

93 A

n.

V."
'M

87

the reSpective hypotheses, two statistical programs were
used. In each case it was necessary to secure frequency
distributions on all data relevant to specific research
hypotheses. Categories were developed according to stand—
ard range breakdowns for socio-economic variables. Specific
categories were then established for the remaining variables

based on frequency distributions.

Computer Programs

 

The specific research hypotheses were teSted through
calculation of statistical values determined using the
Michigan State University ACT Computer Program.7 The pro-
gram required tables for all hypotheses. The computer pro—
gram then provided the following information for each table:

1) Observed frequencies:

2) Table row percentages down and across:

3) Percentage of total in each cell;

4) Theoretical frequencies:

5) Chi-square with degrees of freedom and contin-

gency coefficients.

The chi-square developed for each table was then
compared to the chi-square distribution at the .05 level to

determine the significance of specific research findings.

 

7Michigan State University, Computer Institute for
Social Science Research, Analysis of Contingency Tables
(Act II), Technical Report No. 14, January .

 

 

L.»l

fag

,-
t

5'8

in

9

kg;

88

When computed chi-square values were greater than the value}
shown in the chi-square table for a particular number of
degrees of freedom and confidence level, the findings were
judged to be statistically significant.

If the computed values were found to be significant,
the null hypothesis was rejected. Thus, the alternate hypo-
thesis was accepted and differences in values assumed to be
due to the variables under study rather than due to chance.
If greater significance than the .05 level was found, this
was reported also, since this reduces the probability of
type one error, or rejecting the null hypothesis when it
was in fact true.

Although the preceeding analysis was sufficient to
test all the hypotheses generated, a second analysis was
made using the majority of the data gathered. The data
used were taken from those respondents who chose either the
one-stOp shopping center or one of the two major conven-
tional supermarkets in the area as their primary source of
food. To accomplish this, ten respondents who shopped pri-
marily outside of the research area were excluded, resulting
in a sample of one hundred forty-nine for this section of
the analysis.

The smaller sample was then analyzed through the

use of the Michigan State University DISCRIM Computer

NA L
«(1: ~

89

Program.8 This multiple discriminant analysis program is
designed to evaluate similarities and differences among "n"
groups of respondents, and determine identifying character-
istics of each group.9

The output of the computer analysis is a table of
multiple discriminant coefficients which Show the extent to
which specific variables are useful in predicting which
group the subjects are most likely to be in. In the re-
search, the program was used to see if any specific iden-
tifying characteristics could be attributed to the group Of
respondents who shopped primarily in the one-stop shopping

center and the group who shopped in conventional outlets.10

Definition of Terms

 

A number of the terms used in the research are
defined here so that each may be understood in the prOper
context.

Age of the Household Head.--The age of the house-

hold head at the time of the survey.

 

8Michigan State University, Computer Institute for
Social Science Research, Multiple Digcriminant Analysis
(DISCRIM), Technical Report No. 33, February 29, 1968.

9C. R. Rao, Advanced Statistical Methods in Bio-
metric Research (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

1962). See especially chapter 9.

10For another example of this technique, see:

William F. Massy, "Discriminant Analysis of Audience
Characteristics," Journal of Advertising Research (March,
1965): pp. 39-48. '

 

90

Average Customer Order.--The average dollars spent
on food by the respondent per shOpping trip to the food
store.

CatalogShopping.--Purchases ordered by the respon-
dent from mail-order catalogs and delivered through the
mail (i.e., no retail store viSited).

Cents-Off Label.--A promotional tool used by manu-
facturers which temporarily reduces the normal price of
an item to the consumer by stating on the label Of the
product that the item is so many cents Off (below) the
regular retail price.

Concentration of Purchases.--The extent to which
all food purchases are made in one retail outlet shown
as a percentage figure.

Convenience Good.--Those goods that the consumer
usually desires to purchase frequently, immediately,
and with a minimum of effort.

Conventional Supermarket.--A large integrated food
store Offering groceries, meat, dairy, produce and
frozen food, operating primarily on a self-service
basis, and having an annual sales volume of at least
one million dollars.

Coupon.--A promotional tool issued by retailers and/
or manufacturers designed to allow the customer to pur-
chase a specific item for a few cents below the normal

price in return for the coupon redemption.

91

Earlier Adopter.--Those respondents who adopted the
one-stop shopping center as their primary source of
supply for food during the first three months of Opera-
tion.

Family Life Cycle.--A classification of households
according to the age of the household head plus the age
of the children in the home.

Formal Education.--The last grade of school com-
pleted at the time of the survey.

Household.--All persons who regularly live together

 

in one dwelling unit.

Household Head.--The person recognized by other
household members as being the head of the household
or, where not clear the major "breadwinner."

Later Adopters.--Those respondents who adopted the
one-stop shOpping center as their primary source of
supply for food after the first three months of Opera-
tion.

Number of Stores Shopped.--The number of different
food stores the respondent said she shopped in during
the week preceeding the research.

Number of Shopping Trips Per Week.--The number of
separate trips made to any food store, or stores, the

week preceeding the research.

92

Occupation of the Household Head.--The occupation,
or the job being performed, by the household head at
the time of the study.

One-Stop Shopping Center.--A lowered-margin inte-
grated shopping center offering both a wide line of
general merchandise and a complete supermarket under
the same roof and Operating with a lower gross margin
than conventional general merchandise and food outlets.

Price Specia1.--A promotional tool used by the re-
tailer where an item is featured at a price below the
normal selling price for a limited period of time and
advertised in a newspaper to create consumer awareness
of the special.

Primary Source of Food.--The retail food store in
which the respondent did the highest percentage of her
food shOpping the week preceeding the research.

4 Private Label Merchandise.--Merchandise sold under
a brand name owned or controlled by the distributor or
retailer rather than a national manufacturer.

Promotional Games and Contests.--A promotiOnal tool
whereby the retail store attempts to increase patronage
through "running" special games of chance or contests
for certain lengths of time.

Second Source of Food.--The retail store in which
the respondent did the second highest percent of her

food shOpping the week preceeding the research.

93

ShOpping Goods.--Those goods that the consumer
usually wishes to purchase only after comparing quality,
price, and style in a number of different stores.

Social Class.--A classification of households ac-
cording to W. LloydWarner's scheme of measuring status
in the community.

Specialty GOOdS.--Those goods that have a particular
attraction for the consumer so that she is willing to
make a special purchase effort.

Third Source of Food.--The retail store in which
the respondent did the third highest percent of her
food shopping the week preceeding the research.

Trading Stamp_.--A promotional tool whereby the
retailer attempts to increase patronage through the
giving of fractional premiums with merchandise which

can be redeemed for merchandise at a later date.

‘u

'O

Q‘-

A. H
selfi

En

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

The purpose of Chapter IV is to present the research
findings of the study. Presentation of the findings per-
taining to the adoption of a new type of retail institution
as a primary source of supply for food will provide addi—
tional insight into the process that consumer's use in
selecting a source of supply for food purchases. Specific
findings relating to each of the research hypothesis will
be presented.l

{ The findings Of the study are organized into six
sections. The six sections follow the order in which the
guiding hypotheses were presented in Chapter I. The first
four sections of the chapter report findings based on the
entire sample Of 159 housing units. The fifth section is

based on the findings resulting from a further analysis Of

the 66 housing units selecting the one-stop shopping center1

 

1In Chapter III, the one-stop shopping center was
defined for the purposes of the research as, "A lowered-
margin integrated shopping center Offering both a wide line
of general merchandise and a complete supermarket under
the same roof and Operating with a lower gross margin than
conventional general merchandise and food outlets."

94

 

r?

(V

it,

 

y.

S .

95

as the primary source of supply for food. The last section
of the chapter is again based on the entire sample of 159
respondents.

The first section of the chapter presents findings
relating to the socio-economic characteristics of the con-
sumers concentrating purchases in the one—stop shopping
center and the consumers concentrating purchases in the
conventional supermarket. Section two presents the find-
ings relating to the effectiveness Of the various elements
in an institution's marketing mix in motivating individual
consuming units to select a specific type of institution to
patronize. The third section reports on findings relevant
to the purchase behavior and patronage loyalty of the indi-
vidual shoppers. In section four, the findings pertaining
to areas of purchase behavior related to food shopping are
presented. Section five presents findings relating to
adoptive behavior and the characteristics of the adopting
units over time. Finally, the sixth section presents a
number of other significant findings developed in the
research.

Tables supporting the findings presented in the
first five sections are presented in Appendix A, Table
A-1 through Table A-40. The Tables for section six are
included in the text of the chapter. Each Table in Appen-
dix A gives a breakdown, by number and percent, of the

variable reported on in the Table. Where statistical

96

significance was found the level is reported. In every
case, the significance is included only if the data is
significant at the .05 level or higher, which means there
are but five chances out of 100 that the data are a result

of chance occurrences.

Socio-economic Variables

The first guiding hypothesis was formulated to
identify the socio-economic variables which best differ-
entiate the one-stop shopping center customer from the
conventional supermarket customer. The hypothesis states
that the profile of the consumer who concentrates food
purchases in the one-stop shOpping center is different
than the profile of the consumer who concentrates food
purchases in the conventional supermarket.

From the guiding hypothesis, seven research hypo-
theses were develOped to guide and direct the research.

The research hypotheses state that consumers who concen—
trate food purchases in the one-stop shOpping center differ
from consumers who concentrate food purchases in the con-
ventional supermarket in terms of the following seven var-
iables. The variables are: (1) Family Income, (2) Age of
the Household Head, (3) Occupation of the Household Head,
(4) Family Size, (5) Level of Formal Education, (6) Family
Life Cycle, and (7) Social Class. Each research hypothesis

is discussed separately below.

97

Familyilncome

 

The findings relating to family income are presented
in Table A-1. The Table provides a breakdown of 1967 family
income for the respondents preferring each type of retail
institution.

While the difference was not extreme, the data
tends to indicate that a greater share of the higher income
families preferred the conventional supermarket to the one—
stop shopping center. Approximately 65 percent of all con-
ventional supermarket shOppers had family incomes above
10,000 dollars in 1967. The figure for the one-stop shop-
ping center shOppers was 54.8 percent. Conversely, of the
shoppers preferring to patronize the one-stop shOpping
center 12.9 percent had incomes below 5,000 dollars in
1967, while only 5.8 percent Of the conventional supermarket
shOppers had incomes below 5,000 dollars per year. The

,data was not statistically significant.

Age Of the Household Head

 

Table A-2 presents the findings pertaining to the
age of the household head. The Table presents a breakdown
of family units patronizing each type of retail institution
by the age of the household head.

The data indicates that the age Of the household
head was a good indicator of which type of retail institu-

tion a family unit is most likely to patronize. Shoppers

98

who prefer the one-stOp shopping center generally tended

to be younger than shoppers who prefer to shop in the con-
ventional supermarket. Of the customers patronizing the
one-stOp shOpping center, 54.5 percent were under forty
years of age. Of the consumers preferring to shop in con-
ventional supermarkets 68.8 percent were over forty years
Old, and only 21.2 percent were forty or younger. Almost

a third (30.3 percent) of all the one-stop shOpping center
customers were between 30 and 39 years of age. The greatest
majority of conventional supermarket shOppers were older
with 62.4 percent Of all shoppers in the 40-59 year Old
group. The data in Table A-2 was found to be statistically

significant at the .05 level.

Occupation Of the Household Head

The findings pertaining to the occupation Of the
household head are presented in Table A-3. The Table shows
the extent to which the various occupations were represented
in each Of the institution's customer mix.

E The Table indicates that there was no overall dif-
ference in the occupation of the household head between
consuming units preferring the one-stop shopping center and
consuming units preferring the conventional supermarket.

In each occupational category the number Of shoppers pre-
ferring each type of retail institution varied by only a

few percent. The category containing the greatest percent

99

(30.3) of the one-stOp shopping center customers was the
"skilled worker" category. "Clerks and kindred workerS"
was the category from which the conventional supermarket
drew most heavily with 31.2 percent. The Table shows no

statistical significance.

Family Size

 

The research findings presented in Table A-4 pertain
to the size of the family units preferring to shop for food
in each type of store. The size of the family unit includes
both children and adult family members.

The data indicates that larger families did tend to
concentrate their shopping in the one-stOp shopping center
more than the conventional supermarket. Using a family
size of five as an arbitrary divisional point between large
and small families, the difference becomes apparent. Table
4-1 shows the data clasSified using the family Size of five
as the breaking point. Thirty-eight point four percent of
the one-stop shOpping center customers fell into the larger
family group, while only 20.6 percent of the conventional
supermarket customers were in the larger family grouping.
Conversely, the conventional supermarket appealed more to
the smaller families with 79.4 percent of all conventional
supermarket shOppers in this group. The same figure for
the one-stOp shOpping center was 61.6 percent. Neither the
data presented in Table 4—1 or Table A-4 was not found to

be statistically significant.

\‘A
Viv

a
Inn,“
5‘“

100

TABLE 4-1

SUMMARY TABLE OF THE SIZE OF FAMILY UNITS
SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF STORE

 

 

Family Size

 

 

One through four Five, or More,
Store patronized family members family members
One-stop
shOpping center 61.6% 38.4%
Conventional
supermarket 79.4% 20.6%

 

Level of Formal Education

Table A-5 presents the findings of the research
relevant to the level of formal education. The Table Shows
the level of formal education found for both the man and
the woman in each family unit.

Neither the education of the man nor the education
of the woman was found to differ significantly between fam-
ilies shOpping in each type of retail institution.

The Table indicates that each type of store served approx-
imately the same percentage of families from each educa—
tional level. The data failed to Show any statistical

significance.

uls-

«V

VI

h

a\~

:4

6

.~\~1

S\

101

Family Life Cycle

 

The research findings pertaining to family life
cycle are presented in Table A-6. The life cycle used was
composed of the age of the household head and the age of
the children in the family.

The data indicates that younger families made up
the majority of the one-stOp shopping center customers.
Only 12.1 percent of all the respondents patronizing the
one-stOp shopping center were over forty years old. Even
more interesting were the findings in terms of children.
Younger families with younger children (children ten years
Old, or younger) accounted for 57.6 percent of all the one-
stop shopping center customers. The same category accounted
for only 31.2 percent of the conventional supermarket
shOppers.

Younger families with older children only, tended
to shop in the conventional supermarket, however. Younger
families with Older children only, accounted for 43.0 per-
cent Of all the conventional supermarket shoppers. The
same category represented 25.8 percent of the one-stOp
shOpping center customers. The data was found to be sig-

nificant at the .02 level.

Social Class

 

Table A-7 presents the research findings pertaining‘

to the social class from which each type of retail

102

institution draws its customers. The social class used was

the scale develOped by W. Lloyd Warner. The methodology

used failed to classify approximately twenty-five percent

of the family units as being from a specific social class.
The Table tends to indicate that the lower social

classes patronized the one-stop shopping center more heav-

ily than the conventional supermarket. The consuming units

classified as lower class (either "lower-lower" or "upper-
lower") accounted for 30.2 percent of the one-stop shopping

center customers and only 19.3 percent of the conventional

Supermarket customers. There was no real difference found

for the middle class. Middle class families (either "upper-

middle" or "lower-middle") represent 60.6 percent of the
one-stop shOpping center customers and 61.3 percent of the

Conventional supermarket customers. The data indicates,

that no respondents could be definitely classified as upper

Class. The Table failed to achieve any level of statistical

Significance .

W

The research findings tend to indicate that the
IPIOfile Of the consumer who concentrates food purchases in
‘the one-stop shopping center is different than the profile
of the consumer who concentrates food purchases in the

conventional supermarket in several respects. Consumers

Preferring the one-stop shOpping center tended to have

IF

 

 

 

103

lower incomes and be younger than consumers preferring the

conventional supermarket. The occupation Of the household

head and the level Of formal education showed little dif-

ference between consumers patronizing each' type of retail

institution, however.

Larger families and younger families with young

children were heavier users of the one—stop shopping center

than were smaller and older families. Lower social class

families preferred the one—stOp shopping center somewhat

more than the conventional supermarket. The age of the

household head and the family life cycle data were found

to be statistically Significant at the .05 and the .02

level , respectively.

Effectiveness Of Selected Elements in an
Institution's Marketing Mix

The second guiding hypothesis was formulated to
determine the importance, to the consumer, of a number of
different elements in a retail institution's marketing mix.
The hypothesis states that the importance of the varioUs
elements in an institution's marketing mix to the consumer
in motivating her to frequent a particular institution
Varies significantly between the consumer who concentrates
food purchases in the one-stOp shopping center and the

Consumer who concentrates food purchases in the convention-
al supermarket.

104

From the guiding hypothesis, five research hypo-
theses were developed. The research hypotheses state that
‘the importance of elements in the institution's marketing
nnix varies between the consumer who concentrates food pur-
cflnases in the one-stop shopping center and the consumer who
Cfloncentrates food purchases in the conventional supermarket
jun terms of five variables. The five variables are: (1)

Efirice, (2) Quality, (3) Trading Stamps and Promotional
Games, (4) Coupons and Price Specials, and (5) Private

Imabel Merchandise. Each of the research hypotheses is

discussed below.

Price
*—

The research findings pertaining to price awareness
Eire presented in Table A-8. The Table shows the extent to
vflnich shoppers preferring each type of retail food outlet
(Mould recall the correct price paid for an item the last
llime it was purchased. The Table contains the findings for
ten frequently purchased items.

The data indicates a wide range of awareness between
‘theadifferent products. The greatest percent of correct
Prices given by all shoppers was for "bread" with 38.4 per-
‘cent of the respondents giving the correct price. The
Shoppers patronizing the one-stop shopping center were most
Correct on the price of "soup" with 48.5 percent stating

the correct price. "Bread" was the product priced correctly

')
I)
'1

I

“r

V v

‘s

'(.1
(D
'1

105

by the greatest percent Of the conventional supermarket

shoppers. "Cooking Oil" had the lowest percent of the

respondents price it correctly. The figures for the one-

stop shOpping center customers and the conventional super-

market customers were 6.1 percent and 9.7 percent respec—

tively.

Overall, conventional supermarket shoppers had a
greater percent of the prices correct for six products and

one-stop shopping center customers had a greater percent of

the prices correct for four products. The differences in

percent of correct prices was statistically significant for

"coffee" at the .05 level and "soup" at the .02 level. The

direction was opposite however, with the percent greater
for conventional supermarket shOppers for "coffee" (24.7

Percent vs. 19.7 percent) and the percent greater for one-
stop shopping center shoppers for "soup" (48.5 percent vs.
22.8 percent).

Table 4-2 summarizes the data presented in Table

A-9. The figures given are the arithmetic means of all ten

Products. The Table indicates that there is very little

difference in awareness Of the correct price when the data

for all the products are combined. On an average, 21.5

Percent Of the one-stop shopping center customers priced

the products correctly while 20.7 percent of the conven-

tional supermarket shoppers priced the products correctly.

106

TABLE 4-2

AVERAGE PERCENT OF SHOPPERS CORRECTLY
PRICING FOOD PRODUCTS

 

 

 

 

Don't Correct Incorrect

Store patronized purchase price price
One-stOp

shopping center 19.3% 21.5% 59.2%
Conventional

supermarket 15.1% 20.7% 64.2%
All shOppers 16.8% 21.0% ' 62.2%
Quality

The research findings pertaining to quality are
presented in Tables A-9 through A-ll. Table A-9 shows how
consumers frequenting each type of retail institution rate
the quality of the groceries, meat, and produce at the one-
stop shopping center. Tables A-10 and A-ll show how both
groups of consumers feel about the quality of the groceries,
meat and produce at each of the conventional supermarkets.
Tables A-9 and A-ll are statistically significant at the
.001 and the .02 levels, respectively.

The Tables report the image that the consumers have
of the quality of the groceries, meat and produce sold by
each of the stores. The product categories were rated as
above average, average, or below average for each of the

stores by all respondents.

107

To test the hypothesis, the data has been combined
into Table 4-3. The Table shows how shOppers frequenting
the one-stop shopping center rate the quality of the one-
stop shopping center and how shoppers frequenting the con-
ventional supermarket rate the quality of each of the con-
ventional supermarkets.

Table 4-3 indicates that the one-stop shopping
Center shoppers rated the quality of the groceries and
produce in the one-stop shopping center about the same as
the conventional shOppers rated the quality of the groceries
and produce in conventional supermarket number two. The
Customers from the one-stop shOpping center rated the qual-
ity of the meat much lower than the customers of the con—
Ventional supermarket rated the meat in conventional super-
market number two. Approximately eighty-three percent of
the one-stop shopping center customers felt that the quality
Of the meat was average or below. For conventional super-
market number two, almost half (47.3 percent) felt the
CIlilality of the meat was above average.

Conventional supermarket number one appears to be
rated average or below on the quality of all three product
Categories. Table A-10 tends to indicate that all shoppers
held a low quality image of the store. The Table would
tend to indicate the supermarket has completely failed to
differentiate itself in the eyes of the consumers. The

data presented in the summary table was not found to be

Statistical significance .

 

(IIV

n.--.N<.~.

:ll'llillslwllPi

c I. \PILO s. .-

liiili

I I’Vil

108

mHlm nmsonsu OHId moHnma Eoum om>Humo NIH OHQMB “muoz

 

OOH H.H O.mv H.ev O.HH OOH H.H m.mm m.be H.mH OOH m.m m.me m.mm m.HH m we Homom
HchHu

Ico>coo

mm H OH HO HH mm H mm we mH mm N we em HH a mo BOH>
muwmmonm

HOSOHD

Ico>coo

OOH h.m H.mm h.m m.H~ OOH H.mH m.om 0.0H >.m~ OOH m.o O.mm H.OH h.m~ w H* Homdm
HOSOHD

Icm>coo

mm m mm m ON mm vH he OH mm mm o om mH mm c m0 3OH>
mummmonm

HchHu

Icm>coo

OOH O.v O.mm m.ov m.H OOH m.nm H.Om H.~H O.v OOH I H.~e e.om m.H m Ummo
mo zmH>

m.umso

mm m mm mm H mm OH Om O m me O HO «N H o numoo
- Hmucoo
OSHmmonm

moumumoo

 

nos m>< m>¢ m>d .m.z DOB m>¢ o>¢ o>< .m.z DOB m>¢ m>< m>¢ .m.z omuHcouumm
sonm m>on¢ onom m>on¢ SOHmm o>on¢ muoum

 

 

 

QUSUOHQ ummz MGHHGUOHQ

 

 

memsmazmmmom qaonezm>zoo mes zH V
mooooma oza 9am: .mmHmmoomo mo seaqaoo mes omsam mmmzoemoo
summazmmmom Haonazm>zoo O24 mmezmo oszmomm OOBmumzo was won moOoomm

92 same .mfiamooau no 3355 HE OEHH OHHHOOOB «5sz OzEaOmm 8%..sz ace

muv mqmda

‘6

6.

On

in.

‘0.

5o

‘1-
a \

\n

‘w

’A

M.

“be

109

Trading Stamps and Promotional
Games

The research findings pertaining to trading stamps
are presented in Tables A-12 and A-13. Table A—12 presents
the findings on trading stamp saving behavior, and shows
the extent to which consumers Shopping in the one-stop
Shopping center and the conventional supermarket save sev-
eral different trading stamps.

The data presented in the Table indicates very
little overall difference in trading stamp saving behavior
between families frequenting each type of retail institu—
tion. TOp Value Stamps were saved by the greatest number
Of respondents from each group of shoppers. Of the one-
Stop ShOpping center customers, 65.1 percent saved the
Stamp, while 74.2 percent of the conventional supermarket
customers saved the stamp. Most savers, from both groups,
had one to five books of Top Value Stamps saved. The "one
to five book" category was the largest category for each
t-1’£>e of stamp. Gold Bond Stamps were saved by the smallest
number of shoppers with only 4.5 percent of the one-stop
8hOpping center customers saving Gold Bond Stamps and 11.8
Parcent Of the conventional supermarket customers saving

the stamp. The difference in saving behavior was not found

to be statistically significant.

reie:

...“;-
v' Orv
at

5.1:

no...

110

Table A-l3 presents the findings relating to the

redemption of trading stamps by cOnsumers frequenting each

type of retail store. The Table Shows the number and value

of the gifts received through the redemption of trading

stamps within the last twelve month period.

The Table indicates that there is a significant

difference between the redemption behavior Of consumers

preferring the one-stOp shOpping center and consumers pre—
ferring the conventional supermarket.

Seventy percent Of the shoppers preferring the
conventional supermarket had redeemed trading stamps for a
gift during the last year, while only 49.5 percent Of the
Shoppers preferring the one-stop shopping center received
a gift from trading stamps during the same period of time.
The data also indicates that the one-stop shOpping center
cuStomers who did redeem stamps received fewer gifts with
a lower retail value than conventional supermarket shoppers.
Fifty-five percent of the conventional supermarket shoppers
received gifts with a total value over ten dollars, while
only 34.8 percent Of the one-stOp shopping center shoppers
received gifts worth over ten dollars in retail value. The
difference in the number and value of gifts received was

f(lund to be significant at the .05 level.

It is interesting to note the difference in the

Saving behavior and redemption behavior for each group of

shOppers. While approximately the same percentage of

(J

23

(I)

(I!

111

one-stOp shopping center customers and conventional super-
market customers save trading stamps, the redemption rate
for trading stamps is much greater for the conventional
supermarket shOppers. This might indicate that the one-
stop shOpping center customers save the stamps for long
periods of time before turning the stamps in, give the

stamps to friends or organizations, or eventually just

throw the stamps away. The research did not attempt to

determine which was the case.
The research findings pertaining to consumer aware-

ness of promotional contests and games are presented in
Tab 1e A-l4. The Table shows the extent to which one-stop
ShOpping center shoppers and conventional supermarket shop-
Pers are aware of, and have participated in, various pro-
motional games and contests recently used in the research
area,

The Table indicates a slightly lower level of

aWareness for the one-stop shopping center customers than

for the conventional supermarket shoppers. The shOppers

concentrating food purchases in the one-stOp shopping center
had a lower level of awareness for four Of the six promo-
tional contests and games used in the research. The percent
°f the respondents who had participated in the games and
cOntests was also lower for the one-step shopping center

Customers in four Of the six games. on an average, 75.6

percent of the conventional supermarket shoppers had no

112

recognition of the promotional games and contests while the
figure for the one-stOp shopping center shoppers was 80.5
percent. Approximately ten percent of the conventional
supermarket customers had played the games and contests
while 7.1 percent of one-stOp shopping center customers

had- The differences were not found to be statistically

Si gnificant.

Coupons and Price Specials

Tables A-15 and A-l6 present the research findings
related to the usage of manufacturer "cents-Off" coupons.
The Tables show the number and value of manufacturer "cents-
Off " coupons redeemed by each group of shoppers during the
last thirty days. Both Tables indicate a higher coupon
us:a-ge rate for consumers preferring to shop in the one—stop
Shopping center.

The data contained in Table 4-4 shows that 67.7
Percent Of the conventional supermarket customers had not
redeemed any manufacturer's coupons within the last thirty
dhys, while only 50.0 percent of the one-stop shopping
center customers had not redeemed any during the same time.
Fhr the 50.0 percent of the one-stop shopping center cus-

tégnt'ters and the 32.3 percent of the conventional supermarket
8hOppers who had redeemed coupons, the data shows little
difference in level of usage. The data in Tables A-15 and

1

A716 failed to show any statistical significance. However,

 

RA

5‘

113

combining the data into "users" and "non-users" as in Table

4—4 shows the difference in manufacturer usage significant
at the .05 level.

TABLE 4-4

PERCENTAGE OF EACH TYPE OF SHOPPER REDEEMING
MANUFACTURER "CENTS-OFF" COUPONS*

Coupon Redemption

Percentage not
S to :re patronized

Percentage
redeeming coupons

redeeming coupons
One —stop

shopping center 50 . 0% 50 . 0 %
Conventional

SUpermarket 67.7% 32.3%

 

*§ignificant at the .05 level

Using the weighted average method of determining
the average number of coupons turned in confirms the fact
tilat of the consumers who do turn in coupons, the one-stop
81Q'IOpping center shOppers turn in more. Computing a weighted
a{Terage of the data contained in Table A-15 indicates that

one-stop shopping center customers who turn in coupons

tlllrned in an average of 1.96 coupons during the last thirty

déy period. The same figure for the conventional super-
I

market customers was 1.09 coupons.
\

114

The research findings pertaining to the awareness
of advertised specials is shown in Table A-l7. . The Table
shows the number of grocery, meat, produce and dairy spe—
cials advertised in the newspaper the preceeding week on
which the shOppers could correctly identify the advertised
price. Overall, the Table shows very little difference
be tween shoppers preferring each type of retail institu-
tion. The significant findings is the low level of recall
for all shoppers a week after the item was advertised. The

data failed to show any statistical significance.

Eirivate Label Merchandise

The research findings relating to awareness of
Private label merchandise are shown in Tables A-18 and
A‘19. Table A-18 shows the number of private labels (from
a. list of eight, all in use in the research area) that each
group of shoppers could correctly identify with the store
featuring the brand. The Table indicates little difference
between one-stop shopping center customers and conventional
E"‘Flpermarket customers in the recognition of private labels.
A weighted average was computed from Table A-18. The one-
Stop shopping center customers recognized an average of
2.56 private labels while the conventional supermarket
Chstomers recognized 2.16 private labels. Thus, a slightly

higher level of awareness is indicated for the one-stop

shopping center customers, but the data is not statistically

significant.

115

Table A-l9 presents the findings relating to the

zayvareness of two private labels carried in the store the
Jreespondents stated was the store shOpped in most frequently.

laggain, the data shows very little difference between con-

sruuners frequenting each type of retail institution. Of the

£311c>ppers preferring the one-stop shopping center, 78.8 per-

<:eer1t failed to identify both brands correctly. The same

figure for shopper preferring the conventional supermarket

wens; 79.6 percent.
§fl§1tumary

The research findings indicate that there is not a
Significant difference between consumers shOpping in the
Cnnee-stop shOpping center and the consumers shOpping in con-

Vfarltional supermarkets in terms of the effectiveness of the

vanxious elements in the marketing mix. The research tended

‘tFD indicate very little difference in price awareness and
tile perception of quality between shoppers preferring each

tYpe of store. Trading stamp saving behavior showed little

difference, but redemption was significantly higher for

c=<3nventional supermarket shOppers. Recognition of promo-

1

tlional games and contests was slightly lower for the one-
Stop shOpping center customers than conventional supermarket
shOppers. The research also indicated a higher use of

manufacturer "cents-off" coupons by the one-stop shopping

center customers, but showed little difference in recall

116

for items advertised as price specials the preceeding week.
In addition, the findings failed to show any real difference

in terms of private label recognition between the two

groups of. shOppers .

Purchase Behavior and Patronage Loyalty

The third guiding hypothesis was formulated to
identify actual shOpping patterns and behavior. The hypo-
thesis states that the purchase behavior and patronage
loyalty of the consumer who concentrates food purchases in
the one-stOp shOpping center is significantly different

than the purchase behavior and patronage loyalty of the

c30rlsumer who concentrates food purchases in the conventional

supermarket .

Five research hypotheses were generated from the
guiding hypothesis. The research hypotheses state that
cOnsumers who concentrate food purchases in the one-stOp

s1"10pping center differ from consumers who concentrate food

Purchases in the conventional supermarket in terms of: l)
The number of Stores ShOpped, 2) Concentration of Purchases,
3) Average Size of the Customer Order, 4) The Number of
S»l'10pping Trips to Purchase Food per Week, and 5) The Dis-

1
tribution of Purchases During the Week.

117

Number of Stores Shopped

The research findings pertaining to the number of

stores shOpped to complete food purchases are presented in
Table A-20. The Table shows the number of stores shOpped
by reSpondents preferring each type of retail outlet. The
data is concerned with the actual number of different
stores shOpped rather than the number of trips to shop.

Several trips to one store would still be considered a
Single store.

The category containing the highest percentage
(34 .4 percent) of conventional supermarket shoppers was
"two stores" while the largest category for one-stop shop-
Ping center customers was "three stores" with 42.3 percent.
The data would tend to indicate that the one-stop shopping

CFEE-titer customers shop in more stores than conventional

8upermarket customers. Table 4-5 shows that 69.6 percent
\ ,

0f the one-stOp shOpping center customers shopped in three
or more stores while only 52.7 percent of the conventional
Supermarket shOppers shopped in that many stores. The

Ciata, however, failed to show any statistical significance.

Concentration of Purchases

Table A-21 presents the research findings pertain-
ing to the concentration of food purchases by consumers

preferring each type of retail outlet. The Table shows

 

A19

118

-tflne percent of shopping done by the respondents in their

first preference store for a number of different product

categories .

TABLE 4-5

NUMBER OF STORES SHOPPED BY
EACH TYPE OF SHOPPER

‘

Store Patronized Number of Stores ShOpped

Less than

Three stores
three stores

and over
One-stOp

sshopping center 30.4% 69.6%

CCDrlventional

ssupermarket 47.3% 52.7%

The percent of shOppers doing 76-100 percent of
'tcrtal food shopping in the first preference store exhibited
'Vfrry little overall difference between shOppers preferring
e‘ta.ch type of retail institution. Of the one-stop shopping
c3enter customers, 51.5 percent did over three—quarters of
tJIeir total food shOpping at the first preference store,

Vflnile 56.9 percent of the conventional supermarket shoppers

IPUrchased over three-quarters of total food at the first

'Preference store.

One-st0p shopping center customers concentrated
produce, grocery and non-foods shopping in their stated

first preference store more than did conventional

119

supermarket customers, however. The shoppers purchasing
over three-quarters of each category were 77.3 percent vs.
69.9 percent, 79.3 percent vs. 62.4 percent and 89.4 per-
cent vs. 77.4 percent for produce, grocery and non-foods
shOpping reSpectively. The percent of shoppers purchasing
at least three-quarters of all meat in the first preference
store was significantly lower for one—stop shopping center
customers, however, with only 60.6 percent of the shOppers
purchasing this much. The figure for the conventional
supermarket shopper was 79.5 percent. Table 4—6 presents

a summary of the data contained in Table A-21. The differ-
ence for meat shopping and grocery shopping were found to

be statistically significant at the .01 and the .02 level.

TABLE 4-6

PERCENTAGE OF EACH GROUP OF SHOPPERS CONCENTRATING
AT LEAST SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ALL
SHOPPING IN ONE STORE

 

Product Category

 

Total
Store food Meat Produce Grocery Non-food
patronized shopping shopping* shopping Shopping** shopping

 

One-stop

shopping

center 51.5% 60.6% 77.3% 79-3% 89.4%
Conventional

supermarket 56.9% 79.5% 69.9% 62.4% 77.4%

 

*Significant at the .01 level
**Significant at the .02 level

120

Average Size of Customer Order

 

The findings of the research pertaining to the
average size of the customer order are presented in Table
A—22. The average customer order is based on the average
weekly food bill and the number of trips the respondent
made to purchase food during the week.

The Table indicates that the families preferring
the one-stop shopping center had larger average food bills
per shOpping trip. Approximately one-third (36.3 percent)
of the one-stop shopping center shoppers purchased over
thirty dollars per trip on an average, while only one-fifth
(21.2 percent) of the conventional supermarket shoppers
purchased this much per trip. Conversely, 45.5 percent of
the one-stop shopping center customers had average shopping
bills under twenty dollars. The same figure for the con-
ventional supermarket customers was 55.3 percent. The data

was not statistically significant.

Number of Shopping Trips

 

The research findings in Table A-23 pertain to the
number of shOpping trips a shOpper makes per week to pur-
chase food. Overall, the data failed to achieve any level
of statistical significance.

The data does tend to indicate that one-stop shOp-
ping center customers shOp less often than do the conven-

tional supermarket shOppers. Of all one-stop shopping

121

center customers, 56.1 percent shOpped once a week, or
less, whereas only 41.9 percent of the conventional super-
market shoppers shopped once a week, or less. Conversely,
14.1 percent of the conventional supermarket customers
shopped at least four times while only 9.0 percent of the
one-stop shopping center customers shOpped this often. A
weighted average of the data in Table A-23 indicated that
one-stop shOpping center customers make 1.88 trips per week
and conventional supermarket shoppers make 2.08 trips per

week.

Distribution of Purchases by Day
of Week

 

Table A-24 presents the research findings concerned
with the distribution of food purchases during the week.
The Table shows the day of the week that respondents chose
to complete the major food shOpping trip.

While the data failed to show a distinctive dif-
ferentiation between shopping groups, several findings are
of interest.4 No particular differences were found between
early and late week shopping for consumers preferring
either type of retail outlet. Wednesday was a heavy shOp-
ping day in the conventional supermarket with 22.6 percent
of all conventional supermarket customers shopping on
Wednesday while only 6.1 percent of the one-stop shopping

center customers shOpped on Wednesday. The difference was

122

probably due to double stamps being given by one of the
conventional supermarkets on Wednesday. Also interesting
was the fact that 37.9 percent of the one-stop shOpping
center customers had no particular day that they normally
ShOp while only 28.0 percent of the conventional supermarket
shoppers fell into the same category. The differences were

not found to be statistically significant.

Summary

Overall, shOppers preferring each type of retail
outlet failed to show any significant differences. No
definite pattern could be determined for the number of
stores shOpped, but the data tended to indicate that one-
stop shopping center customers did shop in more stores than
conventional supermarket shOppers. The one-stOp shopping
center shoppers did tend to concentrate the purchase of
produce, grocery and non-foods more than conventional
supermarket shOppers, but total food shopping exhibited
little difference. The one-stOp shopping center customer
also tended to have larger average order sizes and to shop
fewer times per week, but the differences were not found
to be statistically significant. In addition, no differ-
ence was found in the distribution of purchases during the
week between the two groups, except for Wednesday which is as

probably due to trading stamps.

123

Related Purchase Behavior

 

The fourth guiding hypothesis was formulated to
study consumer purchase decisions in related areas. The
hypothesis states that consumer preference for purchasing
food in the one-stOp shopping center or the conventional
supermarket carries over into other areas of consumer pur-
chasing behavior.

From the guiding hypothesis, four research hypo-
theses were develOped to guide the research. The hypotheses
were stated in two different forms. The first three hypo-
theses state that consumers who concentrate food purchases
in the one-stOp shOpping center are more likely to frequent
similar lowered-margin retail institutions than are consu-
mers who concentrate food purchases in the conventional
supermarket in terms of: 1) Convenience Goods, 2) Shopping
Goods, and 3) Specialty Goods. The fourth research hypo-
thesis states that consumers who concentrate food purchases
in the one-stop shopping center are more likely to be cat-
alog shoppers than consumers who concentrate food purchases
in the conventional supermarket. Each research hypothesis

is covered below.

Convenience Goods

 

The data pertaining to the related purchasing area

of convenience goods is shown in Table A-25. The Table

124

shows where shOppers preferring the one-stop shopping center
and the conventional supermarket would purchase a variety
of items generally classified as convenience goods.

The Table indicates that a large number of respond-
ents generally tended to purchase convenience goods where
they normally shOp for food. The tendency was more pro—
nounced for the one-stop shopping center customers, however.
Of shOppers preferring the one-stOp shopping center, 59.1
percent purchased cigarettes, 75.7 percent purchased non-
prescription drugs, and 43.9 percent purchased magazines in
the one-stop shopping center also. The percentages for
conventional supermarket shoppers purchasing the items in
the conventional supermarket were 44.1 percent for cigar-
rettes, 11.8 percent for non—prescription drugs and 33.3
percent for magazines. All three product categories were

found to be significant at the .001 level.

ShOpping Goods

Table A-26 presents the research findings relating
to shOpping goods. The Table shows where shOppers prefer-
ring the one-stop shopping center and the conventional
supermarket would purchase a variety of goods generally
classified as shopping goods. The data in Table A-26 is

less conclusive than the data shown in Table A-25.

'I‘

"f‘

'l’l

125

The data indicates that both the one—stop shOpping
center customers and the conventional supermarket customers
preferred to purchase the shopping goods in the department
store and the specialty store. The department store ranked
first. Of the one—stop shOpping center customers, 30.3
percent preferred to purchase toasters, 45.5 percent prefer-
red to purchase televisions and 68.2 percent preferred to
purchase draperies in the department store. The same fig-
ures for the conventional supermarket shoppers were 37.6
percent, 39.8 percent and 54.8 percent for the three items
respectively. The difference in preference was not found

to be statistically significant.

Specialty Goods

 

The research findings pertaining to Specialty goods
are presented in Table A-27. The Table shows where consu-
mers preferring each type of retail institution would pur-
chase several items generally classified as specialty goods.

The three specialty goods show distinctly different
patterns. The data indicates that the specialty store was
the primary place of purchase mentioned for a man's suit.

Of the shoppers preferring the one—stop shopping center,
63.6 percent mentioned the Specialty store, as did 59.1
percent of the shOppers preferring the conventional super-
market. The purchase of prescriptions indicated a different

pattern. While the largest percent of the shoppers (62.1

126

percent for the one-stOp shopping center and 83.9 percent
for the conventional supermarket) preferred to purchase
prescriptions at the drugstore, 34.9 percent of the one-
stop shOpping center customers preferred to purchase the
product at the one-stop shopping center. The difference
in the purchase patterns for prescriptions was significant
at the .001 level.

The purchase of good china failed to Show a distinct
pattern. Both types of shOppers preferred to purchase
china primarily in the department and specialty store. The
one-stop shopping center customers indicated a stronger
preference for the department store (48.5 percent) than the
specialty store (33.3 percent) while the conventional
supermarket shoppers divided evenly between the two types
of stores. Of the conventional supermarket Shoppers, 43.0
percent preferred the department store and 41.9 percent
preferred the specialty store. The differences were not
found to be statistically significant except in the case

of prescriptions.

Catalgg ShOpping

 

The research findings pertaining to catalog, or
mail-order, shopping are presented in Tables A-28 through
A—30. A summary of catalog shopping behavior is presented
in Table 4-7, which shows that one-stOp shopping center

customers are much heavier users of catalog Shopping than

127

are conventional supermarket shOppers. Of the shoppers

preferring the one-stop shopping center, 60.6 percent do
purchase merchandise by mail, while only 41.9 percent of
the conventional supermarket Shoppers do. The difference

was statistically Significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 4-7

PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE BY MAIL FOR
FAMILY UNITS SHOPPING IN
EACH TYPE OF STORE*

 

 

Purchase Behavior

 

Don't purchase ~Do purchase

 

Store patronized by mail by mail Total
One-stop n 26 ‘ 40 66
shopping center % 39.4 60.6 100
Conventional n 54 l 39 93
supermarket % 58.1 41.9 100
All shoppers n 80 79 159
% 50.3 49.7 100

 

*Significant at the .05 level

Table A-28 shows the number of respondents prefer-
ring to shop in each type of retail institution who had
mail-order catalogs in their home at the time of the inter-
view. The data indicates that, for each of the six catalogs
listed, a higher percentage of one—stOp shopping center
customers had catalogs in the home than did the conventional

supermarket customers. The Sears catalog exhibited the

128

greatest coverage with 50.0 percent of one-stop shopping
center shOppers having the catalog in their home. Only
31.2 percent of the conventional supermarket shoppers had
a Sears catalog. The data on the Sears, Montgomery Ward,
Spiegel and Alden catalogs were found to be significant at
the .05 level.

Table A-29 shows the value of all items ordered
through general merchandise catalogs by both groups of
shoppers during the last three months. The Table indicates
that one-stop shopping center customers are heavier users
of general merchandise catalogs. During the last three
months 51.5 percent of the one-stOp shOpping center cust-
omers made purchases through the general merchandise cat-
alogs while only 36.6 percent of the conventional super-
market shOppers did. In addition, for each purchase value
category in the Table, the percentage of shoppers purchas—
ing items was higher for the one-stOp shopping center cus-
tomers. The difference was not found to be statistically
significant.

The value of all other merchandise ordered through
the mail, or through specialty catalogs, during the last
three months by shoppers preferring each type of retail
institution is presented in Table A—30. The Table indi-
cates that the one-stop shopping center shOppers also pur-
chased more specialized items through the mail. Of the

one-stop shopping center customers, 72.3 percent had

129

purchased specialty items through the mail during the last
three months, while only 53.8 percent of the conventional
supermarket customers had. The data indicates that the
majority of all shoppers had purchased under twenty—five
dollars worth of merchandise. The findings were statis-

tically Significant at the .05 level.

Summary

The research findings indicate that the one-stop
shopping center customer is likely to carry this preference
for one-stOp shopping over into other related areas. Shop-
pers preferring to purchase food in the one—stop shopping
center purchased significantly more of the convenience
goods in their first preference store than did shoppers
preferring the conventional supermarket. The purchase of
shopping goods exhibited similar preferences for each group
of consumers. The preference for purchasing specialty
goods was not distinctly different except in the case of
prescriptions which exhibited a fairly strong preference
for purchasing the item in the one-stop shopping center by
its shoppers.

The research findings also exhibited a difference
between shoppers preferring each type of retail outlet in
terms of mail-order shopping. The one-stop shopping center
customer was more prone to purchase merchandise by mail
than the conventional supermarket shopper in each situation

studied.

130

Characteristics of Adopter Family Units

The fifth guiding hypothesis was formulated to
study the adopters responsible for the acceptance and
growth of the one-stop shOpping center. The hypothesis
states that earlier adOpters of the one-stop shopping
center are significantly different than later adopters of
the institution.

Four research hypotheses were develOped from the
guiding hypothesis to direct the research. The hypotheses
state that earlier adopters differ from later adOpters in
terms of four variables. The variables are: l) Socio-
economic Characteristics, 2) The Motivational Effect of
Various Elements in the Institution's Marketing Mix, 3)
Purchase Behavior and Patronage Loyalty, and 4) The Carry-
over of Purchase Behavior.

Data was generated and tested in each of the areas
presented under the first four guiding hypotheses. Only
the tables which differentiate earlier and later adOpters
will be presented as part of the research findings. It
should be noted that the present section of the research
findings is based on the sixty-six respondents who named
the one-stOp shOpping center as the store in which the ma-

jority of their food purchases were made.

131

Socio-economic Characteristics

The socio-economic characteristics which best dif-
ferentiate the earlier and later adOpters of the One—stop
shopping center are family income, the education of the
male, family life cycle, and social class. The research
findings are presented in Tables A—31 through A-34. Each
of the variables is covered below.

Table A-31 presents the research findings pertain-
ing to family income. While not statistically significant,
the data does indicate that a higher percent of the earlier
adopters had incomes below 10,000 dollars than the later
adopters. Of the earlier adOpters, 48.7 percent had in-
comes below 10,000 dollars while only 38.1 percent of the
later adopters had incomes below 10,000 dollars.

The level of formal education of the male for adop-
ting families is presented in Table A-32. The Table indi-
cates that earlier adOpters generally had a lower level of
formal education than did the later adopters. Of those
families classified as early adOpters, 54.5 percent had no
education past high school, and 25 percent had not completed
high school. Conversely, 72.8 percent of the later adop-
ters had had some education at the college level. The
findings were significant at the .05 level.

The stage in the family life cycle of adopting
families is presented in Table A-33. The research findings

presented in the Table indicate that the majority of both

132

the earlier and later adOpters were young families with
children. The earlier adopters were more concentrated in
the young families with children grouping, however. Of

the earlier adOpters, 88.6 percent fell into the category

V while 72.7 percent of the later adopters did. The data was
significant at the .05 level.

Table A-34 presents the research findings relevant
to the social class of adopter families. The data indicates
that the earlier adopters came from lower social classes
than the later adOpters. In each classification the largest
group (34.1 percent for earlier adOpters and 31.6 percent
for later adOpters) was the group which could be definitely
classified as "lower-middle" on the Warner scale. Families
lower on the scale accounted for 33.2 percent of the earlier
adopters and 22.7 percent of the later adOpters. Conversely,
the families above this classification accounted for only
17.2 percent of the earlier adopters and 45.2 percent of
the later adOpters. The research findings were Significant

at the .05 level.

Summary

The research findings indicate that a greater per-
centage of the earlier adopters had incomes below 10,000
dollars, and a lower level of formal education than later
adOpters. Earlier adopters were also more concentrated

into the categories of younger families with children.

133

In addition, the earlier adopters generally came from lower

social classes than did the later adopters.

Effectiveness of Selected Elements
in an Institution's Marketing_Mix

 

The research findings indicated differences between
earlier and later adopters of the one-stop shopping center
in terms of trading stamp redemption, manufacturer "cents-
off" coupons, and the awareness of private label merchan-
dise carried by the store. The data is presented in Tables
A-35 through A-37.

Table A-35 presents the findings of the research
relevant to the redemption of trading stamps. The Table
indicates a higher rate of redemption for the later adOp-
ters of the one-stop shOpping center than the earlier
adOpters. Approximately sixty (59.1) percent of the later
adOpters had redeemed stamps for gifts during the last
year, while only 43.2 percent of the earlier adOpters had
redeemed trading stamps for a gift during the same time
period. In addition, the data indicates the later adOpters
received more gifts. Of the later adOpters, 40.9 percent
had received at least two gifts during the period while
only 11.4 percent of the earlier adopters received this

many. The Table was significant at the .05 level.

134

The research findings pertaining to the use of
manufacturer "cents-off" coupons is presented in Table
A-36. The Table indicates a higher usage of manufacturer
coupons for the earlier adopters. Over half (56.8 percent)
of the earlier adOpters had redeemed a coupon during the
last thirty days, whereas only 36.4 percent of the later
adopters had. In addition, 34.1 percent of the earlier
adopters had turned in more than one manufacturer coupon
while only 4.5 percent of the later adopters turned in more
than one. The data failed to show statistical significance.

Table A-37 presents the research findings relevant
to the awareness of private label merchandise carried in the
one-stOp shOpping center. The data indicates a higher
level of awareness for later adopters than earlier adOpters.
In each group the level of recognition of the two brands
tested was fairly low. The brand names were correctly iden-
tified with the one-stop shOpping center by 15.9 percent of
the earlier adopters and 27.3 percent of the later adopters.

The difference was not statistically significant.

Summary

The research would tend to indicate some differences
in the reSponsiveness of the earlier and the later adopters
to several elements in the institution's marketing mix.

The earlier adopters redeemed fewer trading stamps for

gifts than later adOpters. Earlier adopters tended to be

135

more responsive to manufacturers "cents-off" coupons than
did later adopters. In addition, the data would tend to
indicate a difference in awareness of private label mer-
chandise carried in the one-stop shopping center, with

later adopters more aware than earlier adopters..

Purchase Behavior and Patronage

Loyalty

Two of the variables studied in the area of pur-
chase behavior and patronage loyalty tend to differentiate
the earlier adopters from the later adopters. The two
variables were the concentration of shopping in the first
preference store and the number of shOpping trips made per
week to purchase food. The data are presented in Tables
A-38 and A-39.

Table A-38 presents the research findings pertaining
to the percent of shopping done in the one-stOp ShOpping
center for several broad product categories by earlier and
later adopters. While statistical significance was not
achieved, the data tends to indicate that the earlier adop-
tersconcentrate food purchases more than the later adOp-
ters. In each of the five categories shown in the table a
higher percentage of the early adopters purchased over 75
percent of the categories studied than the later adopters.
The difference in the percentage of the earlier adopters

and the later adopters purchasing more than 75 percent

136

varied by product grouping from a low of 2.3 percent to a
high of 19.5 percent. The high of 19.5 percent was for
grocery shopping.

The research findings relevant to the number of
shopping trips to purchase food per week are presented in
Table A-39. The data tends to indicate a lower number of
shopping trips were made by the earlier adopters of the
one-stop shopping center. Six-tenths of the earlier
adopters shopped once a week, or less while 45.5 percent
of the later adOpters did. In addition, only 20.5 percent
of the earlier adopters shopped at least three times a week
while 36.3 percent of the later adopters shopped this often.
The difference shown was not found to be statistically

significant.

Summary

The research findings tend to indicate that earlier
adOpters and later adopters differ in terms of two variables
used in the study. The earlier adopters tended to concen—
trate shOpping in one store to a greater extent than the
later adopters. The earlier adOpters also appear to have
shOpped fewer times per week than the later adopters, with
a majority of the earlier adopters shopping only once a

week.

137

Related Purchase Behavior

The research indicated very little difference be-
tween earlier and later adopters in terms of related pur-
chase behavior. The two areas reviewed are purchasing
through mail-order catalogs and the mail-order catalogs
present in the home of the respondents. Tables 4-8 and
A-40 present the findings.

Table 4-8 summarizes the research findings pertain-
ing to adopters purchasing merchandise through mail-order

catalogs.

TABLE 4-8

PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE BY MAIL FOR ADOPTERS
OF THE ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER

 

 

Purchase Behavior

 

Don't purchase Do purchase

 

AdOpter Category by mail by mail Total
Earlier adopters n 21 23 44

% 47.7 52.3 100
Later adopters n 12 10 22

% 54.5 45.5 100
All adOpters n 33 33 60

% 50.0 50.0 50.0

 

The table indicates that the earlier adOpters are
somewhat heavier users of mail-order catalogs than are the

later adOpters. Fifty percent of all the adopters stated

138

that they did purchase merchandise through mail-order cat-
alogs. Of the earlier adopters, 52.3 percent purchased
merchandise through the catalogs while 45.5 percent of the
later adopters did. The difference was not statistically
significant.

A The adopters having a number of different general-
merchandise mail-order catalogs in the home at the time of
the interview is shown in Table A-40. The data shows that
for five of the six different catalogs used in the research,
a higher percent of the earlier adopters had the catalogs
than the later adopters. The J. C. Penney's catalog was
the most discriminate with 21.7 percent more earlier adop-
ters having the catalog in the home. The difference for

the Penney's catalog was significant at the .05 level.

Summary

The research indicates little difference for most
of the research variables in terms of related purchase
behavior. Earlier adopters were slightly higher users of
mail-order shOpping and a greater percentage had mail-order

catalogs in the home.

Other Significant Findings

In addition to the data specifically develOped to

test the hypotheses, the research generated a body of

139

knowledge tangential to the main emphasis of the study.
The sixth section of the chapter presents the additional

findings of the research.

 

Availabilit and-Use of Car and
Source of Supply‘for Food

It is believed by many researchers that the avail-

 

 

ability and use of a car affects shopping behavior. Tables
4-9 and 4-10 present the research findings related to the
area. Table 4-9 shows the number and percent of women
preferring each type of retail outlet who stated that they
do drive a car. The data indicates very little difference
in the percent of women from each group of shoppers who
drive. Of the one-stop shopping center customers, 86.4
percent of the women said they drive, while 90.3 percent
of the women preferring the conventional supermarket said
they drive. The findings would thus indicate that the
ability to drive does not affect which type of store the
shopper patronizes.

Table 4-10 presents the findings of the research
pertaining to the availability of a car to the woman during
the day. The data does not indicate a statistically sig-
nificant difference between the one-stop shopping center
customers and the conventional supermarket customers. A
higher percentage of the conventional supermarket shoppers

did have cars available during the day however. Over

140

three-quarters (77.4 percent) of the conventional super-
market shOppers had cars available while one—third (66.7
percent) of the one-stOp shopping center customers had a
car available. While inconclusive, the availability of a
car to the woman during the day may affect the choice of
a retail outlet for food. If this is the case, having a

car available would tend to favor the selection of the

conventional supermarket.

TABLE 4‘9

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN WHO DRIVE FAMILY CAR

 

 

WOman Shoppers Who Drive

 

 

Don't
Store Patronized Drive Drive Total
One-stOp n 9 57' 66
shopping center % 13.6 86.4 100
Conventional n 9 84 93
supermarket % 9.7 90.3 100
All shoppers n 18 141 159
% 11.3 88.7 100

 

Who Accompanies the Wife on Food
Shopping Trips

 

Table 4-11 indicates that there is a relationship
between the type of outlet selected for the purchase of
food and which family members go on the shopping trip. The

data indicates that the one-stOp shopping center is more of

141

a family market. Of the women who shOpped the conventional
supermarket for food, 44.1 percent made the shopping trip
alone, while only 22.7 percent of the women who did their
food shOpping in the one-stOp shopping center went to the
store alone. In 18.2 percent of the trips to the one-stop
shopping center the whole family went, while this was the
case in only 2.2 percent of the conventional supermarket

trips. The difference in who shopped was found to be sig-

nificant at the .001 level.

TABLE 4-10

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN WHO HAVE CARS
AVAILABLE DURING THE DAY

 

 

Availability of Car

 

 

Car not Car

Store Patronized N.R. available available Total
One-stop n l 21 44 66
shopping center % 1.5 31.8 66.7 100
Conventional n l 20 72 93
supermarket % 1.1 21.5 77.4 100
All Shoppers n 2 41 116 159
% 1.3 25.8 72.9 100

Coupon Usage Patterns

Table 4-12 presents the research findings pertain—
ing to consumer usage patterns for coupons received from

manufacturers. The consumers use of the coupons was

142

presented in the second section of the chapter. Table 4-12
is presented to enlarge on the area of manufacturer coupon
usage. The Table indicates, as did the earlier tables,

that the one-stop shopping center customers were more re-I

sponsive to the manufacturer coupons.

TABLE 4-11

WHO ACCOMPANIES HOUSEWIFE ON FOOD SHOPPING TRIP*

 

 

Other Persons Accompanying Housewife

 

 

Husband
other
adult Child Child
Store Shop Friend family under over Whole
Patronized alone neighbor member five five family Total
One-stop
shopping n 15 3 21 12 3 12 66
center % 22.7 4.5 31.8 18.2 4.5 18.2 100
Conventional
super- n 41 5 27 8 10 2 93
market % 44.1 5.4 29.0 8.6 10.8 2.2 100
All n 56 8 48 20 13 14 159
shOppers % 35.2 5.0 20.2 12.6 8.2 8.8 100

 

*Significant at the .001 level

Combining the categories "use right away" and
"save, use later," it can be seen that 66.7 percent of the
one-stOp shopping center shoppers actually turned in the
coupons, while only 41.9 percent of the conventional super-

market ShOppers actually redeemed them. Over three times

143

as many one-stOp shopping center shOppers as conventional
supermarket shOppers used the coupons right away. Also of
interest, is the fact that almost twice as many of the
conventional supermarket shoppers threw the coupons away
on receipt of them. The difference in usage patterns was .

found to be significant at the .05 level.

TABLE 4-12

MANUFACTURER "CENTS-OFF" COUPON USAGE PATTERNS*

 

 

Usage Pattern

 

Use Save, Plan to
right use use, but Give Throw

 

Pa§§8§Ized N.R. away later don't away away Total
One-stop

shopping n 1 10 34 4 1 16 66

center % 1.5 15.2 51.5 6.1 1.5 24.2 100
Conventional

super- n 3 4 35 7 l 43 93

market % 3.2 4.3 37.6 7.5 1.1 46.2 100
All n 4 14 69 ll 2 59 159

shoppers % 2.5 8.8 43.4 6.9 1.3 37.1 100

*Significant at the .05 level.

Adoption of a New Retail Institution
and the Availability of’a Car

While the research findings with respect to avail-
ability of a car to the wife and her selection of a retail

outlet for food were inconclusive, the same is not true

144

with respect to the adoption of a new outlet. The findings
are presented in Tables 4-13 and 4-14.

Table 4-13 tends to indicate that the availability
of a car during the day is a significant factor differen-I
tiating the earlier adopter of the one-stop shopping center
from the later adopter. Seventy-five percent of the earlier
adopters had cars available during the day while only fifty

percent of the later adOpters did.

TABLE 4-13

PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ADOPTING THE ONE-STOP
SHOPPING CENTER HAVING CAR
AVAILABLE DURING THE DAY

 

 

Availability of Car

 

 

Car not car
AdOpter Categories N.R. available available Total
Earlier adopters n l 10 33 44
% 2.3 22.7 75.0 100
Later adopters n 0 ll 11 22
% - 50.0 50.0 100
All adopters n l 21 44 66
% 1.5 31.8 66.7 100

 

Table 4—14 supports the evidence presented in Table
4-13. A much higher percentage of the earlier adOpter
families of the one-stOp shopping center had at least two
cars available to the family. Approximately two-thirds

(65.9 percent) of the earlier adOpters had at least two

145

cars available to the family while only 27.2 percent of

the later adopters had more than one car available. The
findings were significant at the .05 level. The data would
thus tend to indicate that the availability of a car was
important to the acceptance and growth of the one-stop
shopping center, whereas it was not found to differentiate
the one-stop shopping center customer from the conventional

supermarket shopper at the time of the research.

TABLE 4-14

NUMBER OF CARS AVAILABLE PER FAMILY
FOR ADOPTER FAMILY UNITS*

 

 

Number of cars

 

Adopter category None 1 2 3+ Total
Earlier adOpters n l 14 26 3 44
% 2.3 31.8 59.1 6.8 100
Later adopters n 1 15 5 l 22
% 4.5 68.2 22.7 4.5 100
A11 adopters n 2 29 31 4 66
% 3.0 43.9 47.0 6.1 100

 

*Significant at the .05 level

Discriminant Analysis

 

In addition to analyzing the data to test the
hypotheses directly, the data was analyzed in a second way.

In the second analysis, selected variables were analyzed

146

using multiple discriminant analysis.2 Multiple discrim-
inant analysis is concerned with solving the problem of
assigning an individual to one of a number of mutually
exclusive groups on the basis of a set of n measurements
on the individual.

The statistical technique attacks the problem by
determining whether or not the points (measurements) rep-
resenting the performance of each individual on the n var-
iables measured tend to occupy different regions in the n
dimensional space defined by the n variables measured. If
the points do tend to occupy different regions of the n
dimensional Space, then classification of new individuals
on whom the same n measurements are obtained becomes
possible.

In multiple discriminant analysis, the group to
which an individual normally belongs, i.e. the first pref-
erence food store in the study, is the criteria which
orients the analysis of the data rather than the n measure-
ments. Using the groups as the main criterion for the
analysis, the computer program develops discriminant func-
tions from the input data. The diScriminant function is a

linear function of the n measurements which maximizes the

 

2For further information on multiple discriminant
analysis see William F. Massy, o . cit., or David V.
Tiedeman, "The Utility of the Discriminant Function In
Psychological and Guidance Investigations," Harvard Educa-
tional Review, Vol. XXI, No. 2 (Spring, 1951), pp. 71-79.

 

147

ratio of among means of groups sum of squares to the within
groups sum of squares.

Maximization of the ratio of the among means of
groups sum of squares to the within groups sum of squares
has the effect of spreading the means of the groups apart,:
while Simultaneously concentrating the scatter of individual
points about their reSpective groups. Thus, the extent of
overlap in the distribution of measurements for the various
groups is minimized.

The number of discriminant functions necessary to
maximize the ratio, i.e. minimize the extent of overlap,
is one less than the number of groups used in the study.
The present study utilized two discriminant functions since
the number of groups in the study was three.

The two discriminant functions developed, reduced
the n measurements for each group into group centroids.
Since there were three groups, three group centroids were
develOped. The centroidsrepresent a center of gravity,
or statistically a mean of the n measurements for the group
under study. The group centroids are then plotted in the
discriminant function space, or the space described by the
discriminant functions, to determine the extent to which
the group centroids enable the researcher to discriminate

between the groups on the basis of the n measurements.

148

Thus, multiple discriminant analysis through the
develOpment of discriminant functions describes the varia-
tion of the group centroids develOped. Determination of
the coefficients of these discriminant functions provides
a means of transforming the points of the n dimensional
Space to the discriminant function space which is of lower
order than the n dimensional space since the number of
groups is smaller than the number of measurements. The
transformations tend to exhaust all of the information
contained in the original set of n variables concerning the
separation of the group centroids and the scatter of indi-
viduals about their centroids.

Study of the location of the resultant group cen-
troids in the discriminant function space for each of the
groups permits the determination of whether the discriminant
functions develOped significantly differentiate the groups
under study. If the discriminant functions do significantly
differentiate the groups, prediction of group membership is
possible for new individuals measured on the n variables.

For purposes of the analysis fourteen variables
were used. Most of the variables were used elsewhere in
the research, but some were included exclusively for the
discriminant analysis. The variables used in the discrim-
inant analysis were as follows:

1. The percent of total food shopping done in the

first preference store.

149

2. The number of related items purchased per food
shOpping trip.

3. The location of the first preference store in
reference to the respondents home.

4. The extent to which mail-order purchases were
made during the last year using the value of all mer-
chandise received through the mail.

5. The number of prices correctly identified for
ten frequently purchased food items.

6. The respondent's awareness of price Specials
shown by recall of price Specials offered the previous
week.

7. The number of "cents-off" labels purchased
during the last thirty day period.

8. The number of private label brands correctly
identified in relation to the store featuring the
brand.

9. The extent to which other discount shopping is
engaged in, determined by the number of products pur-
chased in discount houses.

10. The number of trading stamps presently saved.

11. The number of gifts received through redemption
of trading stamps during the last year. I

12. The number of promotional games and contests

recognized by the respondent.

150

13. The number of promotional games and contests

participated in by the respondent.

14. The number of manufacturer “cents-off" coupons

turned in during the last thirty days.

The fourteenvariables used were classified into
three major variables which were: 1) convenience variables,
2) economic variables, and 3) promotional variables. Var-
iables one through four are convenience variables. Variables
five through nine are economic variables. And variables
ten through fourteen are promotional variables.

The research findings are presented in Figure 4-1
and Table 4-15. Figure 4-1 shows the position of the group
centroids in the discriminant function space. Table 4-15
contains the simple correlations found to exist between the
fourteen research variables and the three food stores
patronized by the respondents.

The data contained in Figure 4-1 shows that multiple
discriminant analysis was successful in distinguishing the
three groups from each other. The fourteen variables used
in the multiple discriminant analysis resulted in group
centroids occurring in different regions of the discriminant
function space.

The first discriminant function (the horizontal
axis in Figure 4-1) was most successful in separating the
one-stop shopping center customers from the conventional

supermarket customers. The first discriminant function

151

Figure 4"?
Position of Group Centroids In Discriminant

Function Space Using fourteen
Variables

0.62

 

°2 (0.4,-o.3)
-.s

o .
1 (my-0.7)

°3 (ca-4.1)

 

LEGIND: I
I - One-Step Shopping Center I
2 - Conventional Supermarket _ No. I

3- Convenflonal Supermarket No.2

 

 

l

 

152

separated the two groups of conventional supermarket shOp-
pers very little however. The overall difference in group
centroids on the first discriminant function was found to
be significant at the .001 level. A

I The second discriminant function (the vertical axis
in Figure 4-1) succeeded in separating the two groups:of
conventional supermarket shoppers more than the first dis-
criminant function. The separation of the three group
centroids was much less on the second axis however. The
differences in the group centroids were not found to be
statistically significant on the second axis.

Table 4-15 presents the simple correlations found
for the fourteen research variables and the three retail
outlets. The data indicates that, in general, the correla—
tions found to be positive between the individual research
variables and the oneestop shopping center customers were
negative for the conventional supermarket customers, and
vice versa. The one-stop shopping center customers corre-
lated positively on all the convenience and economic var-
iables except the variable concerned with the distance the
customers would travel to purchase food. With the exception
of the variable concerned with the usage of manufacturer
"cents-off" coupons, the one-stop shOpping center customers
were found to have negative correlations on the promotional
variables. The positive correlation found for one-stop

ShOpping center customers and negative correlation found

153

 

mo.| «0.: NH. SH omnnsa mcomsou
=mmo|musmu= umuouommosmz mo umnfioz .va

ea. Ho.| ma.| ommmHm memo Hmcofluoeoum mo Honesz .ma
mo.| Ha. mo.| Umuacmoomm
mmfimw HMGOHUOEOHQ HO Hmnfidz .NH
so. he. Hm.u , museum
ocwcmua Eoum oo>wmomm memeo mo Honasz .HH
ma. mo.n ma.u em>mm magnum mancmue mo amassz .oa
moaanHm> Hmcowuoaonm .0
mm.: mH.- mm. manomosm ucsoomao umnuo mo pamuxm .m
oa.u may- NH. eouacmoomm mamama mum>aum «0 umnssz .m
«0.- ma.- ea. emmmeousm mamnmq =umonmuamo= mo umnssz .e
no.| mo.| Ha. mamwommm moflum mo mmmcmumaa .m
Ho. vo.| mo. omwmwucmoH wauoouuou moowum mo Honsdz .m
mwflflmdrum> OHEOGOON .m
ma.u mo.- 4H. mnemoosm umeuouaamz mo unmuxm .v
on. ma. om.u . commosm ououm mo sofiumooq .m
mH.- aa.u mm. mane Hum mommsousm emumamm mo umnssz .~
Ho.| ma.| ea. mnoum and Se mooo mswmmosm mo usmoumm .H

meanneum> moccasm>soo .4

 

Ne umxumfiumoom H¢ umxumfiuomom Hmuamo mmHQMwum> soummmmm
Hmcoflucm>cou HMSOflucm>coo mcwmmonm
.- moumumco

 

muoum mucoumuoum umuflm

 

mMOBm mozmmmmmmm BmMHh mBH3
mmndem¢> mom4mmmm ho ZOHB¢AmMMOU mamEHm

male mflmdfi

154

for conventional supermarket customers on the usage of
manufacturer "cents-off" coupons indicates that the var-
iable probably should have been classified as an economic
rather than a promotional variable.

Conversely, the conventional supermarket shOppers
were found to have a negative correlation with all the
convenience and economic variables with the exception of
the nearness of the store chosen. The correlation of each
group of shOppers with the promotional variables was less
distinct than the other two groups of variables. The cor-
relations were mixed with some being positive and others
negative. Overall, however, more of the correlations were
positive than negative.

The data presented in Table 4-15 and Figure 4-1
would indicate that there is more of a difference between
one-stop shOpping center customers and conventional super-
market customers than the analysis of individual measure-
ments would indicate. The gestalt of the individual meas-
urements indicates Significant differences between the two
types of shoppers.

The findings would indicate that one-stop shopping
center customers are generally more interested in, and
evidently motivated more by, the convenience and economic
aspects of shopping rather than the promotional aspects.
The conventional supermarket customers, however, appear to

be more interested in, and motivated more by, the

155

promotional aspects of shopping rather than the convenience
and economic aSpects. The one exception to the pattern is
the location of the store selected to supply the family's
food needs in relation to the respondent's home. The one-
stop shopping center customers appear much more willing to
travel farther to shop than the conventional supermarket
shoppers. This would indicate that convenience of location
is regarded as different than convenience of multiple pur-

chase opportunities by the two types of shoppers.

Summary of Other Sigpificant Findingg

In addition to data necessary to test for formulated
hypotheses, a number of other significant findings were
uncovered in the research. The findings indicated that the
availability of a car to the housewife was not generally a
discriminating factor determining the selection of retail
outlets for food purchases. The availability of a car evi-
dently was important to the adoption of a new retail insti-
tution, as earlier adopters were found to own, and have
access to, more cars per family than later adopters.

The retail outlet shopped for food also appears to
be related to who goes on the shopping trip. The research
indicated that the one-stop shopping center had a much
higher incidence of family Shopping than the conventional

supermarket.

156

Manufacturer coupon usage was also found to differ
significantly with the retail outlet patronized. One-stop
shopping center customers were much more responsive to the
coupons and redeemed a much higher percentage than conven-
tional supermarket shOppers. !

In addition to the analysis of the data necessary
to test the research hypotheses, a multiple discriminant
analysis was used to combine fourteen of the research var-
iables. The fourteen variables were convenience, economic
and promotional in nature. The analysis indicated that the
one-st0p shopping center customers were more interested in
the convenience and economic aspects of Shopping, while

conventional supermarket shOppers appeared to be more con-

cerned with the promotional aspects of shopping.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The final chapter of the dissertation is composed
of five sections. The chapter begins with a general sum-
mary of the background and nature of the research. The
second section of the chapter presents an evaluation of the
research hypotheses based on the findings presented in
Chapter IV. The third section is concerned with the major
conclusions of the research. In the fourth section of the
chapter, the implications of the research are presented.
Finally, the fifth section is concerned with suggestions

for further research.

General Summary of the Study

The history of retailing in the United States has
been a dynamic one. As the social and economic environment
has changed, retailing has continually adapted to keep pace
with the times. The change has been both revolutionary and
evolutionary in nature, moving forward with great speed
during some time periods and progressing slowly during

other time periods.

157

158

It has been the summation of the revolutionary and
the evolutionary changes, which has allowed the retail
segment of the economy to keep pace with the changing wants
and needs of the American consumer. McNair has labeled the
process of change the "Wheel of Retailing," in which a bold
new institution starts out as a low-margin, low-price Opera-
tion and then gradually "trades-up" over time, until it
emerges as a mature institution with high margins and
prices. At the mature stage in the cycle, another insti—
tutional innovation appears and the wheel turns again.

Numerous examples of institutional innovation exist.
The mail-order house, chain store and supermarket all
started out as low-margin, low-price retail institutions.
Each, in turn has "traded-up" over time, leaving a void for
new types of retail institutions. The one-st0p shopping
center, offering a product mix of general merchandise and
food at lower margins than conventional outlets, is a re-
cent example of such an institutional innovation. In addi-
tion, the outlet offers a new level of convenience with all
merchandise featured in one large shopping area to minimize
consumer shopping effort.

'In spite of the importance of the institutional
innovation to retailing and the American consumer, little
is known about the actual process of consumer acceptance
responsible for the success, or failure, of a new type of

outlet. Neither the specific consumer market segments that

159

the new institution appeals to, nor the process by which
the institution gains acceptance is well documented in the
research literature.

It was the object of the study to employ scientific
research techniques to learn more about the process of
consumer acceptance with respect to the selected institu-
tion. To accomplish the task, the research investigated
the segmentation of the consumer market resulting from the
introduction of a oneéstop shopping center into a market
previously served by two conventional supermarkets. “Al-
though a number of related purchase decision areas were
studied, the main thrust of the research was on the pur-
chase of food necessary to meet family requirements.

The research was conducted in a geographically
concentrated area at the western edge of the Lansing,
Michigan Standard MetrOpOlitan Statistical Area. The
findings reported in the research were based on comprehen-
sive interviews with 159 family units. In each family unit
the woman of the household was the individual completing
the comprehensive twenty page survey instrument used in the
research.

The research studied five major areas relevant to
consumer decision making. The first three areas were con-
cerned with identifying socio-economic characteristics,
purchase motivation, and purchase behavior or patronage

loyalty factors for respondents patronizing either the

160

one-stoP shopping center or the conventional supermarket

to determine any differentiating characteristics between
the two types of shoppers. The fourth area studied purchase
behavior related to the purchase of food. The last area of
the research studied the adopters of the one-stop shOpping
center to determine any change in the research variables
between the earlier and later adOpter segments of the con-
sumer market. For purposes of the study, earlier adopters
were defined as those family units which adOpted the one-
stop shopping center during the first three months it was
Open, while later adopters were defined as the family units
adopting the institution after the first three months of

Operation.

Evaluation of the Hypotheses

The following paragraphs review the hypotheses
around which the study was organized, and the research
findings pertaining to each. The research hypotheses were
directly tested by the findings using a bivariate analysis.
The research hypotheses were generated from five guiding
hypotheses which were not directly tested. A multivariate
analysis used on fourteen of the variables supports both
the guiding hypotheses and the rationale behind the study,
however. The guiding hypotheses are presented in Chapter V
to lend structure to the chapter and assure that the re-
search hypotheses are reviewed in the context of the total

study.

161

Socio-economic Characteristics

 

Guiding hypothesis 1 reads as follows: The profile

 

of the consumer who concentrates foodppurchases in the

 

one-stop shopping center is significantly different

 

than the profile of the consumer who concentrates food

 

purchases in the conventional Supermarket.

 

The first guiding hypothesis was designed to focus
a section of the research on the socio-economic character-
istics of the shoppers frequenting each type of retail
outlet. Seven research hypotheses were generated from the
guiding hypothesis.

The seven research hypotheses composing hypothesis

l.A read as follows: Consumers who concentrate food

 

purchases in the one-stop shopping center differ from

 

consumers who concentrate food purchases in the conven-

 

tional supermarket in terms of:

 

l.A.l. Family Income;

l.A.2. Age of the Household Head;

 

1.A.3. Occupation of the Household Head;

1.A.4. Family Size;

 

1.A.5. Level of Formal Education;

1.A.6. Family Life Cycle;

 

1.A.7. Social Class.

 

On the basis of the data presented in Tables A-l
through A-7, five of the research hypotheses must be re-

jected. The findings indicated no significant difference

 

bl

{1'

'1')

pt!

162

between the two groups of shoppers in terms of: Family
Income (l.A.l.), Occupation of the Household Head, (1.A.3.),
Family Size (1.A.4.), Level of Formal Education (l.A.5.),
and Social Class (1.A.7.).

The research did find significant differences be-
tween shoppers preferring the one-stop shopping center and
the conventional supermarket in terms of the age of the
household head (l.A.2.) and family life cycle (1.A.6.).
Hypothesis l.A.2. can be accepted on the basis of findings
presented in Table A-2. The data shows that the household
head of families shopping in the one-stop shopping center
was generally younger than the household head of families
shopping in the conventional supermarket. Hypothesis
1.A.6. can be accepted on the basis of the findings pre-
sented in Table A-6. The Table shows that the one-stop
shopping center customers represent primarily younger fam-
ilies, especially the younger families with children under

ten.

Effectiveness of Selected Elements in
an InstitutionTs Mafketing Mix

Guiding hypothesis 2 reads as follows: The impor-

 

tance of the various elements in an institution's mar-
keting mix to the consumer in motivating her to frequent
aparticular institution varies significantlyybetween

the consumer who concentrates food purchases in the

163

one-stpp shOpping_center and the consumer who concen-

 

trates food purchases in the conventional supermarket.

 

The second guiding hypothesis was designed to direct
measure the effectiveness of a number of selected elements
in the marketing mix. Five research hypotheses were gen-
erated.

The five research hypotheses contained in hypothesis

2.A read as follows: The importance of elements in the

 

institution's marketing mix varies between the consumer

 

who concentrates food purchases in the one-stop shop-

 

pipg center and the consumer who concentrates food pur-

 

chases in the conventional supermarket in terms of:

 

2.A.1. Price;

2.A.2. Quality;

2.A.3. Trading_Stamps and Promotional Games;

 

2.A.4. Coupons and Price Specials;

 

2.A.5. Private Label Merchandise.

 

On the basis of the findings presented in Tables
A-8 through A-19 the five research hypotheses must be re-
jected. The findings of the research indicated little
significant difference between the two groups of shoppers
in terms of the motivational effect of the various elements
from the institution's marketing mix used in the research.
There was almost no difference in price awareness as shown
in the Summary Table 4-1. The differentiating factor in

quality was between conventional supermarket number one

164

and the other two stores, rather than the way pOSited in
the research. Awareness of promotional games, price spe-
cials and private label merchandise also failed to Show any
significant difference between the two groups of shoppers.

The data presented in Tables A-13 and A-15 did tend
to partially support two of the research hypotheses, how-
ever. Trading stamp saving behavior showed little differ-
ence between the two types of shoppers, but trading stamp
redemption was found to be significantly different. One-
stOp shopping center customers had redeemed significantly
less trading stamps for gifts within the last year. Also,
for the one-stop shOpping center customers who did redeem
the stamps, the gifts received were fewer and of less value
than for conventional supermarket customers. The data
would-tend to partially support the hypothesis concerned
with trading stamps and promotional games (2.A.3.).'

A significant difference was also found with re-
spect to the use of manufacturer "cents-off" coupons. The
data in Table A-15 was not significant, but aggregating the
data into "users vs. non-users" showed that a significantly
higher percentage of the one-stop shopping center customers
had responded to this type of promotional effort. The data
would tend to partially support the hypothesis concerned

with coupons and price specials (2.A.4.).

.165

Purchase Behavior and Patronage~

Loyalty

Guiding hypothesis 3 reads as follows:» The purchase

 

behavior and patronage loyalty of the consumer who
concentrates food purchases in the one-stop Shopping
center is sigpificantly different than the purchase
behavior and patronage loyaltyyof the consumer who
concentrates food purchases in the conventional super-
market.

The third guiding hypothesis was designed to guide
the research in the area of purchase behavior and patronage
loyalty. From the guiding hypothesis, five research hypo--
theses were generated.

The five research hypotheses combined into hypo-
thesis 3.A read as follows: Consumers who concentrate
food purchases in the one-stop shopping center differ
from consumers who concentrate food purchases in the
conventional supermarket in terms of:

3.A.1. Number of Stores Shopped;

3.A.2. Percent of Shopping Done in First Chpice Store;

3.A.3. Average Size of the Customer Order:

3.A.4. Number of Shoppinqurips to Purchase Food per
year:

3.A.5. Distribution of Purchases by Day of Week.

166

The five research hypotheses must be rejected on
the basis of the findings presented in Tables A-20 through
A-24. The data indicates little overall difference between
shoppers preferring the one-stop shopping center-and shop-
pers preferring the conventional supermarket. With the
exception of the product categories of meat and groceries
(see-Table A-21) there was no significant difference in
the concentration of purchases by each group.- Conventional
supermarket shoppers purchased a Significantly higher per-
centage of their meat in the first preference store, while
one-stop shopping center customers purchased a significantly
higher percentage of their groceries (dry groceries as
Opposed to all food purchases) in the first preference
store.

None of the other data achieved a sufficient level
of significance to differentiate the two groups of shop-
pers. The difference in number of stores Shopped, average
size of the customer order, number of shopping trips per
week, and the day on which purchases were made all failed

to Show any statistical significance.

Related Purchase Behavior

 

Guiding hypothesis 4 reads as follows: Consumer

 

preference for purchasing food in the one-stop shOpping»
center or the conventional supermarket carries over

into other areas of consumer purchasing behavior.

167

The fourth guiding hypothesis was designed to focus
the research in areas of purchase behavior related to food
shopping. Four research hypotheses were generated from the
general hypothesis.

The first three research hypotheses combined in
hypothesis 4.A read as follows: Consumers who concen—
trate food purchases in the one-stop shopping center
are more likely to shop in similar lowered-margin retail
institutions than-are customers who concentrate food
purchases inthe conventional supermarket when they
shOp for:

4.A.1. Convenience Goods;
4.A.2. Shoppipg_Goods;
4.A.3. Specialty Goods.

Hypothesis 4.A.l. can be accepted on the basis of
the findings presented in Table A-25. Hypotheses 4.A.2.
and 4.A.3. cannot be accepted on the basis of the findings
in Tables A-26 and A—27. The research findings indicated
that all shoppers tended to purchase convenience items
where they make other purchases (especially food purchases).
However, the one—stop shopping center customers purchased a
significantly higher percentage of the convenience items
tested in the research at their first preference store than

did the conventional supermarket customers.

'168

The same pattern of purchases was found with respect
to the purchase of prescriptions. The purchase of prescrip-
tions was the only item of the Specialty goods tested, which
significantly differentiated purchase patterns for the two
types of shOppers. The data with respect to prescriptions
wouldpartially support hypothesis 4.A.3. The other spec—
ialtygoods and shopping goods failed to Show a significant
difference in shopping patterns for each of the groups.

The fourth research hypothesis (4.B) reads as fol-
lows: Consumers who concentrate food purchases in the
one-stop shopping center are more likely to be catalpg
shoppers than are consumers who concentrate food pur-
chases in the conventional supermarket.

The research hypothesis pertaining to catalog shop-
ping (4.B) can be accepted on the basis of the findings
presented in Tables A-28 through A-30, and Summary Table
4-3. The research indicated that a significantly higher
percentage of the one-stOp shopping center customers pur—
chased merchandise through mail—order catalogs than con-
ventional supermarket customers. Of the six general-
merchandise mail-order catalogs tested in the research,
the difference in the percentage of each group of shoppers
having the catalog in the home was significant for four
catalogs. In each case, the group having the higher per-

centage was the one-stop shopping center customers.

169

In addition, the value of merchandise ordered
through Specialty catalogs and other items ordered through
the mail showed a significant difference between the two
types of shoppers. The value of all other merchandise
ordered through the mail was significantly higher for the

one-stop shopping center customer.

Characteristics of Adopter Family
Units

 

Guiding hypothesis 5 reads as follows: Earlier

adopters of the one-stop_shopping center are signif-

 

icantly different than later adopters of the one-stop

 

shopping center.
The final guiding hypothesis was designed to guide

the research with respect to further study of the family
units adopting the one-stop shOpping center as the primary
source of supply for food. Four research hypotheses were
generated.
The first research hypothesis (5.A) reads as fol-
lows: Earlier adopters differ from later adopters in

terms of socio-economic characteristics.

 

The research hypothesis (5.A) can be accepted on
the basis of the findings presented in Tables A-32 through
A-34 which indicate that earlier adopters and later adop-
ters differ in terms of several socio-economic character-
istics. The research indicated that there was a significant

difference in the level of formal education of the household

170

head between adOpting categories with the earlier adOpters
generally having a lower level of formal education than
later adopters.

The research also found a significant difference
between the adopter categories in terms of family life
cycle. While the majority of all adOpters were young
families with children, the early adopters were dispropor-
tionately concentrated in the category of young families
with children under ten. Finally, the findings Show that
there was also a significant difference between adopter
groups in terms of social class. The data indicated that
the earlier adopters were more concentrated in the lower
social classes while the later adopters were drawn more
heavily from the higher social classes. The other socio-
economic variables tested in the research failed to show
any significant differences between the adOpter categories.

The second research hypothesis (5.B) reads as fol-

lows: Earlier adopters differ from later adOpters in
terms of the motivational effect of the various elements

in_the institution's marketing mix.

 

Based on the information contained in Table A—35
the research hypothesis (5.3) can be accepted. The data
indicated a significant difference between adopter cate—
gories in terms of the use and redemption of trading stamps.
A significantly lower percentage of the earlier adOpter

families had redeemed trading stamps for a gift within the

171

last year. In addition to the fact that a higher percentage
of later adopters redeemed trading stamps for gifts, the
data tended to indicate that the later adopters received a
greater number of gifts of a greater total value than did
the earlier adopter. None of the other elements from the
institution's marketing mix showed any significant dif-
ferences.

The third research hypothesis (5.C) reads as fol-

lows: Earlier adOpters differ from later adppters in

 

terms of purchase behavior and patronage loyalty.

 

The research hypothesis (5.C) cannot be accepted on
the basis of the research findings. Of the five variables
tested in the area, none was able to significantly differ-
entiate the earlier adOpter from the later adopter. While
some differences were found in terms of concentration of
shOpping (Table A—38) and the number of shopping trips to
purchase food per week (Table A-39) the differences were
not found to be Significant.

The fourth research hypothesis (5.D) reads as fol-

lows: Earlier adopters differ from later adopters in

 

terms of the carpy over of purchase behavior to other

 

 

areas of consumer purchase decisions.
The research hypothesis (5.D) cannot be accepted on
the basis of the research findings. Neither the related
areas of the purchase of convenience, shopping and specialty

goods, nor the area of mail-order catalog shopping exhibited

172

any significant differences between the earlier adopters
and the later adopters. A summary of the findings is pre-

sented in Table 5‘1.

Multivariate Analysis and the
Guidinquypotheses

 

 

The rationale underlying the study was that differ-
ences did exist, and could be identified, between consuming
units preferring to purchase food primarily in the one—stop
shopping center and consuming units preferring to purchase
food primarily in the conventional supermarket. Thus, the
first four guiding hypotheses were formulated to identify
the differences thought to exist. The bivariate analysis
reviewed above indicated that the two types of shoppers did
differ in a number of important respects.

The multivariate analysis confirms and enlarges on
the findings of the bivariate analysis, which indicated
that the two types of shOppers were different. The multi-
variate analysis analyzed the data in terms of a total
configuration of fourteen measurements of the responding
family units rather than analyzing each measurement singly.
Thus, the multivariate analysis studied the gestalt of the
individual factors influencing the selection of a place to
shOp for food.

The multivariate analysis resulted in a distinct
differentiation of the two types of shoppers in the discrim-

inant function space. Figure 4-1 shows the extent to which

.Ucoom mm3
mocmoHMHcmem Hmoflumaumum m umeu mmumowocfl .m oaflnz .maomHum> one How GSSOM mme mocmoa
IMficmflm Hecaumflumum axe momma .m.z «overcamecmflm amoeumflumum ou Hmmmu mmcflocflm one

 

173

a
mumeoumoo ommo How mmmcmumem Heaven .m.z omeocmcouoz amped mum>aum .0
cumuumm uocaumwo oz .m.z mamwowmm moaum .m
mummo Hmfl>mo£ mum3 mumeoumoo ommo .m mcomooo .m
mumEoumoo Ummo How SOHUHcmoomu Hmeoq .m.z mummucou HMGOfluoEoum .o
mumeoumoo Ummo How coaumEmUmH uozoq .m mmewum weapons .0
cumuume wooflumflc oz .m.z heflamoo .m
cumuuma uocflumflp oz .m.z moaum .<
coflum>flu02 mmmnouom .HH
mHmEoumoo Ummo MOM Hmeoq .m.z mmmau Hmfioom .0
Ummo mo meow: ummw>mme
cmuoafizo mcoom cuflz mowafledm mono» .m maomu owed mHHSmm .m
cumuumm uocflpmflp oz .m.z coeumoopm ameuom mo Hw>oq .m
mumeoumdo Ummo How Hmmumq .m.z muflm maeemm .Q
cumuume poceumfip oz .m.z comm oaocmmoom mo coflummdooo .U
mumeoumoo Ummo How Hmmcoow .m . comm oaonmmoom mo mud .m
mumEoumoo
umucmo mcflmmoom moumlmoo now umzoq .m.z mEoocH maflemm .4

moaumflnmpomumeu UHEocoowlowoom .H

 

ucmEEoo Hosaccflm manoeum>

 

mHm%A<Z< MB¢HM¢>Hm UZHmD
mmqdem<> mom<Mmmm Q¢DQH>HQZH mom mOZHQZHm m0 Mmdzzbm

HIm mqmda

174

 

muouQOpm umflaumm

 

MOM Hmeoa museum weapon» mo coaomEmpmm .m coflpm>epoz mmmcouom .m
mumumoom umHHumm
How uozoa mmmao HmflOOm com .Hmmcoo>

mafia: maflemM .mmma cofiumooom HmEHom .m moflumanmpomnmcu erocoomlofloom .4

mumumoo4 moped .m> umHHHmm .>

mumEoumoo Ummo

How mcwmmocm monumo mo mmummp Hmcmflm .m mcfimmorm monumu .o
mumeoumoo Ummo you mcoflumfluomwum

mo mmmnouom Umumaou mo moumoo nmflm .m moooo wuamwommm .U

cumuumm poofiumflc oz .m.z mooow mafimmonm .m
mHmEoumoo Ummo

mo mcflmmeouom omumamu wo monomc chmflm .m moooo moomecm>coo .4

H0H>mcmm mmmsouom Umpmamm .>H
cumuumm poowumflp oz .m.z mmolmmmmzouom mo cofluoofluemflo .m
mHmEoumoo ommo How mmfluu Hoamm .m.z mmflue mcflmmoem mo HonEdz .o
mumEoumoo Ummo wow ummumq .m.z umcuo

Hoeoumou mo oNHm mmmnm>4 .U

cumuumu pocflumflc oz .m.z mommsouom mo coflumnucmocou .m

cumuumm pocflumfio oz .m.z commosm monoum mo Honeoz .4

moammoq

mmmcoupmm pom Hofl>mcom mmmnonom .HHH
pomeeou mcwocwm manoeum>

 

 

 

UTDCHHCOUIIHI m mqmdfi

175

 

mHoHQOUm HmHHHmm

 

mo mcflmmorm monumo Hmfl>mm£ unnemeom .m.z H0H>mnmm ommnonom cmumamm .o
mumumoom
umflaumm How mmfluu mcflmmocm Hmemm .m.z woamwoq mmmcouumm
pom How>mnwm mmmcouom .U
Aomoewucouv .>
ucmEEoo mcflocflm magmaum>

 

 

 

emscfluaoo--aum

mqmdfi

176

the analysis of the fourteen variables differentiated the
family units frequenting each of the retail outlets. Thus,
the combining of the research variables resulted in an even
more distinctive identification of the different types of
shoppers than the bivariate analysis, lending support to
both the rationale of the study and the guiding hypotheses.
A simple correlation of the individual research
variables with each of the retail outlets was computed as
part of the multivariate analysis. On the basis of the
correlations exhibited in Table 4-15 it is evident that
the one-stop shOpping center customers were more oriented
toward the convenience and economic aspects of shopping,
while the conventional supermarket customers were more
oriented toward the promotional aspects of Shopping. A
more detailed review of the findings is presented in the

section of Chapter IV entitled "Other Significant Findings."

Major Conclusions

 

The One-Stop ShOpping Center as
an Institutional Innovation

 

 

The findings of the research tend to support the
broad thesis that the one-stop shopping center is an in-
stitutional innovation. The research indicates that the
one-st0p shopping center was originally perceived as a new
type of retail outlet, lacking a broad base of consumer

acceptance. Through the eighteen months prior to the

177

research it appears that consumer acceptance of the one-
stOp shopping center grew both in depth and breadth.

The research findings tend to indicate that when
the new type of institution was first introduced into the
research area, it had some of the "low-status, low—image"
characteristics that McNair posited in the "Wheel of Re-
tailing" theory. The earlier adopters were primarily lower
class family units without significant advanced education.
Over half of the earlier adopters had a formal education
no greater than a high school education.

During the eighteen months prior to the research
the one-stOp shopping center had apparently "overcome" the
"low-status, low-image" characteristics through continued
acceptance and growth. The present customer mix does not
appear to be drawn disproportionately from any social
class, income group, educational level, or occupation.
Indeed, the customer mix has become more difficult to dif-
ferentiate from the customer mixes of the two conventional
supermarkets located in the area. The research indicates,
however, that the customers shOpping in each type of retail
outlet are still significantly different in a number of

I

important respects.

178

The Customer Mix of the One-Stop
Shopping_Center

 

 

The segment of the consumer market responding to
the one-stop shopping center does have certain distinguish-
ing characteristics. The research indicated that the seg—
ment of the market primarily responsible for the acceptance
and growth of the one-stop shopping center has been young
families. Only twelve percent of the family units shopping
primarily at the one-stop shopping center had household
heads forty years of age. In addition, apprOximately two-
thirds of the families with household heads under forty had
children under ten years old. In essence, the segment of
the market composed of young family units, especially with
young children, has been responsible for the Success en—
joyed by the new institution to date.

A number of other characteristics seem to be assoc-
iated with the segment of the market responsive to the one-
stop shopping center. Several of the differentiating fac-
tors will be discussed below. Before discussing the
factors, it is interesting to note that the responsive
segment of the market has not significantly changed their
food shopping patterns and habits since the adoption of the

one-st0p shopping center as the primary source of supply
for food. No significant differences were found in terms
of concentratiOn of shopping, number of stores shOpped,

average order size, or the number of shopping trips per

179

week between the one-stop shopping center shoppers and the
conventional supermarket shoppers. Adoption of the one—
stop shopping center appears to have had little effect on
the personal shopping habits of the customers.

Both the bivariate and multivariate analysis indi-
cates that the one-stOp shopping center customer is inter-
ested in decreasing the shopping effort, or "convenience
costs," necessary to complete the purchasing needed to
supply the family unit. The bivariate analysis led to
several findings supporting the conclusion.

An indication of the attempt to reduce shopping
effort is the finding pertaining to the purchase of other
items in the retail outlet patronized for food. The one-
stOp shopping center shoppers exhibited a much greater
incidence of purchasing other merchandise when and where
food shOpping was done. In the case of each of the conven-
ience goods tested in the research, the one-stop shopping
center shopper purchased a significantly higher percentage
of each item where food purchases were made. The purchase
of prescriptions in the one-stop shopping center also sup-
ports the premise.

The research indicated that the responsive segment
of the market has attempted to reduce Shopping effort ex-
pended in a second way also. The one-stop shopping center
customers were found to be much heavier users of mail—order

purchasing than conventional supermarket shoppers. The

‘3

180

one-stOp shOpping center customers generally had more mail-
order catalogs in the home and ordered more general and
specialized merchandise through the mail than conventional
supermarket shOppers. While the distinct possibility exists
that the motivation for the purchase of merchandise through
the mail is partly economic in nature, the author feels

that the convenience motive is inextricably tied into mail-
order shopping.

Although not conclusively backed up by the research
findings reported to be significant, the bivariate analysis
of the data tended to indicate that the responsive segment
of the market was somewhat less "promotion" and "premium"
oriented than the conventional supermarket shOppers. The
lower redemption rate for trading stamps was an example of
the decreasing interest in the area. The higher redemption
rate for "cents-off" coupons also tended to indicate an
increasing awareness of the money spent on food purchases.

More conclusive were the findings of the multivar-
iate analysis. The multiple discriminant analysis resulted
in significantly differentiating the one-stop shopping cen-
ter customers from the conventional supermarket customers.
The combination of the fourteen measurements of the family
units analyzed together as a group confirms the findings of
the individual analysis of the variables. More important,
by classifying the fourteen variables as convenience var-

iables, economic variables, and promotional variables, a

(4

181

more aggregate picture of each type of shopper becomes
evident.

The convenience and economic variables were found
to correlate positively with the one—stop shopping center
customers and negatively with conventional supermarket
customers. The opposite was true of the promotional var-
iables, which were primarily positive for the conventional
supermarket customers and negative for the one-stop shop-
ping center customers. Thus, it would appear that the
one-stOp shopping center customers are indeed more inter-
ested in the convenience and economic aspects of shopping,
rather than the promotion aspects. Conversely, the conven-
tional supermarket customers appear to be more interested
in the promotional aspects of shopping.

In summary, the customer mix of the one—stOp shop-
ping center is composed primarily of younger families,
especially the younger families with young children. Their
purchase behavior and habits are not significantly different
than shOppers purchasing food in conventional supermarkets.
The responsive segment of the consumer market is, however,
more interested in the convenience and economic aspects of
shopping behavior, and less interested in the promotional
aspects of shopping behavior, than conventional supermarket

shoppers.

P

182

The Adoption of the One-StppA
Shopping Center

 

 

The segment, or segments, of the market responsible
for the acceptance and growth of the one-stop shOpping cen-
ter appears to have changed over time. The research indi-
cated that the earlier adopters were significantly different
than the later adopters and present customers of the one-
stop shOpping center. AS stated above, the research indi-
cated that the one-stop shopping center did not have an
'extremely broad base of consumer acceptance at the time of
introduction.

The initial acceptance of the oneestop shopping
center appears to have been the result of a narrower, more
distinctive segment of the consumer market than the insti-
tution presently serves. The earlier adopters were more
heavily concentrated in the lower social classes and had
fewer years of formal education than the later adopters of
the institution. In addition, the earlier adopters were
even more heavily concentrated among the young families
with children under ten years of age, than was the case
when the research was conducted eighteen months later.

The research also tended to indicate that the earlier
adopters had somewhat lower incomes than later adopters,

but the evidence in the area of income was not conclusive.

f0

183

With the exception of trading stamp redemption,
which was much lower for the earlier adOpters than the
later adopters, the other promotional variables tested
failed to show a difference between the earlier and later
adopters at a significant level.

From all indications, the one-stOp ShOpping center
has gained broader acceptance by consumers to the extent
that the customer mix of the one-stOp shopping center is
similar to the conventional supermarket's customer mix in
many ways. However, the customer mix of the one-stop shop-
ping center still has a number of important distinguishing
characteristics as discussed in the preceeding section of
the chapter. The most important of these characteristics
are the young age of the shoppers, and their distinctive
interest in the convenience and economic aspects of shopping.

Implications of the Research for
Retail Management

 

Market Segmentation

The one-stOp shOpping center and the conventional
supermarket meet in direct, "head-on" competition in the
market place as they vie for the consumer food dollar.
While the research indicated that the one-stop shopping
center does serve an identifiable segment of the consumer
market, at the present time, its future growth can only be
at the expense of the conventional supermarket. Thus, the

continued acceptance and growth of the one-stOp shOpping

184

center is of interest to the executives of the one-stOp
shopping center and conventional supermarket alike.

Eighteen months after its introduction into the
research area, the one-stop Shopping center has gained a
fairly broad base of consumer acceptance. The customers
of the one-stop shopping center are still a readily iden-
tifiable market segment, however. The research has shown
that the one-stop shopping center customers come generally
from younger families who have children living at home.

In addition to being extremely young, the respon-
sive segment of the consumer market has several other
characteristics which differentiate it from non-responsive
segments of the consumer market. The research indicated
that the segment of the consumer market responsive to the
one-stOp shopping center is primarily interested in the
convenience and economic aspects of shopping. Conversely,
the segment of the consumer market shOpping in conventional
Supermarkets appears to be more interested in the promo-
tional aspects of shOpping.

Thus, the segment of the consumer market responsive
to the one-stOp shopping center is identifiable in terms
of age, convenience and economics. The responsive segment
is composed primarily of younger families who have recently
entered the market place as consuming units. The segment
is not primarily motivated by the various promotional

tools available to the retail institution, but rather by

185

the convenience and economic aspects of shopping which
result in the lowering of shopping effort and monetary
costs to the family unit.

Growth

The heavy acceptance of the one-stop shOpping cen-
ter by primarily younger family units, especially the fam—
ilies with young children, has important ramifications for
the business executive concerned with the growth of a
specific retail enterprise. As shown in the research,
approximately ninety percent of the family units frequenting
the one-stop shopping center were family units in which the
household head was under forty years of age. These younger
family units not only represent a major segment of the
present consuming population, but also represent the middle-
age and older consuming units of the future.

The fact that the majority of the one-stop shopping
center shOppers are young family units gives the one-stOp
shOpping center a distinct advantage over the conventional
supermarket. It indicates that the one-stop shOpping cen-
ter has successfully gained the acceptance and patronage
of the new family units who have most recently entered the
market place. The relatively new consuming units can be
both the one-stOp shopping center's present and future
customer mix.

To continue the growth pattern that the one-stop

shOpping center has had over the last few years, the

186

management must concentrate on two key approaches to ser-
ving its customers. The executive of the one-stOp shOp—
ping center must continually adjust the marketing mix of
the institution toward two objectives. The objectives
should be to:

1. Continually gain young family units as customers
when they enter the market place as "new" consuming
units.

2. Retain the young family units presently patron-
izing the one-stop shOpping center as they move through
the different stages of the life cycle.

The mission is not an easy one, but it is not an
imposSible one either. If the convenience factor of one-
stOp shOpping can be sufficiently instilled in the one-
stOp ShOpping center customer, as the research indicates
it has, her desire for convenience and lowered shopping
effort will probably be sufficient to continue patronage
over the years.

Conversely, if the conventional supermarket is to
remain the dominant source of supply for consumer food
purchases, the exeuctives of the conventional supermarket
must take decisive action in the near future. The con-
tinued growth of the one-st0p shopping center as a source
of supply for food, and the resultant increase in market
share, can only be achieved at the expense of the conven-
tional supermarket in the long run. To prevent the rel-

ative decline of the conventional supermarket, its

187

executives have three alternative courses of action they
can take .

The executives of the conventional supermarket can

either:

1. See that the conventional supermarket does not
continue to lose new family units to the one-stop shop—
ping center, through gaining the acceptance and patron-
age of an increasing share of the younger families
entering the market place as new consuming units.

2. Continue to concentrate the marketing mix of
the conventional supermarket toward the present customer
mix of middle-age and older family units in the hope
that the younger family units will "trade-over" to the
conventional Supermarket as they progress through the
different stages in the family life cycle.

3. Join the "trend" toward one-stop Shopping by
adjusting the firm's market offering to reflect changing
consumer desires through the addition of the one-stop
shOpping center, or related elements of the one-stop
shOpping center concept, to the firm's market offering.

All three alternative strategies are presently

available to the conventional supermarket executives. In
part, elements of each alternative strategy should probably
be adopted. Assuming that the firm is operating under the
marketing philosophy, it would appear logical that the

firm should attempt to adjust its market offering to better

188

reflect changing consumer desires. In fact, a number of
leading food industry chains have chosen the third strat-
egy of adjusting their market offering, and are now oper-
ating one-stop shOpping centers and discount supermarkets
in addition to conventional supermarkets.

Assuming that the third strategy has either been
adopted by the firm, or ruled out as a possibility, the
first strategy must be considered a better alternative
than the second strategy. While it is of critical impor—
tance to keep the present customer mix satisfied so they
are not lost to the competition, it is of even more impor-
tance in the long run that the conventional supermarket
encroach on the one-stop shopping center's ability to at-
tract young family units. Only through the continual
gaining of new customers, such as the new family units,
can the conventional supermarket offset the normal attri-
tion of present customers and maintain, or increase, its

market share in the future.

Competitive Strategy

The findings of the research have a number of
important implications pertaining to the selection of a
competitive marketing strategy. The implications should
be of interest to the executives of both the one-stop shop-
ping center and the conventional supermarket. Both types

of retail institutions need to attract new family units

ta

189

entering the market place to survive in the long run.
Thus, each type of retail institution must design at least
a part of its marketing mix to attract the young family
units the research found to be patronizing the one-stOp
shopping center.

The research findings indicated that the promotional
orientation that most retail food outlets have used to date
is no longer as effective as it was five or ten years ago.
The newer family units preferring the one-stop ShOpping
center are not motivated by the "traditional" promotional
tools of games, contests and trading stamps to the extent
that most of the conventional supermarket shoppers are.

To continue emphasizing the promotional tools used by a
great many retail outlets today, can only result in a con—
tinued alienation of the new family units.

To attract the younger families with their higher
level of education and awareness, as well as their in-
creasing emphasis on leisure and convenience, the success-
ful retail outlet will have to match its market offering
more closely with consumer wants and desires. The findings
of the present study indicate that the way to match the
consumer's needs and desires more closely is to increase
the emphasis on the convenience and economic aspects of
shOpping that the younger families find so important.

In short, the marketing mix must emphasize the

price aspects of the total shOpping bill and the convenience

190

of related lines of merchandise carried in a single retail
outlet. The research indicates that the advantage presently
lies with the one-stOp shopping center due to its lower
priced image and assortment of related merchandise and
product lines.

The increased emphasis on convenience is important
for both types of retail outlets, however. The consumer
desires to purchase as many of her needs in a single store
as possible. Thus, related product lines, especially con-
venience goods, can increase patronage loyalty and profits
to the institutions responding to the consumer's desire
for convenience and price.

The increased emphasis on convenience has ramifi-
cations beyond the food industry also. From all indica-
tions, the emphasis on leisure and convenience will con-
Qinue in the future. As such, executives in all areas of
Husiness dealing with the consumer may have to face major
changes in their products and operations within the next
decade.

The heavier use of mail-order purchasing goes hand-
in-hand with the emphasis on convenience. The next decade
may also find a significant "upswing" in mail-order houses.
fit is extremely possible that as consumers achieve higher
Levels of income and more leisure time, the service and
convenience aspects of all business units will gain con-
tinued importance. The question is beyond the scope of

the present research, however.

§

191
Implications for Consumer Behavior Research

The research led to several implications for future
research in the area of consumer behavior. The implications
relate to the measurement and analysis of consumer behavior
as a tool for description and prediction.

The bivariate analysis of the research variables
used in the study was not as conclusive as anticipated.
While many of the variables exhibited a distinct pattern,
only a relatively small number were found to be significant.

Combining a number of the measurements into "macro“
variables such as convenience variables, economic variables,
and promotional variables was found to be useful. The
analysis of several different measurements related to the
three macro variables led to distinctive consumer behavior
patterns being identified.

i The finding would seem to indicate that, with the
increasing complexities of our modern society with all its
famifications on consumer behavior, individual variables
analyzed singly, are unable to adequately measure, describe,
and predict consumer behavior. What is evidently needed,
as a "macro" approach in which a whole range of measure-
fients is analyzed together rather than individually.

! Rarely is consumer behavior determined by any sin-

gle cause. More often, consumer behavior is a result of

alwhole range of different causes. Thus, it is necessary

192

to study the relevant variables together as a group, or

a gestalt, rather than individually as is often done.
Implications for theAdoption Process

The research findings also lead to some implications
relevant to the adoption of a new retail institution. As
Shown in the research, the earlier adOpters were found to
be younger family units, from lower social classes, and
with fewer years of formal education. After the first
three months of Operation, the one-stOp shopping center
had broadened its base of consumer acceptance to include
all social classes and educational levels. Thus, the
younger family units, especially those with young children,
have been the segment of the market most responsible for
the new institution's growth.

The fact that the one-stop shopping center's cus-
tomers are young is only one of the identifying character-
istics found in the research. AS discussed above, the
research indicated that the responsive segment of the con-
sumer market is extremely interested in the convenience
and economic aspects of shOpping rather than the promotional
aspects. Thus, the one-stOp shopping center shoppers are
ihterested in both the total price of consumer expenditures,
ahd the amount of shopping effort expended to complete the

family purchasing.

193

Identifying the important charactertistics of the
responsive segment has important implications to the exe-
cutive charged with the success or failure Of a new type
of retail institution such as the one-stop shopping center.
The responsive segment should be kept in mind as corporate
decisions are made all the way from selecting a proper
location for a new institution, through selection of a
product mix and price line to selection of the apprOpriate
promotional mix. PrOper selection of the elements composing
the new institution's marketing mix can determine the suc-
cess or failure of the new institution. Unless the re-
sponsive segment is appealed to in each of the areas men-
tioned, the acceptance of the institution will be much more
difficult to achieve.

For example, a location with easy access to young
families should be desired. The product mix and price lines
carried should be originally adjusted to the needs and
ability to purchase of the responsive segment. And finally
the promotional mix should be designed to tell the respon-
sive segment about the convenience and economic advantages
available through One-stop shOpping and the fact that the
institution is designed to serve the young consumer and
her family's needs. Obviously, over time, if the new in-
stitution desires to broaden its customer mix and retain
customers as they progress through the life cycle, the

Inarketing mix will have to change and broaden also.

194

However, this is much easier to accomplish after the in-

stitution has gained its initial acceptance.

Suggested Areas for Further Research

 

The research effort has been primarily focused on
determining the extent to which the consumer market seg-
ments itself in response to the introduction of a new type
of retail institution into a market area previously served
by two conventional supermarkets. The segments were then
studied to determine the differentiating characteristics
of the two types of shoppers. In addition, the earlier
adOpters and later adOpters of the one-stOp shopping cen-
ter were studied to see how the responsive segment of the
market changed over time. Based on the experience gained
in the research, a number of areas for further research
can be suggested.

.The first area for further research would be to
increase the breadth of the study in terms of the geographic
area. Repetitions of the present study in numerous areas
would also accomplish this purpose. The present research
was concentrated in approximately six square miles. In
the author's Opinion the research area was severely "under-
stored" in terms of food outlets before the introduction
of the one-stOp shopping center. If the area was truly
"understored," it may have affected the findings. A lar-

ger study including several heterogeneous research areas

195

would be aimed at determining the representativeness of
the present research findings to other areas of the coun-
try.

A second research proposal would be concerned with
gaining a greater knowledge of the motivational effect of
the various elements in an institution's marketing mix.
The research indicated little difference between the two
groups of respondents in terms of the effectiveness of the
various elements tested. Such a study would be designed
to measure the effect of each of the various elements from
the marketing mix on consumers shOpping in different types
of retail outlets. The research would also be designed to
measure the level of awareness and importance of each vari-
able, as well as the interrelated effect Of the whole mix.

A third research suggestion would be a similar
study of consumers purchasing food in the different types
of retail outlets. The methodology would be similar to
the present study, but the variables studied would be con-
cerned with the psychological makeup of the consumers.

A study of this nature would be difficult and costly, but
the rewards would be significant. The study would attempt
to determine whether various psychological variables could
better differentiate types of shOppers. In addition the
study would add insight into the little known area of what

causes specific purchase behavior and action.

196

A fourth study would be a longitudinal study to
determine how purchase patterns and customer loyalties
change over time. By necessity, the study would be a
before-after experimental design with several measurements
before a new institution opened for business and several
measurements afterwards. Such a study would be primarily
concerned with identifying the changes occurring in the
subjects over time with respect to the introduction of a
new source of supply for food.

A fifth research suggestion would be develop the
multiple discriminant analysis into a tool for prediction.
Multiple discriminant analysis Significantly differentiated
and identified the shoppers frequenting each of the stores
used in the research. The proposed study would go one
step farther and use the information gained in the present
study to predict which group of shOppers a respondent is
most likely to belong to, given the measurements used in
the research.

A sixth area for further research is concerned with
the adOption of new institutions. By necessity, the pre-
sent research could only look at earlier vs. later adopters
of the one-stop shOpping center. The prOposed study would
use a finer categorization of adopters such as Rogers has
done as reported in Chapter II. The research would have
to be conducted concurrent to the opening of the new in-

stitution to be of maximum benefit. Such a study could

197

determine who are the real innovators in the adOption of
a new institution and find the relevent characteristics

for each of the adOpter categories.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Detailed Research Findings Pertaining
Specifically to Chapter IV

200

 

con H.m «.ma «.mm e.- a.m e.m m.~ m.e » muommoam
and m mm mm mm a a a ea a flea

ooa m.v v.ma m.wm v.om m.m ~.~ m.m m.n w umxuwe
lawman

mm v ma em ma o N m h a Hence»
|c0>coo

ooa m.H >.ma m.mm m.m~ m.e m.oa m.H o.m w Monaco
mcwmmonm

we a He «N be m a a e c ooumuoco

 

H96 can mmm.v~ mam.ea mmm.m mam.» amm.q mam.~
ooo.m~w nooo.mam uooo.oam nooo.aw -ooo.mw -ooo.mm uaoom mucoam nouncouumm

amuoa umm oz macaw

 

meoocH aaflesm

 

 

MMOBm m0 NAME
mudm ZH UZHmmomm mBHZD MAHde ho mZOUZH

Hid mandfi

201

-TABLE A-Z

AGE OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD FOR FAMILY UNITS SHOPPING

IN EACH TYPE OF STORE*

 

Store

Age of Household Head

 

 

Patronized No Re- Total
sponse Under 30 30-39 40-49 50-64 65+

One-Stop n 0 16 20 17 9 4 66

Shopping

Center % - 24.2 30.3 25.8 13.6 6.1 100

Conven-

tional’ n 0 10 19 29 29 6 93

Super-

market % - 10.8 20.4 31.2 31.2 6.5 100

All n 0 26 39 46 38 10 159

Shoppers % - 16.4 25.4 28.9 23.9 6.3 100

*Significant at the .05 level.

202

 

 

 

OOH v.4 O.OH O.O O.Om O.OO ~.OH H.OH O.H O mumamoem

OOH a OH O OO OO HO OH O a HHa

OOH O.O O.O ~.O O.OO O.HO H.OH O.O H.H O smegma

lummom

OO O O O ON OH OH O H a HmcoHu

Icw>cou

OOH O.O e.OH O.H O.OO O.OO O.OH H.OH O.H_ O umuamo

4 . mcflmmonm

OO O HH H Om OH O O H a moumumco
mumxuoz mumxnoz mommmcfimom mnmxuoz mumxuoz Aegean HOSOHO Omcomm

m o emHHHxO emHHHxO HHmsO mo emHHHxO emueaHe -mmeoum ummmonm umm oz emNHconu

H u a ISD IaEmm muoumflumoum H:H.mxumau IHEOm lam ououm

coaummoooo

 

mmOBm ho mmMB mudm ZH UZHmmomm mBHZD
MAHS4M mom 94mm aflommmDOm mmB m0 20H84QDUUO

mld mamfia

203

 

 

 

ooa m.a O.o H.oa o.va m.m~ o.mH m.o~ ~.m .mnoomonm

OOH m H OH nu ma OO mm m HH4

OOH ~.~ H.H 0.0 0.0H H.Om O.H~ O.m~ 0.0 unease

.Iummom

mm m H O oa mm om mm a fleece»

Icm>coo

00H o.m nu: «.ma o.o~ ~.mm «.ma m.ma m.H umucwo

mcwmmonm

OO O O OH OH OH OH HH H moumumao

Hmuoe O O O O O O m H OmuHcouumm
unease: haefidh mo nonesz muoum

H I.“

MMOBm m0 mmwfi modm
ZH UZHmmomm mBHZD VAHZ4h m0 ENHm

Vld mdmflfi

 

204

 

OOH I m.m m.v m.mN m.o¢ H.mH m.v HMH .. H.H w umxumfi

 

lawman
mm O O O em mm OH O H H c HMSOHu
nso>coo
OOH m.H O.> H.~H m.mH m.hm «.mH H.m I m.H m umucoo.
. mchmonm
OO H O O OH Om OH O O H a moumumco
IIOHmEmmnn
OOH m.m m.m O.vH ¢.mH 0.0~ >.m ¢.m m.~ 0.0H w umxume
lawman
mm m m mH OH hm m m m OH O HchHu
Icm>cou
OOH O.m H.m 0.0H m.Hm ~.vm 0.0H O.h I O.h w Hmucou
mchmoem
OO O O HH OH OH O O O O a moumumao
IIOHszI
Hmu Honuo xuo3 OOOHHOO OOOHHOU Hoocom Hoonom Hooeom Hoonom Oncomm
uoa mums OOUOHQ meow cmHm anm oomuu upmuo umm oz
upmuo L800 pouOHm meow pmumHm meow pmnwwmuumm
numom (E00 IEOU um

 

SOHumoopm Hmeuom

 

 

mmoam m0 mmMB mudm ZH UZHmmomm
mBHZD NHHSdh mom ZOHBdUDDm A42m0h ho Afi>flq

mld mnmda

205

.Hm>mH NO. man an unmoHOHcmHO«

 

 

OOH O.~ O.OH O.OO H.HO O.H O.H mummmoam
OOH v mm Om OO m m HH4
OOH m.v m.mH O.mv ~.Hm H.H ~.~ umxume
Iuomom
mm O OH OO mm H m HchHu
_ Ico>coo
OOH I H.NH 0.0N 0.0m O.m m.H umucmo
mcwmmonm
OO O O OH. OO O H doumumco
munch wuuom cho SOHOHHSU wuuom mmcomm
Hm>o omen Hm>o omen SOHOHHSU mono» Hops: one: :04 oz
HOOOB pHonmmsom oHonmmsom HmpHo pHonOmoom OONHcouumm
.mHmch .pmHuHmz .SOHOHHSO oz ououm

.OOHOHHOO oz.cmueHHno oz

 

mHoOo OOHH OHHEOO :H mmmum

 

mBHZD

«mmoem mo mews moan zH oszaomO

wAH24m mom mHUMU mmHH NAHZdh WEB 2H mwdem

mlfl MAQ<B

206

 

 

 

OOH m.H H.m 0.0H m.m 0.0m m.NH v.O m.H I O.m mummmonm
OOH m m Hm OH NO ON mH N O O HH4
OOH I m.m H.OH 0.0H 0.00 O.m 0.0 m.m I m.m umxume
Iummom
MO O O OH OH Ov O O N O m HchHu
Icm>cou
OOH O.m o.m m.em H.O m.mm «.mH H.O I I O.m noncoo
. mchooam
OO O O OH O NO NH O O O O mouOImco
Hmzoq HonH Hmon Hmzoq OprHz OHOUHZ OHOOHZ OHOOHE mmmHU Omeomm
HO3OH Hmeoq Home: momma HO3OH HO3OH “memo Home: momma I04 oz
Hmuoe no no no no pmuHconumm
HO$OH OHOUHZ OHUOHZ mmmHU muoum
momma Hmon Homes Homes
mmmHU HOHOOm

 

macaw ho mafia mudm
ZH UZHQQOSm mBHZD MHHde m0 mde0 HdHUOm

hi4 wands

207

.Hm>mH HO. was an pamoHHHcOHO..

.Ho>mH OO. man an namoHOHOOHO.

 

 

 

 

OOH H.OO O.OO O.HH OOH H.HO O.Om O.O mummmoam
OOH OO OO OH OOH OHH OO OH HHa
OOH O.OO O.Om O.OH OOH H.OO O.OO ~.~ umxume
Iummsm
OO OO Hm HH OO OO OO O HmaoHu
Icm>cou
OOH O.OO O.OO O.OH OOH O.OO O.OH H.OH uwuamo
OSHmmoem
OO OH OO O OO OO OH O moumumao
Hmuoe OOHHm OOHHm mmmnouom Hmuoe OOHHm OOHHm Ommnonom

MOOHHOOSH uomuuoo u.coo HOOHHOOSH uomuuou O.OOQ UONHSOHumm

muoum

Ormsom «mwumoo

 

 

mZMBH QMBUHHmm mom
mmOBm m0 mmMB m0<m 2H UZHmmomm mBHZD WHHde m0 mmmzmmdzd MUHmm

mid mam¢8

[I

208

 

 

 

OOH O.OO O.OH O.OO OOH 0.00 O.OH O.OO mummaoam

OOH NO ON OO OOH OO Om OO HHO

OOH O.OO H.OH O.OO OOH O.HO 0.0H O.OO umxume

Iwomsm

OO OO OH HO OO OO OH Om HmcoHu

Iem>cou

OOH O.HO 0.0H O.OO OOH O.OO O.OH O.OO umucmo

OCHmmoem

OO OO O OO OO OO HH OH monOImco

Hmuoa OOHHm OOHHm mmmnouom Hence OOHHm OOHHm mmmnouom

OOOHHOOSH uomuuoo u.coo uomuuoocH HOOHHOU u.coo OONHcouumm

muoum

monommm pmccmu

 

mmom coccmu

 

 

 

GOSGHHGOUIImld mqmds

209

 

 

OOH O.OO H.OH O.HN OOH O.HO O.OH O.OH mummmonm

OOH OOH OH OO OOH OO OO HO HHO

OOH O.OO O.O H.ON OOH O.OO O.OH O.OH umxums

Iuomsm

NO HO O ON OO OO OH OH HmaoHu

IG®>GOU

OOH N.HO O.OH N.OH OOH O.OO 0.0H O.ON umucmo

mchmocm

OO OO O OH OO OO OH OH ooumumao

HMHOB OUHHm OUHHQ mmmnoufim HMUOB OOHHm OUHHm mmMSUHSm

OOOHHOOSH uomuuou u.soo uOOHHOOcH uoouuoo u.coo pmuHcouumm

OHoum

 

 

Hmmwou UHOU

 

 

xHHS

 

Umficwucoollmld wands

o

210

 

 

 

 

OOH O.OO O.OO O.H OOH H.OO O.ON O.OH mumomoam
OOH OO HO N OOH OO OO ON HHO
OOH O.HO O.OO H.H OOH O.OO O.ON HHOH umxume
Iummom
OO OO OO H OO NO ON OH HmaoHu
Icm>eou
OOH H.OO O.OO O.H OOH O.OO N.OH N.OH umucmo
mchoonm
OO OO ON H OO NO NH NH moumumco
muoe OOHHm OOHHO Ommaousm Hmnoe OOHHO OOHHO mmmnousm

H UUTHHOUGH uUOHHOU u. . COD UOTHHOOGH HOOHHOU u. .GOQ CONHGOHHMQ

muoum

ommum mmmm

 

 

UOOEHHQOUIImId mamdfi

211

 

 

OOH 0.00 O.NN O.HH OOH 0.00 N.O O.ON muommoam

OOH OOH OO OH OOH OOH OH OO HHO

OOH O.OO O.ON O.O OOH O.OO O.O O.OH “means

Iummom

OO OO NN O OO OO O OH HmcoHu

Icm>cou

OOH N.OO 0.0H N.OH OOH N.OO H.O O.ON umucmo

mcHQmorm

OO OO OH OH OO OO O OH aoumumco

Hmuoa OOHHm OOHHm mmmnouom Hmuos OOHHm OOHHm mmmnouom

uoouuoocH uomnuou u.coo HOOHHOOSH UOOHHOU u.coo OONHSOHumm

muoum

 

 

monouox

HHo mconoo

 

 

 

UmfiCHuCOUIIm mHm4B

212

.HO>OH HOO. one um HOMOHMHcmHmO

 

 

 

 

OOH O.Hm 0.0m 0.0 O.NN OOH O.m 0.0m O.HN 0.0H mummmonm
OmH om mm NH mm OmH O . Om Om ON HH4
OOH 0.0m 0.0N 0.0 0.0m OOH 0.0 O.Hm 0.0H 0.0N umxume
Iummom
MO mm mm v mm mm O OO OH ON HchHu
Icm>cou
OOH m.Om H.Om H.NH 0.0 OOH I H.mm 0.0m m.H Hmucmu
mchmonm
OO OH OO O O OO O HO ON H moumumao
HmuOB ommnm>4 mmmum>4 ommum>4 Omcomm Hmuoa mmmnm>4 wmmhm>4 mmmum>4 mmcomm

SOHOm m>on4 Iom oz onmm o>on4 Iwm oz pmuHcouumm

mnoum

«vmmz «mmHHOUOHU

 

 

mmOBm m0 mmwfi m04m 2H OZHmmomm mBHZD MHHZ¢h Mm mMBZMU
UZHmmomm mOBmIMZO mmB ZH mUDQOmm 92¢ 94mg .mMHmmoomU m0 m042H wBHflflao

mid mam4B

213

.Hm>mH HOO. man an unmoHOHaOHO.

 

 

 

OOH N.O O.OO 0.0N O.OH mummmoam
OOH MH MO OO ON HH4
OOH 0.0H 0.00 O.HO 0.0N umxume
Iummom
MO OH OM ON mm HOOOHO
Icm>cou
OOH 0.0 O.Mm 0.00 m.H Hmucmo
OOHmmoem
OO O OO ON H monOImco
Hmuoa mmmum>4 OOOHO>4 mmmuo>4 mmoomm

BOHmm m>on4 Imm oz UONHcouumm

ououm

«moseoum

rI‘

 

 

Umscwucoollmlfi mqmdfi

214

 

 

 

OOH H.OH O.OO O.OH O.ON OOH O.O O.NO O.OH O.ON mummmonm
OmH . ON HO NN NO OOH O MO ON NO HH4
OOH H.OH 0.00 0.0H O.MN OOH 0.0 O.Mm H.OH O.MN umxume
. Iummom
MO OH OO OH NN OO O om mH NN HOSOHu
Icm>cou
OOH N.OH 0.0M N.OH M.OM OOH O.M 0.00 0.0H M.OM . Hmucmo
mchmonm
OO OH ON NH ON OO N OO HH ON mouOImao
Hmuoe mmmum>4 mmmum>4 OOOHO>4 mmcomm Hmuoa mmmum>4 mmmuo>4 mommm>4 mmcomm

BOHOO m>on4 Imm oz Bonm m>on4 Imm oz OONHSOHOOO

Onoum

new: mmHHmOOHO

 

 

MMOBm m0 mmWB mu<m ZH UZHmmomm mBHZD MHHEdm Mm H .02
Bmxm<2mmmbm H¢ZOHBZM>ZOU ZH moboomm QZd B¢mz .mMHmmuomU m0 mwdzH NBHAdDO

OHI< mqmdfi

215

 

 

 

OOH O.HH H.OO O.O N.ON mummoorm
OOH OH OO OH OO HH4
OOH 0.0 H.OO 0.0 O.HN umxume
Iuomom
MO O mm O ON HOSOH»
Ium>coo
OOH O.MH 0.00 H.O M.OM umucwo
mchmocm
OO O HO O ON moumuwao
HmuOB mmmum>4 OOOHO>4 mmmum>4 mmcomm

Bonm m>oo4 Imm oz OONHcouumm

mnoum

nonpoum

 

 

 

OmscHucoOIIOHIa mHmee

216

.HO>OH mo. men um ucmOHMHcmHmr

 

 

 

 

OOH O.H O.ON O.OO O.HN OOH O.H 0.00 0.00 O.OH O mummmoam
OOH N OO OO OO OOH N NO OO OO O HHO
OOH H.H 0.0M M.OO H.OH OOH N.N 0.00 0.0M O.HH O umxume
Iuomom
OO H MM OO mH MO N OO OM HH c HMSOH»
Icm>cou
OOH O.H N.OH 0.0m 0.0N OOH I 0.0M O.HM 0.0N O Hmucmu
meHmmonm
OO H OH OO OH OO O ON HN OH O moumumco
Hmuoa OOOHO>4 mmmum>4 OOOHO>4 mmcomm Hmuoa OOOHO>4 OOOHO>4 mmmnw>4 mmcomm

BOHOm m>on4 Imm oz 30Hmm m>on4 Imm oz OONHcouumm

muogm

«HMO: fimOHHOUOHU

 

mmOBm m0 mmNB muflm ZH OZHmmomm mBHZD MHHE¢h Nm N .02
BMMMdzmmmDm H¢ZOHBZM>ZOU ZH musaomm 02¢ Bdmz .mmHmmUOMO m0 mwdzH NBHHdDO

HHI4 mqmfiB

fr

217

.Hm>mH OO. man an ucmonHaOHOO

 

 

ooH O.H O.OO N.OO 0.0H mummmoam
OOH O OO OO HO HHO
OOH H.H O.OO H.OO O.HH umxums
Iummom
OO H OO HO HH HmaoHu
IC®>COU
OOH 0.0 0.00 O.NN O.OO umncmo
mchmonm
OO N ON OH ON mouOImco
Hmuoa mmmnm>4 OOOHO>4 Ommum>4 mmeomm

BOHOm m>on4 Imm oz UmuHcouumm

muoum

 

«moseoum

 

UOSGHHCOUIIHHI4 mqmde

218

 

 

 

 

 

OOH I I N.N 0.0H 0.00 M.O 0.0N umxume
Inmmom
MO O O N OH MO O ON HmaoHu
Icm>cou mon>
Q08
OOH I I I 0.0 N.HO H.O 0.0M Hmucmo
mchmonm
OO O O O O OO O ON Ooumumco
OOH H.H H.H N.M M.O N.OO N.N O.MO umxume
Iummom
OO H H M O NO N OO HOOOHO
Icm>coo
mOm
OOH I I O.M H.O 0.00 O.M 0.00 umusmu
OCHmmonm
OO O O N O NO N ON OoumImco
Hmuoe ON ONIOH OHIHH OHIO OIH mam: 30m m>mm
Hm>o 30cm u.coo u.coo memum
.m>mm mo mews
pm>mm mxoom mo HmnEdz
mmOBm m0 mmwB $04M ZH Uszmomm
mBHZD wHHZ4m Mm Qm>4m mmdem UZHO4mB QmBUmHmm mo 823024

NHI< mamdB

219

 

 

 

 

OOH I I I I I I OOH umxume
Iummsm
OO O O O O O O OO HmcoHu
Icm>coo umeuo
OOH I I I I H.O I O.OO umpcmo One
OSHmmonm
OO O O O O O O NO mouOIoao
OOH I H.H I H.H O.O H.H N.OO umxums
Iummom
OO O H O H O H NO HOOOHO
Icm>cou Odom
OOH I I I I O.O I 0.00 umucmu UHOG
mchmoem
OO O O O O O O OO mouOImco
OOH H.H H.H N.O O.OH N.OO N.O O.OO pmxums
Iummow
OO H H O OH NO O OO HmcoHH .
Icm>coo SHOM
O
OOH I I O.H O.O O.OO O.H H.OO Hmncmo OHO
mchmonm
OO O O H O ON H OO OouOImco
Hmuoa ON ONIOH OHIHH OHIO OIH Oamz 30m m>mO
Hm>o 30cm u.coo u.coo mfimum
.m>mw
mo mews

 

pm>mm mxoom mo .HmnEHHz

 

 

 

I“

UmocHOCOUIINHl4 mqm4B

I

‘1

.mpcmocommmu mchmHE muozm

.Hm>mH OO. mnu um OSOOHMHCOHOO

 

220

 

 

 

OOH O.OO O.OH O.OO OOH O.ON O.HO O.OO O mumamoam

mOOH NO ON HO OOOH OO OO HO O HHO

OOH O.OO 0.0H O.OO OOH O.OO 0.00 O.ON O umxume

IHonm

OO OO OH ON NO OO NO ON a HmcoHu

Icm>coo

OOH N.OO O.OH O.HO OOH O.HN O.ON O.HO O Hmuamo

mchmonm

OO ON O OO OO OH OH OO a mouOImao

Hmuoe +HHO OHIHO mcoz Hmuoe mHoz no 039 moo mcoz OmNHcouumm
pm>Hmomm OHMHU mo mon> Um>Hmomm OHMHU mo Hmneoz muoum

 

 

HOoHumm anaoz NHO
«mmoem Oo mmwe OOOO zH ozHOmomm OOHZO OHHzaO Om
onemzmomm Ozeem ozHoeme OOOomme om>Hmomm OOOHO Oo OOH4> Oze Ommzaz

MHld mqmfifi

221

 

mmemo me Mom

 

 

 

OOH H.OH 0.0H 0.00 OOH H.O O.NH 0.00 ucmonmm mmmum>4
OOH N.N O.OH H.OO OOH I H.NH 0.00 O =0Och

OO N OH HO OO O O OO O pcom pHOU:
OOH N.M 0.0 0.00 OOH H.NH 0.0 M.OO O Ooum
OO O O OO OO O O OO : umasw.
OOH N.N N.N 0.00 OOH I I OOH O =£mmo
OO N N OO OO O O OO O 3OOOHO.
OOH 0.0N O.NN O.HO OOH 0.0H 0.0H O.MO O :mOcHM
OO ON HN OO OO OH HH NO a mo uuoOO=
OOH I I OOH OOH I I OOH O .omch
MO O O MO OO O O OO O mocOOO
OOH 0.0N O.MO H.OM OOH 0.0H 0.0M O.HO O =>oumo
OO ON OO ON OO O ON OO a shoe OOHO.
Hmuoa pmmem mama coHuHcmoomm Hmuoe omOOHm mEmo coHuHcmoomm

m>mm mNHcmoomm oz m>mm mNHcmoomm oz
II mEmo

Hmeoumoo umxumfiummom HchHucm>coo Hmeoumnu Hmucmo mcHemocm moumImco HchHuonum

 

 

ummmocm mo mama comm an coHuHcmoomm

 

 

OHI¢ WHM4B

mmOBm m0 mmMB mofim ZH UZHmmomm mBHZD NHHEfih
wm mmzdo Q24 mBmMBZOU HdZOHBOEOMm m0 mmmzmm<34

222

TABLE A-15

REDEMPTION OF MANUFACTURER "CENTS-OFF" COUPONS BY

FAMILY

(One Month Period)

UNITS SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF STORE

 

Number of Coupons Redeemed

 

 

Store
Patronized None 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
One-Stop n 33 17 9 4 2 1 0 66
Shopping
Center % 50.0 25.8 13.6 6.1 3.0 1.5 - 100
Conven-
tional n 63 14 9 5 l 0 l 93
Super-
Market % 67.7 15.1 9.7 5.4 1.1 - 1.1 100
All 96 31 18 9 3 l l 159
Shoppers % 60.4 19.5 11.3 5.7 1.9 1.1 1.1 100

 

TABLE A-l6

VALUE OF MANUFACTURER "CENTS-OFF" COUPONS REDEEMED

 

 

 

BY FAMILY UNITS SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF STORE
(One Month Period)
Value of Coupons Redeemed
Store
Patronized No Re- $.00 $.26 $.51 $.76- $1.01 Don't To-
sponse None -.25 -.50 -.75 1.00 + Know tal
One-Stop n 1 33 17 10 2 0 2 66
Shopping
Center % 1.5 50.0 25.8 15.2 3.0 - 1.5 3.0 100
Conven—
tional n 0 63 20 4 2 l 3 93
Super—
market % - 67.7 21.5 4.3 2.2 1.1 3.2 100
All n l 96 37 14 4 1 5 159
Shoppers % 0.6 60.4 23.3 8.8 2.5 0.6 0.6 3.1 100

 

 

 

 

OOH I I N.N O.OO OOH O.H O.H H.O O.OO O OHuomuuoo
OmoHuO

OO O O N HO OO H H O OO O OHOHUOOO

muHmo
OOH I H.H N.N O.OO OOH I I O.H O.OO O OHuoouuoo
OmoHum

OO O H N OO OO O O H OO O OHOHommO
mooponm

OOH I N.O O.O O.HO OOH I I 0.0 O.OO O OHuomuuoo
meHHm

OO O O O OO OO O O N OO O mHmHumOO
ummz

OOH N.N O.O 0.0 O.OO OOH O.H H.O N.OH N.OO O OHuumuuoo
.B meHHm
2 OO N O O OO OO H O NH OO O mHmHommO
mnmoouo
Hmuoa mHmHommm mHOHO HOHO mcoz Hmuoa mHOHommm mHOHO HOHO mcoz

muoz Ho M Imam N Imam H mHOz HO M Imam N Imam H whommumo
umxumfiumaom HMSOHucm>cOU Hmucmo mchmocm moumlmco Hospoum

 

 

pmNHcouumm mnoum he pmNHcmoomm mHmHommm mo HmoEsz

HMOBm m0 mmwfi mU¢m ZH OZHmmomm mBHZD
MHHde Mm NHBUHMMOU QMUHMm deHummm DmmHBmm>Q¢ m0 mmmZDZ

OHI¢ MHmde

[r

224

 

 

 

OOH H.O O.O O.HH O.HN N.OO O.NH 0.0H O.O mummmonm

OOH O OH OH OO OO ON ON H HH4

OOH N.O O.O O.O O.OH H.OO H.OH H.OH O.H umxnma

Inmmsm

OO O O O OH ON OH OH H HOcoHu

Icwbcoo

OOH O.O H.O N.OH N.ON O.OO O.O H.NH I umpcmu

mcflmmonm

OO N O HH OH ON O O O mouOImco

mmcommm

muOB o m v m m a mqoz oz .m cmuflconumm

H muoum

unmflm m0 use wmuflcmoomm Hmnfisz

 

 

mmOBm m0 mmwB mo<m ZH OZHmmomm mBHZD
VQHZ<h Mm QmNHZGOUNm mammdd m94>Hmm m0 mmmSDZ

malfi mqm¢8

II|II ‘Ill‘lllllll‘.l ILIIII Il‘

225

TABLE A-l9

AWARENESS OF TWO PRIVATE LABEL BRANDS IN FIRST
PREFERENCE STORE BY FAMILY UNITS SHOPPING
IN EACH TYPE OF STORE

 

 

Recognition of Private Labels

 

 

 

 

 

 

Store ~ I

, Didn t Rec- Recog- T t 1‘

Patronized N0 ognize Pri- nized Pri- O a
Response vate Labels vate Labels
One-Stop n 1 52 f 13 66
Shopping
Center % 1.5 78.8 19.7 100
Conven-
tional n 2 74 17 93
Supermarket % 2.2 79.6 18.3 100
A11 n 3 126 30 159
Shoppers % 1.8 79.3 18.9 100
TABLE A-ZO
NUMBER OF STORES SHOPPED FOR FOOD BY FAMILY
UNITS SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF STORE
w
Store Number of Stores Shopped

Patronized 1 2 3. 4 5+ Total
One-Stop n 2 18 28 10 8 66
Shopping
Center % 3.2 27.2 42.3 15.2 12.1 100
Conven-
tional n 12 32 26 15 8 93
Super-
market % 12.9 34.4 28.0 16.1 8.6 100
All 14 50 54 25 16 159
Shoppers % 8.8 31.4 34.0 15.7 10.1 100

 

OHm>mH No. man um unmoflmaanmOO

.Hm>mH HO. man an OOOOHOHOOOOO

 

226

OOH O.NO O.O 0.0 O.O OOH O.OO O.O O.O O.O OOH O.OO H.O O.O O.H O OOHOOOOO
OOH HOH O HH O OO NO O O O OO OO O N H cmuoomIqoz

OOH O.OO O.OH O.NH O.O OOH O.NO O.NH N.OH O.O OOH O.OO 0.0H H.O I O chmmonO
OOH OOH ON ON O OO OO NH OH O OO HO HH O O OOOOumoouu

OOH O.OO O.O O.OH O.O OOH O.OO O.O N.OH O.O OOH O.OO O.O O.OH O.O O OcOmmosm
OOH OHH OH ON OH OO OO O OH O OO HO O O O : mosoonm

ooa 52:. m6 m.m H.m.n 00H m.m~. mg. m.m m.w 00H m.om H.m ab M.O.Nwmcflmmonm
mmH OHH dd 0H vN mm wh b w m we ow ¢ ¢ ma c «pom:

OOH O.OO O.ON O.OH O.O OOH O.OO O.ON O.OH H.H OOH O.HO O.OO N.OH I O OcOmmoOO
noom
OOH OO OO ON H OO OO ON OH H OO HO ON NH O a Hmuoe

 

Hmuoa wooa wmh wom wmm HmuOB wooa wmb wom wmm HMHOB wooa wmh mom wmm
Ion lam Imm IH lob lam ImN IH lob lam ImN Ia

 

whomwumo
mummmonm Ham umxnm€uomsm Hmcoflucm>cou Hmucmo mcflmmonm moumumco uosvoum

 

 

 

muoum nomm GO mcflmmonm mo cowumuucmocoo

I II ‘I’
III‘ |" I'II‘

II

mmOBm m0 mmwfi mU¢H.ZH UZHmmomm mBHZD MAHde
wm mmHmowmadu BUDoomm Omaumqmm mom mflm¢mUmDm ho ZOHBdmaszZOU

HNI< mqmdfi

AVERAGE FOOD BILL PER SHOPPING TRIP FOR FAMILY
UNITS SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF STORE

227

TABLE A-22

 

 

Food Bill per Shopping Trip

 

 

 

 

 

 

Store
Patronized $1-9 $10-19 $20-29 $30-39 $4o+ Total
One-Stop n 10 20 12 14 10 66
Shopping
Center % 15.2 30.3 18.2 21.1 15.2 100
Conven—
tional n 18 39 15 11 8 91
Super-
market % 19.7 42.8 16.4 12.0 9.1 100
All 28 59 27 25 18 151a
Shoppers % 17.8 37.5 17.1 15.9 11.7 100

aNote missing responspondents.
TABLE A-23
NUMBER OF TRIPS TO PURCHASE FOOD BY FAMILY
UNITS SHOPPING EACH TYPE OF STORE

Store Trips per Week
Patronized One or less 2 3 4 5 7 Total
One-Stop 37 12 11 2 3 l 66
Shopping
Center 56.1 18.2 16.7 3.0 4.5 1.5 100
Conven-
tional 39 30 11 8 2 1 93
Super-
market 4l.9 32.3 11.8 8.6 2.2 2.2 1.1 100
A11 76 42 22 10 5 2 159
Shoppers 47.8 26.4 13.8 6.3 3.1 1.3 1.3 100

 

228

 

 

 

OOH O.O 0.0H 0.0H N.O 0.0H 0.0 O.O H.NO mummmonm

OOH O ON HO OH ON O H HO HH4

OOH O.O H.OH N.OH O.O O.NN N.O I O.ON umxume

Iuwmsm

OO O OH OH O HO O O ON HmcoHu

Iam>nou

OOH H.O O.OH O.NN O.O H.O 0.0 0.0 O.OO umucmo

Oawmmonm

OO N O OH O O O H ON mouOImco

.com .umm .Oum .HsnB .pmz .mmse .coz wmo Hmas

Hmuoe IUHuHmm oz UmNOGOHumm

muoum

poom mo mmmnousm HOnmz

 

 

mmOBm m0 mmwfi mudm ZH UZHmmomm
mBHZD MAHZ¢m mom Kmm3 m0 Nda Mm mmmfimombm

vmld mqmde

it"- I cl"

 

229

 

 

 

.Hm>mH HOO. may Om OOOOHOHOOHOO

00H I I 0.0m m.HN I 0.0N O.HH m.m H.H O umucou
mchmonm «mmsuo
mm o 0 mm om 0 ON HH m H a HmaoHu COHu
IOOOOOO -O.OO.
OOH I I N.OH O.O I O.OO I O.H I O umucmo Imam
mCHmmoam Icoz

OO O O OH O O OO O H O a moumImco

ooH H.H I H.H m.HH I 0.0H H.OO H.om H.H w umxnme

Iummsm

mm H o H HH 0 OH HO mm H : HmcoHu
Ico>coo «mounmu
OOH I I I 0.0 I H.OO O.H 0.00 O.H O umucmo IOOHo

mchmonm

OO O O O N O OO H ON H a moumImco

Hmuoa HHmz muoum mnoum muoum muoum muoum Houcmu umxumfi mmmnousm mmcomm
muHMHo wuw mono usdoo ucmfi mch Iuwmsm u.coo Iwm oz
Imam IHHm> ImHo quwm Imonm HmcoHu Ho
Ion moum Icm>cou 3ocx poopoum
Imco u.coo

 

OmcoHucmz umHuso HHOumm mo mmaa

mQOOO mUZMHzm>ZOU QMBUMHmm mmdmumDm QHDOZ wmmB
DMBflBm mmOBm m0 mmNB m0¢m ZH UZHmmOmm mBHZD quZ¢h mmmm3

led mqmdB

230

.Hm>mH Hoo.

6:» um HOOUHchOHOO

 

 

00H O.m m.O I H.om I I m.h m.mm 0.0H N.N umxumfi
.Iuomdm
mm m O 0 ON 0 o O Hm mH N HMCOH»
Ico>coo «mmCHN
Immmz
00H H.NH o.m I O.NN I I O.MO m.v H.NH m.H Hmucmo
mchmonm
mm m N o mH o 0 ON m m H moumImco
Hmuoa HHmz oHOpm mnoum ououm muoum muoum Hmucou umxume mmmnonnm omcomm
wuHmHo >9m mono assoc puma mCHm Iummdw u.coo Imm oz
Imam IHHm> ImHo qumm Imonm HMCOHu Ho
loo moum Ico>coo 30am posoonm
Imco u.coa

 

pmGOHucmz umHuso HHmumm mo mama

 

 

 

Umscflucoollmmld mqmdfi

231

 

 

 

OOH I 0.0m I I O.m 0.0m I I O.HH N.m ummeE
Iummsm
mm O Om O O m Om O O HH m HMGOHuCOHmH>
Ico>cou IwHwa
OOH I m.mm I I 0.0 m.mO I I 0.0H I nwucmo
OCHmmonm
OO O NN O O O OO O O HH O moOOImco
OOH H.H M.OH I I O.MN 0.0m O.HH H.H M.O N.N umxumfi
Inomsm
mm H OH O O NN mm HH H O N HMCOH»
Icm>cou no
Iummoe
OOH I O.NN I I 0.0H m.om N.OH I N.mH I Houcwo
maHmmonm
OO O OH O O HH ON OH O OH O mouOImco
Hmuoa HHmz muoum muoum muoum muoum muoum Houcou umxnmfi mmmnousm omaomm
muHmHo hum mama assoc name mch Iummsm u.coo Imm oz
Imam IHHm> ImHo qumm Imonm HMCOHU no
Ion moum Ico>cou Bocx HOSUOHm
Imco u.coo

 

pmGOHucmz uoHuso HHmumm mo mama

 

 

mQOOO OZHmmomm Dmfiumqmm mmdmumbm Q4003 wmmfi
Dmfidfim mmOBm m0 mmwfi mvdm ZH UZHmmomm mBHZD wHHzfim mmwmz

mmld MHQ¢B

232

 

 

OOH H.H O.NN I I v.m 0.0m H.H I O.NH N.N umxume
Iummam
mm H HN O O m Hm H O NH N HMGOHu
Icm>coo
mmHHmm
Imuo
OOH I 0.0H O.H I m.O N.OO O.H I O.mH I Houcmu
OCHmmonm
OO O O H O O OO H O O O mouOImco
Hmuoa HHmz mnoum onoum muoum muoum muoum Hmucmo umxume mmmnousm mmnomm
OHHMHU mum mayo ussoo usofi mch Iummnm p.coo Imm oz
Immm IHHm> ImHo qumm Imozm HMGOH» Ho
Iwo moum Icm>cou 3ocx nonpoum
.Imco u.:oo

 

OmGOHucmz.$0d#uo:meuom MOIomha

JIII

 

vmfiflflucoollmmld mamfia

233

.Hm>mH HmO. may um_u:OOHOHcOHOO

 

 

 

OOH I I I O.MO H.H I m.O I N.N v.m O umxume
, Iuomsm
mm O O O OO H O O O N m a HchHUOmaoHu
Icm>cooImHumm
OOH I I I H.NO I I 0.0m I I O.m O Hmucmo Imum
mchmonm
OO O O O HO O O ON O O N : moumImco
OOH I H.Om I I O.m O.MN I I 0.0H H.H O umxume
Iummsm
mm O mm O O m NN O O OH H a HMQOHu
Icm>coo OHSm
. m.cmz
OOH I O.mO I I m.H O.mN I I H m I O Hmucmo
mchmosm
OO O NO O O H OH O O O O : mouOImao
Hmuos HHmz mnoum muoum ououm muoum ououm Houcmo umxumfi ommnousm omaomm
OOHMHU hum mama ucdoo acme mch Iummsm u.coo Imm oz
Imam IHHm> ImHo qumm Imonm HMCOH» no
Imo moum Icm>cou 30cm unspoum
Imco u.coo

 

pmcoHuamz uoHuso HHmumm mo mama

Ll
I‘l‘

mQOOG MBAdHummm Omaumqmm mmdeMDm QHDOK Mmme
Qmadfim mmoam m0 mmNB m0¢m ZH UZHmmomm MBHZD MHHZdh mmmmz

Omld mHm<B

B

234

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cmaaHuaooIIONI< mamme

OOH I O.HO I I N.N O.MO I H.H 0.0 N.m umxume
Inmaam
mm O mm O O N OO O H m m Hmaowu
Iam>aou
maHno
OOH I m.mm I I I 0.00 I I N.OH I umuaoo
maHaaonm
OO O NN O O O NO O O NH O mouOImao
Hmuoa HHmz mnoum muoum muoum muoum ououm Houaoo umxume mmmnouaa mmaoam
OOHMHU hum mama uaaoo name maHa Inmaam u.aoa Imm oz
Imam IHHM> ImHa quma Iaoam HmcoHu no
Ima moum Iam>aoo 30am voapoua
Imco u.:oa
pmGOHuamz umHuao HHmumm no make
I E

235

TABLE A-ZB

MAIL-ORDER CATALOGS IN HOMES OF FAMILY UNITS
SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF STORE

 

Mail-Order Catalogs Possessed by Bach Group of

 

 

 

 

ShOppers
Catalog One-StOp Shopping Center Conventional Supermarket
No Catalog Catalog No Catalog Catalog
in Home in Home Total in Home in Home Total
Sears* n 33 33 66 64 29 93
% 50.0 50.0 100 68.2 31.2 100
PenneY‘sn 53 12 65a 83 10 93
‘ s 81.0 19.0 100 89.3 10.7 100
Mont- n 53 12 65a 86 7 93
ggflgfy 81.0 19.0 100 92.5 7.5 100
Spiege1*n 55 10 65a 87 6 93
% 84.1 15.9 15.9 93.6 6.4 100
A1den* 58 7 65a 90 3 93
% 88.6 11.4 100 96.8 3.2 100
John 63 2 65a 90 3 93
Plain % 96.2 3.8 100 96.8 3.2 100

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

aNote missing respondent.

236

TABLE A-29

VALUE OF GENERAL MERCHANDISE ORDERED BY MAIL
FOR FAMILY UNITS SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF
STORE (3 Month Period)

 

 

Value of Merchandise

 

 

 

Store
Patronized None $l-25 $26-50 $51+ Total
One-Stop n 32 19 6 9 66
Shopping
Center % 48.5 28.8 9.1 13.5 100
Conven-
tional n 59 23 5 6 93
Super-
market % 63.4 24.7 5.4 6.6 100
All n 91 42 11 15 159
Shoppers % 57.2 26.4 6.9 9.4 100

TABLE A-30

VALUE OF SPECIAL MERCHANDISE ORDERED BY MAIL FOR
FAMILY UNITS SHOPPING IN EACH TYPE OF STORE*

 

H _ _‘—_

 

 

 

 

Value of Merchandise

 

 

Store
Patronlzed None $1-25 $26—SO $51+ Total
One-Stop n 18 42 6 0 66
Shopping
Center % 27.3 63.6 9.1 - 100
Conven-
tional n 43 40 7 3 93
Super-
market % 46.2 43.0 7.5 3.3 100
All n 61 82 13 3 159
Shoppers % 38.4 41.6 8.2 1.9 100

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

237

TABLE A-3l

INCOME OF FAMILY UNITS ADOPTING
THE ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER

 

 

 

 

m H
Income

Adopter

$0- $5,000- .
categ°ry 4,999 9,999 $10,000+ Total
Earlier n 6 14 21 41
Adopters % 14.6 34.1 51.3 100
Later n 2 6 13 21
AdOpters % 9.6 28.5 61.9 100
All n 8 20 34 62a
AdOpters % 12.9 32.3 53.8 100

 

aNote missing respondent.

238

.Hm>mH mo. ma» um uamoHMHcmHOO

 

 

OOH 0.0 H.O 0.0H N.HN N.ON 0.0H 0.0 I 0.0 O Onmumoum

OO N O HH OH OH O O O m a HHm

OOH I H.O N.OH 0.00 0.0H 0.0 I I H.O O umumou<

NN O N O OH m . H O O N a Hanna

OOH O.O H.O O.OH H.O O.ON O.OH O.HH I O.O O umumoOO

OO N O O O OH O O O m a HoHHumm
Hmuoa umauo xuoz mmoHHou mmmHHou Hooaom Hoonom Hooaom Hoonom mmaoam
mama pouon mfiom anm smHm mwmuw mpmuo Imm oz

Ouomoumu

Ipmuu IEoo cmumHa meow pmumHa 060m nouao a

Iumoa I800 I800 n

 

GOHumoanm HMEHom mo Hm>wa

 

 

«mmBZmU UZHQmomm mOBmIMZO HEB UZHBmoad
mBHZD NAHZ¢m mom finds mmB m0 ZOHadubom

NMld mqmdfi

239

.Ho>oH OO. oau um uaooOwHamHmO

 

 

OOH H.NH O.ON 0.00 0.0 O.H Ououmoom
OO O OH OO N H HH4
OOH 0.0H H.O O.OO H.O O.O OuoumoOO
NN O N OH N H uoumq
OOH O.HH H.OO O.OO I I OuoumoOO
OO O OH ON O O umHHuOm
Ouuom. Ouuom, OHao aoHUHHaU Ouuom omaoam
uo>o voom uo>o woo: aoHpHHao maao» nova: Doom Iom oz
Houoe pHonomaom pHoaomaom HovHo \_pHonomaom whomouou
.oHOch .omHHqu couoHHao oz noumoo¢

.couoHHao oz.¢muoHHOu oz

 

oHoOo oOHH OHHEOO cO mmmum

 

 

«MWBZWU UZHmmOmm mOBmIMZO mmB UZHBQOQ4
mBHZD MHHde mom MHUWU mmHH NHHde mma 2H mwdfiw

mmld mqmda

240

.Ho>OH OO. no uqooHOHOOHOO

 

 

OOH 0.0 O.M N.ON H.O m.mm N.OH H.O I I O.M O mmoum0p<
OO N N OH O NN NH O O O N a HH<
OOH H.O I O.mH I O.Hm O.Hm O.MH I I I O mmoumoac
NN N O O O O O m O O O a momma
.OOH I 0.0 0.0N H.O H.OO O.HH 0.0 I I 0.0 O Ououmoom
OO O N MH O OH O n O O N a moHHmom

mo3oa mo3oa mosoq mo3oa oHUnHz oHUUHz oHacHz oHpUOS mmoHo omaomm

mozoq moBOH momma momma mo30H mo3oa momma momma momma Iom oz
Hmuoa mo mo mo mo mmomouou
uoon OHoon OHooOz oHoon noumoo<

momma mo3oq momma momma

 

mmoHU HoHoom

«mmfizmu UZHmmomm mOBwImZO
mmfi UZHBm004 mBHZD NHHde m0 mmdAU HdHUOm

Onld mqm<B

 

 

241

TABLE A-35

NUMBER OF GIFTS FROM TRADING STAMP REDEMPTION FOR
FAMILY UNITS ADOPTING THE ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER*
(12 Month Period)

 

 

 

=: 1

Adopter Number of Gifts Received

Category None 1 2 or More Total
Earlier n 25 p 14 5 44
Adopters % 56.8 31.8 11.4 100
Later n 9 4 9 22
Adopters % 40.9 18.2 40.9 100
All n 34 18 14 66
Adopters % 51.5 27.3 21.2 100

 

*Significant at the .05 level.

TABLE A-36

REDEMPTION OF MANUFACTURER "CENTS-OFF" COUPONS FOR FAMILY
UNITS ADOPTING THE ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER
(12 Month Period)

     

Number of Coupons

 

 

 

Adopter

Category None 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Earlier 19 10 8 4 2 l 0 44
Adopters 43.2 22.7 18.2 9.1 4.5 2.3 - 100
Later l4 7 1 0 0 0 0 22
Adopters 63.6 31.8 4.5 - - - - 100
A11 33 17 9 4 2 1 0 66
Adopters 50.0 25.8 13.6 6.1 3.0 1.5 - 100

 

242

TABLE A-37

AWARENESS OF TWO PRIVATE LABELS FEATURED IN THE
ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER BY FAMILY UNITS
ADOPTING THE ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER

 

Rec0gnition of Two Private Labels7

 

 

Adopter . .
Didn't Dld

Category No Re- Recognize Recognize

sponse Private Labels Private Labels Total
Earlier n 0 0 37 7 44
Adopters - 84.1 15.9 100
Later 1 l4 6 22
Adapters 4.5 68.2 27.3 100
A11 1 52 13 66
Adopters 1.5 78.8 19.7 100

 

243

 

maHmmosm

 

 

OOH 0.00 H.O 0.0 O.H OOH 0.00 H.O 0.0 I OOH 0.00 0.0 m.N m.N O OoomIaoz
OO OO O N H NN OH N H O OO OO N H H a Houoa
. . . . . . . . . . maHmmonm
OOH O OO O OH O O I OOH O OO O ON H m I OOH H OO O HH O O I O Omooomo
OO HO HH O O NN OH O N O OO OO O N O a Houoa
O O I O O O I O O O O man-Hm
OOH O OO O O O OH O O OOH O NO H m N OH I OOH O OH O O O O O O O ImozO ooap
OO HO O O m NN OH N O O OO mm m m m a Iomm Houoa
OOH 0.00 H.O H.O N.ON OOH H.OO 0.0 0.0 O.HO. OOH O.HO 0.0 0.0 0.0N O maHmmonm
OO OO O O OH NN OH H H O OO ON m m HH a poo: Houoa
OOH O.HO O.OO N.OH I OOH O.OO O.HO O.NN I OOH O.OO O.ON O.OH I O OcOmmoOO
OO Om ON NH O NN OH O O O OO ON OH O O a Ooom Hmuoa
Houoa OOOH OOO OOO OON Houoe OOOH OOO OOO OON Hmuoa OOOH OOO OOO OON
IOO IHO ION IH IOO IHO ION IH IOO IHO ION IH
Omomouoo
mmoumocd HHd mmoumoa¢ momma mmoumoad moHHmom uoavomm

 

 

 

moOmomoumU moum0©4 an momonomaa mo cOHuomuaooaou

 

ilIH

mmBZmU OZHmmomm mOBmIMZO Ema UZHBm094 mBHZD MHHde
mom mmHMOOMB<U BUDQOMm amaomqmm 2H mmmdmombm m0 ZOHB¢MBZMUZOU

OMI< NHm¢B

 

NUMBER OF TRIPS TO PURCHASE FOOD FOR FAMILY
UNITS ADOPTING THE ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER

244

TABLE A-39

 

 

 

M m-
, . Number of Shopping Trips per Week

Adopter
Category Once,

or Less 2 3 4 5 7 Total
Earlier n. 27 8 4 l 3 l 44
AdOpters % 61.4 18.2 9.1 2.3 6.8 2.3 100
Later n 10 4 7 1 0 0 22
Adopters % 45.5 18.2 31.8 4.5 - - 100
All 37 12 ll 2 3 l 66
Adopters % 56.1 18.2 16.7 3.0 4.5 1.5 100

245

TABLE A-40

MAIL-ORDER CATALOGS IN HOMES OF FAMILY UNITS
ADOPTING THE ONE-STOP SHOPPING CENTER

 

Mail-Order Catalogs Possessed by
Adopter Categories '

H

 

 

 

 

Catalog Earlier Adopters Later Adapters
No Catalog Catalog, No Catalog Catalog
in Home in Home Total in Home in Home Total
Sears n 21 23 44 12 10 22
% 47.7 52.3 100 54.5 45.5 100
Penney's* n 32 11 43a 21 1 22
% 73.8 26.2 100 95.5 4.5 100
Mont- n 33 10 43a 20 2 22
ggfgry % 76.1 23.9 100 99.9 9.1 100
Spiegel 3S 8 43a 20 2 22
% 80.7 19.3 100 90.9 9.1 100
Alden 39 4 43a 19 3 22
% 89.8 10.2 100 86.4 13.6 100
John n 41 2 43a 22 0 22
Plain % 94.3 5.7 100 100 - 100

 

*Significant at the.05 level.

aNote missing respondent.

I
‘

APPENDIX B

Letter of Introduction, Interviewer Instructions,
Research Questionnaire and Family Recall Charts

247

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

March 25, 1968

Dear Respondent:

This letter is to introduce you to Mrs. Judith Risak, an
interviewer with the Consumer Shopping Research Study being
conducted by David L. Appel, a graduate student in Market-
ing at Michigan State University.

She will ask you a number of questions on your shopping
habits. All your answers will be held in strict confidence.

If you have any questions, you may contact either of us at
the following address:

Mr. David L. Appel Professor Bernard J. La Londe
355-5116 355-5119

Michigan State Univ. Michigan State University
Research Director Faculty Advisor

Thank you in advance for your c00peration.

 

 

Mr. David Appel Professor B. 3? La Londe

DLA/jaa

248

INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS

In all cases, the interview is to be conducted with
the lady of the house.

Complete all questions unless otherwise indicated.
Where respondent cannot answer, indicate the reason.
If respondent refuses to answer, put N.R. !No Re—
sponse).

Ask questions as they are written. Only help respondent
as directed in training session.

Make three calls at each designated housing unit.
In all probe questions, always ask respondent what she
has in mind. Try to get Specific responses without

being "too" forceful.

Make sure complete survey and all cards are in your
possession when interview is over.

All information obtained is to be held in strict con~
fidence.

In case of unexpected problems, call Mr. Appel at
355-5116 for assistance.

249

 

 

 

 

 

INIT DATE TIME REASON
C.N. NAME VII 1.
#H. ADD. VI 2.
I II III IV V 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESEARCH STUDY

CONSUMER FOOD SHOPPING

Department of Marketing and Transportation

Directions:

East Lansing,

Michigan

Michigan State University

 

 

/ 250

Introduction

 

Good morning (afternoon, evening)! My name is

and I'm helping conduct a study

 

of the food shopping habits of Lansing families. The study
is being conducted by Michigan State University. All your

answers will be held in strict confidence. May I come in?

‘

‘ PART A

In the first part of the questionnaire we are in-
terested in learning a little about your own shOpping hab-

its as they relate to the purchase of food.

A.l. How many shopping trips have you made in the last

seven days to purchase food?

 

A.2. Is there any particular day of the week that you

usually do your food shOpping?

Yes No

 

If "yes," which day of the week?

(CIRCLE ONE) M T W T F S S

A.3. What would you estimate your overall weekly food

bill is, in dollars?

 

251

A.4. What food stores have you shopped at within the last
30 days? (ENTER ANSWER ON CARD #1) What per cent of your
total food shopping did you do at each of these stores?
(ENTER ANSWERS ON CARD #1 AND HAND CARD TO RESPONDENT)
Would you enter the per cent of the total meat you pur-
chased at each store in column #2? Would you do the same
thing for produce, groceries and non-foods (i.e., drugs,
housewares) in columns 3,.4 + 5, respectively. (GET CARD

FROM RESPONDENT.)

A.5. How long have you been shopping at ?

(NAME STORE WITH HIGHEST % TOTAL SHOPPING-~PROBE FOR EXACT

ANSWER.)
Years and Months

[IF STORE NAMED IN A.5. IS MEIJER GO TO A.5(a)--

IF OTHER GO TO A.6.]

A.5(a). On your last major food shopping trip,
the trip on which you purchase the majority of
your food, did you purchase anything at Meijer's
that you would not have found in a conventional

supermarket such as A&P or Kroger?
Yes No

If "yes," what else was purchased?

 

 

252

A.5(b). On this same trip, did you purchase any
other items, or make any other stops besides the

stOp at Meijer--for example, at a hardware store?

Yes No

If "yes," what else was purchased (WHERE) and what

other stops made?

 

 

 

[GO ON TO A.7.]

A.6. On your last major food shopping trip, the trip on
which you purchase the majority of your food, did you make
any other stops or purchases, other than at the supermar-

ket--for example, at a hardware store?

Yes No

If "yes," what else was purchased (WHERE) and what

other staps were made?

 

 

 

A.7. Did anyone go with you on this shopping trip?
Yes No

If "yes," who?

 

253

PART B

The second part of the questionnaire will again
deal with food shOpping habits. As you are aware, differ-
ent factors in food shOpping do not have the same impor-
tance to all peOple. For example, what one person feels
is extremely important another person may feel is not
important at all. This section looks at some of these

different factors.
[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #2]

3.1. Here is a list of ten frequently purchased items.
For each item, can you tell me the brand, size, and price

paid the last time you purchased each item at ?

 

(USE STORE WITH HIGHEST % OF TOTAL IN A.4.) If you did
not purchase one, or more, of the specific items on the
list, are there similar items that you did purchase?

(RECORD ANY CHANGE IN ITEMS--GET CARD.)

 

ITEM BRAND & SIZE PRICE

 

Bread, white

 

Coffee, Vacuum Pack

 

Soup, Tomato

 

Peas, Canned

 

Peaches, Canned

 

Milk,1fresh

 

Cereal, cold

 

Eggs, Grade A

 

Cooking;pil

 

OOQQO‘U‘bNNH
.0

 

 

 

Ketchup

 

 

to

254

8.2. What is the closest, complete supermarket to your
home? The second closest?

1.

 

2.

 

[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #3]

3.3. Using a rating of l, 2 or 3 as shown on the card,
how would you rate the quality of the groceries, meat and
produce in the stores listed? If you don't know about one

of the stores, leave the spaces blank. (GET CARD.)
B.4. Do you presently save any type of trading stamps?
Yes NO
[IF "YES," ASK B.4(a) + (b)]

B.4.(a). What different stamps are you presently
saving? (PROBE) How many books do you presently

have saved for each type of stamp?

Stamp Books

 

 

 

 

255
B.4(b). Are you presently saving for any specific
gift?
Yes No

If ”yes,” what are you saving for?

 

 

 

B.5. Many different businesses, such as food stores and
department stores, give trading stamps. Where do you get
most of your trading stamps? (PROBE FOR SOURCE AND % FROM

EACH.)

 

 

 

8.6. Have you redeemed any trading stamps for a gift

within the last year?
Yes No

If ”yes,” what gifts have you received? What would

you estimate each of these gifts to be worth?

GIFT VALUE

1.
2.
3.
4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

256
[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #4]

8.7. A number of promotional games and contests have re-
cently been offered to consumers in the Lansing area.
This card includes eight of them. Can you tell me who is
sponsoring each? Which ones have you, or your family,

taken part in? (GET CARD.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROMOTION SPONSOR PLAYED

YES NO'

"Bonus Bingo" pf _~(M.O.)

"Kinngorn Derby" (S) j

IFGoldmine Giveaway" (D) f

kSport of Kings“’ (K)-

lflgigSaw Cash"wfi (P)

"Dilly Dollars" (D)

FSuper Pro" (8.0.) v 1

["Gold Bond Bingo" (SR) g I

 

B.8. Manufacturers of products sometimes offer the con—
sumer "cents-off" coupons which allow the consumer to pur-
chase the product below its normal price. Have you turned

in any of these "cents-off" coupons within the last 30 days?

Yes No

If "yes," who were the coupons from (MFG) and what

were their values?

257

MFG/PRODUCT VALUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UlubUJNl-J
O

 

 

8.9. What were the primary sources of any "cents-off"
coupons that you have received within the last 30 days?

(PROBE FOR SOURCE AND % SPLIT.)

 

 

 

B. 10. When these coupons are received, some people redeem
them immediately, while other people save them till they
would be purchasing the product anyway. What do you usually

do?

 

 

B. 11. Some manufacturers offer premiums such as silver-
ware or toys that the consumer can send in for, either free
or for a small price. Have you sent away for any manufac-
turer premiums within the last 60 days?

Yes No

If "yes," what was the premium and who offered it?

 

 

 

258

B.12. You said that you do your major food shopping at

. (SAME STORE AS IN A.5.) Can you tell

 

me what 5 or 6 of their advertised specials were last week,
and the prices on these advertised specials? (AFTER LIST
IS GIVEN.) Can you tell me the price of these items at
any other store? (PROBE FOR STORE & PRICE--ENTER "NONE"

IF RESPONDENT DOESN'T KNOW ANY.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#tore Comparison
Item Price Store Price
1.
31
I:
Is. O

 

 

 

 

 

[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #5]

3.13. On this card are listed a number of "private labels."
These are brand names used on certain products which the
retail food store controls. Consequently, you-only find
these brands in certain stores. For example, the AaP stores
use the name "Ann Page" on many of their bakery items. Can
you tell me which stores in the Lansing area use the brand

names listed?

\laflmhwwh‘
O

8.
9.
10.

Brand Name

 

Food Club
Easy Life
Rose-Dale
Spartan

Elna

Swansoft
Orchard Fresh
Shurfine
Avondale

Home Town

259

(M)
(N)
(S)
(SR)
(M)

Store

 

 

 

 

 

(K)
(N)
(SR)
(K)
(S)

 

 

 

 

 

B.14. Have you purchased any of these brands within the

last 30 days

?

Yes

NO

If "yes," what brands have you purchased?

Can you

tell me some of the items you have purchased in

this brand and the price paid?

 

Brand

Item

Price

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

260

QUESTION B.15

Certain products are often found on the supermarket
shelf with special "cents-off" labels featured on them.
Have you purchased any products with "cents-off" labels
within the last thirty days? (IF YES, LIST; IF NOT, WRITE
"N0") How much lower than the regular price were each of

these items?

ITEM CENTS LOWER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART C

The third part of the questionnaire deals with
shOpping habits in areas related to food shopping. It is
not concerned directly with food purchasing. Again we are

interested in your Opinions as they relate to the questions.
[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #6]

C.l. On this card are a number of purchases that your

family might make in the next few months. If you were

261

going to purchase each of these itmes, in what store do

you think you would most likely purchase each of them.

 

 

 

 

Item Store
1. Cigarettes (l)
2. Toaster (2)
3. Man's suit (3)
4. Television (2)

 

5. Drugs (non-pres) (1)

 

 

 

 

 

6. Prescriptions (3)
7. Magazines (1)
8. "Good" China (3)
9. Draperies (2)

 

C.2. Do you, or any of your family, ever purchase anything
from general merchandise mail-order catalogs such as those

Sears and Montgomery-Ward put out?
Yes No
[IF "YES," ASK C.2(a) + (b)]

C.2(a) What general merchandise catalogs do you
presently have in your home? (MAIN CATALOG--NOT

SUPPLEMENTS)

 

 

 

262

C.2(b) Approximately what was the total dollar
value of all items purchased through the use of

these catalogs within the last three months?

$ 0-$ 25 $101-$125

26- 50 126- 150

51- 75 151 and over
76- 100

[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #7]

C.3. Have you, or any of your family, requested or ordered
any of the following items by mail within the last 3 months?

(GET CARD.)

1. Membership in Book Club or Books

2. Membership in Record Club or Records
3. Magazine Subscriptions

4. Household Kitchen Appliances

5. Plants, Flowers or Seeds

6. Travel Information and Reservations
7. Merchandise Catalogs

8. Film Processing

9. Special Food Products

If "yes," approximately what was the total dollar
value of all the items ordered through these sources

within the last 3 months?

$ 0-$ 25 $101-$125
26- 50 126- 150
51- 75 151 and over

76- 100

263

PART D

In this last part we would just like a little infor-

mation on you and your family to complete the interview.

D.l. How long have you lived at this address?

 

*1
D.2. What is your marital status?
Married Single Widowed
or —%
Divorced '

D.3. Are there any children living here at home?

Yes No

If "yes,' what are their ages?

 

[IF ANSWER TO D.1. IS "SINGLE" OR "DIVORCED" GO TO

D.6.]

D.4. What is your husband's occupation?

 

 

D.5. Who is your husband's employer (FIRM)?

 

 

264

D.6. Do you work, for pay, outside the home?

Yes No
[IF "YES," ASK D.6(a) - (c)]
D.6.(a). Do you work full-time (40 hr/wk) or part-
time?

full-time part-time

D.6.(b). What type of work do you do?

 

 

D.6(c). Who is your employer (FIRM)?

 

 

D.7. What is the age of the head of the household?

 

[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #8]

D.8. What was the last grade that you attended in school?
Your husband? (HAVE RESPONDENT GIVE LETTER OF CATEGORY
ONLY.)

Wife Husband

A. Some Grade School

B. Completed Grade School
C. Some High School

D. Completed High School
E. Some College

F. Completed College

G. Post-Graduate Work

H. Other (Specify)

 

265

D.9. Do you drive an automobile?
Yes No
If "yes," is there usually a car available for your

use during the day?

Yes No

D.10. How many cars does your family own?

 

[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #9]

D.ll. Would you tell me, again by letter, which income
grouping most closely represents your total before tax

family income for 1967? (GET CARD.)

A. $ 0- 2,999 i
B. 3,000- 4,999
C. 5,000- 6,999
D. 7,000- 9,999

E. 10,000-14,999
F. 15,000-24,999
G. 25,000 and over

[HAND RESPONDENT CARD #10]
D.12. Would you tell me, again by letter, which category

most closely represents your family's primary source of

income?

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

266

Hourly wages

Weekly or Monthly Salary

Earned fees or profits

Previously earned wealth
Inherited wealth

Private Relief (family or friends)

Public Relief (Government)

[THANK RESPONDENTL]

FAMILY RECALL CHARTS

 

CARD #1

IN WHAT STORES HAVE YOU SHOPPED FOR FOOD

WITHIN THE LAST THIRTY DAYS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.N.
1 2 3 4 5
% Total % % % %
Store ShOpping Meat Product Grocery Non-Food
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

267

CARD #2

PRODUCTS PURCHASED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Bread, White 6. Milk, Fresh
.2. Coffee, Vacuum Pack 7. Cereal, Cold‘
3. Soup, Tomato 8. Eggs, Grade A
4. Peas, Canned 9. Cooking Oil
5. Peaches, Canned 10. Ketchup
CARD #3
QUALITY OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES

C.NO
Store Groceries Meat Produce
Meijer
Kroger
Schmidts
Other

= Above Average

= Average

= Below Average

CARD #4
PROMOTIONAL GAMES

1. "Bonus Bingo" 5. "Jig Saw Cash"
2. "King Korn Derby" 6. "Dilly Dollars"
3.- "Goldmine Giveaway" 7. "Super Pro"
4. "Sport of Kings" 8. "Gold Bond Bingo"

U1 lb U) N H
o

l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

268

CARD #5

PRIVATE LABEL BRANDS

"Food Club" 6. "Swansoft"

"Ease Life" 7. "Orchard Fresh"

"Rose-Dale" 8. "Surfine"

"Spartan" 9. "Avondale"

"Elna" 10. "Home Town"
CARD #6

PRODUCTS TO BE PURCHASED

Cigarettes 6. Prescriptions
Toaster 7. Magazines
Man's Suit 8. "Good" China
Television Set 9. Draperies

Drugs (Non-Prescription)

CARD #7

ITEMS ORDERED THROUGH THE MAIL

Membership in Book Clubs or Books
Memberships in Record Clubs or Records
Magazine Subscriptions

Household Kitchen Appliances

Plants, Flowers, Seeds

Travel Information/Reservations
Merchandise Catalogs

Film Processing

Special Food Products

269

CARD #8

LAST LEVEL IN SCHOOL COMPLETED

Some Grade School
Completed Grade School
Some High School
Completed High School
Some College

Completed College
Post-Graduate Work
Other (Specify)

CARD #9

INCOME OF FAMILY UNIT

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

Hourly Wages

$ 0 -- $ 2,999
$ 3,000 -- $ 4,999
$ 5,000 -- $ 6,999
$ 7.000 -- $ 9,999
$10,000 -- $14,999
$15,000 -- $24,999
$25,000 and over

CARD #10

SOURCE OF INCOME

Weekly or Monthly Salary

Earned Fees or Profits

Previously Earned wealth

Inherited Wealth

Private Relief (Family or Friends)

Public Relief (Government)

APPENDIX C

Summary Data on Responding and Non-
Responding Family Units

271

Appendix C provides the reader with a brief summary
of responding and not-responding family units from the
origional sample of 200 used in the research. The primary
objective of the appendix is to give the reader a basis on
which to judge the representitiveness of the 159 responding
family units.

Table C-l shows the final results of the field
interviewing. As the table shows, 161 research question-
naires were completed. Two contained a number of nonsense
answers and were drOpped from the group of surveys used
for the findings of the research. The result was 159 usable
questionnaires. Of the 39 questionnaires not completed,
the greatest cause was a direct refusal by the family unit
without giving the interviewer a reason. The second greatest
cause of interviews not being completed was a failure to
find the respondents at home, even after five callbacks.
Several other causes for not completing the interviews were
found and shown in the table. None of the other causes
accounted for a large percent of incompleted surveys.

Table C-2 shows the number of calls the interviewer
made to complete the 161 interviews that were taken during
the research. As indicated in the table, almost half of

the interviews were completed on the first call.

272

TABLE C-l

SUMMARY OF FIELD INTERVIEWING

 

 

Results of Field Work Number of Surveys
Surveys Completed 161
Completed, Usable 159
Completed, Not Usable 2
Surveys Not Completed 39
Refusal, No Reason 23
Not at Home 9
Not a Family Unit 1
Wife in Hospital 2
Moving (In or Out) 3
Commercial Property 1
Total Surveys 200
TABLE C-2

NUMBER OF CALLS TO COMPLETE THE INTERVIEWING

Number of Calls Surveys Completed

 

80
45
21
13

2

161

UluwaP

The 161 interviews that were completed represent
a completion rate of approximately eighty percent (80.5
percent). With the two interviews that were dropped from
the analysis, the findings are based on 79.5 percent of the
total family units selected for inclusion.

To analyze the non-respondents to the research

questionnaire, the research area was divided into quartiles

273

using Saginaw Street as the East-West axis and Waverly Road

as the North-South axis.

Tables C-3 through C-6 show the location of the
non-responding family units analyzed according to the rea-
son for the interviews not being completed.. Table C-3 re-
ports the location of the family units refusing to take "1
part in the research. Tables C-4 and C-5 show the location
of the "not-at-homes" and the "other" reasons given for "f

not taking part in the research.

TABLE C-3

REFUSAL TO TAKE PART IN RESEARCH

 

Quadrant Number of Surveys
NE 7
SE 6
SW 5
NW _5
Total 23
TABLE C-4

FAMILY UNITS NOT-AT-HOME

 

Quadrant Number of Surveys
NE 2

SE 4
SW 1
NW a

Total 9

274

TABLE C;5

"OTHER" REASONS FOR NOT TAKING PART IN RESEARCH

 

Quadrant Number of Surveys

NE 2

SE 3

SW 2

NW 9

Total 7
-m

Table C-6 shows the combined results of Tables

C-3 through C-5. The table shows the number of surveys "f

that were not completed from each quadrant. The quadrant

with the highest number of internviews not completed was

the South-East quadrant. The South-East quadrant contained

the lower income and social class family units, and to an

extent a lower rate of response was expected from the quadrant.
The bias would appear to be slight however. The

quadrant contained 49 family units selected for the research.

Since only 13 interviews were not completed, the rate of

response was 74 percent, or a little less than 6 percent

below the rate of response for the research as a whole.

TABLE C-6

SUMMARY TABLE OF NON-RESPONDENTS

 

Quadrant Number of Surveys
NE 11
SE 13
SW 8
NW 7

Total 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Published Monographs

Barnett, H. G. Innovation, The Basis of Cultural Changeo
New York: McGraw-Hill Company, Inc., 1953.

 

Bliss, Perry (Ed.). Marketing and the Behavioral Sciences
(Second Edition). Boston: Allen and Bacon, Inc.,
1967.

 

Carman, James M. The Application of Social Class in Market

 

Segmentation. Berkeley: Institute of Business and
Economic Research, University of California, 19650

 

Charvat, Frank J. Sgpermarketing. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1961.

 

Clark, Lincoln H. (Ed.). Consumer Behavior, Dynamics of
Consumer Reaction. Vol. I. New York: New York
University, 1954.

 

 

Clark, Lincoln H. (Ed.). Consumer Behavior. Vol. III.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958.

 

Cooley, W. C. and Lohnes, P. R. Multivariate Procedures
in the Behavioral Sciences. New Yofk: John Wiley
and Sons Co., Inc., 1963.

 

 

Cox, Donald (Ed.). Risk Taking and Information Handling
in Consumer Behavior. Boston: Harvard Business
School, 1967.

 

 

Cox, Eli P. and Erickson, Leo G. Retail Decentralization.
East Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Business and
Economic Research, Michigan State University, 1967.

 

Darrah, L. B. Food Retailing. New York: The Ronald Press
Company, 1967.

 

Day, Ralph L. (Ed.). Marketing Models: Quantitative and
Behavioral.' Scranton, Pennsylvania: International
Textbook Company, 1964.

 

 

275

’iar- __ H1

276

Diamond, Soloman. Information and Errg£."NeW'York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1959.

 

Foote, Wilson N. (Ed.). ngsehold Decision'Making."New
York: New York University Press, 1961.

Frank, R. E., et a1. Quantitative Techniques in Marketing

Anal si§.-Hom5wood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
I962.

Frank, Ronald E. (Ed.). Research Design in Marketing.
Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962.

 

Gist, Ronald (Ed.). Management Perspectives in Retailing.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

Graham, Saxon. American Culture: An Analysis of Its Devel-
gpment and Present Characteristics. New York:
Harper and Brothers, I957.

Grossack, Martin M.“ Understanding Consumer Behavior.
Boston: The Christopher Publishing House, 1964.

 

Hollander, Stanley C. (Ed.). Explorations in Retailing.
East Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Business and
Economic Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration, Michigan State University, 1959.

 

Jonassen, C. T. The Shopping Center Versus Downtown.
Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1955.

Kelley, Eugene J. and Lazer, William. Managerial Market-
ing: Perspectives and ViewPoints (Third Edition).
Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 19670

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

 

Kotler, Philip. Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning
and Control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pren-
tice-Hall, Inc., 1967.

 

La Londe, Bernard J. Differentials in Supermarket Drawing
Power. East Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Business
and Economic Research, College of Business and Pub-
lic Service, Michigan State University, 1962.

Lazer, William and Kelley, Eugene J. Managerial Marketing:
Perspectives and Viewpoints (Revised Editionl.
Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1962.

 

 

277

Levit, Theodore. Innovation in Marketing. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962.

 

Lionberger, Herbert F. The Adoption of New Ideas and
Practices. “Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press, 1960.

 

 

Markin, Rom J. The Supermarket: An Analysis of Growth,
Development and Changg. Pullman, Washington:
Washington State University Press, 1963.

McNeal, James U. (Ed.). Dimensions of Consumer Behavior.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.

 

Newman, Joseph W. On Knowing the Consumer. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

 

Rao, C. R. Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Re-
search. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr. Occupations and Social Status.
Glencoe: The Free Press, i961.

 

Rich, Stuart. Shopping Behavior of Department Store Cust-
omers. Boston: Harvard University, 1963.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovation. New York:
The Free Press, 1962.

 

Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism and Democragy
(Second Edition). New York: Harper and Brothers,
1947. ‘

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hili Book Company, Inc.,
1956.

Smith, Wilbur and Associates. Parkinggin the City Center.
New Haven, Conn.: Wilbur Smith and Assoc1ates, 1965.

 

Staudt, Thomas and Taylor, Donald. A Managerial Introduc-
tion to Marketing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-H511, InCo , 19650

 

 

Warner, W. Lloyd. Social Class In America. New York:
Harper and Row, 1960.

 

Wolff, Janet L. What Makes Women Buy. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958.

 

Zimmerman, M. M. The Super Market: A Revolution in Distri-
bution. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1955.

 

278

Articles

Alexander, Milton. ‘"The Significance of Ethnic Groups in
Marketing New-Type Packaged Foods in Greater New
York." Advancing Marketing Efficiengy. Ed. Lynn
H. Stockman. Chicago: American Marketing Associa-
tion, 1959, pp. 557-561.

Bauer, Raymond A. "Negro Consumer Behavior." On Knowing
The Consumer. Ed. Joseph Newman. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 161-165.

 

 

"Behind the New Wave Discount Super Revolution." Chain

Store Age, Vol. XXXIII, No. 11 (November, 1967),
pp. 88-940

Bloomer, Peggy. "Male Market: Big-Rich-But, Tough."
Printers Ink, Vol. CCLXXX (July 20, 1962), pp. 21-25.

Borch, Fred J. "The Marketing Philosophy as a Way of
Business Life." Managerial Marketing: Perspectives
End Viewpoints (Revised Edition). Ed. William
Lazer and Eugene J. Kelley. Homewood, 111.: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., 1962, pp. 14-20.

 

Brody, Robert P. and Cunningham, Scott M. "Personality
Variables and the Consumer Decision Process."
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5 (Feb., 1968),
pp. 50-57.

Bryan, Joseph G. "The Generalized Discriminant Function:
Mathematical Foundation and Computational Review."
The Harvard Educational Review, Vol. XXI (January-
December, 1951), pp. 90-95.

Bucklin, Louis P. "Competitive Impact of a New Supermar-
ket." Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. V (Novem-

Bylund, H. Bruce. "Social and Psychological Factors Asso-
ciated with Acceptance of New Food Products."
Marketing Models: Quantitative and Behavioral.

Ed. Ralph L. Day. Scranton, Pa.: International
Textbook Company, 1964, pp. 145-174.

Coleman, J., Katz, E., 2E al. "The Diffusion of an Inno-
vation Among PhysiEians." Sociometry, Vol. XX

 

(1957). pp. 253-270.

Cunningham, Ross M. "Customer Loyalty to Store and Brand."
Harvard Business Review, Vol. XXXIX (Nov.-Dec.,
1961i? PP. 127-137.

279

Doody, Francis 8. "Research in the Process of Innovation."
Boston Business Review, Vol. VIII, No. 4 (Spring,
19627, pp. 13-21.

Ferber, Robert. "Our Changing Consumer Market." Business
Horizons, Vol. I (Spring, 1958), pp. 49—66.

Frank, Ronald E. "Is Brand Loyalty a Useful Basis for
Market Segmentation." Journal of Advertising Re-
search, Vol. 7 (June, 1967), pp. 27-33.

Frank, Ronald E. and Boyd, Harper W. "Are Private—Brand-
Prone Grocery Customers Really Different?" Journal
of Advertising Research, Vol. 5 (December, 19655,
pp. 27-36.

Frank, Ronald E., 33 31. "Bias in Multiple Discriminant
Analysis." Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. II
(August, 1965), pp. 250-258.

Gloch, Charleslh and Nicosia, Francasco M. "Uses of Sociol-
ogy in Studying Consumer Behavior." Journal of
Marketing, Vol. XXVIII (July, 1964), pp. 51-54.

 

 

Goldstein, Sidney. "The Aged Segment of the Market, 1950
and 1960." 'Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 (April,
1968): PP. 62—68.

 

Gottlieb, Morris J. "Segmentation by Personality Types."
Advancing Marketing Efficiency. Ed. Lynn Stockman.
Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1959,
pp. 148-158.

Graham, Saxon. "Class and Conservatism in the AdOption of
Innovations." Marketing and the Behavioral Sciences
(Second Edition). Boston: Allen and Bacon, Inc.,
1967. pp. 195—207.

Hollander, Stanley C. "The Wheel of Retailing." Journal of
Marketing, Vol. XXIV (July, 1960), pp. 67-69.

 

 

Howell, Leland L. "Planned Innovation as a Marketing Tool."
California Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Sum-
mer, 1962) 'ippo 66-710

Katona, George and Mueller, Eva. "A Study of Purchase
Decisions." Consumer Behavior, Vol. I, The Dynamics
of Consumer Reaction. Ed. Lincoln H. Clark, New
York: New York University Press, 1954.

280

Kelley, Eugene J. "The Importance of Convenience in Con-
sumer Purchasing." Managerial Marketing: Perspec-
tives and Viewp01nts (Third Edition). Ed. Eugene
J. Kelley and William Lazer. Homewood, 111.:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967, pp. 155-162.

Kelley, Eugene J. and Lazer, William. "Managing Innovation
in Marketing." Managerial Marketing: Perspectives
and Viewpoints. Ed. Eugene J. Keiiey and William
Lazer. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1967, pp. 275-283.

King, Charles W. "Fashion Adoption: A Rebuttal to the "
'Trickle Down' Theory." Toward Scientific Market-
ing. Ed. Stephen A. Greyser. Chicago: American
Marketing Assoc1ation, 1964, pp. 108-125.

 

Lansing, John B. and Kish, Leslie. "Family Life Cycle as
an Independent Variable." Marketing and the Behav-
ioral Sciences. Ed, Perry Bliss. Boston: Allen
and Bacon,iI963, pp. 138-151.

 

Levy, Sidney. "Social Class and Consumer Behavior." On
Knowing The Consumer. Ed. Joseph Newman. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 146-160.

Martineau, Pierre. "Social Class and Spending Behavior."
Journal of Marketing, Vol. XXIII (October, 1958),
pp. 121-130.

Massy, William F. "Discriminant Analysis of Audience Char-
acteristics." Journal of Advertising Research
(March, 1965), pp. 39-48.

McNair, M. D. "Significant Trends and Developments in the
Postwar Period," in A. B. Smith (Ed.). Competitive
Distribution in a Free, High Level Economy and Its
Implications for the Universipy. Pittsburgh: Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh Press, 1958, pp. 1-25.

 

Pessemier,.E. A., et al. "Can New Product Buyers be Iden-
tified." Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. IV
(November, 1967), pp. 349-354.

 

Rich, Stuart U. and Jain, Subhash C. "Social Class and
Life Cycle as Predictors of Shopping Behavior."
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. V (Feb., 1968),
pp. 41-49.

281

Rich, Stuart and Portis, Bernard. "Clues for Action From
ShOpper Preference." Harvard Business Review, Vol.
XCIV (MarchhApril, 1963?, pp. 132-149.

 

Rich, Stuart and Portis, Bernard. "The 'Imageries' of
Department Stores." Journal of Marketing, Vol.
XXVIII, N00 2 (April, 1964) I pp. lO'lSo

 

Robertson, Thomas S. and Kennedy, James N. "Prediction of
Consumer Innovators: Application of Multiple Dis-
criminant Analysis." Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. V (Feb., 1968), pp. 64-69.

 

Smith, Windell R. "Product Differentiation and Market Seg-
mentation As Alternative Marketing Strategies."
Managerial Marketingi_Perspectives and Viewpoints
iThird Edition). Ed. Eugene J. Kelley and William
Lazer. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1967, pp. 200-203.

 

Starr, Shirley A. "Obtaining Household Opinions From Single
Respondents." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. XXVII
(Feb., 1953), pp. 386-391.

 

Tallman, Gerald and Bloomstrom, Bruce. "Retail Innovations
Challenge Manufacturers." Management Perspectives
in Retailing. Ed. Ronald GiEt. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967, pp. 67-79.

 

 

"The Working Man: Do Marketing Men Know Him." Printers
Ink, Vol. CCLXXVII (December 1, 1961), pp. 48-49.

Tiedeman, David V. "The Utility of the Discriminant Func-
tion In Psychological and Guidance Investigations."
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. XXI, No. 2 (Spring,
1951): pp. 71-79.

 

Wollin, David E. "A Marketing Profile of the Senior Citizen
Group." Marketings Role in Scientific Management.
Ed. Robert L. Clewett. Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 1957, pp. 250-261.

 

Unpublished Monographs, Reports and Papers

Appel, David L. "The Early Development of the Super Market
As A Major American Retail Institution." Unpub-
lished monograph, Food Marketing Program, Graduate
School of Business Administration, Michigan State
University, 1967.

282

Bell, James E., Jr. "An Analysis of the Decision Process
Utilized by Long Distance Mobile Families in Select-
ing New Sources of Supply for Goods and Services."
Unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1967.

Bell, William E. "Consumer Innovation: An Investigation of
Selected Characteristics of Innovators." Unpub-
lished D.B.A. dissertation. Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1962.

Minichiello, Robert J. "An Exploratory Study of Selected
Discount Food Stores." Unpublished D.B A. disser- =#‘
tation, Harvard Univer51ty. 1955.

Public Documents

Applebaum, William. Patterns of Food Distribution in a
Metropolis. Chicago: Super Market Institute, Inc.,
1966.

 

 

Economic Report of the President: Transmitted to Congress,
Februagy, 1968. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1968.

 

 

Grey Advertising, Inc. Grey Matter, Vol. 38, No. 5 (May,
1967). '—

 

"Homemakers' Responses to Direct Advertising." Sguthern
Cooperative Series Bulletin 121. Lexington, Ken-
tucky: Univer51ty of Kentucky, 1966.

 

Life Study of Consumer Expenditures. Time-Life, Inc. Con-
ducted by Alfred Politz Research, Inc., 1957.

 

Michigan State University, Computer Institute for Social
Science Research. Analysis of Contingency Tables
(ACT II). Technical Report No. 14., January 12,
1968.

 

Michigan State University, Computer Institute for Social
Science Research. Multiple Discriminant Analysis
(DISCRIM). Technical Report No. 33, February 29,
BT87—

 

Polk, R. L. Polk's Lansing (Ingham County, Michigan) Cipy
Directory. Detroit: R. L. Polk and Company, 1967.

 

 

"Progress in Food Distribution." Washington. D. C.: Na-
tional Association of Food Chains, 1966.

283

Rogers, Everett M. Characteristics of Agricultural Inno-
vators and Other Adopter Categories. Wooster,
Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961.

Rogers, E. M. and Beal, G. M. Reference Groungnfluence in
the Adoption of Agricultural Technology. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University, 1958.

"Sources of Information and Food Buying Decisions." South-
ern Cooperative Series Bulletin 85. LeXington,
Kentucky: UniverSity of Kentucky, 1963.

Survey of Super Market Shoppers. Cincinnati: Burgoyne
Index, Inc., 1957.

The Adoption of New Products. The Foundation for Research
on Human Behavior, Ann Arbor: University of Mich-
igan, 1959.

"Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Grocery Industry "
Progressive Grocer, April, 1968, pp. 78-84.

U. S. Bureau of Census. U. 8. Census of Population and
Housing: 1960. Census Traits. Final Report PHC
il)-73. U. S. Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D. C., 1962.

"Urban Travel Patterns For Airports, Shopping Centers and
Industrial Plants." National Cooperative Highway_
Research Program Report 24. Highway Research Board,
1966.

       

HICH

01001110