It’s time to better understand the galaxy of channels we use to shop online and in stores. Photo via Pexels

Back in the Paleolithic Age of online marketing — say, 15 years ago — the idea of online sales as a significant business vehicle for brands such as Target or Walmart was almost unimaginable. Shopping meant going to a store, because stores were where sales happened.

Today, people shop with their computers, via watches and phones, even through their refrigerators. Sellers market on multiple platforms, digital and traditional, including the brick and mortar store. Even the glossy catalogues that arrive in the mail still prompt sales.

Advancing technology has made it possible for consumers to shop not only across a staggering number of channels — but to do so in a constellation of ways. Say a shopper has broken down and decided to buy a wildly popular all-purpose pressure cooker. She might start off using the internet to glean product details and prescreen options. Then she might visit a retail outlet to eyeball the product herself. Finally, after mulling for days, she may impulsively whip out her phone to make the order.

But what determines these particular choices of shopping venues? Rice Business professor Utpal M. Dholakia set out to map this new landscape of consumerism. Joining Dholakia were colleagues Barbara E. Kahn of the Wharton Business School, Randy Reeves of Macy’s Department Stores, Aric Rindfleisch of the University of Wisconsin, David Stewart of the University of California at Riverside and Earl Taylor of the Marketing Science Institute.

Consumer behavior, the researchers knew, is too complex — too all-over-the-map — to develop any sort of quantum marketing theory to explain it. So while interested in answers, the team aimed instead to frame useful questions. Their goal was to bring attention to the multi-channel retailing environment, creating a comprehensive but flexible way to investigate how shoppers navigate the intricate modern marketplace.

More specifically, Dholakia’s team wanted to learn exactly what consumers are finding. What do they do while using various internet and other tools to shop? When do different types of shoppers grab their devices and buy? What obstacles crop up as shoppers wend their ways through this maze of venues? Finally, the researchers wanted to map the vast scope of research issues surrounding this customer behavior.

It was fairly simple to answer the first question: Why do we use such diverse shopping tactics? Usually, it’s about getting the best deal. Some people, however, take their shopping seriously, savoring the idea that they are approaching their task both thoughtfully and thoroughly. Others get a genuine thrill out of the social experience of being part of a community, or from experimenting with different products and ways to buy them. And some shoppers head straight to a certain website or media source because they expect a specific price tag.

Many consumers, Dholakia and his co-researchers found, constantly change the means they use to shop. In one survey of 337 multichannel shoppers, for example, the researchers found that 52 percent reported migrating back and forth from offline to online channels across four product categories including books, airline tickets, stereo systems and wine. This hopscotching from brick and mortar to catalogues, to online and back, could be predicted by certain factors including price, the product they were looking for, how they evaluated the product and even waiting time.

The researchers also found that each type of shopper uses channels differently. Penny-pinchers don’t care where they buy, as long as the price is right. Generalists shop online or in the store because of the overall shopping experience. Traditionalists shun new ways of shopping, and multichannel enthusiasts happily bounce between stores, the internet and catalogues. Finally, the hard-core, store-focused customers will only shop in a place with doors and shelves.

To add a layer of complication, some don’t use channels to shop at all. They just want information. These are the shoppers who pop into to a store to test drive a phone before they buy it online. They study the pressure cooker in a catalogue before they go to the store.

And even within all the online options, there are innumerable detours to explore. Say you want a Nikon camera. You might go to an enthusiasts’ page such as Nikonians.org before you decide which model to buy, whether it’s online or at the local camera shop. Your friendly chat with the guy who owns the local camera store may now turn into a real-time virtual chat with a company representative.

The new marketplace, in other words, has become a dizzying landscape. Shoppers, clearly, have risen to the challenge. Nevertheless, it’s in the interests of sellers and buyers both to understand more deeply not only why we buy what we buy — but where.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and is based on research from Utpal M. Dholakia, the George R. Brown Professor of Marketing at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

TMC lands $3M grant to launch cancer device accelerator

cancer funding

A new business accelerator at Houston’s Texas Medical Center has received a nearly $3 million grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

The CPRIT grant, awarded to the Texas Medical Center Foundation, will help launch the Accelerator for Cancer Medical Devices. The accelerator will support emerging innovators in developing prototypes for cancer-related medical devices and advancing them from prototype to clinical trials.

“The translation of new cancer-focused precision medical devices, often the width of a human hair, creates the opportunity to develop novel treatments for cancer patients,” the accelerator posted on the CPRIT website.

Scientist, consultant, and entrepreneur Jason Sakamoto, associate director of the TMC Center for Device Innovation, will oversee the accelerator. TMC officials say the accelerator builds on the success of TMC Innovation’s Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics.

Each participant in the Accelerator for Cancer Medical Devices program will graduate with a device prototype, a business plan, and a “solid foundation” in preclinical and clinical strategies, TMC says. Participants will benefit from “robust support” provided by the TMC ecosystem, according to the medical center, and “will foster innovation into impactful and life-changing cancer patient solutions in Texas and beyond.”

In all, CPRIT recently awarded $27 million in grants for cancer research. That includes $18 million to attract top cancer researchers to Texas. Houston institutions received $4 million for recruitment:

  • $2 million to the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center to recruit Rodrigo Romero from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City
  • $2 million to MD Anderson to recruit Eric Gardner from Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City

A $1 million grant also went to Baylor College of Medicine researcher Dr. Akiva Diamond. He is an assistant professor at the medical college and is affiliated with Baylor’s Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Houston students develop cost-effective glove to treat Parkinson's symptoms

smart glove

Two Rice undergraduate engineering students have developed a non-invasive vibrotactile glove that aims to alleviate the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease through therapeutic vibrations.

Emmie Casey and Tomi Kuye developed the project with support from the Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen (OEDK) and guidance from its director, Maria Oden, and Rice lecturer Heather Bisesti, according to a news release from the university.

The team based the design on research from the Peter Tass Lab at Stanford University, which explored how randomized vibratory stimuli delivered to the fingertips could help rewire misfiring neurons in the brain—a key component of Parkinson’s disease.

Clinical trials from Stanford showed that coordinated reset stimulation from the vibrations helped patients regain motor control and reduced abnormal brain activity. The effects lasted even after users removed the vibrotactile gloves.

Casey and Kuye set out to replicate the breakthrough at a lower cost. Their prototype replaced the expensive motors used in previous designs with motors found in smartphones that create similar tiny vibrations. They then embedded the motors into each fingertip of a wireless glove.

“We wanted to take this breakthrough and make it accessible to people who would never be able to afford an expensive medical device,” Casey said in the release. “We set out to design a glove that delivers the same therapeutic vibrations but at a fraction of the cost.”

Rice’s design also targets the root of the neurological disruption and attempts to retrain the brain. An early prototype was given to a family friend who had an early onset of the disease. According to anecdotal data from Rice, after six months of regularly using the gloves, the user was able to walk unaided.

“We’re not claiming it’s a cure,” Kuye said in the release. “But if it can give people just a little more control, a little more freedom, that’s life-changing.”

Casey and Kuye are working to develop a commercial version of the glove priced at $250. They are taking preorders and hope to release 500 pairs of gloves this fall. They've also published an open-source instruction manual online for others who want to try to build their own glove at home. They have also formed a nonprofit and plan to use a sliding scale price model to help users manage the cost.

“This project exemplifies what we strive for at the OEDK — empowering students to translate cutting-edge research into real-world solutions,” Oden added in the release. “Emmie and Tomi have shown extraordinary initiative and empathy in developing a device that could bring meaningful relief to people living with Parkinson’s, no matter their resources.”