Journal of Marketing Channels

ISSN: 1046-669X (Print) 1540-7039 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjmc20

Omnichannel approach: Factors affecting

consumer acceptance

Susana Costa e Silva, Carla Carvalho Martins & João Martins de Sousa

To cite this article: Susana Costa e Silva, Carla Carvalho Martins & João Martins de Sousa
(2019): Omnichannel approach: Factors affecting consumer acceptance, Journal of Marketing
Channels, DOI: 10.1080/1046669X.2019.1647910

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2019.1647910

Published online: 20 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjmc20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING CHANNELS
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2019.1647910

Omnichannel approach: Factors affecting consumer acceptance

Susana Costa e Silva, Carla Carvalho Martins, and Jo~ao Martins de Sousa
Catolica Porto Business School, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa, Porto, Portugal

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The omnichannel approach is a new commercial opportunity that aims to offer consumers a Omnichannel; consumer;
unique and satisfying experience through any touch point. This research aims to understand intention to use; brand
the factors that might lead consumers to accept and use this new approach. The conceptual experience; satisfaction
model was tested empirically using primary data collected from 210 Portuguese participants.
The results reported suggest that perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and compatibility
have a positive effect on brand experience, which strongly affects the behavioral intention
to use. Additionally, a moderation analysis, using user status as a moderator, shows that
while usefulness is important to uniquely explain use intention for low frequency, ease of
use is only a good predictor of use intention for high-frequency users. This research pro-
vides useful insights for academic research by shedding light on this new phenomenon,
and simultaneously for businesses by deriving some implications for defining their omni-
channel strategies.

Introduction for the implementation of an omnichannel strategy

The world of retailing has changed dramatically in
recent decades. The advent of the Internet, along with
related new digital channels, such as mobile and social
media, have changed retail business models, the exe-
cution of the retail mix, and shopper behavior
(Verhoef, Kannan, & Inman, 2015). Consumers use
multiple means to connect with their companies of
choice and expect a consistent and integrated service
experience across channels. They are willing to move
seamlessly between channels – traditional store,
online, and mobile – depending on their preferences,
their current situation, the time of day, and the prod-
uct category. Such channel movement is known as the
omnichannel approach. Consumers expect that con-
tact that begins on one interaction channel can be
continued on another, with all the relevant contextual
data preserved across channels (Piotrowicz &
Cuthbertson, 2014). This has created significant chal-
lenges for retailers (Frazer & Stiehler, 2014; Neslin
et al., 2014; Verhoef et al., 2015). Even if a retailer
offers multichannel access, online and traditional
channels are often treated separately, with a lack of
integration in pricing, promotion, marketing, brand
building, supply chain management, and experience
provided across all channels; this creates difficulties
(Piotrowicz & Cuthbertson, 2014). Thus, retailers that
make it as easy as possible for customers to interact
with the brand seamlessly – without operational or
emotional barriers, integrating experiences across
touchpoints, creating personalized interactions, and
delivering timely communications – will be in the best
position to succeed (Frazer & Stiehler, 2014; Fulgoni,
2014; Piotrowicz & Cuthbertson, 2014; Rey-Moreno &
Medina-Molina, 2016; Verhoef et al., 2015).
As a recent phenomenon, the emergence of omni-
channel retailing raises opportunities for academics to
produce insights that can help address challenges
faced by retailers. Because companies may achieve
competitive advantage by adopting an omnichannel
approach, consumer intentions to use this kind of
commerce approach are of the utmost interest to
researchers and practitioners. Therefore, this study
strives to understand the key factors underlying con-
sumers’ intentions to use an omnichannel approach.
More specifically, this article examines the influence
of compatibility, cost, perceived risk, perceived useful-
ness, and perceived ease of use on behavioral inten-
tion to use and on actual use. Moreover, it is expected
that different user groups (high-frequency vs.
low-frequency users) may be influenced by different

CONTACT Susana Costa e Silva ssilva@porto.ucp.pt Cat

olica Porto Business School, Universidade Cat
olica Portuguesa, Rua Diogo Botelho, 1327,
4169-005 Porto, Portugal.
This article was accepted under the editorship of Neil Herndon.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. C. SILVA ET AL.
factors regarding omnichannel behavior adoption.
Therefore, the present study also examines whether
user status is a moderator of the relationships between
the abovementioned factors and the adoption of
omnichannel behavior.
This research is structured as follows: in the next
section, the theoretical background of the research
is presented, along with the development of specific
research hypotheses. This is followed by a descrip-
tion of the research methodology and results. After
presenting the discussion and implications of the
results, the paper concludes with some managerial
implications, limitations, and suggestions for fur-
ther research.
Theoretical background and theoretical model
The omnichannel approach
As recently as 2002, Schoenbachler and Gordon
asserted that: “Traditional retail businesses and even
catalog marketers today face a critical decision - to
accept a new, yet unrefined business model including e-
commerce or to retain their old business model and
risk becoming obsolete and left behind by new, web-
based competitors” (Schoenbachler & Gordon, 2002, p.
43) Now, the multichannel approach is no longer an
unrefined business model, and choosing to adopt it or
not is no longer an issue. We are now in the omni-
channel retailing era. Omnichannel retailing must be
perceived as an evolution of multichannel retailing
(Verhoef et al., 2015). Multichannel retailing primarily
arose as a consequence of the growth of the Internet;
it has been defined as a distribution strategy to serve
customers using more than one selling channel or
medium, implying a division between the physical and
online channels (Frazer & Stiehler, 2014). Due mostly
to mobile and social media growing as important
channels of contact between consumers and brands,
natural borders between physical and online channels
are now progressively disappearing (Piotrowicz &
Cuthbertson, 2014). Rigby (2011, p. 75) was the first
to use the expression “omnichannel retailing” as an
integrated sales experience that melds the advantages of
physical stores (such as personal service, the ability to
touch products, and shopping as an experience) with
the information-rich experience of online shopping. An
“omnishopper” moves freely between channels. He or
she may explore the characteristics of a product using
a mobile app, compare prices on several websites
from his or her laptop, and, finally, buy the product
at a physical store. Later, he or she may share opin-
ions and experiences about the product with other
consumers and talk to the brand using social media
(Neslin et al., 2006). Moreover, powered by mobile
and social media, customers not only move between
channels but also use these channels at the same time.
For instance, customers may search for information
online while being in the store in order to obtain
more information (Verhoef et al., 2015).
In this context, omnichannel can be defined as an
emerging approach to channel integration that aims
to deliver seamless customer experience through every
possible channel a retailer or brand can connect with
their end consumers. It entails the ability to offer cus-
tomers a continuous experience across brands, for-
mats, and devices (Bell, Gallino, & Moreno, 2014;
Frazer & Stiehler, 2014; Fulgoni, 2014; Verhoef et al.,
2015). Building a truly omnichannel context is not a
straightforward task, and requires that brands be pre-
pared to reorganize their supply chains and their mar-
keting processes to meet their customers’ needs
(Neslin et al., 2006).
Conceptual model: Factors of adoption of the
omnichannel approach
A common element underlying most of the multiple
models that intend to explain the adoption of innova-
tions is the inclusion of perceptions about innovation
as key independent variables. For instance, the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989;
Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) and its precursor,
the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980), both postulate that perceptions or beliefs about
innovation are fundamental in the development of
attitudes that eventually result in system utilization
behavior (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998). According to
TAM, the adoption behavior is determined by the
intention to use a particular technology, which is, in
turn, determined by the perceived usefulness and the
perceived ease of use of that technology. Two similar
concepts were already present in Rogers’ (1983) theory
of diffusion of innovations: relative advantage (close
to usefulness), which is the degree to which an innov-
ation is perceived as being better than the idea it
replaces; and complexity (close to ease of use, but in
the opposite direction), which is the degree of diffi-
culty that the user has in using and understanding an
innovation. The variables of this model have been
widely applied to explain the adoption of systems in a
large number of contexts, namely search engines (e.g.
Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou, 2013), e-commerce
(e.g. Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003; Pavlou, 2003;
Rose, Clark, Samouel, & Hair, 2012), and mobile

commerce (m-commerce) (e.g. Kim, Mirusmonov, &
Lee, 2010; Wu & Wang, 2005). Although the omni-
channel approach is much more than a technology, its
foundations lie in the capability of using several tech-
nologies, often during a unique purchase. Thus, it is
expected that the adoption of an omnichannel
approach should, at least in part, be explained by the
variables therein. Based on this, the following hypoth-
eses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived usefulness has a positive
direct effect on behavioral intention to use an
omnichannel approach.
Hypothesis 2(a): Perceived ease of use has a positive
direct effect on behavioral intention to use an
omnichannel approach.
Original TAM research has shown that usefulness
mediates the relationship between ease of use and
technology usage (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989).
This link has also been found in more recent studies
(e.g. Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Wu & Wang, 2005).
Therefore, the following hypothesis is added to the
conceptual model.
Hypothesis 2(b): Perceived ease of use has a positive
direct effect on perceived usefulness of an
omnichannel approach.
Rogers (1983) added to the previously mentioned
relative advantage and complexity other factors that
could explain the adoption of innovations, such as
perceived compatibility, defined as the degree to which
an innovation is perceived as consistent with the exist-
ing values, past experiences, habits, lifestyle, and needs
of potential adopters. Previous studies have shown
that compatibility is an antecedent of both e-com-
merce and m-commerce use intention (e.g. Hsi-Peng
& Su, 2009; Lin, 2007; Wu & Wang, 2005). Based on
this, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3(a): Perceived compatibility has a
positive direct effect on behavioral intention to use an
omnichannel approach.
Compatibility has been frequently addressed as an
independent antecedent of innovation adoption.
However, the assumption that individuals are unlikely
to view a specific system as useful if it is not compat-
ible with the manner in which they prefer to work
has led some researchers to hypothesize and demon-
strate the positive effects of compatibility on perceived
usefulness (e.g. Karahanna, Agarwal, & Angst, 2006;
Wu & Wang, 2005). In this way, it is assumed that
compatibility has both a direct effect on use intention
and an indirect effect through the mediation of useful-
ness. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
JOURNAL OF MARKETING CHANNELS 3
Hypothesis 3(b): Perceived compatibility has a
positive direct effect on perceived usefulness of the
omnichannel approach.
Individuals make behavioral choices by weighing
up the costs and benefits of those behaviors. To adopt
an omnichannel approach, consumers must deal with
nonnegligible financial costs (hereafter referred to as
cost) such as equipment costs, access costs, and trans-
action fees (Wu & Wang, 2005). Hence, the following
hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 4: Cost has a negative direct effect on
behavioral intention to use.
Adopting an omnichannel approach entails engag-
ing in online activities and transactions. Since the use
of a website for transactions involves a certain degree
of uncertainty, people are still anxious about diverse
types of risks. Referring to e-commerce, Biswas and
Biswas (2004) stressed the particular importance of
three types of risks: performance risk, which is the
uncertainty and the consequence of a product not
functioning at some expected level; financial risk,
which is the possibility of monetary losses; and trans-
action/privacy risk, which is uncertainty associated
with providing information (such as credit card num-
ber, name, address, etc.) to a seller during the course
of a transaction. In this respect, the omnichannel
approach brings about new elements to this equation,
since it allows customer behavior to be tracked in a
way that has never been possible before. Therefore,
customers are increasingly concerned about who
owns, stores, controls, and shares information about
them (Piotrowicz & Cuthbertson, 2014). Perceived
risk has already been proven to have a negative
impact on attitudes towards online transactions (e.g.
Glover & Benbasat, 2010; Lopez-Nicolas & Molina-
Castillo, 2008; Pavlou, 2003), namely through mobile
applications (Wu & Wang, 2005). Therefore, we pro-
pose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Perceived risk has a negative direct
effect on behavioral intention to use an
omnichannel approach.
Several social-psychological models, such as the
theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fisbbein, 1974),
the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), and
Triandis’ (1980) attitude-behavior theory, propose that
the most important predictor of a person’s behavior is
his or her intention to perform it. Multiple studies on
technology acceptance and usage have validated this
connection (e.g. Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000). Although it is assumed that, regarding
the omnichannel approach, some consumers with a
4 S. C. SILVA ET AL.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
high intention to use might still not have actually
tried it, generally, the following is expected:
Hypothesis 6: Use intention has a positive direct
effect on the actual use of the omnichannel approach.
Finally, it is expected that the influence of the dif-
ferent determinants on the adoption of the omnichan-
nel approach should vary according to the status of
the user. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7(a–f): User status moderates the
influence of the determinants – risk, cost,
compatibility, usefulness, and ease of use – on future
use intention, as well as the impact of the future use
intention on the actual use.
On the basis of the hypotheses, we propose the
model of Figure 1.
Research methodology
Considering the purpose of the study, a quantitative
cross-sectional research strategy was used (Bryman &
Bell, 2015). Primary data was collected through a
web-based survey administered to a sample of
Internet users recruited through a nonprobabilistic
sampling process, by convenience, using the social
media platform Facebook. Researchers asked their
social network friends to participate and spread the
questionnaire via their contacts. The data collection
occurred mostly in Portugal over a period of 6 weeks,
but some data were obtained from emigrant
Portuguese nationals living in several countries. The
questionnaire was subjected to a multi-stage develop-
ment process that included the translation and adapta-
tion of various scales to Portuguese reality and to the
specific object of study – the omnichannel approach.
Once the initial questionnaire had been generated, an
interactive personal interview process was conducted
to refine the instrument. These interviews enabled the
researchers to assess whether the instrument was
capturing the desired phenomenon and to ensure that
no important aspects had been omitted.
The survey instrument comprised three sections.
The first section was devoted to socio-demographic
variables. The second section assessed the use of dif-
ferent channels across the five phases of the customer
journey – stimulation, search for information, pur-
chase, delivery, and aftersales service – adopting
Delft’s (2013) instrument. The third section included
all the scales used to operationalize each construct
that compose the conceptual model proposed. As
these were based on previous literature and thereby
built to be used in different research contexts, namely
mobile commerce (Wu & Wang, 2005), they had to
undergo some adaptations (see Appendix). In all
cases, five-point Likert scales, in which
2 indicates
“completely disagree” and 2 “completely agree,” were
used to measure the variables included in the theoret-
ical model.
In order to clarify the concept of the omnichannel
approach we referred, in the survey, to the fact that
there is no consensual definition of the phenomenon,
but that it is assumed to refer to the hybrid use, with
no barriers, of the different available channels of
interaction between companies and consumers, in
digital (e-mail, websites, social media networks, apps,
among others, regardless of whether accessed through
smartphones, tablets, or laptops), physical, or mixed
environments (phone, stores, catalogs, flyers, etc.). In
addition, we stated that one of the main assumptions
of this concept concerns the possibility of simultan-
eous use of different channels “24 hours per day,
7 days a week, everywhere,” with the objective of pre-
senting a unified image of the firm to its customers.
Before answering the questions concerning percep-
tions of the omnichannel approach, the respondents
were given a practical example of an omnichannel
experience using the customer journey of purchasing
a scarf.
Analysis and results
Sample characterization and the use of channels
across the customer journey
The sample comprised 106 females and 84 males, with
an average age of 36-years-old. Most of the partici-
pants were aged between 18–25 (31.6%) and 26–35
(25.2%). About 84% of all participants had completed
higher education and 58.4% were full-time workers.
In addition, 46.8% said that when they make pur-
chases, they frequently or very frequently use an
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING CHANNELS 5

Table 1. Sample characterization.

Total sample Low frequency users (n ¼ 101) High frequency users (n ¼ 89)
Gender
Female 106 55.8% 61 45
Male 84 44.2% 40 44
Age (average ¼ 36.03) (average ¼ 36.19) (average ¼ 35.85)
18–25 60 31,6% 36 24
26–35 48 25,3% 19 29
36–45 26 13,7% 14 12
46–55 34 17,9% 20 14
56–65 20 10,5% 10 10
Over 65 2 1,1% 2 0
Education level
Under high school 6 3.2% 5 1
Senior high school 24 12.6% 16 8
College 6 3.2% 3 3
Graduate 81 42.6% 42 39
Post-graduate 73 38.5% 35 38
Work situation
Full-time worker 114 60.0% 55 59
Part-time worker 9 4.7% 3 6
Unemployed 17 8.9% 12 5
Retired 2 1.1% 2 0
Full-time student 29 15.3% 20 9
Working student 18 9.5% 8 10
Never worked/domestic 1 0.5% 1 0
Omnichannel frequency of use
2-Never/almost never 9 4.7% 9 0
4-Sporadically 34 17.9% 34 0
6-Sometimes 58 30.5% 58 0
8-Frequently 61 32.1% 0 61
5-Very frequently/Always 28 14.7% 0 28

omnichannel approach. More detailed information on
the respondents can be found in Table 1.
Table 2 illustrates the use of different channels
across the customer journey, considering both the
total sample and the sample split into two different
groups. Participants were assigned to each group
according to their (self-reported) frequency of use of
the omnichannel approach. Participants (n ¼ 89) that
answered 4 ¼ frequently or 5 ¼ very frequently/always
to the question “How often do you engage in pur-
chases using an omnichannel approach?” (the answer
to which was mandatory) were assigned to the group
of high-frequency users. The remaining participants
(n ¼ 101), who answered with lower values, were
assigned to the group of low-frequency users.
The results of this analysis show that online chan-
nels have become particularly important in the phase
of information search. Websites and online stores are
the most frequently used channels for that purpose.
Nevertheless, in the other phases of the customer
journey traditional channels prevail. There is an espe-
cially strong preponderance of the use of brick-and-
mortar stores in the phase of buying.
When we compare the profile of high-versus low-
frequency users of the omnichannel approach, differ-
ences can be found in every stage of the customer
journey, but only regarding the utilization of elec-
tronic channels. Independent samples t-tests showed
that high-frequency users use websites, online stores,
and mobile applications significantly more often than
do low-frequency users across all phases of the cus-
tomer journey. It is, however, worth noting that the
groups do not present statistically significant differen-
ces with respect to the use of social media in any of
these phases. Both seem to make little use of this
channel during their customer journeys.
Scale reliability and validity
We conducted initial reliability analyses of all the
scales used in the third part of the questionnaire using
Cronbach’s alpha in SPSS software. All the scales
showed Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.70, indicating
acceptable internal consistency for the evaluation of
the measured constructs (Hair, 2006). Moreover, in
order to guarantee measurement reliability and valid-
ity, and using AMOS 23.0 software, we carried out a
confirmatory factor analysis, applying structural equa-
tion modeling with maximum likelihood estimation
method (Byrne, 2013; Hair, 2006). Table 3 provides
the results of this measurement analysis.
The values for composite reliability, computed on
the basis of standardized loadings, were all above Hair
(2006) recommended minimum level of 0.70, corrobo-
rating the existence of internal consistency. The obser-
vation of standardized loadings supports the existence
6 S. C. SILVA ET AL.

Table 2. Utilization of channels across the customer journey.

Channels used across Low freq. users t-test for the difference
customer journey phases Total sample mean (n ¼ 101) mean High freq. users (n ¼ 89) mean between groups
Stimulation
Websites or online stores 2.96 2.52 3.45
7.21
Mobile Apps 2.16 2.01 2.33
2.17
Social networking sites 2.37 2.26 2.49
1.50
Bricks and mortar shop 3.89 3.89 3.89 0.03
Mass media 2.70 2.68 2.72
0.26
Catalogs 1.48 2.67 2.85
1.41
Family and friends 3.19 3.21 3.18 0.23
Search for information
Websites or online stores 4.00 3.77 4.26
3.49
Mobile Apps 2.57 2.32 4.26
3,15
Social networking sites 2.48 2.48 2.48
0.05
Bricks and mortar shop 3.69 3.67 3.72
0.33
Mass media 2.38 2.47 2.28 1.28
Catalogs 2.71 2.74 2.66 0.54
Family and friends 3.14 3.18 1.09 0.77
Buy
Websites or online stores 2.72 2.25 3.26
7.49
Mobile Apps 1.86 1.62 2.13
3.84
Social networking sites 1.64 1.67 1.61 0.53
Bricks and mortar shop 3.98 3.97 3.99
0.13
Catalogs 1.98 1.99 1.97 0.16
Delivery
Buy in a shop and take 4.28 4.34 4.22 1.11
home directly
Buy in a shop and receive 1.96 1.93 1.99 1.11
at home or elsewhere
Buy online and receive at 2.84 2.36 3.38
7.17
home or elesewhwere
Buy online and reveive at a 1.79 1.59 2.01
3.16
pick up point
Service
Websites or online stores 2.60 2.29 2.94
4.24
Mobile Apps 1.45 1.35 1.57
1.99
Social networking sites 1.60 1.59 1.61
0,10
E-mail 2.87 3.02 3.34
3.13
Bricks and mortar shop 3.94 4.03 3.83 1.43
Telephone 3.17 3.02 3.34
1.99
Differences between low frequency and high frequency users, with t-tests. Scale 1 to 5, where 1 is never or almost never and 5 is very
frequently or always. p < .01; p < .05.

Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Construct Standardized loading Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted
Risk 0.831 0.756 0.771 0.464
0.723
0.600
0.533
Cost 0.822 0.698 0.714 0.466
0.702
0.478
Compatibility 0.903 0.839 0.852 0.664
0.888
0.622
Usefulness 0.863 0.894 0.897 0.636
0.818
0.803
0.785
0.711
Perceived ease of use 0.901 0.891 0.895 0.740
0.896
0.779
Intention to use 0.889 0.894 0.893 0.736
0.853
0.830

of convergent validity since only one construct – cost theoretical relevance), which is generally the min-
– contained an item whose weight was slightly below imum recommended threshold (Hair, 2006). In terms
0.50 (though this was not excluded given its of variance extracted, the majority of constructs also
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING CHANNELS 7

Table 4. Squared correlations between constructs.

Risk Cost Compatibility Usefulness Ease of use Future use intention
Alpha (0.464)
Alpha 0.359 (0.466)
Alpha 0.304 0.071 (0.664)
Alpha 0.235 0.104 0.618 (0.636)
Alpha 0.107 0.063 0.347 0.320 (0.740)
Alpha 0.305 0.076 0.746 0.729 0.430 (0.736)
Average variance extracted on diagonal. p<.01.

Table 5. Model fit indices and recommended values.

Fit indices Measurement model Recommended values
v2 (209 df) 373.359 (p ¼ .00)
CMIN/DF 1.786 <3.00
Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.856 >0.90
Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) 0.051 <0.09
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.065 <0.08
Non-normed fit index (NNFI) or (TLI) 0.932 >0.92
Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.944 >0.92

Figure 2. Results of structural model (standardized loadings and R2s) and fit measures.

complied with the recommended minimum of 0.50
(Hair, 2006) and those that did not – perceived risk
(average variance extracted [AVE] ¼ 0.46) and cost
(AVE ¼ 0.47) – were very close to it. In order to com-
plement the validity analysis of the abovementioned
constructs, we analyzed relationships between con-
structs as suggested by the literature. Correlations
between the constructs of the measurement model
were all below 0.8 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), suggesting
discriminant validity. Additionally, the shared variance
among each of the two factors was generally lower
than their AVEs, satisfying Fornell and Larcker (1981)
discriminant validity criterion, as depicted in Table 4.
The overall measurement model fit was judged to
be satisfactory based on the comparison of its fit indi-
ces and recommended values (Hair, 2006), both of
which are presented in Table 5. The analysis showed a
statistically significant v2, which theoretically means
the model should be rejected. However, it is known
that with large samples v2 is not an adequate measure
of fit. From the alternative indices used, only GFI was
below the recommended value. In our favor, the lit-
erature has indicated that GFI (as well as other abso-
lute fit indices that are simple transformations of v2),
have similar problems to those of v2, which led to the
decline of its use (Hair, 2006).
Test of structural relationships
The structural model proposed exhibited a satisfactory
level of fit (v2 ¼ 311.204, df ¼ 196; RMSEA ¼ 0.056;
TLI/NNFI ¼ 0.948; CFI ¼ 0.956). The analysis of the
structural relationships (see Figure 2) confirmed all
hypotheses proposed, except Hypothesis 4 and 5; thus
the negative influence of perceived cost (c ¼
0.08;
p > .05) and risk (c ¼
0.04; p > .05) on the intention
to use the omnichannel approach were rejected. As
expected, perceived compatibility, usefulness, and ease
8 S. C. SILVA ET AL.

Table 6. Averages of (composite) measures of model constructs, for the whole sample and for low vs. high frequency users, with
t-tests.
All Low freq. users (n ¼ 101) High freq. users (n ¼ 89)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD t
Risk
0.05 0.80 0.16 0.83 –0.30 0.70 4.07
Cost –0.28 0.86 –0.14 0.87 –0.43 0.82 2.40
Compatibility 0.23 0.91 –0.27 0.74 0.80 0.75 –9.84
Usefulness 0.51 0.82 0.06 0.66 1.02 0.67 –9.90
Ease of use 0.66 0.84 0.33 0.80 1.03 0.73 –6.33
Future use intention 1.49 0.91 0.89 0.72 2.16 0.58 –13.23
Actual use 0.34 1.08 –0.51 0.66 1.31 0.47 –22.30
Scale:
2 to 2, where
2 is totally disagree and 2 is totally agree. p.01; p.05.

Table 7. Results of group analysis.

Std. coefficients in unconstrained model v2 test for the difference
v2 for equal (constrained) between unconstrained
Model path Low freq. users High freq. users paths model and constrained models

Hypothesis 1(a) EU ! UI 0.07 0.63 616.70 (397gl); p ¼ .000 10.24 (1gl); p ¼ .001
Hypothesis 1(b) EU ! USE 0.07 0.23 606.01 (397gl); p ¼ .000 1.54 (1gl); p ¼ .215
Hypothesis 2 USE ! UI 0.47 0.07 615.89 (397gl); p ¼ .000 9.43 (1gl); p ¼ .002
Hypothesis 3(a) CPT ! UI 0.42 0.34 607.80 (397gl); p ¼ .000 1.35 (1gl); p ¼ 0.248
Hypothesis 3(b) CPT ! USE 0.48 0.63 608.66 (397gl); p ¼ .000 2.20(1gl); p ¼ .138
Hypothesis 6 UI ! AU 0.68 0.52 607.30 (397gl); p ¼ .000 0.83 (1gl); p ¼ .215
Unconstrained model v2 ¼ 606.47 (396 gl); p ¼ .000 Fully constrained model 31.65 (6gl); p ¼ .000
v2 ¼ 638.11
(402gl); p ¼ .000
EU: ease of use; USE: usefulness; CPT: compatibility; UI: use intention; AU: actual use. p < .01; p < .05.

of use proved to be good predictors of intention to
use the omnichannel approach. Moreover, as hypothe-
sized, the influence of both perceived compatibility
and perceived ease of use on use intention is exerted
directly, but also indirectly, through the mediation of
usefulness. Finally, use intention is a good predictor
of the actual use of the omnichannel approach. The
model explains 65% of the intention to use an omni-
channel approach and 45% of its actual use.
To examine potential differences in path estimates
between the two samples – high-frequency versus
low-frequency users – a multiple group analysis
(Byrne, 2013) was conducted. The results of this can
be seen in Table 6.
First, the model was trimmed, taking into account
nonsignificant p-values of loadings on both groups.
Thus, the paths between cost and use intention, and
risk and use intention were cut from the model since
the path was nonsignificant for both high-frequency
and low-frequency users. After trimming the model,
we tested it with all the path coefficients set as equal
across the two groups (fully constrained model). Next,
we tested an unconstrained model in which the path
coefficients were allowed to vary between the groups.
The unconstrained model showed a significantly better
fit compared to the constrained model (Dv2(6df) ¼
1.65; p < .01), thereby supporting that consumer
experience with the omnichannel approach affects
relationships between the constructs of the model.
However, this result did not allow us to individually
identify which paths are significantly different among
groups. Therefore, further analysis was conducted by
constraining one path at a time and comparing each
of those partially constrained models with the uncon-
strained model. The results (see Table 7) show signifi-
cant differences among the two groups with regard
only to the path from ease of use to use intention –
meaning that ease of use is a very good predictor of
intention to use in the case of high-frequency users
but not in the case of low-frequency users – and the
path from usefulness and use intention – indicating
that usefulness is a good predictor of use intention for
low-frequency users, but not high-frequency users.
Discussion and implications
Although most hypotheses of the proposed conceptual
model were confirmed, contrary to our hypotheses,
and to previous findings in e-commerce and m-com-
merce, our results indicate that neither perceived risks
nor perceived costs associated with the adoption of an
omnichannel approach have a significant influence on
the intention to adopt it. A possible explanation for
this relates to the fact that we are studying a popula-
tion of Internet users that are, in most cases, also
smartphone users. Even for those with more basic pat-
terns of usage, adopting an omnichannel approach
would not greatly increase the risks and costs that

already arise from Internet usage in general and,
thereby, to which they are already exposed, regardless
of whether they are omnichannel consumers.
All the remaining hypothesized relationships were
confirmed. Our results showed that intention to use
an omnichannel approach is explained by variables
that have been used in the past to explain the adop-
tion of innovations, namely TAM traditional variables
– usefulness and ease of use – as well as compatibility
with the consumer lifestyle and values. Moreover,
these three variables proved to be closely related.
Usefulness, in the case of the omnichannel approach,
seems to be, to an important extent, explained by the
ease of use and compatibility. This means that useful-
ness entails, at least in part, being easier to use and
more compatible with consumers’ lives, compared to
other means of making purchases. In other words, the
usefulness of the omnichannel approach has to do
with convenience – that is, the possibility of accessing
and of buying anything, anywhere, anytime
(Piotrowicz & Cuthbertson, 2014; Verhoef et al.,
2015), which is not possible using traditional purchase
approaches. These results confirm the results obtained
in the literature for e-commerce, as well as m-com-
merce (e.g. Rose et al., 2012; Wu & Wang, 2005).
Finally, as expected, use intention is a satisfactory pre-
dictor of the actual use of the omnichannel approach.
This paper also offers some interesting insights for
managers and entrepreneurs, who need to learn more
about implementing an omnichannel approach.
Preventing perceived risk and financial costs should
not be the main concern of companies because they
are not obstacles to omnichannel adoption. The main
efforts must be spent on making omnichannel usage
easy and compatible with consumers’ lives. In fact,
some managers may think that one of the most rele-
vant hindrances for customers’ use of this approach
could be the burden of the risk involved. However,
our results suggest differently. They seem to associate
any costs that may result from the use of this
approach to the company. If the company is propos-
ing this alternative, it is because they believe it may
pay off. Companies do it in the belief that additional
channels provide additional value. Thus, if the com-
pany cannot guarantee that this approach will work, it
would be better not to communicate it at all.
Otherwise, they could be exposed to the risk of poor
opinions of the omnichannel alternative, which could
in turn negatively impact current options. The above
thus tends to work as a guarantee for the customer.
Another key finding of this study was that while
ease of use is only a good predictor of use intention
JOURNAL OF MARKETING CHANNELS 9
for high-frequency users of the omnichannel
approach, usefulness is fundamental to explain use
intention for low-frequency users alone. This suggests
that the major hindrance for low-frequency users is
not the difficulty in using the necessary means to
adopt the omnichannel approach, but finding that this
approach does not significantly improve their shop-
ping experiences. Hence, companies should focus on
increasing the potential of their omnichannel presence
to solve customers’ problems. Low-frequency users
will only adopt more omnichannel shopping behaviors
if they perceive them as advantageous when compared
to traditional processes of purchase. On the other
hand, usability should also be a concern of companies
that want to take the most advantage of this approach.
Despite the results pointing out that use complexity is
not a significant obstacle to the adoption of omni-
channel behaviors, among frequent users, those who
are more willing to continue using it are those who
perceive it as easier to use. Therefore, ease of use may
not be considered that relevant to improving the
usage of less frequent users of this approach but
should be considered important to increase the chan-
ces of using the alternative approach among those
that are already using it.
Limitations and further research
As with any study, this research has a number of limi-
tations that should be taken into consideration. One
such limitation is related to the convenience sampling
process: because a nonprobabilistic method, it does
not allow us to generalize these results to the entire
Portuguese population. In addition, the data collection
was performed only via online channels, since we only
assessed participants already using these channels.
This limitation leads us to suggest that future studies
use randomized stratified samples through various
online and offline collection methods. We also high-
lighted the importance of variables that can contribute
to better explain the importance of omnichannel
approaches to consumers; in particular, the import-
ance for processes of social influence, quality of ser-
vice, trust, loyalty, motivation, and time, among
others. We suggest that these be covered in future
studies on the subject.
We acknowledge that there is a tendency to sup-
port that the perceived ease of use increases in the
presence of experienced users. This means that in
order to better understand which factors limit the use
of this approach, mainly nonusers or infrequent users
should have been selected. As our sampling method
10 S. C. SILVA ET AL.
did not anticipate this framing, we conducted a mod-
eration analysis so that we could compare the effects
of independent variables in the intention of use
according to user status. Future studies are advised to
focus mainly on nonusers of the omnichannel
approach in order to better understand the reasons
for their nonuse. In this case, a more qualitative
method could be used.
Another limitation arises from the fact that the sur-
vey was conducted online, which means that the sam-
ple may be biased towards heavier Internet users. In
the future a different sampling method may be used,
in accordance with our suggestion in the previous
paragraph, to ensure that the whole population is rep-
resented. Similarly, bias may arise depending on the
type of consumers or product purchased; thus, our
results could vary for other types of products. For
instance, for products with high need-for-touch (e.g.
clothing and footwear) (Peck & Childers, 2003), the
odds of buying online, and therefore experiencing an
omnichannel approach, are slimmer than when buy-
ing products such as books or CDs, which display a
lower need-for-touch. However, we believe that once
the omnichannel approach becomes more common
among Web users, it will also reduce uncertainty in
purchasing high need-for-touch products: consumers
may increase their chances of touching the products
through the several touchpoints of the customer jour-
ney, and in the same vein can return items easily.
Nevertheless, this should be tested in future studies.
At a national level, we suggest that studies be con-
ducted to understand the impacts of using multiple
channels over the consumer journey, but across the
various business sectors. It is also critical to conduct
comparative studies of companies that have already
implemented an omnichannel strategy.
Finally, it would be appropriate to carry out a lon-
gitudinal study to verify the evolution of variables
such as confidence, satisfaction, and loyalty in compa-
nies that adopt an omnichannel approach.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of
planned behavior. In: J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),
Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39).
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and oper-
ational definition of personal innovativeness in the
domain of information technology. Information Systems
Research, 9(2), 204–215. doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.204
Ajzen, I., & Fisbbein, M. (1974). Factors influencing inten-
tions and the intention-behavior relation. Human
Relations, 27(1), 1–15. doi:10.1177/001872677402700101
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes
and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of struc-
tural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Bell, D. R., Gallino, S., & Moreno, A. (2014). How to win in
an omnichannel world. MIT Sloan Management Review,
56, 45–53.
Biswas, D., & Biswas, A. (2004). The diagnostic role of sig-
nals in the context of perceived risks in online shopping:
Do signals matter more on the web? Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 30–45. doi:10.1002/dir.20010
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with
AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User
acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Delft, W. V. (2013). Omni channel shopping behaviour dur-
ing the customer journey: An empirical study into the con-
tribution of omni channel shopping characteristics during
the customer journey by consumer segments (Unpublished
graduation thesis). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven,
Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluations structural
equation models with unobservable variables and meas-
urement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312
Frazer, M., & Stiehler, B. E. (2014). Omnichannel retailing:
The merging of the online and off-line environment. Paper
presented at the Global Conference on Business and
Finance, San Jose, Costa Rica
Fulgoni, G. M. (2014). “Omni-channel” retail insights and
the consumer’s path-to-purchase. Journal of Advertising
Research, 54(4), 377–380. doi:10.2501/JAR-54-4-377-380
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust
and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS
Quarterly, 27, 51–90.
Glover, S., & Benbasat, I. (2010). A comprehensive model
of perceived risk of e-commerce transactions.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(2),
47–78. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415150202
Hair, J. F. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hsi-Peng, L., & Su, P. Y.-J. (2009). Factors affecting pur-
chase intention on mobile shopping web sites. Internet
Research, 19(4), 442–458.
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M. (2006).
Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology
acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 781–804.
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical
examination of factors influencing the intention to use
mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3),
310–322. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013

Lin, H.-F. (2007). Predicting consumer intentions to shop
online: An empirical test of competing theories.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(4),
433–442. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.002
Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Molina-Castillo, F. J. (2008). Customer
knowledge management and e-commerce: The role of
customer perceived risk. International Journal of
Information Management, 28(2), 102–113. doi:10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2007.09.001
Morgan-Thomas, A., & Veloutsou, C. (2013). Beyond tech-
nology acceptance: Brand relationships and online brand
experience. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 21–27.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.019
Neslin, S. A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling,
M. L., Thomas, J. S., & Verhoef, P. C. (2006). Challenges
and opportunities in multichannel customer manage-
ment. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 95–112. doi:10.
1177/1094670506293559
Neslin, S. A., Jerath, K., Bodapati, A., Bradlow, E. T., Deighton,
J., Gensler, S., … Venkatesan, R. (2014). The interrelation-
ships between brand and channel choice. Marketing Letters,
25(3), 319–330. doi:10.1007/s11002-014-9305-2
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic
commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology
acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 7(3), 101–134.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in
haptic information processing: The “need for touch”
scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430–442. doi:
10.1086/378619
Piotrowicz, W., & Cuthbertson, R. (2014). Introduction to
the special issue information technology in retail: Toward
omnichannel retailing. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 18(4), 5–16. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415180400
JOURNAL OF MARKETING CHANNELS 11
Rey-Moreno, M., & Medina-Molina, C. (2016).
Omnichannel strategy and the distribution of public serv-
ices in Spain. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(1),
36–43. doi:10.1016/j.jik.2016.01.009
Rigby, D. (2011). The future of shopping. Harvard Business
Review, 89(12), 65–76.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed).
New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P., & Hair, N. (2012). Online
customer experience in e-retailing: An empirical model
of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 88(2),
308–322. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2012.03.001
Schoenbachler, D. D., & Gordon, G. L. (2002). Multi-chan-
nel shopping: Understanding what drives channel choice.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(1), 42–53. doi:10.
1108/07363760210414943
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes, and interpersonal
behavior. In: H. Howe & M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation. (Vol. 27) (pp. 195–259).
Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical exten-
sion of the technology acceptance model: Four longitu-
dinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P., & Inman, J. J. (2015). From
multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing:
Introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retail-
ing. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 174–181. doi:10.1016/j.jre-
tai.2015.02.005
Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile com-
merce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology
acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(5),
719–729. doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.07.001
12 S. C. SILVA ET AL.
Appendix: Constructs under study
Constructs evaluated
Perceived risk (Wu & Wang, 2005)
Cost (Wu & Wang, 2005)
Compatibility (Wu & Wang, 2005)
Perceived utility (Wu & Wang, 2005)
Perceived ease of use (Wu & Wang, 2005)
Intention to use (Wu & Wang, 2005)
Current use (Wu & Wang, 2005)
Items
 I think monetary transactions (e.g. payments over the internet) in this type of approach have a
high risk
 I agree that purchases of goods and services by using this approach Omni channel have a high risk
(e.g. product received does not match the product you ordered)
 I believe that obtaining information and promotional campaigns for products through this approach
have a high risk (e.g. information through websites, promotional campaigns through social
networks, etc.)
 I think that the use of a omnicanal approach puts my privacy at risk (e.g. supply of personal data for
online payments, exposure in social networks, etc.)
 I think the cost of equipment for the adoption of a omnicanal approach is quite high (e.g.
Smartphones / tablets)
 I believe that the cost of access to multiple channels simultaneously is quite high (e.g. Spending on
online access, visits to shops, phone, etc.)
 I consider that the transaction fees inherent to a omnicanal approach are too high (e.g. Online
payment rates for certain services, telephone call rates, etc.)
 The omnicanal approach is compatible with most aspects of my transactions (e.g. desire for
personalized service, rapid procedures, the means of payment flexibility, etc.)
 The omnicanal approach fits in my lifestyle
 Adopting a omnicanal approach fits well with the way I like to get involved in the buying process
 The use of a omnicanal approach will improve my performance during the buying process (e.g. I have
more alternatives for my shopping desires; I will get faster information about the product I want, etc.)
 The use of a omnicanal approach will increase my productivity during the purchase process (e.g.
getting faster and more complete price information and alternative products, allowing me to
save time)
 The use of a omnicanal approach will increase my effectiveness during the purchase process (e.g. my
needs will be met faster)
 I think the use of a omnicanal approach is very useful in my involvement in the purchasing process.
 I recognize that it is easier to find what I’m looking through a omnicanal approach.
 I find it easy to learn to use a omnicanal approach.
 I consider easy that to become competent in the use of a omnicanal approach.
 I think the use of a omnicanal approach is easy.
 Assuming I have access to a omnicanal approach I intend to use it.
 Given that I have access to a omnicanal approach, I would like to use it.
 The use of a omnicanal approach is appealing to me
 How often do you engage in purchases using an omnicanal approach