DETERMINANTS OF

WEBROOMING
-PRATIK MALLA
BBA 6TH SEM
Introduction
 Webrooming is a slang for the consumer practice of researching product online before
buying them in a physical store. People use to search the product before going to the
store. They simply compare the characteristics of the product. The term is often used to
contrast with another consumer practice called "showrooming," wherein shoppers first
try out the products they want in a physical store before buying them online.
 Webrooming (Flavián et al., 2016) have become common practices in omnichannel
consumer behavior. In a recent report, Deloitte (2017) noted that 69% of consumer’s
webroomed to research their purchases during Thanksgiving period, whereas 46% went
first to a store to examine items, then went online to look for better prices and to make
their purchases.
 Webrooming is the most effective cross-channel combination to increase satisfaction,
which, in turn, enhances customer loyalty and determines a firm's long-term survival
(e.g. Jang, Prasad, and Ratchford 2017).
Objectives

The research objectives are as follows:

 To analyse the influence of pricing on webrooming’

 To assess the relationship product quality and web rooming.

 To study the role of product choices on web rooming.

Statement of the Problem
Nowadays, Consumers tend to spend a lot of time online before purchasing any
product. Instead of physically exploring all the stores, people are more likely to
engage in social media platforms to explore various products. This phenomenon is
precisely called web rooming, which allows customers to compare different products
at the same time through online platforms.

 What is the effect of pricing and webrooming?

 What is the relationship between quality of the product and webrooming?

 In what ways can products choice influence webrooming?

 Conceptual Framework:
This study demonstrates the relationship between product quality, pricing, choice and
comfort and how they impact on the webrooming. The independent and dependent
variables are illustrated through the following diagram:
 Analysis
Table 1: Respondent by Gender

Gender Frequency Percent

Male 35 42.2
Female 46 55.4
Others 2 2.4
Total 83 100

The table 1 shows the gender of the respondents. From the collected data, it is
found that the female percentage that uses webrooming is high. The male
percentage is 42.2 and the female percentage is 55.4. The gender does not seem
very effective factors for this study. In general, female seem to be very concerned
about these product purchasing factor. This study also shows female population is
higher than male. That also proves that female do more shopping from time and
again. For this they use the webrooming for their convenience.
Table 2: Respondent Profile by Age

Age Frequency Percent

15-20 11 13.3
21-30 58 69.9
31-40 10 12
41 – above 4 4.8
Total 83 100

The Table 2 represents the age of the respondents with their frequency and percentage.
According to the collected response, it is seen that the age between 21 to 30 have used
Webrooming more. The percentage of this age group is 69.9 which are higher among other
groups. The youths are seen crazier of using Webrooming. This age group of people is relatively
known to have more knowledge of the Webrooming. The influence of education and
technologies, this age group is seen more active towards webrooming. So it proves that the age
also determines the attention towards webrooming. The ages between31 - 40 are 10 in number
whereas their percentage is 12. It seems that this age group is less concerned about the
webrooming. Similarly, the people having age 15 to 20 are 11 in numbers. And their percentage
is 13.3.
Table 3: Respondent Profile by Income

Income Frequency Percent

Below 20000 54 65.1
20000-30000 10 12
30000-40000 12 14.5
40000 and above 7 8.4
Total 83 100

The table 3 shows the Income of the respondents. From the collected
data, it is found that the people having below 20000 uses
webrooming is high. The below 20000 percentage is 54. The income
of the respondent also affect this study. The number of respondent
having income 20000-30000, 30000-40000, 40000 and above are 10,
12, and 7 respectively.
Table 4: Respondent profile by Academic

Academic Frequency Percent

Primary 3 3.6
Plus 2 Level 12 14.5
Bachelors 56 67.5
Masters and Above 12 14.5

Total 83 100

The table 4 shows the academic qualification of the respondents.

From this data, it is found that the bachelor’s students are more
interested on webrooming. The percent of Bachelors is 67.5 and the
number is 56. The youth are more interested on webrooming. This
academic qualification of the respondent also affect the
webrooming.
Table 5: Respondent profile by Profession

Profession Frequency Percent

Business 10 12
Employee 15 18.1
Student 55 66.3
Others 3 3.6
Total 83 100

The table 5 shows the profession of the respondent. From this data, it is
found that student uses more webrooming. The number of the student
are 55 and their percent is 66.3. The profession of the respondent also
affect the webrooming.
Table 6: Respondent profile by Marital Status

Marital Status Frequency Percent

Single 61 73.5
Married 20 24.1
Divorced 2 2.4

Total 83 100

In table 6 shows the marital status of the respondent. From, this data it is
found that single uses more webrooming. The number of the student are 61
having 73.5 percent. The marital status of the respondent also affect the
webrooming
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics of Product Comfort
Std.
N Mean Deviation
PC1: I can easily obtain information about 83 2.42 1.380
products online at each time of the day. [PC1]

PC2: I can quickly obtain information online at 83 2.84 1.330

any place. [PC2]
PC3: I can conveniently access product 83 2.89 1.362
information online. [PC3]
PC4: I can save time. [PC4] 83 2.72 1.408
PC5: I can collect more information through the 83 2.84 1.330
reviews of other users. [PC5]
Valid N (listwise) 83

The table 7 illustrates the responses or product comfort. The mean and the standard deviation are
presented in the table 7. The PC3 has the highest mean that is 2.89 and the PC1 has the lowest mean
that is 2.42. The PC4 has the mean value of 2.72. The PC5 and PC2 has the similar mean of 2.84. The
standard deviation of PC4 is greater than others that is 1.408 which implies that the data are more
spread out. The PC1, PC3 has the standard deviation of 1.380, 1.362 respectively and the PC2 and PC5
has similar and the lowest standard deviation of 1.330 which implies that more of the data is clustered
about the mean
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of Product Pricing

N Mean Std. Deviation

PP1: It is easy to collect information at 83 2.71 1.375
lower cost. [PP1]
PP2: It is cheaper to seek product 83 2.96 1.338
information online. [PP2]
PP3 : It does not take must cost to take 83 2.95 1.296
product information. [PP3]
PP4 : It is economical to search for 83 3.05 1.287
information online before purchasing
offline. [PP4]
PP5: It helps to gather more information 83 2.81 1.374
about variety of products in short. [PP5]
Valid N 83

The table 8 illustrates the responses for product pricing. The mean and the standard deviation are
presented in the table 8. The PP4 has the highest mean that is 3.05 and the PP1 has the lowest
mean that is 2.71. The PP2, PP3 and PP5 has 2.96, 2.95 and 2.81 respectively. The standard
deviation of PP1 is greater than others that is 1.375 which implies that the data are more spread
out. The PP2, PP3 and PP5 has the standard deviation of 1.338, 1.296 and 1.374 respectively and
the PP4 has similar and the lowest standard deviation of 1.287 which implies that more of the data
is clustered about the mean.
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics of Product Choice
Std.
N Mean Deviation
PCO1: Webrooming helps me gain 82 2.79 1.358
confidence about my choices. [PCO1]
PCO2: Webrooming helps me believe that I 83 2.96 1.347
have made the right choices. [PCO2]

PCO3: Webrooming helps me to overcome 83 2.73 1.326

the reluctance in product purchase. [PCO3]
PCO4: I am convinced about my choice 83 2.95 1.306
after I webroom for a product. [PCO4]

PCO5: Searching information online helps 83 2.69 1.439

me make right product choices offline.
[PCO5]
Valid N (listwise) 82

The table 9 illustrates the responses for product choice. The mean and the standard deviation
are presented in the table 9. The PCO2 has the highest mean that is 2.96 and the PCO5 has the
lowest mean that is 2.69. The PCO1, PCO3 and PCO4 has the mean value of 2.79, 2.73 and 2.95
respectively. The standard deviation of PCO5 is greater than others that is 1.439 which implies
that the data are more spread out. The PCO1, PCO2, PCO3 has the standard deviation of 1.358,
1.347, 1.326 and respectively and the PCO4 has the lowest standard deviation of 1.330 which
implies that more of the data is clustered about the mean
 Table10: Descriptive Statistics of Product Quality
N Mean Std. Deviation
PQ1: I can check the quality of the 83 3.22 1.288
product online, before purchasing it from
physical store. [PQ1]
PQ2: I can confirm the quality of the 83 3.17 1.208
product by evaluating it for purchasing
from physical store. [PQ2]
PQ3: Product are availiable on physical 83 3.39 1.080
store that is found on online channels.
[PQ3]
PQ4: A product need to be well examined 83 3.06 1.301
online, before purchasing it from physical
stores. [PQ4]
PQ5: Highly promoted product on online 83 3.41 1.269
channels and offline stores is perceived as
high quality product. [PQ5]
The table 10 illustrates the responses for product quality. The mean and the standard deviation are
presented in the table 10. The PQ5 has the highest mean that is 3.41 and the PQ4 has the lowest
mean that is 3.06. The PQ1, PQ2 and PQ3 has the mean value of 3.22, 3.17 and 3.39 respectively. The
standard deviation of PQ1 is greater than others that is 1.288 which implies that the data are more
spread out. The PQ2, PQ4 and PQ5 has the standard deviation of 1.208, 1.301 and 1.269 respectively
and the PQ3 has the lowest standard deviation of 1.080 which implies that more of the data is
clustered about the mean
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics of Webrooming
N Mean Std. Deviation
WB1: I like to do webrooming. [WB1] 83 3.18 1.211
WB2: People who practice webrooming 83 2.92 1.345
are smart. [WB2]

WB3: Webrooming is easy way of doing 83 3.08 1.327

shopping. [WB3]
WB4: Webrooming is the modern way 83 2.96 1.357
of doing shopping. [WB4]

WB5: I will recommend my friends to 83 3.16 1.254

conduct webrooming. [WB5]

Valid N (listwise) 83

deviation of 1.211 which implies that more of the data is clustered about the mean. The table 11
illustrates the responses for product quality. The mean and the standard deviation are presented in
the table 11. The WB1 has the highest mean that is 3.18 and the WB2 has the lowest mean that is
2.92. The WB3, WB4 and WB5 has the mean value of 3.08, 2.96 and 3.16 respectively. The standard
deviation of WB4 is greater than others that is 1.357 which implies that the data are more spread out.
The WB2, WB3 and WB5 has the standard deviation of 1.345, 1.327 and 1.254 respectively and the
WB1 has the lowest standard
Table 12: Correlation Matrix

Correlations
Webroo Product Product Product Product
ming Comfort Pricing Choice Quality
Webrooming Pearson 1 .592** .595** .635** .259*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .018
N 83 83 83 83 83
Product Pearson .592** 1 .671** .636** .310**
Comfort Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .004
N 83 83 83 83 83
Product Pearson .595** .671** 1 .626** .214
Pricing Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .052
N 83 83 83 83 83
Product Pearson .635** .636** .626** 1 .336**
Choice Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .002
N 83 83 83 83 83
Product Pearson .259* .310** .214 .336** 1
Quality Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .004 .052 .002
N 83 83 83 83 83
• The table 12 shows the Pearson correlation coefficient between the
variables considered in the study. From the table we can get that the
correlation coefficient between product comfort and webrooming have
positive correlation i.e. 0.592.

• This indicates the moderate relation between the product comfort and
webrooming. This means higher the product comfort, the higher the
webrooming. Similarly, the study shows a positive and moderate
correlation between product pricing and webrooming as it has correlation
coefficient of only 0.595.

• Likewise, the study shows the positive and strong correlation between
product choice and webrooming as it has correlation coefficient of 0.635.
The correlation coefficient between product quality and webrooming is
0.259 which shows the weak correlation.
4.4 Regression Analysis
Table 13: Regression Analysis
Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .700a .489 .463 .68417
a. Predictors: (Constant), Product Quality, Product
Pricing, Product Choice, Product Comfort

ANOVAa

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 34.988 4 8.747 18.68 .000b
7
Residual 36.510 78 .468
Total 71.499 82

a. Dependent Variable: Webrooming

b. Predictors: (Constant), Product Quality, Product Pricing, Product Choice, Product
Comfort
 Coefficientsa

Standardize
Unstandardized d
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .803 .367 2.189 .032
Product .193 .112 .205 1.722 .089
Comfort
Product .221 .111 .233 1.998 .049
Pricing
Product .346 .113 .350 3.068 .003
Choice
Product .034 .106 .028 .321 .749
Quality

Dependent Variable: Webrooming

Technical Predictors: Product comfort, Product pricing, Product
choice and Product quality.
• The Table 13 shows the regression and the coefficient of
regression. R square of this model is 0.489 and R is 0.700.
• The R square of this model is 0.489 which means 48.9% of
variation in the webrooming is explained by the variation in
independent variable dimensions. The adjusted R square is 0.463
and the significant F- value is 18.687.
 Major findings
• AMONG 83 RESPONDENTS, THE MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS I.E. 55.4 PERCENT WERE
FEMALE.
• AMONG 83 RESPONDENTS, THE MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS I.E. 69.9 PERCENT WERE
BETWEEN 21 TO 30 YEARS.
• AMONG THE 83 RESPONDENTS, MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS I.E. 73.5 PERCENT WERE
STUDENT.
• AMONG THE 83 RESPONDENTS, MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS I.E. 67.5 PERCENT WERE
BACHELOR’S DEGREE HOLDER.
• MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS I.E. 66.3 PERCENT WERE STUDENT, 12 PERCENT WERE
ENGAGED IN BUSINESS, 18.1 PERCENT WERE EMPLOYEE AND OTHERS PROFESSION
RESPECTIVELY.
• AMONG THE 83 RESPONDENTS, MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS I.E. 65.1 PERCENT HAVE
BELOW 20000 INCOME LEVEL.
• PRODUCT PRICING AND PRODUCT CHOICE IS SIGNIFICANT TO WEBROOMING THROUGH
HYPOTHESIS TESTING.
 Webrooming showed weak correlation with product quality i.e.o.259 with significance
level of 0.749. Similarly, there exists moderate correlation between webrooming and
product comfort (0.592) at 0.089 significance level. Similarly, there exists moderate
correlation between webrooming and product pricing i.e. 0.595 at 0.049 level of
significance. In addition, there exists strong correlation between webrooming and
product choice i.e. 0.635 at 0.003 level of signifance.
 The word count revealed that the webrooming emphasized more on the adults, females,
and bachelors students.
 Consumers carrying out webrooming are expected to have greater smart shopping
feelings. In their study about the addition of informational websites to physical retailers,
Pauwels et al. (2011) found that “smart fans” were intensive information seekers who
wanted to make the right purchases.
 Only, the student are seemed to focus on the webrooming.
 But overall results show that the trend of Webrooming is increasing day by day and many
factors are influencing the customer to use Webrooming.
 All the findings show the positive direction of the study. It is seen that the project
objectives are nearly met.
Conclusion
 The research was carried out in order to analyze the determining factor
of webrooming. The webrooming is time saving and easy that lead
people to use it.

 Customers want to use webrooming for searching information online

because it saves time and easy to use. People are more likely to use
Webrooming in future. Customers also believe that the Webrooming
will grow in future because of some its features.

 Finally and most importantly, product comfort, product pricing, product

choice and product quality have been found as important determinants
of webrooming.
Reference
 Flavian, C., Gurrea, R., Orus, C., 2016. Choice confidence in the impact of online
positive reviews and the motivation to touch. J. Comsum. Behav. 15(5), 459-476.

 Deloitte, 2017. 2017 pre-Thanksgiving pulse survey. Available: https://bit.ly/2IOKEg6,

Accessed date: 25 October 2018.

 Jang, Sungha, Ashutosh Prasad, and Brian T. Ratchford (2017), “Consumer Search of
Multiple Information Sources and its Impact on Consumer Price Satisfaction,” Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 40, 24–40.
THANKYOU!