Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Multichannel customer journeys and their determinants: Evidence from

motor insurance
Tun-I Hu, Andrea Tracogna *
University of Trieste, Department of Economics, Business, Mathematics and Statistics (DEAMS), Trieste, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study focuses on channel choices in motor insurance. Our aims are twofold: to fill a gap of empirical studies
Multichannel behavior on the determinants of multichannel behavior in the insurance industry and to help companies improve their
Channel choice retail strategies by better predicting customers’ channel decisions. The paper adopts a broad set of personal and
Channel synergy
digital channels and several dimensions of customer profiling, including psychographic and channel-experience
Customer journey
Webrooming
variables. We identify four different customer journeys, based on channel combinations. Our web-based survey,
which has turned out 338 valid responses, shows that the majority of insurance customers adopt multichannel
search behaviors. However, although most of the search is carried out through digital media, such channels
generate low search-to-purchase conversion rates. Most customer journeys are, instead, finalized in the personal
channels (namely, the insurance agents), thus evidencing an interesting webrooming effect. We test our set of
hypotheses on the determinants of customer journeys with a multinomial logistic regression. Our findings show
that multichannel journeys can serve several purposes: they may reflect the customer need to collect more in­
formation, the customer preference for shopping innovation, and his/her preference for shopping convenience.
Corporate channel management strategies and practices shall consider such determinants and be revised
accordingly.

1. Introduction determinants of shopping behavior and channel choice has been

Empowered by the developments of the internet and digital tech­
nologies, and by the increasing efforts by retailers to provide a seamless
channel experience, today’s customers are experimenting an unprece­
dented freedom to define their shopping journeys and are finding it
easier than ever to switching and integrating channels, both physical
and digital, across the different shopping stages, from search to pur­
chase, up to the post-purchase phase (Van Bruggen et al., 2010).
Consequently, as highlighted by Verhoef et al. (2015), an increasing
number of consumers have become multichannel shoppers, as they
simultaneously search for information and make their purchase de­
cisions through a combination of channels that, on a specific moment,
best optimizes their shopping needs. These customers require, in turn,
new and specific approaches by retailers, aimed at extending the firms’
reach to as many channels as possible, so to maximize the chances to
finalize the transactions with the customers (Zhang et al., 2010; Lewis
et al., 2014).
In response to this evolution, the academic interest on the
recently revamped (Rangaswamy and Van Bruggen, 2005; Neslin et al.,
2006; Lee and Kim, 2008), and specific calls to analysis have been made
within the community, such as the one by Verhoef et al. (2007), which
express a “particular need for studies considering channel choice de­
cisions for search and purchase in a multichannel environment, partic­
ularly studies that investigate interdependencies between the search and
purchase decisions” (p. 130).
Despite the growing academic literature on the topic, several aspects
of the multichannel phenomenon appear to not be fully understood,
while several open questions remain unanswered, both for scholars and
firms. For instance, on the one hand, many channels are mostly used for
search purposes and are not generating lots of purchases, while, on the
other hand, other channels display a much higher effectiveness in con­
verting the customer shopping visits into actual purchases. The different
capacity of a channel to generate purchases has been already high­
lighted in the extant literature (Verhoef et al., 2007; Weinberg et al.,
2007; Verhoef et al., 2015), with specific reference to the offline/online
dichotomy, envisaging a “research shopping” behavior (Verhoef et al.,

* Corresponding author. Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Aziendali, Matematiche e Statistiche (DEAMS), Universit�
a di Trieste, Via dell’Universit�
a 1, Trieste,
34123, Italy.
E-mail addresses: tun-ihu@units.it (T.-I. Hu), andrea.tracogna@deams.units.it (A. Tracogna).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102022
Received 24 July 2019; Received in revised form 10 December 2019; Accepted 16 December 2019
0969-6989/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna
2007) and the correlated “showrooming” and “webrooming” effects
(Bell et al., 2014, 2017), whereby the customer searches offline to
purchase online or searches online to purchase offline, respectively.
However, little is known on the actual determinants of the above
shopping behaviors and on how can retailing firms strategically manage
such fundamental channel synergies (Verhoef et al., 2015). This is
particularly true with reference to the multichannel behaviors and the
customer journeys which can be observed in the motor insurance mar­
kets where, despite a growing tendency of customers to follow sophis­
ticated journeys, which include the use of multiple search channels
simultaneously - particularly the digital channels (both corporate and
independent) - there is still a clear preference by the insurance cus­
tomers to finalize their journey (i.e. to purchase the motor policy) from
the personal channels, and namely from the insurance agents.
A number of research questions arise: in a world where customers are
free to move along different journeys, and free to follow - without im­
pediments - their preferences and needs, rather than being subject to the
impositions of the sellers, what specific drivers inform their decisions,
and how can companies predict the specific channels where customers
will ultimately choose to collect the needed information and will finalize
their purchase? More in general, in the light of the different possible
combinations of search and purchase channels, which may lead to
different “research shopping” outcomes, such as the showrooming and
webrooming effects, what do we know about the factors/variables that
influence the selection of a specific shopping journey? And what can the
seller organizations do - within a multichannel context - to exert an
influence on a specific shopping outcome?
The implications of our research are of the utmost importance for
retailers: by knowing how different customers search for information
along their shopping journey, with different approaches, companies can
better manage their channels and develop more effective and granular
multichannel strategies, which can ultimately maximize the conversion
rate from search to purchase. Further, the above questions are particu­
larly appropriate within the non-life insurance industry where - despite a
long-standing evolution of its distribution channels and the pervasive
introduction of digital technologies and media to support the customer
information search - a majority of shopping journeys are still finalized
through the personal and traditional channels, i.e. the agents (Insurance
Europe, 2019). This industry has recently implemented radical changes
in the articulation of the available channels, with an increasing role
played by the digital channels, both corporate (e.g., corporate web sites)
and independent (e.g., web aggregators). However, this increase in the
available purchase options has not significantly changed the traditional
preference, by the customers, to approach the corporate agent for the
actual finalization of the purchase. In other words, the increase in the
number of search options has had a relatively small impact at the pur­
chase channel level and has generated a peculiar “webrooming” effect,
whereby insurance customers tend to extend their search to many digital
and personal channels but still prefer to purchase from the agent.
The full understanding of this effect requires a specific investigation
on the insurance markets, carried out through a new categorization of
the different customer journeys, which we introduce in the paper, and
through a more granular profiling of the psychographic traits of the
customer, combined with the acknowledgement of the different channel
synergy effects, which we have included in our empirical model to
derive and test our set of hypotheses. Our focus in motor insurance is
also justified in the light of the relatively few studies which have spe­
cifically analysed customer journeys in the financial services, and
namely in insurance, with few exceptions, such as Beckett et al. (2000),
Black et al. (2002) and, more recently, Barwitz and Maas (2018).
Furthermore, motor insurance is a peculiar service as it is subject to
periodic renewal, has a significant post-purchase phase (where accident
reporting, claims management, and other customer-seller interactions
can occur), is characterized by experience effects (i.e., past decisions and
service experience have a relevant weight in the successive channel
decisions) and repetitive purchase (motor policies are renewed every
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022
year, with relatively low switching costs), with the customer having
frequently the freedom to change the channel, the provider, and the
policy coverage. Further, customers are typically involved in motor in­
surance purchase for several years, which means they undertake several
journeys in sequence, which allows for the analysis of channel synergy
effects between and within different shopping phases (Kankainen et al.,
2012). Overall, the insurance market represents an ideal setting for the
analysis of consumer behaviors along repeated shopping journeys and
for the understanding of complex patterns of information search and
their effects on the purchase channel choices.
Compared to previous research on multichannel customer behavior,
our paper introduces a broader set of search and purchase channels and
new dimensions of customer profiling, specifically at the psychographic
level. Further, differently than in the extant literature, which is adopting
a typical physical (offline) vs. digital (online) channel dichotomy, our
research classifies the channels available for search and purchase in two
distinct “families”: personal and digital, based on their correlation with
the customer preference for “personal contact”, a new psychographic
variable we here introduce. Furthermore, in our paper we emphasize a
number of different channel associations (both positive and negative)
and focus on the possible channel synergy effects over four distinct
customer journeys (which we introduce in section 2), with the ultimate
goal of explaining the determinants of multichannel shopping behavior.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next (second) section we
provide an account of the large stream of literature on multi-/omni­
channel shopping behaviors, with the aim of highlighting the synergy
effects between channels and of deriving a workable definition of
customer journey. In the third section, we introduce and discuss a set of
hypotheses on the determinants of customer journeys, ranging from
psychographic factors to channel experience effects. In the fourth sec­
tion, we describe the methods, the sampling procedure and the mea­
surement issues of our empirical research, focusing on the motor
insurance market. In the fifth section we give account of our results and
test our hypotheses with a multinomial logistic regression model. The
sixth section includes a thorough discussion of the research findings and
concludes, deriving theoretical and managerial implications, addressing
limitations and providing indications for future research.
2. Literature review
A research focused on multichannel behavior and management shall
start with a clarification of the key terms employed. By channel we here
mean “a customer contact point or a medium through which the firm
and the customer interact” (Neslin et al., 2006, p. 96). Channels are here
considered, broadly speaking, as media for interaction and not just as
pure settings for the finalization of a transaction. Customer-seller in­
teractions progress along time, over the shopping journey, encompass­
ing different phases: need recognition, information search, evaluation of
alternatives, purchase decision, and after-sales service (post-purchase
decision) (Engel et al., 1990; Howard, 1989). Thus, several different
channels can be leveraged at every stage of a specific shopping journey
and this is the essence of multichannel shopping.
2.1. From multichannel to omnichannel shopping
There is not full consensus, in the academic literature, on the level
where to apply the multichannel construct, and on what exactly a
multichannel shopping behavior is. For some scholars, multichannel
shopping simply means using different channels for different purchases,
either within the same product category or for different products (Kumar
and Venkatesan, 2005; Weinberg et al., 2007; Cho and Workman, 2011;
Konus, Neslin and Verhoef 2014; Cambra-Fierro et al., 2016; Harris
et al., 2018). For an increasing number of scholars, however, the
multichannel construct refers to the customer behavior as expressed
along the whole journey, i.e., over the different shopping phases, from
search to purchase. For instance, Schoenbachler and Gordon (2002)
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna
posit that the multichannel consumers use the different channels ac­
cording to their preferences, perceived convenience and product avail­
ability which can be different in the different shopping phases. Wind and
Mahajan (2002) define a multichannel behavior as the combination of
various channels and approaches, such as searching online to buy off­
line, searching offline to buy online and everything in between. Along
this same line, Verhoef et al. (2007) show that consumers’ search pref­
erences need not to be the same as their purchase preferences. They
introduce the concept of the “research shoppers”, which research the
product in one channel (e.g., the Internet), and then purchase it through
another channel (e.g., the store). Likewise, McGoldrick and Collins
(2007) refer to multichannel customers as those who use a variety of
channels to research their products, before committing to the purchase.
This same emphasis on the whole shopping process can be found in
Zhang et al. (2010) who define the multichannel shoppers as those
consumers who use multiple channels along the shopping process. More
recently, Ripp�
e et al. (2015) relate the multichannel construct to “a more
knowledgeable consumer”, who gains information about the product by
surfing and switching between channels, such as brick and mortar
stores, web sites, mobile devices, and other emerging shopping outlets.
The natural evolution of this stream of literature has been the
omnichannel model of shopping (Yurova et al., 2017). Piotrowicz and
Cuthbertson (2014) describe the omnichannel customers as those who
move freely between the online channels, the mobile devices, and the
physical store, all within a single transaction process. For Juane­
da-Ayensa et al. (2016) these customers use the new technologies to
search for information, offer opinions, explain experiences, make pur­
chases, and “talk to the brand”. The line of separation between the
multi-channel and the omni-channel behaviors is blurred. The differ­
ence, according to Saghiri et al. (2018), is that - in an omnichannel
approach - a customer can interact with the product and the firm in all
ways and in all locations. Within this perspective, an increasing number
of consumers seamlessly move, over their customer journeys, between
the available channels, searching for information and making their
purchase decisions through the channels that best optimize their pur­
chase needs (Verhoef et al., 2015). In sum, the shift to omnichannel
shopping implies that, rather than considering the search and purchase
phases as separate moments, customers (and sellers) integrate channel
usage along the whole shopping journey. Under this perspective, search
and purchase decisions, rather than being independent stages, become
complementary and synergistic moments within the customer journeys.
2.2. Channel synergy effects and research shopping
The multi- and omni-channel literature has also had the merit to
highlight the many possible channel synergy effects taking place along
the shopping journey. First, there exist positive synergies between
channels at the same stage of the shopping process; using the words of
Verhoef et al. (2007): “channel synergy means that higher attitudes
toward search or purchase on channel A translate into higher attitudes
toward search or purchase on channel B” (p. 132). Second, channel
synergies can also be negative, as witnessed by the “research shopping”
phenomenon (Verhoef et al., 2007), where customers research the
product in one channel, and then purchase it through another channel.
Here, the offline search and online purchases become complementors
and the online activities may partially substitute for the experiential
shopping in the physical store (Pauwels et al., 2011). This interplay
between traditional retail and e-commerce channels generates what is
also called a “showrooming effect”, where the information is searched
and collected offline while the fulfillment occurs online (Bell et al.,
2014). As a more recent evolution of the channel synergy phenomenon,
Bell et al. (2017) describe the “webrooming” effect, where information
is collected online but fulfillment occurs offline. Channel synergy effects
occur also at the temporal level, i.e., the previous use of a channel in­
creases the likelihood of using that channel again in the future (Gensler
et al., 2012). Verhoef, Neslin, and Vroomen (2007) call these effects as
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022
channel lock-in or channel spillovers: the choice of a channel in one
stage of the shopping process affects that channel’s utility and the
likelihood of choosing that channel in another stage of the shopping
process for the same product (Anderl et al., 2016; Frasquet et al., 2019),
which implies some stickiness of channel decisions (Melis et al., 2015).
Along this similar vein is the “augmentation effect” described by Barwitz
and Maas, 2018, whereby customers use a broad set of channels to
augment the information collected and then select one channel for their
purchase.
2.3. From channel decisions to customer journeys
In the light of the above, we can assume that customers will choose
the channels that best exploit the available positive synergies, while
minimizing their negative effects. However, such channel decisions are
not taken independently, at each stage of the shopping process, but are
combined by the customer into his/her preferred shopping journey. One
of the earliest formal definitions of customer journey is that of Zomerdijk
and Voss (2010) who refer to it as a series of touchpoints that involve all
activities and events related to the delivery of a service to a customer.
The concept has then been further developed by Lemon and Verhoef
(2016) who split this journey into three linearly sequential stages (i.e.,
pre-purchase, purchase, and post-purchase), which transpire during the
current journey and also during past and future shopping experiences.
Notably, the authors call for a need to identify specific ways in which
customers deviate from their habitual or expected customer journeys
and suggest that “researchers could evaluate not only the journeys
themselves but also what drives these journeys” (p. 88) especially within
the framework of multi- and omnichannel marketing.
Understanding the specific determinants of shopping journeys may
allow marketers to strategically intercept consumers at each particular
stage of the shopping process and maximize customer value. And this is,
indeed, the goal of our paper, where we aim at analyzing the different
customer journeys, thus highlighting the possible synergies and com­
plementarities between the search and the purchase phases and identi­
fying the main determinants of such journeys. Following Lee et al.
(2018), we are fully aware that shopping today does not always adhere
to a linear process as shoppers do not always finalize their journeys with
a purchase and, instead, switch back and forth between shopping stages.
However, for the purposes of our research, we are here limiting our focus
on those customer journeys who are finalized with an actual purchase.
Further, in consideration of the variety of channels which can be utilized
by customers to collect information and make the purchase, we intro­
duce a specific classification of channels, grouping them into two fam­
ilies: personal and digital. The personal channels are chosen by
customers expressing a preference for personal contact with the seller.
Digital channels are, instead, chosen when the interaction level with the
seller is less important and typically occurs via digital technologies.
Further, we introduce a new pattern of search, which occurs both in
personal and digital channels and that we call “mixed search”. Our main
goal would be that of understanding the determinants of the different
search pattern and the implications in terms of purchase behaviors.
Finally, as in previous studies, that have clustered customers into
different groups, based on their channel choices (Thomas and Sullivan,
2005; McGoldrick and Collins, 2007; Konus, Verhoef, and Neslin 2008;
De Keyser, Schepers and Konus, 2015; Park an Kim, 2018; Nakano and
Kondo, 2018; Frasquet et al., 2019), we here introduce four customer
journeys which differently combine the personal and digital channels
and segment customers in distinct groups:
- Journey 1. Is adopted by customers who focus their search and pur­
chase in the personal channels. We call this journey as the “fully
personal” journey.
- Journey 2. Is undertaken by customers who adopt a mixed search
approach and purchase in the personal channels. We call this journey
as the “mixed search and personal purchase” journey.
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna
- Journey 3. Is undertaken by customers who adopt a mixed search
approach and purchase in the digital channels. We call this journey
as the “mixed search and digital purchase” journey.
- Journey 4. Is adopted by customers who focus their search and pur­
chase in the digital channels. We call their journey as the “fully
digital” journey.
Journeys 2 and 3 represent, in our research, the archetypical
multichannel customer journeys. Our research is aimed at identifying
their determinants and at defining the profile of the customers under­
taking such journeys.
3. Hypotheses development
To derive our set of hypotheses we have referred to the broad liter­
ature on channel choice determinants within a multichannel perspec­
tive. Our main references have been the influential studies by Verhoef
et al. (2007), Venkatesan et al. (2007) and Ansari et al. (2008) which, by
adopting a multichannel perspective and focusing on dimensions such as
channel adoption, channel choice, and channel usage, have analysed
and explained the different shopping behaviors across channels, in the
different phases of the customer journey. Other studies on multichannel
customer segmentation have also raised our attention, such as Konus,
Verhoef and Neslin (2008).
Our first set of hypotheses refer to the psychographic traits of cus­
tomers. Below, we describe the specific variables and their expected
association with the multichannel customer journeys, which are
formulated in the form on non-directional hypotheses.
Shopping enjoyment. It relates to the fun and excitement derived to the
customer from trying new experiences, custom designing products and
taking part to an enriching customer journey (Forsythe et al., 2006).
People who enjoy shopping spend extra time on participating in the
journey, including searching and purchasing from different channels
(Konus, Verhoef, and Neslin 2008). Verhoef, Neslin, and Vroomen
(2007) show empirically that there is an association between the pref­
erence for shopping enjoyment and the selection of multiple channels. In
other words, the preference for shopping enjoyment is here posited to be
associated with multichannel shopping journeys.
H1a. The preference for shopping enjoyment affects the selected
customer journey;
Need for information. Prior to making a purchase decision, consumers
may want to collect information on product features, price offers,
customer reviews, payment methods, delivery options, and alternatives
available. Therefore, a channel could be selected based on the richness
of the information provided for the shopping decision – i.e., a channel
which provides the right quality, quantity, and accessibility of infor­
mation and helps comparing alternatives is preferable for consumers
(Alba et al., 1997; Hoque and Lohse, 1999; Ratchford et al., 2001;
Verhoef et al., 2007). In line with the above, Choudhury and Karahanna
(2008) posit that the capacity of a channel to provide information and
explanations to customers is to be considered an important factor for
channel choice. Within our research, we can here expect that the use of
multiple channels for information search (and the related customer
journeys) may better serve the need for information.
H1b. The preference (need) for information affects the selected
customer journey.
Preference for service quality. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry
(1988) define service quality as the seller’s “willingness to help cus­
tomers and provide prompt service” (p.23). Conversely, we can define
the preference for service quality as the customer’s expectation to be
helped by the seller and to receive prompt support. The study of Baker
et al. (2002) label “interpersonal service quality” as the quality of the
interactions between store employees and customers, based on how well
the customer is treated, and on whether he/she is receiving high-quality
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022
service, prompt service and personal attention. Verhoef, Neslin, and
Vroomen (2007) define the service quality as the consumers’ perception
of the delivered channel service, including the perception of getting
good service, excellent help, and good personal advice. Within the
present research, although it is possible for a company to provide
customer supportive digital channels, we expect that a consumer
expecting a high service quality (i.e., a customized and personal ser­
vice), will rather prefer a personal channel instead of receiving a stan­
dardized service from a digital one. However, we believe it is still to be
ascertained whether a multichannel approach (and related journeys) is
positively or negatively associated to the preference for service quality.
Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced:
H1c. The preference for service quality affects the selected customer
journey.
Shopping convenience. Verhoef, Neslin, and Vroomen (2007) define
shopping convenience in terms of the perceived ease, effort, and speed of
a specific channel where consumers can gather product information and
products can be purchased. Accordingly, Choudhury and Karahanna
(2008) define convenience as a consumer’s perception of the time and
effort required to interact through a channel. Frambach, Roest, and
Krishnan (2007) claim that the perceived convenience has a positive
effect on consumer’s channel choice. Similarly, Juaneda-Ayensa et al.
(2016) identify effort expectancy as a major determinant of the con­
sumers’ use of different channels during the shopping process. Whether
the need for shopping convenience can be better served by a multi­
channel journey, is still to be clarified. The following hypothesis is then
advanced:
H1d. The preference for shopping convenience affects the selected
customer journey.
Price consciousness. Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Burton (1990)
define price consciousness as the degree to which consumers have a
preference for paying low prices. The perceived price level affects
channel choice: the higher the price, the lower the likelihood for a
channel to be chosen (Balasubtamanian, Raghunathan, and Mahajan
2005; Venkatesan et al., 2007; Verhoef et al., 2007; Konus, Verhoef, and
Neslin 2008; Gensler et al., 2012). It is no surprise that consumers will
prefer to pay for a lower price if the product/service remains the same;
and to guarantee paying the lowest price, consumers will likely search
from several channels, either personal or digital. Our research will
investigate this expected association, which is expressed by the
following hypothesis:
H1e. Price consciousness affects the selected customer journey.
Shopping innovation. Midgley and Dowling (1978) define shopping
innovation as the customer’s preference to try new and different prod­
ucts or channels and seek out new experiences. Goldsmith and Hofacker
(1991) describe the shopping innovators as those customers who are the
first to buy a new product, to be knowledgeable about the product itself,
and more likely to talk to others about the product. In the context of this
research, Konus, Verhoef, and Neslin (2008) link innovation search to
channel selection by positing that consumers with high preferences for
innovation would require more extensive search, i.e. a multichannel
approach. Along the same line, Juaneda-Ayensa et al. (2016) indicate
that innovative consumers have a stronger propensity to search (and
purchase) using different channels. This is the hypothesis we aim at
investigating.
H1f. The preference for shopping innovation affects the selected
customer journey.
Preference for personal contact. For the purposes of our research, we
introduce a new psychographic variable, which, in the context of
shopping behaviors, is defined as the preference of customers for
interacting with the sales organization (i.e., the provider of goods and/
or services) at a personal level (i.e., face to face, verbally, via written
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022

communications between specific individuals) rather than impersonally H2a. The purchase channel at T0 affects the selected customer journey at
(i.e., through generic interactions with the company, especially ICT- T1;
mediated). Our expectation is that the customer showing a higher
H2b. The purchasing cost at T0 affects the selected customer journey at T1;
preference for personal contact will prefer personal channels both at the
search and purchase level. This will likely impact on the preferred H2c. The interaction of the customer with the seller in the post-purchase
customer journey. Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced: phase at T0 affects the selected customer journey at T1.
H1g. The preference (need) for personal contact affects the selected Other determinants of customer journeys can be found within the
customer journey. domain of situational and sociodemographic variables. The situational
variables are “all those factors, particular to a time and place of obser­
Customer journeys are not only determined by the psychological
vation, which do not follow from a knowledge of personal (intra­
traits of customers. Our second set of hypotheses link our dependent
individual) or stimulus (choice alternative) attributes” (Belk, 1974, p.
variable (the selected customer journey) to the covariates pertaining to
157). Three variables have a particular significance for our study: time
the “channel synergy” effects and namely to the different impact that the
pressure, distance to store and shopping level (Kleijnen et al., 2007;
previous period channel choices and experiences had on the current
Konus, Verhoef, and Neslin 2008; Chocarro et al., 2013; Leenders et al.,
period decisions. Here, the main studies we refer to are represented by
2019). We have not developed specific hypotheses for these variables,
Verhoef et al. (2007), Pauwels et al. (2011), Gensler et al. (2012) and
which will be used as controls in our logistic regression model. Further,
also by the more recent Bell et al. (2014, 2017). We have considered how
consistently with a rich literature, including Pauwels and Dans (2001),
the past channel experience effects (at T0) can have an impact on the
Inman et al. (2004), Gupta et al. (2004), Neslin et al., (2006), Verhoef
current shopping behaviors (at T1). With reference to our empirical
et al. (2007), Ansari et al. (2008), and Yu et al. (2011), we have
setting (motor insurance) we refer, in particular, to the past (T0) pur­
considered a set of sociodemographic variables, such as gender and age,
chase decision and to the past (T0) post-purchase phase. Considering the
which we will use as control variables, too.
past purchase decision, we introduce two variables: the “purchase
In the following Fig. 1 we are summarizing our model and the set of
channel at T0” and the “purchasing cost at T0”. Indeed, we expect that
hypotheses formulated.
the past purchase channel at T0 may generate a lock-in effect at T1, i.e.,
a propension to replicate the previous channel decisions. In turn, we
4. Methods
expect that the level of purchasing cost at T0 may determine a higher
(lower) level of effort in the search for cheaper alternatives in the next
4.1. Sampling and data collection
period (T1). Further, with reference to the post-purchase phase at T0 we
focus on the events that may generate some further interaction between
To test the above hypotheses, we have carried out a web-based
the seller and the customer. Within the context of our study, motor in­
survey. The data were collected from January 2019 to February 2019.
surance, we mainly refer to the “reporting of accidents” (claims) and to
For convenience reasons, the sampling population was represented by
the “change of the insured car”. We expect that the reporting of an ac­
all the MBA graduates of an Italian Business School which received their
cident may direct the customer towards new channels, either digital or
degree from 1991 to 2018. A total of 2950 graduates, 39.29% female
personal, and this may have consequences on the policy renewal de­
and 60.71% male, with an average age of 38 and from 95 different na­
cisions at T1. In turn, the change of the car may expose the customer to
tionalities, have received via email a link to a web-based questionnaire.
new channels (e.g., the car dealer) and this may eventually lead to a
59 mails didn’t reach the target. Thus, the actual recipients of the
revision of the past channel decisions. We therefore develop the
invitation have been 2891. A total of 554 questionnaires have been fully
following three hypotheses:
or partially filled, with a gross response rate of 19.2%. Because of the

Fig. 1. Research model.

5
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna
nature of the product selected for this research (motor insurance), two
filter questions were made prior to the entry of the questionnaire, in
order to avoid any non-qualified responses: Do you and/or your family
have (own, possess, drive) a car? With reference to the cars you and/or your
family have, have you been involved in the purchase of the current or the
previous insurance policy? A negative answer to any questions would
direct the “un-qualified” respondents to the ending page.
The submitted questionnaire was structured in three parts: the first
part included sociodemographic questions (age, gender, education level,
employment status, household size, number of cars owned/used,
internet access status, birth country, citizenships, resident country and
city population). The second part asked respondents to self-evaluate
based on the psychographic and situational variables introduced in
the previous sections. Five-point multi-item Likert scales were here
applied, where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 5 represented
“strongly agree”. Part three was focused on the motor insurance
customer journey; information was collected both for the previous (T0)
and for the current insurance period (T1). We have assumed that, being
motor insurance a complex service, consumers tend to recall the past
decisions beyond the current shopping choices (Buhler et al., 2016;
Crosby et al., 1990).; this may reduce their recall bias. The questionnaire
was submitted via Computer Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI), where
members were contacted via email, and invited to self-compile a
web-based, closed-question, English structured questionnaire. The
choice of CASI is justified by the extreme expensiveness of the
face-to-face alternative and by the presumed respondents’ preference for
the self-compilation of the questionnaire. In turn, this survey mode has
its limitations: in particular, the possibility of a significant number of
survey and item non-responses and the likely slowness of the question­
naires’ collection process.
After cleaning the dataset for the non-qualified responses and for any
incomplete questionnaire, 338 full responses were used for data anal­
ysis, with a net response rate of 11.7%. The respondents hold 42
different nationalities and are mostly similar to the survey population in
terms of age (40 vs. 38, and gender (male: 70.4% vs. 60.7%). Due to the
peculiar survey population (MBA graduates) we have also considered a
possible sampling bias, as the population attitudes towards multi­
channel shopping are likely to be different than in the general popula­
tion, because of the significant differences in the level of education, age
range (from 25 to 68 in our sample), product knowledge (a number of
graduates have taken a specific degree in Insurance at the Business
School) and disposable income. However, as the purpose of our research
is not to make specific inferences on the general population, but mostly
to test a set of associations and correlations among channels and possible
causation effects between psychographic variables and shopping be­
haviors, we do not consider such biases as real issues affecting the
outcomes of our research.
4.2. Measurements
Our dependent variables are represented by the channels actually
selected by the insurance customers along the search and purchase
phases and their combination at a specific time (which we here call the
“customer journey”). We assumed that only one channel can be selected
for purchase, at each renewal period; we allowed respondents, instead,
to select more than one channel for information search. Five types of
channels have been mapped: insurance agent, corporate call center,
corporate website, corporate mobile app, online web aggregator (i.e.,
price comparison site). The channels used for search include all of the
above and also the social networks and any personal contacts (friends,
relatives, family etc.). Further, within each search channel type, we have
reported the cases of multiple search, i.e., the search from two or more
channels of the same type (e.g. a multiple search on several corporate
web sites). Just for the purchase decisions, and with the aim of exploring
any channel lock-in effect, we asked respondents to report both the
channels utilized in T0 (previous insurance period) and T1 (current
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022
insurance period).
With reference to the independent variables, we have adopted
several multi-item scales which we have developed from the literature
(see Section 2 above). The only exception has been our new variable, the
preference (need) for personal contact. We have measured it through a
multi-item scale composed of the following assertions: When shopping, I
like to deal with a human. When shopping, I like to have a personal inter­
action with the seller. When shopping, I like to interact face to face.
Overall, 30 items for the 7 psychographic variables were included in
the questionnaire. To validate the scales, a principal-component analysis
(PCA) has been applied to examine if items are grouped to the corre­
sponding variables and if the number of factors is the same as expected.
The extraction of components was based on eigenvalues greater than 1.
In total, 7 components were obtained with a total variance explained of
68.1%. The items of each component are in line with the corresponding
variables. To reduce collinearity between variables, we rotated the
components through a Varimax method with Kaiser Normalization to
obtain a rotated orthogonal factor score for each component. Following
Hair et al. (2016) we also calculated the composite reliability value (CR)
and the average variance extracted (AVE). Generally, factor loadings
above 0.5, Cronbach’s Alpha exceeding 0.7, AVE above 0.5 and CR
values above 0.7 are considered satisfactory (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Table 1 shows the correlation matrix for
the construct validity test where all the above conditions are met.
Another group of measures pertained to the “channel experience”
variables, which consider what has happened in the previous period
(T0), both at the purchase and post-purchase phases. The “past purchase
channel” was reported based on the five channels utilized for the current
purchase decisions. The “cost of the insurance policy at time T0” is the
cost of the previously purchased policy; here, we have used its natural
logarithm transformation. With reference to the post-purchase phase,
the “reporting of an accident” variable is a binary variable reflecting the
case when the insured car has been subject to a claim in the previous
period, while the “change of the insured car” is a binary variable
reflecting the fact that the previous insured car (at T0) is not the same as
the currently insured car (at T1).
As regards the control variables, we have measured the “distance to
store” in terms of the distance of the respondent from the insurance
agent. The distance has been measured by the time needed to reach the
closest agent through the normal means of transportation. We have
converted it into a binary variable, where we set 0 for a distance shorter
than 30 min, and 1 for a distance longer than 30 min. The “shopping
level” is a measure of the shopping intensity of the customer. It ranges
from 1 (“I am a light shopper”) to 5 ("I am a heavy shopper"). The var­
iable of “time pressure” is measured with two items, “I am always busy”
and “I usually find myself pressed for time” (Konus, Verhoef, and Neslin
2008) by applying five-point multi-item Likert scales, where 1 repre­
sents “strongly disagree” and 5 represents “strongly agree”.
5. Results
Table 2, below, reports the motor insurance customer preferences in
respect to the search channels and the purchase decisions at the current
time (T1).
We can see that the prevalent purchase channel is the insurance
agent, with percentages above 54%. The second major purchase channel
are the corporate websites (22.8%), followed by the web aggregators
(13.3%) and the corporate call centers (8.6%). As for the search chan­
nels, our data show that the policyholders tend to search on several
channels prior to making their purchase decision. This is evident from
the cumulative percentage of all search channels, which is higher than
100%. Overall, respondents have used an average of 2.63 types of
channels and 4.04 specific channels to search for information. We also
note that the conversion rates (the percentage of search channel activ­
ities which are actually converted into a purchase) are significantly
different in the different channels. Indeed, while some search channels
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022

Table 1
Correlation matrix for the construct validity test.
N Variable α CR AVE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean Stand. dev.

1 Enjoyment 0.887 0.900 0.601 1 3.063 0.798

2 Information 0.856 0.888 0.614 .313a 1 3.897 0.633
3 Service 0.865 0.901 0.752 .014 .050 1 2.455 0.761
4 Convenience 0.805 0.865 0.616 .005 .042 -.015 1 3.832 0.681
5 Price 0.757 0.824 0.543 .121b .204a .059 .221a 1 3.712 0.622
6 Innovativeness 0.810 0.855 0.542 .370a .100 .019 .098 .017 1 2.695 0.678
7 Personal contact 0.927 0.931 0.818 .057 -.067 .376a -.165a -.179a .030 1 3.015 0.852

Note: α ¼ Cronbach’s Alpha. CR ¼ Composite reliability. AVE ¼ Average variance extracted. KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0.815. Bartlett’s test of sphericity:
Chi square 5195.382, df435, p < 0.000.
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 2
Search and purchase channels at T1 (N ¼ 338).
Agency Corporate call Corporate Corporate mobile Web Social Friends and personal
center website app aggregator network contacts

N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Search channel 217 64.20 61 18.05 200 59.17 45 13.31 201 59.47 36 10.65 128 37.87
Purchase channel 183 54.14 29 8.58 77 22.78 4 1.18 45 13.31

Search-to-Purchase conversion rate 84.33 47.53 38.50 8.87 22.38

are, by nature, exclusively for search (such as friends, personal contacts, augment the available information through multiple channel search,
and social networks), other channels (such as the web aggregators, or before selecting the purchase channel. This also highlights – in motor
the mobile apps) display a below-average conversion rate, which means insurance - a typical “webrooming” effect, where the customers collect
they are more for search than for purchase, while other channels information on several digital channels before finalizing the purchase in
(namely, the insurance agencies) show a much higher conversion rate the traditional (personal) channels. As for the reported negative synergy
(above 80%). Table 3 provides evidence on the tendency of customers to between the agents and the other channels, we can here suggest that the
use more than one search channel of the same type (i.e., two or more former , by its very nature, represents a very information-rich channel,
agents, two or more websites … etc.). which may easily satisfy all the information needs of the customers, thus
Our data show that most insurance customers are indeed multi­ substituting the other channels.
channel shoppers, i.e., are using two or more search channels before In the following analysis, based on the positive and negative corre­
finalizing their purchase decision. However, in line with the above­ lation with the “personal contact” construct, and in preparation to the
mentioned different search-to-purchase conversion rates, the data show further analysis of the determinants of the selected customer journeys,
that the "search intensity" is much higher for the digital channels we have grouped the search and purchase channels into two families:
(corporate web sites, web aggregators, social networks) than for the personal and digital. In particular, we have included the agency, the
personal channels (agents and call centers). In particular, most digital corporate call center and the friends in the personal channel, and the
channel types tend to be activated multiple times (i.e., with a high corporate website, the corporate mobile app, the web aggregator and the
“search intensity”) while the personal channels (agents and corporate social networks in the digital channel. Further, consistently with our
call centers) tend to be mostly activated once. This combination of low classification of customer journeys, we have defined a specific pattern of
conversion rates and high intensity, by the customer, in the use of the multichannel shopping behavior (“mixed search”) which includes those
digital channels represents a peculiar, and somehow counterintuitive, respondents (more than 50% in motor insurance) who search both in
finding, which requires a special analytical explanation. personal and digital channels. The results of our classification are re­
Further, our data show significant synergy effects between channels. ported in Table 5. As for the purchase channel, 211 respondents (62.4%
Indeed, Table 4 shows that most correlations between search channels of the total) used the personal channels, while 37.6% (127 out of 338)
are positive, i.e. the use of one channel is positively associated with the the digital channels. On the search side, 22.5% (76 out of 338) of re­
use of another channels, with the exception of the agency channel, spondents used only the digital channel, 24% (81 out of 338) only the
where all the other channels (except friends and social networks) are personal channel, and the majority of respondents (53.5%, 181 out of
negatively correlated to it. These positive channel synergies at the 338) adopted a “mixed search” approach, i.e., have searched both on the
search level mostly reflect an “augmentation effect”, whereby customers digital and the personal channels.
Based on the above, we have classified the sample respondents into
four clusters, reflecting their selected customer journey at T1: 1. “fully
Table 3
Search channel intensity (N ¼ 338). personal” journey (24.0%, 81 out of 338). 2. “mixed search and personal
purchase” journey (38.5%, 130 out of 338). 3. “mixed search and digital
Search Channel Used only once Used twice or more
purchase” journey (15.0%, 51 out of 338). 4. “fully digital” journey
N Percent N Percent (22.5%, 76 out of 338). We can note that the majority of the motor in­
Agency 144 66 73 34 surance customers have adopted a “mixed search” approach (journeys 2
Corporate call center 43 70 18 30 and 3). Within the “mixed search” journeys, we observe that 71.8% (130
Corporate website 53 27 147 74 out of 181) of customers eventually purchase their motor policy in the
Corporate mobile app 20 44 25 56
Web aggregator 81 40 120 60
personal channels, while only 28.2% (51 out of 181) finalize their
Social networks 17 47 19 53 purchase on the digital channel. It is this research shopping
Friends 52 41 76 59 (webrooming) effect, with the purchase mostly finalized on the personal

7
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022

Table 4
Search channel correlations.
Agency Corporate Corporate website Corporate mobile app Web aggregator Social network Friends
Call center

Agency 1
Corporate call center 0.115a 1
Corporate website 0.269b 0.092 1
Corporate mobile app 0.071 0.224b 0.272b 1
Web aggregator 0.177b 0.043 0.356b 0.253b 1
Social networks 0.098 0.187b 0.092 0.316b 0.168b 1
Friends 0.214b 0.141b 0.140a 0.125a 0.135a 0.284b 1
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

to a “fully personal” journey (our reference category), any increases in

Table 5
the “need for information” (Exp(B) ¼ 1.468), in the preference for
Cross-tabulation between search and purchase channel at T1.
“shopping convenience” (Exp(B) ¼ 1.336), in the intensity of the
Purchase channel at T1 “shopping level” (Exp(B) ¼ 1.821) and any decrease in the “need for
Personal Digital Total personal contact” (Exp(B) ¼ 0.772) and in the age of the customer (Exp
Digital 0 76 76 (22.5%) (B) ¼ 0.170), are increasing the odds that a specific customer follows a
Search channel at T1 Personal 81 0 81 (24.0%) “mixed search and personal purchase” journey. In other words, the odds
Mixed 130 51 181 (53.5%) to carry out a mixed search and to finalize the purchase on personal
Total 211 (62.4%) 127 (37.6%) 338 channels (as opposed to a journey which is only focused on the personal
channels) are higher in the presence of younger customers, who are
Pearson Chi-Square ¼ 181.836, Sig. ¼ 0.000.
more intensively involved in shopping activities, and which show higher
needs for “information” and “convenience” and a lower preference for
channels, and namely in the agent channel, that raises key questions: “personal contact”. This is consistent with the hypotheses H1b (infor­
what accounts for the different finalization of the “mixed search” mation), H1d (convenience) and H1g (personal contact) and is in line
customer journeys? And, further, what are the determinants of the fully with the findings of previous research, where motor insurance con­
digital and fully personal journeys? The last step of our analysis is aimed sumers are found to browse and surf on comparison websites in the
at answering to these questions. This is done by carrying out a multi­ search phase (webrooming), but rather prefer to use a personal channel
nomial logistic regression. In so doing, we will test the hypotheses for the purchase stage (Barwitz and Maas, 2018).
introduced in section 3. The regression results, where the “fully per­ Our multinomial regression provides also interesting insights on the
sonal” journey has been used as the reference category, are reported in other customer journeys. In particular, when we focus on the journeys
Table 6. that are finalized with a digital purchase (“mixed search and digital
The results of our regression can be interpreted as follows. In relation purchase” and “fully digital”) we see they are highly affected by channel
experience effects (and namely by the purchase channel selected at T0
and by the event of reporting an accident). In particular, the purchase
Table 6 channel selected at T0 becomes the most relevant explanatory variable
Customer journey determinants: Multinomial logistic regression. to infer the customer journey at T1, thus, supporting H2a. Further, we
Mixed search Mixed search and Fully digital find that a higher preference for “shopping innovation” (Exp(B) ¼
and personal digital purchase journey 1.790) and a lower preference for “personal contact” (Exp(B) ¼ 0.662)
purchase
increase the odds of following a multichannel “mixed search and digital
Sig. Exp Sig. Exp (B) Sig. Exp purchase” journey (this is supporting H1f and H1g), while a lower
(B) (B)
preference for “personal contact” (Exp(B) ¼ 0.539) and the lack of
Intercept 0.200 0.694 0.550 “reporting of accidents at T0” (Exp(B) ¼ 0.235) will direct the customer
Age 0.052a 0.170 0.355 0.274 0.796 1.534 towards a fully digital journey (which supports H1g and H2c). Hy­
Gender 0.132 1.714 0.175 2.140 0.053a 3.757
Enjoyment 0.419 1.181 0.115 1.611 0.149 1.634
potheses H1a, H1c, H1e, and H2b are not supported in this study, which
Information 0.019b 1.468 0.260 1.344 0.996 0.999 means that shopping enjoyment, service quality, price consciousness,
Innovativeness 0.116 1.319 0.025b 1.790 0.204 1.460 the cost of the insurance policy at T0 and the change of the insured car
Convenience 0.062a 1.336 0.360 1.253 0.885 0.958 do not show significant effects on motor insurance customer journeys.
Personal contact 0.038b 0.772 0.099a 0.662 0.045b 0.539
Service 0.934 0.987 0.907 0.971 0.770 0.918
Price 0.275 0.841 0.818 0.945 0.551 0.842 6. Discussion and conclusions
Time pressure 0.262 0.823 0.164 0.797 0.213 0.689
Shopping level 0.016b 1.821 0.520 1.272 0.930 0.964 Our research was aimed at responding to a call for further studies on
Distance to store 0.705 0.858 0.652 1.311 0.297 0.418 multichannel shopping behavior (Verhoef et al., 2007) through an
Digital purchase at 0.258 2.620 0.000c 103.341 0.000c 1894.8
T0
investigation of channel interdependencies and the testing of a set of
Purchasing cost at 0.573 1.112 0.962 0.987 0.310 0.710 hypotheses on the determinants of multichannel customer journeys. Our
T0 research interest has been initially raised by the empirical observation of
Change of car at T0 0.846 1.088 0.386 1.765 0.634 1.448 the non-life insurance markets, where - despite a long-standing evolu­
Reporting of 0.697 1.155 0.362 0.567 0.053a 0.235
tion of the distribution channels and the pervasive introduction of dig­
Accident at T0
ital technologies and media to support the customer information search -
Reference category: fully personal journey (search and purchase on personal a majority of shopping journeys are still finalized through the personal
channels). -2 Log Likelihood ¼ 554.732, Chi-Square ¼ 344.869, Sig. ¼ 0.000. and traditional channels, i.e. the agents (Insurance Europe, 2019). Little
a
Coefficient is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed).
b
is currently known – in this industry - about this “webrooming” effect
Coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
c (searching online and buying offline), as the insurers can only collect
Coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

8
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna
data related to the purchases but have little visibility and knowledge
about the search efforts which brought a customer to the purchase. The
empirical evidence we have collected is quite meaningful in this respect:
more than 84% of the searches through the agent channels are also
finalized with a purchase, where only 22% of the searches through web
aggregators and 9% through corporate web apps, are eventually
generating a purchase transaction. In other words, despite a growing
tendency of customers to follow sophisticated search patterns, by using
multiple search channels simultaneously and taking full advantage of
the newly developed digital channels (both corporate and independent),
customers show an enduring preference to finalize their journey (i.e. to
purchase the motor policy) from the personal channels, and namely
from the insurance agents. Following the above, our main research aim
has been to confirm, understand and derive theoretical and managerial
implications from this relatively unexpected and underexplored
phenomenon.
Our specific research questions have been derived from the above­
mentioned research aim: in a world where customers are free to move
along different journeys, and free to follow - without impediments - their
preferences and needs, rather than being subject to the impositions of
the sellers, what are the specific drivers of their decisions, and how can
companies predict the specific channels where customers will ultimately
finalize their purchase? And in the light of the different possible com­
binations of search and purchase channels, which may lead to different
“research shopping” outcomes, such as the showrooming and
webrooming effects, what are the factors/variables that mostly influ­
ence the selection of a specific shopping journey? And what can the
seller organizations do - within a multichannel context - to exert a higher
influence on a specific shopping outcome?
The above questions have been addressed in this paper through a
new categorization of the different customer journeysand a more gran­
ular profiling of the psychographic traits of the customer, combined with
the acknowledgement of the different channel synergy effects, which we
have included in our empirical model to derive and test our set of
hypotheses.
Based on our findings, we have collected clear evidence that most
insurance customers adopt multichannel behaviors, i.e., they purchase
from one specific channel only after having extensively searched from a
set of alternative channels. However, most of the customer journeys,
although initiated through a mixed search, are still finalized in the
personal channels (namely, the agents). This is interesting when asso­
ciated to the enormous efforts made by the insurance companies to
develop their digital channels and also in the light of the fact that a
growing number of insurance customers are utilizing multiple digital
channels for their information search. This combination of low con­
version rates and high intensity, by the customer, in the use of digital
channels represents a peculiar, and somehow counterintuitive, finding,
which justifies our analytical effort.
The testing of our hypotheses has confirmed that multichannel
journeys have different psychographic determinants: on the one side,
they may reflect the customer need to collect more information, relevant
for the shopping decision; on the other side, they reflect the customer
preference for shopping innovation, i.e., the willingness to search and
purchase new products and to have new experiences; further, they may
be driven by the preference for convenience (need to minimize the time
and effort required for shopping); lastly, a multichannel journey may be
positively associated with customer’s high shopping level. Finally, with
reference to the enduring tendency - within a multichannel journey - to
finalize the purchase with an insurance agent, as opposed to a digital
channel, the discriminant variable appears to be the customers’ prefer­
ence for shopping convenience.
Overall, our findings have evident implications for retail strategies
and management. While our data confirm that insurance customers keep
buying mostly from the traditional channels (with the agents holding the
highest share: i.e. more than 54% of the cases), they also show very
varied and intense search patterns beneath the purchase level,
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022
particularly in the digital channel. Webrooming effects, whereby digital
channels are not generating lots of purchases but are nevertheless acti­
vated several times, mostly for information search, and in combination
with other, potentially competing, channels, shall be properly managed
by insurers. This is a first important indication for the insurers, who are
currently engaged in a significant effort to transfer the selling trans­
actions towards the digital channels. In the light of our findings, these
efforts might be less effective than expected and must be carefully
addressed and assessed. In other words, if read through the lenses of the
finalized transactions (actual purchases), insurers may be led to the
conclusion that the digital channels are much less productive than the
personal ones. However, this conclusion is wrong, as it doesn’t take into
account the significant positive synergies between channels and the
instrumental role of the digital search channels for the subsequent
purchase decisions.
The clear implications of the above is the need, for the insurance
companies, to better understand the variety of multichannel customer
behaviors in the different shopping phases (search and purchase) and to
provide the customers with a complete freedom to walk across the
different channels available and to finalize their purchases wherever
they prefer, without any friction and any burden in terms of incremental
transaction costs, thus maximizing their shopping convenience. To cope
with the evolving customer’s expectations in term of information
availability and richness, it is important that the insurers quickly adopt a
truly multichannel approach in retailing, providing the customers the
needed information and purchasing options throughout all the available
channels. In other words, companies shall not focus only on the channels
where most of the purchases are finalized, and must, instead, leverage
on all the options available for providing customers with seamless
transition opportunities between channels, aimed at reducing any
possible negative channel synergies and lock-in effects (Homburg et al.,
2017; Verhoef et al., 2007).
The flexibility allowed to the customers must, at the same time, be
complemented with a clear understanding of the specific functions and
features of the different channels within a corporate multiple channel
retail strategy. In particular, insurers shall be able to optimize their
multichannel strategy by defining the quantity and quality of informa­
tion available on each channel, determining the right level of comple­
mentarity among channels as well as the right channel ownership
structure, the width and depth of the assortment of services available
and the level of customer service provided (i.e., personal vs. virtual
assistance). Furthermore, insurers must also encourage, through a new
design of the economic incentive systems, the traditional channels
(agents) to develop stronger positive synergies with the new digital
channels, so to allow customers to maximize shopping convenience also
along “digitally finalized” or “fully digital” journeys, thus leveraging in
full the huge search potential offered by the new channels. At the
moment, the insurance agents seem not to have a clear incentive in
reversing this (for them) favorable situation, which may impede the
effective implementation, by the insurance companies, of newly
conceived omnichannel strategies. Overall, it is becoming more and
more important for insurers, and for retailers of any market, to provide
customers with a consistent and integrated journey, where the different
channels are not left to the customer’s independent and individual
integration but are, rather, combined and put at work synergistically by
the retailers and fully aligned to the expected customer experience and
shopping performance, in accordance to her/his personal preferences
and traits.
Further, our findings highlight the possibility for the insurers to
better profile and segment their customers, either current or potential.
Through this segmentation, which can be based on our set of psycho­
graphic variables, and may also include our other covariates (channel
experience, situational and demographic), insurance companies will
better predict their customers’ behavior, even at an early stage of the
shopping journey. By surveying existing, new and potential customers,
based on channel/product experience and psychographic traits, and
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna
using the available customer relationship data (CRM) for an early-stage
segmentation of customers, companies would be able to predict shop­
ping behaviors, so to better target and reinforce their marketing stra­
tegies and channel management practices, thus identifying the best
actions aimed at improving the overall search-to-purchase conversion
rates and, eventually, increasing the customer retention rates, which are
historically low in the industry.
As most research, ours too suffers of several limitations, starting from
the survey population selected (MBA graduates), which is far from
reflecting the general population of insurance customers. However, our
intention wasn’t to make any general inference on the profile and
behavior of insurance customers. Rather, our aim was to shed light on
the diverse search channels available and to identify a possible frame­
work for the classification of customer journeys and the understanding
of their determinants. In this respect, our findings, although provisional,
offer interesting empirical evidence to the academic community which
could be useful also in other industry settings. In particular, the fact that
a majority of shopping journeys are still finalized through the personal
and traditional channels, i.e. the agent - which we might have explained
with the intrinsic complexity of the products and with the need to refer
to a trustable intermediary – has been surprisingly detected also within
our sample of more educated persons. These results have further
increased our determination to search and identify other possible ex­
planations for this webrooming effect, which we have found in the
psychographic traits of customers (and the channel experience effects),
rather than in the personal level of education and disposable income.
However, for the specific nature of the sample utilized, we are also
aware that our findings cannot be fully generalized. Other limitations
pertain to the methodology utilized: compared to our cross-sectional
study, a panel-based, longitudinal study would have better addressed
our research on shopping journeys, but at the expense of its feasibility.
Another limitation is related to the evolutionary nature of customer
behaviors and to the ongoing changes in the shopping channels. We
know that channel choices change over time (Valentini et al., 2011) and
that the drivers of such evolution shall not be found only at the
behavioral level, but also pertain to the exogenous evolution of tech­
nological and sociological variables. Such dimensions have not been
explicitly considered in our research. Further, our research was mostly
aimed at describing multichannel shopping behavior and its de­
terminants, and wasn’t directed to the assessment of the desirability of
such behaviors, particularly from the perspective of the seller: How is a
multichannel journey related to the seller’s economic performance? Is
such a shopping behavior beneficial for the seller? Recent studies
maintain that multichannel shopping is associated with higher customer
profitability and to higher brand loyalty (Frasquet and Miquel, 2017).
Future research could further explore tthe above questions, in relation to
the different customer journeys and to different products and markets.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., Wood, S., 1997.
Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to
participate in electronic marketplaces. J. Mark. 61 (3), 38–53. https://doi.org/
10.1177/002224299706100303.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022
Anderl, E., Becker, I., von Wangenheim, F., Schumann, J.H., 2016. Mapping the customer
journey: lessons learned from graph-based online attribution modeling. Int. J. Res.
Mark. 33 (3), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.03.001.
Ansari, A., Mela, C.F., Neslin, S.A., 2008. Customer channel migration. J. Mark. Res. 45
(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.1.060.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G.B., 2002. The influence of multiple store
environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions.
J. Mark. 66 (2), 120–141. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.2.120.18470.
Balasubramanian, S., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., 2005. Consumers in a multichannel
environment: product utility, process utility, and channel choice. J. Interact. Mark.
19 (2), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20032.
Barwitz, N., Maas, P., 2018. Understanding the omnichannel customer journey:
determinants of interaction choice. J. Interact. Mark. 43, 116–133. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.intmar.2018.02.001.
Beckett, A., Hewer, P., Howcroft, B., 2000. An exposition of consumer behaviour in the
financial services industry. Int. J. Bank Mark. 18 (1), 15–26. https://doi.org/
10.1108/02652320010315325.
Belk, R.W., 1974. An exploratory assessment of situational effects in buyer behavior.
J. Mark. Res. 11 (2), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377401100206.
Bell, D.R., Gallino, S., Moreno, A., 2014. How to win in an omnichannel world. MIT
Sloan Manag. Rev. 56, 45–53.
Bell, D.R., Gallino, S., Moreno, A., 2017. Offline showrooms in omnichannel retail:
demand and operational benefits. Manag. Sci. 64 (4), 1629–1651. https://doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.2016.2684.
Black, N.J., Lockett, A., Ennew, C., Winklhofer, H., McKechnie, S., 2002. Modelling
consumer choice of distribution channels: an illustration from financial services. Int.
J. Bank Mark. 20 (4), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320210432945.
Buhler, P., Eling, M., Maas, P., Milanova, V., 2016. The Consumer’s View of Consumer
Protection; an Empirical Study of the Swiss Insurance Market. Institute of Insurance
Economics, St. Gallen.
Cambra-Fierro, J., Kamakura, W.A., Melero-Polo, I., Sese, F.J., 2016. Are multichannel
customers really more valuable? An analysis of banking services. Int. J. Res. Mark.
33 (1), 208–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.12.007.
Cho, S., Workman, J., 2011. Gender, fashion innovativeness and opinion leadership, and
need for touch: effects on multi-channel choice and touch/non-touch preference in
clothing shopping. J. Fash. Mark. Manag.: Int. J. 15 (3), 363–382. https://doi.org/
10.1108/13612021111151941.
Chocarro, R., Corti~ nas, M., Villanueva, M.-L., 2013. Situational variables in online versus
offline channel choice. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 12 (5), 347–361. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.03.004.
Choudhury, V., Karahanna, E., 2008. The relative advantage of electronic channels: a
multidimensional view. MIS Q. 32 (1), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148833.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R., Cowles, D., 1990. Relationship quality in services selling: an
interpersonal influence perspective. J. Mark. 54 (3), 68–81. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1251817.
De Keyser, A., Schepers, J., Konuş, U., 2015. Multichannel customer segmentation: does
the after-sales channel matter? A replication and extension. Int. J. Res. Mark. 32 (4),
453–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.09.005.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., 1990. Consumer Behavior. Dryden Press.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/
10.1177/002224378101800104.
Forsythe, S., Liu, C., Shannon, D., Gardner, L.C., 2006. Development of a scale to
measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping. J. Interact. Mark. 20
(2), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20061.
Frambach, R.T., Roest, H.C.A., Krishnan, T.V., 2007. The impact of consumer Internet
experience on channel preference and usage intentions across the different stages of
the buying process. J. Interact. Mark. 21 (2), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/
dir.20079.
Frasquet, M., Miquel, M.-J., 2017. Do channel integration efforts pay-off in terms of
online and offline customer loyalty? Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 45 (7/8), 859–873.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2016-0175.
Frasquet, M., Leva, M., Ziliani, C., 2019. Understanding complaint channel usage in
multichannel retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 94–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.007.
Gensler, S., Leeflang, P., Skiera, B., 2012. Impact of online channel use on customer
revenues and costs to serve: considering product portfolios and self-selection. Int. J.
Res. Mark. 29 (2), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.09.004.
Goldsmith, R.E., Hofacker, C.F., 1991. Measuring consumer innovativeness. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 19 (3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039101900306.
Gupta, A., Su, B., Walter, Z., 2004. An empirical study of consumer switching from
traditional to electronic channels: a purchase-decision process perspective. Int. J.
Electron. Commer. 8 (3), 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10864415.2004.11044302.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2016. A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Second ed. SAGE, Los Angeles.
Harris, P., Dall’Olmo Riley, F., Hand, C., 2018. Understanding multichannel shopper
journey configuration: an application of goal theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 44,
108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.06.005.
Homburg, C., Jozi�c, D., Kuehnl, C., 2017. Customer experience management: toward
implementing an evolving marketing concept. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 45 (3), 377–401.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0460-7.
Hoque, A.Y., Lohse, G.L., 1999. An information search cost perspective for designing
interfaces for electronic commerce. J. Mark. Res. 36 (3), 387–394. https://doi.org/
10.1177/002224379903600307.
T.-I. Hu and A. Tracogna
Howard, J.A., 1989. Consumer Behavior in Marketing Strategy. Prentice Hall.
Inman, J.J., Shankar, V., Ferraro, R., 2004. The roles of channel-category associations
and geodemographics in channel patronage. J. Mark. 68 (2), 51–71. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkg.68.2.51.27789.
Insurance Europe, 2019. Key facts 2019. Brussels. Accessed on, at. https://www.insuran
ceeurope.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/European%20insurance%20-%20Key
%20facts.pdf. (Accessed 7 December 2019).
Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A., Sierra Murillo, Y., 2016. Omnichannel customer
behavior: key drivers of technology acceptance and use and their effects on purchase
intention. Front. Psychol. 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01117,
1117.
Kankainen, A., Vaajakallio, K., Kantola, V., Mattelm€ aki, T., 2012. Storytelling group – a
co-design method for service design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 31 (3), 221–230. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.563794.
Kleijnen, M., Ruyter, K. de, Wetzels, M., 2007. An assessment of value creation in mobile
service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness. J. Retail. 83 (1),
33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2006.10.004.
Konuş, U., Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., 2008. Multichannel shopper segments and their
covariates. J. Retail. 84 (4), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.09.002.
Konuş, U., Neslin, S.A., Verhoef, P.C., 2014. The effect of search channel elimination on
purchase incidence, order size and channel choice. Int. J. Res. Mark. 31 (1), 49–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.07.008.
Kumar, V., Venkatesan, R., 2005. Who are the multichannel shoppers and how do they
perform? Correlates of multichannel shopping behavior. J. Interact. Mark. 19 (2),
44–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20034.
Lee, H., Kim, J., 2008. The effects of shopping orientations on consumers’ satisfaction
with product search and purchases in a multi-channel environment. J. Fash. Mark.
Manag.: Int. J. 12 (2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020810874881.
Lee, L., Inman, J.J., Argo, J.J., B€ottger, T., Dholakia, U., Gilbride, T., et al., 2018. From
browsing to buying and beyond: the needs-adaptive shopper journey model. Journal
of the Association for Consumer Research 3 (3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/
698414.
Leenders, M.A.A.M., Smidts, A., Haji, A.E., 2019. Ambient scent as a mood inducer in
supermarkets: the role of scent intensity and time-pressure of shoppers. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 48, 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.05.007.
Lemon, K.N., Verhoef, P.C., 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the
customer journey. J. Mark. 80 (6), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420.
Lewis, J., Whysall, P., Foster, C., 2014. Drivers and technology-related obstacles in
moving to multichannel retailing. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 18 (4), 43–68. https://
doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415180402.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1990. Distinguishing coupon proneness
from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective.
J. Mark. 54 (3), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400305.
McGoldrick, P.J., Collins, N., 2007. Multichannel retailing: profiling the multichannel
shopper. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 17 (2), 139–158. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09593960701189937.
Melis, K., Campo, K., Breugelmans, E., Lamey, L., 2015. The impact of the multi-channel
retail mix on online store choice: does online experience matter? J. Retail. 91 (2),
272–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.12.004.
Midgley, D.F., Dowling, G.R., 1978. Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement.
J. Consum. Res. 4 (4), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1086/208701.
Nakano, S., Kondo, F.N., 2018. Customer segmentation with purchase channels and
media touchpoints using single source panel data. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 41,
142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.012.
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
management. J. Serv. Res. 9 (2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1094670506293559.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory, third ed. McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 12–40.
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102022
Park, J., Kim, R.B., 2018. A new approach to segmenting multichannel shoppers in Korea
and the U.S. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 45, 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2018.09.007.
Pauwels, K., Dans, E., 2001. Internet marketing the news: leveraging brand equity from
marketplace to marketspace. J. Brand Manag. 8 (4), 303–314. https://doi.org/
10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540030.
Pauwels, K., Leeflang, P.S.H., Teerling, M.L., Huizingh, K.R.E., 2011. Does online
information drive offline revenues? Only for specific products and consumer
segments! J. Retail. 87 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2010.10.001.
Piotrowicz, W., Cuthbertson, R., 2014. Introduction to the special issue information
technology in retail: toward omnichannel retailing. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 18 (4),
5–16. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415180400.
Rangaswamy, A., Van Bruggen, G.H., 2005. Opportunities and challenges in
multichannel marketing: an introduction to the special issue. J. Interact. Mark. 19
(2), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20037.
Ratchford, B.T., Talukdar, D., Lee, M.-S., 2001. A model of consumer choice of the
internet as an information source. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 5 (3), 7–21. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10864415.2001.11044217.
Ripp�e, C.B., Sussan, F., Yurova, Y., Weisfeld-Spolter, S., 2015. Is there a global
multichannel consumer? Int. Mark. Rev. 32 (3/4), 329–349. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IMR-10-2013-0225.
Saghiri, S.S., Bernon, M., Bourlakis, M., Wilding, R., 2018. Omni-channel logistics special
issue. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 48 (4), 362–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPDLM-05-2018-361.
Schoenbachler, D.D., Gordon, G.L., 2002. Multi-channel shopping: understanding what
drives channel choice. J. Consum. Mark. 19 (1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/
07363760210414943.
Thomas, J.S., Sullivan, U.Y., 2005. Managing marketing communications with
multichannel customers. J. Mark. 69 (4), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1509/
jmkg.2005.69.4.239.
Valentini, S., Montaguti, E., Neslin, S.A., 2011. Decision process evolution in customer
channel choice. J. Mark. 75 (6), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0362.
Van Bruggen, G.H., Antia, K.D., Jap, S.D., Reinartz, W.J., Pallas, F., 2010. Managing
marketing channel multiplicity. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 331–340. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1094670510375601.
Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V., Ravishanker, N., 2007. Multichannel shopping: causes and
consequences. J. Mark. 71 (2), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.2.114.
Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., Vroomen, B., 2007. Multichannel customer management:
understanding the research-shopper phenomenon. Int. J. Res. Mark. 24 (2),
129–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.11.002.
Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K., Inman, J.J., 2015. From multi-channel retailing to omni-
channel retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing.
J. Retail. 91 (2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.005.
Weinberg, B.D., Parise, S., Guinan, P.J., 2007. Multichannel marketing: mindset and
program development. Bus. Horiz. 50 (5), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2007.04.002.
Wind, Y., Mahajan, V., 2002. Convergence marketing. J. Interact. Mark. 16 (2), 64–79.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.10009.
Yu, U.-J., Niehm, L.S., Russell, D.W., 2011. Exploring perceived channel price, quality,
and value as antecedents of channel choice and usage in multichannel shopping.
J. Mark. Channels 18 (2), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1046669X.2011.558826.
Yurova, Y., Ripp�e, C.B., Weisfeld-Spolter, S., Sussan, F., Arndt, A., 2017. Not all adaptive
selling to omni-consumers is influential: the moderating effect of product type.
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 34, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2016.01.009.
Zhang, J., Farris, P.W., Irvin, J.W., Kushwaha, T., Steenburgh, T.J., Weitz, B.A., 2010.
Crafting integrated multichannel retailing strategies. J. Interact. Mark. 24 (2),
168–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2010.02.002.
Zomerdijk, L.G., Voss, C.A., 2010. Service design for experience-centric services. J. Serv.
Res. 13 (1), 67–82.