Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretai

The omnichannel continuum: Integrating online and offline channels

along the customer journey ✩
Scott A. Neslin1
Tuck School of Business, 100 Tuck Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, USA
Available online 17 February 2022

Abstract
This paper provides a framework for conceptualizing omnichannel integration as a continuum, identifies phenomena that determine how
firms should position along that continuum, and summarizes empirical research regarding these phenomena. The framework combines the
customer journey (search to purchase to aftersales) and channel choice (online vs. offline). This generates a range of omnichannel strategies,
anchored by “Unconnected” on one extreme and “Complete” on the other. In between, “Vertical” strategies integrate channels over the
customer journey, while “Horizontal” strategies integrate across channels at a given stage in the customer journey. We draw on more than 200
articles to identify 10 consumer and marketing phenomena (“determinants”) that influence where a firm should position along the continuum.
This however raises challenges. For example, empirical research surprisingly finds many customers belong to an offline-focused segment.
This suggests a Vertical strategy linking offline channels. However, today’s turbulent retail environment questions whether the offline-focused
segment will endure. Should the retailer cater to offline-focused customers or facilitate their progression to “multichannelism”? Another
finding is that consumers strongly prefer consistency across channels. This suggests a Horizontal strategy. However, consistency might
create channel cannibalization. How can the retailer avoid this? We discuss these and several other findings regarding the impact of the
10 determinants on omnichannel continuum strategy. We identify issues researchers need to research and managers need to consider when
developing omnichannel continuum strategy.
© 2022 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multichannel; Omnichannel; Channel integration; Customer journey; Online and offline channels.

Introduction
Omnichannel marketing is de rigueur today, as retailers
strive to provide consumers a “seamless” multichannel expe-
rience (Verhoef, Kannan, and Inman 2015). Channel prolifer-
ation coupled with customers’ access to these channels sug-
gests retailers should integrate them. Smart Insights (2018) re-
ports that 74% of managers believe omnichannel is important,
fairly important, or very important. However, successful om-
nichannel marketing has been elusive. eMarketer (2019) re-
ports that only 3% of retailers have all channels “connected”,
23% have most or half connected, 53% have a few chan-
✩ The author is grateful to the Co-Editors – Professors Russell Winer and
Raj Sethuraman – and to three anonymous reviewers for their insights and
suggestions.
E-mail address: scott.neslin@dartmouth.edu.
1 Albert Wesley Frey Professor of Marketing
nels connected, and 21% do not have any channels con-
nected. Revenue Insights (2020) reports over-investment in
systems that provide consumers with convenience, but con-
tends that consumers want more than convenience. They
want low prices, good product, and a good shopping expe-
rience. Forbes (2018) suggests omnichannel spreads compa-
nies too thin and can be prohibitively expensive. There are
vivid examples. Campbell and Frei (2010) found as a re-
tail bank integrated new online channels, it reduced profits
because these channels increased customer activity and in-
creased costs. Restaurants are tempted to list on home deliv-
ery apps that immediately increase exposure, but at the ex-
pense of high commissions charged by these apps (ABC News
2021).
The above suggests omnichannel integration has met with
mixed success. Clearly, the field needs guidelines for how
to develop and implement omnichannel strategy. Researchers
have undertaken empirical studies that are relevant to this

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2022.02.003
0022-4359/© 2022 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
S.A. Neslin
need. The time is opportune to take stock of what we have
learned and what needs further work. It is also an auspicious
time to organize that research into a framework for research-
ing and managing omnichannel integration.
The framework we develop portrays omnichannel mar-
keting as a continuum of strategies (Emrich et al., 2015b;
Cao and Li, 2015). The continuum ranges from “Uncon-
nected”, the antithesis of omnichannel, to “Complete”, where
the retailer integrates all channels over the course of the cus-
tomer journey. Accordingly, the objectives of this research
are:
• Propose a simple but powerful conceptual framework – the
omnichannel continuum.
• Review empirical literature to identify key phenomena
(“determinants”) that have implications for how firms
should position along the omnichannel continuum.
• Discuss what we have learned from this empirical research
and the implications for omnichannel strategy.
• Identify both substantive and methodological paths for fu-
ture research.
We address these objectives by undertaking an extensive
review of previous research. We first present the proposed
framework, based on research in the multichannel domain.
Next we discuss the literature review and use it to identify
the key marketing determinants. We then review what research
has revealed about each. We conclude with a discussion of
future research, and propose a resource-based view of imple-
mentation to identify more research opportunities.
Framework
The proposed framework consists of two elements that
have pervaded omnichannel research: the consumer decision
process and the distinction between online and offline chan-
nels. Verhoef et al. (2015) note there are many sub-channels
beneath the online and offline umbrellas. However, the online
/ offline distinction is fundamental in multichannel customer
research (e.g., Herhausen et al. 2015; Kollmann, Kuckertz,
and Kayser 2012; Valentini, Neslin, and Montaguti 2020).
Based on theories of customer decision-making (e.g.,
Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell 1968), researchers have focused
on three stages in the consumer’s decision process: (1) in-
formation search, (2) purchase, and (3) aftersales support
(Berry et al. 2010; Gensler, Verhoef, and Böhm 2012; Nes-
lin et al. 2006). This search/purchase/aftersales process mir-
rors the “customer journey” (Lemon and Verhoef 2016).
The three-stage consumer decision process and the on-
line/offline distinction yield six process/channel combina-
tions. Fig. 1 portrays them within each of four architype
omnichannel integration strategies. The anchor is the “Un-
connected” strategy, where firms manage online and offline
in silos and make no effort to orchestrate the consumer’s
search=>purchase=>aftersales journey. On the other end is
the “Complete” strategy, integrating online and offline chan-
nels as well as all stages of the decision process.
112
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
Three points warrant attention. First, we adopt Cao and
Li’s (2015, p. 200) definition of integration: “the degree to
which a firm coordinates the objectives, design, and deploy-
ment” of its channels. “Coordination” is the core idea.2 For
example, letting customers purchase online and make returns
at the physical store coordinates online and offline for pur-
chase and aftersales. Second, Fig. 1 suggests Vertical is more
integrated than Horizontal. This is subjective; it simply re-
flects there are more connections to manage in the Vertical
strategy. Third, there are hybrid strategies. The firm might
vertically integrate online search and purchase, and then hor-
izontally integrate online and offline aftersales support. We
elaborate on the four architypes:
Unconnected strategy: Here there is no coordination be-
tween online and offline; no attempt to guide the customer
journey. The benefit to the firm of the Unconnected strategy
is low cost – financial and organizational. The disadvantage
is lost opportunity to make the customer experience easier,
more tailored to their needs, hence more satisfactory. An ex-
ample is FX’s recent handling of its “American Crime” series
(New York Times 2021). FX aired a much-ballyhooed episode
on its FX cable TV channel, and sold Netflix the rights to air
the episode one year after FX did. This preserved the exclu-
sivity of the FX cable channel. However, from the customer
perspective (what really matters), the channels were not inte-
grated.
Horizontal strategy: Here the firm strongly integrates on-
line and offline channels at each stage of the consumer deci-
sion process. It can make it easy for the customer to search
online or offline by including computer terminals in-store. It
can let customers pay for the product online but pick it up
in-store. Its website can offer guidance regarding simple cus-
tomer questions, but route the customer to an agent for more
complicated questions. Under the Horizontal strategy, chan-
nels are highly coordinated within decision stage, but the firm
does not try to influence for example which channel the in-
store (offline) searcher subsequently uses to make the pur-
chase. The company saves money this way. It does not have
to provide incentives or invest in technology to encourage
customers to use particular channels as they progress from
one stage of their decision process to the next. The horizon-
tal strategy is exemplified by Walmart’s success integrating
their physical and online stores (CNBC 2019).
Vertical strategy: In this case, the retailer makes it easy for
consumers to continue on the same channel or switch chan-
nels as they progress through the decision process. The firm
might design the website to encourage customers to search,
purchase, and get post-purchase support all online. The web-
site might remember customers’ credit card and shipping ad-
dress to encourage online searchers to complete the purchase
online, and provide them with an order number they can use
to access aftersales help offline. An offline fully Vertical strat-
egy would leverage sales reps to “nurse” the customer through
2 Verhoef et al (2017) use the phrase “synergistic management”, which also
connotes coordination.
S.A. Neslin
Fig. 1. Omnichannel continuum framework with basic strategies.
information gathering, purchase, and aftersales support. One
advantage of the Vertical strategy is it can cater to the needs
of “offline” and “online” segments. The disadvantage is it
can frustrate customers if they find channels are not inte-
grated horizontally. For example, the online buyer may first
look for aftersales support online, but not finding it, contact
the store. However, website and store are not horizontally in-
tegrated – the store agent has no idea where the customer is
coming from. Amazon is the exemplar of the vertical strategy,
focused on integrating the online channel. Amazon provides
an easily searchable website and remembers previous pur-
chases so customers can conveniently repurchase. It provides
many aftersales shipping options. Interestingly, Amazon also
has been trying to integrate horizontally with physical stores
(CNN 2021).
Complete strategy: This is the ultimate omnichannel strat-
egy, combining Vertical and Horizontal strategies. The benefit
is a fully satisfying shopping experience for the customer. All
channels are highly coordinated over all stages of the cus-
tomer journey. Later we will review research that links con-
sumer perceptions of integration to loyalty. The disadvantage
is cost, especially if the firm does not have the capabilities
to implement it. We later propose a resource-based view of
implementation for future research. It is difficult for a re-
tailer to implement the Complete strategy perfectly, but Best
Buy comes close (Chain Store Age 2017). For example, it
leverages its sales associates to forestall competitive “show-
rooming” (Gensler, Neslin, and Verhoef 2017).
Overall, the value of the omnichannel continuum is it sug-
gests myriad omnichannel tactics and strategies. Under the
Vertical strategy, the firm can design very different online
and offline channels. The offline channel can excel at highly
personalized service that transitions the customer seamlessly
from search to purchase to aftersales. The online channel
can emphasize convenience and efficiency. Or, the firm could
113
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
adopt a Horizontal strategy, where customers easily can use
either or both channels throughout their decision process. In
conventional parlance, “omnichannel” often implies the Com-
plete strategy. The intermediate strategies – Horizontal and
Vertical – identify additional opportunities.
The manager’s job is to devise a strategy from the many
choices offered by the omnichannel continuum. The re-
searcher’s job is to provide guidance on this matter. That
feeds our key objectives of identifying key determinants that
influence how firms should locate along the omnichannel con-
tinuum, and reviewing empirical research about them.
Identifying empirically-researched determinants
The key determinants need to fulfill two requirements: (1)
They must have important implications for omnichannel in-
tegration, and (2) there must be a critical mass of empirical
research that sheds light on these implications. We generated
an initial list of 18 determinants based on our a priori knowl-
edge of the field and its literature, and refined it to a final list
of 10 after a keyword literature search.3
We generated articles from: (1) our initial knowledge of the
field, (2) a keyword search, and (3) “snowballing”. The key-
words were: “omnichannel”, “multichannel” ,4 “omnichannel
marketing”, “multichannel marketing”, “omnichannel integra-
tion”, and “multichannel integration”, conducted on EBSCO.
This yielded more than 960 articles. We found roughly 150 of
them to be relevant.5 Snowball articles are those cited by ar-
3 We thank the Editor and review team for suggesting a keyword literature
review. This produced the two-stage process that generated our final list.
4 “Multichannel” yielded 2310 articles but several of them referred to en-
gineering topics, etc. We eliminated this keyword.
5 The non-relevant articles often related to engineering topics (“channels”)
or focused on single-, not multi-channel, etc.
S.A. Neslin
ticles generated a priori or by keyword search. Altogether, we
utilized more than 200 articles generated by the three sources.
One could conceptualize our task was to develop a
grounded theory – theory being the determinants that relate
to omnichannel integration; data the research papers. Dunne
(2011; p. 118) notes one way to avoid injecting one’s pre-
conceived notions into this process is to write them down
before the formal literature review. Our process is consistent
with this perspective.
We divide the 10 determinants into “consumer behavior”
and “marketing”. The consumer behavior determinants are:
(1) consumer perceptions of integration, (2) the impact of
perceived integration on firm outcomes, (3) multichannel cus-
tomer profitability, (4) customer segmentation, and (5) re-
search shopping. The marketing determinants are: (6) adding
channels, (7) marketing cross effects, (8) inter-channel task
sharing, (9) harmonizing assortment, and (10) harmonizing
price. We proceed to discuss empirical research about each
determinant.
A review of key determinants of omnichannel
integration
Consumer behavior
Perceptions of Integration: The most basic question is how
do customers define integration – what are the perceptual at-
tributes of a firm’s omnichannel strategy that connote inte-
gration to consumers? Researchers need to understand this
to ensure they are studying omnichannel integration. Man-
agers need to understand this to avoid spending resources
on an “omnichannel” continuum strategy that fails to de-
liver integration from the customer’s perspective. Researchers
have investigated this question extensively, guided by frame-
works proposed by Sousa and Voss (2006) and Rodríguez-
Torrico et al. (2020).
Sousa and Voss identify four elements of “channel integra-
tion quality” (CIQ): (1) breadth, (2) transparency, (3) content
consistency, and (4) process consistency. Breadth is the ex-
tent to which various channels can support the same tasks. For
example, the customer can obtain aftersales support from the
call center or the website. Transparency means the customer
is aware of the existence and capabilities of each channel.
For example, Apple customers know they cannot walk into
an Apple store and walk out with an iPhone.
Content consistency means each channel communicates the
same information if queried, for example, both website and
call center give the same response to whether the product is
available in the physical store. Content consistency also refers
to the ability of the channel to retrieve the customer’s previous
transactions or actions. The store sales rep should be able to
look up this information, and the same information should
be available on the website. Process consistency is whether
channels are consistent in attributes related to the shopping
process, that is, look, feel, and service quality should be the
same for store, call center, and website.
114
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
Rodriguez-Torrico et al’s framework consists of three com-
ponents: (1) marketing mix consistency, (2) freedom, and (3)
synchronization. Marketing mix consistency means price, pro-
motion, products, and communication are the same for each
channel. Freedom is similar to Sousa and Voss’s breadth,
but entails consumer choice – consumers have the freedom
to choose what channel to use for each stage in their de-
cision process. Synchronization means customers can easily
switch channels to complete tasks or progress to the next de-
cision stage during their journey. Examples include customers
searching online but making the purchase in-store, and buying
online but picking up the product offline (BOPS).
Sousa and Voss, and Rodriguez-Torrico et al., generate
seven perceptual integration attributes. Gao et al. (2021b) add
an eighth, the degree to which Channels A and B work to-
gether. For example, the online channel may provide location
and contact information for the closest physical store to the
customer.
Table 1 summarizes 21 papers that measured consumer in-
tegration perceptions. Most use consumer surveys analyzed
by structural equation models (SEM). The surveys measure
items hypothesized to link to the attributes. SEM assesses the
validity of the attributes formed by these items. For example,
Huang, Lin, and Cheng (2019) measure Sousa and Voss’s
framework – breadth, transparency, content consistency, and
process consistency – and find convergent and discriminant
validity. Rodríguez-Torrico et al. (2020)) find the SEM load-
ings for their items are as hypothesized, and the higher order
constructs – freedom, marketing mix consistency, and syn-
chronization – are not highly correlated with each other.
In summary, key findings regarding consumer perceptions
of channel integration are:
• Perceptions can be measured successfully using surveys,
with ample evidence of face, convergent and discriminant
validity.
• Eight dimensions along which customers perceive integra-
tion are: (1) channel breadth and (2) transparency; (3) con-
sistent content, (4) process, and (5) marketing; (6) cus-
tomer freedom in choosing channels; (7) the extent to
which channels synchronize and (8) the extent to which
they work together, e.g., Channel A contains features that
make Channel B more effective.
Impact on outcomes: The next logical question is whether
these perceptions relate to outcomes. The answer from Ta-
ble 1 is a clear yes. All 21 papers found positive associations
between integration perceptions and favorable outcomes such
as loyalty. Most of these efforts draw on SEM or regression,
although Tyrväinen and Karjaluoto used semi-structured in-
terviews; Rodriguez-Torrico et al. utilize a lab experiment to
supplement their SEM. The key conclusion is that consumers
view channel integration as a good thing – to the extent a re-
tailer delivers breadth, transparency, etc., it will be rewarded
with favorable outcomes.
Most of the evidence draws on surveys that measure as-
sociations, not causality. Two non-causal explanations for the
 S.A. Neslin
Table 1
Consumer perceptions of integration and impact on loyalty.

Breadth Transparency Content Process Marketing Freedom Synchron- Working Impacton: Product
Consistency Consistency Consistency ization Together
Gao et al. (2021a) + + + Retention Varied
Gao et al. (2021b) + + + + Intent Retail
Rodriguez-Torrico et al. 20201 +, + +, + +, + n.s., + +, + Satisfact. Retail
Hossain et al. (2020) + + + + Value Banking
Shi et al. (2020) n.s. + + + n.s. n.s. + Intention Retail
Le and Nguyen-Le 2020 + + + + Intention Retail
Lee (2020) n.s. n.s. +, n.s.2 Intention Retail
Sun et al. (2020) + + + + Usage Restaurants
Huang et al. (2019) + n.s. + + Retention Retail
Hamouda (2019) + n.s. n.s. + Loyalty Banking
Lee et al. (2019) + + + + Intention Tech/FMCG
Tyrväinen and Karjaluoto 2019 + + + + Patronage Retail
Zhang et al. 2018 + +, n.s.2 n.s. + + +, n.s.2 Intention Retail
115

Li et al. (2018) + + + + Retention Retail

Shen et al. (2018) + + + + + Usage Restaurants
Huré et al. 2017 n.s. + n.s. Value Retail
Frasquet and Miquel 2017 + + + + Loyalty Apparel
Herhausen et al. (2015) + Choice Retail
Van Baal (2014) + Loyalty Retail
Schramm-Klein et al. 2011 + + + Loyalty Retail
Lee and Kim (2010) n.s. +, n.s.2 + n.s. +, n.s.2 Loyalty Retail
Breadth = can accomplish same task in different channels;.
Transparency = customer is aware of existence and capabilities of each channel;.
Content Consistency = customer can obtain same information from each channel; channel remembers what happened in other channels;.
Process Consistency = same feel, waiting time, etc., in each channel;.
Marketing Mix Consistency = price, promo, assortment the same across channels;.

Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132

Freedom = customer can choose any channel at any stage of the decision process;.
Synchronization = customer can switch channels to do different tasks;.
Working Together = Channel A informs customer about Channel B.
1 Research used both observational survey and controlled experiment. The first entry in each cell refers to the survey; the second to the experiment.
2 Some items were statistically significant; others were not.
S.A. Neslin
positive results are: (1) Customers who like the retailer buy
more, and integrated channels make life easier for them. The
relationship between perceptions and outcomes therefore is
driven by customers’ a priori loyalty to the firm. (2) Surveys
can generate demand effects. Consumers who favor the re-
tailer and hence have high loyalty, answer questions about
integration in a way to be consistent with their loyalty.
That noted, Table 1 is quite impressive. It suggests firms
should proceed far along the omnichannel continuum. The
attributes encompass both horizontal and vertical integration
and the uniformity of the positive relationship with outcomes
is encouraging for integration advocates. A much-needed test
would be a field experiment. For example, did Firm A im-
prove outcomes when it vertically integrated its online pur-
chase and offline aftersales support?
Additional research investigates mediators that translate
CIQ to outcomes. These include customer empowerment,
less uncertainty, increased switching costs, better fluency, and
higher customer engagement. Zhang et al. (2018) show high
CIQ makes customers feel they are empowered to take charge
of their shopping experience, with positive repercussions. Li
et al. (2018) show CIQ reduces customer uncertainty and in-
creases switching costs. Shen et al. (2018) demonstrate “flu-
ency” – the natural feeling of using the retailer’s channels –
is an important mediator. Lee et al. (2019) show customer
engagement serves as a mediator.
Van Baal (2014) identifies a double-edged sword to inte-
gration. He finds integration is associated with loyalty, but
increases short-term purchase cannibalization since the cus-
tomer can buy most products from any channel. Retailers need
to be careful about horizontal integration – they do not want
channels to be complete substitutes.
In summary, key findings regarding the relationship be-
tween consumer perceptions of integration and firm outcomes
are:
• Consumers view channel integration favorably; integration
perceptions are associated with customer loyalty, satisfac-
tion, retention, and sales levels.
• Both vertical and horizontal integration perceptions are as-
sociated with favorable outcomes.
• The relationship between integration and outcomes is me-
diated by factors such as customer empowerment, de-
creased uncertainty, and engagement.
Customer Profitability – the Multichannel Customer: One
of the most important findings in the multichannel literature
is the multichannel buyer is a more profitable customer. This
finding parallels the positive relationship between consumer
integration perceptions and outcomes. The difference is that
multichannel / profitability research uses customer transaction
data, while the perceptions work mostly uses surveys. If the
relationship is causal, the retailer’s task is apparent – create
more multichannel customers.
Multichannel buying might improve profitability due to:
(1) higher customer satisfaction and hence loyalty, (2) self-
selection, and (3) marketing (Blattberg, Kim, and Neslin
116
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
2008, p. 639). Multichannel customers use all the firm’s chan-
nels. This logically should make them more satisfied. Self-
selection says heavy users need more channels. They self-
select into being multichannel, so the relationship between
multichannel and profitability is associative, not causal. The
marketing argument is that multichannel customers get more
marketing since each channel has its own marketing (e.g.,
offline uses catalogs; online uses email) (Ansari, Mela, and
Neslin 2008).
Table 2 shows researchers have examined a variety of
industries, including retail, apparel, books, banking, B2B
computers, and grocery. Statistical modeling often involves
customer-level data and most studies attempt to control for
self-selection using for example propensity score matching
(PSM). Fewer studies control for marketing.
Key research that finds a positive relationship between
multichannel buying and profitability are Thomas and Sul-
livan (2005) and Kumar, Bezawada, and Trivedi (2018) in
retail, Montaguti, Neslin, and Valentini (2016) in books,
Venkatesan, Kumar, and Ravishanker (2007) in ap-
parel, Kumar and Venkatesan (2005) in B2B, and
Melis et al. (2016) in grocery. Montaguti et al. utilize a field
experiment to determine if marketing can create more mul-
tichannel customers and if so, does average customer prof-
itability increase. The answer is yes – the authors found that
direct marketing extolling the virtues of multichannel shop-
ping accomplished this. They thus provide causal evidence
for the multichannel / profitability relationship.
While the above suggests the default assumption should be
a positive multichannel / profit relationship, a significant body
of work suggests several factors moderate the relationship,
and it does not always turn out to be positive.
Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) confirmed that on average
multichannel customers are more profitable. However, profit
was higher among customers buying hedonic products and
lower among those buying utilitarian products. It makes sense
that buying hedonic products in multiple channels increases
satisfaction because customers can use one channel when they
are unsure of whether the product matches their needs, and
another when they are not unsure. Profits could decline if
the customer purchases utilitarian products because these pur-
chases are low involvement. Hence there is no increase in
satisfaction.
Another issue is long- versus short-term profitability.
Bilgicer et al. (2015) find the impact on profits lasts 2–3 years,
but eventually customers return to initial profitability levels.
This challenges managers to sustain multichannel customers’
satisfaction. Zhang, Chang, and Neslin (2021) suggest one
possibility. They find the physical store provides the engage-
ment customers need to buy products that require physical
examination, and this boosts customer profitability as well as
online purchasing. So making sure the customer periodically
buys at the physical store may sustain customer profitabil-
ity. Li et al. (2021) identify three segments using a latent
class model. Multichannel has no impact for one group and
a long-term increase for another. The largest group, however,
generates higher revenues but the impact is short-term.
 S.A. Neslin
Table 2
Multichannel customer profitability findings.

Study Industry Method Channels Multichannel Outcome Measure

Customer Relative
Performance
Li et al. (2021) Retail Statistical Model Store Internet No Difference Seg 1 (32%) Revs
Li et al. (2021) Retail Statistical Model Store Internet Larger But Short term Seg 2 (43%) Revs
Li et al. (2021) Retail Statistical Model Store Internet Larger Longer Term Seg 3 (25%) Revs
Kumar et al. (2018) Alcohol Statistical Model Store Internet Larger Revs, Profit
Cambra-Fierro et al. (2016) Banking Statistical Model POS Internet ATM Branch Smaller Profits
Cambra-Fierro et al. (2016) Banking Statistical Model POS Branch Larger Profits
Cambra-Fierro et al. (2016) Banking Statistical Model ATM Branch Larger Profits
Melis et al. (2016) Grocery Statistical Model Store Internet Larger SOW
Montaguti et al. (2016) Books Field Experiment Store Phone Internet Larger Profits
117

Montaguti et al. (2016) Books PSM Store Phone Internet Larger Profits
Bilgicer et al. (2015) Apparel Statistical Model Catalog Internet Larger Short Term Revenues
Bilgicer et al. (2015) Apparel Statistical Model Catalog Internet No Diff. Long Term Revenues
Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) All Statistical Model Catalog Internet Larger Revenues
Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) Hedonic Statistical Model Catalog Internet Larger Revenues
Kushwaha and Shankar (2013) Utilitarian Statistical Model Catalog Internet Smaller Revenues
Campbell and Frei (2010) Banking Stat Model / PSM Telephone ATM Internet Branch Larger Retention, Costs
Campbell and Frei (2010) Banking Stat Model / PSM Telephone ATM Internet Branch Smaller Profits
Venkatesan et al. (2007) Apparel Statistical Model Store Phone Internet Larger Profits
Kumar and Venkatesan (2005) B2B Descriptive. Stats Reps DM Phone Online Larger Revs, SOW, Reten.
Thomas and Sullivan (2005) Retail Descriptive Stats Store Catalog Internet Larger Revenues
Thomas and Sullivan (2005) Retail Descriptive Stats Store Internet Larger Revenues
Thomas and Sullivan (2005) Retail Descriptive Stats Catalog Internet Larger Revenues

Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132

Thomas and Sullivan (2005) Retail Descriptive Stats Store Catalog Larger Revenues
S.A. Neslin
Channel margins also moderate the relationship be-
tween multichannel buying a profitability. Campbell and
Frei (2010) find that multichannel customers disproportion-
ately use expensive channels, decreasing their profitability.
Cambra-Fierro et al. (2016) support this by finding that cus-
tomers who utilize all four of the bank’s channels tend to be
less profitable than two-channel customers.
In summary, the findings regarding profitability of the mul-
tichannel customer include:
• Generally, multichannel buyers are more profitable than
they would be if they were single-channel buyers.
• This finding is moderated by factors such as product type,
long- vs. short-term, and channel margins.
• Marketing programs can create multichannel shoppers and
thereby increase the average profitability of the firm’s cus-
tomer base.
Customer Segmentation: Customer segmentation and the
Complete strategy may not be compatible. We have seen that
consumers value cross-channel consistency in content, pro-
cess, and marketing. However, such uniformity might blunt
the distinct capabilities of various channels. For example, con-
tent consistency requires data gathered across channels, but an
offline-focused segment may value privacy, a benefit of the
physical store. In general, the customers’ desire to focus on
a few channels and reap the unique benefits they offer might
decrease the desirability of the Complete strategy.
Table 3 depicts empirical studies of multichannel seg-
ments. We selected literature that explicitly set out to iden-
tify segments. Seventeen papers generated 20 analyses. These
analyses represent myriad industries, from groceries to fash-
ion to electronics. Most utilize cluster analysis, especially
latent cluster analysis (LCA). LCA’s strength is it simul-
taneously derives clusters, which we interpret as segments,
and the covariates that predict segment membership. It does
have its foibles regarding solution uniqueness (see Valen-
tini et al. 2020).
Table 3 shows many variables can serve as the basis
for segmentation. Most involve customer channel preferences
for search and purchase (Konus, Verhoef, and Neslin 2008);
search, purchase and after-sales (De Keyser, Schepers, and
Konus 2015); where to procure and use promotions (Valen-
tini et al. 2020); even for the channel in which they air out
complaints (Frasquet, Ieva, and Ziliani 2019).
The predictors of segment membership are mostly
psychographics and demographics. A typical example is
Sands et al. (2016), who find innovativeness, loyalty, time
pressure, gender, age, and smartphone ownership predict seg-
ments in clothing and electronics. The important finding is
that segment membership can be predicted from readily avail-
able customer data, suggesting omnichannel continuum strat-
egy can use segmentation to target customers.
Perhaps the most provocative finding from the multi-
channel segmentation literature is the persistent existence
of an offline segment. Despite the increasing presence,
“omnipresence” if you will, of the internet, 16 of the
20 analyses in Table 3 uncover a segment that focuses
118
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
on offline. This is not surprising in the grocery cate-
gory (Nakano et al. 2018; Valentini et al., 2020; Ieva
et al. 2017), but Konus et al. (2008) find a “store-focused”
segment in books, mortgages, electronics, vacation ser-
vices, clothing, computers, and insurance. More recently,
Mark et al. (2019) find a segment that consistently pur-
chases a premium retail brand from the physical store.
Herhausen et al. (2019) find a physical store segment for
purchasing apparel, cosmetics, electronics, and entertainment.
Valentini et al. (2020) find an offline segment for procuring
deals for clothing and electronics.
The question is the longevity of the offline segment.
Valentini et al. (2020) find lack of online experience creates
offline segments. The pandemic has increased online expe-
rience, and this could shrink the offline segment. However,
Zhang et al. (2021) suggest the physical store plays a crucial
role when customers purchase products such as clothing and
camping equipment that require inspection and trial in order
for the customer to make an informed purchase decision. A
possible resolution is that the offline-focused segment morphs
into “multichannelism.”
Many of the studies segment based on search and pur-
chase. This supports a Vertical strategy, where for example
the customers gather information online but purchase offline.
The prevalence of single-channel segments, whether focusing
on offline or online, also supports the Vertical strategy. How-
ever, the many multichannel segments may best be served by
the Complete strategy. The point is that customer segmenta-
tion will play an important role for where a firm positions
along the omnichannel continuum.
In summary, key findings regarding customer segmentation
are:
• There are distinct segments based on customers’ channel
preferences.
• Preferences involve all phases of the decision process –
search, purchase, and after-sales.
• Segment membership can be predicted by consumer de-
mographics and psychographics.
• Despite myriad channel choices for consumers, there are
distinct single-channel segments – for the online channel
and even for the offline channel.
Research Shopping: Research shopping is when consumers
search for information in one channel but purchase in an-
other. There are two forms: “showrooming”, where consumers
search offline but purchase online, and “webrooming”, where
consumers search online but purchase offline. Van Baal and
Dach (2005) were among the first to study research shopping.
Verhoef, Neslin, and Vroomen (2007) hypothesized and found
three reasons for research shopping: (1) Attributes: Channel
A may be better for search and Channel B may be better for
purchase. (2) Lock-in: Channel A is unable to keep the cus-
tomer within Channel A for purchase. (3) Synergy: Obtaining
information from Channel A enables the customer to make a
more educated and hence wiser purchase in Channel B. For
example, webrooming may be attractive because (1) the in-
 S.A. Neslin
Table 3
Customer segmentation studies.

Study Industry Method Basis for Segmentation # Offline # Online # Multi # Other Key Predictors
Segments Segments Segments Segments
Valentini et al. (2020) Clothing LCA Deal Proneness 1 1 2 Psychos, Demos, MOA∗
Valentini et al. (2020) Electronics LCA Deal Proneness 1 1 1 Psychos, Demos, MOA∗
Valentini et al. (2020) Grocery LCA Deal Proneness 1 1 3 Psychos, Demos, MOA∗
Herhausen et al. (2019) Retail LCA Touchpoint Usage 1 2 2 Psychos, Demos, Experience
Mosquera, Ayensa, Fashion Cluster Search / Purchase / After Motives 3 Demos
Pascual, and
Murillo (2019)
Frasquet et al. (2019) Retail LCA Complaints 1 1 2 Channel Use for Search/Purch
Hallikainen, Alamäki, Durs/Serv LCA Online Channel Prefs 3 1 Psychos, Demos
and Laukkanen (2019)
Mark et al. (2019) Retail HMM Channel Choice Dynamics 2 2 Responsiveness to Marketing
Park and Kim (2018) Korea Cluster / ML Search / Purchase Pref 1 2 2 1 Demos
Park and Kim (2018) US Cluster / ML Search / Purchase Pref 4 Demos
119

Nakano et al. (2018) FMCP LCA Purchase 4 1 1 1 Psychos, Demos

Ieva et al. (2017) Grocery LCA Loyalty Program Touchpoints 1 2 2 Demos
Sands et al. (2016) Durs/Serv LCA Search / Purchase / After-Sales Pref 2 3 Psychos
De Keyser et al. (2015) Multiple LCA Search / Purchase / After-Sales Pref 2 2 2 Loyalty, Purchase Volume
Wang, Yang, Song, and Multiple LCA Perceived Benefits / Costs 1 1 Demos, Shopping Habits
Sia (2014)
Elliott, Fu, and Insurance Self-Report Customer Journey 1 1 2 Psychos, Channel Evaluations
Speck (2012)
Shröder and Zaharia Retail Crosstabs Search / Purch Pref 4 1 1 Shopping Motives
2008
Konus et al. (2008) Retail LCA Search / Purchase Pref 1 1 1 Psychos
Bhatnagar and Ghose Comp Prods LCA Purchase 1 1 1 Demographics
2004

Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132

Keen, Wetzels, Ruyter, Electronics Cluster/Conjoint Product Attribute Preferences 1 3 Attribute Importance
and Feinberg (2004)
∗MOA = Motives, Opportunities, Ability.
Note: “Offline” and “Online” segments may not only use offline or online channels; however that is their focus as interpreted by the author.
S.A. Neslin
ternet is better for search; the store better for purchase, (2)
the website is not able to hold onto the customer, and (3) the
website prepares the customer to question the in-store sales
rep intelligently.
Table 4 shows that researchers have found showroom-
ing and webrooming in many product categories, especially
durables like apparel and consumer electronics. Research re-
veals many reasons for both showrooming and webrooming.,
and both are here to stay. Eachach supports a Vertical strategy
(search => purchase). Vertical strategies for webrooming in-
clude advertising the physical store when the customer is on-
line, or emailing promotions for discounts available “in-store
only”. Vertical strategies for showrooming include providing
online kiosks and equipping in-store personnel with mobile
tablets so that product can be ordered online if the size is not
available in-store or the store does not carry the exact item
the consumer wants. Following are the reasons expanding on
Verhoef et al. (2007) as to why customers research shop:
Showrooming: (1) Obtain a lower price
(Gensler et al. 2017), (2) Obtain more information
(Kang 2018), (3) Access a better assortment (Kang 2018), (4)
More confident in purchase choice (Flavián, Gurrea, and Orús
2019), (5) Know what to look for offline (Verhoef et al. 2007),
(6) Empower customers to control their shopping experience
(Rejón-Guardia and Luna-Nevarez, 2017), (7) Is a smart way
to shop (Fiestas and Tuzovic 2021), (8) Avoid sales personnel
(Fiestas and Tuzovic), (9) Can’t find sales personnel to help
(Gensler et al. 2017), (10) Consistent with social norms
(Rejón-Guardia and Luna-Nevarez, 2017), and (11) Avoid
being “ripped off” by retailers (Burns et al. 2018).
Webrooming: (1) Online excels for search; offline excels
for purchase (Verhoef et al. 2007), (2) Obtain more informa-
tion (Santos and Goncalves (2019)), (3) Less risk of buying
wrong product (Flavián et al. 2019), (4) Get product imme-
diately (Aw 2019), (5) Convenient (Wang et al. 2016), (6)
Store locks-in the customer (Verhoef et al. 2007), (7) Em-
powers customers to control their purchase experience (San-
tos and Goncalves 2019), (8) Educates customers who are
inexperienced in the category (van Baal and Dach 2005).
Research shopping can be “own” or “competitor”. Own
is when the webrooming or showrooming occurs within the
same retailer. Competitor is when search is with Retailer A
but purchase is with Retailer B. Retailers fear and loathe
competitor showrooming, they see it as abusing their invest-
ment in the physical store. Van Baal and Dach (2005) and
Chiu et al. (2011) found competitor research shopping was
more common than own research shopping, challenging re-
searchers to learn how to rectify this. Gensler et al. (2017)
show that readily available sales reps prevent competitor
showrooming. But trying to prevent showrooming completely
seems like rowing against the current.
In summary, key findings regarding research shopping in-
clude:
• Research shopping is an important practice for many con-
sumers – they gather information in Channel A but pur-
chase in Channel B.
120
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
• Reasons why consumers research-shop include: attribute
differences between channel, favoring Channel A say for
search; B for purchase, inability of Channel A to lock
in the customer who uses it for search, and inter-channel
synergy – searching on Channel A enables customers to
benefit more when they purchase on Channel B.
• Research shopping can be Online=>Offline (webrooming)
or Offline=>Online (showrooming).
• Research shopping can mean customers switch to a differ-
ent retailer when moving from search to purchase, or they
might stay with the same retailer.
Marketing
Adding Channels: As firms traverse the omnichannel con-
tinuum, managers must decide which channels to include in
their omninichannel portfolio. Should an online-only retailer
add a physical presence? Should a bank add a mobile app?
Should a restaurant that has a high-ambience physical “store”
list on a platform app? Research has investigated the impact
of adding Channel A on performance of Channel B. Table 5
summarizes 20 empirical papers that have studied 32 Chan-
nel A / B pairs. Of the 32 pairs, 17 concluded Channel A
helped Channel B. In 11 instances, Channel A took away
from Channel B. The rest either found no effect or the result
depended on the product category. Of the 11 negatives, 8 in-
volved introduction of online; 3 introduction of offline. This
is not nearly enough to generalize, but suggests asymmetry.
The finding of negative as well as positive impact begs
the question of how to ensure the impact is positive. One
Vertical strategy would be that the new online channel only
be informational. Research suggests this is risky. Van Nierop
et al. (2011) found an informational website decreases other
channels because although it stimulates the customer to un-
dertake more extensive search, which may mean at a different
retailer. In contrast, Zhang et al. (2019a) found that a pop-up
store that only showcases products stimulated online platform
sales.
Another possibility is to design the new channel favor-
ing its unique attributes so it does not mimic the incumbent
channel. Indeed Van Baal (2014, p. 1041) found that channel
similarity can breed cannibalization. Xu et al. (2014) found
that using a news app for headlines increased visits to the
website by encouraging customers to click through to read
the story.
In summary, key findings regarding channel additions are:
• It appears to be more common that adding Channel A
increases sales at Channel B.
• However, this finding is not universal – Channel A may
cannibalize Channel B.
Marketing Cross-Effects: If the firm decides to integrate
its channels, the task is to induce customers to use a variety
of channels so they can experience the benefits of channel
integration. Often this involves getting the customer to move
from one channel to another. Research has focused on whether
 S.A. Neslin
Table 4
Research shopping (W=Webrooming; S=Showrooming).

Paper Product Method Channel A Channel B W/S Reasons for Research Shopping
Fiestas and Tuzovic (2021) Multiple Interviews Store/Mobile Online S Smart shopper, Product experience, More information, Price, Avoid reps
Acquila-Natale, Hernández-García, Apparel Desc Stats Online Offline W Preference for search and purchase channels
Iglesias-Pradas, and
Chaparro-Peláez (2020)
Acquila-Natale et al. (2020) Apparel Desc Stats Offline Online S Preference for search and purchase channels
Aw (2019) Apparel SEM Online Offline W Immediate obtain, Bargain hunting (-), Price loss (-), Efficiency (-), Effort (-)
Flavián et al. (2019) Multiple ANOVA Online Offline W Confident right purchase, Smart shopper
Flavián et al. (2019) Multiple ANOVA Offline Online S Confident right purchase, Smart shopper
Santos and Goncalves (2019) Electronics Desc Stats PC Store W More information
Santos and Goncalves (2019) Electronics Desc Stats PC or Mobile Store W More information, Price, Empowerment
Santos and Goncalves (2019) Electronics Desc Stats PC & Mobile Store W More information, Price, Empowerment
Kang (2018) Appar/Beaut SEM Online Offline W More information, Social interaction, Better assortment
Kang (2018) Appar/Baaut SEM Offline Online S More information, Price, Social interaction
Burns et al. (2018) Multiple SEM Store Online S Price, Belief retailers “rip off” consumers, Value customer service
Arora and Sahney (2018) Electronics SEM Store Online S Offline search benefits, Online purchase benefits, Subjective norms
Arora, Singha, and Sahney (2017) Multiple PLS Store Online S Offline search benefits, Online purchase benefits, Price, Confidence in ability
121

Rejón-Guardia and Electronics SEM Offline Online S Compatibility btwn channels, Online purchase -‘s, Control exper., Sub. norms
Luna-Nevarez, 2017
Gensler et al. (2017) Multiple Logistic Store Online S Quality ↑, Price ↓, σ price , Rep Avail (-), Srch Cost (-), Time Press (-)
Wang et al. (2016) Retail Regression Store Online S Online service quality, Online purchase risk (-), Search effort in-store
Wang et al. (2016) Retail Regression Online Store W Store purchase convenience, Online info avail, Online search effort
Heitz-Spahn (2013) Multiple Logistic Online/Offline Online/Offline W,S Convenience (-), Desire for time flexibility, Price
Chiu et al. (2011) Electronics SEM Online Offline W Multichannel ability, Low online lock-in, Competitive store quality
Verhoef et al. (2007) Multiple Regression Online Store W Low online lock-in; Synergy, On>St for search; St>On for purchase
Verhoef et al. (2007) Multiple Regression Online Catalog W Low online lock-in; On>Cat for search; On=Cat for purchase
Verhoef et al. (2007) Multiple Regression Catalog Store N.A. High catalog lock-in; Cat<St for search; St>Cat for purchase
Verhoef et al. (2007) Multiple Regression Catalog Online S High catalog lock-in; synergy; Cat<On for search; Cat<On for purchase
Verhoef et al. (2007) Multiple Regression Store Catalog N.A. High store lock-in; neg synergy; St>Cat for search; St>Cat for purchase
Verhoef et al. (2007) Multiple Regression Store Online S High store lock-in; St<On search; On<St purchase

Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132

Van Baal and Dach (2005) Multiple Desc Stats Online Offline W Lower Purch Freq, Tech Change
Van Baal and Dach (2005) Multiple Desc Stats Online Offline W Lower Purch Freq, Tech Change, Search product
Competitor
Van Baal and Dach (2005) Multiple Desc Stats Offline Online S (No significant findings)
Van Baal and Dach (2005) Multiple Desc Stats Offline Online S Lower Purch Freq
Competitor
S.A. Neslin Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132

Table 5
Impact of channel additions.

Paper Channel Introduced Impact On: Impact Product Category Method

Gu and Kannan (2021) Mobile App Online ↓ Hotel DiD
Gu and Kannan (2021) Mobile App Call Center ↓ Hotel DiD
Gu and Kannan (2021) Mobile App Online Global Dist. Syst. ↓ Hotel DiD
Gu and Kannan (2021) Mobile App Online agents N.S. Hotel DiD
Zhou, Geng, Abhishek, and Li (2020) First branch Local branches ↑ Banking DiD /PSM
Zhou et al. (2020) Added branches Local branches ↑ Banking DiD /PSM
Zhou et al. (2020) First branch Online ↓ Banking DiD /PSM
Zhou et al. (2020) Added branch Online ↑ Banking DiD /PSM
Zhang, Pauwels, and Peng (2019b) Platform app Offline Short ↓ Restaurant VAR
Zhang et al. (2019b) Platform app Online Long ↑ Restaurant VAR
Zhang et al. (2019a) Pop-Up Store Platform App ↑ Apparel Field Test
Narang and Shankar (2019) Mobile App Website ↑ Electronics Stat Model / PSM
Narang and Shankar (2019) Mobile Retail Store ↑ Electronics Stat Model / PSM
Bell, Gallino, and Moreno (2018) Offline Showroom Online ↑ Eyeglasses DiD /PSM
Xu, Chan, Ghose, and Han (2017) Platform Tablet App PC ↓ Several DiD/PSM
Xu et al. (2017) Platform Tablet App Smartphone ↑ Several DiD /PSM
Li, Konus, Langerak, and Weggman (2017) Online Catalog (Existing Custs.) ↑ Retail Stat Model
Soysal and Krishnamurthi 2016 Outlet Retail Store ↑ Apparel Stat Model
Shen, Cai, and Guo (2016) Retail Store Online ↑/↓ dep. E-tailers Survey SEM
on. prod.
Huang, Lu, and Ba (2016) Mobile App Website ↓ Durables DiD /PSM
Pauwels and Neslin (2015) Retail Store Catalog ↓ Apparel VAR
Pauwels and Neslin (2015) Retail Store Online N.S. Apparel VAR
Wang, Malthouse, and Krishnamurthi (2015) Mobile Online Desktop Online ↑ Grocery Stat Model / PSM
Xu et al. (2014) Mobile App Mobile Website ↑ News DiD
Avery, Steenburgh, Deighton, and Retail Store Catalog Short ↑ Apparel/Home DiD /Matching
Caravella (2012)
Avery et al. (2012) Retail Store Catalog Long ↑ Apparel/Home DiD /Matching
Avery et al. (2012) Retail Store Online Short ↓ Apparel/Home DiD /Matching
Avery et al. (2012) Retail Store Online Long ↑ Apparel/Home DiD /Matching
Van Nierop et al. (2011) Info Website Store ↓ Dept. Store Stat Model
Campbell and Frei (2010) Online ATM ↓ Banking Stat Model
Campbell and Frei (2010) Online Branch / Call Center ↑ Banking Stat Model
Smith and Telang (2009) TV Network Free Online (Platform) ↑ Movies DiD
Gentzkow (2006) Online Print ↓ News Time Series
Biyalogorsky and Naik (2003) Online Store N.S. Music Time Series
Deleersnyder, Geyskens, Gielens, and Online Print N.S. News Time Series
Dekimpe (2002)

marketing in Channel A can induce the customer to purchase
in Channel B. This is a marketing cross-effect.
While there is plenty of evidence that shows marketing
own-effects, e.g., Channel A promotions induce the customer
to buy on Channel A (Ansari et al. 2008, 2008; Campo and
Breugelmans 2015; Thomas and Sullivan 2005), recent re-
search shows many examples for marketing cross-effects.
First is evidence regarding online => offline. Dinner,
Heerde, and Neslin (2014) note one reason for an online pro-
motion to enhance offline purchasing is research shopping.
They found that paid search for a department store has a large
impact on purchasing in the physical store. Paid search clicks
by definition send customers to the website where they can
gather information; they then visit the physical store to inspect
the product and make the purchase. This is a prime example
of a marketing cross-effect supporting a Vertical strategy.
Other examples of online => offline cross-effects in-
clude: Goic, Álvarez, and Montoya (2018) found ad-
vertised promotions on a website increase offline sales.
Danaher et al. (2020) found that emails increase offline sales.
Kleinlercher et al. (2018) found that an online informational
website increases offline sales, especially if it “advertises”
what is available in the physical store.
Second is the evidence regarding offline => online
marketing cross-effects. Thomas and Sullivan (2005) were
among the first to show that offline marketing in-
creases online sales. They found catalogs increase on-
line sales. Danaher et al. (2020) found the same.
Dinner et al. (2014) found that “traditional advertising” (TV,
radio, newspaper) increases online sales. Perhaps the most
dramatic example is Liaukonyte, Teixeira, and Wilbur (2015).
They demonstrated that TV advertising leads customers to
search the advertiser’s website and make a purchase.
Du, Xu, and Wilbur (2019) documented cross-effects from
TV ads to competitive brands. A TV ad for Ford stimu-
lates online search not only for Ford but for Dodge as well.
Shankar and Kushwaha (2020) show cross-effects are asym-
metric – online marketing will not yield the same offline sales
as offline marketing produces online. Luo et al. (2020) show
that a mobile SMS message can increase sales at that store’s

122
S.A. Neslin
website, so marketing cross-effects can exist within the same
channel umbrella (online in this case). Blom, Lange, and
Hess (2017) demonstrated in lab experiments that informa-
tion gleaned from online activity can develop effective in-
store promotions.
A final important point is that cross-effects may not be
good news if the increase in Channel B corresponds to
a decrease in sales in Channel A. This is likely to oc-
cur if Channels A and B perform the exact same function.
Thomas and Sullivan (2005) find that direct mail can in-
crease online sales, but in some situations, this was just a case
of switching customers from offline to online. Shankar and
Kushwaha (2020) find that exclusive insurance agents can
substitute for independent agents, hence promotions to cus-
tomers using insurance agents can induce them to use inde-
pendent agents instead of exclusive agents.
In summary, key findings regarding marketing cross-effects
include:
• Cross-effects are common and important.
• Cross-effects include online marketing having an impact on
offline channels, and offline marketing having an impact on
online channels.
These findings are important because the omnichannel con-
tinuum strategy may require Channel A customers to try
Channel B. Cross-effects suggest marketing can induce this
trial.
Task Sharing: One way a firm can integrate channels is
for Channel A to complete one part of a task and Channel
B another. This is a form of “synchronization,” one of the
perceptual attributes (Table 1). For example, aftersales for the
TV buyer consists of installing the TV and learning how to
use it. The physical store might be responsible for installation
while online discusses operation. Another example is a patient
signing in for an office visit. Most of this could be handled
online; the rest when the patient shows up at the office. This
decreases demands on the expensive office channel and saves
time for the patient.
A common application of task sharing is “buy-online-
pickup-in-store”, “BOPS”. The customer places the order on-
line, then picks up the item at the offline store. The value
proposition for the customer is saving on shipping and get-
ting the product faster. Chatterjee (2010) found that BOPS
users have high waiting costs. The value proposition for the
retailer is lower cost of delivery. However, the retailer has to
know what inventory is available in stores.
Empirical results regarding BOPS are intriguing. A priori,
one would conjecture BOPS increases online sales because it
makes online shopping more attractive. However, two studies
(Akturk, Ketzenberg, and Heim 2018; Gallino and Moreno
2014) both found, surprisingly, that BOPS decreased online
sales and increased offline sales. Gallino and Moreno even
note purchases under BOPS were credited to the online chan-
nel. The finding was in two very different categories (jewelry
for Akturk et al.; housewares and furniture for Gallino and
Moreno). Both papers used DiD.
123
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
Gallino and Moreno attribute the result to cross-selling and
research shopping. They show that store sales increase among
items consumers tend to buy on impulse, prime candidates for
BOPS customers. However, this does not explain why online
sales decrease. For this the authors show evidence that task
sharing becomes vertical integration. It allows customers to
webroom: research product availability online, but drive to
the store to purchase it, knowing it will be available there.
Akturk et al. also attribute the result to research shopping.
They note that expensive jewelry is not purchased online.
When the retailer offers BOPS, the customer can gather in-
formation on expensive jewelry online (search), but complete
the sale offline (purchase). Akturk et al. also find that BOPS
increases returns to the physical store, where sales increase
due to exchanges or simply to the customer being in the phys-
ical store.
One cannot generalize based on two studies, but the sim-
ilarity of findings is startling – BOPS decreases online sales
and increases offline sales. That said, BOPS “worked” be-
cause total sales increased. Clearly BOPS merits more study.
For now, retailers need to be aware of the possibilities. They
may wish to think of BOPS as Vertical strategy. It provides
product availability information online that encourages the
customer to make the purchase offline.
In summary, key findings regarding task sharing include:
• Two studies find very similar surprising results regarding
the impact of BOPS (buy online, purchase in-store). They
found that BOPS increases store sales but decreases online
sales.
• BOPS increases total retail sales.
Harmonizing Marketing: A key question retailers face
when deciding on an omnichannel continuum positioning is
the extent to which marketing should be uniform across chan-
nels. The two most empirically researched topics are assort-
ment and price. Integration would suggest uniformity, but this
may not be optimal. For example, if the firm is pursuing a
Vertical strategy based on segmentation, price and assortment
need not be the same across channels, as different customers
with different needs will be accessing the firm’s channels.
Assortment: Rooderkerk and Kök (2019) distinguish no in-
tegration (each channel has a different assortment), full inte-
gration (both channels have the same assortment), and asym-
metric integration (partial overlap between channels). In prac-
tice, asymmetric integration in which all offline SKUs are sold
online but not the reverse, is common. The physical store does
not have room to carry the firm’s entire product line.
There is not much empirical research on the sales im-
pact of asymmetric assortment. Ma (2016) is an important
exception. Ma studies an apparel retailer selling online and
via catalog. Products available online and via catalogs are
called “main” products; those available online but not via
catalogs are “niche” products. Ma theorizes that with more
SKUs available online, niche product sales increase because
the cost of searching for them is low. However, spending
S.A. Neslin
per SKU might decrease if niche purchases cannibalize main
product purchases.
Ma compared customers who shop exclusively online and
a matched set of customers who shop only via catalog. Niche
product sales are higher for online customers. Interestingly
however, sales of main products are also higher. This sug-
gests the retailer gains sales of both main and niche prod-
ucts when offering these products online. Retailers therefore
can horizontally integrate offline and online channels at the
search stage and carry a larger assortment in the online chan-
nel. Sales of products only available online naturally will in-
crease, but not at the expense of products available in both
channels.
Emrich et al. (2015a) also provide evidence from a
controlled lab study in favor of asymmetric assortment.
Bertrandie and Zielke (2017) execute a lab experiment com-
paring asymmetric to full assortment of laptop computers.
They find asymmetric assortment increases perceptions that
the retailer’s assortment is adequate. The authors conjecture
that under asymmetric assortment, consumers first scan the
offline channel to get an idea of what they want to buy. They
then utilize the convenience and full assortment available on-
line to make the purchase there. This supports vertical inte-
gration in the form of showrooming.
As an important counterpoint, Melis et al. (2016) study
the grocery industry. They find that when consumers adopt the
store’s online channel, total purchases increase, but especially
so for retailers who integrate their assortment across channel.
This supports the assortment strategy of retailers who can
carry the same products online and offline.
Assuming the retailer adopts asymmetric assortment, it
still must decide which subset of products the store should
carry. Should it focus on experience goods? Hedonic prod-
ucts? Popular products? One approach is to use online data
to infer which products should be carried in-store. However,
Dzyabura, Jagabathula, and Muller (2019) find online prefer-
ences and offline preferences differ.
In summary, key, although tentative, findings regarding har-
monizing assortment include:
• Channel A’s assortment can be a subset of Channel B’s,
without decreasing total retail sales.
• There is some evidence however that total sales increase to
the extent that Channels A and B have identical assortment.
Empirical studies use both field and lab data, but much
more empirical work is needed.
Price: Online and offline channels attract different cus-
tomers, providing an opportunity for the retailer to price dis-
criminate. To prevent “leakage”, the retailer would not want
to make it easy for the customer to switch from offline to
online search. Lee’s (2020) work suggests it is not imperative
for online and offline to offer the exact same prices because
price consistency does not significantly drive customer satis-
faction.
The potential for price discrimination depends on cus-
tomer price elasticity online vs. offline. One might hypothe-
124
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
size higher price elasticity online because of lower switching
costs, while the value of services provided in-store dampens
price sensitivity in that channel. As a result, prices should be
higher offline, and we have price discrimination.
Empirical research has not established that price elastic-
ity is higher online. In fact, Chu, Chintagunta, and Cebol-
lada (2008) and Chu et al. (2010) find that multichannel shop-
pers are less price sensitive when they shop online compared
to offline. Cebollada, Chu, and Jiang (2019) find lower online
price sensitivity for grocery products.
However, Chu et al. (2010) also show that heavy online
shoppers are more price sensitive than light online shop-
pers. Homburg, Lauer, and Vomberg (2019) estimate de-
mand functions and find price sensitivities that would en-
able multichannel retailers to charge a small offline price
premium. High-ticket risky durables (refrigerator, TV) can
charge a 2% premium and low-ticket unplanned purchases
(toaster, hair dryer, toothbrush) can command 6–7% pre-
mium offline. Homburg et al. find an indifferent segment
and an offline segment especially tolerate higher offline
prices.
Overall, price sensitivity research leans toward lower price
sensitivity in offline stores, but the case is not rock solid. This
means the price sensitivity requirement for price discrimina-
tion, with offline charging higher prices, is weak but leans in
that direction.
We turn now to practice. Cavallo (2017) examines 24,000
products’ prices in 56 large multichannel retailers in 10 coun-
tries. He finds 28% of prices are different online vs. offline.
Offline skews toward higher prices, but not dramatically –
11% of the time, online was higher, whereas 18% of the
time, offline was higher. Wolk and Ebling (2010) corrobo-
rate Cavello. They find 30% (“Study 1 ) and 61% (“Study
2 ) of retailers engage in price differentiation, and when they
do, prices tend to be a bit higher offline (single digit% differ-
ences). Ancarani and Shankar (2004) find lower posted prices
online, but when shipping costs are added in, net prices are
higher online.
There is evidence to suggest prices should be equal online
and offline. Melis et al. (2016) conclude that adopters of gro-
cery stores’ online channel increase SOW to the extent that
prices online are more similar to the prices charged in the
physical store. Chatterjee and Kumar (2017) point out that
higher offline prices can create perceptions of unfairness as
well as confusion.
The above research pertains to everyday prices. Retailers
also can price discriminate through targeted price discounts.
For example, online coupons such as cashbacks target on-
line users (Vana, Lambrecht, and Bertini 2018). Promo code
promotions delivered via email can deliver lower prices for
online consumers, who presumably are more likely to redeem
them.
In summary, key findings regarding price harmonization
include:
• While most commonly regular prices are identical across
channels, different prices are not uncommon – best evi-
S.A. Neslin
dence to date is that prices can be different for at least
25% of items.
• When prices differ, there is some evidence prices are larger
offline.
The above is based on a limited number of studies.
We need more empirical studies, especially regarding tar-
geted promotional discounts as opposed to everyday posted
prices.
Summary and discussion
Researching the key determinants
Coordinating channels under the “omnichannel integra-
tion” mantra offers retailers the opportunity to increase cus-
tomer satisfaction and firm outcomes. However, delivering
that promise has been elusive. We proposed a framework for
conceptualizing omnichannel integration with the objectives
of providing researchers with avenues for future research, and
managers with guidance for defining their omnichannel strat-
egy. Rather than viewing omnichannel as an either/or choice,
we propose to view it as a continuum reflecting the extent
of omnichannel integration. We envision a series of strategies
reflecting deeper and deeper integration, defined by two di-
mensions: (1) channel (online vs. offline), and (2) stage in
the customer decision process (search vs. purchase vs. after-
sales). Integration can be achieved either horizontally, inte-
grating channels at a given stage in the decision process, or
vertically, integrating channels as customers progress through
the stages of their customer journey.
We identified 10 key determinants that suggest how a re-
tailer might position itself along the omnichannel continuum.
Table 6 summarizes key findings and implications.
Perhaps the most basic yet encouraging finding is that re-
searchers can measure channel integration as perceived by the
consumer (“integration perceptions”). This means managers
can assess where they are positioned along the omnichannel
continuum. A prime area for future research is for researchers
to identify managerial actions that influence these perceptions.
While research on integration perceptions has relied on sur-
veys analyzed with SEM, we need field experiments to show
real world actions determine integration perceptions.
The naturally following question is whether integration
perceptions increase firm outcomes. Several studies suggest
“yes”. This supports both Horizontal and Vertical strategies.
However, Table 1 suggests eight dimensions by which cus-
tomers perceive integration. It would be difficult to maxi-
mize all of them – for example, marketing mix consistency
might conflict with the virtues of asymmetric assortment. A
key area for future research is the relative importance of the
dimensions of consumer perceived integration. Which inte-
gration dimensions should managers leverage to define their
omnichannel continuum strategy?
The perceptions => outcomes work is survey based; par-
allel to that is multichannel profitability research typically
based on customer transactions data. The weight of empir-
125
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
ical evidence is the multichannel buyer is more profitable,
and firms can take actions that produce more multichannel
buyers and increase average profits per customer. This sup-
ports Horizontal strategy at the purchase stage. Recent work
has identified moderators of the multichannel => profitabil-
ity link, such as product category and channel profit margins.
Relatedly, how does customer profitability differ between ver-
tically and horizontally integrated customers? The findings to
date are for the horizontally integrated multichannel buyer,
but is the vertically integrated research shopper even more
profitable?
Omnichannel strategy is no exception to the importance of
customer segmentation. Several papers have established that
customers are segmented based on channel preferences for
online vs. offline as well as decision process stage. Perhaps
the most fascinating finding is the stubborn persistence of an
offline-oriented segment, that is, a group that favors offline
shopping. The extent and type of customer segmentation has
mixed implications for omnichannel strategy. For example,
there is a segment that likes to procure promotions online and
use them offline (Valentini et al. 2020). This would support
a Vertical strategy. In fact, segments may inhibit the Hori-
zontal strategy. For example, catering separately to the needs
of the online- and offline-focused segments may mean not
integrating online and offline search. We may want online
and offline channels to shine on what they do best, and that
suggests inconsistencies. Key research needs are to measure
whether the offline segment persists even in the aftermath of
the pandemic, and to demonstrate via field experiment that a
segmented omnichannel strategy can work.
One of the uniquely multichannel consumer behaviors to
blossom from the proliferation of channels is research shop-
ping – showrooming and webrooming. There is ample em-
pirical evidence that customers like to search in Channel A
and purchase in Channel B. This is because in their view,
Channel A might be better for search and B better for pur-
chase, or it might be that Channel A cannot hold on to the
customer, or that the information the customer gains by first
searching on Channel A pays off in a better purchase experi-
ence on Channel B. A prime example is webrooming, where
the consumer learns the key product attributes online, and so
knows what to hone in on with the sales rep in the phys-
ical store. Research shopping generally supports a Vertical
strategy (search-to-purchase), but the elephant in the room is
“own” vs. “competitor” research shopping. Future work needs
to show how retailers can encourage own research shopping
but prevent competitor research shopping.
Turning to the marketing determinants, channel additions
often help incumbent channels, although certainly not al-
ways. Even if channel additions produce total increases in
revenues, researchers need to identify the conditions for to-
tal sales increases versus mere shifting, i.e., cannibalization,
of the incumbent channel. Integration might mean redun-
dancy, so new channels substitute for current channels. Or
integration might promote customer loyalty, via the percep-
tions => outcomes link or the multichannel customer =>
profits link. Researchers need to sort this out – how does

Table 6
Summary: key findings, managerial implications, and future research.
Cons. Behavior Key Findings
Integration Perceptions • Perceptions can be measured using surveys.
• Measures have convergent and discriminant
validity.
• Consumers perceive integration along eight
dimensions: Breadth, Transparency, Content
consistency, Process consistency, Marketing
consistency, Freedom, Synchronization, and
Working together.
Integration Perceptions and • Integration is strongly associated with firm
Outcomes outcomes, i.e., loyalty, satisfaction, retention,
sales levels.
Multichannel Profitability • Generally, multichannel buyers are more
profitable compared to if they were not
multichannel.
• Recent work suggests this finding is moderated
126
by type of product and channel profit margins.
• Marketing can create profitable multichannel
customers.
Segmentation • Consumers are highly segmented regarding their
preferences and behavior with respect to
channels.
• Segments exist with respect to search, purchase,
and aftersales channel preference.
• Despite the proliferation of online channels,
there remains an offline-focused segment.
• There also are online-focused segments.
Research Shopping • This is a real phenomenon – customers switch
channels between search and purchase.
• Three fundamental reasons: channel attribute
differences, lack of lock-in, inter-channel
synergy.
• Takes form of showrooming or webrooming.
• Both are popular, and can be “own” or
“competitor”.
Implications for Channel Integration
• Supports integration – consumers understand it
and have sophisticated belief structure regarding
it.
• Supports horizontal and vertical integration
since both are part of how consumers perceive
integration.
• Supports integration.
• Supports both horizontal and vertical because
both are reflected in integration perceptions.
• Strongly supports horizontal integration at the
purchase stage.
• Supports vertical integration because segments
form across decision stages.
• Discourages horizontal integration because
channel switch at given decision stage could
disappoint customers who find Channel B is not
designed for them (it is designed for another
segment)
• Supports vertical integration from search to
purchase.
S.A. Neslin
Future Research
• Are all eight attributes needed?
• Are eight enough?
• Can retailers change perceptions through
channel design?
• Need field experiments to verify.
• Which of the eight dimensions are most
important?
• Can retailers increase outcomes by integration?
Need field experiments.
• Does integration amplify or reduce the
multichannel/profitability relationship?
• Are there additional moderators, e.g.,
competition?
• Can vertical integration, e.g., easy research
shopping, increase loyalty?
• Does the offline segment still exist in light of
online experience consumers gained during the
pandemic?
• Need to demonstrate with field experiment that
firms can design channels that target different
segments
• Should retailers encourage or discourage
research shopping?
• How can retailers ensure “own” rather than
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
“competitor” research shopping?
(continued on next page)

Table 6 (continued)
Marketing Key Findings
Channel Additions • Adding Channel A can increase or decrease
Channel B sales.
• However, adding a channel tends to increase
total sales.
Marketing Cross-Effects • Ample evidence marketing for cross-effects,
e.g., promotions delivered in Channel A,
enhance purchase not only in Channel A, but in
Channel B as well.
Task Sharing • Some evidence that channel task sharing can be
effective.
• Strongest evidence is for BOPS; BOPS
increases total sales.
• Some evidence that BOPS decreases online
127
sales while increasing offline sales.
Harmonizing Assortment • Some evidence that asymmetric assortment –
online assortment is larger than offline
assortment – can still increase total sales.
• However, some evidence that total sales
increase to extent assortments are identical.
Harmonizing Price • Weak evidence that online price elasticity is
stronger than offline elasticity.
• Weak evidence that online prices are lower than
offline prices.
• There is some evidence that equal prices are
valuable in their own right (e.g., fairness).
• Lower prices can be delivered via promotions,
creating price discrimination
Implications for Channel Integration
• Supports integration because more channels =>
more sales.
• Supports integration - marketing can provide
customers with transparency, i.e., know what
services each channel provides.
• Supports integration – customers can be
“right-channeled” using marketing.
• Supports integration because it makes it easier
for the customer to complete a decision stage or
task within a stage.
• Retailers should consider BOPS, but carefully
monitor the impact on online sales.
• Supports coordinated assortment, not identical
assortment, between channels. Horizontal
integration does not mean equal assortment.
• Supports vertical integration targeting lower
prices to price sensitive customers so they can
search and purchase online and pay lower
prices.
• Retailers do not want customers to use both
online and offline channels because this
produces “leakage”, price “insensitives” still get
lower prices.
S.A. Neslin
Future Research
• How does integration moderate the translation
of additional channels to a gain in sales? Is the
total sales gain greater if channels are
integrated?
• What is the best way to integrate channels
when a new one is introduced?
• Are there cross-effects for search and aftersales?
E.g., can marketing encourage customers to
search both online and offline?
• Which cross-effect is stronger –
online=>offline or offline=>online; how does
this depend on marketing instrument?
• Does the BOPS impact on online vs. offline
generalize? What moderates it?
• What is the impact of curbside pickup versus
BOPS.
• What are other opportunities for task integration,
especially at the search and aftersales stages?
• How should tasks be “divvied up” online vs.
offline?
• If pursuing an asymmetric assortment strategy,
which products should the offline channel carry?
• More research needed on price sensitivity online
vs. offline.
• More research needed to determine whether
prices paid are different online (lower) vs.
offline (higher).
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
• Do the economics of price discrimination
produce more profitability than the cost of
consumer unfairness perceptions and confusion?
• What determines price perception in
omnichannel? Does it include or exclude
shipping or travel costs?
S.A. Neslin
Fig. 2. Resource-based view of omnichannel continuum strategy.
integration moderate the contribution of adding more chan-
nels?
Researchers have clearly identified the existence and im-
portance of marketing cross-effects. Online advertising en-
hances offline sales, and vice versa. This encourages integra-
tion because it suggests retailers can grow one channel by
marketing in another, and it informs customers of channel
capabilities (the transparency dimension), increasing satisfac-
tion.
Researchers and practitioners are paying increased atten-
tion to task sharing, enabling customers to complete certain
tasks in one channel and other tasks in another. For exam-
ple, the offline channel may help the customer install the
new TV, while the website helps customers operate the TV.
A key topic in channel task sharing is buy-online-pick-up-
in-store (BOPS). The provocative finding, only verified by
two but well-executed studies, is BOPS decreases online sales
and increases offline sales. One plausible explanation might
be research shopping, but we need more research on BOPS
specifically and channel task sharing in general.
Finally, to what extent should the marketing mix be har-
monized across channels? It appears asymmetric assortment
is acceptable to consumers. The physical store can carry Set
A of SKUs, while online can carry Set A and Set B. Empiri-
cal work suggests that Set B does not cannibalize sales of Set
A. The key question is what should comprise Set A and Set
B? One view is Set A should include products that require
ample examination and inspection in order for consumers to
make an informed choice. In short, asymmetric assortment is
fine, but the devil is in the detail of exactly what asymmetric
assortment should look like.
Finally is whether price should be equal across channels
(apparently the most common practice), higher offline (per-
haps the second-most common practice), or higher online
(perhaps the least common practice). The temptation for non-
uniformity is price discrimination, which increases profits. Re-
search has not verified the key condition for price discrimi-
nation, differences in price elasticity between channels. More
work needs to examine price elasticity by channel. In addi-
tion, researchers need to determine whether price discounts
128
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
targeted by customer/channel are the answer, as opposed to
list prices per se. In addition, are gains in profits from price
discrimination large enough to justify shipping cost and fair-
ness issues?
The road ahead – a resource-based view of future research
on implementation
The above discussion summarizes key determinants of
omnichannel continuum strategy, future research, and man-
agerial implications. These implications suggest actions that
need to be implemented successfully at scale. This augers
for researchers to consider the capabilities of the retailer, a
resource-based view of the firm (Barney 1991). Fig. 2 em-
beds Fig. 1 into an implementation framework. The deter-
minants drive strategy, which can be implemented to the
extent that the retailer has the right capabilities. These in-
clude: (1) operations infrastructure (Govindarajan, Sinha, and
Uichanco 2017), (2) IT infrastructure (Lewis, Whysall, and
Foster 2014), (3) corporate culture (Lewis et al. 2014), (4)
design skills (Bloch 2011), and (5) financial resources.
Operations infrastructure often arise in when implement-
ing BOPS, because under BOPS, the firm must make sure
the product is available in the customer’s closest store. IT
infrastructure is important because consumers’ perceptions
of integration are partially driven by content consistency
– the firm should “know” them no matter what channel
they are in. This requires a powerful information system.
The key cultural issue for the retailer to imbue its man-
agers with a cooperative approach rather than a silo ori-
entation. Firms need to break down the silos that the firm
might have erected in order to nurture the online chan-
nel. For example, if BOPS decreases online sales but in-
creases offline sales, online managers should be compen-
sated for the increase in offline sales. Design skills are a
crucial capability in implementing an omnichannel integra-
tion strategy. The channel designs required for segment tar-
geting and task sharing are difficult to achieve in practice.
Finally channel integration is an investment, essentially a cap-
ital budgeting exercise. The firm needs the financial resources,
S.A. Neslin
and patience, to implement its omnichannel continuum
strategy.
The ellipses in Fig. 2 signify that we need to expand the
determinants identified in this article, as well as the capa-
bilities above. For example, one phenomenon is “personal-
ization”. However, there was very little empirical work on
this in a multichannel context. Researchers need to identify
additional determinants and begin an empirical tradition of
researching them.
Fig. 2 depicts the process of translating consumer behav-
ior and marketing determinants into omnichannel strategy. In
turn, the omnichannel strategy will influence subsequent con-
sumer behavior as well as marketing effects. This will neces-
sitate adjustments in strategy until the market reaches equi-
librium.
In conclusion, we have introduced the omnichannel con-
tinuum, which proposes that omnichannel integration strategy
must consider customer decision stage and channel. Through
an extensive review of empirical research, we identified de-
terminants that drive omnichannel integration strategy and for
which researchers have generated a critical mass of empirical
findings. While much research has been completed, and much
of it is provocative, insightful, and useful, there is much more
to do. We hope this paper helps provide the impetus, and the
roadmap, for that work.
References
ABC News (2021). Restaurants, delivery apps still at odds as demand
grows https:// abcnews.go.com/ Lifestyle/ wireStory/ restaurants-delivery-
apps- odds- demand- grows- 77184384.
Acquila-Natale, Emiliano, Hernández-García Ángel, Iglesias-Pradas Santiago
and Chaparro-Peláez Julián (2020), “Stay or switch? Investigating lock-
-in effect in multi-channel apparel retailing,” Economics and Business
Letters, 9 (4), 298–305.
Akturk, M.Serkan, Ketzenberg Michael and Heim Gregory R. (2018), “As-
sessing impacts of introducing ship-to-store service on sales and returns
in omnichannel retailing: A data analytics study,” Journal of Operations
Management, 61 (July), 15–45.
Ancarani, Fabio and Shankar Venkatesh (2004), “Price levels and price dis-
persion within and across multiple retailer types: Further evidence and
extension,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (2), 176–87.
Ansari, Asim, Mela Carl F. and Neslin Scott A. (2008), “Customer channel
migration,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (February), 60–76.
Arora, Sourabh and Sahney Sangeeta (2018), “Antecedents to consumers’
showrooming behaviour: An integrated TAM-TPB framework,” Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 35 (4), 438–50.
Arora, Sourabh, Singha Kunal and Sahney Sangeeta (2017), “Understanding
consumer’s showrooming behavior: Extending the theory of planned be-
haviour,” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 29 (2), 409–31.
Avery, Jill, Steenburgh Thomas J., Deighton John and Caravella Mary (2012),
“Adding bricks to clicks: Predicting the patterns of cross-channel elastic-
ities over time,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (3), 96–111.
Aw, Eugene Cheng-Xi (2019), “Understanding the webroom phenomenon:
shopping motivation, channel-related benefits and costs,” International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 47 (1), 1074–92.
Barney, Jay (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,”
Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
Bell, David R., Gallino Santiago and Moreno Antonio (2018), “Offline show-
rooms in omnichannel retail: Demand and operational benefits,” Manage-
ment Science, 64 (4), 1629–51.
Berry, Leonard L., Bolton Ruth N., Bridges Cheryl H., Meyer Jeffrey, Para-
suraman A. and Seiders Kathleen (2010), “Opportunities for innovation
129
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
in the delivery of interactive retail services,” Journal of Interactive Mar-
keting, 24 (2), 155–67.
Bertrandie, Laura and Zielke Stephan (2017), “The effects of multi-channel
assortment integration on customer confusion,” International Review of
Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research, 27 (5), 437–49.
Bhatnagar, Amit and Ghose Sanjoy (2004), “A latent class segmentation anal-
ysis of e-shoppers,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (7), 758–67.
Bilgicer, Tolga, Jedidi Kamel, Lehmann Donald R. and Neslin Scott
A. (2015), “The long-term effect of multichannel usage on sales,” Cus-
tomer Needs and Solutions, 2 (January), 41–56.
Biyalogorsky, Eyal and Naik Prasad (2003), “Clicks and mortar: The effect
of on-line activities on off-line sales,” Marketing Letters, 14 (1), 21–32.
Blattberg, Robert C., Kim Byung-Do and Neslin Scott A. (2008). Database
marketing: Analyzing and Managing Customers. New York: Springer.
Bloch, Peter H. (2011), “Product design and marketing: Reflections after fif-
teen years,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (3), 378–80.
Blom, Angelica, Lange Fredrik and Hess Ronald L., Jr (2017), “Omnichan-
nel-based promotions’ effects on purchase behavior and brand image,”
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39 (November), 286–95.
Burns, David J., Gupta Pola B., Bihn Hanna C. and Hutchins Jen-
nifer (2018), “Showrooming: An exploratory empirical investigation of
students’ attitudes and behavior,” Information Systems Management,
35 (4), 294–307.
Cambra-Fierro, Jesús, Kamakura Wagner A., Melero-Polo Iguacel and Javier
Sese F. (2016), “Are multichannel customers really more valuable? An
analysis of banking services,” International Journal of Research in Mar-
keting, 33 (1), 208–12.
Campbell, Dennis and Frei Frances (2010), “Cost structure, customer prof-
itability,and retention implications of self-service distribution channels:
Evidence from customer behavior in an online banking channel,” Man-
agement Science, 56 (1), 4–24.
Campo, Katia and Breugelmans Els (2015), “Buying groceries in brick and
click stores: Category allocation decisions and the moderating effect of
online buying experience,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 31 (August),
63–78.
Cao, Lanlan and Li Li (2015), “The impact of cross-channel integration on
retailers’ sales growth”,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 198–216.
Cavallo, Alberto (2017), “Are online and offline prices similar? Evidence
from large multi-channel retailers,” American Economic Review, 107 (1),
283–303.
Cebollada, Javier, Chu Yanlai and Jiang Zhiying (2019), “Online category
pricing at a multichannel grocery retailer,” Journal of Interactive Market-
ing, 46 (May), 52–69.
Chain Store Age. (2017). Analyst: Best buy’s multichannel model prov-
ing to be a core strength https:// chainstoreage.com/ news/ analyst-best-
buys- multichannel- model- proving- be- core- strength.
Chatterjee, Patrali (2010), “Multiple-channel and cross-channel shopping be-
havior: Role of consumer shopping orientations,” Marketing Intelligence
and Planning, 28 (1), 9–24.
Chatterjee, Patrali and Kumar Archana (2017), “Consumer willingness to pay
across retail channels,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34
(January), 264–70.
Chiu, Hung-Chang, Hsieh Yi-Ching, Roan Jimnshyang, Tseng Kuan-Jen
and Hsieh Jung-Kuei (2011), “The challenge for multichannel services:
Cross-channel free-riding behavior,” Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 10 (2), 268–77.
Chu, Junhong, Arce-Urriza Marta, Cebollada-Calvo José-Javier and Chinta-
gunta Pradeep K. (2010), “An empirical analysis of shopping behavior
across online and offline grocery products: The moderating effects of
household and product characteristics,” Journal of Interactive Marketing,
24 (4), 251–68.
Chu, Junhong, Chintagunta Pradeep and Cebollada Javier (2008), “A com-
parison of within-household price sensitivity across online and offline
channels,” Marketing Science, 27 (2), 283–99.
CNBC. (2019). This is what’s behind Walmart’s staying power
that could outmaneuver amazon https:// www.cnbc.com/ 2019/ 08/ 15/
walmarts- secret- weapon- in- its- quest- to- outmaneuver- amazon.html.
S.A. Neslin
CNN. (2021). Amazon helped crush physical stores – Now it re-
portedly wants to be one https:// www.cnn.com/ 2021/ 08/ 20/ business/
amazon- department- stores/index.html.
Danaher, Peter J., Danaher Tracey S., Smith Michael Stanley and Loaiza-
-Maya Ruben (2020), “Advertising effectiveness for multiple retail-
er-brands in a multimedia and multichannel environment,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 57 (3), 445–67.
De Keyser, Arne, Schepers Jeroen and Konus Umut (2015), “Multichannel
customer segmentation: Does the after-sales channel matter? A replication
and extension,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32 (4)
453-446.
Deleersnyder, Barbara, Geyskens Inge, Gielens Katrijn and Dekimpe Marnik
G. (2002), “How cannibalistic is the internet channel? A study of the
newspaper industry in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands,” Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (4), 337–48.
Dinner, Isaac M., Heerde Harald J.van and Neslin Scott A. (2014), “Driving
online and offline sales: The cross-channel effects of traditional, online
display, and paid search advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51
(5), 527–45.
Du, Rex Yuxing, Xu Linli and Wilbur Kenneth C. (2019), “Immediate re-
sponses of online brand search and price search to TV ads,” Journal of
Marketing, 83 (4), 81–100.
Dunne, Ciarán (2011), “The place of the literature review in grounded theory
research,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14 (2),
111–24.
Dzyabura, Daria, Jagabathula Srikanth and Muller Eitan (2019), “Accounting
for discrepancies between online and offline product evaluations,” Mar-
keting Science, 38 (1), 88–106.
Elliott, Michael T., Fu Frank Q. and Speck Paul Surgi (2012), “Information
search and purchase patterns in a multichannel service industry,” Services
Marketing Quarterly, 33 (4), 292–310.
eMarketer. (2019). Marketers struggle to deliver omnichannel personaliza-
tion that consumers crave May 11, 2019, by Blake Droesch https://
www.emarketer.com/ content/ marketers- struggle- to- deliver- omnichannel-
personalization- that- consumers- crave .
Emrich, Oliver and Verhoef Peter C. (2015a), “The impact of a homogenous
versus a prototypical web design on online retail patronage for multi-
channel providers,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32
(4), 363–74.
Emrich, Oliver, Paul Michael and Rudolph Thomas (2015b), “Shopping ben-
efits of multichannel assortment integration and the moderating role of
retailer type,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 326–42.
Engel, James F., Kollat David T. and Blackwell Roger D. (1968). Consumer
behavior. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.
Fiestas, Jorge Carlos and Tuzovic Sven (2021), “Mobile-assisted show-
roomers: Understanding their purchase journey and personalities,” Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58 (January), 1–9.
Flavián, Carlos, Gurrea Raquel and Orús Carlos (2019), “Feeling confident
and smart with webrooming: Understanding the consumer’s path to sat-
isfaction,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 47 (August), 1–15.
Forbes (2018). https:// www.forbes.com/ sites/ stevendennis/ 2018/ 12/ 26/
the- 3- big- problems- with- omnichannel- retail/#6eecc9333fc4.
Frasquet, Marta and Miquel Maria José (2017), “Do channel integra-
tion efforts pay-off in terms of online and offline customer loy-
alty?,” International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
45 (7/8), 859–73.
Frasquet, Marta, Ieva Marco and Ziliani Cristina (2019), “Understanding
complaint channel usage in multichannel retailing,” Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 47 (March), 94–103.
Gallino, Santiago and Moreno Antonio (2014), “Integration of online and
offline channels in retail: The impact of sharing reliable inventory avail-
ability information,” Management Science, 60 (6), 1434–51.
Gao, Wei, Fan Hua, Li Wenqian and Wang Huiling (2021b), “Crafting the
customer experience in omnichannel contexts: The role of channel inte-
gration,” Journal of Business Research, 126 (March), 12–22.
Gao, Wei, Li Wenqian, Fan Jua and Jia Xingping (2021a), “How customer ex-
perience inconguence affects omnichannel customer retention: The mod-
130
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
erating role of channel characteristics,” Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 60 (May), 1–9.
Gensler, Sonja, Verhoef Peter C. and Böhm Martin (2012), “Understanding
consumers’ multichannel choices across the different stages of the buying
process,” Marketing Letters, 23 (4), 987–1003.
Gensler, Sonja, Neslin Scott A. and Verhoef Peter C. (2017), “The showroom-
ing phenomenon: It’s more than just about price,” Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 38 (May), 29–43.
Gentzkow, Matthew (2006). Valuing new goods in a model with complemen-
tarities: Online newspapers NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper
12562.
Goic, Marcel, Álvarez Rodolgo and Montoya Ricardo (2018), “The effect of
house ads on multichannel sales,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 42
(May), 32–45.
Govindarajan, Araind, Sinha Amitabh and Uichanco Joline (2017). Inven-
tory optimization for fulfillment integration in omnichannel retailing. Ross
School of Business, University of Michigan.
Gu, Xian and Kannan P.K. (2021), “The dark side of mobile app adoption:
Examining the impact on customers’ multichannel purchase,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 58 (2), 246–64.
Hallikainen, Heli, Alamäki Ari and Laukkanen Tommi (2019), “Individual
preferences of digital touchpoints: A latent class analysis,” Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 50 (September), 386–93.
Hamouda, Manel (2019), “Omni-channel banking integration quality and per-
ceived value as drivers of consumers’ satisfaction and loyalty,” Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, 32 (4), 603–25.
Heitz-Spahn, Sandrine (2013), “Cross-channel free-riding consumer behavior
in a multichannel environment: An investigation of shopping motives, so-
ciodemographics, and product categories,” Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services, 20 (6), 570–8.
Herhausen, Dennis, Binder Jochen, Schoegel Marcus and Herrmann An-
dreas (2015), “Integrating bricks with clicks: Retailer-level and chan-
nel-level outcomes of online-offline channel integration,” Journal of Re-
tailing, 91 (2), 309–25.
Herhausen, Dennis, Kleinlercher Kristina, Verhoef Peter C., Emrich Oliver
and Rudolph Thomas (2019), “Loyalty formation for different customer
journey segments,” Journal of Retailing, 95 (3), 9–29.
Homburg, Christian, Lauer Karin and Vomberg Arnd (2019), “The multi-
channel pricing dilemma: Do consumers accept higher offline than on-
line prices?,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36 (4),
597–612.
Hossain, Tasnim M.Taufique, Akter Shahriar, Kattiyapornpong Uraiporn and
Dwivedi Yogesh (2020), “Reconceptualizing integration quality dynam-
ics for omnichannel marketing,” Industrial Marketing Management, 87
(May), 225–41.
Huang, Eugenia Y., Lin Sheng-Wei and Cheng Kai-Teng (2019). “How does
omnichannel integration quality affect consumers’ stickiness intention”.
In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii international conference on system
science (pp. 4753–4762).
Huang, Lei, Lu Xianghua and Ba Sulin (2016), “An empirical study of the
cross-channel effects between web and mobile shopping channels,” Infor-
mation and Management, 53 (2), 265–78.
Huré, Elodie, Picot-Coupey Karine and Ackermann Claire-Lise (2017), “Un-
derstanding omni-channel shopping value: A mixed-method study,” Jour-
nal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39 (November), 314–30.
Ieva, Marco and Cristina Ziliani (2017), “Towards Digital Loyalty Programs:
Insights from Customer Medium Preference Segmentation,” International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45 (2), 195–210.
Kang, Ju-Young M. (2018), “Showrooming, webrooming, and user-generated
content creation in the omnichannel era,” Journal of Internet Commerce,
17 (2), 145–69.
Keen, Cherie, Wetzels Martin, Ruyter Ko de and Feinberg Richard (2004),
“E-Tailers versus retailers: Which factors determine consumer prefer-
ences,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (7), 685–95.
Kleinlercher, Kristina, Emrich Oliver, Herhausen Dennis, Verhoef Peter C.
and Rudolph Thomas (2018), “Websites as information hubs: How in-
formational channel integration and shopping benefit density interact in
S.A. Neslin
steering customers to the physical store,” Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research, 3 (3), 330–42.
Kollmann, Tobias, Kuckertz Andreas and Kayser Ina (2012), “Cannibalization
or synergy? Chansumers’ channel selection in online-offline multichannel
systems,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19 (2), 186–94.
Konus, Umut, Verhoef Peter C. and Neslin Scott A. (2008), “Multichan-
nel shopper segments and their covariates,” Journal of Retailing, 84 (4),
398–413.
Kumar, Ashish, Bezawada Ram and Trivedi Minakshi (2018), “The effects of
multichannel shopping on customer spending, customer visit frequency,
and customer profitability,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Re-
search, 3 (3), 294–311.
Kumar, V. and Venkatesan Rajkumar (2005), “Who are the multichannel
shoppers and how do they perform?: Correlates of multichannel shopping
behavior,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19 (2), 44–62.
Kushwaha, Tarun and Shankar Venkatest (2013), “Are multichannel cus-
tomers really more valuable? The moderating role of product category
characteristics,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (July), 67–85.
Le, Angelina Nhat Hanh and Nguyen-Le Xuan-Doanh (2020), “A moderated
mediating mechanism of omnichannel customer experiences,” Interna-
tional Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 49 (5), 595–615.
Lee, Hyun-Hwa and Kim Jihyun (2010), “Investigating dimensionality of
multichannel retailer’s cross-channel integration practices and effective-
ness: Shopping orientation and loyalty intention,” Journal of Marketing
Channels, 17 (4), 281–312.
Lee, Won-Jun (2020), “Unraveling consumer responses to omni-channel ap-
proach,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Re-
search, 15 (3), 37–49.
Lee, Zach W.Y., Tommy K.H., Chan Alain, Yee-Loong Chong and
Thadani Dimple R. (2019), “Customer engagement through omnichannel
retailing: The effects of channel integration quality,” Industrial Marketing
Management, 77 (February), 90–101.
Lemon, Katherine N. and Verhoef Peter C. (2016), “Understanding customer
experience throughout the customer journey,” Journal of Marketing, 80
(November), 69–96.
Lewis, Julie, Whysall Paul and Foster Carley (2014), “Drivers and technol-
ogy-related obstacles in moving to multichannel retailing,” International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18 (4), 43–68.
Li, Jing, Konus Umut, Langerak Fred and Weggman Mathieu C.D.P. (2017),
“Customer channel migration and firm choice: The effects of cross-chan-
nel competition,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 21 (1),
12–46.
Li, Yang, Hefu Liu, Eric T.K. Lim, Jie Mein Goh, Feng Yang and Matthew
K.O. Lee (2018), “Customer’s Reaction to Cross-Channel Integration in
Omnichannel Retailing: The Mediating Roles of Retailer Uncertainty,
Identity attractiveness, and Switching Costs,” Decision Support Systems,
109 (May), 50–60.
Li, Xi, Dony Dahana Wirawan, Li Tongmao and Yuan Jingbo (2021), “Behav-
ioral changes of multichannel customers: Their persistence and influenc-
ing factors,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58 (January),
1–12.
Liaukonyte, Jura, Teixeira Thales and Wilbur Kenneth C. (2015), “Tele-
vision advertising and online shopping,” Marketing Science, 34 (3),
311–30.
Luo, Xueming, Zhang Yuchi, Zeng Fue and Qu Zhe (2020), “Complementar-
ity and cannibalization of offline-to-online targeting: A field experiment
on omnichannel commerce,” MIS Quarterly, 44 (2), 957–82.
Ma, Junzhao (2016), “Does greater online assortment pay? An empirical
study using matched online and catalog shoppers,” Journal of Retailing,
92 (3), 373–82.
Mark, Tanya, Bulla Jan, Niraj Rakesh, Bulla Ingo and Schwarzwäller Wolf-
gang (2019), “Catalogue as a tool for reinforcing habits: Empirical evi-
dence from a multichannel retailer,” International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 36 (4), 528–41.
Melis, Kristina, Campo Katia, Lamey Lien and Breugelmans Els (2016), “A
bigger slice of the multichannel grocery pie: When does consumers’ on-
line channel use expand retailers’ share of wallet?,” Journal of Retailing,
92 (3), 268–86.
131
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
Montaguti, Elisa, Neslin Scott A. and Valentini Sara (2016), “Can marketing
campaigns induce multichannel buying and more profitable customers? A
field experiment,” Marketing Science, 35 (2), 201–17.
Mosquera, Ana, Ayensa Emma Juaneda, Pascual Cristina Olarte and
Murillo Yolanda Sierra (2019), “Omnichannel shopper segmentation in
the fashion industry,” Journal of Promotion Management, 25 (5), 681–99.
Nakano, Satoshi and Kondo Fumiyo N. (2018), “Customer segmentation with
purchase channels and media touchpoints using single source panel data,”
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41 (March), 142–52.
Narang, Unnati and Shankar Venkatesh (2019), “Mobile app introduction and
online and offline purchases and product returns,” Marketing Science, 38
(5), 756–72.
Neslin, Scott A., Grewal Dhruv, Leghorn Robert, Shankar Venkatesh, Teer-
ling Marije L., Thomas Jacquelyn S. and Verhoef Peter C. (2006), “Chal-
lenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management,” Journal
of Service Research, 9 (2), 95–112.
New York Times. (2021). The TV hit that wasn’t https://www.nytimes.com/
2021/ 11/ 01/ business/ media/ american- crime- story- streaming.html.
Park, Joonyong and Kim Renee B. (2018), “A new approach to segmenting
multichannel shoppers in Korea and the U.S,” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 45 (November), 163–78.
Pauwels, Koen and Neslin Scott A. (2015), “Building with bricks and mor-
tar: The revenue impact of opening physical stores in a multichannel
environment,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 182–97.
Rejón-Guardia and Luna-Nevarez Cuauhtemoc (2017), “‘Showrooming’ in
consumer electronics retailing: An empirical study,” Journal of Internet
Commerce, 16 (2), 174–201.
Revenue Insights. (2020). Why omnichannel strategy failed and
how to make it work (Part Two) http:// revenueinsights.com/ why-
your- omnichannel- strategy- failed- and- how- to- make- it- work- part- two/.
Rodríguez-Torrico, Paula, Apadula Lauren Trabold, San-Martín Sonia and
Cabezudo Rebeca San José (2020), “Have an omnichannel seamless in-
teraction experience! Dimensions and effect on consumer satisfaction,”
Journal of Marketing Management, 36 (17-18), 1731–61.
Rooderkerk, Robert P. and Kök Gürhan (2019). “Omnichannel assortment
planning”. In Gallino Santiago, and Moreno Antonio (Eds.), Operations
in an omnichannel world springer series in supply chain management,
vol. 8 (pp. 51–86). New York: Springer, Cham.
Sands, Sean, Ferraro Carla, Campbell Colin and Pallant Jason (2016), “Seg-
menting multichannel consumers across search, purchase, and after-sales,”
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33 (November), 62–71.
Santos, Susana and Goncalves Helena Martins (2019), “Multichannel con-
sumer behaviors in the mobile environment: Using fsQCA and discrimi-
nant analysis to understanding webrooming motivations,” Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 101 (August), 757–66.
Schramm-Klein, Hanna, Wagner Gerhard, Steinmann Sascha and
Morschett Dirk (2011), “Cross-channel integration – Is it valued by
customers?,” The International Review of Retail, Distribution, and
Consumer Research, 21 (5), 501–11.
Shankar, Venkatesth and Kushwaha Tarun (2020), “Omnichannel marketing:
Are cross-channel effects symmetric?,” International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 38 (2), 290–310.
Shen, Kathy Ning, Cai Yuanfeng and Guo Zhaoyang (2016), “When do online
consumers shop in an offline store: The moderating effects of product
characteristics,” Journal of Marketing Channels, 23 (3), 129–45.
Shen, Xiao-Liang, Li Yang-Jun, Sun Yongqiang and Wang Nan (2018),
“Channel integration quality, perceived fluency and omnichannel service
usage: The moderating roles of internal and external usage experience,”
Decision Support Systems, 109 (May), 61–73.
Shi, Si, Wang Yi, Chen Xuanzhu and Zhang Qian (2020), “Conceptualization
of omnichannel customer experience and its impact on shopping inten-
tion: A mixed-method approach,” International Journal of Information
Management, 50 (February), 325–36.
Shröder, Hendrik and Zaharia Silvia (2008), “Linking multi-channel customer
behavior with shopping motives: An empirical investigation of a German
retailer,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 15 (6), 452–68.
Smart Insights (2018). https:// www.smartinsights.com/ ecommerce/
multichannel- retail- strategy/importance- omnichannel- marketing/.
S.A. Neslin
Smith, Michael D. and Telang Rahul (2009), “The impact of movie broad-
casts on DVD sales and internet piracy,” MIS Quarterly, 33 (2), 321–38.
Sousa, Rui and Voss Christopher A. (2006), “Service quality in multichannel
service employing virtual channels,” Journal of Service Research, 8 (4),
356–71.
Soysal, Gonca and Krishnamurthi Lakshman (2016), “How does adoption of
the outlet channel impact customers’ spending in the retail stores: Conflict
or synergy?,” Management Science, 62 (9), 2692–704.
Sun, Yongqiang, Yang Chaofan, Shen Xiao-Liang and Wang Nan (2020),
“When digitalized customers meet digitalized services: A digitalized so-
cial cognitive perspective of omnichannel service usage,” International
Journal of Information Management, 54 (October), 1–13.
Thomas, Jacquelyn S. and Sullivan Ursula Y. (2005), “Managing marketing
communications with multichannel customers,” Journal of Marketing, 69
(October), 239–51.
Tyrväinen, Olli and Karjaluoto Heikki (2019), “Omnichannel experience: To-
wards successful channel integration at retail,” Journal of Customer Be-
haviour, 18 (1), 17–34.
Valentini, Sara, Neslin Scott A. and Montaguti Elisa (2020), “Identifying
omnichannel deal prone segments, their antecedents, and their conse-
quences,” Journal of Retailing, 96 (3), 310–27.
Baal, Van and Dach Christian (2005), “Free riding and customer reten-
tion across retailers’ channels,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19 (2),
75–85.
Van Baal, Sabastian (2014), “Should retailers harmonize marketing variables
across their distribution channels? An investigation of cross-channel ef-
fects in multi-channel retailing,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Ser-
vices, 21, 1038–46.
Van Nierop, J.E.M., Leeflang P.S.H., Teerling M.L. and Huiz-
ingh K.R.E. (2011), “The impact of the introduction and use of an
information website on offline customer buying behavior,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 28 (2), 155–65.
Vana, Prasad, Lambrecht Anja and Bertini Marco (2018), “Cashback is cash
forward: Delaying a discount to entice future spending,” Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 55 (6), 852–68.
Venkatesan, Rajkumar, Kumar V. and Ravishanker Nalini (2007), “Multi-
channel shopping: Causes and consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 71
(April), 114–32.
Verhoef, Peter C., Kannan P.K. and Inman J.Jeffrey (2015), “From multi-
-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing: Introduction to the special
issue on multi-channel retailing,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 174–81.
132
Journal of Retailing 98 (2022) 111–132
Verhoef, Peter C., Neslin Scott A. and Vroomen Björn (2007), “Multi-
channel customer management: Understanding the research-shopper phe-
nomenon,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24 (2),
129–48.
Wang, Quansheng, Yang Xue, Song Peijian and Sia Choon Ling (2014),
“Consumer segmentation analysis of multichannel and multistage con-
sumption: A latent class MNL approach,” Journal of Electronic Com-
merce Research, 15 (4), 339–58.
Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, Malthouse Edward C. and Krishnamurthi Laksh-
man (2015), “On the go: How mobile shopping affects customer purchase
behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 217–34.
Wang, Yu-Min, Lin Hsin-Hui, Tai Wei-Chun and Fan Yi-Ling (2016), “Un-
derstanding multi-channel research shoppers: An analysis of internet and
physical channels,” Information Systems E-Business Management, 14,
380–413.
Wolk, Agnieska and Ebling Christine (2010), “Multi-channel price differen-
tiation: An empirical investigation of existence and causes,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (2), 142–50.
Xu, Jiao, Forman Chris, Kim Jun B. and Van Ittersum Koert (2014), “News
media channels: Complements or substitutes? Evidence from mobile
phone usage,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (July), 97–112.
Xu, Kaiquan, Chan Jason, Ghose Anindya and Han Sang Pil (2017), “Battle
of the channels: The impact of tablets on digital commerce,” Management
Science, 63 (5), 1469–92.
Zhang, Dennis J., Dai Hengchen, Dong Lingxiu, Wu Qian, Guo Lifan and
Liu Xiaofei (2019a), “The value of pop-up stores on retailing platforms:
Evidence from a field experiment with Alibaba,” Management Science,
65 (11), 5142–51.
Zhang, Jonathan Z., Chang Chun-Wei and Neslin Scott A. (2021), “How
physical stores enhance customer value: The importance of product in-
spection depth,” forthcoming Journal of Marketing.
Zhang, Min, Ren Chengshang, Wang G.Alan and He Zhen (2018), “The
impact of channel integration on consumer responses in omni-channel
retailing: The mediating effect of consumer empowerment,” Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 28 (March-April), 181–93.
Zhang, Sha, Pauwels Koen and Peng Chenming (2019b), “The impact of
adding online-to-offline service platform channels on firms’ offline and
total sales and profits,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 47 (August),
115–28.
Zhou, Mi, Geng Dan, Abhishek Vibhanshu and Li Beibei (2020), “When the
bank comes to you: Branch network and customer omni-channel banking
behavior,” Information Systems Research, 31 (1), 1–46.