The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-0552.htm

The multi-generation Generational

differences in
Generational differences in channel activity channel
activity
Amy Dorie
San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA, and
395
David Loranger
Jack Welch College of Business, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Connecticut, USA Received 16 June 2019
Revised 18 July 2019
22 August 2019
Abstract 16 December 2019
Purpose – The aim of this research is to advance the understanding of multi-channel behaviour in terms of Accepted 3 January 2020
different generational cohorts’ usage and spending patterns.
Design/methodology/approach – Building on previous studies on multi-channel behaviour, differences in
shopping channel usage and purchase amounts were investigated between baby boomers, Gen X, xennials and
millennials.
Findings – There were significant differences found between the generations in terms of multi-channel
behaviour regarding purchasing frequency and average purchase amounts via a) mobile phone, b) tablet, c)
computer, d) social media and e) brick-and-mortar. Fewer differences were found amongst the generational
cohorts in terms of amount spent per channel.
Research limitations/implications – The research was successful in analysing variances in multi-channel
behaviour amongst the baby boomer, Generation X, xennial and millennial cohorts, while updating the body of
literature to consider generational channel usage of mobile and social media in multi-channel retailing.
Practical implications – Marketers should consider xennials’ channel behaviour and focus on converting
sales through integrated programmes based on their channel usage. Retailers should also consider millennials’
heavy engagement with social media in their lives but spend lower amounts via the medium, which may be an
opportunity to use this medium as a viable stand-alone channel in targeting millennials’ shopping dollars.
Originality/value – This study updates the body of research on multi-channel behaviour by considering
generation as a factor in channel usage and spend amount.
Keywords Mobile, Social media, Generations, Multi-channel, Xennials, Purchases
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
As the retail marketplace becomes increasingly competitive, retailers have emphasized the
need to connect with consumers via a wide variety of channels (NRF, 2018), which are
touchpoints between retailers and consumers (Beck and Rygl, 2015). Consumers have a
greater variety of channels to choose from in order to complete shopping and search, and
different channels offer varying attributes that customers value (Gensler et al., 2012).
Many retailers are taking broad steps to understand various consumers’ shopping
patterns within this multi-channel landscape (Verhoef et al., 2015) due to the intensification of
competition in the marketplace and changing consumer demographics (Verhoef et al., 2015;
NRF, 2018). By understanding each channel’s strengths and weaknesses, retailers can better
allocate resources and efforts; thus, multi-channel strategies should be driven by channel
characteristics, such as utilitarian and hedonic dimensions (Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a, 2018b). This is
important, since operating in multiple channels may result in cannibalization of business
between channels (Lapoule and Colla, 2016).
Non–brick-and-mortar channels are quickly growing in influence within the retail
landscape (Neslin and Shankar, 2009). Although global brick-and-mortar shopping channels
are currently generating approximately $12.5 trillion per year (as opposed to e-commerce at
International Journal of Retail &
$1.4 trillion), electronic channels are trending to grow to $2.6 trillion by 2022 (GMID, 2018). In Distribution Management
fact, during the period 2017–2019, in-store sales were anticipated to decline from 42 to 36 per Vol. 48 No. 4, 2020
pp. 395-416
cent (eMarketer, 2018). However, in a recent marketing survey, a strong proportion of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-0552
millennials (31 per cent), Gen X (28 per cent) and baby boomers (32 per cent) reported DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-06-2019-0196
IJRDM shopping in brick-and-mortar stores (Wallace, 2018). Boston Consulting Group (2018) found
48,4 that 40 per cent of younger consumers surveyed shopped in a ‘store-solo’ environment, while
‘online-solo’ growth is being led by ‘older generations’ (p. 8). These statistics contradict
popular thought that millennial consumers shop exclusively online due to being raised on
technology (Dorie et al., 2016). Separate reports by Statista revealed that 36 per cent of
consumers engage in mixed-channel usage (Criteo, n.d. a), and that 27 per cent of global retail
sales (and 24 per cent of US sales) are conducted using a mix of multi-channel touchpoints
396 (Criteo, n.d. b).
In addition to traditional brick-and-mortar and online channels, consumers can engage
with brands via mobile phones, tablets and/or social media platforms. Pew Research (2018)
found that millennials, Generation X and baby boomers owned smart phones at rates of 92, 85
and 67 per cent, respectively, and a separate study found tablet usage by older consumers has
increased over 20 per cent since 2013 (Anderson and Perrin, 2017). There are 2.32 billion
active monthly users on Facebook and another 1 billion on Instagram (Statista, 2019). A
majority (70 per cent) of millennials follow brands while using social media (Mezzacca et al.,
2019). Interestingly, Wallace (2018) indicated higher social media engagement by Gen X, with
29 per cent of millennials, 34 per cent of Gen X and 25 per cent of baby boomers reportedly
shopping via the channel. As usage of these technologies and sites has risen, there has also
been an increase in social media shopping, with 25 per cent of businesses reporting sales
through social media (Arnold, 2018). Due to a greater number of channels at consumers’
disposal, it is increasingly important for marketers to understand consumers’ multi-channel
behaviours.
The United States currently houses three times the amount of retail space than the
second-place country worldwide, and the market is oversaturated with brands and stores
(Lewis and Dart, 2014). The United States retail sector represents approximately $3.25 trillion
within the current $15 trillion global retailing market, which is expected to grow to $16.2
trillion by 2022 (GMID, 2018). Confounding retailers, the US still trails other areas of the world
in terms of adoption of digital channels, with North America at 29 per cent, Asia at 47 per cent,
Latin America at 38 per cent and Europe at 31 per cent (Statista, 2018). In such a cluttered
market, with so many retail dollars at stake, it is important for marketers to better understand
US consumers’ multi-channel behaviours to optimize sales.
Retailers are attempting to stand out from competitors and are also grappling with
appealing to a diverse consumer base. Key to marketing practice is segmentation analyses,
which assist in better understanding of subgroups of the consumer population (Levy and
Weitz, 2012), thus assisting retailers in establishing a unique position in the market.
Segments may be established based on demographics such as age, income, geographical area
and marital status (Armstrong and Kotler, 2014). Retailing researchers such as Neslin and
Shankar (2009) have identified segmentation analysis as the first step in developing
multi-channel strategies. Age, or generational segmentation, is important to consider, since
members of various generational cohorts have been found to exhibit differences due to the
experiences that they have encountered over their lifetimes (Devebec et al., 2013; Ryder, 1965).
Additionally, researchers have found that sub-segmentation of generational cohorts is
necessary due to heterogeneity within these groups (Bahng et al., 2013; Dorie et al., 2016;
Ryder, 1965; Vouchilas and Ulasewicz, 2014).
Due to the aforementioned importance of consumer channel usage to retailers’ strategies,
coupled with variances in channel choice amongst generational cohorts, it is also important
for marketers to understand specific age-groups’ use of multiple touchpoints. Lapoule and
Colla (2016) noted that awareness of consumers’ priorities in multiple channels is most
important for marketers to optimize their strategies and to avoid counterproductive results.
Therefore, the aim of this research is to understand different generational cohorts’ channel
usage and spending patterns in a multi-channel context.
2. Previous research and theoretical foundation Generational
2.1 Multi-channel retailing differences in
One strategy that is key to retailers’ success in connecting with—and staying in front of—
consumers is that of multi-channel retailing (Lapoule and Colla, 2016; Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a,
channel
2018b). Neslin et al. (2006) originally defined a channel as ‘a customer contact point, or a activity
medium through which the firm and the customer interact’ (p. 96) and made a special note that
they did not consider unidirectional communications as a channel. While a single retail
channel is a method for retailers to ‘sell and deliver merchandise and services to its customers’ 397
(Levy and Weitz, 2012, p. 67), multi-channel retailing involves using two or more channels to
connect with and sell to consumers (Beck and Rygl, 2015; Hagberg et al., 2015). Hagberg et al.
(2015) stressed the term multi-channel ‘implies a separation between channels (although they
are combined)’ (p. 698). These channels can include bricks-and mortar, online, mobile,
television and catalogues, amongst others (Levy and Weitz, 2012; Verhoef et al., 2015). While
selecting channels to engage in, retailers must consider the comparative advantages and
drawbacks of each channel (Lapoule and Colla, 2016; Levy and Weitz, 2012), as ‘consumers’
have been found to be ‘heterogeneous in their shopping preferences and orientations’ (Yrj€ol€a
et al., 2018a, p. 262).
Various channels have been found to connect with consumers’ purchasing processes in
different ways (Ewerhard et al., 2019). Both academic and industrial research has found that
consumers gravitate towards particular touchpoints to achieve objectives, and that
combinations of channels may be used to do so (BCG, 2018; Gasca, 2015; Hall et al., 2017;
Lapoule and Colla, 2016). Gensler et al. (2012) observed that there exists a positive connection
between channels that consumers choose and their ‘ability to satisfy the needs and fulfill
[their] expectations’ (p. 990). Customers select channels to ‘get the job done’ (Yrj€ol€a et al.,
2018a, p. 262). For instance, researchers van der Veen and Ossenbruggen (2015) were able to
create a model of ‘consumer search strategy’ (p. 209) that identified four shopper types with
various levels of motivation for information, convenience, reassurance and peace of mind.
The channels that these shoppers chose varied upon their priorities within specific product
categories (van der Veen and Ossenbruggen, 2015).
Some academic studies have found effects of age on channel choice (Bilgicer et al., 2015;
Marriott et al., 2017), while others have found little-to-no difference (Hall et al., 2017). It is for
these reasons that the coordination of multi-channel retail touchpoints must be better
understood through research, as increasing numbers of consumers choose to connect with
brands via different means (Hall et al., 2017; Lapoule and Colla, 2016), and at varying rates
(Ieva and Ziliani, 2018). Channel selection can depend on both demographic and
psychographic factors (Bilgicer et al., 2015) impacting hedonic and utilitarian motivations
(Kautish and Sharma, 2018), which have been found to vary by age cohort (Bilgicer et al., 2015;
Devebec et al., 2013; Marriott et al., 2017).
Consumers’ selection of a particular channel or multiple channels has been found to be
impacted by utilitarian and hedonic aspects of marketing mix elements (Kautish and Sharma,
2018), such as product pricing and assortment, convenienc, and personalization (Pentecost
et al., 2019; van der Veen and Ossenbruggen, 2015; Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a, 2018b). Each of these
elements may be either enhanced or limited by a particular channel, as consumers derive
different types of ‘economic, functional, emotional, and symbolic’ benefits (Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a,
p. 270). For instance, in a brick-and-mortar channel, classifications and assortments of
merchandise may be limited due to space limitations (Levy and Weitz, 2012). By contrast, the
brick-and-mortar channel traditionally allows consumers to purchase and take away
merchandise on the spot, versus online channels that currently have a minimum one-hour
delivery delay (Bensinger, 2015). This is especially important as there is currently a shift in
balance between brick-and-mortar and cyber channels such as social media and mobile
(Hagberg et al., 2015). This may be due to increased influence from the millennial consumer, as
IJRDM research has shown that younger consumers are more likely to engage in mobile shopping
48,4 compared to older consumers (Marriott et al., 2017). Hagberg et al. (2015) noted that the advent
of mobile ‘has begun to change consumer practices’ (p. 695), including the ability to compare
prices and assortments, along with eliminating steps in distribution. However, research has
also shown that older consumers, in the form of late adopters, spend more in online channels
(Li et al., 2015). By contrast, other research shows that convenience is an over-exaggerated
attribute and does not factor into consumers’ channel choices in search, and has a less
398 prominent role in purchasing (Gensler et al., 2012). However Gensler et al. (2012) did not
explain their sample composition in terms of demographics.
Prior research has indicated positive relationships between social media usage and sales
(Bercovici, 2013; Zhang et al., 2017), and this is expected to grow as the shopping functionality
of these sites increase (Boyle, 2019). Social media sites like Facebook and Instagram now
feature shoppable links on posts and images where brands and influencers can tag up to five
products for users to click through and purchase (Arnold, 2018).

2.2 Segmenting generational cohorts

Age is a demographic factor that allows marketers to segment groups of consumers in order
to better target marketing efforts (Armstrong and Kotler, 2014; Devebec et al., 2013; Ryder,
1965; Vouchilas and Ulasewicz, 2014). Generational cohorts have been found to exhibit
similar beliefs and motivations, and this may be attributed to a common set of shared
experiences that molds members’ ideas (Ryder, 1965), which can manifest in terms of
consumption patterns (Devebec et al., 2013). Baby boomers, born between 1943 and 1960
(Strauss and Howe, 1992), are the post-WWII generation and have historically been the
largest generational group. However, millennials, born between 1982 and 2004, are set to
surpass baby boomers in number in 2019 (Fry, 2018). Generation X, born between baby
boomers and millennials from 1961 to 1981, are the smallest of these generations, with 66
million members in 2016 (Fry, 2018). The millennial cohort is currently the dominant pool of
consumers in the market (Klara, 2019) and is anticipated to spend $1.4 trillion on an annual
basis by 2020 (Donnelly and Scaff, 2013). This generation has supplanted the baby boom
cohort as the largest consumer group; however, baby boomers still retain the lion’s share of
personal wealth (Dorie et al., 2017), and millennials are financially burdened due to
graduating into a recession, coupled with student loan debt (Akers, 2014), and are at various
life stages that impact priorities (Pentecost et al., 2019). Retailers are also still interested in the
Generation X cohort, which accounts for over one-third of income in the United States, while
only accounting for one-quarter of the population (Martin, 2016).
Different generations have been found to vary on hedonic and utilitarian shopping
motivations and also channel usage (Debevec et al., 2013; Vouchilas and Ulasewicz, 2014;
Pentecost et al., 2019). For instance, in a recent study, BCG (2018) found that millennials still
like to shop in brick-and-mortar stores, while baby noomers are leading in usage of online solo
resources. However, marketers must be cautious not to view generational groups as
monolithic. Age cohorts have also been found to be heterogeneous (Devebec et al., 2013;
Pentecost et al., 2019), as life events for members in different segments of a cohort may vary
drastically (Ryder, 1965; Devebec et al., 2013; Reisenwitz, 2007). For instance, millennials have
been found to even vary within their cohort with respect to value perceptions, with older
millennials seeking value more than younger millennials (Devebec et al., 2013; Pentecost et al.,
2019). Behaviours such as this that are skewed towards a utilitarian focus, may drive a certain
segment of a generation to engage in showrooming behaviours in order to get the best price
(Dorie et al., 2016). It may also drive generational segments to certain retail touchpoints that
offer incentives such as free shipping (Gasca, 2015). In addition, millennials have been found
to differ in terms of channel usage (Pentecost et al., 2019). Members of millennial cohort born
in earlier years may be more averse to Internet usage, versus those born towards the end of
the cohort, when technology and the Internet were more prevalent (Devebec et al., 2013). Generational
Therefore, it is essential that marketers understand the nuances of each generational cohort differences in
to ensure maximum return on investment and gain competitive advantage (Yrj€ol€a et al.,
2018a, 2018b).
channel
Further complicating marketers’ efforts is consideration of the micro-generation of activity
xennials, who were born from the late 1970s to early 1980s and are sometimes called ‘The
Oregon Trail Generation’ (Garvey, 2015, para. 8). This generation is known to have feelings of
neither being members of Generation X nor millennials, due to coming of age just at the 399
advent of the Internet and social media, as well as entering the job market at the time just
before the Great Recession (Stankorb and Oelbaum, 2014). The xennial cohort is uniquely
challenging to marketers due to the micro-generation’s ambivalent relationship with
technology (Weitz, 2018). These consumers exhibit hybrid perceptions of both millennials
and Gen X’ers in terms of consumption and technology (Garvey, 2015; Stankorb and
Oelbaum, 2014). Given the outsize impact of technology and the Internet on the retail sector, it
is then important to also consider xennials as a viable consumer segment.
The above generational cohorts have been shown to choose retail channels at varying
rates (Bilgicer et al., 2015; BCG, 2018; Marriott et al., 2017). Ieva and Ziliani (2018) also found
generational segments varied in terms of frequency of exposure to retail touchpoints. A study
commissioned by PYMNTS.com (2018) revealed that millennials, Generation X and xennials
are not only looking to purchase, but also want an experience while shopping. However, these
experiences must be relevant and targeted to well-specified generational market segments
(Pentecost et al., 2019).

2.3 Variances in multi-channel behaviour by generation

Members of each generation have access to multiple devices and applications through which
to make purchases. However, research has suggested that each generation may be drawn to
differing channels in various stages of this process due to their unique demographic and
psychographic characteristics (Ewerhard et al., 2019; Lewis and Dart, 2014; Pentecost et al.,
2019). Yet, academic and marketing research on channel usage by generational groups is
conflicting, with no current consensus on generational channel usage (BCG, 2018; Martin and
Turley, 2004; Pentecost et al., 2019). A summary of studies concerning generational multi-
channel behaviour can be found in Table I.
2.3.1 Connecting at brick-and-mortar locations. There are conflicting findings in studies
regarding the brick-and-mortar channel. Bilgicer et al. (2015) found a significant effect of age
on adoption of online channels, but no effect for adoption of the brick-and-mortar channel. In a
recent study, Boston Consulting Group found that baby boomers who shop for luxury goods
are driving the current rates of shopping in the online channel, while millennials are still
embracing brick-and-mortar channels (BCG, 2018). This channel choice may be driven by
younger generations’ need for both hedonic and utilitarian experiences (Dorie et al., 2016).
Contradictorily, Pentecost et al. (2019) found certain sub-segments of the millennial cohort
to be less compelled to choose brick-and-mortar malls as a channel, while Martin and Turley
(2004) discovered that this motivation may be dependent on specific ‘objective’ factors, as
opposed to ‘social’ factors (p. 464). Hall et al. (2017) discovered that shoppers aged 16–34 use a
number of channels to gather information and also to converse about shopping-related
content and options, with face-to-face being the most prevalent.
2.3.2 Age and computer/laptop channel usage. Marketing research reported differences
between older and younger millennials in terms of likeliness to shop online via computer or
mobile device, with the younger group engaging more in online shopping (Mezzacca et al.,
2019). This suggests possible differences in online shopping between millennials and
xennials. However, in the same study, both groups reported making the majority of their
purchases online. As stated above, BCG (2018) found that baby boomers are leading growth
IJRDM Channel Author Findings
48,4
Multi Neslin et al. (2006), Yrj€ol€a et Channel choice may vary due to ‘individual differences-
al., (2018a, b) gender, age, education, income, and family size’ (pp. 101–102)
Brick-and- Pentecost et al. (2019) Millennials choice of this channel may vary based on hedonic
mortar Martin and Turley (2004) and utilitarian motivations
Bilgicer et al., (2015) Millennials may choose this channel based on ‘objective,’
400 rather than ‘social’ factors
Age has no effect on choice of brick-and-mortar channel
Computer/ Mezzacca et al. (2019) Younger millennials are more engaged in shopping online
Laptop Bilgicer et al. (2015) than older millennials
BCG (2018) Age significantly impacts the choice of the online channel
Boomers lead in online solo shopping
Mobile Pantano et al. (2016) Level of mobile ownership and familiarity drives choice of
Ieva and Ziliani (2018) mobile channel
Marriott et al. (2017) Exposure to mobile touchpoints may drive choice of mobile
Mezzacca et al. (2019) channel
Millennials prefer the mobile channel to purchase
Table I. Social media Yrj€ol€a et al., Millennial and Generation Z consumers use a wide variety of
A summary of studies (2018a, b) social media touchpoints to gain product information and to
relating to generational Hall et al., (2017) interact regarding shopping
differences in channel Helal et al., (2018) Millennials form ‘symbolic relationships’ with brands (Helal
behavior et al., 2018, p. 990) via social media

in the ‘on-line solo’ (p. 8) channel, which conflicts with the popular perception that boomers
would be more inclined to shop in brick-and-mortar environments (Wallace, 2018) and are less
tech-savvy than millennials who show an affinity for technology (Dorie et al., 2016). These
findings are further supported by Bilgicer et al. (2015), who found a negative effect between
age and online activity.
2.3.3 The shift towards mobile phone choice. Hagberg et al. (2015) observed that mobile
devices have changed the retail paradigm in terms of supplanting brick-and-mortar and web
activity, whereas H€ogberg et al. (2019) noted that nine out of ten consumers use their mobile
phone while visiting a physical store. Mobile is bringing retail activity to new places such as
the commuting space (Hagberg et al., 2015), and creating new experiences such as gaming
while shopping (H€ogberg et al., 2019). Pantano et al. (2016) found that levels of mobile
ownership and familiarity drove shoppers’ choice of this channel. Baby boomers have been
found to view mobile channels challenging to utilize; however, they do see mobile as useful
(Yang and Jolly, 2008). For millennials, mobile is the preferred online platform for making
purchases (Mezzacca et al., 2019). Research has illustrated that as the millennial generation
becomes the dominant consumer group in the market, this cohort is more likely to shop on
mobile (Marriott et al., 2017) and that this may be due to exposure to mobile touchpoints (Ieva
and Ziliani, 2018). However, segmentation may not be as simple as it appears, as the
millennial generation has been found to be heterogeneous (Devebec et al., 2013). An example
of this heterogeneity is the xennial consumer group, who have been found to exhibit some
traits of millennials (Garvey, 2015). Therefore, a better understanding of mobile channel
usage is important, since this channel is gaining in popularity (Hagberg et al., 2015).
2.3.4 The tablet generation. There is limited research on shopping behaviours using a
tablet device. However, baby boomer and Gen X consumers may gravitate more towards
tablet shopping over mobile phone due to similar functionality, but overall size differences
between the devices (Jiang, 2018). Baby boomers are now over age 57 and the youngest Gen X
members are approaching 40, a time in life when weakening vision makes it difficult to read
small print up-close (American Optometric Association, n.d.). Thus, when choosing from
mobile shopping options, older generations may choose the larger tablet format in order to see Generational
product and price information more clearly. Indeed, Gen X consumers outpace millennials in differences in
tablet use, and baby boomers use the device at similar levels to the younger generation
(Jiang, 2018).
channel
2.3.5 Shopping on social media. Social media use has been associated with online activity
purchases (Zhang et al., 2017). Research has indicated that millennial consumers not only use
social media to gain information, but also to form ‘symbolic relationships’ with brands (Helal
et al., 2018, p. 990). Hall et al. (2017) found that millennial and Generation Z shoppers use a 401
wide variety of social media channels to conduct product information searches and to interact
with each other regarding shopping. Still, the use of social media by retailers to sell products
has not been perfected, and consumers tend to use social media sites to interact with brands,
rather than to purchase. This may be attributed to consumers not making progression from
the evaluation state to the purchasing stage while using social media platforms (Lindsey-
Mullikin and Borin, 2017), and reaffirms Ewerhard et al. ’s (2019) assertion that particular
channels align with various purchase process stages.

2.4 Generational motivations for channel usage

There have also been scholarly inquiries into the motivations behind channel choice
particularly associated with demographic segmentation. Neslin et al. ’s (2006) foundational
inquiry, ‘A Framework for Multichannel Customer Management’ (p. 97), defined factors that
determine consumers’ selection of various channels, including (1) ‘social influence-a belief
that people similar to them use the channel,’ (2) ‘situational factors, goal-directed and
experiential tasks’ and (3) ‘individual differences-gender, age, education, income, and family
size’ (pp. 101–102). A very recent study was Pentecost et al. ’s (2019) analysis of intra-
generational differences in millennial’s choice of the brick-and-mortar mall channel. The
authors found that there were significant differences in millennial sub-segments’ choice of
this channel due to hedonic and utilitarian aspects (Pentecost et al., 2019). San-Martin et al.
(2015) investigated mobile shopping satisfaction for younger (under age 25) and older (over
age 25) consumers and found that for younger consumers, entertainment led to mobile
shopping satisfaction, while older consumers were satisfied with mobile shopping based on
social influence (subjective norms). Bilgicer et al. (2015) investigated factors leading to the
adoption of online and brick-and-mortar shopping channels. While the researchers only
considered age as a control variable, they found that age had a significant negative impact on
online channel adoption, but not for brick-and-mortar channels. Ewerhard et al. (2019) found
that channel choice may vary based on consumers’ purchase process stage; however, the
researchers did not break out age variances. In addition, psychographic antecedents such as
price consciousness, innovativeness and shopping enjoyment were found to have both
positive and negative impacts on shopping across various retailing channels (Konus et al.,
2008). Since psychographic variables and use of technology have been found to vary by
generation (Ryder, 1965; Devebec et al., 2013; Reisenwitz, 2007), and prior research has
suggested that the generations have differing motivations for and usage of shopping
channels, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. There will be significant differences between the generations in the frequency of
purchases via: (1) mobile phone, (2) tablet, (3) computer, (4) social media (5) brick-and-
mortar.

2.5 Purchase amounts by generation

Generations may also vary in their average purchase amounts via each channel. Although
typically ignored by marketers, baby boomers are the generation with the most disposable
IJRDM income and have demonstrated their willingness to spend it on consumer goods (Dorie et al.,
48,4 2017). In contrast, millennials came of age during the great recession and are the first
generation to be less well-off than their parents (Klara, 2019). A study commissioned by the
Federal Reserve found that millennials are less financially secure than previous generations,
with ‘lower earnings, fewer assets, and less wealth’ (Kurz et al., 2018, 2). This is evident in
millennials’ online purchasing behaviour, with 95 per cent of millennials searching for
coupons online before making purchases, and for those who follow brands on social media,
402 more than half reported doing so to look for cost-saving incentives, such as deals and
discounts (Mezzacca et al., 2019). Thus, millennials may be driven to online channels to look
for deals and discounts, but may spend less overall than generations with more disposable
income.
There has also been research into the impact of channel choice on spending. Li et al. (2015)
found that late adopters, rather than innovators or early adopters, spent the most in online
channels. While the researchers did not specifically focus on generational cohorts, they did
find that late adopters were significantly older in age than early adopters, suggesting a
possible difference between generational cohorts in amounts spent per channel. Hui et al.
(2013) discovered that promotions delivered on a mobile device made consumers spend more
in a brick-and-mortar store. However, more recent literature by H€ogberg et al. (2019) indicated
that some mobile inputs may have negative impacts on product choice and purchase in the
brick-and-mortar channel. Since variances in channel usage and spending have been found
(Wallace, 2018), but prior studies have not investigated spending by generational cohort (e.g.
Hui et al., 2013; Sands et al., 2010), it is important to investigate if there is a connection between
generations’ channel selection and the amount spent in a particular channel, as marketers not
only want to shepherd customers to channels, but also want customers to spend in them as
well (Neslin and Shankar, 2009; van der Veen and Ossenbruggen, 2015).
Given this prior research, we suggest that generational financial situations along with
channel usage will result in differences in purchase amounts per channel among the
generations. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. There will be significant differences between the generations in the average
purchase amounts via (1) mobile phone, (2) tablet, (3) computer, (4) social media, (5)
brick-and-mortar.
Due to known characteristics of the various generational cohorts (e.g. millennials’ orientation
towards value), coupled with previous observations (Li et al., 2015; Neslin et al., 2006, Neslin
and Shankar, 2009; van der Veen and Ossenbruggen, 2015; Verhoef et al., (2015) on
multichannel behaviour and spending patterns, it would be logical to investigate variances
due to generational cohort in order to better target consumer groups, as the aforementioned
studies did hint at possible generational differences due to their findings on age. Also, Konus
et al. (2008) noted that their study did not consider mobile commerce, which is a significant
retail channel today (NRF, 2018), as the study was conducted in 2008—a time when mobile
commerce was relatively new. Mobile is an important factor in today’s retail market, as a 2017
Forrester study found that 24 per cent of total online sales are being conducted via mobile
platforms, and that smartphone retail sales will grow at a rate of 20.4 per cent annually
(Conik, 2017).
It is paramount to continuously update the body of knowledge to include emergent
channels such as mobile devices (e.g. phones and tablets), as consumers’ use of the technology
is constantly evolving (H€ogberg et al., 2019; Mezzacca et al., 2019). Furthermore, as increasing
usage and new shopping functionality are being added to social media sites (Arnold, 2018;
Boyle, 2019), it is of similar importance to include social media as a relevant shopping channel
(Hall et al., 2017). At a recent meeting of the Luxury Marketing Council (BCG) at Boston
Consulting Group’s New York office on 7 November 2018, BCG members who are industry
practitioners specifically noted a need to better understand generations’ current channel Generational
usage (BCG, 2018). Therefore, the aim of this study is to update the body of literature in differences in
analysing generational variances in channel purchases in the multi-channel context.
channel
activity
3. Method
After Institutional Review Board approval, an online survey was administered to a sample of
49,999 alumni of a large Midwestern university. The survey included items developed to
403
assess multi-channel purchasing behaviour, Internet, application and device usage, as well as
demographic details of consumers in the baby boomer, Gen X, xennial and millennial
generations. The generations were defined as birth years of 1943–1960 for baby boomer,
1961–1976 for Generation X, 1977–1983 for xennials and 1984–2004 for the millennial
generations (Strauss and Howe, 1992; Wertz, 2018).

3.1 Instrument
Purchasing frequency and average amounts spent per shopping experience were
investigated in relation to five channels: mobile phone, tablet, computer or laptop, social
media and brick-and-mortar. Verhoef et al. (2015) noted the expansion of the multi-channel
setting to include these channels. Participants indicated which of the following frequencies
they typically shop via each channel: never, once a year, once every three months, once a
month and once a week or more. For average amounts spent via each channel per shopping
experience, participants chose from under $24, $25-$49, $50-$99, $100-$499 and $500 and
over. Demographic questions ascertained details on age, household income, ethnicity,
education, employment status and location. Number and type of devices owned, social media
use and skill with technology were also assessed. The instrument for the current study was
included as part of a larger survey assessing consumer behaviour that took approximately
15 min to complete.

3.2 Data analysis

Differences between the generational cohorts in purchasing frequency and amounts spent via
the five purchase channels were assessed with chi-square tests of independence. An omnibus
chi-square test was first calculated for each channel and all purchase amounts and
generations. If this test was significant, cell-by-cell follow-up tests were conducted by
calculating adjusted standardized residuals (Sharpe, 2015). These residuals were then
compared to Bonferroni-corrected Z-critical values to determine if the observed frequencies of
purchasing frequencies and amounts for each generation were significantly different than
expected. Chi-square tests of independence were also used to check for non-response bias by
comparing the generational characteristics of the first quartile of collected data with the
fourth.

4. Results
A response rate of 2.99 per cent was obtained for the online survey. After removing
incomplete responses and partitioning the data into baby boomer, Gen X, xennial and
millennial cohorts, a sample of 1,103 remained for analysis. There were 348 (32 per cent) baby
boomers, 336 (30 per cent) Generation X, 142 (13 per cent) xennials and 277 (25 per cent)
millennials in the sample. The chi–square test for non-response bias indicated that the
millennial generation was significantly more likely to complete the survey during the final
quartile of data collection than the first (p 5 0.02).
IJRDM 4.1 Sample characteristics
48,4 Male (49 per cent) and female (51 per cent) genders were almost equally represented in the
sample. A majority of the sample was white (92 per cent), married (70 per cent), with an
income between $50,000 and $150,000 (79 per cent). A majority of the sample (68 per cent)
resided in the Midwest, and 3 per cent, 14 per cent and 14 per cent lived in the Northeast, West
and South, respectively. Sixty-four per cent of the sample owned two or three mobile devices,
such as smart phones and tablets, 80 per cent reported owning a laptop and 74 per cent agreed
404 that they were skilled in using various technologies. Sixty-six per cent of the sample reported
using social media at least once a day or more, with 73 per cent using Facebook, 27 per cent
using Instagram and 27 per cent using Twitter.

4.2 Multi-channel purchasing frequency

The sample showed wide variety in purchasing frequencies via the five channels. Using
mobile phone, 27 per cent reported never shopping via the device, 13 per cent reported once a
year, 23 per cent once every three months and 36 per cent reported shopping once a month or
more on mobile phones. Via tablet, a large proportion of participants (55 per cent) reported
never shopping via the device. In contrast, a majority of the sample (73 per cent) reported
shopping via computer or laptop once a month or more. The majority of participants of all
generations (67 per cent) reported never making purchases through social media. However,
28 per cent of participants made purchases at least once every three months or once per year
using the social applications. Sixty-six per cent of participants reported making purchases at
brick-and-mortar establishments once a week or more.
The chi-square tests indicated significant differences among the generational cohorts in
the expected frequency of purchases via mobile phone [χ2(12) 5 191.32, p < 0.0001], tablet
[χ2(12) 5 36.97, p < 0.001], computer or laptop [χ2(12) 5 34.07, p < 0.001], social media
[χ2(12) 5 87.96, p < 0.000] and brick-and-mortar [χ2(12) 5 44.55, p < 0.000] in support of
Hypothesis 1 (Table II). Follow-up testing indicated specific differences among the
generations as discussed below.
4.2.1 Purchasing frequency via mobile phone. Follow-up tests (Table III) indicated that
members of the baby boomer generation (48 per cent) were more likely than expected to never
make purchases via a mobile phone (p < 0.001). In contrast, xennials (9 per cent) and
millennials (11 per cent) were both less likely to have never made a purchase via a mobile
phone (p < 0.001). Baby boomers were also found to be significantly less likely to make
purchases once a month (11 per cent) and once a week or more (6 per cent) via a mobile phone,

Hypothesis Result

H1: There will be significant differences between the generations in the frequency of purchases via. . .
H1a: mobile phone supported
H1b: tablet supported
H1c: computer or laptop supported
H1d: social media supported
H1e: brick-and-mortar supported
H2: There will be significant differences between the generations in the average purchase amounts via. . .
H2a: mobile phone supported
H2b: tablet not supported
H2c: computer or laptop supported
Table II.
H2d: social media supported
Results of the
hypothesis testing H2e: brick-and-mortar supported
 Once per Once per three Once per Once per week or
Generational
Never year months month more Total differences in
channel
Mobile phone
Baby 167 (96)* 54 (47) 67 (80) 40 (81)* 20 (45)* 348 activity
boomers
Gen X 93 (92) 55 (45) 75 (77) 74 (78) 39 (44) 336
Xennials 13 (39)* 13 (19) 29 (33) 52 (33)* 35 (18)* 142 405
Millennials 30 (76)* 26 (37) 82 (64)* 90 (64)* 49 (36) 277
Total 303 148 253 256 143 1,103
Tablet
Baby 187 (168) 32 (41) 56 (55) 52 (62) 21 (21) 348
boomers
Gen X 144 (163) 44 (39) 55 (53) 68 (60) 25 (21) 336
Xennials 51 (69)* 21 (17) 19 (23) 35 (25) 16 (9) 142
Millennials 152 (134) 32 (32) 45 (44) 42 (49) 6 (17)* 277
Total 534 129 175 197 68 1,103
Computer
Baby 9 (7) 20 (15) 100 (75)* 128 (140) 91 (112) 348
boomers
Gen X 3 (6) 11 (14) 65 (73) 136 (135) 121 (108) 336
Xennials 4 (3) 6 (6) 15 (31)* 59 (57) 58 (46) 142
Millennials 5 (5) 10 (12) 58 (60) 120 (111) 84 (89) 277
Total 21 47 238 443 354 1,103
Social media
Baby 294 34 (61)* 11 (35)* 4 (14)* 5 (4) 348
boomers (234)*
Gen X 208 (226) 55 (58) 48 (34) 21 (13) 4 (4) 336
Xennials 79 (96)* 32 (25) 21 (14) 9 (6) 1 (2) 142
Millennials 162 71 (48)* 32 (28) 9 (11) 3 (3) 277
(187)*
Total 743 192 112 43 13 1,103
Brick-and-mortar
Baby 6 (14) 8 (6) 31 (27) 68 (71) 235 (229) 348
boomers
Gen X 8 (14) 4 (6) 19 (26) 65 (69) 240 (221) 336
Xennials 3 (6) 1 (3) 12 (11) 34 (29) 92 (94) 142
Table III.
Millennials 28 (11)* 7 (5) 23 (21) 59 (57) 160 (183)* 277 Observed and expected
Total 45 20 85 226 727 1,103 values for purchasing
Note(s): Expected values in parentheses, bolded numbers represent marginal and overall totals, and * indicate frequency via channel
significance differences between observed and expected values at p < 0.05 by generation

while xennials (37 per cent) and millennials (32 per cent) were both significantly more likely to
purchase at least once a month via the device (p < 0.001). Only xennials (25 per cent) were
significantly more likely than expected to make purchases on a mobile phone once a week or
more (p < 0.001).
4.2.2 Purchasing frequency via tablet. The millennial generation (2 per cent) was found to
be significantly less likely to purchase once a week or more via tablet (p < 0.05). Xennials (36
per cent) were significantly less likely to never purchase via the device than expected
(p < 0.05). Xennials (11 per cent) were also more likely to purchase once a week or more via
tablet than other generations; however, this result was only marginally significant after
Bonferroni adjustments (p < 0.15).
IJRDM 4.2.3 Purchasing frequency via computer. Baby boomers (29 per cent) were significantly
48,4 more likely to make purchases once every three months via computer. In contrast, xennials
(11 per cent) were significantly less likely to make purchases once every three months via
computer (p < 0.05). Xennials had the highest proportion (41 per cent) and baby boomers the
lowest (26 per cent) of once a week or more purchases via computer, but again, these results
only approached Bonferroni-adjusted significance.
4.2.4 Purchasing frequency via social media. Baby boomers (84 per cent) were
406 significantly more likely to never purchase via social media and significantly less likely
to purchase once a year (10 per cent), once every three months (3 per cent) and once a
week (1) than expected (p < 0.05). Xennials (56 per cent) and millennials (58 per cent)
were both significantly less likely to have never made purchases via social media
(p < 0.05). Millennials (26 per cent) were significantly more likely to have purchased once
a year via the device (p < 0.05).
4.2.5 Purchasing frequency via brick-and-mortar. The follow-up tests (Table III) indicated
that millennials (10 per cent) were significantly more likely to report never shopping at
brick-and-mortar stores (p < 0.05). Millennials (58 per cent) were also significantly less likely
than expected to shop at least once a week via brick-and-mortar (p < 0.05).

4.3 Multi-channel purchasing amounts

Of those who made purchases via each channel, participants reported average amounts spent
per purchase. When purchasing via mobile phone, 24 per cent of participants spent under $25,
63 per cent spent between $25 and $100 and 12 per cent spent over $100. When purchasing via
tablet, 61 per cent spent between $25 and $100 and 22 per cent spent over $100. When making
purchases on a computer or laptop, 73 per cent participants reported average purchases
between $50 and $500. All participants reported average social media purchases under $100.
For brick-and-mortar shopping, average purchase amounts between $50 and $500 were
reported.
The chi-square test revealed significant differences between the generations in the
average amounts spent via mobile phone [χ2(12) 5 21.83, p < 0.05], computer or laptop
[χ2(12) 5 25.08, p < 0.05], social media [χ2(6) 5 32.06, p < 0.000] and brick-and-mortar
[χ2(12) 5 37.74, p < 0.000]. No significant differences in purchase amounts via tablet were
found between the generations. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported (Table II).
4.3.1 Purchase amounts via mobile phone. Follow-up testing (Table IV) indicated that all
generations, except millennials, spent amounts as expected on their mobile phones.
Millennials (6 per cent), however, were significantly less likely to spend $100-$499 on the
device (p < 0.05).
4.3.2 Purchase amounts via tablet. The observed purchase amounts were as expected
when shopping via tablet (Table IV). Thus, no follow-up tests were conducted.
4.3.3 Purchase amounts via computer. Although the overall chi-square test indicated
significant differences among the generations in purchase amounts via computer or laptop,
Bonferroni-corrected follow-up tests indicated only marginally significant differences.
Millennials (5 per cent) were somewhat more likely to spend under $25 via computer (p < 0.10).
4.3.4 Purchase amounts via social media. As fewer participants (n 5 375) reported
shopping via social media and fewer still reported spending higher amounts via the device,
the purchase categories were collapsed into three groups: under $25, $25-$49 and $50-$99.
Millennials (57 per cent) were significantly more likely to make purchases under $25, while
xennials (42 per cent) were more likely to make higher purchases of $25–49. Gen X consumers
(34 per cent) were more likely than expected to make purchases of $50–100 via social
media (p < 0.001).
 < $25 $25-$49 $50-$99 $100-$499 $500þ Total
Generational
differences in
Mobile phone channel
Baby boomers 49 (44) 57 (66) 47 (49) 25 (20) 5 (3) 348
Gen X 47 (58) 80 (86) 73 (64) 33 (27) 6 (4) 336 activity
Xennials 30 (31) 48 (46) 33 (35) 16 (14) 2 (2) 142
Millennials 68 (61) 103 (90) 63 (67) 15 (28)* 1 (4) 277
Total 194 288 216 89 14 801 407
Tablet
Baby boomers 19 (27) 50 (48) 50 (51) 41 (33) 2 (3) 162
Gen X 34 (31) 43 (56) 67 (58) 39 (38) 5 (4) 188
Xennials 16 (15) 31 (26) 23 (28) 17 (18) 2 (2) 89
Millennials 25 (21) 43 (37) 36 (39) 17 (25) 2 (2) 123
Total 94 167 176 114 11 562
Computer
Baby boomers 7 (8) 51 (51) 133 (133) 110 (114) 35 (30) 336
Gen X 4 (8) 37 (50) 137 (131) 121 (112) 31 (29) 330
Xennials 3 (3) 23 (21) 44 (54) 52 (46) 14 (12) 136
Millennials 13 (7)* 52 (41) 110 (106) 79 (91) 15 (24) 269
Total 27 163 424 362 95 1,071
Social media
Baby boomers 22 (18) 12 (10) 13 (10) – – 47
Gen X 47 (41) 24 (23) 36 (22)* – – 107
Xennials 22 (20) 22 (11)* 9 (11) – – 53
Millennials 52 (35)* 22 (20) 18 (19) – – 92
Total 143 80 76 – – 375
Brick-and-mortar
Baby boomers 8 (12) 53 (46) 116 (129) 122 (125) 41 (28) 240
Gen X 11 (8) 31 (44) 113 (124) 146 (119)* 24 (27) 325
Xennials 4 (5) 18 (19) 58 (53) 48 (51) 11 (12) 139
Table IV.
Millennials 14 (9) 39 (33) 113 (94) 70 (91)* 12 (21) 248 Observed and expected
Total 37 141 400 386 88 1,052 values for purchase
Note(s): Expected values in parentheses, bolded numbers represent marginal and overall totals, asterisks amounts via channel
indicate significance differences between observed and expected values at p < 0.05 by generation

4.3.5 Purchase amounts via brick-and-mortar. Generation X (45 per cent) was significantly
more likely to spend between $100 and $499 while brick-and-mortar shopping, whereas
millennials (28 per cent) were significantly less likely to spend this amount (p < 0.05). Baby
boomers (12 per cent) were marginally significantly more likely to spend over $500 at brick-
and-mortar stores (p < 0.06).

5. Discussion
5.1 Purchasing frequency
Results supported Hypothesis 1, ‘There will be significant differences between the
generations in purchasing frequency via: (1) mobile phone, (2) tablet, (3) computer, (4)
social media, and (5) brick-and-mortar.’ Results for purchasing frequency indicated that
xennials were the most consistent shoppers across the five channels. Xennials were
significantly more likely to shop via mobile phone once a week or more and shopped as
expected across the other four channels at this frequency. Additionally, xennials were
significantly less likely to report never having shopped via mobile phone, tablet and social
IJRDM media. This seems to be indicative of the xennial group being born in between millennials and
48,4 Generation X (Stankorb and Oelbaum, 2014), and is reflective of the generation representing a
hybrid between the two generations, in terms of Generation X’s usage for a brick-and-mortar
experience and tablet consumption, and Millennials’ higher shopping rates via web and
mobile app (Statista, 2017). Xennials are a prime example of the dependency of channel
selection upon demo- and psychographic characteristics (Bilgicer et al., 2015) such as hedonic
and utilitarian dimensions (Kautish and Sharma, 2018). Retailers can connect with xennials
408 by utilizing specific channel’s (i.e. web and mobile app) utilitarian aspects such as pricing and
convenience (Pentecost et al., 2019; Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a, 2018b), while still curating
brick-and-mortar servicescapes (Bitner, 1992) that provide hedonic, ‘non-digital attributes’
that are ‘experiential’ (Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a, 2018b, p. 6).
While millennials are often thought of as more technologically savvy than other
generations (Dorie et al., 2016), this cohort was significantly less likely to shop via tablet once
a week or more and were also less likely to patronize brick-and-mortar stores at this
frequency. However, millennials were also less likely to never have shopped via mobile phone
and social media, which supports the research of Pentecost et al. (2019), Mezzacca et al. (2019)
and Dorie et al. (2016) that indicated millennials’ usage of technology and online shopping
channels and lack of enthusiasm for brick-and-mortar channels. Millennials have a
propensity to shop via web and mobile app (Statista, 2017), and exhibit high mobile phone
ownership (92 per cent) (Pew Research, 2018) and mobile channel choice rates (47 per cent)
(Statista, 2017), when compared to other generations. These channels offer millennials the
ability to engage in other pre-purchase behaviours, such as showrooming (BCG, 2018), and
cater to a utilitarian focus on shopping to peruse assortments and pricing deals (Dorie et al.,
2016; Pentecost et al., 2019). In addition, the results support previous research, indicating
millennial’s ‘choice of channel may be driven by benefits such as social interaction,
self-affirmation, experiences and symbolic meanings’ (Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a, 2018b, p. 264).
Mobile phones and social media allow millennials to showroom and to form ‘symbolic
relationships’ with brands (Helal et al., 2018, p. 990). Hedonic aspects of social media allow
millennial consumers to engage with each other to share information (Hall et al., 2017).
Millennials’ choice of mobile and social media also aligns with van der Veen and
Ossenbruggen’s (2015) research, in that channel choice is dependent on shopper type. In this
case, millennials are known to search for both hedonic and utilitarian reasons, which connects
with mobile and SM channels.
Generation X shopped as expected across all channels and at all frequencies, from never to
once a week or more. Generation X shopped as expected across all channels and at all
frequencies, from never to once a week or more. Baby boomers were significantly more likely
than other generations to never shop via two e-commerce channels: mobile phones and social
media. For social media, baby boomers were also less likely to shop via this channel once per
year, once per three months and once per month. These findings conflict with a recent Boston
Consulting Group (2018) study that indicated older consumers leading solo online purchasing
activity versus other channels, but correlate with boomers’ low smart phone ownership rate
(67 per cent), when compared to Gen X and millennials (Pew Research, 2018). Risk of using
apps has also been found to impede choosing mobile commerce (Chung et al., 2016). The
present study supports Yang and Jolly’s (2008) findings that although moomers understand
the usefulness of mobile services, the perceived difficulty of using mobile is a barrier to this
generation, even though mobile devices feature channel attributes such as convenience,
pricing and value (Kwon and Noh, 2010). Retailers need to focus on usability issues that
boomers encounter in mobile channels (Yang and Jolly, 2008). This could be accomplished by
partnering with large organizations of seniors, such as the American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP), with the aim of beta-testing new mobile apps that are senior-friendly,
thereby reducing display and complexity issues with apps.
 The above findings add to the body of literature by furthering the research of Bilgicer et al. Generational
(2015), Ieva and Ziliani (2018) and Marriott et al. (2017), indicating an impact of age on channel differences in
usage. The present research confirms that age does have a significant impact on channel
usage and suggests that channel usage may be motivated by different generations’ priorities,
channel
which are shaped by life experiences. Results of this study also conflict with Konus, et al. ’s activity
(2008) research, in terms of different age groups’ shopping activity across channels.
409
5.2 Average purchasing amounts
Hypothesis 2 ‘There will be significant differences between the generations in average
purchase amounts via: (1) mobile phone, (2) tablet, (3) computer, (4) social media, and (5) brick-
and-mortar’ was partially supported, although fewer differences were found among the
generational cohorts in terms of amounts spent per channel. Millennials were less likely than
other generations to spend higher amounts via mobile phone and brick-and-mortar, and were
more likely to spend lower amounts via computer and social media per shopping trip. The
results seem to be in line with Li et al. (2015) and Mezzacca et al. (2019) in terms of spending
levels, if millennials are choosing to shop in mobile and online channels, but average spend is
being lowered due to deal seeking. Lower spend could also be attributed to millennials’
burdensome financial situation, including being saddled with student load debt and
graduating into an economic crisis with high costs of living (Hoffower, 2019). Such channels
could be chosen by millennials to enhance the ability to view assortments and locate deals,
which is in line with Yrj€ol€a et al.’s (2018a), (2018b) observations. However, the same findings
conflict with research that has shown positive relationships between social media use and
sales (Bercovici, 2013; Zhang et al., 2017), and other findings that support the choice of mobile
by those younger consumers who are more familiar with the technology (Pantano et al., 2016).
Xennials and Gen X were significantly more likely to spend higher amounts via social
media and Gen X, and baby boomers were also significantly more likely than other
generations to spend higher amounts via brick-and-mortar. This could be due to the more
analog retailing environment in which Gen X and boomers have experienced for a greater
portion of their lives, coupled with ‘non-digital [product] attributes’ Yrj€ol€a et al. (2018a),
(2018b), p. 6) that do not translate well online. These findings partially conflict with findings
by BCG (2018) that stated millennials led ‘store-solo’ activity, while boomers led ‘on-line solo,’
but simultaneously mirror device ownership between the cohorts (Pew Research, 2018).

5.3 Practical applications

The research was successful in analysing variances in both channel choices and spending
rates amongst the baby boomer, Generation X, xennial and millennial cohorts, while updating
the body of literature to consider mobile and social media’s presence in the multi-channel
shopping arena. Additionally, it provides an update to Konus et al. ’s (2008) and Venkatesan
et al. ’s (2007) research by considering generation as a factor in channel usage and also in
cross-channel shopping activities. Last, it was successful in analysing the Xennial cohort as
multi-channel consumers, of which scant literature is available.
The research also supports Lapoule and Colla’s (2016) assertion that retailers must
become more nuanced in their approaches to segmentation, along with Ewerhard et al. ’s
(2019) findings that channel choice is key to shepherding the purchasing process. The
advent of mobile and online retailing has led to seismic differences in consumption
channel choices, partially due to various age groups’ familiarity with—and integration
of—technology into their lives (Stankorb and Oelbaum, 2014; Yang and Jolly, 2008).
Retailers may consider the present findings in terms of connecting with the xennial
cohort in a more robust manner, since there are more opportunities than expected to
develop an ongoing conversation with this cohort. For instance, since xennials engage in
IJRDM the mobile channel at a higher rate than expected and also shop consistently across the
48,4 other channels analysed, marketers may consider pushing mobile ads and emails to this
group that might be supplemented by social media banner ads to drive both online and
brick-and-mortar visits. Marketers might consider targeting millennials via social media
content announcing special experiential events combined with influencer content aimed
at driving this cohort to mobile shopping. In addition, due to increased spend in
computer and brick-and-mortar, millennials could be targeted with coupons and
410 promotions delivered via email and social media that are only redeemable on computer/
laptop devices or brick-and-mortar point of purchase. Generation X’s usage for tablet
speaks to retailers’ need to understand the functionality of e-commerce touchpoints, both
in terms of design and shopability. Last, marketers should zero in on findings that
boomers are using online channels to shop and browse but spend the most in
brick-and-mortar. Retailers could consider increased communication with boomers via
email, online news (e.g. CNN, New York Times) and other sources (e.g. sports, AARP
websites) via ad placement that encourages this cohort to visit stores to take advantage
of special promotions and events.

5.4 Considering cohorts

The xennial cohort appears to be a potentially fruitful target for marketers, as the research
showed that this age cohort has the highest proportion of consumer shopping across all
digital channels, when compared to other age groups, except for brick-and-mortar; however,
the group still shops at a comparable rate on a weekly basis in the brick-and-mortar channel.
Although born before the proliferation of the Internet and mobile phones (Stankorb and
Oelbaum, 2014), xennials are also more likely to purchase weekly via mobile channels and
make weekly purchases on tablets, which is in sharp contrast to millennials, who are less
likely. Xennials also make weekly purchases via computer and brick-and-mortar channels,
which is also in contrast to millennials, who are less likely. This conflicts with the present
research’s findings that xennials are not necessarily more likely to spend more via the above
channels. Therefore, marketers should consider how they are attracting xennials to these
channels and focus on presenting products and promotions to convert sales through
integrated programmes to them based on their usage in every channel, which would have the
potential to maximize their spending. The significant results found with regards to this
group’s use of mobile makes the generation a special consideration in the ROPO (research
online, purchase offline) area (BCG, 2018) where multiple off- and online channels are used to
completely navigate the entire purchase process. Research has found that those consumers
who research online and purchase in-store tend to spend higher amounts (Sands et al., 2010).
Retailers should also consider the fact that millennials illustrate heavy engagement with
social media in their lives, but spend lower amounts in this medium. This seems to be an
opportunity for marketers to expand efforts at offering products for purchase via social
media and viewing this medium as a viable stand-alone channel in targeting millennials’
shopping dollars.

5.5 Limitations and future research

The present research provided insight into the multi-channel choice behaviour of baby
boomers, Gen X, xennial, and millennial consumers; however, there were limitations to
the study. Although 25 per cent of the sample was of the millennial generation, the test
for non-response bias indicated that they may have been under-sampled in the current
study. Millennials have been dubbed the ‘maybe tomorrow’ generation for their tendency
to put off tasks more than other generations (London and Partners, 2018), and research
has indicated procrastination as a significant stressor for this cohort (Bland et al., 2012),
which may explain why millennials were more likely to take the survey later than other Generational
generations and may have missed taking it entirely. Recall bias may also have been a differences in
limitation in that participants were asked about the frequency and purchase amounts of
their shopping via each channel. These details may have been difficult for participants to
channel
estimate with great accuracy. activity
The current study did not consider product categories, which have been found to impact
multi-channel (Hagberg et al., 2015) and omni-channel (Huseyinoglu et al., 2017) control
strategies (Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a, 2018b). Hedonic and utilitarian value perceptions of the various 411
generational cohorts were not accounted for in this study, and have been found to impact
channel choice for certain generational cohorts such as millennials (Debevec et al., 2013;
Vouchilas and Ulasewicz, 2014; Yrj€ol€a et al., 2018a, 2018b), due to aspects like searching through
assortments and deal-seeking (Dorie et al., 2016; Pentecost et al., 2019). The current research also
does not consider ‘consumers perceptions of channel attributes’ such as ‘convenience and risk’
(Gensler et al., 2012, p. 989), as these have been found key to channel selection.
The US context is a limitation of the study, since as of 2018, digital usage rates were lower
in North America (29 per cent) than in other areas of the word such as Asia (47 per cent), Latin
America (38 per cent) and Europe (31 per cent) (Statista, 2018). Still, this illustrates the need
for a better understanding of US consumers’ channel usage, so that marketers may improve
these metrics. The research was also limited in considering cross-channel effects that arise in
the multi- and omni-channel retail environment. For instance, researchers have found that
consumers’ amount of in-store spend is impacted by search channel choice (Sands et al., 2010),
which directly relates to the present study.
The alumni sample limited the generalizability of the findings as groups without a college
degree were not included. Furthermore, while the studied generational cohorts included the
majority of consumers, the alumni sample did not include Generation Z (those born from 2005
onwards) (Strauss and Howe, 1992). Generation Z is set to overtake millennials as the largest
generation (Miller and Lu, 2018), and are the first generation to have had access to a myriad of
digital technologies since birth, such as smartphones and WiFi (Bassiouni and
Hackley, 2014).
Future research could explore the multi-channel choice behaviour of these consumers, as
researchers have suggested differences between this cohort and older consumers (Hall et al.,
2017; Priporas et al., 2017), and the current study has identified channel choice differences
amongst generational cohorts. In addition, the current research highlighted the importance of
the xennial cohort to multi-channel marketers; however, there is currently limited research
studying the consumer behaviour of this generation. Further research could be conducted on
product, price, place, and promotion (4P) elements that connect with xennials’ hybrid activity
in channels, such as ROPO. Consideration could be given to how mobile ads and banners on
social media drive this cohort to shop in-store (BCG, 2018). Finally, the current study
investigated the multi-channel activity of various generational cohorts; however, additional
research could consider cross-channel effects that arise in the multi- and omni-channel retail
environment for these generations. For instance, researchers have found that consumers’
amount of in-store spend is impacted by search channel choice (Sands et al., 2010). There is an
increasing focus on consumers’ path while in the omni-channel environment, and it is
paramount that retailers understand how various generational cohorts navigate multiple
channels within one purchase journey.

References
Akers, B. (2014), The Typical Household with Student Loan Deb, Brookings Institution, available at:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-typical-household-with-student-loan-debt/ (accessed 12
June 2019).
IJRDM American Optometric Association (n.d.), Good Vision Throughout Life, available at: https://www.aoa.
org/patients-and-public/good-vision-throughout-life.
48,4
Anderson, M. and Perrin, A. (2017), Technology Use Among Seniors, available at: https://www.
pewinternet.org.
Armstrong, G. and Kotler, P. (2014), Marketing: An Introduction, Pearson, London.
Arnold, A. (2018), “Are we entering the era of social shopping?”, Forbes, available at: https://www.
412 forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/04/04/are-we-entering-the-era-of-social-shopping/#4fb0b03
d56e1 (accessed 24 June 2019).
Bahng, Y., Kincade, D.H. and Yang, J.H. (2013), “College students’ apparel shopping orientation and
brand/product preferences”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 367-384.
Bassiouni, D.H. and Hackley, C. (2014), “Generation Z’ children’s adaptation to digital consumer
culture: a critical literature review”, Journal of Customer Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 113-133.
Beck, N. and Rygl, D. (2015), “Categorization of multiple channel retailing in multi-, cross-, and omni-
channel retailing for retailers and retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services Vol. 27,
pp. 170-178.
Bensinger, G. (2015), “Amazon taps ‘on-demand’ workers for one-hour deliveries”, The Wall Street
Journal, available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-taps-on-demand-workers-for-one-
hour-deliveries-1443499263 (accessed 24 June 2019).
Bercovici, J. (2013), “Study finds pins on pinterest drive sales and have legs”, Forbes, available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/11/15/study-finds-pins-on-pinterest-drive-sales-
and-have-legs/#6a4fab047007 (accessed 24 June 2019).
Bilgicer, T., Jedidi, K., Lehmann, D.R. and Neslin, S.A. (2015), “Social contagion and customer adoption
of new sales channels”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 254-271.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Bland, H.W., Melton, B.F., Welle, P. and Bigham, L. (2012), “Stress tolerance: new challenges for
Millennial college students”, College Student Journal, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 362-375.
Boston Consulting Group (2018), Luxury Insight Discussion with the Italy-America Chamber, Luxury
Marketing Council, 7 November, New York, NY.
Boyle, P. (2019), “The secret to the future growth of your ecommerce channel: social commerce”,
available at: https://www.bigcommerce.com/blog/social-commerce/ (accessed 10 June 2019).
Chung, D., Chun, S.G. and Choi, H.Y. (2016), “Empirical study on determinants for the continued use of
mobile shopping apps”, Issues in Information Systems, Vol. 17 No 2, pp. 34-43.
Conik, H. (2017), “It’s the end of retail as we know it: how can marketers adapt?”, available at: https://
www.ama.org/marketing-news/its-the-end-of-retail-as-we-know-it-how-can-marketers-adapt/.
Criteo (n.d. a), Frequency of Cross-Channel Purchasing by Omni Channel Shoppers in the United States
in 2017, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/896584/frequency-cross-channel-
purchasing-omnichannel-shoppers-usa/ (accessed 10 December 2018).
Criteo (n.d. b), “Distribution of online shopping customers vs. share of retail sales in the United States
as of 2nd quarter 2018, by platform”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/883268/
share-online-shopping-customers-vs-sales-by-platform-usa/ (accessed 10 December 2018).
Debevec, K., Schewe, C.D., Madden, T.J. and Diamond, W.D. (2013), “Are today’s Millennials
splintering into a new generational cohort? Maybe!”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12,
pp. 20-31.
Donnelly, C. and Scarff, R. (2013), “Who are the millennial shoppers? And what do they really want?”,
available at: https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-outlook-who-are-Millennial-shoppers-
what-do-they-really-want-retail (accessed 24 June 2019).
Dorie, A., Loranger, D. and Rabolt, N. (2016), “Product desires and motivations of Millennial Generational
shoppers”, in Celebrating the unique 2016 proceedings of the International Textile and Apparel
Association, Santa Fe, NM, November 2015, available at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/ differences in
viewcontent.cgi?article51264&context5itaa_proceedings (accessed 10 June 2019). channel
Dorie, A., Loranger, D. and Karpova, E. (2017), “Encore consumption: investigating trends in the activity
apparel expenditures of older consumers in the United States”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 51, pp. 428-436, available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0969698917303399 (accessed 24 June 2019). 413
eMarketer (2018), “Primary household shoppers who prefer to shop mainly via mobile, online or in-
store in the Unites States as of february 2017, by age group”, available at: https://www.statista.
com/statistics/694894/primary-household-shoppers-channels-mobile-online-in-store-us-age/ (accessed 13
December 2018).
Ewerhard, A.C., Sisovsky, K. and Johansson, U. (2019), “Consumer decision-making of slow moving
consumer goods in the age of multi-channels”, International Review of Retail Distribution &
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Fry, R. (2018), “Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation”, Pew
Research, available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/Millennials-overtake-
baby-Boomers/ (accessed 24 June 2019).
Garvey, A. (2015). “The Oregon trail generation: life before and after mainstream tech”, Social Media
Week, available at: https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2015/04/oregon-trail-generation/ (accessed
10 June 2019).
Gasca, P. (2015), “8 shopping habits of Millennials all retailers need to know about”, Entrepreneur,
available at: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253582 (accessed 24 June 2019).
Gensler, S., Verhoef, P.C. and B€ohm, M. (2012), “Understanding consumers’ multichannel choices
across the different stages of the buying process”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 987-1003.
GMID (2018), “Global retailing trends”, available at: http://ezproxy.limcollege.edu:2138/portal/magazine/
index/?PageTypeId51&MenuCode5RT&PageId536&ImageUrl5%2Ficons%2FIndustries
%2Findustry-icons-Retailing.png&Title5Retailing (accessed 28 November 2018).
Hagberg, J., Sundstrom, M. and Egels-Zanden, N. (2015), “The digitalization of retailing: an
exploratory framework”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 44
No. 7, pp. 694-712.
Hall, A., Towers, N. and Shaw, D.R. (2017), “Understanding how Millennial shoppers decide what
to buy”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 5,
pp. 498-517.
Helal, G., Ozuem, W. and Lancaster, G. (2018), “Social media brand perceptions of
millennials”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46 No. 10,
pp. 977-998.
Hoffower, H. (2019), “Financial problems plaguing millennials through no fault of their own”,
available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/money-problems-millennials-facing-student-loan-
debt-homeownership-2019-5.
H€ogberg, J., Shams, P. and W€astlund, E. (2019), “Gamified in-store mobile marketing: the mixed effect
of gamified point-of-purchase advertising”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 50,
pp. 298-304.
Hui, S.K., Inman, J.J., Huang, Y. and Suher, J. (2013), “The effect of in-store travel distance on
unplanned spending: applications to mobile promotion strategies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77
No. 2, pp. 1-16.
H€
useyino € Galipo
glu, I.O., glu, E. and Kotzab, H. (2017), “Social, local and mobile commerce practices in
omni-channel retailing: insights from Germany and Turkey”, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, Vol. 45 Nos 7/8, pp. 711-729.
IJRDM Ieva, M. and Ziliani, C. (2018), “Mapping touchpoint exposure in retailing”, International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 304-322.
48,4
Jiang, J. (2018), “Millennials stand out for their technology use, but older generations also embrace
digital life”, available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2018/05/02/Millennials-stand-
out-for-their-technology-use-but-older-generations-also-embrace-digital-life/ (accessed 24
June 2019).
Kautish, P. and Sharma, R. (2018), “Consumer values, fashion consciousness and behavioural
414 intentions in the online fashion retail sector”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 46 No. 10, pp. 894-914.
Klara, R. (2019), “Why targeting millennial consumers might not be such a hot idea after all”, available
at: https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/why-targeting-millennial-consumers-might-not-
be-such-a-hot-idea-after-all/.
Konuş, U., Verhoef, P.C. and Neslin, S.A. (2008), “Multichannel shopper segments and their
covariates”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 398-413.
Kurz, C., Li, G. and Vine, D.J. (2018), “Are millennials different?”, Finance and Economics Discussion
Series, 2018-080, Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, available at:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018080pap.pdf (accessed 24 June 2019).
Kwon, W.S. and Noh, M. (2010), “The influence of prior experience and age on mature consumers’
perceptions and intentions of internet apparel shopping”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 335-349.
Lapoule, P. and Colla, E. (2016), “The multi-channel impact on the sales forces management”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 248-265.
Levy, M., Weitz, B. and Grewal, D. (2012), Retailing Management, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Lewis, R. and Dart, M. (2014), The New Rules of Retail: Competing in the World’s Toughest
Marketplace, St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY.
Li, J., Konuş, U., Pauwels, K. and Langerak, F. (2015), “The hare and the tortoise: do earlier adopters of
online channels purchase more?”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 289-308.
Lindsey-Mullikin, J. and Borin, N. (2017), “Why strategy is key for successful social media sales”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 473-482.
London and Partners Media (2018), “The ‘maybe tomorrow’ generation”, available at: https://media.
londonandpartners.com/news/the-maybe-tomorrow-generation (accessed 11 December 2019).
Marriott, H.R., Williams, M.D. and Dwivedi, Y.J. (2017). “What do we know about m-shopping
behaviour?”, Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 568-586.
Martin, A. (2016). “The undetected influence of Generation X”, Forbes, available at: https://www.
forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/09/13/the-undetected-influence-of-generation-x/-6311aa781efb
(accessed 10 June 2019).
Martin, C.A. and Turley, L.W. (2004), “Malls and consumption motivation: an exploratory examination
of older Generation Y consumers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 464-475.
Mezzacca, M., DuDell, M.P. and Wooldridge, P. (2019), “The Millennial shopping report”, available at:
https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2019/03/26/Millennials-online-shopping/ (accessed 24
June 2019).
Miller, L.J. and Lu, W. (2018), “Gen Z is set to outnumber Millennials within a year”, available at:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-20/gen-z-to-outnumber-Millennials-within-a-
year-demographic-trends (accessed 27 June 2019).
Neslin, Scott A. and Shankar, V. (2009), “Key issues in multichannel customer management:
current knowledge and future directions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 70-81.
Neslin, S.A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M.L., Thomas, J.S. and Verhoef, P.C. (2006), Generational
“Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 95-112. differences in
NRF Stores (2018), “Global powers of retailing 2018”, National Retail Federation.
channel
Pantano, E. and Priporas, C.V. (2016), “The effect of mobile retailing on consumers’ purchasing
activity
experiences: a dynamic perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 548-555.
Pentecost, R., Donoghue, S. and Thaichon, P. (2019), “Emerging from my youth–intra-cohort 415
segmentation”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 5,
pp. 571-588.
Pew Research Center (n.d.), “Percentage of adults in the United States who use social networks as of
January 2018, by age group”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/471370/us-adults-
who-use-social-networks-age/ (accessed 14 December 2018).
Priporas, C.V., Stylos, N. and Fotiadis, A.K. (2017), “Generation Z consumers’ expectations of
interactions in smart retailing: a future agenda”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 77,
pp. 374-381.
PYMNTS.com (2018), “New data: how bridge Millennials are upending the $400 billion apparel and
accessories market”, available at: https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2018/bridge-millennials-
apparel-shopping-retail-ecommerce/ (accessed 27 November 2018).
Reisenwitz, T. and Iyer, R. (2007), “A comparison of younger and older Baby Boomers: investigating
the viability of cohort segmentation”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 202-213.
Ryder, N.B., (1965), “The cohort as a concept in the study of social change”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 843-861.
San Martin, S., Prodanova, J. and Jimenez, N.H. (2015), “The impact of age in the generation of
satisfaction and WOM in mobile shopping”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 23, pp. 1-8.
Sands, S., Ferraro, C. and Luxton, S. (2010), “Does the online channel pay? a comparison of online
versus offline information search on physical store spend”, International Review of Retail
Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 397-410.
Sharpe, D. (2015), “Your Chi-square test is statistically significant: now what?”, Practical Assessment,
Research and Evaluation, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 1-10.
Stankorb, S. and Oelbaum, J. (2014), “Reasonable people disagree about the post-Gen X, pre-Millennial
generation”, Good Magazine, available at: https://www.good.is/articles/generation-Xennials
(accessed 10 June 2019).
Statista (2017), “Primary household shoppers who prefer to shop mainly via mobile, online or in-store
in the Unites states as of February 2017, by age group”, available at: https://www.statista.com/
statistics/694894/primary-household-shoppers-channels-mobile-online-in-store-us-age/ (accessed
19 March 2020).
Statista (2018), “Mobile payment usage worldwide”, available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/
4872/mobile-payments-worldwide/.
Statista (2019), “Most famous social network sites worldwide as of April 2019, ranked by number of
users”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-
by-number-of-users/ (accessed 24 June 2019).
Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (1992), Generations: The History of America’s Future, Quill, Fort Mill, SC,
pp. 1584-2069.
Van der Veen, G. and van Ossenbruggen, R. (2015), “Mapping out the customer’s journey: customer
search strategy as a basis for channel management”, Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 202-213.
Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V. and Ravishanker, N. (2007), “Multichannel shopping: causes and
consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 114-132.
IJRDM Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K. and Inman, J.J. (2015), “From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel
retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing”, Journal of Retailing,
48,4 Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 174-181.
Vouchilas, G. and Ulasewicz, C. (2014), “The ‘not so young’ Millennial consumer”, International Journal
of Arts and Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 51-62.
Wallace, T. (2018), “96 data points on the state of ecommerce around the world”, available at: https://
www.bigcommerce.com/blog/ecommerce-trends/ (accessed 24 June 2019).
416
Wertz, J. (2018), “Analog and digital: Xennials present a unique opportunity for marketers”, available
at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jiawertz/2018/04/19/analog-digital-Xennials-present-unique-
opportunity-for-marketers/ (accessed 7 December 2018).
Yang, K. and Jolly, L.D. (2008), “Age cohort analysis in adoption of mobile data services: gen Xers
versus baby boomers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 272-280.
Yrj€ol€a, M., Spence, M.T. and Saarij€arvi, H. (2018a), “Omni-channel retailing: propositions, examples
and solutions”, International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 259-276.
Yrj€ol€a, M., Saarij€arvi, H. and Nummela, H. (2018b), “The value propositions of multi-, cross- and omni-
channel retailing”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 46 Nos 11/
12, pp. 1133-1152.
Zhang, Y., Trusov, M., Stephen, A.T. and Jamal, Z. (2017), “Online shopping and social media: friends
or foes?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 81, pp. 24-41.

Further reading
Armstrong, G. and Kotler, P. (2013), Marketing: An Introduction, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Criteo (n.d. c), “Distribution of online shopping customers vs. share of retail sales worldwide as of 4th
quarter 2017, by platform”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/861336/share-
online-shopping-customers-vs-sales-by-platform/ (accessed 10 December 2018).
Culp, E. (2015), “The future of omni-channel retail: emily Culp of Rebecca Minkoff”, available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v5IR6wGM_WAvk (accessed 28 November 2018).
Paton, E. (2017), “Imagining the retail store of the future”, The New York Times, available at: https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/fashion/store-of-the-future.html (accessed 27 November 2018).
UPS (n.d.), “Most frequently used paths to purchase with multi-channel retailers according to online
shoppers in the United States as of February 2017”, available at: https://www.statista.com/
statistics/412099/multi-channel-retail-purchase-path-usa/ (accessed 24 June 2019).
About the authors
Amy Dorie, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Apparel Design & Merchandising at San Francisco State
University. Her research interests include generational consumption, design for diverse communities
and innovative pedagogy. Amy Dorie is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: adorie@
sfsu.edu
Dr. David Loranger is currently an assistant professor in the Fashion Marketing & Merchandising
programme at Sacred Heart University (SHU) in Fairfield, CT. He teaches the Senior Capstone and
Global Luxury Retailing courses at SHU. Prior to Sacred Heart, he was a faculty member in the
University of Minnesota’s retailing programme. He holds a PhD in Apparel Merchandising from Iowa
State University, and spent 17 years in the New York City luxury retailing sector, most recently as a
Merchandise Manager at Bergdorf Goodman. His research foci revolve around generational
consumption and cultural apparel products.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com