Abstract
Purpose
Up until now, some internet shopper profiles based on certain findings have been generally accepted. It is widely believed that internet shoppers tend to be more innovative, less averse to risk, more variety-seeking, more information-seeking, more impulsive and more interested in pursuing convenience. This paper aims to discuss some of these assumed characteristics by contrasting and comparing customers of three different types of pharmacies.
Design/methodology/approach
Three exploratory-descriptive design studies are conducted to profile customers from three different types of pharmacies in Mexico. Data from three samples are assessed, including 198 customers of physical drugstores without an e-channel, 150 customers of physical pharmacies with an e-channel and 271 customers of online pharmacies.
Findings
Shoppers from physical pharmacies purchase more food and drinks than actual medicine. Shoppers from physical pharmacies with e-channels tend to use the internet to acquire information about pharmaceutical products but do not make purchases online; they prefer to obtain products immediately from a physical drugstore instead of waiting for delivery from an e-channel. Contrasting with the two former customer types, shoppers who use e-pharmacies are specific in the numbers and types of products they purchase, medicines being the main priority.
Originality/value
The three types of customers and their preferred shopping platforms may show important profile differences. Despite the evidence in previous literature, shoppers at physical pharmacies are not necessarily non-convenience oriented (time and effort), noninformation analyzing, non-price conscious or less positive in their attitude about shopping; instead, they may simply be averse to technology.
Keywords
Citation
Vera-Martínez, J. (2023), "From purely physical to purely online pharmacies: exploring different shopper profiles and discussing some widespread beliefs", International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPHM-08-2021-0088
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
Internet shoppers have been defined as users who make purchases online (Brashear et al., 2009). Under this definition, other internet users are not to be considered shoppers. Internet shoppers can be subsegmented into different types (Keng Kau et al., 2003; Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004; Soopramanien and Robertson, 2007; Patak et al., 2014). However, according to the literature, there are some established profiles which are the outcome of certain general principles. For instance, a study performed in six countries (the USA, England, New Zealand, China, Brazil and Bulgaria) shows that online shoppers around the world tend to have some consistent characteristics (Brashear et al., 2009). The conclusions of the aforementioned study are consistent with other findings, namely, that internet shoppers (as opposed to non-shoppers) tend to be more innovative, less risk-averse, more variety-seeking, more information-seeking, more impulsive and more interested in convenience (Donthu and Garcia, 1999; Lim and Cham, 2015). Noticeably, according to a particular consumer profile (Rogers, 1962), these propositions are grounded in a theory about the diffusion of innovations and the phase of adoption. According to this theory, consumers who tend to first adopt innovations (such as technological solutions or internet shopping) tend to be less risk-averse and more open to new sources of information. However, in the data assessed for the present work, evidence has been found that may contradict some of these assumed differences between online shoppers and non-online shoppers. Although many previously established findings regarding the contrast between these different types of shoppers are confirmed in the present study, other beliefs appear open to reconsideration, at least for pharmacy shoppers in the present study. One such belief is that those who do not shop online are less concerned about convenience (time and effort), analyze information less, are less price-conscious, and have a less positive attitude toward buying. This exploratory work suggests different possibilities regarding these ideas.
The objective of this work is thus to explore differences between shoppers of three kinds of pharmacy: physical drugstores without an e-channel, physical drugstores with an e-channel and online drugstores. The research was conducted through three different studies, each one based on an exploratory-descriptive design involving semistructured interviews with customers from each kind of drugstore. The semistructured nature of the questionnaires relates to the use of a mix of close-ended questions allowing specific data and some open-ended questions allowing in-depth exploration and analysis. Thus, each study has its own specific methodological approach and each was independently designed to profile and explore the characteristics and motivations of the respective pharmacy customers. Although there are some similarities between the three questionnaires, each has its own design, such that their measurements are not statistically comparable. Instead, conceptual comparisons between the results of the three studies are discussed in light of the previous literature. Thus, on average, the interviews had a duration of between 10 and 20 min during which approximately 30 questions were asked. These three studies were performed with pharmacy customers in a metropolitan context (Mexico City), referred to as urban shoppers (Gillett, 1970; Peters and Ford, 1972; Rajagopal, 2011); therefore, all participants have similar ease of access to both online and physical pharmacies. This is important to clarify, as sometimes shopping behavior (online versus in a physical store) can be determined by geographical conditions and store accessibility (Farag et al., 2006). For example, some customers may be encouraged to shop online because of remote living conditions and poor access to physical stores. The overarching aim of the present work is to discuss some implications that contrast with previous literature. The paper presents the three studies and is structured as follows: first, there is a background section. Then, the three studies follow, each with its own objectives, methodology and results. The results of these three inquiries are then discussed in the light of established beliefs in the previous literature. Then outline conceptual considerations that may make it necessary to reassess some of these notions, possibly leading to new ideas. In addition, some managerial implications for drugstore businesses are offered.
Background
The pharmacy business is complex, consistent integration of multiple marketing strategies being needed to achieve profitability (Tootelian et al., 1984; Mirzaei et al., 2018). An intricate mix of tactical elements must be implemented to formulate a successful general strategy for engaging a particular consumer segment. Evidence suggests that such tactical components can include strategic positioning, value-adding customer targeting, sound economic planning (sales versus expenditures), offering premeditated services/products, innovative business-to-customer relationships and learning/interaction/communication/web-based systems (Hamilton, 2009). For a pharmacy to have a successful positioning strategy and effective customer targeting, it is important to identify different customer segments. Through cluster analysis, a study with metropolitan customers from physical pharmacies in Greece categorized shoppers into three different groups, based on factors considered when selecting a pharmacy (Kevrekidis et al., 2018): convenience customers (49%), loyal customers (35%) and price-sensitive customers (16%). The first cluster was mainly motivated to choose a pharmacy based on location and opening hours. The second group was largely attracted by the ambiance, professional respect and empathy with the pharmacy’s staff. The third cluster was mainly concerned with familiarity and price, as the group had a lower average income.
There have been several attempts proposed for segmenting consumers regarding their use (or not) of e-commerce. A typology of online shoppers, based on shopping motivations, proposes four types: convenience shoppers, variety seekers, balanced buyers and store-oriented shoppers (Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004). In these categorizations, convenience shoppers would select stores prioritizing saving time and/or effort. Thus, this kind of shopper would find it convenient to shop online, as purchases can be made at any hour from almost anywhere while avoiding physical stores. Variety seekers are consumers who eagerly look for the most information possible regarding different product types, brands and points of purchase. Balanced buyers combine characteristics of the two former types, as they tend to seek a compromise between convenience (saving time and effort) and information. The store-oriented shopper shows little interest in convenience (saving time and effort are not priorities), whereas they do show a preference for physical stores, which offer instant ownership and social interaction. This type of shopper is less inclined to plan purchases or search for variety.
Another categorization of shoppers claims that consumers may be distinguished according to their relationship with the internet (Soopramanien and Robertson, 2007). Under this view, buyers can be classified according to three shopping behaviors: online information searchers and purchasers (online buyers), online searchers of information regarding products and services who make purchases primarily in physical stores (browsers) and those who do not use the internet at all for purchasing purposes (non-internet shoppers). The main difference between online buyers and browsers is the sense of trust when providing credit/debit card information to online retailers. On the other hand, the main difference between non-internet shoppers and the other two segments is that the former tends to show a higher level of technological aversion (Soopramanien and Robertson, 2007) and a disinclination to use the internet for shopping purposes (Keng Kau et al., 2003). The technology acceptance model can explain this aversion to internet technology. This model, as an extension of the theory of reasoned action, suggests that a person’s decision to accept the use of technology is based on two factors: its perceived utility and its perceived ease of use (Davis et al., 1989). These two factors are key for consumers’ adoption of internet shopping, and additional contributing factors include the enjoyment of internet shopping, the perception of an e-retailer regarding trust and the quality of information (Ha and Stoel, 2009; Çelik and Yilmaz, 2011). The adoption of shopping in e-pharmacies, as with e-shopping in general, tends to follow the same principles established in the technology acceptance model. For instance, it has been shown that factors supporting the adoption of new technologies can also explain the adoption of shopping in e-pharmacies. The perceived effectiveness of shopping for medications in an e-pharmacy, the ease of purchasing through an online channel, the persuading influence of the customer's social group regarding the benefits e-pharmacies and the perceived pleasure of e-pharmacy shopping can all be antecedents of behavioral intentions to purchase in this type of drugstore (Srivastava and Raina, 2020).
Study 1: shoppers at physical drugstores without e-stores
Study 1: purpose and methodology
The objective of this study is to explore the profile characteristics of customers who make purchases in physical drugstores that do not provide web-store options for their clients. Moreover, the intention is to expose some possible reasons for this type of consumer to select physical drugstores when making purchases. To this end, a non-probabilistic sampling procedure with interception points in front of certain pharmacies was implemented (note: the data gathering procedures for these studies were carried out before the Covid-19 pandemic struck Mexico). Participants had to be at least 18 years old, and customers who participated in the sample did not arrive at the drugstore together. Other than these restrictions, there were no demographic filters as the intention was to randomly approach and interview customers without any preconceptions about them. Personal interviews were performed on the spot. A sample of 198 customers was confirmed and the person-to-person interviews were performed in front of 10 different drugstores in various zones of Mexico City (to avoid bias). Each point of purchase represented a pharmacy that did not offer a web-store option at the time of the interview. Interviews were carried out over a two-week period. As stated above, a previously piloted semistructured questionnaire was used to conduct the interviews.
Study 1: findings
In this study, 50% of the customers identified as women, 47% as males and 3% chose the option “other” for gender. Interviewees ranged between 18 and 67 years of age, and 72% were between 19 and 48 years of age. In this study, 54% of the participants considered themselves low-frequency users of social networks, 57% considered themselves low-frequency users of mobile applications, 77% considered themselves low-frequency online purchasers and 79% of participants required 26 min or less to arrive at the drugstore where the interview was performed. In general, they had a favorable opinion of the service provided by the drugstore. Only 64% were aware that they could purchase from an internet drugstore (36% were unaware). Subjects who knew they could buy from an e-drugstore were asked why they preferred the physical store. The vast majority expressed greater trust in the physical store because of the personal interactions with the drugstore’s personnel. Of those who did not know they could buy from an e-drugstore, 47% still expressed reluctance to use this channel for future drugstore purchases. When asked for the reason, the overall response included trust issues and the perception that internet purchases were too complicated. When asked what channels the customers used to obtain information regarding products and purchasing options, 56% used the internet, 32% consulted books and other printed materials, 17% consulted physicians and 7% consulted friends or family. Two interesting statistically significant relationships were found using a chi-squared test. On the one hand, it was found that the younger the purchaser, the greater the tendency to compare options seeking lower prices (contingency coefficient of 0.47 with a p-value ≤ 0.05). On the other hand, although none of the participants in this study was a heavy internet shopper, it was found that the heavier the customer's use of social media, the likelier the customer was to begin purchasing pharmacy products online (contingency coefficient of 0.44 with a p-value ≤ 0.05).
Participants were also asked about the kinds of products they purchased from the drugstore: 43% chose medicines; 22% personal care products; 15% baby products; 40% vitamins and nutritional supplements; 33% sexual health products (condoms and other); and 84% food and drinks. Moreover, 78% of respondents expressed that they would not feel confident buying medicines online. From this market segment (purchasers at drugstores without digital channels), it is observed that consumers were averse to online shopping because of elements of perceived risk and an inclination for interpersonal interactions. In addition, they tended to be disinclined to use electronic applications. Though they were not inclined to online purchasing, they were somehow predisposed to use the internet as a source of information through the use of digital social networks. It was noticeable that a large proportion of these customers used the drugstore to buy food and drinks rather than medicines.
Study 2: shoppers at physical drugstores with e-stores (combined channel)
Study 2: purpose and methodology
In this case, the study explores and identifies some characteristics of consumers who patronize brick-and-mortar drugstores that also offer an e-store channel to enable online purchases. Two chains of suitable pharmacies were chosen for the interviews; five points of purchase, located in various zones of the city, were selected from each chain. As in Study 1, random customers were selected at points of interception outside of the physical drugstores. To participate, the customers had to have purchased something at the pharmacy. A sample of 150 customers was obtained. Similar to Study 1, subjects had to be 18 years old or more and only one customer per shopping group was interviewed; no other demographic specifications were defined (to avoid any prejudice regarding customer selection). An ad hoc, semistructured questionnaire was designed and test piloted for this study.
Study 2: findings
Participants were aged between 21 and 72 years, and 78% of the sample ranged between 26 and 52 years. In addition, 59% of the customers in the sample were identified as women (more than in Study 1) and 41% were identified as men. Regarding economic capacity, these customers tended to represent a higher economic level than the sample from Study 1, and 80% of the consumers purchased medicine (far more than in Study 1), 38% bought beauty and personal care products, 26% purchased vitamins and nutritional supplements (considerably fewer than in Study 1), 19% purchased baby products and 14% purchased sexual health products. It should also be highlighted that in this case, only 4% of the customers purchased food and drinks in the drugstore (in sharp contrast with 84% from Study 1). Each customer was asked if they made purchases via the e-store from the same drugstore, and 35% answered yes, whereas 32% expressed a preference for the online option. When asked about deterrents to making purchases from e-drugstores, the customers expressed feelings of discomfort and a lack of trust in online stores. They were then asked what attributes might make them consider purchasing online. The most frequent answers were: fair prices (82%), reduced delivery time (82%), product variety (69%) and sales promotions (42%), but above all else, a trustworthy method of payment (95%). In addition, a statistically significant relationship was found. Although all age groups preferred to make their purchases in a physical pharmacy, the younger the purchaser, the likelier she or he is to make purchases in the pharmacy's e-store (contingency coefficient of 0.38 with a p-value ≤ 0.05).
Study 3: E-pharmacy shoppers
Study 3: purpose and methodology
The objectives of this study were to explore the profile of online pharmaceutical shoppers and to identify purchasing behaviors related to pharmaceutical e-commerce platforms. A sample of 271 consumers was selected from the panel of an online survey services company (using a previously test-piloted semistructured questionnaire). To qualify for participation, consumers had to have made an online purchase of a pharmaceutical product at least once in the past three months (not necessarily from an e-pharmacy); they had to be current residents of Mexico City and they had to be 18 years or older. No other demographics were required; therefore, the participants can be considered to have been randomly selected from the database.
Study 3: findings
In this study, 49% were identified as female and 51% were identified as male (approximately coinciding with Mexico’s gender stratification, as per the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, 2020). The age distribution of the customers included 28% under 29 years of age, 48% between 30 and 39 years, 23% from 40 to 49 years and 1% were over 50 years. In sum, 76% of participants were under 40 years of age, therefore tending to be younger than the subjects in Studies 1 and 2. In addition, 48% of interviewees reported having completed university (college) studies, 17% reported incomplete studies and 7% had attended graduate studies (thus, 72% had some form of university education). Furthermore, 79% of the participants had spent between US$10 and US$50 on their last online pharmaceutical purchase, and 86% of the participants required less than 30 min to complete an online purchase. Although most of these consumers expressed satisfaction with the obtained service, some unpleasant issues were reported, such as slow-loading pages, incomplete information about products and unfriendly web pages. Of these participants, 91% agreed or strongly agreed that the best way to purchase medicines and other drugstore products was through an online option, 90% confirmed having made previous purchases from an e-drugstore and 97% declared that they had found the item they were looking for. When asked what led them to purchase a drugstore product online (instead of from a physical store), 96% provided responses along the lines of “I didn't have time to go to the (physical) pharmacy.” Prescription medicines represented 62% of online purchases, and 78% of participants received their most recent drugstore product in less than 90 min. In contrast with the customers from the previous two studies, these shoppers were very specific when placing purchase orders. While the former two types of shoppers tended to purchase a variety of products (e.g. groceries, medicines, personal care, nutritional supplements, etc.), the e-drugstore shoppers, guided by very specific needs, tended to narrow their purchases to a limited number of products (mainly medicines). Lastly, these shoppers tended to be heavy users of the internet and social networks.
Discussion
In this section, the findings shown above are conceptually contrasted with additional in-depth findings from each study, and their interpretation is discussed in light of previous literature. When the results of the three studies presented above are compared conceptually, it is very interesting to note that each kind of pharmacy involved tends to have its particular type of customer, as customers apparently choose drugstores with features matching their personal characteristics. However, it has been suggested that in the mass consumer market, the differences between online shoppers and physical store shoppers, regarding fundamental motivations, are not important and that in the long term, these differences turn out to be even less pertinent (Ganesh et al., 2010). Even so, the results of the present work tend to suggest otherwise, at least in the drugstore sector. It appears that the characteristics found in the customers from the physical pharmacies without an online option (Study 1) are consistent with those of the store-oriented shoppers segment proposed by Rohm and Swaminathan (2004); the physical and social interaction with drugstore employees appears to be a priority for these consumers. For this type of pharmacy shopper, trust in the pharmacist can be the main antecedent of customer satisfaction (Castaldo et al., 2016). This is consistent with one of the important selection factors for more conservative customers when choosing a physical drugstore; the perceived level of informed opinion that the pharmacy’s staff can provide is important to customers (Kevrekidis et al., 2018). On the other hand, when considering the characteristics of customers from physical stores with an online purchase option (combined channel), these can be related to the balanced buyer (Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004). This is because these drugstore customers (from physical stores with an online option) tend to use the internet as an effective source of information regarding the products they want to buy, while at the same time they tend to make purchases at the physical store. It thus appears that clients from combined channel drugstores tend to have similar characteristics to those that Soopramanien and Robertson (2007) described as browsers or the ones described by Keng Kau et al. (2003) as dual shoppers and on-off shoppers. These tend to be consumers who can use the internet, or like to use the internet, to search for information having some surfing skills but mainly prefer to buy from physical stores. In addition, the results regarding customers of physical drugstores with e-channels suggest that a favorable attitude toward a physical store tends to transfer to an online store of the same brand or name (Kim and Park, 2005). In this sense, because of the presence and positioning gained by exposing customers to multiple points of purchase (Benedicktus et al., 2010), a hybrid retailer (combining a physical store with an e-store) can have some business advantages over pure e-retailers. Table 1 shows a summary of the main profile differences suggested by the results of the three studies and the conceptual comparisons performed.
One thing apparently in common between the shoppers in Study 1 and Study 2 (physical pharmacy customers) is their sense of convenience and appreciation for the interactions with the pharmacist (and the personnel in the physical drugstore) as a way of obtaining information and confidence regarding products. Evidence shows that the extent to which managers from physical pharmacies preserve and communicate service quality provisions to staff affects the service quality delivered to customers (White and Klinner, 2012). A study performed in Bangkok, with customers frequenting community drugstores in an urban context, shows that the main factor engendering engagement and loyalty toward a pharmacy is the perception of the attending staff, regarding their trustworthiness, knowledgeabiliy, courtesy and promptness to provide attention (Nitadpakorn et al., 2017). This is confirmed by the findings in a study from Sweden, where a similar factor was one of the two important attributes for physical pharmacy customers (Hedvall and Paltschik, 1991). Moreover, in physical pharmacies, employee performance (understanding customers’ needs) also tends to be an antecedent of customer trust and perceived value (Rabbanee et al., 2015). Therefore, evidence from the three studies mentioned above as well as previous findings may contradict the general assumption that online shoppers are seekers of information more than non-online shoppers are Donthu and Garcia (1999), Brashear et al. (2009); and Lim and Cham (2015). The pharmacy’s non-online shoppers may simply have different methods of seeking information and developing trust in products.
Previous research also suggest that online shoppers tend to seek convenience more than non-online shoppers (Brashear et al., 2009; Lim and Cham, 2015). However, results of the current work suggest that the non-internet shoppers are not necessarily indifferent to convenience, they may simply seek convenience in a different form. Most of the consumers in Study 1 tend to find convenience by shopping in person at drugstores near their home or work. In addition, as stated above, these consumers regarded personal interactions with the store attendants as a source of specific information (another source of convenience). Another example can be found in a study of night shoppers (between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.) in physical supermarkets, where most customers are shiftworkers holding down more than one job (Richbell and Kite, 2007) implying that convenience is a factor for shopping during late hours. Thus, our results regarding Study 1 (customers of physical drugstores without an online option) suggest that these customers, while they tend to be non-online shoppers, are more technology averse than non-convenience seekers. A particular study with physical pharmacy customers showed that the largest group of shoppers was characterized by selecting drugstores based on convenience features, such as location and opening hours (Kevrekidis et al., 2018). Similarly, another study showed that accessibility to the physical pharmacy was a highly relevant factor (Hedvall and Paltschik, 1991). Another relevant motivator for the customers in Study 1 was the reward of immediately obtaining the product, thereby eliminating the delivery time involved with e-shopping. The greater satisfaction of obtaining the product at once in the physical drugstore as opposed to the cost of delivery time involved with the e-drugstore suggests a trait of this particular kind of customer that contrasts with what was suggested by Hsiao (2009) and is rather more in agreement with Mokhtarian (2004). Therefore, customers from drugstores without e-channels can be classified as e-laggards or traditional shoppers. An e-laggard is defined as a customer with little interest in making online searches and having poor skills searching online for information and/or purchasing through an e-channel, whereas a traditional shopper purchases from physical stores and tends not to use the internet (Keng Kau et al., 2003).
Unsurprisingly, participants in Study 3 (e-pharmacy shoppers) were younger than those in Studies 1 and 2 (shoppers in physical pharmacies), a feature that describes the most enthusiastic shoppers of e-pharmacies (Patak et al., 2014). From the results of Study 3, these frequent e-pharmacy shoppers can be characterized as variety seekers, as they are more motivated to shop online and seek a variety of options and brands (Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004). They can also be labeled online buyers, in the sense that they are highly prone to purchase online and have a fondness for technology (Soopramanien and Robertson, 2007). They can also be classified as information surfers, as they show navigation expertise and online purchasing experience (Keng Kau et al., 2003).
Conclusions
Some interesting and divisive contributions can be taken from the findings of the present work. Although there are some generally accepted principles in the literature regarding the characteristics of internet shoppers and non-internet shoppers (relating to the claim that shoppers tend to be non-searchers of information or convenience or both, with less interest in making purchases online than others, as presented in:Donthu and Garcia, 1999; Brashear et al., 2009; and Lim and Cham, 2015), the present work, and some published previously, offer evidence that may suggest something different. Non-internet pharmacy shoppers appear in fact to seek information intensively through the pharmacist and sometimes on the internet, they are inclined to pursue convenience by frequenting the closest pharmacies, expecting prompt service (for saving effort and time), asking for the best prices and seeking positive purchasing experiences by socializing at the point of purchase and building trust with the pharmacy staff. Furthermore, non-internet pharmacy shoppers tend to buy in the physical drugstores a far more ample variety of products than internet pharmacy shoppers, suggesting a positive attitude toward purchasing. Finally, the information presented in this study also suggests that these non-internet pharmacy shoppers tend to be, more than anything else, technology averse (as it is complicated for them) and to have a specific dislike for the simple act of paying online and a lack of trust in it.
Limitations and future research
The present research was conducted through three independent mixed-method studies hence its exploratory nature. Although findings suggest important trait differences among customers interviewed in the three kinds of pharmacies involved, it would be important in future research to establish a common instrument of measurement that can verify the profile differences with statistical significance for the three groups of consumers. Such a study would make it possible to determine these differences more accurately and with greater reliability.
During the literature review for this article, it was noticed that much of the published work regarding e-shopping versus physical store shopping (particularly regarding the pharmacy sector) can be divided into two streams. On the one hand, part of the literature is devoted to customer segmentation theories. On the other hand, there are a significant number of publications in which structural equation modeling is frequently used to propose models explaining variables such as satisfaction, behavioral intentions and loyalty toward e-stores and e-pharmacies. What appears to be missing are studies where the approaches are combined. That is to say, there is a lack of research concerning explicative models of behavior toward e-pharmacies and using nested models to assess moderating effects of customer segmentation variables. This combined approach could deliver highly interesting research in the future.
Implications for pharmacy management
Managerial implications for physical pharmacies without an e-channel
Based on the results of the current work, pharmacies should offer assurances that the medicine sought by the customer is correct and provided at the best competitive price. As these customers enjoy interaction with pharmacy staff, it can be useful for the staff to approach customers with price comparisons and information related to the most commonly purchased medicines. Even though they are not online purchasers, time is still relevant for this type of consumer, so assuring prompt service and in-store delivery could be an effective tactic.
Managerial implications for physical pharmacies with an e-channel
This type of customer primarily uses the internet to search for information. The online channel can be used to offer discounts on products and purchases to encourage customers to frequent the physical pharmacy. As this kind of consumer is also reluctant to purchase through an e-channel, a cash-on-delivery payment method can be introduced so that the consumer can check the product before paying, thus generating greater confidence in the online purchase.
Implications for e-pharmacies management
Some participants in this study found problems in the online interface, which resulted in unpleasant experiences (which are potential triggers for switching to another e-store). Therefore, a useful suggestion could be to constantly optimize the e-pharmacy's internet platform for higher fluidity and simplicity, as customers of these types of pharmacies are likely to expect swift and trouble-free experiences.
Summarizing comparisons of pharmacy shopper profiles
Type of pharmacy shopper | Age tendency | Purchased products breadth | Internet usage | E-shopping | Technology aversion | Source of convenience | Personnel interaction importance | Web shopper classification |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Physical drugstores without an e-store | Older | Ample | Low | Low | High | Near home, in-person interaction | High | E-laggards, traditional shoppers |
Physical drugstores with an e-store | Older | Ample | Middle | Middle | Middle | Near home, in-person interaction | High | Browsers, dual shoppers |
E-pharmacies (with no physical store) | Younger | Narrow (medicines) | High | High | Low | Home purchase/delivery | Low | Variety seekers, online buyers |
References
Benedicktus, R.L., Brady, M.K., Darke, P.R. and Voorhees, C.M. (2010), “Conveying trustworthiness to online consumers: reactions to consensus, physical store presence, brand familiarity, and generalized suspicion”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 322-335.
Brashear, T.G., Kashyap, V., Musante, M.D. and Donthu, N. (2009), “A profile of the internet shopper: evidence from six countries”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 267-282.
Castaldo, S., Grosso, M., Mallarini, E. and Rindone, M. (2016), “The missing path to gain customers loyalty in pharmacy retail: the role of the store in developing satisfaction and trust”, Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 699-712.
Çelik, H.E. and Yilmaz, V. (2011), “Extending the technology acceptance model for adoption of e-shopping by consumers in Turkey”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 152-164, available at: www.jecr.org/sites/default/files/12_2_p03.pdf
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Donthu, N. and Garcia, A. (1999), “The internet shopper”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 52-58, available at: www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1639602
Farag, S., Weltevreden, J., Van Rietbergen, T., Dijst, M. and Van Oort, F. (2006), “E-shopping in the Netherlands: does geography matter?”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Ganesh, J., Reynolds, K.E., Luckett, M. and Pomirleanu, N. (2010), “Online shopper motivations, and e-store attributes: an examination of online patronage behavior and shopper typologies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 106-115.
Gillett, P.L. (1970), “A profile of urban in-home shoppers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 40-45.
Ha, S. and Stoel, L. (2009), “Consumer e-shopping acceptance: antecedents in a technology acceptance model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 565-571.
Hamilton, J. (2009), “Building a targeted pharmacy customer engagement approach”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 381-396.
Hedvall, M. and Paltschik, M. (1991), “Intrinsic service quality determinants for pharmacy customers”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 38-48.
Hsiao, M.H. (2009), “Shopping mode choice: physical store shopping versus e-shopping”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 86-95.
Keng Kau, A., Tang, Y.E. and Ghose, S. (2003), “Typology of online shoppers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 139-156.
Kevrekidis, D.P., Minarikova, D., Markos, A., Malovecka, I. and Minarik, P. (2018), “Community pharmacy customer segmentation based on factors influencing their selection of pharmacy and over-the-counter medicines”, Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Kim, J. and Park, J. (2005), “A consumer shopping channel extension model: attitude shift toward the online store”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 106-121.
Lim, Y.M. and Cham, T.H. (2015), “A profile of the internet shoppers: evidence from nine countries”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 344-354.
Mirzaei, A., Carter, S.R. and Schneider, C.R. (2018), “Marketing activity in the community pharmacy sector–a scoping review”, Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 127-137.
Mokhtarian, P.L. (2004), “A conceptual analysis of the transportation impacts of B2C e-commerce”, Transportation, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 257-284, doi: 10.1023/b:port.0000025428.64128.d3.
National Institute of Statistics and Geography (2020), “Mexican census of population and housing”, available at: http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/poblacion/mujeresyhombres.aspx?tema=P (accessed 20 June 2021).
Nitadpakorn, S., Farris, K.B. and Kittisopee, T. (2017), “Factors affecting pharmacy engagement and pharmacy customer devotion in community pharmacy: a structural equation modeling approach”, Pharmacy Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.18549/pharmpract.2017.03.999.
Patak, M., Lostakova, H., Curdova, M. and Vlckova, V. (2014), “The e-pharmacy customer segmentation based on the perceived importance of the retention support tools”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 150 No. 1, pp. 552-562, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.075.
Peters, W.H. and Ford, N.M. (1972), “A profile of urban in-home shoppers: the other half”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 62-64, doi: 10.2307/1250870.
Rabbanee, F.K., Burford, O. and Ramaseshan, B. (2015), “Does employee performance affect customer loyalty in pharmacy services?”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 725-743, doi: 10.1108/jstp-06-2014-0126.
Rajagopal (2011), “Determinants of shopping behavior of urban consumers”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 83-104, doi: 10.1080/08961530.2011.543051.
Richbell, S. and Kite, V. (2007), “Night shoppers in the ‘open 24 hours’ supermarket: a profile”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 54-68, doi: 10.1108/09590550710722341.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, New York, NY, Collier Macmillan, available at: www.worldcat.org/title/diffusion-of-innovations/oclc/254636
Rohm, A.J. and Swaminathan, V. (2004), “A typology of online shoppers based on shopping motivations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 748-757, doi: 10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00351-x.
Soopramanien, D.G. and Robertson, A. (2007), “Adoption and usage of online shopping: an empirical analysis of the characteristics of ‘buyers,’ ‘browsers’ and ‘non-internet shoppers’”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 73-82, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.04.002.
Srivastava, M. and Raina, M. (2020), “Consumers’ usage and adoption of e-pharmacy in India”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 235-250, doi: 10.1108/ijphm-01-2020-0006.
Tootelian, D.H., Gaedeke, R.M. and Gordon, C.L. (1984), “Marketing to public-aid recipients: an examination of pharmacy profitability”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 17-21, available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10311025/
White, L. and Klinner, C. (2012), “Service quality in community pharmacy: an exploration of determinants”, Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 122-132, doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2011.01.002.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge in particular IQVIA Mexico Primary Intelligence for the support provided to this work. In addition, the author gives heartfelt thanks to Rosa Álvarez-Fontano and Arturo Girón for their valuable ideas in the development of the three studies included here. Last, but not least, the author is especially grateful to Itzel Gonzaga, Paulina Lemus, Luis Uribe, Leonardo Morales, Alma Guadarrama, Laura Vigueras, Sharon Quintana, Valeria Alanis, Yamil Dávila, José Ojeda, Diego Montessoro, Alfonso Maguey and Víctor Rodríguez for their considerable and enthusiastic contribution to this endeavor.
Corresponding author
About the author
Jorge Vera-Martínez holds a PhD in management sciences, with honors, from the National University of Mexico (UNAM) and an MBA from the Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM). He also holds a degree in experimental psychology from UNAM. Before his career in academe, he had made his mark as a market research consultant serving multinational companies. Currently, Jorge Vera is a Research Professor at the Business School of Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico City campus. He has taught, at graduate and undergraduate levels, subjects such as sustainable marketing, marketing research, empirical research methodology, instrument design, strategic marketing, brand management and multivariate methods for marketing decisions. In the EGADE Business School of Tecnologico de Monterrey, he is a member of the Faculty of the Ph.D. Program in management sciences. He has been an active member of the National System of Researchers (SNI) of the National Science and Technology Council of Mexico (CONACyT) since 2006. He has published several research articles in scientific reviews on topics such as consumer behavior, conscious marketing, service/product performance, consumer involvement, perceived value, brand perceptions and marketing strategies.