See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/36383482

Barriers to Online Shopping in Switzerland

Article  in  Journal of International Consumer Marketing · August 2004

DOI: 10.1300/J046v16n03_04 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

31 2,439

3 authors, including:

Thomas Rudolph
University of St.Gallen
392 PUBLICATIONS   1,384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trend Report View project

Digital transformation in retailing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Rudolph on 19 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Barriers to Online Shopping in Switzerland
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

Thomas Rudolph
Bert Rosenbloom
Tillmann Wagner

ABSTRACT. Despite the collapse of the so-called digital economy, the

Internet has developed into an established channel of distribution. Al-
though Internet usage continues to grow at a significant pace, online re-
tail sales of products and services lag behind considerably. This paper
focuses on the underlying motivational factors that inhibit consumers
from online purchasing, based on a review of current literature and the
empirical findings of a survey among Internet users in Switzerland. Four
distinct barriers to online shopping that exist between buying and
non-buying Internet users were identified. Implications for the marketing
management of online shopping channels are derived. [Article copies avail-
able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.
E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.
com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Online shopping, electronic commerce, Internet, retail-

ing, consumer marketing, distribution channels, barriers

Thomas Rudolph holds the Gottlieb Duttweiler Chair of International Retail Man-
agement at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Bert Rosenbloom is Professor of Marketing and holds the Rauth Chair in Electronic
Commerce Management at Drexel University, Philadelphia.
Tillmann Wagner is a doctoral candidate at the Gottlieb Duttweiler Chair of Inter-
national Retail Management at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Address correspondence to: Bert Rosenbloom, Rauth Chair in Electronic Com-
merce Management, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, 32nd and Market
Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (E-mail: Bert.Rosenbloom@drexel.edu).
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16(3) 2004
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JICM
 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J046v16n03_04 55
 56 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

INTRODUCTION

As early as 1967, scholars envisioned a revolution in retailing through

Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

electronic home shopping (Doody and Davidson, 1967). During the next
30 years, several authors continued to elaborate on existing and future
opportunities for non-store retailing via communications technology
(Burke, 1997). By the late 1990s, it was clear that Internet-based home
shopping had the potential to significantly change not only the way peo-
ple shop, but also to transform the entire retailing industry (Alba et al.,
1997).
The exponential growth of Internet access during the 1990s provided
the technological platform for the breakthrough in online retailing. The
resulting global e-commerce surge fostered numerous new pure-play,
dot-com retailers. Traditional retailers also established online divisions,
using the Internet as a new channel of distribution (“clicks and bricks”).
The Internet provided consumers with a new medium to shop for prod-
ucts and services. During the last two years of the 1990s, it appeared
that the growth potential for online sales was virtually unlimited. How-
ever, the sudden collapse of countless e-commerce ventures, particu-
larly the pure-play dot-coms, by the first year of the new millennium,
brought a more sober perspective to the online retailing scene. It now
looks as though B2C e-commerce will be more of an evolutionary,
rather than a revolutionary, process. Still, however, online sales are
growing much more rapidly than conventional retail sales in Europe,
North America, and Asia. This pattern is expected to continue for at
least the first decade of the new millennium (Hammond, 2001), making
the Internet a major sales channel that cannot be ignored (Menon and
Kahn, 2002).
Long before the rise and fall of the so-called “new economy,” Quelch
and Takeuchi (1981) pointed out that substantial growth of non-store re-
tailing would occur only if such alternative distribution channels truly
satisfy customer needs and wants. This rationale has not changed today.
The Internet still bears great potential as a retail channel for an increas-
ing variety of goods (Oinas, 2002). However, online shopping channels
will most likely gain wide acceptance from consumers in areas where
the unique characteristics and strengths of this channel make it an at-
tractive substitute for traditional retail channels (Burke, 1997). In order
to ensure lasting success of online shopping, an understanding of the
reasons why consumers choose this channel needs to be gained and the
barriers associated with online shopping need to be uncovered.
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 57

The present study focuses on three questions: (1) What differences

among buyers and non-buyers using online shopping channels can be
identified? (2) What are the underlying motivational aspects that inhibit
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

both buyer and non-buyer Internet users from purchasing online? and
(3) What emphasis do buyers and non-buyers put on different barriers to
buying? The findings point to some practical implications for marketers
using online sales channels.

BACKGROUND

In comparison to traditional store-based retailing, online shopping

provides several unique advantages to the customer, such as 24-hour
availability, interactivity (i.e., the consumer controls the information
flow) (Hoffman and Novak, 1996), powerful and inexpensive means of
searching for product information, perceptual experiences superior to
printed catalogs, immediate physical distribution of intangible goods
(e.g., software, music) (Peterson et al., 1997), customization of the
transactional environment (e.g., Web site) and virtual communities for
communicating with other Internet users. But even with all these pow-
erful advantages online shopping provides, only a minority of consum-
ers use this marketing channel, suggesting that significant barriers to
online shopping exist.

Barriers to Online Shopping

In comparison to traditional retailing channels, buying over the

Internet represents a shopping innovation (Dholakia and Uusitalo,
2002). Ram and Sheth’s (1981) theoretical framework of existing barri-
ers, which refers to consumers’ resistance to adopt innovations, pro-
vides a conceptual starting point for identifying possible barriers in the
online shopping environment. The authors distinguish between two cat-
egories of barriers, functional and psychological, both of which can par-
alyze consumers’ desire to adopt innovations.
Functional barriers are likely to emerge if consumers perceive signif-
icant changes from adopting an innovation. Such barriers arise in the
online shopping environment as a result of the significant differences
associated with this channel as compared to store-based shopping.
Functional barriers can be divided into Usage, Value, and Risk barriers.
Usage barriers exist in areas where the online shopping process is not
compatible with consumers’ current shopping habits and require sub-
 58 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

stantial changes in consumers’ current buying and consumption rou-

tines (Ram and Sheth, 1989). Buying on the Internet puts some distinct
requirements on the individual because the shopping process is quite
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

different from traditional shopping channels. Instead of being served by

sales personnel, Internet users are required to register before purchasing
and must employ search functions/menus to shop online (Raijas and
Tuunainen, 2001). Online customers also need to have access to the
World Wide Web and to a commonly accepted credit card for most on-
line shopping channels (Hammond, 2001). Thus, low-income consum-
ers who lack Internet access and credit cards are effectively eliminated
from the online channel. Moreover, online buyers need to have the skills
and the know-how to navigate through the Internet and to master the on-
line shopping process (Dholakia and Uusitalo, 2002).
The second functional barrier, Value, refers to the value consumers
perceive from the online shopping experience (Ram and Sheth, 1989).
Here, the advantages and disadvantages, when comparing online and
store-based shopping, impact consumers’ choice of a particular retail
channel. For example, during the online buying process, consumers are
not able to see and touch merchandise in person to make judgments
about the quality and value that is provided. Another major Value bar-
rier is the missing interaction with sales personnel who can provide in-
formation, advice, and human contact during the buying process
(Dennis et al., 2002). This can be an especially significant barrier in the
case of services. Furthermore, product information obtained through
online shopping channels can be limited in comparison to traditional re-
tail channels (Alba et al., 1997), making it difficult for the consumer to
gather sufficient information to arrive at a choice decision. Home deliv-
ery, which can result in a time lag between the order and delivery of a
purchase, is another important Value barrier for consumers when con-
sidering online shopping.
The third functional barrier, Risk, represents the uncertainty and po-
tential undesired side effects that cannot be anticipated, which can in-
hibit consumer adoption of innovation (Ram and Sheth, 1989). In the
literature, perceived risk in online shopping appears frequently as an
important barrier to purchasing over the Internet. Both buying and
non-buying Internet users tend to perceive risk in online shopping
(Ben-Ur and Winfield, 2002; Lieberman and Stashevsky, 2002) based
on the lack of trust in online shopping channels (Hoffman et al., 1999;
Graner-Kraeuter, 2002; Reynolds, 2000). According to Hoffman et al.
(1999), many Internet users do not trust online firms enough to engage
in relationship exchanges with them. Consumers’ perceived risk of on-
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 59

line shopping is expressed through various concerns: fear of credit card

fraud, reluctance to supply personal information, lack of immediate
availability of product offers, missing human interaction, lack of proof
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

of online transactions (e.g., receipt), fear of faulty home delivery of

merchandise, as well as perceived difficulties in returning merchandise
that fails to perform or does not comply with specifications (Lieberman
and Stashevsky, 2002; Hoffman et al., 1999).
Psychological barriers arise when innovations cause consumers to be
in conflict with their prior beliefs. Two types of psychological barriers,
Tradition and Image barriers, have been identified.
Tradition barriers result from the cultural changes consumers go
through when engaged in online shopping, requiring consumers to devi-
ate from established traditions (Ram and Sheth, 1989). This can occur in
the online channel when activities that consumers have become accus-
tomed to, such as the ability to personally inspect products or to ask
questions about services to a company representative, are absent (Harri-
son-Walker, 2002).
Image barriers comprise the second psychological barrier. They ex-
ist when consumers’ hold unfavorable beliefs that result from stereotyp-
ical thinking (Ram and Sheth, 1989). Common Image barriers among
consumers regarding online shopping are that the process is compli-
cated, takes too much time, home delivery service is poor, and that it is
difficult to return merchandise (Raijas and Tuunainen, 2001; Cude and
Morganosky, 2002; Essinger et al., 2001).

METHODOLOGY

The issues raised in this paper are part of a comprehensive research

project entitled “Internet usage in Switzerland,” which is being con-
ducted by the Gottlieb Duttweiler Chair of International Retail Manage-
ment at the University of St. Gallen. Through an extensive survey, the
current state and future development of online retailing in Switzerland
is being analyzed. In order to investigate barriers to online shopping
from different perspectives, Internet users were divided into two cate-
gories, buyers and non-buyers. Buyers were classified as Internet users
who purchase online at least once a year, whereas non-buyers do not
purchase products over the Internet.
Data were collected for thirteen cities across Switzerland. A five
page survey, consisting of 15 questions mainly based on Likert scaling,
was administered at central pedestrian locations (e.g., areas close to ma-
 60 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

jor train stations) by professional interviewers. A total of 1,498 respon-

dents completed the questionnaire, of which 1,454 were used for the
purpose of this study. It took respondents an average of fifteen minutes
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three

questions regarding demographic criteria (gender, age and occupation)
and 12 questions pertaining to respondents Internet use and online pur-
chasing behavior.
To determine the barriers to online shopping for both buyers and
non-buyers, respondents were asked “Why don’t you purchase products
and services over the Internet?” The responses were measured using a
16-item rating scale (see Figure 1) based on Ram and Sheth’s (1989)
functional and psychological barriers dichotomy. Wording of the
16-item rating scale was partially derived from the WWW User Survey;
published biannually by the GVU Center at the Georgia Institute of
Technology. To assess the factors inhibiting Internet users from pur-
chasing products and services online, respondents rated the 16 items on
a 7-point, bi-polar Likert scale ranging from 1, (strongly agree) to 7,
(strongly disagree).

FINDINGS

Table 1 provides a demographic profile of the respondents while Ta-

ble 2 compares buyers and non-buyers in terms of demographic criteria.
Differences between the two groups were significant in all three demo-
graphic categories (gender, age, occupation). Results showed a signifi-
cant difference in gender within the buyer group, with 72.4% of buyers
being men and only 27.6% of buyers being women, whereas the
non-buyers were more evenly distributed in the gender category with
50.5% men and 49.5% women. A difference in age was observed be-
tween the two groups. The average age of buyers was found to be higher
than the average age of non-buyers, with 53% of buyers being between
the ages of 24 and 44, whereas 53% of the non-buyers were between the
ages of 13 and 24. Differences in the occupation category were also
seen between the two groups. Results showed that a majority of buyers
(53.4%) were employed by corporate or governmental enterprises and
9.7% of buyers were business owners, whereas a majority of non-buy-
ers were unemployed with 45.7% being students and 5.2% being home-
makers, and only 7.7% of non-buyers were business owners.
Previous findings by Girard et al. (2003) reveal that disposable income
has a strong influence on preferences for shopping online. In particular,
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 61

FIGURE 1. Mean Differences Between Buyers and Non-Buyers

Mean
I disagree I agree
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Unwillingness to transfer credit card data* 3.32 2.69

3.48 2.60
Inability to judge product and services quality*

No direct interaction with sales personnel* 3.89 2.73

3.68 3.17
Doubts about protection of personal data*

Faster in-store shopping* 4.24 2.90

3.76 3.42
Difficulties to return purchases*

Insufficient information for purchase decision* 4.29 3.53

5.33 3.01
General dislike of online shopping*

5.03 3.46
No trust in the new medium*

No receipt for purchase* 4.86 4.09

5.27 4.21
Dislike of online offerings*

5.26 4.26
Complicated process of online shopping*

5.30 4.65
Poor home delivery*

No credit card* 5.67 4.89

Bad experiences with online shopping 6.05 6.04

6.70
6.23
No Internet access*

Non-Buyers (n = 835) Buyers (n = 526)

*p < 0.05 (based on the t-test)

Donthu and Garcia (1999) identify income a main discriminating variable

between buyers and non-buyers. Likewise, the present study suggests that
discretionary income is an important variable explaining significant differ-
ences between buyers and non-buyers. But, in this study the respondents’
income was highly correlated to age and occupation. That is, the buyers
 62 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 1. Sample Characteristics

n Percent of total
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

Gender (n = 1405) 577 41.1% women

828 58.9% men
Age (n = 1406) 2 0.1% less than 12 years
275 19.6% 13 to 18 years
368 26.2% 19 to 24 years
364 25.9% 25 to 34 years
215 15.3% 35 to 44 years
117 8.3% 45 to 54 years
49 3.5% 55 to 64 years
16 1.1% 65+ years
Occupation (n = 1397) 570 40.8% Student
623 44.6% Employed
118 8.4% Own Business
56 4.0% Homemaker
30 2.1% Retired

seem to be more affluent due to a higher average age as well as higher

degrees of employment and self-owned businesses. The non-buyers, on
the other hand, are characterized by a lower average age and larger de-
grees of unemployment, indicating a lower disposable income.
Table 3 compares the years of Internet usage between buyers and
non-buyers and shows the frequency of online purchases of the buyers.
Significant differences exist between the two groups regarding Internet
experience. Results show that about 50% of buyers have had access to
the Internet for over four years, whereas 50% of non-buyers have only
had access to the Internet for two years or less. It was also observed that
the frequency of Internet purchases among buyers was relatively low,
with 25% of buyers purchasing at most once a year and 45% only buy-
ing once or twice every six months.
Figure 1 depicts the 16-item rating scale used to determine the barri-
ers to online shopping for both buyers and non-buyers. The 16 items
were ranked in accordance to their importance based on survey results
for both groups. As shown, significant differences appear between atti-
tudes regarding barriers to online shopping. Results show that, to a large
degree, non-buyers hold more skeptical attitudes toward online shop-
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 63

TABLE 2. Demographic Profile of Buyers and Non-Buyers

Buyers Non-Buyers
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

N 551 888
Gender* 27.6% women 49.5% women
72.4% men 50.5% men
Age* 0.2% less than 12 years 0.1% less than 12 years
11.5% 13 to 18 years 24.5% 13 to 18 years
23.0% 19 to 24 years 28.2% 19 to 24 years
34.4% 25 to 34 years 20.6% 25 to 34 years
18.3% 35 to 44 years 13.4% 35 to 44 years
7.4% 45 to 54 years 8.9% 45 to 54 years
4.3% 55 to 64 years 3.0% 55 to 64 years
0.9% 65+ years 1.3% 65+ years
Occupation* 32.8% Student 45.7% Student
53.4% Employed 39.2% Employed
9.7% Own Business 7.7% Own Business
2.1% Homemaker 5.2% Homemaker
2.1% Retired 2.2% Retired

*p < 0.05 (based on Pearson’s chi-square)

ping. It was found that in all but one category, “bad experiences shop-
ping online,” non-buyers weighted the barriers to online shopping more
heavily than did the buyers, confirming that non-buyers generally per-
ceive the barriers to online shopping to be more relevant than those re-
spondents who had previously purchased products online.

Data Analysis

In order to reduce the number of variables and gain insight into the
underlying dimensions of the various barriers, exploratory factor analy-
ses were performed. The purpose of the factor analyses was to summa-
rize the information contained within the various variables into a
smaller set of new factors with a minimal loss of information. To im-
prove the interpretation of the results, a principal components factor
analysis with an orthogonal (varimax) rotation was conducted to obtain
a simplified factor matrix (Hair et al., 1998). The latent root criterion
was applied to determine the number of factors to extract. Here, the
 64 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 3. Internet Usage Among Buyers and Non-Buyers

Buyers Non-Buyers
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

Years of 8.4% one year or less 20.0% one year or less

Internet
access*
19.3% since two years 30.2% since two years
22.9% since three years 23.5% since three years
15.8% since four years 11.6% since four years
14.1% since five years 8.5% since five years
19.4% since six or more years 6.3% since six or more years
Frequency of 100% do not purchase over the Internet
Internet
purchases*
24.5% once a year at most
45.0% once or twice every six months
26.3% once or twice every month
3.4% once or twice every week
0.7% at least once a day

*p < 0.05 (based on Pearson’s chi-square)

minimum eigenvalue for which a factor was to be retained was set at 1.0
so as to fulfill the minimum eigenvalue criterion. In order to ensure
practical significance, only factor loadings of .50 were considered sig-
nificant, which is a conservative limit. In total, three factor analyses
were performed, first, with all responses collected and subsequently,
with the groups of buyers and non-buyers in order to test the stability of
the factor solution. Table 4 shows the results of the first analysis that in-
cludes the whole data set of buyers and non-buyers.
The first factor analysis, which was performed on responses from
both buyers and non-buyers, resulted in 15 of the 16 variables loading
significantly on four factors (the variable “No credit card” had a factor
loading of less than .50 and was not considered significant in this analy-
sis). As a result of the first exploratory factor analysis, the resulting 15
significant variables were grouped into four factor categories of online
shopping barriers: (1) the Digital barrier, (2) Security barrier, (3) Online
Channel barrier, and (4) Experience/Access barrier. This four factor
structure explained 54.77% of the total variance in the set of 16 vari-
ables. The Digital barrier accounted for 15.34% of variance, the Secu-
rity and Online Channel barriers accounted for 14.3%, the online
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 65

TABLE 4. Barriers Among Buyers and Non-Buyers

Items Mean Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

Rating Digital Security Online Experience/

Channel Access
Complicated process of online 4.65 0.610
shopping
Faster in-store shopping 3.42 0.706
Unwillingness to transfer credit 2.93 0.809
card data
No trust in the new medium 4.06 0.669
No receipt for purchase 4.39 0.554
Inability to judge product 2.94 0.712
and services quality
Insufficient information 3.83 0.626
for purchase decision
General dislike of online 3.90 0.668
shopping
Bad experiences with online 6.04 0.747
shopping
Doubts about protection 3.37 0.763
of personal data
No credit card 5.20
No direct interaction with sales 3.18 0.527
personnel
Dislike of online offerings 4.62 0.443
No Internet access 6.42 0.702
Difficulties to return purchases 3.56 0.727
Poor home delivery 4.91 0.502
Factor mean (SD) 3.68 (0.77) 3.68 (0.66) 4.15 (0.60) 6.23 (0.27)
Explained variance per factor 15.34% 14.30% 14.07% 11.05%
Cumulative 15.34% 29.64% 43.72% 54.77%

channel barrier accounted for 14.07%, and the Experience/Access bar-

rier accounted for 11.05% of variance. (See Tables 5 and 6.)
Factor 1, the Digital barrier, was derived from the characteristics of
online shopping channels that consumers perceived as major differ-
ences when compared to their buying experiences in traditional
store-based retailing. The Digital barrier loaded highly on the following
five variables: “Inability to judge product and services quality,” “Insuf-
ficient information for purchase decisions,” “No direct interaction with
sales personnel,” “Difficulties in returning purchases,” and “Poor home
 66 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 5. Barriers Among Buyers

Items Mean Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

Rating Digital Security Online Experience/

Channel Access
Complicated process 4.26 0.712
of online shopping
Faster in-store shopping 2.90 0.674
Unwillingness to transfer 2.69 0.821
credit card data
No trust in the new medium 3.46 0.706
No receipt for purchase 4.06 0.541
Inability to judge product 2.60 0.657
and services quality
Insufficient information 3.53 0.530
for purchase decision
General dislike of online 3.01 0.674
shopping
Bad experiences with online 6.04 0.638
shopping
Doubts about protection 3.17 0.682
of personal data
No credit card 4.89 0.597
No direct interaction 2.73 0.459
with sales personnel
Dislike of online offerings 4.21 0.619
No Internet access 6.23 0.775
Difficulties to return 3.42 0.760
purchases
Poor home delivery 4.65 0.662
Mean per factor 4.34 (0.79) 4.22 (0.85) 4.75 (0.72) 6.02 (0.70)
Explained variance per factor 14.53% 14.23% 16.14% 10.32%
Cumulative 14.53% 28.76% 44.9% 55.21%

delivery service.” These variables all refer to concrete differences between

online and in-store shopping and correspond to actual disadvantages of
Internet shopping, rather than more naïve, subjective assumptions regard-
ing the online shopping process. In its core meaning, the Digital barrier
is comparative to the Value barrier of Ram and Sheth’s (1989) innova-
tion adoption framework.
Factor 2, the Security barrier, which is similar to Ram and Sheth’s
(1989) Risk barrier, is an expression of the uncertainty and assumed
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 67

TABLE 6. Barriers Among Non-Buyers

Items Mean Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

Rating Digital Security Online Experience/

Channel Access
Complicated process of online 5.26 0.684
shopping
Faster in-store shopping 4.24 0.840
Unwillingness to transfer credit 3.32 0.805
card data
No trust in the new medium 5.03 0.684
No receipt for purchase 4.86 0.537
Inability to judge product 3.48 0.720
and services quality
Insufficient information 4.29 0.678
for purchase decision
General dislike of online 5.33 0.412
shopping
Bad experiences with online 6.05 0.727
shopping
Doubts about protection 3.68 0.736
of personal data
No credit card 5.67
No direct interaction with sales 3.89 0.658
personnel
Dislike of online offerings 5.27 0.472
No Internet access 6.70 0.696
Difficulties to return purchases 3.76 0.579
Poor home delivery 5.30 0.556
Mean per factor 3.39 (0.82) 3.34 (0.57) 3.59 (0.74) 5.72 (0.73)
Explained variance per factor 16.91% 14.21% 8.75% 12.18%
Cumulative 16.91% 31.12% 39.87% 52.05%

high risk, frequently mentioned in current literature, that Internet users

associate with online shopping. The Security barrier loaded highly on
four variables that mirror a range of concerns about privacy and security
during the online shopping experience, they include: “Unwillingness to
transfer credit card data,” “No trust in the new medium,” “No receipt for
purchase,” and “Doubts about protection of personal data.”
Factor 3, the Online Channel barrier, refers to generalized aspects of
online shopping and focuses on more broadly held beliefs and attitudes
of Internet users. The Online Channel barrier loaded highly on the fol-
 68 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

lowing four variables: “Complicated process of online shopping,”

“Faster in-store shopping,” “General dislike of online shopping,” as
well as “Dislike of online offerings.” These variables are concerned
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

with buyers and non-buyers perceptions of the online shopping channel.

In contrast to the Digital and Security barriers, the variables associated
with the Online Channel barriers emphasize the cumbersome process of
online shopping and how products and services offered online are per-
ceived. Variables in this category, when compared to the Digital bar-
rier, refer more to individual beliefs and preferences than to concrete
weaknesses, making this barrier similar to Ram and Sheth’s (1989) Im-
age barrier described in the literature review.
Factor 4, the Experience/Access barrier, refers to barriers that prevent
online shopping from occurring in the first place. The variables in this
category include: “No Internet access,” and “Bad experiences with on-
line shopping.” These variables are similar to Ram and Sheth’s (1989)
Usage barrier because they affect consumers’ ability and willingness to
utilize the online shopping channel. In order to engage in online shop-
ping, potential customers need to have access to the Internet and the
skills associated with using it. Unsatisfactory online buying experiences
are also categorized as part of the Experience/Access barrier because
they negatively impact consumers’ motivation to purchase online in the
future.

Barriers for Buyers

To assess the underlying structure of barriers to buying online from

the perspective of Internet users who do purchase online, a second ex-
ploratory factor analysis was performed for the buyers group. All 16
variables were included in the analysis and the same criteria for deriving
the factor solution were employed. The second factor solution yielded
the same four factor structure and accounted for 52.05% of the total
variance explained in the second analysis. The only difference found
was that the barrier “no credit card,” which did not respond to any of the
factors of the first analysis, now loaded significantly (0.597) on factor
four, the Experience/Access barrier. As this factor refers to the basic re-
quirement to be able to shop online, the item clearly supports this factor.
As far as the importance of each of the four barriers is concerned, the
mean scores resulting from the rating of the buying group occur gener-
ally on a lower level, meaning that the respondents placed less emphasis
on the barriers (i.e., less reasons to hesitate to buy online) in comparison
to the total survey sample. This confirmed the expected findings shown
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 69

in Figure 1 which shows that buyers are generally less skeptical about
online shopping. However, this analysis reveals that buyers place the
highest importance on the Security (mean 4.22, SD 0.85) and the Digital
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

(mean 4.34, SD 0.79) barriers, followed by the Online Channel barrier

(mean 4.75, SD 0.72). The Experience/Access barrier (mean 6.20, SD
0.70) had the least significance to buying Internet users.

Barriers for Non-Buyers

The third factor analysis employed equal criteria to derive the factor
solution and was performed among the non-buying Internet users. In
comparison to the initial factor solution of all respondents, a very simi-
lar factor structure was obtained. With a total of 52.05% of explained
variance, the third factor analysis again yielded a four factor solution.
Overall, the familiar factors (Digital, Security, Online Channel, and Ex-
perience/Access barriers) were again obtained. However, out of the 16
variables, three loaded on different factors than in the initial factor solu-
tion. The variables “General dislike of online shopping” and “Dislike of
online offerings,” which loaded on the Online Channel barrier in the
initial factor analysis, loaded on the Digital barrier in the third analysis.
Furthermore, the item “Poor home delivery,” which initially loaded on
the Digital barrier, loaded on the Experience/Access barrier in this anal-
ysis.
The results of the factor analyses show that non-buyers, as compared
to buyers, are more sensitive to the barriers of online shopping. Never-
theless, the ranking of the four barriers in accordance to their rated im-
portance is similar between both groups. As for the importance of the
four barriers, both the buyers and non-buyers placed the highest empha-
sis on the Security barrier (mean 3.34, SD 0.57) followed by the Digital
barrier (mean 3.38, SD 0.82), the Online Channel barrier (mean 3.59,
SD 0.74), and the Experience/Access barrier (mean 5.72, SD 0.72).

DISCUSSION

The findings of this research identify barriers to online shopping

from the perspective of current and potential customers (buyers vs.
non-buyers). As a result of the literature review and the empirical find-
ings, four distinct barriers to online shopping were identified revealing
that it is possible to classify various rationales among Internet users for
hesitation in the use of online shopping. Very similar factor structures
 70 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

were obtained when separately considering buyers’ versus non-buyers’

perceptions to the barriers associated with online shopping. Four factors
were derived that compose the main reasons for abstinence from online
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

shopping among both groups: (1) Digital barrier, (2) Security barrier,
(3) Online Channel barrier, and (4) the Experience/Access barrier.
These barriers were evaluated differently by the survey participants,
but both buyers and non-buyers rank the four factors in the same order.
Overall, the Digital and the Security barriers are the main obstacles to
buying on the Internet. Buying, as well as non-buying, Internet users are
very concerned about the security of online shopping, especially with
regard to payments conducted with credit cards and the protection of
personal data. So, lack of consumer trust in the process of online shop-
ping continues to be a major problem for online shopping.
Referring to disadvantages of online shopping in comparison to tra-
ditional retailing, the Digital barrier was rated at the same importance
level as the security barrier. Consumers are aware of, and sensitive to,
the differences that exist between online and in-store shopping. Con-
sumers miss the ability to see and judge the products offered, as well as
the interaction with sales personnel, when considering whether to make
a purchase online. Potential customers also find that waiting for home
delivery and the possibility of having to return unwanted or unsatisfac-
tory merchandise is inconvenient. The variables associated with the
Digital barrier reflect the concrete characteristics of online shopping
that represent distinct disadvantages for the consumer.
Although the Security and Digital barriers were the major barriers
impacting existing and potential customers’ decisions to purchasing on-
line, the results also show that Experience/Access and Online Channel
barriers also exist. These barriers reflect consumers’ unfamiliarity with
the online shopping environment, as well as their inexperience and in-
ability to access this channel. The results suggest that online shopping
does have image problems and many consumers still have to become fa-
miliar with the shopping process on the Internet and the unique pur-
chase environment it provides.

Conclusion and Managerial Implications

The four barriers to buying represent four distinct challenges online

ventures have to overcome in order to receive full consumer acceptance.
Although non-buyers tend to have stronger reasons not to buy on the
Internet, the identified barriers to buying have a significant and undesir-
able influence on the buyers as well. We argue that the Internet will be-
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 71

come a strong distribution channel only when consumers (both buyers

and non-buyers) perceive these barriers as a minor hindrance, rather
than a major obstacle to online shopping.
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

Consumer resistance in the form of the Digital barrier can be lowered

by the use of strategies that reduce weaknesses in the quality of the
shopping experience and emphasize the strong benefits online shopping
channels provide to their customers. Despite the distinct advantages and
the convenience that comes along with online shopping, some clear dis-
advantages still exist. This means that on the operational level, manage-
ment should shift high priority to improve delivery process and
after-sales service. Policies for returning undesired purchases should be
made as liberal and simple as possible. Because Internet users miss the
opportunity to directly judge the quality of the merchandise, as well as
the personal contact with sales personnel, the availability of online per-
sonal service representatives to guide customers through various stages
of the buying process, including the after-sales service, could create a
more personal feeling for online shopping.
Besides the improvement of these particular functional aspects of the
buying process, marketing messages have to ensure that consumers re-
alize that they receive real, and in many cases, superior value through
online shopping.
The Security barrier presents some serious concern. The findings
suggest that more Internet users can be turned into online customers
through the assurance of a highly secure online shopping process. This
assurance should be based not only on existing safety that online shop-
ping channels are providing, but should also stay on top of technology
in order to ensure the highest possible degree of security. Online mer-
chants could also form partnerships with major credit card companies in
order to establish technological standards that award partnering shop-
ping channels a recognizable and official “seal” of approval. Such a
quality label could not only serve as a commonly accepted security stan-
dard, it could also give online customers the “promise” of one or several
familiar brand names. Indeed, corporate names are crucial to the trust of
Internet users, particularly for relatively new and unknown start-up
ventures (Reynolds, 2000). Meanwhile, many former dot-com ventures
have changed their names to convey a more serious and trustworthy im-
age to the public (Brown, 2002). Another way to improve consumers’
trust can be realized through combining both store-based and online op-
erations, which is often favored by consumers in comparison to
“pure-play” ventures (Cude and Morganosky, 2002). For many con-
sumers, to literally “see” that a certain business actually does exist in the
 72 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

“outside world,” the perception of security and the trust in the venture
can be boosted.
In sum, many Swiss consumers still have to get used to the shopping
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

process on the Internet and the unique purchase environment it pro-

vides. Although a considerable dislike and resistance to online shop-
ping still exists among consumers, improving and simplifying the
process of buying online can overcome these online channel barriers.
Providers of online shopping channels should, therefore, streamline the
online shopping process and inform the public about it. Online mer-
chants in Switzerland are challenged to design and implement systems
that ensure a pleasant, functional, and uncomplicated shopping experi-
ence on the Internet.

REFERENCES
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Barton, Weitz, Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., & Wood, S.
(1997). Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacturer Incen-
tives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces. Journal of Marketing 61, July,
38-53.
Ben-Ur, J. and Winfield, C. (2002). Perceived Risk in the E-Commerce Environment.
Retrieved November 2002 from http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/2000/SWMA/
00swma15.htm
Baily, M.N., and Robert Z. Lawrence, R.Z. (2001). Do we have a new economy? The
American Economic Review, 91(2), 308-313.
Brown, K. (2002, December 19). Stocks Dump Dot-Com Names to Rise. The Wall
Street Journal Europe, Sec. M.
Burke, R.R. (1997). Do You See What I See? The Future of Virtual Shopping. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 352-360.
Burnett, J.J., and McCollough, M. (1994). Assessing the characteristics of the
non-store shopper. International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Re-
search, 4(4) October, 443-463.
Bush, A.J., Bush, V., and Harris, S. (1998). Advertiser Perceptions of the Internet as a
Marketing Communications Tool. Journal of Advertising Research, March-April,
17-27.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., and Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian moti-
vations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 511-535.
Cornet, P., Milcent, P., and Roussel, P-Y. (2000). From e-commerce to Euro-com-
merce. The McKinsey Quarterly, (2), 31-38.
Doody, A.F., and Davidson, W.R. (1967). Next Revolution in Retailing. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, May-June, 4-16, 20, 188.
Dennis, C., Harris, L., and Sandhu, B. (2002). From bricks to clicks: Understanding the
e-consumer. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5(4), 281-
290.
 Rudolph, Rosenbloom, and Wagner 73

Dholakia, R.R., and Uusitalo, O. (2002). Switching to electronic stores: Consumer

characteristics and the perception of shopping benefits. International Journal of Re-
tail & Distribution Management, 30(10), 459-469.
Donthu, N., and Garcia, A. (1999). The Internet Shopper. Journal of Advertising Re-
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

search, May-June, 52-58.

Foscht, T., Essinger, G., and Kraigher-Krainer, J. (2001). The Barriers to Purchasing in
E-Commerce Environments: Findings from Austria. European Retail Digest, 29,
March, 34-36.
Girard, T., Korgaonkar, P., and Silverblatt, R. (2003). Relationship of type of product,
shopping orientations, and demographics with preference for shopping on the
Internet. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(1), 101-119.
Grabner-Kraeuter, S. (2002). The Role of Consumers’ Trust in Online-Shopping.
Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 43-50.
GVU Center, Georgia Institute of Technology. (1998). GVU’s Tenth WWW User Sur-
vey. GVU’s WWW User Surveys, October. Retrieved December 2, 2002 from
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Anal-
ysis with Readings, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hammond, K. (2001). B2C e-Commerce 2000-2010: What Experts Predict. Business
Strategy Review, 12(1), 43-50.
Harrison-Walker, L.J. (2002). If you build it, will they come? Barriers to International
e-Marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring, 12-21.
Hoffman, D.L., and Novak, T.P. (1996). Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Medi-
ated Environments: Conceptual Foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 50-68.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., and Peralta, M.A. (1999). Building Consumer Trust On-
line. Communications of the ACM, 42(4), 80-85.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., and Peralta, M.A. (1999). Information Privacy in the
Marketspace: Implications for the Commercial Uses of Anonymity on the Web. The
Information Society, 15, 129-139.
Keeney, R.L. (1999). The Value of Internet Commerce to the Customer. Management
Science, 45(4) April, 533-542.
Kim, Y-K. (2002). Consumer value: An application to mall and Internet shopping. In-
ternational Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(12), 595-602.
Liebermann, Y., and Stashevsky, S. (2002). Perceived risks as barriers to Internet and
e-commerce usage. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5(4),
291-300.
Menon, S., and Kahn, B. (2002). Cross-category effects of induced arousal and plea-
sure on the Internet shopping experience. Journal of Retailing, 78, 31-40.
Morganosky, M.A., and Cude, B.J. (2000). Consumer response to online grocery shop-
ping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 28(1), 17-26.
Morganosky, M.A., and Cude, B.J. (2002). Consumer demand for online food retail-
ing: Is it really a supply side issue? International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 30(10), 454-458.
Oinas, P. (2002). Towards understanding network relationships in online retailing. In-
ternational Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 12(3) July,
319-335.
 74 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S., and Bronnenberg, B.J. (1997). Exploring the Im-
plications of the Internet for Consumer Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 25(4), 329-346.
Quelch, J.A., and Takeuchi, H. (1981). Nonstore marketing: Fast track or slow? Har-
Downloaded by [Universitaet St Gallen] at 02:05 29 September 2014

vard Business Review, July-August, 75-84.

Raijas, A., and Tuunainen, V.K. (2001). Critical factors in electronic grocery shopping.
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 11(3) July,
255-265.
Ram, S., and Sheth, J.N. (1989). Consumer Resistance to Innovations: The Marketing
Problem and Its Solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2) Spring, 5-14.
Reynolds, J. (2000). eCommerce: A critical review. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 28(10), 417-444.
Reynolds, J. (002). Charting the multi-channel future: Retail choices and constraints.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(11), 530-535.
Rowley, J. (1996). Retailing and shopping on the Internet. International Journal of Re-
tail & Distribution Management, 24(3), 26-37.
Rudolph, T., and Löffler, C. (“Internetnutzung 2002,” <http://gd-lehrstuhl.imh.unisg.
ch> (2 December 2002).
Srinivasan, S.S., Anderson, R., and Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Customer loyalty in e-com-
merce: An exploration of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing,
78, 41-50.
Stead, B.A., and Gilbert, J. (2001). Ethical Issues in Electronic Commerce. Journal of
Business Ethics, 34, 75-85.
Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E., and Rao, B.P. (1999). Browsers of Buyers in
Cyberspace? An Investigation of Factors Influencing Electronic Exchange. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2) December. Retrieved December 2,
2002 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/swaminathan.htm.
Szymanski, D.M., and Hise, R.T. (2000). e-Satisfaction: An Initial Examination. Jour-
nal of Retailing, 76(3), 309-322.
Van den Poel, D., and Leunis, J. (1999). Consumer Acceptance of the Internet as a
Channel of Distribution. Journal of Business Research, 45, 24-256.

SUBMITTED: May 2003

FIRST REVISION: September 2003
SECOND REVISION: October 2003
ACCEPTED: December 2003

View publication stats