Thesis - Consumer Buying Behavior - Eastern Visayas - 22 June 2022

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumer Behavior: An Assessment of
Consumers' Online Spending in Eastern Visayas, Philippines
BY
CRISPIN CALVEZ
Supervisor: Dr. Hisham Safwat
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master’s in Business Administration
(MBA)
American International Theism University
June 2022
The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 1

Spending in Eastern Visayas
Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

Abstract
Covid-19 has significantly changed the trends and pattern of consumer’s purchasing
behavior from the traditional shopping offline with a trip to the physical shopping centers, to
doing the actual transactions from home while in quarantine or movement restrictions. This
phenomenon has opened some great opportunities for the e-commerce sector to gain huge
growth as businesses and consumers are switching to digital way of buying process.
The main purpose of the study is to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the
online spending behavior of consumers in Eastern Visayas. It investigated the changes in
expenditure on selected commodity groups that include food and grocery, household, apparel,
and entertainment. To assess the impact, the study utilized the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for
non-parametric tests. Data are gathered online through a pretested questionnaire designed
through Google Forms. Results show that there is no significant difference in the expenses
before and during COVID-19 pandemic across four (4) categories of goods and services in
Eastern Visayas although online shopping is much preferred during COVID-19 pandemic
compared before. This goes to show that the COVID-19 pandemic did not bring much changes
in the consumer behavior in Eastern Visayas. The online consumption before and during
COVID-19 pandemic is statistically the same. Through descriptive statistics, the result shows
that the majority did not shop online for food and grocery and entertainment before and during
COVID-19 pandemic. Majority spends Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 per transaction for
household items while majority spends Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 for apparel per transaction.
Despite the efforts in curbing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Philippines is not out
of the woods yet, hence it is necessary to continue monitoring consumer behavior as it adjusts
continuously. In this regard, the study proposes to examine the differences in consumer
expenditure before and during COVID-19 pandemic with a different lens through a parametric
approach.
Keywords: impact, covid-19, consumer behavior, Eastern Visayas, online shopping.


Table of Contents
Title Page
Chapter 1. Introduction 5
1.1 Background – Eastern Visayas 5
1.1.1 Political 5
1.1.2 Accessibility 6
1.1.3 Population 6
1.2 Arrival of COVID-19 7
1.2.1 Immediate Impact of Covid-19 in the Region 8
1.2.2 Immediate Responses to the Covid-19 8
1.2.2.1 Global Cooperation 8
1.2.2.2 Government Control Measures 11
1.2.2.3 Vaccination against COVID-19 12
1.2.3 Economy in the Region when Dealing with Covid-19 Pandemic 13
1.3 Mode of Survival - Online Shopping 14
1.3.1 Population and Internet Connections 15
1.3.2 Social Media 16
1.3.3 Online Shopping Experience 16
1.3.4 Prioritizing the Expenses - Common Items Purchase Online 17
1.3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Shopping 17
1.3.6 Types of Ecommerce Business Models in the Philippines 22
Chapter 2. Review of Literature 25
2.2 Consumer purchasing behavior changes amidst COVID-19 pandemic 26
2.3. Shift to digital 32

2.3.1 Philippines’ Leading E-Commerce Players 37
2.3.2 Consumers perception towards online shopping applications: What
39
influences consumer satisfaction?
Chapter 3. Research Methodology 47
3.1 Research Hypotheses 47
3.2 Research Design 48
3.2.1 Purpose of the Study 48
3.2.2 Type of Investigation 48
3.2.3 Data Collection Methods 50
Chapter 4. Research Findings and Data Analysis 52
4.1 Socio-demographic Profile 52
4.2 Preferred Mode of Shopping 58
4.3 Online Shopping Frequency 58
4.4 Factor in Deciding Shopping Online/Offline 61


4.5 Online Shopping Expenses per Transaction 61
4.6 Top Utilized Online Shopping Applications 64
4.7 Online Shopping Habits of Respondents 66
4.8 Shopping Experience during COVID-19 Pandemic 68
General Conclusion 76
Recommendations for Future Researches 76
Bibliography 78
List of Tables 83
Survey Questionnaire 84


Chapter 1. Introduction
Prior to the arrival of COVID-19 pandemic, e-commerce online shopping has already
been a trend in the world, and in the Philippines, it is getting ground towards being more
popular mode of business transaction even with the presence and easy access to physical stores,
malls and various shopping establishments nationwide. People go online shopping for various
commodities ranging from household goods, educational materials, electronic gadgets,
clothing, recreational and entertainment items, automobile parts, and other things for daily
needs. People are either buying for direct use or re-selling.
In the region 8 (Eastern Visayas) of the Philippines where this study was conducted,
consumer spending has changed dramatically over the course of the pandemic period. With the
spread of the virus, coupled with the limited supply and resources and movement restrictions,
people expenditures are more focused on the importance, priority, relevance, size of the family,
among others.
1.1 Background – Eastern Visayas
1.1.1 Political
Eastern Visayas, officially designated as Region VIII, is an administrative

region in the Philippines occupying the eastern section of the Visayas. It covers
6 provinces, namely, Biliran, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar,
and Southern Leyte, as well as 1 highly urbanized city. The regional center is the City
of Tacloban.
Political Map of Eastern Visayas


1.1.2 Accessibility
The region is accessible by sea as thru its ports around the cities and
municipalities, by air via the airports of Tacloban City, Calbayog City, and Ormoc City
Catarman. The region can also be reached by land as the Pan Philippine Highway AH26
also known as the Maharlika Highway from Manila traverses along all the way to
Mindanao Islands.
1.1.3 Population
Its population as determined by the 2020 Census was 4,547,150. This

represented 22.09% of the overall population of the Visayas island group, or 4.17% of
the entire population of the Philippines. Based on these figures, the population density
is computed at 196 inhabitants per square kilometer or 507 inhabitants per square mile.
[Source: PhilAtlas]
Name Type Population Annual Area Density

(2020) Population (2013), (2020),
Growth Rate in km2 per km2
(2015-2020)
Biliran province 179,312 0.93% 536.01 335
Eastern Samar province 477,168 0.45% 4,617.16 103
Leyte province 1,776,847 0.63% 6,335.44 280
Northern Samar province 639,186 0.23% 3,694.96 173
Samar province 793,183 0.34% 6,048.03 131
Southern Leyte province 429,573 0.39% 1,801.46 238
Tacloban city (HUC), capital, 251,881 0.84% 201.72 1,249
regional center
Eastern Visayas Total 4,547,150 0.50% 23,234.78 196
At least three out of every 10 families in Eastern Visayas are poor based on the
result of the first semester 2021 survey, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) said.
A family of five in Eastern Visayas needs at least PHP11,292 monthly to sustain their
basic needs last year. The amount is higher than the PHP10,163 monthly income
requirement in 2018. Meanwhile, poverty incidence among families in Eastern Samar
was estimated at 36 percent, the highest in the region.
In the Philippines, according to the most recent research done by National

Statistical Coordination Board (now known as the Philippine Statistics Authority), only
3 out of 20 households belong to the middle-class population, with two-thirds of them
residing in urban areas. The middle class plays within the gap between the poor and the


rich, and based on these numbers, that line seems to be a lot thinner than what many of
us perceived.
The middle class is basically defined as the socioeconomic group between the
affluent and the poor. In a more financially focused definition, the middle class is made
up of those people who have the ability to choose their lifestyle, because they have just
enough resources to do so without compromising their basic needs. In economics, this
socioeconomic class is a crucial benchmark of a country’s economic standing, thus it is
crucial for every country to have a wider base of the middle class than other classes.
Socio-economic classification of population in the Philippines according to income
Income Classification Monthly Income
Rich At least ₱219,140 and up

High income (but not rich) Between ₱131,484 to ₱219,140
Upper middle income Between ₱76,669 to ₱131,484
Middle class Between ₱43,828 to ₱76,669
Lower middle class Between ₱21,194 to ₱43,828
Low income (but not poor) Between ₱9,520 to ₱21,194
Poor Less than ₱10,957
Source: imoney.ph
1.2 Arrival of COVID-19
The first COVID-19 case in the Eastern Visayas region was confirmed on March 2020
from the person who arrived in the country from Japan on January 2020 [source: DOH].


Daily reported COVID-19 cases in the Philippines (15 March 2020 – 2 January 2022) 1 Percent of total
eligible population (12 years and older) 2 All data was extracted from on 3 January 2022 from DOH
COVID-19 Case Tracker. National population size used was the projection for 2021 (n=110,198,654).
1.2.1 Immediate Impact of Covid-19 in the Region
With the pandemic spreading uncontrollably across the globe, most countries
were caught by surprise as cases going high in an unprecedented rate as never before.
This has caused a huge social and financial crisis that put the authorities scrambling to
find solutions to flatten the curve while at the same time doing their best to provide the
needs of their constituents. The phenomenon has influenced the consumers’ spending
behavior as changes are clearly evident in the way of their daily living. The demand for
various products go up or down depending on the needs of the consumers while
financial crisis is mounting due to the rising rate of unemployment.
A survey conducted by Shinozaki & Rao (2021) on impact of COVID-19 on

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the Philippines found that an average 73.1% of
MSMEs were forced to close their business a few weeks after the COVID-19 outbreak
and the lockdown measures implemented. This was more pronounced for small firms
(76.4%) and those in services (72.7%) (Figure 1). They immediately faced delays in the
delivery of products and services (average 50.5%, especially for medium-sized firms
[71.8%] and agriculture [49.7%]), disrupted supply chains (average 47.3%, especially
in medium-sized firms [68.7%] and manufacturing [54.9%]), and a sharp drop in the
domestic demand (average 35.2%, especially in small firms [39.1%] and manufacturing
[41.8%]). Only 2.3% of MSMEs on average reported no change in the business
environment after the outbreak. Meanwhile, some groups of MSMEs (average 9.3%)
reported a better business environment than before the pandemic, especially in
microenterprises (14.5%) and agriculture (20.7%), due to the increased demand from
households and firms for essential goods and services and healthcare.
1.2.2 Immediate Responses to the Covid-19
On the onset of world response to combat the COVID-19 pandemic the world
has witnessed an overwhelming global efforts and collaborations never seen nor
imagined before. Some countries focused on the short-term immediate control
measures to prevent the of the virus locally, while some have looked far beyond the
current situation and started planning and implementation of long-term strategic
solutions not only to prepare for perhaps similar crisis in the future, but also implement
the economic recovery plans and new-normal way of living.
1.2.2.1 Global Cooperation
As much as most if not all countries around the globe are coping up with
the onslaught of the pandemic, aids and humanitarian assistance from
international organizations are also pouring specially for those countries that are
less capable in managing the crisis.


Various international organizations offer resources, expertise, medical
assistance and vaccines, financial aid, and other forms of humanitarian and life-
saving activities to countries with the need of immediate help. Most notable
organizations, thru their regional and representatives leading the management
of the pandemic are:
- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

- European Commission (EC)
- Regional Cooperation Council (RCC)
- OECD – COVID-19 response in SEE (OECD)
- KfW
- Deutscher Industrie-und Handelskammertag (DIHK)
- World Bank (WB)
- World Trade Organization (WTO)
- Eurochambres
- International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
- U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
- International Road Transport Union (IRU)
- United Nations (UN)
[Source: Chamber Investment Forum Western Balkans 6]
The global lockdown initiated by various countries of the world starting

from March 2020 after the declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic by the
WHO, is the first in this century. The lockdown was adopted on two fronts,
namely, domestic and international. Domestically, the government restricted
people’s movement and instructed confinement to homes, thus limiting if not
entirely halting the daily interactions between humans. On the other hand,
countries locked down national borders, restricting the movement of people and
goods thus hampering the economic and human relations that had previously
existed among countries. Furthermore, the lockdown has seen various levels of
implementation ranging from immediate ‘tough and timely’ such as in the case
of India to a graduated phased lockdown in the United Kingdom. (Onyeaka
et.al.)
In international travels and tourism, the pandemic has brought the travel
industry to a halt. The development and distribution of vaccines are helping to
get the virus under control, but until vaccination programs are widely available,
restrictions on international travel and tourism are likely to remain.
One of the main policies deployed to contain the virus has been
restrictions on mobility, both within and across countries. This has had a huge
impact on the demand for travel, hotels, restaurants and other hospitality venues
across the globe. The table below shows a study conducted by Meo et. al (2020)
to determine the mean number of cases 15 days before, 15 days
during and 15 days after the lockdown in randomly selected 27 countries where
it was found out that 15 days after the international lockdown there was no


significant decline in the mean prevalence and mean mortality rate due to
COVID-19 compared to 15 days before and 15 days during the lockdown in 27
countries.
However, daily cases of COVID-19 and growth rates showed declining

trends by the end of the 15 days after the lockdown period, leading to a critically
important negative growth rate per day by the end of the lockdown period for
both new daily cases and deaths. This negative growth rate per day in these two
categories (meaning the increase in cases was decelerating) indicated that from
a public health perspective, the lockdown had a positive effect on the pandemic.
However, the growth rate never fell to below 1.0 immediately following the
lockdown, so the lockdown was not sufficient to stop the pandemic, which is
borne out by obvious international persistence of this infection and a growing
worldwide death rate.2 This has caused countries to impose new lockdowns and
encourage residents to isolate themselves in their houses.
Table COVID-19 pandemic: mean number of cases 15 days before, 15 days during and 15 days after
the lockdown in 27Countries
Date of lockdown Country Cases 15 days Cases 15 days Cases 15 days p value
before the lockdown during the lockdown after the lockdown
(mean± SEM) (mean± SEM) (mean± SEM)
March 24, 2020 Algeria 1.60 ± 0.61 22.80 ± 5.51 100.33 ± 17.05 0.0001
March 20, 2020 Argentina 6.40 ± 2.22 69.07 ± 14.26 101.27 ± 15.32 0.0003
March 23, 2020 Australia 68.53 ± 18.32 313.13 ± 41.68 53.53 ± 10.85 0.0001
February 25, 2020 Bahrain 0.00 7.20 ± 2.04 19.20 ± 3.46 0.0002
March 12, 2020 Belgium 17.73 ± 6.48 311.33 ± 56.92 1362.13 ± 73.78 0.0001
March 18, 2020 Chile 10.40 ± 5.33 172.13 ± 44.15 385.07 ± 19.89 0.0001
January 23, 2020 China 36.92 ± 14.25 1841.13 ± 31 3012.07 ± 902.45 0..0001
March 24, 2020 Colombia 13.00 ± 4.55 85.93 ± 13.23 171.33 ± 15.30 0.0001
April 1, 2020 Cuba 11.07 ± 4.30 39.73 ± 3.94 45.80 ± 3.04 0.0001
March 15, 2020 Djibouti 0.00 2.00 ± 0.82 22.47 ± 6.24 0.0002
March 25, 2020 Egypt 20.47 ± 3.99 72.27 ± 10.15 168.80 ± 20.10 0.0001
March 17, 2020 France 431.53 ± 113.51 2493.60 ± 346.68 3578.53 ± 312.89 0.0001
March 23, 2020 Germany 1377.87 ± 491.51 4928.53 ± 311.99 3097.93 ± 286.01 0.0001
March 30, 2020 Ghana 9.07 ± 5.25 28.60 ± 11.01 73.67 ± 23.93 0.0638
March 25, 2020 India 31.67 ± 8.61 317.00 ± 65.47 1147.47 ± 78.56 0.0001
March 9, 2020 Italy 490.93 ± 110.73 3450.87 ± 479.02 4777.27 ± 229.39 0.0001
March 24, 2020 Nepal 0.00 0.53 ± 0.24 2.40 ± 1.06 0.0003
March 30, 2020 Nigeria 4.20 ± 1.78 17.20 ± 3.41 66.27 ± 30.06 0.0428
April 1, 2020 Pakistan 120.80 ± 14.67 274.87 ± 41.01 712.80 ± 110.83 0.0001
March 15, 2020 Philippines 4.36 ± 1.56 67.40 ± 24.63 245.13 ± 51.65 0.0001
March 24, 2020 Republic of the Congo 0.44 ± 0.24 2.73 ± 1.54 9.13 ± 3.28 0.0676
March 31, 2020 Russian Federation 100.00 ± 24.60 1304.53 ± 227.84 5467.20 ± 820.22 0.0001
March 25, 2020 Saudi Arabia 50.13 ± 15.41 144.33 ± 12.05 787.67 ± 90.40 0.0001
March 26, 2020 South Africa 36.47 ± 11.92 86.07 ± 25.22 144.21 ± 19.76 0.0001
March 14, 2020 Spain 280.40 ± 97.02 3988.53 ± 690.01 6251.40 ± 381.66 0.0001
March 23, 2020 United Kingdom 320.53 ± 80.20 2852.80 ± 377.51 5162.40 ± 299.56 0.0001
March 17, 2020 United States of 117.86 ± 38.08 9261.73 ± 2208.38 29,391.40 ± 880.14 0.0001
America


The United Nations (UN) has worked hand in hand with the Philippine
Government and rapidly mobilized and came together in a coordinated and
inclusive way to support the government-led efforts in response to the COVID-
19 pandemic, as well as help address socioeconomic needs emerging from
contraction of the economy and unprecedented levels of unemployment. The
United Nations (UN) thru its Humanitarian Country Team (HCT) COVID-19
Response Plan is focused on providing critical health interventions and multi-
sectoral humanitarian assistance to the 5.4 million poorest and most
marginalized Filipinos living in pandemic hotspots, particularly those in poor,
densely populate urban settings, and especially focusing on the safety and
wellbeing of women and girls.
With financial requirements of $122 million, this is the largest

international humanitarian response plan by the humanitarian community based
in the Philippines since Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda in 2013. The Philippines has
also been included in the Global Humanitarian Response Plan, with a total of
$10 billion, bringing together response plans of 63 most vulnerable countries.
[UN PHILIPPINES COVID-19 RESPONSE PLAN]
1.2.2.2 Government Control Measures
The Philippine government responded promptly by imposing several

control measures country-wide with the Inter-Agency Task Force on Emerging
Infectious Diseases (IATF) convened by the national government in January
2020 to take the lead in coordination with LGUs.
With the aim of containing the outbreak, authorities implemented health

protocols ranging from simple mandatory wearing of face mask while in public
places, to total lockdown specially in hard-hit areas. Granular or intermittent
closure of businesses in specified areas was also considered with strict
monitoring to balance the crippling effect of the pandemic to the economy.
Educational institutions were forced to shut down, modular and online
schooling systems were implemented across the country. Governments taken
several steps to mitigate the spread of the virus, trying to reduce the number of
infected people by way of measures such as the limitation of movement or even
the complete lockdown of regions or countries (Spinelli & Pellino, 2020). In
parallel, governments were also forced to launch initiatives to protect the
economies of their countries (Anderson et al., 2020).
However, despite the quantity of measures that governments

undertaken, they were insufficient in the eyes of some authors (e.g., Mitj_a et
al., 2020), and some countries were overwhelmed by the evolution of the crisis
(Chinazzi et al., 2020). These circumstances, particularly the lockdown,
affected household spending and macroeconomic expectations at a local level
(Coibion et al., 2020). Hale et al. (2020) worked on developing a measure of
governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. According to these authors,


the most common government steps were related to three different areas: (1)
containment and closure, (2) economic responses, and (3) health systems.
Unexpected regulations imposing social distancing are further having a

vast impact on consumers’ favored channel for shopping. For example, while
online grocery shopping has witnessed stable though limited growth in the last
decade (Harris et al., 2017), it has significantly increased during the COVID-19
pandemic crisis (Pantano et al., 2020). Anti-epidemic measures and the call to
leave house only in the most urgent cases have brought a large number of orders
for delivery to end users and growth of this business in the order of tens of
percent. Laato et al. (2020) underline that the government prepared lockdown
by closing schools, restaurants, some shops, and public services, which may
have sparked fears of upcoming disruptions and triggered behavioral responses
in people.
1.2.2.3 Vaccination against COVID-19
The Philippine government has expedited the procurement of vaccines

from various COVAX manufacturers by establishing a government-to-
government contracts to facilitate the timely arrival and rollout of vaccination
program. The prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination based on the
World Health Organization (WHO) Strategic Advisory Group of Experts
(SAGE) on Immunization, together with the recommendations of independent
bodies of experts including the Interim National Immunization Technical
Advisory Group (iNITAG) and the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), was
formulated due to the limited global supply of COVID-19 vaccine products. The
first group who receive doses were the frontline workers, followed by the senior
citizens, persons with comorbidities, and so on (refer to table below).
Table COVID-19 Vaccination Program Prioritization Schedule
Priority Eligible A Priority Eligible B Priority Eligible C

C. Rest of the Filipino
A1. Workers in Frontline population not
B1. Teachers, Social Workers
Health Services otherwise included in
the above groups
B2. Other Government
A2. All Senior Citizens
Workers
A3. Persons with
B3. Other Essential Workers
Comorbidities


B4. Socio-demographic
A4. Frontline personnel in groups at significantly higher
essential sectors, including risk other than senior citizens
uniformed personnel and poor population based on
the NHTS-PR
B5. Overseas FIlipino

\A5. Indigent Population
Workers
B6. Other Remaining
Workforce
Source: DOH.GOV.PH
As of March 2022, the vaccination against the coronavirus disease 2019

(Covid-19) in Eastern Visayas has covered 63 percent of the target population
according to the Department of Health (DOH) regional office. The region has a
population of 3,892,126 identified as eligible to receive Covid-19 jabs. Of the
number, 2,453,594 are fully vaccinated and 285,271 are partially vaccinated. As
of February 28, Eastern Visayas has already recorded 61,908 confirmed Covid-
19 cases, including 61,134recoveries, 661 deaths, and total active cases of 113.
1.2.3 Economy in the Region when Dealing with Covid-19 Pandemic
The Philippine economy contracted by 9.5 percent in 2020 as a result of the

disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. “As the recovery remains fragile and is
at its early stage, the government should maintain sufficient policy support to ensure a
robust economic recovery while safeguarding against potential macroeconomic and
financial risks. We expect the economy to grow by 7.4 percent in 2021, accelerating to
7.8 percent next year. (Siu Fung Yiu - AMRO).
The collapse of domestic demand was broad-based and particularly acute in

sectors that need physical contact and close engagement. The unemployment rate
remained elevated at 8.7 percent in October, albeit much lower than in April when
containment measures were first introduced. Despite some supply disruptions from the
pandemic and a series of strong typhoons, inflation has remained low and stable, within
the target range of 2-4 percent.
Eastern Visayas started the year 2020 on a higher economic growth trajectory.
The Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) expanded for five consecutive years
from 2014-2019, partly due to the sustained growth of the Services sector, which is the
main driver of the regional economy. Unfortunately, the onset of COVID-19, an
unexpected and unfamiliar global health pandemic, disrupted our growth momentum.


The imposition of community quarantines to halt the spread of the virus has come at a
heavy cost to the economy. Not surprisingly, the GRDP contracted by 7.6 percent in
2020, a steep drop of 13.2 percentage points from 2019’s 5.6 percent positive growth.
It also fell short of the 6.3 percent annual target in the Eastern Visayas Regional
Development Plan (RDP) 2017-2022 Midterm Update. [NEDA RO VIII]
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority – April 2022
1.3 Mode of Survival - Online Shopping
With the vaccination program of the government rolling out with the aim to reach the
herd immunity of the public, coupled with modular lockdowns enable the economy to
somehow keep afloat. The government also borrowed money from international institutions to
supplement loses and financial shortage of the public and private sectors.
As soon as shops and production facilities start closing one after the other, people are
bracing for the difficulties in finding ways to survive as supplies for basic needs are getting
scarce while the demand is mounting as days go by. People in the region rely on what is
available and has learned to create opportunities in either finding food or make business out of
the situation. As travel restrictions eases intermittently, consumers find ways to get supplies
through online shopping. Though this manner of doing business has been the trend in the pre-
Covid times, people tend to rely on as the best solution for businesses and consumers to carry
on and deal with the situation while anticipating as new development and emergence of new
normal way of living. Businesses and individuals have endured the agony of uncertainty as to
when is the crisis will be over and what lies ahead when COVID-19 becomes a thing the past.
In the area where the research was focused, though not the most progressive region in
the country, there are a lot of shopping centers spread across, and at the same time online
shopping is also very common. Products shipped to the area come from around the country and


abroad from neighboring South-east Asian countries and the mainland China as the top sources.
In the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has imposed un necessary movement
of vehicles except for those that are carrying medical items, food and grocery items, and other
basic needs for the residents. This has kept the transportation of online purchased goods
flowing, though oftentimes restricted and slow.
1.3.1 Population and Internet Connections
In the modern era, the general population is becoming more dependent on the
technology for ease and convenience in their daily tasks. According to the report by
Dataportal.com as of February 2022, the Philippines’s total population was 111.8M
with an increase of 1.5M (+1.3 percent) between 2021 and 2022. The report also
indicated that at the start of 2022, 48.0 percent of the Philippines’s population lived in
urban centers, while 52.0 percent lived in rural areas.
The internet has been one of the best discoveries that the human being has ever
done as is it gives access to plethora of information anytime and anywhere in the world.
In the Philippines, there were about 76.01M internet users or 68.0 percent of the total
population at the start of 2022 which is according to Kepios analysis has increased by
2.1M (+2.8 percent) between 2021 and 2022. Also, at the start of 2022, the internet
connection speed in the Philippines according the report published by Ookla is
18.68Mbps for median mobile via cellular networks, and 46.44Mbs for fixed internet
connection. Personal computers and smartphones are the most common type of devices
used to access the internet.
PLDT and Globe Telecommunications are the two largest providers of internet
services in the country, while other firms such as new comer DITO Telecommunity,
Converge, and SKY are trying to get a share of the market. Logistical issues not to
mention the cost and complicated government licensing and permits slow down the
development of internet infrastructure in the country.
Internet Speeds of the Philippines vs. Other Countries

Average Mobile Average Broadband
Country
Download Speed Download Speed
South Korea 241.58Mbps 186.06Mbps
China 172.95Mbps 149.40Mbps
Australia 118.24Mbps 77.8Mbps
Singapore 79.25Mbps 245.50Mbps
Hong Kong 76.98Mbps 240.83Mps
Iraq 35.47Mbps 29.88Mbps


Philippines 29.12Mbps 49.31Mbps
Sri Lanka 17.75Mbps 30.44Mbps
India 12.81Mbps 55.76Mbps
Bangladesh 11.32Mbps 36.02Mbps
Source: moneymax.ph
1.3.2 Social Media
The media plays a vital role in the dissemination of information. Social media
provided platforms to seek health information for those who desired health-related
information in the outbreak of the COVID-19. Globally, individuals faced massive
pressure and the health threat posed by the ongoing pandemic the COVID-19 that
increased social media use. There were 92.05M social media users in the Philippines in
January 2022 or equivalent to 82.4 percent of the total population with an increase of
3.1M (+3.4 percent) between 2021 and 2022 per Kepios analysis.
Popular social media sites for Filipinos are the following: Facebook with
83.85M users, YouTube with 56.50M users, Instagram with 18.65M users, Tiktok with
35.96M users, Facebook Messenger with 55.15M users, LinkedIn with 11.0M users,
Snapchat with 10.6M users, Twitter with 10.5M users, and others which showed
significant increase from previous years specially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
With the rise of these technologies and virtual meeting places, come also the
increase in popularity of the online shopping. Consumers are becoming more interested
with the trend with as the buying process is getting easier. Online shopping is booming
in the Philippines due to the strong improvement on the internet infrastructure, mobile
applications, and various web developments (Prasetyo & Dela Fuente, 2020). Based
on a study conducted by Statista, the Philippines ranks third place in the world’s fastest-
growing e-commerce markets outlasting its neighbor country in Southeast Asia. In
addition, a study conducted found that Filipinos shopped online for the convenience of
not having to go to and line up at brick-and-mortar stores (58%), better prices (47%),
and deals (46%) [2].
1.3.3 Online Shopping Experience
Online shopping has given the consumers handful of benefits by doing the
transaction from the comfort of their homes. However, some surveys of online
consumers continue to indicate that many remain unsatisfied with their online
purchasing experiences. Some of these reasons being lack of integrity of the suppliers,
fraud, security concerns, high shipping cost, product quality, high cost compared to
offline shopping, less price negotiation, long lead time, poor aftersales services,


lacking/wrong product information, inconvenient/limited payment options, lacking last
mile delivery options, etc.
Differed from the traditional business, consumers may evaluate the quality of products
by looking or also may allow to touch or feel the products. However, these traditional ways of
searching product information are not suitable for online purchasing. Besides, the increasingly
crowded online space also raises the issue of retailer visibility, defined as the extent of the
presence of an online retailer in the consumer’s environment (Drèze and Zufryden, 2004).
1.3.4 Prioritizing the Expenses - Common Items Purchase Online
“Consumer priorities have become centered on the most basic needs, sending
demand for hygiene, cleaning and staples products soaring, while non-essential
categories slump. The factors that influence brand decisions are also changing as a "buy
local" trend accelerates.” [Accenture 2020]
Pre-Pandemic years buyers have the luxury of time, choices and resources on
their purchasing decision. Throughout 2021 consumers and sellers scrambled to adapt
on the run to the increasingly challenging environment. During the COVID-19
Pandemic, consumers become more cautious in their spending to focus more on the
essential goods and services. While the ability to purchase goods and services online
has existed for over two decades, it has recently become more popular with the advent
of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Cosmetics & personal care
products top the most purchased items during the pandemic. With the exception of
grocery products, female shoppers purchased more clothing, footwear and accessories,
household, and personal care goods compared to males. Males purchased more
consumer electronics, media and entertainment, sporting goods and equipment, and
automotive goods compared to females.
1.3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Shopping
The retail industry has shifted digital which gained tremendous growth and
popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consumers at the same time have mixed
reactions in terms of their satisfaction towards the trend. The reactions vary depending
on the socio and demographic status and other categories of the user. Others enjoy great
benefits, whereas a portion of the group faced drawbacks ranging from a simple manner
to a total unacceptability of the whole process. Below are the advantages and
disadvantages commonly cited from surveys and researches:
Which way should consumers prefer; Online or Offline?
Risks are always present in every form of business that companies and
individual enter into. Not only the customers have experienced the pros and cons in
venturing into the e-commerce sector, suppliers and even the transportation companies
who handles the logistics parts of these shopped goods do as well have their own share


of the benefits and burdens. Unlike the traditional trip to physical store, online shopping
on the other hand, both the seller and the buyer are bound with the terms and conditions
of the particular transaction, though these conditions can be present in offline shopping
as well. Buyers have to be aware and understand to avoid the unforeseen
misunderstanding of the whole transaction.
At this time of COVID-19 pandemic, delays are almost inevitable specially for
made-to-order items due to global logistical problems in the supply of raw materials
and restriction of resources in the production. High landing cost, out-of-stock items and
long waiting time will discourage buyers; therefore, it is advantageous for sellers who
can offer alternative items or good network of business partners to preserve buyer’s
loyalty. In local online shopping system, these terms and conditions can be very simple
as; how much is the total amount? When is the item will be ready or delivered? What
is the mode of payment? And who will pay for the transportation? In international
online shopping, some if not most suppliers especially big and well stablished firms,
these conditions can go as long as the sellers wants to enumerate. The list could include;
- Who is responsible for the custom duties and taxes?

- What are the penalties for delay in payment or readiness and delivery of the
goods?
- What are the conditions in case the goods need to be returned for some
reason?
- Is the shipment insured, who will pay for the insurance?
- What is the warranty period of the items?
- Who will do/pay for the repair/maintenance of replacement?
- In case of dispute, which country’s law will be followed?
- and so on.
A good information research is critical before deciding to choose which mode

to go. The advantages disadvantages of online shopping play a big role in buyers’
decision to go digital. In the COVID-19 pandemic, buyers are worried not only on their
financial constraints, they are also hesitant to go online due to possible fraud that could
happen along the entirety of the transaction. Online shopping benefits buyers, with ease
of access to products and services that are not available within their region (Kumar et
al., 2020, p. 280). Various publications and articles cite different reasons why online
shopping is favorable or not. Let’s go through some of the pros and cons in online
shopping and evaluate if we agree one or more of those reasons listed below.
Benefits of online shopping

Convenience, safety, and more options to choose from are just some of the initial
reactions of consumers towards the digital mode of buying - below are the common
comments:


1. Keeps you safe during pandemic
Adherence to the community health and safety protocols. Shopping

online means you don’t have to go outside and interact with people who may be
infected. You lessen your risk while still achieving your goal: grocery shopping.
2. Easy access to the markets
Online shops and platforms are rapidly becoming more available and
easier to access nowadays from the internet.
3. More choices in one place
Easy access to various goods that would not have been available to us
before because they were only being sold in an area where we cannot go. Sellers
display the whole range of products to attract customers with different tastes
and needs. This enables the buyers to easily compare qualities, features and
prices.
4. No time & geographical limits
Online shops are open 24/7. We can devote more time to other chores
while fulfilling the shopping duties. Aside from time, we can shop not only
locally but also from other parts of the globe.
5. Better deals available online
Again, with the unlimited access to virtual stores, cheap deals are
available online direct from manufacturers and sellers without the involvement
of middlemen. You can receive discounts and sales notifications for new deals,
at no cost. Some sellers offer free delivery with big purchases.
6. Product research is much easier
If we are buying new things, alternative brands, or new suppliers from

what we are used to, we need to do research to read reviews comments from
experiences from other consumers. These data can be easily available online
and is very helpful prior to making purchase decisions. You can also find items
by just entering key words or filter the data with your preference.
7. Convenient
You can shop without pressure, fill up your basket, save your list and
decide anytime you wish proceed to check out. You can abandon your shopping
cart or change the items anytime without annoying the store staff at no cost.
Inside the physical stores, sales representatives will try to encourage you to buy


their product which could add pressure to yourself whereas in online you are on
your own.
8. Save time
No to need to travel to the stores. This can save time and effort from
long queues at the checkout counters and parking specially during holidays.
Gone are the days where you need to search through all the isles and shelves to
find what you need and what the stores offer.
9. Other benefits
Creates more opportunities and helps other businesses such as couriers

and logistics forwarders. For large online shops such as Amazon, Alibaba,
Lazada, Shopee, and others, it also helps other small suppliers to market their
products.
The dark side of Online Shopping
“You can’t please everyone”. Other consumers found online shopping not
convincing or probably not suitable to their lifestyle or current situation. Here are some
cons they stated:
1. Delay in delivery
A lot of factors contribute to this issue. Poor inventory management of

the shops cause problem on the actual availability of the items which could
eventually cause delay in delivery. In some cases, the delay is on the actual
delivery when logistics forwarders consolidate the collected packages in their
main warehouse and deliver at once to their onward regional or territory
warehouses before sending to the customer. Natural disasters and unforeseen
accidents are inevitable during transport as well.
2. To see is to believe
Photos are misleading. Sellers do their best to attract buyers and invest
in good photographers to enhance the look of their products when displayed
online. Actual items sold are mostly different from what is displayed, touch and
feel in terms of quality, fittings, visual inspection is necessary.
3. Price difference
One of the marketing strategies of every seller is to offer deals to attract

buyers. Some items are sold with good deals in shopping centers while on


regular price online. This usually happens during holidays or in some cases for
items nearing its shelf-life limit but the stock is still high.
4. Frauds
Crime on online shopping is now increasing. Legitimacy of the seller

should be checked, fake sellers are prying on victims, offering fake items and
websites or social media account but suddenly disappear once the payment is
received. Cybercriminals are keeping pace. Online purchasing is the most
common scam type reported to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), accounting
for 37 percent of complaints to the BBB's Scam Tracker in 2021, and the
riskiest, with 3 in 4 victims reporting a monetary loss. An AARP-sponsored
study by Javelin Strategy & Research found that 29 percent of consumers ages
50 and over have been stung by online shopping scams.
5. Security of account
Stored information and bank account details can be vulnerable to

potential hacking incidents. Unsecured websites are prone to cybercrimes. Even
in offline shopping there are a lot of reported incidents on breach of security on
information during payment process when using cards.
6. Hidden costs
Sellers will display only the item cost. Upon confirmation of the order,
additional amounts will be added such as taxes, re-stocking cost, inspection
cost, etc. Actual purchase cost can sometimes more than buying from physical
stores.
7. Poor Customer service
Poor customer service is frustrating for buyers having problems with the
received items, or sometimes when asking for instruction to use the item.
Chatbots and auto-answering machines are not helpful in most cases and just a
waste of time.
8. Unsure on what to receive
With the lack of personal interaction gives uncertainty on the actual item
to receive. Delivery mix-up can happen anytime or difference in color or
appearance and sometimes specifications. This can be associated with the
problem on the return and refunds in case there is issue on the purchased items
specially for purchased that are paid 100% in advance. Some shops do not
accept returns, or items cannot be returned once opened.


9. No price negotiation
The price you see online is the price you must pay. The buyer has no
leverage of getting discounts or good deals from haggling and negotiating the
price.
10. Unreliable couriers
Some couriers have less capability specially in reaching far-flung areas

where they use sub-contractors to do the task on their behalf. This practice
sometimes leads to delays or worst stolen or lost items. Other common issue
with couriers is their negligence on the care when handling the shipment,
oftentimes end up with broken pieces or items deem us-usable at all.
1.3.6 Types of Ecommerce Business Models in the Philippines
An ecommerce business model refers to how a business operates to sell goods

and services online. There are 5 main types of ecommerce business models, namely
Business-to-Business (B2B), Business-to-Consumer (B2C), Consumer-to-Consumer
(C2C), Consumer-to-Business (C2B), Mixed Business Model [Source: Grit PH]
1. B2C eCommerce
Is among the most popular and widely known sales models. Michael
Aldrich first utilized the idea of B2C in 1979, who used television as the
primary medium to reach out to consumers. The decision-making process for a
B2C purchase is much shorter than a business-to- business (B2B) purchase,
especially for items that have a lower value.
In eCommerce, there are five different B2C business models: direct

sellers, online intermediaries, advertising-based, community-based, and fee-
based.
• Direct selling is the most common model. It is when consumers buy

products from online retailers.
• Online intermediaries are online businesses that bring sellers and
consumers together and take a cut of each transaction made.
• In the advertising-based model, information is given away for free and
money is made from advertising on the site.
• Facebook is an example of a community-based site that makes money
from targeting ads to users based on their demographics and location.
• Finally, the fee-based model involves companies that sell information or
entertainment to consumers for a fee, like Netflix or subscription-based
newspapers.
•


2. B2B eCommerce
If the nature of your products or services is geared towards meeting the

needs of businesses, setting up a B2B strategy is your best bet. Networking and
reaching out is a bigger part of this strategy. B2B transactions generally have a
longer sales cycle, but higher order value and more recurring purchases.
Vertically oriented businesses sell to customers within a specific

industry. With a horizontal approach, you are selling to customers across a
myriad of industries. Each approach has their own pros and cons, such as
industry expertise and market depth (vertical) versus wide-spread market
coverage and diversification (horizontal). Both can be a lucrative pathway, but
your strategy will depend on your products and customers, so consider them
carefully. [Source: Kirsten Aebersold]
3. C2C eCommerce
In this business model, individuals sell products and services to other

individuals directly.
Most beginner Customer-to-customer businesses start by selling on

various platforms like FB Marketplace, Carousell, Craigslist, and others. Later,
they might want to have their own platform for selling and start building their
own website. C2C businesses benefit from self-propelled growth by motivated
buyers and sellers, but face a key challenge in quality control and technology
maintenance. These ecommerce marketplaces allow smaller businesses, or even
hobbyists, to sell their products at their own pricing without having to maintain
their own online storefront.
4. C2B eCommerce
The customer-to-business model operates exactly how it sounds like:

individuals are the ones selling products and services to businesses. One of the
key benefits of this business model is that it allows consumers to set their own
price and can also often help expand their individual reach by giving the more
visibility. [Source: Kirsten Aebersold]
The most popular example are freelancers offering their skills and
talents to large companies or small. Or you can be a supplier of raw material
that companies use in their business. This approach gives consumers the power
to name their price or have businesses directly compete to meet their needs.
5. Mixed Business Models
A mixed business model essentially combines both the B2C and B2B
format. For example, you own a business that sells retail goods directly to


customers yet at the same time offer wholesale pricing on bulk orders to other
companies.
This research was aimed to evaluate the consumers of the target location terms
of their purchasing behavior, how they reacted to the situation and what are the changes
in their buying preferences – specially in online shopping/spending, what are the
common factors that contributed to their actions while dealing with the pandemic. A
random nomination of respondents was done to somehow represent the entire region.
The respondents were of different socio-demographic status. The result indicated an
85% increase in shift to online shopping during the pandemic, while the common
deciding factors that determined their purchasing decision were: needs, product quality,
product price, trust in the seller, and the lead time to acquire the product. Also, some
respondents indicated that shipping cost and the current trends affects their buying
decisions.


Chapter 2. Review of Literature
2.1 Consumer motivation in buying decisions
Consumer’s buying decision is based on various factors. The whole buying process
consists of several stages by which consumers identify their needs, collect information,
evaluate alternatives and make the purchase decision. Purchase intention is a cognitive state
reflecting the consumer’s plan to buy in a specified time period (Howard and Sheth 1969).
During the COVID-19 pandemic that behavior has been significantly influenced by the value
of goods and services the consumers received in exchange for their money. Motivation is the
reason, conscious or nonconscious, for behaving a particular way in a certain situation. The
decision-making process is affected by a number of complex influences. Some of these
influences relate to the wider marketing environment in which the decision is being made.
Others, however, relate to the individual purchaser and therefore will consider those influences
emanating from within the individual such as personality, attitudes and learning. Similarly, will
look at how the individual’s decisions are affected by their social context, especially family
and cultural groupings, Brassington & Pettit (2007).
Accordingly, purchasing behavior was driven by a broad set of factors or motivations.

These motivations have historically been of the interest of academia since the 70’s from many
perspectives (Tauber, 1972; O'Guinn & Faber, 1989; Hausmann 2000; Close & Kukar-
Kinney, 2010). In parallel, scholars like Blackwell et al. (2001) worked on identifying several
of the factors, such as demographic, available resources, personality, family, culture, social
class, attitude, and information processing factors. Price which is a part of the marketing mix
is a factor used to stimulate the consumer and is also communicator, to negotiate and a
competitive weapon. The consumer can use price as a means to compare products, judge
relative value for the money, and the judge quality of products. It is estimated that this factor
has a considerable influence on the consumers during their online shopping Brassington &
Pettitt (2000).
More recent studies classified motivations in hedonic, social and utilitarian (Voss et
al., 2003; Kukar- Kinney et al., 2016) and several scholars worked afterwards on hedonic and
utilitarian motivations related to restaurants industry (Hlee et al., 2019), purchases (Abbasi et
al., 2020) or shopping value (Picot-Coupey et al., 2021). Alongside these studies, the literature
also offered interesting research concerning CPB changes related to the occurrence of several
different types of crises: financial crises (Voinea & Filip, 2011; Brown et al. 2013), food-safety
crises (Gineikiene & Diamantopoulos, 2017; Antonetti et al., 2019), and reputational crises
(Van Herde et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2011; Jeon & Baeck, 2016). Each study agreed that when
a crisis occurs, regardless of its type, consumers modify their practices and attitudes. Some of
these modifications persisted over time, and others simply disappeared. The main contribution
is the use of several scales related to purchasing motivations (Lennox and Wolfe, 1984; Voss et
al., 2003; Kukar-Kinney et al., 2016) in a global health-emergency setting like the COVID-19
pandemic, the innovative discovery of a new purchasing motivation coined as exigency
motivation that appeared in such setting.


Moreover, during the COVID-19 crisis, monitoring and coverage by the media was
incessant, increasing the level of perceived risk and finally causing consumers to immediately
change their behaviors (Jones, 2020). The additional spread of certain fake news through the
Internet and social media did little to calm down people's anxiety, provided they were
concerned about factors affecting their own health (Moorman & Matulich, 1993; Donthu &
Gustafsson, 2020), like the COVID-19 did. Nevertheless, despite the interest on how
unexpected events influence consumer’s behavior (Sheth et al., 1991), none of these
perspectives were presented in the course of a crisis with the characteristics of the COVID-19.
Hence, the unparallel characteristics of the COVID-19 crisis, in terms of impact, media
coverage and public interest, opened a research venue that was yet unexplored. The exponential
growth of online shopping highlights the value of concentrating on customer satisfaction as a
core factor in the establishment of any online shops (Katta & Patro, 2016). Key factors
impacting user experience efficiency, product and service information quality, safety
perception and site understanding have been described as having major impacts on customer
site commitment (Park & Kim, 2003).
2.2 Consumer purchasing behavior changes amidst COVID-19 pandemic
Consumer purchasing behavior (CPB) was recognized in existing literature as an

extremely complex concept (Solomon, 1996; Hansen et al., 2004) that results from the
interaction between the consumer and the environment (Hollbrook & Hirschman, 1982).
According to Schiffman et al. (2010), CPB comprised the actions of seeking, purchasing, using,
assessing, and disposing of products and services. These actions were undertaken by consumers
to satisfy their needs. Therefore, consumer behavior was a complex pattern of buying that
entails three dominant external influences; cultural, sociological, and economic aspects of the
consumer environment (Schiffman, 1993). Despite the contextual changes and emotional
impact arising in a crisis, research on CPB confirmed that individuals behave in a more rational
way during crises (Theodoridou et al., 2019).
Consumers are responding to the crisis in a variety of ways. Some feel anxious and
worried, fueling panic-buying of staples and hygiene products. At the other extreme, some
consumers remained indifferent to the pandemic and are continuing their business as usual
despite recommendations from government and health professionals. On the other hand, the
amount of supply, the uncertainties that loom as days pass by, as well as the financial
constraints largely determine the focus of almost every buyer.
Recent literature has shown that a perceived scarcity of products can significantly affect
consumer choices. The “scarcity effect” (Hamilton et al., 2019) has dramatically impacted
price elasticities and stockpiling habits, while traditional deterrents such as waiting times and
perceived crowding are now tolerated, as witnessed by long queues to enter stores. Scarcity of
goods during the COVID-19 pandemic drive consumer on compulsive buying. Compulsive
buying is defined by O'Guinn & Faber, (1989) as often excessive and ritualistic behaviors
designed to alleviate tension, anxiety, or discomfort aroused by an obtrusive thought or
obsession. The growth of COVID-19 cases and its consequences (such as quarantine, isolation,
social distancing and community containment) impacted not only the attitude of people toward
health but also their buying behavior (Loxton M. et.al. 2020)


Beyond impacting some of the factors that determine consumer spend—such as
consumer confidence, unemployment levels, or the cost of living—the COVID-19 pandemic
has also drastically altered how and where consumers choose to spend their hard-earned cash.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak (early 2020), consumers have displayed
stockpiling behaviors that significantly deviate from their usual shopping behavior. “At the
onset of the pandemic, many consumers had been impacted financially which led to two distinct
consumers groups: the insulated versus the constrained. With the extended impact and longer
recovery, there is a segment called the newly constrained added to the existing constrained
shoppers. In our study done in second quarter 2021, total constrained shoppers made up 90
percent of Filipino households. Newly constrained shoppers are watching their daily spend
more closely and looking to drop or minimize their discretionary spend. Brand loyalty for the
constrained is continually tested. Shoppers will not automatically switch to a cheaper
challenger brand. The shoppers’ decision tree is more complex and will depend on their
relationship with the category.” [Source: Patrick Cua]
However, customers also differ in their personalities and attitudes, as well as their trust.
Online retailing channels and brick-and-mortar stores have different experiences to the
customer (Juaneda-Ayensa, 2016). Hence, the future customer behavior changes and adjust
accordingly to the present customer shopping experience (Rita, 2019). Consumers tended to
concentrate their purchases on basic goods, rather than luxury ones. Likewise, consumers
tended to adjust their considerations of luxury products, switching to more economical
products, and favoring products oriented towards covering their basic needs (Ang et al., 2000).
Furthermore, when a crisis occurs, consumers did not want to spend money on high-quality or
high-value products even when they could afford such items (Ferrell &Hartline, 2002).
There are plethora of quantitative and qualitative studies resulting into a robust set of
different theories available on Buying Behavior (Solomon, Russell-Bennett, & Previte, 2012).
Most of the theories have been adopted from different field of studies such as psychology,
economics, anthropology, to name a few. Engel, Kottat and Blackwell known as EKB model
of consumer decision making is widely recognized and accepted by scholars. “With the huge
amount of consumer behavior monitoring, there is hardly any consumer behavior trend that has
escaped the industry’s notice. If anything, I think the learning on second look is that the level
of anxiety of people about COVID-19 and their frustration with the government’s response to
the crisis do not apply to the same extent to all aspects of consumers’ lives, and these responses
also vary across demographic groups”. [Source: Gary de Ocampo]
Previous research on behavior during outbreaks and pandemics linked behavioral

change as an outcome of individual-level motivations and government-enforced policies (Wen
et al., 2005). Individual and government-level decision making is prone to errors and biases in
new and unclear situations (Weinstein, 1988). The greater the novelty, unpredictability, and
ambiguity, the safer the actions individuals take (Brug et al., 2009). Thus, information sources
have played a major role in consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic (Laato et al.,
2020). The most important motivation factor on the changes of purchasing behavior is the
“confinement measures”. Some consumers pointed out “to avoid contagion” as the reason for
limiting or not going out. Other consumers fear the shortage of product as the reason, while


others cited the fear of unforeseen financial crisis in the future as uncertainties of employment
and prolong effect of the pandemic has no definite timeframe.
“Consumer behavior is the mental, emotional and physical activities that people engage
in when selecting, purchasing, using and disposing of products and services so as to satisfy
needs and desires” (Wilkie, 1994, as cited in Priest, et al., 2013). Customer buying behavior
term mainly focuses on the buying activities of the customers before and during purchasing,
which covers the process of product selecting and buying (Priest, 2013; Rita, 2019). Customer
behavior is a significant factor in the retailing industry to predict the customers’ actions and
future purchases. It is crucial to understand the psychological purchasing part of the customers
during the purchasing process to clarify their behaviors (Srivastava & Barmola, 2010). The
customer purchasing process differs and can be buying or shopping. Buying is when the
customer has previous knowledge of the required product, targeted it, and purchased it directly
for a need. While shopping is the term that refers to the enjoyment and desire driven by looking
for a product that the customer does not have a need for (Blachman, 2018). The pandemic thus
stimulated online shoppers to show a constancy of buying behavior. The correlation analysis
revealed an increasingly strong association between online shopping activity and factors of a
reflexive consumer (Gu, S. et.al. 2021).
Consumers often use the Web for entertainment (Mathwick, Malhotra and Rigdon
2001). According to Efthymios Constantinides, in his research “Influencing the online
consumer’s behavior: The Web experience”, states that the following factors are essential in
consumers behavior towards online shopping:
Functionality factors - Factors enhancing the online experience by presenting the virtual
client with a good functioning, easy to explore, fast, interactive Web site. Functionality
includes “Usability” and “Interactivity” elements.
Psychological factors - Web sites must communicate integrity and credibility in order
to persuade customers to stop, explore them and interact online. Psychological factors
are those playing a crucial role in helping online customers unfamiliar with the vendor
or unfamiliar with online transactions to overcome fears of fraud and doubts as to the
trustworthiness of the Web site and vendor.
Content factors - Factors referring to creative and marketing mix related elements of
the Web site. These factors exercise a direct and crucial influence on the Web
experience. They are divided in two sub-categories: “Aesthetics” and “Marketing mix”.
The above terms reflect the nature and/or the effect of the Web experience elements on
the buying process.


Web Experience Elements
Main building blocks on Web Experience and their sub-categories

Functionality Factors Psychological Factors Content Factors
Usability Interactivity Trust Aesthetics Marketing Mix

Convenience customer service /after Transaction security Design Communication
sales
Site Navigation Interaction with Customer data misuse Presentation Product
company personnel quality
Information Customization Customer date safety Design elements Fulfillment
architecture
Ordering/payment Network Effects Uncertainty reducing Style/atmosphere Price
process elements
Search facilities and Guarantees/return Promotion
process policies
Site speed Characteristics
Findability/Accessibility
McKinsey & Company (2020) stated in their study that COVID-19 has affected consumer
behavior in five key ways, some of which will have a lasting impact;
Shift to value and essentials
Many consumers globally are continuing to see their incomes fall and optimism
in an economic recovery hasn’t seen a resurgence. Consumers are more mindful of their
spending and trading down, as they expect COVID-19’s impact to last four-plus
months. Consumers intend to shift their spending largely to essentials, such as grocery
and household supplies, and cut back on discretionary categories
Flight to digital and omnichannel
Most categories have seen more than 10 percent growth in their online customer
base during the pandemic—and many consumers say they plan to continue shopping
online even when brick-and-mortar stores reopen. In markets that had high online
conversion rates before the pandemic (e.g., UK and the US), e-commerce continues to
grow across all categories.
Shock to loyalty
For certain products and brands, COVID-19 caused supply-chain disruptions,

leading consumers who couldn’t find their preferred product at their preferred retailer


to change their shopping behavior, including trying different brands and stores. Across
the globe, value was the main driver for consumers trying a new brand or place to shop.
Health and “caring” economy
Across countries, survey respondents say they buy more from companies that
have healthy and hygienic packaging and care for their employees. The actions that
businesses take during this pandemic are likely to be remembered for the long-term.
Homebody economy
In most countries, more than 70 percent of consumers don’t yet feel comfortable
resuming their “normal” out-of-home activities. While many consumers plan to go out
for grocery shopping and socializing with friends, they are staying away from travel
and crowded spaces. They also added that, while these changes in consumer behavior
hold overall, there are variations in every country.
Vazquez-Martínez et. al., (2021) in their study have identified three (3) distinct group of
changes in the consumer purchasing behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, as follows:
Purchasing Mode
This group mainly encompassed changes in the type of store purchased from,
but also in other habits such as purchase frequency. With regard to the type of store,
there were two directions of change; (1) transition from physical to online store, and
(2) the size of the store
Quantity of Product
The change in the quantity of purchased products owed to three causes; (1)
overstock certain products, (2) increased in quantity due to the size of the family were
more people will eat at home than going out to restaurants, (3) is the reaction to the
crisis itself were people buys things compulsively and due to fear thus limit the trip to
supermarket as much as possible.
Type of Product
This group effectively referred to the crisis’s impact on the composition of

participants’ shopping baskets—in particular, increasing “the expenditure on and the
amount of basic goods, especially those related to hygiene and food.”
According to psychological contract theory, consumers form psychological contracts

with the brands they patronize based on implicit promises that they believe the brand has made
(Kirk et al., 2013). It is possible that brands with a high socially-responsible positioning (Kirk
and Rifkin, 2020; He and Harris, 2020) may therefore be particularly subject to punishment by
consumers if they are perceived to have betrayed their positioning promises during the


pandemic. For example, in a recent Edelman Trust Barometer special survey (2020) of 12,000
consumers worldwide, two-thirds of consumers reported their future purchase decisions will
be strongly influenced by how brands respond to the pandemic.
According to Abir et. al. (2020), there is an association between Customer Satisfaction
and Psychographic Indicators. The correlation coefficient between Customer Satisfaction and
Psychographic Indicators was a positive value because when Customer Satisfaction increases,
the Psychographic Indicators also increases. Besides, many studies in this field have found that
there are systematic variations that prevail in customer loyalty and satisfaction between online
and offline retail environment (Cao & Li, 2015; Ansari et al., 2008; Ailawadi & Farris, 2017).
Consumers become satisfied when they can fulfill their desires and wants.
The happiness of the customer was the response of the user (Oliver, 1993). Outward-
oriented companies are not just looking to sell, but looking for long-term customer satisfaction
by providing top quality products with long-term goals and their own continued survival
(Cutler, Armstrong, 2000). Literature shows that when consumers get influenced to buy a
particular product or service, some underlying roots are based on their behavior (Wai et al.,
2019). Appraisal theory significantly explains consumer behavior toward shopping and
provides an opportunity to analyze the evaluation process (e.g., Roseman, 2013; Kähr et al.,
2016; Moors et al., 2017; Ul Haq and Bonn, 2018).
Perceived risk is the perception of shoppers having unpleasant results for buying any
product or service (Gozukara et al., 2014). Consumers who buy a specific product or service
strongly impact their degree of risk perception toward buying (Jain, 2021). Buyers who tend
to indulge in buying through online channels face perceived risk characterized by their
perception compared to the actual uncertainty involved in it (Kim et al., 2008). Literature
(Ashoer and Said, 2016; Ishfaq et al., 2020) showed that as the risk of buying is getting higher,
it influences the degree of consumers about information about their buying, either purchasing
from the direct or indirect e-shop. Johnson et al. (2008) stated that consumer judgment that
appears due to their experience strongly impacts their satisfaction level. Jin et al. (2016) said
that as the ratio of risk perception of their consumer decreases, it enhances customer
satisfaction.
Kolter (2003) pointed out that the buying process includes problem/need recognition,
information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and post-purchase behavior.
Satisfaction is the consequence of the customer’s experience during various purchasing stages.


2.3. Shift to digital
Online shopping has been a trend globally from the past decade. Tarhini et al. (2021)
stated that shopping through online channels is actively progressing due to the opportunity to
save time and effort. Wang and Emuian (2004) defined online shopping as buying stuff through
the internet. The items that have been purchased online are usually sent to the buyer’s door
step. Furthermore, consumers’ perception against the actual experience in online shopping
varies from direct e-store and indirect e-store. Developing countries still face various conflicts
and issues while promoting and utilizing e-commerce to the maximum, compared with the
developed countries (Rossolov et al., 2021).
In the developing countries, the difference between the perception and actual
experience of the consumers varies when buying from indirect e-store compared to the direct
e-store. At the same time, consumer’s perception on online shopping varies from individual to
individual and the perception is limited to a certain extent with the availability of the proper
connectivity and the exposure to the online shopping. The perception of the consumer also has
similarities and difference based on their personal characteristics (Dr. R. Shanthi & Dr. D.
Kannaiah, 2015). On the contrary, as the world has been suffering from the COVID-19
pandemic, it has brought drastic changes globally in many sectors, business being one of them.
Online shopping benefits buyers, with ease of access to products and services that are not
available within their region (Kumar et al., 2020). To participate in e-commerce, potential


customers need cell phones and access to the World Wide Web (Lucking-Reiley & Spulber,
2001; Niranjanamurthy et al., 2013). Some scholars argued that the business utilization of the
web is restricted because of the data transmission constraint (Parvin et al., 2007).
There have also been some better shopping requirements, such as links to the platform,
a fair loading time, clear product definition, reliability of purchases and efficiencies in
navigation (Limayem et al., 2000). Abir et. al. (2020) in their study found that implementers of
internet-based innovation belong to high-income groups (Siyal et al., 2006). In case study by
Brassington & Pettit (2007), an online operation can represent a cost-effective way of
expanding a retailer’s reach and of adding value to the customer’s experience through
additional information and content, relationship building through two-way dialogue, and
particularly when social networking is taken into account, building horizontal brand
communities of like-minded customers. To consider what drives online shoppers to use their
shopping carts, motivation for shopping online in general are considered along with how they
may differ for the more specific behavior of online shopping cart. Primary motives for using
the internet, in general, are interpersonal utility, information seeking, convenience, and
entertainment (Papacharissi and Rubin 2000). While not specific to e-commerce use, many of
the motivations may apply to online shopping and buying (Scheinbaum & Kukar-Kinney 2009.
Online shopping is a double-edged sword and has its pros and cons. “Ultimately, it’s
all up to you which method you are more comfortable doing”. What’s important is that we
accept the consequences of our choices, whatever they may be. [Gelene Peñalosa] Retailers
who ignore e-commerce may see their trade lessening as customers continue to shift to ordering
products online. The virus is reshaping the consumer goods industry in real time, rapidly
accelerating long-term underlying trends in the space of mere weeks. In addition to the
acceleration of online retailing, other distribution options in which no physical human
interaction is needed may gain in popularity (Amazon, 2020; Kirk and Rifkin, 2020). Initially,
online purchasing behavior was influenced by consumer awareness and experience and
introversion, and other factors had little impact. The situations changed, however, as the
COVID-19 pandemic continued to spread. consumer awareness and experience increased its
influence, as did the promptness in decision making. Introversion, on the other hand, lost its
impact. (Gu S. et.al. 2021)
In order to understand the consumer behavior within the vicinity of the study, the author
aim to find out the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Determine the changes on the online spending of consumers

prior to and during COVID-19 pandemic.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Test the difference of the online spending of consumers prior to
and during COVID-19 pandemic
COVID-19 has changed nearly every aspect of our daily lives, and consumer spending
is no exception. Generally, spending is down across all industries, as lockdown measures have
restricted what we can spend money on due to restaurants and shops being shut and air travel
suspended. Equally, the economic consequences of the coronavirus pandemic have meant


consumers are less inclined to spend more with many expecting their household income to
continue to fall in the coming months. Time spent indoors however, has caused us to spend
more on home entertainment and groceries.
Monetary incentives allow consumers to experience cost savings and achieve a higher
level of economic control; they have been found to have significant positive correlations with
Internet use (Charney and Greenberg 2001; Flanagin and Metzger 2001; Wolin and
Korgaonkar 2003). Research shows that many Internet users expect e-retailers to offer price
promotions or have lower prices than offline retailers (Maxwell and Maxwell 2001). Yet,
shipping and handling fees often discourage shoppers from purchasing (Lueker 2003; Magill
2005). Consumers were generally mindful shoppers even before the pandemic (Afosanova,
et.al. 2019). Because of this, some shopping categories such as experiences were gradually
downgraded on their priority lists, and COVID-19 accelerated things in this direction (Im, J.
et.al, 2021).
Below graph shows share of U.S. consumers using online shopping before and after
COVID-19 as of September 2020 and February 2021, by selected categories
“There has been a normalization of the panic buying as shoppers have realized things
are not going out of stock (J.P. Morgan, 2020). Food and household categories have seen an
average of over 30 percent growth in online customer base across countries (McKinsey &
Company). According to the survey conducted by UNCTAD and Netcomm Suisse eCommerce
Association, in collaboration with the Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br) and Inveon,


shows that online purchases have increased by 6 to 10 percentage points across most product
categories.
A March 2021 survey conducted by Experian did find, however, that
consumers spending habits are changing somewhat, with 11% saying they are spending more
on clothing now than before the pandemic, while spending on groceries and in-home
entertainment were both down 7% from March 2020. And with a renewed focus on health,
hand sanitizer and other cleaning supplies continue to be in high demand. In fact, the global
hand sanitizer market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of
22.6% from 2020 through 2027 (Tymkiw, C. 2022) Consumers in both emerging and developed
economies have postponed larger expenditures, with those in emerging economies focusing more
on essential products. Tourism and travel sectors have suffered the strongest decline, with average
spending per online shopper dropping by 75% (UNCTAD).
Source: UNCTAD and NetComm Suisse eCommerce Association
Online purchases rise but consumer spending falls. The biggest gainers are
ICT/electronics, gardening/do-it-yourself, pharmaceuticals, education, furniture/household products
and cosmetics/personal care categories.
As government-imposed safety protocols continued, manufacturing and supply chains

tightened, consumer behavior swiftly followed to make ends meet. An interesting side effect
was how quickly brand loyalty fell by the wayside. In fact, 40% of consumers said they
switched brands during the pandemic, according to McKinsey & Company. People are not
wearing make-up when working from home. Sun care has also taken a hit because consumers
don’t know whether they will be able to travel. Some categories will find it very hard short-
term. They should come back, but discretionary products more closely linked to the economic
cycle will be more impacted because they are generally not must-haves (J.P. Morgan, 2020)


Hypothesis 3 (H3). Determine the most commonly used e-commerce applications
prior to and during COVID-19 pandemic.
Global e-Commerce sales to hit $4.2 Trillion as online surge continues, Adobe Reports.
Stimulus checks and rising vaccination rates pushed U.S. e-commerce sales to record levels in
March. “The changes we’re seeing are things that are going to carry forward for generations,”
said Jason Woosley, vice president, commerce and developer experience, at Adobe. “There’s
just too much momentum and durability.” [Source: Forbes]
Top B2C e-commerce companies by GMV, 2020

GMV GMV change
Rank by GMV
Company HQ Industry ($ billions) (%)
2020 2019 2018 2019 2020 2018-19 2019-20
1 1 Alibaba China E-commerce 866 954 1,145 10.2 20.1
2 2 Amazon USA E-commerce 344 417 575 21 38
3 3 JD.com China E-commerce 253 302 379 19.1 25.4
4 4 Pinduoduo China E-commerce 71 146 242 104.4 65.9

Internet Media &
5 9 Shopify Canada 41 61 120 48.7 95.6
Services
6 7 eBay USA E-commerce 90 86 100 -4.8 17
7 10 Meituan China E-commerce 43 57 71 33 24.6
8 12 Walmart USA Consumer goods retail 25 37 64 47 72.4

Internet Media &
9 8 Uber USA 50 65 58 30.5 -10.9
Services
10 13 Rakuten Japan E-commerce 30 34 42 13.6 24.2
Internet Media &
11 5 Expedia USA 100 108 37 8.2 -65.9
Services
Booking Internet Media &

12 6 USA 93 96 35 4 -63.3
Holdings Services
Internet Media &

13 11 Airbnb USA 29 38 24 29.3 -37.1
Services
Companies above 2,035 2,399 2,890 17.9 20.5
Source: UNCTAD based on company reports.

Note: Alibaba year beginning 1 April, Walmart year beginning 1 February. Figures in italics are estimates. GMV = Gross
Merchandize Value (as well as Booking Value).
USA’s Amazon.com top the global online market for quite some time now, as per data
published in webtrailer.com shows 5.2B visitors per month in 2021. Several grocery retailers
are diffusing messages about the availability of food and limiting the number of items to buy


per consumer, implementing new types of online services, and home delivery, though often
with unsatisfactory results for consumers’ sense of wellbeing.
Another survey conducted by similarweb.com on the most visited E-commerce and

shopping websites ranking analysis for the month of March 2022 reveals amazon.com is ranked
number 1 as the most visited E commerce and Shopping website in March 2022. The average
amount of time that users spend on the website is 6 minutes, and they see, on average, 8.74
pages per visit. Pages per visit is a popular engagement metric that is calculated by dividing
the total number of website views by the total number of visitors. The bounce rate for
amazon.com is 35.94%, meaning that 35.94% of visitors leave the website after viewing just
one page. ebay.com and amazon.co.jp are 2nd and 3rd on the list.
In terms of user engagement, ebay.com has an average visit duration of 6 minutes, an

average pages per visit of 6.79, and a bounce rate of 36.74%. Similarly, amazon.co.jp’s average
visit duration is 6 minutes, its average pages per visit is 7.99, and its bounce rate is 37.59%.
rakuten.co.jp is a top E commerce and Shopping website that ranks in 4th place. On average,
visitors remain on-site for 6 minutes and 37.71% of those visits bounce after viewing just one
page. In addition, the average website pages viewed per visit is 7.91. Number five on our list
is amazon.de, a top E commerce and Shopping website. Visitors see 9.14 pages per visit and
spend 6 minutes on the website. The bounce rate for amazon.de is 32.07%.
2.3.1 Philippines’ Leading E-Commerce Players
The Philippines is a fast-growing retail e-commerce market and the most

popular retail e-commerce platforms include Lazada, Shopee, Zalora, Ebay, and
Kimstore. [Subido, L. K. (2018, January 20). [Source: International Trade
Administration, Philippines – eCommerce]
Top Online Platforms in the Philippines
Average Average
Average Monthly
Shop Name Monthly Monthly Traffic Category
Traffic (Q2 2020)
Traffic (2022) (Q4 2019)
Lazada 43.38M 30.75M 38.73M Shopping portal
Shopee 74.91M 28.95M 25.37M Shopping portal
Metrodeal 770K 770K N/A Discounts & Deals
eBay 277.65K 767.4K 846.1K Buy & sell/shopping portal
Carousell (OLX) 4.95M 930K N/A Buy & Sell
Shopglobe 996.75K N/A N/A Mobile/Electronics
Galleon.ph 170.77K 379.2K 293.3K Shopping portal


Zalora 1.25M 1.06K 1.85M Clothing & Apparel
FB Marketplace 72M (est.) N/A N/A Buy & Sell
BeautyMNL 424.07K 738.1K 660K Health & beauty

[Source: Magenet 2022, Boxme Global, Philippines’ E-
commerce Map – Q2 2020 (Credit: iPrice)]
e-Commerce companies offer a wide variety of goods ranging from the most
common kids’ toy to household, automotive, real properties, industrial, as well as other
goods and services with suppliers from all over Asia and some parts of the globe.
Frontrunners like Lazada which is owned by giant e-commerce Alibaba Group with its
headquarter based in Singapore, is by far the first name to come to the mind of almost
every consumer when it comes to online shopping. Shopee on the other hand plays
head-to-head with Lazada as one of household names. It is a Southeast Asian-focused
platform that combines the authenticity of a customer-to-customer (C2C) marketplace
with payment and logistical support. In fact, Shopee is not only a leading platform in
Southeast Asia, but it is also a famous name in the list of top eCommerce in the
Philippines. It has a massive user base of 14,400,000 people every month and sells a
variety of products ranging from electronics to groceries.
According to an article by Magenest, Lazada and Shopee Philippines posted an

estimated 43.38M and 74.91M monthly visitor traffic respectively in year 2022,
compared to 30.75M and 28.95M in Q2 of 2020 [Philippine’ E-commerce Map /
iPrice]. That is a testament that shows significant growth of online shopping activities
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on a study conducted by Statista, the
Philippines ranks third place in the world’s fastest-growing e-commerce markets
outlasting some of its neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. In addition, a study
conducted found that Filipinos shopped online for the convenience of not having to go
to and line up at brick-and-mortar stores (58%), better prices (47%), and deals (46%)
(Prasetyo & Dela Fuente, 2020).
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Assess the Online consumer satisfaction on e-commerce

applications prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Customer satisfaction is one of the central constructs in the study of

consumer behavior both in traditional and online business environment. The
implication for management is that customers’ sense of the good buy and
worthy product or service is likely to influence satisfaction of online customers
directly (Chun-Chun Lin et.al., 2010). But what determines customer
satisfaction with online shopping? Prior studies like Churchill and Surprenant
(1982); Tse and Wilton (1988); Oliver (1980); Ho and Wu (1999); Lee and
Joshi (2007) have presented some models of customer satisfaction. Among
them Oliver (1980) proposed a model that explains consumer satisfaction as a


function of expectation and expectancy disconfirmation. Trong, Khanh, and
Gim (2014) revealed website design, merchandise attributes, transaction
capability, security/privacy, payment, delivery and customer service as the
significant predictors of online customer satisfaction. Tandon, Kiran, & Sah
(2017) also found that website functionality and perceived usefulness as factors
leading to customer satisfaction in an online shopping environment.
Nowadays, online shopping can be easily done using applications that are or
mostly available or can be downloaded and installed on any electronic gadget providing
is connected to an internet source. Online shopping has become the most popular
purchasing channel because of its convenience, time-saving, quick access to various
products and stores, and other related benefits to the consumers specially during the
pandemic. This transition from the traditional trip to the physical stores has also
encouraged the sellers to embark to a whole new level of interaction with the buyers by
developing different shopping portals – Website and Applications. In effect, the use of
these portals has improved the nature and efficiency of the retail industry in terms of
communication speed, practices, achievements, cost and time saving, while at the same
time revolutionizing the consumer behavior. In other words, consumers learn how to
take advantage and maximize their own benefits in the new business section and the
consumer behavior shaped (Z. Chen, (2005).
2.3.2 Consumers perception towards online shopping applications
User Experience (UX) is described as how users interact with a website or

application. To have a successful and well-implemented User Interface (UI), you must
have UX that is successful and well-implemented and vice versa (Perlman, D. 2021.
Many factors must be considered when developing and implementing any website or
mobile application, e-commerce, or any other specialty. The general layout and the
responsiveness of a web or application gives users stress-free experience. Web page
should be clean, with highly visible buttons, organized and easy-to-use and navigate.
When talking about the UI of a web platform, it must be considered that "without
careful studies into user preferences and experience, a site designer can unintentionally
overburden users with superfluous information" (Chen & Sackel, 2003).
When designing a web application or platform, using UI and UX is important

in order to understand the "Knowledge of users’ behavioral differences that can be a
major factor in a successful website implementation” (Chen & Sockel 2003). To touch
on the importance of UX Research, this matters especially now to the web development
and design communities because “End users’ demand for good user experience has
increased significantly, with wide adoption of mobile devices. Various publications in
relation to user experiences in online shopping applications reveal different level and
categories of satisfaction, we summarize the common ones as follows:


User friendly
Usability is defined by indicators that are measured, which include

“satisfaction, effectiveness, efficiency, and overall” (Yu & Huang 2020). It is
an ability to discover the way around the Web, locating desired information and
knowing what to do step by step without difficulty and great effort (Davis (1989,
Nah, F. & Davis, S. 2002). It includes five elements: Convenience, information
architecture and navigation, findability and accessibility, site speed, and also
ordering/payment process. Website usability is a critical factor in terms of
customer usage, experience with regard to computer technology, and even for
customers who are new in this technology (Irantaj & Huseyov 2018). In an e-
commerce context, DeLone and McLone (2003) identified “User Satisfaction”
as an important means of measuring our customers’ opinions of an e-commerce
system.
There are four key aspects of UX in a user-friendly website, namely (Tubik

2017):
Utility
Lies in the nature of the product: it helps users to choose and buy things
and services they need.
Usability
Has to make the customer journey clear and easy, without unnecessary
clicks, time lost on loading overloaded pages or inconvenient menu, the
frustration of not getting feedback from the system, etc.
Accessibility
Has to bring up design that can be used by different categories of users,

for example, people with disabilities (dyslexic, color-blind, etc.) or low
level of tech literacy.
Desirability
Means that the app will get the look and feel which will make the
experience enjoyable and users will wish to get back again.
Not all online shoppers have a credit/debit card, nor a bank account.
Some online shops offer various payment options which adds convenience to
shoppers. In the case of Philippine e-commerce, usually big companies offer not
only handful of payment options, but delivery options as well.


Design aesthetics
User satisfaction should be the center when designing a web page. The
design and structure of retail apps and mobile sites should focus on addressing
consumers’ needs and supporting them throughout their shopping experiences.
In research published in thinkwithgoogle.com, there are multiple points in the
process when consumers get frustrated. Sometimes it’s because they’re asked
to register without having yet received any value from the site or app; often it’s
because they’re presented with poor visual feedback and a lack of details about
products. And then there are the clunky checkout forms and a scarcity of
payment options.
Design aesthetics, image appealing, and information quality seems to

have a positive significant impact on customer satisfaction towards the usage of
shopping app. But the privacy/security seems to have a negative impact on
customer satisfaction towards usage of shopping apps (Chaitanya, Chunduri &
Dr. Deepak Gupta). Website design received the most consistent support as
factors that influence online shopping satisfaction (Lee & Joshi, 2007; Ho &
Wu, 1999; Shergill & Chen, 2005; Phau & Poon, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Todd,
1997).
A study conducted by Alam, S (2010) indicates relationships between

satisfaction of online shopping and the determinants that influence their
satisfaction. More specifically, website design, reliability, product variety and
delivery performance have significant relationship with online shopping
satisfaction. Design aesthetics is one of the features of website quality that can
be considered as determiner of customers’ perception toward the related e-store
and influences their satisfaction directly in online shopping since it provides
physical evidence of the organization’s competence as well as facilitating
effortless use of the service (Pastrick, G. 1997.) The respondents have a strong
degree of confidence in their respective website/application for online shopping.
Oftentimes, photos displayed online differs from the actual item received and
incidence such as this frustrates customers specially when returning is relatively
not easy, if not completely impossible. Hence, it is recommended that owners
of online shopping website/application should work on improving their order
cancelation and returns (Santos, K.E & Santos A.R 2020).
However, it is evident that the findings of previous studies are not

consistent. For instance, Chen, Ling, Ying, and Meng (2012) found that website
design is the most powerful independent variable which influences customer
satisfaction in online shopping environment. In contrary to this study,
Ranjbarian, Fathi, and Rezaei (2012) have identified that there is no significant
association between website design and customer satisfaction.


Information Quality
The product detail page is one of the most complex and important
section of a website. Comprehensive details allow users to quickly understand
purchase options (e.g., the users can see that the “M” size is currently
unavailable) (Gove & Mirza, 2015). The availability of accurate information
can be very beneficial for online shopping consumers, because sometimes
shopping online, consumers cannot directly touch the product without making
a purchase first. The benefits of the information provided by the marketplace
make consumers feel helped to choose the desired product. It encourages
consumers to shop again and feel satisfied with the marketplace. The research
of Vasic, Kilibarda & Kaurin (2019) revealed that the availability of
information has a positive effect on customer satisfaction. Santos, K.E & Santos
A.R (2020) in their study revealed that the respondents trusted online shopping
websites/applications because of their marketing tactics, such as word of mouth,
to boost their credibility. Lin, C. et.al (2010) stated that user’s e-commerce
satisfaction context relates to six factors: information quality, system quality, service
quality, product quality, delivery quality, and perceived price. Maditinos and
Theodoridis (2010) identified that product information quality is highly related
to the overall customer satisfaction. As opposed to this result, Evanschitzky,
Iyer, Hesse, and Ahlert (2004) found that product information quality is not a
significant determinant of online customer satisfaction.
Information quality is about all the information a customer can get from
e-commerce platforms and e-retailers, e.g., products’ descriptions, introductions
of purchase procedure and return policies (Grabner-Kraeuter 2002). It is one of
the key technical factors influencing customer’s satisfaction and future purchase
decisions that refers to the proper, well-detailed, correct format and most recent
information which is cited on a website and the best solution for compensating
lack of physical contact in online shopping. Providing and presenting enough,
proper, correct, and updated information about products and services has a
direct effect on customers’ satisfaction and trust. Moreover, usefulness and
appropriateness of the available information helps customers to evaluate
products and services properly and be satisfied with their purchase decisions
and also websites become trustworthy organizations (Chau, P. et.al. 2000, Kim,
D.J. 2008, Liao, et.al. 2006)
Privacy/ Security
When doing online shopping, user information - bank account details in

particular can be exposed and vulnerable to cyber-security and potential
hackers. One of the important features of a website is when individual
information of customers including data/transaction security and authentication
of the user are protected from any unauthorized use of information disclosure
during the online shopping (Ranjbarian, B. et.al 2012).


Privacy relates to the situation when customers’ data are not shared and
their credit cards information is secure (Zaithaml, et.al. 2002). Security and
privacy refers to security of online purchasing environment in terms of hacker
attacks, credit card fraud, non-delivery risk, bank information disclosure, post
purchase service and keeping personal privacy secure and so on (Wang, H et.al.
1998). The reasons of this important problem can relate to using and passing
customers’ and visitors’ information to third party without their knowledge or
presence of errors in underlying architecture of the Internet which does not
support security sufficiently. Therefore, beside functionality and usability, e-
stores must pay attention to their security and privacy policies.
A report from Philippines’ Inquirer.Net according to the data released

by FBI, both Personal data breach (PHP 26,910,958,092 = $517,021,289) and
credit card fraud (PHP 9,004,565,939 = $172,998,385) rank #4 & #8
respectively in the top 10 cybercrime types that caused the highest worldwide
loses in 2021.
Costliest Types of Cybercrime in 2021
Business email
$2,396,000
compromise*
Investment $1,456,000
Confidence/Romance fraud $956,000
Personal data breach $517,000
Real estate/Rental $530,000
Tech support $348,000
Non-payment/No-delivery $337,000
Credit card fraud $173,000
Corporate data breach $152,000
Government impersonation $143,000

- *includes individual email account compromise
- Data represent worldwide figures
Source: FBI-Internet Crime Complaints Center
INQ.NET


Image Appealing
Studies show that people remember 80% of what they see and 20% of
what they read (Bjelobrk, 2019). Images posted on the web pages are the focal
point of the consumers attention in online shopping. The effective images can
bring about a consumers‟ positive emotional experience on the shopping
portals. Captivating product images make the shopping experience more fun
and interesting while browsing the product images. Not only do great product
images help customers navigate and choose items, but they also provide
fundamental information about the product. What does it look like? Is it the
right color? What materials are used? (Gueho, 2016).
Advertising research confirms that visual and verbal advertising

messages evoke mental imagery, which further influences cognitive, affective,
and conative responses (Babin & Burns, 1997; Bone & Allen, 1992; Fennis,
Das, & Fransen, 2012). Image appeal affects the experiential element of
shopping apps. If the image appeal is low, the customers feel less motivated to
browse the product through the shopping app(s). Previous studies have found
that Image appeal positively influences the enjoyment towards online shopping
websites.
According to Rossiter (1982), visual information outperforms verbal

information in affecting consumer responses. In addition, Kroeber-Riel (1984)
finds that most consumers pay attention to the dominant picture first in a print
advertisement before focusing on textual information. Others suggest that larger
pictures, colored pictures, and diverse-colored pictures make it easier to attract
consumers' attention (Grønhaug, Kvitastein, & Grønmo, 1991). Different forms
of product presentation, including text, static and dynamic pictures, 3D, video,
etc., have been found to create different levels of presentation vividness, which,
in turn, affect consumers’ attitude and purchase intention (Orús et al., 2017).
Recent research has discovered that the perceived ease of imagining the product
influences the effectiveness of vivid information, such as the product
presentation video (Flavián et al., 2017).
A large amount of information leads to low processing fluency because

people require more effort to extract physical features (Wu K. et al., 2016).
Instead, the dynamic online product presentation can provide richer and more
specific clues for activating consumer mental imagery than the static online
production presentation (Overmars and Poels, 2015). According to a research
from ViSenze, 62% of generation Z and Millennial consumers want visual
search capabilities. Pinterest CEO Ben Silbermann says: “The future of search
will be about pictures rather than keywords”. Instead of searching for words,
users can drag or snap a photo of clothes, furniture or home decor, etc, without
having to describe what they are looking for in a search box with Google Lens.
According to a Weebly research, 22% of online product returns are because the


ordered items look different than in the photos. According to studies by
Shopify about online consumer preferences, only 0.52% want to see a single
product photo, 33.16% prefer to see multiple photos and about 60% prefer
images that will enable them to have a 360º vision of the product. (Bjelobrk,
Josipa 2019)
Age & Gender
The pattern of using shopping app varies across the Gender and Age.
Hence it is sensible to understand the relationship between Gender, Age and
Customer satisfaction towards usage of shopping app(s). Traditionally, it differs
between Male and Female towards the usage of shopping apps. Sex does not
affect the consumer satisfaction to online shopping factors (Santos, K.E &
Santos A.R 2020).
According to Baubonienė and Gulevičiūtė (2015) study, the 25-34 year

old consumers frequently select online stores for the reason that it offers lower
prices and a superior assortment of products, and the 18-34 year age group of
consumers more frequently have a preference towards online stores due to a
superior assortment of products. Younger shoppers (e.g., Gen Y and Gen X) are
approximately at all times “connected” and lead wired lifestyles (Gilly and
Zeithaml, 1985; Phillips and Sternthal, 1977). Hence, younger consumers are
further expected to trust that online shopping builds up money since they are
possibly proficient at using advising agents and social media to locate bargains.
Older shoppers (e.g., matures and leading boomers) possibly are less
likely to contribute the related belief due to slower reception rates for modern
information and communication technologies. According to the previous study
by Swaminathan, Lepkowska‐White and Rao (1999) who reported that male
online shoppers were mainly convenience oriented and were not motivated to
that extent by social interaction compared to women internet buyers.
The influence of convenience and cost saving varies based on gender. This is
in accordance with previous study of Jen-Hung et al. (2010) specifying that the factors
such as lack of sociality, cost saving, and convenience are the key causes
triggering male adolescent buyers for online shopping, and the major factors
moving female adolescent buyers for online shopping are adventure, sociality,
and fashion. Trocchia and Janda (2000) consider that the principal obstacles to
the evolution of e-commerce, which make older consumers more reluctant to
shop online, are: lack of IT experience, resistance to change, and their insistence
on trying out the product before purchase. It is possible that in moments prior
to the use of a technology, or even in the initial stages of its evolution,
population segments or minorities apparently disadvantaged in the use of IT
(women, senior citizens and lower-income individuals), may state that “we can
but I cannot use IT” (Durndell et al., 1995).


However, as they acquire experience with the technology and
understand its functioning, this belief disappears and the statement then
becomes “I can use IT because I know how to do it” (Durndell et al., 1995).


Chapter 3. Research Methodology
3.1 Research Hypotheses
In general, the study hypothesizes a change in consumer behavior during the COVID-
19 pandemic. For these changes, the study looked on four (4) categories of consumer goods in
which consumption could potentially be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The categories
are food and grocery, household, apparel, and entertainment category.
1. Food and Grocery Category
Null Hypothesis: There is no statistical significant difference in the level of online

expenditure for food and grocery items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in
Eastern Visayas.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is statistical significant difference in the level of

online expenditure for food and grocery items before and during COVID-19
pandemic in Eastern Visayas.
2. Household Category

expenditure for household items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern
Visayas.

online expenditure for household items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in
Eastern Visayas.
3. Apparel Category
expenditure for apparel items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern
Visayas.

online expenditure for apparel items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in
Eastern Visayas.


4. Entertainment Category

expenditure for entertainment items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in
Eastern Visayas.

online expenditure for entertainment items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in
Eastern Visayas.
3.2 Research Design
3.2.1 Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of the study is to investigate the online spending behavior of
consumers in Eastern Visayas before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study
also seeks to investigate what are the commonly used applications used by consumers
when shopping online and describe the socio-demographic profile of online consumers
in Eastern Visayas. It also investigated the factors affecting the online shopping
behavior among consumers amid COVID-19 Pandemic.
The study should help understand the changes in consumer preferences during
the COVID-19 pandemic. This shall help business understand the consumers and allow
them to make guided decisions for their products and services. Furthermore, it will
guide businesses provide offerings that suits to the needs of consumers amid COVID-
19 pandemic.
3.2.2 Type of Investigation
The study is descriptive in nature. Using Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, it

examined the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the online spending of consumers in
Eastern Visayas. It investigated the changes in expenditure on selected commodity
groups that include food and grocery, household, apparel, and entertainment. Under the
food and category, it covers the groceries, snacks, tobacco, food takeout and delivery,
and alcohol. Household category covers the non-food child products, household
supplies, skin care and makeup, furnishing and appliances, over the counter medicine,
and vitamins, and supplements. The apparel category covers the footwear, apparel, and
jewelries and accessories. Lastly, the entertainment category includes, entertainment at
home, books, magazines, newspapers, consumer electronics, and fitness and wellness.


Table 1. Online Spending Categories and Components
Food and Grocery Household

1. Groceries 1. Non-food child products
2. Snacks 2. Household supplies
3. Tabaco 3. Personal-care products
4. Food takeout and delivery 4. Skin care and makeup
5. Alcohol 5. Furnishing and appliances
6. Over-the-counter medicine
7. Vitamins and supplements
Apparel Entertainment
1. Footwear 1. Entertainment at home
2. Apparel 2. Books, magazines, newspapers
3. Jewelry and Accessories 3. Consumer electronics
4. Fitness and wellness
Wilcoxon Signed Ranked test was used since the same respondents
represents the before and during pandemic scenario. Furthermore, since the
working variable or spending is categorized into ordinal scale, the mentioned
test was utilized at 5% and 10% level of significance.
Descriptive statistics was also utilized to examine socio-demographic

profile and other online shopping behaviors of Eastern Visayas consumers
before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Extent of Research Interference
The study was conducted with low interference from the researcher. A
pretested questionnaire through Google Form was designed and distributed
online. The questionnaire was revised accordingly after the pretesting to reduce
the difficulty answering. The only interaction between the researcher and the
respondents was during the distribution of the questionnaire through the
Facebook Messenger.
Study Setting
The study is quantitative in nature and responses from target respondents

was collected online through Google Forms. Facebook Messenger was utilized
to send the Google Form links.
Unit of Analysis


The unit of analysis of the study is individual as it depends on the
individual responses of respondents. The generalizations made are based from
the collective responses of respondents.
Time Horizon
The data is structure as panel data since it collected data series before
and during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, due to the lack of baseline data,
it is collected altogether with the current data reflected during the time of the
pandemic. The before scenario covered the date before March 15, 2020 or
before the COVID-19 lockdown was implemented in the Philippine. Starting
the aforementioned date up to the date of interview or on May 20, 2022 will be
the during-scenario in the data structure.
3.2.3 Data Collection Methods
Both secondary and primary data was collected for the study.
Secondary Data
Secondary data were gathered from journals and website and are
appropriately cited in the study. The secondary data provides insights about the
consumer behaviors amid COVID-19 pandemic.
Primary Data
Primary data were collected using a pretested questionnaire designed in

Google Form. The data is collected from April 14, 2022 up to May 20, 2022.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire is divided into two (2) major parts. This includes the
socio-demographic profile and the online spending on selected goods which
includes the necessary data for hypothesis testing. The socio-demographic
section indicates the age of respondents, gender, marital status, education,
monthly income, and province. It will also indicate the existing if the
respondents have an existing comorbidity and checks the respondents’
vaccination status. For the latter part, it indicates the preferred mode of shopping
of the respondents, the frequency and expenses for each commodity categories,
influencing factors in purchasing online, as well as the mobile application used
for online shopping. Furthermore, the latter part helped in assessing the online
shopping habits and experience of respondents during COVID-19 pandemic.
Sampling Process
The sample size was computed using the Cochran formula since the
number of population who opt for online/offline shopping is unknown. In


this sampling method, the sample size was computed through a desired level of
precision, desired confidence level, and the estimated proportion of the attribute
present in the population. The formula is as shown below:
𝑍𝑍 2 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑛𝑛 =
𝑒𝑒 2
Where,
e = desired level of precision
p = estimated proportion of population
q = 1-p
Z = Z-value found in the Z table
Through this formula the study arrived with 201 sample size at 95% confidence
interval, 6% margin of error. Due to the absence of list indicating of online shoppers in
Eastern Visayas, the respondents where purposively selected.


Chapter 4. Research Findings and Data Analysis
4.1 Socio-demographic Profile
More than half and majority of the respondents are female, constituting 59% of the total
respondents. While the 3% preferred not to indicate their gender, 38% of the survey participants
are male. In terms of marital status, 82% or majority of the respondents are single, while 18%
are married while less than 1% indicated they are separated. Average age of respondents is 27
while the youngest is 15 years old while the oldest is 61 years old. In terms of average monthly
income, respondents are earning about Php 14,709.00 a month.
While others are not earning or have zero income, some could earn up to Php
104,735.00 a month. For the highest level of education attained, about 65% are college
graduates while about 24% at least reached college level. Others at least reach high school
level, graduated high school, reached masters level, graduated masters level, doctoral graduate,
at least reached doctoral graduate, and have a vocational degree. Based on the location of
respondents, majority or 76% resides in Leyte, this was followed by respondents that resided
in Eastern Samar, Northern Samar, Biliran, Southern Leyte, and Samar.
Table 2. Respondent's Socio-Demographic Profile
Socio-Demographic Category Count Percent

Female 119 59.20%
Gender Male 76 37.80%
Prefers not to say 6 3.00%
Single 164 81.60%
Marital Status Married 36 17.90%
Separated 1 0.50%
Elementary Level 0 0.00%
Elementary Graduate 0 0.00%
High School Level 6 3.00%
High School Graduate 4 2.00%
Education College Level 50 24.90%
College Graduate 131 65.20%
Masters Level 1 0.50%
Masters Graduate 4 2.00%
To be continued on the next page….


Socio-Demographic Category Count Percent
…continued from previous page
Doctoral Level 3 1.50%
Doctoral Graduate 1 0.50%
Vocational Degree 1 0.50%
Leyte 152 75.60%
Eastern Samar 15 7.50%
Northern Samar 12 6.00%
Province
Biliran 9 4.50%
Southern Leyte 9 4.50%
Samar 4 2.00%
Do you have an existing No 190 94.50%
comorbidity?
Yes 11 5.50%
Second Dose 131 65.20%
Booster Shot 60 29.90%
Vaccination Status Prefers not to say 6 3.00%
Unvaccinated 4 2.00%
First Dose Only 0 0.00%
Average 27
Age Minimum 15
Maximum 61
Average 14,709.00
Monthly Income (In Php) Minimum 0.00
Maximum 104,735.00
The result of the survey also shows that the majority of respondents or 94% does not
have an existing comorbidity. With respect to vaccination status, the majority or 65% of
respondents already received the second dose of vaccine. Moreover, 30% already received their
booster shots and 2% are not vaccinated yet.
Table 3 below shows the socio-economic standing of respondents in Eastern Visayas.

The classification is based from the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS). This


reflects the monthly income for a family of five (5) in the Philippines. In this study, it assumes
that the respondents are the sole earner in the family. The result shows that most respondents
are living in poor conditions or earning less than Php 10,957.00 a month. This is followed by
low income (but not poor) standing or those earning Php 10,957.00 to ₱21,193.00 monthly and
those at the lower middle class or those earning Php 21,194.00 to Php 43,829.00 monthly.
About 5.50% of the respondents are at the middle class or earning Php 43,830.00 to Php
76,668.00 monthly. A very small number (0.50%) are at the upper middle-income level or those
earning Php 76,669.00 to Php 131,483.00 monthly.
Table 3. Socio-economic Standing of Respondents
Socio-Economic Standing Number Count
Poor 96 48.00%
Low Income (but not poor) 51 25.50%
Lower Middle Class 41 20.50%
Middle Class 11 5.50%
Upper Middle Income 1 0.50%
Upper Middle Income (but not rich) 0 0.00%
Rich 0 0.00%
Tables 4-7 show the vaccination status of the respondents on this survey. It is important
to note that the vaccine plays a crucial role on the consumers decision to use online or offline
shopping as during the pandemic period some of the local government units (LGU) imposed a
strict travel advisory depending on the persons vaccination status. In adherence to the national
authority guidelines, a limit to only one (1) person per household is allowed to go out to the
shops at the height of the virus infection. Later on, as the health authorities started
administering the vaccines, restrictions on the number of allowed persons have been eased,
however, malls, shopping centers and other establishments have required every individual to
carry their vaccination certificates before they are allowed to enter.
While in some parts of the world, vaccination against COVID-19 has been mandated,
other countries including the Philippines do not force everyone to receive. There are reasons
why some people until recently have not receive a single dose of the vaccine such as those
individuals that have history of allergic reaction to some of the ingredients, currently under
medication that can cause unfavorable effect with the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine,
those that have recurring illnesses, others site personal or religious reason, etc.


According to the survey in relation to the respondents’ vaccination per gender as shown
in Table 4 below, only 3 out of 119 females and 1 out of the 76 males for a total of 4 out of the
201 persons, which is equivalent to 1.99 (1.99%) have not received any dose of the vaccine.
Out of the 201 respondents in total, 131 (65%) have received their second dose, 60 (30%) have
received the booster shot which is a supplementary dose administered after a certain period
from the last vaccine to further strengthen the immune system and prevent or minimize the
infection., while there are 6 (3%) persons declined their vaccination status, whereas none of
the respondents have received a single dose alone.
Table 4. Vaccination Status according to Gender
Female Male Prefers not to say

Status
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent
Unvaccinated 3 2.50% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%

First Dose Only 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Second Dose 78 65.50% 49 64.50% 4 66.70%
Booster Shot 36 30.30% 23 30.30% 1 16.70%
Prefers not to say 2 1.70% 3 3.90% 1 16.70%
Table 5 shows the distribution of the respondents across the entire region in relation to
their vaccination status. The 4 unvaccinated respondents as mentioned in previous table were
from Leyte & Northern Samar with 2 persons each respectively.
Out of the 152 respondents from Leyte, 98 (64%) have already received their second
dose, 46 (30%) have received booster shots, while 6 (4%) prefer not to disclose their
medication. For Biliran province, 5 (56%) out of the 9 respondents have received second dose,
while 4 (44%) have already been vaccinated with booster shots.
For the respondents from Southern Leyte, 7 (78%) out of the 9 respondents have
received second dose, while 2 (22%) have already been vaccinated with booster shots.
Meanwhile the 4 (100%) respondents from Samar have received their second dose. Out of the
15 respondents from Eastern Samar 12 (80%) have received second dose, while 3 (20%) have
already been vaccinated with booster shots.
When it comes to the 12 respondents from Northern Samar, as mentioned earlier 2

(16%) have not been vaccinated yet, 5 (42%) have received second dose, while 5 (42%) have
already been vaccinated with booster shots.


Table 5. Vaccination Status of the respondents across Provinces in Eastern Visayas
Un-vaccinated
Prefers not to
Second Dose
Booster Shot
First Dose
Province
Only
say
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
50.00 74.80 76.70 100.00
2 0 0.00% 98 46 6
Leyte % % % %
Biliran 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 3.80% 4 6.70% 0 0.00%
Southern
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 5.30% 2 3.30% 0 0.00%
Leyte
Samar 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 3.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Eastern
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 9.20% 3 5.00% 0 0.00%
Samar
Northern 50.00
2 0 0.00% 5 3.80% 5 8.30% 0 0.00%
Samar %
Table 6 below shows that 74 (77%) out of the 96 respondents who belong to the poor
bracket have received second dose, while 20 (20.8%) have already received the booster shots.
Only 1 was not vaccinated and 1 person did not disclose the vaccination status. 30 (23.1%) of
the second dose vaccines by the respondents went to the low income (but not poor) bracket.
For the lower middle-class group 2 (4.88%) out of 41 have not received a single dose, 21
(51.22%) have received second dose, 16 (39.02%) have already received booster shot, while 2
did not disclose their vaccine status. In the middle-class group, we can see 4 (36.36%)
respondents have received their second dose while, 7 (63.63%) have already received the
booster shot.
Table 6. Vaccination Status according to Socio-economic Standing

Un-vaccinated
Prefers not to
Second Dose
Booster Shot
Socio-
First Dose
economic
Only
standing
say
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Poor 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 74 56.90% 20 33.30% 1 16.70%

Low Income
1 25.00% 0 0.00% 30 23.10% 17 28.30% 3 50.00%
(but not poor)


Lower Middle
2 50.00% 0 0.00% 21 16.20% 16 26.70% 2 33.30%
Class
Middle Class 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 3.10% 7 11.70% 0 0.00%
Upper Middle
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.80% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Income
Upper Middle
Income (but 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
not rich)
Rich 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
In terms of the vaccination status of the respondents in terms of their educational

attainment, table 7 shows that the college level (48) and college graduate (125) groups
composed the bulk number 173 (86%) out of 201 individuals with at least second dose of the
vaccines.
Table 7. Vaccination Status according to Level of Education

Un-vaccinated
Prefers not to
Second Dose
Booster Shot
First Dose
Level of Education
Only
say
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Elementary Level 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Elementary
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Graduate
High School Level 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 4.60% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
High School
0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.30% 1 1.70% 0 0.00%
Graduate
College Level 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 41 31.30% 7 11.70% 1 16.70%
College Graduate 2 50.00% 0 0.00% 75 57.30% 50 83.30% 4 66.70%
Masteral Level 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.70% 0 0.00%
Masteral Graduate 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 2 1.50% 0 0.00% 1 16.70%
Doctoral Level 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.30% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Doctoral Graduate 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 1.70% 0 0.00%
Vocational Degree 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.80% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%


4.2 Preferred Mode of Shopping
On one hand, the result shows that the preferred mode of shopping before COVID-19
pandemic was both offline and online (49%). Furthermore, a very little fraction indicated the
preference for online shopping (5.50%). On the other hand, during COVID-19 pandemic,
preference to online shopping increased to 85% and a decline to offline shopping preference
reduced from 90% to 29%.
Table 8. Preferred Mode of Shopping Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic
Count Percent
Online 11 5.50%
Before COVID-19 Pandemic Offline 90 44.80%
Both Online and Offline 100 49.80%
Online 85 42.30%
During COVID-19 Pandemic Offline 29 14.40%
Both Online and Offline 87 43.30%
4.3 Online Shopping Frequency
In terms of online shopping frequency of food and grocery categories a general decrease
of online purchasing activity can be observed during COVID-19. This category includes items
such as groceries, snacks, tobacco, food takeout and delivery, and alcohol. For the said
category, those that do not shop online increase from 37.80% to 39.80%. Furthermore, those
that only shop at least once a month decreased from 65% to 58% and those that shop everyday
decreased from 2% to 1%. In contrast, those that shop online twice/thrice were observed to
grow from 45% to 49%.
Table 9. Online Shopping Frequency for Food and Grocery Shopping Before and
During COVID-19 Pandemic
Frequency Count Percent

I do not shop online 76 37.80%
Once a month 65 32.30%
Twice/trice a week 45 22.40%
Every day 4 2.00%
Before COVID-19 Pandemic
Once a week 4 2.00%
2-3 times a month 3 1.50%
1-4 times a year 2 1.00%
During COVID-19 Pandemic I do not shop online 80 39.80%


Once a week 4 2.00%
Every day 2 1.00%
During COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of respondents are shopping online for
household items and frequency is higher before the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. Those that
shop at least once a month increased from 44.80% to 47.30%. However, those that do not shop
online for the item increased from 63% to 64% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore,
those that shop at least thrice/twice a week decreased from 33% to 30%. The household
category includes, non-food child products, household supplies, personal care products,
skincare and makeup, furnishing and appliances, over-the-counter medicines, and vitamins and
supplements.
Table 10. Online Shopping Frequency for Household Expenses Before and During
COVID-19 Pandemic

Every day 3 1.50%
Once a week 1 0.50%
Every day 3 1.50%
Once a week 1 0.50%


Majority of respondents shop at least once a month for apparel before and during
COVID-19 pandemic. However, purchasing frequency before pandemic is higher compared
during the onset of the pandemic. Frequency of online purchases for the said item decreased
from 50.20% to 49.30%. Those that do not shop online for the said item increased as well from
69% to 71%. The apparel category includes footwear, apparel, and jewelry and accessories.
Table 11. Online Shopping Frequency for Apparel Before and During COVID-19
Pandemic

Every day 1 0.50%
Once a week 0 0.00%
Every day 0 0.00%
Once a week 0 0.00%
Consumption for the entertainment category observably increased in general. This

category covers the purchases for entertainment at home, books, magazines, newspapers,
consumer electronics, and fitness and wellness items. Majority of the respondents do not shop
for the item during and before COVID-19 pandemic. However, a decrease of those who do not
shop for the item can be observed. Frequency decreased from 62.20% to 61%. Furthermore,
those that purchase the item at least once a month increased from 23.40% to 26%. Likewise,
those that purchase at least twice/thrice a week increased from 5% to 6%.
Table 12. Online Shopping Frequency for Entertainment Before and During COVID-19
Pandemic

Before COVID-19 Pandemic I do not shop online 125 62.20%


Every day 2 1.00%
Once a week 0 0.00%
Every day 1 0.50%
Once a week 0 0.00%
4.4 Factor in Deciding Shopping Online/Offline
Respondents were asked what factors determine their purchasing decision on having it
either online or offline. Results showed that most respondents considered their needs (71.60%).
Furthermore, respondents also look at the product quality (66.70%), product price (57.70%),
trust in the seller (41.30%), and the time to acquire the product (33.30%). Some respondents
also indicated that shipping cost and trends affects their online/offline shopping decisions.
Table 13. Factor in Deciding Shopping Online/Offline
Factors Count Percent*

According to needs 144 71.60%
Product quality 134 66.70%
Product price 116 57.70%
Trust in seller 83 41.30%
Time to acquire the product 67 33.30%
Shipping cost 1 0.50%
Trends 1 0.50%
*multiple response
4.5 Online Shopping Expenses per Transaction

Before and during COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of respondents did not shop
online for food and grocery items. However, it can be observed that those who do not shop


online were reduced from 25.10% to 24.90% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those spending
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 per transaction increased from 20.40% to 21.40% while those
spending Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 increased from 0.55% to 2.50% during COVID-19
pandemic. However, while online expenses between Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 remain
unchanged, expenses between Php 1.00-Php 1001.00 and Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 were
observed to decrease after COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 14. Online Shopping Expenses on Food and Grocery
Purchase Cost Range Count Percent

None 51 25.40%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 12 6.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 41 20.40%
Before COVID-19 Pandemic Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 49 24.40%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 46 22.90%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 1 0.50%
Above Php 10,000.00 1 0.50%
None 50 24.90%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 8 4.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 43 21.40%
During COVID-19 Pandemic Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 49 24.40%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 45 22.40%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 5 2.50%
Above Php 10,000.00 1 0.50%
In terms of online expenses for household items, the majority of respondents or 27.40%
before COVID-19 pandemic spent Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 per transaction. Similar case
happened during COVID-19 pandemic but the number had grown from 27.40% to 31.80%.
The number of people who do not shop online for household items was also reduced during
COVID-19 pandemic from 23.40% to 18.90%.
Table 15. Online Shopping Expenses on Household

None 47 23.40%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 10 5.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 48 23.90%
Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 55 27.40%


Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 37 18.40%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 3 1.50%
Above Php 10,000.00 1 0.50%
None 38 18.90%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 10 5.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 52 25.90%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 35 17.40%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 2 1.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00%
For the online expenses for apparel items, the majority of respondents or 30.80% before
COVID-19 pandemic spent Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 per transaction. Similarly, during
COVID-19 pandemic, the same amount was spent on apparel for the majority of respondents.
However, the number had grown from 30.80% to 31.80%. The number of people who do not
shop online for apparel items was also reduced during COVID-19 pandemic from 50% to
20.90%.
Table 16. Online Shopping Expenses on Apparel

None 50 24.90%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 11 5.50%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 62 30.80%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 27 13.40%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 4 2.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00%
None 42 20.90%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 11 5.50%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 64 31.80%
Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 49 24.40%


Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 29 14.40%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 6 3.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00%
Majority of respondents do not shop for entertainment items before and during COVID-
19 pandemic. At 46.30%, the figure remained unchanged despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In
terms of expenses that ranged between Php 101.00 - Php 500.00, the number of respondents
spending the said amount was reduced from 24.90% to 23.30% during the COVID-19
pandemic. However, an increase in expenses between Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 can be
observed during the pandemic from 11.90% to 14.40%.
Table 17. Online Shopping Expenses on Entertainment

None 93 46.30%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 17 8.50%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 50 24.90%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 14 7.00%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 3 1.50%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00%
None 93 46.30%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 14 7.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 47 23.40%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 14 7.00%
Php 5,001.00 - Php 10,000.00 3 1.50%
Above Php 10,000.00 1 0.50%
4.6 Top Utilized Online Shopping Applications
A total of 14 online shopping applications are used by respondents in Eastern Visayas

before the COVID-19 pandemic. Result shows that Shopee is the topmost utilized application
(88.80%) followed by Lazada (61.80%), Food Panda (20%), SHEIN (18.20%), and Zalora
(10%).


Table 18. Online Shopping Applications before COVID-19 Pandemic
Online Shopping Applications Count Percent

Shopee 151 88.80%
Lazada 105 61.80%
Food Panda 34 20.00%
SHEIN 31 18.20%
Zalora 17 10.00%
Nike 7 4.10%
Alibaba 4 2.40%
Grab 3 1.80%
Facebook Market 3 1.80%
ShopSM 2 1.20%
McDonals Delivery 1 0.60%
Alberto's Pizza Delivery 1 0.60%
BeautyMnl 1 0.60%
Carousell 1 0.60%
During COVID-19 pandemic the number of commonly used applications increased

from 14 to 17 applications. Shoppe is still the topmost utilized application followed by Lazada,
Food Panda, Shein and Zalora. Usage for Shoppe increased to 94% during the COVID-19
pandemic. Similar case happened to Lazada that increased from 61.80 to 62.30%. Food Panda
application usage also increased to 29% from 20%, SHEIN usage increased from 18.20% to
26.80%, and Zalora usage increased from 10% to 12.60%.
Table 19. Online Shopping Applications during COVID-19 Pandemic
Online Shopping Applications Count Percent

Shopee 172 94.00%
Lazada 114 62.30%
Food Panda 53 29.00%
SHEIN 49 26.80%


Zalora 23 12.60%
Nike 12 6.60%
ShopSM 7 3.80%
Grab 2 1.10%
Facebook Market 2 1.10%
Alibaba 2 1.10%
Carousell 2 1.10%
BeautyMnl 1 0.50%
Mathew 1 0.50%
Uniqlo 1 0.50%
Hibobi 1 0.50%
McDonald's Delivery 0 0.00%
Alberto's Pizza Delivery 0 0.00%
4.7 Online Shopping Habits of Respondents
In terms of online shopping habits, the majority of the respondents agreed (47.80%)
that they shop online because it is easier to see discounts and prices. Majority of the respondents
also agreed (43.30%) that they shop online due to the greater variety of products. Furthermore,
most of the respondents agreed (38.30%) that shopping online is a good option to buy things
when time is short. When asked if they shop online to save the effort of buying what they buy
from offline stores, the majority of respondents are in agreement (52.20%).
Majority of the respondents agreed (49.80%) that they shop online because they could
gather more information. Respondents agreed (53.70%) that they shop online because they
value the convenience of 24/7 availability. Lastly, the majority agreed (45.30%) that they shop
online because the quality of their decision-making is improved.
Table 20. Online Shopping Habits
Level of Agreement Count Percent

Strongly Disagree 5 2.50%
I shop online because it is
Disagree 4 2.00%
easier to see discounts and
prices Neutral 49 24.40%
Agree 96 47.80%


Strongly Agree 38 18.90%
Not Applicable 9 4.50%
Disagree 4 2.00%
I shop online because I have Neutral 54 26.90%
greater variety of products
Agree 87 43.30%
Disagree 23 11.40%
I shop online because it is a
Neutral 57 28.40%
good option to buy things when
time is short Agree 77 38.30%
Disagree 5 2.50%
I shop online because it can
save me the effort of buying Neutral 45 22.40%
what I want from online retail
stores Agree 105 52.20%
Disagree 3 1.50%
I shop online because I can Neutral 58 28.90%
gather more information
Agree 100 49.80%
I shop online because I value
the convenience of 24/7
availability Disagree 4 2.00%


Neutral 42 20.90%
Agree 108 53.70%
Disagree 4 2.00%
I shop online because I can Neutral 27 13.40%
shop in privacy at home
Agree 109 54.20%
Disagree 6 3.00%
I shop online because the
Neutral 74 36.80%
quality of decision-making is
improved Agree 91 45.30%
4.8 Shopping Experience during COVID-19 Pandemic
In terms of shopping experience, the majority of the respondents said that they are
shopping online more often than before (43.80%). Most of the respondents also indicated that
they feel neutral about being anxious (34.30%) when shopping offline and about 32% of
respondents agreed about being concerned when shopping in stores. Majority of respondents
agreed (44.80%) that they only go to stores to purchase necessary products such as food and
beverage. Majority also agreed (46.30%) that they postponed larger purchases after the
pandemic and mostly are concerned about their physical health (48.80%).
Table 21. Shopping Experience during COVID-19 Pandemic
Count Percent
I am shopping more often than
Disagree 24 11.90%
online than before
Neutral 64 31.80%


Count Percent
Agree 88 43.80%
Disagree 46 22.90%
I am concerned about shopping Neutral 69 34.30%
in stores Agree 66 32.80%
Disagree 11 5.50%
I only go to stores to purchase
Neutral 39 19.40%
necessary products such as
Agree 90 44.80%
food and beverage
Disagree 3 1.50%
I decided to postpone larger Neutral 64 31.80%
expenditures after the pandemic Agree 93 46.30%
Disagree 8 4.00%
I am concerned for my physical Neutral 40 19.90%
health Agree 98 48.80%
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was utilized to affirm if there is a significant difference of
online expenses before and during COVID-19 pandemic. The difference was tested among
categories for food and grocery, household, apparel, and entertainment commodities.
1. Expenses on food and grocery items before and during COVID-19 Pandemic.
Table 222. Test Statisticsa
Z -1.295b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.195
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.


Eastern Visayas.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is statistical significant difference in the level of online

Eastern Visayas.
Rule: Reject Null Hypothesis is p-value is less than 0.05.
Result: The p-value is 0.195 which is greater than 0.05. Hence, the result failed to reject
the null hypothesis.
Conclusion: There is no sufficient statistical evidence to say that there is a difference

in the level of expenditure for food and grocery items before and during COVID-19
2. Expenses on household items before and during COVID-19 pandemic.

Z -.968b

Visayas.

Visayas.


in the level of expenditure for household items before and during COVID-19 pandemic
in Eastern Visayas.
3. Expenses on apparel items before and during COVID-19 Pandemic.

Z -1.401b

Visayas.

Visayas.

in the level of expenditure for apparel items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in
Eastern Visayas.
4. Expenses on entertainment items before and during COVID-19 Pandemic.

Z -.455b


expenditure for entertainment items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern
Visayas.

expenditure for entertainment items before and during COVID-19 pandemic in Eastern
Visayas.

in the level of expenditure for entertainment items before and during COVID-19
Supplementary Tables
Tables 26-29 shows the online expenditures on food and grocery, household items,
apparel, and entertainment between genders, before and during the pandemic. Based on the
survey result in Table 26, there is a decrease in food and grocery items expenditures in
females between the Php0 up to Php1000 purchase cost range, and above Php 10,000 cost
brackets, while an increase in expenditures is seen between Php1,001 – Php10,000 cost
brackets. As for the male respondents, the data shows an increase among cost brackets Php0,
Php101 – Php500, Php501 – Php1000, & Php5001 – Php10000, whereas a decrease in
expenditures is shown for cost bracket Php1001 – Php5000, while cost brackets Php1 – 100
and Php10000 and above remain unchanged. For the respondents who declined to state their
genders, an increase can be seen in expenditures for cost brackets Php101 – Php500 only, all
other brackets remain unchanged except for a decrease in cost bracket Php1 – Php100.
Table 26. Online Expenditure on Food and Grocery Items between Genders
None 30 25.20% 20 26.30% 1 16.70%

Before
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 6 5.00% 3 3.90% 3 50.00%
COVID-19
Pandemic Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 27 22.70% 14 18.40% 0 0.00%
Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 30 25.20% 18 23.70% 1 16.70%


Php 1,001.00 - Php
5,000.00 25 21.00% 20 26.30% 1 16.70%
Php 5,001.00 - Php
10,000.00 1 0.80% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%
None 27 22.70% 22 28.90% 1 16.70%

Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 4 3.40% 3 3.90% 1 16.70%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 26 21.80% 15 19.70% 2 33.30%
During
COVID-19 Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 28 23.50% 20 26.30% 1 16.70%
Pandemic Php 1,001.00 - Php
5,000.00 31 26.10% 13 17.10% 1 16.70%
Php 5,001.00 - Php
10,000.00 3 2.50% 2 2.60% 0 0.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%
For the expenditures on household items as shown in Table 27, a decrease in the number
from 29 to 23 female, and from 17 to 14 male respondents who previously do not buy online.
This means 9 persons opted to use the digital way of buying goods during the pandemic. Also,
a decrease in number from 2 to 1 for women who spent between Php5001 – Php10000. While
there is no change in the number of female respondents who spent between the Php1 – Php100
and Php1001 – Php5000 purchase cost range, an increase in number is shown for women who
buy goods within the cost ranges Php101 – Php500 and Php501 – Php1000. Meanwhile not a
single respondent has spent above Php 10000 on household items either before or during the
pandemic.
On their male counterpart, an increase in number has been recorded for the respondents
who buy goods between Php101 – Php500, and Php501 – Php1000 purchase cost range, while
a decrease in number of respondents for PhpPhp1001 – Php5000, and the above Php10000 cost
ranges. There is no change in numbers for respondents who prefers not to say their genders.
Table 27. Online Expenditure on Household Items between Genders

None 29 24.40% 17 22.40% 1 16.70%
Before Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 5 4.20% 5 6.60% 0 0.00%

COVID-19 Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 30 25.20% 15 19.70% 3 50.00%
Pandemic
Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 34 28.60% 20 26.30% 1 16.70%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 19 16.00% 17 22.40% 1 16.70%


Php 5,001.00 - Php
10,000.00 2 1.70% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%
None 23 19.30% 14 18.40% 1 16.70%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 5 4.20% 5 6.60% 0 0.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 31 26.10% 18 23.70% 3 50.00%
During
COVID-19 Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 40 33.60% 23 30.30% 1 16.70%
Pandemic
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 19 16.00% 15 19.70% 1 16.70%
Php 5,001.00 - Php
10,000.00 1 0.80% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
On the apparel category, Table 28 shows none of the respondent have spent above
Php10000 in online shopping. However, the survey shows 2 female and 6 male respondents
have shifted to online shopping during the pandemic. An increase by 1 person each who spent
between Php5001 – Php10000 on apparel during the pandemic. A mixed behavior of the
respondents can be seen for the purchase cost range from Php101 up to Php5000, where we
can see an increase and decrease, though not big but notable numbers. Out of 119 female
respondents, 8 (7%), and 3 (4%) out of the 76 male respondents have purchased online at least
Php100 worth of apparel.
Table 28. Online Expenditure on Apparel Items between Genders

None 27 22.70% 22 28.90% 1 16.70%
Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 8 6.70% 3 3.90% 0 0.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 45 37.80% 15 19.70% 2 33.30%

Before
COVID-19 Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 23 19.30% 21 27.60% 3 50.00%
Pandemic 15 12.60% 12 15.80% 0 0.00%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00
Php 5,001.00 - Php
1 0.80% 3 3.90% 0 0.00%
10,000.00
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
None 25 21.00% 16 21.10% 1 16.70%

During
COVID-19 Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 8 6.70% 3 3.90% 0 0.00%
Pandemic
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 41 34.50% 21 27.60% 2 33.30%


Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 26 21.80% 21 27.60% 2 33.30%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 17 14.30% 11 14.50% 1 16.70%

Php 5,001.00 - Php
2 1.70% 4 5.30% 0 0.00%
10,000.00
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
When it comes to the online expenditures of the respondents on entertainment items

before and during the pandemic, we can observe an increase in numbers by 2 persons in female
while a decrease in their male counterpart by 2 who did not make any purchases, which means
a total of 4 persons has shifted their interest on entertainment in opposite direction.
The table also shows a decrease in total number of female respondents – from 60
(50.4%) to 58 (48.7%) out of 199, while on the other hand an increase in number from 44
(57.9%) to 46 (60.5%) out 76 male respondents who have spent at least Php100 on
entertainment items. This means men in general prefer to spend time at home on entertainment
than women. Only 1 person (male) have purchased above Php10000 worth of item/s during the
pandemic. There is a decrease of 4 female respondents while an increase of 1 male for the
respondents who purchased entertainment items within the Php101 – Php500 price range. An
increase from 1 to 2 female while on the other way around a decrease from 2 to 1 male who
spent between Php5001 – Php10000 before and during the pandemic.
Table 29. Online Expenditure on Entertainment Items between Genders

None 59 49.60% 32 42.10% 2 33.30%

Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 11 9.20% 6 7.90% 0 0.00%
Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 29 24.40% 19 25.00% 2 33.30%
Before
COVID-19 Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 12 10.10% 10 13.20% 2 33.30%
Pandemic
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 7 5.90% 7 9.20% 0 0.00%
Php 5,001.00 - Php
10,000.00 1 0.80% 2 2.60% 0 0.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
None 61 51.30% 30 39.50% 2 33.30%
During Php 1.00 - Php 100.00 9 7.60% 5 6.60% 0 0.00%

COVID-19 Php 101.00 - Php 500.00 25 21.00% 20 26.30% 2 33.30%
Pandemic
Php 501.00 - Php 1,000.00 15 12.60% 12 15.80% 2 33.30%
Php 1,001.00 - Php 5,000.00 7 5.90% 7 9.20% 0 0.00%


Php 5,001.00 - Php
10,000.00 2 1.70% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%
Above Php 10,000.00 0 0.00% 1 1.30% 0 0.00%
General Conclusion
Generally, the is an increase in the number of respondents who use online shopping as
preferred mode during the pandemic. In terms of online shopping frequency of food and
grocery categories a general decrease of online purchasing activity can be observed during
COVID-19. Also, the majority of respondents are shopping online for household items and
frequency is higher before the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. Consumption for the
entertainment category observably increased in general. This category covers the purchases for
entertainment at home, books, magazines, newspapers, consumer electronics, and fitness and
wellness items. Majority of the respondents do not shop for the item during and before COVID-
19 pandemic. During COVID-19 pandemic the number of commonly used applications
increased from 14 to 17 applications. Shoppe is still the topmost utilized application followed
by Lazada, Food Panda, Shein and Zalora.
Most probable reasons for those respondents who stop or reduced their shopping during
the pandemic are: financial issue, focusing on basic necessities, unsatisfaction in online
shopping, use locally available items, combined and extended purchasing by group or among
other family members, in isolation with provision from government, etc.
Recommendations for Future Researches
1. Some consumers might still be adjusting their consumption habits amid the pandemic.
Hence, full impact of COVID-19 may not be captured yet. A full-blown impact
assessment could be conducted when the pandemic is over.
2. Increasing sample size is recommended by covering more respondents for each

province in Eastern Visayas considering sufficient time and resources. This will allow
more variation and enrichment of the data.
3. To determine the factors that affect the spending behavior of consumers, a regression
analysis could be conducted. This will allow the researchers to input in the model the
socio-demographic characteristics and other determinants of consumer behavior.
4. Future research could also be more specific in terms of goods and services being
studied. Instead of focusing on broad categories such as food and grocery, household,
apparel, and entertainment categories, researchers could focus more specifically into
groceries, snacks, and tobacco among others that are under the studied categories.


5. Goods and services could also be categorized into needs and wants. Exploring this
segmentation of goods and services could help in determining how consumers behave
in terms of their needs and wants and which categories are highly spent upon.
6. In terms of spending, future researchers could also use specific or actual expenses
instead of expenditure brackets. This will allow the application of a parametric
approach and determine the consistency of the current result.
7. Future researchers could also explore the determinants in choosing modes of shopping;
either online or offline. In the model, pandemic could be added as one of the
hypothesized determinants.


Bibliography
A. Ansari et. al. (2008). Customer Channel Migration. Journal of Marketing Research
Abou Je et. al. 2021). The Impact of Covid-19 on the Change of Customer Buying Behavior.
Jonkoping University. Jonkoping International Business School
Adolfo Di Crosta et. al. (2021). Psychological Factors and Consumer Behavior During the
COVID-19 pandemic
Allan Durndell et.al. (1995), “Gender and computing: persisting differences”, Educational
Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 219-27.
Alena Butu et. al. (2020). The Impact of COVID-19 Crisis upon the Consumer Buying
Behavior of Fresh Vegetables Directly from Local Producers. Case Study: The
Quarantined Area of Suceava County, Romania
Angeline Close Scheinbaum and Monika Kukar-Kinney (2009). Beyond Buying: Motivation
Behind Consumers’ Online Shopping Cart Use. Journal of Business Research (2009),
63 (10)
Angelo J. Legaspi et. al., 2018. Consumers Buying Behavior on Online Shopping an UTAUT
and LUM Model Approach. Polytechnic University of the Philippines.
B. Ranjbarian, et,al., (2012). “Factors influencing on customers’ E-satisfaction: A case study
from Iran,” Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, vol. 3, no. 9
Brassington & Pettitt (2013). Essentials of Marketing
C. Liao et.al. (2006). “The roles of habit and website quality in E-commerce,” International
Journal of Information Management, vol. 26.
C.-Y Park et. al. (2019) Global Shortage of Personal Protective Equipment amid COVID-19:
Supply Chains, Bottlenecks, and Policy Implications. ADB Briefs 2019, 108, 1–8.
Cameron Guthrie (2021). Online consumer resilience during a pandemic: An exploratory study
of e-commerce behavior before, during and after a COVID-19 lockdown
Catherine Tymkiw (2022). How shopping habits changed due to COVID-19
Christine Moorman, Erika Matulich (1993). A Model of Consumers' Preventive Health
Behaviors: The Role of Health Motivation and Health Ability
Chun-Chun Lin et.al. (2010). The critical impact of online customer satisfaction.
Chunduri Chaitanya & Dr. Deepak Gupta. Factors Influencing Customer Satisfaction with
Usage of Shopping Apps in India. Amrita School of Business, Coimbatore
Chung‐Hoon Park &Young‐Gul Kim (2003). Identifying key factors affecting consumer
purchase behavior in an online shopping context
D. Lucking-Reiley & D. F. Spulber (2001). Business-to-Business Electronic Commerce.
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
D.J. Kim et.al. (2008). “A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic
commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk and their antecedents,” Decision Support
Systems
Debra Perlman (2021). The Effect of User Interface, User Experience and Design on Mobile
E-commerce Applications in the Fashion Industry
Dr. R. Shanthi & Dr. Desti Kannaiah (2015). Consumers’ Perception on Online Shopping


Edna M. Edrada et.al. (2020). First COVID-19 infections in the Philippines: a Case Report,
Tropical Health and Medicine.
Eduard M. Tauber (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing
Efthymios Constantinides (2004). Influencing the Online Consumer’s Behavior.
Eger Ludvík et. al. (2021). The effect of COVID-19 on Consumer Shopping Behavior:
Generational Cohort Perspective
Eleonora Pantano et.al. (2022) Competing during a pandemic? Retailers’ ups and downs during
the COVID-19 outbreak
F. D Davis (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use, and user acceptance of
information technologies,” MIS quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319-340, 1989
F. Nah and S. Davis (2002). “HCI research issue in E-commerce,” Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, vol. 3, no. 3,
Frances Brassington & Stephen Pettit (2007). The essentials of Marketing, 3rd edition.
Francis Mark A. Quimba and Sylwyn C. Calizo Jr. (2019). Determinants of E-Commerce
Adoption of Philippine Businesses. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
G. Theodoriou (2019). The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Greek Consumer Behavior
towards Food Consumption.
Gelene Peñalosa (2022). Pros and Cons of Online Shopping while in Quarantine
Giti Irantaj & Farid Huseynov (2018). Factors Influencing Customer Satisfaction Level in an
E-commerce Platform: A Case Study Analysis of Digikala in Iran.
Gustavo Müller et. al. (2021). The Role of World Health Organization (WHO) in the CoViD-
19 Pandemic. Leuven Center for Global Governance Studies
H. Wang et.al. (1998). “Consumer privacy concerns about Internet marketing,”
Communications of the ACM, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 63-70, 1998.
Hasin Md. Muhtasim Taqi et. al. (2020). Strategies to Manage the Impacts of the COVID-19
Pandemic in the Supply Chain: Implications for Improving Economic and Social
Sustainability
Helen Onyeaka et.al. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic: A review of the global lockdown and its
far-reaching effects
A. Hausman (2000). A Multi-Method Investigation of Consumer Motivations in Impulse
Buying Behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 403-426.
J. Im et. al. (2021) CEO letters: Hospitality corporate narratives during the COVID-19
pandemic. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102701.
J.P. Morgan (2020). How COVID–19 Has Transformed Consumer Spending Habits
Jaeki Song et.al (2014) Chin Application discoverability and user satisfaction in mobile
application stores: An environmental psychology perspective, Decision Support
Systems 59
Jagdish Sheth (2020). Impact of Covid on consumer behavior Will the old habits return or die.
Journal of Business Research
John A. Howard & Jagdish N. Sheth (1969) A Theory of Buyer Behaviour
Jenny Gove and Iram Mirza (2015). Mobile Principles of Retail Apps and Sites: Designing a
Better Experience for Shoppers. Thinkwithgoogle.
Joint Report (2021). WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part
Joint Statement by (2020) ILO, FAO, IFAD and WHO. Impact of COVID-19 on people's
livelihoods, their health and our food systems.


Jordeene B. Lagare (2021). Covid fuels e-commerce in PH. The Manila Times
Jorge Cruz-Cardenas et.al. (2021). COVID-19, consumer behavior, technology, and society: A
literature review and bibliometric analysis
Josiah Go (2022). Q&A with Nielsen’s Patrick Cua and Kantar’s Gary De Ocampo on
Consumer Behavior Post Pandemic.
Josipa Bjelobrk (2019). The importance of product photography in eCommerce.
Julie Gueho (2016). eCommerce Best Practices: Using Product Images to Influence Shopping
Experience.
Jungmin Yoo and Minjeong Kim (2014). The effect of online product presentation on
consumer response: A mental imagery perspective.
K. Chen and H. Sockel (2003) “Internet Engagement Process,” Journal of Promotion
Management, vol. 9, no. 1-2, pp. 111–123, Oct. 2003.
K. L. Ailawadi, & P. W. Farris, (2017). Managing Multi- and Omni-Channel Distribution:
Metrics and Research Directions. Journal of Retailing
K. Picot-Coupey et al., 2021. Still work and/or fun? Corroboration of the hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value scale.
Kim Edward Santos & Angelo R. Santos (2020). Factors affecting consumer satisfaction to
online shopping.
L. Cao, & L. Li (2015). The Impact of Cross-Channel Integration on Retailers’ Sales Growth.
Journal of Retailing
L. Voinea & F. Alina (2011). Analyzing the main changes in new consumer buying behavior
during economic crisis. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories, 1(1),
14–19.
Leila Haghshenas et. al. (2013). Review Consumer Behavior and Factors Affecting on
Purchasing Decision. Singaporean Journal on Business Economics and Management.
Vol. 1, No. 10
Lelia Voinea, Alina Filip (2011). Analyzing the Main Changes in New Consumer Buying
Behavior during Economic Crisis
M. Loxton et.al. (2019). Consumer behavior during crises: Preliminary research on how
coronavirus has manifested consumer panic buying, herd mentality, changing
discretionary spending and the role of the media in influencing behavior.
M. Solomon et. al. (2012). Consumer Behavior. Pearson Higher Education AU.
Michael R. Solomon (1996). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being
M. Y. Siyal et. al. (2006). Socio-Economic Factors and Their Influence on the Adoption of E-
Commerce by Consumers in Singapore. International Journal of Information
Technology & Decision Making
M.A. Afonasova, et. al. (2019) Digitalization in economy and innovation: The effect on social
´ and economic processes. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 19, 22–32.
Mamta Chaula et. al. (2015). Online Buying Behavior; a Brief Review and Update. AIMA
Journal of Management & Research
McKinsey & Company (2020). A global view of how consumer behavior is changing amid
COVID-19
Mischa Young et. al. (2022). The increase in online shopping during COVID-19: Who is
responsible, will it last, and what does it mean for cities?
Naveen Donthu & Anders Gustafsson (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research


P. Chau et.al. (2000). “Impact of information presentation modes on online shopping: An
empirical evaluation of a broadband interactive shopping service,” Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, vol. 10.
Philip Kotler (2003) Framework for Marketing Management, A, 2nd Edition. Northwestern
University.
R. L. Oliver (1993). Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response.
Journal of Consumer Research
Rama Mohana & Rao Katta (2016). Online Shopping Behavior: A Study of Factors
Influencing Consumer Satisfaction on Online viz-a-viz Conventional Store Shopping
Renz Homer S. Arreola, (2020). The “New Normal” of Increased Online Business
Transactions, and Revisiting Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 55-2013
Rini Handayani & Irma Nilasari (2021). Effect of Online Shopping on Consumptive Behavior
in Pandemic Time Covid-19 (Case Study of Online Shopee's Millennial Generation
Consumers)
Russell J. Zwanka & Cheryl Buff (2020), COVID-19 Generation: A Conceptual Framework of
the Consumer Behavioral Shifts to Be Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic
S. Grabner-Kraeuter (2002). “The role of consumers’ trust in online-shopping,” Journal of
Business Ethics, vol. 39, no. 1/2
S. Katsumata et. al (2022). Changes in the use of mobile devices during the crisis: Immediate
Response to COVID-19 pandemic.
Salma S. Abed (2021). A literature review exploring the role of technology in business survival
during the Covid lockdowns. International Journal of Organizational Analysis (2021)
Samuli Laato et. al. (2020). Unusual purchasing behavior during the early stages of the
COVID-19 pandemic: The stimulus-organism-response approach
Seema Mehta et. al. (2020). The New Consumer Behavior Paradigm amid COVID-19:
Permanent or Transient?
Shengyu Gu et. al. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Online Consumer Purchasing
Behavior. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research
Shigehiro Shinozaki and Lakshman N. Rao (2021). COVID-19 Impact on Micro, Small, and
Medium-sized Enterprises Under the Lockdown: Evidence from a Rapid Survey in the
Philippines.
Sultan Ayoub Meo et. al. (2020). Impact of lockdown on COVID-19 prevalence and mortality
during 2020 pandemic: observational analysis of 27 countries.
Sunyoung Hlee et. al. (2019). The moderating effect of restaurant type on hedonic versus
utilitarian review evaluations. International Journal of Hospitality Management.
Supernova Chakraborty & Vishal Soodan (2019). Examining Utilitarian and Hedonic
Motivations in Online Shopping in India: Moderating Effect of Product Browsing
Behavior. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
Talabis et. al. (2021). Local government responses for COVID-19 management in the
Philippines. BMC Public Health.
Tanvir Abir et. al. (2020). Consumer Buying Behavior towards E-Commerce: A Survey Study
of Consumers at a Selected Online Shopping Site in Dhaka, Bangladesh
Thomas O-Guinn & Ronald J. Faber (1989). Compulsive Buying: A Phenomenological
Exploration. Journal of Consumer Research.
Vázquez-Martínez et. al. (2021) The impact of the COVID crisis on consumer purchasing
motivation and behavior. European Research on Management and Business Economics


Viktória Ali Taha et. al. (2021). The Use of Social Media and Its Impact on Shopping Behavior
of Slovak and Italian Consumers during COVID-19 Pandemic
W.H. DeLone and E.R. McLean (2003) The DeLone and McLean Model of Information
Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems
Xavier Dreze and Fred Zufryden (2004). Measurement of Online Visibility and Its Impact on
Internet Traffic. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18(1):20-37
Yogi Tri Prasetyo et. al. (2020). Determinant Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction among
Filipinos in Lazada Online Shopping during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Structural
Equation Modeling Approach
Yonghui Rao et.al., (2021). Online Consumer Satisfaction During Covid-19: Perspective of a
Developing Country
Z. Chen, (2005) “Web-based shopping: Consumer’s attitudes towards online shopping in New
Zealand,” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research


1. List of Tables
Table 1 Online Spending Categories and Components Page 49

Table 2 Respondent's Socio-Demographic Profile Page 52
Table 3 Socio-economic Standing of Respondents Page 54
Table 4 Vaccination Status according to Gender Page 55
Vaccination Status of the respondents across Provinces in Eastern
Table 5 Page 56
Visayas
Table 6 Vaccination Status according to Socio-economic Standing Page 56
Table 7 Vaccination Status according to Level of Education Page 57
Table 8 Preferred Mode of Shopping Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic Page 58
Online Shopping Frequency for Food and Grocery Shopping Before and
Table 9 Page 58
Online Shopping Frequency for Household Expenses Before and During
Table 10 Page 59
COVID-19 Pandemic
Online Shopping Frequency for Apparel Before and During COVID-19
Table 11 Page 60
Pandemic
Online Shopping Frequency for Entertainment Before and During
Table 12 Page 60
COVID-19 Pandemic
Table 13 Factor in Deciding Shopping Online/Offline Page 61
Table 14 Online Shopping Expenses on Food and Grocery Page 62
Table 15 Online Shopping Expenses on Household Page 62
Table 16 Online Shopping Expenses on Apparel Page 63
Table 17 Online Shopping Expenses on Entertainment Page 64
Table 18 Online Shopping Applications Before COVID-19 Pandemic Page 65
Table 19 Online Shopping Applications During COVID-19 Pandemic Page 65
Table 20 Online Shopping Habits Page 66
Table 21 Shopping Experience during COVID-19 Pandemic Page 68
Table 22 Test Statisticsa Page 69
Table 26 Online Expenditure on Food and Grocery Items between Genders Page 72
Table 27 Online Expenditure on Household Items between Genders Page 73
Table 28 Online Expenditure on Apparel Items between Genders Page 74
Table 29 Online Expenditure on Entertainment Items between Genders Page 75


2. Survey Questionnaire
The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumer Behavior: An Assessment of Consumers'

Online Spending in Eastern Visayas, Philippines
Dear Ma'am/Sir,
I am Crispin E. Calvez, an MBA student from the American International Theism University (AITU).
I would like to invite you to participate in this survey about consumer behavior before and during the
COVID-19 outbreak. Rest assured that your data will solely be used for research purposes and will be
kept with utmost confidentiality in compliance with the Data Privacy Act.
A. Socio-Demographic Profile
1. Name
2. Age
[ ] Male
[ ] Female
3. Gender
[ ] Others, please specify
[ ] Prefers not to say
[ ] Single
[ ] Married
4. Marital Status
[ ] Separated
[ ] Widow/Widower
[ ] Elementary Level
[ ] Elementary Graduate
[ ] High School Level
5. Education [ ] High School Graduate
[ ] College Level
[ ] College Graduate
6. Monthly Income
7. Province
8. Municipality
9. Do you have an existing comorbidity? [ ] Yes
[ ] None
[ ] Unvaccinated
[ ] First dose only
10. Vaccination status [ ] Received second dose
[ ] Received booster shot
[ ] Prefers not to say
B. Online Spending on Selected Goods


11. What is your preferred mode of shopping before the COVID-19 outbreak (Before the March 15,
2020 lockdown)?
[ ] Online
[ ] Offline
[ ] Both
12. What is your preferred mode of shopping during the COVID-19 outbreak (March 15, 2020 -
Present)?
[ ] Online
[ ] Offline
[ ] Both
13. How frequent you shopped online before the COVID-19 outbreak (Before the March 15, 2020
lockdown)?
Categories Total Monthly Expenses
Food and Grocery [ ] Every day
(groceries, snacks, tobacco, food and takeout and [ ] Two/three times a week
delivery, alcohol) [ ] Once a month
[ ] I do not shop online
Household [ ] Every day

(Non-food child products, household supplies, personal- [ ] Two/three times a week
care products, skin care and makeup, furnishing and [ ] Once a month
appliances, over-the-counter medicine, vitamins and [ ] Others, please specify
supplements) [ ] I do not shop online
Apparel [ ] Every day
(footwear, apparel, jewelry and accessories) [ ] Two/three times a week
[ ] Once a month
Entertainment [ ] Every day
(books, magazines, newspapers, consumer electronics, [ ] Two/three times a week
fitness and wellness) [ ] Once a month
14. How frequently you shopped online during the COVID-19 outbreak (March 15, 2020 - present)?
Food and Grocery [ ] Every day
(groceries, snacks, tobacco, food and takeout and [ ] Two/three times a week
delivery, alcohol) [ ] Once a month
Household [ ] Every day

[ ] Two/three times a week


(Non-food child products, household supplies, personal- [ ] Once a month
care products, skin care and makeup, furnishing and [ ] Others, please specify
appliances, over-the-counter medicine, vitamins and [ ] I do not shop online
supplements)
Apparel [ ] Every day
(footwear, apparel, jewelry and accessories) [ ] Two/three times a week
[ ] Once a month
Entertainment [ ] Every day
(books, magazines, newspapers, consumer electronics, [ ] Two/three times a week
fitness and wellness) [ ] Once a month
15. Please indicate your influencing factors when deciding where to buy (online/offline)?
[ ] Time to acquire the product
[ ] Product price
[ ] Trust in seller
[ ] Product quality
[ ] According to needs
[ ] Others, Please specify
16. Kindly indicate your average expenses when shopping online before COVID-19 pandemic
Food and Grocery [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(groceries, snacks, tobacco, food and takeout and [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
delivery, alcohol) [ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
[ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
[ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00
[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
Household [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(Non-food child products, household supplies, personal- [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
care products, skin care and makeup, furnishing and [ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
appliances, over-the-counter medicine, vitamins and [ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
supplements) [ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00
[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
Apparel [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(footwear, apparel, jewelry and accessories) [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
[ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
[ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
[ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00
[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
Entertainment [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(books, magazines, newspapers, consumer electronics, [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
fitness and wellness) [ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
[ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
[ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00


[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
17. Kindly indicate your average expenses when shopping online during COVID-19 pandemic
Food and Grocery [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(groceries, snacks, tobacco, food and takeout and [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
delivery, alcohol) [ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
[ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
[ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00
[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
Household [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(Non-food child products, household supplies, personal- [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
care products, skin care and makeup, furnishing and [ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
appliances, over-the-counter medicine, vitamins and [ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
supplements) [ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00
[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
Apparel [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(footwear, apparel, jewelry and accessories) [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
[ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
[ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
[ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00
[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
Entertainment [ ] Php 1.00 – Php 100.00
(entertainment at home, books, magazines, newspapers, [ ] Php 101.00 – Php 500.00
consumer electronics, fitness and wellness) [ ] Php 501.00 – Php 1,000.00
[ ] Php 1,001.00 – Php 5,000.00
[ ] Php 5,001.00 – Php 10,000.00
[ ] Above Php 10,000.00
18. Kindly indicate the mobile applications for shopping that you use before COVID-19 Pandemic.
Application Usage
1. Shopee [ ] Yes [ ] No
2. Lazada [ ] Yes [ ] No
3. SHEIN [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Alibaba [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Nike [ ] Yes [ ] No
6. Zalora [ ] Yes [ ] No
7. Shop SM [ ] Yes [ ] No
8. UNIQLO [ ] Yes [ ] No
9. Edamama [ ] Yes [ ] No
10. Food Panda [ ] Yes [ ] No
11. Other, please specify
19. Kindly indicate the mobile applications for shopping that you use during COVID-19 Pandemic.


Application Usage
1. Shopee [ ] Yes [ ] No
2. Lazada [ ] Yes [ ] No
3. SHEIN [ ] Yes [ ] No
4. Alibaba [ ] Yes [ ] No
5. Nike [ ] Yes [ ] No
6. Zalora [ ] Yes [ ] No
7. Shop SM [ ] Yes [ ] No
8. UNIQLO [ ] Yes [ ] No
9. Edamama [ ] Yes [ ] No
10. Food Panda [ ] Yes [ ] No
11. Other, please specify
20. Online Shopping Habits: Kindly indicate your level of agreement on the following statements
[ ] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
1. I shop online because it is easier to see
[ ] Neutral
discounts and prices
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
[ ] Disagree
2. I shop online because I have a greater
[ ] Neutral
variety of products
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
[ ] Disagree
3. I shop online because it is a good option to
[ ] Neutral
buy things when time is short
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
4. I shop online because it can save me the [ ] Disagree
effort of buying what I want from offline [ ] Neutral
retail stores [ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
[ ] Disagree
5. I shop online because I can gather more
[ ] Neutral
information
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
[ ] Disagree
6. I shop online because I value the
[ ] Neutral
convenience of 24/7h availability
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
7. I shop online because I can shop in [ ] Disagree
privacy at home [ ] Neutral
[ ] Agree


[ ] Strongly agree
[ ] Disagree
8. I shop online because the quality of
[ ] Neutral
decision-making is improved
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
21. Please indicate to what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement regarding your
shopping experience in the Covid-19 times.
1. I am shopping more often online than [ ] Strongly disagree
before [ ] Disagree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
2. I am concerned about shopping in stores [ ] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
3. I only go to stores to purchase necessary [ ] Strongly disagree
products such as food and beverage [ ] Disagree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
4. I decided to postpone larger expenditures [ ] Strongly disagree
for after the pandemic [ ] Disagree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree
5. I am concerned for my physical health [ ] Strongly disagree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Neutral
[ ] Agree
[ ] Strongly agree


Thesis - Consumer Buying Behavior - Eastern Visayas - 22 June 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis - Consumer Buying Behavior - Eastern Visayas - 22 June 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumer Behavior: An Assessment of

Consumers' Online Spending in Eastern Visayas, Philippines

Supervisor: Dr. Hisham Safwat

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

American International Theism University

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 1

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

Keywords: impact, covid-19, consumer behavior, Eastern Visayas, online shopping.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 2

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

2.2 Consumer purchasing behavior changes amidst COVID-19 pandemic 26

2.3. Shift to digital 32

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 3

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 4

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

1.1 Background – Eastern Visayas

Eastern Visayas, officially designated as Region VIII, is an administrative

Political Map of Eastern Visayas

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 5

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

Its population as determined by the 2020 Census was 4,547,150. This

Name Type Population Annual Area Density

In the Philippines, according to the most recent research done by National

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 6

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

Socio-economic classification of population in the Philippines according to income

Income Classification Monthly Income

Rich At least ₱219,140 and up

1.2 Arrival of COVID-19

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 7

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

1.2.1 Immediate Impact of Covid-19 in the Region

A survey conducted by Shinozaki & Rao (2021) on impact of COVID-19 on

1.2.2 Immediate Responses to the Covid-19

1.2.2.1 Global Cooperation

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 8

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

The global lockdown initiated by various countries of the world starting

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 9

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

However, daily cases of COVID-19 and growth rates showed declining

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 10

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

With financial requirements of $122 million, this is the largest

1.2.2.2 Government Control Measures

The Philippine government responded promptly by imposing several

With the aim of containing the outbreak, authorities implemented health

However, despite the quantity of measures that governments

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 11

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

Unexpected regulations imposing social distancing are further having a

1.2.2.3 Vaccination against COVID-19

The Philippine government has expedited the procurement of vaccines

Table COVID-19 Vaccination Program Prioritization Schedule

Priority Eligible A Priority Eligible B Priority Eligible C

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumers Behavior: Assessment on Consumers’ Online 12

Crispin Calvez/MBA-AITU June 2022

B5. Overseas FIlipino

As of March 2022, the vaccination against the coronavirus disease 2019

1.2.3 Economy in the Region when Dealing with Covid-19 Pandemic