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

net/publication/228708713

Online Grocery Shopping in Australia

Article

CITATIONS READS

3 1,883

1 author:

Sherah Kurnia
University of Melbourne
128 PUBLICATIONS   1,675 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

The effect of Psychological Contracts on Outsourcing Relationships View project

Halal Food Tracking and verification View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sherah Kurnia on 06 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Online Grocery Shopping in Australia
Sherah Kurnia

Department of Information Systems

The University of Melbourne
Email: SherahK@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract
The Internet has been increasingly used to facilitate online business transactions between
business entities and consumers for various products and services. One of the applications
that has received much attention in the last few years is Online Grocery Shopping (OGS).
However, the study of Online Grocery Shopping has been limited in number. To enrich the
existing studies, this paper examines the potential of OGS in Australia through a survey
study. In general, the findings indicate that the conditions of the Australian market support
the use of Online Grocery Shopping in Australia.

Keywords
Survey study, Australian grocery industry, online shopping.

Introduction
The Internet has been increasingly used to facilitate online business transactions, not only
between different business entities, but also between business entities and consumers. One of
the Internet business applications that has received much attention in the last few years is
Online Grocery Shopping (OGS) (Morganosky and Cude 2000). Online Grocery Shopping
refers to the use of retailers’ web sites by consumers to purchase grocery products by simply
clicking the mouse button for the required items. These items will then be delivered to the
consumers (Belsie 1998). OGS has many potential benefits to consumers, particularly in
terms of convenience and time saving. In addition, the retailers will ultimately reap
significant benefits as it will lead to more efficient use of personnel and simplification of
building infrastructure (Kurnia and Johnston 1999; Australia Retailers Association 2000;
Slonae 2000). Therefore, Online Grocery Shopping has been an attractive retail channel in
many regions, notably the United States, Europe and Australia (Schuster and Sporn 1998;
Morgan 2000; Morganosky and Cude 2000).
While there has been an increasing interest among academia and practitioners in assessing
the future of online shopping, the study of Online Grocery Shopping has been very limited in
number (Morganosky and Cude 2000). In Australia, specifically, there has been no academic
study of OGS in the literature since OGS is still relatively new. In response to this situation,
the goal of this paper was to conduct a preliminary assessment of the potential of Online
Grocery Shopping in Australia through a survey study. In particular, this paper explores:
• The Australian grocery consumers’ attitude towards the traditional grocery shopping
• The level and frequency of the Internet access of the Australian grocery consumers
• The online shopping experience of the Australian grocery consumers.
In general, the findings of the study indicate that although Online Grocery Shopping has not
been widely used in Australia, it has many potential benefits to the Australian consumers,
who are increasingly seeking for convenience and time saving in grocery shopping. The high
and frequent Internet access by the grocery consumers will further facilitate the use of OGS
in Australia.
In the next section, a brief literature review of Online Grocery Shopping and some previous
studies are presented. The survey research method employed in this study and the findings of
the study are then discussed. Finally, the implications to theory and practice, the limitation to
this study and some related future research are outlined.

Online Grocery Shopping

As the grocery consumers’ needs are increasing, grocery shopping can be a very tedious and
mundane task. As a result, many consumers are becoming more convenience oriented and
demanding value-added services to save their time (Liebmann 1998). Several other factors
explaining the demand for more convenient ways to buy groceries include greater labour-
force participation by women, a greater number of dual-income and thus higher-income
households, and a greater number of single parent and elderly households with various
resource constraints (Park et al. 1998).
Grocery retailers are able to ‘create value’ along two dimensions of convenience (Kinsey and
Senauer 1996). Firstly, a retailer can improve convenience by enabling consumers to increase
the number of tasks that can be accomplished within a single trip to the retailer. This can be
achieved through expanding product assortments in the store and add a variety of services,
such as cleaning, banking, floral and video rental. On the other hand, convenience can also
be enhanced by reducing the amount of time required to complete the shopping task. Those
retailers who introduce express checkout lanes and offer drive-up service to allow consumers
to pick up their groceries without getting in to the store create value along the second
dimension of convenience (Kinsey and Senauer 1996).
The introduction of Online Grocery Shopping has the potential to reduce the time spent on
the grocery shopping by consumers and, thus, creates value to the second dimension of
convenience (Morganosky and Cude 2000; Slonae 2000). This new retail channel has
become a realistic option for an increasing number of consumers since the number of people
with computer facilities such as personal computers, modems, and subscription to online
services at home or in the workplace is also increasing (Park et al. 1998). Therefore,
originated from the Unites States in the late 1980, Online Grocery Shopping has attracted the
attention of many retailers and grocery consumers in a number of regions (Schuster and
Sporn 1998; Morgan 2000; Morganosky and Cude 2000; Slonae 2000).
There are two different practices of online grocery retailers (Morganosky and Cude 2000).
The first one is called ‘Online Retailers’. These are basically virtual supermarkets since they
only exist online. Typically, they pick and fill consumers’ orders through the use of a
warehouse that stores a variety of products. Products are then delivered to consumers weekly
(Morganosky and Cude 2000, Kirsner, 1999 #564). Some online retailers in the United States
also offer other services such as dry-cleaning and video rentals alongside grocery items. In
addition, others provide consumers with a special unit, containing refrigerated and frozen
sections, which is installed in the consumers’ garage at no extra cost. A flat monthly fee for
the service is charged to each consumer for the service provided, which includes one delivery
per week (Lundegaard 1997; Morganosky and Cude 2000).
The second practice is called ‘Online Grocery Shopping Service’. This service is typically
offered by the existing supermarkets. Consumers’ orders are picked from a local supermarket
and then delivered to the consumers. In some cases, the consumers visit the supermarket to
pick up their orders. The cost of using Online Grocery Shopping Service varies, depending
on the individual retailers and services required. Some retailers offer free delivery for orders
above a certain minimum amount (Morganosky and Cude 2000).
In Australia, two major supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths, have recently offered an
Online Grocery Shopping service to consumers. In addition, a number of online retailers such
as Shop Fast, Groceries 4 U, Aussie Shopper, Kilmartin and MyGrocer, have been
established to serve more specific regions of Australia. Shop Fast, for example, delivers to
Sydney, Central Coast and Wollongong, while Aussie Shopper focuses on Brisbane area and
Kilmartin provides delivery to the metropolitan Melbourne area. Most of these virtual
supermarkets offer competitive prices to a wide range of grocery items and emphasize on the
freshness and quality of their products, as well as the convenience they offer. Furthermore,
some offer incentives such as free delivery or movie tickets to customers with orders over
$100 (Anonymous 2002; Anonymous 2003; Scott 2003). However, none provides extra
services apart from delivering grocery items.

Previous Studies
There are still a very limited number of studies of Online Grocery Shopping at this stage.
Most previous studies were conducted in the United States. The first study was done by Park
et al. (1998), who conducted a focus group interview with the United States consumers who
had some experience in Online Grocery Shopping. They categorized the participants into two
groups: ‘Hi-Tech Baby Boomers’ and ‘Older/Physically Challenged Consumers’. They found
that ‘Hi-Tech Baby Boomers’ performed Online Grocery Shopping for reasons of
convenience or because of the novelty. This group typically ordered items online from home
and experienced a reduction in the ordering time as they ordered online more frequently.
Moreover, they were generally satisfied with delivery and felt that the delivery fee was
justified by the convenience.
On the other hand, the older/physically challenged consumers, who usually had low incomes
and live alone, shopped online because of physical constraints in visiting one of the grocery
stores. Unlike the first group, they did not feel that the convenience they experienced from
the online shopping could justify the high delivery cost. Both groups were concerned with
security issues, the quality of groceries, especially perishables and frozen food that were
selected for them, and mistakes in orders. Furthermore, some respondents reported some
frustrations because of the lack of online nutrient and ingredient information.
In addition, a study by Kutz (1998) identified five major groups of potential online grocery
shoppers based on a survey study that assessed respondents’ attitudes toward time, shopping
and technology. The five major groups included ‘Shopping Avoiders’, ‘Necessity Users’,
‘New Technologists’, ‘Time Starved’, and ‘Responsibles’. ‘Shopping Avoiders’ were people
who disliked grocery shopping and ‘Necessity Users’ were people who had difficulty visiting
a store. ‘New Technologists’ were young people who felt confident and comfortable with
new technologies, while ‘Time Starved’ were people who cared less about price and who
were willing to pay extra to free up their schedules. Lastly, ‘Responsibles’ were those who
had available time and felt self-usefulness in shopping.
Another study of Online Grocery Shopping was conducted by Hiser et al (1999). They
surveyed 390 consumers shopping in four supermarkets in Texas. The research showed that
about 1/3 of the shoppers who lived in the suburban area were familiar with Online Grocery
Shopping, although the service was not available at the time of the survey. The study further
revealed that income, the number of people who live in the household, the presence of
children, and gender were not significant in determining the interest in shopping online.
However, age and education level did influence the use the online service. People over the
age of 50 and those who were less educated were less likely to use the service compared to
people aged 18 to 29 years and those who were highly educated.
Furthermore, Morganosky and Cude (2000) conducted a preliminary assessment of consumer
response to and demand for online food retail channels. For this purpose, they surveyed 243
consumers who purchased groceries from one of the St Louis-based chain stores. The
findings indicated that convenience was the primary reason for grocery shopping online cited
by the majority of the respondents. A group of respondents also indicated that physical
constraints had been their primary reason for shopping online. These physical constraints
included long-term disabilities and short-term difficulties in driving and lifting groceries that
could be due to a surgery or sickness. Another group reported the presence of children as
their main reason to shop online. The study further suggested that better educated and higher
income consumers were more likely to shop online for time saving and convenience aspects.
Other benefits from the online shopping mentioned by the respondents include greater
accuracy, a more peaceful experience, better ability to monitor total spending and better
planning.
A study of Online Grocery Shopping in Europe was conducted by Schuster and Sporn (1998)
from the Department of Management Information Systems of Vienna University. They
analysed the potential of Online Grocery Shopping in the Urban Area of Vienna. An
empirical study was conducted to explore a number of issues, including demographics and
the shopping habits of the interviewees, computer facilities and Internet experience of the
participants, online shopping plans and the market potential. The results of the study showed
that there was a potential market for selling groceries over the Internet in the Vienna urban
area. Ordering groceries over the Internet could become an attractive alternative for people in
Vienna with the improvement and steady diffusion of telecommunication infrastructure,
better computer equipment and Internet access for many households, and cheaper telephone
rates (Schuster and Sporn 1998).
In Australia, no specific study of Online Grocery Shopping was found in the academic
literature. Nonetheless, from an industrial study of the online shopping in general, Morgan
(1998) reported that Australian male grocery buyers were more likely to purchase goods via
the Internet compared to female grocery buyers from July to September 1997. Moreover,
people living in city areas were more likely to purchase products and services online
compared to those in the countryside. The study further indicated that 63% of Australian
grocery buyers aged from 18 to 34 were likely to use online shopping in the future compared
to those aged above 35.

Research Method
To assess the potential of Online Grocery Shopping in Australia, a survey of the Australian
grocery consumers was administered. An online questionnaire was developed to collect the
required data in the most efficient manner possible (Batinic 1997). The questionnaire was
distributed via electronic mail to the potential participants. The convenience sampling
technique, one of the most commonly used techniques of non-probability sampling (Fink
1995), was employed to obtain the potential participants identified from various mailing lists
(Batinic 1997). The unit of analysis was any grocery consumer with or without experience in
Online Grocery Shopping who lived in Australia.
An initial invitation letter describing the project and seeking participation were e-mailed out
to 500 potential participants. 385 potential participants expressed their agreement to
participate in the survey by replying to the invitation e-mail. For each of them, an e-mail
detailing the URL of the questionnaire was then sent out. There were 250 replies received
within two weeks. After sending a follow-up email to those potential participants who had
not replied, additional 83 replies were obtained, which added up to 333 total responses (86%
response rate).
To enhance the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, the questions were asked in the
simplest possible way to avoid various interpretations. In addition, pilot tests were conducted
with 10 grocery consumers in four phases. In the first phase, where four participants were
involved, some unclear definitions and ambiguous questions were discovered. After being
improved, the questionnaire was tested again with three different individuals in the second
phase. Further improvement of the questionnaire was carried out in terms of the format,
layout, and contents. In the third phase, two individuals were involved and the questionnaire
was further enhanced in respect to the flow in answering the questions. Finally, the time
required to complete the questionnaire was identified from one participant in the last phase.
The participant did not encounter any problem in answering the questionnaire. All the
questions in the questionnaire were closed-ended questions. For the purpose of this study, the
frequency of responses and the means of the responses were used in data analysis.

Survey Findings and Discussions

Demographics information
Distributed Returned
State Frequency % Frequency %
VIC 343 89.1 309 92.8
NSW 16 4.2 9 2.7
QLD 15 3.9 9 2.7
ACT 4 1.0 2 0.6
TAS 4 1.0 2 0.6
WA 2 0.5 1 0.3
NT 1 0.3 1 0.3
Total 385 100.0 333 100.0
Table 1. Survey Distribution and Responses by State

Table 1 illustrates the locations of the survey distribution, the number of questionnaires sent
to the participants and the responses obtained from each State in Australia. The vast majority
of the survey respondents (92.8%) were from Victoria. There were 2.7% responses from New
South Wales and 2.7% from Queensland. A very small number of the participants were from
other States.
 Demographics Information Number %
Age (n=332)*
Under 18 29 8.7
18-25 122 36.7
26-45 129 38.9
46-60 46 13.9
60 above 6 1.8
Gender (n=332)*
Male 168 50.6
Female 164 49.4
Educational Level (n=332)*
High school or less 94 28.3
Diploma 40 12.0
Bachelor 140 42.2
Masters 45 13.5
Doctorate 13 4.0
Income Level (n=314)*
Less than $1,000 41 13.1
$1,000 - $9,999 50 15.9
$10,000 - $19,999 34 10.9
$20,000 - $29,999 31 9.9
$30,000 - $49,999 62 19.7
$50,000 - $ 69,999 45 14.3
$70,000 and over 51 16.2
Marital Status (n=328)*
Never married 200 61.0
Married/DeFacto 116 35.4
Divorced/Separated 12 3.6
Spouse Income Level (n=298)*
Not Applicable 194 65.2
Less than $1,000 4 1.3
$1,000 - $9,999 14 4.7
$10,000 - $19,999 11 3.7
$20,000 - $29,999 17 5.7
$30,000 - $49,999 29 9.7
$50,000 - $ 69,999 15 5.0
$70,000 and over 14 4.7
* Missing value exists

Table 2. Demographic Information of the Survey Participants

The demographics information of the participants is depicted in Table 2. Among the 333
respondents, the majority (75.6%) range in age from 18 to 45. In regard to gender, an equal
dominance of male and female participants is observed. Table 2 further shows that the
majority of participants (67.7%) have a Diploma, Bachelor, or Masters degree and 94
participants (28.3%) do not have a tertiary degree. The annual income level of the
participants varied widely from less than $1,000 to $70,000 and over. Nearly one-third of the
participants (29%) earn less than $10,000 per year. In terms of marital status, the majority of
the participants (61%) in the survey cited never married and 116 participants (35.4%) cited
married with spouses whose income varied widely from less than $1,000 to $70,000 and
over.

Grocery Shopping Attitudes

In terms of the grocery shopping attitudes, the shopping frequency and the average amount of
money spent weekly by the survey participants were firstly assessed. For each, the
participants were given a list of options to choose from, as shown in Table 3. The finding
demonstrates that around 50% of the participants purchase groceries once a week or less and
26% purchase twice a week. Interestingly, six respondents indicated that they never purchase
groceries. Only a minor group of respondents (17.5%) purchase their groceries from 3 to 7
times a week. Since the majority of the survey participants purchase groceries infrequently
each week, it is therefore practical and efficient to have home deliveries that are normally
facilitated by OGS. Thus, this indicates the potential of Online Grocery Shopping in
Australia
Number %
Grocery Shopping Frequency (n=326)*
Never 6 1.8
Less than once a month 11 3.4
1-2 times per month 44 13.5
Once a week 122 37.4
Twice a week 86 26.4
3-5 times a week 49 15.0
6-7 times a week 8 2.5
Weekly Grocery Shopping Expenditure (n=317)*
Less than $50 71 22.4
$50 - $100 117 36.9
$101 - $200 95 30.0
More than $200 34 10.7
* Missing value exists
Table 3. Grocery Shopping Frequency and the Average Weekly Expenditure

With the average weekly grocery expenditure, the majority of the respondents (66.9%) spend
from $50 to $200. Seventy-one respondents (22.4%) spend less than $50 per week, and
thirty-four respondents (10.7%) spend more than $200 per week to purchase groceries. Once
again, this finding suggests that Online Grocery Shopping has the potential to flourish in
Australia, since it will be cost effective for Australian retailers to offer low fee or free home
deliveries for big purchases, and this incentive will in turn foster the use of OGS by the
consumers.
The participants were also asked to identify important factors in purchasing groceries in a
store based on a number of options as listed in Table 4. For each factor selected, the
participants were requested to indicate the level of importance based on a seven-point scale:
from most unimportant (1) to most important (7). Table 4 summarises the factors ranked by
the means of the responses, while Table 5 shows the same factors ranked by the frequency of
responses.
Important Factors Mean*
 Convenience 6.87
Customer services 6.30
Comfortable environment 5.86
Quality products 5.84
Variety/range of products 5.76
Competitive prices 5.65
All under one roof 5.50
Products are well displayed 4.91
Scale: 1=Most Unimportant; 2= Quite Unimportant; 3=Slightly Unimportant; 4=Neither Important
nor Unimportant; 5=Slightly Important; 6=Quite Important; 7=Most Important
* Missing value exists
Table 4. Important Factors for Grocery Shopping Ranked by the Means of Responses.

Table 4 depicts that the top three important factors cited by the participants are
‘convenience’, ‘customer services’, and ‘comfortable environment’. These factors can be
well addressed by the use of OGS since it enables consumers to purchase grocery products
conveniently from any location they prefer and allows them to maximise the use of customer
service function through the facilities available on the retailers’ sites (such as using a search
function). Other factors shown in the table that are considered important, can also be
addressed by the use of OGS if it is well implemented. This will require well-trained and
experienced pickers to select good quality products for consumers, efficient operation to be
able to offer competitive prices and a good product assortment strategy to provide a wide
range of products.
In addition, the top three factors shown in Table 5 including ‘all under one roof’,
‘variety/range of products’ and ‘products are well displayed’, can be addressed by the use of
OGS, as described above. Thus the finding indicates that OGS should be able to meet the
needs of most Australian consumers.
Important Factors Number*
All under one roof 329
Variety/range of products 328
Products are well displayed 327
Quality products 323
Competitive prices 323
Convenience 23
Customer services 10
Comfortable environment 7
* Missing value exists
Table 5. Important Factors for Grocery Shopping Ranked by the Number of Responses.

Participants were then asked about the problems of the traditional grocery shopping. A list of
possible problems was provided as shown in Table 6. For each problem, they were requested
to indicate the severity based on a seven-point scale: from most light problem (1) to most
severe problem (7). Table 6 demonstrates the problems cited by the participants ranked by
the means of responses, while Table 7 depicts the same problems ranked by the frequency of
responses.
Severe Problems Mean*
Waiting in queues 5.02
 Slow service 4.79
Prices are too high 4.32
Hard to find things 3.96
Prices are not clearly marked 3.95
Car park is always crowded 3.73
Unfriendly staff 3.61
No one to ask 3.60
Trolleys are too difficult to control 3.59
Impulsive buying 3.42
Empty shelves 3.34
Aisles are too narrow 3.24
Transportation problems 3.17
Boring 3.15
Noise/music 2.71
Hard to take young children shopping 2.66
Scale: 1=Most Light Problem; 2= Quite Light Problem; 3=Slightly Light Problem; 4=Neither
Light nor Severe Problem; 5=Slightly Severe Problem; 6=Quite Severe Problem; 7=Most Severe
Problem
* Missing value exists
Table 6. Problems in Grocery Shopping Ranked by the Means of Responses

Severe Problems Number (n=333)*

Waiting in queues 331
Aisles are too narrow 330
Hard to find things 330
Slow service 330
Trolley too difficult to control 330
Boring 330
Empty shelves 329
Prices not clearly marked 329
Car park is always crowded 328
No one to ask 328
Impulsive buying 327
Noise/music 327
Price too high 327
Transportation problems 327
Unfriendly staff 327
Hard to take young children shopping 319
* Missing value exists
Table 7. Problems in Grocery Shopping Ranked by the Number of Responses

Table 6 indicates that the top three problems faced by the participants are ‘waiting in
queues’, ‘slow service’, and ‘prices are too high’. Similarly, Table 7 shows that the most
frequently cited problems are ‘waiting in queues’, ‘aisles are too narrow’ and ‘hard to find
things’. Thus, this finding further demonstrates the potential of OGS in Australia, since with
OGS, consumers will not encounter these problems. Likewise, other problems shown in both
Tables 6 and 7, such as slow service, problems with trolleys, problems with transportation
and car park, can be eliminated through the use of Online Grocery Shopping. In addition, the
use of OGS may lead to reductions in operating costs of retailers, which may eventually lead
to lower prices for products.

Internet Access
The respondents were asked to provide their Internet access location and frequency. The
respondents were allowed to choose more than one location for their Internet Access based
on a list provided, as shown in Table 8. The finding demonstrates that the majority of the
respondents (78%) have home Internet access. Work place (52%) and school/university
(39.6%) are two other places where most respondents access the Internet. This high level of
the Internet access by the Australian grocery consumers supports the relevance of OGS in
Australia.
Internet Access Number %
Internet Access Location** (n=331)*
Work Place 172 52.0
School/university 131 39.6
Home 258 78.0
Kiosk/Internet Café 23 7.0
Public library 36 10.9
Internet Access Frequency (n=329)*
5-7 times a week 211 64.2
2-4 times a week 79 24.0
Once a week 19 5.8
Once per fortnight 7 2.1
Once per month 5 1.5
Once per 2-3 months 8 2.4
* Missing value exists
** Multiple responses allowed
Table 8. Internet Access Location and Frequency

The frequency of using the Internet was measured based on the following options: 1= 5-7
times a week; 2= 2-4 times a week; 3= once a week; 4= once per fortnight; 5= once per
month; 6=once per 2-3 months. The result demonstrates that the majority of the respondents
(64.2%) access the Internet 5-7 times a week and 88.2% of the respondents access the
Internet 2-7 times a week. As in Vienna (Schuster and Sporn 1998), this high level of the
Internet access frequency indicates the potential of OGS in Australia.

Online Shopping Experience

Participants were asked whether they were experienced in online shopping or not. The result
of the analysis demonstrates that almost half of the respondents have some experience in
online shopping, as shown in Table 9. Those participants with experience in online shopping
were then requested to specify products and services they purchased over the Internet. They
were allowed to choose multiple responses based on the options listed in Table 9. Travel
tickets and paying bills were the major products and services purchased by participants over
the Internet. Other minor products and services purchased by the respondents included books,
CD/Music, computer software/hardware, shares/stocks, theatre/entertainment tickets, and
magazine subscriptions. Only 28 respondents out of 155 (18%) were experienced in online
grocery shopping. This indicates that Online Grocery Shopping has not been widely used in
Australia.
Online Shopping Number %
Online Shopping Experience (n=329)*
Yes 155 47
No 174 53
Product & Service Purchased Via the Internet** (n=155)
Books 55 35
CDs/Music 41 26
Computer Software/ Hardware 43 28
Food/Groceries 28 18
Shares/Stocks 35 23
Toys 16 10
Travel tickets 69 45
Hotel Reservation 30 19
Household goods/Furniture 10 6
Theatre/Entertainment Tickets 34 22
Clothes 19 12
Flowers 26 17
Pay Bills 67 43
Magazines/Subscription 31 20
Beer/Wine/Other Liquor 12 8
Sporting Gear 7 5
Internet Banking 15 10
Reasons to Use Online Shopping** (n=155)*
Convenient 119 77
Home Delivered 38 25
Quick/Time saving 86 55
Cheaper 56 36
More Varieties 15 10
Able to purchase products not available 59 38
locally
* Missing value exists
** Multiple responses allowed
Table 9. Online Shopping Experience, Products and Services Purchased and Reasons

Experienced participants were also asked to choose the reasons for purchasing products and
services over the Internet. The most frequently cited reason is convenience (77%), followed
by quick/time saving (55%). This finding may foster the use of Online Grocery shopping in
Australia, since convenience and time savings have become important factors for grocery
shopping for most Australian grocery consumers, as indicated in the previous findings. The
convenience and time savings offered by the use of Online Grocery Shopping in Australia
may eventually justify the extra costs associated with home deliveries, as experienced by
some US-based grocery consumers (Park et al. 1998, Kutz 1998, Morganosky and Cude
2000).
Conclusions
This study has provided a preliminary assessment of the potential of Online Grocery
Shopping in Australia. As indicated in the findings, this grocery retail format appears to be
relevant in the Australian market, since the attitude of the survey respondents in terms of
grocery shopping frequency and weekly expenditure supports the use of Online Grocery
Shopping. In addition, the results of the survey analysis show that the majority of the
respondents emphasise the importance of convenience in grocery shopping, which can be
obtained through Online Grocery Shopping. Likewise, a number of severe problems in
grocery shopping cited by the survey respondents, including waiting in queues and slow
service, imply that the consumers are demanding a way that enables them to save their time
in grocery shopping. These problems and other problems addressed by the participants (see
Tables 6 and 7) can be eliminated through the effective use of OGS.
The high levels of the Internet access and the frequency of using the Internet by the
Australian grocery consumers, indicated by the survey results, provide a further support for
the relevance of Online Grocery Shopping in Australia. Finally, although the majority of the
survey respondents have not shopped online for grocery items, many have experienced
benefits of online shopping for other products and services, particularly in terms of
convenience and time saving. Their positive experience in online shopping may foster the use
of Online Grocery Shopping.
Because of the uniqueness of the Australian market structure, in which the consumers are
fewer in number and dispersed over a wide geographical area than in the US and Europe, this
study will enrich the existing literature on Online Grocery Shopping, which is still dominated
by the US based study. In practice, the findings of this study can be used by the Australian
retailers and other retailers in general to devise Online Grocery Shopping facilities that meet
the expectations of the grocery consumers.
One of the limitations of this study is that since the survey respondents were dominated by
the Victorian respondents, the results of this study could be biased towards the Victorian
grocery consumers. However, it is expected that Victorian grocery consumers would not
behave very differently from those of other States of Australia. Thus, this should not by any
means invalidate the generalisability of the findings. Another limitation is concerned with the
representativeness of the sample because of the sampling technique used and therefore it may
affect the generalisability of the findings. Nonetheless, it is expected that the survey
participants are typical Australian grocery consumers and, hence, this study should provide
some insight into the relevance of Online Grocery Shopping in Australia.
To enrich the findings of this study, further research could be performed on the same survey
data to assess the difference in the responses by the consumers with different genders, age
ranges, levels of income and education. Another study could be carried to investigate how
various conditions such as consumers’ proximity to shops, weather and choices of
transportation affect the use of Online Grocery Shopping. Finally, further study could also be
carried out by surveying the online customers of the Australian online retailers or
supermarkets to explore their positive and negative experience in grocery shopping online.
Such a study could be used to identify success factors for the use of Online Grocery
Shopping in Australia.
 Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jenny Chen for administering the online survey.

References
Anonymous (2002). Aussie Shopper, http://www.aussieshopper.com.au, last accessed:
February 2003.
Anonymous (2003). Shopfast, http://www.shopfast.com.au, last accessed: February 2003.
Australia Retailers Association (2000). The Way We Shop 2000 - Grocery Shopping in
Australia, AC Nielsen.
Batinic, B (1997). How to Make an Internet Based Survey?,
http://194.77.76.10/index.htm/teste/how_to.htm. 2001, last accessed: June 2001.
Belsie, L (1998). A Mouse in the Bakery Aisle? The Christian Science Monitor,
http://www.csmonitor.com. 2001, last accessed: April 2001.
Fink, A (1995). The Survey Handbook, Sage Publication, Inc.
Hiser, J, Nayga R M, Capps, O. Jr. (1999). “An Exploratory Analysis of Familiarity and
Willingness to Use Online Food Shopping Services in a Local Area of Texas.” Journal
of Food Distribution Research vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 78-90.
Kinsey, J and Senauer B (1996). “Consumer Trends and Changing Food Retailing Formats.”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 1187-91.
Kurnia, S and Johnston, R B (1999). The Mutuality of ECR Benefits, Costs and Risks in
Supply Chain Reform. The third Collaborative Electronic Commerce Technology and
Research, Wellington, New Zealand (CD ROM).
Kutz, K (1998). Online Grocery Shopping on Track for Rapid Growth, Andersen Consulting
News Release (online). http://www.shoplink.com., last accessed March 2001.
Liebmann, W (1998). The Consumer Paradox. WSL Strategic Retail. New York, NY.
Lundegaard, K M (1997). “New Owner to Streamline Shopping Alternatives.” Washington
Business Journal, http://cgi.amcity/com/washington, last accessed March 2001.
Morgan, R (2000). On-line Shopping Small But Growing.
http://www.roymorgan.com.au/pressreleases/19981/onlineshop.htm., last accessed May
2001.
Morganosky, M and Cude, B (2000). “Consumer Response to Online Grocery Shopping.”
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, vol. 28, no.1, pp 17-26.
Park, K, D Perosio, et al. (1998). What's in Store for Home Shopping. Ithaca, New York,
Cornell University Food Industry Management Program.
Schuster, A and Sporn B (1998). “Potential for Online Grocery Shopping in the Urban Area
of Vienna.” Journal of Electronic Market, vol. 8, no. 2.
Scott, K (2003). Grocery Shopping Over the Internet.
http://www.abn.org.au/newsletters/groceryshopping.html., last accessed February 2003.
Slonae, K (2000). The Online Shopping Revolution,
http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/stories/454.asp., last accessed May 2001.

View publication stats