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

net/publication/341609403

The Impact of Online Content and Interactions on Generation Z Consumers

Article · June 2020

CITATIONS READS

3 3,458

3 authors:

Venkateswararao Podile Anusha Kanagala

K L University K L University
203 PUBLICATIONS 901 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 52 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sabbineni Poojitha
K L University
3 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Venkateswararao Podile on 24 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

The Impact of Online Content and Interactions on Generation Z

Consumers

*Dr.K.Anusha , Ms.Sabbineni Poojitha, Dr.Venkateswara Rao.Podile

KL Business School, KLEF, Guntur, A.P
kanagalanusha@gmail.com,sabbinenipoojitha@gmail.com,vraopodile@kluniversity.in

Abstract:

The research paper mainly focus on exploring the online content and online interaction impact on purchase
intention and brand loyalty of generation Z consumers. The main information sources are gathered from buyers,
and their preference towards online shopping are examined. Secondary data regarding generation Z consumers is
gathered and primary data is collected from 1120 participants through a structured questionnaire. The study finds
that generation Z consumers have a strong tendency to shop online. Online advertisements have an impact on
purchase intention and brand loyalty of generation Z consumers.

Keywords: Generation Z consumers, Online purchase behavior, purchase intention and brand loyalty.

INTRODUCTION:

Generation Z are always 24x7 accessing with internet and mobile devices usually on You tube, Wats app,
Facebook, Snap Chat so on any other apps or channels. The characteristics of generation Z are technology
oriented; it is set to as app loving generation born into a digital world having familiarity with usage of internet.
This generation expects more from the brands, demands for interaction across channels at multiple occasions to
meet their needs.

Changing attributes and their impact on marketing has a broad impact across the marketing mix:

Product: The product design has to have with multiple things with one device and the design preferred by this
generation is simple to use and interactive.

Place: Physical environment doesn’t have an impact with purchase since generation Z social circle is not
restricted by geography.

Promotion: Generation Z consumers has greater reliance on digital information sources. They trust social media
and peered group endorsements than traditional endorsements. Marketers are creating campaigns to their
products in new medium like Facebook, Twitter and so on.

Price: Significant percent of generation Z is in developing markets and pricing plays an extremely important role.
This generation is budget friendly.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Hidvegi and Erdos et al., (2016), conducted a study which reveals that generation Z consumers mainly rely on
personal experience and take quality and prices into consideration when buying from online. Priporas et al.,
(2017), concluded that smart technologies have a significant influence on generation Z consumers; they expect
the technology to enable them to make them more informed on shopping decisions. Chaney et al (2017), stated
that generation Z are often described as being very difficult to retain because they need a constant change they
can be interpreted as generation with no homogeneity. Simangunsong (2018), found that generation Z important
for business environment and revealed that the generation had a distinctive behavior when shopping for clothes,
food and beverages. Hossain (2018), indicated goal impediment, privacy concern, ad clutter and negative

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4762

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

experiences are positively related to advertising avoidance online. Purushotham et al concluded that mobile
phones are utilized for purchasing and also they help on increase of market share of product posted
advertisements on internet. Mohammed (2018) stated in his study regarding the influencing factors for purchase
of mobile phone are price, ease of use and usefulness, there is a high impact for payment actions perceived
enjoyment, peer and social influence, design and product brand. Thomas et al (2018), stated that the contents of
the website are the important cues that influence the purchase intention of generation Z.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To understand the categories of purchases that are purchased by generation Z consumers through online.
2. To identify the impact of online content on generation Z consumers purchase decisions and brand
loyalty.

SCOPE OF STUDY:

The results of the study are confined to generation Z consumers residing at Vijayawada district and the results of
the study are not applicable to any other part of the country.

METHODOLOGY:

The research carried out is quantitative research and descriptive in nature. The sampling technique used is simple
random sampling. Data is collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data is collected from
1120 individuals who are the Generation Z consumers. A structured questionnaire is used as a tool for collecting
data from the respondents. Secondary data was collected from magazines, books, journals and website.

The statistical tool used for the study is SPSS. Cronbach’s alpha test is done to test the reliability of the scale
used. Descriptive analysis is also done where the mean and SD analysis is considered. Inferential analysis is also
done where T test is used to test the hypothesis and Regression analysis is carried out to identify the relationship
between the dependent and independent variables.

HYPOTHESIS:

H01: There is no significant difference between male and female with regard to category of generation Z
purchases.

H02: There is no significant difference between male and female with regard to factors of online content.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Reliability Test
Cronbach Alpha:

Table 1: Results of Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test.

Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items

0.775 30

Cronbach Alpha which is developed by Lee Cronbach in the year 1951 is used for measuring the reliability or
internal consistency of the questionnaire.

Descriptive Analysis:

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4763

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

Table 2: Mean and SD of kinds of products that Generation Z consumers buy on online:

S.No Respondents Opinion Mean SD

1 Electronics 3.86 1.183
2 Apparels 3.46 1.072
3 Accessories 3.86 0.919
4 Beauty & Personal care 3.29 1.368
5 Others 3.06 1.303

From the above Table 2, mean analysis it was observed that majority of generation Z consumers buy electronics
(3.86) and accessories (3.86) on online followed by apparels (3.46), beauty and personal care (3.29) and finally
other items (3.06).

From SD analysis it was observed that regarding accessories purchase on online generation Z consumers opinions
are less deviated as the SD value is 0.919. Followed by apparels (1.072) the opinions are less deviated.

Table 3: Mean and SD of opinions of Generation Z consumers regarding electronic word of mouth

S.No Respondents Opinion Mean SD

1 I will go through the online information shared by people 4.02 0.959
before making a purchase.
2 I will seek the advice of people through online. 3.54 1.060
3 I trust other people opinion which was shared on online. 3.15 0.882
4 I like to gather opinions of others through online before I buy 3.62 1.177
a product.
5 Online opinions of others will not trigger me while I am 3.19 1.296
choosing a product.

From the above Table 3, mean analysis regarding opinion on electronic word of mouth it was observed that most
of the generation Z consumers go through online information shared by people before making a purchase (4.02),
followed by gathering opinions of others through online before buying a product (3.62), seeking people advice
through online (3.54), others opinion which was present on online will not trigger them while choosing a product
(3.19) and finally trusting other people opinion which was shared on online (3.15).

Through SD analysis it was observed that the opinions of generation Z consumers are closely related with regard
to the statements trusting other people opinion which was shared online (0.882) and going through the online
information shared by people before making a purchase (0.959).

Table 4: Mean and SD opinions of Generation Z consumers regarding online community interaction

S.No Respondents Opinion Mean SD

1 I will be having discussion with my online community 3.88 1.121
while buying a product.
2 I will have conversation with my online community 3.87 1.083
about buying a product which we see or heard through
advertisement.
3 I will have trust on my online community opinion. 3.94 1.029
4 My online communities ask for my advice regarding the 3.99 .855
product which they buy.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4764

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

From the above Table 4, mean analysis it was observed that generation Z consumers are referred for advice by
their online communities regarding the product which they buy (3.99), followed by having trust on their online
community opinion (3.94), having a discussion with my online community while buying a product (3.88), having
a conversation with their online community about buying a product which they see or heard through
advertisement (3.87).

From the SD analysis it was observed that the opinions of respondents with regard to online communities
approach for their advice regarding the product which they buy (0.855) are less deviated and also with regard to
statement having trust on their online community opinion (1.029) the respondents opinions are less deviated.

Table 5: Mean and SD opinions of Generation Z consumers regarding online advertisements

S.No Respondents Opinion Mean SD

1 I consider online advertisements when I buy products. 3.62 1.139
2 I am not interested to consider online advertisements 3.09 1.232
while buying a product.
3 I purchase a product which was endorsed by celebrity on 3.35 1.142
social media.
4 Online Celebrity endorsements are trustworthy and can 3.18 1.176
be considered while purchasing a product.
5 Online celebrity endorsements will help me to recognize 3.34 .982
the brand.

From the above Table 5, mean analysis it was observed that the respondents consider online advertisements when
they buy products (3.62), followed by purchasing a product which was endorsed by celebrity on social media
(3.35), online celebrity endorsements will help me to recognize the brand (3.34), online celebrity endorsements
are trustworthy and can be considered while purchasing a product (3.18) and finally the respondents are not
interested to consider online advertisements while buying a product (3.09).

From SD analysis it was noticed that for the statements online celebrity endorsements will help consumers to
recognize the brand (0.982) the respondents’ opinions are less deviated. For the statement considering online
advertisements while buying the products the SD value is 1.139, in this case the opinions of respondents are less
deviated.

Table 6: Mean and SD opinions of Generation Z consumers regarding purchase intention

S.No Respondents Opinion Mean SD

1 Affordability. 4.22 .705
2 Quality. 4.47 .661
3 Brand image. 4.15 .785
4 Product features. 4.12 .967
5 Value for money. 4.11 .796
6 Representation of celebrity. 3.15 1.211

From the above Table 6, mean analysis it was noticed from the respondents opinion that the main forces driving
the purchase intention for most of the generation Z consumers are quality (4.47), followed by affordability (4.22),
brand image (4.15), product features (4.12), value for money (4.11) and finally representation of celebrity (3.15).

From SD analysis it was observed that the opinions of respondents regarding quality are less deviated as the SD
value is 0.661. With regard to affordability the opinions of respondents are less deviated as SD value is 0.705.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4765

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

Table 7: Mean and SD opinions of Generation Z consumers regarding brand loyalty

S.No Respondents Opinion Mean SD

1 I will repurchase the brand within similar buying context. 3.89 .933
2 I will repurchase the brand without considering increase of 3.29 1.028
price.
3 I will repurchase the brand even though the distribution 3.34 1.146
decreases.
4 I recommend the brand to others. 4.01 .949

From the above Table 7, mean analysis of brand loyalty it was observed that generation Z consumers recommend
the brand to others which they like (4.01), followed by repurchasing the brand within similar buying context
(3.89), repurchasing the brand even though the distribution decreases (3.34) and finally repurchasing the brand
without considering increase of price (3.29).

From SD analysis it was noticed that the respondents’ opinion regarding the statement repurchasing the brand
within similar buying context is less deviated as SD value for this is 0.933. For the statement regarding
recommending brand to others the SD value is 0.949 which shows that the respondents’ opinion is less deviated.

Inferential analysis:

Table 8: Test results of T test intended to measure the significant difference between male and female with
regard to categories of online purchases of generation Z.

Categories of Gender T value P value

purchases through Male Female
online Mean SD Mean SD
Electronics 4.20 0.893 3.47 1.341 10.883 <0.001**
Apparels 3.42 1.045 3.51 1.101 -1.295 0.060
Accessories 4.00 0.783 3.71 1.031 5.398 <0.001**
Beauty & Personal 2.94 1.451 3.69 1.144 -9.544 <0.001**
Care
Others 3.16 1.310 2.95 1.286 2.803 0.002*
Overall purchase 17.73 3.218 17.32 2.970 2.203 0.025*
through online
1. ** denotes significant at 1% level.
2. * denotes significant at 5% level.

H01: There is no significant difference between male and female with regard to category of generation Z
purchases.

H11: There is a significant difference between male and female with regard to category of generation Z
purchases.

Interpretation:
Double star:

Since p-value is less than 0.01 the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance with regard to
electronics, accessories, and beauty and personal care categories of purchases through online.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4766

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

Hence there is significance difference between male and female with respect to electronics, accessories, and beauty
and personal care categories of purchases through online.

Based on mean score the male are purchasing electronics, accessories purchases than female. Single star:

Since p-value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected at 5% level with regard to

Table 9: Test results of T test intended to measure the significant difference between male and female with regard
to factors of online content.

Factors of Gender
Online Male Female T value P value
Content Mean SD Mean SD
EWOM 3.44 0.638 3.58 0.626 3.857 0.599
OCI 3.94 0.656 3.90 0.864 1.042 <0.001**
OA 3.36 0.720 3.27 0.684 1.978 0.346
Overall 10.73 1.710 10.75 1.807 0.145 0.036*
Online
Content
3. ** denotes significant at 1% level.
4. * denotes significant at 5% level.

H02: There is no significant difference between male and female with regard to factors of online content.

H12: There is a significant difference between male and female with regard to factors of online content.

Interpretation:

Result based on ** star: Since p-value is less than 0.01 the null hypothesis is rejected at 1% level of significance
with regard to online communalities interaction.

Hence there is significance difference between male and female with respect to online communalities interaction.
Based on mean score the male have better opinion than female with respect to online communalities interaction.

Results based on * star: Since p-value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected at 5% level with regard to
overall online content.

Hence there is significant difference between male and female with respect to overall online content.

Based on the mean score the female have better opinion on overall online content than male.

No star: There is no significant difference between male and female with respect to electronic word of mouth and
online advertisements since p>0.05.

Hence null hypothesis is accepted at 5% level with respect to electronic word of mouth and online
advertisements.

REGRESSION:

Multiple Regression of Purchase Intention on EWOM, OCI and OA.

Dependent variable = Purchase Intention (Y)

Independent variable = a) EWOM (X1)
b) OCI (X2)
ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4767
Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

c) OA (X3)
Multiple R value = 0.440
R square value = 0.193 Adjusted R square
value = 0.191 F value = 89.141
P value = <0.001**
Table 10: Variables in multiple regression analysis:
Variables Unstandardized SE of B Standard T value P value
coefficient (B) co-
efficient
(beta)
Constant 3.086 0.077 - 40.081 <0.001**
X1 -0.007 0.027 -0.010 -0.268 0.788
X2 0.006 0.020 0.010 0.304 0.761
X3 0.287 0.023 0.441 12.756 <0.001**
** denotes significant at 1% level.

Multiple R value shows how strong the linear relationship is and through result it was noticed that 0.440 (44.0%)
weak is the linear relationship. This shows that there exists weak relationship between purchase intention,
electronic word of mouth, online communities’ interaction and online advertisements.

R square value indicates the ratio of explained variation to total variation and from the result there is 0.193
(19.3%) of total variation in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable. It means that
there is 19.3% of variation in purchase intention can be explained by the electronic word of mouth, online
communities’ interaction and online advertisements.

Adjusted R square value predicts the reliability of the regression equation and from the results it is shown that
0.191 (19.1%) reliability is present in the regression equation. From this value it is observed that the model is not
doing well in contributing towards purchase intention.

The multiple regression equation is

Y = 3.086 -0.007X1 + 0.006X2 + 0.287X3

Purchase intention = 3.086 – 0.007 x Electronic Word Of Mouth + 0.006 x Online Communities Interaction +
0.287 x Online Advertisements.

The purchase intention(y) intercept b0 is computed as 3.086. This indicates expected purchase intention when
electronic word of mouth (x1), online communities’ interaction (x2) and online advertisements (x3) is equal to
zero; b1 is the slope of purchase intention (y) with independent variable x 1 holding variables x2 and x3 being
constant. That is, b1 is the slope of purchase intention (y) with independent variable electronic word of mouth (x1)
holding online communities interaction (x2) and online advertisements (x3) constant; b1 is computed as -0.007.
The negative sign of the coefficient of b1 indicates an inverse relationship between the dependent variable,
purchase intention (y) and the independent variable EWOM (x1). The positive sign of the coefficient of b2 and b3
indicates a direct relationship between the dependent variable, purchase intention (y) and the independent
variables OCI (x2) and OA (x3).

Multiple Regression of Brand Loyalty on EWOM, OCI and OA.

Dependent variable = Brand Loyalty (Y)

Independent variable = a) EWOM (X1)
b) OCI (X2)

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4768

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

c) OA (X3)
Multiple R value = 0.123
R square value = 0.015 Adjusted R square
value = 0.012 F value = 5.673
P value = 0.001**
Table 11: Variables in multiple regression analysis:
Variables Unstandardized SE of B Standard T value P value
coefficient (B) co-
efficient
(beta)
Constant 3.236 0.129 - 25.177 <0.001**
X1 -0.052 0.045 -0.048 -1.172 0.242
X2 0.054 0.034 0.060 1.618 0.106
X3 0.111 0.038 0.113 2.956 0.003
** denotes significant at 1% level.

Multiple R value shows how strong the linear relationship is and through result it was noticed that 0.123 (12.3%)
weak is the linear relationship. This shows that there exists weak relationship between purchase intention,
electronic word of mouth, online communities’ interaction and online advertisements.

R square value indicates the ratio of explained variation to total variation and from the result there is 0.015
(1.5%) of total variation in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable. It means that
there is 1.5% of variation in purchase intention can be explained by the electronic word of mouth, online
communities’ interaction and online advertisements.

Adjusted R square value predicts the reliability of the regression equation and from the results it is shown that
0.012 (1.2%) reliability is present in the regression equation. From this value it is observed that the model is not
doing well in contributing towards purchase intention.

The multiple regression equation is

Y = 3.236 -0.052X1 + 0.054X2 + 0.111X3

Brand loyalty(y) = 3.236 – 0.052 x Electronic Word Of Mouth + 0.054 x Online Communities Interaction +
0.111 x Online Advertisements.

The brand loyalty (y) intercept b0 is computed as 3.236. This indicates expected purchase intention when
electronic word of mouth (x1), online communities’ interaction (x2) and online advertisements (x3) is equal to
zero; b1 is the slope of purchase intention (y) with independent variable x 1 holding variables x2 and x3 being
constant. That is, b1 is the slope of purchase intention (y) with independent variable electronic word of mouth (x1)
holding online communities interaction (x2) and online advertisements (x3) constant; b1 is computed as -0.052.
The negative sign of the coefficient of b1 indicates an inverse relationship between the dependent variable,
purchase intention (y) and the independent variable EWOM (x1). The positive sign of the coefficient of b2 and b3
indicates a direct relationship between the dependent variable, purchase intention (y) and the independent
variables OCI (x2) and OA (x3).

FINDINGS:

1. From the study it was observed that majority of generation Z consumers purchase electronics and
apparels through online.
2. It was also noticed that most of the generation Z consumers go through the information which is shared

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4769

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC
 International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology
Vol. 29, No. 5, (2020), pp. 4762 - 4770

on online by others and also consider online advertisements which are displayed.
3. Most of them stated that online communities which are present seek their advice before making a
purchase.
4. It was also observed that quality is major driving force which intends them to purchase a product. If
generation Z consumers are loyal towards a particular brand they will refer the brand to others.
5. Through the study it was observed that online advertisements play a key role in generation Z consumers
purchase intention and brand loyalty.

CONCLUSION:

From the study conducted it was concluded that the electronic word mouth and online communities’ interaction
plays a less significant role in purchase intention and brand loyalty of generation Z consumers. Whereas online
advertisements plays a slight positive significant role in purchase intention and brand loyalty of generation Z
consumers. Generation Z consumers go through online information shared by others.

References:

1. Anna Hidvegi & Aniko Kelemen Erdos (2016). Assessing the Online Purchasing Decisions of
Generation Z. Conference proceedings “Symposium for Young Researcher, pp.173-181.
2. Ashraf Bany Mohammed. (2018). Selling Smart phones in Generation Z: Understanding Factors
Influencing the Purchasing Intention of Smart phone. International Journal of Applied Research, 13(6),
pp.3220-3227.
3. Constantinos Vasilios Priporas, Nikolaos Stylos & Anestis K. Fotiadis (2017). Generation Z Consumers
Expectations of Interactions in Smart Retailing: A Future Agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, pp.1-
8.
4. Damien Chaney, Mourad Touzani & Karim Ben Slimane (2017). Marketing to the (new) generations:
Summary and Perspectives. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(3), pp.179- 189.
5. Eliot Simangunsong (2018). Generation Z Buying Behavior in Indonesia: Opportunities for Retail
Buisnesses. MIX: Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, 8(2), pp. 243-253.
6. Madhobi Hossain (2018). Understanding the Attitude of Generation of Generation Z Consumers towards
Advertising Avoidance on the Internet. European Journal of Business and Management, 10(36), pp. 86-
96.
7. Mary Rani Thomas, Kavya, V. & Mary Monica (2018). Online Website Clues Influencing the Purchase
Intention of Generation Z Mediated by Trust. Indian Journal of Commerce & Management Studies, 9(1),
pp. 13-23.
8. Purushotham, B., Chandra Moorthy, R. & Nagesha Rao, N.S. Advertisement through Internet – Effect on
Generation Z to Increase Market Share: An Empirical Research Study. BIMS International Journal of
Social Science Research, pp.14-24.

ISSN: 2005-4238 IJAST 4770

Copyright ⓒ 2020 SERSC

View publication stats