Have an omnichannel seamless interaction experience! Dimensions and effect on consumer satisfaction

1 “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Marketing Management on 21st Aug 2020, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1801798.” Have an Omnichannel Seamless Interaction Experience! Dimensions and Effect on Consumer Satisfaction. Paula Rodríguez-Torricoa*, Lauren Trabold Apadulab, Sonia San Martín Gutiérreza and Rebeca San José Cabezudoc aUniversidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain; bManhattan College, New York, USA; cUniversidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain *Corresponding autor: Paula Rodríguez-Torrico, Universidad de Burgos, C/Parralillos, s/n, 09005, Burgos, Spain, [email protected], +34 947 258 973. The challenge for omnichannel retailers is to offer a seamless experience across all touchpoints. However, there is a lack of research that provides theoretical and empirical evidence about how firms can create such experiences. The aim of the current research is to analyze: (1) the concept of omnichannel seamless interaction experience (OSIE) and (2) its effect on customer satisfaction with the interaction. Based on a systematic literature review and running a content analysis, consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization across channels were identified as OSIE dimensions. In two studies and using two methods, a survey and a controlled experiment, these OSIE dimensions and downstream effects were tested. The findings confirm the multidimensionality of OSIE –composed of consistency, synchronization, and freedom in channel selection– and its positive effect on customer satisfaction with the interaction. Keywords: Omnichannel; Seamless; Interaction; Experience; Satisfaction; Consumer Summary Statement of Contribution: This research is the first to conceptually propose and empirically test the dimensions of the omnichannel seamless interaction experience (OSIE) put forth in the literature: consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization. Further, this research confirms the effect of 2 the OSIE on customer satisfaction with the interaction. We build upon research on omnichannel retail management and incrementally extend the literature by synthesizing and empirically testing the propositions put forth thus far. Introduction The retailing industry has experienced a substantial change as a result of the evolution of technology over the last three decades. With the introduction of new retail channels, such as online and mobile, consumer behavior has evolved dramatically to incorporate the use of several channels throughout the decision-making process. Consumers interact with companies across multiple retail channels and are seeking seamlessness as they move between touchpoints (Lazaris, Vrechopoulos, Doukidis, & Fraidaki, 2015). This new omnichannel behavior has been recognized by both academics and practitioners as a central issue in retail strategy (Ewerhard, Sisovsky, & Johansson, 2019). Specifically, omnichannel research has emphasized the importance of seamlessness across channels to facilitate more positive consumer-brand interaction experiences (Picot-Coupey, Huré, & Piveteau, 2016; Verhoef, Kannan, & Inman, 2015). However, despite acknowledgement of its importance, research has not yet delved into how retailers can create a seamless interaction experience, either theoretically or empirically. The seamlessness of the customer experience, such that they can interact with the brand by navigating between channels with continuity and ease, is key in omnichannel management. Though “seamless” interaction has been defined as when “the distinctions between physical and online will vanish, turning the world into a showroom without walls” (Brynjolfsson, Hu, & Rahman, 2013, p. 23), there is uncertainty as to how it can be implemented by firms. However, it has only been superficially described in the literature and many retailers are still struggling to deliver such an experience (Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2014). 3 As a result, there are still many unanswered questions regarding how firms can create a seamless interaction experience (Mosquera, Pascual, & Juaneda Ayensa, 2017; Verhoef, et al., 2015). The conceptualization of the omnichannel seamless interaction experience (OSIE) and the dimensions that are part of this construct need to be identified. Drawing from insights in the literature (Barwitz and Maas, 2018; Haider, Zhuang, Hashmi, & Ali, 2020; Shen, Li, Sun, & Wang, 2018), this paper refers to the OSIE as the overall result of consumers’ accumulated interactions, in which they had the opportunity to freely and effortlessly switch between channels and touchpoints during the different phases of the customer journey, without any information loss or reiteration. Additionally, the downstream effects, such as the impact of the OSIE on customer satisfaction, can be explored further (Ewerhard, et al., 2019; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). Literature has emphasized its critical role in satisfying customers’ needs in the omnichannel environment (Picot-Coupey, et al., 2016; Rigby, 2011; Saghiri, Wilding, Mena, & Bourlakis, 2017; Verhoef, et al., 2015). Therefore, the present study fills this gap in omnichannel literature by (1) proposing and empirically testing the dimensions of the OSIE construct that have been conjectured in the literature and (2) analyzing its effect on customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction. More specifically, two research questions are examined: RQ1. What are the dimensions of the omnichannel seamless interaction experience and how do they differ in importance? RQ2. How does the omnichannel seamless interaction experience influence customer satisfaction with the interaction? These research questions are addressed in two studies. See Figure 1 for an overview of the research process. Extant literature in the omnichannel domain was thoroughly examined to identify overarching themes regarding the importance of seamlessness. The present research uses guidance from the literature to outline a clear, multidimensional construct that 4 defines the distinct dimensions that contribute to the seamlessness of the OSIE. Through a systematic review of the literature, three important dimensions of the OSIE construct were identified: consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization across channels. In study 1, these dimensions were examined using a survey that measured customer perceptions of their real prior omnichannel shopping episodes and tested the effect of the three OSIE dimensions on customer satisfaction. In study 2, the dimensions of the OSIE were manipulated in a controlled experiment to confirm the dimensionality of the OSIE construct and its influence on customer satisfaction. The results are replicated across two studies using two distinct methods to offer stronger support for the proposed multidimensional construct and its resultant impact on customer satisfaction. Figure 1. Research process overview. This paper contributes to omnichannel literature twofold. First, this research identifies and empirically measures three distinct dimensions of the OSIE. Second, this research provides an incremental theoretical contribution by testing the importance of the OSIE on customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction. Prior literature has explored various aspects of consumer behavior in the omnichannel context, such as channel choice, shopping value, omnichannel services usage, or consumer personality (Huré, Picot-Coupey, & Ackermann, 2017; Park and Lee, 2017; Rodríguez-Torrico, San-Jose Cabezudo, & SanMartín, 2017; Shen, et al., 2018), all of which highlight the importance of providing RQ1 The omnichannel seamless interaction experience: Dimensions and relative importance RQ2 Effects of the omnichannel seamless interaction experience on customer satisfaction Study 1 Survey, N = 170 real omnichannel consumers. Study 2 Experiment, N = 220 consumers. 5 seamlessness during omnichannel interactions (e.g. Ieva and Ziliani, 2018; Verhoef, et al., 2015). However, the present research is the first to examine the proposed theoretical dimensions of OSIE through both survey and experimental data. This paper lays a foundation on which future omnichannel research can build, by offering a complete and original framework for the OSIE. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, the literature review is presented and the aims of this paper are captured in two research questions. Both the OSIE construct and its effect on customer satisfaction are explained and a multidimensional framework is laid out. Next, the methodology and analysis of study 1 and study 2 are described. Finally, the results are described and the theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are discussed. Omnichannel behavior: The new customer experience As the importance of omnichannel management has grown, it has been examined by an increasing number of researchers. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify the ways in which omnichannel construct has been conceptualized. Table 1 illustrates the various ways in which omnichannel retailing has been defined in the literature. Table 1. The omnichannel conceptualization. Author/s Definitions of omnichannel concept Rigby (2011, p. 4) Omnichannel retailing: “an integrated sales experience that melds the advantages of physical stores with the information-rich experience of online shopping.” Levy, Weitz, & Grewal (2013, p. 67) Omnichannel retailing: “a coordinated multichannel offering that provides a seamless experience when using all of the retailer´s shopping channels.” Lazaris and Vrechopoulos (2014, p. 2) Omnichannel retailing: “the use of both physical and online channels combined with the delivery of seamless shopping experiences.” Verhoef, et al. (2015, p. 176) Omnichannel management: “the synergetic management of the numerous available channels and customers touchpoints, in such a way that the customer experience across channels and the performance over channels is optimized.” 6 Cummins, Peltier, & Dixon (2016, p. 5) Omnichannel marketing (in a sales context): “the synergetic integration of customer touchpoints and communication opportunities for the purpose of creating a unified brand experience regardless of channel, platform or stage in the selling process.” Blom, Lange, & Hess Jr (2017, p. 287). Omnichannel management: “is the way to create an overall retailing experience that is the same across channels and touchpoints.” Huré, et al. (2017, p. 315) Omnichannel shopping: “the complete alignment of the different channels and touchpoints, resulting in an optimal-brand customer experience.” Shen, et al. (2018, pp. 62, 63) Omnichannel service: “a kind of service that allows customers freely choose among all parallel channels, and seamlessly switch among the different channels, without any information loss or reiteration.” “The concept of “omnichannel” evolved from multichannel, with a specific focus on the integration and coordination of detached channels to meet consumers' needs for seamless channel transitions.” Despite the variety in these conceptualizations, a prevalent aspect of omnichannel retailing emerges; it provides an improved consumer experience by integrating all retail channels (Barwitz and Maas, 2018; Lazaris and Vrechopoulos, 2014). In line with these definitions, prior research has confirmed that omnichannel retailing is characterized by offering a seamless interaction across channels without interruptions (Huré, et al., 2017; Saghiri, et al., 2017; Shen, et al., 2018; Verhoef, et al., 2015). The seamlessness of the transition between retail channels is the key differentiating element in omnichannel retailing. A multichannel strategy in which channels are managed separately is believed to be obsolete and should be replaced with channel management that fully integrates all touchpoints so that consumers can interact with the brand using interchangeable channels (Beck and Rygl, 2015; Cao and Li, 2018; Verhoef, et al., 2015). The dimensions of the omnichannel seamless interaction experience In omnichannel retailing, seamlessness means eliminating the distinctions between all of the different available channels, effectively turning the world into a “showroom without walls” 7 (Brynjolfsson, et al., 2013). This is a challenge for retailers because it requires changes to their existing channel design to ensure that there are no ruptures when navigating from one to another, effectively blurring the barriers between channels (Huré, et al., 2017; Ostrom, Parasuraman, Bowen, Patricio, & Voss, 2015; Verhoef, et al., 2015). Omnichannel literature has clearly theorized the importance of seamlessness, but no research thus far has synthesized what it means to create a seamless interaction experience. As consumers navigate across the growing number of brand touchpoints, including offline brick and mortar stores, online, mobile, and social media (Cao and Li, 2018), the aspects of these channels that make the consumer’s interaction seamless have not yet been defined. The present research takes the first steps toward building a framework of this concept. In multichannel context, Wu and Chang (2016) identified the dimensions of multichannel integration quality based on previous research. They concluded that diversification, consistency, and reciprocity are the three main characteristics of multichannel integration that provide customers an optimal experience across channels. Omnichannel management has evolved from literature on multichannel management and channel integration (Lee and Kim, 2010; Oh and Teo, 2010; Wu and Chang, 2016), so the present research tries to identify how these crucial characteristics are presented in the omnichannel context. To this end, a literature review was carried out. Statements describing what it means to be “seamless” were identified in extant research to analyze the underlying dimensions of the construct. Appendix 1 summarizes the relevant literature and the associated dimension that can be derived from the respective authors’ insights on OSIE. Applying the knowledge of multichannel literature (Lee and Kim, 2010; Oh and Teo, 2010; Wu and Chang, 2016) combined with a thorough literature review of the omnichannel research (Appendix 1), this paper proposes three dimensions of an OSIE: consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization across channels. 8 The first dimension of OSIE that was highlighted across the literature is consistency. Consistency is defined as the consumers’ perceived coherence of retail touchpoints (PicotCoupey, et al., 2016). Retailers must develop consistency across all the touchpoints (Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2014; Saghiri, et al., 2017; Valos, Maplestone, Polonsky, & Ewing, 2017), because ensuring coherence and uniformity across channels is a central part of the omnichannel strategy (Mosquera, et al., 2017; Shen, et al., 2018) and is expected by the majority of consumers (Huré, et al., 2017; Ieva and Ziliani, 2018; Shankar, Inman, Mantrala, Kelley, & Rizley, 2011). Brand image, products, promotions, prices, and available services are five aspects of the retailing mix for which consistency across channels is fundamental (Beck and Rygl, 2015; Cao and Li, 2015; Huré, et al., 2017; Lazaris and Vrechopoulos, 2014; Neslin et al., 2006). Therefore, firms must ensure that all channels present these particular attributes consistently, as this will contribute to the perceived seamlessness of the omnichannel interaction. In addition to consistency, freedom in channel selection was also emphasized in the literature, as shown in Appendix 1. It refers to consumers’ perception about the level of freedom they have to select different channels for various types of interactions with the brand, such as shopping, returning, delivery, and searching for information (Lee and Kim, 2010). A firm needs to consider consumers’ movement across channels throughout the shopping process in order to provide a seamless interaction experience (Huré, et al., 2017; Verhoef, et al., 2015). Specifically, promoting the use of multiple channels is considered an innovative way to provide seamlessness (Shankar, et al., 2011). This involves giving consumers control and allowing them to choose their preferred channel at each step of the purchase process, including information search, purchase, return, delivery, and self-service (Chatterjee, 2010; Ostrom, et al., 2015; Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2014; Shen, et al., 2018). Omni-consumers are characterized by the capability to select to use any of the available channels during any 9 phase of their decision-making process depending on their needs, and when channels are constructed to give consumers this freedom to do so, it enhances the seamlessness of the consumer interaction experience (Peltola, Vainio, & Nieminen, 2015). Channel synchronization is the third and final dimension of the OSIE. It captures the idea that consumers use all touchpoints interchangeably for searching, shopping, ordering, purchasing, pickup, delivery, and returns (Sands, Ferraro, Campbell, & Pallant, 2016) and there is no rupture when moving from one touchpoint to another one (Huré, et al., 2017; Lazaris and Vrechopoulos, 2014). This dimension goes hand-in-hand with freedom in channel selection. Not only is the ability to choose between channels at different points in the decision process important (Chatterjee, 2010; Juaneda-Ayensa, Mosquera, & Sierra Murillo, 2016; Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2014; Saghiri, et al., 2017), but, moreover, synchronization between the channels such that consumers may interchangeably use any channel for any part of the decision process is necessary (Kim, Ahn, & Forney, 2014; Shen, et al., 2018; Verhoef, et al., 2015; J. Zhang et al., 2010). Channels may be connected in a way that consumers can complete their shopping process whenever they want (Huang, Lu, & Ba, 2016; Ieva and Ziliani, 2018). Similarly, Picot-Coupey, et al. (2016) found that in the omnichannel environment, it is challenging for firms to ensure the synchronization across touchpoints, but important to do so in order to provide a better experience. In the present research, these three underlying dimensions are examined, as well as the relative importance of each of the proposed dimensions. Formally, RQ1. What are the dimensions of the omnichannel seamless interaction experience and how do they differ in importance? 16 change in one of the components can cause a change in the construct, which is a key theoretical consideration for assessing the constructs (Coltman, Devinney, Midgley, & Venaik, 2008). For instance, if one of the items or dimensions is removed, the variable that is measured radically changes because the expected seamlessness disappears, and a multior cross-channel experience would be measured, rather than an OSIE. (3) The covariation among the indicators is assessed. In the case of reflective constructs, the indicators must covary with each other. Conversely, the indicators of a formative construct might not necessarily covary. In this case, the indicators and dimensions of OSIE do not present high correlation values, which indicates their formative character (see Appendix 3). (4) Antecedents and consequences of the indicators are examined. Jarvis, et al. (2003) propose to analyze the nomological net of the construct indicators, that is, whether all of the indicators are required to have the same antecedents and consequences or not. In the case of OSIE, this rule allows us to determine that the construct and dimensions are formative because they are not required to have the same antecedents and consequences. Consequently, from the conceptualizations that emerged from the omnichannel literature (Huré, et al., 2017; Lazaris and Vrechopoulos, 2014; Verhoef, et al., 2015) and using the scales previously validated in the literature to measure those dimensions, a scale was constructed to capture three dimensions: consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization. Regarding consistency, the five items developed by Lee and Kim (2010) and Wu and Chang (2016) were adapted to the formative scale. These measures relate to the main aspects 17 of the retailing mix for which perceived consistency is mentioned in the literature and required in omnichannel management (Beck and Rygl, 2015; Cao and Li, 2015; Huré, et al., 2017; Lazaris and Vrechopoulos, 2014; Neslin, et al., 2006): image, product, promotions, price, and services. Similarly, four items adapted from Lee and Kim (2010) were used to measure freedom in channel selection for all the stages of decision-making. To measure channel synchronization, six items were adapted from Oh and Teo (2010) to capture the ability to switch between all channels at the different stages (search for information, purchase, pick up, return, and post-purchase service) (Kim, et al., 2014). Finally, satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction was measured using three items adapted from Walsh, Shiu, & Hassan (2014) (“Overall, I am satisfied with this last interaction with the brand,” “I am pleased with this last interaction with the brand,” and “I am delighted with this last interaction with the brand”). Results of the Measurement Model This research takes the two-stage approach to approximate the second-order construct. In this case, the three dimensions of the OSIE, consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization, have an unequal number of indicators: five, four and six, respectively. Consequently, the two-stage approach solves the problem of unequal number of indicators at the first-order level and it has the advantage of estimating a more parsimonious model on the second-level analysis without needing the first-order constructs (Becker, Klein, & Wetzels, 2012; Hair, et al., 2018; Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub, 2012). Considering that the election of an approach should be based on each research particularities (Becker, et al., 2012), the assessment of this measurement model was undertaken at two levels. First, at the first-order level, the multicollinearity of the dimensions was assessed (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011) (Table 2): variance inflation factor (VIF) values are below 5; and the tolerance values (IT) are above .10, as literature recommends (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & 18 Sarstedt, 2017). In order to analyze construct validity, item weights were examined. As some indicator weights are not significant, loadings significance was observed. Item loadings presented significant values in all the cases, therefore, the indicators in the formative constructs were retained (Hair, et al. (2017). Table 2. First-order measurement model. Variable Formative dimension Items Weights (t-Value) Loadings (t-Value) OSIE Consistency “The brand provided consistent… …store images between the all channels. (VIF=1.225, IT=.811) .396 (2.957) .704 (7.179) …product information between the all channels. (VIF=1.562, IT=.639) .258 (2.124) .741 (9.864) …promotional information between the all channels. (VIF=1.569, IT=.644) .373 (2.899) .787 (10.960) …pricing policy between the all channels. (VIF=1.381, IT=.726) .067 (.690) .554 (6.047) …customer services between the all channels. (VIF=1.458, IT=.678) .288 (2.483) .691 (7.612) Freedom in channel selection “The brand allowed me… …to choose where to shop for merchandise. (VIF=1.198, IT=.835) .586 (5.042) .815 (10.828) …to choose a way of returning the merchandise. (VIF=1.364, IT=.733) .322 (2.433) .704 (7.493) …to arrange delivery options. (VIF=1.432, IT=.698) .262 (1.693) .617 (5.439) …to arrange various service options. (VIF=1.378, IT=.726) .212 (1.445) .634 (6.295) Synchronization “The brand allowed me… …to examine products physically once I find them in another online/mobile channel. (VIF=1.322, IT=.756) .111 (1.025) .451 (4.327) …to search for product information in one channel and then purchase it in another channel. (VIF=1.344, IT=.744) .065 (.539) .469 (4.227) …to pick up products bought in one channel through another channel. (VIF=1.466, IT=.682) .218 (1.264) .540 (5.006) …to return products bought in one channel through another channel. (VIF=1.390, IT=.719) -.016 (.141) .370 (3.490) …to request post-purchase services for any product bought in one channel through another channel. (VIF=1.364, IT=.733) -.035 (.305) .411 (3.732) 19 …to choose the most convenient way of interacting with this vendor (e.g., search, purchase, pick up, return, post-purchase…) through all the channels. (VIF=1.318, IT=.759) .853 (8.953) .964 (22.809) Thus, in order to respond to RQ1, following the literature guidelines (Becker, et al., 2012; Hair, et al., 2018; Ringle, et al., 2012), the previously validated first-order construct can then be incorpos of the second-order measurement model are presented in Table 3. Similarly to the first stage, multicollinearity was ruled out in the second level. As can be seen, VIF values are below 5 and IT values are above .10. In addition, construct validity was assessed. As can be seen, all weight coefficients show significant values at a confidence level of 95% (t > 1.96) except for freedom in channel selection. Although this dimension does not show a confidence level of 95%, the construct validity can be confirmed due to the fact that its loading value is significant, as Hair, et al. (2017) recommend. These findings address RQ1 and illustrate three distinct dimensions of the OSIE construct and their relative importance, as indicated by their weights (Table 3). Table 3. Second-order measurement model. Variable Formative dimension Weights (t-Value) Loadings (t-Value) VIF IT OSIE Consistency .550 (5.069) .873 (18.325) 1.477 .677 Freedom in channel selection .175 (1.361) .754 (10.252) 1.851 .540 Synchronization .457 (4.541) 8.47 (17.027) 1.809 .553 With regards to satisfaction, the reflective latent variable, the reliability and validity of the scale was confirmed. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the three satisfaction measures yielded a Cronbach’s alpha above .7 (α = .821), composite reliability above .6 (CR 20 = .894), and average variance extracted above .5 (AVE = .738), as recommended (Hair, et al., 2017). Linear regression model analysis After validating the measurement model, the proposed RQ2 was tested by estimating a multiple linear regression model. To accomplish this, the latent variables scores obtained from PLS algorithm results were used in SPSS. Gender, age and annual income were included in the model as covariates to control for the demographics. Table 4 shows the model without covariates (Model 1) and with covariates (Model 2). In both cases, the model is significant: Model 1: F(1, 168) = 206.695, p < .001 with a R-squared of .522 and Model 2: F(4, 158) = 52.172, p < .001 with a R-squared of .569. Therefore, the proposed model considering the control of the covariates accounts for 56.9% of variance in our data. As can be observed in Table 4, the results show the significant positive influence of OSIE on satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction, supporting the proposed research question, RQ2. As perceived seamlessness of the interaction experience increased, participants indicated higher levels of satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction. In addition, gender presents a marginal impact (p < .10) on customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction, such that females present higher levels of satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction than males. Table 4. Multiple linear regression analysis results for satisfaction. Model 1 Model 2 β standardized t-Value β standardized t-Value VIF Omnichannel seamless interaction experience .743 14.377*** .731 13.254*** 1.088 Gender - - .098 1.852┼ 1.026 Age - - .062 1.153n.s. 1.044 Income - - -.025 -.463n.s. 1.029 R2 .522 .569 F-statistic 206.695*** 52.172*** ***p <.001; **p < .01; *p < .05; ┼p < .10; n.s., not significant. 21 Discussion Study 1 explores the OSIE dimensionality and its effect on customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction with data based on real omnichannel interaction experiences. Using a sample of consumers with prior omnichannel experience, the three hypothesized dimensions of the construct, as well as customer satisfaction with the interaction, were measured through an online survey. First, in order to address RQ1, the results of this study offer evidence about the multidimensionality of the OSIE construct composed of the three dimensions. Consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization have been found in the literature and confirmed in the content analysis as OSIE dimensions. Specifically, the results of Study 1 further support the multidimensionality and show that consistency is the most important dimension, followed by synchronization, and freedom in channel selection. This result expands the findings of Huré, et al. (2017), who concluded that consistency is a prerequisite of seamlessness, but not enough on it’s own to consider the interaction experience as such. This research goes another step forward by including synchronization and freedom in channel selection as other requisites of an OSIE. Second, the direct positive effect of the OSIE on customer satisfaction with the interaction was confirmed, addressing the proposed second research question. Therefore, as consumers’ perceptions of seamlessness increase, their satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction is significantly increased. In addition, after including the demographics, a marginal effect of gender on customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction was revealed, showing that females have higher levels of satisfaction overall than males with the omnichannel interaction. Limitations There are some aspects of the study that may limit the generalizability of the findings. Participants were asked to recall their most recent purchase in which they interacted with a 22 brand on two or more channels. Although this allows for the measurement of consumer perceptions in real brand interactions, the results of our survey rely on participants’ recall of their behavior during the purchase scenario and the content that was provided by the brand across channels. Additionally, there could be variation in the number of channels that were used between subjects, as well as the purpose for which each channel was used. Thus it is difficult to assess whether this may impact customer perceptions of the dimensions of OSIE or their resultant satisfaction with the interaction. Study 2 In this study, the results of study 1 are replicated using a controlled experimental design (see Appendix 2). The proposed dimensions of OSIE and its influence on customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction is tested using a hypothetical shopping scenario. This study also addresses some of the limitations of study 1. A hypothetical scenario allows for control over both the type and number of channels with which the participant interacts and the brandrelated content that participants will be exposed to during the omnichannel interaction. Additionally, the participants will respond to the survey measures immediately, so the touchpoints will be fresh in their mind. Lastly, this experimental design allows the proposed dimensions of consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization to be manipulated, while holding the rest of the stimuli constant between conditions, to isolate the impact of these specific variables on perceived seamlessness and, subsequently, on satisfaction. Methodology and Procedure A new sample of MTurk workers (N = 220) were recruited to participate in a 2 cell (omnichannel interaction experience: seamless vs. non-seamless) between-subjects experiment. MTurk respondents received $1.25 upon completion of the survey. Participants 23 were 55% male and a mean age of 38.2 years. 94.5% had an annual income below $100.000. To ensure the quality of the respondents, MTurk Master Workers with a past survey approval rating of at least 95% were selected (Sheehan, 2018). The scenarios were pretested (N = 29, Mage = 36.8, 69% male) using the 5-point Likert scales in study 1. The scenarios were perceived to be seamless and non-seamless, respectively. The scenarios measured significantly different across the dimensions of consistency (Mseamless = 4.2, Mnonseamless = 2.3, F(1, 27) = 30.762, p < .001), freedom in channel selection (Mseamless = 4.3, Mnonseamless = 2.6, F(1, 27) = 20.190, p < .001), and synchronization (Mseamless . = 4.2, Mnonseamless = 2.1, F(1, 27) = 50.417, p < .001). As clothing has been one of the industries that has successfully implemented omnichannel management (Gao and Yang, 2016), this product category was selected for use in this study. Participants were shown stimuli depicting consumer touchpoints for a faux fashion brand, XBRAND, including a mock website, social media page, and imagined in-store shopping scenario. Two versions of the shopping scenario and visual stimuli were created to represent a seamless and a non-seamless interaction by varying the consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization between channels. These dimensions were confirmed in study 1 to be components of the OSIE. Participants were randomly assigned to either the seamless or non-seamless condition and presented with a corresponding omnichannel shopping scenario. All participants were asked to imagine that they were shopping for a black t-shirt, because it is a standard, unisex product. They were guided through a hypothetical omnichannel interaction, in which they were to pretend that they were in a store speaking to a sales associate, examining the XBRAND website, and social media page (see Appendix 2) for information about the t-shirt. 24 In the seamless condition, the product information, price, availability, brand logo, and sales promotions for the t-shirt were consistent across channels, as they are the aspects of the retailing mix for which consistency across channels is fundamental (Beck and Rygl, 2015; Cao and Li, 2015; Huré, et al., 2017; Lazaris and Vrechopoulos, 2014; Neslin, et al., 2006). In the non-seamless condition, t-shirt information, price, availability, brand logo, and sales promotions were inconsistent across channels. Moreover, in the seamless condition the participants could freely choose their desired channel to purchase (e.g.“Available in stores and online”). On the contrary, in the non-seamless condition, the election of the channel was restricted (e.g.“Only available on our website”). Finally, synchronization was provided in the seamless condition, where the respondents could see the connections among channels (e.g. a button that offered the option for “in store pickup”). This was not an option in the nonseamless condition. After reading the shopping scenario and viewing the mock website and social media post for XBRAND, participants responded to a series of questions about their perceptions of the brand and interaction experience and, finally, reported their demographics. The same scales as were used in study 1 were included to measure the perceived consistency, freedom in channel selection, synchronization across channels, and satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction. Results Manipulation checks. To ensure that the XBRAND interaction differed in seamlessness between conditions, participants responded to scales assessing each of the three dimensions of an OSIE: consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization. Consistency. The 5-point Likert scale used in study 1 was used to measure consistency. Participants were asked to indicate how consistent XBRAND was in brand image, product, 25 promotions, price, and services between channels on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). For ease of analysis, the measures were averaged into an index (𝝰 = .927). An ANOVA was conducted to examine whether this measure differed significantly between conditions. Results suggest a significant difference in perceived consistency between conditions such that the seamless condition was perceived to be more consistent than the nonseamless condition (Mseamless = 4.24, Mnonseamless = 2.30, F(1, 218) = 217.695, p < .001). Freedom in channel selection. Freedom in channel selection was measured using the four items used in study 1 on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). For ease of analysis the responses were averaged into an index (𝝰 = .916). An ANOVA was conducted and revealed that participants in the seamless condition perceived greater freedom in channel selection than those in the non-seamless condition (Mseamless = 4.38, Mnonseamless = 2.48, F(1, 218) = 205.333, p < .001). Synchronization. Similarly, to measure synchronization across channels, participants responded to six items as in study 1. The questions assessed the ease of navigating between channels to search for information, purchase, pick up, return, and post-purchase on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The measures were averaged to create an index (𝝰 = .955). An ANOVA was performed and suggests that participants in the seamless condition perceived greater synchronization across channels than those in the nonseamless condition (Mseamless = 4.34, Mnonseamless = 1.98, F(1, 218) = 384.338, p < .001). OSIE. The seamless stimuli were perceived to be more consistent across channels, offering greater freedom in channel selection, and providing greater channel synchronization than the non-seamless stimuli. An ANOVA with an index of the three dimensions (𝝰 = .949) was performed and confirms that in the seamless condition the participants perceived greater OSIE than those in the non-seamless condition (Mseamless = 4.31, Mnonseamless = 2.25, F(1, 218) = 320.674, p < .001). A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was run to assess the 32 between male and female satisfaction, such that females reported significantly lower satisfaction than males when a non-seamless, versus seamless, scenario was presented. Therefore, an inconsistent and interrupted omnichannel interaction will more negatively affect women’s satisfaction than men’s. This is consistent with marketing literature that has suggested that females react more strongly than males to some environments with which they are not comfortable (Luo, McGoldrick, Beatty, & Keeling, 2006; San-Martín, López-Catalán, & Ramon-Jeronimo, 2012). Theoretical implications This paper makes three contributions to omnichannel literature. Despite the interest that literature has given to seamlessness (e.g. Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2014; Shen, et al., 2018), the concept, its dimensionality, and its influence on omni-consumer behavior need more attention. There is a lack of extant research that explains the underlying dimensions of the OSIE in a comprehensive way. Thus, the first contribution of this research is to fill this knowledge gap, by proposing that the OSIE is a multidimensional construct. The empirical results of this research indicate the multidimensionality of this construct and confirm that consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization across channels provide the foundation for a seamless interaction experience. As a result, this study offers an original framework for understanding the OSIE, contributing, in this way, to current and future research. The findings of this research provide an instrument that informs scholars and practitioners how to compose a seamless interaction experience, one of the most emphasized variables in the omnichannel context. Moreover, this research can be used as the basis for building further research. The multidimensional OSIE framework confirmed in this paper was tested using brick and mortar stores, online, and mobile channels. However, it also provides insight in terms of managing the ever-changing retail environment through its applicability across all channels. Changes in 33 technology and consumer behavior continuously challenge firms to stay up-to-date. However, the current framework provides insight into omnichannel management by highlighting the importance of consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization across all channels, both existing and new, as they continue to evolve. The current research acknowledges the evolution of channels and is one of the first to explore social media in the omnichannel domain. As research continues to explore new channel innovations, such as the advent of voice technology in the mobile channel (Pagani, Racat, & Hofacker, 2019) or augmented reality in the online channel (Fan, Chai, Deng, & Dong, 2020), the current research provides a theoretical and managerial framework that can be applied to integrate all channels into a seamless experience. As a result, this framework does not limit the seamless interaction experience to the current channels, but it is openly described to be adapted to the evolving context. Acknowledging the fast evolution of this context, the way the dimensions are described enables future research to adapt the scales and scenarios including the new channels and touchpoints appeared. The second contribution of this work is to advance omnichannel research by examining the subsequent impact that perceived seamlessness between touchpoints has on the customerbrand interaction. Specifically, the crucial role of a seamless interaction experience on satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction is empirically tested. Thus, this paper moves this strain of literature forward by confirming that when customers perceive the omnichannel management as seamless, their satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction is enhanced directly and positively. Although it was not proposed, the third contribution of this paper is the identification of differences that exist between men and women’s satisfaction with omnichannel interactions. Specifically, women in this study exhibited significantly lower satisfaction than men when faced with a non-seamless interaction experience. This can orient the research in the 34 omnichannel field to explore additional nuances of the OSIE. Although gender has been studied deeply, research has generally focused on examining its effect in positive situations (e.g. Atulkar and Kesari, 2017). This research shows different gender effects, specifically in interaction experiences that are not seamless, and opens new questions about its role in the omnichannel context. As a result, the importance of focusing not only on the reactions in ideal scenarios, but also in possible uncomfortable or unpleasant scenarios, is evidenced in this paper. This confirms the importance of continuing to study gender differences in consumer behavior, as Atulkar and Kesari (2017) state. Fourth, this study presents robust results that are replicated using two methods, a survey of real omni-consumers and a controlled experiment, which allows for a conservative test of the proposed research questions. In study 1, participants reflected on their own past experiences as omni-consumers and evaluated the seamlessness of their interaction experience. In study 2, a controlled experimental setting was used to create an omnichannel environment that was either seamless or non-seamless. In both studies, results robustly support the proposed dimensions of the OSIE and their relative importance, and the relationship between the OSIE and higher customer satisfaction with their omnichannel interaction. Managerial implications Omnichannel behavior has become a burning topic in marketing today. As a result, academic researchers have emphasized that practitioners need to manage multiple channels in a seamless way. However, a recent report edited by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) shows a surprising reality. 83% of the companies could not make connections across consumer touchpoints, and 80% suffered from inadequate channel coordination (Field, Patel, & Leon, 2019). As guidelines to achieve this crucial aspect of retail strategy have not previously been specified, this research offers several important contributions for practitioners regarding the 35 omnichannel environment. First, the results inform omnichannel managers about how to design channels to offer the fundamental seamless interaction experience to their customers. Concretely, the findings of this research show that consistency is the most important dimension to create an OSIE, followed by synchronization and, finally, freedom in channel selection. Thus, managers may critically analyze their strategy and modify it to present a unified representation of the company across all the channels (e.g. same aesthetics and brand image, same prices and assortment or consistent promotions across the channels). Then, channels should be synchronized and the mentality of “what you start online (offline) has to finish online (offline)” must disappear. Instead, to achieve synchronization across channels, managers should adopt the philosophy that `channels have no barriers´. Firms should integrate the management of channels to offer flexible purchase and return policies that allow consumers to bridge multiple channels in a single purchase. Consequently, firms may allow consumers to proceed in each stage of the decision-making process wherever they want, interchanging and combining all the channels according to their needs without restrictions. Companies will avoid free-riding behavior (Flavián, Gurrea, & Orús, 2019), which is one of the most critical challenges that firms face. Second, the results of this paper confirm the importance of developing an improved strategy for omnichannel management to increase customers’ satisfaction. Firms that utilize multiple retail channels should implement the dimensions of OSIE to create a seamless environment in order to increase customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interactions. To offer a seamless interaction experience and improve satisfaction firms should, for example, allow customers to buy a product online and then pick it up in the store, or provide the same information about products, prices, and sales promotions across all the channels. A uniform representation across channels should make the customer feel like they are interacting with a single unified brand across all touchpoints. 36 The results of this research also present insights for brands that specifically target a female market. It is especially important for such brands to manage omnichannel touchpoints seamlessly, because non-seamless interaction experiences more negatively impact female customers’ satisfaction with their interaction experience, relative to males. Consequently, firms should be particularly conscious of the importance of OSIE and its impact on satisfaction for female consumers. For example, firms that specifically target female consumers might emphasize the seamlessness by including messages that accentuate the consistency, freedom, and synchronization across channels (e.g. “buy the product online and pick it up in the store” or “for assistance you can ask us online or visit our store”). Moreover, firms could use satisfaction surveys to ask customers about their interaction experiences to detect areas of potential improvement. Limitations and further research This study is subject to some limitations that can be addressed in further research. First, only the effect of the OSIE on customer satisfaction is tested. Future research can consider its impact on additional variables, such as brand preference (J. Zhang, et al., 2010), brand love (Palusuk, Koles, & Hasan, 2019) or word-of-mouth behaviors (Manser Payne, Peltier, & Barger, 2017). The impact of seamlessness in the omnichannel interaction experience can also be examined on consumer decision-related variables, for example, choice behavior, decision confidence, or decision comfort. Similarly, further analysis could extend the research by including some moderating and/or mediating effects (Cummins, et al., 2016; Verhoef, et al., 2015). As moderators, the individual differences among consumers, such as omnichannel tendency, channel preference, or channel use can be included. Satisfaction may work as mediator between the perceived OSIE and subsequent consumer behavior. The examination of downstream effects of customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction experience 37 would add a greater understanding of how the seamless transition between channels influences consumer behavior. Second, although study 1 does not focus on one specific sector, study 2 focuses on a single product category. Because of the technical limitations and complexity of an online experiment, a black basic t-shirt was used as a standard product that presents unisex characteristics. To alleviate this limitation, future research should replicate the study in other categories. Future research may also examine the effects of consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization by varying different aspects of these three dimensions than were used in the present study. The experimental stimuli used in study 2 were created by varying elements of the shopping scenario that are assessed in the scales in the literature and used in this paper. Specifically, product availability, price, brand logo, and sales promotions were the elements of the shopping scenario that differed between seamless and non-seamless conditions. Future research may examine each of these variables separately to discern their individual effects on customer satisfaction with the omnichannel interaction. Moreover, future research may manipulate consistency using other aspects of the interaction experience, such as customer service, to examine the effects of on customer satisfaction. Additionally, the present research is one of the first to incorporate social media as an important touchpoint in the omnichannel domain, and future studies may expand on this channel. As consumer behavior has evolved to incorporate social media as a means of interacting with brands, searching for information, and as a platform for both firm and consumer-generated marketing content, it is important for omnichannel research to begin to incorporate this channel (Cummins, et al., 2016; Sands, et al., 2016). Future research is needed to examine the ways in which it can be seamlessly incorporated into firms’ portfolio of consumer touchpoints (e.g. wearables, digital assistants, voice…). 38 Finally, we identify the OSIE constructs from the overarching themes found in the literature. Considering that the retail environment constantly evolves and that satisfaction with the OSIE is based on each consumer’s subjective perception of the seamlessness of their interaction experience, qualitative research may be a fruitful avenue for future work in this domain. References Atulkar, S., & Kesari, B. (2017). Satisfaction, loyalty and repatronage intentions: Role of hedonic shopping values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, pp. 23-34. Barwitz, N., & Maas, P. (2018). Understanding the Omnichannel Customer Journey: Determinants of Interaction Choice. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43, pp. 116-133. Beck, N., & Rygl, D. (2015). Categorization of multiple channel retailing in Multi-, Cross-, and Omni‐Channel Retailing for retailers and retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 27, pp. 170-178. Becker, J.-M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLSSEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(56), pp. 359-394. Blom, A., Lange, F., & Hess Jr, R. L. (2017). Omnichannel-based promotions’ effects on purchase behavior and brand image. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, pp. 286-295. Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2013). Competing in the age of omnichannel retailing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(4), p 23. Cao, L., & Li, L. (2015). The impact of cross-channel integration on retailers’ sales growth. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), pp. 198-216. Cao, L., & Li, L. (2018). Determinants of Retailers' Cross-channel Integration: An Innovation Diffusion Perspective on Omni-channel Retailing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 44, pp. 1-16. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), pp. 1250-1262. 39 Cummins, S., Peltier, J., & Dixon, A. (2016). Omni-channel research framework in the context of personal selling and sales management: A review and research extensions. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(1), pp. 2-16. Chatterjee, P. (2010). Causes and consequences of ‘order online pick up in-store’ shopping behavior. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20(4), pp. 431-448. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307-342). Thousand Oaks, US: Sage. Ewerhard, A.-C., Sisovsky, K., & Johansson, U. (2019). Consumer decision-making of slow moving consumer goods in the age of multi-channels The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 29(1), pp. 1-22. Fan, X., Chai, Z., Deng, N., & Dong, X. (2020). Adoption of augmented reality in online retailing and consumers’ product attitude: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, pp. 1-10. Field, D., Patel, S., & Leon, H. (2019). The dividends of digital marketing maturity. Flavián, C., Gurrea, R., & Orús, C. (2019). Feeling Confident and Smart with Webrooming: Understanding the Consumer's Path to Satisfaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 47, pp. 1-15. Frasquet, M., & Miquel, M.-J. (2017). Do channel integration efforts pay-off in terms of online and offline customer loyalty? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(7/8), pp. 859-873. Gao, R., & Yang, Y.-X. (2016). Consumers’ Decision: Fashion Omni-channel Retailing. Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, 7(2), pp. 325-342. Haider, S. W., Zhuang, G., Hashmi, H. b. A., & Ali, S. (2020). Chronotypes’ TaskTechnology Fit for Search and Purchase in Omnichannel Context. Mobile Information Systems, 14(1), pp. 148-167. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2ª ed.) Los Angeles, US: Sage Publications. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing theory and Practice, 19(2), pp. 139-152. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling Thousand Oaks, US: Sage Publications. 40 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach New York, US: Guilford Press. Huang, L., Lu, X., & Ba, S. (2016). An empirical study of the cross-channel effects between web and mobile shopping channels. Information & Management, 53(2), pp. 265-278. Huré, E., Picot-Coupey, K., & Ackermann, C.-L. (2017). Understanding omni-channel shopping value: A mixed-method study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 39, pp. 314-330. Ieva, M., & Ziliani, C. (2018). Mapping touchpoint exposure in retailing: Implications for developing an omnichannel customer experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(3), pp. 304-322. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 30(2), pp. 199-218. Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A., & Sierra Murillo, Y. (2016). Omnichannel Customer Behavior: Key Drivers of Technology Acceptance and Use and Their Effects on Purchase Intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, pp. 1-11. Kang, J.-Y. M. (2019). What drives omnichannel shopping behaviors? Fashion lifestyle of social-local-mobile consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(2), pp. 224-238. Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of consumer research, 4(1), pp. 8-18. Kim, H., Ahn, S.-K., & Forney, J. A. (2014). Shifting paradigms for fashion: From total to global to smart consumer experience. Fashion and Textiles, 1(1), p 15. Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. (2016). Creating enduring customer value. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), pp. 36-68. Law, K. S., Wong, C.-S., & Mobley, W. M. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of management review, 23(4), pp. 741-755. Lazaris, C., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2014) From Multichannel to "Omnichannel" Retailing: Review of the Literature and Calls for Research. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Marketing Issues,(ICCMI). Lazaris, C., Vrechopoulos, A., Doukidis, G., & Fraidaki, K. (2015) The Interplay of Omniretailing & Store Atmosphere on Consumers’ Purchase Intention towards the Physical Retail Store. Paper presented at the 12th European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS). 41 Lee, H.-H., & Kim, J. (2010). Investigating dimensionality of multichannel retailer's crosschannel integration practices and effectiveness: shopping orientation and loyalty intention. Journal of Marketing Channels, 17(4), pp. 281-312. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), pp. 69-96. Leroi-Werelds, S., Streukens, S., Brady, M. K., & Swinnen, G. (2014). Assessing the value of commonly used methods for measuring customer value: A multi-setting empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(4), pp. 430-451. Levy, M., Weitz, B., & Grewal, D. (2013). Retailing Management (9th Edition ed.) New York, US: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Luo, J., McGoldrick, P., Beatty, S., & Keeling, K. A. (2006). On-screen characters: their design and influence on consumer trust. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(2), pp. 112-124. Manser Payne, E., Peltier, J., & Barger, V. A. (2017). Omni-channel marketing, integrated marketing communications, and consumer engagement: a research agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 11(2), pp. 185-197. Mirsch, T., Lehrer, C., & Jung, R. (2016). Channel integration towards omnichannel management: a literature review. 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Chiayi, Taiwan. Mosquera, A., Olarte-Pascual, C., Juaneda Ayensa, E., & Sierra Murillo, Y. (2018). The role of technology in an omnichannel physical store: Assessing the moderating effect of gender. Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, 22(1), pp. 63-82. Mosquera, A., Pascual, C. O., & Juaneda Ayensa, E. (2017). Understanding the customer experience in the age of omni-channel shopping. Icono14, 15(2), p 5. MSI, M. S. I. (2018). 2018-2020 Research Priorities. Boston, US Neslin, S. A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M. L., Thomas, J. S., & Verhoef, P. C. (2006). Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), pp. 95-112. Neslin, S. A., & Shankar, V. (2009). Key issues in multichannel customer management: current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), pp. 7081. Oh, L.-B., & Teo, H.-H. (2010). Consumer value co-creation in a hybrid commerce servicedelivery system. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(3), pp. 35-62. 48 Appendix 2 Manipulation (2-cell between subjects) “Imagine you are in a store shopping for a black t-shirt (or something that is relatively universal/gender neutral/most people would buy and wear). While you are in the store, you are using your mobile device to look at the brand’s website and social media pages for information. Below is some of the information that you see on their website and social media page” (the following pictures are mockups of what was presented to participants): Figure A.1. Condition 1: seamless Figure A.2. Condition 2: non-seamless Scenarios (seamless condition in bold): You ask the sales associate about the t-shirt and a 20% off sales promotion that is being advertised online. [The associate tells you that they can honor the same sales promotion instore] [The associate tells you that they cannot honor the same sales promotion in-store]. After you’ve found enough information about the t-shirt that you want to purchase on the brand’s online platforms, you ask the sales associate to try on the t-shirt. The associate [tells you that they do carry the t-shirt in the store, but that your size is out of stock] OR [tells you that they don’t carry the t-shirt in the store, because the products are different from the website]. After that you ask the sales associate about the possibility of ordering online to pick up in the store and whether you can exchange or return the t-shirt in the store if you buy it online. [The associate tells you that you can pick up and exchange or return the t-shirt in the store regardless of where you buy it] [The associate tells you that you cannot pick up, or exchange or return the t-shirt in the store, because the sales channels are different]. You buy the t-shirt on their website and [decide to pick up it in the store] [wait for it to be delivered at home]. 49 Appendix 3 Correlation matrix (first-order model) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 F1 F2 F3 F4 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 C1 1.000 C2 .346 1.000 C3 .332 .518 1.000 C4 .323 .316 .412 1.000 C5 .253 .454 .419 .430 1.000 F1 .315 .353 .325 .242 .389 1.000 F2 .131 .273 .304 .199 .399 .331 1.000 F3 .098 .154 .216 .223 .240 .197 .444 1.000 F4 .171 .183 .286 .198 .306 .332 .338 .453 1.000 S1 .149 .236 .241 .096 .314 .206 .344 .214 .314 1.000 S2 .189 .282 .119 .089 .198 .180 .332 .189 .309 .388 1.000 S3 .245 .144 .181 .177 .317 .296 .300 .220 .153 .359 .288 1.000 S4 .214 .116 .103 .156 .144 .158 .400 .311 .130 .279 .269 .476 1.000 S5 .083 .145 .210 .221 .405 .296 .357 .217 .399 .327 .353 .353 .356 1.000 S6 .241 .379 .371 .338 .405 .465 .480 .427 .326 .296 .369 .333 .290 .370 1.000 Note: C: Consistency; F: Freedom in channel selection; S: Synchronization Correlation matrix (second-order model) Consistency Freedom in channel selection Synchronization Consistency 1.000 Freedom in channel selection .554 1.000 Synchronization .455 .671 1.000