How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and experimental customers: Case of e-fashion sector

Castro-Lopez, Adrian; Vázquez Casielles, Rodolfo; Puente, Javier Article How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and experimental customers: Case of efashion sector Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM) Provided in Cooperation with: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH) Suggested Citation: Castro-Lopez, Adrian; Vázquez Casielles, Rodolfo; Puente, Javier (2019) : How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and experimental customers: Case of efashion sector, Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM), ISSN 2029-4433, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Vol. 20, Iss. 3, pp. 595-617, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2019.9860 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317343 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Journal of Business Economics and Management ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433 2019 Volume 20 Issue 3: 595–617 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2019.9860 HOW TO MANAGE THE ONLINE EXPERIENCE CONCERNING TRANSACTIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL CUSTOMERS: CASE OF E-FASHION SECTOR Adrian CASTRO-LOPEZ *, Rodolfo VAZQUEZ-CASIELLES , Javier PUENTE Business department, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain Received 08 June 2018; accepted 08 March 2019 Abstract. The online fashion and textile sector is growing in recent years, becoming one of the online sectors with the highest volume of business. However, the bibliography on e-service quality and its consequences in this sector has been underdeveloped in the last years. This paper presents a model that incorporates the direct and indirect effects of e-service quality (utilitarian and hedonic experience) on satisfaction and loyalty of two segments of customers: transactional and online experimental customers. This research focuses on six online sale platforms, and it has been tested with data on 405 regular customers. The study also develops a model that incorporates the direct and indirect effect of e-service experiences on satisfaction, positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance. The findings indicate that direct and indirect effects of e-service quality on satisfaction and loyalty are different for each segment of customers. While utilitarian quality is more relevant for those customers that only search for information, hedonic quality is especially significant for experiential customers. Keywords: E-fashion commerce, utilitarian quality, hedonic quality, e-service quality, experiences, satisfaction, loyalty. JEL Classification: M160, M310. Introduction The fashion market on the Internet has grown rapidly over the last few years and, increasingly, companies are using this channel as a means for promoting and selling their products on the net (Taylor & Costello, 2017; Torres & Arroyo, 2017). The main classifications of websites in the textile and fashion industries are characterized by the predominance of these basic functions: dissemination of information on the sector (designers, media, products, and marketplace), sales of products, or generation of opinion and consumption. According to their basic function, websites can be classified into (Martinez & Vazquez, 2011): broadcast- 596 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... ing platforms, which offer only a lot of information about the fashion industry; online sale platforms, which advertise products that can also be purchased; or opinion and consumption platforms (blogs), which are websites that include content of interest on the sector whilst they offer personal points of view. This article will focus on the study of online sale platforms. There are five types of online sale platforms (del Olmo, 2010): brand and multibrand shops (e.g. Zara, Adidas, Abercrombie & Fitch, Mango, El Corte Ingles, Louis Vuitton and Desigual); “private sale clubs” (e.g. Vente Privee, Privalia, BuyVip, Showroom Prive, BuyVip); outlets and outfitter (e.g. Asos, Yoox, Urban Outfitters, Zalando, Dress-for-Less, Forever 21, Boohoo, Shopbop, Top Shop, Aliexpress, Kiabi, Sarenza, Revolve, Inviptus); stores which sell through catalogues (e.g. Venca, La Redoute, Spartoo); and online auctions (e.g. eBay, Mercamoda, Segunda Mano, Wallapop). In this study, we will analyze e-service quality in six websites with a high number of followers on social networks in Spain: Zara, Vente Privee, Privalia, BuyVip, Asos, and eBay. A number of studies have investigated dimensions of e-service quality and the development of measurement instruments. Previous research has indicated that e-service quality incorporates exclusively utilitarian quality (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Malhotra, 2005; Vijay, Prashar, & Parsad, 2017). However, other research suggests that it is necessary to identify and analyze both utilitarian and hedonic quality (e.g. Salehi, Salimi, & Haque, 2013; Epuran, I. P. Gardan, D. A. Gardan, & Bumbas, 2015, Xu, Munson, & Zeng, 2017). Therefore, it is open to debate whether we should consider hedonic quality (fun and enjoyment) as a key factor in the purchase of fashion through online platforms. This study pretends to expand knowledge on e-service quality, particularly in relation to online sale platforms. Several studies address the e-service quality in different sectors such banking, tourism, eLearning or health (Borsellino, Zinnanti, Migliore, Di Franco, & Schimmenti, 2018; Martinez-Costa, Pladevall-Viladecans, Mas-Machuca, & Marimon, 2018; Katagal, Mutkekar, & Garag, 2018; V. Agrawal, S. Agarwal, & A. M. Agrawal, 2017) but such kind of analysis is not very common in the area of eFashion sector, despite its influence on annual growth of sales and profit. The objective of the paper is to identify the components of utilitarian and hedonic experience for online sale platforms of the textile and fashion sector, and develop a comprehensive theoretical model that incorporates direct and indirect effects of e-service experience on satisfaction and loyalty (repurchase intention, word of mouth and price tolerance). In addition, the majority of studies on e-service quality only focus on buyers but do not analyze the behavior of customers just seeking for information. It is important to study both types of customers; those who visit the website for the specific purpose of a transaction and the so-called “online experimental customers”, who visit the site to search for information, simulate a shopping experience or just for enjoyment (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016; Homburg, Jozic, & Kuehnl, 2017). Customers can search for information in online sale platforms and then make the purchase in brick-and-mortar stores (Verhoef, Kannan, & Inman, 2015). It is therefore necessary to examine different segments of users in online sale platforms (Cai & Jun, 2003). The purpose of our study is to identify these two segments of customers and analyze the direct and indirect effects of e-service experiences on satisfaction and loyalty in order to analyze the importance of establishing specific online marketing strategies for each customer segment. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 597 The paper is structured as follows. Section 1 reviews literature aiming to identify the main e-service quality models with their dimensions and their influence in customers’ satisfaction, positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance. Besides, the main hypothesis of the study are proposed. Section 2 analyses the e-service quality dimensions identified by type of online retailer and their assessment from the customer’s point of view. Section 3 deals with the validation of the e-service quality model. Ahead, the customer’s perception of online sale platforms is analyzed regarding their relationship with satisfaction and loyalty for two different segments of customers (those who only search for information and those who search for information and buy) in the textile and fashion sector. Finally, the conclusions and managerial implications are stated. 1. Literature review and hypothesis Previous studies in the traditional business environment related to marketing have analyzed different factors associated with e-service quality (Carlson & O’Cass, 2010). In this section, we will focus on the analysis of e-service quality dimensions and their relationship with satisfaction and online customer loyalty. 1.1. e-Service quality E-service quality means “the extent to which a website facilitates efficient and effective shopping, purchasing, and delivery” (Parasuraman et al., 2005); or from a broader approach, customer evaluation (in terms of hedonic and utilitarian or functional aspects) about the quality of the process and result of interaction with online channels from the supplier of service (Etemad & Ghachem, 2015). From this point of view, numerous researchers have developed e-service quality models (see Table 1), identifying various latent dimensions to assess e-service quality. Table 1. A short review of main models proposed to measure e-service quality Model Latent Dimensions Authors SiteQual Ease of Use; Design; Responsiveness (Speed); Security. (Yoo & Donthu, 2001) PirQual Website; Transaction System; Delivery; Customer Service; Security. (Francis & White, 2002) WebQual Ease of Understanding; Intuitive Operations; Trust; Information Quality; Interactivity; Response Time; Visual Appeal; Innovativeness; Flow. (Loiacono, Watson, & Goodhue, 2002) eTailQ Website Design, Fulfillment/Reliability; Privacy/Security Customer Service. (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2003) e-S-Qual y e-RecS-Qual E-S-QUAL: Efficiency; Fulfillment; Reliability; SecurityPrivacy; Customer Service. E-RecS-QUAL: Responsiveness; Compensation; Contact. (Parasuraman et al., 2005) eTransQual Functionality/Design; Enjoyment; Process; Reliability; Responsiveness. (Bauer, Falk, & Hammerschmidt, 2006) 598 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... Model Latent Dimensions Authors NetQual Information; Ease of Use; Reliability; Website Design; Security/Privacy; Customization/Interactivity. (Bressolles, 2006) PeSQ Customer Service; Security; Website Design; Order Management. (Cristobal, Flavian, & Guinaliu, 2007) SERVCON Decision; Access; Benefit; Transaction; Post-Benefit. (Seiders, Voss, Godfrey, & Grewal, 2007) ESQ and Online Customer Experience Sensorial and Emotional (Hedonic); Pragmatic; Cognitive; Relational; Social; Interactivity; Usability; Customization. (Nambisan & Watt, 2011; Pentina, Amialchuk, & Taylor, 2011; Rose, Clark, Samouel, & Hair, 2012; Salehi et al., 2013; Zhang, Lu, Gupta, & Zhao, 2014; Jain et al., 2017; McLean, 2017). ESQ and Co-Creation Firm Resources (ESQ): Process Quality (Efficiency; System Available; Design; Information); Outcome Quality; Privacy; Enjoyment; Payment. Customer Resources: Social Expertise; Innovativeness; Customer Expertise (Cognitive; Effort; Analysis; Elaboration; Memory). Value Co-creation (Barrutia & Gilsanz, 2013) PeSQ Website Functionality; Design; Personalization; Speed; Security; Interactivity; Usefulness; Reputation; Responsiveness; Online Flow (Perceived Challenge; Autotelic Personality; User’s Skills). (Rares, 2014) ServiceDominant Logic Service ecosystem. Service platform, value co-creation (Lush & Nambisan, 2015; Vargo & Lush, 2016) Various models identify two different dimensions that must be taken into account by online retailers: utilitarian and hedonic quality. Bauer et al. (2006) have developed the eTransQual scale, which integrates utilitarian quality and analyzes the dimension of enjoyment (hedonic quality). In addition, other authors investigate different hedonic benefits of a website: emotional benefit (Fassnacht & Koese, 2006), hedonic experience (Nambisan & Watt, 2011; Salehi et al., 2013; Jain, Aagia, & Bagdare, 2017), sensory experience (Pentina etal., 2011), emotional experience and online flow experience (Rose et al., 2012; Zhang etal., 2014; Zhang & Lu, 2018). According to these models, we can establish two latent dimensions to assess e-service quality of online sale platforms: (a) utilitarian quality, defined as the value derived from completing objectives of finding information and/or purchase; and (b) hedonic quality, defined as the value derived from enjoying the search for information and/or purchase. In addition, in the case of utilitarian quality, multidimensional character is assumed. From a theoretical point of view, it is possible to distinguish the following various dimensions: website quality (design and information), offered service (guarantee, offer and customization) and security End of Table 1 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 599 (payments management, privacy and trust). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis for utilitarian quality: – H1(a): Website quality is specified as aggregate dimension of second-order with several latent dimensions of first-order: design and information. – H1(b): Offered service is specified as aggregate dimension of second-order with several latent dimensions of first-order: guarantee, offer and customization. – H1(c): Security is specified as aggregate dimension of second-order with several latent dimensions of first-order: payment management, privacy and trust. 1.2. Satisfaction, positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance Previous research has considered how e-service quality attributes affect customer satisfaction (Carlson & O’Cass, 2010; Pentina et al., 2011; Ahmad, Rahman, Naved, & Khan, 2017). Eservice quality can influence directly or indirectly, by word of mouth (WOM), factors such as repurchase intentions, price tolerance and profitability (Jiang, Chan, & Tan, 2010; Lee & Hahn, 2015; Ismagilova, Dwivedi, Slade, & Williams, 2017). E-service quality increases satisfaction, especially when the utilitarian quality is important to the customer and/or when the customer experiences enjoyment (hedonic quality) with the shopping experience (Dziewanowska, 2015). Likewise, the attributes in B2C websites affect the customers perceptions on e-service quality, encountering e-satisfaction (Holloway & Beatty, 2008; Jaiyeoba, Chimbise, & Roberts-Lombard, 2018), and overall e-satisfaction (Ahmad et al., 2017). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: – H2: Utilitarian quality has a positive influence on satisfaction. – H3: Hedonic quality has a positive influence on satisfaction. Online loyalty shows parallelisms with the concept of fidelity to a brand, when a customer visits a website and makes a purchase. For this reason, it would be desirable to maximize online customer’s loyalty, increasing the average time spent per visitor on the website, as well as future purchases (Korzaan, 2003; Dwi, Ruhadi, Triyuni, & Gundur, 2018). Customers who are pleased with their experience on textile and fashion websites will be more willing to use online sale platforms (repurchase intention) even paying a surcharge for the products offered (price tolerance) (Novak, Hoffman, & Yung, 2000). Likewise, customers who perceive high utilitarian and hedonic quality in their online experience are likely to be more satisfied (Ha & Stoel, 2009; Busalim, Hussin, & Iahad, 2019) and develop WOM (Ha & Im, 2012; Kamalinasab, 2017). In addition, they are willing to make greater financial effort (Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer, 2005) and increase their repurchase intention (Dholakia & Zhao, 2009). A satisfied customer will have greater repurchase intention (Yen & Lu, 2008; Martin, Mortimer, & Andrews, 2015) and will be more likely to spread WOM (Yoo, Sanders, & Moon, 2013). By contrast, dissatisfied customers will avoid purchasing on the website again, and will give bad press to the website, causing great damage to its image (Yoo, Kim, & Sanders, 2015). They will also be willing to pay more (price tolerance) if a certain level of satisfaction is reached (Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer, 2005; Yang, Zhang, Goh, & Anderson, 2017). 600 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... Thus, the study of e-service quality and customer satisfaction plays a fundamental role in customer loyalty and consequently in the survival and success of an organization (Kau & Lo, 2006; Chen, Huang, & Davison, 2017). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis: – H4: Utilitarian quality has a positive influence on (a) (positive WOM), (b) repurchase intention and (c) price tolerance. – H5: Hedonic quality has a positive influence on (a) (positive WOM), (b) repurchase intention and (c) price tolerance. – H6: Satisfaction has a positive influence on (a) (positive WOM), (b) repurchase intention and (c) price tolerance. 2. Research methodology This paper follows a two-stage process: First, identification of e-service quality dimensions on online sale platforms in the textile and fashion sector, and secondly, assessment of e-service quality dimensions from the point of view of the customers. 2.1. Identification of e-service quality dimensions for an online retailer The observable variables about the dimensions of utilitarian quality, including website quality, service that is being offered and security, and hedonic quality, were defined from different sources of information. At first, we did a literature review (see Table 1). Secondly, a Delphi Method was used to achieve a consensual assessment based on the opinions of an independent group of experts and with the guarantee that their participation shall be anonymous and confidential. In addition this method permits contact between people located at great distances, and a controlled feedback, characterized by its bidirectional interaction that allows to include new points of view, ideas and information, and therefore quality information. In this case, the group was composed by 14 experts (7 experts with academic profile and 7 experts with professional profile). The academic profile integrates researchers with a PhD and the accreditations established by the National Agency for Evaluation of Quality and Certification in the Spanish University System (ANECA). The respondents are professors of Marketing at different Universities in Spain. The professional profile integrates different marketing managers in several multinational companies in the fashion industries. Once the experts were selected, the method took place in 3 stages. In the first stage, they were asked about their opinion on each dimension of e-service quality, to determine what to include or to remove and/or how to make changes in wording and appropriateness in order to differentiate the latent dimensions for assessing e-service quality. Later, we provided the results to the experts and the modified questionnaire was sent again in order to obtain the consensus. Finally, in the third phase, the consensus of all the experts was obtained and the final questionnaire was defined. This method aimed to improve the wording of the attributes or observable variables that make up the latent dimensions of e-service quality, as well as factors explaining utilitarian quality. According to their recommendations, we reduced the number of attributes that explained the factors, modified the wording, and made a reallocation of them. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 601 2.2. Websites analysis Within this section, the methodology used for the choice of the different websites selected is summarized in Table 2. First, a list of websites in the textile and fashion in Spain was developed. Second, websites were classified relying on the different types of online sale platforms. Finally, we selected the six most relevant of these websites in Spain using the following information: data published on the fashion world in Spain, number of followers in social networks (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest) of each firm, data on spontaneous notoriety (and frequency of visits) obtained in a previous qualitative study by the authors of the paper, and year of foundation of websites. Accordingly, the websites used in our empirical research were: Zara, Vente Privee, Privalia BuyVip, Asos and eBay. In order to have a representative sample, we have tried to investigate different types of online sale platforms. Table 2. Methodology for chose the websites analyzed Types of Online Sale Platforms Main Companies Brand and Multibrand shop (physical store and online shop) Zara (Inditex), Adidas, Abercombrie & Fitch, Mango, El Corte Inglés, Louis Vuitton, Desigual, Cortefiel, Pepe Jeans Sales Clubs Vente Privee, Privalia, Showroom Prive, Private Outlet, Amazon Buy Vip, Dreivip, Vipventa, Rebajasvip, Ofertix Online sales catalogue (selling by catalogue stores) Venca, La Redoute, Spartoo, Elarmariodelatele, Modaclub Outlet and outfitter Asos, Yoox, Urban Outfitters, Zalando, Dress-for-Less, Forever 21, Boohoo, Shopbop, Top Shop, Aliexpress, KIABI, Sarenza, Revolve, Inviptus, Net-a-porter, Outlet24 Online auctions eBay, Mercamoda, Segunda Mano, Wallapop Selection criteria of the website List of websites: – EAE Business School (2015): EAE Business School Report. The textile sector and the consumption on clothing in Spain (in Spanish). – ECOMMERCE-NEWS: (ecommerce-news.es). – FASHIONFROMSPAIN: (www.fashionfromspain.com). – Modaes.es (www.modaes.es). – GFK Consulting (2015): Observatory of e-Commerce (in Spanish). – PwC (2016): Fashion for a Tube? PwC Retail and Consumption (in Spanish). Website analysis: – Websites display – Number of followers on social networks (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest). – Spontaneous notoriety (and frequency of visits) obtained in a previous qualitative study by the authors of the paper. – Year of foundation of websites. Website that have been selected Zara, Vente Privee, Privalia, Buy Vip, Asos and eBay Website that have been selected Zara, Vente Privee, Privalia, Buy Vip, Asos and eBay 602 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... 2.3. Assessment of e-service quality from the customer’s point of view The second step was a field survey to assess opinions of customers on online sale platforms in the textile and fashion sector. The first part of our administered questionnaire briefly introduced the purpose of the questionnaire. To answer this questionnaire, it was necessary that the interviewees were regular users of at least three of the online sale platforms analyzed. Furthermore, these online sale platforms should have been visited at least once in the past two weeks. For the sampling of respondents, we have used different databases on consumers’ fashion, and a snowball approach. Finally, a sample of 405 regular customers of online sale platforms in the textile and fashion sector was obtained. The survey was disseminated through social networks (Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter), by e-mail and through personal interviews. This study was made in several cities in Spain. A total of 500 questionnaires were sent, and the response rate archived was 81%. The sampling error was ±4.71% with a confidence level of 95%; p = q = 0.5. The sample distribution was done by levels of age (21% between 18 and 24 years, 49% between 25 and 34 years, 19% between 35 and 44 years, 11% over 45 years), gender (60% women, 40% men), segments (40% customers who only search for information, 60% customers who search for information and buy). The profile of the respondents is according to the data concerning the studied sector. The information enclosed in the questionnaire contained an assessment on a Likert scale with responses ranging from “1-strongly disagree” to “10-strongly agree” of the attributes that make up e-service quality, including satisfaction, word of mouth, repurchase intention and price tolerance. The two groups of customers mentioned in this research responded the questionnaire: customers who only search for information (experimental customers), and customers who search for information and buy (transactional customers). The self-administered questionnaire was made up of two parts: the first part contained the measurement scales for evaluating e-service quality, satisfaction, positive word of mouth, repurchase intention and price tolerance; and the second part registered respondents’ age and gender, as well as their opinion on whether they used the online sales platform to search for information or buy. 3. Data analysis and results 3.1. Specification of e-service quality dimensions: utilitarian quality The proposed model for analyzing e-service quality is summarized in Figure 1. To analyze the data structure (hypothesis H1), we investigated the psychometric properties of the measurement scales of e-service quality that is, unidimensionality, reliability and construct validity. Initially, to confirm unidimensionality, we estimated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (see Table 3) whose value exceeds in all cases the level of 0.7 recommended (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & William, 1998). Subsequently, for utilitarian and hedonic dimensions, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed, using principal component analysis. Items with relatively low correlations with the designated dimension were eliminated to improve the internal consistency of that dimension. In addition, after carrying out a confirmatory factor Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 609 The multigroup analysis requires reporting the statistical power of the test in order to validate the study design and to interpret the results as accurately as possible. This issue is especially relevant when working with small sample sizes, in which no significant results are obtained (the possibility of detecting a true effect is reduced), or the probability that a significant result reflects a true effect is reduced (Cohen, 1988). According to Cohen (1988), the recommended statistical power is 80%. In the present study, we obtained a statistical power of 91.58% (G*Power 3.1 software), thus validating the results obtained. The model for the segment of experimental customers (Table 5) yields good fit statistics (Bentler Bonet Non-Normed Fit Index [BBNNFI] = 0.878; Comparative Fit Index [CFI]= 0.902; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.086). It shows a direct, negative (in reference to the initial proposal) and significant relationship between utilitarian quality and repurchase intention. Perhaps customers only search for information on the website, but finally they buy the products in a physical store. Furthermore, there was a direct, positive and significant relationship between satisfaction and quality (utilitarian and hedonic), hedonic quality and positive WOM, satisfaction and loyalty (positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance). Finally, we should notice that the effect of utilitarian quality on satisfaction is greater than the effect of hedonic quality. The model for the segment of transactional customers also yields good fit statistics (Bentler Bonet Non-Normed Fit Index [BBNNFI] = 0.965; Comparative Fit Index [CFI]= 0.938; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.048). According to this information, we can confirm the direct, positive and significant relationship between quality (utilitarian and hedonic) and satisfaction, utilitarian quality and repurchase intention, hedonic quality and positive WOM, satisfaction and loyalty (positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance). The hedonic quality effect on satisfaction is greater than the effect of utilitarian quality. In addition, the utilitarian quality effect on satisfaction is lower than that of the full model, and the hedonic quality effect on positive WOM is greater than the impact of the full model too. 3.6. Direct and indirect effects of e-service quality dimensions This section discusses different effects of e-service quality on loyalty (direct effects) and the mediating role of satisfaction (indirect effects). Specifically, full models and segment models analyze satisfaction as a mediator of the effects of the two dimensions of e-service quality (utilitarian and hedonic dimensions) on loyalty (positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance). The significance of the paths was tested according to their t-values. Mediation has been tested in line with the assessment of mediating effects in Structural Equations Modeling (Iacobucci, 2008). In order to assess mediating effects of satisfaction we should verify the following facts (Iacobucci, 2008): (a) independent variables, that is, utilitarian and hedonic quality, influence the mediator variable (satisfaction); (b) the mediating variable (satisfaction) affects dependent variables such as loyalty. In addition, for the existence of total mediation (indirect effects), the impact of independent variables on dependent variables may not be significant when the mediating variable is included. Instead, for the existence of partial mediation (direct and indirect effects), when the relationship between mediating variables 610 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... and dependent variables is included, the effect of independent variables on dependent variables is still significant. See Table 8 for the results obtained in this research. Table 8. Direct and indirect effects of utilitarian and hedonic quality (full model and segment models) e-Service Quality Significants Effects Satisfaction WOM Repurchase Intention Price Tolerance Utilitarian Direct Indirect Direct and Indirect Indirect Hedonic Direct Direct and Indirect Indirect Indirect In addition, Table 9 summarizes the direct effects of e-service quality (hedonic and utilitarian effects) on satisfaction. Customers who search for information and purchase give more importance to hedonic quality than utilitarian quality. However, for customers who only search for information, utilitarian quality is more important. Table 9. Direct effects between e-service quality and satisfaction e-Service Quality Satisfaction Full model (FM) Only search for information (S1) Search for information and purchase (S2) Utilitarian Quality 0.42 0.83 0.33 Hedonic Quality 0.44 0.59 0.46 Finally, Table 10 summarizes total direct and indirect effects of e-service quality on loyalty. If we analyze the results for both segments of customers, there are differences in the total effects of e-service quality on positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance. Table 10. Direct and indirect effects of utilitarian and hedonic quality WOM Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects FM S1 S2 FM S1 S2 FM S1 S2 Utilitarian Quality – – – 0.25 0.49 0.17 0.25 0.49 0.17 Hedonic Quality 0.23 0.19 0.31 0.26 0.35 0.15 0.49 0.54 0.46 Repurchase Intention Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects FM S1 S2 FM S1 S2 FM S1 S2 Utilitarian Quality 0.07 –0.08 0.12 0.33 0.78 0.24 0.40 0.70 0.36 Hedonic Quality – – – 0.35 0.55 0.33 0.35 0.59 0.33 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 611 Price Tolerance Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects FM S1 S2 FM S1 S2 FM S1 S2 Utilitarian Quality – – – 0.17 0.41 0.09 0.17 0.41 0.09 Hedonic Quality – – – 0.18 0.29 0.13 0.18 0.29 0.13 Conclusions This study has contributed to understanding e-service quality in the textile and fashion sector in four different ways. The first contribution is to provide empirical support on two dimensions of e-service quality for online sale platforms of textile and fashion: utilitarian and hedonic experience. On the one hand, utilitarian experience summarizes various latent dimensions of e-service quality: web quality (based on design and information), offered service (including guarantee, offer and customization) and security (payment management, privacy and trust). This is a more extensive model than previously developed models where concepts of web quality, offered service and security are specified as aggregate variables of second-order with several latent dimensions of first-order (formative dimensions). Furthermore, each of these latent dimensions of first-order is measured through multiple reflective indicators. On the other hand, hedonic experience integrates aspects related to attributes of fun, enjoyment and entertainment. The second contribution is made by extending knowledge on the perception of e-service quality for Zara, Vente Privee, Privalia, BuyVip, Asos, and eBay in the dimensions of utilitarian and hedonic experience. Asos is the online sale platform with better utilitarian quality followed by Zara and Privalia. The online sale platforms that have been better perceived in dimensions of web quality (design and information) are Vente Privee, Zara and Asos. The online sale platforms which show a better rating in the dimensions of offered service (guarantee, offer and customization) are Asos, Zara and Privalia. The online sale platforms that have been better perceived in the dimensions of security (payment management, privacy and trust) are Asos, eBay and BuyVip. In addition, Zara, Asos and BuyVip are websites with high perception of hedonic quality. Overall, Asos and Zara are seen with good positioning regarding “utilitarian quality-hedonic quality”. The third contribution provides empirical support for a comprehensive model that integrates e-service quality, satisfaction and loyalty (positive WOM, repurchase intention and price tolerance). The study replicates the relationships previously found between the three concepts using a new context of online sale platforms in the textile and fashion sector. These relationships are tested by establishing that satisfaction has a total mediation between utilitarian quality and loyalty (positive WOM and price tolerance), and hedonic quality and loyalty (repurchase intention and price tolerance). In addition, satisfaction has a partial mediation between utilitarian quality and repurchase intention, and hedonic quality and positive WOM. End of Table 10 612 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... The fourth contribution resolves a gap in our knowledge regarding different segments of web users. The findings indicate that direct and indirect effects of e-service quality on satisfaction and loyalty are different for each segment of customers. The study supports that there are no direct effects of the utilitarian quality on positive WOM, but these effects exist in regard to hedonic quality. Direct effects are greater for transactional customers than for experimental ones. In terms of total effects, both segments give more importance to utilitarian quality than hedonic quality in order to develop a positive WOM. Additionally, the study supports that there are no direct effects of hedonic quality on repurchase intention, but these effects exist regarding utilitarian quality, being more accused in the segment of customers that are searching and buying on the textile and fashion website. In terms of total effects, it can be observed that for customers who just want information, utilitarian quality is more relevant than hedonic quality in order to increase repurchase intention. However, for customers who search and buy, hedonic quality has more important total effects on repurchase intention than utilitarian quality in order to increase repurchase intention. Finally, the study indicates that are no direct effects of utilitarian and hedonic quality on price tolerance. After analyzing total effects, we have again found how utilitarian quality has a deeper effect on price tolerance for experimental customers. However, for transactional customers hedonic quality has a stronger effect on price tolerance. To conclude, the companies should empower the utilitarian quality concerning customers searching for information. Furthermore, online sale platforms should improve hedonic quality focusing on those customers who do not only search for information but are also likely to buy. The online sale platforms for the textile and fashion sector should empower the utilitarian quality concerning customers searching for information. The online sale platforms must continue to make investments (according with the positioning in front of the competition) in some of these factors: good design (attractive, easy to use and with information properly organized), information of quality (interesting and updated), adequate guarantee (easy contact business to client, guarantee of products, possibility of returning delivers), offer of quality products and/or services (good quality-price relationship, good promotions in the website, variety of products, competitive prices), especial attention in payment management (possibility of registering for password accounts, identification of the participants of the payment system), as well as privacy of service (data protection and confidentiality of delivery) and trust (possibility of delivery cancellation, use of online certificate and existence of other consumers’ comments) of the consumer in the online sale platforms. Furthermore, online sale platforms should improve hedonic quality focusing on those customers who do not only search for information but are also likely to buy. To achieve appropriate hedonic quality, the online sale platforms can show not only their products for sale, but also other contents related to fashion matters as, among others, upcoming events, new trends, comments, videos of “influencers” and photos of other consumers wearing their products. For instance, Zara organized a campaign in which the company offered a monetary reward to the customer appearing in a photo with the coolest look, provided that he or she Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 613 was wearing at least an item of the brand. This involved an increase of hedonic quality, as customers visited the website more frequently and spent more time on it. Another example can be found in the strategy used by Asos. This online sale platform has a section on trends where users show their looks and indicate how to get the different clothes they wear and how much they cost. It also has a Marketplace section where users can sell used clothes. Moreover, Asos invites the users to different fashion events in which it takes part. All these features could lead to enhancing hedonic quality perceived by the consumer. This paper has some limitations. The first one, the study only analyses the consumer behavior for the textile sector, but it would be interesting to investigate the differences between sectors and products. The second one, the study only analyses the online customer, but it would be valuable to include the ROPO (Research On-Line and Purchase Off-line) effect and showrooming. The last one, the study is static and does not include the uncertainty associated to multicriteria decision-making. For a future development of the contributions arising from this study, a deeper knowledge of the different types of platforms, segments and products should be acquired in order to evaluate the different consumer behavior and the influence of such elements in their satisfaction, WOM price tolerance and repurchase intention. Additionally, it would be interesting to combine traditional marketing tools with artificial intelligence techniques -such FAHP, FTOPSIS or Neural Networksin order to deal with the uncertainty associated to multicriteria decision making processes when the customer evaluates different websites. Author contributions The authors are jointly responsible concerning this research and the paper in which its results are hereby presented. Funding The authors have carried out the present research without any governmental or company grants. Disclosure statement The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Agrawal, V., Agarwal, S., & Agrawal, A. M. (2017). Perception of employees toward e-learning service quality: exploratory factor analysis. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(7-8), 350-356. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-06-2017-0042 Ahmad A., Rahman, O., Naved, M., & Khan, N. (2017). Exploring the role of website quality and hedonism in the formation of e-satisfaction and e-loyalty: Evidence from internet users in India. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 11(3), 246-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2017-0022 614 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327 Barrutia, J. M., & Gilsanz, A. (2013). Electronic service quality and value: do consumer knowledgerelated resources matter? Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 230-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670512468294 Bauer, H. H., Falk, T., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2006). eTransQual: a transaction process-based approach for capturing service quality in online shopping. Journal of Business Research, 59, 866-875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.021 Borsellino, V., Zinnanti, C., Migliore, G., Di Franco, C. P., & Schimmenti, E. (2018). An exploratory analysis of website quality in the agrifood sector: The case of extra virgin olive oil. Quality Access to Success, 18(165), 132-138. Bressolles, G. (2006). Electronic service quality: NetQual-Proposition of a measurement scale to commercial web sites and moderating affects. Research and Applications in Marketing, 21(3), 19-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/076737010602100302 Busalim, A. H., Hussin, A. C., & Iahad, N. A. (2019). Factors influencing customer engagement in social commerce websites: A systematic literature review. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 14(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762019000200102 Cai, S., & Jun, M. (2003). Internet users’ perceptions of online service quality: a comparison of online buyers and information searchers. Managing Service Quality, 13(6), 504-519. https://doi. org/10.1108/09604520310506568 Carlson, J., & O´Cass, A. (2010). Exploring the relationship between e-service quality, satisfaction, attitudes and behaviours in content-driven e-service web. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(2), 112-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041011031091 Chen, X. Y., & Huang, Q., & Davison, R. M. (2017). The role of website quality and social capital in building buyers’ loyalty. International Journal of Information Management, 37(1), 1563-1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.005 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cristobal, E., Flavian, C., & Guinaliu, M. (2007). Perceived e-service quality (PeSQ): measurement validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty. Managing Service Quality, 17(3), 317-340. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520710744326 Del Olmo, J. L. (2010). Marketing de la moda. Ediciones Internacionales Universitarias S.A., Madrid (in Spanish). Dholakia, R. R., & Zhao, M. (2009). Retail web site interactivity. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 37(10), 821-838. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550910988011 Dwi, S., Ruhadi, R., Triyuni, N., & Gundur, L. (2018). Online shopping Loyalty: the role of quality, trust, value, and satisfaction. Advanced Science Letters, 24(1), 735-738. https://doi.org/10.1166/ asl.2018.11803 Dziewanowska, K. (2015). Dimensions of real and virtual consumer experiences. Faculty of Management Working Paper Series, 9(4), 1-36. Epuran, G., Gardan, I. P., Gardan D. A., & Bumbas, F. (2015). Hedonic value of clothing products, Industria Textila, 66(3), 164-168. Etemad, R., & Ghachem, L. (2015). The impact of hedonic and utilitarian value of online avatars on eservice quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 81-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.048 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 615 Fassnacht, M., & Koese, I. (2006). Quality of electronic services: conceptualizing and testing a hierarchical model, Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670506289531 Francis, J. E., & White, L. (2002). PIRQUAL: a scale for measuring customer expectations and perceptions of quality in internet retailing. In K. Evans & L. Scheer (Eds.), Marketing educators’ conference: marketing theory and applications, 13, 263-270. Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Customer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 565-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.06.016 Ha, Y., & Im, H. (2012). Role of web site design quality in satisfaction and word of mouth generation. Journal of Service Management, 23(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231211208989 Hair, J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. B. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Holloway, B. B., & Beatty, S. E. (2008). Satisfiers and dissatisfies in the online environment: a critical incident assessment. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508314266 Homburg, C., Jozic, D., & Kuehnl, C. (2017). Customer experience management: toward implementing and evolving marketing concept. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 377-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0460-7 Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.2.84.60760 Iacobucci, D. (2008). Mediation analysis. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984966 Iglesias, V., & Vázquez, R. (2001). The moderating effects of exclusive dealing agreements on distributor satisfaction. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 9(3), 215-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/713775738 Ismagilova, E., Dwivedi, Y. K., Slade, E., & Williams, M. D. (2017). Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM) in the marketing context: A state of the art analysis and future directions. Springer Briefs in Business. Springer. Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). Lisrel approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984782 Jain, R., Aagia, J., & Bagdare, S. (2017). Customer experience: a review and research agenda. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(3), 642-662. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-03-2015-0064 Jaiyeoba, O. O., Chimbise, T. T., & Roberts-Lombard, M. (2018). E-service usage and satisfaction in Botswana. African Journal of Economic and Management studies, 9(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-03-2017-0061 Jiang Z., Chan, J., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2010). Effects of interactivity on website involvement and purchase intention. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(1), 34-59. https://doi.org/110.17705/1jais.00218 Kamalinasab, H. (2017). Studying the role of positive electrical word of mouth (EWOM) on the willingness to buy, with considering the moderating role of consumer’s personality. QUID Investigación Ciencia y Tecnología, 1, 1259-1270. Katagal, P. R., Mutkekar, R. R., & Garag, A. G. (2018). Exploring internet banking service quality attributes and it’s impact on customer satisfaction. Pacific Business Review International, 11(3), 18-27. Kau, A., & Loh, E. W. (2006). The effects of service recovery on consumer satisfaction: a comparison between complainants and non-complainants. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(2), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610657039 Korzaan, M. L. (2003). Going with the flow: Predicting online purchase intentions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 43(4), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2003.11647530 616 A. Castro-Lopez et al. How to manage the online experience concerning transactional and... Lee, E. J., & Hahn, K. (2015). Tone of writing on fashion retail websites, social support, e-shopping satisfaction, and category knowledge. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 32(2), 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X15568915 Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(November), 69-96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420 Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R., & Goodhue, D. L. (2002). WEBQUAL: a measure of web quality. In K.Evans, & L. Scheer (Eds.), Marketing educators’ conference: Marketing theory and applications, 13, 432-437. Lush R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: a service-dominant logic perspective. Mis Quarterly, 39(1), 155-175. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.07 Martin, J., Mortimer, G., & Andrews, L. (2015). Re-examining online customer experience to include purchase frequency and perceived risk. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 25, 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.03.008 Martinez, E., & Vázquez, A. I. (2011). Marketing de la moda. Madrid: ESIC Editorial, Ediciones Pirámide. (in Spanish). Martinez-Costa, C., Pladevall-Viladecans, J., Mas-Machuca, M., & Marimon, F. (2018). Behavioral profiles of consumers of online travel agencies. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(3), 703721. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.03-10 McLean, G. (2017). Investigating the online customer experience – A B2B perspective. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 35(5), 657-672. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2016-0222 Nambisan, P., & Watt, J. H. (2011). Managing customer experiences in online product communities. Journal of Business Research, 64(8), 889-895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.006 Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in online environments: A structural modelling approach. Marketing Science, 19(1), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.1.22.15184 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Malhotra, A. (2005). E-S-Qual. A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(10), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156 Pentina, I., Amialchuk, A., & Taylor, D. G. (2011). Exploring effects of online shopping experiences on browser satisfaction and e-tail performance. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 39(10), 742-758. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551111162248 Rares, O. D. (2014). Measuring perceived service quality offline vs. online: a new PeSQ conceptual model. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 538-551. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00505-X Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P., & Hair, N. (2012). Online customer experience in e-retailing: an empirical model of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 88(2), 308-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.03.001 Salehi, M., Salimi, M., & Haque, A. (2013). The impact of online customer experience (OCE) on service quality in Malaysia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(11), 1621-1631. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.11.1681 Seiders, K., Voss, G. B., Godfrey, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2007). SERVCON: development and validation of a multidimensional service convenience scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-006-0001-5 Taylor, C. R., & Costello, J. P. (2017). What do we know about fashion advertising? A review of the literature and suggested research directions. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 8(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2016.1255855 Torres, J. A., & Arroyo, F. J. (2017). Building brand loyalty in e-commerce of fashion lingerie. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21(1), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-05-2016-0047 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2019, 20(3): 595–617 617 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of servicedominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3 Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K., & Inman, J. J. (2015). From multichannel retailing to OmniChannel retailing: introduction to the special issue on multichannel retailing. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.005 Vijay, T. S., Prashar, S., & Parsad, C. (2017). Role of shopping values and web atmospherics in esatisfaction and repurchase intention. Journal of Internet Commerce, 16(1), 32-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2016.1261544 Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting retail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00034-4 Xu, X., Munson, C. L., & Zeng, S. (2017). The impact of e-service offerings on the demand of online customers. International Journal of Production Economics, 184, 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.012 Yang, X. Y, Zhang, X. N., Goh, S., & Anderson, C. (2017). Curvilinear effects of e-loyalty in China’s online tourism industry. Nankai Business Review International, 8(2), 174-189. https://doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-12-2016-0044 Yen, C. H., & Lu, H. P. (2008). Factors influencing online auction repurchase intention. Internet Research, 18(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240810849568 Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internetshopping site (SITEQUAL). Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 2(1), 31-46. Yoo, C. W., Kim, Y. J., & Sanders, G. L. (2015). The impact of interactivity of electronic word of mouth systems and e-quality on decision support in the context of the e-marketplace. Journal Information and Management, 52(4), 496-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.03.001 Yoo, C. W., Sanders, G. L., & Moon, J. (2013). Exploring the effect of e-WOM participation on e-loyalty in e-commerce. Decision Support Systems, 55(3), 669-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.02.001 Zhang, H., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., & Zhao, L. (2014). What motivates customers to participate in social commerce? The impact of technological environments and virtual customer experiences. Information & Management, 51(8), 1017-1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.07.005 Zhang, T., & Lu, C. (2018). Engaging customers in value co-creation or co-destruction online. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-01-2017-0027