Market Research Report Master

1

Examination of the Likelihood of Griffith Gold

Coast University Students

to buy produce Online

Individual Market Research Report

7207MKT Market Research Course

– Course Convenor: Dr Helen Perkins

Griffith University Gold Coast campus, QLD

By

Robert KriTikos s2788287

21 October 2011

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................5 Problem Definition ...............................................................................................................................7 Research Question ...............................................................................................................................7 Research Objectives .............................................................................................................................7 Research Objective 1 .......................................................................................................................7 Hypothesis 1.................................................................................................................................7 Hypothesis 2.................................................................................................................................7 Hypothesis 3.................................................................................................................................7 Hypothesis 4.................................................................................................................................7

Research Objective 2 .......................................................................................................................7 Hypothesis 5.................................................................................................................................8 Hypothesis 6.................................................................................................................................8 Hypothesis 7.................................................................................................................................8 Hypothesis 8.................................................................................................................................8 Hypothesis 9.................................................................................................................................8 Hypothesis 10...............................................................................................................................8 Hypothesis 11...............................................................................................................................8 Hypothesis 12...............................................................................................................................8

Methodology........................................................................................................................................9 Participants ......................................................................................................................................9 Survey Instrument............................................................................................................................9 Procedure.......................................................................................................................................10 Ethics ..............................................................................................................................................10

Results ................................................................................................................................................11 Descriptives....................................................................................................................................11 Hypotheses Testing ....................................................................................................................13 Research Objective 1 .................................................................................................................13 Hypothesis 1...............................................................................................................................13 Hypothesis 2...............................................................................................................................15 Hypothesis 3...............................................................................................................................16 Hypothesis 4...............................................................................................................................17 Research Objective 2 .................................................................................................................18 Hypothesis 5...............................................................................................................................18 Hypothesis 6...............................................................................................................................19 Hypothesis 7...............................................................................................................................20 Hypothesis 8...............................................................................................................................21 Hypothesis 9...............................................................................................................................22 Hypothesis 10.............................................................................................................................22 Hypothesis 11.............................................................................................................................23 Hypothesis 12.............................................................................................................................23

Discussion...........................................................................................................................................25 Implications ........................................................................................................................................26 Limitations and Recommodation.......................................................................................................27 Citation ...............................................................................................................................................28

3

Appendix 1: Ethics Applications .........................................................................................................29 Appendix 2: Survey Instrument .........................................................................................................30

4

Abstract

The study determines how likely university students are to buy their produce online. The study has

been conducted at Griffith University Gold Coast campus. Students of various disciplines were

asked to fill out a survey that consisted of 14 questions regarding students’ demographics, grocery

shopping habits and specific factors that would encourage them to buy produce online. Nominal

type of data was collected within categorical level of mesurement. Numerical type of data was

collected by using Likert scales of measurement. Twelve hypotheses were tested against a

significance level of .05 (p‐value). Tests included independent samples t test, ANOVAs, correlations

as well as regressions. Categorical data was analysed by reporting frequencies and percentages.

The underlying result of the study was that students were not particularly interested in the idea of

buying produce online as the majority stated that they were unlikely to buy groceries online.

However, respondents emphasized on the importance of ‘price’ followed by ‘quality’ as a factor

that would encorage them to buy groceries online. It can be therefore inferred that focusing on

these two aspects would in fact increase the liklihood of the respondents of buying produce

online.

5

Introduction

Research from Boston in 2006 found that 98% of college students have made purchases online

(Experience Inc, 2011). When a study of online grocery shopping was completed in Denmark

and the United Kingdom, there were a variety of factors to consider. Many participants viewed

online shopping in terms of attributes offered, and beliefs towards the products and service

(Ramus & Nielson, 2005). The customers were impressed with online grocery shopping

because of its convenience and lack of line‐ups. Also, avoiding crowded shops that require

lengthy commutes, visits, and competing with other customers was viewed as a positive

attribute. Customers had concerns with the degree of risk associated with online shopping,

specifically the trust and payment system. There was also a belief that selection and quality

may be compromised, or a visit online in lieu of a visit to the grocery store may cause the

customer to miss specials or sales. As well, customers expressed a concern with the complaint

process related to online shopping, as they would not be interacting with other people during

the purchase process. The sphere of influence was an important factor as to why customers

began shopping online, as was their exposure to advertisements for the sites. Furthermore,

many customers said they started online shopping through accidental browsing, or following

links from related commercial sites (Ramus & Nielson, 2005).

Research performed on university students in 2009 focused on the shopping habits of

university students, with a focus on internet clothing shops compared to brick and mortar

shops (Arnaudovska, Bankston, Simurkova, & Budden, 2010). It was found that university

students have a technological focus, and were comfortable shopping online. The respondents

believed shopping online was the best way to get the best price and value for their time,

however, the 80.6% of the students still responded that they were likely to make purchases in

store, rather than online (Arnaudovska et al, 2010).

Students in Newcastle University, United Kingdom were studied to determine if there is an

association between time and food shopping (Dobson & Ness, 2009). Convenience was found

as a significant factor for students in terms of their buying behaviour. As well, three distinct

segments of buying behaviour were identified, allowing for better targeting of products and

services. However, this research was not generalizable, as it relied on a small convenience

sample. The researchers themselves state, “the context of student grocery shopping is worth

further research.” (Dobson & Ness, 2009)

6

Research of the online shopping behavior in two key segments of the world’s most advanced IT

nations, Finnish and American university students suggests that the amount of online shopping

has increased in both countries. It was also noticed that the average monetary amount of

purchase has decreased in Finland, while the purchase quantities have increased, giving clues

that people are going online for more ‘everyday’ type of shopping. The internet also has

increased in popularity as a tool used to contribute to and assist in the buying process. As the

total number of online purchases continues to increase, the e‐marketer who effectively serves,

satisfies, and delights their online buyers will enjoy repeat patronage. (Comegys, Hannula, &

Väisänen, 2006).

Another research made in the Boston area says that many implications suggest that young

people, both single and married, are stressed for time and that these people are a potential

market for online grocery shopping. (Corbett, 2001)

Other findings show that many consumers revert to the traditional mode of supermarket

shopping whenever they are dissatisfied either with specific or with general aspects of the

online experience, which suggests that the process of diffusion of the e‐grocery innovation by

no means follows a smooth and continuous path. The adoption decision seems to be re‐

evaluated more frequently and consequently post‐adoption evaluation appears very important

to the decision of whether to continue with or to drop the innovation. This finding basically

means that the offline and online modes of grocery shopping are complementary, rather than

substitutive. Results also suggest that the reliability of the service provided, both in terms of

delivery and the price, quality and range of the goods on offer, is a crucial factor for loyalty to a

website, meaning that dissatisfaction with any of these aspects may trigger the termination of

e‐grocery shopping (Dall'Olmo Riley, Hand, Rettie, Robinson, & Singh, 2007).

Online grocery shopping seems to be hindered by several factors. Groceries are tangible

products and that challenges the full commercial cycle to be unattainable via a network.

Another fact is that groceries are perishable products meaning that consumers’ want physically

see and touch these products for their quality and consumers have different preferences for

products. By example some like bananas green when others like them ripe.

A survey with 3800 consumers points out that about 400 respondents currently shop online,

and about 500 have shopped online in the past, but not anymore. The majority use Coles

online shop, followed by Woolworths' online shop (Browne, 2010).

7

Problem Definition

Little research has been done on the grocery purchasing habits of university students. The

research that has been done has not been comprehensive, with the researchers stating that

further research may need to be done in order to complete the picture. Particularly, there is

little focus on validity of creating an online grocery store targeted towards university students.

Research Question

How likely are university students to buy their produce online?

Research Objectives

Research Objective 1

To investigate the perception of university students towards the idea of buying produce online.

Hypothesis 1

University students will be interested in buying produce online if it provides them with

perceived benefits by comparing those who are likely to buy groceries online with the factors

that would encourage them to use the service.

Hypothesis 2

Students will be opposed to the idea of buying groceries online if they value a physical

interaction with their produce.

Hypothesis 3

Students who drive to the grocery store will be less likely to purchase groceries online than

students who do not drive.

Hypothesis 4

Respondents who value knowledgeable staff at brick and mortar stores will be less likely to

switch to buying groceries online than those who do not value that factor.


To determine what factors would make university students switch from buying produce in a

store to buying produce online.

8

Hypothesis 5

It is assumed students are limited by budget constraints, and price will be the most important

factor in both online and brick and mortar grocery stores when compared to the other factors

analyzed.

Hypothesis 6

Students with a job will be more interested in the convenience an online produce market

would afford them than students without one.

Hypothesis 7

Female students will be more concerned with Prices, Layout of Store, and Quality factors than

male students.

Hypothesis 8

Students who are aware of the price wars between the major grocery chains will consider the

factor of price important, in both online and brick and mortar stores.

Hypothesis 9

People who are further away from their local grocery store will be more likely to buy groceries

online than those who do not.

Hypothesis 10

People who grocery shop more often will be more likely to buy groceries online than those

who do not.

Hypothesis 11

People who go to the store to get ideas are more likely to value a selection in an online shop.

Hypothesis 12

Business and health students would be more likely to purchase online than any other faculty

9

Methodology

Participants

Participants were located on the Gold Coast Griffith University Campus and selected based on

enrollment at the University as a full or part time student. The sampling method used was a

non‐probability judgment convenience sample. A total of 51 students were surveyed, and all

surveys were completed on campus. 27 of the respondents were female (52.9%), while 24

were male (47.1%).

Survey Instrument

Quantitative and qualitative research was done in the form of a questionnaire, which was

designed in accordance with the hypotheses to collect information about grocery purchasing

habits of Griffith University students. Specially designed questions helped to understand the

grocery shopping habits amongst Griffith University students. The questionnaire also helped to

determine the reliability and validity of the hypotheses.

Specific information was collected to get to know both the in‐person and online grocery

purchasing habits of University students by asking questions similar to the following:

- How often do you grocery shop?

- How close is your local grocery store?

- How do you get to your grocery store?

- What is your primary consideration when choosing where to buy groceries?

- Would you buy groceries online?

- Why wouldn’t you buy groceries online?

- What types of fruits and veggies do you buy?

- Which fruits and veggies do you think are too expensive?

- Are the prices of your favorite fruits and veggies affected by the price wars between the

major grocery stores?

These questions measured customers’ attitudes or potential behaviors and were measured

using a Likert scale with options ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates not important or

unlikely and 5 indicates essential or very likely. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix

2.

10

Procedure

The survey was distributed on the Gold Coast Griffith University Campus from September 9th,

2011 to September 22, 2011. Participants were approached by researchers, asked if they

attended Griffith University and asked if they would be interested in filling out a quick survey.

Once data was collected, it was collated into an SPSS file with SPSS version 18.0 used to code

and measure data.

Ethics

Participants were given an informed consent cover sheet and ensured no identifiable personal

data would be collected. As well, the survey was operated under the following ethics protocol

number: MKT/04/10/HREC. A copy of the ethics application can be found in Appendix 1.

11

Results

Descriptives

The sample was nearly equally split between male (47%)

and female students (53%) of the Griffith University Gold

Coast campus with the majority of the respondents

studying Business and Commerce (53%), followed by a

considerable portion of health students (19.6%), as well as

educational students accounting for nearly 10 per cent (9.6%).

The remaining respondents were from

study areas including environment (5.9%),

criminology, visual & arts and engineering

with each corresponding group

representing 3.9 per cent. Of all the

participants roughly 45 per cent (45.1%)

had a job compared to almost 55 per cent

(54.9%) who did not have a job. Almost every one of the surveyed students (98%) had access

to the Internet.

Table 3

As far as the grocery shopping habits, the majority of respondents (52.9%) stated that they

would at least shop groceries once a week. There was a stalemate between the participants

shopping only every other fortnight,

compared to the participants who were

shopping twice a week with both groups

accounting for nearly 22 per cent (21.6%)

each. Over 88 per cent of the respondents

lived within 2 kilometers of a grocery store,

while 52.9 per cent of the respondents

would choose to walk to the grocery store compared to 47.1 per cent preferring to drive to the

Gender Frequency Valid Percent male 24 47.1 female

27 52.9 Valid

Total 51 100.0

Table 1

What is your study discipline Frequency Valid Percent

business and commerce 27 52.9 criminology and law 2 3.9 education 5 9.8 engineering 2 3.9 environment 3 5.9 health 10 19.6 Visual and creative arts 2 3.9

Valid

Total 51 100.0 Table 2

Do you have internet

Frequency Valid Percent yes 50 98.0

no 1 2.0

Valid

Total 51 100.0

Do you have a job

Frequency Valid Percent yes 23 45.1

no 28 54.9

Valid

Total 51 100.0

Table 4

How often do you grocery shop

Frequency Valid Percent

Once a month 2 3.9

Once every 2 weeks 11 21.6

Once a week 27 52.9

Twice or more a week 11 21.6

Valid

Total 51 100.0

12

grocery store. As for the remaining respondents, cycling (5.9%) or public transportation

(11.8%) was the preferred means of transportation.

When asked what their top three

produces were, 13 of the participants

(26%) listed apples first followed by

tomatoes, capsicums and bananas

second, answered by 4 respondents

equivalently corresponding to 8

Table 6 percent each (see Figure 1).

The second most listed

produce were again

apples answered by 10

(20%), ahead of

tomatoes stated by 6

(12%) and oranges

mentioned by five (10%)

students respectively

(See Figure 2).

As detailed in Table 7 the importance of the following factors including price, distance to store,

knowledgeable and courteous staff, layout of store as well as quality of produce were

How close is your local grocery store Frequency Valid Percent

less than 500m 8 16.0

500m‐1km 18 36.0

1km‐2km 18 36.0

more than 2km 6 12.0

Valid

Total 50 100.0 Missing System 1 Total 51

Figure 3

Figure 1

13

measured. The participants were asked which of these factors would influence their decision

the most when choosing where to buy groceries. A Likert scale had been applied in order to

calculate means signifying importance ranging from 1 to 5, thereby 1 translating to ‘would not

encourage me’ while 5 translating to ‘would definitely convince me’.

Importance of different features when choosing where to buy groceries

Importance of different features Mean Std. Deviation How important is price 4.16 .703

How important is distance to the store 3.86 .800

How important is knowledgeable and courteous staff 2.51 .880

How important is the layout of the store 3.04 .871

How important is the quality of produce 4.37 .720

Table 7

By comparing these means it was reported that the most important factor was quality ( m=

4.37, SD= 0.720) ahead of price (m= 4.16, SD= 0.703) when choosing where to buy groceries.

Hypotheses Testing


To investigate the perception of university students towards the idea of buying produce online.

Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis examined the factors or benefits that would encourage the surveyed students to

buy groceries online. Factors including price, quality of produce, convenience, availability are all

significant predictors of likelihood of buying groceries online (significance of the regression ANOVA p =

.048, p < .05). These factors combined account for 21.4% of the variance of likelihood of the

respondents buying groceries online (r2 =.214) with the highest predictor being price (Beta =.577).

In order to assess the relationship between the factors and the likelihood of buying groceries online, a

bi‐variate Pearson’s correlation was conducted. Price was found to be the only positive and moderately

strong related (r= .428) factor (see Table 11). The remaining factors were only weak positive correlated.

The only “perceived benefit” that would influence people to buy online was therefore price.

Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .462a .214 .126 1.035 a. Predictors: (Constant), Would selection encourage you to buy online, Would price encourage you to buy online, Would convenience encourage you to buy online, Would quality of produce encourage you to buy online, Would availability encourage you to buy online1

14

Table 8

ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 13.112 5 2.622 2.447 .048a

Residual 48.221 45 1.072

1

Total 61.333 50 a. Predictors: (Constant), Would selection encourage you to buy online, Would price encourage you to buy online, Would convenience encourage you to buy online, Would quality of produce encourage you to buy online, Would availability encourage you to buy online b. Dependent Variable: How likely would you be to buy groceries online

Table 9 Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) .503 .890 .565 .575

Would price encourage you to buy online .688 .218 .577 3.156 .003

Would quality of produce encourage you to buy online

‐.160 .190 ‐.140 ‐.842 .404

Would convenience encourage you to buy online

‐.078 .184 ‐.063 ‐.423 .674

Would availability encourage you to buy online

‐.179 .240 ‐.145 ‐.747 .459

1

Would selection encourage you to buy online

.214 .191 .191 1.123 .267

a. Dependent Variable: How likely would you be to buy groceries online Table 10

Correlations

How likely would you be to

buy groceries online Would price encourage you

to buy online Pearson Correlation

1 .428**

Sig. (2‐tailed) .002

How likely would you be to buy groceries online

N 51 51 Pearson Correlation

.428** 1

Sig. (2‐tailed) .002

Would price encourage you to buy online

N 51 51 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).

Table 11

15

Hypothesis 2

In order to test Hypothesis 2 and to assess whether the students were opposed to the idea of

buying groceries online if the value a physical interaction with their produce ,an independent‐

samples t‐test was undertaken. The hypothesis was not supported as there was no significant

difference in the number of people who were likely and unlikely to buy groceries if they like to

see what they buy (p =.785, p > .05) However, 4 respondents did emphasize the fact that

ensuring fresh produce is an essential part of their in‐store grocery shopping experience, by

filling out the “other” section of the question.

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t‐test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

F Sig. t df Sig. (2‐tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference Lower Upper

Equal variances assumed

.030 .862 .275 49 .785 .094 .344 ‐.596 .785 How likely would you be to buy groceries online Equal

variances not assumed

.274 26.174 .786 .094 .344 ‐.613 .802

Table 12

16

Hypothesis 3

An independent samples t test was undertaken to examine whether students who drove to

the grocery store would be less likely to purchase groceries online than students who did

not drive. The t test was statistically significant (p < .05), with the people who drive will be

less likely to purchase groceries online (M=2.0, SD =1.251) than those who do not (M=2.63,

SD =.884).

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t‐test for Equality of Means


F Sig. t df

Sig. (2‐

tailed) Mean

Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper


2.217 .143 2.094 49 .041 .630 .301 .025 1.234 How likely would you be to buy groceries online

Equal variances not assumed

2.052 40.817 .047 .630 .307 .010 1.249

Table 13 Group Statistics

drive N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean no 27 2.63 .884 .170 How likely would you be to

buy groceries online yes 24 2.00 1.251 .255

Table 14

17

Hypothesis 4

A one‐way between groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate whether

students who valued knowledgeable staff at brick and mortar stores would be less likely to

switch to buying groceries online than those who do not value that factor. The ANOVA was

statistically not significant (p= .838, p > .05). There is not a significant difference in the

likelihood to buy groceries online between those who value knowledgeable staff and those

who do not. The hypothesis was therefore not supported.

ANOVA


Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1.086 3 .362 .282 .838

Within Groups 60.248 47 1.282

Total 61.333 50

Table 15

18


To determine what factors would make university students switch from buying produce in a

store to buying produce online.

Hypothesis 5

By comparing the means of the different factors in order to find out whether students would

evaluate price as the most important factor in both online and brick and mortar grocery stores,

price was rated as important (M = 4.157). However, quality was rated to be the most

important (M= 4.373). Therefore, the fifth hypothesis that budget constraint students would

evaluate price to be the most important factor in both online and brick and mortar stores

when compared to all other analyzed factors was not supported.

Figure 4

19

Hypothesis 6

An independent samples t test was used to compare whether students with a job would be

more interested in the convenience an online produce market would afford them compared to

students without a job. There was no significant difference between those who do have a job

and those who do not in valuing convenience an online produce market would afford them (p

= .246, p > .05)


Levene's Test

for Equality

of Variances t‐test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig.

(2‐

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference Lower Upper

Equal

variances

assumed

.267 .608 ‐

1.17

5

49 .246 ‐.297 .252 ‐.804 .211 Would

convenience

encourage you

to buy online Equal

variances

not

assumed

‐

1.20

8

48.669 .233 ‐.297 .245 ‐.790 .197

Table 16

20

Hypothesis 7

An independent samples t test was undertaken to investigate whether Female students would

be more concerned with Prices, Layout of Store and Quality factors than male students. Again,

there was no significant difference between male and female students of either group being

more concerned with price, layout of store, and quality than the other (p = .764, p >.05).


Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances t‐test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df

Sig. (2‐

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference Lower Upper

Equal

variances

assumed

.064 .802 ‐

.302

49 .764 ‐.060 .199 ‐.460 .340 How important

is price

Equal

variances

not assumed

‐

.304

48.918 .763 ‐.060 .198 ‐.459 .338

Equal

variances

assumed

.500 .483 ‐

.946

49 .349 ‐.231 .245 ‐.723 .260 How important

is the layout of

the store

Equal

variances

not assumed

‐

.933

43.703 .356 ‐.231 .248 ‐.731 .268

Equal

variances

assumed

.625 .433 .023 49 .982 .005 .204 ‐.405 .415 How important

is the quality of

produce

Equal

variances

not assumed

.023 46.508 .982 .005 .205 ‐.409 .418

Table 17

21

Hypothesis 8

In order to test hypothesis 8 (see Table 18) and determine the influence of consumer

awareness of the price wars and their view of the importance of price in shopping, a series of

one way ANOVAs was undertaken. There was no significant difference between those who

were aware of price wars and those who were not, or those who were unsure in terms of the

importance they placed on price for shopping in a physical or online store (p > .05). (See Table

19). However, there was a significant difference between those who were aware of the price

wars and those who were not in terms of whether price would encourage them to buy online

rather than via a physical store (p < .05). Those who were aware of the price wars value price

as more important in an online store (M= 4.00) than those who were not aware (M=2.89) and

thus were more likely to consider price an encouragement to buy online than those who were

not aware (See Table 18). These results partially support hypothesis 8.

The importance of price in shopping and consumer awareness of the price wars

Importance of Price in shopping Mean Std. Deviation

yes 4.14 .663

no 3.89 .601 I don't know 4.25 .752

How important is price

yes 4.00 .392

no 2.89 1.269 I don't know 3.93 .858


Table 18

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 8.430 3 2.810 3.801 .016

Within Groups 34.746 47 .739


Total 43.176 50 Between Groups .914 3 .305 .601 .618

Within Groups 23.831 47 .507


Total 24.745 50 Table 19

Descriptives

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error

Lower Bound

Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

22

yes 13 4.00 .408 .113 3.75 4.25 3 5 no 9 2.89 1.269 .423 1.91 3.86 1 4 I don't know

28 3.93 .858 .162 3.60 4.26 1 5

10 1 4.00 . . . . 4 4


Total 51 3.76 .929 .130 3.50 4.03 1 5 yes 13 4.15 .689 .191 3.74 4.57 3 5 no 9 3.89 .601 .200 3.43 4.35 3 5 I don't know

28 4.25 .752 .142 3.96 4.54 2 5

10 1 4.00 . . . . 4 4


Total 51 4.16 .703 .099 3.96 4.35 2 5 Table 20

Hypothesis 9

An ANOVA was used to investigate whether people who were further away from their local

grocery store would be more likely to buy groceries online than those who do not. Once again,

no significant difference between distance to grocery store and likelihood to buy online was

found that would have supported hypothesis 9. Significance greater than .05 (p = .296, p > .05).

ANOVA How likely would you be to buy groceries online Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 4.658 3 1.553 1.270 .296 Within Groups 56.222 46 1.222 Total 60.880 49

Table 21

Hypothesis 10

Another ANOVA was applied in order to assess the plausibility of the hypothesis stating that

students who grocery shop more often will be more likely to buy groceries online than those

who do not. There was no significant difference between those students who shop more often

and the likelihood to buy online compared to those who shop less frequently (p = .813, p > .05)

ANOVA


Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1.219 3 .406 .318 .813

Within Groups 60.114 47 1.279

Total 61.333 50 Table 22

23

Hypothesis 11

There was no significant difference (p = .921, p > .05) reported regarding the likelihood of

valuing a selection in an online shop by those students who went to the grocery store to get

ideas and those who did not. As a result the hypothesis was not supported that ‘students who

went to the store to get ideas are more likely to value a selection in an online shop’.


Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means


F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference Lower Upper


.492 .486 -.100

49 .921 -.028 .279 -.589 .533 Would selection encourage you to buy online

Equal variances not assumed

-.098

42.170 .923 -.028 .284 -.601 .545

Table 23

Hypothesis 12

In order to test hypothesis 12 that students from business and health disciplines would be

more likely to purchase online than other disciplines because they may be aware of the price

wars, a one way ANOVA was undertaken. The independent variable was discipline area and

the dependent variable was the likelihood of consumers buying online. While there was no

significant difference between the disciplines in terms of their likelihood of purchasing online

(p > .05), Figure 5 shows that there is a trend for Health students to be more likely to buy

online (M = 3.1). These results show trends only partially in support of hypothesis, however,

trends were not significant.

ANOVA


Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 10.733 6 1.789 1.556 .183

Within Groups 50.600 44 1.150 Total 61.333 50

Table 24

24

Figure 5

25

Discussion

The study investigated the perception of university students towards the idea of buying

produce online, whilst it further attempted to assess and reveal significant necessary factors

that would encourage students to switch from buying produce in a store to buying produce

online. While price and possibly convenience would have been assumed both to be important

the study found that the only significant perceived benefit of the students was price, when

assessing the likelihood to buy produce online. This result is interesting as one would have

possibly assumed that at least convenience would have demonstrated a significant relationship

encouraging students’ buying behaviour to buy groceries online. Also research being done with

respect to students buyer behaviour suggests the notion of convenience being a significant

factor. Even though price was the most important factor influencing students to buy online,

the recent price wars between major Australian grocery chains students did not find it to be

important in either online or bricks and mortar stores thereby, softening the impact of the

factor ‘price’ in this regard.

When asked, however, which factors would be important in terms of choosing where to buy

groceries, quality was perceived to be the most important ahead of price. This is worth noting

as it suggests that despite price being the most encouraging factor of buying groceries online

an absence of quality could have potentially a negative impact on consumer’s loyalty to a

website, while possibly revert to the traditional mode of supermarket shopping whenever they

are dissatisfied either with specific or with general aspects of the online experience, as

previous research found.

Furthermore, other examined factors such as whether students were driving to a grocery store

surprisingly did not really prove to have any significant influence of buying groceries online less

likely than students who did not drive. However, given the fact that more than 80 per cent of

the respondents lived within a range of 2 km of a nearby grocery store, it can be assumed that

due to the short distance driving can be neglected as being critically enough that it would have

an impact on the likelihood of students buying online. Likewise, when people were asked if

distance would encourage them to buy online, there was no significant difference reported

compared to those students that lived not so far away. Again, since over 80 per cent of the

surveyed students were living within 2 km of a grocery store distance as a factor did not seem

to weigh enough to be considered too important on that particular matter.

26

As indicated by research respondents believed online shopping was the best price and value

for their time. However, 80.6% of the students still responded that they were likely to make

purchases in store, rather than online. This notion was also supported in the study carried out,

as people with a job and therefore with bigger time constraints did not show to significantly be

more likely to buy groceries online than students who did not work. Finally, when investigating

whether there was a difference in likelihood according to the disciplines students were

studying, interestingly business students were least likely to purchase online, contrary to

expectations. There was a trend indicating health students would be more likely to buy

groceries online.

Implications

The study was carried out to assess how likely university students would be to buy produce

online and to determine what factors would make university students switch from buying

produce in a store to buying produce online. As there is only a small selection of secondary

research currently available the study was also intented to fill the knowledge gap thereby,

shedding further light on this matter.

Secondly the gathered information could have provided market researchers with basic but still

valuable research data based on the buying habits of university students regarding purchasing

fruits and vedgetables. Furthermore, the result could

have assisted potential grocery shop owners as well

as entrepreneurs with their decision making process

when considering setting up an online produce store

targeted at university students.

However, against common belief the overall interest

in buying groceries and particularly, produce online

was rather weak with more than 55 per cent of the

participants responded that they were more than

unlikely to purchase groceries online compared to

roughly 18 per cent stating to be likely buying produce online. This was also

surprising as current secondary research would have suggested a somewhat different picture.

How likely would you be to buy

groceries online

Frequency Valid

Percent

very

unlikely

14 27.5

unlikely 16 31.4

neutral 12 23.5

likely 8 15.7

very

likely

1 2.0

Valid

Total 51 100.0

Table 25

27

Limitations and Recommodation

A few characteristics as far as the design and methodology set parameters on the application

and interpretation of the study. With respect to the validity of the undertaken study it needs to

be emphasized that any generalizations of these findings should be approached with caution

as the sample was a very small convenience sample. The most obvious criticism about

convenience sampling is sampling bias and that the sample is not representative of the entire

population. The survey was administered in the form of an anonymous survey only to the

students at Griffith Gold Coast University and excluded other campuses as well as students

from different universities which results to a low external validity of the study.

Moreover, with respect to survey instrument there were several questions addressed using the

Likert scaling system. Scales require a great deal of decision‐making as there are only a few

options offered, with which the respondents may not fully agree and thus may limit the overall

outcome of the study.

For example, the respondents might value other factors than the ones provided, that would

encourage them to buy groceries online. Also, those surveyed may not have been completely

honest or may answer according to what they feel is expected of them as particpants.

Furthermore, questions pertaining to age were not being addressed which would have allowed

for a more thorough demographic segmentation. The questionnaire also neglected to ask

whether participants generally shopped online in order to extrapolate attitude towards the

overall idea of shopping online. More importantly the questionnaire lacked continuity in

content as most of the questions referred to groceries rather than focussing on produce only

and therefore could be misleading.

It is recommended that additional study be conducted of a larger and more representative

university student sample, to shed further light on the produce shopping behavior of students.

28

Citation

Arnaudovska, E., Bankston, K., Simurkova, J., & Budden, M. C. (2010). University student shopping patterns: Internet vs. brick and mortar. Journal of Applied Business Research, 26(1), 31‐31‐36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/227611000?accounti d=14543 Bill Anckar, Pirkko Walden, Tawfik Jelassi, (2002) "Creating customer value in online grocery shopping", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 Iss: 4, pp.211 ‐ 220 Browne, Kate. 2010, Groceries in a click? Online grocery shopping should be quick and convenient, but it hasn't taken off in Australia. Choice. March, 2010. 32

Comegys, C., Hannula, M., & Väisänen, J. (2006). Longitudinal comparison of finnish and us online shopping behaviour among university students: the five‐stage buying decision process. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(4), 336–356. Corbett, J. (2001). Is online grocery shopping increasing in strength?. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 32(1), 40 Dall'Olmo Riley, F., Hand, C., Rettie, R., Robinson, H., & Singh, J. (2007). Adoption and motivational factors for online grocery shopping in the uk. Academy of Marketing (AM) Annual Conference 2007 Dobson, S., & Ness, M. (2009). Undergraduate students' attitudes towards food shopping

and attitudes to time. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(6), 659‐668. doi:10.1111/j.1470‐6431.2009.00820.x

Ramus, K., & Nielsen, N. A. (2005). Online grocery retailing: What do consumers think? Internet Research, 15(3), 335‐335‐352. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/219871792?accountid=14543

Schuster, A., & Sporn, B. (1998). Potential for online grocery shopping in the urban area of vienna. Electronic Markets, 8(2), 15. "Survey Reveals: Online Advertising Motivates College Students to Purchase."

Experience Inc. N.p., 2011. Web. 24 Aug. 2011. http://www.experience.com/corp/press_release?id=press_release_1138662942335&tab= cn1&channel_id=about_us&page_id=media_coverage_news

29

Appendix 1: Ethics Applications

30

Appendix 2: Survey Instrument

31

32

Examination of the Likelihood of Griffith Gold

Coast University Students

to buy produce Online

Individual Market Research Report

7207MKT Market Research Course

– Course Convenor: Dr Helen Perkins

Griffith University Gold Coast campus, QLD

By

Robert KriTikos s2788287

21 October 2011

Documents

Market Research Report Master