In-store surveillance technologies: what drives their acceptability among consumers?

IF 2.9 Q2 BUSINESS
R. Brooksbank, J. Scott, S. Fullerton
{"title":"In-store surveillance technologies: what drives their acceptability among consumers?","authors":"R. Brooksbank, J. Scott, S. Fullerton","doi":"10.1080/09593969.2022.2042713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Retail surveillance technologies that enable marketers to track the in-store behaviour of an individual consumer are becoming commonplace. Yet, despite questions raised about their ethicality, their acceptability from a consumer perspective remains under-researched, thereby limiting a marketer’s ability to make informed decisions when deploying such technologies. Accordingly, this study focuses on a ‘matched pair’ of widely used technologies selected specifically for the purpose of examining its core proposition that a voluntary, transparent form of surveillance that provides the consumer with direct benefits (Shopkick), will be viewed more favourably than will its equal and opposite counterpart (Shopperception). Building on the theoretical perspective of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), a sample of 477 survey respondents provided reasons why each technology might, or might not, be acceptable using an essentially open-ended questionnaire. Responses were coded and labelled with the subsequent lists of reasons being analysed descriptively. A single closed-ended question required respondents to rate their overall acceptability, and these responses were subject to t-tests. A comparison of the results obtained across two independent subsamples show that consumers evaluate ‘Shopkick’ to be considerably more acceptable than ‘Shopperception’, thereby confirming the study’s core proposition whilst also providing insights into the specific ‘costs and benefits’ associated with each technology from the consumers’ point of view. The study’s findings and their implications are then delineated from the perspective of both practitioners and academicians. For practitioners, an easy-to-use ‘infographic’ visual decision-making aid designed to help retailers make more informed choices about if and how to best to deploy the new generation of in-store surveillance technologies is developed. For academicians with a focus on theoretical considerations, a variation of the TAM as it relates to the consumers’ propensity to accept or reject an in-store surveillance technology is also proposed.","PeriodicalId":47139,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research","volume":"30 1","pages":"508 - 531"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2022.2042713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Retail surveillance technologies that enable marketers to track the in-store behaviour of an individual consumer are becoming commonplace. Yet, despite questions raised about their ethicality, their acceptability from a consumer perspective remains under-researched, thereby limiting a marketer’s ability to make informed decisions when deploying such technologies. Accordingly, this study focuses on a ‘matched pair’ of widely used technologies selected specifically for the purpose of examining its core proposition that a voluntary, transparent form of surveillance that provides the consumer with direct benefits (Shopkick), will be viewed more favourably than will its equal and opposite counterpart (Shopperception). Building on the theoretical perspective of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), a sample of 477 survey respondents provided reasons why each technology might, or might not, be acceptable using an essentially open-ended questionnaire. Responses were coded and labelled with the subsequent lists of reasons being analysed descriptively. A single closed-ended question required respondents to rate their overall acceptability, and these responses were subject to t-tests. A comparison of the results obtained across two independent subsamples show that consumers evaluate ‘Shopkick’ to be considerably more acceptable than ‘Shopperception’, thereby confirming the study’s core proposition whilst also providing insights into the specific ‘costs and benefits’ associated with each technology from the consumers’ point of view. The study’s findings and their implications are then delineated from the perspective of both practitioners and academicians. For practitioners, an easy-to-use ‘infographic’ visual decision-making aid designed to help retailers make more informed choices about if and how to best to deploy the new generation of in-store surveillance technologies is developed. For academicians with a focus on theoretical considerations, a variation of the TAM as it relates to the consumers’ propensity to accept or reject an in-store surveillance technology is also proposed.
店内监控技术:是什么促使消费者接受它们?
零售监控技术使营销人员能够跟踪单个消费者的店内行为,这种技术正变得越来越普遍。然而,尽管对其伦理提出了质疑,但从消费者的角度来看,它们的可接受性仍未得到充分研究,从而限制了营销人员在部署此类技术时做出明智决策的能力。因此,本研究侧重于广泛使用的技术的“匹配对”,专门用于检查其核心主张,即为消费者提供直接利益的自愿、透明的监控形式(Shopkick)将比其平等和相反的对手(Shopperception)更受欢迎。基于技术接受模型(TAM)的理论观点,477个调查对象的样本提供了为什么每种技术可能被接受,或者可能不被接受的原因,使用本质上开放式的问卷。对答复进行编码和标记,并对随后的原因进行描述性分析。一个单一的封闭式问题要求受访者对他们的整体可接受性进行评分,这些回答需要进行t检验。通过两个独立子样本获得的结果的比较表明,消费者评估“Shopkick”比“Shopperception”更容易接受,从而证实了研究的核心主张,同时也从消费者的角度提供了与每种技术相关的具体“成本和收益”的见解。研究的结果和他们的影响,然后从从业者和学者的角度描绘。对于从业者来说,一个易于使用的“信息图”视觉决策辅助工具旨在帮助零售商在是否以及如何最好地部署新一代店内监控技术方面做出更明智的选择。对于专注于理论考虑的学者,还提出了TAM的变化,因为它与消费者接受或拒绝店内监控技术的倾向有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
41
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信