The Myth Of Showrooming Takes Another Hit

Written by Evan Schuman
May 15th, 2013

The myth of showrooming—the suggestion that tons of shoppers are flooding stores to only use them as a physical showroom as they had always intended to purchase the product at Amazon—lives on. But a survey conducted in late April by Bizrate Insights is helping to add a little clarity. First, showrooming really doesn’t happen very often. But more interestingly, when it does, it’s more likely to be within the same chain. That’s a problem all right, but the name of that problem isn’t showrooming. It’s internal politics.

Bizrate surveyed more than 9,000 shoppers (between April 24-30) who had just completed an online purchase at one of their e-tailers. The first—and arguably most meaningful—stat is an overwhelming 78.15 percent of those online purchasers had not looked at those products in any physical store. No surprise there, but it’s a key number to remember the next time someone shouts about how showrooming is gutting brick-and-mortars.

When they zeroed in on that remaining 21.85 percent of shoppers who had looked instore before buying online, most of them (54 percent) ended up buying from the same chain. In other words, they were in a Target or a Best Buy and then purchased from or

Granted, that’s a slim margin (in the survey, it’s the difference between 11.8 percent and 10.05 percent—and it’s not clear what the survey’s margin of error was), but it’s still interesting.

Not only does that suggest something that is not showrooming, it’s probably good news for that chain. The problem is with the way that most incentives (commissions, bonuses, etc.) of in-store managers work today, those store managers hate losing a sale to their own online arm just as much as if it went to a brick-and-mortar of the most direct rival. To them, losing a sale is losing a sale.

If merged channel/omnichannel strategies are to work, financial incentives must be radically reworked.

If not showrooming, then what is likely going on here? If the shopper ends up purchasing from the same chain’s online arm, it’s not likely about money. (Pricing is no longer that big a difference and most chains will now price-match their online arm anyway.) When factoring in the shipping charges, it’s clear that it’s really not about saving money. Add the multi-day delivery delay—versus the multi-minute delay of purchasing it right there in the store—and the endless forms for an online site and it’s also not about convenience.

With most of those sales, the customer wanted the product, was satisfied with the physical inspection and either wanted it shipper rather than carried (especially for a large bulky purchase). Or they could be traveling and wanted it sent home. Perhaps it’s a gift for an out-of-state friend, in which case online purchasing really is a lot more convenient.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.