For a renewal of the situation concept: The situation of home online shopping

From situation to situational variables: Classic approach to the situation from Belk

The marketing literature dedicated to the situation systematically refers to Belk, who defines the situation as “[…] all those factors particular to a time and place of observation which do not follow from a knowledge of personal (intra-individual) and stimulus (choice alternative) attributes, and which have a demonstrable and systematic effect on current behavior” (Belk, 1974: 157). This definition is thus based on the dichotomy between the situation and other factors (e.g. knowledge held by the consumer and external stimuli) without specifying what “the situation” is (Wicker, 1975). Belk responded, in part, to this first critique the following year by distinguishing five “situational variables,” that is, five “groups of situational characteristics,” namely, physical, social, temporal, task definition, and antecedent states (Appendix 1), which were intended to complete the initial definition (Belk, 1975: 158).

The controversy published the same year in the Journal of Consumer Research and animated by Wicker (1975) and Barker (1975) led to the exclusion of the last dimension, which refers not to the situation but to the individual (see also Dubois, 1994; 1996, or Lemoine and Plichon, 2000). Let us add that this last dimension concerns the “before and after” situation but not necessarily the situation at a given moment (i.e. hic and nunc). The controversy also relates to the fact that a situation is never perceived and experienced in the same way by consumers, that is, it is necessarily subjective. Two perspectives are thus identified and qualified as psychological (Lutz and Kakkar (1975), constitutes the central reference) and objective according to Belk (1974; 1975). While Belk also acknowledges that a situation is never perceived and experienced in the same way by consumers, it nevertheless needs an objective definition to facilitate measurement.

Belk’s (1975) second approach has been consistently used as a reference for more than 40 years. The literature has considered the situation as a set of factors that are external to the product and the consumer that influence consumer behaviors The classic approach can thus be described as external. It is then operationalized by one or more variables, the number and relative importance of which are debated.

From situational variables to the “P-O-S paradigm”: Continuity and limitations of the classic approach

Thus, the concept of a marketing situation is embodied in what is sometimes referred to as the “P-O-S paradigm.” It is often attributed to Punj and Stewart (1983), although it had already been explicitly presented by Belk (1975). According to this conception, which was developed in line with the canonical S-O-R (stimulus, organism, and response) model ³ , the consumer behaviors, particularly their purchasing decision processes, are the result of an interaction between a person (P), an object/product (O), and a situation (S). Many studies use this approach, particularly in the field of distribution and consumption experience (Appendix 2), which explains the proximity between the concepts of experience and situation. Previous research highlights the significant impact of situational variables on consumer actions, intentions, and assessments. However, past studies did not intend to study the situation as such. The P-O-S approach does not make it possible to describe and understand the richness and complexity of a situation. Belk’s definition, above all, clarifies what a situation is not but it says less what it is: “all these particular factors … that do not arise from …” This is the initial objective of neither Belk nor Punj and Stewart (1983), who seek to devise an explanatory model of consumer behavior that takes better account of “situational variables.” This is also the case for the many subsequent papers that followed this explanatory approach, such as that of Foxall and Yani-de-Soriano (2005). The risk of diluting the situation concept in a list of situational variables encourages us to return to the foundations of the concept of the situation in social sciences.

A participatory approach to the situation: Another conceptualization since the pioneering work of Goffman

In the social sciences, Goffman (1964) appears to be a pioneer, as all of the work devoted to the situation since then has made direct reference to him (Girin, 1990a; Journé and Raulet-Croset, 2008; Quéré, 1997; Winkin, 1988). He defines a “social situation” as “an environment of mutual monitoring possibilities, anywhere within which an individual will find himself accessible to the naked senses of all others who are ‘present’, and similarly find them accessible to him” (1988: 135). Social interaction can then be defined as, “what occurs only in social situations, that is, environments in which two or more individuals are physically in the presence of each other’s response.” Thus, it is not a question of being physically present but of being “physically in the presence of each other’s response” (also emphasized by Girin (1990a)). The distance and the mediatization of social interactions are well considered by Goffman (1988), who uses the examples of telephone and mail (p. 191), even though he favors the study of meetings and “face-to-face engagements” (Girin, 1990a). He explicitly specifies the point that the “situational perspective” “is not limited […] to the co-piloted arena of the face-to-face encounter” (Goffman, 1991: 16). The case of the SHOS fits in well with this logic of mediatized and remote co-presence made up of the possibilities of exchange and control/monitoring. The question of control (information) is at the heart of early e-marketing research (Ariely, 2000; Dubois and Vernette, 2001; Lynch and Ariely, 2000; Novak et al., 2000).

Two points in common with the classic approach to the marketing situation can be identified. The first is the relationship to the place and time is present in both Goffman and Belk in two distinct dimensions, that is, the physical surroundings and temporal perspective. The second is co-presence, which is mentioned by Belk (1975) as a facet of “social surroundings” (i.e. the second situational variable). It should be noted here that the concepts of situation and environment (or surrounding) seem to be closely linked in Goffman, similar to with Belk and his successors, but in a different way. Indeed, according to Goffman (1964), the social situation is defined as “an environment of mutual monitoring possibilities …,” while Belk (1975) distinguishes between “physical surroundings” and “social surroundings ‘among the five’ groups of situational characteristics” (p. 158). For the former, the (social) situation thus corresponds to a particular type of environment. In the latter, these are types of environments that constitute (among other things) the situation. Let us add that a later definition by Goffman (1987) carefully avoids the term “environment” as follows: “By situation, I mean any material area at any point in which two or more people are within sight and within ear reach of each other.” Co-presence and mutual monitoring are particularly emphasized (p. 91).

Three fundamental differences from the classic approach to the situation can be identified. With Goffman, the person or rather people are an integral part of the situation; they are at the heart of the situation and define it. This is why this conceptual approach can be described as constructed; the situation is (partly) constructed by the participants. This is not the case with Belk (1975) or Punj and Stewart (1983) and their successors, who deliberately seek to distinguish between the person and the situation (P-O-S). This is the fundamental difference and a central point of criticism of the classic approach. Indeed, this distinction between the individual and the situation is not without its problems if we admit that the consumer is an integral part of the situation: he or she is taken “in” the situation or, to put it another way, the situation is co-produced by the consumer(s) involved. In this regard, Goffman is in the same vein as the philosopher Whitehead (1920) conceptualizes the actor of the situation (which he calls the “superject”) as the one who actualizes the perspective and makes it effective as follows: “the person actualizes the meaning by positioning himself in the place intended for him by the situation.” Goffman is also in line with Dewey’s (1993) pragmatist philosophy, as mentioned by Journé and Raulet-Croset (2008) ⁴ . Indeed, the situation is neither “given” nor objective; it is constructed and emerges in action, that is, interactants are resolutely involved in the situation. This approach can thus be described as participatory (or in action), that is, the actors are fully involved in defining the situation. The second difference concerns the earlier statements initially present in Belk (1975), which will be eventually dismissed by the classic approach as a result of the controversy evoked above (Barker, 1975 and Wicker, 1975). Finally, the third conceptual difference concerns the presence of the “task definition” in the classic approach that does not appear in Goffman. According to Belk, a “situational task-setting device” refers to the intent of behavior (e.g. intention to buy) and the intended roles (e.g. to buy for oneself or to sell). These are the buyer’s own projects, which he “brings” into the situation. This is quite astonishing because Belk seeks to precisely distinguish what comes from the buyer, the product, and the situation (P-O-S). The task thus corresponds to what Goffman (1991) would describe as a framework or context. This distinction between the situation and context is also present in Girin (1990a, 1990b, 2016), who developed a Goffmanian approach to the situation in management sciences.

Extension of the Goffmanian approach to the situation with Girin

Girin’s (1990a; 1990b; 2016) research is one of the few in management to theorize the concept of the situation (Chanlat and Dumez, 2016; Journé and Raulet-Croset, 2008). Girin’s (1990a) work is based first on linguistics and deictics ⁵ (Benveniste, 1958) before proposing a very rich discussion of Goffman’s work (1964, 1991) to define a situation and then a “management situation” (Girin, 1990b). Girin (1990a) defines a situation by three aspects, that is, the participants, the spatial extension, namely, the place(s) where it takes place and the physical objects within it, and the temporal extension (i.e. a beginning, an end, an unfolding, and possibly a periodicity) (p. 30). Thus, understanding the situation implies answering at least three fundamental questions according to Girin (1990a): “Who can intervene? Where are we now? When is this happening?” He adds that the situation has all the characteristics of “total social fact” (Mauss, 1950), that is, it can be accounted for from a multitude of perspectives that never exhaust it (Girin, 1990a: 31). This subjectivity is also claimed by Goffman (1991) who defends it with the principle of “situational perspective.” The study of conflicts regarding the interpretation of situations is indeed at the heart of interactionist sociology. It should be noted that a subjective approach to the situation was already present in the controversy developed in the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) in 1975 (including Barker, 1975 and Wicker, 1975; see supra), but it seems to have since been ignored in the marketing literature. It seems all the more important to recall its theoretical interest and legitimacy and to clearly specify the point of view adopted during research on the marketing situation where the actors – and therefore the points of view – are numerous. We find here the same elements of convergence and divergence as between the classic marketing approach and the Goffmanian approach. In addition, Girin’s first “translation,” which has a more operational definition and three fundamental questions, facilitates the operationalization of the marketing concept (Appendix 3). However, even if his work is widely mobilized in organizations to study management situations (Girin, 1990b, 2016) work and action in situations (Quéré, 1997; De Fornel and Quéré, 1999), managerial activity (Journé and Raulet-Croset, 2008), or even changes in organizations (Schmitt et al., 2011), he has never been involved in marketing.

In addition, the notions of situation and context are distinguishable. With Girin, we consider that “contexts are ways of reading the situation. They are structures of interpretation, cognitive schemas, which everyone has at his disposal to understand the events that occur there” (Girin, 1990a: 31). Thus, “each particular situation allows for the use of a range of contexts and excludes others or makes them unlikely. Thus, context is something that will give meaning to the text” (Girin, 1990a: 33), which is a cognitive schema applicable to this text. Finally, what Girin (1990b; 2016) defines as context almost corresponds to the concept of “frame” in Goffman’s work ⁶ . Girin insists on plural definitions of a situation in Goffman’s seminal text, claiming that there are always several possible “definitions” of the same situation. Frameworks would then be the various “organizing principles” that underpin these “definitions” (Girin, 1990a: 34–35). The eminently subjective character of any situation, regardless of whether it is related to marketing, is thus based on the possible definitions of the situation and the modes of reading, that is, appropriate contexts.

To test and enrich the conceptualization of the marketing situation, particularly for research on consumer practices, we use a heuristic approach based on the concrete observation of a specific situation, namely, that of HOS, which serves as a case study.

An in situ observation of the HOS situation: Choice of field of research and data collection method

In practice, the methodological system is based on two waves of observations carried out 2 years in a row on convenience samples. We chose to continue the study for a second year to better meet the objectives of saturation (empirical and theoretical) and engage a variety of participants and situations, which are essential for this type of qualitative research. Indeed, the goal is not statistical representativeness, but rather variety among participants to serve conceptual exploration (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Theoretical sampling is more suited to the objectives of the research. In the end, 60 individuals, all of whom had already purchased at least once online, were thus observed, and the variety of socio-demographic profiles and uses of merchant sites was thus respected (Supplementary Material 1). To conduct the observation in the most familiar and natural way possible, observations are made at the participants’ homes during the winter sales, which are the best time for online shopping (LSA, 2018).

The first phase of data processing consisted of selecting the observations that strictly corresponded to the criteria initially defined (e.g. non-participating observation, verbalization, quality of video recording, and HOS situation). Therefore, only 39 of the 60 observations were preserved. In total, the observations concern French consumers aged between 18 and 54 years living in small- and medium-sized towns consisting of 28 women and 11 men with varied professional activities and regular Internet purchases (Supplementary Material 1). The second phase then consisted of corpus analysis. It was conducted by the researchers/authors to explore in detail and define the SHOS and associated practices. The analysis is based on the coding of observations (i.e. films) in two steps. First, open coding is used to highlight as many facets and characteristics of the situation as possible. Then, gradually, thematic coding was performed to partly join the components of the two fundamental approaches identified in the literature (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Dumez, 2013; Point and Voynnet-Fourboul, 2006).

Participants in the SHOS: Presence and co-presence

Typically, observers observe the shopping behavior of one participant, who is “physically present” while browsing the merchant sites. The presence of other people in the living space and sometimes in the same room who participate, comment, or disrupt the online shopping activity is nevertheless observed. It can be a teenager or another person at home who watches TV in the same room and bothers the lead actor because the volume is too high. However, this co-presence is sometimes called for. A typical example is the spouse, who is sought for technical reasons. If he or she is present, discussion with the spouse is frequent; in this case, it is a matter of questioning him or her and sharing his or her opinions regarding online purchasing projects. However, co-presence is most often experienced (see Appendix 5). Ultimately, participants are rarely alone. Through socio-digital media, mainly through Facebook (by chatting with Messenger) and mobile phones (chatting by SMS), they interact very frequently with relatives. This online interaction is sometimes initiated by the “main” participant, for example, the buyer invites a close friend or family to join him or her in the SHOS to ask for their opinion. In this case, the “other participants” are invited, and thus, their co-presence is required. Another form of co-presence is the use of online notices and consumer comments on merchant and specialized websites (e.g. virtual communities and forums). These other participants are often unknown to the buyer and are hidden behind a pseudonym, but their participation is nonetheless necessary for the smooth running of the SHOS. Finally, external solicitations lead to interruptions, that is, breaks in the online shopping activity. This observation therefore also concerns the temporal dimension of the situation (cf. infra).

Spatial and material elements of the SHOS

The SHOS refers to at least four spatial characteristics. First, it is defined by the diversity of places and material objects mobilized. The SHOS takes place in different rooms in the home depending on consumer habits, for example, the living room in the case of an apartment, the bedroom, the kitchen or the room dedicated to the computer (i.e. the office). In practice, buyers make themselves comfortable; they sit comfortably in the room and on the furniture they choose. Most often, the furniture used (i.e. to place the computer, screen, tablet, or other device) is not specific; it is intended for other uses than online navigation, for example, the coffee table in the dining room or the kitchen table (Figure 3). Only one observation is made with a computer installed in a multimedia office. The variety of computer equipment is also observed, for example, laptops (most often), tablets, desktop computers (very rarely) with or without mice and/or keyboards, PC/Mac operating systems, browsers and various software. The use of a smartphone during the HOS is often observed, especially when the buyer wants to find discount codes. However, the smartphone rarely concerns the shopping activity. As mentioned above, participants are frequently interrupted by relatives during the HOS through phone, email, and social media. It is also interesting to note that the SHOS is not limited to an online experience with digital tools. The practice of online shopping often requires taking notes about prices, products and references. The next step is to compare and discuss the identified offers at a later stage (Figure 1) either using pen and paper or by consulting various documents.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Pencil and sheet of paper used by Olivier to take notes.

Second, certain elements of the atmosphere of the place intervene during the SHOS; these elements are mainly sounds (music and television) and the temperature. Music may interfere with merchant sites that offer/impose sound from the home page or with certain commercial videos. Similarly, the television is sometimes turned on (in the same room or in a room close enough to be heard), which creates a special sound atmosphere. In addition, the temperature in the room leads some participants to stand up to adjust the thermostat (interrupting the online interaction for a short time). The third spatial aspect is the physical movement within the home. Far from being confined in an enclosed space and being static in front of the screen, the participants are mobile. This is a concrete mobility, which is often driven by the need to, for example, obtain the material required to pay online. The payment card is sometimes present next to the screen; otherwise, leading the participants to move around. The search for promotional codes, which has already been highlighted as a material element, also leads to movement. In addition, home-based mobility can be linked to activities or needs independent of the SHOS (answering the phone or the door because someone is ringing the doorbell) or to natural needs, such as going to the toilet or changing the thermostat. This mobility produces short interruptions and pauses in online shopping and reminds us of the interdependence of space and time (spatial and temporal dimensions), which we will come back to later. Finally, the fourth notable spatial characteristic refers to cross-channel mobility, which corresponds to the shopping paths between the various distribution channels (e.g. stores or e-commerce sites). A form of paradox can be noted between the desire expressed orally to not want to move and this cross-channel mobility, which we “trace” in the following example (Figure 2(b)), where a participant of a SHOS (at home) enters a promotional code using a discount card (−15%) previously acquired in a Sephora store. This also shows the continuity and complementarity between shopping in “physical” retail outlets and online shopping at home. Figure 2(a) shows another form of marketing and cross-channel practice (i.e. mailing, cataloging, and Internet).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

(a) Malia uses an online coupon from the 3 Suisses, which was received by post for her birthday and (b) entering a promotional code on a Sephora discount card purchased in store.

In short, the spatial dimension of the SHOS is not limited to what happens at home. This characteristic also indicates that it is closely linked to the temporal dimension of the SHOS, as developed in the next point.

Temporal dimension of the SHOS

The temporal dimension must also be considered in several ways. First, we can observe the moments and durations of the SHOS. While most observations are conducted in the afternoon or evening, participants also report connecting to shop online early in the morning, sometimes at breakfast. The duration of observation ranges from 20 minutes to 1 hour, but reported practices range from a few minutes to a few hours.

Then, the temporality of the situation is integrated within the specific temporality of everyday life of the individuals. For instance, the SHOS can be linked to specific times in the month, because it corresponds to the payment of remuneration. In addition, some participants use available time and conduct their online shopping within a given time frame.

In addition, ritualized temporalities have been observed, for example, breakfast, snacks, tea, or coffee; these are privileged moments to jointly conduct online shopping activities (Figure 3). Thus, eating and drinking while shopping online appears to occur frequently.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

(Left) MacBook Air placed on a table with a checkered tablecloth in the kitchen. (Right) Teapot and mug, brownie plate, and wallet.

Second, the HOS process can be described as discontinuous. It has already been noted above that the SHOS is subject to multiple interruptions that are often unwanted. However, the approach can also be voluntary, as indicated by the verbatim statements of respondents who express their approach (Supplementary Material 1). The role of computer equipment that sometimes performs or fails is central. The participants’ technical skills are sometimes put to the test, and these skills can significantly change the SHOS from one person to another, in addition to the possible difficulties of accessing the Internet. During the online shopping, the practice appears controlled and reflective. This reveals that participants not only have sufficient self-knowledge to know that time distortion is frequent with the HOS but also have real control (of oneself and of the practice) to maintain control of the online shopping (Appendix 5).

Finally, the last characteristic of the temporal dimension is the (temporal) interdependence, that is, the fact that the SHOS is not isolated from the temporality of each actor but that it is part of the shopping undertaken before and after the observed situation. In fact, during home observations, the amount of time spent upstream in preparation for online shopping can be seen. For example, some participants indicated that they planned to shop online at their workplace or earlier in the days leading up to the event. In the latter case, it is a question of comparing and subsequently discussing the offers identified during HOS. To conduct their online shopping, participants also indicate that they are archiving items such as online consumer reviews and comments in the browser’s favorites and reactivating them when they are needed. Continuity can also be observed in the continuation of downstream shopping. On one hand, HOS sessions are repeated, for example, many participants report coming back again and again to the same site, the same page, or the same product either on the same day or over many weeks. On the other hand, HOS activity continues offline, for example, during discussions with close relatives (Figures 1 and 3). Thus, whether due to the intervention of other participants or to spatial mobility, this double characteristic of continuity/repetition with the interruption/recovery of HOS highlights the strong interweaving not only of the spatio-temporal dimensions but also (more generally) of the three dimensions of the SHOS.

Clarification and renewal of the theoretical debate on the marketing situation

A review of the literature reveals two distinct theoretical perspectives on the situation.

The first, which is described as classic or external, also known as P-O-S, which is in accordance with the founding texts of Belk (1974 and 1975) and Punj and Stewart (1983). This perspective is omnipresent in marketing, and it seeks to distinguish what is relevant to the situation, the market offer, and the consumer to better study the reciprocal influences among these three elements. The study of situational variables feeds the work associated with this perspective. However, this article underscores the difficulty of identifying the infinite number of situational variables that cannot exhaust the concept of the situation, which may fragment the knowledge. In addition, the wide variety of situations in the field of marketing (consumer, information search, exposure to marketing practices, and purchasing situations, for example, in-store, online, and at home) reinforces the conceptualization of the situation while taking care to clearly specify the situation studied. In this case, our research focuses on the specific case of SHOS.

The second perspective, which described as participative (or in action) and follows on the work of Goffman (1964, 1988, 1991) and Girin (1990a, 1990b, 2016), places the consumer(s) at the heart of the situation. The situation is therefore constructed in action, and the eminently subjective character of the situation experienced by the participants is then studied. The theoretical examination recalls the interest of this conception inherited from interactionist sociology that is already applied in management sciences. It partly responds to criticisms of the classic approach regarding the subjective nature of the situation and the (very) active role of consumers in the situation.

The empirical examination of the SHOS indicates that, apart from this fundamental conceptual difference, these two perspectives can converge on the other facets of the situation around the dimensions of space (with an important place for materiality) and time.

The results of the in situ observation, however, are more consistent with the second conception, as the SHOS is defined by the consumer. It is the consumer who decides on the location, the time, and the participants who constitute the SHOS. However, the consumer does not decide alone and is often interrupted, but the SHOS appears largely constructed and bounded by the consumer’s actions. Control/monitoring, a central dimension in the concept of situation (in Goffman in particular), remains mutual; the participants, the merchant website (in particular), and therefore marketing all exert reciprocal influences that participate in the emergence and collective construction of the situation in action. A new conceptualization of the situation is proposed (Table 1) following the empirical results. While it partly refers to the classic approach, it is clearly a continuation of the participatory approach.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

A conceptual framework for the situation (of home online shopping).

Dimensions	Main components of the situationSpecific components of the SHOS (in italics)
Participants	- Main actor: consumer / buyer - Other participants on-site / Other participants remotely ○ Known or unknown ○ Participation required or suffered; aid or hindrance - Merchant website or application
Spatial dimension	- Location(s) ○ Initial location ○ Successive locations ○ Location(s) within the home: kitchen, bedroom, living room, office - Mobility (e.g. shops and multi-channel shopping) ○ Mobility within the home - Sounds and temperature - Equipment ○ Furniture ○ Computer/digital equipment ○ Marketing objects/devices (e.g. loyalty card, coupons, and mailing) ○ Payment tools (e.g. credit card) ○ Other materials (e.g. sheet, notebook, paper, pencils, and guides)
Temporal dimension	- Process (with a beginning and an end) - Duration - Specific times (in the month, week, or day) - Benchmarks and time constraints related to other activities and commitments (e.g. payday or promotion) - Routines and associated rituals ○ (breakfast, coffee/tea; eating, drinking) - Continuity/discontinuity (interruptions and resumptions) ○ Sessions - Temporal interdependence (associated events – past and future)

A new conceptualization of the SHOS

A central (or principal) participant, the buyer, is necessarily at the heart of the SHOS in the interaction with a merchant website. However, the observation reveals that other participants are frequently involved, echoing the different cases evoked by Belk (1975). Whether this participation (on-site or remote/online) is sought via decision-support logic or suffered, thereby causing discomfort, this co-presence illustrates the concept of the participant in Goffman’s (1964, 1988) sense. By considering that the buyer is not outside but within the situation, that the buyer is a co-producer of the situation, we agree with the Goffmanian perspective and mark a difference with the P-O-S approach. Future research will focus on better understanding the role of the participants and updating the different strategies implemented by buyers according to the situations and merchants encountered. Thus, contrary to work highlighting the solitary aspect of online shoppers (Ganesh et al., 2010; Kukar-Kinney et al., 2009, 2016) despite the social link with merchants (Keeling et al., 2013), this article highlights the collective nature of SHOS, the role of relatives, prescriptions, and recommendations. Prescription relationships on e-commerce sites have already been examined (Stenger, 2006, 2008) as well as the influence of young people on multi-channel family consumption (Durand-Mégret et al., 2013) The specific role of family members during HOS, whether it is unwanted or helpful, and the way in which they interfere or are solicited in the SHOS is a particularly interesting original outcome that deserves to be examined in more detail. The nature and characteristics of the other participants constitute a first topic of investigation. The modes of prescribing and influencing the types of participation (subsidized/desired) also merit further consideration.

The spatial dimension of the SHOS refers to the places and objects within it. The atmosphere of the SHOS, particularly the sounds and temperature of the home, appears to be an important component of the situation, as was identified very early on by Belk (1975) for the shopping situation in stores. Research on the impact of web design on online shopping has also shown the influence of sensory stimuli on satisfaction (McKinney, 2004) and intention to buy (Wang et al., 2010). Recent work on the shopping experience shows that the atmospheric variables of a place contribute to the sensation of comfort (Ainsworth and Foster, 2017). However, the comfort felt when shopping at home would be a key factor in choosing online shopping (Kim, 2002; Kwon and Noh, 2010). For example, recent research on teleshopping (Wagner et al., 2017) attempted to reproduce a dining room with a sofa for the respondents to simulate the atmosphere of their homes. Future research may focus on the interactions between atmospheric elements and online home shopping. The materiality of the SHOS, which has been highlighted in this research through the diversity of equipment, furniture and marketing objects, deserves to be studied more broadly. While dematerialization is a particularly visible phenomenon in marketing through the development of e-commerce, it is essential to pay just as much attention to the materiality involved. These results are consistent with those who find that research on the materiality of consumption and marketing is still scarce and deserves further investigation (Sitz and Roux, 2015).

Finally, the spatial dimension of the SHOS, contrary to what the expression “at home” implies, is characterized by real spatial diversity in several ways. First, there is a variety of places to shop online at home (e.g. the kitchen, bedroom, and living room). The place is not fixed, and mobility is exercised within the home from one room to another during the HOS, which leads to short interruptions and breaks in the practice of HOS. It also refers to participants’ multi-channel practices. These results are consistent with and confirm the multi/trans/omni-channel or hybrid nature of current purchasing and consumption practices (Collin-Lachaud and Vanheems, 2016; Heitz-Spahn, 2013; Mathwick et al., 2001; Verhoef et al., 2015).

The temporal dimension of the SHOS is also polymorphic. It first refers to a sequence of events with a beginning, an end, and a duration. It takes place at specific times in the month, week, and day and is accompanied by time constraints linked to other activities and commitments. This first facet joins the founding works of Belk (1975). More originally, the SHOS is a temporary part of daily routines and rituals, such as eating breakfast and/or drinking coffee or tea. Thus, the temporal dimension of the situation refers to the variety of activities carried out simultaneously while shopping and echoes works on the consumer experience in general (Holt, 1995; Wallendorf and Arnould, 1991) in addition to the shopping (Paquier and Morin-Delerm, 2016) and the online shopping experience (Michaud-Trévinal and Stenger, 2014; Pentina et al., 1995, 2011; Rose et al., 2012).

Moreover, the temporal dimension of the SHOS refers to a rather complex continuity/discontinuity dialectic. Indeed, it is part of the continuation and/or ongoing stream of offline activities and experiences, as mentioned above (e.g. the use of reduction maps shows this continuity). We then join Whitehead’s (1920) conception of the situation, which “determines her past and future, (she) organizes time from her.” However, it also appears to be highly fragmented and discontinuous. This discontinuity refers to the short and numerous interruptions or pauses in HOS activity that oppose or at least impede the online immersion process and flow state described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and popularized by Hoffman and Novak (1996, 2009). Thus, online immersion would be a special, rare case, and not a typical phenomenon of the SHOS. Immersion is more common in “virtual worlds” or online games (El Kamel and Rigaux-Bricmont, 2011; Muratore and Nannipieri, 2016). While this concept has become very popular in marketing, it should be recalled that Hoffman and Novak’s (1996, 2000) work originally focused on “multimedia computer-mediated environments” and not on merchant sites and online shopping behaviors. Moreover, they recognize that the flow model corresponds more to a navigation model in these environments (cf. Hoffman and Novak, 2009). This alternation of breaks and repeats suggests that the SHOS is anchored in the daily lives of individuals, stressing that the practice is integrated into the shopping activity. This is an ordinary activity that can be carried out in a fragmented way, unlike an “extra-ordinary” activity that is specific and carried out in a linear and uninterrupted manner. As this phenomenon of fragmentation of the SHOS is now known, its consequences on online immersion deserve further investigation. In addition, when the approach is voluntary, there is a real de-linearization that reveals both a strong competence implemented by consumers and a real control over the HOS practice. The development of this particular competence also merits further study.

Theoretical contributions and implications

This article proposes a renewal of a central marketing concept, that is, the situation. Two theoretical perspectives are highlighted. They differ fundamentally by the participation (or not) of the main actor in defining the situation. They partly meet around the spatial and temporal characteristics of the situation. The article also makes it possible to distinguish between the concepts of the situation and context, which are often confused in the existing research, which is extremely damaging. In addition, only the experience and practice of buying and consuming in situations are studied, thereby inviting marketing research to specify the situation(s) studied.

The methodology used, that is, observing real consumers in situ and filming them in their usual home shopping environment, is proving to be fruitful. It makes it possible to understand the situation better than the understanding with ante- and post-situation methods by being present at the time and place of practice, that is, the action is situated, which makes it possible to enrich the knowledge and conceptualization of the situation. This empirical work consisting of the in situ observation of home online shopping (HOS), which was carried out over two years, allowed the SHOS to be precisely circumscribed through three factors, namely, the “participants–spatial and material elements–temporal dimensions” adapted from Girin (1990a, 1990b) in the line of Goffman (1964, 1988, 1991) It has led to the development of a specific conceptual framework for the SHOS, which is also borrowed from the classic approach (Belk, 1974, 1975; Punj and Stewart, 1983). The selected three factors invite subsequent research to specify the purpose of the situation (e.g. the purchasing, shopping, or consumption) and the point of view chosen (here, the perspective of the consumer at home). Otherwise, the work would then be ex situ and disconnected from any concrete situation.

Managerial implications

The situation examined in this research by observing behind the screens of consumers at home leads to the formulation of managerial recommendations linked to a better co-construction of the SHOS. The results are of interest to retailers and brands because they reveal the multiplicity of participants in the SHOS, their mobility, and the discontinuity and fragmentation of HOS. This can be a problem for merchants who assume online immersion or who think they have control of the situation. The results initially invite merchant sites to relativize the effects of a possible immersion and also invite them to facilitate the sharing of experience and interactions among different participants in the situation. The integration of buttons, such as “share” or “see the opinion of friends” (associated with social and digital platforms), into merchant sites is part of this perspective. The ergonomics and design of the sites and applications, which still often operate on the linear model of a book or store route, could be reconsidered because neither the navigation experience nor HOS practices are linear and continuous. Focusing on very short, non-continuous session times seems more suited to current consumer practices. E-commerce practitioners can also work on the inactivity of their site during interruptions and on the recovery after these interruptions. Thus, offering features such as persistent shopping baskets that offer the possibility of finding items already covered or set aside during previous sessions makes it possible to better account for the discontinuity of shopping. Finally, retailers are invited to intervene and further co-construct the SHOS by offering not only tools to improve the browsing experience (e.g. on-site and mobile applications) but also loyalty cards, coupons, and promotional codes, which are all material means of intervening and structuring the SHOS. These marketing tools, that is, those that both exist and are yet to be invented, must integrate HOS into a genuine omni-channel strategy while preparing “everything that happens at home” from the point of sale.

Limitations and future avenues of research

The methodology used, while relevant, is nonetheless associated with limitations that provide many avenues for improvement and reflection for future research. Thus, the use of additional experienced observers is necessary. Video data collection can also be improved using screen capture software (in addition to the use of video cameras that offer a wider shot of the situation). The relational proximity between observers and the observed has facilitated empirical investigation, but it is also a limitation. This is a classic subject (Malinowski, 1989; Geertz, 1986; Dumez, 2013), particularly in marketing (Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994; Badot et al., 2009; Ezan, 2009). In the field of visual anthropology, there are methodological levers for self-screening or the profiling of observed people (Piette, 2014). In addition, the period chosen (i.e. that of sales) is a commercial moment that induces an emphasis on benchmarks and temporal constraints. Further research may focus on other periods.

Another limitation is the choice of the consumer’s point of view. Future research should systematically specify both the point of view chosen and the other points of view worthy of interest for further research to refine the conceptualization of the marketing situation. Thus, the realization of an identical work on the online shopping situation that is no longer at the buyer’s home but rather in an e-commerce company or companies with online sales teams (who respond directly by telephone, email or chat) would enrich the understanding and conceptualization of the SHOS.

Future experiments may seek to mobilize this conceptual framework by varying each dimension and component (such as absence/presence of other participants or discomfort/help) and by specifying and measuring each of them (e.g. the typology of places, participants, and number and duration of each session).

Future research will be able to refine the investigation of the SHOS while studying other situations. The development of connected objects is likely to considerably modify the buying and consumption situations by multiplying the possibilities of cross-channel routes. Subsequent work will thus be able to focus on highlighting the different situations during a customer journey and identify critical situations, which the merchants will be able to co-pilot.