Smart Consumers: A New Segment for Sustainable Digital Retailing in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the present study the author discusses about smart consumers in the digital consumption context.

I find the following issues with the study:

1. I don’t find the article to be fitting within the scope of this journal, at least in its present form.
2. The work is based on author’s previous publication, from which the survey instrument has been used, I was unable to deduce the reason why the survey was conducted in the same country using a similar instrument and how the questionnaire is different only for the fashion industry and for the digital retailing. I find quite a lot of similarity in the discussion between the two articles.
3. The author has discussed vast literature, but there is a lack of discussion regarding digital retailing, country (Korea) specific scenario, how the terms used by author (also referring the previous publication) is different as compared to terms such as “Influencers” and different types of consumers discussed in details by Rogers (Theory of Diffusion): innovators, early  adopters, early majority,  late majority and laggards.  Coining new terms needs to be justified by describing the difference between the already existing terms popular in science as well as practice.
4. The concept of smart consumers has been discussed widely in the literature and I found that the gaps described in the introduction and literature section needs further backing by most recent literature.
5. The title needs to be more specific to the article content and should also specify that it is related to Korea. The country specific culture plays a major role in these segmentation, which has also not been discussed for Korea itself. So it would be very far-fetched to generalize the segmentations based on an empirical survey in one country.
6. The number of responses 541 is good, but there is no discussion on how the representation of the respondents was ensured. This should be highlighted. Why the age group of 19 to 59 ? Why only the consumers who shopped online in past one month ? Which month of which year ? A difference choice of target audience would affect the results, hence this is a major short-coming in the study.
7. Statasia.com as a reference is not suitable. Exact link to the statistics should be provided along with the date on which it was accessed. The number of social media users mentioned by this reference is old.
8. There are lot of sentences that should be backed by literature like lines 49 through 54, 80 through 83, line 84, 90 through 101, and so on.
9. The questionnaire should be attached for better understanding of the results.
10. The discussion of the results need to be toned down, as there are several limitations to them. I am not convinced that the design of the study would enable generalization of the results.

The statistical analysis is quite detailed and the author has demonstrated highly in-depth know-how of analyzing the data. But I find the above reasons to be a major short-fall of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the possibility of reviewing this paper. I hope the authors find my comments productive and that it will help them to improve their research work.

The objective of this study is to discover who the smart consumers are in the digital consumption context, this study classifies consumer segments based on the consumer smartness that consists of six dimensions, and explores each segment’s consumer profile in terms of demographic and behavioral characteristics

The objective is clearly stated.

There is no difference between the introduction and the literature review. Both need to be presented in separated sections. There are some references to statista.com in the theoretical framework. However this kind of references might be included in the introduction as a broader presentation to the topic of interest rather than a scientific reference to make up the theoretical framework of the research.

In this sense, the introduction and the theoretical framework are written in a way that they seem a whole. It is difficult for the reader to follow the explanation and presentation of the text as there are no new paragraphs. It is highly recommended that the authors provide some kind of structure to the text in both sections using these new paragraphs but also considering about using sub sections. 

There is need to improve the literature review. To support the idea that clusters might be helpful to this end.

As well as papers that have analyzed smart consumers as Dawid, H., Decker, R., Hermann, T., Jahnke, H., Klat, W., König, R., & Stummer, C. (2017). Management science in the era of smart consumer products: challenges and research perspectives. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 25(1), 203-230.

And improve the review with cites to other published work that represent millennial behavior Saura, J. R., Debasa, F., & Reyes-Menendez, A. (2019). Does User Generated Content Characterize Millennials’ Generation Behavior? Discussing the Relation between SNS and Open Innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(4), 96.

The research analysis is clearly explained and well structured.

Kindly provide a comprehensive explanation to make the user understand why p value is .000 in all cases presented in table 2 and 3.

Authors need to improve the conclusions making reference to possible implications of your work both related to researchers and practitioners.

Author Response

Please see the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has several merits which warrants that it should be published but it also suffers from several problems/limitations which must be addressed before publishing it. I suggest several suggestions which authors must incorporate before this study can be considered for publication. 

Introduction

Authors should clearly present the prior research gaps and justify the need for conducting this study at first place. Please revise the introduction

Literature

Authors have used several older citations/references throughout the article. I advice them to replace all the references older than 2012. 

Full forms should be explicitly explained. Example SNS full form is missing. 

Key references related to SNS use are missing. Consider the following studies and discuss them throughout. 

Uses and Gratifications of digital photo sharing on Facebook, Telematics and Informatics, 10; Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults, Telematics and Informatics, 15; Do educational affordances and gratifications drive intensive Facebook use among adolescents?, Computers in Human Behavior 68, 40-50

Key references related to Mobile payment are missing. Consider the following studies and discuss them related to mobile payment and intentions

Point of adoption and beyond. Initial trust and mobile-payment continuation intention, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55; Why do people use and recommend m-wallets?, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56; An innovation resistance theory perspective on mobile payment solutions, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

Key references related to Sharing intentions are missing. Impact of Privacy, Trust, and User Activity on Intentions to Share Facebook Photos, Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society 14 (3); Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behavior, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51, 72-82; Ethnographic Examination for Studying Information Sharing Practices in Rural South Africa, ACHI 2012: The Fifth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human

Key references related to Age and gender differences are missing.

Do age and gender differences exist in selfie-related behaviours?, Computers in Human Behavior 63, 549–555; Age and gender differences in photo tagging gratifications, Computers in Human Behavior 63, 630-638; Predicting adolescent Internet addiction: The roles of demographics, technology accessibility, unwillingness to communicate and sought Internet gratifications, Computers in Human Behavior 51, 24–33; The Effects of Demographics, Technology Accessibility, and Unwillingness to Communicate in Predicting Internet Gratifications and Heavy Internet Use Among Adolescents, Social Science Computer Review

Practical and Theoretical Implications are missing

Conclusion should include study limitations and future work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with the updates made by the author.

The language still needs to be proof read, I see small typos and grammatical errors, still in the manuscript.

Post language proofing the manuscript may be accepted.

Author Response

I appreciate your valuable time and suggestion.

I will have the manuscript proofread.

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have gone through the revision. Authors have addressed most of the comments/suggestions but some are still pending. Therefore, I have recommended a major revision. The article can be accepted after the revision. 

Authors are strongly recommended to consider these studies since these are key studies related to social media use. 

Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults, Telematics and Informatics, 15

Do educational affordances and gratifications drive intensive Facebook use among adolescents?, Computers in Human Behavior 68, 40-50

Mobile payment solutions and m-wallets are innovations and therefore authors should cite these studies in their literature review

Point of adoption and beyond. Initial trust and mobile-payment continuation intention, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55

Why do people use and recommend m-wallets?, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 56

An innovation resistance theory perspective on mobile payment solutions, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

Author Response

The author appreciate the reviewers’ suggestions. Several references have been added as a reviewer’s strong recommendation. The second revision is in red in the manuscript.

The specific revisions to the manuscript are listed below:

Responding to your suggestion, key articles are cited as below.

 

1. Kaur, P.; Dhir, A.; Bodhi, R.; Singh, T.; Almotairi, M. Why do people use and recommend m-wallets? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2020, 56, 102091.
2. Talwar, S.; Dhir, A.; Khalil, A.; Mohan, G.; Islam, A.N. Point of adoption and beyond. Initial trust and mobile-payment continuation intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2020, 55, 102086.
3. Malik, A.; Dhir, A.; Nieminen, M. Uses and gratifications of digital photo sharing on Facebook. Telematics and Informatics 2016, 33, 129-138.
4. Dhir, A.; Khalil, A.; Lonka, K.; Tsai, C.-C. Do educational affordances and gratifications drive intensive Facebook use among adolescents? Computers in Human Behavior 2017, 68, 40-50.
5. Dhir, A.; Tsai, C.-C. Understanding the relationship between intensity and gratifications of Facebook use among adolescents and young adults. Telematics and Informatics 2017, 34, 350-364.

Thank you.