Genre: Information/Explanation

Evidence from Finland The Authors Timo Rintamki, School of Business Administration, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Hannu Kuusela, School of Business Administration, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland Mark T. Spence, Bond University, Bond, Australia Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the referees for insightful comments that we believe have significantly improved the positioning, value and clarity of this manuscript. Abstract Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to decompose total customer value as perceived by department store shoppers into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions, and empirically test this conceptualization in a Finnish department store shopping context. Design/methodology/approach -- Data were collected by a questionnaire administered over three days at a department store that generates the second largest turnover in Finland. A total of 364 shoppers completed the questionnaire. Findings -- Empirical evidence supports our tripartite conceptualization of total customer value. In particular, social value is an independent construct. Further, social value varies by day-of-week, with a significant increase on Saturday (versus weekdays) when the store is more crowded, whereas no such differences in utilitarian and hedonic values were detected. Originality/value -- The principal contribution is a tripartite conceptualization of total customer value that incorporates utilitarian, social and hedonic value dimensions in a department store shopping context. Individually these dimensions are all well rooted in streams of consumer behavior literature, albeit mostly at the product or brand, not the store, level. Increasing our understanding of these softer aspects of shopping, particularly the social dimension, is important because they represent possible differentiating factors in the highly competitive and often commoditized retail markets. Journal: Volume: Number: Year: pp: ISSN: 0959-0552 Introduction Customer value is a key concept in retail strategy and differentiation because it addresses "what they [customers] want and believe they get from buying and using a seller's product" ( Woodruff, 1997, p. 140 ). Creating and delivering customer value is a precondition for retailers to survive in today's competitive marketplace. Many shoppers are looking for more than simply fair prices and convenience, the cornerstones of utilitarian value. Retailers who understand the multiplicity of motives for shopping have the best possibilities to create value for their customers. Instead of defining motivation to shop only as a function of buying, the role of hedonic and social shopping motives should also be recognized ( Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982 ; Sheth, 1983 ; Tauber, 1972 ; Westbrook and Black, 1985 ). In response to these various motivations, we decompose total customer value as perceived by department store shoppers with respect to their shopping experience into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions. While the experiential aspects of consumption -- central to the study at hand -- have been dubbed "hot topics" of the millennium (for a review, see Holbrook, 2000, 2001a, b ), the phenomena itself is hardly new ( Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982 ; Woods, 1981 ). Two decades ago Sheth (1983) proposed two kinds of shopping motivations: customer's functional needs and non-functional wants. Retailers strive to deliver what customers need, but the most successful retail store concepts are often based on what customers want. More recently Solomon (2002, p. 299) noted: Shopping malls have tried to gain the loyalty of shoppers by appealing to their social motives as well as providing access to desired goods. The mall is often a focal point in community ... Malls are becoming giant entertainment centers, almost to the point that their traditional retail occupants seem like an afterthought. Even mass retailers like Wal-Mart who compete on low prices have started to pay more attention to connecting with the social and emotional sides of their customers. However, creating value is not costless, hence the need to understand the drivers of total customer value. This research effort is in response to the need for an expanded, yet still parsimonious, definition of total customer value that encompasses hedonic and social aspects of consumption. Its principal contribution is a tripartite conceptualization of total customer value that incorporates utilitarian, social and hedonic value dimensions in a department store shopping context. Individually these dimensions are all well rooted in streams of consumer behavior literature, albeit mostly at the product or brand, not the store, level ( Arnold and Reynolds, 2003 ; Parsons, 2002 ). We measure and test if these three constructs capture customer value in a department store shopping context. Hedonic and social dimensions of customer value are seen as meaningful and important aspects that complement the traditional utilitarian perspective. Increasing our understanding of these softer aspects of shopping is important because they represent possible differentiating factors in the highly competitive and often commoditized retail markets. In the words of Tauber (1972, p. 49) : "Many retailers would benefit by defining their business as being part of the social-recreational industry." Conceptual overview A hierarchical structure of customer value may be represented by using a means-end chain ( Woodruff, 1997 ; Zeithaml, 1988 ). Product attributes represent the lowest level in the customer value hierarchy. These attributes may be concrete or abstract, positive or negative. The extent to which these bundles of attributes are meaningful, i.e. perceived as benefits or sacrifices, depends on the customer's subjective goals and purposes. Goals and purposes represent the highest level of the customer value hierarchy. Although the highest level of the customer value hierarchy could cover a wide range of life values, those that relate to motivations to engage in department store shopping are the foci here. It is assumed that customer value stems from attributes and consequences that contribute to customer's instrumental goals and purposes (e.g. monetary savings and convenience) as well as those that are meaningful ends in themselves (e.g. to some, shopping is an adventure and/or social outing). The shopping experience, therefore, generates a variety of concrete and abstract benefits and sacrifices that contribute to total customer value that goes beyond the mere acquisition of physical products or core services. In order to understand shopping motives, one has to consider the satisfaction provided by both shopping activities and the utility derived from the merchandise. Tauber (1972) asked a convenience sample of 30 people (half men, half women) to recall their most recent shopping trip (of any type), discuss their activities while shopping, and tell what they enjoyed about the trip. As a result, from a list of shopping activities and satisfactions, a number of hypothesized motives for shopping were classified ex post as either personal or social. He concluded: If the shopping motive is a function of only the buying motive, the decision to shop will occur when a person's need for particular goods becomes sufficiently strong for him to allocate time, money, and effort to visit a store. However, the multiplicity of hypothesized shopping motives suggest that a person may also go shopping when he needs attention, wants to be with peers, desires to meet people with similar interests, feels a need to exercise, or has leisure time ( Tauber, 1972, p. 48 ). Consistent with Tauber's conclusion, Sheth (1983) proposes, but did not test, an integrative theory of patronage preference and patronage behavior theories, resulting in two separate models. The former model addresses shopping motivations and values, which he believed related to the choice of outlets to which one could shop. He proposed two shopping motives, one relating to functional needs and the other to nonfunctional wants. To quote:  Functional needs are related to what have traditionally been referred to as time, place, and possession needs. Specific examples include such things as one-stop shopping, cost and availability of needed products, convenience in parking and shopping, and accessibility to the outlets.  Nonfunctional wants are related to various shopping outlets as a result of their associations with certain social, emotional, and epistemic values. For example, many retail outlets acquire positive or negative images because of patronage by desirable or undesirable demographic, socioeconomic, and ethnic groups, or they arouse positive or negative responses such as masculine, feminine, garish, loud, or crude, because of store atmospherics, personnel, or business practices in general. Finally, customers do shop for novelty, to satisfy their curiosity, to reduce boredom, to keep up with new trends and events. These are all reflections of the epistemic, nonfunctional wants. It is important to recognize that functional needs are clearly anchored to the outlet attributes, whereas nonfunctional wants are anchored to the outlet association. In this sense, functional needs are intrinsic to outlets, whereas nonfunctional wants are extrinsic to the outlets ( Sheth, 1983, p. 15-16 ). Parsons (2002) applied Tauber's (1972) personal and social motives as representative of Sheth's (1983) non-functional motives for shopping on the internet. He found that non-functional motives can be adapted to the twenty-first century mode of shopping, namely internet shopping. Because "softer" non-functional sources of motivations apply to the internet, to gain market share internet sellers should not focus solely on functional aspects. Arnold and Reynolds (2003) focused on the hedonic motivations of shopping. They recognized six dimensions of hedonic shopping motivations: adventure, gratification, role, value, social, and idea shopping. By using these dimensions and additional background variables, five shopper types were profiled. But these authors are not alone advancing motivation-based shopper typologies -- see, e.g. Westbrook and Black (1985) for a nice review and alternative perspective. Regardless of motivation typology, all of which acknowledge non-utilitarian aspects, being able to segment customers based on underlying motives lends support for the need to broaden our understanding of how customers derive value from the department store shopping experience per se . Given the importance of customer value to marketers, it is not surprising that there is an abundance of definitions and conceptualizations of value that depend both on the context of the study and the methodology and measurement techniques used. Conceptualizing value as a simple ratio of quality and price ( Gale, 1994 ) has been turned into a rich description of intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. Among these are instrumental (functional and cognitive) and non-instrumental (experiential and affective) benefits and sacrifices ( Aylott and Mitchell, 1998 ; Babin et al. , 1994 ; Chandon et al. , 2000 ; Reid and Brown, 1996 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ). Store atmospherics, e.g. music, lighting and layout, can enhance the shopping experience, hence shopping value ( Babin and Attaway, 2000 ; Bitner, 1992 ). Holbrook (1994, 1999) defines customer value as interactive between a subject (customer) and an object (product). In addition, customer value is relativistic because it involves preferences among objects, it varies among people, and it is specific to the context. Value is, therefore, comparative, personal and situational. Further, value is the outcome of an evaluative judgment and thus preferential. Holbrook notes that value (singular) as an outcome differs from values (plural) that are used as standards, rules, criteria, norms, goals or ideals for the evaluative judgment. Table I provides a flavor for the various conceptualizations provided by some of the aforementioned authors as well as others. What is striking is the lack of agreement. For our purposes customer value goes beyond product purchase (i.e. the outcome) to cover the whole shopping experience. Our objective is to demonstrate that total customer value within a department store shopping context consists of three dimensions: utilitarian and hedonic dimensions -- which have attracted attention ( Babin et al. , 1994 ; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003 ) -- and a third, lesser understood dimension, social value. The proposed tripartite perspective of total customer value Earlier research ( Table I ) has treated social value either as a lower level construct contributing to utilitarian and hedonic value ( Chandon et al. , 2000 ), or modeled it as one of several dimensions comprising value realized from a consumer good ( Sweeney and Soutar, 2001 ). Thus, for example, to capture the perceived social value inherent in a consumer durable good Sweeney and Soutar (2001) included measures such as: "If I bought or used this item, it would create a favorable impression of me." Our focus is the shopping experience provided by the retailer, not the brand. One of the many purchase related decisions is where to purchase; a brand may be available at multiple outlets. Our insights are, therefore, directed toward retailers. We conceptualize the total value of department store shopping as having three dimensions. Briefly, utilitarian value stems from monetary savings and convenience; hedonic value stems from exploration and entertainment; and social value is realized through status and self-esteem enhancement. These dimensions need not be orthogonal: a successful purchase of a product at a discount at the first store visited -- perhaps with assistance from a friend one met while shopping -- could yield multiple values ( Babin et al. , 1994 ). We propose that in the department store shopping domain social value merits treatment as a separate, third construct because: modeling social value as a separate construct will test its relevance in the shopping domain. If supporting evidence is realized, it would add conceptual clarity to what comprises the global construct, total customer value. Figure 1 shows the proposed model. A more detailed account of the three dimensions is summarized in Table II . Utilitarian value The utilitarian perspective is based on the assumption that consumers are rational problem-solvers ( Bettman, 1979 ). As a result, the utilitarian perspective stresses functional, product-centric thinking, and research has focused on consumer decision processes. Consumption is understood as a means to accomplish some predefined end. Therefore, the consumer is seen as a utility calculator, Homo Economicus . Shoppers experience utilitarian value when their task-related needs are fulfilled. Therefore, utilitarian value is characterized as instrumental and extrinsic ( Babin et al. , 1994 ; Holbrook, 1999 ; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982 ). Monetary savings and convenience contribute to utilitarian value. Monetary savings reduce the pain of paying ( Chandon et al. , 2000 ); therefore, utilitarian value can be increased when a customer is able to find discounted products or when prices are perceived to be less than those at competing stores. Convenience can be defined as a ratio of inputs to outputs, time and effort being the relevant inputs ( Holbrook, 1999 ; Seiders et al. , 2000 ). As Seiders et al. (2000) point out, in order to provide customers convenience one must understand the "retail experience from drive in to check out" and find ways to "maximize the speed and ease of shopping." They define four different kinds of convenience which stem from the speed and ease with which consumers can: reach a retailer (access convenience); identify and select the essential products (search convenience); obtain desired products (possession convenience); and effect or amend transactions (transaction convenience). Our analysis involves a store within a shopping mall, hence the convenience aspects focused on are search and possession. Hedonic value Consumption experience as an end valued for its own sake became a topic of interest among consumer researchers in the early-1980s. The experiential view highlighted three F's -- fantasies, feelings and fun -- that represented the hedonic aspects of consumption ( Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982 ). Hedonic consumption designates those facets of consumer behavior that relate to the multisensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of one's experience with products ( Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982, p. 92 ). The experiential consumer may be called Homo Ludens , a man guided by his senses and wants. In the late-1990s the experiential view attracted interest through the experience economy, a term coined to describe "a new economic offering" ( Pine and Gilmore, 1999 ) that customers wanted to "sense, feel, think, act and relate" ( Schmitt, 1999 ). Social value The social dimension of consumption can be understood through a symbolic interactionism perspective which emphasizes the importance of products in setting the stage for the multitude of social roles that people play ( Belk, 1988 ; Solomon, 1983 ). From the symbolic interactionism perspective the consumer is seen as Homo Faber . Shopping represents a social act where symbolic meanings, social codes, relationships, and the consumer's identity and self may be produced and reproduced ( Firat and Venkatesh, 1993 ). Patronizing a department store that has certain store attributes/atmospherics (or buying and using certain products) depends on how a customer wants to be seen and/or how she wants to see herself ( Erdem et al. , 1999 ; Sheth et al. , 1991 ; Sirgy et al. , 2000 ; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001 ). In other words, the act of shopping can provide a symbolic benefit, as customers are able to express their personal values through the consumption experience ( Chandon et al. , 2000 ). According to the symbolic interactionism perspective, the "cues" present in a retail shopping experience are used by individuals in assigning meaning to others as well as in assigning social identity to themselves ( Belk, 1988 ; Solomon, 1983 ). Thus, we view social value as an independent dimension of total customer value (albeit one that can covary with the other two proposed dimensions). Many of us may have perused products at stores that clearly push our financial capabilities, perhaps with little intention of purchasing, but the process of doing so enhances our status and/or self-esteem, which contribute to social value. Status enhancement is a benefit attained by using symbolic features in communicating signs of position or membership to others. It has been suggested that status seeking has its origin in materialism and that it is connected to conspicuous consumption ( Babin et al. , 1994 ; Richins and Dawson, 1992 ; Veblen, 1967 ). Status is actively pursued, cognitive, intentional and instrumental ( Holbrook, 1999 ; Chandon et al. , 2000 ). Individuals that engage in status enhancement are characterized as high self-monitors, who are mainly concerned with how they play their role, i.e. what kind of impression they give to others ( Browne and Kaldenberg, 1997 ). Self-esteem enhancement is a benefit experienced when symbolic features derived from the company, store, products, personnel and other customers are attached to self in order to define and maintain one's concept of self. Shopping is an environment where customers stroll, gaze and are gazed upon. In addition, symbolic properties may be used in emphasizing unique traits. Shopping experiences may sometimes carry personal meanings so important that they are characterized as "sacred or magical" ( Belk, 1988 ; Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ; Holbrook, 1999, 2001b ; Solomon, 1983 ). In the next section we provide empirical evidence that supports our tripartite perspective of total customer value. Empirical analysis Data were collected by a questionnaire administered over three days at a department store that generates the second largest turnover in Finland. In our case, the department store is an anchor store in a large mall that has become a destination shopping location, attracting customers from long distances. Wakefield and Baker (1998) found the "tenant variety" as an important construct explaining the attractiveness of a mall. Because the data include customers from many parts of Finland, we see this as strength in our study[1]. Theory on customer motivations and values reviewed earlier in conjunction with results from qualitative research were used in questionnaire design. Qualitative research was conducted in order to illuminate the salient shopping benefits, customer value dimensions and their relation to the customer value formation process. Six shoppers were theme-interviewed using a laddering technique recommended by Woodruff (1997) and Vriens and Hofstede (2000) . The interviewees were first asked to describe the purpose of their shopping trip, main purchases made, and an evaluation whether or not the shopping experience matched their needs and expectations. Based on their descriptions the interviewer asked more about the positive and negative aspects of the shopping experience. Themes -- in our case value dimensions -- were not given to the interviewees during the interviews, but more specific questions concerning the perceived benefits and sacrifices were asked in the order that the interviewee mentioned them. The results provided support for both the proposed model and questionnaire. Our study uses statements that reflect the perceived benefits in order to capture utilitarian, social, and hedonic value dimensions. A five-point Likert scale response format was used in the data gathering. Using only benefit constructs (and not measuring sacrifices) may be a limitation, but a common way to proceed when value dimensions are investigated ( Mathwick et al. , 2001 ; Chandon et al. , 2000 )[2]. In order to increase reliability several aspects of data collection were carefully considered. The first objective was to minimize memory-based bias. This was done by focusing on the shopping experience that had just taken place in the department store the data were collected. A shopping experience that took place minutes ago is easy for respondents to recall; this would not have been the case if data gathering had been by telephone or mail survey. Moreover, using a specific shopping excursion at one store as an object of inquiry makes more salient the strategic implications that creating social value can have when differentiating retail stores than would be the case had we investigated shopping in general. Customers were asked to take part in a survey "investigating general aspects of the in-store shopping experience." Customers who agreed to participate were taken to a lounge where the questionnaire was explained and administered. Those customers who completed the questionnaire were given a voucher for a meal at any of the restaurants located in the mall. Our primary purpose was to decompose total customer value into three dimensions: utilitarian, hedonic and social. Thus, first the existence of these three dimensions needs to be established. However, to show that these dimensions have clear managerial relevance, a second goal was to show that these dimensions can be influenced. We choose an exogenous moderating variable to test, namely day-of-week. It seems reasonable to assume that these dimensions would be affected by the day-of-the-week that shopping takes place; afterall, the number of shoppers is affected by holidays, day-of-week and weather variables ( Parsons, 2001 ). Store patronage is greater Saturday than during the week, which would suggest that if the social value dimension can be established, we might find that its effect is moderated (increased) on the weekend because the greater number of customers would increase the likelihood of status enhancement. Data collection was, therefore, executed during three days: Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It was anticipated that all three dimensions would be supported ( Figure 1 ); and that the relative contribution of the three second-order constructs comprising total customer value would vary by day-of-week, with social value in particular exhibiting its strongest effect on weekends when the store is most crowded. Sample characteristics The sample consisted of 364 questionnaires, 54.1 percent of which were from female respondents. The number of non-participants was 96 (21 percent of the total). Non-participants were customers who were asked to answer the survey, but declined to do so. For non-participants, gender and an estimate of age were recorded. Comparison of age and gender among participants and non-participants does not reveal any significant differences, indicating that the sample is free of bias in this respect. Sample characteristics are presented in Table III . Measurement models The first step was to estimate three measurement models, one for each of the three value dimensions, to establish construct validity. Because the scale of each first and second order factor is indeterminate, the scale was fixed by setting one loading equal to one, as seen in the lower two-thirds of Figure 2 . The estimated loadings for all three models were significant: t -values varied between 5.33 and 13.64. The R 2 -values of basic variables varied between 0.23 (COA) and 0.90 (ENC). These results provide support that the individual constructs are valid. The next step was to run the complete model shown in Figure 2 . Complete model In the complete model the second order factors were allowed to correlate -- as noted earlier, a shopping excursion can yield multiple benefits. We hypothesized that the total customer value provided by the shopping experience is hierarchically organized with utilitarian, social and hedonic value operating as second order factors. The t -values for first-order factors vary between 6.96 and 14.59 ( Table IV ), and for second-order factors between 5.76 and 11.13 ( Table V ). The overall ? 2 =371.28, df=129, p &lt;0.001 ( Figure 2 ). All estimated parameters are significant ( p &lt;0.001). The proposed model provides a good fit to the data and can, therefore, be considered nomologically valid. The overall goodness of fit is 0.89 and the root mean square residual is 0.074. Independence AIC results in 6250.11 and model AIC in 455.28. The correlation between second order factors is positive, as expected. The estimated loadings together with their t -values and R 2 -values for first-, second- and third-order constructs are given in Tables IV-VI . In three cases the estimated R 2 -values were above unity, noted as HC in the right-hand column of Tables V and VI . This corresponds to the "Heywood case", which is common in studies similar this ( Rindskopf, 1984 ). This does not have a significant effect on the results[3]. The effect of day-of-the-week The next step was to determine the benefit, if any, of isolating the social value construct. We hypothesized that social value would increase from weekdays to Saturday because of the greater number of customers on the weekend. As noted previously, enhancing one's status -- which requires the presence of others -- contributes to social value. Data were collected on Thursday (27.7 percent), Friday (35.4 percent), and Saturday (36.9 percent). The purpose was to examine whether model parameters differed between weekdays (Thursday and Friday were combined) and Saturday. As before, measurement models were allowed to vary freely in each case. Three tests were performed using a ? 2 test, results of which appear in Table VII . These tests indicate that there is a significant difference between weekdays and Saturday by the second order constructs on the third level, total customer value. Specifically, the significant difference lies in test 1: social value parameters are not equal between weekdays and Saturday. The social value parameter estimate was 0.90 on weekdays and 1.86 on Saturdays, a twofold increase ( Table VIII ). Thus, on Saturday the social value is significantly greater, as hypothesized. Hence, the relative contribution of social value varies by day-of-week. This is particularly interesting since social value is introduced here as an independent shopping value dimension that complements utilitarian and hedonic value. There was no significant difference between weekdays and Saturday for the latter two dimensions. Discussion To create and deliver customer value retailers are pursuing differentiation strategies, adding hedonic and social value in an effort to increase customer patronage. Unfortunately doing so is not costless, hence the need to better understand the drivers of total customer value. Successful retailers understand that customer value encompasses concrete and abstract aspects of the shopping experience, from entrance to check-out, and from choice (buying) to using (consuming) and experiencing. This research responded to the need for an expanded definition of customer value that emphasizes experiential and social aspects of consumption. The principal contribution is the tripartite conceptualization of total customer value that incorporates utilitarian, social and hedonic value dimensions in a department store shopping context. The results suggest several managerial implications. On the basis of the results of this study, we can repeat the proposition that was originally presented three decades ago: "Many retailers would benefit by defining their business as being part of the social-recreational industry" ( Tauber, 1972, p. 49 ). We have provided empirical support for this proposition. Orchestrating a value providing shopping experience calls for an understanding of the relationships between benefit and value dimensions. As is true with brand management, at best only a small number of retailers can pursue a cost leadership strategy, i.e. emphasize value and convenience, for example, through an everyday-low-price strategy -- a strategy fundamentally at odds with increasing hedonic and social value. Others must, therefore, differentiate by creating hedonic and social value, the costs of which must be recovered via higher product prices or a greater quantity of sales per customer. Creating hedonic value is common. Upscale stores, for example, have maze like floor layouts, put-up extensive seasonal adornments, and let consumers use/play with product offerings. Our insights suggest expending effort that boosts one's status or self-esteem could be a viable differentiation strategy as it would create social value. Using narrowcast media directed toward specific segments and incorporating messages that appeal to esteem needs are means of doing so. Another is to train and retain "expert" salespersons that dress and act like the store's desired clientele. Thus, by becoming aware of the utilitarian, social and hedonic dimensions that comprise total customer value, and the benefits that customers associate with these dimensions, the concept of customer value can be used as a managerial tool in planning advertising and promotions, segmentation strategies, managing store atmospherics, and in staging integrated and memorable shopping experiences. Utilitarian value can be seen as the bedrock that is a precondition for business, but is in itself often unable to differentiate the company and its products from the competition. Complementing utilitarian value with hedonic and social dimensions of customer value is where the real edge is. Limitations and suggestions for future research Although this study was carried out in an authentic retail setting consisting of actual shoppers, the results should be interpreted with a several caveats in mind. One, the results have been accomplished in a shopping goods environment. Hence, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results to other areas of retailing, such as grocery shopping. Two, the use of questionnaires and statistical methods of analysis is often criticized when studying experiential and symbolic aspects of consumption. The conceptualization of some constructs might benefit from more thorough use of qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and narrative analyses in future research. And finally, sacrifices were not conceptualized nor measured in this study. Overall, there is a lack of empirical validation and modeling of sacrifices in general and of psychosocial sacrifices in particular. Both theory and practice would benefit from a causal model addressing the role and importance of sacrifices, since in some areas of retailing it is easier -- and cheaper -- to increase value by cutting down psychosocial sacrifices than by adding more benefits. Figure 1 The structural model: utilitarian, social and hedonic value contribute to total customer value in a department store shopping context