The Impact of the Digital World on the Buying Behaviour of Generation Z

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very promising and interesting. There are some minor elements that should be reconsidered. 

1. A list of digital marketing tools is not final, and should be addressed in the text.
2. Assuming that the general population of Generation Z is still all in the school system might feel like a problem; similarly, the sampling cannot be random due to the lack of a general population list.

It is suggested to consider the authors' perspective when formulating the results in relation to the general population of Generation Z in Slovakia (especially when we consider the fact that Generation Z is defined as people born between 1995 and 2010). Nevertheless, the size of sampling increases the general value of the research. 

It would be interesting to add the information about the moment when respondents started online shopping. 

The research should also take into consideration the group of respondents who do not purchase products online. It would be interesting to understand why they do not decide on online shopping. 

While we consider the purchasing behaviors of clients, there should also be a thorough consideration related to payment and delivery preferences, etc. This part should be covered in future research.

The literature resources might be improved by adding research results from other European Union countries and from the world to create a holistic perspective on the buying behaviours of Generation Z.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable contribution.

We have added the list of digital marketing tools to the table: Digital marketing tools by objectives.

It would be interesting to add information about the moment when respondents started shopping online:We have added this information to the text:

According to the results of the questionnaire survey among members of Generation Z, it can be stated that the majority of respondents already have regular experience with online shopping. The largest share (32.59%) buys online once a month; another 26.62% even several times a month. A significant part of the respondents (22.89%) make purchases online at least once a year, and 7.71% buy every week. A small group (18 people) stated that they shop more than once a week, while the same number of respondents declared only one purchase per year. Only 1% of respondents do not use online shopping at all. The results therefore show that the research focused on the frequency of online shopping, not on the exact moment or age at which respondents started shopping online.

The research should also consider the group of respondents who do not buy products online. It would be interesting to understand why they do not choose to buy online:

We can conduct the research as part of further work; thank you for the suggestion.

When considering the purchasing behaviour of clients, payment and delivery preferences, etc., should also be carefully considered. This part should be included in future research.

We will take your suggestion into account in future research; thank you.

We have supplemented the literature according to your request.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors examined an interesting and noteworthy topic in their work. The impact of the digital world on the purchasing habits of Generation Z is a particularly important area of research today, especially from the perspective of marketing and consumer behavior. The questionnaire survey provides an adequate sample size with 403 Generation Z respondents (the total sample was 422) and draws conclusions supported by statistical tests (Chi-square, Cramer’s V). Although the sample is not representative, the study does not reveal whether it reflects the characteristics of the population. The study presents an extensive bibliography of relevant sources that provide a good framework for the topic.

 

I would like to make the following criticisms of the study. Some hypotheses are too general or not sufficiently justified on theoretical grounds (e.g., "gender and advertising effectiveness"). My biggest criticism concerns the statistical processing of the research. On the one hand, the diagrams at the beginning of the study are based solely on the number of elements, which is a very rudimentary solution. An analysis based on such solutions is acceptable for a conference presentation, but unfortunately it is not acceptable in this form for a qualified, highly regarded journal. Neither ratios nor more serious visualizations can be found in the article. Another problem is that the method used by the authors is cross-tabulation analysis. In addition, most of the correlations are weak or non-existent (e.g., Chi-square values above 0.05), and the authors do not always interpret them with sufficient depth. Another shortcoming is that there is no information on the pre-testing, reliability, or validity of the questionnaire and its subsequent reproducibility. The results from Slovakia are not compared with those from other countries, which limits their generalizability.

 

I consider the following improvements to be essential in relation to the study:

• The examination of reliability (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) and validity would increase the scientific reliability of the research.
• The use of multivariate statistical methods (e.g., logistic regression, factor analysis) would allow for the exploration of deeper correlations.
• Improving the methodology in this direction and evaluating the results in greater depth would be very important for the study.
• I would also recommend comparing the results from Slovakia with those from other countries (e.g., V4 countries) to increase generalizability.
• A deeper examination of sustainability and ethical purchasing (e.g., through qualitative interviews) would enrich the research.

Based on the above, I would like to conclude by saying that the topic of the study is important and interesting. However, it can only be accepted with a much better foundation for the research and statistical methods to support the findings.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study investigates the impact of the digital world on the purchasing behavior of Generation Z in Slovak Republic by using a quantitative approach, which includes a questionnaire survey and statistical data analysis with BM SPSS Statistics software. The paper is easy to understand and quite interesting. However, there some major concerns that authors need to address. Below are my comments and suggestions:

Abstract: the authors should rewrite the abstract to highlight what are new and how different is it compared to the existing studies.  Justifications should be provided in explaining why there is a need to conduct this study. What issue or problem the study is trying to address and what is the uniqueness of this study.

Please don’t use sentences like:” We will try to find out the correlations between the elements studied and draw relevant conclusions from the findings” or “In the survey we also
work with defined hypotheses, based on which we will support our findings.” or words like” deals with”

Introduction: This study starts with a bit of explanation on the status of e-business model and GenZ. This study did well highlight what the critical research problem is here and why it is important. Thus, motivation of this study seems strong. However, the authors should rewrite the second paragraph in the introduction as the gaps and then provide how to solve the gaps in the third paragraph.

The bibliometric should be in the literature review, not in the introduction.

In the literature review, the authors provide the limitations of classical consumer behavior theory, then provide the justification the use of digital marketing tools, and provide the definition of Gen Z as well as justify the gaps. I see the literature review is informative, however, the authors should break them into several subsections to improve the readability of the manuscript as it is difficult to follow in this section.

Additionally, please provide the subsection of hypothesis development in this section and provide the conceptual framework of your study. The authors should develop the hypotheses first and use the survey, data collection to prove the acceptance and rejection of hypotheses.

For an example this part:” We defined the hypotheses in terms of the above categorical variables as follows: 286
1. There is a statistically significant relationship between the time spent on so- 287
cial networking sites and the frequency of online shopping. 288
2. There is a statistically significant relationship between gender and effective- 289
ness of ads. 290
3. There is a statistically significant relationship between gender and the inten- 291
sity of influence of the digital world. 292
4. There is a statistically significant relationship between the amount of income 293
an individual earns, and the type of platforms used. 294
5. There is a statistically significant relationship between employment status 295
and the importance of sustainability and ethics to consumers. 296
6. There is a statistically significant relationship between daily time spent on 297
social media and the gender of the Generation Z consumer.” Should be developed in the section 2, literature review and hypotheses development, not in the methodology.

In the results, please arrange this section as follows:

4.1 Demographics of respondents (Please provide the table and then describe that table, combine from page 8 to 16).

4.2 Outer measurement model assessment (EFA, Cronbach alpha, discriminant validity)

4.3 Structural model assessment (Test the hypotheses)

5. Discussion

The discussion is well present, but I was wondering how to answer proposed hypotheses. The discussion section needs to be more explicit on the novelty of findings.

There is not theoretical contribution. What are the past studies/theories that are confirmed/extended with the present study?

Also, there is no managerial implications for businesses when dealing with the impact of the digital world on the purchasing behavior of Generation Z in Slovak Republic.

That’s all. Wish authors all the best.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments, which we have tried to incorporate into the contribution to the maximum extent:

We have rewritten the abstract according to your requirements. We have filled in the gaps in the research.

We have moved the bibliometrics to the literature review.

We have separated the individual thematic areas.

Thank you for the stimulating remark on the development of hypotheses, we will certainly take it into account in future research, but in this case, this correction would mean, in our opinion, a change in the approach to the entire research.

We have changed the discussion section to be more explicit regarding the novelty of the findings.

We have added the theoretical contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study has improved greatly compared to the first version. However, I still see areas that need improvement and supplementation. Thank you to the authors for accepting many of my suggestions; this is certainly a commendable effort. It would be worthwhile to have the article reviewed by an English language editor to improve its scientific style and linguistic accuracy. Unfortunately, I still feel that the study is weak from a statistical point of view. In addition to the weak correlations, it would be worth applying multivariate analyses (e.g., logistic regression), as the analysis still does not seem sufficiently scientific. The inclusion of interviews or focus group discussions could provide deeper insight into motivations, which would also greatly enhance the scientific value. The inclusion of other European countries besides the V4 countries would increase the relevance of the research, but this may only be a topic for future research.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments.

The study has significantly improved compared to the first version. However, I still see areas that need to be enhanced and supplemented. I would like to thank the authors for accepting many of my suggestions; it is certainly a commendable effort. It would be beneficial if the paper were reviewed by an English language editor to improve its scientific style and linguistic accuracy.

Thank you for your comment; we will definitely have the paper reviewed by an English editor.
Unfortunately, I still believe that the study is statistically weak. In addition to weak correlations, it would be worthwhile to use multivariate analyses (e.g., logistic regression), as the current analysis still does not appear sufficiently scientific.

According to your recommendations, we have elaborated a multivariate analysis—specifically, logistic regression. The changes are marked in grey in the text, lines 415–418 and 886–980.

Including interviews or group discussions could provide a deeper insight into motivations, which would also significantly enhance the scientific value of the study. Including additional European countries beyond the V4 region would increase the relevance of the research, although this may only be a topic for future work.

In the first review response, we reflected on your request, and, within the scope and context of the paper, we incorporated findings from the V4 countries. However, we will certainly keep this in mind and aim to expand the scope in future research.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After careful revision by the authors, the manuscript has significantly improved in several key areas. These improvements have substantially increased the scholarly value of the manuscript, making it a strong contribution that is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. We are pleased that the article can now be published.