Comparison of Online and Instore Plant Buyers

Online sales of many products, including live plants, have increased more since the COVID-19 pandemic. Some estimates report that 25% of all retail sales now happen online. Most consumers make purchases both instore and online (omnichannel) rather than favoring one channel over the other. When considering selling plants online, there are some unique challenges to sellers including plant fragility and perishability; this may mean online sales may work for some firms and not others. Understanding how plant purchases and purchasers differ can better inform the marketing strategies of horticultural professionals as they consider their online plant sale options and whether to sell products through different channels. A greater percentage of men purchased plants or flowers online, different from the core customer group of garden retailers who are predominantly female. Colors, backgrounds, fonts, and images in communication materials might be changed to have greater appeal to a more male customer group. The seller’s reputation positively influenced online purchases for all three plant/flower types, so staying vigilant regarding both positive and negative online reviews, and addressing both, could positively influence online sales. Online flower/plant sales are nearly twice the amount, on average, of instore sales. Higher margins may be more possible online (versus instore) considering the online shopper may be more willing to pay for the convenience of browsing and purchasing plants/flowers at their convenience. Products purchased through each channel were somewhat different and product mix should be scrutinized before selling online.

The 1990’s ushered in the online shopping era. Initially, consumers used desktop and then laptop computers to search for and purchase products and services. When the Apple iPhone was introduced in 2007, a new shopping era emerged, i.e., online product search and purchase via a mobile device. The horticulture industry is a relative newcomer to online shopping. As recently as 2017, only 5% of horticulture sales were made online (Cohen and Baldwin 2018). This is somewhat surprising because 77% of Americans engage in some form of plant activities or gardening, spending an average of $599 per household (Whitinger 2023).

The COVID pandemic and subsequent lockdowns propelled retailers to create online shopping platforms for many product categories. Garden centers and other plant retailers were compelled to sell online or face severe financial consequences. As a result of the situation created by the COVID pandemic, online plant sales in 2021 jumped to 17.5% of total sales, a threefold increase from only three years prior (Whitinger and Cohen 2021). To put this in context, that percentage is dwarfed in comparison to the 44% of consumers who purchased clothing online in 2022 (Klarna 2023b), thus e-commerce for live plants and cut flowers still lags far behind other product categories.

Over 40% (vs. 27%) of U.S. consumers prefer shopping online (vs. instore), which is the highest percentage in the world (Klarna 2023a). In 2023, the Omnichannel Grocery Shopper report found that post-COVID omnichannel shoppers spent 1.5 times more than single channel shoppers (Supermarket News 2023). Various generational cohorts express different shopping channel preferences. According to a recent survey, older consumers have a strong preference for instore shopping, with 74% of people over age 65 years and 71% of those between 55-and 64 years shop and purchase products instore (Russell 2023). For other demographic groups, (Millennials [born between 1981 and 1996] vs. Gen Z [born between 1997 and 2012]) shopping preferences seem to contradict the preference for instore shopping for older consumers. When comparing preference for online versus instore shopping for home and garden products, 58% of Millennials vs. 42% of Gen Z prefer online shopping, while 18% of Millennials vs. 28% of Gen Z prefer instore shopping for these products (Klarna 2023b). When considering only horticulture products, shopping channel preferences for different demographic groups are not clear.

Numerous studies have investigated the predictive power of demographics and shopping channel preference (online vs. instore) but findings are sometimes conflicting and vary by product category being investigated. Some studies have found women to be more frequent online shoppers (Ren and Kwan 2009, Sener and Reeder 2012), while others found males to have a greater preference for and more favorable attitudes toward online shopping (Naseri and Elliott 2011, Hasan 2010, Passyn et al. 2011). Other studies found no gender differences for online shopping (Donthu and Garcia 1999, Phang et al. 2010).

Researchers who investigated age as a predictor of online shopping found the prevalence of online shopping decreases with age (Donthu and Garcia 1999, Naseri and Elliott 2011), but a later study found no age effect (Lee et al. 2017). Education and income are other demographic variables that have also been analyzed with regard to online shopping. Income, education and online shopping frequency have a demonstrated an inverse relationship for some studies (Donthu and Garcia 1999, Lee et al. 2017, Naseri and Elliott 2011), and a positive relationship in another study (Cao et al. 2012). Donthu and Garcia (1999) found no effect of education level for online shopping. However, Naseri and Elliot’s (2011) study found that online shopping decreases with poor English language skills, persons in managerial or professional positions, and marital status (married).

For instore shopping, Lee et al. (2017) found that higher income, ethnicity (Caucasian), household size (larger), and education (higher) increased downtown shopping frequency. Farag et al. (2007) found a direct impact of income, gender (female), and age (younger) on the number of instore shopping trips. Cao et al. (2012) found older consumers had more frequent instore shopping trips.

Product category or type also affects online shopping preferences. Those who perceive online shopping to be more utilitarian had a higher frequency of online shopping (Lee et al. 2017). Naseri and Elliott (2011) included 14 product categories in their study and found that the predictive power of demographics tended to be product-specific, but they did not include horticultural products in their study.

Statistics comparing instore vs. online spending per shopping trip vary widely. Pre-COVID, 71% of instore shoppers spent more than $50 vs. 54% of online shoppers (Home Textiles Today 2019). For grocery store spending, one study found consumers spend more online vs. instore (44% more per transaction) and purchase more items online (Zatz et al. 2021). Private label products had a slightly higher market share online vs. instore (Dawes and Nenycz-Thiel 2014).

Historically, plants were sold only through brick-and-mortar stores (Butterfield 2004). In 2017, only 5% of plant sales were made online but gardening participation was at its highest level of 77.4% of all U.S. households (Cohen and Baldwin 2018). During the pandemic, gardening participation remained high (74.6% in 2020), with the greatest change in participation by persons ages 35–44 years and online plant/garden retailers capturing 17.5% of sales (Whitinger and Cohen 2021). The average plant purchase totaled $124, with Gen X spending $133, Millennials $121 and Boomers $120 (Terrarium Tribe 2024). Because online sales of horticulture products are relatively new and small in percent volume when compared to other products, and live plants and cut flowers have some different product characteristics (often a lack of branding, perishability, fragility) than other products, our goal was to draw demographic and behavioral comparisons between instore and online plant/flower shoppers. Our research questions focused on how similar (or different) were online (vs. instore) plant shoppers (a) demographically and (b) behaviorally.

To address our research questions, investigators created an online survey in Qualtrics Software (Seattle, WA). The instrument and protocol were approved by the university committee for the protection of human subjects in research. Researchers constructed a 42-item survey that queried online and instore plant/cut flower purchases, amount of time and money spent online and instore on plants/cut flowers, the importance of factors in making a purchase decision, and demographic characteristics.

Researchers asked participants how much time was spent online for work and leisure as well as amount spent online and in person on plants/cut flowers. For overall plant or flower purchases, researchers included a question with ten items asking the importance of those factors in their purchase decisions, including: the seller’s reputation, plant brand, convenience of buying the plant or flower, plant or flower quality, recommendation of friend, recommendation of seller, past experience, price, availability (in stock), flower or leaf color, and leaf shape. Responses were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 indicating very unimportant to 5 indicating very important. Demographic characteristics were collected at the end of the survey including gender, highest education level attained, ethnicity identified with, area of residence (urban, suburban, rural), and the prior year’s household income.

Data collection occurred from August 1 through September 30, 2022, using the Qualtrics panelist list. A series of screening questions was employed for eligibility for the survey. Initially, subjects over the age of 18 years in the United States were screened to include only those individuals who had made a live plant or cut flower purchase in the six months prior to the study. If they had made a plant or flower purchase, they were asked how that purchase was made: online or instore and, if purchased online, whether a mobile phone, tablet, or desktop (laptop) computer was used. Informed consent was only obtained after the potential subject met all of the conditions.

Data was cleaned and analyzed in Stata statistical software (College Station, TX). A series of ANOVAs and t-tests were performed to compare among the three plant types and between online and instore participant plant purchasing behaviors and demographic characteristics.

A series of three tobit models were used to compare online and instore purchasing perceptions and behaviors for cut flower, edible, and foliage plant purchasers. The tobit model, also called a censored regression model, is designed to estimate linear relationships between variables when there is either left- or right-censoring in the dependent variable (also known as censoring from below and above, respectively).

A total of 2010 complete and useful responses were obtained. Of those, 695 made a cut flower purchase (45% online and 55% instore), 631 made a purchase of an edible plant (49% online and 51% instore), and 684 made a foliage plant purchase (53% online and 47% instore).

Researchers first compared the demographic characteristics of the three samples (Table 1). Each sample was composed of respondents who had purchased at least one of the three products mentioned. Statistically, we found no differences in terms of gender, age, education, income, and residence locations between the purchasers of cut flowers, edible plants, and foliage plants. In terms of gender, 34% of cut-flower buyers were male, 39% of edible plant purchasers were male, and 34% of foliage plant buyers were male. In terms of highest level of education attained, 36% of each of the samples had attained a Bachelor’s degree or more. The percentage of each sample living in a suburban area ranged from 33% for cut-flowers and foliage plants to 32% for edible plants. The percentage of Caucasian individuals in each sub-sample ranged from 86% for foliage plants to 88% for edible plants. We found one difference in terms of ethnicity. More persons of Hispanic descent purchased cut flowers (7%) compared to edible plants (4%) or foliage plants (4%) (F=5.76, p=0.0165). Generally, the three sub-samples were very similar demographically.

Sixty percent (s.d.=49%) of men made online cut flower purchases compared to only 12% (s.d.=32%) making instore cut flower purchases (t=−15.72, p=0.000) (Table 2). A slightly higher percentage of individuals with a Bachelor’s degree or more of education purchased cut flowers instore compared to online (40% [s.d.=49%] versus 31% [s.d.=46%]) (t=2.46, p=0.000). Instore cut flower purchases were made by slightly older persons compared to online cut flower purchasers (47.3 years [s.d.=16.74] versus 42.8 years [s.d.=11.45]) (t=4.14, p=0.000). Median household income was more than twice as much for online cut flower purchasers when compared to instore purchasers ($125,000 [s.d.=$70,866] versus $$55,000 [s.d.=$45,757]) (t=−14.05, p=0.000). A slightly greater percentage of online cut flower purchasers were Caucasian (91% [s.d.=29%]) compared to instore purchasers (83% [s.d.=37%]) (t=−2.98, p=0.000). Furthermore, 65% (s.d.=48%) of online cut flower purchasers lived in urban areas compared to instore cut flower purchasers (21%, s.d.=41%) (t=−13.15, p=0.000). In other words, online cut flower purchasers were less likely to be female, slightly less educated, younger, and more likely to be Caucasian and live in urban areas. There is a difference for cut flower purchasers in time spent online for work and pleasure among online versus instore purchasers (t=−9.98, p=0.000). Online purchasers spent approximately 5 hours more at work online than instore purchasers and 5 hours more online for pleasure than instore purchasers. Online cut flower purchasers spent an average of $270 online (s.d.=$164.94) while instore purchasers spent an average of $15 on cut flower purchasers online (t=−28.96, p=0.000). In addition, online cut flower purchasers spent an average of $151.08 (s.d.=$151.74) instore on cut flowers while instore purchasers spent an average of $113.04 (s.d.=$108.97) (t=−3.84, p=0.000). On average, online purchasers spent more time online and spent more on cut flower purchases across channels.

Individuals who purchased edible plants online had a higher percentage of men (56% [s.d.=50%] versus 23% buying instore [s.d.=42%]) (t=−8.76, p=0.000) (Table 2). While there was no difference in the level of education achieved between online and instore edible plant purchasers, online edible plant purchasers were younger (42.5 years old [s.d.=10.37] versus 54.6 years old [16.26]) (t=11.07, p=0.000) and had a higher mean income ($125,000 [s.d.=$67,741] versus $45,000 [s.d.=$43,561]) (t=−15.11, p=0.000). Furthermore, there were no differences in ethnic heritage for edible plant purchasers but there was a difference in the area in which they lived. More online edible plant purchasers lived in urban areas (63% [s.d.=48%] versus 20% [s.d.=40%]) (t=−12.32, p=0.000). Thus, people who purchased edible plants online were more likely to be male, younger, and live in an urban area very much like individuals who purchased cut flowers online. Edible plant purchasers spend an average of 10 hours more online for work (t=−13.01, p=0.000), and 3 hours for pleasure (t=−2.52, p=0.012) online than instore purchasers. Online purchasers consistently spend more across channels on plants than instore purchasers, from spending on edible plants online, $280.97 (s.d.=$161.01) versus $29.53 (s.d.=$70.00) (t=−25.69, p=0.000), and instore, $165.94 (s.d.=$146.90) versus $109.98 (s.d.=$93.64) (t=−5.75, p=0.000).

Online foliage plant purchasers were more likely to be male (47% [s.d.=50%] versus 19% [s.d.=39%]) (t=−8.27, p=0.000) (Table 2). Instore foliage plant purchasers had achieved a higher level of education with 41% of them [s.d.=49%] earning a Bachelor’s degree or higher compared to online foliage plant purchasers (32% [s.d.=47%]) (t=2.52, p=0.012). Yet, the online foliage plant purchasers were younger (42.8 years [s.d.=12.01] compared to 47.7 years [s.d.=15.18]) (t=4.71, p=0.000) and had a higher household income compared to instore foliage plant purchasers ($125,000 [s.d.=$66,069] versus $55,000 [s.d.=$44,466]) (t=−10.64, p=0.000). Online foliage plant buyers were more likely to live in an urban area (61% [s.d.=49%]) compared to instore foliage plant purchasers (20% [s.d.=49%]) (t=−11.98, p=0.000). Much like edible plant purchasers and cut flower purchasers, the individuals who bought foliage plants online were more likely to be male, younger, have a higher household income, and live in an urban area. As with the cut flower and edible purchasers, online foliage plant purchasers spent more time online for work (10 hours more than instore [t=−9.56, p=0.000] and pleasure (4 hours more than instore [t=−4.19, p=0.000]). Online purchasers spent more on average for both online ($250.17 (s.d.=$158.98) versus $32.32 (s.d.=$64.63) [t=−22.96, p=0.000]) and instore ($151.64 (s.d.=$143.47) versus $125.33 (s.d.=$105.65) [t=−2.70, p=0.000]) channels than instore purchasers. Across the types of plant purchasers, online purchasers spend more with online sales being approximately twice the mean level of instore sales and online buyers seem to be more omnichannel in their behavior.

We found numerous differences between online and instore plant purchases (Table 3). For each product (cut flowers, edible plants, foliage plants) mean online sales were approximately twice the level of mean instore sales. Table 3 explores differences in other plant types purchased for online vs. instore purchasers within the cut flower, edible plant, and foliage plant categories. With the exceptions of annuals, perennials, and flowering shrubs, a greater percentage of individuals buying cut flowers online also purchased vegetables, seeds, herbs, evergreen trees, fruiting trees, shade trees, vines, sod, flowering potted plants, and indoor foliage plants when compared to individuals who purchased cut flowers instore. For woody plants (e.g. evergreen trees, fruiting trees, shade trees) the percentage was double that of instore purchases. However, for succulents, a greater percentage of individuals buying cut flowers online purchased succulents instore. Among online edible plant purchasers, we found no difference in the percentage of individuals who purchased annuals, perennials, and succulents instore. For all other products purchased, a greater percentage of online edible plant purchasers made those additional purchases online versus instore. We observed a similar finding among foliage plant purchasers. There were no differences in the percentage of foliage plant buyers who purchased annuals, perennials, or succulents. Yet, for all other products a higher percentage of online foliage plant purchasers bought other plant products online.

Cut flower online purchasers on average have a higher importance perception than instore purchasers for the seller’s reputation (4.53/5.00 vs. 3.45/5.00) [t=−6.10, p=0.000], plant brand (4.18/5.00 vs. 2.88/5.00) [t=−5.47, p=0.000], recommendations from seller (4.05/5.00 vs. 2.89/5.00) [t=−4.22, p=0.000], price (4.10/5.00 vs. 4.35/5.00) [t=3.53, p=0.000], and leaf shape of cut flowers (4.18/5.00 vs. 3.35/5.00) [t=−4.24, p=0.000] (Table 4). Convenience of buying a plant, plant quality, recommendation from friends, past experience, availability of cut flowers, and flower/leaf color are no different in perceived importance between the online and instore purchasers.

Online edible plant purchasers had a higher perceived importance of seller reputation (4.52/5.00 vs. 3.96/5.00) [t=−4.34, p=0.000], plant brand (4.17/5.00 vs. 3.42/5.00) [t=−2.70, p=0.007], plant quality (4.69/5.00 vs. 4.64/5.00) [t=−2.53, p=0.012], and leaf shape (4.23/5.00 vs. 3.46/5.00) [t=−3.09, p=0.002] than instore edible plant purchasers (Table 4). However, price (4.06/5.00 vs. 4.26/5.00) [t=2.84, p=0.005] and availability of stock now for edible plants (4.49/5.00 vs. 4.56/5.00) [t=2.13, p=0.034] was perceived to be more important to instore edible plant purchasers than online purchasers.

Foliage plant purchasers who purchased online had a higher perceived importance of seller’s reputation (4.42/5.00 vs. 3.77/5.00) [t=−4.34, p=0.000], plant brand (4.12/5.00 vs. 3.23/5.00) [t=−2.70, p=0.007], recommendations from seller (4.03/5.00 vs. 3.17/5.00) [t=−2.53, p=0.012] and past experiences (4.21/5.00 vs. 4.07/5.00) [t=1.92, p=0.055] than instore foliage plant purchasers (Table 4). Instore foliage plant purchasers had a higher perceived importance of price (4.09/5.00 vs. 4.31/5.00) [t=2.84, p=0.005] than online foliage plant purchasers.

To better understand the marginal effects of demographic characteristics, plant purchases, and online activity on plant purchasing, we employed three Tobit models and marginal effect estimates (Table 5). The dependent variable was instore (1=instore, 0=online). Only one demographic influenced online cut flower purchases: being male. Males were 13.7% more likely to buy cut flowers online than females, but there were no significant influences from age, income, ethnicity, education, or location of residence. Time spent online for leisure and amount spent online had a small negative influence (< 1%) on the likelihood of purchasing cut flowers online. Additionally, the amount spent instore on cut flowers reduced the likelihood of buying cut flowers online. Time spent online for work had no effect on the likelihood of buying cut flowers online. Among the 11 attributes affecting participants’ consideration of purchasing cut flowers online, only the seller’s reputation had a small positive influence. Plant brand, convenience of buying the plant, plant quality, recommendations from the seller or friends, past experience, price, availability, flower or leaf color, and leaf shape did not influence the online cut flower purchasing decision. Interestingly, only the purchase of fruit-producing plants negatively influenced online cut flower purchases. Perhaps this is an indication that the cut flower consumer is interested in only aesthetic horticultural products (e.g., cut flowers) not edible plants (e.g., fruit-producing).

Demographically, two variables influenced online edible plant purchases: age and income (Table 5). Older participants were 0.3% less likely to buy edible plants online compared to younger participants. As income increased, participants were more likely to buy edible plants online. Greater average spending on plants in 2022 increased the likelihood of buying edible plants online. Amount spent in total for online purchases increased the likelihood of buying an edible plant online while instore purchases decreased that likelihood. Among the 11 attributes influencing the online purchase of edible plants, only the seller’s reputation improved it. Purchasing both seeds and fruiting plants online increased the likelihood of edible plant purchases. This result may also indicate another opportunity for cross-merchandising to increase sales.

Like cut flower and edible plant online purchases, foliage plant purchases online were positively influenced by the mean online total purchases but negatively influenced by instore purchases (Table 5). Similar to the two other plant products in the study, foliage plant online purchases were positively influenced by the seller’s reputation. However, they were also positively influenced by recommendations from the seller and negatively influenced by past experience. Living in an urban area positively influenced online foliage plant purchases. Other types of plants purchased did not affect online foliage plant sales.

In conclusion, for all three plant/floral products, the individuals who bought them online were more likely to be male, younger, have a higher household income, and live in an urban area. These results support previous studies for gender (Hasan 2010, Naseri and Elliott 2011), age (Donthu and Garcia 1999, Farag 2007, Naseri and Elliott 2011), and income (Farag 2007, Lee et al. 2017). The industry implications are that online marketing should include more images of men and younger persons in an urban setting to better connect with potential buyers. In the present study, demographic characteristics substantially influenced whether an individual would buy one of the three plant/flower types online or instore, which is consistent with prior studies (Donthu and Garcia 1999, Lee et al. 2017, Naseri and Elliott 2011).

In comparing the percentage of individuals who made purchases of different types of plants online versus instore, the magnitude of difference in percent of individuals buying different products was nearly always greater compared to instore purchasers. The exceptions are also notable. For all three types of plants/flowers purchased, there was no difference in the percentage of persons who bought annuals and perennials instore versus online. Annuals and perennials are core products for most garden retailers and may be the inroad to getting consumers to use another channel. In other words, if buying annuals or perennials has a similar percentage of customers, cross-merchandising other plant types with or near annuals and perennials (both online and instore) may stimulate other purchases. Although product convenience was not more or less important to online versus instore purchases, the disparity in mean sales may also be an indication that individuals who buy cut flowers and plants online are more willing to pay a premium price to buy the product when it is convenient for them to do so.

For each product (cut flowers, edible plants, foliage plants), mean online sales were approximately twice the level of mean instore plant purchases in 2022. This result is consistent with prior studies (Home Textiles Today 2019, Zatz et al, 2021). Given the large disparity in household income for online vs. instore purchasers, this was not surprising. This may indicate some potential to charge higher prices for products sold online.

Across the three types of plants, the amount spent online increased the likelihood of online plant purchases while the amount spent instore decreased it. This makes intuitive sense in that one channel likely substitutes for the other. Few individuals (13% online and 2% instore) bought exclusively in one channel or the other; rather, they were omnichannel shoppers. This is consistent with research showing that 67% of consumers globally used physical retail outlets, 42% use mobile apps, and 37% buy online and pick up instore (Statista 2024). Greater online average sales combined with consumers’ use of multiple channels for purchasing would indicate a promising future for plant and flower retailers considering online sales.

For all three plant types, the seller’s reputation and mean online total plant purchases improved the odds of purchase. For cut flowers and edible plants, no other product attribute influenced purchasing. But for foliage plants, the recommendation of the seller negatively influenced sales while past experience positively influenced sales. The inverse relationship between seller recommendation and sales might be explained by the growing number of fake reviews, which erode trust in the seller. In 2021, an estimated 5.8% of online reviews were fake (Mühlmann and Jameson 2022). Using a 3rd party platform such as Trustpilot for customer reviews could increase trust in these reviews. Perhaps strategies like those employed by Amazon to suggest related products (e.g., people who bought this product might also be interested in buying this one) may backfire for sales. Whereas reminding customers of prior positive experiences with the foliage plant may lead to additional sales.

For foliage plants, living in an urban area and recommendations from the seller positively influenced purchases but past experience negatively influenced online foliage plant purchases. Desiring to include foliage plants in an office or apartment or condominium may present challenges in transportation; some plants may be too bulky, fragile, or large to easily be carried on public transportation.

Study limitations center around the types of products investigated. Surveying customers of cut flowers, edible plants, and foliage plants gives some insights into both online and instore purchases, but other horticultural products could be investigated. Future work might pursue product combinations that are typically purchased together and why one channel might be preferred over another in terms of plant sales.