Canadian retailers have spent years organizing strategy around channels. Physical stores have been modernized, e-commerce platforms expanded, apps launched, loyalty programs refined and fulfillment networks connected under the broad promise of omnichannel retail.
New Canadian research suggests shoppers may organize their behaviour differently. The central finding of The Canadian Shopper Sentiment Study: How Trip Purposes and Journeys Shape Shopper Decisions, conducted by Leger for Retail Council of Canada, is that consumers often begin with a purpose, with the choice of channel emerging from what they are trying to accomplish.
A shopper replacing an urgently needed item is likely to behave differently from someone browsing for inspiration. A routine grocery run creates different expectations from a considered electronics purchase, even when the same person is making both trips.
The channel follows the mission. That idea gives structure to a 60-page study based on an online survey of 2,014 Canadian shoppers conducted in February 2026, followed by six English- and French-language focus groups in March. The sample was nationally representative, and the stated margin of error was plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The findings show Canadians moving across physical and digital touchpoints with considerable fluidity. In-store browsing was used by 66% of respondents during the research process, compared with 48% for retailer websites and 45% for search engines. Loyalty programs were used by 43%, while retailer apps, flyers, online marketplaces, word of mouth and in-store staff also played meaningful roles. AI assistants were already used by 11%.
Yet the same research found that physical stores remained the leading purchase channel. Fifty-eight per cent completed purchases in-store, compared with 39% online, while 62% took products home the same day. The resulting picture is more complicated than the familiar online-versus-offline debate: shoppers appear to be assembling their own journeys from the tools available to them, with priorities changing according to the job at hand.
Value Sets the Threshold
The study arrives while affordability remains a defining issue for Canadian households. Statistics Canada reported that prices for food purchased from stores rose 4.3% year over year in May 2026, the 16th consecutive month in which grocery inflation outpaced headline inflation.
The Bank of Canada’s second-quarter survey of consumer expectations also found that high prices and economic uncertainty continued to weigh on household spending plans. Its consumer indicator remained low as households described the economic environment as challenging, with affordability concerns continuing to influence spending behaviour.
That backdrop makes the RCC/Leger findings particularly timely, although the report paints a more nuanced picture than simple bargain hunting. It defines value for money as the perceived balance of price, quality and benefit, and that measure sits at a broadly similar baseline across the study’s three main shopping-mission groups. The larger differences appear after the shopper decides the value is acceptable.
For task and time-driven trips, stock availability becomes the leading differentiator, followed by factors including selection and location. Problem-solving and replacement trips also place heavy weight on availability, while staff knowledge and delivery costs become more important. Inspiration and impulse missions show another pattern, with delivery fees, loyalty benefits and easy returns taking on greater relevance.
Price can therefore establish the threshold for consideration without determining the entire outcome. An empty shelf may be decisive for someone trying to complete an urgent task, while broad assortment can create value for a customer open to discovery. Staff expertise may have little influence on a routine replenishment purchase and become essential when someone is comparing unfamiliar products. Value sensitivity remains central, but the mission determines which other expectations rise to the surface.
One Shopper, Different Missions
The report organizes shopping behaviour into three broad situations: Inspiration & Impulse, Task & Time-Driven, and Problem-Solving & Replacement. These categories are best understood as missions, not permanent consumer personas, because the same individual can move among them repeatedly.
Inspiration and impulse trips include deal-driven shopping, discovering new products, acting on recommendations and treating oneself or someone else. Task and time-driven trips include routine purchases, errands, specific events and urgent needs. Problem-solving and replacement trips centre on confidence, including comparing alternatives, replacing or upgrading products, solving a specific problem or researching a considered purchase.
Routine shopping remains the most common, with 63% of respondents reporting a routine or planned trip purpose. But the study also found substantial activity outside that pattern: 37% combined shopping with errands, 35% had shopped to treat themselves or someone else, 28% engaged in casual browsing and 24% had made an urgent or last-minute purchase.
Those missions carry different emotional states. Treat-yourself trips generated the highest positive mood at 76%, followed by deal-driven shopping at 71% and event shopping at 70%. Urgent trips were much more difficult, with only 45% registering a positive mood and 38% reporting a negative one, the highest negative reading among the trip types highlighted in the report.
The findings complicate the retail industry’s tendency to discuss “experience” as though every shopper is seeking entertainment, theatre or discovery. For a customer making an urgent purchase, accurate inventory, clear navigation, accessible staff and a fast checkout may define a high-quality experience. A discretionary shopper in a positive mood may respond far more strongly to visual merchandising, broad assortment and the possibility of finding something unexpected.
The study’s mindset data reinforce that distinction. Overall, 40% of shoppers were classified as efficiency-driven, compared with 29% who were value-seeking. Among task and time-driven shoppers, 57% were efficiency-oriented, while problem-solving shoppers also leaned heavily toward efficiency.
For retailers, the lesson is significant: speed and clarity should not be treated as the absence of experience. In many situations, successful completion is the experience the customer came for.
The Store Remains Part of the Research Engine
One of the strongest findings in the study concerns the role of physical retail before the transaction takes place.
In-store browsing was used by 66% of respondents during the research journey, making it the most widely used source in the study. It was also the most common first touchpoint, with 22% beginning there. Search engines and flyers were each used first by 12%, while retailer websites were the starting point for 10%.
That matters because stores are still often evaluated primarily by transactions completed within their walls. The research points to a broader role. A shopper may enter a store to inspect an item, compare sizes, assess quality, understand features or encounter a product for the first time, then use a phone to search prices, read reviews, check another retailer or complete the purchase through a different channel.
A focus-group participant in the study described examining products in-store and then checking online for a lower price. The behaviour illustrates how physical retail can function as part of the information architecture of shopping even when another channel ultimately receives the transaction.
It also raises an attribution question. If retailers assign most value to the final click or completed transaction, the contribution of stores to product discovery and validation may be understated. That is an inference from the cross-channel findings, but it follows from evidence showing consumers moving among physical and digital sources during the same journey.
The continued importance of stores is especially visible among task-driven shoppers. Seventy per cent completed purchases in-store, compared with 58% across the full sample, and 71% took the product home the same day. For someone trying to finish a task, immediacy remains a significant competitive advantage.
Different Missions Produce Different Journeys
Overall channel averages obscure meaningful differences in how shoppers research different kinds of purchases.
Inspiration and impulse shoppers were comparatively exploratory. Sixty-three per cent used in-store browsing, 56% retailer websites and 52% search engines, while loyalty programs and retailer apps also played a relatively strong role. Task and time-driven shoppers leaned more heavily on familiar retail cues: 70% used in-store browsing, 46% loyalty programs and 41% flyers, while use of retailer websites and search engines was lower. Problem-solving and replacement shoppers were more validation-oriented, with 64% using in-store browsing, 53% retailer websites and 52% search engines.
Those differences point to distinct jobs for retail touchpoints. A task-oriented customer may respond strongly to accurate stock visibility, a familiar loyalty offer and a convenient location. Someone solving a problem may need specifications, comparisons, reviews, knowledgeable employees and confidence that a return will be manageable. An inspiration shopper may be more receptive to assortment, recommendations and discovery.
Category behaviour reinforces the same point. Groceries and essentials were heavily purchase-driven, with 82% of respondents reporting a purchase in the previous 30 days. Electronics and technology showed a different pattern: 27% had researched the category, compared with 17% who purchased. Home, décor and improvement also attracted substantial research relative to recent buying.
The strategic requirements differ accordingly. In high-frequency essential categories, availability and replenishment can dominate because the need already exists. In considered categories, search visibility, accurate product information, comparison tools, reviews and staff expertise can shape the decision long before money changes hands.
A generic omnichannel strategy can miss that distinction. Having a store, website and app is one thing; understanding the role each needs to play for a particular mission is another.
AI Is Joining the Journey, Not Replacing It
Artificial intelligence is already visible in Canadian shopping behaviour, although the report suggests its role remains secondary to more established research sources.
Eleven per cent of respondents said they had used AI assistants during shopping research, but only 1% said AI was the first source used. That gap may be more revealing than the headline adoption figure. It suggests AI is entering the journey mainly as a tool for narrowing choices, comparing options and speeding up research, while stores, search engines and retailer-owned channels remain more common entry points.
Among AI users, 46% said it helped them find relevant products faster, 43% said it made comparing products or prices easier and 40% said it saved time. Thirty per cent reported greater purchase confidence.
The weaknesses were also visible. Twelve per cent perceived brand bias, 11% said they had been directed toward products that did not exist and 10% reported incorrect results.
The immediate retail implication is therefore less about autonomous agents suddenly taking control of commerce and more about how products and brands appear inside a new research layer. If shoppers increasingly ask AI systems to identify options, compare prices or narrow a shortlist, product data, discoverability, accuracy and brand representation may become competitive concerns even when the sale is completed through a conventional retailer channel.
Value Pressure Is Changing Brand Choice
The report’s private-label findings provide another view of how Canadian shoppers are recalculating value. Among consumers purchasing private-label products, 53% cited better price or value for money, 38% pointed to good quality for the price and 27% said quality was comparable with national brands.
The hierarchy suggests many consumers are actively assessing whether the quality difference between a retailer-owned product and a national brand justifies the price gap. The behaviour fits the study’s wider definition of value as a combination of price, quality and benefit.
Brand loyalty may therefore be becoming more conditional. A national brand that once benefited from habit or familiarity can face greater scrutiny when consumers are comparing alternatives and asking whether a premium remains justified. For retailers, private label can function as an affordability tool, a margin strategy and a test of trust, with the strongest opportunity emerging when shoppers view the quality-price trade-off as rational.
The Empty Shelf and the Silent Customer
The study’s most commercially important findings may be those related to operational failure. Seventy-two per cent of respondents experienced at least one shopping issue during the previous three months. Thirty per cent encountered an out-of-stock product or limited availability, making it the most common problem identified. Delivery delays affected 18%, while 15% reported long lines or difficulty getting help and 14% encountered store-navigation problems.
Those failures matter differently according to mission. For task and time-driven trips, stock availability is the leading differentiator once the value threshold is crossed. The same is true for problem-solving and replacement trips. An unavailable product can therefore do more than frustrate a customer; it can erase the purpose of the trip.
The report found that 37% switch retailers when an item is out of stock, while poor customer service was also a significant reason for switching. More broadly, the research describes shoppers changing retailers, changing channels or abandoning purchases when basic execution fails.
For retailers, this creates a measurement problem. Complaint systems capture customers who remain engaged long enough to report what went wrong. They may miss the shopper who sees an empty shelf and checks a competitor’s app, the customer who cannot find help and walks out, or the online visitor who opens another tab and completes the transaction elsewhere.
A low complaint rate can therefore create false reassurance. The absence of a complaint is not evidence of loyalty.
The same tools that help shoppers compare options also reduce the friction involved in leaving. Inventory accuracy, queue management, intuitive navigation, reliable delivery and accessible service should therefore be understood as competitive capabilities, not simply operating metrics.
What Retailers May Need to Rethink
Retail Council of Canada has framed the research partly through the lens of affordability, competition and consumer choice. That interpretation arrives as the federal Competition Bureau places renewed emphasis on affordability and choice in its 2026–27 annual plan, including investigations in sectors affecting essential household costs such as food and housing.
The study clearly demonstrates consumer mobility. Canadians compare options, use multiple research sources, switch channels and leave retailers when expectations are not met. Those behaviours do not, on their own, establish that every retail market is highly competitive; questions involving concentration, barriers to entry and pricing power require broader evidence.
The study’s strongest contribution is behavioural. It presents a consumer who is neither simply online nor offline, neither permanently loyal nor always deal-driven. The same shopper can be rushed on one trip, exploratory on another and deeply analytical on the next.
For years, retailers have invested heavily in digital transformation, modernized stores, e-commerce, loyalty systems, apps and fulfillment networks. The research suggests the next step may involve reversing the usual order of planning: begin with the mission, understand what could derail it, and then determine which store, website, app or fulfillment option is best equipped to help the customer finish what they came to do.
