Why Don’t Small Firms Adopt Analytics? Experimental Evidence from Rural U.S. Retailers

Last registered on July 23, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Why Don’t Small Firms Adopt Analytics? Experimental Evidence from Rural U.S. Retailers
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019211
Initial registration date
July 20, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
July 23, 2026, 8:09 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of california san diego

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-11-17
End date
2028-01-01
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
A defining puzzle of advanced economies over the past two decades is the coexistence of cheap, widely available productivity-enhancing technology with slow, highly uneven adoption — a divergence between frontier firms and a long tail of laggards that weighs on aggregate productivity (Andrews, Criscuolo and Gal, 2016; Syverson, 2011). The laggards are disproportionately small: U.S. Census data show that advanced technology use is rare and skewed toward large, old firms (Zolas et al., 2020), and OECD evidence shows the small-firm adoption gap widening precisely where technologies become analytical rather than transactional (OECD, 2021). Yet nearly everything known about this gap in developed countries is observational. The diffusion literature documents who adopts; it cannot say which barriers bind, or what intervention would change adoption, because adopters differ from non-adopters in unobserved ways that also drive performance. The experimental literature that could answer such questions has been built almost entirely in developing countries, while the single prominent randomized study of analytics adoption in a rich country — eBay’s Seller Hub rollout (Bar-Gill, Brynjolfsson and Hak, 2024) — concerns online platform sellers for whom the tool arrives frictionlessly inside software they already use. No randomized evaluation exists for the modal laggard: the brick-and-mortar, owner-operated small firm. This proposal describes such a trial. Exploiting an established field platform of 200–250 independent retail locations across Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi and a sampling frame of 300+ operators, the study (i) fields a diagnostic survey with enumerator-verified behavioral measures of data fluency; (ii) randomly assigns operators to a control group or to one of three arms that hold analytical content fixed while varying delivery format, workflow integration, and interpersonal support — the three mechanisms that theory and our own pilot evidence identify as candidate binding constraints; and (iii) measures effects on engagement, managerial behavior, and operational performance over twelve months using high-frequency point-of-sale administrative data. The design converts the developed-country adoption question from a correlational to a causal one, at the firm margin where the adoption gap is largest and least understood.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Karim, Muhammad. 2026. "Why Don’t Small Firms Adopt Analytics? Experimental Evidence from Rural U.S. Retailers." AEA RCT Registry. July 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19211-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2026-11-17
Intervention End Date
2027-12-29

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Sustained data use (primary index 1); Managerial behavior (primary index 2); Operational performance (primary index 3)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Each primary outcome will be constructed as an Anderson-style standardized summary index, with all components oriented so that higher values represent improvement. Components will be standardized relative to the control-group mean and standard deviation and combined using inverse-covariance weights to reduce the influence of highly correlated measures.

Primary Index 1—Sustained Data Use—combines report openings or logins, review depth, prompt acknowledgments where applicable, and an indicator for engagement during each of the final four weeks of months 3, 6, 9, and 12.

Primary Index 2—Managerial Behavior—combines data-consistent reordering following stockout or slow-mover flags, pricing or promotion responses to low-margin flags, alignment of staffing with transaction patterns, and the ten-item Decision-Domain Data-Use Index measured at midline and endline.

Primary Index 3—Operational Performance—combines stockout frequency and duration, excess or expired inventory, shrinkage or spoilage, gross margins, revenue, and transaction counts. Adverse outcomes such as stockouts, excess inventory, and spoilage will be reverse-coded.

Individual components will also be reported as secondary outcomes, with false-discovery-rate adjustments within each outcome family.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This study is a multi-site, four-arm randomized controlled trial involving approximately 300 independent retail owner-operators in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Following completion of the baseline survey, participants will be assigned in equal proportions to a control group or one of three treatment groups. All affiliated stores owned by the same operator will receive the same assignment.

The three treatment groups receive identical analytical content generated from their own point-of-sale data but through different delivery formats. Treatment 1 receives a simplified standalone weekly summary delivered in print and electronically. Treatment 2 receives the same content as brief, action-specific prompts timed to recurring decisions such as reordering, pricing, and staffing. Treatment 3 receives the workflow-embedded prompts plus standardized in-person onboarding and brief monthly check-ins. The control group will not receive the study analytics during the experimental period and will be offered the best-performing format after endline.

Randomization will be stratified by business type, revenue category, baseline data-use level, and single- versus multi-store ownership. The intervention will operate for twelve months. Outcomes will be measured using baseline, midline, and endline surveys; point-of-sale and inventory records; staffing records; and delivery-system engagement data. Midline and endline enumerators will be blinded to treatment assignment.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Firm
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
300 firms
Sample size: planned number of observations
Approximately 300 owner-operators as the primary experimental observations. Repeated weekly administrative observations will also be collected for all participating stores during the pre-intervention and twelve-month intervention periods.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Approximately 75 owner-operators in the control group; 75 in Treatment 1 (standalone summary); 75 in Treatment 2 (workflow-embedded prompts); and 75 in Treatment 3 (workflow-embedded prompts plus standardized onboarding and monthly check-ins).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number