Evaluation of Thesis Proposal

Online Booking Behavior: How does Online Reviews &Website quality Affect on Travelers’ Decision
making

submitted by Mert Mentes

1. General Opinion

Digitalization trends including the increasing role of social media have completely transformed the
hospitality industry the past decade which triggered a growing interest in better understanding the
different aspects of consumer behavior in digital platforms both among practitioners and researchers.
Given the importance of this research area and the dynamic changes taking place in this industry, the
proposed topic is worth being researched and there are opportunities for significant theoretical
contributions.

The focus of the research at this stage however seems to be vague. Just reading the title, the opponent
wonders what is the phenomenon that the candidate plans to better understand; is it how consumers
are performing online booking activities, or how electronic word of mouth including online reviews is
used by consumer or he would like to get an insight into website quality and trying to answer the
question of how to design a website that encourages booking, online reviews or some other aspects
of travelers’ decision making.

Formally, the candidate gives a detailed explanation of the general objectives of the study and explicitly
describes the main objective: „The present study seeks to contribute to the research topic, with
improving knowledge concerning the impact of online reviews on tourist's decision-making process,
using a website-based approach „ (p.7).

I find this formulation rather general, since tourists’ decision-making process is too broad to serve as
a useful conceptual framework and is quite far from the research model proposed on p. 100.

2. Literature review and conceptual framework

The thesis proposal includes a very detailed review of concepts related to the main topic of thesis. The
discussion is organized in a logical way and the use of tables to summarize key findings are very useful
in communicating the state of art of certain research fields.

However, the different concepts presented in chapters 2.2 to 2.12 give an „ad hoc” impression,
probably due to the lack of a convincing conceptual framework in the beginning. The reader is
surprised to read about price benefits, revenue management, corporate reputation, perceived value,

1
e-satisfaction and e-loyalty. Later those concepts appear in Conceptual Model in Figure 3.1, but the
author fails to explain why those concepts will be placed in the focus of the research.

The quantity of the literature review is appropriate as well as the professional style of the review,
including proper referencing. A serious shortcoming is the reliance on relatively old sources. In the
summary of e-WOM articles on p. 32, no sources are included after 2013. I strongly recommend the
author to update literature review. The candidate could have a look at those articles for example:

Rosario AB, de Valck K, Sotgiu F. (2020) Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What
we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. JOURNAL OF THE
ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE. 48(3):422-448. doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00706-1.

Bore, I., Rutherford, C., Glasgow, S., Aheri, B., Antony, J.(2017) A systematic literature review on eWOM
in the hotel industry: Current trends and suggestions for future research, Hospitality and Society, 7 (1),
pp. 63-85.

One of my biggest concern is the theoretical contribution of the research. On-line review can’t be
considered a theory. Instead the author should focus more on eWOM. An excellent review is provided
by Rosario et al. (2020). According to their definition: „ eWOM is a consumer-generated, consumption-
related communication that employs digital tools and is directed primarly to other consumers, p.427.
The author should clearly state what is eWOM and what is not eWOM in his view and better organize
his summarizing table based on various research directions.

Finally, the author should improve the structure of the literature review in the following aspects:

a. Chapter 2.2 includes statistical data and should not be part of the literature review but rather
that of the introduction.
b. Research hypotheses are introduced too early, instead the author should present a
comprehensive conceptual framework which provides guidance for the discussion of the
theoretical concepts.
c. Chapters 2.11 and 2.12 are not well integrated into the literature review.

3. Proposed research methods and implementation

The proposed research model and hypotheses require significant reconsideration. The model
presented on p. 100 is loosely related the main research objectives and is not clear what would be the
academic contribution of the proposed study. It seems that the concepts are selected arbitrary and
are arranged in conceptually debatable way.

2
Since data for the research model had already been collected, my recommendation will be restricted
to the use of existing constructs.

Table 2.5 on p. 37 describes the consequences of eWOM. It seems that the main finding is that positive
eWOM increases purchase intention (intention to book). The interesting question is what are the
factors that moderate or mediate this well-established relationship.

I recommend considering to use perceived value, company reputation and e-satisfaction (online
booking experience) as mediators in the relationship of eWom credibilty and e-loyalty (or just purchase
intention). Website quality could rather have a moderator role. Including price benefits in the model
seems questionable.

Beside improving the research model, the candidate should consider of carrying out additional studies
including qualitative and/or experimental research methods. The following research questions could
be relevant:

a. What motivates consumer to process eWOM? How is eWOM processing taking place? Is there
a difference by valence of eWOM, content of eWOM?
b. What are the consequences of eWOM depending on the device consumers use? (mobile
devices are tools for self identification and may be therefore more influential)
c. How firms can facilitate eWOM evaluation? (impact of social tagging)

4. Conclusion

Summing it up, I encourage the candidate to implement the following changes:

1. Reconsider the theoretical contribution of the study and clearly formulate the gaps in the
literature.
2. Introduce a conceptual framework in the beginning of the thesis in which you justify the
underlying theoretical constructs.
3. Based on the conceptual framework make the necessary modifications in the structure and
content of the literature review.
4. Update the sources of the literature review and focus more on the concept of eWOM and give
a more precise definition for your central concept.
5. Reconsider the research model and the hypotheses, with a more emphasized academic
contribution in mind.
6. Consider using additional research methods for a follow-up study.

3
I recommend the thesis proposal submitted by Mert Mentes for acceptance with the specified
changes.

22 May 2020

……………………………………

Krisztina Kolos, Ph.D

Professor of Marketing

Corvinus University of Budapest

Institute of Marketing