Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26:169–179, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 online
DOI: 10.1080/10548400902864768

A STORYTELLING PERSPECTIVE ON ONLINE

CUSTOMER REVIEWS REPORTING SERVICE
FAILURE AND RECOVERY
Hulda G. Black
Scott W. Kelley

ABSTRACT. This research tests and supports the proposition that when consumers read online
customer reviews that include elements of a good story, they will deem those reviews to be more
helpful when they decide whether to patronize hotels. Furthermore, results indicate that
consumers perceive online reviews documenting a service failure to be less helpful than reviews
that do not document a failure. Consumers perceive reviews reporting service failures in which
the provider attempted a service recovery as no more helpful as reviews reporting failures with
no recovery attempt. However, consumers give higher helpfulness scores to reviews that
document an effective recovery. The hospitality industry can use these results to develop
marketing techniques that encourage customers to tell effective service stories through online
review forums.

KEYWORDS. Service failure, service recovery, storytelling

INTRODUCTION Today, customers who wish to exercise their

Service providers of all types are concerned
about dissatisfied customers’ reactions when
services fail. Researchers have identified three
broad customer responses to service failures:
exit, voice, and loyalty (Hirschman, 1970,
1974; Singh, 1990). Whereas exit and loyalty
involve leaving or staying with an organiza-
tion, voice refers to ‘‘any attempt at all to
change rather than escape from an objection-
able state of affairs’’ (Hirschman, 1970, p. 30).
Marketers have a longstanding interest in
customer voice or complaining behavior.
voice have a relatively new outlet for broad-
casting their opinions: the online customer
review.
Countless websites—including Amazon.
com, Yahoo.com, and Hotels.com—allow
consumers to provide online reviews regarding
the products listed on their domains. Service
providers know that these reviews are critical;
it has been long understood that word-of-
mouth is a service customer’s most trusted
source of information (McConnell & Huba,
2007). In the past, customers often read profes-
sional reviews for opinions on restaurants and

Hulda G. Black, MBA (E-mail: huldagblack@uky.edu), is a Doctoral Candidate and Scott W.

Kelley, DBA (E-mail: skelley@uky.edu), is a Gatton Endowed Professor of Marketing, Gatton
College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
The authors wish to thank the two judges for taking time from their busy schedules to code the
data.

169
170 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
travel. Now, with the increase of online
customer reviews, consumers share their
experiences and voice their opinions to a
potentially limitless pool of readers. For
example, ‘‘Yours Is a Very Bad Hotel’’
PowerPoint presentation spread rapidly over
the Internet, even though it was not intended
for distribution. The authors received more
than 4,000 responses to this presentation,
providing a key example of how customers’
online voices can spread rapidly (Shea,
Enghagen, & Khullar, 2004). Although many
researchers have used a variety of methodolo-
gies to investigate voice (Day, Grabicke,
Schaetzle, & Staubach, 1981; Fornell &
Wernerfelt, 1987; Resnik & Harmon, 1983), a
new and rich way to investigate voice is
through the lens of storytelling.
Past literature has analyzed the conse-
quences and content of online customer
voice mechanisms such as e-complaining
(Lee & Hu, 2004; Harrison-Walker, 2001;
Mattila & Mount, 2003; Tyrrell & Woods,
2005). However, a review of the literature
finds that no published research has ana-
lyzed the storytelling aspects and outcomes
of online customer reviews. Our research
contributes to the literature in that it
analyzes the relatively recent phenomenon
of customer online reviews from a story-
telling perspective. These customer reviews
have come to serve as a conduit for the
spread of word-of-mouth. The dissemination
of these messages would seem to be particu-
larly prevalent in the case of customers
experiencing service failures and recoveries.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
This research will test hypotheses focusing
on the proposition that consumers reading
online customer reviews will deem reviews
more helpful if they include the elements of a
good story. An additional issue that will be
investigated is whether a review will be rated
as more helpful if it includes stories of service
failures and service recoveries. By under-
standing what consumers look for in online
customer reviews, the hospitality industry
might develop new insights as to what
constitutes an excellent service experience.
Storytelling
The advancement of technology and the
proliferation of online social media have
made it easy for consumers to spread service
failure and recovery information via word-
of-mouth. Online customer reviews allow
consumers to pass along their experiences
with services or products purchased. From a
storytelling perspective, these online reviews
provide customers with a medium for telling
their stories to potential customers.
Therefore, organizations in the hospitality
industry should be interested in better
understanding what makes these stories
effective: If potential customers read online
reviews to help them decide whether to book
a hotel, managers should ask, ‘‘What makes
a customer review persuasive or helpful?’’
Several authors have provided insights as
to the components of a ‘‘good story,’’ and
hence of a helpful review (Adamson, Pine,
Steenhoven, & Kroupa, 2006; Denning,
2004, 2006; Simmons, 2001). Our study
evaluates several specific storytelling ele-
ments: trust, character development, detail,
tone of superiority, inspirational content,
and quality of writing. Each element is
subsequently discussed.
Trust. For a story to be effective, the
narrator must be trusted. ‘‘The first criterion
that people require before they allow them-
selves to be influenced by your story is, ‘Can
they TRUST you?’’’ (Simmons, 2001, p. 3).
In the case of an online review, readers must
have an element of trust in the reviewer if
they are to believe what the reviewer says.
For trust to be established, writers must
answer two questions about themselves for
the readers: Who are you? Why are you here?
(Simmons, 2001). This research assumes that
the answer to the latter question is inferred:
People typically write online reviews to
inform others of their experience. To convey
who they are, writers can, for example, tell
about their family, occupation, or frequency
 Hulda G. Black and Scott W. Kelley
of travel. These personal details help the
reader to trust the writer and, consequently,
enhance trust in the review. When trust is
established, the reader will find the review
more helpful and believable. Thus:
H1: Reviews that establish trust in the
writer will be rated as more helpful than
those that do not establish trust.
Character Development. Whether a story is
written or told, characters are a key compo-
nent to any tale. Establishing and developing
the main character is a basic element of all
good narratives (Martin, 2007). Because
online customer reviews are relatively short
and lack time to fully develop characters,
this research focuses on the establishment of
characters. This component goes beyond
simply providing a character. A good story-
teller skillfully considers the ‘‘art of start’’;
that is, the beginning of the story, which is
crucial for establishing the main charac-
ter by connecting the character to some-
thing or someone (Reissenweber, 2007).
Reissenweber suggested to ‘‘put your char-
acter and reader somewhere in a moment
quickly to abate aimlessness’’ (Reissenweber,
p. 48). When a customer review connects the
character to the setting, or provides informa-
tion to the reader about the character, then
character development exists. Therefore,
when a review features character develop-
ment, we hypothesize that the readers will
rate the review as more helpful.
H2: Reviews that establish and/or
develop a character will be rated as
more helpful than those that do not
establish a character.
Detail. Without details, a story lacks
information and knowledge. Effective story-
telling includes facts and specifics regarding
the setting, characters, and plot (Denning,
2004; McConnell & Huba, 2007; Simmons,
2001). A good story does more than give an
example or get straight to the point; it adds
sensory details and emotional content to
171
captivate the reader (Simmons, 2001).
Within the online review, details might
include specific information about the staff,
hotel atmosphere, location of the room, size
of the pool, or the service encounter. These
specifics help the reader to evaluate the
hotel; therefore, readers who encounter
details in the review will perceive that review
as more helpful.
H3: Detailed reviews will be seen as
more helpful than reviews that lack
detail.
Tone of Superiority. A good story grabs
the audience’s attention by creating power,
not by acting powerful; thus, storytellers
should not act superior to their audiences
(Simmons, 2001). Storytellers who adopt a
supercilious tone by making harsh state-
ments and directives can insult and degrade
their readers. As Simmons (p. 202) stated,
‘‘any assumption of superiority is an overt
act of disrespect.’’ Readers who feel that the
storyteller is haughty may lose trust in what
the storyteller is saying. Therefore, when
reviewers demonstrate an air of superiority
in their reviews, it is expected that readers
will see these reviews as less helpful than
reviews written without superiority.
H4: Reviews that demonstrate a tone of
superiority will be less helpful than
those that do not.
Inspirational. To be effective, a story
cannot just disseminate facts; it must inspire.
A good story captures the imagination and
evokes feelings. Readers are not inspired by
reason alone, they want to read something that
affects them emotionally. Inspiring stories
intrigue and captivate audiences (Simmons,
2001), which explains why the ‘‘Just Tell ‘Em’’
approach typically fails (Adamson et al.,
2006). In the context of online reviews, an
inspiring review motivates the reader to learn
more about the hotel or to visit it. We
hypothesize that when a review inspires, the
reader will perceive that it is more helpful.
172 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
H5: Reviews that inspire the reader will
be rated as more helpful than those that
do not inspire.
Well Written. Stories that are well written
give the storyteller credibility, whereas
poorly written stories leave readers wonder-
ing whether the writer can be trusted
(Reissenweber, 2007). Readers will have
trouble believing a poorly written review
and therefore will not find the review helpful.
H6: Poorly written reviews will be
found less helpful than well-written
reviews.
The previous hypotheses have focused on
the components of a good story and their
proposed positive effect on the perceived
helpfulness of the review. This research will
also test whether the reader’s perceived
helpfulness of the review is influenced when
the reviewer includes information about
service failures and recoveries.
Service Failure and Recovery
The hospitality industry is complex; there-
fore, service failures will inevitably occur.
Common hospitality service failures include
slow and inefficient staff, delayed check-in/out,
and unprepared rooms (Lewis & McCann,
2004). Although it is practically impossible for
a service provider to avoid all service failures,
the effective service provider learns to respond
to them. Service recovery refers to the service
provider’s response to failures.
Research on service failure and recovery
has focused on its impact on customer
satisfaction and future purchase intentions.
Poor service recoveries have been found to
compound the service failure (Kelley,
Hoffman, & Davis, 1993; Maxham, 2001),
whereas superior recoveries can actually
result in the ‘‘service recovery paradox’’;
that is, customers rate the service higher after
the failure than they did prior to the failure
(Cranage, 2004; Kelley et al., 1993; Maxham,
2001). A firm’s recovery in response to a
failure is crucial because poor service recov-
ery can lead to negative word-of-mouth
(McCole, 2004), and research suggests that
word-of-mouth communication is the most
trusted source of information among custo-
mers (McConnell & Huba, 2007).
Furthermore, research in the hotel industry
indicates that customers assign heavier
weight to their current service experience
than to their past experiences with the same
hotel (Fu & Mount, 2007).
Past statistics from TARP, a U.S.-based
customer research firm, have indicated that
customers can spread their dissatisfaction
twice as fast online as offline. Additionally,
dissatisfied customers are four times more
likely than satisfied customers to share their
experiences (Lee & Hu, 2004; TARP, 2001).
This tendency has major implications for the
hospitality industry when new guests value
customers’ reviews more than publicized
print.
Although the hospitality industry
attempts to reduce service failures, they will
inevitably occur. A key question for the
industry is: what is the effect when service
failures are relayed to other potential guests
via online reviews? Do potential guests/
readers view these service failure reviews as
more or less helpful? On one hand, readers
may see the writers as complainers or
pessimists, and dismiss or distrust their
negative accounts of bad service encounters.
On the other hand, readers might find a
negative review a credible warning not to
frequent the establishment.
The storytelling literature has provided
insights into these questions, specifically
when online customer reviews are examined
in the context of short stories. Two key
components to good short stories are conflict
and resolution (Lucke, 1998). Stories that
lack conflicts are generally ill received
(Lucke, 1998). McConnell and Huba (2007)
stated that good stories document a tangible
form of injustice. Therefore, if readers view a
good story as more helpful, then document-
ing the service failure will positively impact
the perceived helpfulness of the review.
From the hospitality viewpoint, it is better
 Hulda G. Black and Scott W. Kelley
if readers find information on service failures
less helpful because this could mean that
readers do not believe the accounts. On the
other hand, if readers find reviews about
service failures more helpful, then these
reviews could have an even greater impact
on future customers. Thus, from the story-
telling perspective, we propose:
H7: Reviews that document a service
failure will be perceived as more helpful
than those that do not.
The hospitality industry must consider
another important question: how are read-
ers’ attitudes affected when reviews docu-
ment a service recovery? If a service failure
occurs, is the review deemed more or less
helpful when it includes an attempt at service
recovery? Where service recoveries are
attempted, are reviews with effective recov-
eries deemed more helpful than reviews with
ineffective recoveries?
A service recovery occurs when the service
provider attempts to reconcile the service
failure. An attempt to recover does not mean
the situation was rectified. An effective
recovery means that customers’ expectations
have been met or exceeded. In the hotel
industry, this usually means recovering
quickly and matching the response to the
severity of the failure (McDougall &
Levesque, 1999). If the recovery fails to meet
customers’ expectations, then an effective
recovery has not occurred. Retention rates
for hotel customers can be tied to various
service recoveries. One study found that
retention rates were 85% or higher when
the hotel offered some type of compensation.
When the hotel did not respond to the
service failure, retention rates were about
30% (Hoffman & Chung, 1999). When
service providers attempt to recover from
service failure, they show that they care
about customers, that customers are their
main concern; therefore, the service failure
and recovery literature would suggest that
reviews that include service recoveries should
be rated as more helpful. Furthermore, an
173
effective recovery to the failed service
encounter will demonstrate to the reader
that the service provider not only cares about
the customer but will take all necessary steps
to meet the customer’s expectations.
From a storytelling perspective, service
recovery in the service encounter can be
compared to a story’s conflict resolution,
which is, as mentioned previously, a key
component to a good short story (Lucke,
1998). Readers desire an ‘‘end’’ to a story;
they do not want to be left hanging with no
resolution. Therefore, resolution or service
recovery is a critical aspect of a good review.
Thus, we propose:
H8: Among reviews reporting a service
failure, those that document a service
recovery will be viewed as more helpful.
H9: Among reviews reporting a service
failure and service recovery, those that
document an effective recovery will be
viewed as more helpful.
METHOD
Kassarjian’s (1977) methodology for con-
tent analysis was followed for data coding
and analysis. Kassarjian stated that content
analysis is useful when the ‘‘subject’s own
language and mode of expression is crucial
to the investigation’’ (p. 11). This research
follows Kassarjian’s recommendation as it
focuses on analyzing the original content and
expression of customers’ reviews.
Sample
A review of the World Wide Web reveals
countless travel websites that post online
customer reviews. However, few websites
ask, ‘‘Was this review helpful?’’ Even fewer
post helpfulness data. As the study objective
was to examine the marketing outcome of
reviews, it was imperative to choose a
domain where readers were asked the ques-
tion and where the data were accessible.
Further searching revealed that Yahoo!
174 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Travel Guides (http://travel.yahoo.com) not
only asks this question, it also has more
customers who respond. For those reasons,
Yahoo! Travel was selected as the sampling
source.
The sample was drawn from the top 10
hotels in the top 10 cities as listed by Yahoo!
Travel Guides. A review was included in the
sample when a minimum of 10 people
responded to the helpfulness question.
Depending on the hotel, 1 to 25 reviews per
hotel met this established criterion. When a
hotel had more than 10 reviews that met the
criteria, the top 5 most positive reviews and
top 5 most negative reviews were included in
the sample. After all 100 hotels were
surveyed, a total of 429 reviews met the
established criteria. For each review, the
title, review, and helpfulness scores were
recorded from the Yahoo! Travel website.
This sample includes varying levels of quality
and sizes of hotels from across the United
States, providing a fair level of general-
izability within the hospitality industry.
Content Clarification
The contents of the reviews were classified
according to the nine variables being inves-
tigated (trust, character development, detail,
tone of superiority, inspirational content,
well-written account, report of service failure,
report of service recovery, and report of
effective service recovery). Two judges inde-
pendently evaluated each review. All vari-
ables were coded dichotomously for the
presence or absence of the specified variable.
Trust was conceptually defined as being
established when the writers divulged infor-
mation through the sharing of personal
information, such as family or occupation.
Additionally, trust and credibility could be
established if reviewers discussed their fre-
quency of travel or their knowledge of the
hotel industry. Character development was
determined by whether the reviewer estab-
lished a main character. On the contrary, if
the reviewer divulged facts but provided no
character, then character development was
coded as not occurring.
Detail was conceptually defined as
whether the reviewer gave specific details
about the hotel. If the reader could glean
specifics regarding the stay, then the review
was coded as providing detail. On the other
hand, if the review offered only general
information, then the review was judged to
lack detail. Superiority was coded if the
judges felt that the writer conveyed a
domineering or superior attitude.
Reviews were coded as inspirational if the
reader reported feeling intrigued by the
review, being motivated to learn more about
the hotel, or desiring to stay there. For the
writing variable, a review was coded as well
written if the writer used proper grammar
and punctuation.
Last, the service failure and recovery
variables were also coded dichotomously
for the presence or absence of each variable.
A service failure occurred if any aspect of the
review detailed a problem with the service
encounter. A service recovery was categor-
ized as present if the writer detailed any
response by the service provider. Finally, a
service recovery was deemed an effective
recovery if the writer mentioned that the
service provider’s recovery was effective, or
if the writer still recommended the hotel.
Reliability
Each review was evaluated by two inde-
pendent judges who were unaware of the
intent of the research project. Both judges
hold advanced degrees in service-related
domains, and are experienced travelers with
extensive work experience in service indus-
tries. According to Kassarjian (1977, p. 14),
interjudge reliability is ‘‘the degree of con-
sistency between coders applying the same
set of categories to the same content.’’ After
each judge coded the reviews, the data sets
were compared and discrepancies were dis-
cussed until a consensus was reached on the
appropriate classification. Table 1 reports
the number of reviews initially agreed on,
the percentage of initial agreement, and the
reliability index—Cohen’s kappa. For all
variables, the percentage of content initially
 Hulda G. Black and Scott W. Kelley 175

TABLE 1. Reliability Data

Variable Number of Number of Reviews Percentage of Reviews Kappa

Categories Agreed On Agreed On
Trust 2 404 94.2% .864
Character Development 2 401 93.5% .850
Detail 2 450 97.9% .931
Superiority 2 418 97.0% .933
Inspire 2 413 96.3% .915
Well Written 2 420 97.9% .950
Service Failure 2 409 95.3% .868
Service Recovery 2 408 95.1% .651
Effective Service Recovery 2 413 96.3% .413

agreed on exceeded 90%. Additionally, H1, that trust reviews are seen as more
Cohen’s kappa was greater than 0.8 for all helpful than nontrust reviews, was supported
variables except service recovery and effective (F 5 9.262, p , .01).
service recovery. Although service recovery H2, that reviews establishing and devel-
and effective service recovery had agreement oping character are more likely to be seen as
percentages of 95.1% and 96.3%, respec- more helpful than those that do not, was
tively, the overwhelming number of reviews supported (F 5 6.415, p , .05).
that lacked service recovery affected the
reliability index calculation because the
calculation of Cohen’s kappa factors in
the likelihood that agreement occurs by TABLE 2. Frequency Data
chance (Cohen, 1960).
Variable Frequency Frequency
Count Percentage (%)
RESULTS Trust
Yes 292 68.1
The principal outcome variable was the No 137 31.9
Character Development
helpfulness rating provided by online readers Yes 288 37.1
of the reviews. With each review, the number No 141 32.9
who rated the review as helpful was provided Detail
Yes 348 81.1
on the website, along with the total number
No 81 18.9
of readers who rated the helpfulness of the Superiority
review. These numbers were taken directly Yes 285 66.4
from Yahoo! Travel Guides, and a percen- No 144 33.6
Inspire
tage of helpfulness was calculated by divid- Yes 296 69.0
ing the number who found the review helpful No 133 31.0
by the total number who rated the help- Well Written
fulness. Helpfulness scores of the data Yes 304 70.9
No 125 29.1
ranged from .15 to 1.00. Frequencies for Service Failure
the content variables coded are reported in Yes 99 23.1
Table 2. No 330 76.9
To test all nine hypotheses, a one-way Service Recovery
Yes 36 36.4
ANOVA was calculated using SPSS 15.0. No 63 63.6
For each of these ANOVAs, the helpfulness Effective Service Recovery
metric was the dependent variable.1 Results Yes 20 55.6
No 16 44.4
are reported in Table 3.
176 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 3. Hypothesis Testing Results less helpful than those that did not (F 5
58.685, p , .001).
Variable Mean F To test the impact of service recovery, H8,
Helpfulness the data were sorted to include only those
Trust 9.262** cases where a service failure occurred. The
Yes .866 resulting sample size was 99. H8, that
No .815
Character 6.415*
reviews documenting a service recovery will
Development be seen as more helpful than those not
Yes .863 documenting a service recovery, was not
No .822 supported (F5.008, NS). When a service
Detail 7.662**
Yes .860 failure occurred, the helpfulness of the
No .805 review did not depend on whether a service
Superiority 11.675*** recovery was mentioned.
Yes .868
No .813
To test the impact of effective service
Inspire 63.278*** recovery, H9, the data were sorted to include
Yes .888 only those cases where a service failure and
No .763 service recovery occurred. The sample size
Well Written 14.823***
Yes .869
was 36. H9, that reviews documenting
No .803 effective service recovery would be rated
Service Failure 58.685*** more helpful than those not doing so, was
Yes .747 supported (F 5 4.945, p , .05).
No .880
Service Recovery .008
Yes .750
No .746
Effective Service 4.945* DISCUSSION
Recovery
Yes .837 We proposed and tested nine hypotheses
No .668 related to the impact of storytelling and
service failure/recovery variables on how
*p , .05; **p , .1; ***p , .001.
consumers judged the helpfulness of online
H3, that reviews including details are customer reviews of the hotel industry. The
perceived as more helpful than those lacking overall results support the premise that
detail, was supported (F 5 7.662, p , .01). readers will rate as more helpful those
H4, that reviews demonstrating super- reviews that include components of good
iority are seen as less helpful than those not storytelling. Additionally, findings show that
demonstrating superiority, was not sup- readers perceive that reviews including con-
ported. On the contrary, the results indicate tent related to service failures are rated less
that reviews that demonstrate superiority are helpful than those documenting no such
rated as significantly more helpful than those failure. Last, results support that documen-
that do not (F 5 11.675, p , .001). tation of a service failure with an effective
H5, that reviews that inspire and motivate service recovery can reverse the effect of the
are rated as more helpful than those that do failure on the helpfulness score.
not, was supported (F 5 63.278, p , .001). These results have implications for the
H6, that well-written reviews are rated as hospitality industry. As online technology
more helpful than poorly written reviews, continues to grow, travelers are researching
was supported (F 5 14.823, p , .001). and booking their hotels online; therefore, it
H7, that reviews including a service failure is imperative that hotel marketers and
are found more helpful, was not supported. managers develop a sound understanding
Actually, results demonstrated that reviews of customers’ perspectives on this tech-
documenting a service failure were rated as nology. Recognizing the importance of
 Hulda G. Black and Scott W. Kelley
storytelling in this context and its implica-
tions may lead to a strategic advantage.
Practitioners should be able to design and
deliver better guest experiences as a result of
developing an understanding of the elements
of a story and the impact of storytelling on
customer perceptions and expectations.
From a marketing perspective, hotels
might include elements of a story in their
promotional materials. Customer reviews
that utilize storytelling effectively might
serve as highly credible endorsements in
traditional promotional materials. It may
even be in hotels’ best interests to encourage
guests to write quality reviews. Hotels might
encourage guests to write online reviews that
make connections, or that give specific
details regarding their stay. Hotels might
also use the proliferation of online social
media to their advantage by contacting
customers via email, sharing existing reviews
with strong elements of story, and possibly
offering incentives to customers to post their
own online reviews. In these e-mails, hotels
might suggest certain phrases or topics that
will elicit a good story.
This research indicates that when reviews
document a service failure, such reviews are
seen as less helpful than those that do not
document a failure. Possibly, readers perceive
these reviews as overly complaining or pessi-
mistic. For the hotel industry, this finding
could mean that online readers do not trust
reports of service failures. However, the
results also indicate that the helpfulness scores
were reversed when a service failure and
effective recovery were documented together.
When people personally connect through
a story, they are more likely to remember the
experience (Simmons, 2001). Therefore, if a
service failure occurs, the hotel’s service
recovery should attempt to provide the
customer with ‘‘a story to tell.’’ If the hotel
connects with customers, engendering trust
and captivating them with its service recov-
ery, then they will remember their ‘‘service
recovery story,’’ and will be more likely to
spread positive word-of-mouth. Hotels can
use storytelling to their advantage by giving
their customers a story to tell.
177
LIMITATIONS
Several limitations are inherent in this
research. First, we sampled customer reviews
from only one medium, Yahoo! Travel
Guides. Although we were limited to this
particular website because of our outcome
variable, future research might draw a sample
from multiple media. Second, the actual
number of reviews that included a service
recovery was very small (n 5 36); therefore,
results on service recovery should be inter-
preted with caution. Future research might
specifically seek a larger sample of reviews
that include service recovery elements. Last,
online customer reviews pose potential draw-
backs in that the writer is not held accountable
for what is written. Anyone can post reviews
about any hotel; this calls into question
whether writers are actual customers and
whether their accounts are true.
CONCLUSION
When customers experience a service fail-
ure, they typically exit to another service,
voice their opinion, or remain loyal to the
service provider (Hirschman, 1970, 1974;
Singh, 1990). Online customer reviews pro-
vide customers with an easy mechanism to
spread their voice without fear of identifica-
tion. It is vital for the hospitality industry to
understand this new medium for complain-
ing. With the increase of online booking
websites for hotel and travel, an increasing
number of customers are using online
reviews as the primary criteria in their
decision making processes. In many cases,
online customer reviews have replaced travel
agents, paid advertising, and published
literature.
By understanding what makes reviews
helpful, hotels can develop plans to encou-
rage current customers to spread positive
stories through online reviews. First and
foremost, hotels need to make it easy for
customers to complain. By offering their
customers complaint outlets, hotels may
effectively recover and possibly increase
178 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
customer satisfaction (Cranage, 2004;
Kelley, Hoffman, & Davis, 1993; Maxham,
2001). During this recovery, hotels can
encourage customers who have experienced
a service failure and effective service recov-
ery to post their story online. By encouraging
and rewarding loyal customers to spread
their service experiences, hotels can use
online customer reviews to their strategic
advantage. Furthermore, hotels can embrace
customers’ enthusiasm for technology by
responding quickly and effectively to online
complaints and reviews (Mattila & Mount,
2003; Tyrrell & Woods, 2005).
ENDNOTE
1. The data were tested for skewness. Based on the
results of these tests, all analyses were also run using
the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric rank test. Results
for the ANOVA analyses and the KW analyses were
statistically the same. Given this, only the ANOVA
results are reported.
REFERENCES
Adamson, G., Pine, J., Steenhoven, T. V., & Kroupa,
J. (2006). How storytelling can drive strategic
change. Strategy and Leadership, 34(1), 36-41. doi:
10.1177/001316446002000104
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for
nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20(1), 37-46. doi: 10.1177/
001316446002000104
Cranage, D. (2004). Plan to do it right: And plan for
recovery. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 16(4–5), 210-219. doi: 10.
1108/09596110410537360
Day, R. L., Grabicke, K., Schaetzle, T., & Staubach,
F. (1981). The hidden agenda of consumer com-
plaining. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 86-106.
Denning, S. (2004). Telling tales. Harvard Business
Review, 82(5), 122-129.
Denning, S. (2006). Effective storytelling: Strategic
business narrative techniques. Strategy & Leadership,
34(1), 42-48. doi: 10.1108/10878570610637885
Fornell, C., & Wernerfelt, B. (1987, November).
Defensive marketing strategy by customer com-
plaint management: A theoretical analysis. Journal
of Marketing Research, 24, 337-346. doi: 10.2307/
3151381
Fu, Y.-Y., & Mount, D. (2007). Hotel guests’ cumulative
satisfaction updating process in the context of service
failure and service recovery. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(1), 77-98.
doi: 10.1300/J149v08n01_05
Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001). E-complaining: A
content analysis of an Internet complaint forum.
Journal of Services Marketing, 15(4–5), 397-412.
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005657
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty:
Response to decline in firms, organizations, and
states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hirschman, A. O. (1974). Exit, voice and loyalty:
Further reflections and a survey of recent contribu-
tions. Social Science Information, 58(3), 7-26. doi:
10.1177/053901847401300101
Hoffman, K. D., & Chung, B. G. (1999). Hospitality
recovery strategies: Customer preference versus
firm use. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 23(1), 73-84. doi: 10.1177/
109634809902300106
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in con-
sumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1),
8-18. doi: 10.1086/208674
Kelley, S. W., Hoffman, K. D., & Davis, M. A. (1993).
A typology of retail failures and recoveries. Journal
of Retailing, 69(4), 429-452. doi: 10.1016/0022-
4359(93)90016-C 10.1016/0022-4359(93)90016-C
Lee, C. C., & Hu, C. (2004). Analyzing hotel
customers’ e-complaints from an Internet com-
plaint forum. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 17(2–3), 167-181. doi: 10.1300/
J073v17n02_13
Lewis, B. R., & McCann, P. (2004). Service failure and
recovery: Evidence from the hotel industry.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 16(1), 6-17. doi: 10.1108/
09596110410516516
Lucke, Margaret. (1998). Schaum’s quick guide to writing
great short stories. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Martin, P. (Ed.). (2007). The new writer’s handbook: A
practical anthology of best advice for your craft and
career. Minneapolis, MN: Scarletta.
Mattila, A. S., & Mount, D. J. (2003). The impact of
selected customer characteristics and response time
on e-complaint satisfaction and return intent.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,
22(2), 135-145. doi: 10.1016/S0278-4319(03)00014-8
Maxham, J. G. I. (2001). Service recovery’s influence
on consumer satisfaction, positive word-of-mouth,
and purchase intentions. Journal of Business
Research, 54, 11-24. doi: 10.1016/S0148-
2963(00)00114-4
McCole, P. (2004). Dealing with complaints in
services. International Journal of Contemporary
 Hulda G. Black and Scott W. Kelley
Hospitality Management, 16(6), 345-354. doi: 10.
1108/09596110410550789
McConnell, B., & Huba, J. (2007). Citizen marketers:
When people are the message. Chicago: Kaplan.
McDougall, G. H. G. & Levesque, T. J. (1999).
Waiting for service: The effectiveness of recovery
strategies. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 11(1), 6-15. doi: 10.1108/
0959699110250346
Reissenweber, B. (2007). The art of start. In P. Martin
(Ed.), The new writer’s handbook: A practical
anthology of best advice for your craft and career.
Minneapolis, MN: Scarletta.
Resnik, A. J., & Harmon, R. R. (1983, March).
Consumer complaints and managerial response: A
holistic approach. Journal of Marketing, 47, 86-97.
doi: 10.2307/3203430
Shea, L., Enghagen, L., & Khullar, A. (2004). Internet
diffusion of an e-complaint: A content analysis of
unsolicited responses. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 17(2–3), 145-165. doi: 10.1300/
J073v17n02-12
Simmons, A. (2001). The story factor. Cambridge,
MA: Basic Books.
179
Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-
mouth behaviors: An investigation across three
service categories. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 18(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1007/
BF02729758
TARP. (2001). Fast guide to ICSA/TARP benchmarking
study of electronic customer care. Retrieved August
27, 2007, from http://www.ecustomerserviceworld.
com/eresearchstore
Tyrrell, B., & Woods, R. (2005). E-complaints:
Lessons to be learned from the service recovery
literature. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
17(2–3), 183-190. doi: 10.1300/J073v17n02_14
SUBMITTED: January 15, 2008
FIRST REVISION SUBMITTED: May
27, 2008
FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED: June
25, 2008
ACCEPTED: July 10, 2008
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY