Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/233056990
CITATIONS READS
158 4,194
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Student Evaluations of Courses and Instructors: An Exploratory Insight into the Process and Its Implications View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Myunghee Mindy Jeon on 11 April 2015.
INTRODUCTION
• The 1 star rating is for limited service hotels/motels that are consid-
ered clean, comfortable and reliable establishments.
• The 2 star rating is for hotels/resorts that are considered not only
clean, comfortable, and reliable establishments but they also have
expanded amenities, such as a full-service restaurant on their
property.
• The 3 star rating is for hotels/resorts that are well-appointed, with a
full-service restaurant and expanded amenities including a fitness
center, golf course, tennis courts, 24-hour room service, and optional
turndown service.
• The 4 star rating is for hotels/resorts/inns that provide a luxury expe-
rience with expanded amenities in a distinctive environment. Ser-
vices may include, but are not limited to, automatic turndown
service, 24 hour room service, and valet parking.
• The 5 star rating hotels/resorts/inns provide consistently superlative
services in an exceptionally distinctive luxury environment with
expanded services. Attention to details is evident throughout the
properties from the bed linens to staff uniforms.
METHODS
RESULTS
*p < .05.
a
Measured on a 5-point scale (1 = bad; 5 = good).
b
Measured on a 4-point scale (1 = no way; 2 = probably not; 3 = most likely; and
4 = absolutely).
130 JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY & LEISURE MARKETING
among nine attributes, indicating that most hotels in NYC were located in
good proximity to other tourism or business-related areas.
Based on hotel class, results of ANOVA indicated that there existed
significantly different mean scores in eight attributes except for value
(p < .05) (see Table 4). The hotel class was categorized into three groups,
in a sense that the 1 and 2 star-rated establishments focused on hotels’
physical conditions (Group A), the 3 star-rated ones offered full services
(Group B), and the 4 and 5 star-rated ones emphasized the consistency of
service delivery and high quality (Group C) (Nobles, 1999). Of the three
groups, hotels in Group A consistently showed significantly lower mean
scores (2.96 – 4.17) than those in Group B (3.20 – 4.44), and hotels in
Group B consistently showed significantly lower performance scores than
those in Group C (3.35 – 4.49) on all nine attributes. As the results of
Bonferroni’s multiple group comparisons indicated, however, only one
attribute, rooms, appeared to have significant differences among three
groups. Between Groups A and C, cleanliness, check-in & check-out,
business service, satisfaction, and return intention showed significant dif-
ferences (p < .05). However, there were no significant mean differences
in location and service between Group B and Group C but between Group
A and Group C (p < .05). Consequently, it is believed that higher star-
rated hotels resulted in more favorable guest perceptions than their lower
counterparts.
With regards to hotels’ ADR, this study classified hotels into three
groups: Group 1 with ADR lower than $270; Group 2 with ADR
between $270 and $360; Group 3 with ADR greater than $360. All three
groups showed significantly different mean scores in eight attributes
except for value (see Table 5). According to Bonferroni’s multiple
group comparisons, two attributes, rooms and service appeared to have
significantly different mean scores among all three groups (p < .05).
Dependent upon ADR, hotels in NYC seemed to have better room
amenities and quality rooms and provide high quality service. Location,
satisfaction, and return intentions were unique attributes that distin-
guished between Group 1 and Group 3, whereas there existed signifi-
cantly different mean scores between Group 1 and Group 3 for
cleanliness, check-in & check-out, and business service (p < .05). Nota-
bly, there were no significantly different mean scores in value by both
hotel class and ADR. Thus, value itself is not a good indicator to differ-
entiate one group from other group of the hotel class and ADR. Also,
guests’ perceptions of value are believed to have no linear relationship
with hotel class and ADR.
As shown in Table 6, approximately 97% of total variance in guests’
satisfaction can be explained by four attributes: rooms, value, cleanliness,
and check-in & check-out (p < .001). In particular, value was the key
class and ADR. The mean scores of location in each hotel class and each
ADR category were between 4.17 and 4.53, with a range of 0.36. This
implies that convenience of location of hotels from the guest’s interest
points is a key element in hotel choice regardless of hotel class, ADR, and
ranking in the popularity index, specifically in New York City. Also,
hotels in NYC seem to be truly located in the prime business district.
Regardless of hotels’ ownership, hotel class, ADR, and popularity
index, among the seven hotel offering attributes, value was the most
powerful predictor of guests’ satisfaction, which in turn leads to the
guest’s return intentions. Compared to the 2006 industry ADR of $97.61
(Chappell, 2007), selected NYC hotels’ ADR for this study ($322) was
comparatively high. Thus, special efforts (i.e., marketing campaign,
employee training, and value package deals) should be made by each
hotel to meet or exceed guests’ expectations and offer enhanced service or
facility features, compared to what they paid for.
REFERENCES
Hawkins, D., Best, R., & Coney, K. (2004) Consumer behavior: Building marketing
strategy (9th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Litvin, S., Goldsmith, R., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and
tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458–468.
Mobil Travel Guide (2005). Mobil stars: Lodging star definitions. Retrieved January 12, 2006,
from http://www.mobiltravelguide.com/mtg/index.jsp?menu=mobil_stars&bodytid=1031
Mohl, B. & Ridder, K. (2003). Consumer hotel reviews on the Web, not so easy to find.
Retrieved December 17, 2005, from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_2nd/
Jun03_HotelReviews.html
Naylor, G., & Kleiser, S.B. (2000). Negative versus positive word-of-mouth: An
exception to the rule. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and
Complaining Behavior, 13(1), 26–36.
Nobles, H. (2004). 5 star vs. 5 diamond: What’s the difference? Retrieved October 15, 2006,
from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2004_4th/Nov04_StarsDiamonds.html
Nobles, H. (1999). What the diamond ratings mean. Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://
www.hotel-online.com/Neo/News/PressReleases1999_1st/Feb98_DiamondRatings.html
Pitta, D.A., & Fowler, D. (2005). Internet community forums: An untapped resource for
consumer markets. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(5), 265–274.
Starkov, M., & Price, J. (2006). Consumer generated media (blogs, discussion boards,
review sites), a threat or an opportunity. Retrieved December 17, 2006, from http://
www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2006_4th/Dec06_ConsumerMedia.html
Stieghorst, T., & Ridder, K. (February 2004). Hotel executives starting to review online
lodging reviews; comments like “god awful” and “run away as fast as you can” may
or may not be objective. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from http://www.hotel-
online.com/News/PR2004_1st/Feb04_OnlineReviews.html
Susskind, A.M. (2002). I told you so! Restaurant customers’ word-of-mouth communication
patterns. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 75–85.
Swan, J.E., & Oliver, R.L. (1989). Postpurchase communication by consumers. Journal of
Retailing, 65, 516–533.
TripAdvisor (2007). Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g
191-United_States-Hotels.html
View publication stats