Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Adopting revenue management strategies and data sharing to cope

with crises☆
Giampaolo Viglia a, b, *, Francesca De Canio c, Anna Stoppani d, Anna Chiara Invernizzi e,
Stefania Cerutti e
a
University of Portsmouth, Department of Marketing, Portland Street, PO13DE, United Kingdom
b
Department of Economics and Political Science, University of Aosta Valley, Via Cappuccini 2, 11100 Aosta, Italy
c
Department of Economics “Marco Biagi”, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Viale Berengario 51, 41121 Modena, Italy
d
Department of Business and Management, LUISS University, 00198 Rome, Italy
e
University of Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro”, Department of Economics and Business, Via Perrone 18, 28100 Novara, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Within a context of a continuous and unpredictable crisis, operators need to adapt their strategies to maximize
Revenue management revenues. This article explores, through a mixed-method approach, how hoteliers re-arranged their supply
Contextual reciprocity management strategies during the crisis. Structured interviews show that the adoption of disruptive and dynamic
Independent hotels
strategies and the collaboration with different stakeholders are key factors for resilience. To investigate the
Data sharing
Data disclosure
collaboration trait, we conducted a field experiment with 134 hoteliers. Our results reveal that, with the presence
Crisis of a significant quota of data disclosure, hoteliers will share their data as they feel a perceived benefit, which
activates their contextual reciprocity. These findings support the implementation of successful collaboration
strategies for revenue maximization.

1. Introduction
The current crisis has disrupted many sectors, particularly airlines,
hospitality, gas drilling, and automotive (S&P Global, 2020). The hos­
pitality sector, one of the main industries for worldwide economies, is
proving to be highly vulnerable to crises and disasters (Hernández-
Perlines, Ibarra Cisneros, Ribeiro-Soriano, & Mogorrón-Guerrero, 2020;
Sharma, Thomas, & Paul, 2021). Suddenly and unexpected events, such
as natural disasters or terrorist attacks (Dahles & Susilowati, 2015; Mair,
Ritchie, & Walters, 2016), as well as political instability or economic
crises (del Mar Alonso-Almeida & Bremser, 2013), represent motives for
a dramatic drop in demand, particularly concerning international
tourism (Cró and Martins, 2017). Since the beginning of the 21st cen­
tury, many pandemics are hitting the global world impacting also the
tourism sector. Pandemics represent one of the main challenging crises
for tourism operators (Hao, Xiao, & Chon, 2020). To reduce the number
of contagious and deaths, governments propose systematic bans and
lockdowns, making the recovery pattern uncertain and longer (Ander­
son, Heesterbeek, Klinkenberg, & Hollingsworth, 2020). It is estimated
that the 2020 crisis will provoke a 60–80% decrease in total presences
(UNWTO, 2020). The largest worldwide hotel chains lost over $25
Billion in revenues in the first 6 months of 2020 (StockApps, 2020).
Although the clear vulnerability of the sector to the numerous and
varied events (Hao et al., 2020; Liu & Pratt, 2017), operators are
showing to be extremely resilient (Sigala, 2020). When coping with
unplanned and unexpected events, hospitality operators are called to
promptly re-plan their revenue management strategies (Aladag,
Köseoglu, King, & Mehraliyev, 2020). Independent hotels are more
exposed as they do generally have less information and lower adoption
of sophisticated revenue management strategies (Ritchie & Jiang,
2019). The crisis represents a stimulus for companies to innovate
(Archibugi, Filippetti, & Frenz, 2013).
Due to the complexity of the impact of crises on the hospitality
sector, and to offer a comprehensive understanding of the recovery
patterns adopted by independent hotels coping with the crisis, we adopt
a mix-method approach using an exploratory qualitative study and an
experimental study.
First, by interviewing hoteliers, we explore the critical issues

All of the sources of funding for the work described in this publication are acknowledged below: Fondazione CRT-Ars.Uni.VCO, Grant Number 2020/0371, Rol.
☆

69722.
* Corresponding author at: University of Portsmouth, Department of Marketing, Portland Street, PO13DE, United Kingdom.
E-mail addresses: giampaolo.viglia@port.ac.uk, g.viglia@univda.it (G. Viglia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.049
Received 26 May 2021; Received in revised form 12 August 2021; Accepted 23 August 2021
Available online 31 August 2021
0148-2963/Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
G. Viglia et al.
encountered during the pandemic and we identify the most common
revenue management strategies adopted by operators to mitigate the
economic losses provoked by the crisis. The comparison with the pre­
vious year shows some clear insights. Specifically, it emerges that op­
erators are willing to collaborate and share their data to maximize
revenues and implement effective supply strategies. In a recent study by
Salvi, Vitolla, Rubino, Giakoumelou, & Raimo (2021) the authors
underlined that the voluntary disclosure of information enhances the
company value. Second, drawing from these results and the collabora­
tion literature (e.g., Deverell, Alvinius, & Hede, 2019), we highlight how
data sharing represents a supply management practice that will make
hoteliers maximize their revenues. Previous research showed that by
sharing information such as “inventory, production, order, delivery and
demand forecast” supply-chain companies may derive financial and
non-financial benefits (Wu, Chuang, & Hsu, 2014, p. 129). This aspect
becomes even more relevant during crises (Larsson, 2019). There is a
dearth of studies analyzing the potential benefits of data sharing for
independent companies.
The above discussion leads to the following research question: how to
facilitate and enable data sharing collaborations in hospitality?
Through a field experiment, we draw causal conclusions on what are
the drivers behind data sharing. We show that a high (vs. low) quota of
hotels disclosing their data increases hoteliers’ perceived benefit from
disclosure and contextual reciprocity. This, in turn, has a positive effect
on the number of hotels that will share data.
Our findings provide three clear theoretical implications. First, we
contribute to the crisis management literature (e.g., Ritchie and Jiang,
2019; Wang and Ritchie, 2012), showing that small and medium hote­
liers are adopting flexible strategies to cope with crises and reduce
economic losses. Second, the current study advances the understanding
of hospitality supply management, with a particular focus on horizontal
hoteliers’ collaboration (e.g., Aladag et al., 2020; Deverell et al., 2019).
Collaboration and data sharing can make the supply management stra­
tegies more effective, particularly during crises. We identify specific
factors promoting collaboration among hoteliers. Third, we contribute
to the literature on data disclosure (e.g., Acquisti, Brandimarte, & Loe­
wenstein, 2020), by analyzing antecedents of disclosure from the
marketer perspective. Assuming the perspective of marketers, we reveal
how the reciprocity argument (Schumann, von Wangenheim, & Groene,
2014) might represent an effective driver for hoteliers’ data sharing,
turning into an opportunity to cope with crises and build long-term
competitive advantages. Specifically, we advance the comprehension
of data disclosure, showing how signals about other stakeholders’
disclosure may increase the expected benefit, thus activating contextual
reciprocity with an overall positive influence on hoteliers’ data sharing.
The current research supports practitioners and destinations by of­
fering insights on how to promote hoteliers’ collaboration and data
sharing. This is key in a highly competitive market in which a mix of
dynamic pricing and booking tactics are leveraged across multiple
channels by the support of digital tools (e.g., big data, online travel
agency, revenue management software). When hotel occupancy data
become available through data disclosure, hoteliers may accurately plan
their offers to cope with the drop in demand. In this way, they will
benefit from more informed decisions and effective strategies bringing
higher revenues and minimizing the negativities of the crisis. Accord­
ingly, associations and local institutions should activate a virtuous cycle
in hoteliers’ data sharing and collaboration, supporting valuable market
propositions and improving the attractiveness of their destinations in
the long run.
2. How the hospitality industry deals with crises
Revenue management strategies allow hotels to improve their rev­
enues and profits “by offering the right product to the right customers
via the right distribution channel at the right time at the right price with
the right communication” (Ivanov & Ayas, 2017, p. 137). Hoteliers
337
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344
customize their offer based on individuals and purchasing contexts.
Revenues are generated by a mix of dynamic prices (Abrate, Nicolau, &
Viglia, 2019) and other booking tactics, such as early bird/last-minute
booking (Chen & Schwartz, 2013), overbooking (António, de Almeida,
& Nunes, 2019), breakfast included (Guizzardi, Pons, & Ranieri, 2017),
free cancellation policy (Chen, 2011), and extra-core offers (e.g., spa and
wellness, sports equipment). Further, the offer needs to be delivered
across the right channel (e.g., Baker, Eziz, & Harrington, 2020; Chat­
topadhyay & Mitra, 2019; Pereira, 2016). Digital technologies support
the innovation and sophistication of revenue management strategies
(António et al., 2019; Haefner, Wincent, Parida, & Gassmann, 2021;
Ivanov & Ayas, 2017).
A crisis represents a sudden and unexpected event that threatens the
normal activity of the business. Among other crises of the new millen­
nium, diseases are rare and difficult to predict (Henderson & Ng, 2004).
The current Covid-19 pandemic represents a global challenge for hos­
pitality operators. Its impact on the global economy has forced small and
big-sized companies to significantly redesign their business and “operate
in newer and more resilient ways” (Verma & Gustafsson, 2020, p. 253),
making it a turning point for the hospitality sector (Sharma et al., 2021).
To date, the tourism crisis management literature has mainly focused
on the recovery patterns adopted by big hospitality companies (e.g., Hao
et al., 2020). Other studies investigated the recovery patterns imple­
mented by governments, at a destination level, to compensate the short-
term economic losses (e.g., Sharma et al., 2021). However, the hospi­
tality industry comprises independent businesses that are the most
vulnerable to crises due to fewer resources and information unavail­
ability. It is therefore useful to explore how those operators coped with
crises, adopting urgent recovery strategies (Ritchie & Jiang, 2019).
Table 1 presents previous studies investigating the impact of crises
on hoteliers’ strategies and performance. Due to a limited range of re­
sources, independent hoteliers show a higher degree of vulnerability to
crises (Zeng et al., 2005). A possible approach to cope with a shrink in
the occupation rate is leveraging pricing and promotions (Chen, 2011;
Kim, Roehl, Lee, 2019). However, a prolonged use of promotions makes
it difficult to return to pre-crisis prices once the market stabilizes
(Gehrels and Blanar, 2013). Conversely, partnerships among actors may
enlarge the capacity to cope with the crisis (Filimonau & De Coteau,
2020; Zeng et al., 2005). This is confirmed by recent studies evidencing a
higher usage of vertical and horizontal collaborations and networking
(Pappas, 2018; Pappas and Brown, 2021; Visentin et al., 2021).
As confirmed by Wu et al. (2014) and Sundram, Chhetri, & Bahrin,
(2020), inter-firm collaborations and data sharing increase company
performance. While chains have more leverage to face such crises
(financial resources, investment opportunities, fair relationships, etc.)
(González-Torres et al., 2021), independent hotels are more vulnerable
(Zeng et al., 2005; Ritchie & Jiang, 2019). Independent hotels may
benefit from sharing occupancy, revenue per available room, and
average daily rate to boost their revenue management strategies (Aladag
et al., 2020). Table 2 clarifies the state-of-art of data disclosure and
sharing in hospitality.
3. Study 1: Methodology
To explore the supply management strategies implemented by ho­
teliers to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic, we conducted in-depth in­
terviews with Italian managers of 25 independent hospitality structures.
This qualitative approach, based on the codification of hoteliers’ in­
terviews (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013), enables the emergence of
exploratory insights to assess “how” hoteliers manage supply decisions
through available channels and technology. The empirical setting for the
first exploratory phase is the province of Verbano Cusio Ossola, an area
in the north of Italy near the Swiss border and the Lake Maggiore. The
time frame we referred to covered two sensible years (2019 and 2020),
to allow for a comparison between a traditional year vs. a year of crisis.
G. Viglia et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344

Table 1
Hoteliers coping with crises in the literature.
Authors Crisis type Study context Sample Main Findings

Henderson & Ng Disease (SARS) Singapore 9 hotels Some crises are unique and rare, difficult to
(2004) predict. Crises limit the general value of a narrow
response strategy. Accordingly, hoteliers should
maintain a flexible approach.
Zeng, Carter, & De Disease (SARS) China (Beijing, 15 hotels Independent hoteliers are more vulnerable to
Lacy (2005) Shanghai and crises. The partnership among actors can represent
Guangzhou) a possible tool to enlarge the overall capacity to
cope with the crisis.
Chen (2011) Multiple crises: Taiwan Hotels’ financial data: period 1997–2008 During crises, the hotel stock performance is
natural disaster, impacted by both decreased hotel sales revenue
terrorist attack and (occupancy rate and revenue per available room)
disease (SARS) and an increased discount rate. Negativities are
mainly determined by the international tourism
contraction.
Gehrels and Blanar Economic Crisis Czech Republic Hiltons in Prague During crisis hoteliers, to compensate economic
(2013) (Prague) losses, improved promotional activity to increase
the occupation rate and the length of the stay,
maximizing their revenues with ancillary offers (e.
g., food and beverage, spa facilities). Nevertheless,
the price contraction provoked repercussions on
pricing strategies in the post-crisis.
Wang & Ritchie General crisis planning Australia 386 hotels When planning crises, managers experienced in
(2012) concept crisis management are more resilient. Other
psychological aspects, such as attitude towards the
change and a strong boost of the group support are
relevant to bounce back.
del Mar Alonso- Economic Crisis Spain (Madrid) 134 hotels To cope with the economic crisis, hotels should
Almeida & Bremser offer a high-quality service, increase their brand
(2013) image and focus on their loyal customer base, as
well as invest in marketing activities. Conversely,
hotels reducing costs show the worst performance.
Dahles & Susilowati Multiple crises: Indonesia 17 non-star-rated accommodation owners Survival, adaptation and innovation are the three
(2015) natural disaster, (Yogyakarta) key strategies to face the dramatic changes
economic crisis and determined by crises and bounce forward
political instability revitalized
Liu & Pratt (2017) Terrorist attack 95 countries Tourist arrivals, GDP and Global terrorist index Terrorism impacts the tourism demand only in the
(GTI): period 1995–2012 short-term, above all in countries with political
openness that are likely to be more resilient and
cope with the crisis faster.
Pappas (2018) Economic Crisis Greece 243 accommodation establishments Accommodation establishments deal with crises
improving their competitiveness by leveraging the
company’s operations, innovation, use of
information technology, and further cooperation
networking.
Kim et al. (2019) Multiple crises: USA (Houston: Hotels’ performance data: period 2005–2016 To cope with crises hotels mainly invest in price
natural disaster and Texas) discounts. Nevertheless, they should consider also
economic crisis alternative marketing strategies (e.g., unique and
customized packages at fair rates, strong
relationship with high-spending customers and
extend the business exploiting new markets).
Cartier & Taylor Natural disaster Colorado 5 local business owners, 6 managers of local During crises, communication plays a key role in
(2020) (Durango) tourism or hospitality businesses, 4 city or state knowledge building for both locals and tourists
employees; 7 residents, 9 evacuees, 13 with a and identification and connection with others in
direct professional connection with the 416 Fire. the community play a large role in mentally
managing the crisis.
Filimonau & De Natural disaster Caribbean 16 hotels and tour operators The lack of collaboration between tourism
Coteau (2020) (Grenada Island) stakeholders prevented them from more effective
planning for and recovering from disasters.
Pappas & Brown Economic Crisis Greece 503 entrepreneurs working in the travel, tourism Three are the main configurations when a crisis
(2021) and hospitality industry impacts on the tourism sector. First, impacting on
company’s internal and external stakeholders.
Second, the entrepreneur spots, anticipates, and
acts on market changes timely. Third, the company
has strong networks with suppliers and customers
and can adopt flexible decisions.
González-Torres, Disease (Covid-19) Spain 3 hotel chains During the pandemic hotel chains evolve their
Rodríguez-Sánchez, operational efficiency to obtain liquidity, preserve
& Pelechano- employees collaborations, attract customers, re-
Barahona (2021) activate international tourism, among others
dimensional benefits.
Visentin, Reis, Disease (Covid-19) Italy (Misano 80 hotels During the crisis, the hotel category has little effect
Cappiello, & Casoli Adriatico) on the hotel’s managers to react using internal
(2021) resources. Vice versa, the opportunity to access a
larger network - outside the local community -
allows hotel managements’ ability to sense the
crisis and adapt the service accordingly.

338
G. Viglia et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344

Table 2
Data disclosure and sharing.
Authors Crisis type Study Sample Main Findings
context

Wu et al. (2014) Supply chain Taiwan 177 focal companies Inter-firm information sharing results in actual collaborations
companies
Morosan & DeFranco (2015) Hospitality Apps US 421 consumers Consumer trust in hotel apps has a positive effect on the
willingness to disclose personal information
Bonsón Ponte, Carvajal-Trujillo, and Online travel Spain 451 consumers Perceived value and trust drive travel online purchase
Escobar-Rodríguez et al. (2015) bookings intention.
Wozniak, Schaffner, Stanoevska- Tourism Mobile Switzerland 1535 consumers Mobile users’ information privacy concerns exert a strong,
Slabeva, & Lenz-Kesekamp (2018) consumer behavior negative effect on consumers’ willingness to disclose of
personal data
Ioannou, Tussyadiah & Miller (2020) Online travel UK and US 277 consumers from UK and Trust has an important role in mitigating the influence of
bookings 287 consumers from US privacy concerns on data disclosure.
Line, Dogru, El-Manstrly, Buoye, Big data in hospitality Qualitative: academic and Reciprocal big data value creation brings benefits to consumers
Malthouse, & Kandampully (2020) press articles and companies.
Sundram, Chhetri, & Bahrin (2020) Supply chain Malaysia 112 manufacturing companies Sharing practices improve the company’s performance.
companies

3.1. Research approach and procedure
To exploit the exploratory power of the qualitative analysis, we
selected a purposive sampling maximizing variation to capture solid
patterns (Bryman & Bell, 2015). We captured all perspectives (Piekkari,
Plakoyiannaki, & Welch, 2010) by selecting all hotel categories. We
conducted semi-structured interviews until reaching theoretical satu­
ration (e.g., Saunders et al., 2018). We interviewed hoteliers between
November and December 2020. The 25 independent hospitality struc­
tures are detailed in Table 3.
The key research questions were: (i) how hoteliers today manage
supply decisions and (ii) how they have been impacted by the crisis.
More specifically, we explored “How have you changed your booking
and pricing tactics to attract consumers pre and after the arrival Covid-
19?”; “Which and how many channels do you use to manage bookings?”.
Data from the interviews were verified, compared and triangulated (Yin,
2013).
3.2. Data analysis
We approached interviews’ analysis and data interpretation through
a general framework (Yin, 2013). First, we analyzed each interview
singularly through a within-case approach (Charmaz, 2011). We
analyzed emerged themes through a coding system of three stages (Gioia
et al., 2013). In the first stage, we coded interviews and organized them
into a set of 1st-order concepts: The hospitality market today; The demand
side; Revenue strategies; Hoteliers’ digitalization; The competitive landscape;
Hoteliers’ collaboration; Data usage; Changes driven by Covid-19; Strategies
adopted after the crisis. In the second stage, we developed a 2nd-order
analysis to establish links between data and develop new concepts. In
the third stage, we aggregated key themes into newly developed di­
mensions: Today hoteliers’ strategies; Collaboration and data sharing;
Changes driven by the recent crisis. Considering research questions as
research lenses through the coding system, we explored participants’
experiences and businesses.
3.3. Exploratory findings
3.3.1. Hoteliers’ supply management landscape
The hospitality industry appears to be very diversified in terms of
demand, revenue strategies and digitalization. Hoteliers are called to
Table 3
Sample of in-depth interviews.
Hotel Category B&B Residence 1/2* 3* 4* 5/5L* Total
Hotels 1 3 1 7 12 1 25
encounter requests of market segments different in gender, age, interests
(e.g., nature, shopping, wellness and relax) and way of organizing their
stay (e.g., individuals, groups). Further, the hoteliers’ supply manage­
ment landscape appears to be very diversified in terms of digital
implementation: from no digital tool usage – exclusive use of personal
customer base and word-of-mouth - to very sophisticated digital usage –
with internal revenue management systems and online travel agencies.
Nevertheless, overall, artificial intelligence is considered a future
solution.
It appeared a very fragmented landscape also in terms of hoteliers’
reliance on online travel agencies: “We manage only 5% of bookings
directly. Of the remaining 95%, about 90% of bookings come from Booking.
com” [AF]. “All bookings are managed directly. Many clients return after
months, many others contact me thanks to the word-of-mouth of old cus­
tomers” [MF]. This shows how an integrated, clear and coordinated
strategy is still missing, leading to negative consequences on stake­
holders’ revenues and destinations’ attractiveness. Further, hoteliers are
aware that they do not exploit available data potential, even recognizing
its benefits: “To date, we do not have sophisticated booking and pricing
strategies, but we are hiring a person with expertise” [MZ]. “We introduced
the revenue management software in 2019 and this year we have become
more autonomous increasing website bookings by 30%” [FG]. From the
interviews’ evidence, the study proposes that:
P1: The hospitality industry is very fragmented, comprising of stake­
holders at very different stages in terms of revenue management strategies.
3.3.2. The change driven by the recent crisis
Managers experienced the Covid-19 crisis as a time of uncertainty
and difficulty that forced them to lower prices. We find that the current
crisis drastically changed consumer target, moving from an interna­
tional target to a local one. However, hoteliers perceived this time also
as an opportunity for innovation. Transversally respondents approached
the Covid-19 period as an opportunity to implement long-term projects
(e.g., restructuration, add new services) and experiment new selling
techniques (e.g., free cancellation, staff flexibility, insurances) beyond
price reduction: “I am using booking tactics to attract more customers during
the pandemic. So far, the most effective approach to increase our bookings
was offering to customers the free cancellation option” [MD].
Accordingly, we infer that this difficult time might represent an
opportunity to foster innovation even in terms of data sharing, with a
revenue maximization goal. Indeed, collaboration is crucial to deal with
crises in hospitality (Revilla-Camacho et al., 2020; Visentin et al., 2021)
and enables higher forecast accuracy on revenues, which is recognized
as a major driver toward hoteliers’ success (e.g., Baker et al., 2020;
Chattopadhyay & Mitra, 2019). Building on the preceding discussion the
second proposition is that:

339
G. Viglia et al.
P2: The Covid-19 crisis might facilitate the innovation of the hospitality
industry, representing an opportunity to motivate stakeholders toward
data sharing and collaboration.
3.3.3. How hoteliers perceive collaboration
Findings evidenced stakeholders’ willingness to collaborate and
share hospitality market data (i.e., occupancy, revenue per available
room and average daily rate) to achieve positive consequences, and this
might arise exclusively from stakeholders’ collaboration. Indeed, if most
hoteliers collaborate and share data there will be wider predictability of
the market trends, providing higher collective benefits arising from
disclosure. The availability of competitors’ fine-grained information will
enable increasing relevant and accurate strategies. Conversely, when
only a few hoteliers share data, information is minimally accurate and
informative. First, we tried to understand to what extent hoteliers
observe competitors for benchmarking. We observe that hoteliers,
despite their level of technological development, are keen to consider
the competitive landscape to define strategies, and willing to collect and
share more data. We also observe certain hoteliers applying very rudi­
mental approaches: “We check the price of our competitors with heuristics. I
would be willing to use a more informed and automatized/integrated
approach” [MP]. “We do have a competitive set, but we autonomously check
only the ADR, and not the occupancy or RevPAR due to the unavailability of
data” [MS]. Moreover, hoteliers show their need and willingness to
collaborate in their narrations: “I would like to see an integrated approach
for taking more informed decisions. More data on the competitors, booking
channels, events in the city, etc.” [CM]. Based on collected data we
identify specific traits emerging as relevant to design effective collabo­
ration strategies, thus increasing hoteliers’ willingness to share data and
lowering perceived barriers: “I would be willing to use technologies sup­
porting my booking and pricing strategies, but I wish there was a central
coordination among the hoteliers” [FB]. “We would be ready to share our
occupancy daily data after a consultation. However, we would like to get
reassurance that around 80% of the operators of the area would do the same”
[MS]. Summarizing, certain collaboration traits might foster hoteliers’
data sharing, those are elements such as centralized coordination (e.g.,
consortium), integrated approach (e.g., training), know in advance the
degree of competitors’ disclosure. This leads to our third proposition:
P3: Hoteliers perceive their need for collaboration and are willing to share
data. However, they are still not able to implement effective actions based
on this. They would be motivated by a commonly shared strategy.
Fig. 1. Process toward collaboration.
340
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344
These findings enable us to comprehend the actual hospitality
landscape, clarifying the potential role of data sharing and collabora­
tion. Fig. 1 visually represents results emerging from our qualitative
exploratory study into a framework. The core elements are: (1) a
particularly fragmented industry, (2) a gap between hoteliers’ actual vs.
potential revenue opportunities before Covid-19. This gap might
diminish through stakeholders’ collaboration and (3) a potential posi­
tive influence of Covid-19 crisis on revenues potential through hoteliers’
innovation and data sharing.
Summarizing, a wide stream of hospitality literature recognizes the
positive influence of supply management and forecast accuracy on
revenues and bookings (e.g., Baker et al., 2020; Chattopadhyay & Mitra,
2019; Pereira, 2016). However, our findings show that many indepen­
dent hoteliers are still implementing basic strategies (e.g., pricing based
on personal intuition, restrictive cancellation policies, overbooking
tactics) that lead to negative consequences on revenues (António et al.,
2019). From our exploratory analysis, hoteliers appeared keen to
collaborate and share more data, regardless to their level of technolog­
ical development. While scholars focus widely on consumers’ drivers
toward collaboration and data sharing (e.g., Aiello et al., 2020), these
stakeholders’ concerns remained unexplored (Gyrd-Jones & Kornum,
2013).
4. Perceived benefit and contextual reciprocity as theoretical
elements behind collaboration and data sharing
Marketers and institutions need to collect data from organizations
and consumers continuously (e.g., Aiello et al., 2020; Kim, Barasz, &
John, 2019). Individuals are called to share their personal information
and business-data through self-disclosure that is defined as the process
of individuals communicating to others information about themselves
(e.g., Li, Lin, & Wang, 2015). However, it seems that individuals feel
discomfort in disclosing their information with others (e.g., Acquisti
et al., 2020). This emerged also from our exploratory study revealing
how hoteliers may feel reluctant to disclose data. This inhibition toward
sharing is driven by various factors such as privacy concerns (e.g.,
Acquisti et al., 2020; Kim, Barasz, et al., 2019; Martin & Murphy, 2017)
and uncertainty from incomplete and/or asymmetric information (e.g.,
Acquisti, Brandimarte, & Loewenstein, 2015).
Within the wide literature exploring factors enhancing data sharing
(e.g., Mazurek & Małagocka, 2019), many studies explored drivers
impacting on consumers (e.g., Acquisti et al., 2020), while the mar­
keters’ angle is still unexplored (Gyrd-Jones & Kornum, 2013).
G. Viglia et al.
The benefit associated with disclosure represents a major driver to­
ward data sharing (Aiello et al., 2020). Consumers are often willing to
share personal information with companies also in exchange for small
benefits (Ghose, 2018). Benefits arising from data sharing might be
various, such as economic incentives (Carbone & Loewenstein, 2020),
and customized offers (Mothersbaugh, Foxx, Beatty, & Wang, 2012).
More specifically, individuals are more prone to reveal information
when they infer that the related benefit outweigh the related cost
(Carbone & Loewenstein, 2020; Martin & Murphy, 2017). A character­
istic that makes expected benefits particularly influential on data
sharing is the evidence that those are usually more immediate (e.g.,
discounts, relevant information) than long-term costs associated with
data disclosure (e.g., privacy, profiling) (Acquisti et al., 2020).
It has been demonstrated that if individuals observe others disclosing
data they infer that there might be a benefit associated with doing so,
thus they have the tendency to reciprocate through revealing their in­
formation (Devenow & Welch, 1996). Individual’s self-disclosure is
promoted by others’ intention to share data (Acquisti et al., 2020; Luo,
Lan, Luo, & Li, 2021). This raised also in our qualitative study, where we
found that hoteliers are eager to know if competitors are willing to share
their data before committing to do the same. The concept of herding
related to self-disclosure states that if the majority of others reveal
sensitive information, individuals infer that there might be a benefit
associated with disclosure (Devenow & Welch, 1996). The need to
reciprocate refers to a universal social norm assuming that individuals
receiving any benefit should return them somehow. Indeed, the
perception that others will share data is one of the key drivers toward
self-disclosure (e.g., Martin & Murphy, 2017). Conversely, if individuals
do not observe others’ reciprocity they will tend to behave less altruis­
tically (Schumann et al., 2014).
Building upon this background and on our qualitative study evi­
dence, we argue that in the presence of a high (vs. low) average
threshold of others’ disclosure, hoteliers will expect a higher benefit
from data sharing, and this would activate contextual reciprocity lead­
ing to an increase in hoteliers’ data sharing.
Therefore, according to the theoretical background and insights
emerged from interviews, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1: The presence of a high (vs. low) quota of data disclosure increases
the benefit expected from data sharing, which activates contextual reci­
procity, leading to a higher data sharing of hoteliers.
5. Study 2: A field experiment on hoteliers’ data disclosure
To draw causal conclusions on how it is possible to promote
collaboration among hoteliers we developed a field experiment, attrib­
uting external validity to our preliminary qualitative findings. The field
experiment measures the relation between the quota of disclosure and
the tendency of hoteliers to share data through perceived benefit and
reciprocity. Thus, we test the process illustrated by H1.
5.1. Method
In January 2021, we ran a two conditions study (high vs. low average
threshold of others’ disclosure). Hoteliers in the field were recruited
through the Smith Travel Research (STR) company – an analytics firm
providing worldwide market data on the hotel industry – and other local
associations. The overall sample of the experiment is based on 134 ho­
teliers (40.3% female; Mage = 41.4: Minage = 29, Maxage = 59), who were
randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions. The hotel
categories are represented as follows: 1* (7.5%), 2* (32,8%), 3*
(42.5%), 4* (14.2%), 5* (3.0%). A T-test confirmed the random
assignment of respondents to the study’s cells, as no significant differ­
ences in gender, age and hotel category emerged between the two
experimental conditions.
Hoteliers were prompted with this message: “Our territory has decided
341
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344
to consider hoteliers’ sharing data strategies to identify successful actions for
the region and its hotels”. After that, they were exposed to the two
different conditions. More specifically, the design manipulation con­
sisted in the presence of a different average threshold of competitors’
disclosure. Based on data available from STR we adopted an average
threshold of 77%, which is the estimated hotel worldwide coverage over
the total hotels (STR, 2021). In the high threshold condition the intro­
duction about collaboration was followed by this specification: “Assume
that at least 77% of hoteliers in your competitive set are willing to share
their data. 77% is the average threshold of disclosure for rooms”, while in
the low threshold condition the specification was: “A portion of less than
77% of hoteliers in your competitive set is willing to share their data.
77% is the average threshold of disclosure for rooms”. We then asked
participants to assess their perceived benefit arising from data sharing
using the item “I will receive information relevant to me ” (Laczniak &
Muehling, 1993). The item was measured on a seven-point Likert scale
(1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). Subsequently, we asked
participants to evaluate their tendency to exhibit reciprocity by using
the following item adapted from Viglia, Maras, Schumann, & Navarro-
Martinez (2019): “Generally I tend to share my data with people who
share them with me” (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). Finally,
we assessed respondents’ intention to share data: “Are you willing to
share your data at these conditions?” (0 = Yes; 1 = No).
5.2. Results
We tested our model using a sequential mediation analysis to
ascertain whether the level of others’ disclosure increases hoteliers’
intention to share data, through perceived benefit and contextual reci­
procity. We included some covariates in our analysis (hotels’ category,
respondents’ gender and age) to rule out possible confounding factors.
Operationally, we used the bootstrapping method implemented in the
PROCESS SPSS Macro developed by Hayes (2018, Model 6). The results
of our analysis revealed an indirect-only mediation (Zhao, Lynch Jr, &
Chen, 2010), supporting our hypothesis.
Results of the sequential mediation, with the independent variable
on two levels (Low Average Threshold <77%=0, High Average
Threshold ≥ 77%=1), showed that the binary independent variable has
a positive and significant effect on perceived benefit (MlowAV = 3.45, SD
= 1.61 vs. MhighAV = 4.14, SD = 1.50; b = 0.6, t(1 2 9) = 2.20, p < .05),
that in turn has a positive and significant effect on contextual reciprocity
(b = 0.2, t(1 2 9) = 2.76, p < .05). Finally, contextual reciprocity in­
creases significantly hoteliers’ data sharing (b = 0.23, t(1 2 9) = 3.38, p
< .001). Among our covariates, the higher the hotel category, the higher
hoteliers’ data sharing (b = 0.25, t(1 2 9) = 2.22, p < .05), and younger
hoteliers are more prone to share data (b = -0.04, t(1 2 9) = -2.57, p <
.05).
Crucially, our indirect effect analysis, presented in Table 4, confirms
a significant sequential indirect effect of average threshold of disclosure
on data sharing, that is mediated by perceived benefit and contextual
reciprocity (b = 0.03, CI95% = 0.00; 0.08). Thus, our analysis of
sequential mediation shows that a high (vs. low) quota of hotels
disclosing their data increases the expected benefit from data sharing,
which in turn magnifies contextual reciprocity, leading to an increase in
hoteliers’ data sharing.
All in all, this study provides external evidence for our conceptual
model and the theoretical background preceding H1.
6. General discussion
The topic of crisis management is extremely relevant these days,
where many sectors are called to redesign their business to face the crisis
(Donthu & Gustafsson 2020; Verma & Gustafsson, 2020). Particularly
sensitive industries, such as hospitality, may lose 80% of their business
due to the crisis (UNWTO, 2020). Inter-firm collaborations through data
sharing is gathering momentum (Wu et al., 2014; Sundram et al., 2020),
G. Viglia et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344

Table 4 Our second study demonstrates how a high (vs. low) quota of hotels’
Sequential mediation results. disclosure prompts hoteliers’ data sharing. Through this field experi­
Relationships В p- CI 95% ment we corroborated the process underlying the effect: an average
value quota of disclosure ≥ 77% - which is a threshold in line with interna­
Direct effects tional disclosure standards - increases the expected benefit, which
Constant prompts contextual reciprocity, leading to an increase in hoteliers’ data
Threshold of disclosure → Perceived benefit 0.600 p= sharing. This experimental study provides external evidence for our
.02 conceptual model supporting H1. Our results reveal how a high per­
Perceived benefit → Contextual reciprocity 0.238 p=
.00
centage of stakeholders’ disclosure may activate a data sharing process
Contextual reciprocity → Willingness to share 0.233 p= leading to successful informed supply strategies.
.00 The article provides three theoretical contributions. First, we
Gender → Willingness to share − 0.262 p> contribute to crisis management literature (e.g., Ritchie and Jiang,
.05
2019; Wang and Ritchie, 2012) describing how independent hotel
Age → Willingness to share − 0.044 p=
.01 managers adapt to crises through flexible dynamic strategies and reve­
Hotel category → Willingness to share 0.251 p< nue systems. Second, we contribute to the literature on hospitality
.05 supply management (e.g., Aladag et al., 2020) by identifying specific
Indirect effect factors that prompt collaboration among hoteliers (e.g., Deverell et al.,
Threshold of disclosure → Perceived benefit 0.033 [0.002,0.089] 2019). Those elements identified through our results are: i) the inno­
→ Contextual reciprocity → Willingness to vation trend driven by the urgency to deal with a crisis, ii) the expected
share
benefit from collaboration and iii) industry contextual reciprocity.
R2 0.56 Third, the paper contributes to the literature on data disclosure (e.g.,
F 9.70 Acquisti et al., 2020; Martin & Murphy, 2017), by assuming marketers’
perspective (Gyrd-Jones & Kornum, 2013). Previous study has focused
although the literature has mainly focused on the consumers’ data widely on identifying factors promoting data sharing of consumers (e.g.,
sharing (Table 2). Nonetheless, greater information availability would Acquisti et al., 2020; Mazurek & Małagocka, 2019). The findings reveal
make hotel chains more equipped in responding to crises (González- that collaboration and data sharing might represent the key factors to
Torres et al., 2021). To offer a comprehensive understanding of the face effectively crises through more informed supply management de­
phenomenon and to answer to our research question, we gathered cisions. Specifically, we demonstrate that a high quota of disclosure may
multiple sources of data that allowed a mix-method approach. We in­ represent an effective driver to activate hoteliers’ data sharing.
tegrated two research phases to attribute external as internal validity to Beyond its theoretical significance, our study offers several mana­
our results. First, we explored how independent hoteliers adapted sup­ gerial implications for hospitality stakeholders, associations and desti­
ply management strategies to cope with the crisis. Through a qualitative nations operating in an increasingly competitive industry and facing
study based on in-depth interviews, we explored how hoteliers re- challenges driven by frequent crises. First, our qualitative study suggests
designed their booking and pricing tactics to attract consumers, pre that during crises, hoteliers manage supply decisions through flexible
and post Covid-19, leveraging multiple channels to manage bookings. revenue management strategies. Leveraging flexible agreements with
This approach enabled theory building through the emergence of key suppliers and employees, as well as adopting sophisticated and flexible
insights about the impact of crises and hoteliers’ supply management revenue management strategies, allow coping with unpredictable de­
practices being able to compare normal activities and recovery strate­ mand trends. Managing booking on personal websites, instead of third-
gies. Second, we designed a field experiment, based on theory and in­ party websites (e.g., online travel agencies), guard revenues (Saridakis,
sights identified in the exploratory phase, to draw causal relations and Lai, Mohammed, & Hansen, 2018). Second, we support independent
attribute external validity to the phenomenon. Across the integration of hoteliers’ practices evidencing that the collaboration with other actors,
those two phases, we assess how crises might represent an opportunity also through data sharing, represents an effective action toward more
to innovate and foster collaboration. informed supply management decisions to face crises. Further, in the
From a theoretical perspective, in Study 1, we provide an overview long-term, it may represent a tool to be more independent by other
on how hoteliers coped with the Covid-19 crisis adopting strategies digital revenue management systems (e.g., online travel agencies).
aimed at maximizing their revenues, based on a changing and unpre­ Third, we argue that associations and destinations are key to make these
dictable market context. The continuous infections waves, as well as processes work. More specifically, territories and hotel associations
governmental bans and lockdowns, reduced the hoteliers’ revenues might facilitate data disclosure through dedicated activities, such as
management strategies range, opening up to the need to find alternative informative free events clarifying benefits associated with data disclo­
solutions to face the crisis. The hoteliers’ resilience to crises (Sigala, sure. There are other ways in which hoteliers might effectively handle
2020) is confirmed by the adoption of a day-by-day market approach, crises. They include flexible bookings, price mechanisms that increase
registered last summer. In this period, hoteliers leveraged flexibly their the fairness perceptions (Lastner, Fennell, Folse, Rice, & Porter III, 2019;
small resources and information, basing their strategies on an unpre­ Roy, Sharma, Chan, & Potdar, 2021) and integration of the whole supply
dictable demand aggravated by the uncertain governmental restrictions chain (Nataraajan, 2020).
and enlargements. This uncertainty supported the need to innovate their The paper provides a rich research agenda that can address some of
strategical processes through supply management. Hence the need to our limitations. It might be interesting to explore if other elements that
collaborate to access wider market information. Collaboration among emerged from our qualitative study (e.g., centralized coordination),
stakeholders emerges as an innovative strategy able to support recovery among others recognized by the literature (Acquisti et al., 2020;
patterns and establish a long-term competitive advantage in a fierce Mazurek & Małagocka, 2019), can similarly promote hoteliers’ data
sector (Hernández-Perlines et al., 2020). During the crisis, hoteliers sharing. Additionally, we focused specifically on data sharing. We sug­
adopted more innovative solutions (e.g., Sharma et al., 2021). Hoteliers gest that further studies might consider if the same positive influence
evidenced a higher willingness to collaborate and share occupancy, driven by others’ disclosure (Devenow & Welch, 1996) might promote
revenue per available room and average daily rate data. Nonetheless, collaboration even in other contexts (e.g., communication, logistics).
they are inhibited to disclose such data without a clear understanding of Furthermore, scholars may focus in understanding if training to educate
the derived benefits. hoteliers on data usage and revenue tools might foster an enhanced
collaboration (Deverell et al., 2019). It would be interesting to explore if

342
G. Viglia et al. Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344

reciprocity (Martin & Murphy, 2017) might represent an effective driver Deverell, E., Alvinius, A., & Hede, S. (2019). Horizontal collaboration in crisis
management: An experimental study of the duty officer function in three public
to implement successful integrated communication strategies. In the
agencies. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 10(4), 484–508.
light of recent findings (Santoro, Bresciani, & Papa, 2020), it should be Donthu, N., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on business and research.
explored whether formal or informal collaboration act equally in the Journal of Business Research, 117, 284–289.
hospitality context. Likewise, future scholars should gather hoteliers’ Filimonau, V., & De Coteau, D. (2020). Tourism resilience in the context of integrated
destination and disaster management (DM2). International Journal of Tourism
respondents from non-Western countries, as cultural factors, such as Research, 22(2), 202–222.
individualism traits, might influence the investigated effect of reci­ Gehrels, S., & Blanar, O. (2013). How economic crisis affects revenue management: The
procity on data disclosure (Hofstede, 2011). Finally, a longitudinal study case of the Prague Hilton hotels. Research in Hospitality Management, 2(1-2), 9–15.
Ghose, A. (2018). TAP: Unlocking the mobile economy. MIT Press.
can look at the long-term consequence of competitors’ data usage on Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in
long term revenues (e.g., improved performance and/or stakeholders’ inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research
satisfaction due to a wide sharing of data). Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
González-Torres, T., Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.-L., & Pelechano-Barahona, E. (2021).
Managing relationships in the Tourism Supply Chain to overcome epidemic
outbreaks: The case of COVID-19 and the hospitality industry in Spain. International
Declaration of Competing Interest
Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2020.102733.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Guizzardi, A., Pons, F. M. E., & Ranieri, E. (2017). Advance booking and hotel price
variability online: Any opportunity for business customers? International Journal of
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Hospitality Management, 64, 85–93.
the work reported in this paper. Gyrd-Jones, R. I., & Kornum, N. (2013). Managing the co-created brand: Value and
cultural complementarity in online and offline multi-stakeholder ecosystems. Journal
of Business Research, 66(9), 1484–1493.
Appendix A. Supplementary material Haefner, N., Wincent, J., Parida, V., & Gassmann, O. (2021). Artificial intelligence and
innovation management: A review, framework, and research agenda. Technological
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120392.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.049.
Hao, F., Xiao, Q.u., & Chon, K. (2020). COVID-19 and China’s Hotel Industry: Impacts, a
disaster management framework, and post-pandemic agenda. International Journal of
References Hospitality Management, 90, 102636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102636.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Abrate, G., Nicolau, J. L., & Viglia, G. (2019). The impact of dynamic price variability on
Henderson, J. C., & Ng, A. (2004). Responding to crisis: Severe acute respiratory
revenue maximization. Tourism Management, 74, 224–233.
syndrome (SARS) and hotels in Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research,
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in
6(6), 411–419.
the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514.
Hernández-Perlines, F., Ibarra Cisneros, M. A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Mogorrón-
Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2020). Secrets and likes: The drive for
Guerrero, H. (2020). Innovativeness as a determinant of entrepreneurial orientation:
privacy and the difficulty of achieving it in the digital age. Journal of Consumer
Analysis of the hotel sector. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 33(1),
Psychology, 30(4), 736–758.
2305–2321.
Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Acuti, D., Grazzini, L., Mazzoli, V., Vannucci, V., & Viglia, G.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
(2020). Customers’ willingness to disclose personal information throughout the
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307–10919.
customer purchase journey in retailing: The role of perceived warmth. Journal of
Ioannou, A., Tussyadiah, I., & Miller, G. (2020). That’s private! Understanding travelers’
Retailing, 96(4), 490–506.
privacy concerns and online data disclosure. Journal of Travel Research, 00, 1–17.
Aladag, O. F., Köseoglu, M. A., King, B., & Mehraliyev, F. (2020). Strategy
Ivanov, S., & Ayas, Ç. (2017). Investigation of the revenue management practices of
implementation research in hospitality and tourism: Current status and future
accommodation establishments in Turkey: An exploratory study. Tourism
potential. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88(102556), 1–9.
Management Perspectives, 22, 137–149.
Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020). How
Kim, M., Roehl, W., & Lee, S. K. (2019a). Effect of hotels’ price discounts on performance
will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19
recovery after a crisis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 74–82.
epidemic? The Lancet, 395(10228), 931–934.
Kim, T., Barasz, K., & John, L. K. (2019). Why am I seeing this ad? The effect of ad
Antonio, N., de Almeida, A., & Nunes, L. (2019). Big data in hotel revenue management:
transparency on ad effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 906–932.
Exploring cancellation drivers to gain insights into booking cancellation behavior.
Laczniak, R. N., & Muehling, D. D. (1993). The relationship between experimental
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 60(4), 298–319.
manipulations and tests of theory in an advertising message involvement context.
Archibugi, D., Filippetti, A., & Frenz, M. (2013). The impact of the economic crisis on
Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 59–74.
innovation: Evidence from Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80
Larsson, O. L. (2019). Overcoming collective-action problems in collaborative crisis
(7), 1247–1260.
management: Meta-governance and security communications systems. In
Baker, T., Eziz, A., & Harrington, R. J. (2020). Hotel revenue management for the
Collaborative crisis management, pp. 57–69. Routledge.
transient segment: Taxonomy-based research. International Journal of Contemporary
Lastner, M. M., Fennell, P., Folse, J. A. G., Rice, D. H., & Porter, M., III (2019). I guess
Hospitality Management, 32(1), 108–125.
that is fair: How the efforts of other customers influence buyer price fairness
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
perceptions. Psychology & Marketing, 36(7), 700–715.
University Press.
Li, K., Lin, Z., & Wang, X. (2015). An empirical analysis of users’ privacy disclosure
Carbone, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2020). Dying to divulge: The determinants of, and
behaviors on social network sites. Information & Management, 52(7), 882–891.
relationship between, desired and actual disclosure. Desired and Actual Disclosure.
Line, N. D., Dogru, T., El-Manstrly, D., Buoye, A., Malthouse, E.d., & Kandampully, J.
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wfdhx.
(2020). Control, use and ownership of big data: A reciprocal view of customer big
Cartier, E. A., & Taylor, L. L. (2020). Living in a wildfire: The relationship between crisis
data value in the hospitality and tourism industry. Tourism Management, 80, 104106.
management and community resilience in a tourism-based destination. Tourism
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104106.
Management Perspectives, 34, 100635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100635.
Liu, A., & Pratt, S. (2017). Tourism’s vulnerability and resilience to terrorism. Tourism
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage
Management, 60, 404–417.
Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4, 359–380.
Luo, C., Lan, Y., (Robert) Luo, X., & Li, H. (2021). The effect of commitment on
Chattopadhyay, M., & Mitra, S. K. (2019). Determinants of revenue per available room:
knowledge sharing: An empirical study of virtual communities. Technological
Influential roles of average daily rate, demand, seasonality and yearly trend.
Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 573–582.
techfore.2020.120438.
Chen, C.-C., & Schwartz, Z. (2013). On revenue management and last minute booking
Mair, J., Ritchie, B. W., & Walters, G. (2016). Towards a research agenda for post-disaster
dynamics. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(1), 7–22.
and post-crisis recovery strategies for tourist destinations: A narrative review.
Chen, M.-H. (2011). The response of hotel performance to international tourism
Current Issues in Tourism, 19(1), 1–26.
development and crisis events. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1),
Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in marketing. Journal of
200–212.
the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(2), 135–155.
Cró, S., & Martins, A. M. (2017). Structural breaks in international tourism demand: Are
Mazurek, G., & Małagocka, K. (2019). What if you ask and they say yes? Consumers’
they caused by crises or disasters? Tourism Management, 63, 3–9.
willingness to disclose personal data is stronger than you think. Business Horizons, 62
Dahles, H., & Susilowati, T. P. (2015). Business resilience in times of growth and crisis.
(6), 751–759.
Annals of Tourism Research, 51, 34–50.
Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2015). Disclosing personal information via hotel apps: A
Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M., & Bremser, K. (2013). Strategic responses of the Spanish
privacy calculus perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47,
hospitality sector to the financial crisis. International Journal of Hospitality
120–130.
Management, 32, 141–148.
Devenow, A., & Welch, I. (1996). Rational herding in financial economics. European
Economic Review, 40(3-5), 603–615.

343
G. Viglia et al.
Mothersbaugh, D. L., Foxx, W. K., Beatty, S. E., & Wang, S. (2012). Disclosure
antecedents in an online service context: The role of sensitivity of information.
Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 76–98.
Nataraajan, A. S. (2020). Wildlife trafficking: Focusing on the entire supply chain.
Psychology & Marketing, 37(12), 1677–1683.
Pappas, N. (2018). Hotel decision-making during multiple crises: A chaordic perspective.
Tourism Management, 68, 450–464.
Pappas, N., & Brown, A. E. (2021). Entrepreneurial decisions in tourism and hospitality
during crisis. Management Decision, 59(5), 1025–1042.
Pereira, L. N. (2016). An introduction to helpful forecasting methods for hotel revenue
management. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 58, 13–23.
Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2010). ‘Good’case research in industrial
marketing: Insights from research practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1),
109–117.
Bonsón Ponte, E., Carvajal-Trujillo, E., & Escobar-Rodríguez, T. (2015). Influence of trust
and perceived value on the intention to purchase travel online: Integrating the
effects of assurance on trust antecedents. Tourism Management, 47, 286–302.
Revilla-Camacho, M.Á., Palacios-Florencio, B., Garzón, D., & Prado-Román, C. (2020).
Marketing capabilities and innovation. How do they affect the financial results of
hotels? Psychology & Marketing, 37(3), 506–518.
Ritchie, B. W., & Jiang, Y. (2019). A review of research on tourism risk, crisis and disaster
management: Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on
tourism risk, crisis and disaster management. Annals of Tourism Research, 79,
102812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102812.
Roy, R., Sharma, P., Chan, R. Y. K., & Potdar, V. (2021). Exploring the role of spotlight
effect in pay-what-you-want (PWYW) pricing—An anchoring and adjustment
perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 38(5), 866–880.
S&P Global (2020). Industries most and least impacted by COVID-19 from a probability
of default perspective. Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligen
ce/en/news-insights/blog/industries-most-and-least-impacted-by-covid19-from-a-
probability-of-default-perspective-september-2020-update (accessed January 15,
2021).
Salvi, A., Vitolla, F., Rubino, M., Giakoumelou, A., & Raimo, N. (2021). Online
information on digitalisation processes and its impact on firm value. Journal of
Business Research, 124, 437–444.
Santoro, G., Bresciani, S., & Papa, A. (2020). Collaborative modes with cultural and
creative industries and innovation performance: The moderating role of
heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive capacity. Technovation, 92-93,
102040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.003.
Saridakis, G., Lai, Y., Mohammed, A.-M., & Hansen, J. M. (2018). Industry
characteristics, stages of E-commerce communications, and entrepreneurs and SMEs
revenue growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 128, 56–66.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., … Jinks, C.
(2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and
operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.
Schumann, J. H., von Wangenheim, F., & Groene, N. (2014). Targeted online advertising:
Using reciprocity appeals to increase acceptance among users of free web services.
Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 59–75.
Sharma, G. D., Thomas, A., & Paul, J. (2021). Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19:
A resilience-based framework. Tourism Management Perspectives, 37, 100786. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100786.
Sigala, M. (2020). Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and
resetting industry and research. Journal of Business Research, 117, 312–321.
StockApps. (2020). World‘s five largest hotel chains lost $25.2bn in market cap amid
coronavirus crisis. Retrieved from https://stockapps.com/worlds-five-largest-hotel-
chains-lost-25-2bn-in-market-cap-amid-coronavirus-crisis/ (accessed January 13,
2021).
Sundram, V. P. K., Chhetri, P., & Bahrin, A. S. (2020). The consequences of information
technology, information sharing and supply chain integration, towards supply chain
performance and firm performance. Journal of International Logistics and Trade, 18(1),
15–31.
344
Journal of Business Research 137 (2021) 336–344
STR (2021). Data insights. Retrieved from https://str.com/data-insights/resources/faq
(accessed January 15, 2021.
UNWTO (2020). Covid-19 international tourist numbers. Retrieved from https://www.
unwto.org/news/covid-19-international-tourist-numbers-could-fall-60-80-in-2020
(accessed January 23, 2021).
Verma, S., & Gustafsson, A. (2020). Investigating the emerging COVID-19 research trends
in the field of business and management: A bibliometric analysis approach. Journal
of Business Research, 118, 253–261.
Viglia, G., Maras, M., Schumann, J., & Navarro-Martinez, D. (2019). Paying before or
paying after? Timing and uncertainty in pay-what-you-want pricing. Journal of
Service Research, 22(3), 272–284.
Visentin, M., Reis, R. S., Cappiello, G., & Casoli, D. (2021). Sensing the virus. How social
capital enhances hoteliers’ ability to cope with COVID-19. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 94, 102820.
Wang, J., & Ritchie, B. W. (2012). Understanding accommodation managers’ crisis
planning intention: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Tourism
Management, 33(5), 1057–1067.
Wozniak, T., Schaffner, D., Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., & Lenz-Kesekamp, V. (2018).
Psychological antecedents of mobile consumer behaviour and implications for
customer journeys in tourism. Information Technology & Tourism, 18(1-4), 85–112.
Wu, I.-L., Chuang, C.-H., & Hsu, C.-H. (2014). Information sharing and collaborative
behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: A social exchange perspective.
International Journal of Production Economics, 148, 122–132.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Zeng, B., Carter, R. W., & De Lacy, T. (2005). Short-term perturbations and tourism
effects: The case of SARS in China. Current Issues in Tourism, 8(4), 306–322.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
Giampaolo Viglia is Full Professor of Marketing at the University of Portsmouth, UK, and
at the University of Aosta Valley, Italy (part-time appointments). His current research
deals with pricing, revenue management, consumer decision-making and field experi­
ments. He has published his research in leading journals, such as the Journal of Retailing,
Journal of Service Research, and the International Journal of Research in Marketing. Giam­
paolo serves as the Associate Editor of Annals of Tourism Research and the Editor-in-Chief
of Psychology & Marketing.
Francesca De Canio is Research Fellow in Marketing at the University of Modena and
Reggio Emilia, Italy. Her research interests focus on consumer behaviour within the retail
and hospitality environments. Her work has been published in leading journals including
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, and International Journal of Contemporary Hos­
pitality Management.
Anna Stoppani is PhD candidate at LLUIS University, Rome, Italy. Her current research
deals with online reviews and luxury in hospitality. She has published her research in
journals like Tourism Management and Current Issues in Tourism.
Anna Chiara Invernizzi is Assistant Professor at the University of Piemonte Orientale,
Novara, Italy. Her current research deals with tourism and hospitality marketing, over­
confidence, and food management. She has published her research in journals such as
the Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Hospitality Management, and the
International Small Business Journal.
Stefania Cerutti is Associate Professor at the University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara,
Italy. Her current research deals with cultural tourism, religious tourism and and desti­
nation management. She has published her research in tourism journals and she is
currently the Director of the Center UPONTOURISM and the President of Ars.Uni.Vco.