CONSUMERS’ EXPECTATIONS OF HOTEL ROOMS
USING THE KANO MODEL TO EXPLORE EXPECTATIONS OF TANGIBLE
HOTEL ROOM ATTRIBUTES AND PROPERTIES
Student: Isabel Meijer Student number: 11812265 Date of submission: June 20, 2020
Bachelor thesis
Program: Management in the Digital Age, BSc Business Administration
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Isabel Meijer who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of
ABSTRACT
Hotel room attributes are important to consumers, but these have not been researched in detail before. The goal of this study is to provide new theoretical insights into consumer expectations and satisfaction levels concerning tangible hotel room attributes and properties, and compare them to the star rating system. As there are critical views on the star rating system, this research takes a closer look at the differences between official criteria and consumers’ expectations. Research is framed around the Kano model of expectations. To gather data, a survey was conducted, including 131 participants. The survey focuses on three-star hotel rooms within the Hotelstars Union region. Results show a list of attributes that are must-haves for hotel rooms, as well as satisfiers and products that consumers are indifferent to. Similarities and differences between several consumer segments regarding travel behaviour and demographics are highlighted. Consumer expectations are mostly similar to or lower than the criteria that official committees set for hotel rooms to receive specific star ratings. Concluding, this paper can be applied by hotels that want to increase customer satisfaction.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 7
TODAY’S IMPORTANCE OF eWOM 7
THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE 8
Kano Model 8
Hotel Experiences 10
HOTEL STAR RATINGS 12
Hotel classification systems and critique 13
Hotelstars Union Criteria 14
METHODS 14
DESIGN 14
THE SAMPLE 15
Exclusion of data points 15
Information about averages 15
THE SURVEY 16 Procedure 16 Survey measures 16 ANALYTICAL PLAN 18 RESULTS 18 OVERALL EXPECTATIONS 18
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONSUMERS 19
Correlations 19
Differences 19
DIFFERENCES CONSUMERS’ EXPECTATIONS AND STAR RATING SYSTEM 21
DISCUSSION 27
FINDINGS 27
LIMITATIONS & SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 28
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 29
CONCLUSION 30
REFERENCES 31
APPENDICES 35
APPENDIX B: The Survey 41
APPENDIX C: Frequencies of Expectations 49
C-I: Frequencies of Hotel Room Items 49
C-II: Frequencies of Hotel Bathroom Items 147
APPENDIX D: Additional Attributes of Participants in Survey 193
APPENDIX E: Correlations 194
E-I: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between Travel Behaviour and Demographic
Variables 194
E-II: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between Room Items and Other 195 E-III: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between Bathroom Items and Other 202
APPENDIX F: Crosstabulations of Significant Correlations 206
F-I: Crosstabulations of Traveler Types 206
F-II: Crosstabulations of Travel Company 218
F-III: Crosstabulations of Previous Three-Star Experience 233
F-IV: Crosstabulations of Age Groups 242
F-V: Crosstabulations of Gender 287
F-VI: Crosstabulations of Nationalities 304
F-VII: Crosstabulations of Employment 330
INTRODUCTION
James and his girlfriend went on a holiday trip to Berlin. After enjoying the city views, they departed to their pre-booked three-star hotel. They entered their standard hotel room for the first time, but were left fairly disappointed. “There are no pillows on the bed!” James said. Being flabbergasted and after multiple complaints, they decided to write a negative review. This review solely contained negative comments about the hotel, leaving out the hotel’s aspects that did meet their expectations.
For hotels, it is important to create delight instead of disappointments, because it can prevent negative e-word-of-mouth (eWOM) and spark positive eWOM (Anderson, 1998). Negative reviews like in this example can have large negative impacts on future hotel room bookings (Sen & Lerman, 2007; Ye, Law & Gu, 2009; Zhao, Wang, Guo & Law, 2014).
The aforementioned scenario is somewhat unrealistic in Berlin, because star ratings are decided upon by an official committee, the Hotelstars Union (2020a). Expectations for hotel rooms are set for each star rating category. Without knowing the official criteria, James and his girlfriend also saw the presence of pillows on a bed in a hotel room as a must-have. This led to a great felt disappointment.
The Kano model explains this dissatisfaction of James and his girlfriend by looking at expectations they had (Kano, Seraku, Takahashi & Tsuji, 1984). Within the Kano model, something that must be present or is always expected can be qualified as a must-be requirement for satisfaction. If this is absent, a guest is immediately dissatisfied. The model, on the other hand, also explains reasons for positive experiences; like the presence of good quality or pleasant surprises. According to the Kano model, customers may also feel indifferent about a product or service, or the presence might do the reverse and dissatisfy the customer (Kano et al., 1984).
From previous research, it has become clear that the room itself does play an important role in the expectations and satisfaction of the consumer (Callan, 1999; Dubé & Renaghan, 2000). Hospitality and service encounters in the light of creating customer delight have been researched extensively, but the specific necessary physical attributes from hotel rooms themselves are not widely discussed (Ariffin & Magzhi, 2012; Bitner, Booms & Mohr, 1994; Magnini, Crotts & Zehrer, 2011). Besides, research has been done to approach the hotel industry from the perspective of Kano, but these papers were either specifically tailored to a hot spring hotel (Chang & Chen, 2011) or focused on service quality in hotels (Gupta & Srivastava, 2012).
The goal of this exploratory paper is to provide theoretical insights and deeper understanding of the phenomena concerning hotel rooms. To be able to understand specific consumer’s expectations of tangible attributes of hotel rooms, the following main research question will form the outline of this paper:
To what extent do hotel guests expect tangible hotel room attributes?
To make this question more concrete and specific, this question has been divided into three different subquestions, which will be explained in more detail below.
First, there is unclarity on what particular physical attributes of hotel rooms are must-be requirements (Kano et al., 1984). It is also not clear when a specific attribute leaves a positive impression within the Kano model. To fill these literature gaps and gain new insights, the following research question will be answered: Q1: To what extent do hotel guests expect particular tangible hotel room attributes and properties?
Second, differences between consumers will be explored. Previous studies discovered that there are differences between consumer segments concerning hotel expectations (Dev, Hamilton, Rust & Valenti, 2018; Rajaguru & Hassanli, 2018; Webster, 1989). However, these differences have not been widely discussed and these were rarely focused on the tangible hotel room attributes. Therefore, the following research question was made, to be able to explore the specific characteristics of those differences between segments: Q2: To what extent do differences between different types of consumers exist regarding the expectations of hotel room attributes and properties?
Third, it has become apparent that official hotel star ratings influence customer expectations (Zeithaml, Bitner & Gremler, 2006). Nevertheless, recent literature has taken a critical look at the rating system, stating that criteria tend to be objective and can thus be interpreted in different ways (Martin-Fuentes, 2016). There is no unified standard across countries too (Núñez-Serrano, Turrion & Velázquez, 2014; Zhan-Qing & Liu, 1993). This might create differences between the actual consumer’s expectations and the criteria that are proposed by official committees. However, no research has been done to see whether consumers have the same expectations for particular star ratings as the official parties that create the criteria for these ratings. Therefore, the following question is asked: Q3: To what extent do consumer expectations differ from the official hotel star criteria?
The Kano model will be the framework that forms a guideline for the way this research is conducted. Applying the data from the tangible hotel room attributes to this model will provide insights on the ways consumers expect or enjoy specifics of hotel rooms. When hotel owners take into account those insights, it could prevent unnecessary dissatisfactory guest experiences that can spark negative eWOM. Besides, this can help to improve the overall guest experience in hotel rooms.
This paper is structured as follows; it begins with an overview of relevant literature that provides a deeper understanding of phenomena concerning consumer expectations, hotel factors, consumer factors, and the star rating system. Next, the methodology will include the design of the research, the survey design and measures, and ends with an analytical plan. After, the results section will include a statistical analysis, in the order of the three subquestions previously mentioned. Finally, the findings will be further discussed, as well as limitations of this research, suggestions for future research, and practical implications will be presented. The paper ends with a conclusion. A full reference list can be found and the appendices feature extensive analyses of hotel star ratings, the full survey, and an overview of all statistical analyses.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this section, the importance of good hotel experiences will be stated, as well as an explanation of the Kano model, hotel (room) expectations and the star rating system.
TODAY’S IMPORTANCE OF eWOM
In the travel branche, online reviews, or e-word-of-mouth (eWOM), have a great influence on the businesses in the industry. Effects of social influence can be seen both offline and online (Cialdini, 2009). Overall, the more negative online reviews, the less online booking intentions for hotels (Zhao et al., 2014). Negative eWOM also showed to negatively influence the actual hotel bookings, whereas positive reviews have a positive influence on bookings (Ye et al., 2009). Online reviews are particularly relevant for the travel industry, because customers can only experience the product/service after arrival at the destination. It seems that minimizing negative online reviews and maximizing the positive reviews would benefit hotels in terms of bookings.
Motivations to write eWOM are similar to the ones found in traditional word-of-mouth (WOM) in the sense that extremes on the satisfaction scale lead to higher WOM (Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006). Anderson (1998) found this U-shaped relation where extreme satisfaction and dissatisfaction lead to more word-of-mouth too. In addition he concluded that, within this U-shape, high dissatisfaction leads to a greater amount of WOM than high satisfaction. Contractionary to those findings, in a more recent study by Öğüt and Cezar (2012), results suggest that online reviews are more often written when the consumer is satisfied, rather than dissatisfied with the product or service. Since there are different opposing views on this topic, it is assumed that both satisfaction and dissatisfaction can influence the propensity to engage in (e)WOM. At the heart of these motivations that lead to (dis)satisfaction is the experience of the review writer, which will be discussed next.
THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
When an experience does not go as expected, people experience an uncomfortable feeling called cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962). Also explained in Gawdat’s book (2017), the happiness equation means that you perceive things equal to or greater than your expectations as something cheerful, whereas the opposite can elicit negative emotions in a person. Similar to the happiness equation, Kano et al. (1984) created a model to label satisfactory, neutral and dissatisfactory experiences or products based upon expectations people have of products and their properties. This so-called Kano model will be the basis of this research paper.
Kano Model
The Kano model states that there are five different requirements for physical aspects of products or services that enable particular states of customer satisfaction (Chang & Chen, 2011; Gupta & Srivastava, 2012; Kametani et al., 2010; Kano et al., 1984; Kuo, Chen & Boger, 2016; Sauerwein, Bailom, Matzler & Hinterhuber, 1996). The five requirements are: (1) must-be, (2) one-dimensional, (3) attractive, (4) indifferent, and (5) reverse. Down in figure 1, a visual representation of the Kano model can be found. A more detailed description will be provided below.
Figure 1. Kano model (Kametani et al., 2010).
First, a product should tick the must-be requirements. These are attributes people would expect at the least and for the consumer, it seems obvious that these must-be things are present in the product (Berger, Blauth & Boger, 1993; Berman, 2005). Without matching these requirements, the product fails to deliver to the expectations and dissatisfies a customer. When requirements are met, a customer does not feel satisfied. It can be described as a neutral feeling. It is critical for a product to meet these criteria to prevent dissatisfaction which may spark negative eWOM.
Second, there are one-dimensional requirements. These requirements are usually about the performance of a specific product and particular attributes that make a product high or low quality (Sauerwein et al., 1996). When must-be requirements are met and one-dimensional are on the higher end of the spectrum, customers can experience satisfaction.
Third, attractive requirements are present. These requirements are the attributes of a product that lead to delight and a higher customer satisfaction (Berman, 2005). Customer delight is felt as a joyful surprise (Dekker, 2017; Magnini et al., 2011). It has been an important driver for return-purchases and positive WOM (Anderson, 1998). In the end, this will have positive consequences for the booking of hotels (Ye et al., 2009).
Fourth, indifferent requirements do not result in either a satisfied or dissatisfied consumer. There is a sense of neutrality towards the attributes and they do not influence the satisfaction level (Gupta & Srivastava, 2012).
Fifth and last, reverse requirements might be present. The presence of those attributes cause negative feelings whereas the absence results in satisfaction (Chang & Chen, 2011; Gupta & Srivastava, 2012; Kametani et al., 2010; Kuo et al., 2016; Sauerwein et al., 1996).
Concluding, it is key for a hotel to have all must-haves in place and try to leave a positive impression by including many attractive attributes. Indifference in this case means a waste of resources and it also has to stay away from reverse items. The next section will talk about what particular experiences are (dis)satisfactory in hotels, and how there can be differences between consumer groups.
Hotel Experiences
There has been a wide range of research papers dedicated to customer experiences within the hotel industry. A substantial part of this research is focused on hospitality and service encounters and how they might influence the feeling of customer delight (Ariffin & Magzhi, 2012; Bitner et al., 1994; Magnini et al., 2011). A limited number of researchers have stressed the expectations of the room itself, even though rooms can be a predictor for the satisfaction of the hotel guest (Dubé & Renaghan, 2000). As a matter of fact, Callan (1999) found that bedroom tangibles were seen as the second most important category within hotels.
In past research, specific applications of the Kano model in this industry were done as well. Chang and Chen (2011) applied the Kano model to examine the expectations of hot spring hotels, a niche service. The hotel room itself in this niche is mainly seen as both an indifferent and must-be requirement within this type of hotel. The focus of Gupta and Srivastava’s Kano application (2012) was service encounters. However, they did research the importance of a comfortable environment. Comfort was seen as a must-be by the majority (46.3%), but also a proportional part of participants (33.5%) rated this positively on the one-dimensional scale, which means this led to higher satisfaction. Kuo et al. (2016) focused on service quality too, but did include one item related to rooms. Having “good amenities” was a must-be requirement for most (87.2%) in this case.
Next to this, Torres, Fu and Lehto (2014) have stressed the importance of good service and complimentary amenities for American customers whereas Northern European guests are most delighted with the products in the room. Dolnicar (2002) researched the different attributes in hotels that can lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction amongst business travelers. It was found that
an unpleasant room was one of the largest dissatisfiers. Besides this, within the top ten of expectations were a TV at number three and a shower at number ten (Dolnicar, 2002). Magnini et al. (2011) found that the decor of the hotel room and the amenities also influence feelings of customer delight. All these aspects relate to the hotel room itself.
Callan (1999) researched the differences between customers and hotel manager’s perceptions concerning the importance of hotel attributes, including tangible room attributes. Both groups were asked to score the importance of 166 hotel selection attributes. This study is most similar to the research done in this paper. Callan (1999) did not use attributes from a star rating system, even though there are overlapping attributes and properties. Furthermore, he focused only on the importance of the attributes and missed out on the satisfaction levels of the customers.
Amenities and products in the hotel room can be important to consumers, but were not researched in detail before in the light of expectations (Callan, 1999; Dev et al., 2018; Dolnicar, 2002; Dubé & Renaghan, 2000; Kuo et al., 2016; Torres et al., 2014). To fill this literature gap, which can be an important factor for hotel guests, it has been chosen to focus this research paper on the expectations of tangible room attributes and their properties. Tangible room attributes are defined in this paper as products that are added in a hotel room after having a totally empty room and bathroom. The structures of the hotel itself, featuring walls, doors and windows, do not count as attributes. Properties in this paper are defined as the detailed description of a product or the specific form a product can take. In this case, the products are the tangible room attributes. This excludes the state of the product itself, think of hygiene, since this can vary each visit depending on the way the room has been cleaned. It will be useful for hotel owners to know what the expectations are from guests, since this will provide insights on what products to install or leave out. In the end, this can lower the amount of negative experiences and might increase satisfaction for some guests. To discover the actual public’s expectations for hotel rooms, this research will try to answer the following question:
Q1: To what extent do hotel guests expect particular tangible hotel room attributes and properties?
Besides the overall expectation of the consumer, there are differences between consumers that can have an influence on the individual experience and expectations as well. Hospitality expectations can be different for different customer segments, such as purpose of stay, gender, age, nationality,
ethnicity and income (Dev et al., 2018; Webster, 1989). Torres et al. (2014) stressed the differences in expectations between different nationalities too. Besides, a difference was found in the expectations of business and leisure travelers (Dev et al., 2018; Rajaguru & Hassanli, 2018). There is an absence of literature stressing the specific expectations of different consumer segments. Insights in those differences can be practical in the sense that hotel owners can gain a deeper understanding of their specific targeted guests’ needs. To explore those differences in expectations between different consumer groups focused on room tangibles, the following question will be answered:
Q2: To what extent do differences between different types of consumers exist regarding the expectations of hotel room attributes and properties?
Within the hotel industry, one specific factor has shown to have notable impact on the experiences of consumers, influenced by expectations: hotel star ratings.
HOTEL STAR RATINGS
Hotel star ratings influence customer expectations (Zeithaml et al., 2006) and can thus influence the satisfaction in the end. Besides, from Dolcinar’s research (2002) it has become apparent that the lower the star rating, the higher the focus lies on hotel fundamentals, like the room. When the hotel has a high star rating, the focus is more on the intangibles, like service quality (Dolcinar, 2002).
Star ratings have several purposes which have been shown in previous research. First, the star rating system has shown to be an indicator of quality. In an analysis of popular hotel booking websites, Martin-Fuentes (2016), found that hotel stars serve their purpose; the higher the number of stars, the higher the overall rating of hotels. Customer satisfaction has a positive relationship with the star rating (Martin-Fuentes, 2016). Second, star ratings inform consumers, online and offline. Consumers are aware of this unified standard created by official organizations (Fang, Ye, Kucukusta & Law, 2016). They can reduce the effects of asymmetric information of customers (Nicolau & Sellers, 2010). Thus, stars are often taken into account by consumers when making purchasing decisions (Núñez-Serrano et al., 2014). Third, the star-rating system serves as a consumer-segmentation mechanism (Dioko, So & Harrill, 2013). Segments are divided by preferences in terms of the amount of offered services (Dioko et al., 2013).
Hotel classification systems and critique
Hotel classification systems can be found all over the world (López Fernández & Serrano Bedia, 2004). The most common system is the star rating system, which is universally recognized (Zhan-Qing & Liu, 1993). It features both official and unofficial classifications. Star ratings are used as an indicator of quality (Denizci Guillet & Law, 2010); a concept which is closely related to the satisfaction and expectations of the consumer (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). From this, it would be expected that the hotel rating systems are tailored to consumer’s expectations. However, even though star ratings are used globally, variations in criteria exist in different regions of the world (Núñez-Serrano et al., 2014; Zhan-Qi & Liu, 1993). As a result of this, there is no homogeneous expectation for different star ratings from committees worldwide. This can be problematic, because expectations influence the satisfaction of the experience in the end.
In recent years, more research has stated the probable loss of function of the official star rating systems (Denizci Guillet & Law, 2010; Dioko et al., 2013; López Fernández & Serrano Bedia, 2004; Martin-Fuentes, 2016; Núñez-Serrano et al., 2014; Zhan-Qing & Liu, 1993). According to Lopez Fernández and Serrano Bedia (2004), there are significant differences between expectations for different hotel categories within similar star ratings, meaning that the hotel categories do not align with the star ratings they are assigned to. An issue that arises within this perspective is the difficulty for newer, innovative hotel concepts to receive the desired star rating to be able to portray a particular quality level for the consumer (Dioko et al., 2013). Another issue is the fact that criteria are objective and can be interpreted in different ways by different people (Martin-Fuentes, 2016). This makes it harder to create a homogeneous expectation too. The final issue is the difficulty to maintain star ratings on hotel distribution sites (Denizci Guillet & Law, 2010). On distribution sites, differences in star ratings differ. Some sites follow a five-star system, whereas others utilize other numbers. It means that the official star ratings will be reflected upon in a flawed way when hotels are reflected on multiple sites (DenizCi Guillet & Law, 2010).
From this, it became apparent that there might be differences between consumer’s expectations and those of the official star criteria. However, this has not been researched before in the light of room tangibles. Awareness of differences can inform star rating committees in making new regulations that better fit today’s consumers’ needs. Therefore, this paper will try to shed light on this subject, to fill this literature gap. The following question will be answered:
Hotelstars Union Criteria
This research will be focused on the star rating system of the Hotelstars Union. This organization works under the HOTREC, which is an umbrella association for hotels, restaurants, bars and cafes established within Europe (Hotelstars Union, 2020a; HOTREC, 2018). The Hotelstars Union was created by seven countries, including Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, to harmonize the hotel classifications within the region. Since then, more countries have joined and the Union now counts seventeen countries in total (Hotelstars Union, 2020a).
The official criteria for hotels to receive stars within those areas are divided into different categories (Hotelstars Union, 2015; Hotelstars Union, 2020b). These range from general information such as hygiene to rooms and facilities. The criteria are tied to a star rating from one to five stars, where five is the highest rating possible. The importance of each detailed requirement is indicated by points that range from one to twenty-five, the highest being the most important. These points are divided into “minimum criterion points” and “superior points”. To receive a star, a hotel must have sufficient points in both categories (Hotelstars Union, 2015).
To choose the most average star rating, this paper focuses on three-star criteria. In Appendix A, the full official list of Hotelstars three-star criteria (2015) for the attributes and their properties can be found ordered by importance per category. The most important minimum requirements are the presence of a bed system including a modern and well-kept mattress, the presence of a table or desk and the presence of a TV in appropriate size for the room. Differences with other star ratings can be seen mainly on the additional services as stars go up, as well as more luxurious options on the higher end (Hotelstars Union, 2015).
METHODS DESIGN
This paper was created for the course “Bachelor’s Thesis and Thesis Seminar Management in the Digital Age” from the “Business Administration” studies at the University of Amsterdam. This research paper was made mainly exploratory, but based on theoretical insights. A research gap resulted in an absence of expectations about which specific attributes and properties of hotel rooms were important to consumers. To not miss aspects, all related items from the Hotelstars criteria were included as well as some additional items added by the researcher. Multiple researchers have
critically looked at the validity of the hotel star rating system (Denizci Guillet & Law, 2010; Dioko et al., 2013; López Fernández & Serrano Bedia, 2004; Martin-Fuentes, 2016; Núñez-Serrano et al., 2014; Zhan-Qing & Liu, 1993). Therefore, it was expected to see a difference between the public’s expectations and the system’s expectations too. However, since no research was focused on hotel rooms, no hypotheses could be stated.
To find answers to all questions, additional literature research has been done to gain an understanding of the most common tangible attributes of hotel rooms and their properties. Next, a questionnaire was held and further quantitatively analyzed.
To cope with differences between countries, this research was focused on the expectations consumers have of one particular country’s hotels, Germany. Germany is part of the Hotelstars Union (2020a). In specific, the standard rooms of mid-ranged three-star hotels were used as an example in the questionnaire. This is because they are the average hotel star type, so it was assumed that these types of hotels were the most relatable to the participants.
THE SAMPLE
Exclusion of data points
In total 179 were responses counted from which 134 were finished. Unfinished surveys were deleted, since they might impact the validity of the research outcome. Out of 134, 132 agreed to participate. From this group, one outlier was removed. All answers from this excluded participant were the same and the response time was exceptionally low (2.6 minutes), whereas the survey was aimed to take ten to fifteen minutes. No other responses were removed to preserve statistical power. All forms of data analysis were performed on the final count of 131 participants.
Information about averages
This sample included more females (67.9%) than males (32.1%), none of the participants picked “other” or “prefer not to say”. Ages ranged between 17 and 78 (M = 34.09, SD = 16.494). Sixteen different nationalities were counted, from which two were in the Hotelstars region. The largest number of participants was from the Netherlands (83.1%). The most commonly seen employment statuses were working (45.0%) and student (44.3%). The levels of finished degrees were distributed as follows: MBO/vocational education (34.4%), high school (32.8%), Bachelor (27.5%) and a minority Master’s degree (4.6%) or Doctorate (0.8%). 90.8% of participants
previously stayed in a 3-star hotel. The traveler type most often seen was leisure (86.3%) and 13.7% was business traveler. The travel company in accommodations was spread out; as a couple (38.2%), with friends (27.5%), as a family with children (18.3%), and alone (16.0%). From participants that traveled with children, the amount children was reflected as such; M = 1.73, SD = .631. The ages of the children ranged from 3 to 22 (M = 15.24, SD = 6.214).
THE SURVEY Procedure
The survey was carried out in both English and Dutch to increase the degree of completion. It was distributed via convenience sampling. The participants were found through personal contact; friends, family and classmates on WhatsApp, a Thesis Facebook group and the Surveyswap application. Several close family members shared the survey with colleagues.
The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. It started with a short introduction on the research and a confidentiality statement which needed to be filled out before the other questions were revealed. Next, questions were asked to identify the characteristics of the participant as a traveler. These characteristics needed to be taken into account by the participants when reading a scenario. The scenario was focused on a trip to Berlin and featured a pre-booked three-star hotel. Participants were asked about their expectations of the room. Next, all tangible attributes and properties were given in a matrix based on the Kano model to fill out (Kano et al., 1984). The survey ended with questions focused on participant’s demographics.
Survey measures
Three main categories of measures were used. The first one includes the reflection of participants’s expectations for all hotel room attributes and their properties. The second one includes information about the participant's travel behaviour. The third and final category includes demographic measures.
Expectations of tangible hotel room attributes and properties. The expectations were measured on a list of 144 items divided over 23 questions. In four of those questions, the scale was swapped to test validity. The question to measure the expectations was: “How would you feel when this would be present in your room?” The expectations were tested on a newly made scale that includes seven dimensions that represent the different requirements of the Kano model (Kano
et al., 1984). Both dimensions from the original two-dimensional scale were combined to create a shorter survey for the participants of this research. Answer possibilities were mainly based on a survey done by Kametani et al. (2010). Some answers were added to make this particular scale more complete on both ends of the satisfaction and must-be scales. Answer possibilities, their Kano categories, and descriptions of the feelings of satisfaction resulting from the presence of a particular item are described in table 1 below. If participants had the feeling that the survey still missed out on important attributes and/or properties, this could be filled out in an empty text box at the end of the survey.
Table 1. Representation of Kano model in survey.
Scale Answer possibility in survey Kano categorization Feelings of satisfaction 1 It makes me feel delighted Attractive (A+) Delight
2 I like it One-dimensional (O+) Satisfied
3 I expect this to be here Must-be (M+) Neutral, but dissatisfied if not in room
4 I don’t care either way Indifferent (I) Absent
5 I don’t expect this to be here Must-be (M-) Absent
6 I don’t like it One-dimensional (O-) Dissatisfied
7 I strongly dislike it Reverse (R-) Very dissatisfied
Travel behaviour. Since it has been previously mentioned that there tend to be different expectations for different travelers, this was analyzed on three measures. The first was the traveler type, which included leisure or business. The second was the travel company participants stayed with in accommodations, divided into four categories. This measure was added to this research, because some room attributes are tailored to specific audiences, like parents traveling with babies. Finally, it was asked whether participants had previously stayed in a three-star hotel, since this might have coloured their expectations.
Demographics. There tend to be differences in expectations between different demographically divided consumer groups too. Therefore, the following were included: (1) age,
(2) gender, (3) nationality, (4) current employment status, and (5) education level. Gender included male, female, other, and the option to not give away the gender.
ANALYTICAL PLAN
To analyze the survey, all data was exported from Qualtrics to IBM SPSS Statistics 25. All further analysis was done in SPSS 25 as well. This analysis was done in threefold. First, to find overall expectations, survey frequencies of expectations were converted into tables. The highest category within the Kano model was looked at, as well as deviations in opinions in the form of frequencies and standard deviations. This was all compiled together in one table. Second, to see whether there are differences between consumer groups, correlations between travel behaviour and demographic variables were tested together with each separate room item. From this, the most important group differences became apparent. These were further examined by looking at the corresponding crosstabulations. Third, surveys’ outcomes were compared to the official Hotelstars Union criteria (2015).
RESULTS
To gain a better understanding of the phenomena surrounding expectations of hotel rooms, data have been analyzed in three steps, each focusing on one of the aforementioned subquestions.
OVERALL EXPECTATIONS
To test overall consumers’ expectations, all room items were analyzed separately. For all items, frequency tables of the participants’ answers were made. These can be found in Appendix C-I for room items and in Appendix C-2 for bathroom items. The highest frequency of every item is reported in the first column of table 2. This portrays the Kano category that was most applicable to the room item according to the participants (Kano et al., 1984). From 144 items, the largest category was must-be (42.36%), followed by indifferent (25%) and positive one-dimensional (23.61%). Three items had overlapping categories and the smallest categories were attractive (2.08%) and negative must-be (4.86%). Negative one-dimensional and reverse were never the categories with the highest frequency.
When opinions were more spread out, this was reflected in table 2. When more than twenty percent of participants scored an item higher or lower than the main category, this is indicated by a greater/smaller than sign. For fourteen items, there were no such proportional deviations, so these can be considered more certain to draw conclusions upon. Besides, to see the distribution of opinions, the standard deviations of each item were looked at as well. The lowest standard deviations were found mainly in bathroom items; a normal mirror (SD = .48), bathroom trash bin (SD = .54), and a washbasin (SD = .62). Highest deviations in opinions were for a shower with curtain (SD = 1.71) and a toilet with electric options (SD = 1.62). Appendix D shows all additional identified important attributes by participants. These include “do not disturb” signs, signs for cleaning personnel, several toiletries, hooks and additional snacks.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONSUMERS Correlations
In Appendix E-I, all correlations between both travel behaviour and demographic variables are listed. As visible in table E-I, there were three moderate significant correlations as well as five significant weak correlations amongst the travel behaviour and demographic variables. Both previous three-star experience of participants and nationality showed no correlations.
Travel behaviour and demographic variables’ correlations with all room items (Appendix E-II) and bathroom items (Appendix E-III) were shown too. To make this possible, for all items that were reversed scaled in the survey, reverse variables were created. In total, 1152 correlations are displayed from which 89 were significant at either the .01 or .05 level. The highest amount of correlations were found with age (30.34%) and gender (22.48%). The lowest amount of correlations were found with education (2.25%), employment (4.49%), and nationality (6.74%). No strong correlations became apparent. Age showed three moderate correlations and gender two. To get a more visual representation of the differences within groups, all significant correlations are represented in crosstabulations in Appendix F.
Differences
First, from Appendix F-I, for different types of travelers, it became apparent that business travelers get a higher satisfaction from items related to electronics (power sockets, room lighting, TV with a channel list, and a reading light), whereas leisure travelers see those more as must-haves. Besides,
business travelers perceive a higher satisfaction or delight from tables or desks, a shoe polishing set, and a trouser press. Leisure travelers feel relatively more delighted by bathroom items.
Second, from Appendix F-II, it can be seen that travel company influences expectations and satisfaction too. Solo travelers are most delighted by a water boiler. They enjoy printed newspapers and a reading light as well. Couples appreciate water boilers too. Families like it when body wash comes in a bottle and get least satisfaction from bath mats. Friends have a higher indifference towards reading lights and feel satisfaction when an empty fridge and a hairdryer are present.
Third, Appendix F-III shows differences between travelers that previously did or did not visit a three-star hotel were highlighted. Participants with no experience got more satisfaction out of the must-be: a well-kept blanket. In contrast, previous experience resulted in more satisfaction and delight from superior requirements.
Fourth, Appendix F-IV features differences between age groups. The age variable was recoded into an ordinal age group variable, since this made analyzing more efficient. The age group 25 and under liked smaller amenities most. What stands out is that the group from 26 to 35 reported the highest percentage of delight on the greatest number of items. Age group 36-45 showed the highest percentages of positive one-dimensional answers. When looking at the highest frequencies of participants being indifferent, the following pattern can be found; the higher the age group, the larger the indifference towards items.
Fifth, in Appendix F-V, several gender differences can be seen. Overall, when items are must-be, males more often than females get satisfaction from those attributes or properties whereas females identify them as a must-be directly (e.g. trash bin or toilet). However, females appear to appreciate bathroom items more than males. Next to this, males tend to feel indifferent about more items.
Sixth, in Appendix F-VI, the proportion of answers for each nationality can be found. However, since the largest part of the sample was Dutch, it was not possible to draw conclusions on this.
Seventh, Appendix F-VII, shows the differences in expectations between employment groups. Overall, it shows that unemployed and unable to work categories perceive higher levels of satisfaction for items. Next to this, opinions were fairy widespread.
Eighth, in Appendix F-VIII, the two final correlations, focused on education, are represented in tables. It seems that the satisfaction of a bed gets higher when education levels are higher. However, it is not possible to draw valid conclusions upon two items.
DIFFERENCES CONSUMERS’ EXPECTATIONS AND STAR RATING SYSTEM
To test whether there are differences between consumers’ expectations and expectations from the official Hotelstars Union committee (2015), the largest identified Kano category from the survey for each item was compared to the criteria categories (Kano et al., 1984). Nine items were either added by the researcher or not relevant criteria for three-star hotels and were thus left out of this analysis. This left 135 items to compare, which can be seen in the third column of table 2. Within the Hotelstars criteria (2015), there is a division between must-have and superior criteria. It was assumed that must-haves were equal to Kano’s must-be requirements. Next, superior criteria did not give away how high satisfaction would be when implemented. Therefore, superior criteria were interpreted as both Kano’s positive one-dimensional and attractive requirements. The criteria were placed on the same scale as the surveys’ participants to ease comparison. Comparisons can be found in column four of table 2. It became apparent that the majority of Kano categories were equal (52.59%). Next, 40% of items scored lower on the Kano scale by the participants in comparison to the criteria. A minority of 5.93% of the items were scored higher by participants. In particular, participants’ scoring on hotel bathroom items were more similar to the criteria (63.64%) than the regular room items (47.25%).
Table 2. Kano categorization (1984) of participants survey, standard deviations, Hotelstars Union (2015) star criteria, difference between participants and star criteria, and corresponding attributes and properties.
Survey¹² SD³ Star⁴ Diff.⁵⁶ Attributes and their properties The hotel room
Bed-related M+> <M+> <O+ <O+> <A+ <O+> M+> <I> M+> M+> M+ M+> <M+> M+ M+> <O+ M+> M+> <O+ <A+ .84 1.19 1.07 1.32 1.09 1.07 .91 1.54 .93 .88 .77 .84 1.14 .72 .84 1.12 1.08 1.08 1.36 1.41 U/M U M S S U/M U/M S M U/M U/M U/M U/M U/M U/M U/M S U/M S S = n.a. < = = > = < = = = = = = = > < = = = Bed
- Mattress at least 13 cm high - Mattress at least 18 cm high - Mattress at least 22 cm high
- Mattress has an extra hygienic encasing (besides the fitted sheet) - Modern mattress
- Well-kept mattress
- The bed is ergonomically adjustable - Accessible power socket next to the bed - Reading light next to the bed
Blanket - Well-kept - Modern Pillow - Well-kept - Modern
- Pillow has an extra hygienic encasing (besides the pillowcase) - One, non-decorative pillow per person
- Two, non-decorative pillows per person
- Availability of different types of pillows (e.g. soft & hard) Window-covering devices M+> M+> <A+ 1.07 1.23 1.37 S U/M S < = =
- A sheer cover that ensures privacy (not darkening the room) - A cover that keeps out most light
- A cover that darkens the room completely Other sleep-related items
<I> 1.39 S < Bedside carpet <I> 1.14 U/M < Alarm clock M-> .96 S < A baby crib Table or desk M+> M+> M+> .91 .98 .91 U/M M M = = = Table or desk
- Sufficient lighting near the table or desk
- Additional accessible power socket next to the table/desk A place to sit
M+> <O+ <O+> <O+> 1.27 1.06 1.27 1.41 U M S S > < = =
- One chair in total - One seating per bed
- One comfortable seating accommodation (upholstered chair/couch) with side table/tray
- One additional comfortable upholstered chair or loveseat Bedside items, lights and other
M+ .74 M = Bedside table/tray M+> <O+ .76 1.05 S S < =
- Bedside light switch for the near lights
- Bedside light switch for the complete room lights <O+ 1.24 S = Central light switch for the room lights
M+> .90 M = Dressing mirror
M+ .64 M = Trash bin
Clothing related items M+> .93 U/M = Linen shelves M+ M+> .67 .97 U/M U/M = = Wardrobe
- Large enough for length of stay M+> .75 U/M = Clothing hooks
I> 1.10 M < A place to hang up a suit bag (outside the wardrobe) I> I> <O+ .96 1.25 1.11 M S U/M < < >
- One type of clothing hanger - Different types of clothing hangers
- Sufficient clothing hangers for the length of the stay Lighting and other
M+ .72 U/M = Accessible power socket in the room
M+ .79 U/M = Full room lighting (sufficient to see in the dark) M+> .94 S < Night light
M+> 1.00 M = Place or rack to put luggage Safekeeping <M+> <O+ 1.06 1.56 S S < =
- A regular safe (regular lock or electronic)
- Safe with integrated power socket (where you can charge electronics) Temperature regulation <M+> <M+> <O+> 1.34 1.56 1.27 O S S n.a. < = - A fan
- Centrally adjusted air conditioning - Individually adjustable air conditioning <M+ .91 O n.a. - A radiator
Entertainment electronics <M+> I> <M+> I> I> I> <I> I> I> I> M-> 1.00 1.11 .94 1.13 1.23 1.25 1.47 1.07 1.14 1.26 1.16 U/M M U/M M S S S S S S S = < = < < < < < < < < A TV
- TV In appropriate size for the room - With remote control
- With a channel list - With a programme
- National and international channels available - Pay-TV, movie channels or video games - Possibility of “Adult lock”
- Modern
- With audio/multimedia player - A second TV in the room I> I> <I> 1.16 1.17 1.07 M O O < n.a. n.a.
Radio broadcast device (can be through TV or a separate device) - Via TV
- A separate radio
<I> 1.61 S < Media entertainment in the bathroom Telecommunications <M+ I> .86 1.09 S S < < Telephone
- Along with a multilingual instruction manual Reading and writing
M+> <M+> I> .91 .96 1.11 U M S n.a. = <
- Hotel information folder - Bilingual manual A-Z - Multilingual manual A-Z I> <O+ <I> 1.16 1.13 1.07 M M S < > < - Notepad - Writing utensils - Correspondence folder <I> <I> I> 1.22 1.31 1.14 S S S < < < - Digital newspaper - Printed newspaper - Printed guest magazine Other miscellaneous items M-> 1.35 M < Laundry bag I> M-/I> 1.30 1.31 S S < < - Iron - Ironing board M-> 1.18 S < Trouser press M-> 1.39 S < Sewing kit M-> 1.35 S < Shoe polishing kit
M+> 1.25 S < Additional lock at room’s door M+/O+ 1.08 S < Door viewer
Gastronomy <O+ <O+> <O+> <O+ .99 1.27 1.11 1.27 O S S S/O n.a. = = = A bottle of water
- Coffee machine with coffee - Water boiler with accessories - Additional sugar and milk <M+> <O+ 1.52 1.34 S S < = - Empty fridge
- Fridge containing drinks and foods (minibar) The hotel bathroom
Shower/bath options <M+ M+> <O+> <M+/O+ M+> <O+ 1.71 1.04 1.43 1.31 1.33 1.21 U/M S M/S S U/M S = < >= <= = =
- Shower with curtain - Shower with screen - Bath
- Anti-slip appliance in shower/bath option
- Body wash/shower gel near the shower/bath in a dispenser - Body wash/shower gel near the shower/bath in a bottle Toilet M+ <I> M-> <O+> M+> .63 1.28 1.62 1.46 .79 M O O S/O U/M = n.a. n.a. = = - Regular WC - WC with bidet
- WC with electric options (e.g. cleaning edge, bidet) - WC separate from bathroom
- Toilet paper in reserve Washbasin M+ M+ <O+ <M+ <O+ .62 .75 1.31 .83 1.02 U/M U/M S U/M U/M = = = = > Washbasin
- Sufficient lighting at the washbasin - Twin washbasin in double rooms/suites - Soap/body wash near the washbasin - Toothbrush holder/cup Mirror options M+ I> I> I> <M+> .48 1.19 1.35 1.42 1.14 M S S S U/M = < < < = - Normal mirror
- Non-flexible vanity mirror - Flexible vanity mirror - Lighted vanity mirror
- Accessible power socket near the mirror Towels and accessories
M+ M+> .79 .75 U/M U/M = =
- One hand towel per person - One bath towel per person M+ <O+> M+> .64 1.44 .82 U/M S U/M = = = - Towel rail - Heated towel rail - Towel hooks Shelf
<M+ <O+ .86 1.10 M S = = - Small shelf - Large shelf Cosmetics <O+ <O+ I> <O+ 1.22 1.21 1.52 1.12 M S M M > = < > - Shampoo in dispenser - Shampoo bottle - Combined hair/body wash - Separate hair and body wash I> I> <O+ <I> <I> <O+ <O+ 1.35 1.26 1.33 1.27 1.43 1.45 1.50 M S S S S S S < < = < < = = - Facial tissues - Bath essence - Body lotion - Shower cap - Nail file - Q-tips
- Cotton wool pads Other bathroom items M+> 1.02 M = Hairdryer
<M+> 1.09 U/M = Bath mat
M+ .54 U/M = Trash bin
<O+ <O+ 1.39 1.40 S S = = - Bathrobe - Slippers I> 1.07 S < Safety handles <I> 1.47 S < Bathroom scale
¹Kano category with highest frequency, A+ = 1. Attractive, O+ = 2. Positive one-dimensional, M+ = 3. Positive must-be, I = 4. Indifferent, M- = 5. Negative must-be, O- = 6. Negative one-dimensional, R- = 7. Reverse.
²< = 20%+ of frequencies scored lower than the highest scoring category, > = 20% of frequencies scored higher than the highest scoring category.
³Standard deviations of participants in the survey.
⁴U = Must-haves that apply to one- or two-star hotel rooms, M = Must-haves that apply to three-star hotel rooms, S = Superior for a three-star hotel room, O = Other attributes and properties outside of the official three-star criteria (Hotelstars Union, 2015). ⁵The difference in chosen Kano categories between the surveys’ participants and the official Hotelstars Union three-star rating criteria (2015).
⁶< = Participants’ scores lower than official criteria, = = Participants’ scores equal to official criteria, > = Participants’ scores higher than official criteria.
DISCUSSION
The goal of this exploratory paper was to provide theoretical insights and deeper understanding of consumers’ expectations concerning tangible attributes of hotel rooms.
FINDINGS
Findings in this paper will be divided into three, following the subquestions: overall expectations, differences between consumer segments, and differences with the star rating system.
The first subquestion focused on exploring the expectations for particular tangible hotel room attributes and their properties. Similarities with previous research were found. According to Callan (1999), bedroom tangibles were a category of high importance. Findings suggest that this is the case; except for one item, all bed-items were must-be. This means that the absence of those items can lead to dissatisfaction. Besides, (bathroom) amenities result in higher guest experience (Cline, 2017; Magnini et al., 2011). For some, this was the case. However, items such as shampoo, were rated as a must-be by a considerable number of participants. This does not necessarily mean it increases satisfaction. Dolnicar (2002) found that a TV and shower were expected, which corresponds with results of this study; they are both considered as must-be. Another research has focused on the actual usage of hotel amenities (Dev et al., 2018). It found that radios, as well as alarms and movies on demand were used less frequently than expected. Those three items were seen as indifferent in the current study. This might be since guests know they will not use these. However, this cannot be concluded. An interesting difference is that both a bathrobe and a refrigerator are used less often than guests expect they would (Dev et al., 2018), but findings suggest that they still enjoy the presence of these items.
The second subquestion explored differences between consumer groups. Previous studies mainly focused on differences between travel purpose, gender, and age. Dolnicar (2002) found that business guests focus more on hotel intangibles whereas leisure travelers appreciate tangibles more. This can also be seen in other studies where leisure guests make more use of the free amenities (Dev et al., 2018). Findings do not align with these previous studies, since differences in expectations differed per individual item. Items that seemed more related to business travel, such as a desk or a trouser press, were preferred by business travelers. For gender, some findings aligned, but some were different. Hart (1993) found that female travelers demand a hairdryer, iron and ironing board. However, findings only suggest that there is a difference between gender for
hairdryers. This corresponds with a previous study that found that hairdryer usage is lower for males (Dev et al., 2018). Gender differences that stand out are that there are differences in usage of refrigerators, safes, TVs, closets, coffee makers and bottled water (Dev et al., 2018). However, now, no differences were found. The same paper did not find gender differences for toiletries, but in the current paper, there are differences in expectations. Finally, according to Ariffin and Magzhi (2012), age does not influence hotel expectations, but age differences were found here. In contrast, this is supported by Webster (1989). Both of those papers focused on service expectations, so this might be different for room tangibles.
The third subquestion sought to explore differences between consumer expectations and the official hotel star criteria. Findings suggest that, overall, expectations by consumers were either similar to or lower than the criteria. According to Callan (1999), hotel managers have higher expectations so that they can ensure satisfactory experiences of their guests. This might be similar for the official star rating criteria. This is in line with the outcomes of this study. Since Dolnicar (2002) stated that, within lower star ratings, there is a higher focus on the room, it is difficult to say whether the difference between expectations and criteria also exist for hotel services.
LIMITATIONS & SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Limitations of the current study will be shown, as well as suggestions for other researchers. First of all, the research method of this paper was limited due to time constraints. Since this paper is a Bachelor’s thesis, the research methods needed to be adapted to fit into the given timeframe and with the available resources. Convenience sampling could have influenced the outcomes. For example, the age levels were skewed, most participants were Dutch and there were no participants traveling with babies. This made it more difficult to draw conclusions about specific differences between consumer groups. Also, it might have influenced the overall outcome. This paper does provide insights on the expectations of younger audiences. In the future, this research can be replicated with a larger, wider, more varied audience to check whether conclusions were sound.
Besides this, there might have been some issues with the one-dimensional Kano-scale. The scale was newly made, because this halved the survey length and increased the probability of participants finishing the survey. As the original Kano scale is two-dimensional, it might have been more difficult for participants to answer each question. They might have wanted to choose multiple options instead of one. Next to this, combining different parts from the new scale still
gives insights on the specific expectations of consumers. Also, the swapping of the scale might have been overlooked by people, since the survey was large already and people had no incentives to fill it in correctly. This swapping could have influenced results, but the scale could not be tested on validity. Nonetheless, the scale worked to the extent that there were no extreme answer deviations visible. Also, the standard deviations within the reversed scale items did not show extreme values compared to the non-reversed items.
Other limitations concerning the research method are that this paper is tailored specifically to three-star hotels and the Hotelstars Union, which can make it more difficult to generalize. It can be considered an advantage too, because specific results are easier to apply. For future research, it could be interesting to also compare the overall averages of each consumer group, to each other, but also to compare with the star rating criteria.
There were some limitations concerning the availability of older research as well. Not much research has been done focusing on all the different specific attributes. This made it difficult to relate to previous findings and draw conclusions. Next, there were no previous insights on motivations of consumers for each attribute and/or property. Exploring the deeper reasons why consumers might expect or feel satisfied with a product can be interesting to research further.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Understanding the served consumers’ needs is critical for hotels’ position in the hospitality industry. Customer expectations shape the experiences. Findings from table 2 can educate hotel owners on what attributes are needed in hotel rooms, and which ones might not be necessary to invest in. Next to this, it is recommended for hotel owners to also take into consideration the differences between consumer segments. Focusing on their own served guests, they can maximize guest satisfaction and minimize the dissatisfactory experiences. In the end, that helps create positive (e)WOM, which can be crucial for hotels’ bookings (Anderson, 1998; Dellarocas & Narayan, 2006; Öğüt & Cezar, 2012; Ye et al., 2009). For star rating committees, it might be useful to revise the criteria, because consumer’s expectations are not always in line with the requirements hotels need to meet. This may have created a flawed star rating system where consumer expectations are not well-reflected.
CONCLUSION
The research was conducted to provide new theoretical insights and a deeper understanding of consumers’ expectations concerning tangible attributes of hotel rooms. Specifics were still unknown and differences between groups were not tested before. Besides, it has not been researched in what ways consumers’ expectations differ from the expectations of the official star rating criteria. Therefore, this was examined in the current study. Overall expectations of three-star hotel rooms became visible. Differences and similarities of consumer groups became apparent as well. Finally, differences between official hotel star criteria and consumer expectations exist. Next time you enter a hotel room, expect your expectations to be exceeded.
REFERENCES
Anderson, E.W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of service research, 1(1), 5-17.
Ariffin, A.A.M. & Maghzi, A. (2012). A preliminary study on customer expectations of hotel hospitality: Influences of personal and hotel factors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 191-198.
Berger, C., Blauth, R. & Boger, D. (1993). Kano’s methods for understanding customer customer-defined quality. Centre for Quality Management Science, 17(1), 66-88.
Berman, B. (2005). How to Delight your Customers. California Management Review, 48(1), 129-151.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. & Mohr, L.A. (1994). Critical Service Encounters: The Employee’s Viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58, 95-106.
Callan, R.J. (1999). Augmenting the range of hotel selection attributes. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(3), 205–230.
Chang, K.C. & Chen, M.C. (2011). Applying the Kano model and QFD to explore customers' brand contacts in the hotel business: A study of a hot spring hotel. Total Quality Management, 22(1), 1-27.
Cialdini, R.B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson education. Cline, N. (2017). Boost Your Sampling with Hotel Amenities: How to create a program that builds
big brand equity. Global Cosmetic Industry, 185(8), 34-37.
Dekker, D.M. (2017). Genuine Hospitable Behavior in Education. In: J.A. Oskam, D.M. Dekker & K. Wiegerink (Eds.), Innovation in Hospitality Education: Anticipating the Educational Needs of a Changing Profession (pp. 65-75). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.
Dellarocas, C. & Narayan, R. (2006). A Statistical Measure of a Population’s Propensity to Engage in Post-Purchase Online Word-of-Mouth. Statistical Science, 21(2), 277-285.
Denizci Guillet, B. & Law, R. (2010). Analyzing hotel star ratings on third-party distribution websites. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(6), 797– 813.
Dev, C.S., Hamilton, R.W., Rust, R.T. & Valenti, M.V. (2018). What Do Hotel Guests Really Want? Anticipated Versus Actual Use of Amenities. Cornell Hospitality Report, 18(8), 1-24.
Dioko, L., So, S. & Harrill, R. (2013). Hotel category switching behavior—Evidence of mobility, stasis or loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34(1), 234–244. Dolnicar, S. (2002). Business travellers’ hotel expectations and disappointments: a different
perspective to hotel attribute importance investigation. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 7(1), 29-35.
Dubé, L. & Renaghan, L.M. (2000). Creating visible customer value: How customers view best-practice champions. Cornell hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, 41(1), 62-72. Fang, B., Ye, Q., Kucukusta, D. & Law, R. (2016). Analysis of the perceived value of online
tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tourism Management, 52, 498–506.
Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-106.
Gawdat, M. (2017). Solve for happy: Engineer your path to joy. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Gupta, P. & Srivastava, R.K. (2012). Analysis of customer satisfaction of the hotel industry in India using Kano Model & QFD. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management, 2(2), 74-81.
Hart, W. (1993). What women want. (hotel amenities). Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(5), 10.
Hotelstars Union. (2015). Criteria 2015-2020. Retrieved from https://www.hotelstars.eu/ fileadmin/Dateien/PORTAL_HSU/Kriterienkataloge/EN_Hotelstars_Union-Criteria_ 2015-2020.pdf
Hotelstars Union. (April 2020a). The system of the Hotelstars Union. Retrieved from https://www.hotelstars.eu/system/description/
Hotelstars Union. (April 2020b). Criteria Hotelstars Union: Excerpt of the catalogue of criteria. Retrieved from https://www.hotelstars.eu/criteria/
HOTREC. (April 2018). Mission and vision. Retrieved on May 21, 2020, from https://www.hotrec.eu/about-us/mission-vision/
Kametani, T., Nishina, K., Suzuki, K., Lenz, H., Wilrich, P. & Schmid, W. (2010). Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality from the Viewpoint of Environmental Lifestyle in Japan. Frontiers in Statistical Quality Control, 9, 315–327.
Kano, N., Seraku, K., Takahashi, F. & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48.
Kuo, C.M., Chen, H.T. & Boger, E. (2016). Implementing city hotel service quality enhancements: Integration of Kano and QFD analytical models. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(6), 748-770.
López Fernández, M. & Serrano Bedia, A. (2004). Is the hotel classification system a good indicator of hotel quality? Tourism Management, 25(6), 771–775.
Magnini, V.P., Crotts, J.C., & Zehrer, A. (2011). Understanding Customer Delight: An Application of Travel Blog Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 535-545.
Martin-Fuentes, E. (2016). Are guests of the same opinion as the hotel star-rate classification system? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 29, 126-134.
Nicolau, J. & Sellers, R. (2010). The quality of quality awards: Diminishing information asymmetries in a hotel chain. Journal of Business Research, 63(8), 832–839.
Núñez-Serrano, J.A., Turrion, J. & Velázquez, F.J. (2014). Are stars a good indicator of hotel quality? Asymmetric information and regulatory heterogeneity in Spain. Tourism Management, 42, 77-87.
Öğüt, H., & Cezar, A. (2012). The factors affecting writing reviews in hotel websites. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 980-986.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Rajaguru, R. & Hassanli, N. (2018). The role of trip purpose and hotel star rating on guests’ satisfaction and WOM. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 1-28.
Sauerwein, E., Bailom, F., Matzler, K. & Hinterhuber, H.H. (1996). The Kano model: How to delight your customers. International Working Seminar on Production Economics, 1(4), 313-327.
Sen, S. & Lerman, D. (2007). Why are you telling me this? An examination into negative consumer reviews on the web. Journal of interactive marketing, 21(4), 76-94.
Torres, E.N., Fu, X. & Lehto, X. (2014). Examining key drivers of customer delight in a hotel experience: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 255-262.
Webster, C. (1989). Can consumers be segmented on the basis of their service quality expectations? Journal of Services Marketing, 3, 35–53.
Ye, Q., Law, R. & Gu, B. (2009). The impact of online user reviews on hotel room sales. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1), 180-182.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. & Gremler, D.D. (2006). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Zhan-Qing, L., & Liu, J. (1993). Assessment of the hotel rating system in China. Tourism Management, 14(6), 440–452.
Zhao, X.R., Wang, L., Guo, X., & Law, R. (2015). The influence of online reviews to online hotel booking intentions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1343-1364.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Hotelstars Union (2015) Criteria for Three-Star Hotel Rooms
Table A. Official criteria for tangible room attributes in three-star European hotels stated by the Hotelstars Union (2015) for 2015-2020, sorted by minimum requirements and relative importance for the overall rating (points).
Points Criteria
Minimum requirements Sleeping comfort
5 Bed system consisting of an elastic system in combination with a modern and well-kept mattress with an overall height of at least 18 cm
1 Modern and well-kept blanket 1 Modern and well-kept pillow
1 Possibility to darken the room (e.g. curtain) 1 Wake-up service or device
Room equipment
5 Table, desk or desk top with a free min. working space of 0.5 m² and an adequate appropriate lighting
2 1 seating accommodation, at least one chair per bed 2 Bedside table/tray
2 Additional accessible power socket next to the table/desk or desk top 2 Reading light next to the bed
2 Dressing mirror
2 Wastepaper basket
1 Linen shelves
1 Wardrobe or clothing hooks
