Joanna final by sturesearcher

VIEWS: 358 PAGES: 24

									ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION WITH CHOICE OF HOTEL IN LUZERN



Liu Chen Yin, Joanna

MBA student

Hotel and Tourism Management Institute Switzerland




ABSTRACT

This paper explores customer satisfaction within the hospitality industry and, in particular,

explores the link between customer satisfaction and further purchase intentions. The context

for the research is the hotel sector in Luzern, Switzerland.          Seven key hotel factors

influencing customer behaviour are identified: extra service; staff service; room quality; safety

and efficiency; first impression; value; and cleanliness. A multiple regression analysis was

applied to examine the importance of these hotel factors to overall customer satisfaction with

their choice of hotel in Luzern.   The findings indicate that staff service and value were the

most influential factors in determining customers‟ overall satisfaction and further purchase

intentions. Repeat patronage and word-of-mouth recommendation also have a linear

relationship with customer satisfaction.


INTRODUCTION


The hospitality industry is a very competitive global industry. This situation is good for

consumers because of increased choice, greater value for money and augmented levels of

service (Kandampully and Suhartanto, 2000). Thus, to distinguish one hotel‟s characteristics

from another, it has become critical for hotels to gain a key competitive advantage.

Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000:346) say that                competitive advantage comes

through…“low cost leadership through price discounting, and developing customer loyalty by

providing unique benefits to customers”. A low cost strategy is not necessarily beneficial as it
may cause price wars and thus cause profits to gradually decline. To avoid this competition, a

second option, which customer achieves satisfaction is by fulfilling the customer‟s needs and

wants. Obtaining a higher rate of customer patronage and improving a company‟s market

share and profits is the aim of achieving satisfaction (Gilbert and Horsnell, 1998). Customer

satisfaction influences customer loyalty, which in turn advances profitability (Parasuraman

and Berry, 1990; Heskett et al, 1994; Storbacka, Strandvik and Gronroos, 1994; Rust,

Zahorik and Keiningham, 1995).

Customer satisfaction is a primary concept that hospitality industry businesses chase to

achieve success; it can also affect repeat patronage of guests (Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002).

This study explores the link between customer satisfaction and repeat patronage and seeks

to identify the relationship between satisfied guests and their word-of-mouth behaviour.

Lockyer (2002) demonstrated that gaps exist between managers‟ and customers‟ perceptions

in many situations, hence this paper explores which factors are most important to guests.

A high level of customer satisfaction can enhance the market reputation of an organization

(Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002), leading to more customers and more profit. There are many

benefits for hotel managers to be derived from measuring customer satisfaction, for example

obtaining repeat patronage and favourable word-of-mouth publicity (Fornell, 1992; Halstead

and Page, 1992).

Customer satisfaction is the main measure for determining the quality of services and

products offered by hoteliers. As Pizam and Ellis (1999) and Su (2004) found, customer

satisfaction is fundamentally important to the survival of the Service Industry and can help to

maintain long-term customer retention and corporate competitiveness (Kandampully and

Suhartanto, 2000; Choi and Chu, 2001; Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002; Su, 2004).

Tourism is a key element of the economic prosperity of all countries (Kandampully, 2000)

including Switzerland.   The hotel segment of the tourism industry is one of the critical

sectors of the Swiss economy and is an important purchaser of domestic products. It employs
more than 200,000 people (Federal Statistical Office, 2007). In Switzerland, tourism is the

third largest revenue generator by industry, earning 11.6 billion CHF in 2003; rising to 13.3

billion CHF in 2006 (Federal Statistical Office, 2007). Most of the visitors who come to

Switzerland stay in hotels overnight; the overnight stay revenue for visitors in 2003 was 143

million CHF for lodging; and its total expenditure (include lodging, meals and incidentals) was

301 million CHF (Federal Statistical Office, 2007). As overnight accommodation expenditure

is the biggest part of tourism revenue, ensuring tourists are satisfied with hotels is very

important.

This study will focus on Luzern, a typical tourist city, which is located in central Switzerland

and central Europe and is therefore very accessible for travellers. Luzern      is easy to reach

by public transport because of the short flight times and convenient railway networks across

Europe.

The aim of this research is to determine the reasons why tourists choose hotels and to

explore their overall satisfaction with their choice, in general and in Luzern; and to analyze

the relationship between satisfaction with the key factors of hotels and the likelihood of repeat

patronage or recommendations to others.



LITERATURE REVIEW


Key factors influencing hotel choice


One of the main elements in the hotel industry is its focus on human resources in the

provision of its „product‟, resulting in the intangibility, inseparability, variability, and

perishability of service. Customers regard „service‟ as a bundle of features that make the

differences between competitors and directly affect choice regarding future purchases; these

are termed “determinant attributes” (Kivela, 1996). There are a number of attributes that

guests use to evaluate a hotel, including service quality, value for money, room quality,
security, location and reputation (Kivela 1996; Choi and Chu, 2001; Lockyer, 2002; Juwaheer

and Ross, 2003; Pan, 2003; Lee and Chen, 2006).

Choi and Chu (2001), pointed out that hotel the attributes room quality, service quality and

value for money are the three most important factors for travellers‟ overall satisfaction with a

hotel, followed by the location.   As Bitner (1990) argued, customer satisfaction is based on

the perception of service quality and influences a customer‟s evaluation of future quality

perceptions. Service quality could be a prior determinative factor for customers to appraise

their satisfaction level when they are taking a vacation. Poon and Low (2005) observed that

when the customer evaluates hotel attributes, the hospitality factors are always the most

influential reasons in determining customer satisfaction and repeat patronage.

Shanahan and Hyman (2006) reported that American tourists are concerned about having

clean rooms at a good price when they travel domestically, and they are willing to pay more

for a tidy lodging environment. When they travel abroad, they tend to choose a hotel with a

safe and secure environment instead of prioritising clean rooms at a good price.

The location of the hotel can be a determinant factor for hoteliers to consider when starting

their hotel. Customers also consider the location of their accommodation when they book a

hotel for travel or business trips. Lockyer (2002) indicated that for the hotel manager, location

can be the one of the most important aspects for a hotel‟s operation, and is also a leading

reason for business consumers when choosing a hotel in which to stay. Location could

positively influence profitability (Pan 2005), especially when the hotel is located within a major

metropolitan area and decisions on location should take into consideration the local

economic environment, natural resources, public facilities, parking facilities, accessibility and

traffic convenience (Gray and Liguori, 1998) .

Lockyer (2002) found for business guests the cleanliness of hotel was most important,

followed by room quality, room facilities, availability of parking, soundproofing of rooms and

service and staff”. Gunderson, Heide and Olsson (1996), argued that business travellers
were more concerned about tangible aspects of housekeeping, and considered the intangible

aspects of the service provided by the front desk less important. Greathouse et al (1996)

pointed out that leisure travellers pay much more attention to the cleanliness of the room,

value for money and the friendliness of staff.

Knutson (1988) discovered that business travellers considered the cleanliness of a room,

comfort, having well-maintained rooms, convenience, courteous and prompt service, a safe

and secure physical environment, friendly and polite personnel, as being important for both

business and leisure travellers. Whereas Barsky and Labagh (1992) reported the salient

attributes affecting hotel choice decisions of both business and leisure travellers as employee

attitudes, location and rooms.

Lockyer (2002) found that potential tourists have a greater awareness of both price and

cleanliness; they also care about value for money when they choose a hotel. Shifflet and

Bhatia (1997) propose that value for money is a strong determining element for hotel guests

and it has a close relationship to customer loyalty and hotel profits. Poon and Low (2005)

noticed that price has a different level of importance when comparing Asian travellers and

Western travellers. For Asian travellers, price is one of the most important factors when

choosing a hotel in which to stay; on the other hand, Western travellers are more concerned

about security and safety.   In the hospitality industry, price and customer satisfaction have

strong and positive correlations; people are also willing to pay more to obtain better service

(Huber, Herrmann and Wricke, 2001).       Furthermore, Wilensky and Buttle (1998) show that

travellers significantly view factors, such as physical attractiveness, personal service,

opportunities for relaxation, standard of service, appealing image and value for money.

Two key points influence customer satisfaction; customer expectations and customer

experiences (Choi and Chu, 2001), hence ensuring there is no „gap‟ between expectations

and experience will supply a satisfying experience.
Customer Satisfaction


Research into customer behaviour has emphasized that customer satisfaction is mainly

focussed on the post-experience period (Westbrook and Oliver, 1981). Berkman and Gilson

(1986) and Engel, Blackwell and Miniard (1990) argued that the level of satisfaction that

customers feel results from the comparison between pre-purchase expectations and

post-purchase evaluation. Oliver (1997) shows that customer satisfaction does not need to be

obtained solely through the route of comparing expectations, as the outcome may be a direct

emotional response and the perception of fulfilment that is derived from the evaluation of the

aspects of a product or service. It can be argued that a customer is regarded as satisfied,

when the weighted sum of experiences demonstrates that the feeling of gratification is higher

than expectations, and a customer is considered dissatisfied when the actual experiences,

compared with expectations, lead to feelings of displeasure.

Measuring customer satisfaction is not only a focus of academic marketing research

(Churchill and Suprenant, 1982; Fornell, 1992), business has also observed that it can be

used to gain competitive advantage (Honomichl, 1993). Studying and understanding

customer satisfaction is an important way to make an impact upon customer loyalty (Cronin

and Taylor, 1992) and enhance word-of-mouth promotion (Oliver, 1997). Market-oriented

companies around the world are facing a serious challenge, which is to achieve the highest

level of customer satisfaction and get more profit. The significance of the evaluation of

customer satisfaction is that “customer satisfaction measures are key indicators to anticipate

future profit” (Hauser, Simester and Wernerfelt, 1994). In other words, the company intends

to satisfy the customer in order to expand the business, acquire a broader and deeper market

share and achieve customer patronage or repurchase, thereby resulting in gains in

profitability (Barsky, 1992).

However, satisfaction is a personal perspective.       Customers have different demands,
purposes and past experiences which will influence their experience during their stay (Pizam

and Ellis, 1999). When customers feel dissatisfied, they tend to argue about the shortage in

their expectations and seek compensation for the failed purchase experience to alleviate the

inconsistent cognitive reaction (Nyer, 1999). If hoteliers do not find a way to recover the

damage, customers will experience a serious cognitive imbalance and feel more

disappointment. In the worst situations the customer may spread negative word-of-mouth

comments as a protest against the gap between the expected cognition and the actual

experience. It may be that a displeased customer may become a saboteur who dissuades

other potential customers from visiting the hotel that made them feel dissatisfied (Andaleeb

and Conway, 2006). Thus, customers have to maintain a positive and fulfilled attitude towards

the experience in order to consider either a repurchase or recommendation to others (Hui,

Wan and Ho, 2007).

Customer satisfaction is described as a multidimensional phenomenon that connects the

causal context to hypothetical constructs like cognition of service quality and customer

patronage (Huber, Herrmann and Wricke, 2001). Customer satisfaction results from a

complex human process in purchasing products and services, which is influenced by

cognitive and emotional processes.

Customer     satisfaction    has    two    facets:    transaction-specific   and   cumulative.

Transaction-specific satisfaction is described as when a specific transaction is satisfying, so

that the customer may apply a post-purchase evaluation of that specific transaction (Hunt,

1977). On the other hand, cumulative satisfaction is an overall evolution throughout the entire

purchasing process (Fornell, 1992). According to this simple classification, the length of the

experiential period is a key point in defining customer satisfaction.


Recommendations and repeat patronage


The retention of customers is more cost-effective than developing new markets or capturing
new potential customers (Torres and Kline, 2006). Kolter and Armstrong (2001) proposed that

when companies lose customers, they also lose a whole stream of additional purchases that

the customer might have made. Hence, the retention of customers and customer loyalty

make a significant contribution to business success.

Jones and Sasser (1995) divide loyalty into three parts; the likelihood of a customer‟s repeat

patronage; the basic behaviour that results in frequency and quantity; the behaviour that is

lead by loyalty, such as recommendations on public occasions and word-of-mouth promotion.

Bowen and Chen (2001) indicated that word-of-mouth should never be underestimated.

“People who recommend hotels normally do so by „word-of-mouth‟, informing friends,

relatives and colleagues about an event that has created a certain level of satisfaction”

(Soderlund, 1998:4). Thus, customers will tell others of their favourable experiences when

they feel satisfied with a product or brand; and vice versa. Fornell (1992) pointed out that the

concept of customer satisfaction is extremely important, as it is an influences word-of-mouth

behaviour and repeat purchase decisions. Customer satisfaction is therefore a decisive factor

for repeat purchases and customer loyalty (Anderson, 1998). If customers feel satisfied, they

will show hotel loyalty and generate positive word-of-mouth messages for others (Oliver, Rust

and Varki 1997; Bowen and Chen 2001). Further, Oliver and Swan (1989) pointed out that

when satisfaction increased, word-of-mouth activity also increased. Hart, Heskett and Sasser

(1990) showed that the person who has experienced great service, tells approximately six

others, however when customers have encountered a bad service experience, they are most

likely to tell eleven people, it has been established that in general customers do not mention

service that is simply „sufficient‟. Instead, they will discuss the very worst or best experiences

(Paul, 2000). Therefore, if the hotelier wants to get some good word-of-mouth, they should

not only fulfil the customer‟s expectations but exceed them.

Hui, Wan and Ho (2007) proposed that a satisfied customer has higher possibility of

patronising the same product or choosing the same destination again and this leads
customers to be more likely to engage in positive word-of-mouth behaviour. Bennett and

Rundle-Thiele (2004) demonstrate that although customer satisfaction has a positive

correlation with customer loyalty, high levels of customer satisfaction do not always bring high

levels of customer loyalty.



RESEARCH METHOD

A quantitative method to collect and analyse the data was chosen, utilising questionnaires in

three languages, English, German and Chinese (Mandarin).

Respondents ranked twenty-seven hotel attributes on a five-point Likert scale by to indicate

their influence on hotel choice.   Table 2 (in Appendix of Tables) lists details of the attributes

explored.

Luzern was chosen for primary research as it is located in central Switzerland. The

respondents of this research were travellers who had stayed in Luzern between June and

August 2008. The questionnaire was pre-tested with 50 travellers, and the final data was

captured via 200 questionnaires. The analysis of this survey made use of the SPSS statistical

software package and a reliability analysis was carried out in advance of the primary research

to ensure reliable results.



KEY FINDINGS

200 questionnaires were returned, 193 questionnaires were useable (response rate 96.5%).

As shown in Table 1, 61.7% respondents were male; 38.3% female.            The home location of

42.4% respondents was Europe and 27.25% were from Asia.            46% respondents were in the

age group of 25-34; 23.3% were aged 18-24 years.          The main purpose of travel for most

respondents was vacation (58.5%), followed by business or meetings, 26.4%. Over 45%

respondents stayed in three star hotels; 35.2% in four-star hotels. Nearly 70% found the hotel

via the internet, 14 % received the hotel information from friends and relatives.    There was a
mix of new visitors to Luzern (61.1%) and those who had visited many times previously.

Principal component analysis with orthogonal VARIMAX rotation factor analysis was

employed to identify the importance of hotel choice.     The results are presented in Table 2 (in

Appendix of Tables). The exploratory factor analysis generated seven factors that were

extracted from the 27 hotel attribute items. 64.83% of variance was explained in this data.

These factors were:

FACTOR 1 (F1) Extra service

FACTOR 2 (F2) Staff service

FACTOR 3 (F3) Room quality

FACTOR 4 (F4) Safety and efficiency

FACTOR 5 (F5) First impression

FACTOR 6 (F6) Value

FACTOR 7 (F7) Cleanliness

The factor loadings show the hotel attributes in these factors. As Table 2 shows, the factor

with only one item is F7 - Cleanliness; the factor with the most items is F1 - Extra service, with

six items. To ensure the reliability of data is appropriate to the model, an α coefficient over 0.5

is considered the minimum acceptable value, in this analysis, α = 0.87 hence reliability and

internal consistency of the factor is acceptable.

As shown in Table 3 (in Appendix of Tables), the regression model indicates an adjusted R

square of 0.179, which means the result in predicting the dependent variable (overall

satisfaction) explained by the independent variables (7 hotel factors), is 17.9 % in this model.

The significant F-ratio was 6.989 (Sig.=0.000), which indicates that the result of the

regression model is unlikely to occur by chance. The result of regression analysis indicates

that there are 2 factors found to be significant in predicting overall satisfaction, F2 - Staff

service (t value= 4.117) and F6 - Value (t value=3.046).

The multiple regression equation model was used to predict travellers‟ intention to return.
The results of analysis are presented in Table 4 (in Appendix of Tables). The model indicates

an adjusted R square of 0.148, which means the results in predicting the dependent variable

(intention to return), explained by the independent variables (7 hotel factors) is 14.8%. The

significance of F-ratio was 5.748 (Sig.=0.000), which indicates that the result is unlikely to

occur by chance. Thus, two factors are found to be significant in predicting intention to return,

F2 - Staff service (t value= 3.673) and F6 - Value (t value=2.610).

From Table 5 (in Appendix of Tables), the regression model indicates an adjusted R square of

0.141, which means the result in predicting the dependent variable (recommend to others)

explained by the independent variables (7 hotel factors), is 14.1%. The significant F-ratio was

5.500 (Sig.=0.000), thus the result is unlikely to occur by chance.

A regression equation model was used to analyze the relationship of overall satisfaction

(independent variable) and intention to return (dependent variable), the results show a clear

and strong relationship between dependent variable and independent variable. The F-ratio

(568.272) was significant (Sig.=0.000), thus indicating that the result of the regression was

significantly associated with overall satisfaction variables.

To analyze the relationship of overall satisfaction (independent variable) and recommend to

others (dependent variable), the regression equation model was again used. The result

presents a clear relationship between dependent variable and independent variable. The

regression model results in predicting the dependent variable explained by the independent

variables is 70.5%. The F-ratio (459.527) is significant (Sig.=0.000) indicating that

recommendation to others was significantly associated with overall satisfaction variables.

The three dependent variables, staff service, value and overall satisfaction, react to the

independent factors, intention to return and recommend to others, in much the same way.

Therefore, the data was tested to investigate if the three dependences capture the same

construct or if the three dependences are simultaneously determined.

Table 6 (in Appendix of Tables) shows effect between staff service and intention to return. In
model 1, staff service reaction to intention to return is shown as being significant (Sig. <0.05).

However, when the overall satisfaction is added as the intervening factor, the result became

the opposite (Sig. >0.05). Similarly, Tables 7, 8 and 9 show the relationships between the

other variables.   Overall satisfaction clearly plays an important role as the intervening factor,

not only between value and intention to return, but also staff service and recommend to

others and value and recommendation to others.

Thus, in the analysis there is considerable evidence to show that there is a positive

correlation between the seven hotel choice factors with overall satisfaction, intention to return

and recommend to others. Staff service and value are shown to be the most influential

factors.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The measurement procedures used in this paper were identified as the most appropriate to

hoteliers. “Staff service” and “Value” were the most influential factors in determining

customers‟ overall satisfaction and their further intentions. Repeat patronage and

word-of-mouth also have a linear relationship with customer satisfaction. This research

indicates that staff service and value are substantial determinants of overall satisfaction,

influencing intention to return and being prepared to recommend to others.        Thus, knowing

the customer satisfaction level toward hotel facilities and staff service could efficiently

increase customer repeat patronage and word of mouth activity.

Among the seven key factors identified in the analysis (F1: extra service, F2: staff service, F3:

room quality, F4: safety and efficiency, F5: first impression, F6: value and F7: cleanliness), it

was concluded that two key factors directly influence customer satisfaction, Staff Service and

Value. Staff service quality has always been a very important point of a customer‟s hotel

evaluation; other studies also show that service quality is a main consideration as a key factor

of customers (Juwaheer and Ross, 2003; Poon and, Low, 2005; Yuksel and Yuksel 2002;
Choi and Chu, 2001). This factor showed the significance of interactions of hotel staff with

customers. Knutson (1988) indicated that travellers considered that friendly and polite

personnel are important for both business and leisure travellers when selecting a hotel.

Greathouse et al. (1996) pointed out that leisure travellers pay much attention to the

friendliness of staff. Nowadays, hotel guests are seeking a higher standard of service instead

of basic service and facilities provided by the hotel, so service quality is becoming more and

more important.

Value was shown to directly influences overall customer satisfaction. As Hui, Wan and Ho

(2007) pointed out, price has priority to influence the overall satisfaction of travellers.

Travellers usually compare the price they paid, the service they received and the facilities in a

hotel. Lockyer (2002) mentioned that tourists are more aware of price, caring about value for

money before they enter the hotel. As Shifflet and Bhatia (1997) supposed, Value for Money

is a strong determinant for hotel guests and is related to customer loyalty and hotel profits.

When people feel satisfied with the product, they will have higher levels of price acceptance,

and are also willing to pay more to obtain better service (Huber, Herrmann and Wricke 2001).

Overall, customers had a positive reaction to the hotels they stayed in Luzern. Considering

the surrounding literature on overall satisfaction and further intention, this paper confirms the

findings of, for example, Bowen and Chen 2001; Cronin and Taylor 1992; Halstead and Page

1992; and Hui, Wan and Ho 2007. The results showed the high correlation of travellers‟

overall satisfaction with repeat patronage, which means the satisfied travellers could also be

happy to visit the same hotel again when next in Luzern.     As Torres and Kline (2006) argue,

retaining customers is more cost-effective than developing the new potential customers and

positive word of mouth reports can increase revenue and decrease marketing expenditures in

a very effective way.

The results of the analysis confirmed that staff service and value are substantial determinants

of overall satisfaction. The implications of this finding are that hoteliers should pay full
attention to training employees and devote effort in training to make sure that staff

performance is above standard. Training is not only to improve employees‟ check in /

checkout efficiency and service skills, but also to develop courtesy, appearance and

helpfulness. Hoteliers must nurture an employee‟s enthusiasm towards their guests. Hoteliers

cannot satisfy their customers‟ needs without exceptional service because of increasing

demands from today‟s guests and increasing competition within the industry.         It is important

to have exceptional employees who voluntarily contribute toward the goals of their employers.

Undoubtedly, the quality of the workforce has a serious effect on the quality of hotel service.

Value emerged from the research as a significant determinant of customer behaviour.

Creating value in the hospitality industry is a challenge for hoteliers around the world. Factors

such as location, convenience to local facilities and environmental considerations must be

weighed against the costs of providing safe and comfortable lodgings.

In conclusion, the findings show that travellers are more concerned by staff service quality

and value when choosing hotels in Luzern. These two factors had a high correlation to a

customer‟s overall satisfaction, intention to return and willingness to recommend the hotel to

others. This means these two factors offer a clue for hoteliers in operating the hotel to

improve their customer satisfaction and their further intention to revisit. Attention paid to these

factors will lead to increased customer satisfaction, resulting in repeat patronage and more

positive word-of-mouth activity. That can only be good for business.



REFERENCES
Andaleeb, SS. and Conway, C. (2006), Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an
examination of the transaction-specific model. Journal of Service Marketing, 20(1), pp. 3-11.


Anderson, EW. (1998), Word-of-mouth as a consequence of customer satisfaction. Journal of
Service Research, 1, pp. 5-17.


Barsky, J. (1992), Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: measurement and meaning,
The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 7, pp. 20-41.


Barsky, J. and Labagh, R. (1992), A strategy for customer satisfaction, The Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 5, pp. 32-40.


Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S. (2004), Customer satisfaction should not be the only goal,
Journal of Service Marketing, 18, pp. 514-523.


Berkman, HW. and Gilson, C. (1986), Consumer behaviour: Concepts and Strategies, 3rd ed.
Boston:Kent Publishing.


Bitner, JM. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses, Journal of Marketing, 54(2),pp. 69-82.


Bowen, JT. and Chen, S. (2001), The relationship between customer loyalty and customer
satisfaction, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(4/5), pp.
213-217.


Choi, TY. and Chu, R. (2001), Determinants of hotels guests‟ satisfaction and repeat
patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry, Hospitality Management, 20, pp. 277-297.


Churchill, GA. and Suprenant, C. (1982), An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 29, pp. 491-504.


Cronin JJ. and Taylor, SA. (1992), Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension.
Journal of Marketing, 56, pp. 55–68.


Engel, JF., Blackwell, RD. and Miniard, PW. (1990), Consumer Behavior, 6th ed. Dryden
Press:Hinsdale.

Federal Statistical Office, (2007), Statistical Data on Switzerland 2007, Switzerland: FSO.

Fornell, C. (1992), A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience,
Journal of Marketing, 56, pp. 6-21.

Garvin, DA. (1991), How the Baldrige award really works, Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 80-95.


Gilbert, D. and Horsnell, S. (1998), Customer satisfaction measurement practice in United
Kingdom hotels, Journal of Hospitality of Tourism Research, 22(4), pp. 450-464.


Gray, WS., Liguori, SC. (1998), Hotel and Motel Management and Operations, 3rd ed,
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.


Greathouse, KR. Gregoire, MB. Shanklin, CW. and Tripp, C. (1996), Factors considered
important in hotel accommodations by travellers stopping at visitor information centers, The
Hospitality Research Journal, 19(4), pp. 129-140.


Gunderson, MG. Heide, M. and Olsson, UH. (1996), Hotel guest satisfaction among business
travellers, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37(2), pp. 72-81.


Halstead, D and Page, TJ. (1992), The effects of satisfaction and complaining behaviour on
consumers‟ repurchase behaviour, Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, 5, pp. 1-11.


Hart, WL., Heskett, JL. and Sasser, WE. (1990), The profitable art of service recovery,
Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 148-156.


Hauser, JR., Simester, DI. and Wernerfelt, B. (1994), Customer Satisfaction incentives,
Marketing Science, 13 Fall, pp. 327-350.


Heskett, JL. Jones, TO, Loveman, GW. Sasser, WE. and Schlesinger, LA. (1994), Putting the
service profit chain to work, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 105-111.


Honomichl, J. (1993), Spending on Customer Satisfaction Continue to Rise, Marketing News,
12, pp. 17-18.


Huber, F. Herrmann, A. and Wricke, M. (2001), Customer satisfaction as an antecedent of
price acceptance: results of an empirical study, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
10(3), pp. 160-169.


Hui, TK. Wan, D. and Ho, A. (2007), Tourists‟ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting
Singapore, Tourism Management, 28, pp. 965-975.


Jones, TO. and Sasser, WE. (1995), Why satisfied customers defect, Harvard Business
Review, 73, Nov-Dec, pp. 88-99.
Juwaheer, TD. and Ross DL. (2003), A study of hotel guest perceptions in Mauritius.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(2), pp. 105-115.

Kandampully, J. (2000), The impact of demand fluctuation on the quality of service: a tourism
industry example. Managing Service Quality, 10(1),pp. 10-18.

Kandampully, J. and Suhartanto, D. (2000), Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the role of
customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 12(6), pp. 346-351.

Kivela, J. (1996), Marketing in the restaurant business: a theoretical model for identifying
consumers‟ determinant choice variables and their impact on repeat purchase in the
restaurant industry, Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 3(1), pp. 13–23.

Knutson, BJ. (1988), Frequent travellers: making them happy and bringing them back, The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 1, pp. 83-87.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2001), Principles of Marketing, 9th ed., Prentice Hall:Upper
Saddle River, NJ.


Lee, YH. and Chen, TL. (2006), A Kano Two-dimensional Quality Model in Taiwan‟s Hot
Spring Hotels Service Quality Evaluations, The Journal of American Academy of Business,
Cambridge, 8(2), pp. 301-306.


Lockyer, T. (2002), Business Guests‟ accommodation selection: the view from both sides,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(6), pp. 294-300.


Nyer, P. (1999), Cathartic complaining as a means of reducing consumer dissatisfaction,
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 12, pp. 15-25.


Oliver, RL. Rust, RT. and Varki, S. (1997), Customer delight: Foundations, findings, and
managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), pp. 311–336.


Oliver, RL. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral perspective on the consumer, McGraw-Hill:New
York, NY.


Oliver, RL. and Swan, JE. (1989), Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and
satisfaction in transactions: A field survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, pp. 21-35.


Pan, CM. (2003), Market structure and profitability in the international tourist hotel industry.
Tourism Management, 26, pp. 845-850.


Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality and
its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 48, pp. 41-50.


Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service. New York:The
Free Press.


Paul, J. (2000), Are you delighting your customers? Nonforprofit World, 18(5), pp. 34-6.


Pizam, A. and Ellis, T. (1999), Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality
enterprises, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, pp. 326-339.


Poon, WC. and Low, LT. (2005), Are travellers satisfied with Malaysian hotels? International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(3), pp. 217-227.


Rust, RT. Zahorik, AJ. and Keiningham, TL. (1995), Return on quality (ROQ): making service
quality financially accountable. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), pp. 58-70.


Shanahan, KJ. and Hyman, MR. (2006), An exploratory study of desired hotel attributes for
American tourists vacationing in China and Ireland, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(2), pp.
107-118.


Shifflet, DK. and Bhatia, P. (1997), Perception of value often leads to loyalty, Hotel and Motel
Management, 211(16), p. 22.


Storbacka, K., Strandvik, T. and Gronroos, C. (1994), Managing customer relationships for
profit: the dynamics of relationship quality, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 5(5), pp. 21-38.


Su, YL. (2004), Customer satisfaction measurement practice in Taiwan hotels, Hospitality
Management, 23, pp. 397-408.


Torres, EN. and Kline, S. (2006), From satisfaction to delight: a model for the hotel industry,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(4), pp. 290-301.

Westbrook, RA. and Oliver, RL. (1981), The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns
and consumer satisfaction, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, pp. 84-91.
Wilensky, L. and Buttle, F. (1988), A multivariate analysis of hotel benefit bundles and choice
trade-offs. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 7(1), pp. 29-41.

Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2002), Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services:
A segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), pp. 52-168.



APPENDIX OF TABLES
                          N      %                                       N      %
Gender                                 First time to visit Luzern
 Male                     119   61.7    Yes                             118    61.1
 Female                   74    38.3    No                              75     38.9


Age                                    The number of visits
 18-24                    45    23.3    1-2 times                       155    80.3
 25-34                    89    46.1    3-5 times                       14     7.3
 35-44                    42    21.8    More than 5 times               24     12.4
 Above 45                 17    8.8


Nationality                            What type of hotel are you staying in
 Europe                   81    42.4    Youth hotel                     22     11.4
 Asia                     52    27.2    3 star hotel                    88     45.6
 India                    17    8.9     4 star hotel                    68     35.2
 North America            17    8.9     5 star hotel                    15     7.8
 South America            7     3.7
 Africa                   1     0.5
 Oceania                  16    8.4    How do you know this hotel
                                       Friends and relatives            27     14.0
Propose of travel                      Internet                         135    69.9
 Business/meeting         51    26.4   News                              1      .5
 Vacation                 113   58.5   Newspaper & Magazine              4     2.1
 Visit friend/relatives   7     3.6    Stayed in same hotel before       7     3.6
 Others                   22    11.4   Others                           19     9.8

Table 1: Demographic profile of respondents
                                                                      Factor loading
                                                       F1     F2     F3     F4     F5     F6     F7
Factor-1: extra service
Availability of parking at the hotel                   0.72
Meeting room and business facilities available         0.69
The hotel offers exercise facilities/ fitness centre   0.65
Accuracy and efficiency of wakeup call                 0.60
Access to computer/internet                            0.58
High quality of Food & Beverage                        0.56
Factor-2: staff service
Staff will be willing to be helpful                           0.84
Check in / checkout will happen efficiently                   0.78
Staff will be polite and friendly                             0.77
Neat appearance of staff                                      0.76
Factor-3: room quality
The bedroom is well soundproofed                                     0.80
Bed/ mattress/ pillow are comfortable                                0.63
Ease in adjusting room temperature                                   0.60
The hotel has spacious bedrooms                                      0.57
Cleanliness of the hotel                                             0.49
Factor-4: safety and efficiency
Effective room locking systems                                              0.74
Hotel ensures safety of its guests                                          0.65
The concierge at the hotel is well informed                                 0.64
Complaints and problems are handled graciously                              0.59
Factor-5: first impression
Attractiveness of exterior design                                                  0.85
Attractiveness of interior design of the lobby                                     0.83
The hotel offers a bar and / or nightclub                                          0.54
Factor-6: value
The hotel is well linked to public transport                                              0.70
Room price is value for money                                                             0.62
The beautiful view from the hotel                                                         0.51
Good reputation of the hotel                                                              0.46
Factor-7: cleanliness
Cleanliness and hygiene of the bedroom                                                           0.81
                                                                                                 Cont.
α coefficient                                   0.87
Eigenvalue                                      6.48      2.67     1.97       1.75    1.49       1.23    1.17
Variance (%)                                    23.99     9.90     7.30       6.50    5.52       4.57    4.32
Cumulative (%)                                  23.99     33.89    41.18      47.68   53.20      57.77   62.09
Number of items (n=27)                          6         4          5        4       3          4       1
     Table 2: Factor analysis results of hotel attribute scales



     Dependent variable                Travellers overall satisfaction
     Independent variables             The 7 factors of hotel attributes
     The 7 factors                             Bata                  t                    Sig.
     F1- Extra service                              -0.060                -0.729                 0.467
     F2- Staff service                                0.294               4.117                  0.000
     F3- Room facility                              -0.039                -0.518                 0.605
     F4- Safe and efficiency                          0.094               1.126                  0.262
     F5- First impression                             0.041               0.499                  0.619
     F6- Value                                        0.263               3.046                  0.003
     F7- Cleanliness                                -0.042                -0.625                 0.533
     R=0.457(a)      R2=0.209   Adjusted R2=0.179             F-ratio=6.989
     Table 3: Regression results of traveller’s overall satisfaction



     Dependent variable                Intention to return
     Independent variables             The 7 factors of hotel attributes
     The 7 factors                             Bata                  t                    Sig.
     F1- Extra service                              -0.004                -0.043                 0.966
     F2- Staff service                                0.268               3.673                  0.000
     F3- Room facility                              -0.025                -0.328                 0.743
     F4- Safe and efficiency                          0.088               1.028                  0.305
     F5- First impression                             0.014               0.170                  0.865
     F6- Value                                        0.229               2.610                  0.010
     F7- Cleanliness                                -0.078                -1.139                 0.256
                         2                 2
     R=0.423(a)      R =0.179    Adjusted R =0.148            F-ratio=5.748
     Table 4: Regression results of intention to return
Dependent variable                         Recommend to others
Independent variables                      The 7 factors of hotel attributes
The 7 factors                                        Bata                    t                   Sig.
F1- Extra service                                       -0.042                   -0.498                 0.619
F2- Staff service                                           0.278                3.797                  0.000
F3- Room facility                                       -0.042                   -0.540                 0.590
F4- Safe and efficiency                                     0.089                1.036                  0.302
F5- First impression                                    -0.024                   -0.279                 0.780
F6- Value                                                   0.256                2.906                  0.004
F7- Cleanliness                                         -0.053                   -0.776                 0.439
                    2                            2
R=0.415(a)      R =0.172            Adjusted R =0.141            F-ratio=5.500
Table 5: Regression results of recommend to others



                                Non-standardized                 Standardized
 Model                          Coefficients                     Coefficients         t          Sig.
                                B              Std. Error        Beta
            Staff service       .388           .085              .313                 4.556      .000
            Staff service       .022           .048              .018                 .458       .648
            1.Overall
                                .859           .039              .859                 22.181     .000
            satisfaction
Table 6: Mediating tests of Staff service and Intention to return



                            Non-standardized                  Standardized
 Model                      Coefficients                      Coefficients        t           Sig.
                            B              Std. Error         Beta
            Value           .358           .077               .319                4.652       .000
            Value           .026           .043               .023                .590        .556
            1.Overall
                            .857           .039               .857                22.129      .000
            satisfaction
Table 7: Mediating tests of Value and Intention to return
                        Non-standardized            Standardized
Model                   Coefficients                Coefficients   t        Sig.
                        B              Std. Error   Beta
        Value           .337           .076         .308           4.468    .000
        Value           .022           .046         .020           .468     .640
        1. Overall
                        .815           .041         .834           19.914   .000
        satisfaction
Table 8: Mediating tests of Value and Recommendation to others



                        Non-standardized            Standardized
Model                   Coefficients                Coefficients   t        Sig.
                        B              Std. Error   Beta
        Staff service   .380           .083         .313           4.559    .000
        Staff service   .033           .051         .027           .658     .512
        1. Overall
                        .813           .041         .831           19.873   .000
        satisfaction
Table 9: Mediating tests of Staff service and Recommendation to others

								
To top