Listen to your customers! How hotels manage online travel reviews. The case of hotels in Lugano

ENTER 2015 Research Track Slide Number 1

Listen to your customers! How hotels manage online travel

reviews. The case of hotels in LuganoSilvia De Ascaniis

Alessia BorrèElena MarchioriLorenzo Cantoni

Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano (CH)(silvia.de.ascaniis; alessia.borre; elena.marchiori;

lorenzo.cantoni)@usi.ch


Hotels and online reviews• Online Travel Reviews (OTR) had a growth rate of 800% in

the last 4 years• OTR are a key driver in tourism decision-making, because:

are used at any stage of travel planning are considered the most reliable form of advertising,

second only to recommendation from friends and relatives are “invitations to reason” in a certain way , i.e.

recommendations and opinions are justified with arguments


• OTR affect the reputation of tourism businesses• Hotels need to monitor and manage OTR• Hotels may take advantage of OTR, in terms of: service

improvement, benchmark competitors, enhanche customers’ relationship and confidence

• Suggestions on how to manage and answer to OTR come both from scholars and the industry

Hotels and online reviews

Do hotels reply to OTR? How do they reply?


Objective and research designOBJECTIVETo understand if and how hotels answer to online reviews

RESEARCH QUESTIONWhich communicative practices are employed by hotels to respond to OTR?

Reaction to customers’ reports Aspects of concern Structure of response Attention to review


Sample of analysisHotel category N° of reviews received

between 01.02.2013 and 31.01.2014

N° of answers to reviews given between 01.02.2013 and 31.01.2014

Ration between answers given and reviews received

5* hotels 264 113 42.8%

4* hotels 657 72 10.9%

3* hotels 561 74 13.2%

Total 1482 259 17.5%

Positive: 192 (74%)

Negative: 67 (26%)

more!

quicker!


Objective and research design

3 ANALYTICAL STAGES 1. construction and validation of a typology of the online

interaction guest-hotel 2. identification of the main argument put forward by the

reviewer and its role (if any) in hotel’s response3. analysis of the rhetorical moves used by the hotel in its

response


STAGE 1: Typology of the online interaction guest-hotel


91% (236 / 259)7% (19 / 259)1.5% (4 /259)

(…) the elevator suddenly stopped between floors. (…) After an

extended period of screaming for help and pounding on the door,

someone finally heard us and tried to physically open the door but to no

avail.

91% (236 / 259)7% (19 / 259)1.5% (4 /259)


(…) a member of the Staff entered in contact with you in less than a minute.

(…) the doors were opened in approximately 5 minutes, and I

understand that remaining stranded in a elevator, the waiting time may have

seemed much longer.


91% (236 / 259)7% (19 / 259)1.5% (4 /259)

95% (247 / 259)5% (12 / 259)

The expectation was unreasonable because:

• the hotel clearly stated beforehand that the guest shouldn’t expect certain services

• the hotel category did not include certain services

• the expectation was unreasonable if compared with competitors

• the expectation was unreasonable at all

«It’s a pleasure to read that you would like us to be ranked as a 5 star hotel. We wish to remind you, however, that we

are a 3 star hotel.»



My biggest complaint was WIFI!! When I asked for Internet they brought me a cable to plug into

the phone! And you can only have 1 hour free Wifi at a time, the rest

you need to pay for.

91% (236 / 259)7% (19 / 259)1.5% (4 /259)

95% (247 / 259)5% (12 / 259)


91% (236 / 259)3% (7 / 259)6% (15 / 259)

we are actually offering a basic service which is of 1 hour per day and a

premium (…) Besides this offer we have also an extended free wifi zone

that covers all our public areas (…) It is a shame that you did not used this

offered service.


91% (236 / 259)7% (19 / 259)1.5% (4 /259)

95% (247 / 259)5% (12 / 259)

Cannot be denied!

72.5% (188 / 259)18.5% (48 / 259)22% (11/259)



Argument = opinionated information based upon the arguer’s reflection on her experience

Claim/opinion + justification/reason

Claim: «Avoid this hotel.»

Main Argument: bad staff attitude.

STAGE 2: Hotel’s tendency to address customer’s main argument


Main argument = the unity of claim and justification used by the customer as the core of her review

3 kinds of hotel’s attitude towards the main argument:Completely ignored the main argument advanced by the customerSupplied a generic «thanks» for the reviewReported a generic apology for the unsatisfactory performance

Hotel type Direct response to main argument

Direct response to main argument in positive

reviews

Direct response to main argument in negative

reviews

5-star 49% (56 / 113) 45% (41 / 91 positive reviews)

77% (17 / 22 negative reviews)

4-star 49% (35 / 72) 24% (9 / 38) 76% (26 / 34)

3-star 22% (16 / 74) 11% (7 / 63 positive reviews)

82% (9 / 11 negative reviews)

STAGE 2: Hotel’s tendency to address customer’s main argument


STAGE 3: Rhetorical moves in hotels’ response

Rhetorical move = communicative strategy used by a speaker to make her point or to strenghten the persuasive effect of

her discourse

The different parts of the review text were classified according to their communicative function.

A saturation approach was adopted: the list of rhetorical moves emerged empirically.

Rhetoric is the art of conveying a message in a convincing, eloquent and effective way


STAGE 3: Rhetorical moves in hotels’ response

Rhetorical move Exemplary statement Occurrence in positive OTR (192)

Occurrence in negative OTR (67)

Allocution Dear guest 187 (97.4%) 66 (98.5%)Gratitude Thank you for your review 177 (92.2%) 58 (86.5%)

Acknowledgment We are happy that you liked your stay at our hotel 149 (77.6%) 12 (17.9%)

Invitation to return Looking forward to host you again 178 (92.7%) 51 (76.1%)Salutation Your sincerely 149 56 (83.5%)

Integration I inform you that our hotel is provided with service x at guests’ free disposal / according to our hospitality approach …

96 (50%) 60 (89.5%)

Clarification/correction The price is in line with Swiss category standards 23 31 (46.3%)

Apology We regret for the inconvenience 33 (17.2%) 44 (65.7%)

Request for more details We kindly ask you to contact us to better explain what happened

2 (1%) 6

Compensation We will be happy to offer you an extra service on your next visit

0 1

Notify to the proper person We will relate your praises/complaint to the addressed person 18 (9.3%) 9

Denial The fact you are reporting cannot be due to our service 0 7

Understanding We understand that a hotel located in x might make transfers more difficult

1 7

mostly uncustomized generic formulas


Suggestions for hotel online reviews management

Typology of guest-hotel online interaction

Monitoring and classification of reviews

Identification of main argument in customers’ reviews

Direct reference to the main argument increasing customer-care

Rhetorical moves Prepare standard reply formats

Customize moves in standard reply formats


Every good conversation starts with good listening!

Listen to your customers! How hotels manage online travel reviews. The case of hotels in Lugano

Education

Transcript of Listen to your customers! How hotels manage online travel reviews. The case of hotels in Lugano