ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model Hospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future directions

H

H

Na

Sb

S

a

KHLSCR

1

tptmtBjttsBuctclemaife

0d

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelM-1117; No. of Pages 12

International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

jou rn al hom epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman

ospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future directions

athaniel D. Linea,∗, Rodney C. Runyanb,1

The University of Tennessee – Knoxville (USA), Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, 220a Jessie Harris Building, 1215 West Cumberland, Knoxville, TN 37996-1911, UnitedtatesThe University of Tennessee – Knoxville (USA), Retail, Hospitality, and Tourism Management, 245 Jessie Harris Building, 1215 West Cumberland, Knoxville, TN 37996-1911, Unitedtates

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:ospitality marketing

a b s t r a c t

This article reviews the hospitality marketing research published in four top hospitality journals from

iterature reviewynthesisontent analysisesearch directions

2008 to 2010 for the purposes of identifying significant trends and gaps in the literature. A total of274 articles are reviewed and classified based on research topic, industry focus, and analysis techniqueas well as on a number of other methodological criteria. Significant topical and methodological trendsare discussed. Important topical trends are synthesized and specific directions for future research areproposed. We conclude with the presentation and discussion of an organizational framework for futurehospitality marketing research.

. Introduction

Periodically, it is necessary for scholars to review their field inerms of an overall progression of the literature. Since 1992, threeublished studies have analyzed the hospitality marketing litera-ure in an effort to capture temporal trends in subject/focus and

ethodology. Crawford-Welch and McCleary (1992) were the firsto undertake such a task, reviewing articles from 1983 to 1989.owen and Sparks (1998) updated this study, reviewing hospitality

ournals from 1990 to 1997. Most recently, Oh et al. (2004) reviewedhe literature for the period of 2002–2003. Thus, since 1992, therend within the hospitality literature has been to review andynthesize relevant articles approximately once every six years.ecause the most recent review appeared in 2004, we suggest anpdate. More importantly we assert that, due to time needed toonduct research and navigate the journal review process, the syn-hesis conducted by Oh and colleagues was likely based on researchonducted during the last millennium. That is, manuscripts pub-ished in 2002–2003 were likely based on research designed andxecuted prior to the year 2000. Since that time, we have seen dra-atic changes in world markets (e.g., the growth of e-commerce,

ttacks of September 11, 2001, and increased globalization). Thus,

Please cite this article in press as: Line, N.D., Runyan, R.C., HospitalityHospitality Manage. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

n addition to an updated review of the literature, there is also needor an assessment of how hospitality scholars have adapted to thextensive market changes impacting the field.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 6243/363 7895; fax: +1 865 974 5236.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N.D. Line), [email protected] (R.C. Runyan).

1 Tel.: +1 865 974 4594; fax: +1 865 974 5236.

278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.oi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This study reviews the research published in selected hospitalityjournals from the years 2008–2010. We limit the articles selected tothose with a focus on hospitality marketing. As did Oh et al. (2004),we define the scope of hospitality marketing as inclusive of anyresearch relating to marketing’s function and/or its environment.Marketing research articles are also included. Articles meeting oneor more of these criteria are categorized according to research focusand target industry. Additionally, six methodological dimensionsare identified and categorized.

The purpose of this research is twofold. First, we review the lit-erature and compare our results to the findings of Oh et al. (2004)to bring the literature current. Relevant similarities and distinc-tions among trends are discussed, and future research directionsare proposed. Second, we synthesize this research emphasizing themost popular topics and trends. From these analyses, we present anoverall state of the literature and propose potential directions forfuture research. It is our hope that readers of this article will betterunderstand the current state of hospitality marketing research andbegin to conceptualize studies that will advance the literature forscholars and practitioners alike.

2. Methods

We first identified the leading journals in the hospitality field.To this end, we selected the top four journals per McKercher et al.’s(2006) rankings; Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CHQ), International

marketing research: Recent trends and future directions. Int. J.

Journal of Hospitality Management (IJHM), Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research (JHTR), and International Journal of Contempo-rary Hospitality Management (IJCHM). According to McKercher et al.(2006), only these four journals rated 50% or higher in terms

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784319

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

IN PRESSG ModelH

2 l of Hospitality Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

ocott2m

ctstofmongoItpp

ert(oecsPk

iwdattaia

rimtfi

p(sUgwspbpssqs

Table 1Hospitality marketing literature: topical focus analysis.

n %

Marketing environment 101 36.9Consumer perceptions 77 28.1

Perceived value 11 4.0Perceived risk/safety 2 0.7Satisfaction 24 8.8Expectations 4 1.5Service quality 12 4.4Performance evaluation/service encounter 9 3.3Employee–customer relationships 9 3.3Experiential value 6 2.2Persuasion 0 0.0Dissonance 0 0.0

Consumer characteristics 24 8.8Decision making 12 4.4Motivation 6 2.2Information search 0 0.0Novelty/variety seeking 1 0.4Attitude 5 1.8

Marketing functions 170 62.0Management, planning, and strategy 54 19.7

Market segmentation/positioning/targeting 11 4.0Consumer relationship marketing/loyalty 10 3.6General marketing strategies 10 3.6Business relationship management 5 1.8Physical distribution/franchising 7 2.6Branding/brand extensions 11 4.0

Electronic marketing 19 6.9Website 6 2.2E-distribution/travel websites 6 2.2Technology adoption 7 2.6Social media/networking 0 0.0

Public relations 20 7.3Crisis management 3 1.1Green initiatives 8 2.9CSR 9 3.3

Internal marketing 47 17.2Empowerment/training 7 2.6Employee relationships 2 0.7Employee behavior/satisfaction 35 12.8Hiring 3 1.1

Demand, pricing, and selling 30 10.9Personal selling 1 0.4Forecasting 5 1.8Pricing/revenue management 18 6.6Sales promotions 2 0.7Advertising 4 1.5

Marketing research 3 1.1

ARTICLEM-1117; No. of Pages 12

N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journa

f aggregate importance. Additionally, these journals are mostlyonsistent with the journals reviewed by Oh et al. (2004). Thenly difference is our use of IJCHM instead of Journal of Hospi-ality and Leisure Marketing. From these journals, we identified aotal of 496 articles published between January 2008 and May010. Of this total, 274 (55%) were deemed relevant to hospitalityarketing.The next step was to identify the topical focus of each arti-

le. Before coding the articles, a coding scheme was developedo ensure that (1) a comprehensive list of marketing topics waselected and (2) our results could be meaningfully compared tohose of Oh et al. (2004). The coding scheme was largely basedn Oh et al.’s (2004) instrument, although some categories wereurther broken down to allow for a more fine-grained assess-

ent. In general, these changes reflect macro-shifts in the focusf the hospitality marketing environment as suggested by jour-al content. Use of post hoc analyses for the purposes of categoryeneration are commonly reported in literature review endeav-rs (e.g., Oh et al., 2004; Runyan and Droge, 2008; Werner, 2002).n approaching the coding schematic in this way, we were ableo define the topical focus more narrowly for synthesizing pur-oses, while keeping intact the most recent metric for comparisonurposes.

In order to ensure a valid instrument, we sent a copy to anxpert in the field of hospitality and tourism marketing for furthereview. Based on the expert’s feedback and the post hoc identifica-ion of emergent trends, several changes were made to Oh et al.’s2004) codebook. For example, whereas Oh et al. (2004) had onlyne category for e-commerce topics, our codebook incorporates anlectronic marketing subcategory with four distinct topical foci:orporate website design, e-distribution, technology adoption, andocial media/networking. A similar process was followed for theR/crisis management, demand/pricing/selling, and internal mar-eting categories (see Table 1).

Both authors were involved in each step of the process for select-ng relevant articles (i.e., identification and inclusion/exclusion) as

ell as in all decisions pertaining to category modifications. Anyisagreement was discussed and ultimately agreed upon by bothuthors. In the subsequent coding process, articles were coded intohe selected categories based on keywords and title/abstract con-ent. In cases where this information was not sufficient for thessignment of an article to one (and only one) category, the articlen question was discussed until agreement was reached as to itsppropriate classification.

After the topical review, we reviewed the context in which theesearch was applied. Such an analysis is important, as market-ng applications are not homogenous across industries. While some

arketing topics may be highly pursued within a certain industry,he same topic may be under-researched in others. The industry-ocus analysis is intended to document such instances as well as todentify under-researched industries.

The methodological review includes an analysis of six com-onents. We coded each article based on the type of researchempirical or conceptual), study design, sampling frame, sampleize, response rate, and the main analysis used for each study.sing Oh et al. (2004) as a framework, we added several cate-ories to the study design and sample type analyses. For example,e created separate categories for interview/focus group and case

tudy/content methodologies. Similarly, we expanded the sam-ling frame category to include several groups that were not usedy Oh et al. (2004) and added a “not applicable” code for the sam-le size and response rate categories. Finally, rather than omitting


tudies that, by design, do not necessitate sampling, we created aeparate category to keep track of such occurrences. Additionally,uota samples and non-random convenience samples were codedeparately.

Research methodology 1 0.4Information technology 2 0.7Theory/philosophy of science 0 0.0

3. Topical review

Oh et al. (2004) used the classification scheme employed bythe Journal of Marketing for its published studies. Using a simi-lar three-tiered coding schema, we first classified each study asrelevant to marketing’s environment, function, or research. Thesecategories were then organized into subcategories and, finally, bytopic. Table 1 shows the number of studies coded into each cate-gory, subcategory, and topic as well as the percentage of the totalthat each component respectively occupies. Readers should notethat, for the purposes of appropriately comparing our results to pre-vious findings, percentages (and percent changes) are reported interms of the total number of hospitality marketing articles includedin the pertinent time period, not the total number of articles pub-lished within the selected timeframe.

Our findings for the overall classification of articles published


between 2008 and 2010 are almost identical to the findings of Ohet al. (2004). Current topics relating to the marketing environmentand the marketing function comprised 36.9% and 62% of the total,respectively. Marketing research topics accounted for only 1.1% of

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

IN PRESSG ModelH

l of Hospitality Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3

talts

3

Bmrasens(“aig

aim(dS(i2rriFtareat

3

fitdicouom3pcpltam

mc

Table 2Hospitality marketing literature: target industry analysis.

Target industry n %

Tour/recreation services 4 1.5Hotel/lodging 110 40.1Cruise lines 0 0.0Restaurant/foodservice 87 31.8Private club 2 0.7Festival/event 18 6.6Spa 2 0.7Resort/timeshare 2 0.7Convention/conference 5 1.8Hospital 2 0.7Theme park 2 0.7Casino 12 4.4



he total. Oh et al. (2004) noted a similar pattern of 35.1%, 62.9%,nd 2%, respectively, suggesting that the overall composition of theiterature has remained unchanged in the time elapsed between thewo studies. We discuss the contents of each topic in the followingections.

.1. Marketing environment

Regarding the marketing environment, Oh et al. (2004) andowen and Sparks (1998) allowed for one subcategory of thearketing environment, consumer behavior. Our analysis sepa-

ates this category into two dimensions, consumer perceptionsnd consumer characteristics. Although the overall topical compo-ition remains similar, we added categories for decision-making,mployee-customer relationships, and experiential value (asecessitated by post hoc analysis). Comparing their results for con-umer behavior literature to the findings of Bowen and Sparks1998), Oh et al. (2004) found that such literature had experiencedvibrant growth” (p. 428) in the period between their respectivenalyses (+14.4%). Because consumer behavior research has onlyncreased 1.8% in the years since, our analysis indicates that thisrowth has stabilized.

However, while the growth of consumer behavior researchppears to have leveled out, its topical composition has shiftedn several important ways. While customer satisfaction is still the

ost widely pursued topic in the marketing environment literature8.8%), the percentage of articles dealing with satisfaction issues haseclined by 4.6%, the greatest decrease for any topic in the category.imilarly, research on performance evaluations/service encounters3.3%) decreased by 2.9%. These decreases were offset by growthn other categories that received comparatively less attention in002–2003. Most notably, perceived value and attitude/motivationesearch each appears a total of 11 times. Neither of these topics wasepresented in the previous review, indicating a growth in interestn each. Research on decision making (4.4%) also increased by 2.3%.inally, we note that, similar to the previously reviewed period,he study of novelty/variety seeking behavior, information search,nd persuasion (n = 1, n = 0, and n = 0, respectively) were under-epresented in our review. Given that these topics have not beenxtensively studied over the last decade, future research shouldssess the degree to which these areas are still relevant to hospi-ality marketers.

.2. Marketing functions

Studies on the function of marketing were separated intove subcategories: management/planning/strategy; elec-ronic marketing; public relations; internal marketing; andemand/pricing/selling. Although this sub-categorization scheme

s more specifically defined than that of Oh et al. (2004), theomponent categories are still largely the same. While the amountf research on marketing functions (62%) has remained virtuallynchanged since the previous analysis, the internal compositionf the category has shifted. Oh et al. (2004) determined that topicsaking up management, planning, and strategy accounted for

5.3% of the sampled articles. Our analysis indicates that thisercentage has decreased by one half to 17.6%. This decreasean primarily be attributed to decreases in the segmentation,ositioning, and targeting literature (−11.1%) and CRM/loyalty

iterature (−6.7%). Thus, research seems to be shifting away fromhe management/planning/strategy domain in favor of topics suchs PR (+5.2%), internal marketing (+14.1%), and pricing/revenue


anagement (+4.5%).The most notable of these shifts is the increase in internal

arketing (IM) literature. Because this topic occupies a broad con-eptual domain, a brief discussion of our conceptualization of IM is

Airline 4 1.5General/multiple industries 24 8.8

warranted. Depending on the research focus, IM-related literaturecould be classified as either a management or marketing issue. Thus,care was taken to include in our review only those studies that con-sider IM within a marketing context. Specifically, we adopt George’s(1990) definition of IM as “a strategic weapon to help achieve highquality service delivery and thereby achieve greater customer sat-isfaction” (p. 63). Thus, all of the literature classified as IM-focusedwas determined to have some bearing on customer satisfaction.Following this definition, we identified 47 articles as having anIM focus, an increase of 14.1% from 2002–2003. Of these 47 arti-cles, a majority (n = 35) focused on employee behavior/satisfaction.The remaining three classifications, empowerment/training (n = 7),employee relationships (n = 2), and hiring (n = 3), account for theother 12 IM-focused articles. In their review, Bowen and Sparks(1998) note a lack of “empirically based” studies that address inter-nal marketing (p. 134) and called for an increase in their pursuit.Because Oh et al. (2004) subsequently found only one occurrenceof IM research, our findings suggest that it has taken some timeto heed this call. Presently, however, IM appears to be one of thefastest growing topical areas in hospitality marketing research.

Other notable findings include a 5.2% increase in PR literature(fueled by the growing interest in green marketing initiatives) andthe topical shift among the demand, pricing and selling literature.Of the five topics in the latter category, all but one, pricing/revenuemanagement, were characterized by decreases. Pricing and rev-enue management literature, however, increased 4.5% due mainlyto increased interest in revenue management outside its traditionalapplication in the hotel industry. Finally, it is worth noting that mar-keting research was again pursued less vigorously. We mention thisfinding here for two reasons: first, it was one of three categoriesused by Oh et al. (2004); second, research on methods and theoryare important to any scholarly field. The distinct absence of sucharticles is a noteworthy phenomenon, a point to which we returnin the conclusion.

3.3. Target industry review

Table 2 summarizes the results of the target industry anal-ysis. We define the target industry as the industry for whichthe major implications of a study are intended. In addition tothe categories identified by Oh et al. (2004), we expanded ouranalysis to include an additional six industries that were eithercategorized more generally or were not specifically targeted dur-ing the period 2002–2003: tour/recreation services, private clubs,festivals/events, spas, resorts/timeshares, and hospitals. Perhaps


naturally, hotel/lodging (40.1%) and restaurant/foodservice (31.8%)accounted for a majority of the industries targeted from 2008 to2010. Research on festivals and other events (6.6%) were the thirdmost commonly targeted industry (although it should be noted that

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelHM-1117; No. of Pages 12

4 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Table 3Selected results from cross-tabulation of topic and dominant industry.

Topic Dominant industries n/total %

Perceived value Foodservice 6/11 55Service quality Foodservice 9/12 75Performance

evaluation/serviceencounter

Foodservice 7/9 78

Satisfaction Foodservice/lodging 21/24 88Market segmenta-

tion/positioningstrategy

Foodservice/lodging 7/11 64

Pricing/revenuemanagement

Foodservice/lodging 15/18 83

Decision making Foodservice/lodging/event 8/12 67Green initiatives Lodging 5/8a 63Technology adoption Lodging 4/7a 57Employee

behavior/satisfactionLodging 23/35 66

a

aItatosli

iamfaiiiwotttiiafi

4

see6ibasa

(a(o

Table 4Hospitality marketing literature: methodological analysis.

n %

Type of studyEmpirical 257 93.8Conceptual 17 6.2

Study designPrimary field survey 183 66.8Interviews focus group 25 9.1Secondary data 25 9.1Experiment 8 2.9Content analysis/literature review 11 4.0case study/commentary 11 4.0Delphi 0 0.0Other 11 4.0

Sampling frameHotels/lodging

Guests 21 7.7Employees 32 11.7Managers/owners 15 5.5Properties 24 8.8

Total hotel/lodging 93 33.9Restaurant/foodservice

Guests 32 11.7Employees 18 6.6Managers/owners 1 0.4Properties 11 4.0

Total restaurant/foodservice 62 22.6Casinos

Guests 5 1.8Employees 4 1.5

Total casinos 9 3.3Airports

Guests 5 1.8Employees 1 0.4

Total airports 6 2.2Tour organizers/meeting planners 5 1.8Club members 2 0.7Event/show attendees 18 6.6Students/university employees 27 9.9Experts 2 0.7General/cross-industries/others 27 9.9N/A 24 8.8Sample size

Smaller than 100 54 19.7100–350 105 38.3351–600 40 14.6601–850 7 2.6Larger than 850 32 11.7N/A 36 13.1

Response rateLower than 10% 14 5.110–20% 21 7.721–30% 16 5.831–40% 15 5.541–50% 14 5.1Higher than 50% 46 16.8Quota/convenience 56 20.4N/A 88 32.1

Main analysis methodsDescriptive 33 12.0Factor/cluster 22 8.0Regression/logit-logistic regression 66 24.1Analysis of (co)variance 48 17.5SEM/path 61 22.3Time series/simulation 13 4.7

Empowerment/training Lodging 4/7 57

a None in restaurant/foodservice.

majority of this literature (n = 16) came from a single 2010 issue ofJHM). Other than these three industries, only casinos (4.4%) wereargeted nine times or more. The other nine industries combinedccounted for the remaining 8.3% of the total literature. Despitehe relatively low incidence of occurrence, however, the presencef research targeting these industries in top hospitality journalsuggests their relevance to the field. Research targeting relativelyess-understood industries represents a potential area for futurenquiry.

Next, we examined the cross-tabulations of research topic andndustry focus. While we concede that not all topics are relevant toll industries, our analysis suggests that some topics are pursuedore extensively in some industries than in others. For example, we

ound that 21 of the 24 published studies on customer satisfactionnd 11 of the 12 on service quality targeted the hotel or restaurantndustries. However, issues relating to satisfaction and service qual-ty are not unique to these industries, but rather to all hospitalityndustries, and thus should be explored more broadly. Additionally,

e found that issues relating to website marketing (n = 4), technol-gy adoption (n = 4), and green initiatives (n = 5) mainly targetedhe hotel/lodging industry while ignoring potential applications inhe restaurant industry (n = 0 combined). Other disproportionateopic/industry research trends are illustrated in Table 3. These find-ngs suggest that even among relatively well-studied topics andndustries, gaps in the literature still exist. Future research shouldttempt to identify and fill these gaps to prevent theoretical con-nement.

. Methodological review

Table 4 summarizes the results of the methodological analy-is. In general, hospitality marketing research is overwhelminglympirical in nature. In total, 93.8% of the reviewed literature wasmpirical, up from the 91% reported by Oh et al. (2004) and the6% reported by Bowen and Sparks (1998). Thus, despite calls

n both studies for theory building via increases in conceptuallyased research, empirical study remains dominant. Additionally,lthough the incidence of longitudinal data collection was notpecifically coded, our review indicated that longitudinal methodsre conspicuously absent in hospitality marketing research.

Concerning study design, the field survey was most prevalent


66.8%), increasing 2.9% since 2002–2003. Use of secondary datand interview/focus group methodologies were employed 25 times9.1%) each. Use of secondary sources increased 5% over the previ-us period. The change in the incidence of interview/focus group

Qualitative 58 21.2Other 10 3.6

Horizontal lines indicate a summation of subcategory results.

methodology is unknown, as this category was not explicitly iden-


tified in previous research.We next reviewed the sample type of each study. Our discus-

sion of sample type should not be confused with the industry focusanalysis. We characterized a study’s sample type based on the

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ING ModelH

l of H

psstffasiatwts

1Ctmeamwobm

1aScgp2Dts

cttdarwsmouyotatt

5

tctgtw



opulation from which the sample was taken. Although there isome overlap with the industry focus coding in some categories, theample type analysis is differentiated by the specific attention paido the attributes of the respondents. For example, the sample takenor a study targeting the hotel industry may not necessarily comerom a population of hotel customers. Data for these studies couldlso come from frontline employees and managers. Additionally,tudents are often used as a sampling frame for studies target-ng a wide variety of industries. In these cases, it is erroneous tossume that the target industry and the sample type coincide. Givenhis distinction, we found that approximately one-third of samplesere taken from the hotel industry, and slightly less than one quar-

er were taken from the restaurant industry (specific subgroupsampled within these industries can be seen in Table 4).

Of note in the above analysis is the finding that less than0% of the reviewed articles collected data from multiple sources.ross-sectional data collection is potentially troubling givenhat single-source data are commonly associated with measure-

ent error attributable to common method biases (Podsakofft al., 2003). In order to enhance methodological rigor, as wells generalizability, we suggest that hospitality scholars shouldore frequently obtain data from multiple industry sourceshen possible. For situations in which study conditions and/or

bjectives prohibit data collection from multiple sources, otherias-correcting methods such as temporally separating variableeasurements (Podsakoff et al., 2003) should be considered.Concerning sample size, most studies utilized a sample size of

00–350 observations. Sample sizes smaller than 100 were gener-lly taken for studies using interview/focus group methodologies.amples larger than 850 typically came from previously establishedonsumption panels or from corporate database information. Ineneral, response rates were reported more frequently than in therevious period. Only 19.5% of the studies reviewed from 2002 to003 reported response rates, compared to 46% from 2008 to 2010.espite this increase, however, we conclude, as did Oh et al. (2004)

hat “the general lack of reports on exact response rates in manytudies prohibits detecting significant trends” (p. 429).

Finally, we analyzed analysis methods for each study. We onlyounted methods that were used to test hypotheses or presenthe general arguments of the research. Thus, we did not code fac-or analyses used to validate constructs in a structural model, norid we code for methods used as manipulation checks. Addition-lly, because more than one analytical tool is often used in theesearch found in top-tier journals, this was the only category inhich multiple counts of the same study were allowed. Our analy-

is shows that regression, specifically multiple regression, was theost frequently employed method of analysis, present in almost

ne quarter of the reviewed literature. The next most frequentlysed analysis method was structural equation modeling/path anal-sis (22.3%), an increase of 13.6% over the previous period. Usef ANOVA/ANCOVA increased almost 5% while the use of descrip-ive and factor/cluster/discriminant methods decreased by 17.1%nd 8.5%, respectively. Such shifts are encouraging as they indicatehat hospitality scholars are employing more rigorous analyticalechniques in their analyses.

. Synthesis of significant topical trends

In this section, we discuss significant trends emergent from theopical analysis. Due to space limitations, it is not possible to dis-uss all 274 articles. We limit our synthesis to articles following


rends identified for the period of review. Within each topic, weive preferential treatment to the most important findings based onhe number of citations per GoogleScholar’s citation count. Whilee recognize that this approach may bias our discussion in favor

PRESSospitality Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 5

of articles published earlier in the period of analysis (i.e., articlespublished in 2008 are more likely to be cited than those publishedin 2010), the reader should note that this approach was merelyintended to ensure that important research was not omitted fromreview.

5.1. Consumer behavior

5.1.1. Emotion and satisfactionWithin the study of the marketing environment, issues pertain-

ing to customer satisfaction were the most widely pursued. Themost noticeable trend in this category is the role of emotion as acontributor to satisfaction, especially in the restaurant industry.Examples include: the role of negative emotions in complain-ing/switching/negative WOM (Mattila and Ro, 2008); satisfactionand revisit intention (Han et al., 2009); and pre-consumption moodstates (Weber and Sparks, 2009), as well as the identification ofpositive and negative emotions tied to customer satisfaction asmediated by service quality (Ladhari et al., 2008).

In addition to emotion, several other key drivers of satisfac-tion were identified including positive relationships between theinstitutional factors of Stevens and Knutson’s (1995) DINESERVscale (Kim et al., 2009d) and restaurant atmospherics and service(Namkung and Jang, 2008). Hyun (2009) supports these findingswithin the chain-restaurant industry, while Heide and Gronhaug’s(2009) research of key hotel atmospheric elements extend thisdiscussion to the hotel industry. Hanai et al. (2008), however,demonstrated that, at least in the hotel industry, these relation-ships might be moderated by whether one is travelling alone or ina group. Future studies should continue to identify moderators ofthese relationships.

Additionally, four studies were conducted with specific empha-sis on satisfaction within the domain of Chinese culture. Theseinclude perceptions of hotel attributes (Gu and Ryan, 2008); theconcept of “face” and food appeal (Kim et al., 2009d; Namkungand Jang, 2008); collectivism and complaint behavior (Cheng andLam, 2008); and American customers’ perceptions of U.S.-basedChinese restaurants (Liu and Jang, 2009). The results of these stud-ies indicate that, while satisfaction is still a widely surveyed topicin the hospitality marketing literature, a unifying theory of satis-faction with definitive antecedents and outcomes remains elusive.Oh et al. (2004) came to similar conclusions noting that the studyof satisfaction is complicated by the presence of numerous moder-ating variables. Our analysis suggests that, although some progresshas been made, research on satisfaction becomes more complex asvarious cultural and industry-specific parameters are introduced.

5.1.2. Perceived value and satisfactionA second stream of literature explored the role of perceived

value in the generation of satisfaction, especially in the restau-rant/foodservice industry. Findings include a positive relationshipbetween perceived value and satisfaction (Ryu et al., 2008); envi-ronmental antecedents of perceived value (Han and Ryu, 2009);and the influence of poor service quality on perceived value (Chenand Hu, 2009). A number of related studies related perceived valueto revisit intentions and/or loyalty. Notable findings include themediating effect of customer satisfaction on perceived value andre-patronage intentions (Ryu et al., 2008); the partial mediationof satisfaction and customer loyalty (Han and Ryu, 2009); and themediating effect of hedonic versus utilitarian aspects of value (Ryuet al., 2010).

While a majority of the research concerning perceived value was


conducted within a restaurant/foodservice setting, several studiesreport similar findings in other industries. In the hotel industry, Kimet al. (2008) found that perceived value mediates the relationshipbetween perceived quality and revisit intention. Similarly, Yoon

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ING ModelH

6 l of H

eiaaob

5

aotoim(ecMmltEfoaedRfa

5

trMbitadrlifsOtioisd

5

5

taefacs



t al. (2010) found a relationship between quality, value, and sat-sfaction among festival attendees (see also Kim et al., 2010b forn extension to food-centered events). Our findings suggest that,lthough perceived value has been widely studied, applicationsutside the restaurant industry have not kept pace and should thuse further explored.

.1.3. Service qualityService quality literature appears to be less focused on debate

nd application of the SERVQUAL model than in previous years. Inrder to better understand the role that quality service plays inhe customer experience, researchers have turned to examinationsf employee interactions with customers and the delivery of whats increasingly termed “emotional labor.” For example, instead of

easuring service quality via the SERVQUAL scale, Gazzoli et al.2010) used a hierarchical approach model, finding that employeempowerment and job satisfaction lead to significant increases inustomer perceptions of service quality. And although Nasution andavondo (2008) found differences between service values amonganagers and customers, Clark et al. (2009) found that empowering

eadership styles can facilitate the type of employee satisfac-ion that leads to service quality commitment among employees.xtending these concepts further, Kim and Ok (2010) explicitlyocused on the customer orientation of service employees (COSE) inrder to better understand the customer-related outcome variablesssociated with employee satisfaction. It should be noted, how-ver, that Chi and Gursoy (2009) found that employee satisfactionoes not necessarily directly impact a firm’s financial performance.ather, this relationship is mediated by customer satisfaction, a

urther indication of the importance of employee-customer inter-ction.

.1.4. Performance evaluationA recurring theme in the performance evaluation literature is

he study of tipping behavior. The contention that tip sizes are cor-elated with service quality is still a topic of debate. Mayward andupandawana (2009), for example, found that previous tipping

ehavior was the dominant factor influencing tipping rates. Thempact of service quality on tipping behavior was not identified inhis study. However, Lynn and Sturman (2010) found that tip sizesre, in fact, reliably correlated with service ratings and that otherispositional differences should be viewed as confounding. Theseesults conflict to a certain degree with the results from an ear-ier study (Lynn, 2009) that dispositional tendencies actually cannfluence individual motives for tipping. Specifically, Lynn (2009)ound that intrinsic motives are associated with larger tips, whileelf-preservational motives are more closely linked to smaller tips.ther studies on tipping found that server behavior can influence

ip size. Lynn and McCall (2009) present a number of such behav-ors that can be generalized to a variety of restaurants. Interestingly,nly one study examined tipping from the perception of the server:n an extensive survey of restaurant servers, McCall and Lynn (2009)tudied server perceptions of customers’ tipping based on age, gen-er, and ethnicity.

.2. Management, planning, and strategy

.2.1. Segmentation, targeting, and positioningAlthough the segmentation, targeting, and positioning litera-

ure was limited compared to the previous period, recent researchppears to be more diverse, spanning four industries. Three studiesach were conducted in the foodservice and hotel industries. In the


oodservice industry, Tan and Lo (2008) pursued a benefit-basedpproach, identifying four distinct segments of patrons for a spe-ialty coffeehouse chain. The other two restaurant-focused articlestudied issues relating to the creation of wine lists (Berenguer et al.,

PRESSospitality Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

2009; Gil et al., 2009). Concerning hotels, Victorino et al. (2009)demonstrated the applicability of the technology readiness index asa segmentation tool for hotel demand. Another two studies soughtto better clarify the definitions of specific hotel sectors, English bou-tique hotels (Lim and Endean, 2009) and Taiwanese “love motels”(Alexander et al., 2010). Similar research was conducted in thecasino industry regarding the late life gambler market (Chhabra,2009) and the development of the casino industry in Macao (Loiand Kim, 2010).

5.2.2. Relationship marketingTwo kinds of relationship marketing research were prevalent,

business relationship marketing (BRM) and customer relationshipmarketing (CRM). BRM was less extensively pursued than CRM,perhaps because such issues are often addressed outside the hos-pitality literature. Additionally, BRM research lacked a unifyingtheme. Within the CRM literature, specific attention was given tomeasuring the success of loyalty programs in varying industries.These studies addressed various topics including the factors char-acterizing successful loyalty programs across industries (McCalland Voorhies, 2010); loyalty within the casino industry (Hendlerand LaTour, 2008); loyalty programs within the hotel industry (Huet al., 2010); and a comparison of loyalty programs in the airlineand hotel industries (DeKay et al., 2009). More general studies onCRM were conducted in the hotel industry (Lo et al., 2010) and inthe restaurant industry (Asatryan and Oh, 2008), the latter with aninteresting application of psychological ownership theory.

5.2.3. BrandingA final trend within the management, planning, and strategy lit-

erature is the incidence and nature of branding research. Althoughbranding was directly addressed, the subject was also indirectlyaddressed within the franchising literature. In general, franchis-ing research appears to be more unified than research explicitlyfocused on branding. The franchising literature was primarily con-cerned with international diversification (e.g., Tang and Jang, 2010on hotel franchising). Issues explicitly relating to domestic fran-chising, especially within the U.S. were largely ignored. A notableexception is the work of Roh and Choi’s (2010) analysis of efficiencyamong multiple brands within the same franchise.

Research explicitly focusing on branding was loosely unified bybrand management topics. Specific applications, however, werevaried. Topics ranged from general internal brand management(King, 2010) to the specific application of customer equity in theconvention industry (Severt and Palakurthi, 2008). Although vari-ous branding topics were explored, several unique studies providepromising avenues for future research. For example, in a rare con-ceptual piece on hospitality-specific branding, Xu and Chan (2010)unified the hotel branding literature, identifying several criticalissues that have yet to be investigated. Additionally, research onco-branding (Guillet and Tasci, 2010) and rebranding (Hanson et al.,2009) received only one publication each. Given the increasingpractice of both, especially in the hotel industry, these two areashave significant potential for future research.

5.3. Electronic marketing

In their discussion of electronic marketing and e-commerceresearch, Oh et al. (2004) noted that such research was in its incep-tion phase, and that as time progresses, new marketing theoriesmust advance in accordance with new technological developments.In some areas such as technology adoption in hotels, scholars


have kept pace. Four studies of the hotel industry addressed thissubject from several different perspectives. Noting an absence ofadoption literature in the hotel industry, Lim (2009) identifiedfactors that lead to general technology adoption as well as the

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ING ModelH

l of H

iodeianah

midlvp(ontdashQao

rrdsiire

oeiiAhqoto

5

sombswfrcbIhr2



ntensity of adoption. Other research was more specific in the typef technology adoption that was measured. Specific technologicalomains represented were website and e-mail adoption (Hashimt al., 2010), biometric adoption (Murphy and Rottet, 2009), andnformation system acceptance (Huh et al., 2009). Nisbet (2009)nalyzed technology adoption at the consumer level in a study onew gaming machine payment technologies at casinos. Noticeablybsent were studies on technology adoption in other technology-eavy industries such as restaurants.

Research on various facets of Internet marketing made up aajority of the rest of the e-marketing literature. Half of the stud-

es for this category explored subject matter relevant to electronicistribution from a variety of perspectives. Given the recent pro-

iferation of the sale of travel products, especially hotel rooms,ia third party intermediaries, the attention paid to this issue iserhaps not surprising. Taking a theory-building approach, Wen2009) reviewed the literature concerning the purchase intentionsf customers for online travel products, conceptualizing a much-eeded framework for the topic in general. Empirical study ofhis topic was generally focused on consumer perceptions of e-istribution practices and/or website specific practices. Morosannd Jeong (2008) examined user perceptions of reservation webites, finding that consumers favor intermediary websites overotel-owned websites for reservation bookings, and Carvell anduan (2008) demonstrated the ineffectiveness of current rate guar-ntees. Future research should address the value of such metrics notnly to the firm, but also to the consumer.

Despite the increase in technology adoption and e-distributionesearch, other e-marketing issues were relatively under-esearched. Research on general website design appears beeclining in favor of better understanding specific website usersuch as buyers/browsers (Rong et al., 2009) and the visuallympaired (Mills et al., 2008). Additional e-marketing researchncluded an analysis of the impact of online user reviews on hoteloom sales (Ye et al., 2009) and a study on the extent to which hotelsxploit search engine marketing (Murphy and Kielgast, 2008).

While such research marks progress, several important aspectsf e-marketing have been largely ignored. For example, despite thexplosion of social media and the emergent Web 2.0 phenomenonn recent years, very little attention has been given to the market-ng applications of these phenomena within the hospitality field.dditionally, a majority of the e-marketing literature targets theotel/lodging industry. Because research on technology is oftenuite specific, especially with respect to industry application, it isften difficult to generalize findings across industries. We suggesthat future research expand discussions of e-marketing to includether industries, especially the restaurant/foodservice industry.

.4. Public relations

Public relations issues such as green marketing and corporateocial responsibility appear to have experienced growth, perhapswing to the recent shift in the overall business climate towardsore sustainable (Chabowski et al., 2010) and socially responsi-

le (Wagner et al., 2009) behavior. As many of these issues aretill in the early stages of research development, most studiesere exploratory in nature. Research in this category was mainly

ocused on issues related the development of green and/or sociallyesponsible goals and how the implementation of policy may affectorporate goals. In general, results suggest that such practices cane attributed to favorable firm-level outcomes across industries.


ncreased CSR in general was found to have positive impacts on theotel industry (Kang et al., 2010; Lee and Park, 2009), the restau-ant industry (Kang et al., 2010), the airline industry (Lee and Park,010), and the casino industry (Lee and Park, 2009).


Despite the increase in such research, opportunities for growthexist. First, future research should address green/CSR-related issuesnot only from industry implementation and performance perspec-tives but also from a customer perspective. Relatively little is knownregarding the effect of such practices on customer satisfaction,brand image, etc. (see Lee and Heo, 2009). Second, while PR lit-erature was more contextually diverse than other emerging topicssuch as e-marketing, specific study of PR in restaurant/foodserviceindustry has lagged behind. Finally, very little attention has beenpaid to marketing issues related to strategy and crisis manage-ment policy shifts in response to the events of September 11, 2001.Indeed, only two such studies appear: Vassilikopoulou et al. (2009)on crisis management in the hotel industry, and Eisendrath et al.(2008) on the effects of the attacks on the Las Vegas gaming indus-try.

5.5. Demand, pricing, and selling

The study of demand, pricing, and selling largely decreasedacross the component categories. Personal selling, advertising,sales promotion, and forecasting topics combined accounted for4.4% of the total literature and 40% of the literature specific todemand, pricing, and selling. By contrast, pricing and revenuemanagement, due to the growth of revenue management as anacademic pursuit (Anderson and Xie, 2009) accounted for 6.6%of the total literature and 60% of the category. Traditionally, rev-enue management has been practiced in the hotel and airlineindustries (Cross et al., 2009), though recently its application hasspread to restaurants (Thompson, 2009), spas (Kimes and Singh,2008), and even theme parks (Heo and Lee, 2009). The extensionof revenue management to industries other than hotels and air-lines is a positive trend in the literature. Key questions still exist,however, such as whether its practice is even beneficial in all indus-tries (Thompson, 2009). Additionally, issues of fairness perceptionregarding specific revenue management tactics should continue tobe explored, with particular attention paid to moderating factors(e.g., Beldona and Kwansa, 2008).

Although only one study on revenue management explicitly tar-geted the hotel industry (Noone and Mattila, 2009), general pricingresearch concerning hotels was more common. For example, notingthe skewed distribution of hotel prices, Hung et al. (2010) con-ducted a study on pricing determinants using quantile regressionanalysis. Yang et al. (2009) modified the model of Kano et al. (1984)in an analysis of strategic pricing policy, while Van der Rest andHarris (2008) modified Nash’s (1975) decision rule in a study onimperfect pricing. More generally, Enz et al. (2009) conducted a 6-year analysis of the hotel industry, investigating the dynamics ofprice in relation to demand and revenue. As with revenue man-agement, we suggest that pricing research not be limited to thehotel industry. The unique pricing structures of spas, casinos, themeparks, etc. present interesting avenues for future research.

5.6. Internal marketing

5.6.1. Job satisfactionThe study of internal marketing represented the largest increase

of any marketing subcategory, with growth largely due to theproliferation of research on topics relating to employee behav-ior and satisfaction. Indeed, most of the research in this categorythat did not specifically operationalize job satisfaction focused onthe idea indirectly via considerations of stress, work–family con-flict, motivations, performance, turnover, etc. The growth of this


research stream indicates an increased belief that internal issuesof employee satisfaction and quality of work life (e.g., Kandasamyand Ancheri, 2009) have a direct impact on customer satisfactionand retention.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

IN PRESSG ModelH

8 l of Hospitality Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

owomssft(flihifiS(sufTastrtasmi

5

i(ttswt(oidIdoefio

egdanhbv(svpak

Practice

Marketing Environment

TheoryTheory



A relatively large amount of attention was given to the rolesf stress and conflict as antecedents of job satisfaction. This issueas approached from several angles, providing a relatively thor-

ugh discussion of the topic. Kim et al.’s (2009b) research on theoderating role of gender and organizational levels in the stress-

atisfaction relationship found that the effect of role stress on jobatisfaction is greater for female and supervisory employees thanor male and non-supervisory employees. General personality fac-ors were also found to influence the stressor–strain relationshipYoung and Corsun, 2009) while work–family/family–work con-ict perceptions were found to subsequently increase turnover

ntentions (Karatepe and Uludag, 2008). Chiang et al. (2010),owever, demonstrated that job-related demands need not be

nherently stressful, especially when the employee receives suf-cient work–life balance support from his or her organization.tudying the other side of this relationship, Karatepe and Bekteshi2008) similarly demonstrated the positive role of family socialupport. Rounding out this research stream, Wong and Ko (2009)sed qualitative methods to outline the critical factors necessaryor the implementation of a successful work–life balance program.hus, over the course of our relatively short analytical period,ntecedents and outcomes of stress/conflict–satisfaction relation-hips were studied empirically, and an organizational approacho work–life balance was proposed. In the future, this stream ofesearch would benefit from further exploration of moderating fac-ors that affect the relationship between employee stress/strainnd performance. A better understanding of the role that per-onality and other work- or non-work related variables play initigating the effects of stressors and strains on employee behav-

or/performance is a key area for future empirical research.

.6.2. Organizational citizenship behaviorA second stream of internal marketing research focused on

ssues of commitment and organizational citizenship behaviorOCB). As with stress and conflict, a number of nomological rela-ionships were examined with at least the implicit assumptionhat such constructs affect job satisfaction. OCB was generally con-idered within the context of organizational attributes, beginningith Raub’s (2008) demonstration of the negative impacts of a cen-

ralized organizational structure on OCB. Subsequently, Kim et al.2009c) and Kim et al. (2010a) both studied OCB within the contextf leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships and came to sim-lar conclusions as did Raub (2008). Likewise, Kim et al. (2010a)emonstrated the mediating role of envy in LMX relationships.

n addition to managerial relationships, Cho and Johanson (2008)emonstrated the impact of employee/organizational commitmentn OCB. Other studies considered OCB and/or commitment in anxogenous role. For example, Fisher et al. (2010) found that hotelnancial performance levels differed based on organizational levelsf commitment, job satisfaction, and OCB.

Research conducted at the individual level emphasizedmployee motivation and empowerment. Issues related to thelobal economic downturn (Cheng-Hua et al., 2009) and serviceelivery as a competitive advantage (Chiang and Jang, 2008; Wongnd Ko, 2009) raised several questions concerning the uniqueature of employment within the hospitality industry, particularlyotels. Although many of these studies continue to be problem-ased in terms of connecting employment practices with outcomeariables such as satisfaction and productivity, Chiang and Jang2008) undertook a unique endeavor to build a theory of motivationpecific to hotel employees. Using an expectancy theory of moti-


ation, they established a five-component theory explaining therocess of motivating hotel employees. We suggest future researchddress the issue of theory building for all areas of hospitality mar-eting, a topic to which we return in the conclusion.

ecitcarPecitcarP

Fig. 1. Structure of hospitality marketing research.

5.6.3. Emotional laborFinally, we turn to the emerging field of emotional labor. Com-

pared to previously discussed topics, this area represents one ofthe newest fields of inquiry within the hospitality literature (Kim,2008). The impacts of emotional labor, typically defined as “theeffort, planning, and control needed to express organizationallydesired emotion during interpersonal transactions” (Morris andFeldman, 1996), are particularly relevant to the hospitality indus-try where many individuals are paid to deliver “service with asmile” (e.g., Karatepe and Aleshinloye, 2009; Kim, 2008). As such,researchers are increasingly studying the effects of emotional laboron employee engagement and burnout. Until recently, these twoconstructs were perceived to be on opposite ends of a contin-uum. Recent research, however, suggests that the two may beconceptually distinct (Kim et al., 2009a) and supports the con-tention that these constructs are unique entities with distinctantecedents (e.g., DiPietro and Pizam, 2008 on employee alienationand burnout; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009 on job and personalresources and engagement; Shani and Pizam, 2009 on work-relateddepression and burnout). Future research should continue to probethe nature of these constructs and their nomological relationshipswith performance- and satisfaction-based constructs.

6. Conclusion

The emergent research trends reveal that a vast majority ofrecent hospitality marketing research is geared towards either thefunction of marketing or to its environment. Such findings vali-date the schema proposed by Oh et al. (2004) that includes as itsthree research foci marketing function, marketing environment,and marketing research. Based on the observation that these focirepresent the three streams of hospitality marketing research atthe macro-level, we propose an organizing framework that linkseach of these three foci to theory and practice. Fig. 1 represents thestructure of hospitality marketing research in a fractal-like illus-tration with theory proposed as an integrative component – fromtheory comes the empirical research that leads to practical appli-cation. In concluding our work, we discuss Fig. 1 in terms of (1) theabsence of marketing research and how this should be addressedand (2) the nature of the relationships proposed within the frame-work and why these relationships should be considered as the fieldof hospitality marketing moves forward.


6.1. Marketing research

The dearth of domain-specific hospitality marketing theory isboth evidence and cause of an increasing disconnect between

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ING ModelH

l of H

mkromdptmbcd

6

tiTmcecmai2efaai

6

tcoai2imTfUucjam

6

omba(bptpdc



arketing research and the overall framework of hospitality mar-eting research. We found, as did Oh et al. (2004), that marketingesearch was grossly underrepresented (>2%) compared to thether two foci. Because the topical makeup of this stream includesethodological and theory/philosophy of science research, such

isconnect is troubling. Although we are not advocating that hos-itality scholars attempt to drive the growth of new methodologies,here are methodological issues that are germane to all episte-

ologies, two of which come readily to mind. First is the goal ofuilding a body of knowledge about a domain, and the second isross-cultural applications of key measurement scales used in thatomain.

.1.1. Building knowledgeCategorizing and synthesizing extant research is the first step

owards integrating related research endeavors and allowing bod-es of research to be constructed (Runyan and Droge, 2008).he next step in constructing a body of knowledge is a formaleta-analysis, requiring a well-defined topic, numerous empiri-

al studies, and common constructs across studies. Our study is anxample of such a categorization, as are the syntheses that pre-eded. In Table 1, we identify several such topics that may warranteta-analysis. In order for research to be included in a meta-

nalysis, however, scholars must report the appropriate statisticalnformation (i.e., p, d, r, f, and/or t-statistics) (Runyan and Droge,008). Unfortunately, it is not uncommon that this information isxcluded from final publication drafts. Thus, as a corollary to our callor meta-analytic research in hospitality marketing, we addition-lly suggest that scholars be diligent in their statistical reportingnd that reviewers and editors insist that such information bencluded in published material.

.1.2. Cross-cultural applicationThe methodological goal of most domains has recently moved

owards the examination of the cross-cultural validity of scalesommonly used within the domain. For example, entrepreneurialrientation is a frequently utilized scale in the management liter-ture. Recently, it has been used in cross-cultural settings to testts predictive ability in non-Western settings (e.g., Marino et al.,002). Utilizing such scales cross-culturally is important, but ensur-

ng that the scales are cross-culturally valid is an equally importantethodology issue, often ignored in research (Runyan et al., 2010).

he proper method of establishing cross-cultural validity is to testor measurement invariance (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998).nfortunately, such tests are rarely enacted. Indeed, although pop-lar measurement scales of hospitality phenomena are employedross-culturally, invariance research is absent in top hospitalityournals. As such, we suggest that future studies address invari-nce as it relates to the cross-cultural employment of hospitalityarketing constructs.

.2. Theory building

Marketing has long been accused of a failure to develop itswn unique body of theoretical knowledge. Based on such indict-ents, Hutchinson (1952) argued that marketing is not a science,

ut rather a “practice” and that, by implication, marketing schol-rs are “practitioners” rather than true scientists. Similarly, Buzzell1963) suggested that marketing should not be considered a scienceecause it is not organized around a body of theories and princi-les. In the years since, scholars have refuted these claims arguing


hat the question for marketing is not whether such theories andrinciples currently exist but whether the conditions exist for theirevelopment (e.g., Hunt, 1991). We agree that such conditions areharacteristic of marketing phenomena, and that it is the role of


scholars to develop and establish theories unique to the field ofhospitality marketing.

In addition to general marketing theory, hospitality schol-ars also rely heavily on theories drawn from psychology and/oreconomics. We argue that each of the three research foci identi-fied above should stem not from only from tangential fields butalso from hospitality-specific marketing theories. By exploring theunique characteristics of the hospitality industry, hospitality schol-ars may be able to uncover theoretical frameworks particular to thisdomain. In order for hospitality marketing to be viewed in the cohe-sive manner presented in Fig. 1, hospitality scholars must ensurethat, as topical trends change and evolve over time, the subjectmatter is grounded (when possible) in domain-specific theoriesof phenomena under consideration. Because the hospitality indus-try is characterized by a number of unique attributes, we suggestthat, in addition to availing theories “borrowed” from marketing,psychology, sociology, etc., hospitality marketing scholars begin todevelop domain-specific theories as well.

Because many areas of hospitality marketing research are stillproblem-based in nature, it is in these areas that we most stronglyadvocate increased theory-building endeavors. As an example, wecite the literature from the marketing environment stream con-cerning tipping behavior: Tipping exists almost exclusively in thehospitality domain. More importantly, it is both contextually andculturally driven. Because the degree to which tipping is expectedvaries depending on aspects of service delivery and culture, a num-ber of questions emerge. For example, why do we tip someone whobrings our food to us while we are seated, but do not tip for the samefood delivered across a counter while we are standing? Tipping isthe norm in the U.S.A., but why is it not the same in other countries?Are there tipping differences within regions of the U.S.A.? Thatthese problems are still poorly understood may suggest tipping isa phenomenon in need of theoretical explanation.

The internal marketing literature would also benefit froman increased attention to domain-specific theory building. Asdiscussed, while empirical research on topics such as work engage-ment and job embeddedness has increased in recent years, muchof this research remains focused on the problem of turnover, ratherthan its theoretical nature. Although such research is valuable,we suggest future research should focus on the advancement ofa specific theory of hospitality employee embeddedness. Such anapproach would ensure that scholars do not emphasize the prob-lem of turnover to the point that an explication of the theoreticalnature of hospitality employee retention becomes secondary.

In addition to necessitating domain-specific theory, the uniqueconditions inherent in the hospitality industry present opportuni-ties for hospitality scholars to contribute to theory developmentin other disciplines. Using borrowed theory primarily to addressindustry-specific problems has the potential to stifle interdisci-plinary progress. As such, we also call for an increase in researchthat utilizes the distinctive circumstances inherent in the hospi-tality industry to contribute to theoretical advancement in thosebroader disciplines from which theory is so often “borrowed”. Wesuggest that hospitality research has the potential to make suchcontributions in a number of areas such as branding, e-marketing,service provision, and management to name only a few. An increasein such contributions by hospitality scholars would enhance theinterdisciplinary relationship between hospitality marketing andthe broader disciplines to which it is related.

Finally, we identify a need for an increase in qualitative method-ologies, especially for the purposes of construct development. Wesuggest that the dearth of qualitative study in hospitality research,


combined with the previously noted lack of longitudinal datacollection, has impeded the task of hospitality-specific theory con-struction. Theory flows from sound constructs (Summers, 2001)that serve as descriptors of observed phenomena, and qualitative

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ING ModelH

1 l of H

mpcgap(ttci

ttdaiiritfa

6

ttnnrottlcwphtrh

A

v

R

A

A

A

B

B

B

B


0 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journa

ethodology is most often called for when building theory. Exam-les of industries that have under-utilized qualitative research areruise lines and private clubs. Both are settings ripe for ethno-raphic study. For example, because passengers on cruise lines are

“captive audience” for a set but finite period of time, ethnogra-hers could conceivably observe consumers in multiple settingsbar, restaurant, gambling, exercising, etc.). To gain such accesso consumers in other settings would require multiple days, loca-ions, and travel by the researcher. On a cruise line, the researcherould observe behaviors in a single location, thus painting a moren-depth picture for the purposes of construct development.

These are but four examples of important methodological andheoretical issues/trends that are addressed extensively withinhe marketing and management domains but have been slow toevelop in the sub-domain of hospitality-specific research. Indeed,s discussed, much of the current hospitality marketing research isndebted to marketing, psychology, and economics for its theoret-cal and methodological frameworks. However, when hospitalityesearchers ignore domain-specific theoretical and methodologicalssues, they cede the direction of the field to scholars from outsidehe discipline. The development of unique frameworks is essentialor the field of hospitality marketing to move forward profession-lly.

.3. Future research

Our research synthesizes hospitality marketing research fromhe years 2008 to 2010 for the purposes of continuing the researchrend started by Crawford-Welch and McCleary (1992). Although aumber of issues have been addressed, several important issuesot within the scope of the present research warrant futureesearch attention. First, because our research focused specificallyn hospitality marketing, space considerations limited our abilityo compare the incidence of hospitality marketing topics rela-ive to other topics published in the selected journals. Thus, it iseft to future researchers to determine the extent to which topi-al emphasis has changed across previous syntheses. Moreover, aorthwhile addition to our research would be to analyze articlesublished in top-ranked services marketing journals that use theospitality industry as a research setting. In that way, rather thanaking an inward view, a broader perspective may be gained onesearch trends that are currently not adequately considered in theospitality-specific literature.

cknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Muzaffer Uysal for his help inalidating the research topic coding schematic.

eferences

lexander, M., Chen, C.C., MacLauren, A., O’Gorman, K.D., 2010. Love motels: ori-ental phenomenon or emergent sector? International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management 22 (2), 194–208.

nderson, C.K., Xie, X., 2009. Room-risk management at Sunquest Vacations. CornellHospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 314–324.

satryan, V.S., Oh, H., 2008. Psychological ownership theory: an exploratory appli-cation in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32(3), 363–386.

eldona, S., Kwansa, F., 2008. The impact of cultural orientation on perceived fairnessover demand-based pricing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27(4), 594–603.

erenguer, G., Gil, I., Ruiz, M.E., 2009. Do upscale restaurant owners use wine listsas a differentiation strategy? International Journal of Hospitality Management28 (1), 86–95.


owen, J., Sparks, B., 1998. Hospitality marketing research: a content analysis andimplications for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-ment 17 (2), 125–144.

uzzell, R.D., 1963. Is marketing a science? Harvard Business Review 41, 32–40,166–170.


Carvell, S.A., Quan, D.C., 2008. Exotic reservations—low-price guarantees. Interna-tional Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 162–169.

Chabowski, B.R., Mena, J.A., Gonzalez-Padron, T.L., 2010. The structure of sustainabil-ity research in marketing, 1958–2008: a basis for future research opportunities.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7(Online FirstTM).

Chen, P.-T., Hu, H.-H., 2009. How determinant attributes of service quality influencecustomer-perceived value: an empirical investigation of the Australian coffeeoutlet industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management22 (4), 535–551.

Cheng, S., Lam, T., 2008. The role of customer–seller relationship in the intentionof the customer to complain: a study of Chinese restaurateurs. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 27 (4), 552–562.

Cheng-Hua, T., Shyh-Jer, C., Shih-Chien, F., 2009. Employment modes, high-performance work practices, and organizational performance in the hospitalityindustry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (4), 413–431.

Chhabra, D., 2009. Are late life gamblers a lucrative market in gambling tourism?Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (2), 245–254.

Chi, C.G., Gursoy, D., 2009. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and finan-cial performance: an empirical examination. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 28 (2), 245–253.

Chiang, C.-F., Jang, S., 2008. An expectancy theory model for employee motivation.International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 313–322.

Chiang, F.F.T., Birtch, T.A., Kwan, H.K., 2010. The moderating roles of job control andwork life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry.International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1), 25–32.

Cho, S., Johanson, M.M., 2008. Organizational citizenship behavior and employeeperformance: a moderating effect of work status in restaurant employees. Jour-nal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32 (3), 307–326.

Clark, D.A., Hartline, M.D., Jones, K.C., 2009. The effects of leadership style on hotelemployees’ commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (2),209–231.

Crawford-Welch, S., McCleary, K.W., 1992. An identification of the subject areasand research techniques used in five hospitality-related journals. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 11 (2), 155–167.

Cross, R.G., Higbie, J.A., Cross, D.Q., 2009. Revenue management’s renaissance: arebirth of the art and science of profitable revenue generation. Cornell Hospi-tality Quarterly 50 (1), 56–81.

DeKay, F., Toh, R.S., Raven, P., 2009. Loyalty programs: airlines outdo hotels. CornellHospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 371–382.

DiPietro, R.B., Pizam, A., 2008. Employee alienation in the quick service restaurantindustry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32 (1), 22–39.

Eisendrath, D., Bernhard, B.J., Lucas, A.F., Murphy, D.J., 2008. Fear and managing inLas Vegas: an analysis of the effects of September 11, 2001, on Las Vegas Stripgaming volume. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (2), 145–162.

Enz, C.A., Canina, L., Lomanno, M., 2009. Competitive pricing decisions in uncertaintimes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 325–341.

Fisher, R., McPhail, R., Menghetti, G., 2010. Linking employee attitudes and behav-iors with business performance: a comparative analysis of hotels in Mexicoand China. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3), 397–404.

Gazzoli, G., Hancer, M., Park, Y., 2010. The role and effect of job satisfaction andempowerment on customers’ perception of service quality: a study in the restau-rant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 43 (1), 56–77.

George, W., 1990. Internal marketing and organizational behavior: a partnership indeveloping customer-conscious employees at every level. Journal of BusinessResearch 20 (1), 63–70.

Gil, I., Berenguer, G., Ruiz, M.E., 2009. Wine list engineering: categorization of foodand beverage outlets. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Man-agement 21 (1), 60–84.

Gu, H., Ryan, C., 2008. Chinese clientele at Chinese hotels—preferences and satisfac-tion. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (3), 337–345.

Guillet, B.D., Tasci, A.D.A., 2010. Travelers’ takes on hotel-restaurant co-branding:insights for China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2),143–163.

Han, H., Back, K.-J., Barrett, B., 2009. Influencing factors on restaurant customers’revisit intention: the roles of emotions and switching barriers. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 563–572.

Han, H., Ryu, K., 2009. The roles of the physical environment, price perception, andcustomer satisfaction in determining loyalty in the restaurant industry. Journalof Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (4), 487–510.

Hanai, T., Oguchi, T., Ando, K., Yamaguchi, K., 2008. Important attributes of lodgingsto gain repeat business: a comparison between individual travels and grouptravels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 268–275.

Hanson, B., Mattila, A.S., O’Neill, J.W., Kim, Y., 2009. Hotel rebranding and rescaling:effects on financial performance. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3), 360–370.

Hashim, N.H., Murphy, J., Purchase, S., O’Connor, P., 2010. Website and e-mail adop-tion by Malaysian hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29(1), 194–196.

Heide, M., Gronhaug, K., 2009. Key factors in guests’ perception of hotel atmosphere.Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (1), 29–43.


Hendler, F., LaTour, K.A., 2008. A qualitative analysis of slot clubs as drivers of casinoloyalty. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (2), 105–121.

Heo, C.Y., Lee, S., 2009. Application of revenue management practices to thetheme park industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3),446–453.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ING ModelH

l of H

H

H

H

H

H

H

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

L

L

L

L

L

L



u, H.-H., Huang, C.-T., Chen, P.-T., 2010. Do reward programs truly build loyaltyfor lodging industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1),128–135.

uh, H.J., Kim, T., Law, R., 2009. A comparison of competing theoretical models forunderstanding acceptance behavior of information systems in upscale hotels.International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (1), 121–134.

ung, W.-T., Shang, J.-K., Wang, F.-C., 2010. Pricing determinants in the hotelindustry: quantile regression analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement 29 (3), 378–384.

unt, S.D., 1991. Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy ofMarketing Science. South-Western, Cincinatti, OH.

utchinson, K.D., 1952. Marketing as science: an appraisal. Journal of Marketing 16,286–293.

yun, S.S., 2009. Creating a model of customer equity for chain restaurantbrand formation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4),529–539.

andasamy, I., Ancheri, S., 2009. Hotel employees’ expectations of QWL: a qual-itative study. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3), 328–337.

ang, K.H., Lee, S., Huh, C., 2010. Impacts of positive and negative corporate socialresponsibility activities on company performance in the hospitality industry.International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (1), 72–82.

ano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S., 1984. Attractive quality and must-bequality. Journal of Japanese Society for Quality Control 14 (2), 39–48.

aratepe, O.M., Aleshinloye, K.D., 2009. Emotional dissonance and emotionalexhaustion among hotel employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Hospi-tality Management 28 (3), 349–358.

aratepe, O.M., Bekteshi, L., 2008. Antecedents and outcomes of work-familyfacilitation and family-work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. Inter-national Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (4), 517–528.

aratepe, O.M., Olugbade, O.A., 2009. The effects of job and personal resources onhotel employees’ work engagement. International Journal of Hospitality Man-agement 28 (4), 504–512.

aratepe, O.M., Uludag, O., 2008. Affectivity, conflicts in the work-family interface,and hotel employee outcomes. International Journal of Hospitality Management27 (1), 30–41.

im, H.J., 2008. Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: the antecedents and effectsof burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 151–161.

im, H.J., Shin, K.H., Swanger, N., 2009a. Burnout and engagement: a compara-tive analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journalof Hospitality Management 28 (1), 96–104.

im, P.B., Murrmann, S.K., Lee, G., 2009b. Moderating effects of gender and organi-zational level between role stress and job satisfaction among hotel employees.International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 612–619.

im, S., O’Neill, J.W., Cho, H.-M., 2010a. When does an employee not help coworkers?The effect of leader-member exchange on employee envy and organizationalcitizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3),530–537.

im, W., Ok, C., 2010. Customer orientation of service employees and rapport:influences on service-outcome variables in full-service restaurants. Journal ofHospitality & Tourism Research 34 (1), 34–55.

im, W., Ok, C., Lee, M.J., 2009c. Antecedents of service employees’ organizationalcitizenship behaviors in full-service restaurants in Korea. Cornell HospitalityQuarterly 50 (2), 180–197.

im, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brandequity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research 32 (2), 235–254.

im, W.G., Ng, C.Y.N., Kim, Y.-S., 2009d. Influence of institutional DINESERV on cus-tomer satisfaction, return intention, and word-of-mouth. International Journalof Hospitality Management 28 (1), 10–17.

im, Y.G., Suh, B.W., Eves, A., 2010b. The relationships between food-related per-sonality traits, satisfaction, and loyalty among visitors attending food eventsand festivals. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (2), 216–226.

imes, S.E., Singh, S., 2008. Spa revenue management. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly50 (1), 82–95.

ing, C., 2010. “One size doesn’t fit all”: tourism and hospitality employees’ responseto internal brand management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-tality Management 22 (4), 517–534.

adhari, R., Brun, I., Morales, M., 2008. Determinants of dining satisfaction and post-dining behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management27 (4), 563–573.

ee, S., Heo, C.Y., 2009. Corporate social responsibility and customer satisfactionamong US publicly traded hotels and restaurants. International Journal of Hos-pitality Management 28 (4), 635–637.

ee, S., Park, S.-Y., 2009. Do socially responsible activities help hotels and casinosachieve their financial goals? International Journal of Hospitality Management28 (1), 105–112.

ee, S., Park, S.-Y., 2010. Financial impacts of socially responsible activities on airlinecompanies. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 185–203.

im, W.M., 2009. Alternate models framing UK independent hoteliers’ adoption of


technology. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21(5), 610–618.

im, W.M., Endean, M., 2009. Elucidating the aesthetic and operational character-istics of UK boutique hotels. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement 21 (1), 38–51.


Liu, Y., Jang, S., 2009. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the U.S.: what affectscustomer satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hos-pitality Management 28 (3), 338–348.

Lo, A.S., Stalcup, L.D., Lee, A., 2010. Customer relationship management for hotels inHong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22(2), 139–159.

Loi, K.-I., Kim, W.G., 2010. Macao’s casino industry: reinventing Las Vegas in Asia.Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (2), 268–283.

Lynn, M., 2009. Individual differences in self-attributed motives for tipping:antecedents, consequences, and implications. International Journal of Hospi-tality Management 28 (3), 432–438.

Lynn, M., McCall, M., 2009. Techniques for increasing servers’ tips: how generalizableare they? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (2), 198–208.

Lynn, M., Sturman, M., 2010. Tipping and service quality: a within-subjects analysis.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 269–275.

Marino, L., Strandholm, K., Steensma, H.K., Weaver, K.M., 2002. The moderating effectof national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation andstrategic alliance portfolio effectiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 26(4), 145–161.

Mattila, A.S., Ro, H., 2008. Discrete negative emotions and customer dissatisfac-tion responses in a casual restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality & TourismResearch 32 (1), 89–107.

Mayward, L.J., Mupandawana, M., 2009. Tipping behavior in Canadian restaurants.International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 597–603.

McCall, M., Lynn, A., 2009. Restaurant servers’ perceptions of customer tipping inten-tions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (4), 594–596.

McCall, M., Voorhies, C., 2010. The drivers of loyalty program success: an organizingframework and research agenda. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51 (1), 35–52.

McKercher, B., Law, R., Lam, T., 2006. Rating tourism and hospitality journals.Tourism Management 27 (6), 1235–1252.

Mills, J.E., Han, J.-H., Clay, J.M., 2008. Accessibility of hospitality and tourism web-sites. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49 (1), 28–41.

Morosan, C., Jeong, M., 2008. Users perceptions of two types of hotel reserva-tion Web sites. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 284–292.

Morris, J.A., Feldman, D.C., 1996. The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences ofemotional labor. Academy of Management Review 21 (4), 986–1010.

Murphy, H.C., Kielgast, C.D., 2008. Do small and medium-sized hotels exploit searchengine marketing? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-ment 20 (1), 90–97.

Murphy, H.C., Rottet, D., 2009. An exploration of the key hotel processes impli-cated in biometric adoption. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement 21 (2), 201–212.

Namkung, Y., Jang, S., 2008. Are highly satisfied restaurant customers really differ-ent? A quality perception perspective. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management 20 (2), 142–155.

Nash, J.F., 1975. A note on cost-volume-profit analysis and price elasticity. TheAccounting Review 50 (2), 384–386.

Nasution, H.N., Mavondo, F.T., 2008. Customer value in the hotel industry: whatmanagers believe they deliver and what customer experience. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 204–213.

Nisbet, S., 2009. The role of employees in encouraging customer adoption of newgaming machine payment technologies. International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management 21 (4), 422–436.

Noone, B.M., Mattila, A.S., 2009. Hotel revenue management and the Internet: theeffect of price presentation strategies on customers’ willingness to book. Inter-national Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2), 272–279.

Oh, H., Kim, B.-Y., Shin, J.-H., 2004. Hospitality and tourism marketing: recent devel-opments in research and future directions. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 23 (5), 425–447.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common methodbiases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.

Raub, S., 2008. Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structureon organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 179–186.

Roh, E.Y., Choi, K., 2010. Efficiency comparison of multiple brands within the samefranchise: data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Hospi-tality Management 29 (1), 92–98.

Rong, J., Li, G., Law, R., 2009. A contrast analysis of online hotel web service pur-chasers and browsers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (3),466–478.

Runyan, R.C., Ge, B., Dong, B., Swinney, J.L., 2010. Entrepreneurial orienta-tion in cross-cultural research: assessing measurement invariance in theconstruct. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (January), doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00436.x.

Runyan, R.C., Droge, C., 2008. Small store research streams: what does it portend forthe future? Journal of Retailing 84 (1), 77–94.

Ryu, K., Han, H., Jang, S., 2010. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant indus-try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (3),


416–432.Ryu, K., Han, H., Kim, T.-H., 2008. The relationships among overall quick-casual

restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioralintentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2 (3), 459–469.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ING ModelH

1 l of H

S

S

S

S

S

T

T

T

V

V

V


2 N.D. Line, R.C. Runyan / International Journa

evert, K.S., Palakurthi, R., 2008. Applying customer equity to the convention indus-try. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (6),631–646.

hani, A., Pizam, A., 2009. Work-related depression among hotel employees. CornellHospitality Quarterly 50 (4), 446–459.

teenkamp, J-B.E.M., Baumgartner, H., 1998. Assessing measurement invariance incross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25, 78–90.

tevens, P., Knutson, B., 1995. DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality inrestaurants. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36 (6), 56–61.

ummers, J.O., 2001. Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in market-ing: from conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science 29 (4), 405–415.

an, A.Y.F., Lo, A.S.Y., 2008. A benefit based approach to market segmentation: acase study of an American specialty coffeehouse chain in Hong Kong. Journal ofHospitality & Tourism Research 32 (3), 342–362.

ang, C.-H., Jang, S., 2010. Does international diversification discount exist in thehotel industry? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 34 (2), 225–246.

hompson, G.M., 2009. (Mythical) revenue benefits of reducing dining duration.Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (1), 96–112.

an der Rest, J-P.I., Harris, P.J., 2008. Optimal imperfect pricing decision-making:modifying and applying Nash’s rule in a service sector context. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 27 (2), 170–178.

assilikopoulou, A., Siomkos, G., Chatzipanagioutou, K., Triantafillidou, A., 2009.


Hotels on fire: investigating consumers’ responses and perceptions. Interna-tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21 (7), 791–815.

ictorino, L., Karniouchina, E., Verma, R., 2009. Exploring the use of the technologyreadiness index for customer segmentation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (3),342–359.


Wagner, T., Lutz, R.J., Weitz, B.A., 2009. Corporate hypocrisy: overcoming the threatof inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing73 (6), 77–91.

Weber, K., Sparks, B., 2009. The effect of preconsumption mood and service recoverymeasures on customer evaluations and behavior in a strategic alliance setting.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 33 (1), 106–125.

Wen, I., 2009. Factors affecting the online travel buying decision: a review. Interna-tional Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (6), 752–765.

Werner, S., 2002. Recent developments in international management: a reviewof 20 top management journals. Journal of Management 28 (3), 277–305.

Wong, S.C-K., Ko, A., 2009. Exploratory study of understanding hotel employees’perception on work–life balance issues. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 28 (2), 195–203.

Xu, J.B., Chan, A., 2010. A conceptual framework of hotel experience and customerbased brand equity: some research questions and implications. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22 (2), 174–193.

Yang, C.-C., Cheng, L.-Y., Sung, D., Withiam, G., 2009. Strategic-pricing policybased on analysis of service attributes. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 50 (4),498–509.

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.

Yoon, Y.-S., Lee, J.-S., Lee, C.-K., 2010. Measuring festival quality and value affect-


ing visitors’ satisfaction and loyalty using a structural approach. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 29 (2), 335–342.

Young, C.A., Corsun, D.L., 2009. What a nuisance: controlling for negative affec-tivity versus personality in hospitality stress research. International Journal ofHospitality Management 28 (2), 280–288.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model Hospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future directions

Documents

Transcript of ARTICLE IN PRESS G Model Hospitality marketing research: Recent trends and future directions