Determinants of hotel guests’

satisfaction from the perspective of

online hotel reviewers
Zaid Alrawadieh and Rob Law

Zaid Alrawadieh is based at Abstract

Istanbul University Purpose – With the proliferation of Web 2.0 and the travel-related user-generated content platforms,
Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, researchers can obtain abundant unsolicited data to examine guests’ perceptions, preferences and
Turkey. Rob Law is based behaviors. Drawing on online reviews, this study aims to identify the key factors that determine guest
at Hong Kong Polytechnic satisfaction in lodging businesses.
University, Kowloon, Design/methodology/approach – A total of 400 English-language reviews posted about the best-
rated hotels in Istanbul, Turkey, according to TripAdvisor’s ranking system, were selected and
Hong Kong.
content-analyzed. A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive content analysis was adopted in
this study.
Findings – The findings suggested that the quality and size of rooms, along with the service quality from
staff, mainly determine guest satisfaction. The findings also reveal that relatively young European male
travelers who stay in couple and with family are more likely to share their accommodation experiences in
cyberspace.
Originality/value – The study adds to the literature on the determinants of guest satisfaction by
examining online reviews. Unlike research using conventional research methods, the present study
contributes to the existing literature of guest satisfaction in the hotel industry by harnessing the power of
the word of mouse.
Keywords Hotel industry, TripAdvisor, Electronic word of mouth, Guest satisfaction,
Online hotel reviews
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Increased reliance on technology information throughout the decision-making and purchasing
processes posed numerous challenges and opportunities for marketers in the tourism and
hospitality industry (Buhalis and Law, 2008). In particular, the emergence of user-generated
content (UGC) websites allowed consumers to obtain and share information about products
and services with peers who can provide first-hand feedback with either positive or negative
reviews. The reliance level on online information shared by peer customers is arguably greater
when purchasing tourism and hospitality services mainly because of the intangible nature of
these services (Litvin et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2018a, 2018b).
Tourism and hospitality services are among the most expensive services, which implies
certain levels of risk and uncertainty during the travel-related decision-making process
Received 15 August 2018
Revised 1 November 2018 (Chung and Buhalis, 2008). Customers tend to examine online reviews about services they
4 December 2018 may purchase to reduce uncertainty and risk (Kim et al., 2011). The informal communication
Accepted 18 December 2018
between customers about products, services or their providers that occur online is called
The authors would like to thank
Gonul Akin for her assistance in
electronic word of mouth or simply, word of mouse (Litvin et al., 2008). The interpersonal
the data analysis. effect of word of mouse seems to be increasingly influential with the proliferation of online

PAGE 84 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019, pp. 84-97, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2018-0104
platforms where travelers can share and exchange their experiences with tourism services.
A prominent example is TripAdvisor, one of the most popular UGC platforms that currently
hosts 465 million reviews and is visited by an average of 390 million unique users monthly
(TripAdvisor, 2017). With the exponential proliferation of these platforms within the tourism
and hospitality, word of mouse has become a highly influential element of modern
marketing strategy (Litvin et al., 2018).
The influence of online travel reviews seems to be greater for the hotel industry. Online
reviews are consulted mostly for informed accommodation decisions (Gretzel and Yoo,
2008). Empirical evidence supports the positive relationship between the online reputation
and financial performance of hotels, that is, hotels with higher ratings receive more

üt and Tas
reservations and gain more profits (Ye et al., 2011; Ög , 2012; Kim et al., 2015;
Cezar and Ögüt, 2016). Therefore, hotel managers and marketers are recently challenged
by new game rules, wherein access to information has placed greater power in the hands of
customers. By contrast, online reviews constitute an important learning tool that can help
service providers understand their problems and identify areas of improvement (Li et al.,
2013; Melián-González et al., 2013).
With the increasing competition in the current lodging industry, hotels are required to attach
greater importance to guest satisfaction as an essential asset to foster loyalty and generate
positive word of mouth (Cetin and Dincer, 2014). Constantly monitoring and examining
customers’ word of mouse about their accommodation experiences and understanding
their perceptions, behaviors and demands are therefore necessary. With these thoughts in
mind, this study aims to identify the determinants of guest satisfaction by examining the
nature of online reviews shared about hotels in Istanbul, Turkey. The study’s main
contribution lies in its attempt to add to the growing literature on the determinants of guest
satisfaction by examining online reviews. Compared with conventional research methods,
this study draws upon travel-related UGC to identify the determinants of guest satisfaction
in hotels in Istanbul, a world’s top urban destination.

2. Literature review
2.1 Word of mouse in tourism and hospitality
The exponential progress of information technology over the past decades radically
changed travel-related information search and exchange processes. The internet revolution
and the emergence of the second generation of the internet, widely known as Web 2.0, in
the 2000s altered the landscape of the hospitality and tourism industry (Law et al., 2014).
One of the salient aspects of this process is the growing power of the word of mouse in
influencing customers’ purchase decisions (Ruiz-Mafe et al., 2018).
Although traditional word-of-mouth communications usually occur between consumers who
enjoy strong social ties such as friends and families, consumers can seek information about
products and services from peer consumers with whom they might have no social ties at all,
with the emergence of new internet applications (Ring et al., 2016). Therefore, the social
network that online information seekers depend on is virtually unlimited (Hart and
Blackshaw, 2006). Consumers usually share reviews online without commercial interests;
therefore, word of mouse from anonymous consumers enjoys a credibility similar to that of
word of mouth from friends or family (Sparks and Browning, 2010). Moreover, compared
with information gained from commercial parties, information obtained directly from
customers is perceived to be more reliable and more influential on the purchasing decision-
making process (Gretzel and Yoo, 2008; Fotis et al., 2012).
Tourism and hospitality services are characterized by intangibility, perishability, high
competitiveness and perceived high-risk purchase decisions. These factors elevate the
importance of online interpersonal influence (Litvin et al., 2008). Marketers who recognize
the importance of positive word of mouse are now using techniques to encourage

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 85
 customers to talk about their products or services to create awareness and demand (Litvin
et al., 2008). Customer online reviews also provide valuable feedback for tourism
businesses; therefore, they are useful sources of information for service recovery and
development (Briggs et al., 2007; Melián-González et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2016). Positive
reviews may attract new customers and help retain and enhance the loyalty of current
customers, whereas negative reviews can potentially harm business reputation and reduce
opportunities to acquire new customers (Papathanassis and Knolle, 2011). However, online
travel reviews, both positive and negative, can increase consumer awareness of tourism
businesses (Vermeulen and Seegers, 2009). Therefore, travel-related UGC websites are
arguably a source of major threats but an important avenue of opportunity if well monitored
and managed (Briggs et al., 2007).
Hotel managers and marketers are becoming aware of the powerful influence of online
reviews on hotels’ financial performance. This awareness is a consequence of the wide
agreement on the significant relationship between online consumer reviews and business
performance of hotels. For example, Ye et al. (2011) found that a 10 per cent increase in
customer review ratings can increase online bookings by more than five per cent. Similarly,

üt and Tas
Ög  (2012) argued that a mere 1 per cent improvement in customer review ratings
can increase room sales by more than 2.5 per cent. Although the prevalent understanding
is that hotel guests’ feedback is important for hotel management, today’s rapid pace of life
and growing reliance on technology decreased face-to-face interaction between guests
and hotel employees. Hotel guests increasingly rely on cyberspace as a more convenient
way to express themselves. This situation elevated the importance of UGC in understanding
hotel guests’ satisfaction.

2.2 Hotel guests’ satisfaction

Guest satisfaction is argued to be the ultimate goal of every hotel business (Torres et al.,
2014). According to Xiang, et al. (2015, p. 122), guest satisfaction is “the guest’s evaluation
of his/her experience through interaction with various service areas.” In today’s competitive
environment, guests have better access to information and have much more choices than
before, and thus, they have become more demanding (Sujithamrak and Lam, 2005).
Additionally, the hotel industry offers homogenous services, engendering a more
competitive environment (Xiang et al., 2015). Hotel managers who strive to obtain high
levels of guest satisfaction are increasingly challenged because of the complex nature of
guest satisfaction and the intense competition in the accommodation sector.
Understanding the determinants and antecedents of guest satisfaction has been an
attractive area of research in the hospitality and tourism domain. The literature on the
determinants of hotel guest satisfaction has been extensive. Most previous studies have
used structural methods to identify the factors that lead to guests’ (dis)satisfaction
(Gundersen et al., 1996; Choia and Chub, 2001; Choi and Chu, 2001; Skogland and
Siguaw, 2004; Knutson et al., 2009; Mohsin and Lockye, 2010; Yang et al., 2011). For
example, Choi and Chu (2001) examined the factors determining hotel guests’ satisfaction
in the Hong Kong hotel industry; they identified that staff service quality, room quality and
value for money as the three most influential factors. Gundersen et al. (1996) found that
guests’ overall satisfaction is considerably influenced by the tangible aspects of the
housekeeping and the intangible aspects of the reception departments, respectively.
With the emergence and proliferation of Web 2.0 and travel-related UGC platforms,
researchers can obtain abundant unsolicited data to examine guests’ perceptions,
behaviors and demands. Online travel reviews shared on UGC websites are probably the
most common type of this unsolicited data. As noted by Zhou et al. (2014), online travel
reviews provide large, inexpensive and unbiased data to understand guest satisfaction. As
shown in Table I, several studies have attempted to determine the factors that tend to
contribute to guest (dis)satisfaction, using data available on UGC platforms. For example, Li

PAGE 86 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019
 Table I Summary of the key determinants of guest satisfaction identified in
previous studies
Author(s)/year of publication Key themes

Cherapanukorn and Charoenkwan (2017) Staff members

Hotel facilities (especially swimming pool)
Quality of room
Breakfast
Calheiros et al. (2017) Location
Quality of amenities
Romantic surroundings
Characteristics of the place
Berezina et al. (2016) Place of business
Room
Staff
Sports
Furnishing
Xu and Li (2016) Location
Staffperformance
Room quality
Kim et al. (2016) Location
Staff
Room size
Breakfast
Bed
Neighborhood
Radojevic et al. (2015) Amenities (especially air-conditioning, free
Wi-Fi and hotel bar)
Membership in a branded hotel chain
Price
Zhou et al. (2014) Room facilities
General hotel facilities
Food quality
Price
Location
Staff
Khoo-Lattimore and Ekiz (2014) Rooms
Staff
Food
Services
Location
Barreda and Bilgihan (2013) Location
Quality of service from staff
Li et al. (2013) Room
Convenience of transportation
Proximity to tourist destinations
Value for money

et al. (2013) used text mining and content analysis on online reviews posted about hotels in
a Chinese city. The findings suggested the room, convenience of transportation, proximity
to tourist destinations and value for money as the main attributes affecting guest
satisfaction. Similarly, in their recent study, Kim et al. (2016) used online reviews to identify
hotel guests’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors in both full- and limited-service hotels.
Their findings identified several key factors determining guest satisfaction including
location, staff and room. The study concluded that the staff and their attitude were highly
ranked among both satisfaction and dissatisfaction factors within full- and limited-service
hotels. Xu and Li (2016) noted that the determinants of guest satisfaction and dissatisfaction
differed for each hotel type. They concluded that the determinants of guest satisfaction
were more general (e.g. core services), whereas those of guest dissatisfaction were more
specific (e.g. behavior issues).

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 87
 As noted by Briggs et al. (2007), the exponential growth in UGC websites such as
TripAdvisor increased the pressure on hotel management, thereby creating a more
competitive environment where satisfying guests may be insufficient and delighting them is
increasingly becoming more important. Therefore, the use of unsolicited data such as online
reviews in understanding and monitoring guest satisfaction has become important in the
current hospitality industry.

3. Methodology
This study primarily aims to identify the influential factors that determine guest satisfaction in
hotels by examining online reviews. As noted by some scholars (Li et al., 2013), online
reviews can help explore aspects of guest satisfaction uncaptured by traditional research
methods. For the purposes of this study, the 40 most recent reviews posted about each of
the ten best-rated hotels in Istanbul, according to TripAdvisor’s ranking system (as per
February 1, 2015), were selected. A total of 400 English-language reviews were chosen and
examined using content analysis. Considering the recency effect, which implies that
potential hotel guests are more likely to read and consider recent reviews than earlier
reviews (Buda and Zhang, 2000), recency was chosen as a criterion in selecting the
reviews for the current study. In addition, hotel guest behavior and accommodation sectors
are dynamic; therefore, relying on fresh and recent data helps obtain accurate insights into
the determinants of guest satisfaction. The star rating of a given hotel is regarded as the
most reliable predictor of guest experience (Radojevic et al., 2015). The rationale for
selecting only the best-rated hotels is that these hotels have apparently achieved high
levels of guest satisfaction; therefore, the reviews posted for these hotels tend to provide
insightful information into the determinants of guest satisfaction.
The research context of the current study is Istanbul, a top international destination that has
hosted an average of more than 10.5 million tourists over the past five years. In addition to
its cultural, historical and artistic patrimony, Istanbul is appreciated for its developed tourist
infrastructure (Alrawadieh et al., 2018). TripAdvisor was chosen in this study because it is
the most popular online travel review website (Briggs et al., 2007; Xiang and Gretzel, 2010)
and because the reviews posted on this platform are considerably reliable (O’Connor, 2008;
Chua and Banerjee, 2013) and of a high quality (Xiang et al., 2017). Moreover, the ranking
system supported by TripAdvisor helps identify which hotels seem to have achieved high
guest-satisfaction levels.
In this paper, online reviews about hotels were examined using content-analysis technique.
Content analysis is “a technique for gathering and analyzing the content of text. The content
refers to words, meanings, pictures, symbols, ideas, themes, or any message that can be
communicated” (Neuman, 2003, p. 219). This technique is proven effective in research
addressing word of mouse in tourism and hospitality (O’Connor, 2010; Ekiz et al., 2012;
Khoo-Lattimore and Ekiz, 2014; Alrawadieh and Dincer, 2018). The findings obtained
through content analysis can be presented in qualitative or quantitative forms (Berg, 2001).
In this study, the results are presented in both forms through descriptive analysis and
authentic citation from the original reviews to enhance understanding of the data.
Unlike similar studies (Li et al., 2013; Barreda and Bilgihan, 2013; Berezina et al., 2016), the
coding process in the current study was conducted manually given the relatively small number
of reviews included. By contrast, examining data manually is more effective than computer
software in extracting meaningful insights from complex textual contents (Krippendorff, 2004)
and understanding hidden meanings (Au et al., 2014). A hybrid approach of theory-driven and
inductive content analysis was adopted in this study. First, an extensive literature review was
conducted to identify the determinants of hotel guest satisfaction as reflected in online reviews
(Barreda and Bilgihan, 2013; Khoo-Lattimore and Ekiz, 2014; Li et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2014;
Berezina et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016; Calheiros et al., 2017; Kizilirmak et al., 2015). After this
stage, coders became familiar with the dimensions identified in the literature, main themes

PAGE 88 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019
were identified and categories were developed in light of previous literature (deductive) and
analyzed data (inductive). This method helped coders address data with more flexibility
without ignoring the body of literature.
As recommended by several researchers (Neuman, 2003), reviews were coded
independently by two coders (the first author and an external coder), and inferences were
discussed to reach a consensus on the primary common themes. When the coders
disagreed, the areas of disagreement were re-examined until a consensus was achieved.
Following this process, the identified common themes were compared and combined. For
instance, staff attitude and staff performance were initially identified as two different themes
under service quality. However, these two themes were later combined as “staff’s attitude
and performance.” The content analysis of 400 online travel reviews produced 1,664
positive and 236 negative elements, grouped under four main constructs, namely, rooms,
service quality, hotel characteristics, and food and beverage.
Reviewers’ demographic and tripographic characteristics were also extracted and
analyzed. In some cases, when the reviewer’s profile information was totally or partially
undisclosed, an attempt was made to gain insight into the reviewer’s identity through their
profile photo or the review text.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1 Reviewers’ demographic characteristics
As shown in Table II, slightly more than half of the reviewers did not specify their age group,
and about one-fifth did not identify their gender. Of the reviewers, 15 per cent did not
identify their countries and 21 per cent did not disclose whom they traveled with. The
demographic profile of the reviewers suggests that relatively young European male
travelers who stay in couple and with family are more likely to share their accommodation
experiences in cyberspace. Generally, this result seems to support findings reported in

Table II Descriptive profile of reviewers

Variable Frequency (%)

Gender (n = 315; missing values = 85)

Male 185 58.7
Female 130 41.3
Age (n = 186; missing values = 214)
18-24 2 1.1
25-34 47 25.3
35-49 87 46.8
50-64 46 24.6
65þ 4 2.2
Country of origin (n = 340; missing values = 60)
Europe 124 36.5
North America 98 28.8
Middle East 79 23.2
Oceania 20 5.9
Asia 16 4.7
Africa 3 0.9
Travel party (n = 316; missing values = 84)
Couple 130 41.1
Family 76 24.1
Business 68 21.5
Friends 32 10.1
Solo 10 3.2

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 89
 previous research (Wenger, 2008; Bronner and Hoog, 2011; Dinçer and Alrawadieh, 2017;
Au et al., 2014).
On average, each reviewer was found to have shared 43.5 reviews, of which 17 were about
hotels. Thus, we could assume that these reviews were written by experienced travelers
who are active followers of UGC travel websites such as TripAdvisor (Park and Nicolau,
2015). Although these relatively high figures could also indicate a high level of reliability of
the reviews (Filieri, 2016), a total of 62 reviews in this study were found to be shared by
single-review writers; about one-quarter of these reviews mentioned the names of certain
hotel employees. These kinds of reviews can be construed as fake reviews shared by hotel
employees themselves to attract their managers’ attention and to maximize their chances of
being promoted.

4.2 Determinants of guest satisfaction

When posting a review on TripAdvisor, reviewers are required to rate their overall
satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1: terrible to 5: excellent). As the
reviews in this study were drawn from the best-rated hotels in Istanbul according to
TripAdvisor’s ranking system, the mean overall satisfaction was quite high (4.64). As
illustrated in Figure I, an overwhelming majority (approximately 78 per cent) of reviewers
reported excellent or very good experience during their stay.
Table III shows that the extracted elements were grouped under four main constructs. The
findings indicated room as the top category mentioned by satisfied hotel guests, followed
by service quality, hotel’s characteristics and food and beverage. The room quality in terms
of its size, furniture, amenities, location, bathroom, cleanliness and design was found to be
the most mentioned issue by reviewers. An American reviewer mentioned: “very tasteful,
spacious rooms; comfortable beds; all sorts of very special amenities” (R56). The room is the
core service of hotel businesses. Previous research identifies the quality of room as an
influential factor in guest satisfaction (Radojevic et al., 2017; Ekiz et al., 2012; Ren et al.,
2015; Xu and Li, 2016).
Service quality was the second top frequently mentioned dimension, indicating that hotel
guests are more likely to disseminate positive online reviews when they receive high service
quality. This finding confirms the results of several previous studies (Liu et al., 2017;
Dinçer and Alrawadieh, 2017; Khoo-Lattimore and Ekiz, 2014). Our findings suggest that
the theme labeled as staff’s attitudes and performance was the top mentioned theme within
the dimension of service quality. For instance, an English guest commented that the

Figure 1 Reviewers’ overall satisfaction

313

60
7 13 7
Terrible Poor Average Very good Excellent
Notes: Mean = 4.64; SD = 0.81

PAGE 90 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019
 Table III Dimensions of hotel guest satisfaction
Category Positive Negative

Rooms 498 (29.9%) 45 (19.1%)

Size 122 11
Overall attitude 103 3
Bathroom 71 13
Location (e.g. room’s view) 70 3
Quality of furniture and in-room amenities 65 9
Cleanness 36 3
Design and décor 31 3
Service quality 485 (29.1%) 66 (28%)
Staff’s attitude and performance 258 28
Perceived service quality 170 22
Free of charge services, amenities, and upgrading 49 16
Satisfaction with handling service failure 8 0
Hotel’s characteristics 432 (26%) 97 (41.1%)
Location 214 31
Facilities and outlets (swimming pools and bars) 90 36
Overall attitude 84 2
Design and décor 32 2
Prices 12 20
Crowdedness and noisiness 0 6
Food and beverage 249 (15%) 28 (11.8%)
Quality and taste of food and beverage 168 11
Atmosphere in restaurants and bars 46 7
Variety of food and beverage 35 10
Total 1664 236

“service was very good, friendly warm and helpful [. . .]” (R27). Extensive empirical evidence
also underscores the influential role of hotel employees in achieving guest satisfaction and
guest loyalty (Xu and Li, 2016; Skogland and Siguaw, 2004; Chi and Gursoy, 2009). The role
of the hotel staff is influential in driving guest satisfaction because the interaction between
hotel employees and guests is particularly high in the hospitality industry (Kassinis and
Soteriou, 2003). In a recent study, Nieto-Garcia et al. (2018) examined the dimensions of
hotel customer ratings that enhance the hotel financial performance and found that staff is
one of the key dimensions that plays a central role in terms of revenue maximization.
More than one-quarter of the extracted elements (with major positive loading) pertained to
the hotel’s characteristics. Location was frequently mentioned by reviewers. For instance, a
reviewer expressed satisfaction with accommodation experience, saying that “the location
[of the hotel] is one of the best in Istanbul in the midst of shopping, cafes, and galleries”
(R101). Several studies have identified location as one of the top issues that influence hotel
guest satisfaction (Khoo-Lattimore and Ekiz, 2014; Barreda and Bilgihan, 2013; Ren et al.,
2015; Liu et al., 2017; Xu and Li, 2016). Accessibility to points of interest, transport
convenience and surrounding environment were also identified as key factors affecting
guest satisfaction with hotel location (Yang et al., 2018a, 2018b). A recent study by
Mellinas et al. (2019) proposed that the assessment of location is influenced by the
evaluation of other hotel attributes.
Of the 1,900 elements extracted from the reviews, only 236 (12.4 per cent) were negative.
Online negative reviews are often referred to as e-complaints (Lee and Hu 2004; Sparks
and Browning, 2010; Dinçer and Alrawadieh, 2017). About 41 per cent of the negative
elements pertained to the hotel characteristics, such as applied prices, the lack and
insufficiency of facilities and hotel location. Slightly more than one-quarter of the negative
elements complained about service quality. Staff’s attitude and performance and perceived

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 91
 service quality were the most mentioned issues within this category. The quality of
bathroom, as well as the room size, were also key issues the dissatisfied guests highlighted
in online reviews. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the reviews were selected from best-
rated hotels. Therefore, the findings are likely to reflect the determinants of satisfaction
rather than dissatisfaction.

5. Conclusions
As noted by some researchers (Law et al., 2013), the need for a synergistic relationship
between the information technology department and senior management is increasingly
important in the highly competitive tourism and hospitality sector. Therefore, the adoption of
policies to monitor word of mouse and the use of online reviews to measure guest
satisfaction are crucial issues in today’s hospitality industry. The present paper aimed to
explore the determinants of guest satisfaction using unsolicited data. Although the paper
joins similar research endeavors that have been undertaken over the past few years, it
contributes to a growing body of literature examining satisfaction using qualitative research
methods. This is particularly important, given that hospitality research exploring satisfaction
is largely biased toward quantitative methods (Prayag et al., 2018).
Drawing on the findings of the study, hotel managers need to focus mainly on two key
elements: quality of the rooms and quality of the services. Attributes related to the hotel
room are tangible and thus can be easily managed. Hotel managers may improve the
quality of furniture and amenities to trigger positive word of mouth. Attributes related the
service quality are largely intangible, and thus managing them can be more challenging.
Providing continuous training to hotel staff to ensure genuine and high service quality is
therefore essential.
Service failure in the hospitality industry is a fact of life. Guests who report their
dissatisfaction or negative feelings in person to the frontline staff provide the hotel with a
“second chance.” By contrast, those who complain online could be well considered as lost
guests who air their anger for revenge against the hotel in question and/or to help others
avoid similar negative experiences. Hotel management should encourage guests to report
their negative feelings during their stay. Frontline employees, particularly in the reception,
should encourage “unhappy” guests to air their anger and express their negative feelings.
The negativity of emotions expressed by guests online tend to be greater than if they were
expressed to the hotel management where the dissatisfaction occurred (Tassiello et al.,
2018). Our findings indicate that negative reviews are more likely to be triggered by the
hotel’s general attributes, including pricing, hotel location and hotel facilities. The quality of
bathroom, as well as room size, are also key issues the dissatisfied guests tend to highlight
in online reviews. Drawing on these findings, hotel managers should improve the areas that
receive complaints. For instance, hotel facilities, including room, may be renovated; the
problem of location can be mitigated by providing free shuttle to hot spots such as
frequently visited attraction sites. Special offers, as well as small gifts or free amenities, may
also be used to reduce hotel guests’ sensitivity to prices.
This paper has some important limitations. First, the sample is drawn from reviews posted
on only ten hotels with the highest ratings on TripAdvisor, rendering the generalization of
findings difficult without further research on a larger sample and across different types of
hotels. Specifically, reviews from only best-rated hotels are more likely to represent the
perceptions of satisfied rather than dissatisfied guests. Second, this paper selected hotels
in one urban tourism destination, and the findings may not apply to other types of tourist
destinations (e.g. sun and beach destinations). Third, this study considered only recent
reviews written in English. Fourth, the sample size is also another important limitation.
Although still small, the sample size was enlarged using the same data set about two years
from the first data collection. The authors’ decision of conducting the coding process
manually led to the inclusion of a limited number of reviews in the analysis. The manual

PAGE 92 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019
coding approach also limited the ability to conduct advanced analysis. Although the study
identified the key determinants of guest satisfaction, it did not examine the importance of
these determinants across guests’ demographic and tripographic variables. Therefore, by
using unsolicited data, future studies may need to examine what matters more for whom to
offer an in-depth understanding of the underlying factors that contribute to guest
satisfaction and to develop a better segmentation of hotel guests.

References
Alrawadieh, Z. and Dincer, M.Z. (2018), “Reputation management in cyberspace: evidence from
Jordan’s luxury hotel market”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, (in-press).
Alrawadieh, Z., Dincer, M.Z., Dincer, F.I. and Mammadova, P. (2018), “Understanding destination image
from the perspective of western travel bloggers: the case of Istanbul”, International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 198-212.
Au, N., Buhalis, D. and Law, R. (2014), “Online complaining behavior in Mainland China hotels: the
perception of Chinese and non-Chinese customers”, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration, Vol. 15, pp. 248-274.
Barreda, A. and Bilgihan, A. (2013), “An analysis of user-generated content for hotel experiences”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 263-280.
Berezina, K., Bilgihan, A., Cobanoglu, C. and Okumus, F. (2016), “Understanding satisfied and
dissatisfied hotel customers: text mining of online hotel reviews”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Berg, B.L. (2001), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 4th ed., Pearson Education
Company, Boston, MA.

Briggs, S., Sutherland, J. and Drummond, S. (2007), “Are hotels serving quality? An exploratory
study of service quality in the Scottish hotel sector”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 1006-1019.
Bronner, F. and Hoog, R.d. (2011), “Vacationers and eWOM: who posts, and why, where, and what?”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 15-26.
Buda, R. and Zhang, Y. (2000), “Consumer product evaluation: the interactive effect of message framing,
presentation order, and source credibility”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 229-242.
Buhalis, D. and Law, R. (2008), “Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years
on and 10 years after the internet – the state of eTourism research”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 609-623.
Calheiros, A.C., Moro, S. and Rita, P. (2017), “Sentiment classification of consumer-generated online
reviews using topic modeling”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 675-693.

Cetin, G. and Dincer, F.I. (2014), “Influence of customer experience on loyalty and word-of-mouth in
hospitality operations”, Anatolia, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 181-194.
Cezar, A. and Ögüt, H. (2016), “Analyzing conversion rates in online hotel booking: the role of customer
reviews, recommendations and rank order in search listings”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 286-304.
Cherapanukorn, V. and Charoenkwan, P. (2017), “Word cloud of online hotel reviews in Chiang Mai for
customer satisfaction analysis”, Digital Economy Sustainable Growth, Chiang Mai, Thailand,
pp. 146-151, doi:10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904952.
Chi, C.G. and Gursoy, D. (2009), “Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and financial
performance: an empirical examination”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 245-253.
Choi, T.Y. and Chu, R. (2001), “Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in the
Hong Kong hotel industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 277-297.
Choia, T. and Chub, R. (2001), “Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in the
Hong Kong hotel industry”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 277-297.

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 93
 Chua, A.Y. and Banerjee, S. (2013), “Reliability of reviews on the internet: the case of TripAdvisor”,
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, Vol. 1, San Francisco,
pp. 453-457.
Chung, J. and Buhalis, D. (2008), “Web 2.0: a study of online travel community”, in O’Connor, P., Hapken,
W. and Gretzel, U. (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, Springer, Vienna,
pp. 146-151.
Dinçer, M.Z. and Alrawadieh, Z. (2017), “Negative word of mouse in the hotel industry: a content analysis
of online reviews on luxury hotels in Jordan”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 26
No. 8, pp. 785-804.
Ekiz, E., Khoo-Lattimore, C. and Memarzadeh, F. (2012), “Air the anger: investigating online complaints
on luxury hotels”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 96-106.
Filieri, R. (2016), “What makes an online consumer review trustworthy?”, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 58, pp. 46-64.
Fotis, J., Buhalis, D. and Rossides, N. (2012), “Social media use and impact during the holiday travel
planning process”, in Fuchs, M., Ricci, F. and Cantoni, L. (Eds), Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism, Springer, Vienna, pp. 13-24.

Gretzel, U. and Yoo, K. (2008), “Use and impact of online travel reviews”, in O’Connor, P., Hopken, W.
and Gretzel, U. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism, Springer-Verlag, Wien,
pp. 35-46.
Gundersen, M.G., Heide, M. and Olsson, U.H. (1996), “Hotel guest satisfaction among business
travelers: what are the important factors?”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 72-81.
Hart, C. and Blackshaw, P. (2006), “Internet inferno”, Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 1
pp. 19-25.
Kassinis, G.I. and Soteriou, A.C. (2003), “Greening the service profit chain: the impact of environmental
management practices”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 386-403.
Khoo-Lattimore, C. and Ekiz, E.H. (2014), “Power in praise: exploring online compliments on luxury hotels
in Malaysia”, Tourism & Hospitality Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 152-159.

Kim, E.E., Mattila, A.S. and Baloglu, S. (2011), “Effects of gender and expertise on consumers’ motivation
to read online hotel reviews”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 399-406.

Kim, B., Kim, S. and Heo, C.Y. (2016), “Analysis of satisfiers and dissatisfiers in online hotel reviews on
social media”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 9,
pp. 1915-1936.
Kim, W.G., Lim, H. and Brymer, R.A. (2015), “The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel
performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 44, pp. 165-171.
Kizilirmak, I., Alrawadieh, Z. and Aghayeva, S. (2015), “Dog
u karadeniz bölgesindeki otel misafirlerinin
seyahat e-yorumlarına yönelik bir içerik çözümlemesi”, Gumushane Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Elektronik
Dergisi, Vol. 6 No. 14, pp. 110-121.
Knutson, B.J., Beck, J.A., Kim, S. and Cha, J. (2009), “Identifying the dimensions of the guest’s hotel
experience”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 44-55.
Krippendorff, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, London, New Delhi.
Law, R., Buhalis, D. and Cobanoglu, C. (2014), “Progress on information and communication
technologies in hospitality and tourism”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 727-750.

Law, R., Leung, D., Au, N. and Lee, H. (2013), “Progress and development of information technology in
the hospitality industry: evidence from Cornell Hospitality Quarterly”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54
No. 1, pp. 10-24.
Lee, C.C. and Hu, C. (2004), “Analyzing hotel customers’ e-complaints from an internet complaint forum”,
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, pp. 167-181.
Li, H., Ye, Q. and Law, R. (2013), “Determinants of customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: an
application of online review analysis”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 18 No. 7,
pp. 784-802.

PAGE 94 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2008), “Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism
management”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 458-468.
Litvin, S.W., Goldsmith, R.E. and Pan, B. (2018), “A retrospective view of electronic word-of-mouth in
hospitality and tourism management”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 313-325.
Liu, Y., Teichert, T., Rossi, M., Li, H. and Hu, F. (2017), “Big data for big insights: investigating language-
specific drivers of hotel satisfaction with 412,784 user-generated reviews”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 59, pp. 554-563.
Melián-González, S., Bulchand-Gidumal, J. and Lo  pez-Valcárcel, B.G. (2013), “Online customer reviews
of hotels: as participation increases, better evaluation is obtained”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54
No. 3, pp. 274-283.
Mellinas, J.P., Nicolau, J.L. and Park, S. (2019), “Inconsistent behavior in online consumer reviews: the
effects of hotel attribute ratings on location”, Tourism Management, Vol. 71, pp. 421-427.
Mohsin, A. and Lockye, T. (2010), “Customer perceptions of service quality in luxury hotels in New Delhi,
India: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 160-173.

Neuman, W. (2003), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Allyn -& Bacon,
Boston, MA.

Nieto-Garcia, M., Resce, G., Ishizaka, A., Occhiocupo, N. and Viglia, G. (2018), “The dimensions of hotel
customer ratings that boost RevPAR”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 77,
pp. 583-592.
O’Connor, P. (2008), “User-generated content and travel: a case study on tripadvisor.Com”, in O’Connor,
P., Hopken, W. and Gretzel, U., (Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism,
Springer, New York, NY, pp. 47-58.

O’Connor, P. (2010), “Managing a hotel’s image on TripAdvisor”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing &
Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 754-772.

üt, H. and Tas
Ög , B.K. (2012), “The influence of internet customer reviews on the online sales and prices
in hotel industry”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 197-214.
Papathanassis, A. and Knolle, F. (2011), “Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday
reviews: a grounded theory approach”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 215-224.
Park, S. and Nicolau, J.L. (2015), “Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 50, pp. 67-83.
Prayag, G., Hassibi, S. and Nunkoo, R. (2018), “A systematic review of consumer satisfaction studies in
hospitality journals: conceptual development, research approaches and future prospects”, Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, pp. 1-30.

Radojevic, T., Stanisic, N. and Stanic, N. (2015), “Ensuring positive feedback: factors that influence
customer satisfaction in the contemporary hospitality industry”, Tourism Management, Vol. 51, pp. 13-21.
Radojevic, T., Stanisic, N. and Stanic, N. (2017), “Inside the rating scores: a multilevel analysis of
the factors influencing customer satisfaction in the hotel industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 134-164.
Ren, L., Zhang, H.Q. and Ye, B.H. (2015), “Understanding customer satisfaction with budget hotels
through online comments: evidence from home inns in China”, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
& Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Ring, A., Tkaczynski, A. and Dolnicar, S. (2016), “Word-of-mouth segments: online, offline, visual or
verbal?”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 481-492.
Ruiz-Mafe, C., Chatzipanagiotou, K. and Curras-Perez, R. (2018), “The role of emotions and
conflicting online reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 89, pp. 336-344.
Skogland, I. and Siguaw, J.A. (2004), “Are your satisfied customers loyal?”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 221-234.
Sparks, B.A. and Browning, V. (2010), “Complaining in cyberspace: the motives and forms of hotel
guests’ complaints online”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 19, pp. 797-818.

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 95
 Sujithamrak, S. and Lam, T. (2005), “Relationship between customer complaint behavior and
demographic characteristics: a study of hotel restaurants’ patrons”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 289-307.

Tassiello, V., Viglia, G. and Mattila, A.S. (2018), “How handwriting reduces negative online ratings”,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 73 No. 2018, pp. 171-179.
Torres, E.N., Fu, X. and Lehto, X. (2014), “Examining key drivers of customer delight in a hotel experience:
a cross-cultural perspective”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 36, pp. 255-262.
TripAdvisor (2017), “About TripAdvisor”, available at: https://tripadvisor.mediaroom.com/us-about-us
(accessed 23 April 2017).
Vermeulen, I. and Seegers, D. (2009), “Tried and tested: the impact of online hotel reviews on consumer
consideration”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 123-127.
Wenger, A. (2008), “Analysis of travel bloggers’ characteristics and their communication about Austria as
a tourism destination”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 169-176.
Xiang, Z. and Gretzel, U. (2010), “Role of social media in online travel information search”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 179-188.
Xiang, Z., Du, Q., Ma, Y. and Fan, W. (2017), “A comparative analysis of major online review platforms:
implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism”, Tourism Management, Vol. 58,
pp. 51-65.

Xiang, Z., Schwartz, Z., Gerdes, J.H. and Uysal, M. (2015), “What can big data and text analytics tell us
about hotel guest experience and satisfaction?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 44,
pp. 120-130.
Xu, X. and Li, Y. (2016), “The antecedents of customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction toward various
types of hotels: a text mining approach”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 55,
pp. 57-69.
Yang, C.C., Jou, Y.T. and Cheng, L.Y. (2011), “Using integrated quality assessment for hotel service
quality”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 349-364.
Yang, Y., Mao, Z. and Tang, J. (2018a), “Understanding guest satisfaction with urban hotel location”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 243-259.
Yang, Y., Park, S. and Hu, X. (2018b), “Electronic word of mouth and hotel performance: a meta-
analysis”, Tourism Management, Vol. 67, pp. 248-260.

Ye, Q., Law, R., Gu, B. and Chen, W. (2011), “The influence of user-generated content on traveler
behavior: an empirical investigation on the effects of e-word-of-mouth to hotel online bookings”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 634-639.
Zhou, L., Ye, S., Pearce, P.L. and Wu, M.-Y. (2014), “Refreshing hotel satisfaction studies by
reconfiguring customer review data”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 38,
pp. 1-10.

Further reading
Gu, B. and Ye, Q. (2014), “First step in social media: measuring the influence of online management
responses on customer satisfaction”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 570-582.

Levy, S.E., Duan, W. and Boo, S. (2013), “An analysis of one-star online reviews and responses in the
Washington, D.C., lodging market”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Liu, X., Schuckert, M. and Law, R. (2015), “Can response management benefit hotels? Evidence from
Hong Kong hotels”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1069-1080.
Mattila, A. and Mount, D.J. (2003), “The impact of selected customer characteristics and response time
on E-complaint satisfaction and return intent”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 135-145.
Min, H., Lim, Y. and Magnini, V.P. (2015), “Factors affecting customer satisfaction in responses to
negative online hotel reviews: the impact of empathy, paraphrasing, and speed”, Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 223-231.

PAGE 96 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019
Proserpio, D. and Zervas, G. (2016), “Online reputation management: estimating the impact of
management responses on consumer reviews”, Marketing Science, available at: https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2521190 or http://dx.d (accessed 7 November 2016), Forthcoming.
Roozen, I. and Raedts, M. (2018), “The effects of online customer reviews and managerial responses on
travelers’ decision-making processes”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 27 No. 8,
pp. 1-24.
Rose, M. and Blodgett, J.G. (2016), “Should hotels respond to negative online reviews?”, Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 396-410.

Schmallegger, D. and Carson, D. (2008), “Blogs in tourism: changing approaches to information

exchange”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 99-110.
Smyth, P.C., Wu, G. and Greene, D. (2010), Does TripAdvisor Makes Hotels Better?, Technical Report
UCD-CSI-2010-06, available at: https://csiweb.ucd.ie/files/ucd-csi-2010-06.pdf (accessed 11 Eylül
2016).
Sparks, B.A., So, K.K. and Bradley, G.L. (2016), “Responding to negative online reviews: the effects of
hotel responses on customer inferences of trust and concern”, Tourism Management, Vol. 53, pp. 74-85.
Williams, K.D., Cheung, C.K. and Choi, W. (2000), “Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the
internet”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 748-762.
Xie, K., Kwok, L. and Wang, W. (2017), “Monetizing managerial responses on TripAdvisor: performance
implications across hotel classes”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, pp. 1-13.
Xie, K.L., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Z., Singh, A. and Lee, S.K. (2016), “Effects of managerial response on
consumer eWOM and hotel performance: evidence from TripAdvisor”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 2013-2034.
Zheng, T., Youn, H. and Kincaid, C.S. (2009), “An analysis of customers’ E-complaints for luxury resort
properties”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 718-729.

Corresponding author
Zaid Alrawadieh can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

VOL. 13 NO. 1 2019 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH j PAGE 97