|
News for the Hospitality Executive |
advertisement
|
by Miguel Rivera
Senior Vice President, HVS Asset Management & Advisory April 2013 Online hotel guest reviews are a transparent
form of
word-of-mouth. As such, they represent an invaluable opportunity for
hotels to
know what their customers think of them. Whether those opinions are
positive or
negative, hotels can use that information to engage with customers,
increase
guest satisfaction, identify operational problems, and improve employee
morale,
among other things. On the other hand, if left unchecked, online review
sites
can foster negative opinions about your hotel in plain sight of your
competitors and prospective guests. The best way to ensure that online
guest
reviews become a positive force at your property is to have a clear
plan for
how to deal with them. The 7-step strategy suggested in this article
provides
an excellent starting point. Opinions abound about how to deal with
online reviews, both
positive and negative ones. However, few of these opinions are based on
an
objective review of the data. Two groups of talented researchers
recently took
on this task. Their research papers are published in the February 2013
issue of
the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly.
They focus on how hotels respond to reviews on TripAdvisor, the most
widely
used online hotel guest review site. Combing through data and
interviewing
industry participants, they make a serious effort to identify the most
effective practices to respond to online reviews. The results of the
first
study were presented in the article titled “An Analysis of One-Star
Online
Reviews and Responses in the Washington, D.C., Lodging Market,”1 by Stuart E. Levy,
Wenjing Duan, and Soyoung Boo. The results of the second were included
in “Responding to Online Reviews: Problem Solving and Engagement in
Hotels,"2 by
Sun-Young Park and Jonathan P. Allen. Both articles focus on analyzing how
different hotels
respond to online reviews, while each study follows a very different
approach.
The Levy, et. al. report centers on the responses to one-star reviews
on
TripAdvisor (i.e. the lowest possible rating on a scale of five stars).
It
analyzes how different hotels handle such poor reviews (apology,
explanation,
correction, passive follow-up, for instance) and draws correlations
between
different types of responses and the overall TripAdvisor ranking of the
hotels.
For example, it finds that highly rated hotels are more likely to show
appreciation for negative feedback than lower rated ones. Lower rated
hotels,
however, are more likely to share corrective action but less likely to
explain
what went wrong. The study also includes an interesting analysis of the
most
frequent sources of guest dissatisfaction. Most prominent among these
were
front desk service issues, “principally those involving front desk
staff
responsiveness and empathy."3 The
authors observed “that front desk staff
and check-in issues were often major problem areas, underscoring the
role first
impressions play in service evaluations. In addition, guestroom-related
complaints [such as, bathroom, cleanliness, noise, and room size] were
pervasive and accounted for over half of all problem areas …examined."4 In contrast to the Levy, et. al. study, the
Park and Allen
article uses a comparative case-study design. The authors take an
in-depth look
at four hotels (two luxury and two upscale) with contrasting practices
for
responding to online reviews. In the sample selected, one hotel in each
category regularly responds to reviews, while the other responds
infrequently.
From this qualitative review, the authors distinguish between hotels
that take
a problem-solving approach and those that take a strategic one. The
authors
find that the problem solving approach is reactive and focused on
“manag[ing]
the hotel’s reputation,"5 while the
strategic approach focuses on
engaging with guests and the general public, and using online reviews
“to
improve operational efficiency and effectiveness."6 While the analyses differ, both studies
sensibly suggest
that hotels should develop a clear strategy to track and respond to
online
reviews. Park and Allen expressed it like this: “our exploratory study…
found
that hotels’ approach to online reviews is all over the map. …Even
hotels
within the same brand can have completely different response rates and
patterns. Nonetheless, given that online reviews have become an
important
enough information source, hotel managers should be better prepared
with an
online review response plan that works for them."7
Levy et. al. call for hotels to “establish a Reputation Management Plan"8 (that goes beyond the problem solving
approach described by Park and Allen),
and they provide a number of suggestions of things to include in such a
plan. The articles are insightful and they offer
an excellent
overview of diverse issues. The Levy, et. al. study centers primarily
on the
content of responses, while the Park and Allen one focuses more on the
frequency, timeliness, and tone of responses. Both articles offer some
practical recommendations; yet, they stop short of providing a
step-by-step
action plan to manage online reviews. A logical progression seemed to
be to
attempt to combine the recommendations of both articles. With that in
mind, the
following 7-step strategy to manage online reviews offers suggestions
that are
consistent with the discussions and data presented in both articles.
However, not
every detail is drawn directly from the research presented. 1) Assign one or two staff
members to respond to online comments (both positive and negative
ones). Either the hotel’s general manager, or “a seasoned, trustworthy
employee with strong writing abilities”9
should be the point person for writing responses. Dedicated off-site
responders, or “social media consultants” are not recommended.10 The rationale for this type of
responders is that they offer the benefit of message consistency.
However, that benefit will be more than offset if they do not have an
intimate knowledge of the hotel and the staff, and if they do not
follow up quickly with related staff members and guests. Their more
generic responses may lack the richness of detail needed to convey the
feeling of genuine engagement that should pervade all hotel responses.
2) Require management
and/or the executive committee to read online reviews, and use them as
a serious tool to improve customer service. Discuss them openly during
staff meetings. In addition to specific guest comments online, pay
attention to social networking channels. Levy, et. al. point out that
“as the vast majority (90%) of consumers trust recommendations from
personal acquaintances (Nielsen 2009), lodging executives must pay
close attention to consumer-generated buzz beyond online reviews.”11
3) Respond to comments
quickly and regularly. This promotes an image of engagement, akin to
developing a relationship with your guests on- and off-line. A quick
response to negative comments limits the negative image generated by
them. This has the added benefit of pushing them off the front page
faster.
4) Be appreciative of all
guest feedback. For negative comments, apologize for the subpar
experience, explain what caused the
complaint, and use a positive and personalized manner. The
research data also suggests that hotels with higher TripAdvisor
rankings tend to offer responders the opportunity to speak with
management to follow up. In practice, however, it is easy to visualize
how this could quickly become unruly, especially at larger properties.
5) Ask your guests for
their support. Levy, et. al. suggest “actively soliciting online
reviews from satisfied hotel guests.”12
While they do not comment on the best way of doing this, post-check-out
email requests are one common way of doing this. A more personalized
approach is to train front desk agents to tactfully encourage satisfied
guests, as they prepare to leave the hotel, to write a review.
6) Do not respond to all
posted comments. This can generate a sense of non-genuineness. Strive
to respond to a majority of negative comments. At the same time, plan
to respond to some of the positive comments, especially if they can be
used to highlight some aspect of personal attention that would
otherwise be hard for other guests to find out about.
7) Do not
offer compensation in online responses. This is a practice that is
avoided by properties with higher TripAdvisor rankings. Furthermore,
nobody wants to train guests to complain to receive compensation.
However, in general, “compensatory actions [are] highly satisfactory to
complainants.”13 This suggests that a
best practice may be to proactively make a service recovery call after
reading a complaint online, but before posting a response. Compensation
may be offered to the guest, if warranted, even if it is not made
public. More importantly, the call may reveal details that can be used
for future training. A call also takes away the anonymous face of the
reviewer, which may tone down the dramatic language of the original
complaint. A reference to the call on the online response may further
help to show the responsiveness of the hotel (e.g. “as we discussed on
the phone, I have spoken with our team about our guest service
policies…”) Online hotel reviews are not infallible. As
with most
voluntary customer comment programs, they tend to attract responses
from those
who are most satisfied or dissatisfied with a hotel, or simply those
who are
most vocal or have the most time on their hands. Nevertheless, Levy et.
al. quote
a 2008 study by P. O’Connor and J. Murphy that showed that fear of
rampant
fraudulent reviews is unfounded. Furthermore, they quote results from a
2009
study by Nielsen showing that 70% of internet users trust consumer
opinions
posted online, whether real or not. Thus, it is troubling that they
also found
a 2009 report by Barsky and Frame showing that 85% of hotels have no
guidelines
for monitoring and responding to online reviews.14 Levy, et. al. wisely recommend going beyond
online reviews
to establish a comprehensive feedback system. They “urge hotels to
synthesize
solicited and unsolicited feedback for the purpose of quality
improvement,
competitive intelligence, and employee performance evaluations."15 The authors of both studies acknowledge that
there are
limitations to their findings, as the data they analyzed are not
representative
of all hotels in general. Park and Allen state plainly: “the most
effective
approaches to customer engagement online remain elusive."16 However, lack of evidence of a perfect
plan does not constitute evidence that
it is best to have no plan. A hotel that does not have a comprehensive
and
clear policy to manage online reviews treads on dangerous ground.  About the author:Miguel Rivera is SVP of Asset Management & Advisory at HVS. He advises clients on maximizing real estate value and aligning a property's operations with its investment goals. He has more than 14 years of experience in real estate finance; including asset management, brokerage, financing, credit ratings, and appraisals. He has worked on more than $900 million worth of hotel transactions, and valued more than $12 billion worth of real estate. He holds an MBA from Yale and a BS in Hotel Administration from Cornell. About HVS HVS is the world’s leading consulting and services organization focused on the hotel, restaurant, shared ownership, gaming, and leisure industries. Established in 1980, the company performs more than 2,000 assignments per year for virtually every major industry participant. HVS principals are regarded as the leading professionals in their respective regions of the globe. Through a worldwide network of 30 offices staffed by 400 seasoned industry professionals, HVS provides an unparalleled range of complementary services for the hospitality industry. For further information regarding our expertise and specifics about our services, please visit www.hvs.com. |
|
Contact: HVS Asset Management & Advisory 100 Bush Street, Suite 750 San Francisco, California 94104 United States of America Tel: +1 (415) 268-0368 Fax: +1 (415) 896-0516 [email protected] |
| Also See: | Hotel
Management Fees Miss the Mark / Miguel Rivera / September 2011 |
| RevPAR
Adjusted Budgets: The Only Ones Worth Looking At (Part 3 of 3) /
Miguel
Rivera / June 2011 |
|
| RevPAR
Adjusted Budgets: The Only Ones Worth Looking At (Part 2 of 3) /
Miguel Rivera / June 2011 |
|
| RevPAR
Adjusted Budgets: The Only Ones Worth Looking At (Part 1 of 3) /
Miguel Rivera / June 2011 |