Categorical differences of hotel brand personality: Identifying competition across hotel categories

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to differentiate the brand personality of four basic hotel categories (e.g. limited-service, selected-service, full-service and luxury hotels) to draw an overall landscape of the lodging industry on symbolic attributes.

Design/methodology/approach

An online survey was conducted to assess the brand personality of eight popular hotel brands competing in the US market (two brands for each price category) by using Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale. The categorical difference in brand personality was compared at both of the dimensional and individual trait level.

Findings

This study draws a picture of brand personality for four prevailing hotel categories in the US market. It suggests exciting luxury hotels, sincere select-service hotels and rugged limited-service hotels, but no distinctive personality for full-service hotels. This study positions the pros and cons of each hotel category. For instance, it shows at the dimensional level, full-service hotels advance select-service hotels in excitement but fall behind in sincerity. At the individual trait level, full-service hotels strike customers as contemporary, up-to-date and good-looking, but disappoint customers on the features like honest and wholesome.

Practical implications

This study informs hotel brand companies and hotel investors with the pros and cons of each hotel category to assist them to improve their marketing or investment strategies.

Originality/value

Although brand personality has been often used to assess hotel brand’s difference, it has been rarely used to capture the categorical difference. This study adds new insights to hotel banding practice by comparing different categories on symbolic attributes.

Citation

Su, N. and Reynolds, D. (2019), "Categorical differences of hotel brand personality: Identifying competition across hotel categories", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1801-1818. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0354