Critiquing

consumer theories in

hospitality with respect to the mobile

customer.

Nikki Hazenberg

Certificate in International Hotel and Tourism Operations

HTMi, Switzerland

1
Introduction

In their article “Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers”,

Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) have a main point of critique regarding the decision

making theories. They remark that most decision making models treat a consumer

as an individual decision maker. These decision models are neglecting, the fact that

a decision maker behaves in an interactive way with his environment.

The research on travel decision models, is mostly based on the influence and

interaction with friends, family, relevant others and their perceived behavioural

control. The mobile industry makes it possible for consumers to actively participate

in different and easy ways.

Because of the new generation applications (Web 2.0) developed in the nineties,

the possibilities seems unlimited. These applications make it possible for

consumers to generate a content on the web, which can be used by other

consumers. So there will be an important shift in the way consumers will use

information and this will be of influence on the decision making. For marketers,

there will also be a shift of control, because the consumer decides at the end which

source he will use and which one he trusts. Loyalty and brand engagement seems

the keyword. New e-marketing and decision models must be developed to

understand how consumers will behave in the future. (Sigala, M. 2007)

Critiquing consumer theories

Since the 1950’s there is done, a substantially growing amount of literature and

research about decision making and consumer behaviour processes. The earliest

2
and most influential models are based on the “grand models” of consumer

behaviour see Howard and Seth (1969), Nicosia (1966), Engel, Kollat, and

Blackwell (1968). The Grand models try to explain how consumers make decisions

on an individual level when buying, mostly manufactured, products. The earliest

models of consumer behaviour based on grand models were strongly influenced by

the social science of economics. They relied heavenly on the assumption that

consumers always make the best choices under the given circumstances (cost-

benefit).

According to Howard and Seth (1969, page 467) a buying process, is a rational

process whereby they recognize the different cognitive and learning capabilities of

the consumers. Furthermore they assume that a consumer will always try to make

the best choice given the availability of the information. A choice is then made in a

systematic way, this can be seen as an input, processing and an output process. A

consumer will learn from feedback from earlier experiences.

Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) remark, that behavioural models in general assume

that a consumer can be seen as a utilitarian decision maker, who not only searches

for and use new information, but will also creates alternative options in their minds

to make the best choice.

The literature of the grand models, developed from a behaviouristic point of view,

reports that when making choices, tourists follow in general a five stage buyer

decision process. Through the stages they will narrowing down the options to

make the best decision.

Figure 1: Consumer decision making model (Kolat, 1968)

1) Problem recognition or for tourists dreaming stage (nitb.com).

2) Information search; for tourists this can be the planning stage (nitb.com).

3) Evaluation of alternative and selection

4) Purchase or final decision.

5) Post-purchase behaviour or consideration of repeated choice of destination.

(nitb.com)

In earlier models it was a strict process of narrowing down through all the stages.

In today’s literature, it’s accepted that you don’t need to go strictly through the

stages. (Sirakaya and Woodside, 2005)

From a (social) psychological point of view it became more and more clear that

consumers strongly differ in the way of searching and information processing. For

example; the degree in how they are involved or interested and the need to

consider. The use of shortcuts or heuristic by making decisions, and how they differ

4
in rationality by making errors like attribution ambiguity or decision biases. (Fiske

and Taylor, 2013).

The consumer decision theory tries to explain performed behaviour in a certain

context. Like the “Theory of planned behaviour”, (Azjen, 1991), were the

consumer’s intention is an indication is of how much effort they want or plan to use

in order to perform a certain behaviour. They also explore in their article the role of

involvement in relation with a leisure activity and “the role of mood and effect”.

An important point of critique comes from Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) that all

these models fail to bring a single, unifying and sound theory to explain or predict

behaviour needed for the tourist industry.

Travel decision models

Most travel decision models are strongly influenced by the “Grand models” and

have in common that they use the research of internal psychological variables and

the external or non-psychological variables as well like, Place, Product Price and

Promotion. Sirakaya and Woodside (2005).

Another point of critique Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) mention, regarding the

decision making models is, as they outline in their article, in which several articles

dating from 1976-1998, with key propositions, major contributions and their

limitations are discussed, that consumers are regarded too much as individual

decision makers. Although these models accept the influence of other individuals

on the decision making process, they neglect the influence of an active interaction

with other individuals and/ or with their environment. They think that a different

5
approach is needed because, tourism is mostly a social activity with different kind

of interactions. It involves friends, family, travel-groups and important others.

In the articles mentioned, research is done on the factors; dominance in decision

making of husband versus wife, the influence of children in the selection of

destinations and activities and the role of friends and relatives in providing

information during the decision process and therefore their importance on directly

influencing the behaviour. Sociological research like the of Chung and Buhalis

(2008) are using the Social Networks theory to investigate, why people participate

and how they are related in social networks.

Mobile and web 2.0

The functionality of internet changed dramatically during nineties. Oreilly, who

founded the name Web 2.0, explains on his website (www.Oreilly.com) the

transformation and the differences between the old web (Web 1.0) and the new

Web (Web 2.0). The functionality of the old web was more or less about publishing

were the consumers got their information by “passively” double clicking. The

marketers where in control. Instead, the main feature of Web 2.0 is the active

participation of the consumers (Oreilly). It became possible for consumers to share

and collaborate with other people on the net (Hepburn, 2016). By features like,

Blogging, Podcasting, Social networking & user generated content, Online video,

RSS feeds, Tagging, Mash-up & open APIS, WIKIS and AJAX. These technical

applications make it possible for consumers and vendors to actively participate and

collaborate in a massive way (Sigala, 2008).

6
Features of Web 2.0 will shape individuals in a new class of consumers who are

integrating the web in their daily live (Constantinides and Fountain 2007). It will

change the behaviour of how people socialize, communicate, interact with each

other and the way they make decisions. They also remark that there will be a

change in power structure in the market place, were consumers will dominate on

the web over producers and vendors.

The Northern Ireland Tourist also described the influence and power of consumers

on the socials networks (nitb.com). Word-of-mouth has never been as potent or far

reaching as it is today” (nitb.com).

Research on electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) is done by Hennig-Thurau,

Gwinner, Walsh and Gremler (2004). They mention that internet makes it easy for

consumers to communicate and interact their experiences and opinions with other

consumers by engaging worth of mouth. The Web 2.0, will thereby fulfil the

intrinsic motivation factors of consumers.

The new internet will have a huge effect on the consumer’s behaviour (Sigala,

2008). For the consumer as well the organizations it will not always be clear who is

in control and which source can be trusted. An example of what this means for the

consumer- marketing industry is, that it’s not enough anymore that consumers are

aware of a brand or product (Brandawareness) but that its of more importance,

that they are engaged (Milano, Baggio, and Piattelli, 2011).

So new insides are needed to understand these processes. Therefore, there will be a

need to develop or adapt new e-business and decision making models. “The

tourism industry is no exception from such developments” (Sigala, 2008).

Figure: 2 (Kotler, 2003) and (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008)

“Factors influencing the decision-making process in an information-based

marketplace adapted from Kotler (2003) and Constantinides (2008)

Notes: A and B: Factors affecting the buying decision-making process in traditional

shopping environments. A, B and C: Factors affecting the buying decision-making

process in an internet (Web 1.0)-mediated environment.

A, B, C and D: Factors affecting the buying decision-making process in an internet

(Web 2.0)-mediated environment” (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008)

Conclusion

The social science has tried to develop a unifying theory or model to explain or

predict consumer theories in the hospitality industry. Till now they didn’t exceed

8
quite well, due of the complexity. Now it is even harder because of the internet and

the fast expanding applications, which generate new possibilities and different kind

of interactions. Not only between consumers but also between consumer and

vendor.

Recommendations

In their article “information needs in online social networks”, Chung and Buhalis

(2008) clarify how marketers and the hospitality industry can use their research on

social networks as a marketing tool through the channels. As we have seen, the

Social Network is only a small part of Web2.0 experience it will be of interest to

explore if their findings can be used for the other uncontrollable factors as well.

9
References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp.179-211

Ajzen, I. and Driver, B. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral,

normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior.

Leisure Sciences, 13(3), pp.185-204.

Blackwell, R., Engel, J. and Kollat, D. (1969). Cases in consumer behavior. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Chung, J. and Buhalis, D. (2008). Information Needs in Online Social Networks.

Information Technology & Tourism, 10(4), pp.267-281.

Constantinides, E. and Fountain, S. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and

marketing issues. J Direct Data Digit Mark Pract, 9(3), pp.231-244.

Fiske, S. and Taylor, S. (n.d.). Social Cognition.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D. (2004). Electronic word-

of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate

themselves on the Internet?. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), pp.38-52.

Hepburn, C. (2016). reactive, Web 2.0 for the tourism & travel industry. [online]

Available at: http://www.reactive.com/news/whats-new/web-20-for-the-travel-

and-tourism-industry.htm [Accessed 15 May 2016].

Tourismni.com. (2016). Home - Latest News Blog. [online] Available at:

http://www.tourismni.com [Accessed 15 May 2016].

10
Howard, J. and Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.

Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing management. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Milano, R., Baggio, R. and Piatelli, R. (2011). The effects of online social media on

tourism websites. [online] Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Baggio/publication/221357525_The_effe

cts_of_online_social_media_on_tourism_websites/links/0046353774bf134c1b0000

00.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2016].

Nicosia, F. (1966). Consumer decision processes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

O'Reilly, T. (2016). What Is Web 2.0. [online] Oreilly.com. Available at:

http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html [Accessed 15

May 2016].

Sigala, M. (2016). WEB 2.0 in the tourism industry: A new tourism generation and

new e-business models. [online] TravelDailyNews International. Available at:

http://www.traveldailynews.com/columns/article/20554/web-2-0-in-the-

tourism [Accessed 11 May 2016].

Sirakaya, E. and Woodside, A. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision

making by travellers. Tourism Management, 26(6), pp.815-832.

11