Analyzing Booking.Com and Tripadvisor
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tourism Analysis, Vol. 23, pp. 1–15 1083-5423/18 $60.00 + .00 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3727/108354218X15143857349459 Copyright Ó 2018 Cognizant, LLC. E-ISSN 1943-3999 www.cognizantcommunication.com DOES VERIFYING USES INFLUENCE RANKINGS? ANALYZING BOOKING.COM AND TRIPADVISOR EVA MARTIN-FUENTES,* CARLES MATEU,† AND CESAR FERNANDEZ† *Department of Business Administration, University of Lleida. Lleida, Spain †INSPIRES Research Institut, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) is of recent and considerable importance in tourism, particularly because of the intangible nature of the industry. Users’ online reviews are a source of information for other consumers, who take them into account before making a reservation at a lodging property. The aim of this study is to establish whether or not the anonymity of the reviews on TripAdvisor alters hotel rankings by comparing them with verified users’ reviews on Booking.com. Moreover, the study analyzes whether or not the differences in the rating scales of both websites favor some hotels over others. A large amount of data is used in this study, with more than 40,000 hotels on Booking.com and 70,000 on TripAdvisor in 447 cities around the world, comparing the rankings of about 20,000 hotels matched on both websites. Our findings suggest that the behavior of both rankings is similar and the lack of veracity on TripAdvisor due to the anonymity in the user’s verification system is baseless. In addition, some differences are found depending on the hotel category and region, due mainly to the unique rating scale on Booking.com (from 2.5 to 10) compared with the rating scale on TripAdvisor (from 1 to 5). Key words: Electronic word of mouth (eWOM); TripAdvisor; Booking.com; Ranking; Rating scale Introduction The main criticism of this platform is the perceived lack of veracity (Palmer, 2013; Rawlinson, 2011; Since its creation, TripAdvisor, a travel informa- Smith, 2012). Hoteliers complain about the ano- tion website whose content is provided mostly by nymity of TripAdvisor; they argue the site allows users, has had its share of controversy and has been anonymous users to give opinions about any estab- widely questioned to the point of going to court lishment without having stayed there or used the over allegations by managers from hospitality establishment (Webb, 2014). establishments that feel harmed by the site’s con- Conversely, Booking.com is a hotel-booking web- tent (Grindlinger, 2012). site that allows comments to be made by customers. Address correspondence to Eva Martin-Fuentes, Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, University of Lleida, C/ Jaume II, 73, 25001 Lleida, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] 1 2 MARTIN-FUENTES, MATEU, AND FERNANDEZ The site claims that it publishes “verified reviews the effects of the Booking.com scoring system, from real people” because leaving a review on this complementing that of Mellinas et al. (2016) by website is only possible if an individual books an analyzing a large volume of data from hotels accommodation through the site and actually stays worldwide and not just from a single country, com- at the reviewed property. paring scores on “sale websites” (Booking.com) These two websites are significant in the tourism and “advice websites” (TripAdvisor) (Fernández- sector and to the online reputation of the accom- Barcala, González-Díaz, & Prieto-Rodríguez, 2010) modation facilities reviewed. They are also impor- and comparing the behavior of the scales according tant in terms of the research done before making to the hotel categories. a reservation—the percentage of which continues to rise (C. K. Anderson, 2012)—because consumer reviews generate more confidence than communi- Theoretical Background and Study Hypotheses cations from the company (Gretzel & Yoo, 2008; Word of Mouth Vermeulen & Seegers, 2009). Moreover, being number one in a ranking is The word of mouth (WOM) phenomenon is something to which every business aspires because studied in marketing (Arndt, 1967) and refers to cli- potential customers see the top positions first ent communications relating to a consumer experi- (Spink & Jansen, 2006). A higher position results ence (E. W. Anderson, 1998). With the advent of in a decision to use either tourism products (Ghose, the internet, the way in which WOM reviews are Ipeirotis, & Li, 2012) or any other type of prod- made has been extended thanks to consumer- uct (Pope, 2009; Sorensen, 2007), which therefore opinion portals (COPs) (Burton & Khammash, leads to more bookings (Ye, Law, Gu, & Chen, 2010), which allow consumers to review products 2011). According to Filieri and McLeay (2013), and services and other people to view these online product ranking emerges as the strongest anteced ent reviews and contribute to attenuating the negative of high-involvement travelers’ adoption of infor- effects of asymmetric information (Martin-Fuentes, mation from online reviews. 2016). WOM, propagated via Web 2.0, is known The aim of this study is to establish whether or as “electronic word of mouth” (eWOM) (Hennig- not the anonymity of the reviews on TripAdvisor Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004) and is alters hotel rankings by comparing them with the defined as “all informal communications directed verified users’ reviews on Booking.com. Alterna- at consumers through Internet-based technology tively, a study about the effects of the Booking.com related to the usage or characteristics of particu- scoring system confirms suspicions of “inflated lar goods and services, or their sellers” (Litvin, scores” derived from their scoring system (Mellinas, Goldsmith, & Pan, 2008, p. 461), and it has impli- Martínez María-Dolores, & Bernal García, 2016). cations for tourism marketing (Morosan, 2013). Taking into account that the scoring scale on Recent eWOM studies have been conducted in Booking.com is from 2.5 to 10 and on TripAdvisor relation to goods and services (Cheung & Thadani, from 1 to 5—keeping in mind the research gap 2012; Chevalier & Mayzlin, 2006). According to Mellinas et al. (2016) presented about the interest Cantallops and Salvi (2014), those focusing on the in performing similar studies with different sam- hotel industry can be split into review-generating ples and selecting hotels from other countries—the factors (previous factors that encourage consum- study seeks to compare whether or not the differ- ers to write reviews) and eWOM impacts (impacts ences in the scales favor some hotels over others by caused by online reviews) from the point of view of their category and location. consumers and companies. Although eWOM for tourism is widely studied, Research based on 50 articles about hospitality the validity of anonymous reviews receives little and tourism eWOM concludes that “online reviews attention. This article tries to fill this gap and helps appear to be a strategic tool that plays an important incorporate research with the validity of reviews role in hospitality and tourism management, espe- posted without verification procedures. Moreover, cially in promotion, online sales, and reputation man- this article tries to provide additional insight into agement” (Schuckert, Liu, & Law, 2015, p. 618). ANALYSIS OF HOTEL ONLINE REVIEWS 3 TripAdvisor is one of the most influential Booking.com are a popular online source for hotel eWOM sources in the context of hospitality and information, as are social media websites like Trip tourism (Yen & Tang, 2015), and it is often a hotel Advisor and Facebook (Sun, Fong, Law & Luk, manager’s first point of call because of the signifi- 2015), which draw the attention of researchers cance the site has acquired for any accommodation (Balagué, Martin-Fuentes, & Gómez, 2016; Viglia, facility’s reputation (Xie, Zhang, & Zhang, 2014). Minazzi, & Buhalis, 2016). TripAdvisor is ranked as the most reliable source according to the perceptions of general managers Anonymity (Torres, Adler, & Behnke, 2014). Numerous studies have been based on data provided by TripAdvisor It is possible for user-generated content to be (Ayeh, Au, & Law, 2013; Liu, Pennington-Gray, anonymous because during the registration process Donohoe, & Omodior, 2015; Mayzlin, Dover, & on COPs, identities can be invented. This anonym- Chevalier, 2012; Melian-Gonzalez, Bulchand- ity leads some reviewers to question the authentic- Gidumal, & Gonzalez Lopez-Valcarcel, 2013; ity of the ratings posted on TripAdvisor (O’Connor, O’Connor, 2008; Vermeulen & Seegers, 2009). The 2008) or discount their credibility (Duan, Gu, & percentage of consumers who consult TripAdvisor Whinston, 2008). Moreover, anonymous users can before booking a hotel room continues to increase post fake reviews to increase the reputation of their (C. K. Anderson, 2012), and online rating lists are businesses or to harm their competitors (Dellarocas, more useful and credible when published by well- 2003). Consumers often perceive eWOM as less known online travel communities like TripAdvisor trustworthy than WOM because it is difficult to (Casaló, Flavián, Guinalíu, & Ekinci, 2015). identify the issuer, because user-generated content In TripAdvisor’s own words, “the world’s larg- (UGC) is often created anonymously (Sparks & est travel site, enables travelers to unleash the full Browning, 2011; Yoo & Gretzel, 2010, cited by potential of every trip.” TripAdvisor branded sites Leung, Law, van Hoof, & Buhalis, 2013). make up the largest travel community in the world, As explained previously,