The Competitive Market Structure of the U.S. Lodging Industry and its Impact on the Financial Performance of Hotel Brands by Dragan Matovic Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Hospitality and Tourism Management Dr. Ken McCleary, Chairman Dr. Pamela Weaver Dr. Suzanne Murrmann Dr. John Williams Dr. Leo Renaghan April 17, 2002 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Market Structure, Competition, Lodging Brands, Financial Performance Copyright, 2002, Dragan Matovic THE COMPETITIVE MARKET STRUCTURE OF THE U.S. LODGING INDUSTRY, AND ITS IMPACT ON THE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF HOTEL BRANDS by Dragan Matovic Dr. Ken W. McCleary – Chairman Hospitality and Tourism Management ABSTRACT The primary objective of this study was to explore the relationship among various market structure constructs (consisting of barriers to entry, competition, growth, and market share) and their potential impact on financial performance. By applying theoretical underpinnings from the disciplines of marketing, strategy and industrial organization economics, and adapting them to the unique characteristics of the U.S. lodging industry, the above constructs were linked to produce the Lodging Market Structure (LMS) Model. The study consisted of a cross-sectional analysis using a sample of 67 well-recognized hotel brands operating in the U.S. (representing 63 percent of the national guestroom inventory), covering a four- year period between 1996 and 1999. Correlation and multiple regression analysis were used to examine the hypothesized relationships within the LMS model. This study represented the first comprehensive investigation of the competitive market structure of the U.S. lodging industry. The key findings of the study indicate that the financial performance of hotel brands in the Unite States is strongly impacted by competitive market structure. Among the various market structure constructs studied, barriers to entry played the most dominant role in determining the level of financial performance of hotel brands. Based on a strong negative relationship, barriers to entry are very effective in reducing competition in the U.S. lodging industry. Also, of the constructs studied, barriers to entry had the greatest influence on enhancing the market share of incumbent hotel brands. The growth rate of those incumbent brands has a positive relationship with barriers to entry. As competition intensifies, the growth rate of hotel brands slows down. Increases in competition are negatively correlated with a brand’s market share. Competition has a strong negative relationship with the financial performance of hotel brands. Market share improves as the growth rate of hotel brands increases. As the growth rate of brands increases, profitability also improves. Likewise, improvements in a hotel brand’s market share are positively related to increases in profitability. Lastly, the U.S. lodging market is becoming more competitive, and the industry has reached the mature stage of its lifecycle. iii This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Lisa, and my children Alexander and Hailey for their love, support, and understanding. Without their encouragement and patience this endeavor would not have been possible. iv Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to a number of people who provided valuable assistance and motivation throughout my academic odyssey. First, I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Ken W. McCleary, my committee chairman and advisor. Over the last few years, he has provided continuous encouragement and valuable advice regarding my doctoral studies. Second, I would like to thank Drs. Pamela Weaver, Suzanne Murrmann, John Williams and Leo Renaghan for providing me the benefit of all of their years of experience in guiding my research. This dissertation was greatly improved by their constructive comments and suggestions. Third, my sincere gratitude goes out to my business partners, Nick and Mario, and their wonderful families for granting me this intellectual sabbatical. Finally, to my mother Lillian and my father Radomir, for their everlasting love. Their wisdom and hard work provided my brother and I with a solid foundation of values to pursue our many interests, and nurtured a lifelong thirst for knowledge and learning. I hope this scholarly achievement is worthy of their trust. v Table of Contents Page Chapter I – Introduction…………………………………………………...1 1. Research Questions.……………………………………………………...4 2. Definitions……………………………………………………………….5 3. Contribution to Research.………………………………………………..6 4. Study Overview………………………………………………………….8 Chapter II – Literature Review……………………………………………10 1. Market Structure………………………………………………………….11 2. Barriers to Entry………………………………………………………….15 3. Competition ……………………………………………………………...21 4. Growth……………………………………………………………………32 5. Market Share……………………………………………………………..40 6. Financial Performance……………………………………………………49 7. Summary of Literature Review and Comprehensive Model……………..58 Chapter III – Research Method…………………………………………….60 1. Objectives of Study………………………………………………………..60 2. Theoretical Boundaries……….……………………………………………61 3. Unit of Analysis……………………………………………………………63 4. Sampling Frame……………………………………………………………63 vi Table of Contents (Continued) 5. Time Frame…………………………………………………………………64 6. Operationalization of Constructs/ Variables...……………………………..65 7. Hypotheses………………………………………………………………….69 8. Operationalized LMS Model………..………………………………………71 9. Data Sources ………………………………………….…………………….73 10. Statistical Analyses…………………..………………………………………75 11. Summary…………………………………………………………………….77 Chapter IV – Data Analysis and Results …………………………………….78 1. Sample ………………………………………………………………………..78 2. Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………86 3. Multivariate Assumptions. ……………………………………………………88 4. Correlation Analysis…………………………………………………………91 5. Support for Hypotheses………………………………………………….…..93 6. Multiple Regression Analyses – Period One (1996/1997) ….………….…...95 7. Multiple Regression Analyses – Period Two (1998/1999) ….………….…..99 8. Validation of Results – Period One vs Period Two ……………………….102 9. Discussion of Results………………………………………………………104 10. Addressing the Research Questions ……………………………………….111 11. Chapter Summary. ………………………………………………………...113 vii Table of Contents (Continued) Chapter V – Conclusions…………………………………………………….114 1. Findings……………………………………………………………………..114 2. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………..….116 3. Managerial Implications…………………………………………………….117 4. Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………….119 5. Suggestions for Future Research…………………………………………....121 6. Summary ……………………………………………………………………123 References ………………………..…………………………………………..124 Appendices……………………………………………………………………142 Vita…………………………………………………………………………….158 viii List of Tables 1. U.S. Lodging Industry Performance 1991-2000 …………………………………..2 2. Bain’s (1956) Industry Concentration Ratios ……………………………………23 3. Growth in Hotel Brand Competition in the U.S. (1991-2000) …………………...24 4. Concentration Levels – Top Eight Brands in U.S. Hotels Sector (1999) …………25 5. Segmented Competition in the U.S. Hotel Industry (1999) ………………………29 6. U.S. Hotel Industry Growth (1991-2000) ………………………………………..33 7. Growth in Hotel Brand Size in the United States (1991-2000) ………………….36 8. U.S. Hotel Segment Supply Growth 1991-2000 …………………………………38 9. Studies Indicating Positive Association Between MS-FP (1972-2000) …………..43 10. Non-Supporting Studies of a Positive MS-FP Relationship ………………………44 11. Summary of Study Constructs and Proposed Variables …………………………...65 12. Summary of Research Questions and Matching Hypotheses ……………………..71 13. Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) used to Test the LMS Model ……………77 14. Brands Represented in Study Relative to Industry Segment Totals ……………….79 15. Data Collection Sources Summary …………………………………………………82 16. Table 16 – Operational Definitions for Variables…………………………………..86 17. Descriptive Statistics for Period One (1996/1997)………………………………….86 18. Descriptive Statistics for Period Two (1998/1999)……………………………….…87 19. Correlation Summary and Hypotheses (Period One 1996/1997) …………………...94 20. Correlation Summary and Hypotheses (Period Two 1998/1999)……………………95 ix List of Tables (Continued) 21. Multiple Regression Equation – LMS Model (1996/1997) …………………………96 22. Multiple Regression Equation – LMS Model (1998/1999) ………………………..99 23. Comparison of Relationships Between Period One and Period Two ……………102 24. Multiple Regression Results – Period One vs Period Two ……………………….103 x List of Figures 1. Lodging Market Structure (LMS) Model …………………………………………….9 2. Proposed Relationship: Barriers to Entry with Other Market Structure Constructs ….20 3. Proposed Relationship: Competition and Other Market Structure Constructs ………31 4. Proposed Relationships: Growth Rate and Other Market Structure Constructs ……..39 5. Proposed Relationships: Market Share and Other Market Structure Constructs …….48 6. The Lodging Market Structure (LMS) Model ………………………………………..59 7. Operationalized LMS Model ………………………………………………………...72 8. Correlation Analysis Results (Period One = 1996/1997) …………………………..91 9. Correlation Analysis results (period Two = 1998 / 1999) …………………………..93 xi CHAPTER I Introduction The objective of this study is to explore the relationship between various market structure constructs (consisting of barriers to entry, growth, competition, and market share) and their potential impact on the financial performance of branded hotels within the U.S. lodging industry. Interest