Customer Reviews of Accommodation as an Important Factor in Choosing and Booking Accommodation: Analysis of Conditions in V4 Countries
Department of Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Management and Business, University of Prešov, 080 01 Prešov, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14(12), 308; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120308
Submission received: 1 October 2024
/
Revised: 6 November 2024
/
Accepted: 18 November 2024
/
Published: 21 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tourism and Hospitality Marketing: Trends and Best Practices)
Abstract
:Customer reviews represent an important aspect when choosing accommodation from the customer’s point of view. The customer assumes that if the facility has a higher number of positive reviews from other customers, his experience with the services of the selected accommodation will be similar. This paper focuses on the importance of customer reviews of accommodation facilities in the context of V4 countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia). The aim of the paper was to analytically evaluate customer reviews of accommodation facilities in V4 countries as an important factor in the selection and reservation of accommodation services, such as gastronomic services, accommodation and additional services. We focused primarily on examining the differences in customer evaluations of accommodation facilities in these V4 countries. The findings highlight the importance of positive and negative reviews in influencing guest satisfaction and loyalty. At the end of the paper, we offer recommendations for accommodation facilities that are focused on positive as well as negative reviews.
1. Introduction
The Booking.com hotel reservation system includes three parties: consumers, owners and the managers of accommodation facilities and platform operators. From the point of view of consumers, online reviews are especially important when choosing an accommodation facility (Lee and Lee 2019; Lee 2020; Leung et al. 2020). From the perspective of hotel managers, online reviews facilitate a useful comparison of information and thus promote online sales. From the perspective of platform operators, online reviews can help potential consumers make the right decision when choosing a suitable accommodation facility.
Customer reviews are an important aspect of various forms of purchase. Reviews represent feedback from the customer, which is a very important tool in marketing communication to check whether the marketing communication was correctly targeted and understood.
If we look at customer reviews of accommodation facilities, they reflect customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the services offered by the given accommodation facilities. Customer reviews of accommodation facilities usually take two forms, namely, the text itself from the customer and the evaluation of individual categories by the customer. Compared with review texts, a rating score is more straightforward and easier to perceive by potential consumers who are browsing reviews to make booking decisions (Chevers and Spencer 2019; Ghose et al. 2012). In current business practice, hotel booking platforms usually adopt a single-dimensional rating system or a multidimensional rating system. According to (Archak et al. 2011; De Langhe et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2018), a multidimensional evaluation system (consumers evaluate individual services provided in the accommodation facility separately) is more important when conveying complex information about a product or service, because multi-dimensional ratings (e.g., service, location, cleanliness, etc.) facilitate information screening and information comparison. This means that potential consumers can evaluate whether a product or service meets their requirements or preferences through individual evaluations of each attribute of the product or service.
In accordance with the above, accommodation facilities in V4 countries are the subject of our interest. In this study, we analyze customer reviews of accommodation facilities in the selected countries, which were randomly selected from the Booking.com portal. When randomly selecting individual hotels, we defined a category with an overall rating of hotels from 10 to 9.
2. Literature Review
When planning a trip, tourists reserve accommodation that they have never been to before. For this reason, they try to find as much information as possible about the given accommodation facility, so that their choice is the best possible among the alternatives offered. Traditionally, word of mouth from friends reduces the risk of making the wrong choice. Now, this word-of-mouth has been replaced by an online review on the Internet, either on the hotel’s website or on various other platforms, where this review becomes a trusted tool for booking accommodation, as customers who have already used the services of the accommodation facility share their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the accommodation services on the Internet (Cheung and Lee 2012; Park et al. 2021; Schindler and Bickart 2002; Rosario et al. 2020).
Filieri and McLeay (2014) found that up to 96.4% of customers use the Internet as a source of information when planning their vacation and booking accommodation. Up to 90% of respondents use customer reviews from other visitors as a factor in choosing an accommodation facility when booking accommodation. That is why customer reviews have a significant impact on the consumer’s decision when choosing an accommodation facility. Since the service has different characteristics to the material product itself, it is difficult to determine the level of services provided by a given hotel until the tourist stays there (Boo and Busser 2018).
Customer reviews of accommodation facilities play a key role in today’s competition in the field of tourism. Reviews provide valuable information that allows hotels to improve services, eliminate deficiencies and streamline processes. A customer review can be positive, negative and neutral. Each review affects the operation of the hotel (Mariani et al. 2020; Mariani et al. 2019). According to Kim et al. (2021), in positive reviews, customers praise hotels for exceptional service, cleanliness, friendly staff and various other evaluation categories. Negative reviews contain complaints and criticisms regarding various aspects such as noise, a lack of service or poor-quality equipment. Neutral reviews may contain mixed feelings or say that the hotel met basic expectations but did not surpass anything (Lee and Choi 2020).
If the hotel has enough reviews (both positive and negative), the reviews can help create a real picture of the hotel’s services, or its staff and equipment (Wang et al. 2020). For this reason, the review not only has a significant impact on the customer (guest) itself, but also on the accommodation facility, with a positive review helping to increase performance (Nie et al. 2020; Filieri and Mariani 2021; Ban and Kim 2019). Customer reviews in hotels are extremely important for maintaining competitiveness and improving service quality. Their proper use can lead to maximum profit and satisfied customers (Yang et al. 2021).
Customer experience means that an individual has tried a company’s goods or services. Schmitt (1999) was the first to come up with the definition of customer experience, which consists of sensory, emotional, cognitive, behavioral and relational experiences. Meyer and Schwader (2007) defined customer experience as the personal/subjective experience of the customer, and his reaction to direct/indirect contact with the company in any form.
A customer’s experience can be remembered either positively or negatively depending on the customer’s current situation, leading to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the product or service (Meyer and Schwader 2007). According to Kim and Kim (2022), either absolute satisfaction or absolute dissatisfaction leads a customer to write a review.
Customer satisfaction is a complex experience in the hospitality industry and evaluating what the customer experienced is complicated (Kim and Noh 2019). However, the focus on customer experience and satisfaction has inevitably increased as the market has changed from a producer-driven market to a buyer-driven market (Aakash et al. 2021).
Customer satisfaction management is therefore the only strategy that can respond to such market changes. Companies whose primary goal is to focus on customer satisfaction, through customer experience, can increase customer loyalty, repurchase intentions and positive reviews, subsequently contributing to higher profitability (Anderson et al. 1994).
As customers prefer and think about various attributes when selecting a hotel, customer reviews play a decisive role in the search for information, so the goal of an accommodation establishment should be to effectively manage customer reviews as an indicator of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the accommodation establishment’s services. Therefore, the management of reviews not only helps the hotel to effectively manage public relations, but also provides an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage (Verma and Chandra 2018).
Reviews on platforms such as Booking.com have a significant impact on customer decisions when choosing accommodation. Customers are looking for specific information and positive experiences from other customers to make informed decisions. It is therefore important for hotels to actively manage their reviews, respond to feedback and focus on providing quality services to stay competitive (Zyrianov and Zyrianova 2021).
3. Materials
The accommodation establishments were selected at random from the Booking.com portal, while a total of 10 accommodation establishments were selected for the purposes of the survey and their evaluation for each of the investigated countries (i.e., a total of 40 accommodation establishments); the data were collected on 10 September 2024.
When choosing accommodation facilities for analysis, we focused only on accommodation facilities of class ****.
As part of the research, we considered the evaluation of all categories by which customers can evaluate the services of accommodation facilities on Booking.com. These are the seven categories:
- overall assessment,
- staff,
- equipment,
- cleanliness,
- comfort,
- price/quality ratio,
- position.
At the same time, we supplemented this information with the number of reviews that can be found on the Booking.com portal for each of the selected accommodation facilities.
It follows that the size of the research sample is 280 customer reviews of 40 accommodation establishments from the 4 countries surveyed, using 7 evaluation criteria (i.e., we selected 70 reviews for each of the countries surveyed). The data are secondary in nature.
In the case of Slovakia, the highest rating for a accommodation facility was 9.8, which belonged to the Boutique hotel ERB—Adults Only in Banská Štiavnica. The hotel received the highest possible rating (10 points) for the cleanliness and comfort category (Table 1).
At the same time, from Table 1, we can conclude that the worst rating (8.2) was given to Aphrodite Palace for the price/quality ratio category. Even if it is the lowest rating in the case of the selected accommodation facilities, we can still say that 8.2 out of 10 is a high customer rating. At the same time, regarding the number of reviews, the Grand Hotel Kempinski in the High Tatras has the highest number, with 1085 customers leaving feedback on Booking.com. Boutique Hotel ERB in Banská Štiavnica has the fewest reviews, with only 59 customers leaving their feedback.
As the second investigated country, we present the accommodation facilities in Hungary. In Table 2, we can see that in the case of Hungary, Bagatele Gardenhouse, which received a rating of 10.0 in the four categories of staff, equipment, cleanliness and comfort, was rated the highest. The lowest rating was given to Hotel Barbakán, where customers rated its equipment at 9.0. Again, this is a high rating.
The third country studied was Poland (Table 3), where we noticed that Green Deer Premium received the highest rating for staff. The lowest rating was for the Hotel Czarny Potok Resort SPA & Conference (8.5), for the price/quality ratio.
Finally, we chose 10 accommodation facilities in the Czech Republic (Table 4). The best-rated hotel is Residence Agnes, in the staff category. Hotel Theate received the lowest rating (8.1) for its location.
4. Methods
The aim of the this study was to analytically evaluate customer reviews of accommodation facilities in V4 countries as an important factor in the selection and reservation of accommodation facilities.
Among the methods, in the first step, we used descriptive statistics to statistically quantify the differences that were apparent at first glance from Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, where we focused on the indicators of the location rate and the variability rate.
Based on this difference, which was also evident in the descriptive statistics, we formulated the main research question:
RQ: Are there statistically significant differences in customer ratings in the countries studied?
The following research hypotheses were related to this research question:
H0:
There are no statistically significant differences in customer ratings between the countries studied.
H1:
There are statistically significant differences in customer ratings between the countries studied.
The research hypotheses were tested at a significance level of α = 0.05. The decision rule for testing the exploratory hypotheses is as follows:
- If the p-value is ≤α, the hypothesis H0 is rejected. There are statistically significant differences between the variables.
- If the p-value is >α, we cannot reject the hypothesis H0. There is no statistically significant difference between the variables.
Subsequently, we used a t-test to examine the differences in customer evaluation from the point of view of individual V4 countries. Statistical analysis was performed in the R program.
5. Results and Discussion
The first step in the data analysis was the performance of descriptive statistics to determine the basic characteristics of the survey sample. We recorded these results in Table 5.
From Table 5, regarding the average overall rating of accommodation facilities, it can be seen that the highest average rating for accommodation facilities was achieved in the Czech Republic and Hungary, followed by Poland and Slovakia, which had the lowest average overall rating for accommodation facilities among the studied countries.
At the same time, we can observe the variability in the reviews of accommodation facilities between individual countries. While the standard deviation of accommodation facilities in the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary is at the level of 0.26 (Table 5), it is only 0.19 in Slovakia. On the other hand, in the case of Poland, this variability is at the level of 0.30, which is the highest variability compared to the other investigated countries (and we only consider the overall evaluation of the selected accommodation facilities). For this reason, the comparison of the differences between the selected countries in terms of customer evaluation was worth further investigation, which we undertake in the next step of the analysis.
To assess the statistically significant differences between customer ratings (we considered only the overall rating variable) in individual countries, we first performed an analysis of basic conditions for the use of the t-test. To find out whether there were outliers in the customer evaluation from a statistical point of view, which could distort the overall result of the analysis as well as the normal distribution of the data, we visualized our data using ggplot (Figure 1).
From Figure 1, we can see that there are two outliers in the sample set. To test normality, we used the Shapiro–Wilk test, which reached a p-value of 0.1713. The p-value was higher than the significance level α; therefore, we can claim that the variable overall rating had a normal distribution. To specify both outliers, we used the Grubbs test, which confirmed that the outliers were 9.0 and 9.9. Since we wanted to achieve the most accurate result that was not distorted by outliers, we used the Hampel test to remove these outliers.
Based on the finding of a normal distribution for the overall rating, we used the parametric Student’s t-test for two independent samples to determine the differences between the customer ratings in the V4 countries. We assumed that there were significant differences between customer evaluations of the accommodation facilities in the V4 countries. The resulting p-values (Table 6) for each of the investigated countries were higher than the significance level α. This means that there were no significant differences in terms of customer evaluations of the accommodation facilities in these V4 countries.
Table 6 also shows that the results of a comparison of the differences between V4 countries in terms of customer reviews of accommodation facilities are repeated (e.g., for CZ-PL and HU-PL and for CZ-SK and HU-SK, we observe the same p-values as t-test values). At the same time, we can state that, despite not confirming the existence of differences between the reviews of accommodation facilities in the V4 countries, the review represents an important tool for accommodation facilities both from the side of the accommodation facility and from the customer, who reads the reviews before choosing and booking the accommodation facility.
6. Conclusions
Customer reviews are an important element based on which the customer reserves accommodation. Either absolute satisfaction or absolute dissatisfaction causes the guest to write a review. Therefore, the accommodation facility should not ignore customer reviews of its services. The survey also shows that the overall review is based on partial reviews of price, cleanliness, location and services. The number of reviews also affects the customer.
The accommodation facility should care about the reputation that the reviews create. If possible, someone should be assigned to respond to reviews within 3 days. There should be reactions to both positive and negative reviews. If the accommodation facility does not have the ability to assign a person to deal primarily with reviews, it is advisable for the accommodation facility to set up software with automatic responses. A good response to a review includes:
- emotional stability and a consistent tone (especially when responding to negative reviews),
- polite and professional language,
- thanks for the feedback,
- the expression of pleasure in the case of a positive review,
- offering a solution/correction of the situation in case of a negative review and ensuring that the customer feels welcome during their next stay (e.g., discount for the next stay, services, etc.).
However, the best solution to avoid a negative review is prevention. During the stay itself, it is necessary to ask the guest how satisfied they are with the services provided, to prevent the guest leaving a negative review after arriving home, where his assessment of the accommodation facility can no longer be influenced.
Reviews can also offer a competitive advantage for an accommodation facility compared to other accommodation facilities. Reviews (especially positive ones) can be used by the accommodation facility to the maximum, as it is good to draw attention to a positive review, e.g., on its own website, or provide the customer with a link to reviews on other evaluation portals.
At the same time, the accommodation facility itself cannot perceive their reviews only negatively; on the contrary, an adequate customer review helps the accommodation facility to improve the services provided so far. Guest reviews provide valuable feedback that allows a property to identify areas for improvement. In this way, businesses can adapt to customer needs and expectations and ensure better service quality; as a result, they can attract more customers and increase their market share.
In terms of managerial and practical implications, customer reviews of accommodation have a significant impact on the management and overall quality of services. They are an invaluable resource that accommodation providers can use to optimize their listings, improve customer satisfaction and effectively manage their reputation. Based on reviews, managers can directly identify service weaknesses, specific guest requirements or preferences, allowing them to more accurately match products and services to guest expectations. From a management perspective, reviews facilitate decision-making in areas such as innovation, staff training and process improvement, leading to increased customer loyalty and a competitive advantage. In addition, actively responding to reviews helps to build trust and credibility with new potential guests. Therefore, with the growing importance of online reviews, accommodation businesses should adopt a systematic approach to monitoring and managing them to achieve not only a higher service quality, but also sustainable market growth.
We consider the limitation of this research to be the research area, i.e., only the V4 countries. In our opinion, research on accommodation reviews from an international perspective, possibly in the European area, would yield interesting results. At the same time, we consider the fact that there is no uniform classification and categorization of accommodation facilities worldwide to be a limitation of this research (even in the European Union area), leading to the fact that accommodation classifications provide different levels of service and that, therefore, the reviews may be inaccurate; there may also be differences in customer ratings between the reviews of a hotel, for example, of the same class.
For future research on customer reviews, we recommend focusing on a larger research area to obtain a consistent research sample as well as more consistent results.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.K. and A.Š.; methodology, E.K.; software, E.K.; validation, S.K. and K.Š.; formal analysis, A.Š.; investigation, K.Š.; resources, S.K.; data curation, E.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K.; writing—review and editing, A.Š.; visualization, K.Š.; supervision, E.K.; project administration, A.Š.; funding acquisition, K.Š. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Slovak Republic (KEGA) grant number 005PU-4/2022 and the APC was funded by Prešovská univerzita v Prešove.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The contribution is one of the outputs of the project KEGA 005PU-4/2022 “Innovation of the study program Tourism, hotel and spa industry in the first degree of study in the field of study Economics and Management”.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Aakash, Aakash, Abhishek Tandom, and Anu Gupta Aggarwal. 2021. How features embedded in eWOM predict hotel guest satisfaction: An application of artificial neural networks. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 30: 486–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, Eugene W., Claes Fornell, and Donald R. Lehmann. 1994. Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing 58: 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Archak, Nikolay, Anindya Ghose, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2011. Deriving the pricing power of product features by mining consumer reviews. Management Science 57: 1485–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ban, Hyun-Jeong, and Hak-Seon Kim. 2019. Understanding customer experience and satisfaction through airline passengers’ online review. Sustainability 11: 4066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boo, Soyoung, and James A. Busser. 2018. Meeting planners’ online reviews of destination hotels: A twofold content analysis approach. Tourism Management 66: 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Pei-Yu, Yili Hong, and Ying Liu. 2018. The value of multidimensional rating systems: Evidence from a natural experiment and randomized experiments. Management Science 64: 4629–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, Christy M. K., and Matthew K. Lee. 2012. What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decision Support Systems 53: 218–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chevers, Delroy, and Andrew Spencer. 2019. Customer satisfaction in Jamaican hotels through the use of information and communication technology. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 9: 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Langhe, Bart, Philip M. Fernbach, and Donald R. Lichtenstein. 2016. Navigating by the stars: Investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. Journal of Consumer Research 42: 817–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filieri, Raffaele, and Fraser McLeay. 2014. E-WOM and accommodation: An analysis of the factors that influence travellers’ adoption of information from online reviews. Journal of Travel Research 53: 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filieri, Raffaele, and Marcello Mariani. 2021. The role of cultural values in consumers’ evaluation of online review helpfulness: A big data approach. International Marketing Review 38: 1267–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghose, Anindya, Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, and Beibei Li. 2012. Designing ranking systems for hotels on travel search engines by mining user-generated and crowdsourced content. Marketing Science 31: 493–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Eun Joo, Sarah Tanford, and Laura A. Book. 2021. The effect of priming and customer reviews on sustainable travel behaviours. Journal of Travel Research 60: 86–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Hak-Seon, and Yoojeong Noh. 2019. Elicitation of design factors through big data analysis of online customer reviews for washing machines. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 33: 2785–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Yae-Ji, and Hak-Seon Kim. 2022. The Impact of Hotel Customer Experience on Customer Satisfaction trough Online reviews. Sustainability 14: 848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Jin-Soo, and Miju Choi. 2020. Examining the asymmetric effect of multi-shopping tourism attributes on overall shopping destination satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research 59: 295–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Kyoung-Joo. 2020. Understanding innovative information systems (IS) use of frontline employees in hotels: Proactivity, psychological empowerment, self-learning, and service quality efficacy. Global Business Finance Review 25: 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Seongjeong Ally, and Juyup Lee. 2019. Enhancing customers’ brand loyalty via branded hotel apps. Journal of Qualitative Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 20: 339–61. [Google Scholar]
- Leung, Xi Y., Jiaying Lyu, and Billy Bai. 2020. A fad or the future? Examining the effectiveness of virtual reality advertising in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 88: 102391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariani, Marcello M., Matteo Borghi, and Fevzi Okumus. 2020. Unravelling the effects of cultural differences in the online appraisal of hospitality and tourism services. International Journal of Hospitality Management 90: 102606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariani, Marcello M., Matteo Borghi, and Ulrike Gretzel. 2019. Online reviews: Differences by submission device. Tourism Management 70: 295–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, Chris, and Andre Schwader. 2007. Understanding Customer Experience. Harvard Business Review. Available online: https://hbr.org/2007/02/understanding-customer-experience#:~:text=The%20authors%20describe%20a%20customer%20experience%20management%20(CEM)%20process%20that (accessed on 24 September 2024).
- Nie, Ru-xin, Zhang-peng Tian, Jiang-qiang Wang, and Kwai Sang Chin. 2020. Hotel selection driven by online textual reviews: Applying a semantic partitioned sentiment dictionary and evidence theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management 88: 102495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Jungkun, Hyowon Hyun, and Toulany Thavisay. 2021. A study of antecedents and outcomes of social media WOM towards luxury brand purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58: 102272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosario, Ana Babić, Kristine De Valck, and Francesca Sotgiu. 2020. Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. Journal of Academic Marketing Science 48: 422–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schindler, Ronert M., and Barbara Bickart. 2002. Characteristics of online consumer comments valued for hedonic and utilitarian shopping tasks. Advances in Consumer Research 29: 428–29. [Google Scholar]
- Schmitt, Bernd. 1999. Experiential marketing. Journal of Marketing and Management 15: 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verma, Vivek, and Bibhas Chandra. 2018. Sustainability and customers’ hotel choice behaviour: A choice-based conjoint analysis approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability 20: 1347–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Le, Xiao-kang Wang, Juan-juan Peng, and Jian-qiang Wang. 2020. The differences in hotel selection among various types of travellers: A comparative analysis with a useful bounded rationality behavioural decision support model. Tourism Management 76: 103961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Xiyue, Nan Li, Hailin Mu, Ming Zhang, Jingru Pang, and Mahmood Ahmad. 2021. Study on the long-term and short-term effects of globalization and population aging on ecological footprint in OECD countries. Ecological Complexity 47: 100946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zyrianov, Aleksandr I., and Inna S. Zyrianova. 2021. Planning of the interregional tourist route in the Urals. Quaestiones Geographicae 40: 109–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Data visualization using ggplot (Source: R output).
Table 1.
Selected accommodation facilities in Slovakia.
| Device Name | Number of Reviews | Overall Assessment | Staff | Equipment | T | Cleanliness | Comfort | Price | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boutique Hotel ERB—Adults Only | 59 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 9.4 | 9.9 | |
| Grand Hotel Kempinsky High Tatras | 1085 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 8.7 | 9.9 | |
| Hotel Lomnica | 607 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 8.9 | 9.6 | |
| Hotel Zemplen | 469 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.1 | 8.9 | |
| Hotel Eufória | 83 | 9.4 | 9.9 | 8.9 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.2 | |
| Hotel & Restaurant Barca | 887 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.3 | 8.7 | |
| Grand Hotel Bachledka Strachan | 750 | 9.4. | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.0 | 9.5 | |
| Vila Plaza Boutique Hotel & Spa | 276 | 9.3 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 8.8 | 9.0 | |
| Aphrodite Palace | 502 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 8.2 | 9.2 | |
| Hotel Thermal Šírava | 336 | 9.1 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 8.5 | 9.0 |
Source: own elaboration according to Booking.com. https://www.booking.com/searchresults.sk.html?aid=304142&label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggI46AdIM1gEaM0BiAEBmAEiuAEHyAEN2AEB6AEB-AEMiAIBqAIDuAKY6_a5BsACAdICJGFjZDNkMGM5LWNkOWQtNDdlNy05NmM0LTBkMzBlYTg5MDQzZdgCBuACAQ&sid=c0e1208ed9fbc2d71be313a6380684e3&checkin=2024 (accessed on 17 November 2024).
Table 2.
Selected accommodation facilities in Hungary.
| Device Name | Number of Reviews | Overall Assessment | Staff | Equipment | T | Cleanliness | Comfort | Price | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bagatele Gardenhouse | 109 | 9.9 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 9.5 | 9.3 | |
| Ibrahim Boutique Hotel | 221 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.9 | |
| Mescet Apartment | 460 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.7 | 9.9 | |
| Mala Garden Design Hotel | 1050 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.1 | 9.7 | |
| Noir Hotel | 1343 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.3 | 9.5 | |
| Emerald Downtown Luxury Suites with Hotel Services | 2755 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.9 | |
| Emerald Hotel | 3850 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.2 | 9.8 | |
| Áurea Ana Palace by Eurostars Hotel Company | 3341 | 9.3 | 9.6 | 9.3 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.1 | 9.6 | |
| Florin Apart Hotel | 2512 | 9.2 | 9.5 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.2 | 9.8 | |
| Hotel Barbakán | 1252 | 9.1 | 9.6 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 9.5 |
Source: own elaboration according to Booking.com. https://www.booking.com/searchresults.sk.html?aid=304142&label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggI46AdIM1gEaM0BiAEBmAEiuAEHyAEN2AEB6AEB-AEMiAIBqAIDuAKY6_a5BsACAdICJGFjZDNkMGM5LWNkOWQtNDdlNy05NmM0LTBkMzBlYTg5MDQzZdgCBuACAQ&sid=c0e1208ed9fbc2d71be313a6380684e3&checkin=2024 (accessed on 17 November 2024).
Table 3.
Selected accommodation facilities in Poland.
| Device Name | Number of Reviews | Overall Assessment | Staff | Equipment | T | Cleanliness | Comfort | Price | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Deer Premium | 577 | 9.9 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.7 | |
| Palac Gruszów | 196 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 9.6 | |
| MONTOWNIA Lofts & Experience | 2084 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.4 | 9.3 | |
| Rezydencja AQUA | 818 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.4 | 9.5 | |
| Aparthotel Bialczański | 2031 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 9.4 | 9.8 | |
| Hotel Szary Residence | 585 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 9.3 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.2 | 9.3 | |
| Hampton by Hilton Krakow Airport | 13,531 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.0 | 9.3 | |
| Hotel Bardo | 1588 | 9.2 | 9.4 | 9.2 | 9.5 | 9.2 | 8.8 | 9.2 | |
| Evita Hotel & Spa | 2222 | 9.1 | 9.4 | 9.2 | 9.4 | 9.3 | 9.0 | 9.3 | |
| Hotel Czarny Potok Resort SPA & Conference | 2237 | 9.0 | 9.3 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 8.5 | 9.1 |
Source: own elaboration according to Booking.com. https://www.booking.com/searchresults.sk.html?aid=304142&label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggI46AdIM1gEaM0BiAEBmAEiuAEHyAEN2AEB6AEB-AEMiAIBqAIDuAKY6_a5BsACAdICJGFjZDNkMGM5LWNkOWQtNDdlNy05NmM0LTBkMzBlYTg5MDQzZdgCBuACAQ&sid=c0e1208ed9fbc2d71be313a6380684e3&checkin=2024 (accessed on 17 November 2024).
Table 4.
Selected accommodation facilities in Czech Republic.
| Device Name | Number of Reviews | Overall Assessment | Staff | Equipment | T | Cleanliness | Comfort | Price | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Romantik Hotel u Raka | 149 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.7 | |
| Hotel Residence Agnes | 1847 | 9.8 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 9.7 | 9.9 | |
| THE MANES Boutique Hotel Prague | 2060 | 9.7 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 9.6 | |
| Allure Hotel Prague | 2020 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 9.8 | 9.8 | 9.4 | 9.9 | |
| Wellness & spa Hotel Augustiniánský dům | 195 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 8.9 | 9.6 | |
| Hotel CUBE Prague | 6279 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.6 | |
| The Julius Prague | 4138 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.1 | 9.7 | |
| Theate Hotel | 1247 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.6 | 8.9 | 8.1 | |
| Aparthotel Lípa | 1747 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.1 | 8.9 | |
| Pytloun Boutique Hotel Prague | 5807 | 9.1 | 9.4 | 9.0 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 9.8 |
Source: own elaboration according to Booking.com. https://www.booking.com/searchresults.sk.html?aid=304142&label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggI46AdIM1gEaM0BiAEBmAEiuAEHyAEN2AEB6AEB-AEMiAIBqAIDuAKY6_a5BsACAdICJGFjZDNkMGM5LWNkOWQtNDdlNy05NmM0LTBkMzBlYTg5MDQzZdgCBuACAQ&sid=c0e1208ed9fbc2d71be313a6380684e3&checkin=2024 (accessed on 17 November 2024).
Table 5.
Descriptive statistics of accommodation facilities in terms of country.
| Country | Descriptive Statistic Indicator | Overall Assessment | Staff | Equipment | T | Cleanliness | Comfort | Price | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Czech Republic | Mean | 9.51 | 9.70 | 9.56 | 9.71 | 9.67 | 9.24 | 9.48 | |
| Sd | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.29 | 0.56 | ||
| Min | 9.1 | 9.4 | 9.0 | 9.2 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 8.1 | ||
| 1Q | 9.32 | 9.47 | 9.52 | 9.70 | 9.62 | 8.95 | 9.60 | ||
| Median | 9.55 | 9.75 | 9.6 | 9.75 | 9.70 | 9.25 | 9.65 | ||
| 3Q | 9.67 | 9.87 | 9.67 | 9.87 | 9.8 | 9.40 | 9.77 | ||
| Max | 9.9 | 10.0 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 9.7 | 9.9 | ||
| Hungary | Mean | 9.51 | 9.68 | 9.56 | 9.68 | 9.66 | 9.34 | 9.69 | |
| Sd | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.32 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.20 | ||
| Min | 9.1 | 9.5 | 9.0 | 9.3 | 9.2 | 9.1 | 9.3 | ||
| 1Q | 9.32 | 9.60 | 9.32 | 9.52 | 9.52 | 9.20 | 9.52 | ||
| Median | 9.55 | 9.65 | 9.6 | 9.75 | 9.75 | 9.30 | 9.75 | ||
| 3Q | 9.67 | 9.70 | 9.80 | 9.80 | 9.8 | 9.47 | 9.87 | ||
| Max | 9.9 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 9.7 | 9.9 | ||
| Poland | Mean | 9.45 | 9.57 | 9.43 | 9.63 | 9.56 | 9.19 | 9.41 | |
| Sd | 0.30 | 0.24 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.22 | ||
| Min | 9.0 | 9.3 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 9.2 | 8.5 | 9.1 | ||
| 1Q | 9.22 | 9.40 | 9.22 | 9.50 | 9.32 | 9.0 | 9.30 | ||
| Median | 9.45 | 9.55 | 9.4 | 9.65 | 9.60 | 9.30 | 9.30 | ||
| 3Q | 9.67 | 9.67 | 9.57 | 9.80 | 9.8 | 9.40 | 9.57 | ||
| Max | 9.9 | 10.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 9.6 | 9.8 | ||
| Slovakia | Mean | 9.42 | 9.60 | 9.47 | 9.67 | 9.67 | 8.95 | 9.29 | |
| Sd | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.42 | 0.41 | ||
| Min | 9.1 | 9.2 | 8.9 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 8.2 | 8.7 | ||
| 1Q | 9.32 | 9.52 | 9.32 | 9.62 | 9.52 | 8.72 | 9.0 | ||
| Median | 9.40 | 9.60 | 9.6 | 9.70 | 9.70 | 8.95 | 9.20 | ||
| 3Q | 9.50 | 9.70 | 9.60 | 9.70 | 9.8 | 9.25 | 9.57 | ||
| Max | 9.8 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.9 |
Source: own elaboration.
Table 6.
Resulting p-values and Student’s t-test values for two independent samples.
| Country | CZ-HU | CZ-PL | CZ-SK | HU-PL | HU-SK | PL-SK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value | 1 | 0.64 | 0.397 | 0.64 | 0.397 | 0.797 |
| t-statistic | 0 | 0.475 | 0.869 | 0.475 | 0.869 | 0.262 |
Source: own elaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Kolesárová, S.; Šenková, A.; Kormaníková, E.; Šambronská, K. Customer Reviews of Accommodation as an Important Factor in Choosing and Booking Accommodation: Analysis of Conditions in V4 Countries. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120308
AMA Style
Kolesárová S, Šenková A, Kormaníková E, Šambronská K. Customer Reviews of Accommodation as an Important Factor in Choosing and Booking Accommodation: Analysis of Conditions in V4 Countries. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(12):308. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120308
Chicago/Turabian StyleKolesárová, Stela, Anna Šenková, Erika Kormaníková, and Kristína Šambronská. 2024. "Customer Reviews of Accommodation as an Important Factor in Choosing and Booking Accommodation: Analysis of Conditions in V4 Countries" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 12: 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120308
APA StyleKolesárová, S., Šenková, A., Kormaníková, E., & Šambronská, K. (2024). Customer Reviews of Accommodation as an Important Factor in Choosing and Booking Accommodation: Analysis of Conditions in V4 Countries. Administrative Sciences, 14(12), 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120308
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
