Page 0. MANG1015 Individual Report. The Trafalgar Hotel. Student ID: Word Count: 2040

Transcription

1 Page 0 MANG1015 Individual Report The Trafalgar Hotel Student ID: Word Count: 2040

2 Contents Executive Summary 2 Context: The Trafalgar 3 Page 1 Research Objectives, method, and sample 3 Quantitative Analysis 4 Qualitative Analysis 6 The Trafalgar SWOT Matrix 11 Recommendations and Limitations 12 Reference List 14 Appendix 15

3 Executive Summary This report assesses the strengths and weaknesses of The Trafalgar, with a quantitative and qualitative analysis, to provide management with recommendations to improve the hotel. Page 2 Key report findings include: 1. Hotel location and the Rooftop Terrace are the main marketable strengths. 2. Rooftop Terrace availability is causing issues with guests. 3. Staff performance is inconsistent and so is breakfast experience. 4. Pricing is perceived to be unfair. Based on these findings it is recommended management: 1. Uses the marketable strengths of the hotel to advertise The Trafalgar. 2. Warns guests, before booking, if the Terrace is unavailable during their stay. 3. Encourages a team environment, open communication, and provides staff with more incentives to improve staff morale resulting in consistent performance. 4. Alters the price of rooms and drinks.

4 Context: The Trafalgar Page 3 The Trafalgar Hotel is situated in London on Spring Gardens overlooking the iconic Trafalgar square. There are several competing four star hotels within a short walk of The Trafalgar. The Grand and The Thistle Trafalgar Square share a similar price bracket, star rating, and location making these hotels competition for The Trafalgar a Hilton hotel. 5-minute walk 4-minute walk Most of the hotel s visits are leisure, specifically couple travellers. This is shown on the right with the number of guests categorised into leisure trip types. The hotel offers a fitness centre, a restaurant, and a popular rooftop bar as well as standard amenities like room service and free Wi- Fi. Research Objectives, method, and sample The objective of this report is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Trafalgar Hotel to appropriately advise hotel management. Secondary data, from TripAdvisor, was used to undertake a quantitative analysis and a qualitative analysis to support the assessment of the hotel s strengths and weaknesses. Before selecting the sample the reviews were filtered to exclude business travellers; thus, analysis results are solely representative of all leisure trips. Systematic sampling was used

5 Average Rating Score Page 4 to collate a sample of 100 reviews from a sampling frame of 2,448 reviews, enabling a quantitative analysis to be conducted. A number between 0-9 was randomly selected, using an online number generator, the number was seven. The sample starting point was 1 st January 2012 and each 7 th element in succession was selected from the sampling frame. This starting point was selected to ensure outdated reviews were not included. Systematic sampling was used to increase the likelihood of the sample being representative of the population of reviews; each review in the sampling frame had an equal chance of selection. Systematic sampling also assured the population of reviews were evenly sampled from This proved to be effective as reviews from every month from were part of the sample. In addition, the sampling technique returned a balanced number of male (48%) and female (52%) reviewers. The quantitative sample was numbered using a Guest ID to identify each review within the sample. From this sample a random sampling technique was used to obtain thirty reviews for a qualitative analysis. Again, an online random number generator was used. It selected thirty unique numbers from to provide the qualitative sample for analysis. Random sampling was used as the sampling frame, of 100 reviews, was already constructed and judged as representative of the 2,488 reviews making it easy to implement and time efficient. Quantitative Analysis The Trafalgar is rated on six elements on TripAdvisor so these six elements are the basis of the quantitative analysis. Figure 1 shows the TripAdvisor average rating summary for each element. This closely resembles the average element rating obtained from the sample shown below (Figure 2) indicating the sample is representative of the population of reviews. FIGURE 2. N=100 FIGURE Average Ratings (0.25) (0.99) (0.92) (0.98) (1.08) (1.20) Average Value Rating Average Sleep Quality Rating Average Cleaniness Rating Average Location Rating Average Rooms Rating Average Service Rating Figure 1 and Figure 2 both illustrate the high average location ratings (a mean of 4.95). This was consistent across all demographics for the entirety of the reviews. 100% of guests

6 Average Room Rating Average Value Rating from the sample of that rated The Trafalgar s location rated it a four or more. This high location rating is supported by the qualitative analysis which revealed 100% positive mentions regarding the location code from a total of 33 mentions. Page 5 Figure 2 illustrates the mean value rating, from 71 reviews, was This was the lowest rated element, on average, and had the greatest standard deviation. A standard deviation of 1.20 indicates guest ratings differed significantly. Extreme values effected the low mean score, 11% of guests rated the hotel s value below two. Figure 3 further illustrates the poor value scores from It indicates a potential future problem as average value fell by 0.5 from , suggesting guests perceive the hotel s value is decreasing with time. Average Value Rating Year FIGURE 3. N=70 The quantitative analysis also revealed guest s decreasing room rating from 4.42 (2014) to 3.50 (2015) shown in Figure 4. The significant decreasing value and room ratings may be early indicators that the hotel is beginning to decline. Average Room Rating Year FIGURE 4. N=72

7 Mentions Qualitative Analysis Page 6 Random sampling was used to obtain the sample for the qualitative analysis. A coding frame was used to analyse the sample s written reviews. From this coding frame graphs were constructed to illustrate the positive and negative mentions about The Trafalgar. The coding frame - shown in the Appendix section also considered the percentage of each code s positive and negative mentions. The number of code mentions, which forms each graph, is shown beneath each graph. A larger number of mentions ( 20) indicates a high proportion of the qualitative sample mentioned the code. This means the graph is more likely to be representative of the population of guest reviews. Whereas a smaller number of mentions ( 10) shows there are fewer mentions therefore the graph is less likely to be representative of the entire population of reviews. Value Figure 5 supports the findings drawn from the quantitative data, which indicated value was a concern for The Trafalgar. 1 in 3 guests from the qualitative sample mentioned value and of these mentions 73% were negative about value. Overall Value Mentions Percentage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Positive 27% Negative 73% FIGURE 5. N=11

8 Mentions Mentions Rooms Page 7 Despite the decreasing rooms average rating, in the quantitative section, the written reviews showed 81% of room mentions were positive Figure 6. Guest 17 epitomised the positive room mentions; Very nice spacious rooms with nice beds. A minority complained about the rooms, Guest 26: [about his room] the furniture was showing its age. Overall Rooms Mentions Percentage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Positive 81% Negative 19% FIGURE 6. N=26 Likewise, bathroom mentions illustrated in Figure 7 - were mostly positive. However, there were several bathroom complaints. Firstly, regarding wear and tear with a chip in the bathroom sink (Guest 30) as well as a complaint regarding bathroom smell Guest 3. Bathroom Mentions Percentage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Positive 67% Negative 33% FIGURE 7. N=6

9 Mentions Mentions Service Page 8 Staff mentions were 74% positive shown in Figure 8 Guest 2 stated The staff were all friendly and very helpful. However, the negative mentions are concerning; The staff have forgotten the basics of customer service Guest 5. 26% of guests were critical of the staff perhaps explaining why mean service rating in the quantitative analysis was 4.22 and not higher. Mentions regarding the inconsistent staff are summarised well by Guest 5 who described them as a mixed bag. Staff Mentions Percentage 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Positive 74% Negative 26% FIGURE 8. N=27 Figure 9 expresses the quality of check-in service. Each check-in mention from the qualitative sample was positive making check-in service a strength for this Hilton hotel. Check-in Mentions Percentage 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Positive 100% Negative 0% FIGURE 9. N=7

10 Mentions Mentions Food and Drink Page 9 Breakfast was the only significant food finding. Breakfast code mentions were 80% positive shown in Figure 10 with most guests referring to the good full English. Again, there were inconsistencies, as guest 15 argued; the breakfast experience was very poor this time. Poor breakfast experience is illustrated with the breakfast mentions being 20% negative. Breakfast Mentions Percentage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Positive 80% Negative 20% FIGURE 10. N=10 The qualitative analysis showed drinks are a concern. Figure 11 shows 83% of drink mentions were negative. 60% of the negative mentions argued drinks were very over-priced Guest 5 among others. Drinks Mentions Percentage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Positive 17% Negative 83% FIGURE 11. N=6

11 Mentions The Rooftop Terrace Page 10 Figure 12 illustrates 72% of rooftop terrace mentions were positive with many guests expressing that the rooftop lounge had gorgeous views! Guest 12. However, there is a concern regarding The Trafalgar s rooftop terrace availability, with several guests being unable to access the hotel s unique selling proposition. Unavailability contributed to each of the terrace s negative reviews. Rooftop Terrace Mentions Percentage 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Positive 72% Negative 28% FIGURE 12. N =18

12 The Trafalgar SWOT Matrix Page 11 Internal Positive Strengths o Location o Check-in Service o Room size o Rooftop terrace s vista and ambiance Negative Weaknesses o Inconsistent staff performance. o Inconsistent breakfast experience. o Value for money the cost for a night stay and drinks was commonly viewed as overpriced. o Rooms and bathrooms showing signs of wear. o Availability of rooftop terrace. External Opportunities The following events will bring tourists to Trafalgar Square and potentially increase The Trafalgar s number of guests: o Pride in London Festival (8 th in July 2017). o St George s Day England s National Day celebrations (April 2017). o West End Live Performance at Trafalgar Square (June 2017). o St Patrick's Day in London (17 th March 2017). Threats o BREXIT Financial uncertainty could threaten the number of domestic customers The Trafalgar has. Customers visiting London may chose a cheaper alternative hotel, like Premier Inn, which is also close to Trafalgar square to save money. o Direct competition: The Grand and The Thistle Trafalgar Square. o 2.4% increase in Westminster s crime rates (Metropolitan Police, 2016) over the past year could potentially scare weary customers. But this is unlikely to be a sizeable threat unless it receives unlikely notable media coverage. Additionally, a fall in corporate tax rates in April 2017 could be an opportunity for The Trafalgar to earn greater profits.

13 Recommendations and Limitations Page 12 Based on the SWOT analysis The Trafalgar management should use the hotel s location and rooftop terrace to promote the hotel. The results from the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis indicated location and the terrace are the hotel s greatest marketable strengths. Management should draw on these strengths to attract new customers. Management should take advantage of upcoming opportunities to attract new customers. The events mentioned in the SWOT analysis will bring a considerable number of potential guests to Trafalgar Square. The hotel could offer discounted rooms for event-goers, prior to the events, to take advantage of the events. The event-goers could be targeted with hotel advertisements on the event booking page. Additional guests could be attracted if the hotel provides guests with an incentive, like offering HHonors points, for recommending the hotel to others. Rooftop availability was identified as a weakness. When the terrace is unavailable during a guest s stay, they should be warned the terrace is unavailable before paying, so they know which days the terrace is unavailable. This transparency will enable the hotel to avoid disappointed customers increasing the chance of The Trafalgar gaining repeat customers. Management should assess the condition of the bedroom and bathrooms. Worn furniture should be a specific focus and when identified it should be replaced. This will help to improve bedroom and bathroom quality potentially contributing to guests perceiving the hotel is better value for money. Price is another weakness. To maximise revenue room prices could be decreased, when there is a scarce amount of bookings, to ensure each room is filled nightly. Drink prices could be decreased to a fairer price so guests purchase more drinks in the hotel and less in nearby public houses and bars also maximising profit. Another weakness was inconsistent staff performance which could become more consistent if staff morale was boosted. (Meliorate, 2011) Better morale could be achieved by; creating a strong team environment, encouraging open communication, and providing staff with more incentives. Britain exiting the European Union may negatively influence the number of domestic customers The Trafalgar has due to financial uncertainty. To counter this management could decrease prices or offer a money-back guarantee, while this financial uncertainty persists. This will help to secure the custom of financially conscious customers that are indecisive about booking with The Trafalgar and considering a cheaper alternative. Sample size and missing data are report limitations. A sample of 100 and another of 30 is relatively small considering the size of the sampling frame (more than 2,000 reviews). In many instances, there was missing data where guests had not rated all six elements on TripAdvisor. This coupled with the sample size means the findings are difficult to generalise to the entire population of reviews as it is uncertain whether the findings capture the views of all guests.

14 Page 13 This report is focused on leisure guests and so a limitation of the report is that it fails to represent guests that travel to The Trafalgar on business. Another limitation is all the data used for this report is drawn from a single source, TripAdvisor, this limits the reliability of the findings. Had another source of information been used and similar findings were found then the findings would be more reliable. Social desirability bias another limitation could have influenced the truthfulness of reviews. Each review published on TripAdvisor is public and so guests may rate and write about the hotel in a manner they perceive will be favourably viewed by others. In other words, their review may not reflect their true opinion.

15 Reference List Meliorate (2011) 20 TIPS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE Available from: [Accessed 3 rd December 2016] Page 14 Metropolitan Police (2016) Crime Figures Available from: [Accessed 1 st December 2016] Timeout (2016) St Patrick's Day in London Available from: [Accessed 1 st December 2016] Visit London (2016) Feast of St George in Trafalgar Square 2017 Available from: [Accessed 1 st December 2016] Visit London (2016) Pride in London 2017 Available from: [Accessed 1 st December 2016] Visit London (2016) West End LIVE at Trafalgar Square Available from: [Accessed 1 st December 2016]

16 Appendix Page 15

17 Qualitative Sample Page 16

18 Page 17

19 Page 18

20 Page 19

21 Page 20

22 Page 21

23 Page 22