From Satisfied to Memorable: An Empirical Study of Service
\nand Experience Dimensions on Guest Outcomes in the
\nHospitality Industry
\nLori J. Sipe and Mark R. Testa
\nL. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, San Diego State University, San Diego,
\nCalifornia, USA
\nABSTRACT
\nCentral to the experience economy paradigm is the notion that
\nservices and experiences are distinct economic offerings; yet, little
\nwork has been done to investigate the assumption. This study examined experience economy dimensions (entertainment, esthetics,
\nescapism, and education) alongside service quality dimensions (technical and expressive) on three outcome variables (satisfaction, service
\nquality, and memorable experience) in the hospitality and tourism
\nindustry context. Findings provide empirical support for the progression of value posited in past research and reveal that experience and
\nservice dimensions indeed differ in their impact on guest outcomes.
\nSignificant differences across four types of offerings\u2014dining, lodging,
\nevents, and attractions\u2014are discussed within the context of extant
\nliterature.
\n\u7ecf\u9a8c\u7ecf\u6d4e\u8303\u5f0f\u7684\u6838\u5fc3\u662f\u670d\u52a1\u548c\u7ecf\u9a8c\u662f\u622a\u7136\u4e0d\u540c\u7684\u7ecf\u6d4e\u4f9b\u7ed9\u7684\u6982\u5ff5\uff1b
\n\u7136\u800c\uff0c\u5f88\u5c11\u6709\u4eba\u505a\u8fc7\u8c03\u67e5\u8fd9\u4e00\u5047\u8bbe\u3002\u672c\u7814\u7a76\u63a2\u8ba8\u4f53\u9a8c\u7ecf\u6d4e\u7ef4\u5ea6\uff08\u5a31
\n\u4e50\u3001\u7f8e\u5b66\u3001\u9003\u907f\u73b0\u5b9e\u3001\u6559\u80b2\uff09\u4e0e\u670d\u52a1\u8d28\u91cf\u7ef4\u5ea6\uff08\u6280\u672f\u548c\u8868\u73b0\uff09\u5bf9\u4e09
\n\u4e2a\u7ed3\u679c\u53d8\u91cf\uff08\u6ee1\u610f\u5ea6\u3001\u670d\u52a1\u8d28\u91cf\u3001\u96be\u5fd8\u7684\u7ecf\u5386\uff09\u5728\u9152\u5e97\u53ca\u65c5\u6e38\u884c\u4e1a
\n\u80cc\u666f\u3002\u7814\u7a76\u7ed3\u679c\u63d0\u4f9b\u4e86\u5b9e\u8bc1\u652f\u6301\u7684\u4ef7\u503c\uff0c\u5728\u8fc7\u53bb\u7684\u7814\u7a76\u5047\u8bbe\u7684\u8fdb
\n\u5c55\uff0c\u5e76\u900f\u9732\uff0c\u7ecf\u9a8c\u548c\u670d\u52a1\u65b9\u9762\u786e\u5b9e\u4e0d\u540c\uff0c\u4ed6\u4eec\u5bf9\u5ba2\u4eba\u7684\u7ed3\u679c\u7684\u5f71
\n\u54cd\u3002\u56db\u79cd\u7c7b\u578b\u7684\u9910\u996e\uff0c\u4f4f\u5bbf\uff0c\u6d3b\u52a8\u548c\u666f\u70b9\u4e4b\u95f4\u7684\u91cd\u5927\u5dee\u5f02\u5728\u73b0\u6709\u6587
\n\u732e\u7684\u80cc\u666f\u4e0b\u8fdb\u884c\u4e86\u8ba8\u8bba\u3002
\nKEYWORDS
\nExperience economy;
\nhospitality industry;
\nmeasures; memorable
\nexperiences; service quality
\nIntroduction
\nPine and Gilmore (1998) captured the attention of academic researchers and business
\npractitioners by describing a progression of economic value from commodities to products to services to experiences. According to the authors, this transition from a service to
\nan experience economy means that as services become more commoditized, perceptions
\nof competitive advantage diminish. Therefore, all actions of the organization must contribute to delivering experiential offerings that engage customers in a memorable way.
\nAlmost two decades later, experience innovation has been touted as the next frontier to
\ndrive customer value (Lippincott, 2014; Zorfas & Leemon, 2016), and industry studies
\nCONTACT Mark R. Testa mtesta@mail.sdsu.edu L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
\nSan Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT
\n2018, VOL. 27, NO. 2, 178\u2013195
\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/19368623.2017.1306820
\n\u00a9 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
\nclaim that emotional value is the number one factor for improved customer loyalty
\n(Forrester, 2016).
\nA major implication of Pine and Gilmore\u2019s work is that experiences represent a higher
\nlevel of customer value than services because they are memorable and rich in sensations.
\nOther scholars have echoed the importance of memories to distinguish services and
\nexperience offerings. Poulsson and Kale (2004) described the commercial experience as
\nan engaging act wherein the consumer perceives value in the encounter and the subsequent memory of that encounter. Kyl\u00e4nen (2006) contended that multi-sensoral, memorable experiences can lead to personal change. The theoretical distinctions offered by these
\nauthors seem to hold true for the hospitality and tourism industry where memories are a
\npoint of differentiation (Pizam, 2010).
\nIndeed Pine and Gilmore\u2019s work has been increasing in its influence to hospitality and
\ntourism researchers, based on the number of scholarly citations, it has received in the past
\nseveral years. A study of the reach of the seminal article Welcome to the Experience Economy
\n(Pine & Gilmore, 1998), for example, found that more than 50% of its citations are from firsttier management, hospitality, and tourism-related journals (Ferreira & Teixeira, 2013). The
\nsame review indicated, however, that empirical studies are underrepresented. The reason for
\nthe dearth of practical studies is likely due to the fact that few of the theoretical contributions
\noffer easily operationalized starting points for empirical studies. Indeed, only 10% of the
\narticles citing Pine and Gilmore\u2019s work involved measuring customer experiences in some
\nway. Scholars have articulated the need for measurement tools that capture the dimensions of
\nservice beyond those controlled by the firm (deliverable dimensions) to include more affective
\nand subjective (impressionable dimensions) constructs of guest experiences (Beltagui, Darler,
\n& Candi, 2015). This study responds to the need for empirical studies of customer experience.
\nThe investigation was guided by the following research questions:
\n\u25cf What are the relationships between service and experience dimensions and three
\ncustomer outcomes\u2014satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience\u2014in a
\nhospitality and tourism marketplace?
\n\u25cf Are there significant differences in guest ratings of service and experience dimensions
\nacross the dining, lodging, events, and attractions segments of a hospitality and
\ntourism marketplace?
\nLiterature review
\nClassifying economic offerings
\nFor many years, the predominant divisions of economic offerings have been goods and
\nservices. Classifying an offering as either a good or service depended on the characteristics
\nof tangibility, separability, homogeneity, and perishability (Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler,
\n2006). These distinctions were helpful from the point of view of companies that provided
\nthe economic offerings. For example, the managerial challenges for product companies
\nincluded issues like storage and transportation. For service companies, the managerial
\nissues focused more on consistency and standardization. With the growing importance of
\nintangible offerings and experiential consumption, the traditional product\/service paradigm has become less relevant. In the marketing literature, for example, the theory of
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 179
\nservice dominant logic was introduced to shift thinking about value from a firm\u2019s
\nperspective to a customer-centric perspective (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Other scholars
\nidentified the need for theoretical frameworks that more accurately reflect today\u2019s marketplace but argued that considering everything a \u201cservice\u201d would not attend to the heterogeneity of the marketplace (Achrol & Kotler, 2006).
\nPine and Gilmore called for the \u201cuntying\u201d of services from experiences and articulated
\nan argument to support their notion that services and experiences were as different as
\nproducts and services (1998). They suggested that the economy was evolving from the
\ndelivery of commodities to the delivery of goods, from goods to services, and was
\ntransitioning from services to experiences. Coffee illustrates this well. Coffee beans were
\noriginally considered an undifferentiated commodity. Then, companies like Folgers created grounded coffee products in a can, which consumers could purchase at the grocery
\nstore and prepare at home. During the service economy, the delivery of coffee became a
\nservice offered by restaurants and coffee carts, and even drive-thru coffee kiosks. Today,
\nStarbucks, with their premium-priced coffee drinks, is most often credited with transforming coffee into an experience.
\nScholars are divided as to whether or not services and experiences are indeed distinct
\neconomic offerings. Some view experience offerings as a subset of the services industry and
\ndon\u2019t see the need to differentiate (Gronroos, 2000). Others have expressed the sentiment that
\nservices should be split into functional and experience-oriented offerings (Hansen et al., 2013).
\nDistinctions have also been made between product companies that add experiential components (think luxury car dealerships) with companies like theme parks, who \u201csell\u201d an experience as the primary economic offering (Sundbo & S\u00f8renson, 2013). In the hospitality and
\ntourism context, differentiating intangible offerings according to their utilitarian and hedonistic value has revealed interesting dichotomies about time, predictability, people, and
\ninvolvement (Poulsson, 2014).
\nService vs. experience in hospitality and tourism
\nThis study was designed to integrate theoretical constructs from both service theory and
\nexperience economy logic that are most relevant for the hospitality and tourism context.
\nThree distinctions between services and experiences, particularly relevant to this current
\nstudy, are standardization versus uniqueness, the level of guest participation required, and
\nsatisfying needs versus creating memories. The utility of these theoretical comparisons is
\nthat they spark new ways of thinking about what customers value and thus may provide
\ninsights for managers in the hospitality and tourism industry faced with transitioning
\nfrom a service to an experience economy.
\nServices have been defined as intangible activities performed on behalf of another
\nindividual whose primary purpose is to fulfill a need (Toffler, 1970). The service sector,
\noriginally comprising activities like banking, auto repair, hair cutting, dry cleaning, and
\nfast food, now makes up close to 80% of economic activity in many industrialized nations.
\nService industries have traditionally focused on utilitarian needs and emphasized standardization and reliability (Ziethhaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). Likewise, many hospitality firms emphasized the utility of their offerings. For example, the food services sector
\ntouts consistent delivery of its menu items, and service standards have long been a
\nmainstay in the hotel industry. On the other hand, experience firms focus on
\n180 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\ndifferentiating their uniqueness and are most closely linked to innovation processes for
\ngrowth (Sundbo, 2009). The distinction between standardization and differentiation is
\ncentral to the experience economy paradigm (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). This dichotomy is
\nsure to present challenges for hospitality and tourism firms that must balance attention to
\npractical needs of their guests while continuously innovating their experiential offerings.
\nThe second of three distinctions relevant to this study concerns the level of consumer
\ninvolvement in services compared to experiences. While services typically involve the
\ncustomer in some way, experience offerings involve deeper levels of engagement on the
\npart of the consumer. Pine and Gilmore (1998) approached experiences from the perspective of the firm and focused on how they deliver or stage experiences. Other prominent researchers argue, however, that organizations can really only provide an opportunity
\nfor an experience, because experience is something that happens in people\u2019s minds
\n(Sundbo, 2009). Therefore, by definition, without a user\u2019s participation or engagement,
\nthere would be no experience. This individualized, customer-centric approach is often
\nprivileged in scholarly discussions of experiential offerings. Increasing the level of guest
\nengagement figures prominently in the hospitality and tourism literature as evidenced by
\nstudies that focus on employee\/guest interactions (Chandler & Lusch, 2015).
\nFinally, memories and emotional value, as opposed to consistency and functional
\nvalue, have been highlighted as key distinctions in theoretical papers about experiences as economic offerings (Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Sipe, 2016). Researchers, integrating work done in the field of psychology, have identified several dimensions of
\nmemorable experiences. Many of these constructs, not surprisingly, have found their
\nway into the discourse of experience economy studies and the hospitality and
\ntourism literature. For example, the theory of optimal experience based on the
\nconcept of flow posited by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes Immersion as a state
\nin which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter.
\nOffering experiential activities (bocce ball courts at the establishment for example)
\nalongside food and beverage is one example of making dining experiences more
\nengaging and immersive. Renewal and escapism is another construct that has been
\nlinked with memorable experiences in the hospitality and tourism industry. When
\npeople get away from their everyday lives, they are freed up to think about their lives
\nwith new perspective, thereby enhancing the memorability of an experience (Leblanc,
\n2003). In lodging, for example, helping guests escape may involve innovating physical spaces, a redesign of environmental cues that contribute to a sense of being
\ntransported to another time and place. Surprises and novelty are considered triggers
\nfor memorable experiences. Guests remember experiencing new places, trying something new, unique food and interesting tours, for example (Farber & Hall, 2007).
\nSocial interaction is another trigger of memorable experiences. Engaging with others
\nin collective experiences, especially with local people and actual living environments,
\nmakes travel experiences more memorable (Tung & Ritchie, 2011). Hedonic or
\npleasurable experiences allow guests to construct and recall their experiences, since
\nmemorable experiences are emotional in nature (Zimmerman & Kelly, 2010). As
\nconsumers become more sophisticated, they are seeking meaningful experiences to
\nsatisfy their unmet needs, and these experiences last longer in their memory (Tung &
\nRitchie, 2011).
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 181
\nMeasuring the realms of experience
\nMany of the aforementioned triggers of memorable experiences are also evidenced or alluded
\nto in much of Pine and Gilmore\u2019s work (1998, 2011). The authors identify four realms of
\nexperiences across two axes of customer immersion and customer level of participation.
\nEntertainment experiences such as watching a theatrical play tend to be passive and involve
\nmore absorption than immersion. Esthetic experiences such as a visit to an art gallery are
\nimmersive, but in both cases, the participants remain fairly passive. Educational and escapist
\nexperiences require active participation on the part of the consumer, like descending the
\nGrand Canyon (escapist) or taking a ski lesson (educational). Pine and Gilmore contend that
\noptimal experiences encompass all aspects, forming a \u201csweet spot\u201d (p. 102).
\nThis research initiative draws from three academic investigations into the dimensions
\nof experience that operationalized the realms of experience espoused by Pine and Gilmore.
\nOh, Fiore, and Jeoung (2007) originally developed a scale to measure the four realms of
\nexperience in the context of bed and breakfast accommodations. Starting with 56 items,
\ntheir final list comprised 16 items across the four dimensions of entertainment, education,
\nesthetics, and escapism. Their study of bed and breakfasts showed that esthetics accounted
\nfor most of the variation related to the dependent variable of satisfaction. The 16 items
\nwere adapted in a study of cruiser\u2019s experiences by Hosany and Witham (2009). The
\npurpose of their study was to validate the survey instrument created by Oh et al. (2007) in
\nanother tourism setting and to investigate the relationship between cruisers\u2019 experiences,
\nsatisfaction, and intention to recommend. As a result of their factor analysis, two items
\nwere dropped; so, the final quantity of survey items was 14 (either 3 or 4 per realm of
\nexperience). They found the entertainment and esthetics dimensions accounted for most of
\nthe variance in their regression model. Mehmetoglu and Engen (2011) also drew from the
\nOh et al.\u2019s study and assessed the dimensions of experience versus customer satisfaction
\n(CS) at a music festival and a museum. Esthetics and escapism had positive associations
\nwith satisfaction at the music festival, while education and esthetics were positively
\ncorrelated with satisfaction at the museum. To measure the realms of experience for
\nthis current study, survey item questions were adapted from the three aforementioned
\nstudies in hospitality and tourism contexts. Table 1 lists the survey items for esthetics,
\nentertainment, escapism, and education.
\nMeasuring the dimensions of service
\nWhile empirical investigations into the realms of experience posited by Pine and Gilmore
\nare just emerging for the hospitality and tourism industry, studies examining customer
\nratings of service quality are prevalent in the marketing, tourism, and services literature.
\nSERVQUAL (Zeithaml et al., 1990), originally created for the financial services industry,
\nand since adapted to several other service sectors, is frequently used to assess service
\nquality in hospitality and tourism. Their survey includes items related to tangibles,
\nreliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy and includes both customer expectations and perceptions. While used extensively, the measure has been criticized for its
\nlength (Gilmore & McMullan, 2009), measurement issues (Brady & Cronin, 2001) and
\nfocuses on process (Brown, Churchill, & Peter, 1993).
\n182 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\nThese criticisms facilitated a greater focus on perception-based measures such as
\nSERVPERF, which focused on performance only (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). The authors
\nquestioned the conceptual basis of SERVQUAL indicating that the measure was confused
\nwith satisfaction, and that service expectation be removed from the equation. Looking at
\nbanks, fast food, dry cleaning, and pest control, the authors provided empirical support for
\nthe perception-based measure where a higher score equals higher service quality (Jain &
\nGupta, 2004). The measure includes 22 items to assess similar characteristics of service
\nquality, i.e., tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. SERVPERF is
\nviewed by many as the more positive measure and has been used extensively in hospitality
\nresearch (Hartline & Ferrell, 1996; Jain & Gupta, 2004).
\nThe goal for this study of hospitality and tourism firms was to identify service
\nmeasures that had both proximity to the experience dimensions and some differentiation. Measurement scales were selected that might facilitate the theoretical
\ndistinctions between a service and experience offering. By using distinct elements
\nof the service spectrum, the relationship among the variables could be clearly
\nidentified and compared. The Gronroos literature (1990, 2000) provided some direction in this regard in his discussion of the technical and expressive dimensions of
\nservice. Technical service involves the speed and efficiency of service delivery and
\ntends to be an expected component of the service encounter. Pine and Gilmore
\nwould argue that this dimension of service has been commoditized. Lack of technical
\nservice can actually be a source of dissatisfaction when not provided as it is expected
\n(Pearce, 2005). These aspects of technical service are similar to the responsiveness and
\nreliability dimensions of SERVPERF; however, these established scales include additional items that may not fit this construct. For example, showing a sincere interest in
\nsolving problems in the reliability dimension and willing to help in the responsiveness
\ndimension do not neatly fit the notion of efficient and hassle-free service delivery in
\nhospitality. Consequently, an adapted, context-specific measurement scale for technical service was used in this study.
\nTable 1. Independent variables: Experience dimensions and service quality
\ndimensions.
\nVariable Survey item
\nEsthetic 1 It was pleasant just experiencing the atmosphere
\nEsthetic 2 I felt a real sense of harmony with the surroundings
\nEsthetic 3 The setting was very attractive
\nEntertain 1 Watching activities of others was amusing
\nEntertain 2 Activities of others were fun to watch
\nEntertain 3 I was very entertained
\nEscapism 1 I completely escaped from my daily routine
\nEscapism 2 The experience let me escape in some way
\nEscapism 3 I felt immersed in a different reality
\nEducate 1 The experience made me more knowledgeable
\nEducate 2 I learned a lot
\nEducate 3 It was a real learning experience
\nTech Serv 1 The service was very efficient
\nTech Serv 2 Problems were handled quickly
\nTech Serv 3 The speed of service was very good
\nExp Serv 1 I was very well taken care of by employees
\nExp Serv 2 Employees went above and beyond to make me feel special
\nExp Serv 3 Interactions with employees added value to my experience
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 183
\nExpressive service relates to the friendliness\/personality aspect of the encounter and
\ncontains more of an emotional element (Coghlan & Pearce, 2010). In the hospitality and
\ntourism context, employee interactions with guests are considered paramount to delivering on brand promises and are strongly correlated with positive word of mouth
\n(Ottenbacher, 2007). Employee interactions are among the most powerful triggers of
\nmemorable tourism experiences (Tung & Ritchie, 2011). No single dimension on
\nSERVPERF captured this notion of expressive service but rather was spread across the
\nempathy and assurance dimensions. Hence, a content-specific set of items was adapted for
\nuse in this study.
\nUsing SERVPERF, Gronroos (1990, 2000) and Pearce (2005) as a foundation, three
\nitems were created to assess technical service quality focused on speed and efficiency.
\nSimilarly, using SERVPERF and work done by Alotaibi and his colleagues (2011) on
\nservice interaction quality, a three-item scale was created to assess expressive service.
\nTable 1 lists the survey items for technical and expressive service.
\nDetermining outcome variables
\nNumerous important customer-related outcomes have been linked to the dimensions of
\nservice including customer loyalty (Reichheld, 2003), CS (Oliver, 1997), trust (Palmatier,
\nDant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006), and perceived value (Zeithaml, 1988). Service quality and
\nCS are constructs that garnered much attention in the literature (Taylor & Baker, 1994).
\nCS is defined as an attitude that results from a comparison of expected and perceived
\nperformance (Hume & Mort, 2010). Interestingly, the perception of service quality has
\nbeen defined similarly as the gap between expectations and performance (Ziethaml, 1988).
\nGiven their foundations in empirical studies in the service sector, including the hospitality
\nand tourism context (Hosany & Gilbert, 2010), overall satisfaction and service quality
\nratings were included as dependent variables in this study.
\nEmpirical studies of the experience context do not offer a similar foundation in outcome measures. One might assume that a similar disconfirmation model of expectations
\nversus perceived performance would be applicable. However, given the theorized distinctions between services and experiences as economic offerings, novelty and surprise are
\npart of what makes experiences valuable. The unpredictability of trying something unique
\namplifies experiential value (Poulsson, 2014). The three studies of experience dimensions
\ncited previously in this paper (Hosany & Witham, 2009; Mehmetoglu & Engen, 2011; Oh
\net al., 2007) each used CS as the outcome variable. The goal of this study was to build
\nupon previous empirical work by including additional outcomes that might facilitate the
\ntheoretical distinctions between a service and experience offering.
\nSeveral context-specific outcome measures were considered. Intention to recommend and
\nword of mouth, for example, have been used to capture the notion of loyalty (Lee, Moon, Kim,
\n& Yi, 2015). However, experiences are unique and are not easy to replicate (Hosany &
\nWitham, 2010). Repeatability and loyalty may become less relevant. Perceptions of price\/
\nvalue (Ali, Hussain, & Omar, 2016) and other financial outcomes were also considered.
\nHowever, experience logic suggests that differentiation requires less focus on economic
\nvalue. Firms that offer unique and memorable experiences should be able to command a
\nprice premium (Sipe, 2016).
\n184 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\nSince a point of differentiation in the hospitality and tourism context is guest memories
\n(Pizam, 2010), an assessment of how memorable a particular experience is seemed reasonable. A recent study of the experience economy approach to festival marketing included a
\nmeasure of vividness of memory (Aikaterini, Tang, & Chiang, 2014). This scale was
\nconsidered, but specific items focused on the ability to recall and did not seem to capture
\nthe essence of a meaningful and special experience theorized in this literature review.
\nInstead, a single survey question asked guests to rate how memorable their experience was
\ncompared to other, similar experiences. Comparison rating scales have been used in
\nservice industry studies to capture customer perceptions (Prajogo, 2006). This provided
\nan additional outcome measure aligned with the progression of customer value espoused
\nin the experience economy paradigm. Hence, the three dependent variables measured in
\nthis study were satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience. Figure 1 provides
\na conceptual overview of the study.
\nResearch methodology
\nA survey process was employed aligned with the articulated research questions: (1) What
\nare the relationships between service and experience dimensions and three customer
\noutcomes\u2014satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience\u2014in a hospitality and
\ntourism marketplace? (2) Are there significant differences in guest ratings of service and
\nexperience dimensions across the dining, lodging, events, and attractions segments of a
\nhospitality and tourism marketplace?
\nCharacteristics of participating organizations
\nThe hospitality and tourism industry is used to describe a broad field that comprises
\nlodging, food services, leisure, conventions, travel, and attractions (Ottenbacher,
\nHarrington, & Parsa, 2009). Empirical studies of hospitality consumers tend to focus on
\none segment of the broader industry, like hotels or events. The experience realms studies
\ndescribed earlier in this paper included one in the lodging context, another about cruisers,
\nFigure 1. Conceptual model: experience and service dimensions on a progression of outcomes.
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 185
\nand a third that examined guest ratings from two contexts\u2014a music festival and a
\nmuseum. The current research initiative sought to explore potential distinctions, while
\nbuilding upon those previous studies. Hence, the following considerations were made
\nwhen determining the sample for this study:
\n\u25cf A broad spectrum of hospitality and tourism-related firms within a single marketplace would allow the comparison of experience realms alongside more traditionally
\nmeasured service dimensions.
\n\u25cf Participating firms would represent the hospitality and tourism marketplace and
\nconvey the overall sense of place unique to the destination.
\n\u25cf First-time visits of leisure travelers would best capture the distinction between
\nordinary fulfilling of needs and experiential offerings that are unique and memorable.
\nUsing the local convention and visitor\u2019s bureau directory and a university database of local
\nhospitality organizations, four types of firms were targeted to participate in the study\u2014dining,
\nlodging, events, and attractions. Dining firms were all part of a local restaurateur\u2019s collection of
\n17 uniquely branded restaurants that host leisure travelers throughout the destination. Twelve
\nof his restaurants, ranging from casual to fine dining with average guest checks between 15
\nand 45 dollars, agreed to participate in the study. For the lodging segment, a list of branded
\nand independent full-service properties was targeted for participation. Properties that primarily catered to business travelers as well as offerings positioned as limited service or
\neconomy were not considered. Nine hotels participated in the study. They would be classified
\nas upper scale resorts and boutique offerings with average daily rates above the destination\u2019s
\nannual ADR (Smith Travel Research, 2015).
\nSeven events comprised the events segment of the study. Events were chosen because
\nthey brought incremental visitors to the destination and were considered \u201csignature\u201d
\nevents reflective of the region. These included a music festival, an annual pop culture
\nconvention, and other culture, sports, recreation, and wellness events intended to drive
\neconomic impact for the region (San Diego Tourism Marketing District, 2015).
\nAttractions made up the last segment of participating organizations. Eight venues, ranging
\nfrom large theme parks, smaller amusement facilities, recreation venues, and land and seabased entertainment offerings, were included.
\nParticipating firms were part of a hospitality and tourism marketplace in Southern
\nCalifornia. The destination\u2019s hospitality and tourism industry provides $16 billion in
\neconomic impact and, consequently, is a very important piece of the economic health of
\nthe region. The destination is among the top five leisure destinations in the United States.
\nVisitors appreciate the wonderful weather that allows them to enjoy recreation and beach
\nactivities, visit world famous attractions, attend unique events, and experience first-rate
\nculture, dining, and nightlife (SDCVB, 2013).
\nData collection
\nData were collected during the summer months on days prearranged with each firm. The
\ngoal was to obtain data during busy summer months when a large amount of leisure
\ntravelers would be likely. Surveys were conducted on site at the participating organization
\nusing a convenience sample of guests. Interviewers approached the guest, explained the
\n186 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\nnature of the study, and indicated that participation was voluntary and that responses
\nwere confidential. As previously discussed, locals and frequent guest were omitted from
\nthe study. Respondents were screened to ensure that they were a leisure traveler and this
\nwas their first time at the particular site. Then, a short list of survey questions was asked by
\nthe interviewer and recorded. Four versions of the survey were used to mitigate bias based
\non placement and order of the items.
\nThe survey instrument comprised sections focused on the realms of experience and
\nservice dimensions as well as overall ratings. Four 3-item scales were employed to assess
\nthe experience realms. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a
\nLikert-type scale ranging from 1\u2014strongly disagree to 7\u2014strongly agree. The four scales
\nincluded, esthetics (e.g., It was pleasant just experiencing the atmosphere) (\u03b1 = 0.773),
\nescapist (e.g., I completely escaped from my daily routine) (\u03b1 = 0.849), education (e.g., It
\nwas a real learning experience) (\u03b1 = 0.908), and entertainment (e.g., Activities of others were
\nfun to watch) (\u03b1 = 0.780). To assess the dimensions of service, technical and expressive
\nservice quality scales were employed (Gronroos, 2000). Technical service focused on
\nefficiency aspects (e.g., the service was very efficient) (\u03b1 = 0.829), while the expressive
\ncomponent focused on positive interactions (e.g., employees went above and beyond to
\nmake me feel special) (\u03b1 = 0.886). The complete list of survey items (independent
\nvariables) was included in Table 1.
\nGuests were also asked to rate their overall experience in three ways. Dependent variables
\nwere single item measures used to assess CS (1\u2014extremely dissatisfied to 7\u2014extremely
\nsatisfied), quality of the service encountered (1\u2014absolute worst to 7\u2014absolute best), and
\nhow memorable the experience compared to others (1\u2014highly forgettable to 7\u2014incredibly
\nmemorable). While traditional thinking is that multi-item measures are preferable to singleitem measures, some researchers suggest that single-item measures can provide equal
\n(Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007) and sometimes better assessment (Hoeppner, Kelly, Urbanoski,
\n& Slaymaker, 2011). In the marketing literature, Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) suggest that
\nwhen a variable is focused on basic objects or basic attributes such as satisfaction, single-item
\nmeasures provide equal psychometric properties to their multi-item brethren. This has been
\nthe case the case in marketing literature for some time.
\nThe intention was to conduct 5\u201310 surveys per site with minimal disruption to the guests.
\nA total of 217 usable surveys were included in this study. The mix of responses from the four
\nsegments was relatively balanced for dining (n = 61, 28%), lodging (n = 57, 26%), events
\n(n = 50, 23%), and attractions (n = 49, 23%). The responses represent a snapshot in time from
\na hospitality and tourism marketplace. The economic offerings span from the more traditionally hospitality oriented (restaurants) to those classified as pure, pay-to-play experiences
\n(theme parks). Hence, the purposeful sample used for the study aligned with the three
\nconsiderations outlined at the beginning of this section.
\nAnalysis and results
\nTwo sets of analyses were conducted in the current study. First, the differences between
\noutcomes of experience and service dimensions were identified. Second, each segment of
\nthe industry, namely dining, lodging, events, and attractions, was analyzed to identify
\ndifferences on the predictor and outcome variables. The relationships among the independent variables of service and experience and three dependent variables\u2014satisfaction,
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 187
\nservice quality, and memorable experiences\u2014were examined using correlations and
\nregression analyses. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the scale constructs
\nare shown in Table 2. Scale reliability was assessed with Cronbach\u2019s alpha values, and they
\nare listed on the diagonals in Table 2. Alpha values were each higher than the 0.70 value
\nconsidered reliable (Hinton, 2004). Table 3 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analysis performed to assess the impact of each set of service and experience variables
\non the dependent variables. To ensure validity of the regression models, the Durbin\u2013
\nWatson statistic and tolerance values were examined. The Durbin\u2013Watson values were
\nclose to 2; so, independence of the residuals can be assumed. The tolerance statistics
\nindicated no problems with multicollinearity in the models (Field, 2013). The models were
\nstatistically significant with a range of F values from 36.7 to 59.8.45 (p < .001). Results
\nfrom Table 3 do show interesting differences across the three models. Only esthetics
\n(\u03b2 = 0.340, p < .001) and technical service (\u03b2 = 0.274, p < .001) were found to be positively
\nand significantly associated with CS. In the service quality model, both technical and
\nexpressive service scales were significantly associated with ratings of service quality, while
\nnone of the experience dimensions was significant. In the memorable experiences model,
\nesthetics, escapism, technical, and expressive service were significant predictors of memorable experience.
\nThe next step in the analysis was to explore any difference between the industry
\nsegments, on the dimensions. Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted with
\nsegment type as the independent factor, and the service and experience dimensions as
\nthe dependent factors, to determine if the mean scores differed significantly. Levene\u2019s Test
\nfor Equality of Error Variances showed statistical significance for expressive service and
\neducation violating the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Consequently, both
\nTable 2. Measurement model statistics: mean, standard deviation, correlations (n = 217).
\nMean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
\n1. Esthetics 5.97 0.930 (0.773)
\n2. Entertainment 5.19 1.41 0.455* (0.780)
\n3. Escapism 5.37 1.34 0.499* 0.541* (0.849)
\n4. Education 4.91 1.47 0.418* 0.481* 0.531* (0.908)
\n5. Technical Service 5.68 1.11 0.602* 0.394* 0.481* 0.421* (0.829)
\n6. Expressive Service 5.73 1.24 0.650* 0.426* 0.474* 0.524* 00.748* (0.886)
\n*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
\nTable 3. Multiple regression results: experience and service dimensions with three outcome measures
\n(n = 217).
\nDependent variables
\nCustomer satisfaction Service quality Memorable experience
\nBeta t-Value Beta t-Value Beta t-Value
\nIndependent variables
\nEsthetics 00.340 4.924*** 0.109 1.797 0.207 3.387***
\nEntertainment \u22120.04 \u22120.62 \u22120.017 \u22120.328 0.024 0.433
\nEscapism 0.120 1.839 \u22120.054 \u22120.952 0.164 2.817**
\nEducation 0.014 0.219 0.033 0.614 0.072 1.280
\nTechnical service 00.274 3.621*** 00.416 6.335*** 0.181 2.677**
\nExpressive service 0.112 1.359 0.372 5.188*** 0.318 4.351***
\nR2 0.501 0.626 0.617
\nF test stat 36.686*** 59.764*** 54.973***
\n**p < .01; ***p < .00.
\n188 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\nScheffe and Games\u2013Howel post hoc tests were run to address the differences in the data.
\nLodging yielded the highest mean scores on expressive (\u03b1 = 6.09) and technical (\u03b1 = 6.05)
\nservice quality, as well as esthetics (\u03b1 = 6.14). Technical service was significantly higher for
\nlodging than attractions (p = .02) and expressive service was significantly higher for
\nlodging than dining (p = .027). Events received the highest mean score on education
\n(\u03b1 = 5.3) but no significant differences were identified. Finally, attractions yielded the
\nhighest mean score on both escapism (\u03b1 = 5.77) and entertainment (\u03b1 = 5.6). Escapism was
\nsignificantly higher for attractions than dining (p = .01).
\nAssignment help – Discussion and implications
\nThis study was designed to build on the foundations of service theory research while
\nintegrating emergent experience economy concepts. The primary aim was to illuminate
\ndifferences, if any, aligned with the experience economy paradigm. Without making
\nclaims that services and experiences are distinct economic offerings, there is growing
\nsentiment that some sort of shift is taking place, at least in developing countries. Various
\nexplanations have been offered to explain an apparent move toward more experiential
\nconsumption (Harris, 2015). For the researchers involved in this study, examining customer outcomes through different lenses opened up new avenues for understanding customer value. In this particular study, distinguishing service and experience dimensions
\nyielded interesting empirical results with implications for both research and practice.
\nResults of the regression models did reveal key differences consistent with the progression of value posited by Pine and Gilmore (1998). As demonstrated by the regression
\nmodels in Table 3, guests perceive satisfaction, service quality, and memorable experience
\noutcomes differently. Only esthetics and technical service were predictors of CS ratings.
\nEfficient and reliable service in a pleasant environment is taken for granted by today\u2019s
\ncustomers\u2014it\u2019s a commodity. Service quality, however, goes beyond just satisfying needs
\nefficiently. Both technical and expressive service dimensions were significant predictors of
\nperceived service quality, accounting for more than 60% of the variance. None of the
\nexperience dimensions were significantly associated with the ratings of overall service
\nquality. The results from the third model indicate that a memorable experience, however,
\nis predicted by a more complex combination of both service and experience dimensions.
\nIn the memorable experiences model, two realms of experience, esthetics and escapism, are
\nsignificantly and positively associated with ratings of memorable experiences. Expressive
\nservice was also found to be significant. Technical service is moderately significant, albeit
\nless important relative to its expressive counterpart. These findings provide empirical
\nsupport for the notion that value perceptions are in transition in the hospitality and
\ntourism industry. The distinctions between service quality and memorable experience are
\nunambiguous from the guest perspective. Memorable experience goes beyond technical
\nand expressive service in their minds.
\nThe findings point to the importance of both scholars and practitioners attending to an
\nevolving combination of constructs, service and experience, that form the meaningful and
\nmemorable guest experience. This study\u2019s results provide some guidance. First, the
\nimportance of what Pine and Gilmore termed esthetics cannot be underestimated.
\nFindings from this study, and each of the experience studies cited herein, demonstrate a
\nrelationship between esthetics and customer outcomes. It should be noted that emergent
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 189
\nresearch in the service sector is also examining the importance of the physical space to the
\nguest experience (Cetin &Walls, 2016). This study also reinforces the importance of
\nexpressive service in memorable guest experiences, a dimension not explicitly examined
\nin Pine and Gilmore\u2019s model. An interesting finding is the relative importance of the
\ntechnical and service dimensions, when viewed across the three models of satisfaction,
\nservice quality, and memorable experiences. Expressive service seems to carry more weight
\nrelative to technical service when progressing from satisfaction to service quality to
\nmemorable experiences. Lastly, escapism distinguished memorable experience from service
\nquality in this study of a hospitality and tourism marketplace. This study sought participation from four sectors of the hospitality and tourism industry. The focus on multiple
\ntypes of hospitality and tourism-related guest experiences enhances the external validity of
\nthe findings and increases variation in the responses (Kyrgidou & Spyropoulou, 2013).
\nSome interesting differences were found. First, lodging yielded the highest mean scores on
\ntechnical and expressive service. Hotels are comprised many types of services in one
\nlocation. Indeed, larger properties can provide many of the same services as dining,
\nevents, and even attractions. Consequently, the service findings are not unexpected. In
\nsome facets of hotel service, one would expect efficiency (technical) to be a priority as with
\nchecking in or checking out. At the same time, during interactions with hotel staff, using
\namenities and fulfilling special needs, expressive service may be highly desired. With
\nregard to esthetics, early work on servicescapes (Bitner, 1992) helps to explain why this
\nwould be highly evaluated in hotels. The physical environment in a hotel is designed to
\ncontribute to the desired experience (Lin, 2010). A recent study further delineates the key
\nfactors of the physical space alongside employee\/guest interactions in luxury hotels (Cetin
\n& Walls, 2016). With so many varying locations for guests to visit, the physical aspects
\nbecome a central part of the experience. This may be compounded by the length of time a
\nguest may stay at a hotel property versus the other segments as well.
\nThe attractions segment yielded the highest mean scores on escapism and entertainment, with escapism significantly higher than for the dining segment. Interestingly,
\nattractions are considered a pure experience category of the experience economy typology
\n(Sundbo, 2009). Guests pay admission for the opportunity to engage in experiential
\nofferings revealed over time. Millions of dollars are spent annually to refresh experiential
\nofferings and add new and exciting reasons for guests to attend (Cornelis & Milman,
\n2010). Competitive advantage is achieved by differentiating its collection of offerings. That
\nis not to say that service is disregarded in this segment. Clearly, efficiency and safety are
\ncritical foundations that would lead to devastating outcomes if ignored. However, the
\nparticular segment of the hospitality and tourism marketplace is associated with deep ties
\nto Walt Disney\u2019s legacy and a focus on creating lasting memories (Sipe, 2016).
\nLimitations and future research
\nThis study has limitations that should be taken into account when considering the
\nfindings and avenues for future research. Customer experience research, with roots
\nmore than 25 years old, is hardly freshly sprouted. However, while the models used
\nhere have strong theoretical underpinnings, the study of cocreated guest experiences is
\nrelatively new. As such, the focus was more on identifying relationships that exist rather
\nthan forming hypotheses based on past study. In order to facilitate relationships, a sample
\n190 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\nwas drawn to include four segments of a hospitality and tourism marketplace. Limiting the
\ngeographic region may limit the generalizability of the results. Going further, the sample
\nshould be drawn from outside Southern California, as was the case here. In addition, 50 or
\nso responses in each segment of the hospitality and tourism industry may provide a
\nstarting point in this area of research, but deep diving into one or two contrasting types of
\nguest offerings may reveal better distinctions. Given that a convenience sample was used
\non location in operating restaurants, hotels, events, and attractions, the survey was
\nconstructed to minimize time and the impact on the guest. Consequently, three-item
\nmeasures were used for the service and experience dimensions and single items for the
\noutcome variables. Future studies could refine and expand these measurement scales.
\nDespite the limitations in measurement, the relationship among the service and experience dimension is one that academics should continue to explore. This study used the
\nrealms of experience posited by Pine and Gilmore as its measurement foundation to build
\non a small group of extant studies in the hospitality industry context. While helpful as an
\nalternative to traditional service scales, these dimensions offer only a limited set of factors
\nespoused to drive value in the experience economy. Future studies could draw on other
\ncontemporary approaches that reflect the evolving hospitality and tourism industry context.
\nThese might include attributes of memorable tourism experience scales (Chandralal &
\nValenzuela, 2015) as well as scales that assess the quality of guest\/employee interactions
\n(Cetin & Istanbulli, 2014). The literature on service ecosystems may offer strategies that
\nfocus on the entire context of the customer experience (Akaka & Vargo, 2015). This
\nperspective views the service experience at a micro, meso, and macro level. For example,
\nthe micro-level might include the service encounter, the meso-level would include the
\nphysical environment (esthetics), and the macro-level would include socio-historic norms
\nof customer behavior. Including financial impacts is also recommended with an emphasis
\non exploring the ability to charge a price premium and other updated perspectives on the
\nprice\/value relationship (Ali et al., 2016).
\nImportant insights for practitioners are also embedded in this research initiative.
\nWhere the drive toward standardized services has been the norm in hospitality,
\nincreased value may be derived from attending to the unique and novel aspects of
\nthe organization\u2019s offerings. This has implications for the design of physical spaces,
\namong other things. Adopting an experience economy mind set implies attending to
\nthe vibe of a place\u2014where people gather, interact, and potentially share their
\nmemories.
\nA focus on experience also places greater emphasis on the employee as a facilitator
\nof social interaction and enhanced guest engagement. In the traditional hospitality and
\ntourism context, this is not the norm. There is still a prevalent service-standard
\nmindset, where employees are evaluated against rigid rules or policies regarding
\nguest interaction. Contrast this with a mindset of creating a unique and engaging
\nexperience utilizing the hundreds of elements within the service ecosystem. The
\nprogression from service to experience requires a shift in how employees are viewed,
\nmanaged, evaluated, and rewarded. At a minimum, hospitality and tourism organizations would do well to change the conversation from a strictly service-related dialogue,
\nto one focused on the end-to-end journey of the customer experience (Rawson,
\nDuncan, & Jones, 2013). By doing so, new opportunities may emerge for organizations
\ncompeting with those that have already begun the evolution.
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 191
\nReferences
\nAchrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (2006). The service-dominant logic for marketing: A critique. In R. Lusch,
\n& S. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic for marketing. Dialog, Debate, and Directions (pp.
\n320\u2013334). New York, NY: ME Sharpe.
\nAikaterini, A., Tang, R., & Chiang, T. (2014). The experience economy approach to festival
\nmarketing: Vivid memory and attendee loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 28, 22\u201335.
\ndoi:10.1108\/JSM-06-2012-0105
\nAkaka, M. A., & Vargo, S. L. (2015). Extending the context of service: From encounters to
\necosystems. Journal of Services Marketing, 29, 453\u2013462. doi:10.1108\/JSM-03-2015-0126
\nAli, F., Hussain, K., & Omar, R. (2016). Diagnosing customers experience, emotions and satisfaction
\nin Malaysian resort hotels. European Journal of Tourism Research, 12, 25\u201340.
\nAlotaibi, E., Al-Sabbahy, H., & Lockwood, A. (2011). Interaction quality in service encounter: Scale
\ndevelopment and validation. Paper presented at 2011 International CHRIE Conference, July 2011,
\nDenver, CO.
\nBeltagui, A., Darler, W., & Candi, M. (2015). Measuring the deliverable and impressible dimensions
\nof service experience. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 478\u2013492. doi:10.1111\/
\ncaim.2015.24.issue-3
\nBergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
\nmeasures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175\u2013184. doi:10.1509\/
\njmkr.44.2.175
\nBitner, M. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees.
\nJournal of Marketing, 56, 57\u201371. doi:10.2307\/1252042
\nBrady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
\nquality: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Marketing, 65, 34\u201349. doi:10.1509\/jmkg.65.3.34.18334
\nBrown, T. J., Churchill, G. A., Jr, & Peter, J. P. (1993). Research note: Improving the measurement
\nof service quality. Journal of Retailing, 69, 127\u2013139. doi:10.1016\/S0022-4359(05)80006-5
\nCetin, G., & Istanbullu, F. I. (2014). Influence of customer experience on loyalty and word of mouth
\nin hospitality operations, Anatolia. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research,
\n25 (2), 181\u2013194.
\nCetin, G., & Walls, A. (2016). Understanding the customer experiences from the perspective of
\nguests and hotel managers: Empirical findings from luxury hotels in Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of
\nHospitality Marketing & Management, 25 (4), 395\u2013424. doi:10.1080\/19368623.2015.1034395
\nChandler, J. D., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Service systems: A broadened framework and research
\nagenda on value propositions, engagement, and service experience. Journal of Service Research,
\n18, 6\u201322. doi:10.1177\/1094670514537709
\nChandralal, L., & Valenzuela, F.-R. (2015). Memorable tourism experiences: Scale development.
\nContemporary Management Research, 11 (3), 291\u2013310. doi:10.7903\/cmr.13822
\nCoghlan, A., & Pearce, P. (2010). Tracking affective components of satisfaction. Tourism and
\nHospitality Research, 10 (1), 42\u201358. doi:10.1057\/thr.2009.18
\nCornelis, P. C. M., & Milman, A. (2010). Impact of new attractions on theme park attendance.
\nWorldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 2, 262\u2013280. doi:10.1108\/17554211011052203
\nCronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of
\nMarketing, 56, 55\u201368. doi:10.2307\/1252296
\nCsikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experiences. New York, NY: Harper
\nand Row Publishers.
\nFarber, M. E., & Hall, T. E. (2007). Emotion and environment: Visitors\u2019 extraordinary experiences
\nalong the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 248\u2013270.
\nFerreira, H., & Teixeira, A. (2013). Welcome to the experience economy: Assessing the influence of
\ncustomer experience literature through bibliometric analysis. (FEP Working Papers: Research
\nCenter in Economics and Finance). Porto, Portugal: University de Porto.
\nField, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage.
\nForrester. (2016). The U.S. customer experience index for 2016. Industry Research Report. Retrieved
\nfrom http:\/\/blogs.forrester.com\/roxana_strohmenger\/
\n192 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\nGilmore, A., & McMullan, R. (2009). Scales in services marketing research: A critique and way
\nforward. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 640\u2013651. doi:10.1108\/03090560910946972
\nGronroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of truth in service
\ncompetition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
\nGronroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management
\napproach. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
\nHansen, A. H., & Mossberg, L. (2013). Consumer immersion: A key to extraordinary experiences. In
\nJ. Sundbo, & F. S\u00f8rensen (Eds.), Handbook on the experience economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
\nElgar Publishing.
\nHarris. (2015). Millennials: Fueling the experience economy. Retrieved from http:\/\/eventbrite-s3.s3.
\namazonaws.com\/marketing\/Millennials_Research\/Gen_PR_Final.pdf
\nHartline, M. D., & Ferrell, O. C. (1996). The management of customer contact service employees:
\nAn empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60, 52\u201370. doi:10.2307\/1251901
\nHinton, P. (2004). Statistics explained. London, UK: Routledge.
\nHoeppner, B. B., Kelly, J. F., Urbanoski, K. A., & Slaymaker, V. (2011). Comparative utility of a
\nsingle-item versus multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young
\nadults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41, 305\u2013312. doi:10.1016\/j.jsat.2011.04.005
\nHosany, S., & Gilbert, D. (2010). Measuring tourists\u2019 emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday
\ndestinations. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 513\u2013526. doi:10.1177\/0047287509349267
\nHosany, S., & Witham, M. (2009). Dimensions of cruisers\u2019 experiences, satisfaction and intention to
\nrecommend. (The School of Management Working Paper Series). London, UK: Royal Holloway
\nUniversity of London.
\nHosany, S., & Witham, M. (2010). Dimensions of cruisers experiences satisfaction and intention to
\nrecommend. Journal of Travel Research, 49, 351\u2013364.
\nHume, M., & Mort, G. S. (2010). The consequence of appraisal emotion, service quality, perceived
\nvalue and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the performing arts. Journal of Services
\nMarketing, 24, 170\u2013182. doi:10.1108\/08876041011031136
\nJain, S. K., & Gupta, G. (2004). Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF scales.
\nVikalpa, 29, 25\u201338. doi:10.1177\/0256090920040203
\nKyl\u00e4nen, M. (2006). Enlightening christmas experience – Reflections on the experience triangle. In
\nM. Kyl\u00e4nen (Ed.), Articles on experiences. Lapland Centre of Expertise for the Experience
\nIndustry. Rovaniemi, FL: University of Lapland Press.
\nKyrgidou, L., & Spyropoulou, S. (2013). Drivers and performance outcomes of innovativeness: An
\nempirical study. British Journal of Management, 24, 281\u2013298. doi:10.1111\/bjom.2013.24.issue-3
\nLeblanc, M. (2003). Tourist characteristics and their interest in attending festivals & events: An
\nAnglophone\/Francophone case study of New Brunswick, Canada. Event Management, 8, 203\u2013
\n212.
\nLee, D., Moon, J., Kim, Y. J., & Yi, M. Y. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone
\nusability: Linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. Information
\n& Management, 52, 295\u2013304.
\nLin, I. Y. (2010). The interactive effect of Gestalt situations and arousal seeking tendency on
\ncustomers\u2019 emotional responses: Matching color and music to specific servicescapes. Journal of
\nServices Marketing, 24, 294\u2013304. doi:10.1108\/08876041011053006
\nLippincott. (2014). Experience innovation: The next frontier to differentiate and drive growth.
\nResearch Report. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.lippincott.com\/files\/documents\/news\/Lippincott_
\nPerspective\/
\nMehmetoglu, M., & Engen, M. (2011). Pine and Gilmore\u2019s concept of experience economy and its
\ndimensions: An empirical examination in tourism. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
\nTourism, 12, 237\u2013255. doi:10.1080\/1528008X.2011.541847
\nOh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism
\napplications. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 119\u2013132.
\nOliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York, NY: Irwin\/
\nMcGraw-Hill.
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 193
\nOttenbacher, M. (2007). Innovation management in the hospitality industry: Different strategies for
\nachieving success. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31 (4), 431\u2013454. doi:10.1177\/
\n1096348007302352
\nOttenbacher, M., Harrington, R., & Parsa, H. G. (2009). Defining the hospitality discipline: A
\ndiscussion of pedagogical and research implications. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
\n33, 263\u2013283. doi:10.1177\/1096348009338675
\nPalmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136\u2013153. doi:10.1509\/
\njmkg.70.4.136
\nPearce, P. (2005). Tourist behaviour: Themes and conceptual schemes. Clevedon, UK: Channel View
\nPublications.
\nPine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 4,
\n97\u2013105.
\nPine, B., & Gilmore, J. (2011). The experience economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
\nPublishing.
\nPizam, A. (2010). Creating memorable experiences. International Journal of Hospitality
\nManagement, 29, 343. doi:10.1016\/j.ijhm.2010.04.003
\nPoulsson, S. H. (2014). On experiences as economic offerings (PhD Innovation and
\nEntrepreneurship). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Business School.
\nPoulsson, S. H. G., & Kale, S. (2004). The experience economy and commercial experiences. The
\nMarketing Review, 4, 267\u2013277. doi:10.1362\/1469347042223445
\nPrajogo, D. (2006). The relationship between innovation and business performance -a comparative
\nstudy between manufacturing and service firms. Journal of Knowledge and Process Management,
\n13, 218\u2013225. doi:10.1002\/(ISSN)1099-1441
\nRawson, A., Duncan, E., & Jones, C. (2013). The truth about customer experience. Harvard Business
\nReview, 2013(September), 90\u201398.
\nReichheld, F. F. (2003). The number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81, 46\u201354.
\nSan Diego Tourism Marketing District. (2015). Annual Report: Going Up. Retrieved from http:\/\/
\nwww.sdtmd.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/11\/SDTMD-104_AnnualReport_8P10_FINAL-web.
\npdf
\nSDCVB. (2013). Fact sheet. San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.
\nsandiego.org.
\nSipe, L. J. (2016). How do senior managers influence experience innovation? Insights from a
\nhospitality marketplace. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 54, 75\u201383.
\ndoi:10.1016\/j.ijhm.2016.01.009
\nSmith Travel Research. (2015). Destination reports. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.strglobal.com\/
\nproducts\/destination-reports\/en-GB
\nSundbo, J. (2009). Innovation in the experience economy: A taxonomy of innovation organisations.
\nThe Service Industries Journal, 29, 431\u2013455.
\nSundbo, J., & S\u00f8rensen, F. (2013). Introduction to the experience economy. In J. Sundbo, & F.
\nS\u00f8rensen (Eds.), Handbook on the experience economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
\nPublishing.
\nTaylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the relationship between service quality and
\ncustomer satisfaction in the formation of consumers\u2019 purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing,
\n70, 163\u2013178. doi:10.1016\/0022-4359(94)90013-2
\nToffler, A. (1970). Future shock. New York, NY: Random House.
\nTung, V., & Ritchie, J. R. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals
\nof Tourism Research, 38, 1367\u20131386. doi:10.1016\/j.annals.2011.03.009
\nVargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
\nMarketing, 68, 1\u201317. doi:10.1509\/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
\nZeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and
\nsynthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2\u201322. doi:10.2307\/1251446
\nZeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Service marketing: Integrating customer focus
\nacross the firm (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill\/Irwin.
\n194 L. J. SIPE AND M. R. TESTA
\nZeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L., (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing
\ncustomer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
\nZimmerman, C. A., & Kelley, C. M. (2010). I\u2019ll remember this! Effects of emotionality on memory
\npredictions versus memory performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 240\u2013253.
\ndoi:10.1016\/j.jml.2009.11.004
\nZorfas, A., & Leemon, D. (2016, August 29). An emotional connection matters more than customer
\nsatisfaction. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https:\/\/hbr.org\/2016\/08\/an-emotional-con
\nnection-matters-more-than-customer-satisfaction
\nJOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MARKETING & MANAGEMENT 195
\nCopyright of Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management is the property of Taylor &
\nFrancis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
\nlistserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
\ndownload, or email articles for individual use.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
From Satisfied to Memorable: An Empirical Study of Service and Experience Dimensions on Guest Outcomes in the Hospitality Industry Lori J. Sipe and Mark R.\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1738,2474,2500,1563,2499],"tags":[2368,2501,2479,2477,2476,1481,2475,2478,2502],"class_list":["post-8410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-help-me-with-social-psychology-assignment","category-psyc-essays","category-psych-research-paper-sample","category-psychology-case-study-examples","category-write-my-psychology-papers","tag-masters-essays","tag-psy-papers","tag-psyc","tag-psychology-assignment","tag-psychology-dissertations","tag-psychology-essays","tag-psychology-research-papers","tag-sociology-essays","tag-write-my-psychology-research-paper"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8410","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/homeworkacetutors.com\/nursing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}