A rating of the online reputation balance in lodgings

Rodríguez-Díaz, Manuel; Alonso-González, Raquel; Rodríguez-Voltes, Crina Isabel; Rodríguez-Voltes, Ana Cristina Article A rating of the online reputation balance in lodgings Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Rodríguez-Díaz, Manuel; Alonso-González, Raquel; Rodríguez-Voltes, Crina Isabel; Rodríguez-Voltes, Ana Cristina (2019) : A rating of the online reputation balance in lodgings, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 9, Iss. 3, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030058 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239955 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ administrative sciences Article A Rating of the Online Reputation Balance in Lodgings Manuel Rodríguez-Díaz 1,* , Raquel Alonso-González 2, Crina Isabel Rodríguez-Voltes 3and Ana Cristina Rodríguez-Voltes 3 1 Department of Economics and Business, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35001 LasPalmas, Spain 2University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35001 LasPalmas, Spain 3Instituto Canario de Sociología y Educación, 35007 Las Palmas, Spain *Correspondence: manuel.r[email protected] Received: 21 July 2019; Accepted: 10 August 2019; Published: 13 August 2019   Abstract: Online reputation is a strategic aspect of lodgings’ image and commercialization. Websites containing tourism reviews have increased their influence on customers’ decisions, leading to the effective management of Internet social media accounts. Customer evaluations of lodgings vary across websites because of differences in the scales used, the variables measured, and the reliability of opinions. The diverse information available on the Internet can produce communication problems in lodgings because the evaluations on online portals can differ. The objective of this paper is to propose an indicator to establish the rating of the online reputation balance, so that lodgings can determine the level of coherence of their communication and image on the Internet. One target for lodging community managers should be to converge different evaluations around a similar value that defines a coherent and real online reputation. The indicator proposed is tested on lodgings of distinct categories in different tourism destinations. Among the aims of the study is to try to provide a simple and practical method for directors to improve the management of hotel communication on the Internet. This is an issue for which research should propose methodologies because it is a new challenge for the competitiveness of accommodations. Keywords: online reputation; lodging; tourism destination; community manager; customer online review; rating of online reputation 1. Introduction The consolidation of digital technology in tourism is influencing the communication and image strategies of lodgings and destinations (Law et al. 2014;Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2015; Kim and Park 2017 ;Baka 2016). Tourists’ online reviews and the appearance of new Internet sales channels ( Mauri and Minazzi 2013 ;Ye et al. 2014) have had a strong impact. Social media allow travelers to share information about their experiences, influencing the decision-making process of tourism customers (Chan and Guillet 2011;Cantallops and Salvi 2014). Social media distributes tourist information through different platforms, such as review websites (e.g., Booking.com, TripAdvisor, HolidayCheck, Expedia.com,Hotels.com), social networks (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube), and leading opinion blogs ( Kim and Park 2017 ). These platforms share experiences, evaluations, conversations, images, and information ( Chan and Guillet 2011 ), offering a new way to promote word-of-mouth communication through the Internet (E-WOM) (Filieri and McLeavy 2014;Chen et al. 2011;Leung et al. 2013;Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006;Litvin et al. 2008). Consumer experience shared on the Internet generates a current of opinions that create the online reputation and image of lodgings and tourism destinations, which affects customers’ behavioral Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58; doi:10.3390/admsci9030058 www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 2 of 18 decision processes (Liu et al. 2013;Park and Allen 2013;Sparks and Browning 2011;Aureli and Supino 2017). The importance of reputation today is such that Capraro et al. (2016) affirms it plays an important role in human societies and influences cooperative behavior in addition to the evolution of relationships. The demand influences the performance of firms in terms of revenue and customers’ level of satisfaction and fidelity (Chevalier and Mayzlin 2006;Vermeulen and Seegers 2009; Ye et al. 2011 ; Kim et al. 2015;Lee and Ro 2016;Anderson 2012;Luca 2011;Noone et al. 2011;Ye et al. 2009). Customer satisfaction evaluations have been considered key tools in the financial performance of lodgings ( Pizam and Ellis 1999 ;Chi and Gursoy 2009). Nowadays, the measure of the results of tourist companies in terms of customer evaluations has moved to specialized websites, such as Booking.com or TripAdvisor, where the price policy is defined moment to moment depending on the evolution of the market (Rodríguez-Díaz et al. 2015). The information from online customer reviews can be divided into two categories: quantity and quality. The number of comments made generally or about a specific attribute determines the quantity of data available. The service quality is the main information collected on the most influential websites (Wirtz and Chew 2002). The dimensions used to measure service quality are attitudinal variables usually rated on numerical scales (Ye et al. 2014). Furthermore, online customer reviews also include comments and quality evaluations that are studied using content analysis to establish the customers’ satisfaction with lodgings, destinations, or services (Li et al. 2013;O’Connor 2010). Therefore, lodgings and destinations need a solid and coherent online reputation in order to obtain their communication, image, and income objectives (Hern á ndez Est á rico et al. 2012). In this context, the main problem tourism companies face is the definition of communication management in different channels. The E-WOM is now an essential aspect of the competitiveness of accommodations because it influences the image they communicate and their ability to attract customers, which has a direct impact on the financial results of companies in the tourism sector. E-WOM is transmitted through different channels, which means that managers must act adequately to maintain a competitive and clearly defined image (Ladhari and Michaud 2015;Micera and Crispino 2017;Wahab et al. 2015;Raguseo and Vitari 2017;Yang et al. 2016;Pourabedin and Migin 2015;Bataineh 2015;Cantallops and Salvi 2014; Inversini et al. 2009;Mauri and Minazzi 2013). Thus, the new rating of the online reputation balance (RORB) indicator is proposed. The aim of this indicator is to measure the degree of coherence and homogeneity of the quantitative communication of accommodations in the different communication channels used on the Internet by users. The online reputation balance establishes the degree to which the communication transmitted by a particular accommodation or group of accommodations in a destination is similar in the different channels used by customers to form an opinion that influences their decisions about acquiring a tourist package. In this context, the RORB is determined as the coefficient of variation of the quantitative online evaluations expressed as a percentage. In this regard, some authors are analyzing the effect that the online reputation of accommodations and complementary services has on the image of tourist destinations on the Internet (Micera and Crispino 2017; Wahab et al. 2015 ; Raguseo and Vitari 2017;Yang et al. 2016;Pourabedin and Migin 2015;Bataineh 2015;Cantallops and Salvi 2014;Inversini et al. 2009). In this study, the research focuses on the analysis of quantity online customer reviews on specific websites. Thus, the coherence of the consumers’ evaluation is a key driver of the image and income performance of lodging firms. The question is what types of scales, variables, and methodology are applied by websites to establish the online reputation scores for hospitality companies (Rodríguez-Díaz and Espino-Rodríguez 2018a,2018b). In this context, Rodr í guez-D í az et al. (Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2018a), in their online reputation gap analysis model, formulate the need to transmit coherent communication, which they conceptualize as a specific gap that should reduce the offer of lodging and services in tourist destinations (gap 2). This study is based on this model because communication is a strategic aspect of the competitiveness of companies and destinations that, through their online reputation, are constantly transmitting updated assessments of the quality of service and value perceived by users. The economic sustainability of accommodations Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 3 of 18 and destinations today depends on their communication with customers (Rodr í guez-D í az and Rodr í guez 2016), which, through the Internet, is reflected in a solid and coherent online reputation. The online reputation also considers customers’ qualitative assessments of the sustainable practices of their accommodations and destinations. In fact, the quantitative assessment of facilities includes energy and environmental sustainability as a customer requirement. However, a variable that specifically measures the sustainability of the accommodation might also be included in the scales. This paper has the aim of developing a method to determine the rating of the online reputation balance, in order to assess the level of similarity and coherence of customer evaluations on different websites. Furthermore, the method is empirically applied to the lodgings in three tourist destinations (South of Gran Canaria-Spain, South of Tenerife-Spain, and Agadir-Morocco). Therefore, the objectives formulated in this study are the following: 1. Define an indicator (RORB) to establish the dispersion level of the lodgings’ online reputation on the three websites studied. Hence, lodgings with convergent scores on a similar average will be considered to have a balanced online reputation, whereas lodgings with significant dispersion will have an unbalanced online reputation. This indicator is a method to measure coherence gap 2 formulated by Rodr í guez-D í az et al. (Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2018a) when online reputation is assessed in quantitative terms. 2. Determine the level of RORB of the customer evaluations on Booking.com, TripAdvisor, and HolidayCheck according to the average, standard deviation, and category of the lodgings in the tourism destination analyzed. Likewise, the study will test whether there are significant differences between destinations in their RORBs, in order to determine whether a destination ' s accommodation offer communicates a consistent image and online reputation. To obtain these objectives, the study begins with a literature review, presenting the main theoretical concepts used in the statistical analysis. Then, the methodology applied is presented, where the most relevant problem to solve is the transformation of the measurement scales used by the websites. With the adaptation of the scales, the RORB indicator will be calculated. The analysis of results is presented in the next section, first studying each destination independently, and then performing an analysis. A one-way ANOVA is carried out to determine the differences between destinations’ means on the RORBs. The paper ends with the main conclusions drawn from the study. 2. Literature Review A company’s online reputation is mainly composed of a set of reviews, experiences, evaluations, comments, emotions, photos, and videos shared by customers on the Internet about goods, services, or brands (Hern á ndez Est á rico et al. 2012). Therefore, the online reputation can be considered an activity performed by customers in an external environment, beyond the direct control of firms ( Xiang and Gretzel 2010 ). The interrelationships with consumers allow companies to counteract negative comments and stimulate favorable opinions about their goods, services, brands, and image (Gössling et al. 2016). In tourism, the online reputation conditions the communication strategy of firms, influencing the image, sales, and financial performance (Li et al. 2013;Dinçer and Alrawadieh 2017). The visibility in Internet and the positioning on key websites such as Booking.com, TripAdvisor, and HolidayCheck influence lodgings’ competitiveness. The implications of online customer reviews have been studied in relation to consumer behavior, performance (Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2015; Vermeulen and Seegers 2009 ; Ye et al. 2011;Kim et al. 2015;Lee and Ro 2016;Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2018b), price strategies, revenue management (Varini and Sirsi 2012;Yacouel and Fleischer 2012), satisfaction, and the service quality delivery (Ye et al. 2014;Hern á ndez Est á rico et al. 2012;Hu et al. 2008;Mudambi and Schuff2010; Horster and Gottschalk 2012;Chun 2005;Grönroos 2007). The online reputation is defined by Einwiller (Einwiller 2003) as the communicative and interactive processes of exchanging information among actors on social media. The communication strategy of Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 4 of 18 lodgings must focus on the trustworthiness and credibility of the information shared by customers (Ladhari and Michaud 2015;Sparks and Browning 2011). Gössling et al. (2016) defines trust in terms of the reliability of online contents, whereas credibility deals with the honesty of the online reviews by customers. Along the same lines, Yacouel and Fleischer (2012) consider trustworthiness and credibility to be basic elements in the online reputation of hospitality firms, which must avoid false or tendentious evaluations and comments. One of the problems with using quantitative variables to measure the online reputation is the extent to which this information is reliable and valid. This line of research is being developed and has an impact on the RORB because the information handled by researchers and directors must be truthful. The trust and credibility of the information available on websites containing online customer reviews depends on the reliability and validity of the measurement scales used and the coherence of the evaluations on the different platforms. The level of internal consistency between different measures of a dimension establishes the reliability of the scales (Bagozzy 1996;Hair et al. 1999). Moreover, the validity verifies the degree to which a measure represents the concept analyzed (Hair et al. 1999;Hayes 1992) and the most accepted types of validity are convergent, discriminant, predictive, and nomological (Bagozzy 1996). However, Rodr í guez-D í az and Espino-Rodr í guez (2018a,2018b) showed that in some cases these indicators do not guarantee the validity of scales and instead defined a new scale called the validity of similarities or differences between goods or services, which was tested in different tourist destinations. In relation to the reliability and validity of the scales used by Booking.com, TripAdvisor, and HolidayCheck, Rodr í guez-D í az and Espino-Rodr í guez (2018a,2018b) demonstrated that the lodging evaluations on the three tourism websites are reliable and valid following the traditional statistic method. Nevertheless, only Booking.com accomplishes this with the new validity scale because it is the only website that uses variables that detect significant differences between destinations. Based on the results of these investigations, it can be confirmed that the information used to validate the RORB is reliable and valid on these websites. However, another decisive concept in evaluating the online reputation of lodgings is the degree of coherence of the evaluations available in different communication channels like the platforms analyzed. In this context, a new concept called the rating of online reputation balance (RORB) is formulated in this study. RORB is defined as the level of coherence communicated by a firm, brand, or product through different Internet channels. The method used to calculate this indicator is the coefficient of variation of the online reputation scales analyzed, valued as a percentage. The main objective of this paper is to develop a methodology to calculate the RORB. The method proposed in this article is a means of establishing the coherence gap that service companies should reduce in order to improve competitiveness through their online reputation ( Rodríguez-Díaz et al. 2018a ). The problems to solve are related to the variables, constructs, and sizes of the scales evaluated in the websites. Most of the variables used measure the service quality construct (Ye et al. 2014; Rodr í guez-D í az and Espino-Rodr í guez 2018a;Parasuraman et al. 1988). Nevertheless, there is a single variable included in these scales that measures the perceived value concept. Only HolidayCheck does not consider this dimension, but it can be substituted by the variable recommendation percentage (Micera and Crispino 2017). Rodr í guez-D í az et al. (2015) proposed a method to measure the added value of lodgings by finding the difference between the perceived value and the service quality. The value concept is directly related to service quality and inversely related to the price of goods or services bought by customers (Parasuraman et al. 1988;Holbrook 1994;Oliver 1997; Rust and Oliver 1994 ;Zeithaml 1988;Gallarza et al. 2011;Nasution and Mavondo 2008;Oh 2000; Sparks et al. 2008). Value has been studied in tourism in relation to the predictive validity of scales (Rodr í guez-D í az and Espino-Rodr í guez 2018a,2018b), satisfaction of customers (Li et al. 2013; Chadee and Mattsson 1996 ;Baker and Crompton 2000;Füller et al. 2006;Nam et al. 2011;Oh and Kim 2017), competitive positioning of lodgings (Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2018b), and added value (Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2015;Jeong 2002). Although value is a construct measured by a scale of Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 5 of 18 variables (Gallarza and Saura 2006;Sweeney et al. 1999;Oh 1999;Xie et al. 2014), in tourism normally only one variable is used due to the small size of the scales employed on the tourism websites (Prebensen et al. 2012). In conclusion, the online reputation on the websites analyzed is measured through quantitative scales of variables that must be trustworthy and credible. The statistical methodology applies the analysis of the reliability and validity of scales in order to determine their capacity to evaluate the constructs measured. Furthermore, the coherence level of the online reputation through different communication channels is also critical in designing and implementing a marketing strategy on tourism websites and social media. The marketing actions will be aimed at promoting a solid brand image in all the communication channels, encouraging customers to share their experiences as a way to enhance online reputation, capture demand, and improve competitive positioning. In the following section, a methodology and empirical study are carried out to assess the level of coherence of the online reputation of lodgings by means of the RORB. 3. Research Methodology To carry out the research, a sample of lodgings with different categories was selected in three tourism destinations: 136 lodgings in the South of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain), 49 in the South of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain), and 38 in Agadir (Morocco). The condition for selecting the hospitality complexes was that they had to be evaluated on the tourism websites of Booking.com, TripAdvisor, and HolidayCheck. This restriction meant that the number of accommodations under study was reduced because there were relevant accommodations that were not marketed through Booking.com. The total number of customer comments used by the online portals to measure the online reputation of lodgings was 57.919 in Booking.com, 102.794 in TripAdvisor, and 49.973 in HolidayCheck, respectively. The Canary Islands receive 12 million tourists (ISTAC 2017) per year, of whom 4 million go to Gran Canaria and 5 million visit Tenerife Island. Moreover, Agadir and the region of Souss Massa Dr â a receive 4 million tourists (ICCEX 2011). Both destinations are specialized in sun and beach tourism because they are located very close to the Atlantic Ocean near the Tropic of Cancer. The distance between the Canary Islands and Agadir is 420 km. The methodology to follow in determining the RORB is presented in Figure 1. The first step is to analyze the variables on the scales used by the websites. It is crucial to obtain information about the most relevant variables measuring the attributes of the lodgings. The second step deals with the constructs measured in order to achieve significant internal coherence of the variables. The third step is to homogenize the size of the scales because Booking.com utilizes a 10-point scale (1 =very poor evaluation; 10 =excellent), whereas TripAdvisor uses a 5-point scale (1 =very poor evaluation; 5=excellent ), and HolidayCheck has opted for a 6-point scale (1 =very poor evaluation; 6 =excellent). Mellinas et al. (2015) established that Booking.com actually uses a 4-point scale, which is adapted to a new 10-point scale where the minimum value is 2.5. The fourth step consists of calculating the average of the constructs homogenized from the websites. The fifth step is to calculate the standard deviation of each construct. Finally, the RORB is calculated by the coefficient of variation, dividing the standard deviation by the average, and obtaining a percentage of deviation that defines the level of coherence of the online reputation on different websites. All the variables and indicators have been calculated individually for each accommodation and aggregated for each category and destination. 3.1. Variables, Constructs, and Homogenization The constructs measured on the scales of Booking.com and TripAdvisor are service quality and perceived value (Ye et al. 2014;Rodr í guez-D í az et al. 2015). The service quality is evaluated by Booking.com through the variables of staff(S), comfort (Co), facilities (F), location (L), cleanliness (Cl), and Wi-Fi (W). TripAdvisor utilizes the dimensions of location (L), sleep quality (Sq), comfort (Co), facilities (F), and cleanliness (Cl). The HolidayCheck scale is composed of room (R), service (Se), Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 6 of 18 location (L), gastronomy (G), and sport and leisure (Sl) variables. In this case, the gastronomy variable was not introduced in service quality because it is not a service offered by all the lodgings analyzed. In relation to the perceived value, Booking.com uses the variable value for money (Vp), TripAdvisor uses the quality/price relationship (Vp), and HolidayCheck has no specific variable to measure this construct. Rodr í guez-D í az and Espino-Rodr í guez (2018a,2018b) demonstrated that the percentage of recommendations (Pr) of customers is a useful variable to estimate the perceived value. Because the percentage of recommendations has an upper limit of 100%, the scores were converted to a 10-point scale. To homogenize the scales, they were all adapted to 10-point scales using the following formulas: TripAdvisor: (score of variable ×10)/5=score of variable ×2 HolidayCheck: (score of variable ×10)/6 Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19 recommendations (Pr) of customers is a useful variable to estimate the perceived value. Because the percentage of recommendations has an upper limit of 100%, the scores were converted to a 10-point scale. To homogenize the scales, they were all adapted to 10-point scales using the following formulas: TripAdvisor: (score of variable × 10)/5 = score of variable × 2 HolidayCheck: (score of variable × 10)/6 Figure 1. Methodology to determine the rating of the online reputation balance. At this point, it is necessary to clarify that Mellinas et al. (2015) demonstrated that Booking.com uses a scale where the minimum value is 2.5 and the maximum is 10. The adaptation of scales proposed in this study and the calculation of the rating of the online reputation balance is a way to demonstrate whether the adaptation of the 4-point scale to a 10-point scale by Booking.com affects the final evaluation by customers. If the results of this study do not detect significant differences between the evaluations of the websites, this will be a way to validate the homogeneity of the adaptations to 10-point scales. The opposite case would show that Booking.com’s adaptation to a 10point scale is biased. Other variables included in the study were the average score (AS) and the average service quality (Q). The average score is calculated by the websites by averaging all the variables on the scales without separating the constructs measured. Moreover, the service quality average is established in this study by utilizing only the variables used to measure this construct. The Wi-Fi variable was not included in the average Q because it depends largely on the public infrastructure of the destinations. The formulas utilized are the following: Booking.com AS = (S + Co + F + L + Cl + W + Vp)/7 Booking.com Q = (S + Co + F + L + Cl)/5 TripAdvisor AS = (L + Sq + Co + F + Cl + Vp)/6 TripAdvisor Q = (L + Sq + Co + F + Cl)/5 HolidayCheck AS = (R + Se + L + G + Sl)/5 HolidayCheck Q = (R + Se + L + Sl)/4 Figure 1. Methodology to determine the rating of the online reputation balance. At this point, it is necessary to clarify that Mellinas et al. (2015) demonstrated that Booking.com uses a scale where the minimum value is 2.5 and the maximum is 10. The adaptation of scales proposed in this study and the calculation of the rating of the online reputation balance is a way to demonstrate whether the adaptation of the 4-point scale to a 10-point scale by Booking.com affects the final evaluation by customers. If the results of this study do not detect significant differences between the evaluations of the websites, this will be a way to validate the homogeneity of the adaptations to 10-point scales. The opposite case would show that Booking.com’s adaptation to a 10-point scale is biased. Other variables included in the study were the average score (AS) and the average service quality (Q). The average score is calculated by the websites by averaging all the variables on the scales without separating the constructs measured. Moreover, the service quality average is established in this study by utilizing only the variables used to measure this construct. The Wi-Fi variable was not included in Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 7 of 18 the average Q because it depends largely on the public infrastructure of the destinations. The formulas utilized are the following: Booking.com AS =(S +Co +F+L+Cl +W+Vp)/7 Booking.com Q=(S +Co +F+L+Cl)/5 TripAdvisor AS =(L +Sq +Co +F+Cl +Vp)/6 TripAdvisor Q =(L +Sq +Co +F+Cl)/5 HolidayCheck AS =(R +Se +L+G+Sl)/5 HolidayCheck Q =(R +Se +L+Sl)/4 3.2. Rating of Online Reputation Balance (RORB) Because there are diverse websites measuring the online reputation of lodgings, it is necessary to evaluate the degree of balance between them. If the ratings of a construct on the three portals analyzed in this study converge on the average score, the conclusion will be that the perceptions about a specific lodging in customer reviews are coherent. Therefore, it is possible to state that its online reputation is balanced. Otherwise, if the averages obtained in the three portals differ from each other, it means that the customers’ opinions do not tend to converge in a definite score. In this case, the online reputation of the lodging would be unbalanced (see Figure 2). Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19 3.2. Rating of Online Reputation Balance (RORB) Because there are diverse websites measuring the online reputation of lodgings, it is necessary to evaluate the degree of balance between them. If the ratings of a construct on the three portals analyzed in this study converge on the average score, the conclusion will be that the perceptions about a specific lodging in customer reviews are coherent. Therefore, it is possible to state that its online reputation is balanced. Otherwise, if the averages obtained in the three portals differ from each other, it means that the customers’ opinions do not tend to converge in a definite score. In this case, the online reputation of the lodging would be unbalanced (see Figure 2). To evaluate the level of balance of the online reputations of lodgings in different communication channels, it is necessary to use a dispersion measure as the standard deviation. As Figure 2 shows, a small deviation from the average indicates a balanced online reputation, whereas a large standard deviation represents an unbalanced online reputation because there are different customer evaluations of a lodging on the websites. When tourism companies encounter this situation, they must try to improve the coherence of the online reputation and the image communicated on the Internet. It is necessary to clarify that the proposed indicator is intended to define the consistency of the communication from the consumer’s point of view. Internet users do not differentiate between different types of scales. They only consider whether the attributes of the product or service are more or less valued. Furthermore, users do not analyze whether measurement scales or opinions are biased. From this perspective, this study is not intended to establish whether the scales are adequate or not or whether they are biased. To this end, the conclusions propose a method for using the RORB so that it can be evaluated in future research. Figure 2. Level of balance of online reputation. An indicator to measure the level of balance of the online reputation of lodgings requires, first, the homogenization of the websites’ scales, and second, the calculation of two statistics: the average (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of the constructs evaluated in the Internet portals. In this study, the Figure 2. Level of balance of online reputation. To evaluate the level of balance of the online reputations of lodgings in different communication channels, it is necessary to use a dispersion measure as the standard deviation. As Figure 2shows, a small deviation from the average indicates a balanced online reputation, whereas a large standard deviation represents an unbalanced online reputation because there are different customer evaluations of a lodging on the websites. When tourism companies encounter this situation, they must try to improve the coherence of the online reputation and the image communicated on the Internet. Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 8 of 18 It is necessary to clarify that the proposed indicator is intended to define the consistency of the communication from the consumer’s point of view. Internet users do not differentiate between different types of scales. They only consider whether the attributes of the product or service are more or less valued. Furthermore, users do not analyze whether measurement scales or opinions are biased. From this perspective, this study is not intended to establish whether the scales are adequate or not or whether they are biased. To this end, the conclusions propose a method for using the RORB so that it can be evaluated in future research. An indicator to measure the level of balance of the online reputation of lodgings requires, first, the homogenization of the websites’ scales, and second, the calculation of two statistics: the average ( µ ) and standard deviation ( σ ) of the constructs evaluated in the Internet portals. In this study, the dimensions analyzed are the average score (AS), service quality (Q), and perceived value (Vp) on the websites of Booking.com (BO), TripAdvisor (TA), and HolidayCheck (HC). The average of these dimensions on the websites of lodging j is calculated according to the following formulas: µASj =(AS-BOj +AS-TAj +AS-HCj)/3 µQj =(Q-BOj +Q-TAj +Q-HCj)/3 µVpj =(Vp-BOj +Vp-TAj +Vp-HCj)/3 The most important characteristics of an indicator are the clarity and simplicity in evaluating the online reputation balance of lodgings. For this purpose, the standard deviation is required for each of the aforementioned dimensions ( σ ASj, σ Qj, σ Vpj). Finally, the rating of the online reputation balance of a construct or dimension used to evaluate lodging j is calculated with the coefficient of variation according to the percentage of dispersion in relation to the average of each indicator, using the formulas: RORB-ASj =(σASj/µASj) * 100 RORB-Qj =(σQj/µQj) * 100 RORB-Vpj =(σVAj/µVpj) * 100 With these percentages, it is possible to define the limits within which an online reputation is balanced. There is no general norm to specify the threshold for the balanced-unbalanced online reputation. Because this indicator or a similar one has not been formulated, the study can be considered exploratory, and, therefore, the limits proposed should also be validated in future research. However, 5% dispersion in relation to the average can be considered a prudent limit. Therefore, a dimension to measure the online reputation with a rating equal to or less than 5% is balanced, whereas if it is greater than 5%, the online reputation is unbalanced. Moreover, each destination can set a different threshold depending on its particular characteristics. For example, a limit of 3% can establish an optimal balance, whereas a rating greater than 10% would imply a critical imbalance for lodgings and the need to take corrective actions. Therefore, a guide to establish the level of balance is the following: RORB ≤3% →the level of online reputation balance is optimal. 3% <ROR ≤5% →the level of online reputation balance is acceptable. 5% <RORB ≤10% →the online reputation is unbalanced. 10% <RORB →the online reputation is critically unbalanced. 4. Results 4.1. Analysis of Results The first analysis was carried out individually by destination with the aim to determine the similarities and differences between the South of Gran Canaria, South of Tenerife, and Agadir. The study was carried out taking the lodging categories into account in order to evaluate whether there are significant differences in the results obtained. The constructs analyzed were service quality (Q) and perceived value (Vp). Likewise, the average score (AS) was also included because it is the main Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 15 of 18 Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Anderson, Chris. 2012. The Impact of Social Media on Lodging Performance. Available online: http://scholarship. sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004andcontext=chrpubs (accessed on 20 August 2017). Aureli, Selena, and Enrico Supino. 2017. Online Reputation Monitoring: An exploratory study on italian hotel managers’ practices. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 18: 84–109. [CrossRef] Bagozzy, Richard P. 1996. Measurement in marketing research: Basic principles of questionnaire design. In Principles of Marketing Research. Edited by Richard P. Bagozzy. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Baka, Vasiliki. 2016. The becoming of user-generated reviews: Looking at the past to understand the future of managing reputation in the travel sector. Tourism Management 53: 148–62. [CrossRef] Baker, Dwayne A., and John L. Crompton. 2000. Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Annals of Tourism Research 27: 785–804. [CrossRef] Bataineh, Abdallah Q. 2015. The impact of perceived e-WOM on purchase intention: The mediating role of corporate image. International Journal of Marketing Studies 7: 126–37. [CrossRef] Beritelli, Pietro, Thomas Bieger, and Christian Laesser. 2007. Destination governance. Using corporate governance theories as a foundation for effective destination management. Journal of Travel Research 46: 96–107. [CrossRef] Cantallops, Antoni S., and Fabiana Salvi. 2014. New consumer behavior: A review of research on eWOM and hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 36: 41–51. [CrossRef] Capraro, Valerio, Francesca Giardini, Daniele Vilone, and Mario Paolucci. 2016. Partner selection supported by opaque reputation promotes cooperative behavior. Judgment and Decision Making 11: 589–600. Available online: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15730/jdm15730.pdf (accessed on 6 August 2019). Chadee, Doren D., and Jan Mattsson. 1996. An empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourism. The Service Industries Journal 16: 305–20. [CrossRef] Chan, Nga L., and Basak D. Guillet. 2011. Investigation in social media marketing, how does the hotel industry in Hong Kong perform in marketing on social media webistes? Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 28: 354–68. [CrossRef] Chen, Yubo, Scott Fay, and Qi Wang. 2011. The role of marketing in social media: How online consumer reviews evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing 25: 85–94. [CrossRef] Chevalier, Judith A., and Dina Mayzlin. 2006. The effect of word of mouth on sales: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research 43: 345–54. [CrossRef] Chi, Christina G., and Dogan Gursoy. 2009. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction and financial performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Hospitality Management 28: 245–53. [CrossRef] Choi, HwanSuk C., and Ercan Sirakaya. 2006. Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management 27: 1274–89. [CrossRef] Chun, Rosa. 2005. Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Review 7: 91–109. [CrossRef] Dinçer, Mithat Z., and Zaid Alrawadieh. 2017. Negative word of mouse in the hotel industry: A content analysis of online reviews on luxury hotels in Jordan. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 26: 785–804. [CrossRef] Einwiller, Sabine. 2003. Vertrauen durch reputation im elektronishech handel. Ph.D. thesis, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Farrell, Bryan H., and Louise Twining-Ward. 2004. Reconceptualizing tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 31: 274–95. [CrossRef] Filieri, Raffaele, and Fraser McLeavy. 2014. E-WOM and accommodation an analysis of the factors that influence travelers’ adoption of information from online reviews. Journal of Travel Research 53: 44–57. [CrossRef] Füller, Johann, Kurt Matzler, and Rita Faullant. 2006. Asymmetric effects in customer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research 33: 1159–63. [CrossRef] Gallarza, Martina G., and Irene G. Saura. 2006. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management 27: 437–52. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 16 of 18 Gallarza, Martina G., Irene Gil-Saura, and Morris B. Holbrook. 2011. The value of value: Further excursions on the meaning and role of customer value. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 10: 179–91. [CrossRef] Gössling, Stefan, Colin M. Hall, and Ann C. Anderson. 2016. The manager’s dilemma: A conceptualization of online review manipulation strategies. Current Issues in Tourism, March 24. Available online: http: //www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13683500.2015.1127337(accessed on 27 September 2017). Grönroos, Christian. 2007. Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management in Service Competition. Hoboken: Willey and Sons. Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black. 1999. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall International, Inc. Hayes, Bob E. 1992. Measuring Customer Satisfaction. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press. Hern á ndez Est á rico, Estefan í a, M. Lilibeth Fuentes Medina, and Sandra Morini Marrero. 2012. Una aproximaci ó n a la reputación en línea de los establecimientos hoteleros españoles. Papers de Turisme 52: 63–88. Holbrook, Morris B. 1994. The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience. In R.T. Rust and R.L. Oliver, Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Horster, Eric, and Carsten Gottschalk. 2012. Computer-assisted webnography: A new approach to online reputation management in tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing 18: 229–38. [CrossRef] Hu, Nan, Ling Liu, and Jie Zhang. 2008. Do online reviews affect product sales? The role of reviewer characteristics and temporal effects. Information Technology and Mangement 9: 201–14. [CrossRef] ICCEX. 2011. El sector del turismo en Marruecos. Available online: http://www.think-med.es/wp-content/uploads/ group-documents/5/1357554892-ICEX2011TurismoMarruecos.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2017). Inversini, Alessandro, Lorenzo Cantoni, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2009. Destinations’ information competition and web reputation. Information Technology and Tourism 11: 221–34. [CrossRef] ISTAC. 2017. Demanda tur í stica: Turistas y pasajeros. Available online: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/istac/ temas_estadisticos/sectorservicios/hosteleriayturismo/demanda/(accessed on 23 April 2017). Jeong, Miyoung. 2002. Evaluating value-added lodging web sites from customers’ perspectives. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 3: 49–60. [CrossRef] Kim, Woo G., and Seo A. Park. 2017. Social media review rating versus traditional customer satisfaction: Which one has more incremental predictive power in explaining hotel performance? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29: 784–802. [CrossRef] Kim, Woo G., Hyunjung Lim, and Robert A. Brymer. 2015. The effectiveness of managing social media on hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 44: 165–71. [CrossRef] Ladhari, Riadh, and M é lissa Michaud. 2015. eWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust, and website perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Management 46: 36–45. [CrossRef] Law, Rob, Dimitrios Buhalis, and Cihan Cobanoglu. 2014. Progress on information and communication technologies in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26: 727–50. [CrossRef] Lee, SeungHyun, and HeeJung Ro. 2016. The impact of online reviews on attitude changes: The differential effects of review attributes and consumer knowledge. International Journal of Hospitality Management 56: 1–9. [CrossRef] Leung, Daniel, Rob Law, Hubert van Hoof, and Dimitrios Buhalis. 2013. Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature review. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 30: 3–22. [CrossRef] Li, Huiying, Quiang Ye, and Rob Law. 2013. Determinants of customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: An application of online review analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 18: 784–802. [CrossRef] Litvin, Stephen W., Ronald E. Goldsmith, and Bing Pan. 2008. Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management 29: 458–68. [CrossRef] Liu, Shaowu, Rob Law, Jia Rong, Gang Li, and John Hall. 2013. Analyzing changes in hotel customer’s expectations by trip mode. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34: 359–71. [CrossRef] Luca, Michael. 2011. Reviews, reputation, and revenue: The case of Yelp.com. Working Paper 12–16. Harvard Business School NOM Unit, Boston, MA, USA. Mauri, Aurelio G., and Roberta Minazzi. 2013. Web reviews influence on expectations and purchasing intentions of hotel potential customers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34: 99–107. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 17 of 18 Mellinas, Juan P., Soledad M. Mart í nez Mar í a-Dolores, and Juan J. Bernal Garc í a. 2015. Booking.com: The unexpected scoring system. Tourism Management 49: 72–74. [CrossRef] Micera, Roberto, and Raffaele Crispino. 2017. Destination web reputation as “smart tool” for image building: The case analysis of naples city-destination. International Journal of Tourism Cities 3: 406–23. [CrossRef] Mudambi, Susan M., and David Schuff. 2010. What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly 34: 185–200. [CrossRef] Nam, Janghyeon, Yuksel Ekinci, and Georgina Whyatt. 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research 38: 1009–30. [CrossRef] Nasution, Hanny N., and Felix T. Mavondo. 2008. Customer value in the hotel industry: What managers believe they deliver and what customer experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27: 204–13. [CrossRef] Noone, Breffni M., Kelli A. McGuire, and Kristin V. Rohlfs. 2011. Social media meets hotel revenue management: opportunities, issues and unanswered questions. Journal of Revenues and Pricing Management 10: 293–305. [CrossRef] O’Connor, Peter. 2010. Managing a hotel’s image on TripAdvisor. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 19: 754–72. Oh, Haemoon. 1999. Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18: 67–82. [CrossRef] Oh, Haemoon. 2000. The effect of brand class, brand awareness, and price on customer value and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 24: 136–62. [CrossRef] Oh, Haemmon, and Kawon Kim. 2017. Customer satisfaction, service quality, and customer value: years 2000–2015. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 29: 2–29. [CrossRef] Oliver, Richard L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parasuraman, Ananthanarayanan, Valarie Zeithaml, and Leonard L. Berry. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64: 12–40. Park, Sun-Young, and Jonathan P. Allen. 2013. Responding to online reviews: Problem solving and engagement in hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54: 64–73. [CrossRef] Pizam, Abraham, and Taylor Ellis. 1999. Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11: 326–39. [CrossRef] Pourabedin, Zahra, and Melissa W. Migin. 2015. Hotel experience and positive electronic word of mouth (e-Wom). International Business Management 9: 596–600. Prebensen, Nina K., Eunju Woo, Joseph S. Chen, and Muzaffer Uysal. 2012. Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research 52: 253–64. [CrossRef] Raguseo, Elisabetta, and Claudio Vitari. 2017. The effect of brand on the impacto of e-WOM on hotels financial performance. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 21: 253–73. [CrossRef] Rodr í guez-D í az, Manuel, Tom á s F. Espino Rodr í guez, and Rosa Rodr í guez D í az. 2015. A model of market positioning based on value creation and service quality in the lodging industry: An empirical application of online customer reviews. Tourism Economics 21: 1273–94. [CrossRef] Rodr í guez-D í az, Manuel, and Tom á s F. Espino Rodr í guez. 2016. Determining the sustainability factors and performance of a tourism destination from stakeholders’ perspective. Sustainability 8: 951. [CrossRef] Rodr í guez-D í az, Manuel, and Tom á s F. Espino-Rodr í guez. 2018a. Determining the reliability and validity of online reputation databases for lodging: Booking.com, TripAdvisror, and HolidayCheck. Journal of Vacation Marketing 24: 261–74. [CrossRef] Rodr í guez-D í az, Manuel, and Tom á s F. Espino-Rodr í guez. 2018b. A methodology for a comparative analysis of the loging tourism destinations based on online customer review. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 8: 147–60. [CrossRef] Rodr í guez-D í az, Manuel, Crina I. Rodr í guez-Voltes, and Ana C. Rodr í guez-Voltes. 2018a. Gap analysis of the online reputation. Sustainability 10: 1603. Rodr í guez-D í az, Manuel, Rosa Rodr í guez-D í az, Ana C. Rodr í guez-Voltes, and Crina I. Rodr í guez-Voltes. 2018b. A model of market positioning of destination based on online customer reviews of lodgings. Sustainability 10: 78. Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 58 18 of 18 Rust, Roland T., and Richard L. Oliver. 1994. Service quality: Insights and managerial implications from the frontier’. In Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Sparks, Beverley A., and Victoria Browning. 2011. The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tourism Management 32: 1310–23. [CrossRef] Sparks, Beverley, Ken Butcher, and Graham Bradley. 2008. Dimensions and correlates of consumer value: An application to the timeshare industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27: 98–108. [CrossRef] Sweeney, Julian C., Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Lester W. Johnson. 1999. The role of perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: A study in a retail environment. Journal of Retailing 75: 77–105. [CrossRef] Varini, Kate, and Pavan Sirsi. 2012. Social Media and Revenue Management: Where Should the Two Meet? Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264928889_Social_media_and_revenue_ management_Where_should_the_two_meet (accessed on 23 August 2017). Vermeulen, Ivan E., and Daphne Seegers. 2009. Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration. Tourism Management 30: 123–27. [CrossRef] Wahab, Omar A., Jarmal Bentahar, Hadi Otrok, and Azzam Mourad. 2015. A survey on trust and reputation models for Web services: Single, composite, and communities. Decision Support Systems 74: 121–34. [CrossRef] Wirtz, Jochen, and Patricia Chew. 2002. The effects of incentives, deal proneness, satisfaction and tie strength on word-of-mouth behaviour. International Journal of Service Industry Management 13: 141–62. [CrossRef] Xiang, Zheng, and Ulrike Gretzel. 2010. Role of social media in online travel information search. Tourism Management 31: 179–88. [CrossRef] Xie, Karen L., Zili Zhang, and Ziqiong Zhang. 2014. The business value of online consumer reviews and management response to hotel performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management 43: 1–12. [CrossRef] Yacouel, Nira, and Aliza Fleischer. 2012. The role of cybermediaries in reputation building and price premiums in the online hotel market. Journal of Travel Research 51: 219–26. [CrossRef] Yang, Quiang, Shuang Wu, Lingli Wang, Pengfei Wu, Hejie Chen, and Guohong Wei. 2016. E-WOM from e-commerce websites and social media: Which will consumers adopt? Electronic Commerce Researcdh and Applications 17: 62–73. Ye, Qiang, Rob Law, and Bin Gu. 2009. The impact of online e user reviews on hotel room sales. Journal of Hospitality Management 28: 180–82. [CrossRef] Ye, Qiang, Rob Law, Bin Gu, and Wei Chen. 2011. The influence of user-generated content on traveller behaviour: An empirical investigation on the effects of e-word-of-mouth to hotel online bookings. Computer in Huma Behavior 27: 634–39. [CrossRef] Ye, Qiang, Huiying Li, Zhisheng Wang, and Rob Law. 2014. The influence of hotel price on perceived service quality and value in e-tourism: An empirical investigation based on online traveller reviews. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 38: 23–39. [CrossRef] Zeithaml, Valarie A. 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52: 2–22. [CrossRef] © 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).