The Design and Management of Ambience

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0261-5177/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.to

�CorrespondE-mail addr

kirsti.m.lardal@

kjell.gronhaug@

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

The design and management of ambience—Implications for hotelarchitecture and service

Morten Heidea,�, Kirsti Lærdala, Kjell Grønhaugb

aNorwegian School of Hotel Management, University of Stavanger, N-4036 Stavanger, NorwaybNorwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, N-5045 Bergen, Norway

Received 15 December 2005; accepted 23 January 2007

Abstract

Ambience has become a pivotal concern for tourism and hospitality managers worldwide. In an effort to improve the ambience,

different groups of professionals are involved, in particular hospitality managers and outside experts, e.g. designers and architects.

Despite the wide management interest, there is an apparent lack of empirical research that addresses ambience and its role in

hospitality settings. The authors attempt to add to current knowledge by gaining deeper insights into what design experts and hotel

managers understand by ambience and how they perform to improve the ambience of their establishments.

The reported study identified important differences in the two groups’ understanding of the importance of various ambience-

enhancing factors (antecedents) and the benefits and risks associated with investing in ambience (consequences). These differences may

influence priorities and cause conflicts. Managerial implications and recommendations to stimulate future research are offered.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ambience; Atmospherics; Hotel management; Design; Guest satisfaction

1. Introduction

Ambience has become a pivotal concern for tourism andhospitality managers worldwide. The relevance of andemphasis on ambience for creating a successful hospitalityexperience is evident from reading almost any travel-related journal or magazine. Nearly four decades ago,Campbell-Smith wrote The Marketing of the Meal Experi-

ence, which is relevant to a discussion of ambience becauseof its focus on the elements required to broaden the appealof the meal experience and ensure value added for theconsumer (Campbell-Smith, 1967). During the 1970s and1980s, Lawson considered aspects related to ambience invarious texts on hospitality planning and design (see forexample Lawson, 1976, 1987), while Jones (1983) in hisstandard text on foodservice operations devotes severalpages to a discussion of ambience.

e front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

urman.2007.01.011

ing author. Tel.: +4751833751; fax: +4751833750.

esses: [email protected] (M. Heide),

uis.no (K. Lærdal),

nhh.no (K. Grønhaug).

Studies in organizational behaviour indicate that theambience of the work place may influence the attitude andbehaviour of employees and thus affect service delivery. Inthe service marketing literature, ambience has been viewedin relation to customers and has been discussed inparticular as a tool for changing consumer attitudes andbehaviour. According to Bitner (1992), ambience will bemore important for service organizations than for produ-cers of tangible goods. The fact that services are producedand consumed simultaneously, and that this occurs withinthe physical facilities of the firm, means that customers willbe exposed to the ambience of the ‘‘production site’’ andconsequently that this ambience will be an importantdeterminant of customer satisfaction. Troye and Heide(1987) identified ambience as an essential variable forexplaining customer satisfaction among hotel guests,regardless of geographical area, nationality of guests andtype of hotel. Similarly, a recent study focusing onrestaurants found that ambience is often perceived by bothguests and staff as the single most positive characteristic ofthe establishment, being rated as even more important thanthe food itself (Kokko, 2005). Furthermore, travel-related

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.01.011

mailto:[email protected]



ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–13251316

journals and magazines frequently seem to give theimpression that ambience is a key success factor directlylinked to financial results.

Although ambience is important and concerns bothmanagers and guests, it is rather difficult to grasp, and thisis reflected in the fact that the concept is ambiguous.Furthermore, ambience is in some way created, implyingthat input factors influence ambience. Elements of physicaldesign and decor have been highlighted as drivers ofambience and a limited number of studies have examinedtheir importance for management in general (e.g. Kotler,1973) and for customers and employees of service firms inparticular (e.g. Bitner, 1992).

Also, hospitality managers often try to improve theambience of their establishments. Because of the perceivedneed for assistance in this task, they frequently involveexternal design experts, e.g. designers and architects. Sinceambience is a complex phenomenon and an ambiguousconcept, and training and experience differ amonghospitality managers and design experts, their perceptionsand knowledge of the role of ambience may differ.

This paper is organized as follows: In the next sectionwe address the phenomenon of ambience, examining howambience has been conceptualized and understood, theunderlying theoretical assumptions, and how ambience hasbeen treated in the research literature. This serves as inputfor our tentative perspective, guiding the empirical investi-gation that follows. Then we outline the research metho-dology chosen for our investigation. Finally, we report ourfindings and offer an analysis and interpretation of theresults. Our study indicates that the effects are complex andnuanced and that certain risks may be associated withambience investments. We believe that our findings areimportant and have clear relevance for hospitality researchand management. In the last section, we therefore highlightthe theoretical and managerial implications of our study.Avenues for further research are also suggested.

2. Ambience—key concepts and theoretical assumptions

Ambience is a commonly used term—both in everydaylife and in business contexts. However, the concept isambiguous. It is often used unconsciously and conveysmultiple meanings. In order to assess the importance ofambience in relation to hospitality management, anadequate definition of the term is required.

What we refer to here as ambience, Kotler termsatmosphere, which can be technically defined as ‘‘the airsurrounding a sphere.’’ The term is also used morecolloquially to describe the quality of the surroundings(Kotler, 1973). This implies that it goes beyond theindividual, i.e. atmosphere or ambience includes elementsof the environment. The individual may very wellcontribute to the ambience but other factors must bepresent as well. In fact, we view ambience as created by theinteraction between individuals and their environment.

In the context of service delivery, it is relevant to make adistinction between atmosphere or ambience and services-cape (Bitner, 1992). While, servicescape is the physicalenvironment in which services are delivered, ambience canbe viewed as the result of interaction between people (i.e.service providers and customers) and the physical environ-ment (i.e. the servicescape). A key point, however, is thatambience is perceived and experienced. Moreover, thephenomenon of ambience is abstract and ambiguous, andpeople may vary in their perception of it.

Antecedents of ambience: Ambience is in some sensecreated. To create something certain input factors areneeded. Several factors are believed to be important in thisrespect. A review of relevant studies (referred to below)points toward three factors that are important for creatingthe desired ambience: (1) atmospheric factors; (2) socialfactors; and (3) design factors.

Atmospheric factors are background conditions in theenvironment, e.g. temperature, scent, noise, music, andlighting (see e.g. Babin, Hardesty, & Suter, 2003; Baker,Levy, & Grewal, 1992; Brengman & Geuens, 2003; Chebat,Chebat, & Vaillant, 2001; Chebat & Michon, 2003;Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Gardner & Siomkos, 1986;Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982, 1986; Spangenberg,Crowley, & Henderson, 1996; Wilson, 2003; Yalch &Spangenberg, 2000). While atmospheric factors have clearrelevance for the hospitality industry, other settings (inparticular retailing) dominate empirical research. Social

factors represent the ‘‘people’’ component of the environ-ment and multiple social factors have been found toinfluence perceptions of ambience (see e.g. Fisher & Byrne,1975; Marks, 1988; Martin, 1986). The third category,design factors, includes functional and aesthetic elementssuch as architecture, style, and layout. A variety of designfactors, i.e. factors which managers influence and cancontrol, are important for ambience (see e.g. Baker et al.,1992; Baraban & Durocher, 2001; Mamalis, Ness, &Bourlakis, 2005; Ward, Bitner, & Banes, 1992).It may be argued that empirical research into the

antecedents of ambience is dominated by monocausalstudies (i.e. investigations into the effects of single factors).Consequently, we lack knowledge of the combined effectsof the three types of antecedents or drivers (i.e. atmospheric,social and design factors), especially in the context ofhospitality research.

Consequences of ambience: Ambience only counts as atourism/hospitality variable if it generates a reaction withinor among individual visitors/guests. In other words, theambience is expected to evoke an internal response.Conventional wisdom suggests that a guest’s choice ofhospitality products is based on both rational andemotional considerations (Kwortnik, 2003), and it maybe argued that perceptions of ambience lead to certainemotions, beliefs, and physiological sensations, which inturn influence behaviours. Several studies provide insightsinto possible cognitive, affective, physiological and beha-vioural reactions (see e.g. Berry, Seiders, & Grewal, 2002;

ARTICLE IN PRESS

a) EducationTraining andExperiences

1. Background

b) Firm-Specificand Contex-tual Factors

2. Understanding 3. Response

Understanding

of Ambience

including

Antecedent

Factors and

Consequences

Activities

and Efforts

to Improve

Ambience

Fig. 1. The design and management of ambience in the hotel industry—tentative perspective.

M. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325 1317

Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Darley & Gilbert, 1985; Gardner& Siomkos, 1986; Gueguen & Petr, 2006; Holahan, 1982;Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Furthermore, studies show thatevaluations may vary according to biology, personality,socio-cultural experience, goals, expectations, and otherinternal and external factors (Lin, 2004; Walsh, Craik, &Price, 2000). An individual’s response may also depend onsituational factors, such as mood states (Gardner, 1985) andexpectations (Bitner, 1992).

In sum, despite the considerable interest in ambienceamong practitioners, limited empirical research has beenconducted in hospitality settings. While an important bodyof relevant research exists in more general disciplines suchas environmental psychology, systematic research is neededto study ambience in the context of hospitality manage-ment. In particular, there is a lack of guidance forhospitality managers in their efforts to improve theambience of their establishments.

3. A tentative perspective

As mentioned ambience is created. Also, due to thebelieved importance of ambience in the hospitalityindustry, firms and their managers often initiate goal-directed efforts to improve the ambience of their establish-ments.

Firms and their managers in the hospitality industryhave many varied roles. They are primarily occupied withday-to-day operations, running businesses to survive andprosper. They are also preoccupied with the ambience, ormore correctly, with guests’ perceptions of the ambience oftheir establishments. To consciously improve the ambiencethey need adequate procedural knowledge, i.e. knowledgeof how to go about, to enhance the ambience of their firms.

While hospitality managers strongly believe that am-bience is important, and while they have experience andtheir own ideas of what is important, they are often unsure.To cope they often seek assistance from people they trustand believe can help. It is almost self-evident that designexperts are the ‘‘perfect choice’’ for improving ambience.Design experts are professionals; their education andtraining are directed towards this task.

Training and education are important socializing fac-tors, which also influence actors’ knowledge structures or

‘‘mental models’’ and thus how they perceive and under-stand ambience. Since Dearborn and Simon’s (1958)seminal study, a considerable body of research has foundthat factors like educational background and job experi-ence are vital in shaping individuals’ frames of reference.Thus, people with the same educational background andprofessional experience are likely to share experiences,norms and values that in turn may affect their perceptionsof various phenomena such as ambience. Furthermore,perceptions and understanding represent actors’ realitiesand influence their behaviours (Berger & Luckman, 1966).Because hospitality managers and design experts areinvolved in different tasks, and because they vary in educa-tional background and experience, we might ask whetherthey differ in perceptions and understanding of ambience.If so, and because perceptions and understanding influencebehaviour, hospitality managers and design experts mayaccentuate the role of ambience differently. This isespecially so because hospitality managers and designexperts, like all human beings, are constrained by theirlimited cognitive capacity (Simon, 1957).Based on the above review, we introduce our tentative

perspective, which is intended to guide, but not dictate, theempirical investigation we present below.Fig. 1 is to be read as follows. Factors such as training,

experience and educational background (1a) are assumedto influence actors’ understanding of ambience-influencingfactors and consequences (2). The same applies to firm-specific factors and the context in which the hospitalityestablishment is embedded (1b). Actors’ understanding ofambience-influencing factors and importance affect theiractivities and efforts to improve the ambience of thehospitality establishment.

4. Methodology

As noted above, our present knowledge is rather limited.Thus, we chose an exploratory, discovery-oriented ap-proach to gain improved insights. As discussed above,factors such as education, training and experience areassumed to influence perceptions and understanding, as arefirm-specific and also contextual factors. To create varia-tions along these dimensions, we included two groups, i.e.hospitality managers and design experts.


The two groups included in our study differ greatly interms of background. While, design experts (architects,interior designers and environmental psychologists) haveconsiderable insights into the design elements that con-tribute to creating ambience, hospitality managers havepersonal knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) through their opera-tional experience of what it takes to maintain a favourableambience and balance the focus on ambience withoperational considerations like functionality, logistics andoccupancy rates.

Perceptions and thinking can be captured in severalways. Although there are problems associated with doingso, it is usually believed that what people say can appro-priately reflect their perceptions and thinking (Huff, 1990).Also secondary data can be appropriate. For example,brochures, etc. are the outcome of systematic and costlyefforts. Here we had access to extensive secondary data,such as brochures, advertisements, internal reports, andinterviews in the business press.

We also collected primary data. Because this was anexploratory study, we decided to use semi-structuredinterviews, which allow for conversational, two-waycommunication. More precisely, we conducted interviewswith persons from the two groups of people assumed to beinfluential, i.e. design experts and hospitality managers.For practical reasons, only interviewees in Norway wereincluded in the study.

Prior to the interviews, the companies were contactedeither by telephone or e-mail to explain the purpose of thestudy. All interviewees appeared to be open, positive andinterested in the topic. Notes were taken and a taperecorder was used (in full agreement with the respondents).After the interviews, responses were transcribed andanalysed in detail. The interviews, which lasted between60 and 90min, were conducted using a carefully developedinterview guide, which included data about the company(including history, size and main types of clients/guests)and the respondent (such as educational background andexperience record). Subsequent sections were aimed attapping specific knowledge about the structure andsignificance of ambience. In addition, the interviewsfocused on the antecedents of ambience, i.e. insights intohow various factors (both design and human elements) canbe combined to create the desired product as well as con-

sequences of ambience, both in terms of benefits and risks.A total of 11 design experts from seven architectural

firms participated in the study. The firms ranged from one-person companies to some of the leading architecturalfirms in Norway. The interviewees were architects, interiordesigners and an environmental psychologist who specia-lizes in the psychological impact of architecture.

The other group consisted of a total of six hospitalitymanagers (general managers and executives in charge ofmarketing, operations, cuisine and customer relations)from three different companies. The managers had con-siderable operational experience in tourism and hospitality(hotels, restaurants and tourist resorts).

All of the hospitality companies selected for intervieware renowned for their ambience. While the companies arefairly different as regards product type, architectural layoutand guest segments, all three companies emphasize theirparticular ambience in their advertising, and the designexperts generally highlighted these companies as leadingexamples as regards ambience. A description of thearchitectural and hospitality companies that participatedin the study is given in the Appendix A.

5. Findings

Below we report the main findings of the exploratorystudy.

5.1. Structure, amount and type of ambience

Among the design experts, creating ambience wasgenerally perceived as part of the art of building. It wasemphasized that ambience demands talent and an elementof surprise. The architects used terms like ‘‘synthesis’’ and‘‘total architecture’’ in describing how ambience is created.Communicative properties and the importance of findingthe right proportions were emphasized as essentials ofambience, as reflected in the following quotes: ‘‘We

understand ambience through lasting impressions. The

important thing here is talk, dialogue, communication

between people and buildings’’ (Company 4). ‘‘The propor-

tions are most important, proportions in relation to the

human body. This is basic for me, and should always be the

basis’’ (Company 2). ‘‘To make buildings is to create small

places that feel good for the human body to be in ‘‘(Company 5). ‘‘You cannot create ambience, it comes into

being. The most important requirement is an open mind, not

necessarily financial resources’’ (Company 6). ‘‘We must

have respect for traditions, the historical context, but explain

it with new eyes’’ (Company 1). ‘‘We should not plan

everything; there ought to be unexpected creations to be

discovered. This brings positive energy to the surface’’(Company 7).The interviews with the hospitality managers revealed

consistent patterns. As part of the interview, respondentswere asked to rate the ambience of their establishments ona scale from 1 to 10. Scores of 8 and 9 were typical. We alsoasked respondents to rate the ambience of their competi-tors, and these were systematically rated lower. Thus, allrespondents rated their establishments very high onambience and appeared to be convinced that theirestablishments had more ambience than their competitors,as reflected by the following quotes: ‘‘Our main competitors

have standard business hotels. They lack personality and

local character. Interaction between staff and guests is

formal and stiff. You hear much more laughter in our hotel’’(Manager, Company A). ‘‘We are different, we offer the

best experience. All activities are rooted in our brickworks

concepty the heat and firey the coffee roasting and

traditional bakeryy a total experience, this is extremely

ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Heide et al. / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 1315–1325 1319

important’’ (Manager, Company B). ‘‘Our mission is not to

run a hotel. We are here to care for our guests. They appre-

ciate our personal attention and the tranquil and relaxed

atmosphere, which they cannot find in bigger hotels. The

feedback we get from our guests concerning our ambience

and location is entirely positive’’ (Manager, Company C).The managers regarded ambience as a key aspect and an

integrated part of the operations of the company,nourished by friendly and caring attitudes among theirstaff. Two of the establishments highlighted the authenticatmosphere based on local history and shared pride inoriginal buildings or fragments from earlier times, asreflected in the excerpts reported below: ‘‘It is important

that all our employees meet the guests, both kitchen

personnel and hosts. We all try to be friendly and have an

open mind, giving the guests a special time, flavoured with a

glimpse of our local historical tradition’’ (Manager, Com-pany B). ‘‘We felt we had a responsibility to concern

ourselves with the local history of ‘the factory’ as part of the

identity of the place. We even went abroad several times to

get hold of old bricks and workers who knew the building

traditions’’ (Manager, Company C).When talking about the ambience of their hotels, the

managers were inclined to focus on the total packageoffered to guests, as reflected in the following quote: ‘‘We

are not just selling beds and meals; we help our guests with

their personal needs, equipment, even evening events and

bookings. We are there for them, at their service, trying to

give them a total product’’ (Manager, Company A).

5.2. Antecedents of ambience

There was considerable agreement among the designexperts on how architecture and the physical environmentinfluence the ambience. They explained that architects havesix tools for creating the desired ambience: (1) shape, (2)proportion, (3) texture/materials, (4) colour, (5) lightingand (6) furnishings. Shape and proportion are tools forchanging and transforming the open space into a differentsetting, as well as to create specific settings. Texture andcolour define the character and qualities of the material.Lighting is used to reinforce the desired daylight or eveningatmosphere and can for example be utilized to alter theinformal breakfast atmosphere of the room into a formalevening setting. Choice of furnishing completes theimpression created by the other elements combined.

The design experts clearly emphasized that they combinearchitectural tools to create a personal expression. It wasevident that this personal expression changes over time dueto through socialization, and educational institutions andtraining are particularly essential in influencing the experts’perspectives, thinking and behaviours. ‘‘The schools and

institutions where we train and learn mean a lot to us. We

make things using our hands. But through our thoughts and

minds, through philosophy, we create values’’ (Company 5).Schools of architecture differ in their emphasis on

originality and practical functionality, and personal expre-

ssion is further moulded through experience. An interestingfinding is that architects already as students tend todetermine the architectural direction they want to takeand if they do not succeed in this, they prefer to establishone-person companies, as reflected in this quote: ‘‘After

graduation, it was vital for me to start working in a reputable

international firm. My dream employer was Frank Gehry

(Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and other legendary

buildings) because the global trends interest me and stimulate

my creativity. When this did not materialize, I started my

own company in order to keep my creative freedom and avoid

being influenced by a larger and less creative working

environment’’ (Company 5).The hospitality managers were generally more concerned

than the design experts with social factors and their impactas drivers of ambience. The examples used by thehospitality managers reflected a focus on interactionbetween staff members (staff–staff) between staff andguests (staff–guest), and between guests (guest–guest).Focus on the latter relationship is reflected in the followingquote: ‘‘We have to set the arrangement differently and show

more care in weddings and family anniversaries. These are

events that private people use a lot of money on and they

want a unique arrangement in return. The nerves of the

family members are highly strung and we often have to act as

counsellors when latent conflicts or ‘life crises’ surface’’(Manager, Company B).There was a common attitude among the hospitality

managers that the desired ambience can never be createdby a single factor. However, it was also emphasized thatone inconsistent element was enough to ruin an otherwisefavourable ambience. As a manager in Company A stated:‘‘Our employees’ friendly welcome to our guests is easy to

reveal as honest or fake. If the employees have a bad day, we

demand full control over personal feelings or they should not

interact with our guests.’’All managers emphasized that it is the atmospheric

drivers combined that create the ambience. Most inter-viewees stressed the dynamic nature of ambience. It maychange gradually depending on time of day, weather,season, type of guests and a number of other factors. Oneof the managers interviewed at the conference facilitytalked about the atmosphere as evolving in circles. Goodcircles arise when the staff’s hospitality makes the guestsfriendlier, which further reinforces the sociability of thestaff and so on. In less favourable instances, poor handlingof a guest might trigger a negative response, which mightdevelop into a negative spiral. One of the intervieweessummarized his thinking as follows: ‘‘Creating the ideal

ambience requires good vibes’’ (Manager, Company A).Most of the companies in the study reported that they

have a repertoire of set configurations, which all contributeto their special ambience. For the conference hotel, lunchcould be served in a formal or informal setting inside. If theweather was nice, lunch was prepared outside. While thedesign elements and the staff are the same for all settings,specific atmospherics are used to create variations in the


ambience. If the occasion was a formal evening dinner, thestaff would wear a particular outfit and the flowerdecorations, china, cutlery and lighting would be totallydifferent from for instance an informal lunch or a summerbarbeque dinner. The companies also reported that theseconfigurations are adjusted gradually through incremental

innovations. By chance, a staff member may change theconfiguration marginally, or a guest may suggest that forinstance a certain type of candles should be used. Ifsuccessful, these changes would then be incorporated intothe configuration. Success in this respect mainly meantpositive feedback from guests, i.e. imperfect learning. Nocompany reported any systematic approach to measuringthe effects of such changes.

Respondents stressed the importance of avoiding ‘‘fake’’atmospheric drivers. Thus, it is considered vital that onlygenuine materials be used in tangible elements, while on theintangible side it is important that the staff really arefriendly towards guests and do not just act friendly becauseit is expected of them. Thus, genuineness is an importantaspect of creating ambience in hospitality establishments.Establishments that are high in genuineness use only ‘‘real’’inputs in their products. As discussed earlier, the perceivedatmosphere is not determined by any single factor butrather by the total configuration of atmospheric drivers.For the tangible drivers, this means consistently high-quality material and flawless design. For intangibleelements, genuineness requires that the host and staffsincerely care about their guests, rather than merelygreeting them or communicating in a drilled manner.

Two different approaches were employed to ensure thatstaff members are genuine towards their guests: CompanyB used a ‘‘care-approach’’ to the extent that the stafffunctioned as problem solvers who were on standby nightand day. The other approach was to create a feeling of‘‘ownership’’ among the staff. Company A used the phrase‘‘partly mine’’ to sensitize staff and make them feel likepart-owners in order to ensure that they provided genuineservice for guests and spotted irregularities in the atmo-spherics (for example a small stain on the table cloth, aflower that needed to be removed from a flower decoration,a wrinkled carpet, and so on). ‘‘The ambience depends on

our staff and their attitude toward guests. The people make

the difference. It is important, I would say crucial, that the

employees feel our product is ‘partly mine’. We stress this.

That is our policy’’ (Manager, Company A).In addition to genuineness, the hospitality experts

maintained that their establishment had ambience becauseit was totally different from what their competitors offered.From their statements, we would infer that a hospitalitycompany will only be rated high on ambience if it hasfeatures that distinguish it from other establishments.Thus, distinctiveness is an important aspect of creatingambience.

All the hospitality companies reported that therehad been conflicts with their architects/designers overgenuineness and distinctiveness. The conflict was always

the same. The hospitality manager/owner emphasized thatthe genuineness of the establishment should be givenpriority to preserve the identity of the place, while thearchitects/designers proposed to introduce new elementsthat would give the place originality and add to itsdistinctiveness. For example, in the case of Company B,the architect wanted to use modern windows thatrepresented a break with the style of the building.Company C had to fight the architect to retain thetraditional expression of the ‘‘old brickworks’’. CompanyA was persuaded by the architect to use decor elements thatwere not functional in relation to the logistics of therestaurant. The managers complained that architectsgenerally give priority to aesthetic elements, whichfrequently come at the expense of functional considera-tions.

5.3. Consequences of ambience

It was evident from the interviews that the architects anddesigners perceive ambience as a competitive advantage,which yields popular establishments. The following quotefrom one of the architects is relevant in this regard: ‘‘Yes,

ambience is important and of great value. It is directly linked

to ‘the bottom line’’’ (Company 1). The design expertshighlighted the growing interest in planning and develop-ment of new social arenas, public meeting places, recep-tions and lobbies where people can mingle and buildnetworks. Furthermore, they emphasized that investmentsin ambience, careful selection and preparation of goodlocalities and surroundings where people can meet,generally help improve working conditions for staff. Ifthe environment was carefully designed for its intendedpurpose, well-being would grow and prosper in terms ofsatisfaction and contentment among users, as expressed inthe following quotes: ‘‘The architect needs to be 100%socio-culturally involved. Architecture is not an autonomic

art but a tool for investigating social relations’’ (Company7). ‘‘We are very much involved with the term ‘intermingling

architectural’ and environmental elements. This is important

to give people the feeling of a harmonically safe design, space

and place’’ (Company 6).The hospitality managers revealed a more balanced view

of the consequences of ambience, i.e. they mentioned bothbenefits and risks that may be associated with investing inambience. They highlighted the total product as a coreelement and emphasized the importance of the socialfactor, i.e. being present for guests and giving them a warmwelcome. It was crucial for them to be conscious of theirrole as hosts rather than personal friends; ‘‘Our ambience is

very much appreciated by our guests. A great deal of them

have visited and really ‘used’ our establishment for years. We

are proud of that’’ (Company A).It was apparent that ambience is considered important

for the well-being and contentment of guests. Theestablishment always tried to give the guest the same roomas last time, if available, and offered special magazines or


newspapers, if requested. Staff members were drilled inbeing attentive and considerate of guests’ personal needs.Company A: ‘‘Ambience is about making it feel like a second

home to the guests, and I repeat guests, not ‘pals’’’.Company B: ‘‘We offer Sunday lunches mainly for people

in the surrounding area. It is a day when families have time to

examine and experience our ambience. Hopefully they will

return as business customers, recommend us to their

company and book in for another occasion. We call this

tangible promotion. We also have the time to prepare local

quality food.’’ Company C: ‘‘Ambience is about thinking

consistently. To be faithful to your concept is to never

disappoint your guests.’’The companies also paid much attention to the personal

touch in order to stimulate all the senses: The smell of goodcoffee, the fragrance from their open bakery, candlelightand homemade pottery with herbs. They emphasized theirdesire to give their guests a good experience, even whenunderstaffed or overworked. The guests appreciated thecaring attitude of the staff, which was ever presentalthough often invisible to the guests.

However, an overdone ambience is a potential risk,which may also involve losing sight of the main product.Examples of reported problems are communicated in thefollowing quotes. Company C: ‘‘We have enough waitresses

to take care of our many guests, but too few people in the

kitchen. Unfortunately, when the food orders are queuing up,

our guests have to wait an hour to be served. This is a

problem we need to solve quickly.’’ In the case of CompanyC, it was clear that the manager’s prime interest was in thehistory of the brickworks, not the day-to-day running ofthe hotel: ‘‘I must admit that the occupancy rates have

suffered. My heart lies in the ambience and the unique

brickworks concept.’’Company A: ‘‘Our ‘open house’ policy also attracts

unwanted visitors, especially at night time. This is also

related to our central location, downtown. We constantly

work on this challenge together with our employees.’’Company B: ‘‘Some of our frequent guests feel at home

here to the extent that they help themselves to drinks and

snacks. They take this for granted and refuse to pay as ‘a

good friend’ of the house. We go a long way for our guests,

but it is a matter of balance.’’To improve financial results, the owner of company B

considered doubling the number of rooms by constructinga new wing. However, key customers strongly advisedagainst this expansion because it would ruin the ambienceof the hotel. The hotel followed this advice, even if it meantlower scale advantages and poorer financial results: ‘‘Today

we are happy we did not expand our room capacity. Our

identity is the cosy and intimate ambience of the hotel and we

want to keep it that way.’’

6. Analysis of findings

In this section we analyze, or perhaps more correctly,interpret the reported findings. The hospitality managers

had no problem in rating and characterizing the ambienceof their own establishments as well as the perceivedambience of their competitors. This observation reflectsthe fact that for these actors ambience is something ‘‘real’’something that is considered important. An interestingobservation is that all companies (i.e. the managers in thecompanies) reported the ambience in their establishment asvery good, and also better than the ambience achieved bytheir competitors. Can this be explained? The managers areactors trying to do their best, and they are convinced thatthey are succeeding. They observe their competitors, butbeing an actor is different from being an observer. Asreflected in the literature on relations between the roles ofactor and observer, individuals perceive things dramati-cally differently in these two roles (for an excellentdiscussion, see Fiske & Taylor, 1991).The subjects’ use of words in classifying ambience

indicates a shared ‘‘language’’ for and understanding ofthe phenomenon in the industry. This language and under-standing, however, seem to be industry-specific, as reflectedin the literature on ‘‘industry recipes’’, i.e. understandingon how to operate in an industry (see Spender, 1989).The reported findings also reflect the fact that the actors

involved hold strong views of what are importantinfluential factors affecting their behaviours. The subjectswithin this industry not only have opinions—or mentalmodels including opinions—on ‘‘driving factors’’; they alsohold largely shared beliefs about what is important andhow to behave. Thus, the reported findings indicate somegeneral understanding shared among actors in the industry.In other words, the findings reflect a general industrysocialization, influenced by observation, interaction andimitation. Consequently, thinking and behaviours are‘‘standardized’’, or perhaps institutionalized, as reflectedin the extensive literature on institutionalization, which canbe exemplified by the highly regarded work of DiMaggioand Powell (1983).Our findings also demonstrate the importance of training

and education. For example, expert designers employconcepts like ‘‘fake’’ and ‘‘real’’. These examples showthat education establishes specific opinions, and that forthese actors these opinions have become a part of theirreality. Moreover, the reported findings also demonstratethat differences in education and training may causedifferences in thinking and mental models, which may giverise to differences in priorities and cause conflicts. This isreflected, e.g. in differences in emphasis on aesthetics andfunctionality.Design experts have a set of ‘‘tools’’ at their disposal to

create the desired ambience, such as colours, texture/materials, lighting, etc. The manner in which the designexperts employ these tools is to a large extent determinedby socialization (education and training are particularlycrucial in influencing the architects’ perspectives, thinkingand behaviours).In general, respondents agreed that the atmosphere in a

hospitality setting is determined by the total configuration


of atmospheric drivers. Agreement also prevails that whilethe desired ambience can never be created by a singlefactor; it may take only one inconsistent element to ruin anotherwise favourable ambience. For example, using in-expensive wallpaper may ruin the ambience of an otherwiseluxurious hotel, while a rude waiter or waitress may havedamaging effect in a restaurant with an otherwise friendlyatmosphere. An interesting perspective in this regard is theapparent asymmetry between positive and negative atmo-spheric drivers. While it takes considerable care, talent andexperience to cultivate the desired ambience, one unfortu-nate incident might be enough to mark the impression inthe minds of guests for years to come.

Distinctiveness and genuineness are key factors increating ambience in hospitality establishments. It is likelythat even the most carefully designed and operated hotelwould be regarded as lacking ambience if there were1000 identical hotels. Thus, truly atmospheric hospitalityestablishments have a certain uniqueness that distinguishesthem from the herd. However, means of creating suchuniqueness can often be a source of conflict betweendesign experts and hospitality managers, as mentionedabove.

Genuineness appears to be the other important dimen-sion. As discussed earlier, the design experts emphasizedthat only genuine materials should be used and stressed theimportance of avoiding ‘‘fake’’ atmospheric drivers. On theintangible side, it is considered vital that the staff begenuinely friendly towards their guests and not only behavethis way because it is expected of them, or as Donald A.Adams has put it: ‘‘To give real service you must addsomething which cannot be bought or measured withmoney, and that is sincerity and integrity’’. For tourismdestinations, the concept of genuineness also has relevancein terms of authenticity. It is reasonable to assume thattourism settings will only be regarded as authentic if thetourists perceive them as trustworthy and genuine. Ashighlighted by Wicker (1981) and Fridgen and Hinkleman(1977), authentic settings are successful and provide thetourist with satisfaction when there is a fit between whathappens in the setting and what is expected of the setting.

Above we have discussed the dynamic nature ofambience and hotels’ use of incremental innovations.However, as regards genuineness it might be argued thatsuccessful hotels develop an appealing ambience andchange more slowly than those who have not developedan attractive ambience. Well-timed updates rather thanconstant change may be the most desirable tool formaintaining a favourable ambience.

Significant benefits are believed to be associated withinvestment in ambience. Our respondents agreed that apleasant ambience tends to lead to positive attributions,which are important for guest satisfaction, repeat visits anda positive word-of-mouth reputation. When it is notpossible to give guests ‘‘the full package’’, the atmosphericaspects of the hospitality establishment can be commu-nicated in mini-deliveries.

Establishments that emphasize tranquillity and laid-backelements require time for their guests to absorb theambience. Conference establishments of this type may betaking a risk if participants leave the establishment for acouple of hours to take care of urgent business in theiroffices or to spend the night in their own homes. Con-sequently, the location should be close enough to their coreclients to enable easy access but sufficiently remote toensure that distractors are avoided.Other types of establishments require complementary

offerings. In the case of Company A, proximity to the city’smost popular restaurants added value to the product.While the restaurant guests in Company C appreciated thesmall-town setting they also complained about the lack ofnightlife and opportunities to continue the evening afterdinner. Expanding the focus beyond the individual estab-lishment to also include complementary products mayprovide new insights and opportunities. When there arecomplementary offerings that match the ambience of thehospitality company, important synergies can be realized,which in turn may produce a destination atmosphere.Again, it is reasonable to assume that tourists perceive thedestination elements holistically, which implies that it is thetotal configuration of elements that determines how thetourism destination’s ambience is perceived.The design experts’ emphasis on the importance of

ambience and the benefits it brings means that they are notas likely as the hospitality managers to see the risks ofinvesting in ambience. As explained earlier, the shared viewof the design experts was that ambience is important anddirectly linked to the financial bottom line. Among thehospitality managers, a more nuanced view was prevalent.Overdoing the ambience and thereby losing sight of themain product was a risk they recognized. Our results reflecta possible conflict between operational requirements and afocus on ambience. The manager of Company A com-plained that the architect had achieved substantial recogni-tion for the characteristic joints in the tiled wall of therestaurant, yet they created a considerable challenge interms of day-to-day cleaning and hygiene. Furthermore,the architect had focused on the ambience of the restaurantto the extent that important functional space requirementshad suffered. For instance, there was no space for emptybottles, which created constant friction between waitersand chefs. In the planning phase, the architect was sopreoccupied with creating the ambience of the hotel that heneglected important operational requirements such as alaundry room on each floor. For Company C, the managerhad spent considerable time and money recreating theauthentic brickworks ambience. He acknowledged thatoccupancy rates were too low and financial results hadsuffered. In spite of this, he said he needed time to finish thedesign features of the hotel before turning to operationalissues. However, the company ran into financial difficultiesand went bankrupt.Focusing on a serene/tranquil ambience (as in Company

B) might impose restrictions as regards saving labour costs


and expanding the scale of operations. In our opinion, thelink between ambience and profitability is complex anddepends on a number of other factors. While, it is generallybelieved that ambience is crucial for the success ofhospitality companies, our study clearly shows that toogreat a focus on ambience might threaten financial results ifless attention is paid to operational aspects such asfunctionality, logistics and occupancy rates.

7. Conclusions

The reported findings deserve some further comment:Our findings show that ambience really counts in thehospitality industry. For people in the industry, it issomething ‘‘real’’ that is taken seriously. Furthermore, ourobservations point to industry-specific knowledge aboutambience and influencing factors. This knowledge is partlypersonal and tacit, i.e. uncoded (Polanyi, 1958). Thepersonal aspect of this knowledge is indicated by variationsin knowledge between individuals and groups. The knowl-edge is partly subjective, and it may be biased as well. Asdemonstrated above, the hospitality managers all ratedtheir own company higher on ambience than theircompetitors.

Another observation is that training and educationapparently have considerable impact on perceptions ofwhat should be emphasized, and thus what is ‘‘real’’ forvarious groups of people. Furthermore, as we have shown,groups of actors develop their own ‘‘language’’ whichreflects their realities and is not entirely understood byother groups.

There is little doubt that personal knowledge as reflectedin the actors’ thinking and behaviour is valuable andcomplements—and maybe goes beyond ‘‘scientific’’, re-search-based knowledge, i.e. knowledge that has passedsome evaluation before being accepted. Because knowledgeabout ambience is personal and tacit, it is also rather rigid,easily taken as ‘‘truth’’.

Travel-related journals and magazines frequently seemto convey the impression that ambience is a key successfactor that is directly linked to financial results. Our studyindicates that the effects of ambience are more complexand nuanced and that there may be substantial risksassociated with ambience investments. Consequently, webelieve our findings are important and have clear relevancefor hospitality management and research.

One swallow does not a summer make; nor does onestudy yield the whole truth. There can be no doubt thatmore research is needed. In our opinion, further researchshould move in two directions: (1) we need to conductadditional studies among practitioners in the industry,including more actors and firms (organizations), also fromother regions and industries as well as other cultures, inorder to examine to what extent personal-based knowledgeis local or universal; (2) another stream of research shouldinclude empirical testing, to establish a solid foundation ofknowledge about ambience, the factors that influence

ambience, and the important consequences of ambience,especially for further progress in the tourism and hospital-ity industry.

Acknowledgment

The authors appreciate the constructive comments andsuggestions from Editor Chris Ryan and two anonymousreviewers.

Appendix A. Companies included in the study

A.1.Design experts

Company 1: This firm was established in 1995 andcurrently employs nine professionals (architects, designersand an environmental psychologist). Their main concept isto serve the needs of users, with less focus on aesthetics.

Company 2: Established as a family-owned architecturalfirm in 1937 and taken over by the next generation in 1977.The company has a long list of merits in all branches ofarchitecture and extensive expertise in tourism and hotels.

Company 3: Established in 1996, the company has growngradually and currently employs 10 professionals. Theycover a broad range of architecture, including hospitalityestablishments and restaurants. The company has won twonational awards and international architectural magazineshave described their work as free and easy with a focus oncross-cultural collaboration.

Company 4: This company was established in 1958 andcurrently has a staff of 16. The company is regarded as aleading architectural firm, both in Norway and interna-tionally, and has received several awards. The firm isresponsible for a number of landmark buildings, whichhave received extensive recognition in architectural articlesand books.

Company 5: This is a one-person company. The ownerdivides his time between architectural work and teaching.

Company 6: This is another one-person company,established 6 years ago. The owner has extensive experienceas an architect and a strong interest in art and culture.

Company 7: The owner of this small architectural firm iscurrently chair of the local architectural society. Herinterest extends beyond the buildings into the socio-cultural and issues involving architecture and the environ-ment. She has extensive national and internationalexperience.

A.2. Hospitality companies

Company A: This is a trendy business hotel centrallylocated in the main city in south–western Norway. Thehotel offers a splendid view over the harbour and the oldsection of the city on the one hand and the city’s pulsatingshops, restaurants and bars on the other. In summer, thehotel mainly caters for tourists and visitors to the city’snumerous festivals. The hotel restaurant is trendy, with


prices in the upper range. The bar is a popular meetingplace for hotel guests and townspeople. The hotel directoris also founder (and co-owner) of a nearby outdoor cafe onthe quay promenade, which is among the most popular inthe city.

Company B: This company owns and operates a cosy,intimate full-service hotel in a rural setting. The hotelbuilding was erected as a farmhouse in 1898 and later usedas summerhouse by a wealthy timber merchant for manyyears. It was converted to a hotel in 1985. The hotel has ahigh-quality restaurant, which specializes in game andother local delicacies. Company B specializes in arrangingall types of courses and conferences. The establishmentalso caters for tourists (with an emphasis on families andextended stays), local visitors and weddings/anniversaries.

Company C: This is a romantic hotel located in a small-town setting. It was originally built as an 18th-centurybrickworks and the owners have put a great deal of workinto converting it into a hotel in several stages over a 12-year period. Due to the high standard of the rooms, thehotel has a special appeal to the upper-range touristsegment. The hotel also has an up-market restaurant, ahigh-quality bakery and a specialty coffee shop.

The heterogeneity of the three hospitality companies isreflected both in terms of products (hotels, restaurants,premises for weddings/anniversaries, specialty coffee shop,bakery, bars and cafes) and type of establishment (trendybusiness hotel, rural conference hotel and romantic small-town hotel).

References

Babin, B. J., Hardesty, D. M., & Suter, T. A. (2003). Color and shopping

intentions—The intervening effect of price fairness and perceived

affect. Journal of Business Research, 56, 541–551.

Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to

making retail store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68,

445–460.

Baraban, R. S., & Durocher, J. F. (2001). Successful restaurant design

(2nd ed). New York: Wiley.

Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality.

London: Allen Lane.

Berry, L. L., Seiders, K., & Grewal, D. (2002). Understanding service

convenience. Journal of Marketing, 66, 1–17.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings

on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57–71.

Brengman, M., Geuens, M., (2003). The four dimensional impact of color

on shoppers’ emotions. Working paper. Ghent: University of Ghent.

Campbell-Smith, G. (1967). The marketing of the meal experience.

Guildford: Surrey University Press.

Chebat, J. C., Chebat, C. G., & Vaillant, D. (2001). Environmental

background music and in-store selling. Journal of Business Research,

54, 115–123.

Chebat, J. C., & Michon, R. (2003). Impact of ambient odors on mall

shoppers’ emotions, cognition, and spending—A test of competitive

causal theories. Journal of Business Research, 56, 529–539.

Darley, J. M., & Gilbert, D. T. (1985). Social psychological aspects of

environmental psychology. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.),

Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 949–991). New York:

Random House.

Dearborn, D. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on

the departmental identifications of executives. Sociometry, 21,

140–144.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:

Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational

fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

Donovan, R., & Rossiter, J. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental

psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58, 34–57.

Fisher, J. D., & Byrne, D. (1975). Too close for comfort: Sex differences in

response to invasions of personal space. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 32, 15–21.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Fridgen, J. D., & Hinkleman, B. (1977). Recreational behavior and

environment congruence. Paper presented at Leisure Research Sympo-

sium, National Recreation and Parks Association, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical

review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 281–300.

Gardner, M. P., & Siomkos, G. J. (1986). Toward a methodology for

assessing effects of in-store atmospherics. In R. J. Lutz (Ed.), Advances

in consumer research, Vol. 13 (pp. 27–31). Ann Arbor, MI: Association

for Consumer Research.

Gueguen, N., & Petr, C. (2006). Odors and consumer behavior in a

restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25,

335–339.

Holahan, C. J. (1982). Environmental psychology. New York: Random

House.

Huff, A. S. (1990). Mapping strategic thought. New York: Wiley.

Jones, P. (1983). Food service operations. London: Cassell.

Kokko, T. (2005). Offering development in the restaurant sector—A

comparison between customer perceptions and management beliefs.

Helsingfors: Publications of the Swedish School of Economics and

Business Administration, No. 140.

Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Marketing,

49, 48–64.

Kwortnik, R. J., Jr (2003). Clarifying ‘‘fuzzy’’ hospitality-management

problems with depth interviews and qualitative analysis. Cornell Hotel

and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44, 117–129.

Lawson, F. (1976). Hotels, motels and condominiums: Design, planning and

maintenance. London: Architectural Press.

Lawson, F. (1987). Restaurants, clubs and bars. London: Architectural

Press.

Lin, I. Y. (2004). Evaluating a servicescape: The effect of cognition and

emotion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23,

163–178.

Mamalis, S., Ness, M., & Bourlakis, M. (2005). Tangible and intangible

store image attributes in consumer decision making: The case of fast

food restaurants. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and

Applications, 2, 1705–1714.

Marks, R. B. (1988). Personal selling: An interactive approach (3rd ed).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Martin, W. B. (1986). Quality service: The restaurant manager’s bible.

Ithaca, NY: School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University.

Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a

driver of in-store evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77,

273–289.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental

psychology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Milliman, R. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of

supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 46, 86–91.

Milliman, R. (1986). The influence of background music on the behavior

of restaurant patrons. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 286–289.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior. New York: The Free Press.

Spangenberg, E. R., Crowley, A. E., & Henderson, P. W. (1996).

Improving the store environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations

and behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 60, 67–80.


Spender, J. C. (1989). Industry recipes: The nature and sources of

managerial judgement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Troye, S. V., & Heide, M. (1987). Gjesteundersøkelsene i Indre Nordfjord,

Kristiansand og Vesteralen, sommeren 1986. Bergen: Senter for

Anvendt Forskning.

Walsh, W. B., Craik, K. H., & Price, R. H. (2000). Person–environment

psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ward, J. C., Bitner, M. J., & Banes, J. (1992). Measuring the

prototypicality and meaning of retail environments. Journal of

Retailing, 68, 194–220.

Wicker, A. W. (1981). Nature and assessment of behavior settings: Recent

contributions from the ecological perspective. In P. McReynolds (Ed.),

Advances in Psychological Assessment, Vol. 5 (pp. 22–61). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, S. (2003). The effect of music on perceived atmosphere

and purchase intentions in a restaurant. Psychology of Music, 31,

93–112.

Yalch, R. F., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). The effects of music in a retail

setting on real and perceived shopping times. Journal of Business

Research, 49, 139–147.

Documents

The Design and Management of Ambience