Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
28502655
Page | 0
MANG1015
Individual Report
The Trafalgar Hotel Student ID: 28502655 Word Count: 2040
28502655
Page | 1
Contents
Executive Summary 2
Context: The Trafalgar 3
Research Objectives, method, and sample 3
Quantitative Analysis 4
Qualitative Analysis 6
The Trafalgar SWOT Matrix 11
Recommendations and Limitations 12
Reference List 14
Appendix 15
28502655
Page | 2
Executive Summary
This report assesses the strengths and weaknesses of The Trafalgar, with a quantitative and
qualitative analysis, to provide management with recommendations to improve the hotel.
Key report findings include:
1. Hotel location and the Rooftop Terrace are the main marketable strengths.
2. Rooftop Terrace availability is causing issues with guests.
3. Staff performance is inconsistent and so is breakfast experience.
4. Pricing is perceived to be unfair.
Based on these findings it is recommended management:
1. Uses the marketable strengths of the hotel to advertise The Trafalgar.
2. Warns guests, before booking, if the Terrace is unavailable during their stay.
3. Encourages a team environment, open communication, and provides staff with more
incentives to improve staff morale resulting in consistent performance.
4. Alters the price of rooms and drinks.
28502655
Page | 3
Context: The Trafalgar
The Trafalgar Hotel is situated in London on Spring Gardens overlooking the iconic Trafalgar
square. There are several competing four star hotels within a short walk of The Trafalgar.
The Grand and The Thistle Trafalgar Square share a similar price bracket, star rating, and
location making these hotels competition for The Trafalgar – a Hilton hotel.
Most of the hotel’s visits are leisure, specifically couple
travellers. This is shown on the right with the number of
guests categorised into leisure trip types. The hotel offers a
fitness centre, a restaurant, and a popular rooftop bar as
well as standard amenities like room service and free Wi-
Fi.
Research Objectives, method, and sample
The objective of this report is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Trafalgar Hotel to
appropriately advise hotel management. Secondary data, from TripAdvisor, was used to
undertake a quantitative analysis and a qualitative analysis to support the assessment of the
hotel’s strengths and weaknesses.
Before selecting the sample the reviews were filtered to exclude business travellers; thus,
analysis results are solely representative of all leisure trips. Systematic sampling was used
5-minute walk
4-minute walk
28502655
Page | 4
to collate a sample of 100 reviews from a sampling frame of 2,448 reviews, enabling a
quantitative analysis to be conducted. A number between 0-9 was randomly selected, using
an online number generator, the number was seven. The sample starting point was 1st
January 2012 and each 7th element in succession was selected from the sampling frame. This
starting point was selected to ensure outdated reviews were not included.
Systematic sampling was used to increase the likelihood of the sample being representative
of the population of reviews; each review in the sampling frame had an equal chance of
selection. Systematic sampling also assured the population of reviews were evenly sampled
from 2012-15. This proved to be effective as reviews from every month from 2012-15 were
part of the sample. In addition, the sampling technique returned a balanced number of male
(48%) and female (52%) reviewers.
The quantitative sample was numbered using a “Guest ID” to identify each review within
the sample. From this sample a random sampling technique was used to obtain thirty
reviews for a qualitative analysis. Again, an online random number generator was used. It
selected thirty unique numbers from 1-100 to provide the qualitative sample for analysis.
Random sampling was used as the sampling frame, of 100 reviews, was already constructed
and judged as representative of the 2,488 reviews making it easy to implement and time
efficient.
Quantitative Analysis
The Trafalgar is rated on six elements on TripAdvisor so these six elements are the basis of
the quantitative analysis. Figure 1 shows the TripAdvisor average rating summary for each
element. This closely resembles the average element rating obtained from the sample –
shown below (Figure 2) – indicating the sample is representative of the population of
reviews.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 both illustrate the high average location ratings (a mean of 4.95). This
was consistent across all demographics for the entirety of the reviews. 100% of guests –
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Ave
rage
Rat
ing
Sco
re
Average Ratings 2012-15
Average Value Rating Average Location Rating
Average Sleep Quality Rating Average Rooms Rating
Average Cleaniness Rating Average Service Rating
(1.20)
(0.25)
(0.99)(0.98)
(0.92) (1.08)
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2. N=100
28502655
Page | 5
from the sample of 100 - that rated The Trafalgar’s location rated it a four or more. This high
location rating is supported by the qualitative analysis which revealed 100% positive
mentions regarding the location code – from a total of 33 mentions.
Figure 2 illustrates the mean value rating, from 71 reviews, was 3.75. This was the lowest
rated element, on average, and had the greatest standard deviation. A standard deviation of
1.20 indicates guest ratings differed significantly. Extreme values effected the low mean
score, 11% of guests rated the hotel’s value below two. Figure 3 further illustrates the poor
value scores from 2012-15. It indicates a potential future problem as average value fell by
0.5 from 2014-15, suggesting guests perceive the hotel’s value is decreasing with time.
FIGURE 3. N=70
The quantitative analysis also revealed guest’s decreasing room rating from 4.42 (2014) to
3.50 (2015) shown in Figure 4. The significant decreasing value and room ratings may be
early indicators that the hotel is beginning to decline.
FIGURE 4. N=72
3.503.79
4.00
3.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
2012 2013 2014 2015
Avera
ge V
alu
e R
ati
ng
Year
Average Value Rating
3.834.08
4.42
3.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
2012 2013 2014 2015
Avera
ge R
oom
Rati
ng
Year
Average Room Rating
28502655
Page | 6
Qualitative Analysis
Random sampling was used to obtain the sample for the qualitative analysis. A coding frame
was used to analyse the sample’s written reviews. From this coding frame graphs were
constructed to illustrate the positive and negative mentions about The Trafalgar. The coding
frame - shown in the Appendix section – also considered the percentage of each code’s
positive and negative mentions.
The number of code mentions, which forms each graph, is shown beneath each graph. A
larger number of mentions (≥20) indicates a high proportion of the qualitative sample
mentioned the code. This means the graph is more likely to be representative of the
population of guest reviews. Whereas a smaller number of mentions (≤10) shows there are
fewer mentions therefore the graph is less likely to be representative of the entire
population of reviews.
Value
Figure 5 supports the findings drawn from the quantitative data, which indicated value was a
concern for The Trafalgar. 1 in 3 guests from the qualitative sample mentioned value and of these
mentions 73% were negative about value.
FIGURE 5. N=11
27%
73%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Overall Value Mentions
28502655
Page | 7
Rooms
Despite the decreasing rooms average rating, in the quantitative section, the written reviews
showed 81% of room mentions were positive – Figure 6. Guest 17 epitomised the positive room
mentions; “Very nice spacious rooms with nice beds.” A minority complained about the rooms,
Guest 26: “[about his room] …the furniture was showing its age”.
FIGURE 6. N=26 Likewise, bathroom mentions – illustrated in Figure 7 - were mostly positive. However, there were
several bathroom complaints. Firstly, regarding wear and tear with a “chip in the bathroom sink”
(Guest 30) as well as a complaint regarding bathroom “smell” – Guest 3.
FIGURE 7. N=6
81%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Overall Rooms Mentions
67%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Bathroom Mentions
28502655
Page | 8
Service
Staff mentions were 74% positive – shown in Figure 8 – Guest 2 stated “The staff were all friendly
and very helpful.” However, the negative mentions are concerning; “The staff have forgotten the
basics of customer service” – Guest 5. 26% of guests were critical of the staff perhaps explaining why
mean service rating – in the quantitative analysis – was 4.22 and not higher. Mentions regarding the
inconsistent staff are summarised well by Guest 5 who described them as a “mixed bag”.
FIGURE 8. N=27 Figure 9 expresses the quality of check-in service. Each check-in mention – from the qualitative
sample – was positive making check-in service a strength for this Hilton hotel.
FIGURE 9. N=7
74%
26%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Staff Mentions
100%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Check-in Mentions
28502655
Page | 9
Food and Drink
Breakfast was the only significant food finding. Breakfast code mentions were 80% positive – shown
in Figure 10 – with most guests referring to the “good full English”. Again, there were
inconsistencies, as guest 15 argued; “the breakfast experience was very poor this time.” Poor
breakfast experience is illustrated with the breakfast mentions being 20% negative.
FIGURE 10. N=10 The qualitative analysis showed drinks are a concern. Figure 11 shows 83% of drink mentions were
negative. 60% of the negative mentions argued drinks were “very over-priced” – Guest 5 among
others.
FIGURE 11. N=6
80%
20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Breakfast Mentions
17%
83%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Drinks Mentions
28502655
Page | 10
The Rooftop Terrace
Figure 12 illustrates 72% of rooftop terrace mentions were positive with many guests expressing that
“the rooftop lounge had gorgeous views!” – Guest 12. However, there is a concern regarding The
Trafalgar’s rooftop terrace availability, with several guests being unable to access the hotel’s unique
selling proposition. Unavailability contributed to each of the terrace’s negative reviews.
FIGURE 12. N =18
72%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Positive
Negative
Percentage
Men
tio
ns
Rooftop Terrace Mentions
28502655
Page | 11
The Trafalgar SWOT Matrix
Positive Negative
Internal
Strengths o Location o Check-in Service o Room size o Rooftop terrace’s vista and ambiance
Weaknesses o Inconsistent staff performance. o Inconsistent breakfast experience. o Value for money – the cost for a night stay and drinks was
commonly viewed as overpriced. o Rooms and bathrooms showing signs of wear. o Availability of rooftop terrace.
External
Opportunities The following events will bring tourists to Trafalgar Square and potentially increase The Trafalgar’s number of guests:
o Pride in London Festival (8th in July 2017). o St George’s Day – England’s National Day
celebrations (April 2017). o West End Live Performance at Trafalgar Square
(June 2017). o St Patrick's Day in London (17th March 2017).
Additionally, a fall in corporate tax rates in April 2017 could be an opportunity for The Trafalgar to earn greater profits.
Threats o BREXIT – Financial uncertainty could threaten the number
of domestic customers The Trafalgar has. Customers visiting London may chose a cheaper alternative hotel, like Premier Inn, which is also close to Trafalgar square to save money.
o Direct competition: The Grand and The Thistle Trafalgar Square.
o 2.4% increase in Westminster’s crime rates (Metropolitan Police, 2016) over the past year could potentially scare weary customers. But this is unlikely to be a sizeable threat unless it receives unlikely notable media coverage.
28502655
Page | 12
Recommendations and Limitations
Based on the SWOT analysis The Trafalgar management should use the hotel’s location and
rooftop terrace to promote the hotel. The results from the quantitative analysis and
qualitative analysis indicated location and the terrace are the hotel’s greatest marketable
strengths. Management should draw on these strengths to attract new customers.
Management should take advantage of upcoming opportunities to attract new customers.
The events mentioned in the SWOT analysis will bring a considerable number of potential
guests to Trafalgar Square. The hotel could offer discounted rooms for event-goers, prior to
the events, to take advantage of the events. The event-goers could be targeted with hotel
advertisements on the event booking page. Additional guests could be attracted if the hotel
provides guests with an incentive, like offering HHonors points, for recommending the hotel
to others.
Rooftop availability was identified as a weakness. When the terrace is unavailable during a
guest’s stay, they should be warned the terrace is unavailable before paying, so they know
which days the terrace is unavailable. This transparency will enable the hotel to avoid
disappointed customers increasing the chance of The Trafalgar gaining repeat customers.
Management should assess the condition of the bedroom and bathrooms. Worn furniture
should be a specific focus and when identified it should be replaced. This will help to
improve bedroom and bathroom quality potentially contributing to guests perceiving the
hotel is better value for money. Price is another weakness. To maximise revenue room
prices could be decreased, when there is a scarce amount of bookings, to ensure each room
is filled nightly. Drink prices could be decreased to a fairer price so guests purchase more
drinks in the hotel and less in nearby public houses and bars also maximising profit.
Another weakness was inconsistent staff performance which could become more consistent
if staff morale was boosted. (Meliorate, 2011) Better morale could be achieved by; creating
a strong team environment, encouraging open communication, and providing staff with
more incentives.
Britain exiting the European Union may negatively influence the number of domestic
customers The Trafalgar has due to financial uncertainty. To counter this management could
decrease prices or offer a money-back guarantee, while this financial uncertainty persists.
This will help to secure the custom of financially conscious customers that are indecisive
about booking with The Trafalgar and considering a cheaper alternative.
Sample size and missing data are report limitations. A sample of 100 and another of 30 is
relatively small considering the size of the sampling frame (more than 2,000 reviews). In
many instances, there was missing data where guests had not rated all six elements on
TripAdvisor. This coupled with the sample size means the findings are difficult to generalise
to the entire population of reviews as it is uncertain whether the findings capture the views
of all guests.
28502655
Page | 13
This report is focused on leisure guests and so a limitation of the report is that it fails to
represent guests that travel to The Trafalgar on business. Another limitation is all the data
used for this report is drawn from a single source, TripAdvisor, this limits the reliability of
the findings. Had another source of information been used and similar findings were found
then the findings would be more reliable. Social desirability bias – another limitation – could
have influenced the truthfulness of reviews. Each review published on TripAdvisor is public
and so guests may rate and write about the hotel in a manner they perceive will be
favourably viewed by others. In other words, their review may not reflect their true opinion.
28502655
Page | 14
Reference List Meliorate (2011) 20 TIPS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE
Available from: https://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/performance-management/20-tips-to-
improve-employee-engagement-and-performance/ [Accessed 3rd December 2016]
Metropolitan Police (2016) Crime Figures Available from:
http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/# [Accessed 1st December 2016]
Timeout (2016) St Patrick's Day in London Available from:
http://www.timeout.com/london/st-patricks-day-in-london [Accessed 1st December 2016]
Visit London (2016) Feast of St George in Trafalgar Square 2017 Available from:
http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/8726328-feast-of-st-george-in-trafalgar-
square#2fzjcDeodMZkSPzq.99 [Accessed 1st December 2016]
Visit London (2016) Pride in London 2017 Available from:
http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/25685785-pride-in-
london#003Y4xQlQiDg1smF.97 [Accessed 1st December 2016]
Visit London (2016) West End LIVE at Trafalgar Square Available from:
http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/30161454-west-end-live-at-trafalgar-
square#Mbye73YwQOqfezI6.99 [Accessed 1st December 2016]
28502655
Page | 15
Appendix
28502655
Page | 16
Qualitative Sample
28502655
Page | 17
28502655
Page | 18
28502655
Page | 19
28502655
Page | 20
28502655
Page | 21
28502655
Page | 22