People Innovation Excellence
 

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR OF GENERATION Z TOWARDS HOTEL ATTRIBUTES SELECTION

How to cite this article:

Wiastuti, Rachel Dyah., Lemy, Diena Mutiara., & Nurbaeti. (2018). Demographic Factor of Generation Z Towards Hotel Attributes Selection. Presented at The 5th International Conference on Management, Hospitality & Tourism and Accounting 2018 (IMHA 2018). 3-4 September 2018. Bina Nusantara University. To be published in Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities (JSSH)- Scopus Indexed

 

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR OF GENERATION Z TOWARDS HOTEL ATTRIBUTES SELECTION

 

Rachel Dyah Wiastuti1*, Diena Mutiara Lemy, Nurbaeti

1*Hotel Management Department

Faculty of Economic and Communication. Bina Nusantara University

Mobile. +62 877 85686317. Email: rwiastuti@binus.edu

2 Hospitality Management

Pelita Harapan Schoof of Hospitality and Tourism

diena.lemy@uph.edu

3 Hotel Management

Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Trisakti

nurbaeti@stptrisakti.ac.id

*Corresponding author

Abstract

People who belong to the same generation may lead to similar consumption pattern. Generation Z, born after 1994, must be considered as prospective market because they are big influence on their family and their number is growing. The consumer decision on hotel choice is influenced by different perspective and through various reasons. One of the perspectives is hotel attributes. Thus, hotel industry has to adapt to this new phenomenon of the rising of Gen Z. The purpose of this paper is divided into three objectives; (1) to identify the Gen Z’s perceptions in choosing hotel attributes, (2) to define Gen Z perceptions in choosing hotel attributes according to their age and gender, and (3) to measure the influence of Gen Z’s age and gender factor towards hotel attributes. This paper used quantitative method. Survey questionnaire acted as primary data source, while documentation and literature study acted as secondary data source. Sample of 313 respondents were obtained from four educational institutions in Jabodetabek area. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistic, comparing means, correlation and regression. The results reveal that different Gen Z demographic have different hotel attributes preference. Male and female of Gen Z consider the same top three attributes but in different order. Meanwhile, age and gender have low correlation with hotel attributes. This research provides recommendations for hotel industry to understand that different generation leads to different choice of hotel attributes. Therefore, to be able to accommodate this upcoming market, hotel has to comply with each generation preferences.

Keywords: Generation Z, Hotel attributes, Hotel preferences

INTRODUCTION

Identifying consumer preferences is challenging yet crucial for any marketers, including hotel marketers (Hauck & Stanforth, 2006). Marketers often use market segmentation to gather buying behaviors (Kraljević & Filipović, 2017). This market then groups and is called as cohort (Schewe, Meredith, & Noble, 2000). Analyzing the cohort might obtain forecast for customer needs and wants (Ordun, 2015) because consumption pattern may be similar among people who are in the same generational cohort (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2010).

Group of people born in mid of 1990 and late 2000, or called as Generation Z, as one of generational cohort, is estimated to amount to 40% as consumer markets (Ting, 2016). Although the oldest Gen Z is still in their 20’s, this generation will definitely shift the market (Swartz, 2018). This Gen Z is also considered as the next wave of traveler (Mandelbaum, 2016) and they surprisingly become influential persons on the family travel decision (Ting, 2016). Upon choosing a hotel, different individual attributes and factors are used (Baruca & Čivre, 2012). Being able to know the attributes that determine hotel choices drive the customer retention that leads to better hotel development (Dolnicar & Otter, 2003) and better response to customer preferences (Ferreira & Salazar, 2012). That is why the hotel industry should acknowledge the customers in a way they decide hotel choice (Choosrichom, 2011).

Hotel industry needs to anticipate this new rising generation that might change industry trend in the years ahead (Hess, 2016). Hotel industry also should generate loyalty from this group of future hotel guest (Ting, 2016). It can be identified that Gen Z has to be considered as new prospective market in the future (Burger, 2016) because they are a big influence on their family and their number is growing. Hotel industry then has to adapt to this new phenomenon of the rising Gen Z (Schewe, Meredith, & Noble, 2000). The objectives of this study are; (1) to identify the Gen Z’s perceptions of choosing hotel attributes, (2) to define Gen Z’s perceptions of choosing hotel attributes according to their age and gender, and (3) to measure the influence of Gen Z’s age and gender factor on hotel attributes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Generation Cohort

Generation cohort is group of people, born in a particular period (Ordun, 2015) or at the same period (Schewe, Meredith, & Noble, 2000), who shared similar experiences and unique common characteristics (Beldona, Nusair, & Demicco, 2009).

Generation Z

Generation Z’s birth years may vary, according to several sources. Research found various Gen Z classified as those who were born in mid to late 1990 to 2010 (Mandelbaum, 2016), after 1987 (Norum, 2003), after 2000 (Wong, Gardiner, Lang, & Coulon, 2008), after 2001 (Ordun, 2015), after 2001 (Kotler, Bowen & Makens, 2014), after 1995 (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2010), after 1992 (Glass, 2007), and after 1990 (Mogelonsky, 2016). To summarize, Gen Z are those who were born after 1994. Gen Z characteristic are always connected, already influential, evolving needs, preferring to do-it-yourself ideas, aspiring to career goals, having more entrepreneurial style, preferring to in- person communication, and having respect and loyalty (Mandelbaum, 2016).

Hotel Attributes

Hotel attributes are identified as hotel features offered to customers that affect the choices among all the products (Lewis, 1983). Hotel attributes perception is considered as the degree of importance that customer attached to a diversity of hotel features which comply with customer’s wants and needs (Wuest, Tas, & Emenheiser, 1996). Each customer has different priority and different value in deciding which hotel features that are important (Crnojevac, Gugić, & Karlovčan, 2010).

Hotel attributes can be obtained from various studies. Choosrichom (2011) determines five hotel attributes; security and safety, value, staffs’ service quality, location, and room quality. Ferreira and Salazar (2012) determine eight hotel attributes; price, certification, rating, communication policy, brand, staff, service quality, value for money. Dolnicar and Otter (2003) determine 12 hotel attributes; location, service quality, reputation, friendliness of the staffs, price, room cleanliness, security, room standard, swimming pool, bed comfort, parking, room size. Baruca and Civre (2012) determine six hotel attributes; location, recommendation, price, personal experience, promotions, facilities. Crnojevac et al. (2010) determine six hotel attributes; location, rating, wellness spa, special offers, broadband, meeting rooms. Andersson (2010) determines eight hotel attributes; rating, room standard, hotel facilities, food and beverage, service, location, value for money, in- room safe. Meltem and Tahir (2014) determine four hotel attributes; staff, value for money, entertainment, food. Liu and He (2013) determine seven hotel attributes; location, brand, recommendation, VIP program, online information, travel agent, package inclusive. Hao and Har (2014) determines six hotel attributes; location, price, facilities, cleanliness, safety, service. Kowisuth and Phetvaroon (2016) determine eight hotel attributes; service, staff, safety security, room quality, hotel image, value for money, price, location. Lee (2008) determine three hotel attributes; location, room rate, cleanliness. From online source, such as Online Travel Agent, hotel attributes are diverse. Bookings (2017) determine six hotel attributes; cleanliness, comfort, location, facilities, staff, value for money, free Wi- Fi. Agoda (2017) determines seven hotel attributes; cleanliness, location, service, food, facilities, room comfort, value for money. Orbitz (2017) determines six hotel attributes; amenities, maintenance, staff, room comfort, location, value. Traveloka (2017) determines five hotel attributes; cleanliness, comfort, service, meals, condition. Trip Advisor (2017) determines four hotel attributes; value, room, cleanliness, service. HostelWord (2017) determines seven hotel attributes; location, staff, cleanliness, value for money, security, atmosphere, facilities. Expedia (2017) determines four hotel attributes; cleanliness, service and staff, room comfort, hotel condition. PegiPegi (2017) determines eight hotel attributes; room, cleanliness, service, food, bathroom, swimming pool, location, price.

From references above, list of hotel attributes can be extracted. Furthermore, similar attributes were classified as one attribute (Dolnicar & Otter, 2003). This is the result of 24 attributes refer to the most frequencies inclusion to the least one that further use for this study; (1) service, service quality, staff, (2) location, (3) room features, room quality, bedroom , bathroom, (4) room comfort, (5) cleanliness, condition maintenance, atmosphere, (6) hotel facilities, (7) value, value for money, (8) price, room rate, food price, (9) security, (10) safety, (11) food and beverage, food, food quality, (12) hotel rating, rate, reputation, (13) special offer, promotions, (14) recommendation, either from others or from travel agent, (15) Wi-Fi, internet access, internet facilities, broadband, (16) communication policy, (17) certification, (18) brand, (19) VIP, membership, (20) personal experiences, (21) amenities, (22) meeting room, function room, (23) communication accessibility, and (24) entertainment facility, entertainment activities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research used quantitative approach to test theories by examining the relationship between variable (Creswell, 2013). Population is people who were born after 1994 and categorized as infinite population. For infinite population, an acceptable sample size is ten to one ratio of number of questions (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). There are 29 questions in this research, thus the minimum sample should be 290 respondents. Total of 325 questionnaires were distributed to four educational institutions; Universitas Bina Nusantara, Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Trisakti, Sekolah Tinggi Pariwisata Pelita Harapan, and SMK Pariwisata Metland Cileungsi. Institutions and respondents were chosen based on convenience sampling method. However, only 313 questionnaires were properly completed and eventually collated further for this study.

Primary data was obtained from face to face self-administered survey. The questionnaire was designed with closed-ended questions and consisted of two sections. The first section accumulated respondents’ demographic. The second section was designed to gather respondent preferences of hotel attributes, consisted of 24 questions, which respondent had to answer on a 5-point Likert scale (5- strongly considered, 4- considered, 3- moderately considered, 2- do not considered, 1- strongly do not considered). Data were analyzed using cross tabulation, descriptive statistic, linear regression and compare mean, with the help of SPPS.

Prior to actual carrying out the survey, pilot survey should be conducted in order to see if there were improvements needed in the research instrument (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). The pilot study was performed with total 60 respondents. Validity and reliability were conducted to test the questionnaire. According to Sekaran and Bougie (2010), the coefficient alpha can be interpreted as following: below 0.6 is poor, below 0.7 is acceptable and above 0.8 is good. Refer to Table 1, all Cronbach’s Alpha for 24 hotel attributes are above 0.8 which means all variables are at the range of good reliable. Correlation value acts as measurement for validity by comparing r count with r table. Value of r table is 0.2144 for 60 samples (df 58 and Sig 0.05). All correlation for 24 hotel attributes is above 0.2144 which means all variables are valid. Thus, further survey was continued and distributed to 313 respondents.

Table 1. Validity and Reliability Results

No Hotel attributes Correlation Cronbach’s Alpha Results
1 Service/ service quality .356 .863 Valid and reliable
2 Location .247 .866 Valid and reliable
3 Rooms feature/ facilities .485 .860 Valid and reliable
4 Room comfort .417 .862 Valid and reliable
5 Cleanliness .344 .864 Valid and reliable
6 Hotel facilities .248 .867 Valid and reliable
7 Value for money .254 .866 Valid and reliable
8 Price .321 .864 Valid and reliable
9 Security .508 .859 Valid and reliable
10 Safety .554 .859 Valid and reliable
11 Food and beverage .606 .856 Valid and reliable
12 Rating, reputation, image .562 .857 Valid and reliable
13 Promotion, special offer .270 .866 Valid and reliable
14 Recommendation .487 .859 Valid and reliable
15 Wi-Fi, internet, broadband .417 .862 Valid and reliable
16 Communication policy .687 .852 Valid and reliable
17 Certification .647 .853 Valid and reliable
18 Brand .670 .853 Valid and reliable
19 VIP/ membership .365 .864 Valid and reliable
20 Personal experience .218 .867 Valid and reliable
21 Amenities .527 .858 Valid and reliable
22 Meeting room/ function room .470 .860 Valid and reliable
23 Communication accessibility .387 .862 Valid and reliable
24 Entertainment activity/ facilities .358 .864 Valid and reliable

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Respondent’s Demographic

This part presents the respondents’ demographic factors that divided into five classifications; gender, year of birth, educational level, and place of origin and domicile, which can be seen in Table 2. The findings show that the majority of respondents are female (69%), born in 1998 (24.9%), educational level at present is Bachelor Degree (78.9%), origin from Jabodetabek (58.5%) and domicile in Jakarta (56.2%).

Table 2 Respondent Demographic

Demographic n %
Gender Male 97 31%
  Female 216 69%
Year of birth 1995 39 12,4%
  1996 52 16,6%
  1997 74 23,2%
  1998 78 24,9%
  1999 11    3,5%
  2000 23    7,3%
  2001 33  10,5%
  2002 3    1%
Educational level High school 61 19,5%
  Diploma 5 1,6%
  Bachelor 247 78,9%
Place of origin Jabodetabek 183 58,5%
  Jawa Barat 41 13,1%
  Jawa Tengah & Jogyakarta 12 3,8%
  Jawa Timur 16 5,1%
  Sumatra 31 9,9%
  Kalimantan 15 4,8%
  Bali, NTT, NTB 4 1,3%
  Sulawesi, Maluku 10 3,2%
  Papua 1 0,3%
Domicile Jakarta 176 56,2%
  Tangerang 69 22%
  Bekasi 8 2,6%
  Bogor 57 18,2%
  Depok 3 1%

Hotel Attributes

            This part presents the Gen Z perception in choosing hotel attributes; include each mean value that can be seen in Table 3. The findings show 24 variables of hotel attributes’ mean value from Gen Z as respondents. Total mean of hotel attributes is 4.27 which means that all hotel attributes are in the range of “agree” to “strongly agree” to be considered upon the hotel selection by Gen Z. It can be classified that the top three hotel attributes considered by Gen Z are cleanliness, security and safety. While the bottom three hotel attributes are meeting room, membership, and entertainment activity. From total 24 hotel attributes, there are 13 hotel attributes that score above the total mean of 4.27. They are service quality, location, room features, room comfort, and cleanliness, value for money, price, safety, security, promotion, internet access, personal experience, and online accessibility. From total 24 hotel attributes, there are 11 hotel attributes that score below the average total mean of 4.27. They are hotel facilities, food and beverage, rating, recommendation, communication policy, certification, brand, membership, amenities, meeting room, and entertainment activity.

Table 3. Generation Z Hotel Attributes

No Hotel attributes Mean Std Deviasi
1 Service/ service quality 4.67 .565
2 Location 4.56 .597
3 Rooms feature/ facilities 4.53 .620
4 Room comfort 4.73 .520
5 Cleanliness 4.86 .369
6 Hotel facilities 4.11 .791
7 Value for money 4.61 .617
8 Price 4.54 .674
9 Security 4.75 .525
10 Safety 4.73 .529
11 Food and beverage 4.11 .789
12 Rating, reputation, image 4.12 .778
13 Promotion, special offer 4.50 .712
14 Recommendation 3.96 .837
15 Wi-Fi, internet, broadband 4.62 .693
16 Communication policy 4.11 .869
17 Certification 3.81 .935
18 Brand 3.88 .836
19 VIP/ membership 3.52 .964
20 Personal experience 4.31 .769
21 Amenities 4.25 .849
22 Meeting room/ function room 3.31 1.078
23 Online accessibility 4.29 .781
24 Entertainment activity/ facilities 3.76 .988

In order to elaborate this finding, another questionnaire was distributed to six respondents to define the main reason of hotel attributes choices. The main reason why cleanliness is very important is because it can provide comfortable feeling while staying at the hotel (Clara, 2017). Safety and security are also important because by providing safe and secure for hotel guest, it means hotel are successful to provide the most basic element for the guest (Stella, 2017).

            By contrast, membership is less important because most of Gen Z is on occasionally basis to use hotel (Bella, 2017). They do not require this kind of membership due to its frequencies (Stella, 2017). They go more often to restaurant rather than hotel. Membership system is also less interesting (Evelyn, 2017). Cynthia (2017) argues that she is not kind of person who pursues the benefit of membership. Another less important hotel attributes is entertainment activity or facility. Evi (2017) state that she will be outside the hotel in most of the day, she tends to spend her day outside the hotel, thus requires hotel only for sleeping. This is in line with Bella and Evelyn (2017) who said her main purpose staying in the hotel is to have a rest, rather than enjoy the entertainment. It is better to explore the city than stay 24 hours in hotel, said Clara (2017).

The least important hotel attributes is meeting or function room. Evi (2017) said that her purpose of staying in the hotel is for leisure, thus she requires no meeting room. Cynthia, Clara, Evelyn, Bella and Stella (2017) also stated the same reason by saying they do not need meeting room at the moment, and they stay at the hotel not for meeting or conference purposes. Other attributes which score below average are food and beverage. Clara (2017) said that most of the time, she spend her vacation by visiting the places outside the hotel, thus it makes her enjoy food and beverage in other places and not in the hotel. Certification is less important because of lack of knowledge of what certification is (Cynthia, 2017).

Gender and Hotel Attributes

            This section presents the mean value of Gen Z with different gender on choosing hotel attributes that can be seen on Table 4. Total mean of male Gen Z is 4.21 and female Gen Z is 4.31. It can be identified that female Gen Z considered hotel attributes more than male Gen Z.

Table 4. Comparison of Mean Value of Hotel Attributes by Gender

No Hotel attributes Male Female
1 Service/ service quality 4,64 4,68
2 Location 4,38 4,64
3 Rooms feature/ facilities 4,55 4,53
4 Room comfort 4,72 4,73
5 Cleanliness 4,86 4,86
6 Hotel facilities 4,11 4,11
7 Value for money 4,53 4,64
8 Price 4,44 4,59
9 Security 4,69 4,78
10 Safety 4,62 4,78
11 Food and beverage 4,09 4,12
12 Rating, reputation, image 4,08 4,13
13 Promotion, special offer 4,44 4,52
14 Recommendation 3,87 4,00
15 Wi-Fi, internet, broadband 4,49 4,68
16 Communication policy 4,00 4,15
17 Certification 3,62 3,89
18 Brand 3,78 3,92
19 VIP/ membership 3,51 3,52
20 Personal experience 4,21 4,35
21 Amenities 4,22 4,27
22 Meeting room/ function room 3,22 3,35
23 Online accessibility 4,32 4,48
24 Entertainment activity/ facilities 3,79 3,75
  Total mean 4,21 4,31

Findings show that gender has different hotel attributes selection either in the items or in the order. Male Gen Z top three hotel attributes are cleanliness, room comfort and security. Meanwhile, female Gen Z top three hotel attributes tend to be the same, but have slightly different order: cleanliness, security and room comfort. It indicates that cleanliness comply is the most important hotel attributes for both male and female Gen Z, but female than choose security as the second important attributes than male. It is probably because female is more cautious and more fragile so that security becomes important for them. Male Gen Z bottom three hotel attributes are meeting room, membership and certification. Female Gen Z bottom three hotel attributes are meeting room, membership and entertainment activity. This indicates that entertainment activity is more important for male Gen Z than for female Gen Z.

H1 Different gender of Gen Z leads to different sequence hotel attributes selection.

Referring to Table 4, male and female Gen Z have different sequence for hotel attributes selection, thus H1 is accepted.

Table 5 shows that correlation value between gender and hotel attributes is 0.105. It indicates gender has very low correlation with hotel attributes. Table 6 shows influence of gender on hotel attributes through R square value of 0.011 that indicate gender influence hotel attributes as 1.1%. It means another 98.9% of hotel attributes selection by Gen Z is influenced by other factor determined by gender factor.

Table 5. Correlation of Gender and Hotel Attributes

Correlations
Gender HotelAttributes
Gender Pearson Correlation 1 .105
Sig. (2-tailed) .063
N 313 313
HotelAttributes Pearson Correlation .105 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .063
N 313 313

Table 6. Model Summary of Gender and Hotel Attributes

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .105a .011 .008 9.16769
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender

Age and Hotel Attributes

            This section presents the mean value of Gen Z with different age on choosing hotel attributes that can be seen on Table 7. Total mean of Gen Z born in 1995 is 4.20, born in 1996 is 4.27, born in 1997 is 4.17, born in 1998 is 4.28, born in 1999 is 4.08, born in 2000 is 4.35, born in 2001 is 4.54, born in 2002 is 4.61. It can be identified that Gen Z born in 2002 is the one who considered hotel attributes the most, while on the contrary is Gen Z born in 1999 as the one who considered hotel attributes the least.

Table 7. Mean Value Comparison of Hotel Attributes by Age

No Hotel attributes 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1 Service quality 4,69 4,69 4,53 4,72 4,55 4,65 4,82 5,00
2 Location 4,56 4,56 4,57 4,53 4,64 4,48 4,70 4,33
3 Rooms facilities 4,36 4,54 4,41 4,62 4,27 4,61 4,82 5,00
4 Room comfort 4,51 4,73 4,59 4,86 4,64 4,74 4,94 5,00
5 Cleanliness 4,74 4,92 4,78 4,92 4,73 4,83 4,94 5,00
6 Hotel facilities 3,92 4,08 3,88 4,26 3,91 4,26 4,58 3,67
7 Value for money 4,54 4,62 4,55 4,68 4,73 4,43 4,67 5,00
8 Price 4,41 4,62 4,50 4,58 4,45 4,35 4,73 5,00
9 Security 4,69 4,71 4,70 4,83 4,55 4,83 4,82 5,00
10 Safety 4,64 4,67 4,69 4,82 4,55 4,74 4,85 5,00
11 Food and beverage 4,00 4,06 3,95 4,15 4,00 4,35 4,42 4,33
12 Rating, reputation 4,21 4,04 4,00 4,14 4,09 4,04 4,36 4,67
13 Promotion 4,59 4,48 4,46 4,50 4,27 4,43 4,55 5,00
14 Recommendation 3,95 4,02 3,97 3,90 3,91 3,78 4,06 4,67
15 Internet 4,56 4,62 4,66 4,71 3,82 4,61 4,73 4,00
16 Communication 3,92 4,00 4,00 4,12 4,09 4,26 4,55 4,67
17 Certification 3,72 3,65 3,61 3,81 3,55 4,17 4,36 4,67
18 Brand 3,92 3,90 3,85 3,72 3,82 4,04 4,06 4,33
19 VIP/ membership 3,38 3,50 3,42 3,37 3,55 3,87 4,00 3,67
20 Personal expe 4,36 4,44 4,34 4,33 3,82 4,00 4,24 4,67
21 Amenities 4,08 4,25 4,04 4,35 3,73 4,57 4,61 5,00
22 Meeting room 3,08 3,27 2,97 3,12 3,00 4,04 4,33 4,33
23 Online accessibility 4,44 4,38 4,22 4,14 4,09 4,22 4,64 4,00
24 Entertainment 3,69 3,81 3,51 3,69 3,36 4,22 4,24 4,69
  Total mean 4,20 4,27 4,17 4,28 4,08 4,35 4,54 4,61

Table 7 shows that eight birth years have different hotel attributes selection either in the items or in the order. Gen Z born in 1995 top three hotel attributes are cleanliness, security, and service quality. Gen Z born in 1996 top three hotel attributes are cleanliness, room comfort, and security. Gen Z born in 1997, 1998 and 2000 top three hotel attributes are the same; cleanliness, safety and security. Gen Z born in 1999 top three hotel attributes are cleanliness, room comfort, value for money and location. Gen Z born in 2001 top three hotel attributes are cleanliness, room comfort, and safety. Gen Z born in 2002 top three hotel attributes are service quality, room features, room comfort, hotel facilities, value for money, price, safety, security, amenities, and promotion. It can be identified that cleanliness complies are one of the top major hotel attributes among all Gen Z from any birth year. Only those who were born in 1995 and 2002 that consider service quality as one of the top hotel attributes that must be adhered. Location is only considered by those who were born in 1999. Value for money is quite attractive attribute for those who were born in1999 and 2002.

Gen Z born in 1995 bottom three hotel attributes are membership, meeting room and entertainment. Gen Z born in 1996, 1997 and 1999 bottom three hotel attributes are certification, membership, and meeting room. Gen Z born in 1998 bottom three hotel attributes are brand, membership, and meeting room. Gen Z born in 2000 bottom three hotel attributes are recommendation, membership and meeting room. Gen Z born in 2001 bottom three hotel attributes are recommendation, brand, membership and meeting room. Gen Z born in 2002 bottom three hotel attributes are hotel facilities, internet, membership. It is identified that membership is considered less important for all Gen Z from any year of birth.

H2 Different age of Gen Z leads to different sequence hotel attributes selection.

Referring to Table 7, different age of Gen Z has different sequence for hotel attributes selection, thus H2 is accepted.

Table 8 shows correlation value between age and hotel attributes is 0,223 that indicate age has low correlation with hotel attributes. Table 9 shows influence of age on hotel attributes through R square value of 0,050 that indicate age influences hotel attributes is 5%. It means another 95% of hotel attributes selections by Gen Z are influenced by other factor, apart from age factors.

Table 8. Correlation of Age and Hotel Attributes

Correlations
HotelAttributes YearOfBirth
HotelAttributes Pearson Correlation 1 .223**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 313 313
YearOfBirth Pearson Correlation .223** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 313 313

Table 9. Model Summary Age and Hotel Attributes

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .223a .050 .047 8.98613
a. Predictors: (Constant), YearOfBirth

CONCLUSIONS

The finding reveals top three hotel attributes chosen by Gen Z are cleanliness, safety, and security. On the contrary, the bottom three hotels attributes chosen by Gen Z are meeting room, membership, and entertainment. Different demographic factors of Gen Z indicate different hotel attributes selection results. Male and female Gen Z consider the same top three hotel attributes, but in different order; male consider cleanliness, room comfort, and security while female consider cleanliness, security and  room comfort. Understanding male and female behavior pattern might help marketers in making their business strategies (Kraljević & Filipović, 2017) in this competitive hotel industry with the rising of Virtual Hotel Operator concept (Wiastuti & Susilowardhani, 2016). Gen Z born in 2002 is the one that considers the most of hotel attributes, while Gen Z born in 1999 is the least one. Different demographic characteristics of Gen Z have an impact on their decisions in choosing hotel. Demographic factor have very low positive correlation with hotel attributes. Furthermore, demographic factors contribute 2% on Gen Z perception in choosing hotel attributes.

RECOMMENDATION

This study is useful for hotel industry to develop more effective marketing strategies, particularly for Gen Z as target market, by implementing below suggestions; enhance and assure cleanliness, safety and security in hotel, prioritize safety and security as the most important attributes for female Gen Z market and room comfort for male Gen Z, lessen effort to pursue membership, promote meeting room and provide entertainment facilities for Gen Z. Further studies can be conducted with larger sample size for data collection to gather more data, additional data collection method with Focus Group Discussion, additional generation cohort as respondent, and to conduct the research for other hospitality industry, such as restaurant, airlines, travel agent, and amusement park.

REFERENCES

Andersson, D. (2010). Hotel attributes and hedonic prices: an analysis of internet-based transactions in Singapore’s market for hotel rooms. The Annals of Regional Science, 44(2), 229-240.

Baruca, P. Z., & Čivre, Ž. (2012, June). How do guests choose a hotel? Academica Turistica, 5, 75-84.

Bella. (2017, March). (R. D. Wiastuti, Interviewers)

Beldona, S., Nusair, K., & Demicco, F. (2009). Online travel purchase behavior of generational cohorts: a longitudinal study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18, 403-420.

Burger, L. (2016, Macrh 17). How Hotel Brands Are Targeting Generation Z. Smart Meeting.

Choosrichom, J. (2011). Factors Influencing the Selection of Hotel/ Resort in Lanta Yai Island, Krabi, Thailand by International Travellers. Thailand: Silpakron University.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. California, USA: SAGE Publication.

Crnojevac, I., Gugić, J., & Karlovčan, S. (2010). eTourism: A comparison of Online and Offline Bookings and the Importance of Hotel Attributes. JIOS, 34(1), 41-54.

Cynthia. (2017, March). (R. D. Wiastuti, Interviewers)

Dolnicar, S., & Otter, T. (2003). Which Hotel Attributes Matter? A review of previous and a framework for future research. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Asia Pacific Tourism Association (APTA), 1, pp. 179-188. Sydney.

Evelyn. (2017, March). (R. D. Wiastuti, Interviewers)

Evi. (2017, March). (R. D. Wiastuti, Interviewers)

Ferreira, C., & Salazar, P. (2012). An exploratory study of the selection of a hotel, a multiattribute approach. The 2nd Advanced in Hospitality and Tourism Marketing & Management Conference. Greece.

Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98-103.

Hair, J. H., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Hao, J. C., & Har, C. S. (2014). A study of preferences of business female travelers on the selection of accommodation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144, 176-186.

Hauck, W., & Stanforth, N. (2006). Cohort perception of luxury goods and services. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 11(2), 175-188.

Hess, D. (2016, June 14). Gen Z: Preparing for postmillennial travelers.

Hoyer, W. D., & Maclnnis, D. (2010). Consumer Behavior. South Western: Cencage Learning.

Kotler, P., Bown, J. T., & Makens, J. C. (2014). Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism (6th ed.). USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Kowisuth, P., & Phetvaroon, K. (2016). Factor influence hotel selection of tourists travelling with children.

Kraljević, R., & Filipović, Z. (2017). Gender Differences and Consumer Behavior of Millenials. Acta Economica et Turistica.

Lee, K. W. (2008, January). Online leisure hotel selection criteria and booking. (690). Las Vegas, USA, USA: UNLV Theses.

Lewis, R. C. (1983). Getting the most from marketing research. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 24(3), 25-35.

Liu, M., & Hee, R. (2013). Factors affecting students’ decision of hotel selection. (Paper 17). Providence, RI: Johnson & Wales University.

Mandelbaum, A. (2016, March 1st). What Should Your Hotel Know About Generation Z? Retrieved from What Should Your Hotel Know About Generation Z?

Meltem, C., & Tahir, A. (2014). Does the importance of hotel attributes differ for senior tourists? A comparison of three markets. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(4), 610-628.

Mogelonsky, L. (2016, August 26). Understanding Millennial and Baby Boomer Travelers: Seven things you didn’t know and how to cater to both demographics.

Norum, P. (2003). Examination of generational differences in household apparel expenditures. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32(1), 52-75.

Ordun, G. (2015). Millennial (Gen Y) Consumer Behavior; Their Shopping Preferences and Perceptual Maps Associated With Brand Loyalty. Canadian Social Science, 11(4), 44-55.

Schewe, C. D., Meredith, G. E., & Noble, S. M. (2000). Defining moments: Segmenting by cohorts. Marketing Management, 9(3), 48-53.

Schewe, C., Meredith, G., & Noble, S. (2000). Defiining Moments; Segmenting by Cohorts. Marekting Management, 9(3), 48-53.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business; A Skill Building Approach (5th ed.). UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Stella. (2017, March). (R. D. Wiastuti, Interviewers)

Swartz, L. (2018, April 18). How to market to Gen Z. The Business Journal.

Ting, D. (2016, March 14). Smart Hotel Brands Are Already Thinking About Generation Z.

Wiastuti, R. D., & Susilowardhani, E. M. (2016, November). Virtual Hotel Operator; Is It Disruption for Hotel Industry? Jurnal Hospitality dan Pariwisata, 2(2), 201-215.

Wong, Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in personality and motivation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878-890.

Wuest, B., Tas, R., & Emenheiser, D. (1996). What do mature travellers perceive as important hotel/motel customer service? Hospitality Research Journal, 20(2), 77-93.


Published at : Updated
Written By
Rachel Dyah Wiastuti
SCC Hospitality | Bina Nusantara University

Periksa Browser Anda

Check Your Browser

Situs ini tidak lagi mendukung penggunaan browser dengan teknologi tertinggal.

Apabila Anda melihat pesan ini, berarti Anda masih menggunakan browser Internet Explorer seri 8 / 7 / 6 / ...

Sebagai informasi, browser yang anda gunakan ini tidaklah aman dan tidak dapat menampilkan teknologi CSS terakhir yang dapat membuat sebuah situs tampil lebih baik. Bahkan Microsoft sebagai pembuatnya, telah merekomendasikan agar menggunakan browser yang lebih modern.

Untuk tampilan yang lebih baik, gunakan salah satu browser berikut. Download dan Install, seluruhnya gratis untuk digunakan.

We're Moving Forward.

This Site Is No Longer Supporting Out-of Date Browser.

If you are viewing this message, it means that you are currently using Internet Explorer 8 / 7 / 6 / below to access this site. FYI, it is unsafe and unable to render the latest CSS improvements. Even Microsoft, its creator, wants you to install more modern browser.

Best viewed with one of these browser instead. It is totally free.

  1. Google Chrome
  2. Mozilla Firefox
  3. Opera
  4. Internet Explorer 9
Close