HttpracsagepubcomRace__Classhttpracsagepubcomcontent52

Abstract: This study of the experiences of hotel housekeepers in Toronto, who are predominantly immigrant women of colour, reveals the damaging health impact of their work. As the hotel industry in this ‘global city’ has moved upmarket and sought to offer more luxury services to its wealthy customers, hotel housekeeping work has become more physically demanding and burdensome, resulting in the majority of workers experiencing a high degree of pains and injuries. The hotel industry is seen as operating a racialised division of labour, with those at the bottom vulnerable to being discarded as they approach retirement age and their health deteriorates. Finally, an account is given of the impact of unionisation and the hotel workers’ ongoing struggles for change.

Keywords: global cities, Healthy Immigrant Effect, precarious employment, racialised division of labour

In the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), approximately 30,000 people work in the hotel industry. Immigrant women of colour, who are disadvantaged by their dependence on cheap, racialised, gendered work, make up the majority of these workers.1 Among those working on cleaning and laundry, 93 per cent are immi- grants, 82 per cent are visible minorities and 80 per cent are women.2 Housekeepers and hotel laundry workers are among the lowest wage earners: the median annual wage for a Toronto hotel worker is around $26,000, falling short of the

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

58 Race & Class 52(1)

low-income cut off of $34,572 for a family of four in 2004. They are therefore part of the approximately 900,000 working poor in Ontario, a number that continues to rise.3 Moreover, low wages are just one part of this struggle – hotel housekeep- ers also suffer alarming rates of work-related pain and injury.

The experience of immigrant workers in this sector is intimately linked to larger structural processes of neoliberal globalisation. In what follows, a critical analysis of the organisation of the economy and the global city, drawing on femi- nist political economy, will be used to bring to light how a racialised and gen- dered division of labour reproduces itself. Immigrant women of colour, relegated to precarious work, face significant problems of health and well-being; these will be explored through the concept of the Healthy Immigrant Effect.4 Such issues will be further highlighted through a discussion of the personal narratives of immigrant women of colour working in the GTA hotel industry. Relating these narratives will also help make sense of the ways in which immigrant women of colour actively negotiate and contest their precarious spaces of employment.

Housekeeping in the global city ‘Global cities’ are defined by Saskia Sassen as the sites where key functions and resources for the management and coordination of global economic processes are located.5 A global city is a concept based on the idea that globalisation is cre- ated, facilitated and carried out in strategic geographical locations within the global system of finance and trade. As high-income jobs and high-priced urban spaces have burgeoned in Toronto, bringing a concomitant increase in wealth and power, the city has come to be positioned as a global city, similar to London, New York or Tokyo. But global cities are also sites for the incorporation of large numbers of low-paid women and immigrants in the service sectors. This reflects the consumptive habits of firms and the lifestyles of high-income professionals, both of which generate demand for maids, cleaners, nannies and low-wage workers in expensive restaurants, retail outlets and hotels. This type of work abounds in the global city but is undervalued within the dominant narrative of globalisation, which emphasises ‘upper circuits of global capital’ and valorises highly educated professionals. The spaces carved out for low-waged labour, where immigrant women are selectively incorporated into the economic system, are thus ‘invisible’.

The global city, as it seeks to attract tourists and investors, depends heavily on the hotel industry. The GTA hotel industry consists of approximately 183 hotels, which amount to 35,865 guest rooms, ranging from luxury and upscale (53 hotels with 18,382 rooms) to all-suites, mid-scale and limited service (129 hotels with 17,483 rooms).6 With a diverse range of clienteles, from organisers, participants and frequenters of conventions, conferences and tradeshows, to weddings, hotels generate significant revenue for Toronto, in terms of employment, business and government income. The hotel industry, in turn, has sought to develop economies

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

Sirena Liladrie: ‘Do not disturb/please clean room’ 59

of scale to increase its ‘bottom line’. And it has responded competitively to oppor- tunities provided by globalisation to significantly lower labour costs.

The terms ‘social reproduction’ and ‘reproductive labour’ refer to the activi- ties and processes by which human beings are directly or indirectly sustained materially and psychologically. It is mainly women who take on roles of social reproduction. Reproductive labour is obviously necessary for capitalism to exist but it is unacknowledged because capitalism can only survive as long as the cost of reproducing labour power is kept lower than the value which that labour power can produce.7 While the reproduction of labour power is neces- sary, capitalism seeks to keep the costs of reproduction low. Reproductive labour is not only gendered but also racialised: it is often the labour of migrant women which facilitates the entry of ‘First World’ women into the public sphere, by liberating them from the most gendered and labour intensive aspects of social reproduction.8

From this perspective, hotels can be seen as major sites of social reproduc- tion.9 They are in the business of, at the very least, creating a ‘home away from home’, a space of rest and relaxation. Further upmarket, they aim to provide more than just a comfortable night’s sleep, with plush mattresses and linens, and other luxury amenities, positioning the guest as someone who is entitled to recast their desires as needs and to consume the unlimited labour of oth- ers.10 The upgrading of rooms to provide luxury facilities is thus a trend across North American hotel chains. Correspondingly, the reproductive labour nec- essary to maintain these upgraded hotel rooms has increased significantly in terms of workload and how physically demanding it is. The amount of work per hotel room and the pace at which the work is done far exceeds the levels in earlier years, which makes hotel housekeeping work considerably more stress- ful and dangerous. While these upgrades and additional amenities in hotel rooms add to the customer’s overall experience, not to mention the corpora- tion’s bottom line, they negatively affect the health and well-being of the housekeepers, who are literally breaking their backs to serve the whims of consumers in the global city.

Other studies conducted in global cities, such as London and San Francisco, suggest that Toronto is not unique in the way that immigrant women of colour are treated in the hotel sector.11 But in Toronto, their issues tend to be overshad- owed by a strong multicultural rhetoric, which boasts that the city is welcoming to newcomers with its diverse ‘ethnic celebrations’, ‘ethnic towns’ and ‘ethnic restaurants’. Notions of liberal multiculturalism go hand in hand with a com- mon belief among Canadians that racism and bigotry are European and US problems, of minor relevance in Canada’s history, traditions or psyche.12 The historical and present-day evidence, however, tells a very different story that runs counter to this celebratory multiculturalism. The lived experience of migrat- ing and working as a racialised immigrant in Canada can be very different from the idealised image usually presented to the world.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

60 Race & Class 52(1)

Watch your back! Working conditions and health Unite Here is a progressive labour union, representing approximately 450,000 workers in the North American distribution centre, retail, manufacturing, hotel, restaurant, textile, laundry, gaming and food service industries, where large numbers of immigrant women of colour are employed.13 In 2005, Unite Here surveyed 600 housekeepers in several cities across North America – including Los Angeles, Boston and Toronto – about workplace pain. 91 per cent of hotel housekeepers reported physical pain associated with their work, of whom 86 per cent reported that their pain started after being hired as a housekeeper. The survey also found that 77 per cent of housekeepers found that pain interferes with their routine activities and that 66 per cent took pain medication regularly.14

According to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health, the federal government’s primary information centre on workplace safety, a hotel housekeeper changes body position every three seconds while cleaning a room. The average cleaning time for each room is twenty-five minutes, which means that a housekeeper assumes 8,000 different body postures every shift.15 Furthermore, housekeeping is a physically demanding job, involving forceful movements in awkward body positions, lifting heavy mattresses, tucking mul- tiple sheets, cleaning tiles and vacuuming on every shift, which can be hard on the body. Hotel workers are 48 per cent more likely to be injured on the job than a typical worker in the service sector. They also have higher rates of serious, disabling injuries which often require days off or reassignment. These disabling injuries occur to hotel workers at a rate 51 per cent higher than for service sector workers in general.16

There is a significant correlation between increasing workloads and the rising rates of musculoskeletal disorders, such as low back pain, tendonitis, back and shoulder injuries, bursitis of the knee (known as ‘housemaid’s knee’), carpal tunnel syndrome and persistent neck, hand and wrist pain, which are all charac- teristic hazards of hotel housekeeping work.17 This, coupled with chronic under- staffing, has pushed workers to ‘breaking point’. Most disturbing of all is that these injuries and associated pains are preventable and treatable – but the focus on increasing the ‘bottom line’ undercuts the likelihood of investing in the long- term health and job satisfaction of these workers.

As a result of intensifying competition, hotels are offering more amenities, in an effort to attract the high-end clients who bring greater profit margins, while minimising costs and rendering labour practices more precarious. The major unforeseen consequences for housekeepers’ health and safety do not, of course, figure in such business strategies.

The Healthy Immigrant Effect The Healthy Immigrant Effect is an observed time-path showing the transfor- mation of immigrants’ health following their arrival in the receiving country.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

Sirena Liladrie: ‘Do not disturb/please clean room’ 61

Where this effect occurs, the health of immigrants is initially significantly better than that of the native-born population and then, in the years after migration, it declines significantly. For instance, immigrants who have lived in Canada for more than ten years experience a level of chronic conditions and long-term dis- ability that is similar to that of the Canadian-born population but higher than that of newly arrived immigrants.18 Researchers have linked this effect to points- based immigration selection systems which focus on employability, and optimal physical and psychological health. Canada’s immigration process selects the ‘best’ immigrants on the basis of education, language, skills and a rigorous med- ical health examination given by a designated medical practitioner approved by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. This means that when immigrants arrive in Canada, they are in optimal health. But this advantage quickly diminishes, particularly for racialised immigrants. Apart from Canada, the Healthy Immigrant Effect has also been reported in other ‘First World’ receiving coun- tries such as Australia and the US, where similar points-based selection systems and medical health examinations operate. In their study of the health of workers in the US hotel industry, for example, Pam Tau Lee and Niklas Krause found that housekeepers on average rated their health at a level of 56 per cent, signifi- cantly lower than the US average of 72 per cent.19

Statistics Canada’s 2007 report on the Healthy Immigrant Effect, based on five cycles of data from the National Population Health Survey (NPHS), revealed that those from non-European countries were twice as likely as the Canadian-born population to report a deterioration in their health.20 This decline was particularly pronounced among recent non-European immigrants. However, even long-term non-European immigrants were more likely than the Canadian-born to report a shift toward fair or poor health. Analysis of this lon- gitudinal data from the NPHS thus suggests that the Healthy Immigrant Effect does operate in Canada.

On arrival, many immigrants, especially refugees, lack social and material resources; they also face considerable barriers associated with language, racism and discrimination. Some researchers argue that the observed depletion of health could arise from linguistic or cultural barriers to accessing health services.21Another potential line of explanation is the process of acculturation – the way in which immigrants ‘take on’ ways of life in the new country, including the adoption of ‘western’ norms for diet, smoking, drinking and sexuality. Others, including myself, would argue that racialisation and poverty, due to precarious employment, are major determinants resulting in the poor health of the immigrant population in Canada.22

Race, work and health

As part of this study, I spoke to a number of immigrant women of colour, who were currently or recently employed as unionised housekeepers in GTA hotels, about their health and well-being prior to and after joining the industry.23

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

62 Race & Class 52(1)

Health The personal narratives of the women I spoke to reveal their experiences in the hotel industry and the depletion in their health as racialised immigrants work- ing as housekeepers. All of the women were asked to rate their health on a ten- point scale prior to working in the hotel industry and at the time of the interview. They all responded that their health had deteriorated to ‘poor’ or ‘fair’ from being ‘excellent’ prior to joining the industry – a decline that is consistent with the Healthy Immigrant Effect.

One interpretation of the downward depletion in health might be that it was simply the result of ageing. However, in their San Francisco-based study, Lee and Krause found equally high rates of musculoskeletal symptoms in both younger and older housekeepers, which suggest a correlation between poor working conditions and reduced health outcomes for hotel housekeepers regard- less of age. Esmy, who, at 41, was the youngest woman to participate in the study, rated her health at ‘10’ before working in the industry but, after only seven years as a housekeeper, her health had depleted to the point where she ranked it at ‘5’. This is consistent with the answers given by the older women.

In their individual narratives, the women described their experiences with work-related pain. Georgia described a typical day at work and the various tasks that would trigger pain, such as going on her knees to look under the beds, which, when repeated from room to room, strained the body. Similarly, May described going to the doctor for what she thought was arthritis in her knees; she was told that her knee pads had literally worn out. Celess revealed that a specialist had diagnosed her with carpal tunnel, a medical condition in which the median nerve is compressed at the wrist, leading to numbness and muscle weakness in the hand. She has contemplated surgery but, due to the uncertainty of outcomes associated with carpal tunnel surgery, she has opted instead to wear a wrist split at home and during the night. Celess described a typical day at work as involving constant stretching and bending while cleaning the hotel rooms, leading to pain in her back and shoulders. Fixing the bedding and tuck- ing the sheets also caused pain in her fingers, which Sylvia and Esmy also referred to in their narratives. Esmy also described working on the smoking

Table 1. Health depletion after joining the hotel industry

Age Immigrated to Years since Years working Room or age Health Health Canada from migration in the hotel attendant range before* after** Jamaica industry current wage

Sylvia 61 9 5 1983 25 18 $14.00 Georgia 58 10 5 1972 36 32 $11.80 Celess 52 10 3 1979 29 25 $16.75 May 60–70 10 5 1970 38 35 $16.60 Esmy 41 10 5 1974 34 7 $14.84

*Perceived health before working in the hotel industry (10 excellent – 1 poor) **Perceived health after working in the hotel industry (10 excellent – 1 poor) Source: Interviews by Sirena Liladrie, 200824

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

Sirena Liladrie: ‘Do not disturb/please clean room’ 63

floor as ‘very musty, the smoke is all over, it’s just so closed up, nothing comes out … some rooms don’t even have windows’. She has voiced her concerns to management and was told to wear a mask. The problem is made worse by guests who smoke in non-smoking rooms; the front desk, she says, gives ashtrays to guests in non-smoking rooms who request them. Housekeepers are supposed to report it and ‘guests are supposed to be fined, but it is rarely ever enforced’. Asked about health hazards in the workplace, Sylvia described an occasion when there was an outbreak of rashes among the housekeepers due to the harsh chemicals used on the linens. She is very wary of the chemicals she has to work with because they cause the skin on her fingers to peel and become rough.

Retirement and pensions Most of the women I spoke to, being over 50, were concerned about retirement and fearful of what the future might hold. Sylvia, for example, told me that the hotel chain she worked for was ‘throwing the older workers out like garbage’ because they were on ‘modified duties’ due to work-related injuries. ‘When you work in the industry as a room attendant and you are 59 and 60 years old, who is going to hire you? I am 61. Who is going to hire me when this company throws me out?’ Similarly, Esmy spoke about some of her co-workers who had worked for the hotel for up to twenty years and were now on ‘modified duties’ due to work-related pain and injury. ‘Management has cut their hours to part-time. One woman was even let go. They were literally told they are useless to the company.’ After telling me that, despite thirty-two years of working as a housekeeper, she did not have a pension, Georgia remarked that ‘people need to retire with dignity … All they [corporations] care about is making money. They are slave owners: they don’t care about the slaves; they only care about the cotton being picked.’

Some of the women did mention that they had pensions but they described them as ‘not worth much’ or said that ‘our pensions are horrible’. In my conver- sation with May, who is between 60 and 70 years old, I asked her if she has any plans for retiring. She said that she was thinking about it but likes to keep busy. ‘If I’m not helping people, I feel … I have been taking care of other people all my life. I do have a pension but it’s not great; they started late.’ May’s narrative points to the multiple roles and responsibilities that immigrant women take on in both their work, home and community lives. It also shows that her retirement options are severely limited. Sylvia noted that many housekeepers are fearful that, after retiring, they will have to find another job because ‘our pensions are horrible’. Older housekeepers contemplate having to find part-time jobs to make up for the little they will get on the state pension. Moreover, she says, even though the unions have had some success in negotiating pensions, it is only the younger housekeepers who will benefit from those gains. According to Sylvia, pensions have recently been made a priority in her union’s collective bargaining for room attendants and hotel workers, so that ‘after they leave with all the pain and all the injuries, they don’t have to go out and babysit someone else’s kids to make up a living, or go and clean someone’s house’.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

64 Race & Class 52(1)

According to a 2007 study for the Canadian parliament, among immigrants who came to Canada after 1980 and are now about to retire, 45 per cent believed that their financial preparations for retirement were inadequate.25 Immigrants face a double disadvantage in the Canadian pension system: first, acquiring public pensions can be problematic for immigrants given the resi- dency requirements and, second, the accumulation of pension assets through the Canadian Pension Plan or private pensions can also be challenging, due to the difficulties of fully integrating into the Canadian labour market.26 It is forecast that, by 2011, almost half of the labour force in Canada will be over 55 and 18 per cent will be over 60; the trend in the hotel sector is similar. As May’s narrative reflects, the removal of the mandatory retirement age of 65 will result in more older workers remaining in the labour force longer.27 The narratives of the women I spoke to highlight the multiple roles that many immigrant women of colour take on, both at home and at work, and their lack of options as they get older. This is an area in need of further attention, given the ageing population in Canada and the growing body of literature on pov- erty among immigrant elders.

Racism and a racialised division of labour Asked if she perceived a racialised division of labour in the hotel where she worked, Sylvia described without hesitation the entire racial hierarchy of the hotel: from the management, human resources and sales department staff, who were White except for the odd ‘token minority’, to the front desk staff, who were all White men and women, to the Black and other racialised men and women who worked as ‘prep cooks’, servers, dishwashers, porters and room attendants. At Celess’s hotel, a similar picture emerged. She said that ‘the front desk staff are all White people. Sometimes they pass you in the hallway and they don’t even look at you. The supervisors say we have to say “hi” to guests and smile. How can they tell us that when they don’t even do that with us?’ Unlike the White front desk staff, Celess and other room attendants are not allowed to enter the hotel through the front doors but must use a separate employee’s entrance. Condescending attitudes and a racialised structure of divisions and entitlements seem to permeate the work culture of the hotel.

Celess’s and Sylvia’s accounts of a racialised division of labour are consistent with a census tabulation of selected GTA labour force characteristics that was produced by Statistics Canada in 1996 and based on occupations in the hotel and motel industry.28 It showed that the majority of White employees work in ‘front of the house’ and were more likely to have management jobs. Racialised work- ers and immigrants, however, were relegated to ‘back of the house’, where they do cleaning, kitchen work, laundry and housekeeping. The tabulation showed that 63 per cent of executive housekeepers were visible minorities and that 82 per cent of light duty cleaners were also visible minorities. In comparison, 25 per cent of accommodation service managers were from visible minorities and 56 per cent from non-visible minorities.29 Celess also commented that, when a vacancy becomes available in the hotel and immigrant women of colour apply

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

Sirena Liladrie: ‘Do not disturb/please clean room’ 65

for it, they are told that they are not qualified; management, she says, will not even look at their application. Sylvia commented that:

You will be more qualified than some of the people at the front but, because of your race or your ethnic background … the companies will say: ‘It’s not so, you’re not qualified.’ That’s not true, because we know more than some of those new people coming in. Sometimes they will say you have an accent and they want someone with perfect English at the front.

Not only can skin colour be a barrier to upward mobility but accents and per- ceived notions of ‘proper’ English are too.

Personal lives and community involvement Work-related pain and stress is not isolated in its effects to the place of work but carries over to other aspects of women’s lives. Before one is even home, there are the extra hours spent on a tedious and stressful public-transport commute from hotel properties in downtown Toronto to the outer areas of the city where hous- ing is affordable. Speaking of her home and family life, Sylvia said:

At the end of the day, you get off the bus, it takes an hour and a half to get home, you are dead in the chair and you can’t have any social life, you don’t have time to spend with your kids. You are so tired and stressed that it causes arguments in the home for no reason.

Georgia described the tension this can cause within marriages and partner- ships, having seen marriages break up because of the long, unpredictable hours housekeepers have to work: ‘You don’t have time for family life. Can you imag- ine dealing with all that stress and pain at work and then having to come home and be intimate with your husband?’ Celess said that, with her carpal tunnel, she is very dependent on her husband to help her carry out tasks in the home that she used to have no problem doing: washing dishes, carrying the laundry basket and vacuuming. For Esmy, fatigue after coming home from work was a major problem: ‘Sometimes I come home; I can’t cook – I’m too tired. Sometimes it’s like the bottom half of your back is ripping from the top, that’s how hard it is.’ This kind of experience was common to all the women and it not only affected what they did in the home but also how they engaged and participated in their communities. Celess, for example, said: ‘I’m a church lady and sometimes we have bazaars at church, sometimes we have breakfasts at church. I like to help them cook and stuff like that. Sometimes I’m okay but sometimes the pain is too much.’ When she comes home from work, Georgia said, she is usually too tired to do the kind of volunteering work in the community that she would like to.

Some of the women discussed relationships with children and grandchildren. May reminisced about when her children were younger: ‘My kids played bas- ketball and were in plays but I never had the time to go and see them. I think they were mad at me.’ Precarious work, with its irregular hours and low wages,

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

66 Race & Class 52(1)

left parents and single mothers like May struggling to balance family life with economic imperatives. Sylvia spoke about the visible marks on her body and the embarrassment and shame felt with members of her family: ‘Sometimes your kids will look at you and ask you: “Why are your hands like that?” My grand- kids will ask: “Grandma what’s wrong with your hands?” I try to explain it’s because of the work I am doing … it’s so embarrassing.’

Unionisation and health All the participants told me that they had been members of a union at their cur- rent place of employment since they started working there. For some of the women, that meant that they were unionised up to thirty-five years ago; for oth- ers, seven years ago. This was a surprising response, given the usual perception of the hotel sector as a newly organised industry, with correspondingly poor pay rates, lack of pensions and standards in the workplace, and only very recent media and academic attention. The women’s narratives debunked this percep- tion that unions were only recently involved; in fact, the women argued, the presence of unions was longstanding but, for a number of reasons, had not nec- essarily improved conditions. Even though the union had negotiated collective agreements, ‘it is not enough because the corporation puts more on us’. Georgia explained that, because the rooms of the 1970s were not as ‘loaded’ as they were now, cleaning sixteen rooms then was not at all the same as cleaning sixteen rooms in 2008. In some hotel properties, the union had negotiated that the room quota be lifted and that room attendants work by the hour and not by the room. However, Esmy believed that unionisation had not brought any reduction in her workload. When asked if there were any positive benefits to unionisation, she said that ‘even if the contract says something like, “they are supposed to work by the hour and not by the room”, the management does not adhere to the con- tract and they try to bully the workers and some are just too scared to speak up’. On the other hand, Georgia, Celess, May and Sylvia all described using the negotiated terms in their union contracts to refuse work and negotiate with management about their workloads and those of their co-workers who may have been intimidated into not speaking up.

All the women I spoke to were very positive about the union’s benefits pack- age, which was seen as supporting their health and well-being. However, some also commented that, though they have an extensive benefits package through the union, they cannot take advantage of opportunities for chiropractic care and massage, given their long work hours and the loss of income that would result from taking time off work. Others said several times that ‘the union is fighting for us’ and that it has offered them a platform to speak about their experiences. Were it not for the unions, said Sylvia, the conditions for room attendants would be much worse.

Unionising and collective bargaining is, of course, a complex and multi-fac- eted process. While there have been small gains in the hotel industry and union wages are higher than non-unionised wages, housekeepers are still a long way from living lives free of pain and injury in the workplace.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

Sirena Liladrie: ‘Do not disturb/please clean room’ 67

Resistance and negotiation

… so I’m angry. But I am not without hope. This summer, we have been com- ing together as immigrant workers, as members of immigrant communities, as service sector and hospitality workers. We don’t have to accept things the way they are. We don’t need to accept poverty in our neighbourhoods. That every child in Toronto can grow up to be whatever they dream of being. That our jobs be good jobs where we are treated with respect and earn enough to support our families and communities.

Look around at the people standing next you. We are from all over the world. We are immigrants. We are Canadian. We are hotel workers. We are restaurant workers. We are beautiful! And, together, we are the new majority in Toronto!

Zeleda Davis, vice-president of Local 75, speaking to the crowd at Toronto City Hall, 31 July 2008

A campaign known as ‘Hotel Workers/Immigrant Workers Rising’ has had a major impact in Toronto. Organised in conjunction with Unite Here, its aim is to raise living standards and working conditions for those employed in some of the most strenuous, underpaid jobs in the service sector. I observed and partici- pated in an Immigrant Workers Rising/Hotel Workers Rising rally that took place in Toronto on 31 July 2008. The rally began at the Toronto City Hall and then proceeded down Bay Street to the front of the Royal York Hotel to support workers then involved in contract talks with the historic hotel. A collective of union members, including vice-president of Local 75, Zeleda Davis, presented City Councillor Gord Perks with over 4,000 pledge cards signed by hotel and immigrant workers. An immigrant woman of colour who has worked as a room attendant for almost two decades, Zeleda Davis has been at the forefront of this movement, dealing with the realities of work in the hotel industry, yet actively contesting and negotiating for change; and there are others just like her. Addressing the crowd in front of Toronto City Hall, Zeleda concluded her speech with the statement that ‘we are the new majority in Toronto’. This shift in positioning from ‘minority’ to ‘majority’ sent a strong message to employers and politicians that cannot be easily ignored or dismissed.

After the speeches, the rally proceeded down Bay Street, just as many of Toronto’s corporate workers were heading home for the day. They were left somewhat bewildered by the rallying workers beating their plastic buckets, blowing on whistles and chanting, ‘The workers united will never be defeated’; the spatial boundaries of the financial district had been disrupted. Rounding the corner at Front Street, the rally settled outside the Royal York Hotel, where hun- dreds swelled the demonstration. A make-shift podium was erected and speak- ers came to the microphone to tell their stories. Towards the end of the rally, everyone held hands and stretched out to form a perimeter around the Royal York Hotel; once again space was disrupted and the ‘invisible’ made visible in a display of worker solidarity.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

68 Race & Class 52(1)

Around thirty hours after the rally, at two in the morning, a deal was finally reached. The Toronto Star reported that the union had achieved all its major goals including workload decreases, increases in benefits, retirement income, wages and other income gains.30 Moreover, as union contracts with the Royal York and other GTA hotels are due to expire in 2010, 6,000 hotel employees will then be in a position to renegotiate contracts at the same time – a significant opportunity to set a standard across all unionised hotels.

Campaigning such as this has brought advances for immigrant women of colour working as hotel housekeepers in the GTA and across North America. Yet the struggle continues: there is much research, analysis and activism that remains to be done in order that the health and well-being issues facing immigrant women of colour in the GTA be fully taken up. The context in which this struggle takes place is continuously shifting, with the ebbs and flows of neoliberal globalisation and its impact on racialised and gendered workers in the hotel industry.

By agreeing to be interviewed and partake in studies such as mine, immigrant women of colour who work in the hotel industry are performing a form of resis- tance that cannot be overlooked. They offered their deeply personal narratives of their experiences as housekeepers in order to demonstrate how low-waged labour and poor working conditions intercede in their everyday lives, and as a way of seeking redress. Thus, they are far from passive victims; they are contest- ing, voicing their demands and engaging in individual acts to take control of their health and collectively achieve better working conditions.

References 1 A. Verma, I. Juanairo, J. Mercer, J. Bowdring, L. Briskin, P. Kumar, R. Adams and S. Tufts,

An Industry at a Crossroads: a high road economic vision for Toronto hotels (Toronto, Toronto Task Force on the Hotel Industry, 2006), p. 5.

2 Ibid., p. 5. 3 Ibid., p. 6. 4 Precarious employment includes forms of work involving limited social benefits and statutory

entitlements, job insecurity, low wages and a high risk of ill-health. It is shaped by employ- ment status, various forms of employment (temporary, seasonal, part-time) and dimensions of labour market insecurity (SARS, for example, hit the hotel industry in the summer of 2003), as well as social context (what type of industry, full-service, luxury) and social location (gender, race/ethnicity). See L. Vosko, ed., Precarious Employment: understanding labour market insecurity in Canada (Canada, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2006); A. Lewchuck, A. De Wolff, A. King and M. Polanyi, ‘The hidden costs of precarious employment: health and the employ- ment relationship’, in Vosko, Precarious Employment, op. cit., pp. 141–62.

5 S. Sassen, Cities in a World Economy (California, Pine Forge Press, 2006). 6 Verma et al., An Industry at a Crossroads, op. cit., p. 4. 7 W. Giles and S. Arat-Koç, Maid in the Market: women’s paid domestic labour (Halifax, Fernwood

Publishing, 1994) ; B. S. Bolaria and P. Li, ‘Theories and policies of racial domination’, in B. S. Bolaria and P. Li, eds, Racial Oppression in Canada (Toronto, Garamond Press, 1988), pp. 27–40.

8 K. Maher, ‘Globalized social reproduction: women migrants and the citizenship gap’, in A. Brysk and G. Shafir, eds, People Out of Place: globalization, human rights and the citizenship gap (New York and London, Routledge, 2004), pp. 131–51.

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

Sirena Liladrie: ‘Do not disturb/please clean room’ 69

9 W. Giles, ‘It’s the foreigners who do the laundry: the work of Portuguese chambermaids in London hotels’, in Giles and Arat-Koç, Maid in the Market, op. cit.

10 R. Sherman, Class Acts: service and inequality in luxury hotels (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2007).

11 Giles, ‘It’s the foreigners who do the laundry’, op. cit.; T. Lee and N. Krause, ‘The impact of worker health study on working conditions’, Journal of Public Health Policy (Vol. 23, no. 3, 2002), pp. 268–85.

12 N. Kelley and M. Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic: a history of Canadian immigration policy (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998), p. 441.

13 <http://www.unitehere.ca>. 14 Creating Luxury, Enduring Pain: how hotel work is hurting housekeepers (Unite Here, 2006), p.7. 15 Ibid., p. 6. 16 Ibid., p. 3. 17 Ibid., p. 7; T. Scherzer, R. Rugulies and N. Krause, ‘Work-related pain and injury and barriers

to workers’ compensation among Las Vegas hotel room cleaners’, American Journal of Public Health (Vol. 95, no. 3, 2005), pp. 83–488; Lee and Krause, ‘The impact of worker health study on working conditions’, op. cit.

18 I. Hyman and S. Guruge, ‘A review of theory and health promotion strategies for new immi- grant women’, Canadian Journal of Public Health (Vol. 93, no. 3, 2002), pp. 183–87.

19 Lee and Krause, ‘The impact of worker health study on working conditions’, op. cit., p. 227. 20 E. Ng, R. Wilkins, F. Gendron and J. Berthelot, ‘Healthy today, healthy tomorrow? Findings

from the national population health survey’, in Issue 2 – Dynamics of Immigrants’ Health in Canada: evidence from the national population health survey (Statistics Canada, 2007).

21 T. McDonald and S. Kennedy, ‘Insights into the “Healthy Immigrant Effect”: health status and health service use of immigrants to Canada’, Social Science & Medicine (Vol. 59, 1613–1627, 2004); S. Noh and V. Kaspar, ‘Diversity and immigrant health’, in P. Anisef and M. Lanphier, eds, The World in a City (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2003), pp. 316–53.

22 D. Gastaldo, ‘Transnational health promotion: social well-being across borders and immigrant women’s subjectivities’, Wagadu (Vol. 2, 1–16, 2005); C. Egan and L. Gardner, ‘Racism, wom- en’s health and reproductive freedom’, in V. Zawilski & C. Levine-Raskey, eds, Inequality in Canada (Don Mills, Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 241–51.

23 I. Hay, Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, 2nd Edition (Australia, Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 17. This study was a small-scale qualitative venture that used sev- eral integrated methods from oral (five semi-structured interviews, narratives), textual (news articles, academic studies, task force reports) to participatory methods (participant observa- tion at a workers’ rally). The group of participants in this study does not form a representa- tive sample of hotel housekeepers in the area. Instead, this research took a narrative analysis approach which used the narratives of the participants as empirical evidence.

24 Table 1 is extracted from my Ryerson University master’s thesis of 2008. Each participant was offered the choice of an alias to protect their identities. One participant chose to use her real name.

25 S. Elgersma, Immigrant Seniors’ Economic Security and International Social Security Agreements (Political and Social Affairs Division, Parliament of Canada, 2007), <http://www2.parl.gc.ca/ Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0745-e.htm>.

26 Ibid. The Canadian Pension Plan is a social insurance programme based on contributions and earnings. Anyone who has made at least one valid contribution is eligible to receive a monthly retirement pension starting at the age of 60.

27 Verma et al., An Industry at a Crossroads, op. cit., p. 17. 28 S. Tufts, ‘Renewal from different directions: the case of Unite-Here Local 75’, in P. Kumar and

C. Schenk, eds, Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian experiences (Canada, Broadview Press, 2006), pp. 201–19.

29 Ibid., p. 203. 30 S. Freeman, ‘Hotel staff need help: study’, Toronto Star (3 August 2008).

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013rac.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://rac.sagepub.com/

162

The Quality of Guest Comment Cards

An Empirical Study of U.S. Lodging Chains

Kenneth R. Bartkus Utah State University

Roy D. Howell Texas Tech University

Stacey Barlow Hills Utah State University

Jeanette Blackham Sinclair Oil Corporation

This study examines the quality of guest comment cards used by major U.S. lodging chains. To accomplish this objective, guidelines for comment card design were developed through a review of the relevant literature. The guidelines focus on eight issues: (1) return methods, (2) introductory statements, (3) contact information, (4) number of questions, (5) space for open comments, (6) number of response categories for closed-ended questions, (7) balanced versus unbalanced response categories for closed-ended questions, and (8) question wording. Using a sample of 63 lodging chains, the most common deviations from guidelines include a lack of secure return methods, the use of positively biased response categories, and insufficient writing space for open comments. To improve the quality of comment card feedback, these and other limitations should be corrected. Managerial implications and directions for future research are included.

Keywords: comment cards; lodging; guidelines; guest feedback; quality

What does it mean if a finding is significant, or that the ultimate statistical analytical techniques have been applied, if the data collection instrument gen- erated invalid data at the outset?

Jacoby 1978, p. 90

There is little doubt that customer feedback is an important component of the service management equa- tion in the travel and tourism industry. The significance of feedback has been reported in such diverse areas as theme parks (Chen 2003), airlines (Jonas 2002), cruise lines (Jainchill 2008; Travel Weekly 2005), lodging (Sampson 1996), business tours (Home 2005), business to business relationships in tourism (Weissmann 2003), tourist complaint behaviors (Gursoy, Ekiz, and Chi 2007; Schoefer and Ennew 2004; Zins 2002), and rural tourism (Opperman 1995). One industry expert even referred to customer feedback as the “breakfast of champions” (Gage, reported in Travel Weekly: The Choice of Travel Professionals 2006, p. 18) .

Although companies typically use more than one cus- tomer feedback mechanism (e.g., a combination of formal satisfaction surveys, focus groups, Web sites, personal inter- views, and/or toll-free numbers), one of the most ubiquitous is the comment card. These relatively short pencil-and- paper questionnaires allow customers to complete and return them at their convenience. In this sense, they represent the traditional comment card (which is distinguished from the recent introduction of electronic comment cards and other short surveys that are distributed through a company’s Web site or through an e-mail message; Litvan and Kar 2001; Tierney 2000). Traditional comment cards also differ from more formal feedback mechanisms such as customer satis- faction surveys in that they are passively solicited (Sampson 1996).

The popularity of the comment card method can be attributed to its ability to provide regular, timely feed- back at, or near, the time of service. Prasad (2003, p. 17), for example, maintains that comment cards represent a “tactical information tool for immediate problem solving and for monitoring service delivery quality.” In this

Journal of Travel Research Volume 48 Number 2

10.1177/0047287509332331 http://jtr.sagepub.com

hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Bartkus et al. / Guest Comment Cards 163

sense, comment cards help identify critical incidents (both good and bad) and serve to enhance the quality of service management (Scriabina and Fomichov 2005).

Unfortunately, some research has suggested that the quality of comment cards is often flawed. Gilbert and Horsnell (1998) examined U.K. hotels and found that the amount of writing space varied considerably from a sin- gle line to a full page. Wisner and Corney (1997) sur- veyed buffet restaurants and found that 18% of the cards contained 6 inches or less of writing space and one card had a total of only 2 inches. They also found that only 41% of the cards provided a secure return mechanism (e.g., locked collection box or postage return). Steintrager (2001) conducted an informal survey of fast-food restau- rants and found that many of the cards contained insuf- ficient space to write even a brief comment.

Are guest comment cards as flawed as the evidence seems to suggest? Perhaps, but the aforementioned research is largely exploratory and limited. First, two of the studies relied on small convenience samples in the restaurant sector. Specifically, both Wisner and Corney (1997) and Steintrager (2001) each sampled just 22 res- taurants. As such, their samples are probably too small to be meaningful, and, perhaps more important, they are not related specifically to the travel and tourism sector.

Second, while Gilbert and Horsnell (1998) utilized a cross-sectional sample of lodging establishments, they based their evaluation on guidelines drawn from formal customer satisfaction surveys. However, because response rates are low (Sampson 1996; Trice and Layman 1984) and because comment cards are subject to self-selection bias (Barksy 2001), they probably should not be used as a substitute for formal guest satisfaction surveys. Hence, the Gilbert and Horsnell study did not take into account the different objectives of guest comment cards, and, as a result, the guidelines may not have been suitable.

Since the validity of any customer feedback mechanism is contingent on whether or not the data collection instru- ment is properly designed, a better understanding of the quality of guest comment cards is needed. At a minimum, this involves two issues: (1) the development of guidelines that are appropriate for an evaluation of guest comment cards and (2) the use of a suitable sample.

With regard to issue 1, prior research has focused on such issues as general guidelines for formal question- naire design (e.g., Baker 2003; Webb 2000), guidelines for specific distribution formats, such as Web-based questionnaire design (e.g., Deutskens et al. 2004; Healey, Macpherson, and Kuijten 2005), and recommendations for developing questionnaires that measure a specific outcome, such as satisfaction with a cruise line (Testa, Williams, and Pietrzak 1998). Additional research has

also examined how questionnaire methods influence response outcomes (Cole 2005; Crompton and Tian-Cole 2001; Lankford and Buzton 1995). We could not, how- ever, identify a single study that outlined a set of guide- lines designed specifically for comment cards. Given the popularity of comment cards, this represents an impor- tant gap in the literature. We propose to address this issue by developing comment card guidelines adapted from a review of the established literature on questionnaire design and administration.

Issue 2 is addressed though a sample of comment cards obtained from the lodging industry. Lodging was selected for the analysis because it represents a major segment of the economy and has been examined in a multitude of travel research studies (e.g., Al-Sabbahy, Ekinci, and Riley 2004; Chen and Schwartz 2008; McIntosh and Siggs 2005; Oh, Fiore, and Jeoung 2007; Phillips and Louvieris 2005; Poria 2006; Sheehan, Ritchie, and Hudson 2007; Siguaw, Enz, and Namasivayam 2000; Thrane 2005; Yucelt and Marcella 1996).

We begin with a review of the scholarly literature as it pertains to the usefulness and design quality of comment cards. A set of formal guidelines for assessing comment card quality is then developed. After presenting the method of inquiry and analysis, we present the results and discuss their implications for service management in travel and tourism.

Literature Review

Scholarly research involving comment cards has focused on two primary issues: (1) usefulness and (2) design quality. We address each of these issues below.

The Usefulness of Comment Cards

The usefulness of comment card data has been widely examined. Much of the focus has been on the usefulness of the comments themselves. Manickas and Shea (1997), for example, conducted a content analysis of customer complaints at one property and found that resolution of service failures resulted in less satisfaction from guests than resolution of equipment failures. Shea and Roberts (1998) examined “guest room logs” (comment books) and found that virtually all of the remarks were positive, contradicting claims from others that soliciting com- ments asks people to be only negative (cf. Millete, as reported in Cebrzynski 2003, p. 66).

Pullman, McGuire, and Cleveland (2005, p. 342) examined comment cards from one hotel to demonstrate how qualitative comments from guests can be converted to quantitative data while at the same time “maintaining

164 Journal of Travel Research

the respondents’ meaning so that researchers are clear on the respondents’ intent.” In this way, they argued, manage- ment does not have to guess what the respondents actually mean when they rate their satisfaction 7 out of 10.

Banker, Potter, and Srinivasan (2005) examined the relationship between guest satisfaction (as measured by responses on comments cards) and subsequent changes in revenue and operating profit for a single hotel chain. Perhaps not surprising, they found that improvements in satisfaction were followed shortly by increases in reve- nue and profit.

Aside from an analysis of comments, other research- ers have examined some limitations of the comment card method of feedback. Sampson (1996), for example, reported evidence of self-selection bias, and Trice and Layman (1984) reported relatively low response rates. Each of these issues has been subsequently debated in the literature. Barksy (2001) and Perlik (2002), for example, argued that self-selection bias and low response rates mean comment card data are not valid because they cannot be generalized to the population of guests. Alternatively, Prasad (2003, p. 17) maintained that this would only be true if the purpose of comments cards was to generalize. He contends that comment cards only “serve as a tactical information tool for immediate prob- lem solving and for monitoring service quality and deliv- ery.” In this sense, it has been proposed that comment cards serve a useful purpose for guests who may wish to avoid complaining in person (Meyer, as reported in Ruggless 1994).

In sum, the literature has provided two major perspec- tives on comment card usefulness. On one hand, it has shown that comments can provide useful and important information that can be used to improve service quality and performance. On the other hand, there continues to be some disagreement regarding the role of comment cards, whether they should be interpreted as formal survey instruments or merely as a timely feedback mechanism for immediate problem solving. Overall, the literature sug- gests that although comment cards can provide useful information, they should not be used as a substitute for formal satisfaction surveys. Instead, they should be regarded as an opportunity (along with phone calls, per- sonal contact, e-mails, etc.) to receive timely feedback from customers at or near the time of experience.

The Quality of Comment Card Design

Although empirical evidence regarding the design quality of comments cards remains limited, some impor- tant insights have been provided from a few preliminary

studies. One of these relates to the use of return mecha- nisms. Wisner and Corney (1997), for example, found that while 55% of the cards in their survey provided for a secure return option (e.g., mail or “drop box”), 23% provided no instructions at all and another 22% asked the guest to return the card to a staff member (i.e., cashier or front desk). Steintrager (2001) also examined return mechanisms and found that “some” of the cards in her sample required customers to pay for return postage.

A second insight relates to the amount of space allo- cated for writing comments. In the Wisner and Corney (1997) study, 18% of the cards had 6 or fewer inches of writing space. In the Steintrager (2001) study, she reported a lack of sufficient writing space on many of the cards, although no further information on the meaning of “sufficient” was provided.

A third insight has involved the issue of question wording. Wisner and Corney (1997) found 23% of the cards in their sample contained at least one double ques- tion. One question asked, “Provide your assessment of the courtesy and welcome extended by the host persons and cashier on arrival and while being seated” (p. 114, emphasis added). Gilbert and Horsnell (1998) also found evidence of double questions in their study of 45 hotels in the United Kingdom. They reported an average of 1.2 double questions per card.

A fourth insight has been the length of comment cards, as measured by the number of questions. Gilbert and Horsnell (1998) found that approximately 73% had less than the recommended minimum of 40. It is important to note, however, that this standard was adopted from guide- lines established for formal satisfaction surveys and, as a result, is not directly applicable to comment cards.

In sum, while prior research has provided a useful foundation and some needed insights toward improving our understanding of the quality of comment cards, it appears that the scope of the analyses has been limited. The following section addresses this issue by proposing a formal set of guidelines for the analysis of comment card quality.

Development of Guidelines

A review of the literature reveals eight issues that need to be addressed in the design of a comment card: (1) return method and statement of confidentiality, (2) intro- ductory statement, (3) contact information, (4) number of questions, (5) space for open comments, (6) balanced response categories, (7) number of response categories, and (8) question wording.

Bartkus et al. / Guest Comment Cards 165

Guideline 1: Comment Cards Should Have a Secure Return Method and a Statement of Confidentiality

Industry observers have argued that the integrity of comment cards is enhanced when the return method is secure (Barksy 2001; Cawley 1998; Prasad 2003). The importance of a secure response mechanism is grounded in the notion that it helps ensure that the information will not be tampered with by any individuals other than those for whom it was intended.

To meet this guideline, a number of options are avail- able: (1) a postage-paid return to management and/or (2) a locked drop box in a convenient and readily accessible location (e.g., the hotel lobby). In addition, Lewis and Morris (1987) argue that cards should not be returned to the front desk because they might be discarded. The sug- gested alternative is to hand the card directly to the gen- eral manager (or guest relations officer).

Although a major advantage of mail is that it provides for added security, it extends the time lag between the delivery of the comment and any subsequent action. To help overcome this dilemma, it would make sense for comment cards to be designed so that guests have the option of returning the card to the “general manager,” returning it to a locked drop box, and/or placing it in the mail. With regard to mail returns, the literature is clear that the card should be addressed and include postage (Yammarino, Skinner, and Childers 1991).

Related to the issue of a secure response mechanism is the concept of confidentiality. Scholars in the area of research methods have noted that it is common practice to include a statement of confidentiality, especially when the identity of the respondent is known or can be easily identified (Hair, Bush, Ortinau 2003).

Adapting this principle to comment cards, a statement of confidentiality assures respondents that any other identifying information will not be used in conjunction with the responses. Since guest are often asked for iden- tifying information, the use of a confidentiality statement helps ensure that guests will be more likely to be candid with their comments.

Guideline 2: Comment Cards Should Have an Appropriate Introductory Statement

Survey protocol suggests that questionnaires should include a short introductory statement explaining their importance. Hair, Bush, Ortinau (2003, p. 468), for example, note, “One or two sentences must be included in any cover letters to describe the general nature or topic of the survey and emphasize its importance.” Although an introductory statement should probably not exceed

two sentences, this represents the ideal rather than abso- lute standard. A less rigid, but perhaps more reasonable, guideline would be an introductory statement of less than four sentences.

When writing an introductory statement, Parasuraman (1986) maintains that they should be concise, be objec- tive, and not lead the respondent to answer in a particular way. One way to measure this is through concepts adapted from the impression management literature. In particular, ingratiation (flattering statements about the guest), self-promotion (boasting about the lodging estab- lishment’s expertise), and exemplification (statements about the lodging establishment’s dedication to superior service) are examples of tactics that can serve to bias guest impressions.

Jones and Pittman (1982) note these tactics can influ- ence perceptions of likeability, competence, and dedica- tion, respectively. As such, they have the potential to influence perceptions of performance and satisfaction. In this regard, ingratiation would be evidenced by the pres- ence of flattering statements about the guest. For exam- ple, a statement such as “You are the most important person to us” would be regarded as ingratiation since it extends beyond a mere thank you and conveys a stronger impression. We believe that merely thanking a guest for staying at the hotel or for completing the questionnaire is simply standard protocol and not a form of impression management.

Self-promotion is defined as a statement that attests to the expertise of the lodging organization. Hypothetical claims such as “Our award-winning staff is here to help with your stay” would be regarded as self-promotion. Finally, exemplification is defined as any statement that conveys the image that the hotel is dedicated to provid- ing quality service. A statement such as “We work hard so that you may enjoy your stay” would be an example of exemplification.

While any or all of these tactics might be appropriate in promotional brochures, we question their use in a sur- vey instrument where they can bias impressions. Given that their use would not be accepted with any other form of surveying, their presence is viewed as compromising the quality of comment cards and, as such, should be avoided.

Guideline 3: The Card Should Provide an Opportunity for Guests to Provide Contact Information

The issue of contact information is critical when the purpose of the feedback is to assist in service recovery or employee evaluation. With regard to service recovery,

166 Journal of Travel Research

contact information allows the organization an opportu- nity to personally respond to the guest’s ideas, concerns, suggestions, or other comments. It also allows the organ- ization to validate the authenticity of the card, which is particularly important when the feedback is used for performance evaluations. In the absence of such valida- tion, the potential for employees (or others) to submit false data is heightened.

While there is no known guideline for what is appro- priate, it is reasonable to expect that a comment card should include space for the guest’s name and room number. Additional information such as date of stay and any other contact information (phone number, physical address, e-mail address, etc.) could also be useful, par- ticularly if the guest asks for a response. In such cases, it may make sense to ask for an e-mail address since it can be the most efficient means of responding.

The standard for formal surveys is to ask for contact information at the end of the questionnaire (Alreck and Settle 1995; Parasuraman 1986). It seems reasonable to expect the same of comment cards (Prasad 2003).

Guideline 4: The Number of Questions Should Be Moderate

A review of the literature on survey design reveals no formal or established guidelines specifying the appropri- ate range of questions that should be included on a com- ment card. However, some scholars have noted that shorter questionnaires are generally preferred to longer ones (Greer, Chuchinprakarn, Seshadri 2000). Sampson (1996) accentuates this position by arguing that since comment cards represent a passive data collection tech- nique that relies almost completely on consumer initia- tive, a survey of much length will adversely affect the response rate. In this regard, Deutskens et al. (2004) found in their study of Web-based surveys that short surveys generate a higher response rate.

In support of these positions, Prasad (2003) has argued that a range of 5 to 10 closed-ended questions is appropriate along with one general open-ended question. While 5 to 10 questions may be insufficient in some situ- ations, the range appears reasonable for most cases. Alternatively, a range of 50 to 60, as suggested by Gilbert and Horsnell (1998), seems excessive.

Finally, the use of a single open-ended question seems reasonable in most circumstances, although a combina- tion of questions could also be supported. For example, there could be questions addressing general comments, suggestions for improvements, problems that were encoun- tered, and things the guest found particularly enjoyable.

In addition, a hotel property might be interested in hear- ing ideas for improvement or what additional services guests might like to see added. Thus, a reasonable case can be made for more than one open-ended question, although this should be done with consideration of space limitations. Given that comment cards, by their nature, are not multipaged documents, it seems reasonable to conclude that by increasing the number of open-ended questions, the amount of available space for each ques- tion will decrease. Hence, the number of open questions should be moderate.

Guideline 5: There Should Be Sufficient Space for Open-ended Comments

Although specific guidelines for what constitutes “sufficient” have yet to be provided, Steintrager (2001) has argued that comments cards often have too little space, and Davies (2006) has argued that the space should be “sufficiently large.” Neither of these recom- mendations, however, provides any additional guidance.

One proposal would be to set the minimum space at no less than half the side of a standard-sized post card and, ideally, include space equal to or greater than one side. Figure 1 provides an illustration with six lines at 3.5 inches each for a total space of 21 inches. Although arbi- trary, this guideline has some intuitive appeal as a mini- mum standard and acknowledges that additional space is preferred. That is, information quality is more likely to be hampered by too little, rather than too much, space. Webb (2000), for example, has noted that when more lines are offered to respondents, they tend to write more. The question that has yet to be adequately addressed in the literature is how much space is optimal.

A final issue concerns the appropriate location for open- ended questions. Gilbert and Horsnell (1998) suggest

Comments _______________________________

_______________________________

Figure 1 Recommended Minimum Space (21 Inches)

Bartkus et al. / Guest Comment Cards 167

that the questions should be placed at, or near, the end of the comment card. Lehman (1985, p. 131) also suggests that open-ended questions should be restricted to the end of questionnaires to help “pick up any ideas the respond- ent holds or provide the respondent with a chance to voice his/her opinion on a subject of interest.” Others have sug- gested they be located at both the front and back end of the card. Johnson and Sieveking (1974, p. 776), for example, found that when open-ended questions are placed before and after multiple-choice questions, there were significantly more responses than either placement alone. Conversely, when only one location was used, the one positioned before the multiple-choice questions was found to elicit more “discrete ideas and response categories.”

Given that the presumed purpose of guest comment cards is to elicit open-ended responses, it is reasonable to suggest that these questions be positioned near the begin- ning of the comment card (i.e., after the introduction). A second open-ended section can also be included near the end to address other issues that the respondent feels were not covered.

Guideline 6: Response Categories for Closed- ended Questions Should Be Balanced

To maintain objectivity, scholars in the area of research methods have long maintained that response categories for closed-ended questions should be bal- anced so that there are an equal number of positive and negative categories (Hair, Bush, and Ortinau 2003; Lehman 1985; Zikmund 1989). This is true, of course, unless the responses are expected to be distributed at one end of the scale (Parasuraman 1986; Zikmund 1989). For example, if one were to sample only brand-loyal custom- ers, a positive balance for the response categories would make sense since it is unlikely these people would have a negative opinion.

A review of the hotel literature reveals, however, that some industry observers believe that comment cards encourage guests to be only negative. For example, Millete (as reported in Cebrzynski 2003, p. 66) contends that by using comment cards “you’re only asking people to be negative.” Alternatively, Goughnour argues that responses are mostly bimodel: “You only get the people who really like you, and those who had a really bad experience” (as reported in Nation’s Restaurant Review 2002, p. 4). In light of these opinions, we are led to con- clude that response categories should be balanced.

An example of balanced response categories would be,

Very good Good Average Poor Very poor

The options are balanced because there are two positive and two negative options. Note that the use of average is simply a neutral option and not a determining factor in whether the response categories are balanced. This is because the deciding issue is whether or not there are an equal number of positive and negative categories on either side of the neutral option.

An example of negatively balanced response would be,

Good Average Poor Very poor Awful

The response categories are unbalanced because three are in the negative direction and only one is in the posi- tive direction. To balance the response categories, “very good” and “excellent” would need to be added to the left side, resulting in a 7-point response option.

An example of a scale that is unbalanced in the posi- tive direction is,

Excellent Very good Good Average Poor

The options are not balanced because three are worded in a positive direction and only one is worded in a negative direction. To balance the response categories, “very poor and “awful” would need to be added on the right side.

Finally, the use of both “average” and “fair” within the same set of response options would not be appropri- ate since they both imply a relatively neutral position.

Guideline 7: There Should Be an Adequate Number of Response Categories

The conventional wisdom among measurement theo- rists is that there should be an adequate number of response categories. Too few categories (e.g., two or three) may not be enough to capture enough meaningful variance, and too many may increase variance without a corresponding increase in precision (Friedman and Amoo 1999).

While there is no consensus on what constitutes an adequate number, Lehman and Hulbert (1972) have rec- ommended a range of between 5 and 7, while Cox (1980) has recommended a range of 5 to 9. Friedman and Friedman (1986) found that in some situations an 11-point response range may produce more valid results, and, as such, they recommend a range of 5 to 11 points. To reflect these recommendations, we believe that fewer than 5 points is insufficient and more than 11 is excessive.

Critical to this guideline is whether or not there should be a neutral category. Scholars in research methods have shown that using a neutral category can significantly

168 Journal of Travel Research

increase the number of neutral responses (Kalton, Roberts, and Holt 1980; Presser and Schumann 1980). Others have argued that eliminating the neutral position might force a respondent to commit to a particular direc- tion when he or she is actually neutral about the issue (Tull and Hawkins 1993). To address this issue, we adopt the recommendation of Sudman and Bradburn (1982), who argue that a neutral position should be included unless a persuasive argument can be made to the con- trary. Since we cannot present such an argument, we argue that a neutral category is appropriate.

When using a neutral category, it has been suggested that a graded position between the two directions be used (Hernández, González-Romá, Drasgow 2004). For exam- ple, when a guest is asked to rate the quality of services, a middle point might be “average” or “fair” rather than “neither better nor worse.”

Guideline 8: Question Wording Should Conform to Generally Accepted Principles

Wording issues in question design have been studied for over 50 years (e.g., Baker 2003; Brennan 1997; Dillman 1978; Hall and Roggenbuck 2002; Hunt, Sparkman, and Wilcox 1982; Johnson, Bristow, and Schneider 2004; Payne 1951; Stynes and White 2006). While there is some variance in the way these authors describe wording errors, we find that Hunt, Sparkman, and Wilcox (1982) have provided reasonable recommenda- tions based on Payne’s (1951) seminal treatise The Art of Asking Questions.

First, questions should not be double-barreled. Double-barreled questions are those that include two issues within a single question. For example, the ques- tion “How do you rate our restaurant and food?” is dou- ble-barreled because it asks the respondent to provide a single evaluation for two categories. Second, questions should not use ambiguous terms; that is, they should not use terms that have multiple meanings. For example, “How do you rate the room amenities?” could be consid- ered ambiguous because an amenity can mean quite dif- ferent things to different people.

Third, questions should use appropriate vocabulary. Appropriate terms are those that have the potential to be well understood by all respondents. As such, colloquial phrases or industry jargon should be avoided. For example, asking respondents to evaluate the staff’s “can-do” attitude is probably not appropriate (which can also be considered “self-promotion”), nor is a question asking if the guest was pleased with the “Athenian décor” of the room (which may also be considered ambiguous to some respondents).

Fourth, questions should be neither loaded nor lead- ing. Both loaded and leading questions can serve to cue respondents to answer in a particular direction and, as a result, contribute to response bias. An example of a loaded questions would be, “Given our room rates are the lowest of any of our competitors, how would you rate the value of your stay?” It is loaded because it premises the question with a favorable statement. An example of a leading question would be, “Don’t you agree that our beds are comfortable?” It is leading because it encour- ages the respondent to answer in a positive direction. The literature has been clear in its prescription that leading and loaded questioning should be avoided.

With regard to the subject of open-ended questions, research has largely focused on the issue of wording neutrality. Sampson (1996, 616), for example, argued that complaint solicitations might encourage customers to “try to think up things to complain about when they otherwise would register not complaint.” Along a similar line, Brennan (1997) notes that since the tone of the question can adversely influence the direction of the response, a neutral or combined (i.e., balanced) format should be used.

Examples of neutral formats would be “Please com- ment” or “We welcome your comments.” An example of a combined cue would be something such as “Please comment on any experience you had with us that was particularly pleasing or displeasing.” In doing so, the researcher is cuing the respondent to comment from either direction (i.e., positive or negative). Questions that asked for only negative or positive responses are more likely to result in biased feedback and should be avoided.

We next set out to examine how well comment cards conform to these proposed guidelines.

Method

Selection of Sample

The sample for this study consisted of major U.S. lodging chains. Using a list provided by the Cornell School of Hotel Administration Web site (http://www .hotelschool.cornell.edu), we were able to identify a total of 81 lodging chains. Given the manageable size of the population, we decided to conduct a census rather than a sample. We contacted all 81 and found that 75 (or approximately 93%) used comment cards. An examina- tion of the cards revealed redundancies for 12 cases; that is, they used the identical card. These occurred with establishments that were part of a family of chains. After

Bartkus et al. / Guest Comment Cards 169

accounting for this redundancy, we were left with 63 dif- ferent comment cards. After the cards were collected, they were evaluated by the researchers using the guide- lines established for this study.

Evaluation Procedures

Evaluations for the majority of the guidelines were straightforward and not prone to subjective interpretation. For example, whether or not a comment card has a secure return mechanism was evident from explicit directions given on the card. Nonetheless, when evaluating guidelines with objective information, two or more of the researchers evaluated the cards in tandem so as to minimize the poten- tial for information loss or unintentional bias.

In cases where the evaluation involved a more subjec- tive analysis, such as the case with wording errors and impression management, two of the evaluators were given instructions on how to evaluate these guidelines. They then proceeded to code the data on an individual basis. The use of this multiple-coder procedure is par- ticularly important when evaluations require a poten- tially more subjective analysis, even in cases where established instructions are provided. The purpose is to determine if the same results would be obtained if differ- ent, but equivalently trained, evaluators assessed the same data.

With regard to the guidelines for wording errors and impression management, the evaluators were given cod- ing instructions included in the guidelines. The two evaluators then coded the cards individually and com- pared results. Where discrepancies occurred, the evalua- tors discussed the issue (sometimes involving a third trained evaluator) to resolve the difference. Altogether, the interrater consistency was greater than 95%.

Analysis and Results

Guideline 1: Return Method and Statement of Confidentiality

Table 1 presents the results for the analysis of return methods. As the table indicates, the majority of cards (52.4%) do not incorporate a secure response mechanism as proposed in the guidelines. The most common return method is simply to leave the card at the front desk (31.7%). Only 28.6% of the cards contained an appropri- ate secure option (defined as including either the option of a locked drop box or a mail option, or both). Cards that offered a mail option, but did not include postage, were considered only marginally acceptable since a lack of postage would hamper a response.

Guideline 2: Introductory Statements

The majority of cards (60.3%) contained fewer than four sentences, as recommended in the guidelines, and 76.2% had five or fewer. Somewhat surprising, there was a long tail in the distribution with one card containing a total of 14 sentences. Approximately 14% of the cards contained no statement whatsoever other than an identi- fication such as “comment card.”

With regard to acknowledgements, the results indicate that a majority of cards thanked the guest for staying at the hotel (i.e., 50.8%) and 39.7% thanked the guest for completing the comment card. Only one card (1.6% of the sample) provided an assurance of confidentiality, which read, “This information will be used solely for the purpose of ensuring the authenticity of this survey.”

The extent to which impression management tactics were used is presented in Table 2. Of the cards, 28 (approximately 44%) contained no evidence of impres- sion management. The most common example of impres- sion management was the use of exemplification, which was identified on 29 of the cards (46%). Representative

Table 1 Return Method

# of Cards %

Adequately met guideline Mail (return address with postage) 9 14.3 Locked drop box 1 1.6 Front desk or drop box 2 3.2 Mail (postage paid, with return address) 6 9.5 or front desk Subtotal 18 28.6 Marginally met guideline Mail (postage not paid, but with 3 4.8 return address) Mail (postage not paid, no return address) 3 4.8 or front desk Mail (postage not paid, but with return 1 1.6 address) or front desk Mail (postage not paid, no return address), 1 1.6 room, or front desk Manager or front desk 3 4.8 Front desk in sealed envelop, signed 1 1.6 across the seal Subtotal 12 19.0 Did not meet guideline Front desk 20 31.7 Front desk or room 6 9.5 Front desk or staff 2 3.2 Staff member 2 3.2 Hang on door 1 1.6 No instructions 2 3.2 Subtotal 33 52.4

170 Journal of Travel Research

examples include “We have only one job, to provide you with the best” and “We are committed to quality service.”

Ingratiation was found on eight cards (or approxi- mately 13%). Statements such as “You are the most important person” and “We are honored to serve you” were considered ingratiation. Self-promotion was identi- fied on only one card: “We welcome you with genuine hospitality and offer our exclusive ‘yes we can’ service attitude.” The statement is a form of self-promotion because it boasts of the establishment’s superior service. While the intent of these statements may have been genuine and benign, the effect may be to unnecessarily influence impressions and create bias in subsequent guest responses. As such, they are not appropriate on survey instruments.

Guideline 3: Contact Information

Three issues were addressed: (1) missing contact infor- mation, (2) location of contact information, and (3) whether or not there was an offer to respond. The results are pre- sented in Table 3 and indicate that 41.3% of the cards con- tained all of the relevant contact information. The most common omission from the remaining cards was not requesting an e-mail address. With regard to location, 82.5% placed the contact information at the end of the com- ment card, as recommended in the guidelines. Only 15.9% of the cards offered to respond to the guests’ comments.

Guideline 4: Number of Questions

Approximately 24% of the cards contained no closed- ended questions at all, reflecting what can be described as a “pure” comment card. At the other extreme, 35% of the cards exceeded the recommended upper limit of 10 closed-ended questions. One card contained more than 30 questions (i.e., 56 questions).

The analysis also revealed that 47.6% of the comment cards were consistent with the recommended guideline of one open-ended question. This means that a slight major- ity of the cards contained multiple open-ended items with nearly 13.0% including three or more. In the most extreme case, a card contained open-ended space after each closed- ended question (13 in all). The majority of open-ended questions were located at the end of the card (approxi- mately 83.0%), which is in agreement with standard sur- vey protocol but differs from the recommended guidelines for comment cards.

Guideline 5: Space for Open-ended Items

The task of measuring the space was complicated by the fact that many cards contained multiple open-ended questions. In addition, some cards did not include a gen- eral comment section and instead focused on specific issues (e.g., the quality of the room). In other cases, the open-ended item most relevant to a general comment reflected things that the establishment could do to improve the quality of service. In one case, the only open-ended question was in reference to an exceptional employee.

Table 2 Impression Statements—Representative Examples

Exemplification (n = 29 cards, 46.0%) We are committed to quality service Our staff works hard so that your stay is comfortable and productive We have only one job, to provide you with the best We want out guests to be completely satisfied We strive for 100 percent satisfaction We’re committed to making sure that you have a great guest experience We have a 100 percent satisfaction guarantee Making you stay a complete success is our goal We promise to make it right Ingratiation (n = 8 cards, 12.7%) We are delighted you chose us You are the most important person We are pleased to have the privilege of serving you We are honored to serve you You are the expert We value your visit The only thing that as important to us as your business is your opinion We’d love your feedback Self-promotion (n = 1 card, 1.6%) We welcome you with genuine hospitality and offer our exclusive

“yes we can” service attitude

Table 3 Contact Information

# of Cards %

What contact information missing? Nothing 26 41.3 E-mail 16 25.4 Phone number 5 7.9 Everything missing except room number 4 6.3 Address 3 4.8 Phone number and address 3 4.8 Phone number and e-mail 2 3.2 E-mail and address 2 3.2 All except name and room number 1 1.6 All—Hang on door 1 1.6 Location of contact information Front of card 7 11.1 Middle of card 4 6.3 End of card 52 82.5 Offer to respond? Yes 10 15.9 No 53 84.1

Bartkus et al. / Guest Comment Cards 171

To address these issues, we decided to adopt a stand- ard of reasonableness. In the most basic case, an item that simply read “comment” or something similar was obviously included in the analysis. However, in one case, we found that an item addressing “problems” con- tained much more space than the item reflecting “com- ments” (the available spaces were 43 and 4 inches, respectively). In this case, we included the more lengthy space, rationalizing that if a guest wished to express an opinion, he or she might naturally use the area with the most writing space. As such, we used the longest avail- able space when multiple open-ended questions were presented. In the vast majority of cases, however, the amount of writing space between alternative open-ended questions was marginal, meaning that the selection of the longer space did not introduce significant bias in the analysis.

Overall, slightly less than 40% of the cards met the recommended minimum standard of 21 inches of writing space. Almost 16% of the cards provided less than 11 inches of space, suggesting a significant deviation from the recommended guideline. Alternatively, 19% of the cards provided space that significantly exceeded the minimum guideline of 21 inches, with one card provid- ing more than 45 inches of space.

Guideline 6: Balanced versus Unbalanced Response Categories for Closed-ended Questions

Table 4 presents the results of the analysis of bal- anced versus unbalanced response options. Only 29.2% of the response options are balanced. The remaining 70.8% are unbalanced, with all but one skewed in a positive direction.

It is important to note that two cards used a 5-point scale with the following response categories: excellent, good, average, fair, poor. The response categories were rated as unbalanced because “fair” and “average” are considered middle (or neutral) categories, meaning that there were two positive categories (i.e., excellent and good) and only one negative category (i.e., poor) .

The use of semantic differential scaling can alleviate the difficulty of having to label each individual category (and the potential for unbalanced categories) but can still create bias if the anchor points do not reflect relevant opposite positions. For example, of the five examples, one was unbalanced because it used “excellent” at one end and “needs improvement” at the other. To be consid- ered balanced, the anchor “needs improvement” should be replaced with “poor.”

Guideline 7: Number of Response Points for Closed-ended Questions

Table 5 presents the results of the analysis for the number of response points. As the table indicates, 52.1% of the cards used less than the recommended minimum of five response points. More than 25% of the cards uti- lized only three response points.

Table 4 Balanced and Unbalanced Response Categories

# Cards

Unbalanced, 3-point responses Excellent–good–poor 1 Excellent–good–fair 2 Completely satisfied–satisfied–not satisfied 1 Exceeded expectations–met expectations–did 4 not meet expectations Very satisfied–satisfied–not satisfied 3 Better than expected–as expected–below 1 expectations Excellent–satisfactory–unsatisfactory 1 Unbalanced, 4-point responses Excellent–good–fair–poor 9 Poor–fair–good–excellent 2 Unbalanced, 5-point responses Excellent–very good–good–fair–poor 3 Excellent–good–average–fair–poor 2 Unbalanced, 6-point responses Superior–very good–good–satisfactory–fair 1 Average–outstanding (6-point anchor) 1 Balanced (4- and 5-point scales) Excellent–above average–needs 1 improvements–poor Very satisfied–somewhat satisfied–neither 2 satisfied not dissatisfied–somewhat dissatisfied–very dissatisfied Extremely satisfied–satisfied–neither satisfied 1 nor dissatisfied–dissatisfied–extremely dissatisfied Excellent–above average–average–needs 3 improvement–poor Semantic differential (balanced, except as noted) Unsatisfactory to outstanding (5-point anchor) 2 Extremely satisfied to extremely unsatisfied 1 (10-point anchor) Low to high (7-point anchor) 1 Poor to excellent (7-point with neutral midpoint) 1 Excellent to poor (5-point anchor) 1 Excellent to needs improvement (4-point, 1 unbalanced) Graphic (balanced, except as noted) Smile–neutral–frown 1 Smile–neutral–frown–big frown (unbalanced, 1 negative)

172 Journal of Travel Research

Guideline 8: Question Wording for Closed- and Open-ended Questions

Table 6 provides representative examples of wording errors for closed-ended questions. The results indicate that the most common errors involve the use of double- barreled questions. These were identified in 33 of the 48 cards that used closed-ended questions (68.8%). Ambiguous terms were found in 12 of the cards (25.0%). Inappropriate terms were identified in only 5 of the 48 cards. Leading questions were identified on only one comment card.

The analysis of wording for open-ended items revealed considerable variance. A representative sample of items is presented in Table 7. As the table reveals, 17 of the cards (approximately 27% of total) used a combination format as the primary open question. In some cases, the question was relatively lengthy. In others, it consisted simply of a series of cues (e.g., comments, suggestions, complaints).

Neutral wording was used on 26 of the cards (approx- imately 41%). These reflect the use of cues as simple as “comments” or phrases such as “your comments are appreciated.”

Negative cues were identified on a total of 13 cards (20.6%), and positive cues were identified on a total of nine cards (14.3%). In all, 11 cards (17.5%) included an additional question on how to improve the experience and/or what additional services or amenities the guest would like to see added, and 21 cards (33.3%) contained a question asking the guest to identify an exceptional employee. In one case, that was the only open-ended question on the card.

Discussion

This study is the first to systematically examine the quality of guest comment cards using guidelines expressly

Table 5 Number of Response Points

# of Points # of Cards %

2 1 2.1 3 13 27.1 4 11 22.9 5 18 37.5 6 2 4.9 7 2 4.9 10 1 2.1

Table 6 Representative Examples of Question Wording Errors

Double questions (n = 33 cards, 68.8%) Did you find the service to be friendly, professional, and courteous? Was the pool area clean and in good condition? Was maid service prompt and courteous? Ambiguous terms (n = 12 cards, 25.0%) Attitude of personnel How did we make you feel when you arrived? Did everything work properly? Inappropriate terms (n = 5 cards, 10.4%) Can-do attitude Ambience of spa Manner of telephone service Loaded or leading questions (n = 1 card, 2.1%) Was your complimentary hot breakfast delicious?

Note: N = 48.

Table 7 Representative Examples of Open

Question Wording

Combination of cues (n = 17 cards, 27.0%) Please comment on any feature, activity, service, or employee that

you feel needs our attention for improvement or recognition. Any other comments, suggestions, or complaints? Please comment on any feature, activity, service, or employee that

you feel needs our attention for improvement or recognition. Neutral cues—Basic (n = 26 cards, 41.3%)

Comments. Please share other comments or suggestions. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us? We would appreciate additional comments. We welcome your comments. How did we make you feel? How was your stay?

Positive cues (n = 9 cards, 14.3%) What did we do especially well? Overall, what did you like best about your stay with us? Is there something that made you stay particularly enjoyable?

Negative cues (n = 11 cards, 17.5%) Did you have any problems or concerns? Something not working? Please explain. Were there any problems with your stay?

How to improve the stay (n = 11 cards, 17.5%) Are there any additional services you would like to have avail-

able at the hotel? Is there anything that we should be doing better? Is there a service, facility, or amenity you would like added?

Employee recognition (n = 21 cards, 33.3%) Were the any employees that helped make your stay more enjoy-

able? Please tell us who they are, and how they were helpful so that we may recognize them.

If any members of our staff were especially helpful, tell us who they are and how they were helpful so that we may recognize them.

Bartkus et al. / Guest Comment Cards 173

developed for comment card design. While the overall results indicate a variety of quality concerns, we believe that most, if not all, of these can be easily addressed.

First, comment cards should include a secure return mechanism. It was somewhat surprising to find more than half of the cards lacked at least one of the preferred options (i.e., a locked drop box or postage-paid mail). A locked drop box provides a combination of security and the ability to respond in a more timely manner. Because of this, we believe it is the preferred option.

Second, while most of the introductory statements were concise, many contained wording that can poten- tially bias guest impressions. Exemplifying statements such as “We are committed to quality service” and “Making your stay a complete success is our goal” were the most common followed by ingratiating statements such as “You are the most important person” and “We are honored to serve you.” These are expected in promo- tional brochures but violate the objectivity standard for survey research (Parasuraman 1986; Sobel 1984). As such, they should be avoided.

About half of the cards expressly thanked guests for staying at the property, but fewer than half of the cards thanked them for completing the comment card. Both of these are standard protocol in survey research, and there is little justification for their omission on comment cards. Perhaps of greater concern is the fact that only one card assured confidentiality. This is contrary to the results of Sobel (1984), who found that 45% of the intro- ductory statements in his sample of formal survey instru- ments promised confidentiality. It may be, however, that because so many cards utilized nonsecure return mecha- nisms (e.g., front desk), it would have been difficult to include a promise of confidentiality. Nonetheless, there were many cards that did include a secure return mecha- nism, and only one made this promise.

A third issue of concern is the lack of an e-mail request in the contact information section. Given the increased importance that customers are placing on Internet access (Dunn and Gonzalez 2007), not asking for an e-mail address represents a missed opportunity. That is especially true if management actually intends to respond to the guest’s comments. Unfortunately, only 16% of the cards included an offer to respond. Again, this represents a missed opportunity that can be easily addressed.

Fourth, there appears to be an overuse of closed-ended questions in many of the cards. While the guideline sug- gests less than 11 questions, 35% of the cards that did use closed-ended questions exceeded this limit, with one card containing more than 50. The use of lengthy ques- tionnaires serves to only reduce the probability that

guests will complete the card and return it to manage- ment. We believe that cards should strive to limit closed- ended questions to the conservative side of the guideline (i.e., fewer than 5).

A fifth concern is the relative lack of writing space for open comments. The fact that the majority of cards had less than minimum of 21 inches of space and that almost 16% had less than 11 inches raises a question of whether they should even be called comment cards. We argue that the primary objective of comments cards is to solicit written comments, and, as such, a lack of adequate space represents a significant limitation and one for which there is little justification.

A sixth issue concerns question wording. Consistent with prior research in other areas (i.e., Wisner and Corney 1997), we found the use of double questioning to be rela- tively common. It may be that space restrictions contribute to the use of double questions. Nonetheless, double ques- tions violate wording standards and should be avoided. To address this issue, we argue that questions should reflect a general nature, such as, “How would you rate your stay?” Subsequent open-ended questions can then offer the guest an opportunity to explain their rating.

Seventh, the validity of closed-ended questions was further compromised by the use of unbalanced response options that were positively biased. This was unexpected given that some industry observers have noted that com- ment cards serve to provide guests only with an opportu- nity to complain (i.e., Millete, as reported in Cebrzynski 2003). Validity is also compromised by the fact that almost 30% of the cards had fewer than four response points for each question.

We would like to conclude by placing the results of this study in perspective. First, the analysis was restricted to major lodging chains operating within the United States. It may be that comment cards from smaller chains and independents will have different characteristics. Future research would want to examine this issue. An investigation in the global arena could provide additional insights with regard to language and culture. It is also important to note that the use of comment cards extends beyond the lodging. An analysis that incorporates com- ments cards from other areas of travel and tourism might provide additional insights.

Other issues related to comment card design should also be considered in future research. For example, are some paper weights and colors more appropriate than others? Also, is there an optimal size for the physical card? Finally, should there be guidelines for style and size of letter font?

Future research might also want to extend this research to an evaluation of electronic comments cards. It would be

174 Journal of Travel Research

interesting to evaluate not only the quality of electronic cards but also how they differ from traditional cards. A comparison between the two formats within the same organization might also provide important insights.

We would also like to note that while the foundational support for many of the guidelines is relatively strong (e.g., avoid double questions), other guidelines relied on more subjective interpretations (e.g., appropriate amount of writing space). As such, the guidelines should be interpreted as they are intended, as a reference to improve the quality of comment cards. To the extent that a designer has a logical reason to deviate from the guide- lines, this could be considered acceptable. In the end, however, the guidelines provide a basis for accountabil- ity, which we consider a worthwhile objective.

This study examined the quality of comment card design and not the quality of responses or how they are used by management. Although these issues have already been addressed by others, we believe more work is needed. We would argue that future research is needed to investigate how deviations from the proposed guidelines influence responses. For many of the guidelines, the answers have already been established (e.g., the use of doubled-barreled questions, the use of unbalanced response categories).

For others, additional research is needed. For exam- ple, does the use of ingratiation, self-promotion, and/or exemplification tactics bias comment card results? Similarly, how much space is optimal on a comment card? Does the lack of a secure (and/or confidential) return mechanism inhibit response rates? How does open-ended wording on questions influence responses?

Finally, and perhaps most important, how does man- agement view comment card feedback, and how does management respond to it? Some preliminary research has already been conducted, and the results are not all that encouraging. Specifically, Steintrager (2001) wanted to determine whether or not the restaurants in her study took the information on comment cards seriously. She com- pleted and returned each card in her sample with the com- ment, “It took longer to get what I ordered than I would have liked. I don’t usually complain, but I thought you should know” and included a name, a return address, and a phone number. After 18 days, the author had received one response. Wisner and Corney (1997) conducted a similar experiment where they wrote “Please call me for suggestions” on the back of 22 comment cards. They received only three calls. Each of these studies suggests that responding to feedback from comment cards may not be a high priority. As such, additional inquiry into the cause of this inattention would be helpful.

References

Alreck, P. L., and R. B. Settle (1995). The Survey Research Handbook. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Al-Sabbahy, H. Z., Y. Ekinci, and M. Riley (2004). “An Investigation of Perceived Value Dimensions: Implications for Hospitality Research.” Journal of Travel Research, 42 (3): 226-34.

Baker, M. J. (2003). “Data Collection—Questionnaire Design.” Marketing Review, 3 (3): 343-70.

Banker, R. D., G. Potter, and D. Srinivasan (2005). “Association of Nonfinancial Performance Measures with the Financial Performance of a Lodging Chain.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46 (4): 394-412.

Barksy, J. (2001). “One Can’t Base Management Decisions on Comment Cards.” Hotel and Motel Management, 216 (12, July 2): 19.

Brennan, M. (1997). “The Effect of Question Tone on Response to Open-ended Questions.” Marketing Bulletin, 8: 66-72.

Cawley, E. (1998). “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: How Public Comment Cards Can Improve Operational Effectiveness and Public Perception.” Assessment Journal, 5 (1): 54-58.

Cebrzynski, G. (2003). “Professor Comments on State of Marketing; Advice Given Suits Operators to a ‘T’.” Nation’s Restaurants, June 10, 66.

Chen, C., and Z. Schwartz (2008). “Timing Matters: Travelers’ Advanced-booking Expectations and Decisions.” Journal of Travel Research, 47 (1): 35-42.

Chen, A. (2003). “Customer Feedback Key for Theme Park.” eWeek, 20 (50): 58-59.

Cole, S. T. (2005). “Comparing Mail and Web-based Survey Distribution Methods: Results of Surveys to Leisure Travel Retailers.” Journal of Travel Research, 43 (4): 422-30.

Cox, E. P. (1980). “The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review.” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (4): 407-22.

Crompton, J. L., and S. Tian-Cole (2001). “An Analysis of 13 Tourism Surveys: Are Three Waves of Data Collection Necessary?” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (4): 356-68.

Davies, K. R. (2006). “Comment Card Critique.” DealerNews, 42 (8): 30.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley.

Deutskens, E., K. Ruyter, M. Wtzels, and P. Oosterveld (2004). “Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-based Surveys: An Experimental Study.” Marketing Letters, 15 (1): 21-36.

Dunn, G., and E. Gonzalez (2007). “Business Travelers Interested in Remote Check-in/out.” Hotel and Motel Management, 222 (16): 48-49.

Friedman, H. H., and L. W. Friedman (1986). “On the Danger of Using Too Few Points in a Rating Scale: A Test of Validity.” Journal of Data Collection, 26 (2): 60-63.

Friedman, H. H., and T. Amoo (1999). “Rating the Rating Scales.” Journal of Marketing Management, 9 (3): 114-23.

Gilbert, D., and S. Horsnell (1998). “Customer Satisfaction Measurement Practice in United Kingdom Hotels.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 22 (4): 450-64.

Greer, T. V., N. Chuchinprakarn, and S. Seshadri (2000). “Likelihood of Participating in Mail Survey Research.” Industrial Marketing Management, 29 (2): 97-109.

Gursoy, D., E. Ekiz, and C. Chi (2007). “Impacts of Organiza- tional Responses on Complainants’ Justice Perceptions and

Bartkus et al. / Guest Comment Cards 175

Post-purchase Behaviors.” Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 8 (1), 1-25.

Hair, J. F., R. P. Bush, and D. J. Ortinau (2003). Marketing Research within a Changing Information Environment. Boston: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.

Hall, T. E., and J. W. Roggenbuck (2002). “Response Format Effects in Questions about Norms: Implications for the Reliability and Validity of the Normative Approach.” Leisure Sciences, 24 (3): 325-37.

Healey, B., T. Macpherson, and B. Kuijten (2005). “An Empirical Evaluation of Three Web Survey Design Principles.” Marketing Bulletin, 16: 1-9.

Hernández, A., V. González-Romá, and F. Drasgow (2004). “Investigating the Functioning of a Middle Category by Means of a Mixed-measurement Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (4): 687-99.

Home, R. A. (2005). “A New Tune from an Old Instrument: The Application of SERVQUAL to a Tourism Service Business.” Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 6 (3-4): 185-202.

Hunt, S. D., R. D. Sparkman, Jr., and J. B. Wilcox (1982). “The Pretest in Survey Research: Issues and Preliminary Findings.” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (2): 269-73.

Jacoby, J. (1978). “Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review.” Journal of Marketing, 42 (2): 87-96.

Jainchill, J. (2008). “Cruising for Ideas.” Travel Weekly, 67 (17): 32-34.

Johnson, J. M., D. N. Bristow, and K. C. Schneider (2004). “Did You Not Understand the Question or Not? An Investigation Of Negatively Worded Questions in Survey Research.” Journal of Applied Business Research, 20 (1): 75-86.

Johnson, W. R., and N. Sieveking (1974). “Effects of Alternative Positioning of Open-ended Questions in Multiple Choice Questionnaires.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (6): 776-78.

Jonas, D. (2002). “Traveler Feedback Improves Supplier Performance.” Business Travel News, 19 (21): 8.

Jones, E. E., and T. S. Pittman (1982). “Toward a General Theory of Self-presentation.” In Psychological Perspectives in the Self, edited by J. Suls. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 231-63.

Kalton, G. J., J. Robert, and D. Holt (1980). “The Effects of Offering a Middle Response Option with Opinion Questions.” Statistician, 29 (March): 65-78.

Lankford, S. V., and B. Buzton (1995). “Response Bias and Wave Analysis of Mailed Questionnaires in Tourism Impact Assessments.” Journal of Travel Research, 33 (4): 8-13.

Lehman D. R. (1985). Market Research and Analysis. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Lehmann, D. R., and J. Hulbert (1972). “Are Three-point Scales Always Good Enough?” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (4): 444-46.

Lewis, R. C., and S. Morris (1987). “The Positive Side of Guest Complaints.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 27 (4): 13-15.

Litvan, S. W., and G. H. Kar (2001). “E-surveying for Tourism Research: Legitimate Tool or a Researcher’s Fantasy?” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (3): 308-14.

Manickas, P., and L. Shea (1997). “Hotel Complaint Behavior and Resolution: A Content Analysis.” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (2), 68-73.

McIntosh, A. J., and A. Siggs (2005). “An Exploration of the Experiential Natural of Boutique Accommodation.” Journal of Travel Research, 44 (1): 74-81.

Nation’s Restaurant Review (2002). “Market Research in the Fast Lane, Part 2.” 36 (20): 4.

Oh, H., S. M. Fiore, and M. Jeoung (2007). “Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism Applications.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (2): 119-32.

Opperman, M. (1995). “Holidays on the Farm: A Case Study of German Hosts and Guests.” Journal of Travel Research, 34 (1): 63-67.

Parasuraman, A. (1986). Marketing Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Payne, S. L. (1951). The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Perlik, A. (2002). “If They’re Happy, Do You Know It?” Restaurants and Institutions, 112 (23): 65-68.

Phillips, P., and P. Louvieris (2005). “Performance Measurement Systems in Tourism, Hospitality, and Leisure Small Medium-sized Enterprises: A Balanced Scorecard Perspective.” Journal of Travel Research, 44 (2): 201-11.

Poria, Y. (2006). “Assessing Gay Men and Lesbian Women’s Hotel Experiences: An Exploratory Study of Sexual Orientation in the Travel Industry.” Journal of Travel Research, 44 (3): 327-34.

Prasad, K. (2003). “A Good System Can Resolve Guest-comment- card Confusion.” Hotel and Motel Management, 218 (19): 17.

Presser, S., and H. Schumann (1980). “The Measurement of a Middle Position in Attitude Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 44 (Spring): 108-23.

Pullman, M., K. McGuire, and C. Cleveland (2005). “Let Me Count the Words.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 46 (3): 323.

Ruggless, R. (1994). “Customer Comments: A Gold Mine of Information.” Nation’s Restaurant News, 28 (46): 11-12.

Sampson, S. (1996). “Ramification of Monitoring Service Quality Through Passively Solicited Customer Feedback.” Decision Sciences, 27 (4): 601-22.

Schoefer, K., and C. Ennew (2004). “Customer Evaluations of Tour Operators’ Responses to Their Complaints.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17 (1): 83-92.

Scriabina, N., and S. Fomichov (2005). “6 Ways to Benefit from Customer Complaints.” Quality Progress, 38 (9): 49-54.

Shea, L., and C. Roberts (1998). “A Content Analysis for Post- purchase Evaluation Using Customer Logbooks.” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (4): 68-73.

Sheehan, L., J. R. Ritchie, and S. Hudson (2007). “The Destination Promotion Triad: Understanding Asymmetric Stakeholder Interdependencies among the City, Hotels, and DMO.” Journal of Travel Research, 46 (1): 64-74.

Siguaw, J. A., C. A. Enz, and K. Namasivayam (2000). “Adoption of Information Technology in U.S. Hotels: Strategically Driven Objectives.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (2): 192-201.

Sobel, J. (1984). “The Content of Survey Introductions and the Provision of Informed Consent.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 48 (4): 788-93.

Steintrager, M. (2001). “It’s Gall in the Cards.” Restaurant Business, 100 (10): 56-58.

Stynes, D. J., and E. M. White (2006). “Reflections on Measuring Recreation and Travel Spending.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (1): 8-16.

Sudman, S., and N. M. Bradburn (1982). Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Testa, N. R., J. M. Williams, and D. Pietrzak (1998). “The Development of the Cruise Line Job Satisfaction Questionnaire.” Journal of Travel Research, 36 (3): 13-19.

176 Journal of Travel Research

Thrane, C. (2005). “Hedonic Price Models and Sun-and-beach Package Tours: The Norwegian Case.” Journal of Travel Research, 43 (3): 302-8.

Tierney, P. (2000). “Internet-based Evaluation of Tourism Web Site Effectiveness: Methodological Issues and Survey Results.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (2): 212-19.

Travel Weekly (2005). “Survey: Cruisers Value the Itinerary Above All.” 64 (18): 12-12.

Travel Weekly: The Choice of Travel Professionals (2006). “Stay Fit, Keep Listening” 1841: 18.

Trice, A. D., and W. H. Layman (1984). “Improving Guest Surveys.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 25 (3): 10-13.

Tull, D. S., and D. I. Hawkins (1993). Marketing Research: Measurement and Methods. New York: Macmillan.

Webb, J. (2000). “Questionnaires and Their Design.” Marketing Review, 1 (2): 197-218.

Weissmann, A. (2003). “Tales from the Complaint Department.” Travel Weekly, 62 (10): 81.

Wisner, J. D., and W. J. Corney (1997). “An Empirical Study of Customer Comment Card Quality and Design Characteristics.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9 (3): 110-15.

Yammarino, F. J., S. Skinner, and T. Childers (1991). “Understanding Mail Survey Response Behavior.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 55 (4): 613-39.

Yucelt, U., and M. Marcella (1996). “Services Marketing in the Lodging Industry: An Empirical Investigation.” Journal of Travel Research, 34 (4): 32-38.

Zikmund, W. (1989). Exploring Marketing Research. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Zins, A. H. (2002). “Consumption Emotions, Experience Quality and Satisfaction: A Structural Analysis for Complainers versus Non- Complainers.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 12 (2/3): 3-18.

Kenneth R. Bartkus is a professor of marketing and the executive director of The Research Group in the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University.

Roy D. Howell is the J. B. Hoskins professor of marketing in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University.

Stacey Barlow Hills is a clinical assistant professor of market- ing and codirector of the Huntsman Scholars Program in the Jon M. Huntsman School of Business at Utah State University.

Jeanette Blackham is a marketing brand integration coordi- nator at Sinclair Oil Corporation in Salt Lake City.

blog22

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.