Matching Items (2)
Description
Branding and brand management have been top management priorities in the hotel industry. Some researchers have concluded that strong branding would be an efficient way for hotels and hotel chains to differentiate themselves from each other. Recent studies have focused on the establishment of a brand equity model and the relevant causal relationships of the model. Most of these studies have used types of desirability scales examining the importance of individual factors in measuring brand equity. However, they ignore the trade-offs that affect and characterize choice. Particularly, the personal decision process implied by the hierarchical brand equity model is absent. This study proposed two alternative measures of brand equity, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and conjoint analysis (CA), to address these limitations. The AHP and the CA were compared using several validity measures to aid in selecting efficient methods. This study examined the validity of AHP and CA under two data collection methods applied to hotel branding: paper-based survey and online survey. Result showed that the AHP data collection methods were easier, as well as with respect to saving time and costs. Results also indicated that the AHP is equivalent to the CA with respect to predictive accuracy. Practical differences for hotel branding in attribute preferences were clearly observed between the AHP and the CA. The AHP results were consistent with previous studies by awarding high importance to perceived quality and brand loyalty and lower importance to brand awareness and brand image. Managerial implications were provided for results. In terms of practicality in data collection, the study results revealed that the data gathered online leads to a slightly lower internal and predictive validity. A limitation of this study was that the two methods were not perfectly comparable. Nevertheless, the validity of both AHP and CA seems satisfactory for both methods. The study results also offer useful perspectives to consider when choosing between the two methods, as well as between AHP and CA.
ContributorsLee, Seung-Hyun (Author) / Tyrrell, Timothy (Thesis advisor) / Uysal, Muzaffer (Committee member) / Andereck, Kathleen (Committee member) / Nyaupane, Gyan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
This paper is a research study of the market for fine art. The art market describes the collective ecosystem of artists, sellers and buyers creating, selling and buying art. A literature review was conducted with the purpose of understanding why art is valuable. This research states that there are three primary categories of value that apply to art: Financial, Signal and Quintessential. Financial value refers to the monetary value of art. Signal value refers to the social value of owning or creating well-known art. Quintessential value describes art's ability to elicit feelings and ideas from those who engage with the art. A hypothesized model of the art market was created that associated the three entities of the art market with the three value types. Two research studies were conducted that analyzed the ways that these three value types exist in the art market. Based on the findings of the research, it was determined that all three-value types influence each entity. However, the three value types rank in terms of overall importance and impact on the entities. This new model of a three-tiered value type model applies to consumer preferences in the market for luxury items.
ContributorsBiondo, Matthew Joseph (Author) / Gray, Nancy (Thesis director) / Pomilio, Mark (Committee member) / Department of Information Systems (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Department of Supply Chain Management (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12