The motivations to choose Airbnb
The aggregate results regarding respondents’ motivations to choose Airbnb demonstrate the broad range of motivations that draw guests to the service. The results offer important insights into the relative significance of different motivations, while simultaneously demonstrating Airbnb’s unique value proposition, as consistent with the notion of disruptive innovation. The results therefore provide critical knowledge for tourism accommodation providers both inside and outside of the sharing economy. First, the results of the exploratory factor analysis will be discussed in terms of the structure of motivations that was revealed. Next, the individual motivations will be explored in greater detail, roughly organized by the strength of agreement that the respondents indicated. The results also included numerous group comparisons by their motivation factor scores, but this analysis was intended primarily to offer some initial indications of group differences to help inform the subsequent profiling of the different market segments. Consequently, the discussion of how different motivations were associated with different groups will be reserved for the latter discussion of the segment profiles.
The structure of the motivations
The list of potential Airbnb motivations was developed with 17 items pertaining to six original proposed dimensions – Price, Functional attributes, Unique and local authenticity, Novelty, Bragging rights, and Sharing economy ethos. The exploratory factor analysis resulted in the items being grouped somewhat differently. To begin, neither the ‘price’ nor the ‘location convenience’ items correlated strongly enough with any other items to be included in the factor analysis, suggesting these motivations are independent of the other motivation items that were considered.
The first factor extracted, explaining a very large portion of the total variance, was Interaction. This factor consisted of two items, ‘interaction with host/locals’ and ‘local info/tips from host,’ which had previously been included in the Unique and local authenticity and Functional attributes dimensions, respectively. Although this factor had not been foreseen in the original dimensions, the pairing of these two items is logical because they both involve an element of interaction with one’s host, and host interaction can vary dramatically between Airbnb rentals depending upon whether or not the host is present during the rental period. This key distinction between different Airbnb accommodations likely explains why this factor explained such a large share of the total variance. This factor result also suggests that interaction with locals is conceptually distinct from the broader motivation of authenticity-seeking, even though local interaction is frequently seen as a component of tourism authenticity (e.g., Conran, 2006; Kontogeorgopoulos, 2003).
|
|
|
The second factor, Home benefits, is focused on items related specifically to staying in a home – ‘household amenities,’ ‘homely feel,’ and ‘large space.’ This association is therefore quite understandable and, in fact, these items had initially been proposed as forming part of a single dimension. However, the original dimension, Functional attributes, was broader in scope than the resulting Home benefits factor, with the Functional attributes dimension also including ‘location convenience’ and ‘local info/tips from host.’ As was previously described, ‘location convenience’ was revealed to be independent of the other motivation items, and ‘local info/tips from host’ was included in the Interaction factor. Again thinking about the different types of Airbnb accommodations, it is logical that the ‘local info/tips from host’ item would belong to the Interaction factor instead of the Home benefits factor, as tourists looking for the benefits of a home would tend to be renting an entire home, meaning there would be limited interaction with the host.
The third factor, Novelty, grouped together the three novelty-seeking items based on Lee & Crompton’s (1992) novelty-seeking scale. This grouping provides further confirmation that these three concepts represent part of a larger novelty-seeking construct. This result also supports the use of this scale and construct in research on tourism accommodation choice, even though it has primarily been used in research on more general tourism topics. The single Bragging rights (‘experience to talk about’) item also was included in this factor. This connection between novelty and travel bragging is directly reminiscent of the recognition within the diffusion of innovations literature that social prestige can motivate innovation adoption (Rogers, 2003). This result quite reasonably suggests the uniqueness of Airbnb accommodations contributes to both the novelty of the experience (which is sensible because Airbnb’s non-standardization means each listing will be somewhat novel), and to the authenticity of the experience (which is sensible because Airbnb accommodations’ uniqueness should contribute towards their perceived authenticity).
|
|
|
The fourth factor, Sharing economy ethos, was identical to the Sharing economy ethos dimension originally proposed. This result suggests the three included items – ‘money to locals,’ ‘environmentally friendly,’ and ‘philosophy of Airbnb’ – do indeed form part of a broader construct related to the ethos of collaborative consumption, as described by Botsman and Rogers (2010), Chase (2015), and others. Moreover, these results parallel those of Tussyadiah (2015), who grouped several similar items into a “Sustainability” factor, so together they give further support to the notion of this construct.
Finally, the fifth factor, Local authenticity, combined the ‘authentic local experience’ item with the ‘non-touristy neighbourhood’ item, as had been the case in the original Unique and local authenticity dimension (that also included the ‘unique (non-standardized)’ and ‘interaction with host/locals’ items). This association is quite logical, because a non-touristy neighborhood should contribute towards the experience of local authenticity, as demonstrated in research highlighting how perceived authenticity is often associated with visiting areas not frequented by tourists (e.g., Bott, 2015; Maitland, 2013; Week, 2012). 5.2.2. The individual motivations
Price
Airbnb’s comparatively low cost was easily the most strongly agreed with motivation. This importance is very consistent with the concept of disruptive innovation, as lower cost is arguably the most quintessential attribute of a disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997) and it should play a primary role in determining demand for disruptive innovations (Adner, 2002). Also, this finding is consistent with other research on Airbnb (Nowak et al., 2015), PSRs (Tussyadiah, 2015), and the sharing economy more generally (Eckhardt & Bardhi, 2015; Hamari et al., 2015). Together, these studies suggest that Airbnb choice is driven first and foremost by the simple desire for cost savings. Airbnb, therefore, should be perceived by traditional accommodations as a low-cost competitor. More broadly, these findings further demonstrate that, despite all of the sharing economy rhetoric regarding ideals like sustainability and local communities (e.g., Botsman & Rogers, 2010; Chase, 2015), it is the basic desire to spend less money that is often paramount.
|
|
|
The importance of low cost also raises questions regarding some recent analyses indicating that in many destinations Airbnb rates are higher than hotel rates (Bird, 2016; Lane & Woodworth, 2016). (As will be discussed later, this study’s respondents also on average viewed their Airbnb accommodations as cheaper than even budget hotels/motels.) One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that Airbnb guests are erroneously overestimating hotel rates, and therefore wrongly believing they are saving money with Airbnb. However, this explanation seems unlikely, as the internet has created such cost transparency with tourism accommodation. A seemingly more likely explanation is that the analyses comparing rates paid for Airbnb accommodations with rates paid for hotel accommodations are confounded by a number issues – the hotel market still dwarfs the Airbnb market. Also, what is most important is not the average overall accommodation rates, but the comparative rates of the “consideration set” of hotels that Airbnb users look at. In other words, regardless of how the average prices compare, this study suggests users are often choosing Airbnb because it is a more economical option than their likely alternatives. It is also worth noting that the referenced price comparison analyses are based on data extracted by third parties from the Airbnb website, and such extractions will involve some degree of error. For example, the city boundaries used for the Airbnb and hotel listings may not be identical, and it is doubtful that the Airbnb data extraction can take into account weekly and monthly discounts that many hosts offer.
|
|
|
This cost discussion evokes the broader idea of “value” – “an overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given” (Zeithaml, 1998, p. 14). It is quite possible for a product to offer better value even with a higher cost. In fact, this is the explanation Lane and Woodworth (2016) propose for the high rates they found for Airbnb, despite the common perception of it as inexpensive. However, the present study deliberately focused on “cost” rather than “value” in an attempt to avoid such ambiguity, and the present study’s separate survey question asking respondents to compare their most recent Airbnb price with the prices of hypothetical nearby hotels of different classes further supports the notion that Airbnb accommodations are indeed comparatively inexpensive. The implications of this distinction are significant, as the “value” explanation suggests that (apparently cheaper) hotels could best respond to the threat of Airbnb by raising prices to pay for additional amenities, whereas the “consideration set” explanation suggests that, in line with the concept of disruptive innovation, (apparently more expensive) hotels have overshot customer demands and may need to reduce prices by cutting back on services and amenities.
Location convenience
Location convenience was the second most strongly agreed with motivation to choose Airbnb, and this importance is consistent with findings from the Morgan Stanley study (Nowak et al., 2015), some Airbnb economic impact reports (Airbnb, 2014j, 2015f), and Tussyadiah and Zach’s (2015) examination of PSR (and hotel) reviews. These consistent findings are fairly persuasive regarding the importance of this motivation, yet they are perhaps unexpected given that Airbnb accommodations tend to be scattered in residential neighbourhoods rather than clustered like hotels in a downtown tourism core. In many ways, it would make much more sense if Airbnb guests tended to view location convenience as a drawback of Airbnb, rather than a reason to choose it. As Tussyadiah and Zach (2015) found, even though many Airbnb guests may be pleased with the location of their Airbnb accommodation, this opinion appears to frequently focus on the general ambiance of the neighbourhood rather than with convenience, which was more associated with hotels.
One possible explanation for this finding is that Airbnb accommodations do indeed frequently offer a more convenient location than traditional alternatives. Many tourists may find it most convenient to stay in a particular area outside of the tourism core, perhaps to be near a family member, an event site, or a particular neighbourhood of interest. Such areas may not be well served by hotels, but because Airbnb accommodations are so scattered there will likely be some options in the vicinity. A second possible explanation is that perceived convenience is not restricted to being in a downtown tourism core. Airbnb guests may find residential areas to be particularly convenient because they can provide easy access to public transportation and options for restaurants, supermarkets, and shops that are preferred to what can be found in a more touristfocused area. Finally, it is again possible that tourists’ consideration sets help explain this motivation, as the most conveniently located accommodations may be hotels outside of one’s price range, whereas the more economically priced hotels (in one’s consideration set) are not located in convenient areas.
Home benefits
Following location, access to household amenities was the next most strongly agreed with motivation, and agreement was also fairly strong with the desire for a homely feel and a large amount of space. This importance is consistent with findings from the Morgan Stanley Airbnb study (Nowak et al., 2015) and the Phocuswright PSR study (Quinby & Gasdia, 2014). The importance of these attributes underscores a key distinction between Airbnb accommodations and hotels. Such disparate characteristics have led some to see Airbnb as a distinct product, more aligned with traditional vacation rentals or homestays, which does not directly compete with hotels (e.g. Baker, B., 2015; Grant, 2013a). However, the creation of a distinct value proposition is completely in accord with the notion of disruptive innovation, which deems such unique value propositions as particularly challenging for incumbent competitors, rather than as evidence that the innovation and the incumbent product are vying for different customers.
Local authenticity
Agreement was relatively strong with both items related to having an authentic local experience, although these agreement scores were still notably lower than for ‘low cost,’ ‘location convenience,’ or ‘household amenities.’ The importance of local authenticity supports the suggestion by both Guttentag (2015) and Lamb (2011) that authenticity is a key motivator of Airbnb choice, and it is reminiscent of the importance of authenticity for some other non-hotel forms of accommodation like B&Bs and CouchSurfing (e.g., Bialski, 2011; Chen, 2011; Stringer, 1981). The similar levels of agreement with both the general ‘authentic local experience’ item and the ‘non-touristy neighbourhood’ item highlight an important benefit (besides convenience) of Airbnb’s location in residential neighbourhoods. Again, these results demonstrate the unique value proposition that Airbnb is offering relative to hotels.
The motivation to use Airbnb for an authentic local experience also underscores the strong desire for authenticity among many tourists and consumers more broadly. Indeed, Airbnb serves as a novel example of this broader phenomenon, which is relevant to countless industries inside and outside of tourism. Certainly not every Airbnb guest is on a quest seeking authenticity, but the apparently common desire to use Airbnb to access seemingly more authentic “back regions” provides key insight for tourism marketers looking to understand Airbnb users. Most directly, hotels arguably need to improve their ability to provide authentic local experiences. Indeed, the industry has apparently begun recognizing the disadvantage of its commodification, and is now compensating by launching new brands and by adopting boutique and independently branded properties with more local flavour (e.g., Barnes, 2014; Levere, 2011). For example, Hyatt Hotels recently launched both a “Centric” brand of hotels that provides “an authentic entryway into the destination” (Hyatt, 2015), and an “Unbound” brand of independent hotels that will have “a unique personality specific to their destination” (Oates, 2016b). Likewise, Radisson recently launched a “Red” brand of hotels for which each property is decorated uniquely by local artists (Birkner, 2016). Also, as Airbnb is increasingly integrated into the formal tourism economy, it will likely form marketing partnerships with other tourism enterprises like attractions and transportation providers. Such enterprises will benefit most from their Airbnb partnerships by recognizing the importance of local authenticity for many Airbnb users.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
There are two main questions in research development process: what are methodologies and methods used to tackle the research phenomenon and how these choices are evaluated and applied (Crotty, 1998). The following section will answer the previous questions by presenting the research methodology in three main steps: the methodological approach, data generation and data analysis.
An interpretivism approach
In scientific research, there are two main perspectives on seeking for knowledge: positivism and interpretivism. Different view points lead to different methodology of research. The choice of methodology is grounded by the theoretical perspective of author based on research assumptions and goal. These underlying philosophical assumptions include belief about the nature of reality and social beings (Ontological Assumptions), and of what constitutes knowledge (Epistemological Assumptions) (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988).
Positivism perspective assumes reality is a single, objective existence and independent from human opinion. Reality is a combination of different parts and is fragmented so that it could be measured and observed. Positivists adopt a deterministic view on human behavior so that individuals behave reactively in response to external forces. The primary purpose of research is to develop the general rules of a current phenomenon to predict future phenomena. Positivists strive to search for cause and effect and to figure out the links between different factors for the research phenomenon. The aim is to find generalized rules for it. The role of researchers is independent from the study objects so that it does not interfere with or influence the general rules (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988).
Conversely, according to interpretivism perspective, reality is mental and perceivable. Human create theories and concepts to explain the world. Reality is social construct dependent upon the context and varies according to human's perspectives. Therefore, reality is an interdependent system researchers have to observe holistically. For example,customer behavior differs according to the purchasing context. Researchers observe entirely different customer behavior when shopping in shopping malls versus online stores because of the purchasing context (direct - online). Interpretivists adopt a voluntaristic view on human behavior whereby individuals actively create things and interact to impact outside environment. Interpretivism perspective views reality understanding as an open-ending process rather than an end result. The research basically aims to provide a proper understanding of current phenomenon within its context. The current understanding could influence, instead of predicting, future phenomena because the context has changed (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988). In other words, “interpretivists seek to determine motives, meanings, reasons, and other subjective experiences that are both time- and context- bound” (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988, p. 511). Interpretivists seek to generate particular knowledge within a specific context to improve knowledge of the phenomena. The role of researchers is to involve and interact directly with research objects to gain a holistic experience (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988).
The author adopts the view of interpretivism to study customer-perceived value in the context of sharing economy because of three main reasons. Firstly, sharing economy is a social phenomenon. Social sciences such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology are culturally derived and historically situated (Crotty, 1998). Current understanding of the world is developed by humans, therefore, influenced by human awareness. It is difficult to make objective observations when studying social phenomena, because observations are influenced by personal value, theory and subjective interpretation (Anderson, 1983). Secondly, interpretivism helps to uncover customer value as a holistic experience (Holbrook, 1996). Interpretivists put the research phenomenon into its context and try to develop a particularistic understanding. The roles of individuals are emphasized because human beings actively interact with the external factors. Similarly, customer value is regarded as a context-based phenomenon and depends on individual preference. Consequently, defining a general rule or law to fully describe customer value is unrealistic. Thirdly, customer value does not embed in the object or the subject but in the mutual interaction (Holbrook, 1996). This fact highlights an important factor of being the active role of individuals in the interaction process. The author, to achieve research purpose of identifying customer value in the context of sharing economy, is required to 44 carefully observe and interpret individual perceptions within the interaction process. Therefore, due to the social nature of research phenomenon, the holistic aspect of applied theory and the research purpose, intepretivism is a proper research strategy to study sharing economy as a research phenomenon. The study aim is to explore and identify customer value in the context of sharing economy. Choosing interpretivism as research strategy is rooted in the purpose of this study. Regarding ontological assumptions, according to interpretivism approach, customer value is considered as a holistic and interdependent notion. Value of sharing economy toward customers is constructed by different inter-related factors. These factors include customer perceptions and the characteristics of sharing economy itself. Customers play an important role in creating value. If value within this context is a reality, its construct is actively created by customers. This holistic and subjective nature of customer value has been confirmed in previous study (Gallarza et al., 2011; Holbrook, 1994; Rintamäki et al., 2007). Regarding epistemological assumptions, the interpretivism approach is focus on generating particularistic knowledge. In other words, purpose of this study is to understand a specific customer value in the context of sharing economy.
The study’s aim is to explore and identify a social construct in a new context rather than define cause and effect or the relationship between different factors. Moreover, researcher following the interpretivism approach will involve and interact with the study object. Gummesson (2003, 2005) argues that research is always interpretive and emphasizes the role of researcher in the research process (Gummesson, 2003, 2005). Customers create perception of sharing economy value through their experience. The value is communicated through their stories. The researcher’s role is as an interpreter; to transfer the customer story details into meaningful concepts. Therefore, interpretivism approach is a suitable research strategy to study customer value in the context of sharing economy.
Qualitative method
The primary purpose of this research is to explore and analyze customer perceived value in the sharing economy. The qualitative method is chosen to enter into customer's perspective and uncover their experience when using Airbnb. Within social research 45 disciplines, explaining human behavior in numbers and figures is challenging. A qualitative method helps to enhance and sharpen our understanding of social world (Hancock, Ockleford, & Windridge, 2007). Besides, the obstacles of using qualitative research is its validity and reliability which researchers are typically criticized (Alam, 2005). The research process solves this problem by following a predefined framework to assure the validity and credibility of qualitative research. Processes and procedures are transparent so that readers could evaluate the trustworthiness of collected data and coherence of conclusions.
To answer the research questions, in-depth interviewing is applied as a qualitative tool to collect empirical data. In-depth interview is defined as a “qualitative research technique that involves conducting intensive individual interviews with a small number of respondents to explore their perspectives on a particular idea, program, or situation” (Boyce & Neale 2006, p. 3). Researchers consider the interview method as an expensive and time-consuming data collection technique (Tuten & Urban, 2001). However, researchers widely use the interview method, in qualitative research, within the consumer context. Reason for this widely use is that by interview method researchers could obtain richness description of research phenomenon through detailed and open discussion. A richness description by interview method is aligned with the main purpose of the research which is to identify a predefined concept of customer value in a new context of sharing economy. Particularly, interviewers could observe the research phenomenon from respondents’ perspectives to uncover their feeling, memories and interpretation (Alam, 2005; Carson, Gilmore, Perry, & Gronhaug, 2001). Interviewer hence could adopt customer view on the research phenomenon to develop a sufficient understanding of customer value in sharing economy context. To conclude, richness description and detailed observation result of interview are main reasons for choosing this method for the research.
Choosing respondents
Interviewees are selected based on three criteria. Firstly, respondents are between 20 to 30-year-old customers who have used Airbnb before. The age limited helps to target a particular group of respondents so that they share similarities in interest and income. At this age, respondents are mainly students or young workers who have just entered the working market. Secondly, respondents are customers of Airbnb. There are two types of users in Airbnb customers, who use Airbnb to book accommodation, and hosts, who use Airbnb to rent out their spaces. A user could function in either role or both roles. Within the scope of the research topic, target respondents are Airbnb customers who use Airbnb as an online booking service to book accommodation. Interviewees are not required to be registered, users/hosts. Thirdly, there are no other limitations such as nationalities or occupations. The aim of choosing participants is to cover customers from different nationalities who have experience Airbnb in various areas. The reason for purposive sampling is to provide a full presentation (Patton, 1990) of data. Studying different objects helps to capture the complexity of social settings (Alam, 2005). The technique of snowballing is applied to identify key informants (Moriarty, 1983). The author asked the respondents to ask their friends and friends-of-friends if they are interested in participating in the interview.
Conducting interviews
The author designs the study as a semi-structured interview - a widely used method in social research. Different from structured interviews, semi-structured interviews do not follow predefined questions or full outline. Instead, researchers design semi-structured interviews, in various themes, to keep the topic open for further exploration. The preset themes are a guideline for the interviewer to ensure focus on a particular topic. Questions and ideas are open to modification and adjustment during the interview process. The actual interview is conducted in a professional, flexible manner so that conversation will develop naturally and informatively. The interviewer will first ask fundamental questions and continue based on the answer from respondents (Edwards & Holland, 2013).
The author developed an interview protocol, including the conversation flow, important themes and key basic techniques, to conduct the interview. The first two interviews are considered as rehearsals before beginning official interview. After these trials, researchers conducted actual interviews following the interview protocol. Respondents were allowed to expand, illustrate and digress freely throughout conversation (Alam, 2005). The interview protocol was used as a guideline to ensure that interviewing meetings were conducted in an appropriate manner. Respondents shared their experiences in their words and discussed themes which they found significant. The interviews did not follow any order. Questions were based on the interviewee’ responses to avoid any predefined framework or logic on respondents (Alam, 2005). Along with the interviewing conversation, if interviewer found an interesting point, interviewees were asked for further explanation. Interviewer repeated the point, to confirm, and then asked for clarification to assure correct understanding of interviewee’s responses. The author took notes during the interview process to compare and to reflect upon in the analyzing stage.
The author collected data, by different communication methods, from a variety of participants. A site was created to introduce the research topic and plan for the interview. The author shared the site via all channels in the author’s network. On the first day after launching, participants initiated contact, showing their interest in participating in an interview.
As a result, 21 semi-instructed interviews were conducted in one month (Table 6). Respondents include both male and female from different nationalities: Vietnamese, Finnish, American, British, Chinese, Korean, and Hungarian. Age ranges from 22 to 32 years old. The areas of using Airbnb are from Europe, America, Australia, and Asia. Interviews were conducted by various means including face-to-face meetings at the University of Tampere and or through online video calls or texting in the case of participants in other countries.
Regardless of the communication means, the interviewer kept the conversation going in a natural and responsive manner. However, the interviewer did not propose subjective opinions or comments, remaining in a neutral position in the discussion. The average time for an interview was 40 minutes. The longest conversation lasted for 56 minutes and the shortest interview lasted for 16 minutes. Meeting time depends on the interviewee’s responses and the content of the conversation. Regardless of timing, the interviewer ensured that the respondents discussed all themes about the topic. Even though some respondents shared more information than others, talks covered all issues related to the topic. A conventional process was followed to affirm that all interviews were conducted in a similar manner without neglecting any useful information. All interviews were recorded and notes taken for further analysis.
Data analysis
All interview recordings were transcribed resulting in 81 pages of text. Transcript of the interview was read twice to get an overall idea of customer perceived value of Airbnb. Keynotes were taken to highlight key topics that customers discussed. After the second reading, there were different key themes emerging from the data. There was still not any conclusion or explanation on the results at this point. The multiple reading of transcripts is necessary to capture the holistic experience of informants (Flint & Woodruff, 2001). Collected data is analyzed by the author, without the help of software, because software could assist but not interpret as a human (Gummesson, 2003). To understand, explain and analyze, the role of human interpretation is important in qualitative research. The transcribed data is analyzed focusing on real experience and perception of customers. Other opinions or preferences, such as shared information in conditional terms or shared experience of others, are excluded from the results (Stake, 2004).
The hermeneutic process is applied to the key themes and topics, from the first two reviews, to obtain a better understanding of customer perspective (Figure 4). The hermeneutic process starts from a pre-understanding of the fundamental theories, and knowledge about the research phenomenon, followed by an understanding of the empirical results, and the last step is to explain, to reflect and develop the link between previous knowledge and new understanding. The process of explanation yields a better understanding of current theory or the development of new theory. Hermeneutics, therefore, provides a systematic approach to find meaning in collected data (Gummesson, 2003).
The method of hermeneutics is not merely a linear process. To define the meaning of a social construct, it requires a systematic and holistic context (Gummesson, 2003). Because the concept of customer value is a holistic and preferred experience by nature (Holbrook, 1994). Therefore, the context is important. In the analyzing process, the context in which customers are travelling is taking into account, for example whether they travel alone or with a group, how long they stay.
CUSTOMER VALUE IN AIRBNB
The results chapter presents the key findings from customer response data. These key findings seek to answer the research question: “What are customer perceived benefits of the sharing economy?” and “What are customer perceived sacrifices of the sharing economy?” Data was analyzed using the lens of multiple customer value dimensions. These dimensions stretch across economic, functional, emotional and symbolic, each applied to the benefits and costs found in the customer data. Observers can argue that the perceived value dimensions interfere with each other. Within a feature of the sharing economy, functional and emotional benefits could be found simultaneous. Indeed, some features of the sharing economy could present benefits to some customers, while other customers perceive them as costs. Customer perceived value is a dynamic phenomenon and rich in diversity. Its complex and dynamic nature pose a challenge to interpretation. As a rule, it is necessary to focus more on conceptualization and interpretation rather than in definition (Gummesson, 2005).
To reflect the richness and diverse nature of customer value as a holistic experience, the result is presented according to the themes emerging from data. The researcher shows, in full, the contradiction and interrelation of dimensions from collected data. Common topics are grouped together and fully described by different related aspects to classify them into perceived benefits and perceived sacrifices of Airbnb.
Дата добавления: 2018-06-01; просмотров: 326; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!