2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition 72
Satisfaction with RM, likelihood of using, recommending and continuing to use RM: According to
regression analysis, there was a significant impact of hotel managers’ perception towards performance of RM on
likelihood of using RM. Managers who have a higher performance at customer relationships were more likely to use
relationship marketing (
1
86
.
0
61
.
1
X Y +
=
with an adjusted
68
.
0
2
=
R ). There was a significant impact of hotel
managers’ perception towards performance of RM on likelihood of recommending RM. Managers who had a higher
performance at customer relationships are more likely to recommend relationship marketing
(
1
86
.
0
13
.
1
X Y +
=
with an adjusted
58
.
0
2
=
R ). There was also a significant impact of the hotel managers’
perception towards performance of RM on likelihood of continuing use of RM. The managers with higher customer
service quality performance and higher customer relationship performance were more likely to continue to use
relationship marketing (
2
1
49
.
0
46
.
0
29
.
1
X X Y +
+
=
with an adjusted
60
.
0
2
=
R ).
Familiarity with CRM and likelihood of implementing CRM: There was a significant relationship between
hotel managers’ familiarity with CRM and the likelihood of implementing CRM in the future. Likelihood of
implementing CRM increased as the familiarity with CRM increased (
1
64
.
0
08
.
2
X Y +
=
with an adjusted
68
.
0
2
=
R ). There was also a significant relationship between hotel managers’ likelihood of continuing use of RM
and likelihood of implementing CRM in the future. Likelihood of implementing CRM increased when the likelihood
of continuing use of RM increased (
1
87
.
0
41
.
0
X Y +
=
with an adjusted
68
.
0
2
=
R ).
Importance and Performance Analysis (IPA): Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was employed to
compare the hotel and resort hotel managers’ perception toward the importance of RM and their perception toward
the performance of RM (see Figure 1). According to the paired- sample t-tests between the importance means and
the performance means, 13 attributes about perceptions toward RM showed that there was statistically significant
difference at 0.00 level. By using the overall mean values of the importance (4.06) and performance (3.2), vertical
and horizontal lines were used to separate the derived factors into four quadrants. Only one variable fell in the “low
priority” quadrant, two variables fell into the “possible overkill” quadrant and eight variables fell into the “keep up
the good work” quadrant The most critical quadrant, “concentrate here,” had four variables. The managers’
importance rating about “initiating and implementing long-term relationships with customers for improved
competitive advantage” (D) had a mean of 4.16, while the performance rating had a mean of 3.15. The managers’
importance rating for “inquiring about customers’ willingness to form personal and close relationships” (G) had a
mean of 4.20 while the performance rating had a mean of 3.07. Their importance rating had a mean of 4.06 for
“managing conflicts and resolving service conflicts with customers” (I) while their performance rating had a mean
of 3.16. For (J) “working on customer retention” (J), the managers’ importance rating had a mean of 4.16 while their
performance rating had a mean of 3.20. This quadrant is the most critical one since the managers considered these
attributes to be important, but they didn’t perform well for them. Thus, it reveals the respondents’ hotels’
weaknesses.
Importance and performance of RM: Relationship Marketing (RM) was divided three groups in the
questionnaire. Those groups were customer relationship, customer service quality and customer retention. ANOVA
was used to find the managers’ perception towards the importance of RM and their perception toward the
performance of RM. Post Hoc Tukey was used to explore which group had the most agreement with importance and
performance of RM.
Importance and performance of RM and the managers’ demographic profile: According to the findings, the
male managers and the female managers had similar opinions with regard to the importance of RM, while they
didn’t have similar opinions with regard to the performance of RM. In terms of age, the managers had similar
feelings about importance and performance of RM too. Post Hoc Tukey test showed that ages 26-35 managers and
ages 36-45 managers had a higher level of agreement with regard to importance and performance of RM than ages
56-65 managers. Again, younger managers were more open to RM than the older generation. The findings explored
whether or not the managers from different education levels had different opinions about the importance and
performance of RM. Post Hoc Tukey test identified that the managers who held bachelor and post graduate degrees
had a higher level of agreement with the importance and performance of RM than the managers who graduated from
high school and some college. This result explains that more educated managers had more favor in RM than less
educated managers.
