28502655

Page | 0

MANG1015

Individual Report

The Trafalgar Hotel Student ID: 28502655 Word Count: 2040

28502655

Page | 1

Contents

Executive Summary 2

Context: The Trafalgar 3

Research Objectives, method, and sample 3

Quantitative Analysis 4

Qualitative Analysis 6

The Trafalgar SWOT Matrix 11

Recommendations and Limitations 12

Reference List 14

Appendix 15

28502655

Page | 2

Executive Summary

This report assesses the strengths and weaknesses of The Trafalgar, with a quantitative and

qualitative analysis, to provide management with recommendations to improve the hotel.

Key report findings include:

1. Hotel location and the Rooftop Terrace are the main marketable strengths.

2. Rooftop Terrace availability is causing issues with guests.

3. Staff performance is inconsistent and so is breakfast experience.

4. Pricing is perceived to be unfair.

Based on these findings it is recommended management:

1. Uses the marketable strengths of the hotel to advertise The Trafalgar.

2. Warns guests, before booking, if the Terrace is unavailable during their stay.

3. Encourages a team environment, open communication, and provides staff with more

incentives to improve staff morale resulting in consistent performance.

4. Alters the price of rooms and drinks.

28502655

Page | 3

Context: The Trafalgar

The Trafalgar Hotel is situated in London on Spring Gardens overlooking the iconic Trafalgar

square. There are several competing four star hotels within a short walk of The Trafalgar.

The Grand and The Thistle Trafalgar Square share a similar price bracket, star rating, and

location making these hotels competition for The Trafalgar – a Hilton hotel.

Most of the hotel’s visits are leisure, specifically couple

travellers. This is shown on the right with the number of

guests categorised into leisure trip types. The hotel offers a

fitness centre, a restaurant, and a popular rooftop bar as

well as standard amenities like room service and free Wi-

Fi.

Research Objectives, method, and sample

The objective of this report is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Trafalgar Hotel to

appropriately advise hotel management. Secondary data, from TripAdvisor, was used to

undertake a quantitative analysis and a qualitative analysis to support the assessment of the

hotel’s strengths and weaknesses.

Before selecting the sample the reviews were filtered to exclude business travellers; thus,

analysis results are solely representative of all leisure trips. Systematic sampling was used

5-minute walk

4-minute walk

28502655

Page | 4

to collate a sample of 100 reviews from a sampling frame of 2,448 reviews, enabling a

quantitative analysis to be conducted. A number between 0-9 was randomly selected, using

an online number generator, the number was seven. The sample starting point was 1st

January 2012 and each 7th element in succession was selected from the sampling frame. This

starting point was selected to ensure outdated reviews were not included.

Systematic sampling was used to increase the likelihood of the sample being representative

of the population of reviews; each review in the sampling frame had an equal chance of

selection. Systematic sampling also assured the population of reviews were evenly sampled

from 2012-15. This proved to be effective as reviews from every month from 2012-15 were

part of the sample. In addition, the sampling technique returned a balanced number of male

(48%) and female (52%) reviewers.

The quantitative sample was numbered using a “Guest ID” to identify each review within

the sample. From this sample a random sampling technique was used to obtain thirty

reviews for a qualitative analysis. Again, an online random number generator was used. It

selected thirty unique numbers from 1-100 to provide the qualitative sample for analysis.

Random sampling was used as the sampling frame, of 100 reviews, was already constructed

and judged as representative of the 2,488 reviews making it easy to implement and time

efficient.

Quantitative Analysis

The Trafalgar is rated on six elements on TripAdvisor so these six elements are the basis of

the quantitative analysis. Figure 1 shows the TripAdvisor average rating summary for each

element. This closely resembles the average element rating obtained from the sample –

shown below (Figure 2) – indicating the sample is representative of the population of

reviews.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 both illustrate the high average location ratings (a mean of 4.95). This

was consistent across all demographics for the entirety of the reviews. 100% of guests –

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Ave

rage

Rat

ing

Sco

re

Average Ratings 2012-15

Average Value Rating Average Location Rating

Average Sleep Quality Rating Average Rooms Rating

Average Cleaniness Rating Average Service Rating

(1.20)

(0.25)

(0.99)(0.98)

(0.92) (1.08)

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 2. N=100

28502655

Page | 5

from the sample of 100 - that rated The Trafalgar’s location rated it a four or more. This high

location rating is supported by the qualitative analysis which revealed 100% positive

mentions regarding the location code – from a total of 33 mentions.

Figure 2 illustrates the mean value rating, from 71 reviews, was 3.75. This was the lowest

rated element, on average, and had the greatest standard deviation. A standard deviation of

1.20 indicates guest ratings differed significantly. Extreme values effected the low mean

score, 11% of guests rated the hotel’s value below two. Figure 3 further illustrates the poor

value scores from 2012-15. It indicates a potential future problem as average value fell by

0.5 from 2014-15, suggesting guests perceive the hotel’s value is decreasing with time.

FIGURE 3. N=70

The quantitative analysis also revealed guest’s decreasing room rating from 4.42 (2014) to

3.50 (2015) shown in Figure 4. The significant decreasing value and room ratings may be

early indicators that the hotel is beginning to decline.

FIGURE 4. N=72

3.503.79

4.00

3.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

2012 2013 2014 2015

Avera

ge V

alu

e R

ati

ng

Year

Average Value Rating

3.834.08

4.42

3.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

2012 2013 2014 2015

Avera

ge R

oom

Rati

ng

Year

Average Room Rating

28502655

Page | 6

Qualitative Analysis

Random sampling was used to obtain the sample for the qualitative analysis. A coding frame

was used to analyse the sample’s written reviews. From this coding frame graphs were

constructed to illustrate the positive and negative mentions about The Trafalgar. The coding

frame - shown in the Appendix section – also considered the percentage of each code’s

positive and negative mentions.

The number of code mentions, which forms each graph, is shown beneath each graph. A

larger number of mentions (≥20) indicates a high proportion of the qualitative sample

mentioned the code. This means the graph is more likely to be representative of the

population of guest reviews. Whereas a smaller number of mentions (≤10) shows there are

fewer mentions therefore the graph is less likely to be representative of the entire

population of reviews.

Value

Figure 5 supports the findings drawn from the quantitative data, which indicated value was a

concern for The Trafalgar. 1 in 3 guests from the qualitative sample mentioned value and of these

mentions 73% were negative about value.

FIGURE 5. N=11

27%

73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Overall Value Mentions

28502655

Page | 7

Rooms

Despite the decreasing rooms average rating, in the quantitative section, the written reviews

showed 81% of room mentions were positive – Figure 6. Guest 17 epitomised the positive room

mentions; “Very nice spacious rooms with nice beds.” A minority complained about the rooms,

Guest 26: “[about his room] …the furniture was showing its age”.

FIGURE 6. N=26 Likewise, bathroom mentions – illustrated in Figure 7 - were mostly positive. However, there were

several bathroom complaints. Firstly, regarding wear and tear with a “chip in the bathroom sink”

(Guest 30) as well as a complaint regarding bathroom “smell” – Guest 3.

FIGURE 7. N=6

81%

19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Overall Rooms Mentions

67%

33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Bathroom Mentions

28502655

Page | 8

Service

Staff mentions were 74% positive – shown in Figure 8 – Guest 2 stated “The staff were all friendly

and very helpful.” However, the negative mentions are concerning; “The staff have forgotten the

basics of customer service” – Guest 5. 26% of guests were critical of the staff perhaps explaining why

mean service rating – in the quantitative analysis – was 4.22 and not higher. Mentions regarding the

inconsistent staff are summarised well by Guest 5 who described them as a “mixed bag”.

FIGURE 8. N=27 Figure 9 expresses the quality of check-in service. Each check-in mention – from the qualitative

sample – was positive making check-in service a strength for this Hilton hotel.

FIGURE 9. N=7

74%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Staff Mentions

100%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Check-in Mentions

28502655

Page | 9

Food and Drink

Breakfast was the only significant food finding. Breakfast code mentions were 80% positive – shown

in Figure 10 – with most guests referring to the “good full English”. Again, there were

inconsistencies, as guest 15 argued; “the breakfast experience was very poor this time.” Poor

breakfast experience is illustrated with the breakfast mentions being 20% negative.

FIGURE 10. N=10 The qualitative analysis showed drinks are a concern. Figure 11 shows 83% of drink mentions were

negative. 60% of the negative mentions argued drinks were “very over-priced” – Guest 5 among

others.

FIGURE 11. N=6

80%

20%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Breakfast Mentions

17%

83%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Drinks Mentions

28502655

Page | 10

The Rooftop Terrace

Figure 12 illustrates 72% of rooftop terrace mentions were positive with many guests expressing that

“the rooftop lounge had gorgeous views!” – Guest 12. However, there is a concern regarding The

Trafalgar’s rooftop terrace availability, with several guests being unable to access the hotel’s unique

selling proposition. Unavailability contributed to each of the terrace’s negative reviews.

FIGURE 12. N =18

72%

28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Positive

Negative

Percentage

Men

tio

ns

Rooftop Terrace Mentions

28502655

Page | 11

The Trafalgar SWOT Matrix

Positive Negative

Internal

Strengths o Location o Check-in Service o Room size o Rooftop terrace’s vista and ambiance

Weaknesses o Inconsistent staff performance. o Inconsistent breakfast experience. o Value for money – the cost for a night stay and drinks was

commonly viewed as overpriced. o Rooms and bathrooms showing signs of wear. o Availability of rooftop terrace.

External

Opportunities The following events will bring tourists to Trafalgar Square and potentially increase The Trafalgar’s number of guests:

o Pride in London Festival (8th in July 2017). o St George’s Day – England’s National Day

celebrations (April 2017). o West End Live Performance at Trafalgar Square

(June 2017). o St Patrick's Day in London (17th March 2017).

Additionally, a fall in corporate tax rates in April 2017 could be an opportunity for The Trafalgar to earn greater profits.

Threats o BREXIT – Financial uncertainty could threaten the number

of domestic customers The Trafalgar has. Customers visiting London may chose a cheaper alternative hotel, like Premier Inn, which is also close to Trafalgar square to save money.

o Direct competition: The Grand and The Thistle Trafalgar Square.

o 2.4% increase in Westminster’s crime rates (Metropolitan Police, 2016) over the past year could potentially scare weary customers. But this is unlikely to be a sizeable threat unless it receives unlikely notable media coverage.

28502655

Page | 12

Recommendations and Limitations

Based on the SWOT analysis The Trafalgar management should use the hotel’s location and

rooftop terrace to promote the hotel. The results from the quantitative analysis and

qualitative analysis indicated location and the terrace are the hotel’s greatest marketable

strengths. Management should draw on these strengths to attract new customers.

Management should take advantage of upcoming opportunities to attract new customers.

The events mentioned in the SWOT analysis will bring a considerable number of potential

guests to Trafalgar Square. The hotel could offer discounted rooms for event-goers, prior to

the events, to take advantage of the events. The event-goers could be targeted with hotel

advertisements on the event booking page. Additional guests could be attracted if the hotel

provides guests with an incentive, like offering HHonors points, for recommending the hotel

to others.

Rooftop availability was identified as a weakness. When the terrace is unavailable during a

guest’s stay, they should be warned the terrace is unavailable before paying, so they know

which days the terrace is unavailable. This transparency will enable the hotel to avoid

disappointed customers increasing the chance of The Trafalgar gaining repeat customers.

Management should assess the condition of the bedroom and bathrooms. Worn furniture

should be a specific focus and when identified it should be replaced. This will help to

improve bedroom and bathroom quality potentially contributing to guests perceiving the

hotel is better value for money. Price is another weakness. To maximise revenue room

prices could be decreased, when there is a scarce amount of bookings, to ensure each room

is filled nightly. Drink prices could be decreased to a fairer price so guests purchase more

drinks in the hotel and less in nearby public houses and bars also maximising profit.

Another weakness was inconsistent staff performance which could become more consistent

if staff morale was boosted. (Meliorate, 2011) Better morale could be achieved by; creating

a strong team environment, encouraging open communication, and providing staff with

more incentives.

Britain exiting the European Union may negatively influence the number of domestic

customers The Trafalgar has due to financial uncertainty. To counter this management could

decrease prices or offer a money-back guarantee, while this financial uncertainty persists.

This will help to secure the custom of financially conscious customers that are indecisive

about booking with The Trafalgar and considering a cheaper alternative.

Sample size and missing data are report limitations. A sample of 100 and another of 30 is

relatively small considering the size of the sampling frame (more than 2,000 reviews). In

many instances, there was missing data where guests had not rated all six elements on

TripAdvisor. This coupled with the sample size means the findings are difficult to generalise

to the entire population of reviews as it is uncertain whether the findings capture the views

of all guests.

28502655

Page | 13

This report is focused on leisure guests and so a limitation of the report is that it fails to

represent guests that travel to The Trafalgar on business. Another limitation is all the data

used for this report is drawn from a single source, TripAdvisor, this limits the reliability of

the findings. Had another source of information been used and similar findings were found

then the findings would be more reliable. Social desirability bias – another limitation – could

have influenced the truthfulness of reviews. Each review published on TripAdvisor is public

and so guests may rate and write about the hotel in a manner they perceive will be

favourably viewed by others. In other words, their review may not reflect their true opinion.

28502655

Page | 14

Reference List Meliorate (2011) 20 TIPS TO IMPROVE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE

Available from: https://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/performance-management/20-tips-to-

improve-employee-engagement-and-performance/ [Accessed 3rd December 2016]

Metropolitan Police (2016) Crime Figures Available from:

http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/# [Accessed 1st December 2016]

Timeout (2016) St Patrick's Day in London Available from:

http://www.timeout.com/london/st-patricks-day-in-london [Accessed 1st December 2016]

Visit London (2016) Feast of St George in Trafalgar Square 2017 Available from:

http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/8726328-feast-of-st-george-in-trafalgar-

square#2fzjcDeodMZkSPzq.99 [Accessed 1st December 2016]

Visit London (2016) Pride in London 2017 Available from:

http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/25685785-pride-in-

london#003Y4xQlQiDg1smF.97 [Accessed 1st December 2016]

Visit London (2016) West End LIVE at Trafalgar Square Available from:

http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/event/30161454-west-end-live-at-trafalgar-

square#Mbye73YwQOqfezI6.99 [Accessed 1st December 2016]

28502655

Page | 15

Appendix

28502655

Page | 16

Qualitative Sample

28502655

Page | 17

28502655

Page | 18

28502655

Page | 19

28502655

Page | 20

28502655

Page | 21

28502655

Page | 22