Quality in Tourism Assessment Feedback

1
Quality in Tourism Assessment Feedback

• A Presentation by Arkenford Ltd

Wave 2 (November 2007)
2
Background

• VisitBritain is responsible for assessing
  properties throughout the UK, developing service
  product standards to be attained by
  accommodation providers
• Alongside assessments and ratings, the aim of the
  assessments is to provide quality advice
  guidance
• This way members can ensure that their property
  is able to attain the desired standards ratings
• The purpose of this market review is to provide
  feedback from participants who have recently been
  assessed by the assessment provider Quality in
  Tourism (QiT)

3
Methodology

• Data of establishments assessed in the last 3
  months was provided by QiT
• This included all types of accommodation
  (Serviced, Self Catering, Hostels and Holiday
  Parks)
• An invitation to participate was emailed to all
  establishments that had been assessed in this
  period
• Those who have provided an email address were
  sent a link to an electronic questionnaire, or an
  option to request a postal version of the
  questionnaire.
• Those with no email address were mailed a postal
  version of the questionnaire
• A total of 3548 invitations to participate were
  sent out overall
• We received response from 1303 establishments,
  with 920 participants fully completing the
  questionnaire
• This is in line with the traditionally high
  strike rate of c30

4
The Sample
5
Sample Profile (1)

• Everyone assessed in June, July and August was
  asked to complete a questionnaire
• In total 3591 questionnaires were sent out, 1303
  people responded at least in part (a 36 return
  rate), 927 people fully completed the
  questionnaire (26)
• Due to people dropping out of the internet survey
  and people skipping questions on the postal
  questionnaires, the base sizes of questions
  varies.
• On average, those questions asked of everybody
  have between 950 and 1000 responses.
• The sample was broadly representative of the
  market
• Serviced accommodation makes up about 56 of the
  sample
• Over half of the responses were from 4 star
  establishments

6
Sample Profile (2)

• Throughout this presentation, the result may be
  broken down by the region, rating, sector or
  cycle type of the respondent.
• The following table breaks down the region of the
  respondents by these other variables

• Due to low numbers of respondents having a one
  star rating, or being in the hostel sector, these
  categories will not be shown when breaking down
  the results by rating or sector.
• It should also be remembered that London and the
  unknown region have lower base sizes than the
  other regions
• Any significant changes from the previous wave of
  research (carried out in June) will also be
  reported

7
Topics Covered

• We have presented the information broadly in line
  with the questionnaire content
• The Assessment Process
• Reporting
• Outcome Future Ratings
• Administration
• Value of the Scheme
• In addition, the questionnaire also covered
  issues relating to
• The VisitBritain and QiT Websites
• The VisitBritain e-newsletter
• Potential scheme developments

8
The Assessment Process
9
Amount of Notice Given (1)

• The majority of respondents report receiving
  between 1 and 2 weeks notice before their
  assessment
• The mean number of days notice given is 12.65
  (exc. no notice given)
• As with previous findings, there is variation in
  the amount of notice given between the sectors
• Self catering establishments are more likely to
  receive a larger amount of notice
• Over 80 of parks receive no notice (a slight
  decline on the previous wave)
• The trend for an increased number serviced
  establishments receiving no notice continues (up
  from 34 to 36)

10
Amount of Notice Given (2)

• Respondents were then asked if they felt that
  this was enough prior notice.
• The vast majority (96) thought that they has
  been given enough notice.
• Despite the differences in the amount of notice
  given to self catering and serviced
  establishments, the level of satisfaction is
  similar for both types of accommodation
• The accommodation type most likely to be
  dissatisfied are Holiday Parks
• 98 of both re-joiners and new members thought
  they received enough notice
• renewals reported more dissatisfaction with
  amount of notice given, with 5 reporting they
  didnt feel it was enough (even though they were
  less likely to receive no notice)

11
Assessor Punctuality and Manner

• 97 of respondents reported that the assessor was
  punctual
• Very little difference can be seen between
  different sectors, ratings, regions or cycle type
• Comparing the results to the previous rate shows
  that the assessors are consistently seen as
  punctual

• 99 of respondents judged the assessor to be
  polite and professional in their manner
• Only 7 individuals reported otherwise
• As with punctuality there is little variation
  amongst different categories or with previous
  waves of research

12
Overnight Stays in Serviced Accommodation (1)

• Overall 56 of serviced establishments received
  an overnight visit
• There is variation across regions as to whether
  an overnight stay was received
• 63 of establishments in the Northwest received
  an overnight stay compared to 50 in London (NB.
  Low base size for London)
• 46 of renewals receive an overnight stay
  compared to about 98 for new members and
  re-joiners

13
Overnight Stays in Serviced Accommodation (2)

• As with previous waves of research, those
  properties with a higher rating are more likely
  to receive an overnight visit

• There is no significant change overall since last
  wave

14
Number of Rooms/Units Seen (1)

• The majority of respondents have 2 or 3 rooms
  inspected, and/or 1 unit inspected
• The pattern of the number of rooms seen by rating
  has stayed consistent with previous findings
  lower rated properties tend to have more rooms
  inspected
• The pattern for the numbers of units seen shows
  greater variation, generally those with the
  highest or lowest rating will have the most units
  seen

15
Number of Rooms/Units Seen (2)

• The number of rooms seen has stayed relatively
  similar to the previous wave the number of
  respondents reporting that 8 or more units were
  seen has increased by 5 since last wave
• On average, 4.2 rooms are viewed during an
  assessment
• The average number of units seen for a re-joiner
  is 22.3 compared to 9.3 for a new member.
• Respondents were then asked if they felt the
  assessor had seen enough of their property to
  gain a reliable picture of the service they
  provided
• 98 of people reported that they felt the
  assessor saw just the right amount with 1 of
  people reporting they had not seen enough and 1
  saying they had seen too much

16
Rating Indication

• As with previous waves, about 95 of respondents
  were given an indication of the rating they would
  receive at the time of the visit
• Previously it was found that lower rated
  establishments were more likely to be given a
  rating indication at the time of visit This wave
  this trend is not present.
• However those with a 5 star rated are still the
  least likely to be given an indication
• Renewals are the least likely to be given an
  indication, whereas re-joiners are given an
  indication 99 of the time
• There are no differences across regions or
  sectors

17
Information on Improvements

• In the previous wave of research, there was a
  clear relationship between the rating of the
  establishment and whether information on
  improvements was offered where lower ratings
  were more likely to receive advice
• In the current wave (2), this trend is no longer
  present
• 73 of people report receiving advice regardless
  of rating (with 4 stars being the exception, with
  a slightly lower figure of 68)
• Sector and cycle type categories have stayed
  relatively stable with the same patterns present
• Renewals are less likely to receive advice
• Little difference across sectors

18
Satisfaction with Assessment

• Respondents asked to rate the assessment on a
  number of different factors (using a scale of 1-7
  where 1 is poor and 7 is excellent)
• Overall satisfaction received a score of 5.75
• As with previous research the area rated most
  highly is time allowed to discuss assessment
  with a mean score of 5.89
• Other advice on marketing issues received the
  lowest rating at 5.01
• The higher the rating the higher the levels of
  satisfaction
• Those new to the scheme show higher levels of
  satisfaction, followed by re-joiners and then
  renewals
• On average an increase of 0.12 can be seen across
  all categories compared to last wave

19
Improving the Assessment Process

• Respondents were asked to highlight problems/ways
  to improve the assessment process, 169 people
  gave comments. The table below summarises what
  was said

• The most common complaints are in regards to the
  rating requirements themselves and a lack of
  information on marketing advice

20
Improving the Assessment Process

• Example comments
• The Assessor was fine but I do feel that what is
  required re grading between 4 and 5 star are
  getting ridiculous to achieve i.e. because the
  kitchen doesn't have slate floors and granite
  worktops.
• Help on how to improve marketing without being
  pedantic. Advice should be tailored to
  individual circumstances.
• More consistency from the assessors. What was
  acceptable for one assessor does not seem to be
  acceptable for another and vice versa.
• Inspection should take place on turnaround day
  or when unoccupied. I think it's bad manners to
  intrude whilst a guest is in residence.

21
Reporting
22
Reporting (1)

• 96 of respondents had the rating indicated at
  the time of the visit confirmed in writing
• Those with the lowest rating were less likely to
  have the indicated rating confirmed
• 94 received their report with 21 days of the
  assessment
• a 3 increase on the previous wave
• Whereas the report from the last wave shows that
  5 stars were least likely to receive their report
  within 21 days, now they are the most likely
• 96 felt the report accurately reflected what was
  discussed at the visit
• Those with higher ratings are more likely to feel
  the report accurately reflected the visit

23
Reporting (2)

• 97 of respondents felt the report explained
  their rating
• However respondents are less likely to think that
  the report provides them guidance on improving
  ratings or best practice and quality awards, with
  both around 80
• This is especially true of 3 and 4 star
  properties
• Results are similar to the previous wave

24
Satisfaction with Written Report (1)

• The overall satisfaction level with the report
  was 5.66, a slightly improvement on the score of
  5.46 from the previous wave
• Otherwise results are generally very similar to
  previous waves
• Those who are new to the scheme or have rejoined
  rate all aspects of the written report higher
  than renewals
• Those with higher ratings are more likely to give
  higher scores
• There is little variation between regions or
  sectors

25
Improving Reporting

• Respondents were asked to highlight problems/ways
  to improve the written reports
• Only 76 people gave comments (reflecting the
  generally high satisfaction levels)
• The table opposite summarises what was said

• Example Comments
• I was told I must provide an access statement
  and a fire safety report. Despite contacting
  various people have had no real guidance on
  this. If you insist on these as part of the
  rating system, you should at least provide some
  sort of guidance or advice
• An idea of percentages would help/indicate how
  improvements could be made to achieve a 'Gold'
  award'.

26
Outcome and Future Ratings
27
Rating Overview (1)

• The first chart shows how close peoples
  previous, expected and current rating are
• Generally peoples expectations and achievements
  are fairly close
• The table demonstrates the percentage of people
  who over or underestimate the rating they would
  achieve
• 18 of people who expected 5 stars achieved 4
  stars
• 1 of people who expected 4 stars achieved 5
  stars
• Overall 6 overestimated what they would achieve,
  8 underestimated with the remaining 86 being
  accurate with their expectations

• Only renewals who gave answers for expected and
  past ratings were included in this analysis

28
Rating Overview (2)

• This chart demonstrates the expectation and
  attainments of those people new to the scheme
• It shows that more people get 4 stars than
  expected due to both underestimation of their
  property and over expectation
• The table shows that of the people that expected
  to get 5 stars 41 received 4 stars
• 95 of people expecting 4 stars achieved that
  grade

29
Explanations and Fair Ratings

• 170 people said there was a difference between
  their expected and achieved rating
• Of these, 83 said the reasons for this were
  explained
• The majority of which also said they were told
  how they could obtain the rating they wanted
• Establishments with a higher rating are more
  likely to think the rating given is fair

• There is little difference between sectors
• Renewals are slightly more likely to feel their
  rating is unfair
• The Northwest has 99 of respondents thinking
  their rating is fair
• In contrast the Northeast has 89 of respondents
  believing their rating is fair
• Very little overall change from last wave

30
Rating Expectations

• When considering their next assessment most
  people indicate that they expect their rating to
  stay the same
• The lower the rating the more likely increase is
  expected
• When thinking about the future people tend to be
  more optimistic
• For example 21 of 3 stars expect an increase
  next assessment, but 28 do in 3 years time

• Compared to last wave, the expected outcome of
  the next assessment has stayed stable
• In contrast expected increases in 3 years time
  has risen by 7

31
Current Position (1)

• Compared to last year people are less happy to
  remain at the current rating (from 46 to 39)
• showing that there is an intention to improve
  current standard
• 13 report actively trying to improve their
  rating
• As seen above there is regional variation in
  current rating positions
• For example the East Midlands are most likely to
  report wanting to increase their rating but not
  being in a position to do so

32
Current Position (2)

• The higher the rating the happier people are to
  stay at that rating
• The lower the rating the more likely they are to
  feel they are not able to improve their rating
• Self Catering are 14 more likely to be happy at
  their current rating
• Rejoiners are the most likely to be working
  towards increasing their rating

33
Prevention of Rating Increase

• Respondents were asked what, if anything, was
  preventing them from increasing their rating.
• 36 cited financial reasons, with 30 saying it
  was a structure or space issue

• Example Comments
• lack of consistent info on what is required.
  Too much personal taste and individual views from
  inspectors
• Structural alterations required to building out
  of financial reach.
• Not clear about what I would need to do to move
  from a silver to a gold award. The book is
  singularly unhelpful in this area. intangibles
  are difficult to quantify!

34
Administration
35
Written Administration (1)

• The overall satisfaction score is 5.47
• A slight increase on last wave
• There is little variation amongst the different
  aspects of written administration that were rated
• As previously seen in other areas, higher rated
  establishment show greater levels of satisfaction
• Region wise, there is only a range of .34 across
  overall satisfaction levels (when London is
  excluded due to its low base size)
• Suggesting consistency

36
Written Administration (2)

• The highest rating for each category is
  highlighted in bold
• Those new to the scheme rate all aspects of
  written administration the highest
• Renewals and re-joiners scores are closer, with
  variation over who is rating higher
• Renewals find it clearer and easy to understand
  than re-joiners
• Re-joiners find it more accurate
• Serviced accommodation tends to rate written
  administration higher than other sectors

37
Written Administration (3)

• When asked how unsatisfactory areas could be
  improved 60 people commented
• A third cited generally poor administration
• A third said they need more information

• Example Comments
• The information on what is required could be
  made simpler. The information is repeated for all
  the different levels and it's not clear which
  bits are relevant to your own situation.
• I found the application information repetitive
  and at times with a loose page document, it as
  easy to muddle the pages. A different colour for
  each section would certainly have helped as it
  was my first time of applying.

38
Telephone and Electronic Administration (1)

• Renewals are the least likely to have a reason to
  contact QiT
• Reasons for contacting QiT are wide ranging
• 45 of respondents say they contacted QiT about
  their assessment/visit

• As with previous results, around a third of
  respondents have had a reason to contact QiT by
  phone or email
• The higher the rating the more likely they have
  made contact

39
Telephone and Electronic Administration (2)

• The Overall satisfaction score was 4.69
• Lower than the score for written administration
  (5.45)
• A slight increase on last wave

• Again, lower ratings are equated with lower
  scores across all sections of administration
• Serviced accommodation give the highest rating
  amongst the sectors
• Renewals give lower scores than new members or
  re-joiners
• Regional differences are hard to judge due to low
  base sizes

40
Telephone and Electronic Administration (3)

• 18 of people who answered this section commented
  when asked how unsatisfactory areas could be
  improved

• Example Comments
• Avoid giving mixed messages when two or more
  phone calls made on the same issue.
• They just pointed me to their web-site rather
  than talked things through with me
• Telephone staff sound like robots with a script
  in front of them. If you ask a question that is
  not on the script they didn't try to help. Staff
  very much like most call centre staff.

41
Website Awareness and Usage
42
Websites Awareness and Usage

• Respondents were asked about their use and
  awareness of both the QiT and VisitBritain
  websites
• Over half of respondents have used the QiT
  website at least once
• Less have used the VisitBritain website with 38
  having used it at least once
• A third of respondents know about each website
  but have not visited them
• Those who took part in the postal survey were
  much less likely to use either website
• About 80 have not used the websites

• Renewals are less likely to use the websites
• Higher rated establishments are more likely to
  use both websites

43
The Quality in Tourism Website (1)

• Respondents who had visited the QiT website were
  then asked why they had visited the website
• Respondents were allowed to select more than one
  reason
• On average, half of the respondents cited more
  than 1 reason
• Overall 75 visited the website for general
  information
• As can be seen by the chart, the reason people
  use the website by cycle type varies

• Renewals are much less likely to apply for a
  rating online
• Re-joiners are more likely to use it for
  downloading copies of scheme literature
• New members are more likely to check for updates
  and to obtain contact details

44
The Quality in Tourism Website (2)

• The amount of information and the quality of that
  information was rated highest
• Ease of use was rated the lowest
• Serviced accommodation and the higher ratings
  gave higher scores as with previous rating scales
• Those in the Northwest rated the highest on every
  aspect

Uses a 1-7 scale

• Respondents were also asked how the QiT website
  could be improved
• Only 26 people commented about half of which
  were people saying they couldnt remember the
  website
• Of the valid comments, areas raised included
  better search facilities, contact lists for who
  to contact for different problems and more
  detailed advice

45
The VisitBritain Website (1)

• Respondents who had visited the VisitBritain
  website were then asked why they had visited the
  website
• Respondents were allowed to select more than one
  reason
• As with the QiT website, the vast majority used
  to website for general information
• Other uses are all around the 15-20 mark
• Those with lower ratings are more likely to be
  downloading copies of scheme literature

• Self catering establishments are more likely be
  getting contact information or trying to sort out
  a specific query than other sectors

46
The VisitBritain Website (2)

• All areas of the VisitBritain website were very
  similarly scored
• All scores are slightly lower than that received
  by the QiT website
• Other rating scales that have shown the trend of
  higher ratings giving higher scores with the
  website ratings there is little variation between
  ratings

• Respondents were also asked how the VisitBritain
  website could be improved
• Only 25 people commented however compared to
  QiT website more useful comments were given
• Comments made included
• Speed of the website
• Ease of use
• Lack of information regarding properties
• Out of date information

Uses a 1-7 scale
47
Online Forum

• Respondents were asked how useful they would find
  an online forum where they could discuss
  industry-related topics with other accommodation
  providers
• For this they used a 1- 7 scale, where 1 means
  not at all useful and 7 very useful.
• The Overall score was 3.82 Which is fairly low
• Further investigation shows that 13 scored at 1,
  with another 13 scoring an indifferent 4
• However 25 of people did score the forum at 6 or
  7 indicating there is interest

• Higher ratings showed more interest
• Renewals showed less interest

48
E-newsletter (1)

• 22 of respondents currently receive the Visit
  Britain monthly e-newsletter
• Of those who dont 40 report wanting to receive
  it
• Those who completed the postal questionnaire show
  the least interest

• Those in the Northeast show the most interest,
  with the Northwest and Southeast showing the
  least
• 12 of two star properties receive the
  e-newsletter with 20-24 of 3 to 5 star
  properties receiving it
• Overall the usefulness of the e-newsletter is
  4.09.
• Those with 5 stars find it most useful followed
  by those with 2 stars

49
E-newsletter (2)

• Respondents were then asked how useful they would
  find electronic information on various topics
• News on the latest legislation proved to be seen
  as the most interesting to people
• Information on research and statistics was seen
  as the least popular
• Higher ratings showed more interest in all topics
• Renewals should the least interest in all topics
• Serviced accommodation also showed the highest
  levels of interest
• There were few regional differences

50
E-newsletter (3)

• When asked what other features they would like to
  see in the VisitBritain e-newsletter, 35 people
  took the opportunity to comment
• A substantial number stated they would prefer to
  receive this information in the post.
• Following are some examples of the ideas that
  were suggested
• Advice on producing fire risk assessments and
  disabled assessments, or websites where you can
  find the relevant form without spending half a
  day looking for the right one.
• Feature high 4/5 star rated businesses to enable
  newcomers to pick up useful tips and information
  on how best to improve their own business and
  achieve higher rating
• Planning requirements for BB and Liquor
  Licensing requirements. Also going green, health
  safety, local food, and fire safety report.

51
Value of the Scheme
52
Value of the Scheme (1)

• Obtaining a widely recognised quality sign was
  seen as the most beneficial aspect of the scheme
• Receiving marketing support was rated the lowest
  which may reflect comments made in other parts of
  the questionnaire regarding wanting more
  information on marketing support
• Higher ratings generally score all aspects higher
• The largest differences between 2 and 5 star
  properties are obtaining a quality sign (a 1.42
  difference), increasing revenue and bookings
  (1.25 and 1.11 respectively)

53
Value of the Scheme (2)

• As can be seen in the table below, renewals are
  the least positive about the benefits of the
  scheme
• It is those that have rejoined who see the most
  benefit in signage
• New members value being on national websites
  more, as well as placing the increase in bookings
  and revenue higher than renewals of rejoiners

• There are variations amongst regions in the
  scores given
• The East Midlands and the Northwest give all of
  the highest ratings (excluding London due base
  size)
• The Southwest and East of England give the lowest
  ratings

54
Value of the Scheme (3)

• Comparing this waves findings to the previous
  wave, we find increases in the ratings given
• The biggest rise in score is to get into a
  widely circulated guidebook
• Getting into local guides and on the websites saw
  the least improvement

• The groups that showed the most interest on being
  on the websites were
• High rated properties
• In the serviced sector
• New to the scheme

55
Scheme Memberships

• As with previous findings, respondents are more
  likely to be members of LA schemes than other
  national schemes
• Higher rated establishments are more likely to be
  members of other schemes or considered joining
  them
• As with previous results, VisitBritain is rated
  substantially higher than the other schemes.
• It has also increased since last wave, a decline
  can be seen for the other schemes

• Opposite shows membership rates of sustainable
  schemes/awards
• 5 star rated properties are twice as likely to
  subscribe to green awards compared to other
  ratings

56
Potential Scheme Developments

• Respondents were asked about using consumer
  feedback as part of the scheme
• They were asked to indicated their interest on a
  7 point scale (1 not at all interested, 7
  Extremely interested)
• There was little difference between the
  different proposed types of consumer feedback
• Higher graded properties and new members showed
  the highest levels of interest for all
• There was little variations across regions and
  sectors
• Each type of consumer feedbacks score increased
  by about 0.3 from the last wave.

57
Rating Difference Analysis

• 75 people had a decline from their previous
  rating to their current rating
• Additional analysis can show that these people
  are much more likely to answer questions more
  negatively
• The average mean score over all questions
  requiring an answer on a 1-7 scales is 0.6 lower
• Below is an example of the ratings for telephone
  and electronic administration
• All aspects are rating much lower, especially in
  the case of speed of response and being
  friendly and attentive

• Due to the fairly low proportion of people who
  had a rating decrease it would not overly impact
  the total mean scores

58
Summary of Findings

• The findings this wave were similar to previous
  waves
• Pleasingly respondents were slightly more
  positive overall
• Most rating scales showed an increase in average
  scores
• Is this an indication that feedback has been
  acted upon?
• The area with the lowest levels of satisfaction
  was telephone and electronic administration
• Half of respondents had visited the QiT website,
  40 had visited the VistiBritain website
• The QiT website was rated better than the
  VisitBritain website
• Under a quarter of respondents receive the
  VisitBritain e-newsletter
• A third showed no interest in receiving it
• There was only moderate interest in an online
  forum
• Respondents see high levels of value to most
  aspects of the scheme
• Those who are disappointed in their rating answer
  questions more negatively