Next Article in Journal
Understanding Solo Female Travellers in Canada: A Two-Factor Analysis of Hotel Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Using TripAdvisor Reviews
Previous Article in Journal
The Consolidation Stage of the Tourism Area Life Cycle (TALC) Model: The Case of Ibiza from 1977 to 2000
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Compete or Avoid? Assessing Brand Competition Strategies with Spatial Colocation Analysis

1
School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
2
Department of Tourism, Hospitality, and Event Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tour. Hosp. 2024, 5(1), 160-166; https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010011
Submission received: 8 December 2023 / Revised: 17 February 2024 / Accepted: 23 February 2024 / Published: 26 February 2024

Abstract

:
Spatial competition considerations are important in hotel location selection. This study proposes and demonstrates a method of colocation network analysis to quantify the potential encroaching effect of spatial inter- and intra-competition between units of business brands that seek expansion. The environmental context of the study is a network of the top five budget hotel brands in the Beijing hotel market. The results reveal that brands implement different strategies in their hotel placement, which are subject to different levels of the encroaching effect. However, the method is applicable in a variety of hospitality settings, specifically in those that involve the development strategies of chain brands. The simulation capability of the method can assist hospitality brands in assessing the outcomes of a proposed development and, thus, aid hoteliers in the spatial allocation of new units with the least adverse effects on their existing business networks.

1. Introduction

Location selection is critical to hotels’ performance and long-term operations; however, it is nearly irreversible after the hotel is built. Competition is one of the major factors in the location choice decision, especially for chains with multiple establishments [1]. Chains must not only consider the geographical distribution of their competitors but also evaluate their business network given the potential internal competition from the incumbent units. Upscale and luxury hotels may compete with other accommodation establishments in their segment in terms of location, product differentiation, individual style, and customized service. Meanwhile, budget hotels, with their emphasis on price and a largely standardized package of basic services, face intense competition and severe challenges and are easier to substitute [2].
While the macro-level nationwide locational distribution of hotel chains is relatively well studied (e.g., by Qin et al. [3]), micro-level distributional patterns at up to 10 km distances are less researched. A walking or short-drive distance colocation with similar firms may increase competition for customers and resources and cause negative externalities. The more similar a new entrant is to its competitors, the greater the intensity of competition, thereby lowering the survival rates of incumbent firms. In the lodging sector, more hotel units in an area with fixed demand mean fewer guests per hotel. Conversely, consumers are more likely to be attracted to an area with a large selection of competing services [4]. Therefore, customer demands together with positive externalities from easier access to resources and suppliers, knowledge spillovers, and reduced search costs on the part of consumers [4] spur the growth of new units.
In this growth governed by the attraction and repulsion forces, the new hotels may colocate with competitor brands (inter-firm colocation) or with hotels belonging to their brand (intra-firm colocation). The latter colocation type increases benefits from positive externalities by utilizing cooperation and synergy between hotels in a local neighborhood, thus, gaining from the agglomeration effect. The benefits may include efficiency improvement, economies of scale, knowledge transfer, and reduced uncertainty and costs [5]. However, the danger is the cannibalization of franchisee sales [6]. Hotels no longer just compete with other brands but also compete within their chain brands and units. Therefore, hotel brands need to strategically develop their new units to minimize the encroachment effect leading to cannibalization while still enjoying the agglomeration effect [7].
To assist in tackling this problem, we propose and illustrate the capabilities of colocation analysis in the environmental context of the Beijing market of budget hotel brands. Up to the early 2000s, hotel development in China had been unbalanced with a gap between the upscale market segment unaffordable to most of the population and small individually or state-owned hotels [8]. While in Europe, the budget hotel segment would take 70% of the accommodation market at that time, the budget hotel market in China was severely underdeveloped [8]. With the growing middle class demanding comfortable yet reasonably priced accommodations, the budget hotel industry has grown explosively from just over 50,000 in 2005 to over 2 million rooms in 2018, well exceeding the 50% annual growth at its peak [9]. However, in the 2010s, this early growth has been decelerating, pointing to increasing costs and escalating competition in the developed markets, like Beijing. Consequently, the budget hotel chains had to pay more attention to the encroachment issues than before [3].
In terms of the effect of geographical distance on hotel competition for customers, research has indicated that it is governed by the power law, that is, the probability of being a competitor declines exponentially with distance [10,11]. Hence, several studies used spatial statistical analysis of hotel agglomeration to report the proximity and density structure of hotels [3,5,12,13]. For instance, on a macro-level, hotel chains like 7 Days Inn or Hanting Inn follow a hierarchical diffusion model with a nationwide presence, developing their first-tier locations nationwide first and then percolating into smaller cities. Yet, other chains such as City Comfort Inn follow the contagious diffusion model, concentrating on development in small regions [3].
Despite the existence of literature exploring competition between individual hotels on a macro level, the spatial structure of the two-sided inter- and intra-brand competition is sparsely addressed [14,15]. Hence, this study examines how the micro-level structure of budget hotel networks evolves with time and space using colocation analysis. The observed spatial dynamics are interpreted in terms of the nature of competition among different brands (inter-competition) or individual units of the same brand (intra-competition).

2. Data

To examine the spatial structure of the intra- and inter-competition among hotel brands, this study includes the top five budget brands in the Beijing hotel market. The domestic sector was represented by hotel chains Home Inn, 7 Days Inn, Hanting Inn, and Green Tree, while Super 8 was the top international budget brand [16,17]. The data on each hotel including its precise geolocation was collected from the Ctrip.com travel website using a custom Python script for data scraping. After quality control, the hotel database included 870 hotels in the Beijing area (Table 1). Notably, the data collection period stopped before COVID-19 due to the major disruption it brought to the industry and, therefore, the high likelihood of affecting “normal” brand development.

3. Method

In the hospitality industry, the effective distance at which the hotels are perceived as “geographically close” by potential guests and hence compete for their customers depends on their location. For example, different studies reported that air travelers perceive a hotel to be “close” to the airport at a distance varying from as near as 3 km to as far as 16 km [18,19,20]. Meanwhile, in cities’ business districts, customers are much more sensitive to distances [21]. Guizzardi et al. [11] in a quantitative study of competition involving 107 Milan hotels found that, at a 1 km distance, the probability of hotels competing for customers becomes smaller than 0.05, hence, establishing the 1 km radius as an effective “closeness perception” value for hotel competition. Following Guizzardi et al. [11], we use a 1 km radius to evaluate the change in intensity of competition between the hotels over time.
We used the join count statistics to estimate the probabilities of intra- and inter-brand competition between the hotels within the same brand and between different brands, respectively [22]. The join count statistics is a measure of spatial autocorrelation that evaluates the degree of clustering or dispersion of the objects of interest in space. The statistics compute the number of colocating (“join”) objects of the same type (BB type of join, e.g., two nearby hotels of the same brand B) and different types (BW type of join, e.g., two nearby hotels of different brands B and W) [23]. The observed results are then compared with the expected values for randomly distributed objects. Formally, the statistics for each type of join (BB or BW) are computed as the difference between the observed and expected values divided by the standard deviation for the expected values: Z = (O − E)/SD. For example, a higher-than-expected number of colocated hotels of different brands (competition) will return a positive value of Z for BW colocation: ZBW > 0. Similarly, a lower-than-expected number of colocated hotels of different brands (avoidance) will return a negative value: ZBW < 0. Finally, in the absence of either avoidance or competition, ZBW ≈ 0. Finally, a corresponding p-value indicates whether the null hypothesis ZBW = 0 has to be rejected and, if yes, the strength of the effect.
The join counts depend on how the colocation is defined, that is, at which distance hotel customers perceive hotels as closely located. To ensure the results’ robustness, we repeated calculations with (1) colocation distance radii varying from 0.25 km to 2 km and (2) used a discrete and continuous colocation function. The latter assumed that as the geographic distance between two hotels increases by a factor of 2, their distance-related competition decreases by a factor of 4.

4. Results

Over the last ten years of the explosive growth of the budget hotel industry, hotels’ colocation increased dramatically (Figure 1). While in 2009, among 125 hotels, relatively few were located within the 1 km closeness perception radius (Figure 1b), in 2018, 870 hotels formed several large agglomerations of colocated units competing for customers (Figure 1d). Evidently, in their growth strategies, all chains escaped intra-brand competition (Figure 2a). The only chain with initially high intra-brand competition, Green Tree, was consistently reducing the percentage of intra-colocated units (Figure 2a). Meanwhile, in inter-brand competition, the chains demonstrated radically different strategies (Figure 2b). Three hotel brands, Hanting, Home Inn, and, to some extent, 7 Days Inn, demonstrated high competitiveness with a steady increase over time, as evidenced by join count statistics (p < 0.05) (Figure 2b). Conversely, the Green Tree brand demonstrated increasing competition avoidance in new hotel placement (p < 0.001). The new hotel placement of the international chain Super 8, while having the highest number of hotels, did not demonstrate a preference for either strategy.
The estimates of hotel competitiveness are robust against the customer distance perception (Table 2). The two most inter-competing brands, Hanting and Home Inn, demonstrate competing behavior at distances varying from 250 to 2000 m (except at 500 m for Home Inn), and also for the quadratic distance function. The 7 Days Inn hotels are marginally competitive with other brands. Meanwhile, Green Tree hotels demonstrate competition avoidance. For intra-brand competition, hotels avoid competition; the most competitive brands, Home Inn and Hanting, colocate competitively within their brands only at the highest distance of 2 km. Similarly, there is no intra-brand competition when the quadratic distance function is used.

5. Conclusions

Hotel agglomeration leads to both positive and negative effects on hotel brands. The advantages include reduced costs and availability of materials, a larger pool of potential employees, better information availability, and knowledge exchange [24]. The areas with high hotel density also attract more customers due to improved safety, higher availability of services, and reduced search costs [25]. On the other hand, at the level of individual hotels, increased competition may be harmful, which detracts hotel chain expansion from existing agglomeration areas. Indeed, in China’s star-rated hotel market, which over the past decade has been experiencing competition from budget hotels discussed in this paper, there is a tendency toward decreasing the agglomeration trend [26].
The method described in this paper, which is based on geographical distance measures, seems to be effective in the quantification of both intra- and inter-brand competition at the micro level. Our analysis of five budget hotel chains shows that it can capture different strategies of hospitality brands concerning new hotel placement in the period of business expansion. Some brands lean towards intensifying inter-hotel agglomeration, increasing the number of hotels colocated with hotels from other brands and thus avoiding intra-brand competition. Meanwhile, other brands prefer a neutral strategy (neither inter- nor intra-competition), and one brand executes a competition avoidance strategy.
When sufficiently validated (e.g., with the use of external financial reports), the method can become a convenient management tool for decision-making regarding the spatial allocation of new business units. The analytical simulation of inserting new business units in two or more proposed locations will result in alternative simulated networks. Then, a comparison between the join statistics for the proposed expansion alternatives will help in making the data-based decision on location selection corresponding to the chain’s competition strategy. This strategy can be supplementary to the traditional competition strategies that generally ignore geographical statistics [7].
In terms of the study limitations, the method would further improve its accuracy if the path length of the road network in the city is taken to compute the spatial colocation distance instead of the Euclidean distance adopted in this study. Further, the outbreak of COVID-19 had a significant impact on the hospitality industry in terms of investment in new construction development. This study examined the intra- and inter-brand colocation strategies of budget chain hotel brands excluding that impact since the focus of this research was to demonstrate the effectiveness of the colocation analysis as a decision-making tool in brand expansion strategizing. Future studies can assess the effect of COVID-19 especially the effect of uncertainty expectations on hotel crisis coping behaviors.
To conclude, the method has the potential to be applied not only to hotel networks but also to other business sectors in which network expansion decisions partially depend on competing with colocating businesses, for example, in the food and retail industries. The development in the competition simulation will increase our understanding of business-to-business networks in terms of competitors, suppliers, and customers and ultimately will allow for a more informed choice between alternative solutions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.S. and S.S.; methodology, L.S. and A.K.; formal analysis, L.S. and A.K.; data curation, L.S. and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, L.S., A.K. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, S.S. and A.K.; visualization, A.K.; project administration, L.S. and S.S.; funding acquisition, L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number: 72102239].

Data Availability Statement

Value added data is available on request to the authors. Raw data is proprietary and cannot be shared.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dasci, A.; Laporte, G. A continuous model for multistore competitive location. Oper. Res. 2005, 53, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tavitiyaman, P.; Qu, H.; Zhang, H.Q. The impact of industry force factors on resource competitive strategies and hotel performance. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2011, 30, 648–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Qin, J.; Qin, Y.; Liu, C. Location and regionalization patterns of hotel chains: Evidence from China. Tour. Geogr. 2023, 25, 729–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Canina, L.; Enz, C.A.; Harrison, J.S. Agglomeration effects and strategic orientations: Evidence from the US lodging industry. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 565–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Woo, L.; Mun, S.G. Types of agglomeration effects and location choices of international hotels in an emerging market. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 104034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kalnins, A. An empirical analysis of territorial encroachment within franchised and company-owned branded chains. Mark. Sci. 2004, 23, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kim, T.T.; Jap, S.D. Can Encroachment Benefit Hotel Franchisees? J. Mark. 2022, 86, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chan, W.W.; Ni, S. Growth of budget hotels in China: Antecedents and future. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2011, 16, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhao, J. (Ed.) The Hospitality and Tourism Industry in China: New Growth, Trends, and Developments; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Braha, D.; Stacey, B.; Bar-Yam, Y. Corporate competition: A self-organized network. Soc. Netw. 2011, 33, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guizzardi, A.; Pons, F.M.E.; Ranieri, E. Competition patterns, spatial and advance booking effects in the accommodation market online. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 476–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fang, L.; Xie, Y.; Yao, S.; Liu, T. Agglomeration and/or differentiation at regional scale? Geographic spatial thinking of hotel distribution—A case study of Guangdong, China. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1358–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Woo, L.; Assaf, A.G.; Josiassen, A.; Kock, F. Internationalization and hotel performance: Agglomeration-related moderators. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 82, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, M.; Oh, C.H.; Han, J. Colocation as network: Types and performance implications of structural positions in colocation network. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2023, 55, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Morioka, W.; Okabe, A.; Kwan, M.P.; McLafferty, S.L. An exact statistical method for analyzing co-location on a street network and its computational implementation. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2022, 36, 773–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tao, Z.; Binbin, J. Comparative Study on the Performance of China’s Economy Hotel with Different Chain Organization Modes. In 2015 International Conference on Social Science and Technology Education; Atlantis Press: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 845–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. China Hospitality Association; Inntie Enterprise Management Consultants. 2018 Development and Investment Report of China’s Chained Hotel. 2018. Available online: http://www.shujuju.cn/lecture/detail/4661 (accessed on 22 February 2024).
  18. Roubi, S.; Littlejohn, D. What makes hotel values in the UK? A hedonic valuation model. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2004, 16, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rusu, A.; Banica, A.; Buraga, A.; Rosu, L. Delineating Catchment Areas for the Eastern European Airports in 2010. Analele Stiintific Ale Univ. “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Din Iasiseria Geogr. 2014, 60, 143–156. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shoval, N. The geography of hotels in cities: An empirical validation of a forgotten model. Tour. Geogr. 2006, 8, 56–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lee, S.K.; Jang, S. Room rates of US airport hotels: Examining the dual effects of proximities. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 186–197. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cliff, A.D.; Ord, J.K. Spatial Processes: Models & Applications; Taylor & Francis: Oxford, UK, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  23. Anselin, L.; Li, X. Operational local join count statistics for cluster detection. J. Geogr. Syst. 2019, 21, 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Porter, M.E. The Competitive Advantages of Nations; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  25. McCann, B.T.; Folta, T.B. Demand-and supply-side agglomerations: Distinguishing between fundamentally different manifestations of geographic concentration. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 362–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Luo, H.; Yang, Y. Spatial pattern of hotel distribution in China. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2013, 13, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Dynamics of hotel competition network, 2009–2018. (a) Beijing Hotels, 2018. The square represents the central area. (bd) Networks of colocating competing hotels in the central area in 2009, 2013, and 2018, respectively. Green lines represent colocation links between the hotels (shown as color dots).
Figure 1. Dynamics of hotel competition network, 2009–2018. (a) Beijing Hotels, 2018. The square represents the central area. (bd) Networks of colocating competing hotels in the central area in 2009, 2013, and 2018, respectively. Green lines represent colocation links between the hotels (shown as color dots).
Tourismhosp 05 00011 g001
Figure 2. Join count statistics Z for intra-brand (a) and inter-brand (b) competition. The plots represent join count statistics Z for colocated hotels (left vertical axis) as well as the corresponding p-values for null hypothesis Z = 0 (right vertical axis). Large positive Z values represent high competition for intra-brand (a) or inter-brand (b) competition, while negative Z values represent competition avoidance.
Figure 2. Join count statistics Z for intra-brand (a) and inter-brand (b) competition. The plots represent join count statistics Z for colocated hotels (left vertical axis) as well as the corresponding p-values for null hypothesis Z = 0 (right vertical axis). Large positive Z values represent high competition for intra-brand (a) or inter-brand (b) competition, while negative Z values represent competition avoidance.
Tourismhosp 05 00011 g002
Table 1. Top five budget hotel chains in Beijing, China. Essential statistics.
Table 1. Top five budget hotel chains in Beijing, China. Essential statistics.
Brandn HotelsOperation Starting YearMean over the brand
Lowest Rate, USDn Roomsn ReviewsRating
Super 8214200540758263.99
Home Inn18420015511211714.57
Hanting1692006601127674.43
7 Days Inn1902006439414024.34
Green Tree1132007421065644.25
Table 2. Observed and expected numbers of colocated hotels within 250 to 2000 m distance of each other in 2019. “Quad” relates to the inverse quadratic function of customer distance perception. Join count statistics Z and the corresponding p-values are computed using an empirical distribution function based on 500 perturbations of hotel locations.
Table 2. Observed and expected numbers of colocated hotels within 250 to 2000 m distance of each other in 2019. “Quad” relates to the inverse quadratic function of customer distance perception. Join count statistics Z and the corresponding p-values are computed using an empirical distribution function based on 500 perturbations of hotel locations.
Chain DistanceNumber of Colocations with Different BrandsNumber of Colocations with the Same Brand
Obs.Exp.ZpStrategyObs.Exp.ZpStrategy
7 Days Inn25078730.700.246-110−2.90<0.001Avoid
5001861681.500.054-1024−2.600.002Avoid
10005605221.600.054-5573−1.900.034Avoid
2000171316650.800.228-195233−1.600.05Avoid
Quad3713471.700.052-3449−2.400.002Avoid
Green Tree2504748−0.200.44-942.800.008Avoid
50093111−1.700.058-980.200.31-
1000255345−4.00<0.001Avoid1526−2.000.032Avoid
20007301102−6.60<0.001Avoid3682−3.60<0.001Avoid
Quad171230−4.50<0.001Avoid1217−1.600.044Avoid
Hanting25095673.800.002Compete28−2.200.022Avoid
5001991543.800.002Compete1319−1.200.124-
10005624783.600.002Compete5158−0.700.254-
2000167115272.400.002Compete2181841.600.048Compete
Quad3743194.000.002Compete3438−0.900.252-
Home Inn25084711.700.046Compete610−1.200.17-
5001781641.100.138-1922−0.600.328-
10005775102.900.004Compete71680.300.336-
2000179716273.000.002Compete2982183.600.002Compete
Quad3813393.000.002Compete49460.700.228-
Super 825082790.400.322-313−2.80<0.001Avoid
5002001831.500.066-1430−2.60<0.001Avoid
1000562567−0.200.414-7892−1.200.114-
200017571809−0.900.172-2962950.000.47-
Quad376377−0.100.418-5262−1.500.062-
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Su, L.; Kirilenko, A.; Stepchenkova, S. Compete or Avoid? Assessing Brand Competition Strategies with Spatial Colocation Analysis. Tour. Hosp. 2024, 5, 160-166. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010011

AMA Style

Su L, Kirilenko A, Stepchenkova S. Compete or Avoid? Assessing Brand Competition Strategies with Spatial Colocation Analysis. Tourism and Hospitality. 2024; 5(1):160-166. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010011

Chicago/Turabian Style

Su, Lijuan, Andrei Kirilenko, and Svetlana Stepchenkova. 2024. "Compete or Avoid? Assessing Brand Competition Strategies with Spatial Colocation Analysis" Tourism and Hospitality 5, no. 1: 160-166. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5010011

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop