Marketing Intelligence & PlanningEmerald Article: Value equity in event planning: a case study of Macau Mark S. Rosenbaum, IpKin Anthony Wong Article information: To cite this document: Mark S. Rosenbaum, IpKin Anthony Wong, (2010),"Value equity in event planning: a case study of Macau", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 28 Iss: 4 pp. 403 - 417 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501011053540 Downloaded on: 27-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 40 other documents To copy this document: [email protected] This document has been downloaded 1502 times. Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Nottingham Trent University For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Arizona. The reason for this statement is that event tourism is a complex process that entails planning leisure. to promote a locale’s brand Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. SERVQUAL. and Value equity in event planning 403 Received May 2009 Revised August 2009. Illinois. and tourism governmental authorities. In addition. 2006.1108/02634501011053540 . business travelers place more importance than leisure travelers on service quality but are less sensitive to an event’s price. Macau. For example. the concept is relatively unexplored in event planning.g. Keywords Customer satisfaction. USA and W. Given that the study’s scales were adapted for use at 40 different venues in Macau. Center for Service Leadership. expositions. Business travel. this paper shows how group consensus using the Delphi method among tourism academics and practitioners can yield a set of reliable service quality. The authors also put forth recommendation regarding expanding the SERVQUAL survey. USA. Arizona State University. business. The data were used to support the structural framework. event planners must be adept at strategic planning (Li and Patrick. or civic events to attract tourists.com/0263-4503. some major differences exist regarding how these groups respond to an event’s marketing actions that promote value and how they derive satisfaction from value. 4. Leisure activities. in addition to traditional planning that relies on the service marketing mix. 2010 pp.emeraldinsight. using a questionnaire that was designed by practitioners. In terms of satisfaction. Carey School of Business. and convenience drive customer satisfaction among business and leisure travelers who are attending events (e.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. cost. DeKalb. Findings – The results show that though value equity is positively related to customer satisfaction among both business and leisure travelers. academics. China. Research limitations/implications – The paper extends the value equity literature by applying the concept to event planning. Northern Illinois University. Ruyi and Pegg. China Paper type Research paper Introduction Given the nature of event services. and group comparison modeling was employed to show that a respondent’s leisure or business travel status serves as a moderator between value equity and customer satisfaction. 403-417 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-4503 DOI 10. cultural events) in Macau. China Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how value equity and its subdimensions of service quality. event planners may need to modify the scale items for their respective locales. cost. Rosenbaum Department of Marketing.P. September 2009 Accepted September 2009 IpKin Anthony Wong Institute for Tourism Studies. Originality/value – Although value equity has been explored in hospitality/lodging. Tempe. leisure travelers place more emphasis on a venue’s space and layout than business travelers. College of Business. parades. and convenience scales that may apply to a series of event venues. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through a survey of 322 leisure and 91 business travelers who were present at 40 different major events in Macau. 2007). 28 No. The paper suggests that event planners should consider designing and implementing marketing actions that focus on value equity. to forecast future demand. conventions.htm Value equity in event planning: a case study of Macau Mark S. with value equity being the leading driver rather than brand and relationship (Vogel et al. along with its legendary 4Ps of price. such as Las Vegas and Sydney. Additionally. 2007. event tourists represent significant revenue sources. 2008).. customer behavior. the “soft” infrastructures include planning for intangible. Rust et al.e. cultural festivals.. tangible.. Indeed. one of the reasons that event tourism attracts interest from academics. usually represents the cornerstone of strategic marketing planning (Narayanan et al. a time during which the marketing discipline maintained a goods-centric focus (Kotler. including reliability. and financial outcomes. researchers proposed the service mix and added three new elements to the marketing mix: people. and assurance (Zeithaml et al. such as those related to monetary costs. we speculate that customer equity. respectively. For example. civic and sporting events) are unlikely to be influenced by a venue’s marketing actions that promote either its brand or long-term relationships. Thus. have a history of using strategic planning tools to produce stellar reputations regarding their ability to host various kinds of events (Getz. and promotion. operating standards. Reid. 2009). Customer equity is posited to be influenced by three equity drivers – a customer’s perceptions of a firm’s value. Although the underpinnings of the marketing mix remain convincing. (2004) tackled this gulf in strategic marketing planning by proposing the customer equity model (CEM).. auditable) standards.. brand. Clearly. with value being defined in terms of benefits received and sacrifices provided (Zeithaml. and to maximize revenue for the event hosting community (Getz. 1964). governments. consequently. Rompf et al. empathy. and its . to physical facilities. it has become a “strait-jacket” that limits marketers from seeing a broadened perspective of strategic marketing (Gronroos. such as food and beverage selection and quality. the importance of event service planning cannot be overstated. which are often related to service quality. and to product consumables. 2004. it is worth noting that the concept was created in the 1960s. For these event travelers. and practitioners steams from the fact that event tourists have a higher revenue yield per tourist compared to other types of tourists (Jago et al. These tourism infrastructures include planning for “hard” (i.g. Quite simply. place. To assist managers with managing intangible services. responsiveness. Importantly. what exactly is the best way for event planners to engage in strategic marketing planning? The marketing mix. research in the consumer goods area reveals that customer equity is positively related to customer perceptions. managers are urged to develop and execute marketing actions that a firm’s customers will perceive as value laden. 1980). As mentioned. 2008). physical evidence. meetings. and thus the model has major shortcomings in tourism/event services. Consequently. measurable. Yet even the expanded service marketing mix fails to consider the complexity that is inherent in most marketplace exchanges and. 1997). and relationship efforts.4 404 image. 2008).. 2009). (2004) developed the CEM in the consumer goods domain. 1988). 2008) and to developing event and tourism infrastructures that provide them with the ability to host virtually any international event (Allen et al.. product. business and leisure travelers who sojourn abroad to attend events (e. The CEM suggests that firms consider creating customer equity as the foundation of their planning initiatives because doing so yields a customer-centric organization. conventions.MIP 28. and process (Zeithaml et al. Prominent event destinations. 2003). Rust et al. yet. conferences. the traditional service marketing mix may not be entirely suitable as the foundation of event planning. harder to observe. resultant influence on customer satisfaction.. as a result. 1997. using structural equation modeling. Although knowledge of the services marketing mix may assist managers with planning. That is. 2008). Second. brand. managers may fashion a customercentered. outside the lodging industry. (2004. and financially accountable organization through strategic planning. the mix fails to capture the essence of marketplace exchanges – namely. practitioners. and convenience – are positively related to travelers’ satisfaction regarding event venues in Macau. may rest solely on their ability to discern the three underlying aspects of value equity: service quality. represents the most basic concepts in services marketing (Zeithaml et al. price. which represent the two primary customers in event planning (Getz. 2000. Gronroos. along with its three additional Ps. and the service mix. 2000) addressed this chasm by putting forth the CEM. 2007). 2003). Rust et al. and tourism officials in Macau to develop value equity scales that can be used to evaluate customers’ perceptions of value at 40 different events in the Special Administrative Region of China. Second. competitor-cognizant. First. this work contributes to the tourism literature by showing how event planners can evaluate their customers’ perceptions of venues and the importance of considering customer segmentation when developing marketing actions that drive perceived value equity and event venue satisfaction. including social relationships (Davis et al. organization. 1997). and overall value equity. Thus. we demonstrate empirical support for a meditational model that shows the similarities and differences between business and leisure travelers in Macau regarding their perceptions of an event venue’s service quality. event venues often draw travelers who do not engage in any type of “brand switching” when formulating their approach or avoidance decisions. Thus. Literature review The traditional marketing mix. and convenience. customer-driven. we worked with academics. The reason for this contention is twofold. the manner in which customers perceive a firm’s goods and services offerings. Then. event planners should consider the importance of designing Value equity in event planning 405 . along with the renowned four Ps of marketing. and relationship creation.. price. By doing so. Rather than perceive these two limitations as diminishing the effectiveness of the CEM in event planning. First. CEM planning has merits for profit and not-for-profit organizations and should be deemed as an integral part of strategic planning. the framework encourages managers to design and implement marketing actions that drive customer equity by focusing on value. We conclude by outlining managerial implications and directions for future research. As previously mentioned.or even service-centered. which shows managers how to construct an information-based. perceived satisfaction. these venues are also unlikely to engage in relationship marketing endeavors (Allen et al. rather than a goods. Many tourism planners. The objectives of this paper are twofold. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: we first define and develop the value equity concept and then propose a framework that illustrates how its three drivers – service quality. respectively. many event venues are patronized by large numbers of one-time travelers. may look askance at the basic tenets of CEM planning. we empirically demonstrate that travelers’ perceptions of an event venue’s service quality and overall value equity are moderated by their travel classification as either a business or a leisure traveler.. and convenience. 2000. Zeithaml et al. within service settings. Zeithaml et al. These subdimensions directly affect customer outcomes.. 2000. 2008).. service costs. event planners need to ensure that their customers are leaving their venues satisfied. The relationships between value equity and managerially relevant outcomes. (2004) suggest that value equity is driven by the three subdimensions of perceived service quality.g. cost. 1988.. is hypothesized to positively influence a traveler’s satisfaction regarding a focal venue (Breiter and Milman. as well as to three tangible “servicescape” dimensions. artifacts Event convenience . as negative word-of-mouth can be detrimental to both the venue’s future potential and to revenue generation within the hosting community. are established in the marketing (Bick. 2006. as defined by its three drivers. Rust et al. given the particularities of tourist events. 2009.. 1988).MIP 28. 2008). 2008). services marketing (Brodie et al. symbols. value equity can be understood as the perceived ratio of what is received (e.. 2008. including customer satisfaction (Vogel et al. assurance. Framework The extant literature supports our framework for understanding the role of value equity in event planning (Figure 1). Thus. 2000) literature.. there is a dearth of knowledge regarding value equity in event planning. 2004.. Zeithaml. and hospitality (Al-Sabbahy et al. and empathy (Parasuraman et al. Kashyap and Bojanic. actual service) to what is sacrificed (e. 2009). such as conventions and cultural festivals. 2001.. Vogel et al. 2008). Rust et al. Rust et al. 2004)..4 406 and implementing marketing actions that maximize a key driver of customer equity – namely. the framework purports that service quality is considered as a customer response to intangible. including reliability. These dimensions include a customer’s response to: Intangible service quality Event cost Business or leisure travel H1+ Ambient conditions H2+ Space. Vogel et al. “soft” service quality dimensions.. event customers typically respond to both intangible and tangible infrastructure items. 2009. and convenience (Getz et al. responsiveness. cost. thus value equity. Yet. function Event service quality H3+ Event satisfaction Figure 1.g. however. 2007. Conceptual framework Sign. 2003). value equity (Getz. Ruiz et al. Along these lines. As previously discussed.. The framework purports that a business or leisure traveler’s perception of satisfaction regarding an event venue is driven by his or her evaluation of its service quality. Although it is indeed true that many event venue customers may be one-time customers.. furnishings). who were trained on survey administration. or registered industry members (Allen et al. these two types of events are vastly different in regard to their characteristics. cleanliness. Business events represent activities that are “pursued for its value-creating benefits or out of administrative necessity” (Getz. H2. Methodology Research design and sample Data for this project were obtained through the cooperation of the Macau Government Tourist Office. and quality). Table II shows the demographic breakdown of the sample. 1992). H3. (2) the venue’s space and function (e. Furthermore. symbols. the model suggests that a traveler’s status as either a business or a leisure traveler moderates the three hypothesized relationships. sufficient rest areas. p. 30). The questionnaire was made available to respondents in both Chinese and English. and artifacts (e. Cost is positively related to event venue satisfaction.. service orientation. which provided an event calendar that highlighted the 40 different events Macau would be hosting in 2008 and 2009 that catered to either business or leisure travelers. attendees’ demographic profiles. the Chinese questionnaire was subjected to a double-translation method created by McGorry (2000). and each respondent received a souvenir as a gift for participation. Cost refers to the traveler’s perceptions of the costs related to attending a specific event in Macau and as traveling to Macau. and attendees motives and attitudes towards participating in the event.g. air quality. which are as follows: H1. invited. venue location. The respondents were asked to participate in the study after exiting the venue. and attendance is typically reserved for private. organizer. Convenience is positively related to event venue satisfaction. and that are usually available for the public. The tourist office granted permission to conveniently sample travelers at these business and leisure events (Table I). We developed the items for measuring the constructs by drawing on prior research in the services literature. and (3) its signs. Along these lines. respectively.(1) a venue’s ambient conditions (e. especially regarding leisure events and business events. convenience evaluates a traveler’s perception of the ease of traveling to an event venue and to Macau in general.g. The moderation encompasses Getz’s (2007) suggestions that planned events can be dichotomized based upon activity sought. experience. satisfaction refers to an event traveler’s perception of being delighted with the event (e. A total of 413 completed questionnaires were collected and analyzed in this study. directional signage. Measures Event service quality. comfortable). brochures. that have hedonistic appeals. Lastly. The questionnaires were administrated to respondents either by one of the study’s authors or by a group of interviewers. The service quality items were drawn from Value equity in event planning 407 . Clearly. Leisure events are activities that participants seek for personal interest and entertainment. Service quality is positively related to event venue satisfaction.g. Bitner. 2008). 2007. which included 321 leisure travelers and 91 business travelers.g. festivals. events meetings and conventions. and academic hospitality researchers. Italian Festival. Eason Concert. education and scientific events Table I.4 Leisure events Examples Cultural celebrations. exhibitions (trade and consumer shows). Food Festival. Zaia Asia Adult Expo. Formula 3 Grand Prix. sport events. the pooled items were refined with the Delphi technique. Wedding & Beauty Expo 408 Business Business and trade events.. and revelry Private events that target business-to-business professionals for sales. Next. Firework Festival. Pre Beijing Olympic Basketball Exhibition. entertainment. Global Gaming Expo Asia . International Gaming & Entertainment Expo. both of which have proven reliability and validity in prior research. FIVB Volleyball Competition. Lusofonia Festival. WaKin Concert. heritage commemoration. GSM Mobile Asia Congress. Beer Festival. Wine & Gourmet. which is an often overlooked but quite effective method for developing practical scales in tourism research (Green et al. Avril Lavigne Concert. in which a continual stream of ideas was exchanged. Emil Chau Live Concert. and so forth.MIP 28. MIF. for business customers They could be small or large events aimed to promote or directly engage in trade Participants engaged in this type of event are usually business professionals who are sponsored by their firms Travel and accommodation are usually planned through and paid by attendees’ employer Participation in the event is typically part of a job assignment Specific event studied Ani-Com Expo. Chinese Aeronautics Exhibition. fairs.. 1989). Music Festival of Macau.. International Jewelry & Watch Fair. This is not to suggest that the final service . The goal of these events is to gain interest in particular activities and provide a platform for pleasurable experiences Participants engaged in this type of event usually bring along family members or friends The price varies from free admission to hundreds of US dollars Attendees’ are intrinsically motivated to attend such events for fun. Leisure and business events investigated in Macau an initial item pool with 22 items from the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al. Asian Pacific Microwave Conference. 2002). The goal of these discussions was to create a service quality scale that was generalizable to 40 different event venues in Macau. performing arts. meetings. Christmas & Wedding Gift Expo. 1988) and 28 items from the servicescape scale (Hightower et al. Macau Museum of Arts. networking. recreational events Definition Public events that target the mass market. carnival. We obtained input regarding the perceived applicability of the SERVQUAL and servicescape items by holding in-person and online focus-group discussions with members of the Macau Government Tourist Office. arts and entertainment. Hotel Expo. event managers. The group reached consensus on a four-item convenience scale that was based on items from the marketing literature (Rust et al. Event convenience. 2004. the group separated the remaining tangible items into three scales on the basis of Bitner’s (1992) framework. 11 items that assess reliability. the scale was slightly modified for Macau and for event venues. Education Primary school Junior high school Senior high school Vocational school College/university Graduate (master) Graduate (doctoral) Place of origin Mainland China Hong Kong Macau Taiwan Other Asian countries Europe/North America/Australia 171 151 26 145 90 44 11 6 3 18 82 26 162 27 3 99 61 49 35 38 40 Business travelers 51 40 2 35 30 22 2 0 0 1 11 9 50 17 3 36 20 6 5 11 13 Value equity in event planning 409 Table II. This scale was measured on an 11-point semantic differential . the group further refined the scale to separate the items that pertained to intangible and tangible service qualities. This scale was also measured on a seven-point Likert scale similar to the service quality scale. (2004). The two items were slightly modified according to the context of the study. Demographic characteristics quality scale is applicable outside Macau or to lodging organizations that maintain both loyalty and relationship programs. responsiveness. That is. and empathy (all from the SERVQUAL survey) were considered a scale. By employing the Delphi procedure. Of the items. space/layout. these scales were labeled as ambient conditions.20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60 . from items used in Rust et al. Event price. Seiders et al. (2002) suggested that the servicescape scale would by dynamic in nature and that scale items would vary according to the various physical elements constituting different consumption settings. the groups believed that the 21 items had face validity across all 40 event venues in Macau. even Hightower et al. Then. and signs/symbols/artifacts. assurance. 2005). All four scales were measured on a seven-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).. The two-item price scale was also reached on group consensus.. Next.Leisure travelers Gender Male Female Age . (3) the performer or exhibitor depending on the context. Kline.08.MIP 28. Next. 0. and determined that it was acceptable on the basis of key model fit statistics. 0.e.13. Therefore. 0.06. (4) perceived value. p . Results Before testing a respondent’s traveler status as a moderator. Hu and Bentler.49.05). 0. 1978). which appear in Table V. The results. . we evaluated the discriminant validity of the constructs using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion. and RMSEA ¼ 0.98.001) are all important value equity drivers to customer satisfaction. which encompasses the entire sample. Following Gerbing and Anderson (1988) suggestions. we demonstrate support for H1-H3. First. leisure. the criterion was met for all the constructs because the average variance extracted is larger than the squared correlation between any of the constructs. Traveler’s classification. the confirmatory factor analyses revealed that each scale’s fit statistics were within the recommended thresholds (root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) . The results of the baseline model indicate that all the unstandardized parameter estimates are significant and explain 58 percent of the variance of event satisfaction.60 for all constructs (Bagozzi and Youjae. Third. The results appear in Table III. we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assess the reliability and validity of the multi-item scales.95. and (5) the overall event performance. CFI ¼ 0. In addition. p . 1998). This scale was measured on a seven-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). the coefficient alpha exceeded 0. the composite reliabilities exceeded 0. each respondent was asked to indicate his or her classificatory status. 1988). Second. To demonstrate that perceived value equity may differ according to a tourist’s classification as either a business or a leisure traveler. albeit. 1998.001). SRMR ¼ 0. (2) the venue.08. (2003). p .06. Event satisfaction. As Table IV shows. with service quality being the prominent driver compared to convenience and price. and business – have appropriate model fit (i. we tested the fit of the baseline model. The findings reveal that event service quality (b ¼ 0. The group agreed that the scale should assess an attendee’s satisfaction with: (1) the organizer. and comparative fit index (CFI) . Hu and Bentler. reveal that all three models – baseline.4 410 scale anchored from 0 (unimportant) to 10 (important) in accordance with the price-value scale measure proposed by Chan et al.70 for each scale. 0. and price (b ¼ 0. 2005). indicating good reliability (Nunnally.17. convenience (b ¼ 0. standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) . we divided leisure and business travelers into two samples and examined the hypothesized moderating effect of event experience in a multi-group structural model. 0. A five-item event satisfaction scale was also created with the Delphi technique. 88 0.98 0. The event venue can be reached easily 3.71. The cost of attending the event was important to me 2.68 Pattern coefficient Composite reliability 0.93 Coefficient alpha 0.75 0.72.76 0.88 (continued) Table III.72 0.70 0. The behavior of the employees instills confidence in me 7.61 0.70.06 Space/function 16. The air quality in the event venue is fine Mean ¼ 4. The event venue is clean 14.91 0.59 0. Description of items used to measure the constructs .72 0.88 0. SD ¼ 1. The employees give me personal attention 10.94 Value equity in event planning 411 0.72 0. The employees understand my specific needs 11. I am comfortable in the event venue 15.73 0.83 0. SD ¼ 0.78 0. I can understand the language used on the signs at the event venue Mean ¼ 4. The food and beverage offerings at the event venue are sufficient 18. The event venue has sufficient rest areas 17. Local public transportations to the event venue is sufficient 4.70 0.78.63 0.08 Event cost 1.88 0.84 0.83 0. SD ¼ 1. Macau can be reached easily Mean ¼ 4.72 0.81 0. The employees have the knowledge to answer my questions 9. The entrance/exit areas at the event venue are sufficient 2. The employees are consistently courteous with me 8.16 Signs.80 0.Scale/items Intangible service quality 1.93 Ambient conditions 12. symbols.76 0.26 Event convenience 1.70.84 0. The cost of travelling to Macau was important to me Mean ¼ 6.77 0. The signs at the event venues are helpful 20.70 0. SD ¼ 1.66 0. There are detailed brochures/information desk at the event venue 21. SD ¼ 1. The event venue has an overall pleasant feel 13. The event organizer performs the right services as promised 3. and artefacts 19.88 0. SD ¼ 1. The event venue has pleasant furnishings and displays Mean ¼ 4.55 0.61 0.32. The employees are never too busy to respond to my requests 6.73 0.76 0.87 0. The event organizer shows sincere interest in solving a problem that I may encounter 2. The event organizer provides its services at the time it promises to do so Mean ¼ 4.83 0.91 0. The employees give me prompt service 4. The employees are always willing to help me 5. 14 * * * * 0.01.81 * * * 0. 0.05.66 * * * 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.MIP 28.65 1 0.86 Composite reliability 0.60 * * * 0.71 * * * 0. Intangible quality Intangible quality Ambient conditions Space and function Sign and symbols Convenience Price Satisfaction AVE 1 0.62 * * * 0.72 * * * * 0.08 0.62 * * * 0.17 * * 0.75 1 0.75 * * * 0.98 0.66 * * * * 0.79 0.76 * * * * 0.22 * * * 0.75 * * * * 0.72 * – – – – Table V. 0.08 0.65 * * * 0. * *p . I am satisfied with the overall event experience Mean ¼ 5.97 0.4 Scale/items Event satisfaction 1.83 0.59 Business travelers 0.68 * * * 0.82 0. ns – not significant . parameter estimates are presented as unstandardized path coefficients.49 * * * * 0.06 0. 0.14 * * 0.77 0.58 Leisure travelers 0.76 * * * * 0.82 Ambient conditions Space/ function Sign and symbols Convenience Price Satisfaction 1 0.001. fit measures.01.01 0.76 * * * * 0. I am happy with the quality of the event 4.70 Table IV.69 * * * 0. and * * * *p .69 Dx 2(df ¼ 1) ns ns 14.13 * * * * 0. and percent of variance explained Notes: *p .69 * ns 2. 0. SD ¼ 0. Correlation matrix 1 0.72 * * * * 0.89 Pattern coefficient 0.06 0.81 1 0.76 Notes: *p .76 * * * * 0.19. AVE – average variance extracted Baseline model Event service quality Intangible quality Ambient conditions Space and function Sign and symbols Satisfaction Service quality Convenience Price CFI SRMR RMSEA R2 0.10.31 * * * * 0.64 * * * * 0.76 * * * * 0.06 0.08 * * * * ns 3.87 Coefficient alpha 0.75 * * * 0.57 * * * 0.14 * * 0.001. and * * *p .97 0. Parameter estimates.73 * * * 0.47 * * * * 0. * * *p .72 * * * * 0.87 412 Table III.77 * * * 0. I am happy with the event venue 3. 0.65 1 0.01 0.70 * * * * 0.54 * * * 0. I am satisfied with the value of the event 5. * *p .06 0.05. 0. I am happy with the event organizer 2. 0.06 0. both leisure and business travelers evaluate an event venue’s service quality and value equity equally with three exceptions: the relationship between: (1) space and function and service quality (D x 2(1) ¼ 14. 0. Next. This is because leisure travelers are more involved in experiencing hedonic pleasure in the venue than business travelers.001).’s (2002) servicescape scale both highlight the multidimensional complexity of a firm’s physical dimension well beyond four items. hence. we first compared a model in which all the model’s relationships. 2007. however.g. and humanic (clues from employees and customers behaviors and body language) clues. it is worth noting that the moderated models were better able to 2 explain the satisfaction criterion variable (R2 Leisure ¼ 0. Value equity in event planning 413 . event planners are urged to consider baseline model (R2 Leisure traveler segmentation when developing marketing actions that drive value equity (Getz. this paper also brings into question whether the survey’s four items used to evaluate a customer’s view of an organization’s tangible dimension is fully encompassing. This finding stems from the notion that business travelers’ trips to events in Macau are purposeful ones that lower their tolerance zones for deviations in service quality.72. 0. 2007). to examine the moderating effect of travel status.To examine the moderation effect of travel purposes. these include functional (clues regarding the technical quality of a service). obtaining orders).59.72. In terms of satisfaction. the findings reveal that leisure travelers are more likely than business travelers to place importance on an event venue’s space and function. In fact.10). closing the sale. p . and (3) price and satisfaction (Dx 2(1) ¼ 2. were constrained to be equal for both business and leisure travelers. leisure travelers are more inclined to place importance on an event’s price. 0. p . and RBusiness ¼ 0. Although these moderated differences between leisure and business travelers may appear commonplace. we performed a subsequent chi-square difference test on each relationship by setting the fixed value free one at a time.58). The SERVQUAL survey represents one of the most widely used relationship surveys in service marketing (Zeithaml et al. recent work in clue management (Wall and Berry. Further. (2) service quality and satisfaction (D x 2(1) ¼ 3. it is likely that a firm’s internet site and web-based activities also influence a firm’s value equity. For example.. case studies may elucidate academics and practitioners alike regarding novel value drivers. who tend to focus on the business aspects of being at the venue (e. 2009). Bitner’s (1992) servicescape framework and Hightower et al. In terms of service quality per se. Consequently. for extensive review) reveals that customers evaluate three types of physical clues in a servicescape. and we encourage researchers to consider “virtual drivers” that also influence a firm’s value proposition. p . while business travelers are more inclined to place importance on an event’s service quality. it is likely that the manner in which customers evaluate value equity differs greatly across service industries. Theoretical implications and research directives This work suggests that pioneering opportunities exist regarding the conceptual and empirical of a firm’s value equity.69) than the ¼ 0. including causal paths to service quality and to satisfaction. in general.10). The results reveal that. mechanic (design and ambient clues).08. and its three dimensions of service quality. More important. Yet. With the results of group comparisons in structural equation modeling. and government stakeholders to build practical and reliable scales are universal. 2008). However. as business or leisure travelers – because both groups assess aspects of a venue’s value equity actions similarly and differently. 2008) illustrates that customer equity is still undergoing empirical and theoretical development. because it directly influences customers’ satisfaction regarding event venues. we encourage service researchers to further explore whether the tangible dimension of the SERVQUAL survey requires conceptual expansion. that a firm’s tangible realm is unlikely to be properly evaluated with four items. the four SERVQUAL tangibility items are in-line with Bitner’s (1992) belief that a firm’s tangible dimension remain under managerial control. as well as from contemporary service research. however. Given that SERVQUAL is currently comprised of 22 perception and 22 matching expectation items.4 414 Thus. As a result. Yet. this work shows that event planners should consider value equity planning as the cornerstone of their strategic planning initiatives. this assumption may not be entirely valid as many humanic/social clues remain outside of managerial control due to the difficulty of controlling behaviors and body language emulating from both front-line employees and customers. which shows that employees and customers are integral to a servicescape. At the present time. Managerial implications Recent research on the CEM (Bick. brand. the scales might not be generalizable to other countries or tourism domains. and relationship – most event planners who cater to one-time travelers do not typically develop marketing actions around branding or long-term relational planning. to prevent respondent exhaustion. we suggest that event planners should focus on developing marketing actions that encompass value equity. our focus was to explore moderation differences in event planning between business and leisure travelers. This work shows how event planners in Macau developed a means to evaluate value equity among business and leisure travelers. and to continue to provide examples from case studies regarding how different service industries employ the SERVQUAL survey in practice. regardless of the quality of these items. the authors are unclear at this moment regarding how this drastic alteration would impact the survey’s reliability and validity. given that value equity is linked to favorable customer satisfaction (Vogel et al. .. Although methodological challenges exist. In addition. we demonstrated that event planners need to consider the classificatory status of their target customers – that is. rather than consider CEM unfeasible in event planning. 2009. and convenience. A limitation of this study is that it applies only to business and leisure events in Macau. Researchers are encouraged to expand the tangible dimension by drawing upon Wall and Berry’s (2007) research. cost. One survey would evaluate a firm’s intangible service quality dimensions and the other would evaluate a firm’s tangible quality dimension.MIP 28. the Delphi technique we show in this study and the process of using group consensus from academic. Vogel et al. Although the CEM was developed in terms of being influenced by three drivers – value. practitioner.. it is likely that further expansion of the tangible dimension may require that researchers develop two separate SERVQUAL surveys. it is apparent from this case study. pp. competitor-focused. J. 380-90. L. Vol. (1989). pp. “Service quality evaluation at events through service mapping”. Management Decision. M. Brady. D. M.V. we urge event planners to consider value equity planning essential to their organizations and in the same manner they view planning around the marketing or service mix. Buchanan-Oliver. Festival & Special Event Management..N. “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”. Whittome. Getz... R. 3 No. and Brush. (2008). 56 No. New York. and Milman. Vol. and research”. (2003). O’Toole. Green. 18 No. C. pp. “On the evaluation of structural equation models”. and Baker. B. Breiter. all organizations can create customer-driven.P. Vol. Bick. 403-28. pp. Milton. 133-43.K.J. 35 Nos 3/4. Event Management. Getz. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Al-Sabbahy. 697-707. (2009). Chan. 186-92. 74-94. (2009). pp. NY. 25 Nos 1/2. evolution. G. and Youjae.. 4th ed. 1. Hunter. Y. “Investigating the service brand: a customer value perspective”. pp. (2000). Vol. 55 No. Journal of Marketing Research. S. Tourism Management. (2004). pp.J. 62 No. “From marketing mix to relationship marketing – towards a paradigm shift in marketing”. Despite these limitations. D.. pp. R. Fornell. and Larcker. A. “An investigation of perceived value dimensions: implications for hospitality research”. G. “Consumer satisfaction index: new practice and findings”. pp. Vol. Brodie. (1997). 2. (1988). 1. and profitable organizations. D. Gerbing. 16 No. 3. In doing so.K. Journal of Travel Research. T. pp. 226-34. 9. 3. Oxford. Vol. “Increasing shareholder value through building customer and brand equity”. J.P.. Vol. 872-909. 117-41. G. (2006). Journal of Marketing Research. Vol.however. “An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”. Elsevier. 25 No. Journal of Marketing.Z. (1988). (2001). 57-71. future researchers are encouraged to explore cross-cultural differences regarding the drivers of value equity. Y. Tse. 178-86.. “Investigating the role of the physical environment in hedonic service consumption: an exploratory study of sporting events”. and Wu. 2. Ekinci. I. D. 42 No. 29 No. Davis. and Carlsen.. Wiley.. Harris. 4. W. 2. R. O’Neill. C. Lo. 35 No. Vol. Vol. and Anderson. (2002). 322. Journal of Travel Research.. by maximizing customer satisfaction. M. M. Hightower. R.L. Vol. “Event tourism: definition.R. Vol. H.. H. D. Hui. Vol. Journal of Business Research.W.. C. (1992). “Retail service branding in electronic-commerce environments”. R. J. References Allen. pp. and McDonnell. 345-55. “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees”. (1997).C. M. and Brodie. 39 No. Y. Cognizant Communication.J. pp. Event Management & Event Tourism. Bitner.L. Getz.C. 3. pp. Getz.M. Value equity in event planning 415 . “Assessing the environmental impact of tourism development: the use of the Delphi technique”. Gronroos. R. and Riley. (1981). and Moore. Tso. Journal of Marketing Management.F. D. H. (2007). pp.. Journal of Service Research. European Journal of Marketing. 37 Nos 5/6. International Journal of Environmental Studies. Event Studies: Theory. 39-50. 51-62. D.J. Research and Policy for Planned Events. Vol. Vol. (2008). p. Journal of Business Research.K.K. 1. 10 Nos 2/3.F. M. J. “Predicting exhibitor levels of satisfaction in a large convention center”. Bagozzi. (2000). and Bentler. “Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating influences in a retailing context”.C. 1. Vol. and Lemon. Journal of Travel Research. Nunnally. Journal of Retailing. pp. “Return on investment implications for pharmaceutical promotional expenditures: the role of marketing-mix interactions”. Vol. Vogel. 2. and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence”. 43-9. Vol. 59-69. Vol. Ruiz.. European Journal of Marketing. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Chalip. “Building events into destination branding: insights from experts”. “Customer equity drivers and future sales”.B. 3 No. J.. Journal of Marketing. New York..A. 6. Vol. K. (2006). pp. McGorry.M. V. Rust. Mules.B. 72 No. 14 No. 48 No.. P. A. 3 No. V. quality. pp.M. (2004). (2008).-T. “The combined effects of the physical environment and employee behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality”. K. pp. and Ramaseshan. Grewal. (2007). and Zeithaml. 26-43. 2. S. 69 No.. R. Journal of Marketing Research. L. (2003). G. Journal of Marketing. K. Kashyap. (2000). K. 27-38.K. Vol. 109-27. B..F. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly. pp. 45-51. Vol. pp. (2004). S. (1964). p.A.D. Narayanan. Breiter. 2. 68 No. L. Jago. pp. 12. pp. 192-205. NY. and Chintagunta.4 416 Hu. 1.A. and Petrick. 52 No. Washburn. Li. 239-45. pp. Zeithaml. P. Vol. 98-108.M. and Bojanic. and Godfrey. pp. and Berry. pp. “Return on marketing: using customer equity to focus marketing strategy”. Rust. 1. (1980). Event Management. X. Reid. 4. A. 74-81. R. NY. E. 3-16. S. 4. G. S.MIP 28. pp. The Free Press. Journal of Marketing. 1. 8 No. (2005). and Severt. 39-46. Ruyi. (2007). D. Voss. J. and Berry. (2005). “Exploring the motivations for participant engagement in the Australian university games”.A. Lemon. Evanschitzky. International Journal of Event Management Research. “A review of festival and event motivation studies”. 68 No. “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification”. X. Vol. Desiraju. Qualitative Marketing Research. (1988). Event Management. formative measure”. Journal of Marketing. Vol. New York. Vol. 9 No. “Destination selection criteria: key success factors evolve and dominate”.. Gremler. (1988). 2nd ed. “A structural analysis of value.T.H.D. D. 1278-91.. “Service value revisited: specifying a higher-order. pp. (1998). V.T. New York. “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”. D. and price perceptions of business and leisure travelers”. D. 3. V.. P. NY.N. Brown. D. Journal of Marketing. 12 No. Vol. R. Event Management. pp. (2008). . J.. 61 No.C. V. 1. 1. (2000).. Psychological Methods.L. 3 No. 4. and Ali. 39 No. L. 12-40. L. Vol. 424-53. pp. 64 No. Parasuraman. and Pegg. Vol. 90-105.Y.L. “Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: survey translation issues”. (2008).C. Guilford Press. T.. H. and Carrion.. McGraw-Hill. quality. Zeithaml. “Evaluation of the marketing mix – its application to strategic marketing”.A. L. (1978). Vol. Journal of Business Research.. Kotler. P. R. 1. R. Seiders. Driving Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value is Reshaping Corporate Strategy. Zeithaml. Vol. pp. “Marketing mix decisions for new products”. 4.N.L. D. Psychometic Theory. 1 No. Wall. 4. “Consumer perceptions of price. G. Kline. Rompf. Vol. is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Northern Illinois University and a research faculty fellow at W. Journal of Travel Research. (2003).D. M. Fulbrighter. Rosenbaum. Tourism and Hospitality Research. Journal of Business Research. Services Marketing Quarterly.edu IpKin Anthony Wong is Assistant Professor at the Institute for Tourism Studies. Service Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm. Zeithaml. V.com/reprints . and Strategy. McGraw-Hill. MA.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight. His research has focused on services issues such as commercial social support. Journal of Retail and Consumer Services. He has authored articles in Journal of Service Management.D..J. ethnic consumption. 4th ed.J. 5th ed. He received his doctorate from University of Hawaii in 2007. and tourists’ shopping behaviors. Bitner. Macau. Rosenbaum is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mrosenbaum@niu. V. and Gremler. Mark S.A.P. and Journal of Vacation Marketing. His publications also appear in multiple international conference proceedings. and Gremler. MA. International Journal of Culture. unethical shopping behaviors. M. Psychology & Marketing.. Value equity in event planning 417 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. About the authors Mark S. commercial friendships. Arizona State University. as well as numerous conference proceedings. He has published in Journal of Service Research. (2009). The Center for Services Leadership. McGraw-Hill. Journal of Consumer Behaviour.A. Boston.. D. Behavior. Journal of Services Marketing. Carey School of Business. Bitner.Zeithaml. Boston. He received his doctorate from Arizona State University in 2003. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. D. Service Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm.. and Tourism Management: Analysis.