ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Dimensions and correlates of consumer value: An application to the timeshare industry

Beverley Sparksa,, Ken Butchera, Graham Bradleyb
a

Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Grifth Business School, Gold Coast Campus, Grifth University, 4222 Qld., Australia b School of Psychology, Grifth University, PMB 50, GCMC, Qld., Australia

Abstract The concept of consumer value has been hailed as the very underpinning of marketing, yet the concept has been subjected to limited empirical research, particularly in the hospitality industry. This study investigates the value that consumers derive from ownership of timeshare holiday products. A total of 785 people answered questions regarding their background, timeshare ownership, valuing of timeshare, and satisfaction with timeshare. Conrmatory factor analyses showed consumer value to be a multi-dimensional construct comprising opportunities for relaxation, gift-giving, status, quality, exibility, fun, new experiences, and nancial benets. These value dimensions varied with other factors such as type of timeshare ownership (e.g., weeks, points). r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Consumer value; Timeshare; Satisfaction; Scale development

1. Introduction What is consumer value? How do perceptions of value change over time? Is value a uni- or multi-dimensional construct? How can knowledge of value be used to understand consumer behaviour? These questions are important because, as Holbrook (2005) notes, customer value is the very underpinning of marketing. Without value, there is little likelihood of any market development or sustainability. Yet research into consumer value is still under developed or seriously decient (Woodruff and Flint, 2006, p. 184). This paper presents a conceptual model of consumer value relevant to a specic hospitality producttimeshare resort ownership. First, we review the literature pertaining to the meaning and dimensionality of value. Second, the value concept is applied to the timeshare industry. Third, we report a survey-based study that sheds light on the dimensionality and correlates of value. Analyses show that consumer values differ with characteristics of the timeshare product, such as type of ownership.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 75552 8766; fax: +61 75552 8507.

Finally, we discuss applications of the value construct to the understanding of consumer behaviour and the marketing of hospitality and tourism products. 1.1. Denition of value Common to most denitions of consumer value is the idea that it emerges through use or engagement with a product. Thus, the concept of value-in-use (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) is central to what is meant by consumer value. No matter what sales or marketing personnel put into their advertising or sales campaigns, value is created only when a product is consumed (Gronroos, 2006). The idea that value is derived from product or service use is evident in many contemporary denitions of the term. For example, Holbrook (1999) denes consumer value as an interactive relativistic preference experience (p. 5) and thereby draws attention to the transaction between product and user from which value is derived. Similarly, Woodall (2003, p. 21) denes value (in part) as the personal perception of advantage arising out of a customers association with an organisations offering. Beyond this agreement over its interactive nature, however, the literature contains a range of divergent views regarding such issues as the structure

E-mail addresses: b.sparks@grifth.edu.au (B. Sparks), k.butcher@grifth.edu.au (K. Butcher), g.bradley@grifth.edu.au (G. Bradley). 0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.003

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108 99

(dimensionality), evaluation, contextual relativity and implications of consumer value. There is, therefore, a need for further clarication of these aspects of the consumer value construct. By dening value as a relativistic preference, Holbrook (1999) signals that the extent to which consumers derive value depends on personal and situational factors. More specically, Woodall (2003) identies four categories of factors that can inuence the consumer valuation process: the customer (e.g., demographics, experience); consumption (e.g., situational); product (e.g., recognised attributes); and market (e.g., competitors). For example, personal preference for the use of a product and the subsequent value derived may vary with individual needs. A consumer who is married with three children aged between six and ten years is likely to have accommodation and dining needs different from those of a young couple. Similarly, it is important to recall that customer value is experientially derived. Situational factors at the time of consumption inuence the accrual of value. For example, in holiday terms, factors such as crowding and weather patterns inuence the value placed on certain accommodation options. Consumer value also varies with product attributes. To gain the optimal value from a product, consumers need knowledge of that products attributes. Such knowledge can be gained from a variety of sources including past usage, word-of-mouth evidence, and/or participation in tailored educational programs. 1.2. Typologies of consumer value Past research has grappled with identifying a coherent set of value dimensions. The majority of researchers view it as a multi-dimensional concept (Holbrook, 1999; Lin et al., 2005). There is, however, little agreement as to the number and nature of these dimensions. For instance, Holbrook (1999) presented an eight-celled framework of values based on three underlying dimensions: extrinsic versus intrinsic, self- versus other-oriented, and active versus passive. In contrast, Sheth et al. (1991) proposed ve dimensions in a model that emphasised the notion of context (see also, Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Woodall, 2003). Some recent research has investigated customer value within the eld of hospitality, leisure or tourism (AlSabbahy et al., 2004; Gallarza and Gil-Saura, 2006; Lee et al., 2007; Petrick, 2002; Sanchez et al., 2006). In most of this research, value is conceptualised as multi-dimensional and context-specic. For example, Lee et al.s (2007) study investigated what value means from the perspective of Japanese tourists within a context of war tourism. Their research conceptualised perceived value as three-dimensional, comprising functional value (which is nancial in orientation), emotional value, and overall value. Petrick (2002), studying a broader concept than derived value or value-in-use, proposed ve dimensions of value: quality, emotional, monetary, behavioural and reputation. Petrick and Backman (2002) investigated value using a two-

dimensional model that included acquisition and transaction value. Both dimensions were closely related to monetary considerations. In contrast, Richins (1994) suggested that even small non-monetary possessions, such as a photograph of a tourist experience, may evoke strong feelings of customer value. This and other evidence (e.g., Oh, 1999; Petrick, 2002) suggests that consumers in the tourism, hospitality and leisure industries do not assess value in purely economic terms. Rather, a broad view of consumer value seems appropriate, as is illustrated in studies such as that by Gallarza and Gil-Saura (2006). While each of the past papers has made an important contribution to the growing body of knowledge on value, several shortcomings remain. In particular, the lack of consensus over the number and nature of value dimensions suggests that there is a need to devise more robust and comprehensive typologies of value that pertain to particular contexts. Greater conceptual clarity is also required: for example, investigations of value-in-use should clearly distinguish this concept from related, but non-identical, value notions such as transaction or sale value. In addition, research in this eld would benet from better sampling, more reliable measurement, and greater attention to the role of personal and situational factors in moderating value judgements. The current study addresses each of these issues. Using responses from a large sample of consumers, we build and test a multi-dimensional model of the value consumers derive from the use of one specic hospitality product, namely, timeshare ownership. 1.3. Timeshare accommodation Holiday ownership or timeshare is a signicant international industry with more than six million timeshare owners reported to exist world-wide (American Resort Development Association (ARDA), 2006), with owners in more than 190 countries (Pryce, 2002). Ownership of timeshare may take different forms but can usually be classied as interval (e.g., week)-based or points-based (Upchurch and Lashley, 2006). Regardless of ownership form, however, timeshare provides the owner with a right to use specied accommodation for a period, usually on an annual basis. Several features of the timeshare industry make this a particularly worthy context for research into customer value. First, timeshare is intangible. Unlike other vacation purchases, the vested interest in timeshare continues long after each holiday experience, yet the purchased product is seldom objectiable. Second, timeshare is growing. In Australia, for example, the industry has expanded from 57 Australian timeshare properties in 2000 to 73 in 2005 (Australian Timeshare Holiday and Ownership Council, 2006). Third, timeshare products are increasingly diverse. The product has changed from simple ownership of an interval of accommodation time (usually a week) to a wide variety of holiday offerings. Nowadays, timeshare

ARTICLE IN PRESS
100 B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108

ownership exists in many forms, including title/trust (which are taken in week blocks) and a variety of point-based systems. Fourth, compared to many hospitality and tourism alternatives, timeshare is complex. Large, internationally recognised companies, such as Accor, Marriott, and Trendwest, have entered the timeshare market with a complex array of product congurations. New services, such as fractional ownership, holiday exchanges, cruises, and various hybrid timeshare options are now surfacing. As a consequence of these factors, members of the public (i.e., possible future customers) may not fully appreciate what timeshare products entail, what they as consumers potentially have to gain, or, in the discourse of the current project, what value they may derive from such a purchase. Some further characteristics of timeshare ownership need to be noted as background to an understanding of the value that may be derived from this product. The timeshare product is reasonably high in entry investment costs, with the purchase fee ranging from US$5000 to US$20,000 (see Upchurch and Gruber, 2002). In addition, timeshare owners pay an annual levy toward the cost of maintaining the resort facility. Thus, the value of timeshare ownership is set against two forms of economic input: (a) purchase price and (b) annual levy fee. Furthermore, timeshare is sold and purchased with a view towards longterm ownership. Marketers of timeshare position it as a product that will provide the owner with many years of accommodation services. Thus, in comparison with users of hotel accommodation, for example, timeshare owners will typically have an ongoing afliation or tie to their resort or holiday club. In sum, each of these characteristics of timeshare suggests possible areas of distinction between it and other hospitality products. If customer value exists only through use or interaction with the product, it may be assumed that for timeshare to provide value it must rst be owned and used. But what kinds of value do timeshare owners derive? Research by Crotts and Ragatz (2002) provides a partial answer to these questions. This research found that timeshare owners were motivated to purchase timeshare based on exchange opportunities (exibility of location), nancial savings, resort features (amenities) and quality of accommodation. Further insights into this issue come from a recent study by Sparks et al. (2007). Using qualitative group interviews, they identied twelve dimensions of value that might be relevant to timeshare accommodation. These dimensions were: convenience, location, relaxation, social, fun and enjoyment, nancial, exibility, gift, luxury, new experience, ownership pride, and reward. This list of value dimensions remains tentative, although it is consistent with the work of other researchers such as Holbrook (1999) and Woodall (2003), it has not been validated independently or quantitatively. Thus, results from our study and ndings from the broader values literature, strongly suggest that timeshare, like many other products, generates value for the customer in a multi-dimensional manner. Hence, we hypothesised that:

H1. The construct of value derived from timeshare ownership is multi-dimensional, rather than uni-dimensional, in nature. Given that there is truth in this rst hypothesis, there is a need to conceptualise and operationalise each of the dimensions of value obtained from timeshare ownership. There is also a need to identify the antecedents, correlates and consequences of value, and hence to place the value construct within a meaningful nomological net. The relationship between consumer value and consumer satisfaction is deserved of particular attention. Oliver (1999) makes the observation that value should be related to satisfaction but that it (value) is a unique construct, meaningful in its own right. In the present study, we expect each of the value dimensions to be positively associated with satisfaction. This would provide evidence of criterion validity for our measure of value. In addition, it is proposed that the full set of value dimensions will explain a large proportion of the variance in consumer satisfaction. H2a. Each of the value dimensions will be signicantly and positively correlated with consumer satisfaction. H2b. The set of value dimensions will be predictive of consumer satisfaction. As noted above, the past practice of purchasing timeshare solely in units of time has recently been supplemented with a more diversied range of product offerings. Most importantly, many consumers now purchase timeshare points that can be redeemed for a range of short- or longterm vacations. These two forms of the timeshare productweeks-based and points-basedare likely to offer different benets, and hence we expected a different conguration of values to be associated with each product type. This argument follows our line of thinking that just as value for timeshare is likely to be different from that derived from the general holiday accommodation sector, so will specic timeshare product variations be viewed differently. For instance, compared to a bundle of timeshare points, the traditional timeshare product (i.e., ownership of rights to a weeks accommodation at a particular resort) is more likely to generate value of a kind of similar to ownership pride, and is more likely to be valued because it may be used as a gift for others. In contrast, whilst a timeshare points system may be further removed from the ownership continuum, value dimensions such as exibility and convenience may be more salient with this newer type of timeshare product. Consistent with this reasoning, Kaufmann et al. (2006) assert that points-based systems focus on providing the consumer with more choice and exibility compared to traditional timeshare. We thus hypothesised that: H3. The accrual of value varies with the type of ownership. Timeshare is a complex product, which may be overwhelming to a new purchaser. Kaufman et al. (2006) found that owners who had a greater knowledge of timeshare also

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108 101

had a greater level of satisfaction with the product. Many timeshare rms have implemented educational sessions to increase owner knowledge. These sessions include information on, for example, how to secure preferred dates for a booking, and how to exchange one timeshare option for a preferred alternative. Educational programs are thus likely to assist owners to optimise usage of the product and thereby increase the value they derive from timeshare ownership. It follows that participation in an education program on product use will enhance the derivation of value. H4. Timeshare owners who have attended educational sessions derive more value from the product than do owners who have not attended these sessions.

2. Method 2.1. Participants

VALUE out of the USE of my timeshare ownership/ holiday accommodation club membership: and this was followed by statements such as: When I can exchange into different types of properties or When it lets me visit different areas. The questionnaire also contained 10 items relating to satisfaction with timeshare ownership. A broad conceptualisation of satisfaction was used. Items included: Timeshare/holiday accommodation club meets my expectations; Using timeshare/holiday accommodation club is very satisfying; and I would recommend timeshare/holiday accommodation club highly. Response alternatives were the same as for the value items. The alpha reliability for this scale was 0.96. Demographic information was also collected, as was information that could be used to classify respondents into groups based on their type of timeshare ownership, length of ownership, and vacation patterns.

2.3. Procedure Three timeshare resort companies and one timeshare exchange company agreed to participate in the study. Each participating company agreed to select at random the names of a specied number of timeshare owners from their databases and to mail our survey materials to this sample of owners. Using these databases, 2800 questionnaires were distributed to clients resident in Australia. A total of 785 completed questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 28%. 2.2. The questionnaire A questionnaire was developed from three sources: (1) comments from timeshare owners who participated in focus groups conducted (see Sparks et al., 2007); (2) an industry expert panel; and (3) extant literature (e.g., Woodall, 2003). For the focus groups, current timeshare owners were brought together and interviewed in three separate sessions. Each group had about eight couples (16 individuals), which participated on a voluntary basis. Statements reecting each of the themes that emerged from our focus group discussions were written. These statements were supplemented with items used or recommended by other researchers (in particular, Holbrook, 1999; Woodall, 2003). All items were tested for ambiguity, understanding and face validity with academic colleagues. The draft set of questions was examined by an Industry Reference Group (market research personnel from participating timeshare companies) who contributed to the renement of the questionnaire. In total, 75 items were developed to measure the types of value consumers may receive from using their timeshare product. Such a large number of items were necessary to ensure content validity. Seven-point Likert-type response scales were used for all items (1 Strongly disagree to 7 Strongly agree). The stem of the question was: I feel that I receive the most All survey packages were mailed from the timeshare companies mailrooms in May 2005. The survey package comprised a letter from researchers, an information sheet, a self-complete questionnaire, a return-paid envelope, and some prize draw material. A small incentive was offered to respondents in the form of an opportunity to enter a draw to win one of seven department store vouchers. The survey itself was anonymous, and instructions informed potential respondents that the research was being conducted by the university on independent basis.

3. Results 3.1. Sample prole Most lived in two states of Australia (Queensland and New South Wales) were married, and were aged 51 years or older. More females (58%) than males responded. Notwithstanding these patterns, a good spread was achieved. For example, 25% of respondents have a technical or college certicate, 11% have a trade qualication, and about one-third (35%) are university educated. Occupations are equally diverse, with respondents working in professional, trades, administration and sales roles. In addition, approximately one-fth (21%) are either retired or occupied with home duties. Nearly half (45%) have children living with them. Just over half of the respondents (54%) have a points-based type timeshare ownership while approximately one-third has a weeks-based type (36%), and a small proportion (10%) owns both types of timeshare. On average, respondents own two timeshare weeks and/or nearly 14,000 points. Just over half of the respondents have participated in timeshare education/ information seminars.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
102 B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108

3.2. Scale development The data were prepared for a classical scale renement process using steps outlined by Netemeyer et al. (2003). Cases were deleted if they contained missing values on any variable. The SPSS random selection of cases function was used to split the remaining sample in half: one sub-sample (the derivation sample) was used for scale generation, and the other (the validation sample) was used to corroborate the results. Data were checked for normality and outliers. 3.3. Exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis After deletion of cases with data missing, the derivation sample comprised 337 respondents. Using this sample, principal axis factoring was performed on the responses to the 75 items measuring derived value. Principal axis factoring was used as it is recommended for consumer or behavioural research and is the most appropriate approach when developing factors for structural equation modelling (Garson, 2006; see also Preacher and MacCallum, 2003). One item was not correlated at 40.30 with any other item and was removed. As the factors to be extracted were expected to correlate with one another, an oblique rotation was performed, and only those factors with eigenvalues of one or more were interpreted. Items were retained if they loaded at 0.4 or more on a factor and did not load at more than 0.3 on any other factor. An iterative process was employed in the removal of items that did not meet these decision criteria. The nal solution retained 31 variables across eight factors. Bartletts test of sphericity was signicant (po0.001) and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.915. The eight factors were labelled: relaxation; gift; status; quality product; exibility; fun; new experience; and nancial worth. The total variance explained was 71.44%. In the next step, conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.53 (Jo reskog and So rbom, 1996) with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted using as input the covariance matrix from the validation sample (n 324). The CFA sought to test the t of the model obtained in the derivation sample. All factors were permitted to correlate with all other factors, and the variance of the factors was xed to unity to permit scaling. Indices used to test the overall t of the model were: (a) SatorraBentler chi-square (w2), (b) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), (c) the non-normed t index (NNFI), and (d) comparative t index (CFI). RMSEA values below 0.05 are considered good and values between 0.05 and 0.08 are considered satisfactory (Kaplan, 2000). For the NNFI and CFI, values over 0.90 are acceptable and over 0.95 are indicative of a good t (Kaplan, 2000). The w2 should not be signicant, however, this statistic is potentially misleading as it is sensitive to sample size and multivariate normality. The SatorraBentler scaled w2 adjusts for non-normality as outlined by Kline (2005). A w2/df ratio of less than 2.0 is considered

indicative of a good t, and one between 2 and 5 suggests a satisfactory t. This model provided only a moderately good t to the data, but the modication indices showed that the t could be improved by the deletion of one cross-loading item (from the status dimension: item deleted Because it enhances my status). A CFA was conducted on this revised model (eight factors, 30 items) using the validation sample. The t of this revised model was satisfactory, SatorraBentler w2(377) 778.59 (po0.001), w2/df 2.06, CFI 0.96, NNFI 0.95, RMSEA 0.05. Finally, a CFA with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted using the total sample, after listwise deletion of cases with missing data, n 661. The revised model comprised eight correlated factors, 30 items each loading on a single factor, and all other error covariance set to zero. The t of this model was satisfactory, SatorraBentler w2 (377) 1115.96 (po0.001), w2/df 2.96, CFI 0.97, NNFI 0.96, RMSEA 0.05. See Table 1 for items and factor loadings: these assist in dening the meaning of each of the value dimensions. Also reported in Table 1 are the average variance extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR) statistics for each factor. Taken together, the size of the factor loadings (mainly above 0.6), AVE measures (all above 0.5, apart from exibility) and CR scores (all above 0.8) lend evidence to the convergent validity for each scale (Hair et al., 2006). The results support the hypothesis that the value construct for timeshare is multi-dimensional: respondents derived value from their timeshare ownership in eight distinctive, but correlated, ways. 3.4. Relationship between the value factors and satisfaction Composite variables were constructed in SPSS for each of the eight value dimensions, based on a simple summation of the item scores and division by the number of items. These eight consumer value factors were used in the remaining analyses. See Table 1 for scale means and standard deviations. Table 2 presents the correlations between these value factors. As can be seen, all correlations were positive, ranging from a high of 0.56 (between relaxation and new experiences) to a low of 0.18 (between product quality and gift). Thus, whilst correlated, no pair of value factors had more than 32% of variance in common. To provide initial validation of the scale, the derived value dimensions were tested for criterion validity, which refers to the extent to which they correspond to another measure. Each value factor was expected to be signicantly correlated with our measure of satisfaction with the timeshare product. As shown in Table 2, all value factors were positively correlated with overall satisfaction at the po0.001 level. Standard multiple regression was used to investigate the relationship between the eight value factors and consumers overall satisfaction ratings. This analysis provides an additional indicator of criterion validity: it was expected

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108 Table 1 Factor loadings for consumer value model Factors and items Factor loadinga Average variance extractedb 67% 0.87 0.80 0.81 0.80 0.80 74% 0.88 0.90 0.85 0.85 64% 0.72 0.73 0.90 0.84 62% 0.74 0.85 0.76 41% 0.59 0.62 0.67 0.71 0.62 67% 0.82 0.88 0.76 68% 0.84 0.80 0.83 58% 0.70 0.88 0.70 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.78 0.83 0.88 0.95 Construct reliabilityc 0.91 103

Relaxation M 5.58 (SD 1.01) Because going to my timeshare makes me relax When I can use my timeshare mainly for relaxation Because it me a break from my work or work related activities Because it makes me rest Because I enjoy the opportunity to unwind while I am on my timeshare holiday Gift M 4.66 (SD 1.39) When I have the ability to use it as a gift to others Because it can be used as a great gift When I can give timeshare holidays as a gift to my friends When I am able to use my timeshare as a gift to my family Status M 3.80 (SD 1.34) Because it gives a good impression to other people Because it increases my sense of self worth Because I get a great sense of achievement from owning my timeshare Because I get a sense of pride from my timeshare ownership Quality product M 5.57 (SD 0.97) Because the resorts are very consistent in quality Because the standard of quality at timeshare resorts is outstanding Because I know the standard of accommodation I will get Flexibility M 5.17 (SD 1.05) When I can break my timeshare into a few shorter holidays instead of one long one When I can exchange timeshare club points for other leisure products When I can use my membership for a quick getaway When I can use my timeshare for a variety of other needs, such as visiting relatives When I can build up weeks/points so I can go on one long holiday Fun M 4.67 (SD 1.25) When the resort offers plenty of childrens activities When the resort offers plenty of family activities Because the activities organised by resort/staff are great fun New experience M 5.27 (SD 1.13) When I can experience things I would have not normally experienced When it lets me visit different areas Because it offers the opportunity to experience unique things Financial worth M 5.08 (SD 1.19) Because my timeshare was reasonably priced Because it is great value for money Because it is comparatively cheaper than normal holidays
a b

Based on the completely standardised loadings from LISREL. The average variance extracted was computed (see Hair et al., 2006 for the formula) as an indicator of convergent validity. c Construct reliability was computed for each factor (see Hair et al., 2006 for the formula).

Table 2 Correlation matrix for the eight value factors and overall satisfaction Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Product quality Gift Status Relaxation Flexibility Financial worth New experience Fun Satisfaction 1 1 0.18 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.50 0.37 0.32 0.49 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0.43 0.40 0.43 0.24 0.43 0.36 0.29

1 0.50 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.48 0.46

1 0.39 0.43 0.56 0.41 0.50

1 0.38 0.50 0.33 0.32

1 0.45 0.30 0.69

1 0.46 0.53

1 0.33

Note: all correlations are signicant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
104 B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108

that the eight factors would explain a high proportion of the variance in satisfaction. Collinearity statistics were checked and no violations were evident. The equation was signicant, F(8642) 102.37, po0.001, with the eight value factors explaining 55% (adjusted) of the variance in overall satisfaction (see Table 3). Financial worth, new experiences, product quality, and relaxation were the major predictors of this outcome.

3.5. Differential evaluations of value We predicted that consumer value varies with (a) type of timeshare owned (hypothesis 3) and (b) attendance at educational seminars (hypothesis 4). A 2 2 betweensubjects MANOVA was conducted with the independent variables of type of ownership (weeks/points) and seminar attendance (yes/no). The eight value factors were the dependant variables. Table 4 shows all multivariate effects and those univariate effects that were signicant. A multivariate main effect was found for type of ownership. Univariate tests revealed this effect was signicant for three of the value factors. Respondents who owned points-based timeshare rather than weeksbased timeshare rated product quality value higher
Table 3 Regression analysis predicting overall satisfaction on the basis of eight derived value factors Variables in regression equation Constant Product quality Gift Status Relaxation Flexibility Financial New experience Fun B 0.15 0.19 0.02 0.07 0.17 0.08 0.46 0.23 0.02
***

(Ms 5.67 (SD 0.94) vs. 5.39 (SD 1.03), respectively), and exibility value higher (Ms 5.47 (SD 0.88) vs. 4.66 (SD 1.12), respectively). In contrast, respondents who owned weeks-based timeshare rated gift value higher (Ms 4.80 (SD 1.42) vs. 4.56 (SD 1.38), respectively). The main effect was, however, subsumed within a multivariate interaction (ownership seminar attendance) effect. Univariate tests revealed this effect was signicant for three of the value factors. Figs. 1 and 2 show that attending information sessions had a greater effect on the evaluations of product quality and exibility for point-based owners than it did for weeks-based owners. Fig. 3 shows that the reverse is the case for fun value: seminar attendance has affected value ratings for week-based, but not points-based owners. The nal set of analyses examined the extent to which the value dimensions predicted owner satisfaction in each of four sub-groups of the sample: participants whose ownership was weeks-based, those whose ownership was points-based, those who attended an information seminar, and those who did not. For each sub-group, a standard
Participated in educational seminar ? 6 Yes No

Means for Product quality

5.8

5.6

SE B 0.24 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03

b 0.15*** 0.02 0.08* 0.14*** 0.07* 0.43*** 0.21*** 0.03

5.4

5.2

5 Weeks based Points based Timeshare ownership type

Fig. 1. Interaction plot for product quality.

R2 0.56, adjusted R2 0.55, *po0.05,

po0.001.

Table 4 Multivariate results and signicant univariate results Source Multivariate df Type of ownership (ToO) Product quality Gift Flexibility Seminar attendance ToO Seminar attendance Product quality Flexibility Fun
*

Univariate F 22.62*** partial Z2 0.24 9.10** 8.86* 87.36*** 0.91 (ns) 2.60** 0.03 4.37* 4.10* 4.25* 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.14 F partial Z2

8582 1589 1589 1589 8582 8582 1589 1589 1589

po0.05,

**

po0.01,

***

po0.001.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108 105

Participated in educational seminar? 5.7 5.5 Means for Flexibility 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 Weeks based Points based Timeshare ownership type Yes No

multiple regression analysis was computed with satisfaction as the criterion and the eight value dimensions as predictors. Results are summarised in Table 5. As can be seen, the value dimensions explained between 55% and 62% of the variance in satisfaction in all sub-groups. The pattern of signicant predictors was similar across subgroups. In particular, nancial and new experience values were signicant in all groups. Some differences were, however, also apparent. The value attached to product quality, for example, was a better predictor of satisfaction amongst points-based owners than among weeks-based owners, and amongst those who attended seminars than among those who did not. Similarly, relaxation value explained more unique variance in the satisfaction of nonseminar attendees than in that of seminar attendees. 4. Discussion

Fig. 2. Interaction plot for exibility.

4.1. Review and comparisons of ndings

Participated in educational seminar? 5

4.8 Means for Fun

Yes No

4.6

4.4

4.2 Weeks based Points based Timeshare ownership type

Fig. 3. Interaction plot for fun.

Table 5 Beta coefcients and variance explained in standard regression analyses of satisfaction on the value factors in four sub-groups of the sample Value factors Ownership type Weeksbased Product quality Gift Status Relaxation Flexibility Financial New experience Fun R (Adj R )
* 2 2

Information seminar Attended 0.23*** 0.03 0.09* 0.10* 0.06 0.36*** 0.26*** 0.04 0.59 (0.58) Did not attend 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.19*** 0.09 0.50*** 0.16** 0.00 0.55 (0.54)

Pointsbased 0.20*** 0.00 0.09 0.16*** 0.01 0.39*** 0.15** 0.04 0.55 (0.54)

0.10* 0.03 0.10 0.13* 0.13* 0.46*** 0.35*** 0.08 0.62 (0.61)
***

po0.05;

**

po0.01;

po0.001.

The timeshare industry is a unique and rich context in which to study customer value, yet little prior research has investigated value in relation to this experiential lifestyle product. The current study thus represents a signicant and original contribution to knowledge of consumer value in general, and timeshare ownership value in particular. As hypothesised, the results conrm a multi-dimensional model of derived value with eight clear factors distinguished. Specically, respondents were found to obtain value from their timeshare ownership through the opportunities it provided for relaxation, gift-giving, status, quality, exibility, fun, new experiences, and nancial benets. This list does not include four of the themes we identied in our earlier focus group study (i.e., convenience, location, social, and reward value). The failure to replicate these four themes in the current quantitative analyses suggests either that they are not widely held values or that they are not sufciently distinguishable from one or more of the eight factors that did emerge. Like other models of value (e.g., Sweeney and Soutar, 2001), our set of eight value dimensions includes a mixture of utilitarian (e.g., nancial) and emotionally-derived (e.g., new experiences) value components. Like the model of values proposed by Holbrook (1999), our model contains some values that are self-oriented (e.g., status) and some that are other-oriented (e.g., gift), and it contains some that are active (e.g., fun) and some that are passive (e.g., relaxation). As distinct from Holbrooks (1999) typology, however, our model contains no values that correspond to his ethical or spiritual value categories. Overall, therefore, the structure of timeshare consumer values that we propose is sufciently similar to others conceptualisations to claim some convergent validity, but not so similar as to be merely reinventing the wheel. Scales measuring all eight value dimensions were constructed and were demonstrated to possess sound psychometric properties. The possible exception to this

ARTICLE IN PRESS
106 B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108

was the scale measuring exibility, which although demonstrating adequate reliability and divergent validity, displayed a less than satisfactory average variance extracted. Some improvement in the measurement of this construct might be sought in further research. Nonetheless, our full 30-item scale, comprising eight value sub-scales, provides the means to investigate a broad range of customer value concepts. It also serves to demonstrate the complexity of the derived value construct. The scale may be used in future research to investigate consumer value derived either from timeshare ownership or from related hospitality and tourism products. Not all of our value dimensions were equally rated. Respondents indicated receiving the most value from the dimensions of relaxation, quality, and new experience. The lowest rated factor was status, indicating that respondents did not feel they derived a great deal of value from this dimension. In part, this may be the result of past attitudes toward timeshare in which the product was not well respected due largely to its association with high pressure sales tactics (Wood, 2001). However, by uncovering this dimension and its relative low evaluation, and developing a scale to measure it, this study provides an opportunity to work toward improving this component of timeshare customer value. Consistent with hypothesis 2(a), all eight factors were positively and signicantly correlated with satisfaction with the timeshare product, and, consistent with hypothesis 2(b), the set of value factors predicted overall satisfaction. Indeed, these eight factors explained an impressive 55% of the variance in this outcome. This nding is consistent with theoretical models and research ndings (e.g., Gallarza and Gil-Saura, 2006) that posit value as a causal antecedent to customer satisfaction. Financial, new experience, product quality and relaxation were the value dimensions that best predicted this outcome. Hypothesis 3 predicted that value would vary with type of ownership. Some support was found for this hypothesis but only for three of the value dimensions. Those respondents who owned points-based timeshare rated product quality value and exibility value higher than did those who owned weeks-based timeshare. The different ratings of product quality may be explained by the newer resorts that tend to be part of the points-based ownership system. The difference in exibility ratings is also understandable as the points-based system is constructed and positioned as a more exible product. Compared to the points-based owners, those owning weeks-based timeshare reported deriving greater value from the ability to gift the product to others. Perhaps this is because, to a nontimeshare owning recipient, a one week vacation is a more tangible and readily appreciated gift than is a quantity of timeshare vacation points. In any case, there is some support for the hypothesis that value varies with type of ownership. Hypothesis 4that attending an educational seminar would increase derived valuewas not supported. However,

there was an interaction effect on three value dimensions associated with this variable. More specically, participating in an educational seminar resulted in increased ratings of the derived value for product quality for points-based owners, but not for weeks-based owners. Perhaps this reects the greater complexity of the points-based product: seminar attendance may be required to fully appreciate the details of this product, but may be less critical in evaluating the more easily understood weeks-based alternative. Although not as marked, a similar interaction effect was seen for exibility value. Again, the most likely explanation is that appreciation of the more straightforward weeks-based product is less likely to increase from attendance at a seminar than is appreciation of the more versatile points-based product. Finally, attending an educational seminar enhanced the amount of fun value weeks-based owners derived from their timeshare, whereas no similar effect was apparent among points-based owners. This differential effect may reect differences in the content of the seminars presented to the two groups of owners.

5. Conclusions Knowledge of the ways in which, and the extent to which, consumers derive value from a good or service is vital to the management and marketing of that product. In this study of approximately 700 Australian timeshare owners, we identied eight types of value that consumers derive from their timeshare investment and use, and we showed that ratings of these values predict owner satisfaction. We also demonstrated that levels of consumer value vary with type of timeshare ownership. Further research is needed to explore the stability of consumer values over time, and the impact of strategies aimed at enhancing consumer value on satisfaction, word-of-mouth behaviours and re-purchase decisions.

5.1. Managerial implications While the focus of this paper has been to develop and validate a sound measure of customer value in the timeshare context, we note that the ndings have interesting implications for managers at three levels. First, at a general marketing and management level, the theoretical conceptualisations of consumer value as a multi-dimensional construct has been validated. New owners may be recruited through a variety of strategies based on the eight dimensions. For example, our study shows that current owners rate the value dimensions of relaxation and quality product higher than any other dimensions. Marketers can promote the benets of timeshare ownership with greater specicity and condence given this research-based evidence of consumer value. Some of the identied value dimensions (e.g., gift) are likely to be more in evidence in the timeshare context than in the general holiday accom-

ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108 107

modation sector, and thus marketers can use knowledge of such factors to obtain competitive advantage for timeshare relative to general accommodation alternatives. In contrast, the value dimension of status did not receive high ratings in our study. This suggests the need to devote marketing resources to increasing the publics perception of the status of timeshare ownership by, for example, linking timeshare products to high status people and lifestyles and/ or by developing new products that have prestigious addresses and high status appeal. Second, initiatives at the corporate level aimed at increasing satisfaction amongst existing owners can now take into account the specic ways in which owners value the timeshare product. Our study suggests several strategies can be used by managers and marketers to add value to owners experiences of timeshare. For example, member services staff can attempt to build owner satisfaction by strengthening the links between satisfaction and such value dimensions as exibility and gift. Perceptions of exibility value, for example, may be enhanced by providing owners with additional information about exchange options, whilst perceptions of gift value may be strengthened by way of case studies that prole members who have used their timeshare as a wedding or graduation gift. Also, given that corporate timeshare managers have access to substantial database information about their customers (e.g., week/points; seminars attended), this information may now be leveraged with greater condence. Our data suggest that new experience value is more highly predictive of satisfaction amongst weeks-based owners than it is amongst points-based owners, so information sent to these two member groups should reect this difference. To the extent that initiatives such as these are successful in enhancing owner satisfaction, other favourable outcomes such as positive word-of-mouth, re-purchasing, referrals, and other loyalty behaviours, are likely to follow. Third, specic relationship management activities at the resort level can also be pursued. Each value factor represents a possible target for intervention. For example, managers of specic timeshare properties may elect to add value by enhancing the range of fun activities or relaxation opportunities available to their guests, or by disseminating information regarding sight-seeing tours, cultural events, and other new experiences available locally. With advance knowledge of customer details, resort managers can orient check-in processes, planned activities and even check-out processes to reect appropriate value dimensions. Managers may implement miniinformation seminars to constantly advise of new ways for guests to optimise value. Furthermore, as timeshare companies recongure product bundles, consideration can be given to operationalise these products at the local resort level to ensure they full customer needs. Finally, programs to refurbish properties can now take into account important value dimensions relating to product quality and/or new experiences for specic groups of customers.

5.2. Limitations and future research Like all research, the current study is not without shortcomings. For example, our sample was limited to Australian timeshare owners. And, whilst we attempted to sample widely and randomly from this population, we achieved a response rate of only 28%. It is possible that those who did not respond differ in systematic ways from those who chose to participate in our study. Future research, based on representative samples from other parts of the world, will help assess the robustness of the current ndings. A second limitation of the study was its crosssectional design. By collecting all our data at a single point in time, our study provides few insights into (a) the ways in which values change over time; and (b) the causal relations between key variables. In the future, researchers should conduct longitudinal studies of consumer value so that clearer light can be shed on these issues. Similarly, it is recognised that negative experiences potentially lead to the devaluing of a product (see Woodruff and Flint, 2006), and that the overall assessment of value is thus based on tradeoffs between benets and costs that vary over time. Therefore, it is important to conduct longitudinal studies aimed at understanding the dynamic nature of customer value assessment. Finally, our study focused on only one tourism sectortimeshare ownership. This may be viewed as both strength and a weakness. Whilst it enabled us to identify value dimensions that are highly relevant to this product, it limits our capacity to generalise to other tourism sectors. Further research is needed to investigate whether the current ndings regarding the structure of consumer value, and the relationship between specic value dimensions and consumer satisfaction, can be applied to other hospitality and tourism products. References
Al-Sabbahy, H.Z., Ekinci, Y., Riley, M., 2004. An investigation of perceived value dimensions: implications for hospitality research. Journal of Travel Research 42, 226234. American Resort Development Association (ARDA). Accessed 15 November 2006 /http://www.arda.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ IndustryInformation/Abouttheindustry/About_the_Industry1.htmS. Australian Timeshare Holiday and Ownership Council. Accessed 17 November 2006 /http://www.athoc.com.au/pdf/ATHOC%20Executive%20Summary%202006.pdfS. Crotts, J.C., Ragatz, R.L., 2002. Recent US timeshare purchasers: who are they, what are they buying, and how can they be reached? International Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (3), 227238. Gallarza, M.G., Gil-Saura, I., 2006. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an investigation of university students travel behaviour. Tourism Management 27, 437452. Garson, G.D. Statsnotes: topics in multivariate analysis. Factor analysis. Accessed 20 March 2006 /http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/ factor.htmS. Gronroos, C., 2006. What service logic can offer marketing theory. In: Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.T. (Eds.), The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions. ME Sharpe, New York, pp. 354364. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L.C., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, sixth ed. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
108 B. Sparks et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 98108 Preacher, K.J., MacCallum, R.C., 2003. Repairing Tom Swifts electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics 2 (1), 1343. Pryce, A.H., 2002. Timeshare industry structure and competitive analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (3), 267275. Richins, M.L., 1994. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (3), 504521. Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R.M., Moliner, M.A., 2006. Perceived value of the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Management 27, 394409. Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, B.L., 1991. Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research 22, 159170. Sparks, B.A., Butcher, K., Pan, G., 2007. Understanding customerderived value in the timeshare industry. Cornell HRA Quarterly 48 (1), 2845. Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing 11, 203220. Upchurch, R., Gruber, K., 2002. The evolution of a sleeping giant: resort timesharing. International Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (3), 211225. Upchurch, R., Lashley, C., 2006. Timeshare Resort Operations. Elsevier, Oxford. Vargo, S.T., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing 68 (1), 117. Wood, R.H., 2001. Important issues for a growing timeshare industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42 (1), 7181. Woodall, T., 2003. Conceptualising value for the customer: an attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review 12 /http://www.amsreview.org/articles/ woodall12-2003.pdfS. Woodruff, R.B., Flint, D.J., 2006. Marketings service dominant logic and customer value. In: Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.T. (Eds.), The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions. ME Sharpe, New York, pp. 183195. Holbrook, M.B., 1999. Introduction to consumer value. In: Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research. Routledge, London, New York, pp. 128. Holbrook, M.B., 2005. Customer value and autoethnography: subjective personal introspection and the meanings of a photograph collection. Journal of Business Research 58, 4561. Jo reskog, K.G., So rbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide. SSI Scientic Software, Chicago, IL. Kaplan, D., 2000. Structural Equation Modeling: Foundations and Extensions. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Kaufmann, T.J., Severt, D.E., Upchurch, R., 2006. The relationship between vacation club programs components and customer satisfaction: the case of the vacation ownership industry. Tourism Analysis 10, 405409. Kline, R.B., 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, second ed. The Guilford Press, New York. Lee, C.K., Yoon, Y.S., Lee, S.K., 2007. Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction and recommendations: the case of Korean DMZ. Tourism Management 28, 204214. Lin, C.-H., Sher, P.J., Shih, H.-Y., 2005. Past progress and future directions in conceptualizing customer perceived value. International Journal of Service Industry Management 16 (34), 318336. Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S., 2003. Scaling Procedures. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Oh, H., 1999. Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management 18, 6782. Oliver, R.L., 1999. Value as excellence in the consumption experience. In: Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research. Routledge, London, New York, pp. 4362. Petrick, J.F., 2002. Development of a multi-dimensional scale for measuring the perceived value of a service. Journal of Leisure Research 34 (2), 119134. Petrick, J.F., Backman, S.J., 2002. An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research 41, 3845.