CENTER FOR HOSPITALITY RESEARCH  
White Paper 
JD Power/SITE Foundation  
Incentive Travel Survey 2016 
by Stephani K. Robson, Ph.D; Rick Garlick, 
Ph.D.; Global Practice Lead, Travel and 
Hospitality, JD Power; and Kevin Hinton, Chief 
Excellence Officer, Society for Incentive Travel 
Excellence   
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
ncentive travel is a multi-billion dollar segment of  the travel industry that continues to grow. This 
I white paper outlines the findings from the 2016 JD Power/SITE Foundation survey on incentive travel buyers and sellers, bringing particular focus to the considerations and concerns facing 
incentive travel professionals. Controlling program costs is a major focus as travel planners turn 
to less expensive destinations, accommodations and amenities while still seeking innovative and engaging 
experiences for participants. North American, Caribbean and European destinations are increasingly 
popular for incentive travel. Buyers and sellers of  incentive travel services report growing concerns regarding 
economic volatility, regulatory changes that make travel more difficult for some populations, and safety issues 
such as local violence or terrorism.  And while consolidation and disintermediation within the travel industry 
continue to influence planning decisions, incentive travel professionals maintain a largely optimistic outlook 
for growth in the near future.
Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19 1
ABOUT THE AUTHOR  
Stephani K. A. Robson, Ph.D., senior lecturer, worked for several years in restaurants and retail food operations 
in her native Canada before deciding to pursue a college degree in the field. She graduated from the School of 
Hotel Administration in 1988, and began her career as a foodservice designer with Cini-Little International and 
subsequently with Marrack Watts in Toronto, Ontario. As a professional foodservice designer, she has designed 
kitchen facilities for hotels, restaurants, airports, hospitals, universities and catering halls. She joined the school’s 
faculty in 1993, earned a Master of Science in human-environment relations in 1999, and in 2010 completed her PhD at 
Cornell with a focus on consumer behavior in hospitality settings. Her academic interests center on how the design 
of environments affect consumer intentions, satisfaction and behavior. She is a specialist in the psychology of hotels 
and restaurants and has presented and published her research in a wide range of industry and academic forums 
around the world.
2  Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19
CORNELL HOSPITALITY REPORT  
White Paper 
JD Power/SITE Foundation  
Incentive Travel Survey 2016 
by Stephani K. A. Robson, Ph.D.    
usinesses around the world use incentive travel to reward employees for a job well done and to 
B motivate them to excel.  In the United States, roughly 40% of  businesses acknowledge their employees and partners with incentive traveli, spending roughly $3.9 billion on such trips in 
2015ii.  While typically defined as a subset of  business travel, incentive travel is often to world-
class leisure or resort destinations, that have been expressly selected to feel like a reward rather than work for 
those employees eligible to participate.  And incentive travel works: effective incentive travel programs have 
been demonstrated to increase productivity and teamwork, lower turnover rates, increase organizational 
loyalty, and boost worker moraleiii. In addition to recognizing workers, firms use incentive travel to reward 
their customers: firms responding to a survey by the Intellective Group indicated that they spent $3.1 billion 
on incentive travel for their customers in 2015iv. 
i Incentive Marketplace Estimate Research Study, July 2016. http://www.incentivefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Incentive-Marketplace-Estimate-
Research-Study-2015-16-White-Paper.pdf
ii Ibid.
iii For examples of  academic research in this area, see: 
Hastings, B., Kiely, J. & Watkins, T., 1988. Sales force motivation using travel incentives: Some empirical evidence. Journal of  Personal Selling & Sales 
Management, 8(2), pp.43–51.
Jeffrey, S.A., 2014. The motivational power of  incentive travel: the participant’s perspective. Journal of  Behavioral and Applied Management, 15(3), p.122-
127.
Ricci, P.R. & Holland, S.M., 1992. Incentive travel: Recreation as a motivational medium. Tourism Management, 13(3), pp.288–296.
Shinew, K.J. & Backman, S.J., 1995. Incentive travel: An attractive option. Tourism Management, 16(4), pp.285–293.
iv Incentive Marketplace Estimate Research Study, July 2016, op. cit. 
Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19  3 
15% of  buyer respondents were from other areas of  the globe 
Given the importance and size of  the incentive travel 
including Asia and Australia.
industry, understanding the practices and perspectives of  
buyers and sellers of  these services allows travel marketers to Sellers were a slightly more diverse group, with approximately 
better position themselves in a period of  rapid and significant 40% from North America, 40% from EMEA, and 20% from the 
change.  To that end, J.D. Power, in partnership with the SITE rest of  the world. Respondents were predominantly destination 
Foundation, surveyed incentive travel professionals in the latter management companies and hoteliers (together representing 75% 
half  of  2016 to uncover their perceptions, plans and concerns for of  seller respondents) but also included convention and visitor 
the near future. This white paper summarizes the results of  the bureaus, destination marketers, cruise lines, technology companies 
survey and highlights important findings related to the current (see Graph 1).  The 2016 survey had a significantly higher response 
state of  the incentive travel industry. from destination management firms than was the case in 2015.
Survey Description Demographically, buyer and seller respondents were similar: 
about 60% female and in their mid-to-late forties on average.  
The 2016 SITE Index Benchmark Survey conducted by J.D. They were also seasoned veterans with long-standing knowledge 
Power and Associates had 599 respondents from 62 different and experience in the industry, averaging 18.1 years of  experi-
countries, an increase of  roughly 50% over the number of  ence for buyers and 17.8 years of  experience for sellers.
completed responses received in the 2015 survey.  For the first 
time, the 2016 SITE survey was conducted in three languages: Signs of  Growth in Incentive Travel Volume
English, Spanish and Mandarin, broadening the survey’s reach 
and increasing the robustness of  its findings over similar surveys Overall, the survey uncovered positive signs for growth in incentive 
conducted in prior years.  Of  the completed surveys, 167 (27.9%) travel. Sixty percent of  buyers reported plans to increase the number 
came from buyers of  incentive travel, 400 (66.8%) from sellers of  individuals who are eligible for incentive travel (see Graph 2).
of  incentive travel services, and 32 (5%) identified as “additional 
Similar to 2015’s survey results, in 2016 just under half  of  
interested parties” which included consultants, educators, and 
buyers (49%) report that they plan to increase travel incentive 
travel media.  In order to distinguish the perspectives of  incentive 
budgets to some degree. In contrast, fewer sellers (44%) think 
travel buyers from those of  sellers, each group received survey 
that incentive travel budgets are increasing compared with 2015 
questions tailored to their specific roles. 
(63%), and today’s sellers report receiving a median per person 
spend of  only $1,500 in comparison to buyers’ reports of  a 
Respondent Profiles
median per person spend of  $3,000.  Corporate buyers reported 
Buyers were comprised of  either third party suppliers who spending slightly more per person year-over-year ($3,100 in 2016 
create incentive travel packages (71% of  buyer respondents) or versus $3,000 in 2015) while third party incentive travel suppliers 
corporate users of  incentive travel services (29%).  Sixty percent indicated a 16% decline in per person spend ($3,000 in 2016 
of  buyer respondents were from North America, 25% were from versus $3,500 in 2015).
Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and the remaining 
Graph 1:   
Seller Respondents 
4  Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19
Graph 2:   
Buyers’ Anticipated Changes in Incentive Eligibility 
Applying Strategies to Control Costs
The 78% of  buyers that indicated that they were taking measures to control incentive travel program costs are planning shorter programs, 
choosing less expensive destinations, and selecting less expensive amenities among other strategies (see Graph 3).  Corporate buyers were less 
likely to be looking to contain costs: 27% were not taking any cost-saving measures as compared with 19% of  third party buyers.  Third party 
suppliers were significantly more likely to reduce costs by cutting back on the duration of  programs than were corporate buyers.
Graph 3  
Buyer actions to manage cost of incentive travel programs 
Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19 5 
In response to buyers’ needs for keeping costs in line, almost important from the seller perspective as well: sellers increased the 
all sellers reported that they are creating additional value by proportion of  trips that always had meetings from 19% in 2015 
working closely with clients to create more engaging experiences to 26% in 2016.  
through greater creativity and innovative event design (76%) or 
offering more for the same price (40%), including complimentary In planning incentive travel, buyers are paying greater 
goods and services, waived rental fees, or upgraded accommo- attention to the age of  those who qualify for incentive travel (42% 
dations (see Graph 4). Sellers also rewarded loyal buyers with versus 35% in 2015) when designing programs to best meet the 
benefits such as rebates, volume discounts, and upgrades. needs of  their participants.   This is particularly the case for third 
party suppliers: 46% say they give “a great deal of  consideration” 
Program Characteristics to qualifier age as opposed to 31% of  corporate buyers.  This 
may reflect third party suppliers’ needs for greater responsiveness 
Many characteristics of  incentive travel programs remained to client requirements in order to remain competitive.
similar to those identified in the 2015 survey.  The typical length 
of  stay is still about 4 days, with typically one day added for des- Finally, regarding destination choice, incentive travel 
tinations that require more than three hours of  travel time.   As continues to increase the most in North America, the Caribbean 
was the case in 2015, meetings during the stay are continuing to and Western Europe, with North America being the top choice 
grow in importance.  Corporate users were more likely to incor- for both corporate users and third party suppliers (see Graph 5).  
porate meetings than third party suppliers, with 58% of  corpo- However, third party suppliers are significantly decreasing their 
rate respondents stating that meetings were always part of  their use of  Western European destinations, with 19% responding that 
incentive travel programming.  Meetings are becoming more they have moved away from travel to this region. 
Graph 4  
Seller actions to add value for incentive travel buyers
6  Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19
Graph 5  
Buyers’ Destination Choice
  Note: Values highlighted in green boxes are significantly higher than 2015 results
It’s important to note that in some parts of  the world, there A substantial majority of  both buyers (82%) and sellers 
is a preference to stay local for a variety of  reasons, even though (80%) believe that incentive travel is a powerful motivator of  
a significant amount of  the benefit of  incentive travel programs positive performance. However, only about one quarter of  buyers 
can stem from the global aspect of  the travel opportunities. If  reported that they routinely track the return on investment in 
a preference for close-to-home travel increases, the industry incentive travel in any formal way (see Graph 7).  There are two 
will need to add greater value to domestic travel programs by keys reasons that firms do not perform any ROI analysis: either 
developing attractive travel incentives and staging memorable such analysis is not required in their organizations, or incentive 
events within the region to excite and motivate qualifiers. travel programs are simply accepted as being inherently valuable 
and thus are not seen as requiring confirmatory analysis.
Program Effectiveness
However, given the importance of  ROI analysis to effective 
In line with prior academic research, an impressive 99% of  decision making, a focus on tracking and measuring outcomes 
buyers surveyed believe that incentive travel programs are of  incentive travel should become a priority for both buyers 
either somewhat or very effective. Buyers identified increasing and sellers of  incentive travel services. Sellers could benefit 
profitability of  the overall company, increased individual from developing ROI measurement tools to provide clients with 
productivity and improved employee engagement/morale as a higher level of  service and increase their value proposition. 
their top three reasons for employing incentive travel programs Buyers likewise can benefit from having an objective approach to 
(see Graph 6). Third party suppliers ranked increased individual demonstrating the effectiveness of  incentive travel programs in 
productivity higher than company profitability whereas corporate order to provide data-driven support for future budget decisions. 
users viewed these as equally important.  Other that these minor Developing partnerships between sellers and buyers to develop 
differences, corporate users and third party suppliers are largely tools to measure and track incentive travel ROI may be a possible 
in agreement regarding the relative importance of  positive avenue for collaboration.
program outcomes.
Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19  7 
Graph 6
Rank order of importance of outcomes associated with incentive travel programs  
(1 =  most important and 8 = least important)
GRAPH 7
Frequency of Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis of Incentive Travel
8  Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19
External Influences on Incentive Travel  concern for the majority (57%) of  buyers.  While most of  these 
Programs and Planning external factors are beyond the direct control of  buyers and 
sellers, there may be strategies that each can adopt to mitigate 
An important goal of  the survey was to capture respondents’ negative effects while bolstering those factors that have the 
views about the impact of  specific external factors on incentive potential to contribute positively.
travel1.  Some of  these – notably sustainability and corporate 
social responsibility – are seen by many as likely to have a net The following sections examine each of  these positive and 
positive effect on incentive travel (see Table 1).  However, despite negative factors in more detail.  
a general feeling of  optimism about the effectiveness and growth 
potential of  incentive travel, the survey respondents indicated 
1 It is important to note that the 2016 SITE Index Benchmark Survey 
notable unease regarding cost increases, political change, was conducted between August 11 and September 12, 2016. Respondents to 
terrorism and the possible effects of  an unsettled economy (see the survey were reacting to known events and anticipated events that may differ 
notably from what has actually occurred since the survey closed.
Table 2).  Disintermediation within the travel industry is also of  
TABLE 1  
Events with Most Positive Impact
Note: Items with green boxes are significantly higher than 2015 results
TABLE 2 
Events with Most Negative Impact
Note: Items with green boxes are significantly higher than 2015 results
Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19  9 
Corporate Social Responsibility industry has negatively affected their companies. This view is 
held primarily by third party suppliers, 70% of  whom think the 
Incorporating corporate social responsibility into travel programs 
increase in the number of  corporate buyers who work directly 
continues to be important to both buyers and sellers and is 
with lodging and transportation firms to book incentive travel has 
viewed as having the most positive impact on incentive travel 
had a detrimental effect on their own organizations. Third party 
of  all of  the external factors noted in the survey.  The majority 
suppliers need to better demonstrate to buyers the value they 
of  respondents indicated that they currently include at least one 
provide, whether it is in saving buyers’ time and effort to plan and 
corporate social responsibility activity into their travel incentive 
execute incentive travel programs or in the strong relationships 
programs. About a third of  both buyers and sellers report 
that third party suppliers have established with hotel, airline and 
specifically targeting corporate social responsibility efforts toward 
other travel companies that ensure the best possible experiences 
younger employees although the majority (70%) say they target 
for their corporate clients.  
such programs to all age groups equally.
Integrating social engagement during incentive travel Political Upheaval
may hold promise.  Many luxury hotels already include social The past twelve months have seen enormous political change 
engagement in their programming.  Four Seasons Hotels, for worldwide with little indication of  stability in the near future.  
example, provides opportunities for meeting attendees to engage Beginning with Britain’s “Brexit” vote to leave the European 
in team building activities that help the local community (e.g., Union and continuing with a fractious American election, 
planting trees, preparing meals for the needy, helping at a local political uncertainty was significantly more important to 
hospital). Incentive travel planners should examine the potential respondents in 2016 when compared with the 2015 survey.  
of  such activities to help strengthen the CSR activities of  Forty percent of  buyers and 50% of  sellers thought that political 
corporate buyers.  change would have either slight or notably negative effects on 
incentive travel.  At the time of  the survey, the outcome of  the 
Increasing Role of  Event Technology US election was unknown, and few could have predicted the 
While service providers of  all types were seen as important to rapid rise of  populism in the US and in parts of  Europe.  The 
incentive travel buyers, 83% of  buyer respondents noted that recent UK and French elections returned relatively mainstream 
event technology suppliers – firms that design and create program governments to power in those countries, but there continues to 
events and experiences – are playing an increasingly important be a great deal of  disruption in the US as a result of  the election 
role in successful incentive travel programs.  The demand for and its aftermath.  
memorable, engaging and unique experiences continues to grow 
Although there were grave concerns in the travel press 
as do the number and scope of  firms competing for this business. 
about the negative impact that Britain’s exit from the EU could 
Over half  (54%) of  buyers surveyed said that they project having 
cause for the British meetings industry, in the year since “Brexit” 
increased buying power with event technology suppliers over the 
the industry has not been notably affected, possibly due to a 
next few years, while only 10% anticipate reducing their spending 
weakened pound which makes travel to Britain more affordable.  
on this sector in the foreseeable future.
However, concerns about labor cost and availability are mounting 
as major infrastructure projects that could affect tourism have 
Industry Consolidation and Disintermediation the potential to be delayed if  access to EU labor is curtailed. 
In the survey, buyers noted the continuing consolidation of  Furthermore, a second Scottish independence referendum 
travel-related firms. Thirty percent of  buyers saw destination sparked by the Brexit vote has currently been shelved but is likely 
management firms as the next travel sector likely to consolidate, to be revisited before 2020, which could affect demand in the 
following the airline and hotel sectors which have been leaders British travel market.
in forming strategic partnerships or merging with competitors.  
There was less agreement among respondents regarding the Economic Uncertainty and Increasing Costs
consolidation status of  event technology firms, third party 
Given the political upheaval described above, it is not surprising 
suppliers, and specialty travel sectors such as cruises, but it is clear 
that economic concerns were also high on the list of  potential 
that all of  these sectors are seeing consolidation to some extent.  
impacts on incentive travel.  Although 20% of  buyers and 28% 
This consolidation suggests that it will be even more challenging 
of  sellers had a somewhat positive outlook on the US economy, 
for smaller organizations to compete, particularly because larger 
a third of  buyers and 44% of  sellers thought the US economy 
organizations can dedicate more resources to creating a strong 
would negatively affect their incentive travel programs.  For 
online presence that makes it easier for buyers to book directly 
sellers, this was a significant increase in negative sentiment over 
rather than go through a third party.
2015.  The world economy was even more of  a concern: 56% of  
Although online search and other digital tools have buyers and 67% of  sellers had a negative view on the effect of  
broadened choices for incentive travel buyers, the majority world economic conditions, likely to stem from uncertainty over 
of  buyers (57%) think that this disintermediation in the travel Brexit and the possible economic ripple effects worldwide.
10 Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19
The biggest individual economic issue for survey A second major regulatory change introduced in early 2017 
respondents continued to be airline costs, with over 70% of  all was the restriction on the use of  laptop computers and other 
respondents indicating that the cost to fly had a slight to strong large electronic devices on inbound aircraft from eight Middle 
negative impact on their programs.  Gasoline prices were also Eastern nations.  This ban was not initially directed at flights 
viewed negatively by about one third of  buyers and sellers. from other nations, but if  enacted, such a regulation could affect 
up to 65 million passengers and reduce business-related travel – 
Border Security including incentive travel -- across the globe.  As an illustration 
of  the possible fallout from this policy, a poll by Meetings and 
Existing border security policies were viewed negatively by some 
Conventions found that 69% of  respondents would possibly or 
buyers and sellers although about half  of  those surveyed did 
definitely avoid traveling to meetings in locations affected by the 
not see this issue as a major concern.  Similar proportions of  
banvi.  As of  July 2017, all airlines with flights into the United 
both groups (38% of  buyers and 39% of  sellers) felt that tighter 
States have agreed to comply with elevated screening and other 
border controls would have a slightly or strongly negative effect 
security measures, thus eliminating the need to wholly ban 
on incentive travel programs.  However, two significant regulatory 
laptops and similar devices.  But the fact that such a ban can and 
changes related to border security have occurred since the 
has been enforced raises the potential for regulatory measures 
survey was completed. The first is the Trump Administration’s 
such as this in the future with potentially significant effects on 
executive order restricting travel from seven dominantly Muslim 
inbound travel.
nations (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen), 
which was greeted with major protests and injunctions from the 
Other Regulatory Change
courts when the policy was first announced in late January 2017.  
ForwardKeys, a travel data analysis consultancy, found that net Travel professionals of  all types continue to monitor the 
travel bookings from these nations for the week immediately likely effects of  further changes in US government policies 
following the executive order’s announcement had declined by and regulations, although buyers indicated that most of  these 
80% year over year.  changes are unlikely to significantly affect their incentive travel 
programs.  The majority of  buyers (82%) responded that the 
The effects of  this “travel ban” could spread well beyond Affordable Care Act (still in place at the time of  the survey) 
inbound travel from affected nations.  According to a poll by the would have no effect on RFP scopes of  service, but 31% felt that 
Global Business Travel Associationv, roughly one third of  US new pharmaceutical industry compliance laws would reduce 
business travel professionals expect some level of  reduction in their opportunities.  New regulations for financial transparency were 
company’s travel due to the executive order, and 17% of  European viewed as detrimental by one fifth of  respondents, positive by 
travel professionals reported that their companies had cancelled another fifth, and as neutral by the remaining 60% of  buyers.  
business travel to the US on account of  the ban.  In the same poll, And the “AIG effect”, a response to strongly negative publicity 
51% of  respondents believed that there could be retaliatory policies incurred by the insurance giant for holding costly incentive travel 
from affected countries that will make travel for US nationals events shortly after receiving government funds, still lingers: 
more challenging, and 41% believed there will be increased threats roughly 30% of  respondents believe there is still sufficient 
against US travelers abroad.  45% of  European respondents said sensitivity to such spending that their incentive travel plans could 
their companies would be less willing to plan meetings in the US be affected.
and 38% would be less willing to send business travelers to the 
country.  It follows that incentive travel would be similarly curtailed Terrorism and International Conflict
should the executive order be applied as written.  At this writing, 
a revised version of  the original travel ban is in effect but is being A growing number of  buyers (78%) and sellers (61%) revealed 
challenged on a number of  legal fronts.  that they believe the threat of  terrorism will have a strong, 
negative impact on incentive travel programs.  This represents 
In a related vein, in early March 2017, the US government a marked increase over the results of  the 2015 survey but is not 
initiated enhanced visa screening for citizens of  many countries surprising given the terrorist attacks in France, Britain, Belgium 
including China, Mexico, and Brazil – all of  which have been and elsewhere during 2015 and early 2016. Such concerns could 
important sources of  tourism demand that could be greatly further increase given more recent incidents such as those in 
reduced if  visa processing is not expedited.  On another visa London, Manchester, and Las Vegas.  In addition, drug-related 
front, citizens of  some EU countries are not eligible for US visa violence in Mexico has notably reduced tourism activity in once-
waivers while other EU citizens are, despite the fact that visa popular destinations like Acapulco.  The survey did not explicitly 
reciprocity within the EU is a cornerstone of  EU policy.  In identify Mexico and Central America as destination options but 
response, the European Parliament voted in March to suspend rather included them in North America, making it difficult to 
visa waivers for US travelers to the EU but this policy has not yet 
been put into place.  Discussions between the US and the EU are 
continuing but visa-free passage for all EU and US citizens has v Press Releases from the Global Business Travel Association: 
http://www.gbta.org/PressReleases/Pages/rls_020217.aspx; 
not yet been established. http://www.gbta.org/PressReleases/Pages/RLS_030817.aspx
Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19  11 
determine what specific effect this violence is likely to have on Incentive travel professionals are concerned about a number 
incentive travel to these areas.  But given the widespread concern of  external factors that they feel could negatively affect their 
regarding terrorism, it might be expected that incentive travel programs in the next few years.  At the top of  the list were 
to areas recently suffering from violence from all sources will be issues like terrorism, increased air travel costs, and upheaval 
negatively affected. STR data suggest that the degree to which a due to increased political and economic volatility worldwide.  
market relies on discretionary travel, coupled with the availability Industry changes such as consolidation within travel sectors and 
of  viable alternative destinations nearby, are the main drivers of  disintermediation were likewise concerns, although corporate 
travel demand fall-off after a terrorism attackvii. buyers were less worried about the impact of  these trends than 
third party suppliers.
Since the 2016 survey was completed, increased tensions 
in the Middle East and in Asia have made travel to destinations For purchasers and suppliers of  incentive travel programs, 
like Qatar or South Korea more of  a concern for many.  While the key takeaway from this survey is recognizing the need to offer 
specific hostilities are largely unpredictable, no doubt these engaging and innovative programs in a high-value, cost-effective 
conditions will continue to impact international travel demand. way in a climate of  uncertainty and increasing competitiveness. n  
Summary
vi M&C Research Survey, July 2017. 
Incentive travel buyers and sellers are largely optimistic about  http://www.meetings-conventions.com/News/Research/Statistics-
the growth and potential of  incentive travel programs in 2017, poll-laptop-ban/
as most buyers say eligibility and budgets are increasing overall. 
They feel these programs have many demonstrable benefits and vii STR: London Hotel Market Demonstrates Resilience to Terror,  
July 2017. 
are positively influenced by trends such as sustainability and http://www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/148807/London-hotel-
the use of  event technology suppliers.  Destinations in North market-demonstrates-resilience-to-terror
America, the Caribbean, and Western Europe continue to be 
most popular with survey respondents (the majority of  which 
were based in North America and Europe), although choosing 
closer destinations to reduce travel time is one of  several 
approaches being deployed to keep program costs in check.
12 Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19
Center for Hospitality Research 
Publication Index 
chr.cornell.edu  
2017 Reports
Vol. 17 No. 18 Hotel Sustainability Bench- Vol. 17  No. 4  What Matters Most to Your Vol. 16 No. 13 The Changing Relationship 
marking Index 2017: Energy, Water, and Guests: An Exploratory Study of Online between Supervisors and Subordinates: How 
Carbon, by Eric Ricaurte Reviews, by Jie J. Zhang, Ph.D., and Rohit Managing This Relationship Evolves over 
Verma, Ph.D. Time, by Michael Sturman, Ph.D. and Sang-
Vol. 17 No. 17 Information in stock prices: hee Park, Ph.D.
Buy the rumor, sell the news? By Pamela Vol. 17  No. 3  Hotel Brand Standards: How 
Moulton, Ph.D. to Pick the Right Amenities for Your Property, Vol. 16 No. 12 Environmental Implications of 
by Chekitan Dev, Ph.D., Rebecca Hamilton, Hotel Growth in China: Integrating Sustain-
Vol. 17  No. 16  The Food-Service Indus- Ph.D., and Roland Rust, Ph.D. ability with Hotel Development, by Gert 
try: Best of Times, Worst of Times, by Alex Noordzy, Eric Ricaurte, Georgette James, and 
Susskind, Ph.D. Vol. 17  No. 2  When Rules Are Made to Be Meng Wu
Broken: The Case of Sexual Harassment Law, 
Vol. 17  No. 15  How Co-Production and by David Sherwyn, J.D., Nicholas F. Menillo, Vol. 16 No. 11 The International Hotel Man-
Authenticity Affect Experience Design Man- J.D., and Zev J. Eigen, J.D. agement Agreement: Origins, Evolution, and 
agement, by Lewis P. Carbone and Kathryn Status, by Michael Evanoff
A. LaTour, Ph.D. Vol. 17  No. 1  The Future of Hotel Revenue 
Management, by Sheryl E. Kimes, Ph.D. 2017 Vol. 16 No. 10 Hotel Performance Impact of 
Vol. 17  No. 13  REIT Capital Structure: The CREF Cornell Hotel Indices Vol. 6  No. 2  Socially Engaging with Consumers, by Chris 
Value of Getting It Right, by Eva Steiner, Ph.D. Cornell Hotel Indices: First Quarter 2017: Anderson, Ph.D., and Saram Han
Status Quo Maintained, by Crocker H. Liu, 
Vol. 17  No. 12  seniority_list: A Tool to Ph.D., Adam D. Nowak, Ph.D., and Robert Vol. 16 No. 9 Fitting Restaurant Service Style 
Address the Challenge of Airline Mergers M. White, Jr. to Brand Image for Greater Customer Satisfac-
and Labor Integration, by Robert Davison tion, by Michael Giebelhausen, Ph.D., Evelyn 
and Sean E. Rogers, Ph.D., published by the Chan, and Nancy J. Sirianni, Ph.D.
Cornell Institute for Hospitality Labor and 2017 CREF Cornell Hotel 
Employment Relations Indices Vol. 16 No. 8 Revenue Management in 
Restaurants: Unbundling Pricing for Reserva-
Vol. 17  No. 11  The Billboard Effect: Still Third Quarter 2017: Bigger Is Not Better: 
Alive and Well, by Chris K. Anderson, Ph.D. Smaller Hotels Outperform Larger Hotels, 
tions from the Core Service, by Sheryl Kimes, 
Crocker H. Liu, Adam D. Nowak, and Robert Ph.D., and Jochen Wirtz, Ph.D.
Vol. 17  No. 10  Ethics from the Bottom Up, M. White Jr. Vol. 16 No. 7 Instructions for the Food 
by Judi Brownell, Ph.D.
Second Quarter 2017: Positive Momentum Preparation Scheduling Tool v2015, by Gary 
Thompson, Ph.D.
Vol. 17  No. 9 Entrepreneurship Is Global: Continues: A New Price High Reached, 
Highlights from the 2016 Global Entrepre- Crocker H. Liu, Adam D. Nowak, and Robert Vol. 16 No. 6 Compendium 2016
neurship Roundtable, by Mona Anita K. M. White Jr.
Olsen, Ph.D. Vol. 16 No. 5 Executive Insights on Leader 
First Quarter 2017: Status Quo Maintained, Integrity: The Credibility Challenge, by Tony 
Vol. 17  No. 8 Total Hotel Revenue Manage- Crocker H. Liu, Adam D. Nowak, and Robert Simons, Ph.D., with Kurt Schnaubelt, John 
ment: A Strategic Profit Perspective, by Breffni M. White Jr Longstreet, Michele Sarkisian, Heather Allen, 
M. Noone, Ph.D., Cathy A. Enz, Ph.D., and 
Jessie Glassmire Fourth Quarter 2016: Hotels Are Getting 
and Charles Feltman
Costlier to Finance, Crocker H. Liu, Adam D. Vol. 16 No. 4 Authenticity in Scaling the 
Vol. 17  No. 7  2017 CHR Compendium Nowak, and Robert M. White Jr.  Vision: Defining Boundaries in the Food and 
Beverage Entrepreneurship Development 
Vol. 17  No. 6 Do Property Characteristics or 
Cash Flow Drive Hotel Real Estate Value? The 2016 Reports Cycle, by Mona Anita K. Olsen, Ph.D., and Cheryl Stanley
Answer Is Yes, by Crocker Liu, Ph.D., and Vol. 16 No. 15 Hotel Profit Implications from 
Jack Corgel, Ph.D. Rising Wages and Inflation in the U.S., by Jack Vol. 16 No. 3 Communication Planning: A 
Corgel, Ph.D. Template for Organizational Change, by Amy 
Vol. 17  No. 5  Strategic Management Newman
Practices Help Hospitals Get the Most from Vol. 16 No. 14 The Business Case for (and 
Volunteers, by Sean Rogers, Ph.D. Against) Restaurant Tipping, by Michael 
Lynn, Ph.D.
Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19 13
Advisory Board  
Syed Mansoor Ahmad Cornell Hospitality Report
Vice President & Global Business Head for Energy 
Management Services, Wipro EcoEnergy Vol. 17, No. 18  (December 2017) 
Scott Berman ’84 © 2017 Cornell University. This report may not be  reproduced or 
distributed without the express  permission of  the publisher. 
Principal, Real Estate Business Advisory Services, Industry 
Leader, Hospitality & Leisure, PwC Cornell Hospitality Report is produced for the benefit of  
the hospitality industry by The Center for Hospitality Re-
Noah Brodsky ’02, SVP, Worldwide Loyalty & search at Cornell University.
Engagement, Wyndham Hotel Group  
Christopher K. Anderson, Director  
Bhanu Chopra, Founder and Chief  Executive Officer,  Carol Leitch-Zhe, Program Manager 
RateGain Kate Walsh, Dean, School of  Hotel Administration 
Nathalie Corredor, Senior Vice President of  Corporate Center for Hospitality Research 
Strategy, Hilton Cornell University 
S.C. Johnson College of  Business
Susan Devine ’85, Senior Vice President, Strategic  School of  Hotel Administration 
Development, Preferred Hotels & Resorts Statler Hall 
Ithaca, NY 14853  
Balaji Krishnamurthy, VP, Global Strategy, Corporate 607-254-4504  chr.cornell.edu  
Development and Business Intelligence, Sabre 
Peter Nowlan, Executive Vice President & Chief  
Marketing Officer, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts Dave Mei ’94, Vice President, Owner & Franchise  
Services, InterContinental Hotel Group
Chuck Floyd, P ’15, P ’18, Global President of  Operations, 
Hyatt Abhijit Pal, Senior Executive, Expedia
R.J. Friedlander, Co-founder and Chief  Executive Officer, Nabil Ramadhan, Group Chief  Human Capital Officer, 
ReviewPro Jumeirah Group  
Dario Gonzalez  Vice President, Enterprise Architecture, Dave Roberts, ENG ’87, MS ’88, Senior Vice President, ,
DerbySoft Consumer Insight & Revenue Strategy, Marriott 
International, Inc.  
Steve Hood, Senior Vice President of  Research, STR 
John Spencer, Senior Managing Director, Global 
Sanjeev Khanna, Vice President & Head of  Business Hospitality Leader, Accenture 
Unit, Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd.  
Berry van Weeldon, MMH ’08, Director, Reporting and 
Thomas Landen, Director, Global Field Marketing, Analysis, Priceline.com  
Revinate
Adam Weissenberg, ’85, Global Travel, Hospitality & 
Faith Marshall, Director, Business Development, NTT  Leisure Leader & National Managing Partner, Clients & 
DATA, Inc. Industries, Deloitte & Touche USA LLP
Craig Mason ’85, Senior Vice President, Asset Jon S. Wright, President and Chief  Executive Officer, 
Management, Host Hotels and Resorts Access Point Financial
14 Cornell Hospitality Report • December 2017 • www.chr.cornell.edu • Vol. 17, No. 19