© 2006 CORNELL UNIVERSITY DOI: 10.1177/0010880406288872 Volume 47, Issue 3 224-244 Safeguarding Your Customers The Guest's View of Hotel Security by JULIE FEICKERT, ROHITVERMA, GERHARD PLASCHKA, and CHEKITAN S. DEV A study of 930 hotel guests found relatively high iven the turbulence of world events, issues of acceptance of certain security measures, along with security have attracted the attention of hotel a willingness to pay extra for some of them. In par- Gmanagers and guests. In particular, managers ticular, respondents were favorable to security cam- might wonder which security approaches will be eras and requiring photo identification, and they most acceptable to guests and be correctly interpreted would support having a first-aid kit in every hotel as improving safety and security. Over the past room. Study participants were mixed on more intru- decade, various authors have addressed the issue of sive security efforts, such as metal detectors, visible security guards, and background checks of guests to security within hotels, primarily through surveying see whether they have police records. Respondents hotel managers regarding their assessment of guests' 1 younger than forty were both more likely to accept perception of security equipment and features. stringent security measures and more willing to pay Useful though these studies might be, they are pri- for them. Women were also more supportive of marily anecdotal and do not provide an empirical strong security measures than were men, particularly understanding of hotel guests' security-related choices, men who are frequent travelers. perceptions, or needs. This article presents the results of a survey of hotel Keywords: hotel safety; hotel guest preferences guests' views of hotel security features. The study 224 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFEGUARDING YOUR CUSTOMERS SAFETY/SECURITY also examines the extent to which guests environment. A particular problem for would accept increases in room rates to hotels is distinguishing legitimate guests pay for any of these features. Additionally, from potential wrongdoers.5 we review research regarding security Regardless of those difficulties, creat- issues faced by the hotel industry, includ- ing a welcoming environment has to be the ing the assumptions hoteliers typically use first priority if hotels are to maintain their to make security decisions. We will also reputation for hospitality. discuss the complications added by the 9/11 attacks. Hotel Managers' Assumptions and Actions Research on Hotel Security Guests' perception of security features Hotel keepers under English common is a topic subject to considerable specula- law have always owed their guests a duty tion. The typical view of general managers of security, a concept that prevails in the and security managers seems to be that United States. Beyond legal tradition, installing obtrusive or indiscrete security hotel patrons commonly assume that measures would only invite guests' con- hotels have created a relatively safe envi- cern, rather than project an image of safety ronment. Although travelers may carefully and security.6 Under this principle, it may watch their belongings and surroundings be difficult for hotels to install features when they are in an airport or taxi, once that may improve security unless those guests enter a hotel, they often lower their features are commonly accepted, as are guard on the assumption that the hotel security cameras in parking areas. The environment is secure.2 question then becomes, How far should a The common law concept of the hotel go to protect its guests? Is it reason- innkeepers doctrine addresses the hote- able to place an armed security guard in lier's role in maintaining a safe and secure uniform within the sight of guests? What if environment by requiring the hotelier to the guard is in plain clothes? As often dis- take all reasonable measures to provide a cussed in the literature, hoteliers worry, secure environment for guests and to safe- for instance, that instead of thinking how guard guests' property.3 The meaning of much safer the hotel is with a security "reasonable protection" has been expanded guard in the lobby, the guest may instead by the courts throughout the years, with begin to ponder whether the hotel has greater levels of liability being placed on security problems that justify the guard's 7 hotels. Moreover, small, independent presence. As our results will show, this hotels have been held to the same liability concern is not unfounded. standards as large, branded hotels. That Although some hoteliers may see secu- development makes hotel security an rity measures as an unnecessary expense,8 important issue regardless of hotel size.4 we believe that the consensus is that hotel Unlike airports, hotels cannot resort to security is important. In that regard, the intrusive security procedures such as role of the security department and its metal detectors or searches of belongings manager has increased in prominence over without disrupting long-established oper- the years. A primary concern of hoteliers ating methods. Hotels cannot, for instance, is the integration of security into the padlock doors or completely control who hotel's operations. Rather than having the enters and exits the hotel while at the same security department isolated from other time maintaining an open and welcoming operating departments and decisions, AUGUST 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 225 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFETY/SECURITY GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT security must be a part of the everyday as women began traveling for business in operating procedures.9 greater numbers. Given that the most impor- Several types of security features have tant concern to female business travelers is become routine in hotel security, notably safety and security,16 major hotel chains certain types of technology. These days, it have taken note of that as they tailor ser- is rare for a guest to complain about secu- vices to the female traveler.17 Furthermore, rity cameras, for example.10 Traditionally, as the media bring criminal actions to the hotel security systems have consisted of forefront, hotels managers may increas- an electronic card-locking system, camera ingly face challenges. A CNN broadcast, system, communication system, and closed- for instance, reported that sexual offenders circuit television in places not easily living and working in hotels unbeknownst covered by security personnel." Additional to the manager and guests committed equipment could include guest-door locks, repeated criminal offenses.18 safe-deposit boxes, and loading-dock access in addition to typical life-safety The Effects of 9/11 systems such as alarms, fire extinguishers, The magnitude and location of the 9/11 and sprinkler systems.12 Beyond technical attack on New York City deeply altered features, some companies train hotel staff travelers' perceptions of safely. Despite members to maintain safety and security travelers' interest in security issues, a late- within the hotel, if only by providing 2001 survey found that many hotels had timely information.13 not made any noteworthy changes in secu- The idea has long existed that a stan- rity procedures. One explanation for that dard set of security features in each hotel finding is that hoteliers may have consid- would improve guests' acceptance of those ered their existing security and safety pro- features. To this point, though, self-regulation cedures and equipment to be adequate. has proven to be most effective, given that That said, certain hotels (i.e., airport, con- the proposed Draft Convention on the vention and conference, upscale, and luxury) Hotelkeepers Contract has been debated for were more likely to have made security seventy-five years without being adopted. improvements or at least reevaluate their To facilitate appropriate self-regulation, existing equipment and procedures.19 the International Hotel and Restaurant Hotel bombings in Egypt, Jakarta, and Association has developed the International Amman have led to a continued focus on Hotel Regulations and Code of Conduct hotel security. In that regard, a report from for Hoteliers and Travel Agents.14 Business Travel Executive showed that Over the years, hotel security features 43 percent of hotels surveyed in 2005 have been updated for such reasons as a had a formal safety program in place. An rise in neighborhood crime, changes in executive-program participant recently technology, or shifts in the hotel's guest told one of the authors that his director of demographics. For example, the introduc- security is now a key person on the hotel's tion of electronic door locks has created an executive committee and is often asked to expectation among customers for that participate in negotiating sales contracts. level of security. This notion has been To those who might question the applic- reinforced by travel agents who will not ability of asking customers to assess secu- book a hotel that lacks this feature, due to rity, we note a survey of the measures used liability concerns.15 As another example, by business travel managers to assess secu- security features became more important rity. The top response (72 percent) was 226 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFEGUARDING YOUR CUSTOMERS | SAFETY/SECURITY "rely on travelers to provide feedback," The majority of the respondents were while the number-two measure (64 per- Caucasian. Two-thirds of respondents cent) was "stick to major chains with uni- reported an annual salary of less than form standards." In 2005, the most popular $75,000. Two-thirds of the respondents measure remained relying on travelers.20 reported no children under the age of eigh- We conclude that recording guests' per- teen living within the household (Exhibit 1). spectives on security is an important way The majority of respondents traveled for to examine this issue. pleasure during at least half of their trips in the previous year (n = 691), while Research Procedure approximately one-quarter of respondents We surveyed travelers who stayed in traveled more often for business than plea- economy, midrange, or upscale hotels. In sure (Exhibit 2). Almost two-thirds of the an effort to obtain a representative sample, respondents took between one and three we purchased from a well-reputed market- trips requiring a hotel stay during the pre- ing research company a reliable electronic vious year. Three-quarters of respondents mailing list of four thousand potential reported that the primary purpose of their respondents with residences scattered most recent hotel visit was pleasure rather across the United States. The mailing list than business. A majority of visits were made contained a sample of respondents bal- to midscale hotels, with three-quarters anced for various demographic criteria of those visits involving a room rate of according to U.S. census data. Given the $100 or less excluding taxes (Exhibit 3). high number of responses and the random The survey consisted of forty-one con- nature of the participant selection, we sumer behavior and preference questions believe that our results can be viewed as and seven demographic questions. Several an adequate representation of hotel guests survey questions asked respondents to across the United States. express the extent to which they accepted Each of the potential respondents received various security features and the amount an e-mail invitation to participate along they would be willing to pay for these with an offer to participate in a raffle for features above the standard room rate. one of ten $100 gift certificates. Of the After removing outliers, we calculated 4,000 potential respondents, approximately acceptability means and standard devia- 2,500 agreed to participate in the survey, tions for each security feature by demo- but 40 percent of those were screened out graphic group. We then correlated the because they had not taken a trip that acceptability ranking of each security fea- required a hotel stay in the past year. After ture by demographic group with the per- three weeks of data collection, we received centage above the nightly room rate that a total of 930 responses. Since there was the hotel guest would be willing to pay no indication of any response bias, the (Exhibit 4-6). analysis presented in this article is based on survey data collected from all of those Acceptability of Security respondents. Features The sample was evenly divided between The survey data revealed that the secu- men and women. While respondents ranged rity features considered acceptable among from fourteen to seventy-eight years of all respondent groups were video surveil- age, the sample skewed toward higher ages, lance, requiring a photo ID at check-in, with just 29 percent younger than forty. and maintaining a first-aid kit in each AUGUST 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 227 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFETY/SECURITY GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT Exhibit 1 : Respondents' Demographics RESPONDENTS' ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME RESPONDENTS' AGE 10K or 10K- 25K- 50K- 75K- 100K-125K-150K 19-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56+yrs less 25K 50K 75K 100K 125K 150K or yrs yrs yrs yrs more NUMBER OF ADULTS (18+ YRS) IN THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN (LESS THAN 18 YRS) RESPONDENTS' HOUSEHOLD IN THE RESPONDENTS' HOUSEHOLD 600 -] 700-1 500- • 600- 400- ! 500- 400- 300- 300- 200- ! i 100- 0 - 1 1 • 200-100-1 1 i i 1 2 3 4 5 or more o4 5 or more Exhibit 2: Business versus Leisure Travelers in Sample Leisure Travelers: Less than 50% of the trips are business related (n=691) Business Travelers: More than 50% of trips are business related (n=239) 228 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFEGUARDING YOUR CUSTOMERS SAFETY/SECURITY Exhibit 3: Respondents' Hotel Visit History NUMBER OF TRIPS TAKEN BY RESPONDENT DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS WHICH REQUIRED A HOTEL STAY RESPONDENTS' MOST RECENT HOTEL STAY 600 300 500 400 300 H n 200 100 0 J I 1-3 trips 4-6 trips 7-10 trips 11 -20 trips More than Within the Within the Within the Within the 20 trips last 1 month last 1-3 last 4-6 last 7-12 months months months NUMBER OF TRIPS TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE LAST YEAR NIGHTLY HOTEL ROOM RATE WHICH REQUIRED A HOTEL VISIT DURING RESPONDENTS' MOST 300 -I 250- 200-1 150- 100- 50- 0- • 1 - 3 nights Within the Within the Within the Within the last 1 month last 1-3 last 4-6 last 7-12 months months months CU Upscale Hotel I Midrange Hotel I Economy/Budget Hotel hotel room. Verification of photo ID is Gender. The survey results show that now a common practice in the hotel indus- regardless of travel purpose, women are try. Our respondents were neutral toward generally more appreciative of security metal detectors and checking guest IDs features than are men. against law enforcement records, while the Age. Respondents younger than forty presence of armed security guards was years of age were more receptive to overt viewed in a dim light (Exhibit 5). Although security features, such as metal detectors, these general results are certainly useful armed guards, and law enforcement record and interesting, a further breakdown of the checks than were guests older than forty. results by demographic group and travel Travel purpose. Hotel patrons traveling purpose provides further insight into for business tend to be more accepting of a guests' acceptance of security features photo ID requirement at check-in than are (Exhibit 4). patrons traveling for leisure. However, AUGUST 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 229 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFETY/SECURITY GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT CD •D • D •a "• C c c 01 c c CD J cu (A II Si * J O) cu § 2 ID _ a § - ° : o cu * (D « CO c !• oi o IT c **- O CO fill | 1 o 11 2 -s -S a ! "D 0) C c •«= . c 8 1CD S m <« £ | ° > co -Q 1 *0 ) CD II S S E S 0) 1 CO co 2 a r. (]) 0) 8 s. * • T3 co 5 £ a> 0) ei c = $ 0) | 1 8 ^ > _t > t 2 c Is o t o 3 S c 2 > t CO c S) o ™ o O. co *- O -Q 0) C S 3 CO o > c o 8 ™g 0) o o • - g CO oj a £. cu u co 5 5 o .c o CJ 8<= * c co >• > •5 *> o co 15 co 3 t « £ 11 c ^ CO a 0 CD L. i 2 ih E o O) 0) f i i J .2 C CO CD C CO > CO co i ; iS ~ p c S f i S (0 a 1„ CO «= —.2 £ £ Ml. o c .?* ° ™ « o « -M2 °> & Jlillfi!!! E £ § o co o 3 CO o 8 3 1 5 8 J I u 5 E 8 CD - C CJ ! i i c ^ r - 5 K cu > o CO CI) CO C •o CO CU c 5 CO ™ CD (o 5 » E : CO 2? <= CO . C I * I P £1*CD 3( Q ~ CO * £'fc * ID M 5a ' H • 3 =6 £ 0) cu 0) cu o cu > t mils 0) o' o +S CD co o Q . ~ - C o E a> o D) g = c § - 2 a cu •fc CI) cu o si 2 E u ! O 9> M o E: > < 5> ^ B .«• 5 CO ^ c ^ c c cu cu CD S> «t £• o -CDg o S c (U - o IS 5 § 1 E 1 J3 c CD Sji CD o cu u .a C frg cu £ a . >• 5 • 03 <0 CD O & E E S g I 1! g°- |.s Tt CO * CO CD *^ «• c s.| • •. a) CO k_ OlO. „, CO 4-< -Q J3 g 2 oi llillill! CD 01 01 B Si t D 'n\ S CO o ! ! n J i c o i = C 0 . c o ™ ^ ej ! i c CO cu 01 c a T3 ID c E * 3 C CU 1* f 2 CD o * o a — o 5 * a ^ 2 * 5 c CU CD 0) o | a o O l l t c l l 5 II. I i o IS < Q. I 2 o CO a CD CD >CD h_ «ii p., a> U) O 0) CD n h 1!£ 3223° lipf uHs e * * • CD C s- C o l •s a> s ^ 01 •D C 0) 3 UJ tt> < CO 230 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFETY/SECURITY GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT 0) Q. . . 3 X US ft c _o JO •si ilil 11111a) o > u •s i >• a <0 t In a f£ 3; 3 1 X S ^ O to .§vl Q 1I TO U fit's* IS 0 1 Q) *- 0) to '»lj|j| O P •D (0 « 0) . « o c O 31 u(0 ^:£=£, o$E SDo)o . *tp- : t5«o otop ,_o c O - Q c ° 1: • = « o « > f c o t o t o .— a* » >• o o fc A 5 ll to •III I* * , * > "J •8 3 :5 c §s p> 0) 01 2 > c c 3 •g 'S & s § g *• to IS •s a) 3 oi a .5 E •"= _0 JO to o & « 8 c 2 S 8 t o 88 O .O > o 8 1 8. & Q. a. 1- o + Given this observation, we are not surprised the ranking for metal detectors, checking that both features received a high accept- identification against law enforcement ability rating. records received a neutral ranking (mean Although first-aid kits are not common response of 3.33). This practice, which is in hotel rooms, this feature is not intrusive common in other parts of the world, repre- and promotes privacy. Thus, the high sents a new security practice for U.S. hotels. rating for first-aid kits was to be expected. Although this may seem to some as an inva- Although we did not ask whether respon- sion of privacy, again, guests may accept dents were staying at hotels with their this as a fact of life. children, it would be interesting to exam- Examining our respondents' demographic ine whether hotel guests who commonly differences, we found that women and travel with children rated the desirabil- young travelers were more accepting of ity of first-aid kits higher than did other and willing to pay for additional security travelers. features. This study gave some support to the The survey found that leisure travelers view of hotel general managers and secu- are generally more accepting of security rity managers that hotel guests might features than are business travelers. An worry about safety in the face of overt exception to this finding is the higher rat- security measures (e.g., armed guards, ing for presenting a photo ID at check-in metal detectors). In particular, the pres- among business travelers, which is not ence of an armed guard received a low rat- reflected in the results for leisure travelers. ing, but respondents were not quite so (We cannot establish a causal relationship negative about metal detectors, which between business travelers' acceptance of were given a neutral reception. We suspect this feature and their familiarity with it.) that travelers have become accepting of The survey revealed that increased fre- metal detectors as a fact of life. Similar to quency of travel generally decreases the AUGUST 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 237 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFETY/SECURITY | GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT Exhibit 9: Security Feature Acceptability versus Willingness to Pay by HotelType 14 • AG 13 H O MetDet OAG OLEC 12 • AG <• LEC <> MetDet S 11 • MetDet O F A K o p h ) D UJ • LEC z 3 • FAK S 10 • PhID «> VidSurv * F A K ~ „ , , c * VidSurv O VidSurv • PhID 7 - ACCEPTABILITY KEY: O Economy • Mid-Scale • Upscale AG - Armed Guard FAK - First Aid Kit LEC - ID Check again law enforcement records MetDet - Metal Detector PhID - Photo ID VidSurv - Video Surveillance acceptability of security features. Other shared by guests frequenting upscale and than the ID requirement, however, leisure economy hotels but not those frequenting travelers are more accepting of even the midscale hotels. Although the reasons for most overt security features and are will- this finding cannot be determined with the ing to pay for them. We believe that leisure survey data, this question warrants further travelers are willing to endure a bit of investigation. One thing we did find was a inconvenience in exchange for a feeling of high correlation between hotel guests' safety and security. If that supposition is acceptance of costly security features and correct, it would contradict the idea that a willingness to pay for those features. We hotel guests may be intimidated by the believe that guests recognize that costly presence of obvious security features.22 features mean higher room rates. The fact that patrons of two of the three hotel price tiers showed little difference in Recommendations for Practice the acceptability of security features is a Our findings support some existing curious finding since the similarity is beliefs about hotel security but contradict 238 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFEGUARDING YOUR CUSTOMERS | SAFETY/SECURITY others. We certainly found that respon- paying a rock-bottom rate), while upscale dents were less accepting of overt security guests might understand that a first-aid kit measures than subtle ones. We thought would be an additional amenity worthy of that perhaps obvious security features a higher room rate. In contrast, midscale would score higher since the survey was guests may be particularly price conscious conducted less than a year after the 9/11 but also believe that since they are paying attacks. Even so, we were surprised at the to stay in a midscale hotel (rather than an number of security features that our economy hotel), small amenities such as a respondents considered acceptable or neu- first-aid kit should be included in the exist- tral. We wonder whether hotel guests are ing room rate. changing their view of safety and security, Criminal records. Although our respon- especially since they see increased secu- dents were at worst neutral on the practice rity measures in other travel-related of checking guests' background informa- venues (e.g., airports, theme parks, sport- tion, we found no consensus on willing- ing events). Based on our findings, hotel ness to pay for background checks. As is general managers and security managers the case with first-aid kits, guests at mid- should consider implementing additional scale hotels were on the low end of the security features beyond those typically willingness-to-pay scale. This finding may found in a hotel. Not only that, but guests be attributable to the reasons discussed may be willing to accept an increased above, but in addition background checks room rate in consideration of these addi- are potentially more costly and compli- tional features. cated than purchasing first-aid kits. The challenge for each manager is to Furthermore, we believe that background assess which security features are most checks are most appropriate for economy appropriate for a particular hotel. We sug- hotels, given the aforementioned media gest factors to consider in Exhibit 10 and attention on criminal actions by sex-crime 23 offer a typology of the resource and visi- offenders. bility trade-offs of each security feature in Finally, we do not see acceptance of Exhibit 11. Although only the hotel man- across-the-board installation of metal ager can make the final determination of detectors and armed guards. However, which security features are appropriate for those guests who expressed a preference his or her property, we offer the following for these security measures said that they recommendations. First, guests patroniz- were willing to pay for them. In particular, ing all hotel types expressed an acceptance guests of upscale and economy hotels of video surveillance, verification of photo expressed a high willingness to pay for identification at check-in, and first-aid kits armed guards, while economy guests in guest rooms. However, not all guests expressed a relatively high willingness were equally willing to pay for those extra to pay for metal detectors. Nevertheless, security features. Since most hotels now implementing these types of security fea- employ both video surveillance and verifi- tures requires careful consideration. cation of photo identification, we will Our data do not shed light on the ques- focus on first-aid kits. Of the three types of tions of whether security information should guests, those frequenting midscale hotels be made available to hotel guests prior to were least willing to pay. We speculate booking a hotel room or whether purchase that economy guests are open to the idea decisions are based on the presence of that additional features lead to additional security features. Given that we have deter- cost (since those guests are theoretically mined that certain groups are willing to pay AUGUST 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 239 SAFETY/SECURITY GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT Exhibit 10: Midscale Hotel Security Feature Decision Tree Illustration Mid-scale (Nightly room rate = $90 Total guests annually = 30,000)* I Business Travelers Leisure Travelers (70% of guests)* (30% of guests)* 1-3 annual 4-10 annual 11+ annual 1-3 annual 4-10 annual 11+ annual hotel visits hotel visits hotel visits hotel visits hotel visits hotel visits Preferred Security Preferred Security Features:' Features:' Video Surveillance Video Surveillance Photo ID Photo ID Law Enforcement Check Law Enforcement Check Preferred Security Preferred Security Preferred Security Preferred Security Features:* Features:* Features:* Features:* Video Surveillance Video Surveillance Video Surveillance Video Surveillance Photo ID Photo ID Photo ID Photo ID Law Enforcement Check Metal Detectors First Aid Kit First Aid Kit Sample Hotel Security Plan* Video Surveillance Photo ID Law Enforcement Check First Aid Kit Cost-Revenue Assessment* Video Surveillance: Currently have available Photo ID: Currently have available Law Enforcement Check: Annual Cost = $100k First Aid Kits: Initial Cost $20*100 rooms = $2k On-going Cost= $2*30k guests = $6k Total Revenue Associated with Increased Security Features: $90*30k guests*.10 = $270k Total Cost Associated with Increased Security Features: $100k + $2k + $6k = $ 108k Total Profit Associated with Increased Security Features: $270k - $108k = $162k* 'Prices, number of guests, costs, revenue, security feature preferences, etc. are presented for illustration purposes only 240 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. SAFEGUARDING YOUR CUSTOMERS SAFETY/SECURITY Exhibit 11: Security Resource Typology Potential Trade-Offs Security Feature Resource Requirement of Implementation Video surveillance Equipment and staff Few trade-offs as this feature is now common in hotels. Photo ID verification Staff Few trade-offs as this feature at check-in is now common in hotels. First-aid kits in Initial equipment Few trade-offs besides initial each room purchase and and ongoing costs. ongoing purchase of refill supplies Verify ID against Staff, equipment Could potentially be very law enforcement (computers, time-consuming. Also records software, etc.) need contingency plan for staff action should a guest have a negative criminal record. Metal detectors Staff, equipment Potentially frustrating for both staff and guests. May greatly slow down check-in time. Also detracts from creation of a hospitable environment and potentially creates the impression that the hotel has had security issues in the past rather than generating guest feelings of safety and security. Armed guard Staff Detracts from creation of a hospitable environment and potentially creates the impression that the hotel has had security issues in the past rather than generating guest feelings of safety and security. premiums for certain security features, it apprehension and foment speculation about seems to make sense to let guests know a hotel's security status. A hotel also would about those features during the booking not want to tip its hand regarding the nature process. Still, that might not be the wisest of security features if that would give crim- course since discussing security in advance inals a way to beat the system. Instead of of a booking may introduce unnecessary outright announcements, one should rely on AUGUST 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 241 SAFETY/SECURITY | GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT repeat visits and word of mouth to spread Making security information available may the word about a hotel's security standards. be particularly advantageous if the hotel Hoteliers should be ready to explain wishes to emphasize its security arrange- their security procedures, however. Hotel ments for certain groups of travelers. It is managers whom we have taught in execu- even possible that a hotel could differenti- tive programs report that security arrange- ate itself on security issues (until competi- ments have become a routine part of tors imitate the initiative). We even envision requests for proposals from travel man- the possibility of a security rating system agers and tour operators. As a result, cer- for hotels and that security features would tain international hotels are implementing be considered a desired amenity. the following programs. (Due to security issues, we cannot connect each practice to Conclusions, Limitations, the hotel that uses it.) At least one hotel that we know of trains its reservation and Opportunities for agents to be alert in the reservations Further Investigation process and to qualify its guests with a set Hotel guests generally accept the prac- of carefully chosen questions that would tice of requiring photo identification of flag possible troublemakers. Other prac- guests at check-in, video surveillance in tices include checking all cars entering the public areas, and adding first-aid kits to property at a security gate (The Breakers guest rooms. At the same time, metal detec- Palm Beach), conducting random under- tors, the obvious presence of an armed carriage checks as a car pulls up to the guard, and checking guests' identification hotel (Radisson Amman), requesting against law enforcement records were gen- photo identification and using hundreds of erally deemed less acceptable. However, cameras to spot troublemakers (casino those results depend on demographic factors. hotels), providing a gas mask in the room On average, we found that our respondents (Garden Hotel, Guangzhou, China), pro- were willing to pay an additional 10 per- viding a flashlight in all rooms (Mandarin cent above the nightly room rate for the Oriental New York), and including first- security features we tested, although some aid items in the bathroom or the minibar. demographic groups were willing to pay a While this information is not typically significantly greater percentage. communicated openly to all guests, most We could not discount the concern that of it is available on request. hotel guests may perceive overt security We conducted a brief search in 2005 of features as a sign that the hotel is compen- Web sites for major U.S. hotel companies sating for an unsafe environment. However, and found little information on the secu- we believe we identified a shift in guests' rity features of hotels. We propose that the perceptions, as once-unthinkable security question of whether and how security features, such as metal detectors, may be information should be publicly shared is a found acceptable in some instances. Such a matter for further study. We see many shift would allow hoteliers to evaluate and ways to communicate such information, if modify their security practices. We foresee need be, including the hotel's Web site, the possibility that a hotel could build a dif- internet travel Web sites (e.g., Expedia, ferentiation strategy on security features. Orbitz, Travelocity), travel agents, and, for The results of this survey do have sev- international travelers, government agencies. eral limitations. First, while this survey 242 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006 SAFEGUARDING YOUR CUSTOMERS | SAFETY/SECURITY cannot be generalized beyond the hotel Endnotes industry, we note that hotels are unavoid- ably a part of the larger travel industry. We 1. See J. Saied, "Hotel Management: Approaches to believe that all facets of that industry are Risk Management," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 31, no. 2 (April 1990): experiencing a trend toward more obvious 45; C. A. Enz and M. S. Taylor, "The Safety and security features. Second, we examined Security of U.S. Hotels: A Post-September-11 only six security features. Although these Report," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis- six features are common options, the list is tration Quarterly 43, no. 5 (October 2002): 119- by no means exhaustive. As technology 36; M. S. Taylor and C. A. Enz, "Voices from the Field: General Managers' Responses to the Events improves and security features are of September 11,2001," Cornell Hotel and Restau- expanded, additional research may be nec- rant Administration Quarterly 43, no. 1 (February essary to further validate these findings. 2002): 7-20; and C. A. Enz, "Rethinking Safety Finally, this survey was conducted approx- and Security," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant imately a year after the 9/11 attack, and we Administration Quarterly 44, no. 2 (April 2003): 1. have no comparison data from before that 2. K. Groeneboom and P. Jones, "Issues of tragedy. Security in Hotels," International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality 15, no. 1 (February This survey represents only a small por- 2003): 14-19. tion of the research that can give us an 3. J. E. H. Sherry, The Law of Innkeepers (Ithaca, NY: understanding of safety and security fea- Cornell University Press, 1981); Saied, "Hotel tures in hotels. In particular, guests' per- Management," 45; D. Beirman, Restoring ceptions and preferences should be further Tourism Destinations in Crisis: A Strategic Marketing Approach (Sydney, Australia: CABI, examined, particularly to establish which 2003); and J. Wilks and S. J. Page, eds., security features different demographic Managing Tourist Health and Safety in the New groups consider acceptable. One method Millennium, Advances in Tourism Research of further examining this issue would be to Series (Kidlington, UK: Elsevier, 2003). conduct a longitudinal study to track pref- 4. Saied, "Hotel Management," 45. erences and acceptability rankings over 5. Enz and Taylor, "The Safety and Security of U.S. Hotels," 119-36; and Groeneboom and time. By looking at long-term data, we Jones, "Issues of Security in Hotels," 14-19. may be able to determine whether a 6. Groeneboom and Jones, "Issues of Security in domestic tragedy such as 9/11 inclines Hotels," 14-19. hotel patrons to accept security features 7. Saied, "Hotel Management," 45. and to pay for them. A second line of 8. Groeneboom and Jones, "Issues of Security in future research would be to increase the Hotels," 14-19. 9. Ibid. overall generalizability of these results. 10. Ibid. One could, for instance, examine other cir- 11. Ibid. cumstances involving customers' prefer- 12. Saied, "Hotel Management," 45. ences and perceptions, for example, at 13. Ibid.; and Groeneboom and Jones, "Issues of places one visits for pleasure or infre- Security in Hotels," 14-19. quently (e.g., airports, theme parks, sport- 14. Wilks and Page, Managing Tourist Health and Safety in the New Millennium. ing events). Finally, given the different 15. Ibid. hotel security practices in countries other 16. W. Hart, "What Women Want," Cornell Hotel and than the United States, it may be revealing Restaurant Administration Quarterly 34, no. 5 to look at security practices in Europe, the (October 1993): 10; and K. W. McCleary, P. A. Middle East, and Southeast Asia to deter- Weaver, and Li Lan, "Gender-Based Differences in Business Travelers' Lodging Preferences," mine guests' acceptance of those security Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration features. Quarterly 35, no. 2 (April 1994): 51. AUGUST 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 243 SAFETY/SECURITY GROUP REVENUE MANAGEMENT 17. Hart, "What Women Want," 10; L. R. Taylor, 20. Business Travel Executive, "Hotel Safety Survey," "Women on the Move," Government Executive June 2005, p. 32. 32, no. 2 (2000): 72; and R. Rigby, "Feel Safe, 21. The model was tested to determine the weight- Will Travel," Management Today, September ing of each demographic, behavioral, and secu- 1996, p. 102. rity feature preference variable. The R2 value for 18. T Gutierrez, "Eye Opener," Paula Zhan Now, the model was .517, and the model was found to CNN, January 3, 2006. be significant (p < .001). 19. Enz and Taylor, "The Safety and Security of 22. Groeneboom and Jones, "Issues of Security in U.S. Hotels," 119-36; and Enz, "Rethinking Hotels," 14-19. Safety and Security," 1. 23. Gutierrez, "Eye Opener." Julie Feickert is a doctoral candidate at the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah (julie.feickert@business.utah.edu). Rohit Verma, Ph.D., is an associate professor of service operations management at the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration and is currently on leave from David Eccles School of Business at University of Utah (rohit.verma@business.utah.edu). Gerhard Plaschka, Ph.D., is an associate professor of strategy and venture management in the Kellstadt Graduate School of Business at DePaul University (gplaschk@depaul.edu). Chekitan S. Dev, Ph.D., is an associ- ate professor of marketing at the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration (csd5@cornell.edu). 244 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2006