Abstract
This study proposes a qualitative means–end approach that considers both product preferences and personal values in segmenting the emerging luxury travel market. Many studies have treated this market as homogeneous, emphasizing luxury travelers’ common characteristics. However, distinct segments of luxury travelers can be identified using this new approach. Soft laddering interviews with 30 Chinese luxury travelers revealed diverse levels of luxuriousness in travel modes (means) and various personal values associated with luxury travel (ends), such as status and family security. These differences segment the luxury travel market. Despite its limited sample size, this study empirically demonstrated the effectiveness of means–end segmentation. The results of this study provide a solid basis for future larger-scale studies and have practical implications for practitioners in the luxury travel market.
Highlights
We propose a qualitative segmentation approach based on means–end chain theory.
The effectiveness of the method is demonstrated with 30 luxury travelers.
Laddering interviews reveal various means and ends of luxury travel.
Luxury travelers vary in their need for luxuriousness, status, and family security.
Introduction
The Chinese luxury travel market is of great interest to luxury travel service providers, particularly because the number of Chinese millionaires has reached 4.4 million (Neate, 2019) and Chinese consumers comprised 40% of the global market for personal luxury goods in 2019 (McKinsey & Company, 2019). More than 80% of affluent Chinese include travel in their annual budgets (Hurun Report, 2017), and they spend an average of US$52,000 per year on family vacations (Hurun Report, 2018). Although currently suffering a decline due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the global tourism market is expected to recover rapidly, and luxury travel in China is already showing signs of an early recovery (O’Neill, 2021; Statista, 2021). With the resumption of market growth and the rise of personalization in luxury services (Kiessling et al., 2009), identifying segments of the luxury travel market will provide insights into how to target smaller groups more effectively (Kim & Ritchie, 2012).
This study proposes a method to segment the Chinese luxury market using means–end chain (MEC) theory. Consumer behaviors, including luxury consumption, are driven by personal values (Cheng & Foley, 2017; Dubois et al., 2005). According to MEC theory, product attributes (means) are connected to benefits, such as functions or positive emotions, that, in turn, are connected to personal values (ends; Gutman, 1982). Even consumers using the same product may differ in the attributes they consider important, the benefits they desire, and the end values they hope to achieve. These different MECs can be used to segment the market from consumers’ perspectives (Gutman, 1982). To date, luxury travelers have been segmented according to their frequency of luxury travel, such as once-in-a-lifetime travelers (Bakker, 2005); their product preferences, such as travelers who focus on visual design (Wright, 2019); and the characteristics of their trip or travel planning, such as “bluxury” travelers who extend business trips, and “cash-rich, time-poor” travelers who make last-minute decisions (Amadeus, 2016). These segments contribute to the understanding of the diverse portfolio of travel preferences and behaviors; however, they do not reveal the cognitive processes underlying luxury travel. MEC theory helps identify various cognitive structures from means to ends (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2009) and thus offers an alternative segmentation approach based on the cognitive view. MEC theory is also adaptive to either small or large sample sizes (Petrick & Backman, 2002; Watkins & Gnoth, 2011), which allows the proposed means–end segmentation approach to be used to develop segments even with a small sample.
Chinese luxury travelers may require various levels of luxuriousness, as demonstrated by a major luxury travel agent in China offering economy class, business class, and first class cabin choices (HHtravel, 2022). Chinese travelers’ personal values regarding luxury travel may also be diverse; for example, some may exhibit more Confucian values than others (Zhang & Tse, 2018). Such differences in personal values and their connections to product choice have not been investigated thoroughly, thus they can be explored using the proposed means–end segmentation approach. This study aims to identify the various personal values underlying Chinese luxury travelers’ travel choices and to suggest potential market segments. Using a small sample size to demonstrate the effectiveness of the method, this study can serve as a pilot for future large-scale research to understand the heterogeneous nature of the Chinese luxury travel market.
Literature Review
Means–End Chain Theory
MEC theory, proposed by Gutman (1982), is rooted in the study of human values (Rokeach, 1968). Rokeach (1968, 1973) defined values as the central beliefs that lead human beings to resist change and that guide their actions. He identified two types of values: instrumental values or “means,” which are desired behaviors (e.g., being honest), and terminal values or “ends,” which are the end-states a person wants to achieve (e.g., freedom). Gutman (1982) modified the framework of means and ends to better understand customer preferences and facilitate marketing activities. Different from Rokeach’s (1968, 1973) definition of means and ends, the MEC theory proposed by Gutman (1982) includes all human values, including both instrumental and terminal values, as ends and product attributes as means by which to achieve these ends. Gutman’s (1982) model includes “consequences” that link values and attributes. A consequence is the result of a consumer’s choice and is evaluated against values during decision making. When consumers decide to buy a product, they expect that certain product attributes will lead to certain consequences, which are associated with personal values (Mulvey et al., 1994). For example, Chinese travelers may choose Hong Kong as a destination because it is nearby and therefore offers a cost-effective way to experience a somewhat Westernized culture. In this case, Hong Kong’s location is an attribute, the relatively low transportation cost is the consequence, and thrift is likely to be the associated value. This attribute–consequence–value chain can explain why Hong Kong is a preferred destination.
Assuming that consumers’ product preferences reflect their beliefs, MEC theory offers an effective way to identify the reasons for consumer behaviors. It is a useful theory for “understanding personal values as the basis of tourist behavior” (McIntosh & Thyne, 2005, p. 259). Its application in tourism studies has contributed to the understanding of travel choices such as destination (Klenosky et al., 1993), modes of travel such as working holidays (Ho et al., 2014), attractions to visit such as museums (Thyne, 2001), and accommodations (Mattila, 1999b).
As ends are the values that reflect the core beliefs guiding various human activities, numerous means can achieve a limited number of ends (Rokeach, 1968). Multiple people sometimes consume a single product as a means to achieve various ends, and sometimes they choose different means to achieve the same end (Kruglanski et al., 2002). These two scenarios also apply to tourists. Regarding the first scenario, Klenosky et al. (1993) identified four broad values that are the ends for travelers choosing a ski destination, which is the means. These values are belonging, fun and excitement, achievement, and safety. The same phenomenon has been observed among bicycle tourists seeking to achieve different ends, such as happiness, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization (Ho et al., 2015). Likewise, travelers who undertook the same pilgrimage in Spain were motivated to achieve various ends (Kim et al., 2016).
Regarding travelers who choose different means to achieve the same end, a study on dining choices showed that people who prefer to cook at home and those who prefer to eat at a restaurant mentioned freedom as their desired end (Costa et al., 2007), even though the means to achieve that end were completely different. Another example is relaxation, which is often an end achieved by travel but can also be achieved by other means, such as shopping (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). The desired end of efficiency often promotes new technology such as online banking, but new technology can be a barrier for those who consider using an ATM as a better means to achieve efficiency (Kuisma et al., 2007).
A third common scenario is the use of different means to achieve different ends. This was the original principle of MEC theory, which explains how different values guide consumers to choose from diverse options (Gutman, 1982). Klenosky (2002) identified seven means (e.g., beach, warm weather) and four ends (e.g., self-esteem, excitement) that exemplify different means meeting different ends. Watkins and Gnoth (2011) found that two means (backpacking and joining package tours) were adopted for different ends: human relationships and freedom for backpackers and comfort and safety for package tourists. These three scenarios demonstrate the potential of using means (luxury travel) and ends (personal values) to segment luxury travelers.
Luxury Travelers
Luxury travel is defined as expensive and high-quality experiences such as exclusive resorts and custom packages (Page, 2009). Correspondingly, luxury travelers are those with sufficient income to afford such experiences and whose finances do not limit their travel choices (Popescu & Olteanu, 2014). Thus, this study defines luxury travelers as high-wealth individuals who regularly purchase and consume high-end travel services such as premium cabin air travel (Amadeus, 2016; Bakker, 2005; Hurun Report, 2017; Luxury Society, 2016; Resonance Consultancy, 2016).
Although the history of luxury travel can be traced to the grand tour in the 16th century (Page, 2009), research focusing on luxury travelers is limited. The few exceptions include a literature review without validated findings (Zhang & Tse, 2018), a study concentrating on celebrities (Correia et al., 2014), and a few industrial reports (e.g., Amadeus, 2016). Luxury consumers in the tourism context have been studied in research focusing on luxury hotel guests (Mann, 1993; Mattila, 1999a, 1999b) and on consumers of various high-end services, such as cruises (Han & Hyun, 2018), air travel (Hwang & Hyun, 2017; Hwang & Lyu, 2018; Manthiou et al., 2017), restaurants (Yang & Mattila, 2016), and stores (Hung, Guillet, & Zhang, 2018; Hung, Qiu Zhang et al., 2018; Park & Reisinger, 2009; Park et al., 2010). These studies have mainly focused on characteristics common to luxury travelers, such as their expectations of luxury hotels (Mann, 1993), preferences regarding luxury shopping destinations (Hung, Guillet, & Zhang, 2018), and the motivations for taking a luxury cruise trip (Han & Hyun, 2018). Although a few studies have identified differences between them in terms of value perceptions (Yang & Mattila, 2016) and preferred product types (Hurun Report, 2018), these differences have not been used as segmentation criteria.
The potential for using personal values (ends) and product preferences (means) is evidenced by previous research on tourists and luxury consumers. In hospitality and tourism studies, personal values, such as social value, conspicuousness, and self-esteem, and product attributes, such as sophisticated dishes for luxury dining and comfortable seats for first-class flights, have been used to explain common motivations for luxury consumption (Correia et al., 2019; Han & Hyun, 2018; Hwang & Lyu, 2018; Yang & Mattila, 2016). In consumer behavior studies (Table 1), personal values have also been used as segmentation criteria in many studies of luxury-goods consumers in China (Gao et al., 2009; Ngai & Cho, 2012; Wang & Somogyi, 2020; Wang et al., 2011). Given the importance of product attributes such as flight cabin types (means) and personal values such as social status (ends) in explaining luxury consumption, we use both to investigate whether there are distinct types of Chinese luxury travelers. This paper, therefore, attempts to propose a means–end segmentation approach to understand the heterogeneous luxury market. This new approach reflects not only travel preferences but also the cognitive process of luxury consumption.
Studies Segmenting Chinese Luxury Consumers
Method
From the philosophical standpoint of phenomenology, we acted as self-aware translators to discover the structure beneath the phenomenon of luxury travel (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). To explore whether there are distinct types of Chinese luxury travelers according to product preferences and personal values, primary data were collected in soft laddering interviews. In studies that use the MEC, the laddering technique has been widely used for data collection and analysis (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2009) and as a validated tool to elicit high-level personal constructs (values; Walker & Crittenden, 2012). Soft laddering encourages the natural flow of respondents’ thoughts in speech (Grunert et al., 2001) and is thus well suited to exploratory studies (e.g., Jiang et al., 2015).
A purposive sample of Chinese travelers with individual wealth of at least RMB10 million (about US$1.54 million) who spend at least RMB100,000 (about US$15,400) on travel every year and have flown business or first class for at least two of their last three leisure trips, was collected. The wealth and annual travel criteria were the same as those used in a consultant’s study of the Chinese luxury travel segment (Hurun Report, 2016). The sample size was not predetermined but depended on data saturation (Bernard, 2011); however, Reynolds and Olson (2000) suggested that the minimum sample size for laddering research is 20. In this study, 30 respondents were interviewed between March and December 2017: five in face-to-face interviews and 25 by phone. The sample size was adequate because information redundancy was reached. Previous laddering studies (Chen, 2006; Pezeshki et al., 2019) and qualitative segmentation studies (Decrop & Snelders, 2005; Li & McKercher, 2016) have used similar sample sizes. The respondents included 21 of one author’s personal contacts (e.g., friends, contacts recommended by friends, contacts recommended by family members), five recruited from a research company’s survey pool and airline guest contacts, and four recruited through snowball sampling. To maximize variation, the purposive sample was carefully selected (Guest et al., 2006). Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Most of them did not have a clear idea of how much they spend on travel every year, but their estimated expenditures exceeded the threshold for this study. Two of the respondents mentioned that their annual family travel budget was around RMB1,000,000 (US$150,000). Two respondents had two residences and usually spent half of the year in each city.
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Each interview started with an introduction that included explaining the study’s purpose and the laddering technique used and obtaining the respondent’s consent to record the interview. The questions regarding their previous leisure trips and travel product preferences were asked first, and then the underlying reasons for their travel preferences were explored through laddering. The two steps in the soft laddering interviews were (1) asking the respondents to state the important attributes that contribute to their product preferences to identify their means, and (2) asking “Why is this attribute important to you?” to understand their ends (Miles & Rowe, 2008). Thus, two core questions were repeatedly asked: “Why do you prefer luxury travel?” and “Why is this [answer to the first question, e.g., attentive service] important to you?” The respondents were then asked to describe their desired mode of travel. Following the principles of ethical conduct (Jennings, 2001), the interviews were carefully conducted. To minimize discomfort, the interviews were scheduled according to the respondents’ preferred time slots. Most of the interviews lasted for around 1 hr, and lasted 40–80 min. The interviews were conducted in Chinese by a native speaker of the language.
Although the interview process was relatively structured (Walker & Crittenden, 2012), laddering is a skill that requires practice, especially regarding potential problems associated with asking “why” questions and knowing when to stop pushing the ladder (Walker & Crittenden, 2012). Researchers must rephrase the “why” questions, such as “What does that mean to you?” and “Could you please provide an example to illustrate why it is important to you?” as respondents may otherwise become frustrated by being asked the same question repeatedly. Respondents sometimes struggle to verbalize the ends associated with the means (McIntosh & Thyne, 2005) and may create a logical answer instead of retrieving the actual reasons (Grunert & Grunert, 1995). As such, it is important for interviewers to find a balance between encouraging interviewees to think further and allowing them to feel free to stop before they create an answer. To practice, the interviewer conducted laddering interviews with four volunteers using the question “Why is Japan your favorite destination?” before interviewing the luxury travelers.
The qualitative content analysis was conducted using NVivo 11 and Microsoft Excel in two steps. The first step followed the standard procedures for analyzing laddering data (Miles & Rowe, 2008): extract the concepts representing attributes, consequences, and values; list the relationships between the concepts in an aggregate implication matrix; and present the findings in a hierarchical value map (HVM). On average, each respondent produced 12 ladders, with 2.4 steps in each ladder. Next, the respondents were segmented by means and ends. There are three types of segmentation based on the MEC: Type A only uses attributes, Type B uses attribute–consequence relations, and Type C includes the entire MEC (Botschen et al., 1999). Type C best utilizes the advantages of MEC-based segmentation as it includes both means and ends; therefore, it was adopted in this study. The respondents were first segmented by their general means: specifically, how often they chose luxury hotels and first- or business-class flights. They were then further segmented by their ends, which are personal values. To determine which ends to use in the segmentation, the ends were reviewed individually according to how often they were mentioned by the respondents.
To ensure trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), credibility (as an alternative to internal validity) was achieved through follow-up questions when the researcher was not confident about the respondents’ views; transferability was achieved by providing detailed information on the research process; and dependability was achieved by providing information on how the data were collected and analyzed to make the study replicable. Clear reporting of the analytical procedure and detailed description were used to ensure the reliability of the qualitative analysis (O’Connor & Joffe, 2020). The coding procedure was discussed and agreed upon by the three authors before the corresponding author completed the coding process. Finally, the results were discussed by the authors and amendments were made before a final agreement was reached.
Results
The HVM
The attributes, consequences, and values shared by the respondents were organized into an HVM. Not all of the relations could be included; thus, an appropriate cutoff to exclude the less frequently mentioned relations had to be determined. The suggested cutoff for samples with 50–60 respondents is three to five, and for smaller sample sizes, it is two to three (Miles & Rowe, 2008). In consideration of this study’s relatively small sample, the cutoff was two. Multiple mentions of a relation by the same respondent were counted as one; hence, each relation on the map was mentioned by at least two respondents. Finally, the HVM (Figure 1) of Chinese luxury travelers developed in this study included 11 attributes, eight consequences, and nine values.
HVM of Chinese Luxury Travelers
The HVM revealed that the ends most commonly desired by the respondents were pleasure (19 respondents) and happiness (nine respondents). Pleasure focuses more on physical comfort, whereas happiness emphasizes a mental or emotional state of satisfaction. For example, Respondent 8 explained her reason for choosing business class as follows: “If I sit in [economy class], it will be tiring.. . . I travel for pleasure and relaxation, not to suffer.” Status was the next most common end (nine respondents). Although these nine respondents had various levels of financial power, they all wanted to display their status by consuming luxury travel services, demonstrating that luxury travel is a status good for some travelers. As described by Respondent 5, “When you enter a hotel, the staff welcome you and help carry your luggage. You have a feeling of achievement.. . . Everyone has a little vanity.” Safety (eight respondents) and cleanliness (seven respondents) were often cited as reasons for choosing luxury hotels, as exemplified by Respondent 14: “In a nice hotel, the washroom is at least clean.. . . [I feel safe because of] the presence of many security people, and you can only go to a certain floor by presenting your hotel key card.” The respondents also sought freedom (seven respondents), which is having more choices, even if those choices are limited to meal options on a flight. Ends mentioned by fewer than seven respondents are discussed as each segment is introduced.
As these quotes demonstrate, the MECs for pleasure and happiness formed complete chains: better facilities (attribute) provide comfort and relaxation (consequence), leading to pleasure/happiness (value). However, the respondents often directly revealed the value associated with an attribute without indicating a consequence. Therefore, some MECs were short and lacked consequences. For example, the value of safety was mentioned when the respondents were asked why rating and classification (e.g., five-star hotels) are important, forming a short chain from rating and classification (attribute) to safety (value). The other two MECs without consequences were rating and classification (attribute) to social status (value) and more choice and flexibility (attribute) to freedom (value).
Segmentation Criteria and Results
The respondents were first divided into four groups according to means—whether they always chose luxury hotels (at least four stars) and/or a premium cabin (at least business class) for flights. Although all of the respondents were qualified for inclusion in the study, only 11 respondents always chose luxury accommodations and/or a premium cabin type, 15 respondents always chose luxury hotels but only flew business or first class for long-haul trips, two respondents always flew first class but did not stay in luxury hotels, and two respondents were flexible in their flight and hotel choices. Next, the respondents were further grouped by ends—whether they were status-driven and/or family oriented. Pleasure and happiness were the most frequently mentioned ends and thus could not be used to differentiate the respondents. Social status was the next most frequently mentioned value, and it differentiated some respondents. Family security was also used as a segmentation criterion because concern for other family members drove the travel product choices of four respondents. Finally, seven discrete segments were labeled: Always Luxury, Achiever, Aspirer, Family Oriented, Reward Seeker, Status Pursuer, and Adventurer (Table 3). The segments included four to seven respondents, except Status Pursuer and Adventurer, which each included two respondents. To ensure meaningful and distinguishable segments (Park & Yoon, 2009), the two smallest segments were reviewed and retained because they differed from the other segments and each other in both means and ends.
Segmentation Criteria and Results
Note. aAlways choose luxury (at least four-star) hotels/other accommodation = Y/N.
Business or first-class cabin/economy class cabin = Y/N.
The most luxury-seeking travelers among the respondents were in two segments with similar travel styles but different status concerns. Travelers in the Always Luxury segment indicated that they flew first or business class regardless of flight duration, always chose five-star hotels, and sometimes hired a driver at their destination. By always choosing the best means, they achieved their ends of pleasure and happiness. This preference had developed at a young age and become the norm for them, which is why they were labeled “Always Luxury.” As Respondent 1 described, “When I went to university in the U.S., I started to choose business class. My parents made this choice for me. Later I got married and my husband also flies business class. So, we are used to business class.” An initial luxury travel experience arranged by parents has been continued for pleasure and happiness. Respondent 3 made her hotel choices based on the hotels’ interior design and functionality and stated that in the end, “It’s about the feeling: I need a feeling of pleasure.” Leadership was a unique value reported by two members of this segment, in the following MEC: better facilities/quiet environment (attributes)–work environment (consequence)–leadership (value). Respondent 2 was a member of the top management team in her family business, and she appreciated the facilities and quiet space in business class: I have seen and learned dedication to work from the old generation. . .. A good work environment during the flight is also considered [in cabin choice].. . . When I am on vacation, others are still working. As a leader in top management, you must take care of the operation of the company all the time.. . . This position has a lot of influence on others, and there are responsibilities and duties, so I will basically [still work during vacation].
Working during vacation to maintain leadership seemed to be an additional justification for their choice, as they had started using luxury travel during their school years.
Those in the Achiever segment traveled as luxuriously as those in the Always Luxury segment and sought not only pleasure and happiness but also social status. This segment was labeled “Achiever” because its members became luxury travelers after they had reached their career goals and accumulated wealth, and they considered luxury travel a way to signal their achievements. Half of them were about to retire and already had grandchildren. Hence, they were rich in both time and money. Luxury travel was also an extension of their daily lives. For example, Respondent 6 expressed the importance of having a nice car at the destination: “It should be high-end. . .because the cars we use at home are all nice cars.” This respondent hired a driver while traveling, just as he did at home. For the Achiever segment, luxury travel was also a way to show their achievements to others. Respondent 7 stated, It feels like I should also take the role of being a first-class traveler.. . . I did a self-evaluation regarding the size of my company, the yearly revenue of my company, and I think it is suitable to take business class. I feel comfortable after that self-evaluation.
He further commented on his reason for choosing luxury hotels: “It is also a sign of your prestige.” Respondent 6 indicated that such choices are intended not only to display personal achievement but also to show the achievements of China: “When we visit overseas countries, we need to let foreigners know that Chinese people also know how to enjoy life.” He wanted to be respected during his travels. One member of this group also mentioned health as a reason to fly business class, as he believed that the air quality in first or business class is better than that in economy class. To summarize, the three MECs for the Achiever segment were as follows: (1) rating and classification (attribute)–social status (value); (2) service attitude (attribute)–needs addressed (consequence)–being respected (value); and (3) better facilities (attribute)–health (value). As typical luxury travelers defined by Popescu and Olteanu (2014), those in the Always Luxury and Achiever segments had financial situations that did not limit their travel choices.
Three segments of the respondents did not travel as luxuriously as those in the Always Luxury and Achiever segments, particularly regarding flights. As the largest segment, those in the Aspirer segment indicated they always chose luxury hotels but did not always choose business- or first-class flights. They pursued various ends, such as pleasure and happiness, social status, self-fulfillment, esteem, learning, and friendship. This segment was labeled “Aspirer” because its members were passionate about luxury travel and hoped to travel like those in the Always Luxury and Achiever segments in the future. At the time of the interviews, they flew business class for long-haul flights but opted for economy for short-haul trips. Respondent 12 was typical of this segment, stating that she will always take business class if her yearly income is “more than RMB50 million.” Although still somewhat limited financially, those in the Aspirer segment were willing to spend on luxury travel to achieve multiple ends. They not only pursued comfort and pleasure but also felt a subtle need to achieve status by experiencing life as the upper echelons of society do during travel—for example, by visiting hotels where emperors have stayed and restaurants where nobles have dined. Respondent 15 described how she enjoyed high tea in London: “The restaurant has been there for a hundred years. You can experience how the nobles in London spent leisure time in the afternoon.” This status need was revealed more subtly by those in this segment than by those in the Achiever segment. Thus, the MEC differed from that of the Achiever segment by having new experiences and knowledge as the consequence: rating and classification (attribute)–new experiences and knowledge (consequence)–social status (value).
Those in the Aspirer segment also sought luxury travel for self-fulfillment, self-esteem, learning, and friendship. Their MECs were as follows: (1) rating and classification (attribute)–self-fulfillment (value); (2) rating and classification (attribute)–new experiences and knowledge (consequence)–self-esteem and learning (values); and (3) rating and classification (attribute)–strong impression, new experiences and knowledge, conversation topic (consequences)–friendship (value). For example, Respondent 14 had visited a series of Michelin-rated restaurants, which she considered an accomplishment; this helped her realize the value of self-fulfillment. She had also stayed in luxury hotels, which gave her a sense of pride: “I can take a photo of the hotel, post it, and tag the location of the hotel; I’m so proud.” As luxury travel was relatively new to those in the Aspirer segment, the travelers in this segment enjoyed learning about new aspects of luxury travel, such as luxury hotel design, and talking about them with friends. Respondent 13 stated, Learning [about hotel brands] can enrich you.. . . You become a more interesting person. Everyone wants to make friends with an interesting person. . .. If you have not been to these [luxury hotels] and learned this stuff, what are you going to talk about when you chat with others?
She also described an occasion on which she felt incredibly uncomfortable taking the hotel limousine when she believed that everyone on the bus had flown business class except her. This triggered her decision to start taking business class flights, and she commented on the change as “progress.” Thus, travelers in the Aspirer segment may be in the process of becoming more luxurious in their travel choices.
Travelers in the Family Oriented segment were similar to those in the Aspirer segment in terms of hotel and flight choices, but they demonstrated a unique end, family orientation. This segment was labeled “Family Oriented” because its members chose luxury travel mainly for the benefit of other family members. Their MEC was rating and classification (attribute)–family security (value). Family security is about taking care of loved ones; thus, considering family members’ safety ahead of their personal preferences was a characteristic of the travelers in the Family Oriented segment. Unlike those in the Aspirer segment, who anticipated trading up in the future, travelers in the Family Oriented segment had a temporary end involving their young children, and this end encouraged them to be temporary luxury travelers. For example, luxury travel helped them minimize the difficulties of parenting during a trip. This was explained by Respondent 19, who started flying business class after having her son:
Once you bring kids, everything becomes more troublesome, so I started to choose [business class].. . . My child is growing up now, and we will choose economy class if it’s only a 2-hour flight. It is not necessary to take business class.
Respondent 20 expressed similar sentiments. He was a father of two, and after he tried first class during a business trip, he decided, “If we take our kids the next time we travel, we will fly business class. . .[so] you don’t have to bring kids in the crowd.” He indicated that he chose luxury hotels for family vacations for similar reasons, although he personally expected to travel very differently in the future: I choose five-star hotels for my kids’ safety and comfort and the family’s comfort. . .[but] if these are not a consideration, I am fine with a family-run accommodation.. . . I would like to take a trip during which I stay in a small hostel, walk the streets, blend into the city, take a bus.
Travelers in the Reward Seeker segment differed from those in the Aspirer segment in their choice of cabin for long-haul flights and luxury hotels, given their low concern for status. Instead of achieving multiple ends with luxury travel, they enjoyed traveling as a reward after busy periods at work. They appreciated the physical comfort of luxury travel services that they can afford and reduce the tiring aspects of long-haul travel. The MEC demonstrating their characteristics was as follows: better facilities (attribute)–comfort and relaxation (consequence)–well-being (value). Respondent 23 described how he found travel a “tangible benefit” after a long period of work: We were born in the [19]60s. Looking back over the past 40 years, it was really hard. Now I have a small amount of money, enough for me to spend. I also want to enjoy some comfort; I want some tangible benefits. I do not want those intangible honors.. . . The money I spend on travel is extra money, so I can travel and feel comfortable.
For Respondent 24, an ideal life involved work–travel balance: “Life should be, ‘when it is time to work, you work; when it is time to have a holiday, you should relax, you should travel.’” She started flying business class after an extremely tiring flight to Europe: One time, I flew back from Europe. The flight itself took more than 10 hours. The airplane did not land on time; it took an extra 2 hours. I was extremely tired, and I could not stand up straight because of back pain.
Overall, the respondents in the last two segments preferred the least luxurious modes of travel. As the choice of accommodations is an important travel decision (Sohrabi et al., 2012) and influences the travel experience more than a flight in terms of duration, the respondents who did not always choose luxury hotels were grouped together as the least luxurious. The Status Pursuer segment was unique in that its members had begun flying business class before they began using luxury hotels. By always taking business class flights, they achieved their social status end. Unlike travelers in the Achiever segment, who had accumulated sufficient wealth before they started using luxury travel services, those in the Status Pursuer segment wanted to signal their status before they could afford the full range of luxury travel services. Hence, this segment was labeled “Status Pursuer.” The MEC with social status as the end for the Status Pursuer segment was the same as that for the Achiever segment. Luxury travel was new to the members of this segment. They had started flying business or first class in recent years, and they had a strong desire to always fly business or first class as a status symbol. Unlike the Always Luxury travelers, who flew economy class for business trips if first class was unavailable, Respondent 27, a member of the Status Pursuer segment, emphasized that “If there is no first class, I change flights.” Respondent 28 explained how he encouraged his friends to choose first class: “You earn so much, your salary is not low, but you still take economy class. Please take first class; it matches your status better.” They considered their travel prestigious even though it may not have been as luxurious as that of the other respondents. Both of the respondents in this segment had joined package tours offered by regular travel agents and upgraded their cabin type but not their hotel. Respondent 27 stated, “If I travel in a group, the hotels may be three, four, or five stars.”
The respondents in the Adventurer segment were the least luxury-seeking travelers because they were flexible in their hotel and flight choices. Correspondingly, they did not have a distinct end they aimed to achieve via luxury travel. This segment was labeled “Adventurer” because its members traveled to adventurous destinations without luxury travel services. Similar to the other respondents, however, they appreciated the comfort provided by luxury travel services. For example, Respondent 29 flew business class for long-haul flights because it was less tiring but also enjoyed adventurous trips, whereas the respondents in the other segments generally limited their travel destinations to those with luxury travel services. Unlike one member of the Always Luxury segment, who had always wanted to visit destinations like Nepal but did not because “they don’t have very good hotels or very good airlines” (Respondent 2), those in the Adventurer segment enjoyed self-driving trips to destinations without luxury hotels. Respondent 30 mentioned a road trip: “Seriously, it was impossible to find nice hotels or great food [on the way]. I chose the most expensive food and found the best accommodation.” However, he enjoyed the trip because of the unique natural scenery. He had once joined a high-end invitation-only group tour. Although this adventurous tour cost more than RMB100,000 (about US$15,400), the travelers stayed in tents without much comfort during the trip.
Discussion
Given this study’s small sample size, the segments cannot be generalized to the entire Chinese population. The findings, however, demonstrate the effectiveness of using MEC theory to segment the luxury travel market. When introducing MEC theory, Gutman (1982) commented on its potential as a tool for market segmentation. Although many studies have used the theory to understand groups of tourists, they stopped after developing HVMs and did not further segment the market. For example, Wu et al. (2020) developed an HVM for indigenous tourism experiences and grouped the MECs, rather than the tourists, into three types. Pezeshki et al. (2019) constructed an HVM to understand what motivated Iranian senior tourists to visit a domestic destination and suggested that the findings can be used for segmentation in future studies. Although these studies also had small samples, their HVMs could potentially be used to identify segments, and those segments could be verified using our proposed approach and larger samples. Our proposed means–end segmentation approach contributes to the tourism literature on the segmentation method. By empirically demonstrating a method to reveal the cognitive structures underlying luxury travel choices, this study responds to the call for new approaches to develop mutually exclusive tourist segments (Chen, 2003).
Means–end segmentation allows for the identification of distinct luxury segments by examining the luxuriousness of travel services and the personal values sought through luxury travel. Studies that have adopted MEC theory have revealed that the same means can be used to achieve different ends, that different means are sometimes used to achieve the same end, and that different means are often adopted to achieve different ends (Jiang et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2016; Watkins & Gnoth, 2011). These three means–end relationships are demonstrated by the seven segments identified in this study.
In the first scenario, the common ends of pleasure and happiness, safety and cleanliness, and freedom and the ends used for segmentation (social status) are achieved by different means. Among the respondents, the Achiever, Aspirer, and Status Pursuer segments sought social status. However, each segment had a different luxurious style, from Status Pursuer, whose members were comfortable staying in three- or four-star hotels, to Achiever, whose members always wanted the best (five-star) hotels. Thus, whether certain means meet certain ends is subjective, according to the traveler.
In the second scenario, different segments use the same means to achieve different ends. The respondents in the Always Luxury and Achiever segments always chose premium services and considered luxury the norm. Although leadership was cited by two members of the Always Luxury segment, achieving this end was not necessary, as they began consuming luxury travel services before they started their careers. Although the Always Luxury travelers looked for no more than the common ends (Figure 1), the Achiever travelers used the same means to achieve additional ends, such as social status, health, and respect. Similarly, the segments adopting the middling or least luxurious travel modes aimed to achieve different combinations of ends.
In the third scenario, different segments adopt different levels of luxuriousness to achieve different ends. Comparing the Adventurer and Aspirer segments provides an extreme example of this. Travelers in the Adventurer segment were flexible in their modes of travel and traveled less luxuriously than those in the Aspirer segment in terms of the frequency with which they chose luxury travel services. Despite sometimes choosing luxury travel services, they only aimed to achieve certain common ends. Those in the Aspirer segment, however, sought to achieve five additional ends.
The segmentation approach in this study identified new ends and new segments not previously discussed in the literature. For example, although Rokeach (1973) found that values like cleanliness are perceived as less important among the wealthy because they assume it will be provided, some luxury travelers consider safety and cleanliness important. This indicates the context-related importance of personal values. Similarly, the new Family Oriented segment identified in this study included temporary luxury travelers who had consumed luxury travel for a considerably longer period than the once-in-a-lifetime travelers in the literature (Bakker, 2005). Thus, the heterogeneity of the luxury travel market is well demonstrated by means–end segmentation.
The diversity of the luxury travel market may explain why industry practitioners often find it challenging to meet luxury travelers’ expectations (Horwath HTL, 2011). This study’s findings have practical implications for luxury travel service providers. They should position themselves according to their level of luxuriousness and target the corresponding segments. Most importantly, as tourists may use the same means to achieve different ends, practitioners are encouraged to understand guests’ personal values (ends) beyond observing product preferences (means) and evaluate the entire service process with these values in mind. Thus, areas to improve can be identified. For example, if hoteliers understand the importance of the family orientation end for some luxury travelers and review their purchasing decisions, they may purchase high-quality toys for their kids clubs. The poor quality toys provided by luxury hotels was noted by Respondent 16. Although the segments identified in this study require verification in a future study, the approach of connecting means and ends to understand luxury travelers can be used by practitioners who aim to anticipate, meet, and exceed their guests’ expectations.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Reflection is important for qualitative studies (Mura & Pahlevan Sharif, 2015). Thus, the author who conducted and coded the interviews reflects on the data collection and analysis in this section. Concerns about laddering interviews generally relate to the excessive cognitive demand they may place on respondents, potentially exhausting them (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon, 2009). Additionally, respondents may find the end of a ladder to be surprising and unwelcome (Walker & Crittenden, 2012). The respondents in this study seemed to be very clear about their goals for luxury travel. Therefore, it was not difficult to reach the end of the ladder. However, the respondents revealed only what they could recognize and wanted to share. Travelers with strong privacy concerns may not be willing to participate in this type of study. In addition, although the focus of the interviews was leisure travel, travelers may have incorporated their business travel in their comments. The absence of opinions from travelers who greatly value their privacy and the inclusion of business travel information are limitations of this study. Another limitation is that only one researcher conducted the interviews and completed the coding process, and thus inter-coder reliability was not assessed.
The generalizability of the findings is limited by the sample size. A quantitative study could be conducted to verify the segments, especially the two segments with only two members. This study included only broad categories of luxury services and used only two personal values as segmentation criteria. Future studies could use complete MECs (attributes, consequences, values) to segment larger samples. Future studies could also extend the level of luxuriousness by including ultra-luxury travelers such as those who take private jets or stay in tailor-made accommodations (e.g., Blink by Black Tomato) and explore whether they belong to the Always Luxury segment or a currently unidentified segment.
Future studies could also consider the influence of contextual factors such as culture and crisis. This study’s findings may reflect the influence of Chinese culture, such as parenting (Fu et al., 2015), face (Jacobs et al., 1995), and lifelong learning (Li & Lu, 2013). A cross-culture comparison of luxury travelers would be interesting. The data for this study were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic. Although personal values are expected to remain stable, the level of importance attached to values such as security, conformity, and benevolence may have increased if people’s worldviews changed as a result of the pandemic (Evsyukova & Glukhova, 2020). Future studies could compare the values identified before and after the pandemic.
Conclusion
Understanding why different travelers seek luxury experiences is important for improving the perceived value of luxury travel services. Behavioral- or preference-based segmentations are unable to capture cognitive structures. Taking a cognitive view, this study demonstrates the effectiveness of the means–end segmentation approach and unravels how and why segments differ. Different segments adopt different means (different levels of luxuriousness in terms of hotel and flight choices) to achieve different ends (personal values). Luxury travel is likely to recover quickly after the pandemic (Mattar, 2021). Future studies could verify the segments identified in this study and help practitioners in the luxury travel sector to lead the recovery of the tourism industry.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note:
The corresponding author would like to thank the editor, associate editor, and the anonymous reviewers who have provided insightful comments and suggestions that helped improve this paper and demonstrate the value of this study.
