Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing

ISSN: 1054-8408 (Print) 1540-7306 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttm20

Emerging Definitions of Boutique and Lifestyle

Hotels: A Delphi Study

David L. Jones , Jonathon Day & Donna Quadri-Felitti

To cite this article: David L. Jones , Jonathon Day & Donna Quadri-Felitti (2013) Emerging
Definitions of Boutique and Lifestyle Hotels: A Delphi Study, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
30:7, 715-731, DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2013.827549

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.827549

Published online: 28 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2665

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wttm20
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30:715–731, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1054-8408 print / 1540-7306 online
DOI: 10.1080/10548408.2013.827549

EMERGING DEFINITIONS OF BOUTIQUE AND

LIFESTYLE HOTELS: A DELPHI STUDY
David L. Jones
Jonathon Day
Donna Quadri-Felitti

ABSTRACT. Despite growing interest in the boutique and lifestyle sector of the lodging industry,
there is not an accepted definition of either “boutique hotel” or “lifestyle hotel.” Boutique and lifestyle
hotel strategies provide hotel companies with important points of differentiation in an increasingly
competitive marketplace. The current study determined definitions using a Delphi analysis of responses
from a diverse group of experts from the lodging industry. Forty-one panel members were involved in
the process that was undertaken with three rounds of questions. The study determined that boutique
hotels are best characterized as small, stylish hotels that offer high levels of service. Lifestyle hotels
are described as innovative and provide more of a personal experience than so-called “branded” hotels.

KEYWORDS. Boutique hotels, lifestyle hotels, hotel design, luxury hotels, Delphi, experience

INTRODUCTION in interest in boutique and lifestyle hotels is a

The growth of the boutique and lifestyle
hotel sector of the hospitality industry has
been one of the most watched trends in recent
years. After decades of brand standardization,
in which chains such as Holiday Inn, Marriott,
and Hilton provided consumers consistency in
lodging products across the marketplace, there
is growing attention to differentiated offerings
in the lodging sector. Indeed, this recent growth
global phenomenon. From Las Vegas to Dubai
and from London to Shanghai, boutique and
lifestyle hotels are emerging as a consider-
able segment of the lodging market (Mintel,
2011). In recent years, boutique and lifestyle
hotels have received considerable attention from
a variety of sources including the trade press,
developers, and consumers. Currently, both spe-
cialty chains such as Joie de Vivre, Kimpton,
and Morgan’s Hotel Group; and major hotel

David L. Jones, PhD, is Administrative Director with the Department of Hospitality Management at the
University of San Francisco in San Francisco, CA, USA (E-mail: dljones@usfca.edu).
Jonathon Day, PhD, is Assistant Professor with the School of Hospitality and Tourism Management at
Purdue University, 900 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA (E-mail: gjday@purdue.edu).
Donna Quadri-Felitti, PhD, is Clinical Associate Professor with the Preston Robert Tisch Center
for Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management at New York University in New York, NY, USA
(E-mail: quadri@nyu.edu).
The authors extend their sincere thanks to Frances Kiradjian, Founder of the Boutique and Lifestyle
Lodging Association for initiating this research project. We also express our sincere thanks to the mem-
bers of the Delphi panel for their participation in this important study. Finally, our sincere thanks is extended
to the reviewers who provided valuable feedback and enhanced the quality of this article with their insight.
Address correspondence to: Jonathon Day, PhD, at the above address.

715
716 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
companies including IHG, Hilton, Marriott,
Starwood, and Hyatt are developing boutique
and lifestyle hotels.
Despite the considerable attention given the
concepts within the segments of the hotel sec-
tor there has been a lack of consensus on
the definitions of the terms “boutique hotel”
and “lifestyle hotel.” The current research will
examine the existing use of these terms. The
definition and categorization of boutique and
lifestyle hotels has significant advantages for
consumers, for the hotel and lodging industry
managers and investors. Cser and Ohuchi (2008)
noted that hotel classification creates benefits
for both consumers and the lodging industry.
Consumers benefit as appropriate classifications
set expectations for service, facilities, and qual-
ity. Hoteliers benefit from clearer positioning of
their assets in the minds of consumers. Investors
and lenders may benefit from understanding the
value proposition of the product category and its
potential to generate financial returns.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Boutique hotels have received little atten-
tion by academic researchers. One challenge
to the systematic examination of boutique and
lifestyle hotels is the lack of clear and estab-
lished definitions of the terms “boutique hotel”
and “lifestyle hotel.” Mintel Group (2011), a
market intelligence company, stated the term
boutique hotel “suffers from a lack of clarity
and definition.” In recent years, researchers have
examined the phenomenon with a focus on spe-
cific countries or origin, McIntosh and Siggs
(2005) in New Zealand and Aggett (2007) in
the United Kingdom. Both McIntosh and Siggs
(2005) and Aggett (2007) identified similar
attributes—location, quality, personalized ser-
vice, and uniqueness of the hotel—as important
to boutique hotel guests.
One key factor that emerges from the exam-
ination of boutique hotels is the importance of
the “experience” as a key theme in describ-
ing boutique hotels (Lea, 2002; McIntosh &
Siggs, 2005; Mintel, 2011; Van Hartesvelt,
2006). The Mintel Report on Boutique Hotels
(Mintel, 2011) noted that the pioneers in this
sector of the industry identified the importance
of the hotel experience over a decade before
Pine and Gilmore’s (1999) “The Experience
Economy.” Indeed. Gilmore and Pine (2002)
noted that boutique hotels—such as the Raffles
L’Ermitage, Hotel Rex, or The Phoenix—
embrace the principles of differentiating their
operations via experiences.
A few academic studies have investigated
the room inventory boundaries of the boutique
segment, suggesting size as a potential defin-
ing characteristic. Having a limited number of
sleeping rooms is the most frequent characteris-
tic used to describe a boutique hotel in the lim-
ited academic literature (Lim & Endean, 2009;
McIntosh & Siggs, 2005; Morrison, Moscardo,
Nadkarni, O’Leary, & Perace, 1996; Wheeler,
2006). However, Lim and Endean (2009) con-
cluded in a triangulated study that boutique
hotels in the United Kingdom have less than
100 rooms. In contrast, industry consultants fre-
quently have published quite about boutique
hotels with size remaining central to their per-
spectives. Smith Travel Research (STR, 2011)
has defined boutique hotels as having less than
200 rooms. Van Hartesvelt (2006) suggested a
boutique hotel’s inventory should be between
20 and 150 rooms. Indeed, the American Hotel
& Lodging Association (AHLA, 2009) reports
that in the United States that 55% of all lodg-
ing operations list less than 75 rooms with 33%
of all public accommodations containing room
inventory between 75 and 149 rooms. One may
note, while some boutique hotels are luxury
hotels or upscale hotels, this is typically not a
defining feature of the category. Both boutique
and lifestyle hotels can appeal to broad spectrum
of price ranges (O’Connor, 2008; Rogers, 2009).
Design is often cited as a defining fea-
ture of boutique hotels in both trade and aca-
demic publications. A selection of trade publi-
cation article titles—such as “Boutique Property
Boasts Architects’ Unique Design” (Felt, 2001),
“Surprise Guests With Great Design” (Watkins,
2001), “Boutique Design About Creating an
Experience” (Stoessel, 2009), “Boutique Boom
Has Hotel Designers Talking at Show” (Rusnak,
2006), and “Chains Awake to Designer Trend:
Boutique Hotels” (Bray, 2002)—illustrate the
relationship between design and boutique and
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti
lifestyle hotel management and development.
Lim and Endean (2009) found that although
there were feelings about the importance of the
building itself, the internal design features of
boutique hotels were important to the concept
of boutique hotels. They noted that “individ-
ual” is a most important term in describing these
hotels. The combination of design and service
(Van Hartesvelt, 2006) makes boutique hotels
unique.
If boutique hotels have received little atten-
tion from researchers, then so-called “lifestyle”
hotels have received almost no attention from
academic researchers yet considerable attention
from the broader lodging industry as evidenced
by recent trade news articles (Alderton, 2009;
Clausing, 2008; Eisen, 2011; Serlan, 2011).
Again, issues associated with the definition of
what constitutes a lifestyle hotel creates a bar-
rier to more detailed analysis. Lifestyle hotels
are characterized as places where consumers
can take their lifestyle or the lifestyle to which
they aspire “on the road” and as such are
considered more customer-centric than tradi-
tional hotel brands (Watkins, 2010; Wilson,
2006). The Boutique and Lifestyle Lodging
Association (BLLA, n.d.) considers a lifestyle
hotel as a subcategory of boutique hotel and
defines it as “A property that combines living
elements and activities into functional design
that gives guests the opportunity to explore
the experience they desire” (para. 6). Others
(Mintel, 2011; Rosen, 2009; Stellin, 2007) used
the term lifestyle hotel brand to describe the new
brands being developed by major chains to cap-
ture elements of the boutique hotel experience.
These new lifestyle hotel brands include Indigo
(IHG), Hyatt Place (Hyatt), NYLO XP (NYLO),
Denizen (Hilton), Edition (Marriott), Element,
and Aloft (Starwood). In an increasingly com-
petitive marketplace, hotel companies are seek-
ing to achieve competitive advantage through
highly differentiated offerings to specific target
markets.
The growing importance of the boutique and
lifestyle category emerges after the hotel indus-
try has seen many years of standardization
of hotel facilities and the emergence of large
brands with exacting brand standards. While it
could be argued that hotels historically have
717
been “boutique” and the global hotel brands of
today only began with the advent of the Holiday
Inn brand in 1952, several authors (Anhar, 2001;
Lea, 2002; Lim & Endean, 2009) suggest that
the current meaning of boutique hotel has its
origin with London’s Blakes Hotel in 1978.
Blakes Hotel, and other pioneering boutique
hotels such as Morgans Hotel in New York
and the Phoenix in San Francisco, were posi-
tioned to meet the needs of sophisticated trav-
elers. These properties were described as “inti-
mate” and, while some were modeled on small
European style hotels, others targeted specific
themes, like “Rock and Roll.” These early
boutique hotels tended to incorporate nightlife,
spas, and cuisine as means of enhancing the
hotel experience (Mintel, 2011). As the sector
became more established, boutique hotels began
to stress “homelike atmosphere” and “personal-
ized service” (Lea, 2002). These services were
the “counter-trend” to the mainstream lodg-
ing industry that offered an increasingly stan-
dardized hotel experience. The category may
have offered a competitive advantage to lodg-
ing companies seeking to meet the needs of an
underserved consumer segment. Boutique and
lifestyle hotels can been seen in the context
of a corporate strategy based on differentiation
(Porter, 1980) designed to provide a strategic
advantage. Boutique and lifestyle hotels differ-
entiate themselves from the larger hotel brands
through service, individual design, and “experi-
ence.” This differentiation is expected to create
sustainable competitive advantage. The purpose
of the current study is to determine current
definitions for the terms “boutique hotel” and
“lifestyle hotel.” The study will examine the
attributes and characteristics of both types of
hotels and compare similarities and differences
of the two concepts.
METHODS
The objective of the study was to deter-
mine what defines a “boutique” and “lifestyle”
lodging establishment. To best address this
objective, a panel of 41 hotel industry thought
leaders from around the world was assembled
to help define these concepts through use of
718 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 1. Membership of the Delphi Thought Panel Selection

Leaders Panel
Panel selection is essential to the success
Panel Round Round Round of the Delphi method (Stewart & Shamdanasi,
1 2 3 1990). The reliability of data collected by the
process largely hinges on the quality of experts
Participants 41 20 24 25
Location (Clayton, 1997). Researchers have noted that
Asia 15 10 9 9 defining who is an expert on a topic can be prob-
United States 19 5 11 12 lematic and arbitrary. According to the summa-
Europe 7 5 4 4
rization of Keeney et al. (2001), the definition
Responsibility
Academic 7 4 4 5 of expert ranges from “informed individual” to
Consultant 8 5 5 6 “someone who has knowledge about a specific
Hotel—Corporate 14 6 8 6 subject” (p. 196); however, simply because indi-
Hotel—Property 12 5 7 8
viduals have knowledge of a particular topic
Function
Academic 7 4 4 5 does not necessarily mean that they are experts.
Consultants 8 5 5 6 To ensure the credibility of experts, the critical
GM 5 2 2 4 issue of Delphi research is fully describing the
Owner 7 3 5 4
panelists.
CEO/President 8 4 5 4
Senior corp. executives 6 2 3 2 In the present study, 96 industry and aca-
demic experts from around the world initially
were invited to participate as panelists. The
invitation list was compiled by the researchers,
the Delphi method (see Table 1). The leaders who had extensive industry experience and con-
were senior executives from ownership, corpo- nections to the industry leaders and academics
rate level management and property level man- conducting research in this lodging field, along
agement with individual hotels, hotel groups, with the assistance of the Boutique and Lifestyle
industry consultants, and academics that were Lodging Association (BLLA). The final panel
identified by the researchers in cooperation with consisted of 41 participants who accepted the
BLLA. invitation to join the panel.
The Delphi method used in the study is a Furthermore participation in the Delphi
research method that brings expert opinions research can be a lengthy and time-consuming
together through group communication to for- process. Therefore, only those individuals with
mulate a prediction (Dalkey, 1972). It provides strong opinions about the topic may volun-
an opportunity for experts to exchange anony- teer their time on the process. Non-emulative
mously their opinions and knowledge about a panelists may be less likely to volunteer to par-
complex problem. A series of iterative rounds ticipate. Less willingness may result in skewed
are conducted until consensus or stability about data. The intense nature of the data collection
the problem was reached (Keeney, Hasson, & phase also requires continued attention from
McKenna, 2001). The main advantage of using experts. At the end of a Delphi study, the
the Delphi method is achieving concurrence in willingness of panelists gradually diminishes
a given area where none previously existed. in many cases. The waning of willingness and
It is seen as a constructive process of build- interest possibly limits the accuracy of partic-
ing knowledge by all experts involved in the ipant response (Franklin & Hart, 2007). Such
study (Kennedy, 2004). The challenges of con- a challenge was dealt with in two ways. First,
ducting research using the Delphi method and the final panelists were analyzed in terms of
how they were dealt with in the present study the demographic mix to assure there was rep-
are outlined in three categories: (a) panel selec- resentation from geographic regions, levels of
tion, (b) questionnaire development, and (c) data responsibility, and function within the field.
analysis and research bias. Each is presented Second, since the researchers knew each pan-
below. elist, follow-up e-mails and telephone calls were
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti
made to assure continued participation. Panel
size is also an issue that has been cited in
previous research with the most important deter-
minant being the need to have a heterogeneous
panel (Garrod & Fyall, 2005; Mitchell, 1991;
Story, Montgomery, & Gant, 2001). However,
a large enough panel is necessary to allow for
attrition. In the present study, the number of
panelists and the number of responses for each
round (20 responses in Round 1, 22 responses
in Round 2, 25 responses in Round 3) were con-
sidered within the acceptable range based on
past hospitality and tourism studies of similar
size (Chandler, Finley, & Weber, 2005; Lloyd,
LaLopa, & Braunlich, 2000; Mitchell, 1991;
Weber & Ladkin, 2003).
Questionnaire Development
The strategy of Delphi research is based
on the ability of researchers to capture effec-
tively the key issues of the topic (Simmonds,
1977). The development of the initial pool of
items, therefore, is critical to success. The key
issues may be missed if the significance of these
issues has not been fully recognized. Missing
issues in the first stage are not easily recov-
ered at the end of the research phase (Franklin
& Hart, 2007). In the first round of the present
study, a series of five open-ended questions were
asked to solicit the panelists’ thoughts about the
definition-related questions (see below). Then
the varied responses received for each question
were analyzed and coded by the research team to
determine the common themes of the responses
to each question. This process led to the most
consensual descriptions for each definition to be
carried over to the second and third rounds that
used a quantitative method.
Data Analysis and Research Bias
The data analysis process for the Delphi
study is subjective. Researchers incorporate
panelists’ responses and comments and then
formulate the subsequent questionnaires. The
process of condensing, refining, and develop-
ing the next round of questionnaires is sub-
ject to the knowledge, experiences, and percep-
tions of the researchers (Stewart & Shamdanasi,
1990). Potential researcher bias exists in a
719
Delphi panel analysis and, to mitigate this effect,
the researchers assembled from different back-
grounds and specialties.
As mentioned above, during the first round
the responses to the open-ended questions were
coded into common items for the following
rounds. Those subsequent rounds were con-
ducted quantitatively using a 10-point Likert
scale to increase scale sensitivity, as evident
from the increasing number of scale points, with
10 as the most important and 1 as the least
important in each of the three rounds. The levels
of consensus were then determined using aggre-
gated mean scores on responses and the move
toward central tendency, the standard deviation.
The standard deviation was utilized to deter-
mine consensus; for example, the largest value
in Round 3 as 2.80, indicating the least consen-
sus; and the lowest, 1.10, indicating the highest
consensus (Greatorex & Dexter, 2000; Holey,
Feely, Dixon, & Whittaker, 2007) . Therefore,
the objective of the study was to determine not
only the most central items but also those with
the greatest consensus from the final two rounds.
The Survey
A three-round Delphi method was chosen,
based on findings that a two or three iteration
Delphi is sufficient for most panels to arrive at
consensus for most research studies (Skulmoski,
Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). The survey process
was to end when consensus was achieved. A set
of guidelines for determining the definitions and
the time period allowed for response for each
individual round was defined prior to the com-
mencement of the study to ensure consistency.
All the responses from the panelists remained
anonymous in reporting of the research find-
ings. Based on previous Delphi studies, the
anticipated minimum response should have
been between 15–20 members for each round
(Kaynak, Bloom, & Leibold, 1994).
In view of the growing use of the Internet and
electronic commerce in the hospitality industry,
an online survey was utilized to distribute the
three-round questionnaires, to provide advan-
tages to both researcher and Delphi participant.
The most significant benefit of online surveys
is convenience and speed. Its quick turnaround
720 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

time also helps in keeping enthusiasm alive and TABLE 2. Defining Boutique Hotel—Round 2
attrition low. Qualtrics online survey software
was used to develop the three-round Delphi Round 2—Defining terms and
survey for the research project. emotions

The panelists were given 3 weeks to respond How important are the Mean SD Rank
to each round. A member of the research team following to defining a boutique
followed up personally with panelists who did hotel?
not respond by each of the deadline dates to Personal, customized service 2.91 2.69 3
ensure timely input. Each round of the sur- Interesting, unique services 3.27 2.59
vey took approximately two months. The three- Intimate 2.86 2.1 2
Individual hotel/not a chain 3.73 3.01
round survey processes took approximately six
Cultural, historic, authentic 3.38 2.29
months from February to July of 2011 to com- Stylish, trendy, cool 2.81 2.25 1
plete. In the first round, a series of five open- Cutting edge design 3.09 2.18 4
ended questions were asked to solicit each pan- Social spaces such as living 3.27 2.41
rooms, libraries with social
elist’s thoughts on the definition-related ques-
events
tions. The questions were sent to a panel of Many high quality in-room 4.14 2.23
41 hotel industry thought leaders. The questions features
were as follows: Mean 3.27 2.38

Note. Scale: 1 = very important; 10 = not very important.

1. What characteristics define a boutique
hotel?
2. What does the classification of lifestyle
hotel mean?
3. What differentiates a boutique hotel from
a lifestyle hotel?
4. What emotions would you expect to
experience staying at a boutique/lifestyle
hotel?
5. Why do travelers choose a boutique/
lifestyle hotel?
The varied responses received for each ques-
tion then were analyzed and coded by the
research team to determine the common themes
for each question. This process led to the best
descriptions for each definition to be carried
over to the second round. The results deter-
mined nine items that represented the boutique
hotel definition, five for a lifestyle hotel defini-
tion, and 10 emotions for defining a boutique or
lifestyle hotel (see Table 2). In addition, state-
ments about differences between the two types
of hotels were edited for grammar and duplica-
tion, resulting in six different statements to seek
further opinions from each panelist in Round 2
(see Table 2). Answers to Question 5 above were
not focused on the objectives of the study and
further analysis of the travelers’ viewpoint was
eliminated from future rounds of the study.
The second round reverted to a quantita-
tive approach where panelists were asked to
rate the importance or level of agreement
with the items noted above from Round 1.
Specifically, the following questions were
asked:
1. How important are the following to defin-
ing a boutique hotel? (nine items)
2. How important are the following to defin-
ing a lifestyle hotel? (five items)
3. How important are the following emotions
to defining a boutique or lifestyle hotel
experience? (10 items)
4. What is your level of agreement with the
following statements that differentiate a
boutique hotel from a lifestyle hotel? (six
statements)
For the first three questions of the round, pan-
elists were asked to rate the importance of each
item that related to the question using a 10-point
Likert scale. For the agreement level on the var-
ious statements in Question 4, a 5-point Likert
scale was used from 1 = strongly agree to 5 =
strongly disagree.
The third and final round was sent using the
same set of questions as in Round 2. In this
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti
round, the panelists were asked again to rate
the importance of each item representing the
definitions and the level of agreement with
the statements about the difference between
boutique hotels and lifestyle hotels. The only
items included were those with ratings higher
than the mean of each series of items in Round 2
(discussed further in the Results section), as well
as those new statements that had been added
by panelists on determining differences between
the two types of lodging accommodation in the
second round. This process resulted in five items
for the definition of boutique hotels, three for
lifestyle hotels, five emotions, and seven state-
ments about the differences between the two
types of hotels.
Also, the final round contained two additional
questions related to the size of these types of
lodging establishments. These questions were
added for two reasons. First, there was men-
tion of size in some of the previous responses
from the panel; however, none of the state-
ments clearly established how large or small,
by room inventory or other measure such as
square footage, of the hotels in these categories.
Second, the previous definitions proposed by
BLLA had specific size limitations included;
validation of those with opinions from the hotel
industry experts was sought. The questions were
as follows:
• What is the maximum number of rooms in
a boutique hotel?
• What is the minimum number of rooms in
a lifestyle hotel?
Panel Composition
The composition of the thought leaders panel,
and the response rate of each round are shown
in Table 1. As noted, one the major potential
drawbacks of using the Delphi method is high
attrition, particularly given the lengthy dura-
tion of the survey and the very busy schedule
of expert panelists (Franklin & Hart, 2007).
In this case, the response rate ranged from 50%
in Round 1 to 62.5% in the third round with
the response rate increasing each round (see
Table 1).
721
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The intent of each round of the Delphi tech-
nique is not only to determine those items
considered most important, but also to reach
consensus among the panelists on each item
(Greatorex & Dexter, 2000; Holey et al., 2007).
Therefore, the first step in analyzing the results
of the present study was to determine the items
considered most important. This was accom-
plished by determining the grand means for
each area of questions (i.e., boutique hotel and
lifestyle hotel definitions, boutique hotel emo-
tions, and the statement of differences between
boutique hotels and lifestyle hotels) and then
determining the top items with means below
the grand mean (note: 1 equals most impor-
tant). Results are shown in Table 2, 3 and 4.
Then the standard deviations were considered
to determine if consensus was achieved for the
items considered most important. If consensus
was achieved for these items, they would be
accepted as valid results, as discussed below. For
those items rated above the mean (i.e., those of
less importance), however, retesting was done in
the third round to assure that no term was over-
looked concerning importance and consensus.
These items are discussed below in the Round
3 results.
Boutique Hotel Defining Terms
In Round 1 of the study, participants were
asked, “what characteristics define a boutique
hotel?” The question produced 20 responses
TABLE 3. Defining Lifestyle Hotels—Round 2
How important are the following to defining a lifestyle hotel?
Mean SD Rank
Personality and a way of life 2.5 2.26 1
Innovative 3.27 2.39
Less about brand, more 3.27 2.85
personal
Contemporary, modern 3.73 2.19
Health and fitness 3.05 2.06 2
Mean 3.16 2.35
Note. Scale: 1 = very important; 10 = not very important.
722 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 4. Emotional Responses to Boutique 20 responses that were analyzed and refined
and Lifestyle Hotels—Round 2 to five sets of terms that were presented in
Round 2. The five sets of terms were Personality
How important are the following emotions to defining a and a Way of Life; Innovative; Less About
boutique or lifestyle hotel experience?
Brand, More Personal; Contemporary, Modern;
Mean SD Rank and Health and Fitness. The Delphi panel were
asked to rate these responses based on their
Upbeat, energized 2.95 1.94 4
Special 2.77 2.29 2
importance to the definition. Of the five terms
Happy, joyful, amused 3.62 2.2 for defining a lifestyle hotel in Round 2, two
Amazed 4.14 1.88 of them were clearly below the grand mean (M
Sensual, sexy, romantic 3.36 1.53 = 3.16). Those items were Personality and Way
Calm, peaceful, at ease 3.05 1.73 5
Recognized as an individual 2.43 2.56 1
of Life (M = 2.25, SD = 2.26) and Health and
Creatively stimulated, inspired 2.86 2.44 3 Fitness (M = 3.05, SD = 2.06), which also
Social 3.45 1.9 had the lowest standard deviation; and therefore,
Discovery, curiosity, intrigue 4.27 2.49 the greatest consensus (see Table 3). These two
Mean 3.29 2.10
items were accepted as valid defining terms and
Note. Scale: 1 = very important; 10 = not very important. the remaining terms were included in Round 3.

Boutique and Lifestyle Hotel Emotions

that were analyzed and refined to nine sets
of terms that were presented in Round 2.
The nine sets of terms were Personalized,
Customized Service; Interesting, Unique
Services; Intimate; Individual Hotel/Not a
Chain; Cultural/Historic/Authentic; Stylish,
Trendy, Cool; Cutting Edge Design; Social
Spaces (such as living rooms, libraries) With
Social Events; Many, High Quality In-room
Features. The Delphi panel was ask to rate
these responses based on their importance to
the definition. In Round 2, the most important
defining term for a boutique hotel was Stylish,
Trendy, Cool (M = 2.81, SD = 2.25; see
Table 2). There were four defining terms that
were rated below the mean with a range of
means from 2.81–3.09 and a range of standard
deviations from 2.1–2.69. After eliminating one
outlier for the item with a standard deviation
of 2.69—Personal, Customized Service—was
reduced to 2.17. Therefore, all of the four items
were accepted as important items in defining a
boutique hotel with consensus. The remaining
five items in Round 2 were carried over to
Round 3 for retesting.
Lifestyle Hotel Defining Terms
In Round 1 of the study, participants
were asked, “What does the classification of
lifestyle hotel mean?” The question produced
The emotional response elicited from the
boutique hotel and lifestyle hotel experience
is of particular importance to understanding
the appeal of boutique and lifestyle hotels.
In Round 1 of the study, participants were
asked, “What emotions would you expect to
experience staying at a boutique or lifestyle
hotel?” The question produced 20 responses
that were analyzed and refined to 10 sets of
terms that were presented in Round 2. The
10 sets of terms were: Upbeat, Energized;
Special; Happy, Joyful, Amused; Amazed;
Sensual, Sexy, Romantic; Calm, Peaceful, At
Ease; Recognized as an Individual; Creatively
Stimulated, Inspired; Social; and Discovery,
Curiosity, Intrigue. The Delphi panel was asked
to rate these responses based on their impor-
tance to the definition.
There were 10 emotions included in Round
2 with half falling below the grand mean and
half above (see Table 4). The most important
emotion was Recognized as an Individual (M
= 2.43, SD = 2.56). The five emotions rating
below the mean ranged from 2.43–3.05 with
standard deviations ranging from 1.73–2.56,
although again with the removal of one out-
lier the highest standard deviation was reduced
to 1.93. Consensus was achieved for these five
items, but the other five higher rated items were
retested in Round 3.
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti
Statements of Difference Between
Boutique and Lifestyle Hotels
In Round 1 of the study, participants
were specifically asked, “What differentiates a
boutique hotel from a lifestyle hotel?” The ques-
tion produced 15 different statements that were
analyzed, refined, and edited for grammar into
five statements that were presented in Round
2 and rated on the Likert scale with 1 = strongly
agree and 5 = strongly disagree.
Analysis of the results for the statements
differed from those of the defining terms and
emotions in three areas. First, the range of agree-
ment or disagreement with the statements was
important to determine. Those with the high-
est rating of agreement could be determined
to be the best measurement of the differences,
but those with the greatest disagreement also
were important to dispel misconceptions of what
differentiates one from the other. Second, the
Likert scale used for the statements was only a
5-point scale with 1 = strongly agree, and 5 =
strongly disagree. Finally, there were additional
items added in Round 2 that would need to be
rated by the panel in Round 3.
In Round 2, a total of 10 statements were
included. Using the grand mean of 2.72, it
was determined that five statements were below
the mean and, therefore, the statements that
most differentiated the two types of lodging
(see TABLE 5). Those with means below the
grand mean ranged from 2.0–2.62 and had stan-
dard deviations from 0.95–1.36 fell within an
acceptable range for consensus. The final deter-
mination of statements would be made based
on a charting of the means and standard devi-
ations for all items. The lowest mean state-
ment was “Boutiques tend to offer an aspira-
tional experience, a total experience, and focus
on the property experience. Lifestyle hotels
focus on specific activities within the prop-
erty such as relaxation, spa, and personal well-
being, and focus on the individual experience”
(M = 2.0, SD = 0.95). The five highest rated
statements were passed on to Round 3 for
retesting.
Round 3 Results
The results of Round 3 involved retesting
of the items from Round 2 rated above the
723
grand mean to determine if any items were over-
looked in the final analysis (see Tables 6 and
7). Therefore, those items rated lower than the
grand mean of this round for both the mean
and standard deviation, as well as rated lower
than Round 2 with coinciding reductions in
standard deviations, were determined as valid
items. The valid items were included in the cre-
ation of the definitions for each type of lodging
establishment.
Boutique Hotel Defining Terms
Two items—Cultural, Historic, Authentic
(M = 2.88, SD = 2.02) and Interesting, Unique
Services (M = 2.96, SD = 2.37)—were added
to the top items from Round 2. In both cases,
there were improvements in both quantitative
measures (see Table 6).
Lifestyle Hotel Defining Terms
In the case of lifestyle hotel defining terms,
Round 3 added two items and one of those items
that might have been omitted in Round 2 if only
items below the mean had been included, actu-
ally became the most important item with the
greatest consensus—Innovative (M = 2.4, SD =
2.0). This supports the explanation for the ratio-
nale used to retest the items from Round 2. The
other item added was Less About Brand, More
Personal (M = 3.04, SD = 2.24), consistent with
the items from Round 2 (see Table 6).
Boutique and Lifestyle Hotel Emotions
Two items were added to the emotions that
define these types of lodging accommodations.
They were Discovery, Curiosity, Intrigue (M =
2.52, SD = 1.76) and Amazed (M = 3.25, SD =
1.8). One should note that the second item,
Amazed, was considered more important than in
Round 2 but consensus was relatively consistent
between rounds, remained least important (see
Table 6).
Statements of Difference Between Boutique
and Lifestyle Hotels
The five statements retested from Round
2 resulted in a higher level of agreement for four
statements while the other showed the greatest
disagreement. The seven new statements added
724 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 5. Statements of Difference Between Boutique and Lifestyle Hotels From Round 2

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements that Mean SD Rank
differentiate a boutique hotel from a lifestyle hotel

Boutiques tend to offer an aspirational experience, a total experience, and focus on 2.00 0.95 1
the property experience. Lifestyle hotels focus on specific activities within the
property such as relaxation, spa, and personal well-being, and focus on the
individual experience.
A lifestyle hotel has a broader more encompassing philosophy, and is user-centric. 2.62 1.02 5
A boutique hotel must have a back story, old architecture, or designer as a selling 2.57 1.36 4
point, and have a unique and personalized interior decoration; a lifestyle hotel does
not necessarily have to have a story, but there should be a lifestyle concept, such
as physical and mental balance, the interior decoration looks and feels peaceful.
A boutique hotel has a specific vision and is design-centric. 2.45 1.1 3
A boutique hotel has a very personalized service and hopefully some charm and/or 2.24 1.18 2
other unique characteristics.
A lifestyle hotel has more ancillary services, focused on wellness. 2.86 1.24
An (alternative) lifestyle hotel is more focused on aesthetics with contemporary, 2.75 0.91
unusual design and architecture, a high level of technology, and genuinely
life-enriching.
Boutique hotels are unique in terms of service delivery and the total package. 2.86 0.91
Lifestyle hotels tend to focus on allowing the guest to live life on the road.
A lifestyle hotel is higher end and caters to a very particular client base. 3.33 1.15
A boutique hotel is now almost anything that is smaller in size. 3.52 1.54
Grand mean 2.72 1.14

Note. Scale: 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree.

TABLE 6. Defining Boutique and Lifestyle Hotels—Round 3

How important are the following to defining a boutique hotel? Round 3

Mean SD

Interesting, unique services 2.96 2.37a,b

Individual hotel/not a chain 3.08 2.79b
Cultural, historic, authentic 2.88 2.02a,b
Social spaces such as living rooms, libraries with social events 3.92 2.55
Many, high quality in-room features 3.6 2.1b
Mean 3.29 2.37
How important are the following to defining a lifestyle hotel?
Innovative 2.4 2a,b
Less about brand, more personal 3.04 2.24a,b
Contemporary, modern 4 2.55
Mean 3.15 2.26
How important are the following emotions to defining a boutique or lifestyle hotel
experience?
Happy, joyful, amused 3.6 2.27
Amazed 3.25 1.8a,b
Sensual, sexy, romantic 3.88 2.35
Social 3.54 2.51
Discovery, curiosity, intrigue 2.52 1.76a,b
Mean 3.36 2.14
Note. Scale: 1 = very important; 10 = not very important.
a Mean score was more important than the grand mean. b Round 3 mean was lower than Round 2, indicating greater

importance.
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti 725

TABLE 7. Statements of Difference Between Boutique and Lifestyle Hotels From Round 3

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements that Mean SD
differentiate a boutique hotel from a lifestyle hotel

Statements retested from Round 2

A lifestyle hotel has more ancillary services, focused on wellness. 2.17 1.17a,b
An (alternative) lifestyle hotel is more focused on aesthetics with contemporary, 2.29 1.20a,b
unusual design and architecture, a high level of technology, and genuinely
life-enriching.
Boutique hotels are unique in terms of service delivery and the total package. 2.48 1.16a,b
Lifestyle hotels tend to focus on allowing the guest to live life on the road.
A lifestyle hotel is higher end and caters to a very particular client base. 2.92 1.10b
A boutique hotel is now almost anything that is smaller in size. 3.75 1.39
New statements added from Round 2
A small, historic hotel would be a boutique hotel, not a lifestyle hotel. 2.24 1.33a
With regard to hotels, boutique and lifestyle cannot be separated as the public is 2.63 1.47a
still not even clear on what a boutique hotel is.
Boutique hotels are independent or run by boutique-specialized chains with each 2.80 1.44a
one offering a unique presentation/experience, whereas lifestyle hotels tend to be
those developed by big chains as a means to further dissect the market and thus
can be of any size.
A lifestyle hotel is more upbeat, contemporary with high interest in avant garde or 2.84 1.34
very aesthetic architecture and design.
A boutique hotel is more than a smaller “lifestyle” hotel. 2.96 1.55
Introducing another new category is a mistake; boutique and lifestyle are 3.32 1.46
interchangeable.
There is really no difference between lifestyle hotels and boutique hotels from the 3.32 1.49
hotel investors’ viewpoint.
Grand mean 2.81 1.34

Note. Scale: 1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree.

a Mean score was more important than the grand mean. b Round 3 mean was lower than Round 2, indicating greater

importance.

from Round 2 resulted in three of them rating
above the grand mean for Round 3. However, all
of the new items had standard deviations at or
above the grand mean for Round 3 statements,
indicating a lack of strong consensus for them.
The results of the combination of all statements
from Rounds 2 and 3 are detailed in Table 5
and represent the most relevant findings related
to determining the differences between the two
hotel types (see Table 7).
Final List of Items Ranked by Rating
Table 8 is a final compilation of the ranking
of the items for the defining terms and emo-
tions based on the lowest means from each of
the two rounds. Stylish, Trendy, Cool ranked
highest in defining boutique hotels; Innovative
was the top rated item in defining a lifestyle
hotel; and the emotion with the most importance
was Recognized as an Individual. These top
items, as well as the other top rated items were
used to determine the definitions of each lodging
type.
Final Analysis of the Statements of
Difference Between Boutique and
Lifestyle Hotels
The most effective way to analyze the results
from the statements from both Rounds 2 and
3 is to plot them on a graph (see Tables 5 and
7, Figure 1; Greatorex & Dexter, 2000; Holey
et al., 2007) . The graph clearly shows three
distinct groupings or clusters for the agreement
or disagreement with the statements. Five state-
ments with the lowest means (> 2.29), all hav-
ing standard deviations below the mean from
Round 3 which indicates concurrence, best rep-
resent the differences between the two types of
lodging establishments:
726 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 8. Final List of Rankings by Rating From Rounds 2 and 3

How important are the following to defining a boutique hotel? Mean SD Rank

Stylish, trendy, cool 2.81 2.25 1

Intimate 2.86 2.1 2
Cultural, historic, authentic 2.88 2.02 3a
Personal, customized service 2.91 2.69 4
Interesting, unique services 2.96 2.37 5a
Cutting-edge design 3.09 2.18 6
How important are the following to defining a lifestyle hotel?
Innovative 2.4 2 1a
Personality and way of life 2.5 2.26 2
Less about brand, more personal 3.04 2.24 3a
Health and fitness 3.05 2.06 4
Contemporary, modern 3.73 2.19 5
How important are the following emotions to defining a boutique or lifestyle hotel
experience?
Recognized as an individual 2.43 2.56 1
Discovery, curiosity, intrigue 2.52 1.76 2a
Special 2.77 2.29 3
Creatively stimulated, inspired 2.86 2.44 4
Upbeat, energized 2.95 1.94 5
Calm, peace, at ease 3.05 1.73 6
Amazed 3.25 1.8 7a

Note. Scale: 1 = very important; 10 = not very important.

a Results from Round 3.

• Boutiques tend to offer an aspirational FIGURE 1. Statement of Differences Between

experience, a total experience, and a Boutique and Lifestyle Hotels (color figure avail-
focus on the property experience. Lifestyle able online)
hotels focus on specific activities within
the property such as relaxation, spa, and
personal well-being, and focus on the indi-
vidual experience.
• A lifestyle hotel has more ancillary ser-
vices, focused on wellness.
• A boutique hotel has very personalized
service and hopefully some charm and/or
other unique characteristics.
• A small, historic hotel would be a boutique
hotel rather than a lifestyle hotel.
• An (alternative) lifestyle hotel is more
focused on aesthetics with contemporary,
unusual design and architecture, a high as represented in the graph. Therefore, one can
level of technology, and genuinely life- conclude that these statements do not repre-
enriching. sent a clear agreement or disagreement from the
panelists.
Finally, the third cluster is an interesting one
The second cluster of statements fall in the as it represents the statements with the greatest
middle of the means and are grouped around the disagreement and higher than average standard
grand mean (M = 2.81) from Round 3 (range is deviations. Such representation suggests that
from 2.45–2.96). This grouping also has a great these statements are those with the most con-
deal of fluctuation in the standard deviations troversy and, therefore, not representative of the
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti
differences. Therefore, one may conclude that
these are misconceptions about what differen-
tiates the two types of lodging establishments.
These three statements are:
• Introducing another new category is a
mistake; boutique and lifestyle are inter-
changeable.
• There is no difference between boutique
hotels and lifestyle hotels from the per-
spective of hotel investors.
• A boutique hotel is now almost anything
that is smaller in size.
Taking a step further, these results support
the argument that these are two different types
of lodging establishments that need two sep-
arate definitions as developed by the present
study.
Are Boutique and Lifestyle Hotels Defined
by Size?
The present study sought to determine the
scale of small for boutique hotel room inven-
tory. When does a hotel become so big it is
no longer able to be boutique? In the third
and final round of the analysis the panel was
asked “What is the maximum number of rooms
for a boutique hotel?” In response to the ques-
tion of the maximum number of rooms for a
boutique hotel, the most frequent answer was
300; the mean was 175.5, and the median fell
at 120 sleeping rooms. Two verbal responses
to the numerical questions provide insight into
the difficulty in definitively setting limits for
room inventory in boutique hotels: “depends on
the market scale, in Vegas, it can be several
hundred rooms, which would be an anomaly;
for other markets—less than 200 rooms” and
“it’s not about the size—it’s about the expe-
rience.” These comments illustrate the influ-
ence of the market conditions in which the
property is located and the magnitude of the
consumer’s overall evaluation of the product
specifications and service delivery of the cate-
gory.
Another purpose of the study was to inves-
tigate any distinctions between the labels of
boutique hotel and lifestyle hotel and identify
727
clear distinctions. Is a lifestyle hotel different
in size than a boutique hotel? If the maxi-
mum number of rooms for a boutique hotel
falls between 200 and 300 rooms as indicated
by the panelists, is this where lifestyle hotels
begin in size? In the final round of questioning,
the panelists were asked, “What is the mini-
mum number of rooms for a lifestyle hotel?”
Four panelists identified that where boutique
hotels inventory ends, lifestyle hotels begins.
Four respondents stated that lifestyle mini-
mum inventory is higher than the maximum
room count for boutique hotels. In all, 33%
agreed that a lifestyle hotel is larger than a
boutique hotel in size. The remaining 66% of
the panel believed that room counts overlap
between lifestyle and boutique, suggesting that
room inventory may not be a distinguishing
characteristic between the two categories at this
time.
Comparisons Between Categories of Panel
Members
To compare the responses between the
various categories of panel members (i.e.,
location, responsibility, and function), ANOVA
and t-tests were used. The objective of this
was twofold. First, if no significant differences
were found, more credibility is added to the
argument that consensus was reached. Second,
there are potential differences from the various
points of view that may have contributed to the
range of the standard deviations that need to be
identified.
Statistical analysis was initially conducted
using all of the categories identified in Table 1.
Then those areas were refined further into more
general categories. The refinements led to two
additional comparisons: (a) locations as the
United States compared to others (combining
Europe and Asia since Asian boutique and
lifestyle hotels have been very much influenced
by Europe), and (b) academics and consul-
tants (i.e., outside experts) compared to owners
and hotel management (i.e., management side).
Additionally, one should be note that some
comparisons were conducted based on Round
2 results and others from Round 3 results.
728 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
The results of comparisons using all of the
categories from Table 1 on the top rated items
of both definitions and differentiating state-
ments from Round 2 indicated only one state-
ment where there was a significant difference.
Europeans all rated the statement “a boutique
hotel has very personalized service and hope-
fully some charm and/or other unique charac-
teristics” as very important (i.e., all rated it 1),
which resulted in a significant difference from
the United States (M = 2.40, SD = 1.07) and
Asian (M = 2.71, SD = 1.25) panel mem-
bers. This would seem to be common sense
as European hotels of this type would most
likely be characterized in this manner. Further
refining the categories found that between loca-
tions of the United States and others, those
panelists from the United States felt the dif-
ferentiating statement of “a boutique hotel has
a specific vision and is design-centric” to be
significantly more important than others (M
= 2.11, SD = 1.36 compared to M = 2.72,
SD = 0.78). Two definition items of boutique
hotels also were found to be significantly dif-
ferent between the responsibility/function areas
of outside experts (academics/consultants) and
management. In the cases of Intimate and
Stylish, Cool, Trendy, outside experts felt both
were more important than the operations’ pan-
elists (M = 2.44, SD = 0.88 compared to M =
3.43, SD = 2.82; and M = 2.00, SD = 0.76 com-
pared to M = 3.53, SD = 2.85, respectively).
Round 3 results of the retesting of the
lower rated items and the new differenti-
ating statements found no significant differ-
ences on any item for location, responsibil-
ity, or function based on the categorization in
Table 1. Therefore, consensus seems to have
been reached. However, further analysis of the
locations between the American panelists and
others determined that others felt one boutique
hotel defining term, Interesting (M = 2.45, SD
= 1.50 compared to M = 3.50, SD = 3.03);
and two lifestyle terms, Innovative (M = 1.85,
SD = 0.80 compared to M = 3.50, SD =
2.88) and Discovery, Curiosity, Intrigue (M =
2.31, SD = 1.03 compared to M = 2.75, SD
= 2.34) were more important. One should note
there was more divergence among the American
panelists as indicated by the high standard
deviation. Furthermore, there were three dif-
ferentiating statements found to be signifi-
cantly different by the responsibility/function
areas of outside experts and management.
Hotel Management/Owners indicated these
were more important statements of differentia-
tion than Academics/Consultants:
• “A lifestyle hotel has more ancillary ser-
vices, focused on wellness” (M = 1.69,
SD = 0.63 compared to M = 2.73, SD =
1.43). This was one of the highest rated
statements overall with high consensus.
Therefore, management felt strongly that
this was a key point of differentiation.
• “With regard to hotels, boutique and
lifestyle cannot be separated as the public
is still not even clear on what a boutique
hotel is” (M = 3.00, SD = 1.36 com-
pared to M = 3.73, SD = 1.63). In this
case, the item fell into the middle group;
perhaps there is more disagreement on this
statement than shown.
Academics/Consultants indicated this one
was more important than Hotel Manage-
ment/Owners:
• “An (alternative) lifestyle hotel is more
focused on aesthetics with contemporary,
unusual design and architecture, a high
level of technology, and life” (M = 1.73,
SD = 0.65 compared to M = 2.77, SD
= 1.36). While the outside experts felt
this was significantly more important, the
statement was rated highly overall with a
good consensus.
The present research was designed to iden-
tify the defining characteristics of boutique and
lifestyle hotels. The research indicated that both
boutique and lifestyle hotels consider the emo-
tional response of guests a defining element.
Most importantly the respondents indicated that
boutique and lifestyle hotels should make guests
feel as though they are recognized as individ-
uals. In addition, guests should feel a sense
of discovery, intrigue, and curiosity as a result
of their boutique or lifestyle hotel experience.
Boutique hotels are best described by terms such
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti
as stylish, trendy, cool, intimate, cultural, his-
toric, or authentic. Boutique hotels tend to be
smaller and should not be part of a brand. On the
other hand, lifestyle hotels are described best
as innovative, and express a personality or way
of life. Lifestyle hotels also are considered less
about “brand” and more personal. It is noted
that, while there is considerable consensus on
the importance of these defining terms, there are
some regional differences in the importance of
specific terms. Similarly, there are differences
in the emphasis some functional groups place on
specific elements. Based on the current findings,
the researchers define the following:
Boutique hotels are typically small hotels
that offer high levels of service. Boutique
hotels tend to be stylish, trendy, and “cool”
and provide an intimate hotel experience.
Boutique hotels often provide authen-
tic cultural or historic experiences and
interesting services to guests. Boutique
hotels are unique.
Lifestyle hotels tend to be small- to
medium-sized hotels that provide innova-
tive features and service. They tend to have
contemporary design features. They pro-
vide highly personalized service that dif-
ferentiates them from larger hotel brands.
In addition to providing greater clarity on
the current definition and usage of the terms
“boutique” hotel and “lifestyle” hotel, the
results provide an insight into the strategies of
boutique and lifestyle hotel managers in creating
value for their property. One can conclude that
the management of both boutique and lifestyle
hotels seek competitive advantage through dif-
ferentiation on the experiences they provide
consumers. These experiences are designed to
elicit specific affective responses and the analy-
sis of the results from the Boutique and Lifestyle
Hotel Emotions section of the current study
could be used by designers and hotel opera-
tors when developing service delivery strate-
gies. Certainly, one could say that making the
guest feeling individual and special is impor-
tant and service design, along with hiring and
training of guest service employees, would be
729
paramount in the delivery of highly person-
alized experiences of the boutique hotel stay.
The hotel also must create discovery, curios-
ity, intrigue, and amazement while remaining
a place where the guest feels calm and peace-
ful when they want it or inspired, energized,
and upbeat on other occasions. It all seems to
revolve around the main point of being indi-
vidual and tailoring the design and service to
that purpose. Hoteliers seeking to effectively
implement boutique or lifestyle strategies must
ensure that their offerings remain “customer-
centric” and highly differentiated. The results
of the current study should also be considered
by marketers of boutique hotels as they pro-
vide key points of differentiation around which
promotional messaging could be developed.
One can note the strategies used by boutique
and lifestyle hotel management to align with
Porter’s (1980) generic competitive strategies
of “focus” or “differentiation.” Additionally,
boutique and lifestyle hotel managers recognize
the principles of the “experience economy,” first
proposed by Pine and Gilmore (1999), that cre-
ation of unique experiences develops value and
long-term competitive advantage. Boutique and
lifestyle hotels generate loyalty through highly
differentiated product offerings and a focus on
service.
Limitations
The study examined the characteristics of
“boutique” and “lifestyle” hotels from the
perspective of industry experts across three
continents. By design, the process examined
only industry perspectives and did not address
consumer perspectives of the characteristics
of boutique and lifestyle hotels. Also, while
the responses provide insight into the general
themes prevalent in the industry, they do not
provide information of regional differences.
Future Research
As noted previously, the boutique and
lifestyle sector of the lodging industry has
not received sufficient attention from academic
researchers to date so there are many potential
themes for future researchers to address. Based
on the findings of this study, it is clear that
730 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
further research on the use of the hotel expe-
rience as a point of differentiation will be a
rich research vein. The current study does not
examine the profit implications of this strat-
egy, but it should also be examined. While a
differentiated product, such as a boutique or
lifestyle hotel, should support a premium pric-
ing strategy, the cost of delivering the additional
service may impact profitability. Similarly,
the role of design in positioning should be
explored. The role of strategy in hotel devel-
opment and its relationship to market trends
also will provide interesting topics for future
research.
Also, the basic principle of marketing is to
understand the customer. Therefore, if we con-
sider the defining and positioning of boutique
and lifestyle hotels is a marketing function, then
a future quantitative survey of the boutique and
lifestyle guest using the same items developed
by the Delphi panel would be beneficial.
REFERENCES
Aggett, M. (2007). What has influenced growth in the
UK’s boutique hotel sector? International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(2),
169–177.
AHLA. (2009). Lodging industry profile 2009. Retrieved
from http://www.ahla.com/content.aspx?id=28832
Alderton, M. (2009). Doubletree launches Chicago
lifestyle hotel. Meeting News, 33, 22.
Anhar, L. (2001). The definition of boutique hotels.
Retrieved from http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/
4010409.html
BLLA. (n.d.). Boutique and lifestyle hotels and
properties—Definitions. Retrieved from http://www.
blla.org/lifestyle-hotels.htm
Bray, R. (2002, September 27). Chains awake to designer
trend: Boutique hotels. Financial Times.
Chandler, J., Finley, D., & Weber, M. (2005). Evaluating
teaching effectiveness in a quantity food laboratory
setting: Phase One—Delphi Panel Study. Journal of
Culinary Science and Technology, 4(1), 15–27.
Clausing, J. (2008). Hilton gets hip to lifestyle concept.
Travel Weekly, 67, 6.
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness
expert opinion for critical decision-making in educa-
tion. Educational Pyschology, 17, 373–386.
Cser, K., & Ohuchi, A. (2008). World practices of hotel
classification systems. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research, 13(4), 379–398.
Dalkey, N. C. (1972). Studies in the quality of life: Delphi
and decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Eisen, D. (2011). Two Caesars hotels to join lifestyle brand.
Hotel Management, 226, 16.
Felt, P. (2001). Boutique property boasts architects’ unique
design. Travel Weekly (Europe), 60, 6.
Franklin, K. K., & Hart, J. K. (2007). Idea generation
and exploration: Benefits and limitations of the policy
Delphi research method. Innovative Higher Education,
31, 237–246.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2005). Revisiting Delphi: The
Delphi technique in tourism research. In B. W. Ritchie,
P. Burns, & C. Palmer (Eds.), Tourism research meth-
ods: Integrating theory with practice. (pp. 85–98).
Wallingford, United Kingdom: CABI.
Gilmore, J., & Pine, B. (2002). Differentiating hospitality
operations via experiences: Why selling services is not
enough. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 43(3), 87–96.
Greatorex, J., & Dexter, T. (2000). An accessible analyt-
ical approach for investigating what happens between
rounds of a Delphi study. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
32(4), 1016–1024.
Holey, E., Feely, J., Dixon, J., & Whittaker, V. (2007).
An exploration of the use of simple statistics to mea-
sure consensus and stability in Delphi Studies. BMC
Medical Research Methodology, 7, 52–61.
Kaynak, E., Bloom, J., & Leibold, M. (1994). Using the
Delphi technique to predict future tourism potential.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 12(7): 18–29.
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. P. (2001). A
critical review of the Delphi technique as a research
methodology for nursing. International Journal of
Nursing Studies, 38, 195–200.
Kennedy, H. P. (2004). Enhancing Delphi research:
Methods and results Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45,
504–511.
Lea, K. (2002). The boutique hotel: Fad or phenomenom.
Locum Destination Review, 7, 34–39.
Lim, W., & Endean, M. (2009). Elucidating the aesthetic
and operational characteristics of UK boutique hotels.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 21(1), 38–51.
Lloyd, J., LaLopa, J. M., & Braunlich, C. (2000).
Predicting changes in Hong Kong’s hotel industry
given the change in sovereignty from Britain to
China in 1997. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4),
405–410.
McIntosh, A., & Siggs, A. (2005). An exploration of
the experiential nature of boutique accommodation.
Journal of Travel Research, 44, 74–81.
Mintel. (2011). Boutique hotels in the US-July 2011.
London, United Kingdom: Author.
Mitchell, V. M. (1991). The Delphi technique: An exposi-
tion and application. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management, 3(4), 333–358.
 Jones, Day, and Quadri-Felitti
Morrison, A., Moscardo, G., Nadkarni, N., O’Leary,
J., & Perace, P. (1996). Specialist accommodation:
Definitions, markets served, and roles in tourism devel-
opment. Journal of Travel Research, 35(1), 18–26.
O’Connor, S. (2008). Lifestyle brands ready to make their
presence known. Hotel Business, p. 10.
Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The experience economy:
Work is theatre and every business a stage. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for
analyzing industries and companies. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Rogers, B. (2009). Delivering high style at low cost.
HSMAI Marketing Review, 25, 18–24.
Rosen, J. (2009). Hot new lifestyle hotel brands: Best prac-
tices. In Branding and product specialization in hotels:
Why and how to brand hotels to maximize their business
potential—The marketing & management collection.
London, United Kingdom: Henry Stewart Talks.
Rusnak, P. (2006). Boutique boom has hotel designers
talking at show. Hotel & Motel Management, 221(18):
44–46.
Serlan, B. (2011, April 21). Sonesta to join luxury lifestyle
segment with newly launched Kept Hotels. Hotel
Business, 20, 3–27.
Simmonds, W. H. C. (1977). The nature of futures prob-
lems. In H. A. Linstone & W. H. C. Simmonds (Eds.),
Futures research: New directions (pp. 13–26). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007).
The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of
Information Technology Education, 6, 1–21.
Stellin, S. (2007, May 15). Hotel as lifestyle The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/
05/15/business/15brands.html?pagewanted=all
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdanasi, P. N. (1990). Focus groups:
Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
731
Stoessel, E. (2009, October 22). Boutique design about
creating an experience. Lodging Hospitality. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/236513426?
accountid=13360
Story, S., Montgomery, R., & Gant, C. (2001).
Methodological and practical implications of the
Delphi technique in marketing decision-making: A
reassessment. Marketing Review, 1(4), 487–504.
STR. (2011). Glossary—Hotel types: Boutique. Retrieved
from http://www.str.com/resources/glossary.aspx
Van Hartesvelt, M. (2006, September 15). Building a better
boutique hotel. Lodging Hospitality, 32–44.
Watkins, E. (2001, September 15). Surprise guests with
great design. Lodging Hospitality, 2.
Watkins, E. (2010, July 19). What is a boutique
hotel? Lodging Hospitality. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/docview/
613375380?accountid=13360
Weber, K., & Ladkin, A. (2003). The convention industry
in Australia and the United Kingdom: Key issues and
competitive forces. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2),
125–132.
Wheeler, D. (2006). Understanding the value of boutique
hotels (Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/
1721.1/37449
Wilson, J. (2006, May 1). Lifestyle concept defined by cus-
tomers’ needs, wants. Hotel and Motel Management,
221, 20.
SUBMITTED: May 2, 2012
FINAL REVISION SUBMITTED:
September 21, 2012
ACCEPTED: October 25, 2012
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY