Experience management in hospitality and tourism: reflections and implications for future research

1. Introduction

Experience has garnered increasing attention in several disciplines (Godovykh and Tasci, 2020) and businesses in general (Waqas et al., 2021). This interest was fuelled by seminal works – such as Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) – establishing the perspective of hedonic consumption in consumer behavior, according to which the conventional product value proposition based solely on functional values does not suffice for differentiation. Later, Pine and Gilmore’s work (1998) popularized the experience economy as the next stage of economic development, posing experiences as an added value offer to tangible products and services. Subsequently, customer experience management (CEM) was widely advocated as a critical success factor for gaining business competitiveness (Schmitt, 1999; Waqas et al., 2021). Given the experiential nature of hospitality and tourism (H&T), it is not surprising that the customer experience also attracted the interest of numerous tourism academics and professionals, boosting a stream of abundant research over the 21st century (Kim and So, 2022; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023).

Kim and So (2022) summarized tourism research in experience management into three perspectives:

1. the organization viewpoint, i.e. how to design, implement, manage and market compelling experiences to customers;

2. the customer perspective, i.e. how individuals assess their experiences; and

3. the cocreation-oriented perspective, i.e. how customers cocreate consumption experiences and associated meanings with multiple stakeholders.

Successful experience management should consider all these three perspectives. However, despite the apparent research saturation, the theoretical and methodological approaches traditionally adopted in experience research present some limitations constraining the advancement of knowledge and practice in how to conceptualize, measure and manage experiences.

For example, as concerns experience design, when companies claim they “offer an experience,” they refer to a designed experience that can be managed. This perspective aligns with the experience economy paradigm and related experiential marketing approaches, conceptualizing experiences as individuals’ internal responses derived from “emotional, physical, intellectual, and spiritual levels of consumer engagement” (Pine and Gilmore, 1998, p. 99). Based on this perspective, experience management is limited to the use of stimuli (e.g. colors, scents and music) for directing the customers’ attention and enhancing customer engagement around a coherent theme/concept (Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999).

Despite the validity and practicality of this perspective, it sees customer experience as an episodic and static event instead of a dynamic and cocreated process where a customer navigates through a “journey” composed of multiple touch-points (physical and digital) with which customers interact during “moments of truth” shaping the perception of the experience (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). Indeed, customer experiences are increasingly conceptualized as emerging and being affected by numerous interactions between customers and products/brands, companies and their staff and other customers and/or (virtual) communities. Such encounters are not always under the company’s control, but they significantly affect what experiences customers have and what meaning they assign to them. Indeed, recent perspectives (such as the service-dominant logic) recognizing the customer as experience and value cocreators were also introduced into tourism literature a decade ago (Carvalho and Alves, 2023). Technological advances and applications significantly support and enhance customer participation and cocreation (Shin and Kang, 2024) and optimize sensory stimuli (Agapito, 2020). Hence, it is unsurprising that systematic literature reviews in value cocreation (e.g. Carvalho and Alves, 2023) identify technology as a key driver of experience management in H&T. However, the continuous technological evolution (e.g. generative artificial intelligence (AI), metaverse and robots) not only enriches tourism experiences but also transforms them and enables new experiences, necessitating the adoption of new theoretical lenses and methodologies to understand the technology disruptions and the newly introduced challenges.

Challenges and limitations are spotted not only in the design and management of experiences but also in the definition and measurement of experiential outcomes. Early research was heavily directed toward experiential outcomes, focusing on the behavioral and cognitive consumers’ outcomes (e.g. satisfaction and loyalty). More recently, the research interest shifted to the psychological and spiritual outcomes (e.g. well-being and uplifting of quality of life) for customers and the wider society alike (e.g. Fan et al., 2023; Godovykh and Tasci, 2020; Kim and So, 2022; Tasci and Pizam, 2020; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023). To better capture and measure the multidimensional and multilevel outcomes of experiences, it is imperative to rethink the theoretical and methodological approaches to understand CEM better.

Contemporary environmental challenges (e.g. crises, climate change, emphasis on corporate social responsibility, increasing interest in well-being and technological revolution) accelerate the need to update and upgrade theoretical approaches and methodologies for understanding and managing experiences. For example, these changes generate new opportunities to explore in experience research such as:

• new technology-driven and enabled experiences;

• new tools for understanding the (new) experiences; and

• a shift of mindset and theoretical perspectives for understanding and resetting the role and the impact of experiences not only on business competitiveness but also on people, the economy and the society alike.

The rise of the experience economy can be seen as a major driver and boost to our capitalistic and consumerism economy, society and mentality. However, sustainability and humanistic concerns should make researchers and professionals think of experiences not as ends in themselves for achieving company and customer benefits but as a means to a social end, uplifting communities’ well-being and driving socioeconomic change and transformation.

For example, the critical review from Hwang and Seo (2016) proposes a framework of CEM research based on antecedents (internal/external factors) and consequences (e.g. emotional, behavioral and brand-related outcomes). This reflexive research advocates the relevance of a holistic approach to the design of an experience that can last in memory, “in which multidimensional value can be delivered through multiple, sequential stages of experience” (p. 2240). While the authors state the experience cocreation can lead to a sustainable experience in the sense that it can be “life transforming” or “perspective transforming,” it is key also to consider how contemporary challenges (e.g. technology) and a nonlinear approach to CEM based on humanized perspective can add the evolution of CEM frameworks. Overall, a reflective and critical look at CEM is required not only to guide future research and advance knowledge but also to equip H&T professionals with valuable insights on addressing our contemporary and other upcoming socioe-conomic changes and challenges.

To that end, this paper adopts a critical and reflective approach (Hwang and Seo, 2016; Liu-Lastres et al., 2023) rather than a historical development, which has been well-captured by systematic literature reviews with that purpose (e.g. Kim and So, 2022; Rahimian et al., 2021; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023). A “critical reflection paper does not always assume a standard methodology” (Liu-Lastres et al., 2023, p. 237). However, an integrative critical review approach can be used to examine, critique and synthesize the literature on a given topic, allowing new theoretical frameworks and perspectives to emerge. This approach is adequate for mature research topics, such as experience management (Snyder, 2019). Thus, through critical reflection, this paper identifies challenges and opportunities in experience management in H&T. The conducted integrative review follows three main areas that have been the most addressed in review papers on CEM (Kim and So, 2022; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023; Waqas et al., 2021): conceptualization and dimensions of experiences; relational network for experience management; and theoretical and methodological approaches in experience research.

2. Conceptualization and dimensions of experiences

From an experiential marketing perspective, experiences have been conceptualized as the customers’ internal responses to environmental stimuli (Pine and Gilmore, 1998; Schmitt, 1999). This view aligns with the experience economy paradigm, assuming that companies can create conditions to facilitate perceived positive and meaningful experiences. Such conceptualization of experiences does not differentiate intentionally designed experiences from spontaneous ones, does not consider the cocreation and the codestruction role that customers and other actors can have on experiences, and does not consider the fact that companies are not the sole actors controlling experiences. Moreover, it is crucial to differentiate the stimuli of the designed experience and the outcomes from the experience itself. Personal and situational factors moderating people’s responses to stimuli and their experiences are also relevant because stimuli do not influence individuals per se. Godovykh and Tasci (2020) managed to capture all these aspects by defining customer experience as the combination of “cognitive, affective, sensory, and conative responses, on a spectrum of negative to positive, evoked by all stimuli encountered in pre, during, and post phases of consumption affected by situational and brand-related factors filtered through personal differences of consumers, eventually resulting in differential outcomes related to consumers and brands” (p. 5).

Systematic reviews of tourism and hospitality marketing/management research identify a plethora of definitions of customer experiences (Kim and So, 2022; Rahimian et al., 2021; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023). In general, there is a consensus around the idiosyncratic, subjective and contextual nature of experiences. Definitions also tend to focus on the internal individual responses to (intentionally company-designed) stimuli (e.g. sensory and affective) aiming to trigger and involve customers’ interactions and engagement with products, services, companies, staff and other consumers. Similar conceptualizations of customer experience can also be found in systematic reviews of general customer experience marketing/management (e.g. Waqas et al., 2021). Generic and tourism research differ in the use of various terminologies (e.g. “customer,” “user,” “consumer,” “guest,” “visitor,” “traveler” and “tourist”) and the identification of different forms/types of experiences (Kim and So, 2022; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023). These differences are unsurprising as the study findings result from different application contexts. Developing a unified definition and typology of experiences is required but challenging. A consensual definition should be general and abstract enough to be applicable in different consumption contexts but also agile and practical so that it can consider contextual factors.

The conceptualization of experiences as responses to stimuli has also influenced early research investigating the composition of experiences, which identified experience dimensions corresponding to the stimuli triggering the experiences; these studies have not reached a consensus. For example, some studies (Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023) identify five components (affective, cognitive, sensory, social and behavioral), as proposed by Schmitt (1999), while others identified relational elements but embedded them into the affective dimension (Brakus et al., 2009). Pine and Gilmore (1998) used two criteria (type of customer participation and customer immersion or absorption into the environment) and proposed four realms of experience, namely, entertainment, education, escapism and aesthetics. This 4E typology of experiences has been widely used in H&T to assess customer experiences in various contexts (Kim and So, 2022; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023). While some authors consider the 4E typology (operationalized by Oh et al., 2007) adequate to assess the customer experience itself, other authors have used such an experiential scale to gauge experiencescape stimuli (e.g. Mody et al., 2017). However, the literature stresses the need to differentiate the experience itself from the stimuli present in the surroundings where experiences emerge (i.e. the experiencescape) (Godovykh and Tasci, 2020; Packer and Ballantyne, 2016; Selem et al., 2023; Tasci and Pizam, 2020). This is because people’s experiences result from perceptual processes, including both bottom–up (based on external stimuli elements) and top–down mental processes (related to previous knowledge, memories and expectations) (Goldstein and Brockmole, 2017). In this vein, Brakus et al. (2009) advocated that measures of customer (brand) experience should assess the degree to which the individual has the experience (considering all different dimensions, e.g. sensory, intellectual and affective) instead of focusing on the content/stimuli affecting the experience. This need to distinguish experiential dimensions from the stimuli driving them is also confirmed by the fact that studies using the same measures to assess environmental stimuli and customer experiences lead to no comparable findings.

Other authors have proposed updated typologies for researching customer experiences. For example, Packer and Ballantyne (2016) proposed a multifaceted visitor experience model based on ten facets: physical, sensory, cognitive, emotional, hedonic, restorative, introspective, transformative, spiritual and relational. Authors agree that all these components of experiences can appear simultaneously and to different degrees, and the emotional component is likely involved in most types of tourism-related experiences (Skavronskaya et al., 2017). Also, researchers increasingly recognize not only the restorative facet of experiences but also their spiritual and transformative dimensions (e.g. by being able to trigger mental and cognitive processes of self-exploration, reflection and self-development). Literature discussions about regenerative tourism experiences are soaring (Fan et al., 2023; Hwang and Seo, 2016; Kim and So, 2022; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023). The latter are usually defined as experiences that not only replenish but also generate new resources, positively contributing to the sustainable development goals of destinations and communities. Tourism can reach its greatest potential by creating conditions for people’s life-changing and meaningful experiences. Organizations and researchers should look at how to facilitate the journey for transformation, considering reflection and integration of aspects such as being involved in unfamiliar (and sometimes difficult) activities, appreciating different settings and interacting with new people (Robledo and Batle, 2017).

Despite this plethora of studies, little is still known about how different components of customer experience work in combination, what the contribution of each component to the total experience is, and how organizations can manage stimuli to trigger ideal experiences and different levels considering different individuals’ profiles, for example. These questions are yet to be answered in H&T contexts (Kim and So, 2022; Rahimian et al., 2021; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023).

3. Relational network for experience management: antecedents driving experiential outcomes

The previous section shows that research investigating the nature and dimensions of experiences acknowledges the multidisciplinary nature of the concept. In this vein, literature (e.g. Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023) contextualizing customer experience in H&T defines it as a construct comprising multidimensional facets of responses (e.g. emotional and intellectual) that result from interactions with external stimuli (e.g. social, physical and company-related), together with customer personal-related factors (e.g. motivation and mindfulness) and situational factors (e.g. travel companions).

This conceptualization of customer experience (as a relational network of antecedents, experiences and outcomes) has important practical implications for experience management, as it differentiates between antecedents of customer experiences, types/dimensions of customer experiences and potential consequences derived from customer experiences (Agapito, 2020; Kim and Fesenmaier, 2017; Godovykh and Tasci, 2020). Managers can identify which factors affect and lead to specific types of desired experiences to address these factors in experience design and, subsequently, deliver different experiences that can generate specific “company promised” and “desired” outcomes. Agapito (2020) claims the objective of experience design (which is an important stage of experience management) is to develop a connection between users (tourists), design elements and the contexts of interactions. Managers in H&T compete for the tourists’ scarce attention, so the appropriate stimuli should be used to direct the tourists’ attention. For example, managers can shape emotional responses and direct the individuals’ focus to specific stimuli (Skavronskaya et al., 2017). Moreover, because different motivational orientations can lead to different experience outcomes, understanding customers’ goals and motivations is key to management decisions, such as market segmentation and customer mixology, to help managers group customers together so that the experience of one customer does not negatively affect the experience of another (i.e. cocreation/codestruction view of experience).

The conceptualization of customer experience as a relational network has also influenced numerous studies investigating how to design and manage experiences. These studies mainly understand experience cognition as embodied and situated in diverse environments, adopting an ecological approach to psychology, which deems sensory systems as active rather than passive and, therefore, recognizes individuals’ agency. In this vein, studies investigate both the environment (stimuli) and the individuals’ perspective of the surrounding world (Carlson, 1997). Examples of some indicative studies are discussed below.

4. Theoretical and methodological approaches in experience research

Recent studies conducting systematic reviews on customer experience in H&T (Hosany et al., 2022; Kim and So, 2022; Rajasekaram et al., 2022; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023; Zhao and Agyeiwaah, 2023) provide useful insights into the methodological and theoretical approaches that have been used to investigate the field. The systematic reviews reveal a heavy dominance of studies adopting quantitative research in relation to a smaller number of studies using qualitative approaches and methodologies and few studies using mixed methods.

Qualitative approaches have been justified by the highly subjective and contextual nature of experiences. Studies using quantitative methods mainly use self-reported methods (e.g. questionnaires) that adopt experience measuring scales measuring previously validated in different contexts. In this vein, these studies also face their own methodological challenges. For example, the most frequently used scale for measuring customer experiences is the one developed by Brakus and colleagues (2009) because it is general enough to be applied in any brand-consumption-related context. However, while this scale allows comparisons, results give limited help to managers in identifying specific aspects to improve experience design and management. Another scale that is also heavily used is the one developed by Oh et al. (2007) (and its related adaptations) because it was derived from the widely accepted experience economy framework proposed by Pine and Gilmore (1998). However, the literature provides controversial results about its use since some studies deem this scale adequate, while other studies report that it cannot cover all types of experiential contexts and related activities. Hence, there is still a need to develop a consensual scale for measuring experience that can consider the diversity of the experience contexts and settings existing in H&T and generate useful and practical insights for the industry.

To further advance experience research, we also need to adopt a plurality as well as a mixology of research methods and approaches. Mixed approaches using complementary methods and innovative assessment forms can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of customer experiences. Instruments from the fields of cognitive psychology and neuroscience can aid our understanding of the physiological and mental mechanisms associated with experiences, particularly those that can be unconscious, such as emotions (Kim and Fesenmaier, 2017; Li et al., 2023; Skavronskaya et al., 2017). Big data and business analytics, as well as new technologies (e.g. machine learning, generative AI, brain scanners, wearable devices and mobile apps monitoring people’s physiology, sleep and daily life activities) can support and enrich experience research in two ways:

1. collecting and analyzing new types of (bio)data (e.g. heart rate, neuron activation, hormones, facial expressions and body motion); and

2. provide more effective ways to analyze data that can reveal new dimensions of how people react, perceive and understand environmental stimuli and experiences in various settings both private and public.

Generative AI can not only scan and understand the operations of the human brain and its reaction to various stimuli, but it can also predict human reactions and, subsequently, personalize customer experiences in real-time. Nevertheless, technologies raise numerous ethical, moral, security and legal issues regarding collecting and using such (bio)data for designing and delivering stimuli to direct people’s experiences and outcomes. Consumers’ reactions to such technology-driven and managed experience will also vary depending on their cultural background, political, philosophical or even spiritual/religion ideology and values.

Moreover, although many studies focus on behavioral outcomes, few use experimental research to assess behavioral change. This approach is deemed more adequate compared to other instruments (e.g. structural equation modeling) when the aim is to assess causality between stimuli and action. When considering the dynamic nature of customer experiences, there is also an increased need for longitudinal studies to investigate the evolution of experiences across different stages. Longitudinal studies can deepen our understanding of the dynamic nature of the customer experience, reveal how and why experiences change/evolve, highlight changes to customer outcomes across time/stage and offer practical recommendations for managing experiences as a dynamic rather than a static phenomenon (Agapito, 2020; Veloso and Gomez-Suarez, 2023).

Experience research can also evolve by reflecting and challenging the theories and constructs we have traditionally used to study the field. For example, the stimuli-organism-response (S.O.R.) model has been deemed useful and extensively used in CEM research. However, we should use it cautiously and avoid assumptions that stimuli influence behavior per se. The S.O.R. model (which is carved in environmental psychology) supports that stimuli present in the environment affect individuals’ emotional states, which, in turn, can result in approach or avoidance responses. This perspective is advanced and embedded into holistic frameworks (such as servicescape and related expanded frameworks), which acknowledge that psychological processes (e.g. goals or purpose, expectations and personality traits) operate as moderating and mediating factors between stimuli and organism (Kim and Fesenmaier, 2017; Tasci and Pizam, 2020). Based on this approach, it is not the stimuli per se but the cognitive perception of surroundings that elicit emotions. Attention fatigue is also a growing issue in contemporary societies. In this vein, there is an emerging opportunity for research to adopt a diversion approach from the over- or mis-use of stimuli for experience management or for research to focus on the use of specific stimuli to restore human attention and contribute to subjective well-being (Qiu et al., 2021).

Research and practice about consumer experiences in digital contexts have also been dominated by specific approaches and models that may not be fully adequate to capture all experiential aspects and current technological evolutions. For example, companies tend to anthropomorphize all aspects of customer experiences across various servicescape platforms or devices (e.g. anthropomorphic robots, voice assistants/chatbots with human voice and names, e.g. Alexa, Siri). Literature highlights the business benefits of anthropomorphism since, to an extent, the more anthropomorphic a technology is perceived, the greater the likelihood that it can lead to more positive feelings. Studies also indicate that the over-the-limit provision of humanlike characteristics to experience design can lead to consumer reactance, fear, and anger, based on the uncanny valley theory (Christou et al., 2020). In fact, many studies on digital experiences (e.g. Fang et al., 2024) adopt theories and models (e.g. social influence theory and parasocial interactions) following this anthropomorphism mindset paradigm.

However, theories that conform to the uncanny valley paradigm are limited by its underlined assumption that people compare technology objects/environments to a human ideal. Nowadays, people have been exposed to (or even born with) solely or mainly digitally enriched and/or generated experiences, which, in turn, have now become their comparison benchmarks. For example, people (specifically the young generations) have been widely and for long exposed to and interacted with digitally enabled and generated experiences (e.g. synthetic storytelling experiences and humans by using technology to create digital replicas of humans, virtual influencers and virtual brand ambassadors representing companies on social media). Recent findings (e.g. Koles et al., 2024) show that when people know they interacted with technology, they report no problem. In fact, they evaluate their experiences by judging the authenticity of the “robots.” Some individuals seem to be familiar with the perception and reality that technology has become, and it can be an experience platform or partner, a social actor or an experience agent. Consumers use a “technology ideal” and not a “human ideal” to evaluate their digital experiences. We currently know little about this technological ideal (Christou et al., 2020). How will people react, perceive and feel about experiences designed, driven, delivered and/or controlled by technological agents (e.g. digital humanity, digital immortality, explanatory generative AI)? In what ways can experience research become more inter, cross- and multidisciplinary to investigate the complexity of experiences generated by technology?

Theoretical approaches that go beyond the assumptions of the S.O.R. model and uncanny valley theory can be useful in future research aiming to advance our understanding of experiences:

• in new settings (e.g. metaverse, technology-augmented experiences);

• for consumer populations that are underexplored; and

• for the new experiences that are enabled and even generated and synthesized by technologies.

For example, there is a heavy dominance of the visual aspect of tourism experiences. But how do visually impaired individuals experience tourism? How do people that cannot smell or taste, experience food or wine tourism? Future research should use theoretical approaches emphasizing the interplay of stimuli and perceptions (e.g. mental images of people) and consider synesthesia (the combined impact of diverse senses) to unravel the hidden dimensions of experiences of people with sensory disabilities (Agapito, 2020; Liu et al., 2024). Similarly, research can also focus on understanding how people in technology-supported environments feel and perceive the existence of others not being physically present (Shin and Kang, 2024). Constructs such as “social presence” and “being there” do not necessitate stimuli to trigger people’s senses and emotions. However, current research tells us little about the psychological processes that make people experience the presence or absence of others in technology environments or how people interpret interactions in technology environments. For example, what does it mean or feel that an avatar walks through another avatar or that an avatar teleports itself to another digital destination? Is the latter a travel experience as we currently define it? Research in digital experiences has so far focused on how it is technologically possible to replicate human senses in digital environments (e.g. digitizing birds’ songs and adding human faces and voices into chatbots). However, advances in brain scan technologies and neuroscience may lead to the near future humans do not need to sense a trigger to perceive it through generative AI. Opportunities and challenges are numerous.

5. Conclusions and implications