Table 1.
Measurement scales of eWoM, digital marketing, and KPI variables.
| Volume | Total number of reviews |
|---|---|
| Valence | Positive, normal and negative1 |
| Rating | Numerical score from 1 to 10 |
| Responding to reviews | % of response to reviews |
| Strategy of response | % of accommodative responses / % of defensive responses |
| Voice of response | % of personalized responses / % of standardized responses |
| Solution to the problem presented in the review | % of responses that present a solution / % of responses that do not present a solution |
| Job position of responding providers | % of responses where the respondent is the top manager or owner / % of responses where the author is a different staff member |
| Signing the response with job title | % of signed responses with job title |
| Timeliness of response | 1 (less than 24 hours) / 0 (more than 24 hours) |
| Commission paid to the platform | 5% intervals, with a minimum limit of 15% and a maximum limit of 30% |
| Genius programme | 1 (joined) / 0 (did not join) |
| Preferred Partners programme | 1 (joined) / 0 (did not join) |
| OR | 10% intervals, with a minimum limit of 0% and a maximum limit of 100% |
| RevPar | From €0 to €150, with intervals of €30 |
| GR | From less than €20,000 to more than €100,000, with intervals of €20,000 |
Table 2.
Scale for interpreting the magnitude of correlation
| Correlation magnitude | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 0.00; 0.09 | 0.00; -0.09 | Negligible |
| 0.10; 0.39 | -0.10; -0.39 | Weak |
| 0.40; 0.69 | -0.40; -0.69 | Moderate |
| 0.70; 0.89 | -0.70; -0.89 | Strong |
| 0.90; 1 | -0.90; 1 | Very strong |
[i] Adapted from Schober et al., 2018
Table 3.
Legal classification of the sample
| Legal Classification | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Agro-tourism | 19 | 39% |
| Country house | 26 | 53% |
| Rural hotel | 4 | 8% |
| Total | 49 | 100% |
Table 4.
Mean and standard deviation of eWoM variables
| Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
| Volume | 183 | 156.41 |
| Positive valence | 175.31 | 148.01 |
| Negative valence | 1.43 | 3.02 |
| Rating | 9.09 | 0.4 |
Table 5.
Webcare hypothesis and synthesis
| H1a: There is a positive correlation between rural tourism lodgings’ responding to reviews and their KPIs, regardless of the valence of the reviews. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Not Confirmed | |
| GR | Not Confirmed | |
| H1b: There is a positive correlation between rural tourism lodgings’ KPIs and an accommodative response strategy. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Partially Confirmed | |
| GR | Not Confirmed | |
| H1c: There is a positive correlation between a personalized, empathetic voice of rural tourism lodgings’ review responses, their paraphrasing of the review, and their KPIs. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Not Confirmed | |
| GR | Not Confirmed | |
| H1d: There is a positive correlation between the KPIs of rural tourism lodgings and their review responses presenting solutions to customers’ problems. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Not Confirmed | |
| GR | Confirmed | |
| H1e: There is a positive correlation between the KPIs of rural tourism lodgings and responses signed by top-level employees with an indication of position. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Not Confirmed | |
| GR | Partially Confirmed | |
| H1f: There is a positive correlation between rural tourism lodgings’ KPIs and response to reviews within 24 hours. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Not Confirmed | |
| GR | Not Confirmed |
Table 6.
Webcare results
| OR | RevPar | GR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Response to reviews | 0.088 | 0.008 | -0.076 |
| Response to negative reviews | 0.030 | 0.031 | 0.012 |
| Responses signed with the responder’s job position | 0.109 | 0.005 | 0.288* |
| The response provider is a top manager | 0.577 | -0.135 | 0.707 |
| Accommodative response strategy | -0.166 | -0.276* | 0.070 |
| Personalised voice of response | 0.196 | 0.114 | -0.117 |
| Solution in the response | 0.191 | 0.135 | 0.342** |
| Response in less than 24 hours | 0.057 | 0.156 | -0.080 |
Table 7.
Synthesis of visibility hypotheses 2a and 2b
| H2a: There is a positive correlation between the KPIs of rural tourism lodgings and paying a higher commission on bookings, with the goal of increasing visibility on booking platforms. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Partially Confirmed | |
| GR | Confirmed | |
| H2b: There is a positive correlation between the KPIs of rural tourism lodgings and their joining special programmes, such as Booking.com Genius or Preferred Partners, with the goal of increasing visibility on booking platforms. | OR | Not Confirmed |
| RevPar | Not Confirmed | |
| GR | Partially Confirmed |
Table 8.
Correlation between visibility strategies and KPIs
Table 9.
Visibility Hypothesis 2c, synthesis
| OR | RevPar | GR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H2c: There is a positive correlation between paid actions that enhance visibility (SEA) and eWoM indicators, which in turn have positive indirect effects on the KPIs of rural tourism lodgings. | Visibility Booster tool | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Confirmed with volume; Not confirmed with quality and rating. |
| Genius | Partially negatively confirmed with rating. Not confirmed with quality and volume | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | |
| Preferred Partners | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Confirmed with volume; Not confirmed with quality and rating. |