Experiential Programming for Resorts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Theory for luxury in the hotel: industry contemporary luxury prioritizes the creation of memorable experiences over the accumulation of material goods. Further on the common base of Immersive experiences & programming. The base for the topic addressed is given. The author addresses the known gap of hoteliers how EP is contributing to experiences. 
The further theoretical elaboration of concepts such as luxury or luxury offerings in hotels follows classical theory. This remains within the simple framework of our own literature research.
Methods: I can not understand what the base of the Forbes related resorts is and what makes the author convinced choosing them only. Even the criteria reducing the numbers by states or other not explain criteria can not be followed. I would recommend the author to specify this clearly! Then the study can be validated in terms of the data base!
Is there a significant relation by selecting the resorts in terms of tourism/tourists and selected destination in the USA or/and international behavior of guests? Explanation: Hawaii is more international visit then California? Is there guest specific differentiation (family versus adults only respectively seniors). This is very much influencing the selected programs and its experience guest take home!!
Semi-Structure Interview is good defined. Please explain: did you select the “Marketing Manager” by occasion? Were they on management level only?
The author has used semantic analysis and personal impressions. Technically, this is a good partial analysis. In terms of relevance, the authors remain at the level of semantic recommendation. The aim of the elaboration in the sense of the EP remains based on semantics and the reproduction of these without any correlation to the critical issues. I take this as a summary of the resorts without criteria that are comprehensible to the reader. 
I recommend that the authors engage in self-critical reflection on what the central question of the paper should be and what message readers should ultimately take away from it. I was only able to derive limited transferability to other hotels/resorts (too descriptive). 
The self defined “Limitations and Future Study” give the direct relevance for the scope of EP should be done. Therefore this paper is structurel correct; but with limited value.

 

Author Response

Please see attached file "Reviewer1Responses." Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes a valuable contribution to the academic literature through its innovative focus on experiential programs (EPs) in luxury resorts - a timely and relevant topic in the context of contemporary tourism. The paper is solidly grounded in the literature. It discusses relevant concepts such as conspicuous consumption (Veblen), experientialism in luxury, and the dimensions of quality, status, and exclusivity. The authors use both recent and classical sources (e.g., Veblen, 1899), providing a diverse yet coherent theoretical framework.

The study stands out for the clarity of its objectives, the quality of its analysis, and the coherent integration of the theory of conspicuous consumption into tourism practice. The conclusions are well-supported by data and interviews, offering perspectives that are applicable to the industry. Ultimately, the paper’s originality lies in highlighting EPs as strategic tools for differentiation and customer loyalty in the luxury hospitality sector.

Although the manuscript presents a detailed and well-structured analysis, we would have several recommendations in order to improve the quality of the research.

Mainly, the sample includes only two interviews, which limits the validity of the qualitative conclusions and reduces the diversity of managerial perspectives. Additionally, the exclusive focus on U.S.-based resorts restricts the international applicability of the findings. It would be useful to expand the research to other geographic regions and include resorts of different classification levels. Moreover, while the typological analysis is rigorous, integrating quantitative data - such as customer satisfaction or the financial impact of Eps - would have strengthened the conclusions. Future research could also explore consumer perspectives, not just those of managers, to provide a more complete picture of EP effectiveness.

The study’s objectives are clearly and explicitly stated in the introduction, well-supported by the literature, and consistently followed throughout the methodology, results, and discussion sections. However, the paper does not explicitly formulate hypotheses. We recommend, where feasible, the inclusion of clearly defined hypotheses to enhance scientific rigor and support the interpretation of results.

The methodology is well-structured and the selection of resorts is based on a clear criterion, which ensures coherence and relevance of the sample. The use of a typological grid is mentioned, and the interviews are theoretically justified and well contextualized. However, some limitations remain:

• The very small number of interviews (only two participants) significantly restricts the generalizability and diversity of perspectives;
• It is unclear whether a formal thematic analysis was applied to the interview transcripts. A more detailed description of the coding and interpretation process would be helpful.
• Although purposive sampling is mentioned, the authors do not provide details about diversity criteria (e.g., resort size, urban/rural location). More precisely, the authors state that they selected two luxury resort managers who possess a comprehensive understanding of experiential programs (rows 3010-312). It would have been useful to include additional selection criteria, such as resort size and prominence, location type, predominant clientele, or regional differences - especially if these factors might influence the nature of EPs.

We recommend that the authors reflect on this and, if considered useful, include a brief comparative description of the two interviewed resorts and a justification for their selection in terms of geographic, cultural, or operational diversity.

We also suggest expanding the Discussion and Conclusions sections with brief reflections on differences in strategy or implementation across resorts - especially if these differences can be explained by the comparative elements mentioned above.

Although sustainability perspective is mentioned, it is unclear to what extent EPs are evaluated from an environmental/ecological or social impact perspective. A few clarifying remarks on this would be welcome. Additionally, a critical reflection on the potential negative effects of exclusivity (e.g., elitism, inaccessibility) would be interesting. Are these aspects in any way connected to sustainability?

The authors honestly acknowledge the study’s limitations (in the “Limitations and Future Study” section), such as the geographic restriction to the U.S., the very small number of interviews, and the lack of international or non-luxury accommodation perspectives. They also offer clear suggestions for addressing these issues. However, we believe the discussion could be further enriched by:

• considering potential biases introduced by participant selection or the self-reported nature of the data;
• Including a discussion on the scalability of EPs in non-luxury contexts or emerging markets.

Lastly, the absence of consumer perspectives (the interviews are conducted only with resort managers, offering a top-down view) limits the full understanding of EP impact. Where possible, the inclusion of quantitative data (e.g., on customer satisfaction or financial outcomes) would complement and enhance the qualitative analysis.

Formal issues

There are several formatting inconsistencies:

• Some section titles (e.g., “2.5.2. Categorization of EPs”) are incorrectly numbered or confusingly placed in the text (see line 218).
• Section 3.1 exists, but there is no 3.2, etc.

Overall, the structure of chapters and subchapters appears carelessly edited.

• Tables and figures should be explicitly referenced and discussed in the text.
• Moreover, the insertion of five tables and four figures across seven pages, without explanatory transitions, is neither elegant nor appropriate for an academic journal.

The reference list needs revision (alphabetical order, completeness of entries). For example:

• Savarese, I. (2024). The Meaning of Luxury for the Italian Generation Z: New Perceptions and Expectations Change
• Milosh, P. (2023). Evolving Preferences: Understanding Contemporary Luxury Hotel Guests

are incomplete.

There is no clearly defined Conclusions section, which makes it harder to identify the final message of the paper (this could be considered both a formal and content-related issue).

The writing style could be improved in some areas. For instance, terms like “immersive scenography” or “experiential currency” may seem vague or overly elaborate to interested but non-specialist readers, especially without a clear definition of them.

Author Response

Please see attached file "Reviewer2Responses." Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good added and now more clear! Thanks!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following our observations and recommendations, the authors undertook a thorough revision of the manuscript, significantly improving its clarity and relevance, highlighting its novelty and theoretical and practical usefulness.

We also note the clarity of the additional explanations that allowed us to understand the changes and improvements made to the manuscript. In this current form, we consider the paper to be much more suitable for publication.