Research Article

Influence of Hospitality Services on Cultural Product Consumption

Eglė Plančiūnienė and Virginia Jureniene*

Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty, Lithuania

Submission: October 08, 2024; Published: October 17, 2024

*Corresponding author: Virginia Jureniene, Vilnius University Kaunas Faculty, Lithuania

How to cite this article: Eglė Plančiūnienė and Virginia Jureniene*. Influence of Hospitality Services on Cultural Product Consumption. Glob J Tourism Leisure & hosp manag. 2024; 2(2): 555585. DOI:10.19080/GJTLH.2024.02.555585.

Abstract

Today’s post-modern society’s way of life and its diverse needs dictate topical management topics: for the consumer, a member of this society - a consumer with a consumeristic, but at the same time conscious and sustainable attitude - it is important to satisfy both his physiological and spiritual needs. People do not use hospitality services merely to satisfy their physiological needs (food, rest) and organoleptic sensations. It is also a cultural expression through socialization, the practice of traditions and a certain symbolism. The need for culture and its various forms of expression has always been, and continues to be, an indisputably important part of the human condition. This is where the influence of hospitality (accommodation and catering) services on the consumption of cultural products comes in. Today, in our usual environment, there is a large supply of the hospitality sector and, consequently, a variety of cultural products, but the question is raised: whether the hospitality sector encourages the consumption of cultural products?

Quantitative research (consumer questionnaire) enabled to identify and determine the influence of hospitality services on cultural product consumption. The empirical study has shown that consumers’ choices are influenced by the intangible but very important aspects of hospitality in the service provision process, and that these aspects have an impact on the consumption of cultural products: it has highlighted the direct influence of the second paradigm of hospitality services (i.e. when hospitality services are oriented towards the consumer’s perspective, his/her experience) on the consumption of cultural products.

Keywords: Hospitality; Services; Cultural Product; Consumption; Influence

Introduction

The influence of hospitality services on the consumption of cultural products has not been explored in the research sources found. It should be noted that, although in practice hospitality services and cultural products are often used in a complex way (together, sequentially, one after the other, etc.), hospitality service providers and developers of cultural products often fail to see the overall synthesis between them, or see it only to a limited extent, and apply it in practice in an episodic and inconsistent way, without exploiting the possible complexity between them. Moreover, while research has tended to analyze hospitality as a business, this paper also focuses on the relationship between the hospitality business developer and the consumer, and the consumer’s experience. The purpose: to determine the influence of hospitality services on cultural product consumption. The investigation was performed in preparation for the Master’s thesis “Influence of Hospitality Services on Cultural Product Consumption”.

Theoretical Aspect Of Influence Of Hospitality Services On Cultural Product Consumption

Hospitality Paradigms

One of the current problems in the study of hospitality as a scientific object is that different disciplines define hospitality in different ways. Even a brief review of the literature reveals that scholars and practitioners approach hospitality from different perspectives for different purposes. Hospitality today is embedded in various fields: business management, sociology, even intercultural studies. It is noteworthy that authors in the sources often identify and emphasize what they consider to be hospitality in their analysis, precisely because of the prevailing confusion and different interpretations of concepts.

However, by focusing on the topic of management and examining the various scientific sources, two main paradigms of hospitality emerge:

i. hospitality as a business;

ii. hospitality as a relationship and experience between service provider and consumer.

Hospitality as a business. Traditional definitions tend to focus on economic activities and view hospitality as a business and management object (commercial, economic perspective) [1]. Hospitality is therefore defined from a business management perspective, e.g. Slattery (2002) states: “Hotels, restaurants, bars and other hospitality venues are businesses where the essential relationship is between sellers and buyers. Buyers are not guests, they are customers. The relationship is not philanthropic, it is economic” [2].

Similarly, hospitality is treated by [3], who define hospitality as a ‘simultaneous exchange of people, involving the provision of accommodation and/or food and/or drink, which takes place voluntarily and is intended to improve the well-being of both parties’ [3]. In English, the term hospitality is defined as “The business of providing food and drink and accommodation, restaurants, bars, etc. to customers or hotel guests” [4]. Verbauskienė has aptly pointed out that in Lithuania, the concept of hospitality is used interchangeably with the usual concepts of accommodation and catering establishments, and is often identified directly with tourism [5].

Page, Connell elaborate the hospitality sector as including accommodation and catering services [6]. However, according to the authors, the concept of hospitality in today’s terminology is still more associated with the consumer experience than with the service industry. Therefore, a different paradigm of hospitality is increasingly evident in 21st century service management literature: Hospitality as a relationship and experience between the service provider and the consumer. In this paradigm, hospitality is expressed through the process of welcoming and serving consumers in a particular establishment. Another term from the English language, hospitality is defined as “The friendly and generous reception and entertainment of guests, visitors or strangers”[4]. It is no coincidence that many sources note that the same term consumer or customer, i.e. the person who consumes and pays for hospitality services, is also referred to by the subtly more respectful term guest. This is also noted by Svetikienė: ‘Hospitality is a mandatory feature of accommodation and catering companies, according to which the consumer of tourism services is viewed as a guest and the company’s activities are organised in such a way as to best cater for the various segments of the guest population’ [7].

Verbauskienė also develops the concept of hospitality as an experience: ‘Hospitality is a consumer characteristic of a product which, in the provision of accommodation, catering and other tourism services, helps consumers to feel that they are valued and constantly welcome. The service consumer becomes a guest in this way. The hospitality company’s main task is to attract that guest so that he or she becomes a regular customer [5]. In other words, from this point of view, the task of hospitality management today is to make the commercial hospitality sector even more hospitable by means, actions, behavior, relationships.

Hemmington proposes a redefinition of hospitality as a behaviour and experience, which provides a new perspective that, according to the author, has implications for the management of hospitality businesses and, of course, for the consumption of services. Maintaining the customer perspective is essential for the effective delivery and provision of hospitality services, since, according to the author, customers do not buy services, they buy experiences; they do not buy quality of service, they buy memories; they do not just buy food and drink, they buy gastronomic experiences [8]. He proposes a framework for defining hospitality, i.e. its conception in the commercial sphere, by identifying and focusing on five aspects in the service delivery process: the hostguest relationship (Hosts and Guests), generosity (Generosity), guest attention/behavior (Theatre and performance), surprises (Lots of little surprises), and security (Security of strangers) [8].

In terms of hospitality as a relationship and experience, it is important to emphasize that although these are perceived subjectively (hospitality is experienced personally), the core aspects of hospitality for the majority of consumers/guests come down to well-known, perceived descriptions and experiences, such as being shown attention, then feeling comfortable, being made to feel welcome, being welcomed, being made to feel welcome in a way that is what they expected, feeling safe - when these are put together, the guest is experiencing (or not) the experience of hospitality (or inhospitality). To summarise the concepts of hospitality, hospitality as a business, from an economic and commercial perspective, and hospitality as a relationship and experience, from a consumer perspective, imply that both paradigms are relevant and focus on the contemporary management challenge of making the commercial hospitality sector more welcoming, more enjoyable and providing a positive, memorable experience for consumers by managing and ensuring pragmatic service delivery processes. Maintaining the customer perspective is essential for the effective delivery and performance of hospitality services, as customers in the hospitality sector tend to buy experiences rather than services.

Structure and services of the hospitality sector

The hospitality sector is treated slightly differently in different countries and by different scholars. In the overall context of global business, the hospitality sector has more components than accommodation and catering, according to the classification of some countries (e.g. the United Kingdom). Very often these sectors ‘overlap’ in order to improve the consumer experience and to meet and fulfil consumer expectations. These sectors are complementary and are collectively perceived as the hospitality sector (Birmingham City University 2023). [5] states: “Summarising the views of different authors, it can be concluded that the hospitality sector includes companies providing accommodation, catering; travel and tourism; leisure, entertainment and recreation; and passenger transport services.” [5], but she also notes that the concept of hospitality is used interchangeably with the usual concepts of accommodation and catering establishments, and is often identified directly with tourism [5]. Page and Connell also elaborate on the hospitality sector as including only accommodation and catering services [6]. According to the authors, the essence of the entire hospitality industry is the provision of consumers with basic physiological needs (food, sleep, general recreation). Thus, the term hospitality as used in this paper refers to accommodation and catering services.

The concept of cultural product

When talking about cultural products, it is inevitable to discuss their origin, i.e. the environment from which the cultural product emerges, in other words, the result of the activities of cultural and creative industries. When examining the various academic sources, it is noticeable that the concept of cultural (or creative) product appears in the context of the (cultural) creative industries. In the scientific literature analysing cultural creative industries in Lithuania [9,10], one of the most widely accepted models of classification of creative industries, developed by the UNCTAD, is found/quoted, which is based on the classification of all creative industry activities into four main areas: heritage, art, media and functional products. [10], in her research on cultural and creative industries (CCIs), uses the UNCTAD classification to distinguish between cultural and creative industries, and the distinction between cultural and creative products. Cultural products are the results of creative activities related to the cultural industries - cultural heritage and the arts.

The focus of the paper and the study is therefore on the outputs of activities related to the cultural industries - cultural heritage and the arts. Table 1 shows examples of possible cultural products/activities in the cultural industries - cultural heritage and arts. It is important to underline that the list of cultural products is not and cannot be exhaustive due to the diversity of creative expressions and their constant change, but the table provides clearly identifiable examples of cultural products that can be perceived by consumers. Based on [10], Modelling of the evaluation of cultural and creative industries in the countries of the European Union. Mykolas Romeris University.

Methodology

The empirical study aimed to determine the impact of hospitality services on the consumption of cultural products from the perspective of the consumer (hospitality services and cultural products). The quantitative research method used is a questionnaire survey of consumers (consumers - Lithuanian population). The sample of respondents is non-probability (simple random sampling). The survey questionnaire is intended for persons aged 18 and over, with no upper age limit, assuming that all persons aged 18 and over are able to make an independent decision to use and pay for hospitality services and cultural products on their own. Moreover, the main requirement of the survey is the experience of the respondents in relation to the survey question, so it can be assumed that the respondents’ experience of independent use of hospitality services and cultural products is usually already acquired by the age of 18 years. The survey is exploratory (not representative) and its results reflect general consumer trends.

The questionnaire is based on the groups of variables covered by the study: hospitality services and cultural products. The link to the questionnaire can be found here: https://forms.gle/ Tz4Uy7E8w3deTxxZ7. The questionnaire for the quantitative study was developed using the Docs.Google.com form and distributed via the link to the questionnaire. by e-mail and Facebook Messenger, by posting on the personal Facebook wall and in the various groups available. The questionnaire was distributed for 10 days, from 23 November to 2 December, with a total of 147 responses.

Data analysis method. The quantitative data were processed using Excel and SPSS statistical data processing software, statistical analysis of the survey data, descriptive statistics were applied [11]. The SPSS software used the Chi-Square (χ²) method to analyze the statistical relationship between two categorical variables. This statistic allows to determine whether there is a statistically significant relationship between the variables or whether the interaction between them is random. A statistically significant difference is considered when p<0.05. It is also a statistical method of linear regression analysis, which allows the examination of the relationship between two variables where one is independent and the other dependent. This analysis is used to predict the values of the dependent variable based on the values of the independent variables. The linear regression analysis method was tested according to the Hosmer-Lem show criterion. This criterion describes the goodness of fit of the statistical model used. If, at the significance level α, the p-value of the Hosmer-Lem show statistic is p > α, then we have confirmation that the logistic regression model is consistent with the data. In the final thesis, the p-value of the Hosmer-Lem show statistic was p > α when applying a multi-way binomial logistic regression. It was also tested whether we could apply the regression model we had built. A good fit was considered positive when the correct prediction was more than 50% [12].

Presentation of Survey results

The study involved 147 respondents, 119 (81%) women and 28 (19%) men. This gender distribution could be due to the way the questionnaire was distributed (online: e-mail and postgraduate social networks), although it is generally assumed that women always participate more in social surveys. However, a statistical check of the responses did not reveal any significant differences between women’s and men’s responses (p>0.05), and therefore men’s and women’s responses are considered as a whole without any grouping by gender.

A similar distribution of respondents was found for the question on occupation: 108 (73.5%) respondents are employed, 16 (10.9%) are self-employed, 11 (7.5%) are students, 10 (6.8%) are seniors, and 2 (1.4%) indicated Other. Statistical tests did not reveal any significant differences between the responses by occupation (p>0.05), so the responses are considered as a whole without grouping them by occupation.

The distribution of respondents’ residence was as follows: the largest proportion - 90 (61.2%) - live in a city, 36 (24.5%) in a town and 21 (14.3%) in a rural area. Statistical testing of the responses also showed no significant differences between the responses by place of residence (p>0.05), so the responses are considered as a whole without grouping by place of residence.

Respondents were also asked which age category they belonged to, with the following distribution: 18-24 years old - 11 (7.5%), 25-34 years old - 25 (17%), 35-44 years old - 45 (30.6%), 45-54 years old - 34 (23.1%), 55-64 years old - 22 (15%), 65 and over - 10 (6.8%). Due to the large scatter in the data and the lack of correlations, it was decided to combine the age groups using the Chi-square method: 18-34 years (36 respondents), 35-54 years (79 respondents), 55+ years (32 respondents).

The analysis of the questionnaire responses showed that on average 74 (50.3%) respondents use hotel services 1-3 times a year, 48 (32.7%) use hotel services 4-6 times, 11 (7.5%) use hotel services 7-9 times, and 10 (6.8%) use hotel services 10 times or more. 4 respondents answered that they do not use these services at all. 78 (53.1%) respondents use restaurants and cafes 1-3 times a month, 24 (16.3%) respondents use them 4-6 times, 12 (8.2%) respondents use them 7-9 times, 32 (21.8%) respondents use them 10 times or more, and 1 (0.7) respondent does not use them at all. It is important to compare the fact that in response to the questions “On average, how many times a year do you use hotel services?” and “On average, how many times a month do you use restaurants and cafés?” it was found that all respondents use restaurants and cafés on average 12 times more often than hotels.

Responses to the question “For what purposes do you use hotels? The two most frequent choices” were distributed as follows: 116 (78.9%) respondents answered that they use hotels for leisure (passive recreation / holidays), 65 (44.2%) respondents for sightseeing / cultural purposes (going to a concert, performance, festival, cultural heritage site, etc.), 46 (31.3%) respondents for work / business purposes. Thus, the second most frequent choice is the use of hotel services in combination with cultural products (when leaving one’s place of residence). To the question “For what purposes did you use restaurants/cafés? Your two most frequent choices”, 117 (79%) respondents answered for holiday/leisure/entertainment dining, 76 (51.7%) for leisure dining (to taste exceptional dishes and drinks, to experience gastronomic culture) and 54 (36.7%) for everyday dining. It can be assumed that the second most frequent choice is related to the cultural aspect (experiential goods) and that respondents often choose restaurants and cafés for leisure dining [13].

To the question “When staying in a hotel, do you use the catering services provided in the hotel or nearby?” a large proportion of 126 (85.5%) respondents answered that they also use nearby catering services when staying in a hotel, while 21 (14.3%) do not use these services when staying in a hotel. The result confirms the theoretical part of the study (and the model’s relationship) that the catering sector tends to be integrated into another part of the hospitality sector, accommodation, and is regularly used during trips/excursions.

Analysing the respondents’ answers to the question “How much influence do you have on your choice of hotel services? Competence of the staff, helpfulness of the staff, hotel facilities (interior, exterior), reception opening hours (accessibility), room space, availability of on-site catering, event and party facilities, recreational infrastructure (gym, spa, children’s playground), ease of booking, cultural services offered by the hotel (information about attractions, events, exhibitions, festivals, etc.), etc. For the interpretation of the results, those answers that were rated as having a very high and high influence by the respondents on the rating scale were selected, as answers of neither high nor low influence, low influence or no influence indicate that the elements are not significant for the respondents.

Staff competence has a very strong influence on 49 (33.3%) and a strong influence on 63 (42.8%) respondents, staff helpfulness has a very strong influence on 63 (42.8%) and a strong influence on 60 (40.8%) respondents. ) respondents, hotel facilities have a very strong influence on 43 (29.2%) and a strong influence on 73 (49.6%) respondents, reception opening hours have a very strong influence on 48 (32.6%) and 47 (31.9%) respondents, room space has a very strong influence on 33 (22.4%) and a strong influence on 47 (31.9%) respondents respectively. For 38 (25.8%) and 61 (41.4%) respondents, the availability of on-site catering for 38 (25.8%) and 61 (41.4%) respondents, event and party facilities for 12 (8.1%) and 29 (19.7%) respondents, and recreational facilities for 22 (14.9%) and 29 (19.7%) respondents. The hotel’s cultural facilities have a very strong influence on 32 (21.7%) and a strong influence on 55 (37.4%) respondents. Summarizing the results of the question, it can be assumed that event facilities are the least influential factor in the choice of a hotel, while ease of booking is very important, and the additional cultural services on offer are influential for 59.1% of respondents, which is a more positive tendency. In order to test the relationship between the age of the respondents and the influence of individual tangible (intrinsic) elements of the accommodation on the choice of accommodation, the Chi-Square method was used. After controlling for each element by age group, a statistically significant difference was found only between the 35-54 age group in terms of the influence of the choice of the hotel’s furnishing (interior, exterior) on the choice of the hotel (p = 0.035). No statistically significant differences were found between the remaining items and age (p>0.05).

When analyzing the respondents’ answers to the question “What influences your choice of restaurant services are: distinctive, original menu (concept), range of beverages, restaurant environment, helpfulness of the restaurant staff, cultural services offered (tasting programmers, traditional dishes, thematic events, etc.? For the interpretation of the results, the responses that were rated as having a very high and high influence by the respondents on the rating scale were selected, as responses of neither high nor low influence, low influence or no influence indicate that the items are not significant for the respondents. The distinctive, original menu/concept has a very high influence on 38 (25,8 %) and a high influence on 67 (45,5 %) respondents, the range of drinks has a very high influence on 21 (14,28 %) and a high influence on 36 (24,4 %). ), the restaurant environment influences 54 (36.7%) and 79 (53.7%) respondents respectively, the helpfulness of the restaurant staff influences 64 (43.53%) and 75 (51%) respondents respectively, and the cultural services offered influences 29 (19.7%) and 57 (38.7%) respondents. To summaries the results of the question, it can be assumed that the concept, the environment and the helpfulness of the staff are the most influential factors in the choice of a restaurant for consumers, while cultural services are influential for 58.4% of respondents, which is a more positive tendency.

In order to test the relationship between the age of the respondents and the influence of individual tangible (internal) elements of the food service on the choice of accommodation, the Chi-square method was used. No statistically significant differences were found between the answers of the respondents (p>0.05). In the analysis of the answers to the question “How important are the following aspects of a hospitality establishment (hotel, restaurant) to you?”, those answers that were rated as having a very high and high influence on the rating scale by the respondents were selected for the interpretation of the results, as answers of neither high nor low influence, low influence or no influence indicate that the elements are not important to the respondents.

A hospitable, warm welcome is very important to 86 (58.5%), important to 56 (38%), free tools and products are provided / donated (e.g., mineral water, bread basket, hygiene products, etc.) is very important for 36 (24.4%) and 69 (46.9%) respondents respectively, attentiveness and caring of the staff is very important for 79 (53.7%) and 59 (40.1%) respondents respectively, a pleasant atmosphere of the establishment is very important for 90 (61.2%) and 90 (61.2%) respondents respectively. The pleasant cultural atmosphere and experience of the stay in the establishment was important for 64 (43.5%) and 66 (44.8%) respondents, and the security of yourself and your personal belongings was important for 107 (72.7%) and 35 (23.8%) respondents. To summaries the results of the question, the most important aspects of hospitality for consumers are a welcoming, warm welcome, attentiveness of the staff, a pleasant atmosphere of the establishment, and security. Pleasant cultural impressions and experiences are important to 88.4% of respondents, so the trend of influence is also quite significant.

In order to test the relationship between the age of the respondents and the influence of individual intangible aspects of hospitality on the choice of a hospitality establishment, the Chi- Square method was used. After controlling for each item by age group, no statistically significant differences were found (p>0.05). However, close significance was found between the 35-54 age group and the following aspects: pleasant cultural impressions and experiences (p=0.08), and pleasant atmosphere (p=0.06). For the linear regression method, the tangible (intrinsic) elements of accommodation and catering services, as well as the intangible aspects of hospitality services, were averaged and used to test whether there is a correlation between the purpose of using hotels and restaurants and the average of the above-mentioned tangible elements and hospitality aspects (e.g. when travelling for educational purposes, to what extent individual elements of the accommodation and the catering services, and the intangible hospitality aspects, are important to the individual). A linear regression showed that when travelling for cultural cognitive purposes (concert, performance, festival, cultural heritage site, etc.), the intangible aspects of hospitality services are generally more important for the choice of the individual (p = 0.053). It was also found that when a person uses a restaurant service for a leisure meal (to taste exquisite dishes and drinks, to experience gastronomic culture), the intangible elements of the catering service (p = 0.001), as well as the intangible aspects of the hospitality service (p = 0.01), are important in their choice.

Analyzing the consumption habits of cultural products, the answers of the respondents show that 109 (74.1%) visit cultural heritage objects, monuments, sites, 118 (80.3%) visit museums, 74 (50.3%) visit art galleries, 73 (49.7%) visit art exhibitions, 97 (66%) take part in excursions, 61 (41.5%) take part in tastings of the culinary heritage, 78 ( 53.1%) visit art exhibitions and 78 (41.5%) visit art exhibitions. ) take part in educational activities, 110 (74.8%) take part in cultural events, 109 (74.1%) attend performances, 119 (81%) attend concerts, 71 (48.3%) attend various festivals, 50 (34%) visit libraries, 92 (62.6%) watch films, 11 (7.5%) other cultural activities There was no one who answered that they do not consume any cultural products.

To summarise the results of the question, it can be assumed that the most frequently consumed cultural products by consumers include visiting cultural heritage sites, visiting museums, participating in various cultural events, attending plays and concerts. In response to the question “Do you also use hospitality (accommodation, catering) services when consuming any of the cultural products listed above?” 128 (87.1%) respondents answered in the affirmative and 19 (12.9%) in the negative. These results suggest that hospitality services and cultural products are often used together.

Analysing the consumption patterns of cultural products and hospitality services together, the responses show that 68 (46.3%) use hospitality services when visiting cultural heritage objects, monuments, sites, 41 (27.9%) when visiting museums, 23 (15.6%) when visiting galleries, 20 (13.6%) when visiting art exhibitions, 80 (54.4%) when taking part in tours, 36 (24.5%) when visiting art exhibitions, 36 (24.5%) when visiting museums, and 36 (24.5%) when taking part in art exhibitions. ) participating in culinary heritage tastings, 44 (29.9%) participating in educational tours, 54 (36.7%) participating in cultural events, 38 (25.9%) attending plays, 56 (38.1%) attending cultural events, 56 (38.1%) attending cultural events, 44 (29.9%) attending cultural events, 44 (29.9%) attending cultural events, 56 (38.1%) attending cultural events, 44 (29.9%) attending cultural events, 56 (38.1%) attending cultural events and 56 (38.1%) attending cultural events. ) attending concerts, 43 (29.3%) attending various festivals, 5 (3.4%) attending libraries, 16 (10.9%) watching films, 15 (10.2%) other, 3 (2%) not using. To summarise the results of the question, it can be assumed that hospitality services together with cultural products are most often used when visiting cultural heritage objects, monuments, sites and excursions.

The Chi-square method was used to look for links between the respondents’ purposes for using hotels and restaurants and the cultural products they consume. A significant difference was found between the choice of hotel when travelling for cultural/ cognitive purposes (to a concert, performance, festival, cultural heritage site, etc.) and visiting museums (p = 0.012). Close values were found between the choice of hotel for leisure/holidays and visiting galleries (p = 0.091), visiting educational institutions (p = 0.064), but this is not statistically significant. No significant differences were found between the remaining respondents’ hotel and restaurant use objectives and cultural products consumed (p>0.05).

To the question “How likely are you to choose accommodation or catering establishments that offer additional cultural services/ experiences?” the answers were distributed as follows: very likely - 32 (21.8%), very likely - 59 (40.1%), neither likely nor unlikely - 40 (27.2%), unlikely - 15 (10.2%), not likely - 1 (0.7%). When assessing the percentage of respondents’ answers that the probability is very high and high, it can be seen that consumers are more likely to choose hospitality establishments that offer additional cultural services/experiences. The analysis of the question “Do the accommodation and/or catering services offered at a particular establishment influence your decision to visit a cultural site or cultural event?” the results of the analysis of the questionnaire, the distribution of respondents’ answers was as follows: very influential for 22 (15%), influential for 64 (43.5%), neither influential nor not influential for 37 (25.2%), not influential for 17 (11.6%), and no influence at all for 7 (4.8%) respondents. The percentage of respondents’ positive answers between very influenced and influenced can be assessed as indicating that the accommodation and/or catering services offered in a particular facility have an influence on the consumers’ decision to visit a cultural facility or cultural event.

Question “Does the offer of cultural products in a particular facility influence your decision to use the hospitality (accommodation, catering) services available there?” generated the following results: very influential for 22 (15%), influential for 73 (49.7%), neither influential nor minor for 35 (23.8%), minor for 13 (8.8%), no influence for 4 (2.7%) respondents. Taking into account the percentage of positive responses with a very high influence and an influence in the context of all responses, it can be said that the offer of cultural products in a particular facility influences the decision of consumers to use the hospitality services available there. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between the choice of hotel when travelling for cultural cognitive purposes (to a concert, a performance, a festival, a cultural heritage site, etc.) and the respondents’ consumption of cultural products when also using hospitality services. No relationship was found between these variables (p>0.05).

The same method was used to assess the relationship between the choice of a restaurant for a leisure meal (to taste exceptional dishes and drinks, to experience gastronomic culture) and the consumption of cultural products by respondents through the use of hospitality services. No relationship was found between these variables (p>0.05). An open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire asked: “Do you have your own insights into how hospitality services influence the consumption of cultural products? Please share” and 18 responses were received, which were categorized according to relevant criteria (experience, concept, cultural aspect) and which are relevant to the study and reveal consumer attitudes, the responses are quoted in Table 2 Summarising the quantitative survey data, the trends revealed that a large proportion of consumers use hotel services on average 3-5 times a year, and the second most frequent purpose of consumption is the choice of travelling for cognitive/cultural purposes (to a concert, performance, festival, cultural heritage site, etc.), so accommodation services are often used in combination with cultural products when leaving the consumer’s place of residence. Restaurants and cafés are used by a large proportion of consumers 36-40 times a year and about half of these visits are for leisure dining (to taste exceptional food and drink, to experience gastronomic culture), i.e. the choice is linked to the cultural aspect (experience product). The results of the study also confirmed the assumption that accommodation and catering services are most often consumed together in the context of trips/excursions.

The results of the study reveal the importance of the following internal elements of accommodation services for consumer choice: for the 34-54 age group, the furnishing of the hotel (interior, exterior) is very important, which is confirmed by the statistical Chi-square method; for all age groups in general, the ease of booking the hotel is very important (interactivity), and the cultural extras on offer are influencing for 59.1% of respondents, which is a more positive tendency. The results of the study reveal the importance of the following elements of the internal catering services for consumers’ preferences: although no statistically significant differences were found between age groups, the overall quantitative importance of the concept, the environment, and the helpfulness of the staff is important for consumers, while the cultural services have an impact (importance) for 58.4% of the respondents, which is also a more positive trend.

A significant difference was found between consumers’ preference for using restaurant services for leisure dining (to taste exceptional dishes and drinks, to experience gastronomic culture), and the set of intrinsic tangible elements of the catering service: linear regression result: (p = 0.001).

Regarding the importance of intangible aspects of hospitality for consumers’ choice, the results of the study showed a clear trend that all consumers value a hospitable, warm welcome, attentiveness of the staff, a pleasant atmosphere of the establishment and safety, and that pleasant cultural impressions and experiences of their stay at the establishment are important for 88.4% of the respondents, which means that the trend of the influence is also significant, and that the Chi-Square method confirmed the statistical closeness to the latter element: p=0.08. The set of intangible aspects of hospitality is important when a person is travelling for cultural cognitive purposes (to a concert, a performance, a festival, a cultural heritage site, etc.), with a linear regression result of p = 0.053; and when a person is using a restaurant service for a convivial dining experience (to taste exceptional food and drink, to experience gastronomic culture), the intangible aspects of hospitality are important in his/her choice of hospitality services, with a linear regression result of p = 0.01.

The results of the quantitative study showed that the most frequent cultural products consumed by all consumers are visits to cultural heritage sites, museums, participation in various cultural events, and attending plays and concerts. A high proportion of consumers (87.1) also confirmed that they often use cultural products together with hospitality services. Hospitality services are most often used in combination with cultural products when visiting cultural heritage objects, monuments, sites and when participating in excursions. In particular, a statistically significant difference was found by Chi-square method between the choice of hotel when travelling for cultural/cognitive purposes (to a concert, performance, festival, cultural heritage site, etc.) and when visiting museums (p = 0.012). Close values were found between the choice of hotel for leisure/holidays and visiting galleries (p = 0.091), visiting education (p = 0.064). The results of the survey revealed quite directly the consumers’ attitudes towards the choice of hospitality establishments offering additional cultural services: as many as 61.9% of them responded that they were very likely and very likely to prefer hospitality establishments that offer additional cultural services/experiences.

Similarly, a higher proportion of consumers (58.5%) are very likely and highly influenced in their decision to visit a cultural object or cultural event by the accommodation and/or catering services offered in the particular object (hospitality services directly influence the decision to consume cultural products) and the reverse is also true for a large proportion of consumers (64.7%), where the availability of cultural products in the particular object also influences their decision to use the hospitality services nearby. The answers to the open-ended question showed that hospitality services encourage the consumption of cultural products, but only if they are provided with a concept, are oriented towards the cultural aspect, provide the consumer with an additional experience, and are manifested through the second paradigm of hospitality: hospitality as a relationship between the provider and the consumer and the consumer’s experience.

Conclusion

i. Two paradigms have emerged in the concept of hospitality services: hospitality as a business (commercial, economic perspective) and hospitality as a relationship and experience between the service provider and the consumer (social perspective). In this view, the service consumer becomes a guest in the hospitality service company, and maintaining the service consumer perspective is essential for the effective delivery asnd provision of hospitality services, as today consumers tend to buy experiences rather than services. Hospitality is made up of tangible and intangible aspects of services. The application of the intangible aspects in practice has an impact on the management of hospitality businesses and the consumption of their services.

ii. Cultural products are the results of creative activities related to the cultural industries - cultural heritage and the arts. The concept of cultural product is used specifically in the context of the cultural industries as a system in which products are produced and consumed.

iii. The quantitative research carried out has revealed a tendency that the second most frequent purpose of consumption of hospitality services is for cultural cognitive purposes and experiences, while accommodation and catering services are often consumed together. The complementary cultural services offered by hospitality establishments have a positive impact on consumers’ choice, although internal service elements such as the ‘food and beverage’ and ‘accommodation and food and beverage’ elements remain important to them. “The Chi-square method found a significant difference between consumers in the 35-54 age group and the influence of the choice of the hotel’s furnishing (interior, exterior), as well as the importance of the ease of booking, the concept of the catering facility.

iv. The study has identified how the intangible but very important aspects of hospitality in the service provision process influence consumers’ choices and how these aspects influence the consumption of cultural products. The combination of intangible aspects of hospitality is significant for the majority of consumers, especially when accommodation services are used for cultural cognitive purposes and restaurant services for leisure dining, as confirmed by the result of the linear regression. “The Chi-square method showed a close to statistically significant relationship between the 35-54 age group and the following aspects: enjoyable cultural impressions and experiences during the stay at the establishment and a pleasant atmosphere. The results of the study thus confirm the importance of the second paradigm.

v. Hospitality services are most often consumed together with cultural products when visiting cultural heritage sites, monuments, places and excursions. In particular, a statistically significant difference was found by Chi-square method between the choice of a hotel for cultural / sightseeing trips and visits to museums.

vi. The cultural services and experiences offered by a hospitality establishment have a positive influence on consumer choice. The decision to visit a cultural heritage site or event is positively influenced by the hospitality services in the vicinity of the site or event, so the relationship is reciprocal. The results of the quantitative study show that hospitality services encourage the consumption of cultural products when they provide a complementary experience for the consumer.

References

1. Lashley C, Morrison A (2001) In Search of Hospitality. London: Routledge, United Kingdom.
2. Slattery P (2002) Finding the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education.
3. Brotherton B, Wood R (2001) Hospitality and hospitality management, in Lashley & Morrison, pp. 134-156.
4. Oxford University Press (2023).
5. Verbauskiene L (2014) The impact of user experience on the satisfaction and intentions of users of hospitality services: doctoral dissertation: social sciences, management (03 S). Vilnius University, Lithuania.
6. Page SJ, Connell J (2007) Tourism: a modern synthesis (2^nd Edition). London: Thomson Learning, United Kingdom.
7. Svetikienė I (2002) Tourism Marketing, Vilnius College, Lithuania.
8. Hemmington N (2007) From Service to Experience: Understanding and Defining the Hospitality Business. Service Industries Journal 27: 747-755.
9. Černevičiūtė J (2015) Complex factors for the development of creative industries: the development of collective creativity: a scientific monograph. Baltic copy.
10. Kregždaitė R (2017) Modelling of evaluation of cultural and creative industries in the countries of the European Union: doctoral dissertation: social sciences, economics (04S). Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania.
11. Žydžiūnaitė V (2011) Methodology for the preparation of the thesis. Klaipėda State College, Lithuania.
12. Pukėnas K (2005) Analysis of sports research data in the SPSS program: an educational book; Lithuanian Academy of Physical Education.
13. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2008) Creative Economy Outlook.