Service Management -- A New Model for Hotel Management

Author: Jai. Candamputty
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-06-01
Features: 3. The "ownership" of service products
Due to the characteristics of non-storability and intangibility, service products cannot be "owned" by anyone, whether the supplier or the consumer. Essentially, there is no issue of "ownership" for service products. If people purchase physical goods, they own the goods they buy. However, in the process of providing services, there is no corresponding issue of ownership transfer. When consumers purchase service products, they are actually buying the right to enjoy a particular service product at a specific time. Consumers cannot take the service product they purchased and use it at a time they deem appropriate. Examples include meal vouchers for New Year's celebration galas, theater tickets for watching a specific performance, and the time scheduled for meeting with an accountant—all of these are instances where consumers have the right to enjoy a service product at a specific time. In the true sense, consumers do not "own" the service products. Non-storability and intangibility prevent consumers from truly obtaining "ownership" of service products. This fact may pose practical problems for both service product suppliers and consumers. For service product suppliers, there is the issue of being unable to obtain product patents. Service products cannot be "owned" like physical products and protected by patents, making them always susceptible to imitation by competitors. For consumers, the lack of "ownership" reinforces the insecurity they feel when purchasing service products. After the transaction is completed, consumers do not actually "own" anything. In the process of marketing service products, managers must be aware of this strong sense of insecurity in consumers.
In the British classic TV comedy Fawlty Towers, the foolish hotel manager Basil Fawlty (played by John Cleese) mistakes a new guest who has never been seen before for a British lord. To curry favor with this supposed "Lord Melbourn," Basil rudely asks the guest comfortably seated at the window table to move to another table, as it is in a prime location with a great view outside. "This is Lord Melbourn's private table," Basil lies, and continues to "explain" that Lord Melbourn "always" sits here when he visits Fawlty Towers. The guests forced to move tables are naturally very unhappy. They believe that at least at that moment, the table belongs to "their table," not "Lord Melbourn's table"! The so-called "Lord Melbourn" is actually a fraud. He attempts to defraud many residents of the town, including stealing money and coins from Basil himself. After discovering that the "Lord Melbourn" had deceived him, Basil felt extremely embarrassed and angry.
What makes this story interesting to us is the so-called "ownership" of the table. The seated guests believe the table belongs to "their table," while Basil claims it belongs to "Lord Melbourn's table." In fact, neither of them is correct. The table has always belonged to "Basil." Regardless, the table is not a product provided by the hotel. In the true sense, when guests sit down to eat at the restaurant, they do not "own" the table. They are merely purchasing a service (and of course, the food). Both the service and the food are non-storable and disappear quickly. The guests do not obtain ownership of the physical item (such as the table)—at least they have no right to call it their own property, take it away, and use it freely. In any true sense, these items do not belong to "them." The non-storability and intangibility of service products make them impossible to "own." Essentially, there is no issue of "ownership" for service products. P36-37