HOTEL MARKETING DECEPTION PRACTICES AND ITS EFFECT ON GUESTS’ IMAGE

Karam M. Ghazi

The High Institute of Tourism and Hotels in Alexandria (EGOTH)

Abstract

Deceptive or unethical marketing practices have become a growing phenomenon that practiced by many tourist organizations. This study investigates the perception of marketing deception practices in all element of marketing mix (7ps) from hotel guests’ perspective, and testing the impact of these practices on consumers’ overall image (cognitive image and affective image, intention to recommend and intention to revisit). The study utilized the intercept and judgmental sampling method. The research population is the guests who had experienced hotel services in Alexandria and Matrouh in Egypt. A total number of 320 questionnaires were distributed. The outcomes affirmed the existence of marketing deception in all seven elements of marketing mix, which negatively inﬂuence consumers’ image (cognitive image, affective image, recommend intention and revisit intention). The findings implied that hotels and marketers are practicing marketing deception in all elements of marketing mix (7ps) with a high degree, which lead to a negative consumers’ image regarding the hotel experience. The study provided valuable recommendations to reduce the phenomenon of marketing deception and increase the awareness of consumers and hotel toward these practices and its negative effects.

Keywords: marketing deception, cognitive image, affective image, intention to recommend, intention to revisit.

Introduction

The hospitality and tourism industry is vulnerable to deceptive, unethical, and misleading marketing practices due to hypercompetitive market environment and the inherent characteristics of the service sector; inseparability, intangibility, and variability. The industry relies on frequent marketing deception practices to influence the consumer to make improper purchasing decisions that lead to an increase of sales and profits. Notwithstanding, the consumer will soon realize that he has been manipulated or deceived by the marketer, which may lead to the loss of financial resources and market position of the marketer or the organization in the long-term. Specifically, marketing deception practices have negative consequences on both the consumer and the organization (marketer). It leads to consumer dissatisfaction, doubt, loss of confidence, and increase distrust which lead to negative behavioral intentions (intention to repurchase and intention to recommend). On the other hand, the organization suffers from high long term losses; bad reputation, loss of customers and loss of investors, loss in sales, and negative attitude toward the brand. Deception may take any form of misrepresentation, omission, or misleading practices in any element of the marketing mix. The marketer may manipulate or hide significant information about the product or service quality, names, brands, price, promotion place, methods or information such as weight, value, history, fat, protein, calorie, and so on. (Yeung, 2004; Yaman & Gurel, 2006; Darke and Ritchie 2007; Beck et al, 2007; Özdemir & Tokol, 2009; Abu-Rumman and Al-Zeedat, 2010; Xie and Boush, 2011; Tilikidou, and Delistavrou, 2011; Salaymeh, 2013; Lee and Tsang, 2013; Hashem, 2013; Siham, 2013; Knani, 2014; Germelmann and Held, 2014; Ullah, and Hussain, 2015; Gaber, et al, 2018; Nicolaides, 2018).

The problem of this study is the increasing of marketing deception practices in the service sector in general and in the tourism and hospitality sector in particular. Deceptive marketing is a growing phenomenon that has become practiced by many tourist organizations. This is especially in the emerging markets in the developing nations where consumers are vulnerable to appealing marketing in which the real facts are frequently hidden. The growth of this phenomenon is due to globalization, intensive rivalry, technological advancement and the availability of consumer alternatives, which are an incentive for many companies to encourage marketing deception in different ways. The specific problem is that numerous hotels fall into the snare of dishonestly marketing their products without considering the consequences of their deception practices. Numerous organizations obtrusively lie, misrepresent, distort or hiding the facts when marketing their products or services to consumers so as to deceive and tempt them into purchasing products and services. Numerous hotels do not having a clear code of ethics and do not always consider the ethical basics. Some hotels view ethics to be a restriction on their profitability. When making marketing decisions, numerous organizations focus on achieving the company profits and ignoring at the same time to address consumer needs and community interests in the long-term. Although, consumers realize that there is a marketing deception, they do not have adequate knowledge about deception techniques, and they are frequently unable to discover and avoid it (Aditya, 2001; Yaman & Gurel, 2006; Brian et al, 2006; Beck et al, 2007; Kotler, 2007; Abu-Rumman and Al-Zeedat, 2010; Tilikidou, and Delistavrou, 2011; Chaouachi and Rached, 2012; Lee and Tsang, 2013; Hashem, 2013; Knani, 2014; Hersh, and Aladwan, 2014; Nekmahmud, et al, 2016; Al-Zyadat, 2017; Ullah, and Hussain, 2015; Gaber, et al, 2018; Nicolaides, 2018).

Despite that numerous organizations across all sectors have used the marketing deception practices; there is a research gap in understanding these practices and its effect on consumers’ image. First, studies on ethic issues in the hospitality industry are limited compared to those undertaken in the more general business area. Second, the marketing deception subject has received great interest of scholars and consumer protection associations in the developed countries. Meanwhile, it has not received such interest in the Arab and developing countries and there a few studies on this subject. The role of official bodies and consumer protection associations in marketing deception in developing countries is still extremely limited and below the level of desire. Third, most previous studies have examined marketing deception in one dimension of the marketing mix. There is a lack of studies that have dealt with it as a whole, or with all dimensions of marketing mix elements. Fourth, previous studies dealt with marketing deception on the one perspective and consumer’s image on the other. There is a lack of studies on the marketing deception practices and its impact on consumers’ image and behavioral intentions, particularly in the hotel sector (Aditya, 2001; Yaman & Gurel, 2006; Darke, and Ritchie 2007; Tipton, et al, 2009; Abu-Rumman and Al-Zeedat, 2010; Lee & Tsang, 2013; Knani, 2014; Ullah, and Hussain, 2015; Al-Zyadat, 2017; Gaber, et al, 2018; Nicolaides, 2018).

In light of the problem of the study and the lack of studies that addressed marketing deception practices topic and its relation with consumers’ image in the hotel sector, this study examines the hotel marketing deception practices and its impact on the image of consumers in Egypt. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to answer the following questions:

1. Are there marketing deception practices in all elements of the hotel marketing mix in Egypt from consumer perspective?

2. Is there an effect of marketing deception practices on hotel consumers’ image (cognitive, affective, intention to recommend, and intention to revisit)?

Study Objectives

The study investigates marketing deception practices in all elements of marketing mix and its effect on the image of the customers in order to enhance the awareness of these practices and its consequences. Specifically, the study examines the impact of marketing deception practices in the seven marketing mix dimensions (7p’s) (product, price, promotion, place, personnel, process, and physical evidence) on the four dimensions of consumer’s image (cognitive, affective, intention to recommend, and intention to revisit). The specific objectives are to:

1. Assess the perception of marketing deception practices from customer perspective in the hotel sector in Egypt.

2. Assess the effect of marketing deception practices on consumer’s image (cognitive, affective, intention to recommend, and intention to revisit)

Literature Review

1- Marketing Deception

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2018) defined deception as “the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid”. According to American Marketing Association Dictionary (2018), deception is “an unethical sales practice involving withholding information or telling white lies”. Deceptive marketing is “any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origins of goods, services or commercial activities” (The Free Dictionary, 2018).

From a legal perspective, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (1983) defined deception as any “misrepresentation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer’s detriment”. However, the FTC’s definition is focused more on legal issues; it is ignored three elements from psychological perspective: (a) the actually or potentially misleading act, (b) the reasonableness of the consumer’s response before the deceptive act, and (c) the material effects of the act for the consumer. The marketing deception should be addressed additionally from psychological, social, and ethical perspectives (Chaouachi and Rached, 2012)

From a social perspective, Aditya (2001) defined deception in marketing as “any act, claim or message that (a) causes at least some consumers acting reasonably to make decisions that they would not otherwise make, (b) leads at least some consumers acting reasonably to believe something about the product, brand or manufacturer that is not verifiably true or (c) has the potential to foster distrust of any kind, general or specific, or in other ways causes an erosion of ethical values deemed desirable in society”. Accordingly, there are two main types of deception: commission deception through an act that misleads the target party and omission deception through a failure to act. From consumer behavior perspective, there are two main types of deception: legal deception and behavioral deception. The behavioral perspective focused on the gap between fact and belief and therefore focused on misleading aspects of communication (Xie and Boush 2011; Chaouachi and Rached, 2012 ; Germelmann and Held, 2014).

Marketing deception can be defined as “a misleading technique used by marketers to increase sales and earn more, but these profits are only in the short term, because the consumer will soon discover this misleading method and it will not be easy to fall into it again” (Piccolo, et al, 2017). Marketing deceptive is “unethical behavior between the buyer and consumer, which is intended to deceive the consumer when promoting a product” (Al-Zyadat, 2017). Gaber, et al (2018) indicated that marketing deception is “every marketing practice or transaction between the marketer and the consumer involves the creation of a negative impression (consumer judgment) on the consumer at or after the deal, often accompanied by the structure of the marketer in deception resulting in an improper purchase decision that harms the consumer”.

As shown in Figure 1, Serota and Levine, (2013) provided a generalized model of marketing deception and considered deceptive marketing as “the failure to fully disclose all pertinent information to a customer or to provide all agreed upon services”. Marketing deception is a marketing practice by which a consumer’s false impression is created toward the product and the marketing mix elements which may lead to a consumer’s false decision which harming him in any way. Some marketers practice deception to influence the consumer to make incorrect purchasing decisions which leading to marketers’ positive outcomes through increasing sales and profits (Salaymeh, 2013). Germelmann and Held (2014) indicated that “deception occurs when a marketer tries to deceive a consumer by setting or maintaining a wrong expectation (i.e. an expectation that the product or service cannot objectively fulfill) through marketing communication”.

Marketing deception has negative consequences on both the consumer and the organization (marketer). More specifically, perceived marketing deception leads to consumer dissatisfaction, doubt, loss of confidence, and increase distrust which lead to negative behavioral intentions (intention to recommend and repurchase). Moreover, business organizations that involved in marketing deception will suffer significant long-run losses: bad reputation, loss of customers and loss of investors, loss in sales, and negative attitude toward the brand. Overall, marketing deception practices are a waste of the economic resources for the consumer and society as a whole (Darke and Ritchie 2007; Germelmann and Held, 2014; Gaber, et al, 2018).

Business organizations have been practicing marketing deception for many reasons. The first is the lack of awareness of the marketers toward the concept of deception and its negative effect on consumers, and the possible damage to the organizations that focus only on short-term profits while ignoring long-term profits. Another reason is the weakness and ineffectiveness of the role played by consumer protection associations, particularly in Arab and developing countries when compared with the foreign countries. Moreover, another cause is the negligence of consumers for reporting deception which they have perceived or experienced, and demanding a compensation for the harm caused by marketing deception. Moreover, another motive is the lack of legislation, laws and penalties on organizations which practice marketing deception. Finally, the lack of awareness of consumers toward the methods of marketing deception, and consumers’ inability to detect, learn and benefit from the deception situations in any way (Gaber, et al, 2018).

2- Marketing Deception Practices

There are many marketing deception methods and techniques which gathered into the following areas (Hashem, 2013):

1. Deception practiced by marketers and producers towards the consumer in different areas such as title, contents and components, price, contrast and manipulation of marks, bad promotion and other different issues.

2. Decrease the supply of products in the quantity required or hidden for the purpose of causing speculation in the circulation of goods in the market and increase prices.

3. The degree of the commitment to present and display the right data and facts that represent the truth of the advertised products and through different promotional tools.

Particularly, marketing deception can take numerous types of misleading, misrepresentation, or omission practices in any component of the marketing mix (7p_s) (Brian et al, 2006; Özdemir & Tokol, 2009; Abu-Rumman and Al-Zeedat, 2010; Tilikidou, and Delistavrou, 2011; Salaymeh, 2013; Hashem, 2013; Siham, 2013; Hersh, and Aladwan, 2014; Nekmahmud, et al, 2016; Gubiniova and Bartáková, 2017; Gaber, et al, 2018; Chonko and Hunt, 2000):

1. Product deceptive practices may incorporate utilizing a trademark, name or brand similar to the original or famous ones. It also includes the lack and insufficient information about product or service characteristics such as size, weight, degree, content, product origin, location, brand, nutritional value, fat, protein, calories, salts, guarantee and post selling services and so forth. It may contains hide the country of origin and the claim of another country of origin, mix high quality products with inferior quality products and sell them together as high quality, manipulate the date of validity without regard to consumer interest, and the imaginary development of the product or service.

2. Price deceptive practices can include any practice that makes customers believe that the price they pay for a product or service is lower than it actually is. It includes offer illusive sales or fake discounts on prices, advertising misleading prices, set a high price to inspire high quality, add sales tax on some non-taxable products, and decreasing the prices of goods whose validity is nearing completion.

3. Promotion deceptive practices may include any attempt to provide false advertising and sales promotion. It includes misleading and insufficient information, advertising with a high degree of exaggeration and exaggeration, hiding a fact or important information about the product, organizing fake competitions for consumers, fake cuts in prices, placing photos of products with certain ingredients on billboards or menus while the truth they are not on offer, advertise to create the impression that they ‘help’ society, and state they are ‘the best’ in what they do.

4. Place (distribution) deceptive practices include the poor transport, transfer, and distribution of a product which does not meet the standards, lack of information of the production sources and product location, false or poor product delivery method, deception in reservation and guiding signs, setting the price without stating the unit weight, claim increase prices from the source, reduce price or change its identity in case of damage or expiration, sell free samples which are not in fact the right of the consumer, embarrassing personal information about the consumer through the Internet, the false announcement that all services and products are available in the place (organization) while the truth is otherwise, and deception through the Internet and electronic booking.

5. Process deceptive practices include manipulate the procedures and processes of producing and offering products and services in ways that appear to be contrary to reality, incompatibility of the service actually provided with the agreed service, deception in the quality of service or product offered, manipulation of the production of food and beverage such as mixing natural juice with industrial juice or frozen meat with fresh meat or local meat with imported meat, and claiming that procedures used to provide the long term service warrant the high price.

6. Personnel (people) deceptive practices include manipulate the skills, appearance, response, contact of people in processes and production of an organization. It includes an incompatibility between the requirements for providing the service and the expertise and scientific qualifications of the service providers. Finally,

7. Physical evidence deceptive practices include the practices of false description of tangible items such as furniture, equipment, design, décor, color, and appearance. It is the incompatibility and inadequacy of the environment of the organization with the advertised product or service specification. The researcher summarized the marketing deceptive practices in the marketing mix elements (see Questionnaire and Appendix 2).

3- Components of Image

Scholars in several disciplines and fields agreed that the image construct has three main components: cognitive evaluations, affective evaluations, and conative/behavioral evaluations. This three-component model has been proposed in numerous discussions of attitudes, particularly in the area of marketing (Lin, et al, 2007; Bigné, et al, 2008; Yuksel et al, 2010; Agapito, et al, 2013; Basaran, 2016; Slabbert, and Martin, 2017; Ghazi, and Ammar, 2018). According to this model, image is a construct consisting of three main components:

1. Cognitive/Perceptual evaluation refers to the consumers’ thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge formed through direct interaction with product or service offerings, or through processing secondary sources of information, such as word-of-mouth and advertisements.

2. Affective/emotions evaluation refers to the consumer’s feeling, emotion, and mood reactions (liking/disliking) about an object.

3. Conative/behavioral evaluation refers to the consumer’s actual response or intention to repurchase or revisit, and intention to recommend or spread positive word of mouth. it is the action step based on result of both cognitive and affective evaluation.

4- Research Model and Hypotheses:

The research model is designed for explaining consumers’ perceptions toward hotel marketing deception practices, and its relation to their image ((Figure 2). The proposed model is based on the seven elements of marketing mix (7ps) and the three-component model of image (the cognitive-affective-conative). The marketing deception practices are measured by the seven marketing mix elements (Product, Price, Promotion, Personnel, Process, Place, and Physical evidence). On the other hand, the overall consumers’ image is measured by cognitive evaluations as well as affective evaluations that lead to their conative/behavioral evaluations (intention to recommend, and intention to revisit) (Lin, et al, 2007; Bigné, et al, 2008; Yuksel et al, 2010; Agapito, et al, 2013; Basaran, 2016; Slabbert, and Martin, 2017; Ghazi, and Ammar, 2018). This model examines whether dimensions of marketing deception influence consumers’ assessment of cognitive, affective, and conative/behavioral evaluations (intention to recommend and intention to revisit), and whether cognitive and affective evaluations influences the conative/behavioral evaluations (intention to recommend and intention to revisit).

The study hypotheses test the existence of marketing deception practices from consumer perspective as well as test the effect of these practices on consumers’ image. A research model was proposed in which nine hypotheses were developed:

1. H1: There are marketing deception practices in all elements of marketing mix (7p’s dimensions) from hotel customer perspective at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

2. H2: There is statistically significant effect of the marketing deception practices (7p’s dimensions) on consumers’ cognitive image at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

3. H3: There is statistically significant effect of the marketing deception practices (7p’s dimensions) on consumers’ affective image at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

4. H4: There is statistically significant effect of the marketing deception practices (7p’s dimensions) on consumers’ intention to recommend at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

5. H5: There is statistically significant effect of the marketing deception practices (7p’s dimensions) on consumers’ intention to revisit at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

6. H6: There is statistically significant effect of the consumer’s cognitive image on their intention to recommend at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

7. H7: There is statistically significant effect of the consumer’s cognitive image on their intention to revisit at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

8. H8: There is statistically significant effect of the consumer’s affective image on their intention to recommend at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

9. H9: There is statistically significant effect of the consumer’s affective image on their intention to revisit at the level of importance (α ≥ 0.05).

Method of study

1- Study Type and Approach:

This research study used descriptive-analytical approach to investigate consumers’ perceptions of marketing deception practices in all elements of marketing mix and its effect on their image (cognitive, affective, intention to recommend, intention to revisit) in Egyptian hotels. The descriptive approach is used by reference to published literature related to the subject of the study from books, articles and previous studies to prepare the theoretical side of the research. The analytical method is used to analyze the data statistically and reveal the nature of the relationship between the variables of the study. Moreover, this study used deductive approach by developing a theory and hypotheses and then designing a research strategy to test the validity of hypotheses against the data (this call a top-down approach) (Saunders et al, 2009).

This study used two types of data sources. First, the secondary data (desk survey) were collected from the library sources and the audit review of previous studies on the subject of the study. It sets the pace for the development of the study theoretical framework, hypotheses, and survey questionnaire. Second, the primary data (field survey) were collected from fieldwork by using a written self-administered questionnaire that covered the theoretical framework and the hypotheses on which the study was based. The choice of questionnaire survey is mainly due to obtain relatively highest participation and high confidence that right person has responded. By questionnaire, the researcher has time to keep continuous contact when questions arise (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013; Saunders et al, 2009).

2- Data Collection Instrument

The questionnaire was developed to measure the practices of deception in the seven elements of marketing mix and its effect on image from the perspective of guests staying in Egyptian hotels.

It was built based on the conceptual framework and hypotheses of the study through reviewing the literature relating to the concepts of marketing deception and consumer’s image (Figure 2). Moreover, it was adapted from previous developed scales to test marketing deception dimensions and image in the hotel context. The multi-item constructs validated in previous studies were modified to fit the study context. In particular, the final questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part collected demographic information about each participant including age, gender, social status, educational level and income. The second part measures the consumers’ perception of marketing deception practices in the hotel marketing mix elements (7ps). It includes the practices reflecting deception in the seven elements (dimensions) of hotel marketing mix (product, price, promotion, process, personnel, place, and physical evidence). These practices and dimensions have been formulated based on the results of several studies (Chonko and Hunt, 2000; Abu-Rumman and Al-Zeedat, 2010; Salaymeh, 2013; Hashem, 2013; Siham, 2013; Hersh, and Aladwan, 2014; Gubiniova and Bartáková, 2017; Gaber, et al, 2018). The third part measures consumers’ overall image reflecting the four dimensions of image (cognitive, affective, intention to recommend, intention to revisit). It included 21 attributes adapted from several studies (e.g., Zeithaml, et al, 1996; Basaran, 2016; Slabbert, and Martin, 2017; Ghazi, and Ammar, 2018). “Cognitive/perceptual image” was measured with ten items, “affective image” was measured with six items and “Conative (behavioral) image” (intention to recommend and intention to revisit) were measured with ﬁve items. All the constructs of second and third parts were measured with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3- Validity and reliability of instrument of the study

To Verify Content Validity, the first version of questionnaire was judged by interviewing a group of arbitrators specialized in hotel marketing to make right modifications. Many valuble information is provided to improve the content validity of the survey. Some items of the questionnaire have been modified and some have been deleted according to the comments of the jury or arbitrators. The changes made the statements more speciﬁc and easier to understand. To Verify Construct Validity, the questionnaire was surveyed to an initial sample size of 15 respondents of the study population. For convergent validity, the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated in order to determine whether the measurement variable was representative of the related construct. All AVEs exceed the cutoff value of 0.50, and all CRs exceed the cutoff value of 0.70. These results provided evidence for convergent validity of each of the constructs involved in the research model of the study. To Verify Reliability, the reliability steps was conducted on the same initial sample using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). The reliability or internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each measure, all dimensions, and total questionnaire was above the recommend value of 0.70, which indicating satisfactory internal consistency (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al, 1998). Thus the final questionnaire is valid and reliable for application to the basic study sample.

For ethical considerations, the questionnaire was accompanied by a covering letter that emphasized the significance of the issue under investigation but also stressed that participation in the study was voluntary. The respondents were advised that the data collected would be used solely for the purpose to address the research topic. The removal of any personal identifying information or data was the means to maintain confidentiality.

4- Sampling Plan and Procedures

The research population is the guests who had experienced services offered in hotels in Alexandria and Matrouh in Egypt (the northern coast of Egypt). The study used the intercept and judgmental sampling method. Judgmental sampling was employed as only guests who had experienced facilities and services offered in hotels were invited to participate in the study as they have the previous experience through their stay in hotels. The study used an intercepting sample in the two cities (Alexandria, and Matrouh). Consumer intercept survey aims to intercept consumers or potential consumers in their natural environment and deliver a short structured questionnaire on their consumer habits, preferences, perceptions or behavior. The advantages of consumer intercept surveys are the speed in which they can be conducted, their low cost, person-to-person interaction, and the ability to poll a large number of consumers. The major disadvantage of the consumer intercept survey method is that it entails "convenience sampling" meaning that especially in the case of small samples; results may not be as representative as samples developed through random or stratified sampling. However, intercept surveys remain a powerful technique, and in many cases can approach the reliability of much more expensive and objective sampled samples (Aaker et al, 2013).

The researcher intercepted guests in hotels and tourist sites in Alexandria and Matrouh in Egypt. Fieldworkers approached the respondents from September to October, 2018, explained the goal of the survey and asked for respondents to participate on a voluntary basis. The researcher explained for each of them how to use the questionnaire and made sure that the consumer had experienced the hotel services. A total number of 320 questionnaires were distributed. 221 were returned and 15 were neglected for incompleteness. 206 usable samples were obtained with a response rate of 64%. The respondent proﬁle is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic profile of the respondents (N =206)

Demographics

Frequency

(%)

Demographics

Frequency

(%)

Gender

Male

Female

108

52 %

48 %

Travel purpose

Leisure

Work

Other

134

65%

28%

Age

16-24 years

25-34 years

35-44 years

45-54 years

55-64 years

over 64

13%

10%

21%

24%

27%

Education

Below secondary school

Secondary school

High school

University degree

Postgraduate degree

109

11%

15%

53%

14%

Nationality

Arabian

Asian

American

European

19%

29%

27%

25%

Occupation

Administrative worker

Executive manager

Freelance

Retired

Unemployed

Student

Other

34%

12%

17%

27%

5- Statistical Data Analysis

The descriptive and analytical methods were used through the SPSS 20.0 statistical program. Descriptive statistics, Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), one sample T-test and Structural Equation Model (SEM) are used to explore the interrelationships between the study variables; product deception, price deception, personnel deception, promotion deception, physical evidence deception, process deception, cognitve image, affective image, intention to recommend, and intention to revisit. Results were interpreted as significant if the associated p-value was less than .05 and highly significant if p-value was less than .01. Hypotheses Tested by one sample T-tes and Structural Equation Model (H0: p ˃ 0.05 versus H1: p ≤ 0.05).

Results

1- Validity and Reliability of the Measurement Model

The conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using a maximum likelihood estimation method was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the measurement model. The results indicated that the model adequately ﬁts the data (x2= 238.503, df = 58, p < .001, RMSEA= .056, CFI = .953, NFI = .912). Consistency among the multiitems for each construct was assessed. All values of composite reliability exceeded the minimum requirement of 0.60 (Sekaran, and Bougie, 2013). Convergent validity was assessed. All AVE values were greater than the recommended minimum standard of 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Thus, convergent validity was satisﬁed. Discriminant validity was also tested. The AVE value for each construct exceeded the square of the coefﬁcient representing its correlation with other variables, thus supporting discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

2-Marketing Deception Assessment (Objective 1/Question 1/Hypothesis 1)

The five-point scale of the study was divided into five intervals to assess the consumer’s perception degree of marketing deception practices and dimensions (Very high: 4.21-5.00, high: 3.41-4.20, moderate: 2.61-3.40, low: 1.801-2.60, very low: 1-1.80). The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and One Sample T-test (n=206)

Dimensions of Deception Practices	Descriptive Statistics				One Sample T-test
	Mean	S.D.	Rank	Practice Degree	One Sample T-test
	Mean	S.D.	Rank	Practice Degree	T-value	Sig.	Hypothesis 1
Price deception	4.26	0.92	3	V. High	42.55	0.000	Accept
Product deception	4.28	0.88	2	V. High	43.62	0.000	Accept
Physical evidence	4.15	0.76	4	High	48.11	0.000	Accept
Promotion deception	4.40	0.90	1	V. High	46.43	0.000	Accept
Personnel deception	3.87	1.01	6	High	41.68	0.000	Accept
Process deception	3.95	1.12	5	High	48.37	0.000	Accept
Place deception	3.80	0.83	7	High	45.21	0.000	Accept
Total	4.10	0.74	-	High	45.14	0.000	Accept

To test the first hypothesis, which answers the first question, one sample t-test was used as shown in Table 2. The average perception mean score of the seven marketing deception dimensions varied from 4.40 (the highest) to 3.80 (the lowest), out a 5-point scale. However, there was a distinction between the seven dimensions and a priority of perception was evident. The rankings in descending order of the perception mean scores of seven marketing deception dimensions were as follow: promotion deception (4.40), product deception (4.28), price deception (4.26), physical evidence deception (4.15), process deception (3.95), personnel deception (3.87), and place deception (3.80). This result implied that the levels of marketing deception have varied with the different elements of the marketing mix. It should be noted that the overall perception mean score of all marketing deception dimensions was 4.10, which was relatively high. It is greater than 3 (center-neutral) and also reached the significance level value of 0.000, which is less than 0.05. Moreover, the value of (t) of the marketing deception dimensions was a statistically significant for all dimensions (at α ≤ 0.05). These results confirmed the existence of marketing deception in all elements of the hotel marketing mix. Therefore the first hypothesis is supported. This result emphasized that hotels and marketers practiced marketing deception on consumers with a high degree when marketing their services. This indicates a high degree of consumer perception and awareness toward the marketing deception practices in all elements of hotel marketing mix. The result indicated that customers have a high awareness that hotels and marketers depends on the various methods of deception in all elements of marketing mix when marketing their services. The high degree perception of market deception practices can be explained by the high desire of hotels to earn profits as much as possible. Moreover, there is no code of ethics in hotels in Egypt as well as the lack of an effective role of consumer protection associations in developing countries such as Egypt. The results of the study showed that hotels focus on achieving their interests in achieving profits without considering the interest of the customer and community.

3- Assess the Impact of Marketing Deception on Consumers’ Image (Objective2/Question 2/Hypotheses2-9)

Table 3: Results of the Structural Equation Model (n = 206)

Hypothesized paths	Model summary		ANOVA		Coefficient			Hypothesis Result
Hypothesized paths	R	R2	F	Sig	Β	T	Sig	Hypothesis Result
Deceptive practices on cognitive image (H₂)	- 0.74	- 0.55	37.21	0.000	0.786	7.84	0.000	Supported
Deceptive practices on affective image (H₃)	0.76	0.57	40.02	0.000	0.646	6.42	0.000	Supported
Deceptive practices on intention to recommend (H₄)	- 0.86	- 0.81	152.43	0.000	0.924	13.67	0.000	Supported
Deceptive practices on intention to revisit (H₅)	- 0.81	- 0.75	132.20	0.000	0.849	11.43	0.000	Supported
Cognitive image on intention to recommend (H₆)	- 0.18	- 0.10	1.399	0.241	0.074	0.757	0.071	Not supported
Cognitive on intention to revisit (H₇)	- 0.18	- 0.10	1.453	0.158	0.053	0.710	0.082	Not supported
Affective image on intention to revisit (H₈)	- 0.20	- 0.10	1.873	0.144	0.044	0.645	0.095	Not supported
Affective image on intention to revisit (H₉)	-0.21	- 0.13	1.638	0.162	0.048	0.587	0.089	Not supported

Goodness-of-ﬁt statistics: χ2 = 641.33, df = 226, p < .001, CFI = .96, NFI =.93, RMSEA = .058.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the effect of marketing deception practices on consumers’ image, as shown in Table 3. When evaluating the effect of marketing deception on cognitive image and affective image. The results indicated that the seven marketing deception dimensions (7p_s) had a statistically negative effect on both consumers’ cognitive image (R = - 0.74, F = 37.21, β =0.786, p <.000) and consumers’ affective image (R = - 0.76, F = 40.02, β =0.646, p <.000). Moreover, adjusted R2 of cognitive image indicated that 55 % of variance in cognitive image was explained by overall marketing deception dimensions. Therefore, the second hypothesis is accepted that there is a statistically negative effect of marketing deception dimensions (7p_s) on consumers’ cognitive image. Additionally, the adjusted R2 of affective image indicated that 57 % of variance in affective image was explained by overall marketing deception dimensions. Therefore, the third hypothesis is accepted that there is a negative effect of marketing deception dimensions (7p_s) on consumers’ affective image. Overall, the results concluded that the seven marketing deception dimensions is negatively inﬂuence consumers’ cognitive image and affective image, supporting hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 3. This result implied that marketing deception dimensions was a signiﬁcant negative predictor of consumers’ cognitive and affective image. Consequently, this result supported the negative effect of marketing deception on forming guests’ cognitive and affective image in hotel service experiences.

Similarly, when evaluating the effect of marketing deception on recommend intention and revisit intention. The results indicated that the seven marketing deception dimensions (7p_s) had a statistically negative effect on both consumers’ intention to recommend (R = - 0.86, F = 152.43, β =0.924, p <.000) and intention to revisit (R = - 0.81, F = 132.20, β =0.849, p <.001). Moreover, adjusted R2 of intention to recommend indicated that 81 % of variance in intention to recommend was explained by overall marketing deception dimensions. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is accepted that there is a negative effect of marketing deception dimensions (7p_s) on consumers’ intention to recommend. Additionally, adjusted R2 of intention to revisit indicated that 75 % of variance in intention to recommend was explained by overall marketing deception dimensions. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is accepted which is there is a negative effect of marketing deception dimensions (7p_s) on consumers’ intention to revisit. Overall, the results concluded that the seven marketing deception dimensions is negatively inﬂuence consumers’ intention to recommend and intention to revisit, supporting hypothesis 3 and hypothesis 4. This result implied that marketing deception dimensions was a signiﬁcant negative predictor of consumers’ intention to recommend and intention to revisit. High deception levels spreading negative recommendations about hotel experience through word-of-mouth, directly or indirectly. High deception level did not retaining customers. Consequently, this result supported the negative effect of marketing deception on guests’ intention to recommend and intention to revisit in hotel service experiences.

On the other hand, the results demonstrated that cognitive image perceptions did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence intention to recommend (R =0.189, F =1.399, β = 0.074, p ˃.05) and intention to revisit (R =0.180, F =1.453, β = 0.053, p ˃.05), failing to support the sixth and seventh hypotheses (H6, H7). Similarly, affective image perception did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence intention to recommend (R =0.202, F =1.87, β =0.044, p ˃.05) and intention to revisit (R =0.213, F =1.63, β= 0. 048, p ˃.05), failing to support the last two hypotheses (H8, H9).

Overall, the results concluded that the seven marketing deception dimensions is negatively inﬂuence consumers’ cognitive image, affective image, recommend intention and revisit intention, supporting the four hypotheses (H2, H3, H4, and H5). This result implied/emphasized that the seven marketing deception dimensions is a signiﬁcant predictor of consumers’ cognitive image, affective image, recommend intention and revisit intention regarding hotel experience. This means that the seven marketing deceptions contributes to consumer’s negative image in the Egyptian hotels. This result indicated that the seven dimensions of market deception were key antecedents of tourists’ negative image with hotel experience in the Egyptian hotels. This result implied that the seven dimensions of the marketing deception play a significant role in generating negative consumer’s image in the Egyptian hotels. On the other hand, the results concluded that cognitive image and affective image perception did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence recommend intention and revisit intention, failing to support the last four hypotheses (H6, H7, H8, H9). This result implied that cognitive evaluations and affective evaluations was not a signiﬁcant predictor of recommend intention and revisit intention in hotel experience.

The study concluded that consumers have a high awareness that hotels and marketers are practicing marketing deception on all elements of marketing mix (7ps) with a high degree, which lead to a negative consumers’ image and behavioural intention regarding their hotel experience. Overall, while marketing deception dimensions was a signiﬁcant predictor of cognitive image, affective image, intention to recommend and intention to revisit. Cognitive image and affective image was not a signiﬁcant predictor of intention to recommend and intention to revisit. These results supported the negative effect of deception on consumers’ image and behavioral intentions in service experiences.

Conclusion

This study investigates consumers’ perceptions of marketing deception practices in all elements of marketing mix and its effect on their image (cognitive, affective, intention to recommend, intention to revisit) in Egyptian hotels. This study used descriptive-analytical approach and the intercept and judgmental sampling method. The research population is the guests who had experienced services offered in hotels in the Alexandria and Matrouh in Egypt. A total number of 320 questionnaires were distributed. First, the results confirmed the existence of marketing deception in all elements of the hotel marketing mix, supporting hypothesis 1. This result emphasized that hotels and marketers practiced marketing deception on consumers with a high degree when marketing their services. The result indicated that customers have a high awareness that hotels and marketers depends on the various methods of deception in all elements of marketing mix. Second, the results concluded that the seven marketing deception dimensions is negatively inﬂuence consumers’ image (cognitive image, affective image) and behavioral intentions (recommend intention and revisit intention), supporting the four hypotheses (H2, H3, H4, H5). This result implied that the seven marketing deception dimensions is a signiﬁcant predictor of consumers’ cognitive image, affective image, recommend intention and revisit intention regarding hotel experience. The seven dimensions of market deception were key antecedents of tourists’ negative image with hotel experience in the Egyptian hotels. Fourth, the results concluded that cognitive evaluation and affective evaluation did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence recommend intention and revisit intention, failing to support the last four hypotheses (H6, H7, H8, H9). This result implied that cognitive evaluations and affective evaluations was not a signiﬁcant predictor of recommend intention and revisit intention regarding hotel experience. Overall, the findings implied that hotels and marketers are practicing marketing deception on all elements of marketing mix (7ps) with a high degree, which lead to a negative consumers’ image and behavioral intentions regarding hotel experience in Alexandria and Matrouh in Egypt.

Study Contributions and Recommendations

This study is relatively unique because it is one of the first studies that connect theory and practice between marketing deception practices in all elements of marketing mix (7ps) and consumers’ image and behavioral intentions. However previous studies examining deception in one area or dimension of marketing, this study examines deception in all marketing mix dimensions (7p’s). It helps to give a comprehensive perception of marketing deception practices and its impact on consumers’ image and behavioral intentions. This study contribute to increase hotel consumers’ awareness of marketing deception practices and approaches in different marketing mix elements which increase their ability to detect and avoid deception practices and therefore avoid making wrong purchasing decisions. On the other hand, this study contributes to increase hotels and marketers awareness of the negative effects of deceptive practices on forming negative consumers’ image in the long term. Moreover, this study is an attempt to raise the interest of scholars and consumer protection associations in the subject of marketing deception in the Arab and developing countries. This can result in more studies related to it and further protect consumers from this type of deception.

The study provided recommendations to reduce the phenomenon of deception marketing practices and increase consumers’ awareness toward these practices because of their negative effects on society in general and customers and hotels in particular.

1. The study recommends the need to activate the role of marketing audit and control function on the implementation of the marketing ethics in hotels for its role in the formation of a positive image of the customer. Hotels should reconsideration of the organizational structure and the establishment of a special section that function. Hotels should conduct training courses and workshops for hotel managers and marketers to discuss the seriousness of marketing deception on brand image and the commitment to ethical and social responsibility of hotels towards the community and the consumer. Ethical behavior should be enforced throughout hotel culture and through hotel practices.

2. The study recommends the activation of the law of consumer protection. The official government bodies must address and review the legal legislation that protects the customer, and work to develop them to reduce the phenomenon of marketing deception and directing the necessary penalties for fraudsters. It should sets clear standards for advertising in various means, which gives them the right not to publish or broadcast any declaration with a picture of deception.

3. Activating the role of consumer protection associations on the control of marketing deception in the national markets, which is characterized by its weakness and lack of follow-up to many of the problems experienced by the domestic and foreign tourists.

4. The tourism ministry, hotel associations, or consumer protection associations should sensitize customers through distributing written instructions, announcements, newsletters and visual media in how to deal with hotels which practicing marketing deception.

5. The consumer should submit a complaint when exposed to marketing deception and his complaint should be followed-up by hotels, government agencies and consumer protection associations.

6. Conducting further studies and researches on the phenomenon of deception and ethical practices of the tourism sector in Egyptian society. Further studies can examine if there is a difference in the effect of marketing deception on the image of hotel customers due to the hotel category and consumer demographics.

7. Marketers and hotel should focus on achieving the balance between the three goals of marketing: the company's profits, the needs of consumers and the interests of society (Kotler, 2007)

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. Bottom of Form

Study Limits

1. Place limits. The study was limited to hotels in Alexandria and Matrouh in Egypt (the northern coast of Egypt).

2. Human borders: the study was limited to the consumers of hotels who had experienced hotel services. As these groups are more able to participate in the study effectively.

3. Time limits: The study was limited to September to October 2018.

4. Scientific borders: The marketing deceptive practices used in this study are considered for example, but not limited to, and therefore can be seen as representing most but not all practices. There may be other practices of marketing deception not addressed in the study.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A., Kumar, V., Leone, Robert & Day, George S. (2013), Marketing research, 11th ed., John Wiley and sons, USA.

Abu-Rumman, A., & Al-Zeedat, M. (2010). The Range of Understanding the Marketing Deception by Jordanian Tourists Practiced Travel Agencies: An Analytical Study. Al-rafeden development, 10 (32), 151-175.

Aditya, R. (2001), The Psychology of Deception in Marketing: A Conceptual Framework for Research and Practice, Psychology &Marketing, 18(7), 735–761.

Agapito, D., Valle, P., & Mendes, J. (2013), The cognitive-affective-conative model of destination image: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(5), 471-481.

Al-Zyadat, A. (2017). Consumers Attitudes toward Marketing Deception in Advertisement: An Empirical Study in Irbid City- Jordan. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 2, (3), 143-148.

American Marketing Association Dictionary (2018), Deception. Retrieved on 5 November 2018 from https://www.ama.org/resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=D

Basaran, U. (2016), Examining the relationships of cognitive, affective, and conative destination image: a research on Safranbolu, Turkey. International Business Research, 9 (5), 165-179.

Beck, J. A., Lazer, W. & Schmidgall, R. (2007), Hotel marketing managers’ responses to ethical dilemmas. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(3), 35–48.

Bigné, J., Mattila, A., & Andreu, L. (2008), The impact of experiential consumption cognitions and emotions on behavioral intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 22 (4), 303–315.

Brian King, B., Dwyer, L., & Prideaux, B. (2006), An Evaluation of Unethical Business Practices in Australia’s China Inbound Tourism Market, International Journal of Tourism Research, 8, 127–142.

Chaouachi, S., & Rached, K. (2012).Perceived Deception in Advertising: Proposition of a Measurement Scale. Journal of Marketing Research & Case Studies, Vol, 2012, pages 15.

Chonko, L., and Hunt, S. (2000), Ethics and Marketing Management: A Retrospective and Prospective Commentary. Journal of Business Research, 50, 235-244.

Darke, R., and Ritchie, R. (2007), The Defensive Consumer: Advertising Deception, Defensive Processing, and Distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (1), 113-127.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (1983). FTC Policy Statement on Deception, Retrieved 26 April 2018 from https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Gaber, H., Labib, A., & Salem, K. (2018), The Effect of Marketing Deception On Consumer Buying Decision On Facebook. An Empirical Study On University Students In Libya. European Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 6 (3), 12-18.

Germelmann, C., & Held, J. (2014), Deceived Or Not Deceived: How Food Consumers Perceive Deception", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 42, eds. June Cotte and Stacy Wood, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, 313-317.

Ghazi, K., & Ammar, S. (2018), International Tourists’ Attitudes and Satisfaction toward Airport F&B, and Duty-Free Concessions, Journal of Tourism Research, Review of Tourism Sciences, 20, 41-65.

Gubiniova, K. & Bartáková, G. (2017), Deceptive Practices Used in Contemporary Marketing Communication and their Evaluation from Customer Perspective in Slovak Republic, International Review of Management and Marketing, 7 (2), 300-307.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998), Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey, NJ:Prentice-Hall Inc.

Hashem, T. (2013), The Impact of Marketing Auditing on Employee’s Commitment with Marketing Ethics in Jordanian Five Star Hotels. Proceedings of International Conference on Tourism Development, February 2013.

Hersh, A., & Aladwan, K. (2014), Tourists perceive marketing deception through the promotional mix. Business Management Dynamics, 3, (12), 21-35.

Knani, M. (2014), Ethics in the Hospitality Industry: Review and Research Agenda, International Journal of Business and Management; 9 (3), 1-8.

Kotler, P. (2007). Marketing : An introduction. 8^th Edition, Prentic Hall, New Jersey.

Lee, L. Y. S. & Tsang, N. K. (2013), Perceptions of tourism and hotel management students on ethics in the workplace. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 13 (3), 228–250.

Lin, C., Morais, D., Kerstetter, D., & Hou, J. (2007), Examining the role of cognitive and affective image in predicting choice across natural, developed, and theme-park destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 183-194.

Management Science, 64 (3), 1291-1310.

Nekmahmud, M., Aktar, S., & Huq, S. (2016), Unethical Practices of Advertising in Bangladesh: A Case Study on Some Selective Products. International Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences. 4, (1), 10-19.

Nicolaides, A. (2018), Ethical Hospitality Marketing, Brand- Boosting and Business Sustainability. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 7 (1), 1-12.

Özdemir, E., & Tokol, T. (2009), Examining Marketing Mix from an Ethical View: A Field Research on Marketing Executives, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Middle East Virtual Library, 64 (2), 163-18.

Piccolo, S., Tedeschi, P. & Ursino, G. (2017), Deceptive Advertising with Rational Buyers.

Salaymeh, M. (2013), The Extent of Customers' Perception of the Ethical Commitment in the Marketing Mix: A Field Study on a Sample of Customers in the City of Irbid. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4 (4), 195-206.

Saunders, M, Lewis P, & Thornhill, A, (2009), Research Methods for Business Students. Fifth Edition. Financial Times, Prentice Hall.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013), Research methods for business: A sill building approach, John Wiley & sons, UK.

Serota, K., & Levine, T. (2013), Truth Bias and the Detection of Marketing Deception Truth Bias and the Detection of Marketing Deception, 35th ISMS Marketing Science Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, July 11-13.

Siham, B. (2013), Marketing Mix- An Area of Unethical Practices? British Journal of Marketing Studies, 1, (4), 20-28.

Slabbert, E., & Martin, M. (2017), Aspects influencing the cognitive, affective and conative images of an arts festival. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 6 (2),1-16.

The Free Dictionary (2018), Legal dictionary: Deceptive Marketing. Retrieved on 5 November 2018 from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deceptive+marketing

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2018), Definition of deception. Retrieved on 5 November 2018 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception

Tilikidou, I. & Delistavrou, A. (2011), Which Unethical Hotel Practices Cause Consumers’ Boycotts? International Conference Special Interest Tourism & Destination Management, Kathmandu Nepal, 27-30 April, 271-278.

Tipton, M., Sundar G., & Diana C. (2009), Regulatory Exposure of Deceptive Marketing and Its Impact on Firm Value. Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 227–43.

Ullah, N., & Hussain, M (2015), Impact of Unethical Advertising, Misleading Information or Deceptive Advertising on Customer Purchasing Intention with Mediating Effect of Word of Mouth: Case of Pakistan, International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 1, (4), 49-69.

Xie, G., & Boush, D. (2011), How susceptible are consumers to deceptive advertising claims? A retrospective look at the experimental research literature. The Marketing Review, 11 (3), 293–314.

Yaman, H. R. & Gurel, E. (2006). Ethical ideologies of tourism marketers. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 470–489.

Yaman, H. R. & Gurel, E. (2006). Ethical ideologies of tourism marketers. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(2), 470–489.

Yeung, S. (2004). Hospitality Ethics Curriculum: An Industry Hospitality Ethics Curriculum: Perspective International, Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16 (4), 253-262.

Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Journal of Tourism Management, 31(2), 274–284.

Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996), The behavioral consequences of service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.