Abstract
On most days, one of my morning routines is to turn on the radio and listen to Morning Edition, a program that airs every weekday on National Public Radio. In addition to world events and typical news stories, the program also includes a segment on business. One of the recent business stories focused on crop insurance. For those who may not be familiar, crop insurance is purchased by farmers to protect themselves against losses that may stem from natural disasters or declines in commodity prices. However, in contrast to other types of insurance that can vary widely in price, coverage, and the claims process, this program is completely standardized and funded by the federal government through taxpayer dollars.
This topic is quite salient for two reasons. First, much of our nation is suffering through a very debilitating drought. Thus, record claims are expected this year. This is bad news for everyone. Moreover, in light of the pending national election, this program will certainly be the subject of some intense political debate. This too, I would argue, is bad news for everyone.
However, rather than focusing on climate change, economic implications, or how the Democratic and Republican candidates may view this program, the reporter focused on a topic that made me think even more deeply about my recent pleas to approach the research process in a less linear, more broad-minded manner. Specifically, the reporter noted that since the government sets the rate premiums, the insurance providers cannot compete on price. Thus, customer service is the only real differentiator for insurance sellers. The reporter then featured two salespeople who used some rather interesting methods to generate and maintain loyalty among their client base—from typical glad-handing tactics, to exploiting some rather intimate knowledge about a competitor’s clients to promote defection (i.e., switching behaviors).
As I was listening, I started thinking how the approaches used by these two crop insurance salespeople could be applied in hospitality settings to better engage customers and enhance the service experience. So, in addition to looking beyond our own disciplines for inspiration, as I emphasized in my last two From the Editor messages, we should also be looking at other industries as a means for generating new ideas, approaches, and solutions to the issues that are important for the hospitality industry. Certainly other service-related contexts can serve as good referents—insurance, retail, banking, health care, and the like. But I also contend that there are lessons to be learned from companies that operate in the high tech and manufacturing segments, and even government and nonprofit organizations. The primary lesson for me is that we need to continue to challenge ourselves to go beyond the typical linear, formulaic approach that characterizes most of our research efforts. Keeping our eyes, ears, and minds as open as possible will enable all of us to offer more value-adding insights.
I would also like to issue a special thanks and congratulations to the following individuals who were honored as the journal’s Outstanding Reviewers for 2011-2012. They have been particularly instrumental in supporting our mission, and have challenged me to continue expanding our horizons.
Editorial Board
Ken Brown, University of Iowa Rob Law, Hong Kong Polytechnic University TC Huan, National Chiayi University
Ad hoc
Eric Brey, University of Memphis Philippe Duverger, Towson University Torvald Øgaard, University of Stavanger