Today tourism has become an important sector which directly impacts on economical development of a country. It helps in reducing unemployment, improving financial condition and developing infrastructure of societies as well. Present report is going to make some arguments whether luxury products like washing will devalue the luxury tourism.
In tourism sector, going after niche markets is not only considered as a trend but also the future itself for hotel industries. Therefore, the way targeting a niche market can aid hotels to generate high revenue and profitability. As per current market trend analysis, it has evaluated that for enhancing tourism, hotel sectors are emphasized more on serving luxurious products to tourists. It includes luxury or branded washing products like shampoo, hand wash, detergents and more (Som and Blanckaert, 2015). Such industries thought that serving such type of luxury products to tourists when they stay at their hotels, help in getting retention of them for longer period. As such products negatively impact on nature therefore, company has to concern about green-washing rather than luxury-washing. It may misleading or often devalue the luxury tourism because people concern more using green-washing products rather than luxury-washing.
Argument 1: “Serving luxury-washing products is beneficial for increasing luxury experience”
As per views of Hoffmann and Coste-Manière (2016), it has evaluated that in order to develop niche market and exceed satisfaction level of customers, hotel industries concerns more on providing luxurious services. They serve luxury or high branded washing and cosmetics products to tourists. This would help in increasing luxury-experience.
Argument 2: “ Luxury-washing products impact affect environment”
According to opinion of Kunwar (2017), detergents or luxury-washing products adversely affect aquatic life because it includes sufficient amount of biodegradable and chemical agents. It destroys the external mucus layer of water which protects aquatic animals from bacteria and parasites. Along with this, soap, detergents and other washing products whether belongs to branded or non-branded contained high amount of hydrocarbons. Therefore, carbon footprint cause various harmful effects on nature also. Thus, for enhancing tourism, hotel industries have to stop usage of such products and increase awareness among public also about serious effects of it.
Argument 3: “Luxury-washing products are harmful for human body which devalue the luxury tourism as well”
As per scientific concern, it has evaluated that washing products create skin rashes and other inflammations on human body. It includes harmful chemicals like hydrocarbons, ammonium citric acid, ethanol, ester, and more. All these chemicals affects skin body therefore, using such products by tourists impact negatively on their luxury experience.
Argument 4: “Green-washing and luxury-washing both are different concepts”
According to views of Braun and et. al. (2015), Developing awareness among public to prevent nature, water bodies and other aspects of ecosystem, assists organisations to stop usage of chemicals. In context with hotel industries, for increasing value of luxury-tourisms, they must concern on providing green-washing instead of luxury-washing. It will enhance brand image of hotel in eyes of tourists and increase their customer base as well.
As per this report, it has evaluated that to go with niche market, hotel industries should concern on using green-washing products. They should stop using luxury or branded washing products which affect ecosystem and living beings.
- Som, A. and Blanckaert, C., 2015. The Road to Luxury: The evolution, markets, and strategies of luxury brand management. John Wiley & Sons.
- Hoffmann, J. and Coste-Manière, I. Eds., 2016. Luxury strategy in action. Springer.
- Kunwar, R. R., 2017. What is Hospitality?. The Gaze: Journal of Tourism and Hospitality. 8. pp.55-115.
- Braun, Y.A. and et. al., 2015. Up against the wall: ecotourism, development, and social justice in Costa Rica. Journal of Global Ethics. 11(3). pp.351-365.