Airbnb rental revenues have plunged in some parts of the US, this chart suggests
marketwatch.com
marketwatch.com
For 1+ week stays AirBNBs make more sense (family vacay, larger house with children), though it seems like the house owner lists the same house on VRBO and for whatever reason prices it slightly cheaper there, so I just book it at the cheaper place.
It’s pretty sharp in my mind because it always frustrates me so much.
What’s the fee difference like for hosts on Airbnb vs vrbo?
Also, lots of hotels have rooms with kitchens in them.
At most, all you really need is a mini fridge to store take out and alcohol.
The only use case I can think of for having a full kitchen, fridge, and other amenities is for temporary workers. Maybe a company has their consultants stay at an AirBnB with the aforementioned amenities and in an attempt to reel in the costs, will only approve business meals with clients and personal meal expenses if cooked at the STR (ie, grocery store line items).
Edit: would add, in some places, your takeout/dining choices vapourize on some days of the week or holidays.
I'm not imposing restaurants with my weird dietary restrictions.
- Some people like to cook. I ran into a guy on a recent vacation to Lyon (one of the best cities for restaurants in the world) who was in a rental house because he wanted to cook himself at least every other dinner.
- Some people can't afford to eat out every meal and can save a lot by cooking many of their meals
- As others have mentioned: people with families
- Sometimes you're in an area without good eating-out options. If you're in a rural area, your options might be "drive 30m into town" or "wait 1 hour for the exactly one pizza delivery place."
- Sometimes you're in a place for a specific reason, and that reason's not food. For example, I've visited the Tahoe area in California to ski. I'm not there to experience Tahoe cuisine - I'm happy to make simple dinners every night and spend the rest of my time doing what I'm there to do.
There are a ton of reasons to want a full kitchen, depending on your needs + style of travel.
Why do people put up with this shit, especially on vacation? Why go on vacation to do chores afterwards? May as well stay home and not have to pay for the experience.
Staying for more than a few days in a hotel is depressing and claustrophobic.
Want to gather with your family in a big house for some holiday? There isn't really anything else other than Airbnb (or Vrbo, which has many of the same issues). Some very heavily vacation-oriented places have hotels that rent out properties of that sort, but in most places this isn't an available product category.
Buuuut even with this said, I'm very hesitant to stay in Airbnbs nowadays.
I just had a terrible experience a month ago - rented a vacation house that had great reviews and looked great. Arrived after a red-eye flight and a long drive... and the lockbox code is wrong. The house is also in the woods so there was no cell reception, so drove a half hour to the nearest area with reception, contacted the host (hosts are never available on Airbnb, naturally), sorted that out, and got into the house... and it was filthy. Top to bottom filthy with air fresheners in every room to cover the smell.
Immediately left and booked a room at the local Hampton Inn, which was overall a far superior experience. Airbnb in all of their grace only gave me ~70% back despite y'know, a totally unusable product. I'm still out over ~$1,000 over the whole thing, and Airbnb seems entirely ok with... what feels a lot like fraud?
The reliability of the Airbnb experience is so poor that I'm at this point completely unwilling to hinge a family vacation on it. It's like rolling a 1d6 and needing to score 3 or above. Just way too risky.
And of course you’re just dealing with a corporation. It’s not someone’s personal home. The management might be weird at a hotel or something but that weirdness would still be spread across many more units-and it has other mechanisms and people in play to normalize the whole experience. AirBnB seems much more ripe for abuse.
> Why do people put up with this shit, especially on vacation? Why go on vacation to do chores afterwards? May as well stay home and not have to pay for the experience.
Shrug. The way we use it, it's more like temporarily owning a vacation home than being in a hotel. With the good and the bad of that. Lots of space and beds for way less money than that'd cost in a hotel. Easy access to a washer and dryer, full kitchen, full-size fridge with freezer, and often in locations without any options for normal hotels. Far nicer to hang out in/around than hotel rooms, short of luxury suites and such. But you also can't be quite as messy as some people are comfortable being in a hotel—if we e.g. get crumbs all over the carpet or track a little dirt in, we vacuum it up like we would at home, rather than just grinding it into the fibers and leaving it to the cleaners. We'd do that in hotels, too, if they had a vacuum in the room. It's really not a big deal.
The ones we do avoid by staying in hotels or AirBnBs—either—are things like dusting, whole-house floor cleaning, laundering bedding (entirely, in all but one case, and in that exception we only had to do like 5% of the work, it took less time than stopping to refuel the car on a long drive, or many airport security lines), cleaning bathrooms, weeding landscaping beds, mowing the lawn, stuff like that. We get that benefit in both. Basically the same thing you'd get having a once- or twice-a-week cleaning service and a lawn service.
I get that maybe some AirBnBs really do have absurd "chore lists", but nearly all the ones I've stayed at, we're talking like 15 minutes of effort for a whole week, maybe, that might have been avoided by staying in a hotel. Basically, take out the trash and don't leave dirty dishes scattered around the whole house. It's super not a big deal.
As for the chore list, I may recall a couple annoying ones from years past, but usually it's a non-issue. Though unfortunately I don't think this is something you know until after you book.
AirBnB cleaning fees are the same garbage as eBay sales for $1.99, $50 shipping, and should be banned by policy.
This is really the kicker. Not only is the phenomenon really shitty, but Airbnb's refusal to police the practice shows that their interests are firmly aligned against actual guests and instead aligned with hosts.
A lot of the platform's problems come down to this alignment problem. As Airbnb has matured as a service I've found that hosts have gotten lazier and lazier - the chore lists are a relatively recent phenomenon of the last few years. The platform is rife with "hosts" who have no interest in actually running a hospitality business, and are only interested in passive income, and Airbnb itself refuses to uphold any consistent bar and forcing poor hosts off.
This has been wildly destructive to the trustworthiness of the business.
I would be more willing to attribute this stuff to growing pains if I didn't feel like these issues are only symptoms of a significant misalignment between guests and Airbnb corporate.
A fee is something additional, tacked on for something special, something that I can avoid.
Like a car rental 'return with have a tank of gas'-fee. I can avoid that.
But I am sick of these websites that show price X, but then tack on 5 fees that I cannot avoid.
Hotels with resort fee. I can't avoid it, ergo it should be part of the base price.
Restaurants with extra fees to pay their people extra. Can't avoid it, should be part of the base price.
It's becoming harder and harder to compare things. Nothing is stopping people from wanting X per night, but advertising X-Y and adding fees to make up for Y. And that is deceptive advertising.
These are a result of some jurisdictions, such as certain municipalities, having it within their bylaws/legislation that these fees must be applied and that they must appear as separate line items (like taxes). The result is the effect you see, where the displayed price does not include those fees due to the nature of the rest of the markets not having such fees and coding in those edge cases is like dealing with taxes... A near impossible task to keep up with.
The outcome is that the systems are built to allow such additional fees and by default (or exclusively) they are not included in the base price (which is generally the same across markets).
And thus we have what we have... And some abuse this to add even more fees of course.
Something being a separate line item does not mean it can't appear in the total price. You have to intentionally build a system to be that deceptive.
Most non-American jurisdictions include tax in the listed price. Even AirBNB does for German customers: https://i.imgur.com/j7ot5xz.png
No, right?
Try it then get back to me.
Again, they already do this for most other countries.
They wouldn't unless it was legally required...
And that ITS STILL A SEPARATE LINE ITEM NOT INCLUDED IN THE DISPLAY PRICE
Argumentum Ad Nauseum is generally a type of fallacious conduct
Given this, you're quickly reaching the point where explicit and nearly aggressive derision is deserved
You are aware how challenging writing a date system is, right?
Well taxes are even worse And have to be updated frequently (often more than once a year).
The cost is absurd.
Can’t remember if you should book directly or change to .com or whatever to complete the booking.
Shouldn’t be necessary, but gotta do what I gotta do.
eBay deprioritizes listings like those, and is generally up-front with fixed&calculated shipping costs.
In an effort to compete with Amazon, eBay really wants sellers to offer free shipping but sellers hate it because it’s often not a fixed cost (especially here in Canada).
eBay used to exclude shipping costs from their commissions. So sellers, like me, used to list things for $0.01 and $X shipping (literally in the title) until eBay caught on.
But nobody was stopping you from paying more for the same item with realistic/free shipping.
Edit to add: we have one Airbnb apartment, and zero chores for guests to do; our cleaners get our cleaning fee and we have laundry costs on top of that. Not all Airbnbs are a ripoff.
AirBnB wins for longer stays with more guests, or if you want to stay somewhere without hotels (but with houses) and also don't want to camp.
Stopping one night on a leg of a long drive, not really doing anything in the room except sleeping for a few hours: hotel/motel tends to win by a long shot. Staying somewhere for several nights with a family of 4+ or a group of friends or something: AirBnB (and similar services) tends to win.
Unless your co-traveller (spouse or not) snores like a motorcycle and having a room to stuff them in (or escape to) has a ton of value.
Oh hello my mother-in-law, didn’t expect to see you here… uhhh…
Never really tested the upper bound of what I’m allowed to pay per night, but I do live comfortably. The megacorp I work for has a booking system we’re supposed to use, but I’ve never used it. I figured if I bend the rules to everyone’s advantage, no one will complain.
Generally I use booking.com(for those sweet sweet miles & more points) or call the establishment directly to get the best possible price.
I don't think I ever had an excellent rental experience. There is always something broken. Something not as advertised. Pictures are often deceiving. It is often difficult to deal with the host, as some are trying to make it their primary income and managing several properties. The chore lists are pathetic.
I would rather pay more and get a consistent experience from a hotel/resort.
We always travel with our kids, so multiple attached bedrooms is important, and something you pretty much cannot find in hotels without spending obscene amounts. Most hotels won't even guarantee consecutive rooms, let alone attached.
This business need to be suffocated to death by local municipalities. Where I live, they just earmarked just over $1M to start tackling the problem. It's been illegal for a long time here but we have over 1500 illegal units operating in a town of 150k people.
FWIW, between my two sisters and my mother, they have 8 airbnb units. Love them dearly, want them to succeed, but nightly rentals are just contributing to the already fractured housing problem and it's only getting worse. We need to send a message that our homes we built for people to live in are indeed homes and not another financial instrument.
[0] https://www.independent.com/2023/04/26/santa-barbara-vows-to...
EDIT:
My brother and I were talking yesterday how govt probably won't solve the problem efficiently. We came up with the solution of a bounty program for ordinary people to collect the necessary info to turn in illegal op units and collect part of the fine assessed to the illegal operator. Self governing system.
> The #1 Real Estate Channel on YouTube with over 4 Million Monthly Views.
vs
> Chief Economist, SVP of Analytics @AirDNA, tracking performance and explaining trends in short-term rentals
Gerli is clearly incentivized by "shock value" content (he's a YouTuber) and Lane is incentivized by telling people the market is okay, however I'm inclined to believe Lane on this one. I've also used both AllTheRooms and AirDNA and AirDNA appears much more accurate (YMMV).
Second, lots of those Top 10 destinations are bachelor party destinations. Nashville, Austin, PHX/Scottsdale come to mind. These were once lucrative ABNB destinations ("8 bros in a shared house"), because large groups get better economics, easier communications/logistics, etc. So, it's no surprise with higher inventory of people chasing that demand that prices will eventually come down and settle.
Why would enshittification not apply to airbnb? Of course it does. The honeymoon (fed printing money) is over, the party is over. 2022 was the first year ever airbnb had a positive net income, such things don't come easy.
Short term rentals should be heavily taxed since they are a business, not a home.
Also, this trick only works once. After we've eliminated global tourism to add fewer than 5% more houses globally, we cannot do it again next year and forever after to keep prices down while we continue to allocate increasingly more of society's wealth to the fixed supply of housing.
A lot of them are what I think most people would call “starter houses”, relatively cheap pragmatic homes in decent areas. I would assume it has to do with people maybe upgrading houses and doing short term rentals on their first house and probably just that if you’re looking to invest in real estate they’re of course cheaper and a good fit for airbnb style short term rentals. I don’t know though I’d also assume it’s such a pain in the ass to manage that most people would rather sell and get money towards a new house.
>Police allege MacDougall used a fake name to rent a home on an online short-term rental app and obtained the homeowner's identity information while inside. According to police, MacDougall then allegedly used that information to impersonate the homeowner and secure a mortgage from a private lender, making away with the proceeds.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/short-term-rental-mor...
The former group effectively improves local housing affordability by decreasing the latter or pushing developers towards residential construction instead of hotel construction.
Imagine a world where every family was allowed to own a single house or apartment only.
All rental properties were owned by the city or whatever other local government, and housing for rental was built to be sustainable and non-profit.
I wonder if more people would be able to buy a house/apartment for themselves and their family in such a world.
Also with all rental properties being government-owned there would be zero uniqueness and everyone would be forced to make due with whatever the government thought they needed. A good example of this is old Soviet-style tower blocks, where no matter how big your family you get the same size apartment.
At least with the current system, people who want to rent detached homes are able to. Your system would suffer from the alternating cycles of austerity that seem to plague governments and the tower blocks would gradually lose all amenities and everything would become exactly the same for the same price.
I'm not sure that's better than the current system. A better system would just prohibit private equity from buying real estate and renting it. I think a lot of the housing price increases are due to PE firms buying rental houses and then farming their management out to local management companies.
That part is just not true. See Vienna.
This is public housing: https://www.wien.info/en/sightseeing/sights/hundertwasser-ho...
So is this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE
I'd rather not live next to a revolving door of strangers.
Interesting thing about this argument is, I feel like this assumes there are no benefits of short term rentals for locals. Specially, I see this closely in a small tourist town (not sure how it changes with a big city), but in a small tourist town there's limited supply of hotels and they are generally much more expensive. If you allow airbnb, some home owners prefer short term rentals and so affects supply for long term rentals but, that also means it benefits local home owners, also generate more taxes as most places now have higher taxes for short term rentals, which one can argue is used back to fund stuff in the local community. Also in a small town, many businesses depend on the tourists, so more tourists mean more benefit for local businesses and where locals are employed. So, keeping long term rental prices down for locals by suppressing short term rentals comes at an expense of locals, isn't it?
That was my point, the "rest of them" is another subsection of the same local population. I am not sure I understand why some think benefiting one subsection is OK while not the other.
Anyway, this entire comment sub thread seems to head towards incorrect/inadequate incentives/regulation. Seems like fixing that is perhaps a better course than to throw out an entire industry that obviously many locals and visitors want and use.
I'm not against them benefiting. I'm against them driving up rents and driving people out of their homes to do so.
I do not see any analysis that even tries to obtain/study these numbers, measure the trade offs and evaluate the net impact on a society. I feel these are more emotional arguments than rational, seeming to stem from home owner must be richer, and so we got to help the renter. There's so much nuance, is it a small tourist town, mid tier city, big city, available housing supply, home owner and renter demographics - a small ski town might have lot of seasonal workers for half a year, renters might not even be locals in that case, obviously different in other places. Who are the home owners? locals, out of town investment home owners, corporations owning fleets of houses, how can there be one size fit all answer without evidence/data.
They contract direct with owners and the experience is much more streamlined. Otherwise we only do hotels. Airbnb is dead to me
Plus, all the cleaning fees and other things people have mentioned.
Also, it seems like some hosts are not a good fit to be in the AirBnB business. The hosts that are super paranoid about every guest or what is happening in their home - and are the type to use cameras or stop by unannounced, etc. It’s like an Uber driver who is ultra protective of their car. They shouldn’t be in the Uber business. There is a balance and some just aren’t suited to be an AirBnB hosts.