Our Commitment to Trust & Safety(blog.airbnb.com)
blog.airbnb.com
Our Commitment to Trust & Safety
http://blog.airbnb.com/our-commitment-to-trust-and-safety
50 comments
The author of the blog post has a creepy picture at the top of the post. I would change that to something less scary...
though he humbly suggests the opposite, this is a great example of how to deal with a crisis
I think it's fantastic that they're implementing this, but it's still rather depressing that it took a month of time and a weekend of bad PR to get them to do it in the first place.
the fact that AirBNB has managed to implement an international insurance/guarantee program in as little as a month is a heroic feat.
To be fair, they've said they'll implement it, not that it's implemented already. The truth of this will be shown when someone who isn't EJ and isn't riding on the crest of a wave of internet pitchforks tries to collect.
it's going into effect in 15 days. that's pretty good.
They have $112m. They can self-insure for as long as it takes to set it up.
I think they did a great job on this response, except that it took too long. Individual incidents should have been handled as exceptions and handled well, and then this policy developed and announced once they noticed a trend of such exceptions in their CRM (or in weekly support team meetings with the founders)
I think they did a great job on this response, except that it took too long. Individual incidents should have been handled as exceptions and handled well, and then this policy developed and announced once they noticed a trend of such exceptions in their CRM (or in weekly support team meetings with the founders)
you can't just snap your fingers and self insure. there are a tangle of regulations to think through, claims processes to setup in a variety of languages, adjusters and investigators to train, policies to write, etc.
the fact that this is the first major incident to make headlines after 2 million nights being booked means that they have probably been doing a great job handling exceptions. mistakes happen. especially in fast growing companies.
the fact that this is the first major incident to make headlines after 2 million nights being booked means that they have probably been doing a great job handling exceptions. mistakes happen. especially in fast growing companies.
This is pretty much exactly what they should be doing. The fact that it took them several weeks to do it is what constitutes a poor response to the crisis.
Regardless, it looks like they're doing what they should be doing, and I hope it works out both for them and their customers.
Regardless, it looks like they're doing what they should be doing, and I hope it works out both for them and their customers.
I disagree. Changing your support model to a 24 hour call center in a month is a big, impressive feat. Think of the hiring/training/management/infrastructure challenges.
Not to mention the insurance policy, which is international?
This is not trivial stuff. It would take most companies several months to even get close to this.
Not to mention the insurance policy, which is international?
This is not trivial stuff. It would take most companies several months to even get close to this.
Granted, but this is a PR statement. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is "in the process of beginning to implement" stages, not "We were waiting to have everything fully functional before making a statement about it".
But that said, yes, good on them.
>>It would take most companies several months to even get close to this.
I think that if a company's ability to remain in business was dependent on getting this sort of infrastructure change in place, most would be able to pull it off. Pulling it off well is another question entirely, and I'm going to be interested to see what kind of service they provide in the next couple of months.
But that said, yes, good on them.
>>It would take most companies several months to even get close to this.
I think that if a company's ability to remain in business was dependent on getting this sort of infrastructure change in place, most would be able to pull it off. Pulling it off well is another question entirely, and I'm going to be interested to see what kind of service they provide in the next couple of months.
I agree that these are no small feat, and while I honestly think that these things were huge gaps in the service previously, I do applaud the quick implementation of them.
However, even if they could not be implemented immediately, coming out early, before the story really blew up, talking about it openly and frankly, and announcing these changes would have done wonders. Instead, they've been beaten up in the press for the last week or two for their relative silence.
However, even if they could not be implemented immediately, coming out early, before the story really blew up, talking about it openly and frankly, and announcing these changes would have done wonders. Instead, they've been beaten up in the press for the last week or two for their relative silence.
I wonder if this will be killed like http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2834066 ...
Let's definitely discuss this instead of the $50k guarantee and 24/7 support Airbnb just announced.
Those articles were killed because they essentially added nothing new to a tired plethora of similar or same articles.
The point of that article was more that this had hit CNN than any new information about the event itself. Pretty meta, but not unreasonable.
Worth noting that my original title said just that ("Airbnb horror" story hits CNN) - and that this was corrected by a mod or automated process within a minute of posting... but not instantly.
And from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2834426 I hear that EJ's story was also retitled to be less enticing.
Sounds like some nice double-standard going on here, considering this one maintains its title. I'm sure it will be blamed on "the gremlins in the automated system"... funny how they seem to favour YC startups in the middle of a big funding round.
And from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2834426 I hear that EJ's story was also retitled to be less enticing.
Sounds like some nice double-standard going on here, considering this one maintains its title. I'm sure it will be blamed on "the gremlins in the automated system"... funny how they seem to favour YC startups in the middle of a big funding round.
Even if it is because they favored YC startups - so what? This message board is run by the founder of YC and isn't meant for posting sensational articles whenever one of their companies gets caught in the spotlight.
I refreshed after reading your comment and the title had changed. Maybe the gremlins heard you, or maybe the automated system runs on a schedule.
Seems like a disconnect regarding how the up arrow is defined on Hacker News and how it's actually used. I imagine most users use it to promotion awareness of submissions to the site ... but HN describes all up-voted posts as "Saved Stories" in the link from your profile page. Different people save stories for different reasons ... so maybe the "Saved Stories" link could use a better name.
A story can't be killed if it has ten comments on it. You were one away. I asked a question that died with 61 points. But knowing that it only takes 10 flags to kill a story, I wouldn't be surprise to know that AirBnB has ten diehard supporters.
I'm not particularly a supporter of AirBnB.
I'm just a supporter of a crap-free HN. Thus, I flag stories that don't add anything new to the discussion. I know there are at least ten others like me...
I'm just a supporter of a crap-free HN. Thus, I flag stories that don't add anything new to the discussion. I know there are at least ten others like me...
[deleted]
Well, this certainly drags AirBnb into the eBay and PayPal sized fraud prevention industry... and I wonder how this will affect the vibe of the website. Certainly, AirBnB will survive this ordeal, and gain more name recognition from this event. Hopefully it doesn't do things like kill their profit margins or harm the ease of renting through AirBnb.
Implementing a 24-hour customer service phone line for their host partners immediately puts Airbnb head-and-shoulders above eBay and PayPal in the trust and reliability department.
It's not the same level of challenge as eBay and Paypal. Are Nigerians going to buy houses in SF so they can pretend to have them robbed?
eBay and Paypal's #1 way of avoiding fraud is by validating physical addresses. AirBnB has this built in. Something tells me their insurance policy doesn't apply to shacks in Nigeria.
eBay and Paypal's #1 way of avoiding fraud is by validating physical addresses. AirBnB has this built in. Something tells me their insurance policy doesn't apply to shacks in Nigeria.
I think the only part of it that wasn't inevitable was the up to $50k reimbursement, that shouldn't bankrupt them if the incidence rate stays low. Their support team growth was almost definitely going to have to double (and prob more) this and next year anyway.
If done right, I think they'll gain more credibility through these measures and lure more people from using other services. And with the financing they have, they'll have a greater capacity to execute this than imitators.
Seems like a pretty good response to the situation, especially the host insurance, 24-hour customer service, and improved guest verification.
For Brian Chesky's sake I hope the SFPD actually have a suspect in custody this time.
For Brian Chesky's sake I hope the SFPD actually have a suspect in custody this time.
Great news, thanks for the link. From the article:
On 06/28/11 the SFPD through investigative leads conducted a search of a premise in Belmont, CA. Two people were detained, but released pending further investigation. The search yielded some of the items that were taken in the theft.
Later on that night through investigative leads, SFPD officers made an arrest of Faith Clifton, female, white, 19 years of age of San Francisco. Faith was booked into San Francisco County Jail that night on possession of stolen property, methamphetamine, fraud charges and outstanding warrant out of Milpitas, CA.
SFPD has been in contact with the victim and have been in contact with the website company, who has provided as much information as possible in this matter.
On 06/28/11 the SFPD through investigative leads conducted a search of a premise in Belmont, CA. Two people were detained, but released pending further investigation. The search yielded some of the items that were taken in the theft.
Later on that night through investigative leads, SFPD officers made an arrest of Faith Clifton, female, white, 19 years of age of San Francisco. Faith was booked into San Francisco County Jail that night on possession of stolen property, methamphetamine, fraud charges and outstanding warrant out of Milpitas, CA.
SFPD has been in contact with the victim and have been in contact with the website company, who has provided as much information as possible in this matter.
I like it when startups / companies learn from their mistakes and make an effort to improve things. Nothing is perfect, but striving for perfection is a good aim. I posted my own lessons learned from this affair in hopes that I'd never experience the same. Some people thought my lessons learned were lame, but it's clear that there are lessons to be learned by everyone in this, whether you are AirBnB or just a growing startup.
I bet the vandalizer feels pretty smug about himself right now.
Say what? Not sure where you're going with that. You think this whole incident was just to provoke AirBnB into responding?
I'm just saying that somebody that immature is probably happy with himself that he caused such a big mess.
A $50,000 guarantee seems a bit low. Condos in OK neighborhoods here in Chicago start at around 200K so theoretically a lot more than 50K in damage could be done.
As a home owner and someone who has used airbnb, trust me, $50k will more than cover everything in pretty much every place airbnb rents out.
Just because someplace costs $200k doesn't mean it costs $200k to rebuild from the ground up (a lot is in property, structure, etc...). Realistically, you'd really have to try hard to do $50k+ damage to a typical airbnb property without the cops being called as it is happening.
Just because someplace costs $200k doesn't mean it costs $200k to rebuild from the ground up (a lot is in property, structure, etc...). Realistically, you'd really have to try hard to do $50k+ damage to a typical airbnb property without the cops being called as it is happening.
Realistically, you'd really have to try hard to do $50k+ damage
I think tipping over a candle should do that nicely. Not much effort needed.
I think tipping over a candle should do that nicely. Not much effort needed.
"Just because someplace costs $200k doesn't mean it costs $200k to rebuild from the ground up "
In Dallas (where I live), a structure usually costs much more to tear down and rebuild new than it is currently worth. For example, you might get a mortgage on a $250,000 10yo house here yet your insurance will be for $375,000 for that reason.
In Dallas (where I live), a structure usually costs much more to tear down and rebuild new than it is currently worth. For example, you might get a mortgage on a $250,000 10yo house here yet your insurance will be for $375,000 for that reason.
True. I was just thinking of typical airbnb apartment rentals, where the property owner only owns the "walls-in" portion of the unit.
Yet a renter will still be held responsible by the owners of the building if anything outside of their possessions is destroyed.
Only if they are negligent or worse. Landlords carry insurance on the structure. Tenants are responsible for contents of their apartment.
Hopefully if you rent and use Airbnb, you have a renter's insurance policy with high liability limits.
Hopefully if you rent and use Airbnb, you have a renter's insurance policy with high liability limits.
[deleted]
I'm not saying they are, but I'm sure if the structure was destroyed by a sub-letter there is a good chance the landlord's insurer would allege the tenant was negligent.
An unbounded guarantee isn't necessarily reasonable or practical.
On the other hand, your concern probably presages an eventual headline of the future: "AirBnb guests burn down host's home; AirBnb guarantee only covers less than 10% of loss."
On the other hand, your concern probably presages an eventual headline of the future: "AirBnb guests burn down host's home; AirBnb guarantee only covers less than 10% of loss."
$50,000 is on the low side for a freestanding house (house fires are in the high tens of thousands of dollars), but seems totally reasonable for an apartment.
You wonder how much of the concern about the specifics of this announcement really reflect the typical HNer's lack of comfort with the Airbnb model, period. Remember, lots of people on HN would never be comfortable renting their place out period. And that's fine; those people aren't Airbnb customers right now. Plenty of people obviously do find the transaction palatable.
Similarly, terrible incidents like this happen without the fancy Rails app to facilitate them. Ask around for subletting horror stories. How often do we as a community freak out over the concept of subletting? A giant slice of all renters have to consider doing that any time they need to get out of a lease.
You wonder how much of the concern about the specifics of this announcement really reflect the typical HNer's lack of comfort with the Airbnb model, period. Remember, lots of people on HN would never be comfortable renting their place out period. And that's fine; those people aren't Airbnb customers right now. Plenty of people obviously do find the transaction palatable.
Similarly, terrible incidents like this happen without the fancy Rails app to facilitate them. Ask around for subletting horror stories. How often do we as a community freak out over the concept of subletting? A giant slice of all renters have to consider doing that any time they need to get out of a lease.
Right. I've sub-let an apartment and I was definitely concerned before I did it. If I'm super uncomfortable renting to someone through AirBnB, I'm just not their target market and I suppose a 50K guarantee would probably cover a lot of mishaps.
Also, I'm not sure what the terms are of my homeowners insurance but I would make sure that something would be covered in a situation like this before I rented my place.
Also, I'm not sure what the terms are of my homeowners insurance but I would make sure that something would be covered in a situation like this before I rented my place.
Is it possible to damage a condo, without damaging the neighboring units, in such a way that it would cost more than $50k to repair? (Spraying putrescine doesn't count. I don't know why.)
in the event of someone owning a condo or house, damages to the structure would probably be covered by homeowners insurance
renting out your house for money gives the insurance company an out because your homeowners policy is for personal use. see http://blog.agrawals.org/2011/08/01/answers-on-insurance-air...
If you're worried about completely having to rebuild your 200K+ house, maybe you shouldn't be using AirBnB?
I don't use AirBnB - not because I don't trust them but because I don't trust random strangers to use my home. But that's just me.
I don't use AirBnB - not because I don't trust them but because I don't trust random strangers to use my home. But that's just me.
Awesome response and the right thing to do for everyone's sake.
I wonder how they're now going to prevent fraud.
Surely the same way any insurance company does? This is well trodden ground.
I wonder too.. They are proposing a worldwide guarantee, how could they verify each claim?..By partnerships with insurance companies all over the world?
Presumably by not paying out except in the case of a successful police investigation.
Yes this kind of thing is hardly sustainable, I think it may just be a smart PR move and they'll hugely downsize it or cancel it in the next months, after the storm has passed.
What? Why is this hard to sustain? This is a non sequitor reply.
It's unsustainable only if they pay out to everyone who cries wolf.
Will this submission have it's title changed to the original post ("Our Commitment to Trust & Safety"), as was done for the original submission of EJ's blog post?
EDIT: Here's to consistency! Title has been (presumably mod-) edited.
EDIT: Here's to consistency! Title has been (presumably mod-) edited.
Will this submission have it's title changed to the original post ("Our Commitment to Trust & Safety")
Yes, let's stick with the original title. Using original article titles is preferred according to HN guidelines.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823020
(Report of an exception to this principle)
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(The actual text of the guidelines)
After edit: The submission title has been changed to match the original article title in this thread. I wonder if that will happen in the thread from last week I linked to in the link shown just above this P.S.
Yes, let's stick with the original title. Using original article titles is preferred according to HN guidelines.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2823020
(Report of an exception to this principle)
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(The actual text of the guidelines)
After edit: The submission title has been changed to match the original article title in this thread. I wonder if that will happen in the thread from last week I linked to in the link shown just above this P.S.
[deleted]
"Terms will apply to the program and may vary (e.g. by country)."
What are the T&C's I can't find them?
What are the T&C's I can't find them?
They should be interesting to read, since the current statment - "personal property will be covered for loss or damage due to vandalism or theft caused by an Airbnb guest" - offers a whole lot of wiggle-room.
For example, what about non-personal property? If I live in a rental apartment, put it on Airbnb, it gets trashed, and my landlord says I have to fix it up...will the policy cover that? It's damage, but it's not damage to the personal property of the person connected to Airbnb.
For example, what about non-personal property? If I live in a rental apartment, put it on Airbnb, it gets trashed, and my landlord says I have to fix it up...will the policy cover that? It's damage, but it's not damage to the personal property of the person connected to Airbnb.
So they're turning into an insurance company? Will they have auditors?
It's amazing that someone would admit that they f*ed up with such humility. I hope people are as quick to appreciate AirBnB as they were to criticise them.
I'm guessing a call from certain interested investors put Brian on the right course as he mangled this over the past few weeks. A good lesson for us all going forward on what to put in place first.
Two things immediately pop out from this:
"Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post trying to explain the situation, but it didn’t reflect my true feelings."
I'm not sure how I feel about this line (I assume it's referring to his TC post). On one hand, it's nice that he's now 'fessing up with a this-is-how-I-feel post. On the other, it's a pretty clear admission that he's had no problems in the past sending out PR spin as a blog post under his own name - so what should make the reader think this (or any future posts) are actually him, and not more spin? It seems like it's muddling the authenticity of the message a bit.
"In working with the San Francisco Police Department, we are happy to say a suspect is now in custody."
Haven't they been saying this for a while, and each time they do, it turns out that when someone tries to verify it with SFPD, the suspect isn't in custody (because they've been extradited to another community)?
As for the potential for fraud, that doesn't concern me that much. If they're doing a blanket insurance policy like this, then they're contracting it out to a legit insurance company - who will presumably have adjusters and claims people who will investigate every claim, the same as other forms of consumer insurance (like you get on your rental car).
I'm also interested in the legalities of this insurance - particularly in places where short-term rentals to strangers are illegal/contrary to bylaw/in violation of the occupant's lease. You'd think that insurance companies would have a problem selling a policy to cover the side-effects of a prohibited activity; that all Airbnb hosts would have to sign a line that certifies under penalty of perjury that they're legally allowed to host a place on Airbnb, which most can't.
If I was a landlord who had a tenant who put their place on Airbnb, and which then got trashed, I'd make the tenant fix it up (which they'd pay for, presumably, from the insurance), and probably try and sue the tenant for violating the terms of their lease. Could I then sue the insurance company as well, for helping my tenant break the conditions of their lease?
"Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post trying to explain the situation, but it didn’t reflect my true feelings."
I'm not sure how I feel about this line (I assume it's referring to his TC post). On one hand, it's nice that he's now 'fessing up with a this-is-how-I-feel post. On the other, it's a pretty clear admission that he's had no problems in the past sending out PR spin as a blog post under his own name - so what should make the reader think this (or any future posts) are actually him, and not more spin? It seems like it's muddling the authenticity of the message a bit.
"In working with the San Francisco Police Department, we are happy to say a suspect is now in custody."
Haven't they been saying this for a while, and each time they do, it turns out that when someone tries to verify it with SFPD, the suspect isn't in custody (because they've been extradited to another community)?
As for the potential for fraud, that doesn't concern me that much. If they're doing a blanket insurance policy like this, then they're contracting it out to a legit insurance company - who will presumably have adjusters and claims people who will investigate every claim, the same as other forms of consumer insurance (like you get on your rental car).
I'm also interested in the legalities of this insurance - particularly in places where short-term rentals to strangers are illegal/contrary to bylaw/in violation of the occupant's lease. You'd think that insurance companies would have a problem selling a policy to cover the side-effects of a prohibited activity; that all Airbnb hosts would have to sign a line that certifies under penalty of perjury that they're legally allowed to host a place on Airbnb, which most can't.
If I was a landlord who had a tenant who put their place on Airbnb, and which then got trashed, I'd make the tenant fix it up (which they'd pay for, presumably, from the insurance), and probably try and sue the tenant for violating the terms of their lease. Could I then sue the insurance company as well, for helping my tenant break the conditions of their lease?
Ever hear the parable about the man in the arena?
Great to know also that you're interested in the legalities of the insurance. I guess they should have included citations to case law in a blog post.
Some people are never satisfied. You appear to be one of them.
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points
out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds
could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who
is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and
sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes
up short again and again, because there is no effort
without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great
enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a
worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the
triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he
fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his
place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
knew neither victory nor defeat.
-- Teddy Roosevelt
Great to know also that you're interested in the legalities of the insurance. I guess they should have included citations to case law in a blog post.
> it turns out that when someone tries to verify it with
SFPD, the suspect isn't in custody (because they've been
extradited to another community)?
Some people are never satisfied. You appear to be one of them.
The potential for fraud doesn't concern me because Airbnb will clearly get an insurance company to run this program white-label, and they have whole departments designed to find and fight fraud. Based on the profits in the sector, it seems like they do a pretty good job of it.
As for the veracity of their line about someone being in custody with the SFPD, I stand corrected - my mistake. The last stuff that came to the top of my head was based off EJ's post on 28 July. A few searches reveal that the day after that post went up, the SFPD announced they had arrested someone.
As for the veracity of their line about someone being in custody with the SFPD, I stand corrected - my mistake. The last stuff that came to the top of my head was based off EJ's post on 28 July. A few searches reveal that the day after that post went up, the SFPD announced they had arrested someone.
"Airbnb will clearly get an insurance company to run this program white-label" <-- its not known if they can get an insurance policy for such a disparate group of people at a price that allows them to run with a profit
they aren't using an insurance company, they are paying for it out of pocket.
Let it go. They did the right thing, maybe they were doing it all along, maybe they did it under pressure, it does not matter.
What matters is that EJ (and others) will be compensated and AirBNB will live to fight another day in a much stronger and more real-world grounded fashion. Maybe their margins won't be quite as high but that's what usually happens when you underestimate the cost of doing business.
Winners all around, future hosts and guests of AirBNB included.
Note that this does not take care of any emotional issues but it will certainly help with the practical part of it, and I don't think a party like AirBNB could help with those anyway beyond doing their very best to minimize the hurt from such an event.
What matters is that EJ (and others) will be compensated and AirBNB will live to fight another day in a much stronger and more real-world grounded fashion. Maybe their margins won't be quite as high but that's what usually happens when you underestimate the cost of doing business.
Winners all around, future hosts and guests of AirBNB included.
Note that this does not take care of any emotional issues but it will certainly help with the practical part of it, and I don't think a party like AirBNB could help with those anyway beyond doing their very best to minimize the hurt from such an event.
> "What matters is that EJ will be compensated and AirBNB will live to fight another day"
That's what we're not sure about. EJ, a renter herself, likely didn't have the right to rent out her unit. The blog post says "We will extend this program to EJ...", not "We'll take care of EJ." She still has to qualify through whatever insurance company airbnb is working with. It's going to be an even worse PR disaster when the insurance company says "No."
That's what we're not sure about. EJ, a renter herself, likely didn't have the right to rent out her unit. The blog post says "We will extend this program to EJ...", not "We'll take care of EJ." She still has to qualify through whatever insurance company airbnb is working with. It's going to be an even worse PR disaster when the insurance company says "No."
I think it would be a fair bet that AirBNB will not risk that and will budget out-of-pocket.
Also, I don't see how an insurance company would ever agree to pay out on past cases so my guess is that they'll be paying for all of those out of pocket.
Going forward from Aug. 15th it looks like they'll have a deal in place and in the meantime things are 'murky'. The blog post leaves enough room for AirBNB to assume complete responsibility and/or work together with an insurer, but from the point of an AirBNB host that will likely make very little difference.
Also, I don't see how an insurance company would ever agree to pay out on past cases so my guess is that they'll be paying for all of those out of pocket.
Going forward from Aug. 15th it looks like they'll have a deal in place and in the meantime things are 'murky'. The blog post leaves enough room for AirBNB to assume complete responsibility and/or work together with an insurer, but from the point of an AirBNB host that will likely make very little difference.
i emailed with brian and they are paying all of these out of pocket, even going forward. no insurance company involved. now that opens up a whole other can of worms...
> Could I then sue the insurance company as well, for helping my tenant break the conditions of their lease?
The decision to break the conditions of the lease was solely your tenant's decision. Any sane insurance company will either verify the tenant's ability to rent out their place, or will void the contract if they discover later that the tenant did not have the legal right to rent out their place. Most likely, if the insurance is an online-type thing, the tenant will be certifying when they buy the policy that they have the legal ability to rent out their place.
The decision to break the conditions of the lease was solely your tenant's decision. Any sane insurance company will either verify the tenant's ability to rent out their place, or will void the contract if they discover later that the tenant did not have the legal right to rent out their place. Most likely, if the insurance is an online-type thing, the tenant will be certifying when they buy the policy that they have the legal ability to rent out their place.
I agree - but isn't this then a huge out for Airbnb, in terms of reducing the number of people that will actually be covered under this? NY has its well-known laws that make most Airbnb listing contrary to State law, and in my lease (for example) it specifically says that I can't rent it out to people without the landlord's permission - which I think is similar to most boilerplate leases.
Given that, would all the damage to EJ's stuff even be covered by the policy?
Given that, would all the damage to EJ's stuff even be covered by the policy?
It seems silly to the point of trollish to argue that the $50k guarantee Airbnb announced in a post about EJ's incident would have been designed to exclude EJ. Give it a rest.
You have really been shutting down discussion on this issue. I don't know you from Adam but I think you need to step back a little and let people discuss all angles, I honestly think you're creating a little bit of a straw man here. I think it's reasonable to debate that yes, maybe this insurance will exclude a lot of people, and if so what does that mean for AirBnB's business model?
Clearly it wasn't designed to exclude EJ, but it also likely wasn't designed with EJ in mind. airbnb is no doubt working with an insurance company, and if that company finds an "out", they're going to take advantage of it. Like most all renter contracts, it excludes subletting without consent, which is what EJ may have been doing.
After mentioning EJ specifically in this post and very specifically mentioning that they will take care of her not taking care of her would be 'suicide by media' at this point.
If you thought what happened so far was ugly I'd hate to see what would happen if that were the case. Can we move past this?
Sure it is all words but they are on the company blog this time, not in a forum and to me they come across as written by a man that has seen the Elephant in person.
Specifically: "We will extend this program to EJ and any other hosts who may have reported such property damage while renting on Airbnb in the past."
If you thought what happened so far was ugly I'd hate to see what would happen if that were the case. Can we move past this?
Sure it is all words but they are on the company blog this time, not in a forum and to me they come across as written by a man that has seen the Elephant in person.
Specifically: "We will extend this program to EJ and any other hosts who may have reported such property damage while renting on Airbnb in the past."
Let's definitely have a 19-comment argument speculating about the worst possible case scenario with the $50,000 guarantee Airbnb just announced, because that will definitely pump the oxygen back into the thread.
Well I hope AirBnB is thinking about the worst case scenario because it doesn't appear they were thinking about it in the past.
You really can't please everyone, can you?
The man tried admitting his faults, and you're still trying to read in-between the lines, questioning his motives.
The man tried admitting his faults, and you're still trying to read in-between the lines, questioning his motives.
Why do you suppose this is an insurance policy and not a cash guarantee? They never use the word. It's a flat $50,000 everywhere, with terms and conditions to vary by area, and to apply retroactively— does that really sound like insurance?
I know you're gonna say fraud, but why do you think they've doubled the size of their customer support team in the last month? These guys aren't dumb, they knew this was coming. This is the thing they can do with all of their money that will keep them on top.
In fact... my money says the real reason for trying to get EJ to amend the original blog post was they were hoping to keep the story from breaking in mainstream press before they got this system launched.
I know you're gonna say fraud, but why do you think they've doubled the size of their customer support team in the last month? These guys aren't dumb, they knew this was coming. This is the thing they can do with all of their money that will keep them on top.
In fact... my money says the real reason for trying to get EJ to amend the original blog post was they were hoping to keep the story from breaking in mainstream press before they got this system launched.
Agreed. I don't see what the benefit of insurance would be. Insurance only makes sense in one case: when "the big one" will send you under water.
In this case, they're liable to get a few claims per year (or month, or whatever). If they wanted insurance, they'd have to pay all of that PLUS some, spread out into a monthly payment. Doesn't make any sense.
If they had an open-ended policy that covered emotional damages or somesuch, maybe they would need insurance.
In this case, they're liable to get a few claims per year (or month, or whatever). If they wanted insurance, they'd have to pay all of that PLUS some, spread out into a monthly payment. Doesn't make any sense.
If they had an open-ended policy that covered emotional damages or somesuch, maybe they would need insurance.
> "it didn’t reflect my true feelings"
Yeah, that phrase jumped out at me too. Both because it implies not telling the truth as well as still passing the buck (were they someone else's words?). And it's too bad because otherwise the post is good.
And I'd have to agree with commentary regarding the photo. It just doesn't strike the right tone of empathy and humbleness. I'm sure it's hard to be humble when you've created a rocket ship but it's a great attribute in these situations.
Yeah, that phrase jumped out at me too. Both because it implies not telling the truth as well as still passing the buck (were they someone else's words?). And it's too bad because otherwise the post is good.
And I'd have to agree with commentary regarding the photo. It just doesn't strike the right tone of empathy and humbleness. I'm sure it's hard to be humble when you've created a rocket ship but it's a great attribute in these situations.
Is it just me or do they say they'll be covering losses after August 15th, and before August 1, but not August 1 through 15?
It looks like it's the report that has to be by August 1, i.e. they'll only cover past damage that has already been reported, before this announcement. Probably to cap their otherwise potentially unlimited liability for people "discovering" past damage after this policy was announced, while still expeditiously resolving any currently-open complaints. Then, starting August 15, they'll have a normal, forward-looking insurance program in place.
they'll only cover past damage that has already been reported
I thought they said it was the first time it happened?
Anyway, better late than never.
I thought they said it was the first time it happened?
Anyway, better late than never.
we are covering all incidents retroactively, including EJ's and Troy's.
Thanks! I assumed that was the intent, I just found the way the threshold dates were described a little buggy.
[deleted]
No mention of a deductible in the 50k coverage. Is that an oversight or are they actually going to cover minor damages like a broken plate.
[deleted]
"Like Airbnb, the world works on the idea that people are good, and we’re in this together."
Seriously? I usually just roll my eyes when I hear this sort of feel good, warm-fuzzy cheerleading. But seriously, wake up! The reason they're in this mess is because they lacked preparation for the reality that people have an incredible capacity for bad. This is a false premise on which to rent out your most private, personal space.
Seriously? I usually just roll my eyes when I hear this sort of feel good, warm-fuzzy cheerleading. But seriously, wake up! The reason they're in this mess is because they lacked preparation for the reality that people have an incredible capacity for bad. This is a false premise on which to rent out your most private, personal space.
Extrapolating but I bet that language "$50,000 Airbnb Guarantee" allows them (airbnb) to buy "claims" insurance thus subverting the inherent issues around offering renters insurance to their market.
Brilliant move!
Brilliant move!
Why would they offer renter's insurance? It's just a few days at a time.
I'm impressed. This goes beyond what was reasonable to expect, and goes a long way toward resolving the issue.
It's interesting that 1-15 August is now the only uncovered period. They should also let everyone cancel all reservations during that window without penalty, if they'd like.
It's interesting that 1-15 August is now the only uncovered period. They should also let everyone cancel all reservations during that window without penalty, if they'd like.
I think the phrasing makes it look like the 1st to 15th August period is uncovered, but it actually is covered. See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2834589
Giving credit where credit is due, I think Mr. Chesky and Airbnb have done a good job here. Corporations aren't intrinsically ethical (by law) but start-ups are small enough that they can (a) afford to act human and (b) be held accountable by their customers in meaningful ways. This is why people like Airbnb and why they (myself included) were disappointed in the way the situation was handled. I loved reading Mr. Chesky's response and although this clearly changes things for Airbnb as a business, they are now a company I care to see succeed.
Corporations must follow the ethical standard set by the law just as any other legal entity. Corporations actually have more stringent ethics than other legal entities such as persons. A person does not have any fiduciary duty to others unlike a corporation which is incorporated with a set of documents explaining it ethics and responsibilities to other parties (such as shareholders). As a person under the law I can act completely in my own best interest (negligence, power of attorney, and other corner cases excluded) and there is no ethical problem whereas when a corporation puts it's own interests ahead of those of its shareholders it is acting unethically.
I'm not sure we agree on the definition of "ethics".
Ethics, the way I understand the term, isn't a set of rules enforced by law. It's true that some laws are informed by our shared moral values, but in general law and ethics are independent. There is no legal punishment for acting like an asshole, but in human society you more often than not pay a price for it. There is no such onus on corporations and in fact the "business ethics" we govern our corporations by can easily be put at odds with what you and I would consider ethical behavior (see Ford Pinto [1]). As you point out, companies are responsible to their shareholders, but their stakeholders are a different (perhaps partially overlapping) set of people to which the corporation doesn't have to answer. It is in that sense that I said companies aren't intrinsically moral.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_laws...
Ethics, the way I understand the term, isn't a set of rules enforced by law. It's true that some laws are informed by our shared moral values, but in general law and ethics are independent. There is no legal punishment for acting like an asshole, but in human society you more often than not pay a price for it. There is no such onus on corporations and in fact the "business ethics" we govern our corporations by can easily be put at odds with what you and I would consider ethical behavior (see Ford Pinto [1]). As you point out, companies are responsible to their shareholders, but their stakeholders are a different (perhaps partially overlapping) set of people to which the corporation doesn't have to answer. It is in that sense that I said companies aren't intrinsically moral.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_laws...
Second that. Words are empty, but this sounds like real action... insurance (especially retroactive) + 24 help + more overall support service - all that hits the nail on the head of the problem. This was the response people (or at least ME) were waiting for.
Good luck Airbnb.
Good luck Airbnb.
Its seems that, based on the positive media reaction to this, AirBnB has done everything right from the start:
Everyone is piling on them for screwing up the initial reaction to EJ, by not going far enough in offering to help her. But AirBnB didn't do much to help Troy (from the TechCrunch post) 2 months ago, and that story didn't blow up in to a PR disaster. They simply gave him a few free nights and he was happy.
So, it is impossible to tell if any given customer support issue is a potential "PR-nightmare". If AirBnB had over-reacted and offered Troy thousands of dollars (as was being suggested for EJ), they would have lost out - because Troy was happy with just a few free nights in AirBnB credit. How were they supposed to know that EJ (1) wouldn't be happy with what Troy received (2) Would make a scathing blog post and (3) That blog post would go viral. They couldn't have.
So, if you are a wagering person, it seems like the best course of action is to do exactly what AirBnB did: offering minimal support and grow until something really bad happens. Then come out swinging with a big apology and a big offer of support and restitution.
Since it seems like the media and public are willing to forgive AirBnB (judging by the reaction to today's announcement), this course seems like it may have been optimal compared to over-helping people like Troy.
Put another way: PR distasters are recoverable if you say you are sorry and ask forgiveness. Being too careful upfront and limiting your growth curve is not forgivable.
Everyone is piling on them for screwing up the initial reaction to EJ, by not going far enough in offering to help her. But AirBnB didn't do much to help Troy (from the TechCrunch post) 2 months ago, and that story didn't blow up in to a PR disaster. They simply gave him a few free nights and he was happy.
So, it is impossible to tell if any given customer support issue is a potential "PR-nightmare". If AirBnB had over-reacted and offered Troy thousands of dollars (as was being suggested for EJ), they would have lost out - because Troy was happy with just a few free nights in AirBnB credit. How were they supposed to know that EJ (1) wouldn't be happy with what Troy received (2) Would make a scathing blog post and (3) That blog post would go viral. They couldn't have.
So, if you are a wagering person, it seems like the best course of action is to do exactly what AirBnB did: offering minimal support and grow until something really bad happens. Then come out swinging with a big apology and a big offer of support and restitution.
Since it seems like the media and public are willing to forgive AirBnB (judging by the reaction to today's announcement), this course seems like it may have been optimal compared to over-helping people like Troy.
Put another way: PR distasters are recoverable if you say you are sorry and ask forgiveness. Being too careful upfront and limiting your growth curve is not forgivable.
> "If AirBnB had over-reacted and offered Troy thousands of
dollars (as was being suggested for EJ), they would have
lost out - because Troy was happy with just a few free
nights in AirBnB credit."
Even from a "business standpoint" I do not feel they would have lost out. Because they would have avoided the EJ fiasco, and still garnered the media and public appreciation from the apology, support, and restitution to Troy.
The company may not have been able to know the story of EJ, specifically, would take this path. But it was predictable that at some point a vandalism or safety issue would eventually get picked up in the media.
Even from a "business standpoint" I do not feel they would have lost out. Because they would have avoided the EJ fiasco, and still garnered the media and public appreciation from the apology, support, and restitution to Troy.
The company may not have been able to know the story of EJ, specifically, would take this path. But it was predictable that at some point a vandalism or safety issue would eventually get picked up in the media.
"may have been optimal"
I follow your reasoning, but this approach is optimized for Airbnb alone. The trick is to find an approach that maximizes both Airbnb's business goals and the happiness of the customers.
I follow your reasoning, but this approach is optimized for Airbnb alone. The trick is to find an approach that maximizes both Airbnb's business goals and the happiness of the customers.
True. I should have prefaced with "from a business standpoint".
I would word it "from a self-interested standpoint", which is hopefully different than "from a business standpoint". I prefer to live in a world where businesses aren't laser-focused on just their own interests.
Ideally, a CEO would try to align all of the goals of the parties relating to the business so that the dynamic is synergistic, not win-lose.
Ideally, a CEO would try to align all of the goals of the parties relating to the business so that the dynamic is synergistic, not win-lose.
Well done. The 50k guarantee and the 24 hour customer service are great features that needed to be there before, but at least they have them now. I wonder though if there's a bigger problem with how Airbnb views customers. EJ and the other guy shouldn't have faced such coldness from Airbnb. It just shows something is wrong. I hope that this "crisis" will help awake Airbnb to take customer service more seriously. Rather than hiring someone from Ebay, they should hire someone from Zappos to head their customer service. Actually, the whole leadership team from Airbnb should take a trip to Zappos and get some training.
For once TechCrunch was able to facilitate a good cause.
There's a hefty chance that AirBnB wouldn't had responded like this if Arrington hadn't been on their back. It's only once TC started to report them rigorously, they started to _understand_ how lame their previous communication been.
Now all Arrington has to bin CatherinaFake-like posts and we have our old TC back on track.
There's a hefty chance that AirBnB wouldn't had responded like this if Arrington hadn't been on their back. It's only once TC started to report them rigorously, they started to _understand_ how lame their previous communication been.
Now all Arrington has to bin CatherinaFake-like posts and we have our old TC back on track.
I thought the post started well with the "we screwed up" tone. It sounded personal and felt sincere. However, along the way it shifted 180 degrees to a very cold business-centric approach.
Nonetheless, I think Airbnb is finally starting to have a clue on how to properly handle this crisis.
But what intrigued me the most in this whole thing was Michael Arrington's position on TechCrunch. He set this thing on fire, giving it a very aggressive kind of coverage. I wonder: will he now invest on Airbnb, as they're now supposedly going through another funding round? And if so, how much less will he have to pay for the same equity compared to 1 month ago? I'd like a little disclosure on that...
Nonetheless, I think Airbnb is finally starting to have a clue on how to properly handle this crisis.
But what intrigued me the most in this whole thing was Michael Arrington's position on TechCrunch. He set this thing on fire, giving it a very aggressive kind of coverage. I wonder: will he now invest on Airbnb, as they're now supposedly going through another funding round? And if so, how much less will he have to pay for the same equity compared to 1 month ago? I'd like a little disclosure on that...
[deleted]
and why you should always uphold your values and trust your instincts
Just out of curiosity, why didn't you?
Just out of curiosity, why didn't you?
"for loss or damage due to vandalism or theft caused by an Airbnb guest up to $50,000"
As others have mentioned no exact details have been listed anywhere.
For the vandalism they will most certainly require that obviously a police report be filed. Notice that "damage" is not covered though. Only vandalism.
Theft is trickier. The actual policy might say that they will pay if your homeowners/renters policy doesn't pay. Or there may be deductibles. And once again they will require a police report to document the theft.
Typically the problem with any insurance in this situation is proving that something is actually stolen as opposed to just missing.
I think that without seeing the actual coverage you can't really draw any conclusions.
By the way if you rent your apartment you should always have renters insurance anyway. It isn't that expensive and it would cover damage (less a deductible) even if you had a party and a friend damaged something - in other words a simple accident. Or if the tub overflowed by accident and damaged the carpeting.
As others have mentioned no exact details have been listed anywhere.
For the vandalism they will most certainly require that obviously a police report be filed. Notice that "damage" is not covered though. Only vandalism.
Theft is trickier. The actual policy might say that they will pay if your homeowners/renters policy doesn't pay. Or there may be deductibles. And once again they will require a police report to document the theft.
Typically the problem with any insurance in this situation is proving that something is actually stolen as opposed to just missing.
I think that without seeing the actual coverage you can't really draw any conclusions.
By the way if you rent your apartment you should always have renters insurance anyway. It isn't that expensive and it would cover damage (less a deductible) even if you had a party and a friend damaged something - in other words a simple accident. Or if the tub overflowed by accident and damaged the carpeting.
They look to ebay for guidance on customer support. Everything is beginning to make sense now!
So, this is a totally superficial comment, but here we go.
Brian, as part of all of this crisis stuff, I think it's time to have a new profile picture taken. One where you don't look so, how should I say... 20.
From rough calculation, I'm only a couple years older, but one thing that's stood out for me visually in all of this is that ... well, let's just say that it's one of those times where looking like the young silicon valley hotshot works against you.
Having a PR shot to pull out of the drawer that looks older, more serious and decidedly less hip would do well when people are worried.
(As for the actual content of the story: well done.)
Edit: Rational or otherwise, people read a lot from a face. Heck, it's obvious that Airbnb gets that since it's part of their trust system. Since trust is a big part of what makes Airbnb tick, I think it'd be worth the time to craft a profile shot that inspires such. This may even be an inflection point in Airbnb's history where it's transitioning from the couchsurfing-but-with-money branding to I'm-trusting-these-guys-to-keep-my-home-safe.
Edit 2: So as a bit of redux, I'm genuinely surprised that this was the most upvoted comment, since it's a minor issue relative to the good that's going down (and specifically, insurance is something that I was personally rooting for since that's what'd kept me from listing a room there prior to this whole shebang.). As for the photo, I think it's actually kind of an interestingly shot, but I don't think it's the one you want plastered all over the interwebs in a crisis scenario.
Brian, as part of all of this crisis stuff, I think it's time to have a new profile picture taken. One where you don't look so, how should I say... 20.
From rough calculation, I'm only a couple years older, but one thing that's stood out for me visually in all of this is that ... well, let's just say that it's one of those times where looking like the young silicon valley hotshot works against you.
Having a PR shot to pull out of the drawer that looks older, more serious and decidedly less hip would do well when people are worried.
(As for the actual content of the story: well done.)
Edit: Rational or otherwise, people read a lot from a face. Heck, it's obvious that Airbnb gets that since it's part of their trust system. Since trust is a big part of what makes Airbnb tick, I think it'd be worth the time to craft a profile shot that inspires such. This may even be an inflection point in Airbnb's history where it's transitioning from the couchsurfing-but-with-money branding to I'm-trusting-these-guys-to-keep-my-home-safe.
Edit 2: So as a bit of redux, I'm genuinely surprised that this was the most upvoted comment, since it's a minor issue relative to the good that's going down (and specifically, insurance is something that I was personally rooting for since that's what'd kept me from listing a room there prior to this whole shebang.). As for the photo, I think it's actually kind of an interestingly shot, but I don't think it's the one you want plastered all over the interwebs in a crisis scenario.
I was very surprised to read your comment. Mainly because I also received a very negative first impression from his profile photo, but I thought it was just me.
The post itself was great. Since Airbnb is mostly waging a battle of perception in all of this, then the image presented by the CEO's profile picture is actually a relevant issue in this discussion.
Good call.
The post itself was great. Since Airbnb is mostly waging a battle of perception in all of this, then the image presented by the CEO's profile picture is actually a relevant issue in this discussion.
Good call.
Interesting, when I first saw a photo of Brian, I think on TechCrunch, my first thought was: "he looks so slick. That will probably have a negative influence on the way people interpret his response to this situation". I guess it beams somehing like "my life is awesome and I don't have a care in the world"
IMO the problem isn't that he looks 20, but rather that he looks pretty douchey in that photo. Looking young isn't so bad in this context, but looking like you just stepped off of the set of one of those MTV 'reality' shows is.
I'm fairly certain this is going to get me down-voted through the floor, but please at least view the picture in question prior to down-voting me for saying this.
I'm fairly certain this is going to get me down-voted through the floor, but please at least view the picture in question prior to down-voting me for saying this.
It was my impression too that the photo could be appropriate.
EDIT: I've edited my comment to make it more constructive. Brian, I think you are doing a great job with AirBNB and handling this situation. Please take these comments as constructive criticism regarding the photo (in this particular situation).
EDIT: I've edited my comment to make it more constructive. Brian, I think you are doing a great job with AirBNB and handling this situation. Please take these comments as constructive criticism regarding the photo (in this particular situation).
To be fair, I think it's a decent smile, but the lighting, combined with Brian's dark eyebrows, creates this shadow which is easy to interpret as slightly sinister.
If his head was raised slightly and lit more strongly, I don't think you'd feel the same way.
If his head was raised slightly and lit more strongly, I don't think you'd feel the same way.
:(
Sorry Brian, but it was my first reaction as well. I showed a friend the pic and asked "what do you think of this person?" and she said "he's evil and creepy" :(
If it were me, I would just take a quick snapshot right now and replace that photo temporarily, until you can get some better professional shots.
If it were me, I would just take a quick snapshot right now and replace that photo temporarily, until you can get some better professional shots.
Classiest reply in this whole discussion.
No really, open Photo Booth and take a brighter picture, right now.
Studies have shown that the first impression you get of a piece colors your perception even after you read the whole thing. Pictures have a stronger immediate emotional reaction than words do, and while the bolded "we will be implementing a $50,000 Airbnb Guarantee" definitely gives an immediate "wow, nice" feeling, it'd be even better if it wasn't dampened by the initial "uh, who's the Bond villain?"
Studies have shown that the first impression you get of a piece colors your perception even after you read the whole thing. Pictures have a stronger immediate emotional reaction than words do, and while the bolded "we will be implementing a $50,000 Airbnb Guarantee" definitely gives an immediate "wow, nice" feeling, it'd be even better if it wasn't dampened by the initial "uh, who's the Bond villain?"
My sincere apologies!!!
John
John
For what it's worth I think that the photo looks perfectly fine. I'd be a very happy person if I could photograph that well. Customers don't care how professional the profile pictures look. They care about their experience using the service itself.
[deleted]
I hesitated to even bring it up because I didn't know how to say it without it sounding like a personal attack, but FWIW, I didn't mean it as one.
We all have photos taken of us that convey personalities that aren't really our own. I don't think you're a douche, but the photo gives that impression a bit.
We all have photos taken of us that convey personalities that aren't really our own. I don't think you're a douche, but the photo gives that impression a bit.
Don't let them get you down, Brian.
Yo man: f these haters. Even the well meaning ones with their rubbernecking advice, even the fellow YC alums who don't understand that when a man has just been through hell and back that the last thing he needs is more people piling on with "constructive criticism" in an open forum. A lot of people tried to kill you just now, with a few like Melinda Byerley openly admitting that this was just an opportunity to express their envy and hatred.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/31/another-airbnb-victim-tells...
For PR reasons you need to smile, even as JimmyL critiques the sincerity of your orthodontics. Smile on the outside and ask them in a chipper tone how you can be of service, but in the end, seriously, f* em. There's an insane amount of implementation work to do to get this 24/7 support and insurance program operational. F* em all and just plow. Pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And your real customers and fans will thank you for it.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/31/another-airbnb-victim-tells...
For PR reasons you need to smile, even as JimmyL critiques the sincerity of your orthodontics. Smile on the outside and ask them in a chipper tone how you can be of service, but in the end, seriously, f* em. There's an insane amount of implementation work to do to get this 24/7 support and insurance program operational. F* em all and just plow. Pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And your real customers and fans will thank you for it.
Point taken. For the record, I'm a big fan of AirBNB and have used it multiple times.
Sorry, I meant that:
It was my impression too that the photo could be made more appropriate.
It was my impression too that the photo could be made more appropriate.
"Smug" might be a better word. Fairly sinister lighting, too. The photo was definitely the first thing I noticed.
The lighting actually makes it look a lot like a Jill Greenberg photo:
http://www.google.com/search?q=jill+greenberg+photo&um=1...
I wouldn't be surprised too since she's also a RISD alumn.
http://www.google.com/search?q=jill+greenberg+photo&um=1...
I wouldn't be surprised too since she's also a RISD alumn.
I immediately thought of Joey L's logging style, which is similar to Greenberg's. Basically, the really strong lighting on the sides and relatively dark front of face looks like his work for the Twilight movie posters.
I don't think he looks like a douche, but I thought that picture was a stock photo of someone who was supposed to represent the criminal who started the whole mess.
I rarely LOL on HN, but I did just then.
[deleted]
this is so true. i was thinking the exact thing especially in all his pics on techcrunch.
perception is everything and all those pics give the reader a different image for sure. more cocky, im the man kind of image.
its just that the pics dont seem right for the situation.
on a side note...i think hes a good looking dude (no homo of course lol)
perception is everything and all those pics give the reader a different image for sure. more cocky, im the man kind of image.
its just that the pics dont seem right for the situation.
on a side note...i think hes a good looking dude (no homo of course lol)
Please don't say "no homo". It's really offensive.
really? it was meant in a non offensive way but wouldnt want to offend the sensitive..my bad
"no homo" means "What I have just said might imply I'm a homosexual, since homosexuals are so terrible awful people, I must point out that I'm a normal healthy hetrosexual"
It doesn't matter if you're gay. You don't need to reassure us of that.
It doesn't matter if you're gay. You don't need to reassure us of that.
one love
[deleted]
It will be obvious over the coming months whether they follow through with protecting their customers. More than a few people will be looking to get credit for exposing subsequent failures.
For myself, my expectations are not positive. While definitely an improvement over past communications I'm not buying the "mom" and "grandfather" routine. Specifically:
Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post trying to explain the situation, but it didn’t reflect my true feelings. Then what was the driving influence for the post?
In the last few days we have had a crash course in crisis management. The original incident occurred over a month ago. Apparently that wasn't a crisis. If not, then what was it?
For myself, my expectations are not positive. While definitely an improvement over past communications I'm not buying the "mom" and "grandfather" routine. Specifically:
Earlier this week, I wrote a blog post trying to explain the situation, but it didn’t reflect my true feelings. Then what was the driving influence for the post?
In the last few days we have had a crash course in crisis management. The original incident occurred over a month ago. Apparently that wasn't a crisis. If not, then what was it?
moral hazard
Anyone else think bringing on a 10 year veteran of eBay support is a bad idea. I don't know of a single case in which I heard eBay helped the end user in support.
eBay is probably on the top 5 of worst customer support experiences of any dot com.
eBay is probably on the top 5 of worst customer support experiences of any dot com.
I thought the same thing. I cannot think of a company that more flagrantly demonstrates their disdain for customers every day more than eBay.
Google's support is legendary. And not in a good way.
Paypal.
Remind me, who are they owned by?
Post-merger, there were some really nice reviews of culture clashes; one I recall was simply stated as "Ebay believes people are fundamentally good, Paypal believes they are fundamentally scammers."
Credible, given their histories, I'd say!
Credible, given their histories, I'd say!
I think this is a great response to what happened.
I hope EJ's third blog post is more positive.
=]
I hope EJ's third blog post is more positive.
=]
Good response. Though a bit late and seems reactive, far better than never.
I guess we have all learned lessons from this.
I guess we have all learned lessons from this.
Bravo. This looks like an excellent next step. Not necessarily the ultimate scalar, but it's nice to see the vector pointing in the right direction.
As was one of the many outspoken people in one of the earlier threads, I hope I speak for a lot of my fellow hn'ers when I say that we call 'em as we see 'em, for better or worse. Not necessarily in judgement, but as part of a community living through monumental changes of all kinds. Believe it or not, Brian, many of us really are on your side.
Like many other "new age" business models, I'm afraid I still don't really understand this one and it's prospects for the future. But it's safe to say you've just taken one giant step on that bumpy road to sustainability.
Two of the most important things I expect from any business is to always tell the truth and to always do the right thing. It matters less how long you take to get there than the fact that you actually do.
Looking forward to seeing how this plays out. Often being down, then up again makes you stronger than if you never went through the tough times in the first place.
As was one of the many outspoken people in one of the earlier threads, I hope I speak for a lot of my fellow hn'ers when I say that we call 'em as we see 'em, for better or worse. Not necessarily in judgement, but as part of a community living through monumental changes of all kinds. Believe it or not, Brian, many of us really are on your side.
Like many other "new age" business models, I'm afraid I still don't really understand this one and it's prospects for the future. But it's safe to say you've just taken one giant step on that bumpy road to sustainability.
Two of the most important things I expect from any business is to always tell the truth and to always do the right thing. It matters less how long you take to get there than the fact that you actually do.
Looking forward to seeing how this plays out. Often being down, then up again makes you stronger than if you never went through the tough times in the first place.
Agree with you on this step... They've still got challenges ahead, but this direction seems right.
There's a pretty good (if a bit dramatic) analysis of other things that they might want to do at http://blog.agrawals.org/2011/08/01/airbnb-ransack-response-....
There's a pretty good (if a bit dramatic) analysis of other things that they might want to do at http://blog.agrawals.org/2011/08/01/airbnb-ransack-response-....
Glad they did this, though I expect it to be quite thorny in practice.
For example, what about cases where they can positively identify the renter who was responsible?
That's bound to be the vast majority of incidents.
Are they going to pay out in those cases?
Or leave it to the owner to pursue in court themselves?
This is a good solid step, but it's only one piece of a comprehensive policy.
For example, what about cases where they can positively identify the renter who was responsible?
That's bound to be the vast majority of incidents.
Are they going to pay out in those cases?
Or leave it to the owner to pursue in court themselves?
This is a good solid step, but it's only one piece of a comprehensive policy.
Well done. I'm sure it's been a difficult learning process, but this was most definitely the kind of humble, unconditional apology, followed by a set of hard action items that I wish more businesses followed.
It tales big people to acknowledge a screw up, apologize for it, and work hard to make it right.
It tales big people to acknowledge a screw up, apologize for it, and work hard to make it right.
This certainly increases your professionalism in the eyes of the users, but I'm amazed by how quickly companies can implement things of this scale. I can't wait for the day when I can open my own 24 hour hotline :)
Good on ya mate.
Good on ya mate.
I've been critical of AirBnB in the past, but I liked the tone of Chesky's post. If only they had done this on June 29, instead a month later. But: it's never too late.
I hope this is the penultimate word in this saga (EJ's would be the last word; and I'm hoping, after this, her blog would be positive and upbeat).
The lesson to be learnt is: if you're in a consumer-facing business, and a black swan event happens, don't worry about valuations, etc. but worry about the customer who's affected. Fix the root cause, and the outcome will fix itself.
I hope this is the penultimate word in this saga (EJ's would be the last word; and I'm hoping, after this, her blog would be positive and upbeat).
The lesson to be learnt is: if you're in a consumer-facing business, and a black swan event happens, don't worry about valuations, etc. but worry about the customer who's affected. Fix the root cause, and the outcome will fix itself.
They’ve certainly got on track with this (although the photo struck me too as hitting the wrong chord). But stepping back to look at the opportunity airbnb presents as a business, I’m not so sure there are security measures that could be satisfying to enough people to make this a massive company – assuming that their core business continues to involve people renting their primary residence.
In engaging in any activity, people approach it with an unconscious calculus that is something like: the perceived benefits vs. the perceived financial, emotional, physical, etc. risks less any offsetting measures to mitigate these risks. Of course, for any activity, the math comes out differently for different people and often has less to do with actual risks than perceived risks and fears. Thus, fear of flying is fairly common despite low risk of harm – mainly because a bad result is so horrifying and likely lethal and the fact that not being in the drivers’ seat stokes our fear. Conversely, driving is probably by far the most dangerous thing we do and the risks are often underappreciated, but the benefits are not just huge – it’s almost a mandatory activity. Plus, being the driver can give us a (false) sense that we can avoid risk and while we can vividly picture going down in flames in a plane, we can easily not appreciate that driving into a wall at just 30mph is like jumping off a three story building in terms of impact against the dashboard. Because of the nationalization of the media and access to the internet, I now hear about child abductions that I would never have heard of in the ‘50’s. Thus, my perceived risk of that happening to my kids has grown (almost certainly way out of proportion to the actual risk) and so I don’t/won’t do things that my parents did to me such as booting me out into the neighborhood to play on my own at a young age.
Applying this construct to Airbnb’s present model, I don’t think I see a billion dollar company here. I would think that the benefit is not huge when weighed against the negatives and risks. Sure, I might make a few hundred dollars or get a cheap place to stay, but as space provider I’m asking myself: will they steal something? Trash the place? Do I want a stranger using my toilet? Will they clean that toilet after they use it? Do I want to clean that toilet after they’ve used it because I don't trust that they did? Where exactly is my backup toothbrush in relation to them when they’re using my toilet? Did they copy my key to burglarize me later when they’re long forgotten me as a model airbnb tenant? As tenant, I’m wondering: how clean is this place? Are there hidden cameras watching me as I change, etc.? The list goes on and on and note that few of these have to do with monetary losses, and some of them are negatives that could exist with perfectly nice tenants/landlords.
So with this model I see relatively low reward with a kind of vivid and extensive set of potential negatives ranging from toilet hygiene to what EJ experienced to worse. Plus, the perceived likelihood of some of the dramatically bad outcomes goes way up with each EJ story that comes out and amplifies potential users’ concerns even if the likelihood, like crashing on a commercial flight, is actually very low. Certainly, they’ve proven that there is a subset of people who like the risk/reward math for using airbnb, but I personally don’t see the huge growth potential and valuation that their capital raises would imply (again, assuming no major shifts in their business model).
So, AirBnb did the right thing (which they would have to implement sooner or later anyway) and got tons of free publicity in process. Not bad after all :) Congrats, Brian, and good luck to your venture!
Brian, I am deeply impressed, that is a brave and decent step which leaves all happy competitors far beyond (the competitors should try harder now, techcrunch is not going to help their marketing).
You are a great CEO and deserve to direct a Billion Dollar company, no doubt.
I just can't wait for my trip to the USA to use AirBNB accommodation (as an HN reader I have decided long ago that in the next trip to US I will not stay in hotels but book with AirBNB)
You are a great CEO and deserve to direct a Billion Dollar company, no doubt.
I just can't wait for my trip to the USA to use AirBNB accommodation (as an HN reader I have decided long ago that in the next trip to US I will not stay in hotels but book with AirBNB)
would have been nice if you actually linked to EJs blog.
other than that sounds like you are doing the right thing.
other than that sounds like you are doing the right thing.
This is an excellent start. Great way to come out and clearly state "We screwed-up earlier but are now doing the right thing".
Please consider adding 2 requirements: 1) Any renter should provide an actual photo 2) Valid Credit card that will have a hold of x dollars till the rental completes These might cut down on the Tweaker type incidents.
Please consider adding 2 requirements: 1) Any renter should provide an actual photo 2) Valid Credit card that will have a hold of x dollars till the rental completes These might cut down on the Tweaker type incidents.
[deleted]
Instead it should be: Our Commitment to Rape and Thievery.