Standards@2x (2).png

 

We’ve noticed a lot of discussion lately about the updated Superhost criteria, so we wanted to explain why we made this update.

 

The Superhost program recognizes the best and most iconic hosts on Airbnb. Since it began, in order to be a Superhost you had to meet several criteria. You had to host at least 10 stays per year, you had to have zero cancellations (except for extenuating circumstances), you had to respond to 90% of the messages you received within 24 hours, and 80% of your ratings had to be 5 stars.

 

The first 3 criteria are staying the same, but beginning in July, instead of needing 80% 5-star reviews, Superhosts will now need an average review score of 4.8.

 

There are several reasons why we decided to make this change. First and foremost, because it’s simpler and easier to understand. One of the top pieces of feedback we received about the old program criteria was that guests couldn’t intuitively understand what it took to be a  Superhost. By making the change from 80% 5-star reviews to an overall rating of 4.8, guests can more easily understand what it means to be a Superhost. Additionally, switching to an overall rating of 4.8 stars also brings consistency across our new programs like Collections and Plus, which require a 4.8 overall rating as well as several other criteria.

 

In looking at recent data, we estimate that between 90% to 95% of our Superhosts are going to have no problem qualifying for the Superhost program under the new criteria. Ultimately, it’s our goal to have as many Superhosts as possible and have all hosts provide amazing guest experiences worthy of stellar reviews. Our plan is to continue to closely monitor how these standards impact the Superhost program and evolve them based on what’s working and what isn’t. We truly appreciate the feedback you’ve provided so far and we look forward to working with you to bring further clarity and consistency to the program.

547 Replies

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
Redmond, OR
Level 10

This report is at odds with the changes made to the criteria earlier which specify either 10 reservations per year OR at least 3 reservations comprising 150 days total. Please explain this error.  I just had a review and this detail was specified.  It is an important distinction because since  the pandemic many hosts have transitioned to long term stays of many months to meet the lodging needs of the market which has changed dramatically.   Since I pivoted to long term my occupancy rate has skyrocketed! Please tell me you are NOT taking this much needed and welcome change back to the past.

Susan

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
London, United Kingdom
Level 3

I’ve given up trying as it’s so confusing.....

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
Redmond, OR
Level 10

Re: Clarity about... the writer left out a very important CHANGE  to criteria necessitated by COVID and the resulting surge in demand for longer term stays-monthlys.  The Super Host criteria clearly displays this change -- 10  stays   OR  100 nights over 3+stays.  Please confirm this change and post it. Thank you.

Susan

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
Roanoke, VA
Level 2

I see multiple superhost statuses with  less than a 4.8

In January , knowing that Airbnb just reviewed the accounts, a host with 4.6 is still superhost.

Or how about a new listing with no reviews yet! Still is a superhost? That’s baffling 

 

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
Lewes, United Kingdom
Level 2

In the U.K. the hospitality sector is struggling: the Government here has closed hosts down (completely) repeatedly over the past year and a half and made it impossible  to host people inside homes  (I serve plant-based food to my guests inside).  It is still difficult to host at home: one in 15 people now have the Omicron virus in the U.K. and travellers are reticent to book.  .Personally, I saw a lot of people from Europe and this trade stopped over the past two summers.  Airbnb should be making concessions to superhosts: historically and pre-Covid they were the back bone of their business. 

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
Hargrave, United Kingdom
Level 2

We had to change our business model from hosting groups of 12-15 in our home to having two people in an annexe. Since doing this our income and our bookings have dropped because we cannot offer full self catering kitchen in our annexe. It’s cooking by microwave only. People don’t read the detail and so they book and then very often they cancel when we point them to read our offering. Those that do come love the place but it has been very hard to get people through the door. We cannot return to houseparties yet, if ever again. It’s been tough! 

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
Worksop, United Kingdom
Level 2

This is a bad system and is setting up hosts to fail. Now thinking twice about hosting. 

Re: Clarity about the recent Superhost criteria change

in
Worksop, United Kingdom
Level 2

Thank you all you have made me feel so much better. I have been really upset by a 1* review. I have had 18 x 5* reviews and incredible positive comments then got a 4* overall but 5* on all categories and good comments. Got the impression that she never gives full marks. However she booked again as have several other guests, one came back 6 times. Then I got this one from a guest who didn't read the description or the check in details. Left vomit in the bed and blocked the spa bath with muck. Not to mention unbelievable number of wine bottles. Think he was an alcoholic. He then had the nerve to say it was dirty, awful location not as described  and not value for money.   I feel better having realised every one gets some crack pots,  But it seems really unfair that it  may influence future guests and lose us our super host status. Beginning to think it's not worth the stress to host. 

Comment