Fixing ACL s.48 issues in pricing calculations

[Louise0]

I think this is perhaps the 4th or 5th time I've raised this issue, but I'll keep chipping away ....

 Component pricing is prohibited under sec. 48 of Australian Consumer Law, as it is in many other countries.  Under ACL, when a person is presented with a single price for goods or services, that price must be the maximum price they must pay for those goods or services.  

The single price must be:

• clear at the time of the sale
• as prominent as the most prominent component of the price.

The single price is the total of all measurable costs and includes:

• any charge payable, and
• the amount of any tax, duty, fee, levy or charges (for example, GST).

However, Airbnb's platform is designed in such a way that information about the amount of Accommodation Fee applicable to Guests under age 2 is 'buried' in the House Rules. The fee is disclosed, but it's not disclosed prominently enough to avoid misleading a Guest, which is what ACL requires.  

This is not an arguable point.    Guests are almost always surprised when they book or inquire, only to find that they must pay the applicable fee for a Guest under age 2.  The fact that a Guest must manipulate the platform by recording 'infants' as 'children' in order to generate an accurate final price is further evidence that the platform design is misleading with respect to calculating the final price.  

 In order for the process to comply with ACL the final price should be shown at the time a Guest makes a booking inquiry or request and enters in the number and ages of all Guests. The modification to achieve this is relatively simple.  Either remove the whole 'infants stay free' nonsense altogether, or give Hosts the flexibility to tick a box that states whether they charge for infants and make this information flow into the pricing calculation.  

The latter approach has several benefits: (a) it complies with ACL and prevents Airbnb being saddled with a further Enforceable Undertaking or - worse -  increased penalties for breaching an EU already in place, (b) provides a very useful positive filter to enhance Guests' search experience, (c) heads off the negative experience and likely cart abandonment caused by a post-inquiry/booking notification of an addtional charge, (d) saves CX huge amounts of time currently spent sorting out this mess.

 It just seems like such a non-brainer and I am mystified as to why this problem was created in the first place and why it has been allowed to continue despite being unpopular with Guests and Hosts alike and exposing Airbnb to both reputational and regulatory risk.

[Helga0]

The way to hell is plastered with good intentions...

I never understood the kids-are-free-by-default idea. Obviously most hosts are pissed by it, many won't comply with it and the workaround is complicated and can only result in annoyance. 

As you say, @Louise0, guests will feel mislead and either abandon booking with hosts, who do not offer free stays to babies, bully the host to abandon at least part of the fee or start the stay annoyed with a feeling to have been ripped off. 

[Louise0]

So true @Helga0, it's a lose/lose for all - guest, host and Airbnb.  The fact that the clunky workaround breaches ACL is just the icing on a very bitter cake.

What I don't get is why ABB are now including cleaning fees in headline prices, presumably to avoid sticker shock, subsequent cart abandonment and drip-pricing allegations, yet they don't see that the free kids workaround is 10x worse.   It's madness.

I just hope that as a way of 'solving' the problem ABB don't simply demand that all infants stay free and that's that's.  The legal and regulatory ramifications of that are just so broad and so dire that I pray they aren't that stupid.

[Helga0]

@Louise0, my impression eas, that the glorious idea at the beginning was: All kids stay free, we are family friendly. -  Comes with the age of the people running the company. 

That backfired. It would be interesting to know how many listings became No Kids following that change. That creates a discrimination problem, If families are less welcome. What's worse, it changed attitudes. People may have checked No Toddlers intending to say No FREE toddlers and No discussions about it. After a few  

[Helga0]

... (sorry phone bug) after a few disagreements, discussions, insults, smuggled in babies in the possibly rearranged, kid free location, hosts are really annoyed and against kids. It's human, if you have to defend a week position, which you did not even really believe in at the start, after a while you are a fervent defender of the faith. 

... obviously that makes marketing Uturns hard too 😉

butit would be time to devide to make an U turn on that policy. Maybe with a face saving 90 % category. Or by adding a freely definable percentage - or better not, some people would put 150% and that starts the discrimination discussion again 😉

[David262]

Hear, hear, Louise.

I use to get quite a few infant bookings (which is a significant market for me) prior to the change, but now none.

Infants are a complex market. Some parents travel with a truck load of their own equipment & supplies for their babies - they are completely self-sufficient, while others make do with what ever is already provided, and still others need specialist thing supplied for them.

The old system, where all guests were guests, regardless of age - worked well, it did not set any expectations as to how an infant would be handled, and individual guest's requirements could be negotiated and paid on a case by case basis.

[Louise0]

@David262 The problem with hosting small children is that regardless of the amount of equipment parents bring with them, they still use significantly more resources than adults and older children.  There's garbage bins filled with dirty nappies (typically, a baby in nappies will fill our entire non-recyclable, non-compostible allocation in a little under 6 days),  the additional food and human effluvial spills (breast milk and baby vomit stain and bleach textiles), the noise, the additional usage of laundry and the additional kitchen and utility usage as parents with little ones typically don't eat out every night.  

It's entirely reasonable to expect to be compensated for hosting these guests.  We are not charities.  I don't know why Airbnb stuck their nose in this one.  It's now going to be so hard to reverse it, which is why I think my idea of reframing it as a positive - by having a 'kids stay free', 'infants stay free' checkbox - is a very attractive solution.

[Emi4]

@Louise0 I agree with you A checkbox would be a good solution. Having kids or infants for free should be optional.