Evaluating the Superhost Cancellation criteria

[Lizzie]

Hello everyone,

Further to the feedback many of you gave on the Superhost criteria topic here in the Community Center and in research session, the Superhost team is currently evaluating the Superhost Cancellation criteria.

They’re considering evolving the Cancellation criteria from 0 cancellations in the past year, to:

• Option 1: 0 cancellations in the past 100 trips (or in the past year if you haven't hosted 100 trips). This means even after a rare cancellation, you don’t have to wait an entire year to qualify again. As soon as you host 100 trips without cancelling again, you will be eligible for Superhost.

• Option 2: 1 cancellation allowed every 100 trips. For every 100 trips you host in the past year, you would be allowed 1 cancellation and still be eligible for Superhost.

Cancellations under extenuating circumstances will continue to not count toward this criteria as they are out of your control.

They would like to hear directly from you on these potential changes:

• What do you think about these changes?
• Which option do you prefer and why?
• Are these changes easy to understand?
• Do these changes seem more fair to you as a host?
• Do they motivate you to continue to work to become or remain a Superhost?

I will share the feedback you submit on THIS topic specifically with the Superhost team. These are not the only things the team is currently looking into, but they wanted to run these ideas by you first.

Thank you so much and I look forward to hearing from you.

Lizzie

Legal disclaimer: By selecting "Post", you agree to share your ideas publicly and without any expectation of confidentiality or compensation of any kind. While Airbnb welcomes your contributions, Airbnb may be working independently on similar policies, products, or features, and may choose to review and/or implement your ideas in its sole discretion. You also agree that the https://www.airbnb.com/terms and https://www.airbnb.com/terms/privacy_policy apply to your use of this and all Community Center pages."

[Cathie19]

Totally with you @Sarah977  as my volume is similar, but over about six months. It’s now March and my bookings don’t start till the Dry Season in May. 

[Sarah977]

@Cathie19 @Lizzie In order to get 100 bookings/year on a single listing, by my calculations, you'd have to be getting 100% occupancy all year (no vacation for you!) on bookings of 3.65 days or less. If a host has bookings which generally average more than that, say 1 week, even if they had steady back-to-back bookings all year, they would still only have 52 bookings/year.

So the options proposed don't appear to address the zero cancellation issue at all- they just seem to be a perk for high-volume hosts.

[Huma0]

@Lizzie

I am really pleased that Airbnb is looking to address these kinds of issuse for hosts and seeking feedback from us before making changes. I welcome that very much and hope they will continue to do so for other issues that are frequently discussed on the CC.

I do see why other hosts, who do not have a high volume, are not particularly keen on either option though. I assume when you refer to 100 trips, you are referring to the last 100 that fall into the past year, i.e. hosts who have less than 100 trips a year are not then going to be put at a disadvantage because the last 100 trips will be counted rather than the past year, even if those 100 trips cover a period of years?

I currently host well over 100 trips a year, but am trying to move towards more longer term bookings. Even if that doesn't happen, I don't want to see other Superhosts who host less trips being put at a disadvantage.

Wouldn't the whole thing be much simpler if every Superhost (regardless of how many trips they host) e allowed one cancellation per year? Yes, I know that means that a host who only has ten trips and cancels one of them is cancelling 10% of his/her bookings, so how about we make it a percentage, rather than bang on about this 100 trips criteria? So, a Superhost is allowed to cancel 5% of trips within a year, meaning they honour 95%, which is pretty high really.

You also mentioned that extenuating circumstances would not be counted towards these cancellations. What about the penalty free IB cancellations? Would they count or not?

I welcome this initiative but think we all need a bit more clarification because at the moment, I am not sure which of the two options presented I would choose.

Many thanks,

Huma

[Allison2]

Thanks for asking the community, Lizzie!

Airbnb decided that to be a superhost you needed to be active enough that you hosted 10 stays or 100 nights over 3 stays. If the purpose of this change is to allow a tiny margin for human error, both the host with 10 stays and the host with thousands should have this allowance.

So as I look at these policies I'm asking what would happen if each host had one cancellation. Do these policies give both hosts the desired margin for human error?

Option 1 still takes a 0 tolerance stance toward cancellations. Both tiny host and mega host lose SH status for a non-EC cancellation. The tiny host would wait a full year to be reinstated (same as current policy), the mega host would be reinstated the next quarter (>100 stays).

Option 1 favors the mega host over tiny host, so the current policy is more fair.

Option 2 has interesting wording with "for every 100 trips in the past year", so @Lizzie, please tell me if I'm reading this correctly.

• Option 2: 1 cancellation allowed every 100 trips. For every 100 trips you host in the past year, you would be allowed 1 cancellation and still be eligible for Superhost.

Tiny host had 1 cancellation in 10 visits. They would not be eligible for SH.

Mega host had 1 cancellation in 1000 visits. They continue to be a SH. They could have cancelled 10 stays (10 unhappy guests who never book through Airbnb again!) and STILL be a SuperHost. I book with superhosts for their reliability, so I don't know if this is a message you really want to send.

This is where you need DATA! What percentage of SuperHosts have more than 100 stays in a year? I'm guessing it's relatively few, but have no idea.

I had 45 stays last year. Until global warming is so rampant that people want to visit northern Michigan in January I don't think I'll ever have 100 stays in a year!!! Still, I have guests in my house almost every day between June and October so I consider myself a very active host. Even so, a single cancellation would also knock me out of SH status under option 2.

My conclusion is that the current policy is more fair than either proposed policy. The only hosts it helps are mega-hosts.

Right now the metric is 0 cancellaions/year. Why not just make it 1 cancellation/year? That seems far more egalitarian.

[Douglas187]

• What do you think about these changes? It sounds like they're watering down the Superhost. They should add an Ultrahost or something if they want to do that.
• Which option do you prefer and why?Option 1 because a host needs to be reliable for a guest. Even 1% cancellations is too much for a Superhost. 
• Are these changes easy to understand?Yes
• Do these changes seem more fair to you as a host?It allows more hosts to be eligible for the Superhost program but having more Superhost's doesn't improve the guest experience. 
• Do they motivate you to continue to work to become or remain a Superhost?No. If Airbnb allows hosts who cancel to be Superhosts then its watered down. Already there's not like a huge advantage to being a Superhost because its so easy to get. 

[Cathie19]

Hi @Douglas18 , I totally respect your viewpoint, but would like to state that my superhost status didn’t come easy AND a lot of extra time, effort and individualised attention to all details in the homestay and during the guest’s stay, got it for me.

But when you do not effectively have a twelve month of the year window for business opportunity, due to climate, and being in the suburbs, then to be judged across 100 guests in a year only favours the high volume host or multilisting property managers. 

@Lizzie , @Sarah977 

The stats here, that most hosts are debating, or disputing is the volume of guests for the year.

If my standards as a host drop, or I receive retaliatory reviews, then I’ll lose my SH status. Simple as!

I have never cancelled a booking, and even have contingency plans in the homestay in case of a Wet Season Cyclone! That indicates I do not intend to cancel a booking, but with family over 3000kms away, you never know.... And yes, I am also a guest with Airbnb when travelling, and understand the need for security with a booking.

I just ask that ALL HOSTS consider all sides of the debate when Airbnb are listening, and in this case, the dedicated but lesser volume host’s side of the coin.

Thanks for listening......

🙂

Cathie

PS: so @Lizzie, I can’t accept or vote an agreeance on either option 1 or option 2, due to the high volume stat of 100 hostings,  installed/ written in to both choices. If I was willing to accept either, I might as well shoot myself in the foot! 

😞

Cathie

[Mark1412]

LIzzie, neither are fair but then no one promised me a fire life. Of the two, I perfer option "B".

Could you shine some light on the superhost standing and how it effects the average bottom line? Do you have any facts and figures that show that being a superhost is more than a little icon. Will losing the superhost status hurt our bottom line and if so, by how much?

What motivates me is money. If being a superhost will mean I have an increase of XX% of getting a booking or if I can raise my price by $XX due to being a superhost, then I am motivated. What would motivate me is facts, figures and percentages so I know if taking the risk by not canceling a reservation is worth the reward. To me, this is a business and having the information needed to make a wise business decision would be appreciated.

I perfer option B (2)

To be a super host and get 100 trips per year is confusing to me... Is that 100 nights or 100 guests. If one guest says two nights is that 1 trip or 2 trips?

To reach 100 trips that would require an average of 2 trips per week. That sounds like a lot.

Thank you for asking.

[Ute42]

.

Hi @Lizzie ,

maybe my fellowhosts won't like my opinion, but here it is:

In order to cancel a guest-reservation we already have the extenuating circumstances policy in place. What aribnb is offering here is, that a host can cancel penalty-free even if he or she isn't able to claim any reason based on extenuating circumstances.

What kinds of reasons would these be? I'm renting out my place for 15 years and I have never cancelled a reservation. Sometimes I read stories here on these forums where a host cancelled on a guest 1 or 2 days before check in. I think this is extremely rude. If a host cannot prove the house burned down or a similar severe reason, this host should be penalised, and if the cancellation is extremely short term losing superhost and having to pay $100 I think is not enough

I want my guests to live up to the rental agreement that we have and accept that they will lose substantial monies under my strict cancellation policy when the cancel from their side. On the other hand I will of course also honour the contract from my side and I do not plan to cancel on anyone except my house burns down.

[Sarah977]

@Ute42  For the most part I agree with you- I've never cancelled a reservation in 2 and half years of hosting.

But I can see where there might be legitimate reasons for doing so which don't fall under extenuating circumstances. Say a host gets a reservation only 2 days before check-in. Guest doesn't bother to communicate at all on an IB, or just sends a one-liner with the Request, like "Hi, will be arriving by car." Host approves the Request, as time is running out on the 24 hour window, sending the guest a message, asking for a bit more info. Guest doesn't answer that message, or subsequent messages. Host feels uncomfortable about the reservation, especially as the guest looks quite young. Airbnb doesn't agree that there's any valid reason to cancel. But host has a spidey sense that tells them not to allow this person to come.

[Ute42]

.

Hi @Sarah977 

Maybe hosts with a spidey sense should not turn on IB but work with booking inquiry and vet their guests as good as they can before they accept a booking. I'm not a big fan of breaking contracts.

[Rebecca181]

@Lizzie Thanks for tagging me on this. It seems to me that there are few benefits to being a Super Host these days, and I feel this is an important point that needs to be mentioned. Example: I used to appreciate having the Super Host line that allowed me to access customer support more quickly; the last few times I used the Super Host line it was clear that the C/S reps I reached (after spending a good amount of time on hold) had no idea what they were doing or saying and they were no help at all - I had to go to Airbnb support over on Twitter to get the help I needed.  So much for that particular benefit.

Here's another example: Supposedly guests care about staying with a Super Host, which means more bookings for us: Reality Check: I met maybe one or two guests out of over 130 Airbnb guests I hosted who even knew what a Super Host was. Super Hosts are not prominently featured in the searches or on the Airbnb home page (while 'Experiences' and 'Airbnb Plus' are). Guests don't seem to understand that there is a search filter that can help them find a Super Host to stay with - Why? Because, once again, most guests don't have any idea what a Super Host even is.

So, to me, this is the more important issue that deserves consideration: Providing incentives and clear advantages to make one care about being a Super Host. Given this, the question for me is, do either of these cancellation options do that? No, because as a host that cares about my guests and about my business, I would never cancel on a guest unless it were due to extenuating circumstances. And I bet most Super Hosts here would say the same thing.

Regarding the specific options you put forth: Once again, both these options penalize the Super Host who does not run their place like a commercial operation (i.e., they provide a great service but don't host alot of guests annually for a variety of reasons). So I'm not in favor of either option for this reason.

But thanks for asking.

[Emiel1]

@Lizzie 

None of the options give me a serious advantage. If i need to cancel, i cancel (but it never happens in the past, 1  third party booking was taken of the shelf by Airbnb without penalties). Being Superhost or not, it is not bothering me. I share the vision from @Ute42 : take the hosting  business very serious, then there is no need to cancel. When  something severe happens, cancellation can be covered by extenuating circumstances. I also do not use IB and never will. Not being a superhost because 1 cancellation a year or per 100 bookings ? I will accept this punishment if i showed myself as an unreliable host.

[Ken34]

What do I think of these Changes?   Personally I think "it isn't broke, so stop trying to fix it".  Unless you're going to start distinguishing  between those of us who are live-on-premises Superhosts and those MegaHosts or Corporate Slumlords who are nowhere near any of their many listings.  

Which Option do I prefer?  Neither 1 nor 2.  Stop messing with stuff just because you can.  

Are the Changes easy to understand?   Unfortunately YES.

Do these Changes seem more fair to you as a Host?   NO, you're watering down what we've spent a lot of time and effort working towards year after year.  You want to be "fair" to Superhosts?  Leave us alone and let us get on doing what we do best.

Do they motivate you to continue to work to become or remain a Superhost?  NO!!!  You're taking away our incentive by "cheapening" the definition of Superhost!

[Sudsrung0]

I feel both of them options are not viable to a big percentage of host if you guys who have not been SH it's no big deal do a good job and give the guest what they need I think the reviews will get you business.

I was a SH and I lost it because I cancelled a booking but it was 9 months before the date of arrival and I wasnt completly to blame, thats another story and the guest was lying.

The big problem was airbnb then blocked the calender which I never understood because they lost also and I got a better booking from another booking platform.

I think airbnb should concentrate more on promoting to attract more guest as airbnb admit to being down by 37% here in Phuket and I think thats a lot.

Dont get me wrong I like airbnb but sometimes I feel they are holdng host to ransom sometimes

[Alice-and-Jeff0]

@Lizzie  - It's nice that Airbnb is asking our opinion. 

What Airbnb is doing is lumping all "Superhosts" into the same category for cancelling when they have clearly defined that a host can achieve this status without being the same.  We host almost 200 guest stays a year in just our one guest room and yet, we're getting the same "benefits" as a Superhost who hosts 4 guests a year.  We are also on the IB system, so we don't spend time in advance sorting out our guests so our "unlimited" cancellations for guests that make us uncomfortable kicks in.  And still, in over 4 years, we've never cancelled a guest.  Even when we were forced out of town for family deaths.  We were professionals and figured out a way to make it work for the guest and for us.  That being said, there have been plenty of guests I wanted to cancel when they were not communicating, or asked for unreasonable things, so giving me the option to "out" might be nice.  But at what cost exactly?  I'm not sure my Superhost status means much of anything anymore and I've been a  16-quarter superhost without a single cancellation.  Clearly that my listing has fallen by 5-7 spots on the list (which means I am often "below the fold" now)  and that Airbnb wants me to drop my price to below my initial asking price of 4 years ago, and that my bookings have fallen from 97% to 93% - a simple cancellation policy means pretty much nothing by way of status that I need to covet (and yes, several of those listings that make the cut before me are not even Superhosts and have not been around as long as me!)

As mentioned before, I think you should be able to "buy" your cancellations.  You achieve superhost status and  your "benefit" is directly related to the number of guest nights you've served or the dollars you generate as it relates to average prices in your area, or something that is more equitable across all segments of the hosts.  For someone with the volume I have - WITHOUT being a multi-list host - I should be able to choose every single quarter - do I want a cancellation  or a travel credit?  Or maybe, I want a % less on my fees. Or maybe, I can select some sort of spiff from the marketplace for my listing.  It seems so ridiclulous to me that Airbnb executives keep trying to force a single issue when it has been clear for some time that there are so many nuances to this one item - Superhost - and that the system for achieving this badge is highly flawed (because we all know that reviews are highly flawed).  So if you are low-volume, long-stay, high booking rate, low view rate, tourist area, vacation rental, whole house, in-home host, IB host, multiple-listing host, and the list goes on  and yet, we're still forcing one item or choice and when the decision is made, well, if you didn't fall into the category that this supported, you are SOL.  

Once again, it seems to me that you are "fixing" the wrong thing.  This is just the most recent run up the flagpole and it is not solving bigger issues.  Like seriously, how many hosts on a yearly or quarterly   basis are losing their status because of cancellations?  You haven't provide this number.  How many hosts are cancelling guests on a regular basis?  Again, no idea.  What is the breakdown - where are the predominant cancellations?  I ask these questions because I am forced to wonder, do either of these two options solve a real problem or just a perceived problem?  Without real data, without real knowledge, you are asking a very small group of people to weigh in on an issue that may not really have any measure of benefit.  

Plus, Airbnb likes to through salve on non-issues to redirect and gloss-over real issues that they won't discuss - like those profile pictures or their lack of transparent changes and communication.  Giving me a cancellation every 100 stays (which would be what I would choose) would allow me to cancel about once every 6 months - is that REALLY want Airbnb is trying to solve?  Doubtful.  

Once you make Superhost status easier to achieve, you water down the status even more than it already is diluted.  Why do this? What does having a 50% Superhost status host list achieve for Airbnb? What new or more compelling benefits will be added to this ever-growing list of a junk group?   We've stayed in 2 Superhost locations over the last year that Airbnb should be EMBARASSED have that badge.  I'm embarassed that I'm in the same category as they are.  The problem to solve is to get hosts to elevate, not give them more opportunity to fall short.  

Sorry if my fellow hosts do not agree.  But for me, I would not choose to allow a host to cancel any reservations without penalty or without having earned a "freebie" they can use because of their exceptional service up until now.  

Look forward to hearing what decision Airbnb is moving to consider.