Is air bnb becoming too corporate?

[Prue0]

I just read this is a UK newspaper. Is air bnb just growing for the sake of it without regard to strategy or its core business?

'Airbnb may have presented itself as an ally of the middle classes against entrenched economic interests. But the drive for profits already forces it to partner with the likes of Brookfield Property Partners, one of the world’s largest real-estate firms, to develop Airbnb-branded hotel-like residencies, often by purchasing and converting existing apartment blocks. Few entrenched interests – save, perhaps, for the tenants who see their apartment blocks become Airbnb-run hotels – get disrupted here.'

Air bnb gave itself a hard job trying to find a way of managing millions of individual guests and hosts (and there are still things that could be better, although most things work pretty well).Now they are adding the further complication of managing corporate partners. What do others think?

[Ange2]

@Prue0    The question is what is its core business today?  By looking at its strategy one could hazard a guess,  its definitley not what it marketed itself as in the beginning.  Neither is FB or Google.

[Prue0]

@Ange2 I think its core business as perceived by guests and most hosts is still personal sharing of space, whether a whole house flat or room in a home. That is its USP and what differentiates it from a Holiday or Premier Inn. it is also what opened up a giant market expansion creating accomodation that was not previously accessible... like my spare rooms which accomodate people who previously could not afford to travel as often for a weekend break or similar. I think that there is an argument for staying on that track and getting better at it, rather than blurring the lines between air bnb and -for example- booking.com. 

Most of the hosts I know who use BDC have switched because they were unsatisfied in some way with air bnb. Certainly in the UK airbnb marketing is less visible than it used to be- no tv ads for a while. And there are gripes around compensation (which I would sort by placing a minimum and maximum claimable amount- putting in place a minimum claim would save a lot of hassle for the company and would be a clear message to hosts about needing to suck up a broken cup or a stained towel) and reviews, where they seem to be listening a bit more. So strategically I think they should consolidate their brand identity rather than diluting it with mergers and acquisitions.

A while back they bought a luxury brand. I grew up in that bit of the business. It is a nightmare and very hard to make money as the market for sublime luxury is relatively small and the standards necessary to compete make each and every property very costly to operate. Now I run 4 rooms in my house and 2 small flats at a relatively simple level and I make a better return than when I operated at the luxury end, and air bnb do OK out of me too.... and my guests are pretty happy with good clean rooms at a fair price.

Too much diversification could be confusing to customers and hosts, it may dilute the brand identity and ultimately generate less consistent returns together with much higher costs.

[Ange2]

@Prue0    "I think its core business as perceived by guests and most hosts is still personal sharing of space, whether a whole house flat or room in a home". 

True, but perception is not fact. If it were so it would be a wonderful, but that kind of business does not a billionaire make, nor would it be considered for an IPO,  both of which are Airbnb's bent:  the former achieved,  the latter to come. Airbnb appears to be locked into the quest for maximum profitability and that means caving to the old ways of doing business and abandoning the sharing economy.

As the article says: "Many of these promises [offered by the sharing economy] will look appealing. But without a robust political agenda – an agenda that harbours no illusions about the ability of global capital to promote social emancipation – they will produce the opposite effects. "   Airbnb appears to be in the phase of producing that opposite effect.