444
Airbnb's struggles go beyond people spending less. It's losing some travelers to hotels.
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
444 points (98.5% liked)
News
23296 readers
1123 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Airbnb is a fine example of a sort of variation on enshittification.
The way it works is a new company with a new and notably cost-effective way of doing things comes along and is unsurprisingly wildly successful. And then, inevitably, that leads to them hiring a whole raft of executive parasites who all have to be paid obscene salaries for doing nothing of any real value, which means the company needs to raise prices and cut back on services in order to generate more profit to pay those salaries. And meanwhile, the new executives, with nothing of any note that they actually need to or even can do, but with a need to create some illusion that they're necessary, have pointless meetings in which they propose and wrangle about and eventually approve and implement new policies and new plans that are generally awful.
And pretty quickly and not coincidentally the new company ends up at least as bloated, mismanaged, overpriced and under-performing as the companies they so recently replaced.
See also: Uber, DoorDash and the entire streaming industry.
While you got the effects correct, you got the process wrong and that's important.
The business model isn't based on cost effectiveness. Most of these companies work at a loss for a long time, providing artificially low prices in order to gain market share and push existing players out. This is isn't new. It's called dumping. Irs just been a bit obscured by buzzwords like "new technology" and "disruption."
These executives aren't hired to do nothing and collect high salaries. Their salaries aren't what drives the price increases. The major shareholders who spent their money to sustain the company so far want to get return on that money. They install executives with this one goal - maximize profit - so they can get this return. This is what drives the hiring of sociopaths who drive prices up in order to increase profits at all costs. This is what drives hiring such people in all public corporations. You got the effects right but the reasons aren't to do with shit execs and their salaries. It's all to do with major shareholders search for growing profits. Everything else follows from there. This is important to understand in order to point the finger in the right direction. Misdirecting people's substantiated anger with the system has been a perennial tool used to maintain profit maximization for as long as possible.
I'd also like to point out that the underlying model may well be unsustainable in the way that it is offered at the start. Who benefits when a for-profit company operates at a loss? We, the customers, do. We get low prices and customer-friendly practices that are genuinely enjoyable. That business can't operate in that way indefinitely, as the early investors are not funding it as an act of charity.
Eventually, the bill comes due. The shareholders have funded the company on the premise that, after losing lots of money on customer acquisition, it can restructure and monetize those customers and recoup their investment, hopefully with a lucrative return when they decide to capitalize their holdings and find a new company with which to repeat the process.
There is absolutely no reason not to enjoy the perks of the early stage of the customer acquisition process; the shareholders are subsidizing your product at no cost to you. But we shouldn't be surprised when the shareholders stop subsidizing and start squeezing their formerly pampered customers in the hopes of getting their money back (and more, of course).
This doesn't excuse unethical or abusive practices, but it does mean that, even without them, the experience of those early days probably wasn't going to last forever.
At the individual level, sure. Even for things like streaming services it isn't a net negative to take advantage of those 'introductory' prices.
But a lot of these businesses that operate at an obvious loss are undercutting currently existing business practices that are probably more cost efficient than these new businesses. Like restaurants that used to take care of their own delivery were undercut by malicious pricing from door dash and uber eats only to wind up in a situation where they would have to start from scratch again or pay the outrageous extortion fees to DD and UE.
I avoided both DD and UE because I knew it would not be sustainably long term. It was obvious they were maliciously undercutting competition. Same with uber and lyft and all the other ride share businesses, although at least they got some reform going on the taxi side.
I can think of one reason. Depriving the existing industry from revenue leading to its demise which ensures the new entrant can raise their prices higher than the preexisting status quo. This is the other part of the equation that makes dumping work. Of course we can't expect most people to choose to pay more but if people were able to resist that, the strategy wouldn't work.