7 ms·

Airbnb Apologizes for Tone-Deaf Hotel Tax Ads, Will Take Them Down

72 points by doppp 11y ago

onewaystreet 11y ago
> For the past couple of hours, Airbnb has been getting slammed on social media for a San Francisco bus stop ad that was shared on Facebook. Should Airbnb care what a handful of people are saying on Twitter, most of whom already hate the company?
- HaloZero 11y ago
  If there's outrage on Twitter, it's easy until more traditional media outlets catch it and take it from there. While that's not going to happen every time, it certainly can and the PR team is probably thinking yes it's going to happen.
  - onewaystreet 11y ago
    True, but a lot of the time a response from a company is what causes the media to report on something. TechCrunch isn't reporting on the criticism, they are reporting on Airbnb's response to it.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  AirBnB should care about what voters think. Social media is a wonderful tool for inexpensive voter outreach.
  - onewaystreet 11y ago
    AirBnB should try to influence what voters think. The minds of the people talking about this on Twitter are already made up.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Who are AirBnB's "constituents"? AirBnB hosts and their guests. Almost all AirBnB customers in SF are from out of town, not voters. There are more people looking for places to live in SF than there are AirBnB hosts. What does AirBnB have to influence what voters think? "Its not fair because we're AirBnB"? AirBnB has two choices: Say nothing, or lie.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - khuey 11y ago
        There are also people in San Francisco who use AirBnB when they travel elsewhere.
    - jcdavis 11y ago
      They have, in the form of $8 million in funding for the No on F campaign. Which is why this ad looks so pathetically tone deaf
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- wisty 11y ago
  Because if somebody has an opinion, and they express it on Twitter, it can apparently be newsworthy. (For example, when 3 trolls created a news story about their "boycott" of Star Wars). "On Twitter" is apparently to news organizations what "on the internet" is to the patent office. That said, at least TC has asked the company for a response (putting them on the more mature and responsible end of the scale).
- ddw 11y ago
  Well they cared enough to pay for these ads, so yeah.
ars 11y ago
Can someone explain what's wrong with the ad? Is it that hotel taxes don't necessarily go to libraries?
- coldcode 11y ago
  It's a shallow attempt to influence the vote.
- jdp23 11y ago
  Here's an excerpt from the librarian's Facebook post that went viral: "Out of your $12 mil of hotel tax, only 1.4% percent goes to the SF Public Libraries. So that's $168,000. Divided by the 868 library staff, we have $193 per person. Assuming each employee works 5 days per week minus holidays, this is $0.78 per employee per day. Since that's significantly under San Francisco minimum wage ($12.25/hr), I doubt that your hotel tax can keep the libraries open more than a minute or two later. However, had you donated that $8 million you spent fighting Proposition F directly to the public libraries you love so much, that could have made a bigger difference. Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20!" https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100700506082939 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100700506082939 Also note the comment: "what a smug, shitty ad"
  - BinaryIdiot 11y ago
    Ah, thanks! As someone unfamiliar with how taxes are used in SF this ad seemed completely fine to me but after hearing how the taxes are really provisioned this is obviously really misleading.
  - davmre 11y ago
    That's a silly argument. The point of the ad is that the hotel taxes allow the city to offer better public services. Of course if your analysis only considers 1.4% of the tax money you'll find the benefits aren't that impressive. But then you have to account for what the other 98.6% of the money is doing: presumably providing other public services! If SF spent the whole $12 million on libraries, that would be $55/employee/day, which seems plenty to keep libraries open for an extra few hours. Even if SF only spent "some" of the money on libraries, as the ad suggested, even spending $3 million would come to $14/employee/day which seems enough for a meaningful expansion of services.
jdp23 11y ago
To me this seems a great illustration of why a lot of people in SF want to put restrictions on AirBnB even though they know Prop F won't "solve" the housing crisis. I'm curious how it looks to "No on F" supporters.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  Not just in SF. I live in Austin and we have investors from outside the city buying up residential properties from the already strained and limited pool to turn into STRs. Luxury condos displacing older and more affordable housing but it seems many are still sitting vacant. So much for 'market solutions.'
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    0'd again, loving this shoot-from-the-hip place HN has become. At least post a reply if you disagree with what I've posted.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    This problem exists in every city, and will continue regardless if Airbnb is regulated out of business. The real problem here is absentee landlords, charging arbitrary amounts of rent.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      One step at a time. Operate at scale, be prepared to be regulated at scale.
    - shaftoe 11y ago
      I imagine it's not arbitrary. They're charging what they can get for renting their property.
- knorby 11y ago
  The ad is poor, but is there anything to strongly influence your opinion on restrictions other than gut feeling of the company? A big claim made by proponents of Prop F is that the existing, and recently created, compliance by AirBnB and hosts has been questionable, and hotel taxes paid are a big part of that. On a KQED Forum on Prop F, David Campos made some big deal about how the amount of hotel taxes paid by AirBnB is obscure and unknown, even though the figure should be readily available to him as a city supervisor; it makes sense to me why AirBnB would want to advertise that (with their campaign budget that's 2/3 the amount they pay in SF hotel taxes per year apparently). Prop F is a slimy and questionable proposition in all dimensions, and it would make a broad law with impacts beyond AirBnB rentals. You shouldn't vote for or against it based on your gut view of the company.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
malchow 11y ago
I'm not sure I see the 'tone-deaf' piece. The argument of the ads seems to be: 'taxes' are exacted from people and companies to pay for necessary public services. Using a tax as a weapon is not just. Taxes paid by Airbnb (and implicitly by its users) aren't really going to fund public services, not genuinely.[1] They're going to city public servants some of whom see themselves as personal crusaders against. . . Airbnb. Airbnb seems to be saying that such a use of the taxing power is a mockery of our form of government. And I rather think it has a point. Now you can disagree and say that Airbnb really is a hotel, as a legal matter. But the sheer animus that the anti-Airbnb crowd seem to possess indicate that they want to use the taxing power to do harm. [1] For those who don't like this, here is the California 2016 budget, showing that well over 50% of the state's spending is on benefits, not on governmental administration, transportation, education, or policing: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spending_pie_chart http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin...
- _delirium 11y ago
  I can't say for sure, but I don't think AirBnB is actually intending to make the argument you give. My read of what they want to argue is more along the lines of: AirBnB is good for the city, because it brings in tax revenue, which helps fund public services. Therefore, please vote against the proposition that would restrict AirBnB rentals. The tone-deaf part is just the way the ad campaign making that argument came off. The format of a letter saying effectively, "you're welcome for the tax dollars, love AirBnB", ending with a comment about how maybe libraries can use the money to stay open later, was probably intended to come off as cutesy, but was instead perceived as smug and passive-aggressive by at least a portion of the public.
  - luckydata 11y ago
    I think you're both missing the part where Airbnb has been arguing for years that it wasn't an hotel operator and as such it didn't need to pay hotel taxes. They were forced to do so after plenty of legal back and forth with public officials. Hence, the "you're welcome" sounds like an insult to to the city and its citizens that pay taxes without flinching more than anything else. Personally I think Airbnb are a bunch of douches that seriously need to grow up.
batiudrami 11y ago
A friend of mine has a theory - much like the expression "I'm not racist but", anyone who uses the term "My tax dollars" almost always follows it with something ignorant and distasteful. This ad really is the equivalent of that, and is a bad look - to the point where I would consider using a competing service if available.
jdp23 11y ago
Oh gee, look at that: despite 48 points in 4 hours, the story has now dropped to the third page. Meanwhile front page posts include 34 points/6 hours, 41 points/9 hours, 25 points/7 hours, 41 points/8 hours ... I'm sensing a pattern here -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309480
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

72 points by doppp 11y ago

> For the past couple of hours, Airbnb has been getting slammed on social media for a San Francisco bus stop ad that was shared on Facebook. Should Airbnb care what a handful of people are saying on Twitter, most of whom already hate the company?

HaloZero 11y ago
If there's outrage on Twitter, it's easy until more traditional media outlets catch it and take it from there. While that's not going to happen every time, it certainly can and the PR team is probably thinking yes it's going to happen.
- onewaystreet 11y ago
  True, but a lot of the time a response from a company is what causes the media to report on something. TechCrunch isn't reporting on the criticism, they are reporting on Airbnb's response to it.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
AirBnB should care about what voters think. Social media is a wonderful tool for inexpensive voter outreach.
- onewaystreet 11y ago
  AirBnB should try to influence what voters think. The minds of the people talking about this on Twitter are already made up.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Who are AirBnB's "constituents"? AirBnB hosts and their guests. Almost all AirBnB customers in SF are from out of town, not voters. There are more people looking for places to live in SF than there are AirBnB hosts. What does AirBnB have to influence what voters think? "Its not fair because we're AirBnB"? AirBnB has two choices: Say nothing, or lie.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - khuey 11y ago
      There are also people in San Francisco who use AirBnB when they travel elsewhere.
  - jcdavis 11y ago
    They have, in the form of $8 million in funding for the No on F campaign. Which is why this ad looks so pathetically tone deaf
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
wisty 11y ago
Because if somebody has an opinion, and they express it on Twitter, it can apparently be newsworthy. (For example, when 3 trolls created a news story about their "boycott" of Star Wars). "On Twitter" is apparently to news organizations what "on the internet" is to the patent office. That said, at least TC has asked the company for a response (putting them on the more mature and responsible end of the scale).
ddw 11y ago
Well they cared enough to pay for these ads, so yeah.

ars 11y ago

Can someone explain what's wrong with the ad? Is it that hotel taxes don't necessarily go to libraries?

coldcode 11y ago
It's a shallow attempt to influence the vote.
jdp23 11y ago
Here's an excerpt from the librarian's Facebook post that went viral: "Out of your $12 mil of hotel tax, only 1.4% percent goes to the SF Public Libraries. So that's $168,000. Divided by the 868 library staff, we have $193 per person. Assuming each employee works 5 days per week minus holidays, this is $0.78 per employee per day. Since that's significantly under San Francisco minimum wage ($12.25/hr), I doubt that your hotel tax can keep the libraries open more than a minute or two later. However, had you donated that $8 million you spent fighting Proposition F directly to the public libraries you love so much, that could have made a bigger difference. Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20!" https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100700506082939 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100700506082939 Also note the comment: "what a smug, shitty ad"
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Ah, thanks! As someone unfamiliar with how taxes are used in SF this ad seemed completely fine to me but after hearing how the taxes are really provisioned this is obviously really misleading.
- davmre 11y ago
  That's a silly argument. The point of the ad is that the hotel taxes allow the city to offer better public services. Of course if your analysis only considers 1.4% of the tax money you'll find the benefits aren't that impressive. But then you have to account for what the other 98.6% of the money is doing: presumably providing other public services! If SF spent the whole $12 million on libraries, that would be $55/employee/day, which seems plenty to keep libraries open for an extra few hours. Even if SF only spent "some" of the money on libraries, as the ad suggested, even spending $3 million would come to $14/employee/day which seems enough for a meaningful expansion of services.

jdp23 11y ago

To me this seems a great illustration of why a lot of people in SF want to put restrictions on AirBnB even though they know Prop F won't "solve" the housing crisis. I'm curious how it looks to "No on F" supporters.

wavefunction 11y ago
Not just in SF. I live in Austin and we have investors from outside the city buying up residential properties from the already strained and limited pool to turn into STRs. Luxury condos displacing older and more affordable housing but it seems many are still sitting vacant. So much for 'market solutions.'
- wavefunction 11y ago
  0'd again, loving this shoot-from-the-hip place HN has become. At least post a reply if you disagree with what I've posted.
- dublinben 11y ago
  This problem exists in every city, and will continue regardless if Airbnb is regulated out of business. The real problem here is absentee landlords, charging arbitrary amounts of rent.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    One step at a time. Operate at scale, be prepared to be regulated at scale.
  - shaftoe 11y ago
    I imagine it's not arbitrary. They're charging what they can get for renting their property.
knorby 11y ago
The ad is poor, but is there anything to strongly influence your opinion on restrictions other than gut feeling of the company? A big claim made by proponents of Prop F is that the existing, and recently created, compliance by AirBnB and hosts has been questionable, and hotel taxes paid are a big part of that. On a KQED Forum on Prop F, David Campos made some big deal about how the amount of hotel taxes paid by AirBnB is obscure and unknown, even though the figure should be readily available to him as a city supervisor; it makes sense to me why AirBnB would want to advertise that (with their campaign budget that's 2/3 the amount they pay in SF hotel taxes per year apparently). Prop F is a slimy and questionable proposition in all dimensions, and it would make a broad law with impacts beyond AirBnB rentals. You shouldn't vote for or against it based on your gut view of the company.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

malchow 11y ago

I'm not sure I see the 'tone-deaf' piece. The argument of the ads seems to be: 'taxes' are exacted from people and companies to pay for necessary public services. Using a tax as a weapon is not just. Taxes paid by Airbnb (and implicitly by its users) aren't really going to fund public services, not genuinely.[1] They're going to city public servants some of whom see themselves as personal crusaders against. . . Airbnb. Airbnb seems to be saying that such a use of the taxing power is a mockery of our form of government. And I rather think it has a point. Now you can disagree and say that Airbnb really is a hotel, as a legal matter. But the sheer animus that the anti-Airbnb crowd seem to possess indicate that they want to use the taxing power to do harm. [1] For those who don't like this, here is the California 2016 budget, showing that well over 50% of the state's spending is on benefits, not on governmental administration, transportation, education, or policing: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spending_pie_chart http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_state_spendin...

_delirium 11y ago
I can't say for sure, but I don't think AirBnB is actually intending to make the argument you give. My read of what they want to argue is more along the lines of: AirBnB is good for the city, because it brings in tax revenue, which helps fund public services. Therefore, please vote against the proposition that would restrict AirBnB rentals. The tone-deaf part is just the way the ad campaign making that argument came off. The format of a letter saying effectively, "you're welcome for the tax dollars, love AirBnB", ending with a comment about how maybe libraries can use the money to stay open later, was probably intended to come off as cutesy, but was instead perceived as smug and passive-aggressive by at least a portion of the public.
- luckydata 11y ago
  I think you're both missing the part where Airbnb has been arguing for years that it wasn't an hotel operator and as such it didn't need to pay hotel taxes. They were forced to do so after plenty of legal back and forth with public officials. Hence, the "you're welcome" sounds like an insult to to the city and its citizens that pay taxes without flinching more than anything else. Personally I think Airbnb are a bunch of douches that seriously need to grow up.

batiudrami 11y ago

A friend of mine has a theory - much like the expression "I'm not racist but", anyone who uses the term "My tax dollars" almost always follows it with something ignorant and distasteful. This ad really is the equivalent of that, and is a bad look - to the point where I would consider using a competing service if available.

jdp23 11y ago

Oh gee, look at that: despite 48 points in 4 hours, the story has now dropped to the third page. Meanwhile front page posts include 34 points/6 hours, 41 points/9 hours, 25 points/7 hours, 41 points/8 hours ... I'm sensing a pattern here -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10309480

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]