7 ms·

'Airbnb Inc. disputed the study’s findings, calling them “wrong on the facts” and containing “substantive issues with the methodology.”' Did Airbnb publish wha

by loceng 9y ago

'Airbnb Inc. disputed the study’s findings, calling them “wrong on the facts” and containing “substantive issues with the methodology.”' Did Airbnb publish what these wrong facts and substantive issues are?

smsm42 9y ago
https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/ https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  From that: < The majority of our hosts are sharing the home in which they live, not removing permanent housing from the market. In fact, as NYU researchers recently found, in order for someone to make as much money from an Airbnb guest as from a long-term tenant, they would have to share a home for 216 nights a year in New York City — more than triple the number of nights that a typical listing is shared. > They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts".
  - gautamnarula 9y ago
    > They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts". IIRC, NYC passed a law against this and Airbnb has bee cracking down on those types of listings. I think SF has a similar law as well. I also wonder if NYC now charges any occupancy taxes in Airbnb like SF does. If so, the revenue collected should also be weighed against any increases in rent. I also wish the article had actual calculated how much of a per month rent increase the $600m figure resulted in. In a city as big as NYC, I don't know if 600m is a big deal or not.
    - cimmanom 9y ago
      Unfortunately, this law is only marginally enforceable, and it's not in AirBnB's interest to do much more than pay lip service to enforcement.
    - cimmanom 9y ago
      Unfortunately, this law is only marginally enforceable without AirBnB's wholehearted collaboration, and it's not in AirBnB's interest to do much more than pay lip service to enforcement.
  - loceng 9y ago
    I agree that there'd need to be an independent research body to get into more depth, otherwise everyone will be sharing based on biased perspectives or shallow data.
ceejayoz 9y ago
Their rebuttal is linked in the article. https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/ https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/
dragonwriter 9y ago
The odd thing is that AirBnB’s entire value proposition to hosts is that it increases realizable income from the property they control and make available through AirBnB; if true, especially in the presence of supply constraints, this has to increase market clearing prices. They are in a position where what they need hosts to believe is directly at odds with what they want policymakers (including people voting directly on policy or for politicians) to believe.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  The spin is preposterous. They should just say that that's a natural outcome of better real estate utilization and that the city needs to figure out how to build more affordable housing.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Easy there with terms like “better real estate utilization”, which could be conflated with “more efficient rent seeking at the expense of housing consumers”. The end goal is not always maximum profit extraction. NYC is served best by balancing the needs of both long term and short term renters, while ensuring investors reasonable compensation/rates of return on capital invested for services provided.
    - DubiousPusher 9y ago
      That's fair.
    - sdhgaiojfsa 9y ago
      This is not what people traditionally think of as "rent-seeking." Rent-seeking behavior is doing something to get more money without providing any corresponding value. AirBnb hosts do provide value -- just not to the people who live in the neighborhood. But it is fine to argue that, based on their willingness to pay more, out of town visitors provide better utilization of the housing resource. TL;DR: Extracting rents from things you own by providing economic value to a customer is not "rent-seeking."
deckar01 9y ago
The link is at the end of the article. https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/ https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/
neonate 9y ago
Two problems mentioned in the rebuttal: the study counts every Airbnb unit as a rental taken permanently off the market, and the dataset counts every blocked-off calendar date as a night the unit was booked. Both of those are obvious over-counting. A study that doesn't even try to account for those is pretty obviously political. Airbnb should have posted estimates of how much this over-counting could distort the data, because it sounds like a lot. $616M is one of those numbers that sounds high but in context probably isn't, so it wouldn't surprise me if those two distortions wiped out the number, or at least cut it to below headline worthy.
- loceng 9y ago
  On the surface you can't assume either way if a listing on Airbnb means the unit is permanently off the market or not, likewise with counting or not counting every blocked-off calendar date: if it's not a period of 4-8-12 months blocked off, then it's likely not being rented to a long-term renter; the lister perhaps even perhaps booked those block-off calendar dates through a different service, or did the transaction not through/off of Airbnb. Whether it's $100MM or $616M - it's a sign that there are external costs that that city and society must shoulder because of the higher prices people can charge with shorter-term rentals, primarily to non-locals who may or may not be staying or moving to the city.
  - neonate 9y ago
    Of course you can't assume either way, which is exactly what they did, which means they over-counted, inflating the numbers in the direction of their conclusion.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
refurb 9y ago
Rule #1 of public relations - don't give negative news more attention then you have to.

by loceng 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago

https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/ https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/

CodeWriter23 9y ago
From that: < The majority of our hosts are sharing the home in which they live, not removing permanent housing from the market. In fact, as NYU researchers recently found, in order for someone to make as much money from an Airbnb guest as from a long-term tenant, they would have to share a home for 216 nights a year in New York City — more than triple the number of nights that a typical listing is shared. > They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts".
- gautamnarula 9y ago
  > They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts". IIRC, NYC passed a law against this and Airbnb has bee cracking down on those types of listings. I think SF has a similar law as well. I also wonder if NYC now charges any occupancy taxes in Airbnb like SF does. If so, the revenue collected should also be weighed against any increases in rent. I also wish the article had actual calculated how much of a per month rent increase the $600m figure resulted in. In a city as big as NYC, I don't know if 600m is a big deal or not.
  - cimmanom 9y ago
    Unfortunately, this law is only marginally enforceable, and it's not in AirBnB's interest to do much more than pay lip service to enforcement.
  - cimmanom 9y ago
    Unfortunately, this law is only marginally enforceable without AirBnB's wholehearted collaboration, and it's not in AirBnB's interest to do much more than pay lip service to enforcement.
- loceng 9y ago
  I agree that there'd need to be an independent research body to get into more depth, otherwise everyone will be sharing based on biased perspectives or shallow data.

ceejayoz 9y ago

Their rebuttal is linked in the article. https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/ https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/

dragonwriter 9y ago

The odd thing is that AirBnB’s entire value proposition to hosts is that it increases realizable income from the property they control and make available through AirBnB; if true, especially in the presence of supply constraints, this has to increase market clearing prices. They are in a position where what they need hosts to believe is directly at odds with what they want policymakers (including people voting directly on policy or for politicians) to believe.

DubiousPusher 9y ago
The spin is preposterous. They should just say that that's a natural outcome of better real estate utilization and that the city needs to figure out how to build more affordable housing.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Easy there with terms like “better real estate utilization”, which could be conflated with “more efficient rent seeking at the expense of housing consumers”. The end goal is not always maximum profit extraction. NYC is served best by balancing the needs of both long term and short term renters, while ensuring investors reasonable compensation/rates of return on capital invested for services provided.
  - DubiousPusher 9y ago
    That's fair.
  - sdhgaiojfsa 9y ago
    This is not what people traditionally think of as "rent-seeking." Rent-seeking behavior is doing something to get more money without providing any corresponding value. AirBnb hosts do provide value -- just not to the people who live in the neighborhood. But it is fine to argue that, based on their willingness to pay more, out of town visitors provide better utilization of the housing resource. TL;DR: Extracting rents from things you own by providing economic value to a customer is not "rent-seeking."

deckar01 9y ago

The link is at the end of the article. https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/ https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/airbnb-new-york-and-housing/

neonate 9y ago

Two problems mentioned in the rebuttal: the study counts every Airbnb unit as a rental taken permanently off the market, and the dataset counts every blocked-off calendar date as a night the unit was booked. Both of those are obvious over-counting. A study that doesn't even try to account for those is pretty obviously political. Airbnb should have posted estimates of how much this over-counting could distort the data, because it sounds like a lot. $616M is one of those numbers that sounds high but in context probably isn't, so it wouldn't surprise me if those two distortions wiped out the number, or at least cut it to below headline worthy.

loceng 9y ago
On the surface you can't assume either way if a listing on Airbnb means the unit is permanently off the market or not, likewise with counting or not counting every blocked-off calendar date: if it's not a period of 4-8-12 months blocked off, then it's likely not being rented to a long-term renter; the lister perhaps even perhaps booked those block-off calendar dates through a different service, or did the transaction not through/off of Airbnb. Whether it's $100MM or $616M - it's a sign that there are external costs that that city and society must shoulder because of the higher prices people can charge with shorter-term rentals, primarily to non-locals who may or may not be staying or moving to the city.
- neonate 9y ago
  Of course you can't assume either way, which is exactly what they did, which means they over-counted, inflating the numbers in the direction of their conclusion.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

refurb 9y ago

Rule #1 of public relations - don't give negative news more attention then you have to.