4 ms·
I'm not saying it's right or fair. I also think it's nonsense. You're thinking on the side of a smart entrepreneur, not a criminal. All a crook is interested i
by tomlin 15y ago
I'm not saying it's right or fair. I also think it's nonsense. You're thinking on the side of a smart entrepreneur, not a criminal.
All a crook is interested in is hearing or seeing the headline: "Airbnb pays for loss and damages to rattled user", or other more clever narrative. If you're a criminal, details aside, you've got all you need to scheme up an assalt.
Criminals don't work on high probability, if they did, there wouldn't be so many obvious ones. Just because they aren't likely to get the reward they desire doesn't mean they won't try.
- SoftwareMaven 15y agoThe right way to handle this would be to make EJ right, then put insurance in place as part of the rental agreements that covers the future. Yes, insurance fraud exists, but insurance companies are good at ferreting that out. Since AirBnB is working on the latter, it makes no sense not to do the former.
- quandrum 15y agoI don't think this line of thinking works. Criminals aren't your customers. If you respond to incidents with non-customers in mind, you're going to create a negative response in current and potential customers. This was an opportunity for AirBnB to prove that their service is excellent and worth using. This was a chance to prove to potential customers that if the worst happens they'll be their. Instead they proved they won't support their customers fully when worst case scenarios happen. Because they were thinking more about people who don't pay them then people who do.
- ScottBurson 15y agoAgreed. If AirBnB doesn't trust its customers, it can hardly ask them to trust one another.