2020
DOI: 10.1007/s11002-020-09546-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A first look at online reputation on Airbnb, where every stay is above average

Abstract: Judging by the millions of reviews left by guests on the Airbnb platform, this trusted community marketplace for accommodations is fulfilling its mission of matching travelers with hosts having room to spare remarkably well. Based on our analysis of ratings we collected for millions of properties listed on Airbnb worldwide, we find that nearly 95% of Airbnb properties boast an average star-rating of either 4.5 or 5 stars (the maximum); virtually none have less than a 3.5 star-rating. We contrast this with the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
135
2
7

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 186 publications
(148 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(20 reference statements)
4
135
2
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Our research builds on and extends the findings of previous research that documented the polarity of the distribution of online reviews (e.g., Dellarocas, Gao, and Narayan 2010; Feng et al 2012; Godes and Silva 2012; Hu, Pavlou, and Zhang 2017; Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers 2015), offline WOM (e.g., East, Hammond, and Wright 2007; Naylor and Kleiser 2000) and consumer satisfaction (e.g., Danaher and Haddrell 1996; Peterson and Wilson 1992). Although prior research has documented the presence of polarity and imbalance in online reviews, it has neither investigated their robustness nor the possible reasons for their variation across platforms.…”
Section: The Polarity Of Online and Offline Womsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Our research builds on and extends the findings of previous research that documented the polarity of the distribution of online reviews (e.g., Dellarocas, Gao, and Narayan 2010; Feng et al 2012; Godes and Silva 2012; Hu, Pavlou, and Zhang 2017; Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers 2015), offline WOM (e.g., East, Hammond, and Wright 2007; Naylor and Kleiser 2000) and consumer satisfaction (e.g., Danaher and Haddrell 1996; Peterson and Wilson 1992). Although prior research has documented the presence of polarity and imbalance in online reviews, it has neither investigated their robustness nor the possible reasons for their variation across platforms.…”
Section: The Polarity Of Online and Offline Womsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…The lower entry barrier to peer-to-peer exchanges makes roles of peer providers and peer consumers fluid. For example, Airbnb is an online peer-to-peer platform, through which individuals play more than one role; they are peer providers (i.e., hosts) when leasing their residences to others, and the same individuals become peer consumers (i.e., guests) when traveling and renting accommodations from other peer providers (Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers 2015).…”
Section: Foundational and Broad Areas Of Peer Engagement Behaviors Rementioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, feedback is a public good that may be underprovided (Bolton et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2010; Lafky, 2014). Second, user‐generated feedback is often biased, with extreme levels of “grade inflation” across several platforms (Nosko and Tadelis, 2015; Horton and Golden, 2015; Zervas et al., 2015). Third, and less explored, is the notion that established reputations of existing products may become a barrier to entry for new products, thus creating a “cold‐start” problem that may stifle market expansion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%