IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v26y2020i7p1108-1128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Good fences make good revenue: An examination of revenue management practices at peer-to-peer accommodations

Author

Listed:
  • Yoon Koh

    (14743University of Houston, USA)

  • Amanda Belarmino

    (14722University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA)

  • Min Gyung Kim

    (65686Hongik University, Korea)

Abstract

While hotel revenue managers utilize tools such as pricing, market segmentation, rate fences, and forecasting to maximize revenue, hosts in peer-to-peer (P2P) accommodations often have limited knowledge and lack the sophisticated pricing tools. Despite online resources for revenue management available, there has yet to be an examination regarding how widely spread these practices are in the P2P accommodation segment. Based on daily best available rates and booking restrictions information for P2P accommodations listed on Airbnb from top 10 cities with highest room inventories in the United States, this study aims to shed light on the current state of revenue management adoption on Airbnb. Utilizing a total of 307,955 Airbnb property’s daily data for 32 months, this study found that there are significant differences in revenue management practices by host characteristics (multi-unit hosts vs. single-unit hosts: Superhosts vs. non-Superhosts) for three revenue management tactics: dynamic pricing, minimum night’s stay, and restricted cancellation, and the hosts practices changes as their experience accumulates.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoon Koh & Amanda Belarmino & Min Gyung Kim, 2020. "Good fences make good revenue: An examination of revenue management practices at peer-to-peer accommodations," Tourism Economics, , vol. 26(7), pages 1108-1128, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:26:y:2020:i:7:p:1108-1128
    DOI: 10.1177/1354816619867579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354816619867579
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1354816619867579?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexandrea J. Ravenelle, 2017. "Sharing economy workers: selling, not sharing," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(2), pages 281-295.
    2. Sundararajan, Arun, 2016. "The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262034573, December.
    3. Juliet B. Schor, 2017. "Does the sharing economy increase inequality within the eighty percent?: findings from a qualitative study of platform providers," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(2), pages 263-279.
    4. Sheryl E Kimes, 2016. "The evolution of hotel revenue management," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 15(3), pages 247-251, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kiczmachowska Ewa E., 2022. "Revenue Management Practices in Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: The Case of Airbnb," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 30(2), pages 135-152, June.
    2. Meijian Yang & Enjun Xia, 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review on Pricing Strategies in the Sharing Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Kiczmachowska Ewa E., 2022. "Revenue Management Practices in Peer-to-Peer Accommodation: The Case of Airbnb," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 30(1), pages 135-152, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jesús M Artero & Cristina Borra & Rosario Gómez-Alvarez, 2020. "Education, inequality and use of digital collaborative platforms: The European case," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 31(3), pages 364-382, September.
    2. Jing Lan & Yuge Ma & Dajian Zhu & Diana Mangalagiu & Thomas F. Thornton, 2017. "Enabling Value Co-Creation in the Sharing Economy: The Case of Mobike," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Katarzyna Gruszka & Andreas Novy, 2018. "Sharing the liberal utopia. The case of Uber in France and the US," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2018_07, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    4. Sally Zhu, 2020. "Sharing Property Sharing Labour: The Co-Production of Value in Platform Economies," Laws, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Everding, Sebastian, 2020. "Do hybrids impede sustainability? How semantic reorientations and governance reforms can produce and preserve sustainability in sharing business models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 174-185.
    6. George Maier & Kate R. Gilchrist, 2022. "Women who host: An intersectional critique of rentier capitalism on AirBnB," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 817-829, May.
    7. Gugerell, Katharina & Penker, Marianne & Kieninger, Pia, 2019. "What are participants of cow sharing arrangements actually sharing? A property rights analysis on cow sharing arrangements in the European Alps," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Jing Lan & Diana Mangalagiu & Yuge Ma & Thomas F. Thornton & Dajian Zhu, 2020. "Modelling consumption behaviour changes in a B2C electric vehicle-sharing system: a perceived systemic risk perspective," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 655-669, June.
    9. Gilchrist, Kate & Maier, George, 2022. "Women who host: an intersectional critique of rentier capitalism on AirBnB," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 113677, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. María Rosalía Vicente & Carlos Gil-de-Gómez, 2021. "Exploring the Motivations of Suppliers in the Collaborative Economy: A Sustainability Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-11, February.
    11. Dolnicar, Sara, 2019. "A review of research into paid online peer-to-peer accommodation," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 248-264.
    12. Chan Liu & Raymond K. H. Chan & Maofu Wang & Zhe Yang, 2020. "Mapping the Sharing Economy in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Česnuitytė, Vida & Klimczuk, Andrzej & Miguel, Cristina & Avram, Gabriela (ed.), 2022. "The Sharing Economy in Europe: Developments, Practices, and Contradictions," EconStor Books, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 249157, May.
    14. Irina V. Kozlenkova & Ju-Yeon Lee & Diandian Xiang & Robert W. Palmatier, 2021. "Sharing economy: International marketing strategies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(8), pages 1445-1473, October.
    15. Česnuitytė, Vida & Simonovits, Bori & Klimczuk, Andrzej & Balázs, Bálint & Miguel, Cristina & Avram, Gabriela, 2022. "The State and Critical Assessment of the Sharing Economy in Europe," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 387-403.
    16. Antonio Menor-Campos & María de los Baños García-Moreno & Tomás López-Guzmán & Amalia Hidalgo-Fernández, 2019. "Effects of Collaborative Economy: A Reflection," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-13, May.
    17. Virginija Grybaite & Jelena Stankeviciene & Giedre Lapinskiene & Askoldas Podvezko, 2022. "Comparison of the Environment of EU Countries for Sharing Economy State by Modern Multiple Criteria Methods," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 24(59), pages 194-194.
    18. Sunyu Chai & Maureen A. Scully, 2019. "It’s About Distributing Rather than Sharing: Using Labor Process Theory to Probe the “Sharing” Economy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(4), pages 943-960, November.
    19. Crommelin, Laura & Troy, Laurence & Martin, Chris & Parkinson, Sharon & Hayward, Richard Donald, 2018. "Technological disruption in private housing markets: the case of Airbnb," SocArXiv cb8z3, Center for Open Science.
    20. Stefania Cosci & Valentina Meliciani & Marco Pini, 2021. "Historical roots of innovative entrepreneurial culture: the impact of firms using motive power in 1927 on Italian provincial start-up rate," CERBE Working Papers wpC38, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:26:y:2020:i:7:p:1108-1128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.