Sources of Value co-creation, co-destruction and co-recovery at Airbnb in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic

ABSTRACT

This study explored the sources of value co-creation, co-destruction and co-recovery amid the COVID-19 outbreak using 415 online reviews of guests’ experiences with Airbnb. Data analysis using the grounded theory approach identified two main sources: Airbnb’s customer service and hosts’ conduct. Four sub-themes (quality of interactions with customer service representatives, difficulties in achieving resolution, dissatisfaction or satisfaction with the resolution offered and costs incurred by the consumer) comprised the main theme of Airbnb’s customer service. Two sub-themes (the role of the host’s communication in service recovery and perceived unethical actions by the host) comprised the main theme of hosts’ conduct. The findings indicate that collaborative engagement in the restoration of service failure by actors results in value co-recovery.

KEYWORDS:

• Value co-creation
• value co-destruction
• value co-recovery
• airbnb
• COVID-19

Introduction

Studies on value co-creation have proliferated in service research and have been increasingly applied in the field of tourism and hospitality (Font et al., 2021). In fact, today, interest in value co-creation has increased in the tourism and hospitality field (Assiouras et al., 2022; Eletxigerra et al., 2021). Service-dominant logic (SDL) posits that value co-creation is a process of resource exchange in which actors interact and create value reciprocally (Vargo & Lusch, 2004), representing ‘value in use’ (Grönroos, 2011). For tourists, value is derived from the experience and represents ‘value in the experience’ (Helkkula et al., 2012). A fundamental premise of SDL is that the customer is a value co-creator (Lusch & Vargo, 2014) when both service providers and customers incorporate resources to co-create and consume an experience in a jointly favorable way that can improve customer well-being (Scherer et al., 2015).

Value is not always co-created and can also be co-destructed because of the collaboration, or lack thereof, between different actors (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011). There is growing evidence that consumers experience negative service encounters in which value is co-destroyed during the interaction process (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011; Sthapit & Björk, 2021). Plé’s (2017) study indicates that value co-creation and co-destruction can be regarded as two sides of the same coin – they co-exist – but the greater focus on value co-creation affects the way that academics and practitioners perceive value. Value co-recovery is intertwined with this lacuna. Many studies have been conducted on value co-creation; however, less research has focused on value co-destruction and value co-recovery (Järvi et al., 2020; Mody et al., 2020). There have also been calls to simultaneously examine value co-creation, value co-destruction (Yin et al., 2019) and value co-recovery, including their sources, in the context of the sharing economy (Nadeem et al., 2020). The justification for this study is that studying these three different value outcomes will provide a more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon, which recent studies have called for (Plé, 2017; Prior & Marcos-Cuevas, 2016; Sthapit & Björk, 2021; Vafeas et al., 2016).

The sharing economy is an economic model that enables individuals to share access to under-utilized goods or services for monetary or nonmonetary benefits (Ferrell et al., 2017). Airbnb, a sharing economy system centered on accommodation, has become quite popular among travelers (Jiang et al., 2019). Airbnb is the world’s largest alternative accommodations provider, with more than three million listings (Dogru et al., 2020). Today, although many Airbnb hosts have adopted a new approach marked by a shift from offering services to offering memorable experiences in cooperation with their customers (Sthapit, 2019), others have taken a firm-centric approach aligned with goods-dominant logic (Binkhorst & Den Dekker, 2009). According to Vargo and Lusch (2008), customers ultimately determine value. However, in the context of Airbnb, the host (or service provider) decides the tangible and intangible aspects of various product/service bundles using a set of house rules presented on the listing page, such as restrictions on smoking, areas that are deemed off-limits and the acceptability of visitors, loud music, parties, pets and food or drinks in the bedrooms, a situation contrary to the idea of value co-creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Consequently, experiences with Airbnb may lead to multiple perceptions of value that inform the value outcomes of customers (guests): value co-creation or value co-destruction (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). Although a handful of studies have been conducted that link the different value outcomes within Airbnb (Sthapit & Björk, 2021), additional research that considers the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) context is needed because many things have changed in a short period of time. The COVID-19 outbreak, a global disease crisis, adversely affected the global tourism and hospitality industry, which includes Airbnb, a peer-to-peer (P2P) hosting service provider (Farmaki et al., 2020).

Aside from studying value co-creation and value co-destruction, value co-recovery owing to the inherently inconsistent nature of the Airbnb service experience (Sthapit & Björk, 2021) and the high level of interactive, intangible and idiosyncratic customer service provider contact that leads to service failures and service recoveries must be addressed (Mody et al., 2020). In addition, most of the existing knowledge on COVID-19 and Airbnb comes from the host’s perspective (Farmaki et al., 2020). Despite the increase in the number of service failures and guest complaints (Sthapit, 2019), including in the context of Airbnb (Mody et al., 2020), these studies tend to overlook guests’ perspectives, which are addressed in the current paper. From the perspective of Airbnb guests, this study explores and focuses on both macro (company) and micro (host) levels in terms of the sources of value co-creation, co-destruction and co-recovery amid the COVID-19 pandemic using 415 online reviews of guests’ experiences with both Airbnb platform and accommodation facilities.

In the present study, an inductive approach was utilized since of guests’ experiences with both Airbnb platform and accommodation facilities is an under-researched phenomenon. This approach can overcome the limitations of previous studies on Airbnb platform services or facility services by allowing for potentially new theoretical insights to emerge (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Data were collected by utilizing nonparticipant observation in the form of netnography from the Trustpilot website. Data collection and analysis was conducted between February and August 2020 using a grounded theory approach. Data analysis identified two main sources: Airbnb’s customer service and hosts’ conduct. Four sub-themes (quality of interactions with customer service representatives, difficulties in achieving resolution, dissatisfaction or satisfaction with the resolution offered and costs incurred by the consumer) comprised the main theme of Airbnb’s customer service. Two sub-themes (the role of the host’s communication in service recovery and perceived unethical actions by the host) comprised the main theme of hosts’ conduct.

Literature Review

Sharing Economy, Airbnb and the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic

According to Yang, Yang et al. (2019), the sharing economy denotes a new type of business model that is driven by sharing access to underused goods and services to satisfy individual demand in exchange for payment or benefit. The sharing economy can also be understood as service systems (companies or individuals) through short-term rentals, utilizing and monetizing underutilized assets (Kumar et al., 2018). In other words, the sharing economy is an economic system in which an online platform connects the supply and demand sides to facilitate transactions that provide consumers with temporary success to idle resources (Gonzalez-Padron, 2017). The sharing economy consists of many online businesses that use internet technology as a platform for lending, borrowing, gifting, swapping or renting consumer products and services (Germann Molz, 2013).

Airbnb is the largest P2P accommodation network to date. It is a collection of private rooms, apartments and homes. Each is owned by an individual owner, located in different places and managed independently (Dogru et al., 2020). Since 2008, Airbnb has expanded to more than 191 countries and currently boasts more than 200 million users (Airbnb, 2019). Airbnb is an online platform that enables private households to profit by monetizing their idle rooms, apartments and/or houses as tourist accommodations (Guttentag, 2019). In addition, Airbnb fulfills travelers’ needs for low-cost accommodations, convenient locations and a variety of choices (Sthapit & Björk, 2019). Because of the dispersed ownership and management of Airbnb units, accommodation quality and consumer experiences may vary widely (Sthapit & Björk, 2021). Airbnb can potentially expand supply wherever houses and apartment buildings already exist and individual hosts solely determine the prices of their Airbnb listings. Airbnb has become a key competitor of not only other online travel agents (e.g., Expedia) but also traditional hotels (Dogru et al., 2020).

As a direct consequence of the pandemic, travel restrictions and government-ordered shutdowns have caused many Airbnb hosts to struggle financially (Johnson & Davis, 2020); additionally, the number of Airbnb bookings has plummeted (New York Times Company (NYTCo), 2020). Although some hosts have recently chosen to reopen their listings, Airbnb has seen a significant decrease in demand due to travel restrictions and the fear of contracting COVID-19 while traveling (DuBois, 2020). Consuming tourism experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic is a complex proposition (Jang et al., 2021), as tourists are exposed to destination-related risks (Otoo et al., 2019) and personal and behavior-borne risks (Chien et al., 2017). At present, several problems exist in the use of Airbnb during the pandemic, such as the lack of site-wide hospitality standards (Sthapit & Björk, 2019), untrained hospitality professionals (Birinci et al., 2018), issues of trustworthiness as a result of COVID-19-related health and safety requirements (Cheng et al., 2019) and concerns about Airbnb hosts’ to improve hygiene standards (Farmaki et al., 2020). For these reasons, it is imperative to enhance the current understanding of tourists’ experiences in the accommodation-sharing economy model during the COVID-19 pandemic (Jang et al., 2021).

Value Concepts

The concept of value still lacks a consistent definition (Boksberger & Melsen, 2011) as it is difficult to define and measure (Grönroos, 2008). However, a generic and useful definition of value theory refers to the degree of goodness derived from consumption (Gordon, 1964). Service-dominant (S-D) logic’s value is generated by the collaborative actions of co-creation between customers and brands or organizations (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). Consumers’ achievement of goodness could be considered equivalent to capturing consumer value (Ravald & Grönroos, 1996). One frequently cited definition is as follows: ‘the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given’ (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). Others define values as an interactive consumption experience (Zhang, Torres & Chen, 2018), residing in interactions (Holbrook, 2006) and an enhancement in system well-being (Vargo et al., 2008, p. 149), which can be measured ‘in terms of a system’s adaptiveness or ability to fit in its environment’. In the context of the current study, value refers to ‘a function of interactions between subjects or a subject and an object; is contextual and personal; is a function of attitudes, affections, satisfaction or behaviourally based judgment; and resides in a consumption experience’ (Holbrook, 2006, p. 212).

Value cannot be measured on a universal level; it can only be created with and determined by the user in the consumption process and through use (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). In addition, value resides in a customer’s interactions with a firm’s offering, such as employees, facilities, goods and services, rather than the firm itself (Park & Ha, 2016). Given that every customer is unique in his or her consumption experience, skills, preferences and goals, value is subjective and depends on certain consumption situations (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

Value is uniquely determined by the beneficiary (customer) in a particular context (Chandler & Vargo, 2011) and is closely tied to consumer experience (Lusch & Vargo, 2014). Thus, it is customers themselves who actively co-create with companies, integrate operand and operant resources and extract value in context and in use (Morosan & Defranco, 2016). Value is facilitated through a value proposition when applying intangible competences (operant resources), such as human skills and knowledge, and tangible elements (operand resources), such as physical products and equipment, that require the action of operant resources (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011). In other words, value is determined through the integration and application of operant resources (Lusch & Vargo, 2014).

The terms ‘operant’ and ‘operand’ conceive of resources as composing two fundamentally dichotomous types (Constantin & Robert, 1994). According to Vargo and Lusch (2008), operant resources are nonphysical resources, such as knowledge and skills that customers can apply to other resources (operant and operand) for value-creation purposes. Meanwhile, operand resources denote tangible assets, such as economic resources, over which customers act to create value (Alves et al., 2016). Operant resources are crucial to value co-creation (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011). In the same vein, while operand resources are typically physical (e.g., raw materials), operant resources are typically human (e.g., the skills and knowledge of individual employees), organizational (e.g., controls, routines, cultures, competences), informational (e.g., knowledge about market segments, competitors and technology) and relational (e.g., relationships with competitors, suppliers and customers; Hunt, 2004). According to Echeverri and Skålen (2011), it is only when the knowledge and skills, or the operant resources, are active or activated that value co-creation takes place. Contrary to the exchange view of value that emphasizes operand resources as central to the value formation process, operant resources are key to value co-creation. Recent studies conducted on Airbnb indicate that courteous hosts and quick customer service are highly valued by customers and that good communication on the digital rental platform benefits the customer (Sthapit, 2019). In the same vein, communication should be considered an operant resource for the co-creation of value (Sthapit & Jiménez Barreto, 2019).

As value can emerge from mental and emotional experiences (Heinonen et al., 2010) and resides ‘not in an object, a product or a possession but rather in and only in a consumption experience’ (Holbrook, 1999, pp. 8–9), emotions form an important part of consumption experiences (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Malone et al. (2018) identified emotions as a key customer resource in the value creation process. In addition, successful co-creation is a source of positive emotions (Moreau & Herd, 2010), while failed service encounters (value co-destruction) often result in negative emotions (Schoefer & Ennew, 2005). Negatively engagement can be exhibited in customers’ unfavorable thoughts, feelings and behaviors toward the brand during interactions (Hollebeek & Chen, 2014).

Value co-creation, co-destruction and co-recovery

According to Vargo and Lusch (2008), value co-creation is a resource integration process between the provider and the customer. Additionally, value co-creation implies that all the actors involved in the process act to benefit from the interaction. The customer plays a crucial role in this process (Grönroos, 2012), and communication facilitates the exchange of resources between actors in such a way that it permits joint value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

According to Grönroos (2011), value co-creation represents the activities of consumers involved in direct interactions with firms to create value-in-use. Value-in-use involves the customers’ use of a product or service, the experience of which informs their subsequent value assessment (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Value co-creation occurs when two or more actors exchange, integrate or share resources, such as skills, knowledge and time (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). The interaction and collaboration between actors can occur directly or indirectly as well as before, during and after use (Payne et al., 2008). The literature on value co-creation is linked to connotations of positive outcomes (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011).

Grönroos and Gummerus (2014) state that value co-creation can be seen through three different processes: the customer process, the joint value creation process and the provider process. This means that the service provider and the customer must both prepare for their interaction processes. On the one hand, the service provider should have adequate human resources to conduct the service encounter (Morosan & Defranco, 2016). On the other hand, the customer should be aware of his or her needs and articulate them (Prior & Marcos-Cuevas, 2016). These actors need to execute post-interaction activities – that is, the customer should offer feedback directly to the provider if something goes wrong, and the provider must deliver the goods that were bought during the service encounter (Celuch et al., 2015). The customer and the service provider prepare for and execute their collaboration at both the same and different time points (Grönroos & Voima, 2013).

Another possible outcome of the collaboration between different actors involved in a service process is value co-destruction (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011; Plé & Cáceres, 2010). Plé and Cáceres (2010) were the first to coin the term in a S-D logic context, and they define value co-destruction as ‘[…] an interactional process between service systems that results in a decline in at least one of the systems’ wellbeing […]’ (Plé & Cáceres, 2010, p. 431). According to Gummesson and Mele (2010), interaction refers to resource exchange and resource development through adaptation, coordination and communication. Actors are part of service systems and are described as ‘configurations of people, technology, value propositions connecting internal and external service systems, and shared information’ (Maglio & Spohrer, 2008, p. 18). These interactions can be direct (e.g., person-to-person interactions) or indirect (e.g., interactions via appliances such as goods or services; Plé, 2017).

Value co-destruction is defined as either a direct or indirect interactional process between different actors that results in a decline in the well-being of at least one party (Plé & Cáceres, 2010), which can take the form of frustration or lost resources for a service provider or customer (Prior & Marcos-Cuevas, 2016). The decline in well-being refers to intangible matters (such as negative feelings) and tangible matters (as in lost resources, such as money; Makkonen & Olkkonen, 2017). Value co-destruction is founded on negative emotional experiences (Malone et al., 2018) and results in a decline in the well-being of at least one of the service systems (Plé & Cáceres, 2010). For example, value co-destruction can cause the customer to react in a negative manner because of frustration or lost resources. Each actor plays a role in whether value co-destruction emerges (Prior & Marcos-Cuevas, 2016). Consumers often experience negative emotions after encountering service failures (Xu et al., 2018) in which value is co-destroyed during value formation (Sthapit & Björk, 2021). According to Plé and Cáceres (2010), value co-destruction occurs when actors accidentally or intentionally misuse resources by acting in an inappropriate or unexpected manner.

According to Smith (2013) value co-destruction occurs even if only the potential enhancement of well-being has not been met. In addition, (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011; 2011) have carried out one of the few empirical studies investigating value co-destruction. They studied the interaction between employees of a public transport enterprise and its customers. In their view, value co-destruction occurs ‘when the elements of practices are incongruent – i.e. when providers and customers do not agree on which procedures, understandings and engagements should inform a specific interaction […]’ (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011, pp. 2011, 367).

There are also cases in which interactions are characterized by the presence of value co-creation and value co-destruction (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011). Divergent practices causing value co-destruction could become congruent, resulting in a potential outcome of value co-recovery, while practices beginning with congruency and ending in incongruence could lead to value co-reduction. Echeverri and Skålen (2011) described this interaction as ‘reductive value co-formation’ because of the diminishing nature of the interaction value shifting away from co-creation and toward the co-destruction of value. According to Skourtis et al. (2018), value co-recovery is interpersonal (Skourtis et al., 2018) and the outcome of such recovery is based on the actors’ assessment of value in their respective contexts (Edvardsson et al., 2012). This involves a collaborative restoration of service following a failure to alleviate the negative emotions experienced by the harmed partner in the value network (Mostafa, 2016). In other words, during value co-recovery, the interaction evolves into a collaborative engagement between two parties (the service provider and the customer) enacting recovery together to achieve greater value for the customer (Roggeveen et al., 2012). The goal of this interaction is to produce an optimum resolution to remedy the situation in an emotionally pleasing and socially satisfying manner (Park & Ha, 2016).

Methods

Data Collection

Data were collected by utilizing nonparticipant observation in the form of netnography. Netnography involves the collection of data from digital conversations, which in this study refers to consumers’ reviews published on the Internet containing comprehensive information about their experiences (Kozinets, 2002). Kozinets (2015, p. 96) defines netnography as a ‘more human-centred, participative, personally, socially and emotionally engaged vector.’ Netnography was considered appropriate for this study because it is relatively rapid, simple and inexpensive; allows access to naturalistic, unprompted insider experiences, perspectives and reflections; and captures the exchange of tourism information on the Internet (Mkono & Markwell, 2014). In addition, the use of netnography allows for unbiased and unaltered information (Brem & Bilgram, 2015). For example, Gupta (2009) valued netnography as a method for collecting data that avoided the limitations of quantitative survey research, which typically reliant upon a participant’s memory, thereby extending the trustworthiness of research findings. Data can be collected from numerous sources such as, for example, traveler blogs, online tourist reviews, travel message boards, and other virtual tourism Internet media including chat forums and social networking sites (Catterall & Maclaran, 2001). As online communities generated by users, which enable potential tourists to look for tour information easily, continue growing, researchers have a great opportunity to easily study tourist experiences (Mkono & Markwell, 2014). Given that a significant amount of data collection occurs through the data shared freely on the internet, R. Kozinets (2010) suggested that pure netnography is entirely complete within itself and requires no off-line ethnographic research. Numerous recent tourism studies have utilized netnography as a method of data collection (An & Alarcon, 2021; Conti & Lexhagen, 2020; Femenia-Serra et al., 2022). However, the authors acknowledge the narrow focus of netnography on online communities and the lack of informant identifiers present in the online context, which leads to difficulty in generalizing results to groups outside the online community sample (Kozinets, 2002).

We adapted Kozinets (2002) netnography procedure to the Airbnb context. The first step was the search for the most relevant online communities from which to study guests’ experiences of both Airbnb platform and accommodation facilities. We selected the Trustpilot website because it had good user interactivity and a high number of users and user posts about recent Airbnb experiences. Trustpilot (trustpilot.com) is a Danish third-party consumer review site on which shoppers can leave a one- to five-star rating to share their satisfaction and reviews of any retailer, company, brand or service. The website offers a large and reliable number of reviews that include information on the time each review was posted (Singh, 2019). Trustpilot is a Google Review Partner that is used by 270,000 businesses (Trustpilot, 2019). Businesses are classified into 22 different categories, including events and entertainment, travel and vacation and restaurants and bars (Celuch, 2021). Trustpilot.com also hosts business-related reviews worldwide, and almost one million new reviews are posted monthly (Chen et al., 2021). The trustworthiness of Airbnb’s feedback mechanism has often been questioned, as it may allow the presentation of only positive reviews, as suggested by past studies (Bridges & Vasquez, 2018; Zhang, 2019). To overcome this issue and to prevent any bias, data from Trustpilot were used in the interest of capturing uncensored reviews. The website has also been used by recent studies on the sharing economy and Airbnb (Sthapit & Björk, 2021).

The second step involved data collection and analysis, which was conducted between February and August 2020. Positive emotions, or the use of the search words ‘good,’ ‘excellent,’ ‘great,’ ‘nice’ and ‘amazing,’ were used to capture review posts that indicated value co-creation and value co-recovery. Conversely, negative emotions, or the use of the keywords ‘awful,’ ‘bad,’ ‘worst,’ ‘terrible’ and ‘horrible,’ were linked to value co-destruction. Using these 10 keywords helped the current study avoid the generation of overwhelming amounts of data. Customers’ subjective interpretations of their experiences trigger emotional responses that motivate them to react accordingly (Lazarus, 1991). Existing studies have identified emotions as a key customer resource in the process of value creation (Malone et al., 2018). As value can emerge from mental and emotional experiences and resides ‘not in an object, a product or a possession but rather in and only in a consumption experience’ (Holbrook, 1999, pp. 8–9), emotions form an important part of consumption experiences (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). Successful instances of co-creation and co-recovery are a source of positive emotions (Lastner et al., 2016), while emotions triggered by service failure are negative, leading to the negative outcome of value co-destruction (Echeverri & Skålen, 2011). Value co-destruction is reflected in negative emotions and often results in a decline in a customer’s well-being (Järvi et al., 2020). Some recent studies on Airbnb (e.g., Sthapit, 2019) used emotions to explore different value outcomes. In the present study, the responses included were limited to reviews written in English, and each review post consisted of one entry, with an average of four sentences per post. Of the 900 online posts linked to guests’ Airbnb experiences (both platform and accommodation facilities) that were screened, the analysis focused on 415 reviews based on the 10 keywords mentioned above: ‘good’ (19), ‘excellent’ (29), ‘great’ (32), ‘nice’ (4), ‘amazing’ (16), ‘awful’ (41), ‘bad’ (77), ‘worst’ (72), ‘terrible’ (62) and ‘horrible’ (63).

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using a grounded theory research design (Glaser & Strauss, 2017), a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of processes to inductively develop a theory about a phenomenon (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Based on Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) study, we performed three steps for our grounded theory approach. First, we scanned the gathered data to develop a broad understanding of it. Second, we analyzed the review posts and listed the corresponding sources that contributed to value co-creation, value co-destruction and value co-recovery. Third, we manually performed open, axial and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Table 1 presents an example of how the coding was done in practice.

Table 1. The coding process in practise (main theme: Airbnb’s customer service).

Participants views (extracted from transcripts)	Open coding (line-by-line coding)	Subthemes (axial coding)	Main theme (selective coding)
When needed to cancel booking due to travel restriction from healthcare company in response to COVID-19, Airbnb attended quickly to my call to appeal for refund, asking me to send official document from company. Upon submission of official document, the refund was approved within 24 h. Good customer service throughout the appeal process. Will choose to book via Airbnb again. Excellent customer service terms of problem solving in extraordinary situations like coronavirus. I was able to talk to a person on the phone and one hour later, 100% of the payment for a canceled reservation was given back to me. I can just be thankful for the help in this difficult situation. I will definitely keep on using Airbnb for future trips. Airbnb customer service is amazing. I had to cancel two bookings in Europe due to the coronavirus. Not only did I get all of my money back with zero hassle, I was able to do it myself with a few simple, user-friendly steps online. It was a piece of cake, which was refreshing considering the battle I am in with the airlines right now. Airbnb is a great company and I am a huge fan. Great customer service. Customer service was brilliant and so helpful. The woman we spoke to was very patient and gave us all the help we needed to sort out the changes to our holiday. Highly recommended. Airbnb customer service gave me all my money back for multiple bookings due to COVID-19, which is really nice of them. Extra thanks to Maria at customer support for the additional help. I will continue to use Airbnb as my primary source for bookings. Avoid like the COVID. If I could rate them lower, I would. Everything about their handling of my reservation has been shocking, the customer service the worst I have ever encountered and they have currently robbed me of £150 despite me having a policy that entitles me to that money back. Broken promises, bad internal system, and incompetent staff. Will never use them again AVOID. Customer service is beyond awful. Left Airbnb due to pungent mildew order … and agent would not stop asking for photos. We spoke multiple times and robotically he kept coming back to photos. Wasted hours getting a refund, no fault of my own, absurd run around. Hit and miss experiences. Worst customer service ever. During a Pandemic, Airbnb is stealing the money of their customers. They are forcing the hosts who have the properties to give full refunds, but then Airbnb is keeping their service fees. What service???? Then on top of it, they give you coupons that expires December 2020. No one will be traveling.	good customer service, excellent customer service, excellent customer service from Airbnb, great customer service, customer service is amazing, great customer service during Covid-19 pandemic, great customer, Polite, cheerful, very fast, prompt, very kind, so helpful, quick, knowledgeable, friendly, respectful terrible customer service, bad customer service, horrible customer service, pretty bad customer service, Airbnb customer service real bad, customer service is beyond awful Customer service agent was opinionated, judgmental, appalling, disgraceful, dishonest, unprofessional, heartless, headache, incompetent, did not seem to care, fraud, shockingly bad, not trained, unwilling to help, pretending to provide great service, scripted robots, inflexible, hostile toward customers, absolutely hopeless Cannot get any feedback from Airbnb customer service, no one calls me back, they have not replied once, wasted my time over multiple phone calls, took almost a month to reply, hours long waiting time on the phone, I can never get hold of anyone Such a pain to get money back, they do not give refund, shame that we cannot get refund for a valid cancellation, no offer of compensation, would not refund me after having to cancel because of Covid, ended up only getting half the money as refund Highly disappointed, feel robbed, caused us trauma, added stress, extremely displeased, ruined our holiday, got no opportunity to relax, a painful process, very stressful, trashed my travel, robbed me of £150, I am now £900out of pocket, lost 75% of my holiday charge, they took a $300+ service fee, wasted hours getting a refund, trying for 4 months to get a refund, chatting is 60–90 minute wait, took them almost a month to reply, had been on hold for 2 hours	Interactions with customer service representatives (positive and negative) Difficulties with achieving resolution (negative) Dissatisfaction and satisfaction with resolution offered (negative and positive) Costs incurred by consumers (negative)	Airbnb’s customer service contributed to both value co-recovery and co-destruction

Findings and Discussion

As a P2P accommodation company and a popular sharing economy platform, Airbnb has multiple levels of complexity in its customer relations. The company itself (Airbnb) and the independent hosts who operate the accommodations and receive payment for providing them. Using an inductive approach, data analysis located two main sources of value co-destruction (Airbnb’s customer service and host’s conduct; negative), while host’s (positive) conduct caused value co-creation and Airbnb’s (positive) customer service led to value co-recover.

Sources

Source 1: Airbnb’s Customer Service

This study identified a major source of both value co-destruction and co-recovery in Airbnb amid the COVID-19 pandemic to be customer service. Of the 415 reviews posted online, 354 were related to Airbnb’s customer service (286 were negative and 68 were positive). Many guests felt that their problems were not solved in a prompt and appropriate manner, while others experienced positive customer service. Bad customer service was often mentioned in the review posts, revealing its importance in this context. This finding is in line with studies that showed poor customer service from the company as one of the major complaints posted online about Airbnb before the pandemic (Sthapit, 2019; Sthapit & Björk, 2021). Although pandemics are not new experiences for the hospitality industry (Farmaki et al., 2020), P2P hosting service providers are relatively young, having emerged only about a decade ago (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). Therefore, the COVID-19 pandemic is the first major pandemic Airbnb has experienced (Gerwe, 2021). Airbnb’s poor customer service is considered one of the inherent flaws or weak features of the sharing economy phenomenon that the COVID-19 crisis has only further exposed, particularly in the context of accommodation sharing.

The findings of this study indicate that value co-destruction and co-recovery occurred because Airbnb guests and customer service agents enacting service recovery had both negative and constructive views after the service failure. As a result, value formation leads to value co-destruction and value co-recovery. Specifically, four sub-themes were found in the main theme of Airbnb’s customer service: (1) the quality of interactions with customer service representatives, (2) difficulties with achieving resolution, (3) dissatisfaction and satisfaction with the resolution offered and (4) costs incurred by consumers. In addition, two sub-themes – interactions with customer service representatives and dissatisfaction and satisfaction with the resolution offered – contributed to both value co-destruction and co-recovery. The other two sub-themes – difficulties with achieving resolution and costs incurred by consumers – resulted in value co-destruction. These findings are contrary to what some studies have reported, as they indicate that hosts are the primary cause of guest frustration with P2P accommodations such as Airbnb (Shuqair et al., 2019).

Quality of interactions with customer service representatives: The review posts showed that, in many cases, the customer service agents were unable to solve the customer’s issues. They were often described as ‘rude,’ ‘would not let me talk at all,’ ‘opinionated,’ ‘judgemental,’ ‘appalling,’ ‘disgraceful,’ ‘dishonest,’ ‘unprofessional,’ ‘heartless,’ ‘headache,’ incompetent’, ‘did not seem to care,’ ‘fraud,’ ‘not trained,’ ‘unwilling to help,’ ‘pretending to provide great service,’ ‘inflexible,’ ‘hostile towards customers’ and ‘absolutely hopeless.’ Guests’ inability to experience value continued after Airbnb’s customer service was unable to resolve a service failure. Many customers (i.e. Airbnb guests) continued their efforts to reclaim their lost resources; however, they incurred an even greater loss of resources such as time and money while contacting Airbnb customer service. Some expressed feeling helpless because they were not given the option of dealing directly with a live customer service representative.

In contrast, prompt and adequate interaction between the actors (Airbnb guest and customer service personnel) proceeded efficiently in processes that resulted in co-recovery. These interactions were viewed as pleasant, with some guests describing the customer service agents as ‘polite,’ ‘cheerful,’ ‘very kind,’ ‘quick,’ ‘knowledgeable,’ ‘friendly’ and ‘respectful.’ These findings indicate that customers (Airbnb guests) recovered from value co-destruction when the service provider followed appropriate practices during the service recovery process. As a result, some guests stated that they would continue to use Airbnb, regardless of the loss caused by recent service failures. This is highlighted by the following interpretive codes: ‘will definitely keep on using Airbnb for future trips,’ ‘will choose to book via Airbnb again,’ ‘will continue using them after this pandemic for sure’ and ‘will certainly be booking future holidays through them.’

Difficulties with achieving resolution: Value is co-created by customers and service providers, and it is represented in this context by Airbnb guests and customer service agents, through communication (Zhang, 2019). According to Ju et al. (2019), Airbnb’s value proposition features 24/7 customer service to help guests resolve problems. Conversely, several reviews indicated that many guests found Airbnb customer service lacking and functioning poorly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was emphasized by the following interpretive codes: ‘took several days to respond via message,’ ‘put me on hold about 15 times,’ ‘no one calls me back,’ ‘robotic answer every day,’ ‘they have not replied once,’ ‘wasted my time over multiple phone calls,’ ‘took almost a month to reply,’ ‘hours long waiting time on the phone’ and ‘I can never get hold of anyone.’ Some of the review posts illustrated that guests experienced a decline in well-being due to unforeseen time loss. The following posts emphasize this:

‘Customer service is bad. My experience with trying to change a reservation has been so bad that I will never book through Airbnb again … I contacted customer service, and they told me that my issue was going to be escalated and that a customer service specialist would be getting in contact with me. However, I never received a response. The issue is still not resolved, and Airbnb is still holding my money captive.’

‘I would advise [anyone to] avoid Airbnb. Overall, extremely bad customer service … The situation is out of my control. I tried to contact customer service ahead of my travel, and it was very hard to get a response from their customer service team. I have lost 75% of my holiday charge … ’

‘ … Awful customer service. They do not care and never return the calls. I will not be using [Airbnb] again. Very dissatisfied.’

Dissatisfaction and satisfaction with the resolution offered: As indicated by several review posts, guests felt that Airbnb’s customer support failed to resolve their problems appropriately or quickly, particularly in the form of offering reimbursement during service failures, which resulted in additional service failures. Guests experienced value co-destruction because of the misalignment of operant (information) and operand (reimbursement) resources by customer support agents during the service recovery process. Some guests assessed the refund offered to them as insufficient, while others indicated that they did not receive any compensation at all from Airbnb. This was highlighted by the following interpretive codes: ‘they do not give a refund,’ ‘shame that we cannot get a refund for a valid cancellation,’ ‘gave me half the money as a refund,’ ‘no offer of compensation’ and ‘would not refund me after having to cancel because of COVID.’ Conversely, some customers were satisfied with the resolution offered. The following positive and negative posts about guests’ Airbnb experiences further highlight this sub-theme:

‘I was forced to cancel my stay in Nice, France, because of the corona crisis. Airbnb made it easy to obtain a full refund from the host, but initially held on to the non-refundable service fee. However, once I contacted the Airbnb rep by phone, they re-considered and refunded the service fee too … ’

‘Bad customer service. Offering time-limited vouchers for COVID rather than refunds. They make support deliberately near inaccessible … Will never use them again.’

Costs incurred by consumers: Inadequate Airbnb customer service response resulted in a decline in guests’ well-being because of the unexpected loss of physical, emotional, temporal or monetary resources (Hobfoll, 2011). Physical efforts were related to actions required to contact Airbnb customer service, emotional energy was expended in coping with the rude behavior of the customer service agents, time loss included long waiting times to talk/chat with the customer service personnel and a loss of monetary resources was linked to inadequate compensation. This subtheme was represented by the following interpretive codes: ‘highly disappointed,’ ‘caused us trauma,’ ‘added stress,’ ‘extremely displeased,’ ‘ruined our holiday,’ ‘was always worried,’ ‘in shock,’ ‘got no opportunity to relax,’ ‘a painful process,’ ‘very stressful,’ ‘robbed me of £150,’ ‘they won’t give me my £300 back’, ‘I am now £900 out of pocket,’ ‘lost 75% of my holiday charge,’ ‘gave a derisory offer of a 20% refund,’ ‘took them almost a month to reply’ and ‘had been [put] on hold for 2 hours.’

Future behavioral intentions and comparison of the customer experience with other accommodation service providers and Airbnb: As seen in our data, some guests stated that they would stop using the service and even went so far as to caution others against using it because the service recovery techniques used by the Airbnb customer service agents failed to address their complaints. The interpretive codes reflecting this included the following: ‘avoid this company,’ ‘will never use them again,’ ‘will not be using Airbnb ever again,’ ‘hotels are more reliable’ and ‘run, run, run from Airbnb.’ This finding supports studies that suggest that the decline in well-being can be so significant that the actor (in this context, an Airbnb guest) may not want to collaborate with the other party in the future (Prior & Marcos-Cuevas, 2016). In addition, the review posts indicated that some guests planned to switch back to hotels because of their unhappiness with the service provided by Airbnb customer service agents. Others provided illustrations comparing other accommodation service providers with the terrible customer service experienced with Airbnb. This was highlighted by the following interpretive codes: ‘book a hotel instead,’ ‘better to stay at a hotel or family member’s home’, ‘Booking.com is better with their customer service as is Expedia,’ ‘The flight agent, British Airways, and the hotel refunded us the money … and offered us great service options’ and ‘spend money on a hotel and deal with trusted companies like Expedia, Travelocity and others rather than Airbnb.’

Source 2: Hosts’ Conduct

In our analysis, hosts’ conduct was identified as another important source of value co-creation and co-destruction at Airbnb during the COVID-19 pandemic. 61 review posts (14.69%) highlighted the conduct of an Airbnb host (22 positive and 39 negative). Some guests perceived their host’s conduct as helpful, while others considered their behavior to be predominantly unsatisfactory and failed meet their expectations. Two sub-themes – the role of communication with the host in service recovery and perceived unethical actions by the host – comprised the main theme of hosts’ conduct. The results of our analysis revealed that the role of communication with the host in service recovery led to both positive and negative value outcomes (value co-creation and co-destruction), while perceived unethical actions by the host were linked to value co-destruction. The following positive and negative reviews describing Airbnb guests’ experiences can be linked to the unpredictable nature of Airbnb hosts’ conduct:

‘Excellent host. He was very kind. The house was kept extremely clean. Thank you, will definitely recommend.’

‘[The] hosts we chose could not have been more helpful. The host was great. She got all my issues resolved … was amazing. She was so friendly and helpful … ’

‘Bad host. Host did not offer breakfast, despite this being advertised as Air Bed and Breakfast. People are better off going to a real bed and breakfast or just booking a hotel to start with.’

‘This was the worst experience with Airbnb ever. Simply put, it was just awful. My apartment was supposed to be non-smoking. However, when I got there, the apartment reeked of smoke from cigarettes … Everything was dirty in this place … The host suggested that I try another room; however, [they] were all the same, super filthy and reeking of cigarette smells. After having no success [in finding another] room, the host cut me off – no communication, nothing. There was nowhere else for me to go to sleep that night besides my car … ’

As evidenced by our findings, the conduct of individual Airbnb hosts is not standardized; hence, service quality is dependent upon the hosts’ hospitality and capability. Consequently, Airbnb guests are likely to experience varying levels of service quality (Sthapit, 2019). In addition, a host’s inappropriate conduct is the opposite of the positive service attributes expected of hosts in the P2P marketplace, namely, being understanding and caring (Lalicic & Weismayer, 2018). These findings contradict studies that have found that Airbnb guests enjoy a more personalized service quality (Mao & Lyu, 2017) and experienced remarkable customer satisfaction levels (Ert et al., 2016).

Role of host communication in service recovery: Hosting on Airbnb necessarily involves communication (Sthapit, 2019). Our study found that when guests experienced problems, they usually tried to resolve the situation by first contacting their hosts. For some guests, the host–guest interaction was successful, and they experienced value because of their host’s swift handling of the situation. This was reflected by the following interpretative codes: ‘host quickly replied,’ ‘host’s communication is praiseworthy’, ‘host contacted me back’ and ‘host was very attentive.’

However, several review posts suggested inadequate communication by Airbnb hosts, and guests expressed feelings that their hosts were incommunicative. In such cases, the guests experienced service failure and devaluation as customers. Consequently, value formation resulted in value co-destruction for these Airbnb guests, as Airbnb’s resource offer (value proposition) of ‘feel at home wherever you go in the world’ did not hold true for them. Value co-creation involves resource integration, in which communication facilitates the exchange of resources between actors in a way that permits joint value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). In relation to this, recent studies have stressed the importance of communication in value co-creation (Sthapit & Jiménez Barreto, 2019; Zhang, 2019). Conversely, poor communication between an Airbnb guest and host leads to value co-destruction (Sthapit & Jiménez Barreto, 2019), which was highly evident during the pandemic. The following interpretive codes highlight the host’s unpleasant actions: ‘host was slow to respond,’ ‘host did not respond,’ ‘host would not respond to my messages’ and ‘tried to reach my host on several occasions but to no avail.’ In this context, bad service in the form of poor communication can easily lead to negative experiences for customers (Pine & Gilmore, 1998). One of the causes of the variable quality of communication from hosts is the lack of site-wide hospitality standards at Airbnb (Sthapit & Björk, 2021).

Perceived unethical actions by the host: The review posts in this study indicated that unethical actions by the host, mainly last-minute cancellations, dirty rooms, dishonesty and an unwillingness to help, also generated value co-destruction for the guests. The related interpretive codes include the following: ‘host cancelled the reservation at the last minute because she had been diagnosed with COVID-19,’ ‘host did not let me know that my reservation was cancelled until I got to the place,’ ‘host cancelled the reservation at the last minute,’ ‘very dirty apartment,’ ‘not clean as advertised,’ ‘dirty property,’ ‘mold in the house,’ ‘dirty cutlery and mess everywhere,’ ‘roaches all over the place,’ ‘host manipulated the facts,’ ‘host refused to help,’ ‘provided false information’ and ‘host lied to us.’

The rental property provided by the host is considered the main product in an overnight stay at an Airbnb listing (Liang et al., 2018), and hygiene and cleanliness are of great concern for Airbnb customers (Cheng & Zhang, 2019). The findings of the current study identified the increased importance of cleanliness and tidiness in P2P accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic, similar to other recent studies (Farmaki et al., 2020). However, among the six practices that shape value formation in Airbnb introduced by Camilleri and Neuhofer (2017), those linked to welcoming, helping and interacting were not evidenced in the present study, although this is another inherent flaw or weak feature observed in the sharing economy model, especially in P2P hosting during the COVID-19 crisis. Airbnb hosts are considered a distinct operant resource (Sthapit & Björk, 2021); however, as revealed by our findings, this did not hold true for many guests during the COVID-19 pandemic. If the comments in our study were indicative of most guests’ sentiments, Airbnb was often unable to handle the concerns of its customers during the COVID-19 crisis. Consequently, hotels may have an advantage over P2P accommodation rentals in the post-COVID era due to the lack of trained hospitality professionals in services such as Airbnb, as well as the company’s recent history of inconsistent or inadequate resolution of customer problems.

Overall, although Airbnb guests perceived their hosts’ conduct as helpful, other guests failed to experience value in their interactions with Airbnb hosts during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because the integration of the available resources of one service system (the Airbnb hosts’ conduct) is considered inappropriate by the other interacting service system (the Airbnb guests). This resulted in the decline of the customers’ well-being due to unexpected loss of resources in the form of, for example, physical, emotional (customer’s own tangibles and efforts), financial (monetary cost) and temporal losses (time spent), which are also described as ‘energies’ (Hobfoll, 1989).

Conclusion

Three main conclusions can be drawn from the research. First, the present study provides insights into the specific sources (i.e. Airbnb customer service and host conduct) of three value outcomes from Airbnb guests’ perspectives in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the one hand, friendly host behavior and prompt host–guest communication led to value co-creation. However, the discrepancies in the desired and actual states linked to the host’s conduct, specifically inadequate communication, last minute cancellations, dirty rooms, dishonesty and an unwillingness to help, contributed to value co-destruction. This finding suggests that during the current COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining open communication channels is essential for reducing the incongruent application of resources. In addition, the lack of adequate communication between hosts and guests following service failures resulted in a lack of collaborative restoration of those failures. Thus, no co-recovery of value was achieved. These findings deepen the understanding of how sources contribute to value formation outcomes in the context of Airbnb and support studies indicating that communication should be considered a key operant resource for co-creating value (Sthapit, 2019).

On the other hand, many customers continued their efforts to restore their lost resources by contacting Airbnb customer service after service failures, an experience that was either unproductive or positive. In some cases, customer service agents were able to rectify the problem, thereby producing value co-recovery for Airbnb guests. Conversely, the majority of customers reported that the failure to resolve the issue in the service recovery process led to another service failure and a decline in well-being (e.g., time and money costs). Therefore, the findings of this study indicate that customer service agents should maintain great and real-time communication with customers to help solve their problems, particularly during the current pandemic. Moreover, policies should be put in place that benefit guests rather than hosts. Some studies have argued that both the customers (Airbnb guests) and service providers (host and customer service agents) in the hospitability industry have become more willing to interact and share resources (time, energy, information, etc.) to provide access to customized service experiences (Kandampully et al., 2018).

Second, in the context of Airbnb, not all service failures result in value co-destruction. In fact, collaborative engagement in the restoration of service failure results in value co-recovery by involving the congruent application of operant (communication skills) and operand resources (appropriate refunds) by actors. For example, some Airbnb guests recovered from the service failures they experienced and were satisfied with the resolutions offered by the customer service agents. This finding highlights the importance of improving the communication skills (operant resources) of customer service agents and offering appropriate compensation (operant resources) to facilitate the exchange of resources and generate positive customer experiences during the value formation process of Airbnb. As such, communication is key to value co-creation.

Third, a specific source can result in different value outcomes for the customer. On the one hand, Airbnb hosts’ conduct, particularly good host communication in service recovery, resulted in value co-creation and co-destruction. On the other hand, Airbnb’s poor customer service caused value co-destruction when Airbnb guests were unable to achieve resolution and incurred costs during the process. At the same time, successful interactions with customer service representatives and satisfaction with the resolution offered operated as solutions to value co-destruction, thus leading to value co-recovery.

Finally, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings of this study indicate that Airbnb should improve its preparedness for guest service during crises. This is exemplified by the fact that Airbnb customer service often favored the company or the hosts over the guest, and the hosts often played a negative role.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the development of a theory of value by exploring both macro (company) and micro (host) levels in terms of the sources of value co-creation, co-destruction and co-recovery linked to P2P platforms under the circumstance of global disease crises (e.g., COVID-19). More specfically, this study adds to the existing literature on Airbnb by identifying two sources – Airbnb customer service and hosts’ conduct – of value co-creation, co-destruction and co-recovery from Airbnb guests’ perspectives in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the micro level, due to inadequate communication and unethical actions by hosts (hosts’ conduct), value co-destruction occurred. At the macro level, poor interactions with customer service representatives, difficulties achieving resolution, dissatisfaction/satisfaction with the resolution offered and the costs incurred by Airbnb customers resulted in value co-destruction and a decline in customer well-being. Existing studies have not examined all three-value outcomes simultaneously, particularly in the COVID-19 context, making this study valuable for its comprehensive approach.

In summary, based on the findings of this study, a theoretical framework was developed depicting the two sources and resulting value formations – value co-creation, co-destruction, and co-recovery – based on the experiences of Airbnb guests in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Theoretical framework of sources and resulting value formations (value co-creation, co-destruction and co-recovery) in the context of Airbnb from guest’s perspectives amid COVID-19.

Managerial Implications, Limitations and Future Research

The findings of this study suggest that, in the current COVID-19 crisis, Airbnb should take more proactive steps and exert consistent efforts to be favorable to guests rather than to hosts. It should also make efforts to reduce customer switching behavior caused by undesirable outcomes experienced by guests. Both goals can be achieved by developing crisis management policies and strategies. Furthermore, overall support measures for Airbnb guests should ensure that policies pertaining to service provision are standardized, clear and universally applicable to all hosts. At minimum, these policies should indicate that a service advertised by a host must be provided with one hundred percent consistency. During the ongoing pandemic and in future crises, hosts should also be more thoughtful, competent and caring to help mitigate the decline in their guests’ well-being. For example, hosts should maintain ongoing communication with the guests, clearly articulate the cleanliness, amenities and safety of the accommodations and follow up promptly if any issues arise. Hosts who mislead or fail to satisfy guests should be forbidden from hosting on the platform. Additionally, steps could be taken so that refund policies during times of crisis favor guests, and full refunds or transferable travel credit should be provided instead of travel credit with limited validity.

Airbnb hosts should improve their preparedness for guest service during crises. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, value co-creation should be implemented using collaborative management between guests and providers in terms of their preparedness. For instance, hosts should ensure that the Airbnb accommodation facilities are, at minimum, equipped with safety or security materials (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic guidance for households). In addition, hosts should offer protective amenities (e.g., masks, hand sanitizer products, surface disinfectants) at their Airbnb facilities. This may lead to value co-recovery.

Both Airbnb hosts and customer service agents should respond to guests’ inquiries quickly and be trained to provide prompt, responsible and efficient service with a focus on no-contact check-in procedures, digitalization and self-service to limit the spread of viruses, especially during the pandemic. For example, hosts can offer check-in options using an app, entrance to the property via a key box and communication via digital channels to ensure their adherence to the required health and safety standards.

During the pandemic, Airbnb should also invest more resources into setting up live chat functions on the website to facilitate immediate communication with customer service representatives and into providing diverse contact methods (through phone communication, e-mails and the website). Furthermore, adopting strict policies against last-minute cancellations by the host, appropriate and timely monetary compensation and free cancellations during the pandemic would help resolve issues around guests’ dissatisfaction with refunds. This requires a congruent integration of resources by hosts and customer service agents during customers’ value formation. It is particularly important that guests be able to contact Airbnb’s customer service agents during service failures and crises, as well as the hosts, so that service failures can be quickly resolved and lost resources can be restored.

In terms of limitations, this research used netnography and was restricted to reviewing posts shared on the Trustpilot website. In addition, data collection and analysis were done early in the pandemic (between February and August 2020) and this timing might have impacted responses. Moreover, the screening of review posts was limited to just 10 keywords; hence, the findings may have been biased. Furthermore, precautions should be taken in generalizing the findings, as the study focused only on customer reviews written in English. Thus, future studies should include other keywords and utilize other websites to gather data on Airbnb guests’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, future studies should compare data gathered before and during the COVID-19 pandemic to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the different value outcomes, which might further augment the findings of this study and provide a holistic understanding of the topic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).