Guest communication: the three messages that decide the review

Why response time counts twice

The response rate is one of the four figures feeding into the Superhost status and the search ranking — 90 per cent is the threshold. But the economic effect lies elsewhere.

Guests looking for a flat usually write to several hosts and book with whoever replies first. An enquiry left for twelve hours is as a rule lost — not because the guest is dissatisfied, but because they have booked elsewhere in the meantime.

A sensible division follows: enquiries before booking are time-critical and belong answered around the clock. Questions during a stay likewise, because they usually concern a problem. Everything else can wait.

The three messages

In practice a rhythm has proved itself that makes do with three messages — and the second is the one most often missing.

First message, one to two days before arrival: the way to the flat with a picture of the front door, the access code and how long it is valid, Wi-Fi, how to operate the heating and the cooker, the refuse rules, a number for problems. Do not repeat the house rules — those were in the listing.

Second message, on the first evening: a short question asking whether everything was found and works. This is the most important message of the whole stay, because it uncovers a problem at the moment when it can still be solved. A guest who sits for three days with heating that does not work and mentions it only in the review would have replied on the first evening.

Third message, after departure: thanks and a note that a review has been written. Not a request for a good review — that comes across as pushy and is unwelcome on Airbnb.

Setting boundaries without being unfriendly

The point most frequently named as a beginner’s mistake in hosts’ first-hand accounts: letting a guest pressure you. The lesson one host draws from it: a guest’s problem does not have to become your problem.

In practice it is about recurring situations: the request for a late departure when a changeover follows. Additional guests who were not booked. A refund after departure on grounds that have nothing to do with the flat.

What helps is deciding in advance rather than case by case. Anyone who has settled beforehand that a late departure is possible only when the following day is free can decline politely. Anyone deciding in the moment decides under pressure — and with the review in the back of their mind.

An observation frequently shared alongside it: anyone giving in to avoid a poor review gets both. Concessions rarely change the verdict.

When a poor review arrives

A single poor review does less harm than a poor reply to it. The reason: the reply is read by future guests, and it shows how a host deals with criticism.

What does not work: contradicting the guest, setting the record straight, justifying yourself. Even where the criticism is unfounded — a reader sees a host who argues and asks whether they want to end up in that position themselves.

What does work: acknowledge the criticism in one sentence, name what has been changed, and leave it there. Three lines suffice. Where a review is factually wrong, there is the route through Airbnb — reviews breaching the guidelines can be removed. It is laborious and rarely successful, but it is the right route rather than a public argument.

Where automation ends

For recurring matters, templates and AI tools make sense: the Wi-Fi password, arrival times, the way from the station, refuse. Trade sources recommend adding an AI tool for messaging once the inbox becomes the bottleneck — not before.

Where it ends can be named clearly: at a complaint. A guest writing at 11 p.m. that the heating does not work does not need a well-phrased message but a solution. And a guest complaining about noise does not want to hear that their concern is important.

The second point at which automation does harm: replies to reviews. They get read, and a visibly generated reply comes across worse than a short, honest one.