How Airbnb’s CEO uses an Unconventional Management Approach to Drive the $85 Billion Brand

I don't believe in autonomy. You don't? No. Why's that? Because you want to be autonomous to start your own company. I don't believe in it. I don't think employees want autonomy. I think that is a giant misnomer. Do they want to have some element of autonomy of how they do their jobs? Yes. But I do not think that the vast majority of people are actually happier in a truly autonomous environment. Brian Chesky is the founder and CEO of the roughly $85 billion home share in business, Airbnb. We weren't visionaries. What we were were people that had an experience no one else had. The company has been around for nearly 20 years and has had its ups and downs, but Chesky remains adamant that he will overtake the hotel industry. I really had to evolve by empowering and enabling, which is totally different than doing. You have to go from doing it yourself to enabling everyone else to be able to do great work themselves. In 2025, the self-made billionaire plans to roll out the biggest updates to the business ever. I sat down to understand how he sees the industry, how he plans to take hotel market share, and his management philosophies behind being in founder mode. You've been inadvertently linked to this spirited debate over founder mode versus manager mode. I know you didn't come up with those terms yourself, but I'm curious why or whether you think this so-called founder mode is the best way to run a company, is the best way to be a successful leader. I think it is. I think it is. I think founder mode, Paul Graham coined the term. Basically, I'll give you a little bit of background. I spoke about my journey being CEO, and when I started Airbnb, I was a founder. I ran it the way a founder would run the company. I was in the details. I knew everything going on. I was the chief product officer of the company, and then I hired a bunch of executives as we grew and went into hyper-growth. And did all these things everyone told you to do, like hire great people, empower them to do their job, give them space, and the results were devastating. It's not that you shouldn't hire great people or empower them, but you have to be in the details. You have to be close with them. You have to, as a CEO, set not only the vision, but the rhythm. I review all the work now before it ships. I am the chief editor of the company. This flies in the face of everything we're taught about modern leadership, except when you go through history, many of the best companies in history, from Steve Jobs to Walt Disney to today with Jensen, Elon, or many others, they're people that are in the details. Now, a lot of people, they hear this, say, wait, isn't that like micromanaging? There is a difference. You can be in the details of people without telling them what to do, working through problems with them. And by the way, if your argument is you hire great people and you empower them to do their job, how do you know they're great if they're not in the details? Why are you not in the details but the board is auditing you? If you're not in the details, you have leaders not in the details. So this is not about being a founder. It turns out this is more natural. This is the natural way for founders to run it. But this is not a this versus that. This is not about non-founders. This is about a mentality of belief that great leadership is presence, not absence. And most CEOs of most companies are not present. They're fairly absent. I believe the CEO should be the chief product officer of the company. Why? Because the purpose of a company is to make a product. And so why wouldn't the CEO be the expert of the product? You said that early on, distancing yourself from the details was deleterious. How so? So many ways. Like customer service. Joe and I have a phone number, gave customers our cell phone. We would answer the call. And then one day we're like, we need to hire someone who knows more about customer service than us to do it. And then we just let them build our customer service. And I could do it for every function. And what people do is they hire people and they just let them do their job. That is wrong. No leader should ever, I don't think, do that. Here's what they should do. This is a bad analogy. One time, I'm a terrible golfer, but I went to get a golf instruction. And I had a golf instructor, and they taught me how to swing. And they would have to do repetition after repetition after repetition. Thank God they were there, because if they weren't there, I wouldn't know how to swing. I would develop a wrong swing and they'd have to correct me. So when you hire people, the first thing is you should interview as many employees as possible. I interviewed the first probably 400 employees. The directs to my directs, I treat as a dotted line to me. I'm the co-hiring manager. And when people start, we start in the details, which one could call good management, like apprentice-based model. Even if they know more than you about their function, they don't know more than you about the company or your standards or your pace, and they don't know how to integrate. So you have to help them. And over time, like the golf instructor, they stop watching your swing, and you let go of the details. Now, if you don't do this, you end up with leaders that won't be successful. They're afraid to come to you. You go in the details later, and you undermine their confidence. They sometimes hire the wrong team. If you have to replace a leader, you have to replace the team. They don't actually collaborate with other groups. And you end up having 10 different teams, or 100 teams, going in 100 different directions. And maybe they use different technology stacks. They have different marketing messages going out. The whole company seizes to row in the same direction. And when this happens, there's bureaucracy. There's politics. There's a sense of a lack of accountability. Then there's complacency, and people feel like they work for a big company, and customers start to realize the product hasn't changed, and the brand doesn't stand for anything. These are all things that come from an absence of leadership, where a CEO's not being adequately involved in the details of the product or the organization. Let's use that really great golf swing analogy. At what point do you stop holding their hands and helping them swing? Because employees, they do want autonomy. So at what point do you say, okay, you're empowered enough, go forth and flourish? Does that happen? I don't believe in autonomy. You don't? No. Why's that? Because you want to be autonomous to start your own company. I don't believe in it. And I don't think employees want autonomy. I think that is a giant misnomer. Do they want to have some element of autonomy of how they do their jobs? Yes. But I do not think that the vast majority of people are actually happier in a truly autonomous environment. Let me tell you why I don't think autonomy is super helpful. There's a scenario where you're totally autonomous. You're allowed to have your own budget, hire your own team, do whatever you want. Except you need legal to sign off on everything. And you need the finance team to sign off on your budget. So you need to actually go through the planning process. You need to integrate with the technology. In other words, this notion of autonomy is such a fallacy in modern corporate America. Because companies are organizations. Organization quite literally means we organize people to work together to do something, rowing in a boat. Now what people don't want is a lack of empowerment, and they want to be able to make decisions on their own. But I don't think people, for the most part, want to be disintegrated. They want to be integrated. So I think that's really, really important. But to answer your question, because I challenge the notion that people want autonomy. I think they say they want autonomy. I think their actions don't say the same thing. If you look at retention, retention I find in engagement in employees are often highest when they really love the people they're working with and they're collaborating and working well. There are some people, like me, that probably shouldn't be in an organization. We should start companies. And I also think if you don't want to work in an organization and start a company, we could use more entrepreneurs in the world as well. But yes, you let go over time. So let's say somebody's new. I'll meet with them weekly. At some point, maybe by the 20th week, we don't need to meet every week. Now we can go every other week. But it's only after three or four in a row where, yeah, this seems like a slightly unnecessary frequency. So that would be the judgment call. And yes, eventually one day you check in less and less frequently. When did you flip this switch to founder mode? Because you said the advice early on was to, again, be very hands-off. So what was, I guess, the catalyst to flipping this switch? And what was the immediate impact? Well, that's pretty recent. So the company was doing quite well, even though you're distanced. So started the company in 2008. 2009, went on a rocket ship for 10 years. And so the rocket ship took off, and I was acting like a founder. And for the mid-2000s, it was great. By 2015, 2016, five, six years in, I started feeling like I didn't know what I was doing. And I think people are kind of born good founders, so to speak, I kind of probably was. No one's born a good CEO. It is such a non-intuitive job. And not only is no one born a good CEO, but many of us CEOs believe that almost all the books and information in business schools written about it are wrong. They're quite literally the opposite advice of what is appropriate. Paul Graham would call it books about manager mode, not founder mode. But again, you don't have to be a founder to do it. And so I, in late 2019, growth was slowing. Cost was rising. I remember an employee that was an early employee just said, it's just hard to work here. I work 80 hours a week, but I'm only doing 10 hours of work. And it's like 70 hours of effort to do 10 hours of work. They described it as like working on a treadmill. We had a lot of bureaucracy. We had meetings about meetings. Anyone watching and they're in an organization where there was a meeting about how many meetings there are? Like, it was just that kind of stuff. There was politics. There was like, there was just a lot of things creeping and all the bad words in the big company. And then I met two people that changed my life. One was Johnny Ive, who was the head of design at Apple. We were reacquainted. And the other was Hiroki Asai, who was the creative director at Apple. And they showed me this other way of running a company that Steve Jobs did. And I couldn't believe it because Steve said he wanted to build the world's largest startup. So he had a functional organization of as few employees as possible. All the managers had to be in the details, not just Steve. They all had to be experts. Steve reviewed all the work. He did these product reviews. And they all culminated in these big launches. And the entire company rode in a single direction. By the way, I asked Johnny Ive, did you ever feel micromanaged by Steve Jobs? He said, no, I felt the most empowered I've ever felt in my career. Nothing against the post-Steve world. I bet you Johnny felt more empowered in the Steve world than the post-Steve world, even though Steve visits the office every single day. There's this notion that power is zero sum. Either I have the power or the employees have the power. There's a scenario where we're all powerless. It's called a lot of Fortune 500 companies. There's also a scenario where I have power and I give that power to you. It's not zero sum. So that's what I tried to do. And I met these two people late 2019. And I had this image of not running it like Steve Jobs, but taking some of these principles. But we're about to go public. And I can assure you, the worst thing you should do before you go public is blow up the company and reorganize it. So I don't know what to do. All of a sudden, it's late January, and I'm in a meeting and they're like, our China business has dropped 80% because of this thing called the coronavirus. And I'm like, what is the coronavirus? Well, eight weeks later, everyone was talking about it, and we lost 80% of our business globally in eight weeks. That's like in 18 we are going 100 miles an hour and slamming on the brakes. It was very bad. And we went from the hottest IPO probably since Uber to journalists, like respected journalists asking, is this the end of Airbnb? And I said, well, Andy Grove from Intel once said, bad companies are destroyed by a crisis, good companies survive a crisis, but great companies are defined by a crisis. I said, this is gonna be our defining moment. And I now have a blueprint. We're gonna go back to not the Navy, but the Navy SEALs of startups. We're gonna be this really lean, elite organization where not only am I in the details, we're all in the details. And by all being in the details, it's like one shared consciousness. It was the best thing we ever did. We made these changes. And I think we've kind of, in a way, never looked back. The company went from losing money to one of the most profitable companies in all Silicon Valley. We make more free cash flow for every dollar earned than almost any company in Silicon Valley. We've made over 500 improvements to the product in three years alone. And most importantly, the next couple years, we're gonna be launching new products and services. The Airbnb brand is a noun and a verb used all over the world. It means to get a house by the night. One day, the Airbnb brand will mean something more. I'm gonna circle back on your future expansion plans. But first, I wanna bifurcate the next question. When you decided to restructure the organization, or really how, or getting back into the details, I should say, first, how long did that take? And in totality, and how receptive were employees? Because it's quite a shift from what they'd known, especially those who had been with you for quite some time. I have to forewarn that when a CEO gets in the details, it's initially, people are initially pretty concerned and not super receptive. Again, why? Because it flies in the face of what everyone knows. Employees believe that when things are dysfunctional, it's because leadership is too involved. Not that there's an absence of leadership. They assume that employees want a lot of autonomy, not realizing that autonomy can also lead to powerlessness, that you're just left in a bureaucracy that you can't navigate. And without political capital, you go nowhere. Like, that's a real situation. So I would say I've been doing it for the last four years. If you wanna take control of your company back, and it's usually vis-a-vis the organization, not the investors, it's a one-to-two-year process. And I was working maybe 80 to 100 hours a week, so way more than most people wanna sign up for. I think you can do it in fewer hours. But here's the amazing thing. It's like two years of a lot more work, and then you have a lot less work to do. So here's the paradox. I'm in many more details, and yet I have way more free time on my hands than the old way, where I wasn't involved. Because in the old way, you still have meetings, but you have meetings for things going wrong. Because because you're not in the details, there's always someone resigning, leaving, a project has to be redone. You're brought in on these, and then you have these very long meetings, because no one knows who's the decision maker. And you have all these committees, and there's this swirl. You have to sit through these really long presentations. And it's just a very inefficient way to run a company. Are you meet and averse? Oh, no, absolutely not. No, the main thing, the main way I get work done is meetings. I am averse to bad meetings. What's a bad meeting? A bad meeting is a meeting with too many people, and there's only a few participants and a lot of spectators. If everyone's not talking, most meetings should have everyone contributing and talking, or the meeting should be smaller. Almost every company has too many people, and they're afraid in the name of being inclusive to uninvite people. But that's not what inclusion is. That's a slippery slope. You need as few people in a meeting, not as many people. Every meeting needs a leader. The meeting needs an agenda. It needs to be prepared ahead of time, and it needs to be clear who the decision maker is. A lot of times, there's no clear decision maker. There's a bunch of peers trying to agree. Peers can't agree quickly, so then you end up with this committee vibe where people just talk endlessly without making a decision. There has to be a sense of urgency and action. So I just think, you know, I feel like there needs to be a manual, like how to run a company, and it's not business school case studies. It's gotta be like, here's just a checklist of things to do, because like for your job or other jobs, become a doctor, you go to medical school, and they tell you the things to do, and you don't just have to figure it out. And I think all of us, we have to figure out our market, our product, and we should. But why is every founder independently having to figure out management theory? Why are we doing that? Any decisions, and you kind of touched on this, any decisions you're like, eh, I don't need a way on in this. I'll delegate this one. I'll give you an example. We do ads. We do these like really cool TV ads. And I used to review all the ads and do multiple reviews of the ads, because I was trying to develop an aesthetic with the team. Then pretty soon, I only needed to review the ads once and get feedback in a meeting. Now, then they started just sending to me, and if I have a problem, I'll tell them. And now, a lot of the new ads, I don't even look at. But when we launch this new Airbnb, I'm gonna go all the way back to reviewing everything again, because it's a giant step forward. Does that make sense? So there is a letting go, but it's not a permanent letting go. It's a letting go to do something transformational. Is founder mode just a Brian Chesky thing at Airbnb, or is it embedded through every management level of the organization? You expect all of them to be in there. Every single one. And that's where the name founder mode is a little bit confusing, because it suggests I'm the founder in founder mode, and no one else is. But the principles of being in the details, taking ownership, living with the product, everyone can do this. I mean, honestly, not just in business. Government leaders should do this too. And some do, but a lot don't. You've repeatedly said you've tried to emulate how Steve Jobs ran Apple. He had a predilection for hosting about 100 of the most important people at Apple, and those selected were hierarchy agnostic, right? Just overall, 100 top performers or the most important people. Would you ever replicate this at Airbnb? I did, and I do it twice a year. You do? I don't call it top 100. Okay. Why is that? Well, I think top 100 quite literally means these are the most important 100 people in the company. And what I do is I have a thing, I call it the roadmap review. So here's something crazy we do that Steve Jobs didn't do. We don't have an annual plan at Airbnb. We're one of the only companies at S&P 500 that doesn't have an annual plan. We have a budget each year, and then we have a rolling two-year strategic plan. It's a two-year plan, 24 months, and it's updated every six months. We decouple the budget from the strategic plan. See, right now, everyone watching, probably if they work at a big company, I guarantee you what's happening is the CFO and the CEO have told 20 teams in their company to tell us what you're gonna do next year, your strategic plan, and what you need, your budget, and your headcount. And everyone's gonna ask for the world, and then you're gonna say no, and you're gonna have this negotiation. Now you have this reconciliation, and that's how most companies do planning, and it's crazy. What we do is we do a budget, it's like a week. It's like, here's what we're gonna spend. We have a rolling two-year plan, which is a strategic roadmap. I pick the 180 to 100 people in the company. I've realized twice a year is the better frequency for us, because we wanna have a rolling two-year plan every six months. It is not just the most senior people, but it's generally the most senior people, but I pick all the people. At most companies, there'd be a protest if the CEO picked people, because they would be considered their favorites, and it would be considered unfair and not systematic. And I think, ultimately, the CEO should have favorites. The favorites have to be on fair criteria, but if you can't have favorites, if you can't say this is a high performer, and this is what excellence looks like, then you're gonna be in big, big trouble. That is just not good leadership. Now, it can be fair criteria. You can have people making sure there's not unconscious bias, people keeping you honest, looking for disparate impact inside the organization. You can do a lot of surveys, and you can use that to reinforce your assumptions. But the notion that a CEO should not have discretion in decision-making of who should be in a room, like the President of the United States would pick, we should pick, too. It doesn't matter what level you're at. So we do that as well. Now, I just wanna say one thing. I take a lot from Steve, but I'm not Steve Jobs. I'm not trying to be Steve Jobs. There's a lot of reasons why no one should try to replicate him. It's a different era, a different skillset. We're a different company. So I've picked my own company, but it turned out that a lot of what he did, which is not that different from what Walt Disney did and other CEOs before him, are good starting places. And then I've adapted it. Who's your favorite at Airbnb right now? Favorite what? You said you pick favorites. Who's your number one? Oh, I have so many favorites. That's such a political answer. That's a politician's answer. I mean, I don't even know if I have a single favorite. I think of the company, we have 7,000 employees. I think of a company as 100 people, and my job is to manage 100 people. And it's their job to manage everyone else. That's the way I think about it. And so many of the people that I invite to Roadmap Review, and there are dozens and dozens that, I mean, the favorites, this is funny, my favorites are the people that I'm honestly, like, I'm texting. And your adorable dog. My dog on the home screen. So another thing I do is I will text a lot of employees, and I'll call employees. If we wanna talk, a meeting is not the best way to do it. I don't do one-on-one meetings, really, unless it's like somebody, I don't believe in one-on-ones, and almost no great CEO in history has ever done them. Very few. Like, again, we can go down the list of CEOs who don't do one-on-ones. Well, why don't you? Almost every CEO did one-on-ones, and they realized that the one-on-one model is flawed. It's a recurring one-hour, one-on-one meeting where the employee owns the agenda. And what happens is they often don't talk about the things you wanna talk about. You become like their therapist, but more, they're bringing you problems, but oftentimes they're bringing you problems that you want other people in the room to hear. In other words, there's very few times an employee should come to you one-on-one without other people. If they're concerned about something, if they're having a difficult time in their personal life, if they wanna confide in something, they don't feel safe telling a group, but that should be infrequent. If that's happening frequently, that is a very ominous sign for your organization. So Jensen Huang says, I don't do one-on-ones because I want everyone to be part of the solution and get the wisdom. When you make lots of one-on-one decisions, then people feel like they don't have a decision made, they don't feel like they had a voice, they didn't have buy-in. So generally, you do group meetings. All of us choose to do group meetings. Now, there's a caveat. I do a lot of one-on-one calls and emails. I'll call someone and say, hey, what's the status of this? I think blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but it's not a recurring meeting with them owning the agenda. It's me, when I need something, I'll call somebody. So it's I do meetings, they're recurring meetings, they're group meetings, everyone hears, there's notes taken, it's very transparent what the topic was, what the decision made, who was in the room, who had input. So if the process was unfair in some way, I don't wanna say unfair, inadequate, there's at least a record of the process that people can weigh in. And then there's really private communications, calls and texts that I'll do. And that's just partly relationship building. But that would be like a six-minute call, not a half-hour or one-hour one-on-one where we sit together. So most CEOs that I know started with recurring one-on-ones, and we've kind of moved away from them because of the perils of them, and these are some of the reasons. What other conventional management wisdom, leadership wisdom have you found to be ill-advised and perhaps even damaging for leaders? Yes, oh my God, well. How long do we have? Yeah, so just so you know, when Paul Graham wrote Founder Mode, he never really said what it was, right? He said, he actually even said in the beginning of the essay this isn't meant to describe the entire talk. So I wrote down, and I won't do it now, obviously for obvious reasons of time, but I wrote down what is Founder Mode, and it was so far a list of 116 things. I'll give you just a couple out of 116. Here's one that I do that almost no one else does, but I think many of the great CEOs have. I have direct reports, right? I'm a CEO, so I have a C-suite, whatever you want to call it, a CTO, a CFO, a chief business officer, a head of policy comms, a chief legal officer. So sometimes people call them executive vice presidents, SVP, senior vice presidents, they're your senior leadership team, and most people believe it's your job to manage that team, and it's their job to manage their team. All their directs report to me too. So the directs to my directs do report to me. I am the co-hiring manager of all of them. I have this radical view that, like, I'll exaggerate mildly just to make a point. If my CFO says I found a candidate they want to work for the company, and they haven't met me, then I assume they're not good enough. I want you to hire people that don't want to work for you. They only want to work for you and I. In other words, I want you to over-hire. People say, I'm so good, I'd only report to a CEO, but I'd report to this organization because there's going to be a special type of CEO. So it allows people to over-hire a little bit. Also, you don't want your team hiring their team, not feeling like your team, because ultimately they're your people. Because when you see whatever retires, the people under them have an expectation that they might be promoted into the job. But if you didn't hire them, you weren't part of the process, then that's a big problem. You might not promote them, and you might layer them, and then they'll leave the company. So I skip level a lot. A lot of companies, it's considered taboo to skip level. You're not trusting me. Why are you going direct to the people? I think it's critical for CEOs to skip level. I think a CEO should have at least 30 to 50 people they're talking to very regularly below the executive team. It could be texts, it could be calls, it could be bumping in on the hallways, but you need to be in the details of the company, and you gotta treat the directs to your directs as your directs. I think that's very critical. And again, I totally get if people disagree with this. Most people probably do. That's why they don't do it this way. But I do think at least it's a good conversation to challenge all these conventions and say maybe there's just another way of doing it. Let's at least give it a try. And from a productivity standpoint, you found it to be beneficial. Okay, so paradoxical. Everyone said this is gonna be a bottleneck. You're reviewing everything, you're gonna slow down development. It's massively sped up. Decisions don't swirl. At large companies, people wait for months and months and months for a decision to get made. Here, it just happens every week. Sometimes every day, sometimes every hour. So decision making has sped up. The other thing people said is the really good people don't wanna work like this. They want autonomy. It turns out, this is a subjective assessment, but engagements up, employee turnovers down, and the best people are more retained than they used to be. The third thing, people said the best people aren't gonna wanna work in this environment. It sounds like your job are too narrow. And yet, we've been hiring even more senior people in this type of organization. Because when they hear it, it really resonates with them. They're like, wow, I feel like I don't have to spend most of my time being a bureaucrat. I can actually do great work all day, every day. And even though my role sounds narrow, it's a very strategic role, and I actually can weigh on everything in the company because we're so collaborative. So a lot of the, it's paradoxical in a sense. It's like counterintuitive. And maybe that's the biggest lesson of all, that great CEOs and leaders aren't born, and a lot of leadership is counterintuitive. Talk to me about your next phase of growth, starting with your newly minted co-host network. Yeah, so Airbnb's a great way to make money by essentially putting your home on Airbnb. And you can make tens of thousands of dollars a year with an asset that you're already paying for. And so we were reaching out to prospective hosts, asking, hey, if you can make all this money, why aren't you hosting? And a lot of people described they were interested in hosting, but they had a perception it was too much work. People say, I don't have the time. Or, let's say someone here lives in New York, they've got a summer home in Florida, but they can't actually go to Florida every week and check the guest in. And so we thought, what if we built a marketplace, a network, where we match people with homes that don't have time with hosts that have time, but they don't have homes, or they have room to operate more homes. And that is exactly what we did. We built a network of co-hosts. We call it the co-host network. It's over 10,000 hosts in 10 different countries. These are some of the best hosts on Airbnb. 73% are super hosts. The average rating they manage for properties is, I think, 4.86. And that's compared to a third-party property manager that lives on Airbnb, which is a 4.62. So if anyone's watching and they're like, hey, I would love to make $20,000 a year on my house by renting a month or two a year, then all you have to do is go on Airbnb, you'll see a list of co-hosts in your area, we'll match you the very best one for you. You can message with them. They take a cut of your earnings. You negotiate that with them. They can do any or all of the hosting for you. They can help you set up your listing, take photographs, manage your bookings with guests. They can check guests in. They can make sure the entire place is equipped. They can give them recommendations. They can clean the place. They can do turnover. They can do everything soup to nuts or just part of it. We think there are millions of people that would love to put their home on Airbnb if they could trust the person managing their property. And now with the co-host network, we think they can. How many more properties do you think would be listed, let's say, in a year's time, in two years' time? What's the expectation or the prediction there? We generally don't put out targets and it's a little bit hard to predict, but I do think that the co-host network will eventually, one day, more than two years from now, unlock millions of homes. Yeah, millions of incremental homes. I wouldn't want to put a specific timeline on it. It's just too unpredictable. But millions of homes. Part of this co-host network, presumably, is also just to augment the guest experience. Could AI do any of that, creating a chatbot that answers all the questions and does all the things that a property manager would do? Yes. Well, okay, let me preface. Sure. The AI could do some of hosting. I don't think most people want a robot checking them in, quite literally. I don't know if they want that humanoid. See, I would. I could avoid all human interaction. So if that's the vacation you want, then that would be available. Most people want, would you want to go to a restaurant with only robots serving you? I would. Okay. I think you're a niche. You're a huge niche. I think you're a huge niche. I think most people don't want that. I think most people still want human contact. We're living in one of the loneliest times in human history. We used to live in a world where you would see people face-to-face. You'd have real connection with one another. And now we're living in a world where more and more people are being placed by machines. And there are times where that's wonderful and that's nice. But if you remove, you know, human interaction's inefficient. It's our temptation to automate what is inefficient. And one day you could like never leave your house and never meet another person and be kept alive. And I'm not think, you know, that is a step forward for humanity. I still think people want human connection and especially when they're traveling. But we do have like keyless entry. We do have things like more and more of our customer service is being automated. We do have AI suggested like kind of replies and messaging that can help us write messages. But we do think people still want a sense of a handcrafted experience. You might want to go to a restaurant with a robot. I guarantee you that won't be the most popular restaurant in the city. And at most those Michelin restaurants are the cool restaurants people go to if they started automating those with robots. I think they're gonna probably not be in business much longer. Yeah, fair enough. You said or hinted at the fact that Airbnb is looking to pivot away from its core product of short-term rentals and expand far beyond that. What does that look like in practice? I mean, yeah, this is a great topic. So like the Airbnb brand basically is a noun and a verb. I'm gonna get Airbnb. I'm gonna Airbnb my place. And it means to get a house for a few nights for a week. So what if the Airbnb brand meant so much more? And I think there's a lot of types of experiences and services that we could launch. It's hard to give examples because now I'm giving away the product. That's okay. Give us the scoop. Come have me back. Next May, here's what I'll tell you. Next May, we're gonna be unveiling an entirely new Airbnb. It's by far the biggest moment in the company's history since its founding. And you're gonna see Airbnb take the model for short-term rentals or homes, short-term stays, and we're gonna bring it to all these new areas. And hopefully you can come to the talk. Yeah, well, I'm sure you saw Uber is looking to buy Expedia, become this super app. Is that what you're hoping for Airbnb? To be a super app in the travel space or? Yeah, I think that the word super app is certainly thrown around a lot. Sure, it's a bit nebulous. It's unclear if there are any super apps in the United States A lot of people describe WeChat as super app. I think that the new Airbnb launching in May will feel like much more than just an app. Will it be a super app? I don't know, but it will be an app where you can get a lot more. It will be a one-stop shop.