Change to Redweek process and all those extra fees... And not in a good way.... [MERGED]

[jp10558]

The difference is that Koala charges a 8% commission to the owner where Redweek charges $59+$99.

I guess the other difference is that Redweek charges you that $59 just to list. It may never rent (it seems like from this thread, many don't). Koala only charges at rental. Now, if you've got one week you want to rent and you will just use it if it doesn't rent - that one $59 isn't so bad. But if you're listing a bunch of weeks or would list again if a rental times out before the use date - well paying "for nothing" tends to annoy.

 

[NTP66]

I rented my unit through Finding Meili this year, and in the future will list on there before giving Redweek anymore money, because F Redweek, if I'm being honest.

 

[andre10056]

The difference is that Koala charges a 8% commission to the owner where Redweek charges $59

I just checked Redweek's Galleon Resort, Key West page. Their first listing is for a Feb 7 to 14 $707 per night listing. You click on that listing and it works out to $4950 for seven nights, $470.50 service fee, and $371.25 taxes. Total: $5791.75. Service fee and taxes are NOT the "landlord's" money so he/she would be entitled to the $4950 and only the $4950. But let's not forget about the $59 upfront and the $99 "successful rental" fee.

I then "placed" (without submitting) a Koala ad in which I was looking for a tenant to pay $4950 (not $5791.75 as with Redweek but $841.75 less that that). And Koala charged me that 8 % and said that I would "earn" $4553. So...yes....if I sought $841.75 less in terms of the tenant's all in cost, I would get $397 less than Redweek would have given me (again, if the tenant were charged $841.75 less).

So...I wanted more of an apples to apples comparison. I "placed" the Koala ad with the SAME $5791.75 "all in" cost as with Redweek. Koala did indeed charge me 8% which turned out to be $463 such that I would net $5326, $376 MORE than I would get from Redweek! And I wouldn't have had to pay any Redweek $59 listing fee plus $99 Redweek successful rental fee.

So Koala nets out more for the landlord at any tenant rental price level. At lower weekly rental prices, there's very little difference. The differences become more evident at higher rental levels. But to suggest that Koala's listings are more expensive that Redweek's listings is simply untrue. Koala is cheaper for any tenant rental level and will net out more for the landlord.

That's IF there would be a successful Koala rental. And I've never seen it happen for my rentals.

Last point: does that 8% even pay for the local lodging taxes? I don't see how they could be. If not, and Koala keeps the entire 8 % and does NOT pay the municipality, how do they get away with that? If they're assuming a timeshare exemption, why doesn't Redweek do that?

 

[dioxide45]

So...I wanted more of an apples to apples comparison. I "placed" the Koala ad with the SAME $5791.75 "all in" cost as with Redweek. Koala did indeed charge me 8% which turned out to be $463 such that I would net $5326, $376 MORE than I would get from Redweek! And I wouldn't have had to pay any Redweek $59 listing fee plus $99 Redweek successful rental fee.

Are you taking into account that Koala also charges the tenant (renter) a booking fee? Usually about 10%. I don't think you are and you're now doubling the booking fee that a renter has to pay since you've included the Redweek booking fee in your Koala listing price and Koala is also collecting a booking fee.

Let's look at a simple $5000 rental.

Redweek - You pay $59+$99. Renter pays $5,500 (10% booking fee) + any taxes
Koala - You pay $400 (8% commission) Renter pays $5,500 (10% booking fee) No taxes.
In the case of Redweek you net out $4,842
In the case of Koala you net out $4,600

You could change your listing price on Koala to be $5,265 (rounded) to net about the same.
Renter pays $5,791.50
Commission $421.20
You net $4,843.80
Renter is having to pay $291.50 more than they would on Redweek

Last point: does that 8% even pay for the local lodging taxes? I don't see how they could be. If not, and Koala keeps the entire 8 % and does NOT pay the municipality, how do they get away with that? If they're assuming a timeshare exemption, why doesn't Redweek do that?

I think this is because Koala is relativly new to the rental space and don't have the same exposure. So states haven't started to go after them to collect taxes. Redweek is part of a much larger travel conglomerate. A time will likely come that Koala has to collect taxes.

 

[andre10056]

Are you taking into account that Koala also charges the tenant (renter) a booking fee? Usually about 10%. I don't think you are and you're now doubling the booking fee that a renter has to pay since you've included the Redweek booking fee in your Koala listing price and Koala is also collecting a booking fee.

No. I was not aware that Koala separately charges a tenant a 10% booking fee, "usually about 10%". If so, they should be shut down because they list each rental publicly with a total price which exactly matches what the landlord designates upfront as the tenant's "all in" price.

And where did I double any booking fee? If a tenant would have to pay $5791.75 "all in" with Redweek, shouldn't an "apples to apples" comparison be having that same "all in" rental price apply to a Koala listing?

I think this is because Koala is relativly new to the rental space and don't have the same exposure. So states haven't started to go after them to collect taxes. Redweek is part of a much larger travel conglomerate. A time will likely come that Koala has to collect taxes.

If, indeed, they were separately and deceptively charging the tenant an extra 10% booking fee, that would give them plenty of money to pay municipal lodging taxes. But, again, I don't know that they're doing so.

 

[dioxide45]

No. I was not aware that Koala separately charges a tenant a 10% booking fee, "usually about 10%". If so, they should be shut down because they list each rental publicly with a total price which exactly matches what the landlord designates upfront as the tenant's "all in" price.

And where did I double any booking fee? If a tenant would have to pay $5791.75 "all in" with Redweek, shouldn't an "apples to apples" comparison be having that same "all in" rental price apply to a Koala listing?


If, indeed, they were separately and deceptively charging the tenant a 10% booking fee, that would give them plenty of money to pay municipal lodging taxes. But, again, I don't know that they're doing so.

For the sake of my replies here.
Owner=Landlord
Renter =Tenant

Koala and Redweek work the same in how they charge a booking fee to the renter. When I look on Redweek and Koala, they both show the price per night based on what the owner listed. There is a total all in price that seems to also include the booking fee. When you select a listing, they both clearly disclose the booking fee.


Koala Listing

Redweek Listing

Now, and I wasn't aware of this, Koala does indicates that the 10% booking fee covers the following. If they are indeed remitting taxes, then that is an edge that Koala has over Redweek for renters as Redweek charges taxes in addition to the booking fee.

 

[rickandcindy23]

No. I was not aware that Koala separately charges a tenant a 10% booking fee, "usually about 10%". If so, they should be shut down because they list each rental publicly with a total price which exactly matches what the landlord designates upfront as the tenant's "all in" price.

And where did I double any booking fee? If a tenant would have to pay $5791.75 "all in" with Redweek, shouldn't an "apples to apples" comparison be having that same "all in" rental price apply to a Koala listing?


If, indeed, they were separately and deceptively charging the tenant an extra 10% booking fee, that would give them plenty of money to pay municipal lodging taxes. But, again, I don't know that they're doing so.

Why? What's your reason that Koala should be shut down?

I have ads on RW and Koala for WorldMark West Yellowstone. Koala is going to be less for the renter and a little more cash for me compared to the same listed price on RW.

 

[andre10056]

Let's look at a simple $5000 rental.

Redweek - You pay $59+$99. Renter pays $5,500 (10% booking fee) + any taxes
Koala - You pay $400 (8% commission) Renter pays $5,500 (10% booking fee) No taxes.
In the case of Redweek you net out $4,842
In the case of Koala you net out $4,600

And let's examine that simple rental.

Redweek. The tenant pays $5500 (10% booking fee) + any taxes (conservative estimate: $400) So he/she pays $5900.

Koala. The tenant pays (using your 10% booking fee) $5500. Which may or may not include taxes submitted to the municipality. But, in any case, that's included in that 10% if that, indeed, is the case that they're separately charged 10%).

So Redweek: $5900 paid by the tenant. Landlord gets $5000 - $59 - $99 equals $4842.

Koala: $5500 paid by the tenant. Landlord gets $4600.

So tenant pays $400 more with Redweek resulting in the landlord getting $242 more. Not surprising.

 

[exyeh]

I thought Koala charges local governmetn taxes, too. For example: UT has State Lodging Tax* LT 3.32%*State Sales Tax* ST 7.45%*
It'll just show up when renters check out, like redweek and airbnb.

 

[dioxide45]

And let's examine that simple rental.

Redweek. The tenant pays $5500 (10% booking fee) + any taxes (conservative estimate: $400) So he/she pays $5900.

Koala. The tenant pays (using your 10% booking fee) $5500. Which may or may not include taxes submitted to the municipality. But, in any case, that's included in that 10% if that, indeed, is the case that they're separately charged 10%).

So Redweek: $5900 paid by the tenant. Landlord gets $5000 - $59 - $99 equals $4842.

Koala: $5500 paid by the tenant. Landlord gets $4600.

So tenant pays $400 more with Redweek resulting in the landlord getting $242 more. Not surprising.

But the discussion was about what the owner is netting, not really what the renter is paying. In the case of Redweek on the same priced rental, the owner is netting more than they would with Koala.

 

[dioxide45]

I thought Koala charges taxes, too. It'll just show up when renters check out.

That would only happen in places like Hawaii, Aruba and Mexico where taxes are collected by the resort. Redweek doesn't collect those taxes from the renter. The resort has no idea where you sourced your rental. They wouldn't know if it was Redweek, Koala, some other site or your friend.

 

[andre10056]

Why? What's your reason that Koala should be shut down?

I have ads on RW and Koala for WorldMark West Yellowstone. Koala is going to be less for the renter and a little more cash for me compared to the same listed price on RW.

That's what I've been saying. You get more as a landlord and the tenant pays less for any tenant rental level with Koala.

However, there's a question about Koala charging both the landlord an 8% commission and an ADDITIONAL 10% commission to the tenant. My one time dealing with Koala was when a prospective tenant contacted me via an old Redweek "do it yourself" ad. The person wanted the guarantee of having the landlord only get paid after checking in. So I suggested Koala. At that time, Koala allowed me as a lister to know PRECISELY what the prospective tenant would pay. I wrote back to the prospective tenant that THAT was what she had to pay. And that was my price PLUS the 8% commission. She confirmed that she would have to pay exactly that...and did so.

Now Dioxide is telling me there's a separate 10% booking fee charged the tenant IN ADDITION to the 8% charged the landlord. If true, that's either new or they did not make that apparent to anyone at the time of my tenant's booking. SO...IF they were or are being deceptive in that regard, they should be shut down. But if not, and my tenant either missed that she would have further charges or simply responded "yes it's the same price as you see" when it was not, and/or Koala now makes it very clear what will be paid upfront (and are not being deceptive), they shouldn't be.

 

[andre10056]

But the discussion was about what the owner is netting, not really what the renter is paying. In the case of Redweek on the same priced rental, the owner is netting more than they would with Koala.

If a Redweek rental costs $5900 and a Koala rental costs $5500, I would think that would not be a "same priced rental". Yes, the owner of the $5900 Redweek rental does net out $4842 (using your assumptions) but the owner of a $5500 Koala rental nets out $4600. The tenant pays $400 less and the landlord gets $242 less with the Koala listing. So if the Koala landlord raises the price of his Koala listing just slightly, he'll NET OUT more than the Redweek listing. What am I missing?

 

[rickandcindy23]

I am surprised no one on TUG is telling you how ridiculous your rental cost is on a week that has $1,640 in MF's. I get those comments all of the time on my Maui weeks I rent.

 

[dioxide45]

If a Redweek rental costs $5900 and a Koala rental costs $5500, I would think that would not be a "same priced rental". Yes, the owner of the $5900 Redweek rental does net out $4842 (using your assumptions) but the owner of a $5500 Koala rental nets out $4600. The tenant pays $400 less and the landlord gets $242 less with the Koala listing. So if the Koala landlord raises the price of his Koala listing just slightly, he'll NET OUT more than the Redweek listing. What am I missing?

Yes, the owner would net more in a scenario where taxes are being collected by the Redweek. I hadn't looked at it from this angle.

Scenario 1 - Taxes are applicable on rental and collected by Redweek. Owner nets more.

	Redweek	Koala
Listing Price	5,000​	5,455​
Service Fee	500​	545​
Taxes	500​	0​
Commission		436​
Listing Fees	158​	0​
Renter Pays	6,000​	6,000​
Owner Net	4,842​	5,018​

Scenario 2 - For a rental where taxes are not collected by the Redweek, then the oposite is true when the cost to the renter is the same. Owner nets less.

	Redweek	Koala
Listing Price	5,000​	5,000​
Service Fee	500​	500​
Taxes	0​	0​
Commission		400​
Listing Fees	158​	0​
Renter Pays	5,500​	5,499​
Owner Net	4,842​	4,600​

In the first scenario, the owner is kinda skimming to take the taxes that may or may not be getting remitted by Koala. With many states having taxes that are higher than the 10% booking fee, I am not exactly sure how the booking fee on Koala can cover taxes, but that isn't for me to worry about. It should also be noted, that technically (and often legally) the owner should be remitting taxes if the platform isn't.

 

[Wolfgheist]

The difference is that Koala charges a 8% commission to the owner where Redweek charges $59+$99.

That is what I was seeing. I will list on both I guess and hope it rents out on Redweek, lol.

Are there pros/cons for each in regards to a renter that cancels? On Koala for example, I specified no cancellations, but what are my protections if they do?

 

[Wolfgheist]

Yes, the owner would net more in a scenario where taxes are being collected by the Redweek. I hadn't looked at it from this angle.

Scenario 1 - Taxes are applicable on rental and collected by Redweek. Owner nets more.

	Redweek	Koala
Listing Price	5,000​	5,455​
Service Fee	500​	545​
Taxes	500​	0​
Commission		436​
Listing Fees	158​	0​
Renter Pays	6,000​	6,000​
Owner Net	4,842​	5,018​

Scenario 2 - For a rental where taxes are not collected by the Redweek, then the oposite is true when the cost to the renter is the same. Owner nets less.

	Redweek	Koala
Listing Price	5,000​	5,000​
Service Fee	500​	500​
Taxes	0​	0​
Commission		400​
Listing Fees	158​	0​
Renter Pays	5,500​	5,499​
Owner Net	4,842​	4,600​

In the first scenario, the owner is kinda skimming to take the taxes that may or may not be getting remitted by Koala. With many states having taxes that are higher than the 10% booking fee, I am not exactly sure how the booking fee on Koala can cover taxes, but that isn't for me to worry about. It should also be noted, that technically (and often legally) the owner should be remitting taxes if the platform isn't.

Where does the $500 service fee come in at with Redweek? All I was given was it is $59 to list and $99 if it rents out, but nothing about any additional charges.

 

[dioxide45]

Where does the $500 service fee come in at with Redweek? All I was given was it is $59 to list and $99 if it rents out, but nothing about any additional charges.

The renter pays the service fee when they book your rental.

 

[Wolfgheist]

The renter pays the service fee when they book your rental.

Ahh, so in order for the prices to be the same on each, I need to reduce Redweek to $500 less than Koala?

 

[dioxide45]

Ahh, so in order for the prices to be the same on each, I need to reduce Redweek to $500 less than Koala?

Both Koala and Redweek charge a booking fee to the renter. You need to do some mathematical gymnastics to determine the listing price if you want the price to the renter to be the same. Different mathematical gymnastics are needed if you want the net paid to you to be the same.

 

[Wolfgheist]

Both Koala and Redweek charge a booking fee to the renter. You need to do some mathematical gymnastics to determine the listing price if you want the price to the renter to be the same. Different mathematical gymnastics are needed if you want the net paid to you to be the same.

 

[andre10056]

Yes, the owner would net more in a scenario where taxes are being collected by the Redweek. I hadn't looked at it from this angle.

Scenario 1 - Taxes are applicable on rental and collected by Redweek. Owner nets more.

	Redweek	Koala
Listing Price	5,000​	5,455​
Service Fee	500​	545​
Taxes	500​	0​
Commission		436​
Listing Fees	158​	0​
Renter Pays	6,000​	6,000​
Owner Net	4,842​	5,018​

Scenario 2 - For a rental where taxes are not collected by the Redweek, then the oposite is true when the cost to the renter is the same. Owner nets less.

	Redweek	Koala
Listing Price	5,000​	5,000​
Service Fee	500​	500​
Taxes	0​	0​
Commission		400​
Listing Fees	158​	0​
Renter Pays	5,500​	5,499​
Owner Net	4,842​	4,600​

In the first scenario, the owner is kinda skimming to take the taxes that may or may not be getting remitted by Koala. With many states having taxes that are higher than the 10% booking fee, I am not exactly sure how the booking fee on Koala can cover taxes, but that isn't for me to worry about. It should also be noted, that technically (and often legally) the owner should be remitting taxes if the platform isn't.

I think all you really need to know is that you get more money paid out to you by Koala if the "all in" price to the prospective renter is exactly the same in each of those two platforms. Which allows you to charge somewhat less to the Koala renter and still get the same amount as you might get from Redweek.

Which works out well in that I've never even gotten an inquiry via Koala. So lowering your price by a LOT may result in success...and you'll still net out a fair amount.

I think that, as a landlord, determining the "all in" price to the renter/tenant is far easier to find on Redweek than Koala. In Redweek, you just go to any listing, click on it, and it will break down each component cost exactly and give you a total to be paid by the tenant. Koala doesn't make it at all clear (at least they didn't...maybe they do now) so maybe you can call Koala and ask while in the process of choosing a listing price.

 

[dioxide45]

I think all you really need to know is that you get more money paid out to you by Koala if the "all in" price to the prospective renter is exactly the same in each of those two platforms.

And only if Redweek is collecting taxes for the state the property is located. If no taxes are being collected, then Redweek is paying out more if the all in price to the renter is the same between both.

 

[andre10056]

And only if Redweek is collecting taxes for the state the property is located. If no taxes are being collected, then Redweek is paying out more if the all in price to the renter is the same between both.

I agree with that but the underlying mathematical assumption is that Koala would charge the same booking fee/booking fees even if the municipality/state did not want Redweek (or presumably Koala) to pay them taxes. Maybe, under those circumstances, Koala would adjust (i.e., reduce) their booking fee/booking fees.

 

[dioxide45]

I agree with that but the underlying mathematical assumption is that Koala would charge the same booking fee/booking fees even if the municipality/state did not want Redweek (or presumably Koala) to pay them taxes. Maybe, under those circumstances, Koala would adjust (i.e., reduce) their booking fee/booking fees.

I am not aware that the booking fee is different on Koala depending on the state. The same booking fee seems to apply across the board.