Lengthening, of Enchantment of the Seas!

"*bicker*" wrote in message
. ..
A Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:56:16 GMT, "Tom & Linda"
escribió:
"*bicker*" wrote in message
.. .
Rather, many of those customers feel that they're being
charged too much money already
I've been on over 30 cruises and don't feel that they're charging too
much
already.

That's nice. You must not be one of the customers who
posted the sentiments I reported.

How many have you been on?

One cruise is more than enough to be able to read messages
on a message board and report what people there have posted.
rolling eyes


One cruise may make you expert enough to read messages. But it might not be
enough to be able to adequately judge what someone else is saying. Since
many of us have multiple cruises (some up to 50+), we tend to look at things
from a broader perspective. With only one sailing, it can't give you a
perspective on different lines. It can't give you a perspective in
different itineraries - like Europe, Bermuda, Alaska, Caribbean, etc.

Plus it can't give you any perspective on past passenger specials for
multiple lines which are delivered by e-mail.... because you can't be a past
passenger on multiple lines.

And reading peoples' comments can be very misleading. And you wouldn't even
know it. Someone who went on their first cruise, or someone who's only ever
been on one line may rave about the food on a sailing. Without having been
on that line in the past, how would you be able to fully interpret their
comments?

When I read comments from someone who's only ever been on one line... I do
the same "rolling eyes". They have nothing to compare to. Someone who's
been on 6-8 different lines... they have the perspective to compare. I may
like different things than they do (we may like different lines), and I may
not agree with everything they say, but I do acknowledge their experience
level.

I've seen advertised prices for $499 for Alaska. Is that charging too much?
What if it's $499 for the cruise and another $900 for the airfare? Is that
charging too much? Or is that the airline charging too much?

I think you need (like Bill Parcells used to say) a few pelts on your belt,
before you can play expert here. Get up to 8-10 sailings on different
lines, and suddenly you have a higher level of credibility.

--Tom

"*bicker*" wrote in message
. ..
A Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:56:16 GMT, "Tom & Linda"
escribió:
"*bicker*" wrote in message
.. .
Rather, many of those customers feel that they're being
charged too much money already
I've been on over 30 cruises and don't feel that they're charging too
much
already.

That's nice. You must not be one of the customers who
posted the sentiments I reported.

How many have you been on?

One cruise is more than enough to be able to read messages
on a message board and report what people there have posted.
rolling eyes


One cruise may make you expert enough to read messages. But it might not be
enough to be able to adequately judge what someone else is saying. Since
many of us have multiple cruises (some up to 50+), we tend to look at things
from a broader perspective. With only one sailing, it can't give you a
perspective on different lines. It can't give you a perspective in
different itineraries - like Europe, Bermuda, Alaska, Caribbean, etc.

Plus it can't give you any perspective on past passenger specials for
multiple lines which are delivered by e-mail.... because you can't be a past
passenger on multiple lines.

And reading peoples' comments can be very misleading. And you wouldn't even
know it. Someone who went on their first cruise, or someone who's only ever
been on one line may rave about the food on a sailing. Without having been
on that line in the past, how would you be able to fully interpret their
comments?

When I read comments from someone who's only ever been on one line... I do
the same "rolling eyes". They have nothing to compare to. Someone who's
been on 6-8 different lines... they have the perspective to compare. I may
like different things than they do (we may like different lines), and I may
not agree with everything they say, but I do acknowledge their experience
level.

I've seen advertised prices for $499 for Alaska. Is that charging too much?
What if it's $499 for the cruise and another $900 for the airfare? Is that
charging too much? Or is that the airline charging too much?

I think you need (like Bill Parcells used to say) a few pelts on your belt,
before you can play expert here. Get up to 8-10 sailings on different
lines, and suddenly you have a higher level of credibility.

--Tom

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

A certain amount of knowledge of the product is necessary in judging
quality. Another certain amount of knowledge in a product is necessary
for judging anything. One can't judge a cigar if one isn't a cigar
smoker or has done research and can point out what makes a fine cigar.
It is I think somewhat misleading to take a survey of people new to a
product and point to it as proving that the product is performing well
or up to standards of its specified rung. It is the quality and
knowledge of who is being surveyed that is more accurate in revealing
the true performance of the product. Whether or not it sells and fills
is a matter of tapping into what will bring people in, and it is
dishonest to me to bring in people from a different market, especially
from a lower-rung market, and claim that their positive comments reflect
that the current product is up to the product's established standards.
If the standards are lowered with price, then the product rung has also
been lowered. If the price of admission and services is just lower per
market prices of the time, the overall quality in defining areas of the
product should be maintained to justify the rung. If premium means lower
overall standards now, then marketing and industry is playing games with
categories.


Categories can shift over time. They can even be different depending on
where you are.

In Europe, Mercedes are considered utilitarian. In the US the company has
crafted an image of luxury, and prices it accordingly.

--Tom

"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

A certain amount of knowledge of the product is necessary in judging
quality. Another certain amount of knowledge in a product is necessary
for judging anything. One can't judge a cigar if one isn't a cigar
smoker or has done research and can point out what makes a fine cigar.
It is I think somewhat misleading to take a survey of people new to a
product and point to it as proving that the product is performing well
or up to standards of its specified rung. It is the quality and
knowledge of who is being surveyed that is more accurate in revealing
the true performance of the product. Whether or not it sells and fills
is a matter of tapping into what will bring people in, and it is
dishonest to me to bring in people from a different market, especially
from a lower-rung market, and claim that their positive comments reflect
that the current product is up to the product's established standards.
If the standards are lowered with price, then the product rung has also
been lowered. If the price of admission and services is just lower per
market prices of the time, the overall quality in defining areas of the
product should be maintained to justify the rung. If premium means lower
overall standards now, then marketing and industry is playing games with
categories.


Categories can shift over time. They can even be different depending on
where you are.

In Europe, Mercedes are considered utilitarian. In the US the company has
crafted an image of luxury, and prices it accordingly.

--Tom

Tom & Linda wrote:
"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

A certain amount of knowledge of the product is necessary in judging
quality. Another certain amount of knowledge in a product is necessary
for judging anything. One can't judge a cigar if one isn't a cigar
smoker or has done research and can point out what makes a fine cigar.
It is I think somewhat misleading to take a survey of people new to a
product and point to it as proving that the product is performing well
or up to standards of its specified rung. It is the quality and
knowledge of who is being surveyed that is more accurate in revealing
the true performance of the product. Whether or not it sells and fills
is a matter of tapping into what will bring people in, and it is
dishonest to me to bring in people from a different market, especially
from a lower-rung market, and claim that their positive comments reflect
that the current product is up to the product's established standards.
If the standards are lowered with price, then the product rung has also
been lowered. If the price of admission and services is just lower per
market prices of the time, the overall quality in defining areas of the
product should be maintained to justify the rung. If premium means lower
overall standards now, then marketing and industry is playing games with
categories.



Categories can shift over time. They can even be different depending on
where you are.


That's true.

In Europe, Mercedes are considered utilitarian.

Whew. Yes and no. Mercedes is a huge luxury model but it is the
convertibles, coupes, and S class that are luxurious. The A and C models
and sometimes the E diesel models are considered solid, utilitarian
vehicles.

In the US the company has
crafted an image of luxury, and prices it accordingly.


Yes. Of course, the trucks are solid, utilitarian models.

Also, in Europe buses have lots of prestige and Mercedes makes very
luxurious buses.

As for categories shifting, I agree. But, would you agree with me that
we should have our antennae up when category rungs get watered down?

Ben S.

--Tom

Tom & Linda wrote:
"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

A certain amount of knowledge of the product is necessary in judging
quality. Another certain amount of knowledge in a product is necessary
for judging anything. One can't judge a cigar if one isn't a cigar
smoker or has done research and can point out what makes a fine cigar.
It is I think somewhat misleading to take a survey of people new to a
product and point to it as proving that the product is performing well
or up to standards of its specified rung. It is the quality and
knowledge of who is being surveyed that is more accurate in revealing
the true performance of the product. Whether or not it sells and fills
is a matter of tapping into what will bring people in, and it is
dishonest to me to bring in people from a different market, especially
from a lower-rung market, and claim that their positive comments reflect
that the current product is up to the product's established standards.
If the standards are lowered with price, then the product rung has also
been lowered. If the price of admission and services is just lower per
market prices of the time, the overall quality in defining areas of the
product should be maintained to justify the rung. If premium means lower
overall standards now, then marketing and industry is playing games with
categories.



Categories can shift over time. They can even be different depending on
where you are.


That's true.

In Europe, Mercedes are considered utilitarian.

Whew. Yes and no. Mercedes is a huge luxury model but it is the
convertibles, coupes, and S class that are luxurious. The A and C models
and sometimes the E diesel models are considered solid, utilitarian
vehicles.

In the US the company has
crafted an image of luxury, and prices it accordingly.


Yes. Of course, the trucks are solid, utilitarian models.

Also, in Europe buses have lots of prestige and Mercedes makes very
luxurious buses.

As for categories shifting, I agree. But, would you agree with me that
we should have our antennae up when category rungs get watered down?

Ben S.

--Tom

Tom & Linda wrote:
"Benjamin Smith" wrote in message
link.net...

A certain amount of knowledge of the product is necessary in judging
quality. Another certain amount of knowledge in a product is necessary
for judging anything. One can't judge a cigar if one isn't a cigar
smoker or has done research and can point out what makes a fine cigar.
It is I think somewhat misleading to take a survey of people new to a
product and point to it as proving that the product is performing well
or up to standards of its specified rung. It is the quality and
knowledge of who is being surveyed that is more accurate in revealing
the true performance of the product. Whether or not it sells and fills
is a matter of tapping into what will bring people in, and it is
dishonest to me to bring in people from a different market, especially
from a lower-rung market, and claim that their positive comments reflect
that the current product is up to the product's established standards.
If the standards are lowered with price, then the product rung has also
been lowered. If the price of admission and services is just lower per
market prices of the time, the overall quality in defining areas of the
product should be maintained to justify the rung. If premium means lower
overall standards now, then marketing and industry is playing games with
categories.



Categories can shift over time. They can even be different depending on
where you are.


That's true.

In Europe, Mercedes are considered utilitarian.

Whew. Yes and no. Mercedes is a huge luxury model but it is the
convertibles, coupes, and S class that are luxurious. The A and C models
and sometimes the E diesel models are considered solid, utilitarian
vehicles.

In the US the company has
crafted an image of luxury, and prices it accordingly.


Yes. Of course, the trucks are solid, utilitarian models.

Also, in Europe buses have lots of prestige and Mercedes makes very
luxurious buses.

As for categories shifting, I agree. But, would you agree with me that
we should have our antennae up when category rungs get watered down?

Ben S.

--Tom

*bicker* wrote:

A Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:44:18 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:

You are a newbie here and the business principles you espouse almost as
if they were religious gospel don't cover up your deficiency with
knowledge of or experience with the actual product.


Your lack of knowledge of basic business doesn't cover up
your deficiency in that regard. So how about this: With
respect to business issues, defer, and I'll defer to you on
issues regarding what takes place on cruises.


My views are those of a customer. I don't claim to have business
knowledge. My life experiences and parallels that I draw to the current
cruise situation make me question some aspects of the industry. That's
what I do, I question things. I'm not extremely qualified as to what
takes place on cruises from personal experience. Others have cruised far
more times, for a much longer period, and on many more lines than I
have. If I have value here is in giving a certain perspective and
sometimes critique of and about the creativity and variety of cruise
content, both in the hardware and software of the experience. I also
have a certain detail-oriented manner of describing ships.

My problem with you is that you often call my views personal. For the
most part, they aren't. One proposal I mention is similar to something
that Celebrity's CEO was toying with, and that is making a smaller,
higher-priced, all outside room ship to replace the early 90s vintage
ships. I was part of their marketing. The plan never came to fruition
but they were thinking about it. So to say what I talk about is just how
I want the cruise lines to be is inaccurate.

My discipline is music, not business, and I'm at odds with business
sometimes because I think some applications of it stifles art,
creativity, and imagination. But, I'm not against business at all, it is
essential to society. I just find that models emphasizing numbers over
cultural value in products work against promoting something of cultural
value that many can experience for years, and no monetary value can be
placed on this. For the most part, producing commodities are desired,
but not always.


I think the QE2 is something of a culture/lifestyle icon and understand
that solid business acumen supporting its operation has kept it floating
for so long. And yes, some compromises were made that I don't agree with
or care for needed to be made for the icon to survive.

Ben S.



--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html

*bicker* wrote:

A Mon, 02 Aug 2004 23:44:18 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:

You are a newbie here and the business principles you espouse almost as
if they were religious gospel don't cover up your deficiency with
knowledge of or experience with the actual product.


Your lack of knowledge of basic business doesn't cover up
your deficiency in that regard. So how about this: With
respect to business issues, defer, and I'll defer to you on
issues regarding what takes place on cruises.


My views are those of a customer. I don't claim to have business
knowledge. My life experiences and parallels that I draw to the current
cruise situation make me question some aspects of the industry. That's
what I do, I question things. I'm not extremely qualified as to what
takes place on cruises from personal experience. Others have cruised far
more times, for a much longer period, and on many more lines than I
have. If I have value here is in giving a certain perspective and
sometimes critique of and about the creativity and variety of cruise
content, both in the hardware and software of the experience. I also
have a certain detail-oriented manner of describing ships.

My problem with you is that you often call my views personal. For the
most part, they aren't. One proposal I mention is similar to something
that Celebrity's CEO was toying with, and that is making a smaller,
higher-priced, all outside room ship to replace the early 90s vintage
ships. I was part of their marketing. The plan never came to fruition
but they were thinking about it. So to say what I talk about is just how
I want the cruise lines to be is inaccurate.

My discipline is music, not business, and I'm at odds with business
sometimes because I think some applications of it stifles art,
creativity, and imagination. But, I'm not against business at all, it is
essential to society. I just find that models emphasizing numbers over
cultural value in products work against promoting something of cultural
value that many can experience for years, and no monetary value can be
placed on this. For the most part, producing commodities are desired,
but not always.


I think the QE2 is something of a culture/lifestyle icon and understand
that solid business acumen supporting its operation has kept it floating
for so long. And yes, some compromises were made that I don't agree with
or care for needed to be made for the icon to survive.

Ben S.



--
bicker®
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/D...ry_040602.html

In article . net,
Benjamin Smith wrote:

My views are those of a customer. I don't claim to have business
knowledge.

But you are not the typical customer. The mass market cruise lines are
selling to the typical customer.

--
Charles