Cruise Critic Censorship

On Mar 10, 5:27*pm, (Surfer E2468) wrote:
Was wondering why celebrity does not give you credit for cruises you
have taken on rccl

Actually they do, kinda sorta. Celebrity Captain's Club membership
levels are upgraded automatically when your RCI Crown&Anchor level
increases.

Warren

On Mar 10, 5:36*pm, NomenNeisco wrote:

Isn't it interesting that RTC has 5 of these "RC'ers", and not a single
one of them disclosed that they had been *CHOSEN*

What's to disclose? I get free stuff on every cruise and ship tour &
lunch invites from just about every past passenger club I'm registered
in. Does that require me to disclose that I'm Captains Club,
Crown&Anchor, Mariner, Latitutes, Captains Circle, etc. etc. etc. in
every post I make?

I don't see RC as anything different and until recently thought it had
something to do with C&A.

Warren

"Warren" wrote in message
...
On Mar 10, 5:27 pm, (Surfer E2468) wrote:
Was wondering why celebrity does not give you credit for cruises you
have taken on rccl

Actually they do, kinda sorta. Celebrity Captain's Club membership
levels are upgraded automatically when your RCI Crown&Anchor level
increases.

Warren

You are right, Warren

We were given "Elite" status for the first time on our recent Solstice
cruise because we qualified for "Diamond" on our last RCCL cruise.

Tobieon an Island in the Pacific

Warren wrote:

What's to disclose?

The slippery slope of a real-or-perceived potential conflict of
interest.


I get free stuff on every cruise and ship tour & lunch invites
from just about every past passenger club I'm registered in.

The question is what is customary, routine, minor in nature, and
generally well known & available to the general public, versus that
which is not. Its not always an easy call.

For something like a free cruise that wasn't disclosed, I would
generally say that that should be disclosed, as it is arguably hardly
minor. But the problem is that it might very well be "customary &
routine" might depend on if the company has a well advertised program
of "Sail 10x, and the 11th is Free", or something similar.

For illustration of a baseline, I'm not allowed by my Employer to
accept any gratuity that's worth more than $50/year. If a supplier
tries to exceed that, not only am I expected to immediately decline,
I'm also expected to report the supplier. Yes, my employer is very
sensitive to even the *perception* of his employees receiving
"Kickbacks".


Does that require me to disclose that I'm Captains Club,
Crown&Anchor, Mariner, Latitutes, Captains Circle, etc. etc. etc.
in every post I make?

Ultimately, the correct answer depends on you, and where you
personally set your bar of ethics for relevant disclosure.

The general common sense approach is to be proactive about it, which
would be to be open about it and include a disclaimer in any thread
where the affiliation has a reasonable expectation to at least be a
concern for potential bias of the poster's opinions.

For example, if this topic was about Timeshares, I would personally
personally disclose that I own one with Divi Resorts, and also
disclose that I'm a very dissatisfied customer of theirs. But if the
thread continues on for 30 more posts, of which 6 of them are mine,
I'd generally not consider it to be necessary in every single one of
them to remind everyone of this affiliation, since a reader of the
thread should have seen & read my disclosure at least once. However,
if a new thread comes along 2 weeks later, I'd disclose all over again
in that one.


-hh

"-hh" wrote in message
...
Warren wrote:

What's to disclose?

The slippery slope of a real-or-perceived potential conflict of
interest.


I get free stuff on every cruise and ship tour & lunch invites
from just about every past passenger club I'm registered in.

The question is what is customary, routine, minor in nature, and
generally well known & available to the general public, versus that
which is not. Its not always an easy call.

For something like a free cruise that wasn't disclosed, I would
generally say that that should be disclosed, as it is arguably hardly
minor. But the problem is that it might very well be "customary &
routine" might depend on if the company has a well advertised program
of "Sail 10x, and the 11th is Free", or something similar.


Nah... it is simpler than that.

The problem is that someone always thinks that someone else is getting
something they're not. "His piece of the pie is bigger than mine!"

Note that the largest criticism comes from someone posting anonymously.
What do you want to bet that while he/she is bitching about the program
here, they are posting favorably about Royal Caribbean on every forum on the
internet... hoping to get noticed so their piece of the pie is a little
larger next time.

Jealousy, plain and simple.


--
George Leppla http://www.CruiseMaster.com

Cruise Specials Weblog http://cruisemaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/

May 10, 2009 ALASKA http://www.cruisemaster.com/moagc4.htm
January 10, 2009 Southern Caribbean
http://www.cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
October 16, 2010 OASIS http://www.motherofallgroupcruises.com

I think that the misnomer is that RCCL asked for great feedback and in
this case of RC ers nope not at all...
Well they surely were not goign to reward a bad mouther with
something... nor people who lurk and do nto say anything...

jealousy YEP that is what it is. and that RCCL has a Great product

Sue
Cruiseoutlets and travel
800-853-9515

On 3/11/09 6:44 AM, in article
, "Warren"
wrote:

On Mar 10, 5:27*pm, (Surfer E2468) wrote:
Was wondering why celebrity does not give you credit for cruises you
have taken on rccl

Actually they do, kinda sorta. Celebrity Captain's Club membership
levels are upgraded automatically when your RCI Crown&Anchor level
increases.
And the other way around as well.

Warren

On Mar 10, 5:36*pm, NomenNeisco wrote:
wrote:
It's on CC now. The moderator was asked for the emails of certain
posters but refused due to privacy rules. She was then asked to email
the posters and get their OK for release of their information. The
ones that said OK were given, hence CC played their part in helping a
cruiseline, which doesn't surprise me, they are part of a business
afterall and it's no shock to me that they, as other businesses i.e,
PR firms, TAs, the media, etc may be offered perks from the lines once
in a while, thats pretty much common knowledge but, for people who are
just 'regular' posters to be offered perks because of this RC thing
AND not disclose them association with a PR program is wrong. RCI did
hire a PR firm to start and oversee this program and while RCers for
the most part don't think they have or would ever be influenced to
change their opinion and they may not, this program is pretty much
basic Psych 101. While RCers really have nothing to be sorry about,
who wouldn't mind being a part of a program where you MAY be offered a
perk once in a while, RCI does for not being open about this right
from the start, even to RCers who say they had no idea what it was or
what was involved, but it doesn't surprise me that a business would
try to do something under the cloak of darkness. Any other businesses
that were involved in this PR ploy and tried to hide it and/or their
part in it, before or after the fact should be sorry also but at least
one seems to want to deny, deny, deny still instead of just saying we
could have and possibly should have handled it differently.

Isn't it interesting that RTC has 5 of these "RC'ers", and not a single
one of them disclosed that they had been *CHOSEN* until after this whole
underhanded episode made the press. And it looks like every one is in
the travel sales business.

Free stuff for a good review. By *paid professionals*
Shameful.

If you are including me among those people, I did say how I got
invited, before, after, and ever since my cruise.

And I don't sell cruises.

This entire topic has been a matter of open discussion on a lot of
forums since day one, more than two years ago. Some of the CC posters
have indeed gotten stars in their eyes, failed to keep to good, sound,
common sense practices, to be sure. I don't defend that, nor is
anybody else. But only the critics and jealous types seem to act as
if this is new, sudden, and breaking news. Typical, much like
environmentalists, consumer rights types, and others, people who like
to knock the industry are laughably slow on the uptake. Likewise,
they are quick to start name calling as they can never seem to keep
their venom in check. The blog entry noted in this thread starts out
seemingly level headed enough, before diving into calling anybody
associated with RC "pr parasites" and "mouthpieces." Yeah, that is
objective "reporting" of two-year-old "news."

It has been two years since the RC program got underway, and the basic
details and involved folks have been out there since then. That some,
on a forum like CC, got lazy, or dumb, or both, doesn't really erase
the fact that this has been old news for years now.

What is shameful is how much folks are flinging a term like "paid
professionals" about, hardly masking some pretty obvious abject
hostility. And the irony remains that I don't even disagree about how
tacky, even inappropriate posting a review for a cruise given for free
is.

I think it is great marketing. They should expand it. They ought to
also suggest some guidelines to people, as to keep with proper and
accepted practice, should they choose to post reviews and such later.
But I see absolutely nothing wrong with the program. Travel agents
get more and more frequent perks, and they present themselves as
"objective" advisors to people paying money. People aren't attacking
that topic, because they know it, and the RC program are perfectly
normal and fine. They simply hate being blindsided, as they see it,
because they didn't take free, unrestricted, public sources with a
grain of salt, and they feel burned.

To be fair, people did get burned, and it was because of lax standards
by some people posting "reviews," or being less than clear as to why
they were advocating a given company. Or at least disclosing their
status, as to provide context to their statements. I sure hope I get
another freebie. And as before I'll handle it in the same proper,
mature, and open fashion I always do.

I won't defend stupidity by some folks who mishandled things when
given a gift. But the folks feeling burned have themselves to blame
to some extent.

NWLB
************************************************** ****
www.RoyalCaribbeanFan.com

Charles notes a couple of things I'll agree with. *CC has a heavy
hand, I know CM does as well, and I have insight from a couple of
their people about how things shifted after the buy-out a year ago.
The new owner is hyper sensitive to anything which could at all be
considered to take away from "value" to their advertising partners.

The "new management" at CM does not dictate what we write, they give
us all the room we need to remain a useful, vital source of cruise
information. You may be repeating something an underling overstepping
his bounds might have said to one of our moderators, I don't know,
because I have no idea what you are referring to, but I do know that
no one at our parent company to has ever asked me to change anything I
have written because it is too negative - about an advertiser or
otherwise. Not once, not even suggesting it.

And that is exactly why I object to this scandal with Cruise Critic.
We do not want to be painted with the same broad brush. I checked with
our parent company and out of all of the 20+ travel-oriented content
sites they own not a single one is engaged in this style of "word of
mouth" marketing. And if you want to know more about "word of mouth
marketing" I suggest you read what I am posting below this message.

One message board post we will definitely delete is people touting
their own products - disclosed or undisclosed. That is why you do not
see CM mentioned in this scandal. We would never let anyone tout a
product in our boards, especially undisclosed, because it absolutely
ruins the integrity of any site's message boards. How can any any site
possibly justify telling their readers "you are reading posts by
people who are not disclosing they are being compensated by the very
company you are researching?"

CruiseMates is not a Cruise Critic clone - we are our own web site.
Please research what is actually online in CruiseMates rather than
jumping to conclusions about what you may have heard. There is a
search engine on our front page that brings up content from our
articles and our message boards. I guarantee you will find plenty of
honest "sensitive" information in Cruisemates.

================================================

WOMMA Announces Changes to the Ethics Code
March 05, 2009 -

• We practice openness about the relationship between consumers and
marketers. Consumers engaged in a word of mouth program should
disclose their relationship with marketers in their communications
with other consumers. We don't tell consumers specifically what to
say, but we do instruct them to be open and honest about any
relationship with a marketer and about any products or incentives that
they may have received.

• We require marketers to disclose their relationships with consumers
in relation to word of mouth initiatives.

• We require marketers to effectively monitor disclosure of consumers
involved in their word of mouth initiatives.

• We stand against marketing practices whereby the consumer is paid
cash by the manufacturer, supplier or one of their representatives to
make recommendations, reviews or endorsements.

• We require consumers involved in a word of mouth initiative to
disclose the material aspects of their commercial relationship with a
marketer, including the specific type of any remuneration received.

• We require consumers involved in a word of mouth initiative to
disclose the source of product samples or incentives received from a
marketer.

• We comply with FTC regulations that state: "When there exists a
connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised
product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the
endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the
audience) such connection must be fully disclosed."

• Teaser campaigns are acceptable when the average consumer would
recognize the effects as part of a marketing program and when there is
a planned revelation as part of the initiative.


The WOMMA Code's key principles a

1. Respect and promote practices that abide by an understanding that
the consumer, not the marketer, is fundamentally in charge and in
control and dictates the terms of the consumer-marketer relationship.

2. Openness and honesty between consumers and marketers requires that
consumers engaged in a word-of-mouth programs disclose their
relationships with marketers with other consumers and marketers
disclose their relationships with consumers in relation to word-of-
mouth initiatives.

3. Clear disclosure of identity is vital to establishing trust and
credibility. Identification should not be blurred in a manner that
misleads consumers as to the true identity of the individual with whom
they are communicating.

4. Working with minors in word-of-mouth marketing programs carries
important responsibilities and sensitivities, therefore, children
under the age of 13 should not be included in any word-of-mouth
marketing programs.

5. Promote honesty in all downstream communications to assure that
ethical standards are upheld even after multiple generations of a
conversation.

6. Respect the privacy of consumer at all times and comply with the
highest privacy, opt-in and permission standards.

NWLB wrote:
On Mar 10, 5:36 pm, NomenNeisco wrote:
wrote:
It's on CC now. The moderator was asked for the emails of certain
posters but refused due to privacy rules. She was then asked to email
the posters and get their OK for release of their information. The
ones that said OK were given, hence CC played their part in helping a
cruiseline, which doesn't surprise me, they are part of a business
afterall and it's no shock to me that they, as other businesses i.e,
PR firms, TAs, the media, etc may be offered perks from the lines once
in a while, thats pretty much common knowledge but, for people who are
just 'regular' posters to be offered perks because of this RC thing
AND not disclose them association with a PR program is wrong. RCI did
hire a PR firm to start and oversee this program and while RCers for
the most part don't think they have or would ever be influenced to
change their opinion and they may not, this program is pretty much
basic Psych 101. While RCers really have nothing to be sorry about,
who wouldn't mind being a part of a program where you MAY be offered a
perk once in a while, RCI does for not being open about this right
from the start, even to RCers who say they had no idea what it was or
what was involved, but it doesn't surprise me that a business would
try to do something under the cloak of darkness. Any other businesses
that were involved in this PR ploy and tried to hide it and/or their
part in it, before or after the fact should be sorry also but at least
one seems to want to deny, deny, deny still instead of just saying we
could have and possibly should have handled it differently.
Isn't it interesting that RTC has 5 of these "RC'ers", and not a single
one of them disclosed that they had been *CHOSEN* until after this whole
underhanded episode made the press. And it looks like every one is in
the travel sales business.

Free stuff for a good review. By *paid professionals*
Shameful.

If you are including me among those people, I did say how I got
invited, before, after, and ever since my cruise.

And I don't sell cruises.

This entire topic has been a matter of open discussion on a lot of
forums since day one, more than two years ago. Some of the CC posters
have indeed gotten stars in their eyes, failed to keep to good, sound,
common sense practices, to be sure. I don't defend that, nor is
anybody else. But only the critics and jealous types seem to act as
if this is new, sudden, and breaking news. Typical, much like
environmentalists, consumer rights types, and others, people who like
to knock the industry are laughably slow on the uptake. Likewise,
they are quick to start name calling as they can never seem to keep
their venom in check. The blog entry noted in this thread starts out
seemingly level headed enough, before diving into calling anybody
associated with RC "pr parasites" and "mouthpieces." Yeah, that is
objective "reporting" of two-year-old "news."

It has been two years since the RC program got underway, and the basic
details and involved folks have been out there since then. That some,
on a forum like CC, got lazy, or dumb, or both, doesn't really erase
the fact that this has been old news for years now.

What is shameful is how much folks are flinging a term like "paid
professionals" about, hardly masking some pretty obvious abject
hostility. And the irony remains that I don't even disagree about how
tacky, even inappropriate posting a review for a cruise given for free
is.

I think it is great marketing. They should expand it. They ought to
also suggest some guidelines to people, as to keep with proper and
accepted practice, should they choose to post reviews and such later.
But I see absolutely nothing wrong with the program. Travel agents
get more and more frequent perks, and they present themselves as
"objective" advisors to people paying money. People aren't attacking
that topic, because they know it, and the RC program are perfectly
normal and fine. They simply hate being blindsided, as they see it,
because they didn't take free, unrestricted, public sources with a
grain of salt, and they feel burned.

To be fair, people did get burned, and it was because of lax standards
by some people posting "reviews," or being less than clear as to why
they were advocating a given company. Or at least disclosing their
status, as to provide context to their statements. I sure hope I get
another freebie. And as before I'll handle it in the same proper,
mature, and open fashion I always do.

I won't defend stupidity by some folks who mishandled things when
given a gift. But the folks feeling burned have themselves to blame
to some extent.

NWLB
************************************************** ****
www.RoyalCaribbeanFan.com

Look in the mirror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing