Just returned from cruise - don't get it...

In article et,
Benjamin Smith wrote:

It does, I don't see how it fits in with Celebrity's style, however.

True it doesn't fit with Celebrity's style, as there is no art auction,
canned remarks from the CD, international crew, newlywed game, bingo
etc. on Xpedition.

--
Charles

Charles wrote:

In article et,
Benjamin Smith wrote:


It does, I don't see how it fits in with Celebrity's style, however.


True it doesn't fit with Celebrity's style, as there is no art auction,
canned remarks from the CD, international crew, newlywed game, bingo
etc. on Xpedition.

LOL

"Tom & Linda" wrote in message
...

"Bill C" wrote in message
...



I just posed the question of "Who would like a 7 day cruise to nowhere?"
on
cruisecritic the other day and out of close to 30 responses only 3 said
no.
I think after you have been to the same ports over and over MOST people
would much prefer the ship to another port call of the same old place.
My
wife and I love days at sea and could do a 7 day cruise to nowhere.

Bill


My ideal cruise would be a 7-night, 6-port Southern Caribbean sailing
with
6 great snorkeling ports.

Sea days? Waste to me.

Give me the best of both. 3-4 Hours at the beach snorkeling in the
morning,
and the ship in the afternoon, quiet with everyone else still in port.

--Tom

That would not be my ideal cruise although we are contemplating just that
for our next cruise. When we are at home we are always on the go 7 days a
week. On vacation I like to just relax and getting up every day of the week
at 7am to eat and get ready for another intensive day in a port is just like
being home to me except it much nicer scenery.

Bill

"Tom & Linda" wrote in message
...

"Bill C" wrote in message
...



I just posed the question of "Who would like a 7 day cruise to nowhere?"
on
cruisecritic the other day and out of close to 30 responses only 3 said
no.
I think after you have been to the same ports over and over MOST people
would much prefer the ship to another port call of the same old place.
My
wife and I love days at sea and could do a 7 day cruise to nowhere.

Bill


My ideal cruise would be a 7-night, 6-port Southern Caribbean sailing
with
6 great snorkeling ports.

Sea days? Waste to me.

Give me the best of both. 3-4 Hours at the beach snorkeling in the
morning,
and the ship in the afternoon, quiet with everyone else still in port.

--Tom

That would not be my ideal cruise although we are contemplating just that
for our next cruise. When we are at home we are always on the go 7 days a
week. On vacation I like to just relax and getting up every day of the week
at 7am to eat and get ready for another intensive day in a port is just like
being home to me except it much nicer scenery.

Bill

A Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:41:12 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
*bicker* wrote:
A Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:40:44 -0400, "E.k.R."
escribió:
QM2 was the last new ship that I had any real desire to
sail on. Why, because she is unique. If Carnival builds five more like her
then her appeal will fade, at least for me.
Yeah. This is the bit that doesn't work out the same for
me. The fact that (many) others can enjoy something doesn't
really take anything about from the experience for me.
The point is this one ship stands out amoung the many. If one more is
built she becomes a series ship, and loses her unique appeal.

Don't worry: The words are readily translatable into my
native tongue. It is the concept of "unique" appeal that
doesn't jive.

It seems a bit like the literary folk who enjoy a book until
it sells its millionth copy (or hundred-thousandth,
whatever). Nothing changed about the book, yet suddenly it
is no longer as enjoyable, intelligent, interesting, etc.?

Or the new musician who no one has heard yet. I "found"
artists like Wilco and Tracy Chapman, yet for some reason I
still hold my interest for them even though they're
mainstream now.

It's okay. Different people are wired differently.


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

A Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:43:20 -0400, "E.k.R."
escribió:
Besides most moderately priced ship choices today being mega-clones, the
other major differences seem to be the crew, which today is mostly
International on all ships,

I'm not sure that this should imply either superiority or
inferiority.

Remember when cruises were actually known for their amazing food?
Not so today. It's mediocre at best and presented with little to no flair.

That's, of course, a reflection of what customers actually
want. If folks were willing to pay more or be more loyal to
a cruise line offering what you suggest, then of course it
would be offered without question.

gone is the family-like
camaraderie that once existed between cruise passengers. It was like you
were part of a special club.

I, for one, am very glad to have the secret hand-shake and
magic decoder ring go by the way-side! grin


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

A Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:06:03 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:
*bicker* wrote:
The number of people who *say* that they would pay a premium
for a premium product doesn't have any impact on the
profitability of the business. Only the number of people
who actually *do* pay the premium for a premium product can.
You may be one of those who actually *would* but clearly
there aren't enough of such folks, as evidenced by these
premium lines moving closer and closer over time to the
mainstream lines.
The shipbuilding boom dropped the price of admission, and after the
economy became soft (the dotcom collapse, the impact of 9/11, and the
accounting scandals) prices went down. Then, people became accustomed to
low prices and have an idea of what they think cruises should cost.

Which is why the cruise lines need to make up the difference
with surcharges now, since the market isn't ready for base
prices to go up yet.

A
lot of this is due to the overbuilding of new ships and making them
bigger and bigger.

I believe you're mistaken about the word "overbuilding." It
implies "beyond what is correct." Yet these new ships are
the most popular and profitable. So, in actuality, if there
is a problem, it is the slow pace at which the older,
smaller ships are being decommissioned or stretched.

What you had throughout the years and in many
establishments isn't an emphasis on new as truly what is being pushed
now. It is more on consistency and familiarity with enough variation and
unpredictability to keep the product interesting and vibrant.

Again, I believe you're mistaken about the word "enough."
When you use words without qualification, the only valid
bases for comparison that reasonable people can agree about
are objective comparisons, such as profitability. In that
regard, clearly, there wasn't enough going on to keep the
product interesting and vibrant enough to maximize profit.

Identify who wants consistency--the size of the market
and make enough product for these people.
Give people who are willing to
pay the money for the product the high quality they expect with
consistency and they'll come back.

What rationale is there for sub-optimizing utilization of
assets in that manner? Something that will convince my
70-something year old parents that their investments should
be managed in that manner...

The we I'm talking about are consumers.
Granted. It's a bit like saying, "What we television
viewers need is not more pay channels, but new free channels
that don't have commercials." It is unquestionably true
(given the way you used "need" above), but isn't very
enlightening as a statement.
Smaller companies that focus on the product.

Are? Seems to me the only way to finish the sentences you
started is, " ... aren't as likely to be able to survive in
a free market as ..."

... huge corporations that
focus on market share and growth and doing whatever it takes to maximize
both.

Your business decisions are
sound but you would not have the type of consumer-based focus and
vision that I would be interested in as a client.
You're mistaken. A business that provides products and
services that its customers aren't willing to pay for isn't
focusing on its customers. (I used to work for Ma Bell,
back when it was Ma Bell, so I can tell you great stories
about all the great stuff we just *knew* you wanted, even
though you didn't express any appreciable interest it
beforehand.) Customer-based focus is actively listening to
your customers and crafting from that information the most
profitable product and service offerings, to best satisfy
your fiduciary responsibilities.
Depends on who you listen to.

Not really. Fiduciary responsibility is very clear.

If you are interested in constantly
expanding you'll listen to those that want to transform your style of
business. You'll be numbers driven. If you have a solid customer base
saying don't change the product and will except slow but steady growth
and people willing the pay the price, you can listen to what may be a
minority that want a particular product.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. It sounds nice, but the last
three decades have shown the folly of such "spiritual"
business management. People who invest their hard-earned
money in businesses don't want to trust to faith, but want
their assets utilized in ways for which there is evidence of
yielding great results.

When you say "most profitable" I think that's where
the corporate mentality is driven.

No. The mentality I'm talking about is the 70 year old
couple looking forward to 20 years of retirement on whatever
money their investments have been able to generate over the
years.

There's most profitable and there's profitable or at least sustainable,

I think it is fine to advocate sub-optimization of your own
money, but to expect others to live less comfortably in
their old age so that you can cruise the way you wish to...
that's not a reasonable expectation, IMHO.


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

*bicker* wrote:

A Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:06:03 GMT, Benjamin Smith
escribió:

*bicker* wrote:

The number of people who *say* that they would pay a premium
for a premium product doesn't have any impact on the
profitability of the business. Only the number of people
who actually *do* pay the premium for a premium product can.
You may be one of those who actually *would* but clearly
there aren't enough of such folks, as evidenced by these
premium lines moving closer and closer over time to the
mainstream lines.

The shipbuilding boom dropped the price of admission, and after the
economy became soft (the dotcom collapse, the impact of 9/11, and the
accounting scandals) prices went down. Then, people became accustomed to
low prices and have an idea of what they think cruises should cost.


Which is why the cruise lines need to make up the difference
with surcharges now, since the market isn't ready for base
prices to go up yet.


Maybe the market wasn't ready for the amount of ships sailing. If you
have to lower the price, you overbuilt.


A
lot of this is due to the overbuilding of new ships and making them
bigger and bigger.


I believe you're mistaken about the word "overbuilding." It
implies "beyond what is correct." Yet these new ships are
the most popular and profitable. So, in actuality, if there
is a problem, it is the slow pace at which the older,
smaller ships are being decommissioned or stretched.



I travel on 30 year old trains, 25 year old planes, enjoy building that
are 50, 100 or more years erected.

Ships cost a ton of money and newbuilding is promoting planned
obsolencence. You hit the nail on the head when you mention smaller
ships being decommissioned or stretched. That's exactly the problem.
Ships can sail for 30 years or more yet the cruise industry is making
them into throwaway commodities where people think an 8 year old ship is
old. An 8 year old ship should be regarded as a young ship, not an older
ship. And as smaller ships are decommissioned or stretched that's the
end of a choice. A ship of a certain size, certain vintage, certain
style, certain passenger capacity is now replaced by something bigger
with a different feel.

What you had throughout the years and in many
establishments isn't an emphasis on new as truly what is being pushed
now. It is more on consistency and familiarity with enough variation and
unpredictability to keep the product interesting and vibrant.


Again, I believe you're mistaken about the word "enough."
When you use words without qualification, the only valid
bases for comparison that reasonable people can agree about
are objective comparisons, such as profitability. In that
regard, clearly, there wasn't enough going on to keep the
product interesting and vibrant enough to maximize profit.



Our (Ernie, me, and others expressing dissatisfaction with the current
state of the industry) comments are clear and on the record of what we
mean by enough. It is qualified. We talked of homogenization, canned
activities and the like in the current product. If you are new to
cruising, this may not be an issue but more and more veteran cruisers or
cruisers that have done a few cruises are expressing a need for
different content in the cruises and between cruise lines.

Identify who wants consistency--the size of the market
and make enough product for these people.
Give people who are willing to
pay the money for the product the high quality they expect with
consistency and they'll come back.


What rationale is there for sub-optimizing utilization of
assets in that manner? Something that will convince my
70-something year old parents that their investments should
be managed in that manner...



This has nothing to do with the small and midsized establishments of
which I speak.

The we I'm talking about are consumers.

Granted. It's a bit like saying, "What we television
viewers need is not more pay channels, but new free channels
that don't have commercials." It is unquestionably true
(given the way you used "need" above), but isn't very
enlightening as a statement.

Smaller companies that focus on the product.


Are? Seems to me the only way to finish the sentences you
started is, " ... aren't as likely to be able to survive in
a free market as ..."


I meant exactly what I said. Smaller companies that focus on the
product. Whatever that product may be.

Some businesses survive, some fold. There are mom and pop and small
businesses that have survived for decades. There are businesses that
have thrived and have fallen on hard times and some have folded.

I'll snip the rest. You have a very specific idea of what businesses
must be and what should motivivate all business and I'm not going to try
to convince you otherwise.

Ben S.

Ray Goldenberg wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:59:36 GMT, Benjamin Smith
wrote:


I mention it as an "inn" type of cruise line. We'll see what happens. I
just hope they stick with 2 ships for awhile and emphasize the cruise
experience over expanding their fleet.


Hi Ben,

They have a 3rd ship but I believe it they are still chartering her to
another company. What is this "We'll see what happens." g Why
aren't you putting your money where your heart is? You harangue and
criticize all of the cruise companies for not building a cruise line
to your specifications and you are not financially supporting and
promoting the closest that we have to your ideal. I really don't
understand that mentality.


I'm discussing cruise issues in a cruise newsgroup.

If and when I resume cruising I will be looking to book Delta Queen's
boats, Oceania, and Cunard but I'm not totally writing off RCI,
Celebrity, or HAL. Right now, my wife and I are paying off our debts.

Ben S.

Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com

Ray Goldenberg wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:59:36 GMT, Benjamin Smith
wrote:


I mention it as an "inn" type of cruise line. We'll see what happens. I
just hope they stick with 2 ships for awhile and emphasize the cruise
experience over expanding their fleet.


Hi Ben,

They have a 3rd ship but I believe it they are still chartering her to
another company. What is this "We'll see what happens." g Why
aren't you putting your money where your heart is? You harangue and
criticize all of the cruise companies for not building a cruise line
to your specifications and you are not financially supporting and
promoting the closest that we have to your ideal. I really don't
understand that mentality.


I'm discussing cruise issues in a cruise newsgroup.

If and when I resume cruising I will be looking to book Delta Queen's
boats, Oceania, and Cunard but I'm not totally writing off RCI,
Celebrity, or HAL. Right now, my wife and I are paying off our debts.

Ben S.

Best regards,
Ray
LIGHTHOUSE TRAVEL
800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
http://www.lighthousetravel.com