Cruise Critic Censorship

On Mar 12, 8:19*am, "Tom K" wrote:

Key points you're missing..... they didn't ASK me to say nice things. *Never
did. *There were no stipulations.

And a free 1 day cruise is worth maybe $149 per person. *Not $5000. *And
since it was a pre-inaugural on a ship that came out early, it didn't cost
them anything except the free booze and free food. *It's not like we
replaced a paying customer's place. *The ship came out early and they filled
up some spare time, and got to do a shake down with us on board? *So maybe
it actually cost them $20 per person. *At their cost, not what they charge
(like in a can of beer costs them 30 cents, even though they charge $6).
And I bought 2 T-shirts, so they probably broke even with regard to my
expenses on board.

The decision to invite us instead of a few more TAs was a cost-saving
measure--it allowed RCI to cut back on their shrimp and booze budget
for the looksee.

Truth is, we all went out of pocket just to get a sneak peek at a new
ship concept and enjoy a few comped meals and drinks. I was one of the
biggest suckers--I actually had to fly halfway across the country to
do it.

So I guess I'll work up the disclaimer hh, peter, et al. think I'm
ethically bound to attach to my posts. It'll go something like this:

Whatever I say about Royal Caribbean could be influenced by the fact I
once paid $2000 to be Royal Caribbean's guest on a non-commercial two-
night preview sailing.

That sorta brings it all home, I think. Nothing is expected of a guest
except that they have a good time. And we did!

Diana

"D Ball" wrote in message
...

Whatever I say about Royal Caribbean could be influenced by the fact I
once paid $2000 to be Royal Caribbean's guest on a non-commercial two-
night preview sailing.

That sorta brings it all home, I think. Nothing is expected of a guest
except that they have a good time. And we did!

Diana



We did have a good time, didn't we?

And the more amazing thing that resulted... we got to meet more r.t.c.r's
than would have happened otherwise.

--Tom --- met Diana for the first time on LibertyOTS

"-hh" wrote


The broader issue is ...as NWBL has mentioned ... that some
individuals who had an affiluation unfortunately ended up
misrepresenting a product due to their lapse of judgement in failing
to adequately disclose.

1) Who misrepresented the product and in what ways?

2) Who didn't disclose that they were non-paying guests of Royal Caribbean?

You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.


--
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

This whole thing is silly, and smacks of sour grapes by someone who
thinks someone else got something that they didn't.

FWIW, when I say something nice about a person, company or cruise line,
I mean it. If something is bad, I'll also voice that opinion as well.

To date, I've NEVER been given a cruise. Twice, I've been upgraded from
a typical cabin to a cool one. One was on the Regent Sea when we were
surprised to get the "owner's suite." That was a full WEEK before
Regency Cruises went bankrupt and was the result of a mistake, rather
than a freebie. The other one was an upgrade to a balcony cabin once on
a Carnival cruise. We liked that, but it hardly affected my feelings
about Carnival. I like the line and would go again on it.

Our personal favorites are RCCL, followed closely by Princess and
Celebrity. FWIW, we've never been given even an upgrade and certainly
not anything of significance. Hopefully, we'll not again book on any
NCL cruises and will do a lot of thinking before booking HAL again. For
other lines, I'll defer to what Tobie, Jean, Erm, George, Cal, Ray,
Warren and the many other folk I know and trust might recommend. I'll
give the proper weight to the observations and comments of folk who
suddenly show up with strong feelings pro/con.

For travel agents, our personal favorite remains George Leppla. Why?
Well, George's never let us down. For that matter, however, neither has
any of the other TA's we've used either locally or from this newsgroup.
If they had, I'd have mentioned it. When I speak favorably about
George, it's because he's done a good and consistent job. To date, a
dime would cover anything he's ever given to me for my favorable
comments***. (See minor exception in disclaimer below my .sig line) He's
just not that kind of person, and I'm not the kind who is easy to bribe.

So, what you might hear pro or con from me is what I've experienced and
not what someone has induced me to say. I suspect that's true for the
others who post favorable or negative comments here as well.

--
Nonny
Elected officials should wear
uniforms like NASCAR drivers.
That way it would be easier to
identify their corporate sponsors.

*** There are a few, very minor and trivial things that George has done
for me and Mrs. Nonny in the past that really don't even deserve any
disclosure. We use him and trust him ONLY because of the fine job he's
done in the past. Those trivial, little things a

1) A new Mercedes in 1995, but it was just an SL500 and not the SL65 AMG
I expected.
2) Free Owner's Suite, airfare and $2500 cabin credit for the year he
was selected as 2000 GGC provider and I was Chairman of the Committee.
That was the year we felt the closet was a bit small for the extensive
wardrobe of new clothes he gave us.
3) George painted my house one time, but only did one coat. Folks who
book with Cal get 2, I hear. Ray even does a different color for trim,
if asked.
4) I get a complimentary case of Gin each month, but it's not Bombay
Sapphire as I requested. Erm at least gets Tanguray.
5) We really enjoy the 95" LCD TV set he gave us, but the wall could
have accommodated the 105" one better.
6) George is great about house sitting while we're on a cruise he booked
for us, but we once found some leftover shrimp in the freezer and it'd
been two whole days since the lawn was mowed..
7) Mrs. Nonny's Mink stroller-length coat was very nice and much
appreciated, but she would have preferred the female touramline, instead
of the more coarse haired male skins.
8) The gas card George sent was great, but I prefer Exxon to Citgo. I
have to drive a whole blasted block more to fill up.
9) Why in the heck would George give us free air when he books a cruise,
then force us to fly COACH? Doesn't he realize how embarrassed we are
when we have to pass our peers in first class sipping champagne out of
the naked stewardess' slippers while we have to crawl back to coach class?
10) The more I disclose, the madder I get. George, you're in for it now.
grin- all in fun Actually the Mercedes he gave us in #1 above
was the SL55, which was just fine, since I didn't need the extra 100 hp
in the V-12 engine of the SL65.

George Leppla wrote:

A little "something" I enjoy doing on a cruise is to sit in a lounge
area reading a book. Eventually, my lips get tired and I need to take a
break from reading. I've found a very enjoyable alternative is visiting
with people about how much they paid for their cabin. I've found that
by letting them talk first, I can then tell them about the great cabin
my TA got for us with a big balcony for about 75% of the price they
paid. Reducing it by more than 25% creates a credibility problem. I
usually also tell them about how the TA called us just a couple months
before the cruise, rather than us booking a year in advance. Tossing in
that we'd never cruised on the line before is also fun when the person
you're talking to is a frequent cruiser on the line.

Other fun things to discuss is how much the TA gave you on the cruise,
such as the basket of fruit, 3 bottles of Scotch, warm appetizers
delivered to the cabin before each dinner, a ship's tour of the engine
room or bridge, dinner with the Captain, butler service and other perks.

Something that's fun is to tell a fellow passenger that you found your
cabin to be a bit too small, so you went to the Purser's desk and they
moved you for free to a larger one with full balcony. Tossing in a
comment about free bottles of Scotch as an apology is great. The trick
is to just not lay it on too heavy, and this all works best with first
time cruisers.

You can also tell newbies that by sending a very hurt, disappointed and
"never again" letter to their TA or the cruise line after they return,
that it can frequently result in a free cruise.

--
Nonny
Elected officials should wear
uniforms like NASCAR drivers.
That way it would be easier to
identify their corporate sponsors.

In article , Tom K
wrote:

We did have a good time, didn't we?

And the more amazing thing that resulted... we got to meet more r.t.c.r's
than would have happened otherwise.

--Tom --- met Diana for the first time on LibertyOTS

Yes, we had a great time. And I enjoyed meeting the delightful Diana
and her husband among those who attended.

As others have mentioned no strings were attached. I had no clue before
hand why I was invited to the Liberty pre-inaugural. No strings have
been attached since.

I am an enthusiastic cruiser, not a travel agent, and being
enthusiastic is the reason I read cruise forums and post on cruise
forums. Also people I know, know that I take a lot of cruises, friends
and co-workers, are always asking me for advise and information about
cruises.

So of course I accepted Royal Caribbean's invitation to see a new
cruise ship. And also to go to the Manhattan reveal about Oasis. And
myself and others posted about both. I don't think there was anything
wrong about accepting, nor do I think Royal Caribbean did anything
wrong in making the invitations. I also think any of the normal people
on rec.travel.cruises would have done the same if they had received the
invitations and were able to go.

--
Charles

"George Leppla" wrote:

You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.

NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him.


-hh

D Ball wrote:


hh, you have crossed the line by resorting to ad hominem attack and
calling me a criminal...

Since I identified no individual whatsoever, pray tell how can this
be?


Just as frightening is the intensity with which you continue this
harangue--it's truly disproportionate to reality.

You've been "harangued" by a mere 4 posts discussing some generalities
of ethics, when you yourself have made twice as many posts in this
thread?

Gosh, it seems that you're afraid of ethical behavior for some reason.


You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your charges that
any RTC "Royal Champion" has compromised any standard,

Are you claiming that absolutely *every* RTC did properly disclose?

Murphy's Law suggests otherwise. More to the point, another poster
did made a statement to the effect that *someone* did fail to properly
disclose.

Personally, I don't frankly care who this might have been, since I was
merely talking in generalities of ethics.


Current communications models are based on digital messages that reach
global populations in seconds and then hang around indefinitely in
cyberspace for all to access in the future. So just as your behavior
is now memorialized for all to see and judge, businesses understand
that "word of mouth" marketing programs must adapt to take full
advantage of state of the art "word of mouth" communications models,
whether text messaging, YouTube videos, viral emails, online
discussion communities or the like.

And I stand behind what I've written, 100%.




Word of mouth marketing has been around forever. I'm confident you
have offered and followed the advice, "Look beyond advertising. Seek
personal references before you [buy, hire or act]." You have certainly
offered your advice and opinions about cruises and a multitude of
other consumer products via Usenet, and I assume you did so to be
helpful and provide your fellow man with the postive and negative
views of an experienced consumer, which is the concept at the heart of
word of mouth marketing. In fact, as the educated consumer you like to
portray, I'm sure you have done one or more of the following: used
tendered coupons, sought and taken advantage of discounts, eaten the
free cereal and tried the free shampoo delivered with your Sunday
newspaper, asked for and received price concessions in connection with
the purchase of goods and services, accepted a free appetizer or
dessert, inquired about the possibility of cruise cabin upgrade, asked
for an airline ticket or cruise fare reduction to reflect price drops
since purchase, accepted a 2-for-1 offer, accepted an accessory or
upgrade "thrown in the deal" or received an invitation by Big Hotel
Chain to spend two nights as their guest at Brand New Property.

I just got one of those from Hyatt. So if I go, and I post my review
to TripAdvisor saying, "I went on a free preview weekend, and here's
the good, bad and ugly about this Hyatt," how is that any different
than me talking with my husband, neighbor or work colleague about the
free box of cereal that came with the paper and saying, "Hey, did you
try the free box of Kashi? I thought it was pretty good. I liked the
flavor. I like the nutritional composition. The texture wasn't to my
liking, though."

What's different is, by reviewing the Hyatt weekend on TripAdvisor, my
online word of mouth about that property has the potential to reach
thousands vs. the tiny number of people who may hear my take on the
cereal. Smart move on Hyatt's part.

What's not different about the Hyatt deal, the cereal box or the RCI
cruise is, the free offers are just that--offers. They don't come with
Terms & Conditions, quid pro quos or strings, direct or implied.

Why is there no tit for tat? Because word of mouth marketing is
premised on the candid review of the experienced user--we're all more
influenced by critical peer review than we are by paid advertising.

See: you already know the answer for why it is it not 'tit for tat':
the presumption is that a critical peer review is more independent in
its objectivity than paid advertising.


And really, if you don't believe that is the theory behind it, don't
take my word for it, go look it up in any Marketing 101 textbook.

Unfortunately, we weren't discussing marketing, but ethics.


So, here we are, back to square one:

1. RCI's savvy marketing strategists say, why invent our own online
communities (ala Obama), let's tap into online communities of cruisers
that already exist, identify people who actively participate in those
communities and say to them, we'd love to show you our new product,
come take a look.

2. It's undisputed that's all RCI said...no strings attached.

3. It's also undisputed--actually, I should say, a proven fact by
archived posts--that every RTCer invited to the Liberty preview fully
disclosed that fact in their posts about that event. Ditto in the buzz
about the invitation-only reveal in Manhattan.

Then your beef is not with me, but the individual who claimed
otherwise.


In sum, hh, nothing you have ranted about applies to the Royal
Champion program within the RTC social network.

You are now faced with a choice. I trust you will figure it out and do
the right thing.

Diana

Okay Ms. Diana Ball: You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely
***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior
to the event. I look forward to you providing proof of that claim.

And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only
speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another
poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him.

*That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said.

I hope that you can now do the same, by standing 100% behind what you
have said too.


FWIW, because I've encountered instances like this before, I'm
obligated to require a deadline for you to provide your proof, so that
you can't ignore it forever: you have until 0000 ZULU, 31 March 2009,
and please, no whining about any of this being unfair: no one forced
you to make the claims that you did.

-hh

Nonnymus wrote:

10) The more I disclose, the madder I get. George, you're in for it now.
grin- all in fun

Glad to see that some folks are at least able to take things in
stride :-)


-hh

On Mar 12, 7:57*pm, -hh wrote:
"George Leppla" wrote:

You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.

NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him.

-hh

No, hh, you made the accusations, and I repeat verbatim the quote
George took from your post:

"The broader issue is ...as NWBL has mentioned ... that some
individuals who had an affiluation unfortunately ended up
misrepresenting a product due to their lapse of judgement in failing
to adequately disclose."

So substantiate your charges or withdraw them.

Diana