uk1

I couldn't help but chuckle reading your post. It seems that some people are trivializing this discussion as being only about clothing. I think we're discussing whether or not there's a general down-market change of direction at SS, press announcements notwithstanding.

Well, I chuckle with you except that I and others were discussing what SS had announced and I gave you quite extensive first-hand information that I had concerning why they were trying to move up-market and how this would help. But you reduced the announcement to:

Personally, I enjoy the dressing-up, the parties and receptions where you can meet and greet the Captain and officers and get to know more of your fellow passengers, and all those fabulous social traditions. A big part of what appeals to me about a cruise holiday is the opportunity to step into another world, very different from day-to-day life -- a world with a bit of glamour, fantasy, and adventure. Doing away with many of the traditional aspects of cruising could make the experience rather ordinary to many of us.

......... and it was me that tried to bring you back to the bigger picture.

You then went on a trip to steakhouseland:

Say you're the owner of a specialty restaurant, say a steakhouse. You then decide to eliminate beef for one night a week in order to please those that don't like beef, but want lamb ..........

and off you went again. I tried again to bring you back to what SS were trying to do. You then went on about clothing again:

Jeff:

 

“The trend toward more casual cruising seems to be permeating the industry. I wonder how much this has to do with customer preferences, and how much is about cruise lines wanting to cut costs and raise profits. Toward this end, they may be trying to convince customers that conventional is “rigid”, and casual is better. By golly, the most affluent and desirable passengers want casual, you/they tell us. More “casualness” often equates with less for the passenger (and more profit for the cruise line) – more DJ’s instead of live bands and productions; more hamburgers and less caviar; fewer receptions, cocktail parties, and organized activities which cuts down on the need for crew; and so on. And all this for higher fares, because you’re on a “privileged passage”. Oh, but there will be new “privileges”, one may argue – increased spa hours, some free excursions, and early embarkation/late disembarkation if needed. I suspect that the savings coming from the cuts to be made will outweigh the cost of the new extras.

 

Based on the majority of my SS cruises, I like SS as it is. A move toward less conventional cruising, even if it’s only in a portion of the product to start, is bound to change the whole nature of the beast before too long. By the way, donning a ball gown when all around are casual (i.e. exercising your right to exceed minimum dress requirements) is not going to make one feel like they’re on a different sort of cruise -- unless one typically lives in a separate reality. If casual, non-conventional is truly what everybody wants, then so be it. But, maybe there are more than a few of us out there who want traditional cruising to stay alive.[/font]

So when you say:

I couldn't help but chuckle reading your post. It seems that some people are trivializing this discussion as being only about clothing. ...............

Said with a genuine helpfulness.

Jeff

I read the article correctly. My view is that this experiment will ultimately lead SS down-market regardless of the hype surrounding the so-called "enhancements." Are they attempting to move up market? The announcement says they are, but I don't believe everything I read. Will I still cruise? Sure, but the experience may very well become dumbed-down and more Americanized than it is now.

Well, you believe that they are not genuinely saying what they want to do, and suggesting that they want to do the opposite. This is a touch bizarre. Spending effort to go in a direction they don't want to go in needs you to explain a bit more about what you think their somewhat cunning plan is!

And I've read your post and previous posts correctly. Your main interest - as is several others - is in the preservation of wearing your tuxedo on formal nights. Pretty much nothing else seems to have riled you about the announcement - and indeed all of the others who made opposing posts. This is in your mind and the others that agree synonymous with a deterioration in both SS class and market. It is for you - but the rest of society is moving onwards and upwards and actually sees the opposite as true.

Still, to reassure you, I promise you for what it is worth that I predict that SS will probably not be successful at this and that nothing much will change, and you'll receive the same product that merely whithers down market with diems and budgets reducing. If they haven't bothered to role out a TA programme to underpin this so that they can add value at the top and tail end - then it is basically condemned to fail unless they pull their fingers out of the place where the sun currently doesn't shine. I guess that in least on where it might lead - we agree?!

Great debate - thoroughly enjoying it by the way.

Jeff

uk1,

 

you misread my post. i said it was NOT the end of the world if SS goes country club casual, just the end of SS as we know it.

What do you think SS will change from and to?

Jeff

Indeed .... it cannot be thought by any sane person that the market for high-value people willing to spend this type of cash are content to have it mandated to them that "if you want to eat the food you have paid for in the main restaurant both next Tuesday and the following Saturday you must wear at least a suit but preferably a tuxedo. If not you can try and book the only other restaurant that might be available which has very limited capacity. Failing that we'll bring your food to your room".

Not EVERYONE's cup of tea!

Jeff

Sorry Jeff, but I dont agree with you on this one. I believe that SS is planning a move downmarket to more of a RSSC cruise line. I don't believe that the line is floundering, but it does want to capture more of the casual American market that refuses to dress up. One cruise right now, but many more on the horizon. Its a pity, because I too liked dressing up for the fun of it. And I'm only in my mid 30's...

You need to re-read the announcement. They are attempting the reverse of what you say.

The intention is clearly not designed to move them downmarket but up-market into what is slightly unchartered waters.

I can give you a couple of hints at some of the background thinking behind the experiment. In June 2006 Albert Peter was a round-table participant at a Luxury Alliance meeting. The discussion was moderated by Gregory J. Furman, Founder and Chairman of The Luxury Marketing Council. I'm not going to summarise their discussions (one of many on this topic) but it was publicly (not giving away any secrets here!) summarised here:

http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/154000320/4027968.html

I happen to have been advising one of the member companies and it would be inapproproate to disclose for which one! But I genuinely suggest that you have misunderstood the reasons for the move and have ignored the detail in the announcement. There are some issues you need to accept without the need to simply see things in a black and white and inaccurate focus.

When profiling markets you essentialy generalise. But the generality is that currently SS attracts and seeks to attract a high number of people from lower down the crusing feeding chain who are prepared to pay a "bit more" to try the SS experience. They do this to fill capacity. This group aren't necessarily prepared to pay full $ if discounts aren't available and when they do try the product they are acutely aware of what they paid and are more likely to want to achieve their perception of best value for the money that they have paid. The key part that is stretched in terms of SS expense is "All Inclusive". They are for example likely to drink more, that drink is more likely to be champagne, they'll demand caviar more, be upset if lobster and crab claws aren't available night and day on demand etc. They are also more likely to complain because their expectations were greater. I can go on.

However at the upper end, the profiled group will want to see the ship as an extension of home. They can afford as much food and drink as they want at home and see no reason to enjoy the champagne and freebies to excess. For them it should be business as usual'ish. They'll eat more informally and want to escape the constraints that their extreme normal day to day lives places on them. For example rigorous adherence to highly planned and tuned schedules. They yearn for relaxing informality where everything is taken care of.

The downside of this group is that they like to book at the last minute but - and this is important to SS, they will compare the type of experience SS are trying to develop against the cost of personal chartering rather than comparing it with cheaper cruise lines which is what the upgrade group are thinking of. Basically this group has more cash, but are a smaller market and more difficult to reach. They are also currently only catered for through chartering. But there is a niche within the niche of those that will never charter but currently wouldn;t choose SS because of it's perceived formality. I've over generalised to help with the bringing into focus of this group.

I don't mean to be dismissive of people's fears. The reality is that if SS fail at this due to either miscalculation or poor marketing and management of the project, the extra capacity arriving soon in all upper-level cruise lines means that the pack mentaility will force all of the players down-market. But this is what SS are trying to avoid rather than achieve. If they acheive it SS will stay at the upper end, if they fail they'll be sucked down-market by need.

Jeff

To me "privileged passage" is a sign of "floundering bottom line." If SS were filling all its ships with the current dress code they would never experiment with country club casual. But in an effort to reach a new market who do not like to dress up they are willing to sacrifice what has made them so special in the first place. They would never give up the $400 per couple they charge for early embarkation and late disembarkation. I know it's only one cruise. For now!!!! But if they sell that one out you can bet it will be followed by many more. Now, this is not the end of the world....just the end of SS as we know it.

WRIPRO,

No you are completely wrong I'm afraid. The opposite to what you say is true.

Management not recognising the changers in society, listening to their customers, tolerating a product with high fixed costs, low variable costs and low occupancy from existing markets when there are new markets that can be managed alongside existing ones - is the sign of a floundering company. In this industry incremental revenue goes almost entirely to the bottom line.

I promise you that it isn't then end of the world as you fear. Still - if you believe so - best book up now and enjoy it whilst you can!

Jeff

duplicate

Canuckvoyager,

I'm sorry you missed my feeble and inadequate attempt at humour and lightness in addressing your somewhat bizaare tale of steakhouses etc with my little joke about beef. To explain, steak is beef and it was a pun and when I wrote it, it made me chuckle. With the benefit of hindsight I think it was just too subtle. My genuine apologies if it confused. Still. Onto your point.

With respect I think it's you that have missed the point and are taking the ostrich approach to the realities of life.

1. It is alleged that SS have new capacity coming onto the waters within the next few years.

2. Currently discounts are offered on visrtually every cruise that SS sells. It is reasonable to assume therefore that they'd like a few more punters - particularly those that pay more.

3. From (1) and (2) it is reasonable to assume that currently SS are attracting as many people amongst the enourmous group that wish to "don the togs" and go the "fancy dress dos" as they can find.

4. To fill the ships both current and alleged projected they therefore need to do new things to attract another group eg elegant casual who are currently unserved. I know I have the cash and can't spend it and most of my mates feel the same.

5. Do you really believe that SS are going to succeed in filling the ships with elegant casuals and turf you lot out? Are you insane?

If you like SS as it is, and don't want us small minority to have the odd small corner ie 1 in 300 cruises to congregate - then fill the ships up and they won't change. And whilst you're at it, give them an undertaking that you have a plan to fill it up in 10 years when society will have changed dramatically and the moth-ball brigade will be considerably thinner on the ground.

I guess following on from LOT's post we should have a cruise for those that enjoy a good laugh!?

Jeff

Say you're the owner of a specialty restaurant, say a steakhouse. You then decide to eliminate beef for one night a week in order to please those that don't like beef, but want lamb. Once starting along this road, you can't stop there, because you'll have lost some of your beef customers who are unhappy about having less access to your original product, and you won't ever get a large market of lamb lovers, because you're offering a very limited service. So, maybe you'll have to start offering chicken one night per week to get those that want chicken and don't like beef or lamb. Now, you're no longer a steakhouse; and, in trying to have something to satisfy all, you're pleasing nobody.

Your hard work should be commended - but your argument doesn't quite work, and I don't really know what your beef is! ;}

1. SS proably offer around 300 cruises each year. This is just one, leaving around 299 for the beefeaters.

2. I think you'll find that on the one cruise for the elegant casuals - they'll also allow you to dress up if you want. That's always the case in society where essentially minimum dress codes are generally set - not maximum dress codes. It's just on the other 299 the commited elegant casuals will not be welcome. be welcome.

Jeff

Nobody has suggested that all SS cruises are going to go that way or that this is what they plan. They are merely at this stage offering one cruise on one ship to those that want to enjoy the cruise without formality.

Just because you choose beef it doesn't mean you have to stop all those that don't like beef choosing lamb.

Jeff

DRJW,

I think you missed the existing thread when you started the new thread with the note above, (Thanks Dan for adding it to this) and unluckily your keyboard appears to have got stuck in the upper-case mode giving the impression that you neither wanted to participate in the existing discussion but also wanted to start a fresh conversation by shouting at those already discussing this topic from a new corner. Easilly done - I know!

I gather that SS haven't completed the roll out of this yet - as some of their key TA's didn't know. As the programme's success will rely heavily on TA's identifying clients who want this product I hope they do a good "channels" job. Press releases isn't the same as properly planned and carried out staff work. It's merely gloss.

Jeff

On my last Seabourn cruise we embarked at 11:45 and our suites were not ready so we were invited to go to the dining room for lunch with the in transit passengers. By the time we finished the embarkation process had begun. And it didn't cost me an extra dime.

I think you'll find it did. Saying you didn't get a seperate bill, ie "It didn't cost you an extra dime" isn't the same as saying it was free. All customers paid for it including you, instead of just the person that enjoyed it.

In a way I'll be sorry if they don't charge seperately as we always enjoyed having the ship to ourselves on early embarkation days. Having it included will make the ship busier and make it more difficult to do the excellent job they do of turning it around between passengers.

Jeff

What I mean is that there is no need to "seek out" anything new, that group (to be seek out) already existed five years ago, but due to economic reality, the situation changed. What SS is now proposing is nothing new, it is an incomplete return to the better yesteryears, under a new name. Only time can tell what is going to happen, and all we can do is watch!

Well, I agree in the sense of the very broad and obviously easy generalisation that there is virtually nothing in the world that is new - but in your view where does the product they are trying to describe actually exist outside of chartering or existed as you imply 5 years ago. It doesn't and didn't - but SS came closest - and now they are attempting to go for it.

I hope it works.

Jeff

The price may go up (and we may not be able to afford except on rare occasions when the discount is deep enough), but we are here discussing the generalities, which apply to most customers!

No we're not.

We're discussing a group of customers that currently do not have a product available to them that as a group might be fulfilled through the SS's experiment in the area and which SS believe is growing in number and are a potential growing target market; the market being the money-affluent time-poor informal baby-boomers or younger who want the luxury you describe but unlike you are willing and able to pay for it without a blink ie pretty much what SS will try to offer.

And realistically your needs will never be fullfiled consistently. High discounts and the quality you seek do not go hand-in-hand. Unlimited Lobster/king crab legs on demand and Sevruga caviar, unlimited champagne and drinks is inconsistant with your budget. Unluckily I think SS have found that it is the people that get the lowest price and highest discounts often upgrading themselves from lines where everything is paid for individually who appear to bring with them the highest costs ie demand lobster, king prawns and Sevruga caviar - and often high drink/champagne costs. SS are seeking out a different group to see whether they exist in sufficient numbers to support a higher quality product.

The issue in my view here is not whether there is a market or not - but whether SS have the quality marketing staff to identify the customers for this and make it a success. The sign of failure will be a lack of targetted marketing followed by low-occupancy and resorting to heavy discounts making it a double whammy loss of both higher costs with the same well-trodden discount path.

Jeff

Meow,

If I recall correctly your first SS experience was heavily discounted, and your diem calculation (now as before) shows that you will make a highly tuned and well reasoned calculated decision with regard to your perception of it's value to you. If I recall you database square footage, diems and I genuinely admire your ability to distil a large amount of data into a decision with respect to relative values of cruises from different lines. There's genuinely nothing wrong with that and I'm merely making the point that there are different potential niche markets within this "top-end" experience.

I think - in fact I know - SS are trying to demark a new value-added product that in an ideal world will be set at a less price / discount sensisitve market. In the end there is a trade-off between lowering prices and quality and this is SS's attempt at putting a toe in the water of moving further up market.

In any event you shouldn't overlook some of the hints contained in what seems a bit of a lack-lustre announcement for what might be an exctiting move up-market. There are a number of hints that may indicate what might be on offer. For example for a highly personalised inclusive tour for example. Also - there are people like me and my friends who eat sandwiches in a top-end suite with some DVD's rather than face the restaurant looking like a penguin. I've paid top-dollar for the suites (and therefore the sandwiches) and SS want more people paying for a product that is more perfect for them alongside the traditional offerings widely available and competing in a more dicounted environment.

The value-add is where their work should be. Let's imagine you receive an invitation to visit a vineyard and a meal at the vineyard in a small group - and that were included. How do you value these experiences?

There is a market above the current product and with all of the additional capacity coming on to the seas - I hope SS put some quality effort into moving up-price and up-market.

There's room for all of us.

Jeff

At last.

Jeff

From personal experience, all very senior SS people were behaving as though their plans were unchanged a couple of months ago. I don't think - but cannot be sure - that things have changed since. If the rumour were true, the change of sourceing for the ships would have been gloated on and released to the press. It hasn't been.

The challenge for all of them ie Seabourn, Seadream, Silverseas and those that see themselves in this niche will be the introduction of several new vessels at the same time. The real skill then will be demarking further by going further up-market with offerings with higher quality and consistency and prices to match. However the mistake they'll all fall into is to lower prices to fill the ships lazilly. This will inevitably take them down-market where the quality offerings will sink against price competition in larger markets.

The owner of SS wants to enhance and protect the product and increase diems to protect the product rather than reduce both diems and cost-base, but it's his team that will have to carry that out - and there's the problem.

The strategy to move in that direction takes tremdous nerve, great courage and extraordinary skill, patience and very high cash reserves whilst that market at the top end becomes established.

I don't think of the pool area as small at all. The pool itself is quite large. You have to keep in mind that at most, you may have 200 other guests/owners onboard. We sailed once with 92 total guests/owners. Ah, what luxury!

It is appropriate to remind people here that you are a travel agent that sells cruises on The World.

The same question is asked and answered regularly and can be found using the Eze-to-use search. There is also other info for people who may want to consider other options.

Some examples:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=151878&highlight=villefranche

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=168477

You do not need to go to Nice to get the local bus to Eze village, if you are short of time, as you can taxi up (or walk if you have the energy) by taking the 100 to Eze and going up from the corniche. Traveling back to Nice and out again takes valuable time and some may see backtracking to save some dollars an unacceptable compromise of time and convenience v cost.

Here is the bus map:

http://www.lignedazur.com/ftp/FR_plan/Caps%20et%20corniches.pdf

Here is the bus timetable:

http://www.lignedazur.com/ftp/lignes/82.pdf

The local bus timetables can be found at:

http://www.lignedazur.com/

The "express coach services" for several routes including 100 which can be found at:

http://www.cg06.fr/tam-html/menu.html

Hope these will provide for all travel needs in the area.

Jeff

There has been some confusion on the board re this trip.

The ship tenders to the lower part of the village. There is a very intermittant bus service between Nice and the lower VF. However, if you walk to the top of the village the 100 bus stop takes you to Eze and runs every 20 minutes or so.

You do not - I repeat you do not need to go from VF to Nice first as it is exactly the same bus that stops at VF on it's way to Eze.

Jeff

Hi David,

Hope you enjoy Oban. As you know Sunday (1st) may be a bit tougher than Monday 2nd - but I'd have a look at the seals first:

http://www.sealsanctuary.co.uk/oban1.html

and then take a river cruise on Loch Etive:

http://www.oban.org.uk/cgi-local/busdb/busmember.pl?etivecruises

You may find this a useful guide to read (PDF):

http://www.freedomglen.co.uk/oban_/pdfs/Oban.pdf

............... lovely weather today!

http://liveimages.networkwebcams.co.uk/client_oban01_huge.jpg

Jeff