ONBOARD OPEN PASSAGES PROGRAM: Cancellation Opportunity

[greeneg]

And this is exactly how Azamara should have positioned the recently-announced fare increases: By stating clearly they couldn't continue to provide the wonderful on-board experience we've all come to know and love at the existing fares. We're all grown up enough, as nordski writes above, to understand that. It was the lame attempt to justify the increase by tying it to one free shore excursion (the azamazing evening) and all-the-well-liquor-you-can-drink that could previously have been purchased for $30/day (a total of about $500 in value for a 13-day cruise, if you want the well liquor and an excursion for many hundreds) that put this customer off, and I suspect others as well.

 

As far as the "up-market" cliche goes, Azamara has been "up-market" since it changed its name. It will be no more "up-market" in its on-board experience next year than it was this past year. It has had to, of necessity, raise fares to continue providing that same "up-market" experience in order to become profitable and stay in business. Azamara should have just told us that in a straightforward manner instead of trying to snow us with all the "going up-market" and "bespoke" baloney.

 

By tying the fare increases to the one now-included shore excursion and the free well liquor, Azamara set itself up for exactly the reaction we've seen from the folks who've written above that they are now looking for alternative cruise lines. Why would people pay more if the two "enhancements" that they were told drove the fare increases have no real appeal to them?

 

All of those folks have written just how much they enjoyed the Azamara on-board experience, and how they regret having to turn elsewhere. How much better it would have been to have simply said: "Our loyal passengers have told us time and time again just how special they find the Azamara on-board experience to be. Unfortunately, the economics are such that we are simply unable to continue to provide that on-board experience and become profitable at the fares we've been charging. As a consequence, you will see increases in our fares beginning (whenever)."

 

As best as I can tell, Azamara faced three options: (1) continue business as usual and eventually go out of business; (2) keep prices as they were and cut costs by cheapening the on-board experience; and (3) raise fares to maintain the on-board experience, become profitable, and therefore stay in business. I think we would all have been capable of understanding that situation, and I suspect just about all of us would have voted for option (3) if it had been expressed that way and we were given a vote.

 

Ryszard Gussman explained the increase in exactly the rational, business-like manner I described above at the dinner he hosted for us on Quest in November, and Azamara HQ should have taken this same approach and announced it to the public--and here on Cruise Critic--in the same way.

 

Absolutely nailed it, much more eloquently than I could have said it. I personally think that Azamara has had a bit of a mindset which is involved with "Smoke and Mirrors " thinking and promotion. Example: Stressing two for one booking. Unfortunately, the methodology is to double the price and then give a 50% discount. Example add cheap booze and an excursion with 700 of your closest friends and raise the prices significantly.

 

Marinaro44 is on the money; clearly Azamara's past customers like and want to repeat the experience with the line. Why not tell them that in order to continue, the fare has to go up instead of telling "little white falsehoods", be honest and tell it like it is. Your loyal customers won't feel as though they are being taken advantage of and will make an honest, informed decision as to where to spend their money. And they won't be as likely to vote with their feet either, IMHO.

 

By all means expand the base, clearly this needs to be done. But driving your past customers away isn't a good starting point to do that to my thinking.

[dfishner]

No matter what Azamara had stated it would of been the same. If they took prices up and offered nothing people would of been upset at the amount of increase for the same thing they paid less for a year ago. I do agree they could of handled how they put out the message better instead of the smoke and mirrors they used.

 

For us it made no difference priced out is priced out no matter how good the cruise line is it comes down to value for priced paid for and for what Azamara is now charging it is no longer considered a value for us..We do understand the reasoning behind the price increase and I feel Azamara did need to take their rates up but it has taken it up to a point we said to ourselves we have to do something else..

 

I am not upset we will miss the Azamara experience but business is business and they need to remain profitable to stay in business.

 

The one thing I did find since we made our decision that Azamara is now up there in price with Oceania, Crystal and even saw a couple of Seabourn cruises in the same price range of Azamara it will be interesting to watch how Azamara faires in their new market place.

 

We have our last cruise booked for this April and this was before all the changes and are looking forward to it. I expect we will both be a little sad walking off the ship for the last time. I have nothing bad at all to say about the Azamara experience on board it has been one of the best experiences we had since we started cruising...

 

As far as their corp office well that is another thing and if they do not get their act together and start acting like a upmarket cruise company the people they are trying to attract will not put up with it what we all have over the past year.. It plain terms the corp office has to be as good as the on board experience and they have a way to go to reach that.

[nordski]

Well, perhaps I flatter myself, but I feel I have to accept partial responsibility for inadvertently setting off a firestorm on issues that have well visited before.

 

My intention was to thank Bill Leiber for updating us on the progress of the "new" Azamara. Unfortunately , in responding, I also wanted to express appreciation that ACC did NOT make some of the business decisions that other lines are making, that are criticized on other forums, and that have led to a seeming diminution of their product.

 

Perhaps I am "unsophisticated" or even a "fool", but I take Bill's presence here as a sincere indication of ACC's desire to provide an excellent product and I just don't detect a level of mendacity discerned by others.

 

LauraS in a "sticky" above has called for a "kindler, gentler Cruise Critic" and I apolgize if my comments led to a violation of that spirit.

[Bill Leiber]

Hello Responders,

 

I wanted to let you know that I was surprised that my message drew so much scorn and ridicule from many of you. My intent was not to provide you with "up-market" hype about our product enhancements or a dissertation on the challenges of delivering seamless shoreside customer service to avoid "goof-ups" when operating as a small brand within a matrix corporation that operates with concept of "shared" services.

 

I simply wanted to make the point that although we are very disappointed to have lost the support of our former loyal customers because of the associated tariff increases from our new enhancements, we fortunately are gaining new Azamara guests so that we can remain viable for the future. Our decision to add these enhancements was to "grow" the market by creating an augmented Azamara experience that might appeal to cruise "considerers" that have not yet selected our brand along with those "non-cruisers" who have never considered a cruise as a vacation option.

 

Certainly "Marinaro44's" comments about his onboard conversation with our Food & Beverage Manager, in which it was made clear that a tariff increase was critical for our long-term viability, makes sense during a one-on-one conversation. I wanted to make a similar point, however, on the Azamara Cruise Critic Forum about our future success by taking a different tact and positioning it as a need to grow the customer base by expanding our market.

 

I take exception with the insinuation that I am being untruthful or mendacious with "little white falsehoods" and not being honest and "telling it like it is." I pride myself on my honesty and consider these type of comments to be an assault on my integrity. You have the body of work that I've done on your behalf since October 2010 serving as your ombudsman. I've played it straight with all of you through the "goof-ups" that have occurred shoreside and thought that I had earned your trust and respect with my candid and comprehensive postings.

 

Going forward, I'll be more mindful to carefully choose my language to avoid being considered a merchant of "PR spin that takes the customer for a fool."

 

Nevertheless, I appreciate your comments, interest and passion in Azamara Club Cruises.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Leiber

__________________________

Chief Blogging Officer*

Azamara Club Cruises

(*CBO is an authorized and compensated representative of ACC)

[uktog]

Thank you Bill

My most recent post had been written to support you in your sterling efforts to work on communication with the Azamara team. I apologise if it has come over otherwise

[MrMojoRisin]

Unlike many of you, I have not taken the opportunity of using the cancel option on our remaining Open Passage as I remain optimistic that Azamara will not be able to sustain the much higher prices and that good deals will emerge.

 

In the meantime I have, with great sadness, moved to another cruise line simply because the Azamara price was so unattractive.

 

Let me explain. We wanted to do a Baltic cruise this summer; we have been to the Baltic before (not on cruises) but particularly wanted to see St Petersburg as we have not been there. The Azamara Quest (our favourite ship bar none) itinerary on June 10, Southampton to Stockholm for 12 nights looked great and so I looked at travel agents for prices. The best quote I could get for a balcony cabin (including the Open Passage discount) was £6700 for the two of us. £6700/12 = £558 per night. This, we felt, was too high.

 

I looked around for alternatives but there was no exact equivalent but I did find a deal from the same travel agent on the Regent Voyager for a 7 night cruise. The cost for this is £4498. £4498/7 = £642 per night. I have not included in that calculation a pre-cruise hotel night in Copenhagen and the $500 OBC given by the travel agent.

 

With Azamara we get a reasonable sized but perfectly pleasant and adequate cabin with an Azamazing Evening (unknown) and included drinks (mainly lower shelf it seems). Although we are very happy with

food in the main dining room if we did want to eat in the speciality restaurants it would be an extra $25 each. Excursions are now full price rather than the 50% offer, which in my experience was very popular despite was has been claimed.

 

With Regent we get a cabin of 306 sq ft with a 50 sq ft balcony. We get included drinks (including higher shelf products and in the cabin mini-bar) and speciality restaurants are also included. Added to that, all excursions are included and there is a very good selection.

 

Just for interest I checked the price of a Club Continent Suite (226 sq ft with 60sq ft balcony) on the Quest sailing for a closer comparison. The price for this was £8012. £8012/12 = £667 per night.

 

Despite the fact that we have enjoyed our Azamara cruises - and felt that we had discovered the cruise line for us and would have previously considered no other line - we have gone for the Regent cruise. We will miss the friendlier Azamara staff but the Regent option was much better value.

 

We are looking forward to joining the Quest on 31st January for the Buenos Aires to Rio cruise, our last remaining Azamara booking, and know we will enjoy it - but with more than a tinge of sadness as we don't know when we will be able to afford to cruise with Azamara again.

[Jade13]

And this is exactly how Azamara should have positioned the recently-announced fare increases: By stating clearly they couldn't continue to provide the wonderful on-board experience we've all come to know and love at the existing fares. We're all grown up enough, as nordski writes above, to understand that. It was the lame attempt to justify the increase by tying it to one free shore excursion (the azamazing evening) and all-the-well-liquor-you-can-drink that could previously have been purchased for $30/day (a total of about $500 in value for a 13-day cruise, if you want the well liquor and an excursion for many hundreds) that put this customer off, and I suspect others as well.

 

As far as the "up-market" cliche goes, Azamara has been "up-market" since it changed its name. It will be no more "up-market" in its on-board experience next year than it was this past year. It has had to, of necessity, raise fares to continue providing that same "up-market" experience in order to become profitable and stay in business. Azamara should have just told us that in a straightforward manner instead of trying to snow us with all the "going up-market" and "bespoke" baloney.

 

By tying the fare increases to the one now-included shore excursion and the free well liquor, Azamara set itself up for exactly the reaction we've seen from the folks who've written above that they are now looking for alternative cruise lines. Why would people pay more if the two "enhancements" that they were told drove the fare increases have no real appeal to them?

 

All of those folks have written just how much they enjoyed the Azamara on-board experience, and how they regret having to turn elsewhere. How much better it would have been to have simply said: "Our loyal passengers have told us time and time again just how special they find the Azamara on-board experience to be. Unfortunately, the economics are such that we are simply unable to continue to provide that on-board experience and become profitable at the fares we've been charging. As a consequence, you will see increases in our fares beginning (whenever)."

 

As best as I can tell, Azamara faced three options: (1) continue business as usual and eventually go out of business; (2) keep prices as they were and cut costs by cheapening the on-board experience; and (3) raise fares to maintain the on-board experience, become profitable, and therefore stay in business. I think we would all have been capable of understanding that situation, and I suspect just about all of us would have voted for option (3) if it had been expressed that way and we were given a vote.

 

Ryszard Gussman explained the increase in exactly the rational, business-like manner I described above at the dinner he hosted for us on Quest in November, and Azamara HQ should have taken this same approach and announced it to the public--and here on Cruise Critic--in the same way.

 

I also think you hit the nail on the head and agree with what you write. It is too bad Azamara does not have someone with your skills in their communications/PR department (typically part of marketing).

[Jade13]

Unlike many of you, I have not taken the opportunity of using the cancel option on our remaining Open Passage as I remain optimistic that Azamara will not be able to sustain the much higher prices and that good deals will emerge.

 

I know a number of people waiting, but don't think the lower per diems will be on the summer European sailing which appear to be selling. You are more likely to get a lower per diem as typical on a repositioning cruise, and likely some other non European itineraries.

[pacheco18]

"We fortunately are gaining new Azamara guests so that we can remain viable for the future."

 

 

I understand that Bill has to paint a rosy picture (he is a PR person) but I don't understand where all these "new" guests are coming from to replace the loyal customers lost.

 

Most O cruisers are not going to pay MORE to go on Azamara and they do not want drinks included - they prefer the a la carte approach (they can buy a drink package if they want it). That was an area where Azamara was gaining -- until they changed the strategy and raised prices. Plus the O R ships are being completely redone in 2014 (the fabulous grill added) and an additional R (Insignia) ship is returning to the fleet. These factors will keep regular O cruisers on O (including me) for the most part.

 

Luxury line cruisers (Regent, Crystal, Seabourne) are not going to choose these older ships with small cabins at the inflated price.

 

Mainstream line cruisers are not going to gravitate to these higher prices.

 

I think you should all wait for bargains -- I do not see where the clientele is going to come from to fill these ships.

[greeneg]

Bill, I would like to make it as clear as I know how, that nothing in any of the comments that I have made is directed at you, or anyone else for that matter, in a personal manner. I am well aware that you are a Management Representative and that you should support Management Decisions and Policies to the best of your ability to do so. Having been a Physician Administrator for a Large HMO for 15 years, I remember very well that there are private and public positions and that no one should take you personally to task for public positions or comments. Nothing that I have written on these Boards has been directed at you, or anyone else personally. If something has come across that way, and has offended you or anyone else, then I humbly apologize as that was most certainly not my intent.

 

Having said that, there is no question that I don't agree with some of the management decisions and directions that have been taken by Azamara Management over the past couple of years. I have every incentive to want Azamara to be successful, it's both my favorite line and I am a RCCL shareholder so I even have a vested interest. If I don't think or am not convinced that the decisions are good ones, then I feel that I have a responsibility to voice my concerns. But not in a personal manner and I have not knowingly done that.

 

One of the Management Decisions that I do heartily support is you and the job that you do here for Azamara. You are a very valuable resource in terms of getting our viewpoints and comments to Management and smoothing the road and clarifying various areas both ways. You're really quite good at this, so no rocks at you personally for sure.

 

I hope this clears the air a little and that we can move on.

 

Best Regards,

Ed Green

[marinaro44]

Bill, I would like to make it as clear as I know how, that nothing in any of the comments that I have made is directed at you, or anyone else for that matter, in a personal manner. I am well aware that you are a Management Representative and that you should support Management Decisions and Policies to the best of your ability to do so.

 

...........

 

One of the Management Decisions that I do heartily support is you and the job that you do here for Azamara. You are a very valuable resource in terms of getting our viewpoints and comments to Management and smoothing the road and clarifying various areas both ways. You're really quite good at this, so no rocks at you personally for sure.

 

Very well said, Ed. Sorry not to have replied to Bill's posting sooner but I've been tied up at the hospital all morning. It's the "Management Decision" I was addressing, not Bill's description of that decision as written here. A company's spokesperson should support his company's position to the outside, while, if he or she disagrees with it, doing his or her best to influence that decision before it is made public.

[marinaro44]

 

I looked around for alternatives but there was no exact equivalent but I did find a deal from the same travel agent on the Regent Voyager for a 7 night cruise. The cost for this is £4498. £4498/7 = £642 per night. I have not included in that calculation a pre-cruise hotel night in Copenhagen and the $500 OBC given by the travel agent.

 

This is a perfect example of what I foresaw happening--and posted here--right after the big Azamara announcement was made. On paper, Regent offers much more than Azamara if the fares are at all comparable: free shore excursions, free air always, inexpensive upgrades to business class air on many cruises, pre-cruise hotel stay, airport transfers, free specialty restaurants including steak house, French, and Italian, wider selection of included liquor, and, as Mojo points out above, much larger standard cabins with large, marble bathrooms and walk-in closets, and all with verandas on two of their three ships.

 

Having spent 25 days on Regent this past spring, I think it's also important to consider the mindset of current Regent regulars. I don't know how many times I was told by them that "I can afford Regent; Regent is the best; why would I cruise with anyone else?" While that second assertion may be debatable, let me tell you: THEY BELIEVE IT!" It will be a hard slog for Azamara to take passengers away from Regent. But I wish them well. I want them to stay in business.

[ikelmay]

It is going to be very interesting seeing where Azamara heads in the next few years. I can understand their need for repositioning the brand with the primary expectation of increasing the revenue stream, but I still can't help wondering if this is the right direction.

 

Push the brand too far upmarket, and new customers will come with preconceptions that just can't be met with the existing ships given their age and construction.

 

I can't really put my finger on it, but to say that I found the ships and the staff to be 'special'. If I was a new cruiser approaching the product at a significantly higher price point, my expectations would certainly be different. I honestly don't think they will succeed in competition with brands that are considered 'luxury' rather than 'luxury lite' or whatever you want to call this current product rollout.

[Lady Slipper]

Our last cruise was on the Journey and we loved it. It was our first Azamara cruise and we were really looking forward to cruising with Azamara again. Unfortunately now with the changes being made it no longer seems likely. :(

[Jade13]

It is going to be very interesting seeing where Azamara heads in the next few years. I can understand their need for repositioning the brand with the primary expectation of increasing the revenue stream, but I still can't help wondering if this is the right direction.

 

Push the brand too far upmarket, and new customers will come with preconceptions that just can't be met with the existing ships given their age and construction.

 

I can't really put my finger on it, but to say that I found the ships and the staff to be 'special'. If I was a new cruiser approaching the product at a significantly higher price point, my expectations would certainly be different. I honestly don't think they will succeed in competition with brands that are considered 'luxury' rather than 'luxury lite' or whatever you want to call this current product rollout.

 

As soon as prices double or increase this signficantly, expectations will be higher.

 

I know we expect more on higher per diem cruises verses those (cheaper) Carribean cruises.

[greeneg]

As soon as prices double or increase this signficantly, expectations will be higher.

 

I know we expect more on higher per diem cruises verses those (cheaper) Carribean cruises.

 

I agree with this and I would suggest that their "new" customers are going to be less than tolerant in terms of the numerous lash-ups in terms of websites, customer service reps and the like. There is no question that the ship experience is right up there with the Best, but there are other issues that need badly to be addressed, IMHO.

[Bill Leiber]

I agree with this and I would suggest that their "new" customers are going to be less than tolerant in terms of the numerous lash-ups in terms of websites, customer service reps and the like. There is no question that the ship experience is right up there with the Best, but there are other issues that need badly to be addressed, IMHO.

 

Hello Ed -

 

Thank you for pointing out that our higher price point will demand a higher degree of customer service than we're currently delivering in our shoreside operation. I've shared your comments, along with the others, to our executive team.

 

What you all are saying mirrors the message that our executive team is directing to our operational units within the shared services group that serves the three brands, especially in post-cruise customer service, itinerary deployment, and shore excursion development.

 

I appreciate your continued interest and involvement with our shoreside operation.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Leiber

__________________________

Chief Blogging Officer*

Azamara Club Cruises

(*CBO is an authorized and compensated representative of

[kiawahdon]

"What you all are saying mirrors the message that our executive team is directing to our operational units within the shared services group that serves the three brands, especially in post-cruise customer service, itinerary deployment, and shore excursion development."

 

Bill, I really question if sharing shore-side services will work long- term. Consider the facts that the passengers/customers are markedly different with much different expectations. The cruises are different. RCC does a lot of 7 day with identical itineraries week after week. Celebrity to a lesser degree has a lot of repeat itineraries. The ports of these two lines are not near as challenging ( read interesting in many cases) as AZ's. Overnights are almost nonexistent. AZ is unique in many respects, yet the shore team is expected to deal with what is an anomaly. Look at an average day. Between RCCI and Celebrity, shore operations probably have in excess of 50,000 berths at sea and AZ has only 1300. How much attention can AZ demand given these numbers?

[ikelmay]

I would think we are in a holding pattern right now - RCCL will have to see if the new Azamara product generates the revenue and returns to support more dedicated service support to the Azamara brand. I can't see them even thinking of separating all of the crossover services unless there's an indication of a real dollar reward at the end of it for the company.

[CTLeeA]

I suspect the problem IS the executive team. Issues have been going on for so long, and we know without doubt, due to this forum, that top mgt is very much aware...but.....the problem is that they do not think they have a problem, therefore, they have no interest in resolving what the rest of us consider to be major off-cruise issues..

[greeneg]

Ultimately, Top Management is responsible for the success or failure of the whole operation. I know that if I were Top Management, either these Central Office issues would be history or I would be in Richard Fain's office asking what can be done to make them history. Frequently. At some point in time, Central Office Operation's performance needs to be on a level with the On-board Experience for Azamara to be successful. No business can afford to discourage customers in a competitive market.

 

I received brochures from both Regent and Oceania in today's mail; neither of which I have sailed with previously. Azamara appears to be priced pretty much in their league now and it is going to have to step up.

 

Bill, I appreciate your responding to me up above and I know that you are trying very hard to make certain that Management gets the message that you are hearing here. But it seems to be taking so long.

 

There is a point if it is reached, that it will have taken too long.

 

Ed

[dfishner]

"What you all are saying mirrors the message that our executive team is directing to our operational units within the shared services group that serves the three brands, especially in post-cruise customer service, itinerary deployment, and shore excursion development."

 

Bill, I really question if sharing shore-side services will work long- term. Consider the facts that the passengers/customers are markedly different with much different expectations. The cruises are different. RCC does a lot of 7 day with identical itineraries week after week. Celebrity to a lesser degree has a lot of repeat itineraries. The ports of these two lines are not near as challenging ( read interesting in many cases) as AZ's. Overnights are almost nonexistent. AZ is unique in many respects, yet the shore team is expected to deal with what is an anomaly. Look at an average day. Between RCCI and Celebrity, shore operations probably have in excess of 50,000 berths at sea and AZ has only 1300. How much attention can AZ demand given these numbers?

 

 

I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head with your post makes me wonder how much freedom Azamara really has shoreside and how tight are the strings being pulled from RCL with the running of Azamara financially I do not believe Azamara could really afford total shore operations with just two ships even though it is something that is needed.

 

I never looked at it this way and if you are on here for quite awhile it comes across as if Azamara shoreside does not have its act together and maybe I have been looking at this all wrong if Azamara is relying on shared services that is a problem because you have staff working with you who do not understand you business model hence some of the issues we seen on here. I am not saying Azamara is totally blameless but your post puts all of this in a new light and has given me a different prospective

[ikelmay]

If you share common platforms and services for cost efficiency, there will be drawbacks in terms of priority and focus.

 

Those of us who have been with Azamara during their growing pains (in our case since the 2nd Quest sailing) have been happy to be along for the ride as we watched a wonderful cruise product emerge, but I wonder if the new target market will be quite so ready to accept some of the foibles of the shoreside operation.