The Cruise Experience is changing!...

[navybankerteacher]

Yes -- See attached link.

 

http://www.smith.co/blog/2013/September/understanding-the-impact-of-social-media-and-brand-bias

 

"Brand bias" is a catchy cliche - but in the context of cruising it is irrelevant --- except among those who refuse to consider lines other than their favorite.

 

Perhaps "quality preference" is a more appropriate term to apply to people who develop a preference for some line, or lines, over others based upon valid perception of value received.

[Cruzaholic41]

Perhaps I an not affected by the brand bias I see on the CC boards.

 

You say that as though you aren't brand biased toward NCL. How is your posting history of insestious NCL support any different than others being biased against NCL? It's not.

[Warm Breezes]

"Brand bias" is a catchy cliche - but in the context of cruising it is irrelevant --- except among those who refuse to consider lines other than their favorite.

 

Perhaps "quality preference" is a more appropriate term to apply to people who develop a preference for some line, or lines, over others based upon valid perception of value received.

 

Curious minds want to know....What constitutes a "valid perception"?

[navybankerteacher]

Curious minds want to know....What constitutes a "valid perception"?

 

Not hard to understand: a person who has cruised on several lines and has identified aspects of one line which he prefers may be said to have developed a "valid perception". While many such perceptions are capable of being dismissed as being subjective (which does not make them any less valid to the individual perceiving them) there are also objective perceptions: some significant, some trivial. HAL has all-around teak promenade decks, other lines do not. HAL has free fresh squeezed orange juice in the morning and fresh flowers throughout while many other lines do not. HAL ships have classic dark blue hulls while those of another line are painted up like circus wagons (admittedly minor - but only a blind man would be incapable of PERCEIVING the difference).

[Warm Breezes]

Not hard to understand: a person who has cruised on several lines and has identified aspects of one line which he prefers may be said to have developed a "valid perception". While many such perceptions are capable of being dismissed as being subjective (which does not make them any less valid to the individual perceiving them) there are also objective perceptions: some significant, some trivial. HAL has all-around teak promenade decks, other lines do not. HAL has free fresh squeezed orange juice in the morning and fresh flowers throughout while many other lines do not. HAL ships have classic dark blue hulls while those of another line are painted up like circus wagons (admittedly minor - but only a blind man would be incapable of PERCEIVING the difference).

 

So Subjective "valid perceptions" are basically opinions based on experience and Objective "valid perceptions" are basically facts (although you did insert some subjective opinion with the "circus wagons")? So who determines how much and what kind of experience is necessary for a Subjective "valid perception" to be valid and what is considered to be an "invalid" perception?

 

For example, if I had only sailed on CCL (which I haven't) and found the food and entertainment to be great, would my Subjective perception of the great food and entertainment be "invalid" since I have only sailed CCL or would it be "valid" because I did experience it on CCL and I know what is great food and entertainment to me? :confused:

Edited September 4, 2014 by Warm Breezes

[navybankerteacher]

So Subjective "valid perceptions" are basically opinions based on experience and Objective "valid perceptions" are basically facts (although you did insert some subjective opinion with the "circus wagons")? So who determines how much and what kind of experience is necessary for a Subjective "valid perception" to be valid and what is considered to be an "invalid" perception?

 

For example, if I had only sailed on CCL (which I haven't) and found the food and entertainment to be great, would my Subjective perception of the great food and entertainment be "invalid" since I have only sailed CCL or would it be "valid" because I did experience it on CCL and I know what is great food and entertainment to me? :confused:

 

Since we are discussing grounds for preferring one or more cruise lines over one or more others, it has to be obvious for a perception of superiority to be valid it must be based upon experience --- how else can any perception be formed?

 

I do not make comparisons between lines I have experienced with those I have not; having been dissatisfied a number of times with the food and service on NCL, I feel I have a valid perception. Having enjoyed both food and service on several other lines, I feel my perceptions of them to be valid.

 

You do not need to have experienced the full spectrum to know what you like or dislike - if you are aware of having enjoyed a cruise on CCL, your perception of value received is of course valid. While that is obviously the case, it would not be logical to claim that CCL was better or worse than another, inexperienced, line. You might be satisfied to stick with CCL, but not to claim that you did so because they were better than some line you had not experience - either personally or vicariously through the reports of others you were justified in trusting unquestioningly.

[Warm Breezes]

I am amazed at those who need to pay extra for food on NCL. In my forty plus cruises on NCL ships, I have not had to pay extra to get good food.

 

Perhaps I an not affected by the brand bias I see on the CC boards.

 

Since we are discussing grounds for preferring one or more cruise lines over one or more others, it has to be obvious for a perception of superiority to be valid it must be based upon experience --- how else can any perception be formed?

 

I do not make comparisons between lines I have experienced with those I have not; having been dissatisfied a number of times with the food and service on NCL, I feel I have a valid perception. Having enjoyed both food and service on several other lines, I feel my perceptions of them to be valid.

 

You do not need to have experienced the full spectrum to know what you like or dislike - if you are aware of having enjoyed a cruise on CCL, your perception of value received is of course valid. While that is obviously the case, it would not be logical to claim that CCL was better or worse than another, inexperienced, line. You might be satisfied to stick with CCL, but not to claim that you did so because they were better than some line you had not experience - either personally or vicariously through the reports of others you were justified in trusting unquestioningly.

 

Here's the thing...I didn't see where Swedish Weave was comparing one cruise line over another (this was where this portion of the conversation started). He just stated that in 40+ NCL cruises, he did not have to pay extra to get good food. He wasn't comparing NCL against any other line or saying the food was better than another line. Others were doing that. He was just giving his "valid" perception based on his many experiences on NCL. In fact anyone on this thread who did make the comparrison between lines actually had experience on the other lines making their perceptions of the comparrisons valid as well.

[navybankerteacher]

Here's the thing...I didn't see where Swedish Weave was comparing one cruise line over another (this was where this portion of the conversation started). He just stated that in 40+ NCL cruises, he did not have to pay extra to get good food. He wasn't comparing NCL against any other line or saying the food was better than another line. Others were doing that. He was just giving his "valid" perception based on his many experiences on NCL. In fact anyone on this thread who did make the comparrison between lines actually had experience on the other lines making their perceptions of the comparrisons valid as well.

 

If you wish to review the thread, you will find that Swedish Weave introduced the concept of "brand bias" - I believe the term to be misleading in attempting to dismiss the quality perceptions expressed by others ---- especially when used by someone who appears to have strong "brand bias" (if such a condition actually exists).

 

I am happy for him that he is happy with what appears to be his only experience. I do, however, dismiss any sense of being appropriately accused of exhibiting "brand bias" when my valid perceptions (a term the meaning of which you seemed to have had extraordinary difficulty in grasping) were based upon experiences on eight different lines, three of them on multiple occasions.

[grand isle joe]

Are you saying Oceania and Regent are NOT self supporting ?? I wasn't aware of that.

 

......all I know is that both cruise lines DON'T have a 3 BILLION dollar monkey on their backs........:eek:

[MrsPete]

Yes, the original poster has summed up today's cruising world well. Whether we like it or not, we are living in a time of massive change, and that is showing up in the cruise industry.

 

Having said that, I personally welcome some of the changes -- and hate others. I suspect that's not unusual.

[dancinman66]

Well everything in life is a compromise in one way or another so a win in one area is a loss elsewhere

 

We can't have everythkng

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[swedish weave]

If you wish to review the thread, you will find that Swedish Weave introduced the concept of "brand bias" - I believe the term to be misleading in attempting to dismiss the quality perceptions expressed by others ---- especially when used by someone who appears to have strong "brand bias" (if such a condition actually exists).

 

I am happy for him that he is happy with what appears to be his only experience. I do, however, dismiss any sense of being appropriately accused of exhibiting "brand bias" when my valid perceptions (a term the meaning of which you seemed to have had extraordinary difficulty in grasping) were based upon experiences on eight different lines, three of them on multiple occasions.

 

I can help clear up one of your misconceptions. We have made over eighty cruises and over forty of them have been on NCL. Some of the lines did not impress me, and I haven't been back to them.

 

Since I have received value for my dollars on NCL and others, I do sail them and will consider them for future cruises.

 

The thing I DON"T do is bad mouth cruise lines in order to attempt to support my thoughts about the ones I like.

 

I could expound on my ideas about some of the lines, but my ideas are mine and I don't need to try to drive business away from them because I wasn't impressed with them.

[Beachdude]

I The thing I DON"T do is bad mouth cruise lines in order to attempt to support my thoughts about the ones I like.

 

But you do bad mouth the folks who have different opinions (a lot over the years) to try and intimate your opinion over them. One is as bad as the other, if not worse.

 

Burt

[navybankerteacher]

But you do bad mouth the folks who have different opinions (a lot over the years) to try and intimate your opinion over them. One is as bad as the other, if not worse.

 

Burt

 

Also noted.

[swedish weave]

Also noted.

 

I challenge UNTRUE statements.

[Beachdude]

I challenge UNTRUE statements.

 

A challenge is restricted only to the subject and in NO WAY reflects on or at the other person.

 

You attack the person with name calling, insults and innuendo. That is not a challenge, that is cheap self-serving intimidation.

 

Burt

[BruceMuzz]

Are you saying Oceania and Regent are NOT self supporting ?? I wasn't aware of that.

 

It is very common knowledge in the cruise industry that the smallest cruise ship that can currently make a profit - at any price point - carries over 2,000 passengers.

Anything smaller than that just does not have the economies of scale to make the operation profitable.

[BruceMuzz]

Well there goes that cruise line down the drain.....one time on Oceania most everything was included and now with NCL most things will have a surcharge......

 

NCL will only add a surcharge if they want to make the ships profitable.

Those incredibly selfish Prestige stock holders seem to think they should receive some sort of return for their investment.

Positively un-American if you ask me.............................

[swedish weave]

A challenge is restricted only to the subject and in NO WAY reflects on or at the other person.

 

You attack the person with name calling, insults and innuendo. That is not a challenge, that is cheap self-serving intimidation.

 

Burt

 

How true !!!!! Refer to post #88.

[BruceMuzz]

There might have been another option for Carnival: maintain HAL as a small ship, superior service provider - competing neither with the really premium lines nor the mass market lines - filling its own niche. HAL had a large core of loyal repeat customers who have started to look elsewhere (willing to,pay higher prices) and who are being replaced by bargain hunters who would be as happy with any of the other mass market lines as long as the price is right.

 

The changes which you identified as essential could have been made in the other direction.

 

The people who suggest this course of action do not really understand the financial state of the cruise industry.

For reasons good or bad, the cruise industry has painted itself into a corner. We no longer sell cruises to make a profit. Instead we sell them at cost - or at a loss - and rely on onboard spending to make our profits. That model has made Carnival Cruise Line the most financially successful cruise for the past 22 consecutive years. Those bargain hunters attracted by Carnival's low fares are the ones spending all the money onboard and making Carnival so profitable.

 

HAL's biggest challenge for the past 2 decades has been it's loyal repeat cruisers.

Many of these people no longer have any money.

A high percentage are on fixed incomes and afraid to spend anything.

Those who still do have money are no longer interested in purchasing much of anything HAL has to sell them. They bought all the photos, tours, wines, massages, t-shirts, and casino chips many years ago when they seemingly cost less, and are not interested in buying them again.

 

HAL management has quite a challenge.

They are afraid to lose their loyal base, but know that they cannot afford to keep them under current conditions.

They must revise their financial model, and risk alienating the loyal base by doing it.

Right now they are slowly changing the focus to the first time cruiser (that's where the money is), and hoping that the old timers don't notice or complain too much.

 

To complicate the matter, the loyal HAL cruisers rarely believe anything the company tells them - except when HAL repeats that they love the frequent cruisers and want them back again and again. Then everyone drinks the Kool-Aid and gets warm and fuzzy about being loved by a large corporation.

[BruceMuzz]

Did you know that at one time, Royal Caribbean was targeted to upper middle class cruisers who wanted a quiet relaxing vacation? The line prided itself on its personalized service and excellent food (including being known for the chocolate).

 

It has certainly changed. With the acquisition of Celebrity and the start up of Azamara, the Royal Caribbean corporation made the decision to down class its premier cruise line to compete with Carnival and NCL.

 

They certainly have achieved their goal. Crowded, noisy ships that have mediocre food (and no decent chocolate) with a clientele that want a frantic cruise schedule.

 

Yes, the RCL experience has certainly changed.

 

Now why do you think that a major cruise line would make such a dramatic and costly gamble?

Perhaps it's all about the money??????

The Walmart approach that Carnival Cruise Line and NCL have adopted has been as successful with Americans as Walmart has.

Nobody ever lost any money underestimating the taste of the American Public.

[BruceMuzz]

yes cruising has changed drastically.....but so has many other means of commercial travel/vacation....quality lessens while fares/rates rise....:(

one blessing in disguise may be construction of the megaships.....keep building them and alienating cruisers as many lines are doing could result in many ships sailing 1/2 full which could eventually stabilize or even lower cruise prices.

i never had a problem with the cost of cruising but now feel cruising has become ala carte'.......so many add-on costs .....seems many perks of past cruising days are now upcharge items.

will i continue to sail ~ YES

will i continue to pay for subpar quality & service while prices increase ~ probably NOT

 

Unfortunately - in my opinion - the construction of the mega-ships will be the salvation of the entire cruise industry.

With the enormous economies of scale they enjoy, they have become legal licenses to print money.

Just one of RCCL's mega-ships makes more profit than the entire fleet of some of it's competition.

 

Yes, cruising has become ala carte - at the demand of the cruising public. They tell us that they only want to pay for the things they want - not all the things the cruise line offers. Making it ala carte makes it more affordable to more people, driving up occupancy (and onboard profits).

 

Is the cruise industry alienating it's longtime base, the American Market?

Yes, we are slowly but steadily courting Asia.

The middle class of China is currently nearly double the size of the entire population of the USA - and growing very fast. They all have disposable incomes and all tell us that they want to go on a cruise.

If only 10% of them actually take a cruise (once), they will fill every bed on every cruise ship in the world for many years to come.

The Chinese don't really care if they get a chocolate on their pillow every night, and they are very familiar and comfortable with the class system that is now taking over the industry.

[sail7seas]

I'm happy I had so many happy years of sailing while Americans were still welcome by most crew on major cruise lines sailing out of U.S. ports.

 

We started cruising at just the right time and it seems the cruise lines are telling Americans we are no longer wanted at just the right time if your posts on this subject are to be taken seriously and curiously, I do believe some of some of them. ;)

 

Don't forget to wave when/if you sail away without us. :D

 

 

[jayblue]

Did you know that at one time, Royal Caribbean was targeted to upper middle class cruisers who wanted a quiet relaxing vacation? The line prided itself on its personalized service and excellent food (including being known for the chocolate).

 

It has certainly changed. With the acquisition of Celebrity and the start up of Azamara, the Royal Caribbean corporation made the decision to down class its premier cruise line to compete with Carnival and NCL.

 

They certainly have achieved their goal. Crowded, noisy ships that have mediocre food (and no decent chocolate) with a clientele that want a frantic cruise schedule.

 

Yes, the RCL experience has certainly changed.

 

I'd rather think of it as RCCL offering something for everyone-the all-inclusive approach (people wise). There is a downside: the price is no longer all-inclusive. I think I can live with that.

 

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Forums mobile app

[donaldsc]

Always has. Always will. Such is life.

 

DON