Regent compares itself to Silversea and Seabourn

[Travelcat2]

I just found a subject that I have not seen previously on the Regent website (under FAQ's). Here is a link: https://www.rssc.com/experience/value-comparison/

 

When you click on one of the areas of the world, you'll be able to bring up a comparison between Regent, Silversea and Seabourn (as well as Princess and Celebrity in Alaska and Crystal in South America). Not sure why they would compare a luxury cruise line to Celebrity and Princess - perhaps there are no luxury cruise lines sailing there??? In any case, I found it quite interesting.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Travelcat2

[Suite Travels]

I just found a subject that I have not seen previously on the Regent website (under FAQ's). Here is a link: https://www.rssc.com/experience/value-comparison/

 

When you click on one of the areas of the world, you'll be able to bring up a comparison between Regent, Silversea and Seabourn (as well as Princess and Celebrity in Alaska and Crystal in South America). Not sure why they would compare a luxury cruise line to Celebrity and Princess - perhaps there are no luxury cruise lines sailing there??? In any case, I found it quite interesting.

 

Means nothing and useless. Just another ad for Regent. Four mailers this week from Regent Lord only knows what I will get next week.

[UUNetBill]

I don't see how you can just dismiss this out of hand like that...I found it interesting, since I've been cross shopping cruise lines lately and I wondered how they compared price-wise once you include air and excursions. I realize that some people may use miles and some may not book excursions through the cruise line, but for those of us who don't have miles or don't care to book independent travel it's a decent starting point for comparing lines.

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[elmwood]

It confirmed what I had worked out on my own when comparing Baltic cruises on Regent and another line.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[rkreiss]

The catch in all of this would be comparing the other lines packages.

 

As an example, On Celebrity, if you take the premium drink package and they allow up to $13.00 for wine of a drink, if you order a Scotch for $21.00, you are billed for the difference, $8.00. On Oceania, you would be billed for the $21.00 as they don't credit you for the $13.00 from you drink package.

 

The another example, would be to compare the excursions. This is where it becomes more difficult. All you can compare is the description and the price; you can't be sure of the quality. That is one reason, in many cases, we book our won excursions. We have done this on at least 1/2 of the cruises and 80% of the last 4 cruises. This is a bit more work, but we get more for our money.

 

The next factor is the itinerary not just the number of days and stops. That makes a difference.

 

The last thing to consider, is do you like the ship and the cruise line. We like small ships. A 1200 passenger ship is about as large as we will go. We are on the Voyager for the second time but have sailed Silversea's smaller ships quite a few times.

 

So, compare the pricing and then compare what makes up the pricing.

On our last cruise, we did not take the deluxe drink package as we considered what we would be having against the overall cost. On that cruise, we were ahead of the came. On the cruise before that, we did take the drink package, and did very well cost wise. Both were ocean crossings of about the same length.

 

We have friends for whom unlimited wine and booze is not as important as unlimited soft drinks and bottled water. They may have a glass of wine with lunch or dinner but are not particular just is it white or red. So, Regent and the other lines which include the drink package are not as important as the other aspects - the itinerary and ship.

[iamheisenberg]

Mrs Heisenberg often compares me to Brad Pitt.

 

Just saying.

[Travelcat2]

The catch in all of this would be comparing the other lines packages.

 

As an example, On Celebrity, if you take the premium drink package and they allow up to $13.00 for wine of a drink, if you order a Scotch for $21.00, you are billed for the difference, $8.00. On Oceania, you would be billed for the $21.00 as they don't credit you for the $13.00 from you drink package.

 

The another example, would be to compare the excursions. This is where it becomes more difficult. All you can compare is the description and the price; you can't be sure of the quality. That is one reason, in many cases, we book our won excursions. We have done this on at least 1/2 of the cruises and 80% of the last 4 cruises. This is a bit more work, but we get more for our money.

 

The next factor is the itinerary not just the number of days and stops. That makes a difference.

 

The last thing to consider, is do you like the ship and the cruise line. We like small ships. A 1200 passenger ship is about as large as we will go. We are on the Voyager for the second time but have sailed Silversea's smaller ships quite a few times.

 

So, compare the pricing and then compare what makes up the pricing.

On our last cruise, we did not take the deluxe drink package as we considered what we would be having against the overall cost. On that cruise, we were ahead of the came. On the cruise before that, we did take the drink package, and did very well cost wise. Both were ocean crossings of about the same length.

 

We have friends for whom unlimited wine and booze is not as important as unlimited soft drinks and bottled water. They may have a glass of wine with lunch or dinner but are not particular just is it white or red. So, Regent and the other lines which include the drink package are not as important as the other aspects - the itinerary and ship.

 

 

Firstly, I am not at all familiar with Celebrity (but have sailed on Oceania). What does the drink package cost on Celebrity and what brands are offered (including tips)? Regent's comparison only compares Celebrity on Alaska itineraries unless I am mistaken. Regent is using $201 for comparison purposes on Celebrity. On Regent, alcoholic, non-alcoholic beverages, water, soft drinks and just about any drink you can think of is included. I suspect (but do not know) that it would be easy to spend $201 for a one week cruise (you could easily spend that in three days on Oceania). Regent's alcohol list includes drinks with Grey Goose Vodka, Patron Tequila, and similar levels of Gin, Whiskey and Scotch. As you know, tips are included with Regent.

 

Excursions are more difficult to compare. You can take an included excursion in every port. Some of them will be better than others. On our upcoming cruise in November, we are spending $300 for Regent Choice excursions and the rest are included.

 

You have a point in terms of port stops. You would have to compare itineraries to get a handle on that.

 

In my opinion, Regent did a fair comparison - especially with Celebrity and Princess (especially since it is like comparing apples and oranges since Regent is a luxury cruise line with open seating and included specialty restaurants.)

 

Suite Travels: Disagree (which is not unusual since you are a "Crystalized" customer of Crystal and I am a diehard Regent fan. However, IMO, calling the comparisons "useless" is neither polite or fair. Regent is entitled to their opinion as well as the rest of us.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Travelcat2

[Nigella]

Agree with Suite Travels.

 

I looked at only one region, but the one I picked was comparing different itineraries :confused: and Regent couldn't even get the suite measurement of one of the other ships right. The figure Regent provided was completely inaccurate, in Regent's favour of course.

 

Impossible to take this seriously, although I doubt many people would. it 's just marketing nonsense and reminded me of the advertising tactics of one of the low cost supermarkets we have in France ;)

[lincslady]

It is strange, but some of Regent's advertising and people's posts on here are beginning to sound a bit desperate. I am sure that is not how it is intended to appear, but sadly that is how it comes across to me.

[flossie009]

Some of Regent's marketing makes it appear that they are unsure of the demographic that they are aiming for

They simply seem to be using a 'scatter-gun' approach in a bid to pick up guests from wherever they can; this could ultimately devalue the experience

[Nigella]

I agree with both lincslady and flossie.

 

We're yet to try Regent. As two early 50 something couples who usually cruise together three or four times a year we're keen to learn as much as we can about the line whilst we wait for a suitable itinerary that may tempt us.

 

I'm finding myself increasingly confused about Regent's target demographic and where Regent is placing itself.

[Johnthesailor]

Flossie,

I agree that that the scatter-gun approach really makes it seem that they are unsure of the demographic they are aiming for. The comparison with other lines is simplistic but the greatest error is comparing against both other luxury lines and against the mass market cruise lines in the same set of comparisons. One thing to try to get a larger share of the luxury market and quite another to try to get cruisers to move up by stressing the "value" of Regent vs. more mass market lines. Different markets and different points to be made.

 

Having said that, we moved up to Regent some years ago based on a similar but more detailed comparison we made with Holland America for an Amazon cruise. Regent came out more expensive but not by as much as it originally seemed but we wanted the luxury experience and were willing to pay for it. The total value we got was superior but it wasn't primarily attributable to "free" alcohol and shore excursions. Simply trying to attract customers by stressing the "value" can attract the wrong customer mix.

[lincslady]

I feel the basic problem with this type of advert is it somehow 'cheapens' Regent - the other lines just ignore the opposition (in public at least). This also applies to the EVERYTHING IS INCLUDED schtick - more classy to not put so much emphasis on this aspect. I think the sort of people considering the luxury lines are generally perfectly capable of working out what they get for their money, and I agree with the general principle that often one pays at least as much on a non-inclusive line in order to get the same benefits. And with the added horror of having to sign for everything!

[JPR]

I have to disagree with most of the posts. Regent's pricing appears on its face to be unreasonably high. Many if not most prospective cruisers do not have the inclination to do a careful comparative cost-benefit analysis of relative cruise pricing. This type of ad is quite informative, helping travel agents or individual customers justify Regent's premium pricing. It really doesn't matter which other cruise lines are used for the comparison; the goal is to cause people to rethink their understandable sticker shock. A good marketing strategy.

[rallydave]

I have to disagree with most of the posts. Regent's pricing appears on its face to be unreasonably high. Many if not most prospective cruisers do not have the inclination to do a careful comparative cost-benefit analysis of relative cruise pricing. This type of ad is quite informative, helping travel agents or individual customers justify Regent's premium pricing. It really doesn't matter which other cruise lines are used for the comparison; the goal is to cause people to rethink their understandable sticker shock. A good marketing strategy.

 

If the comparison were generated by an unbiased third party, would agree with your post however the comparison is generated by the cruise line and can hardly be called unbiased. Just like all advertising comparisons, the comparison chooses cruises that will support their end result and leave out cruises that would generated a less favorable result. No matter the comparison, a well versed person will ignore any comparisons generated by the company posting the comparison and ONLY us unbiased third party comparisons that will provided a fair unbiased comparison. Also comparing only one or two cruises will NOT provide a general comparison. Need a much larger sample base to see what the actual comparison will be.

[Notts Outlaw]

I have to disagree with most of the posts. Regent's pricing appears on its face to be unreasonably high. Many if not most prospective cruisers do not have the inclination to do a careful comparative cost-benefit analysis of relative cruise pricing. This type of ad is quite informative, helping travel agents or individual customers justify Regent's premium pricing. It really doesn't matter which other cruise lines are used for the comparison; the goal is to cause people to rethink their understandable sticker shock. A good marketing strategy.

 

But if they get their comparisons wrong then people will start to think they are being conned - viz.

Seabourn Odessey and Seabourn Quest are identical ships but Regent quote different facts for each ship

Odessey - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 71, Veranda Suite Size 365 sq.ft., Gratuities/Service Charge $120

Quest - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 53.2, Veranda Suite Size 295 sq.ft.,

Gratuities/Service Charge Included.

 

Why the differences:confused:

Edited September 4, 2016 by Notts Outlaw

[Nigella]

But if they get their comparisons wrong then people will start to think they are being conned - viz.

Seabourn Odessey and Seabourn Quest are identical ships but Regent quote different facts for each ship

Odessey - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 71, Veranda Suite Size 365 sq.ft., Gratuities/Service Charge $120

Quest - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 53.2, Veranda Suite Size 295 sq.ft.,

Gratuities/Service Charge Included.

 

Why the differences:confused:

 

Exactly.

 

Regent has quoted the sq. ft. for an ocean view category suite on Seabourn Quest, not a veranda suite.

 

Some people may not care very much about suite size, but if Regent is making factual errors like this,how can we trust them to be correctly quoting details that are more difficult for us to check such as the fares they have used?

 

It's likely a genuine error on their part, but really, IMO if Regent wants to use such methods as this to do its marketing, ie make comparisons, for Regent to be taken seriously the details need to be accurate.

 

Also agree with the points about this type of thing "cheapening" the brand to a degree.

This type of marketing isn't going to be a factor in my choice of cruise line, especially as they can't even get it right.

 

 

(apologies for typos etc, am using a temperamental tablet!)

[Travelcat2]

Wow - this thread is bringing out a lot of customers from other luxury cruise lines. On one hand it's good that Regent measurements can be corrected, but on the other, it is giving non-Regent cruisers an opportunity to voice less than positive comments about Regent advertising. I guess that all is fair in love and competition (or is that war......)

 

Regent made comparisons in their publications with Celebrity and Princess. before. Apparently they compare upper suites in the hopes that they can entice passengers to try Regent. While I understand what they are trying to do, it makes more sense to me to move Celebrity and Princess customers to Oceania (which would meet with moving passengers over to one of NCHL's products. - from NCL to Oceania and ultimately to Regent). We see a lot more people moving from Celebrity to Oceania than Celebrity to Regent (based on posts on both cruise line boards). I disagree with the "scatter-gun" theory. Regent knows exactly which markets they are targeting

 

I agree with JPR in terms of Regent opening the eyes of cruisers to sticker shock. Breaking it down is helpful. Also agree with Johnthesailor. Trying to attract passengers with value alone could change the mix of passengers that currently sail on Regent.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Travelcat2

[iamheisenberg]

These Regent comparisons are not new. Some here may be seeing them for the first time, but I remember seeing them on the web site many years ago. I remember that they used to include the pre-cruise hotel in the comparison. They later changed the pre-cruise hotel to Category "E" and higher, and it had to be removed from the chart.

 

Of course, Regent cherry-picks the cruises where they compare favorably - but not always where they are the least expensive, as is the case with Princess in Alaska. I agree with those who said that this is primarily an illustration to remind potential passengers that the Regent's published fares compared to other luxury lines' published fares are apples and oranges. Or cherries and apples. Or whatever.

 

I also agree with those that did not disagree to the comparison with Brad Pitt and yours truly.

[1982CruzStart]

I see these comparisons as information only with the consumer being responsible to investigate how accurate they are for their own situation. It was one of these comparisons that brought us to Regent over 5 years ago. I have been an accountant for almost 40 years. As one i am perfectly capable of doing my own comparisons and do so with every cruise we take ever since we started sailing with Regent.

 

The published ad just opened my eyes to something i hadn't taken the time to look into before. We were ready to make a change as HAL was no longer a good fit for us. I used the comparison as a jumping off point to sit down and do one for us for our first Regent cruise.

 

As an intelligent consumer i don't believe any ad i read as fact as an ad is meant to be from the Advertiser's perspective. Any time you buy something you should do so only after doing your research and making sure the information you are using is in fact accurate for you. Should Regent have made sure that the 'facts' were 100% correct of course but i have seen many ads from many different companies that don't have 100% accurate 'facts' and that didn't stop me from looking into the product and determining the 'facts' for myself.

 

IMHO i don't see the ads as cheapening the 'brand' but as a company that is trying to get information out to potential consumers. Hopefully we are not considered the wrong type of people just because we made our original decision based on value and then were sold on the Regent experience.

Edited September 4, 2016 by 1982CruzStart

[flossie009]

I also agree with those that did not disagree to the comparison with Brad Pitt and yours truly.

 

You failed to enlighten us as to whether the comparison was positive or negative ;) :D

[Notts Outlaw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notts Outlaw

But if they get their comparisons wrong then people will start to think they are being conned - viz.

Seabourn Odessey and Seabourn Quest are identical ships but Regent quote different facts for each ship

Odessey - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 71, Veranda Suite Size 365 sq.ft., Gratuities/Service Charge $120

Quest - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 53.2, Veranda Suite Size 295 sq.ft.,

Gratuities/Service Charge Included.

 

Why the differences

 

 

Exactly.

 

Regent has quoted the sq. ft. for an ocean view category suite on Seabourn Quest, not a veranda suite.

 

Some people may not care very much about suite size, but if Regent is making factual errors like this,how can we trust them to be correctly quoting details that are more difficult for us to check such as the fares they have used?

 

It's likely a genuine error on their part, but really, IMO if Regent wants to use such methods as this to do its marketing, ie make comparisons, for Regent to be taken seriously the details need to be accurate.

 

Also agree with the points about this type of thing "cheapening" the brand to a degree.

This type of marketing isn't going to be a factor in my choice of cruise line, especially as they can't even get it right.

 

And the errors on Space to Guest Ratio and Gratuities/Service Charge ?

Were they also 'more likely genuine errors' ?:rolleyes:

Edited September 4, 2016 by Notts Outlaw

[Suite Travels]

The OP will stick by her comments and believes everything Regent tells her as gospel.

[Travelcat2]

Quote:

And the errors on Space to Guest Ratio and Gratuities/Service Charge ?

Were they also 'more likely genuine errors' ?:rolleyes:

 

Likely they were genuine errors which isn't an excuse - it should be correct before it goes on the website. This may bring to light another area that needs to be worked on by the IT team. In recent months, the website has been incorrect on some items for their own ships so it isn't surprising that there are errors when they quote statistics from other cruise lines.

 

Still, the idea of breaking down costs (which any of us would obviously verify) is a good one. It even opened my eyes enough to send me to the Seabourn website to check out the reported errors.

 

Based on years of reading posts on Cruise Critic, it still amazes me how many people do absolutely no research before booking a cruise. I recall that a few years ago Host Dan questioned me when I stated that I probably knew more about Seabourn than many passengers. IMO that was true as I had a prepared a spreadsheet with the sizes of each suite on the different ships along with other factual data that I could use to compare it to Regent.

 

I'm glad that the comparison opened some eyes and that people new to luxury cruising may decide to break down the costs instead of running away after reading the prices of Regent cruises. And for those of you from other luxury cruise lines on this thread, it is unlikely that anything you read on the comparison chart will change your minds and I don't think the comparison was meant to. It is just a different way of breaking down costs but it would be more helpful if it were accurate.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Travelcat2

[diebroke]

But if they get their comparisons wrong then people will start to think they are being conned - viz.

Seabourn Odessey and Seabourn Quest are identical ships but Regent quote different facts for each ship

Odessey - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 71, Veranda Suite Size 365 sq.ft., Gratuities/Service Charge $120

Quest - Guests 450, Space to Guest Ratio 53.2, Veranda Suite Size 295 sq.ft.,

Gratuities/Service Charge Included.

 

Why the differences:confused:

 

I would expect them to cherry pick the routes they use for comparison. Nobody expects advertising from any company to be objective.

It is disappointing that they apparently falsified a competitor’s data. Isn’t that also illegal? Would the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) find this acceptable?