Cruise Demographics for the future

[parallax]

An interest trend is that couples are having children later in life. My daughter was born when I was in my late 30s. By having children later in life, I was in a much better position financially. Because of this reality, there are no issues from a financial perspective in us taking a cruise.

[iancal]

Absolutely. Even we fossils waited 11 plus years prior to having children-DW in her 30's. And people appear to be waiting even longer now. Different perspectives.

[styles27]

I think one thing to consider if that for the older generation a cruise was once thought of as a really big deal. Something that few people did and those that did were very well off financially. Excusive so to speak. So it became something of an aspirational vacation for many.

 

Now it's mass market-nothing that special. It competes with other other vacation and travel options. On some cruise lines the lets pretend environment of the MDR still exists where people can dress up for a few hours and pretend that they are part of cafe society. The cruise lines promoted this and made a handsome profit from it. Alas, I suspect those days are over-formal evening/pretend dress up has become a niche market.

 

Cruising for the generation behind us is not such a big deal. One of many options. It is great for a week in the sun getaway but necessarily for an active vacation or a vacation with children (Disney excepted).

 

 

I think you nailed it. Years ago only my parent's "richest" friends could afford a cruise. lol

( I'm talking about 50+ years ago.)

 

We brought our kids on their first cruise when they were 7 & 8 (they went for free on Majesty cruise line Boston to Bermuda). My parents thought we were rich because we could afford to bring our kids with us lol.

 

We took them on many more cruises over the years but once they were in college that unfortunately came to an end. lol.

They said they would come with us again (our treat of course lol) but cruising isn't their first vacation choice. They feel it's too restrictive. They're 28 and almost 27.

 

We enjoyed our HAL cruise on Veendam 5 yrs ago and I know we will enjoy our next one on Eurodam.

 

I think Carnival corporation has the right idea. They have something for everyone with all of their different cruise lines.

 

There's certainly a lot of choices which is great for us the consumer.

[bUU]

I think Carnival corporation has the right idea. They have something for everyone with all of their different cruise lines. There's certainly a lot of choices which is great for us the consumer.

Absolutely. I think, though, there is a small contingent unhappy about how things are becoming more attuned to the preferences and purchasing behaviors of the rest: Cruise lines, like every business, have at times lagged behind what their market research perhaps was telling them. It is a perennial problem in business - the failure to keep up with the pace of change. That has given folks with legacy preferences a bit of an advantage. Far more than they would be willing to admit, cruise lines have been forcing all passengers to subsidize some of the things those with legacy preferences treasure by not responding directly and rapidly to the changing preferences of the marketplace as it would invariably be affected by this flood of new customers drawn to cruising by its increasing affordability.

[DavyJoneses]

Formal Dress every night??? I can't even........

 

Guess I won't be sailing with them.

[*Miss G*]

Guess I won't be sailing with them.

 

Not in all venues. There are at least six other options.

[jhsocal]

Parallax, do you think the fact that many couples have children at a later age, is a factor in seeing children on cruises? We are part of the Medicare generation, not aware of any of my peers{friends] that took their children on cruises. Nothing wrong with that, just find it an interesting change.

[Wehwalt]

I remember the most recent comment from a younger cruiser who was only going on HAL because she was traveling with her mother. She made reference about HAL needing to improve their wifi fleet wide if they wanted to attract younger passengers.

 

It's a sign of the times I suppose.

 

I understand the work obligation thing, even on vacation.

 

HAL does need to improve its wifi to attract younger cruisers. I am only younger by comparison with the average HAL cruiser, but I feel the same way. Strongly. Hundred minute wifi packages and slamming down the logout key do not cut it when RCCI and Norwegian let you connect two devices all the time for about twenty dollars a day.

[styles27]

HAL does need to improve its wifi to attract younger cruisers. I am only younger by comparison with the average HAL cruiser, but I feel the same way. Strongly. Hundred minute wifi packages and slamming down the logout key do not cut it when RCCI and Norwegian let you connect two devices all the time for about twenty dollars a day.

 

 

I agree. It's not enough to keep me off a HAL ship though, especially on a short sailing.

 

Now when we retire and start cruising longer voyagers that will definitely be a concern, but I can live without wifi for a week especially when I know I can connect while in port.

[cruisemom42]

Parallax, do you think the fact that many couples have children at a later age, is a factor in seeing children on cruises? We are part of the Medicare generation, not aware of any of my peers{friends] that took their children on cruises. Nothing wrong with that, just find it an interesting change.

 

Not sure what is the "medicare generation" but my parents (90 and 84 now) took my sister and I on cruises -- my first was at age 8.

[parallax]

Parallax, do you think the fact that many couples have children at a later age, is a factor in seeing children on cruises? We are part of the Medicare generation, not aware of any of my peers{friends] that took their children on cruises. Nothing wrong with that, just find it an interesting change.

 

I think it is a combination of factors. When my daughter was born, I already had a good nest egg, had a house, and was entering my prime earning years. Basically, I do not have some of the roadblocks other may have if they had children earlier in life. It is easy for us to take a cruise if we want to. Another reality is that cruising can be a relatively inexpensive vacation. In 1996, we paid $3500 for an oceanview cabin on the Enchantment of the Seas for a Caribbean cruise. Twenty years later for the same or lower price, including the addition of our daughter, we can get a balcony cabin along with some perks. Finally, cruise lines, maybe to the dismay of some of the posters, has become very family friendly. The kids clubs are run very well and there are a good number of activities. Our daughter loves the kids clubs and the friends she make. The whole family finds cruising a satisfying experience.

[TheCalicoCat]

Parallax, do you think the fact that many couples have children at a later age, is a factor in seeing children on cruises? We are part of the Medicare generation, not aware of any of my peers{friends] that took their children on cruises. Nothing wrong with that, just find it an interesting change.

 

I had my son, an only child, when I was almost 40. We took him on a Carnival cruise as soon as he turned two so that he could enjoy the toddler appropriate activities. (When we enjoyed the adult activities - Comedy Club &/or Piano Bar.)

 

Whenever went went to Baltimore he asked if we could go back on the big boat.

 

We managed 12-nights a few years ago (Carnival Pride Repositioning back to Baltimore where the median age was 70) & so we are going for 14-nights this Summer to AK on HAL.

 

I choose based on itinerary not cruise line.

 

This may be a factor, another is that we do not assume that our parents are de facto baby sitters.

[AncientWanderer]

I think we're in the target demographic of baby boomers. I'm 59, DH 60. We are 4-star with HAL and platinum with Princess, which I think is unusual for our age. The internet access is a very big issue. My husband is not retired and he goes through crazy gyrations to keep up with his business obligations when we are onboard. We've wasted a whole lot of precious port time sitting in internet cafes. Most of our peers are not willing to make such an effort, but we really just love the sea.

 

I do think better and more affordable internet access would go a long way toward attracting other boomers out there.

[jhsocal]

Parallax, your response certainly makes sense. Think I was trying to allude to a scenario that parents seldom took "big" vacations until their children were raised. Obviously, this is outdated. Have read many positive statements about HAL and children. Believe HAL is pleased to have them on board, some passengers are the ones not so pleased. Wishing you and your family many more cruises.

[styles27]

We married when I was 21 and my DH was 23...had our daughter the first year of our marriage and my son 17 months later.

 

We were different though....we've always been older than our years and that includes financial planning and saving.

 

We paid for our own educations, wedding etc and were able to purchase a house one year before we married. (Of course, DH lived there until the wedding then I moved in) boy, times certainly were different.

 

My point is, even though we married early, had thousands of dollars in student loans, had children right away we still managed to save for vacations and always took our children with us.

I can only think of one occasion that I won a 4 day carnival cruise in a drawing at work and we left the kids with my in-laws.

Growing up our "vacations" included taking a ride to Cape Cod and enjoying the beach, driving home to sleep and going back the next day. My parents never went on a cruise themselves, I'm sad to say. Their health in their retirement years wasn't good enough to travel.

 

Fast forward to now in our 50's DH is a "boomer" I'm a "gen X" kids are out on their own, we have a grand child, looking at retiring in 7 yrs down size our home within the next year or two and hopefully health providing will be taking a world cruise and many other longer journeys.

 

I'll be paying close attention to these boards and reviews to see which company or companies we choose in the future.

[parallax]

Parallax, your response certainly makes sense. Think I was trying to allude to a scenario that parents seldom took "big" vacations until their children were raised. Obviously, this is outdated. Have read many positive statements about HAL and children. Believe HAL is pleased to have them on board, some passengers are the ones not so pleased. Wishing you and your family many more cruises.

 

When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, we only did a big vacation every few years. We went to Yellowstone, DC, etc. by loading up the family station wagon and driving. With technology, the world is a much smaller place and there are more options when it comes to family travel.

 

We did the Zuiderdam over New Years and had a wonderful time.

[iancal]

Prior to retirement cruising was an ideal vacation-especially in the winter. A few days pre cruise to wind down then a week or two of downtime. Internet was definately an issue on the few times when, for business reasons, I required access to good internet.

 

Now retired, we view cruises as a respite from land travel. We tend to do longer trips and there is work involved to independent land travel. So we watch for last minute cruises or one ways in areas where we are travelling. I suspect that we would be cruising more if there had not been a decline in the mass market product and in it's value proposition to us.

 

We may try a premium line like Azamara to see how the value to us compares. But over the past few years we would both say that the value proposition to us of a cruise vacation has been diminishing. This was acceptable to a point when the inflation adjusted cost of cruising was constant or decreasing. Not so when the cost is increasing and the product quality decreasing.

[jhsocal]

bUU, your comments are very astute. Assume "legacy" group refers to long time cruisers who cruised before it was affordable for many people. If you lump all the mass market lines together, it might be a shrinking group. However, suspect it is still a very major group for HAL. What is the future for this group? More expensive cabins? Move to a more upscale line? Other options?

[bUU]

I have mentioned several times in this forum that I really don't understand what CCL is doing with both Princess and Holland America. It just seems to me there isn't enough room in that space between Carnival Cruise Line and Seaborne to have two cruise lines that effectively are cannibalizing each other's customer bases. I think the Princess brand name carries more value for the Corporation in the long term so I'm expecting Carnival's Holland America group to announce at some point a consolidation of the Holland America line and the Princess line. That will no doubt be unhappy news if it actually occurs for those who are passionate fans of Holland America but the changes are going to happen anyway. This consolidation in the end this is just going to be a consolidation in name only. You can scour these forums and find dozens of threads active every day regarding changes that are already bringing the two lines pretty much in line with each other in terms of ship size and such.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[Bostonjetset]

I have mentioned several times in this forum that I really don't understand what CCL is doing with both Princess and Holland America. It just seems to me there isn't enough room in that space between Carnival Cruise Line and Seaborne to have two cruise lines that effectively are cannibalizing each other's customer bases. I think the Princess brand name carries more value for the Corporation in the long term so I'm expecting Carnival's Holland America group to announce at some point a consolidation of the Holland America line and the Princess line. That will no doubt be unhappy news if it actually occurs for those who are passionate fans of Holland America but the changes are going to happen anyway. This consolidation in the end this is just going to be a consolidation in name only. You can scour these forums and find dozens of threads active every day regarding changes that are already bringing the two lines pretty much in line with each other in terms of ship size and such.

 

This message may have been entered using voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

I found this post most interesting. Where is this information coming from? I am not in HAL's "target demographic" based on how people generally perceive the company [born in 1982, I am on the cusp of Gen X and Millennials] but it is one of my favorite lines along with Cunard [another ALLEGEDLY "older folks" line]. Whilst we've never had a bad cruise, I find the itineraries on HAL to be a cut above many other lines. The service is fantastic and the ships are a great size [even Koningsdam is much smaller than most other lines' ships]. Princess offers a great product as well but I didn't feel our sole Princess trip was similar to our trips on HAL; in fact I found the food/service to be closer to Cunard [esp the more international crew and the proper afternoon tea compared to HAL's FABULOUS Indonesian/Filipino crew and mediocre tea service].

 

I don't necessarily agree that Princess has a more valuable "brand" in the CCL portfolio. Why do you say this? Holland America Line has 144 years of history compared to Princess's mere 52. They are legendary in the passenger ship industry. Princess does show Love Boat reruns in the staterooms On Demand though so that is a fun extra! Also, you neglected to mention Cunard in your placement of Carnival -> Princess/HAL -> Seabourn. Do you feel that they are a redundant brand also?

[bUU]

I found this post most interesting. Where is this information coming from?

What "information"? Please more carefully read the portion of my post you highlighted in red: "I'm expecting Carnival's Holland America group to announce at some point a consolidation of the Holland America line and the Princess line. That will no doubt be unhappy news if it actually occurs for those who are passionate fans of Holland America but the changes are going to happen anyway.".

 

I am not in HAL's "target demographic" based on how people generally perceive the company

Target demographic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how people, outside the company, perceive the company.

 

Whilst we've never had a bad cruise, I find the itineraries on HAL to be a cut above many other lines. ... Princess offers a great product as well but I didn't feel our sole Princess trip was similar to our trips on HAL...

And that's why it is so critical to read dozens upon dozens of reviews from passengers aboard both cruise lines, and especially pay attention to the appraisals of which is better than which, overall. The fact is that there is no prevailing sentiment about that. Reasonable people disagree. Yet no one mistakes Carnival for either Holland America or Princess, and no one mistakes Seabourn for either Holland America or Princess. Regardless, the point is not that they're the same, but rather that I don't see enough room in the marketplace for four brands without them cannibalizing each other's customer base. General Motors ditched Oldsmobile for the same reason.

 

I don't necessarily agree that Princess has a more valuable "brand" in the CCL portfolio. Why do you say this?

I really could go either way on that; but I think Princess would prevail. My point, though, isn't which name would survive, but rather that only one will survive long-term.

 

Holland America Line has 144 years of history compared to Princess's mere 52.

Neither company you're referring to exists anymore. It might be romantic to refer to 144 years and 52 years, but the actual reality is that the company is 45 years old.

 

Also, you neglected to mention Cunard in your placement of Carnival -> Princess/HAL -> Seabourn. Do you feel that they are a redundant brand also?

Yes and no. I didn't mention it because it doesn't seem to do targeted marketing in the same markets for the same itineraries as Seabourn. Edited April 10, 2017 by bUU

[iancal]

I do not think that company history means a great deal to the majority cruisers. HAL may be 144 years old however the reality is that is was essentially a bankrupt shell that was unable to raise capital when Carnival Corp came along and bailed them out.

 

Companies re-invent themselves as time passes. It is a imperative if they are to remain in business and adapt to changing economic conditions and consumer tastes/demands.

 

When we select a cruise ship/cruise line we really do not care when they were founded. Costa Crociere was founded in the mid 1800's. That would make little difference to us in our decision making process.

[Bostonjetset]

What "information"? Please more carefully read the portion of my post you highlighted in red: "I'm expecting Carnival's Holland America group to announce at some point a consolidation of the Holland America line and the Princess line. That will no doubt be unhappy news if it actually occurs for those who are passionate fans of Holland America but the changes are going to happen anyway.".

 

Target demographic doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how people, outside the company, perceive the company.

 

And that's why it is so critical to read dozens upon dozens of reviews from passengers aboard both cruise lines, and especially pay attention to the appraisals of which is better than which, overall. The fact is that there is no prevailing sentiment about that. Reasonable people disagree. Yet no one mistakes Carnival for either Holland America or Princess, and no one mistakes Seabourn for either Holland America or Princess. Regardless, the point is not that they're the same, but rather that I don't see enough room in the marketplace for four brands without them cannibalizing each other's customer base. General Motors ditched Oldsmobile for the same reason.

 

I really could go either way on that; but I think Princess would prevail. My point, though, isn't which name would survive, but rather that only one will survive long-term.

 

Neither company you're referring to exists anymore. It might be romantic to refer to 144 years and 52 years, but the actual reality is that the company is 45 years old.

 

Yes and no. I didn't mention it because it doesn't seem to do targeted marketing in the same markets for the same itineraries as Seabourn.

 

Thank you for clarifying your original post. I think I got hung up on the statement 'the changes are going to happen anyway' as it sounded rather definitive. I now understand that this is merely your view/prediction and anything could happen down the road in reality.

 

As far as history of the lines, you are correct that Carnival Corp. is 45 years old but they didn't even purchase/rescue HAL until 1989 and they continue to run all of their brands as separate companies under the umbrella [for the most part]. I also think [and this is strictly my opinion] that General Motors doing away with Oldsmobile [and Pontiac for that matter] was based on much more than there "not being enough room" for all the brands. GM was mismanaged for decades and built inferior cars compared to foreign competitors [the Europeans always excelled in the premium market and the Japanese in the mass-market]; then the recession happened and it was the nail in the coffin. They destroyed Saab and we are lucky they didn't get their hands on other great European marques like Volvo and Mercedes-Benz which have since, thankfully, left American ownership and are thriving. Enough about autos, though. You may be correct in your prediction but I certainly hope you are not. I feel Princess and HAL offer distinct enough experiences to co-exist even if they market to the same income/age demographic.

 

I do not think that company history means a great deal to the majority cruisers. HAL may be 144 years old however the reality is that is was essentially a bankrupt shell that was unable to raise capital when Carnival Corp came along and bailed them out.

 

Companies re-invent themselves as time passes. It is a imperative if they are to remain in business and adapt to changing economic conditions and consumer tastes/demands.

 

When we select a cruise ship/cruise line we really do not care when they were founded. Costa Crociere was founded in the mid 1800's. That would make little difference to us in our decision making process.

Sadly, I do agree with you about many passengers not caring about the history of the lines. Cunard does a much better job of stressing this legendary history than HAL does and as a result they seem to get more ship/transportation enthusiasts on their sailings. And you are correct that reinvention and adaptation are essential for long term survival of a business but it does not mean that history is insignificant or should be forgotten.

[bUU]

As far as history of the lines, you are correct that Carnival Corp. is 45 years old but they didn't even purchase/rescue HAL until 1989 and they continue to run all of their brands as separate companies under the umbrella [for the most part].

Less so than it may seem. Princess and Holland America are managed under a single group CEO. They don't even report separate group P&L publicly (though surely the group P&L is tracked internally). No public P&L means no public accountability at the group level. The group is simply a tool used by the corporation to achieve its goals. To the extent that they run the different lines as separate businesses, I, as a shareholder, would question whether my money is being spent wisely, maintaining three separate IT infrastructure, three separate floating stock inventories, etc., and worse, three separate marketing and sales divisions that are actually competing with each other for the same customers.

 

I also think [and this is strictly my opinion] that General Motors doing away with Oldsmobile [and Pontiac for that matter] was based on much more than there "not being enough room" for all the brands.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Recall that before Oldsmobile (and Pontiac for that matter) were done away with, their cars and that of Buick were often derivations of each other. You cannot get any better indication of there being too much cross-over between the target customers of each brand than selling them ostensibly the same cars.

 

You may be correct in your prediction but I certainly hope you are not. I feel Princess and HAL offer distinct enough experiences to co-exist even if they market to the same income/age demographic.

The question that raises is whether those differences are, themselves, good business decisions. It could be that there's a lot of sunk cost mentality afflicting the decision-making.

[styles27]

The fact that HAL has been sailing to Alaska for 70 years (before it was a state) and longer than any other line, went a long way in us choosing them for our first Alaskan cruise this May.

 

I guess I'm sentimental like that lol