Oprah, Godmother of Nieuw Statendam

[Fouremco]

You'll never get an IMO out of he who shall not be named. And as for an IMHO...forget about it! LOL

(y)

[taxmantoo]

(y)(y)

(y)

[Wehwalt]

That's what most of us thought, but someone keeps expressing personal opinion as being fact. Oh well.:rolleyes:

 

I find the opinions being expressed about other people to be far more objectionable, personally.

[Fouremco]

Getting back on track, I'm ambivalent about the choice of Oprah, but it's HAL's ship and HAL's choice of Godmother. Just like it's HAL's choice of Captain. I've no problem with that, and as I stated in an earlier post, the choice of godparent has no bearing on our choice of ships. We're booked on the Nieuw Statendam for next near, neither because of nor in spite of Oprah.

[KroozNut]

For the record, I am no fan of Oprah

 

Hmmmm, you don't say. :confused:

 

 

She was a poor choice to be the new public face for Holland America on those grounds.

 

Are you actually saying that 'she was a poor choice to be the new public face for Holland America' because you, personally, happen to not like her?... Wow!:o

 

Yech!

[SetAnOpenCourse]

I find the opinions being expressed about other people to be far more objectionable, personally.

Unless the opinions expressed about others are complimentary and reasonable, of course. :) Our fellow CCer is consistently civil even when the discussion becomes heated.

[KroozNut]

Our fellow CCer is consistently civil even when the discussion becomes heated.

 

Well, most of the time anyway..;)

[bob brown]

I'll type this slowly for you. One more time....I'm contesting your assertion that there are definitively 3 categories of cruises. You stated it as fact. It is not a fact. That is your opinion. Nowhere is it set in stone what are the specific cruise line categories. You think its 3. I think its 4. Someone on this thread thinks its 2. Again, its all a matter of opinion.

If you are referring to my post...in my humble Opinion, it is Carnival Corp that only has two...I agree that there are three basic levels...Ultra Luxury, mid luxury, and mainstream. The difference between so called budget and premium mainstream are very little, and in many cases, the fares of the latter two will flip back and forth.

[Cruise Junky]

If you are referring to my post...in my humble Opinion, it is Carnival Corp that only has two...I agree that there are three basic levels...Ultra Luxury, mid luxury, and mainstream. The difference between so called budget and premium mainstream are very little, and in many cases, the fares of the latter two will flip back and forth.

You’re putting Costa on the same league as Cunard? Sorry, disagree.

[philbob84]

Frankly, there is a lot of cross-over between the audiences and customers in my opinion. Slightly upscale, generally tasteful and respectful.

[Sea girl 23]

Frankly, there is a lot of cross-over between the audiences and customers in my opinion. Slightly upscale, generally tasteful and respectful.

 

Yep. It's a disgruntled few who are making their feelings about Oprah known.Over and over again.

[SetAnOpenCourse]

Yep. It's a disgruntled few who are making their feelings about Oprah known.Over and over again.

It seems your impression of those feelings is a bit exaggerated. The posts which I think you refer to strike me as opinions, not even “feelings”. Others, perhaps yourself included, respond with post(s) critical of those opinions. Why, considering this is a forum?Better to just respond with why you support the HAL/Oprah association. There are too many opinions about others’ opinions - this is what gets repetitive (i.e. “over and over again”, as you put it).

[bUU]

Based on just a few glances of Seabourn prices, I doubt it. However, it won’t ever be necessary. HAL will have ships that I like for quite some time (although apparently not forever, considering their recent additions).

But please remember - you're not frozen solid. If you wish, you can adapt and come to appreciate the changes that the cruise line is making, even though they're making those changes to appeal to other folks. Some of the things my spouse and I value and enjoy today did not even exist when we first started traveling together decades ago.

 

There are too many opinions about others’ opinions - this is what gets repetitive (i.e. “over and over again”, as you put it).

Absolutely. However, while we're recognizing that behavior for what it is, let's also acknowledge that people don't engage in it maliciously but rather as a natural reaction: The folks who spend most of their time trying to distract attention away from points they don't like that way are doing so because they've suffered a loss, a loss of relevance to the cruise line within which they've invested a lot of emotional energy (and money) over the years. I acknowledge that feeling of loss no matter how much I underscore the realities of the marketplace and how it will affect what we can expect the cruise line to offer us, now and in the future (the realization of which, of course, helps us avoid disappointment with the cruises we take). I don't take issue with the disappointment people feel, but rather only with the attempts to turn those feelings into accusations that the cruise line or others have done something wrong, accusations that don't make sense because the cruise line does not exist to satisfy the personal preferences of those who are disappointed.

[SetAnOpenCourse]

But please remember - you're not frozen solid. If you wish, you can adapt and come to appreciate the changes that the cruise line is making, even though they're making those changes to appeal to other folks. Some of the things my spouse and I value and enjoy today did not even exist when we first started traveling together decades ago.

 

Absolutely. However, while we're recognizing that behavior for what it is, let's also acknowledge that people don't engage in it maliciously but rather as a natural reaction: The folks who spend most of their time trying to distract attention away from points they don't like that way are doing so because they've suffered a loss, a loss of relevance to the cruise line within which they've invested a lot of emotional energy (and money) over the years. I acknowledge that feeling of loss no matter how much I underscore the realities of the marketplace and how it will affect what we can expect the cruise line to offer us, now and in the future (the realization of which, of course, helps us avoid disappointment with the cruises we take). I don't take issue with the disappointment people feel, but rather only with the attempts to turn those feelings into accusations that the cruise line or others have done something wrong, accusations that don't make sense because the cruise line does not exist to satisfy the personal preferences of those who are disappointed.

You make an interesting point. I would just add that cruise lines, like other organizations, can benefit from some pushback and criticism. I do not put unquestioning trust in their decisions to be in the best long term interest of even the shareholders. (I’m not referring to the Oprah partnership, which IMO had little risk in and of itself.)

Yes, the cruise line doesn’t exist to satisfy me, but decisions may be made for the bonuses of a few, which isn’t much better.

[bUU]

You make an interesting point. I would just add that cruise lines, like other organizations, can benefit from some pushback and criticism.

I'm sorry but that simply isn't the case. What commercial enterprises need is for consumers to provide feedback by way of the purchasing decisions, first and foremost, and through responses to normalized market research, otherwise. Curmudgeny does not help cruise lines, does not help the curmudgeons (besides a short lived visceral thrill), and most of all does not help other passengers enjoy their vacations better. What other passengers need is to understand what they should expect; not to have planted within them unfounded expectations.

 

Unlike a generation ago, large enterprises have so much insight into consumer purchasing behaviours that handling non-normalized feedback is little more than a cost for them, now. They learn nothing from such feedback that they don't already have access to through normalized market research. Handling complaining customers never costs more than doing the right thing as informed by the normalized market research, so eliminating the complaining by doing something other than what the market research says is best for the business is a nonstarter. So handling the complaining is strictly a cost that has to be "managed", and cost reduced by making responding to it more efficient (which is why you'll see a cruise line issue a form letter and a $50obc to try to preempt a bunch of non-normalized feedback from passengers complaining about skipping a port, for example - they aren't sorry about running their business in the best interests of their owners - they are simply minimizing costs).

 

I do not put unquestioning trust in their decisions to be in the best long term interest of even the shareholders.

Neither do I. Yet these decisions you refer to are in the best long term interest of even the shareholders, even if passengers don't like those decisions.

 

Yes, the cruise line doesn’t exist to satisfy me, but decisions may be made for the bonuses of a few, which isn’t much better.

It's perhaps a visceraly satisfying thrill to cast such aspersions on those running the cruise line, but it has not a shed of legitimacy without benefit of a comprehensive internal audit, which incidentally is performed within these cruise lines regularly by others who aren't casting such aspersions.

 

Given that passengers have a vested interest biasing their analysis toward what's good for them, without regard for what's good for the owners of the cruise line, and given that passengers do not have benefit of the results of a comprehensive internal audit, it is better for passengers to stick with sharing what they personally "like" and "don't like" and avoid veering into commenting whether the cruise line is doing the right thing it not. Such commenting will invariably be readily discounted as without merit for the reasons mentioned above. And passengers should not feel that they have to misrepresent their personal preferences as anything else (like business analysis) in order to share them.

 

 

This message may have been drafted using voice recognition. Please forgive any typos.

Edited June 16, 2018 by bUU

[Cruzaholic41]

You'll never get an IMO out of he who shall not be named. And as for an IMHO...forget about it! LOL

 

Truer words have never been typed.

[bob brown]

You’re putting Costa on the same league as Cunard? Sorry, disagree.

I didn't say there are no differences, just very little. I have never sailed on Costa, so can only form opinion on what I hear or read about. As for Cunard, except for its very formal and traditional vibe, if you are into that, I don't think that its mainstream 'Britannia Class' food, service, cabins or anything else are better than what Carnival offers.

[Old As Dirt Mom]

................ What commercial enterprises need is for consumers to provide feedback by way of the purchasing decisions, first and foremost, and through responses to normalized market research, otherwise. Curmudgeny does not help cruise lines, does not help the curmudgeons (besides a short lived visceral thrill), and most of all does not help other passengers enjoy their vacations better. What other passengers need is to understand what they should expect; not to have planted within them unfounded expectations.

 

 

 

.........

 

:D:pHaving vented my spleen against HAL in order to enjoy my curmudgeonly thrill, I have, in addition to completing the post-cruise online survey, provided feedback to them by cancelling my future bookings with HAL, and claiming a refund for any remaining Future Cruise Deposits. I'm sure they really don't care, and that's fine; they won't miss me I'm sure. I guess other cruise passengers here on this forum will just have to enjoy their vacations better without my assistance in the future,( oh how will they manage?);p

 

I never had unrealistic expectations about cruising, as I have always kept myself informed, and I have enjoyed my HAL cruises. They still provide a decent basic experience to interesting ports with good food and comfortable cabins. But I have seen on-board standards slip constantly in the last few years, and I don't need to waste my money any longer. It has nothing at all to do with HAL's current marketing arrangements with Oprah, or any other individual.

 

I am in the midst of planning future land-based vacations. Tempus Fugit.

 

Apologies as I realize my post has little to do with the original topic at hand, but this thread, as in most human interaction, has wandered a bit:D

 

I also apologize for making my posts a personal declaration, but ultimately, the only observer I can rely on for my own experiences is myself.

[bUU]

:DI guess other cruise passengers here on this forum will just have to enjoy their vacations better without my assistance in the future,( oh how will they manage?);p

Though you're apparently giving up cruising altogether, most folks in your situation will jump from Holland America to some other cruise line. Of course, at the same time, one of the passengers from that other cruise line will be just as upset with something that other cruise line did, and will jump to Holland America - so it'll probably be an even trade.

 

:DBut I have seen on-board standards slip constantly in the last few years, ...

Concurrent with the growth of more expensive cruise lines like Seabourn. Hmmmm

[SetAnOpenCourse]

Apologies if any of my posts seemed to presume business analysis. IMHO there is a possibility of foolish decisions driven by, err, not quite selfless motivation. But it doesn’t matter much, as far as I’m concerned. The 800 pound gorilla is the design of the new ships, and I’ve resigned myself to the possibility that my vacations in fifteen years or so may not include much cruising.

[bUU]

Do you think these changes are made "to appeal to other folks"?

First, sensible comparisons require more work than you've put in: Try to understand why those specific changes were made. In the case of the first one, I suspect there are two or three reasons, but it only needs one: Look out the window from Eurodam Stateroom 4086, then look out the window from Konigsdam Stateroom 4086. You'll immediately see the difference. I prefer Konigsdam Stateroom 4086, even though the view is obstructed. And I prefer it even though it comes at the expense of the promenade. Let me be clear: I'm not saying that it is the correct decision because I prefer it. I'm saying it is the correct decision because their research showed that making that change was the correct decision - the fact that I prefer it is just an indication to you of one aspect of the information they have that we don't have that led to that their determination.

 

Of course, the only valid comparison is one, whole vacation experience, to another, whole vacation experience. Your attempt to limit the comparison is deceptive and, now that I've mirrored it, seems pretty silly. For example, Eurodam has Rudi's Sel de Mer just one night each cruise, while it is offered every night on Konigsdam. And Konigsdam has Blend, while Eurodam does not. Would you accept that as the entirety of the comparison between the two ships? Of course not. Let's try to keep the discussion sensible.

 

As to Oprah,

Will in my opinion this choice do anything positive to the cruise line? No.

Does my opinion matter? No.

Will this choice affect my cruising plans? No.

And that highlights another aspect of comparing old to new: Every dollar a company spends competes with every other way a company can spend that dollar. If the cruise line can do something that will drive my purchasing decision with a dollar that they are currently using to pay for something you "like", but your attitude is "Will this choice affect my cruising plans? No." - then guess which way the cruise line will spend that dollar.

[bUU]

I will answer my question myself.

What's the point of asking questions if you are going to answer them yourself. That seems like playing games.

 

There are changes and changes.

What I see you saying here is, "There are changes [i like or don't care much about] and changes [i don't like]."

 

There are no folks these changes may appeal to other than cruise line's bean counters.

Are you not reading the posts to which you're replying? I already said I prefer Konigsdam Stateroom 4086 to Eurodam Stateroom 4086.

 

We can adopt to some changes.

My late mother adapted from 40s swing to rock music. But she was a remarkable woman. Some people are more adaptable than others, no question.

 

As to Oprah, would there be the same wave "of interest" had this lady happened to be a Godmother for Carnival Horizon?

Holland America's "Savor the Journey" is a great fit with 'O' Magazine's "Live Your Best Life". It is not a good fit with Carnival's "Choose Fun".

[AncientWanderer]

A perfect illustration to my post above: incomparable is compared.

Not just because the Cunard product is at least one star above the best Carnival ship, but because (fairly) identified product is compared with an unidentified amorphous "Carnival offers" (that themselves differ like day and night).

With all respect. :)

 

As to Oprah, would there be the same wave "of interest" had this lady happened to be a Godmother for Carnival Horizon?

 

I think frequent Carnival cruisers might not be as opposed to the big Oprah tie-in to their ships because Carnival seems to attract much younger cruisers and that younger generation is very "celebrity conscious." They like that stuff. Maybe HAL is trying to attract these younger people by thrusting a celebrity into the mix. To me, that's a half-baked idea because Carnival is so different than HAL. But we'll see if the ships are full of ardent Oprah fans of all generations. Time will tell.

 

Edit to add: I bet really the Carnival cruiser's reaction to Oprah would be, "Why did they pick that old broad?" LOL Different cruise lines altogether!

Edited June 16, 2018 by AncientWanderer

[bUU]

I think frequent Carnival cruisers might not be as opposed to the big Oprah tie-in to their ships because Carnival seems to attract much younger cruisers and that younger generation is very "celebrity conscious." They like that stuff.

I think you're way off target with the congruence you're trying to assert. When Carnival tied up with a celebrity, it was Shaquille O'Neal - a sports star (in keeping with their FUN motif), not a personal improvement/lifestyle media exec.

 

Edit to add: I bet really the Carnival cruiser's reaction to Oprah would be, "Why did they pick that old broad?" LOL Different cruise lines altogether!

Precisely. Oprah is the correct tie-in for Holland America, just like Shaq is the correct tie-in for Carnival.

[taxmantoo]

Precisely. Oprah is the correct tie-in for Holland America, just like Shaq is the correct tie-in for Carnival.

Does that make Caitlyn Jenner the perfect tie-in for "Princess" ? ;p