"Always included" - false advertising?

[ak1004]

24 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

Okay, since you believe this ask anyone on your next sailing to contribute to your beverage package that you may or may not use....

 

That will solve the issue, do you not think?

 

Then we can ask passengers to contribute to the food which you may or may not eat because you do not like it or it is not your style or taste.

 

Will that issue be solved, as well do you think?

 

Is there not another line that fits your requirements in these areas regardless of your preference to sail X?

 

bon voyage

 

Maybe the alcohol example is too complicated for you, so let me make it easier..

 

Lets say that excursions are included in the price now (like on Regent). And lets assume a single excursion is $5,000 and can take 50 people. That's $100 per person. 

 

So far so good?

 

But if excursions are not included, then maybe only 25 people will choose to pay, and the cost per person increases to $200.

 

So if I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use, my payment reduces the cost for everyone else. More people paying = lower price per person. It's the same for alcohol, excursions etc. Pretty simple.

 

This is why not everyone likes the all inclusive model. Not everyone wants to pay for something they don't use or need.

[LGW59]

2 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Maybe the alcohol example is too complicated for you, so let me make it easier..

 

Lets say that excursions are included in the price now (like on Regent). And lets assume a single excursion is $5,000 and can take 50 people. That's $100 per person. 

 

So far so good?

 

But if excursions are not included, then maybe only 25 people will choose to pay, and the cost per person increases to $200.

 

So if I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use, my payment reduces the cost for everyone else. More people paying = lower price per person. It's the same for alcohol, excursions etc. Pretty simple.

 

This is why not everyone likes the all inclusive model. Not everyone wants to pay for something they don't use or need.

There you are, welcome back, we’ve been waiting for you.  I also want to thank you for subsidizing our cruise, much appreciated.  

Edited October 2, 2021 by LGW59

[ak1004]

52 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

I would think that 'most' North Americans who have good access to U.S. newspapers, TV news and the like, would understand U.S. advertizing and take that understanding into consideration. Even if it differs from anothers sensibility or desired approach...

 

It makes me smile, at least.

 

Apparently here on CC I Am incorrect. WOW

 

bon voyage

 

"We are cheating our customers and insulting their intelligence because everyone else is doing it"

 

Got it. A brilliant excuse.

[Bo1953]

21 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Yes sir, but I will be drinking Southern Comfort Manhattan str8 up please!

Sure thing, yet that has no bearing on what someone else will not drink, we are contributing to their package....

 

We will continue to have the PBP so it does not matter... LOL

 

Cheers and bon voyage buddy

[Stockjock]

In my view, "Always Included" is misleading.  The fact is that those perks are not always included.  

The earlier example of "Taste the Rainbow" isn't the best, as 99% of us know that we can't actually taste any rainbow, and we plainly understand that eating a bag Skittles won't magically make this happen.  But we don't necessarily know that perks aren't always included when they say "Always Included".

As an example, I booked a travel agency's group rate.  It was not a "Simply Sail" rate.  The travel agent said it did not include perks.  Celebrity said that it did include the perks.  Other Celebrity agents told me that they couldn't confirm if it did or did not, as I'd have to ask the travel agent.  So I had conflicting information that I was unable to clear up for months.

Always means always.  It means 100% of the time.  If they don't always include the perks, they ought to find a new name for the promotion.  Perhaps, "Celebrity Choice" or "Celebrity Value Package", maybe something like that.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Stockjock

[Bo1953]

28 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

Maybe the alcohol example is too complicated for you, so let me make it easier..

 

Lets say that excursions are included in the price now (like on Regent). And lets assume a single excursion is $5,000 and can take 50 people. That's $100 per person. 

 

So far so good?

 

But if excursions are not included, then maybe only 25 people will choose to pay, and the cost per person increases to $200.

 

So if I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use, my payment reduces the cost for everyone else. More people paying = lower price per person. It's the same for alcohol, excursions etc. Pretty simple.

 

This is why not everyone likes the all inclusive model. Not everyone wants to pay for something they don't use or need.

Au contraire, If the cruise line purchases X # of cases of wine (or any other beverage) at $Z and can sell it for $Y and make a profit over the purchase price, that is what they sell it for. When they find that the $Z purchase price is too high to have the same spread there are several options, 1) negotiate a lower purchase price, 2) re-establish how the wine is poured, 3) raise the price of the beverage package, 4) change brands of wine that is included under the various packages to maintain the spread, etc., etc.... simple enough, eh?

 

For tours, which MOST cruise lines do not own or operate themselves only market and offer under their banner has a fixed cost for which they need to cover i.e. vendor costs, profits, insurance and etc. If there are not enough takers for certain tours, they get cancelled because the numbers do not work for the 'outside' vendor to operate unless the cruise line provides a guarantee of minimum payment or passengers... as such, it does not matter if the price to the cruise line is lowered based on number of tourists that is part of the spread. I have not known any tour which was reduced in price because the # of passengers were greater than originally booked.

 

At any rate, IMO the economics as you present, while accurate and applicable in your tour scenario it does not and cannot apply to beverages, rather that be wine, Southern Comfort, Coca Cola, water, etc.

 

Cheers and bon voyage

 

 

[davekathy]

7 minutes ago, Stockjock said:

In my view, "Always Included" is misleading.  The fact is that those perks are not always included.  

The earlier example of "Taste the Rainbow" isn't the best, as 99% of us know that we can't actually taste any rainbow, and we plainly understand that eating a bag Skittles won't magically make this happen.  But we don't necessarily know that perks aren't always included when they say "Always Included".

As an example, I booked a travel agency's group rate.  It was not a "Simply Sail" rate.  The travel agent said it did not include perks.  Celebrity said that it did include the perks.  Other Celebrity agents told me that they couldn't confirm if it did or did not, as I'd have to ask the travel agent.  So I had conflicting information that I was unable to clear up for months.

Always means always.  It means 100% of the time.  If they don't always include the perks, they ought to find a new name for the promotion.  Perhaps, "Celebrity Choice" or "Celebrity Value Package", maybe something like that.

Where does Celebrity say AI is for every cruise? If your invoice doesn't say Always Included then it's not. 

[Bo1953]

6 minutes ago, Stockjock said:

In my view, "Always Included" is misleading.  The fact is that those perks are not always included.  

The earlier example of "Taste the Rainbow" isn't the best, as 99% of us know that we can't actually taste any rainbow, and we plainly understand that eating a bag Skittles won't magically make this happen.  But we don't necessarily know that perks aren't always included when they say "Always Included".

As an example, I booked a travel agent group rate.  It was not a "Simply Sail" rate.  The travel agent said it did not include perks.  Celebrity said that it did include the perks.  Other Celebrity agents told me that they couldn't confirm if it did or did not, as I'd have to ask the travel agent.  So I had conflicting information that I was unable to clear up for months.

Always means always.  It means 100% of the time.  If they don't always include the perks, they ought to find a new name for the promotion.  Perhaps, "Celebrity Choice" or "Celebrity Value Package", maybe something like that.

However we want to dice it or re-brand it, maybe if the sailing was directly purchased from X, it would have been clearer.

 

Alas, I do understand your desire and purpose for purchasing it through a third party and that is where confusion and communication(s) can become a challenge and issue as who knows exactly what we purchased if it is not in writing on the invoice at the deposit point.

 

As for AI, it does mean what you believe it says when purchased as such and renaming of the promo is in all likely hood in order to prevent the many "mis-understanding" many have surrounding the current name.

 

Yet, reading the FAQ's and other info at X's website might help in understanding what is what and what is not and how.

 

Cheers and bon voyage

[Bo1953]

29 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

"We are cheating our customers and insulting their intelligence because everyone else is doing it"

 

Got it. A brilliant excuse.

I find that ones' intelligence is insulted if they knowingly choose to not take the extra steps to determine if what they are purchasing is in fact what they think they are purchasing - meaning reading the T&C's of the program and not rely on our knee jerk interpretation of what we think it means.

 

Without taking the extra step, then we insult our own intelligence, then there are those who are not readily capable of doing that, yet I do not think those individuals are signing up for cruises in any great numbers, but I could be incorrect on that. LOL

 

bon voyage

[Stockjock]

12 minutes ago, davekathy said:

Where does Celebrity say AI is for every cruise? If your invoice doesn't say Always Included then it's not. 

In my view, always means always.  If it's not always included, it's a poor and misleading choice of words and should be changed.

 

From Dictionary.com
always[ awl-weyz, -weez ]

adverb
every time; on every occasion; without exception: He always works on Saturday.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Stockjock

[LGW59]

25 minutes ago, Stockjock said:

In my view, "Always Included" is misleading.  The fact is that those perks are not always included.  

The earlier example of "Taste the Rainbow" isn't the best, as 99% of us know that we can't actually taste any rainbow, and we plainly understand that eating a bag Skittles won't magically make this happen.  But we don't necessarily know that perks aren't always included when they say "Always Included".

As an example, I booked a travel agency's group rate.  It was not a "Simply Sail" rate.  The travel agent said it did not include perks.  Celebrity said that it did include the perks.  Other Celebrity agents told me that they couldn't confirm if it did or did not, as I'd have to ask the travel agent.  So I had conflicting information that I was unable to clear up for months.

Always means always.  It means 100% of the time.  If they don't always include the perks, they ought to find a new name for the promotion.  Perhaps, "Celebrity Choice" or "Celebrity Value Package", maybe something like that.

It is always included for a specific cabin/suite that one makes the decision to accept and pay for.  Read the agreement prior to accepting and make sure one understand what we are paying for.  Once we do that, drop the mic and get off the stage.

[TeeRick]

3 hours ago, mayleeman said:

 

So Cruise Critic can advertise that a thread on "Alway Included" is always included, even if you don't see it on every page you consult? 

Really kind of confused by your post not sure what it meant but that's OK.  

[m8zenblue]

Why is this an issue ?

It's all spelled out !

[Stockjock]

Just to add to this, and frankly it's damned near beaten to death, but I work for one of the big Wall Street firms.  To be clear, I'm not making this claim, but hypothetically, let's say that I guaranteed that you would always make money but then you didn't.  And I admitted that I said that, but then pointed to our client agreement that plainly said you would not always make money.  I then told you it was your own fault for not reading and comprehending our agreement/terms and conditions.

Q. Does that get me off the hook?

A. No, absolutely not.  We'd be writing a pretty good-sized check.

[LGW59]

Just now, Stockjock said:

Just to add to this, and frankly it's damned near beaten to death, but I work for one of the big Wall Street firms.  To be clear, I'm not making this claim, but hypothetically, let's say that I guaranteed that you would always make money but then you didn't.  And I admitted that I said that, but then pointed to our client agreement that plainly said you would not always make money.  I then told you it was your own fault for not reading and comprehending our agreement/terms and conditions.

Q. Does that get me off the hook?

A. No, absolutely not.  We'd be writing a pretty good-sized check.

LOL.  I work for a very large international law firm, in our RFP's we always point out our successes to our current and future clients.  Does it guarantee the same result in the future, whether it be for a patent filing, a trial for damages, no it does not.  Read the fine print is all I am suggesting.

[Stockjock]

Just now, LGW59 said:

LOL.  I work for a very large international law firm, in our RFP's we always point out our successes to our current and future clients.  Does it guarantee the same result in the future, whether it be for a patent filing, a trial for damages, no it does not.  Read the fine print is all I am suggesting.

But I think you clearly understand that if you told current and future clients that you are always successful, but that statement was disclaimed in your fine print, said fine print would not absolve you of liability based upon the misleading and inaccurate claim that you made.

[LGW59]

1 minute ago, Stockjock said:

But I think you clearly understand that if you told current and future clients that you are always successful, but that statement was disclaimed in your fine print, said fine print would not absolve you of liability based upon the misleading and inaccurate claim that you made.

Attorneys mislead, surely you jest!!!

[Stockjock]

4 minutes ago, LGW59 said:

Attorneys mislead, surely you jest!!!

Being an ex-cop and the son of a law professor, I think we've found some common ground here.

[LGW59]

12 minutes ago, Stockjock said:

Being an ex-cop and the son of a law professor, I think we've found some common ground here.

👍🍷

[Bo1953]

1 hour ago, Stockjock said:

Just to add to this, and frankly it's damned near beaten to death, but I work for one of the big Wall Street firms.  To be clear, I'm not making this claim, but hypothetically, let's say that I guaranteed that you would always make money but then you didn't.  And I admitted that I said that, but then pointed to our client agreement that plainly said you would not always make money.  I then told you it was your own fault for not reading and comprehending our agreement/terms and conditions.

Q. Does that get me off the hook?

A. No, absolutely not.  We'd be writing a pretty good-sized check.

Your example is covered under federal regulations and X's claim does not.

 

bon voyage

[ak1004]

2 hours ago, Bo1953 said:

Au contraire, If the cruise line purchases X # of cases of wine (or any other beverage) at $Z and can sell it for $Y and make a profit over the purchase price, that is what they sell it for. When they find that the $Z purchase price is too high to have the same spread there are several options, 1) negotiate a lower purchase price, 2) re-establish how the wine is poured, 3) raise the price of the beverage package, 4) change brands of wine that is included under the various packages to maintain the spread, etc., etc.... simple enough, eh?

 

 

 

There is also option 5): if they know that statistically 2,000 guests purchase the drink package (on average), they can force 3,000 guests to purchase that package (plus few other perks) knowing that only 2,000 will actually use it. This allows them to charge less per package and still make more profit.

 

This is what I mean by "I will be subsiding the drinkers".

 

In the same way, if the drink package is $50/day, some will drink 15-20 drinks per day and some will drink only 3-4. This way the light drinkers subside the heavy drinkers. 

 

As for the tour prices, of course the tour prices per person will be lower if the cruise line knows that all guests paid for the tours because they are included, compared to only 50% or so.

 

Another example would be good drivers subsiding bad drivers.

 

Do I need more examples?

[Stockjock]

46 minutes ago, Bo1953 said:

Your example is covered under federal regulations and X's claim does not.

 

bon voyage

So you're saying X could knowingly provide false and misleading information verbally and/or in writing so long as they disclaim it in the T&C?  I'm virtually certain that's not correct.

[LGW59]

12 minutes ago, ak1004 said:

 

There is also option 5): if they know that statistically 2,000 guests purchase the drink package (on average), they can force 3,000 guests to purchase that package (plus few other perks) knowing that only 2,000 will actually use it. This allows them to charge less per package and still make more profit.

 

This is what I mean by "I will be subsiding the drinkers".

 

In the same way, if the drink package is $50/day, some will drink 15-20 drinks per day and some will drink only 3-4. This way the light drinkers subside the heavy drinkers. 

 

As for the tour prices, of course the tour prices per person will be lower if the cruise line knows that all guests paid for the tours because they are included, compared to only 50% or so.

 

Another example would be good drivers subsiding bad drivers.

 

Do I need more examples?

Yes, a few more please.

[RichYak]

1 hour ago, Stockjock said:

let's say that I guaranteed that you would always make money but then you didn't.

A better analogy to Celebrity's marketing would be to say that you always make money for the clients you always make money for. It's catchy and can't realistically be contested.

 

This is the same as X saying that perks are always included for customers that pay the Always Included fare.

[Stockjock]

This is becoming a legal discussion, which is different from the original premise that "Always Included" is inaccurate and misleading.

That said, I found this online:

 

"Advertisements that contain misleading, deceptive, or false information are illegal under both state and federal laws. A company or business can be held liable for misleading consumers via the internet, magazines, billboards, radio, or television. Businesses cannot make false claims about the benefits of their products, the model, history, or the condition of a product. For example, an automobile dealer cannot advertise a car as being new when it is used.
 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the federal agency that is responsible for enforcing false advertisement regulations or truth-in-advertising laws. If a business violates the law, the organization can bring a lawsuit on behalf of consumers, seek a court order to stop false adverts, or issue a cease-and-desist order to force the business to remove the fake ads.
 

In addition to federal laws, most individual states have laws in place to protect consumers against false adverts. State consumer protection laws typically allow consumers to sue businesses that engage in deceptive advertising."

So the question begs, is it false or deceptive to state that something is always included, when in fact, it is not always included?  Of course that is both false and deceptive.  That much should be obvious.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Stockjock