Why Does RSSC Use The Word Free?

[RetiredandTravel]

1 hour ago, UUNetBill said:

But were they 'free' martinis, or were they 'included'?

 

 

The first two are free the third & fourth have a price.

[PaulMCO]

You can find the same jargon on Oceania, so it is a corporate thing dating back to Apollo Management.

 

They were find in 2010 by the FTC for the deceptive Free air and forced to add some clarity to the amount/value of the "free" in their advertisement. 

[papaflamingo]

Apparently few, if any, on here has every taken any Marketing Classes.   It's just a word y'all.  Does it really make a difference to you if they interchange them?  

[UUNetBill]

1 hour ago, papaflamingo said:

Apparently few, if any, on here has every taken any Marketing Classes.   It's just a word y'all.  Does it really make a difference to you if they interchange them?  

It doesn't make a difference to me, actually, but those two words are NOT interchangeable.  They're very different words, actually.

 

And none of the marketing classes I ever took would tell you "It's just a word" - in fact, there are entire books written on how to choose just the precise word to convey your meaning.  Just sayin'...

[Gpilon]

2 hours ago, UUNetBill said:

It doesn't make a difference to me, actually, but those two words are NOT interchangeable.  They're very different words, actually.

 

And none of the marketing classes I ever took would tell you "It's just a word" - in fact, there are entire books written on how to choose just the precise word to convey your meaning.  Just sayin'...

Bill…once again, agree with you.

 

[papaflamingo]

20 hours ago, UUNetBill said:

It doesn't make a difference to me, actually, but those two words are NOT interchangeable.  They're very different words, actually.

 

And none of the marketing classes I ever took would tell you "It's just a word" - in fact, there are entire books written on how to choose just the precise word to convey your meaning.  Just sayin'...

You misunderstood me.   I never said marketing classes teach that "free" and "included" are "just a word,." I said using the term "free" is a marketing strategy.  As to the words being "NOT interchangeable,"  I would say that "included" indicates to me that if I choose to NOT include something I'd get a refund of that portion of the cost.  If something is "free," I have a choice to participate or not but there'll be no refund or rebate, I simply choose not to use it.  Is that more what you meant by "NOT interchangeable?"  

Edited August 12, 2022 by papaflamingo

[UUNetBill]

6 hours ago, papaflamingo said:

You misunderstood me.   I never said marketing classes teach that "free" and "included" are "just a word,." I said using the term "free" is a marketing strategy.  As to the words being "NOT interchangeable,"  I would say that "included" indicates to me that if I choose to NOT include something I'd get a refund of that portion of the cost.  If something is "free," I have a choice to participate or not but there'll be no refund or rebate, I simply choose not to use it.  Is that more what you meant by "NOT interchangeable?"  

I always took it as 'Free' means it doesn't cost me anything whereas 'Included' was more 'it's part of the price if you care to partake'.  Kind of like if I see a Regent ship at the port and just wander over to join one of the excursions, it'd be like "Why can't I tag along?  It's free..."  🙂

 

And just to clarify, I didn't mean to sound pedantic, I was just hopping onto the long-running discussions of 'free' vs. 'included'.  Like you said, it doesn't really matter - we're paying $XXX for the product regardless of what's 'free' or 'included'.  I'm gonna be on the boat either way.

[rallydave]

8 minutes ago, UUNetBill said:

I always took it as 'Free' means it doesn't cost me anything whereas 'Included' was more 'it's part of the price if you care to partake'.  Kind of like if I see a Regent ship at the port and just wander over to join one of the excursions, it'd be like "Why can't I tag along?  It's free..."  🙂

 

And just to clarifwhy, I didn't mean to sound pedantic, I was just hopping onto the long-running discussions of 'free' vs. 'included'.  Like you said, it doesn't really matter - we're paying $XXX for the product regardless of what's 'free' or 'included'.  I'm gonna be on the boat either way.

Understand where you are coming from Bill regarding free vs. included but, there are cases where free while having to buy something really is free.  Examples lots of buy one get one free, really not included  but, a special or by coupon   The second item doesn't cost you anything.  That said if everything always buy one get one free, yes it really included however when  sold as a special, or limited it actually is free

 

There really isn't a specific way to compare free vs included and they are completely not synanons.  

[papaflamingo]

20 hours ago, UUNetBill said:

I always took it as 'Free' means it doesn't cost me anything whereas 'Included' was more 'it's part of the price if you care to partake'.  Kind of like if I see a Regent ship at the port and just wander over to join one of the excursions, it'd be like "Why can't I tag along?  It's free..."  🙂

Just to answer... the shore excursion is FREE only to Regent Cruise passengers, just like a free drink at a club is only available to those who are members.  And since you get zero cost reduction in your Regent cruise fare if you don't go on any excursions, don't drink, don't eat in any specialty restaurants, by your definition of "free," those items would be "free" because they don't cost you anything.  The fare to get on the ship is the same whether or not you use them.  Now pre cruise hotel and airfare are "included" as you can get a refund for not using them.  😎

[lincslady]

Surely the argument most people would make is they have been priced into your fare?   So you have paid for them.  The complaint comes up now and again, especially from those who do not drink alcohol  ' can't I have a reduction for not drinking'.  And the answer is no, of course, understandably.

 

I have always thought it a bit of an insult to my intelligence to call these things 'free'.  

 

[Dolebludger]

Another line I know about has two fare structures — one includes only the cruise, meals, and entertainment. The other includes drinks, WiFi and tips. Of course, the second fare is higher. Some people like that option. But that line uses the word “included”.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

42 minutes ago, Dolebludger said:

Another line I know about has two fare structures — one includes only the cruise, meals, and entertainment. The other includes drinks, WiFi and tips. Of course, the second fare is higher. Some people like that option. But that line uses the word “included”.

What line is that, Richard?  Oceania perhaps?

[Dolebludger]

I was thinking about Celebrity. 

[Techno123]

From my UK point of view, If something is provided at a basic price and then additional goods and services are provided 'without cost or payment' then they are 'free' .

 

But to be honest, I'm not really fussed about the semantics - I make good use of all of Regent's 'included' goods and services whether they refer to them as free or included does not detract from my enjoyment of them 😂😂

[CruisetheCs]

12 hours ago, Techno123 said:

From my UK point of view, If something is provided at a basic price and then additional goods and services are provided 'without cost or payment' then they are 'free' .

 

But to be honest, I'm not really fussed about the semantics - I make good use of all of Regent's 'included' goods and services whether they refer to them as free or included does not detract from my enjoyment of them 😂😂

 

I would agree that when I'm onboard Regent that my focus is not on Regent's advertising, and  I usually just enjoy all the free things that I've paid for!

 

But when thinking about Regent as a corporation or reading threads such as this, my image of the corporation is influenced by the sleazy advertising telling me things I know are not true.   I don't like doing business with companies that engage in sleazy or deceptive practices. Unfortunately, there is a lot of deceptive pricing in the travel industry as a whole--just look at hotel chains' history of displaying room prices that don't readily disclose mandatory added on fees. So in my mind Regent provides excellent onboard service, but it is just another travel industry corporation that is not trustworthy when it comes to advertising. 

 

My guess is that sooner or later Regent will end up being sanctioned by some government entity. I'm not a lawyer, but I do wonder about the viability of a class action suit to try to claw back all the money paid for free items?  Would love to hear Regent's official arguments for why they choose to advertise "free" items that are not free!

[Techno123]

9 hours ago, CruisetheCs said:

My guess is that sooner or later Regent will end up being sanctioned by some government entity. I'm not a lawyer, but I do wonder about the viability of a class action suit to try to claw back all the money paid for free items?  Would love to hear Regent's official arguments for why they choose to advertise "free" items that are not free!

As Flossie and Wendy show on the previous page there is a difference to the advertising between the UK (included) and the US (free). Our advertising standards authority are pretty hot on false advertising so you are correct.
 

I noticed that Oceania still use the word free. In some cases this is correct. On slow selling cruises they will add in the drinks package, tips, trips etc without an additional cost so that does fulfil the dictionary definition of 'without cost or payment' whereas on Regent it is always included in the cost so by definition included not free. But as we both agree, it worries us not when we are onboard 😁