Royal Champions

[jaxon41]

You've got some gall even trying to compare Illinois politics to ANYTHING remotely ethical! (where is my puking smilie?) Illinois makes Louisiana politics look like the democratic standard!!! :eek:

 

ha! point well taken. How do you think we goo-goo's (lingo in Illinois for the good government types, which really do exist, and as you can tell from the moniker are slapped around there, too -- it's off topic, or I'd write you a book) know exactly how this world turns?

[critterchick]

"Harrison said that the selection criteria, responsibilities and BENEFITS of Royal Champions are confidential in order to ensure the maximum level of objectivity among the group."

 

Another document RCI failed to have us sign was any kind of confidentiality agreement. But they've kept our responsibilities so confidential that I don't know what they are, either. I would tell you all if I knew. And if only praising RCI or keeping silent if I have nothing good to say ever becomes a requirement to be an RC, I will send back the leaking commuter mug and pin and rely on my DPstatus for my perks. I gave the duffel bag away, so that's not going back.

 

Quote:

Patti (& Jim)

 

little people?????????

 

 

what exactly does that mean may I ask?

 

 

RCCL and CC likes the RC's they have representing them to add insult to injury??

 

 

some of you really need to think before you open your mouths

 

One of the many pitfalls of the Internet is that sarcasm and irony do not translate well. Perhaps had she put "little people" in " " (and you had read the post to which she was responding) you would have understood and not been so quick to be insulted. She didn't mean a put down.:)

 

"They" say that actions speak louder than words. I think that all of the reviews I've posted have been balanced. I've been pretty critical of RCI when I think that shipboard service/food/amenities have been lacking, and when I think management has made ill-advised decisions (Blunder of the Seas being the most glaring one IMHO). I've been attacked by RCI cheerleaders, even though many would consider me one. Sticks and stones...

 

All of that is just words. I also have over 40 cruises on RCI, which should tell even the most casual observer (who hasn't turned off signatures) that I favor the product, and being a Royal Champion has not factored into my decision to sail RCI even the littlest, teensiest bit.

 

As a DP I receive plenty of benefits that the "little person" (note the quotation marks) does not. Does it keep me coming back? Yeah, some, although RCI's withdrawal from the 3/4 night market sent me into Carnival's waiting arms and the dilution of benefits has made me more likely to consider other lines for future travel.

 

from ckuykuk

Fascinating as all this is, the topic is covering the same ground over and over, and getting much ,much too personal IMHO.

 

Why don't we all use our expertise and skills to help out poor old RCL and CC dig themselves out of this enormous hole they have dug for themselves ?

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall of those two respective boardrooms as they "brainstorm" their way towards dealing with this PR disaster.

 

Clearly the RC programme is mortally tainted, every poor soul who says even the least contentious thing on a "normal" thread is going to have their integrity questioned. At which time CC is gonna start pulling threads again and the whole sorry business will repeat itself.

 

So folks what do they do ? Nothing ? Take Cyanide? What ?

 

 

 

I would hardly call a fuzzbuzz on Cruise Critic a "PR disaster" for RCI. We often flatter ourselves that we represent the cruising public, but I would bet (and I've read, but I can't remember where, and I don't know if it's true) that we are less than 1% of the cruising public. I think this is a tempest in a teapot to the rest of the world.

 

And even within CC, there aren't all that many people involved in this discussion, which eventually will blow over and we can get back to screeching at those who dare to wear flip flops to dinner in the dining room.

[FL_Cruiser64]

I wasn't sure if I should post in here or not especially after the last few threads were pulled.

 

I made my assumption about RC.

 

The program was probably initially designed as a "marketing tool" but it certainly is not anymore. The RC members are way to diverse, there is no common factor left. Some are seasoned, some are not...some are positive, some are not...some are D and DP, some are not...some have 10k posts, some have 5k, some have less than a thousand.

 

It is my firm believe that the requirements by RCI to the marketing company could not have been met. In order to evaluate the program I go from the bottom base number of 50 (first official event).

 

Just as an example the order could have been: get us 50 loyal cruisers who cruised on our brand a lot, have a 5k-10k posting history and mostly positive.

 

How many could you possibly find with such requirements? 10? Maybe. 20? Hard to do.

 

I doubt you get 50 fulfilling these requirements which may have been the requirement for the Liberty pre-inaug. So what does one do? You get a few which fulfill the base requirements and ask those for recommendation. Suddenly the program becomes a 'friend-gets-friend' program. It becomes a clique, a gathering of people with no other purpose than carrying a tag line. Thats what RC is: a gathering of people which was born out of a marketing ploy gone awkward.

 

There is no other way than describing this way considering the diversity of members. Heck most of them don't even know why and how they were selected. I think when you have 3,000 posts, cruised on RCI 30 plus times and always spoke positively about RCI one would say that this person has a good chance. Not so. If there is no recommendations, if you are not liked you will not be part of that program. Because if RCI would stay true to its basics of the RC program that person would be included by default.

 

So in my opinion RCs are nothing else than a group of cruisers with the benefit of being invited to an event once in a while. It really depends on how much do you value such event invitation. Some could care less like I myself. I never felt any jealousy for not being invited to any pre-inaug or the NY event. I guess I have different values in my life and what life events are great. I also don't feel ill or jealousy towards those who come here and say "I met Adam". For some it is a life changing event to meet a person of such public exposure and are proud to tell everybody about. Others use it as a tool of arrogance "guess who I met".

 

But that's what RCs are all about: Some are just genuinely proud to be part of the program (though they still don't know why) and some don't care (thus no tag line) and some use it to just make themselves look better.

 

But despite a marketing program gone wrong, despite the way how people feel about RCs and despite how they represent themselves, RCs have to learn to live with criticism. If you are 'proudly' placing a tagline in your signature and some are asking about this program (regardless if you know why you were chosen or not) and have their doubts about the objectivity of your opinion (remember it was originally a marketing ploy) you just have to live with that.

If any of you thought you can just display your tag line because you are proud, you want to be elevated above the rest of us (or whatever your reasons are), you also have to live with criticsim. Its called 'living in the spotlight'. The very same person some of you are so proud to meet "Adam G" can tell you a thing or two about "living in the spotlight" and how to handle criticism. Maybe next time, instead looking for a photo op or blasting him about the non combination of benefits you might want to ask him "Hey Adam, how do you handle criticism."

 

If you can't handle the heat....get out of the kitchen.

 

In regards to benefits: It doesn't matter what you call events such as pre-inaugs and it does not matter if you have to pay your way to get there or if it is all expense-paid - it is still a benefit and somewhat 'compensation'.

 

You are invited to an event you do not have to pay for and drinks and food are offered free of charge.

 

What do you all think the C & A Welcome back party is? It is a marketing ploy first and it is recognition second. You too get compensation for it (free drinks) and the expectation is that you spread the word. So, to say I do not get compensated by being an RC is quite a bit naive.

 

"Royal Champion" is a good tag line which comes with a few benefits nobody should be jealous of. It is a group of cruisers banded together by an initial idea but executed through recommendation by the 'original charter members'. Not the 50 on the pre-inaugural, that was just the first event and since nobody knows who really the first selection was (I have a pretty good idea about at least one) you all can call yourself 'charter members'.

 

Which brings us back to tag lines and the classification part: is a charter member better or above a "just" regular member? Shouldn't a charter member know why they were selected and how they were selected? Most of them don't (a small group amongst them though do know). That alone shows you that this initial idea fell to the curb right from the beginning.

IMO it was the second wave of members. And if you had any doubt of the RC program being a valid 'marketing ploy' you should look at the official second wave of invitations (I call it third wave). The diversity is even greater. Well, a lot of them have one thing in common (not all but a lot of them): Oasis.

 

If you want to look around and begin a guessing game (who was one of the very originals) look around in those threads first.

 

Initially I thought that CC played a greater role. But after one of Laura's post (in one of the deleted threads) I think I agree with her. I think that CC is merely an 'accessory' to the program (not meaning in a bad way though).

 

I doubt that CC should require an avatar designation for an RC simply because the program is not anymore what it original was intented to be. Transparency is not required. If I look for info I do not look at signatures, tag lines or anything like that. I look for substance of the post.

 

In regards to transparency: is it really necessary? I think you can go by content and value of posts to see where you can get valid, objective opinion. If the RC 'program' would have been fully implemeted I see the reason for transparency. But it is not. There is no common demoninator amongst the members (heck some have barely one or two cruises) so I doubt that the RCs are necessarly the beginning of all end for knowledge. In regards to objectivity: too many members are critical of RCI. So I doubt that there is any subjective problem.

 

I am surprised that this thread has become such a mammoth. The only result of so much exposure is:

 

a) The RCers who can not handle criticism are being validated into something only (really) a few are: a true marketing strategy

b) those critical of RCs look jealous

 

RCs are a group of people like the critter chicks, boa society, NOOTS and whatever they call themselves - but just a group of people nevertheless.

 

In case I offended anybody, I am sorry. Was not my intention. I am done with my 'useless' post.:D

[Ladder55]

I am so sorry if you thought I used those words in an offensive/insulting way............that was not my intent. I thought I was using it in the same context as the person I was quoting. I even added a smiley face..........so as not to be insulting. I guess it's just a matter of interpretation..........which can be a problem on message boards.:o I guess I should have just used the word "anybody"!

 

The poster said " I just wonder if these members could also be a voice for the little people that RC is forgetting about". My response was........... "Whenever I have a question or concern I call the Offices of Executive Customer Service..........which the little people can do also".:D

 

Nobody that cruises RCI should consider themselves "little people". I've said it before and I will say it again.............everyone who steps foot on an RCI ship should be treated royally.

 

thank you, I appreciate the response, and I did take it the wrong way, my appologies also:)

 

 

I really think that everyone needs to just stop with the back and forth now, stop feeding each other, just let cruise critic handle this. I would recomment that the RC's have something near their name so the new folks and the regulars that dont know about this, will be informed. Again everyone needs to realize this was not the RC's fault, they were put in the position and CC allowed it, if you want to yell and scream and carry on blame CC or better yet boycott the site and find a different one. I for one learn alot here and have decided that althought Im not happy with CC not letting us know about this program I made a decesion to stay, the information you can get here is overwhelming...with this, i say to those still upset, make a decesion to either stay or go and let this rest....

 

CAN I GET A HALLELUJAH?!

[Davey Interweb]

And as I said in an earlier post EVERY review on here and everywhere else on the internet is BIASED!!!!! You may if you choose to read a RC review and think it is even more biased than any other review, fine, be my guest!! OPINIONS are by their very nature BIASED!!! Get over it.....:rolleyes:

 

I love how you get on Ephriam's case over making an assumption, yet you let loose with such a blanket statement. Cute. No, opinions are not "by their very nature biased", and I've read many reviews that were clearly not prejudicial - subjective, sure, but not biased in any way.

[xpcdoojk]

So let me see if I got this correct, you believe everything you read on the internet as gospel, dont need a back up to prove its the truth. By George if someone reported someone said something, you know THAT is the truth, over and above what a lot of us have said. You would accept a 3rd hand report of what someone said they think they heard over us?

 

If you were in the RC shoes, wouldnt you take this personal? Saying things that are libel that you cant prove. Then some of the attackers, like you, get mad if someone says something to them, say back "dont get personal". .... when you simply dont get that you are calling us liars, and accusing us of bias, and that we are accepting perks so we cant be trusted and worse .... and you dont feel this is personal against us? This is personal to hear that folks are saying these things about me and others.

 

Good thing Im getting ready to leave for the weekend. I think its safe to say none of us appreciate being called all the things Iv heard folks say on this thread. Jaxon, I realize you arent the only closed mind and no one like you is ever willing to learn or accept you may be wrong about this. That we may only be what we say, a volunteer marketing focus group, not paid shillers.

 

Bang dead on! It is a complete travesty the way the RCs have been treated by people who wouldn't know a telephone pole if it fell on them.

 

jc

[cruzendude]

I love how you get on Ephriam's case over making an assumption, yet you let loose with such a blanket statement. Cute. No, opinions are not "by their very nature biased", and I've read many reviews that were clearly not prejudicial - subjective, sure, but not biased in any way.

 

THANK YOU for reinforcing my point! :rolleyes:

 

Definitions of subjective on the Web: :p

• taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment"
  

[cruisenfever]

thank you, I appreciate the response, and I did take it the wrong way, my appologies also:)

 

I really think that everyone needs to just stop with the back and forth now, stop feeding each other, just let cruise critic handle this. I would recomment that the RC's have something near their name so the new folks and the regulars that dont know about this, will be informed. Again everyone needs to realize this was not the RC's fault, they were put in the position and CC allowed it, if you want to yell and scream and carry on blame CC or better yet boycott the site and find a different one. I for one learn alot here and have decided that althought Im not happy with CC not letting us know about this program I made a decesion to stay, the information you can get here is overwhelming...with this, i say to those still upset, make a decesion to either stay or go and let this rest....

 

CAN I GET A HALLELUJAH?!

I promise to use a better choice of words in the future.:)

 

HALLELUJAH................I think.:o

[xpcdoojk]

Fascinating as all this is, the topic is covering the same ground over and over, and getting much ,much too personal IMHO.

 

Why don't we all use our expertise and skills to help out poor old RCL and CC dig themselves out of this enormous hole they have dug for themselves ?

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall of those two respective boardrooms as they "brainstorm" their way towards dealing with this PR disaster.

 

Clearly the RC programme is mortally tainted, every poor soul who says even the least contentious thing on a "normal" thread is going to have their integrity questioned. At which time CC is gonna start pulling threads again and the whole sorry business will repeat itself.

 

So folks what do they do ? Nothing ? Take Cyanide? What ?

 

Luv

Cy:)

 

Yes, aren't you glad to destroy something somebody else has that you don't. Then it is so funny that we can joke about taking cyanide to kill themselves. Gosh that is so very very funny. Har Har de har....

 

If I was a nasty as some posters I would die of embarassment.

 

I would not be able to post anymore for the shame of the way I wrongly attacked good people, but hey that is just me a person with a conscience.

 

jc

[kaylorcc]

In regards to transparency: is it really necessary? I think you can go by content and value of posts to see where you can get valid, objective opinion. If the RC 'program' would have been fully implemeted I see the reason for transparency. But it is not. There is no common demoninator amongst the members (heck some have barely one or two cruises) so I doubt that the RCs are necessarly the beginning of all end for knowledge. In regards to objectivity: too many members are critical of RCI. So I doubt that there is any subjective problem.

 

I think your post made a lot of good points. At first my initial reaction to the program was the same as some of the other "skeptics" on here, which is that if all of the RCs are getting invited on free cruises, then that could affect their opinions as posted on CC.

 

But from what has unfolded on this thread-- and there certainly could be more to the story, absolutely-- your conclusion seems to be correct, which is that the "marketing" program kind of petered out somewhere along the line. Which is not to insult the non-charter RCs, but it does seem like it went from being "let's give some nice free perks to people who post positively about us multiple times a day" to.. actually, I have no idea what the current RC program is designed to do, as it stands. But it does seem as though the initial thought somehow got altered down the line, and the end result (at least in my opinion) is that this isn't as big of a deal as it would have been had the initial idea behind the program kept.

 

And, as somebody who works in finance, thank you for pointing out that a free cruise is "compensation" of sorts. A big part of this thread ended in quibbling between people who aren't aware of the concept of in-kind compensation, and it sort of turns into a red herring. Have your employer give you a cruise every month instead of a paycheck and try telling the IRS that it doesn't count because it wasn't cash. See how far that gets you.. :rolleyes:

[ladylawyer]

You bet I am writing a letter to MSNBC as many others have already because the article is incorrect and misleading just like I wrote to Goldstein and many of us were not in the RC program from the beginning and just became members this Sept and I have had the RC tag on my sig since day one so I do not want to read how I am hiding it. They make it sound like we are trying to HIDE that we are RC by not putting it in our posts so we can be reps for RCCL without others knowing. I keep my posts civil to everyone and I and others had no involvement at all with the Moran woman yet once again, the media makes it sound like the RC as a "group" ran her off RCCL and we are not tolerating that nonsense either. Why would you even have a problem with me stating the facts?

 

 

 

Here is my concern, with your comment(s). You have made it sound like you are "buying" the Blogger's statement that the RCs were the cause of Brenda Moran being banned from Royal Caribbean cruises. Based on that belief, you are distancing yourself from the "Charter" RCs (which, BTW, we used that term long before the second group of RCs were chosen, so there was no offense to the second group intended).

 

I am here to tell you that there is not one iota of evidence to prove/show/indicate that ANY of the RCs had any influence in Royal Caribbean's actions toward Brenda. Personally, I met her only once, and my encounter was not at all unpleasant. I found many of her posts incomprehensible, but that was not the reason she was banned, as I understand it.

 

In my opinion, you are putting yourself in the same box with some of the RC naysayers, by believing what has been reported (incorrectly) by others. If you have evidence to the contrary, then do what you feel you need to do (by writing to MSNBC). However, without that evidence, why give credence to misinformation and, more importantly, why assume the worst of people you don't actually know? ~ L

[Alexis]

:

Why don't we all use our expertise and skills to help out poor old RCL and CC dig themselves out of this enormous hole they have dug for themselves ?

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall of those two respective boardrooms as they "brainstorm" their way towards dealing with this PR disaster.

 

Clearly the RC programme is mortally tainted, every poor soul who says even the least contentious thing on a "normal" thread is going to have their integrity questioned. At which time CC is gonna start pulling threads again and the whole sorry business will repeat itself.

 

Hung out to dry !!

 

jj......

 

I was just reading a very interesting thread about the RCCL stock going up in price and guess what two people are over there looking?

Even want to know how many shares needed to get the discount?

 

I don't think you are that all that worried. :D

[bilyclub]

Since the subject of Illinois politics has now been injected into the thread, I have decided that this is all a plot by Mayor "Shortshanks" to get the spotlight off all the crap he has pulled, but not indicted for by the US Attorney.

[bilyclub]

OR, everybody can go around saying: "I'm a Royal Champion", just like in the movie Spartacus, so we all get hung on the side of the Appian Way.

[xpcdoojk]

OR, everybody can go around saying: "I'm a Royal Champion", just like in the movie Spartacus, so we all get hung on the side of the Appian Way.

 

I would rather put I am Sparticus in my signature it sounds a lot cooler than RC...

 

jc

[Alexis]

I wasn't sure if I should post in here or not especially after the last few threads were pulled.

 

I made my assumption about RC.

 

The program was probably initially designed as a "marketing tool" but it certainly is not anymore. The RC members are way to diverse, there is no common factor left. Some are seasoned, some are not...some are positive, some are not...some are D and DP, some are not...some have 10k posts, some have 5k, some have less than a thousand.

 

It is my firm believe that the requirements by RCI to the marketing company could not have been met. In order to evaluate the program I go from the bottom base number of 50 (first official event).

 

Just as an example the order could have been: get us 50 loyal cruisers who cruised on our brand a lot, have a 5k-10k posting history and mostly positive.

 

How many could you possibly find with such requirements? 10? Maybe. 20? Hard to do.

 

I doubt you get 50 fulfilling these requirements which may have been the requirement for the Liberty pre-inaug. So what does one do? You get a few which fulfill the base requirements and ask those for recommendation. Suddenly the program becomes a 'friend-gets-friend' program. It becomes a clique, a gathering of people with no other purpose than carrying a tag line. Thats what RC is: a gathering of people which was born out of a marketing ploy gone awkward.

 

There is no other way than describing this way considering the diversity of members. Heck most of them don't even know why and how they were selected. I think when you have 3,000 posts, cruised on RCI 30 plus times and always spoke positively about RCI one would say that this person has a good chance. Not so. If there is no recommendations, if you are not liked you will not be part of that program. Because if RCI would stay true to its basics of the RC program that person would be included by default.

 

So in my opinion RCs are nothing else than a group of cruisers with the benefit of being invited to an event once in a while. It really depends on how much do you value such event invitation. Some could care less like I myself. I never felt any jealousy for not being invited to any pre-inaug or the NY event. I guess I have different values in my life and what life events are great. I also don't feel ill or jealousy towards those who come here and say "I met Adam". For some it is a life changing event to meet a person of such public exposure and are proud to tell everybody about. Others use it as a tool of arrogance "guess who I met".

 

But that's what RCs are all about: Some are just genuinely proud to be part of the program (though they still don't know why) and some don't care (thus no tag line) and some use it to just make themselves look better.

 

But despite a marketing program gone wrong, despite the way how people feel about RCs and despite how they represent themselves, RCs have to learn to live with criticism. If you are 'proudly' placing a tagline in your signature and some are asking about this program (regardless if you know why you were chosen or not) and have their doubts about the objectivity of your opinion (remember it was originally a marketing ploy) you just have to live with that.

If any of you thought you can just display your tag line because you are proud, you want to be elevated above the rest of us (or whatever your reasons are), you also have to live with criticsim. Its called 'living in the spotlight'. The very same person some of you are so proud to meet "Adam G" can tell you a thing or two about "living in the spotlight" and how to handle criticism. Maybe next time, instead looking for a photo op or blasting him about the non combination of benefits you might want to ask him "Hey Adam, how do you handle criticism."

 

If you can't handle the heat....get out of the kitchen.

 

In regards to benefits: It doesn't matter what you call events such as pre-inaugs and it does not matter if you have to pay your way to get there or if it is all expense-paid - it is still a benefit and somewhat 'compensation'.

 

You are invited to an event you do not have to pay for and drinks and food are offered free of charge.

 

What do you all think the C & A Welcome back party is? It is a marketing ploy first and it is recognition second. You too get compensation for it (free drinks) and the expectation is that you spread the word. So, to say I do not get compensated by being an RC is quite a bit naive.

 

"Royal Champion" is a good tag line which comes with a few benefits nobody should be jealous of. It is a group of cruisers banded together by an initial idea but executed through recommendation by the 'original charter members'. Not the 50 on the pre-inaugural, that was just the first event and since nobody knows who really the first selection was (I have a pretty good idea about at least one) you all can call yourself 'charter members'.

 

Which brings us back to tag lines and the classification part: is a charter member better or above a "just" regular member? Shouldn't a charter member know why they were selected and how they were selected? Most of them don't (a small group amongst them though do know). That alone shows you that this initial idea fell to the curb right from the beginning.

IMO it was the second wave of members. And if you had any doubt of the RC program being a valid 'marketing ploy' you should look at the official second wave of invitations (I call it third wave). The diversity is even greater. Well, a lot of them have one thing in common (not all but a lot of them): Oasis.

 

If you want to look around and begin a guessing game (who was one of the very originals) look around in those threads first.

 

Initially I thought that CC played a greater role. But after one of Laura's post (in one of the deleted threads) I think I agree with her. I think that CC is merely an 'accessory' to the program (not meaning in a bad way though).

 

I doubt that CC should require an avatar designation for an RC simply because the program is not anymore what it original was intented to be. Transparency is not required. If I look for info I do not look at signatures, tag lines or anything like that. I look for substance of the post.

 

In regards to transparency: is it really necessary? I think you can go by content and value of posts to see where you can get valid, objective opinion. If the RC 'program' would have been fully implemeted I see the reason for transparency. But it is not. There is no common demoninator amongst the members (heck some have barely one or two cruises) so I doubt that the RCs are necessarly the beginning of all end for knowledge. In regards to objectivity: too many members are critical of RCI. So I doubt that there is any subjective problem.

 

I am surprised that this thread has become such a mammoth. The only result of so much exposure is:

 

a) The RCers who can not handle criticism are being validated into something only (really) a few are: a true marketing strategy

b) those critical of RCs look jealous

 

RCs are a group of people like the critter chicks, boa society, NOOTS and whatever they call themselves - but just a group of people nevertheless.

 

In case I offended anybody, I am sorry. Was not my intention. I am done with my 'useless' post.:D

 

I do not believe that is true. There are many, many people on here who are dear friends of the original Royal Champions and were not picked. And, they are true assets to the Cruise Critic boards.

To say that is putting the original Charter Royal Champions backed into a corner.

Unless that can be proven, you are opening up another can of worms they will have to deny. :eek:

That is going off in another direction again.

None of them has ever said that to my knowledge.

[Davey Interweb]

THANK YOU for reinforcing my point! :rolleyes:

 

Definitions of subjective on the Web: :p

• taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment"
  

 

Okay, sure, I'll happily score myself an internet point, and concede one to you. For the purposes of this thread, though, this is the definition I think fits best:

 

"placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric."

 

You've never read a review where the author did not go out of their way to compare their experience to another line, for example? On the flip side, I've read reviews from RCs that were so entirely sugar-coated that it was hard for me to take them at all seriously. The latter is clear bias, you just want to argue semantics.

[jaxon41]

So let me see if I got this correct, you believe everything you read on the internet as gospel, dont need a back up to prove its the truth. By George if someone reported someone said something, you know THAT is the truth, over and above what a lot of us have said. You would accept a 3rd hand report of what someone said they think they heard over us?

 

If you were in the RC shoes, wouldnt you take this personal? Saying things that are libel that you cant prove. Then some of the attackers, like you, get mad if someone says something to them, say back "dont get personal". .... when you simply dont get that you are calling us liars, and accusing us of bias, and that we are accepting perks so we cant be trusted and worse .... and you dont feel this is personal against us? This is personal to hear that folks are saying these things about me and others.

 

Jaxon, I realize you arent the only closed mind and no one like you is ever willing to learn or accept you may be wrong about this. That we may only be what we say, a volunteer marketing focus group, not paid shillers.

 

Well, I have not attacked any RC on the issue of being an RC. I think disclosure is important, and I have commended those who have said something in their sig line, but as I and others have asserted, it needs to be where it is readily seen, not in a section many of us block for ease of reading and navigating these boards, and somewhere it needs to have been explained. As others have written, they saw it but had no idea what it meant. I am learning some things elsewhere that I find as disturbing as the other disappearing threads which kicked off my anger, initially, but that I can't verify -- like the disappearance of a thread awhile ago, where someone asked what a Champion is, allegedly.

 

(3) When there is a connection

between the endorser and the seller of

the advertised product that might

materially affect the weight or

 

credibility of the endorsement (

i.e., the

be fully disclosed. 16 C.F.R. § 255.5.

http://www.smartpdf.com/register/2008/nov/28/72374A.pdf

 

Interestingly, viral marketing -- or word of mouth marketing -- has recently become of interest to the federal government and law school journals.

 

Those who might want to educate themselves, may find this interesting:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/endorsementguides2/539124-00009.pdf

connection is not reasonably expected

by the audience), such connection must

[Merion_Mom]

Okay, sure, I'll happily score myself an internet point, and concede one to you. For the purposes of this thread, though, this is the definition I think fits best:

 

"placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric."

 

You've never read a review where the author did not go out of their way to compare their experience to another line, for example? On the flip side, I've read reviews from RCs that were so entirely sugar-coated that it was hard for me to take them at all seriously. The latter is clear bias, you just want to argue semantics.

 

Please provide a link to one.

[Davey Interweb]

Please provide a link to one.

 

That would kinda sorta be calling a forum member out, wouldn't it? No, I won't do that.

[Cruising89143]

Here is my concern, with your comment(s). You have made it sound like you are "buying" the Blogger's statement that the RCs were the cause of Brenda Moran being banned from Royal Caribbean cruises. Based on that belief, you are distancing yourself from the "Charter" RCs (which, BTW, we used that term long before the second group of RCs were chosen, so there was no offense to the second group intended).

 

I am here to tell you that there is not one iota of evidence to prove/show/indicate that ANY of the RCs had any influence in Royal Caribbean's actions toward Brenda. Personally, I met her only once, and my encounter was not at all unpleasant. I found many of her posts incomprehensible, but that was not the reason she was banned, as I understand it.

 

In my opinion, you are putting yourself in the same box with some of the RC naysayers, by believing what has been reported (incorrectly) by others. If you have evidence to the contrary, then do what you feel you need to do (by writing to MSNBC). However, without that evidence, why give credence to misinformation and, more importantly, why assume the worst of people you don't actually know? ~ L

 

Very well said Lorna.

[coxswain]

Interesting jaxon41 thanks.

 

 

More interesting if you goggle viral marketing !!

 

 

 

 

 

jj......

[bilyclub]

Please provide a link to one.

 

 

 

[coxswain]

Read this Jaxon41 http://www.techipedia.com/2009/brand-evangelists-royal-caribbean/

 

 

"The right kind of brand ambassador program does not necessarily demand forum participation thereafter, though they encourage it with a full disclosure of the participation."

 

 

 

 

jj......

[Micki Dee]

 

 

Good one!;)