Royal Champions

[Alexis]

I can vouch for myself..........I post on 5 other sites regulary...:)

 

anyway,back to topic!!:D Holler on.......:p

 

 

Oh boy! I only post on one for years. :D :D

[dolfinmusic]

Almost all of us CC's belonged/belong to other Cruise forums at one time or another.

Everyone checks out all the ones that come on line.

What is the big deal with that? :rolleyes:

 

Just trying to grasp for something......and IMO failing. Needs to post something besides "transparency" all the time. It was getting a little like the movie Groundhog Day around here :rolleyes:

 

P. S. I too belong to other travel sites :eek: :D

[critterchick]

Here I am again, like a moth drawn to the flame....:eek:

 

Does that go along with Transparency ?

Another hard hitting article http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/13/company-bribes-its-fans-to-secretly-flood-websites-with-praise/

jj......

 

Too bad it's not true. We were never "... sent them back off into the world with express instructions to say as many nice things as possible." Ever. Would the result of being wined, dined and dazzled make somebody more likely than not to go out and sing the praises of the company? Of course it would. Would it make them overlook glaring, or even minor, issues? Possibly. Did it have that effect on me? It appears not.

 

Look what I found - my review of the Liberty Pre-Inaugural!

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=557851&highlight=liberty

 

I'm sure it's almost RCI's dream review, except for the cabin service and dining room service. Not to mention the food. And the fact that I would only take the ship when there are a lot of sea days. And that I prefer the Radiance class...:rolleyes:

 

Hmm, maybe they gave us those instructions while I was looking for my spilled appetizer (you have to read the review to get it:eek:).

 

Anyway, here's what I said about the Royal Champions:

 

"The Royal Champions are a new category of something, basically those of us who are die-hard RCI fans and who publicly promote the line. At least, that’s what I think it is…"

 

So I guess I was supposed to be less critical. Shame on me...

[hazence]

Thank you for insisting this thread not be about individual posters, or their worthiness to be offering an opinion. It seems like a diversionary topic for those who do not want to discuss the comments by RCCL on their Royal Champion program.

 

Do you approve, disapprove...like the idea or not? Address the ones in charge....RCCL. Is it just more political NOT to do so? Why? This is a board for free opinions.

 

I would be interested in whether any of the Royal Champions have an opinion on what was said...specifically that they were chosen after a study that made certain conclusions, intended as a viral marketing group that would be "subtly" influenced to influence the rest of us, and that their posts are monitored for certain frequency and content.

 

It seems that there is little comment on RCCL's description of the program. I am curious why so few address the comments of RCCL, only the comments of other posters.

 

It is the comments of RCCL that are most important to the topic.

[Ladder55]

I have gone over most of these reports and unless I am missing something...most of these other stories have come about because of the ms potter story...and that came about because she was contacted by a CC member about the RCs.

 

What angers and actually hurts me so much about all of this is that that person hasnt the bottle(guts) to come forward and say just what it is about the RCs that got them so angry/upset/fueled up etc. Yet it is expected that the RCs explain their every action since becoming a RC. :confused:

 

Doesnt anyone else find it disturbing that a fellow CC'r could go to a journalist just because they are a tad upset about the RCs?

 

Who will they get angry at next I wonder?

 

NOpe, I do not find it disturbing at all, This should have been disclosed FULLY long ago.

 

what I do find disturbing however is the behavior of some of the representatives.

[suziehmkr]

for one will take what they say with a grain of salt knowing they wouldn't dare jeopardize their invite to the next inaugural.

 

Hmmmm, which do you think would get me booted from being an RC? The fact that I admitted that I filed with the Florida Attorney General about the fuel surcharge - or - writing a review that the food in the Windjammer was cold?

 

Couldn't the fact that I have sailed in the Carnival Pride 2 times (and liked it and stated as much on CC more than once) since being selected to be an RC get me booted faster than saying my waiter didn't smile or have my ice tea waiting for me when I sat down?

 

Where is that dead horse to beat? We have all stated that you could look at all of our posts and find where we have changed our posting habits from what they were prior to May 2007.

 

The fact that Royal Caribbean invited me on the Liberty Pre-Inaugural only influenced two things... my original belief that I wouldn't like a ship that large (I DO like a ship that big) and my husband's willingness to fly for vacation (he will fly wherever I ask him now.) Very smart of them to get us to try things out of our comfort zone, don't you think?

 

My posting habits haven't changed - they go the way of my vacation plans. You will probably see more posts from me on the Carnival boards & Ports of Call boards in the last couple of years than on the RCCL boards due to our travel plans at that time. And guess what? I wasn't bashing Carnival. If I was "paid" by RCCL to influence my positive posts about them, don't you think I would do whatever I could to bash other lines to make it worth my while? :rolleyes:

 

As I have said before - you don't have to read any of my posts. It wouldn't bother me at all. I do know that others DO appreciate the help I provide on these boards. I do it because I am a helpful person in all aspects of my life, not just CC. I believe that the RC's in general share the philosophy. :)

 

I find it very sad that you have to put all of this energy to something like this instead of doing something useful with it. I think the majority of the readers on CC have enough brains to read a handful of reviews and decide if the ship or cruise line is for them. Readers quickly learn who is really there to help and who is just there to cause trouble, whine & complain and run up their post count like it means something.

[Alexis]

Meant to post the link.

[Catnip]

 

I would be interested in whether any of the Royal Champions have an opinion on what was said...specifically that they were chosen after a study that made certain conclusions, intended as a viral marketing group that would be "subtly" influenced to influence the rest of us, and that their posts are monitored for certain frequency and content.

Good point. This is only my opinion, but from what I've seen here (& I admit I haven't had the patience to keep up with this entire thread), most of the RCers seem to be happy and content to have been chosen by RCCL to be in this exclusive group.

I really don't recall seeing any posts from any RCers that express dismay or displeasure at anything that RCCL has done. I guess it's just some of the other posters (non-RCers) that seem to have a concern about this whole topic.

Some of the non-RCers have voiced their opinion that maybe the RCers have been "taken advantage of" & might even be embarrassed at this whole media circus. Evidently they don't feel that way.

I guess this will blow over soon and back to business as usual.

[hazence]

There is a position here that might be middle ground: can we agree that no Royal Champ has in any way comprimised his integrity? After all, RCCL states each was chosen for behaviors that PRECEDED their selection.

 

Perhaps the other side can agree also that there are valid concerns other than "jealousy" that other posters might have in regard to the program.

 

I do not care for the INTENT of RCCL in establishing this program. To be clear, I am using RCCL's OWN words, not those of any other journalist or poster as my basis for understanding RCCL's intent.

 

Do most of the Royals approve of RCCL's stated intent? It is curious that they do not comment on this..which, in a way,I suppose is informational on its own.

[Catnip]

There is a position here that might be middle ground: can we agree that no Royal Champ has in any way comprimised his integrity?

 

Perhaps the other side can agree also that there are valid concerns other than "jealousy" that other posters might have in regard to the program.

 

 

I agree!

[suziehmkr]

Do most of the Royals approve of RCCL's stated intent? It is curious that they do not comment on this..which, in a way,I suppose is informational on its own.

 

I cannot speak for the others. I personally do not really care what their intent was unless they were trying to tell me what and how to post, which they have never done. I have enough integrity to turn that sort of situation away.

 

I work for a company that manufactures for other companies. ALL of my customers know that I will tell them exactly what I think of their product. They know they can trust me to tell them the good, the bad & the ugly and often use me a sounding board of new products & packaging ideas. Alot of my customers bring me t-shirts, give me free product, buy me expensive & inexpensive dinners, offer to show me the town when I am nearby, etc. Does that mean that I am going to always go out and tell everyone I know how wonderful their product is even if I think it is horrible? Not a chance, and they know it. I have often called them up and asked them what they were thinking. They value that.

 

I believe RCCL WANTS to hear what they aren't doing wrong as well as the good. It does them NO good for us to give false glowing reports. If you want to take the position that we are a focus group, then they want to hear what needs improvement.

 

So - NO - I personally do not have a problem with their intent.

[glgolfer]

here's a scenario I'm familiar with. multi million dollar project. general lies to congress about how well project is going. congress finds out, fires general.

 

my question is what feedback is being given as to the success/results of any program/project?

 

what metrics are being used to measure?

 

it's also possible a program starts out as one thing but morphs into something else eg a focus group

 

look at the noots thread and ask some basic questions.

 

if RCI wanted only cheerleaders as RC, there's a number of us that would no longer be RC. i know all of the original group thought it was a one time thing and continued to post both praise and criticism as we saw fit. if we didn't get fired during that period, why should we be worried about that now? knowing about this program now and thinking RCI thought they could "subtly influence" us might make us more critical of them now.

 

there's more than one way of looking at things and I've presented another here.

 

instead of just flailing away tilting at windmills, stop and think for yourselves.

 

we can get so wrapped in arguing/debating trying to win points for "our" side we forget there might not be any "sides" in this story except

for those that want to keep it going.

 

ponder on that for a while.

[critterchick]

There is a position here that might be middle ground: can we agree that no Royal Champ has in any way comprimised his integrity? After all, RCCL states each was chosen for behaviors that PRECEDED their selection.

 

Perhaps the other side can agree also that there are valid concerns other than "jealousy" that other posters might have in regard to the program.

 

I do not care for the INTENT of RCCL in establishing this program. To be clear, I am using RCCL's OWN words, not those of any other journalist or poster as my basis for understanding RCCL's intent.

 

Do most of the Royals approve of RCCL's stated intent? It is curious that they do not comment on this..which, in a way,I suppose is informational on its own.

 

I could go with that.

 

As for RCI's intent in establishing the program, it would appear that they failed miserably at achieving it with the group they chose. Do I "approve" of it? I guess I don't care one way or another - they wanted to find a way to get us to be shills, and it didn't happen. I don't feel manipulated, since it didn't work. If I really cared about it, I would be indignant, but I'm happy that I suck at being a lab rat.:)

[xpcdoojk]

There are other valid concerns. :rolleyes: OK, The other parties involved have denied in writing the statements that have been blogged. Therefore, the concerns as listed here still come down to someone is lying.

 

There are 3 parties. I believe the Royal Champions that they were not bought, and I believe a lot of members were jealous of their invitation to some events. Every human on the planet wants to be invited. That doesn't mean that they want to attend, but everyone wants that invitation. That is human nature.

 

I believe the involvement in this Royal Champion incident on the part of Cruise Critic was handled responsibly. They did not divulge private information without contacting the individuals involved. They did exactly what any other respectible website would hopefully do in a similar situation.

 

Royal Caribbean has a lot of marketing programs, and this is the crux where the logic of those attacking this program completely breaks down and falls apart.

 

For the 100th time it is an anonymous forum. If RCI wanted to falsely promote their business then they could just post glowing reviews, under a never ending series of posters. If RCI and CC were in collusion they could have generated these posts by seemingly veteran posters with 1000s of posts to their credit.

 

Everybody keeps talking about that this is some new nefarious program, and yet not one of these people can do anything logically beyond cutting some comment, possibly out of context, into this thread as their arguement. Travel agents have received from all cruiselines free cruises far more often and better than the Royal Champions, and these people recommend products to actual consumers. Nobody seems to have a problem with this.

 

Members of the Crown and Anchor Society receive benefits from RCI everytime that they take a cruise. I get it in the form of a discount of significant money on a balcony cabin. IE they basically on my last cruise upgraded me from an inside to a balcony for about $50pp. That is a pretty sweet deal. They ply me with booze an extra night while on the cruise, they give me coupons, and for my Diamond and Diamond plus friends they give them access equal to someone in a suite to the concierge lounge or similar overflow lounge where they again ply them with free booze.

 

Stockholders get multiple benefits. Everyone that owns stock get a onboard credit for their cruise, and if more people cruise their cruiseline then logically the stockholder will make profit from this in the dividend or the share price of the stock

 

None of these things seem to upset people as much as RCI identifying people who posted passionately about cruising and RCI and giving them a worthless title, Royal Champion, and some junk. Possibly a 2 night cruise that they were already giving away in far greater numbers to the Diamonds and travel agents (who also post here and other places in viral fashion on the internet).

 

Therefore, people can say that there are other reasons to be upset. Since the more egregious examples of payola don't seem to bother those that are upset. I am logically forced to assume that actually, it is just jealousy and that jealousy is becoming hatred. I, also, think there is a large contingent of people that have bought into a line of thinking that says all business are evil trying to take advantage of their customers. These people are just the little fish that eat the remains of the shark attack victim.

 

I think it has been well-established by many (including myself) that in an anonymous forum you should take everything you read with a large grain of salt. Everyone has bias, and you don't know what it is.

 

Further the frustration of the repeated phrase of transparency seems quite odd, when those complaining don't include travel agents, stockholders and crown and anchor members in this desire to label people. Even if we forget the obvious anonymity problem.

 

jc<---- challenges people to think about this post:)

[hazence]

'my question is what feedback is being given as to the success/results of any program/project?"

 

I believe the RCCL marketing executive said they were very pleased wiith the results...as indicated by the monitoring of posts.

 

 

"it's also possible a program starts out as one thing but morphs into something else eg a focus group"

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the article quoting RCCL is fairly recent. That would seem to indicate the program and intent are the same.

 

Has RCCL made any further comment at all?

[glgolfer]

'my question is what feedback is being given as to the success/results of any program/project?"

 

I believe the RCCL marketing executive said they were very pleased wiith the results...as indicated by the monitoring of posts.

 

who's monitoring the posts and giving the feedback? i belive the point of my remarks might have been missed.

 

 

"it's also possible a program starts out as one thing but morphs into something else eg a focus group"

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the article quoting RCCL is fairly recent. That would seem to indicate the program and intent are the same.

 

Has RCCL made any further comment at all?

 

Bill Hayden stated the RCs were used as a focus group not long ago.

[jaxon41]

Thanks for reposting that link..........it got me doing some research of my own......found some pretty interesting facts,if you ask me.....

 

The writer of that article is Jason.......almost the same as yours!!

 

The writer is 41(same number you use in your screen name)

 

The writer has done many expose articles(to achieve the same kind of results you are aiming for)

 

And the writer has quite a few stories about Illinois!!!

 

Now,I'm not saying anything,but what a coincidence, don't you think??

 

Really? Is the guy from Illinois or does he just have stories? What kind of stories? If you keep going in your research you will find a post from me to another -- couple of years back, maybe -- saying why I chose the screen name. I think on the mega fuel charge thread -- oh, so sorry, that was deleted -- you'll find a lighter exchange about gender. And there would be today's post, which identified my age range -- hint I am not in my 40's, but wish I still were.

[hazence]

You say..."Therefore, people can say that there are other reasons to be upset. Since the more egregious examples of payola don't seem to bother those that are upset."

 

'EGREGIOUS PAYOLA????" Has RCCL been providing "egregious payola?" I certainly have never said that. Has that been stated elsewhere on these threads?

 

You say "I am logically forced to assume that actually, it is just jealousy and that jealousy is becoming hatred."

 

How do you assume "logically" there is "hatred" in discussing the merits or lack thereof a marketing program? As you say, this is the internet. We are freely discussing our opinions in an opinion forum. Isn't that where one might logically assume to encounter opinions? Whyever would you assume hatred? Are you stating that every individual with an opinion contrary to yours is only posting out of jealousy? Every single one? Not one person might have a concern rather than "hatred" arising out of coveting the Royal Champion title? Really?

 

You say..."I, also, think there is a large contingent of people that have bought into a line of thinking that says all business are evil trying to take advantage of their customers. These people are just the little fish that eat the remains of the shark attack victim. "

 

I am neither a "shark attack victim" nor a "little fish." My spouse and I are both respectively "in business." and do not think of ourselves as evil.

[jaxon41]

Funny i was doing some detectived work too - i googled someones name and i was shocked to find the number other travel forums this name popped in !!

jj......

 

This is getting creepy! I did the same.

[Alexis]

There were people quoted and their names used who never gave their permission in some articles.

I personally would never want to see any of us quoted or written about without our knowledge or permission.

My postings on here had better not be quoted.

Mine is now in writing. ;)

Alexis

 

I hope this is allowed to stay. It is out of control.

[Catnip]

I believe the Royal Champions that they were not bought, and I believe a lot of members were jealous of their invitation to some events. Every human on the planet wants to be invited. That doesn't mean that they want to attend, but everyone wants that invitation. That is human nature.

 

 

I am logically forced to assume that actually, it is just jealousy and that jealousy is becoming hatred.

 

Here we go again. :rolleyes: Why is it so darn hard for you ( & some others) to beleive that some of us are NOT jealous? :cool:

Your above statement that I highlighted is most incorrect. I can state with 100% certainty that I have absolutely NO desire to get "that invitation". You can believe me, or not, your choice. But you've known me long enough, jc, to know that I wouldn't lie about this. Why would I?

 

You already admitted that you were jealous and wished that you had been invited. Some others have admitted that also. That may be the feelings of some of you, but not all of us are jealous.

Why would I be jealous? To be invited on a free 2-day cruise? :confused: A 2-day cruise is more hassle that fun and I already know I am not planning to sail on the big behemouth of the seas, anyway.

 

So, here it is again in plain English........not all of us are jealous and not all of us "hate RCCL", as I think you said earlier. Some of us are disappointed in their marketing ploy, but I don't "hate" them........I leave on Jewel of the Seas next week. ;)

[crusinmama06]

Does that go along with Transparency ?

 

 

Another hard hitting article http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/03/13/company-bribes-its-fans-to-secretly-flood-websites-with-praise/

 

jj......

 

Hard hitting article? Surely you jest.

 

Thanks for my laugh of the day! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I think I am going to go watch some hard hitting news. Wonder if Hard Copy is on? Maybe Entertainment Tonight?

[jaxon41]

 

Further the frustration of the repeated phrase of transparency seems quite odd, when those complaining don't include travel agents, stockholders and crown and anchor members in this desire to label people.

 

jc<---- challenges people to think about this post:)

 

On edit, I think I orginally misread this part. I already explained the differences betwen the various entities, but you have to scroll back quite a ways.

[jaxon41]

Hard hitting article? Surely you jest.

 

Thanks for my laugh of the day! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I think I am going to go watch some hard hitting news. Wonder if Hard Copy is on? Maybe Entertainment Tonight?

 

Just my opinion, but nothing hits harder than a pretty blatant inaccuracy, as I first pointed out in my reply the first time the article was linked, the substance of which took a couple of pages for someone to print, here. The piece was charitable to cruise critic, however (that parenthetical mention gives insight into Jason's bias, don't you think?). It is a little bit like playing the old game of telephone, the more stories are circulated, the less accurate they tend to become, thus my statement of the time about the nature of a virus -- no antibiotic will touch it, and you better hope it runs its course before it kills you.

[Arizona Laura]

I'd like to thank Cecilia for attempting to calm down the Royal Caribbean forum. Now, since I was aware of this program from the very beginning and somewhat involved, I will happy to share what I know to be the facts:

 

1. I was contacted by Royal Caribbean in early 2007 and was asked to send them emails of certain members who they were interested in contacting. Of course, since I will NOT share your email addresses, they had no choice but to ask me to contact these members with the information about this program. was told that Buzz Metrics, a subsidiary of Neilsen Ratings System, had earmarked about 50 people on the internet whose existing participating had been positive and enthusiastic about their cruises on Royal Caribbean. Of the 50, 40 were Cruise Critic members which makes sense since our community is so large.

 

2. I have to tell you I was VERY surprised at some of the posters on the listing; most of them were known to me. Some had many posts, some did not. But, most importantly I thought that the majority of them were NOT what I would call cheerleaders. As a matter of fact, I've found most of their posts before, and still, to be very HONEST, and sometimes downright critical, of the cruise line. This is only my opinion.

 

3. Most of those on the listing heard nothing for months. Finally, an invitation was sent to with an invitation to ONE of two pre-inaugural sailings on Liberty of the Seas. You had a choice of either Miami or New York and you had to pay your own way to get there. It is important to keep in mind that on these sailings were many travel agents, vendor firms and of course the media. The cruise line hosted all of these groups, including the 30 or so who could make it.

 

4. Cruise lines hosting various groups on board pre-inaugural sailings is pretty standard nowadays. They do this in the hopes that they will enjoy themselves and return and convince their friends, family and clients to sail with them.

 

5. I was on board the Liberty of the Seas pre-inaugural in NYC. I was very happy to meet those Cruise Critic members who were on board, as well as posters from other websites and bloggers and website creators. It was on board that the name "Royal Champions" was announced to all. I won't say we didn't have a wonderflul time; obviously the ship was gorgeous -- we did enjoy the 2 day sailing. There were many seminars and meetings on board to attend if so inclined; this is standard on any pre-iinaugural.

 

6. Many months went by. No communication to any of the Royal Champions came from RCI. All was quiet until RCI invited those in the NY area to attend an event where they would announce some of the neighborhoods on Oasis of the Seas. Not many of the RC's went, about 10 I'd say; I did attend as did our Managing Editor -- we brought 'Bennie the Bear' with us. I cannot remember the exact date but it was held at the Nokia theatre.

 

7. After the Nokia event -- nothing. No communications, no invites, no promises of anything at all. As a matter of fact, many would write to me and ask "is the program still running?". We really had no info to share.

 

8. About three months ago RCI asked for us to contact an additional group of members. No one heard anything for months until they were asked to verify their contact info. Then, again, nothing.

 

That's the entire story as I know it.

 

So, you may ask: why should or shouldn't you put any validity in what a Royal Champion has to say? The truth of the matter is -- only you can decide. Without determining how positive or negative a poster is, you certainly have to admit they are full of information about the cruise line, can offer up facts like nobody's business, share bits of minutia that some would say borders on the insane, post live from their vacations, and spend a great deal of time doing all the above. The choice is yours.

 

Some may also ask: why does Cruise Critic allow this? Essentially, you are all anonymous to us. The phenomena behind social media and user generated reviews is fascinating to us. There are many reasons why people come to a community like ours -- more often than not you are here because you like to cruise. The majority of different "groups" here identify themselves - such as Travel Agents, business owners and yes, even Royal Champions. We can certainly make it a "guideline" to identify yourself if that appeases those of you that are critical of brand influeners; but that would be extremely difficult to enforce across all the different types of groups.

 

My final note to you all: keep this discussion civil. Do not direct your posts toward any individual member. Do not direct your postings toward them as a group either. Instead, stick to the issue of the marketing focus behind this group and others like it. Know that they aren't being paid to post, but have been invited to an event or two to share their opinions about what they have seen. You are all free to "call it what you wish", those who look at it negatively will probably not change their opinion due to my post. I only wanted to set the record straight from our perspective.

 

Laura

 

 

I am going back to the point again concerning Cruise Critic's role in contacting certain designated posters for Buzz Metrics on behalf of Royal Caribbean who had been earmarked for being RCCL enthusiasts. CC had to be aware that these RCs were going to be used for marketing purposes or rewarded in some way for their positive RCCL posts per the above statement in #1.

 

Then we are informed in #2 that some of the selections were surprising to CC because some postings were actually critical in nature.

 

I am puzzled why CC would outline in statements 3-6-7-8 what transpired between RCCL and Royal Champions and the timeline unless they were actively involved beyond initially contacting CC members. Why do they make the statements as if it was first hand personal RC knowledge? If it wasn't did they go through the tedious task of validating the information in the above statements as told to them before providing it to us as factual? I question CC's level of involvement in the RC program more than anything else. Is there any conflict of interest here? And per statement # 8 it appears this process is ongoing.

 

I would be well aware as an RC and posting as one up front that no matter if I received any perks or not I could draw suspicion to the validity or purpose of any of my posts. Whether warranted or not it is going to occur.

However, you have no guarantee on boards like these that any post is truthful, unbiased, or know whether the poster is accepting any rewards or perks. Now I certainly would have a problem if any employee involved with CC was a RC themselves.

I would judge a RC's expressed opinion like any other poster. I would take into consideration the poster, if I had gained respect for them over time... might hold more weight, and what info or opinion was posted. It really would not matter anyhow because I would not make any financial or life-changing decision exclusively by anyone's expressed opinion on CC.

As far as criticizing RCs lighten up. Look at the poster themselves.

IMHO CC.. your participation in this practice, even if just notifying your members about this program, just does not look professional and should be questioned.

Laura