Royal Champions

[cruisinMike]

Unfortunately jc, your shrillness on your side of the fence is about as bad as the person I addressed on the other side. It's no wonder folks can never find middle ground with the ranting and finger pointing going on.

 

I purposely didn't put your post in quotes because there is just too much to disagree with. I suppose that makes me jealous also.

 

It's unfortunate that the issue has been so easily but wrongly divided into the elements of either jealous on one side of the fence or you can't trust an RC person on the other side of the fence. It's called issue avoidance.

 

This very simple mind will tell you what the marketing manager said concerning the RC folks was absolutely ridiculous. Of course it happens but you don't publicize it as if the RC folks are a lame bunch of sheep that can be influenced by a few drinks or title. The one thing that does amaze me is not one RC (at least as I can recall) has taken, or said they took the RC marketing manager to task for those ridiculous remarks.

 

As far as CC I have previously stated my opinion.

[5waldos]

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.

 

Uh- I believe that since you are posting on a public forum that you can be quoted without permission quite legally. Reporters aren't required to get permission for these things. Isn't this the purpose of a free press? If they had to get permission, investigative reporting as we know it would end.

[Davey Interweb]

Uh- I believe that since you are posting on a public forum that you can be quoted without permission quite legally. Reporters aren't required to get permission for these things. Isn't this the purpose of a free press? If they had to get permission, investigative reporting as we know it would end.

 

I'm also on this "they don't need your permission" bandwagon.

[Alexis]

Uh- I believe that since you are posting on a public forum that you can be quoted without permission quite legally. Reporters aren't required to get permission for these things. Isn't this the purpose of a free press? If they had to get permission, investigative reporting as we know it would end.

 

 

"All of the information contained within Cruise Critic is protected by copyright.

You may, however, download a single copy only for your personal use".

 

Now if that is not what it means, I am sure I will find out. ;) OK, I said I would find out!!

If the investigative reporting told the truth, there would be no blown out of proportion article to begin with. :D

If the CC who called the investigative reporter had the nerve to come forward, we would all be able to question them as we are being questioned.

Doesn't anyone want to know who that is and what their motive is?

Lot's of money maybe?

[Alexis]

I'm also on this "they don't need your permission" bandwagon.

 

Fits perfectly!

[Cruising89143]

 

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

 

Anyone that posts on this board or any board for that matter is anonymous. A poster could be anyone from the Pope, cruise line employee, supplier, cruise line competitor down to a mass murderer. How are we to know? When all is said and done, all of what we read here are opinions. Nothing more or less. Hopefully most people will be able to make an educated decision on what they feel is legit and not. Personally if someone wants to look at my posts different because I'm a Royal Champion then so be it. It's not going to bother me one way or the other and It's not going to change the way that I post.

 

I found out very recently that one of the posters on this very board is a travel agent and to my knowledge has never revealed that fact on this board? He has even posted on this thread. Should I now look at his posts in a different way since I now know that he makes his living selling cruises? Let's face it, some cruise lines pay higher commissions than others and it would be very easy for a TA to try and push one line over the other. Where do you draw the line?

[bigboffs]

RCCL has a problem. There is an addage that while truth exists, perception is reality and it very often overpowers truth.

 

The plain fact is that the perception regarding so called Royal Champions is not good to many people who have been frequent RCCL cruisers. When this is added to recent cost cutting measures ( including changing the savings booklets and a loss of combinabitity), the credibility of RCCL has been seriously impaired. In this economy, RCCL is chasing people to their competitors who have not taken such actions.

 

We hope RCCL wakes up!! Loyalty is a two way street.

[glgolfer]

.

 

This very simple mind will tell you what the marketing manager said concerning the RC folks was absolutely ridiculous. Of course it happens but you don't publicize it as if the RC folks are a lame bunch of sheep that can be influenced by a few drinks or title. The one thing that does amaze me is not one RC (at least as I can recall) has taken, or said they took the RC marketing manager to task for those ridiculous remarks.

 

As far as CC I have previously stated my opinion.

 

why is it my place, or any other rc's, place to comment on "those ridiculous remarks". you don't want us to comment on the many "ridiculous remarks" throughout this thread. assuming the individual in question did mispeak, the problem will be handled internally.

 

curious if you saw my post a few back. feel free to make any comments and i'll respond.

 

 

 

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.

[hazence]

"If the investigative reporting told the truth, there would be no blown out of proportion article to begin with. :D"

 

Is it your opinion that the comments made by RCCL in the marketing article would not have stirred some controversy all on their own? Surely RCCL told the truth about their own strategy. The controversy began ...with quotes from the horse's mouth. The investigative reporter might have just linked to that article and said nothing else. We all reference "human nature." It is human nature for some of us to dislike reading quotes about how one is being manipulated...subtly or second-hand or otherwise.

 

Of course, the investigative article put the RCCL quotes into a broader circulation. Should it have remained under wraps? Why? If it is ethical and standard practice...then let the "subtly influenced" and the blind followers be aware of the benign intent.

 

As we certainly are now.

 

Even when one gives genuinely and sincerely ...be it praise or a reccomendation...it is off-putting to read elsewhere where the recipient is describing his success at flattering you or "influencing." you to do just that.

 

The comments by marketing make it seem folks were duped..some happily it seems...but duped by a "plan" only RCCL knew. In a way...RCCL seems to take credit for those great Royal Champion reviews...by crowing that their strategy WORKED! They are monitoring it and it works! What is RCCL saying here? That the "title" produces a desired result? What is working? What would be different WITHOUT this Royal Champion program.

 

 

That's the context that caused concern in my opinion.

[aqhacruiser]

"All of the information contained within Cruise Critic is protected by copyright.

You may, however, download a single copy only for your personal use".

 

Now if that is not what it means, I am sure I will find out. ;) OK, I said I would find out!!

If the investigative reporting told the truth, there would be no blown out of proportion article to begin with. :D

If the CC who called the investigative reporter had the nerve to come forward, we would all be able to question them as we are being questioned.

Doesn't anyone want to know who that is and what their motive is?

Lot's of money maybe?

 

Alexis, I agree if the reporters had checked facts we wouldn't see all the anger here.

Just so you know because many do not, if you put your CC name and cruise critic in search on the internet some of your posts will pop up so I'm not so sure how protected we are on here. I just pulled up 3 of the threads you posted on CC by just putting your name and CC in search on Yahoo. Some people that have unusual CC names such as mine just need to but their CC name in without adding CC and various posts will come up.

I have wondered about motive of the CC member/s who contacted the media. The first group of RC's made no secret of how they were selected and explained it on CC in 2007 in public as someone posted earlier. I found the threads they were speaking of by just putting Royal Champions in CC search. So why all the fuss now over it? Seems they were transparent at the beginning stating how they were selected and what they were doing as RC's. Since I was selected in Sept. 08 my sig has the RC in it the same as many other RC's so the reporters made it sound like we were hiding the fact we are RC.'s. The articles were completely misleading and definitely angered other CC members as well as the RC's.

[cruisinMike]

why is it my place, or any other rc's, place to comment on "those ridiculous remarks". you don't want us to comment on the many "ridiculous remarks" throughout this thread. assuming the individual in question did mispeak, the problem will be handled internally......................

 

I never said it was your place. I believe I said I was amazed not one RC had. The folks have been quite vocal on most everything else, whether it was really relevant or not. I stand by what I said, I, as an individual, was amazed not one RC (at least as I can recall) has taken, or said they took the RC marketing manager to task for those ridiculous remarks.

 

I would be, sure as heck, very clear with any individual that I wasn't their sheep and to state such a ridiculous comment that could be misconstrued in the way it has, would cause them more grief then it would be causing me.

 

Only you need to assess why you take it so personal and individually.

[Davey Interweb]

"All of the information contained within Cruise Critic is protected by copyright.

You may, however, download a single copy only for your personal use".

 

Now if that is not what it means, I am sure I will find out. ;) OK, I said I would find out!!

If the investigative reporting told the truth, there would be no blown out of proportion article to begin with. :D

If the CC who called the investigative reporter had the nerve to come forward, we would all be able to question them as we are being questioned.

Doesn't anyone want to know who that is and what their motive is?

Lot's of money maybe?

 

Yes, I had a feeling you'd scroll down to the footer and point that out. From a legal perspective this blurb means little, as administrators/owners have neither rights nor control over the content posted by individuals using their forums.

 

Copyrighted material is used here - without permission - by forum members on a daily basis. They let this fly because they're nicely protected under the fair use doctrine.

[aqhacruiser]

Here's one of the threads in 1/2008 where RC is discussed and how they were selected over a year ago. Why didn't the media know about this? I guess just too busy accusing RC's of hiding identity amd how they were selected. :mad:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=683071&highlight=royal+champions

[cruisinMike]

Here's one of the threads in 1/2008 where RC is discussed and how they were selected over a year ago. Why didn't the media know about this? I guess just too busy accusing RC's of hiding identity amd how they were selected. :mad:

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=683071&highlight=royal+champions

 

Actually this isn't hard to figure out. I don't think the marketing manager had bragged yet about influencing the influencers publicly.

[Alexis]

]"If the investigative reporting told the truth' date=' there would be no blown out of proportion article to begin with. :D"[/b']

 

Is it your opinion that the comments made by RCCL in the marketing article would not have stirred some controversy all on their own? Surely RCCL told the truth about their own strategy. The controversy began ...with quotes from the horse's mouth. The investigative reporter might have just linked to that article and said nothing else. We all reference "human nature." It is human nature for some of us to dislike reading quotes about how one is being manipulated...subtly or second-hand or otherwise.

 

Of course, the investigative article put the RCCL quotes into a broader circulation. Should it have remained under wraps? Why? If it is ethical and standard practice...then let the "subtly influenced" and the blind followers be aware of the benign intent.

 

As we certainly are now.

 

Even when one gives genuinely and sincerely ...be it praise or a reccomendation...it is off-putting to read elsewhere where the recipient is describing his success at flattering you or "influencing." you to do just that.

 

The comments by marketing make it seem folks were duped..some happily it seems...but duped by a "plan" only RCCL knew. In a way...RCCL seems to take credit for those great Royal Champion reviews...by crowing that their strategy WORKED! They are monitoring it and it works! What is RCCL saying here? That the "title" produces a desired result? What is working? What would be different WITHOUT this Royal Champion program.

 

 

That's the context that caused concern in my opinion.

 

I was referring to the Cruise Critic who called the investigative reporter because they do not like the Royal Champions.

The reporter took the word of that Critic Critic person and went with the story. And blew it out of proportion.

And that CC person does not have the courage to come forward and admit to us who they are.

 

As for what RCCL was quoted as saying? That is not for me to comment on. That is for their own RCCL offices to comment on. I have no idea if what was written is what was said or not? How can I possibly comment on that?

 

I have never seen so many hurtful names given us in the past days from people I thought were all friends on here.

 

We have done nothing wrong on here. Yes, I believe all this is blown totally out of proportion.

[hazence]

"Why didn't the media know about this? I guess just too busy accusing RC's of hiding identity amd how they were selected. :mad:"

 

Cruisin' Mike, I agree with you. I think it is easier for some to be upset with the media, or other posters than with the words of the cruiseline itself.

 

Very few want to address the words of the Marketing Dept. Maybe because it is hard to say RCCL doesn't know it's own intent and strategy. How do you debate THEM?

 

It's easier to say the media or jealous posters began this. But the Big Oasis in the living room...the words of RCCL in a marketing publication...nope, ...most will not go there!

[Alexis]

:rolleyes:

Alexis, I agree if the reporters had checked facts we wouldn't see all the anger here.

Just so you know because many do not, if you put your CC name and cruise critic in search on the internet some of your posts will pop up so I'm not so sure how protected we are on here. I just pulled up 3 of the threads you posted on CC by just putting your name and CC in search on Yahoo. Some people that have unusual CC names such as mine just need to but their CC name in without adding CC and various posts will come up.

 

I have wondered about motive of the CC member/s who contacted the media. The first group of RC's made no secret of how they were selected and explained it on CC in 2007 in public as someone posted earlier. I found the threads they were speaking of by just putting Royal Champions in CC search. So why all the fuss now over it? Seems they were transparent at the beginning stating how they were selected and what they were doing as RC's. Since I was selected in Sept. 08 my sig has the RC in it the same as many other RC's so the reporters made it sound like we were hiding the fact we are RC.'s. The articles were completely misleading and definitely angered other CC members as well as the RC's.

 

Yes, I have done that too. ;)

Isn't CC pages in the article also, so that people know it is CC?

I am not in a reporters article? Am I correct?

 

When we made it in 2008, we had a thread on CC. We told how we were selected by an email. They asked us how do you get to be one? We said we had no idea? That was the truth. None of us knew.

There were some who were, shall we say, not happy to have been passed over, and I can understand that. There were lot's of CC's who should be a RC. But that is not our job to say who gets picked.

They were happy for us and we were sad for them. But there was never anything like this. That thread went on for a while and everyone knew what it meant because of the first group to be an RC.

We all put our RC's in the signatures.

And now it is like no one knew about this according to them? That is what really hurts.

To read people say they never saw it or heard of it until now.

[cruisinMike]

.....................As for what RCCL was quoted as saying? That is not for me to comment on. That is for their own RCCL offices to comment on. I have no idea if what was written is what was said or not? How can I possibly comment on that?

 

I guess the only comment I could make is that if the quoted comments were not attributed to anyone at RCI, or accurate, or taken out of context, then I have to say that as a group, the RCI team are not the sharpest pencils in the drawer. If that comment did not come from RCI or is out of context, or whatever, the first thing in damage control is to refute the statement in the article.

[Ephraim]

I thought some here would appreciate the serendipity of my seeing this article on my home page, and see its relevance -- haze, 5waldos, coxswain, colleen, ephraim -- some others who don't come readily to mind.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188953?GT1=43002

 

I especially liked the part about the influence of a "home" team on the ethical fiber of others, for good or ill.

 

My only comment is that unfortunately many things are viral, like gossip. That's why we are supposed to know right from wrong and walk away when we can clearly see that some people are ganging up on others at a personal level.

 

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

 

He claimed that it was also scientific, which is when I asked how scientific it can be to pick a group based on their homogeneity and then call them a focus group. That exactly the opposite of what you want in a focus group. Which is exactly how many of these cruise companies got into the problem of trying to sell their product on the world market when the product aims too much at one particular cultural group. You would want your focus group to be as diverse as possible. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this comment. It makes no sense whatsoever. (I've been in focus groups.)

[The Grumpus]

Here's one of the threads in 1/2008 where RC is discussed and how they were selected over a year ago. Why didn't the media know about this? I guess just too busy accusing RC's of hiding identity amd how they were selected. :mad:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=683071&highlight=royal+champions

You are right, there really is no difference in what was happening then as is happening now. I think what is partly to blame is a reporter type person trying to make a name for her or himself (whatever, not sure) has some fascination to the cruise industry. He or she found this story probably surfing here on CC and decided to write about it. Then once the story was out in the open, it was posted here on CC. A major catalyst to this sticky was that all the threads about this subject kept getting "the thing we are not allowed to talk about" (you know, the D word). So for that reason IMO is the only real difference from 2007 to now. Had the first thread been allowed to run it's course and discussion allowed, I am quite certain this sticky would not be here. But then hind site is 20/20 isn't it.;)

[Ephraim]

...We have done nothing wrong on here. Yes, I believe all this is blown totally out of proportion.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I assume you only speak for yourself, not for the 50 to 75 people. Right?

 

Second of all, you clearly have your participation in your signature. At least two people claiming that they are RCs in this thread don't. I think some people are more upset with those who aren't disclosing in any way and with the fact that CC participating in this and didn't require disclosure.

 

Please don't take ANY of this personally. I don't think people mean this personally at all. I certainly do not.

 

My question is simple... Is it more valorous for people to simply disclose and let others draw their personal conclusions based on that disclosure without putting any weight to it, whatsoever? It certainly would end this merry-go-round of a subject. If all were to publicly disclose, the witch would be dead and Dorthy could just go back to Kansas.

[hazence]

Rachel Hannock, Manager Loyalty Marketing and Royal Caribbean Cruises shared there story at a recent loyalty marketing conference. Hannock noted, “The key to success in viral marketing is to subtly influence the influencers without them overtly realizing they are being influenced.”

 

http://www.customerinsightgroup.com/loyaltyblog/?p=46%E2%80%9D

 

Hannock shared this "story" at a Marketing conference. That would be a public forum. Do you think her description of the program is a total fabrication? That she is some rogue RCCL marketing agent telling false information at conferences of her peers? Surely at a conference , there would be witnesses? But somehow, one cannot "know" if this incident is the truth. Please note the quotes..usually that means it represents exactly what the preceding individual said.

 

This was discovered by the media. Was there help from a disgruntled Non-Champ? If so, that STILL does not change RCCL's description of THEIR program by THEIR employee at that conference.

 

This is what is so frustrating to me about this kind of "loyalty!" It is not helpful to underrscoring your position that the Royal Champions are independent thinkers. Some of the comments refusing to understand any position not totally supportive of the Royal Champion program or trying to call concerns "jealousy" or the poster "too new" or dismissed as probably some previous "banned" individual are bizarre in the extreme.

 

 

Says RCCL.." Posts from Royal Champions are carefully monitored during events and on a regular basis to ensure that posts remain positive and frequent."

 

Well, they should be well pleased with this thread.

 

I

[Arizona Laura]

Anyone that posts on this board or any board for that matter is anonymous. A poster could be anyone from the Pope, cruise line employee, supplier, cruise line competitor down to a mass murderer. How are we to know? When all is said and done, all of what we read here are opinions. Nothing more or less. Hopefully most people will be able to make an educated decision on what they feel is legit and not. Personally if someone wants to look at my posts different because I'm a Royal Champion then so be it. It's not going to bother me one way or the other and It's not going to change the way that I post.

 

I found out very recently that one of the posters on this very board is a travel agent and to my knowledge has never revealed that fact on this board? He has even posted on this thread. Should I now look at his posts in a different way since I now know that he makes his living selling cruises? Let's face it, some cruise lines pay higher commissions than others and it would be very easy for a TA to try and push one line over the other. Where do you draw the line?

 

Exactly... for me someone being an RC or travel agent.. it means nothing to me. It is the posts and what you interpret that poster to be like. I found myself being pulled in by a TA a while back when new on CC however there have been TAs that I really liked so again you have to use your gut feeling.

You are right in just being yourself and people take it or leave it.

Laura

[Alexis]

I guess the only comment I could make is that if the quoted comments were not attributed to anyone at RCI, or accurate, or taken out of context, then I have to say that as a group, the RCI team are not the sharpest pencils in the drawer. If that comment did not come from RCI or is out of context, or whatever, the first thing in damage control is to refute the statement in the article.

 

 

To be honest I don't have a clue what has been done by anyone?

I stopped reading every single one of the articles that everyone keeps pushing at us on here.

 

Oh, I did not say that RCCL did not say anything.

I said:

 

As for what RCCL was quoted as saying? That is not for me to comment on. That is for their own RCCL offices to comment on. I have no idea if what was written is what was said or not? How can I possibly comment on that?

 

But,

I do seem to remember reading on this thread that another RC said that the original article wording was not correct. :confused:

[Elizanessie]

It shows how great the reporter is when they cant even spell the name of the person they are talking about ..the name is Hancock not Hannock.