Royal Champions

[rubrrick]

I've never had it in mine. Never saw the point. Still don't.

 

 

Oops.......forgot to mention RC......critterchick!!:D:D

 

Rick

[jaxon41]

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.

 

No, Potter absolutely DID NOT take the word of that CC'er and run with it. Go back and reread the article! She didn't even do a story until months later and then only after there was a post here on the Insight blog/Hannock comments. Maybe she would have done a story in the summer of 2008, but RCCL refused to comment when she contacted them.

 

Geesh, I am getting irritated. I am tired of the falsehoods here -- no one has ever on this thread, that I can recall and you can copy a post if I am wrong, "yelled" at you or anyone else for your sig lines slowing down their computers, and I will be whipped if I can find on THIS thread where anyone has said anything "hateful" about an RC because they are an RC, from any objective point of view. You personalize nearly everything, as evident in your bold statement that the cruise critic person didn't LIKE the RC's. Maybe that person was like many of us here -- maybe that person thinks that viral marketing without following the ethical guidelines is WRONG! I have said it before, Alexis, it is not about you.

 

Some have even been so lucid as to point out that maybe their hurt feelings were carrying over from some now deleted threads. Carry over we understand, but there is something wrong in the continuation of a FALSE victim game on THIS thread.

 

I understand your hurt -- I just posted about it to crusinMike, as a matter of fact, but you need to stop projecting that out, and recognize it for what it is -- something that you brought upon yourself, however innocent you were in the matter, however deceived you were, however lied to or misled you were, you can't blame others for saying they will take your opinions with a grain of salt. You are allowed to be hurt; you can't help how you feel, but do not blame THEM for how YOU feel.

 

Whatever decison you make about this matter, or have made from the start of its exposure for what it is, you alone must own -- you are no longer innocent in it -- you know the game that you have entered into, viral marketing.

 

I don't know, but I might be old enough to be your mother or your grandmother, and while I am irritated, I still mean this post in a motherly, not an angry or hateful way, and I capitalized to emphasize my words, not to yell at you.

 

Finally, Heyden did not refute the words of Hannock in that piece; he said they were "unfortunate." And for the company and you and cruise critic and other travel blogs now painted with the same brush, they certainly were.

[Alexis]

I am one who does not put "Royal Champion" in my signature. Honestly I've always thought it was a silly thing to brag about. I don't know why that's important to you. If you read my posts I don't see how you would conclude that I'm a duped, manipulated shill, whether or not that's in my signature.

 

I much prefer to list my numerous cruises on RCI. Not to make anybody jealous (much), but to establish that I just might have a clue what I'm talking about. And it's as good a place as any to keep track of them.

 

 

 

I've never had it in mine. Never saw the point. Still don't.

 

I keep coming back. :D

Trust me, I know that. I was talking of someone else. ;)

And don't get me wrong. Who has them and who doesn't does not matter to me at all. There are lots of RC's who do and don't.

I meant those who have removed them since this because of all this anger toward us. And I can not blame them at all. :(

I am just too stubborn to do that now. :rolleyes:

[jaxon41]

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.

 

Not according to Paul -- argue with him, please.

[benicehavefun]

Way off topic everyone.

 

 

quote]

 

What exactly is the topic (just one please)? That is part of the problem. There are many topics on this SUBJECT. Why will CC not allow us to post threads on topics within this subject? I feel for the RC's, have NO issue with them and appreciate them as fellow cruisers caught up in a bad deal where they have to defend themselves because of corporate manipulation/marketing.

 

This entire thread is a perfect example of why we should be (and used to be) able to post on specific things along the same subject area. Why the censorship on this subject? Continues to fuel the fire and RC's get caught (unfairly IMHO) in the crossfire?

[Ephraim]

Good night to all.

 

I have more questions today than I did yesterday. I really don't see an easy answer.

 

I also hope that anyone who is a Royal Champion doesn't take any of this personally. And I guess that is a lesson to me as well. I discovered via Google some gossip behind my back and I've been taking it personally when it really isn't about me.. because you have to really know me for it to be about me. I sincerely apologize, I should be better than that, but I have let it affect me.

 

In the same way I don't think that this is about any Royal Champion in particular. Don't take it personally and just be the best you that you can be. Those who like you will continue to like you. Those that don't, be damned.

 

If I have hurt anyone's feelings, I again apologize. I have never had that intention at all. Not on any side of this argument. I personally would like to see this resolved by CC, to have a clear policy. I have always disclosed my B&B owner if I have felt that they might even be the perception of bias. I will continue to do so. If CC decides that I must do so in my signature or elsewhere, I have no problem with the decision. If I don't, I will continue to make that disclosure because I personally believe that it's the better part of valour to tell others. That's just my personal decision and should have no weight on others, because in the end we must all do as our conscious dictates.

 

(And with that, I will ask that a message I posted earlier be removed. I again apologize for it.)

[glgolfer]

anything i have posted says hancock and hayden. if it said hannock or heyden or anything sle, i was quoting smoeone else.

 

i've said a couple times at least spell their names right. unless you mean another paul.

[hazence]

Yes, Critterchick, I have found your posts most insightful and informative...and I can say that about most of the Royal group. I have spent a long time as a reader and admirer....with just an occasional post till this thread.

 

Here is what I see now that I DID NOT see before: RCCL has created a program that has divided this valuable and informative Board into two factions. Many in the "Loyalty Group" are intensely loyal to their own. They are sensitive to any reproach to their own...but not too interested beyond that.

 

In this thread I have been told I have two few posts to be credible; I have too few posts to offer an opinion. I must be a bogus poster.

 

I have been suspected of being a formerly banned poster or a plant from some other rival. Or perhaps I am jealous, bitter,or hate businesspeople. Something about a shark attack survivor...

 

I have been told I want to shoot someone.

 

The level of hyberbole and drama is jaw-dropping! Because I don't like the RCCL "Royal Champion" marketing program AS DESCRIBED by RCCL.

 

If part of the RCCL strategy was to have the Champions "bond" into a group that springs to protect their own...and drive off unconforming "sheep"...there is also evidence of success. They have arrived at intervals to comfort the other "chosen" members...with little concern for the "unchosen" kicked to the curb. They speak of "we." The title and status seems terribly important to some.

 

Protecting RCCL becomes important if RCCL has made YOU important too. Was that the point of the program?

 

I have also learned that for some...the loyalty to a cruise ship line...means having to suspend reality. This must just be the media! Misquoted! Rogue Employee! Disgruntled Unchosen! No opinion! Not going to address the Oasis in the Living Room...what RCCL marketing executive said about US at a conference! Not gonna do it!

 

Before this thread, even after reading the articles...I did not know or believe a marketing program could effect people this way. I did not SEE this. I have both seen and experienced it now.

 

"(snip)...we are confident that the Royal Champions produce ample word of mouth and exert sufficient influence to make the investment worthwhile."

 

Is this thread an example of how RC's exert sufficent influence? Are these the techniques that are "measured" and "monitored?"

 

Is what you read here pleasing to RCCL marketing? Do they think it is enhancing their brand?

 

Perhaps, some readers of this site, might get the impression that this "clubbiness", this "We" and "They" extends to their onboard experience. That would hardly make ANYONE who makes others or their opinions feel unwelcome...the kind of Ambassador any cruise line should recruit.

[cruisinMike]

No, Potter absolutely DID NOT take the word of that CC'er and run with it. Go back and reread the article! She didn't even do a story until months later and then only after there was a post here on the Insight blog/Hannock comments. Maybe she would have done a story in the summer of 2008, but RCCL refused to comment when she contacted them.

 

Geesh, I am getting irritated. I am tired of the falsehoods here -- no one has ever on this thread, that I can recall and you can copy a post if I am wrong, "yelled" at you or anyone else for your sig lines slowing down their computers, and I will be whipped if I can find on THIS thread where anyone has said anything "hateful" about an RC because they are an RC, from any objective point of view. You personalize nearly everything, as evident in your bold statement that the cruise critic person didn't LIKE the RC's. Maybe that person was like many of us here -- maybe that person thinks that viral marketing without following the ethical guidelines is WRONG! I have said it before, Alexis, it is not about you.

 

Some have even been so lucid as to point out that maybe their hurt feelings were carrying over from some now deleted threads. Carry over we understand, but there is something wrong in the continuation of a FALSE victim game on THIS thread.

 

I understand your hurt -- I just posted about it to crusinMike, as a matter of fact, but you need to stop projecting that out, and recognize it for what it is -- something that you brought upon yourself, however innocent you were in the matter, however deceived you were, however lied to or misled you were, you can't blame others for saying they will take your opinions with a grain of salt. You are allowed to be hurt; you can't help how you feel, but do not blame THEM for how YOU feel.

 

Whatever decison you make about this matter, or have made from the start of its exposure for what it is, you alone must own -- you are no longer innocent in it -- you know the game that you have entered into, viral marketing.

 

I don't know, but I might be old enough to be your mother or your grandmother, and while I am irritated, I still mean this post in a motherly, not an angry or hateful way, and I capitalized to emphasize my words, not to yell at you.

 

Finally, Heyden did not refute the words of Hannock in that piece; he said they were "unfortunate." And for the company and you and cruise critic and other travel blogs now painted with the same brush, they certainly were.

 

I can't quite get my arms around it, but something isn't passing the sniff test. When you step in it you don't really have to see it, you can smell it.

 

There seems to be an orchestrated tap dance around the issue and to deflect the issue, we play victim by CCer. This circled wagons and watching each others back against those "jealous" CCers is a tired excuse. Folks can't even acknowledge that if someone actually were to say this about them, they would be upset about it. And here is where it doesn't pass the sniff test. If I was the one to have first posted on this site that RC people were part of a viral marketing campaign where they didn't know they were being influenced to continue to promote the product on the rest of us....well you can bet the house would be coming down on me.

 

You heard the old saying, I think thou protest too much. I'm getting to that point where at one time I could give the benefit of the doubt, but the victim by CCer tap dance doesn't have a dog in this hunt anymore.

 

I may be incorrect on this, but I remember the start of this was when a poster had an issue with the RC program (vs DP) and posted the quotes from the marketing person and, I think someone shortly thereafter posted the link to the site on a previous thread.

 

I've tried to be very clear on where I stand. How some take it personal, I have no clue. I have read shrillness on both sides. And I still am amazed that folks can roll over and let someone say publicly, they can be influenced with out them knowing it, and causing credibility issues here.

[hazence]

I hope RCCL marketing is monitoring this thread. I hope they are taking note not only of the defense tactics employed here ..of denial, denunciation and dramatic hyberbole...but evaluating this program as it stands right now. Is it still an asset to RCCL?

 

 

It is not just the posters participating ..it's the other "outsiders" who come here just to read. And take their opinion of cruise ship friendliness..from the posts they read here. Take their impression of "clubbiness" from here too. What do you think they are thinking today? If you don't have a certain status, DON'T give an opinion! Don't try to get to know THESE RCCL cruisers!

 

Can RCCL truly read this thread, as on of those outsiders might, and truly think the blind loyalty of some here and the tactics employed to stifle dissent...are an asset to them? It is bizarre...at least to anyone not under the influence of some Grand Poo-pah title...to watch people avoid a topic with such a variety of attacks and dodges.

 

I started posting with an opinion on the marketing concept NOT any one poster or group of posters. If some of you need a respite from your self-pity, read this whole thread again and see if you might pull the mote out of your own eye...after you finish winking at RCCL, of course!

[jaxon41]

Yes, Critterchick, I have found your posts most insightful and informative...and I can say that about most of the Royal group. I have spent a long time as a reader and admirer....with just an occasional post till this thread.

 

Here is what I see now that I DID NOT see before: RCCL has created a program that has divided this valuable and informative Board into two factions. Many in the "Loyalty Group" are intensely loyal to their own. They are sensitive to any reproach to their own...but not too interested beyond that.

 

In this thread I have been told I have two few posts to be credible; I have too few posts to offer an opinion. I must be a bogus poster.

 

I have been suspected of being a formerly banned poster or a plant from some other rival. Or perhaps I am jealous, bitter,or hate businesspeople. Something about a shark attack survivor...

 

I have been told I want to shoot someone.

 

The level of hyberbole and drama is jaw-dropping! Because I don't like the RCCL "Royal Champion" marketing program AS DESCRIBED by RCCL.

 

If part of the RCCL strategy was to have the Champions "bond" into a group that springs to protect their own...and drive off unconforming "sheep"...there is also evidence of success. They have arrived at intervals to comfort the other "chosen" members...with little concern for the "unchosen" kicked to the curb. They speak of "we." The title and status seems terribly important to some.

 

Protecting RCCL becomes important if RCCL has made YOU important too. Was that the point of the program?

 

I have also learned that for some...the loyalty to a cruise ship line...means having to suspend reality. This must just be the media! Misquoted! Rogue Employee! Disgruntled Unchosen! No opinion! Not going to address the Oasios in the Living Room...what RCCL marketing executive said about US at a conference! Not gonna do it!

 

Before this thread, even after reading the articles...I did not know or believe a marketing program could effect people this way. I did not SEE this. I have both seen and experienced it now.

 

"(snip)...we are confident that the Royal Champions produce ample word of mouth and exert sufficient influence to make the investment worthwhile."

 

Is this thread an example of how RC's exert sufficent influence? Are these the techniques that are "measured" and "monitored?"

 

Is what you read here pleasing to RCCL marketing? Do they think it is enhancing their brand?

 

WOW just WOW -- that is a repeat of my very first post on the matter, thread deleted shortly thereafter. I had just read the Insight blog when I said that, but now I say it to you, because your post is so on point. For me this has becoming the most illuminating study in marketing psy-ops I have ever seen. I feel like I need to write a dissertation on it, copy it all for a future purpose.

 

I have always been fascinated by psy-ops, before it ever was called that -- the group dynamic, mob mentality, power of charisma. I was always fascinated by the studies I would read in college sociology or psychology, but I never SAW how subtly it could work -- and it is scary.

[5waldos]

Fine- I give up. What is it that the RCers want from those of us who have genuine concerns? Admissions of jealousy? Great- I would give anything to be a RC. I lay awake at night plotting ways to become a RC. (Is it RCL or RCCL?) I believe it is a communist plot to destroy both CC and RCL (RCCL). The world is flat. And I have been guilty of defaming all RCers, for which I earnestly apologize.

 

Now I need to go and begin to pack- I leave next week and need to pack for 4 of us.

[jaxon41]

anything i have posted says hancock and hayden. if it said hannock or heyden or anything sle, i was quoting smoeone else.

 

i've said a couple times at least spell their names right. unless you mean another paul.

 

OK, so you are saying that her name was misspelled in the Insight article, then? That is what I was going by as I don't know her, so would have no idea. At least we all know who we are talking about. I will emblazen HAyden on my mind with that old association trick -- strawman.

[critterchick]

Fine- I give up. What is it that the RCers want from those of us who have genuine concerns? Admissions of jealousy? Great- I would give anything to be a RC. I lay awake at night plotting ways to become a RC. (Is it RCL or RCCL?) I believe it is a communist plot to destroy both CC and RCL (RCCL). The world is flat. And I have been guilty of defaming all RCers, for which I earnestly apologize.

 

What are your "genuine concerns?" Do you read posts from people who may or may not be RCs that are so glowing that they can't possibly be true? Do you comment on things that are less than positive about your cruise and get your head bashed in, figuratively speaking? (I have had that happen, but it doesn't seem to hurt me, and it's seldom RCs who are guilty of the virtual violence). What are you worried about?

 

And it's never RCL, except as a ticker symbol. RCI is Royal Caribbean International, the cruiseline. RCCL is Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, the parent company that owns RCI, Celebrity and Azamara cruises. I hope you don't need a grain of salt to believe that, even though I'm an RC.:rolleyes:

 

Now I need to go and begin to pack- I leave next week and need to pack for 4 of us

 

Lucky you!:)

[5waldos]

What are your "genuine concerns?" ... I hope you don't need a grain of salt to believe that, even though I'm an RC.:rolleyes:

Lucky you!:)

 

It is the very concept. Sorry, I am appalled that companies have decided that this "viral advertising" is the "wave of the future" (a CC official comment). But I have often been accused of being a dunkard.

 

And I truly believe you when you tell me it is RCCL. Even if you are a self proclaimed RC. :D

 

And thanks- I really really need this cruise. I just hope I have no more crises and catastrophes happen before I get on the plane. Once there I am home free.

[5waldos]

Actually, once I hit the airport I feel like I am home free!

[aqhacruiser]

:rolleyes:

 

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.

 

No articles, only posts, you're safe:)

That's the thing, we were asked to be a member, we did not seek it out. I definitely agree with you that people did get their feelings hurt both times they were not selected and that's why I suggested to just give the RC program to D pluses as a perk. Anyone who is D plus obviously likes RCCL as they would not have cruised it as much as they do to get that level.

I was D plus before I was selected as a RC in the second group so to me that proves that I booked cruises on RCCL without anyone influencing me like RCCL's market research company or RCCL. No one has a problem with perks in each level of C & A and everyone would get to be a RC once they were D plus and I think that's a fair way to do it if its the selection process that is really bothering people. No one would say boo if D pluses said they were invited to an inaugural as they would know if they kept cruising RCCL they would get the same perk someday.

I've never been accused of marketing RCCL just because I'm D plus but I have been accused of that since becoming a RC. It really doesn't make sense. Why are people so angry and what are they asking for? What do they want us or RCCL to do? I read a lot of accusations and complaints but what is it they would want to see RCCL do about the RC program? Considering the length of this thread and all the posts, something constructive should come out of all the opinions on here. Who would they trust more........ a D plus that obviously enjoys sailing RCCL and therefore could be accused of being biased for RCCL or a plat. member that is a RC that's only been a few cruises but because they are a RC they too must be biased? No one ever considers the C & A levels of a CC member, so why is the RC such a big deal?

[jaxon41]

Yes, cruisinMike, from what I can determine that post about DP vs RC was the kick off -- Feb 21 -- linked in Potter's first article, closed, but not deleted the last I checked -- there was a link there to the Insight blog I think -- so not sure about your further reference. I was on a cruise so didn't see it all start.

 

Can't tell you how many times I almost posted -- me thinks thou protesteth too much (that's how we said it in my home) or my grandmother's -- your words are speaking so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying (kind of strange, but the same meaning, I think -- not sure anyone would have gotten that).

 

This is just the wildest darned thing I have ever seen, but there are many similarities to the cruise fuel surcharge thread, and the RC program was running then -- pot stirrer, trouble maker, shut up (screamed in big red letters), don't you have anything better to do, let's get back to talking about cruising, you're too poor to cruise if you can't afford $70, was a big one (I'm more special than you are crap again), but no repetitive dead horse emoticons, here. Some of the same nasty RC'ers there as here, and RC's there who were not nasty or obtuse, but have become so here.

[critterchick]

Actually, once I hit the airport I feel like I am home free!

 

I find all the tension eases out of me when the plane starts taxiing down the runway. Then I know there's no turning back!

[Merion_Mom]

Yes, cruisinMike, from what I can determine that post about DP vs RC was the kick off -- Feb 21 -- linked in Potter's first article, closed, but not deleted the last I checked -- there was a link there to the Insight blog I think -- so not sure about your further reference. I was on a cruise so didn't see it all start.

 

Can't tell you how many times I almost posted -- me thinks thou protesteth too much (that's how we said it in my home) or my grandmother's -- your words are speaking so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying (kind of strange, but the same meaning, I think -- not sure anyone would have gotten that).

 

This is just the wildest darned thing I have ever seen, but there are many similarities to the cruise fuel surcharge thread, and the RC program was running then -- pot stirrer, trouble maker, shut up (screamed in big red letters), don't you have anything better to do, let's get back to talking about cruising, you're too poor to cruise if you can't afford $70, was a big one (I'm more special than you are crap again), but no repetitive dead horse emoticons, here. Some of the same nasty RC'ers there as here, and RC's there who were not nasty or obtuse, but have become so here.

 

Please name one RC who was "nasty" here, and cite the post.

[jaxon41]

real simple -- the law, follow it:

(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

connection is not reasonably expected

by the audience), such connection must

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

 

The ethical code: follow it

Consumers engaged in a word of mouth program should disclose their relationship with marketers in their communications with other consumers. We don't tell consumers specifically what to say, but we do instruct them to be open and honest about any relationship with a marketer and about any products or incentives that they...

 

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

 

see the appendix for the full ethical code, including abiding with the federal regulations.

 

This has been spelled out before by me in an earlier post, aquacruiser.

[jaxon41]

Please name one RC who was "nasty" here, and cite the post.

 

I'll give you a quote -- have fun finding the post.

 

The whining being done by the same posters over and over who do not seem to understand that this is a forum for cruise information, not a forum for people bashing or conspiracy theories, ARE needless, rediculous and extremely annoying! And...if CC had let members know about it, they'd have all jumped on the RCI cheerleader bandwagon so they could get an invite too. The rest of us who were already RCI cheerleaders didn't have to compromise ourselves to get one. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong about that! Its just human nature to want something good and even more human natured to spill sour grapes when you don't get it. Good day.

[CrusinAgain]

I'll give you a quote -- have fun finding the post.

 

The whining being done by the same posters over and over who do not seem to understand that this is a forum for cruise information, not a forum for people bashing or conspiracy theories, ARE needless, rediculous and extremely annoying! And...if CC had let members know about it, they'd have all jumped on the RCI cheerleader bandwagon so they could get an invite too. The rest of us who were already RCI cheerleaders didn't have to compromise ourselves to get one. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong about that! Its just human nature to want something good and even more human natured to spill sour grapes when you don't get it. Good day.

 

I forgot about this post but yes it is here and not hard to find.

[coxswain]

Quick question to the Champs - after all this will you continue to accept perks from RCCL ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

jj.......

[Merion_Mom]

I'll give you a quote -- have fun finding the post.

 

The whining being done by the same posters over and over who do not seem to understand that this is a forum for cruise information, not a forum for people bashing or conspiracy theories, ARE needless, rediculous and extremely annoying! And...if CC had let members know about it, they'd have all jumped on the RCI cheerleader bandwagon so they could get an invite too. The rest of us who were already RCI cheerleaders didn't have to compromise ourselves to get one. Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong about that! Its just human nature to want something good and even more human natured to spill sour grapes when you don't get it. Good day.

 

I think that it's nasty to accuse someone of taking bribes.

 

I think the whole thing is sort of smarmy and underhanded.

 

I just took my first Royal Caribbean cruise - and I had a good time! I read good reviews, and I read bad reviews, and I still managed to have a good time.

 

As a new RCI cruiser, the part that bothers me is that Royal Caribbean apparently thinks so little of its own onboard experience that it feels it has to give people perks in return for writing continuously glowing, overly positive reviews - like without them, there would be no good reviews.

 

I don't think the issue is that RCI gave certain people perks, freebies or special invites that people care about. Lots of us have gotten little perks or freebies from time to time. The part that whips people up, and makes me a little angry, is that they were given those IN RETURN for positive reviews. I believe the technical term for that is a bribe.

 

The worst part of all of this is how it has whipped people up on this board - that would be your customers, Royal Caribbean...the people you DON'T have to bribe to write something decent about your company.

 

*We*, the Royal Champions (lumped together by posters) are stupid dupes.

 

Advertising is one thing...all sites need some of that to survive.

 

However....sponsorship of meet & mingles...what has the cruise line had from CC/TripAdvisor in return? Lets face it, these events take a bit of organisation, time & expense in regards to sorting venue, crew drinkies etc....if you think a cruise line will do things like that for nowt, well....erm...

 

The cruise lines...ALL of them....have way too much involvement in this site, take it away and you take away the biased opinions, the paid for material and probably alot of the argy bargy too.

 

Our site exists quite happily without any corporate apron strings, so I see no reason whatsoever why this site cannot do the same.....

 

Cut out the cruise line direct sponsorship, stick to normal advertising that is paid for not given in return for favours and the site could well do pretty good. It would depend on real members rather than anyone with alterior motives....

 

Oh and at a guess, I am starting to think that most of the RC's didn't know they were being played...til now, and their bursts of indignation just prove that they didn't do their homework when asked (or whatever) to join the RC club. And never kid a kidder, they post something glowing, they get brownie points...otherwise why bother having a club that is attached to a PR agency in the first place.

 

We were "bribed" (again), are not honest, and are not impartial.

 

Maybe you haven't been reading what i've posted !!

 

 

Why don't we highlight these members ( if offered and i accepted me included ) so that ordinary members could make a judgement on their posts !!

 

 

The perks whether you like or not are seen as bride for good reviews - look at the definition of Champ is.

 

 

I and others can only call as we see it - but i do feel CC could turn this around and find a middle ground.

 

 

I don't really care what perks they get or how many posts they have or how many cruises they've been on - All i'm after is HONEST/IMPARTIAL Advice on these Boards !!

 

We can be bought.

 

We'll one thing i can tell you whether you believe me or not its up to you - I Can't be Bought !!

 

And I am not the only one who believes that Royal Champions "are being attacked":

 

I don't blame you for being upset with posters who are saying derogatory things about you or other RC's personally. Being maligned personally on the CC boards is hurtful. I have have had this happen to me on these boards. It is not nice and it is against CC policy.

 

You may not like my referencing other threads, but I ask that you keep in mind that several previous threads, some deleted, some locked, had truly vicious and nasty things posted on them about RC's collectively and individually. It has been a cumulative "piling on" and you are seeing the reaction only on this thread.