Norwegian has BBB rating of "F"

[jimd909]

newcruzrs4

 

When are you sailing? I just called NCL and asked if the promo PGPOP can be added to my reservation for 12/25/10 and they did it. This is a holiday sailing to Mexico on the NCL Star.

 

I made the reservation on June 30, 2009. This is my first cruise with NCL.

 

After reading this post, I went online. Went through the process of booking another cruise for the same date and added the promo code (PGPOP) and saved the booking. I called NCL and asked if the promo was on there since it didn't show online. They said yes, it was there. Then I asked if the promo could be added to my other booking which I paid a deposit and they checked and said yes. It's now on my original booking and they cancelled my saved booking.

 

Call back and check again and see if they can add it to your booking. If they don't hang up and call again....and again until someone does it. It doesn't hurt to try.

 

Good Luck.

[johnql]

Sorry to hear about your company's BBB experience and the inconsistency you note. Of course, the BBB, as a voluntary organization does not have teeth. Checking the ratings can be a helpful indicator of a company's track record in dealing with complaints. I did BBB research before buying my last car and went with a BBB member that had a strong record.

 

In any event, I am generally a very easy-going person who seldom complains (or in the words of one poster "whines") about things. I did not complain about my prior cruises.

 

 

The way the Pepsi promotion has been handled does bother me on principle. NCL, on its own Facebook page, posted the following verbiage:

 

 

Guests can quench their thirst on board all Freestyle Cruising ships with limited time complimentary soda packages

 

Norwegian Cruise Line and Pepsi are celebrating summer by offering up to two complimentary soda packages per stateroom on any seven-night sailing or longer. Guests who book a cruise on one of Norwegian Cruise Line’s 11 Freestyle Cruising ships from now through October 15, 2009 for sailings through 2010 can request the Pepsi Summer Cup promotion at the time of booking by referencing promotion code PGPOP. Once on board, guests are given a special Norwegian and Pepsi branded souvenir cup and have access to unlimited complimentary fountain soda refills at any bar, lounge or restaurant throughout the duration of the cruise and have the choice of selecting Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew or Sierra Mist.

 

NCL indicates that the promotion is not available on our sailing, because it is a holiday week, and referred to capacity limitations. Please note that NCL’s own posting clearly refers to “all Freestyle Crusing ships” and “any seven-night sailing or longer” and indicates that it is available for bookings made through October 15, 2009 for sailings through 2010. Not a single disclaimer is included in the posting.

 

NCL claims that it pulled the promotion from its own website during June (even though it left the promotion on its Facebook page, which is the posting I saw) and argued that the “for more information or to book a cruise, contact NCL” type language at the bottom of the Facebook posting solved the lack of disclaimers in the Facebook posting itself. Under advertising law principles I am aware of, such argument by NCL does not hold water.

 

It seems that you're more upset by the misleading nature of the advertising and that NCL didn't post a clear disclaimer and that the advertising language wasn't being honored. Well, if you re-read NCL's promotion, it says "up to two" complimentary soda packages. Last time I checked, ZERO is included in "up to two". Yes, that's a terrible technicality, but that seems to be what you're looking for. So, would you be happier if NCL booked you with the promotion code, honored its promotion and gave you ZERO soda packages in order to honor its advertising?

[MrPete]

Call back and check again and see if they can add it to your booking. If they don't hang up and call again....and again until someone does it. It doesn't hurt to try.

 

Good Luck.

 

Only took 26 posts to get some help. :rolleyes:

[newcruzrs4]

If NCL were to view up to two as meaning zero because zero is less than two, that would really be misleading advertising! The reason for saying up to two soda cards per cabin has to be so that someone does not try to get free cards for three or four people staying in the same cabin, especially since the third and fourth persons are at much lower rates than the first two.

[newcruzrs4]

Jim,

 

Thank you for the follow-up! I'm glad you were able to get the package. Our cruise is at the end of 2009 and NCL indicated in the phone calls that the code won't work for us.

[newmexicoNita]

newcruzrs4

 

When are you sailing? I just called NCL and asked if the promo PGPOP can be added to my reservation for 12/25/10 and they did it. This is a holiday sailing to Mexico on the NCL Star.

 

I made the reservation on June 30, 2009. This is my first cruise with NCL.

 

After reading this post, I went online. Went through the process of booking another cruise for the same date and added the promo code (PGPOP) and saved the booking. I called NCL and asked if the promo was on there since it didn't show online. They said yes, it was there. Then I asked if the promo could be added to my other booking which I paid a deposit and they checked and said yes. It's now on my original booking and they cancelled my saved booking.

 

Call back and check again and see if they can add it to your booking. If they don't hang up and call again....and again until someone does it. It doesn't hurt to try.

 

Good Luck.

 

did you get an email confirming you will indeed get the promo?

 

Nita

[johnql]

If NCL were to view up to two as meaning zero because zero is less than two, that would really be misleading advertising! The reason for saying up to two soda cards per cabin has to be so that someone does not try to get free cards for three or four people staying in the same cabin, especially since the third and fourth persons are at much lower rates than the first two.

I agree with you if we were just trying to be reasonable. However, much advertising is written allowing for a wide latitude (no pun intended) of interpretation. When push comes to shove, "up to two" does include zero. Just because we don't like that interpretation doesn't mean it can't be applied. Is it misleading? That's also up to interpretation.

[njhorseman]

It seems that you're more upset by the misleading nature of the advertising and that NCL didn't post a clear disclaimer and that the advertising language wasn't being honored. Well, if you re-read NCL's promotion, it says "up to two" complimentary soda packages. Last time I checked, ZERO is included in "up to two". Yes, that's a terrible technicality, but that seems to be what you're looking for. So, would you be happier if NCL booked you with the promotion code, honored its promotion and gave you ZERO soda packages in order to honor its advertising?

 

I agree with you if we were just trying to be reasonable. However, much advertising is written allowing for a wide latitude (no pun intended) of interpretation. When push comes to shove, "up to two" does include zero. Just because we don't like that interpretation doesn't mean it can't be applied. Is it misleading? That's also up to interpretation.

 

Please tell me that you're not serious about your "zero is included in up to two" argument.

 

It's just a joke, right?

[sjbdtz]

Sorry to hear about your company's BBB experience and the inconsistency you note. Of course, the BBB, as a voluntary organization does not have teeth. Checking the ratings can be a helpful indicator of a company's track record in dealing with complaints. I did BBB research before buying my last car and went with a BBB member that had a strong record.

 

In any event, I am generally a very easy-going person who seldom complains (or in the words of one poster "whines") about things. I did not complain about my prior cruises.

 

 

The way the Pepsi promotion has been handled does bother me on principle. NCL, on its own Facebook page, posted the following verbiage:

 

 

Guests can quench their thirst on board all Freestyle Cruising ships with limited time complimentary soda packages

 

Norwegian Cruise Line and Pepsi are celebrating summer by offering up to two complimentary soda packages per stateroom on any seven-night sailing or longer. Guests who book a cruise on one of Norwegian Cruise Line’s 11 Freestyle Cruising ships from now through October 15, 2009 for sailings through 2010 can request the Pepsi Summer Cup promotion at the time of booking by referencing promotion code PGPOP. Once on board, guests are given a special Norwegian and Pepsi branded souvenir cup and have access to unlimited complimentary fountain soda refills at any bar, lounge or restaurant throughout the duration of the cruise and have the choice of selecting Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew or Sierra Mist.

 

NCL indicates that the promotion is not available on our sailing, because it is a holiday week, and referred to capacity limitations. Please note that NCL’s own posting clearly refers to “all Freestyle Crusing ships” and “any seven-night sailing or longer” and indicates that it is available for bookings made through October 15, 2009 for sailings through 2010. Not a single disclaimer is included in the posting.

 

NCL claims that it pulled the promotion from its own website during June (even though it left the promotion on its Facebook page, which is the posting I saw) and argued that the “for more information or to book a cruise, contact NCL” type language at the bottom of the Facebook posting solved the lack of disclaimers in the Facebook posting itself. Under advertising law principles I am aware of, such argument by NCL does not hold water.

 

 

 

Ok, so which advertising law principles are you aware of?

 

Facebook is not an advertising medium, the NCL "page" on Facebook is a "FAN" page, used for announcements, and referring the user to the formal advertising page, where things such as disclaimers and conditions are included.

 

On some CruiseCritic pages there are banner ads for 7 night cruises in Alaska starting at $369.

 

However, not every week has a $369 option, just "in general" they start at that level.

 

Those disclaimers, and the "small print" associated with the ad would be found at the formal booking site, and are available BEFORE you make a purchase...which is the only condition most advertising oversight is concerned with.

[johnql]

Please tell me that you're not serious about your "zero is included in up to two" argument.

 

It's just a joke, right?

It's said tongue in cheek, meaning the wording shouldn't be read that way. But I'm serious in saying that it could - legally, that is. Granted, a horrible technicality but that's what the OP seems to be looking for.

[WinnieinWA]

Don't confuse them with the facts. It sets a bad precedent. ;):D

 

This gave me a good chuckle! Thanks! :D

[SPMorrissey]

I drink a lot of diet pepsi so I would be a pissed off if I expected 2 soda cards and didn't get them because of shady advertising.

[jimd909]

did you get an email confirming you will indeed get the promo?

 

Nita

 

Yes, I got an e-mail with a .pdf showing the promo code at the top, right. I also called again to make sure it was on my booking and another rep said it was and they also resent the e-mail to make sure.

 

So, you can stop doubting now. I'm not making this up. :rolleyes:

[jimd909]

Jim,

 

Thank you for the follow-up! I'm glad you were able to get the package. Our cruise is at the end of 2009 and NCL indicated in the phone calls that the code won't work for us.

 

All I can say is keep trying. Keep calling until you get someone who know what they are doing.

[SeaShark]

My wife took the info I gave her regarding the promotion to the travel agent to complete the booking. She went ahead with the booking after the travel agent tried unsuccessfully to input the codes and was told by NCL on the phone that the promotion was not available.

 

Why don't you file a complaint with the better business bureau against the travel agent for booking you without getting the promo to which you were "legally" entitled?

 

 

Sounds like the TA pulled a little bait and switch move...;)

[newcruzrs4]

The page is actually an official NCL page on Facebook where NCL makes posts. Postings by a company where they reach consumers are advertising. I understand that saying "starting at" does not guarantee that price as long as there are really sailings available at that price. However, in this case, there was no language analogous to "starting at" or any other limiting language (or even a cross reference to limitations).

[njhorseman]

It's said tongue in cheek, meaning the wording shouldn't be read that way. But I'm serious in saying that it could - legally, that is. Granted, a horrible technicality but that's what the OP seems to be looking for.

 

 

Let me reword what I said.

 

You're really not serious about your "zero is included in up to two" argument having any possible legal validity, are you?

 

Please tell me you're just joking.

 

By the way...I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in mathematics, so you might want to steer away from trying to convince me it's "technically correct" using some sort of mathematical argument. :D

[johnql]

Let me reword what I said.

 

You're really not serious about your "zero is included in up to two" argument having any possible legal validity, are you?

 

Please tell me you're just joking.

 

By the way...I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in mathematics, so you might want to steer away from trying to convince me it's "technically correct" using some sort of mathematical argument. :D

I don't have to convince you. It's plain English.

 

That doesn't mean anyone would like that interpretation. Plus, it would create a lot of bad PR for any company trying to use it as an "out" but that's what the wording allows.

[newcruzrs4]

The TA is not at fault here. I found out about the promotion myself and my wife brought the code and posting describing the promotion in to tell the TA when my wife went to put the deposit down. Our TA did try unsuccessfully to get the promotion code applied.

[johnql]

To be honest, I'm still not sure what the fuss is about. A friend of mine booked a cruise several weeks ago. When she booked, she asked her TA to get the lowest price for her based on the qualifying promotion codes that were available at the time. One of them was the Pepsi promotion. However, she is a Latitudes member and her Latitudes discount entitled her to a bigger discount, and she was told that she could NOT combine the Latitudes and Pepsi codes in the same booking. So, she passed on the Pepsi promotion. Isn't this the same scenario for the OP?

[SeaShark]

The TA is not at fault here. I found out about the promotion myself and my wife brought the code and posting describing the promotion in to tell the TA when my wife went to put the deposit down. Our TA did try unsuccessfully to get the promotion code applied.

 

The TA handled the booking between you and NCL.

 

If they did not get you something to which you are "legally" entitled, then they ARE at fault. Espicially when they knew the terms beforehand. Period.

 

I don't understand why you don't just cancel and rebook if the facts are on your side.

 

That makes much more sense than coming here and trying to stir up trouble.

 

Really...if you think the TA has no responsibility, then you must agree that Cruise Critic has nothing to do with it either.

[lambs2]

The TA is not at fault here. I found out about the promotion myself and my wife brought the code and posting describing the promotion in to tell the TA when my wife went to put the deposit down. Our TA did try unsuccessfully to get the promotion code applied.

 

 

I disagree. It definitely IS the TA's business to research ALL the ins and outs of any promotion offered by a cruiseline before telling a client that they qualify for it. It took me less than 1 half hour of research to figure out what the up AND down sides of the POPOP promotion included. Unfortuneately your TA was obviously not well

acquainted with the rules of this promo. If you feel the need to place blame, it should be placed on your TA, not NCL.

[CanadianTwosome]

So... I'm a 'checker'. I like to do my own research and see things for myself. So, I went to the BBB and did a search on NCL... here's what I found:

 

Type of Response No. of Cmpl

5

Making a full refund, as the consumer requested

14

Making a partial refund

173

Agreeing to perform according to their contract

4

Refusing to make an adjustment

20

Refuse to adjust, relying on terms of agreement

45

Unanswered

7

Unassigned

268

Total

 

It's a little wonky (the second column is 'number of complaints'), but I think the gist of it is clear. NCL's response was POSITIVE in 192/268 complaints (that's 72%). In 20 cases, they refused to adjust relying on terms of agreement - which to me indicates that the complaint was not legitimate (it may have been something people were unhappy about, but NCL were not 'in the wrong', so to speak). (that's another 7%) There were only FOUR cases where NCL simply 'refused'. The 52 that are 'unanswered' and 'unassigned' really can't be counted, since there isn't enough information.

 

So I'm wondering how the 'F' rating is determined. I'd say the BBB is doing a bit of 'false advertising' themselves. The rating definitely does NOT, in my opinion, match the FACTS they've posted about NCL's response to complaints. Of course, we also know nothing about the nature of the complaints and complainants.

 

 

I think I'll stick with my own rating of NCL... A+. :)

[newcruzrs4]

The TA handled the booking between you and NCL.

 

If they did not get you something to which you are "legally" entitled, then they ARE at fault. Espicially when they knew the terms beforehand. Period.

 

I don't understand why you don't just cancel and rebook if the facts are on your side.

 

That makes much more sense than coming here and trying to stir up trouble.

 

Really...if you think the TA has no responsibility, then you must agree that Cruise Critic has nothing to do with it either.

Of course Cruise Critic has no responsibility.

 

Cancelling and rebooking would not get us the promotion, since NCL says that it is not available for our sailing at all. Based on the explanations from NCL, it is not clear if it was ever available for the sailing we are on or it reached the capacity they will allow. In any event, as explained by NCL, there is no way for the TA to have gotten us the benefit of the promotion. As I noted in an earlier post, we have booked air and purchased insurance, so rebooking to another date outside of our vacation window when NCL would honor their promotion is not feasible.

[lambs2]

So... I'm a 'checker'. I like to do my own research and see things for myself. So, I went to the BBB and did a search on NCL... here's what I found:

 

Type of Response No. of Cmpl

 

5

 

Making a full refund, as the consumer requested

 

14

 

Making a partial refund

 

173

 

Agreeing to perform according to their contract

 

4

 

Refusing to make an adjustment

 

20

 

Refuse to adjust, relying on terms of agreement

 

45

 

Unanswered

 

7

 

Unassigned

 

 

268

 

Total

 

It's a little wonky (the second column is 'number of complaints'), but I think the gist of it is clear. NCL's response was POSITIVE in 192/268 complaints (that's 72%). In 20 cases, they refused to adjust relying on terms of agreement - which to me indicates that the complaint was not legitimate (it may have been something people were unhappy about, but NCL were not 'in the wrong', so to speak). (that's another 7%) There were only FOUR cases where NCL simply 'refused'. The 52 that are 'unanswered' and 'unassigned' really can't be counted, since there isn't enough information.

 

So I'm wondering how the 'F' rating is determined. I'd say the BBB is doing a bit of 'false advertising' themselves. The rating definitely does NOT, in my opinion, match the FACTS they've posted about NCL's response to complaints. Of course, we also know nothing about the nature of the complaints and complainants.

 

 

I think I'll stick with my own rating of NCL... A+. :)

 

 

I agree with the above! How in the world does ANY company protect themselves from people who want something for nothing, blame the company when they have not read and followed all the rules and regulations, or blame someone else for their own lack of understanding?