Article on Royal Champions

Anita is a waste. She has trouble letting a little thing like FACTS get in the way.

We have Royal Champions that post here and I am happy to have them for their advice.

michele - i didn't mean to upset you. i just saw it and put it up for people to see. what amazes me is that over there on the other site no one seems to want to admit who they are. were they told not to say one way or the other if they are r.c.'s?

oesnjstar wrote:

michele - i didn't mean to upset you. i just saw it and put it up for people to see. what amazes me is that over there on the other site no one seems to want to admit who they are. were they told not to say one way or the other if they are r.c.'s?

Oh no. You didn't upset me. Not at all. I know it's hard to read tone. They weren't told not to say who they were. They just weren't required to put it in their signature. And they shouldn't have to. You can see most of them do have it in their siggie though. I could name them off the top of my head because they have never tried to hide it.

Many of our freek friends are RCs. So it's not confined to cruise critic.

And Anita is a waste. When Royal Caribbean booted the person from Royal Caribbean because she complained so much about them and tried to con them on numerous occasions for free cruises....Anita took the story and ran it as a POOR passenger banned from cruise line. Puhlease. She needs to get in on the facts. Something she has a problem with.

And thanks for letting me see the original article. I ended up reading it on MSNBC of all things. It's sad that the garbage carries over to the mainstream news organizations.

i originally read that the woman banned was because of always complaining so they would give her refunds, etc. i'd have banned her too. michele - are you coming to the canary islands with us? i hope so and if you are we will need banners. LOL

oesnjstar wrote:

i originally read that the woman banned was because of always complaining so they would give her refunds, etc. i'd have banned her too. michele - are you coming to the canary islands with us? i hope so and if you are we will need banners. LOL

Yep, exactly. She complained and complained to get refunds. She even brought a black light with her on the ships. Yet Anita took the story and ran with it like she was dealing with a victim of the cruise industry.

Canary Islands cruise, that's Celebrity right? I don't think I am ready for Celebrity yet. But I am happy to make banners. Let me know when you all get settled and I will make a banner.

what do you mean you're not ready for celebrity yet?

oesnjstar wrote:

what do you mean you're not ready for celebrity yet?

I should have said, the KIDS aren't ready for Celebrity yet. I have them used to Disney/Royal/Carnival. On Celebrity, there is no H20 zone, no rock climbing and no 24 hour ice cream and pizza.

When I grow up and get to be an adult...I'll go on Celebrity.

the new eclipse which is just like the solstice looks much more kid friendly than in the past.

Michele is right. That woman has some sort of agenda. What makes me crazy is that everyone believes that these people are being paid for their posts, which just isn't true.

oesnjstar wrote:

the new eclipse which is just like the solstice looks much more kid friendly than in the past.

Really? How so?

And Hi Jen. Yes, agenda is a good word for it. Or as I said before, I think someone put something in her Johnny Rockets. She is just anti-Royal for some reason. And I am glad because I would rather not sail with her.

i was looking at the deck plans on the solstice and it looks like theres some kids areas. no there is no johnny rockets or flow rider.

oesnjstar wrote:

i was looking at the deck plans on the solstice and it looks like theres some kids areas. no there is no johnny rockets or flow rider.

Yep...so right now Royal and in a few years Celebrity.

In my situation, my hubby is not ready of Celebrity. He says its too stuffy. he likes "fun" ships like Royal Caribbean.

my first 3 cruises were celebrity and i had a blast. i guess i didn't know any better at the time. people i knew were going and i jumped right in and had no prior knowledge of other cruise lines, etc.

we were on Solstice last November....definitely not stuffy in the slightest....although that's my hubby's concern about Cunard.

that's my concern about cunard. that is why you'll probably never see me there. oh did i just use the word never? i've learned not to say that word too loudly.

oesnjstar wrote:

that's my concern about cunard. that is why you'll probably never see me there. oh did i just use the word never? i've learned not to say that word too loudly.

Go to the Cunard section and read the review I posted of our 10-day Caribbean cruise on the QM2. While it is definitely more elegant, I'm not sure that "stuffy" is the word I would use. Perhaps it is different for the crossings and World Cruise segments. But for the Caribbean, there was plenty of Island wear to be seen. I think the 5-day July 4th cruise will be even more relaxed. After all, a 5-day is much more affordable. You might get a different class of people on board!

I find it interesting that this thread seems to jump on the individual who wrote the article rather than the questions of whether royal champions is an ethical marketing campaign. It would seem from this USA Today article that other cruise lines, including RCCL's own Celebrity, do not think it is.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/cruises/item.aspx?type=blog&ak=64249547.blog

In considering what I have read, I personally have to agree that the RCCL marketing department has overstepped the bounds of what is proper. Giving rewards to people to "pimp" ones product, in many cases by what I would call Hidden Operators, cannot be considered ethical, anymore than subliminal messages on the television. If someone wants to spend their time on the many cruise boards shouting the greatness of RCCL as paid touts, that is fine - IF they announce that they are receiving rewards for doing so. Sort of like having the Paid Infomercial announcement on TV programs.

Remember, don't shoot the messenger, discuss the merits of the message.

Well greyghost I have to taken into consideration that the person who put together the article does not know how to read the truth but prefers to make up the truth. She has a major bone to pick with RCCL which is the way I read her articles based on my personal understanding.

Since I do know several of the RC people, have met them know that they were posting prior to ever being given the title. I KNOW THEY ARE HONEST AND DIDN'T WRITE THEIR REPLIES TO RECEIVE REWARDS. But hey don't let the truth stop you from making up your mind.

Did you read the USA Today article? Are you saying that they, along with the quoted executives of the other cruise lines are also "making up the truth"? I don't doubt that many, if not most, of the RC members would probably post legit info. That is why I think RCCL has done a disservice to them by giving many readers the perception that their posts are tainted.

If RC members note in their posts that they may be receiving compensation for their posts, I have no problem with the program. If they do not, it taints everyone's posts about RCCL.

I speak here of perception, because "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".

Give it a rest...whats the matter,did you get banned from CC?

Kathy" A ROYAL CHAMPION"

Kathy,

I haven't been banned from anything. As a matter of fact, I am still trying to figure out what this site that I came upon by accident really is. The welcome said it was a very friendly site. However, when someone tries to intelligently discuss a problem that may undermine parts of the travel industry, I get answers like yours.

Is that your limit for intelligent discourse?

Greyghost wrote:

Kathy,

I haven't been banned from anything. As a matter of fact, I am still trying to figure out what this site that I came upon by accident really is. The welcome said it was a very friendly site. However, when someone tries to intelligently discuss a problem that may undermine parts of the travel industry, I get answers like yours.

Is that your limit for intelligent discourse?

No,but you're not worth wasting my breath on.........

Greyghost wrote:

Kathy,

I haven't been banned from anything. As a matter of fact, I am still trying to figure out what this site that I came upon by accident really is. The welcome said it was a very friendly site. However, when someone tries to intelligently discuss a problem that may undermine parts of the travel industry, I get answers like yours.

Is that your limit for intelligent discourse?

Some people just need to learn to play nice...sheesh..