Lack of Dreamworks on Anthem of the Seas

[AtlantaCruiser72]

They have DW on Oasis and Allure and they'be been to Europe, no? Why would the UK be any different? Is there any evidence that DW has licensed their stuff to a different company in the UK? Seems very unlikely to me. And I was about to suggest it might be due to the expense since it's DW employees who run the stuff, but I think even that is unlikely.

 

International licensing is very complex and most U.S. companies must either establish foreign corporations or contract with other companies to license/market their materials. With other ships that already have the Dreamworks characters/staff onboard there may not be issues. My thought was if the staff and materials were being on boarded in the UK that there could be work permit/visa issues, goods import issues, UK regulatory issues, additional cost related to the UK/EU license holders for Dreamworks etc. There are a LOT of factors and hidden costs that could go into this.

 

There could have even been a disagreement between RCCL/Dreamworks over the royalties involved.

 

Another thought could be that since the decision to send the Quantum to China was made relatively late in the game that RCCL/Dreamworks decided to offload everything in Bayonne and then load onto the Anthem when she arrives in the fall, rather than go through the expense of shipping it to the UK or manufacturing all new materials for the Anthem.

 

Regardless of the reason RCCL is not likely to make ANY public statements about it. If they don't plan on offering it on the ship at all then they will quietly remove it from new marketing materials and deal with complaints on a consumer by consumer basis hoping for the minimum of bad PR over the change.

 

 

I do wonder though how UK consumer protection laws would apply to those wishing to cancel/seek reimbursement for the lack of the advertised service/amenity of the "Dreamworks Experience"? I know the UK laws are MUCH more specific and protecting of the consumer than anything we have in the U.S.

[Overtyme]

I hope that they are not above all and that the consumers get justice here.

[Overtyme]

I sent an email to the Miami Herald's Marjie Lambert regarding this issue.

 

She was terrific and is looking into this.

 

In the meanwhile, (so I'm not paraphrasing her response), from her email:

 

 

 

"Meantime, if you or someone you know booked a trip based on these ads, I'd encourage that person to write to Christopher Elliott, who writes the Travel Troubleshooter column and often helps people get refunds (or tells them why they can't). His website is http://elliott.org/, and you can write him at elliottc@gmail.com"

 

 

 

I encourage everyone that fits into this category to email Christopher Elliott.

 

Also, it would probably be beneficial to CC Marjie, since she's researching this.

 

Her email address is mlambert@miamiherald.com

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

Just a quick update: I haven't heard anything back from the Herald. I'm not sure that I would, but it's worth it to keep those emails coming and to please submit your comment cards at the end of your cruise!

[papcx]

Not sure how this will go down.

 

Seen in the recycling section of the behind the scenes tour.

 

[kevinyork]

Not sure how this will go down.

 

Seen in the recycling section of the behind the scenes tour.

 

 

 

Lol. So if Royal have said marketing for Dreamworks on Anthem was ended in May 2014 then why was that sugnage loaded onto the ship just a few months back? Suggests Dreamworks was pulled from Anthem at the last moment.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Overtyme]

Oh man! It MAY also suggest that it isn't coming onboard when she hits the states

[Overtyme]

Not sure how this will go down.

 

Seen in the recycling section of the behind the scenes tour.

 

 

 

I also wonder who Dan, Ben, Joel (someone) and Joseph are [emoji12]

[papcx]

I also wonder who Dan, Ben, Joel (someone) and Joseph are [emoji12]

 

 

My guess is they're the guys who work in the recycling section.

[Overtyme]

They get to get a laugh too!

[kccrzr]

In the United States, consumer complaints regarding false or deceptive advertising and trade practices can be submitted online to the Federal Trade Commission through this link: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/Information#crnt&panel1-1

 

Under the "Select Category" list, choose "Other", then go to page 2 and select "Travel, Vacations or Timeshares", which specifically references cruises as well.

 

Most, if not all, states also have Deceptive Trade Practices or Merchandising Practices Acts which prohibit false or misleading advertising, among other things. The attorney general in many states also provides a way to submit complaints electronically.

[Overtyme]

In the United States, consumer complaints regarding false or deceptive advertising and trade practices can be submitted online to the Federal Trade Commission through this link: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/Information#crnt&panel1-1

 

 

 

Under the "Select Category" list, choose "Other", then go to page 2 and select "Travel, Vacations or Timeshares", which specifically references cruises as well.

 

 

 

Most, if not all, states also have Deceptive Trade Practices or Merchandising Practices Acts which prohibit false or misleading advertising, among other things. The attorney general in many states also provides a way to submit complaints electronically.

 

 

I wonder how many people have been affected and how many U.S. Citizens booked under false pretenses and are now stuck.

[MisterBill99]

I wonder how many people have been affected and how many U.S. Citizens booked under false pretenses and are now stuck.

You're not stuck, you can cancel your cruise and get your deposit back. I am all in favor of finding out what is going on here, but I think you are quickly heading off the deep end reporting them to state AG's for fraudulent practices. If you read your cruise contact, I'd be shocked to find out that it doesn't say that they can change things without notice. You already know they're not currently advertising it on their website and probably haven't been since before the ship sailed.

 

At some point they obviously changed their mind on having DW on Anthem, but you'd have to really stretch to prove that they originally listed it in their brochure to intentionally mislead customers.

[Overtyme]

You're not stuck, you can cancel your cruise and get your deposit back. I am all in favor of finding out what is going on here, but I think you are quickly heading off the deep end reporting them to state AG's for fraudulent practices. If you read your cruise contact, I'd be shocked to find out that it doesn't say that they can change things without notice. You already know they're not currently advertising it on their website and probably haven't been since before the ship sailed.

 

 

 

At some point they obviously changed their mind on having DW on Anthem, but you'd have to really stretch to prove that they originally listed it in their brochure to intentionally mislead customers.

 

 

I can change my mind and csncel, but those in the UK are stuck, and those that are < 75 days in the U.S. Can't csncel either.

 

Clearly some are affected, and some have older literature that they've based and are basing their decision on.

[MisterBill99]

I can change my mind and cancel, but those in the UK are stuck, and those that are < 75 days in the U.S. Can't cancel either.

 

Clearly some are affected, and some have older literature that they've based and are basing their decision on.

Those in the UK are not the concern of your state AG.

 

And if the current literature doesn't show it, then they're not responsible.

 

Here's the wording from the RCCL cruise contract. Read it and tell me what your AG is going to be able to get them on.

 

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel or port of call, destination, lodging or activity. Carrier shall not be liable for any claim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation.

Edited June 20, 2015 by MisterBill99

[onlyonetrevorfrancis]

Those in the UK are not the concern of your state AG.

 

And if the current literature doesn't show it, then they're not responsible.

 

Here's the wording from the RCCL cruise contract. Read it and tell me what your AG is going to be able to get them on.

 

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel or port of call, destination, lodging or activity. Carrier shall not be liable for any claim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation.

 

The cruise though has to be accurately sold.

 

The clause above deals with the risk we bear as consumers that things may change once we book.

 

It doesn't though in my opinion waive the obligation of RCI to accurately describe and advertise the products they sell (I'm not necessarily saying that they haven't on this occasion).

[Ourusualbeach]

Those in the UK are not the concern of your state AG.

 

And if the current literature doesn't show it, then they're not responsible.

 

Here's the wording from the RCCL cruise contract. Read it and tell me what your AG is going to be able to get them on.

 

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel or port of call, destination, lodging or activity. Carrier shall not be liable for any claim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation.

 

Exactly. This is no different than the introduction of DD on Oasis and Allure. The cruise was being marketed and sold with traditional dining, Royal then changed the terms and will introduce DD. Also it is really no different than the introduction of no smoking on balconies. A lot of people may not be happy but Royal is within their right to change things.

 

That being said they should at least allow ANY cruisers who have booking in countries with restrictive cancellation policies to cancel without penalty.

[Purple dawn]

I think that some of the problem here in the UK is that even now if you get a brochure from the travel agents it is still showing dream works in it for Anthem.

[kevinyork]

I think that some of the problem here in the UK is that even now if you get a brochure from the travel agents it is still showing dream works in it for Anthem.

 

 

Absolutely. They are knowingly mis-advertising it in the UK.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MisterBill99]

Absolutely. They are knowingly mis-advertising it in the UK.

It's not in the current online version, so they are not currently doing so.

 

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/b4fa9fae#/b4fa9fae/1

 

Is there not a similar disclaimer in the brochure that there is in the cruise contract, saying that features are subject to change?

[Overtyme]

It's not in the current online version, so they are not currently doing so.

 

 

 

http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/b4fa9fae#/b4fa9fae/1

 

 

 

Is there not a similar disclaimer in the brochure that there is in the cruise contract, saying that features are subject to change?

 

 

Mr. Bill, it was only recently, after a lot of complaints and posts that they went back and scrubbed the sites and hid the content from you tube.

 

Too little, too late for some.

[Overtyme]

Exactly. This is no different than the introduction of DD on Oasis and Allure. The cruise was being marketed and sold with traditional dining, Royal then changed the terms and will introduce DD. Also it is really no different than the introduction of no smoking on balconies. A lot of people may not be happy but Royal is within their right to change things.

 

 

 

That being said they should at least allow ANY cruisers who have booking in countries with restrictive cancellation policies to cancel without penalty.

 

 

That's not exactly true.

You're statement would be more akin to the concept if they removed dining all together.

 

Dynamic Dining, while an unwelcome shift in dining experience to some (albeit, a lot of people do like this format now) still offered those onboard with dining options.

 

There is no alternative being offered for those that booked with the thought that their young ones could enjoy the dream works experience.

 

It's not like they replaced Dream Works with Nickelodeon or Sesame Street (or dare I say Disney [emoji6]) characters.

 

They just pulled them altogether.

[MisterBill99]

I've unsubscribed from this thread, I can't take it anymore. Good luck with your efforts. Tell me what the FTC says about your complaint. Why don't you contact the attorney in Miami who sues cruise lines, while you're at it?

[kccrzr]

Those in the UK are not the concern of your state AG.

 

And if the current literature doesn't show it, then they're not responsible.

 

Here's the wording from the RCCL cruise contract. Read it and tell me what your AG is going to be able to get them on.

 

6. CANCELLATION, DEVIATION OR SUBSTITUTION BY CARRIER:

Carrier may for any reason at any time and without prior notice, cancel, advance, postpone or deviate from any scheduled sailing, port of call, destination, lodging or any activity on or off the Vessel, or substitute another vessel or port of call, destination, lodging or activity. Carrier shall not be liable for any claim whatsoever by Passenger, including but not limited to loss, compensation or refund, by reason of such cancellation, advancement, postponement, substitution or deviation.

 

No one suggested that a UK resident lodge a complaint with a state attorney general.

 

The issue is what the literature and marketing materials showed when the customer booked the trip, not what it may show now. In any event, RCI has NOT stopped distribution of brochures which indicate DW is available on the ship. The fact that they may have been produced previously does not negate liability for continued distribution. At the least there should be a clear disclaimer that there is no DW experience on the ship - and that disclaimer should be made on the website and any printed materials.

 

I am generally a proponent of RCI - I think they do many, many things well. But in this case, they handled the situation very poorly. Rather than rectifying the situation, they have made it worse by falsely stating the they never advertised DW on the ship, by trying to claim any such marketing materials were of 3rd parties rather than their own and later by claiming all such advertising ceased long ago. When in fact, it was their materials and recent website images, youtube videos and brochures show it.

 

Whether or not DW is available on any given ship may be irrelevant to many cruisers. Great, they have no beef. But it is not irrelevant to all. And RCI knows it - that is why they have promoted it - to attract families for which that is a factor in the cruise choice and to compete with Disney. My DD is 21 y.o. but 2 years ago we cruised on the Allure solely because it had How to Train Your Dragon characters.

 

That contract clause is extremely broad and I doubt very much it would be enforceable in all circumstances. Do you really think RCI can cancel your cruise and not be liable for a refund? Similarly, what would be enforceable in an emergency situation or when the situation is outside the control of the cruise line is not what would be allowed always. IMHO, once RCI knew DW would not be available on the ship, they should have taken steps to correct all of their promotional materials and advertisements.

 

Anyone who relied on presence of DW in booking the cruise should be allowed to cancel with a full refund.

Edited June 21, 2015 by kccrzr

[Overtyme]

I've unsubscribed from this thread, I can't take it anymore. Good luck with your efforts. Tell me what the FTC says about your complaint. Why don't you contact the attorney in Miami who sues cruise lines, while you're at it?

 

 

.... Says Mr.Bill as he slams down his blankie, stomps his feet and holds his breath in the corner.

 

Quite the immature tantrum you're having while people offer up suggestions, experiences and opinions.

[emoji57]

[Ourusualbeach]

That's not exactly true.

You're statement would be more akin to the concept if they removed dining all together.

 

Dynamic Dining, while an unwelcome shift in dining experience to some (albeit, a lot of people do like this format now) still offered those onboard with dining options.

 

There is no alternative being offered for those that booked with the thought that their young ones could enjoy the dream works experience.

 

It's not like they replaced Dream Works with Nickelodeon or Sesame Street (or dare I say Disney [emoji6]) characters.

 

They just pulled them altogether.

 

Sorry but I'll still disagree with you. There are still plenty of entertainment options on board. They may not appeal to you yet they are there and even if they weren't they still have that right to pull them. You never mentioned the comparison to taking away the smoking privileges. They marketed (it was in all their literature) that up until the day of the announcement which gave people only 3 months notice (I think it was about 3 months). Again, those in the US could cancel and those in the UK would face penalties. Even those in the US were really stuck as airfare was most likely not cancellable for many.

 

I totally get your frustration and yes I agree that in many of these similar situations Royal has been neglect in providing proper notice or allowing people to cancel without penalty but at the end of the day they can and will make these changes and us as consumers have no recourse.

 

If there was any recourse to be had, that anti Royal cruise lawyer would have been all over this and many other situations in the past. The only way to tell Royal how displeased you are is with your pocketbook and not sail with them anymore.