Guaranteed cabin experience?

[Unibok]

Yes, to Randy's point, the examples I know of are only Vistas to Verandas and not all the way to Silver Suites.

[Randyk47]

11 hours ago, Unibok said:

Yes, to Randy's point, the examples I know of are only Vistas to Verandas and not all the way to Silver Suites.

 

Thanks for backing up my memory or at least what I perceived to be the norm.  Interestingly I took a look at Azamara to see what was their policy on upgrades and I came across their "upgrade bid" process.  Since we've not had any interest in Azamara I really haven't paid any attention to the way they handle guarantees, upgrades, up sells, etc., so seeing their bid process was interesting.  I don't fully understand exactly how that is handled but it appears cabins are put up for bid amongst booked passengers and basically the highest bid wins.  The old R ship cabin categories are a bit different than Silversea's fleet in that they have more Vista-like cabins and some interior cabins so there's a broader cabin selection.  My gut reaction is I hope Silversea doesn't go the "upgrade bid" route but having no experience or interest in Azamara I can't say how well that works or doesn't work.

[Stumblefoot]

1 hour ago, Randyk47 said:

My gut reaction is I hope Silversea doesn't go the "upgrade bid" route...

+1

[Observer]

Two matters:

 

First, I have been told that a number of the currently offered upgrades are caused by the need to accommodate lecturers, performers, bridge instructors, technicians,  etc., for whom adequate space had not initially been set aside.  They are given Vista space, and Vista folk are upgraded to Verandah.

 

Second, I am not certain that I see any downside of bidding for upgrades.  If I understand correctly, upgrades would be offered very close to sailing (thus no more people would be on the cruise), participation would be entirely voluntary, there would be zero impact on people who opted not to participate, and there would be some new revenue for cruise line (that would ideally reinvest it in food, the cruise experience, etc.)

[Randyk47]

12 minutes ago, Observer said:

Two matters:

 

First, I have been told that a number of the currently offered upgrades are caused by the need to accommodate lecturers, performers, bridge instructors, technicians,  etc., for whom adequate space had not initially been set aside.  They are given Vista space, and Vista folk are upgraded to Verandah.

 

Second, I am not certain that I see any downside of bidding for upgrades.  If I understand correctly, upgrades would be offered very close to sailing (thus no more people would be on the cruise), participation would be entirely voluntary, there would be zero impact on people who opted not to participate, and there would be some new revenue for cruise line (that would ideally reinvest it in food, the cruise experience, etc.)

 

Fully understand your second point and at some level it makes sense.   Interestingly Silversea has pretty much universally stayed away from offering discounted paid upgrades and have chosen to walk away from whatever additional revenue.  Obviously, at least from the passenger’s point of view, there’s not much to be gained moving from a lower Verandah cabin to a higher Verandah cabin other than maybe a better location.  Personally that’s not worth much.   Now moving from a Verandah to a Silver Suite at a discount would be attractive.  

[Stumblefoot]

41 minutes ago, Observer said:

I am not certain that I see any downside of bidding for upgrades.  If I understand correctly, upgrades would be offered very close to sailing (thus no more people would be on the cruise), participation would be entirely voluntary, there would be zero impact on people who opted not to participate, and there would be some new revenue for cruise line (that would ideally reinvest it in food, the cruise experience, etc.)

In my line of work advising companies who compete in premium and luxury segments, I can tell you it would be a quite a slippery slope for SS to head down, based on their current brand positioning in the marketplace.  While it may seem well intentioned and an easy way to generate incremental profit (by the finance dept) on a perishable product (suites), such an action could potentially create new consumer behaviors (trading down) that are detrimental to the long-term health of the brand

(margin).

[Observer]

47 minutes ago, Stumblefoot said:

In my line of work advising companies who compete in premium and luxury segments, I can tell you it would be a quite a slippery slope for SS to head down, based on their current brand positioning in the marketplace.  While it may seem well intentioned and an easy way to generate incremental profit (by the finance dept) on a perishable product (suites), such an action could potentially create new consumer behaviors (trading down) that are detrimental to the long-term health of the brand

(margin).

 

I take your point, and I defer to your expertise.  Nonetheless, it seems to me that trading down (and hoping for an auction and success in that auction) would be something of a crap shoot.  And in my experience the Silversea casinos seem to be fairly empty.  🙂 

[Stumblefoot]

1 hour ago, Observer said:

And in my experience the Silversea casinos seem to be fairly empty.  🙂

 

LOL!  Great point.  Love it!

[Randyk47]

2 hours ago, Stumblefoot said:

In my line of work advising companies who compete in premium and luxury segments, I can tell you it would be a quite a slippery slope for SS to head down, based on their current brand positioning in the marketplace.  While it may seem well intentioned and an easy way to generate incremental profit (by the finance dept) on a perishable product (suites), such an action could potentially create new consumer behaviors (trading down) that are detrimental to the long-term health of the brand

(margin).

 

Good point and almost exactly what a Silversea HD told us.   She very specifically said “we don’t want to get on that slippery slope”!   Of course this was before the majority ownership of the line belonged to a company that auctions off the unbooked cabins on their “luxury” line.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Randyk47

[Observer]

15 minutes ago, Randyk47 said:

 

Good point and almost exactly what a Silversea HD told us.   She very specifically said “we don’t want to get on that slippery slope”!   Of course this was before the majority ownership of the line belonged to a company that auctions off the unbooked cabins on their “luxury” line.

 

But hasn't SS been on this slope long before the RCCL purchase?  SS has long offered various special blandishments to sell suites on cruises with lots of space available.  True, they haven't been auctions.  But (not unlike efforts of hoteliers and airline revenue management staff) they have been efforts to glean some revenue from that ever-so-perishable product, a cruise suite.  

[Randyk47]

7 minutes ago, Observer said:

 

But hasn't SS been on this slope long before the RCCL purchase?  SS has long offered various special blandishments to sell suites on cruises with lots of space available.  True, they haven't been auctions.  But (not unlike efforts of hoteliers and airline revenue management staff) they have been efforts to glean some revenue from that ever-so-perishable product, a cruise suite.  

 

That I can’t speak to.  On our 18-day Rome to Dubai cruise in 2017 they had five Silver Suites empty for sure and maybe two or three of the even higher suites and they stayed that way for the whole cruise.   I don’t recall any last minute incentives before the cruise and certainly nothing once we boarded.  For 18 days we might have been tempted depending on the offer.   

Edited April 19, 2019 by Randyk47

[Observer]

29 minutes ago, Randyk47 said:

 

That I can’t speak to.  On our 18-day Rome to Dubai cruise in 2017 they had five Silver Suites empty for sure and maybe two or three of the even higher suites and they stayed that way for the whole cruise.   I don’t recall any last minute incentives before the cruise and certainly nothing once we boarded.  For 18 days we might have been tempted depending on the offer.   

 

Sorry.  I was using the term "suites" loosely, referred to everything from Vista up.  The kinds of incentives to which I was referring are a free category upgrade and/or a $1000/suite OBC or free/reduced air.  Such incentives are often rolled out well after the sailing has first been offered for sale.

 

Re your Rome-Dubai cruise:  Would you have had any problem with SS's holding an auction for upgrade from, say, Verandah to Silver Suite, with minimum bid (per suite, not per guest) of, say, $2500 ($250/day)?  If there were takers even at the minimum bid, it would mean $12,500 additional revenue for the cruise line with hardly any additional expense.

 

Ability to participate in the auction (conducted electronically, of course) could be limited to Venetian members with, say, 100 or 200 nights.  So this would be an additional perk for regular guests.  I would imagine that such an auction might be announced three weeks before sailing (after which there would not likely be new guests signing on) with bids required two weeks before sailing. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Observer
Specific detail re proposed minimum bid

[Observer]

20 minutes ago, Observer said:

 

Re your Rome-Dubai cruise:  Would you have had any problem with SS's holding an auction for upgrade from, say, Verandah to Silver Suite, with minimum bid (per suite, not per guest) of, say, $2500 ($250/day)?  If there were takers even at the minimum bid, it would mean $12,500 additional revenue for the cruise line with hardly any additional expense.

 

 

Apologies.  I have just re-read the post to which I was responding and see that it was an 18 day cruise, not 10 day as I had mistakenly recalled.  So my figures above are off.  At $250 a night the minimum upgrade bid would have been $4500 (per suite, not per guest) and if all five Silver Suites got the minimum bid, the increased revenue would be $22,500.

[Stumblefoot]

1 hour ago, Observer said:

 

But hasn't SS been on this slope long before the RCCL purchase?  SS has long offered various special blandishments to sell suites on cruises with lots of space available.  True, they haven't been auctions.  But (not unlike efforts of hoteliers and airline revenue management staff) they have been efforts to glean some revenue from that ever-so-perishable product, a cruise suite.  

The key differentiator that you are now introducing Observer is special blandishments (i.e. promotions) versus an auction.  The slippery slope comment I made above was made in reference to diminishing a brand’s equity.  But, there is also potentially a slippery slope involved in what you propose from a legal standpoint.

 

For the past several years, SS’s pricing tactics have been driven by two components; (1) Silver Privilege Fares, and (2) Fare Guarantee Program.  The first is to entice consumers to book early to get the best price (cabin availability is a secondary component), whereas the second assures consumers that should the price they paid be reduced at anytime before the sailing date, they are entitled to the reduction (upon request, of course, putting the burden of claim on the consumer) in the price.  These two tactics in tandem are designed to create trust, what SS refers to as "peace of mind" in marketing speak, to build brand equity.

 

Therefore, an auction “could” expose SS to a liability, in addition to the unintended consequences of destroying the brand’s equity, because consumers can no longer trust that the price they have paid, at whatever time they paid their fare in full, continues to be the best offer in the marketplace.

[Observer]

18 minutes ago, Stumblefoot said:

The key differentiator that you are now introducing Observer is special blandishments (i.e. promotions) versus an auction.  The slippery slope comment I made above was made in reference to diminishing a brand’s equity.  But, there is also potentially a slippery slope involved in what you propose from a legal standpoint.

 

For the past several years, SS’s pricing tactics have been driven by two components; (1) Silver Privilege Fares, and (2) Fare Guarantee Program.  The first is to entice consumers to book early to get the best price (cabin availability is a secondary component), whereas the second assures consumers that should the price they paid be reduced at anytime before the sailing date, they are entitled to the reduction (upon request, of course, putting the burden of claim on the consumer) in the price.  These two tactics in tandem are designed to create trust, what SS refers to as "peace of mind" in marketing speak, to build brand equity.

 

Therefore, an auction “could” expose SS to a liability, in addition to the unintended consequences of destroying the brand’s equity, because consumers can no longer trust that the price they have paid, at whatever time they paid their fare in full, continues to be the best offer in the marketplace.

 

You raise a point I had not considered and to which I have no ready response.

 

However:  Not all Silver Suites (for example) on a given cruise are priced identically.  A new guest may pay list price.  A returning guest with 100 nights pays 95% of list price.   With 250 night, 90%.  Etc.  

 

Assuming that one has negotiated the possible effect on brand equity (which I could easily do 🙂 ), could the liability issue you raise be removed by saying that participation in the auction is a Venetian Society benefit, open only to members with, say, 300+ nights?  Could the guarantees you cite be modified so that there is an exception for fares achieved through the auction?

 

You do raise a real issue related to this matter.  However, I (and I may be alone in this!) wish that there was a means whereby unsold premium suites could be made available to willing/qualified bidders shortly before sailing with Silversea enjoying additional revenue (all of which would of course immediately be reinvested in the cruise experience/food/wines/crew compensation/etc. 🙂).

 

In fact, in writing the above, I thought of a sweetener to the proposal:  All revenue from the auctioned upgrades would be directed to the crew welfare fund!

[Randyk47]

One thing to remember is there is a new person sitting at the head of the big corporate table.   Silversea past policies and procedures are subject to change.   The Silver Privilege Fares and Fare Guarantee Program could be changed or done away with quickly.   The Fare Guarantee Program is particularly unique and equally problematic as it really doesn’t work at all with RCCL typical marketing practices.    

[Stumblefoot]

4 hours ago, Observer said:

Not all Silver Suites (for example) on a given cruise are priced identically.  A new guest may pay list price.  A returning guest with 100 nights pays 95% of list price.   With 250 night, 90%.  Etc.  

You bring up an interesting point, but in actuality each passenger pays the same base fare.  The lesser price only becomes available due to any promotions or loyalty incentives as expressed in the T&C’s.  So, everyone is on an equal playing field in terms of price.

 

4 hours ago, Observer said:

...could the liability issue you raise be removed by saying that participation in the auction is a Venetian Society benefit, open only to members with, say, 300+ nights?  Could the guarantees you cite be modified so that there is an exception for fares achieved through the auction?

Yes, absolutely!

 

4 hours ago, Observer said:

In fact, in writing the above, I thought of a sweetener to the proposal:  All revenue from the auctioned upgrades would be directed to the crew welfare fund!

Well, you just made it an easy proposition as THAT will never happen. 😁

 

2 hours ago, Randyk47 said:

One thing to remember is there is a new person sitting at the head of the big corporate table.   Silversea past policies and procedures are subject to change.   The Silver Privilege Fares and Fare Guarantee Program could be changed or done away with quickly.   The Fare Guarantee Program is particularly unique and equally problematic as it really doesn’t work at all with RCCL typical marketing practices.    

Of course.  And, I wasn’t trying to imply otherwise.  Any policy or procedure can be amended at anytime, regardless of ownership.  Just like the 10% early payment in full promotion can be removed at anytime.  We all know the real price of any voyage isn’t what SS shows as the list price.

[Silver Spectre]

Going back to the original point, we have generally had or been offered upgrades from a Vista to a regular Veranda suite, some of which we have turned down either because of location ( midship Vista to the furthest forward deck 5 Veranda for instance) or offered after we had unpacked and settled in. We have been lucky enough to once have a segment upgrade from a Vista to a Medallion, but there had been serious noise issues in the Vista on the first leg. Our Panorama gty on the Muse last October became 602, and after a bit of persuasion with the London office to midships deck 6. We would have been happy with the Panorama but SS put the Bridge Directors in one and the GHosts in the other. Interestingly 602 was then sold 5 days before sailing.