Jump to content

Genting Hong Kong outlines cost reduction, capital raising measures on dire 1H20 net loss predictions


Recommended Posts

The problem is no one knows.  I read an article yesterday that said vaccines are less effective for overweight people.   So will there be a weight limit along with all the other possible issues before we can cruise again?   Who knows and as Keith said time will tell.

Also not only the direct cruise industry but many ports they serve and business are hurting  I live in Maine and there are articles about how much money no cruises is costing the state.  I'm sure in places such as here and Alaska, for instance, there might not be some of the businesses that currently serve cruise ships and passengers when this all ends.   Hopefully soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ctjon said:

The problem is no one knows.  I read an article yesterday that said vaccines are less effective for overweight people.   So will there be a weight limit along with all the other possible issues before we can cruise again?   Who knows and as Keith said time will tell.

Also not only the direct cruise industry but many ports they serve and business are hurting  I live in Maine and there are articles about how much money no cruises is costing the state.  I'm sure in places such as here and Alaska, for instance, there might not be some of the businesses that currently serve cruise ships and passengers when this all ends.   Hopefully soon.

 

I live in a beach town in South Carolia that opened up to tourists; the COVID rate is through the roof and whatever short term gain was made is likely offset by other societal costs.  I don't think putting money over people's helath is cost effective especially in a society like the US where healthcare is a privilege not a right and COVID testing is an admitted disaster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, resistk said:

 

I live in a beach town in South Carolia that opened up to tourists; the COVID rate is through the roof and whatever short term gain was made is likely offset by other societal costs.  I don't think putting money over people's helath is cost effective especially in a society like the US where healthcare is a privilege not a right and COVID testing is an admitted disaster.

I doubt that opening ports somehow change the current situation with Covid in the US. If you look more closely you will see that the States got enough Covid infected people on its own. Someone from abroad wont make the situation any more terrible. So yes, money over health of the citizetns (for those companies) sounds like a good deal..  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MightyQuinn said:

 

Thanks Vince.  I really appreciate your thoughts.

You've mentioned several times that ownership of Crystal has been less about profitability and more about satisfying strategic objectives of the parent, whether GHK or NYK.  What are those strategic objectives?  What is the higher brand function?  Can they still be met during a sustained shutdown with the prospect of cold lay-up for Symphony and Serenity?  At what point would Crystal become an expensive vanity project?

 

My pleasure...  My thoughts are just that, but I always enjoy chatting about this stuff.  🙂

 

There are definitely limits...  NYK was happy with the vanity project until the box that Crystal was sitting in really became unsustainable in the market.  They weren't large enough to have enough economy of scale to compete (or even cover fixed costs of modernizing their marketing and IT infrastructure), but every time they tried to expand they couldn't keep occupancy at a sustained level because they were trying to operate comparably large ships in a small niche.  Adding a third ship was always a high percentage jump in inventory, and the numbers never worked -- plus the one time they took the jump and built the third ship anyway, they lost their shirts on the overcapacity.  NYK knew that Crystal's current size was unsustainable, but they were unwilling to invest in the paths to growing the company.

 

So along came Genting, and they had a unique need.  Besides their interest in a luxury cruise line, they were even more so looking for a luxury BRAND.  NYK used Crystal the same way to a small point, branding things like their yacht club in Tokyo, but Genting was looking for broader use.  Genting was paying licensing on its higher end properties, none of it particularly brought prestige to Genting since they were other companies brands, and it was disjointed.  

 

This need for a brand dovetailed nicely with Crystal's need to distribute fixed costs among more passengers -- one of the ways to build the brand is to expand Crystal into adjacent markets...  The other is to start exposing Genting's higher end travelers to the Crystal name.  This sort of evolved in the following three spheres...

 

1)  Crystal launched other segments that their existing customer base would buy, and that they would QUICKLY bulk up with -- river ships (for example) could be built fast and comparably inexpensively.  This would help expand their customer base, help distribute costs, and drive demand for the aging ocean segment while they helped develop a next generation product (at least in theory.)

 

2)  Some Crystal branded products would be double agents.  Genting had a pair of small ships they use for the groups and incentive market which didn't always fit the Star branding, so one of them was refit and moved to Crystal (Esprit).  This fills the higher end incentive and group market for Genting at large (including Crystal's US market), but also does scheduled service helping to expand Crystal's US operations from point number 1.  Along the same lines, Genting branded their Comlux 777 that supports their group and incentive/charter business with the Crystal brand for the same reason.  Originally they had envisioned a US-market side project in doing "AirCruises" during the slower seasons for groups, but of course that didn't take off so Skye falls more into point number 3 now.

 

3)  Some Crystal products would probably have little to do with the US operation.  Right now I would throw Skye and Mozart into this bucket -- they fulfill Genting's vision of being Genting's highest quality offerings, above Star, Dream, Resorts World, etc., but extend Genting's portfolio.  Another much talked-about example here would be branding hotel towers that they operate at existing (or future) properties that they would normally pay someone else to brand, with the Crystal brand.  (These are the hotels-within-a-hotel, like the Conrad inside the RW Las Vegas.)  Actually, RWLV is a really good example because it was the first time a Vegas contact mentioned the potential future branding, though obviously the brand isn't mature enough for it at this point.  Funny though, I read an article earier this year that referred to a "Crystal Bar" and "Crystal Pool" in the Conrad tower.  🤷‍♂️  Anyway, none of these operations are (or ever would be) supported by Crystal's US team outside of sales connections.

 

How the development of the next generation ocean product actually evolved is a whole other story, but it's been perfectly on-brand with both NYK's legacy of studying the project for years, and Genting's 'measure 8,724 times, cut 32 times' that we've been watching at RW Las Vegas.

 

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BWIVince said:

 

My pleasure...  My thoughts are just that, but I always enjoy chatting about this stuff.  🙂

 

 

 

Vince,

 

I do find your "inside baseball" analysis fascinating.

 

What really intrigues me as I read this, is that you seem to ascribe some of Crystal's (Genting's really) decisions to corporate calculation.  What I mean is, if you look back at this board contemporaneously, a lot of it was being attributed to over-reach by a certain former executive (she who must not be named.)  Care to expand on that?

 

And yes, a lively dialogue should ensue.  At least it won't be about refunds or viral disease. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KenzSailing said:

What really intrigues me as I read this, is that you seem to ascribe some of Crystal's (Genting's really) decisions to corporate calculation.  What I mean is, if you look back at this board contemporaneously, a lot of it was being attributed to over-reach by a certain former executive (she who must not be named.)  Care to expand on that?


I’m tired and my defenses are down, so I’ll bite.  😁  Yeah, I never really understood the degree of scapegoating that happened there.

 

EVERY Crystal CEO prior to her was tasked with expansion by leadership.  Rodney built two ships (with a lessons-learned loop in the middle), Watters oversaw (and lost his job for) the third ship over-expansion, and Michel was responsible for the 2007 newbuild but couldn’t get the numbers to work to avoid the problem that got Watters into trouble.
 

I don’t really know to what degree the adjacent market strategy was hers, but to the point that someone gets the credit or blame she was the one that had to execute it and she certainly made herself the face of it. I don’t think it was fundamentally bad — it has been a fast and cheap(er) way to expand Crystal and make it more stable (until COVID of course), even if it still hasn’t yielded ocean ship replacements yet.  If I had to play Monday morning quarterback, the only thing I would have done differently would been to have built the first ocean ship next instead of Endeavor in terms of sequence, BUT in the end that would have changed timing since it would have required different shipyard sequencing and has both Werften and Crystal stuck with a bigger, more expensive half-built hull right now — so in hindsight that would have ended up worse.  Monday morning quarterbacking sometimes make you realize your plan actually would have been even worse.


As many CEOs aren’t, she didn’t seem very operationally minded.  IMHO, Crystal’s “rush” to get all of this done was to get to the new ocean ship that people were clamoring for.  New customers in adjacent markets needed to boost occupancy in the legacy markets, and for the most part that DID seem to be happening.  Rolling everything out that quickly is tricky though.  It wasn’t smooth, but overall it certainly wasn’t the worst rollout I’d ever seen, just chaotic.

 

Which brings us to the things I’ve seen hung on her that had little to nothing to do with her:

The SS United States — 100% Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay.  (Who really thought she had any desire to  deal with an almost 70 year old hull when she was trying to build fancy new ships — and at that a hull that her boss’s boss had an infatuation with and layers of guilt over.).
Genting’s “All Things Crystal” branding strategy — this was a cornerstone of Genting’s need for Crystal.  Things like Crystal Skye serve Genting, and I have no idea why they keep coming up as a “problem” for Crystal.

 

IMHO, outside of lack of ops chops (again, not unique to CEOs that come from sales), I think most of the complaints I’ve heard of her could be lumped together as personality complaints. Those kind of things are usually organic and are what they are, so there’s not a lot I can say there.  I do find it funny though,  I seldom heard complaints about the ops-centered CEOs lacking any sales instinct.  Every presentation I ever saw from Art Rodney could be used as an alternative sedative by dentists.  Certainly didn’t make him a bad CEO, just that not every leader has every strength, and I think both Rodney and Rodriguez equally admitted their biases and softer areas.   


Was that kind of what you were thinking?  Again, just my read...

 

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BWIVince said:

Was that kind of what you were thinking?  Again, just my read...

 

Vince

 

Vince,

 

Yeah, along those lines, but I knew you'd have the receipts, as the kids would say.

 

At a more macro level what I saw was:

 

The sense that, at the time, Crystal was going in every direction at once.  This intersected, not in a positive way, with the fact that the audience on this board was mostly focused on a new ocean ship (stick to your knitting....)

 

Her very conscious decision to make herself the face, literally, of all things Crystal. Here she bears some responsibility for my point above.  If you're going to make yourself the high profile face of the company then you're going to take the flak for poor decisions, even those made by your boss.

 

Even given all that, I thought there was a layer of personal animus expressed online that exceeded the level ever directed at any prior CEO.  So I ask myself, in the history of Crystal CEOs, what was unique about she-who-must-not-be-named?

 

I predict a variety of responses to that rhetorical question, all of which will skirt the issue.

 

See what I did there? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the angst against Edie, whom I always liked, had to do with the fact that she didn’t fit the norm set by all the previous male CEOs before her.  I have friends who liked her marketing and sailed Crystal for the first time due to her.  I never understood why anybody would think the United States project was her idea.  It never fit the brand.  Genting went after Edie and wanted her as part of their brand image.   Genting gave her free reign so if things went wrong she was the face of it.  Should Genting not done that.  Hindsight is 20/20.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cruisr said:

A lot of the angst against Edie, whom I always liked, had to do with the fact that she didn’t fit the norm set by all the previous male CEOs before her.  I have friends who liked her marketing and sailed Crystal for the first time due to her.  I never understood why anybody would think the United States project was her idea.  It never fit the brand.  Genting went after Edie and wanted her as part of their brand image.   Genting gave her free reign so if things went wrong she was the face of it.  Should Genting not done that.  Hindsight is 20/20.

 

Questioning your comment "Genting went after Edie". I believe she was hired when NYK still owned Crystal.

 

Patty

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Roger88 said:

I doubt that opening ports somehow change the current situation with Covid in the US. If you look more closely you will see that the States got enough Covid infected people on its own. Someone from abroad wont make the situation any more terrible. So yes, money over health of the citizetns (for those companies) sounds like a good deal..  

The problem might be the other way around.  A Covid free ship comes to port and someone gets infected from a local and then carries it back to the ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, cruisr said:

A lot of the angst against Edie, whom I always liked, had to do with the fact that she didn’t fit the norm set by all the previous male CEOs before her.  I have friends who liked her marketing and sailed Crystal for the first time due to her.  I never understood why anybody would think the United States project was her idea.  It never fit the brand.  Genting went after Edie and wanted her as part of their brand image.   Genting gave her free reign so if things went wrong she was the face of it.  Should Genting not done that.  Hindsight is 20/20.

If you went back into the boards while she was still at Crystal you'd find almost no one here liked what she was doing.  It was always her name on everything.  If she was that good, she'd still be at Crystal or similar position at another brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Texas Tillie said:

 

Questioning your comment "Genting went after Edie". I believe she was hired when NYK still owned Crystal.

 

Patty

My mistake.  You are right. NYK went after Edie but unless I am getting my dates confused I think Genting was in the background and negotiations were underway for them purchasing Crystal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ctjon said:

If you went back into the boards while she was still at Crystal you'd find almost no one here liked what she was doing.  It was always her name on everything.  If she was that good, she'd still be at Crystal or similar position at another brand.

This board is not representative of Crystal cruisers.  It is a very small group of people.  I mention cruise critic on ships (not just Crystal) and people have no idea what I am talking about.  There are people who liked what she did in raising the profile of Crystal they are just not on this board.  My TA and the luxury consortium she is a member of all loved what Edie was doing.

 

Aren’t we glad not to be talking about refunds and covid now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cruisr said:

This board is not representative of Crystal cruisers.  It is a very small group of people.  I mention cruise critic on ships (not just Crystal) and people have no idea what I am talking about.  

 

Aren’t we glad not to be talking about refunds and covid now!

 

Very true, and a point that often gets overlooked. There are also many people who "lurk" on this board as shown by the number of "new" names that have appeared on the various refund threads since March.

 

The downside to Edie making herself the "face" of Crystal was that when it started to become obvious that Crystal had badly over-promised on the new ocean ships, and was not going to deliver, she had to "wear" that failure. While I was never a fan of the "Cult of Edie", I felt a lot of the criticism was over-done. As I think I posted at the time, if ER had walked across the Bay of Biscay, there are those who would have pointed to this as proof she couldn't swim! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KenzSailing said:

 

Vince,

 

Yeah, along those lines, but I knew you'd have the receipts, as the kids would say.

 

At a more macro level what I saw was:

 

The sense that, at the time, Crystal was going in every direction at once.  This intersected, not in a positive way, with the fact that the audience on this board was mostly focused on a new ocean ship (stick to your knitting....)

 

Her very conscious decision to make herself the face, literally, of all things Crystal. Here she bears some responsibility for my point above.  If you're going to make yourself the high profile face of the company then you're going to take the flak for poor decisions, even those made by your boss.

 

Even given all that, I thought there was a layer of personal animus expressed online that exceeded the level ever directed at any prior CEO.  So I ask myself, in the history of Crystal CEOs, what was unique about she-who-must-not-be-named?

 

I predict a variety of responses to that rhetorical question, all of which will skirt the issue.

 

See what I did there? 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, cruisr said:

A lot of the angst against Edie, whom I always liked, had to do with the fact that she didn’t fit the norm set by all the previous male CEOs before her.  I have friends who liked her marketing and sailed Crystal for the first time due to her.  I never understood why anybody would think the United States project was her idea.  It never fit the brand.  Genting went after Edie and wanted her as part of their brand image.   Genting gave her free reign so if things went wrong she was the face of it.  Should Genting not done that.  Hindsight is 20/20.

 

28 minutes ago, ctjon said:

If you went back into the boards while she was still at Crystal you'd find almost no one here liked what she was doing.  It was always her name on everything.  If she was that good, she'd still be at Crystal or similar position at another brand.

 

I'm going to wrap these three together because they kind of hit on another point that I edited out this morning for length.  (Yeah, can you believe that was the SHORT version??)

 

Yes, IMHO gender was totally an issue, but it wasn't the only one -- there was also a generational one.

 

The complaint that her face was on everything is the PERFECT example.  When this point came up, I thought, "Seriously?"  I went through my records and found almost 100 marketing pieces with Gregg Michel's face on it -- announcements, brochures, Passport magazines, even the friggin' in-cabin magazine from 2004.  For the most part the only thing that had changed in the "letter" (introduction) form template was the photo from Gregg's to Edie's.  What does that say?

 

What Edie DID do a lot more of was press...  But she had to, she was the first CEO in over a decade that ACTUALLY oversaw an expansion of the brand -- and a big one.  I do see Tom Wolber do some press (though he came in after the heavy lifting of the adjacent market launches had been done), but Gregg's presence was almost invisible in that regard.

 

In my observation of what Genting was doing in addition to Crystal, I don't feel like Edie had as much free reign as it appeared to us.  I feel like she had a lot of leeway in how to implement the adjacent market strategy, but that didn't happen in a vacuum.  The refits of Mozart and Esprit and the building of the newbuilds were mostly done by teams led by her, but they also involved many resourced controlled by Genting.  Genting appeared to agree to a point that she needed more oversight because at some point she gained a direct supervisor at GHK, but even in the beginning it wasn't like Genting just cut her a check at any point and let her start sourcing anything.

 

I think besides gender -- which seemed to me to be the only reason people would suddenly complain about specific things that Edie was doing exactly the way Gregg did them -- was generational.  I know this is going to sound ageist, and maybe to some degree it is, but it needs to be called out.  Edie modernized the way the line was managed, how marketing was done, how the line interacted with its customers, and to say the difference in style and approach wasn't what some of the customers were used to is an understatement.  NOT all of that was effective -- change NEVER is -- but much of it was LONG overdue.

 

One example were the ads.  For the first time in its history, Crystal started aiming some of its marketing directly at women -- and women not yet retired.  While the ads seemed to be off-putting to Crystal's legacy customers, which is never good, they were also highly effective and memorable at catching the attention of new customers they were trying to attract.  I know the death of that campaign was highly celebrated here, BUT I can still picture at least 4 ads from that campaign vividly in my memory, while aside from the ad with Keith and Anne Marie I can't picture a single ad since, they've all been so boring and bland.  Likewise, I just had to pull up Crystal's website to even remember what the tagline is now, it's so generic...  And I'm _WAY_ more aware of Crystal's brand than most of the traveling public, so that's a serious problem.  

 

Also, just a note that Genting didn't enter the picture until Edie was actually onboard... She was brought in specifically to help launch the project that would begin the search for a buyer -- she and two others helped put together the offering to put Crystal on the market and explore the interest.  To Cruisr's point though, she gained additional authority under Genting -- although they didn't select her, they had a hand in her leadership role and how it was supported (with the constraints noted above).

 

Hopefully that didn't offend anyone, I didn't mean to.

 

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Texas Tillie said:

 

Questioning your comment "Genting went after Edie". I believe she was hired when NYK still owned Crystal.

 

Patty

Patty, she was you are correct.

 

I am not sure what Edie has to do with the topic of the thread. 

 

No one knows for sure what the future will be for many companies impacted by COVID-19.  For example take the airlines.  Which ones survive?  Which ones don't?  How about the Hotels and when I think of Hotels I think of those that are owned by other companies.  A hotel was just completed about a couple of weeks after COVID hit and was closed for quite awhile.  Do they survive?  Movie theaters?  Stores?  

 

One thing I am reminded about was an article I ready about a year ago.  It talked about all of the overbuilding and there was too much of too many things.  Yes a lot of "too".  LOL.  It mentioned when a recession would hit that some would not make it.   Depending on the length of COVID-19 without a vaccine it will bring some businesses down as it already has and I am sure many more will following.

 

Back to Genting.

 

The folks who I have met at Genting strike me as business people who will pull out everything you can think of to survive.  They moved quickly when COVID-19 was having a big impact even while we were on Serenity when they announced certain executive positions taking cuts in salary and quickly moved to cut expense.  Other hard decisions were made such as all of the reductions made, taking people off salary, shutting down Los Angeles, laying off a bunch of people, not paying severance, et., etc., etc.  They obviously want their business to survive this and won't just sit back and let it happen.  This makes me feel much better if I would compare it to companies that are not so aggressive as Genting is.  


Again the unknown is when do cruise lines begin sailing again  I am reminded that USA citizens can only travel to I think nine countries now so that says a lot about travel and COVID-19.

 

As Vince said at least portions of their business are bringing in revenue even if it is not as large as before.  This is better than being single threaded in one business which takes in no revenue.  

 

Time will tell.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BWIVince said:

 

My pleasure...  My thoughts are just that, but I always enjoy chatting about this stuff. 

 

Fascinating stuff Vince.  Thanks for the deep dive into your thoughts ... even if it was the short version!

So Genting is leveraging the Crystal brand as part of a strategy meant to bring prestige to their overall portfolio.  Even if Crystal is unprofitable as a cruise line, it has value as long as the Crystal mystique attracts new (hopefully profitable) customers to related Genting products.  If that corporate strategic objective is met, Genting is happy and hopefully Crystal is not harmed in the process. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BWIVince said:

The complaint that her face was on everything is the PERFECT example.  When this point came up, I thought, "Seriously?"  I went through my records and found almost 100 marketing pieces with Gregg Michel's face on it -- announcements, brochures, Passport magazines, even the friggin' in-cabin magazine from 2004.  For the most part the only thing that had changed in the "letter" (introduction) form template was the photo from Gregg's to Edie's.  What does that say?

 

What Edie DID do a lot more of was press...  But she had to, she was the first CEO in over a decade that ACTUALLY oversaw an expansion of the brand -- and a big one.  I do see Tom Wolber do some press (though he came in after the heavy lifting of the adjacent market launches had been done), but Gregg's presence was almost invisible in that regard.

 

 

Gonna disagree here.  SWMNBN didn't just do a lot more press - she did a lot of bad press.

 

Remember the puff pieces.  They weren't about Crystal as a company, or as a brand.  It was about SWMNBN and her jet-setting lifestyle.  How about how she always had her particular seat in first class?  Always with her Tumi carryon, her Hermes Birkin and Louis Vuitton bags.  Add in the cashmere pashmina and the Chanel flats.  Name dropping at every turn.

 

Sure, Michel was well known and publicized.  But he was publicized as the CEO, and the stories were about the company and how customers should buy the product.  I doubt there was a single booking that happened because someone read a story about SWMNBN and said "You know, if the CEO flies first class and has a Birkin bag, that's the company I want to travel with."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

Gonna disagree here.  SWMNBN didn't just do a lot more press - she did a lot of bad press.

 

Remember the puff pieces.  They weren't about Crystal as a company, or as a brand.  It was about SWMNBN and her jet-setting lifestyle.  How about how she always had her particular seat in first class?  Always with her Tumi carryon, her Hermes Birkin and Louis Vuitton bags.  Add in the cashmere pashmina and the Chanel flats.  Name dropping at every turn.

 

Sure, Michel was well known and publicized.  But he was publicized as the CEO, and the stories were about the company and how customers should buy the product.  I doubt there was a single booking that happened because someone read a story about SWMNBN and said "You know, if the CEO flies first class and has a Birkin bag, that's the company I want to travel with."

 

...Wasn't that for a lifestyle outlet though, in fairness?  I didn't even see it until someone posted it here in outrage.  And that's exactly the type of thing I mean when I talk about a more modern approach.  Sure, it's not my thing, and I'm guessing it's not your thing, but talking with fashion and lifestyle contacts isn't something prior CEOs would have done, but is definitely something more common in luxury travel these days.  I see a lot more fashion and style content in travel magazines than I did years ago.

 

Now whether it's obnoxiously braggadocios, that's always a risk with that stuff, and subjective.  I don't think she was as artful here as she needed to be, but I also wasn't at all offended by it, despite my lack of any items of the above brands.  

 

Hey, I said all of those things were unpopular with the locals here, didn't I?  😃  I don't think I mischaracterized it.  

 

Vince

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

Gonna disagree here.  SWMNBN didn't just do a lot more press - she did a lot of bad press.

 

Remember the puff pieces.  They weren't about Crystal as a company, or as a brand.  It was about SWMNBN and her jet-setting lifestyle.  How about how she always had her particular seat in first class?  Always with her Tumi carryon, her Hermes Birkin and Louis Vuitton bags.  Add in the cashmere pashmina and the Chanel flats.  Name dropping at every turn.

 

Sure, Michel was well known and publicized.  But he was publicized as the CEO, and the stories were about the company and how customers should buy the product.  I doubt there was a single booking that happened because someone read a story about SWMNBN and said "You know, if the CEO flies first class and has a Birkin bag, that's the company I want to travel with."

Then you would be wrong.  I have friends who booked Crystal based on the ads/media and luxury TA verifying their choice.  They were not Crystalized though as the product (they thought) did not live up to the hype.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cruisr said:

Then you would be wrong.  I have friends who booked Crystal based on the ads/media and luxury TA verifying their choice.  They were not Crystalized though as the product (they thought) did not live up to the hype.

 

You actually proved my point.  They bought on the ads, and a TA recommendation, not the CEO image.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyerTalker said:

 

You actually proved my point.  They bought on the ads, and a TA recommendation, not the CEO image.

She was the one that put the ads/images out there.  Edie was the one who spoke to the TAs at trade shows like Virtuoso Travel Week and she is the own who spoke with the media and magazines that people read.  We will have to agree to disagree.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with RiverCruising.co.uk
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance with Steve Dasseos of TripInsuranceStore.com
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...