SS Debut of "Priviledged Passage"

[uk1]

DRJW,

 

I think you missed the existing thread when you started the new thread with the note above, (Thanks Dan for adding it to this) and unluckily your keyboard appears to have got stuck in the upper-case mode giving the impression that you neither wanted to participate in the existing discussion but also wanted to start a fresh conversation by shouting at those already discussing this topic from a new corner. Easilly done - I know!

 

I gather that SS haven't completed the roll out of this yet - as some of their key TA's didn't know. As the programme's success will rely heavily on TA's identifying clients who want this product I hope they do a good "channels" job. Press releases isn't the same as properly planned and carried out staff work. It's merely gloss.

 

Jeff

[DrJW]

We Are Scheduled To Do Our 3rd Sailing On The Whisper In May Of 2007. We Just Received A Mailing From Ss On The Privileged Passage Concept They Are Considering And Unfortunately Are Only 'sampling' This Concept On One Cruise...not Ours! :(

 

Is There Any Way We Could Convince Those In 'power' At Ss..that This Privileged Passage Concept Would Indeed Make This Company So Much Better! The Only Reason Oceana Cruises Is As Successful As It Is..is Due To The 'country Club Casual Atmospere Dress Code'...with Ss' S Accomodations, Its Service And Its Fabulous Fleet..adding This 'casualness' Would Surely Make This Even A More Superb Cruise Line! Do We Really Need Formal Nights When We Are Introduced To The Captain...does He Really Want To Shake Our Hands?

 

Am Eager To Hear Fellow Past And Future Ss Pax..and What Their Thoughts Are On This New Concept For Ss..i Personally Feel It Is An Excellent Idea..but 'experimeting' With It On Only One Sailing..surely Will Not Give Adequate Valid Statistical Data Wherein A Prudent Decision Could Be Made!

 

Your Thoughts?

 

 

Drjw

[Canuckvoyager]

The idea that SS may eventually go "country club casual" and eliminate many of the formalities of traditional cruising was not good news to me. Personally, I enjoy the dressing-up, the parties and receptions where you can meet and greet the Captain and officers and get to know more of your fellow passengers, and all those fabulous social traditions. A big part of what appeals to me about a cruise holiday is the opportunity to step into another world, very different from day-to-day life -- a world with a bit of glamour, fantasy, and adventure. Doing away with many of the traditional aspects of cruising could make the experience rather ordinary to many of us. Much like staying at a nice hotel -- pleasant at best, but nothing terribly special or memorable. Just one opinion on the issue.

[texanaust]

The idea that SS may eventually go "country club casual" and eliminate many of the formalities of traditional cruising was not good news to me. Personally, I enjoy the dressing-up, the parties and receptions where you can meet and greet the Captain and officers and get to know more of your fellow passengers, and all those fabulous social traditions. A big part of what appeals to me about a cruise holiday is the opportunity to step into another world, very different from day-to-day life -- a world with a bit of glamour, fantasy, and adventure. Doing away with many of the traditional aspects of cruising could make the experience rather ordinary to many of us. Much like staying at a nice hotel -- pleasant at best, but nothing terribly special or memorable. Just one opinion on the issue.

 

 

I totally agree. I bet Seabourn won't go in this direction.

[uk1]

Nobody has suggested that all SS cruises are going to go that way or that this is what they plan. They are merely at this stage offering one cruise on one ship to those that want to enjoy the cruise without formality.

 

Just because you choose beef it doesn't mean you have to stop all those that don't like beef choosing lamb.

 

Jeff

[Canuckvoyager]

Nobody has suggested that all SS cruises are going to go that way or that this is what they plan. They are merely at this stage offering one cruise on one ship to those that want to enjoy the cruise without formality.

 

Just because you choose beef it doesn't mean you have to stop all those that don't like beef choosing lamb.

 

Jeff

 

Say you're the owner of a specialty restaurant, say a steakhouse. You then decide to eliminate beef for one night a week in order to please those that don't like beef, but want lamb. Once starting along this road, you can't stop there, because you'll have lost some of your beef customers who are unhappy about having less access to your original product, and you won't ever get a large market of lamb lovers, because you're offering a very limited service. So, maybe you'll have to start offering chicken one night per week to get those that want chicken and don't like beef or lamb. Now, you're no longer a steakhouse; and, in trying to have something to satisfy all, you're pleasing nobody.

[MrsWaldo]

This restaurant will have 3 other options you can choose at any one time (ie the other three ships).

 

I'm sure there are already pax who choose either the larger or smaller ships because they have a preference for their size or amenities. having a preference for one or the other doesn't discourage them from using SS (but I may be wrong).

 

People also choose their passage according to itinerary (which is why we have nothing booked for next year yet).

 

For SS I still think this is very much an opportunity to grow their market )and belive me there is a new market out there despite current economics in the US)

[uk1]

Say you're the owner of a specialty restaurant, say a steakhouse. You then decide to eliminate beef for one night a week in order to please those that don't like beef, but want lamb. Once starting along this road, you can't stop there, because you'll have lost some of your beef customers who are unhappy about having less access to your original product, and you won't ever get a large market of lamb lovers, because you're offering a very limited service. So, maybe you'll have to start offering chicken one night per week to get those that want chicken and don't like beef or lamb. Now, you're no longer a steakhouse; and, in trying to have something to satisfy all, you're pleasing nobody.

 

Your hard work should be commended - but your argument doesn't quite work, and I don't really know what your beef is! ;}

 

1. SS proably offer around 300 cruises each year. This is just one, leaving around 299 for the beefeaters.

 

2. I think you'll find that on the one cruise for the elegant casuals - they'll also allow you to dress up if you want. That's always the case in society where essentially minimum dress codes are generally set - not maximum dress codes. It's just on the other 299 the commited elegant casuals will not be welcome. be welcome.

 

Jeff

[lord of the seas]

Don't forget the Vegetarians,all this talk of Meat.I myself favour Venison.

Who knows, in the future when most reasonable ideas have been exhausted we might have a bald only cruise or wooden leg or glass eye.We have Gay only cruises.It's the thin end of the wedge,we're all doomed.

[uk1]

http://www.m-dash.com/Business%20Concepts/images/prevs/prev31.jpg

[Canuckvoyager]

Your hard work should be commended - but your argument doesn't quite work, and I don't really know what your beef is! ;}

 

1. SS proably offer around 300 cruises each year. This is just one, leaving around 299 for the beefeaters.

 

2. I think you'll find that on the one cruise for the elegant casuals - they'll also allow you to dress up if you want. That's always the case in society where essentially minimum dress codes are generally set - not maximum dress codes. It's just on the other 299 the commited elegant casuals will not be welcome. be welcome.

 

Jeff

 

Jeff:

 

“What’s my beef?” you ask. It’s that you seem to dismiss my and others’ concerns about a change of philosophy/approach at SS by saying this is only about one specific sailing. If so, then why the press release announcing the “Privileged Passage” program, and SS’s desire to offer more in the way of “nontraditional”, less conventional cruising? It sounds to me, like the beginning of a change in direction. You said yourself, in an earlier post, that SS is trying to target a particular group – the affluent, time-poor baby boomers, who SS thinks want a casual experience. For the record, here’s one boomer that appreciates the extras in the new program (i.e. complimentary early embarkation, shore excursions) but not at the cost of eliminating the traditional formalities and activities that make cruising magical, special, and a unique experience not found elsewhere. Maybe I’m not the only one who thinks this way. You say that SS can continue to offer both types of cruising. Hope so. But, it may be hard to pull off for a small line -- having to change gears from one cruise to the next. As I tried to say in my previous post by using the restaurant analogy, SS may end up diluting and weakening their product by trying to satisfy a number of niches in the market.

 

The trend toward more casual cruising seems to be permeating the industry. I wonder how much this has to do with customer preferences, and how much is about cruise lines wanting to cut costs and raise profits. Toward this end, they may be trying to convince customers that conventional is “rigid”, and casual is better. By golly, the most affluent and desirable passengers want casual, you/they tell us. More “casualness” often equates with less for the passenger (and more profit for the cruise line) – more DJ’s instead of live bands and productions; more hamburgers and less caviar; fewer receptions, cocktail parties, and organized activities which cuts down on the need for crew; and so on. And all this for higher fares, because you’re on a “privileged passage”. Oh, but there will be new “privileges”, one may argue – increased spa hours, some free excursions, and early embarkation/late disembarkation if needed. I suspect that the savings coming from the cuts to be made will outweigh the cost of the new extras.

 

Based on the majority of my SS cruises, I like SS as it is. A move toward less conventional cruising, even if it’s only in a portion of the product to start, is bound to change the whole nature of the beast before too long. By the way, donning a ball gown when all around are casual (i.e. exercising your right to exceed minimum dress requirements) is not going to make one feel like they’re on a different sort of cruise -- unless one typically lives in a separate reality. If casual, non-conventional is truly what everybody wants, then so be it. But, maybe there are more than a few of us out there who want traditional cruising to stay alive.

[wripro]

To me "privileged passage" is a sign of "floundering bottom line." If SS were filling all its ships with the current dress code they would never experiment with country club casual. But in an effort to reach a new market who do not like to dress up they are willing to sacrifice what has made them so special in the first place. They would never give up the $400 per couple they charge for early embarkation and late disembarkation. I know it's only one cruise. For now!!!! But if they sell that one out you can bet it will be followed by many more. Now, this is not the end of the world....just the end of SS as we know it.

[uk1]

Canuckvoyager,

 

I'm sorry you missed my feeble and inadequate attempt at humour and lightness in addressing your somewhat bizaare tale of steakhouses etc with my little joke about beef. To explain, steak is beef and it was a pun and when I wrote it, it made me chuckle. With the benefit of hindsight I think it was just too subtle. My genuine apologies if it confused. Still. Onto your point.

 

With respect I think it's you that have missed the point and are taking the ostrich approach to the realities of life.

 

1. It is alleged that SS have new capacity coming onto the waters within the next few years.

 

2. Currently discounts are offered on visrtually every cruise that SS sells. It is reasonable to assume therefore that they'd like a few more punters - particularly those that pay more.

 

3. From (1) and (2) it is reasonable to assume that currently SS are attracting as many people amongst the enourmous group that wish to "don the togs" and go the "fancy dress dos" as they can find.

 

4. To fill the ships both current and alleged projected they therefore need to do new things to attract another group eg elegant casual who are currently unserved. I know I have the cash and can't spend it and most of my mates feel the same.

 

5. Do you really believe that SS are going to succeed in filling the ships with elegant casuals and turf you lot out? Are you insane?

 

If you like SS as it is, and don't want us small minority to have the odd small corner ie 1 in 300 cruises to congregate - then fill the ships up and they won't change. And whilst you're at it, give them an undertaking that you have a plan to fill it up in 10 years when society will have changed dramatically and the moth-ball brigade will be considerably thinner on the ground.

 

I guess following on from LOT's post we should have a cruise for those that enjoy a good laugh!?

 

Jeff

[uk1]

duplicate

[uk1]

To me "privileged passage" is a sign of "floundering bottom line." If SS were filling all its ships with the current dress code they would never experiment with country club casual. But in an effort to reach a new market who do not like to dress up they are willing to sacrifice what has made them so special in the first place. They would never give up the $400 per couple they charge for early embarkation and late disembarkation. I know it's only one cruise. For now!!!! But if they sell that one out you can bet it will be followed by many more. Now, this is not the end of the world....just the end of SS as we know it.

 

 

WRIPRO,

 

No you are completely wrong I'm afraid. The opposite to what you say is true.

 

Management not recognising the changers in society, listening to their customers, tolerating a product with high fixed costs, low variable costs and low occupancy from existing markets when there are new markets that can be managed alongside existing ones - is the sign of a floundering company. In this industry incremental revenue goes almost entirely to the bottom line.

 

I promise you that it isn't then end of the world as you fear. Still - if you believe so - best book up now and enjoy it whilst you can!

 

Jeff

[texanaust]

WRIPRO,

 

No you are completely wrong I'm afraid. The opposite to what you say is true.

 

Management not recognising the changers in society, listening to their customers, tolerating a product with high fixed costs, low variable costs and low occupancy from existing markets when there are new markets that can be managed alongside existing ones - is the sign of a floundering company. In this industry incremental revenue goes almost entirely to the bottom line.

 

I promise you that it isn't then end of the world as you fear. Still - if you believe so - best book up now and enjoy it whilst you can!

 

Jeff

 

 

Sorry Jeff, but I dont agree with you on this one. I believe that SS is planning a move downmarket to more of a RSSC cruise line. I don't believe that the line is floundering, but it does want to capture more of the casual American market that refuses to dress up. One cruise right now, but many more on the horizon. Its a pity, because I too liked dressing up for the fun of it. And I'm only in my mid 30's...

[duct tape]

Suggestion. If successful, they could dedicate one of the ships as such.

[uk1]

Sorry Jeff, but I dont agree with you on this one. I believe that SS is planning a move downmarket to more of a RSSC cruise line. I don't believe that the line is floundering, but it does want to capture more of the casual American market that refuses to dress up. One cruise right now, but many more on the horizon. Its a pity, because I too liked dressing up for the fun of it. And I'm only in my mid 30's...

 

You need to re-read the announcement. They are attempting the reverse of what you say.

 

The intention is clearly not designed to move them downmarket but up-market into what is slightly unchartered waters.

 

I can give you a couple of hints at some of the background thinking behind the experiment. In June 2006 Albert Peter was a round-table participant at a Luxury Alliance meeting. The discussion was moderated by Gregory J. Furman, Founder and Chairman of The Luxury Marketing Council. I'm not going to summarise their discussions (one of many on this topic) but it was publicly (not giving away any secrets here!) summarised here:

 

http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/154000320/4027968.html

 

I happen to have been advising one of the member companies and it would be inapproproate to disclose for which one! But I genuinely suggest that you have misunderstood the reasons for the move and have ignored the detail in the announcement. There are some issues you need to accept without the need to simply see things in a black and white and inaccurate focus.

 

When profiling markets you essentialy generalise. But the generality is that currently SS attracts and seeks to attract a high number of people from lower down the crusing feeding chain who are prepared to pay a "bit more" to try the SS experience. They do this to fill capacity. This group aren't necessarily prepared to pay full $ if discounts aren't available and when they do try the product they are acutely aware of what they paid and are more likely to want to achieve their perception of best value for the money that they have paid. The key part that is stretched in terms of SS expense is "All Inclusive". They are for example likely to drink more, that drink is more likely to be champagne, they'll demand caviar more, be upset if lobster and crab claws aren't available night and day on demand etc. They are also more likely to complain because their expectations were greater. I can go on.

 

However at the upper end, the profiled group will want to see the ship as an extension of home. They can afford as much food and drink as they want at home and see no reason to enjoy the champagne and freebies to excess. For them it should be business as usual'ish. They'll eat more informally and want to escape the constraints that their extreme normal day to day lives places on them. For example rigorous adherence to highly planned and tuned schedules. They yearn for relaxing informality where everything is taken care of.

 

The downside of this group is that they like to book at the last minute but - and this is important to SS, they will compare the type of experience SS are trying to develop against the cost of personal chartering rather than comparing it with cheaper cruise lines which is what the upgrade group are thinking of. Basically this group has more cash, but are a smaller market and more difficult to reach. They are also currently only catered for through chartering. But there is a niche within the niche of those that will never charter but currently wouldn;t choose SS because of it's perceived formality. I've over generalised to help with the bringing into focus of this group.

 

I don't mean to be dismissive of people's fears. The reality is that if SS fail at this due to either miscalculation or poor marketing and management of the project, the extra capacity arriving soon in all upper-level cruise lines means that the pack mentaility will force all of the players down-market. But this is what SS are trying to avoid rather than achieve. If they acheive it SS will stay at the upper end, if they fail they'll be sucked down-market by need.

 

Jeff

[MrsWaldo]

They are for example likely to drink more, that drink is more likely to be champagne, they'll demand caviar more, be upset if lobster and crab claws aren't available night and day on demand etc. They are also more likely to complain because their expectations were greater. I can go on.

 

 

 

Jeff

 

 

This is exactly what we feared would hapeen on our cruise and thnakfully it didn't

[MrsWaldo]

, the profiled group will want to see the ship as an extension of home. They can afford as much food and drink as they want at home and see no reason to enjoy the champagne and freebies to excess. For them it should be business as usual'ish. They'll eat more informally and want to escape the constraints that their extreme normal day to day lives places on them. For example rigorous adherence to highly planned and tuned schedules. They yearn for relaxing informality where everything is taken care of.

 

Jeff

 

This is the untapped market which is arising downunder and to a large extent what we found people on our cruise to be like

[juicyjuju]

The idea that SS may eventually go "country club casual" and eliminate many of the formalities of traditional cruising was not good news to me. Personally, I enjoy the dressing-up, the parties and receptions where you can meet and greet the Captain and officers and get to know more of your fellow passengers, and all those fabulous social traditions. A big part of what appeals to me about a cruise holiday is the opportunity to step into another world, very different from day-to-day life -- a world with a bit of glamour, fantasy, and adventure. Doing away with many of the traditional aspects of cruising could make the experience rather ordinary to many of us. Much like staying at a nice hotel -- pleasant at best, but nothing terribly special or memorable. Just one opinion on the issue.

 

I love getting dressed up and my DH doesn't mind wearing a tux at all.

[xplrcrzn]

There is a significant group of people who do not want to "dress up" while on vacation simply because dressing up is a large part of their daily lives (suits at work, business dinners, tuxes at charity benefits, etc). It is not "special" to them but is, instead, something to escape for awhile, at least on vacation. At the same time, these folks aren't "slobs" in any sense of the word and know instinctively what "country club casual" means. I think this is part of the market SS is trying to reach.

[uk1]

Indeed .... it cannot be thought by any sane person that the market for high-value people willing to spend this type of cash are content to have it mandated to them that "if you want to eat the food you have paid for in the main restaurant both next Tuesday and the following Saturday you must wear at least a suit but preferably a tuxedo. If not you can try and book the only other restaurant that might be available which has very limited capacity. Failing that we'll bring your food to your room".

 

Not EVERYONE's cup of tea!

 

Jeff

[texanaust]

You need to re-read the announcement. They are attempting the reverse of what you say.

 

The intention is clearly not designed to move them downmarket but up-market into what is slightly unchartered waters.

 

I can give you a couple of hints at some of the background thinking behind the experiment. In June 2006 Albert Peter was a round-table participant at a Luxury Alliance meeting. The discussion was moderated by Gregory J. Furman, Founder and Chairman of The Luxury Marketing Council. I'm not going to summarise their discussions (one of many on this topic) but it was publicly (not giving away any secrets here!) summarised here:

 

http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/154000320/4027968.html

 

I happen to have been advising one of the member companies and it would be inapproproate to disclose for which one! But I genuinely suggest that you have misunderstood the reasons for the move and have ignored the detail in the announcement. There are some issues you need to accept without the need to simply see things in a black and white and inaccurate focus.

 

When profiling markets you essentialy generalise. But the generality is that currently SS attracts and seeks to attract a high number of people from lower down the crusing feeding chain who are prepared to pay a "bit more" to try the SS experience. They do this to fill capacity. This group aren't necessarily prepared to pay full $ if discounts aren't available and when they do try the product they are acutely aware of what they paid and are more likely to want to achieve their perception of best value for the money that they have paid. The key part that is stretched in terms of SS expense is "All Inclusive". They are for example likely to drink more, that drink is more likely to be champagne, they'll demand caviar more, be upset if lobster and crab claws aren't available night and day on demand etc. They are also more likely to complain because their expectations were greater. I can go on.

 

However at the upper end, the profiled group will want to see the ship as an extension of home. They can afford as much food and drink as they want at home and see no reason to enjoy the champagne and freebies to excess. For them it should be business as usual'ish. They'll eat more informally and want to escape the constraints that their extreme normal day to day lives places on them. For example rigorous adherence to highly planned and tuned schedules. They yearn for relaxing informality where everything is taken care of.

 

The downside of this group is that they like to book at the last minute but - and this is important to SS, they will compare the type of experience SS are trying to develop against the cost of personal chartering rather than comparing it with cheaper cruise lines which is what the upgrade group are thinking of. Basically this group has more cash, but are a smaller market and more difficult to reach. They are also currently only catered for through chartering. But there is a niche within the niche of those that will never charter but currently wouldn;t choose SS because of it's perceived formality. I've over generalised to help with the bringing into focus of this group.

 

I don't mean to be dismissive of people's fears. The reality is that if SS fail at this due to either miscalculation or poor marketing and management of the project, the extra capacity arriving soon in all upper-level cruise lines means that the pack mentaility will force all of the players down-market. But this is what SS are trying to avoid rather than achieve. If they acheive it SS will stay at the upper end, if they fail they'll be sucked down-market by need.

 

Jeff

 

 

I read the article correctly. My view is that this experiment will ultimately lead SS down-market regardless of the hype surrounding the so-called "enhancements." Are they attempting to move up market? The announcement says they are, but I don't believe everything I read. Will I still cruise? Sure, but the experience may very well become dumbed-down and more Americanized than it is now.

[wripro]

uk1,

 

you misread my post. i said it was NOT the end of the world if SS goes country club casual, just the end of SS as we know it.