Do Cruise Critic and Other Message Boards Have An Obligation To The Public?

There is an obvious struggle between the ultimate and honest reason almost every message board exists (profit, whether it be cash or promotion) and what the public perceives the message board to be.


There are boards which are essentially technical support assistances for software. You read a thread about a question and hopefully you see the appropriate troubleshooting technique and can correct your own issues. Sort of like a more detailed FAQ. Those boards have a profit motive, because answering a question one time rather than 100 means less tech support people and less interruptions.

Other boards, such as Cruise Critic, Luxury Cruise Talk, Cruise Freeks, CruiseFools, Cruise Line Fans, etc. are of another ilk, though using different flavors of approach.

Cruise Freek has unabashedly turned its boards into a marketing site; basing many of its threads around marketing group cruises on Royal Caribbean, Carnival, etc. I am, personally, offended by that as the board was not presented as a marketing ploy or as a license to fill my inbox with email after email concerning $599 cruises. I am not saying they are not nice people; just it is not my kind of place. At least there the posters know that the forum is really a marketing site.

Luxury Cruise Talk was established as a marketing tool; a place to go when Cruise Critic told its owner that she essentially had to stop marketing through the Cruise Critic message board and it told her clients that they had to stop talking in code about specific group cruises as it was exclusionary and really for the purpose of marketing the travel agent's cruises. LCT, however, became cult-like in my opinion. It didn't matter if the cruise was one you actually wanted to go on or if the ship was actually to the standard desired. No, what mattered was that you conform and support the group. As with a cult, eventually reason and facts became clouded because supporting the group and its leader became the motivation to cruise.

Is that illegal? No. Is it right? Well, that depends on your perspective. The travel agent's motivation all along was to make money through the message board. That she was able to do. However, most people who travel at a luxury standard are not looking at who is giving them a $599 cruise opportunity, but rather who is giving them the best service and comfort believing that the travel agent actually cares about them. Personal service is, of course, the cornerstone of luxury. Now, there is no question that sometimes you (anyone) will feign joy to make a friend happy. But to feign friendship to nurture an affinity to a cult; that is another thing.

And then there is Cruise Critic. It markets itself as Cruise "Critic"; a place to critique (good and bad) everything about cruising. Its website states, "Cruise Critic is a critically acclaimed interactive community comprised of avid and first-time cruisers who enjoy the fun of planning, researching and sharing their passion for cruising. No other single resource covers the world of cruising as thoroughly as CruiseCritic.com. Cruise Critic’s world-renowned editorial staff offers objective cruise reviews, features, ports of call profiles and destination stories. The Cruise Critic message boards are the most active in the world...Since its inception in 1995, Cruise Critic has earned the status of being the most influential cruise site on the Web, and an innovator of consumer-oriented cruise travel news."

As we now know, Cruise Critic is not necessarily "critical" or "objective". It is a place where, under the express guise of "critically acclaimed" objectivity, it has become a place of overt censorship and heretofore undisclosed support of third party marketing scheme(s). We do not need to rehash the number of posts deleted because Cruise Critic didn't like the truth being posted or a cheerleader's posts being identified as cheerleading. Nor do we need to repeat again that Cruise Critic knew some of its members were being compensated by a cruise line, then gave the cruise line their information and then...get this...claims it has no way of knowing who these compensated posters are. (If you believe that, please give me your personal information, so that I share it with others and then claim I don't know who you are. Yeah, I known, it just sounds stupid.)

Cruise Critic's non-disclosure of compensated posters known to it is impossible, in my opinion, to defend when it markets itself as the "the most influential cruise site" while knowing it is not the ultimate in "critical" or "objective" information. And so you know I practice what I preach, for years I disclosed I was a travel agent when I posted there. I was blasted by some for allegedly being biased as a result. (I could never figure that out, but that is another topic.) People were able to draw their conclusion as to the reliability of my posts as a result of knowing I am a travel agent rather than just some guy that has been on a bunch of cruises.

Such a disclosure, on a site that markets itself the way it does, should be as mandatory as disclosing that the poster is compensated by the cruise lines, is the cruise line, is a tour operator or whatever. If that is too hard or too much of a hassle, then don't market Cruise Critic as either "critical" or "objective". Market it as what it really is: a For Profit Site that will allow just about anyone to post without disclosing motives and without fear that they can be challenged or outted.

There are, in my opinion, certain duties of candor if you run a site. Disclosures, if you will. It is wrong to draw the public in based upon a false or improper pretense and then keep them there through deceptive practices. JMHO.

So that is how I feel. How do you?  Post your comments on our new The Gold Standard Luxury Travel Forum.

(Note:  I am suspending the Comments section of this blog and would request your thoughts on any of my entries by posted in The Gold Standard Luxury Travel Forum.)

I Made a Big Mistake Today - I Read Cheerleading Posts and I Am Now Sickened...Again.

Folks, if you want to see how to (seemingly with clear intent) mislead people trying to get truthful information (and, of course, to respond to the specific references in my blog) read the posts on Luxury Cruise Talk about its present group cruise on the Regent Navigator. But before doing so, remember TravelCat2's complaints...and the complaints of so many others...about poor food quality, poor food temperature, lacking buffets, spotty service, problems with the ship and, of course, my (and I am confident no one else's) reference to the way things were when it was Radisson Seven Seas.

One cruise after an absolutely horrid report, the comments by LCT members on the cruise are, in part:

"So far, food quality and temperatures have been perfect...For those of you who are worried about your future Navigator cruses, I say there is no need to worry. I think Jackie's [TC2's] review might of made our cruise better as Jackie's comments must of been read by someone with some power to fix the negatives!...The ship looks beautiful, the service is old school Radisson, just like it was in the good old days...perfect!"

"I agree with Karen the food and service have been exceptional...We spoke with the comedian and he said in over 100 cruises he has never seen such an incredible buffet... The boys have been spoiled by their room steward, Victor, and room service...We really feel lucky to have Engelbert as general manager. It is obvious he is on top of things. Franco certainly is a wonderful addition in the dining room."

Please. Which is worse: Cruise Critic playing its games or Luxury Cruise Talk playing its?

Before going on I must pause and ask, "Do I really care or believe a comedian's comment about a buffet? Heck, he is paid by the cruise line and may think Regent is heaven after two months on NCL"

Then I must ask, "Wasn't Engelbert the general manager last cruise? Wasn't Franco in charge of the dining room last cruise? Did the home office blast them or did they know the LCT group was coming and the easiest thing to do is suck up to them for one cruise and then go back to their lazy ways?" Folks, I can assure you there are meetings every single day reviewing the LCT experience the last day and organizing the plan to keep them happy this day. It is what all cruise lines do. (I can assure you wonderful Engelbert and Franco don't want to get an earful from Ngaire or suffer the sure to be ensuing consequences.)

As I have said, cruise lines do go over and above for their top producers. Seabourn does a bit of extra for my groups. I would dare say that what Seabourn does for my Food & Wine Cruises is beyond what is done by any other cruise line. But...and it is a big "but...I also have the confidence that the exceptional service will be present on every Seabourn cruise; not just the ones I have a group on. And, to be sure, if a general (hotel) manager or maitre d' had one cruise of the quality complained of on Regent that would be the end of their relationship with Seabourn. Why? What is that magic word: "Consistency".

Finally, let's try this: Even if everything posted about the Regent Navigator's last two cruises are true, at best you have an unrelenting disaster and then nirvana. That is totally unacceptable. The reality is, however, there is no way that literally everything has become perfect; especially since there have been so many reviews asserting problem after problem with Navigator.

So with the service allegedly being wonderfully "old school Radisson" I must conclude that even the LCT cheerleaders have therefore admitted that the "New school Regent service ain't very good"! Seriously, why any reference to Radisson if Regent is "perfect"? Don't bother even trying to find a legitimate answer to that.

Yes, I want Regent to go back to the service levels when it was Radisson...and I want cruise message boards to go back to the quality they were then as well. At least I know that soon...every soon...at least one of those things will be happening.

Postings on Cruise Message Boards and Blogs: The Difference Between Constructive Opinion and Personal Attacks

I have received a number of requests to comment on the post of someone ("Admiral Horatio Nelson" who says he is a former Regent Seven Seas Cruises employee) on Cruise Critic and Luxury Cruise Talk that were pulled.  I had said that I would post something, so here it is...

As many of you know I have very strong opinions on various topics and will not pull a punch when it comes to calling someone out for not telling the truth or if I think their perception is wrong or if they are cheerleading. 

What I won't do is engage in, or endorse, personal attacks against someone who has not posted their position or is not in the public eye...or deals with a situation not posted by someone.  To do so puts out possibly false or inaccurate information or violates someone's personal privacy.  That is, to my mind, far different from the Cruise Critic "You weren't there, so you are not allowed to comment" policy...especially when information from other sources is know.

I tried to find a way to edit the Admiral's comments as they do have some interesting perspectives, but they are really far too engaged in personal attacks against people that simply have no way to respond and also could be inaccurate (one's perception is one thing, but the comments made go beyond that).  Reading them, they could simply be designed to inflict injury on Regent Seven Seas Cruises or the named employees, rather than to discuss facts or ways to improve various situations they may exist.

That said, what I will say is, as I read the Admiral's comments, he asserts that the handling of employees changed markedly from the days of Radisson Seven Seas Cruises and became one focused on stifling crew input and solidifying one's position rather than bettering the product.  These opinions are actually very common in a very corporate structured entity; as it feeds on preserving oneself rather than improving the company ala General Motors, Wall St., etc.

The interesting thing is that the Admiral seems to be complaining that Regent's operations are being transformed into a part, or mirror, of Oceania's.  As you all know I wrote about the Oceanification of Regent months ago.  Unfortunately, the Admiral seems to conclude this is a bad thing, but when the personal attacks are stripped away, there is no substance to back up the outrage. 

While I actually do agree that Mark Conroy seems to be devolving into nothing more than a figurehead and that all the hype he previously provided about improvements, the new ship, etc. all seemed to be swept aside by Prestige Cruise Holdings and most of "his" people have left or be asked to leave, I do not necessarily come to the same conclusion that Oceanification is a bad thing.  I must honestly state that my initial impression was that it was not a good thing, but when things kept getting worse at Regent - in my opinion - change to better efficiencies, performance, crew training, etc. even if similar/the same as Oceania's is a good option.

Regent, by many standards, has been backsliding.  Even the sanitized Cruise Critic forum has become rather regularly filled with the complaints I mentioned - and was battered for - a year ago.  It was the basis, in part, for Mark Conroy to write his open letter on Cruise Critic and Luxury Cruise Talk.  So is change a bad thing?  I think not.

As I have stated, and as the Admiral does, and as Mark Conroy notes, the crew needs to be better trained and better cared for.  If that means changing Human Resource personnel (and I would strongly assert those that created the problem which is admittedly so vast rarely can be a major part of the solution...part of the retraining, possibly; but not the solution) and other areas of management, shipboard controls, etc., so be it.

But when having this discussion we can be upset, and even bitter (from job issues or passenger letdowns), we need to be civil and respectful.