Over the past week...and especially the past three weeks...we all have seen something none of us have ever experienced and, worse, we do not really know where it all will be going.
Today someone pointed out an article in the New York Times which was a very interesting read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/fashion/04SHOPPING.html?_r=1&emc=eta1. Basically, it is about Saks Fifth Avenue transforming itself into a discount marketer with deals on designer goods up to 70% off and what effect it has had, and may have in the future, on the luxury fashion market. As the author discusses it, no matter how hard a luxury fashion retailer tries to keep its market-share and its "ineffable luster", the "slash-and-burn" pricing may, in the end, both cause the loss of luxury to have its "mystique" and cause consumers to balk at paying the premiums for a luxury wallet or gown.
By this point you are probably thinking, "Yeah, and that also applies to the luxury cruise market, too." Well, I admit that was my first thought or, better, it is what I perceive will be in the minds of many travelers. Actually, however, that concept is wrong...very wrong. Let me explain.
In the New York Times article there is an example of a Valentino gown retailing at $2,950 marked down 70%. Using that example, I first consider that the gown will be worn once (and only once) by a single woman who must be a particular size/height/measurements. It is, to be sure, the ultimate in decadent purchases and, to be sure, is not going to create a life experience for the purchaser (as the event the dress will be worn at will, in the end, make more of an impression as to the overall experience). I then consider the fact that while the dress may be stunning, most of the women that can and would actually wear that dress can probably make a pair of jeans and a T-shirt also look stunning, so they have many, many fashion options (at far lesser costs) available to them as extremely viable alternatives.
On the cruise side of things, Seabourn has a few, limited in number, seven day cruises selling for $2,840; a very relevant comparison. Forgetting the market is not nearly as limited as to possible purchasers, this commodity is also perishable, if not by season, by time so there is pressure to sell it (rather than keep in on the shelf in inventory as one might a blender). However, the consumer knows that a luxury cruise is not something she/he will use for a matter of a few hours or that it must be supplemented by other events to be truly enjoyed and appreciated. This seven day luxury cruise lasts, well, seven days (not hours) and is the event.
On a Seabourn cruise (or it could be Silversea or Regent Seven Seas, for that matter), your transportation, housing, food, drink and entertainment is included. The cost of strolling the superyacht docks of Monte Carlo, visiting Las Rambla and the markets in Barcelona, or cycling in Porquerolles, France in minimal. And, how many of you cruise on Seabourn to...yes that's right...have a Seabourn Experience onboard the ship? Admit it: Many of you have opted to stay onboard the ship, just to enjoy it, when it arrives in port.
Now that you see one is an object with limited appeal and the other is an experience with much broader appeal, let's look at the mark ups. I don't care how much time is spent hand stitching some exotic fabric, the mark up on designer clothes is absolutely shocking. A shirt may cost $5.00 to produce in China, but will sell (would have sold?) for over $250.00 in the U.S. A $35.00 pair of pants in the U.S. may sell for $150 Euros in France. While all of that mark up is not enjoyed by the retailer, you can be sure that mark ups of 100% and more by them are not unusual.
On the other hand, the markup on cruises is not nearly at those levels. (You may recall my concern when Silversea announced a 25% commission rate and I saw it as a sign of desperation because it wasn't economically viable). Without repeating all that is included in a cruise you must add to it, the cost of the crew, staff, fuel, maintenance, etc., etc.
One other factor is the holy grail of most cruise lines: Onboard Revenue. While on the mentioned lines you drinks and gratuities are included, on the mainstream lines they are extra. Chatting at the Sky Bar costs nothing, while Bingo (talk about profit!) is a hefty extra. You get the idea: Paying for a luxury experience net may not be that much more than if you sail on a mainstream line, but you get a seamless and more polished (i.e. enjoyable) experience.
So if you are feeling ripped off by Saks Fifth Avenue being able to sell designer fashions at 70% off, don't transfer that over to the luxury cruise lines. Not all luxury is created equal and, alas, some luxury actually not only had great value, it remains a great value.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Another Seabourn Promotion - Between Friends
If you are a group of three or more couples (so it does not apply to singles) traveling together on the same cruise and at least one of the couples is brand new to Seabourn and you are not paying a 50% Club Value Savings or similar 50% off promotion (a 45% Early Booking Savings is the maximum discount), you are eligible for $1,500 per couple in onboard credit to be applied only to Private Shore Excursions on most 2009 European voyages arranged through the line’s Signature Service Desk, including active, culinary and cultural offerings. Guests may choose from over 60 departures of some two dozen cruise itineraries of seven to 14 days in the Mediterranean, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Russia and the Norwegian fjords.
Each group of friends can tour together or separately, with their own guide, their own driver and their own private vehicle, choosing from hundreds of options exploring Europe’s fascinating destinations at their own pace and on their own terms -- or creating their own customized experiences to match the group’s particular tastes and interests. Some examples of private arrangements that might appeal to a group include:
• Joining a top Italian chef for a hands-on, three-hour cooking class in Florence.
• Going on a tasting tour in Rapallo, Italy, with specialty food expert Guido Porrati who will introduce you to focaccia, pesto, olive oil, salame Sant’Olcese, Avetano cheese, strusciata cake and excellent local wines.
• Sailing via private yacht to Birla, Sweden to tour Viking Age ruins, including an in-depth tour of Gronsoo, a privately owned castle on the lake.
• Riding a mountain bike through the wonderful landscape of the Mounts of Malaga in Spain.
• Letting an expert local shopping guide show you around Stockholm’s most famous boutiques with the most internationally acclaimed brands.
This is combinable with Goldring Travel's Exclusive Seabourn Referral Program http://goldringtravel.blogspot.com/2008/10/goldring-travels-new-and-exclusive.html
So, if you are able to find a new to Seabourn couple and another couple of your choosing, you can find yourself with a nifty savings of up to $750 a person on Seabourn arranged Private Excursions.
Each group of friends can tour together or separately, with their own guide, their own driver and their own private vehicle, choosing from hundreds of options exploring Europe’s fascinating destinations at their own pace and on their own terms -- or creating their own customized experiences to match the group’s particular tastes and interests. Some examples of private arrangements that might appeal to a group include:
• Joining a top Italian chef for a hands-on, three-hour cooking class in Florence.
• Going on a tasting tour in Rapallo, Italy, with specialty food expert Guido Porrati who will introduce you to focaccia, pesto, olive oil, salame Sant’Olcese, Avetano cheese, strusciata cake and excellent local wines.
• Sailing via private yacht to Birla, Sweden to tour Viking Age ruins, including an in-depth tour of Gronsoo, a privately owned castle on the lake.
• Riding a mountain bike through the wonderful landscape of the Mounts of Malaga in Spain.
• Letting an expert local shopping guide show you around Stockholm’s most famous boutiques with the most internationally acclaimed brands.
This is combinable with Goldring Travel's Exclusive Seabourn Referral Program http://goldringtravel.blogspot.com/2008/10/goldring-travels-new-and-exclusive.html
So, if you are able to find a new to Seabourn couple and another couple of your choosing, you can find yourself with a nifty savings of up to $750 a person on Seabourn arranged Private Excursions.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Seabourn Specials...And I Mean REALLY Special
Seabourn is having somewhat of an unusual situation as a result of the economic situation: Some cruises are booking extremely well, some are essentially sold out and, then again, there are some that are just booking slow.
While I am not a big supporter of “giving away the ship”, tomorrow morning (Monday) Seabourn will virtually be doing that on some select sailings…and the prices will only be available for one week:
Legend June 20 Monte Carlo to Barcelona 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Legend July 11 Rome to Monte Carlo 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Spirit June 20 Venice to Rome 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Spirit July 11 Venice to Rome 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Spirit Aug 1 Venice to Rome 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Pride Apr 14 Athens to Lisbon 14-days - Lead price = $4416
Pride Aug 20 Copenhagen to Copenhagen 9-days - Lead price = $3600
These fares are subject to taxes (but alas no more fuel supplements!), are capacity controlled, subject to prior sale and may be withdrawn at anytime.
For anyone who hasn’t tried Seabourn, or who was thinking that maybe it just was too expensive right now (with the holidays upon us), or who thought that waiting until closer in to the sail date was a good strategy, I am very confident that NOW is the time to book one or more of these cruises.
Call or email me sooner than later, as I am sure that the lowest priced suites will be selling out quickly.
I can start booking these incredibly low fares as early as 9:00 AM on Monday, so I will be in the office by 8:00 am to review any emails and to take your calls.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend…and if you have any questions, feel free to email or call me today.
While I am not a big supporter of “giving away the ship”, tomorrow morning (Monday) Seabourn will virtually be doing that on some select sailings…and the prices will only be available for one week:
Legend June 20 Monte Carlo to Barcelona 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Legend July 11 Rome to Monte Carlo 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Spirit June 20 Venice to Rome 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Spirit July 11 Venice to Rome 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Spirit Aug 1 Venice to Rome 7-days - Lead price = $2840
Pride Apr 14 Athens to Lisbon 14-days - Lead price = $4416
Pride Aug 20 Copenhagen to Copenhagen 9-days - Lead price = $3600
These fares are subject to taxes (but alas no more fuel supplements!), are capacity controlled, subject to prior sale and may be withdrawn at anytime.
For anyone who hasn’t tried Seabourn, or who was thinking that maybe it just was too expensive right now (with the holidays upon us), or who thought that waiting until closer in to the sail date was a good strategy, I am very confident that NOW is the time to book one or more of these cruises.
Call or email me sooner than later, as I am sure that the lowest priced suites will be selling out quickly.
I can start booking these incredibly low fares as early as 9:00 AM on Monday, so I will be in the office by 8:00 am to review any emails and to take your calls.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend…and if you have any questions, feel free to email or call me today.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Cruise Lines' Fuel Supplements Suspended by Carnival Corp.
With oil prices having plummeted to $46 a barrel, Carnival Corp. has suspended (not eliminated) its fuel supplement for all of its major brands: Seabourn, Cunard, Holland America, Princess, Costa and Carnival.
This is how it will work: A refund of the fuel supplement will be made in the form of a shipboard credit for all bookings within the final payment period for departures on or after December 17, 2008. All bookings outside of the final payment period for departures on or after December 17, 2008 will be adjusted to remove the fuel supplement and guests will be provided with a revised final payment amount.
I am confident the other cruise lines will follow suit shortly.
Now, if only for the airlines!
This is how it will work: A refund of the fuel supplement will be made in the form of a shipboard credit for all bookings within the final payment period for departures on or after December 17, 2008. All bookings outside of the final payment period for departures on or after December 17, 2008 will be adjusted to remove the fuel supplement and guests will be provided with a revised final payment amount.
I am confident the other cruise lines will follow suit shortly.
Now, if only for the airlines!
Global Superyacht Forum - Some Thoughts About Regulations In this Economy: It Should Be About Quality Crew and Training.
Last month I was on the following panel at the Global Superyacht Forum in Amsterdam:
This extended debating session following on from GSF 2007, will allow delegates to discuss and debate the various ways in which interpretations and consistency of rules would help improve the process of building and designing large yachts. In addition the session will highlight some of the key changes and developments amongst the Flag states and Class societies.
Peter Southgate - Cayman Islands Shipping Registry
David Ralph – Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Eric Goldring – Goldring & Goldring
Robert Curry - American Bureau of Shipping - Europe
Paolo Moretti - RINA
Engel de Boer - Lloyd's Register
The discussion started out with ABS (a Classification society - which is charged with "classing" or determining and assuring the structural/mechanical/operational quality of the yacht) discussing some new regulations regarding windows, port lights and some other items, followed by MCA discussing the need to regulate further and then a discussion about actual work toward some consistency between the government regulators (MCA), the shipping registries (the governmental agencies involved with "home ports" such as you see noted on the stern of ships) and the classification societies.
Discussion then led to a comment that many of the "theories" used in creating these regulations do not work in practice; that walking on a Superyacht during construction is worthwhile, but seeing how the regulations actually work in practice...when the Superyacht is in operation...is quite another thing. And, to be sure, that is not regularly done or those experiences regularly considered with the new regulations.
I then raised the subject of why "Cost Benefit Analysis" is not being done in relation to the ever increasingly stringent regulations on design and equipment, noting that the Superyacht industry has not had a fatality or life-threatening injury due to a yacht's failure in well over a year (possibly over 2 years or more); evidencing the industry is one of the safest in the world. I further stated that while I am sure there will, unfortunately, be a catastrophic accident in the future there most probably will invariably be a significant human element in that loss. (No one disagreed with my premise.)
With that preface I asked why the regulators, registries and classification societies do not run the cost benefit analysis that are run in literally every other business whether it be automotive, aviation or even the space shuttle; noting that in the present economy the concept of there is plenty of money so spending it on supposed increased safety doesn't work...if it ultimately causes yards to fail and yachts not to be built or purchased.
After not really hearing much of a substantive response, another reprsentative from the MCA noted from the audience that they had an "ethical responsibility" to generate the ever more stringent regulations. My response was "Don't get me started with the problems of regulating ethics. I could give an entire seminar on the topic."
To me that "canned" response was, as it has been in the past, shameful. Regulations are to be based upon "engineering"; not "ethics". The MCA's demand that "saving human lives!!!!!" is what is all about and anyone that doesn't prescribe to that philosophy is unethical is, frankly, horrific. To me it is a smoke screen for politicians trying to justify their existence. How can I so boldly state this? It is easy.
In an industry where there is a history of years of no catastrophic losses due to items which are the subject of these regulations we are, fortunately, already at the supposed "Theoretical Zero." You cannot improve on that kind of consistent history simply by throwing regulations and creating higher standards in the hope that it "may" at some point cause one or two theoretically possible losses from happening at some unknown point in the future.
What you can do is use the, now more than ever, finite amount of available dollars available for designing safety on what is the weakest link in the Superyacht...and cruise...industry: Crew.
Imagine how much safety could actually be improved with the millions of dollars expended on crew recruitment, education, training and safety? Dollar for dollar, euro for euro and pound for pound I do not believe there is a single soul in the Superyacht or cruise industry that could...or frankly, would...argue that my position is incorrect.
The MCA will argue that it has training requirements. The fact is that within the Superyacht industry captains, crew and managers are screaming that taking MCA required tests do not make good captains: years of actual experience (and not just sea time) does. A head in a book versus a head in an engine room, a seat in a classroom or at the helm, where do you think the knowledge actually is obtained?
When you walk on a superyacht or a cruise ship even the most novice of passengers (forget the professionals) can instantly identify the crew members that "get it", that having the training and who exude the confidence and knowledge that puts every one of us at ease.
In an emergency, do you want:
1. A supposedly "idiot-proof" designed piece of equipment with an idiot standing by the ready to use it; or,
2. A still well designed piece of equipment with a well-trained and knowledgeable crew member able to operate the equipment, even if it doesn't work perfectly, to its optimum level?
Personally, I would guess that 100% would vote for keeping the word "idiot" out of the equation!
So my question is simple: Why to the regulators like MCA insist on more regulations on equipment with a history of excellent safety, drawing millions in funds away from actual crew recruitment and improvement, when the real improvements in avoiding accidents lies with crew?
I have no answers. Do you?
This extended debating session following on from GSF 2007, will allow delegates to discuss and debate the various ways in which interpretations and consistency of rules would help improve the process of building and designing large yachts. In addition the session will highlight some of the key changes and developments amongst the Flag states and Class societies.
Peter Southgate - Cayman Islands Shipping Registry
David Ralph – Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Eric Goldring – Goldring & Goldring
Robert Curry - American Bureau of Shipping - Europe
Paolo Moretti - RINA
Engel de Boer - Lloyd's Register
The discussion started out with ABS (a Classification society - which is charged with "classing" or determining and assuring the structural/mechanical/operational quality of the yacht) discussing some new regulations regarding windows, port lights and some other items, followed by MCA discussing the need to regulate further and then a discussion about actual work toward some consistency between the government regulators (MCA), the shipping registries (the governmental agencies involved with "home ports" such as you see noted on the stern of ships) and the classification societies.
Discussion then led to a comment that many of the "theories" used in creating these regulations do not work in practice; that walking on a Superyacht during construction is worthwhile, but seeing how the regulations actually work in practice...when the Superyacht is in operation...is quite another thing. And, to be sure, that is not regularly done or those experiences regularly considered with the new regulations.
I then raised the subject of why "Cost Benefit Analysis" is not being done in relation to the ever increasingly stringent regulations on design and equipment, noting that the Superyacht industry has not had a fatality or life-threatening injury due to a yacht's failure in well over a year (possibly over 2 years or more); evidencing the industry is one of the safest in the world. I further stated that while I am sure there will, unfortunately, be a catastrophic accident in the future there most probably will invariably be a significant human element in that loss. (No one disagreed with my premise.)
With that preface I asked why the regulators, registries and classification societies do not run the cost benefit analysis that are run in literally every other business whether it be automotive, aviation or even the space shuttle; noting that in the present economy the concept of there is plenty of money so spending it on supposed increased safety doesn't work...if it ultimately causes yards to fail and yachts not to be built or purchased.
After not really hearing much of a substantive response, another reprsentative from the MCA noted from the audience that they had an "ethical responsibility" to generate the ever more stringent regulations. My response was "Don't get me started with the problems of regulating ethics. I could give an entire seminar on the topic."
To me that "canned" response was, as it has been in the past, shameful. Regulations are to be based upon "engineering"; not "ethics". The MCA's demand that "saving human lives!!!!!" is what is all about and anyone that doesn't prescribe to that philosophy is unethical is, frankly, horrific. To me it is a smoke screen for politicians trying to justify their existence. How can I so boldly state this? It is easy.
In an industry where there is a history of years of no catastrophic losses due to items which are the subject of these regulations we are, fortunately, already at the supposed "Theoretical Zero." You cannot improve on that kind of consistent history simply by throwing regulations and creating higher standards in the hope that it "may" at some point cause one or two theoretically possible losses from happening at some unknown point in the future.
What you can do is use the, now more than ever, finite amount of available dollars available for designing safety on what is the weakest link in the Superyacht...and cruise...industry: Crew.
Imagine how much safety could actually be improved with the millions of dollars expended on crew recruitment, education, training and safety? Dollar for dollar, euro for euro and pound for pound I do not believe there is a single soul in the Superyacht or cruise industry that could...or frankly, would...argue that my position is incorrect.
The MCA will argue that it has training requirements. The fact is that within the Superyacht industry captains, crew and managers are screaming that taking MCA required tests do not make good captains: years of actual experience (and not just sea time) does. A head in a book versus a head in an engine room, a seat in a classroom or at the helm, where do you think the knowledge actually is obtained?
When you walk on a superyacht or a cruise ship even the most novice of passengers (forget the professionals) can instantly identify the crew members that "get it", that having the training and who exude the confidence and knowledge that puts every one of us at ease.
In an emergency, do you want:
1. A supposedly "idiot-proof" designed piece of equipment with an idiot standing by the ready to use it; or,
2. A still well designed piece of equipment with a well-trained and knowledgeable crew member able to operate the equipment, even if it doesn't work perfectly, to its optimum level?
Personally, I would guess that 100% would vote for keeping the word "idiot" out of the equation!
So my question is simple: Why to the regulators like MCA insist on more regulations on equipment with a history of excellent safety, drawing millions in funds away from actual crew recruitment and improvement, when the real improvements in avoiding accidents lies with crew?
I have no answers. Do you?
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Piracy and Cruise Ships - Reality vs. Hype
This afternoon I walked out of a meeting in New York City with a fellow superyacht industry person discussing the now normal issues of what is the happening in world markets and BAM, it hit me in the face: A giant electronic ticker tape announcing the pirate attack on the Oceania Nautica...which happened three days ago; rendering it hardly worthy of being a headline. Then I returned to my office and found a note about an article announcing the cruise lines are reacting to the pirate attack...but then read on to see that the cruise lines are doing little different as of yet.
Blazing headlines of something that was pretty much a non-event (see below before you get upset with my characterization) and an article hinting at big changes when it actually says the cruise lines haven't changed a thing and only a few imminent port calls in Mumbai (a totally different subject I thought) have been canceled.
For years I have seen the 2005 incident regarding the Seabourn Spirit mentioned...and mentioned...and mentioned. It was, until earlier this week, a single incident with a "news" life of three years. Why?
Seabourn just transited the Gulf of Aden, which lies between Somalia and Yemen, with absolutely no incident. Seabourn did arrange for an escort by the French Navy, which most certainly acted as a deterrent, but it, alas, was a non-event...and not reported. Why?
The Oceania Nautica just had an incident where pirates came within 300 yards of the ship. That is three (3) American football fields, to put things in perspective. It is, most certainly, worrisome, and must not be belittled, but the fact is that the Nautica is very substantially larger than the Seabourn Spirit and it did what it was supposed to do. Net result: Nothing happened. Perspective: I have received direct word from a witness on the ship that it was "all very low key on the ship".
Now, while the media is hyping this story and repeats it with "updates" minutes apart, the reality it is not worthy of being an ongoing banner headline news story. It is a concern and it must be addressed, but not only for cruise ships, but for the entire maritime industry that plies those waters. It must also be kept in perspective that in both instances - three years apart - no passengers were injured and tactics have been put in place since the 2005 incident to not only place cruise lines on guard, but to be very proactive.
So why are there some posters on message boards like Cruise Critic pretty much ranting how they are not going to risk their lives cruising in "that" part of the world? Silly hysteria does nothing to responsibly warn of a real danger nor does it do anything to actually improve one's safety or quality of life. But, to be fair, when the media takes a newsworthy story and then fabricates into being a"reality" that does not even arguably exist it is shameful. (It is the same media that recently told us we would have to live with US$100.00+ oil for the rest of our lives...as just one other example.)
Keeping it in perspective, performing intimate acts on a ship's railing is more dangerous (yes, it happened on Princess). Being drunk on a cruise ship is more dangerous. Heck, I am confident walking up the gangway is more of a hazard. How about a rouge wave? Helmsman error? These things do not cause cruisers to shun cruises or cruise lines.
To the extent the hype brings awareness of potential danger to those with "idiot" stamped on their foreheads, fine. (Yes, I know, you think that is a bit strong, but how many of you actually thought of "doing it" on a ship's railing 10 decks above the sea on a moving ship...and then actually did it?) To the extent that it brings to the cruise lines attention the need for more vigilance, fine as well.
But here, Seabourn took action after its event three years ago and Oceania did as well. Both worked. So what is the issue here?
There are bad people out there and we need to be aware of them and, when appropriate, minimize the risks they pose. But we should not buy into the hype.
The hype is not to benefit us, it is to benefit the media by having more people read or watch it, so we can be bombarded with more advertisements to sell us things with labels like, "Do not iron garment while wearing."
Blazing headlines of something that was pretty much a non-event (see below before you get upset with my characterization) and an article hinting at big changes when it actually says the cruise lines haven't changed a thing and only a few imminent port calls in Mumbai (a totally different subject I thought) have been canceled.
For years I have seen the 2005 incident regarding the Seabourn Spirit mentioned...and mentioned...and mentioned. It was, until earlier this week, a single incident with a "news" life of three years. Why?
Seabourn just transited the Gulf of Aden, which lies between Somalia and Yemen, with absolutely no incident. Seabourn did arrange for an escort by the French Navy, which most certainly acted as a deterrent, but it, alas, was a non-event...and not reported. Why?
The Oceania Nautica just had an incident where pirates came within 300 yards of the ship. That is three (3) American football fields, to put things in perspective. It is, most certainly, worrisome, and must not be belittled, but the fact is that the Nautica is very substantially larger than the Seabourn Spirit and it did what it was supposed to do. Net result: Nothing happened. Perspective: I have received direct word from a witness on the ship that it was "all very low key on the ship".
Now, while the media is hyping this story and repeats it with "updates" minutes apart, the reality it is not worthy of being an ongoing banner headline news story. It is a concern and it must be addressed, but not only for cruise ships, but for the entire maritime industry that plies those waters. It must also be kept in perspective that in both instances - three years apart - no passengers were injured and tactics have been put in place since the 2005 incident to not only place cruise lines on guard, but to be very proactive.
So why are there some posters on message boards like Cruise Critic pretty much ranting how they are not going to risk their lives cruising in "that" part of the world? Silly hysteria does nothing to responsibly warn of a real danger nor does it do anything to actually improve one's safety or quality of life. But, to be fair, when the media takes a newsworthy story and then fabricates into being a"reality" that does not even arguably exist it is shameful. (It is the same media that recently told us we would have to live with US$100.00+ oil for the rest of our lives...as just one other example.)
Keeping it in perspective, performing intimate acts on a ship's railing is more dangerous (yes, it happened on Princess). Being drunk on a cruise ship is more dangerous. Heck, I am confident walking up the gangway is more of a hazard. How about a rouge wave? Helmsman error? These things do not cause cruisers to shun cruises or cruise lines.
To the extent the hype brings awareness of potential danger to those with "idiot" stamped on their foreheads, fine. (Yes, I know, you think that is a bit strong, but how many of you actually thought of "doing it" on a ship's railing 10 decks above the sea on a moving ship...and then actually did it?) To the extent that it brings to the cruise lines attention the need for more vigilance, fine as well.
But here, Seabourn took action after its event three years ago and Oceania did as well. Both worked. So what is the issue here?
There are bad people out there and we need to be aware of them and, when appropriate, minimize the risks they pose. But we should not buy into the hype.
The hype is not to benefit us, it is to benefit the media by having more people read or watch it, so we can be bombarded with more advertisements to sell us things with labels like, "Do not iron garment while wearing."
Monday, December 1, 2008
Silversea - A Call from the Captain!
Late today I received a call from Marilyn Conroy, Silversea's senior vice president of sales and marketing concerning my most recent post.
We had a wonderful chat about Silversea, her perspective on a number of my comments, concerns and theories. And, of course, I listened carefully to both the information she had to share as well as her perspectives.
With Ms. Conroy's permission I want to share the following comments:
First, I am assured Silversea is financially sound. According to Ms. Conroy Silversea has invested $500,000,000 in the purchase and refit of the Prince Albert II, the refurbishment of the Silver Wind and Silver Cloud and, of course, the new Silver Spirit. While I do not equate spending money with having money (Wall Street are you listening?) Ms. Conroy's assurances as to the owner's financial strength cannot be ignored; taken with a grain of salt, possibly, but they most certainly are worthy of note.
Second, news on the Spirit has admittedly been slow in coming and brochures have been delayed because, in part, the desire to have the itineraries perfectly set. However, I am advised that the Spirit is still scheduled to be delivered in December 2009 and, in fact, there may even be a Christmas Cruise offered somewhere in Europe. I am told information will be forthcoming around the first of the year, so we will all have to stay tuned.
Third, I am told the concept behind the desired passenger mix is as a result of Silversea's vision of creating the ambiance of a grand European hotel. Along those lines, the passenger mix is approximately 55% North American and, of those guests, approximately 51% are first time guests from North America. This is actually pretty similar to the information I previously provided here. I can't say if it is a pure marketing scheme or one created out of the reality of where bookings are of recent history coming from (i.e. with the then weaker dollar), but it is what it is.
Fourth, passenger loads/occupancy is not what Silversea (or frankly any cruise line) wants it to be but Ms. Conroy claims Silversea is running at about 80% or so of capacity...which is actually an increase from a few years ago.
Now for the other, not as positive, information - but provided with all due candor...and that is, to be sure, priceless:
Fifth, the Prince Albert II in French Polynesia was not a good idea. It is an exploration ship and, thus is without a pool...not a good thing for many in French Polynesia. (Though, frankly, I don't think I ever went into Regent's Paul Gauguin's pool after spending my days in the sea.) It just didn't sell. So the ship is literally being laid up and will be doing Antarctic and Artic voyages. That is why there is a hole in the schedule. My question was answered, but laying up a cruise ship (no matter the size) is not one's favorite choice as it just costs money with absolutely no return.
Sixth, according to Ms. Conroy the change from European to Filipino staff was done, in part, because some of the European staff were not as friendly as they might have been. However, the training of the Filipino staff was not instantaneous and there was a significant learning curve. Personally, I am not buying this one. While there are definite cultural differences between Filipinos and Europeans (and many cultural differences between Europeans!) this all comes down to training, training and training (as well has happy staff). I have had wonderful Filipino staff on Celebrity and outstanding European staff on Seabourn. It can be done regardless of culture...even though the styles may be different as a result of those cultures. I also remain convinced that the change was, in the other part, a cost savings measure.
Finally, the 25% commission offering combined with 50% off savings. As I tried to explain in my original post, 50% off savings are not really 50% off of a real price. Ms. Conroy also correctly points out that Silversea does have 50% off savings for its past passengers from time to time and extending it to first time guests is not the most desirable thing, but in this economic climate all cruise lines are sweetening the pot (my words) so different schemes are tried.
Further, while the 25% commission rate is very high (and, again, I hesitate to provide the "normal" rates) the design was asserted to be a motivator. Again, I am not sure I am buying that one. I sell the cruises my clients desire. To claim I would sell them a less desirable cruise because I would be making more money is not exactly a compliment. To be sure not every travel agent is as passionate about the business in the long run as I am, but whether it be the exploiting of greed or providing a way for agents to provide additional savings to their clients, the 25% commission thing still bothers me and indicates something isn't right. (We can agree to disagree on this point.)
So what does this all mean? It means that communication is a wonderful thing. Expressing different perspectives on the same facts is a fantastic way to allow each reader to decide for themselves where things are...and if they are relevant to them or of just passing interest.
I am pleased that the Cruise Lines read my blog. I am more pleased that they speak with me and provide me with information. That is, in the end, a great benefit to you. You get the real information, discussion and perspectives.
We had a wonderful chat about Silversea, her perspective on a number of my comments, concerns and theories. And, of course, I listened carefully to both the information she had to share as well as her perspectives.
With Ms. Conroy's permission I want to share the following comments:
First, I am assured Silversea is financially sound. According to Ms. Conroy Silversea has invested $500,000,000 in the purchase and refit of the Prince Albert II, the refurbishment of the Silver Wind and Silver Cloud and, of course, the new Silver Spirit. While I do not equate spending money with having money (Wall Street are you listening?) Ms. Conroy's assurances as to the owner's financial strength cannot be ignored; taken with a grain of salt, possibly, but they most certainly are worthy of note.
Second, news on the Spirit has admittedly been slow in coming and brochures have been delayed because, in part, the desire to have the itineraries perfectly set. However, I am advised that the Spirit is still scheduled to be delivered in December 2009 and, in fact, there may even be a Christmas Cruise offered somewhere in Europe. I am told information will be forthcoming around the first of the year, so we will all have to stay tuned.
Third, I am told the concept behind the desired passenger mix is as a result of Silversea's vision of creating the ambiance of a grand European hotel. Along those lines, the passenger mix is approximately 55% North American and, of those guests, approximately 51% are first time guests from North America. This is actually pretty similar to the information I previously provided here. I can't say if it is a pure marketing scheme or one created out of the reality of where bookings are of recent history coming from (i.e. with the then weaker dollar), but it is what it is.
Fourth, passenger loads/occupancy is not what Silversea (or frankly any cruise line) wants it to be but Ms. Conroy claims Silversea is running at about 80% or so of capacity...which is actually an increase from a few years ago.
Now for the other, not as positive, information - but provided with all due candor...and that is, to be sure, priceless:
Fifth, the Prince Albert II in French Polynesia was not a good idea. It is an exploration ship and, thus is without a pool...not a good thing for many in French Polynesia. (Though, frankly, I don't think I ever went into Regent's Paul Gauguin's pool after spending my days in the sea.) It just didn't sell. So the ship is literally being laid up and will be doing Antarctic and Artic voyages. That is why there is a hole in the schedule. My question was answered, but laying up a cruise ship (no matter the size) is not one's favorite choice as it just costs money with absolutely no return.
Sixth, according to Ms. Conroy the change from European to Filipino staff was done, in part, because some of the European staff were not as friendly as they might have been. However, the training of the Filipino staff was not instantaneous and there was a significant learning curve. Personally, I am not buying this one. While there are definite cultural differences between Filipinos and Europeans (and many cultural differences between Europeans!) this all comes down to training, training and training (as well has happy staff). I have had wonderful Filipino staff on Celebrity and outstanding European staff on Seabourn. It can be done regardless of culture...even though the styles may be different as a result of those cultures. I also remain convinced that the change was, in the other part, a cost savings measure.
Finally, the 25% commission offering combined with 50% off savings. As I tried to explain in my original post, 50% off savings are not really 50% off of a real price. Ms. Conroy also correctly points out that Silversea does have 50% off savings for its past passengers from time to time and extending it to first time guests is not the most desirable thing, but in this economic climate all cruise lines are sweetening the pot (my words) so different schemes are tried.
Further, while the 25% commission rate is very high (and, again, I hesitate to provide the "normal" rates) the design was asserted to be a motivator. Again, I am not sure I am buying that one. I sell the cruises my clients desire. To claim I would sell them a less desirable cruise because I would be making more money is not exactly a compliment. To be sure not every travel agent is as passionate about the business in the long run as I am, but whether it be the exploiting of greed or providing a way for agents to provide additional savings to their clients, the 25% commission thing still bothers me and indicates something isn't right. (We can agree to disagree on this point.)
So what does this all mean? It means that communication is a wonderful thing. Expressing different perspectives on the same facts is a fantastic way to allow each reader to decide for themselves where things are...and if they are relevant to them or of just passing interest.
I am pleased that the Cruise Lines read my blog. I am more pleased that they speak with me and provide me with information. That is, in the end, a great benefit to you. You get the real information, discussion and perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)