Thanks for responding to me personally
There are plenty of examples of places you go where entertainment is extra. Las Vegas hotels. Yes, you are paying to stay in a hotel, but if you want to see the show it costs extra. Having the hotel charge separately for the shows keeps the cost of the room LOWER for you.
If you ever went to go to Las Vegas where would you stay? In a hotel that includes shows and meals, or a regular hotel? Personally, I like the idea of not having to pay extra to supplement the $100,000,000 cirque show they have.
Well, I can't imagine wanting to go to Las Vegas, but if I did... well, I don't know what I would choose. It really depends on why I am there. I mean, do I want to see the entertainment? Or am I there for some other reason?
But the point is, I would know BEFORE I paid my money what I was getting. If I paid for a room only, then that is all I expect, and I have no problem with that. The contract is that I get a room and nothing else, for $x. On the OTHER hand, if I paid $y with the expectation of getting entertainment included in that price, and then they stopped me at the door and asked for another payment - yes, even the tiniest amount - then I would be quite angry about it.
The cruise lines are marketing the concept that you're getting an "all-inclusive" vacation - specifically and pointedly including all food and entertainment. I have no problem with the fact that they charge extra if you use the spa services, because they never pretended otherwise. I have no problem with paying for any professional pictures that I want to keep, because nowhere did it say or even imply that I was entitled to free photos. (Though I do wish their darn photographers didn't take quite so MANY good photos, heh.) But everywhere I turn, whenever I am considering a cruise vacation, I am constantly given the message that food and entertainment are included in the price. So, this is what I expect.
Of course you pay extra for theme cruises. If I am interested in that theme, I have no problem with shelling out extra. But the thing is, I know upfront that this cruise costs more because I am getting something extra included in the price. If I pay my fare, then this is what I have agreed to.
I am sure there will always be "free" entertainment on ships, but does the option of "alternative shows at a surcharge" sound so outlandish when "alternative dining for a surcharge" is a wholly accepted premise?
Wholly accepted by whom?
*I* do not accept it.
Technically, the cruise lines don't make it a secret that there are some food venues that may charge; but they sure don't prominently advertise them, either, now do they? I find it rather deceitful. Therefore, I do not participate.
So, your argument (or question?) is totally invalid in my worldview