Diebroke - I doubt the latter.
Anyway - I think this would be a very good move for Seabourn. The term "Yacht Club" is deceiving in that it sounds like something you need to join in order to get involved.
I can just see people saying "I don't want to join a club, I just want to take a cruise."
But by the same token, I know Larry Pimentel purposely changed the title of Azamara to Azamara CLUB Cruises because he found that most of the people on such ships were joiners, and that many of them belonged to various clubs and organization. He felt it was important to imbue a sense of "belonging" when you take a certain cruise line.
However - I agree that accuracy is a good thing, Seabourn will soon have 1350 staterooms on bigger vessels and only 600 on the smaller ones. They are no longer a "Yacht" cruise line, they are a standard small luxury line (categorically speaking).
I think many cruise lines miss the boat when it comes to names - of lines and ships.
I dislike "Azamara" as a name. I htink Seabourn should have been "Seaborne" as it looks classier and say "of the sea" while the word "Seabourn" is actually meaningless in derivation.
I can't stand Royal Caribbean's ____ of the Seas naming convention. And I don't like names "Oasis of the Seas" or "Allure of the Seas." Never give a ship a terrestrial sounding name - "Celebrity Summit" is a bad name, as is "Oasis" of the seas.
Anyway - it is too easy for people to pick on Seabourn for calling it s "Yacht Club" - Seabourn Cruises is the perfect, more memorable name.