Royal Commandos Meet Here

[CaptainAmerica]

I've been watching threads and discussions about RCCL and their "Royal Champions" disappear, probably for being critical of RCCL and the Royal Champion program. This morning I read two threads critical of the Royal Champions and their influence on Cruise Critic and two hours later they were gone. This morning, as an experiment, I posted a thread about this disturbing trend, with the expectation that it too would disappear.

It was gone within minutes.

Does anyone know if Cruise Critic is owned by RCCL?

[CaptainAmerica]

Thought I'd test them one more time and posted the following at 9:47 am:

This morning I read two threads critical of the Royal Champions and RCCL and their undue influence on the boards.

As if to prove the writer's points, within two hours those posts disappeared.

I then wrote a thread commenting on the disappearing threads, and it too disappeared.

Looks to me like RCCL and the Royal Champions now control Cruise Critic and will broach no opinions contrary to the party line.

If this thread also disappears, it will again prove my point
I'm going to time how long it takes to disappear.

[CaptainAmerica]

Well, it took about five minutes, plus I got banned from the site. I guess they proved my point. RCCL and their Royal Commandos have taken over Cruise Critic.

[shoreguy]

Not owned by RCL but they do have an exclusive marketing aggreement with CC. The only company with offical CC M&Gs.

[blueliner]

So what do you have against Royal Caribbean?

[CaptainAmerica]

Originally Posted by blueliner

So what do you have against Royal Caribbean?

Nothing. I just thought it was interesting that threads critical of Royal Caribbean's Royal Champions were disappearing and when I questioned why those threads were disappearing, I too disappeared.

[msblackjack]

quote from article: I contacted Laura Sterling, Cruise Critic’s community manager about the Royal Champion program. She did not reply to my e-mails. However, she did write a general post to all board readers regarding the Royal Champion program where she says the program is for “influencing others who are not customers to sail on Royal Caribbean.” She adds, “It’s the new trend on the Web, and it will be here to stay. It’s the reason our site is so popular. The consumer voice sells product.”


the consumer's voice - that is laughable - being "Paid" posters; does not put them into the consumer category

[blueliner]

Gee, just when I was finally convinced we were rid of the Brenda Moran story!

[JSnow789]

I am also an executive at a travel related company-in my case it is timeshare.

I cannot imagine doing what RCL is doing! It smacks of dishonesty and would leave me to believe, as a consumer, that they were trying to hide something.
There is no way this type of behavior would be allowed in our industry by the consumer or by our own regulatory body.

I've only been a member here and at CC for a short time and dont' really know what Royal Commando/Champions are-but you can bet I'm going to learn everything I can about the practice.

I've loved all of my cruises on RCL. In fact I'm leaving on another on Thursday. The fact that they feel they need to post false reports is very disappointing.

[blueliner]

Originally Posted by Paul Motter

I don't think she was targeted to be a Royal Champion ;-)

I think she was targeted in another way. But YOU brought her up.

Yeah Paul, you got me on that one, I did bring her up, but only beacause her name is in one of the story links in your post!

I just cringed when I opened up the link in your post and saw her name, I really hope this discussion doesn't start discussions on the Moran story again!

I'm a big fan of RCI, everybody here knows that. I prefer RCI, but in fact I love all cruises and cruiselines. I don't talk down about any other cruiseline. I just like to help other cruisers with any questions I can help answer about RCI.

Where I may disagree a little with the OP, are the people I call "one-hit wonders". These posters come on the message boards, leave one post that completely bashes a cruiseline, warns everyone to never cruise on the said cruiseline, and then never returns. Their complaint may or may not be legitimate (there is rarely enough information to make that determination in most cases), and serves no purpose other than for the poster to vent and try to scare away other potential cruisers. I don't mind when these posts are deleated.

[Visitor B]

Because of this issue, I now have a negative opinion of Royal Caribbean whereas before this I had a mildly positive opinion. Plus, now when someone posts a favorable opinion of RCCL, I'll be questioning whether the post is real or if it's something that the cruise line's marketing department pushed. In general, fake grassroots campaigns generally don't work-- people are able to see through them.

For the same reasons, it also gives me a negative opinion of Cruise Critic, though I had been leaning towards that direction anyway for other reasons. At best, the fact that discussion isn't open makes the site less useful.

[JSnow789]

IMO, deleting posts lends legitimacy to them. Unless the post is a clear violation of the TOS of the particular board and uses obscene language or other objectionable content-it should be left and the thread locked. At the 2 boards that I admin we very rarely delete posts. Leaving them shows everyone that comes along later exactly what happened and usually prevents repeat behavior.d

[CaptainAmerica]

Someone just posted the following on the Royal Caribbean Board.

"I've seen several posts referring to Royal Champions deleted today. Can the moderators please come in and explain why it is no longer OK to mention the Royal Champions?"

and the link is:
http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showt...8#post18519118


Let's see if it gets deleted also.

[JSnow789]

Deleting these threads is just going to cause this entire thing to blow up.

I'm not going to comment on these any longer here because I don't think bringing up what is going on at a different board is fair to the owners/admins/mods of this fine community.

Cheers!

[CaptainAmerica]

Originally Posted by JSnow789

Deleting these threads is just going to cause this entire thing to blow up.

I'm not going to comment on these any longer here because I don't think bringing up what is going on at a different board is fair to the owners/admins/mods of this fine community.

Cheers!

Good point about the other community. And this is a fine community indeed. CC was getting so negative that almost any topic was bound to be flamed by the negators.

Now that the Royal Commandos have taken over the Royal Caribbean Board and making threads disappear, this looks like a nice calm home.

[dave 3261]

I think this is a good discussion. Even if I'm reading an on line review of a local restaurant I always have it in the back of my mind that the good reviews might be written by the owners or friends and family their of,but if people take the time to write a bad review they probably mean it.

On a cruise ship with 3,000 passengers there's bound to be a few that have a bad time for whatever reason and may decide to take it out on the cruise line weather or not they are at fault.

I feel in most cases if you make the conscious decision to relax and have a good time, 99.9% of the time you will have a blast.

Party on!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Carnival Victory,2003
Carnival Victory,2004
RCI Explorer of the Seas April, 2009

[sassyredhat]

Now I am beginning to understand what some of this means. !!!

I was on CC and someone congratulated another someone for being selected as a Royal Champion. I still don't know what that is.

Other posters were complaining about posts disappearing.

I have no experience with any of this so I haven't been paying much attention.

Ahhh to be so ignorant.

Pat

[MrPete]

I take it there are no primary Royal Champions here?

[MrPete]

Originally Posted by Kuki

I'm a primary Royal Chimp

Thanks Kuki! I needed that laugh!

[Marc]

Paul, thanks for all the information. Any chance you can provide all these details on the CruiseMates home page, All Things Cruising Forum, Cruise News Discussion Forum, or with a link as a "Hot Topic" off the home page to this thread. This discussion is valuable to all cruisers, not just those frequenting the RCCL Forum.

[gx94111]

I've been on 5 cruises, 3 on RCI with two more booked for this year on RCI. I've liked my cruises on RCI which is why I've continued to book with them. RCI taking advantage of the opportunity to have lowly compensated (free 2-day cruises) cheerleaders makes sense to me. It is just another form of branding. The issue I have is with the Royal Champions themselves and their repeated claims of objectivity. They weren't selected to be Champions by RCI because they are objective but rather because their posts are pro-RCI. And to prove the point the Champions will shout down anyone who says RCI isn't the be all end all of cruise lines.

It is sad to lose what is supposed to be a consumer driven resource but it is why I'm coming to CruiseMates more often these days and it seems others are too.

[smackie]

And the site most prominently mentioned in the stories admits they supplied contact info, and knew the program was running on the site since it's inception, and that they were working with Celebrity Cruise Line on a similar program.

Paul/Kuki,

I believe that RCI is the parent for Celebrity and Azamara. Does anyone know if this program was extended to these cruise lines as well?

I booked a cruise for a group of relatives with Celebrity in May based on dates, itinerary, reputation. Just curious as to how far the impact of this was even though I would not be willing to cancel my trip based solely on what has happened. It might definitely give me cause to consider future bookings... I would still try to give an impartial review upon my return and, of course, have a great time while away!

[momofmeg]

Originally Posted by CaptainAmerica

Nothing. I just thought it was interesting that threads critical of Royal Caribbean's Royal Champions were disappearing and when I questioned why those threads were disappearing, I too disappeared.

yes I was there the day of the "disappearing threads." I do believe CC has hurt their credibility.

CC has also locked a thread of a month old where a person was asking what a royal champion was. I guess someone brought it up and posted about this latest stuff.

What is interesting though people can have on their posts that they are royal champions on CC-that is still allowed. Perhaps though, that should be, so others can recognize bias.

[momofmeg]

Originally Posted by Paul Motter

WOMMA Announces Changes to the Ethics Code
March 05, 2009 -

• We practice openness about the relationship between consumers and marketers. Consumers engaged in a word of mouth program should disclose their relationship with marketers in their communications with other consumers. We don't tell consumers specifically what to say, but we do instruct them to be open and honest about any relationship with a marketer and about any products or incentives that they may have received.

• We require marketers to disclose their relationships with consumers in relation to word of mouth initiatives.

• We require marketers to effectively monitor disclosure of consumers involved in their word of mouth initiatives.

• We stand against marketing practices whereby the consumer is paid cash by the manufacturer, supplier or one of their representatives to make recommendations, reviews or endorsements.

• We require consumers involved in a word of mouth initiative to disclose the material aspects of their commercial relationship with a marketer, including the specific type of any remuneration received.

• We require consumers involved in a word of mouth initiative to disclose the source of product samples or incentives received from a marketer.

• We comply with FTC regulations that state: "When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed."

• Teaser campaigns are acceptable when the average consumer would recognize the effects as part of a marketing program and when there is a planned revelation as part of the initiative.


The WOMMA Code's key principles are:

1. Respect and promote practices that abide by an understanding that the consumer, not the marketer, is fundamentally in charge and in control and dictates the terms of the consumer-marketer relationship.

2. Openness and honesty between consumers and marketers requires that consumers engaged in a word-of-mouth programs disclose their relationships with marketers with other consumers and marketers disclose their relationships with consumers in relation to word-of- mouth initiatives.

3. Clear disclosure of identity is vital to establishing trust and credibility. Identification should not be blurred in a manner that misleads consumers as to the true identity of the individual with whom they are communicating.

4. Working with minors in word-of-mouth marketing programs carries important responsibilities and sensitivities, therefore, children under the age of 13 should not be included in any word-of-mouth marketing programs.

5. Promote honesty in all downstream communications to assure that ethical standards are upheld even after multiple generations of a conversation.

6. Respect the privacy of consumer at all times and comply with the highest privacy, opt-in and permission standards.

Paul, I don't think it will hurt your credibility, but you may see a sudden influx of new members because of this.

[Islandbear]

I am concerned by both issues.

First, a professional marketing company hired by RCL to sway "Customer Comments" on a travel board. We all know that some posters will promote their point of view for any number of reasons. Some just love their favorite Cruise Line or Hotel or even Destination, some may even work for the company. These posters have insight and will often as not tell you the good with the bad. But, if you are getting perks only to post POSITIVE comments, that is wrong.

Second, Boards need to be accepting of different opinions. That is why consumers enjoy reading them. We want to hear both sides of the story. I would hate to think that when I look through the posts at Cruise Critic I am only seeing threads that have been "Approved".

I remember when Paul was researching the demise of Windjammer Barefoot Cruises and some people who honestly loved that cruise line were still encuraging people to book their vacations on the line even after the crews had stopped being paid and three of the ships had been confiscated. Because the good and the bad were allowed to be posted and discussed hundreds of people were able to make informed disicions. Which is what these boards is about anyway.

My two cents. Please don't ban me or remove my post

[Donna]

This is the first I've heard of Royal Champions?? Something just doesn't sound right with this whole thing...

[jaxon]

Thank you Paul for your valuable information. I will be looking into those FTC regs. I haven't been over here since I advocated for members to write the Fl Ag on the breach of contract issue involving booked passengers being charged a fuel surcharge. As everyone knows, that grass roots campaign was favorably resolved by the AG. Thanks again to all who helped.

My primary cruise blog site has been cruise critic, and I have been posting on this controversy, there.

I saw the disappearing threads, as others did. The threads I saw disappear did not violate any board rules that I could see. I find it additionally disturbing that a poster here was actually banned from cruise critic for posting a thread that was quickly removed. I would like to know if that person received any explanation for their being banned.

Note that the controversy has become a "sticky" on the RCCL cruise critic site -- the OP and title, of which, does not let anyone know what this is about. Members would have to read further -- allowing a discussion on the main section of the boards is still banned.

Those of us who think transparency is needed -- and it looks like the FTC may require it -- have been taking quite a number of slings and arrows from the RC's and, in my words, the wannabe RC's.

[CaptainAmerica]

[quote="jaxon"]

I saw the disappearing threads, as others did. The threads I saw disappear did not violate any board rules that I could see. I find it additionally disturbing that a poster here was actually banned from cruise critic for posting a thread that was quickly removed. I would like to know if that person received any explanation for their being banned.
quote]

I was banned from Cruise Critic for two days for asking about the threads and posts that disappeared. From posts I read on some threads before they too disappeared, evidently it is against the rules there to question actions by the moderators.

Regardless of the intent and actualities of the Royal Champion program and who got what and when, my issue is the "Police State" tactics that CC used when they made threads, posts, and users disappear. Refusing to allow an open discussion by all told me loud and clear that they had something to hide.

Trust was lost, and once lost trust it is difficult to rebuild.

[jaxon]

Captain,

I hear you loud and clear -- at first I was bothered by what I was reading, and then when the posts started disappearing, I got angry. I have spent way too much time on this issue, but I am now retired, so I have the time to spend.

[RosieRoo]

I have been a member of Cruise Critic for over a year and have been following along with this topic the past few days. I have seen the deleted posts as well as the sticky that Jaxon mentioned. Honestly the only reason I noticed the sticky is because I was following the progress of this. I think the thing that bothers me the most is that Cruise Critic was involved in contacting these people for RCCL. This seems to make them a party to this whole thing. Perhaps they should have announced the program when it was started so that the other members could be aware that this was going on and which actual members were going to be a part of it. At least that way we could have known who the cheerleaders were and looked at their posts with that knowledge in mind. I noticed that on the sticky discussing this topic that some of the people who are now identifying themselves as Royal Champions are the ones whose posts I have been reading for the past year. Thanks Paul for bringing this up over here and letting us know that this would be against the rules on this site. At least I know I can read people's honest opinions here, good or bad.