"stealing " with the beverage package

[Orator]

drinks packages, like food buffets, result in huge margins for those offering them. they want you to buy them because they know they'll maximize profits on you. that some people may be 'sharing' them is likely having a negligible impact on their bottom line. don't worry - they won't take 'em away because they generate too much revenue and profits. i say share - the world could use more sharing and caring and less people sticking their noses in someone else's business/where they don't belong.

 

What are the specific profit margins for each product? What is your specific source of information on the margins? Or, are you just shooting from the hip?

[PartyAllDaTyme]

drinks packages, like food buffets, result in huge margins for those offering them. they want you to buy them because they know they'll maximize profits on you. that some people may be 'sharing' them is likely having a negligible impact on their bottom line. don't worry - they won't take 'em away because they generate too much revenue and profits. i say share - the world could use more sharing and caring and less people sticking their noses in someone else's business/where they don't belong.

 

You're correct in that it's negligible, but they have already, in limited cases, taken them away. And they don't simply say, "Well, we could have made a bigger profit had it not been for the pilfering on the drink packages." They have a target profit to make, and to make that they adjust the prices accordingly. Thus, it's my business, literally.

 

You can't really "share" a drink with someone if it's not yours to share in the first place. It's ill-gotten booty. Or is that ill-booten gotty? We're not talking about Robin Hood here, are we? "I rob drinks from the rich cruise line and give to the poor cruisers!" I'm addressing this issue because I do care. And to repeat myself, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[Alsmez]

What are the specific profit margins for each product? What is your specific source of information on the margins? Or, are you just shooting from the hip?

 

I doubt seriously that the cruise line publicizes their vendor information, but any idiot with access to a grocery store circular can see that you can typically get cans of soda for around $.33 a can ($4 for 12, which is a normal, non-sale price around here). The cruiseline sells cans for $2, I believe - so a 500% markup over retail. Given that there's no WAY Celebrity pays retail for cans of soda, it's not unreasonable to think that their markup is closer to 1000%. Granted, they have to pay for storage and cooling of the beverages, but that's still a pretty hefty profit.

 

Alcohol is actually probably somewhat less marked up but still a big profit center for the cruiseline. If you search out some of their bottled wine offerings, you'll see that they're available at retail stores for 1/4 or 1/5 of Celebrity's price - i.e., a 300-400% markup. A liter of Grey Goose is around $40, and contains enough vodka for about 8 generously poured martinis - at $12 per, that's $96, or over a 100% markup OVER RETAIL. Again, X isn't paying retail.

[dexter99]

Although we have no interest in buying any kind of a drink card' date=' I too am fascinated by all the perms and coms presented here.

 

Now for my take on the situation:

 

If the card is worth $60 (I actually have no idea what it is worth!), and in cabin A, Joe buys a card and drinks the full $60 worth. His neighbour Jim also buys a card and shares it with his wife. Together they drink $60 worth. Now you tell me what is the difference? I am sure if Jim, himself, drinks only $30 worth, Celebrity would not give a hoot that his wife drinks the other $30 worth.[/quote']

It isn't that the card is 'worth' anything - it isn't the same as a gift card or a pre-paid amount. With these packages, one person pays an amount for the right to drink as much as they want. Whether they drink more or less than it would be drinking individual drinks is their choice.

[dkjretired]

Shoplifting is taking something that does not belong to you. There is no comparison of this no sharing rule to shoplifting and I don't think most shoplifters let you see them do it anyway and frankly I don't need to be security for the universe over theft issues where ever I go.

 

You want to advocating telling on people for sharing a drink on the beverage package, that to me is akin to butting in to someone else's business and being a tattle. I don't have a worry either way about who shares a drink or who tells on who. Neither of those ideas are part of how I plan to approach or what I would even think about for a single second of my time on a cruise. Different strokes.

 

Finely:

 

First, I am not making any comment on the sharing of a drinks but am only responding to the above comment with a factual answer.

 

In New Jersey the shoplifting statutes cover a whole bunch of things including the behavior that this thread describes. Its not just a simple law but covers things like changing price tags, workers stealing items, etc. Another example is taking a shopping cart out of the parking lot and getting caught with it in your possesion. This is also covered under the shoplifting laws. Many of these laws are based upon a model federal criminal code for states which has been adopted by many states.

[dexter99]

I doubt seriously that the cruise line publicizes their vendor information, but any idiot with access to a grocery store circular can see that you can typically get cans of soda for around $.33 a can ($4 for 12, which is a normal, non-sale price around here). The cruiseline sells cans for $2, I believe - so a 500% markup over retail. Given that there's no WAY Celebrity pays retail for cans of soda, it's not unreasonable to think that their markup is closer to 1000%. Granted, they have to pay for storage and cooling of the beverages, but that's still a pretty hefty profit.

 

Alcohol is actually probably somewhat less marked up but still a big profit center for the cruiseline. If you search out some of their bottled wine offerings, you'll see that they're available at retail stores for 1/4 or 1/5 of Celebrity's price - i.e., a 300-400% markup. A liter of Grey Goose is around $40, and contains enough vodka for about 8 generously poured martinis - at $12 per, that's $96, or over a 100% markup OVER RETAIL. Again, X isn't paying retail.

And they pay someone to load the stuff onto the ship, to open the cans/bottles, to mix drinks, to wash glasses, pour it, to clean the venue you drink in, they replace broken glasses, etc.

 

People seem to understand when they go to a restaurant or bar on land that it costs money to drink - why do they think it is different on a ship? A ship is just a floating resort with restaurants and bars just like resorts on land, towns, cities...

[CLEMM]

Seriously people. Trying to justify stealing with talk of profit margin is ridiculous. There is NO justification for stealing and that is what sharing a drink package is. If you don't think you will drink enough to warrant the expense, then don't buy a package. If, you buy the package, then you agree to the terms which is "no sharing"

[Alsmez]

I couldn't care less what anyone does with their drink card. And although DW and I don't drink enough to justify the price of a card, if I ever did get one I wouldn't have a problem sharing one with my wife. Like I said the amount we drink the cruiseline would still be ahead

 

It was just something that struck me as I was reading these posts and everyone was ading all these variables to plead their case.

 

What if it is just a sip?

 

What if I order two drinks and they put the more expensive drink on the card, is it my obligation to correct them ?

 

What if i order a drink and don't like it , is it stealing to let my wife drink it , or am I obliged to dump it out ?

 

I posted a lot of these questions and if you'll notice, I didn't post them to justify my behavior or plead my case - I'm not trying to make a case for sharing. I was simply trying to point out to posters that individual passengers can and will draw the line where they personally feel it is appropriate, and that it is up to CELEBRITY to decide where THEIR line is and how they want to enforce it.

 

Those who are saying that they would report sharers and that they think X would thank them for it may be right, but X may have decided that they're not worried about a spouse taking a quick sip of something to see if they want one too, and a bunch of reports of this happening would do nothing but annoy them. They may have decided it's too much trouble to know who's drinking which drink when two cards are presented and therefore company policy is to put the more expensive drink on the package, simply to avoid confrontation. Etc. Since we don't work for X, we have no way of knowing - but since X is the one issuing the packages, X MUST BE THE ONE TO ENFORCE THEM AS WELL.

[cruisestitch]

I'd love to see someone with a drink package go up to a bartender and say "could you split that drink into two glasses as I want to share it with my spouse" and see what would happen.

 

But, nobody would ever say that, because they would know that it's wrong to share the package, isn't that right?????

 

See, I figure that everyone, no matter how convoluted the argument that they have tried to present, knows that the package is purchased for consumption by one person. They would never been so brazen as to announce their intention to share the drinks, because they know it's wrong to do so. Sharing would be furtive, hidden, and guilt-ridden, wouldn't it?

[Merig75484]

What are the specific profit margins for each product? What is your specific source of information on the margins? Or, are you just shooting from the hip?

 

i'm afraid i can't reveal profit margins; suffice it to say that i have done consulting work for some of the bigger lines and their margins on food and beverages would make you want to throw up (as in: they are THAT high).

[Orator]

Alsmez: You could be correct. At least you presented some reasoned argument to support your conclusion. My problem,perhaps I wasn't clear, is that too many on these Boards tend to offer opinions as if they were factual when at best they are only inferential. Think we would gain more helpful information if we demanded that "opinions" be supported by verifiable facts.

[cruisestitch]

I just had lunch at a restaurant that has recently changed from an "all you can eat buffet" to menu service only. I was talking to the manager about it and he said that they were "going broke" because a family would come in, order one buffet and the cheapest sandwich on the menu for the others in the group, and then the person who got the buffet would go back over and over and over, filling his/her plate and sharing with the others. They had considered going to a new policy "if one person in a group orders the buffet, everyone in the group must also order the buffet" but decided in the end to just give it up.

 

Maybe that's the solution -- if one person in a stateroom orders a package, everyone has to order a package!

 

Oh, but then there would still be the "sharing/stealing" across the stateroom boundaries -- groups traveling together, etc. etc.

[cptnamerica]

I would be ashamed and embarrased if someone in my party thought this was okay. People seems to think they are entitled and forget that common decency still apply.

[Orator]

I would be ashamed and embarrased if someone in my party thought this was okay. People seems to think they are entitled and forget that common decency still apply.

 

Notice that this is your first post. Welcome to the CC Board. Hope you will find the vast majority of information helpful.

[Alsmez]

drinks packages, like food buffets, result in huge margins for those offering them. they want you to buy them because they know they'll maximize profits on you. that some people may be 'sharing' them is likely having a negligible impact on their bottom line. don't worry - they won't take 'em away because they generate too much revenue and profits. i say share - the world could use more sharing and caring and less people sticking their noses in someone else's business/where they don't belong.

 

As Merring said, I wouldn't worry too much about the cruise line's profit margin. They did the math very carefully on these packages, and they wouldn't be offering them if they weren't profitable. IMO, I have a feeling they'll end up being MORE profitable than "pay as you go" even if passengers drink enough to get their money's worth, because many of those passengers will (intentionally or not) drink more than they would have if they were purchasing by the drink.

 

For instance, my fiance is a soda FIEND and before the packages were offered, we were planning on bringing several cases of soda for him because I would have cringed every time he bought a $2 can, and therefore he wouldn't have bought many (and would have enjoyed his cruise less). He likes specialty coffees too but probably would have stuck to the free stuff mostly to appease me. Now with the packages, he can drink both to his heart's content. They may be narrowing their per-drink profit margins slightly with the package, but they're making up for it by guaranteeing themselves volume (if you consider $56 a day volume).

[PartyAllDaTyme]

Those who are saying that they would report sharers and that they think X would thank them for it may be right, but X may have decided that they're not worried about a spouse taking a quick sip of something to see if they want one too, and a bunch of reports of this happening would do nothing but annoy them. They may have decided it's too much trouble to know who's drinking which drink when two cards are presented and therefore company policy is to put the more expensive drink on the package, simply to avoid confrontation. Etc. Since we don't work for X, we have no way of knowing - but since X is the one issuing the packages, X MUST BE THE ONE TO ENFORCE THEM AS WELL.

 

Please, no need for shouting:)!

 

Let me go on record as saying (as I've already said several years ago when this thread first started) that I'm not against someone taking a sip, or even giving the drink to one's spouse after tasting it, finding it not to their liking but the spouse likes it, and letting the spouse finish it rather than letting it go to waste. I was talking with DW about this thread over lunch, and she said, "How about if I take your drink, then buy you a new one and put it on my SeaPass card?" So there's a new wrinkle. (DW's other comment was, "If they're relying on the honor system for people not to be sharing drinks, I guess those people don't have any honor." A wise woman.)

 

Evidence is to the contrary that Celebrity routinely lets drink sharing slide. The quote I re-quoted earlier today from Tony Tamosh, Celebrity's beverage operations manager, indicates that they keep their eyes open as much as possible, do some random checking of pax's folios for a pattern, and they have addressed some guests who tried to share drinks. If I should discreetly pass on to a bartender to be watching for someone who seems to be abusing the package, I doubt the response would be, "Mind your own business. If we want to let people abuse the drink package, or are unable to adequately monitor the situation, that's our concern, not yours." At that point, if nothing is done, that's their prerogative, but at least they were aware of the situation.

 

Back to the shoplifting comparison. A store has security for preventing shoplifting, but can't catch everyone. Your position that if you were to catch someone in the act of boosting something, the proper thing to say is, "If the store were that concerned about shoplifting, they'd make more of an effort to prevent this sort of thing. Serves them right for not having enough store security to prevent this. I guess that means they're okay with it." There's a break-even point where the additional security to prevent further losses costs them more than the actual losses, but that doesn't mean any losses should be considered acceptable, by either the store or the customer who ultimately either pays higher prices or sees the store close down, due (in part) from the losses resulting from shoplifting.

 

if you're not part of the solution-- oh, wait, I said that before:o.

[Alsmez]

Please, no need for shouting:)!

 

Let me go on record as saying (as I've already said several years ago when this thread first started) that I'm not against someone taking a sip, or even giving the drink to one's spouse after tasting it, finding it not to their liking but the spouse likes it, and letting the spouse finish it rather than letting it go to waste.

 

If I should discreetly pass on to a bartender to be watching for someone who seems to be abusing the package, I doubt the response would be, "Mind your own business. If we want to let people abuse the drink package, or are unable to adequately monitor the situation, that's our concern, not yours."

 

if you're not part of the solution-- oh, wait, I said that before:o.

 

I know you (and many others on the thread) have said that you're not against someone taking a sip. However, there are plenty of zealots out there who are, and who might have nothing better to do on their cruise than police the behavior of others. You may think you're discreetly passing along info, but the bartender you're speaking to may have heard the same thing 100 times that day, and might have better things to do than be pestered by every Paul Blart Mall Cop that thinks they're doing the cruise line a favor. My point is - everyone thinks their interpretation of the rules is the right interpretation. However, the ONLY right interpretation is Celebrity's, and to that end Celebrity employees the only people who should be policing the policy.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

I know you (and many others on the thread) have said that you're not against someone taking a sip. However, there are plenty of zealots out there who are, and who might have nothing better to do on their cruise than police the behavior of others. You may think you're discreetly passing along info, but the bartender you're speaking to may have heard the same thing 100 times that day, and might have better things to do than be pestered by every Paul Blart Mall Cop that thinks they're doing the cruise line a favor. My point is - everyone thinks their interpretation of the rules is the right interpretation. However, the ONLY right interpretation is Celebrity's, and to that end Celebrity employees the only people who should be policing the policy.

 

Do you really think it really comes up that much? I had also said in a previous post that I would not go around specifically looking for it, and would only say something if, by chance, I noticed it or if someone was bragging to me about how they were cheating the cruise line. I don't think this would actually come up for me one time in a dozen or maybe even in a hundred cruises. If the bartender is fending off 100 such reports a day, the problem is much more widespread than we think:eek:! Of course, I take your point that some will feel that it's their duty to be on the lookout for drink desperadoes, and if we do have many people with that much of a heightened sense of righteousness that they think that even letting someone have a sip is something that must not go unreported, I can see where this would be a problem. Still, I see looking the other way as a shirking of a basic moral responsibility for reasons I have already gone over.

 

I'm all in favor of letting Celebrity police their policy. But the police (the real police) rely on reports from citizens phoning in reports of crimes in progress, drunk drivers, accidents, whatever. They don't ask people to mind their own business and let them do all the legwork themselves. All I'm doing by putting a word in a bartender's ear is the same (in principle, if not scale) as reporting a break-in next door.

[Alsmez]

Do you really think it really comes up that much?

 

If the prevalence of "I saw shorts in the MDR" threads on this board are any indication, then yes, I do! :)

[PartyAllDaTyme]

If the prevalence of "I saw shorts in the MDR" threads on this board are any indication, then yes, I do! :)

 

Touche'!

[Snorkel2Much]

Shoplifting is taking something that does not belong to you. There is no comparison of this no sharing rule to shoplifting and I don't think most shoplifters let you see them do it anyway and frankly I don't need to be security for the universe over theft issues where ever I go.

 

You want to advocating telling on people for sharing a drink on the beverage package, that to me is akin to butting in to someone else's business and being a tattle. I don't have a worry either way about who shares a drink or who tells on who. Neither of those ideas are part of how I plan to approach or what I would even think about for a single second of my time on a cruise. Different strokes.

Not that you should feel any responsibility to alleviate my confusion, but I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding your value system as stated here. You've espoused a "Mind Your Own Business" philosophy, yet you continue to "Mind Other People's Business" by making multiple posts telling them to stay out of it. So it's OK for you to defend your belief system (laissez-faire anyone?) but it's not OK for others to defend theirs?

:confused::confused::confused:

[ORV]

drinks packages, like food buffets, result in huge margins for those offering them. they want you to buy them because they know they'll maximize profits on you. that some people may be 'sharing' them is likely having a negligible impact on their bottom line. don't worry - they won't take 'em away because they generate too much revenue and profits. i say share - the world could use more sharing and caring and less people sticking their noses in someone else's business/where they don't belong.

 

I doubt seriously that the cruise line publicizes their vendor information, but any idiot with access to a grocery store circular can see that you can typically get cans of soda for around $.33 a can ($4 for 12, which is a normal, non-sale price around here). The cruiseline sells cans for $2, I believe - so a 500% markup over retail. Given that there's no WAY Celebrity pays retail for cans of soda, it's not unreasonable to think that their markup is closer to 1000%. Granted, they have to pay for storage and cooling of the beverages, but that's still a pretty hefty profit.

 

Alcohol is actually probably somewhat less marked up but still a big profit center for the cruiseline. If you search out some of their bottled wine offerings, you'll see that they're available at retail stores for 1/4 or 1/5 of Celebrity's price - i.e., a 300-400% markup. A liter of Grey Goose is around $40, and contains enough vodka for about 8 generously poured martinis - at $12 per, that's $96, or over a 100% markup OVER RETAIL. Again, X isn't paying retail.

 

Oh good grief, NO, NO, NO, regardless of the profit of the cruise line or any other business there is no excuse for not adhering to the rules and stealing from them. While I certainly don't agree with the self righteous crowd I agree with this type of thinking even less.

 

The bottom line is there is no excuse for sharing, but I certainly will not be turning anyone in or telling them they will be punished in the afterlife for their actions as I've seen on other threads.

 

 

Alsmez: You could be correct. At least you presented some reasoned argument to support your conclusion. My problem,perhaps I wasn't clear, is that too many on these Boards tend to offer opinions as if they were factual when at best they are only inferential. Think we would gain more helpful information if we demanded that "opinions" be supported by verifiable facts.

 

What a great post, amazing how people quote unsubstantiated rumors as facts. Something they heard from somebody on their cruise and it gets repeated a time or two and people start throwing it out as fact.

[Feelin' Nauti']

Ok here is a little tidbit I found over on Celebrity's website

Looking over the Beverage Packages it clearly states ( in bold)

 

*All prices in USD are subject to change without notice. A 15% service charge will be added to Soda, Wine, Water, Classic and Premium Package prices at checkout. Packages are sold on a per cruise basis, are not sold on a per day or any other basis, and no refunds will be issued for unused amounts. Packages may not be shared, and do not include beverages sold in gift shops, mini-bar or room service. Ordered packages may be modified up to four days prior to sailing by canceling and reordering the package. Cancellations or refunds will not be issued onboard the vessel after embarkation day. Availability of beverage packages varies by ship. You must be at least 21 years of age to purchase any alcoholic package and to consume alcohol. See the terms of our guest alcohol policy. Other terms and conditions apply.

[FinelyCruising]

I posted a lot of these questions and if you'll notice, I didn't post them to justify my behavior or plead my case - I'm not trying to make a case for sharing. I was simply trying to point out to posters that individual passengers can and will draw the line where they personally feel it is appropriate, and that it is up to CELEBRITY to decide where THEIR line is and how they want to enforce it.

 

Those who are saying that they would report sharers and that they think X would thank them for it may be right, but X may have decided that they're not worried about a spouse taking a quick sip of something to see if they want one too, and a bunch of reports of this happening would do nothing but annoy them. They may have decided it's too much trouble to know who's drinking which drink when two cards are presented and therefore company policy is to put the more expensive drink on the package, simply to avoid confrontation. Etc. Since we don't work for X, we have no way of knowing - but since X is the one issuing the packages, X MUST BE THE ONE TO ENFORCE THEM AS WELL.

 

As Merring said, I wouldn't worry too much about the cruise line's profit margin. They did the math very carefully on these packages, and they wouldn't be offering them if they weren't profitable. IMO, I have a feeling they'll end up being MORE profitable than "pay as you go" even if passengers drink enough to get their money's worth, because many of those passengers will (intentionally or not) drink more than they would have if they were purchasing by the drink.

 

For instance, my fiance is a soda FIEND and before the packages were offered, we were planning on bringing several cases of soda for him because I would have cringed every time he bought a $2 can, and therefore he wouldn't have bought many (and would have enjoyed his cruise less). He likes specialty coffees too but probably would have stuck to the free stuff mostly to appease me. Now with the packages, he can drink both to his heart's content. They may be narrowing their per-drink profit margins slightly with the package, but they're making up for it by guaranteeing themselves volume (if you consider $56 a day volume).

 

I know you (and many others on the thread) have said that you're not against someone taking a sip. However, there are plenty of zealots out there who are, and who might have nothing better to do on their cruise than police the behavior of others. You may think you're discreetly passing along info, but the bartender you're speaking to may have heard the same thing 100 times that day, and might have better things to do than be pestered by every Paul Blart Mall Cop that thinks they're doing the cruise line a favor. My point is - everyone thinks their interpretation of the rules is the right interpretation. However, the ONLY right interpretation is Celebrity's, and to that end Celebrity employees the only people who should be policing the policy.

 

You get it!!! :)

[Alsmez]

Oh good grief, NO, NO, NO, regardless of the profit of the cruise line or any other business there is no excuse for not adhering to the rules and stealing from them. While I certainly don't agree with the self righteous crowd I agree with this type of thinking even less.

 

The bottom line is there is no excuse for sharing, but I certainly will not be turning anyone in or telling them they will be punished in the afterlife for their actions as I've seen on other threads.

 

What a great post, amazing how people quote unsubstantiated rumors as facts. Something they heard from somebody on their cruise and it gets repeated a time or two and people start throwing it out as fact.

 

ORV - I didn't post my breakdown of the profit margin on drinks to say that I think sharing is okay, I was simply pointing out to another poster who had asked for substantiation of the claim of huge profit margins that it was pretty simple to see how much money the cruise line was making.