Should CC Member Cruise Group Leaders be identified on these boards??

[AdrenalineRush]

Divulge "so much" about themselves? Do you understand that I have suggested that it might be advisable to disclose by icon Group Leaders who are in the process of organizing a member cruise (or who regularly do so for a specific line) on threads dealing with that line? Nothing more.

 

Just about every group leader on the Carnival boards, has links within their signature identifying themselves as GL. They want people to know they are leading a group.

[pmacher61]

Just about every group leader on the Carnival boards, has links within their signature identifying themselves as GL. They want people to know they are leading a group.

Thanks. I didnt realize that. It makes sense.

[Aquahound]

IMO, it begins and ends when a person has a vested financial interest in how the cruise line or ship is perceived by other readers on CC. I think that posters who are organizing a CC member group and who therefore stand to earn a free cabin if they recruit the requisite number of readers ought to be identified as such on all threads dealing with that cruise line or ship, at least, during the pendency of formation of the group.

 

I understand your point, but I still don't agree with it. Should stock holders be identified since they have a vested financial interest? Should higher tier members of loyalty programs be identified since they have vested financial interest? Should Travel Agents who make a higher commission with one cruise line over another be identified since they have a vested financial interest? Should cruise line credit card holders be identified since they have vested financial interest?

 

A couple of the above apply to me. It is, and should be, up to me when I want to identify myself as such, and I feel the same way about Group Leaders.

[terracool]

Didn't the FTC recently revise its rules about disclosing compensation in return for reviews and endorsements? I don't recall the details, but I thought it was aimed squarely at internet blogging and messaging and reviewing in which anonymous contributors would leave glowing reviews or posts or whatever and then turn out to be employees of the company reviewed or commented upon.

 

I would think that free cabins or cruises would be considered compensation under this rule - its coverage is NOT limited to just employees of the company. I'm not sure what constitutes a review or blog or endorsement or whatever, but I am a little surprised that it's not required in some way. At minimum, I"m surprised that there aren't guidelines or something available here.

 

The company I worked for sent out a big email blast when the rule changed. Apparently, it is the company reviewed that gets fined $11,000 per violation (not sure why I seem to remember that number but few other details). They told us all NOT to leave positive comments of any kind about the company anywhere on the internet without clearly stating that we are employees of the company.

 

But the rule is not limited to employees. It is also for any reviewer who has received anything of value (relevant to the scope of the review) from the company reviewed.

 

I don't think I got all the facts quite right, but that's how I remember it off the top of my head.

 

.

[moniquet]

Bit of an eye-opener for me, I didn't realise there were all these group leaders with a vested interest. I shall read posts with a third eye in future:rolleyes:

[grand isle joe]

Didn't the FTC recently revise its rules about disclosing compensation in return for reviews and endorsements? I don't recall the details, but I thought it was aimed squarely at internet blogging and messaging and reviewing in which anonymous contributors would leave glowing reviews or posts or whatever and then turn out to be employees of the company reviewed or commented upon.

 

I would think that free cabins or cruises would be considered compensation under this rule - its coverage is NOT limited to just employees of the company. I'm not sure what constitutes a review or blog or endorsement or whatever, but I am a little surprised that it's not required in some way. At minimum, I"m surprised that there aren't guidelines or something available here.

 

The company I worked for sent out a big email blast when the rule changed. Apparently, it is the company reviewed that gets fined $11,000 per violation (not sure why I seem to remember that number but few other details). They told us all NOT to leave positive comments of any kind about the company anywhere on the internet without clearly stating that we are employees of the company.

 

But the rule is not limited to employees. It is also for any reviewer who has received anything of value (relevant to the scope of the review) from the company reviewed.

 

I don't think I got all the facts quite right, but that's how I remember it off the top of my head.

 

.

 

 

 

......sounds like you either work for an up-front company OR a company that has paranoid lawyers on staff......I believe the first. Thanks for the info.:)

[terracool]

......sounds like you either work for an up-front company OR a company that has paranoid lawyers on staff......I believe the first. Thanks for the info.:)

 

 

HAHAHA! Now THAT is extremely perceptive, except that you just missed. The company I mentioned has to have the most conservative group of lawyers on the planet. Not that I have a lot to compare to, but these folks are so restrictive it's amazing. But definitely very perceptive to pick out that one or the other must apply to my knowledge base for that rule change!

 

.

[Aquahound]

Didn't the FTC recently revise its rules about disclosing compensation in return for reviews and endorsements? I don't recall the details, but I thought it was aimed squarely at internet blogging and messaging and reviewing in which anonymous contributors would leave glowing reviews or posts or whatever and then turn out to be employees of the company reviewed or commented upon.

 

I would think that free cabins or cruises would be considered compensation under this rule - its coverage is NOT limited to just employees of the company. I'm not sure what constitutes a review or blog or endorsement or whatever, but I am a little surprised that it's not required in some way. At minimum, I"m surprised that there aren't guidelines or something available here.

 

The company I worked for sent out a big email blast when the rule changed. Apparently, it is the company reviewed that gets fined $11,000 per violation (not sure why I seem to remember that number but few other details). They told us all NOT to leave positive comments of any kind about the company anywhere on the internet without clearly stating that we are employees of the company.

 

But the rule is not limited to employees. It is also for any reviewer who has received anything of value (relevant to the scope of the review) from the company reviewed.

 

I don't think I got all the facts quite right, but that's how I remember it off the top of my head.

 

What you say is correct, but I don't think you are understanding exactly what this is about. It is partly the Op's fault for making it sound as though people are getting compensated for their blogging. That is not even remotely true. This is about people who organize group cruises and receive one free fare for every 8 double-occupancy cabins they book. It is not compensation for their internet blogging. This is the cruise lines' benefits for any group bookings. You can create your own group completely outside of the internet, book a block of rooms, and receive this same benefit.

[pmacher61]

I understand your point, but I still don't agree with it. Should stock holders be identified since they have a vested financial interest? Should higher tier members of loyalty programs be identified since they have vested financial interest? Should Travel Agents who make a higher commission with one cruise line over another be identified since they have a vested financial interest? Should cruise line credit card holders be identified since they have vested financial interest?

 

A couple of the above apply to me. It is, and should be, up to me when I want to identify myself as such, and I feel the same way about Group Leaders.

I don't think you do understand my point because the analogies you seek to draw are flawed. However, to the extent you really do do understand but still feel nondisclosure is OK, then I submit your position is indefensible.

As for your analogies, major stockholders who tout a stock publicly and don't disclose their holdings are in deed considered unethical. That's why the TV pundits are quick to disclose they hold a stock when they discuss it. According to the recent FTC regulations mentioned above it appears they now may be committing a crime by not disclosing their holdings.

Higher tier members in loyalty programs don't have a financial interest in the line and don't benefit from their own touting of the line - they benefit only when they buy the product themsleves. I am sure that TAs who earn a better commission on a particular line would be considered unethical if they put their own interests over those of their client by promoting the higher paying line over a better product. Would you want to employ that TA?

How do the holders of cruise line issued credit card benefit financially from the success of the cruise line?

I dont see that any of your examples parallel the conduct of not disclosing a vested financial interest in a product one is touting, but to the extent they do, it is unquestionably unethical conduct, if not illegal, not to make disclosure.

[AdrenalineRush]

Bit of an eye-opener for me, I didn't realise there were all these group leaders with a vested interest. I shall read posts with a third eye in future:rolleyes:

 

Group leaders are interested in people booking their specific cruise. Some of the group leaders have actually organized group cruises on multiple lines.

 

Then again, I dont think anyone should give much weight to any single person touting a cruise line.

[pmacher61]

What you say is correct, but I don't think you are understanding exactly what this is about. It is partly the Op's fault for making it sound as though people are getting compensated for their blogging. That is not even remotely true. This is about people who organize group cruises and receive one free fare for every 8 double-occupancy cabins they book. It is not compensation for their internet blogging. This is the cruise lines' benefits for any group bookings. You can create your own group completely outside of the internet, book a block of rooms, and receive this same benefit.

Please don't try to reinterpret my post. My point is clear. CC members who are Group Leaders organizing member cruises by which they benefit financially ought to be disclosed as such when engaging in chat on the boards regarding the line or ship for which they are organizing the group.

[Aquahound]

I don't think you do understand my point because the analogies you seek to draw are flawed.

 

Please don't try to reinterpret my post.

 

No, I understand just fine. It's clear you expect everyone to agree with you. Your question was "Should CC Member Cruise Group Leaders be identified on these boards??" I do not, and neither does Cruise Critic. So get over it. :rolleyes:

[2SeaWithMe]

Didn't the FTC recently revise its rules about disclosing compensation in return for reviews and endorsements? I don't recall the details, but I thought it was aimed squarely at internet blogging and messaging and reviewing in which anonymous contributors would leave glowing reviews or posts or whatever and then turn out to be employees of the company reviewed or commented upon.

 

I would think that free cabins or cruises would be considered compensation under this rule - its coverage is NOT limited to just employees of the company. I'm not sure what constitutes a review or blog or endorsement or whatever, but I am a little surprised that it's not required in some way. At minimum, I"m surprised that there aren't guidelines or something available here.

 

The company I worked for sent out a big email blast when the rule changed. Apparently, it is the company reviewed that gets fined $11,000 per violation (not sure why I seem to remember that number but few other details). They told us all NOT to leave positive comments of any kind about the company anywhere on the internet without clearly stating that we are employees of the company.

 

But the rule is not limited to employees. It is also for any reviewer who has received anything of value (relevant to the scope of the review) from the company reviewed.

 

I don't think I got all the facts quite right, but that's how I remember it off the top of my head.

 

.

 

 

Tripadvisor is the company that was investigated, and um....they own cruisecritic.

[notentirelynormal]

Please don't try to reinterpret my post. My point is clear. CC members who are Group Leaders organizing member cruises by which they benefit financially ought to be disclosed as such when engaging in chat on the boards regarding the line or ship for which they are organizing the group.

 

I have to tell you, the more you argue... and yes argue is the correct word... the more you sound like a bitter person that had a bad experience. I don't think someone getting a free berth should have to tell anyone. It's none of your business. I organize family and friend cruises all the time. The money from the free BERTH I use as I see fit. Usually I reinvest it in an event for our group. The choice, however, is mine since I do all the work, and it IS work. How is this ANY of your business. Until you disclose your finances to everyone else, ours is none of your business.

 

You need to get over it! It sounds like the majority of us disagree with you. Accept it and move on.

[2SeaWithMe]

Didn't the FTC recently revise its rules about disclosing compensation in return for reviews and endorsements? I don't recall the details, but I thought it was aimed squarely at internet blogging and messaging and reviewing in which anonymous contributors would leave glowing reviews or posts or whatever and then turn out to be employees of the company reviewed or commented upon.

 

I would think that free cabins or cruises would be considered compensation under this rule - its coverage is NOT limited to just employees of the company. I'm not sure what constitutes a review or blog or endorsement or whatever, but I am a little surprised that it's not required in some way. At minimum, I"m surprised that there aren't guidelines or something available here.

 

The company I worked for sent out a big email blast when the rule changed. Apparently, it is the company reviewed that gets fined $11,000 per violation (not sure why I seem to remember that number but few other details). They told us all NOT to leave positive comments of any kind about the company anywhere on the internet without clearly stating that we are employees of the company.

 

But the rule is not limited to employees. It is also for any reviewer who has received anything of value (relevant to the scope of the review) from the company reviewed.

 

I don't think I got all the facts quite right, but that's how I remember it off the top of my head.

 

.

 

 

Tripadvisor is the company that was investigated, and um....they own cruisecritic.

[beachchick]

We don't. However, it would explain why someone might obnoxiously tout a line overzealously.

 

Yes, it is one of a hundred or more reasons why someone might be what is called on CC a "cheerleader" for a specific cruise line. Would you have people list every reason that they prefer one line over another?

 

 

Would you agree that it might?

 

Of course I would agree that it might affect their reviews. Your premise was that it does/would affect their reviews. There is a big difference between those two things.

Yes, the opinion of someone who does not receive personal benefits as a Group Leader is likely to be more objective. A group leader will benefit by recruiting other CC readers and is therefore less inclined to negatively criticize a line for which s/he regularly organizes groups.

 

I disagree. I think that someone who is regularly a group leader for CC cruise (or other groups for that matter) already loves the specific cruise line(s). They don't need to have the incentive to tout their favorite--They probably already do that. Would you agree to be a group leader for a cruise line that you disliked?

I would consider this a naive point of view.

 

Okay. I have to chuckle just a bit though because, although I do prefer to see the good in people, I'm usually considered a bit cynical. I would like to know what additional benefits a group leader receives besides the (nearly) free berth. Once the minimum number of cabins has been met, what is the incentive to try to convince more members to take the cruise? Seriously, I have no idea if it's a deal where the more cabins booked, the more perks the leader receives.

 

Again, I would consider you to be naive. A free cabin is sufficient to motivate some people, not all, to vociferously defend a cruise line from negative criticism because they want to recruit other CC readers to become members of their group. Group Leaders may not be inherently less honest than any other member, but they have a personal interest in eliminating negative criticism of a line on which they regularly organize groups. That can lead to antagonistic exchanges on the boards. I believe disclosure of one's Group Leader status would tend to minimize antagonistic exchanges.

 

And I consider you to be naive if you think disclosure of group leader status (a small number of members to begin with) would minimize antagonistic exchanges. It is laughable to think that it would, IMO.

 

But you are perfectly entitled to believe that group leaders are inherently more likely to be less than honest in their reviews/opinions/preferences. I simply disagree that the mere possibility is enough of a reason for requiring that information.

 

beachchick

[Cruzaholic41]

Please don't try to reinterpret my post. My point is clear. CC members who are Group Leaders organizing member cruises by which they benefit financially ought to be disclosed as such when engaging in chat on the boards regarding the line or ship for which they are organizing the group.

 

I think it has become very clear what the real issue is here. You sound like you disagreed with someone who was a group leader. Why? Is it because they promoted a competitor to your favorite cruise line? Probably. Like what the others said, you need to accept the fact the majority of people, including this website you are choosing to occupy, do not agree with you. In that case, let me be the third person to say - Get over it!

[RQINFL]

I'm reading through this thread and very curious to understand what exactly a group leader is. It sounds like somebody on here who puts together a cruise and tries to get other members to join the group? Is there a benefit to cruisers for booking one of these cruises? Better prices, other perks etc? Or is it just to get together with other people they know?

[AdrenalineRush]

Is there a benefit to cruisers for booking one of these cruises? Better prices, other perks etc? Or is it just to get together with other people they know?

 

This is a list of the CC member cruises, you can click on some to see the perks

http://www.cruisecritic.com/interests/groupcruise.cfm

 

Usually they offer reduced deposits..$25pp, OBC, slightly cheaper pricing and a few smaller perks.

Its a great deal for cruisers that were already planning to book that cruise, or those that already booked will transfer their booking over to the group to get the perks.

 

While they do offer a chance for people to meet onboard, some people just book and never plan to interact with the group once onboard.

[pmacher61]

I have to tell you, the more you argue... and yes argue is the correct word... the more you sound like a bitter person that had a bad experience. I don't think someone getting a free berth should have to tell anyone. It's none of your business. I organize family and friend cruises all the time. The money from the free BERTH I use as I see fit. Usually I reinvest it in an event for our group. The choice, however, is mine since I do all the work, and it IS work. How is this ANY of your business. Until you disclose your finances to everyone else, ours is none of your business.

 

You need to get over it! It sounds like the majority of us disagree with you. Accept it and move on.

You are mistaken in your flaming of me. I am not bitter. Just honest and open. Perhaps it's as a result of my past life as a lawyer where full disclosure of conflicting interests was mandatory.

You are free to hide from your friends and family that you are earning freebies when you organize a group. That is your prerogative. You are free to divide the hard earned benefits anyway you choose. I just hope you don't convince anyone into buying a cabin by misleading them about the quality of the product they are buying just so you can earn your free cabin. Of course, no one would ever do that, would they?

 

Your comments about disclosing finances in general are absurd. We are not discussing finances in general. We are discussing the ethics of not disclosing fully that one is benefitting from putting a group together; and we are discussing whether one's status as a group leader ought to be disclosed on all CC threads concerning the subject cruise line. Although it should be self evident to people with their heads screwed on right, if need be I will continue to "argue" that to knowingly overstate the quality of a cruise ship just to recruit members to a group you are putting together is unethical. And it is also unethical not to disclose to friends and family that you are personally benefitting from putting the group together.

 

Lastly, I think it would eliminate some antagonistic exchanges on certain threads if posters were identified as group leaders for member cruises on all threads concerning the line for which they are organizing the group.

[notentirelynormal]

You are mistaken in your flaming of me. I am not bitter. Just honest and open. Perhaps it's as a result of my past life as a lawyer where full disclosure of conflicting interests was mandatory.

You are free to hide from your friends and family that you are earning freebies when you organize a group. That is your prerogative. You are free to divide the hard earned benefits anyway you choose. I just hope you don't convince anyone into buying a cabin by misleading them about the quality of the product they are buying just so you can earn your free cabin. Of course, no one would ever do that, would they?

 

Your comments about disclosing finances in general are absurd. We are not discussing finances in general. We are discussing the ethics of not disclosing fully that one is benefitting from putting a group together; and we are discussing whether one's status as a group leader ought to be disclosed on all CC threads concerning the subject cruise line. Although it should be self evident to people with their heads screwed on right, if need be I will continue to "argue" that to knowingly overstate the quality of a cruise ship just to recruit members to a group you are putting together is unethical. And it is also unethical not to disclose to friends and family that you are personally benefitting from putting the group together.

 

Lastly, I think it would eliminate some antagonistic exchanges on certain threads if posters were identified as group leaders for member cruises on all threads concerning the line for which they are organizing the group.

 

Well now... aren't you the ASSUMING one! My friends and family ALL know what I get for putting the group together. That is YOUR ASSUMPTION that I am being dishonest, but not fact. They also know how much time and, yes money of my own I put into doing a group. I spend countless hours doing newsletters, arranging hotels, flights, buses, limos and shore excursions for our group. If I choose to use the tiny amount of money I get back for myself they would not care. As I said though - usually I take that money and host a pre-cruise dinner or a party on board with it, or buy a souvenir present for everyone.

 

But we ARE discussing finances. You say that we MUST tell what we get for free. Free means that there was a cost to the item that we are not paying for. You paid, I didn't, right? Money = finances.

 

I am not flaming you - I am disagreeing with you. Thank you for the comment about me not having my head screwed on properly though. One of us seems to be throwing some sparks! There never seems to be a mirror when you need one.

 

Please take a moment to see the difference. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean we are dishonest or "not disclosing". You have your view and clearly you think everyone that doesn't agree with your view is unethical. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and analyze your own comments in order to see how your written words are coming across. We are not in a courtroom here. This is a chat board where everyone is supposed to get their say, not just the one that's standing at the table.

[Cruzaholic41]

Please take a moment to see the difference. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean we are dishonest or "not disclosing". You have your view and clearly you think everyone that doesn't agree with your view is unethical. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and analyze your own comments in order to see how your written words are coming across. We are not in a courtroom here. This is a chat board where everyone is supposed to get their say, not just the one that's standing at the table.

 

That is exactly right. People who can't handle objective opinions (OP) are far worse on these boards than anyone trying to benefit from putting together a group cruise.

[terracool]

You are mistaken in your flaming of me. I am not bitter. Just honest and open. Perhaps it's as a result of my past life as a lawyer where full disclosure of conflicting interests was mandatory.

You are free to hide from your friends and family that you are earning freebies when you organize a group. That is your prerogative. You are free to divide the hard earned benefits anyway you choose. I just hope you don't convince anyone into buying a cabin by misleading them about the quality of the product they are buying just so you can earn your free cabin. Of course, no one would ever do that, would they?

 

Your comments about disclosing finances in general are absurd. We are not discussing finances in general. We are discussing the ethics of not disclosing fully that one is benefitting from putting a group together; and we are discussing whether one's status as a group leader ought to be disclosed on all CC threads concerning the subject cruise line. Although it should be self evident to people with their heads screwed on right, if need be I will continue to "argue" that to knowingly overstate the quality of a cruise ship just to recruit members to a group you are putting together is unethical. And it is also unethical not to disclose to friends and family that you are personally benefitting from putting the group together.

 

Lastly, I think it would eliminate some antagonistic exchanges on certain threads if posters were identified as group leaders for member cruises on all threads concerning the line for which they are organizing the group.

 

I totally agree with the OP, and I am not mad at anyone, have not had a run-in with a group leader, have not been denied group leader status, and didn't even know there were group leaders until this thread. It is not about disclosing personal finances. It is not about group leaders who do a lot of work not deserving something for their efforts. It's not about whether this is available to anyone and everyone outside of CC. [so what if the benefit is available to anyone who arranges a group? "Anyone" is probably not on the biggest cruisers' forum in the world hyping the cruise line.]

 

It is simply about this: If someone is on here giving glowing reports and recommendations about a cruise line, using this board to further that effort to put a certain line in a positive light, then he (or she) should have to simply state that he is/may be receiving some kind of benefit from the cruise line about which he is speaking so highly. It only makes sense that someone who may benefit from speaking glowingly about a company should reveal that benefit for the sake of readers who may not realize the connection.

 

To do anything less, to have opinions put out there that may be colored (even in perception) by a potential benefit, is not a transparent process and may even run afoul of the FTC rules, depending on the particular facts of each instance.

 

And again, I am not mad at anyone nor do I have an axe to grind nor is this sour grapes. It is actually possible for someone to hold this posistion simply for reasons of philosophy and belief - not for the ulterior motives assigned by so many. Flame away.

 

ETA: No one is saying that GL's should have to post their tax returns. A simple statement such as "I am leading a cruise group on CC and may, in that role, receive certain benefits from the Cruise Line A in exchange for arranging the group cruise" would be plenty.

 

.

[Aquahound]

It is simply about this: If someone is on here giving glowing reports and recommendations about a cruise line, using this board to further that effort to put a certain line in a positive light, then he (or she) should have to simply state that he is/may be receiving some kind of benefit from the cruise line about which he is speaking so highly. It only makes sense that someone who may benefit from speaking glowingly about a company should reveal that benefit for the sake of readers who may not realize the connection.

 

Maybe I missed something. Is that actually happening, or is this nothing more than a "what if?" :confused:

[AdrenalineRush]

I totally agree with the OP, and I am not mad at anyone, have not had a run-in with a group leader, have not been denied group leader status, and didn't even know there were group leaders until this thread.

ETA: No one is saying that GL's should have to post their tax returns. A simple statement such as "I am leading a cruise group on CC and may, in that role, receive certain benefits from the Cruise Line A in exchange for arranging the group cruise" would be plenty.

 

.

 

I think that is a big issue, you werent aware that GL do indeed identify themselves as such on this board. They want people to know they are leading a group and they have threads that people that are either interested or have booked can join. They also include email addresses if people want to contact them. Not sure why people are assuming they are doing this behind closed doors.

 

Just pop over to the Carnival board and you will see multiple "Official CC GROUP CRUISES" 99% of the group cruises are Carnival cruises, so if you dont read that board, this probably is new to you.

The irony is most GL would love if they could get some special logo on their profile, showing how many cruises they have been GL on.