X: Floating Boutique Hotel

[UnorigionalName]

1 hour ago, Stateroom_Sailor said:

 

I believe Unoriginalname above your comment nailed it.  If you look up hotel Chains such as The W and Aloft, it is more in line with their version of Boutique aesthetics, which is more consistent across these chains.  

 

In all fairness, we have Holland America, Princess, and maybe Cunard competing in the premium mass market.  X has been, and increasingly so, different when it comes to decor and furnishings.

 

yeah, I think HAL and princess used to fill this niche.  but they've been competing too much in pricing and it feels like they've been slipping into the  normal American nicer-than-carnival mass market while targeting differing demographics.  HAL favors more greatest gen while princess favors more boomers. 

 

there really is noone else that is targetting this group of international and young American travelers looking for nicer than mass market American cruise.

 

in general too the European and asian cruise lines are more affordable because that's their mass market.  but there is this hole in "younger" (millenials aren't young anymore) Americans as well as rich Europeans and Asians who are used to more refinement but who dont want the quieter smaller personal viking, silver seas, regent experience.

 

This move of celebrity targets me and i hope it succeeds.  just mostly waiting for everyone deciding it isnt for them and hoping price comes down or i will have to bite the bullet.

Edited March 5, 2019 by UnorigionalName

[Host Jazzbeau]

17 minutes ago, UnorigionalName said:

This move of celebrity targets me and i hope it succeeds.  just mostly waiting for everyone deciding it isnt for them and hoping price comes down or i will have to bite the bullet.

 

OK, I'll help:  you can have my future spots on Celebrity because this 'move' turns me off.  I'm moving on to those 'quieter, smaller, personal experience' cruise lines [and MSC, which offers much better value for their 'ship-within-a-ship' suite experience].

[UnorigionalName]

4 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

 

OK, I'll help:  you can have my future spots on Celebrity because this 'move' turns me off.  I'm moving on to those 'quieter, smaller, personal experience' cruise lines [and MSC, which offers much better value for their 'ship-within-a-ship' suite experience].

 

Thanks! everyone will be happier if they chose something tailored to them 🙂

 

Hope you find what you enjoy.

 

PS. for those who value the long time "celebrity" experience, what keeps you from booking the classic celebrity experience you know and like?

Edited March 5, 2019 by UnorigionalName

[ScubesDad]

I don't think boutique is  reasonable comparison.  The definition of boutique hotel is quite vague; however, it generally means a small stylish hotel generally located in a fashionable urban area.  Having just completed 14 nights on Millennium, just out of dry dock after having been revolutionized....it doesn't meet the criteria.  Small, certainly not...Small would be 900 passengers.  Stylish, all depends on your perspective...my opinion upscale IKEA...pleasant but not upmarket.  You can't compare apples and oranges. 

 

I would say whatever Celebrity is doing is failing to appeal to their long term clients as many are leaving....evidence, all the recent sales to attract future bookings.  Millennials aren't looking for long holiday ie 11 - 14 days, they want 5 -7 days.  given all the passenger capacity coming online in the next few years, they need to get it right or participate in some discount pricing to fill the ship. JMHO.

[ScubesDad]

I don't think boutique is  reasonable comparison.  The definition of boutique hotel is quite vague; however, it generally means a small stylish hotel generally located in a fashionable urban area.  Having just completed 14 nights on Millennium, just out of dry dock after having been revolutionized....it doesn't meet the criteria.  Small, certainly not...Small would be 900 passengers.  Stylish, all depends on your perspective...my opinion upscale IKEA...pleasant but not upmarket.  You can't compare apples and oranges. 

 

I would say whatever Celebrity is doing is failing to appeal to their long term clients as many are leaving....evidence, all the recent sales to attract future bookings.  Millennials aren't looking for long holiday ie 11 - 14 days, they want 5 -7 days.  given all the passenger capacity coming online in the next few years, they need to get it right or participate in some discount pricing to fill the ship. JMHO.

[hcat]

I understand the  point being made,   but honestly I did not find EDGE very  unique in most places. Just a new generation of cruise ship....with an  Ikea vibe and varied decor.

 

Possibilities are certainly  there   but there was  nothing that special other than the spa and Thermal Suite and the amazing theater;  unless maybe in  suite class which we did  not see  or  experience.

 

The lobby area near guest relations did have a modern  upscale vibe that set it apart   but we thought it was a huge waste of space on a ship that lacked other spaces, like a wine bar, cozy club like Ensemble lounge, etc

 

Not anti EDGE but not wowed over!

Edited March 5, 2019 by hcat

[mfs2k]

I’m not so sure “stylish and chic design” on board Edge warrants such a high premium cost to cruise on her.  

 

Stylish and chic isn’t much more costly to build than “grand and elegant” or even “tacky and gaudy.”

 

i think Edge is so much more for the same reason a new iPhone costs so much more than the 2 year old model. 

[villauk]

51 minutes ago, hcat said:

 

Possibilities are certainly  there   but there was  nothing that special other than the spa and Thermal Suite and the amazing theater;  unless maybe in  suite class which we did  not see  or  experience.

 

Not anti EDGE but not wowed over!

 

Which was the point I was trying to make on that other poll that Golf started: it didin’t differentiate between those that had sailed in a suite on Edge and were wowed enough to want to rebook, and those in the regular IV cabins (which I believe are the majority of cabins on that class of ship) . I think it can make a difference because you are experiencing completely different things on the cruise e.g. different restaurant, different lounge, different sundeck area, added staff ratio etc. - and before anyone says it, I’m not criticizing those that book suites, it’s their prerogative how their money is spent, just that it may be a totally different experience for the majority of pax in regular cabins on Edge. 

 

Now if I was getting it for free, as some on here who have reviewed Edge, I’d probably be of a different mindset again, even before the cruise starts, and so my perspective would be much different from someone who has paid an extortionate rate for the same cabin. The wow has got to be in the value you see from your expectations, your onboard experience and the actual value to you - not the hype associated with the new ship.

[tfred]

for this new look for X to work, they have to find new customers that have never cruised before.  The ones that have the money and spend it on really nice land resorts

 

Just poaching existing pax from other lines or expecting existing X pax to trade up won't make the numbers work.  It would be interesting to see the actual demographics of X pax. Everyone has their own thoughts here, but i would like to see the trends over the last few years and their onboard spending.  Maybe they were on their way to becoming the next HAL and wanted to make a move before that happened?

 

We used to find larger ships perfectly fine - we have sailed X often.  Now that we are in our 60s, we find better service (generally on smaller ships and different lines) more our style.  I would still sail X, but only in AQ mainly due to Blu restaurant

[cruisefam38]

2 hours ago, tfred said:

It would be interesting to see the actual demographics of X pax. Everyone has their own thoughts here, but i would like to see the trends over the last few years and their onboard spending.  Maybe they were on their way to becoming the next HAL and wanted to make a move before that happened?

How to at least maintain or improve market share versus one's business rivals?  Carnival has HAL and Cunard, and as you point out, and they have a brands that attracts a defined market segment.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.  (RCCL) don't have a brand that competes directly for that demographic, however at the very least, based on our cruises the past four years, there is a population overlap with some Celebrity passengers.  To alienate that sub-population of passengers/customers, is to send business and money to their competitors, is it not?

Edited March 5, 2019 by cruisefam38

[tfred]

45 minutes ago, cruisefam38 said:

How to at least maintain or improve market share versus one's business rivals?  Carnival has HAL and Cunard, and as you point out, and they have a brands that attracts a defined market segment.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.  (RCCL) don't have a brand that competes directly for that demographic, however at the very least, based on our cruises the past four years, there is a population overlap with some Celebrity passengers.  To alienate that sub-population of passengers/customers, is to send business and money to their competitors, is it not?

 

it may ok to send them somewhere if they aren't really profitable.  Once they get on board, do they spend any (enough) money to try to keep them?  I don't know.

 

X seems to be re-inventing the brand with a couple of billion dollars of spending - i don't think they are doing this without data

[cruisefam38]

1 hour ago, tfred said:

Once they get on board, do they spend any (enough) money to try to keep them?  I don't know.

 

1 ) Depending on the definition of "enough". 

2) As myself and others have questioned before:   when assumptions and biases meet flawed metrics, you can and do get flawed decision making in the C Suite and in board rooms.  

 

Keeping in mind Stateroom_Salior's premise, RCCL apparently intends to employ the increasingly common approach of controlling costumer perceptions whereby public universities try to compete with smaller private universities by forming "the university within a university", big chain hotels creating "hotel within a hotel", et. al.  in this specific case, a successful mass market cruise brand tries to lure new customers with sufficient disposable income to come to the "boutique cruise within a cruise ship".   This strategy is being tried when these multinational corporations have legitimate "boutique" brands" such as Azamara and Silversea, and Seabourn for Carnival Corp.

 

It does appear those people in the RCCL and Celebrity C Suites are willing to risk alienating loyal costumers to get more profitable costumers.  Because there are more leisure choices now than ever before, and people eventually figure out what value they need and expect for their money.

 

 So, UnOriginalName, some very fine calibrations are going to have to be made to keep from killing the goose that laid the golden egg.  Can any business thrive or even survive without satisfied, loyal customers?  Because if younger cohorts represent a wave of possible profit for cruise lines, CC boards are revealing disaffected veteran cruisers who leave a brand they were formally loyal to may also represent a wave front of a different sort, one of consumers that is savvier about spending their still viable disposable incomes.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by cruisefam38

[Host Jazzbeau]

I think CCL has a much better handle on cruise marketing than RCL.  There's a recent interview with CCL CEO Arnold Donald who said: "We look at, for each of our brands, what about that brand resonates most with the guests that choose that brand – and then we just keep trying to get better at that."  

 

He's not trying to reposition existing brands into new categories, which I think is the mistake that RCL is making with Celebrity.

[tfred]

10 minutes ago, Host Jazzbeau said:

I think CCL has a much better handle on cruise marketing than RCL.  There's a recent interview with CCL CEO Arnold Donald who said: "We look at, for each of our brands, what about that brand resonates most with the guests that choose that brand – and then we just keep trying to get better at that."  

 

He's not trying to reposition existing brands into new categories, which I think is the mistake that RCL is making with Celebrity.

I agree with your thoughts.  Carnival as a corporation had a head start on others in defining their brands.  They were brands that enough US consumers knew - HAL, Cunard, Carnival, Princess, Seabourn,  and some assorted European lines e.g. Costa.  Some people and TAs could describe each of those in one sentence as to the perceived experience and value

 

RCCL (as a corp) really just started with this.  Azamara, Silversea would elicit "who ?" from many people and why would they choose it.  Time will tell if they are successful

[Mike981]

Stayed at two boutique hotels in Miami a couple of months ago. A pre-cruise on Miami beach and a post-cruise hotel in the Brickell area. Like in your survey, I said I can go either way.

[UnorigionalName]

1 hour ago, cruisefam38 said:

 

1 ) Depending on the definition of "enough". 

2) As myself and others have questioned before:   when assumptions and biases meet flawed metrics, you can and do get flawed decision making in the C Suite and in board rooms.  

 

Keeping in mind Stateroom_Salior's premise, RCCL apparently intends to employ the increasingly common approach of controlling costumer perceptions whereby public universities try to compete with smaller private universities by forming "the university within a university", big chain hotels creating "hotel within a hotel", et. al.  in this specific case, a successful mass market cruise brand tries to lure new customers with sufficient disposable income to come to the "boutique cruise within a cruise ship".   This strategy is being tried when these multinational corporations have legitimate "boutique" brands" such as Azamara and Silversea, and Seabourn for Carnival Corp.

 

It does appear those people in the RCCL and Celebrity C Suites are willing to risk alienating loyal costumers to get more profitable costumers.  Because there are more leisure choices now than ever before, and people eventually figure out what value they need and expect for their money.

 

 So, UnOriginalName, some very fine calibrations are going to have to be made to keep from killing the goose that laid the golden egg.  Can any business thrive or even survive without satisfied, loyal customers?  Because if younger cohorts represent a wave of possible profit for cruise lines, CC boards are revealing disaffected veteran cruisers who leave a brand they were formally loyal to may also represent a wave front of a different sort, one of consumers that is savvier about spending their still viable disposable incomes.

 

 

 

Not quite.  The luxury brands are still luxury brands, not like boutique.  They are a different concept and feel.  While the customers overlap somewhat they are definitely different products.  Azamara, silversea, and seabourn.  In the hotel analogy they would be more like ritz, 4 seasons, the mandarin, etc.  (Even the mandarin though would be on the modern side compared to those).

 

While NCL, RC, and CC would be more like mariott, hyatt, etc.

 

So like I might not be doing a great job explaining it, but the "luxury botique" hotels, like google the SLS hotel everywhere.  They are not necessarily small (the one in vegas is huge).  It's like, basically instagram tailored.  Looks dashingly beautiful, modern "new-american" food.  It's what younger people are looking for in travel.  Service doesn't necessarily have to be so smothering and personalized compared to luxury brands. 

 

The ship-within-ship doesn't do it.  The ship-within-ship is pilfering passengers from the luxury lines, like azmara and silversea.  It's for people who like more upscale service and better rooms, but like the amenities of large cruise ships, or to travel with other people.  The overall ship is still not quite the same concept.

 

If you like the traditional product, why not go on their other ships? it's not like they sank them all after making the edge.

 

Think about it from the other side.   Imagine you are a well to do Late GenX to early millenial (mid 20's to late 30's) with no kids who makes decent money.  You don't like the old cruise product; it looks horribly boring.  You go to broadway to watch broadway shows.  When you travel you go to modern foody restaurants and occasionally Michelin starred.  You like contemporary design with the resurgence of the modern and minimalism.  What cruise line would you chose if you want to go upscale from NCL or RCI?  You are still working so you prefer 7 night or shorter cruises.  There's no great option out there.  Celebrity is looking to fill this niche.

 

Also thinking about it from the cruise line side, if you are RCC ltd., how would you target this demographic?  you can't move RCI, that's a great product with this great upper-middle class family niche.  You can't move azamara, that's your luxury brand for traditional luxury.  So celebrity it is.  I mean, what was it's demographic before?  what does it have over other cruise lines?  I think it's like the car industry.  I bet if you look at the statistics younger passengers aren't really loyal and jump around cruise lines and don't really care about making a favorite.  No more buying a buick because it's a buick. 

[cruisefam38]

Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply, UnOriginalName.

I agree, Goggle is a marvelous tool.  In the definitions listed below, one of the key words is "small"  --

 

boutique:   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boutique

and  https://www.yourdictionary.com/boutique

 

boutique hotel: https://www.covingtontravel.com/2016/02/9-characteristics-of-boutique-hotels/

and   https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/boutique-hotel

 

We can also agree that SilverSea and Seabourn are luxury cruise brands, along with Crystal.  For people who aren't likely to have access to a yacht, much less a super yacht, such cruising affords the opportunity to travel in style and elegance.  However, I've been on Azamara, and we are scheduled to cruise with them again this year.  The brand is considered "near luxury", and since they don't have flash bells and whistles, service is their hallmark.  Azamara, along with Oceana and Viking, occupy a "tween" niche in the cruise industry. I incorrectly lumped all those brands together, and inaccurately  Charter Yachts are much closer to the "boutiques at sea" concept.  It is oxymoronic to describe a ship with 700 berths as boutique, and it is a strange conflation indeed to present a mass market cruise ship with 2,000 to 3200 berths as boutique.  So, no, the only recourse for PR departments is to create concepts such as "ship within a ship".  However, when has marketing ever been constrained by logic, facts, and the truth?

 - - - - -

You wrote:

" Also thinking about it from the cruise line side, if you are RCC ltd., how would you target this demographic?  you can't move RCI, that's a great product with this great upper-middle class family niche.  You can't move azamara, that's your luxury brand for traditional luxury.  So celebrity it is.  I mean, what was it's demographic before?  what does it have over other cruise lines?  I think it's like the car industry.  I bet if you look at the statistics younger passengers aren't really loyal and jump around cruise lines and don't really care about making a favorite.  No more buying a buick because it's a buick. "

- - - -

As noted by previous posters hostjazzbeau and tfred above, positioning the brand in the market is critical to near and long term success.  UnOriginalName, you assert the targeted younger demographic, implying that Celebrity didn't have a demographic before.  I believe =X= had an identity and that image attracted cruisers.  Not luxury, even (possibly especially) loyal Celebrity cruisers scoffed at the "Modern Luxury" tagline.  However, we and many others were attracted to the consistency.  Celebrity had a consistent level of service and food quality, and the overall cruise experience was reliably good.  One can assert the demographic for Celebrity was travelers who appreciated "value" in the sense of these stated characteristics.  There is one additional aspect of cruising Celebrity regulars have reported:  they enjoy ocean going travel and love the sea.  Take away real balconies that allow contact with sky and ocean, take away public outdoor spaces and reserve those spaces for a privileged few, and you lose those passengers to a company that is willing to provide the longed for experience.  However mundane and quotidian that may be perceived by some.

 

You seem to think that people above a certain age all move in lockstep, and are rigidly committed to one way of living.  We never owned a Buick.  We have owned cars manufactured by four near luxury brands, though.  We think we recognize quality, and when we have been disappointed by a automobile manufacturer, we have shopped around.   Not unlike the Gen X and Millennial members of our extended family, we move along when we are no longer wanted, or respected.  We do manage to find experiences that feed our hearts and souls.

Edited March 6, 2019 by cruisefam38

[cruiseerf]

IMHO.....Boutique is the Wrong word for what you are asking for.......Boutique to me, and I'm in hotels 200+ nights per year.....I RUN from "Boutique".  Boutique means small rooms, hearing your neighbors, no help with luggage, limited room service and often locations more "local".  Boutique also means that no other hotel chain would "Rep" their hotel or offer to market it, which is where the whole "Boutique" misnomer came into play......Not to say there are not some nice boutique hotels.....but I prefer to call those "Small luxury hotels" ......which means  you have paid $500-$1000 per night minimum and every wish is their command.....There is a big difference here.   Boutique is a nice way of saying small cheap hotel and when I read it in a hotel description.......I shut off.  IMHO.    

 

[cruisefam38]

You gave us an interesting perspective.  The Travel Weekly article linked by Stateroom_Sailor would have had a different title and message if you had written it, cruiseerf. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by cruisefam38