A question for those of you who've just lost the $100 loyalty benefit.

[Jadn13]

2 hours ago, MissP22 said:

We're leaning towards a HAL cruise for our next trip and from the looks of it the value just might be an advantage over Princess. 

Does HAL have anything like the medallion for their cabin door entry system? (Just curious) 

No, HAL sill uses the ship card. It is a lovely line and has some good points over Princess. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Jadn13

[CeCe_]

7 hours ago, nocl said:

Yep you have the right to choose based upon your perceived value, they have the right to change the program based upon theirs.

 

Theirs is not a loyalty decision.  It is the executing of a marketing program designed to generate a value to the company that exceeds its cost.

 

The numbers of elite have grown, along with the numbers of cruises they have taken to a point where the cost benefits of the loyalty OBC is bad, and will only get worse as the numbers grow.

 

The Internet, while have used and have preferred the minutes, also makes sense because their entire Internet system has changed and is no longer minutes based. I can also see the amount of effort was taken in the past with the minute based system, so their choice is to only support the minutes as a Captains Circle benefit meaning that they have two different systems to support (the sold internet which is device based, and the minutes only provided as a benefit).  From a corporate point of view it is not much of a decision.  From their point of view a 50% discount in the new system is about the same dollars as the minutes cost in the old one.

 

 

 

I have failed to mention that we are on Captain's Circle, but we are not elites.  We received invitations to Captain's Circle cocktail party each cruise, but we bowed out each time.  A company's marketing strategy has nothing to do with us, not about money certainly not $100, not about statuses either.  We like to give all cruise lines a fair consideration of our business, that's all.

[cjmayes51]

You have to remember how many $$ millions these cruise lines have lost over the last 16 + months, you can bet that Princess isn’t the only the cruise line doing this, only the 1st to  announce it. They are all bleeding cash and have borrowed billions, they need to better the bottom line really quick.

[CeCe_]

6 hours ago, Skai said:

 

But outside of the newest Royal Class ships(too many pax for me),  HAL's ships are predominately nicer (layout/design/cabin quality) than Princess ships.   

 

One classic example of such is that one has to be in a mini-suite(or above) to even get a loveseat/couch on Princess...And don't get me started on the clingy shower-curtain.

 

Despite the lacking cabins, Princess used to have a lot of nice things going for them that set them apart from comparable lines.  At one time, one could have considered Princess as a 'Premium-Lite' line (along with HAL and Celebrity). 

 

FWIW, An example of a 'Premium line' would currently be Oceania or Azamara (where ironically, the majority of both fleets are actually former Princess ships).

 

Over the years, the steady degradation of cutbacks and nickle & diming policy changes has firmly planted Princess as a Mainstream line; with any semblance of 'premium' long gone.

 

I think for some that are finally deciding to jump ship is that it really has been a death by a thousand cuts.  Newer cruisers will never know how it once was, and Princess is banking on this.  What incentives are there for these same newer cruisers to ever become loyal repeat cruisers?

 

They've put their eggs into the Medallion program to be their "wow factor".  -- Which has been nothing short of an absolute disaster since its overhyped pre-release, to its stumbling rollout, 'til this day; where they still haven't worked out all of the bugs.

 

Where Princess has really dropped the ball is that they've failed at understanding consumer psychology.

 

Studies have been done in restaurants where it was found what diners preferred in how to absorb the rising costs of food and supplies.  What they found is that customers would rather pay more for the same, than pay the same for less.  IE.  When a 10 oz. steak originally cost $10, they would rather pay $12.50 for that 10 oz. steak than pay the same $10 for a smaller 8 oz. steak.

 

Loyal customers don't like things taken from them in the guise of adding something.  It's insulting to one's intelligence.

 

Well said Skai.  You tell me where you go working in a Cruise line's Corporate office someday.  They will be happy to have you, and I will cruise that company!

[KeepCalmBearOn]

6 hours ago, Skai said:

But outside of the newest Royal Class ships(too many pax for me),  HAL's ships are predominately nicer (layout/design/cabin quality) than Princess ships. 

 

But the topic of this discussion isn't "Is HAL better than PCL", it is about the PCL loyalty program and one benefit in particular. What I pointed out was that HAL doesn't have a better loyalty program unless you consider fewer people making it to the top level makes it better.

 

6 hours ago, Skai said:

At one time, one could have considered Princess as a 'Premium-Lite' line (along with HAL and Celebrity). 

 

Don't kid yourself, Princess still is "premium lite", to use your phrase. I've been on HAL numerous times and nothing about it made it better than PCL. The times we've been on HAL was because the itineraries suited us. I would go on HAL again given the right circumstances, but of HAL, PCL and RCCI, HAL still comes in 3rd, based on my experiences.

 

6 hours ago, Skai said:

FWIW, An example of a 'Premium line' would currently be Oceania or Azamara (where ironically, the majority of both fleets are actually former Princess ships).

 

The majority of Azamara and Oceania ships are former Renaissance Cruise Line ships, R6, R7 and R8 for Azamara and R1, R2, R3, and R4 for Oceania. They are lovely ships, I was on most of them when they were with Renaissance. In fact we were on the R2 in September 2001 when Renaissance went out of business and dumped us in Rome, half way through our Barcelona to Venice cruise.

 

But they are 800 passenger ships, which is fine, if that is what you want, but the experiences on an 800 pax ship are very different from a 2,000 or 3,000 pax ship and very, very different from 4,000+ ships.

 

And again, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread. That is a discussion for a different thread.

[nocl]

56 minutes ago, scottca075 said:

 

But the topic of this discussion isn't "Is HAL better than PCL", it is about the PCL loyalty program and one benefit in particular. What I pointed out was that HAL doesn't have a better loyalty program unless you consider fewer people making it to the top level makes it better.

 

 

Don't kid yourself, Princess still is "premium lite", to use your phrase. I've been on HAL numerous times and nothing about it made it better than PCL. The times we've been on HAL was because the itineraries suited us. I would go on HAL again given the right circumstances, but of HAL, PCL and RCCI, HAL still comes in 3rd, based on my experiences.

 

 

The majority of Azamara and Oceania ships are former Renaissance Cruise Line ships, R6, R7 and R8 for Azamara and R1, R2, R3, and R4 for Oceania. They are lovely ships, I was on most of them when they were with Renaissance. In fact we were on the R2 in September 2001 when Renaissance went out of business and dumped us in Rome, half way through our Barcelona to Venice cruise.

 

But they are 800 passenger ships, which is fine, if that is what you want, but the experiences on an 800 pax ship are very different from a 2,000 or 3,000 pax ship and very, very different from 4,000+ ships.

 

And again, none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread. That is a discussion for a different thread.

Some things on Princess is better, some aspects of HAL are better same as the other lines. Cruise lines are like hotel chains or air lines. You take a cruise based upon where you want to go and the value to you. Each of the mainstream lines has it's own string and weak points, but they are at lot more alike than different.

 

All change over time, all have some passengers that get upset  and talk about never cruising on that line again when anything changes.

[Bwana Tom]

On 7/2/2021 at 9:05 AM, fishnchips said:

Yes loyalty was keeping us at Princess ,but it seems Princess is not loyal to us anymore.

So we a look to other lines now outside the carnival umbrella and it sets us free also.

Loyalty is a 2 way thing ,especially when most helped Princess through these tough times by not asking for a refund or moving cruises to a later date or accepting associated losses because you wanted Princess to survive through the early days of the pandemic ....

But with over 40 cruises with them loyalty should be rewarded not taken away !

So yes other lines will be on our radar now as loyalty should be more than lip service and a reduction of benefits!

Excellent summation and precisely as I feel. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks!

Hopefully we can find a cruise line that appreciate us.

[Bwana Tom]

15 hours ago, PescadoAmarillo said:

I agree. So many things that start to add up. Getting rid of the kinds of ships we love and replacing them with ships we don’t. What we went through in 2020 and continue to go through with cancelled cruises and refunds that used to be handled in a few days taking months, the phone calls I’ve been through recently trying to apply FCCs, the food quality continuing to decline…frankly, I’ve been ready to call it quits for nearly two years, but DH is less inclined to jump ship, so to speak.

 

Some might think that the loss of $100 per cruise and free internet minutes shouldn’t matter, but I would argue that after spending well over a quarter of a million dollars with Princess, $100 per cruise should matter far less to them than it does to me. 

Not necessarily to pile on, but don't forget about eliminating the Happy Hour a couple of years ago. That still irritates me today.

[nocl]

33 minutes ago, Bwana Tom said:

Excellent summation and precisely as I feel. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks!

Hopefully we can find a cruise line that appreciate us.

Good luck, all of them have devalued their loyalty programs over the last 5 years.  Complaint have popped up on all of the boards whenever a change has been made. Ironically those with the fewest complaints have been those with the least loyalty benefits.

 

In general they appreciate their customers, not necessarily any single particular customer as an individual.  Its a business, not a social club.

[LACruiser88]

3 hours ago, scottca075 said:

Don't kid yourself, Princess still is "premium lite", to use your phrase. I've been on HAL numerous times and nothing about it made it better than PCL. The times we've been on HAL was because the itineraries suited us. I would go on HAL again given the right circumstances, but of HAL, PCL and RCCI, HAL still comes in 3rd, based on my experiences.

Totally agree with your assessment!  We have been on a number of HAL cruises and we d0 not think they are superior in any way over PCL.  We have also cruised on Royal Caribbean and we also place them over HAL.  The only cruise line that we have cruised that we thought was superior to PCL was Celebrity, but it was a lot more expensive than PCL.

[nocl]

11 hours ago, caribill said:

 

The benefit was to go directly to the loading area and join the end of the line that was there. Not rude, not embarrassing.

Actually on most cruises for the last few years it has been to go to the lounge used for tenders and get a boarding ticket that will put you in the next group to be called.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

21 minutes ago, CarelessAndConfused said:

ANY cruiser taking multiple cruises with Princess let alone 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 times a year is VERY important to Princess. Anyone who tries to reallocate revenue in some arbitrary manner to imply that only OBC spenders largely matter don't understand how cruise lines are run.  I'd admit I'm no expert on the cruise line industry, but I know plenty enough about business economics that these repeat customers are very much the bread and butter of their business and very much desired by any and every comparable cruise line.

I agree that SOME repeat cruisers are important, but many are not as profitable.  Over the years, we have been lectured by many Elite cruisers who share with us ways to cheat the system.  Anything from changing last names and addresses to receive loyalty credits, to bringing thermos bottles to the champagne waterfall so you can fill them up with free champagne to drink later.  These are the same people (many) who post here that they are upset that they are losing benefits.  The same people that have been gaming the system for years, and lots of dollars.  While I'm sad to see the $100 per cruise benefit for us to be discontinued, I understand that the cruise line can't keep doing this when so many are abusing the benefit.  Flame away!

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

All true, but given the choice between frugal elites, and other cruisers, Princess would prefer the spending group.  Especially over the gamers, who are everywhere.  If the gaming group just fills empty rooms, great.  Why do you think they are making these changes?  Why give non revenue producing passengers free money, when they won't spend their own?  I for one am thrilled to lose my credit if I don't have to listen to another blowhard tell me how to rip off Princess.  I just choose not to play that game.  

[memoak]

6 hours ago, Bwana Tom said:

Not necessarily to pile on, but don't forget about eliminating the Happy Hour a couple of years ago. That still irritates me today.

The happy hour gave you a second drink either for free or for a dollar.  You might as well take the Princess Plus option and not even worry about it

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

I didn't call them cheap, you did.  It's smarter to fill cabins with spenders.  I didn't say I agreed with their model,  only that I am happy they are finally cracking down on the gamers, even if I lose some benefits.  There are a number of exalted posters here that we have cruised with, who are the ultimate gamers.  I just don't do it the same way, so it's good news to me that they are claiming to jump ship.  Good luck to them.

[Knickearth]

8 hours ago, nocl said:

Some things on Princess is better, some aspects of HAL are better same as the other lines. Cruise lines are like hotel chains or air lines. You take a cruise based upon where you want to go and the value to you. Each of the mainstream lines has it's own string and weak points, but they are at lot more alike than different.

 

All change over time, all have some passengers that get upset  and talk about never cruising on that line again when anything changes.

We left HAL in 2006 as our cruise line and we had over 120 days on it.  There were too many negative changes going on.  Now with princess changing things up we are in a fog.  We just learned that our princess visa credit card with Barclays Bank - which always gave us $500. For 40000 points now wants 50000 points.  My hubby read that with the medallion system, you watch the muster drill stuff in your cabin and then go to your muster drill just to check in.  Big brother has arrived and knows where you are at all times.  Lol

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

Again, I don't disagree.  I just think they are trying to trim expenses along with discouraging a certain segment of past passengers who are not revenue producing.  The ships often sail at capacity, so why not try to discourage some and attract others?  I didn't say it was a good plan, only that I am happy to cruise with other people who are not intent on ripping everyone off.  They have fewer berths to fill now, thanks to current events, and this is their chance to try a different approach.  Many of the old guard (which I am part of) only want small ships, low fares, and special treatment.  The whole travel experience is very dynamic right now.  If they fail, ok.  When I'm on the ship, crew often identify us as to other crew as elite, but don't act like elite.  Because we don't try to rip them all off like so many others.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

8 minutes ago, CarelessAndConfused said:

 

And no one is suggesting that your efforts to try and find ways to maximize more revenue isn't spot on.  However, it seems like you don't want to give respect to the MOST important customer base.  They are revenue producing.  In fact, the customers you seem to disparage are the MOST revenue producing for Princess year in and year out. THAT is the point.  You say that the "ships often sail at capacity".  Once again, you are treating that as a "given" without giving any thought to exact why (those Elites) that is.

 

 

 

Not at all.  The vast majority of Elites we have met are just like us.  They enjoy cruising and spend money.  A small minority, who it seems are what some call super elite, are the ones that seem to begrudge the line extra profit as they feel that their astounding expenditures over the years (mostly base fares) has earned them some sort of VIP status.  

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

Btw, the company I work for tries to target the best clients and make more bottom line too!

[nocl]

46 minutes ago, Knickearth said:

We left HAL in 2006 as our cruise line and we had over 120 days on it.  There were too many negative changes going on.  Now with princess changing things up we are in a fog.  We just learned that our princess visa credit card with Barclays Bank - which always gave us $500. For 40000 points now wants 50000 points.  My hubby read that with the medallion system, you watch the muster drill stuff in your cabin and then go to your muster drill just to check in.  Big brother has arrived and knows where you are at all times.  Lol

The funny thing is we tried HAL about 10 years ago and did not care for it. Tried it again about 3 years ago and found that we liked it much better with some of the changes such as the Lincoln Center. We now do several cruises a year on them, same as Princess.

[getting older slowly]

As this is a question is about Loyalty..... and receiving some prize... and a dangly carrot

 

It is simply a way of marketing  are trying to suggest that you are special ( a long with another 500 others on the ship )

 

How about no loyalty program.... you pay for what you want..... or the bigger and better the cabin the more you get....   users pays

 

Different coloured cards to flash around,  to say I am better...

I have seen some who do this......lol

 

Think about it you fill up at same petrol station all the time.... do you expect a discount ??

 

Also   a $100  OBC  compared to overall cost of the cruise.... does it really make that much difference....

 

 

[nocl]

17 minutes ago, CarelessAndConfused said:

 

I'll let you in on a little secret.  Every company tries to do just that.  Most just aren't able to.

 

Also, I don't understand your need to bifurcate revenue between base fare vs. onboard spend.  A dollar is a dollar.

Read the 10q and 10k filings for the cruise lines. Mainstream lines get 25 to 30% of their revenue from on board sales. Considering that even in their best years their profit is only 10 to 15%.  A such a customer that does not spend beyond their fare purchase, is not a profitable passenger.

 

Clearly having a room filled is better than an empty room, but I would expect that the cruise line would not be upset if it lost 5 to 10% of even Elite passengers if they felt the loss of a $100 benefit or free internet minutes was a sufficient economic impact that they would no longer sail with Princess.

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

1 hour ago, CarelessAndConfused said:

 

I'll let you in on a little secret.  Every company tries to do just that.  Most just aren't able to.

 

Also, I don't understand your need to bifurcate revenue between base fare vs. onboard spend.  A dollar is a dollar.

Many just be y the cabin and nothing else.  Nodollar spent beyond cabin fare is zero dollars

[AnyMajorCruiseDude]

9 minutes ago, CarelessAndConfused said:

 

I get that that the on board spend is a fair amount but like you stated, it is still about no more than a third of what cruise fare is.  You're assuming that the total cruise fare is some fixed amount that will cover their expenses to begin with.  But if there isn't a certain amount of demand (both via volume of cabins sold and the price of cabin), then they will lose a lot more money and at some point will be selling on board sales just to break even.  We nor anyone (even the cruise lines) ever knows where the best revenue mix is. 

 

But what's more fallacious about your argument is that you are attributing all of the profit dollars as coming from OBC when it's merely a pro rata representation of ALL of the revenue (the vast majority of which still come from cruise fares which rely on repeat customers).  So if OBC contributes to profit, it only does so 25-35% of the profits according to these public filings and not all of it and then some as you'd like to erroneously imply.

 

It's amazing all of the posts I read here about how "cruise lines will charge more because things cost more" or "let's just put discretionary spenders on instead of the non-spenders" as if the cruise lines wouldn't now and always have done just that if they could just snap their fingers and make it so.

 

 

No one can snap their fingers to make it so, but they pay these marketing people to do just that.  Why can't you see that?

[nocl]

2 minutes ago, CarelessAndConfused said:

 

I get that that the on board spend is a fair amount but like you stated, it is still about no more than a third of what cruise fare is.  You're assuming that the total cruise fare is some fixed amount that will cover their expenses to begin with.  But if there isn't a certain amount of demand (both via volume of cabins sold and the price of cabin), then they will lose a lot more money and at some point will be selling on board sales just to break even.  We nor anyone (even the cruise lines) ever knows where the best revenue mix is. 

 

But what's more fallacious about your argument is that you are attributing all of the profit dollars as coming from OBC when it's merely a pro rata representation of ALL of the revenue (the vast majority of which still come from cruise fares which rely on repeat customers).  So if OBC contributes to profit, it only does so 25-35% of the profits according to these public filings and not all of it and then some as you'd like to erroneously imply.

 

It's amazing all of the posts I read here about how "cruise lines will charge more because things cost more" or "let's just put discretionary spenders on instead of the non-spenders" as if the cruise lines wouldn't now and always have done just that if they could just snap their fingers and make it so.

 

 

If you eliminate the revenue from on board spend then you would have to raise the fares by a corresponding amount. or else the cruise line would fail.  

 

Which of course is why so many did fail before the current model for the mainstream lines came to be the general model.  One that charges a relatively low fare to fill the rooms, but then depends upon substantial revenue from on board sales.  

 

Under this model a cruise line can accept some people that fill the rooms but do little or no on board spend, but only a percentage. 

 

As I mentioned the cruise line would not object to losing 5 to 10% of those Elite passengers that consider the loss of 100-150 in benefits to deal breaker and go elsewhere.