Royal Champions

[rian90]

This article is as much of a surprise to me as it was to you. And, I do not believe I am the only RC person who feels like that.

And personally I don't care anymore who believes what.

I was brought up to be honest and I have always lived my live that way.

And now I am finished with this topic it is late.

 

I believe you. But there are those here who have feelings just as valid. They feel as if RCCL did something dishonest by using people and a Cruise bulletin board they trusted as tools without disclosing this information. I imagine the article was quite shocking to those involved. RCCL admited to practicing viral marketing. I would be pretty upset if I found out I was part of a marketing plan when I thought was being rewarded for loyalty. The cost of doing business can be painful I think.

 

Sorry you were hurt!!!:(

[Davey Interweb]

You are a semi critic on here of the Royal Champions.

I wonder if you would be kind enough to answer my question?

 

How did you get an invite to the next pre-inaugural on the Oasis? Who or what is your connection to RCCL?

Isn't that considered a gift too?

 

Yes, yes I thought about it and I guess it would be. How many posts will I need to make "full" critic?

[Toddcan]

I will say this one time.

September of 2008 I was asked to be a Royal Champion. That was it, no explanation except my name was selected with others.

Months later there was rumor we would "maybe" be chosen to do surveys, different things like that.

Some people went to NY for a movie/showing of the Oasis. I was happy it was not me as I could not afford that trip. :D

I was invited to the Liberty pre-inaugural in 2007 and I had to turn it down as I was moving. The gentleman who called me told me he would remember my name for the future.

I thought that was why I got this invite on the Mariner in February.

This article is as much of a surprise to me as it was to you. And, I do not believe I am the only RC person who feels like that.

And personally I don't care anymore who believes what.

I was brought up to be honest and I have always lived my live that way.

And now I am finished with this topic it is late.

 

Thanks for your response Alexis. The highlighted part of your response is what some people are having issue with. Whether or not you went, you were invited on a free cruise (1-2 day, does not matter). The gentleman told you he would "remember you in the future". I th ink that is great that you get that perk. I do NOT begrudge you that. However, can you see a small glimpse of what some people are saying here about RCs, and that is... if there is a potential for reward, a person is apt to be more positive. Hence, your opinions may be swayed, whether you realize it or not.

 

To me, that is the crux of the issue. Sadly, though, my train of thought is being lost is some of those that may be jealous, or are being downright rude with the name calling.

[Schplinky]

Yes, yes I thought about it and I guess it would be. How many posts will I need to make "full" critic?

 

You didn't say how you got your free cruise. It's easy to run off on others but in the interest of full disclosure, you should be telling people about this as you're criticising others' motives, as tou did on so many of those threads.

 

Again, how did you get your invite?

[Schplinky]

You didn't say how you got your free cruise. It's easy to run off on others but in the interest of full disclosure, you should be telling people about this as you're criticising others' motives, as tou did on so many of those threads.

 

Again, how did you get your invite?

 

 

You know what; never mind. I've decided not to participate in another thread where everyone says the same thing and folks only believe the negative.

 

Unsubscribe.

[Goldryder]

As a site admin as well as a cruiser, I have very strong feelings about this...and yes, I have been pummelled for it too, but that goes with the territory.

 

To me, if someone has something to post about a product or service they have tried or used, they should be able to review it without the need of inducements such as cash or freebee's. Those who 'cheerlead' with such inducements are not always going to tell the truth about that product, they will obviously gloss over the not so good bits cos they would not get the bounty at the end of it if they are too critical.

 

I am as shocked as anyone else is about this...however..it should be known that on many sites...such as sitepoint...there are areas specifically set up to buy & sell content for boards like ours, so although it is unpleasant to many to hear that this is happening, my question is why did it take so long to become public knowledge that it happens?

 

Also...and this time as one admin to another....does the CC admin encourage, thus condone this type of thing...and if they discovered that certain reviews were not absolutely free of inducement, would they remove them or leave them?

 

I have already stated on my site that if ANYONE is found to be posting a cruise review, regardless of line, for inducement of any kind, the material will be removed and those who post it banned. Reason being I think it is totally unfair, bordering on deceipt, to post something that has had the wrinkles glossed over in order to gain some sort of inducement, whether it be cash or in kind.

 

I know that certain questions would be preferred as email, and doubtless mine would probably fall into that category, but I feel as both a member and an admin elsewhere that this should be an open, honest discussion where if those in charge of content here at CC have been caught out, they should say so in public and not by email as that smacks of MAYBE...and I stress maybe...a sign of guilt.

[glgolfer]

Thanks for your response Alexis. The highlighted part of your response is what some people are having issue with. Whether or not you went, you were invited on a free cruise (1-2 day, does not matter). The gentleman told you he would "remember you in the future". I think that is great that you get that perk. I do NOT begrudge you that. However, can you see a small glimpse of what some people are saying here about RCs, and that is... if there is a potential for reward, a person is apt to be more positive. Hence, your opinions may be swayed, whether you realize it or not.

 

To me, that is the crux of the issue. Sadly, though, my train of thought is being lost is some of those that may be jealous, or are being downright rude with the name calling.

 

Todd: I believe there were 28 RCs originally. We were never told exactly why we were selected. We have never been told what or how to post. The artricle folks are quoting was as much a surprise to us as to everyone else.

 

A little background. I'm 67 years old and been cruising since 87. mostly on RCI, but other lines as well. I've seen the decline in many things on RCI and other lines as well. I've commented on that more than once.

I don't know if you were cruising during the ranch steak or not.

 

RCI doesn't even make our top 3 best trips. They are a tour of China, a Hurtigruten cruise through the fjords of Norway and a Christmasmarket river cruise from Nurenberg to Viena.

 

I've cruised on HAL, NCL, Crystal, QM2, Celebrity and Hurtrigruten.

 

I'm considering an MSC baseball theme cuise.

 

Instead of telling newbies to use the search function, I try to answer their questions. I have never attacked anyone for negative comments. If someone posts wrong information, I'll post the corrsect info.

 

I do believe RCI has a good product and have said so since we started cuising. I also think Crystal has a better product. My favorite line is Hurtigruten in Norway. I'm more of a cheerleader for the cruise industry as a whole than for one line.

 

As I've said before, I wish we got free 7 day cruises and partys with the execs of RCI. I would love it. Still wouldn't affect the way I post.

 

I'm still curious if some of the posters are either employed by a magazine or a blog. Or if somebody is paying them to stir the pot for a story. There's a blog that for some reason seems to only post one side of the story. Makes you wonder when some of the posts on CC echo that blog.

 

That's enough for today. If you have any specific questrions, I'll be glad to answer them.

 

I have no problem with a civilized discussion. I will not respond to attacks or name calling.

[Elizanessie]

It is actually mindblowing to think that here on CC there are 422,208 members and some folks think as there are 50 RCs that the posts of the 50 could make such a big difference in things here.

 

Many of the RCs dont write reviews, dont post often here on RCCL forum but help other RCCL cruisers elsewhere on the board, be it on Cruise Air or Ports of Call or wherever. And dont forget....gasp...other cruise boards etc.

 

I have never ever chosen a cruise because of what one person wrote in a review/thread/post.

 

Being an RC hasnt changed me or my life.

[Goldryder]

I guess what this all boils down to is this...

 

Do members and guests want to read honest, unbiased reviews about ships & itineraries that are untainted by inducement (financial or otherwise)...

 

Or...

 

Do members and guests only want to read rosy reviews where virtually nothing ever goes wrong and everything is tickety-boo...with the real (albeit slight) chance that what they are reading is bought and paid for by a cruise line PR agency and done to make the cruise line look fantastic.

 

Now that this behaviour has been 'outed', there will always be the nagging doubt when reading a review of is what I read tainted by being written with inducement or is is written truthfully without inducement or embelishment?

 

And if I am being honest here, I am really annoyed....no...flippin' angry...that now this has come out into the open, EVERY site will get tarred with the same brush and that is downright unjustified and untrue. If this or other sites were lead to believe that reviews were legitimately written, fine...but if sites knowingly published a review that had been the fruit of inducement, that is morally wrong, it misleads cruisers who may decide to go on a specific ship or itinerary on the grounds of that review...and there are some first time cruisers who believe every word that they read, cos they have no experience of their own to compare to it.

 

I spose its a question of credibility really. I am disgusted that other sites could be tarred with the same brush IF the articles regarding this prove true. Both articles that I have read mention this site only but that won't stop people assuming the worst of every site. Mud sticks even if you are nowhere near the mud. Myself and my staff have worked damned hard to keep my site clean, yet thanks to underhand behaviour, chances are my staff and staff of every site will now have to prove that we are untainted by this disclosure, which I can say absolutely and categorically that we are clean and have not, will not partake in such behaviour.

 

If RCI...and any other cruise line....are using this sort of tactic to make themselves look good, well they might just shoot themselves in the foot, cos the sites that they have seen fit to infiltrate like this will get wise and will hopefully be less tolerant of it in future.

 

It would also be useful if owners and site admin did not accept free cruises or have any affiliation with any cruise line(s) as that takes away almost any chance of being unbiased.

[5waldos]

I also have very strong feelings about companies using their loyal customers in this way. It really sounds a bit like something out of 1984. But let me just clarify something. Some of you sometime in the past 2 years were just sitting around one day when RCCL either called or emailed you and asked you to become an RC. No explanation given. Like joining a secret society or club. And most of you said fine and didn't even ask what it was, what you were to do, what was expected of you- just sure. What WERE you told about it? Just from now on put RC in you sig lines and go forth and post a lot? I'm sorry but not asking some questions here seems very odd. Did you feel you were special in some unknown way? That your opinions had been recognized as particularly insightful? Help me here- I really am trying to understand.

 

And for those of you who continue to claim that it has not changed you at all- why then do you suppose that RCCL continues with the program? Not to get you to cruise more- all of you say that it has nothing to do with the frequency of sailing. They are continuing because it works. Or because they are still evaluating whether it works. (And after this rather public outing may need to find a way to end it.) It generates positive postings. Either that or the company is flat out stupid, spending money on an advertising campaign that doesn't work. Or could someone offer an other explaination for why they would continue with a program which they know is somewhat edgy and risky?

[glgolfer]

I also have very strong feelings about companies using their loyal customers in this way. It really sounds a bit like something out of 1984. But let me just clarify something. Some of you sometime in the past 2 years were just sitting around one day when RCCL either called or emailed you and asked you to become an RC.

 

No explanation given. Like joining a secret society or club. And most of you said fine and didn't even ask what it was, what you were to do, what was expected of you- just sure. What WERE you told about it? Just from now on put RC in you sig lines and go forth and post a lot? I'm sorry but not asking some questions here seems very odd. Did you feel you were special in some unknown way? That your opinions had been recognized as particularly insightful? Help me here- I really am trying to understand.

 

Actually we were invited to the Liberty preinaugural. It was onboard that we got a drink cup with "Royal Champion" on it. We were never told exactly why or how we were selected. We have never been told what or how to post. I really don't care whether you believe me or not as that is the truth. We were not told to put Royal Champion in our signature.

And for those of you who continue to claim that it has not changed you at all- why then do you suppose that RCCL continues with the program? Not to get you to cruise more- all of you say that it has nothing to do with the frequency of sailing. They are continuing because it works. Or because they are still evaluating whether it works. (And after this rather public outing may need to find a way to end it.) It generates positive postings. Either that or the company is flat out stupid, spending money on an advertising campaign that doesn't work. Or could someone offer an other explaination for why they would continue with a program which they know is somewhat edgy and risky?

 

What money are they spending? About 20 or so RCs were put in oceanview cabins on a ship holding 3600 PAX along with hundreds of TAs and C&A Diamond Plus members. There were about 12 of us that went to the New York thing at our own expense.

I still wonder how many and who posting on here are gettring paid or otherwise compensated by someone for a story. I have no problem with the story about a program RCI is supposedly using, but I do have a problem with the personal attacks on the RCs. I've cruised for 21 years and been an RC for 2 years. My posting habits have not changed. I really don't care whether anyone believes that or not.

[SwingChickie]

thank you, THANK YOU for finally putting a sticky up on this topic! i think the deletion of the previous posts was one of the biggest causes of all the swirling over the last day or so... it added to the emotion that something fishy was going on. so it's nice to have a place where people can get the correct information on the situation.

 

i posted one of the original threads on this subject, just a link to the article and "i don't understand this, what's going on?" i didn't cut and paste the article into the thread, so unless someone did after i went to bed (the thread was pulled overnight) i don't know that there was true cause for the thread to be pulled.

 

anyway. the level of compensation/perks/whatever isn't my concern... it's the validity of the information. the same thing is going on over at yelp.com and, i believe, amazon.com -- it's been discovered that companies are inflating their positive reviews on those sites to try to drive sales. so this isn't just a royal caribbean thing, it's an overall issue of people wanting to reach out to their peers for unbiased information (because if we didn't want that, we'd only go to the cruise lines directly for info) and feeling a bit misled when they find out that some of those peer reviews/suggestions might have been influenced in some way.

 

up until yesterday, i had to idea what a RC was and never noticed it in anyone's signature (i ignore signatures on here because they tend to be a half page of animated GIFs and blinking words). now i know, and can decide whether to take a post with a grain of salt or not. no slam at all on the RCs who post here, i'm sure most of them are great. i just like to be aware.

[LauraS]

I'd like to thank Cecilia for attempting to calm down the Royal Caribbean forum. Now, since I was aware of this program from the very beginning and somewhat involved, I will happy to share what I know to be the facts:

 

1. I was contacted by Royal Caribbean in early 2007 and was asked to send them emails of certain members who they were interested in contacting. Of course, since I will NOT share your email addresses, they had no choice but to ask me to contact these members with the information about this program. was told that Buzz Metrics, a subsidiary of Neilsen Ratings System, had earmarked about 50 people on the internet whose existing participating had been positive and enthusiastic about their cruises on Royal Caribbean. Of the 50, 40 were Cruise Critic members which makes sense since our community is so large.

 

2. I have to tell you I was VERY surprised at some of the posters on the listing; most of them were known to me. Some had many posts, some did not. But, most importantly I thought that the majority of them were NOT what I would call cheerleaders. As a matter of fact, I've found most of their posts before, and still, to be very HONEST, and sometimes downright critical, of the cruise line. This is only my opinion.

 

3. Most of those on the listing heard nothing for months. Finally, an invitation was sent to with an invitation to ONE of two pre-inaugural sailings on Liberty of the Seas. You had a choice of either Miami or New York and you had to pay your own way to get there. It is important to keep in mind that on these sailings were many travel agents, vendor firms and of course the media. The cruise line hosted all of these groups, including the 30 or so who could make it.

 

4. Cruise lines hosting various groups on board pre-inaugural sailings is pretty standard nowadays. They do this in the hopes that they will enjoy themselves and return and convince their friends, family and clients to sail with them.

 

5. I was on board the Liberty of the Seas pre-inaugural in NYC. I was very happy to meet those Cruise Critic members who were on board, as well as posters from other websites and bloggers and website creators. It was on board that the name "Royal Champions" was announced to all. I won't say we didn't have a wonderflul time; obviously the ship was gorgeous -- we did enjoy the 2 day sailing. There were many seminars and meetings on board to attend if so inclined; this is standard on any pre-iinaugural.

 

6. Many months went by. No communication to any of the Royal Champions came from RCI. All was quiet until RCI invited those in the NY area to attend an event where they would announce some of the neighborhoods on Oasis of the Seas. Not many of the RC's went, about 10 I'd say; I did attend as did our Managing Editor -- we brought 'Bennie the Bear' with us. I cannot remember the exact date but it was held at the Nokia theatre.

 

7. After the Nokia event -- nothing. No communications, no invites, no promises of anything at all. As a matter of fact, many would write to me and ask "is the program still running?". We really had no info to share.

 

8. About three months ago RCI asked for us to contact an additional group of members. No one heard anything for months until they were asked to verify their contact info. Then, again, nothing.

 

That's the entire story as I know it.

 

So, you may ask: why should or shouldn't you put any validity in what a Royal Champion has to say? The truth of the matter is -- only you can decide. Without determining how positive or negative a poster is, you certainly have to admit they are full of information about the cruise line, can offer up facts like nobody's business, share bits of minutia that some would say borders on the insane, post live from their vacations, and spend a great deal of time doing all the above. The choice is yours.

 

Some may also ask: why does Cruise Critic allow this? Essentially, you are all anonymous to us. The phenomena behind social media and user generated reviews is fascinating to us. There are many reasons why people come to a community like ours -- more often than not you are here because you like to cruise. The majority of different "groups" here identify themselves - such as Travel Agents, business owners and yes, even Royal Champions. We can certainly make it a "guideline" to identify yourself if that appeases those of you that are critical of brand influeners; but that would be extremely difficult to enforce across all the different types of groups.

 

My final note to you all: keep this discussion civil. Do not direct your posts toward any individual member. Do not direct your postings toward them as a group either. Instead, stick to the issue of the marketing focus behind this group and others like it. Know that they aren't being paid to post, but have been invited to an event or two to share their opinions about what they have seen. You are all free to "call it what you wish", those who look at it negatively will probably not change their opinion due to my post. I only wanted to set the record straight from our perspective.

 

Laura

[Bruins14]

Cecilia is a Community Assistant. Cecilia has always been a very fair and straight forward person on CC.

Not for one minute would she forget that we are all supposed to remember the no name calling.

I believe it was a honest mistake on her part to leave out "and all members."

She is too smart a lady to ever favor one from another.

At least give her the benefit of the doubt and don't go picking on her too. ;)

 

It has been a trying few days on here for a lot of people. Personally some of the names we Royal Champions have been called by many past CC friends is very hurtful.

Shills, Rabid posters, liars, taking money and gifts, free 7 day cruises, RCCL employees and etc. All Lies.

And yes, tempers have flared as we try to defend ourselves against a bunch of people, some who are brand new to these boards, who are set on turning others against us for an article written by who?

Ask them why? Maybe they are paid employees from some company who hired them. ;)

Think about that!

 

I was not infering ill intent, just pointing out the line should have been,

no name calling to other members, no need for and all other members, or Royal Champions

[Let'sGo!]

Laura, Ceciia: Thanks for the clarification on all of this.

 

As a TV news journalist, there's one thing I know to do: Clarify, clarify, clarify. Honestly, I saw that little signature on many people's posts. I thought they were just proud of themselves and had created their own little club.

 

Now I know what it really means. Maybe this was something that should have had a little sticky a long time ago. If I had been invited on a "free" inaugural cruise, I probably wouldn't find too many faults with it.

 

But that's what disclosure is all about... isn't it!

[Goldryder]

Firstly, thanks to Laura for stating the facts as far as she and CC are aware.

 

However, something bothers me still.

 

http://expertcruiser.com/advice/paid-cheerleaders-does-royal-caribbeans-viral-campaign-cross-the-line/

 

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

 

Now that may have been taken out of context Laura but that really does make it sound like yourself and the CC staff as a whole are turning a blind eye to what this PR firm is doing. Are you allowing possibly tainted material to be posted as genuine, honest and unbiased when infact it is more likely to be something orchestrated and paid for via the PR firm & RCI?

 

At the end of the day we all know that a cruise is as subjective as the food on the ship, so it reflects an opinion from that individual's perspective. There is a problem if that perspective has been altered in order to fit the critieria of the PR firm involved in this, and thus it becomes biased and warped.

 

Can you in all honesty not see a conflict of interests here? You want to promote the site as somewhere to shave views and reviews about cruise lines but at the same time you are allowing a PR firm to dictate (albeit indirectly) what is being posted.

 

If a firm needs to make itself look better in order to gain investment (afterall RCI are having to go cap in hand to finance the elephants), then paying in kind for reviews that are glowing in every detail is the way to go (perhaps).....but it is playing with fire cos when caught out, that very same supply of good news can soon turn on you.

[Elizanessie]

If I had been invited on a "free" inaugural cruise, I probably wouldn't find too many faults with it.

 

 

Oh heck I remember after returning home from a Pre-Inaugural here in UK and when I got home I emailed RCCL to thank them for the invite ....but also to point out things I wasn't happy with on the "free" 2 night cruise.

 

These bad things weren't what TAs would notice perhaps but as a Cruiser I did and I wasn't slow to let the cruiseline know about it.

 

Good or bad ...I tell it how it is.

[akcruz]

I've been watching these discussions over the past few days and have tried very hard to not comment, but feel that I need to.

 

I have been a member of CC for a few years now and come and go as my travel plans evolve. During that time I had come to know who I felt I could 'trust' on this site and who were more of the ones with the 'hot air'. I had not heard of the RCs up until recently and didn't notice anything in anyone's signature to that effect until these discussions began.

 

At that point I began to take notice and realized the posters that I had begun to trust for fair, unbiased posts are mostly identified as RCs. I have seen many of them post negative things about RCI and of course a lot of positive. They are overall a very helpful group. I do not know any of them other than through the screen names here but would love to sail them one day as they look like a great group of people.

 

If in the future if I notice their opinions swaying to one side that will be cause for concern. Until then I will take their opinions for what they are, not as lackies for the cruise line.

[AudioFilly]

I don't quite understand all the outrage going on here. Has it not occurred to anyone that the majority of us that participate in the RCI board are so-called "shills" for the company. What do you think the Meet & Mingle is all about? It is a free perk given to those of us who participate on Cruise Critic.

 

I haven't seen anyone getting all up in arms over the unfairness of that particular perk. Yet, it serves the same purpose as the company's "viral marketing campaign." Does a free party onboard and getting to meet my fellow CC'ers influence my feelings about the company? You bet it does.

 

In the same way that my local Craft Store sends me an email with a 25% off "Customer Loyalty" coupon. I go to the store and the staff is very friendly and helpful and seems genuinely happy to have my business. I come home feeling very good about that store and in turn will tell people I know that it's a "great place to shop. That's a company that really knows how to treat their customers."

 

The best advertising any company can have is Good Word-of-Mouth. And I won't find fault with a company that thinks outside the box to find ways to generate that. Nor will I slam the Royal Champions for proudly calling themselves that. Otherwise I'll have to be knocking myself in the head for all those free pens and key chains or *gasp* I might even have to give back all my RCI medals. I would really hate that. Because as goofy as it may be, I love those silly medals and the leatherette picture frames.

[Ladder55]

Firstly, thanks to Laura for stating the facts as far as she and CC are aware.

 

However, something bothers me still.

 

http://expertcruiser.com/advice/paid-cheerleaders-does-royal-caribbeans-viral-campaign-cross-the-line/

 

 

 

Now that may have been taken out of context Laura but that really does make it sound like yourself and the CC staff as a whole are turning a blind eye to what this PR firm is doing. Are you allowing possibly tainted material to be posted as genuine, honest and unbiased when infact it is more likely to be something orchestrated and paid for via the PR firm & RCI?

 

At the end of the day we all know that a cruise is as subjective as the food on the ship, so it reflects an opinion from that individual's perspective. There is a problem if that perspective has been altered in order to fit the critieria of the PR firm involved in this, and thus it becomes biased and warped.

 

Can you in all honesty not see a conflict of interests here? You want to promote the site as somewhere to shave views and reviews about cruise lines but at the same time you are allowing a PR firm to dictate (albeit indirectly) what is being posted.

 

If a firm needs to make itself look better in order to gain investment (afterall RCI are having to go cap in hand to finance the elephants), then paying in kind for reviews that are glowing in every detail is the way to go (perhaps).....but it is playing with fire cos when caught out, that very same supply of good news can soon turn on you.

 

reading this link This bothered me also, so when celia was saying she didnt know about what was going on i was like.. huh???

I am confused as to why we can't name travel industry sites, but allowing an Rc to work with and for rccl seems like a form of advertising imo

[silentbob007]

I've been on this board long enough to know who the everything's-always-great cheerleaders are (some RC and some not) and who the good-and-bad critics are (some RC and some not). I don't see anything insidious about the RC program ... we all have biases, and this group for the most part even labels their bias on every post.

[Ship's Wake]

People are upset because they now realize that some of the reviews and comments about Royal Caribbean are "paid" opinions. This whole process stinks and reeks of manipulation.

 

A recent Nielsen study shows that the form of advertising consumers trust most is recommendations from other customers. For the new poster on CC, they can easily be manipulated into choosing one line over another by this "word of mouth". In the case of Royal Caribbean on CC it is likely a paid for advertorial.

 

Sad.

[runnerandme]

Now that I know what the title "Royal Champions" stands for, I will read their posts and evaluate their opinions with the feeling that they MAY be biased due to compensation not experience.

 

 

Connie

[Admin]

Firstly, thanks to Laura for stating the facts as far as she and CC are aware.

 

However, something bothers me still.

 

http://expertcruiser.com/advice/paid-cheerleaders-does-royal-caribbeans-viral-campaign-cross-the-line/

 

Now that may have been taken out of context Laura but that really does make it sound like yourself and the CC staff as a whole are turning a blind eye to what this PR firm is doing. Are you allowing possibly tainted material to be posted as genuine, honest and unbiased when infact it is more likely to be something orchestrated and paid for via the PR firm & RCI?

That's a huge leap to make and I find it insulting that you think I'd turn a blind eye to something deceitful on the message board. Have you ever been given something free by ANY company? A free meal because you had a bad experience? A free gift bag for showing up for an event? And then you told all your friends about the good experience you had. The difference seems to be that RCI has a name for it and everyone else just does it. Laura outlined exactly what contact she's had but you're calling me, personally, deceitful.

Can you in all honesty not see a conflict of interests here? You want to promote the site as somewhere to shave views and reviews about cruise lines but at the same time you are allowing a PR firm to dictate (albeit indirectly) what is being posted.

Again, calling us dishonest. You don't know me, Laura, any of the hosts but an anonymous person writes a biased article with no facts and you believe that and give no merit to the site you've been a member of for so long.

If a firm needs to make itself look better in order to gain investment (afterall RCI are having to go cap in hand to finance the elephants), then paying in kind for reviews that are glowing in every detail is the way to go (perhaps).....but it is playing with fire cos when caught out, that very same supply of good news can soon turn on you.

I think I missed the part of what Laura wrote that said anyone was paid and I can't find it in the articles and none of the royal champion members have said they were paid. It's this type of unsubstantiated rumor that creates the frenzy you've seen in the last 24 hours here.

 

As always, I can be contacted at boards@cruisecritic.com.

[coxswain]

Can i first say thanks to CC for allowing a thread to discuss this issue.

 

Make no mistake there is some anger among members on here in relation to RCCL REWARDING members for championing their cause.

 

I have no problems with someone championing a cause but i feel CC must in someone way highlight these Champs so that the vast majority members can make a judgement on the views that these Champs post on.

 

 

CC didn't help matters when a number of threads were deleted or locked - which lead to people putting 2+2 and getting 5

 

Don't for one minute believe the utter nonsense that Champs don't get rewarded they do !!

 

 

 

jj......