Marc, a friend of mine who cruises on Crystal told me that now if you sail from 7 to 20 days you get credit for 1 cruise level. 50 cruise levels will entitle you to a free cruise. If you go on a WC, you'll get credit for each segment whiuch could be 6 or 7 segments. Plus there a many other benefits such as shipboard credit that you can accumulate. Hope this helps but I still want to continue cruising with Radisson.

I was thinking "Much ado about nothing", but I take that back - and make a suggestion: Offer a menu of choices, for example: After (some # of) [cruises][segments][nights - my initial choice], guests can choose (A) or (B) or (C), where A, B and C are SSS benefits. Then, after (some additional #), you can have your choice of (D) or (E), but also still be able to choose from A, B or C, etc.

Coupled with this REWARDS STRUCTURE would be PRIVELEGES cruisers could become eligible for as they cruise more and achieve higher tiers, such as: FREE INTERNET SERVICE, free laundry*/dry cleaning, early notice of offers, the ability to make reservations for dining, excursions, etc. before departing, either to a separate, better staffed (unlikely to happen, right) phone center, or on-line.

It seems to me this method results in more happy cruisers, AND less competition for scarce resources-openings-etc., since (as my dear sainted Mother -G.R.H.S.- used to say: "Each to h][er][is] fancy, and me to my Nancy, said the miner as he kissed his mule !. (I'm being overly pol-cor here, but she always said 'his', since the miner was presumed male, and she was an English professor and teacher as well as a poet, or more properly, poetess.) Bottom line, more choices, less crowding, same basic cost to RSSC.

*NOTE WELL- RSSC should use care in messing with the laundries, as these facilities may well be a small but key part of the socialization structure on board the ships!

I think the most fair way is to go by total nights. According to Crystal:

2007 World Cruise= 108 nights/6 segments = 6 credits

6 seven night cruises (42 nights) = 6 credits

If you compare the total cost of the two scenarios it gets even more un-fair! Something definitely wrong with that picture! I hope Radisson doesn't go the way of Crystal's program.

Marc, if we ever sail together, Arlene can have my spot in the salon, and you can have both our massages. And, actually, we prefer Compass Rose over the two specialty restaurants, so we'll toss those spots in, too!

We will never accumulate enough nights to expect perks so I'm just reading happily along.

*NOTE WELL- RSSC should use care in messing with the laundries, as these facilities may well be a small but key part of the socialization structure on board the ships!

Exactly!!! My husband loves to socialize in the laundry room - he claims to be ironing -

Karen, on Crystal, on board credit cannot be used for future cruise deposits (unless your credit is cash sent for you by a friend or yourself as opposed to Crystal Society on board credit) or for the Caesar's casino. With the price of a cruise, this will probably sound silly, but it bothers me to leave any of the on board credit on the ship. I check our account a couple of times on a cruise to make sure I've used it up. By this time, we get a rather large amount, and I make sure to spend it all! Judith

I agree Judith, I could never leave credit behind, either!

This is a very interesting discussion. The question that Radisson management should be trying to solve for is:

How can we move people from repeat to second repeat?

[ASIDE: The probability of sustained usage is much greater once people have gone through "second repeat." Just moving people from trial to repeat is insufficient. As for getting people to trial, that's a different exercise, although I find that the factors that drive repeat to second repeat are largely correlated with what would drive people to trial in the first place, especially through vehicles such as positive word-of-mouth.]

Generally in service industries, "delight factors" (things people don't expect) are drivers of second repeat as opposed to "dissatisfiers" (that would be things people expect but don't add incremental satisfaction, like tires on your car - you would expect a new car to have tires when you buy it but the fact that a new car has tires doesn't necessarily excite you in any way). So why doesn't Radisson just re-allocate its investment to making all cruises all-inclusive? I think we've discussed over and over again over the past few years that this one element would add a tremendous amount of sustained "delight" to the cruise experience. I'd assume that all of the aforementioned perks would be more than equal to going all-inclusive in terms of whatever Radisson would need to "invest." And think of the incremental good will and superior experience that would generate. Let's think of the cruise credit model: people probably spend around $250 per person per 7-day period on drinks outside dinner and cocktail parties. So that seems to level out roughly using Crystal's structure (I didn't read it that closely though). When you consider that the vast majority of Radisson's passengers at any given time are probably repeaters, then it becomes a wash in terms of actual required investment versus opportunity cost. Since Radisson doesn't view alcohol as a profit center, this seems to make additional sense to me.

The next "delight" generating step would be to move to the free Internet at one milestone (maybe 80 days) then to free laundry (maybe at 120 days). I'm just modeling this phasing based on my observations of usage. And then keep the real "reach" milestones like free 7-days cruises per x-hundred days sailed as a distant carrot. I don't think telling people up front that if they sail hundreds of days on a very expensive line to get a 7-day cruise will really register with people considering the move from repeat to second to repeat.

So it all boils down to liquoring people up at the end of the day!

Lawrence, I agree with your analysis. Should make cents ;) to Radisson too.

Lawrence, I'm so glad to see you here! Your words of wisdom have been greatly missed! I have told as many higher ups that will listen to me that I think RSSC should go all inclusive. I feel like it falls on "deaf ears". Perhaps the only way to make my point is to "defect" to Silversea or such and I'm not ready to do that...Maybe others are?

I'm not so sure that Radisson doesn't view Liquor as a profit center. From what Mark Conroy told me once when discussing this subject, it's all about "lost revenue"!

I agree with you about enticing people with free cruises. This perk would seem so out of reach to most RSSC's cruisers. The carrot would be too far out of reach for most to ever achieve.

Radisson absolutely regards alcohol as a profit center. I heard that out of Mark Conroy's mouth on the Voyager shakedown cruise when he was asked why not all inclusive. He even quoted the sales they would lose ($4 million comes to mind).

Editing to add, welcome back Lawrence! Where have you been??

Welcome back Lawrence you have been missed!!!

I want all inclusive too but you have no idea how many people WONT sail Silversea because they dont drink and dont want to subsidize others drinks. I know it sound ridiculous but I hear that more often than you would believe. RSSC is mid line- not like Crystal - charging for everything and not like Silversea - all inclusive.

I would LOVE all inclusive and you all know I dont drink much but it takes all the stress out of "who pays" for the round.

However, I would not hold your breath on this one I think this is going to be in the realm of World Cruises and hopefully one day South America and even Mariner Full Circle South Pacific. Be nice!!!

I know some feel that way Ngaire

...I very rarely eat desserts so I'm subsidizing those that do, to me this is a ridiculous analogy. With all inclusive, desserts are there for me to eat should I choose, sambuca (or other liquor) is there for them to drink should they choose.

I didn't feel that strongly one way or another about this until I experienced how much it added to the socialization and interaction with fellow passengers when you never worry about who pays for the next round. I would so much rather pay a bit more up front and be done with it!

We rarely drink during the day - but we do have drinks after dinner - and yes the all inclusive was soooo nice on the WC segments - great to meet people in the lounges etc - it would not be a reason I would leave Radisson but rather if SS has some neat ports and prices and, yes is all inclusive, I will book them - on our first Diamond cruise for 14 nights we never met a soul in the lounge - I asked why and was told by one group of 12 "we make our drinks in our room" and then go to dinner -

It is interesting to see all the different opinions regarding this issue, and everyones take on the matter, the fact of all inclusive to me would not change my decison to cruise Radisson, but I feel there are some facts that people should know about, I am not saying that Mark Conroy does not know his business, but to say they would lose 4mil a year, I dont know about that. The hotel industry for most functions has eliminated cash bars, and gone with open bar, for one: it almosts elimates theft, and it is proven that people drink less when they have liquor accesible to them for a entire event. Statistics show that if people have open bar for 1 hour, they will drink more than if they had an open bar for 4 hours, they feel they need to load up or they will miss out. The liquor cost is so incredibly low for these cruise lines that a drink can cost them less than 60cents per drink, so are you telling me that if you were to charge someone $100 per person extra for all inclusive they would have to drink over a hundred drinks per cruise to cut into liquor cost, and really who is doing that: I truly feel that people really do not know the profit in the liquor, and when your buying it in tax free ports it gets even better. Maybe Carnival cruise lines might lose millions with open bar, but if they adapted some of the policies like Superclubs, and Club Med these people know the margin when you bill liquor into the equation and it is HUGE! they want you to pay all up front, because unless your drinking 24/7 and the majority is not, they are cleaning up: but with Radisson passenger base I think it would make the experience better and utilize some of the wonderful lounges that seem to never get used:

Frank

You make an excellent case Frank - no I won't stop cruising with Radisson due to the booze issue but I will take it into consideration when thinking about SS

So well said Frank. I experienced exactly what you're saying....people did NOT drink more because it was included on the WC.

I think the issue that Joanna and Marcie point out is the one often overlooked. If people come out of their suites for cocktail hour in the lounges the ambiance and cruise experience is enhanced. It's not about FREE liquor...it's about making the cruise more social ie FUN!

We first cruised on Seabourn which is all inclusive. Within hours of boarding you know so many of the passengers because we all mingled in the bars before dinner. You find interesting dinner companions there and it helps the traffic flow to the dining room - people don't all show up at the same time because they are enjoying socializing in the lounges.

It seems that passengers would find a better experience with this policy. I know we did, and from the reports of others on the WC it was true there also.

None of this has anything to do with tier levels, but as Lawrence points out...the cruise experience that keeps passengers returning is really the goal of the tier program isn't it?

"if you were to charge someone $100 per person extra for all inclusive they would have to drink over a hundred drinks per cruise to cut into liquor cost, and really who is doing that"

Since I am not sure how to do that "quote" posting, I have posted Frank's above.

Frank, not to belabor the point, but I was in the hospitality industry in another life. It is not just about covering liquor costs being all-inclusive. It is about recovering lost revenue from no drink sales. I agree with what you say about the hotel thing and people drinking less in four hours than they do in one. However, this is a cruise, usually for 7 or more days, and we usually go to our holiday habits on cruises. I certainly drink more on cruises than I do at home, and probably less than at a two hour cocktail party.

For me, I am going to leave this to Radisson to decide, as I'm sure their people have more than enough information about passenger preferences (like when above, Ngaire said people won't book with SS because they don't want to subsidize drinkers). While I would prefer all-inclusive, my bar bill never bridges the difference in cost of most Silversea cruises, unless they are deeply discounted. So like Joanna, I will take that in consideration if there is a good deal and itinerary(prime reason) on Silversea.

I understand the point of loss revenue, and my expterise like yourself comes with a degree in the hospitality industry, and working for the past 7 years,I have been the General Manager of one of the largest nightclubs in the country, so liquor is my business, and people interacting is all I do: I guess my point is there are nightclubs in Vegas/Miami who give you open bar all night long for a small cover charge like $20, it is just an example of how cheap liquor is, and for an incremental cost, the experience as I believe Lawrence had pointed out, would make it all the better, and I believe the percentage of loss revenue would be compensated by a small increase in cruise fare that I am sure the majority would not mind paying, and if the cruise line took a small portion of the cruise fare and included in a breakage calculation, just like when you check into a hotel and breakfast is included in your room rate, the room service/breakfast department does not consider that a loss of revenue, but they receive a portion of the room rate to be calculated into there daily sales, the revenue is there, just calculated in a different way, but again this is not my company, and I am just a paying customer who loves Radissons product, and will continue to cruise with them for a very long time.

Frank

BTW, It's good to be back home. I'll be around for the rest of August but am back off traveling internationally for work through September and October. Ugh!

I am no expert in this, but we do like to drink. I can't imagine having a bar bill of $250 after a 7 day cruise! I doubt our bill was half that on Pip, and we were on a back to back.

What I hate about the non-inclusive liquor is the cheesiness of having to sign a chit for a beer at lunch. That's what it boils down to. I think if they could make that compromise--include wine and beer with lunch (as they used to do on the PG), that would go a long way to increasing the "wow" factor.

Marc: You mentioned the suite your parents are in. I had a vague idea that the H suites were held for those taking the entire voyage.

McKeever:

They are in first Cat G. We had been in suite across the hall. However, we were able to finally get a Cat H guarantee instead. On Mariner, any cabin is fine so it was nice to save a few hundred dollars.

Oh, I agree completely. I would rather travel as cheaply (Oh, forgive me. INEXPENSIVELY) as possibly and go as often and far as we can. We have been very delighted with every suite on Mariner except for the infamous 1060 which we accepted in May in our ignorance. Never again will be accept any suite on Deck 10.

Margo has an excellent point. I remember more people from Seabourn than from any and all Radisson cruises because there was so much more interaction in the bars and lounges. I don't know what dollar amount per past day cruised would end up being worthwhile, maybe even a sliding scale, but a shipboard credit based on days sailed would be flexible enough that anyone could find a use for the perk.

which we accepted in May in our ignorance. Never again will be accept any suite on Deck 10.

What happened on deck 10???

The first thing on deck 10 is the noise early in the morning of carts being pushed about overhead. The thing about 1060 is that if someone is trying to program their telephone for a wake-up call at six a.m. the phone in your suite rings. I notified the desk and they told us that nothing could be done about it.

Yes yes now I remember - oh that would be so annoying to have your phone ring

One of the things I loved about the Song of Flower was that it was the one RSSC ship that was inclusive of all drinks. It made such a difference in the social atmosphere. As someone who often travels alone but likes the company of others, I liked that I could buddy up to any group, couple, etc., and not have any awkwardness about buying drinks. It really made the social flow much easier. In the end, I probably pay more in what it does to the fare than I would run up in a bar tab--that wasn't the point. The atmosphere is the point. I know there are some who don't like all inclusives because they don't like to subsidize others' drinking, but I don't drink soda, and I hardly feel like I'm subsidizing those who do.

Crytsal, this is an endless debate on the board. So, would you be willing to pay a premium for not having to sign for drinks?

I would be willing to pay more $$$ for inclusive

As would I. But the question is how much more? There's the rub. :)

BTW, good to see you around again, Lawrence!

Masaki

Agree Masaki- How much $$$$$$

How about if Radisson just quit handing out compensation for missed ports, that might subsidize our drinking habits right there!

And yes, I would be willing to pay more for my cruise as well.

Hey Masaki! It's been awhile. Congrats to you and Amanda on Marika's birth (yeah I'm just getting caught up :eek: ).

Lawrence

Using Frank's estimate of 60 cents per drink as a benchmark for call brands, let's assume it would cost Radisson an average of $2 per drink for super premium brands like Grey Goose and Tanqueray 10 (I think increasing the cost by roughly a factor of 3 is reasonable given the volume Radisson does - I remember seeing on Travel & Leisure that Voyager alone goes through 10,000 bottles of wine per month).

Figure that the average person would have 6 drinks outside dinner and cocktail parties per day. 42 drinks per 7 day period would mean an average cost of $84 or so per person. If you figure Radisson would want to make 60% margin, they'd need to charge $140 per person per 7 night period. Since the cruise fares are averaging about $4000 per person per 7 night period (assume this factors in, on a weighted average basis, the top suites), that comes out to something like a 4% surcharge. If you figure Radisson has about 54,000 person nights available per year across its fleet that are sold (that assumes a load factor of 70% on average where Voyager+Mariner+Navigator have 1600 person nights available running 48 weeks out of the year), you get about $7.5MM in revenue with a net of $4.5MM or so. So my question is this: is a 4% surcharge noticeable especially given the added conviviality it would create? And that would, based on this very crude back of the envelope calculation, still afford Radisson over $4MM in additional operating income (not revenue).

Hello Lawrence, I like your breakdowns of the income, even using your number of $2 a drink which is a bit high, even for super premium, you can see the numbers work, the incremental increase in fare would compensate any loss revenue, as Radisson is calling it, in liquor sales, that is why I disagree with Mark Conroys numbers of losing 4mil year in drink revenue.

Frank

I believe priority reservations are a BAD idea, especially as they pertain to the specialty restaurants. For instance on the Mariner Signatures only serves 40 people (not couples) per night. Doing the math says only approximately 280 out of a potential 700 passengers will be able to "partake of the resource" over the course of a week. That does not include the "resource" being closed due to affinity groups.
As far as who gets disappointed, seasoned Radisson-ites should understand these numbers and realize the urgency in getting reservations made even using the trick of two couples each booking a table for 4 for different nights, which would further reduce the available 280 slots to "partake". Other passengers should not be put at even more disadvantage, regardless of their past passenger status or question of future loyalty.
I completely agree with Fred on this one...there are plenty of ways to reward Society members without having to reduce the experience for others. His PG dining experience is proof positive that literally taking away opportunity for the benefit of others is completely outrageous and could have the opposite effect - actually reducing the chance of loyalty among first time cruisers.

I would be VERY willing to pay an extra $140/7 day cruise for avoiding having to sign chits for drinks. That price breakdown definitely works for me.

Masaki