Jaunted

When this story initially broke two weeks ago, it stoked plenty of ire among the companies and cruisers. Some claimed that the use of unidentified brand advocates on message boards breaches ethical standards, while others countered that the Royal Champions represent a legitimate and innovative way of connecting with customers and breaking through the noise in a difficult marketing environment.

Jaunted published a story on the topic last Monday, which Cruise Critic felt was misleading and contained incorrect "facts." (I don't know why they put "facts" in quotes.) The company's marketing manager sent us a combined statement from Cruise Critic and Royal Caribbean about the program, hoping to clarify any misunderstandings. The way I read it, most of the reporting on the issue has been accurate. Here are a few of the "facts" as Cruise Critic and Royal Caribbean see them.

Royal Caribbean:

"... We initiated a program in which the Royal Champions were invited to learn more about our brand, our ships and our amenities. We have provided the Royal Champions with the opportunity to experience our product during pre-inaugural sailings so that they can provide their independent opinions in the online spaces they are participating in. On a few occasions, they also have served as focus groups providing us with valuable feedback on a number of topics. Royal Champions have been invited - along with traditional media, top travel partners, and loyal Crown & Anchor Society members - to preview new ships and programs and share their opinions if, when and how they see fit. They are responsible for their own travel arrangements and expenses, which are not paid by Royal Caribbean. Royal Champions do not receive any compensation for their participation nor do we influence what they share, where they share it, or how they participate in their online discussions."

Jaunted translation: Yes, Royal Champions do get free cruises and other cruise-related perks, and we chat them up quite a bit. But we don't actually pay them, nor do we foot the bill for their transportation to and from the ship. As for message-board postings, they can write whatever they want. We don't lean on them for positive coverage. If they happen to write nice things about us, great. If not, that's their right.

Here's some of what Cruise Critic has to say:

"Royal Caribbean contacted Cruise Critic and asked us to obtain permission from a group of members they gave us, so that they could extend an invitation to Liberty of the Seas pre-inaugural sailings in May, 2007. We agreed to forward the information on to this group of members, and asked for their permission to share their contact information with Royal Caribbean. This is Cruise Critic's sole involvement in this program. We did not help develop the program, nor did we help choose the participants ... Cruise Critic welcomes them along with any other member who wants to share his or her opinions about Royal Caribbean in this forum ... While we can suggest that members disclose their affiliations, it’s unrealistic for us to require it and impossible to enforce. We are operating an anonymous online community and there’s no way for us to verify that anyone is or isn’t who they say they are. As a result it will continue to be a policy that we will not require Royal Champions or any member of any other group to identify themselves ... At this time, we have decided that it is not in Cruise Critic’s best interest going forward to contact members on behalf of Royal Caribbean or any other cruise line.

Jaunted translation: There is one thing that hasn't been reported correctly in this matter so far, and that is that Cruise Critic had nothing to do with selecting the Royal Champions. (Our bad, sorry. -Jaunted.) Royal Caribbean, using the help of another company, provided us with a list of posters they wished to contact to give them free cruises, and we contacted them on Royal Caribbean's behalf. That's it. Beyond that, there's little we can do to enforce journalistic standards on an anonymous message board, so we're not going to unmask the Royal Champions. That said, we will no longer contact posters on behalf of a cruise line.

So everything's cool, right? Hardly. The lesson here seems to be caveat emptor, a cynical, if accurate, assessment of the situation. My take: the once-impenetrable line between editorial and marketing will continue to fall. There's no point in lamenting its demise, we simply have to be wiser consumers of information. Cruise lines and other companies will do whatever works. Supposedly objective websites such as Cruise Critic have more at stake, and need to be careful to preserve the integrity of their message boards. But seriously, you can usually tell when a review is bullshit by the poster's prolific use of ALL CAPS and multiple exclamation points.

As a journalist, the episode does seem a little fishy, and the companies' defiant attitudes are a bit puzzling. If Cruise Critic is completely blameless in this whole affair, why not continue to make love connections between cruise lines and their anonymous fans? In the end, it just makes "truth in travel" policies (such as that of Conde Nast Traveler, the owner of this website) all the more meaningful.

This is not to say that companies can't try to take control of the message by hooking up with fans of their products. The shriveling media is powerless to stop them. All it takes is a little transparency and all will be forgiven.

P.S. If any travel company out there wants to get the perspectives of a hip young Brooklyn family of three on their latest luxury vacation, I'm in the book. Full disclosure, of course.

[Photo: Crystal Lake]

Related Stories:
· What Is A Royal Champion? [CruiseCritic.com]
· Paid Cheerleaders: Does Royal Caribbean's Viral Campaign Cross the Line? [Tripso.com]
· Marketing Campaign Sinks Cruise Critic [msnbc.com]
· Royal Caribbean Cruises Has Web 2.0 Viral Infection [Jaunted]