Cleveland residents Brenda and Gerald Moran are experienced cruisers and big fans of Royal Caribbean. They were so happy with the cruise line they averaged two cruises a year for the past three years. They even bought the company’s stock.
Still, the Morans encountered problems on each cruise — everything from a plumbing problem to being locked out of their cabins — which they itemized and detailed in correspondence to the cruise line. Royal Caribbean worked with the couple to solve problems and offered discounts and onboard credits to keep the couple’s business.
Until it decided it no longer wanted the Moran’s business.
Last November, Royal Caribbean abruptly notified the couple that they were no longer welcome on any Royal Caribbean International ship, including the company’s subsidiaries Celebrity and Azamara. Ever.
What on earth did they do to get lifetime ban? They complained, and they complained loudly.
The cruise critics
Feisty Brenda Moran is certainly one not to hold back her opinion. Over the course of three years sailing on Royal Caribbean and Celebrity, she documented many problems during her cruises that ran the gamut from her birthday greeting being delivered to the wrong stateroom to her husband being locked out on the balcony for three hours because the door latch jammed.
Last September, during a 14-night Alaska and Northwest sailing onboard Radiance of the Seas, the Moran’s stateroom had a plumbing problem that ended up with sewage all over the bathroom that overflowed onto the room’s carpet. Even with cleaning, the room wasn’t acceptable. The Morans asked repeatedly to be moved to another stateroom, but was told the ship was full.
The couple did the best they could to cope. “We had to keep the balcony door open in 40-degree weather the entire cruise just so we could breathe and not smell the horrible odors,” says Brenda.
Then on the last night the couple received a letter from the ship’s hotel director apologizing for the inconvenience and offered the couple a 20 percent discount on their next cruise. The Morans felt that was fair compensation and went and booked their next cruise with the line.
When Brenda returned home she wrote her usual post-cruise review on Cruise Critic and posted notes on their forums that started vigorous feedback from fellow cruisers.
Two weeks after returning home, the Morans received a phone call from Bill Weeks, an executive assistant in customer service. Weeks apologized for the couple’s treatment and offered an additional $500 to their 20 percent discount, the Morans were very happy with the offer. Again, Brenda posted her experience with Weeks on Cruise Critic’s forums.
Some board members felt the Morans had complained their way to an unfair discount and posted their displeasure. They felt that the Morans were teaching others how to “scam” Royal Caribbean. Some went so far as to contact Royal Caribbean’s president and chief executive, Adam Goldstein to complain about the Morans getting any compensation at all.
A few weeks later the Morans received a phone call from a man named Sebastian who identified himself as Bill Weeks’ boss. Sebastian was unhappy that Brenda had posted a negative review and had shared the compensation information on Cruise Critic’s boards. He asked Brenda to take down her review “at once.” Brenda refused and cited her right to free speech.
The following day the Morans received another phone call from Sebastian stating the couple was banned forever from the cruise line. The Morans were stunned. They didn’t believe it was true until an official letter was delivered citing the ban. It also contained a $500 check — their additional promised cruise credit.
Royal Caribbean speaks
I contacted Michael Sheehan, Royal Caribbean’s associate vice president of corporate communications, to get the cruise line’s side of the story. Sheehan says since 2004, the Morans sailed six voyages with two of the company’s lines. “On all but one of those sailing the Morans felt there were a variety of service failures they experienced,” he said. “In a small number of cases we agreed and compensated them appropriately. In most cases, however, we disagreed. Having concluded that we are unable to meet the expectations of the Morans, we have told them that they would be best served by sailing with another company.”
Cruising the message boards
Royal Caribbean is certainly entitled to ban whomever from their ships. Nevertheless, to ban someone for posting their cruise experience on an Internet message board raises serious questions about the lengths the company is going to keep negative reviews from public consumption. When I asked Sheehan if Royal Caribbean has an official policy on asking negative posts to be removed from Internet forums, he denied there was a policy.
Still, Internet postings are on the mind of Royal Caribbean’s top executives. In an e-mail obtained by Tripso, one Celebrity executive cites Cruise Critic’s message boards. “They love finding fault with Azamara even when things go great,” the executive complains. “How do we get over that?”
It appears that one step the company is taking to “get over that” is to intimidate posters of negative reviews and in some cases even going so far as to contact the publishers. Paul Motter, editor of Cruise Mates, was contacted by a Royal Caribbean staffer last November to have a negative review removed or at least amended.
In the e-mail, the staffer tells him the issue with the customer was resolved and asks if he can “make changes” to the posting. Motter did not take down or amend the review.
I spoke with Laura Sterling, Cruise Critic’s chief board moderator. Sterling says in her 13 years of moderating she’s never been approached by a cruise line to remove a review. She adds, “It is our policy to not entertain requests to remove negative reviews, at the request of cruise lines or anyone else.”
I asked other cruise lines about their rules and most said they have no policy at all towards Internet posts. A Carnival spokesperson, Jennifer de la Cruz, says the line has never banned someone for posting negative reviews. But the company pays attention to online discussions. “As a company we do like to maintain a feel for what’s being discussed online,” she says. “The message boards are a great source of consumer feedback.”
Indeed, Internet feedback is a hot commodity. Last year, Carnival started its own online community with message boards along with cruise director, John Heald’s popular blog. Just two weeks ago, Royal Caribbean launched its own online community called RoyalConnect with message boards for past cruisers of the line.
So, what does all this mean for you? Simply put, when you post a cruise review on a Web site, your post is likely being read by someone at the cruise line. Most cruise lines welcome feedback, even Royal Caribbean.
But if you go too far don’t be surprised if you end up with an e-mail or phone call from the cruise line.
As for the Morans, it appears there was a light at the end of walking Royal Caribbean’s plank. They’ve discovered “Freestyle Cruising” on Norwegian Cruise Line. “They are so much better than Royal Caribbean,” says Brenda.
Sound off! Do you have a comment, an idea, a complaint or a problem for Anita to solve? Send her an e-mail and you might find yourself in her next column.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 58 comments }
← Previous Comments
From what I have been reading about these people, they are scam artists. The woman claims to be a police officer and multiple people that know her have disagreed. There is obviously something wrong with this woman. She seems to have pushed one too many buttons. I can not believe how many people she has ticked off on the many sites that I have visited. You really need to do a sequel, maybe get to the bottom of why they were really banned from more than one cruiseline. I for one will be waiting for your next article, standing on line behind all these other people that have written before me. You have picked a hot topic!! Good luck to you
“Anita” (wink wink)–
You are a sly one—or so you think
You know, this post was not really about Cruise Critic, it was (on the surface) about complaints and possible repercussions, but the secondary theme is about the power and danger of posting on line.
For those who have taken their Cruise Critic bashing over here – why? Why bother? If you have points to make about the Morans, I think that makes sense. I’ve never warmed to Cruise Critic – mostly for the very reasons you all raise, I don’t go there and it’s not really part of my world. What I don’t understand is why so many people who do purport to post there regularly are so negative about it? Why do you keep going back?
If you wish to comment onthe article, please do so. But please remember, it’s the article we need to comment on…
Perhaps it’s because Mrs. Moran has been a frequent poster on Cruise Critic, writing nearly unintelligible posts, giving out misinformation and writing glowing reviews on the one hand while totally bashing a cruiseline on the other. People who have read her posts for years have her number and are sick and tired of being punished for calling her on all of the above. Her unsympathetic attitude toward people living in hurricane prone areas drew a lot of comments.
That isn’t the only place though where she has pulled her scams. If you Google her under her known screen names (not sure I can post those here), you will find numerous other online sites where she’s been shot down for trying to pull a fast one on people.
Hi All,
It seems someone is using my name to post comments on these forums. We know who is doing this because we can match IPs.
Best,
Anita
Here is another site where the Morons post as TheAwesomeOne…her first name on CC before being banned and returning as Macop…It seems Hyundai and Saturn love her too!!
http://www.autostalk.com/hyundai/37k-had-get-new-rear-237813-2.html
In college, I worked front desk in a hotel. I dealt with all kinds of people, but the worst to handle were a family of Hassidic Jews from Brooklyn. They would come once a year in the spring for a vacation. They wanted everything right now, for free and it better be tax exempt, too! After two years of being abused, we eventually refused to rent to them.
First of all, the family arrived with no reservation on a peak weekend. There were 10 children. 10. KIDS. ALL BOYS. All between the ages of 10-20. They wanted just one room for the kids. We told them they could only put 4 people in a room for fire safety reasons.
The wife screamed, yelled, threatened to sue for “discrimination” We offered a suite. They didn’t want the suite since it would cost more. Our manager appeared and offered them a 20% discount on two connecting rooms for the kids. They didn’t like the discount. They whined. Then out comes the tax exempt card. They were only NY Tax exempt, not the state they were visiting. Again, we were told we were “Anti-Semantic” and other hatefilled words. They were shouting, rude and completely out of the line. The manager took over their check in and said he could not honor the tax exempt. The wife seemed to shut up when she was dealing with him and not us “lowly” employees.
Then the complaints started. Let’s see if I can remember them all:
1. There was BACON at breakfast. Well, of course there was…they are not the only people in the hotel. But, apparently the mere sight of it caused the wife to become ill.
2. They wanted us to “close” the pool so that the boys could swim. (They do not swim mixed) We refused. Again, we were called evil.
3. The lifeguard was female and was wearing a bathing suit and shorts. Somehow, even though they were not using the pool, this was an affront to them.
4. The refrigerators in the rooms didn’t get cold enough. (This one may have been legit but after all of the other drama-queen complaints we frankly didn’t care)
5. A blind man was in the lobby waiting for a taxi. He had an assist-dog with him. The wife called the police to the hotel to report that we were “violating health code” by allowing service animals in the building.
6. They tried to cook on a hotplate in the room and set off the smoke detector and sprinkler. Somehow, this was our fault.
7. One of the kids bought a soda from a machine. Somehow, the front desk was responsible for it being the “wrong” kind of soda.
8. We did not ever offer shuttle service to area attractions. The wife insisted we did on the phone. She threw one of her fits in the lobby. The manager paid for a cab for them just to get her out of our sight.
9. Housekeeping never did a good enough job.
10. A party nearby checked in late on their Sabbath with a large amount of luggage. The sound of the bellcart and the people walking in the hall (an elderly couple, not a bachelor party) was “disturbing” and “disrepectful.”
Now, although we were so awful the first time around, they came back (after conning corporate out of comping two of the rooms and giving them 50% on the third). The second time, it was just a repeat of the first. After that, the manager said to them, “We cannot accomodate your needs here any longer and feel you will be better served by a different hotel.”
Too bad he didn’t do it after the first fiasco!
Mindy Posted:
Please reread this – Anita makes it clear that RCL says they did not ban the Morans becauseof the posts on CC…
…
“Royal Caribbean is certainly entitled to ban whomever from their ships. Nevertheless, to ban someone for posting their cruise experience on an Internet message board raises serious questions about the lengths the company is going to keep negative reviews from public consumption. ”
…
Please, when you re-read this it is clear that Anita is not saying she was banned for posting negaitve reviews or for airing “dirty laundry”.
–
I’m sorry, but the juxtaposition of those quoted sentences is a direct insinuation that Royal Caribbean banned the Morans for their Internet postings.
If you don’t see that, look closer.
“raises serious questions about the lengths the company is going”
Which company? In context, the answer is Royal Caribbean.
I don’t think Anita is off the hook for trying to plant the idea that Royal Caribbean banned the Morans from their cruise line for negative Internet postings.
Now if you’re going to take the position that “the company” really refers to a hypothetical company and not the one being discussed throughout the article, then explain this line:
“It appears that one step the company is taking to “get over that” is to intimidate posters of negative reviews…”
Same syntax, “the company” a couple paragraphs down. Again, this doesn’t refer to some unknown, hypothetical cruise line – it refers to Royal Caribbean. How do we know? By reading the rest of the paragraph.
“It appears that one step the company is taking to “get over that” is to intimidate posters of negative reviews and in some cases even going so far as to contact the publishers. Paul Motter, editor of Cruise Mates, was contacted by a Royal Caribbean staffer last November to have a negative review removed or at least amended.”
So don’t hand me the line that Anita didn’t say that Royal Caribbean banned the Morans from their cruise line on the basis of their negative posts. She did.
Care for another example?
George Washington, our first President, was not as perfect as one might imagine. The man was a wife-beating alcoholic with the habit of wearing women’s clothing during Autumn festivals – unseemly behavior, especially for a US President.
Oh, but I didn’t say that Washington wore dresses!
Please.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.