quote:

---

Some quarters have questioned whether Queen Victoria should be classed as either a liner or a cruise ship but the company's president and managing director Carol Marlow is definite on the subject.

"Cunard Line ships do not sail on cruises, Cunard liners sail on voyages," she said.

It seems then that Queen Victoria is something of a hybrid. She will be taking her passengers on fabulous cruises but her hull has been strengthened to allow her to make transatlantic voyages thus giving her liner status.

---

Yeah, whatever!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by shipsnorway:
Now someone please ask her to define "voyages" compared to "cruises"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Malcolm @ cruisepage:

The difference is Cunard's fares! Voyages cost more than cruises.

---

Well said!

Crystal Voyages

Regent Cruise Voyages (now I am confuses )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
Silversea Voyages

Crystal Voyages

Regent Cruise Voyages (now I am confuses )

.....the 'Cunard product' must be in a really bad shape as they seem to rely on such rather embarrassing statements when it comes to marketing their ships.

---

So it's obviously a matter of semantics, but it does seem that the up-market lines (can't call them cruise lines any more, apparently) are distancing their products from the mass market operations called cruises. The elite, expensive ship holidays must now be referred to as voyages!

OK - everyone knows that almost everyone in this forum does not consider the Vic a true "liner".

And everyone knows that nothing that comes out of Ms Marlow's mouth with be met with anything but udder disdain in this forum.

That being said, for how much longer and how many times will everyone persist in eviscerating the Vic and vivisecting Carol Marlow?

Chances are, had the same "voyage" statements been made about the QE2, Carnberra or Rotterdam V, it would have been met with a resounding "that's right".

Let's face it, it's quite easy to armchair quaterback and toss around these petty criticisms. But the fact remains that Cunard has always marketed itself based on its heritage and pedigree and it's not going to stop.

It's also quite clear that few if any here would ever sail on her and she's not marketed towards the miniscule percentage of liner enthusiasts who do little more than engage in never ending debates over what constitutes a liner vs a cruise ship.

It's also worth mentoning that for close to decade after the introduction of the Nieuw Amsterdam and Noordam, HAL called all of their ships "ocean liners" and even attempted to trademark the phrase in their marketing.

In essence, this farce that is being put upon liner enthusiasts is the fault of Nico Van der Vorm and Holland America Line.

End of rant......

In essence, this farce that is being put upon liner enthusiasts is the fault of Nico Van der Vorm and Holland America Line.

absolutely spot on, you can blame this on one person and one cruiseline...

don't you think it sounds a bit stupid????

quote:

---

Originally posted by buddhaJoe:

absolutely spot on, you can blame this on one person and one cruiseline...

don't you think it sounds a bit stupid????

best regards
b. Joe[/QB]

---

Joe,

my - point - EXACTLY!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim in 'Lauderdale:

It's also quite clear that few if any here would ever sail on her and she's not marketed towards the miniscule percentage of liner enthusiasts who do little more than engage in never ending debates over what constitutes a liner vs a cruise ship.

---

As a person who is a ship enthusiast and ALSO a person that spends a great deal of money on the cruise industry every year, I feel I am more than entitled to my opinion. Just because I am a ship enthusiast doesn't mean my opinion and thoughts should be discounted or are any less valuable. If anything, Cunard more than any line should consider comments from ship enthusiasts as these people are a nice chunk of the niche market that likes to sail on the line. They should not be so easily discounted, and I don't think they are. I know that Marlow and past executives at Cunard have personally given presentations at various ship society meetings. I don't know of many other cruise lines that have done this. Personally, I can tell you that Cunard and most other cruise lines absolutely market to me. I receive mailers from many cruise lines every week.

This being said, Marlow continues to lose credibility with me every time she is quoted. I mean, the crap that comes out of her mouth is so bad I couldn't make it up if I tried. I understand the entire "liner" concept of Cunard's marketing strategy and I have no problem with it. If they would leave it at that instead of trying to shove it down your throat every chance they get I'm sure we would not be seeing the negative comments we have. It's also ridiculous for Marlow to come up with her own definitions of a "liner" to suit Cunard's purpose. That is basically the root of my issues with her and it makes me believe she wouldn't know a true "liner" were it sitting right in front of her. I'm sure this is not the case, but that is the way her quotes represent her. Rather amateur, almost desperately trying to convince the world QV is a liner when deep down inside she knows this is not the case.

End of my rant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by viking109:
Having now seen QV in the flesh I'm going to backtrack a little on my previous comments. Whilst it will never look as graceful as QE2 or as liner like as QM2 ,viewed from Southamptons city walls it does look very impressive.

---

I wonder if people will say the same thing about EURODAM if she visits Southampton? Have OOSTERDAM, ZUIDERDAM, WESTERDAM, and NOORDAM ever visited Southampton?
After all, these ships pretty much look exactly like QV from the exterior. Of course there is always ARCADIA. I wonder if people are as impressed with her towering over Southampton?

Personally I have always liked the look of the Spirit and Vista Class ships, but once you have seen one you have seen them all (at least from the outside).

I just wonder if people would be as impressed if the ship didn't say QUEEN VICTORIA on her bow?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim in 'Lauderdale:
Chances are, had the same "voyage" statements been made about the QE2, Carnberra or Rotterdam V, it would have been met with a resounding "that's right".

---

Except... Why is it so obvious? I admit, I once thought they were somehow inherently 'liners' too, but after thinking about it, I have decided that it is purely a matter of perception and that there is simply no objective way to define a 'liner' and a 'cruise ship' other than the particular types of routes on which they are engaged.

So I can't think of a single reason QUEEN VICTORIA isn't a liner, other than that so far, she is only scheduled to go on cruises.

I do think line voyages exist - in the sense that they are voyages that exist for the purpose of transporting people from one place to another. They do not stop anywhere except to embark and/or disembark passengers and/or cargo. And repositioning cruises don't count.

For all intents and purposes, QE2 has been a cruise ship since QM2 came around. And CANBERRA and ROTTERDAM were cruise ships for most of their lives too.

It seems that once it was accepted that when FRANCE became NORWAY she became a cruise ship - but now, suddenly, we're told she was a liner, because somehow she was magically preordained as eternally a liner (and not a cruise ship) when she was built.

I think this is a load of complete and utter crap!

Carol Marlow's and Cunard's statements about QUEEN VICTORIA being a 'liner' are just marketing fluff... No better or worse than most of the other marketing fluff that comes from most other cruise lines, except in that it is perhaps a bit more pretentious. But that's it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dougnewman:

So I can't think of a single reason QUEEN VICTORIA isn't a liner, other than that so far, she is only scheduled to go on cruises.

---

I'm sure Marlow would love to hear your definition of a "liner". The way you tell it, every cruise ship is a liner and every liner is a cruise ship. Well that would certainly put a crimp in Cunard's entire "liner" marketing strategy. What would be left to differentiate them from the lowly cruise ships? It would be kind of funny actually.

I still think Marlow's comments about "liners" have been absurd, and it has nothing to do with any kind of prejudice against modern ships. Her comments if anything, have somewhat turned me off to Cunard. All this BS about heritage and lineage gives one the impression that Cunard is somehow superior to other lines, when in fact they are not. They have some very unique attributes and some interesting ships (well, one interesting ship by the end of 2008), but when it comes to the big four of cruising ..... space, food, service, entertainment ..... I don't consider them any better than any other line. It's the nature of the cruises (and crossings) and the people they attract that make Cunard such an interesting cruise line. For this I do thank their marketing department. Sometimes though I think they take it too far, much more so then other cruise lines. It's almost as if Cunard's marketing department gets lost in their own hype and forget about reality. Scary if they actually believe some of the rubbish they print.

As you know, I'm booked on QV's tandem crossing with QE2. I'll let you know how much of a "liner" she is, and how she stacks up to QE2 and QM2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:

I'm sure Marlow would love to hear your definition of a "liner". The way you tell it, every cruise ship is a liner and every liner is a cruise ship. [...]

---

Well, that's precisely how it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
I'm sure Marlow would love to hear your definition of a "liner". The way you tell it, every cruise ship is a liner and every liner is a cruise ship.

---

In practice it is not like that. Just about every liner has indeed been used as a cruise ship by someone at some point, but every cruise ship as a liner... Well, most cruise ships never do undertake what I would consider line voyages.

What I am trying to get away from is this rigid classification of ships as 'liners' or 'cruise ships', which is frankly a load of nonsense whether it's coming from Carol Marlow or anyone else. It is more about the way the ship is operated, and the intent behind that operation, than the actual physical ship.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
Well that would certainly put a crimp in Cunard's entire "liner" marketing strategy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by viking109:
Norways role was that of a cruise ship but the hardware was pure ocean liner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
But one should stay factual and also polite - and all this 'stronger hull' blabber is just ridiculous.

---

[ 12-09-2007: Message edited by: dougnewman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dougnewman:
[...]All it does is draw attention to an idea, itself ridiculous in my view, that - while they disagree with Carol's conclusions - many ship enthusiasts in fact buy into, the idea that there is something inherently different about ships that are 'liners' and those that are 'cruise ships'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dougnewman:
All it does is draw attention to an idea, itself ridiculous in my view, that - while they disagree with Carol's conclusions - many ship enthusiasts in fact buy into, the idea that there is something inherently different about ships that are 'liners' and those that are 'cruise ships'.

---

I agree that I don't think there is a lot of difference between a "liner" and a "cruise ship" in this day and age. In fact they are pretty much interchangeable. What has brought all this to a head are Carol Marlow's comments, and her definition of what differentiates a "liner" from a "cruise ship". Had she left well enough alone, and conceded the fact that "ocean liner" is more or less a marketing term, we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately every time she opens her mouth, she seems to dig the hole deeper and deeper.

Hi Ernie:

Yes, this statement is true but, as you know, this is nothing new; Cunard's marketing has always played on it's heritage and the fact remains that the company IS still around. It would be silly of them to not play up the heritage card. And as far as their giving the impression that they are superior to other lines... that's really not a new revelation either, is it? Look at any Cunard brochure from the early 1900's and on and you'll find nothing but page after page of self accolades; and the fact remains that service and food (not to mention hardware) wasn't any better than it was with CGT, USL, White Star, HAPAG, etc.

But that's the name of the marketing game, isn't it? Cunard is doing what it has been doing well for over a century; and that's marketing to the PERCEPTION that it is superior. Just like any successful marketing plan, they continue it because it works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:

But that's the name of the marketing game, isn't it? Cunard is doing what it has been doing well for over a century; and that's marketing to the PERCEPTION that it is superior. Just like any successful marketing plan, they continue it because it works.

-Russ

---

Absolutely Russ, and I wouldn't expect anything less from Cunard. Lets face it, every cruise line thinks they are the best from Carnival to Sillversea. It's just that Cunard seems to take it a step farther and sometimes it comes off as being absurd. This can turn people off, and even scare people away from the line. As Cunard grows, it's going to have appeal to a broader audience and this may mean downplaying the whole superiority complex.

My issue again is not so much with Cunard's marketing (which is actually humorous on occasion), but how they are trying to reinvent the wheel with QV. Had Marlow not given her own definition of what makes QV a true "liner" I would not have given any of this a second thought. Using "ocean liner" as a marketing gimmick absolutely fine. Trying to rewrite history with new definitions of what constitutes a "liner" is something else entirely.

Personally I have lost some respect for Cunard over the entire QV campaign. Apparently it doesn't matter much since I booked a cruise on QV anyway! Go figure. At the end of the day Cunard is getting my money, and that really is the bottom line isn't it?

Ernie

[ 12-09-2007: Message edited by: eroller ]