Description
The purpose of this paper is to examine the leisure cruise service environment – the
shipscape – and its effects on cruisers’ emotions, meaning-making, and onboard behavior.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience
Robert J . Kwortnik
Article information:
To cite this document:
Robert J . Kwortnik, (2008),"Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Iss 4 pp. 289 - 311
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180810908961
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2748 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Andrew Oscar Coggins J r, (2014),"The globalization of the cruise industry: a tale of ships", Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 138-151http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-12-2013-0048
Fritz H. Pinnock, (2014),"The future of tourism in an emerging economy: the reality of the cruise industry in
Caribbean", Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 127-137http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
WHATT-12-2013-0052
Santiago Forgas-Coll, Ramon Palau-Saumell, J avier Sánchez-García, Eva María Caplliure-Giner,
(2014),"The role of trust in cruise passenger behavioral intentions: The moderating effects of the cruise line
brand", Management Decision, Vol. 52 Iss 8 pp. 1346-1367http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2012-0674
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Shipscape in?uence on the leisure
cruise experience
Robert J. Kwortnik
School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the leisure cruise service environment – the
shipscape – and its effects on cruisers’ emotions, meaning-making, and onboard behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses qualitative data from 260 cruise customers that
were mined from archived online discussion boards. Data were analyzed based on grounded theory
and interpretive methods to derive an understanding of shipscape meanings and in?uences from the
cruiser’s perspective.
Findings – The ?ndings extend Bitner’s servicescape framework and reveal novel atmospheric and
social effects that in?uence cruise travelers’ experience.
Research limitations/implications – Given the exploratory research objective and interpretive
methodology, generalizability beyond the cruise context is limited. However, research ?ndings
suggest not only that ambient shipscape conditions in?uence cruisers’ pleasure, but also that ship
layout, de´cor, size, facilities, and social factors in?uence the meanings cruisers attach to cruise brands
and to the overall cruise experience.
Originality/value – This paper explores atmospheric effects on consumer behavior in a context as
yet examined by tourism and hospitality scholars.
Keywords Ships, Tourism, Leisure activities, Service levels, Customer satisfaction, Consumer behaviour
Paper type Research paper
An RCI ship – or at least, a VOYAGER-class one – feels like a cross between a ship, a resort,
an amusement park, and a shopping mall [. . .] (Host Doug, June 10, 2006, CruiseCritic.com,
2,546 posts).
When Royal Caribbean International (RCI) launched Voyager of the Seas in 1999, the
cruise line charted a different course for the industry as it sailed into the new
millennium. Not only was Voyager a massive vessel at more than 1,000 feet long and
137,000 tons – nearly 30,000 tons larger than recently built “megaships,” and capable
of carrying more than 3,800 passengers, but the ship featured new design elements
never before seen (let alone imagined) on a cruise ship. These innovations included an
ice-skating rink, a nine-hole miniature golf course, an in-line skating track, a full-size
basketball court, a shopping promenade, and a rock-climbing wall that scaled the back
of the ship’s huge funnel. These amenities were in addition to the numerous bars and
restaurants, spa, ?tness center, pools, theater, disco, casino, video arcade, children’s
play zone, and balconied cabins also found on many new cruise ships.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
The author thanks Zoe Cohen, a Cornell University undergraduate scholar, for patient assistance
collecting data for this manuscript.
Leisure cruise
experience
289
Received April 2007
Revised July 2007
Accepted November 2007
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2008
pp. 289-311
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180810908961
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In 2006, RCI trumped its own Voyager ships by – again – launching the world’s
largest cruise ship, the 158,000-ton Freedom of the Seas, which featured the industry’s
?rst “aqua environment” on the top deck of the ship – including a wave pool for
sur?ng and cantilevered hot tubs suspended 100 feet above the sea, as well as wi-?
capability, cellular phone connectivity, ?at-screen TVs in every cabin, and even a
boxing ring. Lest one forgets, these ships also sail the oceans, visiting vacation
destinations, and providing travelers with an experience that is more traditionally
thought of as a “leisure cruise.”
Due in part to design innovations that made the cruise product more attractive and
accessible to the mass market, the cruise industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors
of leisure travel. Nearly, 12 million people cruised in 2006, and cruise lines ordered 76
new ships since 2000 to keep up with demand (Cruise Lines International Association
– CLIA, 2006a). Industry research indicates that interest in cruise vacations continues
to grow and that cruisers rate the experience as highly satisfying and a good value
(CLIA, 2006b). However, critics of today’s cruise industry, from post-modern scholars
to the passengers themselves, question what the cruise experience has become or what
it should be. Some observers lament the trend of supersized ships and their hedonistic
focus (Klein, 2002), “McDonaldized” tourist production (Weaver, 2005a), and “spaces of
containment” intended to maximize revenue capture from passengers (Weaver, 2005b).
Indeed, Ward (2005, p. 20), long-time author of the Berlitz cruise guides, argues:
The large ?oating resorts that travel by night and are in port during the day provide little
connection to nature and the sea, the ship being the destination (small town takes to water).
Almost everything is designed to keep you inside the ship – to spend money, thus increasing
onboard revenue and shareholder dividends.
The cruise industry is in a period of transformation reminiscent of the 1970s when the
core product shifted from passenger shipping to cruise vacationing (Masek, 2005).
More recently, the focus of this transformation is the actual cruise experience, and the
medium for change is the servicescape (Bitner, 1992), or what is labeled here, the
shipscape – the ship itself. Surprisingly, despite the considerable investment required
for a new cruise ship (Freedom of the Seas, was estimated to cost a record-breaking
$870 million; Sloan, 2006), research on cruise ships as vacation spaces is scant (Conlon
et al., 2004; Yarnal and Kerstetter, 2005).
This study explores the role of shipscapes in the leisure cruise experience.
Speci?cally, this paper examines how cruise passengers interact with shipscapes to
shape their cruise experience. Using data culled from an online discussion board
dedicated to cruising, this study reveals ?ndings about atmospheric effects and more
general themes related to ship design that highlight the importance of shipscapes to
cruise passengers. The main contribution of this research is a deeper understanding of
the in?uence of the shipscape on the meanings cruisers create and attach to cruise
experiences. The paper next provides a brief review of servicescape research along
with a glance at the history of the cruise industry to establish a frame of reference for
the study. This is followed by a description of the data and analytic method used to
derive insights about cruise passengers and their relationship with shipscapes.
Findings from this analysis are then reported, followed by a discussion of conclusions
and directions for future research.
IJCTHR
2,4
290
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Servicescapes: a conceptual review
Servicescapes
Bitner’s (1992) conceptual work on the effects of the service environment on employees’
and customers’ physiological, psychological, and behavioral responses provides the
basis for research on servicescapes (Sherry, 1998; Zeithaml et al., 2006). The
servicescape and its many dimensions, such as ambient conditions, layout, facilities,
furnishings, and de´cor, can in?uence people in powerful ways. Baker (1986) also
proposed that social factors involving employees and customers are aspects of the
service environment that can affect the customer experience. Servicescape elements
can in?uence moods and emotions (Pullman and Gross, 2004), perceptions of time
spent waiting for service (Thomke, 2003), and evaluations of service quality (Brady
and Cronin, 2001). Consumers may draw inferences about employees based on
evidence in the servicescape (Bitner, 1990). In addition, consumer evaluations of
employee cues (e.g. the number and appearance of employees in the servicescape) can
affect perceptions of interpersonal service quality and patronage intentions (Baker
et al., 2002). Servicescapes also can be designed to foster response behaviors such as
stay/leave or browse/purchase, as well as social interaction (Sherry, 1998; Underhill,
1999).
The in?uence of the servicescape on consumer behavior, decision making, and
service evaluations has been studied primarily in retail environments (Sherry, 1998;
Turley and Milliman, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 2006). Borrowing the stimulus-
organism-response theory of environmental psychology (Mehrabian and Russell,
1974), research shows the potential to alter consumer perception in intended – and
unintended – ways by controlling myriad design, social, and ambient cues in the
environment (Baker et al., 2002). The effects of ambient factors such as music, smell,
and lighting have been of particular interest to consumer researchers, as these
characteristics can be experimentally manipulated to test for cause-and-effect
relationships (for reviews see Ezeh and Harris, 2007; Turley and Milliman, 2000). This
research reveals the inherent complexity of servicescape strategy due to interactive
effects that occur as consumers make sense of the environment holistically, rather than
through piecemeal information processing (Baker et al., 2002; Bitner, 1992).
Research on servicescapes in non-retail settings has received relatively limited
attention from services scholars (Hightower et al., 2002). For example, in a particularly
illuminating study, Berry and Bendapudi (2003) showed how “managing the evidence”
with servicescape design and even simple tangible cues can in?uence patients’ hospital
experiences and the healing process itself. In the hospitality and tourism literature,
Bonn et al. (2007) noted that researchers have focused on the effects of environmental
factors on destination image. However, recognizing both the potential of servicescape
strategy and the nature of consumers’ responses to the servicescape, a stream of
interdisciplinary research has emerged that explores the role of physical environments
in experience design (Haeckel et al., 2003; Pullman and Gross, 2004). Implicit to this
work is the idea that consumers may seek certain consumption environments such
as restaurants, hotels, themed retail stores, and leisure services not only for the obvious
functional bene?ts (e.g. meals, lodging and goods), but also for the experiential bene?ts
– sensations, emotional arousal, knowledge, and memories (Pine and Gilmore, 1999;
Sherry et al., 2001; Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). The experience itself is the
sought-after product (Otto and Brent Ritchie, 1996).
Leisure cruise
experience
291
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kwortnik and Ross (2007) de?ne an experiential product as “fusing tangible
(sensory) and intangible (symbolic) attributes and co-produced by consumer and
marketer to create an event that is pleasurable, meaningful, and memorable.” For
experiential products, a well-designed servicescape establishes the context in which
the service is performed (Bitner, 1992; Pullman and Gross, 2004). Using a theater
metaphor, Grove et al. (1992) suggest that the servicescape is like the setting for a play;
service scenery and props set audience expectations and impressions, as well as
facilitate performance of actors (service employees) on the service stage. Pine and
Gilmore (1999) popularized this idea, arguing that services can be elevated to
experiences by paying attention to themes, cues, and evoked sensations.
Although studies conducted in retail contexts are important for revealing the
process of servicescape in?uence on consumers, the generalizability of this research to
experiential-product contexts is uncertain for several reasons. First, retail encounters
(e.g. banking, dry cleaning, grocery, and clothing) typically are shorter in duration than
experiential-product encounters (e.g. ?ne dining, theme parks, spectator sports, and
cruises). Extended service encounters increase opportunities for the customer to
interact with and be in?uenced by the servicescape (Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994;
Wall and Berry, 2007). Second, except for themed retail outlets (e.g. Niketown), retail
contexts are less likely to be sought by consumers for the setting than are experiential
products (Wall and Berry, 2007). Third, the nature and salience of goals consumers
bring to retail versus experiential settings differ (Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). For
example, in retail settings, salient consumer goals are more likely to be functional and
utilitarian (e.g. value convenience, and problem resolution), whereas in experiential
contexts salient goals are more likely to be hedonic and symbolic (e.g. stimulation,
challenge, and self-extension) (Kwortnik and Ross, 2007). By extension, mediating
factors expected to affect attitudinal and behavioral consumption outcomes will differ.
Service quality and value perceptions play a main mediation role in retail contexts
(Baker et al., 2002), whereas positive emotion is also a key mediator of the servicescape
in experiential-product contexts (Hightower et al., 2002; Pullman and Gross, 2004;
Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). Finally, though servicescapes produce a
“message-creating medium” for most services (Wall and Berry, 2007), we propose
that atmospheric clues will be more important in experiential-service contexts for
consumer meaning making in terms of the brand, the experience, and associated social
and self-identity (Aubert-Gamet and Cova, 1999; Bonn et al., 2007; Levy, 1999). In sum,
servicescapes and the physical and social factors contained therein are critical to
monitor and manage both in terms of the micro-level effects of servicescape elements
and also for the holistic sense of context and meaning consumers derive from their
interpretations of servicescape clues.
Shipscapes
The study conceptualizes a shipscape as a context-speci?c type of servicescape that
includes both the man-made physical and social environment in which the cruise
service is delivered (the ship), as well as the natural environment (the ocean) that
provides a broader experiential context. Modern cruise ships simultaneously direct
attention to and away from the sea. For example, new ships offer many outside cabins
with private balconies, once a luxury available only to passengers who booked
expensive suites. Balconied cabins enhance a unique aspect of cruising: the experience
IJCTHR
2,4
292
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of being at sea. However, cruise ships also focus passengers’ attention inward through
the use of shipscape elements, such as million-dollar art collections that adorn public
spaces and the grandiose – some would say, outrageous – “entertainment
architecture” designed to be utterly unlike most anything passengers might
experience at home (Kwortnik, 2006). RCI took this to a new level with the “Royal
Promenade” shopping plazas aboard its new ships (“rather like a mall with a ship built
around it”; Ward, 2005, p. 128). Especially, novel about this design is that many inside
cabins on these ships overlook the promenade, whereas inside cabins on other cruise
ships offer no view at all.
This focus on the cruise ship’s internal shipscape is not new. Historians note that
the ocean liners of the early twentieth century featured public spaces – lobbies,
restaurants, libraries, ballrooms, smoking rooms, and even palm courts – modeled
after the great hotels of Europe and the USA. Not only were these rooms designed to
appeal to the sophisticated tastes of ?rst-class travelers (spaces for third-class and
steerage passengers were spartan, at best), but also these early shipscapes directed
passengers’ attention inside the ship and diverted attention from the often surly seas of
the North Atlantic (Miller, 1985).
Cruise vacations are a prototypical experiential product; modern cruise ships are a
combination ?oating resort hotel, sightseeing vessel, gourmet restaurant, food court,
nightclub, shopping center, entertainment complex, and recreation facility. Cruises
offer a range of services, from the utilitarian offerings of transportation, lodging, and
meals, to the intangible symbolic, emotional, and hedonic bene?ts embedded in
pampered personal service. Cruise programs feature all manner of participatory social
and learning options, from parties for passengers with shared hobbies or interests,
sporting contests, and games, to wine-tasting and art auctions, dance lessons, expert
lectures, cooking and dessert-making demonstrations, computer classes, and more.
Garin (2005, p. 198) opined that cruise ships “exist to produce nothing but the
immediate experiences of pleasure and satisfaction.” Indeed, because transportation is
no longer the primary function of passenger shipping, the very nature of the product
has changed. Characterizing the cruise industry as illustrative of the process of
“destination,” Weaver (2005a, b, p. 166) commented that “for many tourists, super-sized
cruise ships have become the centerpiece of the cruise holiday. The ship has, in essence,
become the trip.”
During the heyday of passenger shipping before the jet airplane changed the way
people traveled in the late 1950s, shipping companies battled for supremacy in terms of
whose ship was the largest, fastest, or most opulent (Miller, 1984). Years later, in the
early 1970s, the upstart Carnival Cruise Lines made a bold differentiation move not by
promoting the destinations the company sailed to, but instead by focusing attention on
the ship as the destination and the fun that could be had on board, thus giving rise to
the company’s positioning as the “Fun Ships” (Dickinson and Vladimir, 1997). Cruise
lines try to differentiate from competitors through physical product innovation.
However, some researchers suggest that this competition may produce the opposite
effect – a dilution of the cruise experience and homogenization of the shipscape across
brands (Kwortnik, 2006; Ward, 2005; Weaver, 2005a). The trend toward bigger, themed
spaces does beg the related questions: what is a cruise? And, how does the shipscape
in?uence passengers’ co-production of cruise meanings and experience? These
questions anchor the empirical study described next.
Leisure cruise
experience
293
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Method
Data collection
In light of the discovery-oriented objective of this research, qualitative data and an
interpretive analytic method are used to develop an understanding of the cruise
experience in general and the role of the shipscape more speci?cally from the cruisers’
perspective. To hear the voice of the cruiser and tap into their lived experience
(Thompson et al., 1989), data were collected from discussion boards on the web site,
CruiseCritic.com, an online global community comprised of more than 219,000
members, 401,000 threads, and 6.8 million posts. Topics discussed on CruiseCritic run
the gamut from reviews of cruise lines and ships, to tips for packing, dining, shore
excursions, and more. Participants in the community are diverse, from ?rst-time
cruisers to veterans of dozens of sailings. They are identi?ed by their screen name and
sometimes an avatar, the date they joined the community, their location, and the
number of posts to date (in our dataset, one participant was posting for the ?rst time,
whereas another had more than 10,000 posts). Some participants include information
(e.g. age, marital status, occupation, and interests) in an accessible public pro?le. Many
posters also like to list their past cruises, including cruise line, ship, and year; some
even include a countdown ticker to their next cruise.
Data were collected unobtrusively; the analyses mine archived discussion boards
without participating in the discussion. Given the volume of data on CruiseCritic, it
was necessary to focus data collection on the topic of interest. However, we had no
speci?c expectations about the role of shipscapes in the cruise experience. To help keep
a priori assumptions in check, data were collected by an undergraduate research
assistant unfamiliar with the servicescape literature, who was instructed to look for
any general or speci?c discussion of the physical environment of a cruise. She did this
by conducting an automated key word search of CruiseCritic discussion threads using
words associated with servicescapes, such as de´cor, layout, atmosphere, facilities,
lighting, smell, sound, etc. However, because cruisers were apt to use common
language (e.g. “blaring music”) and examples (e.g. “pillows and comforters – so soft!”)
instead of descriptive terms when referring to shipscape elements, she randomly
scanned the discussion boards for such illustrations. Instances of context-speci?c
shipscape elements, such as the motion of the ship and its effects were also collected. In
this manner, the data collection process was both systematic (key word searches) and
random (exploration for examples), as well as iterative and grounded in the cruiser’s
language and experience. The sum of this effort is a data set that captures 260 unique
cruiser voices across 63 threads, producing 78 pages of data.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed by applying the basic tenets of grounded theory (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998). We ?rst identi?ed cruiser references to the ship environment, some of
which were merely observations (e.g. “Inside cabins tend to be dark.”). Such statements
were usually accompanied by evaluations and impressions that provided an emic
perspective (using terms meaningful to the cruiser) of the hedonic effects of the
shipscape. When emic views were not present, the data were coded for meaning based
on an etic analysis (researcher interpretations of meaning) within the context of the
cruiser’s full comment as well as the broader context of the discussion thread from
which the comment was mined. Data elements were organized using Bitner’s (1992)
IJCTHR
2,4
294
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
conceptual framework for assessing servicescape effects and Baker’s (1986) ideas
about social factors in the service environment. To develop a deeper understanding of
shipscape meanings and in?uences, data elements that shared conceptual properties
were explored for patterns and themes using constant comparative analysis (Strauss
and Corbin, 1998).
Findings
For many people, a leisure cruise can be other-worldly, even sacred experience (Belk
et al., 1989) – especially for cruise fans like those travelers who populate online cruise
communities. Cruisers often speak of a sense of awe upon seeing ships for the ?rst time
or upon exploring ships’ interiors. Elements of the shipscape can enhance this sacred
experience, as well as other goals that cruisers bring to their journey (e.g. romance or
escape); yet, the shipscape can easily make the experience profane, such as when
unpleasant noises, smells, or motion interfere with experiential goals. Moreover,
because a cruise ship serves multiple purposes – home away from home,
entertainment center, attraction, social gathering space, dining venue, etc. – cruisers
pay attention to and derive personal meaning from shipscape clues in simple and
surprising ways. We examine this cruiser interaction with the shipscape next, ?rst by
framing our ?ndings in terms of cruisers’ consumption goals and then by examining
the different in?uences of the shipscape on cruisers’ hedonic experience.
Why people cruise
Research reveals an array of reasons why people choose to cruise, including:
(1) a cruise takes you away from it all;
(2) a cruise is a hassle-free vacation;
(3) you’re pampered;
(4) you can do it all or nothing at all;
(5) a cruise is a romantic experience; and
(6) a cruise is something new (Mancini, 2004).
In reference to reason no. 1, Mancini (2004, p. 17) notes:
Smog, pollution, traf?c, alarm clocks, beepers, ringing telephones, chattering fax machines –
these are not what a cruise is all about. Cruises are instead about water, sea, sky, and
landscape – the simple things that touch us so deeply.
Cruisers found on CruiseCritic support these reasons for cruising and reveal other
goals common to tourism experiences, such as discovery, escape, relaxation, choice,
and “otherness” (Pearce and Lee, 2005; Kwortnik and Ross, 2007). For example, in a
thread dedicated to P&O cruise line, Skyrules of Brisbane (1,029 posts) states:
I enjoy just being able to go away and relax – have the mundane stuff (cooking, cleaning, etc.)
done for you, and being able to choose to do as little or as much as you like. Cruising has to be
one of the most relaxing ways to holiday.
Analyzing the cruise experience by keeping in mind experiential goals and
expectations illuminates the in?uence of the shipscape.
Leisure cruise
experience
295
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ambient conditions: simple cues and signi?cant effects
The effects of shipscape elements on the cruise experience vary greatly, from simple
physiological responses to more complex symbolic meanings. The same shipscape
stimulus (e.g. motion of the ship) might elicit a range of responses both within and
across cruisers. Discussion of ambient conditions was infrequent when compared to
topics that attract cruisers’ attention (e.g. entertainment, food, service and
destinations). However, when ambient conditions are salient, so are the (typically
negative) effects. For example, HMK of New York (145 posts) was quite aware of
cleanliness, describing the ship she sailed on as “beautiful!!! Very clean!!!” and her cabin
as “Very clean, large!” However, she also stated:
I did notice a sewer smell coming from the toliet (sic.) [. . .] by the next day the smell got worse.
Spoke to our cabin steward about it, but nothing happened. By the following day [. . .] it was
unbearable.
Similarly, a cruiser on a ship that had just reentered service after repair for a
fuel-system problem felt that the ship was not ready, as it still smelled of fuel oil: “It
was nauseating.” Smoking aboard ship was a common lament of cruisers, with many
saying that excessive smoking was enough to make them reconsider sailing with
certain cruise lines. Commented caviargal of Florida (5,575 posts) “[The ship was]
overcrowded, smoky, and congested . . . The bars were so smoky, I could not stay for
more than a few minutes.” Consistent with research in other service environments
(Chebat and Michon, 2003; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001), odors induce feelings of
(dis)pleasure, arousal and consequent approach – or more typically in this data set –
avoidance behavior.
Cruisers also complained about another kind of ambient pollution: noise, from the
chattering of the ship’s structure itself in rough seas to the noise of workers doing
maintenance. More often the source of noise was other cruisers, a ?nding that
underscores Baker’s (1986) inclusion of social factors as aspects of the service
environment that affect the customer experience. For example, Poppa_Daddyo (93
posts) stated that cabin noise was worse than he expected on his cruise. He advised
other cruisers to bring earplugs, especially for staying in a cabin that adjoined another:
We had the worst neighbors – a 4mo baby who screamed nonstop for 90 minutes, followed
by the next night of shouting, banging, slamming, etc. until 2 am, when I ?nally called
security. You can hear “everything”.
Similarly, I&MsMom (1,103 posts) noted:
It was very quiet [. . .] with the exception of those getting up to watch the sunrise letting their
doors close. What is barely noticeable during the day is deafening in absolute silence. A plea
to you early risers [. . .] please catch your door before it “slams” closed.
Noise of a different and surprising sort – music – also affected the experience of many
cruisers and was a concern for cruise shoppers. For example, some cruisers worried
about hearing too much country music on a ship that departed from the port of
Galveston, TX, as they wanted to hear “island music” to set the vacation mood.
Ambient music was a particular source of dismay among cruisers of Holland America
Line, a company that typically attracts an older clientele. Kicking off the criticism was
SLove (13 posts), who asked:
IJCTHR
2,4
296
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Why did HAL change? In [. . .] areas where passengers roamed there was constant and loud
music playing. Not the kind of music that we are used to on HA, but [. . .] the rock and roll
variety and loud at that. Just felt really out of place especially in Alaska.
Happy cruzer (498 posts) chimed in:
Please tell me they did not pipe music in on the promenade deck. I love sitting there in my
deck chair listening to the sea breeze and the ocean. I could deal with almost anything but
that.
Joining the unhappy chorus, uncialman (256 posts) argues:
The current choice of ambient music is not indicative of a premium, re?ned, culturally
sophisticated product. This change in on board music creates a completely different
atmosphere [. . .] foreign to Holland America Line guests that were promised a “traditional
cruise experience [. . .] ” I was just talking to an older man next to me in the internet cafe´.
The gentleman stated “no matter where you go the music seems to follow you around [. . .] ”
I’m just a bit frustrated right now and apparently no one at HAL really cares.
These cruisers decry the intrusion of noise in the shipscape, the inability to escape it,
and the effect this has as it impinges upon the tranquility of the experience and the
“sounds of the sea.” Moreoever, they link the ambient music to the meanings associated
with the HAL brand, noting the dissonance between the loud, ever-present music and
their impressions of HAL as a more sophisticated, traditional, “culturally re?ned”
experience.
Cruisers were similarly sensitive to shipscape lighting, from the “wild and crazy”
lighting in some atriums, to the “cool black light” outside a nightclub that would make
white glow. While most comments about lighting were positive, talk about
dining-room lighting took on a different shade. For example, Mrs Bunder of
Peabody, MA (35 posts), stated that a recent cruise did not have candlelit tables in the
dining room, but instead only had overhead lighting. She opined:
To me, this took away from the whole dining room experience; our ?rst [. . .] cruise was [. . .]
about 4-5 years ago, and they had candlelight in their dining room. Can anyone comment on
this?
CoconutFish of British Columbia (75 posts) agreed:
We have always found the dining room to be lit up much too brightly, to the point that it is
headache-inducing [. . .] Especially, on formal night? Bright is very casual; a bit of “mood
lighting” on formal night would add to the ambiance of a “special” evening.
As with the responses to music, these and similar posts reveal physiological and
psychological responses to cruise lighting, with bright lighting in dining rooms
producing negative perceptions of the experience. In such a context, bright lighting is
not a congruent cue in support of the servicescape (i.e. ?ne dining) customers expect
(Babin et al., 2003) and meanings such as romance, sophistication, and a “special”
experience that they seek.
Another ambient condition that one would expect to be particularly salient for
cruisers is ship motion and consequent physical discomfort. Seasickness is often a
source of concern for ?rst-time cruisers (Mancini, 2004). Noted one new cruiser,
Charlikin (36 posts), “I had trouble at ?rst getting used to the fact that the ship “moved”,
and watching the water rush by . . . was, er, not too pleasant for me.” Veteran cruisers
Leisure cruise
experience
297
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
talk about ship motion with a mix of acceptance, fortitude, and, interestingly, pleasure
(the motion of the ocean rocks me to sleep). They recount stories of rough voyages and
trade tips for which therapies are effective at reducing discomfort or which cabin
locations are less susceptible to motion. Smeyer418 of New York City (5,439 posts)
quips:
All ships rock and roll [. . .] Some people get seasick in absolutely calm waters. Some don’t get
sea sick at all, and for god sakes look at the horizon [. . .] if you watch the bow you will feel the
motion much more [. . .] excuse me I have to go throw up.
Some cruisers ?nd a ship’s motion to be an enjoyable, unique part of the experience.
Charlikin (36 posts) describes the fun had with fellow cruisers as they tried to contend
with the ship’s motion when walking to/from their cabins:
We had to walk over a section that wasn’t carpeted and that had raised pieces like speed
bumps – we were hysterical navigating these as we couldn’t walk a straight line anyway
(much less speed through) due to the motion of the ship. We were laughing so hard one night
that our neighbors refused to believe all we’d been drinking was club soda!!!
The issue of motion discomfort is unexamined in the atmospherics and servicescape
literature, yet this ambient element of the shipscape has a large impact on the cruise
experience and on cruisers’ decisions about time of year to cruise, which cabins to
book, and whether to cruise at all. In addition, for some cruisers, the “motion of the
ocean” is a unique aspect of the experience that distinguishes cruising from other
vacation alternatives (e.g. beach resorts) that offer similar amenities and bene?ts – but
not the experience of being at sea.
As shown by data highlighted in this section, cruisers attend and respond to a
variety of ambient stimuli present in the shipscape. Some ambient conditions such as
music that are designed to enhance the pleasure of cruising may have the opposite
effect when perceived as intrusions that detract from the expected experience and
sought-after meanings; on the other hand, a potentially negative ambient condition
such as the pitching and rolling of a ship at sea is experienced by some people as a
pleasurable, unique, even desirable aspect of cruising. These ?ndings extend the
literature on atmospheric effects by revealing experiential and symbolic (i.e.
meaning-making) consequences of consumers’ interactions with the shipscape
beyond the attitudinal and behavioral effects most often studied in atmospherics
research.
Shipscape vacation spaces: the effects of design, layout, and facilities
In the past, cruise ship interiors, especially cabins, were functional but hardly
luxurious (Miller, 1985). This was particularly true of cruise ships that were converted
ocean liners as opposed to purpose-built leisure cruise ships. By the late 1980s, ship
design had evolved with the launch of the ?rst “megaship” in 1987, RCI’s Sovereign of
the Seas, and Carnival Cruise Line’s Fantasy in 1990, the ?rst of eight sister ships that
boasted ?amboyant interiors, including themed public rooms, vivid colors, neon
lighting, and re?ecting surfaces (Cudahy, 2001; Garin, 2005). Thus, began the
“destintization” of cruise ships and an escalating competition among cruise lines for
novelty. Judging by the comments of the CruiseCritic community, cruisers have
bene?ted by this focus on design, layout, and facilities in the shipscape. However, not
all cruisers are happy with the emerging trends in the industry.
IJCTHR
2,4
298
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Cruise ship cabins have traditionally been small, though new ships are often built
with large suites or outside cabins featuring balconies, which increases the perception
of space. The reaction of HMK of New York (145 posts) re?ects this perception:
My ?rst impression of our cabin was WOW! [. . .] I will only book a balcony cabin from now
on. It is relaxing to sit on it, drink coffee, watch the sunrise [. . .]
The experiential bene?ts of balconies are echoed by other cruisers. Noted
neverenufcruising of South Carolina (9,808 posts), who prefers an aft cabin, “We
enjoy seeing where we’ve been, especially having a drink on the balcony as our own
private sail away from each port.” Cruznon (1,568 posts) concurs: “Aft cabins worth it?
YES. The view is spectacular . . . the wake, the stars at night, the wide panorama!”
While cruise cabins can enhance the experience, displeasure with cabin conditions
can detract from the comfort of one’s vacation home at sea and impressions of a
pampered vacation experience. Cruisers discussed lack of space, poor lighting, and
tired furnishings. For instance, cavkc (384 posts), who stayed in a suite, described a
beautiful foyer with mosaic tiles, a baby grand piano that was “quite fun,” and a
bedroom with a “very comfortable bed with the best cotton sheets I have ever
experienced,” but also furnishings “showing signs of wear,” evidence of water damage
on interior walls, and a “temperamental” Jacuzzi. Katiebeth (406 posts) echoed these
concerns about the same cruise line: “I truthfully felt like we paid Ritz Carlton prices for
Holiday Inn type accommodations . . . After this summers (sic) experience . . . we have
been looking at other cruise lines.” In another discussion about a mass-market cruise
line, cruisers commented on the cabin de´cor. Osiebosie of Thompson Station, TN (465
posts), stated, “I am a little tired of the orange color theme in the staterooms.” Added
mabgab (257 posts), “Agree with room decor chage (sic.) . . . the white linnen (sic.) with
the orange is butt ugly.” Finally, MonaCD of Prince Edward Island (37 posts) offered
these observations to “tease” other discussion readers:
Here’s what is waiting for you when you get back from dinner [. . .] bed turned down,
chocolate on the pillow, soft lights, a spectacular view at your bedside [. . .] and an elephant
[towel animal] in your bed. Sure a hot guy might have been better but what the heck,
everything else is pretty darn spectacular.
These comments show that cruisers attend closely to cabin design as an element of
their cruise experience. In fact, an emerging trend in the cruise industry is customers
who personalize their cabins, such as by decorating hall-facing doors with streamers,
special-occasion announcements, and pictures of relatives or hometowns. Such
behavior is rare in service contexts examined in the literature and re?ects both the
uniqueness of the cruise vacation as extended-duration service for which the
servicescape is more likely to play a role in the service experience (Wake?eld and
Blodgett, 1994), and the symbolic signi?cance of the shipscape as contributing to the
cruiser’s self-identity (Kwortnik and Ross, 2007).
The importance of shipscape in in?uencing cruisers’ experiences was not con?ned
to the immediate surroundings of the cruise cabin. Cruisers were also affected by the
layout and size of the ships. For example, several cruisers debated the bene?ts and
drawbacks of the layout aboard one cruise line’s ships. Jensenbeach (26 posts) kicked
off the topic:
Leisure cruise
experience
299
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
We did not like the layout of the [Z-ship] at all. We LOVED the crew and cannot say enough
good things about the service [. . .] The layout of the ship is strange [. . .] many of the public
rooms are hidden and tucked into obscure places. We are in the process of booking another
cruise and are ambivalent about [this cruise line].
However, Bepsf of San Fransisco (4,758 posts) counters, stating:
The smaller spaces [. . .] are exactly why many of us prefer the line: we’re simply not
interested in the “amenities” other lines provide such as massive indoor malls with bars and
shops and hamburger joints endlessly lined up one after another, nor are we interested in
Hyatt-Regency-style atriums with ?aming-brass, light shows and glass elevators ?ying
above our heads – that’s the stuff many of us are trying to get away from [. . .] when we go on
[this line’s] cruises. I think many [. . .] repeat passengers prefer the more intimate
“Country-House” atmosphere that [this line] provides.
This debate reveals the symbolic importance some cruisers attach to preferred cruise
lines based on a characteristic of the product – ship layout – that one would not expect
to carry signi?cant personal meaning.
The layout debate also highlights a tension occurring in many CruiseCritic
discussions between advocates of larger vs smaller ships, newer vs older ships, and
modern vs traditional entertainment activities. Shipscape design, layout, and facilities
are especially salient for cruisers and elicit the type of approach (attract, explore, stay)
and avoid (repel, hide, leave) actions that Bitner (1992) outlines as behavioral responses
to servicescapes. These aspects of the shipscape also interact with the people factor to
create social effects on the cruiser experience (Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). For
example, Jimsgirl of Charlotte, FL (683 posts), argues against the larger-ship trend:
What is the use of having so many passengers trying to attend a function when there are not
enough seats or breathing room? When it takes two hours to line up waiting to board or
disembark? Tempers just get frayed.
However, other cruisers perceive the newest mega ships to be so spacious that they
“never feel crowded.” Analysis of the ship-size tension suggests a number of levels to
the problem. At a more surface-level, cruisers express cognitive/behavioral concerns
about crowding, lines, and waits on bigger ships with more people. At a deeper-level,
cruisers express emotional/symbolic concerns about being part of a “herd” and feeling
lost (literally and ?guratively) amidst the mass of people – just another tourist in the
crowd.
Most cruisers accept that larger ships are needed to keep pace with facilities
innovation – assuming that such amenities are desired. This issue led Patinthehat of
Mississauga, ON (453 posts), to ask:
How far is too far? Do you want a cruise with the focus on great service and dining, or with
the most stuff to do? What would be the item that will make you say: “That is crossing the
line?”
Ala-kat (492 posts) replied:
Bigger does not mean better. I prefer smaller on a cruise. Have no use for a rock climbing wall,
skating rink, sur?ng, boxing, etc. [. . .] I have no problem entertaining myself.
Agreeing, Taters of Fairbanks, AK (1,059 posts), stated:
IJCTHR
2,4
300
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
RCI went to (sic) far when they built ice rinks into their ships and shopping mall type
promenades, facing inward instead of out to the ocean. We simply will not go on a ship that
size or with those features.
Continuing this theme, ladycaveat of Reston, VA (2,436 posts), notes:
I go on a cruise to enjoy the cruise, not all the new elaborate activities such as climbing walls,
bowling alleys, or boxing rings. But then again, I don’t have kids [. . .]
Though these cruisers question the value of entertainment amenities, others relish the
trend and provide new ideas: “ROLLER COASTERS!” “lazy river replaces jogging
track,” and “a playground with slides and swings for kids.” Some cruisers suggested
designs that connect the shipscape and seascape, such as an idea by AdGuyMike of
Hollywood, FL (34 posts) to build ships with:
[. . .] deep V hulls [so that] the most sought after cabins will be the ones submerged well below
the waterline. Imagine your room with a picture window view to the vast unexplored
undersea world as you cruise the oceans.
Tatka of Franklin, MA (2,435 posts) agrees:
Honestly [. . .] If I am at sea [. . .] I want to know and see more about the sea. I can ice-skate or
ride rollo-coasters (sic) on land [. . .] but I can’t see underwater world there. 1) I really wish
ships could have underwater observatories, maybe with scientists who could give a lecture. 2)
Also I would really appriciate (sic) Omni Theater with movies about islands that we visited or
will visit tomorrow. 3) Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a restaurant with portholes (or even big
windows) so we can see underwater?
As these ideas suggest, many cruisers view the design, layout, and facilities of the
shipscape as integral not only to their pleasure derived from experience, but also a type
of co-created reality where they make sense of what the experience is or should be.
Social effects of the shipscape
The in?uence of social factors in the servicescape on consumer experience has received
relatively little research attention compared to studies of physical atmospheric effects
(Baker et al., 2002). In a recent study, of heritage/cultural tourism customers, Bonn et al.
(2007) reported that social factors such as how courteous and knowledgeable service
employees are had much less in?uence on visitors’ attitudes, word-of-mouth, and
intentions to return than did ambient and design elements. However, because of the
extended service duration of most cruises and the bounded service environment, social
factors are likely to play a more important role (Price et al. (1995). The data show that
cruisers respond to varied social cues involving fellow passengers and ship crew –
from the concerns about passenger crowds and noise reported previously to the
surprises cabin attendants leave for guests during evening turn-down service.
Cruisers express strong feelings about the service staff with whom they have
closely interacted, especially cabin attendants, waiters, and bartenders. On the
CruiseCritic site, there are discussion threads dedicated to cruise staff, such as one
entitled, “Let’s Name Some of the Outstanding Crew on Your Ship.” This thread
includes hundreds of posts offering thanks to cruise staff, stories of service encounters,
and pictures of the featured staff taken by the cruisers. Cruisers speak of their favorite
crew members in highly personal ways – using ?rst names, detailing known
Leisure cruise
experience
301
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
biographical facts, describing them as “friends,” and expressing strong feelings of
affection, even love. For example, emd1 (531 posts) praised:
SOUAD, our outstanding, beautiful, sophisticated blond waitress from Chile, who had the
most beautiful tone and enunciation in her voice I have ever heard! I so looked forward to her
every night.
Some cruisers even tell of exchanging email addresses with crew or of tearful goodbyes
(most always with the passenger doing the crying) at the vacation’s end.
A pervasive theme in these data is that favorite crew members create special
experiences and cherished memories – and for this, they become more than just service
providers, but true friends (Price and Arnould, 1999). For example, jstewie23 of New
Jersey (134 posts) describes several cruise staff who “helped make our honeymoon
special,” including:
Delmark – best stateroom attendant! He made sure everything was just so, 2 times a day,
every day. He also left the best towel animals (I looooove them) and always greeted us with a
big smile every time he saw us in the hallway.
Favorite crew are described not only as being professional and ef?cient, but also fun,
warm, genuine, kind, enthusiastic, welcoming, and possessing “amazing” skills, and
the ability to remember names and special preferences. For instance, Tinalou of
Melboune (81 posts) stated, “I loved how at home we felt and how the staff get to know
you and make you feel like you have joined their big family.” Perhaps, not surprisingly,
when cruisers experienced poor service, the responsible crew members are described as
unprofessional, impersonal, rude, and, in general, uncaring. Such good or bad personal
service often has a strong in?uence on the cruiser’s overall evaluation of the
experience, with (dis)satisfaction expressed in stark, emotional terms, consistent with
research on service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985). However, cruisers who are
pleased with the social interaction with crew speak of an emotional attachment and
desire for continued relationships that is rarely found in research conducted in the
retailing context. We propose that such desire for cruiser-crew bonds is a function of
the extended service encounter, opportunities for intimacy and self-disclosure, and
bounded physical space found on cruise ships (Price and Arnould, 1999).
Research in both retailing (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990) and leisure (Wake?eld and
Blodgett, 1994) contexts shows that consumers’ perceptions of crowding negatively
in?uence consumption emotions, perceptions of the servicescape, and satisfaction with
the experience. Because cruise ships are bounded spaces where consumers expect to
relax in comfort, the negative effects of crowding are ampli?ed. Cruisers’ comment
data reveals considerable displeasure with long lines and crowds – especially when
such social factors were impossible to escape, such as during cruise embarkation and
debarkation. For example, one passenger said that the worst aspect of his cruise was
when the ship returned to the home port and crowds of people were called to exit at the
same time (a dreadful experience). Cruisers also complained about crowded pools
(glori?ed bathtubs shared by 1000 other passengers over the course of the day) and
pool decks with deck chairs “crammed together.” On the other hand, some cruisers
found it easy to adapt to these social factors. Mused stanimal of Texas (132 posts):
IJCTHR
2,4
302
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The more people who are waiting in line for the waterslide, rock climbing wall, bowling alley,
etc. means that there are fewer people on my area of the deck where I am reading my book, or
talking with my wife.
The social effects cruisers have on each other need not occur through direct interaction.
For example, some cruisers interpret the mere presence of groups of other cruisers as
affecting the shipscape, as when an “older crowd” creates “a more formal atmosphere,”
or when a large number of children or teens detract from the “adult ambiance” of a
restaurant or lounge. Fellow passengers become part of the visual scene by blending
into and shaping the physical dimension of the servicescape. This is particularly
evident for cruisers in terms of wardrobe choices of other travelers (a topic of
considerable debate), with cruise traditionalists ruing the casual garb – jeans, t-shirts,
and baseball caps – that some travelers wear on the ship and even in the dining rooms.
Such “underdressed” people are perceived to damage the more formal, elegant
atmosphere that some cruisers believe makes the experience different from other types
of vacations. However, other cruisers note that they choose certain cruise lines for the
more casual experience and are ambivalent about how others choose to dress.
Flyingpirate of beverly thrills (sic), CA (2,631 posts), explains that on his preferred
cruise line, guests dress however they wish without any effect on her experience: “. . .
certain of our fellow passengers share a desire for sartorial elegance and some look
more at home at a NASCAR race or on the back forty.” A common theme to this debate
is the importance of “?t” – the ?t between the wardrobe of other cruisers and the
intended atmosphere of the cruise line, as well as between the cruise line and one’s own
self-identity.
The symbolic signi?cance of the shipscape
As previous ideas about what shipscape elements should (not) or could (not) be
suggest, cruisers are not only aware of how the shipscape in?uences their experience,
but also of the symbols in the shipscape and how these de?ne cruise brands – and
themselves. Cruisers actively construct meanings using shipscape symbols – and have
their own ideas about how cruise lines might better use the shipscape to de?ne what it
means to cruise. The data suggest that this meaning making occurs on several levels,
but most clearly at the brand level and at the broader cruise experience level.
For example, though non-Carnival cruisers often malign the Carnival Cruise Lines
brand and its de´cor theme, Carnival’s customers tend to enjoy the spectacle because the
de´cor ?ts their experiential goals (fun and excitement) and their self-perceptions as
high-energy vacationers. In contrast, cruise fans of Royal Caribbean prefer the less
audacious de´cor of RCI’s shipscapes. Comments Priusprof of Tampa, FL (160 posts):
Carnival doesn’t have anything in the current ?eet to compare to a Voyager Class Ship. It’s
like comparing the Holiday Inn to the Hyatt Regency [. . .] The Royal Promenade with the
shops and bars [is spectacular]. The 3 story dining room is eye popping. Different strokes for
different folks though. If a longneck and dip is more your style [. . .] stick with Carnival. If you
are looking for a more sophisticated experience try RCCL.
In Priousprof’s post, s/he derides the Carnival Cruise Lines experience, drawing symbolic
comparisons to the mid-market Holiday Inn brand and a low-browlongneck beer and dip
of chewing tobacco. In contrast, the shipscape of RCCL is symbolically equated to
the higher-end Hyatt Regency hotel brand and a “more sophisticated” experience.
Leisure cruise
experience
303
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Similarly, Croaziera (two posts) highlights the active-adventure symbols of RCCL ships
(Promenade, Ice Skating Rink, h2o zone, rock climbing wall, ?ow rider) as evidence of
quality and draws on meanings fromanother product category, cars, to symbolize quality
differences between RCCL (a Lexus) and Carnival (a Hyundai).
Cruisers likewise use social cues in the shipscape as identity symbols. For example,
Flyingpirate of beverly thrills (sic.), CA (2,631 posts), is loyal to one mid-market cruise
brand, though she claims she could “go with Regent or Crystal” [luxury brands], but
“dropped out of the Junior League for a reason” and does not want to “travel with
people like my parents.” In ?yingpirate’s choice of cruise line, she rejects the snooty
image of higher-end brands and instead adopts the meanings of her preferred brand
that offer “total freedom” to act and be whom she wants to be. She illustrates this
brand-self congruity by stating proudly, “I went to a formal night in sequenced dress
and slippers.” Echoing ?yingpirate, utefan of South Jordan, UT (1760 posts), suggests
that wardrobe – and by extension, cruise brand – choices are “partly a generational
thing.” She argues that dressing up when on a cruise vacation is ?ne, but “not my era,
not my style . . . ” She further suggests that more traditional and formal cruise
experiences might “?t [someone else’s] personality better,” but for her, such cruise
brands would “be a terrible ?t.”
These types of self-relevant meanings that cruisers derive from the shipscape are
also evident in broader themes that relate how shipscape elements contribute to or
detract from “the desired cruise experience.” Implicit in this theme is the notion that
there is a something that is or is not THE cruise experience; however, this distinction is
rarely clear and varies across cruisers. Whereas some cruisers enjoy the fun made
possible by new onboard entertainment, others argue that “this is hardly a cruise
anymore” and not what they seek in a cruise experience. Such criticism often takes the
view that facilities, music, de´cor, and other factors that are readily available or
omnipresent (e.g. blue jeans) “on land” contribute little to the cruise experience. For
instance, MrPete of New York (6,104 posts) states, “Never had a need for the rock
climbing wall (one right in the mall close to home).” GMoney (2,418 posts) claims that
he is glad there are “no big water slides” on Royal Caribbean ships, as “there are plenty
of places for people to have that kind of fun on land, and I think the slides can detract
from ships aethestically (sic.).” Lightsluvr of Oklahoma (904 posts) adds, “Slides look
like a cheap municipal pool . . . pretty tacky.” Commenting on the addition of outdoor
movie screens on some ships, clgcrusier of Wisconsin (124 posts) notes:
My friends and I are going [. . .] and one of them is just thrilled about the big screen. I ?nd this
unnecessary, as I don’t want to go on a cruise to watch movies-I feel it takes away from the
experience! [. . .] I also don’t go on a cruise to spend my time in an exercise room or a running
track, or to climb a rock wall [. . .] I like to relax and watch the sea go by!
These comments re?ect an idea that should be evident to customer-centric marketers:
what cruisers want in the experience and the shipscape depends upon why they choose
to cruise in the ?rst place. The more dif?cult question is how to translate cruisers’
stated (and unstated) needs into new ship designs without losing the essence of
the experience of a vacation at sea. While we ?nd evidence of cruiser pleasure in the
entertainment architecture and facilities, analysis of the data across shipscape
elements also reveals a tension between this brand of fun and cruiser notions of what
the leisure cruise experience should be. The comments of lac of St. Albans, WV
(six posts), illustrate this tension:
IJCTHR
2,4
304
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
I de?nitely vote no on water slides. Cruises are becoming more and more “adventure rides”,
which is ?ne for those who want that, but on a cruise I want cruise stuff [. . .] I also don’t like
the outside movie screens. If I want to watch TV I’ll stay in my room [. . .] On deck I want
wind and water and pool sounds, and maybe a little pool music. I want to get away from the
hectic lifestyle and noises of everyday life – not be inundated with media.
Lac’s desire to “get away” mirrors what other cruisers describe as what they love about
cruising. For Star-Man of Brisbane (107 Posts), the most enjoyable part of a cruise is
“sitting at the outback bar . . . late into the night . . . with the sound of the sea being one
of the only things that i could here (sic.).” Finally, kezza of Kilsyth, Melbourne (153
posts) exclaimed:
I love the days at sea, laying back enjoying the rays, watching the beautiful blue waters,
especially at the back of the ship with all the water churned up and frothy. I love the sunsets
especially when you leave an island with the sun setting behind it. I love getting to the cruise
terminal then that ?rst step onto the ship. That’s when I know my holiday has begun!
Discussion
The experiential environment of a cruise ship, the shipscape concept based on a
conceptual parallel with Bitner’s (1992) notion of the servicescape, is a complex
physical and social context that must accomplish many things to produce a vacation
experience at sea. Using qualitative data from an online cruise community, we explored
the lived experience of cruisers to understanding how the shipscape in?uences their
cruise experience and the meanings they construct about leisure cruising. We ?nd that
cruisers attend to myriad stimuli in the shipscape – from the linens in their cabins to
the wardrobe of their fellow cruisers. These stimuli produce an equally diverse set of
physical reactions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Figure 1 shows these effects in
the organizing framework that extends Turley and Milliman’s (2000) review of the
in?uence of retail atmospherics.
Figure 1.
Shipscape effects on the
cruise experience
Ambient Factors
(e.g., scents, sounds,
cleanliness, lighting, music,
temperature, motion)
Design Factors
(e.g., décor, color,
furnishings, layout, size,
entertainment architecture)
Social Factors
(e.g., crowding, queues,
cruiser cues, crew co-
production and friendships)
Cruisers
Physiological Response
(e.g., arousal, relaxation,
(dis)comfort, nausea)
Emotional Response
(e.g., pleasure/enjoyment,
excitement, aggravation)
Behavioral Response
(e.g., approach/avoid,
praise/complain, repurchase)
Experiential Response
(e.g., escape, special
meanings, memories)
Symbolic Response
(e.g., brand-self congruity,
self-identity construction)
Leisure cruise
experience
305
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Shipscapes possess atmospheric factors and induce consumer responses (the italicized
items in the framework) that differ from retail servicescapes. This difference is because
the leisure cruise and retail experiences are essentially different in four main ways:
(1) Unlike the typical retail context, the cruise ship serves as a home away fromhome,
which makes certain atmospheric factors particularly important to cruisers.
(2) The cruise shipscape is a more salient and even sought-after part of the overall
experience than the typical retail context.
(3) Cruises are longer-duration service encounters than typical retail encounters,
which enables ongoing social interaction and the development of perceived
friendships between cruisers and crew members.
(4) Compared to the retail context, the goals consumers bring to the cruise context
are more likely to be hedonic, experiential, and symbolic than functional (i.e.
problem-solving).
The following discussion elaborates on the implications of these differences based on
the ?ndings and themes that emerged from the online cruiser data.
Cruise ships, in particular the newer vessels, are built for pleasure vacations – for
dining, touring, gaming, socializing, and playing (Cudahy, 2001; Yarnal, 2004).
Although cruise industry critics contend that cruise marketing creates vague
expectations and that the experience does not connect with the customer emotionally
(Klein, 2002), we report data that challenge this. Cruisers expect a fun, relaxing,
pampered, get-away experience, and their self-reports of excitement and aspects of
cruising that they “love” indicates that cruises deliver on the sensational, emotional,
experiential promise. Yet, aspects of shipscape can easily and dramatically interfere
with experiential goals. Ambient pollution in the form of noise, music, odors, smoking,
and ship motion, can negatively affect cruisers physically and psychologically. The
broader theme represented by ambient ef?uence is that intrusion of the profane in the
shipscape breaks the spell of the magical, even sacred cruise experience (Belk et al.,
1989). Clearly, cruise ship designers, as well as the service team tasked with enacting
the cruise performance must carefully attend to seemingly minor ambient irritants
given the potentially serious negative effects on the physiological, emotional, and
behavioral responses of cruise passengers.
Analysis of cruiser discussions about ship layout and facilities revealed a related
theme: cruisers desire escape fromthe mundane elements present in their daily lives, yet
the trend of larger ships (and consequent crowding and queues) and proliferation of
amusement-park-like entertainment amenities and shopping malls that are also found
“on land” hampers experiential escape and instead yields avoidance behavior (e.g. I will
not sail on a huge ship with those features.). This response to the space/function of the
shipscape supports criticism that modern ships designed for the mass-market tourist
create “captive consumers” and “McDonalidized spaces (Weaver, 2005a, b). However, we
also ?nd that many cruisers are drawn to the entertainment architecture, are enchanted
by it, and crave more of it (Weaver, 2005b) – though some cruisers would prefer that
future facilities focus less on amusement concepts and more on the shipscape-seascape
connection. These tensions between larger vs smaller ships and modern vs traditional
entertainment facilities can be expected to challenge cruise ship designers who strive to
appeal to the broadest cruiser market and increasingly diverse preferences.
IJCTHR
2,4
306
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interaction between and amongst cruisers and crew has a strong in?uence on
cruisers’ emotional and behavioral responses, but also on experiential and symbolic
outcomes. Certain characteristics (e.g. age, actions, and appearance) of fellow cruisers
affect perceptions of the shipscape ambiance. Cruisers react negatively to other
travelers who disrupt desired experiential meanings (e.g. escape and sophistication)
with smoking, noise, crowding, and overly casual dress. Similarly, crew members who
are uncaring and unwelcoming make profane the expected extraordinary service
experience. On the other hand, crew members who use their hospitality skills to help
cruisers co-produce special cruise moments – and even who develop perceived
friendships with cruisers – facilitate experiential and symbolic outcomes that are
unexplored in the retail-servicescape literature.
Ultimately, these shipscape themes and tensions interact with cruiser needs and
imbue symbolic aspects of the cruise experience – the meanings cruisers ascribe to and
take away from their cruise vacation. In this respect, a cruise is more than just a
hedonic activity, but is also a form of self-relevant meaning-making. However, when
these meanings derived in part from the shipscape con?ict with experiential goals and
self-perceptions (e.g. deserved pampering, sophistication, and individualism), the
results are discordant impressions and dissatisfaction. For example, we ?nd that many
cruisers seek some form of “real” cruise experience, much in the same way that land
tourists pursue sacred places and “authentic” experiences through vacation
pilgrimages (Belk et al., 1989; MacCannell, 1999). These authenticity-seeking cruisers
rue the inauthentic – the shopping malls, boxing rings, arcades, and other diversions –
that direct attention away from the seascape and instead inward toward the
revenue-generating shipscape. They echo Ward’s (2005, p. 103) comments, who argues
that a cruise is not the experience offered by “the large resort ships [that] . . . cram lots
of people into small cabins and provide nonstop activities that insult the intelligence
and assault the wallet.” However, the popularity of cruises on ever bigger and busier
ships suggests not only that many cruisers ?nd pleasure in these experiences, but also
that a new de?nition of what a cruise really is may be emerging.
Limitations and directions for future research
Given the paucity of research on atmospheric effects in leisure and tourism settings,
this study applies a discovery-oriented research objective, qualitative data, and an
interpretive analytic method to strive for a richer understanding of servicescape effects
in a novel context: leisure cruising. The ?ndings and themes derived from the
comments of 260 cruisers participating in an online cruise forum reveal a variety of
atmospheric stimuli and consumer responses that are unique to the cruise context and
extend our understanding of servicescape effects beyond the retail context. The textual
data does not, however, permit inferences about causal relationships between
atmospheric stimuli and consumer responses. Future research that uses experimental
designs to test for causal effects between, for example, types of entertainment
architecture or the strength of perceived friendships with crew and experiential
outcomes would shed additional light on the in?uence of these factors in leisure
contexts.
In addition, the nature of the naturally occurring data and the unobtrusive data
collection method used in this study preclude the ability to drill down to deeper levels
of meaning about the self-relevant outcomes of the cruise experience. Depth interviews
Leisure cruise
experience
307
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
or ethnographic approaches would permit more direct investigation of the symbolic
responses (e.g. brand-self congruity and self-identity construction) to shipscapes.
Indeed, this is a potentially fascinating area of future research – and one of signi?cant
practical importance for cruise marketers. For many cruisers, the increasing
complexity of the shipscape has created convoluted experiential meanings. As
suggested by the cruiser comment that led this paper, the feeling one gets aboard some
ships is con?ated, leaving cruisers unsure whether they actually experience a “cruise”
or something different – a ?oating theme park for grownups. The ?ndings presented
in this paper suggest that research is needed from tourism scholars (and cruise
executives) that listens to the voice of the cruiser to better understand shifting
meanings – and the in?uence of the shipscape on the experiential and symbolic
dimensions of the leisure cruise experience.
References
Aubert-Gamet, V. and Cova, B. (1999), “Servicescapes: from modern non-places to postmodern
common places”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44, pp. 37-45.
Babin, B.J., Hardesty, D.M. and Suter, T.A. (2003), “Color and shopping intentions: the intervening
effect of price fairness and perceived affect”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56,
pp. 541-51.
Baker, J.A. (1986), “The role of environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective”,
in Czpeil, J.A., Congam, C. and Shanaham, J. (Eds), The Services Marketing Challenge:
Integrated for Competitive Advantage, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 79-84.
Baker, J.A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G.B. (2002), “The in?uence of multiple store environment cues
on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66,
pp. 120-41.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (1989), “The sacred and the profane in consumer
behavior: theodicy on the odyssey”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 1-38.
Berry, L.L. and Bendapudi, N. (2003), “Clueing in customers”, Harvard Business Review,
February, pp. 100-6.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 57-71.
Bonn, M.A., Joseph-Mathews, S.M., Mo Dai, S.H. and Cave, J. (2007), “Heritage/cultural attraction
atmospherics: creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 345-54.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), “Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp. 34-49.
Chebat, J-C. and Michon, R. (2003), “Impact of ambient odors on mall shopper’s emotions,
cognition, and spending: a test of competitive causal theories”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 56, pp. 529-39.
CLIA (2006a), Pro?le of the US Cruise Industry, Lines International Association, New York, NY,
available at: www.cruising.org/press/sourcebook2006-midyear/pro?le_cruise_industry.
cfm (accessed October 2, 2006).
IJCTHR
2,4
308
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
CLIA (2006b), CLIA 2006 Cruise Market Pro?le Report of Findings, Lines International
Association, New York, NY, available at: www.cruising.org/press/research/
2006%20Market%20Pro?le%20Study.pdf (accessed October 3, 2006).
Conlon, D.E., van Dyne, L., Milner, M. and Yee Ng, K. (2004), “The effects of physical and social
context on evaluations of captive, intensive service relationships”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 433-45.
Cudahy, B.J. (2001), The Cruise Ship Phenomenon in North America, Cornell Maritime Press,
Centreville, MD.
Dickinson, B. and Vladimir, A. (1997), Selling the Sea: An Inside Look at the Cruise Industry,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Eroglu, S. and Machleit, K.A. (1990), “An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, pp. 201-21.
Ezeh, C. and Harris, L.C. (2007), “Servicescape research: a review and a research agenda”,
Marketing Review, Vol. 7, pp. 59-78.
Garin, K.A. (2005), Devils on the Deep Blue Sea, Viking, New York, NY.
Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P. and Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Dramatizing the services experience: a managerial
approach”, Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 1, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 91-121.
Haeckel, S.H., Carbone, L.P. and Berry, L.L. (2003), “How to lead the customer experience”,
Marketing Management, January/February, pp. 18-23.
Hightower, R., Brady, M.K. and Baker, T.L. (2002), “Investigating the role of the physical
environment in hedonic service consumption: an exploratory study of sporting events”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 697-707.
Klein, R. (2002), Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Industry, New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island.
Kwortnik, R.J. Jr (2006), “Carnival cruise lines: burnishing the brand”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 286-300.
Kwortnik, R.J. Jr and Ross, W.T. (2007), “The role of positive emotions in experiential decisions”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 24.
Levy, S.J. (1999), Brands, Consumers, Symbols, & Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
MacCannell, D. (1999), The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Mancini, M. (2004), Cruising: A Guide to the Cruise Line Industry, 2nd ed., Thomson Delmar
Learning, Clifton Park, NY.
Masek, T.N. (2005), CLIA: ARetrospective, Cruise Thirty, Cruise Lines, International Association,
New York, NY.
Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2001), “Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 273-89.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Miller, W.H. (1984), The First Great Ocean Liners in Photographs, Dover Publications,
New York, NY.
Miller, W.H. (1985), The Fabulous Interiors of the Great Ocean Liners in Historic Photographs,
Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
Otto, J.E. and Brent Ritchie, J.R. (1996), “The service experience in tourism”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 165-74.
Leisure cruise
experience
309
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Fall, pp. 41-50.
Pearce, P.L. and Lee, U-I. (2005), “Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 226-37.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999), The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), “Commercial friendships: service provider-client
relationships in context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 38-56.
Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J. and Tierney, P. (1995), “Going to extremes: managing service encounters
and assessing provider performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 83-97.
Pullman, M.E. and Gross, M.J. (2004), “Ability of experience design elements to elicit emotions
and loyalty behaviors”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35, pp. 551-78.
Sherry, J.F. (1998), Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets,
NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.
Sherry, J.F., Kozinets, R.V., Storm, D., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit, K. and DeBerrey-Spence, B.
(2001), “Being in the zone: staging retail theater at ESPN zone Chicago”, Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 465-510.
Sloan, G. (2006), “Freedom, a ship of ?rsts”, USAToday.com, May 11, available at: www.
usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-05-11-freedom-of-the-seas_x.htm (accessed September 20,
2006).
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Thomke, S. (2003), “R&D comes to services: Bank of America’s pathbreaking experiments”,
Harvard Business Review, April, pp. 71-9.
Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B. and Pollio, H.R. (1989), “Putting consumer experience back into
consumer research: the philosophy and method of existential phenomenology”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 133-46.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), “Atmospherics effects on shopping behavior: a
review of the experimental evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49,
pp. 193-211.
Underhill, P. (1999), Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Wake?eld, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1994), “The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 66-76.
Wall, E.A. and Berry, L.L. (2007), “The combined effects of the physical environment and
employee behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality”, Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 59-69.
Ward, D. (2005), Berlitz Ocean Cruising and Cruise Ships 2005, Berlitz, London.
Weaver, A. (2005a), “The McDonaldization thesis and cruise tourism”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 346-66.
Weaver, A. (2005b), “Spaces of containment and revenue capture: ‘super-sized’ cruise ships as
mobile tourism enclaves”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 7, pp. 165-84.
Yarnal, C.M. (2004), “Missing the boat? A playfully serious look at a group cruise tour
experience”, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 26, pp. 349-72.
Yarnal, C.M. and Kerstetter, D. (2005), “Casting off: an exploration of cruise ship space, group
tour behavior, and social interaction”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 368-79.
IJCTHR
2,4
310
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus across the Firm, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
Further reading
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. and Henderson, P.W. (1996), “Improving the store
environment: do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 67-80.
Corresponding author
Robert J. Kwortnik can be contacted at: [email protected]
Leisure cruise
experience
311
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Richard Nicholls, Marwa Gad Mohsen. 2015. Other customer age: exploring customer age-difference
related CCI. Journal of Services Marketing 29:4, 255-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Changsup Shim, Seongjin Kang, Insin Kim, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2015. Luxury-cruise travellers’ brand
community perception and its consequences. Current Issues in Tourism 1-21. [CrossRef]
3. Sunghyup Sean Hyun, Min Gyung Kim. 2015. Negative Effects of Perceived Crowding on Travelers’
Identification with Cruise Brand. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32, 241-259. [CrossRef]
4. Bee-Lia Chua, Ben Goh, Lynn Huffman, Catherine Jai, Shahrim Karim. 2015. Cruise Passengers’
Perception of Key Quality Attributes of Cruise Lines in North America. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management 1-26. [CrossRef]
5. Jinsoo Hwang, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2015. Perceived Firm Innovativeness in Cruise Travelers’
Experience and Perceived Luxury Value: The Moderating Effect of Advertising Effectiveness. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research 1-28. [CrossRef]
6. Vanessa Ann Quintal, Ben Thomas, Ian Phau. 2015. Incorporating the winescape into the theory of
planned behaviour: Examining ‘new world’ wineries. Tourism Management 46, 596-609. [CrossRef]
7. Bee-Lia Chua, Sanghyeop Lee, Ben Goh, Heesup Han. 2015. Impacts of cruise service quality and price
on vacationers’ cruise experience: Moderating role of price sensitivity. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 44, 131-145. [CrossRef]
8. Santiago Forgas-Coll, Ramon Palau-Saumell, Javier Sánchez-García, Eva María Caplliure-Giner. 2014.
The role of trust in cruise passenger behavioral intentions. Management Decision 52:8, 1346-1367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Peter Björk, Hannele Kauppinen-Räisänen. 2014. Culinary-gastronomic tourism – a search for local food
experiences. Nutrition & Food Science 44:4, 294-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Chaim Noy. 2014. Staging portraits: Tourism’s panoptic photo-industry. Annals of Tourism Research 47,
48-62. [CrossRef]
11. Paul Brejla, David Gilbert. 2014. An Exploratory Use of Web Content Analysis to Understand Cruise
Tourism Services. International Journal of Tourism Research 16:10.1002/jtr.v16.2, 157-168. [CrossRef]
12. Ljudevit Prani?, Zrinka Maruši?, Ivan Sever. 2013. Cruise passengers' experiences in coastal destinations
– Floating “B&Bs” vs. floating “resorts”: A case of Croatia. Ocean & Coastal Management 84, 1-12.
[CrossRef]
13. Juan Gabriel Brida, Nicolás Garrido, María Jesús Such Devesa. 2012. Cruise passengers' satisfaction:
Cartagena de Indias. Benchmarking: An International Journal 19:1, 52-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. John Griffiths, Kathy Mack. 2011. Senses of “shipscapes”: an artful navigation of ship architecture and
aesthetics. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24:6, 733-750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Mark S. Rosenbaum, Carolyn Massiah. 2011. An expanded servicescape perspective. Journal of Service
Management 22:4, 471-490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Richard Nicholls. 2011. Customer?to?customer interaction (CCI): a cross?cultural perspective.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23:2, 209-223. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
17. Statia Elliot, HS Chris Choi. 2011. Motivational Considerations of the New Generations of Cruising.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 18, 41-47. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
18. Alexis Papathanassis, Insa Beckmann. 2011. Assessing the ‘poverty of cruise theory’ hypothesis. Annals
of Tourism Research 38, 153-174. [CrossRef]
19. Adam Weaver. 2011. The Fragmentation of Markets, Neo-Tribes, Nostalgia, and the Culture of Celebrity:
The Rise of Themed Cruises. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 18, 54-60. [CrossRef]
20. Meng-Lei Monica Hu, Ting-Kuo Chen, Tsung-Lin OuAn importance–performance model of restaurant
dining experience 207-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_210013304.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to examine the leisure cruise service environment – the
shipscape – and its effects on cruisers’ emotions, meaning-making, and onboard behavior.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience
Robert J . Kwortnik
Article information:
To cite this document:
Robert J . Kwortnik, (2008),"Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience", International J ournal of
Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Iss 4 pp. 289 - 311
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180810908961
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2748 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Andrew Oscar Coggins J r, (2014),"The globalization of the cruise industry: a tale of ships", Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 138-151http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-12-2013-0048
Fritz H. Pinnock, (2014),"The future of tourism in an emerging economy: the reality of the cruise industry in
Caribbean", Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 127-137http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
WHATT-12-2013-0052
Santiago Forgas-Coll, Ramon Palau-Saumell, J avier Sánchez-García, Eva María Caplliure-Giner,
(2014),"The role of trust in cruise passenger behavioral intentions: The moderating effects of the cruise line
brand", Management Decision, Vol. 52 Iss 8 pp. 1346-1367http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2012-0674
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Shipscape in?uence on the leisure
cruise experience
Robert J. Kwortnik
School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the leisure cruise service environment – the
shipscape – and its effects on cruisers’ emotions, meaning-making, and onboard behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses qualitative data from 260 cruise customers that
were mined from archived online discussion boards. Data were analyzed based on grounded theory
and interpretive methods to derive an understanding of shipscape meanings and in?uences from the
cruiser’s perspective.
Findings – The ?ndings extend Bitner’s servicescape framework and reveal novel atmospheric and
social effects that in?uence cruise travelers’ experience.
Research limitations/implications – Given the exploratory research objective and interpretive
methodology, generalizability beyond the cruise context is limited. However, research ?ndings
suggest not only that ambient shipscape conditions in?uence cruisers’ pleasure, but also that ship
layout, de´cor, size, facilities, and social factors in?uence the meanings cruisers attach to cruise brands
and to the overall cruise experience.
Originality/value – This paper explores atmospheric effects on consumer behavior in a context as
yet examined by tourism and hospitality scholars.
Keywords Ships, Tourism, Leisure activities, Service levels, Customer satisfaction, Consumer behaviour
Paper type Research paper
An RCI ship – or at least, a VOYAGER-class one – feels like a cross between a ship, a resort,
an amusement park, and a shopping mall [. . .] (Host Doug, June 10, 2006, CruiseCritic.com,
2,546 posts).
When Royal Caribbean International (RCI) launched Voyager of the Seas in 1999, the
cruise line charted a different course for the industry as it sailed into the new
millennium. Not only was Voyager a massive vessel at more than 1,000 feet long and
137,000 tons – nearly 30,000 tons larger than recently built “megaships,” and capable
of carrying more than 3,800 passengers, but the ship featured new design elements
never before seen (let alone imagined) on a cruise ship. These innovations included an
ice-skating rink, a nine-hole miniature golf course, an in-line skating track, a full-size
basketball court, a shopping promenade, and a rock-climbing wall that scaled the back
of the ship’s huge funnel. These amenities were in addition to the numerous bars and
restaurants, spa, ?tness center, pools, theater, disco, casino, video arcade, children’s
play zone, and balconied cabins also found on many new cruise ships.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
The author thanks Zoe Cohen, a Cornell University undergraduate scholar, for patient assistance
collecting data for this manuscript.
Leisure cruise
experience
289
Received April 2007
Revised July 2007
Accepted November 2007
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 2 No. 4, 2008
pp. 289-311
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180810908961
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In 2006, RCI trumped its own Voyager ships by – again – launching the world’s
largest cruise ship, the 158,000-ton Freedom of the Seas, which featured the industry’s
?rst “aqua environment” on the top deck of the ship – including a wave pool for
sur?ng and cantilevered hot tubs suspended 100 feet above the sea, as well as wi-?
capability, cellular phone connectivity, ?at-screen TVs in every cabin, and even a
boxing ring. Lest one forgets, these ships also sail the oceans, visiting vacation
destinations, and providing travelers with an experience that is more traditionally
thought of as a “leisure cruise.”
Due in part to design innovations that made the cruise product more attractive and
accessible to the mass market, the cruise industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors
of leisure travel. Nearly, 12 million people cruised in 2006, and cruise lines ordered 76
new ships since 2000 to keep up with demand (Cruise Lines International Association
– CLIA, 2006a). Industry research indicates that interest in cruise vacations continues
to grow and that cruisers rate the experience as highly satisfying and a good value
(CLIA, 2006b). However, critics of today’s cruise industry, from post-modern scholars
to the passengers themselves, question what the cruise experience has become or what
it should be. Some observers lament the trend of supersized ships and their hedonistic
focus (Klein, 2002), “McDonaldized” tourist production (Weaver, 2005a), and “spaces of
containment” intended to maximize revenue capture from passengers (Weaver, 2005b).
Indeed, Ward (2005, p. 20), long-time author of the Berlitz cruise guides, argues:
The large ?oating resorts that travel by night and are in port during the day provide little
connection to nature and the sea, the ship being the destination (small town takes to water).
Almost everything is designed to keep you inside the ship – to spend money, thus increasing
onboard revenue and shareholder dividends.
The cruise industry is in a period of transformation reminiscent of the 1970s when the
core product shifted from passenger shipping to cruise vacationing (Masek, 2005).
More recently, the focus of this transformation is the actual cruise experience, and the
medium for change is the servicescape (Bitner, 1992), or what is labeled here, the
shipscape – the ship itself. Surprisingly, despite the considerable investment required
for a new cruise ship (Freedom of the Seas, was estimated to cost a record-breaking
$870 million; Sloan, 2006), research on cruise ships as vacation spaces is scant (Conlon
et al., 2004; Yarnal and Kerstetter, 2005).
This study explores the role of shipscapes in the leisure cruise experience.
Speci?cally, this paper examines how cruise passengers interact with shipscapes to
shape their cruise experience. Using data culled from an online discussion board
dedicated to cruising, this study reveals ?ndings about atmospheric effects and more
general themes related to ship design that highlight the importance of shipscapes to
cruise passengers. The main contribution of this research is a deeper understanding of
the in?uence of the shipscape on the meanings cruisers create and attach to cruise
experiences. The paper next provides a brief review of servicescape research along
with a glance at the history of the cruise industry to establish a frame of reference for
the study. This is followed by a description of the data and analytic method used to
derive insights about cruise passengers and their relationship with shipscapes.
Findings from this analysis are then reported, followed by a discussion of conclusions
and directions for future research.
IJCTHR
2,4
290
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Servicescapes: a conceptual review
Servicescapes
Bitner’s (1992) conceptual work on the effects of the service environment on employees’
and customers’ physiological, psychological, and behavioral responses provides the
basis for research on servicescapes (Sherry, 1998; Zeithaml et al., 2006). The
servicescape and its many dimensions, such as ambient conditions, layout, facilities,
furnishings, and de´cor, can in?uence people in powerful ways. Baker (1986) also
proposed that social factors involving employees and customers are aspects of the
service environment that can affect the customer experience. Servicescape elements
can in?uence moods and emotions (Pullman and Gross, 2004), perceptions of time
spent waiting for service (Thomke, 2003), and evaluations of service quality (Brady
and Cronin, 2001). Consumers may draw inferences about employees based on
evidence in the servicescape (Bitner, 1990). In addition, consumer evaluations of
employee cues (e.g. the number and appearance of employees in the servicescape) can
affect perceptions of interpersonal service quality and patronage intentions (Baker
et al., 2002). Servicescapes also can be designed to foster response behaviors such as
stay/leave or browse/purchase, as well as social interaction (Sherry, 1998; Underhill,
1999).
The in?uence of the servicescape on consumer behavior, decision making, and
service evaluations has been studied primarily in retail environments (Sherry, 1998;
Turley and Milliman, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 2006). Borrowing the stimulus-
organism-response theory of environmental psychology (Mehrabian and Russell,
1974), research shows the potential to alter consumer perception in intended – and
unintended – ways by controlling myriad design, social, and ambient cues in the
environment (Baker et al., 2002). The effects of ambient factors such as music, smell,
and lighting have been of particular interest to consumer researchers, as these
characteristics can be experimentally manipulated to test for cause-and-effect
relationships (for reviews see Ezeh and Harris, 2007; Turley and Milliman, 2000). This
research reveals the inherent complexity of servicescape strategy due to interactive
effects that occur as consumers make sense of the environment holistically, rather than
through piecemeal information processing (Baker et al., 2002; Bitner, 1992).
Research on servicescapes in non-retail settings has received relatively limited
attention from services scholars (Hightower et al., 2002). For example, in a particularly
illuminating study, Berry and Bendapudi (2003) showed how “managing the evidence”
with servicescape design and even simple tangible cues can in?uence patients’ hospital
experiences and the healing process itself. In the hospitality and tourism literature,
Bonn et al. (2007) noted that researchers have focused on the effects of environmental
factors on destination image. However, recognizing both the potential of servicescape
strategy and the nature of consumers’ responses to the servicescape, a stream of
interdisciplinary research has emerged that explores the role of physical environments
in experience design (Haeckel et al., 2003; Pullman and Gross, 2004). Implicit to this
work is the idea that consumers may seek certain consumption environments such
as restaurants, hotels, themed retail stores, and leisure services not only for the obvious
functional bene?ts (e.g. meals, lodging and goods), but also for the experiential bene?ts
– sensations, emotional arousal, knowledge, and memories (Pine and Gilmore, 1999;
Sherry et al., 2001; Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). The experience itself is the
sought-after product (Otto and Brent Ritchie, 1996).
Leisure cruise
experience
291
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Kwortnik and Ross (2007) de?ne an experiential product as “fusing tangible
(sensory) and intangible (symbolic) attributes and co-produced by consumer and
marketer to create an event that is pleasurable, meaningful, and memorable.” For
experiential products, a well-designed servicescape establishes the context in which
the service is performed (Bitner, 1992; Pullman and Gross, 2004). Using a theater
metaphor, Grove et al. (1992) suggest that the servicescape is like the setting for a play;
service scenery and props set audience expectations and impressions, as well as
facilitate performance of actors (service employees) on the service stage. Pine and
Gilmore (1999) popularized this idea, arguing that services can be elevated to
experiences by paying attention to themes, cues, and evoked sensations.
Although studies conducted in retail contexts are important for revealing the
process of servicescape in?uence on consumers, the generalizability of this research to
experiential-product contexts is uncertain for several reasons. First, retail encounters
(e.g. banking, dry cleaning, grocery, and clothing) typically are shorter in duration than
experiential-product encounters (e.g. ?ne dining, theme parks, spectator sports, and
cruises). Extended service encounters increase opportunities for the customer to
interact with and be in?uenced by the servicescape (Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994;
Wall and Berry, 2007). Second, except for themed retail outlets (e.g. Niketown), retail
contexts are less likely to be sought by consumers for the setting than are experiential
products (Wall and Berry, 2007). Third, the nature and salience of goals consumers
bring to retail versus experiential settings differ (Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). For
example, in retail settings, salient consumer goals are more likely to be functional and
utilitarian (e.g. value convenience, and problem resolution), whereas in experiential
contexts salient goals are more likely to be hedonic and symbolic (e.g. stimulation,
challenge, and self-extension) (Kwortnik and Ross, 2007). By extension, mediating
factors expected to affect attitudinal and behavioral consumption outcomes will differ.
Service quality and value perceptions play a main mediation role in retail contexts
(Baker et al., 2002), whereas positive emotion is also a key mediator of the servicescape
in experiential-product contexts (Hightower et al., 2002; Pullman and Gross, 2004;
Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). Finally, though servicescapes produce a
“message-creating medium” for most services (Wall and Berry, 2007), we propose
that atmospheric clues will be more important in experiential-service contexts for
consumer meaning making in terms of the brand, the experience, and associated social
and self-identity (Aubert-Gamet and Cova, 1999; Bonn et al., 2007; Levy, 1999). In sum,
servicescapes and the physical and social factors contained therein are critical to
monitor and manage both in terms of the micro-level effects of servicescape elements
and also for the holistic sense of context and meaning consumers derive from their
interpretations of servicescape clues.
Shipscapes
The study conceptualizes a shipscape as a context-speci?c type of servicescape that
includes both the man-made physical and social environment in which the cruise
service is delivered (the ship), as well as the natural environment (the ocean) that
provides a broader experiential context. Modern cruise ships simultaneously direct
attention to and away from the sea. For example, new ships offer many outside cabins
with private balconies, once a luxury available only to passengers who booked
expensive suites. Balconied cabins enhance a unique aspect of cruising: the experience
IJCTHR
2,4
292
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
of being at sea. However, cruise ships also focus passengers’ attention inward through
the use of shipscape elements, such as million-dollar art collections that adorn public
spaces and the grandiose – some would say, outrageous – “entertainment
architecture” designed to be utterly unlike most anything passengers might
experience at home (Kwortnik, 2006). RCI took this to a new level with the “Royal
Promenade” shopping plazas aboard its new ships (“rather like a mall with a ship built
around it”; Ward, 2005, p. 128). Especially, novel about this design is that many inside
cabins on these ships overlook the promenade, whereas inside cabins on other cruise
ships offer no view at all.
This focus on the cruise ship’s internal shipscape is not new. Historians note that
the ocean liners of the early twentieth century featured public spaces – lobbies,
restaurants, libraries, ballrooms, smoking rooms, and even palm courts – modeled
after the great hotels of Europe and the USA. Not only were these rooms designed to
appeal to the sophisticated tastes of ?rst-class travelers (spaces for third-class and
steerage passengers were spartan, at best), but also these early shipscapes directed
passengers’ attention inside the ship and diverted attention from the often surly seas of
the North Atlantic (Miller, 1985).
Cruise vacations are a prototypical experiential product; modern cruise ships are a
combination ?oating resort hotel, sightseeing vessel, gourmet restaurant, food court,
nightclub, shopping center, entertainment complex, and recreation facility. Cruises
offer a range of services, from the utilitarian offerings of transportation, lodging, and
meals, to the intangible symbolic, emotional, and hedonic bene?ts embedded in
pampered personal service. Cruise programs feature all manner of participatory social
and learning options, from parties for passengers with shared hobbies or interests,
sporting contests, and games, to wine-tasting and art auctions, dance lessons, expert
lectures, cooking and dessert-making demonstrations, computer classes, and more.
Garin (2005, p. 198) opined that cruise ships “exist to produce nothing but the
immediate experiences of pleasure and satisfaction.” Indeed, because transportation is
no longer the primary function of passenger shipping, the very nature of the product
has changed. Characterizing the cruise industry as illustrative of the process of
“destination,” Weaver (2005a, b, p. 166) commented that “for many tourists, super-sized
cruise ships have become the centerpiece of the cruise holiday. The ship has, in essence,
become the trip.”
During the heyday of passenger shipping before the jet airplane changed the way
people traveled in the late 1950s, shipping companies battled for supremacy in terms of
whose ship was the largest, fastest, or most opulent (Miller, 1984). Years later, in the
early 1970s, the upstart Carnival Cruise Lines made a bold differentiation move not by
promoting the destinations the company sailed to, but instead by focusing attention on
the ship as the destination and the fun that could be had on board, thus giving rise to
the company’s positioning as the “Fun Ships” (Dickinson and Vladimir, 1997). Cruise
lines try to differentiate from competitors through physical product innovation.
However, some researchers suggest that this competition may produce the opposite
effect – a dilution of the cruise experience and homogenization of the shipscape across
brands (Kwortnik, 2006; Ward, 2005; Weaver, 2005a). The trend toward bigger, themed
spaces does beg the related questions: what is a cruise? And, how does the shipscape
in?uence passengers’ co-production of cruise meanings and experience? These
questions anchor the empirical study described next.
Leisure cruise
experience
293
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Method
Data collection
In light of the discovery-oriented objective of this research, qualitative data and an
interpretive analytic method are used to develop an understanding of the cruise
experience in general and the role of the shipscape more speci?cally from the cruisers’
perspective. To hear the voice of the cruiser and tap into their lived experience
(Thompson et al., 1989), data were collected from discussion boards on the web site,
CruiseCritic.com, an online global community comprised of more than 219,000
members, 401,000 threads, and 6.8 million posts. Topics discussed on CruiseCritic run
the gamut from reviews of cruise lines and ships, to tips for packing, dining, shore
excursions, and more. Participants in the community are diverse, from ?rst-time
cruisers to veterans of dozens of sailings. They are identi?ed by their screen name and
sometimes an avatar, the date they joined the community, their location, and the
number of posts to date (in our dataset, one participant was posting for the ?rst time,
whereas another had more than 10,000 posts). Some participants include information
(e.g. age, marital status, occupation, and interests) in an accessible public pro?le. Many
posters also like to list their past cruises, including cruise line, ship, and year; some
even include a countdown ticker to their next cruise.
Data were collected unobtrusively; the analyses mine archived discussion boards
without participating in the discussion. Given the volume of data on CruiseCritic, it
was necessary to focus data collection on the topic of interest. However, we had no
speci?c expectations about the role of shipscapes in the cruise experience. To help keep
a priori assumptions in check, data were collected by an undergraduate research
assistant unfamiliar with the servicescape literature, who was instructed to look for
any general or speci?c discussion of the physical environment of a cruise. She did this
by conducting an automated key word search of CruiseCritic discussion threads using
words associated with servicescapes, such as de´cor, layout, atmosphere, facilities,
lighting, smell, sound, etc. However, because cruisers were apt to use common
language (e.g. “blaring music”) and examples (e.g. “pillows and comforters – so soft!”)
instead of descriptive terms when referring to shipscape elements, she randomly
scanned the discussion boards for such illustrations. Instances of context-speci?c
shipscape elements, such as the motion of the ship and its effects were also collected. In
this manner, the data collection process was both systematic (key word searches) and
random (exploration for examples), as well as iterative and grounded in the cruiser’s
language and experience. The sum of this effort is a data set that captures 260 unique
cruiser voices across 63 threads, producing 78 pages of data.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed by applying the basic tenets of grounded theory (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998). We ?rst identi?ed cruiser references to the ship environment, some of
which were merely observations (e.g. “Inside cabins tend to be dark.”). Such statements
were usually accompanied by evaluations and impressions that provided an emic
perspective (using terms meaningful to the cruiser) of the hedonic effects of the
shipscape. When emic views were not present, the data were coded for meaning based
on an etic analysis (researcher interpretations of meaning) within the context of the
cruiser’s full comment as well as the broader context of the discussion thread from
which the comment was mined. Data elements were organized using Bitner’s (1992)
IJCTHR
2,4
294
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
conceptual framework for assessing servicescape effects and Baker’s (1986) ideas
about social factors in the service environment. To develop a deeper understanding of
shipscape meanings and in?uences, data elements that shared conceptual properties
were explored for patterns and themes using constant comparative analysis (Strauss
and Corbin, 1998).
Findings
For many people, a leisure cruise can be other-worldly, even sacred experience (Belk
et al., 1989) – especially for cruise fans like those travelers who populate online cruise
communities. Cruisers often speak of a sense of awe upon seeing ships for the ?rst time
or upon exploring ships’ interiors. Elements of the shipscape can enhance this sacred
experience, as well as other goals that cruisers bring to their journey (e.g. romance or
escape); yet, the shipscape can easily make the experience profane, such as when
unpleasant noises, smells, or motion interfere with experiential goals. Moreover,
because a cruise ship serves multiple purposes – home away from home,
entertainment center, attraction, social gathering space, dining venue, etc. – cruisers
pay attention to and derive personal meaning from shipscape clues in simple and
surprising ways. We examine this cruiser interaction with the shipscape next, ?rst by
framing our ?ndings in terms of cruisers’ consumption goals and then by examining
the different in?uences of the shipscape on cruisers’ hedonic experience.
Why people cruise
Research reveals an array of reasons why people choose to cruise, including:
(1) a cruise takes you away from it all;
(2) a cruise is a hassle-free vacation;
(3) you’re pampered;
(4) you can do it all or nothing at all;
(5) a cruise is a romantic experience; and
(6) a cruise is something new (Mancini, 2004).
In reference to reason no. 1, Mancini (2004, p. 17) notes:
Smog, pollution, traf?c, alarm clocks, beepers, ringing telephones, chattering fax machines –
these are not what a cruise is all about. Cruises are instead about water, sea, sky, and
landscape – the simple things that touch us so deeply.
Cruisers found on CruiseCritic support these reasons for cruising and reveal other
goals common to tourism experiences, such as discovery, escape, relaxation, choice,
and “otherness” (Pearce and Lee, 2005; Kwortnik and Ross, 2007). For example, in a
thread dedicated to P&O cruise line, Skyrules of Brisbane (1,029 posts) states:
I enjoy just being able to go away and relax – have the mundane stuff (cooking, cleaning, etc.)
done for you, and being able to choose to do as little or as much as you like. Cruising has to be
one of the most relaxing ways to holiday.
Analyzing the cruise experience by keeping in mind experiential goals and
expectations illuminates the in?uence of the shipscape.
Leisure cruise
experience
295
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Ambient conditions: simple cues and signi?cant effects
The effects of shipscape elements on the cruise experience vary greatly, from simple
physiological responses to more complex symbolic meanings. The same shipscape
stimulus (e.g. motion of the ship) might elicit a range of responses both within and
across cruisers. Discussion of ambient conditions was infrequent when compared to
topics that attract cruisers’ attention (e.g. entertainment, food, service and
destinations). However, when ambient conditions are salient, so are the (typically
negative) effects. For example, HMK of New York (145 posts) was quite aware of
cleanliness, describing the ship she sailed on as “beautiful!!! Very clean!!!” and her cabin
as “Very clean, large!” However, she also stated:
I did notice a sewer smell coming from the toliet (sic.) [. . .] by the next day the smell got worse.
Spoke to our cabin steward about it, but nothing happened. By the following day [. . .] it was
unbearable.
Similarly, a cruiser on a ship that had just reentered service after repair for a
fuel-system problem felt that the ship was not ready, as it still smelled of fuel oil: “It
was nauseating.” Smoking aboard ship was a common lament of cruisers, with many
saying that excessive smoking was enough to make them reconsider sailing with
certain cruise lines. Commented caviargal of Florida (5,575 posts) “[The ship was]
overcrowded, smoky, and congested . . . The bars were so smoky, I could not stay for
more than a few minutes.” Consistent with research in other service environments
(Chebat and Michon, 2003; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001), odors induce feelings of
(dis)pleasure, arousal and consequent approach – or more typically in this data set –
avoidance behavior.
Cruisers also complained about another kind of ambient pollution: noise, from the
chattering of the ship’s structure itself in rough seas to the noise of workers doing
maintenance. More often the source of noise was other cruisers, a ?nding that
underscores Baker’s (1986) inclusion of social factors as aspects of the service
environment that affect the customer experience. For example, Poppa_Daddyo (93
posts) stated that cabin noise was worse than he expected on his cruise. He advised
other cruisers to bring earplugs, especially for staying in a cabin that adjoined another:
We had the worst neighbors – a 4mo baby who screamed nonstop for 90 minutes, followed
by the next night of shouting, banging, slamming, etc. until 2 am, when I ?nally called
security. You can hear “everything”.
Similarly, I&MsMom (1,103 posts) noted:
It was very quiet [. . .] with the exception of those getting up to watch the sunrise letting their
doors close. What is barely noticeable during the day is deafening in absolute silence. A plea
to you early risers [. . .] please catch your door before it “slams” closed.
Noise of a different and surprising sort – music – also affected the experience of many
cruisers and was a concern for cruise shoppers. For example, some cruisers worried
about hearing too much country music on a ship that departed from the port of
Galveston, TX, as they wanted to hear “island music” to set the vacation mood.
Ambient music was a particular source of dismay among cruisers of Holland America
Line, a company that typically attracts an older clientele. Kicking off the criticism was
SLove (13 posts), who asked:
IJCTHR
2,4
296
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Why did HAL change? In [. . .] areas where passengers roamed there was constant and loud
music playing. Not the kind of music that we are used to on HA, but [. . .] the rock and roll
variety and loud at that. Just felt really out of place especially in Alaska.
Happy cruzer (498 posts) chimed in:
Please tell me they did not pipe music in on the promenade deck. I love sitting there in my
deck chair listening to the sea breeze and the ocean. I could deal with almost anything but
that.
Joining the unhappy chorus, uncialman (256 posts) argues:
The current choice of ambient music is not indicative of a premium, re?ned, culturally
sophisticated product. This change in on board music creates a completely different
atmosphere [. . .] foreign to Holland America Line guests that were promised a “traditional
cruise experience [. . .] ” I was just talking to an older man next to me in the internet cafe´.
The gentleman stated “no matter where you go the music seems to follow you around [. . .] ”
I’m just a bit frustrated right now and apparently no one at HAL really cares.
These cruisers decry the intrusion of noise in the shipscape, the inability to escape it,
and the effect this has as it impinges upon the tranquility of the experience and the
“sounds of the sea.” Moreoever, they link the ambient music to the meanings associated
with the HAL brand, noting the dissonance between the loud, ever-present music and
their impressions of HAL as a more sophisticated, traditional, “culturally re?ned”
experience.
Cruisers were similarly sensitive to shipscape lighting, from the “wild and crazy”
lighting in some atriums, to the “cool black light” outside a nightclub that would make
white glow. While most comments about lighting were positive, talk about
dining-room lighting took on a different shade. For example, Mrs Bunder of
Peabody, MA (35 posts), stated that a recent cruise did not have candlelit tables in the
dining room, but instead only had overhead lighting. She opined:
To me, this took away from the whole dining room experience; our ?rst [. . .] cruise was [. . .]
about 4-5 years ago, and they had candlelight in their dining room. Can anyone comment on
this?
CoconutFish of British Columbia (75 posts) agreed:
We have always found the dining room to be lit up much too brightly, to the point that it is
headache-inducing [. . .] Especially, on formal night? Bright is very casual; a bit of “mood
lighting” on formal night would add to the ambiance of a “special” evening.
As with the responses to music, these and similar posts reveal physiological and
psychological responses to cruise lighting, with bright lighting in dining rooms
producing negative perceptions of the experience. In such a context, bright lighting is
not a congruent cue in support of the servicescape (i.e. ?ne dining) customers expect
(Babin et al., 2003) and meanings such as romance, sophistication, and a “special”
experience that they seek.
Another ambient condition that one would expect to be particularly salient for
cruisers is ship motion and consequent physical discomfort. Seasickness is often a
source of concern for ?rst-time cruisers (Mancini, 2004). Noted one new cruiser,
Charlikin (36 posts), “I had trouble at ?rst getting used to the fact that the ship “moved”,
and watching the water rush by . . . was, er, not too pleasant for me.” Veteran cruisers
Leisure cruise
experience
297
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
talk about ship motion with a mix of acceptance, fortitude, and, interestingly, pleasure
(the motion of the ocean rocks me to sleep). They recount stories of rough voyages and
trade tips for which therapies are effective at reducing discomfort or which cabin
locations are less susceptible to motion. Smeyer418 of New York City (5,439 posts)
quips:
All ships rock and roll [. . .] Some people get seasick in absolutely calm waters. Some don’t get
sea sick at all, and for god sakes look at the horizon [. . .] if you watch the bow you will feel the
motion much more [. . .] excuse me I have to go throw up.
Some cruisers ?nd a ship’s motion to be an enjoyable, unique part of the experience.
Charlikin (36 posts) describes the fun had with fellow cruisers as they tried to contend
with the ship’s motion when walking to/from their cabins:
We had to walk over a section that wasn’t carpeted and that had raised pieces like speed
bumps – we were hysterical navigating these as we couldn’t walk a straight line anyway
(much less speed through) due to the motion of the ship. We were laughing so hard one night
that our neighbors refused to believe all we’d been drinking was club soda!!!
The issue of motion discomfort is unexamined in the atmospherics and servicescape
literature, yet this ambient element of the shipscape has a large impact on the cruise
experience and on cruisers’ decisions about time of year to cruise, which cabins to
book, and whether to cruise at all. In addition, for some cruisers, the “motion of the
ocean” is a unique aspect of the experience that distinguishes cruising from other
vacation alternatives (e.g. beach resorts) that offer similar amenities and bene?ts – but
not the experience of being at sea.
As shown by data highlighted in this section, cruisers attend and respond to a
variety of ambient stimuli present in the shipscape. Some ambient conditions such as
music that are designed to enhance the pleasure of cruising may have the opposite
effect when perceived as intrusions that detract from the expected experience and
sought-after meanings; on the other hand, a potentially negative ambient condition
such as the pitching and rolling of a ship at sea is experienced by some people as a
pleasurable, unique, even desirable aspect of cruising. These ?ndings extend the
literature on atmospheric effects by revealing experiential and symbolic (i.e.
meaning-making) consequences of consumers’ interactions with the shipscape
beyond the attitudinal and behavioral effects most often studied in atmospherics
research.
Shipscape vacation spaces: the effects of design, layout, and facilities
In the past, cruise ship interiors, especially cabins, were functional but hardly
luxurious (Miller, 1985). This was particularly true of cruise ships that were converted
ocean liners as opposed to purpose-built leisure cruise ships. By the late 1980s, ship
design had evolved with the launch of the ?rst “megaship” in 1987, RCI’s Sovereign of
the Seas, and Carnival Cruise Line’s Fantasy in 1990, the ?rst of eight sister ships that
boasted ?amboyant interiors, including themed public rooms, vivid colors, neon
lighting, and re?ecting surfaces (Cudahy, 2001; Garin, 2005). Thus, began the
“destintization” of cruise ships and an escalating competition among cruise lines for
novelty. Judging by the comments of the CruiseCritic community, cruisers have
bene?ted by this focus on design, layout, and facilities in the shipscape. However, not
all cruisers are happy with the emerging trends in the industry.
IJCTHR
2,4
298
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Cruise ship cabins have traditionally been small, though new ships are often built
with large suites or outside cabins featuring balconies, which increases the perception
of space. The reaction of HMK of New York (145 posts) re?ects this perception:
My ?rst impression of our cabin was WOW! [. . .] I will only book a balcony cabin from now
on. It is relaxing to sit on it, drink coffee, watch the sunrise [. . .]
The experiential bene?ts of balconies are echoed by other cruisers. Noted
neverenufcruising of South Carolina (9,808 posts), who prefers an aft cabin, “We
enjoy seeing where we’ve been, especially having a drink on the balcony as our own
private sail away from each port.” Cruznon (1,568 posts) concurs: “Aft cabins worth it?
YES. The view is spectacular . . . the wake, the stars at night, the wide panorama!”
While cruise cabins can enhance the experience, displeasure with cabin conditions
can detract from the comfort of one’s vacation home at sea and impressions of a
pampered vacation experience. Cruisers discussed lack of space, poor lighting, and
tired furnishings. For instance, cavkc (384 posts), who stayed in a suite, described a
beautiful foyer with mosaic tiles, a baby grand piano that was “quite fun,” and a
bedroom with a “very comfortable bed with the best cotton sheets I have ever
experienced,” but also furnishings “showing signs of wear,” evidence of water damage
on interior walls, and a “temperamental” Jacuzzi. Katiebeth (406 posts) echoed these
concerns about the same cruise line: “I truthfully felt like we paid Ritz Carlton prices for
Holiday Inn type accommodations . . . After this summers (sic) experience . . . we have
been looking at other cruise lines.” In another discussion about a mass-market cruise
line, cruisers commented on the cabin de´cor. Osiebosie of Thompson Station, TN (465
posts), stated, “I am a little tired of the orange color theme in the staterooms.” Added
mabgab (257 posts), “Agree with room decor chage (sic.) . . . the white linnen (sic.) with
the orange is butt ugly.” Finally, MonaCD of Prince Edward Island (37 posts) offered
these observations to “tease” other discussion readers:
Here’s what is waiting for you when you get back from dinner [. . .] bed turned down,
chocolate on the pillow, soft lights, a spectacular view at your bedside [. . .] and an elephant
[towel animal] in your bed. Sure a hot guy might have been better but what the heck,
everything else is pretty darn spectacular.
These comments show that cruisers attend closely to cabin design as an element of
their cruise experience. In fact, an emerging trend in the cruise industry is customers
who personalize their cabins, such as by decorating hall-facing doors with streamers,
special-occasion announcements, and pictures of relatives or hometowns. Such
behavior is rare in service contexts examined in the literature and re?ects both the
uniqueness of the cruise vacation as extended-duration service for which the
servicescape is more likely to play a role in the service experience (Wake?eld and
Blodgett, 1994), and the symbolic signi?cance of the shipscape as contributing to the
cruiser’s self-identity (Kwortnik and Ross, 2007).
The importance of shipscape in in?uencing cruisers’ experiences was not con?ned
to the immediate surroundings of the cruise cabin. Cruisers were also affected by the
layout and size of the ships. For example, several cruisers debated the bene?ts and
drawbacks of the layout aboard one cruise line’s ships. Jensenbeach (26 posts) kicked
off the topic:
Leisure cruise
experience
299
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
We did not like the layout of the [Z-ship] at all. We LOVED the crew and cannot say enough
good things about the service [. . .] The layout of the ship is strange [. . .] many of the public
rooms are hidden and tucked into obscure places. We are in the process of booking another
cruise and are ambivalent about [this cruise line].
However, Bepsf of San Fransisco (4,758 posts) counters, stating:
The smaller spaces [. . .] are exactly why many of us prefer the line: we’re simply not
interested in the “amenities” other lines provide such as massive indoor malls with bars and
shops and hamburger joints endlessly lined up one after another, nor are we interested in
Hyatt-Regency-style atriums with ?aming-brass, light shows and glass elevators ?ying
above our heads – that’s the stuff many of us are trying to get away from [. . .] when we go on
[this line’s] cruises. I think many [. . .] repeat passengers prefer the more intimate
“Country-House” atmosphere that [this line] provides.
This debate reveals the symbolic importance some cruisers attach to preferred cruise
lines based on a characteristic of the product – ship layout – that one would not expect
to carry signi?cant personal meaning.
The layout debate also highlights a tension occurring in many CruiseCritic
discussions between advocates of larger vs smaller ships, newer vs older ships, and
modern vs traditional entertainment activities. Shipscape design, layout, and facilities
are especially salient for cruisers and elicit the type of approach (attract, explore, stay)
and avoid (repel, hide, leave) actions that Bitner (1992) outlines as behavioral responses
to servicescapes. These aspects of the shipscape also interact with the people factor to
create social effects on the cruiser experience (Wake?eld and Blodgett, 1994). For
example, Jimsgirl of Charlotte, FL (683 posts), argues against the larger-ship trend:
What is the use of having so many passengers trying to attend a function when there are not
enough seats or breathing room? When it takes two hours to line up waiting to board or
disembark? Tempers just get frayed.
However, other cruisers perceive the newest mega ships to be so spacious that they
“never feel crowded.” Analysis of the ship-size tension suggests a number of levels to
the problem. At a more surface-level, cruisers express cognitive/behavioral concerns
about crowding, lines, and waits on bigger ships with more people. At a deeper-level,
cruisers express emotional/symbolic concerns about being part of a “herd” and feeling
lost (literally and ?guratively) amidst the mass of people – just another tourist in the
crowd.
Most cruisers accept that larger ships are needed to keep pace with facilities
innovation – assuming that such amenities are desired. This issue led Patinthehat of
Mississauga, ON (453 posts), to ask:
How far is too far? Do you want a cruise with the focus on great service and dining, or with
the most stuff to do? What would be the item that will make you say: “That is crossing the
line?”
Ala-kat (492 posts) replied:
Bigger does not mean better. I prefer smaller on a cruise. Have no use for a rock climbing wall,
skating rink, sur?ng, boxing, etc. [. . .] I have no problem entertaining myself.
Agreeing, Taters of Fairbanks, AK (1,059 posts), stated:
IJCTHR
2,4
300
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
RCI went to (sic) far when they built ice rinks into their ships and shopping mall type
promenades, facing inward instead of out to the ocean. We simply will not go on a ship that
size or with those features.
Continuing this theme, ladycaveat of Reston, VA (2,436 posts), notes:
I go on a cruise to enjoy the cruise, not all the new elaborate activities such as climbing walls,
bowling alleys, or boxing rings. But then again, I don’t have kids [. . .]
Though these cruisers question the value of entertainment amenities, others relish the
trend and provide new ideas: “ROLLER COASTERS!” “lazy river replaces jogging
track,” and “a playground with slides and swings for kids.” Some cruisers suggested
designs that connect the shipscape and seascape, such as an idea by AdGuyMike of
Hollywood, FL (34 posts) to build ships with:
[. . .] deep V hulls [so that] the most sought after cabins will be the ones submerged well below
the waterline. Imagine your room with a picture window view to the vast unexplored
undersea world as you cruise the oceans.
Tatka of Franklin, MA (2,435 posts) agrees:
Honestly [. . .] If I am at sea [. . .] I want to know and see more about the sea. I can ice-skate or
ride rollo-coasters (sic) on land [. . .] but I can’t see underwater world there. 1) I really wish
ships could have underwater observatories, maybe with scientists who could give a lecture. 2)
Also I would really appriciate (sic) Omni Theater with movies about islands that we visited or
will visit tomorrow. 3) Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a restaurant with portholes (or even big
windows) so we can see underwater?
As these ideas suggest, many cruisers view the design, layout, and facilities of the
shipscape as integral not only to their pleasure derived from experience, but also a type
of co-created reality where they make sense of what the experience is or should be.
Social effects of the shipscape
The in?uence of social factors in the servicescape on consumer experience has received
relatively little research attention compared to studies of physical atmospheric effects
(Baker et al., 2002). In a recent study, of heritage/cultural tourism customers, Bonn et al.
(2007) reported that social factors such as how courteous and knowledgeable service
employees are had much less in?uence on visitors’ attitudes, word-of-mouth, and
intentions to return than did ambient and design elements. However, because of the
extended service duration of most cruises and the bounded service environment, social
factors are likely to play a more important role (Price et al. (1995). The data show that
cruisers respond to varied social cues involving fellow passengers and ship crew –
from the concerns about passenger crowds and noise reported previously to the
surprises cabin attendants leave for guests during evening turn-down service.
Cruisers express strong feelings about the service staff with whom they have
closely interacted, especially cabin attendants, waiters, and bartenders. On the
CruiseCritic site, there are discussion threads dedicated to cruise staff, such as one
entitled, “Let’s Name Some of the Outstanding Crew on Your Ship.” This thread
includes hundreds of posts offering thanks to cruise staff, stories of service encounters,
and pictures of the featured staff taken by the cruisers. Cruisers speak of their favorite
crew members in highly personal ways – using ?rst names, detailing known
Leisure cruise
experience
301
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
biographical facts, describing them as “friends,” and expressing strong feelings of
affection, even love. For example, emd1 (531 posts) praised:
SOUAD, our outstanding, beautiful, sophisticated blond waitress from Chile, who had the
most beautiful tone and enunciation in her voice I have ever heard! I so looked forward to her
every night.
Some cruisers even tell of exchanging email addresses with crew or of tearful goodbyes
(most always with the passenger doing the crying) at the vacation’s end.
A pervasive theme in these data is that favorite crew members create special
experiences and cherished memories – and for this, they become more than just service
providers, but true friends (Price and Arnould, 1999). For example, jstewie23 of New
Jersey (134 posts) describes several cruise staff who “helped make our honeymoon
special,” including:
Delmark – best stateroom attendant! He made sure everything was just so, 2 times a day,
every day. He also left the best towel animals (I looooove them) and always greeted us with a
big smile every time he saw us in the hallway.
Favorite crew are described not only as being professional and ef?cient, but also fun,
warm, genuine, kind, enthusiastic, welcoming, and possessing “amazing” skills, and
the ability to remember names and special preferences. For instance, Tinalou of
Melboune (81 posts) stated, “I loved how at home we felt and how the staff get to know
you and make you feel like you have joined their big family.” Perhaps, not surprisingly,
when cruisers experienced poor service, the responsible crew members are described as
unprofessional, impersonal, rude, and, in general, uncaring. Such good or bad personal
service often has a strong in?uence on the cruiser’s overall evaluation of the
experience, with (dis)satisfaction expressed in stark, emotional terms, consistent with
research on service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985). However, cruisers who are
pleased with the social interaction with crew speak of an emotional attachment and
desire for continued relationships that is rarely found in research conducted in the
retailing context. We propose that such desire for cruiser-crew bonds is a function of
the extended service encounter, opportunities for intimacy and self-disclosure, and
bounded physical space found on cruise ships (Price and Arnould, 1999).
Research in both retailing (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990) and leisure (Wake?eld and
Blodgett, 1994) contexts shows that consumers’ perceptions of crowding negatively
in?uence consumption emotions, perceptions of the servicescape, and satisfaction with
the experience. Because cruise ships are bounded spaces where consumers expect to
relax in comfort, the negative effects of crowding are ampli?ed. Cruisers’ comment
data reveals considerable displeasure with long lines and crowds – especially when
such social factors were impossible to escape, such as during cruise embarkation and
debarkation. For example, one passenger said that the worst aspect of his cruise was
when the ship returned to the home port and crowds of people were called to exit at the
same time (a dreadful experience). Cruisers also complained about crowded pools
(glori?ed bathtubs shared by 1000 other passengers over the course of the day) and
pool decks with deck chairs “crammed together.” On the other hand, some cruisers
found it easy to adapt to these social factors. Mused stanimal of Texas (132 posts):
IJCTHR
2,4
302
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The more people who are waiting in line for the waterslide, rock climbing wall, bowling alley,
etc. means that there are fewer people on my area of the deck where I am reading my book, or
talking with my wife.
The social effects cruisers have on each other need not occur through direct interaction.
For example, some cruisers interpret the mere presence of groups of other cruisers as
affecting the shipscape, as when an “older crowd” creates “a more formal atmosphere,”
or when a large number of children or teens detract from the “adult ambiance” of a
restaurant or lounge. Fellow passengers become part of the visual scene by blending
into and shaping the physical dimension of the servicescape. This is particularly
evident for cruisers in terms of wardrobe choices of other travelers (a topic of
considerable debate), with cruise traditionalists ruing the casual garb – jeans, t-shirts,
and baseball caps – that some travelers wear on the ship and even in the dining rooms.
Such “underdressed” people are perceived to damage the more formal, elegant
atmosphere that some cruisers believe makes the experience different from other types
of vacations. However, other cruisers note that they choose certain cruise lines for the
more casual experience and are ambivalent about how others choose to dress.
Flyingpirate of beverly thrills (sic), CA (2,631 posts), explains that on his preferred
cruise line, guests dress however they wish without any effect on her experience: “. . .
certain of our fellow passengers share a desire for sartorial elegance and some look
more at home at a NASCAR race or on the back forty.” A common theme to this debate
is the importance of “?t” – the ?t between the wardrobe of other cruisers and the
intended atmosphere of the cruise line, as well as between the cruise line and one’s own
self-identity.
The symbolic signi?cance of the shipscape
As previous ideas about what shipscape elements should (not) or could (not) be
suggest, cruisers are not only aware of how the shipscape in?uences their experience,
but also of the symbols in the shipscape and how these de?ne cruise brands – and
themselves. Cruisers actively construct meanings using shipscape symbols – and have
their own ideas about how cruise lines might better use the shipscape to de?ne what it
means to cruise. The data suggest that this meaning making occurs on several levels,
but most clearly at the brand level and at the broader cruise experience level.
For example, though non-Carnival cruisers often malign the Carnival Cruise Lines
brand and its de´cor theme, Carnival’s customers tend to enjoy the spectacle because the
de´cor ?ts their experiential goals (fun and excitement) and their self-perceptions as
high-energy vacationers. In contrast, cruise fans of Royal Caribbean prefer the less
audacious de´cor of RCI’s shipscapes. Comments Priusprof of Tampa, FL (160 posts):
Carnival doesn’t have anything in the current ?eet to compare to a Voyager Class Ship. It’s
like comparing the Holiday Inn to the Hyatt Regency [. . .] The Royal Promenade with the
shops and bars [is spectacular]. The 3 story dining room is eye popping. Different strokes for
different folks though. If a longneck and dip is more your style [. . .] stick with Carnival. If you
are looking for a more sophisticated experience try RCCL.
In Priousprof’s post, s/he derides the Carnival Cruise Lines experience, drawing symbolic
comparisons to the mid-market Holiday Inn brand and a low-browlongneck beer and dip
of chewing tobacco. In contrast, the shipscape of RCCL is symbolically equated to
the higher-end Hyatt Regency hotel brand and a “more sophisticated” experience.
Leisure cruise
experience
303
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Similarly, Croaziera (two posts) highlights the active-adventure symbols of RCCL ships
(Promenade, Ice Skating Rink, h2o zone, rock climbing wall, ?ow rider) as evidence of
quality and draws on meanings fromanother product category, cars, to symbolize quality
differences between RCCL (a Lexus) and Carnival (a Hyundai).
Cruisers likewise use social cues in the shipscape as identity symbols. For example,
Flyingpirate of beverly thrills (sic.), CA (2,631 posts), is loyal to one mid-market cruise
brand, though she claims she could “go with Regent or Crystal” [luxury brands], but
“dropped out of the Junior League for a reason” and does not want to “travel with
people like my parents.” In ?yingpirate’s choice of cruise line, she rejects the snooty
image of higher-end brands and instead adopts the meanings of her preferred brand
that offer “total freedom” to act and be whom she wants to be. She illustrates this
brand-self congruity by stating proudly, “I went to a formal night in sequenced dress
and slippers.” Echoing ?yingpirate, utefan of South Jordan, UT (1760 posts), suggests
that wardrobe – and by extension, cruise brand – choices are “partly a generational
thing.” She argues that dressing up when on a cruise vacation is ?ne, but “not my era,
not my style . . . ” She further suggests that more traditional and formal cruise
experiences might “?t [someone else’s] personality better,” but for her, such cruise
brands would “be a terrible ?t.”
These types of self-relevant meanings that cruisers derive from the shipscape are
also evident in broader themes that relate how shipscape elements contribute to or
detract from “the desired cruise experience.” Implicit in this theme is the notion that
there is a something that is or is not THE cruise experience; however, this distinction is
rarely clear and varies across cruisers. Whereas some cruisers enjoy the fun made
possible by new onboard entertainment, others argue that “this is hardly a cruise
anymore” and not what they seek in a cruise experience. Such criticism often takes the
view that facilities, music, de´cor, and other factors that are readily available or
omnipresent (e.g. blue jeans) “on land” contribute little to the cruise experience. For
instance, MrPete of New York (6,104 posts) states, “Never had a need for the rock
climbing wall (one right in the mall close to home).” GMoney (2,418 posts) claims that
he is glad there are “no big water slides” on Royal Caribbean ships, as “there are plenty
of places for people to have that kind of fun on land, and I think the slides can detract
from ships aethestically (sic.).” Lightsluvr of Oklahoma (904 posts) adds, “Slides look
like a cheap municipal pool . . . pretty tacky.” Commenting on the addition of outdoor
movie screens on some ships, clgcrusier of Wisconsin (124 posts) notes:
My friends and I are going [. . .] and one of them is just thrilled about the big screen. I ?nd this
unnecessary, as I don’t want to go on a cruise to watch movies-I feel it takes away from the
experience! [. . .] I also don’t go on a cruise to spend my time in an exercise room or a running
track, or to climb a rock wall [. . .] I like to relax and watch the sea go by!
These comments re?ect an idea that should be evident to customer-centric marketers:
what cruisers want in the experience and the shipscape depends upon why they choose
to cruise in the ?rst place. The more dif?cult question is how to translate cruisers’
stated (and unstated) needs into new ship designs without losing the essence of
the experience of a vacation at sea. While we ?nd evidence of cruiser pleasure in the
entertainment architecture and facilities, analysis of the data across shipscape
elements also reveals a tension between this brand of fun and cruiser notions of what
the leisure cruise experience should be. The comments of lac of St. Albans, WV
(six posts), illustrate this tension:
IJCTHR
2,4
304
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
I de?nitely vote no on water slides. Cruises are becoming more and more “adventure rides”,
which is ?ne for those who want that, but on a cruise I want cruise stuff [. . .] I also don’t like
the outside movie screens. If I want to watch TV I’ll stay in my room [. . .] On deck I want
wind and water and pool sounds, and maybe a little pool music. I want to get away from the
hectic lifestyle and noises of everyday life – not be inundated with media.
Lac’s desire to “get away” mirrors what other cruisers describe as what they love about
cruising. For Star-Man of Brisbane (107 Posts), the most enjoyable part of a cruise is
“sitting at the outback bar . . . late into the night . . . with the sound of the sea being one
of the only things that i could here (sic.).” Finally, kezza of Kilsyth, Melbourne (153
posts) exclaimed:
I love the days at sea, laying back enjoying the rays, watching the beautiful blue waters,
especially at the back of the ship with all the water churned up and frothy. I love the sunsets
especially when you leave an island with the sun setting behind it. I love getting to the cruise
terminal then that ?rst step onto the ship. That’s when I know my holiday has begun!
Discussion
The experiential environment of a cruise ship, the shipscape concept based on a
conceptual parallel with Bitner’s (1992) notion of the servicescape, is a complex
physical and social context that must accomplish many things to produce a vacation
experience at sea. Using qualitative data from an online cruise community, we explored
the lived experience of cruisers to understanding how the shipscape in?uences their
cruise experience and the meanings they construct about leisure cruising. We ?nd that
cruisers attend to myriad stimuli in the shipscape – from the linens in their cabins to
the wardrobe of their fellow cruisers. These stimuli produce an equally diverse set of
physical reactions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Figure 1 shows these effects in
the organizing framework that extends Turley and Milliman’s (2000) review of the
in?uence of retail atmospherics.
Figure 1.
Shipscape effects on the
cruise experience
Ambient Factors
(e.g., scents, sounds,
cleanliness, lighting, music,
temperature, motion)
Design Factors
(e.g., décor, color,
furnishings, layout, size,
entertainment architecture)
Social Factors
(e.g., crowding, queues,
cruiser cues, crew co-
production and friendships)
Cruisers
Physiological Response
(e.g., arousal, relaxation,
(dis)comfort, nausea)
Emotional Response
(e.g., pleasure/enjoyment,
excitement, aggravation)
Behavioral Response
(e.g., approach/avoid,
praise/complain, repurchase)
Experiential Response
(e.g., escape, special
meanings, memories)
Symbolic Response
(e.g., brand-self congruity,
self-identity construction)
Leisure cruise
experience
305
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Shipscapes possess atmospheric factors and induce consumer responses (the italicized
items in the framework) that differ from retail servicescapes. This difference is because
the leisure cruise and retail experiences are essentially different in four main ways:
(1) Unlike the typical retail context, the cruise ship serves as a home away fromhome,
which makes certain atmospheric factors particularly important to cruisers.
(2) The cruise shipscape is a more salient and even sought-after part of the overall
experience than the typical retail context.
(3) Cruises are longer-duration service encounters than typical retail encounters,
which enables ongoing social interaction and the development of perceived
friendships between cruisers and crew members.
(4) Compared to the retail context, the goals consumers bring to the cruise context
are more likely to be hedonic, experiential, and symbolic than functional (i.e.
problem-solving).
The following discussion elaborates on the implications of these differences based on
the ?ndings and themes that emerged from the online cruiser data.
Cruise ships, in particular the newer vessels, are built for pleasure vacations – for
dining, touring, gaming, socializing, and playing (Cudahy, 2001; Yarnal, 2004).
Although cruise industry critics contend that cruise marketing creates vague
expectations and that the experience does not connect with the customer emotionally
(Klein, 2002), we report data that challenge this. Cruisers expect a fun, relaxing,
pampered, get-away experience, and their self-reports of excitement and aspects of
cruising that they “love” indicates that cruises deliver on the sensational, emotional,
experiential promise. Yet, aspects of shipscape can easily and dramatically interfere
with experiential goals. Ambient pollution in the form of noise, music, odors, smoking,
and ship motion, can negatively affect cruisers physically and psychologically. The
broader theme represented by ambient ef?uence is that intrusion of the profane in the
shipscape breaks the spell of the magical, even sacred cruise experience (Belk et al.,
1989). Clearly, cruise ship designers, as well as the service team tasked with enacting
the cruise performance must carefully attend to seemingly minor ambient irritants
given the potentially serious negative effects on the physiological, emotional, and
behavioral responses of cruise passengers.
Analysis of cruiser discussions about ship layout and facilities revealed a related
theme: cruisers desire escape fromthe mundane elements present in their daily lives, yet
the trend of larger ships (and consequent crowding and queues) and proliferation of
amusement-park-like entertainment amenities and shopping malls that are also found
“on land” hampers experiential escape and instead yields avoidance behavior (e.g. I will
not sail on a huge ship with those features.). This response to the space/function of the
shipscape supports criticism that modern ships designed for the mass-market tourist
create “captive consumers” and “McDonalidized spaces (Weaver, 2005a, b). However, we
also ?nd that many cruisers are drawn to the entertainment architecture, are enchanted
by it, and crave more of it (Weaver, 2005b) – though some cruisers would prefer that
future facilities focus less on amusement concepts and more on the shipscape-seascape
connection. These tensions between larger vs smaller ships and modern vs traditional
entertainment facilities can be expected to challenge cruise ship designers who strive to
appeal to the broadest cruiser market and increasingly diverse preferences.
IJCTHR
2,4
306
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Interaction between and amongst cruisers and crew has a strong in?uence on
cruisers’ emotional and behavioral responses, but also on experiential and symbolic
outcomes. Certain characteristics (e.g. age, actions, and appearance) of fellow cruisers
affect perceptions of the shipscape ambiance. Cruisers react negatively to other
travelers who disrupt desired experiential meanings (e.g. escape and sophistication)
with smoking, noise, crowding, and overly casual dress. Similarly, crew members who
are uncaring and unwelcoming make profane the expected extraordinary service
experience. On the other hand, crew members who use their hospitality skills to help
cruisers co-produce special cruise moments – and even who develop perceived
friendships with cruisers – facilitate experiential and symbolic outcomes that are
unexplored in the retail-servicescape literature.
Ultimately, these shipscape themes and tensions interact with cruiser needs and
imbue symbolic aspects of the cruise experience – the meanings cruisers ascribe to and
take away from their cruise vacation. In this respect, a cruise is more than just a
hedonic activity, but is also a form of self-relevant meaning-making. However, when
these meanings derived in part from the shipscape con?ict with experiential goals and
self-perceptions (e.g. deserved pampering, sophistication, and individualism), the
results are discordant impressions and dissatisfaction. For example, we ?nd that many
cruisers seek some form of “real” cruise experience, much in the same way that land
tourists pursue sacred places and “authentic” experiences through vacation
pilgrimages (Belk et al., 1989; MacCannell, 1999). These authenticity-seeking cruisers
rue the inauthentic – the shopping malls, boxing rings, arcades, and other diversions –
that direct attention away from the seascape and instead inward toward the
revenue-generating shipscape. They echo Ward’s (2005, p. 103) comments, who argues
that a cruise is not the experience offered by “the large resort ships [that] . . . cram lots
of people into small cabins and provide nonstop activities that insult the intelligence
and assault the wallet.” However, the popularity of cruises on ever bigger and busier
ships suggests not only that many cruisers ?nd pleasure in these experiences, but also
that a new de?nition of what a cruise really is may be emerging.
Limitations and directions for future research
Given the paucity of research on atmospheric effects in leisure and tourism settings,
this study applies a discovery-oriented research objective, qualitative data, and an
interpretive analytic method to strive for a richer understanding of servicescape effects
in a novel context: leisure cruising. The ?ndings and themes derived from the
comments of 260 cruisers participating in an online cruise forum reveal a variety of
atmospheric stimuli and consumer responses that are unique to the cruise context and
extend our understanding of servicescape effects beyond the retail context. The textual
data does not, however, permit inferences about causal relationships between
atmospheric stimuli and consumer responses. Future research that uses experimental
designs to test for causal effects between, for example, types of entertainment
architecture or the strength of perceived friendships with crew and experiential
outcomes would shed additional light on the in?uence of these factors in leisure
contexts.
In addition, the nature of the naturally occurring data and the unobtrusive data
collection method used in this study preclude the ability to drill down to deeper levels
of meaning about the self-relevant outcomes of the cruise experience. Depth interviews
Leisure cruise
experience
307
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
or ethnographic approaches would permit more direct investigation of the symbolic
responses (e.g. brand-self congruity and self-identity construction) to shipscapes.
Indeed, this is a potentially fascinating area of future research – and one of signi?cant
practical importance for cruise marketers. For many cruisers, the increasing
complexity of the shipscape has created convoluted experiential meanings. As
suggested by the cruiser comment that led this paper, the feeling one gets aboard some
ships is con?ated, leaving cruisers unsure whether they actually experience a “cruise”
or something different – a ?oating theme park for grownups. The ?ndings presented
in this paper suggest that research is needed from tourism scholars (and cruise
executives) that listens to the voice of the cruiser to better understand shifting
meanings – and the in?uence of the shipscape on the experiential and symbolic
dimensions of the leisure cruise experience.
References
Aubert-Gamet, V. and Cova, B. (1999), “Servicescapes: from modern non-places to postmodern
common places”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 44, pp. 37-45.
Babin, B.J., Hardesty, D.M. and Suter, T.A. (2003), “Color and shopping intentions: the intervening
effect of price fairness and perceived affect”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56,
pp. 541-51.
Baker, J.A. (1986), “The role of environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective”,
in Czpeil, J.A., Congam, C. and Shanaham, J. (Eds), The Services Marketing Challenge:
Integrated for Competitive Advantage, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 79-84.
Baker, J.A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G.B. (2002), “The in?uence of multiple store environment cues
on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66,
pp. 120-41.
Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M. and Sherry, J.F. Jr (1989), “The sacred and the profane in consumer
behavior: theodicy on the odyssey”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 1-38.
Berry, L.L. and Bendapudi, N. (2003), “Clueing in customers”, Harvard Business Review,
February, pp. 100-6.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 57-71.
Bonn, M.A., Joseph-Mathews, S.M., Mo Dai, S.H. and Cave, J. (2007), “Heritage/cultural attraction
atmospherics: creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 45, pp. 345-54.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. Jr (2001), “Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp. 34-49.
Chebat, J-C. and Michon, R. (2003), “Impact of ambient odors on mall shopper’s emotions,
cognition, and spending: a test of competitive causal theories”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 56, pp. 529-39.
CLIA (2006a), Pro?le of the US Cruise Industry, Lines International Association, New York, NY,
available at: www.cruising.org/press/sourcebook2006-midyear/pro?le_cruise_industry.
cfm (accessed October 2, 2006).
IJCTHR
2,4
308
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
CLIA (2006b), CLIA 2006 Cruise Market Pro?le Report of Findings, Lines International
Association, New York, NY, available at: www.cruising.org/press/research/
2006%20Market%20Pro?le%20Study.pdf (accessed October 3, 2006).
Conlon, D.E., van Dyne, L., Milner, M. and Yee Ng, K. (2004), “The effects of physical and social
context on evaluations of captive, intensive service relationships”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 433-45.
Cudahy, B.J. (2001), The Cruise Ship Phenomenon in North America, Cornell Maritime Press,
Centreville, MD.
Dickinson, B. and Vladimir, A. (1997), Selling the Sea: An Inside Look at the Cruise Industry,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Eroglu, S. and Machleit, K.A. (1990), “An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, pp. 201-21.
Ezeh, C. and Harris, L.C. (2007), “Servicescape research: a review and a research agenda”,
Marketing Review, Vol. 7, pp. 59-78.
Garin, K.A. (2005), Devils on the Deep Blue Sea, Viking, New York, NY.
Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P. and Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Dramatizing the services experience: a managerial
approach”, Advances in Services Marketing and Management, Vol. 1, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 91-121.
Haeckel, S.H., Carbone, L.P. and Berry, L.L. (2003), “How to lead the customer experience”,
Marketing Management, January/February, pp. 18-23.
Hightower, R., Brady, M.K. and Baker, T.L. (2002), “Investigating the role of the physical
environment in hedonic service consumption: an exploratory study of sporting events”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 697-707.
Klein, R. (2002), Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Industry, New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island.
Kwortnik, R.J. Jr (2006), “Carnival cruise lines: burnishing the brand”, Cornell Hotel & Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp. 286-300.
Kwortnik, R.J. Jr and Ross, W.T. (2007), “The role of positive emotions in experiential decisions”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 24.
Levy, S.J. (1999), Brands, Consumers, Symbols, & Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
MacCannell, D. (1999), The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class, University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA.
Mancini, M. (2004), Cruising: A Guide to the Cruise Line Industry, 2nd ed., Thomson Delmar
Learning, Clifton Park, NY.
Masek, T.N. (2005), CLIA: ARetrospective, Cruise Thirty, Cruise Lines, International Association,
New York, NY.
Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2001), “Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 273-89.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Miller, W.H. (1984), The First Great Ocean Liners in Photographs, Dover Publications,
New York, NY.
Miller, W.H. (1985), The Fabulous Interiors of the Great Ocean Liners in Historic Photographs,
Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
Otto, J.E. and Brent Ritchie, J.R. (1996), “The service experience in tourism”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 165-74.
Leisure cruise
experience
309
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Fall, pp. 41-50.
Pearce, P.L. and Lee, U-I. (2005), “Developing the travel career approach to tourist motivation”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 226-37.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999), The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), “Commercial friendships: service provider-client
relationships in context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 38-56.
Price, L.L., Arnould, E.J. and Tierney, P. (1995), “Going to extremes: managing service encounters
and assessing provider performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 83-97.
Pullman, M.E. and Gross, M.J. (2004), “Ability of experience design elements to elicit emotions
and loyalty behaviors”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 35, pp. 551-78.
Sherry, J.F. (1998), Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets,
NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.
Sherry, J.F., Kozinets, R.V., Storm, D., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit, K. and DeBerrey-Spence, B.
(2001), “Being in the zone: staging retail theater at ESPN zone Chicago”, Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 465-510.
Sloan, G. (2006), “Freedom, a ship of ?rsts”, USAToday.com, May 11, available at: www.
usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-05-11-freedom-of-the-seas_x.htm (accessed September 20,
2006).
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Thomke, S. (2003), “R&D comes to services: Bank of America’s pathbreaking experiments”,
Harvard Business Review, April, pp. 71-9.
Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B. and Pollio, H.R. (1989), “Putting consumer experience back into
consumer research: the philosophy and method of existential phenomenology”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 133-46.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), “Atmospherics effects on shopping behavior: a
review of the experimental evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49,
pp. 193-211.
Underhill, P. (1999), Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Wake?eld, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G. (1994), “The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 66-76.
Wall, E.A. and Berry, L.L. (2007), “The combined effects of the physical environment and
employee behavior on customer perception of restaurant service quality”, Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 59-69.
Ward, D. (2005), Berlitz Ocean Cruising and Cruise Ships 2005, Berlitz, London.
Weaver, A. (2005a), “The McDonaldization thesis and cruise tourism”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 346-66.
Weaver, A. (2005b), “Spaces of containment and revenue capture: ‘super-sized’ cruise ships as
mobile tourism enclaves”, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 7, pp. 165-84.
Yarnal, C.M. (2004), “Missing the boat? A playfully serious look at a group cruise tour
experience”, Leisure Sciences, Vol. 26, pp. 349-72.
Yarnal, C.M. and Kerstetter, D. (2005), “Casting off: an exploration of cruise ship space, group
tour behavior, and social interaction”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, pp. 368-79.
IJCTHR
2,4
310
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus across the Firm, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
Further reading
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. and Henderson, P.W. (1996), “Improving the store
environment: do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors?”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 67-80.
Corresponding author
Robert J. Kwortnik can be contacted at: [email protected]
Leisure cruise
experience
311
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Richard Nicholls, Marwa Gad Mohsen. 2015. Other customer age: exploring customer age-difference
related CCI. Journal of Services Marketing 29:4, 255-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Changsup Shim, Seongjin Kang, Insin Kim, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2015. Luxury-cruise travellers’ brand
community perception and its consequences. Current Issues in Tourism 1-21. [CrossRef]
3. Sunghyup Sean Hyun, Min Gyung Kim. 2015. Negative Effects of Perceived Crowding on Travelers’
Identification with Cruise Brand. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32, 241-259. [CrossRef]
4. Bee-Lia Chua, Ben Goh, Lynn Huffman, Catherine Jai, Shahrim Karim. 2015. Cruise Passengers’
Perception of Key Quality Attributes of Cruise Lines in North America. Journal of Hospitality Marketing
& Management 1-26. [CrossRef]
5. Jinsoo Hwang, Sunghyup Sean Hyun. 2015. Perceived Firm Innovativeness in Cruise Travelers’
Experience and Perceived Luxury Value: The Moderating Effect of Advertising Effectiveness. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research 1-28. [CrossRef]
6. Vanessa Ann Quintal, Ben Thomas, Ian Phau. 2015. Incorporating the winescape into the theory of
planned behaviour: Examining ‘new world’ wineries. Tourism Management 46, 596-609. [CrossRef]
7. Bee-Lia Chua, Sanghyeop Lee, Ben Goh, Heesup Han. 2015. Impacts of cruise service quality and price
on vacationers’ cruise experience: Moderating role of price sensitivity. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 44, 131-145. [CrossRef]
8. Santiago Forgas-Coll, Ramon Palau-Saumell, Javier Sánchez-García, Eva María Caplliure-Giner. 2014.
The role of trust in cruise passenger behavioral intentions. Management Decision 52:8, 1346-1367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Peter Björk, Hannele Kauppinen-Räisänen. 2014. Culinary-gastronomic tourism – a search for local food
experiences. Nutrition & Food Science 44:4, 294-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Chaim Noy. 2014. Staging portraits: Tourism’s panoptic photo-industry. Annals of Tourism Research 47,
48-62. [CrossRef]
11. Paul Brejla, David Gilbert. 2014. An Exploratory Use of Web Content Analysis to Understand Cruise
Tourism Services. International Journal of Tourism Research 16:10.1002/jtr.v16.2, 157-168. [CrossRef]
12. Ljudevit Prani?, Zrinka Maruši?, Ivan Sever. 2013. Cruise passengers' experiences in coastal destinations
– Floating “B&Bs” vs. floating “resorts”: A case of Croatia. Ocean & Coastal Management 84, 1-12.
[CrossRef]
13. Juan Gabriel Brida, Nicolás Garrido, María Jesús Such Devesa. 2012. Cruise passengers' satisfaction:
Cartagena de Indias. Benchmarking: An International Journal 19:1, 52-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. John Griffiths, Kathy Mack. 2011. Senses of “shipscapes”: an artful navigation of ship architecture and
aesthetics. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24:6, 733-750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Mark S. Rosenbaum, Carolyn Massiah. 2011. An expanded servicescape perspective. Journal of Service
Management 22:4, 471-490. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Richard Nicholls. 2011. Customer?to?customer interaction (CCI): a cross?cultural perspective.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23:2, 209-223. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
17. Statia Elliot, HS Chris Choi. 2011. Motivational Considerations of the New Generations of Cruising.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 18, 41-47. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
18. Alexis Papathanassis, Insa Beckmann. 2011. Assessing the ‘poverty of cruise theory’ hypothesis. Annals
of Tourism Research 38, 153-174. [CrossRef]
19. Adam Weaver. 2011. The Fragmentation of Markets, Neo-Tribes, Nostalgia, and the Culture of Celebrity:
The Rise of Themed Cruises. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 18, 54-60. [CrossRef]
20. Meng-Lei Monica Hu, Ting-Kuo Chen, Tsung-Lin OuAn importance–performance model of restaurant
dining experience 207-222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
6
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_210013304.pdf