I've never cruised with Crystal, so am only speaking from a position of hypotheticals. And your analogy is certainly appropriate--I often think of cruise line positioning in terms of hotel chain positioning, as I have a LOT more experience in hotels than on cruise ships.

Where that argument breaks down is that there are some so-called "luxury" hotels that offer nothing truly luxurious except the aura. I put the entire W concept in that category--all flash, no substance, yet they've created a buzz through clever marketing that makes people think they're cool if they spend hundreds of dollars a night for tiny rooms and surly service. Some people here (sbagal among them) have made the case that Crystal does the same. It has convinced a segment of the population that they offer the best experience at sea, while that may simply be untrue.

I have stayed at Ritz-Carltons that were nice but unremarkable, and in "base" Marriotts that were phenomenal. In general the brands are positioned a certain way, but even so there are times when they don't quite fit the stereotype. I have found HAL to offer a very premium experience for a fair price. I honestly don't see how any cruise line could offer friendlier, more attentive service (which is the most important aspect of "luxury" to me). Their cabins are large and well-appointed. Their food, while not Michelin-star quality, is in line with nice, upscale land-based restaurants (which is really what I want anyway--who could live on rich French food for weeks at a time?).

But I don't necessarily look down on Crystal cheerleaders, either. They've found a product that works for them, so good for them! Maybe if I'd had the personally disappointing experience sbagal did then I'd be more vocal, or if I had a circle of friends who looked down their noses at me for preferring a "premium" line over their "luxury" one. Luckily my friends are less materialistic and shallow than that.