WSJ, Public Mistake High Prices For Luxury In Viking Cruises

The Wall Street Journal published an article suggesting that Viking is a luxury cruise line simply because it is expensive. The public makes this mistake too – and it’s wrong. 

Wall Street Journal’s Gushing Report

On September 3rd, 2025, the Wall Street Journal published a gushing report about Viking cruise lines’ ocean product. Its claim is that because Viking earns more on older equipment than contemporary cruise lines, then it is a) outperforming the best in the business, and b) is a luxury cruise line. In the coming sections, I will break down just how foolish this is (and embarrassing coming from the WSJ) but here’s some excerpts of the coverage.

“Climbing aboard a Viking ship tends to mean paying more than for many alternatives—Viking tickets range between $800 and $900 per night for one person, easily twice as much as the cost to board some larger cruise ships—but there will be “no nickel and diming” on ships, according to the company’s list of what’s banned on board.

Cruisegoers don’t pay extra for anything from laundry services and excursions to beer and wine at lunch and dinner, Wi-Fi and spa access. While extras such as a massage or enhanced excursions are an option, Viking says its staff won’t pressure guests to consider add-ons.

Viking has fine-tuned the economics of sailing to locations such as Amsterdam and Basel, Switzerland, while relying less than others in the industry on spending onboard, analysts said. For cruise giants Royal Caribbean Group, Carnival and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, spending on ships tends to account for roughly 30% of revenue. At Viking, it was less than 7% of overall revenue for the three months ended June 30.

Higher ticket prices make this financially feasible for Viking, as do relatively unchanged ship designs.” – WSJ (emphasis mine)

The article goes on to discuss how Viking doesn’t have to invest at all in its product and avoids doing so intentionally. Why not update their ships? Because then customers will want the new ships and avoid the older ones.

“Unchanged ships are good for revenue and margins, said Viking’s finance chief, Leah Talactac. Unveiling new ships with added amenities runs the risk of making the older options less appealing to would-be travelers. Viking ships, meanwhile, “maintain their earnings power,” she said.

“So a 2012 ship will have the same revenue-generating ability as a 2025 ship,” according to Talactac. ” – WSJ

It goes on to brag that their cabins only cost $225,000 to make vs up to $1MM on modern luxury ships. Is that a flex? The writer goes on to discuss how Viking is generating twice the nightly rate of “the largest cruise ship operators” which are neither high-end nor luxury.

Inaccurate Market Equivalency

The writer repeatedly compares Viking’s ocean product to the largest cruise line operator (Carnival) and newest products on the market (Royal Caribbean.) She claims that because it doesn’t charge for access to laundry facilities (not luxury), beer and wine at meal times (not luxury at all) and excursions (walking tours included) it’s “luxurious without being too opulent.”

That’s just not what the product is.

Viking is a tired product specifically in the ocean space, differentiating from its river product. Its model (with traditional main dining rooms) is focused on educational programs but its price point is equal to or above luxury providers. I found several dates that were above Seabourn. That brand offers a modern, larger, updated Verandah with white glove service, and on-demand caviar – no charge for alcohol whether it’s at dinner or lunch or not. Many of those dates, it’s well above Explora Journeys (as much as twice the price) which also includes all suites with walk-in closets, heated marble floors, and a full shower on brand new ships.

For Carnival, Viking would be equivalent on the hard product (room), but adds alcohol at lunch (even Carnival includes it at dinner), wifi, and historical walking tours – for approximately four times the price. Most Royal Caribbean products are half the cost leaving plenty of budget for the same excursions, adding wifi, premium restaurants, and modern cabins with far more amenities.

This is in some way representative of comparing a large ULCC like RyanAir to a dated flag carrier like Iberia but calling the latter a luxurious product because it’s more expensive, and then patting them on the back for having better per seat numbers.

Unacceptable From A Business Newspaper

I’ve written for industry publications highlighting that price does not equate to the level of service. Just because something is expensive doesn’t make it a luxury product, and in that article I was speaking to travel agency owners but the message apparently applies to the leading business newspaper in the United States and perhaps the world.

I’ll submit a restaurant example to support the dislocation between price and product or service. In most markets, at McDonald’s a Quarter Pounder meal with fries and a drink is $10.64. For the same sized burger, grilled fresh with better toppings, also with fries, a drink, and bottomless chips and salsa – Chili’s sells theirs for $9.99. There’s no question, Chili’s makes the better burger, delivers more value, and is the fresher, better experience, but does that make McDonald’s the elevated option just because it’s more expensive. The market would confirm that’s not the case as Chili’s is up 31% last year in same store sales vs down 1.4% in the US for McDonald’s.

In the airline business, it’s not uncommon to see Premium Economy sell for more than business class. It doesn’t make it a superior product, it just means that Premium Economy is selling better and competing against a different segment than Business Class is on the same flight, route, or market pair.

The Wall Street Journal, of all publications should know the difference but doesn’t.

Conclusion

The most disappointing part of this is not just the media’s lack of investigative effort, but the general public’s lack of market awareness. Viking does well not because it has a competitive product, it does well because it markets in a way that suggests it is the only option for adults who don’t want to be surrounded by neon-colored waterslides. Viking is incredibly expensive relative to what’s available on the market, and by its own admission, doesn’t update their product. But it’s inexcusable for a well-regarded financial paper to conflate price with service level. They should know better.

What do you think?