Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

CarmineD wrote:

I’m bemused that you keep bringing this fact up in your posts, because I don’t personally see it as all that a big a deal. For someone like Dyson, selling a premium priced item to capture 43% of the market one year, falling by 15% three years later is to be expected. Why?

 

If Dyson (say) was in the perishable fruit market, yes, this would be a clear indication of their performance. People buy fruit one week, eat it, buy again fruit the next week, etc. Vacuums are not replaced with this frequency.. well okay, cheap vacuums can get replaced every 12months, but premium priced vacuums are designed to last for 5-10 years.

 

I see a saturated market, in the UK at least - I truly don’t see any brand even close to taking Dyson’s market share, at their price point. People either are either happy to buy a cheap bagged cleaner or are prepared to pay more for a ‘proper’ bagless by way of Dyson. Typically, people will even look to buy a low-end bagless, get frustrated by its performance, then, if their funds allow, will stump up for the Dyson.

 

Dyson’s performance indicators are all about market share – it’s about them getting the best return on margin, from as many people as possible. That’s why I think the ball feature is a great invention; it gives many existing Dyson owners an added incentive to upgrade. When this happens, a lot of the existing Dyson cleaners enter the second-hand market, again distorting the true picture of Dyson owners.

Ask yourselves this question,what does the person that buys a vacuum cleaner expect it to do,[MAYBE CLEAN THE HOUSE?].

People that have dysons would want to upgrade to another dyson?give a legit reason,other than weight.

So it brings us back to the question of ,is the upright market going away?

Does dyson have a shot at the canister market[NO], they failed with the last 2 efforts.

Does dyson have a clue whats really going on in the vacuum universe[you can draw your own conclusion.......

DYSONS NEW MANTRA ,,,,, TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN AS FAST AND AS FAR AS YOU CAN.

GOOD LUCK SIR JIMMY,your going to need it.........

THE-MOLE

Following in the footsteps of most "sales at any cost" generated companies I feel Dyson has entered the slippery slope of a decline that has destroyed so many once solid American companies. By not remaining true to their "product" they have cheapened the brand by excluding Small Dealers (loss of grass roots marketing and KNOWLEDGEABLE sales force), Heavy Discounting (as I've said many times that BB&beyond & others aren't supposed to discount, wink, wink but we all know thats a joke, Flooding the market with refurbs (why buy a new one when there are SO MANY cheaper ones available, Creating too many new models rather than improving the ones they have (they could actually be different but still have the same badge too many models just confuse the buyer), adding too many Numeric model designations (while they make sense to engineers and corporate people, to people who do not deal with the product everyday numbers are MORE confusing than NAMES), and I'm sure I could come up with a few reasons more if pressed.


I'm not saying the brand will die but I feel the glory days are numbered.

Hello M00seUK:

Do you think dyson is not worried about a 15 percent market share loss in 3 years?  In the UK?  Its country of origin for production of the brand name and inventor?  I seriously doubt it.  That drop sets off bells and whistles and raises red flags.  Something very serious is happening.   

The US with a population of 300,000,000 plus sells 20 million new full sized vacuums every year [give or take a few percent].  For example NAD reported 2007 new vacuum sales off 3 percent.  I suspect all in new dysons.  Probably down more but the other vacuum brands increased.  The 20 MILLION number has been consistent since 1997 when US population was about 285 million.  For 10 plus years in the USA, despite ups and downs in the economy, 20 million new vacuums are sold each year. 

The vacuum brands vying for that 20 million in new unit yearly sales would be highly upset if they lost 15 percent in 3 years.  Stay the same year over year?  Yes, that's doable and okay.  Last years' sales numbers are the starting point for all brands when projecting new yearly sales.  Losing market share?  An average of 5 percent a year for 3 consecutive years steady.  Totally unacceptable.  Unless times are bad [as they are now AND the 20 million units sold per year goes down].  Then the vacuum brand had better have the same percent of the fallen market too.  Or, something is seriously wrong.  Big box retailers kick the declining sales brand out and off the shelves.  Quick like.  Make room for the brands selling.  This is happening now with the dyson brand name here in the US.

Is the UK vacuum market different than the US?  If so, how and why?  Don't say durable consumer goods go down in sales year over year.  That is untrue.  Brand name sales of durable products go down year over year, not the total durable product sales.  Attrition of consumer durable goods [like vacuums] accounts for the steady sales numbers for 10 years.  MOLE and LUCKY 1 got it right.  As a Brit and loyal dyson fan, you got it wrong. 

The durable consumer product numbers [for vacuums] year over year stay the same, usually go up, or in extremely rare cases go down.  The latter if the conditions I mentioned above occur.  Then that brand name of the consumer durable product had better have the same percent of the lower number of product sales.   Or heads roll [if you are a publicly traded company, which we all know dyson is not]. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Same BS from the same DA who told us that Hoover would succeed and that Dyson would fail.  How does crow taste?

I am sure that you have convinced yourself, however the rest of us aren't complete DA's.

CarmineD wrote:
Spend some time reading consumer reviews.  One of the biggest gripes is how easily Orecks clog. 

Hello HARDSELL:

Same old same old from a former dyson user who sold his DC07, took the proceeds and bought a new DC14 from SEARS, returned it for a refund because it was unsatisfactory and bought a bagged Royal Eminence for $299.  And then rags on the Royal but praises the dyson.  Still has and uses the Royal!  Doesn't have a dyson and won't buy another one. 

I don't believe anonymous negative ORECK reviews like yours.  I trust my own judgment based on my personal usage and my professional experience with ORECK-s after 40 plus years in the vacuum business.  I factor in those of other ORECK users who I know personally and professionally.  And the positive reviews from Consumer Reports and the Rug Institute of America for ORECK.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

You once referenced the forum to the Oreck site to read all the positive reviews.  Duh, talk about a D A.  I trust professionals to report positive on what benefits them the most,  similar to the Oreck posts on the Oreck site.

You're right HS. It was the Rug Institute of America which recommends ORECK and has a link to its Web Site for vacuums.  Not dysons tho.  Not recommended and no link.  Best RIA did for dyson was to use the DC07 pictured in its Web Site.  I learned the story behind it and laughed.   This reminded me.  Inside RIA joke.  Not to be shared with dyson fans.

I'll share it with you off-line in a private message only if you promise not to divulge to others and buy a new dyson.  So I can laugh again. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
I checked the RIA website and didn't find any reference to Oreck, or Dyson for that matter. Does this mean Oreck isn't performing like it used to?  I somehow doubt it (seeing as it hasn't really changed in 40 years) but I am suspect of any institute that allows for submission of product and charges the company for testing.  Can a company really be unbiased when they are accepting money from the same people they are testing?  Highly unlikely.

Dusty