Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Howdy all,

Per a New York Times story,  Halo ( http://www.gethalo.com ), the upright vacuum with the bug and germ killing UV light, as of last week has committed to a 20 million dollar advertising push over the next year in behalf of the new UV-ST model.  This is a little less than half of what Hoover shells out in the same time window.  The Halo UV-ST -- a fan-in-dirt- stream upright -- is priced at $499. 

The interesting part of the effort is that this may well be merely word play. Phil Smith who is president of BooneOakley, the firm devising the add campaign, states that, "Any vacuum, by Dyson, Hoover, Bissell, can't kill germs while it vacuums.  We're not going after any maker or model.  We don't see any competition."  An ambitious approach but to the best of my knowledge, though UV technology is used for disinfecting water and for sterilization, Halo has not put forth bona fide test results as to how well its product actually works in regard to rug cleaning or disinfecting.

Here's the link to the story but please note that you may have to apply for a free subscription to view it -- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/business/media/26adco.html    Interested consumers may also call 866-638-4256 and request an owners manual.

Best,

Venson

Hi Venson:

It didn't succeed on a variety of fronts.  It's marketing strategy [scare tactics about germs and health] is not amenable to most US consumers.  It's claim that it was the only vacuum that killed germs was exaggerated and proven false by medical and scientific research [you posted the data].  In a complaint lodged by BISSELL against halo with the FTC, saying the claim was false, BISSELL won.  Halo was told to cease and desist.  The price of $499 with a $50/more kick back to the retailer/seller was too pricey, vice other big box store vacuums, for a basic vacuum with a UV-C light added.  Especially as a chinese made vacuum with a one year warranty.

The CEO of halo, Mr. Garcia, is taking new tact with his $499 UV-C upright:  That it's better for allergy and asthma users if used regularly.  Sounds like retreat and regroup.  Garcia commissioned a study to develop findings and results to support the latest claim.  Haven't heard the results yet.  I can only imagine. 

Throw in a bad US economy for consumer goods with falling retail sales of high priced specialty items, high gas and high food prices, the housing and mortgage crises, and halo was destined to die a natural death.  It's a goner save a niche vacuum in specialty stores for germaphobes. 

$179 sounds about right for the halo price.  I suggest Garcia take another route with halo.  Scrub the UV-C light altogether.  Change the name, market as a lightweight bagged upright with excellent filtration, and tools on board, for less than $200.  He'll sell them all.

MOLE, you called this one right early on.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Venson,And Carmine

You ought to be charging for your information, This is MAYBE a cleaner worth 179.00, Trust me its still profitable for both HALO and the box stores.

The problem that comes to the forefront is, When a consumer is TAGGED for 500.00 plus for a vacuum that only lasts maybe 3 or 4 years before MAJOR parts breakage and service thats almost extinct, it really turns them away from spending the price for a cleaner thats 500.00 and up again,And you know i really cant blame them.Like you say get me once shame on you get me twice shame on me,
No matter what you say or do you are not going to change their minds,

After getting burnt [you can fill in your brand here] they figure that the cleaners are all the same and the industry as a whole is a sham . Please start something for fair and honest marketing and forget about corporate greed and all for me and the heck with you,

Sincerely

THE-MOLE

mole wrote:

Hi Mole,

"Fair" being a key word here, it couldn't have been said better.

Thanks,

Venson

Ken Garcia and his halo should have went the lightweight upright route first for $200 and transitioned into the retailers with a solid winner.  Halo then could have added the UV-C light and upped the ante.  Halo would still be a viable, on-going concern and flourishing.  Instead halo is probably a goner:  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

So much for one of the prognostications here that said "HALO is going to sell a ton of these things" due to the fancy schmancy web site.  Consumers know a con when they see/hear it regardless of the media venue. 

Here lies halo, may it RIP.

Carmine D.

Halo is now selling at costco.com for $180 with shipping. 

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11299638

Severus wrote:

Hello Severus:

Probably worth the price tho I expect the halo prices to get reduced further.  Also comes with 3 HEPA filter bags.  I want to take a closer look at the bag and how it is mounted.  Wondering if it uses a cardboard collar that locks into a plastic docking bag holder.  With a rubber seal and/or dirt trap on the bag opening. 

The NAD/FTC provided the nails for the halo coffin.  Up to this point, the consumer magazines like Consumer Reports and Better Homes and Gardens were non-committal about the performance of the halo and did not support its claims with zeal.  CR said that halo was only so so for pet hair pick up and didn't like the less expensive halo model [MSRP of $400] because it lacked tools on board.  The consumer magazines shyed away from testing the halo claims [about killing germs] and supporting these with enthusiam, probably due to the complaint lodged by BISSELL.  And the flurry of medical and scientific evidence that followed the halo launch which proved most vacuums with brush rolls are just as effective for killing germs.  I'm not sure about Good Housekeeping.  Can't recall if it covered and or granted its seal to halo.  I think not.

In hindsight, Garcia's marketing and budget were flawed.   $20 Million was not nearly enough.  He should have marketed the model with the UV-C light in specialty stores specifically for allergy and asthma users.  At the high price [$400-$500].  While marketing a less expensive version without the UV light for $200 in the big box retailers.  Both would have been niche markets he could capitalize on.  The former for the germaphobes and the latter for vacuum buyers looking for a lightweight with tools on board. 

If halo followed this road, it would not have had to make such an exaggerated claim [read false] for germ killing in order to compete for vacuum sales among the big box retailers.  The $20 Million earmarked for halo advertising, a puny amount for a new product and brand name launch, would have been better served with this sales and marketing venue.  Halo would have fared better.

Carmine D.

You nailed it Carmine, it just goes to prove that the box stores are not the venue for vacuums that cost over 200.00,

MOLE

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

Pulling my old quotes and pulling them out of context to bait me is funny, pathetic or both.  And leaving out my later posts where I began to doubt Halo’s unnecessary and crazy claim’s.  Leaving out the fact that I do research this industry and am the only poster here to post twice of NAD findings/judgments in regards to Halos advertising, this too is funny, pathetic or both.  It is boring for me to correct you all the time, from here on I will simply call your falsehoods or misquotes of me lies, ok?

.

Good luck securing $20 - $50 million from investors with your tired commodity proposal. – A $200 lightweight vacuum that is “built with off the shelf, in the public domain parts and designs”. - Basically a non-proprietary nothing.        DIB 

Consumer Reports October 2008 ratings for the halo UVX [w/o attachments] were decent.  Good for carpets and pet hair.  Excellent for barefloors and emissions.  Retail price shows $370 which is no longer the price.  COSTCO as well as other retailers price the top of the line halo [UV-ST with the attachments on board] for $179 which includes free shipping and 3 paper bags.  Probably a decent buy at the price. 

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11299638&whse=BC&Ne=5000001+4000000&eCat=BC|103|4716&N=4000044%204294905087&Mo=0&No=0&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&Sp=C&topnav=

The down side with any halo purchase is the prospect of future service/parts support.  Vacuum buyers/users: Roll the dice and take your chances.  Collectors:  Here's your chance to own a small piece [very tiny] of vacuum history.

Next on the Ken Garcia's agenda: Sell the halo UV-C rights to a competitor and fade into oblivion.  If there are any takers.  And surprisingly, even in this bad retail market, there may be a few.

Carmine D.

According to the latest studies reported by Good Housekeeping in its October 2008 magazine,  despite heroic housekeeping efforts made by many asthma and allergy sufferers to get rid of dust mites, those microscopic bugs that inhabit beds and bedding, nothing helps.

Now they can relax, say researchers who reviewed 54 studies involving 3000 asthma patients, and found that no special treatments, covering beds with mite-proof casings, vacuuming with special machines, or frequent washing in scalding water, eliminated enough of the bugs to make a difference.  Even when people reduced dust mites alot (and that was the case in only some of the studies reviewed), asthma symptoms didn't improve.

Study leader, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, advises: "Just keep your house clean."

Carmine D.