Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

  < yr. 1979  < yr. 5/2008

I didn't say "unethical," you did.  Not my choice of words.  I call it "business."  

If you were an independent business proprietor  [and by your admission you never were] and want to stay in business for the long term, you have occasions when you push the $700 vacuum, and not the lesser, to make the higher profit.   Business is about a long term relationship, not a one time vacuum sale.   There are plenty of times to extend business amenities to your customers, not just on the initial sale, to show your appreciation for their business.  When you are in business for 40 plus years, you had to satisfy people and give them their money's worth else not survive.

Carmine D.

Hello HARDSELL:

Using your logic above, if the dyson still worked then you would not have sold it and used the proceeds to buy another brand.  I still own and use my ORECK daily and recommend to others.  You prove my point that only 10 percent of buyers are loyal to a specific brand.  Most people, like you, have a repertoire of different brands for household cleaning products.  ORECK is in my home, along with HOOVER and other brands, because it works.  Dyson isn't because it doesn't.

Promoting one vacuum brand only, as has been the case for dyson fans here, at the exclusion and expense of other brands, particularly by bashing, is bad for the vacuum business.  Of course, it's simple to understand when you are an employee for that vacuum brand/company.  Then you have a vested interest to impugn the competition.  Is this unethical.........because it secretly benefits you [by not disclosing your real/true motives]?  Or is it business?  

Carmine D. 

You call it what you want.  I call it deceiving and unethical as I think most others would.  We are accustomed to your manipulation of words and facts to justify your logic.

You could just as easily give someone their money's worth for less cost          unless it profits you.

Common sense overides your logic Carmine.  I used the Dyson for 3 years and the Oreck for maybe 3 weeks.  I got rid of the Oreck for poor performance in my home.  I got rid of the Dyson just to try other vacs.  Major difference.  I do not own a Dyson and still recommend it.  That is a better compliment than recommending what you use.  Where is your loyalty to the busted Hoover?  If you use them that speaks lowly for Oreck and Hoover.  Really, two brands to do the job of 1 Dyson.

We have repeatedly heard that Dyson did not work on your builder grade carpet.  Speaking of builder grade items.  Did you ever get that builder grade plasma that was gifted with the home replaced or repaired?

In case you forgot.  The Kirby and Royal that replaced the Dyson do not perform to the same high standards.

I can use and recommend more than one vacuum brand and still have loyalty to the brands.   

Severus asks:  Why is it unethical to sell a vacuum for $700 and/or $2000?  Good question.  Not knowing the brand/model one can't say it's unethical or not.  You believe any vacuum over $200 is overpriced.  Is that logical?  Maybe for most big box store vacuums, like your fave [no longer in use] brand?  Not true for most of the vacuum store brands.  

Carmine D.

Hello Severus:

I saw this advertisement over the weekend.  For a dyson buyer, I believe it is a better buy [$250] than most other retailers' dyson models currently being sold.  Of course, with the caveat that a dyson DC07 will not perform on some rug brands and styles.  Not an issue for vacuum enthusiasts buying for collectable reasons. 

In Sept 2006, TARGET stores were selling a DC07 pink on a Labor Day Sale/Cancer Fund Drive for $379, less 10 percent if charged on a TARGET credit card, plus a $100 Giftcard.  The final price, before sales tax, was $240.  I bought for home use.  But this time, unlike with my purchase, there is no mention in the advertisement of dyson/TARGET contributing $45 to the Susan B. Komen cancer foundation with each sale.  

The TARGET Web Site bills this as an "exclusive" with the caveat that it is out of stock.  Perhaps stores are selling out of their old stock.  Which means, if they don't sell and there is a good chance they will not, the price will be lower in the future and/or TARGET may have to offer better buyer incentives with purchases.

Carmine D.

DIB,

As everyone knows I have always been pro Dyson.  I will repeat that I feel it is priced too high.  I also think there are lesser vacs that are way overpriced.  If an Oreck is worth $800 the Dyson is worth $2000. I think the Dyson is worth as much as Miele, Kirby and other over priced brands.  Again they are all over priced.

I could say that if JD gave up on his other projects he could reduce the price of his vacuum.  On the other hand he does invest his money to help others whereas the other brands simply pocket the profits.

So what if JD goes busted.  Look at how he gave others a job and contributed to the economy.  At least he contributed.  What has Oreck offered?  Maybe winimum wage and a paid holiday for its employees while the family lives in luxury.  What have the other brands given in return?

Most any vac costing over $200 is over priced IMHO.

-----------------

Hi Hardsell,

We should all be grateful someone has the guts to innovate and gamble bringing innovations to market.  This takes money.  Last I checked Sir James was spending $95m on R&D.  Yes, he is not investing in vacuum cleaners only.  I have heard rumors of future products.  If they prove out, they will give people greater choices and hopefully create wealth and jobs too.        DIB

ORECK is made in the USA with several US plants, 500 US stores and hundreds of US employees.  Sales of ORECK-s contribute to the US economy and US workers, increasing people's wealth here not abroad.  Like they say in the USA:  Buy American.  I like to add: Especially in the current economic times.

Carmine D.