Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

ORECK - The business, the history, the machine, the man and related.

(Below: Oreck 1979 to 2008)

  < yr. 1979  < yr. 5/2008

Why in the world is it considered unethical to sell a customer a vacuum that meets their needs just because it's above some arbitrary price?  If someone wants to spend $2000, $1600, $1200, $120, or even $50 vacuum for whatever reason that is their business.   It's possible for a $200 vacuum to have a higher cost over 5 years than a $400 vacuum.   For some vacuums, the up front cost is cheap, but you sure get hosed on the bags/belts/filters.

As an aside, I believe that Target had the pink Dyson DC07 for $350 with a free $100 gift card recently. 




HARDSELL wrote:

CarmineD wrote:

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.

CarmineD wrote:

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.

Hello HARDSELL:

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.

As an aside, I believe that Target had the pink Dyson DC07 for $350 with a free $100 gift card recently. 

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.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

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

Your economic praise for dyson is misplaced if you live in the USA and the UK.  Dyson products are made in MAL-ASIA and imported by the USA and UK.  Sales contribute to foreign countries and workers at the expense of the US and UK economies.   It's an outflow of US and UK resources/capital when Americans/Brits buy dyson products.   

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.

Oreck... "Made in America".  Made by... (illegals)?  ... it’s a fair question.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090111/BUSINESS01/901110346/1003/NEWS01

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7323049

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Yes DIB, it's a fair enough question.  Nonetheless, I have to first admit that during a four-and-one-half year period of my life I continually worked outside this country as an "illegal".  In my situation I did not work for a low return.  In this case however and keeping in mind the quote stating that wealth is made on the backs of the poor, low-cost labor by the hands of non-natives residing in or outside our country is advantageous to businesses of all kinds and American consumers are making no effort to refuse the resulting product.

Thinking on my time in Europe and elsewhere, I distinctly recall Sweden.  The rule there is that no one from outside the country may work there without gaining the express permission of the government BEFORE entering the country.  No matter your area or level of expertise, you couldn't sweep floors there or sing grand opera per that law -- plain and simple.  Further, if that law is violated, the Swedish government in addition to usually expected action will permanently shut down the errant business establishment that employed illegal workers.

It is highly doubtful that similar standards will be accepted here any time soon.  First, because business is simply greedy that way -- "Never pay anybody any more than you just have to" -- and second, prior aliens either now sworn or born into U.S. citizenship may well not look kindly on the idea and seriously hurt somebody at the polls.

As long as American business -- of which a large part appears to be reluctant to pay a decent wage to anyone -- cannot manufacture and sell its product for what it sees as a proper return it will go looking elswhere.  I also think because the issue is about money that persons in government who might actually be able to do something concrete will continue to look away because loss of such a benefit would be consider detrimental to "friends" who run Americans and businesses.

None of this stuff happens without someone responsible for oversight somewhere along the line turning a blind eye. 

Venson

How unkind and uncharitable to refer to people as illegal.  Las Vegas is built and served by people with diverse ethnic backgrounds.  Praise God for their efforts and ambitions.

The sadness and tragedy of it all is that these "illegals" contribute over $2 BILLION dollars a year to the Social Security Fund and will probably never collect any money out of it!  A sin that cries out to God!

Carmine D.