Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Here is the link to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, about Vax's "No Loss of Suction" claim.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_45100.htm

Venson wrote:

I second the motion and raise it.

Looks like ASA rules against dyson and dyson loses.  VAX wins and gets to keep the claim for the MACH 3, 4, 5 and 6: No loss of suction in product literature and advertisements.  These models are sold under the HOOVER brand label in the USA.  Perhaps these will begin to carry the claim too!  Time will tell.  Interestingly, dyson uses the same standard for its suction claim as VAX [IEC 60312 Clause 2.9] and challenged the claim and filed a complaint with the ASA. 

If the ASA ruled against VAX in favor of dyson and VAX was preempted by the ASA from using the claim, VAX would have filed against dyson.  With the same complaint for use of the same claim.  What was dyson thinking?

Dyson suffers from first-ology syndrome.  Dyson thinks no others count because first comes first and is all that matters.  Dyson doesn't know and understand market place economics 101.  It's not who does it first, but who copies the best and sells for less!    Dyson was first, VAX is a knock off.  A copy bests the original.

Carmine D.

It would appear that Dyson are getting a taste of their own medicine, having complained about competitors' test methods in the past. Now, when Vax appears to play ball, Dyson takes a pot-shot at the claims, and promptly shoots themselves in the foot.

What goes around, comes around.

Trilobite wrote:

Hi Trilobite,

As it was mentioned in the ASA article, I checked out the Grattan website -- http://www.grattan.co.uk/Web/main/home.asp?N=0

Vacuums are here: http://www.grattan.co.uk/cleaners/productlist.stm?N=430%204294966622+629&showSubCatLanding=false&cm_sp=electricals_Appliances_subintro-_-zone1_box1_84K596-_-Cleaners_productlist

There were lots of bagless vacuums by  Vax on sale and at lower prices than Dyson.  I wonder if Dyson's complaint had more to do with trying to monopolize by knocking out the competition on home turf than actual outrage over infringement.

Venson

Guessing as to Dyson’s motives...
You guys are all wrong.  Dyson was simply trying to hold onto another creation of his, the phrase “No Loss of Suction.”  A phrase he has probably spend $100m minimum campaigning, marketing and educating the public on.  He had a weak argument and he knew it (he did not create an entirely new category, issue in new standards and become a billionaire from it because he’s stupid).  No one can blame the guy, he has much invested in this phrase.  TTI or better said - the Chinese government sponsored and Chinese owned TTI has reversed engineered Dyson’s entire multi-cyclonic’s and now has his phrase too.  TTI are knock-off artists yet innovative idiots (cyclonic vacuum cleaners) without James Dyson, his engineers and his creative staff leading and showing the way.        DIB

I m glad DYSONS been exposed its about time,Why dont you tell us about how much integrity dyson has?, But the bag was hopelessly clogged my A$$,

Dysons new mantra. mission accomplished, Thanks suckers, And i'm going to use use the money to invent a tire,thats different ,so long suckers............



MOLE

mole wrote:
Mole,

What are you going to do when Communist TTI clones your best moving and/or profitable vacuums too?        DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I admire your enthusiam and support for all things dyson.  But........

First, dyson explicitly presented its argument to the ASA that VAX was copying its claim.  It was part and parcel of dyson's complaint.  ASA ruled against dyson for VAX saying no exclusive dyson right exists and no comparison by VAX to dyson was made.  VAX went to the CAP of ASA and specifically asked for advertising guidance so as not to violate any proprietary rights/misrepresent the claim.  Then VAX followed the CAP advice.  What was dyson thinking?

Second, had dyson inscribed the mantra "No Loss of Suction" on all its products, say on the soleplate, AND filed complaints against other vacuum brands using the same/similar claims, it would have had a better chance to prevail against VAX.  Even without having filed/received a copyright for the slogan.  Perhaps, the $100 Million and/or a portion thereof would have been better spent if dyson had.  Tho, I suspect dyson's request for a trademark for the claim would have been nixed.

Third, success in making money is never an indication of one's intelligence.  A false corrollary would be that more money means more intelligence.  It's just not so.  A recent case is relevant and appropo.  According to the latest winners of the Nobel Prize for Science, a non-descript financially strapped gent, who lost his job as a scientist for a leading firm, and now makes $10 an hour as a cabbie, played a key role in the discovery and invention.  Tho the gentleman, a publicly proclaimed genius, was never recognized/mentioned and did not make the trip to Stockholm with the others.  The cabbie's boss says he is the most overqualified cabbie he's ever met and under his employ!  Is the cabbie gent upset for not being recognized?  Not at all.  Quite the contrary.  He's elated he doesn't have to don a tux and make the trip!  Now, that's an indication of intelligence!

Carmine D.

  

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

BINGO! 

I agree and I think the ASA saw through dyson's motives just like you did.  The same can be said of dyson's recent complaint against Electrolux's Infinity, another loss handed to dyson by the ASA.  A bagged contender, the Infinity, vice dyson's bagless DC14.  No trade/copyright infringements at all were in question.  But the results of one cleaning test by two products [Electrolux and dyson] with the Infinity prevailing handily over the dyson.  And the Infinity had a hopelessly clogged full bag too.  [MOLE, you're right again!]  A feeble attempt by dyson in using the ASA to kill off a less expensive vacuum competitor on its home turf.  What was dyson thinking?

Carmine D.

Venson wrote:

Hello Venson:

Thanks for posting the Web Sites.  Interesting to see VAX branded floorcare products in the UK that are identical to those that carry the HOOVER name plate in the USA.  No doubt the reason in part HOOVER sourced its FUSION and FUSION Plus in 2005 [predecessor of the MACH-s] to VAX and TTI bought and merged HOOVER into its fold with VAX and others. 

I'm amazed at the low prices for the bagless dyson knock-offs.  A good deal of dyson's market share decline [from 2004 to now] in the UK is a direct result of these less expensive bagless models.  I suspect the same is true in the USA and other countries.  Especially with the global economy tanking.  People are digging in for long protracted hard times ahead.  Dyson wasn't smart enough to foresee the less expensive knock-offs on the horizon and the hard times ahead. 

I wonder if some of dyson's recent complaints with the ASA, tho an excercise in futility, are desperate acts for its own lack of economic and business foresight.  Maybe dyson should hire a good macro/micro economist.

Carmine D.