Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

How long until someone exposes the rubbish and lies of [vacuum cleaner] *clubbers and *dealers who use YouTube as their platform? 


DIB

*Not all, just many (are dirty).

Venson,

I think the conning vacuum dealers day in the sun is almost over.  Only a fool would place video on the net demonstrating the different cons.  If David Copperfields tricks can be exposed online, so too can the various vacuum cons.  I realize this YouTube con (man} is only one guy, but these tricks of the trade are common amongst the dirty.  Exposing the cons would hurt many in the industry.

DIB

Time and the internet have dispelled all the vacuum myths of years gone by.  Had the internet existed decades ago, HOOVER would never have had the problem it did with the unscrupulous door-to-door sales people who perpetrated the long lasting myth that the agitators' beater bars prematurely wore out carpets and rugs. 

Carmine D.

Hey Carmine,

I’ve yet to see the breakdown (online) pertaining to how the cons and their tricks are performed.

Thanks for the bit of history...  falsehoods and false performance claims go back a long way.

DIB

Like Consumer Reports is any better? LMK.

How about all the saps who bought an "ELECTROLUX" Oxygen because they thought it was the same vacuum their mom had for 20 years. That is the lowest of the low!

Lucky1 wrote:
Agreed.  It's a shame, because many put their trust in CR.  Bag technology aside, surface area is king, yet the Electrolux Infinity ranks high.  Hmmm

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Some not so long.  Check snopes under:  "Never clogs, never loses suction."  You should find MOLE's statement posted here many many times in quotation marks:  "Laughingstock of the industry."  ASA got the final laugh. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

.

I thought they should of changed the colors,then eveything would of had been better.Any one like orecks am/fm/ c/d player attached to the handle??????????

It wasnt me....

MOLE

DysonInventsBig wrote:

CarmineD wrote:
...Myths.  NAD and the general public are perfectly fine with Dyson's claims.

DIB

I can't speak for the NAD [like you] and have not seen an official position from it on these dyson claims.  Let alone one that even vaguely supports your innuendo.  I can speak for the general vacuum buying public and say both former dyson claims: "Never clogs, and never loses suction" are the 2 biggest myths ever perpetrated on the vacuum industry in all my years of professional experience.  Both are attributed to your fave dyson brand within the last 6 years. 

The question for me and others [which remains unanswered] is how many new dysons were sold to unsuspecting buyers who relied on these false and exaggerated claims.  I suspect many were returned to retailers when their owners learned the truth which accounts for the huge resale market for used/refurbed dyson vacuums. 

It's a moot point now except for the future and the more wiser:  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

I recall a now famous ASA ruling recently against dyson UK.  ASA found and ruled based on the preponderence of test evidence of several vacuum industry professionals that the Electrolux Infinity upright with a full paper bag outcleaned a dyson DC14 by over 40 percent.  And, subsequently, the Infinity was allowed to keep its written advertised claim that it was a better rug performer than a dyson [much to James chagrin, who initiated the ASA action, and your unkind characterizations of the ASA rule makers here]. 

However, I can't recall that the Electrolux Infinity upright was ever a test model in the Consumer Reports in the recent past.  Perhaps I misunderstand/misinterpret your statement.  Would you mind elaborating on your above statement?

Carmine D.