Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Story here:  http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/40463852.html

CarmineD wrote:
New in stores and already discounted by 25%.  NOT A GOOD SIGN.

CarmineD wrote:
I'd like to see Oreck win the "Oreck v. TTI - who produces the better Oreck vacuum?  Since Oreck is the lessor of 2 evils (TTI the other), I'd like to see Oreck survive, employ/keep employing Americans (legal) workers and contribute to our economy.  But!... Avocado green vacuums?...  Why?  Oreck is unwilling to build good looking products.  I am not a designer but look at the Oreck handle and Radio Shack-like rocker switch, it’s awful.  Most try to conceal the mounting screws... not Oreck.  Their portable vac looks like a shoebox.  I'm embarrassed for them.  Based on price and styling alone, Oreck and their employees may "pay" for these choices...  lost revenues = lost jobs.


DIB

Here is a pic of a [JC Penney] Oreck handle vs. a TTI handle.

The standard ORECK upright model [XL Classic] offers the tried and true industry standard handle grip.   The deluxe ORECK models offer the "Helping Hand Handle," exclusive to ORECK, which lets users operate the vacuum without clenching their hands or straining their wrists.  It is ergonomically designed to relieve the stress and strain on wrists, arm, and elbows.  And, has earned ORECK the Arthritis Foundation Ease-of-Use Commendation. 

As an regula ORECK user, I prefer the switch on the handle grip.  As opposed to the standard industry ORECK grip which has the power switch on the vacuum [see my review of the ORECK XL Classic in the reviews section of this page].

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Fortunately, the buyers and Execs for J.C Penney do not share your views and like the ORECK features and vacuums enough to offer them to their store/internet customers.  I trust their experience and judgement over yours.

Carmine D.

J.C. Penney reported annual profit for the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, of $567 MILLION dollars.  It's current stock price is $25 plus with a 52 week high of $45.  Penney's also reported better than expected sales results for the first quarter 2009 ended March 31, 2009.  See its news releases for Q1 results dated April 9, 2009.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
CarmineD wrote:
What do you think the suits were motivated by mostly?...

1. Oreck’s inability to come close to matching TTI’s patented technologies, features, styling and price?  or...
2. The exclusive to JC Penney Avocado Green?  or...
3. Oreck’s brand name, margins and advertising budget?  or...
4. Other reasons?

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
DIB,

You must have been just a toddler back in the '70s when "flower power" hit. All manner of vacuum brands, including Hoover, were sporting all sorts of wild prints on outer bags and flower decals on canisters. Shetland-Lewyt being the worst offender.

As well, instead of the new use of black and brushed stainless steel "high-tech" finishes for large appliances, avocado and "copper" were all the rage back in the day. This is just a color recycle that will be used for now, forgotten and thought of again somewhere down the line. You should also note that Electrolux AB's new line of cleaners are using bright lime green.

My S7 has a wonderful metallic cherry red finish. I like it so much that it's taking all I can do not to have the car painted to match.

Venson

Venson wrote:
Venson,
I like most any color era, as long as it is applied to something new.  The Oreck is mechanically old and the retro Avocado look reinforces this.

Millions undoubtedly have viewed Dyson’s Ball commercial - where he uses old (1970's) film illustrating the the old vacuum look and how we used em.  Why would Oreck and JC Penney’s introduce a product that looks old and that Dyson demonstrates to many as old?


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:
DIB,

"No brainer" design has a large audience. You have overlooked that everyone may not be ready for or in want of the "new" and may actually be put off by things they see as to modern. In this day and age I know a truckload of adults that still aren't ready for computers yet.

Here we are in the 21st century and things haven't changed much save for paths of thought. Lots of radical redesigns for this century were foretold since way back but thank God we're not all parading around in the spandex suits the Jetsons wore. Ultrasonic dishwashers are still basically a nice idea for the future and even Segways are considered way cool but I know no one who owns one.

Many everyday shoppers are highly influenced by familiarity by reason of the sense of security (well-founded or not)it renders, by perceptions that an item that resembles or is the same brand as the last one they owned may be just as good or that the item resembles by look or type what other friends or family use and found satisfactory. (If it's good enough for Mom, it's good enough for me.)

Besides which, Oreck is a company with a "name" and names can get away with a lot more than newbies can. Other vacuums like Kirby, Rainbow, Filter Queen, etc., that have been around for years don't actually change all that much but continue to sell. Why? Because there are people who actually prefer them and who won't be sold anything else for all the tea in China.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

The GM Segway vehicle rickshaw showed off at the NY Auto Show last week is the latest in whimsical show-mobiles.  Shows that the traditional big 3 car makers can think outside the box.  But they have little connection to what consumers will see coming to the showrooms in 2, 5, 10 years from now.

Big car makers have learned that it takes as long as 10 years to get significant new technology ready for mass market deployment.  Why?  Cost.  So what do they do?  Incremental improvement.  Less expensive.

Most cars can get 10-15 percent better fuel mileage improvement for an additional $500 per vehicle.  Vice a hybrid fuel efficient model that can cost  $3000-$5000 more per model.   At $2 a gallon, demand for the higher mileage high priced hybrids is waning by US car buyers.  A big worry for car makers who invested billions in hybrids.

Carmine D.