Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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

CarmineD wrote:
Hi,

I'm confused too. If it's a typo and was meant to have been "best pick up average" versus other brands that would not be true. If it is meant to imply that Dyson is best out of x-number of machines for getting up an average amount/type of litter and dirt, I'd also deem that not necessarily on point.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
I would take it to mean (and this is just my opinion) that after all the IEC and ASTM tests are done and combined that the Dyson cleaned the best over all tested categories.  Without knowing what all the tests were however, it all comes down to just another marketing line.

Dusty

Thanks for the thoughts.

It's clear that whatever the terms of the ORECK 1 settlement in Feb 2007 the result is that the once well defined slogan "Never clogs, never loses suction" has been replaced by a verbose ambiguous dissertation about tests and results.  Hard to hold any feet to the fire over words that have multiple meanings depending on who's interpreting. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote: Do you mean like the ads that claim to clean 50% better than Dyson that were lies?

CarmineD wrote:

The slogan 'others clog - ours don't' is featured in a Dyson promotional leaflets for their current UK upright and canister range. The leaflet for Dyson's DC16 uses the slogan 'The only handheld that doesn't lose suction'

The slogan 'the cleaner that doesn't lose suction' is featured both in Dyson promotional material, and also the current Spring/Summer 2009 catalogue from major UK retailer Argos.

The current Winter 08/09 floorcare catalogue for Currys, another major appliance, electronics and white goods retailer contains several similar statements:

'A Dyson vacuum cleaner uses Root Cyclone technology to spin dirt from the airflow. That's why a Dyson vacuum cleaner never loses suction.'

And:

'Root Cyclone technology separates the dirt from the air by centrifugal force, collecting it in a bin. Because it does not rely on a filter, suction remains constant room after room.'

None of these slogans are followed with references to any test results. I cite the Argos and Currys brochures as examples because I happen to have both of them to hand as I'm writing this. The website for electrical retailer Comet also features the slogan 'the cleaner that doesn't lose suction'  in its Dyson section, as well as the claim 'A Dyson cleaner spins the dirt out of the airflow at high speed, so nothing gets clogged. Which means it doesn't lose suction':    http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/advice/080/Dyson-Guide

It should be noted that Vax, another major UK brand, are now making very similar claims for their own cleaners. From Currys floorcare brochure:

'Multi-cyclonic technology provides better separation of dust particles from the airflow, maintaining suction for longer. Cleans as well as the first time, every time.'

Cleaners from Vax's Mach range all bear the words, 'No loss of suction'

I can't help you Dysons, 'the best average pickup' claim; that's not in use over here!

Clearly, dyson is given more latitude among its sales venues in the UK than here in the USA.  Perhaps, due to the ORECK 1 settlement?  Maybe.

I'm not sure what test can be used to document and prove NEVER clogging. 

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

No, I don't.  I'm speaking strictly about dyson as you know.  Based on the total mass of industry data in the public arena, it is safe to say that dyson vacuums are not known for their besting others [even $50 Dirt Devil uprights] in rug cleaning and grooming let alone doing so in written advertised claims.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Has not Oreck made themselves out to be an enemy to Dyson?  Oreck has made a second career out of attacking the Dyson vacuum (in their infomercials, etc), attacking Dyson’s marketing and suing Dyson.  If Oreck spent more time on themselves, paying their bills on time, keeping up a good credit history, not having to sell their financial souls to outside investors, inventing, creating new and needed markets, being first to market, etc.,- they would not need to sue (so badly) and write creative claims of their vacuum's wonders and their leading edge engineering that cannot be proven as true.


DIB

I offer no comment on your opinions of ORECK, other than to say I am pleased with mine and it performs exactly as I want and expect.  I do seem to recall that ORECK and HOOVER too [if memory serves me correctly] joined with the 30 plus others, who characterized themselves as disgruntled dyson owners and users, who filed against dyson with the ASA in the UK.  I doubt these customers and buyers of dysons had any motives for bringing dyson up against the ASA other than fairness and truth in dyson's product claims.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

It shouldn't be difficult to find 30 consumers who disliked any product ever sold.

Exactly when does Dyson lose suction?