Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

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

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.

I suspect the same for cars applies to vacuums and vacuum buyers. 

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Get real DIB.  Money.  Bet the winner and take home the profits with increased sales and customers.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

The ORECK difference is that all the new ORECK prices are similarly discounted across all retail venues.  Thus, the ORECK prices that consumers pay are always the same regardless of the ORECK retailers.  An advantage of the ORECK business model.  Vacuum makers using big box retail store venues oftentimes have the retailers undercutting their MSRP and MAP to move the vacuum products.  Often at the expense of the products' price integrity and the independent vacuum store owners/operators who carry the brands/models and can't compete with the big box store prices. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hiya Carmine,

How's it going? Point well taken but I think in this specific case we need a change right now and for such reason we might be best served to carry a grudge for a while. The next gas crunch could be around the corner. Purely my feeling but big business always has some ploy to lay a case against change or more appropriate pricing on.

It's best to keep pushing for more highly fuel-efficient/low emission cars. They are much needed as a large part of the rest of the world wants what we want too -- a certain amount of convenience. An increase of "convenience" may prove hard for the planet to bear if everybody else becomes able to follow suit. For the time being war, disease and famine elsewhere have spared us much worry over our lot. Yet, as of late, we're being shown how close we are to the edge.

Personally, I have no big stake in conservation or concern over Earth's ecosystem. When I'm gone -- I'll be gone. However, there are those with children and grand children who should think about what they are leaving behind. One's legacy is more than what he leaves in the bank. Money won't always be able to buy better air.

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

I agree with a huge caveat.  Like the Beatle's Song:  It's getting better all the time.  The internal gas combustion engine is improving [tho incrementally] and is now leaps and bounds over its early days design and function.  It will be the mainstay of the auto industry for decades to come despite the hybrids.  Like the direct path suction upright.  Here forever.  Sanitaire, KIRBY, ORECK ......................

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hi Carmine,

Yeah, but look what happened to John Lennon . . .

I'd still like to see more forward movement toward alternative fuels whether man-produced or solar electricity or natural like ethanol and recycled cooking oil. Whatever works is fine by me and even better if it is minimally disruptive or destructive in regard to the environment. Oil's okay by me too but I should like to begin to feel no need to worry over hindrance from whoever has a hand on the valves in the oil fields. All we have to do is start thinking and acting before the well runs dry.

Our problem here is that we are so used to simple luxury -- many of which the most simple, to the rest of the world, are just sweet dreams. We forget that the things we receive are not promised or ours by right but are purely blessings for which we have no guarantee. Unfortunately, that idea doesn't come to mind until we're lined up in our cars because of fuel rationing or facing exorbitant prices. I think it's better to bolster up the house BEFORE the inevitable storm than afterward.

As for vacuums, there are some plain and design ideas that will remain around and giving good service a long time as well. Not everybody feels the need or want for the latest doo-dads. By the way, it just occurred to me that the Air-Rider canister is officially dead. True?

Venson

Venson wrote:

Hi Venson:

You should run for national office!  I'd campaign and vote for you.

WRT the Air Rider, I hadn't officially heard of its demise.  But, in the current economic environment, I'm not the least surprised.  More will go from niche to naught.  Why?  Consumers are "trading down" in the current hard times.  As a result, they acquire frugal spending habits that last long after the good days return.  It's a double whammy for high priced niche consumer goods, like the Air Rider.

Carmine D.