Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Lordy, lord ol' Jimmy D's cryin' again. He has instigated the banning of Miele S7 adverts . . .

http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/10/miele-ads-banned-for-vacuum-cleaner-claims-186889.jsp

Venson

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Dustmite,

So you did a survey of one former Brit, and you think that that's a reliable piece of information?   You have one person's opinion.  After you've done a more random sample of say 10,000 Brits, maybe you'll have something worth reporting. 

Most people give their opinions based on design issues.  Anyone with an open mind, evaluates the positives and negatives of each product.  That's the frustrating part of your drivel.  You don't seem to be able to think critically and have an open mind. 

By the way Id like to add the last link I gave here showing a top ten of vacuums in the UK was taken from data of about 147 reviews. Infact if you follow the link you'll be able to read just how many consumers' data notes were collected to summize the top ten.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Severus wrote:
Venson,

You’re blurring fantasy and reality again.  Your fantasy - I need to survey 10,000 Brits of their support for Sir James Dyson.  The reality - I do not need to survey 10,000 Brits of their support for Sir James Dyson - the conservative party already has.

If or when it happens... Tech Tsar Sir James Dyson will instantly become a greater and more formidable provider of solutions and man to defeat for the conning, bad-mouthing, got-nothin, do-nothin independent’s and others.


DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

If you read my post/response to M00seUK when he posted the dyson FY07 results, I said the same as I did to you:  Data that is 11 months old is not 1-2 day old news.  BTW, your Aunt's opinion doesn't count except to your uncle.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
It's the same thing ever year...  you complaining to me when your beef is with the British system, their online news (who carry the story).

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

dyson DiB:

I'll quote SEVERUS WRT your post/response:

 "Anyone with an open mind, evaluates the positives and negatives .....  That's the frustrating part of your drivel.  You don't seem to be able to think critically and have an open mind."

Just because that's the way it is, doesn't make it timely news.  As I told M00seUK and others last year, and now here again, if the dyson results were as they were several years ago, Sir James, dyson and you would have the info blasting all over the papers, news, and internet in January [just as you did years ago] with the official numbers posted in November as required, as the old news that it is.    

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
As a privately held, limited company, Dyson's accounts for the period ending 2008 only need to be filed on or around 9 months later, which is why that it is only as of this week that they are in the public domain. Due to being in private ownership, there's next to nothing that can be gleamed from the filing, other than the numbers discussed above. If you're after a breakdown of sales by business unit, by quarter, you'll have to resort to guesswork. Frustrating for Dyson's competitors and followers alike.

Severus wrote:
In the case of Dyson's move to Malaysia, here is their rationale, as described in key management interviews over the years:-

1. The vast majority of our key suppliers are now based abroad.
2. The strength of the UK pound means that we lose money on a percentage of our export sales.
3. Our planning applications for expanding production on the Malmesbury site have been turned down.
4. We need to expand production to enter the US market, before our key patents expire.
5. The reduced costs of overseas production will mean that we can invest further in R&D spend.
6. Recent advances in communication / CAD technology mean that there are less efficiencies to be gleamed from having design and production operating under the same roof.

As in the US, many regions of the UK have in the past 50 years gone from being thriving manufacturing powerhouses, to relative poverty and desolation as unskilled production jobs have been lost to overseas players with far less regulation / operating costs. So certainly, in the 'working classes' there can be a degree of suspicion in the motives when a prominent business makes a decision to move jobs overseas.

600 unskilled positions went from Dyson's UK site in 2001 when production was moved to Malaysia. By way of a comparison 63,330 UK jobs were lost during the first 3 months of this year, across all pay grades.

In the case of Dyson job losses - is any negativity justified? Was there anything in the way of genuine 'victims'? Some thoughts:-

1. It is said that in the final days there were few (if any?) UK-based component suppliers available / dependant on Dyson.
2. Dyson was often said to be a frustration to other businesses looking to recruit in the local area - Dyson offered good pay and conditions which had a sizeable number of the local working population 'beating a path to their door'.
3. Dyson now employs a higher number of people in total at the Malmesbury site than it did before moving production - the majority in skilled roles, but also many semi-skilled / administration roles, such as call centre representatives:-
   
   http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/work/small-business/article.html?in_article_id=491794&in_page_id=10
   Dyson employs about 110 staff at the call centre, of whom 85 work as advisers.
   
   http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/4685184.Award_for_Malmesbury_call_centre_successes/
   Dyson's Malmesbury call centre has named the best retail and distribution call centre in the UK.
   
   
4. It's unlikely that Dyson would have had anywhere near the success they have had over the last 6 years, if they'd constrained their marketing activity to a limited UK-based production site. Greater success means greater UK tax revenues and on-going investment in R&D activities.
5. Dyson have long been pro-active in supporting education in Design & Engineering within the UK and around the world:-
   http://www.jamesdysonfoundation.com/

The negative perception of Dyson in the mind of the occasional British person is, in my view, largely the result of selective reporting in the media at the time of the announcement on the job move, getting in the way of the full picture... and also lasting resentment from the pubic at similar labour moves in the past.

In the people that remain unconvinced... that Dyson are a traitor of the highest order... what patriotic, locally-made purchasing choices can they realistically make? As I understand it, Numatic's Henry is the sole contender. A respectable enough machine on its own merit, with a good following - although lacking in any recent innovation to the design and around twice the price of canisters with similar features.

However, if you want an upright, a bagless or a powerhead vacuum cleaner your domestic choices are somewhat restricted. British people who shun Dyson on principle and instead buy a Vax or a Hoover brand... well, that's not exactly a rational decision, is it? Apple Inc. used to manufacture in the USA at one time - they don't any more. Should patriotic US citizens be avoiding the iPhone in droves and buy a touchscreen handset from LG instead?

Well done Moose.

As most here will tell you, it really makes no difference to us.  The point is so obvious that it's laughable. Every one gets it except Sir James and his fan club.  Dyson's gone from monthly and quarterly news releases on how well dyson sales and profits are going to a dead silence.  Reporting the last 2 years' results 11 months after the fact.  

The truth is crystal clear:  Dyson was a multi-billionaire in 2006.  In 2008, he's a multi-millionaire. 

Remember what I said?  Forgot already.  Here it is again.  Money is easy to make once but much harder to keep making over and over again.  Even with almost $9 MILLION US handed to Sir James on a silver platter.

The truth comes to light [sooner or later], despite all the spin, excuses and sugar coating.

Carmine D.