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

   For my two cents worth, The advertising claim that Dyson gripes about doesn't help the cause for Dyson. Dyson is afraid to tell you the life of their motor or let you know that they have equal durabilty as Miele or anyone else.They claim they are more powerful and they aren't and nobody goes back at them because the people will find out . Dyson doesn't own the market for durability or anything else.

                             Procare

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

Interesting observation especially in light of Bucks03 concern about the motor life of a DC04 and other dyson scenarios that have been posted.  Bucks03 did all the right things and got 7 years.  I am familiar with EUREKA bagless motors on its Whirlwind uprights lasting more than 7 years with the same usage as Bucks03 DC04.  At half and less the price of most dysons.  On these EUREKA bagless models, really the beginning mass market bagless uprights in the USA, EUREKA uses a plastic see-thru shroud to cover the entire motor.  Presumably to prevent dirt/dust that enters the motor cavity from degrading the motor.  I mention too that I gifted a half dozen of these EUREKA Whirlwind models away over the past 9 years.  Several of these I used daily in my home for months and even years before gifting.  All still running.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

I would tell you and Sir James what others have said who know better about these matters than you and I.  When it comes to vacuum results, technique always trumps technology.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

procare wrote:
Thank you procare for getting us back on track. I wholeheartedly agree with your view. In most business situations, from those as simple as the everyday office environment to those as elaborate and involved as the entertainment industry, hard luck stories, could have-would have-should haves, and complaints don't usually get you far AND, as you mentioned are more a strike against the bearer than a benefit.

Whatever the line of business, it is not advisable to knock the competition and certainly not good to make trouble for them to improve your advantage. (I'm sure you're familiar with the thing about being careful in your dealings with others as you head up ladder because you never know who you'll be meeting on the way down.)

If you don't like what the competition's doing, come out with a better product or a better show. If and when you do, it says it all.

Venson

 The article in question I looked at again and realized the ASA made an error in their judgement. When you make a claim that a unit was designed for up to 20 years use . It did not mean it would last 20 years. Some of the units would last that length of time. It is the same way Steam Cleaners got out of many law suits on their claim of getting up to 90%  of the water out of your carpet.  The claim was proven false time and time again  The catch all phrase up to and the fact it said in small print  (under Laboratory conditions) kept the State of Indiana from suing for false advertising when their tests showed 15%  was sucked up. Dyson and ASA were wrong in saying false claims.

                                        Procare

The $4b Miele advertised some S7 claim[s], Miele’s own data did not support these claims, the ASA agreed, agreed with the $1b Dyson (complaint) and then shut this so-called campaign down.

The Miele S7 (slightly steerable) would not have happened if the Dyson Corp. did not have the brains and guts to introduce The-Ball vacuum innovations, which proved winners and money makers.  So while Miele pushed for impossible and unachievable [legal] advert heights, they wound up doing a public relations "face plant."  Although Miele should feel good knowing they got something from nothing - that is, watching, learning and then making and selling a poor imitation from the Dyson DC25, DC18, DC24 steerables.  Immer Besser!


DIB


http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_47110.htm

Severus wrote:
I'll tell you why I have not been tossed...  I am one of few and by far the loudest unashamed supporter to the most innovative, yet lied of and bad-mouthed in the industry today, that is Dyson.  Additionally, I bring much more traffic here than anything you're capable of.  No brag, just fact.

My father despised liars, thieves, cheats, loud mouthed wannabes, phonies, users and cons.  After we were robbed by employees, ripped off by so-called friends and even had an employee murdered, we became much more watchful and careful.  We still had fun, we just watched out backs more.

DIB

P.S.  I believe you're sitting comfortably and anonymously behind a proxy server, and that’s how you can look as if you're two separate users from two separate cities (1 IP and location for Venson and 1 IP and location for Severus).  Am I right?  There's ways of finding out.

procare wrote:

Hello Procare:

Interesting conclusions on your part and I agree with you.  The ruling entities, like ASA and the judge in the Kenneth J suit with dyson over the ball facilitator, don't understand the historical industry evolution of these matters and issues.  Often times the case is won/lost on the context of the words written and spoken about the claims rather than the content of facts of the case at hand. 

I suspect put to a panel of industry experts, dyson's claim against MIELE would be dismissed w/o cause and the Kenneth J case would have had a very different ending.  That's all that matters to the industry.

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello Procare:

Prima facie evidence of our posts on the MIELE-dyson and Kenneth J matters.  Technique and performance trump "claimed" innovative technology despite all DiB hosannas of how great dyson and Sir James art.

Carmine D.