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

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.

DysonInventsBig wrote:
No you're not right.  We're 2 individuals living in 2 different states who post independently.    If you were more astute, you would know that I give Dyson credit for things they deserve credit and criticism for things that deserve criticism. 

So tell us more about this murder mystery at your family's restaurant.  That might drum up some extra traffic.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB, you are posturing like your long dead hero, Senator McCarthy, again.

If Dysons are all you and Sir James claim they are, why are there not Dyson owners of longer than 5 years proclaiming its longevity,durabilty, and low cost of ownership? 

Why is Dyson unable to supply sufficient repair parts, forcing vac shops and Dyson dealers to buy non-original after market parts?

Why are there so many used Dysons for sale that were Kirby trade-ins? (I see them come in every week at my friend's shop)

Technology advances. The cyclonic no clog technology has been rendered obsolete by the new disposable bag material offering superior filtration while maintaining very high efficiency. A Miele can suck up the contents of a Dyson container full of kapok and be less than 1/4 full because the Dyson fluffs the dirt and the Miele compacts it.  Dyson is a three trick pony, cyclonic dirt collection, the ball, and the clutch. The first is moot, the third is abandoned by Dyson itself, and the ball still cannot get under furniture well, and it has $#%*bersome, poorly designed above the floor tools. The 5 year warranty excludes the hose, DIB, and it is not inexpensive to replace. The manual does not inform the customer that they should not yank the hose to pull the unit. It is tiresome to switch back and forth from tool use to floor use repeatedly since the handle is also the wand. What Dyson users end up doing is using the hose first for all above the floor cleaning, and then finishing up with the upright on the floor, precisely the way Kirby users clean, ironically enough one of the points that sways people to trade in their Dysons on a new Kirby. The Kirby hose is much sturdier, and it does not split so easily.

The Kirby doesn't get under low furniture either, but it offers far more durability and lower operating cost over its lifespan. Mom is using Grans' 1948 Kirby, her own first Kirby,1956, and the one I bought for her in 1976. With a dirt meter I can find little dirt anywhere in my parents' home.

Show all of us here on the forum ONE Dyson in heavy use after 10 years. We are all waiting. Without any name calling, diatribe, or defensive posturing, stick to the facts and logically explain why Dyson's 'originality' really is progress to be preferred over every other choice available. We're waiting, DIB.

Trebor

Talking of hoses, do you guys in the U.S get the Numatic Henry canister vacs?