Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

I recently visited a local vac shop, not the one run by a close friend. We discussed Dyson and other brands. He maintains that Dyson WAYYY overestimated the cost of returns/warranty repairs when he invaded the US vac market, which is why the Dysons were given a 5 yr warranty. He said Dyson, despite rumors to the contrary, is making money hand over fist, and show no sign of slowing down. Even though the hose is excluded as a warranty part, Dyson is issuing repair authorizations for them. He also said he is selling Dyson dirt canisters, cords, roller brushes, and hoses like there is no tomorrow.  He said Dyson is ready to cut prices when necessary to boost flagging sales.  The DC-07 will make a reappearance at  $299 or lower when the time is right.

I stopped by Best Buy to purchase a memory card  for my camera, and wandered down the vac aisle, of course. 33 full size vacuums on display. THREE bagged machines, all uprights. Other than Dyson, only ONE canister, a Dirt Devil straight suction. Dyson had on display three cans and four uprights, over 20% of the vac sku offerings!  There are new and interesting things in the vac shops, but nothing has changed at BBR where most of America buys their vacuums.  According to him, Panasonic has lost the contract to build Sears canisters.
All of this is, of course, excellent news for Kirby.

Hello Trebor:

The prices of new dyson models as well as old MUST drop drastically in printed ads.  Dyson MAP is out.  Big box retailers were forced by dyson to use MSRP in printed ads for dyson with caveats "before in store savings."  This may have worked in the past [pre-2008] when dyson was on a roll [due to the overextended economy and consumers] but no more.  Retailers want to advertise the low dyson prices to get customers in the stores.  Expect NEW DC17 and/or DC27's, better rug performers per Consumer Reports, advertised by big box retailers for $299 before discounts and savings.  With refurbs in the same models at $199 by discounters.  DC07 and DC14, DISCONTINUED dyson models, will be advertised and sold new for $199 for the few that are still in warehouses/stores unsold. 

I'm not surprised Sir James, the former dyson CEO and its founder, overestimated cost of returns and warranty.  Why?  Three reasons.  One, he overestimated the new sales of dysons in the USA after the economy tanked [starting in the last quarter 07 thru 2008, 2009 and so far thru 2010].  Returns and warranty are based on a percentage of new sales.  If new sales are down, what happens to returns and warranty?  Hint: Go down in direct relation.  Two, the influx of much less expensive bagless competition vacuum sales are robbing dyson sales in the last 2 years.  Three, Sir James didn't account for an unknown factor:  Disgrunted new/past dyson customers trading dysons still under/just out of warranty for independent vacuum store brands [like HS did with his DC07] rather than repair under/out of warranty and/or ship back to dyson and wait 3 weeks for a fix.  The three facts working in concert easily account for Sir James misque.  Not surprising.  He is not a vacuum business man.  He's just about style and profile. 

Carmine D.

Hello Carmine,

I understand what you are saying in your reply. I have to disagree on a couple of points. First, the presumed decline in Dyson sales.  Best Buy is HUGE.Their merchandising plans are consistent throughout the chain.  The store I just visited has already undergone the annual spring rip up and re do merchandising during the after holiday doldrums.   20% of the skus in vacs dedicated to Dyson, with some duplication on the two endcaps facing the store main floor.  It looks like they are planning on selling a lot of Dyson product, and have been doing just that. Every mailorder catalog seems to have the DC07 and/or DC14 in them. Walmart still has their one Dyson on display.   Walmart is ruthless about dumping vendors that don't meet sales expectations.  Second, there are people who blow through a few TTI/Bissell pieces of junk and decide to go with what they perceive to be as something better, and buy a Dyson.  If a 79.00 vac lasts 6 mo to 1yr, a 400.00 vac that lasts 5 yrs or a bit longer is not out of line., in their minds.

The Dysons are everywhere, and people do have them repaired, more than I can believe.   Price drop, sure they will, but that does not automatically equate to a sales drop.  I, too, prematurely assumed the demise of Dyson, due to the numbers traded in/needing repair, but those are a drop in the ocean compared to the numbers being sold.   Jimmy D is going to be around for awhile yet, I think.

Trebor

Hi Trebor:

Here's the Best Buy internet listing of the vacuum brands by number of models carried.  Dyson is number 3 for total sku's carried to BB total.  Far behind bissell and HOOVER [not counting Dirt Devil which is partnered with HOOVER under TTI].  Dyson accounts for 11 percent of thje Best Buy inventory of models.  Obviously, individual Best Buy stores vary from locale to locale.  I know the top selling BEST BUY store for dysons on the east coast.  Dyson sales are down at that store year over year from their highs and have been since 2008 in cluding this year to last.  It is by all accounts what I said it would be in 2002 after a few years.  A niche vacuum seller and not main street America. 

Retailers lease end cap positions [desirable locations] to brand makers.  Whoever buys gets the locations.  It has nothing to do with the quantity of product sales. 

Trebor wrote:

Speaking of Kirby and Dyson, there seem to be a lot of people doing Kirby -vs- Dyson comparisons on youtube.  Of course, they don't do valid tests, but they do tests like the door to door sales people taught them to do (last vacuum wins).  Curiously, when one person did a half way decent test of a Bissell against a Dyson, and the Bissell seemed to pick up a lot more dirt than the Dyson, he apologized for the results.  The Dyson owners who commented on the video insisted that the Dyson (DC07) must have clogged filters.   The major reason for the difference is the terrible brush roll on the Dyson DC07.   

CarmineD wrote:

I sold my DC07 simply because I wanted to try other vacs.  I never expeienced any problems or loss of performance as you would like others to believe.  I was not a disgruntled owner.

I have returned two Orecks because of poor performance.  I WAS A DISGRUNTLED OWNE

HOOVER FAILED AND HAD TO SELL.  ORECK IS NOW BEING SOLD AT DISCOUNTED PRICES AND ALSO IN WAREHOUSE STORES.  Must be all those over stocks from redusced sales at company stores.  Looks like Dyson isn.t alone in these slow economic times.  Did I misread or did the independent say that Dyson was selling great in these hard times?

Trebor wrote:

James Dyson seems like a likeable guy.  He may not be quite the salesman that David Oreck is, but he is the face behind the product.  He gains empathy from people who believe that he is truly trying to make a better product for them to use.  Dirt Devil, Hoover, Eureka, Bissell lost a lot of good will when they made high maintenance bagless vacuums with filters in the middle of the dust bins.   While he might be solving nonexistent problems with some of his features, I think he gains good will for his efforts. 

The biggest problem is getting people to part with $400 for a vacuum.  Given the success that Dyson is having, I've got to assume that the advertising campaign about low cost of ownership is working.  When you see replacement bags for vacuums costing $5 a piece that need replacement monthly, it isn't surprising that people are attracted to the idea of $0 cost of ownership with a Dyson.  Dyson is wise to be liberal in making repair authorizations for damaged hoses to build good will. 

If would be really nice if Dyson could find a way to build/assemble some of his vacuums in the US, since this is one of his biggest markets. 

Severus wrote:

Yes, but -- it would seem our own home-based companies won't to do the same without commanding an arm and a leg pricewise.  My gut feeling is that if Dyson were made here prices would probably double and reduce or jeopardize sales.  A nice face is one thing and a keen mind another.  I think Lord Jimmy knows exactly what he's doing and why.

Best,

Venson

Hi Sev.

Its not hard to get the consumer to part with over 4 beans for a vacuum. The key is to just back your words up and not tell stories about how their going to be taken care of if need be, The consumer really wants their moneys worth today more than ever, Its not the product in  most cases, But the people telling big long stories filled with empty promises,The way of doing business today is  how much money can we scam out of people and then GLOAT about doing gods work.

What gives in thinking that these ceo's are woth so much money thats obsence and can not be spent in 6 lifetimes.

Karmas a real B---TCH

regards

mole

HARDSELL wrote:

A little testy HS?  If you are so satisfied with the brand, why didn't you buy another dyson to replace the old DC07 you sold?  Actions speak louder than words, even capitalized words. 

Like you, many of the US first time dyson buyers, don't buy another new dyson after the first experience.  It's estimated that less than 10 percent of dyson buyers are repeat new dyson buyers.  Hence, the reason its market share is down in the UK which is Sir James country of origin.  From a high of 43 percent of the vacuum market in 2005 to a low of the 20's now.  If the other new vacuum sales markets are the same as the UK, as we are always told by dyson fans here, the same is true: Market vacuum share is declining for new dyson sales across the board.  Niche seller.  Not main street USA.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS:

With Sir James' popularity in the UK waning year over year as a result of his move from the UK to Malaysia in 2001, any move to the USA, ever so slight, would be even worse for him in the eyes of the Brits.  He would have to resign his commission as tech czar.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

I'm relying on my recollection which may be rusty, but I thought James tried in vain to get permission to expand his factory in Britain, but government imposed obstacles made it nearly impossible.  In the US, there are cities/states that would give huge tax breaks to get them to build a factory. There are places that would bend over backwards to take care of any zoning or other issues.  Hardsell commented that Oreck chose Cookeville, TN partly due to generous tax incentives.   If would be fitting for Dyson to build a plant in Missouri and name it the Tom Gasko plant in honor of all that Tom has done to promote Dyson over the years. 

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS;

You may be confusing the Sir James Dyson Engineer HS proposed in 2006 with the dyson production move to Malaysia in 2001.  UK authorities were against the former [school] and for the latter [expanding production in the UK].  Sir James moved vacuum plant production to Malaysia in 2001 due to the labor cost savings.  30 percent labor savings by dyson estimates versus expanding/building new plant in the UK.  Since he was going worldwide with his vacuums, the cost savings was the clincher for Sir James.  Some in the UK will say boldly that British authorities deliberately nixed the dyson proposed site for the Engineering HS in part because Sir James outsourced dysons to Malaysia in 2001.  I think the argument has merit. 

I once said in a post that Tom Gasko is like a dog in heat.  He goes after the latest around.  First, it was him and Rainbow.  Then, it was him and Air Way, which did name a model for him.  Then, it was him, Sir James and dyson.  Now, Tom has a business relationship with RICCAR, after it dumped him when he became a james dyson cult follower.  With the exception of his last business choice, which is his smartest he made, all the others were futile.  He was wrong when he said dyson would force out all other brands in the USA like it did in the UK.  Neither is true.  In contrast all vacuum makers have flourished since the entrance of dyson to the market, capitalizing on the bagless fad.  Most profitable of these brands from a big box store sales venue, which is dyson's sales venue of choice, are those vacuum makers that offer bag and bagless models in concert.  Dyson missed the boat.  It shut out all bagged models thinking, like Tom, that bagged vacuums would go the way of the horse and carriage after dyson launched in the USA.  Again, he and Sir James were wrong.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:
CarmineD wrote:

Hey Bird Brain,

Slow day for you and Boy Blunder (Venson, who’s not Severus )?  Sir James’ ideas being life-changers and industry-changers and Tom Gasko predicting the market (conversion to Dyson-like filtration) is not your problem.  The fact that you never did anything meaningful with your so-called Ivy League education is your problem.  I say you’re a frustrated tinker and never had enough smarts to make it beyond drilling a hole for the toggle switch on the Constellation.  Did you ever invent anything?  No.  Did you ever make it past a hole-in-the-wall operation?  No.  Did you ever make it past part swapper’?  No.  And on and on.

Dyson Invents Big

 

CarmineD wrote:

That punch drom Dyson still has you warped.  You have been told numerous times (including today) that I wanted to try other vacuum brands.  Noe has out performed the DC07 to date. 

Like me, many have returned Oreck and Hoovers.  Since you have all the facts regarding ups and downs why not share how many others are down in sales by percentage.  You can also tell us why Oreck has such a surplus (if you know).

I'm flattered again that you Dib-stir and your quasi dyson poster friend here HS always make your posts about me rather than the thread.  You can't contradict me on the facts with any proof so you both resort to personal and professional attacks and diversions.  How's that working for you and dyson?  Not well.  Dyson is still losing vacuum sales and market share year over year to the competition which is beating your favorite brand out by all measures and all accounts, even in the UK.  Dyson is a niche vacuum product.  Not the mainstreet seller that you and others predicted.  Not that niche is a bad thing.  It's good as long as it's recognized and respected for what it is and not what it isn't and will never be. 

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

I never attacked you. Unless correcting your misleading statements about me is attacking.  I am not diverting any facts.  I simply corrected your implications as being fact.

Dyson has consistantly increased SOM over Oreck and Hoover since the intro of the DC07.  This may well be the banner year for big D.

My only prediction was that you were FOS about Hoover and that they would fall before Dyson.  You predicted about a half dozen Hoovers to be the demise of Dyson.  I knocked you on your rump just like Dyson did a few years back.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS:

As usual you are wrong again and I am right.  The latest HOOVER T1 series bagless upright for $129 not only ties with dyson's TOL DC28 selling for $600 in the latest Consumer Reports ratings but also wins the latest HSN buyers' survey as its number one rated bagless [over your favorite dyson].  I might add too that the HOOVER T1 series has a cordwinder, [dyson DC28 does not], a headlight [dyson DC28 does not] and receives better grades from CR for handling and lighter weight than dyson's DC28.  What dyson did in the past is irrelevant.  What it does in the future is speculation.  What it is and does now, or doesn't, is based on facts and is all that matters.  Except of course to you and Dib-stir who still are living in dyson's glory days of DC07.  BTW, the DC07 model, for all the good you claim it was, is discontinued.  For good cause.  It is and was a mediocre vacuum product at best.  No doubt the reason, in large part, you do not still own it.

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Who makes the T1?  Hint.  It ain't Hoover.

The DC07 is discontinued.  DYSON is still Dyson though.  Hoover is a name only and is not really Hoover that you boasted about.  Smoke that in your pipe for awhile. 

The relevant thing is that Dyson put a whooping on Hoover and HS put a whooping on carmine. 

We are all familiar with your statistics.  Er, I mean speculation.

You must have blisters on your rump from sliding across the canvas.

CarmineD wrote:
Although Tom Gasko used hyperbole in his predictions, some of his predictions have been pretty good.  Hoover, Bissell, Eureka, Kenmore, Panasonic, and Shark all offer dual cyclone type bagless filtration systems on at least one of their vacuum models.  Apparently, what's his name (steve keeler?) is making a fortune selling his bagless vacuum conversions for Kirby's.  Tom Gasko may have been wrong on some predictions, but his prediction that most major vacuum manufacturers would embrace Dyson style bagless filtration has been on target.   I am not in the vacuum business in any shape or form, so I have no inside information on sales, returns, refurbished machines and so forth.   There are a lot of fad products that don't last a year.  

You would think that if Dyson were truly doing well on sales, that they could provide find someone a little more knowledgeable on this forum to be their advocate than dustmite. 

HARDSELL wrote:

More diatribe.  Dyson is still dyson?  A bit shortsighted HS.  Is toyota still toyota??  A retired former airplane executive is now the CEO of dyson.  Sir James, its founder and still by most accounts a young man, resigned the post.  His dream of conquering the bagged vacuum market still unrealized and fading fast.  Some astute industry observers would argue, with merit, that a non-family non-vacuum man as CEO is very telling.  It's a drastic leadership change.  Some would also argue, with merit, that it's a desperate change.  Sir James has likely family members in the company who were groomed to succeed him at the helm.  Before you criticize other brands and makers with your biased vitriol, question/scrutinize with the same boldness all the brands you blindly and mindlessly praise.  Your shortsightedness runneth over.

Carmine D.

Severus wrote:

Hi SEVERUS:

Why do dyson fans and advocates praise themselves and Sir James when other brands add model[s] to their line up by using cyclonic bagless technology.  Dyson doesn't get a cut of these sales and profits.  When customers forego dyson for a competitor then dyson loses out.  Imputing credit to dyson strokes Sir James' ego but takes money away from dyson.  It makes no difference to buyers/sellers whose product copies who and what.  It's about sales.  It's hard to get big box retail customers to plunk down $400, $500, $600 for a bagless vacuum.  Especially with the abundance of good/excellent $129 to $200 bagged/bagless models on the retailers' shelves.  Many of these others with more desirable features that dyson models. In a few years, the industry's vacuum brands came up to speed with cyclonic technology at alot lower prices than dyson.  While dyson, during this same time wasted its time and effort on all sorts of non-vacuum endeavors.  Dyson remains a one vacuum product brand: High priced bagless vacuums.  Period.  Ball wheeled vacuums is just a variation on the same old theme.  It will probably go the same way as dyson's ball barrow.  Oblivion.

Maybe Dib-stir knows and will tell us what happened to the 2007 dish washer patent dyson filed.  It's been almost 3 years now and 500 engineers later.  Anything yet?

Carmine D. 

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine,

You ask a good question.  The trick is to treat each person's statements in isolation.  I'm only referring to Tom Gasko's predictions.  He predicted that Dyson style bagless would catch on with other manufacturers as patents expired.  Unfortunately, I'm relying on memory and I don't have time or interest in going back to his exact words.  

Other manufacturers getting on the dual cyclone bandwagon is probably is not good for dyson, particularly when they have better designs for the rest of the vacuum cleaning system and lower prices.  However, that is the way business works.  Everyone copies everyone else's ideas when the patents expire.  Or if you're a Chinese company, you swipe the ideas as soon as you can get away with it. 

Severus wrote:

Hello SEVERUS:

The crux of the predictions about the race to copy dyson's bagless technology was its superiority over bags.  The corollary was that bagged vacuums would go the way of the horse and buggy [Tom Gasko's exact words.  Recall he wanted to use the name dyson in his store name].  To the contrary, the industry's vacuum makers copied and marketed their own bagless cyclonic technology because they saw unique sales and profit opportunities.  Compete side by side against the highest priced big box bagless brand in the same sales venues as dyson at alot lower prices.   Bagless vacuum models have succeeded in taking sales away from dyson.  Bagged vacuums much to the chagrin of Sir James and his ridcule of bags, are still the mainstay of independent vacuum store brands in the USA.  Both bagged and bagless models coexist at all big box retailers in the USA.  Paper bag replacements/brands, rather than disappearing, have expanded in quantity and sales at all big box retail stores.  Dyson and Sir James have been far better for the vacuum industry in the USA, both bagged and bagless, than it has been itself.

Carmine D.

I happened on an old Filter Queen magazine ad from the '40s.  The pitch then was that messy bags -- at that time the permanent cloth type -- weren't necessary but the emptying process was over simplified just as it is today.  Dumping FQ's wide-mouth dust bin, indoors or out, was just as prone to spreading dust as bagless vacs are now.

Most vacuums with disposable bags do simplify the issue of emptying but apparently there is a portion of the public that assumes by being freed of the responsibility of buying disposable bags, that's all there is to it for bagless models and that lives have been made better.  The bogus side to all this is that the fine print about frequency of emptying,  filter cleaning and/or replacement is read by few.  That will be great for repair shops and land-fill sites.

Besides basic price, the sale of bagged or baggless vacuums hinges a lot upon buyer ignorance and how much possible buyers like fairytales.  I'm in and out of sales venues of all types all the time and I am hard pressed to recall a time when I've walked in and heard a customer telling a sales guy as opposed to the sales guy telling them.  That said, I think bagless vacuum will prove of great interest to many us out looking these days due to present economic situations.  Were I in need of a machine now, I can't say the idea of bagless wouldn't cross my mind though, well aware of the inconveniences, I'd surely be prone to opt for a Rainbow or other water-type machine.  Next choice would be be to go back to just a plain old permanent bag vac and be done with it.

Venson

Venson wrote:
I was thinking to myself, what would I buy if I  had to buy a new vacuum today (fortunately, I won't have to buy one for a long time).  I had a bit of sticker shock the last time I looked at the CR ratings and saw wondered if the data on vacuum bag prices was accurate.  When you see prices like $5 per bag or more, it makes you think twice about the convenience of a bagged vacuum.  Fortunately both of my vacuums use relatively cheap bags.   In fact, I decided to test out a generic brand for my lux canister, and it seems like the suction has improved slightly. 

Severus wrote:

Hi Severus,

Which generic brand do you use?  From past use, I always felt that the genuine Electrolux bags were the better deal.  It wasn't so much a matter of suction level for me but fill capacity.  I usually set my Lux automatic at the halfway mark, reasonable I thiink, and it shut off once the bag was full but not so full as to lead to my dogging the motor while cleaning.  The generics usually didn't have the multi-layer lining and clogged up more quickly leading me to change them before they were filled to capacity.  Lux bags for the automatic models were/are small but usually provided what I saw as an impressive rate regarding use and performance..

On the other hand, though great performrs, high priced Miele's bags make me very glad the place is small.  You know can put a whole chicken (not the organic kind of course) on the table for the cost of one bag.

Some more -- some less, a large part of the public either are or soon will be challenged by pricing on consumables for vacuums.  Back in the day, Panasonic, Electrolux and some other makers of vacuums we might have assumed used only disposable bags did offer permanent cloth bags as an option.  I wonder if that will come into play again even though the "new" solution to the problem is supposed to be the bagless machine. 

However, I once had a very good friend whom expected gas station attendants to all be Einstein.  Like him, expecting too much may be my greatest fault.  A good, reasonably priced vacuum with reasonable maintenance cost?  Might as well wish for the moon. 

That's why I've grown so much in favor of giving used machines or rebuilts like Lux, Kirby, etc., another run around the track.  Most will go the distance if in good shape and cost far less to acquire.

Best,

Venson

Severus wrote:

SEVERUS, VENSON and all:

Interestingly, since the on-slaught of all the bagless models in recent years, and contrary to the predictions by a certain bagless maker with its die-hard fans, these facts and circumstances occured:

• vacuum paper bag brand makers [especially in the USA] have increased,
• paper bags have improved considerably in quality as dirt containment devices some using self-sealers,
• germ/bacteria retardants are more common now in the paper with odor resistors, 
• and more importantly bags are much better filtering devices, probably the best the industry has ever had,
• supplies of paper bags have flourished 2 and 3 fold in quantity in most big box retail store aisles,
• presumably demand of paper bags have increased too to justify the added supply,
• presumably sales [and profits] of paper bags by big box retailers have increased too,
• AND paper bag prices have gone up, probably the highest now than ever in the industry. 

Question:  Why and how could these things be so?  Shouldn't prices of bags go down?  Especially based on the on-slaught of all the bagless models, in all budget and price ranges, with all the dire predictions by bagless fans that paper bags would be made passe, a dinosaur [like me as I was called by bagless fans and admirers] of a by gone era.  With bagless as the all new beautiful feature.  Bagless proponents accuse vacuum store independents of self-serving profiteering from the sales of bags.  Yet, all the big box retailers, the primary venues for bagless vacuums, are making a sales killing off paper bags.  What happened?

Carmine D. 

Carmine - What happened was that during the paper bag era in the 1970s, pollution on a widespread basis in the 1980s has doubled human's allergies by the 1990s. I recall when I was growing up in the 1980s my generation didn't suffer from anything other than sunburn or the odd child here and there having some minor Asthma problem. However now the children and young adults I teach suffer from a whole long list of allergies and other problems (Diabetes in my generation was contained in pill form and sugar boosts; now some of my kids have to inject themselves!). Even if bags have made dust collection cleaner, the manufacturers have doubled their efforts to ensure that dust doesn't become a problem in the home. The idea of bagless isn't entirely new if you take Black and Decker's original dust buster on board and during the 1990s I recall many brands trying out larger pleated material filters to offer a cheaper "bagless," principle against the plastic filter/shroud mesh principle as seen here:





Venson - I'm not sure if they do this in the U.S/Canada but many brands in the UK now offer reusable cloth dust bags at the time of purchasing bagged cylinder vacuums. Electrolux for example do this with their current Powerplus range if paper bags are hard to buy. As for upright brands - not many offer a reuseable larger cloth bag. In the 1990s Hoover UK went out of their way to produce an "exclusive" line up of pastel blue vacuums in the form of their Purepower, Telios, Alpina and Arrianne range under the "Lifetime," sub-model name brand. Electrolux also produced a similar upright reuseable washable fabric dust bag for their Boss bagged uprights but they were very rare to find and Electrolux don't always sell the fabric bags now.








I had a Hoover Arriane Lifetime for example, came with 2 paper disposable dust bags and a reuseable material dust bag, I'm glad to say I still have today, 15 years after I bought the vacuum which was sold many years ago. Although Hoover still sell the Purepower upright bagged vacuums, they don't kit the machine out with the "Lifetime," material bag unless you specially order the bag as a optional cost consumable. There was talk on a UK Hoover forum that the cylinder bag can be used on Miele cylinders but I've a feeling that the bag holder has to be cut to fit the Miele holder in the first instance.

Interestingly enough though when I have tried cloth bags, they are a great idea but they are messy when it comes to emptying them, especially when dust sticks to the fabric of the bag and for much it does remind me of the times when our Oreck XL bag used to slip off the hook (before they improved it with the fold down hinge bag holder) and the fabric bag would be coated in dirt. Of course a way around this is to chuck it straight into the washing machine after it has been completely emptied, but having done this anyway and then dried in an electric tumble dryer, some dust and fluff can be found clinging to the surface of the bag. Sebo's commercial uprights can be used with a fabric dust bag but none of their domestic models can use the bag as the S Class filter wouldn't be able to cope and uses a slightly different design format.

CarmineD wrote:

You listed most of the reasons for increased bag prices (in red).

No doubt the uncommon is occuring where you live, however,   bags and bagged vacs are almost non exixtant in Sears, BB, WM and other big box stores outside LV and other towns that you do not visit.

What % of vac sales is bagged?

vacmanuk wrote:

Yes, agree.  And other factors too.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

No HS, the uncommon occurs among the common all the time.  Just varies in degrees and locations.   What may be uncommon for you may be very common for another.  Bagged vacuum sales are still flourishing and even increasing among independent vacuum stores.  Quite to the contrary of the predictions of bagless prognosticators.   In fact, after experiences with some bagless models among many users/buyers, bagged sales have experienced a new found popularity, even among big box stores.  As I mentioned above, the on-slaught of bagless vacuum models is not a result of the superior bagless cyclonic technology as bagless inventors and fans would have had us believe.  The increase is a result of unique opportunities for sales and profits by taking on the high priced big box bagless, your favorite brand.  Ask yor local BB, WM, and SEARS how many bagless vacuum customers don't buy dysons and instead buy the competitors' brands.  Didn't you buy a HOOVER bagless upright AND NOT a dyson after having a DC07.  Apparently, that buying behavior is not uncommon.  I've noticed the big winners in the all the latest toyota trials and tribulations are toyota's competition and new car buyers.  Same is true with bagless vacuums and retailers' sales.  Big winners are dyson's competition, bagless buyers and big box retailers.  While the latter may stock and carry all the high priced bagless models, they are selling the less expensive brands with the better features and same cyclonic bagless technology.  Dyson doesn't get a cut of the competitions' sales or the retailers' profits.  Just as toyota doesn't.

Carmine D.   

PS:  SEARS Web site lists 24 pages of vacuum bags for a total of over 350 different types/models.  The only thing uncommon about that is the huge number.  I wonder what it is for WM and BB?  Would you like me to check?

CarmineD wrote:

Bagged sales may be increasing but I doubt they are flourishing.  They are the only one that can make a come back because they are the ones behind.  In 2001 bagged sales were 57%.  3 years later they were only 18% of sales. I believe Dyson was about the only bagless to be considered at the time.  Perhaps you can bring us up to date with current ratio of bagged vs bagless sales.  You spout off but never provide data.  HERE IS YOUR CHANCE.

I bought a Hoover bagless for comparison purposes. Sold mine before the trouble began.  My sister also purchased one and it was a piece of junk after 3 years.  My DC07 was like new after 3 years.  I may have mentioned this before, however I will repeat for your benefit.  I returned 2 Orecks due to pith poor performance.  Absolutely no consideration to keep them for 3 years.

Toyota sales in March 2010 were exceeded only by the F150.  They also had the largest market share for domestic auto sales in March.  Not to mention a 49% increase over March 2009 sales.  Now I understand why you consulting advice against Dyson bit you in the arse.

PS, I have data for the auto sales.  Please support your whimsical comments with data.

vacmanuk wrote:

Hi vacmanuk,

I did some looking around online this morning but didn't find much.  There's a reusable bag for Eureka's portable Mighty Mite series and I think the Hoover PortaPower can be fitted with one if not already included.  I don't know if Aerus still provides the two-piece affair that Electrolux once sold optionally.

The only vacs that I can think of that sell here with permanent bags included (wide-mouthed and usually used with disposable paper liners) are TriStar, Miracle Mate and Shoettler's Air Storm and Patriot.  All of these are very expensive niche brands.

I in no way think the reusable bag is ideal but at least it is designed for re-use.  Among the "thrifty", looking to save now as in past, there's been a habit of snipping off the sealed end of full disposable bags, dumping them and re-sealing them in whatever easily accomplished fashion (stapling or taping).  This usually leads to problems later but people do it anyway even when bags for their machines are not overly expensive.

Venson

Hi Venson,

There are many brands that still can be fitted with a cloth shake out bag, Sanitaire uprights come standard with the shake ouit bag and can be oredered with the top load paper bag conversion.The old electrolux/aerus brand cans can also be fitted with the shake out bag only sold for demo purposes [yeah right].

Model XXX cloth bags are still available, Compact  tri star also,even the old euerka 900 canister cloth bags can be found.I find it interesting that some euro brands are tinkering around with saran braided hoses again.

Hows mieles bottom end machines selling? From what i can gather the miele dealers are getting a little disgruntled with the brand and are converting over to Riccar.

The dyson repair business shall we say is picking up.[because of lack there of]

The central vac market other than service and parts have fallen way off. over 50 %.

regard

MOLE

mole wrote:

Hiya MOLE,

How are you?  Thanks for the info as to what's still around.  My gut feeling even though some salesmen seem to be in denial is that people in general are nervous about money -- at least those that have any left to worry over. 

Even though I know the indies need product to draw customers in, Miele's low-end canisters are straight suction and if all I wanted was a straight suction vacuum I'd go to Sears and pay way less.  The name game doesn't get to me that way.  Someone here of course will "remind" me of the Miele's wonderful turbo-tool.  But -- if I wanted to invest 120 bucks in something that runs on wind, I'd give it to a relative.

By the way has anyone here noticed any appeances of Miele vacs in regular retail settings?  P.C. Richard, a chain of appliance and electronic stores in my area and New Jersey has been carrying some of them as well as J&R a local brick-and-mortar and online seller?

Considering what I've heard about real estate nose dives, I can't see a lot of people easily investing in a central vac system unless the mortgage has been paid up and burned.  Horror stories of houses that cost a lot to buy but are now on sale for well below their original price still prevail all over the country. 

Best,

Venson

Hi Venson,

Im doing OK. A dealer  now more than ever cant just put all his eggs in one basket anymore or just be a specialist in one brand, To navigate through this economic downturn the smart retailers and indies will prevail, You are right about the money situation ,we been finding people with the money but are real carefull about what they get for their money, no more on impulse sales.

We have also noticed that the Home depot ,lowes,and others are not stocking any central vac supplies tubing,fittings, attachments,etc.  

Maybe they figure its not worth the time and space to stock it anymore.

Just hang in there and take care.

regards

MOLE

mole wrote:

MOLE,  what do you attribute to the drop off in central vac sales?  Is it the reduction of housing starts?  Is bagged or bagless more popular with central units?

HARDSELL wrote:

Hi  HS.

New constuction central vac sales are off almost 75%

The builders have NO MONEY.

Its all a customer preference as far as bagged or bagless, some systems can be used either way.

regards

MOLE

WRT cloth reusable bags, it is the next frontier in the vacuum industry.  Look at the progress in disposable paper bags that have been made.  Same can be done for cloth.  Less mess with dumping and perhaps even washable cloth like material with dirt retardants.  Bagless and higher priced paper bags with their scientific improvement have paved the way for the return of cloth permanents.

Carmine D.

Why should a buyer purchase a cloth shake out bag only to dispose of it as an actual purchase incentive? I dont think shake out bags are the next frontier Carmine, particularly when the condition of the bags once they have been "shaken out," can make the filters on board worse...

HARDSELL wrote:

HS you make me laugh out loud when I read your posts.  Toyota sales had a bump up in one month because its buyers' incentives per vehicle are up $750 over last year.  If their own statistics can be believed the average buyers' incentive now on a new toyota is about $3500.  Why?  Great time to buy a new car. 

Now, change gears and let's talk bagless vacuums.  With the bagless competition robbing sales from your favorite brand, quess what will have to happen if the high priced bagless brand wants to keep up with the sales of the competition.  Hint:  What did toyota do?  As I said, competition is great for the buyers and sellers. 

So, it took you 2 new ORECKS to figure out you didn't like them.   One more new returned ORECK and you're out.   You may even force the company to put a limit on the number of returns by one customer in a given period of time. 

Carmine D.

vacmanuk wrote:

The same can also be said about bagless systems that use pre and post motor filters,Do we really want to go there again??

MOLE

mole wrote:
We'll still be there though.  I can't comment on the U.S but certainly in the U.K the budget "best selling" brand, Vax is churning out the large paper pleated filter coned "cyclonics" at cheap prices and putting their Mach series (and "Zero" related vacuums which had come to the UK before the Mach types) at much higher prices. The "bagless" routine i.e. nothing more than a huge filter to catch the dust from Black and Decker's original hand held dust buster will continue to be sold in vacuum cleaner design; it is cheap to produce and companies don't mind charging the customer extra for putting on mini turbo tools etc.

vacmanuk wrote:

Here's a few reasons.  A permament cloth like reusable is more convenient than a bagless bin because it requires less dumping. The filters for vacuums with permanent reusable cloth like bags are less expensive than bagless filters because the bag serves as the primary filter.   The filters on vacuums with permanent reusable cloth like bags require less changing and cleaning maintenance again because the bag is the primary filter.   Permament cloth like reusable bags are also less costly than paper bags over the useful life of the vacuum.  Plus the convenience of no trips to retailers to buy replacements.  In short all the benefits of bagless and bagged vacuums combined with less lifetime costs and maintenance times. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Honda has been advertising 0 APR.  I doubt sales incentives would increase sales by 49% if Toyota wasn't still the best auto available today.  Remember all those incentives on Hoover prior to them selling.?  It is difficult to sell inferior products even at distress prices.  

I am shifting gears away from a topic that you brought up.  As usual when caught with your drawers down you want to avoid the subjet. 

The discussion wasn't about Dyson being robbed of sales from other bagless vacs.  It was about bagged overtaking bagless.  You still can't produce data to support your whimsical comments.  Get facts then let's talk.

I am already out of the junk business.  I meant Oreck business.  I already knew I did not like them.  Just nol how much.

CarmineD wrote:

1. Good point about less dumping, but let's be practical here - it's more messy and owners won't like that compared to a disposable dust bag.
   
2. Filters for vacuums that use disposable dust bags can be the same as those that have permanent bags - Hoover and Electrolux have done this in the past but the cost of upkeep isn't the same because of poor sealing on the material shake out bag.
   
3. Dependent on the actual material used, fabric shake out bags aren't all the same - Vax's shake out bags for their canisters for example start to deteriorate after five times of the bag being washed. The material isn't designed to last a lifetime and thus needs replacing. Others on the market exist made of similar thin cotton - SMS bags last longer but they're not all uniform and can't always be trusted to seal in the dirt. The bag seals are usually well made but the plastic grid holders that are permanently sealed to the dust channel can go early on due to over heat when left to dry out.
   
4. Because permanent washable bags aren't all uniform, made out of the same material, filters can be damaged because of poor sealing on the bag itself. Usually most bags these days have a simple clip to keep the bag attached together - but this isn't enough to protect filters from being over clogged with escaping dust.
   

vacmanuk wrote:

There is a market for permanent cloth like reusable bags.  Just as there was for bagless.  And is for paper bags.  Science and technology advancements pave the way.  Always contingent on price.

Carmine D.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS would you make up your mind.  What do you want to talk about?  Cars or vacuums?  Bagged vacuums like your Royal Emminence.  Bagless like your HOOVER upright.  Or junk like your DC07 that you got rid of. 

Like I said, and will repeat for your benefit for shortsightedness, now is a great time to buy a new car.  Incentives galore.  With toyotas selling at their lowest prices ever in the USA.  But that's what buyers expect.  After all, their loss in retail values are the subject of several class action suits. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

As suspected.  All you got is hot air.  Where is the data?  You are punch drunk again. 

Bullies like you run and hide when they are confronted.

HARDSELL wrote:

I thought Carmine was from the area of the RAGING BULL .

I heard Camine is a great shot with a screwdriver.

MOLE

mole wrote:

Bull is correct.  In fact he should be called BS.

I think he missed the whole car he threw at.

HARDSELL wrote:

HS you're nuttier than the deluxe pecan log at Stuckey's.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
For environmentalists the thought of using a permanent washable fabric bag means no harms to cutting trees down to save on paper. That may work for them but for the moment let me give you an example.

A cost of Vax genuine dust bags cost between £5-99 and double that for the same pack of 5 bags plus an extra filter kit. The permanent bag for the Vax canister is priced at the same as the extra kit dust bag kit, or for simpler understanding, double the price of the genuine dust bags. Most buyers these days tend to buy copy bags so they're even cheaper, sometimes half the price of genuine bags and only Sebo in the UK have released information about warnings of using copy bags (seen here: http://www.cleaningmag.com/articles/view/the-real-thing/0). I dont think most buyers listen when it comes to buying bags and will just go for whatever is available. Having owned the Vax canister myself and having had to pay out for three shake out bags in the machine's life time I have now returned to using paper dust bags. Simply because it is a dirty and messy affair when it comes to emptying and the poor cloth material doesn't last long after it has been washed and dried. Certainly my view would change personally if Vax updated the actual material to withstand machine wash, of which it carries correct and exact wash instructions.

At this moment in time Carmine, I don't think it's prudent to consider that the permanent dust bag is the next best thing. Certainly over the infinitely disposable idea which gets rid of dust once and for all out of the vacuum cleaner it makes a lot more sense to consider this than dirty shake out bags. Here's a quote I picked up after reading a short review following a Hitachi vacuum cleaner by someone:

http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/vacuum-cleaners/hitachi-cv790.asp

"...We bought our little Hitachi in 1996. It is the 1100W model. I have been delighted with the performance. It is well made and has excellent suction. The only thing that I don't like about the CV790 is the permanent dustbag. It is a bonus not to have to buy paper bags, but cleaning the clothbag is a dirty affair. The best method seems to be to brush the dust off in a bucket of water; otherwise one is covered in a cloud of muck. I repaired vacuum cleaners for a living for seven years and can certainly recommend the Hitachi CV790 as a well made, reliable machine. They are now discontinued, but parts are still available from Charles Hyde.

If you see one for a good price in a second hand shop it may be a good buy. However, do be aware that the cloth dust bag needs to be thoroughly cleaned on a regular basis in order to maintain good suction and prolong motor life..."

vacmanuk wrote:

Hi,

Just for history's sake, American Electrolux, Model XXX on, did not use pre-filters.  There was not a hing between the bag, whether permanent or disposable, and the fans and motor but a perforated grill or bag cage.  However, Electrolux models bore an exhaust filter until the coming of the Model G (save for the "hospital" model that I've seen few of) when it was dispensed with.  That model and others relied only upon the multi-layer disposable dust bag for many years until someone decided to go back to exhaust filters come the Renaissance series and its secondary models. 

The interesting thing here is that these cleaners despite the less than fancy filtering arrangement held up well and didn't begin to be reffered to as "dust blowers' until salesmen hawking other brands fell into the habit of it about ten years ago.

Lux permanent bags -- and I've emptied many -- were not all that difficult to empty and, depending on how you look at it, were less complicated to deal with than a present-day bagless machine's collection bin.  If you've got debris stuck inside a bagless bin that you have to dig out by hand the dust exposure may prove higher. 

The whole issue has a lot to do with consumer mind-set.  We are daily being fed info as to what toss-away thing  we can buy or what we can spared touching.  There are still those who see life as livable using a string mop along with those that believe they'll be killed by some dread disease if their hands are allowed to touch the water in a mop bucket.  The latter feeling is far more profitable to manufacturers and it will be a long time before they'll be thinking about dissuading us.

Venson

CarmineD wrote:
Maybe that is why I like you so much Carmine.  Who else would debate with a nut like me?

Venson wrote:
My old Hoover Junior soft bag came with an optional reuseable dust bag, Venson and it filled up with more dust than the dirt bag. I still have it somewhere. However emptying it was a nightmare. However I take your point but the UK uprights changed from dirty fan systems to clean fan systems - and only then when clean fan systems came on board with less destruction to the fan impellers, that's when the pre-filters were born.

CarmineD wrote:
Carmine,

Let me give you a demonstrable history lesson...  there was the tired vacuum industry and the tired bagged vacuum prior to Dyson and there is the tired vacuum industry and the tired bagged vacuum (in smaller numbers) alongside Dyson.

As for your so-called facts...  you have none.  Outside of lying you produce and very rarely produce anything factual.  At what point (age) did you begin this most despicable lying habit?  Early childhood and perhaps a coping mechanism (gone bad)?

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Dib-stir:  Until you put 55 years in the vacuum business as your own boss I'll pass on your history lessons. I forgot more than you'll ever learn.

Carmine D.

vacmanuk wrote:

The HOOVER Junior is circa about 1949-50 and after.  Dust bag is over 60 years old.  It was probably one of the worse if not the worse designed in the industry for dumping.  Smallish bag clamp opening for dumping.  Very small, probably comparable to hand cleaner openings, bag opening on the vacuum.  The vacuum end of the bag always clogged even before full and the bag needed dumping.  It was an ideal candidate for an after market paper conversion, which I almost always convinced customers to consider before buying.

Don't think in terms of one type bag is the best for all people in all circumstances.  This is the shortsightedness of the die-hard bagless inventors/fans in the industry.  They believe bagless is the best for all customers in all cases over paper bags.  It's a false premise.  Be open enough in thinking to believe that vacuum consumers may run the gamut of what they want and buy from bagless to bagged including permanent reusable cloth like.  Especially with the advances in filtration and cloth.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
After 1958 Hoover's Junior models had paper bags as standard and it wasn't until the early 1980s a top fill dust channel was added. The 1980's Hoover Junior U1104 model has a a top fill bag system. The opening is huge and the clamp is similar. Paper bags are 6 litres capacity.  Filtration wasn't part of its design back then but you reuse the standard Genuine Hoover bags once it had been emptied again.

vacmanuk wrote:

I could easily see a similar lightweight upright now, even top fill, with a reusable cloth like HEPA bag, as a popular seller for small dwellings occupied by singles or couples with no little ones.  Priced at $150.  It would be very desirable as a competitor with ORECK and other lightweight uprights both bagged and bagless.

Carmine D.

In the UK there just aren't any brands that offer permanent bagged uprights now which is a pity but the bags have been proved to be messy which is why brands are probably afraid of putting the bags into them - lets not forget brands are out to make money on their products so whilst its a good idea to have such a vacuum on the market, companies would try and make a killing somewhere for the buyer to constantly buy something for the upright. The $150 pricing you quote does put it directly into a budget market in the UK although the cheapest bagged upright would be Chinese made and carries "Bush" name, the current price being £37.00 which translates as $56-80.