Yesterday's Washington Post had a special weekly BEST BUY advertising supplement.  Exclusively for laundry appliances (17 percent of yearly new appliance sales) and vacuums (10 percent of yearly new appliance sales).  The vacuums featured:
 
Some Forumers' favorite bagless the DC07 and DC14 Animal (DC15 absent from the line up).  $399 and $549 respectively.  Nice graphics and photos with young children taking the dyson through the rug vacuuming chores.  I thought it was a play dyson at first, but it was the real deal.
 
HOOVER Windtunnel-Not the Self-Propelled (Rated Number 1 by Consumer Reports).  $159  
 
HOOVER Floormate (popular selling product) by all retailers' accounts.
 
EUREKA BOSS Smart Vac (Consumer Reports consistently recommends as a best buy in vacuums). $140
 
Last but not least, both VAX models, exclusive to BEST BUY stores: $249 and $299.
 
Can these be the BEST BUY best sellers?  The "bread and butter" of their vacuum sales?  
 
Carmine D.

Quote from Bruce   on 02/09/06 at 11:34am:

 
I don't have an excuse but several possible explanations.  
 
EUREKA has been a mainstay of the vacuum industry in the USA for almost 100 years.  And the EUREKA Smart Vac has CR's and Good Huusekeeping seals of approval.  VAX is too new in the USA for CRI ratings.
 
Carmine D.  

According to CRI's website neither Vax or Eureka appear to be active due paying members of CRI.

Quote from JimB   on 02/09/06 at 1:23pm:

 
Vax and Eureka should have at least some of their models tested.  Since Eureka has several hundred models, it's probably not cost effective to have each model tested.  However, they could get by having a representative sample, or at a minimum several premium Eureka and Sanitaire models certified.

Quote from Bruce   on 02/09/06 at 11:34am:

 
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll apologize for my redundancy.  EUREKA and VAX are not the vacuum industry's standard bearers for vacuum industry leaders to follow.  
 
It's disingenuous for the highest priced bagless brand with its iconoclastic sales and profits to claim membership cost as a reason for not meeting minimum industry standards.   It begs the question and raises the concern:  Why?
 
Carmine D.