Quote from HARDSELL on 06/14/07 at 8:08pm:

 
Hello HARDSELL:
 
And as usual you equate high prices with quality.  You must be Japanese!  An assessment of the dyson products, vacuums and others, in the last 5 years proves the two are mutually exclusive for dyson.  Why?
 
Dyson scatters its efforts on an overloaded pipeline of ideas and products.  In doing so, dyson does not measure the "effort to benefit" trade off on many of the products its brings to market.  Marginal products at best.  Not indicative of a company which claims to be one of quality.
 
The result:  The DC11 canister for $499.  Pulled off the market in 9 months and followed after more than 2 years (much too long a time) with the DC21 canister (the subject of this thread).  The contra-rotating washer.  Priced at 2-3X the price of the best washers on the market.  Sold only 1900 of these in 2004 when it was finally pulled off the market.  The DC16 Hand held for $149 with a 3-5 minute run time.  The dyson AirBlade.  Over 9 months on the market now and dyson doesn't have them even priced.  Most recent news has dyson gifting them away to vendors to spark interest.  Should I go on?
 
Here's dyson's problem:  Too much innovation is a bad thing not a good thing.  Reducing the number of products and focusing efforts speed introduction of new products.  It's the time tested theory of congestion and delay.  If a freeway is getting congested, do you load more cars on the ramp in the hopes that people will go faster?  Or should you try to take some cars off?  
 
Are you with me?  If you are then you know the business concept and practice of "Fast Innovation."  Dyson and his fawners think this is heresy when applied to designers and creative types who launch new products.  That's why dyson spends R&D on useless ideas and unprofitable products that fail.  While the dyson competition flourishes.  According to a 2007 survey of 150 CEO's, CFO's and senior level executives from among the top 2000 companies in the world, competition is the NUMBER ONE RISK to organizations.  Innovation was all the way down at number 8.
 
Dyson needs to apply the simple time tested "effort to benefit" tradeoff.  Then it won't have so many marginal projects stopping it from doing best on the big ones.  Then and only then will dyson be a quality product company.  And not a bull pen for 500 artful engineers.
 
IMHO.
 
Carmine D.

Quote from Carmine_Difazio on 06/14/07 at 9:56pm:

 
 
Simply put, I think this is at the core of how we disagree in business.  We will have to keep watching dyson to see who is right.  They are doing quite well so far though.

Quote from JimB on 06/15/07 at 10:41am:

 
Hello again Good Friend JimB:
 
The "fast innovation practices" have been revived in 2005 by a group of high powered business consultants who bail out "artsy fartsy" companies run by designers and engineers.  I'd be happy to PM you with the specifics since this thread is about the new DC21 canister.  True however that the theories and practices are derived from equations based on European mathematicians from the 1930's.  Which I should also say have passed the test of time and operation for many manufacturing companies over the years.
 
I never ever supported the HOOVER business model on this Forum and/or others.  Do you have any evidence of that beside saying so.  In fact, I made it very clear on this Forum and others several times that HOOVER's strategy in the 1960's to kow tow to the big box retailers at the expense of the independents (as dyson does) was "wrong business thinking."  And it led to many of its  problems.   However, I do support the ORECK business model.  You must have the two confused.  
 
I hope you take the time to read TurboAce's post on the dyson airblade.  Very insightful.  I hope you have not purchased your air blade yet.  Not before you read a a real story of the product's usage and effectiveness.  
 
Carmine D.

Hello JimB:
 
Do you have the NPD link which is the source of the numbers in your post?  I'd like to see the narrative and the numbers in context.  Why?  First, you don't say if the sales revenue data is as of April 2007?  Or some other year?  And second, you don't say what constitutes a sale: Is it counted as a shipment to the retailers and/or a bonafide end sale to customer?  And the sales price?  Is it the actual cost/actual selling price to the customer (after discounts) and/or the MSRP?  Third, you don't say the sources and methods that NPD used to collect data?   Finally, is NPD counting world wide sales?  Or just USA?
 
Usually these specifics and the details of the numbers are in the narrative/footnotes.    You may want to verify your percentages again too.  Why?  The total adds to 96.3.  Should be 100 percent.  Unaccounted percentage of 3.7 to sum to 100.  
 
Also, if I recall correctly, the last sales revenue number provided had dyson at 20.7 percent (end of 2004).  Vice 4.5 percent for 2003.  If it were about 21 percent, it would appear the latest sales revenue numbers (depending on the reporting period) went up marginally since the end of 2004 (dyson base model prices were $400 and top of the line prices at $500).  Despite the fact that the dyson vacuum retail prices have gone up substantially in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (with base model prices much higher than $400 and top of the line prices over $500).    
 
Carmine D.

Purely on feel, the figures are questionable to me.  Something just feels out of balance.  One thing that surprised me was that the very. very expensive Kirby was at 8.9 percent.  Even more strange is that pricey but popular Miele is not ranked at all. As well, has Aerus's Electrolux dropped of the radar just like that? I'd also think that Kenmore does a bit better than 5 percent as it bears a well-known name and has been with us a long, long time.  Although I've no numbers to back it up, I stick to my guns in that the cheapies unfortunately are coming off store shelves in great number, thus there should be more names appearing in that listing to make it at least appear valid.
 
Venson