The only way one could not understand Jimb's link to USA Today on Vacuum marketshare is if that person did not like the numbers and wanted to purposely decieve.  It is pretty simple USA Today used data from the top gatherer of such data.  The data in the link below clearly shows dyson owning 25.2% of revenue in the upright vacuum market for the first three months of this year with the closest competitor about 10 points behind.
 
I have read about NPD at the link provided to them and think I along with major retailers trust this data more than a retired guy on a personal anti dyson jihad hearsay with a Sears salesperson in some store in sububarn Nevada.
 
 http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2007-06-17-dyson-usat_N.htm?csp=34

And here's the link posted again--I am not the source of this link on the Forum.  A dyson advocate on the Forum [DYSON INVENTS BIG] is the source of the link posted.  Absolute unit sales numbers for 3 past consecutive years worth of sales data from the source--dyson--always trump 3 month's worth of guesstimate percentage numbers from a third party source which refuses to provide a bases for the meaning and measuring.  IMHO.
 
As an accounting and finance type AND vacuum profesional, I noted that dyson does not split out the yearly sales results from one year to another.  Instead it clumps all the sales data together for 3 years.  Why?  IMHO, Because dyson sales in the USA in 2005 and 2006 went down from 2004, the last year that dyson "boasted" of its USA unit sales of about 900,000 units.  [Not factoring in for all the returns].  
 
 
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/07/06/12/10131686.html
 
Carmine D.

Hello HARDSELL:
 
Funny!    And true.  JD Power gave the annual awards for 2007 to --you got it--FORD.  Rolls Royce wasn't even on the short list.  
 
Like I always say: High price is not an indicator of high quality.  Case in point: dyson vacuums and the list is long encompassing many models and years.  Dyson vacuums are mediocre at best and for the price, very underwhelming.  
 
But good friend, you were right on with the 42 inch VIZIO TV's at COSTCO.  Stick to TV's and cars.  Jimmy P, Tiger21, Mark, vacuuman etc. etc. and I will take care of the vacuums.  
 
And I would say annual units sold consistently year after year are, if not and indicator of quality, at least and indicator of customers' satisfaction in performance, price, and product brand.  Gee, that sounds oddly the same as "quality."
 
Carmine D.

Quote from JimB on 07/08/07 at 7:17pm:

 
JimB:
 
It's not what I want, take and prefer:  It's the vacuum industry's standard of measure for sales each year that counts.  And that's unit sales not dollar volume of sales.  Why?  I said this before but obviously when you, as an industry insider, draw vacuum sales comparisons to candy gum balls, it needs to be repeated.  The prices of vacuums vary based on brand name, model type, and retailer.  The only valid measure of independent and valid comparison across such industry variables is unit sales.  Unit sales have been the gauge of yearly vacuum sales since the vacuum industry was founded and it is still today.  
 
Dyson uses dollar volume for the 'wow' and 'finagle' factors.  Like using .5 MILLION instead of $500,000.  Wow factor.  Get's people's attention.  NPD is an excellent example.  3 months worth of meaningless vacuum percentage data based on who knows what and how.  
 
NPD and USA Today insult readers intelligence when they report these number data.  It is self-serving and brand biased to show the highest priced big box bagless brand in a favorable light.  
 
In reality, dyson sales peaked in 2004 in the USA with .9 MILLION unit sales and the UK with 43 percent of market share in units.  Dyson lost market share in unit sales in the USA and UK vacuum markets in 2005, 2006 and to date in 2007.  By using dollar volume, and increasing retail prices, the financial results hide the fact that dyson sales are declining.  That's the reason dyson clumps the last 3 years worth of unit sales data together rather than breaking it down by year.  IMHO.
 
Carmine D.

Quote from HARDSELL on 07/08/07 at 11:08pm:

 
HARDSELL:
 
Not necessarily so.  USA consumers are savvy.  If they buy a lemon, regardless of price, they don't again.  And if they buy a quality product that satisfies them, at whatever the price, they do so again.  The HOOVER TEMPO is an excellent vacuum example.  It's a quality product and performer for $60.  And vacuum consumers buy and like them.  Check the side trailer here on WTBV.  HOOVER Tempo is rated NUMBER ONE by users with a 100 percent rating (higher than dyson which is 8X the price).
 
The same HOOVER TEMPO is rated in the top 10 year after year by Consumer Reports.  
 
And rated best buy by Amazon and a variety of other large Web site retailers.  Why?  Price and performance.  Customer satisfaction.  Dare I say quality?  What word is better to use?
 
RCWilley, supposedly the largest retailer in the Southwest for furniture, appliances, rugs, and electronics, is offering a promotion now for a free HOOVER Tempo giveaway with a carpet purchase of $999.    IN fact in a special edition color: Red.
 
And we've had quite a few buyers here say they bought the HOOVER Tempo over other brands despite the price.  The vacuum would easily sell as well for $100 or more.  But costs only $60, sometimes less on sale.  Why do I say this?  It proves my point.  High price is no more an indicator of quality than low price is of junk.  Unless of course you are a Japanese consumer.  They tend to think this way.  Any wonder dyson loves to sell in Japan and does so well there!    
 
Carmine D.