Tony wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:21:24 -0400, Butch Haynes
wrote:

RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:49 am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?
Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case
of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?
They are just trying to justify a high price. Some people will buy
something just because it costs more.
Curious that you have such a strong opinion on something you don't
own. Virtually all of the reviews from people that actually bought it
are 4 and 5 stars (Dyson Animal). Google has a review consolidator -
click on the "all reviews" link.

R
Are there any reviews by an objective, unbiased source (e.g.,
Consumer Reports)?

The cognitive dissonance problem with owner reviews of higher than
usual priced stuff (e.g., Macs, Kirby vacuums, etc.) is that having
spent the extra money, the buyer must now report how superior the
product is lest he be seen as a sucker or even a fool...

Consumer reports is totally unbiased??????
I think not.

Pretty close - but there will ALWAYS be a bias.

And there are enough people in North America who will bitch about
ANYTHING, as well as launch "frivalous" lawsuits. No bitching and no
lawsuits would TEND to indicate better than average satisfaction.

Sure a lot od people bitched about Kirby and FilterQueen.

My dad and a friend had a small side business selling Filter Queens. I
grew up without the words "vacuum cleaner" in my vocabulary. I grew up
calling it a Filter Queen as others grew up using the brand name Xerox
for "copy machine". I recall using the words "Filter Queen" in school
and nobody knew what I was talking about!

More recently my mother keeps buying vacuum cleaners, not liking them,
and she gives them away and buys a different new one and it's still no
good. She says she wishes she had her old Filter Queen, that was the
best she ever used. I'd buy one on ebay and give it to her but she
probably wouldn't like it anymore.
Hmmm,
What is wrong with built-in vacuum? We always had it for years. Any how
cleaners use it now, we seldom vacuum ourselves. I just empty the pan
once in a while. I can tell when it needs emptying, motor pitch tells me.

SteveB wrote:
"Lee B" wrote in message
...
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?
One of my relatives has a Dyson and is happy with it (or was a few years
ago the last time the subject came up). Said it was good for dog hair.

I have a lot of dog hair, but didn't want to part with that much money. I
bought a Bissell vacuum a few years ago on sale at Target. It's
theoretically designed for homes with pets, although I suspect that might
be an advertising gimmick. However it does a great job and pulls out dirt
and hair I never knew were there. They have a new one out now that is
"multi-cyclonic". I'd like that but only because it sounds more high
tech... no idea if it works any better. If I won the lottery, I might try
a Dyson, but for now I'm happy with the Bissell.

If I hit the lotto, I don't think I'd have a new vacuum on the list of
priorities. I think all that overbuying is why a lot of lottery winners end
up poor again. Have to have the latest greatest most expensive of
everything, when a cheap one will do just as well.

Steve


You're right. I'll just use my winnings to hire a maid instead VBG.

"Lee B" wrote

You're right. I'll just use my winnings to hire a maid instead VBG.

Or TWO!

GMTA

Steve

On Oct 18, 10:35*pm, "SteveB" wrote:

reply: *I don't own any Oakley glasses. *I think anyone who would pay $200
to $300 for a pair of sunglasses needs to be confined and observed for a
week. *The same goes for vacuum cleaners. *I've had $5 garage sale vacuums
that did as good as a new one, and if they died, hell, just go get another
one.

Opinions vary.

Rhinestone shades (@$200 a pair) or cheap sunglasses, as some prophet once
said.

You're bitching about two or three bills for sunglasses? Sheesh. You
really are out of the loop.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...e-2009-part-17

R

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:10:43 -0400, Lee B
wrote:


SteveB wrote:
"Lee B" wrote in message
...
Sum Guy wrote:
Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?
One of my relatives has a Dyson and is happy with it (or was a few years
ago the last time the subject came up). Said it was good for dog hair.

I have a lot of dog hair, but didn't want to part with that much money. I
bought a Bissell vacuum a few years ago on sale at Target. It's
theoretically designed for homes with pets, although I suspect that might
be an advertising gimmick. However it does a great job and pulls out dirt
and hair I never knew were there. They have a new one out now that is
"multi-cyclonic". I'd like that but only because it sounds more high
tech... no idea if it works any better. If I won the lottery, I might try
a Dyson, but for now I'm happy with the Bissell.

If I hit the lotto, I don't think I'd have a new vacuum on the list of
priorities. I think all that overbuying is why a lot of lottery winners end
up poor again. Have to have the latest greatest most expensive of
everything, when a cheap one will do just as well.

Steve


You're right. I'll just use my winnings to hire a maid instead VBG.

The maid is still going to need a vacuum cleaner.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:29:11 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
wrote:

On Sat 17 Oct 2009 07:34:47a, Sum Guy told us...

Are the Dyson vacuum cleaners as good as they say they are?

Are they worthy of the tv-commercial air time? Or is this a case of "if
you advertize it, they will buy" ?

I can't speak to the advertising question, but I have a very close friend
who bought the "ball" type Dyson model designed for pet hair. She's had it
for over a year now and swears it's the best vacuum she's ever owned. She
has two dogs.

I borrowed it for a weekend, as we have five cats, and I was curious how
well it did. Before using it I thoroughly vacuumed our carpeting with our
Bissell upright. I couldn't believe how much more cat hair and general
dust and debris the Dyson picked up.

If I could afford one right now, I'd buy one.

Try the same experiment again, but use the Dyson first and then note
how the Bissel then picks up a lot of what the Dyson missed, too.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:37:17 -0400, salty wrote:
Hmm, I remember a friend having one of the Alpine turbo versions (not sure
if they were ever sold in the US?) and it was a really fun car,
particularly on twisty hillside roads :-)

Power output even without the turbo was twice that of the standard
vehicle, though, so it was a reasonable power/weight ratio in something
with a reasonably sort wheelbase...

And an even shorter service life!

Most of them were crashed before they ever got to that point ;-)

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Oct 18, 10:35 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

reply: I don't own any Oakley glasses. I think anyone who would pay $200
to $300 for a pair of sunglasses needs to be confined and observed for a
week. The same goes for vacuum cleaners. I've had $5 garage sale vacuums
that did as good as a new one, and if they died, hell, just go get another
one.

Opinions vary.

Rhinestone shades (@$200 a pair) or cheap sunglasses, as some prophet once
said.

You're bitching about two or three bills for sunglasses? Sheesh. You
really are out of the loop.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...e-2009-part-17

R

Yeah, they don't carry those at the Dollar Store.

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Oct 18, 10:32 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

If you have a really good product, people know about it, and you don't
have
to spend a lot on advertising. If you don't, you advertise the hell out of
it. They have to sell a lot of vacuums to just break even on the
advertising. Like Geico. Tons of TV ads. Nascar cars. Drag racers @
$40,000 a run. If they want to drop the cost of their insurance, simply
cut
the ad costs. Allstate is beating them up pretty good now by just
advertising prices, and not going with all the hoopla. I'm just sick of
seeing the cavemen.

You do have a point. Advertising doesn't do anything. Sheesh^2.

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Oct 18, 10:32 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

If you have a really good product, people know about it, and you don't
have
to spend a lot on advertising. If you don't, you advertise the hell out of
it. They have to sell a lot of vacuums to just break even on the
advertising. Like Geico. Tons of TV ads. Nascar cars. Drag racers @
$40,000 a run. If they want to drop the cost of their insurance, simply
cut
the ad costs. Allstate is beating them up pretty good now by just
advertising prices, and not going with all the hoopla. I'm just sick of
seeing the cavemen.

You do have a point. Advertising doesn't do anything. Sheesh^2.

R

No, it does work. Look what it did for FenFen and Hydroxycut. Dangerous
chemicals, and people were buying them like candy. What would the rates at
Geico REALLY be like if they didn't have dragsters making $40,000 runs, and
$200,000 cars being totaled? I'd say it would be less. That's my point.

Steve

On Oct 19, 11:22*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
On Oct 18, 10:32 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

If you have a really good product, people know about it, and you don't
have
to spend a lot on advertising. If you don't, you advertise the hell out of
it. They have to sell a lot of vacuums to just break even on the
advertising. Like Geico. Tons of TV ads. Nascar cars. Drag racers @
$40,000 a run. If they want to drop the cost of their insurance, simply
cut
the ad costs. Allstate is beating them up pretty good now by just
advertising prices, and not going with all the hoopla. I'm just sick of
seeing the cavemen.

You do have a point. *Advertising doesn't do anything. *Sheesh^2.


No, it does work. *Look what it did for FenFen and Hydroxycut. *Dangerous
chemicals, and people were buying them like candy.

Textbook logic fallacy. You said just a bit earlier that if a
business had a good product, people would know about it and they
wouldn't have to advertise. The diet stuff you mention worked and
worked well - unfortunately it had some side effects. Since it worked
well, and there is a grapevine, the products would have still sold
with or without advertising.

Stop Monday morning quarterbacking. It's Monday morning fer
crissakes!

What would the rates at
Geico REALLY be like if they didn't have dragsters making $40,000 runs, and
$200,000 cars being totaled? *I'd say it would be less. *That's my point.

Businesses are in business to give _you_ the lowest cost and not give,
or attempt to give, the stockholders the biggest bang and/or maximize
profits? Right - makes perfect sense.

Businesses are about profit. Doing business with a business means you
accept this. No one is holding a gun to your head. You don't like
it, don't do business with that business - and don't whine about it.
It's unseemly.

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Oct 19, 11:22 am, "SteveB" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
On Oct 18, 10:32 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

If you have a really good product, people know about it, and you don't
have
to spend a lot on advertising. If you don't, you advertise the hell out
of
it. They have to sell a lot of vacuums to just break even on the
advertising. Like Geico. Tons of TV ads. Nascar cars. Drag racers @
$40,000 a run. If they want to drop the cost of their insurance, simply
cut
the ad costs. Allstate is beating them up pretty good now by just
advertising prices, and not going with all the hoopla. I'm just sick of
seeing the cavemen.

You do have a point. Advertising doesn't do anything. Sheesh^2.


No, it does work. Look what it did for FenFen and Hydroxycut. Dangerous
chemicals, and people were buying them like candy.

Textbook logic fallacy. You said just a bit earlier that if a
business had a good product, people would know about it and they
wouldn't have to advertise. The diet stuff you mention worked and
worked well - unfortunately it had some side effects. Since it worked
well, and there is a grapevine, the products would have still sold
with or without advertising.

Stop Monday morning quarterbacking. It's Monday morning fer
crissakes!

What would the rates at
Geico REALLY be like if they didn't have dragsters making $40,000 runs,
and
$200,000 cars being totaled? I'd say it would be less. That's my point.

Businesses are in business to give _you_ the lowest cost and not give,
or attempt to give, the stockholders the biggest bang and/or maximize
profits? Right - makes perfect sense.

Businesses are about profit. Doing business with a business means you
accept this. No one is holding a gun to your head. You don't like
it, don't do business with that business - and don't whine about it.
It's unseemly.

R

I KNOW what greases the wheels. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck. Ah,
if I were only as smart as thou.

Steve

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:38:00 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Oct 19, 11:22*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
On Oct 18, 10:32 pm, "SteveB" wrote:

If you have a really good product, people know about it, and you don't
have
to spend a lot on advertising. If you don't, you advertise the hell out of
it. They have to sell a lot of vacuums to just break even on the
advertising. Like Geico. Tons of TV ads. Nascar cars. Drag racers @
$40,000 a run. If they want to drop the cost of their insurance, simply
cut
the ad costs. Allstate is beating them up pretty good now by just
advertising prices, and not going with all the hoopla. I'm just sick of
seeing the cavemen.

You do have a point. *Advertising doesn't do anything. *Sheesh^2.


No, it does work. *Look what it did for FenFen and Hydroxycut. *Dangerous
chemicals, and people were buying them like candy.

Textbook logic fallacy. You said just a bit earlier that if a
business had a good product, people would know about it and they
wouldn't have to advertise. The diet stuff you mention worked and
worked well - unfortunately it had some side effects. Since it worked
well, and there is a grapevine, the products would have still sold
with or without advertising.

Stop Monday morning quarterbacking. It's Monday morning fer
crissakes!

What would the rates at
Geico REALLY be like if they didn't have dragsters making $40,000 runs, and
$200,000 cars being totaled? *I'd say it would be less. *That's my point.

Businesses are in business to give _you_ the lowest cost and not give,
or attempt to give, the stockholders the biggest bang and/or maximize
profits? Right - makes perfect sense.

Businesses are about profit. Doing business with a business means you
accept this. No one is holding a gun to your head. You don't like
it, don't do business with that business - and don't whine about it.
It's unseemly.

Whiners just like to whine.