Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Dyson is in the news frequently and so a dedicated thread.

.

CarmineD wrote:

Carmine, there's nothing here at all to suggest Dyson is being allusive. Dyson is a private limited company which (as you know) unlike a public listed company doesn't have to revel anything beyond the figures contained in the news article, which was taken from the accounts filed at companies house.

Dyson filed the year ending 31 Dec 2007 on 31 Oct 2008 - exactly the same requirement as any other limited company that chooses to use this accounting period.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/7c555f817319dcf2dcfc450748155ff3/compdetails

The comparisons you make with performance to dividend payments are largely irrelevant for a company owned 100% by one family.

Whilst the future certainly will be challenging for them, diversifying in to international markets and indeed in to non-floorcare sectors they look better set to weather the storm than most. They sell functional, as apposed to luxury goods, with high added value.

CarmineD wrote:
 Carmine,
So much concern for Mr. Dyson? Is Dyson the only corporation affected by the world's economies? I applaud the man! He keeps doing and keeps putting faith in what has worked for him and the civilized worlds past too... he keeps inventing! Yes he will have a harder time with all the knockoffs including Miele's and others entering James' category -- steerable's.

 I have not read of Dyson doing any hiring, in fact just the opposite, I've read he might let go of some 69 jobs in Malmesbury which made a stink in some of the British press. Carmen you must remember that competing manufacturers are nothing without Dyson inventing first and showing these competing manufacturing numbskulls the way to more profits via innovation. :-)

DIB

Hello M00seUK:

I beg to differ with you on several points.  Dyson sells functional products but does so at luxury prices.  Bad for business in poor economic times when consumers are not spending. 

A formal submission on a timely basis is always a matter of routine.  In the past, dyson "leaked" sales and profit information to the press well in advance of the regulatory requirements for reporting.  Dyson fans posted the news here for all to read.   Dyson made no early releases of financial data for 2007.  Instead, filing the obligatory data in accordance with the time requirements by October 31.  And news entities reading/reporting about the filings weeks later. 

Cost and expense increases, the number of new hires, and a company's dividend payouts have the same meanings and implications for privately held firms [controlled by one family] as publicly held ones with varied and sundry investors and stakeholders.  When times are good, dividend payouts and salaries are good.  When times are bad, they are not.   Increasing operating costs with an 18 percent increase in new hires, on the eve of the worse global economic downturn in over 70 years, worsens the adverse impact on operations.  The way to hide the negative impact of increasing costs is cutting back dividend payouts and owners' [read family] salaries.   The article mentions James' salary as the highest cut by over 60 percent.  I suspect other salaries were cut too.  Why?  To sure up the net profit and paint a "rosie scanario."

Carmine D.

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hello DIB:

I won't debate opinions with you.  You're entitled to put James on a pedestal.  But you must remember, the higher you put him up there, the harder the fall.

Here is an excerpt from the article that M00se posted from the UK Telegraph.  It's my source for the new dyson hires.  I don't make this stuff up.  I read what you and others post here.  And quote it back to you.

"The company’s highest-paid director, believed to be Mr Dyson, took a 60pc pay cut to £12.6m in 2007 while staff numbers grew by 18pc to 2,203. "

I don't know if 2,203 is before and/or after the 69 person cut. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Hey Carmine,

The concept is pretty simple to understand...  the world craves innovations that make life better.  Dyson is the kind of fella that delivers such innovations, certainly not all his ideas are winners and he is in good company...  many prolific inventors of past believed in stinkers too.  I do put innovation in a place of prominence (pedestal if you prefer) and not humans.  I do applaud and laugh when Dyson walks into a 100 year old industry and turns it upside down do the NIH/"Not Invented Here" beliefs of vacuum manufacturing Suits.  Like I said in the past the "NIH Suits" give license for Dyson to print money even if it is a paltry $25m annually or as high as $124m annually. What do you think David Oreck or Mark Bissell profit off their namesakes? Certainly nothing like what Dyson does. Between Oreck and Bissell there's 200 years of vacuum manufacturing, certainly and in the spirit of fairness it's time for you to throw rocks at these guys too. - Start with Oreck, since he is the biggest American vacuum manufacturer-whiner of Dyson.

DIB

DysonInventsBig wrote:

Hi DIB:

I know the concept is fairly simple for me to grasp.  I can't speak for others.  I ask questions [not throwing rocks as you call it].  Like this one: "When all the global economies are at their worse levels in over 70 years, and all the largest/oldest companies in business are reducing costs/cutting employees to steer the ship and stay afloat, how does dyson increase new hires by 18 percent?"  

You're absolutely right.  Somebody here doesn't grasp the simple business concept.  Who do you think it is?  James and dyson and/or all the rest of the peoples, countries, and companies around the world?

ORECK and BISSELL are two of the oldest and longest surviving vacuum companies in the industry.  Some say that BISSELL, with its carpet sweepers, started the vacuum industry.  And ORECK has 45 years of cornering the market with lightweight uprights.  [And a few imitators trying to capitalize on the concept].  With ORECK's dominance in the hotel and motel cleaning industry,  it has earned a well deserved reputation for business success.  Far be it for me to throw rocks at these industry stalwarts.  I'll leave that for others to do, who may not grasp the concept of business success.  

BTW, KOHL's is now selling the new BISSELL Versus in its stores.  KOHL's bills it as the first vacuum that uses "V head nozzle technology."  Or something to that effect.  And KOHL's has the Dirt Devil AccuCharge stick vacuum.  In case you are interested.  I think both will sell well in these economic times in this venue.  In fact at the affordable prices, customers may substitute these vacuum purchases for more expensive full size vacuums.  That is, customers who grasp the concept.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote: Hello,

Because many can and do run smooth, respectable operations daily, I find substituting Oreck's reputation for innovation a poor excuse.  Oreck needs to quit whining of Dyson and out-innovate him and advertise that and not the blathering Dyson whining which Oreck dedicates much advertising/marketing to.

Dyson runs a smooth, respectable operation also (despite what his enemies say) and brings to market new innovations vice Oreck, who sells tired product (vacuums) or tired product with lipstick - i.e. the XL Platinum.

 To speculate of new hires and/or manufacturing expansion or tooling... it is obvious Mr. Dyson wants to reintroduce or introduce for the first time a new washing machine and certainly a dryer (for those countries who use dryers). Perhaps this is what he is doing, I hope so.  I have no opinion of timing, yet certainly if a washer and dryer can be innovated radically better (made more economical to run/green) perhaps now or in the near future will be a good time gear up and launch such products.

DIB

Hello DIB:

Most persons look kindly and favorably on buying/using affordably priced practical products made by companies with 45/100 years of history in an industry. 

Much more than they do with "innovation" and "steerability" as reasons [excuses] for justifying past/future expenditures on overpriced products.  All in an effort to charge more for fair to average performance disguised with spiffy colors and see-thru dirt bins.  Especially in hard economic times:  Consumers want practical affordable products to use.  Not ones that are pricey, pretty, and look like fun to use. 

Carmine D.  

M00seUK wrote:
Here is another patent app on the same appliance (dual hopper/coffee grinder/brewer).  INGREDIENT DISPENSING APPARATUS

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=dyson.AS.&OS=an/dyson&RS=AN/dyson

Here is all (I believe) Dyson U.S. patent pending's...

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fdyson&d=PG01

A wine chiller: (Refrigerating apparatus)


DIB

mole wrote:
dusty wrote:
Dusty,
I have been meaning to tell you how impressed I was with this fact (DC23's selling well).  I am not a supporter of Dyson's choice to not makie the hose detachable from the wand.  Obviously your DC23 buyers do not have issue with this.  I was told by a long time dealer that he rarely sees worn brush attachments on canisters when they are brought in for repairs.  I do use the attachments on my DC05 (if and when I use the vac) compared to my DC21 which can be frustrating when on occasion, I want to vac my couch and alike but am forced to use the entire wand with an attachment.

Q:  Do your buyers ever mention/mention much the DC21's/23's inability to disconnect the hose from the wand and is this a detractor for them when deciding weather or not to purchase the Dyson/s?
 
Q:  Can you share your top 2 complaints or reasons folks do not choose a Dyson over your other vacuums?


Thank you,
DIB