Bags or Bagless?
There's a duel under way for the debris on your linoleum. And no lint ball, dust bunny or pet dander is safe.
The vacuum-cleaner industry - which sounds like it would be civil enough - is engaged in a filthy battle to prove which dust-collecting method is tops. Many manufacturers are pushing one pervasive goal: to prove that vacuum bags should be dumped and that bagless models are the premier dirt-sucking solution.
Tradition, though, won't die easily. Some makers of bagged machines are lashing out at rivals, calling them, well, dirty. So when the last Fritos crumb is inhaled from the floor, will it be tidily tucked away in a bag, or housed in a clear cage?
"We do have a younger demographic, and we skew slightly more male, so I sell more bagless than bagged," said Stacy Silk, floor-care buyer for Best Buy stores, based in Minneapolis. "When bagless first came out, there were a lot of unhappy people because it was messy. But the manufacturers have improved them."
A typical Best Buy, Silk said, has 20 bagless uprights and three bagged ones. J antes Dyson, it appears, has wrought a revolution.
Dyson - who has turned the vacuum cleaner into a trendy subject of chatter - fired the first shot in this battle when he created the first bagless model in 1993. At the time, it was a shocking concept, and retailers were hesitant to sell a vacuum that showcased all the floor filth in a clear container.
But now, a decade later, Dyson commands 15 percent of dollars in the U.S. vacuum cleaner market. And countless companies have adopted his concept.
"It's been fantastic; I've heard wonderful reactions," said Dyson, via telephone from England. Bags, he contends, clog with dust and drain suction from the machine, causing performance problems and frustration.
Some, though, disagree. David Oreck, for instance, is downright angry at this trend. The man behind the "8-pound Oreck" dirt-sucker refers to bagless vacuum cleaners as "filth machines." All Oreck models use bags.
"We've taken a monstrous step backward," said Oreck, who has been hawking his vacuums for 41 years. Oreck sells his vacuums through company stores and is extremely vocal about his distaste.
A recent mailing to potential customers states: "Warning! Avoid bagless vacuums if you are sensitive to dust."
Performance and air quality, though, might not be defined by the collection method as much as cost.
"Most people believe that bagged products trap more allergens, and I agree," Silk said. "It depends on price. If you put up an Electrolux against a Dyson, there wouldn't be much of a difference. But a $49 bagged vacuum will perform like a $49 vacuum."
Consumers, though, are making their choice - literally - quite clear. "I don't have to deal with that mess," said Janet Hyde, a bagless convert for four years. "I feel like it's cleaner. Bags have those microscopic holes in them."
In 2001, 57 percent of vacuums sold at retail outlets were bagged models. Three years later, that figure has dropped to 18 percent, with more than 81 percent of consumers dumping the paper trap, according to figures from NPD Group/ NPD Houseworld.
These figures include Target and Kmart stores but exclude retail behemoths such as Sears and Wal-Mart. Oreck and other makers with company stores also were excluded.
Nonetheless, many consumers have decided to stuff the sack. And makers are obliging. "Clearly, customers have indicated that they prefer bagless by a huge margin, and it's growing," said Mark Bissell, president and chief executive officer of Bissell. "We just want what's best for the customer."
Bissell released its first bagless unit in 2001. Now, almost the entire line is bagless.
|
