Louis Rossman and the Hoover warranty policy scam

[MrMobodies]

I came across this video and couldn't believe how low Hoover can go.

https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/hoover-vacuum-warranty-policy-is-the:f
Youtube:


So they are using delaying tactics basically sending him on wild goose chases asking him for the same information over again and again again and do more videos to prove he is the owner then asking him to do things that he shouldn't be doing in any case like ripping off labels.

I had a terrible experience with one of their hoovers over 20 years. I am not sure what model it was.
I can't find much even on their website on Archive back then and they didn't have pictures on there with their models but it looks to me very similar to this one:

Credit: ibaisaic (Youtube)
A Telios Pets 1700w.

I remember it being labelled different, "Pets" with "Quiet" I think on it and the Queens logo, no LCD display and looked much more smaller than the one above. It wasn't quiet it was very noisy for what it did and it didn't pick up much. I protested to return it but they said "it was alright", no it wasn't alright as they were going up and down in the same spot again an again and again trying to pick up things I can see that I found I could pickup myself with my hands easily from the carpet. It had this air powered brush which had these cogs in the side which were exposed beside the brush. Things got in there and broke these cogs which made it even more noisier.

I got so angry with it I eventually refused to hoover up as it wasn't picking much or anything up. Long story short in 2005 we got a Sebo Airbelt K3 that mum saw it used in some wards at the NHS with a 2100 watt motor, an electric 150w electric power head brush and what a pleasure it is to use and still working today.

An insult I found at the the time was, it had this Queens Logo on it, with something along the lines "appointment of the queen" etc. It was portrayed to me to be a sign of quality but apparently not according to Coppice who explained that because they sold a few things to the Queen they stick their logo on their stuff brand wide. So the logo means nothing and in that case not worth the ink it was written on.

I remember we did have a Hoover, a cylindrical one for vaxing the carpets in the early 1990's, it did work but it broke down many years later. I didn't expect something to come out of the box not to work to spec, break so easily and now I see them stoop lower over a button and the warranties.

Anyone had problems with Hoover stuff?

Correction: Louis Rossman.
By habbit I keep on spelling his name as Louise.

[Halcyon]

An insult I found at the the time was, it had this Queens Logo on it, with something along the lines "appointment of the queen" etc. It was portrayed to me be a sign of quality but apparently not according to Coppice who explained that because they sold a few things to the Queen they stick their logo on their stuff brand wide. So the logo means nothing and in that cas not worth the ink it was written on.

I probably wouldn't take that too seriously. Twinings have the Royal Warrant on their tea, but to me, it tastes like the leftover floor sweepings from the tea processing factory. There is much nicer tea out there without the logo. Maybe the older stuff was better?

Seems these days, Hoover, like a lot of other well-known brands, is owned by the Chinese.

[Ian.M]

I probably wouldn't take that too seriously. Twinings have the Royal Warrant on their tea, but to me, it tastes like the leftover floor sweepings from the tea processing factory. There is much nicer tea out there without the logo. Maybe the older stuff was better?

You aren't so far from the mark.  According to a relative who was a senior civil servant working for the British Board of Trade, the  problem in the '40s and early '50s was the quality of the tea landed in the UK.   There was too much unsaleable dross in the bottom of each tea chest, resulting from tea leaves breaking up in transit (and possibly due to production issues in Assam resulting from disruptions due to WWII followed by Indian independence).  Tetley's developed the mass produced teabag to use up the dross, turning it into a premium product.  Twinings followed them a few years later, initially for the American market.

[unseenninja]

Louis might not be so happy about being renamed to "Louise" though...

 

[PlainName]

Blimey, doesn't he go on. And on. And bloody on.

No way I've going to suffer that for 30+ minutes just to find out WTF his problem is. Yes, he has a real problem, and yes, he is up against first line support. But he is whining that they want to send him a replacement unit! No, the only way to cope is to copy'n'paste the transcript into an editor and skim it there (but it still faithfully transcribes him going on and on - maybe scope for an AI precis tool here).

The entire thing comes down to them wanting proof that he has made the thing useless to save on return shipping. He thinks they should just take his word for it that he is not a scammer and won't use the data label to scam a new machine (not a hose - an entire new machine). I'm sure we all trust random people they will be true to their word!

Sure, he knows and we know that he is capable of fitting the small part that's at fault, but all they know if that if they tell some rando idiot it is fine to take their kit apart and that idiot fucks himself, they will be under a ton of shit. So they're not going to do that and will, in preference, send him a replacement machine even though it would cost them more.

[floobydust]

Hoover, as a legendary American brand name- was purchased by the chinese Haier group who specialize in cheap junk disposable appliances and TV's, I know I've fixed a few. They are a new low for quality.
I noticed all older Hoover replacement parts vanished, so my old vac is heading for landfill soon when it finally bags (pun intended).
They are just a chinese brand concerned with making the sale. Would never buy.

[MrMobodies]

Hoover, as a legendary American brand name- was purchased by the chinese Haier group who specialize in cheap junk disposable appliances...

The "Pets... quiet" hoover looked to me disposable when it was in the box and I still remember that shiny black cheap looking plastic when I first saw it in there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hoover_Company

In 1995, Candy Group acquired the Hoover European Appliances Group in its entirety with the exclusive rights on the brand for the whole of Europe (including all territories of the former-Soviet Union), North Africa and selected countries in the Middle East.[19]
...
After Maytag was acquired by Whirlpool in 2006, that firm reached an agreement to sell Hoover to Hong Kong–based firm Techtronic Industries.[20] TTI announced its intention to close the original plant in North Canton in September 2007.

So it would have been owned by Candy at the time I got that one in 2004 then it went from bad to worse during the sell off's.

[Analog Kid]

Lots and lots of formerly well-known respectable, reliable American brands are now making absolute shit under new (sometimes Chinese, sometimes not) ownership: Jensen (formerly speakers), Bell & Howell (formerly movie equipment), RCA, etc., etc.

[tooki]

Lots and lots of formerly well-known respectable, reliable American brands are now making absolute shit under new (sometimes Chinese, sometimes not) ownership: Jensen (formerly speakers), Bell & Howell (formerly movie equipment), RCA, etc., etc.

That’s incorrect, in that none of those brands make anything, since all three of those companies went out of business. The names (and names alone!) got sold or licensed over the years, so the companies that now sell products under those names have nothing whatsoever to do with the original companies, which are long gone.

[floobydust]

They seem to be scooping up old brand names, and foolish us for thinking there is any relation to anything in that familiar brand name. Hoover, Fluke included.
Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL)... Am I the only one here remembering Amperex? I find that the funniest rehash of a brand name.

[Analog Kid]

Lots and lots of formerly well-known respectable, reliable American brands are now making absolute shit under new (sometimes Chinese, sometimes not) ownership: Jensen (formerly speakers), Bell & Howell (formerly movie equipment), RCA, etc., etc.

That’s incorrect, in that none of those brands make anything, since all three of those companies went out of business. The names (and names alone!) got sold or licensed over the years, so the companies that now sell products under those names have nothing whatsoever to do with the original companies, which are long gone.

Not incorrect; that was exactly my point, in case you missed it. The companies aren't the same at all. I used to live a couple miles away from the Bell & Howell plant north of Chicago. You can be sure that the present owners of the company (meaning the name) have nothing at all to do with that location or even what was formerly made there.

[tooki]

You said that the “brands” are “making” junk “under new ownership”. That suggests that the companies still exist in some form. But they don’t, really. They went out of business.

[Analog Kid]

Sheesh, like to split hairs much? Yes, I said the brands are making shit. Same brands, different companies. Obviously.

Happy now?

[mikerj]

You said that the “brands” are “making” junk “under new ownership”. That suggests that the companies still exist in some form. But they don’t, really. They went out of business.

If the brands are “under new ownership”, then clearly it's NOT the same company.

[tooki]

You said that the “brands” are “making” junk “under new ownership”. That suggests that the companies still exist in some form. But they don’t, really. They went out of business.

If the brands are “under new ownership”, then clearly it's NOT the same company.

That is not at all a given. Companies change ownership all the time while remaining the same company. Very different from going out of business and having some unrelated company buy or license your name and logo (and nothing else).

[PlainName]

I don't think that's relevant. The end user buys for the brand, not the company (because there is no real distinction in their mind). You buy Apple products, not Foxconn-built products. And the whole reason why these brands are bought and sold is because end users buy branded products.

Further, the same downwards slider into mediocrity can occur without the company going bust and the brand being sold off. Asset strippers, aka private equity performing leveraged buyouts, result in the same company using the same brand to sell rubbish. But it works the other way too, with a brand being sold off to some other company (possibly bought cheap as the original company collapses into administration) and yet they make a good go of it and the quality remains high.

The punter is still buying the brand and doesn't know or really care if the company is the original one in the 150-year-old premises or merely a virtual presence for drop shippers. They assume the quality will be as it always was, which is why they buy the brand, because that tells them what they want to know.

[madires]

And often old brands are bought by some odd company sub-licensing the brand for specific product categories to other companies. It's about the brand value.

[floobydust]

It's the psychology of branding - our emotions are a part of our purchase behavior.
It's unfortunate asshole mega-conglomerates scoop up old names, paying a handsome price and then bastardize what they once were.
Why keep a brand name of a shut down/sold/failed company? It should probably be illegal to recycle a name.

But it's familiar, heard of before with a reputation. "Hoover" goes back to 1915, most people know it. You'll be inclined to buy that compared to an unheard of brand.

Meanwhile, Rossmann learns the games korean and chinese appliance manufacturers play.
It took several class action suits against them to 'fess up and even then people got screwed. "We'll give you a discount if you buy a new one" kind of rubbish.
Much grief and anguish for people. I think the consumer protection laws could be better.

[tooki]

I don't think that's relevant. The end user buys for the brand, not the company (because there is no real distinction in their mind).

Only because people don't realize that the brand name can be used by an entity other than the company that it originally belonged to. I think most people assume that if a brand name is on something, then that is the company that made it. Most people don't really know that much about contract manufacturers and how pervasive they've become in some industries.

Nonetheless, contracting out your manufacturing isn't the same thing, because the company whose brand appears on the product is still responsible for the product design, quality standards, etc.

You buy Apple products, not Foxconn-built products.

That's an entirely different situation: Apple is still the company who designs the stuff and oversees the entire supply chain.

The analogous situation (which is hypothetical) would be if Apple had failed and been dissolved, and Foxconn had bought/licensed the rights to the Apple brand, and put the Apple brand onto low-quality Foxconn-designed junk. (To be clear, I'm not saying that Foxconn actually makes junk in the real world.)

The punter is still buying the brand and doesn't know or really care if the company is the original one in the 150-year-old premises or merely a virtual presence for drop shippers.

I think they would very much care if they knew.

[Conrad Hoffman]

AFAIK:
https://www.taylorusa.com/collections/swing-a-way Bought the name.
https://dvorsons.com/utensils/can_opener.html#ez89 Bought the product.

[CatalinaWOW]

I am amazed at the disdain for people who buy by brand.  No one has the time to research product reviews, company history, better business bureau complaints etc. for each and every purchase.  The brand is a shortcut for doing all that.  There are many people on this page who will laud branded products (Apple and Toyota being examples).   And is why brand names have sale value and why companies spend time and money defending the brand.  The fact that short sighted folks, or those Viking styles who plunder for short term gain don't care if the value of the brand is retained doesn't fundamentally change that relationship.  But it does reduce the value of all brand names as it is demonstrated that brands are not a reliable short cut for evaluating product.

[Analog Kid]

The thing here is to develop an accurate brand-radar. I think I've pretty much accomplished that: when  see some plastic piece of crap equipment, most likely in a second-hand/thrift store, like a DVD player, receiver, etc., and it says "RCA" or "JVC" or "Jensen" on it, I know it wasn't made by one of those venerable, reputable manufacturers but by some offshore entity that took on the name and makes shit as cheaply as possible.

It seems that almost all of those names (I'm talking ones from the 60s through the 80s) are now basically fakes if they still exist at all: Harmon Kardon, HH Scott, Sherwood, et al.

[5U4GB]

I probably wouldn't take that too seriously. Twinings have the Royal Warrant on their tea, but to me, it tastes like the leftover floor sweepings from the tea processing factory.

a.k.a. fannings ,which probably isn't too far from the truth.  Same for Tetleys.  As a rule of thumb, if it's sold in a country that takes great pride in how they dumped perfectly good tea in the ocean, it's probably not worth drinking :-).  Same with any tea sold on the Continent that isn't some frou-frou fruity tea.  I think the reason why almost no-one drinks non-frou-frou teas there is because the alternative is stuff like Teekanne Schwarztee, unless you're lucky enough to locate some Dilmah in a glass display case in a Carrefour.

[5U4GB]

Louis might not be so happy about being renamed to "Louise" though...

 

Rossman Rant video coming up in 3... 2...

[5U4GB]

I am amazed at the disdain for people who buy by brand.  No one has the time to research product reviews, company history, better business bureau complaints etc. for each and every purchase.  The brand is a shortcut for doing all that.

Yup.  How many people here know that almost all significant woodworking tool brands (drills, saws, etc) are owned by three conglomerates, and can you name them?

More generally, were you aware of this?