→Kirby products online: more negative claims, not verified by reliable sources and in weasel words |
perhaps the WSJ will be deemed reliable enough |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Unreferenced|date=July 2009}}{{POV-check|date=May 2009}} |
|||
{{Infobox Company |
{{Infobox Company |
||
| company_name = Kirby Company |
| company_name = Kirby Company |
||
| Line 28: | Line 26: | ||
==Warranty== |
==Warranty== |
||
The Kirby warranty varies depending on the model sold, but always has the lifetime factory rebuild plan. The warranty on the current model, the Sentria, is a three-year factory warranty excluding wear and tear. After the initial warranty expires, the rebuild plan is activated that is good for the lifetime of the original purchaser, in which the owner can have the Sentria completely restored to its original condition for a price determined by the [[United States Consumer Price Index]] (currently $175), plus shipping cost. In addition, if during this time the Kirby is damaged in a fire, the Kirby company will replace the vacuum with the current model for the same fee. In both of these instances, a new 1-year warranty comes into effect. |
The Kirby warranty varies depending on the model sold, but always has the lifetime factory rebuild plan. The warranty on the current model, the Sentria, is a three-year factory warranty excluding wear and tear. After the initial warranty expires, the rebuild plan is activated that is good for the lifetime of the original purchaser, in which the owner can have the Sentria completely restored to its original condition for a price determined by the [[United States Consumer Price Index]] (currently $175), plus shipping cost. In addition, if during this time the Kirby is damaged in a fire, the Kirby company will replace the vacuum with the current model for the same fee. In both of these instances, a new 1-year warranty comes into effect. |
||
==Criticism== |
|||
The Kirby is cited by [[Lon Fuller]] and [[Melvin Eisenberg]], Professors of Contract Law at [[Harvard Law School]] and [[UC Berkeley School of Law]]/[[Columbia Law School]], as a archetypal example of [[unconscionability]] in marketing and sales practices.<ref>Lon L. Fuller and Melvin Aron Eisenberg, ''Basic Contract Law'', Eight Edition 80 (2006).</ref> Kirby has been subject to relentless criticism by consumer protection agencies.<ref name="wsj"/> As of 1999, of the 22 state consumer protection agencies, 15 alone had received a total of more than 600 complaints in just a few years.<ref name="wsj"/> A class-action law suit has also been filed against Kirby over its sales practices.<ref name="wsj"/> Many of the complaints involve "older customers who lck the will to stand up to grueling sales pitches."<ref name="wsj"/> The ''Wall Street Journal'' records examples where an elderly couple was unable to remove three Kirby salesmen from their home for over five hours; in another example, a deceased woman living alone in a mobile home on $1000/month in [[Social Security]] payments and suffering from [[Alzheimers]] was discovered to own two Kirby vacuum cleaners.<ref name="wsj"/> |
|||
According to the ''Wall Street Journal'', the device "costs more than four times what other top-of-the-line vacuum cleaners do."<ref name="wsj">Joseph P. Cahill, "Here's the Pitch: How Kirby Persuades Uncertain Customers to Buy $1,500 Vacuum," ''The Wall Street Journal'' (October 4, 1999).</ref> Kirby compares the price difference to that between luxury and economy cars, yet "luxury-car dealers don't make house calls in trailer parks. But Kirby dealer's do."<ref name="wsj"/> The Kirby vacuum cleaner is "marketed exclusively door-to-door—often to people who can ill afford a $1,500 gadget, but succumb to the sales pitch nonetheless."<ref name="wsj"/> Kirby's exclusive method of marketing their product doesn't "allow the customer much room for comparison shopping."<ref name="wsj"/> For example, in 1998 the ''[[Consumer Reports]]'' ranked a $350 [[Hoover]] ahead of the Kirby in quality; with the Kirby costing $1500 in cash, and as much as $2,553.06 in typical interest payment plans.<ref name="wsj"/> |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 16:54, 11 July 2010
 | |
| Company type | Subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway |
|---|---|
| Industry | Consumer products |
| Founded | 1914 |
| Headquarters | Cleveland, Ohio |
| Products | Vacuum cleaners |
| Parent | Berkshire Hathaway |
| Website | www.kirby.com |
The Kirby Company is a manufacturer of vacuum cleaners and home cleaning accessories, based in Cleveland, Ohio. It is a subsidiary of the Scott Fetzer Company and part of Berkshire Hathaway. Dealers are located in several countries throughout the world. Since the 1920s, Kirby's products have been sold only door-to-door using in-home demonstrations.[1]
History
The first Kirby vacuums were designed by Jim Kirby for George Scott and Carl Fetzer after World War I, although the Kirby name was not used on a vacuum cleaner until the 1930s.[2]
In 1970, input from Kirby distributors, dealers, management and customers guided Kirby engineers in developing the Kirby Classic. The model was an instant success, with soaring sales, forcing the company to expand its manufacturing facilities outside of Cleveland for the first time. In 1972, Kirby West began operations in Andrews, Texas. The facility doubled the company’s manufacturing capabilities.[citation needed]
Warranty
The Kirby warranty varies depending on the model sold, but always has the lifetime factory rebuild plan. The warranty on the current model, the Sentria, is a three-year factory warranty excluding wear and tear. After the initial warranty expires, the rebuild plan is activated that is good for the lifetime of the original purchaser, in which the owner can have the Sentria completely restored to its original condition for a price determined by the United States Consumer Price Index (currently $175), plus shipping cost. In addition, if during this time the Kirby is damaged in a fire, the Kirby company will replace the vacuum with the current model for the same fee. In both of these instances, a new 1-year warranty comes into effect.
Criticism
The Kirby is cited by Lon Fuller and Melvin Eisenberg, Professors of Contract Law at Harvard Law School and UC Berkeley School of Law/Columbia Law School, as a archetypal example of unconscionability in marketing and sales practices.[3] Kirby has been subject to relentless criticism by consumer protection agencies.[4] As of 1999, of the 22 state consumer protection agencies, 15 alone had received a total of more than 600 complaints in just a few years.[4] A class-action law suit has also been filed against Kirby over its sales practices.[4] Many of the complaints involve "older customers who lck the will to stand up to grueling sales pitches."[4] The Wall Street Journal records examples where an elderly couple was unable to remove three Kirby salesmen from their home for over five hours; in another example, a deceased woman living alone in a mobile home on $1000/month in Social Security payments and suffering from Alzheimers was discovered to own two Kirby vacuum cleaners.[4]
According to the Wall Street Journal, the device "costs more than four times what other top-of-the-line vacuum cleaners do."[4] Kirby compares the price difference to that between luxury and economy cars, yet "luxury-car dealers don't make house calls in trailer parks. But Kirby dealer's do."[4] The Kirby vacuum cleaner is "marketed exclusively door-to-door—often to people who can ill afford a $1,500 gadget, but succumb to the sales pitch nonetheless."[4] Kirby's exclusive method of marketing their product doesn't "allow the customer much room for comparison shopping."[4] For example, in 1998 the Consumer Reports ranked a $350 Hoover ahead of the Kirby in quality; with the Kirby costing $1500 in cash, and as much as $2,553.06 in typical interest payment plans.[4]
References
- ^ The Kirby Story from the company's website
- ^ Kirby Model History
- ^ Lon L. Fuller and Melvin Aron Eisenberg, Basic Contract Law, Eight Edition 80 (2006).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Joseph P. Cahill, "Here's the Pitch: How Kirby Persuades Uncertain Customers to Buy $1,500 Vacuum," The Wall Street Journal (October 4, 1999).