I believe vacuum cleaner consumers equate the bagless concept with "maintenance free" which of course is a major fallacy. However, the "ease of use" advertising rather implies this idea. As many of us here know, this is why so many bagless vacs go into the trash without their filters ever having been cleaned.
Without delving into stereotyping too deeply, I doubt the average female consumer would think cleaning a Hoover pleated element filter was easier or cleaner than changing a bag. No woman I know or ever have known likes dust flying around her face, eyes, hair and head.
As to the marketing designs that Dyson utilizes. Agreed, their strategy is exactly one that attracts certain consumers to their product. Without going into the cons of the product itself, there are many people who like that flashy, sci-fi kinda design aesthetic. Just as they might crave certain low-end consumer electronic items.
Well, capitalism is functioning pretty much as it always has. In the past, some companies made sturdy, attractive merchandise that would last and might cost more money to buy. Other companies made junky merchandise that sold for less money. I'm not sure there ever was such a thing as a corporate ethic that necessarily ensured value for money spent other than the consumer's own good eye. And consumers still have that choice. That big pile of junky Chinese-made vacs at Walmart for $49.95 are all going to find homes (however temporary); most purchasers of same wouldn't know the difference between a Faberge egg and a Reese's Easter peanut butter egg. Some people just don't have the eye for quality nor the brain power to think about it.
A good friend of mine is a radio collector. He's got several hundred spanning the period 1920-1970, approximately. As is the case with most collectors, he prefers quality pieces but he has some representive low end models as well and the differences between the two are obvious.
