Does obfuscation exist in our cleaning industry?

[T Monahan]

A rug washing friend of mine stated to me, "The chemical and equipment manufacturers and distributors are the skeleton on which the industry is built. Technician education takes place under the umbrella of the chemical and equipment distributors. I think the manufacturers deliberately choose to avoid, or at a minimum, choose not to confront, the fundamental truths about rug cleaning. In doing so, they take advantage of the ignorance of the technicians and small operators and, most of all, the consumer. It allows manufacturers to sell "wool safe" chemistry to carpet cleaners for use for surface cleaning wool - including products for urine removal. And to sell technician training on the same subject."

He further asserts, "I suspect that many people in our industry understand this conundrum at some level but hesitate to bring it out into the open for fear of offending many industry-powerful people. It would be like poking a hornet's nest with a sharp 4' stick. The fact that some of these manufacturers and distributors are good people and our friends would make it even more difficult to confront the issue."

He believes that obfuscation exist in our industry. What do you think? Is he correct in his conclusion?

 

[FredC]

Sure.............

but that ignores the market for that level of services that is mostly created by rug owners. The idea that if we only educated them enough they would fund our rug plant is in large part BS. So the reverse also seems to be true..........

 

[Brian H]

A rug washing friend of mine stated to me, "The chemical and equipment manufacturers and distributors are the skeleton on which the industry is built. Technician education takes place under the umbrella of the chemical and equipment distributors. I think the manufacturers deliberately choose to avoid, or at a minimum, choose not to confront, the fundamental truths about rug cleaning. In doing so, they take advantage of the ignorance of the technicians and small operators and, most of all, the consumer. It allows manufacturers to sell "wool safe" chemistry to carpet cleaners for use for surface cleaning wool - including products for urine removal. And to sell technician training on the same subject."

He further asserts, "I suspect that many people in our industry understand this conundrum at some level but hesitate to bring it out into the open for fear of offending many industry-powerful people. It would be like poking a hornet's nest with a sharp 4' stick. The fact that some of these manufacturers and distributors are good people and our friends would make it even more difficult to confront the issue."

He believes that obfuscation exist in our industry. What do you think? Is he correct in his conclusion?

Tom, you are going to have to dumb down your posts a bit for us to understand. Remember we are just simple carpet cleaners.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Yes it exists on every level not just rug cleaning. The don't look behind this curtain attitude keeps those that don't know any better buying the magic potion.

 

[FB7777]

Your post is a great example Tom

I've yet to have an instructor that isn't some blowhard knowitall sprwing their perceived
Brilliance at a bunch of English as a second language or high school diploma at best dopes

Just cause you're
The smartest guy in the room doesn't necessarily make you all that smart

And I agree with Cordell

 

[ruff]

Tom seem to be saying that wool and in particular rugs should only be cleaned in plant.
And that "Wool Safe" products are bunk. Designed mainly to increase sale at the expense of what's good for the wool.

Right, Tom?

Now, to take your post seriously as it should and you may be right one has to know all the facts.

So, please educate us and be specific. Are you just opposed to on location cleaning of rugs or are the "Wool Safe" products bad for wool? If so, how? Is it just the fact that by encouraging on location cleaning they encourage a compromised cleaning? Personally, I doubt that anybody here will be shocked (

- Not) that increased profit trumps the truth.

You mention: "In doing so, they take advantage of the ignorance of the technicians and small operators and, most of all, the consumer."
So, for example, do you tell your clients that by using Di-Chlor in your rinsing there may be damage done to their rugs? Since conclusive tests have not been done yet to rule that possibility out? That, yes you may use it to de-contaminate (or "sanitize")or prevent dye transfer due to bad dying (all good causes), yet it may be somewhat damaging to their rugs?

 

[Lee Stockwell]

Obfuscation is ubiquitous.

 

[Desk Jockey]

I though mold was ubiquitous?

So it appears deception is ubiquitous too?



Here is where I see the real issue lies. If it has to do with rug cleaning, the price is jacked whether it's cleaning solutions, equipment or training. Why? Because everyone wants a piece of the profits. It's NOT because it costs more to produce or build, it's because it's the new "hot profit center".

Just as it did for water damage, then mold remediation, trauma and now rugs. Pathetic but I suppose due in some regards. If you teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime he's due to owe you something.

And I really don't mind if someone has their hand in my pocket, if they've helped me make more money. Just don't jerk me off while your hand is in there!

 

[Shane Deubell]

Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, wilfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.

Its everywhere in this industry....

 

[Mikey P]

Fels, Salleys 40 & Oxy Clean all void stain resist warranties according to The Obfuscators

 

[Shawn Forsythe]

I don't think it is nearly as bad as the example given.

Liability plays a large part, but practicality is probably the greater factor.
If you can break complex material down to a simple set of rules, all the better for all concerned.

The woolsafe example is one of practicality. Many products are perfectly compatible with wool, even outside of the old too-simplistic rules, such as pH. It is far more practical to have a central entity of competence and credibility to study practical acceptability, rather than a very difficult theoretical model.

Of course, I suppose that one could make a case that rug cleaners themselves practice obfuscation when they offer their services in place of the obvious solution to the rug owner. After all, do they share that you can clean it with plain water like so???....

 

[The Great Oz]

Yes.

 

[GCCLee]

I call it bullsh*t ! And Yes.

 

[T Monahan]

Let me assure all reading this post that my vocabulary and ability to communicate does not compare to my friend Keith Beardslee. He is the one I am quoting at the beginning of this post.

He makes a point about what is clean when he recently wrote me the following:

"In English, "clean" is used both as an adjective and a verb. (This is not the case in other languages.) The adjective "clean" asserts an attribute, condition or state of being; the verb "clean" denotes a process or procedure. The word has a totally different meaning when used as an adjective than it does when used as a verb. However our portion of the cleaning industry (cleaning household furnishings) makes use of this linguistic confusion to muddy the issue. So, if "it", has been cleaned or had a cleaner used on it, "it" must be clean."

Then he remarks:

"This confusion is not the case in that portion of the cleaning industry that, for example, cleans hospital laundry or surgical instruments. There, no one pretends the process is the same as the end result."

 

[Buck1955]

Kinda like an auto mechanic is told... use as many syllable words as possible and act confident. When I got into this industry it became apparent that manufactures use us as guinea pigs.

Why dont they give us coop advertising money to display their products too.

 

[Art Kelley]

Let me assure all reading this post that my vocabulary and ability to communicate does not compare to my friend Keith Beardslee. He is the one I am quoting at the beginning of this post.

He makes a point about what is clean when he recently wrote me the following:

"In English, "clean" is used both as an adjective and a verb. (This is not the case in other languages.) The adjective "clean" asserts an attribute, condition or state of being; the verb "clean" denotes a process or procedure. The word has a totally different meaning when used as an adjective than it does when used as a verb. However our portion of the cleaning industry (cleaning household furnishings) makes use of this linguistic confusion to muddy the issue. So, if "it", has been cleaned or had a cleaner used on it, "it" must be clean."

Then he remarks:

"This confusion is not the case in that portion of the cleaning industry that, for example, cleans hospital laundry or surgical instruments. There, no one pretends the process is the same as the end result."

Regardless of the linguistic skills it boils down to should a rug be cleaned in the customers house or does she have to bring it in for it to be clean. I cleaned rugs in three homes today, some very expensive, one was a very heavily soiled oriental in a dining room that I brightened up and made beautiful again. Sure she should take it in to Hagopian, and I tell them in-plant cleaning is the most thorough, but for the price and convenience, I provide a great service. The obfuscation come from the rug washers in order to save their market share.

 

[Zee]

"In English, "clean" is used both as an adjective and a verb. (This is not the case in other languages.)

And how many languages does he speak exactly? Because the top of my head two langauges I speak does have that "clean" in both forms..


Carry on....with the Industry bs.

 

[The Great Oz]

If the on-location cleaner does no harm, and isn't pretending his work would be comparable to washing, I don't understand the concern.

Since many "rug plants" clean rugs on the floor using an extractor, why wouldn't an extractor salesman give a buyer a wink and a nudge and tell him that many "rug plants" just clean rugs on the floor of their shop using an extractor? Likewise, the chemical manufacturer that purchases a certification doesn't spend that money because they have the best selling product on the market, they do it to add credibility. Why would they then list the ways to poke holes in the credibility they just paid for?

I haven't run across any advertising that intimates that a product is intended for on-location cleaning of rugs, and at least in the IICRC and more advance courses on-location cleaning of rugs isn't taught as the first option. Is there a particular bad guy or group of bad guys we should know about?

 

[ruff]

There are so many groups of bad guys that it makes our head obfuscate.

Who would you like us to start with?

 

[Ron K]

If the on-location cleaner does no harm, and isn't pretending his work would be comparable to washing, I don't understand the concern.

Really?

 

[T Monahan]

Tom seem to be saying that wool and in particular rugs should only be cleaned in plant.
And that "Wool Safe" products are bunk. Designed mainly to increase sale at the expense of what's good for the wool.

Right, Tom?

Now, to take your post seriously as it should and you may be right one has to know all the facts.

So, please educate us and be specific. Are you just opposed to on location cleaning of rugs or are the "Wool Safe" products bad for wool? If so, how? Is it just the fact that by encouraging on location cleaning they encourage a compromised cleaning? Personally, I doubt that anybody here will be shocked (

- Not) that increased profit trumps the truth.

You mention: "In doing so, they take advantage of the ignorance of the technicians and small operators and, most of all, the consumer."
So, for example, do you tell your clients that by using Di-Chlor in your rinsing there may be damage done to their rugs? Since conclusive tests have not been done yet to rule that possibility out? That, yes you may use it to de-contaminate (or "sanitize")or prevent dye transfer due to bad dying (all good causes), yet it may be somewhat damaging to their rugs?

I believe that taking a rug in-plant, and fully washing it, is better for the rug and the client, than top cleaning it with a wand only. However, there are perfectly fine circumstances to provide appearance maintenance for in-home cleaning with a wand and/or upholstery tool. I have been known to do so on occasion.

Certainly WoolSafe products have their place by providing a marketing edge with the consumer. They are fine products!

In my company (Area Rug Cleaning Company, Ann Arbor Michigan), we wash rugs for the same reason we wash clothes. It's the only way we believe we can get them “clean” in comparison to other methods. The fibers are absorbent and the yarns are woven and need full immersion washing.

I don't clean dirty clothes by spraying on a cleaning agent and vacuuming it off. They go into my washing machine for a full immersion wash and spin dry. I can’t get wool rugs truly deep down “clean” by applying a pre-spray and extracting it off the surface with a wand.

For me, it boils down to the difference between what you are selling, and the results you are delivering, for the cost that the consumer is willing to pay for after they understand what you are doing for them. The element of 'practical reality' is at play for each in-home cleaner and their customer. For me to touch-up a rug for appearance in a home is a ‘case by case’ matter for consideration.

 

[Zee]

I believe that taking a rug in-plant, and fully washing it, is better for the rug and the client, than top cleaning it with a wand only..

So how is a Mor satisfy that belief? I don't even think rugs get completely wet during that process...yet its an acceptable way some do it and do a lot of it. Like Hagopian.

 

[Mikey P]

Really?

Really.

 

[GCCLee]

Can't we all just get along, geez

 

[randy]

I clean very high end rugs in a half dozen different embassies mostly with OP but occasionally even with an extractor. Recently I was in an embassy all day with two other techs. We cleaned over 5 million dollars of rugs all with OP. Try rolling up those rugs and taking them out for in plant cleaning and ABdula will empty the clip on his AK47. They could careless what the industry wants to sell them, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY. I believe the majority of rug owners fall into the same category , they know what they want to buy and it isn't inplant cleaning for $4-5 a square foot.​ The truth is most rugs can be safty cleaned, and cleaned well in the home, even with a truckmount. Turn down the heat and the pressure and take a little longer that that 2 bedroom condo you just sprinted through and it will be fine. Most carpet cleaners aren't going to open a plant and most rugs will be cleaned in the home regardless of what MIKEY's good friend sponge BOB or any of the other talking rugs say.

 

[T Monahan]

So how is a Mor satisfy that belief? I don't even think rugs get completely wet during that process...yet its an acceptable way some do it and do a lot of it. Like Hagopian.

The Moore (MOR) machine is a tool. Obviously, operations and competency may vary from place to place.

You mentioned Hagopian. I have been to Hagopian's place many times. I have observed them wet down a rug, power wash it, scrub it with a rotary machine, before sending it through the Moore Machine.

 

[T Monahan]

I clean very high end rugs in a half dozen different embassies mostly with OP but occasionally even with an extractor. Recently I was in an embassy all day with two other techs. We cleaned over 5 million dollars of rugs all with OP. Try rolling up those rugs and taking them out for in plant cleaning and ABdula will empty the clip on his AK47. They could careless what the industry wants to sell them, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO BUY. I believe the majority of rug owners fall into the same category , they know what they want to buy and it isn't inplant cleaning for $4-5 a square foot.​

This case makes my point earlier: "it boils down to the difference between what you are selling, and the results you are delivering, for the cost that the consumer is willing to pay for after they understand what you are doing for them. The element of 'practical reality' is at play for each in-home cleaner and their customer."

 

[Desk Jockey]

I use car washing as a comparison. You can go to the car wash a use the spray gun and it does a decent job of re moving the dirt, appearance is much improved. You can also take it to the automated car wash and it does a better job than the spray gun, more agitation cleans it better and while it may not appear much different, it is cleaner. You can also hand wash the car paying special attention to those areas that need more agitation while this method will clean the rug more thoroughly than the other two, appearance is still about the same but it is cleaner.

I don't believe any choice is wrong, the client chooses the level of care they desire. So are going to choose on location simply due it not leaving the home. Its out of service the least amount of time. Others want it washed but don't want to pay full boat for immersion cleaning so the choose automated and yet others want the care of hand cleaning.

 

[ruff]

This case makes my point earlier: "it boils down to the difference between what you are selling, and the results you are delivering, for the cost that the consumer is willing to pay for after they understand what you are doing for them. The element of 'practical reality' is at play for each in-home cleaner and their customer."

Tom, going back to your initial claim.
When I clean rugs in home, I tell my clients exactly what they are getting, both the advantages (price & convenience) and disadvantages (topical cleaning only, not as deep a rinse, no immersion or full rinse, nor adequate removal of particulate matter etc.) When I'm done, they know exactly what they are getting.

Do you inform your clients that the use of Di-Chlor on their rugs, has the potential to shorten the life of the wool, decrease resiliency and reppelency, or do you just make that decision for them without their knowledge or consent?

 

[Desk Jockey]

Do you inform your clients that the use of Di-Chlor on their rugs, has the potential to shorten the life of the wool, decrease resiliency and reppelency, or do you just make that decision for them without their knowledge or consent?

Ouch! Ofer why so rough on a weekend? You need to ease in to a question like that.

Say something like "Do you think its a fair trade off to clean the rug more thoroughly but use products that may shorten the life, color, texture of the rug?"