LisaWagnerCRS
Member
Pemberton posted this on the Dirt blog today (by the way... I own a "Joe Dirt" DVD... little known trivia...):
"My frustration with the CRI and its membership increases daily. These kind of comments leave me at a loss as to when we will ever get straight answers from them.
In March of this year, I had asked an industry trade journal to interview the leading members (carpet manufacturers) of the CRI to answer some important questions that I hear over and over again from cleaners who attend my classes.
The questions are centered around the application of carpet protector to some new carpets that are marketed as having built in protector that never wears out or cleans out, such as the new R2X process used by Shaw.
There have been dark warnings and outright claims of warranty denial if a protector is applied to such a carpet from retailers (yeah, the same ones who rarely provide warranty information to their customers) that intimidate cleaners so much than many are no longer applying protector to ANY carpet, since they rarely know what they are cleaning.
These are the questions I wanted answers for:
1. Do you encourage the application of fluorochemical protector to your carpet after cleaning? Why or why not?
2. (To those who answer no) Since retailers are at best “inconsistent” in their delivery of warranty and care information to the consumer, how do you expect a cleaner to know whether or not your product is the one that they just cleaned, and that they are not “allowed” to protect?
3. Explain what liability you feel a cleaner will take on if they unknowingly apply a fluorochemical protector to your carpet?
As I understand it, no one responded to the editor of the journal, so no article was published as a result.
I repeated these questions to a representative of one of the larger mills who usually is very helpful and has a great reputation for supporting our industry.
I got no response. Not even a “I don’t like you anymore and wouldn’t tell you the time of day if you asked it” Nothing.
So what is a cleaner to do? Apply protector for anyone who wishes to have it applied and hope nothing will happen? Have employees quiz every customer who might want this service and make sure they don’t have a carpet that might “self destruct” if protector is applied?
Or just stop applying protector and “stay out of trouble”?
Most cleaners will just stop applying protector to anything to keep it simple.
Who loses?
The cleaner loses some potential profit, and in today’s business climate that profit might make all the difference in his bottom line.
Worse, the employee of that cleaner loses potential commissions, which means, in a way, a pay cut. People having to take pay cuts instead of getting pay raises is part of our news every day.
Worst of all, the consumer loses. If their carpet could have benefited from being protected, they lose this important benefit that would protect their investment in carpet from premature replacement from soiling or staining that might not otherwise be removed during cleaning.
All of this because the members of the CRI can’t answer some simple questions for the people that they claim to be their partners:
The carpet cleaners."
==
So... have any of you ever damaged - or voided - a warranty by using protector? (Guess that means it does not "protect"?) :shock:
I think the authors of the warranty may be the result of cousins marrying... it's the only explanation I can come up with... unless they simply want to make sure every claim will 100% be denied.
Lisa
http://realdirtoncri.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/are-carpet-warranties-a-consumer-scam/
"My frustration with the CRI and its membership increases daily. These kind of comments leave me at a loss as to when we will ever get straight answers from them.
In March of this year, I had asked an industry trade journal to interview the leading members (carpet manufacturers) of the CRI to answer some important questions that I hear over and over again from cleaners who attend my classes.
The questions are centered around the application of carpet protector to some new carpets that are marketed as having built in protector that never wears out or cleans out, such as the new R2X process used by Shaw.
There have been dark warnings and outright claims of warranty denial if a protector is applied to such a carpet from retailers (yeah, the same ones who rarely provide warranty information to their customers) that intimidate cleaners so much than many are no longer applying protector to ANY carpet, since they rarely know what they are cleaning.
These are the questions I wanted answers for:
1. Do you encourage the application of fluorochemical protector to your carpet after cleaning? Why or why not?
2. (To those who answer no) Since retailers are at best “inconsistent” in their delivery of warranty and care information to the consumer, how do you expect a cleaner to know whether or not your product is the one that they just cleaned, and that they are not “allowed” to protect?
3. Explain what liability you feel a cleaner will take on if they unknowingly apply a fluorochemical protector to your carpet?
As I understand it, no one responded to the editor of the journal, so no article was published as a result.
I repeated these questions to a representative of one of the larger mills who usually is very helpful and has a great reputation for supporting our industry.
I got no response. Not even a “I don’t like you anymore and wouldn’t tell you the time of day if you asked it” Nothing.
So what is a cleaner to do? Apply protector for anyone who wishes to have it applied and hope nothing will happen? Have employees quiz every customer who might want this service and make sure they don’t have a carpet that might “self destruct” if protector is applied?
Or just stop applying protector and “stay out of trouble”?
Most cleaners will just stop applying protector to anything to keep it simple.
Who loses?
The cleaner loses some potential profit, and in today’s business climate that profit might make all the difference in his bottom line.
Worse, the employee of that cleaner loses potential commissions, which means, in a way, a pay cut. People having to take pay cuts instead of getting pay raises is part of our news every day.
Worst of all, the consumer loses. If their carpet could have benefited from being protected, they lose this important benefit that would protect their investment in carpet from premature replacement from soiling or staining that might not otherwise be removed during cleaning.
All of this because the members of the CRI can’t answer some simple questions for the people that they claim to be their partners:
The carpet cleaners."
==
So... have any of you ever damaged - or voided - a warranty by using protector? (Guess that means it does not "protect"?) :shock:
I think the authors of the warranty may be the result of cousins marrying... it's the only explanation I can come up with... unless they simply want to make sure every claim will 100% be denied.
Lisa
http://realdirtoncri.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/are-carpet-warranties-a-consumer-scam/
I love that movie.
