The Great SOA Debate w/ Harv and John Downy.

[John Downey]

I agree completely, John. Now, given that CRI has stated that the goal of this program is to address the number one consumer problem with carpet, where does that leave us?

Will this program make a significant impact on carpet's declining market share?

To the extent the SOA promotes better cleaning it is a plus. But no, by itself it won't turn the tide -- even if it were whole-heartedly endorsed by the entire cleaning industry. I don't think the scale is near to balanced right now, so no one thing will have the effect of tipping it in the other direction.

When the CRI says it is the number one consumer problem with carpet, I think they are combining the health issue with the cleaning issue, as they are related. Something that I think has been lost in all the emotional response to the shortcomings of the SOA is the big picture. Consider: The carpet manufacturers (individually and through the CRI) are promoting professional carpet care like never before! They need us. They KNOW they need us. And they're trying to work with us.

Think about it...

John D.

 

[Larry Cobb]

John;

After talking with, and listening to Werner Braun at Connections, I have realized that the "chemical SOA program" IS being heavily promoted by CRI.

In addition to mill warranty requirements, they are recommending it to schools, cities, towns and various government organizations. They do have more influence & credibility as a group than carpet cleaners.

When you look at Green Seal vs. SOA cleaning chemical certifications, I would definitely go with SOA.

So, at this point, I do agree with you and think the carpet cleaning industry should work with CRI to improve the chemical testing procedure.

Larry Cobb

P.S. I still think the "equipment testing" program needs a lot of work.

 

[truckmount girl]

John, I think you did a very good job on your article. Do you agree with the premise that the primary reason residential customers are moving away from carpet is because it "can't be cleaned?"

May I chime in here? Consumers may have the perception that carpets are difficult to maintain...but s it really the cleaning, or is it the fibers that are responsible for this perception? The surge in (cheap) Polyester and Polypropylene fibers on the carpet market in the last 20 years has been responsible for carpet "uglying out" much sooner than it used to. Pooling and abrading of fibers which lack the resiliency of good old gen 1 and 2 nylon makes carpets look dirty and gray, when the problem is actually damage and premature failure of the fiber. The cleaner gets blamed, because the carpet appears dirty and still appears dirty after cleaning...but it's not the cleaner's fault, the blame lies with mills desperately trying to produce cheaper carpet that "looks" nice when new.

In order to compete for the business of large retailers who insist on rock bottom prices, they have lowered quality of fiber and construction to the detriment of the whole industry. Until they realize the folly of questing after the cheapest products possible the public will continue to turn to hard surfaces.

I would love to have a heart to heart with Carey Mitchell on this issue.

As far as who benefits from the program, one notable group was left off the list...the IICRC with the certified firm requirement...which the mills added in order to garner the support of the IICRC in this fatally flawed program.

I believe we need to form a comittee to investigate the CRI/SOA program at all levels and report on the findings. Then proper authorities can be contacted if needed, or sanctions from cleaners and manufacturers be put in place to force them to address this program for what it really is....a money grab.

Take care,
Lisa

 

[Ken Snow]

Well said Lisa~ a committee and then a few thousand registrants not renewing their dues and others not taking the courses they teach nor the tests would cause an immediate about face in the promotion of this farse.

Getting on the bandwagon and then trying to improve what was so poorly thought out and implemented seems cowardly at best and perhaps even collusion. Maybe an FBI investigation under the RICO laws would really most appropriate.

Ken

 

[steve frasier]

good job Tony

I learned quite a bit

Thanks

 

[hogjowl]

As usual, jimmy has been way ahead of you people on this issue.

I think he started boycotting the IICRC back in 79 or 80.

 

[timnelson]

Something that I think has been lost in all the emotional response to the shortcomings of the SOA is the big picture. Consider: The carpet manufacturers (individually and through the CRI) are promoting professional carpet care like never before!

This statement is very interesting, in light of the Rug Doctor commercial I recently saw on TV. They played up their SOA connections big time. Even had the nifty NASA logo.

I have recently spoken to several carpet retailers, asking them what they know about SOA. Still looking for one who has heard of it. Even more disappointing (but not surprising) is the fact that the majority of retailers do not give warranty information to their customers unless they specifically ask for it. And very few do.

So, on the one hand, Shaw is encouraging carpet cleaners to embrace SOA. But at the same time they are sitting on their hands when it's time to tell the consumer about it.

Sounds like a reasonable program to me.

 

[harryhides]

To the extent the SOA promotes better cleaning it is a plus. But no, by itself it won't turn the tide -- even if it were whole-heartedly endorsed by the entire cleaning industry. I don't think the scale is near to balanced right now, so no one thing will have the effect of tipping it in the other direction.

When the CRI says it is the number one consumer problem with carpet, I think they are combining the health issue with the cleaning issue, as they are related. Something that I think has been lost in all the emotional response to the shortcomings of the SOA is the big picture. Consider: The carpet manufacturers (individually and through the CRI) are promoting professional carpet care like never before! They need us. They KNOW they need us. And they're trying to work with us.
Think about it... John D.

Yes, why don't we think about it - how does lowering the standards by such bogus test criteria "promote better cleaning"? John, I think that you are in some kind of fantasy land if you're suggesting that promoting a Rug Doctor is "promoting better cleaning" - you can't be serious.

"carpet manufacturers (individually and through the CRI) are promoting professional carpet care like never before"

Give us some examples of this - I've seen no evidence of this anywhere.

"They need us. They KNOW they need us. And they're trying to work with us."
Another bogus statement - really John !! How many portable manufacturers and instructors were brought in and consulted to develop this plan vs active carpet cleaners large or small??
Mohawk tried hawking their cleaning biz idea to Retailers and only when that failed they came to cleaners - Sorry they don't know that they need us and they're not trying to work with us - working with a few instructors at the iicrc head office who stand to gain from this scheme does not count and you know it, unless you count Rug Doctor Corp.

 

[B&BGaryC]

I don't think the SOA has the small business in mind. I was under the impression that the SOA testing involved actually "lived on" carpets. I thought these carpets were tested with a NASA spectromajiggy to determine how much soil was in them. They were then tested again after they were vacuumed, pre-conditioned, agitated and extracted. Then the test results were compared and a percentage was taken.

I had no idea they were putting a quarter ounce of dry soil on a piece of brand new carpet and vacuuming most of it out, then testing the machines based on how well they pick up dry soil. This is akin to the vacuum stores sprinkling rice on the carpet and letting you vacuum it up. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Ron Werner]

I feel the whole SOA has failed in its intent. It is not providing accurate info on equipment nor is it promoting proper maintenance of carpet (ie the certification of rental equipment that will never be used by a certified tech, hence it should be disqualified out of hand)

Where the manufacturers should be spending more time and effort, as already discussed, is with the retailers. They are the weak link in the chain and are responsible for most of the carpet myths still being propagated. While there was a time when there were truth to the myths, ie faster resoiling, over wetting, its 20-30 yrs later, and those issues have been dealt with through IICRC training. Despite the problems that have developed over the years, the IICRC has accomplised its original goal which was to train carpet cleaners.

Now we need to train the retailers. IRC - Inst of Retailer Certification

 

[John Downey]

Tony wrote:
... how does lowering the standards by such bogus test criteria "promote better cleaning"? John, I think that you are in some kind of fantasy land if you're suggesting that promoting a Rug Doctor is "promoting better cleaning" - you can't be serious.

My response:
How can you write "lowering the standards" when there were no standards to lower? The rules of logic dictate that ANY standard is higher than NO standard. So Rug Doctor earned the SOA, bully for them! They earned it either because A) their system works better than the "real pros" realize, or B) they figured out how to beat the system. If "A" I can sympathize as I too use a system that many "real pros" deride as inferior. I wonder how many "real pros" have any experience with the Rug Doctor? If "B" they should be exposed and the SOA modified to prevent it from happening again.

Tony wrote (in response to my assertion that carpet manufacturers -- both individually and through the CRI -- are promoting professional carpet care like never before):
Give us some examples of this - I've seen no evidence of this anywhere.

My response:
Are you serious? Methinks you need to do some research. Go to the Shaw Web site, the Mohawk Web site, the CRI Web site. Check out a new carpet warranty from Shaw or Mohawk. Note the cleaning requirements. Note the support and participation of the mills and the CRI in cleaning industry organizations such as CIRI, IICRC and ISSA.

Tony wrote (in response to my assertion that "They need us. They KNOW they need us. And they're trying to work with us."):
Another bogus statement - really John !! How many portable manufacturers and instructors were brought in and consulted to develop this plan vs active carpet cleaners large or small??
Mohawk tried hawking their cleaning biz idea to Retailers and only when that failed they came to cleaners - Sorry they don't know that they need us and they're not trying to work with us - working with a few instructors at the iicrc head office who stand to gain from this scheme does not count and you know it, unless you count Rug Doctor Corp.

My response:
This canard about the CRI "bringing in" portable equipment manufacturers and instructors is silly. They worked with the people that showed up at the meetings. They focused on manufacturers because the manufacturers would be the ones participating in the SOA. Although at the time I served on the committee (during development of the chemical testing program) I was involved with Steamin Demon, my carpet cleaner credentials will match about anyone on this board. And I brought my friend and colleague, Buzz Cohen, a carpet cleaner, to several of the meetings (until he was too sick to attend). Buzz's input was sought and welcomed.

As for Mohawk's cleaning business, it demonstrates again that the mills understand the importance of cleaning. So they tried to get retailers (their existing customers with a natural tie-in) to join the program? If I were in their shoes that's where I'd go first, too. That's not dissing carpet cleaners; it just sound business fundamentals.

John D.

 

[timnelson]

Are you serious? Methinks you need to do some research. Go to the Shaw Web site, the Mohawk Web site, the CRI Web site. Check out a new carpet warranty from Shaw or Mohawk. Note the cleaning requirements. Note the support and participation of the mills and the CRI in cleaning industry organizations such as CIRI, IICRC and ISSA.

John, the mill websites are not much different than before. CRI website, well, consumers don't know about it. Not much help there. Besides, the Rug Doctor is so prominently displayed, I'd rather them NOT go there. Carpet warranties? Consumers rarely see them. Industry support? That's not really new and doesn't address the issue of consumers being steered toward professional cleaning.

What about the issue of mills pretending to support SOA and then failing to give consumers the information??? Retailers don't give consumers warranty info because the mills don't want it done.

 

[John Downey]

John, the mill websites are not much different than before. CRI website, well, consumers don't know about it. Not much help there. Besides, the Rug Doctor is so prominently displayed, I'd rather them NOT go there. Carpet warranties? Consumers rarely see them. Industry support? That's not really new and doesn't address the issue of consumers being steered toward professional cleaning.

What about the issue of mills pretending to support SOA and then failing to give consumers the information??? Retailers don't give consumers warranty info because the mills don't want it done.

But there are differences in all of them, and in particular the CRI, because the CRI has been assigned the task of getting the word out about cleaning (i.e., the CRI is the industry mouthpiece). But you minimize, discount and bad mouth what is plainly there. You also make a couple statements of fact that I don't think you can support with anything but anecdote and "common knowledge":

1. "CRI website, well, consumers don't know about it." Why don't you call up the CRI communications/PR department and ask them for a listing of media mentions and ads over the past 12 months. And while you are at it ask them how many visits their website gets. Their information is used a lot, and they are frequently quoted for news stories and the like. Why? Because, as I mentioned above, the mills want the CRI to speak for them on these issues.

2. "Retailers don't give consumers warranty info because the mills don't want it done." That's conspiracy talk and I don't buy it. If you think about it it doesn't make a lot of sense. More often than not, warranties protect the mills from claims. Why shouldn't they want them to be given to consumers?

John D.

 

[diamond brian]

Hi John. You speak with forked tongue. The CRI is not for the carpet cleaner.

Your assertion that the CRI is the industry's "mouth-piece" is not accurate. Ask around. The CRI is the industry's crack-whore.

 

[timnelson]

I did not mean to imply a conspiracy between the mills and retailers. My point is that if the mills really wanted consumers to have written warranty information when they purchase carpet, it would happen.

 

[John Downey]

Brian,

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The CRI is the mouthpiece of the carpet mills.

And that crack-whore comment doesn't merit a response.

John D.

 

[diamond brian]

John, the crack whores here in Tulsa are willing to say or do anything for money. I can draw many other parallels between whores and the CRI, but, I'm sure you get the picture.

 

[truckmount girl]

John,

Do you feel the IICRC would have backed the CRI SOA program if they had not added the certified firm clause?

I don't. The financial incentive pushed them to accept a badly flawed program. Why have they chosen the certified firms instead of certified technicians? Is this a bow to large multi-trucks and franchises who have less certified techs? The core of the IICRC is the certified tech, not the certified firm, yet they ignore the tech.

When I was cleaning, we were both certified master cleaners, but not a certified firm...Why? because we did not get any benefit from being certified techs, why should we pay even more money to be a certified firm as well. I can honestly say being certified, even as a master cleaner, never gave me anything other than a patch and a certificate for the wall. Sure the classes were great, but I could have taken the classes without paying for the testing and certification.

My feeling is that the IICRC needs the money, and the certified firm clause is an easy way to boost the bank balance. My guess is that if the IICRC and it's BOD did not financially benefit individually and/or as an organization, they would not be nearly so patient with this terribly flawed program.

Take care,
Lisa

 

[harryhides]

Tony wrote:
... how does lowering the standards by such bogus test criteria "promote better cleaning"? John, I think that you are in some kind of fantasy land if you're suggesting that promoting a Rug Doctor is "promoting better cleaning" - you can't be serious.

My response:
How can you write "lowering the standards" when there were no standards to lower? The rules of logic dictate that ANY standard is higher than NO standard. So Rug Doctor earned the SOA, bully for them! They earned it either because A) their system works better than the "real pros" realize, or B) they figured out how to beat the system. If "A" I can sympathize as I too use a system that many "real pros" deride as inferior. I wonder how many "real pros" have any experience with the Rug Doctor? If "B" they should be exposed and the SOA modified to prevent it from happening again.

Tony wrote (in response to my assertion that carpet manufacturers -- both individually and through the CRI -- are promoting professional carpet care like never before):
Give us some examples of this - I've seen no evidence of this anywhere.

My response:
Are you serious? Methinks you need to do some research. Go to the Shaw Web site, the Mohawk Web site, the CRI Web site. Check out a new carpet warranty from Shaw or Mohawk. Note the cleaning requirements. Note the support and participation of the mills and the CRI in cleaning industry organizations such as CIRI, IICRC and ISSA.

Tony wrote (in response to my assertion that "They need us. They KNOW they need us. And they're trying to work with us."):
Another bogus statement - really John !! How many portable manufacturers and instructors were brought in and consulted to develop this plan vs active carpet cleaners large or small??
Mohawk tried hawking their cleaning biz idea to Retailers and only when that failed they came to cleaners - Sorry they don't know that they need us and they're not trying to work with us - working with a few instructors at the iicrc head office who stand to gain from this scheme does not count and you know it, unless you count Rug Doctor Corp.

My response:
This canard about the CRI "bringing in" portable equipment manufacturers and instructors is silly. They worked with the people that showed up at the meetings. They focused on manufacturers because the manufacturers would be the ones participating in the SOA. Although at the time I served on the committee (during development of the chemical testing program) I was involved with Steamin Demon, my carpet cleaner credentials will match about anyone on this board. And I brought my friend and colleague, Buzz Cohen, a carpet cleaner, to several of the meetings (until he was too sick to attend). Buzz's input was sought and welcomed.

As for Mohawk's cleaning business, it demonstrates again that the mills understand the importance of cleaning. So they tried to get retailers (their existing customers with a natural tie-in) to join the program? If I were in their shoes that's where I'd go first, too. That's not dissing carpet cleaners; it just sound business fundamentals.

John D.

1/ John, I think that you and everyone else knows quite well what I mean by "lower standards" before the bogus CRI tests, most anyone could correctly assume that a large powerful tm was probably better equipment than a rental unit.

2/ All of your examples are old news - Dupont and Shaw have had those recommendations for years. Meanwhile others like Millican continue to promote their own junk.

3/ Sorry John but in fact, the vast majority of committee members ( I have the list) were Mill reps and portable manufacturers. Can you cite the Cleanfax issues where the CRI went public in asking for cleaners to participate in developing this program? If you can't, will you at least admit they the CRI did not in fact want input from cleaners,suppliers or tm manufacturers? Tell us how you and Buzz heard about this. I wonder if Buzz also approves of the bogus test protocols they came up with. It's one thing to be asked to participate but if your input is ignored - what's the point?


I'm not against standards and science or education but I am against bogus, fake tests ( done a single lab), slick and misleading Space -marketing and a money grab by the CRI whose fees are far higher than those of Wool Safe. Do it right or don't do anything - isn't that how you run your business?

 

[truckmount girl]

:roll: Geez Tony, you wore him out and now he can't get to my questions!

Take care,
Lisa

 

[cu]

go on ya little bulldog,....take another bite out of his ass

 

[Goldenboy]

Tony needs to get rid of that cheeseball tie.

Golden Boy

 

[John Downey]

John,

Do you feel the IICRC would have backed the CRI SOA program if they had not added the certified firm clause?

I don't. The financial incentive pushed them to accept a badly flawed program. Why have they chosen the certified firms instead of certified technicians? Is this a bow to large multi-trucks and franchises who have less certified techs? The core of the IICRC is the certified tech, not the certified firm, yet they ignore the tech.

When I was cleaning, we were both certified master cleaners, but not a certified firm...Why? because we did not get any benefit from being certified techs, why should we pay even more money to be a certified firm as well. I can honestly say being certified, even as a master cleaner, never gave me anything other than a patch and a certificate for the wall. Sure the classes were great, but I could have taken the classes without paying for the testing and certification.

My feeling is that the IICRC needs the money, and the certified firm clause is an easy way to boost the bank balance. My guess is that if the IICRC and it's BOD did not financially benefit individually and/or as an organization, they would not be nearly so patient with this terribly flawed program.

Take care,
Lisa

Lisa,

I wasn't aware that the IICRC has formally taken a position regarding the SOA program. If it has, certainly that would flow from the fact that the mills want to use the IICRC to provide assurance that the most important component of an effective carpet cleaning job be met: that THE PERSON doing the work be trained and qualified and that THE COMPANY behind that person be professional and ethical (which is the most important reason why they went with certified firms rather than techs).

Your question implies the same sort of conspiratorial thinking that has been prominent in many of the questions and comments on this thread. Frankly it just doesn't jive with the reality I have experienced relative to the IICRC and the carpet mills. And I have A LOT of experience with both.

Let me be quick to add that I don't view the mills or, especially, the IICRC with rose-tinted glasses. In particular the IICRC has a problem with having too much power in the hands of too few, with not enough checks and balances to curb human nature's propensity to corruption.

But that's a different discussion....

John D.

 

[truckmount girl]

the mills want to use the IICRC to provide assurance that the most important component of an effective carpet cleaning job be met: that THE PERSON doing the work be trained and qualified and that THE COMPANY behind that person be professional and ethical (which is the most important reason why they went with certified firms rather than techs).

John,

Simply providing documentation of a business license and minimal liability insurance and paying $150 does not provide the assurance that a company is either professional or ethical.

Your question implies the same sort of conspiratorial thinking that has been prominent in many of the questions and comments on this thread. Frankly it just doesn't jive with the reality I have experienced relative to the IICRC and the carpet mills. And I have A LOT of experience with both.

Sometimes there is conspiratory activity, but conspiracy or not, what is wrong and flawed, is still wrong and flawed, whether or not it is intentional matters much less than getting rid of the bad program. What makes people wonder is when certain people stand up to defend such a blatantly flawed program structure, because of this incongruity, it makes others consider the motivation of those who defend or promote such a program.

Let me be quick to add that I don't view the mills or, especially, the IICRC with rose-tinted glasses. In particular the IICRC has a problem with having too much power in the hands of too few, with not enough checks and balances to curb human nature's propensity to corruption.

But that's a different discussion.....

Do you see a remedy for this issue (I agree with you)? How would you place checks and balances on this organization and improve it's ability to function?

It seems too many in the IICRC are too concerned with negativity from the membership and not as concerned with getting to the heart of what we are being negative about. There is a growing feeling that we are being mis-represented, our funds being mis-appropriated and we are being pushed to give this organization even more money in order to be allowed to work on carpets produced by the largest mill. Now we are being told what chems and equipment we must buy, and from whom, and all of this is tied to warranty. All of this and it is STILL no assurance that we will now have quality chems and equipment (the Rug Doctor got a GOLD for systems for goodness sakes!), so what would make you or Ruth Travis, or Carey Mitchell or Werner Braun think for a moment we are going to happily fork over more money to a program like this? There is no return on investment here, and frankly to give them money for this program would feel.....dirty.

Take care,
Lisa

 

[John Downey]

Lisa wrote: Simply providing documentation of a business license and minimal liability insurance and paying $150 does not provide the assurance that a company is either professional or ethical.

My reply: I was a member of the IICRC committee that revamped the certified firm program several years ago, and believe me there is much more to it than that. As memory serves, among other things there is a code of conduct and a requirement that the company have certified techs in each category that they market their services as a certified firm. There may also be a requirement that all techs be certified or on the path to it, subject to a reasonableness clause.

Lisa wrote: Sometimes there is conspiratory activity, but conspiracy or not, what is wrong and flawed, is still wrong and flawed, whether or not it is intentional matters much less than getting rid of the bad program. What makes people wonder is when certain people stand up to defend such a blatantly flawed program structure, because of this incongruity, it makes others consider the motivation of those who defend or promote such a program.

My reply: I'm not sure how to get this across, I've been unable to so far. It seems that many of those who have written against the SOA on this thread and elsewhere insist on viewing the program through a conspiratorial lense; consequently, they can't look at it objectively or from a different point of view. I've been beating my head against a wall trying to get people to look at this program from the mill perspective and see the great potential for mutual benefit it brings.

Put another way, you and others see this as a "bad program" because you are looking at it from a particular point of view. Seen from other perspectives (e.g., the CRI, the mills, consumers, retailers, the IICRC) it looks a lot different.

Lisa wrote (in response to my assertion that the IICRC has a problem with having too much power in the hands of too few, with not enough checks and balances to curb human nature's propensity to corruption): Do you see a remedy for this issue (I agree with you)? How would you place checks and balances on this organization and improve it's ability to function?

My reply: In government we do it by creating diverse power centers (executive, legislative and judicial). The same principle should apply. Essentially the trade associations are vassals of the IICRC (with the exception of the RIA, which for all intents and purposes has surrendered its leadership role in the carpet cleaning industry). That's not a good thing.

What would be a good thing would be if the IICRC had some competition.

Lisa wrote: It seems too many in the IICRC are too concerned with negativity from the membership and not as concerned with getting to the heart of what we are being negative about. There is a growing feeling that we are being mis-represented, our funds being mis-appropriated and we are being pushed to give this organization even more money in order to be allowed to work on carpets produced by the largest mill. Now we are being told what chems and equipment we must buy, and from whom, and all of this is tied to warranty. All of this and it is STILL no assurance that we will now have quality chems and equipment (the Rug Doctor got a GOLD for systems for goodness sakes!), so what would make you or Ruth Travis, or Carey Mitchell or Werner Braun think for a moment we are going to happily fork over more money to a program like this? There is no return on investment here, and frankly to give them money for this program would feel.....dirty.

My reply: I'm simpathetic but confused. What do you mean, "fork over more money to a program like this"? The SOA doesn't cost cleaners anything (although I think I recall a SOA cleaner program but I thought it was pretty cheap). It does cost manufacturers money if they choose to participate. Each manufacturer has to decide whether the investment is worth the benefit.

John D.

 

[diamond brian]

John, I'm curious. Did you type "The SOA doesn't cost cleaners anything" with a straight face?

Also, Lisa commented about the Rug Doctor "earning" a gold SOA. Do you see why us dumb 'ol carpet cleaners might be inclined to cry conspiracy?

I know you have a reputation as an industry leader of sorts, John, but your defense of this whole scheme is disappointing me. Do you really believe we're all as naive as you pretend to be?

 

[B&BGaryC]

Has anybody seen first hand what a rug doctor actually does to a carpet? Has anybody tried to clean a real world carpet, after some twit used a rug doctor on it?

Has anybody ever experienced the shame an humiliation involved in a phone conversation with a potential client who is trying to decide if you are better or worse than just renting a rug doctor? How insulting is it to have your education, years of experience and thousands of dollars in equipment lowered to the same level as a rug doctor by an un-educated consumer? The fact that we still have to have these conversations with people is ridiculous and humiliating.

Now you want us to support an organization that gives this ridiculous line of questioning ammunition? An organization that gives us nothing to say when a consumer calls us to see if we are better than a rug doctor?

"Well ma'am, I could clean your carpets for you, but you're right, the rug doctor received a higher mark in the SOA program and it costs $400.00 less..."

What's next, the "Resolve Foaming traffic lane cleaner" with squeegee attachment is going to get a bronze rating?

Do not gloss over the following questions. It will be as concise as I can make it.

Isn't the point of the SOA program to maintain carpets, so carpets can last a long time and be properly maintained? So that carpets can maintain their rightful spot as #1 choice for floor covering? So that countless allergy sufferers can receive the benefits of cleaner indoor air, and soft luxurious comfort?

Anybody knows that the average consumer is not educated enough to properly clean their carpet with ANY machine, including a truck mount. Why would this program endorse do it yourself methods?

 

[Dolly]

Like Lisa Said

Gary and many others.

I say...........don't let them off the hook......

It is all about finding a way to raise they're capital for the
benefit of them and to CYA'sssss at our expense.

They create a revenue from the manufacturers and then the
manufacturers have no choice but to pass it along to us.

I really don't think they want to do that, but then if they did
not, then why are they bowing down to the god of carpet mills everywhere

We all see it and it is not hard...........I am glad there are skilled
people here who know how to debate this lunacy and hypocracy.

 

[truckmount girl]

John,

By my statement "forking over more money" I meant, the cleaners to become certified firms and be compliant and the manufacturers to have equipment and chems tested.

Agreeing to adhere to a code of ethics means nothing. Those who would stand by it don't need it, and those who would not follow it's standards will just lie and sign it anyway. The backgrounds, practices and fiscal health of each company that sign on are not verified. it means so little as to be laughable.

You say that you cannot seem to get it through to us that:

"It seems that many of those who have written against the SOA on this thread and elsewhere insist on viewing the program through a conspiratorial lense; consequently, they can't look at it objectively or from a different point of view. I've been beating my head against a wall trying to get people to look at this program from the mill perspective and see the great potential for mutual benefit it brings."

I would say we are equally frustrated that you and many who are charged with implementing and promoting this program can't see our point as well.

Maybe I can put it to you in a way you can empathize with...

If you take your care to a mechanic you look for ASE certified technicians because you feel that they have received an adequate level of training and are up on current technology. The certification means something. However, what if the ASE started certifying Craftsman hand-tools, Mobil oil and Arco gasoline, then maybe instead of just certifying techs, they started certifying shops, and if that shop has at least one certified tech, they qualify. Then they tied all of this to your car's warranty. The certification begins to be cheapened, it's meaning and the efforts to achieve it are diluted. Soon it means nothing to the consumer because it has become common and over-used. Tying it to your warranty is probably not legal, and it wouldn't hold up in court, and would likely just confuse, frustrate and anger you.

Maybe you would consider that the auto manufacturer is trying to find a way to lessen warranty claims, maybe you would consider that ASE is looking to boost membership and increase revenue, maybe you would think that Craftsman is looking for a way to market tools, not to pros, but to car owners.

Can you understand our point now?

Why should certified individuals and manufactures pony up for this? I believe in rigorous independent testing. I also think it should be voluntary and not tied to any carpet warranty or their status as a certified firm.

Take care,
Lisa

 

[DevilDog]

Just read this article today. I personally feel Tony did a GREAT job with his side of it!

DevilDog

P.S.- This whole thing is interesting. I guess we need to basically go along with it, at least to some point, while at the same time trying to get something that is much more sane and makes much more sense.

The idea is basically correct....the implementation is waaayyy off.