And here's the reality on the consumer end of things today, straight from the horse's mouth (my husband):
Before: 16 years of avg. $13/month for a 4/5-pack of Gillette cartridges (they are $16 a pack today), along with razorburn and inflamed follicles due to their cartridges' design of pulling the hairs up and cutting them off below the level of the skin.
Today: a single $60 investment for a Merkur safety razor, and $9/YEAR for 20 blades (40 razor edges, each lasting longer than any of Gillette's cartridges), with almost no razorburn, and not a single inflamed follicle since "the switch".
I don't know if you are joshing over the "safety" part of their names or not, but I'll assume you are not :) So, I would say, any day you are ready to stop wasting money on disposable Gillette cartridges. My husband bought one (a Merkur Futur) for his nephew who's a teenager, and apparently shaving is no longer an annoyance to him. Most likely he will also never have to buy another razor, ever - that thing was made in stainless steel, built to last a lifetime.
I bought my safety razor at a yard sale for one dollar, then ordered 100 blades from Amazon for $17. I get a great shave in the shower using an ordinary bar of Ivory soap. I'll go weeks on one blade, so I consider it an amazing investment compared to the poor value of buying disposables.
No--a beard trimmer or electric razor does absolutely nothing for you if you can't grow facial hair. Thankfully, if you can't grow facial hair, shaving is pretty quick and easy and painfree.
If you can grow facial hair, though, a beard trimmer is absolutely fantastic for keeping your beard trimmed, which I presume was the joke.
I converted a while ago, am significantly happier (and so is my skin). I've also managed to convert my wife to not shaving her legs - no more prickles, no more bumps, and waaay less wasted time and annoyance. She's much happier :)
I made the same switch a while back but eventually I moved back to Gillette.
What I learned was:
There are a bunch of things involved in a decent wet shave, the razor is only one part of it.
Preparation is key - exfoliate every week and moisturise daily, warm your face before shaving (lots of hot water), ideally shave first thing in the morning (your face muscles are more relaxed) and apply shaving foam gel with a brush (it works it in and softens the bristles better).
Razor burn is as much caused by technique as tools - shave downwards, all over the face once. Ignore the fact it still feels stubbly, you're taking off the worst of it. Now lather up again (avoid a razor on bare skin, that's going to burn) and do it again. Finally one last time (having lathered up again) going up the face if you have to to clear up anything remaining.
Then cold water to rinse, and moisturise afterwards.
On top of this an old fashioned safety razor did make a positive difference both to how clean the shave was and the razor burn (remarkable given that it's one fixed blade) but for me the extra effort involved in shaving with an old safety razor wasn't quite worth it. I like to be able to be a bit careless first thing in the morning while I'm half asleep and I can do that with a Gillette Fusion.
(Can I just say, for the love of god anyone making the move read up on how to shave with one first - it's not the same and you will cut yourself to pieces if you go at it the way you go at it with a modern Gillette).
Anecdotes are not data. I use a Gillette, I just bought a 10 pack of blades for 16 dollars. That is going to last me a year, maybe longer. I shave properly. Hot shower, proper technique never had razor burn ever. As the saying goes the poor craftsmen blames his tools.
Same experience, although the blades I use are $10/4 and I change them every week. I don't think much about shaving, and I get a close shave without razor burn. $10 is less than 10 minutes of my time, so it seems like a good deal to me.
Though I am tempted to order a safety razor from Amazon to see what I'm missing...
This is by no means a slandering or questioning of your masculinity, but, if you can manage to go for a whole year on just 10 blades then maybe it is so that your particular stubble is playing into the equation? Some men have velvet skin and "peach fuzz" beard, and some men have leather skin and steel wool growing out of their chin.
This is most likely it. Some of my friends can shave in the shower without having to use anything but water. I and others must use conditioner while in the shower plus cream or shaving soap (I've tried many) and its still an uphill battle.
And yet I can't help but wonder if at least some of it is my technique. I was thinking of going to the barber for a shave, just to see how well he'd do.
I use disposables in the shower, usually with soap and a bit of lathering time. I can draw a blade out for months at a time, and usually prefer it after the first few days since a dull blade is more forgiving. The caveat(if any) is that the technique requires a lot of slow passes - first with the grain a few times, then sideways a few times, then against the grain - so I end up with 15-20 minute showers. The skin preparation is a big part in how well it comes out in the end; a moist lather is the only reason I can work with dull blades.
I compared my brother's technique against mine once. He took the cream, spread it on without lathering, and then practically rammed a fresh Mach 3 blade straight down his face, one stroke per section. Finished in under a minute. Suddenly, it became clear why he always had persistent five-o-clock shadow; as I told him upon seeing this, he wasn't really shaven by doing this, he just wouldn't get a beard.
Perhaps, it does take me a day to get five o'clock shadow. Though if I go a day without shaving I can give my wife and daughter a rash from brushing up against it.
Though that is neither here nor there, Gillette style razors are some of the most popular razors out there if they were really that poor they wouldn't have replaced their predecessors as they cost more and would perform poorly.
Unfortunately, this ignores the power of good advertisement. For example: the entire fashion industry relies on generating desire to have something, not on any intrinsic value.
Gillette style razors are the mostly commonly used razors today. If they were really that bad at doing the job every other guy on the street would have razor burn and be actively looking for something else.
In my experience, a Gilette shaves cleanly (no cuts and inflamed follicles or ingrown hairs) for the first couple of times (when it's very sharp), then causes a few cuts unless you're very careful for the next 5 shavings or so, and from then on becomes so dull that it becomes quite hard to cut yourself unless you try to or move the blade along its length. A single Gilette blade lasts me several weeks to 2 months. It's only during the 'transitory' period that you need to be careful, and not apply too much pressure. When the skin becomes very red and irritated, it's time to ditch the blade.
Like someone mentioned above, for me the trick is to shave first along the grain, then lather up again, and then against the grain. That prevents redness, cuts and inflammations much more than using a fresh blade.
I must protest in the strongest of terms that this is not Hacker news. It is a well known fact that hackers require beards. Glorious, full-bodied beards. Beards that look good with suspenders and the occasional suit when necessary. Beards that get you on lists like this: http://www.codethinked.com/post/2007/12/06/The-Programmer-Dr...
Not so. I'm pretty sure the TSA allows safety razors in carryon luggage. I looked it up on their site a couple months ago. Straight razors are not allowed, naturally.
What I never got about this myth is why people thought that the razors should cost more than the blades. The razor is molded plastic and the blades are a bit of plastic holding a small bit of metal that are honed so they easily cut hair and have a hard time cutting skin. There's no reason to think that the plastic should cost more than the blades. My best guess as to why the blades are expensive would be to cover marketing costs and for patented technology.
So it's a myth, because Gillette didn't ALWAYS make their margins on the blades? I don't see the logic. They're still giving away the razors with one blade and expecting you to buy razors for it.
The point is that their current business model (give away the razor, sell the blades) is not the secret of their success-- that during the time they had explosive growth and became dominant, they actually had a very different business model.
It may or may not be the "secret". The fact is that it's a well known business model (so not a secret at all), it's actually so well known that it IS the example used when describing that business model.
Whether or not it's the ONLY reason they are succeeding it a pointless argument to make. Businesses are complicated enough that single reasons for success/failure are useless. But they are a successful business that was able to attain success with that model. So it's possible isn't it?
TLDR: A badly run business may not succeed with that model. But a good one can. Gilette is an often used example.
Technically, if you're willing to risk damaging it, you can force a regular USB device in there, but it sticks out at a weird angle because of the notch.
That's an example of lock-in that makes absolutely no sense. Why would you do that with USB extension cords of all things? The only reason I can think of--it physically locks the cables together better so it doesn't pop open in the middle of the extension cord where it's difficult to reach and reattach.
I'm pretty sure they do it because the keyboard can't source the required 500mA of current. They "proprietarize" it in order to keep people from plugging high-current devices in.
The keyboard itself contains a 2 port USB hub (regular ports, btw, with enough juice to power a Wacom tablet and charge my phone at the same time), so I'm not sure that makes sense.
I don't know about the current systems, have been wireless for more then 4 years now, but the original iMac had non-standard USB usage because Apple wanted the "power" button in the keyboard, while the USB protocol did not support this usage, at least it didn't at the time; I don't know if this has changed since then.
I think one thing that often gets overlooked in these types of things is whether or not Gillete just executed on other parts of their business plan better than their competitors. Maybe their sales force was twice as good, maybe their distribution was more reliable, maybe it was just more effective marketing. Perhaps they just figured out a way to manufacture blades 20% cheaper than their competitors.
For while the razor/razorblades story gets the headlines, for a lot of other products there is one company dominating the category for no apparent reason. Coca Cola, for instance, doesn't have any real benefit over other drinks, but they have a fearsome salesforce, marketing and distribution.
All I'm saying is that perhaps Gilletes main competitive advantage is kept quiet because everyone thinks it's their razor+blades strategy, and the company likes it that way because it stops people looking at other parts of the business to copy.
> Coca Cola, for instance, doesn't have any real benefit over other drinks, but they have a fearsome salesforce, marketing and distribution.
Not as simple as that. Firstly, it is extremely difficult to enter the drinks market (setting up a countrywide distribution network, etc...).
What Coke also does (in some countries) is giving the owner of Cafes, garages and small shops a fridge (loan on permanent basis). The condition of the fridge is simple - the owner can only stock it with Coke-a-Cola products.
So right there the retailer is locked in - to distribute a smaller competitor's drinks, he would have to buy a whole fridge (or the competitor must provide a fridge). This is not likely - hence the lock-in. The customer is not locked in, the distributor is.
Another thing that Coke does is prevent competition between small retailers. You must sell Coke’s products at their recommended price (otherwise you have to pay more). They also sell the products to larger retailers at a lower price (and they in turn may not sell it at the reduced price to smaller retailers).
If Coke wants to launch a new product, they basically force small retailers to carry their product (whether they want to buy it or not).
So, yeah, Coke is a pretty nasty company. Luckily for the guys in the USA, there is actual competition (Pepsi).
Is that really lock in? It's the benefit of selling Coke over other drinks. Free fridge. Cold drinks drive sales and you might go for it. "Lock in" has a built in negative connotation. Cancel your service, return the fridge, what's the lock in? You want the fridge, sell the product, or don't. If Coke is the only company that offers a free fridge, and you really need it, I suppose you're locked in.
Everything you have said confirms that Coke has a fearsome sales force and distribution business. And that proves my point - it's not the taste of the drink but the way in which it is put in front of everyone that might be thirsty that makes them successful.
Frito for instance guarantees 100% shelf service - you will never run out of chips. Legendary stories of the extent they will go to keep mom & pop store stocked etc. Builds loyalty.
It makes no sense, but what aggravates me about Gillete is that when you buy the razor and head, they only give you 2 extra razors instead of filling out the package with 4. I suppose it is because when you go looking for a razor, if you had to buy the head and the 4 razors the price would be so high no one would want to purchase it. It's one of those sleight of the hands the companies play that once observed, is infuriating.
It's not that aggravating to me personally--that just means I have three blades instead of five before I have to decide whether to try another razor or buy more cartridges for the same one. I hate wasting or throwing things away, so if I hate the razor completely I won't have to suffer through it for very long if it only comes with 2 more blades.
Really, I'd be happy if it just came with no extra blades at all.
Unrelated protip: Steam is what causes the blades to degrade so quickly. If you leave your blades outside of the bathroom, they last for a long time. I've used the same blade for about six months so far.
Yep; it's similar to how barbers rub their razors on leather-- called "stropping," IIRC. It apparently smooths out any microscopic dings in the blades' edge. It also helps to realign the blades in the case of those multi-blade cartridges.
I've had much better luck since I invested in an expensive (~$200) electric shaver. I have very sensitive skin and it was the only method I found that allowed me to shave with any frequency without too many problems. I still have a tendency to shave about once a week however. At which point I'll usually have to use a trimmer first, and then the shaver.
Shaving is special product: its personal. Nicks, pulls, uneven results: you feel it intensely. Once you find something that works, there is a large resistance to change.
Flip side: once something fails, folks flee in droves. Remington(?) famous case: stopped replacing "sharpening disks" every shift to save money; lots of flawed razors shipped; sales dropped precipitously until they tracked the problem back.
I'd think these things matter lots more than the "rational customer" model of economic efficiency.
King Gillette is the patron saint of late bloomers. He was a very average salesperson until he thought of the idea of disposable razors in his 40's. He didn't sell his first razor blade until 1903 when he was 48 years old -- that year he sold 51 razors and 168 blades, but by 1915 he sold 450,000 razors 70 million blades.
63 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadBefore: 16 years of avg. $13/month for a 4/5-pack of Gillette cartridges (they are $16 a pack today), along with razorburn and inflamed follicles due to their cartridges' design of pulling the hairs up and cutting them off below the level of the skin.
Today: a single $60 investment for a Merkur safety razor, and $9/YEAR for 20 blades (40 razor edges, each lasting longer than any of Gillette's cartridges), with almost no razorburn, and not a single inflamed follicle since "the switch".
If you can grow facial hair, though, a beard trimmer is absolutely fantastic for keeping your beard trimmed, which I presume was the joke.
What I learned was:
There are a bunch of things involved in a decent wet shave, the razor is only one part of it.
Preparation is key - exfoliate every week and moisturise daily, warm your face before shaving (lots of hot water), ideally shave first thing in the morning (your face muscles are more relaxed) and apply shaving foam gel with a brush (it works it in and softens the bristles better).
Razor burn is as much caused by technique as tools - shave downwards, all over the face once. Ignore the fact it still feels stubbly, you're taking off the worst of it. Now lather up again (avoid a razor on bare skin, that's going to burn) and do it again. Finally one last time (having lathered up again) going up the face if you have to to clear up anything remaining.
Then cold water to rinse, and moisturise afterwards.
On top of this an old fashioned safety razor did make a positive difference both to how clean the shave was and the razor burn (remarkable given that it's one fixed blade) but for me the extra effort involved in shaving with an old safety razor wasn't quite worth it. I like to be able to be a bit careless first thing in the morning while I'm half asleep and I can do that with a Gillette Fusion.
(Can I just say, for the love of god anyone making the move read up on how to shave with one first - it's not the same and you will cut yourself to pieces if you go at it the way you go at it with a modern Gillette).
Though I am tempted to order a safety razor from Amazon to see what I'm missing...
And yet I can't help but wonder if at least some of it is my technique. I was thinking of going to the barber for a shave, just to see how well he'd do.
I compared my brother's technique against mine once. He took the cream, spread it on without lathering, and then practically rammed a fresh Mach 3 blade straight down his face, one stroke per section. Finished in under a minute. Suddenly, it became clear why he always had persistent five-o-clock shadow; as I told him upon seeing this, he wasn't really shaven by doing this, he just wouldn't get a beard.
Though that is neither here nor there, Gillette style razors are some of the most popular razors out there if they were really that poor they wouldn't have replaced their predecessors as they cost more and would perform poorly.
Unfortunately, this ignores the power of good advertisement. For example: the entire fashion industry relies on generating desire to have something, not on any intrinsic value.
Like someone mentioned above, for me the trick is to shave first along the grain, then lather up again, and then against the grain. That prevents redness, cuts and inflammations much more than using a fresh blade.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-...
"Razor-Type Blades - such as box cutters, utility knives, and safety razor blades (disposable razors and their cartridges are permitted)"
http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2002/press_release_0104.sh...
Alas.
I recently bought a Merkur safety razor and a sample pack of different blade brands.
I have been recommending all of my male friends to make the switch.
Whether or not it's the ONLY reason they are succeeding it a pointless argument to make. Businesses are complicated enough that single reasons for success/failure are useless. But they are a successful business that was able to attain success with that model. So it's possible isn't it?
TLDR: A badly run business may not succeed with that model. But a good one can. Gilette is an often used example.
Sure, plug-compatibility is trivial, but Gillette had sufficient market power at that point to cut off any retailer stocking them.
In what way did you mean that?
Here's a picture: http://imgur.com/Aweqo.jpg
Technically, if you're willing to risk damaging it, you can force a regular USB device in there, but it sticks out at a weird angle because of the notch.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11022485&post...
For while the razor/razorblades story gets the headlines, for a lot of other products there is one company dominating the category for no apparent reason. Coca Cola, for instance, doesn't have any real benefit over other drinks, but they have a fearsome salesforce, marketing and distribution.
All I'm saying is that perhaps Gilletes main competitive advantage is kept quiet because everyone thinks it's their razor+blades strategy, and the company likes it that way because it stops people looking at other parts of the business to copy.
Not as simple as that. Firstly, it is extremely difficult to enter the drinks market (setting up a countrywide distribution network, etc...).
What Coke also does (in some countries) is giving the owner of Cafes, garages and small shops a fridge (loan on permanent basis). The condition of the fridge is simple - the owner can only stock it with Coke-a-Cola products.
So right there the retailer is locked in - to distribute a smaller competitor's drinks, he would have to buy a whole fridge (or the competitor must provide a fridge). This is not likely - hence the lock-in. The customer is not locked in, the distributor is.
Another thing that Coke does is prevent competition between small retailers. You must sell Coke’s products at their recommended price (otherwise you have to pay more). They also sell the products to larger retailers at a lower price (and they in turn may not sell it at the reduced price to smaller retailers).
If Coke wants to launch a new product, they basically force small retailers to carry their product (whether they want to buy it or not).
So, yeah, Coke is a pretty nasty company. Luckily for the guys in the USA, there is actual competition (Pepsi).
Really, I'd be happy if it just came with no extra blades at all.
I keep my razor in the shower, too, though maybe if I didn't it could go even longer.
Flip side: once something fails, folks flee in droves. Remington(?) famous case: stopped replacing "sharpening disks" every shift to save money; lots of flawed razors shipped; sales dropped precipitously until they tracked the problem back.
I'd think these things matter lots more than the "rational customer" model of economic efficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Camp_Gillette