Here's an interesting question--for me at least. The Gillette business model is supposedly based on the loss leader idea, i.e., the initial product (the razor) is cheap but requires endless purchases of the secondary products (the blades). But look at the Aristocrat from the 40s and 50s. It's gold plated. Was it considered a luxury item at $5?
DE razors a luxury item in their day
- Thread starter Ilnones
- Start date
Yep. Luxury.
Freebie marketing was a pioneering concept King C. Gillette honed from observing bottle caps. Bottles used to be returned more than they are today.
Freebie marketing was a pioneering concept King C. Gillette honed from observing bottle caps. Bottles used to be returned more than they are today.
Yes, since many razors were sold for a dollar or merely given away because $5 back in that time would equate to around $75 to $125 depending upon what product was being bought in 1947 that is still in effect today to properly account for inflation. Also consider that money and materials were truly harder to come by due to post war supply issues.
If you look at pricing structures on old adverts I would say that Gillette had a three tier pricing structure for the UK in the 50's with Tech's being the lowest priced (and the true loss leader), followed by Rockets / SS's / #58 and then Rhodium-plated Aristocrats (such as the #16 set).
This would broadly fit into ideas of class stratification which was very much alive in the UK at this time; Tech's for the lower-paid working classes, Rockets for the aspiring middle-classes and Aristocrats for the upper classes. I think a case could also be made that the names of the products themselves also fit in nicely with a marketing strategy based upon notions of class.
I'm not sure if the same can be said for the US though, as firstly, I've not looked at many US advertisements and secondly, I am not sure if US society was necessarily structured in the same way as the UK in the 1950's.
This would broadly fit into ideas of class stratification which was very much alive in the UK at this time; Tech's for the lower-paid working classes, Rockets for the aspiring middle-classes and Aristocrats for the upper classes. I think a case could also be made that the names of the products themselves also fit in nicely with a marketing strategy based upon notions of class.
I'm not sure if the same can be said for the US though, as firstly, I've not looked at many US advertisements and secondly, I am not sure if US society was necessarily structured in the same way as the UK in the 1950's.
Indeed. 1952, my parents bought their first home and moved out of the trailer park.
$18,000 on a 30 year note.
1960, Dad made about $2.50/hour working for North American Aviation. That job paid for the house and kept two vehicles going.... '53 and '57 Buicks, the '53 was replaced with a '62 Falcon (I barely remember the '53 so I'm assuming the Falcon was bought used in '65 or '66), '57 was replaced in '72 with a '69 Buick, the Falcon was replaced in '73 with a new Vega, which was replaced a year later by a '74 K5 Blazer.
$18,000 on a 30 year note.
1960, Dad made about $2.50/hour working for North American Aviation. That job paid for the house and kept two vehicles going.... '53 and '57 Buicks, the '53 was replaced with a '62 Falcon (I barely remember the '53 so I'm assuming the Falcon was bought used in '65 or '66), '57 was replaced in '72 with a '69 Buick, the Falcon was replaced in '73 with a new Vega, which was replaced a year later by a '74 K5 Blazer.
I think personal care items from the early this past century were elegant and built to last. Just look at the ads from the 1900's through WWII. Well - I guess the depression forced Gillette to make lower cost razors; but there were plenty of elegant DE's. Judging from the razors that come from estate sales, it seems to me the owners used their razors for a number of years. Nobody owns a modern razor out of a blister pack for too long. They are considered expendable.
King Camp Gillette did indeed have the idea to sell disposable blades. But the idea that this was a loss-leader model is a myth. Later on, the company may have tried loss-leader campaigns to drive blade sales: for example, the Fatboy may have cost more than $1.95 to produce and distribute.
According to Nickerson, the original board decision was to sell the razor sets for $3. That would not have been a giveaway price: some single-edge razors sold for $1. But the company likely would have struggled to make money at $3. Joyce, who had stepped in with his own money to keep the company from going bust, insisted on a $5 price. Without that decision, the company might not have made it through 1904.
According to Nickerson, the original board decision was to sell the razor sets for $3. That would not have been a giveaway price: some single-edge razors sold for $1. But the company likely would have struggled to make money at $3. Joyce, who had stepped in with his own money to keep the company from going bust, insisted on a $5 price. Without that decision, the company might not have made it through 1904.
How interesting to look back that far and get personal perspectives from people. I have to say I love the diversity here, there aren't many forums that are frequented by such a large spread of ages, most are just specialty things that draw the attention of a very narrow age gap/
Agreed, that is the beauty of this forum and the internet as we all seem to need to shave over a wide span of years then it gives us the opportunities to talk to folks of different ages, countries and cultures.
The Wikipedia page linked above states that although King C. Gillette was widely credited with the concept, he did not originate it, nor did he practice it.
Gillette's original desire was to invent a product that, like bottle caps for returnable bottles, created an ongoing revenue source. He knew, from selling bottles that required an endless supply of caps, that downstream profits often exceeds that from the sale of the original item. And, while enjoying the downstream profit potential, Gillette himself never "gave away" his razors nor sold them for less than a reasonable profit over his manufacturing, distribution, and advertising costs.
At $5.00 in the early 1900s, the Gillette razor was certainly a luxury item, affordable only to the affluent who were most likely to be paying a barber to shave them several times a week. It would not be until World War I that "Joe Everyman" would adopt the habit of daily shaving. Even then, Gillette did not "give away" the razors, but rather sold them to the Government (at a profit) for distribution to the soldiers.
When Gillette first "gave away the razor" was with the Goodwill in the early 1930s. These razors were produced partly to consume leftover parts inventory, but also as a means of creating a market for the NEW Gillette blades, which were strongly patented and more profitable to Gillette. It also took place after Auto-Strop took over the company and displaced the previous management and corporate officers, including King C. Gillette himself.
To the OP's original question . . . yes, without a doubt, the Gillette razor was a luxury item when first introduced, and Gillette has, over the years, offered many razors at price points that would be considered luxurious.
I have to believe the the Aristocrats, Diplomats and Presidents of their day were very much high end luxury items. They were and still are things of beauty and lasting function. I think that's why so many survived in such good shape complete with case. They were treasured and cared for as any luxury item would be.
The research paper cited in this post (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1676444) provides an interesting perspective into Gillette's marketing strategy.
+1 . . . quite interesting!
I cannot speak to / about the Gillette marketing in the 1950s, although that is when I started shaving. I worked after school from about age eleven until 17, saving for college, but I always had more money on me than any but those I considered as the "Rich Kids" in the schools that I attended. I'd been gifted with "every level of the sales spectrum" at 14. I had a used Good Will (economy/ labor class), some kind of 40s SS (middle class), and a '48 NOS Aristocrat (I ended up using an SE, though).
When the mid-1960s arrived, I was still more or less freshly out of college, and earning almost $600 a month, plus driving a company car, so whatever the Slim Adjustable cost (less than $3, I'm sure), it wasn't a factor in choosing to buy my first one.
When the mid-1960s arrived, I was still more or less freshly out of college, and earning almost $600 a month, plus driving a company car, so whatever the Slim Adjustable cost (less than $3, I'm sure), it wasn't a factor in choosing to buy my first one.
The writer expresses that there's a mystery as to why Gillette didn't seem to play 'razors and blades' when they could with their patent active, but seemed to have success with it later when they shouldn't have been able to. They suggest, paraphrasing, it's a bit of a myth that Gillette used what is now sometimes called the 'safety razor business model.' But this all fits with something funny I've thought about regarding this exact history... There's a paradox: We enjoy these old razors because they're so well-made compared to today's safety razors, these current models that seem to be as cheaply made as possible and purely for the purpose of getting us addicted to their pricey cartridges; HOWEVER, Gillette, even with those wonderful old razors we love now, was specifically trying to start a company that would make money selling replacement parts just like today's that we loathe. In other words, he is thought to have invented or introduced the business model that today is taken to such extremes it annoys us endlessly and feels like a full-on scam. And because it annoys us, we go back to exactly the razors that started the whole thing we rightly complain about! And for the purposes just of my absurdly over-analytical hypothesis here, I don't consider it important that Gillette didn't actually 'invent' this business model, only that he took it to such a level or became so successful with it that generally we associate Gillette with that business model.
Here's what I think might be the missing element in what that author considers a mystery: the standards today versus 100 years ago, not only in the manufacture and design of consumer goods like razors, but also in the common sort of ethics of mainstream business in general. I wasn't around a hundred years ago, and I'm going out on a limb, I know. There were certainly some sleazy ethics in major businesses then, and there must have been some cheap goods being marketed. But as I go through everyday life, and have to buy all kinds of crap, and notice that most of what I buy seems designed to fail and need replacement because of one unnecessarily cheaply made component, or to require replacement parts more than it should... I also look back to most goods I know about from days past, even from my own childhood forty years ago, and much from previous times seems remarkably well made compared to what is being passed off as reasonable today. So the question the writer considers, whether Gillette played 'razors and blades,' I'm saying isn't exactly the right question, but rather should be, "Was Gillette playing razors-and-blades by the standards of that era?" I think he probably was.
In today's world, when 'Hey, everyone else is doing it,' I mean when all the other businesses are also playing razors and blades, then each business can more easily get away with the same. They've been pushing that envelope a little bit more every year for a hundred years. And maybe you can somewhat blame Gillette for starting it! But at that time, if you not only went to a safety razor business model, but also immediately took it to its insolent, bald-faced, shameless extreme like most manufacturers of consumer goods today, that would have been too much, over-the-top, you would have had a harder time getting away with it. It just would have been way too audacious to be widely successful, to become so huge. So those old Gillettes, even the lower grade ones, were in a sense both luxury items compared to what we have in the stores now, but also maybe somewhat as cheap as you could get away with then for a razor.
I think that often when something changes the world, it changes it in such a way that that something will no longer be competitive, able-to-exist, or interesting. Whenever you hear about some musical artist that was supposedly revolutionary, and you seek out and listen to their music, it sounds absolutely run-of-the mill precisely because that artist was important and created that musical revolution that is the reason our music sounds like it has since then. You hear some important revolutionary philosopher's ideas, and they sound like ordinary conventional wisdom, precisely because that philosopher did what they did. Or even consider a fish with lobe fins it can just barely walk on. Pretty easy to go around on land and get resources when you're the only large animal around, but that fish changed the world, created a sort of bridge across which animal life poured, that animal life adapted very well to every niche available, and the original, clumsy lobe-finned fish no longer has a chance.
So there are a few other reasons, but largely it's that since the safety razor model works, and because for vastly the most part people will not hesitate to buy a cheap razor and then a few thousand expensive cartridges later, it slowly stopped making sense to sell razors as well made as an adjustable Slim or a bar-handle New, or what have you... at Walgreen's. The reason we hate today's cheap safety razors is because Gillette safety razors were ever invented! They evolved into today's safety razors. And so we use old Gillette safety razors. This is my theory, and it amuses me.
What's that you say? I'm thinking about this way too much? Hm... you may have a point there.
Good post, and it also brings to mind value or utility vs cost. The more value I get from a purchase, as a ratio to its price, the better I feel about it. There is plenty of room for YMMV in perceived value, but for me this explains a lot of the anger we hear about modern cartridge pricing. A good pricing strategy has to leave the customer feeling that he got a little more than his money's worth, while still making a profit for retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.
Nickerson had a similar idea, writing in 1918:
"The real reason is this: the razor is worth much more to the intelligent user than a five dollar bill." It is hard for me to say that about a $4 ProGlide cartridge, knowing that I can buy 100 Astra blades for $10.
Nickerson had a similar idea, writing in 1918:
"The real reason is this: the razor is worth much more to the intelligent user than a five dollar bill." It is hard for me to say that about a $4 ProGlide cartridge, knowing that I can buy 100 Astra blades for $10.
Interesting take, Porky, and I can't disagree with your thoughts on it! Also, mblakele, I don't recall paying much attention to Nickerson's quote before . . . but wow, doesn't that make sense!
Fun thread!!
Fun thread!!
I was thinking about being clean shaven; such as: an important business meeting where being impeccably clean shaven (for example) would be expected.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Article
