Why doesn't Gillette capitalize on its name and history by . . .

[New Madrid]

. . . making a mid-to-higher priced "classic" line of DE razors?

Picture it: high-quality reissues of your favorite Gillette razors from the past century.

Fender has made a fortune by making new reproductions of its guitar and amplifier models from the fifties and sixties.

American car makers are returning to the design themes of their mid-century glory days.

The B&B community is small but growing rapidly, as numerous articles attest.

Mad Men has caused a spike of interest in men's retro fashions--retro razors are not that far of a stretch.

It seems like the time is right. The (small, but affluent) market is here.

Gillette could make money while at the same time restoring their good name among people who care about quality, history, and Gillette's (former) place as an icon of American innovation.

 

[TBaGZ]

I would have to say that there isn't enough demand for them to put anything into production. Sure they would sell some but in the BIG picture the money that they made from it would not be worth the hassle to them. JMO

 

[bradyarz]

this has been discussed before, although i can't remember where. i believe the general consensus was it would more than likely be too expensive for gillette to re-implement all the tooling, and the finished product would likely (knowing modern gillette) cost a couple hundred dollars.

 

[evandood]

With Rhodium plating who needs new razors? I figure my Razor will last for another 50 years and then some, and I haven't even replated it yet.

 

[Topgumby]

Why on earth would Proctor and Gamble (Gillette is merely a brand name now) put out a product that runs counter to the advertising they've spent millions and millions on?

 

[Omnichron]

they spend billions on adding an extra blade to every new product they roll out. I don't see why they couldn't spend a few hundred millions heck buy the machinery from another country and start making classic razors!

 

[kg4ghn]

they spend billions on adding an extra blade to every new product they roll out. I don't see why they couldn't spend a few hundred millions heck buy the machinery from another country and start making classic razors!

Gillette's sales model: cheap handle to get you started, expensive cartridges that you have to buy. This makes them ridiculous amounts of money every year

To then put out a razor that is expensive but has 10 cent blades that can be bought from any blade maker and shaves better than those super expensive cartridges that you have to buy from them doesn't make any sense.

 

[BladeDE40]

We are but a small niche in the shaving world...

 

[Omnichron]

there we go...

 

[New Madrid]

Gillette wouldn't do it for the money, though they would probably sell more than they thought they would.

They would (that is, should) do it for the same reason many auto makers produce small numbers of specialty cars, whiskey makers offer small batches of expensive extra-aged product, and Gibson has a custom shop: to market to a different demographic than typically buys its stuff, and, more importantly, to build reputation and buzz around aspirational items that capture the imagination and anchor the brand in quality and (its own) iconic history. What's so crazy about that?

 

[RF1963]

Why on earth would Proctor and Gamble (Gillette is merely a brand name now) put out a product that runs counter to the advertising they've spent millions and millions on?

That was my immediate response; all their advertising is that their newest shiniest product is the absolute best ever, promoting something that hardly changed throughout the Twentieth Century would be contrary to their basic position on shaving equipment.

 

[New Madrid]

Why on earth would Proctor and Gamble (Gillette is merely a brand name now) put out a product that runs counter to the advertising they've spent millions and millions on?

They wouldn't. These are not mutually exclusive product lines. Look at any of the old school guitar/amp makers, for example. Fender and Marshall sell their latest and greatest designs right alongside their vintage reproductions. Some buy digital modeling amps, others buy tweeds. Meanwhile, they have ads that say the latest IS greatest, and others that frame the sixties as a golden age to be recaptured.

Different marketing demographics = no conflict.

 

[Schick_Fan]

this has been discussed before, although i can't remember where. i believe the general consensus was it would more than likely be too expensive for gillette to re-implement all the tooling, and the finished product would likely (knowing modern gillette) cost a couple hundred dollars.

They don't have any money after the Fusion then Fusion Pro Glide marketing campaigns. Gillette needs to wait until people start buying Pro Glide cartridges at $4 or $5 a pop. If people buy them that is.

 

[Drubbing]

Picture it: high-quality reissues of your favorite Gillette razors from the past century.. . . making a mid-to-higher priced "classic" line of DE razors?

Have you any idea how much these would actually cost? And they'd still be inferior to anything made 40 years ago. Case in point: reintroduction of vintage pens like the Parker 51.

Fender has made a fortune by making new reproductions of its guitar and amplifier models from the fifties and sixties.

A lot more people buy guitars than vintage razors.

American car makers are returning to the design themes of their mid-century glory days.

A lot more people buy cars than vintage razors.

Mad Men has caused a spike of interest in men's retro fashions--retro razors are not that far of a stretch.

It's a fad. People here aren't fadding with DE shaving.

It seems like the time is right. The (small, but affluent) market is here.

The small market is already being catered for by small retailers.

Gillette could make money while at the same time restoring their good name among people who care about quality, history, and Gillette's (former) place as an icon of American innovation.

Gillette, for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. It's profit model has been subsumed into P&G, which is pretty much all they're interested in. Shareholder and boardroom profits don't harbour nostalgia for the sake of it. They would never make as much money as they do from the current situation.

Why on earth would Proctor and Gamble (Gillette is merely a brand name now) put out a product that runs counter to the advertising they've spent millions and millions on?

This is why it will never happen.

 

[cswann1]

there we go...

OMG....where can I get one.......I must have it....it's obviously the best shaver ever, because it has even more blades crammed into a design that only allows one angle. Right?

 

[Ophidian]

Why on earth would Proctor and Gamble (Gillette is merely a brand name now) put out a product that runs counter to the advertising they've spent millions and millions on?

It might be the masses want simple, 2 strokes and your done cheap junk...And that cheap junk is inexpensive to manufacture.

 

[New Madrid]

Have you any idea how much these would actually cost? And they'd still be inferior to anything made 40 years ago. Case in point: reintroduction of vintage pens like the Parker 51.

A lot more people buy guitars than vintage razors.

A lot more people buy cars than vintage razors.

It's a fad. People here aren't fadding with DE shaving.

The small market is already being catered for by small retailers.

Gillette, for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. It's profit model has been subsumed into P&G, which is pretty much all they're interested in. Shareholder and boardroom profits don't harbour nostalgia for the sake of it. They would never make as much money as they do from the current situation.


This is why it will never happen.

You missed the point. It's not about making money. It's about creating a flagship, small-production "classic" line for people like us.

I don't mind being refuted, but at least refute the idea as presented.

Fender and Marshall sell a miniscule number of their high-end handwired amps as compared to their large-production items. But they offer the ultra high-end amps for the small subset of customers who really care and desire those things. It also does wonders for their brand because even those who can't afford or don't want the fancy stuff associate the cheaper stuff with "quality."

 

[New Madrid]

It might be the masses want simple, 2 strokes and your done cheap junk...And that cheap junk is inexpensive to manufacture.

No argument with that.

 

[cswann1]

You missed the point. It's not about making money. It's about creating a flagship, small-production "classic" line for people like us.

I don't mind being refuted, but at least refute the idea as presented.

Fender and Marshall sell a miniscule number of their high-end handwired amps as compared to their large-production items. But they offer the ultra high-end amps for the small subset of customers who really care and desire those things. It also does wonders for their brand because even those who can't afford or don't want the fancy stuff associate the cheaper stuff with "quality."

You make a good case. And there are lots of businesses that take a product to the extreme for the few dedicated consumers for the sheer marketing value.



I think the problem with shaving is that it is still viewed by 99.9% of men and women as a chore to be done as quickly as possible. What possible marketing value could a DE safety or straight razor have? It's not like Peavy plastering Eddie Van Halens face all over Guitar Player magazine. He's a rock icon and associating his name to a product sells. I don't see the correlation in shaving. Who's the shaving worlds icon? Nobody is.


And yes, Tiger Woods is not a professional car driver, but he still sells Buicks (or at least he did at one time). So does Gillette want to sign athletes to endorse their products? Hell yeah! But they want them endorsing the cheap mass-produced crap, because that's where the $$$ is.

 

[GDCarrington]

Proctor and Gamble have had the same marketing and production model for years. Make items in a "reasonable appearing" price range with "sufficient quality" at a high volume to make maximum profit at minimum cost.

The acquistion of AOS can signal three things:
1. P&G is interested in producing high dollar items using store front and web advertising to provide a "luxury" mark. Perhaps they would consider DE as a high dollar limited edition item if the profit was right.
2. P&G is trying to remove competition to its bread and butter lines currently under Gillette to reduce people from moving to other competitors. In this case AOS will begin to reduce overhead costs and try to push the Gillette brand as high end and reduce or eliminate the AOS specialty items.
3. P&G will introduce limited edition but slightly modified versions of Gillette branded items under the AOS banner.

P&G is not normally concerned about niche markets other than elimination of them.