Gillette cartridges are expensive!

[Mr. Shavington]

And if they lasted 30 days as advertised it would be a little less absurd, at least for the regular fusion carts, not the labs.

But 5 shaves and they are done for me. Unless I want to fill my neck with red bumps.

Nope…

I never got more than three good shaves from a cartridge. Five blades go blunt just as quickly as one - and of course they would, if you think about it.

I know the man who invented the twin blade razor at Wilkinson Sword. He was my neighbour at one time, after his retirement. He freely admits it was entirely a marketing initiative to sell twice as many razor blades (which is predicated on the blades wearing out at the same rate as a single blade). He doesn’t think it improved the shave in any way compared to one blade, but their job was to sell razor blades. It also locked customers in to buying that brand of blades, since other cartridges would not fit (and this is something the razor blade manufacturers have been trying for a hundred years, and the reason why the standard DE blade is such a ridiculous shape).

 

[Alex Jr]

I never got more than three good shaves from a cartridge. Five blades go blunt just as quickly as one - and of course they would, if you think about it.

I know the man who invented the twin blade razor at Wilkinson Sword. He was my neighbour at one time, after his retirement. He freely admits it was entirely a marketing initiative to sell twice as many razor blades (which is predicated on the blades wearing out at the same rate as a single blade). He doesn’t think it improved the shave in any way compared to one blade, but their job was to sell razor blades. It also locked customers in to buying that brand of blades, since other cartridges would not fit (and this is something the razor blade manufacturers have been trying for a hundred years, and the reason why the standard DE blade is such a ridiculous shape).

Yeah I may go up to 5 but the last 2 are not so great.

I’ll never understand how something that’s practically designed to give you bumps and ingrowns (pull and cut) can remain for decades marketed as a great feature.

 

[Mr. Shavington]

Yeah I may go up to 5 but the last 2 are not so great.

I’ll never understand how something that’s practically designed to give you bumps and ingrowns (pull and cut) can remain for decades marketed as a great feature.

There are many, many examples of manufacturers producing a poorer product because it is more profitable to do so, and of consumers being convinced to pay more for less. I think it is the inevitable trajectory of nearly any publicly traded company that has achieved a strong market share - how then to continue delivering the same earnings growth every quarter?

Samsonite is a classic example - they once made very high quality luggage, though that was decades ago now. Private equity investors realised they could make the company far more profitable if they instead produced cheaply made luggage that broke and needed to be replaced much more often. Makes sense if customers continue buying them because of the former reputation of the brand. Just make ‘em look shiny and put carbon fibre on it.

What about Apple? They keep reducing the memory capacity of their devices to try and push customers into paying a monthly cloud storage subscription. Another way to grow earnings by reducing the quality of the product.

I’m still hopeful that Gillette will come a cropper because their cartridge business is so obviously against the sustainability agenda. But maybe they will just use recyclable materials for the cartridges and use this as a way to make them last for fewer shaves, so consumers will have to buy more cartridges - and they can raise the price even more because it’s ‘green’. There’s always a way to increase revenue by reducing quality, it seems.

 

[Alex Jr]

There are many, many examples of manufacturers producing a poorer product because it is more profitable to do so, and of consumers being convinced to pay more for less. I think it is the inevitable trajectory of nearly any publicly traded company that has achieved a strong market share - how then to continue delivering the same earnings growth every quarter?

Samsonite is a classic example - they once made very high quality luggage, though that was decades ago now. Private equity investors realised they could make the company far more profitable if they instead produced cheaply made luggage that broke and needed to be replaced much more often. Makes sense if customers continue buying them because of the former reputation of the brand. Just make ‘em look shiny and put carbon fibre on it.

What about Apple? They keep reducing the memory capacity of their devices to try and push customers into paying a monthly cloud storage subscription. Another way to grow earnings by reducing the quality of the product.

I’m still hopeful that Gillette will come a cropper because their cartridge business is so obviously against the sustainability agenda. But maybe they will just use recyclable materials for the cartridges and use this as a way to make them last for fewer shaves, so consumers will have to buy more cartridges - and they can raise the price even more because it’s ‘green’. There’s always a way to increase revenue by reducing quality, it seems.

I had totally forgotten about samsonite. Perfect example.

I remember how great their luggage was, nothing like these plastic shiny garbage they put out there today.

It all seems to be going downhill unfortunately…

 

[Mr. Shavington]

I had totally forgotten about samsonite. Perfect example.

I remember how great their luggage was, nothing like these plastic shiny garbage they put out there today.

It all seems to be going downhill unfortunately…

Yeah. I suppose if you think about it there was no way for Gillette, as the market leader, to keep growing earnings if their business continued to be mainly DE blades. They couldn’t raise prices because DE blades are standardised and there are many alternative manufacturers. They couldn’t buy out all of their competitors (though they did buy out many of them) because of anti-monopoly laws. The only thing they could do is create a new razor format, make it so that only their proprietary blades fit, and get some patents so the cartridges can’t be copied exactly. I remember when these came out - the cartridges were reasonably priced and you got a shiny metal handle for free. Now that it’s the dominant shaving format they can keep pushing up the price each year and add an extra blade whenever pricing gets competitive. Voila, reliable 10% annual revenue growth, smiling shareholders, big bonuses all round.

But with five blades, batteries for vibrating and heating (and guess who owns Duracell), etc., where do they go next to keep upping the profits from each shaver? There’s only so much you can achieve with blanket marketing and distribution, and prices feel insane now. I suppose the current trick is calling it ‘Gillette Labs’ to make buyers think there’s some clever science involved and Gillette products are somehow more advanced (even though it’s just strips of sharp metal in a plastic holder, just like everyone else makes). Obviously a ‘Gillette Labs’ product should cost 10% more than a regular ‘Gillette’ product because of the actors in white coats you see in the adverts. But where is next year’s 10% price increase going to come from? And the year after that?

I don’t think they’ve run out of road yet, but they must be thinking of the next thing. I bet it’s sustainability. People expect to pay more for sustainability, and the actors in white coats totally fit.

One of the true joys of DE shaving is knowing that you’ve seen the matrix and you’ve beaten the machine. They can’t do anything to us now.

 

[steveclarkus]

Many of you already know this, but as I write this, the Gillette "proglide" cartridges are about $5 USD each.

View attachment 1427294

At the Walmart where I took this picture they have these behind locked glass.

Like I said, many of you already know this, but I hadn't looked at these for a while, and I guess I didn't realize just how expensive they are.

The Schick Hydro carts are pricey too, but these are 2/3 more!

Just...wow.

That's all.

StewB

Personna Blue are just under $16 per 100. You can change blades every day for $1.10

 

[Alex Jr]

One of the true joys of DE shaving is knowing that you’ve seen the matrix and you’ve beaten the machine. They can’t do anything to us now.

Perfectly said!

And I’m curious to know what the next Gillette gimmick will be. The “green” marketing and products are definitely coming.

It’s not going to be cheaper, that’s for sure.

 

[abies]

To be fair, there's probably some cartridge forum where people are exclaiming "150USD for a razor ??"

 

[Mr. Shavington]

To be fair, there's probably some cartridge forum where people are exclaiming "150USD for a razor ??"

Yeah. They can shave with cartridges for three whole months for that.

 

[Lockback]

One of the true joys of DE shaving is knowing that you’ve seen the matrix and you’ve beaten the machine. They can’t do anything to us now.

So well said. When you do the math and think of all the men around the world of shaving age, numbering in the billions, most of whom cannot afford the latest plastic 14-blade UberRazor nor do they care about such a concept, there's always going to be a market for double edge razor blades and the razors in which to use them.

 

[abies]

Yeah. They can shave with cartridges for three whole months for that.

It's good to be reminded about cartridge prices sometimes. I lose sight of things sometimes when I'm thinking about how some blades are more expensive than others. Those blades are still much less expensive than cartridges.

 

[Mr. Shavington]

It's good to be reminded about cartridge prices sometimes. I lose sight of things sometimes when I'm thinking about how some blades are more expensive than others. Those blades are still much less expensive than cartridges.

Yeah. I stopped using cartridges because I felt like I was being taken advantage of, and that’s not a nice feeling. And that was ten years ago for me. I would be so angry if I bought a pack of cartridges today. It’s just not an acceptable way for a company to treat its customers. It’s abusive - that’s how I feel about it.

So many companies now are predicated on trying to take as much of your money away from you as possible. It is predatory behaviour. I won’t deal with them because of how it feels. I work hard to earn my money and if they can’t respect that and offer me a good product in a competitive marketplace then I feel they shouldn’t be in business any more. It’s not good for anybody when a dominant company’s business model is based on abusing a virtual monopoly position.

We don’t need Gillette. They have lost the right to exist as an organization, from my perspective.

Sorry, I got a bit worked up about this, even though I’ve avoided the company for ten years.

 

[BigJ]

It's good to be reminded about cartridge prices sometimes. I lose sight of things sometimes when I'm thinking about how some blades are more expensive than others. Those blades are still much less expensive than cartridges.

When LOTH and I pass Gillette cartridges in the shops, I get to point out how much $$ I am really am saving!!

 

[cvac]

The last good cart razor Gillette made was the Trac 2. IMHO. I'd still rather use DE.

 

[DesertIguana]

Many of you already know this, but as I write this, the Gillette "proglide" cartridges are about $5 USD each.

View attachment 1427294

At the Walmart where I took this picture they have these behind locked glass.

Like I said, many of you already know this, but I hadn't looked at these for a while, and I guess I didn't realize just how expensive they are.

The Schick Hydro carts are pricey too, but these are 2/3 more!

Just...wow.

That's all.

StewB

People do not use smarts sometimes when buying things, old Gillette Razor that are my age are still working. It about marketing, driving sales, and corporate profits. Proctor and Gamble don't care about consumer, they are in biz to make money.

We use to have products that lasted years, like small appliances, now if they last a year your lucky, cannot be repairs, so off to landfill with old, and buy a cheap replacement.


My Wranglers Jeans are not lasting like old Wranglers, the new one are made in Nicaragua. Figure that one out?

 

[Tallships]

300 Astra Sp Blades for $23.59 $7.86 per 100 or the more expensive Wilkinson Sword (Germany), 100 blades for $18.59, Sorry guys, I just had to sneak that one in lol

 

[PintoPlain]

To be fair, there's probably some cartridge forum where people are exclaiming "150USD for a razor ??"

I agree. I picked up this one earlier in the year for $150 plus shipping. I was surprised as they usually go for a lot more.

Yeah. They can shave with cartridges for three whole months for that.

The above razor will outlive me, and if I had sons or grandsons, them too. The only extra costs will be more films for honing, or should I be so inclined, a new rock for the same purpose.

 

[cvac]

My Wranglers Jeans are not lasting like old Wranglers, the new one are made in Nicaragua. Figure that one out?

It's not just where things are made, but HOW they are made. The corp that owns the Wrangler brand decides on the quality.

I haven't had a pair of Wranglers since I was a very young kid. Back then they were definitely durable. So were Levis even after production was moved to Mexico. That was a huge blow to my hometown BTW, because Levis were made there for years.

At any rate, sometime in the early 2000s I noticed Levis were going downhill in a major way and they weren't lasting as long. I still mainly wore them because I had not found an alternative at that point.

If you have a pair of old jeans that aren't too worn out and pair of new ones, hold the fabric (a single layer) up to the light. You will likely notice that the newer ones have a cheaper, looser weave in the denim fabric. Examine the seams and how they are put together as well. That is also likely cheaper.

A few years ago there was a ton of hype around a company locally that made "raw" selvedge denim. They were expensive (around $250 a pair then, more now) but I wanted to try a pair and give some support to a local business. They were legitimately the first pair of jeans I'd had since the 90s that I thought were decent quality.

There was also another company a couple states away that was making U.S. made jeans but they were not selvedge and much cheaper (around $60 a pair). I thought I would try them. The fit was worse than Levis and the quality was definitely no better (maybe worse). To top it off the back pockets were not proportional to the size of the jeans. They figured out it would be cheaper and more efficient to use the same small back pockets on every pair. Kinda funny. I ended up returning those.

In a previous career I used to visit factories in the U.S. for all kinds of stuff. One of those manufacturers was a famous American sock maker. In the owner's office, they had a basket of socks of different colors and styles and I asked about them. I was told these were socks purchased at stores and were other brands and that they do that every season. Basically they said that they didn't want to make their socks "too much better" than the competition (only "good enough") because they were afraid it would hurt sales (they'd have to charge more) and cut too much into the profit margin. The priority was NOT to make a superior product at all. The owner also blamed everything under the sun for the company's flagging sales. Never mind that the product wasn't as good as it could be and a whole bunch of things about the company were decades out of date.

Bottom line is that if you want quality these days, you'll often have to shell out $$$. There's a whole lot of stuff that is even made here and not necessarily "cheap" where the quality isn't what it should be.

My 2 cents.

 

[DesertIguana]

It's not just where things are made, but HOW they are made. The corp that owns the Wrangler brand decides on the quality.

I haven't had a pair of Wranglers since I was a very young kid. Back then they were definitely durable. So were Levis even after production was moved to Mexico. That was a huge blow to my hometown BTW, because Levis were made there for years.

At any rate, sometime in the early 2000s I noticed Levis were going downhill in a major way and they weren't lasting as long. I still mainly wore them because I had not found an alternative at that point.

If you have a pair of old jeans that aren't too worn out and pair of new ones, hold the fabric (a single layer) up to the light. You will likely notice that the newer ones have a cheaper, looser weave in the denim fabric. Examine the seams and how they are put together as well. That is also likely cheaper.

A few years ago there was a ton of hype around a company locally that made "raw" selvedge denim. They were expensive (around $250 a pair then, more now) but I wanted to try a pair and give some support to a local business. They were legitimately the first pair of jeans I'd had since the 90s that I thought were decent quality.

There was also another company a couple states away that was making U.S. made jeans but they were not selvedge and much cheaper (around $60 a pair). I thought I would try them. The fit was worse than Levis and the quality was definitely no better (maybe worse). To top it off the back pockets were not proportional to the size of the jeans. They figured out it would be cheaper and more efficient to use the same small back pockets on every pair. Kinda funny. I ended up returning those.

In a previous career I used to visit factories in the U.S. for all kinds of stuff. One of those manufacturers was a famous American sock maker. In the owner's office, they had a basket of socks of different colors and styles and I asked about them. I was told these were socks purchased at stores and were other brands and that they do that every season. Basically they said that they didn't want to make their socks "too much better" than the competition (only "good enough") because they were afraid it would hurt sales (they'd have to charge more) and cut too much into the profit margin. The priority was NOT to make a superior product at all. The owner also blamed everything under the sun for the company's flagging sales. Never mind that the product wasn't as good as it could be and a whole bunch of things about the company were decades out of date.

Bottom line is that if you want quality these days, you'll often have to shell out $$$. There's a whole lot of stuff that is even made here and not necessarily "cheap" where the quality isn't what it should be.

My 2 cents.

Well the flip side disc the Japanese bought Levi's old fabric looms, move to Japan, and now build old school Jeans. Young guy I know is Jeans nerd, he own nothing but the old school Japanese jeans, the bad new is they start at about $200.00/pair, and sales are good.

 

[cvac]

Well the flip side disc the Japanese bought Levi's old fabric looms, move to Japan, and now build old school Jeans. Young guy I know is Jeans nerd, he own nothing but the old school Japanese jeans, the bad new is they start at about $200.00/pair, and sales are good.

Yeah, I know about that scene. One of the issues is those Japanese-made jeans are usually only sold in smaller sizes and go for a slim fit. Okay if you are a slim guy in your 20s I guess. The fabric they make is very good though. Even the maker here that I mentioned uses Japanese fabric sometimes. They don't weave, only sew the jeans. The factory in NC they used to get denim fabric from closed a few years ago.