slim adjustables

[gabern8tor]

Oh well there not getting my money regardless of all there hype. I've had it with greedy Corporate America.

Amen brother.

The Gillette razor saga parallels the story of everything that is wrong with business these days. If they have to choose between doing something that is the "right thing" but is less profitable than doing something unethical but is MORE profitable - they choose the latter.
It's both shameful and disgusting.

I always think of that scene in Fight Club (great movie) where Ed Norton describes to Brad Pitt how they decide whether or not to do car recalls based upon the cost of all the lawsuits vs. the cost of fixing the issue. It doesn't matter in the slightest to them how many people get mangled in twisted wrecks.

Greed is NOT good, Mr. Gecko.

 

[DBlair]

Amen brother.

The Gillette razor saga parallels the story of everything that is wrong with business these days. If they have to choose between doing something that is the "right thing" but is less profitable than doing something unethical but is MORE profitable - they choose the latter.
It's both shameful and disgusting.

I always think of that scene in Fight Club (great movie) where Ed Norton describes to Brad Pitt how they decide whether or not to do car recalls based upon the cost of all the lawsuits vs. the cost of fixing the issue. It doesn't matter in the slightest to them how many people get mangled in twisted wrecks.

Greed is NOT good, Mr. Gecko.

To play Devil's Advocate...


(The following is regarding the Gillette situation of maximizing revenue through product strategies and not about your comments discussing harmful products as mentioned in the second half of your post-- I believe they are significantly different issues and can't really be thrown in the same discussion.)


The purpose of a company isn't to save the world or do nice things, it is to be as profitable as possible. Accordingly, it is the President/CEO's job not to act as an individual to push nice things, but to be the human tasked with the overall responsibility of promoting this bottom line focus and to do whatever is in the best interest of the company.

Producing a few razors for a niche market at a losing cost is not in the best interest of a company as it exhibits a less than efficient use of resources and extremely limited returns. Alternatively, planning a strategy whereby a customer is tied to purchasing only their product for years, at the highest of profit margins, is indeed what is in their best interest.

Do many of us believe it is a crappy concept to deal with, absolutely, but we cannot really fault a company (or the senior executives acting on its behalf) for doing exactly what they are supposed to do and what they are being paid to do-- if the company's leadership does not do as it should, then it is in need of new leadership as it is functioning at a less than efficient and limited capacity, and failing its mission of maximizing revenue and profits. A business that forgets this is one needing to rethink its focus and/or its leadership as they are off track and largely misguided, not to mention that the future of the company doesn't look promising.

 

[gabern8tor]

To play Devil's Advocate...


(The following is regarding the Gillette situation of maximizing revenue through product strategies and not about your comments discussing harmful products as mentioned in the second half of your post-- I believe they are significantly different issues and can't really be thrown in the same discussion.)


The purpose of a company isn't to save the world or do nice things, it is to be as profitable as possible. Accordingly, it is the President/CEO's job not to act as an individual to push nice things, but to be the human tasked with the overall responsibility of promoting this bottom line focus and to do whatever is in the best interest of the company.

Producing a few razors for a niche market at a losing cost is not in the best interest of a company as it exhibits a less than efficient use of resources and extremely limited returns. Alternatively, planning a strategy whereby a customer is tied to purchasing only their product for years, at the highest of profit margins, is indeed what is in their best interest.

Do many of us believe it is a crappy concept to deal with, absolutely, but we cannot really fault a company (or the senior executives acting on its behalf) for doing exactly what they are supposed to do and what they are being paid to do-- if the company's leadership does not do as it should, then it is in need of new leadership as it is functioning at a less than efficient and limited capacity, and failing its mission of maximizing revenue and profits. A business that forgets this is one needing to rethink its focus and/or its leadership as they are off track and largely misguided, not to mention that the future of the company doesn't look promising.

I think the real problem is that we have been led to believe the two things are mutually exclusive - that a company can EITHER be run profitably OR it can be run ethically. That's a false choice. I agree with you that a company that is not profitable will not last very long. However, we have to ask "at what cost?" Dealing crack to school kids is quite profitable too. But would you do it? Of course not.

I'm tired of the argument that shoddy, deceitful, environmentally destructive, or monopolistic business practices are somehow justified by the need for maximizing profits. When a Chinese toy company "maximizes profits" by using lead in the paint on toys our kids play with - everyone cries foul. (Lead paints are as little as a third of the cost - that's why they use them.) But by the logic of "maximizing profits" - it's exactly what a CEO should be doing.

I agree that it is not a company's job to "save the world," but maximizing profitability does not justify or excuse destroying it either.

The choice between ethical business practices and profitability is a lie - typically propogated by people trying to justify shameful actions.
I think we need to stop buying into the idea that it's one or the other.

And with that, I hereby step off my soap box.
(With sincere apologies to all for taking this so far off into the political/philosophical weeds...)

 

[DBlair]

I think the real problem is that we have been led to believe the two things are mutually exclusive - that a company can EITHER be run profitably OR it can be run ethically. That's a false choice. I agree with you that a company that is not profitable will not last very long. However, we have to ask "at what cost?" Dealing crack to school kids is quite profitable too. But would you do it? Of course not.

I'm tired of the argument that shoddy, deceitful, environmentally destructive, or monopolistic business practices are somehow justified by the need for maximizing profits. When a Chinese toy company "maximizes profits" by using lead in the paint on toys our kids play with - everyone cries foul. (Lead paints are as little as a third of the cost - that's why they use them.) But by the logic of "maximizing profits" - it's exactly what a CEO should be doing.

I agree that it is not a company's job to "save the world," but maximizing profitability does not justify or excuse destroying it either.

The choice between ethical business practices and profitability is a lie - typically propogated by people trying to justify shameful actions.
I think we need to stop buying into the idea that it's one or the other.

And with that, I hereby step off my soap box. (With apologies to all for taking this so far off topic.)

Rather than continuing to clog up this thread with more business discussion, I too will step off my soap box and get back to the topic at hand... so, how about those Slims...


(Just want to clarify, though-- I'm not saying that I'm in favor of harmful products, I'm just saying that it realistically would never happen for Gillette to start making DE razors again as it isn't a profitable/efficient venture. I agree on the separate issue that some companies do unfortunately push profitability too far and into the realm of danger/harm, which is not right/ethical and over the top.)

 

[gabern8tor]

Rather than continuing to clog up this thread with more business discussion, I too will step off my soap box and get back to the topic at hand... so, how about those Slims...

Yeah, I agree compadre.
Slims are kick*ss and I too wish they still made them!

 

[DBlair]

Yeah, I agree compadre.
Slims are kick*ss and I too wish they still made them!

I too wish they still made them, then we wouldn't all be forced to hunt on eBay (etc) for them and have to deal with varying grades of vintage quality. It would be nice to just order a new one.

 

[Go West Young Man]

I think the real problem is that we have been led to believe the two things are mutually exclusive - that a company can EITHER be run profitably OR it can be run ethically. That's a false choice. I agree with you that a company that is not profitable will not last very long. However, we have to ask "at what cost?" Dealing crack to school kids is quite profitable too. But would you do it? Of course not.

You're missing a key part of the equation - the consumers and their dollars.

A company's job, without exception, is to make money for their shareholders as efficiently as possible.
It's the CONSUMER'S job to vote with their money, allocating funds to companies that behave in ways they agree with.

Consumers decided a long time ago that low cost and convenience far outweighed quality workmanship. Yes, marketing and advertising had something to do with it, but we've had ample time to reverse course as a nation, but we've made it abundantly clear that we're going to reward the companies (WalMart, McDonalds, etc) that give us lots of cheap crap. So companies make lots more cheap crap.

 

[kingfisher]

Just goes to show how great they are.

+1000.

 

[coyotewhisper]

The demand for the junk razors is far greater than a high quality all metal razor.

 

[BlackBard]

It is interesting that many posts trash the Gillette model, but note that Gillette made many changes to their DE line from the time it started until cartridge razors ended it. Gillette touted the model changes as improvements and many of us seem to agree. The tech is preferred by plenty of our members over, say, a New. Some see the adjustables (Fat Boy, Slim etal) as superior to a Flair Tip. It goes on and on.

Some products, as originally conceived, continue to perform well by any standard. Others benefit from constant refinement over long periods of time. The trick is to recognize which is which. Do you really think a hand-cranked phone with a party line is superior to modern phones?

 

[doug1066]

First of all, I love my Slim! Gillette doesn't make them any more for the reasons outlined earlier; cartridge razor systems are more profitable because they are proprietary, the advertizing monkeys have convinced the public that you need at lest three, if not more blades in a cartridge to get a "good" shave, it takes a modicum of skill and patience to shave with a DE, SE or straight and the public is convinced that easier and more convenient equates to better.

 

[gabern8tor]

You're missing a key part of the equation - the consumers and their dollars.

A company's job, without exception, is to make money for their shareholders as efficiently as possible.
It's the CONSUMER'S job to vote with their money, allocating funds to companies that behave in ways they agree with.

Consumers decided a long time ago that low cost and convenience far outweighed quality workmanship. Yes, marketing and advertising had something to do with it, but we've had ample time to reverse course as a nation, but we've made it abundantly clear that we're going to reward the companies (WalMart, McDonalds, etc) that give us lots of cheap crap. So companies make lots more cheap crap.

Agreed 100%. We vote with our wallets. If we stop buying junk, and insist on quality - the companies WILL bow to our collective will. (That is why I haven't eaten at a McDonalds or shopped at a WalMart in over a decade.)
It's a very valid point you made, and I'm glad you made it.

I buy vintage razors because they are the best shaving implements. I do not buy disposable crap cartridge blades and goo in a can because it is cheap garbage that delivers inferior results at a higher cost - both financially and environmentally. So in this case (all ADs aside ), we've got the best of both worlds: lower price AND better quality. If (big "if") the whole world of shavers joined the ranks of folks like those who populate B&B - Gillette would have no choice but to bring back the quality razors they used to make. And if they didn't, some other company (like a Merkur, Muhle, EJ...) would come along and wipe the floor with them.

Will that day ever come? I honestly don't know. But I do know that I got tired of buying cheap junk - and that's what led me here. I have faith in my fellow man that he may come to the same conclusions at some point. So I do not believe it is outside the realm of possibility.

One can dream anyway...

 

[Go West Young Man]

Oddly enough, we were just talking about this today - Costco seems to be moving into that niche, of providing higher quality goods at a reasonable price.
Their produce and fresh foods are on par quality-wise with any supermarket out there, and they're starting to get name-brand clothing as well.

 

[AcridSaint]

I can't speak specifically to Costco, but nearly all major brands of clothing now have a discount store line. Kenneth Cole Reaction, Ralph Lauren green label (Lauren), etc. So, seeing names we know doesn't always mean getting the same quality.

 

[Go West Young Man]

I can't speak specifically to Costco, but nearly all major brands of clothing now have a discount store line. Kenneth Cole Reaction, Ralph Lauren green label (Lauren), etc. So, seeing names we know doesn't always mean getting the same quality.

Of course, but my point was that the clothing at Costco is of surprising good quality, it's not seconds and junk.

 

[AcridSaint]

Understood, as I said, I can't really speak about their products. I don't shop there. But, it's a common thing now for companies to make their own "knock-offs" and so that they can take advantage of more markets.

 

[ras120]

What seems to be forgotten here is the fact that Gillette did not (and still does not) make their money by selling razors, but rather with the blades. And guess what? If you're using any of the multiple brands of blades that are produced in the Proctor & Gamble factories in Russia or India, then Gillette is in your pocket.

This is actually an interesting twist to King C's original vision of creating a proprietary razor and blade combo. Let others (Merkur, EJ, Mühle, Parker) produce the costly razors while Gillette saturates the market with different brands of blades (although I believe they still produce a cheapie DE in India).

And here we all thought we were "sticking it to the man" by snubbing their cartridge razors.

 

[kingfisher]

ras120: I use Feather blades, so Gillette isn't getting me that way.

However, I do use a Slim. Outstanding razor.

If they made new ones, they probably wouldn't be as nice; if they were as nice, they'd cost a ton!

 

[rajagra]

A company's job, without exception, is to make money for their shareholders as efficiently as possible.

Well, you are wrong, there are exceptions. Morgan Cars for example stubbornly refuses to operate the way that everyone tells them a company "must" be run.
The company's job is to do what the owners want. Some want to produce something they will be proud of, even if it doesn't lead to maximum profit.
You are right about the consumer's role though. If everyone buys the cheapest product, then the quality companies will not only be unable to compete, they will be unable to survive.
Sometimes competition isn't always the best thing. Now that we have globalisation, the lowest common denominator drags all production standards down to a painfully low level. How often have you bought something cheap that broke or failed to perform and thought to yourself "ah well, it was cheap, I'll just go out and buy a replacement"? We tolerate too much shoddiness nowadays. Even just a few years ago we weren't so forgiving.

How much was a Slim when they were last on sale, and what would it be in today's money? I suspect it would still be a bargain, but I doubt they could match the price in real terms now. The manufacturing process was probably too labour-intensive (and craftsmen at that!) to be practical nowadays.

 

[ras120]

I use Feather blades, so Gillette isn't getting me that way.

Be on the lookout for black helicopters.