What's new

slim adjustables

given the popularity of these razors on here, why do gillette not produce them now? im new to this site, so if this has been covered before, i apologise.
 
They want to make money off of the M3/Fusion. Selling Slims, which accept non-proprietary blades would be like cutting off their feet. At least thats the general consensus..
 
It's more expensive to produce a machined, nickle-plated brass razor, that takes common DE blades, than an injection molded plastic one that takes proprietary cartridges. And the profit margins are higher on the plastic "razor systems".
 

BigFoot

I wanna be sedated!
Staff member
They want to make money off of the M3/Fusion. Selling Slims, which accept non-proprietary blades would be like cutting off their feet. At least thats the general consensus..

It's more expensive to produce a machined, nickle-plated brass razor, that takes common DE blades, than an injection molded plastic one that takes proprietary cartridges. And the profit margins are higher on the plastic "razor systems".

You both are right, it boils down to money and they make a whole lot more on their 9 blade contraptions then going back to producing a DE.
 
In short, as outlined by above posters, it's never going to happen, so treasure the real gillettes that come your way.
 
As I cherish every opportunity to discuss business/economic concepts, I'll take this opportunity to explain:


Current business models are based on a concept known as planned obsolescence (products are designed with the expectation of wearing out) and also the integration of strategies essentially based around forcing a customer to buy a specific brand and model of a certain required part/component for as long as they own the main product.

A perfect example of this would be computer printers: they practically give away (sometimes literally) printers because they know it will tie you to forever purchasing XYZ ink cartridge from them on a regular basis, at whatever price they ask (usually ~$30), and in spite of sometimes decreasing ink quantity, etc. Basically, they have you locked into being their customer-- at a minimum, for years of $30/each ink cartridges, and in many cases for decades as consumers tend to stay with the brand with which they are familiar, resulting in future printers being of that brand, and yet more ink cartridges.

This is exactly what Gillette does with the Mach 3 and other such razors (each brand tries to do this as they make their money on the blade cartridges, etc.) and so it would not benefit them to product a DE razor such as the Fat Boy or Slim Adjustable when those last forever, or at least multiple lifetimes (as we all prove), and so nobody would really have to buy another razor, and additionally (and most importantly), you wouldn't be limited to buying DE blades from Gillette, but rather could buy any brand you wanted (as we all do) and so this minimizes their hold on a consumer and greatly minimizes their market share for a particular product, and by extension, their revenue.

It is an optimal situation and a goal of a business to be in a situation where the customer is forced to buy a product from them, at any price they choose.

Of course, as students of Economics will explain, this leads to gray/black market products of all sorts, cheaper alternatives coming on the market, and (if it goes too far above the equilibrium point on the graph) the potential for a reduced quantity demanded. Gillette has a very solid hold on the cartridge razor market, and so if they were to delve into the DE world again, it most likely would not be cost effective or profitable.
 
Last edited:
given the popularity of these razors on here, why do gillette not produce them now?


I think you greatly overestimate the market power of a few antiquarian/collectors/hobbyists/luddites/internet shave geeks.
The number of people who would care enough to buy one of those is a fraction of a sliver of a percentage point of the number of units Gillette would need to produce to make it worth their time.
 
Razors like the slim and fat boy wouldn't be profitable any longer, as much as we might wish that they would be. . razors like a tech? They STILL sell them in some parts of the world, albeit with more plastic. and Gilette still makes some of the most popular DE blades around ( which is a cause for concern to many people on the forums)
 
i saw a show about this last week

As I cherish every opportunity to discuss business/economic concepts, I'll take this opportunity to explain:


Current business models are based on a concept known as planned obsolescence (products are designed with the expectation of wearing out) and also the integration of strategies essentially based around forcing a customer to buy a specific brand and model of a certain required part/component for as long as they own the main product.

A perfect example of this would be computer printers: they practically give away (sometimes literally) printers because they know it will tie you to forever purchasing XYZ ink cartridge from them on a regular basis, at whatever price they ask (usually ~$30), and in spite of sometimes decreasing ink quantity, etc. Basically, they have you locked into being their customer-- at a minimum, for years of $30/each ink cartridges, and in many cases for decades as consumers tend to stay with the brand with which they are familiar, resulting in future printers being of that brand, and yet more ink cartridges.

This is exactly what Gillette does with the Mach 3 and other such razors (each brand tries to do this as they make their money on the blade cartridges, etc.) and so it would not benefit them to product a DE razor such as the Fat Boy or Slim Adjustable when those last forever, or at least multiple lifetimes (as we all prove), and so nobody would really have to buy another razor, and additionally (and most importantly), you wouldn't be limited to buying DE blades from Gillette, but rather could buy any brand you wanted (as we all do) and so this minimizes their hold on a consumer and greatly minimizes their market share for a particular product, and by extension, their revenue.

It is an optimal situation and a goal of a business to be in a situation where the customer is forced to buy a product from them, at any price they choose.

Of course, as students of Economics will explain, this leads to gray/black market products of all sorts, cheaper alternatives coming on the market, and (if it goes too far above the equilibrium point on the graph) the potential for a reduced quantity demanded. Gillette has a very solid hold on the cartridge razor market, and so if they were to delve into the DE world again, it most likely would not be cost effective or profitable.
 
i saw a show about this last week

Ok kirk, I know you are being facetious. It was me that started several threads on the Gillette business model approach of avoiding the Blades and Razor game, which in a way answers Monkeyhanger's question and and correlates Deblair's very informative and presice post . The cost effective measures that Gillette took were being planed out since the end of the 1st razor patent in 1921. After the patent expired on the razor other companies could use Gillette's design or razor and give it away free with the purchase of their blades.

Gillette then made changes to their razors and advertised the new razor as high tech and disclaimed that if the buyers/customers didn't use Gillette brand blades with the New razor, then the razors or blades wouldn't be guaranteed. This strategy guaranteed that thier customer base wouldn't use the competition blades on the New razors, it had to be Gillette blades. This strategy forced the current Gillette customer base stay with them even though the competition was already focusing on blades (blades and razor game business model). Gillette then made a fortune selling razors at a premium price and not blades. Gillette even sold the expired patent razor (old type) for 75 % off original price and renamed it The Brownie, still milking the older razor design til the bitter end.

However, in the long run the blades game is where the money was at and Gillette started making blades with disposable handles in a way to keep their edge on the competition. This lead to the Bics, Sensors ect. (here's the great link from B&B member Natchez http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/backissues/v78/78_1/78-1-Razors-and-Blades Myth(s)-Picker.pdf)
 
Last edited:
I think you greatly overestimate the market power of a few antiquarian/collectors/hobbyists/luddites/internet shave geeks.
The number of people who would care enough to buy one of those is a fraction of a sliver of a percentage point of the number of units Gillette would need to produce to make it worth their time.

its not a question of overestimating shave geeks, it just seems to me that there would be a niche market to tap into, in a similar way some major breweries operate micro breweries and produce beers that dont have a wide market.
 
I've never owned a printer for years. It amazes me they still sell so well, given that it's so easy to transfer files these days. Send your files to work/college or the library and print them there.
 
its not a question of overestimating shave geeks, it just seems to me that there would be a niche market to tap into, in a similar way some major breweries operate micro breweries and produce beers that dont have a wide market.


A microbrewery is a couple guys serving a local market. That already exists in the wetshaving world, small niche outfits that product high quality limited production razors.

The question was "why doesn't Gillette play in this market", and the answer is that Gillette wouldn't bend down to pick up all money in this market if it saw it lying on the street.
 
As I cherish every opportunity to discuss business/economic concepts, I'll take this opportunity to explain:


Current business models are based on a concept known as planned obsolescence (products are designed with the expectation of wearing out) and also the integration of strategies essentially based around forcing a customer to buy a specific brand and model of a certain required part/component for as long as they own the main product.

In all seriousness, I love the fact that I came on here today and saw the term planned obsolescence, great post!
 
A microbrewery is a couple guys serving a local market. That already exists in the wetshaving world, small niche outfits that product high quality limited production razors.

The question was "why doesn't Gillette play in this market", and the answer is that Gillette wouldn't bend down to pick up all money in this market if it saw it lying on the street.

ok :)
 
its not a question of overestimating shave geeks, it just seems to me that there would be a niche market to tap into, in a similar way some major breweries operate micro breweries and produce beers that dont have a wide market.

Microbrews are a fraction of the beer drinking market, but microbrew drinkers are a much larger market than wet shavers. I can't count on two hands the number of people I know who drink craft beers, I don't even really need a hand to count number of wet shavers I know. Also, the most accepted model is to buy profitable and popular craft breweries and coast. This is one of the most common ways for large companies to break into smaller markets. There's no point in doing the R&D and taking the risk of bringing a new product to market when there are little successful companies you can swallow whole instead.

Gillette would have a pretty large outlay to start producing a modern slim and they wouldn't have the margins to sell it anywhere near typical Ebay prices for vintage slims. On top of that, they would likely only be able to tap a portion of the already small wet shaving market because they would cut out anyone who wanted a dirt cheap razor and they simply couldn't market to the "vintage only" crowd who may collect Gillette razors.

Assuming that every member of B&B agrees to buy a grand total of two "New Slims" @ $50 in their lifetimes then Gillette would have a guarantee of only ~$4M in gross sales over the lifetime of the product. They might be able to expect additional 1000-2000 units sold per annum. Assuming a relatively short lifespan, they couldn't reasonably expect more than ~$1M in gross sales yearly.

Accounting for the cost of developing the product and producing it, they would probably have a fairly low margin at $50. Even if they used the original Slim specs and designs, they'd have to pay a product team to get it to market and find a facility willing to produce a relative low number of units (~100K). The only way raise the production numbers and lower their per-unit cost would be to bring it to market overseas in areas where DE shaving is still popular and try to sell it as a status symbol of sorts, which is contrary to the current model of trying to sell modern shaving products as status symbols.
 
Top Bottom