Talk:Razor and blades business model
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do we need so many 'related links'?2toise 15:10, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This set of lists allows the user to find any one of the 750 business/economics articles with only two mouse clicks. We have to think about ease of use when developing our 'opedia. Having great articles is of little value if people can't find them. mydogategodshat 00:53, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Example: DVD players and DVDs
On 19:21, 15 December 2005, 68.148.192.140 (talk • contribs) added "DVD players and DVDs". I don't feel that this is a good example of such a business model, as the market involves neither monopolistic tying nor revenue sharing. The DVD-Video format is a standard licensable to publishers under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, even to the point of allowing the general public to produce and distribute works on DVD-R or DVD+R, unlike video game consoles where the console maker can and does deny licenses to publishers. Apart from Sony, which is a conglomerate of Sony Pictures Entertainment and the electronics company that bought it, publishers of audiovisual works in DVD-Video format do not share earnings with manufacturers of players, nor do manufacturers bundle discs with players. Reverted. If you feel the other way, then please explain and restore. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rockefeller's oil lamps
I think there should be a reference to a pioneer of this model - Rockefeller and his kerosene “for the lamps of China”.
---I have added a paragraph about Rockefeller and his kerosene lamps. Very interesting and thanks for mentioning it here. I wonder why everyone attributes this to Gillette when Rockefeller used it 30-40 years before he did? Perhaps because razor blades still use this model today? gloria 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Gloriamarie
[edit] Business model
I've always understood the model to be one that compared the following two choices:
A) purchase a quality straight-edge razor at a substantional cost, paying an occasional incremental cost to have it re-sharpened, or B) purchase a low cost (maybe free) razor holder, which uses "razor blades." Since the blades can not be sharpened, they must be replaced periodically. The razor blades are sold at a price higher than they cost to make and probably slightly exceeding the cost of the service of having the straight-edge blade sharpened.
However, in researching and writing about this, its not clear if that was Gillette's actual goal. While he was definitely impressed upon by the Painter bottle cap (to produce a product which was continually purchased), it sounds like he had to give the razor holders away for free / cheap to generate interest in his product, which he was actually marketing as being a safety razor and something that you could use at home instead of going to a barber or wielding the straight-knife against yourself.
The difference between scenario B and the paragraph above is the reason why you gave them away cheap to start with. It sounds like Gillette really just was doing a loss-leader to break into the market. Once Gillette did gain market penetration, did he still give the holders away cheap?
I know that today the holders are much cheaper than the blades (I got two Gillette holders free in the mail around my 18th birthday), but is that just the modern evolution of the business approach? Davandron | Talk 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
