[hugh3]

Oh, and I'm sure they're making a healthy profit selling me those cartridges, but the cartridge is still the high-value part, and not the "razor"/stick.

In my opinion the razor itself is deliberately marked up more than the cartridges are. Why don't they actually give the razor away for free? Why, because if Gillette did it then so would Schick. And if Schick started giving away free razors then I might be tempted to try switching to a Schick razor next time I bought blades because the Schick cartridges might be twenty cents cheaper. Pretty soon they'd be having a price war. Instead, they artificially inflate the price of the little plastic stick, so that I'm kept locked in to Gillette products since "well heck, I already bought the razor..."

[shpxnvz]

but the cartridge is still the high-value part

It costs them 8 cents to produce the blade they sell to you for $4. They have a high perceived value, but that's it.

They've taken double-edged blades that were simple, universally compatible and cheap and with some product design and major marketing effort convinced people that they needed 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, and now 6 blades to get a decent shave. They've deliberately manufactured the idea that the blade has value, and used patents to protect themselves from competition in that area.

So, you can choose a Gillette razor that is designed from the start to require constant replacement of a $4 part, or a classic razor with a high-cost stick that lasts a lifetime and 20 cent replacement blades. Seems right in line with the inkjet vs. laser printer examples.

Why, because if Gillette did it then so would Schick. And if Schick started giving away free razors then I might be tempted to try switching to a Schick razor next time I bought blades because the Schick cartridges might be twenty cents cheaper.

Of course. They do it because they need people to keep thinking of the stick as valuable. By paying for the stick, you've mentally committed which lessens the risk of jumping brands when you go to get replacement blades. That doesn't change the fact that the consumables are still where they make their money off of you.

[ajscherer]

Fusion has 5 blades and Gillette didn't make a razor with 4.

Also, in my experience the additional blades (or some other aspect of the newer Gillette razors) do make it easier to get a better shave. I was floored the first time I tried Mach 3 (which I remember getting for free in the mail) by how close the shave was for the amount of effort and irritation. Fusion has been a step up from Mach 3, but not nearly as big a step up as Mach 3 was from my previous razors.

I'm both cynical and cheap, and I don't watch much TV, so it would be really surprising if Gillette's marketing were strong enough to alter what I feel when I touch my face after shaving. Particularly with regard to the Mach 3, which I had never heard of before I tried it that first time.

[hugh3]

Fusion has six blades: five on the front and one on the back. I actually find the back blade "long-hair trimmer" to be really useful when I've forgotten to shave for a week.

I also testify to the "more blades is better". I had never had a decent shave until I bought a Mach 3.

[matwood]

The mach3 is great. Other things I've noticed about cheap disposable razors is the blade spacing. When they put the blades too close together it's a PITA to rince the razor after each stroke. The Mach3 seems to be the perfect balance between the number of blades and the spacing.