Comments on: Mach III, I mock thee

By: jbradshaw

jbradshaw — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:14:46 +0000

the site for razor gator’s “razor extender” is
http://www.razor-gator.com

By: jbradshaw

jbradshaw — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:11:25 +0000

try razor-gator “razor extender” which claims to make one razor last up to 10 weeks. it reduces corrosion and also prevents razor burn and razor rash.

By: mjohson

mjohson — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:53:23 +0000

I personally think that there is going to be a paradyne shift in shaving during this next decade. Companies are coming out with Cryo-ed blades that last longer and new technologies that extend the life of the blades and provide a better shave. All still while useing Gillettes and Schick high quality blades but a single blade can last 3-4 months.

I shave my head and blow through the blades (1 blade per week) and I bought a product call Razormax that claims to extend blade life. I found through experience that it does and this has saved me some serious money. I was very sceptical but had a friend that swears by it and got me to try it. Do a search on Razormax or try http://www.razormax.com and you should be able to find a site that sells it. – Mike Johnson

By: grant

grant — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:17:42 +0000

Steve, Well, this is an interesting debate all on its own. I would argue that both products have both technical and cultural value. And yes you’re right. It is precisely bec. Schick continues to engage Gillette on its own terms that Gillette can get away with bad market. This surely is the lesson of the cola wars, where briefly Pepsi actually got Coke to play on the taste playing field. The question is which is going to break out with a range of products for a range of males. I think Schick actually has the edge here. But the continue to lead with their Gillette killer, the 4 bladed razor. Oh, God, surely marketing will get off this head to head game, and I think Pepsi pointed the way here. Thanks again. Best, Grant

By: steve

steve — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:25:35 +0000

The difference between the Mach III and Coca-Cola is that the sources of customer value for the former are as much technical as associational or “cultural”. Note that the competitive response from Schick is not some sort of market fragmentation strategy but rather pushing a four-bladed razor to trump Gillette’s offering. Gillette is more like Procter & Gamble than it is like Coca-Cola–the basis of its new products is that they can be proven in the lab and with blind tests to deliver superior performance. The “image” aspects of the marketing campaign are purely attention-getting and expository devices to get people to realize/believe that the product gives a better shave. (My subjective experience is that it fulfills this promise relative to previous razors, although I haven’t tried Schick’s newer product.) In the case of Coke and Pepsi, the advertising is designed to create mental associations with the product that will enhance the user’s psychological experience of consumption. While that might be a beneficial side-effect of Gillette’s advertising as well, that is not its primary aim.

By: kanapathy

kanapathy — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:21:24 +0000

Mach III vs Coke

This is an excellent blog so far. But let me take some exception to this post: This entry is about the proposed appointment of Gillette CEO Kilts to the CEO position at Coca-Cola. It argues that the Gillette Mach III brand now stands where the Coca-Col…

By: kanapathy

kanapathy — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:21:00 +0000

Mach III vs Coke