Talk:Razor and blades model/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gmail

I'm not sure if Gmail should be considered freebie marketing. All the other examples are when a free product is offered and then the loss is offset by a continuing service or ancillary product which is purchased by the consumer. Gmail does not seem to fit this model as it is merely a free service which is offset by advertising revenue, more akin to terrestrial television. Puerca (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Stratagem

Freebie Marketing ("Exchange a Brick for a Jade") is a business practice based on the ancient Chinese military Text The Thirty-Six Stratagems. Kaihan Krippendorff ([www.kaihan.net]), Strategist and author of 3 business strategy books has spent over a decade studying business conflicts and through his books, workshops and speaking engagements he shows that the fundamental patterns that successful companies have used to outmaneuver their rivals are rooted in this set of ancient Chinese warfare metaphors known as "The 36 Stratagems." Imacosta (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Phones

Aren't contract mobile phones and the contract that you are locked into when buying a classic example of this form of marketing? This technique is heavily used in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.67.241 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't Be So Certain

I don't think we should state it as a positive fact that Gillette did not use the "Gillette model." We've provided one citation to that effect, but there are authorities who contend that he did. Christofurio (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The razor-and-blades situation is included in a list of empirical examples of durable/versus/consumable complementaries by, for example, Florian Heubrandner et al. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1444782

Many modern papers on the complementarity of durable and consumable components mention the razor and blade case, and indeed freebie marketing is and was practiced in that market. Whether it was Gillette who pioneered this method is another matter. Picker cites the Heubrandner article you mention for the economics of complementarity -- but I don't believe that article addresses the specific history of Gillette. --Macrakis (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If the question is whether Gillette did or didn't "pioneer" it, then why not use the same language that the biographical article on King Gillette uses? That article says he didn't use it "until his competitors did," which allows that he did get around to using it eventually. This article says he didn't use it, full stop. --Christofurio (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, good point. I changed a word in the lead to reflect this. The 3rd paragraph already discusses Gillette's role more explicitly. --Macrakis (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Free gift be merged into Freebie marketing. I think that the content in the Free gift article can easily be explained in the context of Freebie marketing, and the Freebie marketing article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Free gift will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Andrewaskew (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Technical Inferiority

"Nintendo had a different strategy with its GameCube, which while technically inferior was also considerably less expensive to produce than its rivals..."

The GameCube was technically superior to the PS2 and technically inferior to the XBOX. It wasn't technically inferior to its rivals(plural).108.162.120.78 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Freebie!" is an oxymoron!

I wonder whether in fact this article does not go deep enough into the ethical aspects of freebie marketing? In reality, "freebie" is an oxymoron. Freebie marketing is a concept which, even in its essential form, highlights the impossibility of giving anything away for free, as in fact everything has to be paid for, whether the purchaser realizes this or not. As the old adage says, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Which, I think, says it all about "freebie marketing". --Wise Raven (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comcast

The example given for Comcast is very simplistic and assumes Comcast have no other costs in supplying 18 months of service apart from supplying the DVR. This is way, way, wrong. And they probably get DVRs for less than $250. You can buy them retail for less than that, and with a massive purchase and possible tie-ins and whatever other business wranglings, they're gonna get a pretty good price. Or else, of course, they wouldn't do it! I'd imagine the average duration of a customer's subscription would be the main factor in this, and it's often many years. Particularly if the DVR box won't work with other services. Then if a customer leaves he would have to buy another DVR retail for the service he already has. 188.29.165.155 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Loss Leader

The activity described in this page is not really a form of marketing, it is a tactic designed to increase traffic. It should not be labelled marketing and should be merged with loss leadering.

BronHiggs (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Loss Leadering would be an improvement, but still not the best title. Loss leadering usually has an implication that you are selling some items today for an atypically low price, in the hopes that people will (today) buy more of your other products. For example, a grocery store sells milk this week, not at its usual price of $4.50 a gallon but $2.49 a gallon, in the hopes that this will increase traffic in the store and get more of the store's regularly priced items sold. Unschool 11:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrible title

For decades, I have heard this referred to as the Gillette Model, or King Gillette model. Hell, even in the computer industry they call this the Gillette model: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2542249/computer-hardware/ink-wars--kodak-vs--hp-in-the-ink-jet-consumables-battle.html

"Freebie" marketing is simply wrong--nothing is actually "free". Move the article. Unschool 11:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comcast / Cable TV DVR Example not relevant

Currently, one of the examples of this business model is Cable TV companies selling DVRs as a subscription "service" instead of as a one-time sale. This is more like an example of a rental model, where you rent equipment, and after a year or two, the monthly rental fee becomes greater than the cost of the product if you had bought it outright, but is NOT a good example of a Razor and Blades business model, because you aren't trying to lock in a customer to a secondary consumable product that is required. You would maybe argue that cable TV service is the secondary product, but that can be bought and consumed completely independently of the DVR, so I see no reason that example should even be in this article. It's just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.101.218 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Feel free to make the change. Unschool 20:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Difference between "Applications" section and "Specific Examples"?

There is an "Applications" sections, and then underneat that, there is an "Issues" section which appears to have a sub-section called "Specific Examples", which I think maybe is supposed to be examples not of the business model in general, but of the issue of loss of vendor-lock in causing the model to start to lose profitability, but then, within that section, it looks like there are just general examples of the business model. So, the division of sections seems confused, and the purpose and relationship of the sections and subsections is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.101.218 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A gift knitting row counter given away by Woman's Weekly

The article doesn't explain much why this picture is here. Free gift? Vendor lock in? Why is it the main image? 79.76.120.216 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a poor example. Although the row counter is useful to knitters, it doesn't require ongoing purchases. I am removing it. --Macrakis (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

References

There is broken link for the reference to "The Razors-and-Blades Myth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.120.161 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)