Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#61

Post by mistercow »

bane wrote: post #33
mistercow wrote: post #22

>but instead of making the costly trip abroad, they had Indian students at nearby Massachusetts Institute of Technology test the razor. This is one of the hard things about being a tiny startup like P&G with very little capital to spare: you sometimes have to cut costs on little things that turn out to be more important than you thought. A few thousand dollars to fly your employees to India might not seem like much,…

Yes, because the cheap disposable Indian razor department gets to call on all $140B in assets in a Pyrrhic quest to crack the 12 cent foreign razor market.

Obviously not. The point is that they weren't strapped for cash. It may not be a hugely profitable market, but if it's so unprofitable that they couldn't afford to send one guy over to India to actually talk to some Indian men about shaving, then the market isn't worth investing in in the first place.

I mean seriously, they brought a product to market and didn't fly over to India until after the product flopped? And now that they have, they're talking about basic run-of-the-mill user testing like it's this brand new concept that they're just now discovering.

How are these people still in business?

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#62

Post by Espressosaurus »

kemayo wrote: post #36
jblow wrote: post #14

This is a contemptible article. It seems mostly to be a product of PR, and for an American audience it seems intended to perpetuate the cognitive capture regarding razors being things that a lot of thought goes into and that therefore justify high prices. Do the math for how much a razor "should" cost, and ask why you can't buy one for remotely that much at your local Walgreens. Ask why stuff like Dollar Shave Club e…

The bit which really tripped my PR filter was: > To do that, P&G executives would have to attract the nearly 500 million Indians who use double-edged razors, an old fashioned T-shaped razor that has no protective piece of plastic that goes between the blade and the skin when shaving. ...such razors are generally called "safety razors", and unless there's a radically different design in use in India, they're pretty ha…

I used a cartridge razor before I switched to safety razors for cost reasons--and you're wrong.

It's much easier to cut yourself with a safety razor than with a cartridge razor. All it takes is being tired and in a hurry, or being clumsy when replacing the blade.

I've found the benefits (closer shave, cheap enough to replace regularly) worth the costs in time and (occasional) blood. But don't pretend that they're as idiot-proof as the cartridge razors, because unfortunately, they're not.

All that said--yeah, this was pretty transparently a PR piece with the moral of the story being "watch how people do what they do to make products that will appeal to them."

Um, duh?

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#63

Post by vinceguidry »

mistercow wrote: post #61
bane wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the cheap disposable Indian razor department gets to call on all $140B in assets in a Pyrrhic quest to crack the 12 cent foreign razor market.

Obviously not. The point is that they weren't strapped for cash. It may not be a hugely profitable market, but if it's so unprofitable that they couldn't afford to send one guy over to India to actually talk to some Indian men about shaving, then the market isn't worth investing in in the first place. I mean seriously, they brought a product to market and didn't fly over to India until after the product flopped? And…

You underestimate just how much volume there is in consumer goods and what this does to the players in that space. Margins are small, but cash piles are utterly ginormous. I don't care to do any research, but I wouldn't be surprised if P&G alone could buy out Silicon Valley minus Apple. They're HUGE.

Also, once you break into a market, it become's a perpetual money machine. P&G could do six such flops and still come out on top, eventually, when they finally break in.

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#64

Post by philwelch »

option_greek wrote: post #19
meepmorp wrote: post #16

As an alternative solution to the problem, try growing a long, luxurious, and sexy beard. No unnecessary waste from shaving products, no razor burn, and less time dicking around in the mornings. When it gets too long, take 5 minutes and trim it back.

And get suspicious looks from strangers :) ? I used to shave once every 3 weeks but these days I try to do it at least weekly.

Where do you live that beards are suspicious?

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#65

Post by philwelch »

jblow wrote: post #14

This is a contemptible article. It seems mostly to be a product of PR, and for an American audience it seems intended to perpetuate the cognitive capture regarding razors being things that a lot of thought goes into and that therefore justify high prices. Do the math for how much a razor "should" cost, and ask why you can't buy one for remotely that much at your local Walgreens. Ask why stuff like Dollar Shave Club e…

Do you realize you're calling the article out as a PR shill and then immediately reciting PR talking points for a competitor?

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#66

Post by mistercow »

vinceguidry wrote: post #63
mistercow wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously not. The point is that they weren't strapped for cash. It may not be a hugely profitable market, but if it's so unprofitable that they couldn't afford to send one guy over to India to actually talk to some Indian men about shaving, then the market isn't worth investing in in the first place. I mean seriously, they brought a product to market and didn't fly over to India until after the product flopped? And…

You underestimate just how much volume there is in consumer goods and what this does to the players in that space. Margins are small, but cash piles are utterly ginormous. I don't care to do any research, but I wouldn't be surprised if P&G alone could buy out Silicon Valley minus Apple. They're HUGE. Also, once you break into a market, it become's a perpetual money machine. P&G could do six such flops and still come…

But the cost of a flop in that case is the time they could have been selling a successful product. No matter how you slice it, the cost of a trip to India is going to be insignificant compared to the benefits of getting the product right the first time.

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#67

Post by vinceguidry »

mistercow wrote: post #66
vinceguidry wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You underestimate just how much volume there is in consumer goods and what this does to the players in that space. Margins are small, but cash piles are utterly ginormous. I don't care to do any research, but I wouldn't be surprised if P&G alone could buy out Silicon Valley minus Apple. They're HUGE. Also, once you break into a market, it become's a perpetual money machine. P&G could do six such flops and still come…

But the cost of a flop in that case is the time they could have been selling a successful product. No matter how you slice it, the cost of a trip to India is going to be insignificant compared to the benefits of getting the product right the first time.

I was more responding to your question "how are these people still in business" than questioning your logic. Obviously it would have been better for them to test their market. But the flop itself is pretty insignificant, pocket change to a company like P&G.

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#68

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #52
meepmorp wrote: post #16

As an alternative solution to the problem, try growing a long, luxurious, and sexy beard. No unnecessary waste from shaving products, no razor burn, and less time dicking around in the mornings. When it gets too long, take 5 minutes and trim it back.

While I'm on sabbatical from corporate America I've grown a short one and not shaving is amazing. Especially since my hair is stiff and wears out razors quickly.

What are you doing on your sabbatical?

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#69

Post by autodidakto »

jccalhoun wrote: post #40
meepmorp wrote: post #16

As an alternative solution to the problem, try growing a long, luxurious, and sexy beard. No unnecessary waste from shaving products, no razor burn, and less time dicking around in the mornings. When it gets too long, take 5 minutes and trim it back.

It doesn't even have to be a long beard. I gave up shaving regularly years ago and can't imagine shaving every day. It might be because I have really dense hair but I always hated shaving. Maybe if I had this razor allegedly designed for thicker hair I might shave more often. Maybe I'm part Indian and didn't know it? (Although I doubt any of my ancestors ever set foot in India let alone came from there.)

The difference between maintaining facial hair at a couple of millimeters and maintaining it clean shaven is time, work, money, and (in the case of disposable razors) trash. All because current fashion is by default clean shaven. Resist!

Re: Cheap razor made after P&G watches Indians shave

#70

Post by PeterisP »

singlecomment17 wrote: post #10

LOL. Rings true. "Indian men have thicker hair and a higher hair density than their American counterparts. Adding to that, they often shave less frequently than American men, so they wind up shaving longer beards." .. " "... observed men using a cup of water to shave. All the MIT students had running water. Without that, the razor stayed clogged." I live in a first world country now, and still use a bowl of water whe…

An extra bath probably spends more water than a month of my shaving, and making an extra serving of beef IIRC spends even much more freshwater than that. Should we really worry about trivially small amounts of water? There may be some warm fuzzies of 'doing something', but the actual impact is insignificantly small compared to other choices - such as which agricultural products are used, and if people choose to have a lawn.
Post reply on HN