The U.S. Women’s Razor-Blade Market: A Competitive Profile

This paper follows the path of six studies: the U.S. Men’s Shaving Cream, the U.S. Beer, the U.S. Shampoo, the U.S. Shredded/Grated Cheese, the U.S. Refrigerated Orange Juice, and the U.S. Men’s Razor-Blade markets. Porter associates high market share with cost leadership strategy which is based on the idea of competing on a price that is lower than that of the competition. However, customer-perceived quality—not low cost—should be the foundation of competitive strategy, because it is far more vital to long-term competitive position and profitability than any other factor. So, a superior alternative is to offer better quality vs. the competition. In most consumer markets a business seeking market share leadership should try to serve the middle class by competing in the mid-price segment; and offering quality better than that of the competition: at a price somewhat higher, to signify an image of quality, and to ensure that the strategy is both profitable and sustainable in the long run. Quality, however, is a complex concept consumers generally find difficult to understand. So, they often use relative price, and a brand’s reputation as a symbol of quality. In 2008 sales in the U.S. were $83 million for the Women’s Razors, and $192 million for the Women’s Blades. In both markets there were two major players. In the Women’s Razors market P&G’s Gillette had a 58% market share, followed by Schick, a distant second, with a 31% share. Likewise, in the Women’s Blade market, Gillette had a 61% share, and Schick a 35% share. We tested two hypotheses: (1) That a market leader is likely to compete in the mid-price segment, and (2) That the unit price of the market leader is likely to be somewhat higher than that of the nearest competition. Employing U.S. retail sales data for 2008 and 2007, we found that for 2008 the market leader in the Women’s Razor market—Gillette Venus Embrace—was not a member of the mid-price segment, but the super-premium segment. Likewise, in the Women’s Blade market, the market leader—Gillette Venus www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jepf Journal of Economics and Public Finance Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019 492 Published by SCHOLINK INC. Original (Note 1)—was part of the premium segment, not the mid-price segment. Several arguments can be offered to explain this deviation: (1) There is not much competition in this market with only two major players, (2) The technology of producing Razors and Blades has become more complex and consequently more expensive, (3) Producers are now offering many more new feature—and benefits—than ever before that further raise the cost of production, and (4) For many American women, having smooth armpits and legs is an important social norm they must observe for which they are willing to pay a premium price. Based on Gillette Fusion, the first men’s five-blade Razor, Gillette introduced Venus Embrace, a first five-blade Razor for women. Whereas Gillette had positioned itself as a premium brand in the past, it moved up the ladder and placed Venus Embrace in the super-premium segment in 2008. We also found strong support for the idea, that relative price is a strategic variable. Finally, we discovered three strategic groups in the industry.


Introduction
This work follows the paths of six studies: the U.S. Men's Shaving Cream, the U.S. Beer, the U.S. Shampoo, the U.S. Shredded/Grated Cheese, the U.S. Refrigerated Orange Juice, and the U.S. Men's Razor-Blade markets (Datta, 2012(Datta, , 2017(Datta, , 2018a(Datta, , 2018b(Datta, , 2018c(Datta, , 2019. That research is based on the idea that the path to market share leadership does not lie in lower price founded in cost leadership strategy, as Porter (1980) suggests. Rather, it is based on the premise-according to the PIMS (Note 2) database research-that it is customer-perceived quality that is crucial to long-term competitive position and profitability. So, the answer to market share leadership for a business is to differentiate itself by offering quality that is better than that of the nearest competition (Datta, 2010a(Datta, , 2010b(Datta, , 2012 although higher quality does deserve a "price premium", it should not be excessive (Datta, 2010b). A higher price offers two advantages: (1) it promotes an image of quality, and (2) it ensures that the strategy is both profitable and sustainable in the long run (ibid.).
A classic example of price positioning is provided by General Motors (GM). In 1921 GM rationalized its product line by offering "a car for every purse and purpose"-from Chevrolet to Pontiac, to Oldsmobile, to Buick, to Cadillac. More importantly, GM positioned each car line at the top of its segment (Datta, 1996(Datta, , 2010a(Datta, , 2017(Datta, , 2018a(Datta, , 2018b(Datta, , 2018c(Datta, , 2019.
A more recent and familiar example is the economy chain, Motel 6, which has positioned itself as "offering the lowest price of any national chain". Another example is the Fairfield Inn. When Marriott introduced this chain, it targeted it at the economy segment. And then it positioned it at the top of that segment (Datta, 1996(Datta, , 2017(Datta, , 2018a(Datta, , 2018b(Datta, , 2018c(Datta, , 2019.

Close Link between Quality and Price
As mentioned above, customer perceived quality is the most important variable contributing to the long-term success of a business. However, quality cannot really be separated from the price (Datta, 1996). Quality, in general, is an intricate multi-dimensional concept that is difficult to understand. So, consumers often use relative price-and a brand's reputation-as a symbol of quality (Datta, 2010b(Datta, , 2012(Datta, , 2017(Datta, , 2018a(Datta, , 2018b(Datta, , 2018c(Datta, , 2019.

Shaving Underarms
The history of shaving by women in America starts with under-arm hair. Kathy Padden (2013) suggests that our "modern-day obsession with silky-smooth armpits and legs" began in 1915 when an ad appeared in the upscale magazine Harper Bazaar, featuring a young female model in "a sleeveless, slip-like dress posing with both arms over her neck" (italics added).
At that time both fashion and social norms dictated that women cover themselves to the wrist and ankle (Padden, 2013), thanks to the "straight-laced" styles of the Victorian era (Komar, 2016). Since underarms had always been covered, it didn't matter whether they were shaved or not. However, now ads were coaxing women that it was important to shave armpits to remove "objectionable" hair. Just when "the term 'underarm' would call for smelling salts, splasing smooth pits across magazines and encouraging women to worry about them" was a big turning point (Padden, 2013). This idea was promoted by the beauty industry to appeal to the timeless desire of women to be trendy. And this obsession finally percolated down to the middle class (ibid.; Komar, 2016).
Not surprisingly, this was the time when sleeveless and sheer dresses became popular among the middle-class women. The Sears and Roebuck catalog of 1922 offered the sale of women's razors and depilatories, as well as sleeveless and sheer dresses (Padden, 2013;Komar, 2016).
At this stage the advertisers felt that they had won over women. It was no longer the question of whether they should shave their underarms, but rather which brand was the one they liked the most www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jepf Journal of Economics and Public Finance Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019 494 Published by SCHOLINK INC. (Padden, 2013).

Shaving Legs
Compared to armpits, the practice of shaving legs took a lot longer to catch on. During World War II, an iconic pin-up picture of actress Betty Grable became a fabric of American popular culture almost overnight. To emulate Betty's fabulous legs, a woman had not only to wear a short skirt and sheer stockings, she also had to shave her legs. So, not surprisingly, the women of America have been shaving their legs ever since (Padden, 2013). But, sex appeal was not the only reason smooth-shaved pin-ups inspired women to shave their legs: it was also a way to show their patriotism to boost the morale of American soldiers fighting abroad (Komar, 2016).

What is Hair Removal Norm for Women Today?
In a study of women in the UK, based on survey data from 678 women, British scholars Toerien and Wilkinson (2004) found that in the Western culture hairiness is viewed in heavily negative terms, as being masculine and unhygienic. In contrast, hairlessness is regarded as positive, clean and feminine.
Women who do not adhere to this social norm are often subjected to criticism from relatives, friends, co-workers, and even strangers (also Matteo, 2019).

A Brief History of the U.S. Women's Razor-Blade Market
In 2008 the market leader was Gillette, a division of Procter and Gamble, with a market share of 58% in Women's Razors, and 61% in Women's Blades. A distant second was Schick, a division of the Edgewell Co., with corresponding shares of 31%, and 35%, respectively. Finally, BIC had market shares of 11% and 4%, respectively.
It was King Gillette who invented a truly revolutionary product for shaving men's facial hair in 1901: a safety razor with a double-edge disposable blade (Datta, 2019). In 1915 Gillette introduced the first safety razor for women: Millady Decolletee. However, this innovation did not work out, because women then associated shaving with masculinity (Matteo, 2019).
In 1990 Gillette launched the twin-blade Sensor for men, and Sensor Excel for men in 1993 (Datta, 2019). Following the Sensor-line for men, Gillette introduced Sensor for Women in 1992, and Sensor Excel for Women in 1996 (Davis, 2010). contoured, "Soft Grip" handle. It protected against nicks and cuts with protective cushions. And it made short work of shaving with individually adjusting blades (italics added).

Gillette Launches Venus Razor for Women
In 2004, Gillette introduced Venus Divine with moisture strips, infused with a touch of botanical oils.
This was followed in 2007 by Venus Breeze with time-saving built-in shave gel bars (Note 4).
In 2003, Schick introduced its first three-blade Razor for Women: Intution, with a built-in shaving gel.
This launch was supported by the largest marketing launch in company history (Vranica, 2003).
According to a Schick website, "Intuition is the only razor that lathers, shaves and moisturizes while you shave leaving your skin noticeably softer. No need for shave gel, soap or body wash. Just add water" (Note 7).
Another version of Intution is Intution Plus. It features a moisturizing solid that is "infused with pomegranate extract, so you can lather, shave and moisturize in one easy step" (Note 8).
In 2003 Schick introduced the Quattro for Men Razor, the first four-blade Razor for Men (Datta, 2019).
Later, the company followed it up with Quattro for Women.

BIC
BIC is a family-owned company listed on the Paris Stock Exchange. It is a world leader in stationery, lighters, and shavers (Note 9). It was founded in 1944 by Marcel Bich and Edouard Buffard (Note 10).
BIC entered the Razor market in America in 1975 (Note 11).

The U.S. Women's Razor-Blade Market-Price-Quality Segmentation Profile
This study is based on U.S. retail sales for 2008 and 2007 (Note 12). The data includes total dollar and unit sales, no-promotion dollar and unit sales, and promotion dollar and unit sales (Note 13). In the Women's 2008 Blade market, the pack-sizes ranged from 2 to 10 blades, which were led by the four-pack at 57% of dollar sales: way ahead of other packs. So, we have focused cluster analysis on the four-pack (Note 14).

Hierarchical Clustering as the Primary Instrument of Statistical Analysis
We have used cluster analysis as the primary statistical tool in this study. As suggested by Ketchen and Shook (1996), we have taken several steps to make this effort as objective as possible:  First, this study is not ad-hoc, but is grounded in a theoretical framework, as laid out below.
 Second, we are fortunate that we were able to get sales data for our study for two years. Thus, this data provided a robust vehicle for subjecting cluster consistency and reliability to an additional test.
 Third, we wanted to use two different techniques-KMeans and Hierarchical-to add another layer of cluster consistency and reliability. However, we found Hierarchical cluster analysis to be superior in meeting that test. So, we did not consider it necessary to use the KMeans technique.

Theoretical Foundation for Determining Number of Clusters-And Their Meaning
As already stated, a major purpose of this paper is to identify the market share leader and determine the price-quality segment-based on unit price-it is competing in.
An important question in performing cluster analysis is determining the number of clusters based on an a priori theory. Most consumer markets can be divided in three basic price-quality segments: premium, mid-price, and economy. These three basic segments can be extended to five: with the addition of super-premium and ultra-economy segments (Datta, 1996).
An equally crucial issue is to figure out what each cluster (e.g., economy, mid-price, and premium) really means.
Perhaps a good way to understand what each price-quality segment stands for in real life is to look at a socio-economic lifestyle profile of America. It reveals six classes (Note 15). Each class is associated with a price-quality segment typified by the retail stores where they generally shop: each a symbol of their lifestyle (Datta, 2011).

Guidelines for Cluster Consistency and Reliability
In addition to laying a theoretical foundation for the number of clusters, we set up the following guidelines to enhance cluster consistency and reliability (Datta, 2012(Datta, , 2017(Datta, , 2018a(Datta, , 2018b(Datta, , 2018c(Datta, , 2019:  In general, there should be a clean break between contiguous clusters.


The anchor clusters-the top and the bottom-should be robust. In a cluster-analysis project limited to a range of three to five clusters, a robust cluster is one whose membership remains constant from three-to four-, or four-to five-cluster solutions.
 Finally, we followed a step-by-step procedure to determine the optimal solution. First, we start with three clusters. Thus, the bottom cluster obviously becomes the economy segment and the top cluster the premium segment. Next, we go to four clusters, and tentatively call them: economy, mid-price, premium, and super-premium. Then we go to five clusters. If the membership of the bottom cluster remains unchanged from what it was in the four-cluster result, it clearly implies that the ultra-economy segment does not exist. Next, if the membership of the top cluster also remains the same from a four-to a five-cluster solution, then the top cluster becomes the super-premium segment. This means that even in a five-cluster solution we have only four price-quality segments: economy, mid-price, premium, and super-premium. It implies that either the premium or the mid-price segment consists of two sub-segments (see Tables 1, 2).

External Evidence to Validate Results of Cluster Analysis
Whenever possible, we have tried to seek external evidence to validate the results of cluster analysis. For example, many companies identify on their websites a certain brand(s) as a premium or luxury brand. A case in point is that of P&G which says that its plan is to compete in all "price points:" super-premium, premium, and mid-price except the economy segment (Datta, 2010b).

Testing Hypotheses
 I-That the market-share leader would be a member of the mid-price segment.
 II-That the market-share leader would carry a price tag that is higher than that of the nearest competition.

Women's Razors
In were members of the premium segment.
Clearly, based on the above discussion, the results do not support our hypothesis that the market leader is likely to compete in the mid-price segment.
Several arguments can be offered to explain this divergence from what we have postulated in this study:


The technology for making Women's Razors and Blades has now become quite complex, based as it is on three fields: metallurgy, chemistry, and electronics, which, in turn, raises the cost of production (Datta, 2019).


Producers are now offering many more new feature-and benefits--than ever before that further raise the cost of production.
 For many American women, having smooth armpits and legs is an important social norm they must adhere to for which they are willing to pay a premium price.

Relative Price a Strategic Variable
Finally, we performed one more test to determine the consistency and reliability of the results of cluster analysis in this study. So, for Women's Razors and Blades, we ranked the unit price of each brand-for While the price of a brand, compared to its nearest competition, may change over time, it is unlikely to change much from one year to the next. This is significant not only for the market share leader, but also for every brand no matter which price-quality segment it is competing in.

The Role of Promotion
For 2008 promotional sales of Women's Razors averaged 42.4% of total retail sales (Table 3). But, Women's Blades were discounted much less at 15.3% (Table 4) (Note 16). However, the corresponding figures were much lower for Men: 31.8%, and 11.4%, respectively, because of Gillette's stranglehold in this market (Datta, 2019).

Women's Razors
In Table 3 the promotional brand data appears in five groups on the basis of promotional intensity. We offer the following comments to explain the highlights:


The most notable feature of  While most of the major razor brands of Gillette Venus and Schick are competing in the super-premium or premium segments, BIC is a part of the mid-price segment (Table 1). So, in order to compete with its formidable rivals, BIC has relied not only on much lower prices, but also on heavier discounts.


The two oldest brands in the Gillette Venus line are Venus (Original) and Venus Divine. In both cases the discount for each is the lowest of all major brands: with a score of 11.3% and 11.9%, respectively. This is a pattern that Gillette has also followed for its men's razors and blades (Datta, 2019).

Has Gillette Followed the "Razor-Blade" Pricing Model?
Chris Anderson (2009) suggests that King Gillette not only invented a revolutionary razor-blade system, he also invented a new business model-commonly known as the "razor-blade" model-for businesses that sell two related products that work together in-tandem. For example, businesses like VCRs, DVD players, Xbox, e-book readers, and other products. According to this model you sell one product (Razor) at a low price, and then make your money by selling the other (Blade) at a high price (also Datta, 2019).

Gillette Has Not Followed the "Razor-Blade" Model
However, Picker (2010) offers a different perspective. He says that, between 1904 when Gillette got the patent, and November1921 when that patent expired, Gillette could have played the "razor-blade" strategy: low price or free Razors, and a high price for Blades. Nevertheless, Gillette did not play that strategy when that was the best time to do so. Instead, Gillette insisted on selling its Razor at a high price of $5, and Blades at a premium price (Datta, 2019).
Even in more recent times going back to 1990, when Gillette introduced Sensor Razor for Men, Gillette has not followed that strategy. With a 90% share of the Men's Blade market-and 78% of the Razor market-in 2008, the "razor-blade" model did not make much economic sense at-all for Gillette (Datta, www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jepf Journal of Economics and Public Finance Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019 500 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 2019).

Razors Discounted More Heavily Than Blades
Since consumers have to replace Blades far more often than Razors, Blades are, therefore, in essence more profitable than Razors. So, when a business introduces a new Razor-Blade model, a strong dose of discounting Razors, seems fitting to boost the sale of Blades. Thus, when Gillette introduced Fusion Razor-Blades for Men it offered a heavy discount on its Razors, which ranged from 42% to 54% in 2008 (Datta, 2019).
However, if a business were to continue to offer a heavy discount on Razors for a long time after introduction, one could then successfully argue that the company is pursuing the "razor-blade" model. Finally, a look at Table 1 shows that even after a big discount of 62%, Gillette Venus Embrace Razor's unit price for 2008 was $9.46-higher than any other brand-a price that clearly looks quite substantial.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing arguments, it is clear that Gillette has not pursued the "razor-blade" model either in the Men's Razor market, or in the Women's Razor market.

Men's vs. Women's Razors
In the words of Hannam (Note 17), the "difference in the razors isn't about dullness or the ability to cut hair close to the skin for a smoother feel". According to Levine, a spokesperson for Gillette and Venus (Note 17), "it's about the head, handle shape, rotation, and how it fits within the contours of the skin".
Levine (Note 17) further adds: "The handle on women's razors are very different from the handle on a razor for men. When you think about all the ways women have to hold a razor to reach those tricky spots and then add in a shaving gel or soap and water in the shower-things can get slippery. It's no wonder women need a different kind of handle" (italics added).
"The razor blade cartridge shape on women's razors is typically different from men's razors. The oval shape suits women's shaving better than the square head of a men's razor because it fits better into the curves such as behind the knee and underarms. It helps pull the skin taut, so even areas like underarms get a close, smooth shave. The women's razor head also pivots with individually adjusting blades that flex, so it's easy to shave hard-to-reach spots" (italics added).
Color and fashion play an important role in the lives of women. Thus, Venus razor handles are designed in such a way that all Venus blades fit all Venus razor handles. So, Gillette offers a "Design your Plan" for the Venus line which includes eight different razor handles: two with three colors, two with two colors, and four with a single color (Note 18).
Based on the above information, it is reasonable to infer that women must be buying many more razor handles than men! And of-course the data proves that point. The total retail sales of Women's Blades for 2008 were $192 million: 32% of $591 million sales for Men's Blades. Not surprisingly, however, 2008 sales of Women's Razors were $83 million: not too far (75%) from Men's Razor sales of $111 million (Datta, 2019).

Strategic Groups in the Women's Razor-Blade Market, 2008
We found three strategic groups in this market. Their market shares are as follows: Plus which are three-packs), the sales data is for all sizes of each brand.

Conclusion
This study is based on the idea that in most consumer markets, a business in quest of market-share leadership should try to serve the middle class by competing in the mid-price segment; and offering quality superior to that of the competition: at a somewhat higher price to connote an image of quality, and to ensure that the strategy is both profitable and sustainable in the long run. The middle class is the socio-economic segment that represents about 40% of households in America.
Quality, however, is a complex concept that consumers generally find difficult to understand. So, they often employ relative price and a brand's reputation as a symbol of quality. Since underarms had always been covered, it didn't matter whether they were shaved or not. However, now magazine ads were coaxing women that it was important to shave armpits to remove "objectionable" hair, and encouraging them to worry about them. And this was a big turning point..
Advertisers now felt they had won over women. It was no longer the question of whether they should shave their underarms, but rather which brand was the one they liked the most. In 2003, Schick introduced Intution, its first three-blade Razor for Women, with a built-in shaving gel, which was later followed by Intution Plus, and Quattro, the first four-blade Razor for Women.
In 2008 retail sales for the U.S. were $83 million for Women's Razors, and $192 million for Women's Blades.
We tested two hypotheses: (1) That a market leader is likely to compete in the mid-price segment, and (2) That the unit price of the market leader is likely to be somewhat higher than that of the nearest competition.
Employing U.S. retail sales data for 2008 and 2007, we found that for both 2008 and 2007, the market leader in the Razor market, Gillette Venus Embrace, was not a member of the mid-price segment, but the super-premium segment. Likewise, in the Blade market the leader, Gillette Venus (Original), was part of the premium segment, not the mid-price segment.
Several arguments can be offered to explain this deviation: (1) There is not much competition in this market with only two major players, (2) The technology of producing Razors and Blades has become more complex and therefore more expensive, (3) Manufacturers are now offering many more new feature-and benefits-than ever before that further raise the cost of production, and (4) For many American women, having smooth armpits and legs is an important social norm they must observe for which they are prepared to pay a premium price.
The Razor-Blade market has an unusual characteristic that most other markets do not have: selling two related products that work together in unison: for example, VCRs, DVD players, Xbox, and other products. So, one alternative to compete in such markets is to adopt the "razor-blade" model: selling one product (Razor) at a low price, and then making your money by selling the other product (Blade) at a high price.
However, Gillette has not pursued the "razor-blade" model either in the Men's Razor market, or in the Women's Razor market.
Finally, we found three strategic groups in this market. Their market shares are as follows: