I have a possibly unpopular opinion.
The razor and blade model of marketing is bad for consumers, contributes to vendor lock-in, and helps thwart the right to repair movement.
What is the Razor and Blade Model?
From Wikipedia, the razor and blade business model is where you sell or give away one item at a low cost, in order to increase sales of a complementary item, which is usually consumable and often proprietary. The quote, "Give them the razor — sell them the blades," gives the model it’s name and accurately describes it as well. It’s closely related to the subscription model for software, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Both the model and quote are often credited to King Camp Gillette, founder of the Gillette Company which invented inexpensive disposable razor blades, but Gillette didn’t invent it — he adopted the model from others.
This model is used today in a wide number of contexts:
- Modern shaving razors are often sold cheaply, but the blade cartridges that fit them are comparably more expensive. You often can’t use cartridges designed for other razors, even from the same manufacturer.
- Instant cameras (like those from Polaroid), which were sold cheaply everywhere, but required comparably expensive film packs to use.
- Video game consoles. The original Atari 2600 was sold at cost when it was released, relying on game sales to make profit. The same holds true now, with Xbox and PlayStation consoles selling at a loss and profits coming from games.
- Mobile phones, which are often given away by the carrier in order to lock the user into lengthy and expensive contracts, which makes it difficult to change to a more competitive carrier.
- Printers, with costly and often non-interchangeable printer ink and toner cartridges.
Ink-jet printers are particularly bad about using this model, and are available everywhere. Chances are you have one in your home right now…
The Ink-Jet Problem
At the time of this writing in the US (late February 2024), you can buy an ink-jet printer from your local mega-mart for around US$30. When the ink in the cartridges that come with the printer run out (a few dozen pages in), you then get to spend at least US$30 to replace them, and often more, depending on the brand and size of cartridge you select. In other words, manufacturers value the ink as much as the printer.
Black and White and Red All Over
Maybe you think you can save some money by only printing in black and white. Think again — many ink-jet printers will use color ink even when you only print in black and white. There are several reasons for this.
First, printing in grayscale uses colored ink. This helps provide smoother transitions between grey levels, and in the case of HP Printers, may also be used to enhance blacks on the page as well.
Most major printers perform a calibration when starting out, which also uses a little colored ink before printing starts. I usually have time to make a pot of coffee while my printer warms up.
No matter the reason, using color ink for black-and-white printing is non-intuitive and frustrating for the user. How many people have been printing a black and white document, only to be told no by the printer because a color cartridge is low? I know I have, multiple times.
It Almost Fits
Adding to the frustration is that similar printers sometimes use completely different and incompatible print cartridges.
Walk down the printer ink aisle of your local office supply, mega-mart, or computer store, and just check out the sheer number of cartridges available.
For more fun, limit yourself to a single manufacturer, and just look at black ink cartridges. Then ask yourself: why do they need so many? Why can’t there be a single cartridge which is interchangeable in all the printers from one manufacturer?
As a concrete example, I currently own two Canon Pixma ink-jet printers — an MG6300 and an MG3200 (an inheritance from a relative). These are very similar printers with very similar specifications — in fact, the only technical difference I can see is WiFi connectivity. However, they each require completely different sets of ink cartridges.
- The MG3200 uses a two cartridge setup — one for color and one for black.
- The MG6300 uses six (!) different cartridges, including inexplicably two separate black ink cartridges.
The last set of cartridges I purchased for the MG6300 were from a 3rd party, which is something I might not have been able to do ten years ago. Why not? It’s all down to the US court system.
Breaking the Lock
Back in 2002, the printer manufacturer Lexmark setup a program where they would sell printer toner cartridges at a discount, provided the customer sent the cartridge back to Lexmark for recycling. The reasons were two-fold — Lexmark touted the environmental benefit, but also the benefits to themselves by keeping the cartridges out of the hands of third party refillers.
Of course, Lexmark didn’t just rely on customer goodwill to enforce this. They embedded a chip in their toner cartridges which tracked how much toner should be in the cartridge, regardless of how much ink actually was in the cartridge. So, if you refill the cartridge with ink on your own, the chip won’t recognize it and flags the cartridge as empty, and the printer stops working.
Another company, Static Control Components (SCC), found a way to work around this problem by making their own chips which told the printer "everything’s fine". They sold the chip with their cheaper refilled Lexmark cartridges.
So of course, Lexmark took them to court over it.
After several years of hemming and hawing, the case finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014, who ruled in favor of SCC. All this means you can now refill a Lexmark ink cartridge without Lexmark asserting control over the printer, and opens the door for 3rd parties to refill other cartridges as well.
Vendor Lock-in
So what does this have to do with vendor lock-in?
When I say vendor lock-in, I really mean technological lock-in, or the tendency for people to stay with one technology due to the high cost of switching to something else. It’s why iPhone users upgrade to new iPhones, rather than Android devices, and vice versa. Will my favorite apps be available on the new platform? If I bought an app for one device, will I have to buy it again on the new platform?
It also applies to Facebook and Twitter (X), which people stick to despite possible misgivings they may have about those platforms. Will I be able to connect with my friends and family on the new platform?
Another term for it is the sunk-cost fallacy, where you stick with a potentially bad endeavor because you have already invested so much time or effort or money into it already.
The fallacy looks like this in practice: My current printer is slow to start up, and uses a lot of ink to print comparatively few pages, and those cartridges cost a lot to replace. However, I’ve already spent money on the printer, and more money on cartridges over the years, and it’ll be a hassle and more money to buy a new one and set it up and get rid of the old one. Plus, I need to see if I can get cheap ink cartridges for it as well. How can I justify spending all that time and money again, when I’ve already spent all that money and time on the old printer already? So, I’ll stick with this one.
Which is sadly what I do.
Next Steps
So what do we do about this?
There are several ways I get around this model, although I’m far from perfect.
I don’t print things on paper unless I absolutely need to, and I try to minimize my needs as much as possible. I print lots of things to PDF files, which I can read later and store offline. The big things are tickets to local events, which I either reference in a linked app or print to PDF.
I also do a lot of screen grabs and copy-paste data into my note-taking apps, where I can comment and refer to the information later.
For example, when I renew my automobile license tabs or make a purchase online, there is often a final receipt page or a "Save this information for your records" page. When I get there, I do a screen grab or print the page to PDF and store it somewhere offline.
To be honest, like all the paper bills I get and save, the electronic versions just sit there for a while then get deleted — no one has ever asked to see them. Ever.
Ever.
On Razors
As for the namesake of this article, many years ago I invested in a very nicely made safety razor, the kind which uses double-edged razor blades. I spent quite a bit on it at the time, much much more than I would have normally thought reasonable at the time. I also bought a much cheaper safety razor which was advertised on TV, which lives in my travel toiletry case. Total cost for both was around US$150 over ten years ago.
The blades, in contrast, are bought in bulk for pennies a blade. My last razor blade purchase was 2020, when I spent < US$10 for 100 blades. I still have several dozen of those left.
Of course, even that might be wasteful. I could just grow a large beard, but I don’t wanna look like Joe Thornton.
So why not use a straight razor? I tried it once and cut myself, and decided the costs of a safety razor and blades blades would be lower than the possible health care costs.
So what does this have to do with the right to repair? Keep tuned.