Journal of Economics and Public Finance ISSN 2377-1038 (Print) ISSN 2377-1046 (Online) Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jepf Original Paper The U.S. Women’s Razor-Blade Market: A Competitive Profile Y. Datta1* 1 Professor Emeritus, Northern KY University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA * Y. Datta, Professor Emeritus, Northern KY University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA Received: November 15, 2019 Accepted: November 23, 2019 Online Published: November 27, 2019 doi:10.22158/jepf.v5n4p491 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/jepf.v5n4p491 Abstract 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 491 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jepf Journal of Economics and Public Finance Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019 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. Keywords U.S. Women’s Razor-Blade Market, cost leadership, price-quality segmentation, market-share leadership, relative price a strategic variable, strategic groups 1. 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, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 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, 2010b, 2012, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019). To make this idea operational requires two steps. The first is to determine which price-quality segment to compete in? Most consumer markets can be divided in three basic price-quality segments: premium, mid-price, and economy. These can be extended to five by adding two more: ultra-premium and ultra-economy (Datta, 1996, 2012, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019). The answer lies in serving the middle class by competing in the mid-price segment. This is the socio-economic segment that represents about 40% of households in America (Datta, 2011). It is also the segment that Procter & Gamble (P&G), a leading global consumer products company, has successfully served in the past (Datta, 2010b, 2012, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019). 1.1 The Strategic Importance of Price Positioning The second step is to position the brand at a price that is somewhat higher than that of the nearest competition in the mid-price segment. This is in accord with P&G’s practice based on the idea that 492 Published by SCHOLINK INC. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jepf Journal of Economics and Public Finance Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019 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, 2010a, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 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, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019). 1.2 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, 2012, 2017, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019). 2. A Brief History of Shaving by U.S. Women 2.1 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 493 Published by SCHOLINK INC. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jepf Journal of Economics and Public Finance Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019 (Padden, 2013). 2.2 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.