There was a lot of reaction a few weeks ago when a company
that makes razor blades came out with information about how long its products
last in use – for the first time in history. For most of the time safety razors
have existed manufacturers have avoided saying anything about how many times
you could use one before it became too dull or otherwise failed to function,
and there was no motivation for them to do so. If the company listed a number
that was too high not only would they lower the number of blades purchased (and
their sales figures), but they also ran the very real chance of being sued by
somebody who was “injured” trying to use a product too many times. But if they
listed a number that was too low they were damaging the image of their product
(you only get HOW MANY uses out of each one? What a piece of junk!) as well as
raising the effective cost to the consumer by limiting how many shaves you get
for your dollar. All things considered, it just made more sense not to comment
and let people find out for themselves…
In recent years, however, the cost of razor blades has risen
to the point where this strategy is no longer entirely effective. People may
not care whether a $1 product gives them five uses as opposed to four – it’s a
five-cent difference per use, and one dollar a week is a mostly trivial amount
anyway. But when that amount rises to $4 per cartridge we are now talking a
dollar per use, or potentially $365 per year, and those disposable razors that
cost fifty cents each are starting to look a lot more attractive – even if they
turn out to be single-use items, you’re still saving 50% each day. If the
company wants to continue charging that amount per unit, they need to introduce
some form of additional value to the customer, and since they are already
claiming to provide a superior product (e.g. a more comfortable and effective
shave) they can’t just claim the product is worth the extra money and hope for
the best…
With the introduction of a television spot claiming that its
top-of-the-line razors can last up to five weeks, Gillette has finally crossed
over that line – although we should note that the ad does say “up to” five
weeks, and does not discuss whether the spokesman (seen traveling around the
world during the commercial) actually used it every day for five weeks or just
when the cameras were rolling. The question that came to my mind wasn’t so much
whether these claims were too vague to challenge (they are) but whether this
sort of obfuscation was ethical in the first place? Or is it an unavoidable
side-effect of offering products in this category in the first place?
In general, there is no way for the manufacturer to gauge
how many uses a given customer will get from one shaving cartridge. Beard hairs
vary in thickness and hardness, and users who shave their whole face will get fewer
uses from those who wear a goatee, or from those who just use the razor to keep
their neck clean. This time frame becomes even more ambiguous for those
customers who also shave their legs or backs, or who have a significant other
who borrows their razor to do so. And even if all hair was identical, and all
users had the same amount of it to manage, the question of what constitutes too
dull to shave with is a matter of taste, and different customers will put up
with different amounts of discomfort and/or razor burn. It might be possible
for the manufacturer to recommend guidelines, or for the industry to establish
standards for comparison, but none of the companies involved have any
motivation for doing so – and the real question is more general anyway…
Does any company offering a consumer product for sale have
an ethical responsibility to inform its customers how many uses they can expect
to get before the product requires replacement? Granted that this is not always
possible – and even when it is, a precise figure may not be realistic – does the
manufacturer have any obligation to provide performance and/or life cycle
information to the consumer? Does our answer change if the company has in-house
test data that provides a reasonable estimate of the product’s durability? Or
does a free market require us to allow any company to market whatever safe and
effective products it wants to, and let the consumer draw his or her own
conclusions about product life and relative value?
It’s worth thinking about…
No comments:
Post a Comment