Gillette revolutionized grooming in the early 1900s by practically giving away razor handles while profiting from proprietary blade refills. This approach, now known as the razor-razorblade model, locks consumers into a repeat-purchase cycle—and has since been adopted by brands like HP (ink cartridges), Nestlé (coffee pods), and numerous others.
Yet Gillette’s story goes beyond just one clever pricing strategy. Over the decades, the company has repeatedly introduced new razors, each boasting more blades. Since 1971, we’ve gone from two blades to five, pushing the boundaries of what some might call a “comedically escalating arms race.” While it appears linear—more blades, more revenue—true disruption often looks different.
Creative Destruction and Razor Innovation
Business scholar Clayton Christensen notes in The Innovator’s Dilemma that “disruptive technologies emerge… generally underperforming established products in mainstream markets but are cheaper, simpler, smaller, and more convenient to use.” Applied to razors, this suggests an unexpected twist: real creative destruction might mean reverting to a single blade that’s inexpensive, easy to handle, and surprisingly effective. Such a product could upend the market by appealing to consumers frustrated by complex multi-blade systems—much as nimble mammals ultimately outlasted the mighty dinosaurs.
This principle of creative destruction aligns with nature’s own evolutionary process: small, unexpected adaptations sometimes outcompete large, established systems. For Gillette, the challenge is that it has long profited from incremental innovation—one more blade, a new lubricated strip—rather than a radical simplification. Larger firms often fail to see the disruptive potential of going back to basics, especially if their success hinges on selling premium accessories.
Still, Gillette’s parent company, Procter & Gamble, consistently reinvents the razor model. Its newest shaver does not tack on a sixth blade but rather refines what’s already there, improving the handle grip and fine-tuning blade design. Is that enough? Perhaps. But true disruption—the kind that reshapes an entire industry—might come from someone bold enough to champion a single-blade approach that’s “cheaper, simpler, smaller, and… more convenient to use.”
Key Takeaways
- Recurring Revenue: The razor-razorblade model depends on high-margin consumables (like blades) sold repeatedly over time.
- Threat of Competition: Patents, trademarks, and brand loyalty protect profits—but once these barriers fade, cheaper third-party options can erode market share.
- Creative Destruction: Real disruption may come not from adding more but by returning to less—a simpler alternative that undercuts established norms.
Ultimately, Gillette’s legacy reminds us that innovation isn’t always about piling on new features. Sometimes, the future belongs to those who strip an idea back to its purest, most practical form—and, in doing so, outmaneuver the giants.
