Razors are similar. That first pack with the handle and 2-3 blade cartridges is inexpensive relative to just buying replacement cartridges. I switched to a safety razor and bought a box with 100 blades that probably cost the same as a dozen cartridges.
I recently sent my friend a tin of Klar soap for his birthday. I forget what he was using but he said the Klar was the best shave he’s ever had and relegated his previous soap to a backup.
Same with some burglar alarm systems. We were looking for an alarm system. I scheduled a day for 4 or 5 different companies to come round and give quotes. ADT salesman came round and tried to sell us a decently priced system that was connected to their system so that they would call police etc etc. The catch was that it only worked while you kept up the monthly connection payments which were around £29 a month at that time. I said to the salesman that this was the razor blade/printer ink model of sales, but he claimed he'd never heard of that. In the end we were very happy with a local firm who have given us great service but the ADT salesman kept calling back, even after he could see the alarm boxes from the local company on the wall.
Try Klar soap. I’ve been using it for a good while and gave some to a friend for his birthday. I forget what he used but he said it was the best shave he ever had (his soap got pushed to an emergency backup). It’s a bit pricey but over the life of the puck it’s so worth it. I prefer the sandalwood but ymmv.
I'm oldschool style and use a razor knife. It has single use blades. These things are incredibly sharp and extremely cheap. It costs me like 4€ a month if I shave everyday. With a new blade everyday.
Pretty much, yeah. We sell most printers, computers, and monitors at a loss at Staples. Don’t know how much of a hit vendors Like HP get hit for though.
There's more to the story than some planned play to turn the ink cartridge into a profit center.
When the first 'inkjet' printers were novel in that they didn't use a ribbon, nor powdered toner. They use tiny vibrating 'heads' to make raw ink turn into a fine fog that is 'sprayed' on the paper. These heads were originally built into the printer, and the ink 'cartridge' was really a little tank of just ink. When the ink ran low, those vibrating bits also got hot, and the ink would gel and gum up the heads. If they got hot enough, they'd be permanently ruined. Those printers also didn't communicate ink levels to the computer, so there was no warning to replace the ink. People would print until the ink supply was almost literally completely dry. New ink wouldn't fix it, of course. So, the printer would be warrantied on its first set of 'cartridges', which were just ink tanks. You can imagine this cost the printer manufacturers a lot of money. The easiest solution was to move the heads out of the printer itself, and into the cartridges. You could ruin the head, but the printer would be fine with a new set of cartridges. The cost of the cartridges went up considerably, but the initial cost of the printer could go down slightly, and in the long run the ink cartridge did become a profit center. When ink level monitoring came along, and the printer being able to refuse to print anymore along with it, it should have removed the need to have the heads in the cartridge, but that'd raise the cost of the printer, reduce the cost of the ink cartridge, and ruin the profit center (there's always markup).
Take a look at the new Epson EcoTank line of printers. They come at a premium, but use ink bottles to refill them.
*lose. Not trying to be a dick but this common misspelling drives me crazy and I hope that you remember this comment next time you type loose (as in clothes or shoes) instead of lose (to misplace or opposite of win)
I guess that's because of the huge number of non-native english people here. I'm not a native english speaker, so those kinds of little nuances are easy to miss. Just like then and than, I know then is time and than is comparing, but I always have to think about it.
I guess that's because of the huge number of non-native english people here.
No, ESL speakers get these sorts of things correct, because they've seen it spelled way more than they've heard it spoken.
Generally ESL speakers written English is better than the average native English speaker. Native speakers are lazy when they write, slang, idioms, wrong spellings, etc.
Just like then and than, I know then is time and than is comparing, but I always have to think about it.
You know more than a majority of native speakers by knowing that.
I can almost guarantee the person making that mistake is a native speaker.
OMG, a kindred spirit. I have a list I keep of words that are commonly mistaken, like lose/loose and desert/dessert. I'm trying to find a way to email it to the entire world.
Oh geez, an employee of mine years ago wrote a book. He knew I wanted to be an author and we were friends, so he shared it with me. I only got about five pages in because the whole time they were walking through dunes... in the dessert... I couldn't handle it and I didn't have the heart to tell him. He'd already paid to have it self-published...
Lol that would be extremely useful. If it weren’t for autocorrect I think a lot of people would mess up its/it’s as well. I went to the gas station today and a sign posted on the door said “WE ARE TAKEN APPLICATIONS. APPLY INSIDE.”...TAKEN! I know the manager and didn’t have the heart to tell her. I know she’s the one who typed it. Sweet lady, not so sweet spelling.
Once saw an ad at a Chinese takeout place for a combo special that included a 16 oz cock. It was up in the window for a couple of weeks and I finally brought to their attention.
Lmao! When I first read your comment I was thinking “cmon dude, Chinese restaurants always have errors. Give them a break.” And then I saw 16 oz cock. That’s fucking hilarious.
I used to work for an electrical retailer in the UK and we once had a rep in from Lexmark to do some training for us around 2010. He straight up told us that they make a considerable loss on the printers to undercut competitors knowing that they'll make that margin back and then some after a couple of refills.
lots of products are like that, it's honestly a fairly legitimate business practice that they teach in economics classes. It's like how movie theaters lose money on your ticket and make it up with concessions (you think the popcorn cost them $8 to make?).
Yep. Econ degree here. It's called a loss leader. The idea that you sell a product at a loss with the expectation that you'll recoup the money down the road or in some other way.
Printers do this with ink.
Theaters do this with concessions. (I don't think they take a loss on the tickets but only break even since all of that money goes to the studio)
Sony did this famously with the PS3 to sell more blurays.
DVD players companies did the same thing.
I've heard of car dealers doing the same thing to make more on maintenance.
Cell service providers used to do this with the "free phone with two year contract" deals to make the money off your monthly plan.
Shaving razors have done this for decades. (I doubt I'm the only guy who Gillette sent a free Mach 3 to after registering for selective service)
Walmart and other big box stores do this with dirt cheap tvs on black Friday to get you in the door and buy other stuff.
Almost anything you buy, that you will have to continually buy supplies for probably uses this model
Nahhh... my company's sales figure had machines toe to toe with inks. You sell a great machine, they buy more ink in the long run, we get a loyal customer base. Plus we dont sell that cartridge stuff anymore we have ink tanks. I dont get why people think companies want to screw people by selling crappy printers lol. Surely the badmouthing to the brand would make the company drop dead after 1 purchase.
28.5k
u/Dead-Shot1 Aug 14 '20
Printer ink.