Freebie marketing, also known as the razor and blades business model,
is a business model wherein one item is sold at a low price (or given away for
free) in order to increase sales of a complementary good, such as supplies
(inkjet printers and ink cartridges, "Swiffers" and cleaning fluid,
mobile phones and service contracts)
or game consoles (accessories and software).
It is distinct from loss leader marketing and free sample marketing, which do
not depend on complementarities of products or services.
Though the concept and its proverbial example "Give 'em the razor;
sell 'em the blades" are widely credited to King Camp Gillette, the
inventor of the disposable safety razor and founder of Gillette Safety Razor
Company,
in fact Gillette did not originate this model.
Development
Free gifts
A free gift is one for which the giver is not trying to get something in
return, or one which does not cost the giver, such as when it is discount on
resulting sales.
Free lunch
The phrase free lunch, in U. S. literature from about 1870 to 1920, refers
to a tradition once common in saloons in many places in the United States.
These establishments included a "free" lunch, varying from
rudimentary to quite elaborate, with the purchase of at least one drink. These
free lunches were typically worth far more than the price of a single drink.
The saloon-keeper relied on the expectation that most customers would buy more
than one drink, and that the practice would build patronage for other times of
day.
Gillette
The usual story about Gillette is that he realized that a disposable
razor blade would not only be convenient, but also generate a continuous
revenue stream. To foster that stream, he sold razors at an artificially low
price to create the market for the blades.
But in fact Gillette razors were expensive when they were first
introduced, and the price only went down after his patents expired: it was his competitors who invented the
razors-and-blades model.
Applications
Freebie marketing has been used in business models for many years. The
Gillette Company still uses this approach, often sending disposable safety razors
in the mail to young men near their 18th birthday, packaging them as giveaways
at public events that Gillette has sponsored, et cetera.
Standard Oil
With a monopoly in the American domestic market, Standard Oil and its
owner, John D. Rockefeller, looked to China to expand their business.
Representatives of Standard Oil gave away eight million kerosene lamps for free
or at greatly reduced prices to increase the demand for kerosene.
Among American businessmen, this gave rise to the catchphrase "Oil
for the lamps of China." Alice Tisdale Hobart's novel Oil for the Lamps
of China was a fictional treatment of the phenomenon.
Comcast
Comcast often gives away DVRs to its subscribing customers. However, the
cost of giving away each free DVR is offset by a $19.95 installation fee as
well as a $13.95 monthly subscription fee to use the machine. Based on an average
assumed cost of $250 per DVR box to Comcast, after 18 months the loss would
balance out and begin to generate a profit.
Issues
The freebie marketing model may be threatened if the price of the high
margin consumables in question falls due to competition. For the freebie market
to be successful the company must have an effective monopoly on the
corresponding goods. (Predatory pricing to destroy a smaller competitor is not
covered here.) This can make the practice illegal.
Specific examples
Printers
Computer printer manufacturers have gone through extensive efforts to
make sure that their printers are incompatible with lower cost after-market ink
cartridges and refilled cartridges. This is because the printers are often sold
at or below cost to generate sales of proprietary cartridges which will
generate profits for the company over the life of the equipment. In fact, in
certain cases, the cost of replacing disposable ink or toner may even approach
the cost of buying new equipment with included cartridges, although included
cartridges are often 'starter' cartridges that are only partially filled.
Methods of vendor lock-in include designing the cartridges in a way that makes
it possible to patent certain parts or aspects, or invoking the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act
to prohibit reverse engineering by third-party ink manufacturers.
In Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that circumvention of Lexmark's
ink cartridge lock does not violate the DMCA. On the other hand, in August
2005, Lexmark won a case in the U.S. that allows them to sue certain large
customers for violating their boxwrap license.
Video Games
Atari had a similar problem in the 1980s with Atari 2600 games. Atari
was initially the only developer and publisher of games for the 2600; it sold
the 2600 itself at cost and relied on the games for profit. When several
programmers left to found Activision and began publishing cheaper games of
comparable quality, Atari was left without a source of profit. Lawsuits to
block Activision were unsuccessful. Atari added measures to ensure games were
from licensed producers only for its later-produced 5200 and 7800 consoles.
In recent times, video game consoles have often been sold at a loss
while software and accessory sales are highly profitable to the console
manufacturer. For this reason, console manufacturers aggressively protect their
profit margin against piracy by pursuing legal action against carriers of modchips
and jailbreaks. Particularly in the sixth generation era and beyond, Sony and
Microsoft, with their PlayStation 2 and Xbox, had prohibitively high
manufacturing costs so they were forced to sell their consoles at a loss, and
these losses widened especially in 2002–2003 when both sides tried to grab
market share with price cuts. Nintendo had a different strategy with its GameCube,
which was considerably less expensive to produce than its rivals, so it
retailed at break-even or higher prices. In the current generation of consoles,
both Sony and Microsoft have continued to sell their consoles, the PlayStation
3 and Xbox 360 respectively, at a loss.
Other Goods
Consumers may also find other uses for the subsidized product rather
than utilize it for the company's intended purpose, which adversely affects
revenue streams. This has happened to "free" personal computers with
expensive proprietary Internet services and contributed to the failure of the CueCat
barcode scanner.
Affiliate Marketing makes extensive use of the freebie marketing
business model, as many products are promoted as having a "free"
trial, that entice consumers to sample the product and pay only for shipping
and handling. Advertisers of heavily-promoted products such as Acai Berry
targeting dieters hope the consumer will continue paying for continuous
shipments of the product at inflated prices, and this business model has been
met with much success.
Websites specializing in Sampling and discounts have proven to be very
popular with economy-minded consumers, who visit sites which utilize freebies
as link bait. The business model of these sites is to attract visitors that
will click on AdSense and complete affiliate offers.
Tying
Tying is a variation of freebie marketing that is often illegal when the
products are not naturally related (for example, requiring a bookstore to stock
up on an unpopular title before allowing them to purchase a bestseller). Tying
is also known in some markets as 'Third Line Forcing.'
Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been
regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are
harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) to purchase a
good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be
sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large
market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of
market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the
tied good, or who sell only single components.
Another common example comes from how cable and satellite TV providers
contract with content producers. The production company pays to produce 25
channels and forces the cable provider to pay for 10 low-audience channels to
get a popular channel. Since cable providers lose customers without the popular
channel, they are forced to purchase many other channels even if they have a
very small viewing audience.
e-mail : pratheepvasudev@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment