Razor Startup Harry’s Raises $75M, Pushing It Over $200M
recode.net
recode.net
I find this angle in the article puzzling and something of an indicator of the gap between "startup media" and what real companies do. Both venture firms re-committed additional capital to the venture on the basis that the Harry's model is working well and that tighter control over production, R&D, and supply chain will benefit the business over rivals stuck in white label/OEM.
To me this is the opposite of a "tech bubble" and more an indication of what's supposed to happen to tech startups- they grow out of the startup phase and develop into expansion stage / established companies. This is the goal!! If your goal is to forever remain a startup you're doing it wrong- particularly in manufacturing, where economies of scale rule. If you want indicators of a tech bubble, observe the myriad of seed stage software startups with anemic growth going nowhere. Let's not throw manufacturing companies under the bus for doing what manufacturing companies are supposed to do as they mature. Full disclosure: I have a beard. :-)
It's no more a "tech company" than, say, Gillette.
I'm not precisely sure what Harry's is bringing to the table here (lower costs? online only?), but that's probably due to my old-school unix sysadmin level beard more than anything else.
Pretty much all companies are "tech companies" to some degree...
I'd personally tend toward a narrower definition of "tech company", which would be one in which a new and innovative idea forms the core of the business.
Unfortunately many well known "tech" startups (Uber, AirBNB) wouldn't fit that definition. They are enabled by the widespread adoption of the Internet (in the same way the telephone enabled chat lines), but I don't think I'd consider them tech companies any more than a normal taxi company or hotel...
[1] Can be argued! http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/mcdonalds-a-tech-company/584132
[2] http://blogs.marketwatch.com/behindthestorefront/2013/05/01/...
I agree that it's fine to mention them here--that doesn't make them a tech company. Lots of businesses that are high-growth and successful aren't tech companies, and that's okay.
It's really annoying dealing with companies that aren't tech companies but think that they are. They seem to have work environments where the tech is driven in the wrong direction, at once both beholden to the business interests and yet still pursued as though it were an end into itself. This is not a good combination.
And the answer is: possible Amazon/Walmart/etc. buyout target--nothing else.
So, the investors are banking on the fact that one of the big boys is going to want to buy this out so that they can demand better pricing from Gillette.
My daily-use razor is the Merkur double-edged safety razor, which works very well for me - far better than any cartridge razor ever did. It's main drawback, of course, is that you can't take the blades on an airplane. So I use a cartridge razor for travel and for quick shaves at home.
I was drawn to the Harry's razor because it looked to be a solid handle (rather than the cheap plastic ones from Gillette) and the blades were a reasonable price. It lived up to my expectations. A notch above Gillette in quality and a better price. I just wish they hadn't felt the need to put four blades in it - two is more than sufficient.
My favorite non-safety razor of all time is the innovate, but unfortunately discontinued, Avid 4 Travel Razor: http://www.moderngent.com/avid/avid_razor.php
The trimmer blade is nice on the fusion, and Harry's blades have an odd bend that requires more rinsing as the hair is more likely to clog rather than pass through.
Some people have a strong preference about the handle, but I find both to be good.
I'm also a bit puzzled how there are razor startups. Harry's blades are literally an order of magnitude more expensive than DE blades. And outside of proper shaves from a DE, I find even bulk disposables do well enough (whatever comes up on top of Amazon Prime).