
Razor Startup Harry’s Raises $75M, Pushing It Over $200M - prostoalex
http://recode.net/2014/12/03/razor-startup-harrys-raises-75-million-pushing-it-over-200-million-say-what/
======
soundlab
\--If you want to scratch your head, I won’t stop you. At a time when capital
is easy to come by for buzzy startups and valuations are frothy, some will
view this news as another signal that the tech bubble is real.--

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. :-)

~~~
angersock
It's a company that makes and sells razors.

It's no more a "tech company" than, say, Gillette.

~~~
soundlab
Have you ever manufactured anything? A shitload of technology, engineering,
and creative financing at huge risk is required. I'm not going to debate the
semantics of what defines a tech company but I'd say their business model
disrupting large incumbents and their rapid growth qualifies them enough for
airtime here.

~~~
new299
Is McDonalds considered a tech company [1]? Toy manufacturers? Supermarkets
[2]? Financial services companies?

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](http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/mcdonalds-a-tech-company/584132)

[2]
[http://blogs.marketwatch.com/behindthestorefront/2013/05/01/...](http://blogs.marketwatch.com/behindthestorefront/2013/05/01/wal-
mart-wants-you-to-think-of-it-as-a-technology-company/)

------
patio11
Dollar Shave Club, by way of comparison, has a white-label relationship with a
brand you've never heard of. (Dorco, originally a South Korean brand. Their US
office is here: [http://www.dorcousa.com](http://www.dorcousa.com) I would
assume they're also behind a lot of house brands at e.g. Walgreens or what
have you. )

~~~
mblakele
If it says "Made in Korea" it's probably Dorco. If it says "Made in Israel"
it's probably ASR, aka Personna, owned by Energizer Holdings. The "German
factory" in this article is Feintechnik.

------
fivedogit
So they bought a huge factory with the vast majority of a previous round
raised ($100M of $122M), which is interesting. This reminds me of real-estate-
backed investments. If you need to buy, say, a farm to test a pharmaceutical
or machinery or drones or whatever, then that farm will hold its value,
regardless of the fate of the startup. And I guess that means investors
believe that money is coming back to them, regardless? So their only real
exposure is the "liquid" part (the $22 million in the example)? If someone
knows more about this, I'd be interested in hearing how it works on these
sorts of deals.

------
larrywright
I've been a Harry's customer since, I believe, the first day they went on
sale. I like the product, but I desperately wish they offered a two blade
razor. I find four-bladed razors to be very irritating to my skin.

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](http://www.moderngent.com/avid/avid_razor.php)

~~~
MichaelGG
I wonder how many millions in lobbying it'd take to reverse the silly no-
razor-blades policy. Something like "only 1 blade, mounted and 1 spare"
allowed.

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).

~~~
pbreit
You do realize that not many people share your views on DE blades and
disposables? But for good, cheap 2-6 blade blades, I could direct you to
Dorco.

~~~
MichaelGG
Share my views how? As in, they dislike DE blades? I was under the impression
most people just didn't know of them or figured they were difficult or
something. It would surprise me to find out that people actually dislike a DE
shave. Maybe I'm extrapolating too much from personal experience :\\.

