a. Suppose that government would like to maximize tax revenue. Explain why it may not be a good idea for the government to lower tax rates for the goods that have very low price elasticities of demand (less than one).

b. Suppose that the government wants to maximize tax revenue. Explain why it may be not a good idea for the government to raise tax rates for a good with a price elasticity of demand more than one.

c. Use a demand/supply diagram to discuss why producers for luxury goods may benefit from a technological improvement in producing the goods.

What revenue or expense amounts are necessary to make a sell-or-process further decision?

Case: Gillette Mach3 and Fusion (Crawford and Di Benedetto, 2014)
For decades, the Gillette Company (now a division of Procter & Gamble) has followed a
simple strategy for success: Replace excellent blade technology with an even better one.
Over the years, Gillette has brought us the Blue Blade, the Platinum Plus, the Trac II, the

Atra, the Sensor, then the SensorExcel. In April 1998, Gillette launched the Mach3: a three-
bladed pivoting cartridge system. In early 2006, the five-blade system, the Fusion, hit the

market. This case examines the development of the last two generations of Gillette
products.
By the early 1990s, design problems that had initially stalled the three-blade system had
been overcome. A prototype three-bladed razor (code-named the Manx) was developed
and shown to outperform the Sensor in internal tests. A key element of the Manx’s design
was the positioning of the three blades: Each blade was a little closer to the face than the
previous one. This patented design reduced the irritation caused by the third blade. In
addition, the pivot point was moved to the bottom of the cartridge; this new pivot point
made shaving feel a little like using a paintbrush, added to the cartridge’s stability, and
ensured that the bottom edge of the cartridge always touched the face fi rst (ensuring that
hairs were lifted properly). Other design features were also built into the Manx. To the
white lubricating strip found on the Sensor, a blue indicator was added that gradually faded,
indicating when the blade needed to be changed. And engineers were working on better
blades, perfecting a way to make them thinner and harder, thanks to new metal technology
borrowed from the manufacture of semiconductors. Furthermore, consumer studies found
an interesting problem incurred by Sensor users that suggested a potential product

improvement: 18 percent of men put the cartridge on the razor upside down! A new snap-
in mechanism was developed that would only work in the right direction.

The new design was going to be costly to manufacture. There was internal resistance within
the ranks of Gillette, with some managers believing that the company should go with a
less-revolutionary, three-bladed SensorExcel rather than a costly and risky introduction of
a totally new product. Nevertheless, the new design (now called by the code name 225)
was locked in during the month of April 1995. The next three years were spent in designing
and producing the equipment needed to manufacture the new cartridges—most of the
machinery had to be specially designed for the task. Meanwhile, product use tests with
consumers were showing that the Mach3 was outperforming the SensorExcel 2 to 1 and
doing even better against competitive brands. The consumer tests were also suggesting that
users were fairly insensitive to price—the Mach3 tested well even at a 45 percent price
premium over SensorExcel.

Gillette geared up for an April 1998 launch. In total, the Mach3 development took six years
and $750 million, about four times what the Sensor cost. Further, $300 million was

allocated for marketing worldwide in the fi rst year, so the upfront costs broke the billion-
dollar barrier. The rollout began in the United States, Canada, and Israel in July 1998, then

Western Europe and part of Eastern Europe in September. The plan was to have the Mach3
available in about 100 countries by the end of 1999. To accommodate the rollout,
production ramp-up was targeted to 1.2 billion cartridges per year by the end of 1998. The
price point was set high (about 35 percent above the SensorExcel’s price of $1 per blade);
sticker shock was reduced by putting fewer blades in each pack.
Eight years later, Gillette repeated the process with the launch of the Fusion, a five-blade
system with lubricating strips on both sides and one extra trimming blade on the back. In
addition to having more blades, the Fusion also placed the blades closer together in the
cartridge for a close, comfortable shave, and also came in a battery-powered model (the
Fusion Power) that vibrates, adding to shaving comfort.
The launch of the Fusion occurred at around the time Gillette was starting to lose market
share to a key competitor, Wilkinson Sword (a division of Energizer), with its Quattro
shaving system featuring four-blade cartridges. The success of the Quattro suggested that
customers were willing to accept shaving systems with more than three blades and
encouraged Gillette to launch the Fusion soon thereafter. In fact, Gillette never launched a
four-blade system—with the Fusion, Gillette leaped over the competition and moved
directly to the five-blade system.
Fusion was the first Gillette blade launched after the P&G acquisition and was an
immediate success. Despite a price point about a dollar higher per cartridge than Mach 3,
four million razors were sold in the first two months. An important part of the marketing
support for the Fusion was an extensive, worldwide television advertising campaign
featuring globally recognized athletes such as Tiger Woods, Thierry Henry, and Roger
Federer. Promotional support for most regions of the world was switched entirely to the
Fusion, while in a few selected markets in Asia, both Mach3 and Fusion promotions were
carried out.
Nevertheless, Gillette received some criticism and scepticism at the time of the Fusion
launch. A story in Consumer Reports found no additional performance benefits beyond
what the Mach3 offered, and critics wondered why as many as five blades were needed for
a good shave. Some even recalled phony, satirical TV ads on programs such as Saturday
Night Live and MadTV for 20-blade systems and wondered if Gillette was going in that
direction. It was also troubling to Gillette executives that, while the razors were selling
well, sales of the cartridge refills were lagging. This was a real cause for concern, for two
reasons. Low sales of refills would suggest that customers viewed the Fusion as a novelty
product and were not building loyalty; also, in the razor business, refills are much more
profitable than the cheaply priced handles. Despite the initial skepticism, the Gillette
Fusion has been a top-seller and major generator of revenue for Gillette.

QUESTION ONE
“Concept statement states a difference and how that difference benefits the customer or
end user”.
With reference to the above statement, prepare the concept statements for Mach3 and
Fusion and discuss about the format, commercialised versus non-commercialised
statements, competitive information, and price in the statements.

QUESTION TWO
(a) Based on what you see in this case, what strategic role did design play at Gillette?
Discuss.
(b) What are the risks involved in the decision to go with “really new” replacement
technology, versus making incremental design improvements to the older
technology? Discuss.

QUESTION THREE
Using the list of product use testing decisions, make recommendations as to how Mach3
and Fusion could have been product use tested prior to launch.

QUESTION FOUR
(a) Discuss the differences between the Mach3 and Fusion launches.
(b) Comment on the aggressive marketing and rollout plans used by Gillette to support
their product launches. Would you recommend they take it slower? What are the
pros and cons?

Describe the basic concept of revenue recognition. What are the issues involved when there are multiple-element sales? What are the required disclosures in regard to revenue recognition.

Compare (individual demand curve and marginal revenue curve) under perfect competition and (individual demand curve and marginal revenue curve) under Monopoly.

1. Watt Co. purchased $300,000 of bonds for $315,000. If Watt intends to hold the securities to maturity, the entry to record the purchase of the investment includes

1. A credit to Investments in bonds at $300,000.
2. A credit to Discount on Investments of $15,000.
3. A credit to Cash at $300,000.
4. A credit to Cash at $315,000.

2. When a product or service is delivered for which a customer advance has been previously received, the appropriate journal entry includes:

A. A debit to a revenue and a credit to a liability account.

B. A debit to a revenue and a credit to an asset account.

C. A debit to an asset and a credit to a revenue account.

D. A debit to a liability and a credit to a revenue account.

Good Will General Hospital is introducing a new service that anticipates to have 550 patient visits per year at an average cost per visit of $2,200  and average billed charges per visit of $4,500.

Determine the amount of gross revenue, contractual deductions, net patient revenue, total costs and net operating income that would result for both Medicare and Medicaid.

Payor Class    Number Pt. visits   Payment /case     Gross Revenue    Contractual Deductions   Net Pt Revenue  Total Costs    Net Operat. Income

Medicare 350 $2,050

Medicaid 200 $1,650