????上周五發(fā)布的一份報告顯示，亞馬遜（Amazon）首款平板電腦Kindle Fire的生產(chǎn)成本居然比199美元的售價還要高出數(shù)美元。這份報告使得人們開始重新關(guān)注亞馬遜公司堅持的“剃刀和刀片”策略。這種理論早已有之，并不新鮮；在新科技興起的最近幾十年中，人們對這一理論也有過很多討論。但它是否能在亞馬遜公司身上奏效，目前還是一個未知數(shù)，但可以預(yù)見的是，可能性不大。

????這種理論認為，如果以賠本價賣出一只剃刀，可以通過賣出大量的刀片來彌補損失。亞馬遜公司“送出”的是Kindle Fire平板電腦，但它希望通過亞馬遜商店向Kindle Fire用戶提供更多其他商品。

????一般認為這一理論是吉列公司（Gillette）創(chuàng)始人提出的；然而，吉列公司是等到專利期滿之后，才開始出售廉價剃刀。而在此之前，競爭者已經(jīng)在這么做了。實際上，安全剃刀被發(fā)明之前，這一策略背后的營銷理念已經(jīng)存在了很久，沒有幾百年，也有幾十年。比如，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油公司（the Standard Oil Company）為了向中國銷售石油，曾經(jīng)主動為中國市場提供低價煤油燈。

????那么，問題何在？標(biāo)準(zhǔn)石油公司是一家壟斷型企業(yè)，這是一個關(guān)鍵性的事實，因為“剃刀和刀片”理論在只有一家刀片（或石油）賣家的前提下才會產(chǎn)生最佳效果。如果其他賣家進入市場中，價格就會下降。最重要的是，無論是刀片、石油，還是通過銷售平板電腦帶動的其他商品，必須要有很高的利潤，才能保證這一理論真正奏效。

????但亞馬遜的地位并非如此有利。當(dāng)然，備受推崇的亞馬遜商店處于市場壟斷地位（或者勉強稱得上是壟斷），能夠最大限度地利用Kindle Fire平板電腦，但亞馬遜商店提供的電影、書籍、音樂、視頻游戲和其他產(chǎn)品并不具有壟斷性。恰恰相反，這些產(chǎn)品所在的市場競爭激烈，且利潤如同刀片一樣微薄。

????A report Friday that the Kindle Fire costs a few dollars more to make than its $199 selling price is drawing renewed attention to Amazon's adherence on the "razors and blades" theory. That theory has been around for a long time and has been much discussed with the rise of new technologies over the past few decades. Whether it will work for Amazon is an open question, but the odds may be against it.

????The theory is, if you give away a razor, you can make up the loss by selling lots of blades. Amazon (AMZN) is "giving away" the Fire tablet so that it can sell lots of other stuff to Fire owners through the Amazon Store.

????The founder of Gillette (PG) is often credited with this idea, but that company didn't start selling razors cheaply until after its patents had run out. Before then, competitors were already doing it. And anyway, the marketing idea behind it had been around for decades, if not centuries, before safety razors were invented. For example, the Standard Oil Company gave away kerosene lamps in order to sell oil to the Chinese.

????So what's the problem? Standard Oil was a monopoly, which is a crucial fact because the razors-and-blades theory works best when only one vendor is selling the blades (or the oil). When other vendors enter the market, prices fall. At the very least, margins have to be high on the blades or the oil -- or on the stuff you sell through a tablet computer.

????Amazon's not in quite such an advantageous position. Certainly, it has a monopoly (of sorts) on the highly regarded Amazon Store for which the Fire is optimized, but it certainly does not have monopolies on the movies, books, music, video games and other goods the store makes available. Quite the opposite: The market for those products is highly competitive, keeping margins razor-thin.