This was posted 5 months 25 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

  • expired

Return Any Razor/Disposable to Chemist Warehouse and Get Any Gillette or Venus Razor Handle for $5 via TerraCycle


Saw this deal on Facebook - looks pretty good if you have some old razors at home.

Just a quick search shows that the majority of razor handles are above $5.

For the next month, return ANY Razor or Disposable at your local Chemist Warehouse and get ANY Gillette or Venus Razor Handle for $5!*

*Offer available at all Chemist Warehouse Stores (excludes New Zealand) between 27/05/2021 - 23/06/2021. Any branded Razor/Disposable can be returned in store for any single Gillette or Venus Razor. Subject to store availability.

Related Stores

Chemist Warehouse
Chemist Warehouse

closed Comments

  • +2

    Very good initiative…

  • +17

    I would seriously doubt if anyone at Chemist Warehouse knows about this deal.

    • Show them website lol

      • +1

        Tried couple of stores and they said they are not participating yet. Usual CW $hit!

        I think they will first remove power razors from the shelf and then open the offer if at all.

        • Now this is advertised in most CW stores.

  • +12

    NEVER forgotten gillette for being anti-male. neither have thousands of others, the woke stunt they pulled cost them P&G stockholders millions….

    • -13

      It was a good topical message executed very poorly. Life moves on.

      • +3

        More like a very poor topical message executed very poorly, but half marks for being close. ;-D It's more than can be said for Gillette… Go woke for the few, go broke by the many!

    • -7

      Thanks for your insightful response.

    • +4

      Not sure if I watched the same ad as you're referring to, but if I did, it seems like it's basically just saying be a better person, definitely nothing worth having a sook about.
      If you wanted to interpret it to be personally against you (like anything), I guess you could do so, but to me it just seems like it was saying don't bully others, don't sexually assault people, don't take up obnoxious space. Certainly not worth holding a pent up grudge against a companies marketing department for two years, that's for sure.
      End of the day buy the razors you want, if the marketing for a product is that important to you, and that ad upset or offended you on such a deep level then it'd definitely worth boycotting.

      For me, this seems like a pretty good deal, and I think they make pretty good razors. And that ad didn't hurt my feelings at all or make me feel any less (or more) about the brand, so it hasn't affected this as a deal for me. Good recycling initiative too.

      • +11

        It was more insidious than that. This article explains it well:

        "The brand clumsily attempts to contemporize its long-lasting slogan, “The Best a Man Can Get”, by featuring sinister males bullying and harassing – an action which Gillette describes as "toxic” masculinity. The ad is amateurishly stereotypical and mostly offers a caricature of masculinity.

        What makes this ad so offensive is that Gillette doesn’t just condemn bad behavior, something most men do as well. It implies that the vulgar behavior represents the norm among men and, in doing so, it smears an entire gender. Substitute another gender, or ethnic group, in place of men”, and you start getting a sense how outlandish this insight is.

        The single most insulting moment of the 90-second video comes at :37, showing a bunch of men standing in a row behind their outdoor grills, in menacing posture. It’s not just that it screams clichés and stereotypes. Imagine a row of women as props in front of washing machines or ovens baking cookies (none of the grills contain meat, BTW. Only vegetables. Seems the food police visited the set during the shoot).

        It seems to me that this is a desperate attempt to appeal to Millennials, however, it’s backfiring. Ever since the acquisition, Gillette has at lost at least 30% of its market share. There has been some evidence lately that Millennials favor purpose-driven brands that impact their world in a positive way. So, perhaps, that message might have been the motivation for this ad.

        Gillette says that their motivation is to start a conversation about proper behavior – but, if that indeed is their intention, they are going about it in a very strange way. I don’t think that shouting accusations at their male customers and insulting them as brutes is an effective way to get them to listen. And I sure don’t need Gillette to facilitate a conversation about masculinity, or to deliver a sermon or a moral message.

        Thousands of Gillette customers have taken to social media to express their outrage regarding this ad and to announce that they are switching to Gillettes’ biggest competitor, The Dollar Shave Club, which consequently went to Twitter with a message, “Welcome to the Club.” In the first day after the ad was posted on YouTube, negative comments this ad outpolled “likes” by an incredible 10 to 1.

        I’m quite surprised by this epic failure because P&G had always managed to scale the treacherous terrain of credible purpose-driven advertising quite well: They did a great job with the award winning #LikeAGirl campaign for Always, which encourages girls to be confident in the face of the fear of failure. In 2017 I picked P&G’s “The Talk”, which intended to start a conversation about racial bias, as the best commercial of the year (the commercial won a Primetime Emmy as well.)

        Unfortunately, the Gillette campaign fails because it is self-serving and its embracing a social platform is pretentious."

        • Seriously? It's an ad, who gives a crap?

          • +6

            @Jonty766: Thanks for the article. I had a rewatch after reading it and I still don't see the fuss. To be honest it feels like a case of people choosing to be offended because they feel like others would be offended if it was flipped (eg the washing machine analogy). The fact the article said the single most offensive point of the ad was when men were standing in front of their barbecues kinda solidified my view that this is a non-issue.

            I just don't understand why everyone is so fragile that they still harbour anger over a relatively inoffensive ad from years ago, let alone even remember it existing - I know I had forgotten about it.

          • +4

            @Jonty766: Or to put that another way… if it doesn't bother you, why do you give a crap that it bothers someone else?

      • +4

        it seems like it's basically just saying be a better person

        The road to hell is paved with good intentions…

        • +3

          I don't really understand what you're getting at, or what impact you think this ad is going to have in the future which is going to negatively impact our lives at all

          • +2

            @snoopydoop: It already negatively impacted Gillete's revenue by $5B. Plenty has been written on the subject already, no need to repeat it all here

          • +1

            @snoopydoop: Imagine if there was an ad of some blokes in the red centre sniffing petrol and the ad said “is this the best aboriginals can do?” It smears an entire group and is offensive to reasonable people. Worse, it is insidious and damaging to children and fools.

            • @CommuterPolluter: That's a completely false comparison, and completely irrelevant from the actual ad itself. You've read and listened to too much media commentary on the ad rather than just look at the ad in isolation and think for yourself. I'd definitely recommend watching it again, and asking yourself why your feelings are so deeply hurt by it.

              You're comparing an ad that is saying "this certain side of masculinity could be better", and shows examples of men sexually assaulting others, bullying, and other shit behaviour towards other people, with a generational issue of a form of self-harm towards oneself.

              Now, if there were an ad which showed men who were self-harming themselves and said "is this the best men can do?", then I'd be up in arms along with you. Depression and self-harm amongst men is a serious and legitimate issue, and that would be something that would be worth fighting for, if such an issue were trivialized. That's a much more fair comparison to what you just mentioned.

              But this ad is literally just saying 'can we do better?', and overly sensitive people are completely offended by it, even years on. I'm a man and I don't feel one bit targeted by the ad. If I exhibited any of the behaviours in the ad, which I have before, I would be looking inwards and thinking about self-improvement. I'm sure most indigenous men, who belong to both groups, would tell you that an ad like the one you mentioned is MUCH more offensive, and harmful.

              If you think it's damaging to children to teach them not to bully, sexually assault, or be obnoxious, then I don't know what to say. These aren't facets of masculinity that I think are worth fighting for.
              I'd say that teaching them things like self-confidence, to talk about and work through their feelings, and other things would be much more important given the disproportionate amount mental illness affects men.

              I honestly don't know why all these fragile people are perturbed by such a tame advertisement.
              I know sometimes men's issues can be trivialized, and that's worth talking about, but this ad is a complete non-issue.

              We should be focusing our energy on real issues affecting men, and making life better for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.

              • +1

                @snoopydoop: Uh, this IS a real issue affecting men. Moreso in America yes. But the silliness is creeping in here too, and we're only ever a couple of steps behind them.

                I believe the person responsible was a woman, a (radical?) feminist, and while anything against EVERY OTHER GROUP is quickly apologised for today and the stance reversed by companies, in this one case, she basically arrogantly declared: "Get stuffed" and Gillette followed suit. If those two men were reversed, Gillette would have been grovelling for weeks on Twitter begging forgiveness, donating $$$ to black causes, etc.

                Men are growing weary of habitually being talked down to, told they're the cause of all the world's problems, all women's (perceived) problems. It's not 'fragility'… it's irritation and weariness constantly having to suffer fools and their idiotic stereotypes.

                You miss much of the ad entirely, in that there's not one or two, but an entire line of men, snidely implying it's EVERY man who bullies, blindly can't think for himself because they all act like drones, etc. And make no mistake, that was obviously her intent because they basically admitted it at the time. It was, after all, what the entire ad was about. Becoming "better". As if men are all broken and need fixing. It was just another chance for a fringe-dweller of the left to push her university indoctrination.

                Let's look at just one example from that ad… The (white) guy who notices and begins to follow an attractive women, is halted by a (black) man. There's a few things in this that (normal) people are sick and tired of seeing over and over again.

                First their respective colour was a dog whistle to BLM and CRT 'wokeism'. It implied black men are 'the woke ones' or 'more mature' of the species and so are the desired catch of all women, while white men are clumsy, sexist perves to be shunned.

                Now had the ad casting been REVERSED… Two women, one white, one black, then an attractive man walks by, and the white women starts off after the guy… would THAT be ok? Of course. In fact to say anything against such an ad would be sexist TOO. But that aside, most likely they would make a comedy out of it, have both women jostling other or woof-whistling the guy or something who would turn back and give a cheeky grin - but we'd certainly NOT see one women judging another, telling her to back off you're being a bit rapey girl, because that would be anathema for one women to interfere or dictate how another women should live/behave.

                So if the second ad wouldn't be ok, then neither is the first.

                Also, that's just how some people meet! The black guy had zero idea what was going through the white guys' head… but the ad leads everyone into ASSUMING he's 'rapey'.

                So first, why is the black guy stepping in to protect some strange women? At any other time we're being incessantly nagged that women "don't need a man to protect us", that opening doors for them is irritating, unwanted attention, etc. But suddenly that becomes ok because it's needed to rubbish the rapey white guy.

                Second, who made that pompous ass the judge of some random guy he doesn't even know!? The fact he assumes (along with everyone viewing it because of the way it's directed) that the guy is a bit rapey, is highly offensive. And the fact plenty of married women cheat with some drooling lounge lizard who approaches them and flashes a smile, proves plenty of women APPRECIATE that very kind of attention. So who gave the black guy the right to act like her surrogate 'big brother' protecting all the vulnerable women of the world (who aren't vulnerable so don't need men protecting them) and would probably scream blue murder if some random white guy prevented an attractive black guy from approaching her.

                Third, if some guy did that to me, regardless of my intent, he may well find himself on the sidewalk on his arse. What arrogance! And again, let's reverse those roles… imagine the outcry if the ad showed a white guy tsk, tsk'ing a black man thereby implying he was a bit rapey. In that case, the white guy would be interfering with the black guy's 'mojo' and how dare he.

                The people that haven't been noticing this insidious agenda haven't been paying attention. But you will once it affects you.

                • +1

                  @Faulty P xel: Look, I think there's no way we're going to see eye to eye on this - you're clearly very offended by this ad, and I don't see any issues with it. I don't really care if you are emotional enough about this ad to not buy Gillette, it doesn't make a difference to me.
                  Personally, I'm not seeing the issues you see with it. There's an element of the "you would be offended if this ad existed where the roles were reversed so I have to be offended by this ad" style of logic which I just don't personally relate to, but I understand why people feel that style of victimhood.

                  I totally get where you're coming from with the "growing weary" thing, because a lot of stuff online is quite aggressive in regards to men needing to work on themselves, and it's easy to feel defensive. I feel that way too sometimes, and it makes it easy to solidify yourself into a black/white view of things. When I put that defensiveness aside though, I do believe there are ways society expectations and "typical" parenting/schooling leads to some elements of masculinity negatively impacting society. And no, not ALL men, and not all aspects of masculinity. But in our society, men and women are raised and treated differently, and I think it's always good to think about ways in which things can be improved or could be better. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about - especially growing up at school and everything. There's definitely stuff that I've been conditioned to as a man that I see as negative parts of my life, and I don't think it's a bad thing to break that down and work on it.
                  But I understand where you're coming from with the defensiveness, it's normal, and I know that it's at the root of you feeling passionately about this ad.

                  I know you probably don't see eye to eye on what I just said, and that's okay. I'm not personally offended by the ad, I think there are bigger issues in the world, even bigger men's issues. It's okay that it's something that you feel strongly about.

                  • +1

                    @snoopydoop: Yeah but it's always the men "needing to work on themselves". Yet stats show just as women demonstrate the same appalling behaviours as men. That is, it's not peculiar to one sex. e.g. Domestic violence stats show just as many women are violent toward men as vice versa, and the same is seen in lesbian relationships too. Yet all the world's ills are blamed on men. So where are the ads talking down to women, or even just talking across to them: showing they "need to work on themselves". There are none.

                    When or if there were any, it will be portrayed as comedy, not a "serious deep insight that needs repair".

                    e.g. I remember several years ago now, Vodafone had a campaign with an advert where the women was punching her boyfriend in the head. But that was ok because she had a big smile. (It wasn't a friendly type of shoulder-punch, she was punching down on his skull.) Now imagine that reversed… a man, smiling, while punching his girlfriend's skull. Suddenly it can't even be argued as funny.

                    And THAT is why it's a bad thing. Two groups, equally behaving bad (and not all of them, and only at times), but only one group is constantly being chided and supposed 'educated' about it - usually by someone of a particular 'bent' too: "left".

                    They want division. They want women fighting men, men hating women, blacks blaming whites, etc. And there's the distilled essence of it all: It's not about 'being better', it's about being told nothing about you is good - division - when no-one is any 'better'.

                    • +1

                      @Faulty P xel: I think that's where our disagreement arises from, I see these as two separate issues. I don't think of it as "well they don't get told to work on themselves, that's unfair!", and use that as an excuse not to work on systemic issues that are affecting me, and a group that I belong to.

                      For sure there are issues that need to be worked through by other groups, but I'm not apart of those groups, and that's a separate discussion, that can also simultaneously be brought up in another situation. There are also times where men are hard done by. That's not often acknowledged, because disproportionately there are a lot of issues faced by other groups. But it doesn't negate our own struggles.

                      To me, bringing up issues to do with other groups when criticisms are being launched against a group I'm a part of seems like it stems from a bit of defensiveness. Yes, the ways in which men can improve get discussed more in this curren climate, but I don't really see that as a reason to take offense to them being brought up. But I understand why people get defensive, I do too sometimes.

                      I don't know the ad you're talking about, but in the way you describe it, it sounds like that's an ad that I would take issue with. It doesn't really make me decide to start being offended by other ads, just because the rest of the population didn't take issue with that ad. Maybe they should have taken issue with it - and that to me would be a worthy discussion point - but a separate issue at that.

                      When you talk about division, I totally agree. Often these issues are brought up in a way that is never designed to actually convince someone of the issue. It's designed to be brought up for the person to "feel right". And that's not limited to one side or one group, that's human nature. I do it, you do it, we're all guilty of it. The internet is currently set up to exacerbate this. And it often makes people feel more solidified in their views, even when that's unnecessary. I don't necessarily think that this ad itself is set out to do this, or to "hate on men", I think it's just the climate surrounding it that has made people feel that way.

                      I honestly think often times in these types of discussions there's a lot more common ground than we think - as they're not black and white issues, and we don't necessarily need to "pick a team". As you said, "two groups, equally behaving bad", is an element of common ground. While personally, I don't see it as "equally", but we can both identify negative elements of both masculinity, and femininity.

                      But in a discussion about masculinity, and areas in which it could be improved in some circumstances, I don't think it's necessarily productive to point out that one is brought up more than the other, and use that as an excuse not to look at the worse elements.

                      The only thing that achieves is for no one to end up working on themselves. I think acknowledging the issues with masculinity, thinking about which elements you agree with, which you don't, and then moving on - then separately thinking about and addressing elements about other groups (in a productive way that's designed for positive change), would be the way I'd love to see it approached.

                      I think often issues with femininity are brought up as a defensive to criticisms about masculinity, and that's what's made it evolve into this issue that feels like it "can't be brought up". That's wrong, but it also doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about and work on issues with elements of masculinity, and better ourselves for it.

                      End of the day, we're talking about an ad here that has little motive around changing things, their marketing division thought it would just help sell razors. Beyond the motive of just trying to sell a product, I personally think the base points it's trying to make are valid, although they could definitely be more nuanced, but what nuance can you expect from a 30 second TV bit. I don't personally think a lack of nuance in the context of a relatively cheesy ad is a reason to boycott, but it doesn't affect me if others do. I am definitely surprised that it's still being brought up years later though.

                      I do agree with you that the way it turned out though, the end result has just been division, and hasn't produced any positive outcomes in regards to the issue itself. I don't necessarily think the ad itself was set up to purposefully attempt to do that though, I think they were just trying to score kudos points, sell razors, and probably weren't expecting as much backlash as they received.

              • @snoopydoop: I now see that the reason why you don’t recognise the problem with the ad is that you share the same narrow-mindedness and bigotry as the creators of the ad themselves.

                You correctly identified the problem of substance abuse as a “generational” problem not a problem inherent in being indigenous. However, you struggle to make the same connection when considering negative behaviours exhibited by men. Let me put it simply for you: abuse is not a masculine trait.

                You are a sexist and misandrist if you seriously believe that abuse is a “male” trait. I’m all for anti-bullying and anti-abuse, but telling young children that they are inherently bullies and abusive because of their sex is sick and it’s wrong.

                You also lean heavily the distinction between self-harm in my analogy and abuse towards others in the advertisement. You can just as well substitute any number of the types of abuse which happens in those communities for substance abuse. The point is that you can’t just malign a whole group of people based on the actions of SOME people and claim it’s somehow inherent to their class. You can clearly see this in the case of race. Why not in the case of sex?

                I have watched the ad and read scant analysis of it. Please ask questions before make assertions.

                • +2

                  @CommuterPolluter: For the record, I do believe that negative behaviours exhibited by men is a generational issue too, but that doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.

                  In regards to me believing that abuse is a "male trait", not exactly. I don't believe that abuse can only be exhibited by a male, and I don't believe that it needs to be an inherent part of masculinity. But I do believe that there are elements in the way we as men grow up in this country which makes us feel like certain levels of abuse or bad behaviour is okay or even desirable. I experienced that growing up for sure. It doesn't define masculinity for me, and nor do I want it to.
                  Masculinity can be a fantastic thing, but there's a lot to break down and work on too. I'm certainly not offended by anyone pointing that out.

                  I don't think anyone is suggesting to drill into kids that they are inherently bullies and abusive, nor would that be good parenting. In the case of this ad, it suggests breaking up kids fighting, and not encouraging that sort of behaviour.
                  I think it's just about being anti-bullying and anti-abuse and fostering that in the next generation - that's something we both agree on. That's what I see the ad as trying to say too. Just "can we do better?". I think that's something we can all strive for and not be offended by. Even in the ad itself, it says "some are already doing it", it literally specifies not all men.

                  Maybe we won't see eye to eye on our interpretations of the ad but I'm happy you mentioned you're all for anti-bullying and anti-abuse. Whether or not we agree on this particular corporation's advertisement, I think that's where we'll find our even ground.

    • +12

      Right on brother. You'll upset some of the Melbourniun hipsters here no doubt. I have boycotted Gillette forever and none of my kids will ever buy a Gillette product for so long as they live under my roof.

      • -6

        I feel sorry for your kids

        • -5

          They won't be under his roof for long…

          • @Jolakot: That's why he feels sorry for them… he probably plans to remain under his parents' roof until he inherits it. ;-)

        • +3

          My father didn't know most of what I bought from when I got a job at 14. I guess this guy will be doing sweeps to make sure no one in the house has purchased any Gillette products. Or checking their payslips and getting receipts for all their purchases and if they can't explain where some of their money went, he'll know it was on Gillette products. They'll be out on their arse if he finds out.

          At 16 his son is on his way to meet his girlfriend. He realises he forgot to shave. His girlfriend hates stubble when they make out. He doesn't have time to go home. There are no supermarkets around, but he spots a service station. He hurries over and starts looking for the shavers. He breathes a sigh of relief as he spots them.

          His relief turns to panic when he realises they only have Gillette. It's a tiny shop and they don't have much variety. His father has forbidden him from buying Gillette. He looks around again, but as he already knows, there are no other shops around that would sell shavers.

          He hesitantly touches one of the packets. He knows his father would want him to boycott the whole store for only offering Gillette shavers, but he likes making out with his girlfriend and he wants her to enjoy it too. He picks up the packet and some shaving cream, also Gillette, and takes it to the counter, half expecting his father to jump out at any moment and bust him.

          He pays with cash. The girl behind the counter asks if he would like a receipt. "No!" he yells, she looks taken aback. "Thank you," he says quietly. He hurries to the men's room to shave. When he's done, he throws the evidence away. He runs his hand over his face where he just shaved and notices how smooth it is compared to when he uses the shavers his father found on Ozbargain. A solitary tear rolls down his face, but that's all he allows. He looks at the time and realises he has to leave now to make it on time to meet his girlfriend.

          The date goes well and his girlfriend compliments him on how smooth his face feels. They go back to her place, her parents are out. Their make out session lasts a little longer than usual. Then she whispers in his ear, "I think I'm ready."

          Afterwards, when he's walking home, or floating more accurately, he feels his smooth face again and wonders if it contributed to him getting lucky tonight. He walks through the door, he sees his father, who looks furious. "Johnny saw you!" his father shouts, "buying Gillette!" "It was all they had," he stammers. "Get out! I don't want to hear it! You've bought Gillette products, so you can't live under my roof!" his father yells. He walks out the front door, realising he is now homeless due to buying Gillette products because they were the only ones available.

          • @Miss B:

            At 16 his son is on his way to meet his girlfriend. He realises he forgot to shave. His girlfriend hates stubble when they make out.

            He doesn't get to make out… the black guy prevents him greeting his girlfriend when he sees her and smiles - like in this ad. :-D

            • @Faulty P xel: No offense intended but based on what I've read in this thread, you seem a little hung up on black people. How do you know lemmstar isn't black?

              • +1

                @andresampras: It's the advert that set the colours not me. And it's BLM and CRT nonsense setting the attitudes about the rest (always negative toward only one).

          • +2

            @Miss B: Creative writing task: 9/10

            Looks like you ran out of steam towards the end. The last sentence lets go of the well-earned connection with the reader a little. Very well written otherwise.
            - your year 10 teacher

      • +2

        Classic snowflake reaction.

    • +2

      No idea what you're on about, but it sounds like you should watch less TV or stick to the ABC if you're so easily scarred by advertising.

    • +8

      Right on, will never forget their attempt at wokeness whilst at the same time alienating their entire customer base. I bet their sales tanked after that ad

      • +5

        "Gary Coombe called the loss of revenue from those customers a 'price worth paying' in a Monday interview with Marketing Week. Procter & Gamble, the parent company of Gillette, announced Tuesday they had taken over $5 billion in losses for the quarter, after Gillette had an $8 billion noncash writedown after its market share for razors fell over the last three years."

        Quite an achievement. The article later states he's proud of the ad nevertheless and it only offended 'a minority' of people. LOL… I think I might steal his car, or even his wife. (If he considers $5 billion 'minor', he won't bother reporting either as they're worth much less.) ;-D

    • +3

      What did they do, I forget? I'm ok with pro-female stuff to be helpful and equal, but I find anti-male, in the name of pro-female stupid, but common.

      • +3

        They made an ad saying there are certain elements of masculinity which we can do better at, (eg. bullying, sexual assault, obnoxious behaviour etc) - and many people have chosen to be offended by it to prove a point because they decided to interpret it as saying "all men suck", even though they know deep down that wasn't the point of the ad.

        That's my take on it anyway, as you can see you'll get a few differing viewpoints, but personally not sure why all these people are so up in arms over it years later. Buy Gillette or don't buy Gillette, I don't think anyone except for those offended really care.

        Here's an article that's relatively balanced in my opinion:

        Or if that's not balanced enough, here's a take from someone who's offended by it that was linked to me above:

        • +3

          Here's an article that's relatively balanced…

          An article… by the Guardian… balanced… LOL. You're funny… will you come to our next house party?

          • +2

            @Faulty P xel: That's why I said relatively balanced, as it's pretty much just summing up other people's quotes on both sides of the fence, with a small amount of editorial.

            I then also linked the opinion piece you sent me which goes against my bias as I was aware of the centre-left bias in the initial article.

            I think there's enough information between those two articles to make for someone to be informed in a balanced way.

        • I agree with you in that it isn't an offensive ad. I think it's the undertone that suggests men are inadequate and not being what they can be on a backdrop of anti male global sentiment that makes it difficult to take for some.

          The whole ad is focused on the male gender and inadequacies and doesn't really focus on women and their inadequacies. I think it is becoming the norm to tear down the male gender irrespective of how decent a human is.

          If Gillette really wanted to send a message it should've done so supporting women as opposed to tearing down men…this is where the ire is coming from in my opinion.

          Will this ad stop me from buying Gillette? No. I don't buy overpriced crap irrespective of their anti male sentiment/ toxic male opinions. Safety razors are so cheap to manufacturer and companies like Gillette are robbing people and making super normal profits. Double edge shaving is a godsend when you get good at it and can tackle a hefty beard without any trouble!

    • +5

      100%. That advertisement sucked and I won't buy from Gillette again.

      Go double edge and save yourself some money.

      • This is what I did. In fact I went to the shaver shop and dropped $110 on a professional titanium made one…… I wouldn't have purchased that many $ worth of disposable blades from Gillette my whole life time.

        • Could've bought a merkur clone on the cheap but each to their own

    • +3

      The same men who whine about being triggered and being cancelled were triggered by an ad and tried to cancel the firm in question?

      I wonder how many of these fragile creatures are here on OzB [wonka.gif]

      • +2

        Have a look above Mr beta.The jury clearly agrees with anti-gilette comments. Must hurt.

  • +14

    Handle for $5, and then razors only $15 each! :)

    Don't fall for their scams!

    • $40 should last you a year easily:

      Nowhere near as cheap as safety razors but not everyone can/wants to use those I suppose.

      • +3

        I used to buy good cheap safety razors from AliExpress for like $2 for 20.
        Nowadays, I just grow a beard and trim it with my Kmart electric shaver. Saves the effort, time, and less bloody cuts!

        • -2

          I thought about growing a beard… then I learned what a hipster was, but was still leaning that way… and next I saw what Jack Dorsey looked like and I was outta there like soy milk down the gullet of a toothy-grinned beanie-wearing selfie taker.

      • $4 each is a lot more than the 20c that safety blades costs - but more importantly they dont clog up!

      • +1

        the 3 blade disposables are the way to go. for $1 each you can get gillette and schick options that honestly make me wonder why i ever spent any money on more expensive lines. the only obvious difference is that they make it harder to rinse them out

        the gillette blues are the best, quite similar to mach 3 and they can be rinsed out decently

  • So can i get a pack with refills or is it just for a single handle and razor?

    • +2

      It would be the pack with 1 blade. The most expensive one is the fusion with the wierd ball. Its 13.99 woohoo. And yes then you need to buy Gillettes stupidly expensive blades

      • Buy them as grey imports on eBay.

        • Ha! Thought you were joking then. Are they literally pumped out of the same factory? If not I propbably wouldnt buy em.

        • +1

          Wouldn't recommend. The eBay ones I bought were noticibly shit, not a smooth shave at all.

  • So I can return a broken one of these (doesn't vibrate any more) and get a new one for $5?

    • +1

      You could just use any disposable razor, go to pick those cheap bulk packs and return each of them for a $5 razor if you wanted. Resell these.

      • +3

        I don't want to live in a world where people do this

        • +3

          Welcome to the stupidity that is 'recycling'. Where you spend 20 cents to recycle a 5 cent piece of plastic…

  • Meh, I use a dovo straight razor. The blades cost me about $2 a packet with 20 pieces. 1 box of razor blades last me a couple months

  • +2

    Am a bit confused. “Gillette or Venus Razor Handle” - are these just the handles with no razors?

    • +1

      Yes lol. Its not a great deal. Its like printer ink, soda streams or juicero - sell 'em cheap to get you hooked!

      • +1

        Then pay huge money for a product where every manufacturer has built in planned obsolescence

      • Ok thanks!

  • +2

    If only they went down this route in 2019 lol

  • +1

    I already threw out my Gillete razors a couple of years ago

    • -1

      Is that you jv?

  • +4

    wish they just accepted the used blades for recycling

    • Nice to know someone cares about recycling, why don't you join the Gillette Razor Recycling Program and become a Community Collection Hub too? I have posted the links below.

      • great! thank you for the links

  • It's so thrilling to get a bladeless razor handle for only $5.00 and an old razor

    BUT more exciting and rewarding is to recycle used razors and packaging to help Gillette save the environment.

    Gillette has created the 'Gillette Razor Recycling Program' - and we can do our bit to help Gillette (Proctor&Gamble) continue their important environmental program. Simply be listed as a Community Collection Hub, open to the public and encourage your friends, neighbours and complete strangers to recycle their used shaving gear and packaging at your private homes or place of business.Gillette are even donating for each blade AU$0.01 to the non-profit organisation or school of your choice.

    So let's help Proctor & Gamble and participate in this amazing community service opportunity - the best thing is you don't have to shave to be able to save the world

    Here are the links for all of us conscious aware consumers who want to help Proctor & Gamble spread positive messages of change

  • Wow…Good on you Gillette. Paying for the recycling of other razors.

  • Good on Gillette for having a recycle program, though you do seem to pay for it…

    Switched to a safety razor, never looked back. Blades are 100% recycled, and with a nice brush and shaving cream the experience is excellent.

    Recently upgraded to a kit. While I need something a little more aggressive (thick facial hair) it was excellent with a few passes. Only had 1 cut, and no bumps or burn afterwards. Would like to see it having a little more weight, but in the end I won't complain, the results speak for themselves.

  • +4

    No thanks Gillette your overprices shit razors mixed with you're woke rubbish has lost me as a customer - good luck to anyone who sticks with them but ill just add this….This deal is a bait and switch - they give you a handle so you have pay 10x the reasonable cost of the razors.

    There a other cheaper 100% recycled razors out there literally just google recycled razors - if you care about the environment stay away from big American and Chinese companies they will virtue signal but they are the TWO BIGGEST polluters on the planet by a mile! - no other country close to either of them.

  • +2

    Cancel Culture alive and kicking.

  • +1

    Anybody in here recycle their safety razors? Have a few boxes not sure how to dispose of the blades.

    • I put back into the plastic holder they come in and then throw them in the normal rubbish. I think the only options for recycling would be to blunt the blades and corners so they can be put in the bin safetly, or put them in a box of the same material then in the recycling.

  • +5

    This post is way more entertaining than I would ever think.

  • Then you're locked in to Gilette's ridiculously overpriced blade refills.
    I switched to the Aldi brand Prince and they give me just as good a shave as the Mach 3 I was using before.
    Although I've since grown a Covid beard and just give it a trim with the trimmer every now and then, sure beats shaving every day.

    • I tend to disagree on this, I have tried the Aldi brand razor and hated it each time. I use Gillette fusion blades which last me 3 months at least, Aldi one was so bad that I hated it within a week.

  • this isn't the indifferent, cheap as possible Ozbargain I know

    • +1

      haha i was just about to say something similar. It's not often you get such strong anti-purchasing sentiment on this site, particularly when the objection has nothing to do with the product itself.

      I mean I understand a bad ad leaving a bad taste in the mouth and an aversion to a brand, but swearing off the brand for life and banning your kids too…at the end of the day it's the direction the marketing team took that people have an issue with. The marketing team's intention with an ad is to boost sales either directly or indirectly. In this case they took a Gamble (pun intended) that has left them needing a Procterologist (lol). So the marketing team had a shocker - they did a bad job. The company has obviously learned something from it and will be more careful in future.

      Flip the tables, if a company makes a great ad that makes you feel good - would you swear to buy from them forever and force your kids to as well? Of course not.

  • Has anyone got the deal at CW? I tried two and they said they are not participating.

    • That's poor form as at the bottom of the page it says;

      Offer available at all Chemist Warehouse Stores (excludes New Zealand) between 27/05/2021 - 23/06/2021. Any branded Razor/Disposable can be returned in store for any single Gillette or Venus Razor. Subject to store availability.

      • Yeah, agreed. The promo is not on their website or advertised in store so they are just being hard. I will try another store tomorrow and see if it’s works. Will be a great deal if it does as my power razor has stopped working and almost like 6 years old.

  • Does anyone know if they'd accept a handle without the blade? Picked up some clearance fusion blades the other day and only have a couple of assorted Schick handles

  • Could use another handle, now to find the cheapest old disposable one

  • +1

    Bit of an underwhelming offer, but better than the handles going into landfill.

    The sooking about Gillette is fairly petty though

  • Does this mean you can get the Gillette Mach 3+ Razor 2 Up for example for $5 instead of $8.39 (RRP $11.99)? Comes with two cartridges.

  • +1

    bought this for $5 (supposed to be $19.49) after giving them my old razor wowee

    • Looks pretty fancy, haha

      Available via Click & Collect and in-store
      only. Select a store for availability below.

    • Same
      Funny how they've moved most of the expensive ones to a separate display, but you can still find em

    • Thought I grabbed that one too (same price) but turns out it's the electric one with only one blade.
      Good for a 5er anyway :)

  • Finally was able to score one for $5. The Fusion range is not eligible for the $5 promotion but Mach3 range is, so I picked up one of this for $5. FWIW I replaced Aldi handle (without the blade).

    Thanks OP!

    • I was able to get 2 x Fusion Power at 2 different Chemist Warehouse stores (had 2 faulty power handles that didn't vibrate).

Login or Join to leave a comment