‘Pink Tax’ is a stink tax
Women not only earn less than men on average - they also pay more for the same products and services.
A few years ago, BiC launched a new range of pens specifically designed for women, liberating the fairer sex from decades of brutish male stationery. The ‘‘for her’’ range came in any colour a gal could want – as long as that’s pink or purple, of course. If an alien anthropologist visited our planet, it would no doubt find our custom of colour-coding our possessions based on the bits and pieces between our legs incredibly bizarre. Weird and pointless traditions are often harmless, but not this one. The unisex items that happen to be painted pink or marketed to girls and women cost more than the male equivalents – the so-called ‘‘pink tax’’.
The gap averages about 7 per cent, according to a recent US study comparing nearly 800 ‘‘male’’ and ‘‘female’’ products. This isn’t about ladies buying nicer stuff, because the products were practically identical in every other way. The biggest gap was in haircare, with women paying 48 percent more for shampoo, conditioner and gel, while razor cartridges cost 11 percent more.
While there’s a lot of focus on the gender pay gap, the gender price gap slips under the radar. It’s a cruel double whammy – not only do women earn about 12 per cent less than men, on average, but they also pay 7 per cent more for the same items.
This is not an entirely onesided issue. There are some situations where men have to pay more for the same service, like entry to nightclubs, or insuring a car. In the latter case, it’s arguably fair – insurers have a special exemption to discriminate on the base of age and gender, as long as it’s based on actual crash data.
There’s nothing fair about the ‘‘pink tax’’, but no-one’s suggesting it’s some sort of insidious women-hating conspiracy, either. Markets are efficient, and no company is going to leave money on the table if it could offer a competing product at a better price. Instead, the most popular theory seems to be based around the fact that men’s products are almost unisex by default. A woman can use men’s razors or wear a man’s shirt or deodorant, but the reverse is not often true. That means the ‘‘pink’’ version becomes more of a specialty product, with more marketing spend. It also sells fewer units than the ‘‘default’’, which means the fixed cost per unit is higher. As usual, the market delivers exactly what we ask for. The strongest way to send a clear signal that the premium on pink is not OK is by hitting companies right in the pocket. That means buying products that are ostensibly for men, or that are genderneutral.
If I was a woman, I’d still be pretty annoyed at having to head over to the men’s aisle just so I didn’t get ripped off on basic items. That means more direct action is required.
If anyone of any gender notices an example of split pricing for the exact same product, please point it out. Social media is a useful tool for naming and shaming companies who do this sort of thing.
Even after BiC’s pink pen faux pas, it went ahead and released a special pink lighter for ladies, with a photo of a lovely scented candle to make sure no delicate blossom accidentally used it to fire up a barbecue or something.
Here’s the difference: This time, the company listened to the criticism it received, and pulled the product. Change is possible. Let’s try and wipe out the pink tax altogether, as well all the stupid and nonsensical customs that led it to arise in the first place. Got a money question? Email Budget Buster at richard.meadows@thedeepdish.org, or hit him up on Twitter : @MeadowsRichard.