It costs more to be a woman. A price tag of $1,400 a year thanks to gender pricing or the so-called “pink tax.”
The “pink tax” is not really a tax, but an up-charge on products from brands to lure in their female customers to cough up more money on items that are identical to the ones they offer men. If there’s pink on it, you better expect the price to cost significantly more.
From bicycles for boys and girls, a pair of jeans for men and women, and even everyday basic essential items such as razors, body washes, and shampoo – there is a glaring price disparity based on one’s gender. And it’s a tax a woman pays from infancy until death.
According to the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, the “pink tax” impacts women and girls of all ages. In their study “From the Cradle to the Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer,” the agency analyzed nearly 800 products in 24 different stores across five industries and found that women are paying on average 7% more than men on the same products. For instance, girls’ toys and accessories cost 7% more than items targeting boys. Women adult clothing cost 8% more than clothing for men. The most flagrant price violations came from women’s personal care products which cost a whopping 13% more. This life-long shadow of gender pricing even extends to the elderly; senior home healthcare products for women cost 8% more than the items catered to men.
Perhaps we have seen these price marks before at the local convenience stores and shopping malls. And perhaps we’ve been conditioned to think this is all very normal. But this sense of normalcy comes with a hefty price that accumulates by the year. By the time a woman reaches 30-years old, she’s paid $40,530 in “pink tax.” Just to spell it out, as we’re digesting the reality that women are earning less, they’re also paying more.
So, let’s start with the obvious question. Why do products cost more for women than for men? Is it worth it to shell out a couple of bucks to buy the gendered-specific products? Industry experts say no. Advertisers are well aware of a commonly used marketing mantra called “shrink it and pink it,” a strategy retailers use to appeal to women by feminizing an existing male product by typically making them smaller and splashing the color pink. Sneaker brands are notorious for using this gimmick in designing footwear for women. As lawmakers point out pink kids’ sneakers are priced 62% higher than the same sneakers in black. But under the glitter and sparkle coating, can the function of the kids’ shoes really be all that different? The price hike is simply for the oh-so-pretty color. In most cases, there is no advantage to buying the women or the girls’ version.
What can we do about this blatant discrimination against women? I suppose we can stop liking pink. It’s possible the best way to avoid the “pink tax” is to simply start buying the products marketed to men. But the truth is the color isn’t the problem, it’s the system. Companies are abusing the idea that female shoppers are willing to pay more than their male counterparts. Some politicians are sounding off and saying it’s an issue of price gouging.
Congresswoman Jackie Speier says the answer is federal regulation which is why she introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act in 2016. To make pricing fair for women, under this legislation companies will be prohibited from charging different prices on similar products simply based on gender. Unsurprisingly, this proposal hasn’t garnered much support. After failing to pass, Speier presented the bill again in 2018. But perhaps with a record-breaking number of women in Congress, this will be the year to see the law come to fruition.
Perhaps we have seen these price marks before at the local convenience stores and shopping malls. And perhaps we’ve been conditioned to think this is all very normal. But this sense of normalcy comes with a hefty price that accumulates by the year. By the time a woman reaches 30-years old, she’s paid $40,530 in “pink tax.” Just to spell it out, as we’re digesting the reality that women are earning less, they’re also paying more.
So, let’s start with the obvious question. Why do products cost more for women than for men? Is it worth it to shell out a couple of bucks to buy the gendered-specific products? Industry experts say no. Advertisers are well aware of a commonly used marketing mantra called “shrink it and pink it,” a strategy retailers use to appeal to women by feminizing an existing male product by typically making them smaller and splashing the color pink. Sneaker brands are notorious for using this gimmick in designing footwear for women. As lawmakers point out pink kids’ sneakers are priced 62% higher than the same sneakers in black. But under the glitter and sparkle coating, can the function of the kids’ shoes really be all that different? The price hike is simply for the oh-so-pretty color. In most cases, there is no advantage to buying the women or the girls’ version.
What can we do about this blatant discrimination against women? I suppose we can stop liking pink. It’s possible the best way to avoid the “pink tax” is to simply start buying the products marketed to men. But the truth is the color isn’t the problem, it’s the system. Companies are abusing the idea that female shoppers are willing to pay more than their male counterparts. Some politicians are sounding off and saying it’s an issue of price gouging.
Congresswoman Jackie Speier says the answer is federal regulation which is why she introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act in 2016. To make pricing fair for women, under this legislation companies will be prohibited from charging different prices on similar products simply based on gender. Unsurprisingly, this proposal hasn’t garnered much support. After failing to pass, Speier presented the bill again in 2018. But perhaps with a record-breaking number of women in Congress, this will be the year to see the law come to fruition.
It’s important to note passing the bill alone is not the solution. Because history isn’t exactly encouraging on that score. In 1995, California became the first state to ban gender-based price differences for services like haircuts and dry cleaning. New York State passed a similar law in 1998 requiring business owners to explain price differences that appear to be based on gender. In both states, however, the businesses’ compliance with the law has been spotty at best. In 2015, New York DCA inspectors issued 129 violations for gender pricing of services. Many of those barber shops and salons said they weren’t even aware that the gender pricing law was in effect. Not to mention the undercover reports that revealed gender price discrimination when a male producer and his female colleague requested the same service on nearly identical button-down shirts. The female producer was charged at least twice as much in more than half the venues visited. Sure, these shops aren’t listing gender on their price-lists, but they’re not enforcing gender-neutral rates either.
Clearly, there needs to be outrage. Place the responsibility on the manufacturers themselves. The “his” and “hers” versions of the same products obviously stem from a retailer’s bias in gender stereotyping. Charging women simply for being a woman for everyday purchases makes no sense. Quite frankly, we need to see more retailers put their money where their mouth is. We need to put pressure on retail giants like Walmart and Amazon to not only take a public stand against gender price discrimination but actively level the playing field for its female customers by negotiating the price discrepancies between the male and female versions of products or not restocking the item at all.
So, the next time you see extra costs for women’s products tacked on – whether it be a pair of shoes dosed in that pretty pink color, a high-performance bicycle fit especially for women, or a price-hike at the cleaners because the shirts don’t fit the standard press – ask yourself, rather than building on the standard for men and paying a fee, why not create a new one?
Clearly, there needs to be outrage. Place the responsibility on the manufacturers themselves. The “his” and “hers” versions of the same products obviously stem from a retailer’s bias in gender stereotyping. Charging women simply for being a woman for everyday purchases makes no sense. Quite frankly, we need to see more retailers put their money where their mouth is. We need to put pressure on retail giants like Walmart and Amazon to not only take a public stand against gender price discrimination but actively level the playing field for its female customers by negotiating the price discrepancies between the male and female versions of products or not restocking the item at all.
So, the next time you see extra costs for women’s products tacked on – whether it be a pair of shoes dosed in that pretty pink color, a high-performance bicycle fit especially for women, or a price-hike at the cleaners because the shirts don’t fit the standard press – ask yourself, rather than building on the standard for men and paying a fee, why not create a new one?
RSS Feed