Why the Pink Tax Deals Women the Short End of the Stick
(COVER PHOTO) Credit: Isabella Disley (designed on Canva) Have you ever noticed that feminine products and services are more expensive than their male counterparts? That is because of a phenomenon known as the pink tax. From hygiene products to getting a haircut, women find themselves paying more money for goods and services, simply because they’re categorized as feminine. In order to better understand just why this phenomenon exists, I enlisted the help of two people, Isabelle Salle, a Canada Research Chair in Macroeconomics and a Full Professor at the University of Ottawa, and Siobhan Rollo, a 22 year old woman from Ottawa who has been dealing with the pink tax her whole life, to help me uncover the truth. “The pink tax is not literally a tax like the GST or an import tax; it is rather a sex-based price discrimination: it is the extra amount women often pay for products or services that are marketed specifically to them when those items are functionally identical to those marketed to men,” said Salle. To Rollo, she felt similarly about the pink tax, “It’s the phenomenon where products that are marketed towards women specifically are often priced higher than products of the same nature and quality that are marketed towards men.” But why are the prices different? Rollo identified that stereotypes are the root cause of the pink tax’s existence. “I think that the pink tax exists because of old stereotypes that come from the idea that since women care more for their appearance, they’ll pay more for products meant for women. I think it also comes from the statistic that since women are bigger consumers than men, companies take advantage of marketing specifically towards women to make their products appeal more,” said Rollo. Salle explained that it could partially be explained due to the way companies’ market and advertise their products. When shopping for these products, it is easy to identify the target gender due to the packaging. “Often the justification is a slightly different design or packaging, or even extra ingredients such as scent, included for women and not for men. For companies, the pink tax is mostly, in fact, a profitable marketing strategy that also exploits the higher willingness of women to pay for these products. Women are, on average, more willing to spend more for a more aesthetically appealing version of a product than men,” said Salle. Salle added that ‘sex-based differentiation’ and ‘behavioural biases’ are strategies that play a role in the pink tax. “Sex-based differentiation may lead to higher sales if items that could be sex-generic are marketed towards a specific sex and therefore end up purchased differently by each sex. Sex-based differentiation creates artificial segmentation in markets where companies can then charge different prices. One segment is then priced at a premium, the women’s segment in this case. These products are typically demand-driven: companies also respond to consumers’ willingness-to-pay,” said Salle. In addition to hygiene products, Salle listed clothes, dry cleaning, and children’s items mainly being affected by the pink tax, where “the premium can be routinely as high as 30%.” In most cases, feminine products have more colouring on the outer packaging. For instance, feminine products are pink, while male products are blue. Additionally, products such as shampoo that are advertised for men have it written on the packaging. To see just how bad the pink tax is, I went to see what was sitting on the shelves of stores like Shoppers Drug Mart, such as hygiene products including shampoo, razors and shaving cream. The first example is shampoo. In the image, the Aveeno shampoo retails for $14.99, while the Dove shampoo marketed specifically towards men is $8.65 but is on sale for $4.99. This adds up to a price difference between the two products of $10, and even if the Dove shampoo were not on sale, it would still be cheaper than the Aveeno counterpart. Photo credit: Isabella Disley Another example would be shaving products such as razors and shaving cream/foam. The Gillette Venus razor ($26.99) costs over double the price of the Bic ($10.99). The packaging of the Gillette Venus razor, which is advertised towards women, has a variety of colours, while Bic’s which is advertised for men as seen on the price tag, has more neutral colours. Photo credit: Isabella Disley In this instance, other than the $2.21 price difference between EOS ($7.90) and Gillette ($5.69) products, the actual name of the product is a different term too. The EOS product has the words ‘shaving cream,’ while Gillette has ‘shaving foam.’ In this case, there is also the stereotypical gender discrepancy on the packaging that was found on the last two previous examples. Photo credit: Isabella Disley So how can consumers avoid the pink tax? Both Rollo and Salle found a solution by switching to men’s products. “The pink tax used to affect me in the form of hair removal. Women’s razors really suck, and as someone with an Italian background, I used to go through women’s razors twice as fast as my friends. When I started using men’s razors, that issue improved,” said Rollo. When Salle was younger, she became aware of the pink tax while shopping for beauty products with her mother. “I systematically buy the men’s products when available and functionally similar. I also thrive to focus on functionality and quality rather than the aesthetic of the packaging,” said Salle. The best thing to do to avoid the pink tax is to have a keen eye for comparing the products’ brands, prices and packaging. Consumers should do their own research to educate and further gain knowledge on the products that they are buying/using, especially those who may be vulnerable to marketing strategies. “At the end of the day, if women stop falling for these tricks, companies will adjust and limit the pink tax. Therefore, public education on the issue is crucial. Social media campaigns to raise awareness may also help and push companies to decrease the pink