How the “Pink Tax” is driving up the prices of feminine hygiene products

Article: The “Pink Tax” and gender-specific price differences in personal care products. Image credit: Firn / Shutterstock

The pink tax means that women pay more for the products offered to them, often due to branding rather than production costs.

An article in the magazine encyclopedia describes how price differences in personal care products and services for women affect their purchasing power.

background

The pink tax refers to higher selling prices for products and services marketed primarily to women than for similar or identical products aimed at men. This type of gender-based pricing can be observed in various industries.

Some basic products used by both sexes, such as razors, shampoo and deodorant, are mostly subject to the pink tax. Existing evidence suggests that these personal care products are 7% more expensive for women than for men. This pricing strategy is often justified by differentiated marketing rather than differences in production costs.

Companies have conveniently maximized profits from a portion of their customers without publicly acknowledging this discrimination. Packaging and marketing strategies by companies such as Unilever have contributed significantly to the persistence of gender price differences. This pricing strategy is often justified by differentiated marketing rather than differences in production costs.

In this study, researchers examined the extent to which multinational companies influence gender pricing and how these differences can be mitigated through appropriate policies. In particular, they examined various marketing strategies and product design decisions made by the company Unilever that contribute to the persistence of the pink tax in the personal care industry. Unilever was used as a case study to provide concrete examples that reflect broader trends rather than singling out the company alone.

Types of Pink Tax

One of the most common forms of pink tax is gender pricing, where products for women are sold at higher prices than products for men. This price increase is not primarily related to the actual cost of production, but to the perceived value or brand of the product.

Another form of the pink tax is differentiated packaging and branding. This is where companies market products for men and women differently by changing packaging, color, or branding. Products for women are often marketed at higher prices even though they are practically the same. The perceived added value of this specialized branding is used to justify the higher costs.

A common form of the pink tax is discrimination in services. Although women receive the same services, they pay more than men. This inequality is evident in a range of services, including haircuts, dry cleaning and car repair. This discrimination is based on the assumption that women are less willing to negotiate or challenge inflated prices.

Another major form of pink tax is luxury and niche marketing, where products or services that meet women’s needs or desires are offered at a higher price. The basic assumption is that women are willing to pay more for certain products or experiences, especially in the luxury segment. This type of discrimination can be seen in high-end fashion products, wellness retreats, and high-end skincare or beauty products.

Another, more structural form of the pink tax is differential taxation, which places higher taxes on certain essential products for women, including menstrual products. Differential taxation has gradually become controversial, and calls are being made for a fairer tax policy that recognises the essential nature of these products for women.

Economic aspects of the Pink Tax

The economics of the pink tax are difficult to compare because companies like Unilever do not price similar products differently for men and women. Instead, these companies can sell nearly identical products that are marketed differently for men and women due to gender socialization. These strategies allow companies to charge different prices to different parts of society.

Unfortunately, society has accepted these price differences with the argument that there are no restrictions on women buying men’s products and that they can prefer cheap men’s products to overpriced women’s products.

For women, however, the pink tax often represents an additional financial burden because they feel pressure to conform to societal standards that have been instilled in them since birth.

Existing evidence suggests that the pink tax is not strictly necessary, but rather a strategy commonly used by companies like Unilever to remain profitable. Unilever’s feminine hygiene products have been extensively studied. The company conducted a “hyacinth project” to collect information about menstrual habits from anonymous consumers. This information helped the company lay the foundation for absorbent materials used in today’s feminine hygiene products. However, these practices reflect broader industry strategies rather than unique actions by Unilever.

However, Unilever’s marketing strategy to sell products to women was met with controversy. The company promoted the menstrual cycle as a “7-day war” that their product would “defeat”. This was done to make the advertisement acceptable to the public. This terminology was typical of the time and shows how historical marketing often reinforced gender stereotypes.

Influence of social media

Social media plays a crucial role in shaping current trends. Influencers share their personal opinions to increase their social media following. This sometimes reinforces the female gender stereotype and consumerism in marketing new “must-have” products.

Pink is perceived as a feminine color and is therefore used in many women’s products to reinforce the impression among women that using these products strengthens their femininity in society.

Many new hygiene products have entered the market through social media platforms, promoted as “organic,” “safer,” and “natural.” However, these products are 47% more expensive than non-organic alternatives.

Celebrities also use social media to promote organic and healthier alternatives that are often far too expensive and unaffordable for ordinary people. The study finds that while social media amplifies these trends, it also provides a platform to raise awareness and fight discriminatory practices. Another harmful side effect is that social media can promote either false or extreme views or opinions that are labeled and marketed as “facts,” thereby tricking people into buying and spending more than is necessary.

Significance of the study

The study highlights the need for fair pricing mechanisms and informed consumer representation to mitigate the economic inequalities caused by the pink tax. By looking at these issues from a broader perspective, the study argues for more responsible marketing practices that avoid exploiting gender stereotypes.