Representative image.
Credit: iStock.
A Nivea lip balm of the same quantity and size ends up being a Rs 250 purchase for a woman while a man pays only Rs 165. An H&M plain white cotton t-shirt costs Rs 599 for a woman while a man pays only Rs 399. These are some of the discrepancies that were thrown up by a recent viral video on Pink Tax uploaded by Dr Sanjay Arora. The advertising professional was made aware of this concept by his daughter and decided to garner more traction on this topic.
What is pink tax?
Pink Tax is gender-based pricing where products marketed specifically towards women tend to cost more than similar products that are sold to men. Dr Arora’s video seemed to resonate with the women of India. Even Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, the executive chairperson of Biocon, has been prey to the same. She took to X (formerly Twitter) using Dr Arora’s video to slam the Pink Tax as a “shameful gender bias”.
She even encouraged women to boycott products that the tax is applied to. Coined in 1994, the term ‘Pink Tax’ has been an issue that women have been facing for a
very long time. However, because of its subtlety, there are still numerous women who are unaware of the extra money they have to pay to get feminine goods and services. From shampoos to clothes and styling, women are always paying higher prices for the same products that men are using.
The word tax seems to throw people off by making it seem like an action of the government but in reality, it is a marketing ploy that companies in countries like India, UK and Argentina use to charge women way more than men. The sole beneficiaries of this so-called tax are only the companies that implement it.
According to Cleartax, the New York State Department of Consumer Affairs found in a study that items targeted at women were priced 7% higher than those for men or gender-neutral items, with personal care and hygiene products for women showing a 13% price disparity.
Investigations in the UK revealed price differences, such as women’s deodorant being 8.9% pricier than men’s and women’s facial moisturiser costing 34.28% more.
Harish Bijoor, a brand and business strategy specialist says that, “Pink Tax has no actual purpose, although it does base the theory that a brand will charge a consumer on a product according to what they can bear in terms of money.” The irony is that women get paid 14.8 percent less than men, yet get charged up to a 100 per cent premium for products targeted at them. Many women in India find it hard to go by even a day without this tax enveloping their every need. “I do get affected by Pink Tax. The more obvious products are things like shampoos and moisturisers which cost a lot more than the ones targeted towards men. But also, it’s built into things like haircuts where I pay a lot more for a simple trim as compared to what the men around me pay for haircuts that involve a lot more styling,” Jyothika Raju, a student says.
She goes on to say, “Companies should become more equitable and stop levying this tax on women as it puts a substantial burden on women to pay more for the same thing.”
Essentials such as sanitary napkins also fall under products that premiums are charged on. Despite being exempted from the Goods and Services Tax, sanitary pads are very expensive. While one may be able to afford it, the other cannot. In fact, about 13.3 per cent of the Indian population are poor women. Women with little to no income are sometimes left to use a limited number of pads or manage with a cloth pad which may lead to several diseases and health complications.
Apart from income, another reason why Pink Tax is a negative gender bias is largely because of the way society is built.
Jyothika voices out what most women feel when she says that Pink Tax is just a way to profit from women’s insecurities: “I think the fact that there is already a toxic beauty standard that exists for women, companies exploit this because they know women will be forced to buy it because it’s advertised and placed in a strategic way which makes these products essential for health care.”
The reason why Pink Tax seems to persist is because of the different standards that women are made to uphold. Brands that may not even have sexist intentions continue to apply this tax because of the expected norm of female consumption.
How do you combat this non-legal hindrance?
According to Harish Bijoor, a very efficient way to go about this would be transparency in pricing to ensure that consumers can make informed decisions and avoid overpaying. This tactic benefits businesses as well as they will be able to understand their competitors even more.
Sanchita Mukherji, an economist, said in a recent appearance on NDTV, that companies must be audited in terms of how they arrive at the particular pricing of a product. And companies will start doing this only when the consumer tells them that they will not have it any other way.
Paying the cost of being a female?
♦ Companies use gendered marketing to justify higher prices for products marketed towards women, citing added aesthetics or ingredients, though often the only difference is in the packaging.
♦ Traditional gender roles lead to the perception that women are willing to pay more for products meeting higher beauty standards, influencing their purchase decisions.
♦ Companies introduce slight variations to women’s products, like scents or colours, justifying higher prices despite similar core functionality.
♦ Consumers may not be aware of price discrepancies, allowing companies to charge more without backlash.
♦ Pink Tax may persist in markets with limited competition or where consumers are unaware of price disparities.
What the World Economic Forum has to say...
♦ Gender-based price disparities are known as pink taxes.
♦ The Pink Tax has long imposed an economic burden on women —
especially since women continue to earn less than men.
♦ The United Nations has called on countries to eliminate the Pink Tax to ensure women have full and equal access to economic participation.
Economic impact
♦ Pink Tax leads to higher prices for women’s products, including personal care, clothing, and healthcare items, straining budgets.
♦ It perpetuates gender-based discrimination, adding a financial burden based solely on gender identity.
♦ Higher prices reduce women’s ability to save or invest, affecting their financial well-being and independence.