The festival season is around and so are “great sales” and discounts. From the Great Indian Sale on Amazon to ‘regular customers only’ discounts by your go-to vendor, the upcoming months are expected to offer huge savings even as we take the opportunity to spend more. This is compounded by the “Diwali Gift” that the Indian government claimed to give its citizens starting from September 22 with the Goods and Service Tax (GST) reforms. However, even while consumers compare prices across physical shops and e-commerce websites to evade deceptive selling tactics, they might be missing out on certain gendered marketing strategies. The first is the disproportionate burden of care during festivities and the other is the ‘Pink Tax’. Both are rendered on female customers, the most important consumer group for this season. Not officially recognised by any government but definitely charged in every economy, the pink tax is a disadvantage rendered on the female taxpayer who pays a different amount for a good or service than their male counterpart. This charge almost always makes the item costlier.
In 2022 a World Economic Forum (WEF) report cited a US-based study by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) to say that, on average, personal care products targeting women are 13% costlier than men’s. Similarly, accessories and adult clothing were 7% and 8% more expensive, respectively. According to this study that analysed 800 gender-specific products from about 100 brands, “women are paying thousands of dollars more over the course of their lives to purchase similar products as men.” It is appalling that after having fought for the right to work and a fair wage, women as consumers now have a battle due for product price parity.
Festive burden on women
While the festive season is a time when people look forward to decompressing and giving in to spending time with their dear ones, there is a disproportionate expectation between males and females to balance the two individualistic and collectivist desires. The gendered burden of festive celebrations is overlooked by the romanticisation of family meals, festive decorations and overloaded schedules. The blame is shared by our age-old scriptures, elaborate ritual practices, larger-than-life cinematic portrayals and targeted advertisements which cultivate expectations of what a ‘special day’ should look like.
While the festive season is a time when people look forward to decompressing and giving in to spending time with their dear ones, there is a disproportionate expectation between males and females to balance the two individualistic and collectivist desires. The gendered burden of festive celebrations is overlooked by the romanticisation of family meals, festive decorations and overloaded schedules.
Of relevance to this discourse are narratives created by brands to market their products in this festive season that are inherently stereotypical and price discriminatory. From a sociological perspective, a Pink Tax continues to exist because people believe that female consumption patterns are inevitably costlier than men’s. For example, rarely does a jewellery brand advertise conventionally male-worn ornaments even if they are offered by them. But elaborate gold and diamond works will flood our advertising space with leading actresses performing the same age-old script of a surprised reaction over and over again, just with different labels. The festive emotion survey by Disney+ Hotstar found that female customers increase their budget by 70% as compared to last year, every season.
Gendered marketing challenges
This is why female-centric marketing becomes necessary to study. Manisha Kapoor, the CEO and Secretary General of the Advertising Council of India (ASCI), highlights the allegory of women being connected to prosperity and auspiciousness. However, she is not to be revered. Instead, she is ever ready to look after ‘bin-bulaye mehmaan’ or unexpected guests, and their insatiable hunger for an authentic celebration.
This tokenisation of the female identity to monetise from them is an unbroken advertising strategy. Even when choosing to show the trope of an ‘empowered working woman’, brands tailor the message as a multitasking worker blurring the boundaries of the self and family. In this context, Adyasha Roy Tomar, the Creative Director at McCann Worldgroup, rightfully says that in a Diwali advertisement women are the decor. It is the idea of a ‘cultured woman’ that is on sale because if that sells, so will the products. How must we bring about a shift from the skewed portrayal of, as Moumita Pal from Dentsu Creative says, “man’s money and the wife’s decision, the man’s money and the mother’s considerate choice, the man’s money and the sister’s delightful purchase”?
A facet of deceptive marketing advertising practices is the Pink Tax. Believed to have originated in 1994 in California, it is a deceptive strategy to obtain a surplus value through the practice of gendered pricing of products and services. By exploiting the gendered norms, expectations, and stereotypes that are prevalent in society, companies exploit the human need for social conformity.
According to the JEC, gender-based pricing has affected not only daily consumption but also healthcare costs and luxury purchases.
The justifications for higher pricing are varied. It may be masked as a promise of premium quality or advertised as an existential or basic need. For example, the aroma of body scents that are marketed as ‘for females’ tends to last for a shorter period of time than those labelled as ‘for men’. A UK based study found that women’s deodorant and facial moisturisers were, on average, 8.9% and 34.28% more expensive, respectively, than men’s.
This triggers a cycle of regular purchases to make up for the emptying bottles that are already compensating for the ineffective previous use. Another such gimmick is limited choices. The common joke goes that women are often spoiled with choices as consumers. In reality, it is the systematic exploitation of the female market by creating a paucity of gender-neutral items of purchase and pushing consumers to the pricier ‘women-section’.There is also a severe lack of awareness that makes female consumers less likely to question the price disparity. Hopefully, this will be addressed by the end of this article.
Global impact of tariffs & pink tax
Ever wondered about the impact of increased tariffs by the US President on the female consumers in India? The JEC report talks of how tariffs impact the Pink Tax. Some products may face higher tariffs and materials deemed more feminine may become costlier to manufacture, which will indirectly decide the burden and incidence of the tax. Other than this, a higher cost of labour or advertisement tax targeting women may also increase marketing cost. The JEC study found that tariffs on women’s clothing were 3.2% higher than on men’s.
Product differentiation, price differentiation and price fixing are other possible explanations for higher prices of women’s products and services. Not limited to this, single, divorced or widowed women historically found it difficult to apply and secure credit, as it required a male co-signee. Regardless of income or purpose of loan, women have been charged higher interest rates, according to the JEC study.
According to the JEC, gender-based pricing has affected not only daily consumption but also healthcare costs and luxury purchases. For example, health insurance premiums are often made costlier for women due to the expected cost of pregnancy and childcare. Similarly, hygiene products that are necessary for women and have no equivalent for men are taxed differently, and mostly higher. The Affordable Care Act in the US was introduced to eliminate this disparity.
It was only on 26 July 2018 that GST on sanitary products such as sanitary pads, tampons, and menstrual cups was eliminated by the Government of India. Before this, menstruating persons paid a 12% GST on basic necessities.
Pink tax: Consumer rights and legal recourse
On a visit to the salon the other day I heard a woman arguing with the owner about why the hair trimming prices for her twins, boy and girl, were different even though they had the same hair length, more popularly known as the ‘boy-cut’. It is a reality that from clothing to personal care products, services and even toys, the pink tax invisibly exists and unfairly burdens female pockets. The JEC found that even dry cleaning prices for women’s dress shirts were 90% more expensive than for men’s shirts.
On a visit to the salon the other day I heard a woman arguing with the owner about why the hair trimming prices for her twins, boy and girl, were different even though they had the same hair length, more popularly known as the ‘boy-cut’.
The Pink Tax Repeal Act has been pending in the US Congress. As an Indian consumer, you must know that there is no such mandate as a ‘pink tax’ in India. However, there is also no regulation that specifically addresses this malpractice. Regardless, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and anti-discrimination provisions can be invoked to challenge unfair pricing practices.
The CPA, 2019, provides a basis for legal recourse in the instances of unfair trading and discriminatory pricing. Its provisions mandate:
- Right to information,
- Right to choose, within which comes the freedom to select from a variety of choices without facing unfair trading practices, false advertising, purchase of defective products, service complaints, etc., and
- Right to redressal
With the introduction of e-filing of complaints and increased regulations on e-commerce, the CPA, 2019, has made legal redress easier with greater compensations to aggrieved consumers.
While legal redressal is available, it is better to take prevention before cure. By regularly updating themselves on the relevant consumer rights and laws, female consumers must have a basic knowledge of the market and its manoeuvres. It is not a ‘man’s job’. Documenting all transactions and practising mindful shopping habits, unlike anything of the romanticised shopaholic, is necessary to combat this manipulative gendered discrimination.
The JEC report also talked about the explosion in earning power that women are experiencing given the fair wage laws and the increased control over their finances. However, coupled with mounting household expenses and such deceptive pricing, the benefits are not being realised.
The pink tax continues to exist due to two reasons. One, the stereotypical advertising of the female market as more luxurious and hence, costlier than men, and two, the lack of awareness of female customers of its existence. While the former requires a paradigm shift in the patriarchal thinking patterns of the society, the latter can be addressed first by ending the ignorance. To outsmart the Pink Tax, female customers can start by looking for gender-neutral products or what is marketed as ‘for men’, thereby breaking away from the norm. Choosing unisex products might not only reap cost benefits but also challenge the monotony.
For huge savings over time, customers may compare the charge per unit rather than the entire packaging. Rather than rushing to buy a product in the market, compare the cost of men’s and women’s variants on e-commerce websites or vice versa. Most importantly, support pocket-friendly, thrift or gender neutral brands and start-ups to encourage the shift towards price parity.
While the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that companies must avoid gender-based price discrimination, nothing will happen until the silence persists and violations are flagged. Abolition of the Pink Tax is not just about extra savings. That surplus is being illegally charged and will continue to unjustly disadvantage the future generations of female consumers.
