UserMillieshared her anger on TikTok after finding that the pink mug in the store was priced at$5, while the other colors were only$3.50.
A representative from the brand addressed the issue, explaining that it was due to “production discrepancy” and had nothing to do with the target audience of the product.
The TikToker, however, didn’t believe Big W’s defense, stating:
“You’re probably thinking, ‘It’s just a mug, buy the green one,’ but this goes beyond just mugs,” she explained. “This issue affects women’s clothing, hygiene products, birth control, razors—things that are specific to women.”
RELATED:
Image credits:Celco85
ForMillie, who describes herself as an “ordinary STEM mom” and uses her platform to give advice on topics related to science and mathematics, the 42%price increasein the mug would not be tolerated if it was applied to general goods and services.
“There would be protests. But when it comes to products for women, this markup is often overlooked,” shesaid.
Image credits:itsjustmilliee
Her video, where she outright recommends women buy men’s products instead for better prices and quality, ignited debate in its comment section, with some users agreeing with her assessment, while others were more skeptical of the existence of a “pink tax.”
For the store chain, the cost difference has nothing to do withgender, but it was the result of apricing errordue to issues with the distributor. Big W assured customers that the pink mugs would be repriced to $3.50 to be in line with the rest of the mugs.
Studies have shown that the “pink tax” is not real, as it doesn’t target women specifically and instead responds to supply and demand for specific products
But, does the “pink tax” exist, or is it just a consumer myth?
The paper, which used a combination of data from grocery, convenience, drugstore, and mass merchandiser sales, confirms that gender segmentation is not only real but prevalent, with more than 80% of all products sold being aimed at either men or women.
They did not, however, find any evidence of the “pink tax” being real when analyzing gendered versions of similar products. In fact, what they found was the opposite: the women’s variant was often cheaper than their male counterparts.
“We do not find evidence of a systematic price premium forwomen’s goods: price differences are small, and the women’s variant is less expensive in three out of five categories,” the study read.
The study recognizes that gender-based price differences exist, but it affirms they go both ways, with versions of the same product aimed at men sometimes being the priciest ones
The paper acknowledges the existence ofgendered price discrepanciesbut argues that the cause is no different from higher charges seen in other consumer products: supply and demand.
“As an example, a soap manufacturer might sell two versions of an otherwise identical soap, a low-priced blue bar and a high-priced pink bar. Price discrimination of this sort can be profitable for firms when men and women have different demand for soap,” the study explained.
In layman terms, if the market shows that a change in coloring increases the demand for a product, thus reducing its availability, a price increase is likely to follow.
For men’s products, for example, it can be the opposite, with razors aimed at females often being cheaper than their male counterparts due to the fact that they are less frequent buyers of the item.
The cause of the phenomenon is actually due to import tariffs, with women’s clothing being, on average, subject to a 3% higher tax in the United States
Image credits:bigwaustralia
The extra charges have nothing to do with targeting aspecific gender, however, as men’s apparel, such as cotton shirts, wool suits, synthetic fiber suits, and swimwear, also experience a markup increase.
Trying to equalize the resulting price difference can be a tricky matter, as either both versions, male and female, get priced higher to match the tariff, or they are lowered, meaning that either the producer or the retailer takes a hit.
On average, however, the tariff rate increases skew toward women, with men’s clothing being 13.6%, compared with 16.7% for women’s as of 2022.
Netizens were skeptical of the TikToker’s claims and shared their own, sometimes contradicting, experiences with the so-called “pink tax”
Due to the ever-changing nature of pricing due to supply and demand, alongside cultural factors, discussions around the topic remain mixed.
“I asked this about a jacket. The white and black were $25 and the pink one was $40. I was told less popular colors have higher prices. What a joke,” one of the TikToker’s fans stated.
“To be fair I think the cup being costlier is a matter of popularity. You’re spot on for clothes and sanitary items, however,” wrote another one.
Others believe it’s a matter ofbuying habits.
“I think women don’t care for prices as much as men,” one fan wrote.
“Or we care too much – often paying more for and identical item is seen as a sign of social status,” the TikToker herself replied.
“Because women buy exactly what they want and men buy whatever is cheaper. I’m in marketing and this is well known and has been for 20 years,” one viewer explained. “It’s also not a tax because no one’s stopping you from buying the green cup.”
“My wife buys like three outfits for the price I can get one decent shirt. Your clothing is way cheaper,” stated a male viewer.
Discussion around the topic remains mixed, as netizens share their own anecdotal experiences with gender-based price differences
Thanks! Check out the results:You May LikePassengers Upset After Plane Makes Emergency Landing Due To “Serious Medical” Crisis On BoardKarina BabenokTitan Sub’s Eerie Last Moments Exposed In Newly Released Audio: “A Disaster Waiting To Happen"Lei RVDisney Worker Downloads Free AI Tool—Loses Job And $200,000 BonusesLei RV
Karina Babenok
Lei RV
News
