• by Nina Stanley , March 6, 2023

Image above from CVS website

Although it didn’t make national news headlines, on Jan. 1, in California, a retail law known as the Pink Tax, which ends gender-based pricing for goods in the state, went into effect. According to the bill’s author, Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, the bill prohibits businesses from assigning different prices for identical products based on who they are marketed to.

With the law, California becomes only the second state to outlaw upcharges on products marketed to women. Meanwhile, 23 states exempt such items from taxes, according to the Alliance for Period Supplies, an advocacy organization working to expand access to menstrual supplies. A sign of progress? For sure, but clearly, eliminating the pink tax should be a federal movement, not just left to individual states.

It’s not news this gender pricing exists. In fact, back in 2015, before New York state passed its own law banning the pink tax, New York City published a report by the Department of Consumer Affairs called “From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer.”  The report notes: "On average...women’s products cost 7 percent more than similar products for men…In all but five of the 35 product categories analyzed, products for female consumers were priced higher than those for male consumers.’

A good sign of recent progress was CVS’ decision in October  to drop the pink tax, but only on its CVS-branded products. For name brands, the price, like the patience of many women, remains elevated.

I, like a lot of women, don’t feel gender disparity has been addressed with the vigor it should be, and the pink tax has been a relatively nonexistent conversation,. There has been some talk in niche industries, but if you asked someone on the street about the pink tax, they likely wouldn’t know what you’re talking about.

So what needs to be done? Besides educating women about the unfairness of the pink tax, the right thing for brands to do, especially those that cater to women, is to voluntarily price their products based on what they are and not who they’re for. If the product is better, charge more. If it’s the same, then charge the same.

With the CVS measure of eliminating store-brand pink tax, CVS Health CEO Karen Lynch has raised awareness of the issue to her credit. Maybe we could see a ripple effect, with Walgreens, Walmart and Target buying in. The bottom line: This is an opportunity for big retailers to do the right thing and reap the thanks of their millions of female consumers.

Additionally, agencies working with companies pricing things identically should emphasize that in their messaging. I don’t think anyone is necessarily advertising or speaking about this, so the first agency to do so could be at the forefront of a huge movement.

In their marketing, brands should be addressing the pink tax, raising awareness, and challenging the status quo. This is about more than just the price of female health and beauty products; it's about fairness. Brands and retailers that sit on the sidelines run the risk of being left behind by competitors or, worse, seen as part of the problem by their female consumers.