Gender Issues (2022) 39:1-23 3 Literature Review ‘The so-called pink tax refers to the practice of charging more for similar products marketed to women or girls than those marketed to men or boys. Such gendered price disparities have been found for a variety of products and services, including mortgages, clothing, dry cleaning, toys, haircuts, pens and wireless mice [7, 9, 18].! One report found that on eBay, products offered by women command lower prices than when sold by men, even when controlling for sellers’ reputations [15]. The California Department of Consumer Affairs estimated that a woman pays, in effect. a gender tax of $1351 per year [6]; in 2021 dollars, this would be approximately $2294. Numerous studies have found that women typically pay more than men for vari- ous products and services. Duesterhaus, et al. [9] sampled personal-care products (deodorant, shaving gel/cream, razors, and scented body sprays) sold online at four major retailers (Target, Wal-Mart, CVS, and Walgreens). Of the 538 products ana- lyzed, they found that women paid significantly more per ounce for deodorants, and more for razors and body sprays, although the latter were not significantly different when price per item/ounce was calculated. More recently, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) con- ducted an extensive study of 35 different types of products from 24 stores to com- pare prices of similar products marketed to women and men, ranging from children’s toys to adult diapers [7]. Thus, the study “mirrors an average consumer lifecycle, from baby products to products for seniors, providing a glimpse into the experiences ‘of consumers of all ages” [7, p. 17]. The products analyzed were similar in branding, ingredients, construction, textile, appearance and marketing. Similarity is key here. de Blasio and Menin [7] noted that women’s products often have prominent claims, such as moisturizing strips on women’s razors, features that men’s razors also have (e.g., aloe moisturizing strips), yet cost more. Thus, products may not appear simi- lar but in fact are. Across all products, women paid more 42% of the time, whereas men paid more 18% of the time (40% were equal). The greatest discrepancy was for personal care products such as shampoos, lotions, and razors, where women’s products cost more 56% of the time compared to men’s, and on average, women’s products cost 13% more than those for men. Only one product—shaving cream— marketed heavily to men, cost more (4% more) for men than for women. The largest discrepancy was for hair care products, where women paid nearly 48% more than men. In addition, men’s hair care products are typically sold as a “2-in-1” product (c.g., shampoo and conditioner) and separately for women, which means women pay for two products rather than one. It was also the case that quantities sold to men and "The pink tax is distinct from the tampon-tax, whereby sales tax is applied to feminine hygiene items (currently 30 states tax menstrual products) in that the pink tax applies to similar or identical items and services that are utilized by men and women but priced differently [24]. 2 Duesterhaus et al. [9] also sampled hair salons and dry-cleaners in Central Florida and found that ‘women paid more for certain dry-cleaning services and haircuts. ® Springer4 Gender Issues (2022) 39:1-23 women differed. For instance, a typical deodorant stick marketed to women con- tained 2.6 07 and that sold to men contained 2.7 oz. In 2018, the United States Government Accountability Office [29] used Nielsen Company data on retail prices paid at the register to document gender-based price differences for a variety of goods and services. The GAO analyzed 10 products: underarm deodorants, body deodorants, shaving cream, shaving gel, disposable razors, non-disposable razors, razor blades, designer perfume, mass-market per- fume, and mass-market body sprays. Because products are often sold in different quantities, the researchers compared average item price and average price per ounce or count. In all, five were priced higher for women than for men (underarm deodor- ants, body deodorants, shaving creams, designer perfume, body sprays), two (shav- ing gel and non-disposable razors) were more expensive for men, one (razor blades) cost more for women per count, but there was no price difference by average item, and two (disposable razors and mass-market perfumes) showed no statistical difer- ence in price. The researchers concluded that “the target gender for a product is a significant factor contributing to price differences identified” [29, p. i] and that the cost to a consumer can be significant “even when prices for products within that category are low” [29, p. 1]. de Blasio and Menin [7, p. 11] also note that because personal care products are purchased more often than many other consumer goods, the price difference “translates into a significant financial burden for women over the course of a lifetime.” While these important studies have documented various aspects of the pink tax, there are li itions. For instance, Duesterhaus, et al. [9] examined a limited num- ber (4) of personal care products so it is unclear whether price discrepancies exist for a wider range of products. The de Blasio and Menin [7] study did not calculate price per ounce or per item so it is possible that the discrepancy in costs between men’s and women’s products differs (more or less) from simple percent differences, Further, because they were closely matching products, the overall sample size is rel- atively small (N=122 personal care products) and therefore does not account for price discrepancies among a wide range of products (especially high-end products) that may be more heavily marketed to women. While the sample size and range of products analyzed in the GAO study [29] are larger, their findings are based on prod- ucts sold rather than the nature of products available to consumers and exclude cer- tain common personal care items such as soaps, lotions and shampoos. Studies on the pink tax are also limited in their ability to explain price discrep- ancies. While the existence of gender-pricing has been documented, it is impos- sible to determine whether price differences are due to gender bias or market and production factors [29]. There are various explanations for why women’s prod- ucts may be priced higher than men’s. One explanation is price discrimination— if women are willing to pay more, they are likely to be charged more, even though the products are essentially identical and unrelated to manufacturing costs [19] > According to the GAO report, “the average item price is the total dollar sales for a product category divided by the total number of items sold for that category... [whereas] [t]he average price per ounce or count is the item price divided by the quantity of product” [29, p. 10], ® SpringerGender Issues (2022) 39:1-23 5 Relatedly, gender price discrepancies may result from product differentiation that is intended to make a product more attractive to a particular audience, leading to higher costs for that audience [18, 29]. The GAO [29] explains how such price discrimination works: Based on the differentiated products, consumers self-select into different groups according to their preferences and what they are willing to pay.... For example, some consumer goods have different versions of what is essentially the same product—except for differences in packaging or features, such as scent—with one version intended for women and another version intended for men. The two products may be priced differently because the firm expects that one gender will be willing to pay more for the product than the other based on preference for certain product atiributes [pp. 5-6]. Alternatively, some products may be more costly to manufacture or face higher tariffs or advertising costs [18]. Without corporate-level data on production and advertising costs, it is not possible to determine whether or to what degree price dis- crepancies are due to such factors but there are reasons to believe these are negligi- ble. Maloney [18] analyzed virtually identical products that vary only by color of the packaging and found that those marketed to women cost more than that marketed to men. de Blasio and Menin [7] also suggest that the major cost is the research and development that go into product creation, not ingredients or packaging. And although higher tariffs are applied to women’s clothing, this does not appear to be the case for imported personal care products. Finally, the raw materials used in women’s products may actually be less, thanks to the “shrink it and pink it” market- ing strategy, which would presumably reduce production costs. Whether the pink tax is the result of price discrimination, manufacturing costs, or gender discrimination, the reality is that for women consumers, the economic impacts can be significant and compound the costs of being a woman in society [9]. While several states and municipalities have enacted laws banning gender-price disparities for services such as haircuts and dry cleaning, until 2020, no laws pro- hibited charging one gender more for personal care products [13, 29]. New York State enacted the first prohibition on the pink tax, which went into effect September 30, 2020 [11]. The law “mandates that any individual or entity, including retailers, suppliers, manufacturers or distributors, are prohibited from charging a price for two ‘substantially similar’ goods or services, if the goods or services are priced differ- ently based on the gender for whom the goods or services are marketed” [11]. In California, Icgislators have introduced a bill (SB 873) that bans charging customers more on the basis of gender for products. One of the authors of the bill, Congress- woman Jackie Speier, has introduced H.R. 2048, the Pink Tax Repeal Act, a federal law that would prohibit “product manufacturers or service providers from selling substantially similar products at different prices based on the gender of the intended purchaser. If, for example, the only difference between two products is the color, they are substantially similar” (at the time of this writing, the bill was in Committee) 12] While these laws (if passed) are likely to alter how products are marketed and sold, there are loopholes. In New York state, there is a provision in the 2020 law that ® Springer