Consumer Reports succumbs to feminist propaganda that sees targeted marketing as a “Pink Tax”
I wrote a letter to the editor at Consumer Reports concerning something in the “Building a Better World, Together” section of the June 2018 issue that announced CR’s awareness of something they call the “Pink Tax”
You may not have heard of it, but if you’re a woman, you’ve almost certainly been affected by it.
The so-called pink tax is a nickname for a phenomenon whereby women are charged more than men for virtually identical products and services, from razors and soaps to dry cleaning and haircuts. In many cases the only difference between the “male” and “female” versions is color.
Under “What You Can Do” they suggest readers write their representatives to support the Pink Tax Repeal Act.
I think some feminist ideologues will find discrimination anywhere they search, and here they wrongly claim it happens in the free marketplace.
I’ve been a longtime subscriber to Consumer Reports, and when its’ current president and CEO, Marta Tellado took over, I knew it was only a matter of time that CR would stray from its’ solid record of consumer advocacy and research. Nothing is wrong with CR exploring questions of immoral or illegal business practices, but to embrace nonexistent causes without independent research is unacceptable.
Here’s Marta’s bio:
Marta L. Tellado became the eighth President and CEO of Consumer Reports in 2014 following more than 25 years of experience as a frontline advocate for social justice. Born in Cuba and raised in New Jersey, Marta has dedicated her public service career to a range of issues, including consumer advocacy, economic fairness, and civil rights.
At European Wax Center, we are working together with our partners, on behalf of women, to help level the playing field where inequalities exist. Women need to know about The Pink Tax, so they can be empowered to #AxThePinkTax.
I’ll note here if my letter gets published, however I will post it to their FB page regardless.
“As a non-political organization, CR should refrain from taking up unsubstantiated causes such as the so-called “Pink Tax” [“Tackling the Pink Tax,” Building a Better World, Together].
The “Pink Tax” is a misnomer that describes targeted marketing and women’s buying preferences as a tax, which it is not, so please don’t give credence to a term not based in fact. It should be no surprise that companies market to kids, men, upscale buyers, penny-pinchers, and of course, women.
Most of these products, if not all, are more than a different color. They have features that women prefer or they wouldn’t be produced and women wouldn’t buy. Some journalists have debunked the notion that there are a multitude of “virtually identical products” that are priced higher for women, showing that most products targeted to women ARE different and women buy them for that reason.
You advocate laws that seek to regulate the free marketplace that is the cornerstone of free enterprise and capitalism. Is the intent to tax the violators? Ban marketing to women? How would that work? If it’s pink (a stereotype) or if it says “for women,” is that the criterion?
Besides taking your advice to buy the “blue” product, your equality strategy should also tell women to forego spending billions on make-up, handbags, and expensive shoes and the like to save money just like men who don’t buy that or buy the simpler and cheaper shoe or wallet and forego make-up altogether.
There are entire industries that women have created, support, and spend their money on, and the men’s equivalent product is non-existent (free). If women want to spend the same as men on handbags, make-up, high heel shoes, and jewelry, they could, and that would be zero dollars!
Why do men pay more for life and auto insurance? You’d be right if you said they’re more of a risk. But wouldn’t that be a “blue tax” regardless, if we make the same false assumption about the “pink tax?”
Will you tell women to stop paying huge amounts for designer make-up, shoes, and handbags because they don’t need them, they’re overpriced, and they should buy (or don’t buy) what men buy or don’t buy.
The fact is women know what they’re buying. And they sometimes prefer products for them that are made for them, and don’t mind paying for them. Obviously it’s a winning strategy for marketers and their customers. Women buy what they like, and for some things price or “necessity” doesn’t matter.
I’m all for women saving their “fashion” money and walk around “make-up free” like men, but will you tell women that too? And do you really think that’s what women want?
If you’re selling less of the blue product vs. the pink product, you may want to discount the blue one. Basic marketing and economics, yet you propose banning this basic Constitutional and capitalist freedom.
It’s more of a male discount than a pink tax as men don’t buy many things as often as women, if at all. Women influence about 83% of all consumer spending. Why else do you think that more than ¾ of store floor space is geared toward them?
CR, do the research with an unbiased view – look at all sides. If you stray into politics, get it right.”