Paul L. Caron
Dean


Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Burger King's Brilliant Take On The 'Pink Tax': Would You Pay Double For 'Chick Fries'?

CHick FriesInc., Burger King Takes on the Pink Tax and It's Brilliant: Would You Pay Twice As Much For "Chick Fries"?:

Have you heard of the "pink tax"--a term for the routine practice of charging more for products and services targeted to women than those targeted to men? If not, you will soon. Though the term's been around for years, and the practice itself has existed from the earliest days of commerce, both have gained more prominence lately. That's thanks to a study showing just how common it is, and a bill introduced in the House to make gender-based pricing illegal. Now, Burger King has gotten into the act in a very witty way.

To highlight the unfairness of the pink tax (so called because products for women are often colored pink), Burger King recently briefly offered its regular Chicken Fries for $1.69 a box, or "Chick Fries," the same food in the same serving size, but in a pretty pink box where the chicken has a bow and eyelashes, for $3.09. Then they created an ad.

At the end of the ad, after declaring that Chick Fries would be priced at $1.69 for everyone, Burger King invites viewers to support H.R. 5686, the Pink Tax Repeal Act, which would make it illegal to price similar products differently depending on whether they are for men or women. California Representative Jackie Speier (D) introduced the bill in April, saying that she wanted to spark conversation about gender disparity in pricing.

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2018/07/burger-kings-brilliant-take-on-the-pink-tax-would-you-pay-double-for-chick-fries.html

Celebrity Tax Lore, Tax | Permalink

Comments

As reported to me by my girlfriend, this happens mostly with women's clothing and drycleaning charges. But sometimes it's because the "service" or "product" being targeted to women is just different than the comparable one for men (if there even is one for men.) Try charging most men $1000 for a designer handbag. I dare you.

Posted by: ruralcounsel | Aug 1, 2018 8:12:44 AM

How is that brilliant? The ad disproves the pink tax by showing that women would not pay more for the same thing. If 48% of women products are more expensive than men products (then what about the other 52%? Does it mean that there is a blue tax?), then either women are stupid and it's the best argument against putting money in a position of managing money, or those products are simply....not the same!

Posted by: Sebastien | Aug 10, 2018 8:16:43 PM