Does Levi’s Gender Pricing Explanation Hold Water?

It’s undeniable that marketers draw on certain stereotypes to push their products to the right consumers, but exploiting those archetypes can land retailers in hot water with the very public they’re trying to sell to. However, in the margin-shrinking fight against eCommerce merchants, are in-store brands becoming more willing to bend the rules when it comes to equitable pricing on gendered products?

According to an investigation conducted by London’s The Times, high street retailers routinely charge more for products targeted at female consumers, even when the items in question had little to no differences between their superficial gendered versions. In particular, clothes, personal care products and toys targeted at women and girls cost 37 percent more on average than their male-oriented counterparts.

Of the alleged clothing perpetrators, The Times noted that Levi’s had been selling women’s jeans for 46 percent more than men’s, despite having the same waist and leg length.

Maria Miller, chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee, told The Drum that such uneven pricing all but calls for some kind of investigation.

“It’s an excellent piece of research and it’s something which the committee will be considering whether we should take further,” Miller said. “This is just the sort of thing the Women and Equalities Select Committee can consider and make sure that in this instance retailers are made to account for what appears to be price discrimination based on sex.”

In most situations where a brand is caught more or less red-handed manipulating its prices, the handbook for corporate public relations usually calls for an official policy, followed by promises to monitor pricing strategies more closely in the future. However, a Levi’s spokesperson took a different tactic in a statement to Just-Style — one that sought to explain the higher prices rather than explain them away.

“You may look at two pairs of jeans and they seem very similar but it could be that one has more stretch in it, or a more innovative fabric make-up, or the finishing could be more premium, all of which gets factored into pricing,” the spokesperson said in an email. “We look at the market and the competitive set but absolutely do not set prices according to gender. We work to maintain competitive prices without competition while delivering the best quality product our consumers know and love us for.”

Maintaining prices commensurate with market rivals is all well and good, but when competitors are also inflating their feminine-oriented products too, passing the buck (literally and metaphorically) isn’t likely to sit well with consumers. Moreover, while it might very well be true that size and the amount of fabric aren’t the only factors in determining the price of a pair of jeans, telling female customers that their 46 percent higher bills are entirely justified seems like a precarious position for a major brand to take, especially as fast-fashion retailers are dismantling old apparel standbys almost overnight.

As regulators debate a formal investigation of Levi’s and other retailers’ potentially gender-charged pricing strategies, any possible legal interventions should be of less concern than the effects on the relationship between in-store retailers and their customers. Paying prices higher than one might want is a normal part of being a consumer, but if more retailers take Levi’s tactic of essentially scolding female customers for their gall at wanting equitable price tags on gendered products, it’s unlikely most women will stay happy paying those higher totals.

Dynamic pricing — it’s a fact of modern retail, but so is the need to be as hawkish about the public relations consequences of giving shoppers the runaround on gendered products.