LogFAQs > #878361868

Smarkil posted...

Apple markets to people who don't know s*** about computers

Beats (which I suppose is also apple) targets people who don't know anything about sound quality

Etc. etc.

And those aren't discriminatory marketing practices. They target people based on their understanding of the products, not anything else. Targeting people who don't understand what matters in toiletries, charging them for pointless stuff? That's fair game. Specifically targeting a subgroup of people within that demographic and aiming to have them pay more for literally no reason? Not so much, because that's discriminatory.

Smarkil posted...

Like, it's all demographic targeting. That's the point. They do it because it works. If customers are dumb enough to get duped by terrible marketing campaigns, then that's really their own problem.

Even ignoring the highly questionable logic of blaming a scam's victim instead of the one perpetrating the scam, the issue here isn't that consumers in general need to educate themselves to avoid falling for marketing campaigns. It's that certain consumers need to slough through more lies than others. I certainly don't expect female-targeted toiletries to be held to a higher standard of advertising honesty than others. I just don't think it's right for them to be held to a lower standard.

Also, again, the Pink Tax is far from the only example of discriminatory marketing practices. It's no less scummy when companies manipulate men into paying more for the same thing (though there aren't nearly as many examples of that). That doesn't make the Pink Tax okay, though. Two wrongs don't make a right.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.