Boots exposed for shameful 'pink tax' prices in viral video as shoppers left furious
A Tiktoker has exposed the retailer for it's 'pink tax' prices after comparing the huge price difference between the same product found in both the female and male section of the store.
A TikToker has called out Boots for its 'pink tax' prices
(Image: TikTok/@thefinancegurl )
Boots has been called out by a shopper for their 'pink tax' prices in an online video which has sparked outrage and left social media users furiously questioning 'how is this legal'. In a TikTok video, uploaded by Scots content creator @thefinancegurl, she explained that the health and beauty retailer were selling her favourite Boots moisturiser in the female section for double the price of an even bigger bottle of the exact same product in the men's aisle of the store.
The only difference between the two products was that the 30ml dearer bottle was in pink packaging and the cheaper 50ml bottle was in green packaging. This is known as the 'pink tax', which refers to the phenomenon where products marketed towards women are often priced higher than comparable products marketed towards men.
The video titled 'Boots Money Saving Hack' starts with the warning: "Don't pay more for pink packaging." The creator then films herself picking up the moisturiser from the female section of the store before comparing the same product in the men's aisle.
She says: "This hyaluronic acid moisturiser from Boots is one of my favourites. It cost £5.40 for the 30ml bottle.
"But if you head over to the men's skincare section, you can get exactly the same product for way cheaper."
Article continues below
Content cannot be displayed without consent
Holding up the same moisturiser from the male aisle, she says: "This one costs £2.50 for 50ml of product so you're actually getting more product for half the price.
"When you compare the ingredients side by side, they are identical, nothing is different apart from the fact that one is in green packaging and one is pink packaging.
"So when you're shopping for toiletries, it's always worth checking if the men's section has a cheaper alternative because the pink tax is very real."
The video has since gone viral with over 848k views and 101k likes. It also sparked a whole load of outrage in the comment section as shoppers have said that Boots should be 'ashamed' for their pink tax prices.
One furious user commented: "Can't believe boots out of everyone is doing this."
Another fumed: "HOW IS THIS LEGAL."
A third tagged Boots as they wrote: "@Boots UK you have an opportunity to do something very cool here, be the first UK drug store to acknowledge and ban the pink tax."
A fourth remarked: "I think that gender imbalance is literally illegal. Being charged more for less product because of being a woman? I'd be interested to see the legal position of that."
Another echoed: "Honestly brands should be more ashamed of this."
Join the Daily Record's WhatsApp community here and get the latest news sent straight to your messages
Despite the video's purpose being to raise awareness in the hope that the prices will be made equal in the future, some users stated that drawing attention to the pink tax prices will only cause the retailer to up the price of the male section.
One wrote: "The problem is, you know now it's been pointed out, they won't reduce the women's products, they'll just increase the price of men's products, screwed either way!"
Article continues below
Another agreed: "I hate that boots are probably just going to raise the price of the men's one now instead of bringing the price of the pink one down."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
ghd straightener that 'glides through hair' now under £100
The ghd Original Hair Straightener promises to heat up fast with plates that glide through hair without pulling out strands A good hair day depends on various factors and while shampoo and conditioner provide a good level of nourishment, the use of a quality hair tool can have a more significant impact on achieving style outcomes. ghd's Original Hair Straightener is an iconic hair tool that everyone was talking about during the YouTube beauty boom in the early 2000s. The popular product made it easy to get salon-like results, delivering sleek, smooth and shiny hair, without the risk of extreme heat damage. For a limited time, the straightener is down to a lower price on Amazon, reducing from £139 to £97.99 - a saving of 30%. Shoppers can find the ghd Original on the brand's official website at full price (£139), or at Boots (reduced to £97.99). The hair tool has had a few upgrades since it was first launched in 2001, with the latest version featuring single-zone ceramic technology, to maintain an optimum temperature of 185°C across both styling plates. The rounded barrel helps users to effortlessly create soft waves, bouncy curls or poker-straight looks, while the golden floating plates add a glossy appearance to tresses. ghd's straightener has received a high 4.6 out of five star rating on Amazon, one loyal customer shared: "Last pair gave up after 20 years. Love these, I like the little tune when they are up to full heat. Glide through my hair. The only thing I need to get used to, is they have a curved outer case and don't sit like the others. I just use a silicone mat. Here's to the next 20 years." Another loved the fast 30-second heat up and automatic sleep mode, commenting: " Heats ups quickly and light weight which is what I needed now." A third mentioned that the plates are smooth enough to "glide through the hair without pulling". In need of a quick styling? Cloud Nine's The New Original Iron heats up in 20 seconds and has 11 temperature settings between 100 and 200°C. Currently on offer with £50 saving, shoppers can get this online for £169 instead of £219. LookFantastic has reduced the price of BaByliss Super Styler Hair Straightener from £125 to £43.75 - a whopping 65% off but one shopper said: "It requires a lot of pulling on your hair to get them to move down it." ghd has been rated the UK's number-one straightener brand and its Original Hair Straightener is loved and recommended by hair professionals. One hairdresser detailed: "I use this on my clients for everything - straightening, curling, beach wave, straight bob - you name it. It is light to use and it doesn't damage the hair. I made wavy looks using this as well and my client can't believe it." Another removed a star from their review, saying: "I bought this a few weeks ago , they are great, but the plug is very small to grab hold of, when trying to unplug from stock it's quite hard." Someone else found casing material 'plasticky and cheap' and preferred the ghd Platinum+ Hair Straightener instead, which is down to £229 (was £239). The ghd Original Hair Straightener is available on Amazon for £97.99 instead of £139.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Zonal pricing snub shows Scottish Labour won't stand up for Scotland
As tumbleweed rolls down Aberdeen's Union Street and redundancies are the only thing growing in the north-east, he shuts downwatched the shutting down of the Grangemouth refinery. The justification for his decision on zonal energy pricing announced by Scotland Office Minister Michael Shanks was as craven as you'd expect from his lackey. Heaven forbid that prices might be slightly higher in the golden south of England when people in Scotland are well used to having to pay more in far harsher climes. And Scottish Labour have shown there's no policy or consequence too unpalatable to swallow if their London masters command. Zonal pricing has been championed not by pensioners in the far north but by the chief executive of one of the UK's major energy suppliers. READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Welsh Labour can call out their UK boss. Why can't the Scottish branch? While 'Jock' voices could be treated with the usual contempt and given the same cold shoulder that pleas on the Winter Fuel Payement received, Greg Jackson is an altogether different case – a hugely successful entrepreneur who has built up Octopus Energy, and has even been awarded a CBE on his journey. His calls deserved a critical analysis, not a perfunctory rejection. Scotland has been given a second great natural bounty. The real spoils of the first – oil and gas – have passed us by and we can only look with envy at Norway and what might have been. It's still got life in it, though, and Miliband's killing of it is disgraceful. But renewables are at an early stage and although mistakes have been made, huge opportunities remain. Scotland now produces more energy than it requires, and the gap between home requirement and total production is only going to grow and exponentially so. But what's in it for us? Where's the benefit for Scotland and the Scots? Returns are paltry, with pennies for local communities blighted by onshore wind farms and the thousands paid to the Crown Estate for crossing its foreshore nothing akin to the funds which should be streaming ashore, along with the power produced. UK Energy Secretary Ed MilibandCheap energy is essential and critical for our society and economy. Folk are literally freezing in their homes in winter, as Miliband and Shanks know, while they see the turbines turning off their shores and on their hills. Our economy should be booming. Businesses currently struggling should be benefitting and new ones choosing to locate here. As things stand, Scots hoteliers struggle to compete with continental competition which is so much cheaper because of climate but also, as with the Republic of Ireland, with energy pricing. Why have a golf sojourn in Scotland – the home of golf – when you can visit the Emerald Isle and get far more bang for your buck? That applies in every sector of business from tourism through to modern technology. Similarly, why would you locate a new start-up here in whatever sector, but especially one that is energy intensive, when you could do so where it's cheaper and sunnier? But Scotland's role, according to Shanks, is just to grin and bear it, and the auld yins should just wrap up well. READ MORE: UK politicians are in the pockets of the rich. Is that really democracy? For just as our oil and gas were critical for the UK economy in decades past, renewables are to be the bedrock for the coming ones. It was Boris Johnson who termed the North Sea, 'the Saudi Arabia of wind'. It sure is – but while the desert was transformed by the Saudis with their new-found wealth, Scotland is to be deserted and once again be denied the fruits of its natural bounty. Scotland is simply to be a resource to be exploited. Its renewable energy is taken for a song, with little business and few jobs following, and many that do simply being maintenance, with the far higher-value and higher-skilled work done elsewhere. Compounding that agony, Meanwhile, higher costs and their effect for citizens and businesses in a colder climate remain. But the UK current and past regimes has worse planned. Scotland is not to get the revenue from this global resource and believe me, it is a world game-changer. Whether cabling through to Europe, and Germany in particular, or making green hydrogen for export, this has the potential for Scotland to be at the centre of a new world economy. Instead, Scotland has its environment trashed by pylons taking the energy south of the Border, with endless onshore wind farms to produce it and battery storage to house it. Perish the thought that they should build these huge super containers in metropolitan England where the power will be used. Colonel Blimp would choke on his G&T. I'm reminded of the Irish Republican song about Britain's claim for Rockall: Oh, the Empire it is finished No foreign lands to seize So, the greedy eyes of England Is stirring towards the seas. It's Scotland's onshore and offshore bounty, and our land and people must benefit from it. Zonal pricing has issues and challenges, but they can be overcome. It's why independence is essential. Energy-rich Scotland should see a vibrant society and booming economy, not unaffordable energy costs and a blighted landscape.
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Would a Scottish sovereign wealth fund be possible after independence?
My answer was yes, but there are issues that need to be resolved before that would be possible. The first is the issue of ownership of Scotland's resources and assets. Norway successfully established its famous 'oil fund' based on its natural resources of oil and gas and it did so at an early stage. It could do that because the Norwegian state has the majority stake in the company which explores, extracts and distributes the oil and gas – Equinor, previously known as Statoil. The company was solely owned by the state until 2001 when it was partly privatised, with the state retaining a majority shareholding of 64%. READ MORE: Pat Kane: Scotland is heading back into a cycle of 'extraction without consent' Scotland is not in this position. Our energy sector – oil and gas, and renewables – is largely in foreign ownership, and this is unlikely to change before we achieve independence, especially given the Scottish Government's obsession with attracting foreign investment. This means the first hurdle is to embark on a transition of ownership and control into Scottish hands. We will need our own currency if the Scottish state is to acquire an initial and growing stake in companies operating in the energy sector and to also establish new state-owned entities. The issue of a sovereign wealth fund in the form of a Scottish 'oil fund' was important in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum. My view at the time was that it was too late to create a substantial oil fund as it was apparent we would need to keep most of our oil in the ground if we had any hope of tackling the climate crisis. At that time, there were five times more known oil and gas reserves globally than could be 'burned' if we wished to keep global temperature rises to below 1.5C. Alex Salmond (above) reckoned then there was 40 years more oil in Scottish territory, so by implication Scotland had scope to exploit only eight years' worth, not long enough to build an 'oil fund'. My thoughts turned to the potential of consolidating the pension fund assets attributable to Scottish citizens. At present, total UK pension fund assets are valued in the region of £3 trillion. On a population share basis, Scots' pension fund assets are likely to be worth something like £250 billion. Is it possible to turn these assets into the equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund, while also creating a fund capable of providing earnings-related pensions to all Scottish citizens in the future? Such a fund would not be owned by the Scottish state so would not be a 'sovereign wealth fund' – it would be a national pension fund (NPF) owned by Scotland's citizens; a 'people's wealth fund'. It would give every citizen an indirect but important stake in the infrastructure and companies operating in Scotland and could, perhaps, be considered as a form of 'mutual capitalism'. The NPF could be established in law, in a similar way to how the UK's NEST pension scheme was established, with legal provisions for 'auto-enrolment', by the Pensions Act 2008. READ MORE: Mark Brown: Why I plan to join Scotland's new radical left party NEST is a 'collective defined contributions' pension scheme into which employers and workers pay contributions. It manages the investment of the funds and when members retire their pension is based on the total sum of their contributions and investment returns achieved over the years. The NPF could be designed as a national 'defined benefit' scheme by which members retire with a pension based on their earnings and the number of years working and paying contributions. The fund could begin with all new employees starting work after leaving full-time education, and their employers, paying compulsory contributions into the fund. It would grow rapidly because over the next 40 years no pensions would be drawn from the fund. If 70,000 new workers joined each year for 40 years, average annual earnings were £20,000, and the contribution rate was 15%, the fund would grow exponentially to a total of £172bn by year 40. That would be a substantial fund available for investment to support our economy, take back ownership and increase our productive capacity so that we could meet the needs of all our people. Once the NPF was established, existing workers could be offered the choice of transferring in their existing pension(s). This would be especially attractive for those whose second pension is a defined contributions pension, as joining the NPF would give them rights to a defined benefits pension. A NPF would give rise to a second form of public ownership: ownership by citizens.
