The poor are still paying more for basic utilities and financial services

Payment structures and price plans in utilities and financial services continue to inflict higher costs on the poorest in society. Regulators and the government need to do more.

The poor pay more. It is a well-worn phrase but we must not let that undermine the impact of what it means in real life for real people.
A new report, published today, calculates the premium paid by poor people on essential utilities and access to financial services is as much as 10p in the pound - a significant extra cost for those that are already struggling to make ends meet.

This has a hugely detrimental impact on people's living standards, risking hardship and poverty. Taking what the public determine as an acceptable minimum standard of living in the UK today as its basis, the research shows a single person working full-time earning the minimum wage already falls £52 a week short of having a sufficient income to reach an adequate standard of living. If they're living in a house with high energy needs and subject to a poverty premium, this shortfall increases to £77 per week.

The gap is even greater still for those out of work and in receipt of benefits. If they live in a house with high energy needs, their low-income and the poverty premium combines to leave them some £135 per week short of a socially acceptable standard of living.

These additional costs are driven by a number of factors. For example, in some instances general market failures result in uncompetitive or unfair practices that hit low income consumers particularly hard, as they are less likely to have access to good information and more likely to be risk averse. In particular, worse off consumers are often unable to access the best deals obtained by the most "active" consumers that suppliers are keen to attract. This generates a cross subsidy in favour of better-off groups that is hard to justify.

Specific market failures and lack of competition can also result in the failure to supply products to meet the needs of low income groups at competitive prices. Low-income households can find themselves disadvantaged by the payment methods they tend to favour, different patterns of usage or different credit needs. In some instances cost-reflective premiums - where there is an additional cost of supplying low-income families - result in them facing higher prices, but it is not always clear that the additional price is justified by the additional cost.

So while regulation aims generally to protect consumers by ensuring that markets work in a fair and transparent way, this report begs the question: do low-income consumers need additional protection? And if so, what should regulators and government do?

One response is to ensure fair trading and promote competition, with adequate information for the consumer: this is the central role of regulators. However, it cannot be assumed that this alone will provide sufficient protection to consumers in a weak market position.

At the very least, regulators should monitor the position of low income consumers, looking closely at the products they disproportionately use and whether they are fairly priced. Where problems are identified in the supply of essential services, regulators should have a remit to investigate the structure and level of pricing. In these instances regulators and the government should look together at the case for intervention to ensure basic products are available at affordable prices.

With the cost of living uppermost in many minds, and at a time when many incomes - whether from earnings or benefits - are either static or shrinking, regulators may find themselves with an increasingly important role to play in seeking out and removing poverty premiums. Tentative steps in this direction are already being taken in the financial services and energy markets. Where they are leading, others should follow.

Katie Schmuecker is a Policy and Research Manager for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF).

New research shows many already falling £52 short of an adequate standard of living. When in a house with high energy needs, this increases to £77. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA