Ditching 'pantyhose'

by Geraden

A bit of a discussion took place recently on LAUF, started by my new friend Peter, about ditching the word 'pantyhose' in favour of some other term – the favourite being 'tights'. The perception was that 'pantyhose' was too feminine a term to gain acceptance as a unisex garment name. Remember that LAUF's members are predominantly Americans and America is the natural habitat of the word 'pantyhose'.

It was suggested that the manufacturers and distributors should lead the way by changing their marketing and packaging, thereby attracting more male customers with the gender-neutral word 'tights'. The reason they are called pantyhose, ran the argument, is because the manufacturers like Hanes and Wolford use that term.

This is where I started to disagree. Pantyhose are not called 'pantyhose' because Hanes or Wolford call them that! (Actually Wolford call them 'tights' in Britain. Hanes do not market in Britain.) Hanes, Wolford and the rest call them whatever their customers call them: pantyhose in the US, tights in the UK, collant in France, Strumpfhose in Austria.

Yes, brand names can be changed - it takes a lot of advertising money, but it can be done (Marathon became Snickers – a meaningless change if ever there was one.) Even generic terms (which is what 'pantyhose' is) could be changed given enough advertising money. However I don't think MacDonald's has yet succeeded in replacing chips with fries in everyday speech – certainly not on this side of the pond. It is hard to think of an example where that has worked – the replacement of sheath by condom following the 1980s AIDS advertising campaigns, maybe.

But why would they bother to pour $millions into forcing a change of terminology from 'pantyhose' to (for example) 'tights'?

Already they sell 40% of their wares to men, whether or not they are called 'pantyhose'. (This can rise to 90% in the case of on-line sales). Already the male hosiery market is growing while the female market continues to shrink, though just possibly now it is bottoming out. Men are obviously buying hosiery, despite the label 'pantyhose'. In the eyes of the industry, they are successful in their marketing strategy vis-à-vis men. Why fix something that is not broken? Whatever the effect on sales to men, re-marketing pantyhose as 'tights' could have a negative effect on sales to women in the US, because there tights are seen as not nearly so glamorous as pantyhose.

I am only talking about the generic term for the product here – don't get me onto the subject of other aspects of marketing, like what picture should be displayed on the packet!

If you would like to comment on this entry, please click on the 'Comments' link below.

links: technorati