CASE 47 / The Female Company / 2019
The Tampon Book
Make an unfair classification visible by building a product that exposes its contradiction.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook
Sources reviewed 2026-11-05
Campaign credits belong to the original creators. They did not write or endorse this analysis.
Credits: Scholz & Friends Berlin for The Female Company.
Recognition: D&AD White Pencil in the 2020 archive.
Launch / edition: 2019. Award years: 2020.
The problem. The idea. The experience.
In 2019 German menstrual products were taxed at 19%, while books received a reduced 7% rate. The Female Company wanted to challenge that difference.
How the idea came to life
Organic tampons were sold inside a book containing illustrated material about menstruation and feminism, allowing the product to use the book tax treatment.
How it reached people
The book and its story supported the broader petition to reduce the tax and gave media a concrete object through which to explain the issue.
Supporting sources: Primary agency case → Primary award organization →
Read the data in context.
The numbers below describe different kinds of outcomes. Their date, scope and reporting source are part of the result.
The agency records the change to a 7% rate for menstrual products from 2020 and the campaign’s support for the petition. This documents participation in a wider effort, not sole responsibility for legislation.
The creative mechanism.
Packaging becomes both a usable product and an argument
The contradiction could be held in a hand
Policy language often demands patience before people understand the problem. A surprising package can demonstrate the discrepancy immediately. Here the product format carries an explanation rather than merely placing a slogan on a wrapper.
The solution pointed back to the rule
The interesting move is not a discount by itself. It is the visible mismatch between two classifications. Similar work is strongest when the example helps an audience understand a system, including what would have to change.
A commercial act had a public reason
Buying or discussing the object could express support for the argument. That connection can make a small brand relevant to a larger debate, provided it is honest about its own benefit and other campaigners’ work.
The intended behavior loop
- 01Notice the unusual product
- 02Understand the tax contrast
- 03Explain it to someone else
- 04Support the wider petition or discussion
- 05Associate the brand with the issue
Growth job: Explain a policy problem → earn discussion → support collective action and brand relevance. This is an interpretation of the mechanism, not an audited attribution model.
A direction to take into the room.
Original editorial interpretation and proposed adaptation. This is a proposed adaptation, not historical campaign execution or a forecast.
The transferable principle
Look for a rule, category or habit that produces an obviously inconsistent customer experience; create a lawful, tangible demonstration of that inconsistency.
Keep these boundaries
Do not assume an ingenious reclassification is legal in another market. Get appropriate legal review, credit existing advocacy and avoid selling a loophole as a substitute for lasting reform.
Turn the lesson into a test.
Illustrative adaptation, not a historical campaign fact
A small-team experiment
For a low-risk customer-experience problem, package two equivalent service examples side by side to show an unnecessary inconsistency.
Build the test
- Document the rule and who it affects.
- Check the proposed demonstration with legal and operations staff.
- Build a small explanatory prototype.
- Test whether people can accurately explain the rule and desired change.
Measure the right thing
Measure issue comprehension, qualified participation and product economics separately.
Know when to stop
Stop if the demonstration misstates the rule, creates an unsafe workaround or obscures other advocates’ contributions.
How this reading fits your brief
Start with the useful part.
Best for: Explain a policy problem → earn discussion → support collective action and brand relevance
What to adapt: Make an unfair classification visible by building a product that exposes its contradiction.
Prerequisites: Legal review; Product safety; Publishing and illustration; Advocacy coordination.
Smaller-team route: For a low-risk customer-experience problem, package two equivalent service examples side by side to show an unnecessary inconsistency.
Budget: Not established by the cited public sources. No cost-fit claim is made.
Trade-offs and evidence: Read the limits below before choosing a test. There is no guaranteed reach, sales lift or ROAS.
Questions for your next brief
- What category boundary creates an absurd result?
- Could packaging explain the issue without a long manifesto?
- What action helps change the rule rather than only exploit it?
Sources & further reading.
Brand and award-entry results are attributed claims, not independent causal audits. Source links open the original third-party pages.
- Scholz & Friends: The Tampon Book →Primary agency case · Supports: 2019 brief, book execution and tax-change context.
- D&AD: The Tampon Book →Primary award organization · Supports: Award archive and campaign identity.
Independent educational analysis of external campaigns. These are not SNS client projects, endorsements or claims of involvement. Campaign facts and reported outcomes are attributed to their sources. Explanations, adaptations and test plans are original analysis and hypotheses, not proven causal findings.