For over a decade, the beauty playbook was simple: smooth it, freeze it, FIX IT. Perfection was the goal, and if you couldn’t get there naturally, there was always a needle, a peel, a laser, or surgery waiting to get you closer.

But something has shifted in a way we didn’t expect, and it’s not subtle. People are actively opting out of the obsession with perfection, and they’re not doing it quietly.

AI as the tell.

The loudest pushback has come from an unexpected place: the public’s reaction to AI-generated content. “AI slop” became a defining phrase over the last few years, shorthand for content that’s visually flawless and emotionally empty. Everything looks perfected, and feels totally devoid of anything organic or natural.

McDonald’s found this out the hard way with an AI-generated holiday ad in the Netherlands last year. It was labeled “AI slop,” faced backlash almost immediately, and was quickly removed.

Here’s the part that matters for the beauty industry: the AI slop backlash was never really about AI. It was about people finally understanding a feeling that had been nagging away at them for years: flawless and fake had quietly become synonyms. Once you learn how to spot digital manipulation (Photoshop), filters, and AI in an ad, you start noticing it everywhere. Including cosmetic marketing and advertising.

The perception of beauty is reversing course.

Plastic surgeons are watching it happen in real time. There’s a trend circulating in the beauty industry right now with a very blunt, yet not unexpected name: the “de-Kardashian-ification” of America. Patients are dissolving filler, removing implants, and reversing BBLs in favor of changes that more closely resemble natural human bodies. One prominent New York plastic surgeon put it plainly: good work is supposed to look natural and healthy, not computer-generated.

That’s not a small correction. That’s an entire industry quietly admitting the goalposts have moved. People are rejecting the frozen, unnaturally smooth and proportionate “Instagram Face,” the exaggerated hourglass figure (breast implants, rib removals, and BBLs) that used to signal success and status. They are no longer the “flex” they were just a few years ago; they now read as suspicious (fake) and almost cartoonish. What’s replacing it is a kind of stealth-wealth look: toned over exaggerated, structure over volume, work so precise it looks like good genetics. The goal is no longer perfection. It’s believability.

What “imperfect” looks like right now.

This isn’t just a beauty industry story. It’s showing up everywhere people spend money on how things look:

• Baroque pearls, once considered the defective cousin of the perfectly round pearl, are now the trend. Irregular, lumpy, no two alike, and priced accordingly.

• Linen clothing that wrinkles the second you sit down, worn on purpose, ironed rarely.

• Handmade ceramics, wobbly rims and all, replacing the coveted machine-perfect Hermes and Versace dinnerware sets.

• Sheer skin tints that let freckles, texture, and the occasional blemish show through instead of erasing them.

• Freckle tattoos, which is the funniest one on this list. We spent decades bleaching, lasering, and covering freckles, and now people are paying to add fake ones back.

• Lip stains engineered to make your natural lips look just a little more defined, instead of overfilled and overdrawn.

Look at that list again. Many items represent a perceived flaw that once required “a fix.” Now imperfection is a goal.

This isn’t laziness, and it isn’t nostalgia.

I want to be clear about what this trend actually is, because it’s easy to misread it as people giving up. It isn’t.

The freckle tattoo, the baroque pearl necklace, and the linen shirt all require professional design, and that costs $$$. But nobody’s opting out of spending money. They’re opting out of spending money on products and procedures manufactured to emulate perfection.

What people are currently interested in buying is evidence. Evidence that a human hand touched this. That this pearl was formed exactly the way nature intended it, and nobody smoothed it out. That this face still moves, has expression lines, and has texture because it belongs to an actual person who has lived an actual life. In a social media feed full of content that is likely to have been filtered and “fixed,” actual textures and normal irregularities have become the proof you’re looking at something real.

That’s a significant correction, and it’s not anti-beauty. It’s anti-fake.

#MyTwoCents

I’ve spent my career helping people look like the best version of themselves, so this is not the point of view of an outsider looking in. I’ve watched an entire generation be brainwashed into believing that “flawless” is the endgame, and I’ve watched what it actually costs people to play that game. Time, money, pain, and a willingness to reject what makes them individuals - their flaws.

What I find genuinely hopeful about this shift is that people are beginning to accept there is no such thing as human perfection, and they’ve stopped lying about what they’ve done to try and achieve the unachievable. People are becoming increasingly interested in looking like the best version of THEMSELVES, rather than striving to look like a clone of someone else (a Kardashian/Jenner).

Imperfection is no longer the enemy, and I couldn’t be happier.

What do you think? Let’s discuss this in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

NOTE: All IMK articles are researched and fact-checked using Perplexity software. The actual articles are written by KJ Bennett. The Pangram software licensed by Substack for AI detection is flawed, and its scores have been proven wrong, despite the accuracy figures claimed by Pangram’s marketing.
Read more here.

I’m not OK with that. No one should be.

Substack, WTF are you doing??? 🤬

Every few months, a cosmetic brand chooses a problematic influencer to promote its product(s), and the backlash blows up across socials.

Invariably, the influencer gets called out because:

• They overstate or flat-out lie about their experience with a product to get the brand’s attention and, hopefully, secure a sponsorship (TikTok).

• They repeat a brand’s marketing copy directly from a press release (instead of using their own words), sounding exactly like a dozen other lazy influencers - causing people to distrust the brand, not the influencer.

• They use filters or digital editing to make their results look more impressive, which is deceptive, dishonest, and ILLEGAL (FTC Truth in Advertising).
  Looking directly at you, Mikayla

• They don’t disclose their affiliation or sponsorship clearly - if at all.
  Still looking at you, Mikayla

Then we all get to watch the fallout unfold across multiple social platforms:
The post gets ratioed and stitched, the brand goes quiet and hopes it blows over, the influencer plays the victim and uploads an insincere apology video (which no one believes)… It’s an endless loop, and no one learns from their mistakes.

The bizarre thing is that cosmetic social media marketing keeps relying on very basic metrics to choose affiliates and “partners,” and keeps making deals with problematic influencers that damage consumer trust in their brand (not the influencer).
Yes, still looking at you, Mikayla

There’s no shortage of services telling brands how to fix this, and to be fair, they’re not wrong - looking only at follower counts, demographics, and engagement rates are not the numbers to build a decision on (we’ll do a deeper dive into this below).
Platforms like TRIBE, GRIN, Aspire, and CreatorIQ have built successful business models on selling brands a smarter way to pick influencers, using more in-depth data, better filters, and a sharper spreadsheet.

But smarter data is still just a bunch of numbers. Some of the worst influencer partnerships in recent years occurred even when every available metric looked perfect.

The Metrics Look Accurate, But Are They?

Follower count sounds like the safest number a brand can trust. It isn’t. YouTube says most Shorts views come from people who don’t even subscribe to the channel, and Instagram reports something similar for Reels: over half the views come from non-followers. Translation: a big chunk of who’s watching an influencer today isn’t the audience that influencer built. It’s whoever the algorithm decided to show their content.

Demographics have the same blind spot. A brand picks an influencer whose followers are mostly women 25 to 40 and assumes that’s who’s buying. But online purchase behavior isn’t that simple. Google discovered an interesting phenomenon years ago: for video game searches, you’d expect most buyers to be men 18 to 34. Only 31% actually were.

Beauty proved the same point loudly a few years ago. Anti-aging retinoid serums and acidic chemical exfoliators built for consumers in their 30s and 40s started selling out to pre-teens who’d seen them on TikTok.
The “Sephora kids” uproar prompted dermatologists to frantically warn about the dangers of kids buying and using highly active skincare meant for much older skin. These kids were nowhere near the target demographic age range, yet the algorithm flooded their feeds with brightly colored Drunk Elephant packaging anyway, and the sales followed. You can try all you want to target the “right” demographic, and the algorithm will still show the ad to whoever it wants.

Engagement rate poses another interesting problem: it treats every reaction like it means the same thing. A like, a comment, a save, and a share are all lumped into one number, but they’re not the same action, and they don’t always reflect REAL engagement. A nano or micro influencer’s engagement is often built on real conversations in the comment section, thoughtful reposts, shares, and saves. A macro or mega influencer account can rack up huge engagement numbers simply by having followers click “like” as they scroll past, without ever actually reading a word of their content.

Nano and micro accounts consistently post higher REAL engagement percentages than macro and mega ones for exactly this reason: it’s real interaction, not a reflex “like” click because you follow the account.

These platforms aren’t wrong that follower count, demographics, and engagement rate are shaky ground on which to base a decision. But swap in whatever “smarter” version they’re selling instead - growth instead of count, affinity instead of demographics, storytelling instead of engagement rate - and the problem doesn’t go away. We’re still relying on NUMBERS.

None of these metrics, old or new, measure whether an influencer is authentic or truthful.

The Numbers Reward Reach, Not Honesty

Here’s the part that keeps me up at night. The bigger the following, the more likely it is that a dishonest or problematic influencer will avoid getting canceled for bad behavior.

Mikayla Nogueira’s 2023 sponsored video for L’Oréal Telescopic Mascara sparked what the internet dubbed #Lashgate. Viewers accused her of slipping in false lashes (Ardell Wispies) to the mascara application “after” shot while she “acted” amazed by the mascara’s lash-lengthening ability. The backlash was massive: millions of views, tens of thousands of comments, weeks of coverage (heck, we’re still talking about it). If the accusations were proven true, that’s not just an ooooops, it’s a violation of FTC Truth in Advertising rules, the same regulation that lets the agency fine an influencer for deception.
But neither Mikayla nor L’Oréal ever admitted to the deception, so no one was fined. She kept her deal, and she’s still one of the biggest names in the social media beauty community, still landing major brand partnerships years after #Lashgate - because 17.4 million willfully ignorant TikTok followers provide a lot of cover for bad behavior.

Now picture the nano-influencer or micro-influencer with 5,000-10,000 truly engaged followers who actually use what they promote, disclose every sponsorship, and never apply a filter to make product results look better. By every real measure, they are the logical choice. Nano and Micro-influencers’ post engagement rates are up to three times higher than macro and mega accounts, and beauty brands see $4 to $6 back for every dollar spent on the right smaller influencer, sometimes as high as $18. BUT, even though those numbers are impressive, they aren’t “reaching” a large number of people. So many nano and micro-influencers get passed over for the macro or mega-influencer with a larger following (on paper). Reach is a top priority for most brands and sits at the top of a pitch deck, yet there is no metric that measures honesty.

It gets worse. Buying fifty thousand fake followers only costs a few hundred dollars, and it’s often enough to push an account past the 100K mark, where brand deal rates jump. One recent review of 100,000 social media influencer accounts found that more than a third showed signs of fake followers. Beauty influencers were the biggest offenders, with over half flagged for suspicious follower activity. So, a brand that looks only at an influencer’s follower count while turning a blind eye to potential dishonesty isn’t just rewarding them for bad behavior; it’s probably paying for followers that don’t even exist.

It’s Not Just About Faked Reviews

Dishonesty about a product isn’t the only way this backfires, and it was proven three times without a single false lash in sight.

• e.l.f. Cosmetics pulled a campaign within days after comedian Matt Rife’s history of misogynistic jokes, especially one about domestic violence, angered a HUGE chunk of the brand’s audience.

• Huda Beauty was already weeks into a partnership with Love Island USA’s Huda Mustafa, and had to drop her after she let a racial slur go unaddressed during a TikTok livestream.

• Urban Decay named OnlyFans influencer Ari Kytsya as a brand ambassador for their “Battle The Bland” marketing campaign, and immediately drew fire from parent groups claiming they were “glamorizing the pornography industry” to teenage followers.

None of these social media influencers lied about a product. They had the reach, the engagement, often exactly the “metrics” a brand wanted. The mistake was that no one took into account the influencer’s behavioral history and how it could affect the affiliation before the deal was signed.

The Data Is Created By the Company Selling You DATA

The tools that are supposed to help brands avoid exactly this kind of mess have their own blind spot. TRIBE isn’t the only one doing this. Every service in this space backs up its “smarter metrics” pitch with its own success stories. TRIBE’s blog, for example, cites a campaign that reportedly outperformed its own audience size 8-to-1, a duo that pulled in 2.6 million views, and 7 influencers who supposedly outperformed a brand’s own ads by 38%.

That’s a service asking you to trust its own internal results, while it sells you the exact thing those results are supposed to prove works. I’ve made this argument about cosmetic brands citing the results of internal “studies” in their ad campaigns. When a company cites results from an INTERNAL study, it’s controlled marketing data to make them look good. It is NOT legitimate validation from peer-reviewed, independent, third-party testing.

What Brands SHOULD Be Doing

Guess what’s never part of a pitch by TRIBE, GRIN, Aspire…a background check. These services will hand a brand an influencer’s growth curve, affinity score, and storytelling rating. None of them will tell you if that influencer has a history of being problematic or dishonest and could get the brand in trouble, because that’s not their business model. They’re matchmaking tools, not vetting services, and brands need to stop treating them like influencer authorities.

Brands need to stop relying so much on metrics, and shouldn’t assume paying for a service like TRIBE, GRIN, or Aspire means the vetting is handled. Their entire business is about matching brands to influencers using smarter data, not running background checks. A brand needs someone to actually do a background check on the influencer BEFORE they’re contacted.

• Does the influencer’s reputation hold up to a basic Google search?

• Would this influencer still use and promote the brand without being paid?

• Has this influencer been caught overexaggerating or faking their product experience in a review?

• Has this influencer posted digitally filtered images or video to make their review results look more impressive?

I get it, doing a background check takes time, which is why it’s often skipped in favor of simply glancing at the influencer’s follower count or relying on an external service’s engagement metrics. If you want consistently successful influencer campaigns, stop being lazy and do the background work yourself to make sure you’re investing in the right influencer.

#MyTwoCents

I’ve watched brands hand the biggest deals to the influencer with the largest following, scandals and all, while a smaller influencer who’s never lied or posted false results gets passed over because their numbers don’t look as impressive.

That’s backward, and it can be an expensive mistake. Every dollar invested in a dishonest mega-influencer’s reach is a dollar not spent on someone who actually earns trust for a living. The fake-follower numbers alone should be reason enough to stop defaulting to whoever has the biggest audience.

The metrics don’t guarantee honesty or trust. PERIOD.

What do you think? Let’s discuss this in the comments.

I smile to myself when I see a twenty-something-year-old on my TikTok or Insta feed “discovering” a makeup look and presenting it as the definitive trend of the moment. The latest “trend” is smudged eyeliner, untamed brows, and a slightly muddy neutral matte lip, creating an unbothered and slightly messy look. What I find amusing is that this “new” trend strongly resembles the “grunge makeup” of the 1990s.

I’m not saying this to be smug, although I admit it’s tempting. I’m saying it because there’s an actual pattern here, one that goes back further than the dawn of social media, and once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Makeup doesn’t present a new, innovative look every few seasons. It recycles them on a schedule, with slight modifications, and the schedule is more predictable than the cosmetic industry would like to admit.

That Pattern Has a Name

There’s a name for the pattern: “the twenty-year rule,” though depending on who you ask, it sometimes can stretch to thirty or forty.
It comes from James Laver, a fashion historian at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum, better known as the V&A, one of the world’s biggest museums for art and design. He published a theory back in 1937 arguing that styles cycle back into fashion on a set timeline. Laver’s original number was closer to fifty years, not twenty. Somewhere along the way, pop culture rounded it down, so treat the “twenty-year rule” as a widely repeated idea from fashion history.

What holds up under real research is the reason behind the pattern. Psychologists call it the “reminiscence bump”: your most vivid, emotionally charged memories form somewhere between adolescence and your early twenties. Those are the memories a generation reaches for once they’re old enough to actually shape an industry rather than just buy what it’s offering. That’s why trends resurface every 20-30 years. It’s not clever nostalgic marketing. It’s just how long it takes a room full of teenagers to grow up and get a seat at the table where “trend” decisions are made.

The Eighties Resurface

Take a good look at the makeup of the 1980s, because it’s hard not to notice how closely it resembles 2014 through 2020.

The eighties were built on excess: excessively bright, colorful eyeshadow swept from lash line to brow bone, hot pink and fuchsia lips applied with zero apology, purple blush applied so heavily it sometimes made the skin look bruised. Cyndi Lauper wasn’t wearing makeup so much as making a statement with it, and the statement was that subtlety could wait for another decade.

Now think about “Instagram makeup” starting from around 2014 until the COVID lockdown, because it was chasing that same look with a different toolkit. Heavy contour cut in with knife-like precision, cheekbone highlights shining bright enough to show up from space, brows drawn in like architectural monuments, a “full beat” treated as the baseline rather than a special-occasion look. The Kardashian-Jenners didn’t invent maximalist beauty. They just replicated the eighties’ makeup excess with a beauty blender and photo filters.

That’s not a coincidence; it’s the recycling of a makeup look, showing up right on schedule.

We’re Even Recycling the Dueling Makeup Trends of the 1990s

The nineties never fully agreed on one look, and neither do we in the mid-2020s.

In the 1990s, on one side, you had a Calvin Klein/Giorgio Armani natural-looking minimalism: nude lip liner, a barely-there wash of beige shadow on eyelids with a little mascara, skin left alone to be skin. On the other hand, you had grunge: a careless smear of dark eyeshadow on the eyelids, smudged black eyeliner that looked like it had barely survived a long night at the club, lightened skin that looked almost vampiric, matte lips in bruised, muddy shades. Models Kate Moss (grunge) and Christy Turlington (minimalist) were living proof that both aesthetics could coexist in the same era without canceling each other out.

That’s exactly what’s happening right now, and everyone’s already put a name on both halves of it. “Skinimalism” and the clean girl aesthetic picked up where nineties minimalism left off: skin-first, barely-there color, the idea that less product signals more confidence. At the same time, grunge makeup has come back hard enough to show up on current fashion runways and inside a wave of TikTok tutorials, with smudged eyeliner and matte, muddy lips leading the charge.

There’s a certain irony that this revival has created. This time around, beauty marketing is trying desperately to cash in on both sides at once, with brands trying to sell “clean grunge” as a look, which is a total contradiction in terms. The entire point of nineties grunge was the refusal to be polished or “clean.” What I find even more interesting is how both of these competing looks have resurfaced as trends again, at the same time - right on schedule.

Patrick Ta Proves My Point

If you want proof this cycle is playing out in real time, look at the “transition blush” drama that broke out this year. Patrick Ta Beauty launched a collection built around what he called “Transition Blush,” a soft, gradient blush technique blurred up toward the temple, and filed a trademark for the name back in May 2025, a full year before the product ever hit shelves. When it finally launched, the internet did not let it slide.

Here’s why. That gradient blush application has roots dating back centuries, appearing in Tang Dynasty rouge and Heian-era Japanese beni. In the modern era, Serge Lutens brought the technique back into the spotlight in the late 1960s and early 1970s while creating his radical, boundary-pushing makeup line for Dior. Way Bandy repurposed it in the 1980s and gave it the name it still wears today, “blush draping.” Kevyn Aucoin picked it back up in the 1990s and published it in his 1997 book, “Making Faces.” Decades later, makeup artist Ngozi Edeme, known online as Painted by Esther, built a massive following by putting her own spin on it, consistently crediting Aucoin as her inspiration throughout.

So when Ta tried to trademark “Transition Blush” as if he’d invented it, he wasn’t just stepping on one artist’s toes. He was staking a claim to something that had already passed through Asian beauty tradition, a 1970s makeup revolution, and the hands of one of the most influential artists of the 1990s before it ever reached him. He’s since walked it back and given Esther her credit. But the whole episode is a tidy, very current example of exactly what this article is about: someone calling a decades-old idea “new,” and getting caught doing it.

Why I Care

I’m at the age where I’ve actually applied a lot of these looks on real faces - the first time they were popular. It’s great to see some of my favorite makeup styles from the past reemerge, but it’s perplexing to see them promoted as “new”. They’re not innovation; they’re the current reimagining of something that already existed.
When a client asks me for something “totally new,” half the time they’re describing a look I was applying before some of them were born - the only difference is, this time around I’m using better formulas and application tools. I don’t waste time reinventing the wheel; I take the rock-solid techniques handed down by my mentors and reinterpret the iconic makeup looks from the past into something updated and modern.

And if you’re the type who falls for makeup marketing hype that promotes a “new look” every few seasons, hopefully this article has opened your eyes. That “new” grunge palette is, at best, a reference to a makeup trend from over 30 years ago. That doesn’t make it a copycat or bad. It just makes “new” the wrong word for it.

#MyTwoCents

None of what I’m saying is to knock anyone falling in love with a look for the first time. Everyone gets to discover things on their own timeline. What amuses me, and occasionally irritates me, is the industry’s habit of repackaging the past and selling it back to us as innovation, then acting surprised when someone with a memory calls them out.

The cycle isn’t going to stop, and that’s OK.
Right now, we’re reliving a split-screen nineties moment, skin-first minimalism on one side, deliberately messy, undone grunge on the other, both competing for the same social media virality. In twenty years, someone will call this era “iconic” and sell it back to the next generation as something innovative, because that’s how the cycle runs.

How many makeup trends have you seen recycled in your lifetime? What makeup trend do you think will reemerge next? Let’s talk about it in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

If you’ve noticed your go-to serum quietly creeping up in price, or a beloved moisturizer that seems just slightly different lately, you’re not imagining things. Tariffs are reshaping the global beauty supply chain, and not in the way you might imagine. The full impact is already showing up on retail shelves.

Let’s talk about what’s actually happening behind the scenes, and why price hikes are the least worrisome part.

The Tariff Problem, In Plain English

Okay, let’s break down what’s actually going on, because “tariffs” has become a word that makes people’s eyes glaze over due to the current political climate - that is, until it shows up on a sales receipt.

Import tariffs of 15% or more are now hitting cosmetics and personal care products sourced from the EU and Asia. They supply a huge share of what goes into manufacturing cosmetics: the ingredients, the components that are filled with the formula, and the secondary packaging that sits on retail shelves. Aluminum is also affected, and that one matters a lot, because airless pumps and aluminum tubes are how a lot of high-performance products are now being packaged.

Analysts are forecasting a 12 to 15 percent decline in cross-border beauty trade in the second half of 2026. Mexico, which quietly does a lot of North America’s manufacturing, is stuck in the middle of it: it sources roughly 40% of its packaging plastics and 35% of its specialty chemicals from Asia, and those imports are now facing tariffs of up to 50%.

But what does all this mean? The global machine of suppliers, manufacturers, and logistics partners that makes your favorite moisturizer just got a lot more expensive to run. And nobody designed this system to survive unexpected (unnecessary) tariffs.

Why Prices Are Going Up

The beauty industry was already working with tighter margins than most consumers realize. When raw material costs rise by 20 to 30 percent across the board, brands have a limited number of options.

1. Absorb the hit (and that’s only the largest companies, not indies).

2. Reduce fill weights (notice that your favorite serum is now 25ml instead of 30ml?).

3. Pass the cost on to consumers.

Some have done two, a lot have done all three.

Many prestige brands dependent on components manufactured in France and Italy (Aptar, Albee, Lumson), Korean actives, or aluminum packaging are especially exposed. A high-quality airless pump mechanism sourced from a tariffed region will add significant final cost to every unit manufactured.

But price changes are just the tip of the iceberg.

A Simple Packaging Change Can Be Complicated

The part of this story nobody’s talking about is the part I find most interesting. When a brand has to switch to an alternative component (a different pump supplier, a different bottle, a different tube material), you’d think, well, that’s just a simple behind-the-scenes swap.

It’s not. It has a good chance of changing the formula itself.

Stay with me here, because we’re diving into chemistry. Different packaging materials interact with cosmetic formulas in different ways. Some plastic polymers let more oxygen through, which is a real problem for anything antioxidant-rich. Some eco-friendly materials leach at higher rates over time, introducing the kind of microscopic contamination that affects safety and performance. The pH of a formula can shift depending on what type of container it’s been sitting in for extended periods (months, years). Even a simple pump mechanism matters: it changes how a product gets aerated (allows air in) when you use it, which affects texture, oxidation, and the stability of actives.

None of this is hypothetical. Packaging and formulation are deeply co-dependent, and every cosmetic chemist knows it. You don’t just swap out a new container and call it a day.

The Stability Testing Problem

Here’s where things get genuinely expensive for brands, and genuinely annoying for consumers. Any time a brand changes a component, industry best practice (and regulatory expectations under MoCRA) requires the formula to go through stability testing in its new package.

This is not a quick check. Stability testing requires storage under a range of temperature and humidity conditions for anywhere from three to four months, depending on the formula. This is to confirm it will remain stable from the warehouse to your house in its new container. Accelerated testing can shave some time off that, but it doesn’t make the process disappear. And accelerated testing leaves the door open for formulas to fail once they hit retail shelves.

Picture this: a brand is forced to switch from a Korean-sourced airless pump to a French one. They’re not just eating the cost of the new, more expensive component, they’re staring at months of stability testing before they can confidently put that product back into production. And what happens if the new pump isn’t compatible? They need to keep looking for a compatible component, wasting time and losing money.

In the meantime, they’ve got these options:

1. Quietly sell through existing inventory without telling you anything is changing, and hope they find a new compatible component that doesn’t leave them out of stock for too long.

2. Or rush a stability process that shouldn’t be rushed, with a pump that isn’t the best choice for their formula, so there isn’t a hiccup in sales.

Pick your poison. Neither choice is great.

And Sometimes, the Formula Has to Change Too

And here’s the part you’ve noticed, sort of.

Sometimes stability testing reveals that a formula that performed perfectly in its original packaging just doesn’t hold up in the replacement. The new tube reacts with the preservative system. The new pump lets in more air than the antioxidants can handle. The viscosity needs to be adjusted slightly to accommodate the new dispensing system. Small things, but they matter.

When that happens, a brand’s got a choice: hunt for another component and go back for another round of stability testing, or reformulate. And reformulation is no joke. It can mean rebuilding the entire preservative system, adjusting viscosity (reworking the texture), or finding out you need to swap out an active that was specifically chosen to work in the original packaging.

I’ll bet you never thought tariffs could change a formula. Wild, right?

For anyone who’s spent the time (and $$$) finding products that work for their skin, this is not a minor inconvenience. Skin that’s adapted to a specific formula, an actives profile, or a preservative system, can react adversely. And guess what? Brands aren’t required to announce minor formula changes, and neither are retailers. How many times have you seen a disclaimer on an Ulta or Sephora product page, warning you that the ingredient list they have posted could be incorrect, and that you need to check the ingredient list on the physical product you purchased? You might suddenly have a reaction to a product you’ve used for years, wondering why on earth that happened. Well, now it’s YOUR responsibility to compare the ingredient lists to see if that’s why your skin is reacting.

What You Can Actually Do About It

Screenshot the ingredient lists on the products you’re using. If a product works for your skin, photograph the part of the label where the full ingredient deck appears. Future you, confused by an unexpected skin reaction, will thank present you for taking that screenshot.

Watch for the tells: a change in the way the packaging looks (size, shape, decoration), a pump that dispenses differently, a “new look, same formula” callout on the box. Thoughtful reformulation that attempts to emulate the original formula as closely as possible can take months, and stability testing can expand that time frame to a full year. A brand quietly navigating a packaging swap while keeping the product safe is doing the responsible thing, even when its communication about it leaves a lot to be desired. So, please give those brands a little grace on timing.

#MyTwoCents

Here’s what nobody in the industry wants to say out loud: the beauty supply chain has been running on the assumption of frictionless globalization for decades. Ingredients from one continent, packaging from another, manufacturing from a third, all assembled into a product that lands on a shelf in your city at a price point that somehow still includes a margin for everyone involved. That model is under real pressure right now, and tariffs are accelerating a restructuring that was probably inevitable anyway.

The brands best positioned to navigate this are the ones who’ve invested in ingredient flexibility, domestic or regional sourcing relationships, and transparent communication with their customers. The ones who are going to struggle are the ones who’ve been running lean on single-source dependencies, hoping the trade environment stays cooperative.

For consumers, the reality is: the products you love are going to cost more, some of them are going to change, and a few of them might disappear entirely while brands figure out an alternative. That’s not me being an alarmist. It’s simply facts.

The best thing you can do is stay informed, pay attention to your products, and not assume that a higher price tag means the brand is trying to take advantage of you. In 2026, it might just mean the pump got more expensive.

What do you think? Let’s have a conversation in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

The FDA approved bemotrizinol (BEMT) as a sunscreen active in June 2026. Products can start hitting shelves as early as August 9, 2026. BTW, the rest of the world has been using BEMT since 1999.

Twenty-seven years late? I mean, seriously, FDA, WTF???

Let that sink in. While Europe, Asia, and Australia have had nearly three decades of real-world use of this ingredient (billions of applications, zero safety crises), American consumers have been locked out of it entirely because the U.S. regulatory system classifies sunscreen as a drug and treats it accordingly. This isn’t a breakthrough. It’s a 27-year-overdue correction, and it says a lot about how badly the system has failed us.

The Rest of the World Has Used BEMT for 27 Years

Here’s the part that should genuinely annoy you: bemotrizinol isn’t new. It’s been used safely in sunscreens in Europe, Asia, and Australia since 1999. While American consumers were stuck with the same limited selection of SPF actives from a previous century, people across most of the developed world have had nearly three decades of use of this ingredient. Billions of applications. No mass recalls. No safety crises. Just better sun protection than what Americans had access to.

And bemotrizinol isn’t the only one. Several other highly effective UV filters with equally long safety records in global markets have been waiting for the FDA’s review and approval, in some cases for well over a decade. This has created real frustration for U.S. sunscreen formulators trying to create the most effective protection against the UV radiation that causes skin cancer. Americans deserve better.

Why Did It Take So Long?

Here’s the context most people don’t know: in the U.S., the FDA classifies sunscreen as an over-the-counter drug, not a cosmetic. That means every active ingredient must undergo a drug approval process before it can legally appear in a sunscreen formula. SPF products are subject to the same regulatory framework that governs pain relievers and cold remedies. In most of the rest of the world, sunscreen is regulated as a cosmetic, which moves considerably faster. So while European and Asian regulators were greenlighting new, more effective UV filters with relative efficiency, the U.S. was running them through a pharmaceutical gauntlet. Same ingredients. Extremely different timelines.

What Bemotrizinol Actually Does

This is the part that makes the 27-year wait genuinely frustrating: bemotrizinol is an impressively effective filter.

It delivers outstanding broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection, which matters because most consumers fixate on SPF numbers (a UVB measure) while UVA radiation, the kind that penetrates deeper and is responsible for both premature aging and skin cancer risk, often gets less attention. Bemotrizinol addresses both. It’s also highly photostable, meaning it doesn’t break down in sunlight the way some older filters do, which has historically been one of the bigger limitations of U.S.-approved actives.

It is approved for adults and children as young as 6 months, and can be used by formulators at concentrations up to 6%. In practical terms, it gives formulators greater flexibility to create lighter, more elegant textures. One of the longstanding complaints about U.S. sunscreen formulas is that they tend to feel heavy and less cosmetically refined than their European counterparts. That gap exists, in large part, because American formulators have been working with effective, yet antiquated ingredients.

What Comes Next

Bemotrizinol is the first ingredient to be approved through a new streamlined FDA approval pathway created by the CARES Act. There are other UV filters the rest of the world has been using for years that are still sitting in the FDA queue. If this opens the door for those, too, great. If bemotrizinol turns out to be the exception rather than the new normal, we’ll be having this exact conversation again in a decade or so.

Either way, expect to see BEMT in new product launches before the end of 2026. Your sunscreen is about to get a long-overdue upgrade.

#MyTwoCents

Let’s be clear about what the bemotrizinol approval actually is: it’s not a triumph. It’s a correction. The U.S. sunscreen regulatory framework has been an embarrassment relative to global standards for a very long time. Formulators in the EU, Japan, and Australia have spent decades developing more protective, more cosmetically elegant products, while American brands have worked around a regulatory system stuck in the 20th century.

We’re FINALLY catching up. But let’s not throw a party and give out gold stars, because we have a long way to go.

The real story here is what it costs us to be this far behind: the best modern protection against skin cancer. American consumers deserve the same level of UV protection available almost everywhere else in the world. One FDA approval doesn’t fix that. But it’s a start.

What do you think? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Thirty-one million Americans are now on GLP-1 medications, and for most people, it genuinely works.

But somewhere along the way, as their new streamlined bodies began to emerge, something else began to happen. Their face wasn’t just getting thinner, it was beginning to look drawn - older!!! 😳
Temples caved in, cheeks and undereyes hollowed out, and jaws got slack. The skin all over their body began to look looser, crepey, and stopped snapping back the way it used to. They were losing weight, but they were also losing skin vitality - from head to toe.

The problem eventually got a nickname, “Ozempic Face”. But the nickname is misleading because the changes don’t stop at the jawline. The same thing was happening to necks, arms, abdomens, thighs, and butts. Head to toe, skin quality was changing - for the worse. And now the beauty industry is tripping over itself, trying to figure out how to address it.

What’s Actually Happening to the Skin

This isn’t your typical weight-loss side effect. It goes a lot deeper than that.

Rapid weight loss has always come with some skin laxity. That’s not new. What is new is what GLP-1 drugs appear to be doing beneath the surface. Research published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal found GLP-1 receptors sitting directly in the skin tissue responsible for producing collagen, elastin, and hyaluronic acid. The drugs appear to disrupt those cells’ ability to do their job, essentially telling your skin’s repair system to kick back and take a break.

Dr. Sabrina Fabi, a board-certified dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon, put it plainly: “Your skin cells are not readily able to regenerate fat or dermis when you are on these medications.” Dr. Rishi Chopra, a board-certified New York dermatologist who presented on this at the 2025 ASDS annual meeting, is seeing the same thing: “I’m very surprised at the level of laxity and significant volume loss and sagging that we’re seeing in GLP-1 patients.”

So when someone says their skin “looks different” since starting a GLP-1, they’re not imagining it. The drug itself may be actively aging the skin at a cellular level. And that’s a “problem” the beauty industry is happily building an entire product category around.

The Specialists Who Never Expected to Get This Busy

Nobody walked out of their primary care physician’s office with a GLP-1 script, PLUS a referral to a facial plastic surgeon. And yet, here we are.

Dermatologists’ and plastic surgeons’ offices are struggling to accommodate a massive group of patients they weren’t expecting. More than 20% of one prominent dermatologist’s patient base is now on these medications, many of them showing up specifically to address what the drug did to their face and body. Facial fat grafting procedures were up 50% in 2024, according to the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, driven largely by GLP-1 patients.

The stat that really puts this into perspective: 63% of GLP-1 patients now seeking facial treatments have never set foot in a dermatologist’s office or a medispa before. They’re first-timers, arriving confused, often alarmed, and under-informed. The conversation with their GLP-1 prescriber covered the physiological side effects of the drug, but never included, “by the way, in a few months you may want to call a dermatologist and a plastic surgeon.”

These side effects are causing a windfall $$$ for the aesthetics industry. A Galderma study found that over 91% of dermatologists and plastic surgeons recommend a combination of Sculptra and Restylane to someone dealing with it. For more severe cases, fat grafting delivers long-lasting, natural-looking results at an even higher price. The waiting rooms are full, the referrals are pouring in, and dermatologists and plastic surgeons have become the cleanup crew for a problem that started in a completely different doctor’s office.

The Products (And What to Actually Think of Them)

Predictably, the cosmetic industry saw an opportunity and jumped in fast. Whether they belong here is a different question.

Products appearing on shelves right now range from “genuinely formulated for GLP-1 skin laxity” to “we had an anti-aging serum and decided to slap GLP-1 on the label.” Let’s look at a few products getting the most attention.
NOTE: None of them has independent, third-party clinical data to back up their claims.

DermaReverse by Dr. Few Skincare has the strongest study design: a split-face, placebo-controlled, blinded pilot study on 7 GLP-1 users, published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum, in which 100% of participants saw improvements in skin laxity, texture, and transdermal moisture loss over 6 weeks. At $300 for 30ml, it’s not cheap.

But here’s what the brand’s marketing conveniently skips: Dr. Few and his COO co-own Aforé LLC, the company that makes DermaReverse. The man running the research owns the brand being tested. That’s a founder studying his own product, not independent validation.
Peer-reviewed? Yes. Third-party validation? No.

VOL.U.LIFT by Image Skincare launched in April 2025, built around what co-owner and board-certified plastic surgeon Dr. Marc Ronert calls the “Four D’s” of GLP-1 skin changes: deflation, deep wrinkles, dehydration, and density loss.
A 12-week study with 29 participants showed more than 20% improvements in volume, elasticity, firmness, and hydration. That study was funded directly by Image Skincare. Published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Peer-reviewed? Yes. Third-party validation? No.

SkinCeuticals A.G.E. Interrupter Ultra Serum arrived in August 2025 from L’Oréal, and this is where things get the murkiest. The headline numbers in the marketing (up to 18% visible lifting and 54% improvement in smoothness) come from testing on 76 people who were NOT on GLP-1 medications. The actual GLP-1 patient testing involved 25 people and included ultrasound procedures, making it impossible to know what results were contributed by the product and what results came from the ultrasound treatments.
No peer-reviewed publication. No third-party testing. It’s all internal L’Oréal data, released via a press release.

So there you have it. Three “frontrunners,” all backed by in-house, brand-funded data, no independent researchers, no third-party validation. That doesn’t automatically make them bad products. It means you’re buying on faith, not evidence.

Then there’s everything else — and “everything else” is a lot of existing anti-aging products dressed up in new packaging with a GLP-1 callout slapped on it.

Cosmetic chemist Ron Robinson said it plainly: most of the ingredients in these launches aren’t new. They’re the same anti-aging staples that have been on shelves for years. Two years passed between “Ozempic Face” entering the cultural conversation and the first products hitting the market. Plenty of time to develop something genuinely innovative and effective to address the problem.

Also, plenty of time to rebrand an existing product (with minor tweaks) and relaunch it as a product developed specifically for GLP-1 users.
The only way to tell them apart is to check whether the testing was actually done on GLP-1 users, not just people with general skin-aging concerns.

The Ingredient Everyone’s Suddenly Obsessed With

Let’s talk about Volufiline™ for a minute, because it keeps showing up everywhere, and the marketing pitch is interesting enough to deserve an actual conversation, not just a dismissal.

Volufiline is a patented ingredient that works on fat cells, which is exactly why it sounds relevant here. Instead of targeting collagen, elastin, or hyaluronic acid, as most anti-aging ingredients do, it targets fat cell development, nudging cells to mature faster and store more lipids. Essentially asking the skin to plump itself from within. Given that Ozempic Face isn’t just about fat loss but also about the body’s impaired ability to regenerate fat cells, an ingredient that works at that level is at least addressing the problem.

But here’s where it gets sketchy. The clinical study behind Volufiline was conducted by Sederma, the company that makes it. It showed a 2.2% average increase in volume after 56 days of twice-daily application. And it was done on breast tissue, not the face.
ZERO clinical trials have examined Volufiline specifically in GLP-1 patients. ZERO. The mechanism is plausible. The claim that it reverses Ozempic Face? That’s not science, it’s storytelling.

When you see Volufiline listed as the hero ingredient in a GLP-1-targeted skincare product, the brand is basing its marketing on a small, self-funded study conducted on a completely different part of the body. 🤨

It’s Not Just the Face

“Ozempic Face” is a catchy name, but limiting this conversation to the face is like referencing the tip of the iceberg while ignoring what’s underwater.

The same thing happening to your temples and cheeks is happening everywhere else, and for many GLP-1 users, the body is where the changes are most jarring. When subcutaneous fat disappears faster than the skin can adapt, everything that once had structure and support underneath it suddenly doesn’t. Upper arms go crepey. The abdomen, which may have been the whole reason someone started the medication in the first place, ends up loose and deflated instead of smooth and tight. The same problem appears on the neck, arms, thighs, and buttocks.

And unlike the face, these areas are harder and more expensive to treat. Multiple rounds of energy-based treatments such as radiofrequency, ultrasound, and laser are being offered to address post-GLP-1 body laxity. For more severe skin laxity, surgical body contouring is booming.

Age is the other variable that seems to be getting ignored. Someone in their 30s rapidly losing 30-50 pounds has a decent shot at a reasonable skin rebound. Someone in their 50s or 60s losing the same amount of weight is dealing with skin that already has compromised collagen and elasticity production. Rapid fat loss on top of that is a completely different situation. Same drug, wildly different outcomes depending on where you are in life.

The cosmetic industry is also responding. Brands are launching firming body products using the same ingredients as the facial launches. Whether any of it meaningfully moves the needle on significant laxity is doubtful.

And Then There’s the Hair Issue

Nobody warns GLP-1 patients that the drug could affect their hair. Which makes it even more alarming when it happens.

What you’re experiencing is called telogen effluvium, a clinical term for hair shedding triggered by rapid weight loss and the physical stress it puts on the body. Your follicles essentially hit pause, shift more hairs than usual into a resting phase, and then release them all at once a few months later. For GLP-1 users, it typically starts two to four months after beginning or increasing the dose and can continue for several months. Full recovery, once weight stabilizes, can take 12 to 18 months.

A 2025 systematic review confirmed the link between GLP-1 use and hair loss, though the mechanism appears more tied to rapid weight loss and nutritional stress than to the drug itself. Which sounds reassuring until you’re standing in the shower watching a clump of your hair circle the drain.

The haircare industry moved fast on this. Nutrafol, owned by Unilever, has reported significant sales growth, particularly among GLP-1 users. For most haircare brands, overall sales of scalp serums, growth supplements, and thickening treatments have spiked. For more severe cases, dermatologists are adding PRF (platelet-rich fibrin) treatments and prescription topicals to their GLP-1 patient protocols.

Let’s Just Follow the Money for a Second

Here’s why every brand with an anti-aging serum is suddenly a GLP-1 skincare expert.

People on GLP-1 medications spend roughly 30% more on beauty products than people who aren’t. The GLP-1 drug market is projected to top $100 billion by 2030. Boston Consulting Group (BCG) estimates the revenue from treating GLP-1-related aesthetic concerns alone will grow from $700 million to $2 billion over the next five years. Ulta Beauty’s CEO has explicitly named GLP-1 skin and hair side effects as a strategic growth opportunity. Analysts are calling it “medically adjacent beauty demand,” which is the corporate way of saying pharmaceutical companies inadvertently handed the beauty industry its next major trend.

What Can and Can’t Actually Be Fixed

I’m going to be straight with you here, because cosmetic marketing isn’t going to be.

A solid skincare routine genuinely helps. Targeted hydration, texture, firmness, and barrier health need to be addressed starting day one of taking the medication. Not after the damage shows up. The ingredients that deliver are the ones we’ve known about for decades: retinoids, peptides, antioxidants, and ceramides. Nothing flashy, nothing new. Just the stuff that science has already proven works.

What no topical can do is restore volume. Not DermaReverse, not VOL.U.LIFT, not anything with Volufiline. Dr. Ava Shamban, a board-certified dermatologist, said it plainly: “Topicals certainly aren’t going to restore lost fat to your face.” That’s not opinion, that’s science.

For actual volume restoration, you need a different conversation in a different office. Fillers, Sculptra, and hyperdilute Radiesse can preserve facial volume in GLP-1 users during rapid weight loss. For more severe cases, fat grafting delivers lasting, natural-looking results. For anyone dealing with significant volume loss, these aren’t optional extras. They’re the solution.

A comprehensive skincare routine, specific injectables, energy-based treatments, and surgical intervention for extreme cases are not options on a menu - they’re a group of necessary tools to address correcting the overall problem.

#MyTwoCents

The need for a scalp-to-sole GLP-1 cosmetic category is plausible. But none of the currently available products have been clinically proven with third-party, peer-reviewed, scientific data to validate their claims. At this time, any claim that a topical cosmetic product can meaningfully reverse GLP-1 skin damage is flat-out marketing bullsh*t.

The industry moved fast because it saw an emerging market category. Some products have been genuinely formulated with GLP-1 users in mind, and many are backed by promising scientific data. BUT they still require third-party validation. Unfortunately, the majority of products are nothing more than existing anti-aging skincare, repositioned with a GLP-1 callout added to the packaging.

If you’re considering using a GLP-1:

• Begin a comprehensive skincare and hair care routine to help preserve skin integrity from the moment you start the medication, not months later when the damage is already done.

• Use only proven ingredients - retinoids, peptides, antioxidants, and ceramides.

• Be deeply skeptical of any product claiming to restore volume — facial or otherwise — without providing third-party clinical evidence specifically tested on GLP-1 patients.

• Have a real conversation with your dermatologist or plastic surgeon about what topicals, injectables, energy-based treatments, or surgical options actually make sense for you.

The cosmetic brands that will define this category in the long term are the ones conducting third-party clinical studies across all categories - skincare, body care, and haircare. The ones who jumped in with a repackaged version of an existing face cream and added a GLP-1 callout in their marketing will have some explaining to do when clinical data exposes them.

What do you think? Let’s discuss this in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

The beauty industry’s ability to make something sound both revolutionary and completely harmless is genuinely impressive.
Case in point: spicules.

If you’ve been anywhere near skincare social media lately, you’ve seen them described as “liquid microneedling” or “microneedling in a bottle.” You may have specifically seen VT Cosmetics’ Reedle Shot, which has racked up over 100 million organic impressions on TikTok and YouTube and is now sitting on shelves at more than 1,400 Ulta Beauty locations.

So let’s talk about what spicules are, what the science says, and why one of the world’s leading cosmetic scientists ended his analysis of these products with “I am surprised that the FDA has nothing to say.” Spoiler: that’s not a compliment.

First, What the Hell Are Spicules?

Spicules are tiny, needle-shaped crystalline rods derived from freshwater sponges, most commonly a species called Spongilla. They’re about 0.1 millimeters long. When you rub a spicule-containing product onto your skin, those needles dig into the epidermis, creating microchannels, which are temporary openings in the skin barrier that allow topical ingredients to penetrate more deeply.

The particles reportedly remain embedded in the skin for 24 to 72 hours before shedding naturally as part of your skin’s renewal cycle. So yes, we are talking about microscopic sponge needles living in your face for up to three days. The “liquid microneedling” marketing conveniently leaves out that part.

The side effects are exactly what you’d expect: tingling, stinging, redness, and sensitivity. If you have a compromised skin barrier, rosacea, active breakouts, or generally reactive skin, this is not the ingredient category for you.

The K-Beauty Pipeline Problem

Spicules have been a staple in Korean skincare for years, but the product that put them on the global map is VT Cosmetics’ Reedle Shot. It’s been going viral since late 2023 and shows absolutely no signs of slowing down.

The concept is simple, and the marketing is genius: the product comes in four concentrations — 100, 300, 700, and 1,000 spicules per milliliter — so you can essentially dial up how aggressively you want to be stabbed by sponge needles. The 100 delivers a faint tingling prickle. The 700 causes visible redness for up to an hour after application. The brand sells this as a feature. 😳

Reedle Shot is positioned as “Step Zero” — applied before your serums to create microchannels that help everything that follows penetrate more effectively. For context, this is not a cult product quietly finding its audience. This has been a full mainstream rollout.

The spicule serum market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.4% by 2035. Rael was the first Korean brand to launch a spicule serum on US shelves in 2025. But VT Cosmetics is the most prominent name in the space. Medicube and Cosyuree also offer spicule products.

Here’s the thing about trending K-beauty ingredients: they’re often genuinely innovative, occasionally brilliant, and almost always arrive in the US with a marketing narrative that outpaces the scientific evidence. Spicules are no exception.

What the Science Actually Says

There is a 2022 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology on spicules as a dermal delivery system, and it does show real promise for improving ingredient penetration. There’s also solid evidence that pairing spicules with tranexamic acid makes sense for hyperpigmentation: tranexamic acid genuinely needs help reaching the basal layer of the epidermis, where melanin production happens, and microchannels provide a more direct pathway.

What the scientific data does NOT support is the broader sweep of efficacy claims being applied to every product that contains the ingredient.

Dr. Paolo Giacomoni — former Head of Biology at L’Oréal, former Executive Director of Research at Estée Lauder, author of more than 100 peer-reviewed publications — recently wrote about spicules for Happi magazine. His take on the scientifically sound pairings (spicules + tranexamic acid): reasonable. His take on one brand’s claim that spicule-containing products improve skin permeability “by up to 342%”: “I am very curious about how this number has been determined.”

That’s a polite dig at cosmetic marketers from Dr. Giacomoni, who has spent his career doing actual scientific research. Once again, cosmetic marketers are making claims long before clinical scientific data can back them up.

Ingredient Pairing: The Good, the Meh, and the Wishful Thinking

Not all spicule products are created equal. What you’re pairing them with matters.

Tranexamic acid is the strongest argument for spicule-based formulations. It’s proven effective at brightening hyperpigmentation, but the ingredient has historically struggled with penetration. The combination makes scientific sense.

PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide), derived from salmon sperm DNA, is also appearing in spicule formulas as a moisturizing polymer. Another plausible pairing, despite a lack of peer-reviewed scientific data validating PDRN’s efficacy (but that conversation is for another article).

Niacinamide, on the other hand, is water-soluble and readily crosses the epidermis on its own. Adding spicules to “enhance” niacinamide penetration is like hiring a locksmith to open a door that was already unlocked. Not harmful, just unnecessary — and you’re probably paying a premium for it.

Then there are serums and overnight masks that pair spicules with collagen peptides. Here’s the thing about collagen in topical products: the molecules are too large to penetrate the skin. Microchannels are not going to solve this problem. A spicule product that delivers collagen is trying to impress you by highlighting a limitation it can’t overcome.

The Regulatory Question Nobody Is Asking

Spicules create actual, physical microperforations in the skin barrier. They’re essentially replicating the mechanism of medical microneedling devices, which, in the appropriate setting, should be administered by a trained practitioner who understands regulatory oversight and relevant contraindications.

Cosmetic products containing spicules are not classified as medical devices. They’re cosmetics, which means the bar for safety oversight is substantially lower. Dr. Giacomoni noted his surprise that the FDA has been quiet on the subject. Whether that changes as the spicules category grows is worth watching. When products in this category are already sitting in 1,400 Ulta locations and generating nine-figure social media impressions, “the FDA has nothing to say” starts to feel less like an oversight and more like a disaster waiting to happen.

For now, these are products that mechanically disrupt the skin barrier and create temporary entry points for whatever active ingredients are in the formula. That’s a meaningful consideration for clients with sensitive skin, open wounds (active acne), or skin conditions, as well as for anyone who’s had recent cosmetic procedures.

#MyTwoCents

Spicules aren’t a scam. The mechanism is real, some ingredient pairings are scientifically sound, and when matched with the right actives for the right skin concerns, there is genuine benefit.

But “liquid microneedling” is a marketing phrase engineered to make something sound both effective and safe simultaneously. Actual microneedling works. It also has protocols, contraindications, and, in a medical setting, oversight. “Liquid microneedling” has no oversight.

Before you start rubbing sponge needles on your face three nights a week because a brand promised a 342% improvement in skin permeability, make sure you understand what they’re actually doing.

What’s in the bottle matters:

• Which actives are paired with the spicules?

• Do those actives actually need help penetrating the skin barrier?

• Does your skin have any conditions that increase the risk of barrier disruption?

The ingredient isn’t the problem. The hype and the number of products containing it that are flooding the market without proper scientific validation IS the problem. Buyer beware.

What do you think? Let’s discuss this in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

CoverFX is gone. Mally Beauty is gone. Gwen Stefani’s Gxve Beauty is gone. Malin + Goetz shuttered its UK operation. Good.clean.goop folded. Ami Colé. Youthforia. Sknmuse - the list grows daily, and we’re barely halfway through 2026.

These closings are not as alarming as you might think when measured against the sheer volume of brands that flooded the cosmetic marketplace over the past decade. This wave of brands closing is the industry correcting itself, and honestly, it was overdue.

Before we get into why, I want to be clear about something: I don’t want to sound insensitive, like I’m just throwing around industry statistics and don’t care about the people this has affected. These were not faceless companies quietly winding down. Behind every one of these brands were founders with a vision, teams who showed up every day and worked hard to make that vision a reality, and communities of customers who bought and loved their products. That matters, and it deserves to be acknowledged before the autopsy begins.

But to understand why these brands died, an autopsy is necessary. Because what’s happening in 2026 is not random, not simply bad luck - it’s structural. And understanding these structural changes is the only way to make sense of what comes next, and which brands will (hopefully) survive.

The Body Count

AS Beauty, a New York-based multi-brand beauty holding company, owned CoverFX and Mally Beauty and shuttered both brands simultaneously. CoverFX had been around since the late 1990s, and was considered an expert on complexion makeup, with formulas and finishes that makeup artists loved. They were among the earliest consumer-facing brands to take shade inclusivity seriously before the industry made it a talking point. CoverFX was a staple in my pro makeup kit before Sephora decided it was “too pro” for consumers and demanded that the brand change its formulas and shade matrix. Sephora was responsible for the beginning of their demise, but we’re used to this scenario. Sephora’s marketing team has destroyed so many indie brands with short-sighted, trend-driven forecasting and thuggish threats if brands don’t follow their direction. Yet even with all these brand failures, due to Sephora’s inept forecasting, I still see indies tripping over themselves trying to get their attention. Go figure.

Mally Beauty was built on the personal charisma and genuine talent of celebrity MUA Mally Roncal, a QVC institution with a fiercely loyal following who bought into her authenticity as much as her products.

Both brands had real audiences. Both had real histories. AS Beauty cited tariffs and a shifting global market as the reasons for closing both. While those were major contributors to their demise, it’s not the whole story either.

Gxve Beauty, Gwen Stefani’s color cosmetics line, launched in 2022 with Sephora distribution and the built-in press attention that comes with a famous name. By early 2026, Sephora had quietly removed the brand from its shelves. No farewell campaign, no statement - just gone. A few years seems to be a marker for how long celebrity-driven brands last when nothing is holding them up beyond the celebrity name.

The Malin + Goetz news stings. Founders Matthew Malin and Andrew Goetz built something genuinely special - a minimalist, gender-neutral apothecary-style brand with real aesthetic integrity and meaningful formulas. The UK store closures were unexpected, and seventy-two people lost their jobs. The brand itself isn’t shutting down, but closing a market that abruptly rarely happens without a reason. I’m keeping an eye on this one.

Then there’s a pile of smaller indie closures that didn’t make headlines but collectively tell the same story. Good.clean.goop, the beauty extension of Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop empire, folded without fanfare. Ami Colé, a makeup brand designed specifically for melanin-rich skin tones and backed by genuine community support, shut down. Sknmuse, a body care brand that made it to Nordstrom’s prestige cosmetic shelves, was sold off.

Each of these brands offered something consumers wanted. Most of them ran out of gas before they could get to their destination.

Youthforia warrants its own paragraph.
I’ll be direct, because I covered the Shade 600 controversy when it happened, and my position has not changed. As a cosmetic developer who specializes in calibrating complexion products to match real human skin tones, I called bullsh*t on the release of Shade 600 immediately.
After reading the ingredient list (INCI), I identified what Youthforia’s “darkest shade” actually was: Black Iron Oxide (CI 77499), the universal black mineral pigment in cosmetics, with a touch of titanium dioxide (a white pigment) added for opacity. Those two pigments, on their own, cannot create a human foundation shade. Every skin tone on this planet, regardless of shade depth, has an undertone. Cool, warm, or neutral. The lightest skin has it. The deepest skin has it. Any working cosmetic developer understands this as a basic complexion shading reality.
The fact that Shade 600 was approved for production by the brand founder and landed on Sephora shelves was no oversight. It was a decision made by a founder who had already been called out for failing to properly represent dark skin tones at its original foundation launch.

Youthforia’s closure lands differently than the others mentioned in this article because they committed brand suicide by intentionally failing a community that deserved better. The brand repeatedly proved it was unwilling to do the work, and consumers refused to support such behavior.

It’s Not Just the Economy

The easy narrative is that tariffs, rising raw material costs, and soft consumer confidence took these brands down. That’s not entirely wrong. But the real story started years earlier.

The marketplace became unsustainably overcrowded. Why? The barrier to launching a cosmetic brand has dropped to near zero over the past decade. Finding Private Label or White Label manufacturers with low Minimum Order Quantities (MOQ), setting up a Shopify business account, and opening a social media “shop” were enough to call yourself a cosmetic company. The result was an overwhelming volume of new brands flooding the industry. Genuine consumer fatigue set in. Too many products, and not enough meaningful differentiation between them. The signal-to-noise ratio on retail shelves and in social feeds became impossible to navigate.

Now let’s look at cash flow. Most indie brands were undercapitalized from the start. Raising enough money to launch is difficult. But raising what you actually need to scale once you’ve been noticed is an entirely different problem. Many brands that looked healthy at $5M in revenue started burning through capital when they tried to grow to $20M. The brands that raised capital during the 2020-2022 investment window, when capital was cheap and beauty was a hot category, have already burned through that money with no clear path to profitability. And as the marketplace has become oversaturated, the funding environment has shrunk considerably.

We can’t discuss brand failure without discussing margins. Direct-to-consumer (DTC) was never the salvation it promised to be. The appeal of having a direct line to your customer, cutting out retail overhead, and scaling through social media shopping sounded great at the time. But US DTC beauty spending is down 14% year-to-date in 2026. The DTC business model and its margins belonged to a specific economic moment, and that moment is over. Brands that built their entire distribution model around DTC margins are now scrambling to adjust, or simply failing.

Most indie brands manufacture overseas because it’s less expensive, and the lower manufacturing costs provide healthier margins. The Trump import tariffs destroyed those margin gains, and brands without the cash reserves to cover tariffs and keep products in stock hit a wall.

And here is the number that should stop you cold:
54% of beauty executives identify uncertain consumer spending as the top risk going into the second half of 2026. Read that again - more than half of the people running cosmetic companies say the floor could give way at any moment because consumers are exhausted by an oversaturated marketplace. The industry built significant infrastructure on DTC margins through social distribution channels (such as TikTok Shop), which are rapidly becoming less viable.

The Celebrity Brand Problem

Gxve Beauty deserves a deeper conversation, because it represents a failure mode that the industry keeps repeating - without seeming to learn from it.

It had everything a celebrity beauty launch is supposed to have. Gwen Stefani is a genuine pop cultural icon with decades of style credibility. Sephora distribution is the closest thing prestige beauty has to a guaranteed audience. The products were well formulated (for the price point), and the packaging was aesthetically pleasing. By every pre-launch metric, this should have worked.

But, it didn’t.
When a brand launches without purposeful innovation or a distinct hero product, the question is, was the brand built solely on the assumption that celebrity association alone would carry it?

Let’s be honest, the celebrity brand model always had a shelf life. Most celebrity beauty brands were never designed for longevity. They were designed to capitalize on a moment of cultural proximity - what we affectionately call a celebrity “cash grab”. But consumers have wised up to this type of marketing and aren’t as motivated to purchase a product simply because a celebrity name is attached.

But why are some “celebrity brands” working? Simple, they were designed to stand alone if the celebrity founder stepped away. Rhode has moved well past its Hailey Bieber origins because the products it offered built genuine consumer loyalty on their own merits. Rare Beauty continues to grow because Selena Gomez built a brand with products that stand on their own, regardless of the founder’s name. In these cases, celebrity connection is a useful marketing asset, but not the DNA of the brand.

The Brands That Are Surviving

Let’s be clear - the $670 billion global cosmetic industry isn’t failing, it’s adjusting. The brands holding on, and in some cases growing, share characteristics worth paying attention to.

Probably the most important factor in building brand loyalty is transparency over marketing claims. Brands leading with actual published third-party research on their formulas and active ingredients are outperforming brands built primarily on an aspirational identity or founder fame.
There is a HUGE difference between a brand citing its own internally commissioned testing and one pointing readers to independently published, peer-reviewed third-party test data. In-house scientific studies are nothing more than marketing collateral, with data designed solely with the brand’s financial interest in mind. Independent third-party, peer-reviewed research is entirely different and provides verifiable facts, not carefully controlled data that fits a brand’s narrative. Consumers in 2026 have become sophisticated enough to ask which one they’re looking at when a brand starts making scientific claims. The brands that present actual third-party, peer-reviewed scientific data to validate their marketing claims are the ones gaining ground.

The surviving brands also understand that social media shops aren’t a business model. Consumers want a brand philosophy that resonates with their lifestyle, a founder who speaks honestly and earns trust over time, and products they want to repurchase — that’s the foundation of a successful brand. The businesses holding on through this wave of closures have built communities that don’t evaporate when social platforms’ algorithms shift or trends change.

#MyTwoCents

The 2026 closure wave isn’t an anomaly. It’s the delayed reckoning of a decade of product oversaturation, with social media success standing in for genuine brand equity.
It was a good run while social feeds sustained the insanity, but the climate has changed. This inevitable collapse of many brands was necessary for an industry in desperate need of editing, but unwilling to do so while the money was flowing freely.

The brands that remain after this cycle will be stronger for the experience. And the ones that closed had warning signs long before 2026 and could have survived if they had paid more attention to building brand longevity and not chasing viral sales.

The uncomfortable truth is that some of these closures aren’t tragedies. They’re outcomes of a lack of foresight. The actual tragedy is in the jobs lost and the communities left without something they loved. That part is real and worth mourning.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Men have been spending an unprecedented amount of money on personal grooming (skincare, haircare, body products, fragrance) since COVID. So why is the cosmetics industry still doing the bare minimum, still pushing uninspired, dumbed-down, gender-coded products on them? This is 2026, and the data is ALREADY telling the story. When are cosmetic marketers going to WAKE THE F*CK UP?

Let’s begin by talking about the wall the cosmetic industry has built to segregate genders, and then have the audacity to pat themselves on the back for being “inclusive.”

We’re living in the 21st century, yet cosmetic marketing remains notoriously antiquated and gender-specific. Serious, cutting-edge skincare, haircare, and body products are formulated for and marketed to women. Men are placated with a few oversimplified basics that smell like cologne and are presented in “masculine” packaging, with the word “MEN” prominently displayed - so there could be no question as to who this product is for. The message is clear, even if no one says it out loud. This space is not designed for men, but here’s a bar of soap named after Bigfoot to make you feel included (looking at you, Dr. Squatch).

Then COVID happened. Men stuck at home looked at themselves in the mirror for over a year, realized they could look better, and quietly started researching and making choices.

The industry noticed the influx of money (and liked it), but the way they’ve responded makes it obvious they’re not reading the room. Or the data.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

This isn’t a trend. It’s a shift that was building slowly for years, then hit fast-forward when the world went into COVID lockdown. And the numbers don’t just show men spending more. They show something the industry has been trying to ignore: the brands embracing gender-neutral marketing are outpacing brands that continue to push gender-coding to women or men separately.

Here’s the thesis, backed by three years of revenue data. Circana and the SeeMe Index have tracked beauty brand performance annually, and the results are unambiguous: inclusive beauty brands grow 1.5X faster than non-inclusive competitors. That’s an 18% collective growth rate versus 12% for brands still operating on a gender-specific model. For the third year in a row. That’s not a cultural moment. That’s a structural market shift, and the gap isn’t closing.

The consumer behavior backs it up. 62% of consumers globally now prefer beauty products that don’t conform to gender stereotypes. Among Gen Z, 38% actively seek gender-inclusive products, and 40% explicitly prefer gender-neutral brands. These aren’t niche preferences - they’re the mainstream consumer in the fastest-growing demographic in the category. And 45% of Gen Z plus 50% of millennials say they’d stop using a beauty brand that lacks inclusivity. That’s an active loyalty penalty for gender-specific marketing, and it compounds every year.

Now for the category picture:

Skincare is the sharpest growth story - and the clearest proof point. By 2024, 52% of U.S. men reported regular daily use of facial skincare, up from just 31% in 2022. Among Gen Z males specifically, adoption rose from 42% to 68% over the same period. Nearly doubled in two years. Here’s what makes that number interesting: a significant portion of those men are buying from brands that have never once said the word “men” in their marketing. CeraVe. The Ordinary. Bubble Skincare. None of them make “men’s” products. All of them have substantial and growing male customer bases. CeraVe ran a Super Bowl campaign in 2023 built on a single idea - skincare is for everyone - and male adoption spiked. The market has been sending this message for a while now. The industry hasn’t been listening.

The men’s skincare market itself has grown 65% from $11.6 billion to $19.2 billion, and is projected to reach $52.1 billion by 2036. But that figure doesn’t actually give us the complete picture and undersells what’s happening, because it doesn’t count the men buying from gender-neutral or women-positioned brands. The real number of men investing in personal grooming products is much larger.

Haircare is following the same trajectory. The men’s hair care and styling market is on track to surpass $54.7 billion by 2030. Men aren’t just washing their hair anymore. They’re investing in treatments, scalp health, and styling products - and choosing based on performance, not because something says “For Men” on the bottle.

Body care, the category the industry arguably dismissed the most, is seeing 14% year-over-year usage growth among men aged 25-49, and their expectations have moved well past soap on a rope.

Fragrance is one of the fastest-growing segments, with a CAGR of 8-11%. Men are building collections, layering, and talking about scent with the same enthusiasm they once reserved for sneakers. The online fragrance community is significantly male-driven at this point, and most of the brands attracting that attention don’t market themselves as “men’s fragrance” brands; they market as unisex.

The numbers don’t lie. Men are taking better care of themselves across the board. The brands winning their business are the ones that didn’t ask them to use a separate entrance. The white-space opportunities for the global cosmetic industry are enormous. The industry’s response so far? Embarrassing. But I’m getting to that.

Skin Is Skin. Hair Is Hair.

There is no meaningful biological reason for men’s products to be different or “simpler” than women’s. None.

Yes, there are real biological differences. Men’s skin is about 25% thicker and tends to produce more oil (men generally have larger, more active sebaceous glands than women), while facial hair can affect how a product is absorbed in some areas. These are real differentiators that a well-crafted product could accommodate - WITHOUT being gender-specific. Here’s what those differences don’t call for: dumbed-down formulas with fewer active ingredients.

Active ingredients are the ones actually doing something: hydrating, rebuilding, protecting, repairing. Think retinol for cell turnover. Peptides that support collagen. Antioxidants that defend against environmental damage. Thicker, oilier skin, if anything, is an argument for MORE active ingredients, not less. The logic of selling men simplified products because their skin is “different” falls apart the moment you look at the biology. The “simplified” men’s formula argument holds up in a marketing brief. Nowhere else.

Haircare is no different. Keratin is keratin. Hair and scalp are not gender specific. Most “men’s” shampoos are little more than a basic cleanser with a masculine scent, while equivalent women’s products are packed with conditioning and strengthening ingredients. This is not product development based on science; it’s based on the outdated gender-segregating marketing story the industry perpetuates. Why? Because they continue to position men as ingredient-illiterate. That might have been true before - but not now.

The Industry Responded. Just Not Correctly.

This is where it gets frustrating.

The playbook most brands reached for looked like this: Men are spending more money on personal grooming products, so let’s take an existing product we originally developed for women, remove most of the expensive actives, add a sporty fragrance, put it in masculine packaging (typically dark colors), and make sure it says “men” on the label.

Calling this lazy AF (and sexist) is an understatement.

This pattern runs deep across the industry. Walk into any major beauty retailer, and you’ll find products that are functionally similar, presented on shelves with separate gender assignments, and the men’s products are typically watered-down versions of those offered to women. The industry perpetuates this two-tier system to cash in on the growing men’s personal grooming market, and actually believes it’s “serving” its customers by providing the most basic, bullsh*t formulas in a package labeled “MEN”.

And then there are the brands that knew better, began by marketing themselves as gender-neutral and inclusive, and then somehow talked themselves out of it.

Lume Deodorant is the case study I keep coming back to. Founded in 2017 by Dr. Shannon Klingman, Lume launched the category of whole-body deodorant built on a simple, honest premise: body odor doesn’t discriminate by gender, so neither should the product. The science was sound, the positioning was inclusive, and it worked. For everyone. Men were using it. Women were using it. The whole-body deodorant category basically didn’t exist before Lume created it.

So what did they do next? The brand was sold, and the new owners decided to launch a separate men’s brand - Mando. Let that sink in for a second. MANdo. I guess the new owners thought they might be missing a few sales from “dudes” who can’t wrap their heads around the concept of gender-neutral deodorant, and won’t buy a product if they don’t see the word MEN printed in BIG letters on the packaging. It’s not subtle. It’s not clever. It’s the most on-the-nose piece of gender-coding in recent memory, and it tells you everything about the antiquated industry mentality behind it.

Let me be clear about what MANdo actually is: it’s Lume. The exact same formula, the exact same mandelic acid technology, just in differently decorated packaging with “masculine scents” and a gender-coded name. They took a product already working for everyone, decided men needed their own masculinity-coded version, and called it a new brand. That’s not product development. That’s a cash grab dressed up as (misguided) consumer insight.

IMHO, as a brand and product developer, Lume should have continued marketing to everyone. Full stop. They had the science, the efficacy, and the proof that men were already buying their products. The smart marketing move, one that actually respects the male consumer, would have been to invest in ensuring men knew Lume was for them, too. Run campaigns that include men using it. Let the formula do the talking. Instead, they blinked, built a wall that wasn’t necessary, and gave men a patronizing brand name to go with it.

MANdo launched in late 2022, with its exclusive Target brick-and-mortar debut in 2024. And here’s what that decision actually cost the Lume brand: Lume had a first-mover advantage in a category it created from scratch. It was the only name in whole-body deodorant; it had the science, and it already had customers across all genders spending. That is an extraordinarily rare position for any brand to be in. Instead of building on it, the decision was made to give the male customer base a separate brand, and, in doing so, MANdo cannibalized the category dominance Lume had worked for years to establish. Mammoth Brands, the parent company that acquired Lume in 2021, wanted to capture revenue from both sides, so the split makes a certain kind of misguided corporate sense. But for Lume as a brand, voluntarily spinning off Mando, after already being the definitive name in whole-body deodorant for EVERYONE, diluted the brand equity and category dominance. At the exact moment, the data was pointing in the other direction.

What Men Are Actually Being Sold

Next time you’re in Sephora or Ulta, try this: pick up a gender-coded men’s moisturizer and a comparable women’s moisturizer at the same price point. Read both ingredient lists (INCI).

The women’s product will typically contain more actives, including ceramides, peptides, retinols, and other ingredients that deeply hydrate and repair. The men’s version usually has a shorter INCI, lower concentrations of meaningful actives (if included at all), and leans harder into a simplified, “no nonsense” formula to signal it’s “for busy guys.”

Same price, less efficacy, better margins for the brand. That’s the deal men have been getting because the industry counted on them not educating themselves. News flash - it’s 2026, and they’re reading, and they’re not ok with “men’s” products doing less.

Brands that genuinely include men rather than segregate them are building real customer loyalty. Brands that still operate on the gender-specific “for men” sales model are losing market share.

The Language Is the Problem Too

Formulation is only part of the problem. Advertising and marketing language tells men which products are and aren’t for them before they even purchase one.

Gender-specific marketing of skincare, haircare, and body products is like a velvet rope. It tells men to stay on their side and use only products made for them. But educated men know that the better, more effective products are on the other side, and they aren’t on the guest list. And until recently, most men accepted this and grudgingly chose the black tube with “FOR MEN” printed on it.

The industry built that division deliberately because gendered categories are more profitable. Two worlds, two shelves, two sets of messaging, double the revenue. Tidy system. For them.

It also does something more insidious: it shapes what men believe they’re allowed to want. When every signal in the store tells you that the nourishing, high-performance products are “for her,” many men internalize it and don’t question it. They reach for a black “For Men” tube, not because it’s a great option, but because they’ve been conditioned to stay away from products marketed with women as their target audience.

The problem is that it only works as long as men don’t know what they’re missing. Once they’ve seen what a well-formulated serum or moisturizer with functional actives does for their skin, that sport-scented moisturizing “after-shave” lotion stops being good enough. They’re shopping in whatever aisle has the products that make their skin look and feel better. They’ve stepped over the velvet rope without an invitation from the industry.

Gender-Neutral Is Not a Niche. It’s the Answer.

Let’s be direct: gender-neutral formulation and market positioning isn’t a progressive experiment. It’s the correction this industry keeps trying to avoid. And the market has already started making it happen without them.

The Circana/SeeMe data isn’t a projection. It’s three consecutive years of documented revenue performance showing that inclusive brands outgrow gendered ones every year, without exception. 18% growth for inclusive brands versus 12% for less inclusive competitors. And 45% of Gen Z plus 50% of millennials say they’d stop using a brand that lacks inclusivity. That’s not a preference gap. That’s a churn risk that compounds annually.

The biggest beauty retailers in the country have already read the data. Ulta and Sephora are pulling men’s products out of dedicated “men’s” sections and integrating them into gender-neutral, skin-care-first displays. They’re not making this move for philosophical reasons. They’re making it because that’s where the sales are going.

The message is straightforward. Lead with what a product does: which skin type it’s for, which concern it addresses, and what results to expect. Not which gender it’s supposedly designed for. Build one well-formulated product that works for EVERYONE, and talk about it in a way that doesn’t segregate. That’s not a radical idea. It’s what the fastest-growing brands in the category are already doing.

The Lume example says it all. They had the proof of concept, an engaged gender-neutral customer base, and dominance as the category originators. The new owners blinked because they were greedy, and ended up diluting their category dominance by splitting into gender-specific branding. At that exact moment, the data told them to do the opposite.

The industry can’t afford to keep blinking. Men are putting real money into skincare, haircare, fragrance, and body care. They want products that perform. They aren’t asking for gender-coded masculinity baked into their products. They’re asking for the same thing every consumer wants: What does this product do, and how does it enrich my life?

The brands answering that question without a gender qualifier are already outgrowing those that aren’t.

#MyTwoCents

The cosmetic industry spent decades making sure men knew they weren’t their target audience, then acted shocked when men demanded more. Now men are spending serious money, and they’re reading labels. The industry’s response has been to dress up the same old gender-restrictive bullsh*t in better packaging and hope that’s enough.

It’s not enough. Not anymore.

The data is in. Inclusive brands grow 1.5X faster. Three years running. 62% of global consumers prefer products that don’t conform to gender stereotypes. Ulta and Sephora are reorganizing their shelves. This correction isn’t a prediction. It’s already underway.

Men don’t want simpler, “guy” formulas. They want the technically advanced formulas marketed to women. And they’re willing to spend money on them. The brands still insisting on gender-specific, dumbed-down product lines for men will stagnate, and no amount of clever “dude” marketing will convince men to come back.

The brands that embrace gender neutrality, invest in formulations that work for everyone, and stop treating men as if they need their own separate, inferior product line will win market share and real customer loyalty. The rest will be explaining their declining numbers to investors. Good luck with that.

What do you think? Let’s discuss this in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

The Patrick (Ta) Problem is bigger than blush, it’s bigger than withholding payments from assistants and other creators, it’s bigger than undercutting peers, and devaluing an entire profession. We’ve watched Patrick Ta’s behavior evolve into a pattern over a decade, and at this point, that pattern no longer looks like a series of rookie missteps or misunderstandings; it looks like a lack of ethics and a broken moral compass.

Well, the 💩 (or should I say blush?) has finally hit the fan, and people are over Patrick’s attitude, problematic past, and are finally saying - ENOUGH!

But to better understand how we reached the boiling point, we need to go back to the beginning.

The Pattern Begins: Working for Free

Long before Patrick Ta launched a beauty brand, he was making a name for himself in the unethical way too many social-media-era makeup artists do — by doing celebrity makeup for free in exchange for permission to post about it on social platforms. That was how he climbed the social media celebrity ladder quickly and became “Insta-Famous”. It was a time when follower counts were becoming a powerful negotiating tool, and Ta wanted the clout and leverage that came with them.

It worked - it also enraged working makeup artists who had spent decades building their professional reputations and establishing their rates. These artists were not “jealous” of his fame; these were busy, working professionals who understood that the moment you start handing out your skills for free, you devalue the entire profession.

Pati Dubroff, a top celebrity makeup artist with an extensive list of accomplishments, didn’t stay quiet about it. She went on record: “I’m appalled when I hear about it because it’s people like Patrick Ta that are sabotaging the entire industry by doing that. Lucky for him that he can afford to do that, but the rest of us have to work for a living.” That quote landed in 2017. Many of us joined Pati in denouncing the practice. Ta kept doing it anyway.

Working for free in exchange for exposure is the oldest hustle in our profession, and it is always the self-absorbed attention seekers (narcissists?) that don’t care how it impacts others, as long as it serves them. When you work for free, you don’t just devalue yourself — you’re making a statement that a professional makeup artist’s rates can’t be taken seriously, because their skills can be found for free. You make it harder for every artist to negotiate a fair rate and make a living.

The industry noticed the drama - and then, because the industry has a relentless appetite for the next thing, and a short memory, it moved on.

Rinse, Repeat: The Pattern Continues with Black Creators

Fast forward to December 2024. TikTok creator and beauty influencer Avonna Sunshine, who has nearly 500K followers, posted a video calling out brands for failing to compensate Black content creators. She never called out Patrick Ta by name. She didn’t have to - she spent the entire video destroying Patrick Ta Beauty products over a garbage pail.

The video has over 11.2 million views.

Sunshine had sent emails. She DM’d Ta directly. She had, as she put it, “gone the nice way.” She wasn’t angry when she first reached out. She was a professional asking to be compensated for her work. But after being ghosted, she did get angry, recorded the video, and it went viral.

Ta’s response? A tearful TikTok apology. Except here’s the thing — he posted one apology video, then deleted it and replaced it with a duplicate, but in this one, he was crying. Ta claimed the crying take was “the most authentic” one. Influencer Tiffani Davis called it out immediately. “He knows he f—ed up,” she said, noting the manipulative fake tears in the second apology video.

“I want to get you compensated as soon as possible, today if you are willing to answer me,” Ta said in the video, adding that his finance team was responsible for the oversight.

His finance team. Right. 🤨

This was not an isolated incident for his “finance team”. Around the same time, Jools LeBron — the creator behind the viral “very demure, very mindful” phrase — also came forward claiming Ta had failed to pay her for a campaign they’d done together in New York. Two Black creators not being compensated? The receipts weren’t just piling up. They were exposing a pattern.

The Transition Blush Takeover

Which brings us to May 2026 and the move that finally broke the internet’s patience with Patrick Ta’s shenanigans.

Patrick Ta Beauty launched its Transition Blush Collection — the Liquid Transition Brightening Blush, the Transition Blurring Blush Duo, and a matching double-ended brush. The internet recognized the “transition blush” aesthetic immediately because it had been a signature technique of makeup artist Painted by Esther (Ngozi “Esther” Edeme) for years.

Esther is a UK-based celebrity makeup artist whose client list includes Naomi Campbell, Kelly Rowland, and Viola Davis. She built her professional reputation and following around a bold, high-set blush technique — layered blush gradients that sweep above the cheekbones and into the temples, specifically designed to create a seamless, elevated blush look on deeper skin tones. It was called “transition blush,” and the internet recognized it as a technique Esther popularized - not Ta - even though he has repeatedly called it a technique HE created - but more on the technique’s origins later.

Ta’s response, via TikTok, was a masterclass in non-apology apologizing. He tagged Esther, acknowledged that she “popularized this look through her artistry,” and then immediately qualified his own position, claiming he’d been doing a version of this blush since 2021. He went on to say he’d been developing these products for a year and a half, that his interpretation was different, and that he’d even reached out offering a paid collaboration before launch. Basically, he wanted Esther to “collaborate” as a seal of approval so he couldn’t be accused of stealing and profiting from her technique. Esther’s team declined that offer — a fact he made sure to state, to demonstrate his due diligence. The internet didn’t buy it.

What makes this even harder to dismiss is that Ta had already tipped his hand in earlier videos. When followers noticed his work shifting away from the cream-over-powder technique he’d become known for (not without its own questions of origin), they asked him about it directly on social media. His reply was candid to the point of self-incrimination: he was leaning into Painted by Esther’s techniques. Which means he was very aware of her work and liked it enough to emulate it. He made that comment, in writing, voluntarily. The receipts, in this case, were his own.

Then came the detail that turned “suspicious” into “damning.”

Creators began playing back one of Ta’s tutorials, side by side with Esther’s content, and the language wasn’t just similar — it tracked almost verbatim. The structure, the phrasing, the cadence, the application techniques. People who knew Esther’s work recognized it immediately. But the moment that sealed it was four words: “back of my palm.”

If you’ve followed Esther’s tutorials, you’ve heard that phrase. That specific type of mistake is called a malapropism or a lexical error, because an incorrect word was substituted to convey a thought. The correct expression is “back of my hand.” Esther has acknowledged it was an accidental verbal fumble in one of her own videos, the kind of slip unique to a specific piece of content. When Ta used that exact phrase in his tutorial — her mistake, her switched words — TikTok collectively stopped scrolling. You don’t accidentally repeat a mistake like that. You repeat it because you were reading from a transcript of Esther’s video while recording yours.

But here’s where the story takes a turn from messy to chillingly calculated.

Patrick Ta Beauty filed a trademark claim for the phrase TRANSITION BLUSH with the USPTO on May 7, 2025 — a full year before the product launched. It’s been suspended due to a conflict, but it is still a live trademark request. No one outside his team would have known about this. Ta’s public narrative was “I reached out to collaborate, Esther declined, so I launched my own version.” What he didn’t disclose was that a year ago, he began legal action to seize ownership of the term most closely associated with Esther’s work. Patrick knew his trademark move was shady AF, but he didn’t care because it benefited him. If the trademark goes through, and Esther ever wants to launch a product under the name she popularized, she would now face legal obstacles created by Patrick Ta.

This is a deplorable, unethical strategy we’ve watched play out before, and don’t dare call it “the price of doing business” - it’s a dirty way to legally STEAL from other creatives. This is no different than Jaclyn Hill stealing “KOZE” from fellow content creator Kalyn Nicholson and forcing her to close an established business and social media channel. This is no different than Hailey Bieber stealing “Rhode” from a successful $14.5 million clothing brand that lost the trademark battle and was forced to close.

Patrick Ta knew what he was doing and didn’t care about how it would impact Esther’s career and future opportunities. It was cold, calculated, and right in line with the pattern of behavior he’s established over the years.

The Contrast That Says Everything

What makes this particularly heartbreaking is how Esther handled it.

She didn’t explode. She didn’t go scorched earth. In her response video, she said what any artist with real integrity says: “I did not start anything. I am 29 years old. That would be ludicrous to claim ownership of anything. But what you will not belittle is my influence.”

She credited the artists who shaped her — Kevyn Aucoin, Sam Fine, Danessa Myricks, Pat McGrath. She spoke about wanting to move the way they do: with grace and intentionality. She positioned herself as a link in a long chain of creative tradition, not its originator, while making it clear that her contribution was real, specific, and should not be dismissed.

The Kevyn Aucoin estate weighed in, and while their statement was measured, who they chose to validate and who they chose to ignore spoke volumes. They confirmed that Aucoin was an originator of the technique (which he learned from his mentor, Way Bandy) and named Painted by Esther as one of the artists who had refined it and brought it to contemporary mainstream audiences. Patrick Ta’s name was notably left out of the conversation. The Aucoin estate didn’t drag him. They just didn’t include him. And in a conversation about artistic legacy, being purposely omitted speaks volumes.

And then, almost as a side thought, they pointed to their own Neo-Blush, a gradient blush product the brand introduced nearly a decade ago, which is VERY similar in function to what Ta is now calling his “Transition Blush.” A product that predates this entire conversation by almost 10 years. The message from Aucoin’s estate was polite. The implication of imitation, not innovation by Ta, was not.

👏👏👏 (slow clap for the Aucoin estate)

Esther didn’t claim ownership of this technique. She claimed to have adopted a technique from an iconic artist (Aucoin), put her own spin on it, and popularized her contemporary version through her influence. There’s an enormous difference between embracing an existing technique and claiming ownership of it, and she articulated it perfectly. Patrick Ta, in glaring contrast, filed for a trademark so he could legally steal something he DID NOT CREATE, and call it his own.

What This Is Really About

Every single incident in Ta’s history follows the same pattern. He crosses lines that impact others, either financially or artistically, gets called out, and produces an apology carefully calibrated to sound contrite while admitting no accountability. His behavior doesn’t change. The only thing that changes is who his latest insincere apology is directed at.

The trademarking of “Transition Blush” is the tell that makes the rest of the pattern impossible to dismiss as a misunderstanding. You do not accidentally file a federal trademark application for a term you know damn well is a shared technique. You do not covertly build a legal wall around another artist’s signature look and language, then turn around and say you reached out to collaborate - when the reality is, Ta attempted to secure her seal of approval for the THEFT of her artistic contribution.

This was not a misunderstanding. It’s a person who has spent a decade telling us, through his actions, that the rules of professional ethics, of creative integrity, of basic human decency — simply don’t apply to him. Ta has consistently proven himself willing to sacrifice anyone else’s career, livelihood, or creative legacy in the service of his own ambition. Every single time.

#MyTwoCents

I’ve watched this industry romanticize rabid ambition for so long that we’ve stopped calling it what it actually is: a career ascent defined by ruthlessly climbing over others, assimilating their accomplishments, calling them your own, and then attempting to erase the originator from history.

Patrick Ta is not a cautionary tale about ambition. He is a case study in what happens when there are no real consequences for repeated, documented disrespect of professional norms and creative ownership.

• Pati Dubroff called Ta out in 2017. The industry took notice for a week and moved on. No consequences.

• Avonna Sunshine called Ta out in 2024. Patrick cried crocodile tears on TikTok, and the industry moved on. No consequences.

• Now, Painted by Esther is calling Ta out, armed with a trademark filing date and a receipts trail that stretches back nearly a decade.

Are we going to be outraged for a moment, then move on as if nothing happened, giving Ta permission to do it AGAIN? When is enough, enough? When does the cycle stop???

The strategy to end this is pretty simple: use your critical thinking skills and take the time to know who you’re supporting. How did they acquire their fame? Have they acted ethically? Do they support the rest of the community? Or do they manipulate it solely to serve themselves?

If people followed this strategy, unethical people like Jaclyn, James, Mikayla, and Patrick wouldn’t have the platforms or influence we’ve mistakenly given them.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

The vindication arrived without fanfare, just data, quietly confirming what I’ve been predicting for years:

Consumers now realize how much they’ve been manipulated and deceived by top beauty influencers. They’re finally understanding that an influencer is PAID to promote products, reciting carefully worded scripts from a brand’s marketing sheet full of half-truths and pseudo-science. It’s their JOB to INFLUENCE YOU TO BUY what they’re reviewing - that’s why they’re called INFLUENCERS.

Back when I was young, and dinosaurs roamed freely, we called them SALESPEOPLE.

I get it, it’s embarrassing to admit that the top beauty influencers you’ve built a parasocial relationship with are not the trusted “friends” you thought they were. That even though they claim to “love you,” in reality, they view your relationship as purely transactional. You have every right to be pissed off that your good faith has been taken advantage of.

These revelations have caused a considerable shift in consumer trust, and we find ourselves returning to the EXPERT ERA on social media platforms. Consumers are now actively seeking the point of view of industry experts with the credentials and years of experience to validate their reviews and ingredient data.

If you’re imagining me smiling smugly as I write this, you’d be correct. 😉
Oh, and I’ll try not to say “I told you so” too loudly.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

McKinsey’s State of Beauty report puts it in plain numbers: only 7% of consumers across the EU, the US, and Asia are discovering brands via influencers - that’s down from 15% in 2023. In just over two years, influencer-driven brand discovery has been CUT IN HALF. And when consumers were asked where they go for trusted beauty information, only 18% pointed to influencers.

The report cites that consumers are seeking information and honest reviews from expert voices in the industry: cosmetic chemists and product developers, dermatologists, estheticians, hair stylists, and makeup artists. The report does not cite beauty influencers. The report does not cite celebrity brand founders with large social media followings. The report cites EXPERTS. The people who have spent their entire careers developing real, demonstrable knowledge.

I’ve observed the shift in trust beginning as we emerged from the COVID pandemic, then accelerating rapidly after the Mikayla Nogueira L’Oréal #LashGate incident in January 2023. But even then, industry insiders kept giving me side-eye when I’d warn them that a shift was underway and the influencer bubble was about to pop. Well, now there are multiple published reports, with real numbers, that confirm what I’ve been saying.
And yes, I’m smiling smugly again.

The Trust Shift Driven by Dupe Culture

A key driver in the trust shift has been “dupe culture”. Dupe culture grew out of consumer frustration with beauty influencers pushing high-priced products (products they were paid to promote).
Suddenly, dupes of the most viral cosmetics were popping up everywhere - at a fraction of the price! But here’s the thing - dupe brands weren’t a knight in shining armor, magnanimously addressing the consumer demand for better-priced products; they were running the exact same playbook. They paid influencers to deliver carefully scripted talking points like “This is JUST AS GOOD as the $75.00 version by blah-blah-blah.” “Honestly, I like it BETTER.” These sales pitches were written by marketing teams whose objective was to convince consumers that prestige and luxury products are a scam. And they enlisted top beauty influencers as the key drivers in a coordinated campaign to demolish confidence in premium-priced formulations… and it worked.

Thanks to deceptive, often misleading dupe marketing, we now have an entire generation of cosmetic consumers who have been brainwashed (by paid beauty influencers) to feel ripped off by prestige or luxury brands. And to believe that a dupe, which costs a fraction of the price, is a credible, almost exact replacement. These influencers were not just misleading their followers; they were paid to LIE.

Numbers back this up. According to the Better Business Bureau’s (BBB) 2025 Influencer Trust Index, a survey of more than 3,700 U.S. consumers found that 70% felt negatively toward an influencer when they discovered that brand sponsorship wasn’t disclosed. 37% said they felt outright deceived. The industry’s response was to require influencers to add the hashtags #ad or #sponsored somewhere in the video or description box. Interestingly, the same report found that 57% of consumers said those disclosure hashtags did not build trust whatsoever. Which proves you can’t solve a credibility crisis with a hashtag.

Pros Get Caught In The Crossfire

The damage didn’t stop with manipulating consumers. It followed beauty professionals into the (makeup) room and caused quite a bit of tension.

Working makeup artists outfit their kits with professional-grade products and tools that meet the performance and durability demands of their job across all media formats (photo, film, video). But clients who had spent months absorbing paid influencer content started showing up with opinions about the products we used. Why was your kit full of brands they never saw on socials? Why weren’t you using the products that their favorite beauty influencer called a “holy grail”? Back then, they didn’t realize their favorite influencers were paid for a glowing review. They trusted their opinion, like a good friend, so if the products they praised weren’t in your kit, you couldn’t be very good at your job. 🤬🤬🤬

RECAP: Consumers are walking away from the influencer-driven marketing model because they realize most top influencers are paid to sell, not inform. Their trust was broken for a paycheck.

Online Product Reviews

McKinsey’s data also shows where else a shift is happening: online product reviews on retail websites. Consumers no longer believe the “compensated” reviews by people who receive products gratis (free) because they’re on a PR list. “Verified Buyer” reviews have become the trusted source of beauty discovery for 51% of consumers surveyed. Consumers want to hear from people who PAID for the product, have used it consistently, and offer uncompensated, real-world experience in their review.

Experts Have Always Been The Best Resource - And Consumers Finally Got the Memo.

Which voices have been providing accurate, citable information through all of this? Experts with no brand compensation attached to our point of view. Which is exactly why consumers are returning to us.

Social media began with experts as its most trusted voices. Then, affiliate codes, sponsorship money, and brand deals arrived - this was the birth of the beauty influencer, where follower counts and conversion rates were favored over credentials. Scripted talking points replaced expert knowledge.
But top influencers got greedy fast, and every week they pushed another “must-have” product, which replaced the Holy Grail they insisted you had to own last week. Then, dupe culture started to gain traction, and consumers began to realize they were being sold to from both directions at once: first, they were convinced by influencers that prestige products were worth the high price tag; then, the exact same influencers were telling them those prestige products were a scam, and dupes were the way to go.

When consumers realized how they were being manipulated, the only rational response was to revolt and stop trusting reviews from beauty influencers. And when they went looking for honest advice without a sales pitch, they found themselves back where social media reviews started: with the experts. But this time, they chose us deliberately. This is not a pendulum arbitrarily swinging back to experts; it is a full-circle moment in which consumers are returning to the people who always had their best interests in mind.

They are choosing the voices of industry professionals who have watched their credentials downplayed and their expertise disregarded in favor of beauty influencers with a million followers and a brand deal. Consumers are returning to critical thinking before purchasing. They want to know how a product will enrich their lives. They want to understand how it’s made and why it works. And they want to hear it from actual experts, not influencers paid to parrot a brand’s talking points.

Many of us have spent decades building a knowledge base that cannot be faked. We know how formulas behave across skin types and in different climates, understand ingredient interactions, and know how products perform under real professional conditions: video and film production, photography (commercial & editorial), red-carpet and special events (bridal). We evaluate a product’s ability to do the job it was intended to do. PERIOD.

Brands that continue to build their marketing strategies on the influencer-driven sales model are about to experience a rude awakening.

The brands winning right now are genuinely transparent about their product development and formulation process, sourcing decisions, and pricing structures. They’re not afraid to reference their failures alongside their wins. And they actively seek validation from experts, because the credibility economy runs on exactly one thing: the truth.

#MyTwoCents

I have been in this industry long enough to remember when “influencer” wasn’t a job title. I watched brands pull budgets from consumer product education and abruptly end relationships with industry experts, redirecting their marketing dollars toward people with ring lights and large follower counts. I watched the input of industry experts systematically devalued in favor of a marketing model built on paid opinions disguised as heartfelt recommendations from trusted “friends”.

For years, I sounded like a broken record, stating clearly and repeatedly: This is not sustainable. Consumers are smarter than this. A correction is inevitable. I was told I was being naive. That expertise didn’t sell. That the era of the credentialed professional as a trusted voice was over, and I needed to make peace with it.

I would like to pause a moment to bask in being unapologetically right.
And yes, I’m smiling smugly AGAIN.😉

If you are a working beauty professional, a chemist or product developer, an educator, or anyone who has spent years building a genuine knowledge base in this industry - THIS IS YOUR MOMENT. Not to reinvent yourself into a content creator and chase an algorithm. But to show up as exactly what you already are: the credentialed, experienced voice that consumers are now actively looking to so they can make informed purchasing decisions.

Consumers are walking away from carefully lit, highly filtered talking heads regurgitating a brand’s advertising points straight from a marketing sheet. They want to hear from experts who can read a product’s ingredient list and explain whether it aligns with the brand’s marketing claims. They want to hear from experts who have actually stress-tested a product’s performance under real working conditions. They want transparency, not a sales pitch fueled by an undisclosed sponsorship.

The cosmetic industry is finally catching up to what we’ve known all along - trust the experts.

What do you think? Have you noticed the shift? Let’s discuss in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Saying the cosmetic industry is oversaturated is an understatement; since the surge in skincare sales during the COVID lockdown, the category has spiraled out of control.

Walk into any major beauty retailer, and you’ll find shelves bulging and overflowing with serums that promise to change your skin overnight, moisturizers with ingredient lists longer than a celebrity pre-nup, and eye creams priced like a Birkin that are no more than a basic moisturizer in a smaller jar.
We’ve been conditioned to believe that slick marketing full of technical terms signals sophistication, and that a $300 price tag means the formula inside is doing something extraordinary.
Spoiler Alert: It usually isn’t. (looking directly at you, Dr. Barbara Sturm 🤨).

So when a brand has the audacity to say “fewer products, better formulas, real transparency,” it either earns serious respect or gets lost in the noise.
DIEUX has done the former (in my opinion). It has built a loyal, informed customer base and become one of the most talked-about brands in modern skincare - not because of slick marketing, not because a celebrity is fronting it, but because it actually does what it says it does.

That’s worth talking about, so let’s get into it.

The Founders

DIEUX launched in September 2020, right in the middle of a global pandemic — which, in retrospect, is either terrible timing or perfect timing depending on how many skincare TikTok rabbit holes you fell down during lockdown. The brand was built on two distinct but deeply complementary areas of expertise, and that pairing is the foundation of its success.

is the brand’s Co-Founder and Chief Brand Officer, and if you follow anyone on TikTok who talks about skincare, without lying, you’ve probably encountered her. She’s a licensed esthetician with a background in media, marketing, and editorial, having spent years as an editorial director building and scaling digital audiences for some of the world’s biggest media brands before pivoting to skincare.
Before DIEUX existed, she was already running a newsletter called Nice Paper, debunking beauty myths, interviewing scientists, and building an audience that expected substance over spin. Her social media presence grew from that same foundation: genuine skepticism, science explained in plain language, and no particular interest in telling you what you want to hear. That made her a credible voice long before she was a brand founder.

Joyce de Lemos is the Co-Founder and Head of Product, a clinical cosmetic chemist with a Master’s in cosmetic science and a résumé that spans L’Oréal’s suncare division, COSMAX (one of Korea’s most formidable contract manufacturers), Kiehl’s, and SkinCeuticals. At SkinCeuticals, she was part of the team that developed the iconic Triple Lipid Restore 2:4:2 — a project that took nearly four years to complete, with an entire year devoted to the approval of a single ingredient. That’s the level of rigor she brought to DIEUX. Her presence as a co-founder is not cosmetic (no pun intended). It means the person asking hard questions about ingredients and efficacy is also the person in the lab developing the formulas. That closed loop matters more than people realize.

These two extremely intelligent, passionate people were genuinely frustrated with the state of skincare. The outcome of that frustration is the incredible standards they’ve set for every product decision they make.

The DIEUX Philosophy: Edit Your Routine, Not Your Standards

DIEUX operates on a thesis the industry finds quietly threatening: you don’t need more products, you need better ones. In a category where growth is traditionally measured by SKU count and the relentless onslaught of new launches, that’s a radical position. It’s also the correct one.

The brand’s approach centers on what they call a “moisture wardrobe”, based on the idea that your skin’s needs shift depending on season, climate, and circumstance, and that a small, thoughtfully curated collection of products can address all of those variables without requiring a twelve-step routine. This isn’t minimalism for minimalism’s sake. Its efficiency is built on clinical rigor.

Every DIEUX product undergoes clinical vetting before reaching the market. Claims are tested. Formulas are iterated, often through dozens of versions, before one is approved. When your Head of Product spent four years developing a single moisturizer at SkinCeuticals, “good enough” isn’t part of the vocabulary.

The DIEUX Products: What Doing More With Less Looks Like

Forever Eye Mask ($25.00 USD) was the product that put DIEUX on the map, and it’s a fascinating choice for a debut because it’s not a serum or a moisturizer - it’s a reusable silicone under-eye patch built to replace the avalanche of single-use under-eye masks filling trash cans.
The concept is almost insultingly simple: one pair of medical-grade silicone patches that you rinse, dry, and use again. No active ingredients, no fragrance, no drama. Just occlusion, forcing your skin to absorb more of whatever serum or moisturizer you’ve applied under it. They’ve since collaborated with brands like Violette_FR and Eckhaus Latta on limited edition versions, but the original premise hasn’t changed. It’s a sustainability play that actually works, which is truly refreshing in a category full of greenwashing claims that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Deliverance ($69.00 USD) is their serum, showcasing Joyce’s undeniable expertise in formulation. It’s a 3-in-1 repair serum that picked up an Allure Best of Beauty nod in 2025. This lightweight but potent multitasker soothes inflamed skin on contact, targets fine lines and wrinkles, and visibly smooths skin texture and tone. The peptide complex comes in at 5% total: 2% N-Prolyl Palmitoyl Tripeptide-56, clinically studied for visible firmness and reducing fine lines, alongside 3% Palmitoyl Hexapeptide-52, a blend of passionflower, white tea, and peptides shown to reduce the appearance of expression lines. A 1.4% encapsulated cannabinoid complex (CBD, CBG, and CBN) addresses redness and irritation, and 4% niacinamide handles tone correction. The encapsulation detail matters: these aren’t trend ingredients sprinkled in at trace levels to earn a spot on the label. They’re stabilized for actual delivery. That distinction is rarer than it should be.

Instant Angel ($45.00 USD) is the “hero” moisturizer, and it became a cultural moment when Hailey Bieber mentioned it in a 2022 skincare video, and the internet briefly lost its mind. The formula, though, was doing interesting work long before any celebrity co-sign turned it into a sellout. It’s built on a hydrolipid blend — phytosterols, free fatty acids, ceramide NG, glycerin, urea, squalane, sodium PCA, and meadowestolide — designed to mirror the composition of the skin’s own lipid barrier. This isn’t a moisturizer that makes your skin feel temporarily smooth. It works with your skin’s biology to rebuild what’s actually depleted.

If that sounds familiar, it should. As I mentioned earlier, Joyce was part of the team that built SkinCeuticals’ Triple Lipid Restore 2:4:2, long considered one of the gold standards in barrier repair and currently retailing at $155 for 1.6 oz. (more than triple the price of a similar-sized tube of Instant Angel).
Instant Angel is her modern evolution of that concept: more sophisticated, more refined, and priced at a fraction of what dermatology offices charge for its predecessor. You’re getting the chemist who helped create the benchmark, this time without the luxury markup.

Air Angel ($34.00 USD) is Instant Angel’s lighter counterpart, now formally called the Peptide Plumping Gel Cream. It shares the same hydrolipid framework but is calibrated for oilier or acne-prone skin, as well as humid climates. Clinical testing on acne-prone skin confirmed it doesn’t trigger breakouts or compromise the barrier.

Creating two versions of a moisturizer that address the same skin concerns, but are tailored to skin types, means you’re not missing key attributes from one formula to the other. You’re offered thoughtfully formulated variations based on the same core principles, which you can interchange as your skin’s immediate needs change. That’s SMART product development.

Auracle Eye Serum ($44.00 USD) arrived around the same time as Air Angel. It’s DIEUX’s dedicated eye treatment, formulated specifically for the delicate orbital area and designed for maximum results when applied under the Forever Eye Mask for a 10-minute intensive under-eye treatment.
The formula is a lightweight gel-serum with active ingredients at clinically studied doses: 1% Algae Polysaccharides Complex to visibly reduce the appearance of dark circles, 1% Algae Complex to smooth skin and reinforce its integrity, 3% Palmitoyl Tripeptide Complex to reduce puffiness and reinforce firmness, and 10% Glycerin for deep hydration.

Ethereal Cleansing Oil ($28.00 USD) is DIEUX’s cleanser for dry and sensitive skin, and a first-step cleanser for normal, combo, and oilier skin types. The formula tells you a lot about how they approach product development. Just seven ingredients - an Instant Dissolve Complex of emollient oils that melt waterproof makeup and SPF on contact, and a Double Cleanse Emulsifier Complex that allows the whole thing to rinse clean with water, leaving zero oily residue. This is important in a category full of cleansing oils and balms that just smear your makeup and SPF around, leaving a film unless you use a washcloth to remove them. Ethereal Cleansing Oil actually rinses clean, taking all the debris with it. The simplicity of the formula is kind of amazing.

Baptism Gel Cleanser ($34.00 USD) is a stand-out foaming gel cleanser built around Glycerin, Betaine, and Glycolipids — surfactants that remove makeup, sweat, and SPF without stripping the skin’s barrier or impacting your skin’s healthy pH. It’s formulated at a pH of 5.5, which is deliberate because it mimics the skin’s natural slightly acidic pH range (4.5 to 5.5). Many foaming cleansers disrupt your skin’s pH and leave it in an alkaline state - unbalanced and prone to irritation. Skin in an alkaline state is also forced to rebalance itself, and until it gets back to a comfortable pH, it ignores any skincare you apply.
Baptism is also ophthalmologist-tested, so it’s safe for removing eye makeup. That’s a lot of boxes checked for one cleanser.

Skin Mercy Recovery Cream ($38.00) is the third piece of Dieux’s moisturizer trinity. It’s a colloidal oatmeal recovery cream built specifically for sensitive and eczema-prone skin. At 1% colloidal oatmeal, it meets the FDA’s standard as a clinically proven OTC skin protectant. This is the product you reach for when your skin is irritated, sensitized, and your barrier is compromised. This formula was created with intention, not as an afterthought, trying to appeal to the current barrier balm trend.
Skin Mercy completes the warbrobe of Dieux moisturizers, thoughtfully formulated to address all your skin’s moisturizing needs, flowing seamlessly from one to the other - and always delivering the results promised.

Transparency as a Business Model

Here’s where DIEUX does something most brands talk about and almost none actually execute: real pricing transparency. On every product page, they break down exactly where your money goes — formula costs, packaging, labor, warehouse and shipping, and payment processing fees. All of it, in real numbers. You can see what the product costs to make and how the retail price was arrived at.

This isn’t a marketing tactic. It’s a structural commitment to the consumer relationship, and it fundamentally changes the conversation. When a brand shows you exactly what something costs to produce, they’re telling you the formula is doing the work — not the markup. That accountability is baked into the model by design.

The transparency extends to sourcing and ingredient provenance. DIEUX vets its suppliers’ labor practices, adheres to European regulatory standards for formulation (which are stricter than U.S. standards in several meaningful ways), and maintains a fully vegan and cruelty-free supply chain.
These commitments aren’t buried somewhere on a FAQ page. They’re woven into how the brand presents itself at every level.

Sustainability That Actually Means Something

The Forever Eye Mask is the most visible example, but DIEUX’s sustainability commitments run deeper than one hero product.
You can read their “Commitment To Making Better Trash™” HERE.

Their planned skincare studios in New York and Los Angeles for 2026 will include refill stations and upcycling labs — a signal that reducing waste is a long-term operating principle rather than a launch talking point. Interactive ingredient workshops led by their in-house formulation team will give consumers a more direct line to understanding what’s actually in what they’re buying, and why it matters.

Their development lab in Brooklyn’s Dumbo neighborhood is already working on what may become the most consequential product in the brand’s history: sunscreen. They’re experimenting with Parsol Shield, a chemical filter with FDA approval expected as early as June 2026 — which would make it the first new sunscreen filter approved for U.S. use in more than 25 years. They’re also developing nano zinc-based formulations for consumers with allergies to chemical filters. DIEUX approaching SPF with the same clinical rigor they’ve applied to everything else is a significant development in a category that has historically underdelivered on texture, inclusivity, and innovation in the U.S. market. If anyone is going to fix American sunscreen, these are the people I’m betting on.

#MyTwoCents

I have spent a significant portion of my career watching brands promise transparency and sustainability while delivering nothing more than marketing spin, mediocre formulas, and greenwashing to sound eco-conscious.
DIEUX does not do that, and I think it’s worth having a conversation about why that matters.

The skincare industry is crowded with brands built around a story first and a formula second. DIEUX inverted that model. The formula comes first, the story follows, and the transparency isn’t a marketing campaign - it’s the whole architecture of the brand. This business model is much harder to build and sustain, and the fact that they’ve done it so successfully while cultivating genuine consumer loyalty says something important about where the skincare market is headed.

Consumers have become much smarter than brands give them credit for. When a brand shows you exactly what your $69 serum costs to make, offering a genuinely sophisticated formulation, with clinically supported claims, and packaging designed to reduce waste, THAT builds incredible trust.
Many inside the industry label this as disruptive, but since when has HONESTY been disruptive? This business model should be the norm, not an anomaly.

FACT:
DIEUX has figured out how to future-proof their brand, and the rest of the industry should be taking notes - or get left behind.

What do you think? Let’s have a conversation in the comments.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Summer is almost here, and if you’ve ever stepped out of an over-air-conditioned building into suffocating July heat and felt your skin go hot, prickly, and uncomfortable, you’re experiencing what I like to call compound dehydration. It can quickly undermine all the good intentions of your regular skincare routine. You need some additional tools to prevent this and keep your skin happily hydrated.

As temperatures climb, your body ramps up perspiration to regulate your body temperature, releasing a higher percentage of your skin’s stored water through your pores and depleting your reserves. Meanwhile, the forced-air cooling that keeps you comfortable indoors does the opposite, by removing moisture from the air and accelerating the dehydration of your skin's surface.
Your barrier is getting hit from inside and out: THAT is compound dehydration.

The smart move is to get ahead of this early with a two-part strategy: fortify your skin barrier, then flood it with additional, stable hydration. Today, I’m offering a few recommendations for mists, essences, and serums you can layer into your existing skincare routine before summer arrives to help protect your skin's moisture level. Many of my favorite targeted hydrators feature polyglutamic acid (PGA), a significant upgrade over hyaluronic acid (HA).
Let’s discuss why…

Hyaluronic Acid Is Sooooooo Yesterday

Many board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeons, who remain up to date on advances in skincare ingredients, now recommend PGAs over HAs. Particularly because many of their clients have experienced irritation and skin-barrier damage from skincare formulations containing improperly calibrated HA molecule weights.

About HAs:
Hyaluronic Acid (HA) is allegedly capable of absorbing about 1,000 times its weight in water, but it has some nasty side effects. HAs absorbtion rate is determined by molecular weight. Some HAs have medium-to-low molecular weights and penetrate beyond the stratum corneum (skin’s surface) into the epidermis, while others with ultra-low molecular weights can penetrate even deeper into the upper dermis. If you do not apply sufficient moisture (water) on top of HAs, they will absorb your skin’s subcutaneous water reserves, dehydrating it as the molecules swell, disrupting and damaging your skin barrier.

About PGAs:
Polyglutamic Acid (PGA) is a fermented soybean peptide that holds approximately 5,000 times its weight in water, far surpassing the water retention capacity of HAs.
The biggest difference is that PGAs remain safely on the skin's surface, primarily in the stratum corneum, forming an occlusive, hydrating film that locks in moisture and significantly slows water loss throughout the day. For dehydrated skin with a compromised barrier, PGA’s surface-level molecular structure provides immediate hydration while protecting against environmental stress. PGA also stimulates your skin’s natural moisturizing factors, helping it maintain hydration on its own, making it far more effective than HAs for safe, lasting results.

What to Look For

From all the clinical data I’ve researched, the winning combination for dehydrated skin with a compromised skin barrier is:

• Polyglutamic Acid for superior moisture retention

• Ceramides to rebuild your barrier

• Glycerin to draw and bind moisture from the atmosphere to the skin

Products combining these three powerhouse ingredients address both dehydration and compromised skin barrier function, delivering significant hydration that actually lasts rather than evaporating hours after application and cannibalizing your skin’s moisture reserve.

First, An Emergency Treatment:

La Roche Posay - Cicaplast B5 Spray ($25.00 USD) is a relatively new product, but it has already made a BIG impact in the treatment of compromised skin barriers. The targeted barrier-calming and repair spray contains 5% panthenol and madecassoside, a powerful soothing compound derived from the Centella Asiatica (Tiger Grass) plant. Madecassoside is used extensively in K-Beauty skincare and is known for its potent anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and skin-barrier-strengthening properties.

The Cicaplast B5 Spray also features a mineral complex containing copper and manganese, which are highly anti-inflammatory and reduce redness, swelling, and discomfort on contact while controlling inflammation and accelerating wound healing. Many dermatologists recommend the Cicaplast B5 Spray for patients whose skin has been sensitized by reactions to highly active skincare products (acids, retinoids, etc.) and invasive in-office procedures (lasers, microneedling, peels, etc.). The spray provides immediate soothing relief while initiating barrier repair.

My Recommendations for Advanced Hydration

(listed by price, not ranking)

The INKEY List - Polyglutamic Acid Serum ($16.00 USD) delivers 3% polyglutamic acid and glycerin in a lightweight, silky formula, widely available at Sephora, Ulta, and major US retailers. It holds 5 times more moisture than hyaluronic acid, creating a breathable, protective film that slows moisture evaporation throughout the day.

EXTRA CREDIT: This serum is inexpensive enough to cocktail with your favorite body lotion/cream to SUPERCHARGE its effectiveness at handling dehydrated skin on your body.

Prequel - Multi-Quench Plumping Hydration Serum ($28.00 USD) features dual-weight polyglutamic acid, glycerin, and ectoin, a powerful osmolyte that protects skin from environmental stress while supporting barrier health. The dual-weight PGA formula works at multiple levels to provide both immediate and lasting hydration. The focused formula omits unnecessary ingredients, making it ideal for sensitive or compromised skin.

Then I Met You - The Giving Essence ($53.00) combines polyglutamic acid with galactomyces, niacinamide, and antioxidant-rich berry extracts. The PGA works on the surface to deliver long-lasting moisture retention, while the other ingredients nourish, brighten, and strengthen the skin barrier.

Typology Plumping Serum with 3% PGA + Red Seaweed Extract ($55.00 USD) is a highly concentrated serum that applies more like an essence (very aqueous and fluid), and sets as a moisture-binding film on the skin’s surface, while the red seaweed extract stimulates natural ceramide synthesis. This formula is specifically formulated for significantly dehydrated mature skin.

#MyTwoCents

Over the past few years, an alarming number of licensed skincare “experts” (dermatologists, plastic surgeons) on social media platforms have shifted from peer-reviewed citations to validate their product recommendations, and have discovered the monetization ($$$) enjoyed by beauty influencers. Many of their posts are now motivated by brand sponsorships and affiliate links - not clinical scientific data. They use their licenses as “expert” validation to promote whichever brand is willing to cut them a check, not because the product is purposeful and effective, but because THEY ARE GETTING PAID.
And a disturbing number of them don’t disclose this properly.

If licensed skincare professionals are selling out for cash and clicks, the question becomes: Who do you trust?

THE DATA. PERIOD.
Do what I do and perform some research before you consider making a purchase. If a brand can’t support its marketing claims with peer-reviewed clinical data, walk away. And if you see the words “proprietary blend,” treat that as a red flag. It’s a marketer’s trick to avoid transparency about ingredients.

Trust the data — NOT the marketing.
Since 2005, IN MY KIT® (IMK) has been committed to providing the most factually sound reviews and product recommendations for beauty professionals and enthusiasts.

• IMK posts are not sponsored.

• IMK does not use affiliate codes or links.

• All links have been screened to find the best prices and avoid counterfeits.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

New NielsenIQ data confirms what many of us suspected: TikTok Shop is EXTREMELY successful.
It generated nearly $1 billion in US beauty sales over the last 52 weeks, making it the eighth largest health and beauty retailer in the country.

Eighth. Largest. Beauty. Retailer.

That puts it ahead of most regional chains, specialty boutiques, and every beauty brand that ever convinced itself a well-designed website counted as a retail strategy.
And TikTok Shop didn’t earn that ranking the way traditional retailers do - through decades of shelf and gondola real estate negotiations, carefully curated end caps, and in-store marketing activations.

It got there through a smartphone screen and an algorithm. You see something, you want it, you buy it …without ever leaving the app.
That’s the whole model, and boy oh boy, does it work!

We’ve already covered what TikTok Shop means for brands and consumers. But this number changes the tone of that conversation. A lot of established beauty brands have been treating TikTok Shop like a marketing experiment - a place to build awareness, not necessarily sell product.
To the brands still waiting to see the impact of TikTok shop, that ship has sailed. Nearly a billion dollars in annual sales doesn’t leave much room for your wait-and-see argument.

The brands that boldly adopted this emerging retail platform early on now have the advantage. And the ones still deliberating? Their caution has caused them to fall behind.

It’s Not Just About TikTok

The bigger picture here is what TikTok Shop represents within a broader pattern. For decades, the beauty industry was built around physical retail - department store counters, specialty chains, and the pharmacy aisle. Then Amazon showed up and rewrote the rules. Now it’s platforms like TikTok where shopping and entertainment happen in the same place at the same time. What you discover, what you buy, and what you think about a brand are all being shaped by the same algorithm - and that algorithm doesn’t care about your brand’s heritage or your relationship with a department or specialty store buyer.

The brands doing well on TikTok Shop aren’t necessarily the biggest or most established brands. They’re the ones who moved fast, kept prices accessible enough to drive impulse purchases, and let creators actually speak about their products — not hand them a marketing script to “control” the messaging. They’ve harnessed the real competitive advantage of TikTok Shop, and it’s showing in the sales numbers.

The Conversation Brands Keep Avoiding

The most common pushback I hear from established brands is the fear of upsetting their retail partners. If they start selling regularly on TikTok Shop, often at discount price points to drive impulse buys, will Sephora or Ulta push back? Will they lose shelf space? It’s a fair concern. Those are important relationships.

But here’s what’s actually happening: Sephora and Ulta are already actively responding. Both are building out their own online selling strategies and creator partnerships so they can compete in an environment that’s moving faster than traditional retail was ever designed to. That tension legacy brands are afraid of creating? It already exists. So, waiting won’t make it go away; it just means sitting on the sidelines while your competitors make sales.

The smarter approach is to build a TikTok Shop presence that is specifically for the platform — smaller size items at a lower entry price to introduce new customers to your brand, rather than competing directly with what’s on the shelf at Sephora. Done well, TikTok Shop attracts new customers, and some of them eventually become loyal buyers who will walk into a store to explore your brand's offerings in person.

The beauty industry has navigated many major retail shifts by adapting — sometimes successfully, sometimes not. TikTok Shop just handed us very clear data on where the industry’s future stands. Fearing or ignoring this retail channel’s viability is a major tactical error. And your competitors willing to take the leap of faith will be the winners.

MyTwoCents

Nearly a billion dollars. I’ve been watching this industry navigate every major retail shift for four decades, and that number stopped me cold.
TikTok Shop isn’t a trend anymore — it’s infrastructure. And the beauty industry has a long, uncomfortable history of ignoring infrastructure changes until their bottom line is affected, and it’s too late to recover completely.

The brands I worry about aren’t the small indies. They’re scrappy by necessity and tend to figure it out because they live in survival mode. It’s the established players - the ones with legacy retail relationships, lengthy approval chains, and quarterly targets that identify bold moves as dangerous. They are most at risk here. Caution is understandable. But caution comes with a cost, and right now that cost is a loss of market share.

I don’t think TikTok Shop is the end of traditional retail. But it is a clear signal that consumer shopping habits have evolved, and brands that refuse to evolve will suffer the consequences.

What do you think? Let’s have a conversation in the comment section.

Let’s talk about something that happens to professional makeup artists with alarming regularity. A photographer, a production, a brand, or a celebrity requests our skills, time, and resources. In exchange, we’re not offered a fair rate, we’re not offered payment at all - we’re offered “exposure” as compensation.

If exposure paid the rent, I would have been living in a luxurious Manhattan penthouse decades ago.

Let’s Define Who We Are

We invest in training and building our first working kit. We build a resume, a portfolio, and a client base. We develop a reputation in the industry. Lawyers, doctors, and other trade workers do the same - they invest in training and the tools required to be paid for their services.
We’re no different.

Yet there’s an interesting disconnect: nobody debates whether someone is a “professional” lawyer or a “professional” doctor. You don’t become a lawyer or doctor by cosplaying one on social media. There’s only one path: education, apprenticeship, and enough experience to justify charging for your services.

But the profession of makeup artist is perceived differently.
Social media changed that.

Beauty influencers and content creators apply makeup to themselves on camera, while identifying as makeup artists without the training, investment, or working experience that qualify someone to charge for these services. They demonstrate makeup application on their own faces, making it look simple and accessible - something anyone can do. But applying makeup to yourself and applying it to paying clients with diverse face shapes, features, skin tones, and skin types requires a completely different skill set.

Reality Check: Becoming a member of the Makeup Artist profession requires significant financial investment, training, and work experience, so that applying makeup to paying clients can become a primary source of income. PERIOD.

When people without those qualifications use our professional title, it fundamentally weakens the industry’s understanding of what we do. They’ve framed makeup as entertainment or a hobby instead of a skilled trade. And that perception directly impacts our ability to demand fair compensation. Because if applying makeup looks that simple, why should you be paid?

Your Work Is Part of The Vision, And It Has Value

When someone asks you to work for free, they’re asking you to subsidize their project at your expense. They’re asking you to use your professional expertise to create a fundamental part of their final product.

Look at a feature article in a lifestyle magazine (print or online). The photographer and art director set the tone for the story. What’s in it? The model or celebrity’s face, skin, hair, and makeup. Our work is not an inconsequential decoration; it is part of the storytelling. The publication is paying for the creation of this image. And your work helped turn the concept into a reality. You deserve to be paid.

Look at a red carpet. The celebrity is the focus. The makeup is reported on and often emulated. Your contribution is not optional - you are part of the creative process. You deserve to be paid.

Look at a commercial, TV show, or film. Production has a storyboard that maps out a vision, including how the actor(s) look. Makeup isn’t an optional detail; it’s part of what the director and producer have envisioned and approved. You deserve to be paid.

When you’re contacted for a project and told makeup isn’t budgeted for, they’re probably lying. They wouldn’t be requesting your talent on their project if your contribution weren’t an important part of the finished product. They need you, while pretending your contribution is optional.

The Hypocrisy Is Built In

Here’s where the hypocrisy becomes infuriating: the people asking you to work for free are getting paid.

A photographer reaches out to book you for a shoot and says, “We have no budget for makeup, but you’ll get a credit and exposure.” Ask the same photographer if they’re shooting this for “credit and exposure”. Doubtful.

That photographer is charging the client. They’re making money. Yet you’re supposed to work for free?

A celebrity’s manager or publicist requests that you do their client’s makeup for a red-carpet event or press tour - for free. They frame it as though the “honor” of working on their famous client is compensation enough. But aren’t they paid by the celebrity for their work? Yet you’re supposed to work for free?

Ask a lawyer for 40 hours of legal work for free in exchange for “exposure”.
The answer will be NO, followed by a side-eye and an incredulous chuckle. No explanation needed. Professional services cost money. Skilled work requires compensation. And a lawyer, even one who only recently passed the bar exam, is paid as a law clerk while they build their career. They respect their investment and demand compensation for their work.

The person requesting your services is being paid. They’re disrespecting the investment you’ve made to be qualified for this work. Why do they assume you’ll work for free?

The Investment They Intentionally Ignore

A career as a professional makeup artist requires an investment of tens of thousands of dollars just to get started. That investment deserves respect. Your compensation isn’t greed - it’s honoring what you’ve already invested in yourself.

Once your career is in motion, a professional makeup artist is continuously reinvesting.

Products get used up, disposables end up in the trash, tools wear down, break, or become outdated. We as professionals are required to constantly replenish, replace, and update our kits. My two makeup kits, an SFX kit, brushes, tools, ancillary products, disposables, lighting, etc., are insured for $250,000.00 - because that’s what it would cost to replace what I’ve built over decades of work.

When someone asks you to work for free, they’re asking you to absorb the cost of your time, your talent, and your materials. They benefit while you work at a deficit. They’re asking you to disrespect the investment you’ve already made in becoming qualified to do this work.

This Has Become Systemic

This isn’t accidental. Photographers and producers didn’t “forget” to budget for makeup. They’ve coded our work in the spreadsheets as non-essential and less worthy of compensation.

A photographer charges thousands for a single shoot (sometimes tens of thousands). A director negotiates a contract with a substantial payout. But when that same group of creatives has to budget for makeup, suddenly there’s no more money. Suddenly, your contribution is considered optional or of little value.

It’s not because your work is less important. It’s because the industry refuses to categorize it for what it is - integral to creating the finished product. And the “exposure” argument is the industry’s longest-standing scam. They continue to use it because they’ve been getting away with it for far too long.

Typically, when the next paying gig comes up, they hire the person who refused to do the gig you did for free. That person has made it clear that their contribution is valuable. You took the risk, worked for free, hoping for a break, and then the artist who refused to be taken advantage of is rewarded.

It sucks, but that’s reality.

You’re Not Being Difficult, You’re Just Saying NO

This is the part most makeup artists don’t realize - you’re allowed to say no.
There are too many high-profile makeup educators who scare artists into accepting free work, claiming it’s the only way to build a career. Many of these trusted educators have an agenda - but I’ll discuss more about that in another article.

But even more than that, if others on the same project are being paid, you MUST say no to working for free.

Every time a professional accepts free work, knowing others are being compensated, you’re telling the industry that your contribution is worthless. You’re agreeing that your skills, your investment, and your years of experience don’t deserve proper compensation. And when you agree to that, it becomes impossible for every other professional makeup artist to request fair rates.

If they claim they can’t afford to pay you, politely turn them down and tell them you’d love to work with them - when they have a budget. That’s not shady, that’s business.

If they push back, call you difficult, or expect gratitude for offering you the “opportunity”, you know what you’re dealing with: someone who doesn’t respect your skill, doesn’t value your time, and isn’t worth working with.

To the New Professionals

If you’re early in your career and you’ve already said yes to free work (for exposure, for a credit, for the experience), I’m not here to make you feel bad about it. Starting out is hard. You’re building your portfolio, making connections, trying to prove yourself.

You deserve monetary compensation for your work. Not exposure. Not line credits. PAYMENT. Because accepting fair payment isn’t about greed, it’s about respecting the investment you’ve made to become qualified to do this job in the first place.

By insisting on being paid for your work, you’re telling the industry that you understand your own value. And that clarity protects this profession for everyone who comes after you.

#MyTwoCents

When a production company contacts a photographer, a director, or a set designer, they aren’t asked to work for free. Everyone knows: professional work requires payment.

Professional makeup artists deserve the same respect. We’ve spent years building our careers and honing our craft. We provide skills that are necessary, not optional.
The question isn’t about our value. We know our value. The question is: why do people (who know better) feel justified in disrespecting us and devaluing our contribution?

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Exosomes are having a moment. They’re trending on social media, major suppliers have launched new exosome ingredients at In-cosmetics Global 2026, and consumers are convinced they’re the next frontier in skincare.

Here’s the thing: the FDA hasn’t approved exosomes for cosmetic use (yet).
Read that again.

The cosmetic marketing machine is moving at breakneck speed. Science is moving slowly. That gap between what’s being promised and what’s actually been proven is the real story—and it’s dangerous.

What’s Happening - Right Now

Google searches for “exosomes” have risen 206% globally over the past 12 months. Exosome treatments in medispas and dermatologists’ offices are up 162%.

Recently, at In-Cosmetics Global 2026 (an annual industry trade show featuring major ingredient suppliers), DSM-Firmenich launched its cosmetic exosome ingredient, Exovive Lift, claiming a 30% boost in elasticity and the equivalent of 8 years of age reversal—both achieved after just two months.
Symrise, another major global ingredient supplier, introduced its own exosomes for deep skin regeneration.

These are major players, making very specific claims.
But here’s the head-scratcher: Cosmetic exosomes are a market that technically doesn’t exist yet, because nothing’s FDA-approved. Yet the category is already projected to hit $26.6 billion by 2035.

Wait, what? 😳

That’s not healthy industry momentum. That’s the cosmetics industry doing what it does best: marketing innovation faster than science can validate it.

Why These Claims Don’t Hold Up (Yet)

The “30% elasticity improvement” claim is based on two months of data. Credible skin elasticity claims typically require at least a 12+ week trial. And we don’t know whether those gains hold beyond two months or revert when you stop using the product, because DSM-Firmenich hasn’t disclosed that information.

The “equivalent to eight years of aging reduction” claim was also measured over the same two month in-house study. Claims of long term skin age reduction require studies of 6 months or longer.

There has been zero independent third-party validation, but DSM-Firmenich still claims this ingredient can boost skin elasticity 30% and reverse 8 years of skin aging in only eight weeks. 🤔
These claims feel vastly overstated without proper independant clinical scientific testing.

There’s also a regulatory gap: DSM-Firmenich is making serious claims of specific percentage improvements and years of age reversal, in a product category the FDA has not yet approved for cosmetic use. They’re saying “trust our in-house data” while regulators are still saying “we haven’t reviewed or cleared this yet.”

Even if DSM-Firmenich’s exosomes work, that doesn’t mean we understand how exosomes function in skincare broadly or what the long-term effects they have. One company’s internal study doesn’t validate a whole ingredient category that lacks independent clinical evidence and FDA approval.

I understand the market incentive - DSM-Firmenich just launched Exovive Lift, and there’s enormous pressure to make your mark within a new ingredient category before competitors enter and flood the space. If you want to secure your advantage, you have to make aggressive marketing claims, even if they aren’t properly validated.

Exosomes Have Already Hit The Market

Meet SickScience Labs.
They’ve built an entire skincare brand around proprietary exosome technology called NX35, and they’re selling it at Ulta Beauty, a mainstream retailer, without basic FDA oversight. They claim clinical validation from 8-week studies (there’s that 2-month thing again 🤨) involving 50 volunteers. Sounds solid, right? Except that those studies live only on their website. Not in peer-reviewed journals. Not anywhere you can actually dig into them, replicate them, or have someone independent verify them. And they’re marketing exosomes for topical skincare with zero FDA approval, zero long-term safety data, and zero established protocols.

So basically, they’ve built a brand around an evolving technology and decided to sell it before the FDA or any third-party scientific data validates its safety.

I say this as someone who deeply cares about consumer protection - SickScience isn’t nessesarily hiding anything. They’re just not being transparent. They call it “proprietary technology,” which is industry code for, “we’re not going to be clear about actual ingredients or percentages”, and , “we’re not letting anyone outside our company look at the data.”

If you’re thinking about buying an exosome product, understand you’re not just trying something new. You’re paying to become a test subject. There’s no oversight, no standard protocols - just a slick marketing story moving faster than science can validate its safety.

SickScience might have some solid in-house data, but they’re making a lot of specific claims based on those preliminary results. They’ve bet a whole brand on being first to market with a new ingredient category before regulators and independent scientists can catch up.
That’s a problem.

Facts Worth Knowing

No FDA approval. Zero. And the FDA has issued warning letters to companies making exosome claims. Despite this, products are flooding the market.

Exosomes are highly unstable. Without standardized manufacturing guidelines, the exosomes in one batch might not match the next. You could be buying a product with inconsistent or unstable active ingredients every time you repurchase.

The science behind exosomes is real, but it’s early. Exosomes have been proven to mediate cell-to-cell communication - that’s not hype. But an ingredient that shows “compelling scientific possibilities” and one that is “clinically proven for skincare” are two entirely different things. The claims lack rigorous, long-term testing for cosmetic applications.

The professional-versus-consumer divide is also quite blurry. In-office exosome treatments applied by trained practitioners are gatekept because they understand that the technology is still evolving. Consumer products are not. Regulatory clarity on the use of exosomes in topical skin treatments hasn’t been established.

How to Navigate This

If you’re a professional:

• Don’t take the brand’s word for it. Ask for third-party clinical data—not just supplier studies.

• Understand your liability here: if something goes sideways with an exosome treatment because the scientific data was questionable, you’re the one answering to the client complaint (or legal action), not the brand’s marketing department.

• Your job is to be skeptical of non-validated technology on your client’s behalf. That skepticism is what protects you AND them.

If you’re a consumer look for these red flags:

• Overtly dramatic before-and-afters (usually digitally manipulated).

• Influencers who mysteriously forget to mention they’re being paid for their glowing review.

• Claims about “cellular-level regeneration” with zero independant clinical evidence to back them up.

• Ask where the exosomes come from—plant, human, lab-grown? The source should be clearly stated in the marketing copy.

• See the term “proprietary formula”? Step away. That usually means the brand won’t be transparent about sources or percentages.

• If the brand’s clinical studies exist only in-house and are not published in journals, that’s a warning sign. Important breakthroughs get published in scientific journals so that everyone can see them.

#MyTwoCents

Exosomes aren’t going anywhere. The science is promising, the market demand is real, and there’s genuine potential here. But right now, people are adopting this faster than we have answers. Some of what’s on the market will turn out to be overpromising. Some might actually deliver. We won’t know until there’s FDA approval for the category and actual clinical third-party scientific data to back it up.

What concerns me isn’t exosomes themselves. It’s the pace. We’re watching major suppliers launch ingredients with specific claims while the regulatory framework is still being written. The gap between what’s being promised and what’s been proven is dangerously wide.

Patience is a feature, not a limitation. This story will keep unfolding. Your skin can wait. The smart play? Stay curious, stay skeptical, and don’t let slick marketing stop your critical thinking.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

Conglomerates Built Their Empire

For decades, the cosmetic industry operated like a fortress controlled by a handful of absolutely massive corporations. We’re talking about companies so big they don’t just own a few brands—they own entire portfolios of brands (makeup, skincare, haircare, fragrance, beauty tools).

L’Oréal alone owns Maybelline, Urban Decay, NYX, Lancôme, Giorgio Armani Beauty, Yves Saint Laurent Beauty, and dozens more. Estée Lauder owns Estée Lauder, Clinique, MAC, Bobbi Brown, La Mer, Aveda, Smashbox, Too Faced, Origins, and on and on. LVMH—the luxury conglomerate that owns Louis Vuitton and Dior—also owns massive beauty portfolios including Dior, Givenchy, Fenty, and more. Even Coty, the company most people have never heard of, owns Kylie Cosmetics, Rimmel, Covergirl, Sally Hansen, and a bunch of other household names.

Each brand had its own positioning, its own customer base, its own identity (sort of). But they all fed into the same massive distribution machine owned by the parent company.

That distribution machine was the real power. These conglomerates owned relationships with every major retailer - department stores, specialty retailers like Sephora, Ulta, Blue Mercury, and Space NK. They controlled what got shelf space, what got promotion…what got seen.
Most don’t have manufacturing capability, although the global giants like L’Oréal and Coty do have some in-house production. Instead, they used their massive purchasing power with contract manufacturers to negotiate prices that indie brands couldn’t compete with. When you’re ordering millions of units across dozens of brands, you have leverage. You could negotiate prices with suppliers that indie brands couldn’t even dream of.

This system worked because retail was the only real battlefield. Whoever controlled shelf space controlled the market. And the conglomerates controlled most of it.

“If You Can’t Beat Them, Buy Them”

But conglomerates didn’t just maintain dominance through infrastructure. They did it through acquisition. When an indie beauty brand would suddenly take off, when some founder’s skincare line or new makeup product started gaining traction, the conglomerates had a simple response: buy them.

This became an inside joke in the industry. Estée Lauder Companies essentially made it their unofficial motto: “If you can’t beat them, buy them.”
When an indie brand appears to have solid momentum and its valuation is rising steadily, corporations come knocking with acquisition offers. Sometimes it was generous. Sometimes it was take-it-or-we’ll-muscle-you-out. Either way, the threat got neutralized. The brand either became part of the portfolio or disappeared.

It was actually a brilliant strategy. Why let a disruptive new brand steal a portion of your market share when you could simply acquire it, fold the brand into your portfolio, and control its growth? The acquisition strategy meant that successful indie brands had a very short window of independence. You’d either get acquired or you’d get out-marketed by corporate budgets.

This worked for more than three decades. It kept the conglomerates on top. It made them seem invincible. It meant that innovation and disruption in cosmetics were always, eventually, absorbed by corporations.

Then TikTok Shop changed everything.

The Disruption Nobody Saw Coming

TikTok Shop made it possible to build a multimillion-dollar indie beauty brand without needing to convince a Sephora buyer to stock your product. Suddenly, the entire system that gave conglomerates their power became irrelevant.

You didn’t need to develop retail relationships anymore. You didn’t need massive capital. You needed a product, praised by a popular beauty influencer, on a platform where millions of people could discover and buy it without ever leaving the app.

For the first time, an indie brand could build scale without being dependent on the conglomerate retail ecosystem. And more importantly, the acquisition strategy stopped working. Why would an indie founder sell their DTC brand to a conglomerate when they could grow it independently on TikTok Shop, keep the full margin, and maintain creative control? The leverage flipped.

Numbers Don’t Lie

NielsenIQ dropped its 2025 report, and the numbers were pretty wild.
Indie beauty grew 22.3% last year. The big players? 6.1%, actually down from 7.4% the year before. And that gap is only getting wider.

Fragrance is where you really see it happening. Indie fragrances jumped 46.3% while the conglomerate-owned houses grew just 11.4%. That’s not a small difference. Indie skincare, makeup, haircare, and fragrance are growing at double-digit rates, while legacy brands are barely hitting 5%.
Now, I don’t want to mislead you - the big conglomerates still own about 64% of the color cosmetic market and 60% of the skincare market, which sounds huge. But controlling the majority of sales doesn’t mean you’ve got the culture on your side anymore.

When you dig into where these sales are actually happening, the picture gets even clearer. Online beauty sales are growing 9x faster than in-store, and indie brands have figured out how to win there. Amazon has gained 7.3 points of market share since 2021.
But TikTok Shop? That’s the real game-changer. It’s now the fastest-growing beauty retailer NielsenIQ has ever tracked - with beauty representing nearly 80% of its U.S. sales.
Read that again - nearly 80% of TikTok Shop U.S. sales are cosmetic adjacent.

Here’s why TikTok Shop matters so much: you see a product in a TikTok video, you like it, and you can literally buy it in the same app without ever leaving. For indie brands, this is perfect. A beauty influencer demos your product, gives it a glowing review, and a consumer sees it and can buy it instantly without leaving the app. No retail relationships needed. No distributor in the middle. No corporate approval required.

For the big brands? They’re trapped. They can do social media marketing, sure. But they still have distributors and retail partners who control how their products reach stores. A conglomerate brand can’t cannibalize its Sephora sales by pushing too hard on TikTok Shop—that would upset its retail partners. They’re playing on both boards at once, which means they can’t go all-in on the channels where indie brands are winning.

The Constraint on Big Brands

Here’s what I find most interesting about this: conglomerates could compete with indies on DTC and TikTok Shop. They have the budget, the expertise, ALL the tools. But they can’t, because their retail partners - Sephora, Ulta, department stores - are too valuable to lose. Push too hard on TikTok Shop, and those retailers will retaliate. They’ll cut shelf space, stop promoting your brand, or drop it entirely.

Indies don’t have that problem. They have no retail relationships to protect, no retail partners to keep happy. They can put 100% of their energy into TikTok Shop and move at lightning speed. Conglomerates have to play it safe because they’re answerable to retailers and distributors.

Corporate cosmetics painted themselves into a corner. Their biggest advantage, retail control, has become their biggest constraint.

What People Actually Want From Brands Now

The market share numbers are one thing, but here’s the part that actually explains what’s happening: how people think about brands has genuinely shifted, and it’s not going back.

Beauty used to be about wanting something you couldn’t have. You bought Dior makeup because it was aspirational, expensive, and owning it meant you had status (genuine or perceived). You trusted Skinceuticals because it sounded scientific. The whole industry was built on prestige and slick marketing—the brand told you who you wanted to be, and you bought in.

But somewhere along the way, that stopped being enough for many people. Now, cosmetic consumers - and this cuts across every age group - want to know how a product will enrich their life or make it easier, and they want to know who’s actually behind the brand. They want authenticity. They want to feel like the person who created it actually uses it and believes in it. They want to support the founders of indie brands they’ve discovered and gotten to know on social platforms, rather than giving their money to faceless corporations that flood retail shelves with an endless sea of redundancy.

It’s about developing a parasocial relationship with the founder(s) and the influencers who promote them. It’s about joining that brand’s online community, not just buying more products. It’s a potent formula that is driving massive sales.

When you see an influencer test a skincare product on their actual face in their actual bathroom, that reads as real in a way a multi-million dollar ad campaign in a lifestyle magazine never will. When a founder jumps into the comments to respond to questions or concerns, it feels like they’re “friends” who really care. When an indie brand says, “we’re a small team solving a specific challenge brought to our attention by the community,” it hits differently than a corporate marketing machine pushing that their product is “trusted by dermatologists worldwide.” <insert yawn>

The big brands know this is happening, and some of them are trying to keep up by creating indie-looking marketing or investing in influencer partnerships. But here’s the thing: today’s educated consumer can smell the cosplay a mile away. They know when a brand is owned by a huge conglomerate, but “acting” indie. And for more and more people, that knowledge is what drives their purchasing decisions to legit indie brands.

The conglomerates built loyalty by making you aspire to something. The indie brands are building loyalty by making you feel something.

What This Means

For legacy brands: growth is stuck. Margins are still healthy, but that growth trajectory everyone’s been riding? Gone. Right now, money is flowing away from them.

The conglomerate response has been acquisition - buy the threat. But the problem is this: the moment you add corporate infrastructure to an indie brand, you kill what made it valuable. The founder leaves. The authenticity evaporates.

For indie founders: building a brand on a DTC sales model, selling exclusively through a social platform (and your website), could be incredibly lucrative, given the excellent margins. But can you cut through the noise on TikTok Shop and be seen?

For beauty consumers: you’re winning, for now. More choices, more (perceived) authentic voices, more products that might actually enrich your life. The tradeoff: some viral indie brands are waaaaaaaaay overhyped, and the line between actual authenticity and performative authenticity gets blurrier all the time.

#MyTwoCents

This shift is permanent.
We’re watching the power of a $650+ billion global beauty and personal care industry be redistributed, in real time. The “If you can’t beat them, buy them” strategy worked for thirty years, but not anymore.

What made conglomerates powerful—their scale, their retail relationships, their ability to eliminate threats—now works against them. It slows them down. It constrains them.

The brands that will actually thrive in the next five years are the ones that offer solutions and build authentic relationships with their customers. Conglomerates could win if they let acquired brands stay independent. Most won’t. They’ll optimize and integrate away the authenticity that made the acquisition valuable in the first place (looking right at you, Estee Lauder).

So yeah, the indie insurgency we’re witnessing through TikTok Shop? It’s not slowing down any time soon.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

A few weeks ago, I was benchmarking some premium skincare for a development project, and something struck me: some brands spend years perfecting their most active formulations, then package them cheaply, which pretty much guarantees those actives will degrade before the consumer gets their money’s worth.

Example: You’re selling a $185-per-ounce Vitamin C serum in an inexpensive, generic amber glass dropper bottle that begins to oxidize and lose potency the moment it’s opened and exposed to air? And don’t get me started on the contamination issues with the dropper (pipette) being exposed to bacteria with every application, then put back in the bottle.

The thing that infuriates me most? It’s not accidental. It’s deliberate.

The Chemistry Aspect

If you work in product development, you already know this part. Retinoids (vitamin A derivatives), vitamin C, high-concentration peptides, antioxidant plant extracts, fermented complexes, enzymes—these ingredients don’t sit still. They’re active. Light-sensitive. Oxygen-reactive. Air-reactive. They degrade. They oxidize. They break down.

Most premium skincare relies on at least one of these actives, often a carefully calibrated cocktail of a few. And when you’re formulating with them, you’re not just mixing ingredients; you're making a commitment to stability. Your mindset should be, “This formula needs to remain potent and effective from the moment it leaves our facility to the moment a consumer uses the last drop.”
That should be the implicit promise to justify the premium price point.

So you put it in a dropper bottle? 😠
Every time you open a dropper bottle and remove the pipette (the glass dropper), you’re introducing air into the bottle, causing oxidation, and then returning that pipette to the bottle after it has come into contact with your skin (fingers, palm, face).
So you put it in an open-mouth jar? 😠
That jar of premium moisturizer on the bathroom shelf, which you open twice a day, is exposed to light and humidity. Then there’s the bacteria from your fingers scooping out the product, and environmental particles going straight into the open, exposed jar. So you end up with a product that’s actively degrading the first time you open it, and every single time you use it.

Why Brands Make This Choice

Look, I get the business side of this. Opaque UV-protective and airless containers are more expensive. But when you’re already positioned at a premium price point, more protective packaging choices should be the standard, not optional.
But those additional manufacturing dollars spent on better protective packaging reduce profit margins. And that’s where brands cut corners.

But there’s also the aesthetic disconnect, which I find amusing - well, annoying.
Since when has a generic glass dropper bottle or basic jar you can pick up through LotionCrafters or MakingCosmetics evoke feelings of a premium product experience? But brands are charging upwards of $200 for an active serum or moisturizer in a generic package that does very little to preserve the product's stability or efficacy.
Yes, I’m looking at you, Skinceuticals, and don’t get me started about the Dr. Sturm bullsh*t - a wildly over-priced $350 HA serum (one ounce) in a generic glass dropper bottle with a cheap white plastic top.

Then there’s the accountability angle.
A consumer starts using an expensive skincare product in compromised packaging and, within weeks, notices diminishing results. Most brands will deny accountability, even though they know their packaging wasn’t ideal for the formula.
They blame the consumer: maybe you didn’t store it correctly, maybe your skin type doesn’t respond to these actives, maybe it’s just not the right formula for you…
Blah, blah, blah. 🙄
The brand’s packaging choice never seems to enter the conversation. Which is convenient for them, but frustrating AF for those of us forking over lots of $$$ for an allegedly stable, premium formula.

What Actually Works

A bottle or jar made of opaque UV protective glass, an aluminum bottle or tube, airless pump bottles, jars, and tubes - these options are not only functional in preserving product efficacy but can also be decorated to look premium while protecting the formula inside. Yes, this packaging costs more, but it says: we care about the stability of our formula and the investment you’ve made in our product.

Allies of Skin get this right.
Sophisticated, highly active formulations at a premium price point. BUT… their highly active serums are packaged in beautifully decorated, mirror-finish, opaque glass bottles with pumps - not cheap dropper bottles. Even their daily moisturizer comes in a tube with an airless pump, because they decided the formula’s integrity matters more than saving $$$ by putting it in a generic glass jar with an open mouth.

It’s a business choice that says: We spent time making sure this formulation met our standards. We’re going to spend the additional manufacturing dollars to ensure it survives the journey to the consumer intact and remains efficacious to the last drop. That’s the proper way to position premium-priced active skincare.
Not “We know it looks basic because we spent all the money on what’s inside, not the packaging”, which is a cop-out and a bunch of marketing bullsh*t to justify better margins and higher profits.

Allies of Skin’s packaging tells us, “This formula will remain intact at full efficacy from first use to last, because we designed it correctly.” Premium brands, like Allies, understand that protective packaging isn’t an add-on. It’s part of the formulation promise. And they’re STILL profitable. They’re STILL successful. So, that argument about cost-cutting being necessary for margins? I’m not sure it holds up when you look at brands that refuse to make that trade-off.

The Thing About Formulation

Here’s what I keep coming back to: when you’re a product developer working with unstable actives, the packaging isn’t a separate or secondary consideration. It’s part of the process. You develop the formula, then package it in a component that keeps the ingredients protected and active.

A dropper bottle and an open jar are poor development choices for highly active premium skincare. They’re choices that accept ingredient degradation as acceptable collateral damage. That might be acceptable if you’re selling a product at a much lower price point. But when you’re asking someone to spend $200 on one ounce of La Mer moisturizing cream - in an open jar - the question becomes: are you choosing packaging for stability or for margins? Because at that price point, the ethical choice should be pretty clear.

#MyTwoCents

I think there’s a fundamental contradiction in premium skincare right now. Brands are charging top dollar for formulations with highly potent, but unstable actives, then using packaging that pretty much guarantees those actives will begin degrading as soon as the consumer opens them. And they’re not really talking about that trade-off.

If you’re formulating premium skincare with retinoids, vitamin C, certain peptides, or other highly active oxidative ingredients, you’ve elected to play a high-stakes efficacy and stability game. So commit to it. Spend a portion of your development dollars on protective containers, airless bottles, jars, or tubes. Own the decision to formulate premium products and charge top dollar for them by protecting them.

Or don’t, and be dishonest. Because right now, a lot of very expensive skincare is packaged poorly, and the brands don’t seem to care about the end user’s experience.

What are your thoughts? Let’s have a conversation in the comment section.

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate.
Learn more at www.kjbennett.com

A few months ago, I wrote about the evolving international cosmetic industry clusterf*ck created by the Trump tariffs. That was chapter one. This is chapter two, a critical update on tariffs, consumer price hikes, and why it’s going to get worse before it gets better.

The Numbers Nobody Is Explaining to You

Since Donald Trump’s April 2, 2025, “Liberation Day” tariff rollout, U.S. tariff rates have climbed to over 20% - the highest level in a century.
Let that sink in. We’re operating in a trade environment not seen since before we were born. And the US beauty industry, which imports a vast majority of its printed packaging, components, raw materials, and finished cosmetic goods, is fully exposed.

Here’s where the math gets uncomfortable:

• China, which manufactures an enormous percentage of the cosmetics on US retail shelves, is now subject to tariffs of up to 55%.

• South Korea, another top source of beauty imports into the U.S. and the engine behind the K-Beauty market here, faces tariffs of 25% or higher.

• France and Italy, our main resource for fine fragrance and prestige skincare, both face tariffs of over 20%.

• And BASF, one of the world’s largest ingredient suppliers, just announced price increases on amines used in personal care formulations across North America, effective today, April 6th. NOTE: Amines are organic compounds derived from ammonia and are primarily used as pH adjusters, emulsifiers, surfactants, and foaming agents in products such as shampoos, conditioners, and lotions.

Packaging costs alone are projected to rise by 5%-10% industry-wide. In aluminum-heavy categories - aerosols, tubes, closures - the exposure is significantly higher. And these cost increases don’t happen in isolation; they stack up. Raw materials (ingredients), components, secondary packaging, freight, and now legal fees (more on that later) are all rising simultaneously.

Industry analysts now project that retail prices on cosmetics and personal care products will increase by at least 10% to 15% across ALL categories. And a meaningful portion of that increase has already begun to hit the market.
I’ve used Haus Labs as an example of the price increases in the image at the top of the article. There’s been a $7.00 increase in the price of their bestselling Triclone foundation since April 2025. That’s a 15% price increase for one (1) ounce of foundation in less than 12 months!

It’s Not Just Indie Brands Anymore

In my original piece, I focused heavily on independent and emerging brands with no hedging strategies, alternative supply chains, or corporate treasuries to buffer the tariff shock. That story is still true and still urgent. But if you thought the cosmetic conglomerates were immune, I have some news for you.

Procter & Gamble has already raised prices. And Estée Lauder Cos. has publicly disclosed $100 million in profitability headwinds attributable to tariffs. Their “Profit Recovery Plan” includes cutting up to 7,000 jobs and a full reevaluation of pricing across their brand portfolio. That’s not a niche brand making hard choices. That’s one of the most powerful beauty conglomerates, restructuring its business model in real time in response to the tariffs.

E.l.f. Beauty, the brand that built its entire identity on accessible price points to a mass market, raised prices by $1 per SKU starting in August 2025.
On a product that retailed for $10, it’s only a 10% increase, but on a $3 product, that’s a 33% increase. The CEO, to his credit, was remarkably transparent about the reason, and the brand communicated directly with consumers via social media.
The result? About 98% positive sentiment (according to the company), suggesting that consumers are aware of the impact of these tariffs and aren’t necessarily opposed to price increases. They’re opposed to price increases from companies that aren’t being transparent about what’s happening.

The Lip Bar’s founder, Melissa Butler, was candid about the brand’s vulnerability. She shared that 85% of their products are manufactured in Taiwan, with much of the packaging sourced from China and some manufacturing done in Italy. They’ve been hit with a tariff exposure trifecta. Ouch.

The brands being hit in a fundamentally different way are the mid-tier. Established indie brands that have scaled up but are not at a level to absorb these costs as easily as multinational corporations are now stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Meanwhile, Conglomerates Are Suing

Here’s the detail that didn’t make many consumer headlines but absolutely should: L’Oréal, Sol de Janeiro, and Dyson filed lawsuits in February 2026 against the U.S. government, seeking refunds on tariffs already paid.
They’re not alone. More than 1,400 importers have now filed similar suits, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found Trump overstepped his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs in the first place.

Economists at Penn Wharton estimate that reversing the IEEPA tariffs could generate up to $175 billion in refunds across all industries.

So let’s be clear about what’s happening:
Major cosmetic corporations are pursuing legal action to recoup costs they have already passed along, or are in the process of passing along to consumers.
The consumer pays higher prices now. The brand will potentially recover the cost later.
BUT (there’s always a BUT) the consumer, who is being asked to pay $38 for a foundation that used to cost $30 just months ago, will not receive a refund.
Oh, and don’t hold your breath waiting for these brands to reduce prices once they’ve been reimbursed.

The Consumer Backlash Is Building

Consumers are quite aware of the price increases, and they are not amused. A CivicScience survey found that nearly 3 in 10 beauty shoppers (29%) are already planning to cut back on their product purchases if tariff-driven price increases continue. More strikingly, 60% of U.S. consumers said they would stop buying their favorite cosmetics if prices rose more than 10%.

That’s not a fringe group of disgruntled consumers. That’s a majority of your customer base telling you, in plain language, that even brand loyalty has a price ceiling.

The behavioral shift is already visible in purchase data. Some 38% of beauty consumers say they’re buying fewer products due to inflation. Another 37% say they will only purchase with coupons and discount codes. And 35% have traded down to cheaper brands.
Dupe culture, which I’ve written about as a consumer trend, is looking less like a Gen Z phenomenon and more like an economic survival strategy.

What’s making the backlash grow faster is the transparency gap. Most brands have not communicated clearly with their customers about why prices have gone up. A quiet $4 increase at checkout, with no explanation, breeds resentment.
E.l.f.’s transparency about their price increases demonstrated that honesty - even about unwelcome news - can actually strengthen brand loyalty. Unfortunately, that mindset has not been widely adopted across the cosmetic industry, and consumer resentment is growing quickly.

Which Categories Are Most Exposed

Not all products face the same risks, and if you’re a professional advising clients or a consumer trying to protect your budget, it helps to know where the pressure is most concentrated.

Color Cosmetics: Faces significant exposure because of heavy reliance on Chinese raw materials, manufacturing, and packaging.

K-Beauty: This is deeply ironic given that K-Beauty has spent a decade positioning itself as high-quality skincare at an accessible price point. That positioning becomes impossible to maintain when you’re faced with import costs of 25% or more.

Aerosols: Hair sprays, setting sprays, dry shampoos, body mists, etc., are particularly vulnerable because aluminum tariffs compound the already increasing materials and manufacturing costs.

Fragrance: France and Italy, two of the world’s premier sources of fine fragrance components, are now both subject to tariffs of 20% or more. Expect some of the sharpest price increases to hit prestige fragrances.

What Happens Next

The honest answer is: we don’t fully know. The tariff landscape is still in legal limbo, with multiple court challenges proceeding simultaneously. If the IEEPA tariffs are ultimately struck down, there will be refunds to brands - but the likelihood that those refunds reach consumers is slim to none.

It’s pretty clear that in 2026, we will continue to see price increases. The brands that haven’t raised prices yet are likely to do so before year-end, particularly in Q3 and Q4, as new inventory cycles through at post-tariff costs.

The brands that will navigate this best are those with diversified manufacturing and those with genuine consumer trust built through consistent communication.
The brands that will struggle are those that relied on marketing price point as their primary value. They are now being forced to pivot their marketing strategy toward product efficacy rather than affordability.

#MyTwoCents

Let’s call this what it is: a slow-moving price crisis that the industry knew was coming and is handling with wildly inconsistent levels of honesty.
The tariffs aren’t a surprise. The supply chain exposure wasn’t a secret. What is surprising is how many brands assumed they could quietly pass along cost increases without a single word to the consumers who’ve been loyal to them.

The e.l.f. strategy is illuminating. They told their customers what was happening, why it was happening, and what it meant for prices. They were rewarded with 98% positive sentiment. That’s not an anomaly; that’s what happens when you respect your customer’s intelligence and are transparent.

The truth underneath all of this?

• Indie brands can’t build and scale their businesses without capital, which will be scarce if their products become unaffordable.

• Prestige and Luxury cosmetic conglomerates can’t hide behind their sheer size or legacy status. Price increases could prompt consumers to trade down to mass market products or dupes…and they might not return.

• And today’s cosmetic consumer, who has more information and more options, has run out of tolerance for the industry’s lack of transparency.

The brands that come out of this strongest won’t just be the ones with the savviest supply chain strategies. They’ll be the ones whose transparency allowed customers to trust them enough to stick it out through this difficult stretch.

What are your thoughts? Will you continue to purchase your favorite cosmetic products at higher prices, or downgrade to less expensive options?

Kevin James Bennett is the publisher of In My Kit®. He is an Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, cosmetic developer, educator, and consumer advocate. Learn more at www.kjbennett.com