Skincare, Social Media, and Sephora: Why Can't We Let Kids Be Kids?
Image Credit: Anna via Pexels
Born in 2006, I was amongst the last generation who experienced their early childhood predominantly screen-free. Just a decade later, my sister was born, yet the landscape she has grown up around has been startlingly different: one shaped by constant stimulation, immediate gratification, and overwhelming parasocial connections. For many families like mine, this shift has required constant adaptation to manage the omnipresent pressure of social media. The realities are stark: studies show that - although most apps have set a required minimum age at 13 - around 40% of children aged 8-12 use social media.
This increased use of social networks amongst children has catalysed another demographic shift: the increase of skincare products for kids. In recent years, we have seen the rise of the term “Sephora Kids”, referring to tweens shopping in high-end makeup stores. In the US alone, under 18s spent $4.7 billion on skincare and makeup in 2023. These numbers demonstrate a consumer-based demographic shift for makeup and skincare brands - as social media platforms begin to cater to younger audiences, companies that advertise on social media are doing the same.
What makes younger users especially susceptible to such advertisements is their cognitive development: with their prefrontal cortex underdeveloped, their lack of impulse control makes them the perfect audience for brands to pivot towards. The intrinsic and basic values of childhood are overruled by relentless commercialisation, a development that children’s brains have no defense against.
Influencer and actress Shay Mitchell’s new skincare range seems to follow the same vein. Intended for children aged four and up, her new brand “Rini” hit the markets early November and caused a media outrage. Some commenters came to the actress’ defense. Even news outlets positioned themselves on either side of the debate. Yahoo News published an article responding to the brand’s backlash, claiming “[c]hildren have always dipped their little toes into beauty purely for fun or fascination’s sake”. Regardless, the overwhelming majority of responses remains on the opposing side, questioning the ethics behind putting children in Hydrogen sheet masks. One comment reads “What does a literal child need self-care for!? [...] And the signal it sends to young girls is that they shouldn't age and look like they're never getting older than 8 years.” The unanimous question: why can’t we just let kids be kids
The primary issue with children’s skincare is that this audience has absolutely no idea what their skin needs. In most cases, the answer is pretty simple: next to nothing. Drunk Elephant mogul Tiffany Masterson has told kids and tweens to “stay away” from their “more potent products”, claiming “their skin does not need these ingredients quite yet”.
The current trend illustrates more than a commercial shift: it’s a cultural decision to allow overconsumption to permeate all age groups and demographics. In an era when we are all being taught to buy less and to produce less waste, explicitly expanding consumerism onto children feels like a step backwards. Companies are fostering habits of materialistic values from the earliest years.
So, why can’t we just let kids be kids? The answer seems to be that we want them to be just like us: surrounded by artificial and materialistic pleasure, fulfilled only by consumption.